Gods: A Brief Guide for the Perplexed

In the fictions of humanity, gods are among its worst characters.

Never mind your despicable, frivolous, quarreling, spiteful deities of Greece and Rome, your fiery baby-eating Molochs, your South American blood-lusting monsters, and your bestial, deformed, multitudinous divinities of the Far East. Let’s just look at the gods of the three allegedly moral religions created in the Middle East.

God, the Hebrews’ invention, is a tyrant par excellence. Although lauded as good, merciful, and life-sustaining, he emerges from the story as petty, cruel, capricious, boastful, greedy, unjust (for ample examples read the book), and disproportionately vengeful. He takes particular pleasure in vengeance, teasing his worshippers into doing things that will give him a pretext for unleashing punishment not only on the guilty but on innocent successor generations; in one notorious and extremely consequential case by evicting a patriarchal couple from the pleasant garden home he first gets them accustomed to and forcing them to raise their children by hard labor in harsh conditions. (Plan: plant apple tree in garden, tell the two people who live in it not to eat the fruit, and when they do exile them forever with a heavy feeling of shame and guilt.) Incomprehensibly, his authors’ Jewish descendants continue to believe him to be beneficent, all-powerful, and of course actually in existence even when 6,000,000 of them are mercilessly exterminated. This holocaust that was visited on them as a religious group has not persuaded most of them to doubt the veracity of the story or change the characterization of God. As Christians claim to believe in him too he could be said to have many more believers in him than just the Jewish ones. To an objective observer, however, there is little resemblance between this voluble character and the reticent ‘father’ god of Christianity.

Christ, the divine “son”, is the Christian hero. He’s even better than God at causing folk to feel guilty. He’s made out to be a sweet good innocent type – who then has himself tortured to “death” so nice people are forced to feel really bad. He claims that he has suffered his pretend death to atone for everybody’s else’s sins so that they can be “saved”, yet he invents a place of eternal punishment for anyone who doesn’t manage to accomplish the impossible, unnatural, and unfair things he requires of them, such as loving everyone else and (unlike himself) forgiving them no matter what harm they’ve done. And then, on top of it, he says now and then in the story (he’s not kept consistent in his views and messages): “Reader, what you actually do doesn’t count: I’ll either ‘save’ you or I won’t. My whim. No appeal.” The nature of this god is hard to grasp. He’s a hybrid god-man. A theo-anthro mongrel. Altogether, in what he is and what he does, what he causes to be done and has others punished for, he’s a bundle of contradictions, or a personified oxymoron. In every way a badly drawn character, he was based very loosely on one or more real-life preachy Jews of the Augustus-to-Tiberius era of the Roman Empire, chiefly a man whose name is given in Greek as Jesus, but of whom no reliable facts are known to historians. The primary author of the fiction was one Paul, or Saul, but many other imaginations have worked on the tale.

Allah, the Muslims’ divine guy, while allegedly merciful, is the narrow-minded, belligerent, intensely misogynistic, ignorant yet dogmatic patron of a seventh century illiterate pedophile, highwayman, robber and mass murderer named Muhammad, to whom he is inseparably attached. The two of them, prophet and god, live on in the gullibility of billions. As their followers constitute an active threat to civilization by carrying out what they believe to be Allah’s commandments to kill and subdue non-believers, he’s at present the most dangerous of these three nasty yet widely popular gods.

3 Likes

We’re the ‘Third Chimpanze’. When we were just emerging from the animal state, the world was just experienced, and reacted to.

As we acquired intelligence, we sought explanations for things like natural disasters, and nature itself. Seeing some sort of consciousness behind events made sense. Thus the gods were invented.

The ‘great desert monotheisms’ of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, were another step forward – regardless of how they have been used by their folllowers.

Now they’re dying away, as the scientific methods surplants ‘gods’ as an explanatory device, and as prosperity and security make people less and less needful of a supernatural protector.

We should just let nature take its course.

Right now, the critical fact is that we are in a ‘Cold Civil War’ with people who want to destroy the best form of social/political organization our poor old sorry species has stumbled upon.

I’ll happily unite with a red-neck fundamentalist, against an atheist Lefty, to defend such a society.

Let’s spend our intellectual energy working out how to win that battle. Religion will then die a natural death.

4 Likes

That’s a nice survey. A nice belief in a nice prospect.

3 Likes

But I disagree that the Abrahamic “great desert monotheisms… were another step forward.” They were at best a sidestep.

3 Likes

I agree in that with Zerothruster. Thales and Archimedes took humankind many steps forward.

3 Likes

Thales and Archimedes and many other Greco-Roman pagans whose culture was largely destroyed by the Christians. (I know you realize your reply was an understatement.) They say Aristotle composed dialogues. What happened to them? And so much more? We are left in other cases with mere fragments, like broken statues.

3 Likes

Yes, if only nature were allowed to take its course.
Not only would religion have faded away, but so many things that the Left has destroyed would be flourishing - our entire heritage, culture, Constitutional Republic, the family, racial harmony, etc, etc.

2 Likes

Well … ‘nature taking its course’ includes the human species, or its most advanced component, waging a battle of ideas. Not everything good is ‘natural’. The very concept of a constitutional – ie limits-on-government – democracy had to be formulated in the minds of great thinkers, specified, argued for. I’m not disagreeing with you here, by the way.

(There is a tendency within the conservative movement – now poking its head up a bit – which regards the whole Enlightenment as a disaster, and current developments as an inevitable product of it. I think they’re wrong. It’s the Left, now, who are attacking Reason … proper Reason, tempered by caution where it seems to endorse deep social change. Put it another way: Edmund Burke was a not a premature Postmodernist!)

And … we ought to acknowledge that political steps forward were/are not quite like scientific/mathematical steps forward, because we have the problem of competing material interests, which hardly arises among scientists. (Yes, it does, somewhat. But then it has to be more disguised than it is in politics.)

And here is where genuine liberals actually have played a positive role in history. But that’s another argument.

3 Likes

Of course, I’m using the phrase “letting nature take its course” loosely!
Maybe better to say, let Reason take its course, without being twisted by corrupt and ill founded notions.
Yes, there are conservatives who regard the Enlightenment as a disaster - Christians, of course, who fail to distinguish between the good reasoning and bad reasoning that came out of it. They only want to give credit to Christianity, when in fact, Christianity owes a huge debt to the Enlightenment for even being tolerable.
What Churchill said of Democracy - something to the effect that “its an imperfect system but it’s better than anything else out there” - also applies to the Enlightenment and Reason, of which Democracy is the product - it’s not perfect, but its really the only tool we’ve got.

3 Likes

Absolutely. I thinik Churchill’s phrase was, “The worst system in the world, except for all the others.”

Which reminds me of something I would like to share: I think Churchill was a religious skeptic, but concealed this fact when he decided to follow his father into politics. I believe this because of somthing he wrote in My Early LIfe, which I’ll try to find later.

And I believe this was true about Abraham Lincoln. and probably about a lot of other intelligent people, who had to conceal their unbelief, and, in their public pronouncements, talk in general terms about ‘God’, but really meaning by that word some sort acknowledgement of whatever it is that inclines us to decent behavior, makes us feel awe-struck when contemplating the universe – in other words, makes us more than just machines for reproducing ourselves…

In the old Soviet Union, until right at the end, you daren’t even think about an alternative to the whole system. When I lived there, I knew a lot of people who clearly were deeply alienated from the system … but they never said anything overt against it, even when talking to me (and I was not a regime supporter). Their attitude was resignation, and, psychologically, this meant accepting that their country’s basic institutions were unchangeable in any fundamental sense. (And so did most Western intellectuals, whose self-satisfied scornful remarks against Reagan and his ‘Evil Empire’ talk, make really fun reading today.)

So, when things began to loosen up under Gorbachev, even the very liberal (in the good sense of that term) Moscow News, said things like 'We are not against socialism. We want more socialism!", identifying ‘socialism’ with ‘democracy’.

I think that’s how Churchill and Lincoln and others thought. It was not quite conscious duplicity, but it was not whole-hearted endorsement of the idea of an invisible man in the sky, either.

3 Likes

Right. Thats true of many of the Founding Fathers, too, who spoke as Christians publicly, but were doubters or unbelievers privately.

3 Likes

I think we have to imitate them to a certain extent. For the forseeable future, most patriots will be at least notionally religious. We have – in brute practical terms – infinitely more in common with religious pro-Americans, than with atheist anti-Americans.

Even from our own point of view … even if we considered the withering away of religion to be very important … a strong, healthy America, leading the world into modernity, would be most desirable. (Not that I think that is achievable any more, to my infinite regret.)

3 Likes