Smith, George H.
Atheism: The Case Against God.
Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books, 1979
ISBN 0-87975-124-X
Chapter 2
The Concept of God
I
The Meaning of “God”
Knowing what one is talking about is of inestimable value in any dialogue, so the theist, before he sets out to explain why we should believe in god, must first explain what he means by the word “god.” What is the theist attempting to establish the existence of? What is the nature of god? How are we to identify him (or it)? At least some of the attributes of this supposed creature must be known before anything can be considered relevant to establishing his existence. As one theist put it, “With no description or definition to work from, we will literally fail to know what we are talking about.” For example, consider the following dialogue:
Mr. Jones: “An unie exists.”
Mr. White: “Prove it.”
Mr. Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof.”
If this exchange is less than satisfactory, much of the blame exists with Mr. White: his demand for proof is premature.
Mr. Jones has not specified what an “unie” is: until and unless he does so, “unie” is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without some description of an “unie,” the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent.
When confronted with the claim that a god exists, the person who immediately demands proof commits the same error as does Mr. White. His first response should be, “What is it for which you are claiming existence?” The theist must present an intelligible description of god. Until he does so, “god” makes no more sense than “unie”: both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is logically absurd. Nothing can qualify as evidence for the existence of a god unless we have some idea of what we are searching for. Even if it is demanded that the existence of god be accepted on faith, we still must know what it is we are required to have faith in. As W.T. Blackstone puts it:
Until the content of a belief is make clear, the appeal to accept the belief
on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has
accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically
prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of
whether that belief constitutes knowledge.
The meaning of “god” and other religious terms has been a center of controversy in modern philosophical thought. A.J. Ayer, in his famous Language, Truth and Logic (published in 1935) argued that “to say that ‘God exists’ is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And…no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess and literal significance.”
The principle upon which Ayer based his rejection of theology is now considered to be defunct, but philosophers continue to debate the pitfalls and merits of religious language. Indeed, much of the recent literature in the area of philosophical theology concerns itself with the meaning and use of religious terms.
Because of this emphasis, most theistic philosophers are painfully aware of the problems of defining and clarifying the concept of god. There remains, however, an insufficient understanding among many theists as to the importance of this task. Defining the concept of god is not an optional chore to be undertaken at the theist’s convenience. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility. Assuming that the theist does not believe his theism to be nonsense, he has the responsibility of explaining the content of his belief. Failing this, to state that “god exists” is to communicate nothing at all: it is as if nothing has been done.
What, then, is meant by the word “god?” This is not a simple question. There have been many historical concepts of god, from the anthropomorphic deities of the Greeks to the omnipotent god of Christianity. Some gods are all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, while others are not. Some gods are objects of reverence, while others are not. Some gods communicate with man, while others do not. Differences such as these make it impossible to give a detailed description of a god that will encompass every religion—-and securing widespread agreement on the meaning of “god” is a formidable, if not impossible, task.
Much of the confusion surrounding the idea of god seems from the fact that the word “god” is among the most abused terms in the history of man, ranking with such notorious words as “freedom,” “justice,” and “love.” Atheism is an unpopular stance (especially if one happens to be a clergyman), so some people conveniently attach the word “god” to any belief with a range of significance, such as nature, the universe, love or an ultimate goal in one’s life. As Anthony Flew notes, these idiosyncratic usages of “god” make it “comparatively easy to secure very wide verbal agreement on the existence of God. But much of this is exposed as unreal when we probe the different meanings given to the key word.” Today the professed theist and atheist may agree on all accepted points except an appropriate label for their position—and it is instructive to note that, historically, more blood has been spilled in religious wars between theists of different persuasions than between theists and atheists.
The rest of the chapter is available in the book and explains the contradictions that occur when a description of any deity is made.
Anonymous 2 years, 2 months ago.
