The Fool’s Errand

Idiots abound. They say, “Give me an argument for God” or “Give me an argument why there’s no God.” This is idiocy in the original sense; they don’t know any better. But, this continually comes up no matter the pedigree. It’s a fool’s errand.

Simply, the answer should be in either case, “no!”

All thoughts are contingent to place and no thought arises from a vacuum; a predicate fact in philosophy and psychology. Therefore reality itself gives rise to the idea of deity. It is because of reality and because of humanity people seek the “Big Other” as ideas of Yahweh, Allah, Elohim, Brahman and scores more.

The idea is then by definition “empirical”, by way of experience. Whether there is actually a God or not, no one knows. Arguing about there being one or none only comes down to essentially claiming “My impression is better than yours”.

Any sane, thinking person would see that 1) a transcendent God is incomprehensible (given the very predicate above which makes God an objective, valid idea; meaning our all our thoughts can be based on is the reality that God transcends!), and consequently, 2) no god-talk can be said to have God as the actual referent of it, 3) the actual existence of deity doesn’t at all matter, because 4) we don’t act on anything but belief, and again, whatever is believed about God is not about God but about what we make of our impressions alone of some “Big Other”; all from the finitude of reality.

What’s left but to say “Here is the good that comes from my ideas”; whether they include deity or lack them entirely.

At the point we realize that the idea of deity is natural and valid and not manufactured (given no thought arises in a vacuum and something about reality has given us reasons to think about gods), and the point we realize transcendent beings are beyond our experience, we realize there can be no evidence for or against God, that rational arguments for or against God are easily had, and that why we accept one of them over another has everything to do with experience and nothing to do with fine arguments.

At that epiphanic moment, a person recognizes there are numinous experiences where our attributing them to the divine or to being human would be entirely random … were it not for the fact we are already inclined one way or another to begin with.

Yes, there may be a God. Yes, there may not be a God. “God” only exists or fails to exist in what we attribute the source of our existential awe to. And no one in their right mind would deny numinous experience in any case!

Tagged ,

One thought on “The Fool’s Errand

  1. campeador says:


    Excellent! If I may cavil a bit, I should point out that you (as am I) are using words to point out word’s shortcomings. In the present case, word’s inability, in most instances, to say anything but circularly redundant nonsense about God. But then, there are the “numinous experiences” which ‘wordlessly’ ”show’ us the truth of God. So, why talk about God at all? Because we must, at least until we master telepathy. But we must be ever aware that words are crude tools with which to attempt to ‘handle’ such a ‘delicate’ ‘concept’ as ‘is’ God.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: