The Problem with God Talk
I just have one problem with God talk. It doesn't say anything.
A sentence can be grammatical without being meaningful. I don't mean merely that it can be grammatical and wrong. I mean it can be grammatical and empty -- literally. It may seem otherwise, but examination will show that not to be the case.
Take the sentence God exists. It appears meaningful. But is it? No, it is not. God here stands for a supernatural nonmaterial thing that has, sort of like us only better, a consciousness, a will, and a capacity to act, that is, to make things happen. And this entity is said to exist -- to be real -- again, sort of like us only better.
The problem is that the concept exist here, while it may look like the concept you and I have used all our lives about things in the natural world, is actually nothing like it. God's supernatural "existence" is necessarily unlike anything we know or can know. The theist cashes in on familiar a word but admits he does not use it in a way that is meaningful to English-speakers. The theist doesn't know what he means either, by the way.
Important Jewish and Christian medieval theologians insisted that nothing affirmative could or may be said about God because his nature is beyond the understanding of mere mortals, and besides, saying something affirmative would be to presumptuously ascribe an attribute to God, which by logic would be limiting (if it's A it's not not-A), and that's a no-no when you're talking about the infinite God. These theologians believed God was real, and they provided ostensibly supporting arguments (cosmological, ontological, etc.), but that's about all they would say. God, in other words, is that which you can know nothing about ("ineffable"), except that it exists (somehow). Full stop.
In light of this, I think it would be more honest if, instead of "God exists," the theist would say, "God galainges." What does galainges mean? It's a verb -- to galainge -- that means nothing. I had a nonsense-word generator come up with it. I can say this much: it's unlike anything you and I could ever understand. Hey, either you believe God galainges or you don't. Except for your agnostics out there.
But this doesn't go far enough. The word God is so familiar that most people think they kind of know what it means; they think it's a coherent notion that refers to a sort of thing, even if it's different from all other things. But God really just is a bundle of contradictions, as has been shown repeatedly, and therefore like nothing you have ever encountered. Therefore, I think the word should be dumped for something with no familiarity: Treblig (which I did not have randomly generated).
Now we've come to "Treblig galainges" -- a perfectly grammatical and perfectly empty sentence.
Let's go further. We're often told that God (or Jesus) loves us. But no one is in a position to apply our worldly concept love to the unworldly God. So I propose that the theists say, "Treblig tronds you." Tronds? Yeah, I got that from the nonsense-word generator too. I means nothing.
Now, if an atheist were to hear someone say, "Treblig galainges," do you think he would ask, "Got evidence?" Probably not, and I sure hope not. After all, what would count as evidence that Treblig galainges?
No, the right response for any self-respecting atheist would be, "What the heck are you talking about?"
A sentence can be grammatical without being meaningful. I don't mean merely that it can be grammatical and wrong. I mean it can be grammatical and empty -- literally. It may seem otherwise, but examination will show that not to be the case.
Take the sentence God exists. It appears meaningful. But is it? No, it is not. God here stands for a supernatural nonmaterial thing that has, sort of like us only better, a consciousness, a will, and a capacity to act, that is, to make things happen. And this entity is said to exist -- to be real -- again, sort of like us only better.
The problem is that the concept exist here, while it may look like the concept you and I have used all our lives about things in the natural world, is actually nothing like it. God's supernatural "existence" is necessarily unlike anything we know or can know. The theist cashes in on familiar a word but admits he does not use it in a way that is meaningful to English-speakers. The theist doesn't know what he means either, by the way.
Important Jewish and Christian medieval theologians insisted that nothing affirmative could or may be said about God because his nature is beyond the understanding of mere mortals, and besides, saying something affirmative would be to presumptuously ascribe an attribute to God, which by logic would be limiting (if it's A it's not not-A), and that's a no-no when you're talking about the infinite God. These theologians believed God was real, and they provided ostensibly supporting arguments (cosmological, ontological, etc.), but that's about all they would say. God, in other words, is that which you can know nothing about ("ineffable"), except that it exists (somehow). Full stop.
In light of this, I think it would be more honest if, instead of "God exists," the theist would say, "God galainges." What does galainges mean? It's a verb -- to galainge -- that means nothing. I had a nonsense-word generator come up with it. I can say this much: it's unlike anything you and I could ever understand. Hey, either you believe God galainges or you don't. Except for your agnostics out there.
But this doesn't go far enough. The word God is so familiar that most people think they kind of know what it means; they think it's a coherent notion that refers to a sort of thing, even if it's different from all other things. But God really just is a bundle of contradictions, as has been shown repeatedly, and therefore like nothing you have ever encountered. Therefore, I think the word should be dumped for something with no familiarity: Treblig (which I did not have randomly generated).
Now we've come to "Treblig galainges" -- a perfectly grammatical and perfectly empty sentence.
Let's go further. We're often told that God (or Jesus) loves us. But no one is in a position to apply our worldly concept love to the unworldly God. So I propose that the theists say, "Treblig tronds you." Tronds? Yeah, I got that from the nonsense-word generator too. I means nothing.
Now, if an atheist were to hear someone say, "Treblig galainges," do you think he would ask, "Got evidence?" Probably not, and I sure hope not. After all, what would count as evidence that Treblig galainges?
No, the right response for any self-respecting atheist would be, "What the heck are you talking about?"
Comments
Post a Comment