|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Faith No More
God is irrelevant | from Fish - Wednesday, July 11, 2007
accessed 1261 times God is irrelevant The other night I was listening to an audio course on philosophy, and the professor insisted on defining philosophy as the “use of critical reason” in the search for “god” or the “perfect Being”. He claimed that this search for god was at the heart of mankind’s endeavors. These statements annoyed me. I, as a human being, have no interest whatsoever in god.
I could care less whether god exists or not.
I could care less whether god is anthropomorphic or is just “the unseen force which the stars yearn for”.
I could care less if god is male or female, or a combination.
I could care less if I am made in the image of god.
I could care less whether there is one god or many gods.
I could care less which god of the many gods in the world is the “true god”.
I could care less about which religion is the “true path” for reaching god.
God is irrelevant.
I do not believe that “god is dead”, for this implies that god was once alive. To me, it matters not one whit whether god is alive or was ever alive. If god was alive, would he care what we thought of him? I think not. Is man so intrinsically fascinating that a being supposedly having the entire universe at his command would spend his time fretting over the antics of a short lived apelike creature? I think not.
Today while eating breakfast I noticed that some swallows had built a nest on the concrete overhang above my living room terrace. I watched them with interest for perhaps fifteen seconds, then when back to eating. What do those swallows think of me, I wonder? Can they see me through the reflective glass? If so, perhaps they think of me as god. I am larger and infinitely more powerful then they are. If I was so inclined I could open my thick windows, leave the comfort of my air-conditioned room, and venture out onto the scorching terrace. I could, if I was so inclined, destroy their nest, and crush their helpless offspring. But why should I? I let them nest there because there is no reason I should do otherwise. I do not love them, I do not hate them. I do not care about them.
Perhaps one of the hatchlings notices me observing them and thinks I am god. Perhaps the chick thinks that as god, I care about them and the way they live. I demand that they propitiate me. Perhaps they can do this by eating only flies rather than moths as well. Or maybe it would please me if they left dead insects on my windowsill as an offering. As an ultimate proof of their desire to please me, they could fly into my glass, killing themselves in my unknowable name.
Would any of these senseless acts in any way interest me or even catch my notice? Were they all to simultaneously ram my window, it is unlikely I would even be in the room to notice. The combined seconds I’ve spent watching the swallows is infinitesimal compared to the 26 years I’ve so far lived. And I’m a mere mortal, not a god who is eternal.
The point of my convoluted allegory is this: God is irrelevant. Even if it were somehow proven that god exists, nothing would change. It would not do anyone any good to leave insects on his windowsill or to abstain from certain foods or activities for his sake. And it definitely wouldn’t be of any use for anyone to “give up their lives for god”. Why would any of these “sacrifices” interest god?
The term “perfect Being” is an oxymoron. For my part, I am happy with my imperfect life, in this benevolently indifferent, meaningless world. I have no need for a god to give my life meaning. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from sapience
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 17:52
 (Agree/Disagree?)
God will never be irrelevant to atheists since to "not believe" is a position in a context defined by those who do believe. Atheism is defined by what it denies.
Once monotheistic boundaries are truly discarded nonbelief becomes uninteresting and meaningless and God becomes truly irrelevant.
(reply to this comment)
| from Poker Star
Monday, August 13, 2007 - 23:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well put.
(reply to this comment)
| from figaro
Friday, July 13, 2007 - 20:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
July 12, 2007. WASHINGTON — A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the Senate's morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors' gallery.
Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple in Reno, Nev., gave the brief prayer that opens each day's Senate session. As he stood at the chamber's podium in a bright orange and burgundy robe, two women and a man began shouting "this is an abomination" and other complaints from the gallery.
Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an AP reporter, "we are Christians and patriots" before police handcuffed them and led them away.
For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god."
Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds."
(reply to this comment)
|  From Fish
Saturday, July 14, 2007, 02:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting. I would have to side with the protesters, though likely for different reasons than theirs. What’s the point of America, a western nation and an offshoot of Christendom, legitimizing an alien religion? There’s a difference between freedom of religion, and basically proclaiming that you, as a country, have little or no cultural values. Why not have Christian priests perform an opening prayer for the Japanese diet? Or perhaps an imam could officiate over the Russian duma?
The people of any given country need a shared culture. I believe this is particularly important for a melting pot like the USA, where there is little else to tie the citizens together. What makes an American American? Of course, one need not be a protestant Christian to be an American, however, I would argue that one ought to at least acknowledge and better yet assimilate (to a reasonable degree) the basic values and culture surrounding America’s founding religion. What’s next? Shall we turn the capitol dome into a “mosque of tolerance”? Make Spanish the official language in Texas? Inscribe our currency with “in Vishnu we trust”? Replace the statue of liberty with a giant Buda?
As a matter a fact all of these ideas sound cool, and as I don’t live in the States, I really could care less.(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Sunday, July 15, 2007, 13:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ugh! Please tell me you’re joking. “What’s the point of America, a western nation and an offshoot of Christendom, legitimizing an alien religion? There’s a difference between freedom of religion, and basically proclaiming that you, as a country, have little or no cultural values.” That statement is so ridiculous, and outrageous in its assumptions, I’m almost speechless. Legitimizing an alien religion? So if a Hindu Sadhu doesn’t pray in congress, his religion is less legitimate than if he does? Or are you saying that only monotheistic religions are legitimate? What about the U.S. congressman who’s a Muslim and was sworn into office with his hand on the Koran? Is that seditious and culturally detrimental? Why is Christianity more valid or important than any other religion? From your article, I was under the apparently misguided impression that you didn’t believe in god. I guess you don’t believe in the Christian god, but still see the worship of the Christian deity as a legitimate religion, but the horror that is the Hindu religion as no place in a Western society? Have I got that right?
The shared culture of ‘Americans’ is that of being a shared culture. Fractures of other nations, creeds, religions, races, etc., gather to the welcoming arms of Lady Liberty and no longer have to fear religious oppression. Oh, but of course, your not recognizing it as a legitimate religion isn’t religious intolerance, but religious segregation which is much more acceptable. The Statue of Liberty is hardly a religious icon, so your novel idea of replacing it with a giant Buddha isn’t exactly a legitimate concept as the two symbols can hardly be classified with each other. Our Capitol building is NOT a religious temple or place of worship. The act of opening the daily session with a prayer is not a constitutional act of government and there are pending lawsuits to have that ‘tradition’ abolished. The same goes for the ‘In God we trust’ phrase on American dollars and other public buildings. And in regards to Spanish as the official language? What the hell does that have to do with anything in reference to a Hindu praying for illumination of the mind and spirit? I’m having a hard time following your thought process. If you had come out saying that there should be no religious figure praying for ‘guidance’ at the start of one of the many sessions of Congress, I’d be in congruence with you and support your thought process.
For someone who believes that god is not dead but never existed and is in fact, irrelevant, I find it hard to understand why you’d be on the side of protestors who are self proclaimed ‘Christians and patriots’ as opposed to being against the notion of an clergyman of any religion praying to open a government proceeding. If other nations keep ‘alien’ religious clerics from opening their governmental sessions, but America does, is America hurting its chances of being a united culture, or is it in fact showing that they do indeed have tolerance of all religions, even if it is just a show? I just can’t fathom your notion of cultural identity being attached to a particular religion while simultaneously declaring the irrelevance of ‘god’. Please illuminate me, or if not, don’t try and spew such trivial, nonsensical tripe.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Sunday, July 15, 2007, 21:11
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Conan, you are too quick to jump to conclusions. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s wrong. When writing on this site I endeavor to tread a fine line between being understood by the intellectually challenged readers (which seem to be the majority) while remaining uninsulting to the more intellectually developed ones. I would have placed you in the later camp, but I guess in this case further explanation is necessary. You made the ambiguous statement that “The shared culture of ‘Americans’ is that of being a shared culture.” This is woefully unclear, as one could say the same about any country. However, I will take it to mean that “the culture of America is that it accepts all cultures.” The implication of this statement is that America has no truly American culture. As this is manifestly not true, the above statement can be chucked. In order to prove it as such; I suppose I ought to define culture.
I define the culture of a given nation as a tradition developed over a long period of time, or basically the collective historical memory of a nation. As America was founded by colonists from Europe, most of whom, if not protestant Christians themselves, were at least from that culture and retained the traditions and moral prejudices that grew up around it. I would argue that this historical tradition IS American culture. (I make no judgment regarding whether this or any other culture is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. These judgments are irrelevant to this discussion) As I stated before, I believe that it is vital for the US to retain its historical traditions and culture. If the US is truly a nation and not some kind of corporation, where the only binding constant is greed, then some sort of ‘national culture’ is necessary. And the only culture which has any possibility of granting cohesiveness is a historical one, passed down from the founding fathers. An Iberian culture will not do, nor will a Muslim, Hindu or Orthodox one, for they are not historically American.
My comment above had nothing to do with religion, or god. Christianity, or more accurately Christendom, is (in my humble opinion) more than a religion. It is a culture, a world view, a historical tradition going back to Athens. It is what makes westerners western. Is America a western country? Does it want a tradition of democracy, promulgated law, individual rights, equality under the law, separation of church and state, and freedom of speech, just to name a few? Perhaps you would prefer the caste system that is integral to Hindu culture. Or Koranic law, which is the backbone of Islam.
Having a Hindu prayer open congress is a needless affront to the historical tradition that the USA was built upon. The other examples I made (in a manifestly light vein) would be similar (if exaggerated) attacks on America’s historical protestant culture. You asked about a Muslim being sworn in on the Koran. While morally I applaud this action, from a cultural perspective it is indeed seditious, though hardly detrimental.
You seem to have difficulty thinking on several plains of morality at once, being inclined instead to simple, somewhat rabid, anti god polemics. You asked “Why is Christianity more valid or important than any other religion?” Though I stated no such thing, this will illustrate my point nicely. Christianity is more valid and important (than say, Hinduism), TO AMERICA, because it is an inherent element of its cultural tradition. That’s why. So yes, it is more important, just as the division of church and state is important to America, it also being a western concept, developed within Christendom.
Thus my remark about turning the capitol into a “mosque of tolerance”. If you truly believe that the US, as a nation, ought to have no culture other than the culture imported by immigrants (lady liberty’s ‘huddled masses’) from their respective home countries, then we may as well adopt the eastern Orthodox tradition of caeseropapism or the Islamic tradition of scared law, practiced by clerics. Why should the church and state be separate, if America is simply an amalgamation of foreign cultures?
Now that I’ve explained my position as best I can, I will leave it at that. Before you spew more insults, try to understand the point I’m attempting to convey. (reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Monday, July 16, 2007, 12:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I actually asked you to clarify, and said that my assumptions were based on my interpretation of your previous comment, which was minimal at best.
I find I disagree with you on the idea of a cultural identity, especially that of America's, as being perpetuated on a religious identity. There is a reason the 'In God We Trust' stanza in the Star Spangled Banner was omitted from the song we know today as the national anthem of the U.S. The line 'One nation, under God' in the pledge of allegiance was not in the original version but religious lobbyists successfully had it implemented during WW11. That decision’s reversal is currently gaining momentum and is likely to happen in the not too distant future. These religious ‘icons’ were not originally a part of America's early cultural exploration or foundling steps as a nation. The 'In God We Trust' appearing on American currency was also the result of America at war: The Civil War. These were tools to attempt to forge a distinction between 'us and them' during a time of division in the nation before the global expansion and immigration explosion. It was these same 'religious' unifiers that emboldened the conscription of Irish immigrants and freed slaves to fight for 'American' solidarity and unity.
These 'unifying' religious moments in American history are now the objects of derision, division, and much heated debate between people of all faiths, origins, cultures and immigration backgrounds. The culture that America does or does not have is not necessarily the result of religious solidarity and uniformity but the universality of Americans holding the separation of church and state.
I don't see the connection between Christendom (the collective Christian world) and ancient Athens. Hellenistic culture is one whose connection we can all agree is shared by 'western' society, but its religious implications are nil. While the majority of America does purport to be 'Christians', the founding fathers were atheistic, or at the very least skeptical of religion. Men like Ben Franklin invoked the name of ‘god’ sarcastically when explaining how to prevent lightening from striking and burning buildings, the most common of which were of course taller buildings, often constructed with spires such as churches. They realized the infallibility of a religious nation such as Britain who had suffered a civil war because of a religion, and a religious revolution based on the head of state's desire to fuck a woman who wasn't his wife in order to produce a male heir.
The religious cultural identity of Europe, and especially Catholicism, was one that the pioneers of America wished to greatly avoid and put such sentiments into the Constitution that defined America's legacy and provided its cultural identity of unity through strength and freedom, not some doctrine from an antiquated book of questionable authenticity and even more questionable morals and adherents. Religious promulgation is something that, until our current president 'Dubya', American leaders have shied away from.
In the fractioned world of global religion and the millions of denominations and dogmas, for America to stand alone as the only nation to have in it's founding documents the demand to have a separation of church and state is something that as an American I am fiercely proud of and consider to be part of the cultural identity in America. How morality became a debate centered on religion above is beyond my feeble, finite mind.
Perhaps I am being naive in assuming that cultural identity can be separated from a religious and even a moral one, but that is the way I perceive it to be. I am ecstatic that there are more openly agnostic and atheistic members of American society jumping into the political foray, and if members of 'alien' religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., find their way into our house of representatives, than I feel that America's culture is being upheld in the proudest possible manner! I applaud Keith Ellison's bold embracing of his 'non-Christian' faith as part of who he is as a person, leader, congressman, and as an American. I equally applaud his decision to not use the Koran during his swearing-in ceremony but to use nothing at all as an act of religious impunity. I lament the naïveté of protestors who claim to be 'Christians AND Patriots' as if they were one and the same thing and inseparable one from another.
It is because America is an amalgamation of foreign, alien cultures that the separation of church and state is so important. Morality and religion need not be confused with each other, and should be considered indigenous in their own right to protect the religious 'immorality' of alien beliefs and practices as long as they are not criminal.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From conan
Sunday, July 15, 2007, 14:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are stupid and incompetent. Did you even fucking read the post I was replying to you or are you merely trying to entice a diatribe from me? You are stupid, stupid, stupid. Fucking imbecilic moron! You are so fucking stupid. I can't say enough how stupid you clearly are. Jesus fucking H. Christ! Are you for real? You're fucking dense, brainless, dim, ludicrous, incompetent, moronic, stupefyingly thick-headed, obtuse, and preposterously mindless. If I had any more synonyms for your insanity off the top of my head, I'd list them. Fucking dweeb!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From conan
Sunday, July 15, 2007, 16:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Heh! Such uber sensitive whiny bitches on here. You get called stupid by a pseudonym and your cyber alias gets its panties all bunched up. How very mature. You know, if you just would use your (un)common sense and your eyes while reading, you wouldn't make ignorant claims which make you look like you're uneducated and wouldn't be called out for it by me, who incidentally couldn't give a flying fuck what your dumbass thinks of me, or my online entity. It's a shame that you can't use that noggin of yours yet seem so eager to point out how stupid you think I am. How is what you said any more intelligent than my ranting at you, calling you stupid 20+ times. It's cute though how irritated you can get by reading something on the internet from someone who knows absolutely nothing about you (besides the fact that you can't understand what you read, so if this is over your head I'll understand).(reply to this comment) |
| | from ..........
Friday, July 13, 2007 - 17:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
The bird sings it song and doesn't mean for it to be enjoyed by us-we are irelevant. Yet the birds song is what makes me feel happy to be alive.
(...though I am not sure what swalows sound like, so.)
(reply to this comment)
| from conan
Friday, July 13, 2007 - 09:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I really liked this! I've never understood why it was so important for people to have a 'higher' purpose instead of just trying to enjoy our relatively pathetic existences. The dedication of our too short lives to worship, fear, praise and be otherwise consumed by a deity of any kind is irrelevant and unnecessary. Your simile was, in my mind, a perfect example of the infallibility of the very concept of a god, and presented a worthy argument of the stupidity of spending a lifetime in the worship of said concept.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from thatata
Friday, July 13, 2007 - 08:30
 (Agree/Disagree?)
birds dont think youre God but u might.Bird bird bird bird dont u know about the bird everybody thinks the bird is a word.oh thats stupid.But saying "God is dead" is not a stupid thing to say or irrelevant its a fact.A historical fact mostly now.because God doesnt need to exist in order to reign.Whats created by the spirit is more real then the concrete.hmm whats this?
(reply to this comment)
| From Fish
Friday, July 13, 2007, 09:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you for reminding me why I left off frequenting this site. Its comments like the one above and the pompous nonsense from “rain” below that showcase what this site has become. It seems that thoughtful articles, such as the one recently posted by “steam”, are a rarity these days. But by all means, continue to post stupid articles and comments. It does no harm, it is merely disappointing. (reply to this comment) |
| | From AndyH
Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fish, you are one of the most interesting participants. I have not always agreed with what you've said, but your way with words, and your very unique way of putting things has always made for good reading.
Regarding Thatata: I can't believe that you graced that nonsense with a response. My advice to you: Read the rare thoughtful articles and comments, and don't read what is beneath you.
Regarding Rain: There will always be people complaining about grammar. You might toughen up a bit, and remember that you too have a history of being a bit of a prick to others.
I really liked your article, as it articulated a metaphor that I've always liked. I hope to read more or your thoughts in the future. (reply to this comment) |
| | From madly
Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, come on… don’t be that way. It is hardly worth getting your panties in a twist over. I know I was playing around in my comments, but I made it clear that I liked your article. There just wasn’t much to add, as this topic has been covered quite extensively by Steam, Conan and a few others. I had given my opinion on theirs and didn’t feel the need to repeat my views. Your article put a nice new spin on the subject and I really enjoyed reading it and maybe that is what I should have said.
I suppose I should have left my silly comments off, but sometimes I find myself getting far too serious on this site, with my comments and articles, that it is nice to take a break, let my hair down and be silly for a bit. I guess I was not being respectful to your feelings regarding your article and that was wrong on my part.
Articles like yours are very much appreciated, at least as far as I am concerned. If you had been here over the last few months, in my opinion you would have seen many worthy and thought provoking articles and some amazing stimulating comments and debates. There are some amazing minds on here. Sometimes this site is too serious and I find myself getting too lost in my views and thoughts that I have to come up for air for a bit. I think this is okay too and being silly is good, laughing is good and it does have a place on this site; however, when you are making light of what someone has seriously taken their time to write out, then it isn’t okay. I should have been more respectful and courteous.
As far as the weird comments from people like “thatata” well, I guess that just comes with growing up in cult where half the people were crazy and the other half were fucking nuts… take your pick. I picked crazy. Just ignore them, they always go away. Write some more. I like the way you think. :)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From madly
Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nice, vix... real nice. It can be very beneficial to get a fresh spin on a common theme. We can always view accepted thoughts and ideas a little differently through someone else’s eyes. I think this is how we learn, from others. Why would you want to discourage this? Now if you and Fish have a past that I am not aware of, then it is not my place to intrude.
Honestly, I love rainy to death. She is one of my favorite people on this site; however, I didn't like what she said either. I found it to be quite offensive.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from rainy
Friday, July 13, 2007 - 02:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
I HATE the way Americans say "I could care less" when they actually mean "I couldn't care less". It's a pet peeve. You just did it about half a dozen times.
(reply to this comment)
| From conan
Friday, July 13, 2007, 13:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
You may have a legitimate beef. But, when someone says 'I could care less', it often means that they care so little, they could potentially care less, but they don't see it as likely. It's partially incorrect, but is a commonly used colloquial (in America anyways) and is something that I will often use in spoken conversation. I can see why this might bother you in the above article, but it does make sense and isn't 'bad English' or even a mistake along the lines of 'your/you're'.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from exister
Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 19:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
You just now figured this out? How old are you?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from One who understands
Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 14:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fish I agree with you, although I don't quite have such a negative stance. There is definitely no meaning or purpose to my life. I feel like another chip off the old block, and nothing matters anymore. I can almost understand why the communist leaders were so against the notion of god, they had too much suffering in their early lives to believe that anything should make sense.
(reply to this comment)
| from madly
Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 11:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Such lovely morning thoughts you seem to have. I won't be joining you for breakfast anytime soon. :P
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]