Did the theological chicken come before the metaphysical egg?

The gospel according to Petronius:

“Fear was the god’s begetter in this world.”

This is an interesting thought. In many respects and with many examples, this could be proven to be true for many religious systems of thought.

But in the same way, one could argue that fear of justice has been the god’s executioner in this world. In effect, we live in an age where it is claimed that “God is dead” and we dance on his coffin.

But if we were to look inside, what would you imagine that we might find?

Emptiness.

The emptiness of empirical arguments from silence.

It is argued that God doesn’t exist, that fears of all kinds brought about the necessity of the God idea. This idea or concept of God was born and then evolved into the current state of religious pluralism.

This is a reasonable assertion of how religions MIGHT have come about IF the presupposition of God’s nonexistence is true. If the belief that God is dead or never existed is true, then it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of religious belief in God has been constructed. This is how it is argued.

And by argue, I mean a presentation of cause and effect that is largely based on presuppositional bias. 

The question of whether the chicken came before the egg is taken to new heights of expression. Which is the legitimate cause to the observable effect?

This would be true of both statements.

Fear was the god’s begetter
Fear of justice was the god’s executioner. 

Both statements are reasonable, if and only if the presupposition is already assumed to be true.

The existence of fear brought about the need for God?!
If one already assumes that God does not exist, then quite naturally [and logically], his explanation of God consists of some evolutionary fabrication of man in order to deal with excessive fear of the unknown, of death, and of other significant matters.

These questions don’t matter.

The existence of God brings about the need to fear?!
If one already assumes that God does exist, then quite naturally [and logically], his explanation of fear stands in relationship to a being that transcends our ability to understand but has revealed himself in limited ways so that some things might be known of the unknown, of death, and of other significant matters.

Some questions have answers.

Obviously, either statement can only convince those already convinced of certain ground beliefs.

This begs the question, “What is at the ground of your belief?”

The metaphysical egg?
The theological chicken?

The answer to this question will determine whether you will be convinced or remain unconvinced.

Can we know anything about what the whole of creation knows?

The gospel according to Camille Flammarion:

“Men…have had the vanity to pretend that the whole creation was made for them, whilst in reality the whole creation does not suspect their existence.”

One could argue that there is vanity in asserting that creation doesn’t even “suspect” the existence of man. How can one empirically verify anything about the “whole” of creation when we can’t even confirm what percentage of the universe is presently known?

This statement is bold.

Rather, this statement is quite arrogant. In fact, I believe there is a better way to describe it. Please allow me to misquote another to suggest the better description.

“Men…have had the vanity to pretend that the whole of creation [...] does not suspect their existence.” 

Precisely, this statement is one of vanity.

It assumes something that might very well be impossible to know as a whole. Since the whole universe has not been discovered. Consequently, the whole of creation is not known. It is obvious that the author’s worldview is filling in the black holes of the unknown in order to make a statement that can not be proven. 

Without even knowning the whole of everything created, one can know some of what has been created and ascertain that much of the world [a small, but better known part of creation], not only suspects our existence, but suffers from it. This can be empirically verified. 

In fact, I would agree with the idea that creation wasn’t made for man, but for other reasons, and those reasons put mankind in a unique position unlike the rest of the known creation. I will concede that a bit of my worldview is filling in spaces of unknown as well. But I am arguing from what is known.

One additional note that I find ironic. In trying to contend that man is insignificant with respect to the entire universe [a point that might be argued at another time], this person describes it in terms of man. Creation is personified. It is given anthropological characteristics to suggest something impossible to support. The universe is described with qualities attributed to mankind, this is a bit “suspect,” if you follow.

If you don’t see the irony, perhaps I am merely reading too much into what is trying to be said. I do realize this to be a figure of speech.

What if God freely chooses to restrain himself?

The gospel according to David Hume:

“Epicurus’ old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”

This question of evil is quite significant.
This question from an atheist makes no sense.

Why?

Asking the question assumes a moral standard. A moral standard assumes a moral law. A moral law assumes a moral law-giver. Claiming no moral law-giver negates the law and the standard and the distinction between good and evil.

The existence of evil and our ability to recognize it as such might be likened to tossing a pebble into the reality of a pond that one is trying to deny even exists.

It doesn’t make sense.

There are answers to such questions that do make sense with a paradigm that includes God. These old questions have been answered. Only the answers don’t satisfy a person who is not satisfied with allowing God to be included in the answer. How interesting that God is used in the questioning but entirely unacceptable in the answering.

Regarding the existence of evil, perhaps the following answer will make sense.

Free will and divine restraint.

Free Will.
For free will to exist beyond some illusion or delusion of the mind, it must be allowed the legitimate choice of good or evil. There are many, regardless of creed [atheist, theist, and everything in between], who choose good. But it is a delusion to think that they always choose good. There are some, regardless of creed, who choose evil. There are consequences to the actions of individuals that affect other individuals or the community to which they belong. This is the source of evil, regardless of creed. 

Divine Restraint.
In order for the free will to be free indeed, God must restrain himself from influencing the consequences of humanity’s use of free will. This would be true regardless of his existence. If he doesn’t exist, then it is obvious that he would exert no force in this matter. If he does exist, then it is obvious that he operates with a measure of divine restraint.

This divine restraint may make people mad, or might even leave some impotent questions unanswered. People would get mad either way, angered by the loss of free will or by the consequence of poor decisions that were made without thought of unintended consequences.

These questions are asked by people who don’t want to hear any answer. These questions are asked by people who don’t want to find out that God exists.

The existence of evil points to an existence they want to deny!

Plastic and electronic gods have been added to the pantheon.

The gospel according to Arthur C. Clarke:

“Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God–but to create Him.”

Such an intriguing thought.

Clearly this is what most people do. 

They carve their idol out of wood, stone, plastic surgery, or electronic circuitry and they “bow down.” This is the story of humanity. It is nothing new under this sun and sky setting that we find ourselves in.

Perhaps this is the biggest part of the problem that people have with religion. There are all these people who create their version of their god and then worship him in their way and step all over everyone else’s version of god and worship. This is a legitimate issue to be concerned with. One that would find fuller expression in a different post that might deal with if God exists then how would he reveal himself if he would reveal himself at all. The diversity of religious expression in every culture in the world begs a few questions that can not be off-handedly dismissed as so often done.

Why is there this inherent need in humanity to worship?

Why is there this inherent need to create something in order to worship?

Answering these questions ought to involve more than tossing God out with the proverbial baby and bath water. These are significant questions that remained unanswered in any significant way by those who contend them to be insignificant. The rise of secularism in some western cultures has not been matched by the westernization of the rest of the world. Assumptions of God having died have to deal with the obvious fact that his coffin is empty. This is an argument from silence and of emptiness. Some would say that both sides argue in this way. Perhaps. But that reminds me of two questions that have yet to be answered. Too many believe otherwise. To deny this characteristic of humanity is to close one’s eyes to the reality that is all around us.

One obvious answer to the questions of needing to worship and creating things to worship is that we were created to worship.

Humans are created to worship.

This is one answer to this inherent desire within mankind to follow after something greater than self. There may be other answers to such a characteristic, but some have a way of seeming more contrived than I am comfortable with. 

Perhaps you have an answer other than the one I have offered.

If true, then can it be said to be true?

The gospel according to Joan Konner:

“The reason there are so many opinions is that no one knows the Truth.”

Is this one of those “truths” that you have to have an opinion on?

By this I must point out that this is somewhat of a self-refuting or self-defeating statement. Since no one knows the truth, then how can a true statement be made on anything. Either this statement is true which means that we really can’t know if it is indeed true, or this statement is false which means that its irrelevant.

If true, then it refutes and defeats itself.

If not true, then it doesn’t matter.

If no one knows the truth, then by what reason or reasons can a statement of this nature be made? Do you follow? Is this not a reasonable and rational response to the claim being made? How can a thought that claims that truth can not be known be considered a truth?

This statement is quite dogmatic in its expression of relativism.

Interestingly enough, the very fact that there are so many opinions would prove this statement inaccurate. Please allow me to explain. People have opinions and share such opinions on account of thinking them to be true. They consider their opinion to be a valid and better reflection of whatever they happen to be thinking about. They believe their opinion to be more accurate than another opinion that stands in opposition.

This quote is thought to be true by the one who pressed the letters that communicated the opinion regarding Truth. 

It is thought to be true.

It isn’t.

With all that said, I must say that this thought does reveal at least the following notions:

If Truth were accessible, then it would be challenging to understand and even more so to communicate. If Reason were able to distinguish between truth and fiction, logic and illogic, accurate and inaccurate reflections of reality, then it would also be a challenge. But a challenge well worth the effort as some sense of reality comes into view.

If these ideas are not true, then what isn’t self-refuting and self-defeating?

There are simpletons on both sides of the proverbial fence.

The gospel according to John Stuart MIll:

“The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments–of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue–are complete skeptics in religion.”

Should I be in the least bit astonished by how such a claim could even be verified? Really. How does one go about proving such a statement? 

Certainly it becomes a matter of how words are being unpacked.

Would I be “astonished” in finding out this number of God-deniers to be not so great as implied by this quote (would the quote be any less true if such was the case)? What of the categories of “brightest” or “distinguished” described in such a way that excludes many or most that are God-believers of some sort? What cultures of the world are included in this “popular estimation” that is being made? Who are these “complete skeptics” that he mentions (atheists, agnostics, or perhaps even people who distrust the church for any number of reasons)? 

One thing can be known for certain and I believe it to be a reasonable inference. Mr. Mills is wise enough not to exclude from the group of “brightest ornaments” those who do have faith and do believe in God.

This reveals a measure of reality that many atheists are quick to deny.

Embracing faith as a way of solving the riddle of life doesn’t equate to the abandonment of the mind or its ability to reason. Just as the embrace of Atheism as a way of assuming our reality to be a closed-system doesn’t equate to being any more or less rational.

The quality of intellect crosses over both sides of the fence.

Some atheists and theists make a “leap of faith.” Some atheists and theists take a smaller step into the riddle of life. There are simple-minded atheists as there are theists with the same caliber of faculties. In both of these groups, there are those who know how the car works and others who are content just knowing that it works and they can drive to the local grocery to get dinner.

There are atheists and theists in this group described as “the brightest ornaments.”

Stacking the quotes in favor of fairness?!

The gospel found on the back of the book:

“‘All thinking men are atheist,’ Ernest Hemmingway famously wrote. True? Here are quips, quotes, and questions from a distinguished assortment of geniuses and jokers, giving readers a chance to decide for themselves…”

Presumably this thought was typed by the author…err…”conceiver” of this book. Perhaps not. It doesn’t matter. Regarding Hemmingway’s quote, its boldness will be discussed at another time. But what I find intriguing about this statement is that it alludes to this book providing a bunch of thoughts that are admittedly one-sided and then characterizes this book as “giving readers a chance to decide for themselves.”

This is brilliant.

Brilliant, if you have already decided for yourself before you in fact opened the book and considered the thoughts that were recorded within. Brilliant, if you could get some one to actually believe that good decisions can be made on one-sided bits propaganda. Brilliant, if you want the decision to be about what kind of atheist a person may decide themselves to be. Brilliant, if you really don’t know what exactly they are going to decide on, but as long as its not about the existence of God, then its all good.

This may sound brilliant if you are “bright.”

Is this the kind of “chance” that Atheism gives Theism in the public square?

What kind of “chance” is this?

Illusion?

Delusion?

Thankfully, the measure of thoughtfulness is raised in most of the quotes find within the pages of this book. Though some seem to be purposed for comedic relief but it obvious that humor is being used to conceal the void of rationality and reason. All of which will be discussed in due time.