Zeus, Redefined
Posted on | December 31, 2007 at 4:00 pm | 8 Comments
I’ve closed off the God Poll. I figure everyone who was going to vote has done so by now. The results were spread out pretty evenly. Out of a total of 18 responses, they fell like this:
Which answer below most closely matches your beliefs about the existence of a supreme intelligence?
- (4 votes, 22%) I believe in a personal God, one who in addition to having created the universe, takes an interest in individuals, hears and answers prayers, is concerned with sins and transgressions, and passes judgement.
- (4 votes, 22%) I believe in a God who created the universe, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe, one who does not intervene in human affairs.
- (5 votes, 28%)I do not believe in a God per se, except as a metaphoric name for the forces and laws that bind the universe together.
- (5 votes, 28%)I do not believe in any kind of God.
What prompted all this? I’ve been reading The God Delusion (now in paperback) by biologist Richard Dawkins (famously satirized in this hilarious anti-atheist tenth season two-part South Park episode). The categories I included (theist, deist, agnostic?, atheist) basically come from the book, although Dawkins uses a 7-milestone scale at one point. I’m not quite done with it yet, but the book is very interesting. It’s preaching to the choir and Dawkins’ tone does come off a bit too heavy-handed at times, which may scare off potential converts (but is at least honest). A lot of thought and research went into the book and it does have some humor. I like how it tackles everything from a scientific viewpoint (and explains why that’s a perfectly valid thing to do, despite the objections of the religious). I’m even learning some things about biology and evolution that I didn’t know. I’m really enjoying it.
It surprised me that so many people voted for #3. To quote 2fs, in the comments to that post:
I’d sorta argue the last two are synonymous… in that when people say “God” they usually don’t mean a metaphor. To turn that around: if you say “I believe in God – but all I mean by that is that there are forces and laws that bind the universe together,” well, who doesn’t believe in those? Any non-believers in gravity out there? I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for you to jump off of… I guess my real point is: start defining “God” like that, and you’re no longer really talking about any sort of God that fits a reasonable definition: you’re just holding on to the notion of God without any obligations attendant thereto. It’s a bit chickenshit, in other words: such a person is afraid to let go of the concept, even though it’s nothing but an empty shell at that point.
He summed up my feelings on that matter very well; this view matches Dawkins’ opinion as well. I consider #3 and #4 to be the same thing, but left #3 in there anyway to see how many people couldn’t totally let go. (Of course, some of the people who voted for #3 might have been closer to #2 than to #4, but I doubt it.) I’d be really interested to hear in the comments from people who voted for #3 and why they didn’t vote for #4 instead. Actually, I’m interested in hearing from anyone who voted and why they voted the way they did, but I’ll understand if you don’t want to go into it in a public forum.
But at any rate, it’s clear the non-believers comprise a greater core of my readership (i.e. friends) than the believers, and that didn’t really surprise me. I know who one or two of the believers are, but I’m not sure I know who the rest of the believers are. Not that it really matters, but I’m curious. I voted for #4, which I’m sure surprised no one. If it turns out there is a God after all, I’m counting on him/her/it as having a sense of humor (but hopefully not irony). As DJ Smallberries used to say “I can always recant on my deathbed, just to be safe”.
Jogged Today: No.
Today’s Weight: 163.4 lbs
Lunch Yesterday: None
Pet Peeve of the Day: Not being able to buy a PlayStation 3 because I have to spend the money on the insurance deductible. Wahhh!
Latre.
Comments
8 Responses to “Zeus, Redefined”
December 31st, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
A relevant quote from Thomas Jefferson:
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
December 31st, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
The more I think of it, the more I find difficult to understand how anyone who believes in the sort of God listed in your first answer could imagine that they know what the all-powerful creator of the universe wants. I’m trying to imagine anything more arrogant. Especially given that such belief usually comes with an acknowledgement of human fallibility and limitation – which apparently extends to everything except knowing God.
(Kind of analogous to the anti-government conservative, who mistrusts government’s ability to do anything right…but believes when it comes to the death penalty, well of course the state will get it right every time and never murder an innocent person.)
I can understand someone who, believing in a personal God, tries to understand that God as best they can, but being humble in the awareness that their understanding is limited and quite possibly flawed. Such a position can never go and start religions or babble on about eternal hellfire.
What’s amusing is that the people who imagine that science is arrogant and overweaning misunderstand it so thoroughly – in that in fact, science’s constant self-questioning and willingness to evolve instead suggests a posture much closer to that of the believer clear that a truth may be out there, but aware that any current understanding thereof is subject to being overturned if more adequately explanatory data and theories arise.
December 31st, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
I bet God made you hit that bus.
January 1st, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Hey Rog, are you going to do Blog365? (or, more corrrectly, “366″ since 2008 is a leap year)
January 1st, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Hey Rog, are you going to do Blog365?
That’s crazy talk.
(or, more correctly, “366″ since 2008 is a leap year)
Look at the rules – Feb 29th is a “free day”!
January 2nd, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
God damn it. I was so busy with the winter solstice festivities, I completely missed the poll. Needless to say, I’d have tipped the scales and you would have had a clear-cut winner. You see, I prefer not to apply cute names (metaphoric or otherwise) to the forces and laws that bind the universe together.
I was so happy the other day to find out my dentist was (for lack of a better word) anti-religion. She’s a die-hard conservative and to appease her, I made the comment “I don’t care who wins, as long as we can get Jesus out of the White House” and she concurred! I don’t need anyone praying for the health of my gums.
You think you like to discuss politics? Try doing it when your opponent is working on your mouth with sharp metal objects. I call it “Extreme Debating”. I think Densel is making a movie about it.
January 2nd, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
An anti-religious conservative? Good to hear there are some of those around. I was beginning to wonder.
January 3rd, 2008 @ 1:20 am
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together will recognize the importance of separating church and state, unless they’ve forgotten why the Mayflower set sail in the first place…
I’ve never quite grasped why the religious fundamentalists have glommed onto the Republican party anyway. It can’t be the abortion issue – a true conservative is pro-choice because they reject government interference in private affairs, and the Republican party used to be “conservative” in more than name only…
Then again, the Democratic party was avowedly white-supremacist until the early 20th century, so there’s no big precedent for consistency in this area.