Uncategorized

Why the Statement, “god is great,” is Inherently Problematic

As a philosophical naturalist it should come as no surprise that I believe all gods are as imaginary as leprechauns or the Easter Bunny, and as a result I don’t agree that “god is great.” But it isn’t my personal disbelief in supernatural causation that gives rise to the problems inherent in the statement, “god is great.”

Instead this particular statement is inherently problematic for a number of reasons, such as: that it’s vague and meaningless; it fails to resolve several philosophical dilemmas surrounding the question of whether a god exists; and it is ultimately divisive to the point of creating conflicts, violence, and oppression.

Now i’m not naive enough to believe it’s possible to refute the possibility a god exists in a seventeen hundred word blog post. I’m just not that convincing, but by highlighting a few of the inherent problems maybe it will cause a few readers to at least pause and think before asserting, “god is great.”

1. Vagueness:

The word god is a common noun, which is why the word shouldn’t be capitalized unless it’s at the beginning of a sentence. While a lot of monotheist name their god, “God,” this in effect is the same as naming your dog, “Dog.” Just because you use the common noun as a proper noun, does not mean that there is only one god, or that everyone who believes in a god believes in the same god you do. Just as me naming my dog, “Dog,” does not make it the only dog or mean that everyone that uses the term dog is referring to my particular dog every time they say the word dog.

Throughout history humans have imagined a myriad of different mutually exclusive gods, many of whom have been named “God,” or declared to be the only god. I would even go as far as to say that every person who believes in god(s) has their own personal concept of what they mean when they use the term god. Thus everyone who believes in a god, believes in their own unique god, even where the believer ascribes to a larger religion, with fixed definitions of its god(s).

This unique god may be compatible with other gods, but by nature a personal god can’t be compatible with every possible variation of god. For instance Yahweh and Jesus, while believed to be the same god by Christians, are in fact mutually exclusive concepts of god. This is why observant Jews don’t believe Jesus is a god, because as of about 800 BCE, religious Jews as a whole began to believe their war god Yahweh was the exclusive and only god.

Thus the term, “god is great,” is vague as to which god is being referred to and why it is great, which means the statement without alternative context can be read as, “My, god, which I name ‘God’ is great merely because it is my god.”

This tells us nothing about whether a god does indeed exist, what the definition of that god is or how we are to determine whether the god in question is indeed great, as there is no manner to determine by what standards greatness is to be judged.

2. Euthyphro’s Dilemma:

Much like Admiral Akbar in Return of the Jedi, every time I hear this statement I feel like saying, “it’s a trap!” This is because the statement, “god is great,” without context falls into a form of the logical dilemma first penned by Plato, and supposedly articulated by Socrates.

Essentially Euthyphro’s Dilemma breaks down into the question, is a god great, “just because?” Or is there an outside standard by which we can judge whether or not a god is indeed great? The word great itself creates problems as in English it generally refers to physical size, or largeness, but it is most often used in the context of this statement as a synonym for goodness.

a. Just Because:

If a god is great, “just because,” that means that the word god becomes a synonym for great, rendering it a meaningless statement premised upon un-proven and debatable presuppositions. Essentially, the statement becomes the same thing as saying, “water is H2O.”  Both statements are redundant as neither establishes anything meaningful about the other and merely reduces the words to synonyms, without proving the existence of the god in question, or defining what it means to for that god to be good or great.

Where a god is ontologically the same as goodness then goodness or greatness becomes arbitrary, and whatever the god chooses to do is defined as good. If a god is thought responsible for all events and life on earth, then one would have to say the creation of Hitler, or Stalin and the resulting deaths of millions from their actions were great, because they were both acts of god. Ultimately this reduces the statement either to a tautology, or to a vague and subjective value statement, which is meaningless.

But while this may appeal to some theists, few would respond to the question, “How are you doing?” with the response, “I’m god,” indicating that most believers at least implicitly understand the problems of reducing god to a synonym for goodness or greatness.

b. Objective Standard:

If an objective standard for judging greatness, or goodness exists, then for a god to be great it must not only meet the objective standard, but the standard must exist irrespective of whether a given god exists.

Thus where an objective standard of goodness exists separate and independent of a god’s will there is something over which a god is not sovereign, and the actions of the god in question are restricted to only that which meets the objective definition of goodness or greatness, otherwise it is an untrue statement. This means for the statement to be true a god that is good lacks free will and thus is not able to act in a manner which is anything, but great or good.

Which tells us nothing about what it means to be objectively good, other than that a god who is great by an objective standard is limited from acting in a manner other than in a manner the unestablished standard dictates. Again essentially reducing the statement to little more than a vague tautology, which tells us nothing.

3. Dilemma of Evil:

The statement “god is great,” seems to ignore the problem that in this world there exists things that we describe as evil, as in the battle of good versus evil. If a god is to be described as good or great then there must exist something that is not just the absence of goodness or greatness, but the opposite of good or great, that which we call evil.

Often misattributed to Epicurus, the basic formulation of this problem essentially reads:

Is a god willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then it is not omnipotent.

Is a god able to prevent evil, but not willing?

Then it is malevolent.

Is a god both willing and able?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is a god neither willing nor able?

Then why call it a god?

For a god to be ontologically good or great, it can’t be responsible for evil, which means there must be at least one other independent non-created being (a god) of equal power, or some other type of supernatural causation responsible for what we call evil.

If there is an objective standard the god in question can only be great if its actions meet that standard, meaning a god is not omnipotent and therefore unable to prevent evil, because the god is limited to only doing that which meets the objective standard of goodness or greatness. This ultimately means worship of that god is irrelevant, because regardless of praise or declaration the god may only do that which is good or great, and is unable to prevent evil.

Either way you cut it, the statement “god is great,” becomes problematic if not down right meaningless when viewed against the dilemma of evil.

4. Inherent Divisiveness of the Statement:

While the philosophical dilemmas and general vagueness of the statement may not be sufficient for most theists to give up using this statement, or convince someone that god(s) don’t exist, it is the effect the statement has on others that should at least give one pause before saying this in mixed company.

The statement, “god is great,” is an inherently divisive statement, because it translates into the statement, “My god, who I name ‘God’ is great, because it is my god.” Since there is not just one god, but an infinite number of possible gods, many of whom are mutually exclusive and none of which is established to be empirically true, the statement inherently creates disagreements and conflict between people.

Anyone, who has a different definition of god from the speaker, especially a mutually exclusive one will by necessity disagree with the speaker. As a result result the listener will either challenge the speaker’s strongly held beliefs, or suffer in silence in an attempt to avoid causing offense or be rejected by the speaker.

Disagreement wouldn’t be a problem if this conflict remained in the theoretical world of logic and philosophy. But unfortunately for us humans, our disagreements and differences of belief very frequently turn into violence and coercion.

As a result this statement can be the cause of a great deal of misery. Take for example a suicide bomber, who believes his or her god is so great that it leads the believer to kill themselves and others for disagreeing with the belief that their personal god is great.

It is remarkable how frail and weak people’s gods are that they constantly require humans to commit acts of violence and brutality against those who disbelieve, or refuse to accept the authority of the self appointed mouth pieces of a particular god. While in secular countries, like the United States of America, this disagreement generally remains an endlessly ongoing shouting match, in countries where one generalized god concept has a monopoly on force, it can cause the denial of the fundamental freedom to believe as our consciouses dictates as well as violent oppression against minority beliefs.

In fact in at least thirteen countries it is illegal and punishable by incarceration or corporal punishment to deny that a particular god concept, named “God,” is great. While some theist might think this a nifty idea when their general god is the one receiving state sponsorship, they are just as quick to scream persecution when the shoe is on the other foot.

So while one needn’t give up the belief in a god because of the problems inherent in the statement, “god is great,” it would be better for us all if we moved away from endlessly proclaiming such a divisive and meaningless statements as, “god is great.”

Final 2014 Na No Wri Mo

Today is the first of November, and along with indicating my rent is due it the marks the end of Na No Wii Mo. Congrats to all who succeeded and all those who tried but did not do.

I got about 31,000 words in. Not as far as I would have liked, but further than I expected. At least now I have a bones that I can go back to and work on to flesh the novel out and fix some of the problems.

Next year will be better for sure.

Na No Wri Mo #4

Well, it’s the fourth week of National Novel Writing Month. I hope everyone else who has been participating has had better luck than I.

Currently my novel is at 28,002 words. While I’ve averaged over a thousand words a day, I’ve failed to actually stick to my desired one thousand words a day minimum and probably won’t hit my original hoped for length.

Still, I think by the end of the month I will have about 35,000 words of a rough draft. This is a pretty good start for a rough draft, especially considering I’m going to have to go back through and add an excessive amount of world building and explanation for things I came up with mid draft.

While I prefer a much slower pace for novel writing, I still think this has been a good learning process and the eventual result, with some work, might be passable.

They Don’t Make That Anymore

My eyes glance over the tell tale words on the site, “Product out of stock.” My first impulse is to ask, “Why?” I know the answer, it’s always the same, “They don’t make that anymore.”

And why should they? They don’t make the bike anymore, why make parts for it?

I have learned, “they don’t make that anymore,” is a common refrain among despondent bike builders. Neophytes like myself have neither the skill or imagination to build a new part, and 3D printing parts is still a ways away from replicating solid options. There is a tremendous feeling of helplessness when one learns that simply replacing a part is not as easy as ordering a new one.

The latest example of this was my carb harness. I rebuilt the carbs a while ago, finding it difficult, and making it more so by pulling the carbs from the bracket that holds them together, something I later learned is unnecessary. I think I had some vague notion of painting them black, but changed my mind. So when I went to bench set them I was quite shocked to find a major problem.

IMG_0576                                    IMG_0578

 

At some point, between the time I took them apart and put them back together, or maybe even before the aluminum bracket cracked on the right side. After checking Ebay for a used one, it seemed like this was a common occurrence.  Sadly, “they don’t make that anymore.” So the options were, search for someone with a not yet cracked one, buy an expensive new set of carbs, or get it fixed.

I choose the later. Fortunately, there are people in this world with more skill and talent at metal work than I, and I was able to have one of those people weld the bracket back together. After a bit of grinding the carbs were good to go and ready to be tuned and put back on the engine.

IMG_0585

This isn’t the only time I’ve run into this problem while rebuilding TIM. Some instances, like the carbs, are probably due to age, or an aggressive hand in pulling the bike apart, others are just sort of mind boggling. For instance, the brake pivot that was installed on TIM when I got the bike was too small for the bracket on the frame. It was only by a few millimeters, and could be made functional, but not really safe. (No one really wants to ride around with the constant fear of their brake pedal falling off the pivot while traveling on the highway. )

IMG_0589

The reason the brake pivot didn’t fit is likely because the frame is and F model and the pivot was off a K model. The two bikes use the same L bracket style brake pivot, except they are of just slightly different lengths. So whoever put the bike together before I at least twice replaced a part with an almost identical, yet slightly different sized part. (The other time I’m aware of was the front fork, where the top and bottom of the triple tree were from different model bikes.)

IMG_0586

 

Fortunately I was able to find a correct sized brake pivot for the bike, but it took time and a bunch of work. But that’s what I find fun about building a bike, solving a problem in a creative manner with what you’ve got, because “they don’t make that anymore.” And I’m sure whoever takes over ownership of TIM after me will shake their head and wonder why I did some of the things I did. After all, the bars I put on are off a 350.

Na No Wri Mo #3

It’s the third week of National Novel Writing Month, I’m 21,287 words in and I have hit a wall. Or to be more accurate, Sunday Football and other work got in the way over the weekend and now I’m struggling to find the motivation to return to my daily word count. To make matters worse I’m at the dreaded mid first draft hump.

It’s my experience that most novels that never get finished usually fall apart around 20,000-30,000 words. I have several aborted attempts at novels of about this size and I’ve heard countless tales from other writers echoing my own experience. I wonder, what is it about this number of words that cause us to fall off?

I think it’s because 20,000-30,000 words is a sufficient number of words to be into the story, but not enough for the story to come to a conclusion. We get lost, and unable to see the forest for the trees get frustrated and give up. 20,000 words is sufficient length to tell a story, but not enough for the story to be a novel.

By 20,000 words we are far enough in that we forget the story we intended to tell. The story has changed so much it no longer matches the outline, and there was never enough detail in the outline to begin with, so while the end may have already been thought up, getting there is still daunting. It’s at this point that starting a new story sounds better than finishing the one that’s currently causing so many headaches.

However, stopping means the novel will probably never get finished.  The only way forward is to keep writing.

[spmarket 1]$2 Billion and Counting[/spmarket][spmarket 2]$2 Billion and Counting[/spmarket]

News

[spmarket 1]

A blog post written by Daniel Ek (@eldsjal)

Taylor Swift is absolutely right: music is art, art has real value, and artists deserve to be paid for it. We started Spotify because we love music and piracy was killing it. So all the talk swirling around lately about how Spotify is making money on the backs of artists upsets me big time. Our whole reason for existence is to help fans find music and help artists connect with fans through a platform that protects them from piracy and pays them for their amazing work. Quincy Jones posted on Facebook that “Spotify is not the enemy; piracy is the enemy”. You know why? Two numbers: Zero and Two Billion. Piracy doesn’t pay artists a penny – nothing, zilch, zero. Spotify has paid more than two billion dollars to labels, publishers and collecting societies for distribution to…

View original post 3,532 more words

Odyssey of the Heliotrope

Getting a full length novel published is a long and time consuming process. So for those of you who just can’t wait I’m going to be making some shorter pieces available through e-publication. The first of these is Odyssey of the Heliotrope, a story about an ill-fated  interstellar trip to colonize a foreign planet and what happens when things don’t go the way they are expected to.

It can be found on Amazon.com for the very low cost of .99 cents.

http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Heliotrope-Collin-Vincent-ebook/dp/B00PG8QNR0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415733690&sr=8-1&keywords=Odyssey+of+the+Heliotrope