Divine Hiddeness / God the Casino Pit Boss in the Sky
The chief problem with Christian theology is that it operates in a universe that is stacked against humanity. But, I have always submitted to those who care to listen that Christianity, even it’s most liberal and progressive forms, is largely anti-human. God is a pit boss in the casino of the universe. The odds are against us. God is in this game for himself…just as the casino owners are in it for their own rewards. That we might occasionally hit a jackpot is a consequence. Most of us, if scriptures are taken literally, will not win at all.
If this god exists than human beings have no free will at all, just a mere approximation of it. From a Christian viewpoint there are truly only 2 choices that an individual can make; the choice for god or the choice against god. Either your actions glorify him or they provoke his wrath (at least at some future date). There is nothing else.
This is what makes the divine hiddeness of deity unjust. If he reveals himself completely to us then what choice do we really have but to fall to our knees in fear and trembling? Only a demiurge could persist in the insanity of choosing otherwise.
So, presumably, to keep his creatures in their moral freedom god withdraws from the world leaving us the option to choose him or not. The problem is with the hiddeness. If god withdraws (and he is invisible and formless after all) how are we to know what to look for? The clues or proof, if you will, to the existence of deity are endlessly, circularly subjectively validating (what a mouthful). How do you find something that has no form and is invisible? Well…not through reason, that much is certain.
This subjective validation is like an oversimplification of the equally impossible ontological arguments for god’s existence. I believe its proof therefore it is proof or, it is the highest concept of proof that I can conceive, therefore it is proof. Scripture is not reliable. Rather than being consistent they are often contradictory - even within the same text. Not to mention how do we determine which prophet or grand revelator is sane and which one suffers delusion?
“Test the spirits” as the Apostle Paul advised. Yet, how does one know that the holy book you have chosen is really the correct set of scriptures? Through subjective validation, of course, and which needs to be considered very carefully before pronouncing its validity. Our tendency to live outwardly from subjective states (almost unavoidable, really) often finds us accepting something simply because it has a “feel of truth” regardless of whether we have anything legitimate to back that hunch up.
A friend once argued against my naturalist viewpoint by suggesting that there are other ways of “knowing” besides empirical observation, after all, she posited, the human senses are not always reliable. Indeed, criminologists and psychologists have long known that eyewitness testimony is largely unreliable. But, true as this is, how much less reliable are subjective experiences? Considerably.
Bertrand Russell, when asked what he would say to God if when he died he found out it was all true, responded, “Not enough proof Lord, not enough proof.” The creator of humanity, having endowed his creatures with the capacity of reason, therefore punishes said creation for employing it in the search for his existence and a meaning for our lives.
That hardly seems just for the universal standard bearer of justice. Divine hiddeness therefore is the exact opposite of justice. From a naturalist viewpoint god didn’t withdraw to keep us in moral freedom. It’s suggestive that god doesn’t exist at all. For one thing the god who shows up throughout scriptures loves to show up and make him known.
The interesting think about the Christian bible is that as we progress from Genesis to Revelation we notice that god begins to retreat from view. At first he interacted directly with his creation and then as humanity and civilization progressed he started speaking through intermediaries and eventually became silent. Taken literally, the scriptures indicate that god went from direct interaction to completely withdrawn and invisible.
Some of it has to do with just the historical ordering of texts by tradition. But, some of it is suggestive that as humanity progressed in both learning and technology we stopped having direct experiences of the divine and those that did experience such theophanies did so in their inner life only. The rest simply flock to those few experiencers and cast their lots with them.
I don’t think it’s an accident that the more technologically advanced a culture the less religious they become. God dies by degrees. As a child I loved my stuffed animals. At night they made me feels safe and protected. As I matured I realized that I didn’t really need them. In fact, they did nothing for me, although happiness and enjoyment is no small thing. I still loved stuffed toys to this day. They are no longer talismans, however.
God fills in the gaps of things that we do not fully understand. I suspect there is more than just a little truth to Richard Dawkins assertion that religion is a byproduct of some evolutionary process that has allowed our species to survive so prolifically. Indeed, I have always found our success to be due to a large degree of our individual self centeredness, with its tendency toward aggression and our ability to sublimate such aggression and self interest to work in cooperation for mutual benefit. Religion serves that need quite well. But, after all, what is religion but the “rebinding together” of people? Religion as we experience it currently in the west is also a legal system, especially for Judaism and Islam.
Finally, to my point above regarding religiosity or dependence on the supernatural waning in the advancement of science and technology, it has been observed that the United States is almost hyper religious when compared to other western democracies. I would submit that in order to do so, those that persist in their religiosity have had to turn their back on science literally denying the evidence or, at the very least, twisting it to fit the needs of their system of faith. This is especially true in the ideologies of a Michelle Bachmann or a Rick Perry.
In the end we will discover, paraphrasing Bertrand Russell yet again, the universe just is and that’s it. It’s both a terrifying and wondrous place that is quite impersonal. The needs of our species are no more important than any other. In fact, it doesn’t regard them at all. The universe just is and that’s it. There is no ineffable consciousness behind the curtain hiding from us. Divine hiddeness is nothing more than a theological card trick attempting to cover up the angst created by its inability to prove god exists. Divine hiddeness, if it were real, makes god a monster because removing proof of his existence makes it impossible to choose. And, really, what evidence could their ever be for something that is both invisible and formless?
If this god exists than human beings have no free will at all, just a mere approximation of it. From a Christian viewpoint there are truly only 2 choices that an individual can make; the choice for god or the choice against god. Either your actions glorify him or they provoke his wrath (at least at some future date). There is nothing else.
This is what makes the divine hiddeness of deity unjust. If he reveals himself completely to us then what choice do we really have but to fall to our knees in fear and trembling? Only a demiurge could persist in the insanity of choosing otherwise.
So, presumably, to keep his creatures in their moral freedom god withdraws from the world leaving us the option to choose him or not. The problem is with the hiddeness. If god withdraws (and he is invisible and formless after all) how are we to know what to look for? The clues or proof, if you will, to the existence of deity are endlessly, circularly subjectively validating (what a mouthful). How do you find something that has no form and is invisible? Well…not through reason, that much is certain.
This subjective validation is like an oversimplification of the equally impossible ontological arguments for god’s existence. I believe its proof therefore it is proof or, it is the highest concept of proof that I can conceive, therefore it is proof. Scripture is not reliable. Rather than being consistent they are often contradictory - even within the same text. Not to mention how do we determine which prophet or grand revelator is sane and which one suffers delusion?
“Test the spirits” as the Apostle Paul advised. Yet, how does one know that the holy book you have chosen is really the correct set of scriptures? Through subjective validation, of course, and which needs to be considered very carefully before pronouncing its validity. Our tendency to live outwardly from subjective states (almost unavoidable, really) often finds us accepting something simply because it has a “feel of truth” regardless of whether we have anything legitimate to back that hunch up.
A friend once argued against my naturalist viewpoint by suggesting that there are other ways of “knowing” besides empirical observation, after all, she posited, the human senses are not always reliable. Indeed, criminologists and psychologists have long known that eyewitness testimony is largely unreliable. But, true as this is, how much less reliable are subjective experiences? Considerably.
Bertrand Russell, when asked what he would say to God if when he died he found out it was all true, responded, “Not enough proof Lord, not enough proof.” The creator of humanity, having endowed his creatures with the capacity of reason, therefore punishes said creation for employing it in the search for his existence and a meaning for our lives.
That hardly seems just for the universal standard bearer of justice. Divine hiddeness therefore is the exact opposite of justice. From a naturalist viewpoint god didn’t withdraw to keep us in moral freedom. It’s suggestive that god doesn’t exist at all. For one thing the god who shows up throughout scriptures loves to show up and make him known.
The interesting think about the Christian bible is that as we progress from Genesis to Revelation we notice that god begins to retreat from view. At first he interacted directly with his creation and then as humanity and civilization progressed he started speaking through intermediaries and eventually became silent. Taken literally, the scriptures indicate that god went from direct interaction to completely withdrawn and invisible.
Some of it has to do with just the historical ordering of texts by tradition. But, some of it is suggestive that as humanity progressed in both learning and technology we stopped having direct experiences of the divine and those that did experience such theophanies did so in their inner life only. The rest simply flock to those few experiencers and cast their lots with them.
I don’t think it’s an accident that the more technologically advanced a culture the less religious they become. God dies by degrees. As a child I loved my stuffed animals. At night they made me feels safe and protected. As I matured I realized that I didn’t really need them. In fact, they did nothing for me, although happiness and enjoyment is no small thing. I still loved stuffed toys to this day. They are no longer talismans, however.
God fills in the gaps of things that we do not fully understand. I suspect there is more than just a little truth to Richard Dawkins assertion that religion is a byproduct of some evolutionary process that has allowed our species to survive so prolifically. Indeed, I have always found our success to be due to a large degree of our individual self centeredness, with its tendency toward aggression and our ability to sublimate such aggression and self interest to work in cooperation for mutual benefit. Religion serves that need quite well. But, after all, what is religion but the “rebinding together” of people? Religion as we experience it currently in the west is also a legal system, especially for Judaism and Islam.
Finally, to my point above regarding religiosity or dependence on the supernatural waning in the advancement of science and technology, it has been observed that the United States is almost hyper religious when compared to other western democracies. I would submit that in order to do so, those that persist in their religiosity have had to turn their back on science literally denying the evidence or, at the very least, twisting it to fit the needs of their system of faith. This is especially true in the ideologies of a Michelle Bachmann or a Rick Perry.
In the end we will discover, paraphrasing Bertrand Russell yet again, the universe just is and that’s it. It’s both a terrifying and wondrous place that is quite impersonal. The needs of our species are no more important than any other. In fact, it doesn’t regard them at all. The universe just is and that’s it. There is no ineffable consciousness behind the curtain hiding from us. Divine hiddeness is nothing more than a theological card trick attempting to cover up the angst created by its inability to prove god exists. Divine hiddeness, if it were real, makes god a monster because removing proof of his existence makes it impossible to choose. And, really, what evidence could their ever be for something that is both invisible and formless?