The Unlikelihood of Christianity vis-à-vis its Own Historical Understanding of God
Ostensibly, even God has a reason for what he does. What possible reason could an omnipotent and sovereign God have in creating anything, let alone a world where free creatures would sin? God, according to St. Anselm is a "being than which nothing greater can be conceived [sic]" (Proslogium 7). Such a being is totally self sufficient, whole, perfect, lacking desire, and in need of nothing.
Human beings on the other hand desire, want, and need because it is inherent for them to do so—they are finite. According to Christianity God is complete and infinite. God, strictly speaking cannot desire, want, or need anything because he lacks nothing. Let me illustrate my point. A person may say they want a piece of chocolate cake. They say this, to be sure, because they want the cake. But what they really want is the gratification emotionally and/or physically that is associated with the cake. Now suppose that same person just ate a whole cake in one sitting. More than likely, they would not care for any more. Why is it that they no longer want a piece of chocolate cake? The reason is that they are sated, and completely full. That is what the Christian God is like. He is “sated,” "full" of all knowledge that the believer can anthropocentrically ascribe to him. Again, their God cannot be said to want or desire anything because he simply doesn't need anything for he is omniscience.[4]
Or again, imagine the artist that desires to paint or the musician who wants to compose a symphony. He desires to do so because the exercise in creativity brings him a measure of joy, a kind of joy that he currently lacks. Perhaps it brings him a sense of accomplishment, an accomplishment he seeks. No matter what motivates him, his motivation stems from a sense of lack, real or imagined, a deprivation of some sort. An inner void, either emotional or physical, that seeks to be filled.
Now, the believer may say that God wants to be worshipped or desires that everyone should be saved and in a certain linguistic sense that is fair enough. And from a Christian perspective God does not enjoy every one's worship nor will everyone be saved. But when the Christian says by the language of accommodation, that God wants or desires something it’s not because he lacks a certain gratification, or sense of accomplishment that would come with the fulfilling of his desires. For to imply a lack of gratification, on God's part, is to imply a necessary deprivation, a void needing to be filled. Consequently, to speak thus contradicts the very Christian definition of God. For God has everything except that which is logically impossible for him to have (i.e. square circles and equations where 2+2=5).
To look at it from another perspective, I maintain that one ought to clearly keep the ideas of need and want separately. Need and want are independent concepts, though in causal parlance they are used synonymously. Need is what is necessary or non-optional, want is unnecessary or optional. For example, I might say that I want a new car. But do I really need a new car (i.e. my old one has been stolen, or is beyond repair), or do I just want a new car because I simply feel like a change.[5] Needs and wants can be seen as matters of degrees and can be plotted on a continuum. For instance, there are various degrees in which air, water, and food can be deprived. The longer I'm deprived, plus my given constitution, constitutes the degree to which the item is needed (i.e. we all need air, but, we can safely say we really need air more after two minutes than after two seconds).
Desires, on the other hand, are not needs or wants though they may be akin to want, yet they are not the same. I understand desire to be the degree to which the longing for gratification of the former and latter is felt. As with need and want, desires can be plotted along a continuum (i.e. from inkling to a raging obsession).
As I mentioned earlier, the Christian God cannot need or want. Nor is it even possible for him to will, where will is understood as desire, but God can will if will is understood as "the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action; volition" (American Heritage Dictionary). But even here such a definition is hard stretched to pertain to the Christians’ traditional view of God. For if God is immutable then he cannot be said to think for thinking involves process and change and that is not possible for one who is immutable.[6]
For if God is understood to be omniscience then in the strictest sense he cannot even be said to think, because thinking implies sorting, collocating, classifying, ordering, systematizing etc. Thinking is to "exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment" (American Heritage Dictionary). Thinking is the process of constructing thoughts in a linear fashion, sequential, progressive, or continuous. Cognitive activity entails a cause an effect relationship. This relationship takes place in time and space. Since, the God of Christianity is “above” time and space he is believed not to be governed by either. Thus to think entails the process of constructing thoughts in a linear fashion, conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment, and is therefore impossible a priori for an omniscient, omniscience and immutable being.
For ironically then, if the God of Christianity is true then the likelihood of Christianity being true is dubious. Conversely, if Christianity is truth then the likelihood of its God being true is equally questionable. In either case or taken together Christianity and the existence of an omniscience and immutable God is seriously suspect.
[1] I must be honest here that the most I can hope to do is to present “my” understanding of the biblical picture of God, for I certainly cannot speak for all Christians. And even if I could there is no monolithic consensus, as to what God is like, among Christians.
[2] See Henry C. Thiessen. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979. 81-83.
[3] See Oskar Cullmann. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History. London: SCM Press, 1965.
[4] Not to mention the other non-moral qualities often attributed to him namely, his omnipresence and his omnipotence.
[5] I further argue the contention that I do not really need a new car for my survival (as food, water, or air is). Could I not car pool, take public transportation, walk or ride a bike, or simply get a job close to home.
Comments
Post a Comment