Many believers, when their apologetic arsenal loses steam and they begin to sense the futility of arguing in defense of their commitment to the arbitrary, will often retort that the non-believer makes himself to be God.
In this paper, I examine this claim and explain why it does not apply to me, or to any man of Reason. I have come up with 15 different fundamental points which would have to apply to one's presumption of self-deity for the theistic accusation to be true, but which are not the least bit true, and have discussed them below. They can be accessed individually by the following links:
According to the Christian god-belief, and many other forms of god-belief (particularly derivatives from Judeo-Christian mysticism), God created the universe. We read in Genesis 1:1 that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This includes also the sun, moon and stars (cf. "lights" in Genesis 1:14-18).
Now, I have no god-belief. But it does not follow from this that I believe that I did these things. Indeed, I do not even accept the claim that someone "created" the universe at all. The universe is the sum of all that exists. I do not affirm the claim that existence created itself any more than the claim that some form of consciousness created existence. I do not even claim that I created myself.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I created the universe?
Christians often claim that their God is infinite. Some even point to Bible verses (e.g., Job 11:7-9, 26:14, etc.) to support this claim.
To be infinite means to have no identity. I do not claim this about myself. Indeed, I do not claim that any entity can be said to be infinite in any way, for this would be a contradiction. That which exists is that which has identity, and is therefore finite.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I am infinite?
Christians claim that God is both living (cf. Jeremiah 10:10) and eternal (cf. Psalm 90:2, I Timothy 1:17), which means: God will not die, that God is immortal.
I do not claim this about myself. I recognize that one die I will die. That is one of the facts of all living beings: they live, and then they die. Nothing can change this about reality, not even god-belief fantasy.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I am immortal?
Christians claim that God is "without body or parts." (Cf. Deuteronomy 4:15-16, Luke 24:39, and John 4:24.)
For a living being to be said to have no body or parts is essentially to admit that the said living being has no existence. I do not claim this for myself. Indeed, I recognize that I do exist, that I do have a body, and that my body does have parts. I have a head, a mind, a face, a torso, two arms, two legs, and genitalia. Indeed, if I were "without body or parts" I would not be able to compose this article, for I would have no fingers.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I were without body or parts?
Christians point to verses like Psalms 145:3 to support their claim that God is incomprehensible.
The term 'incomprehensible' has two basic meanings. The archaic meaning is "having or subject to no limits." I certainly do not claim this about myself. I have many limitations, for instance, I cannot flap my arms and fly across town. I freely admit these limits to myself. The modern meaning of the term is "impossible to comprehend" or "unintelligible." Now on occasion this might apply, such as when I try to say something with food in my mouth or if I talk in my sleep (which I've been known to do on occasion). But of course when I speak and write and form sentences, arguments and broad categories of thought, I certainly do not claim to be incomprehensible. And I have yet to know one colleague with whom I've worked who has ever complained that I was incomprehensible.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I were incomprehensible?
Christians like to claim that their God is infallible, and point to verses like Romans 11:33-34 and Psalm 147:5 to support this supposition.
Infallible means "incapable of error or failure." I do not claim this about myself. I made errors all the time, and many of my efforts to achieve certain goals have failed. I freely admit this. In fact, I recognize it is partially because I am not infallible that I require a rational means of cognition, which Reason, whose method is logic.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I were infallible?
Not only is God said to be infallible, but also omniscient as well. Christians point to verses like Hebrews 4:13 and I John 3:20 to support this claim.
Aside from all the problems plaguing the notion in question (see for instance my essay
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I were omniscient?
Christians like to claim that their God is invisible, and cite I Timothy 1:17 as "proof" of this claim.
Invisible in this sense means "incapable by nature of being seen." Again, I do not claim that I am invisible. Not only can I see myself, but others have seen me, too. I have played catch and frisbee with others on numerous occasions, and each of these pastimes require that the players are not invisible. Now there have been times when I've walked into retail shops and felt like I were invisible, because the clerk had pretended not to see me, but this is a different matter, and says nothing about my nature as such. Christians who claim that their God is invisible of course are invited to explain how they distinguish between the invisible and the non-existent.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I were invisible?
Christians claim that God is omnipotent or "almighty," and point to verses like Genesis 17:1 and Revelations 4:8 as support.
Omnipotence means "having virtually unlimited influence or authority," and can be summarized as the power to create and control reality by an act of will. Now, I have never made the claim that I possess such power, nor have I ever dreamed such power were possible to any being. Indeed, to assume that such power is possible is to ignore all the facts of reality and insist on a wish. While I am convinced I possess many abilities, the ability to create and control reality through an act of will is surely not one of them.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I were omnipotent?
Christians claim that their God is able to perform miracles, and cite numerous examples of miracles recorded in the Bible as evidence in support of this claim. (Cf. Matt. 12:22, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 9:12-17, John 11:17-44 to name but a few.)
The claim to the alleged ability to perform miracles is essentially the claim to the ability to violate the laws of nature through an act of will. A can become non-A, and A can perform the activity of non-A, just by wishing it so. While I can see how this ability would prove convenient at times (such as when I'm running late for work or if I locked my keys in the house), I certainly do not make the claim that I have such an ability. Indeed, I am a man who must deal with reality through my reason-guided choices and actions. I see no validity in asserting or pursuing an alternative to these facts.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also think that I were able to perform miracles?
The Bible assumes that God expects others to obey his commandments unquestioningly. Numerous examples of this apply. (Cf. Exodus 20:1-17, Matthew 5:39-44, John 12:25, et al.)
The expectation that others should obey one's commands unquestioningly is the claim to absolute influence and authority over others. I have never claimed this, nor would I wish for such authority. Indeed, I hold that unquestionable authority is a contradiction in terms (for if we cannot question something, we can never determine that it is authoritative), a breach of man's right to exist for himself (for men are free to conduct their lives in spite of the disapproval of others, including myself), and a responsibility that I could never want (there is nothing in reality that I expect others to do for me or give to me without my earning it). Indeed, I hold that the idea of unquestionable authority is anti-rational and anti-man in every sense of these terms.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also expect others to obey my commands unquestioningly?
The Bible assumes a God which presumes the right to sacrifice others to his ends. Numerous examples of this can be cited in support of this assumption. (Cf. Genesis 22:1-14, Exodus 12:29, John 3:16.)
The presumption of the right to sacrifice others to one's own ends is the presumption that others have no rights of their own. This is precisely the kind of behavior that the God of the Bible models. The Bible nowhere acknowledges man's right to exist for his own sake. This is evident from even superficial reading to those who are unwilling to take their intellectual and moral liberty for granted. I have never presumed the right to sacrifice others to my own ends, nor will I ever do so in the future. Such a presumption is possible only on the assumption, implicit or explicit, of the validity of the ethics of sacrifice, and is suitable only to those who resent the fact that they must achieve their values in reality by effort. This does not apply to me, for I relish every opportunity I find in life to produce my own values by my own effort, and I declare my right, and the right of every man, to exist for his own sake, so long as he refrains from the initiation of force against others.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also presume the right to sacrifice others to my ends?
The Bible assumes a God which expects men to hate their own lives. (Cf. John 12:25.)
The expectation that men should hate their own lives is contrary to an objective system of moral values. Indeed, Objectivism holds that one's own life is the standard of his values. (See for instance Eyal Mozes'
Life as the Standard of Value.) I would never ask or expect other men to reject the standard of their own values, or that they hate their lives, as the God of the Bible does. In fact, I would not presume to have the right to dictate to anyone which values they are to hold, including the standard on which they base their values to begin with. I find such an expectation to be morally reprehensible.If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also expect men to hate their own lives?
The Bible assumes a God which expects men to hate their family members. (Cf. Luke 14:26.)
The expectation that men should hate their family members is akin to the same moral default encountered
above. It is the expectation that one renounce his values for the sake of following a commandment. And it might even be the case that one has plenty of justified, legitimate misgivings against his family members. But if one has justifiable reasons why he should detest someone in his family, the commandment to hate one's family members is merely coincidental to this fact, not causal, for one's values cannot be wished away by commandments. One person's will cannot automatically replace another's will unless the first person surrenders his will in the first place. But even this must be done willingly, unless one is to employ force or the threat thereof.Now, I would never advocate that any man act in defiance of his own will, unless his intentions are to violate the rights of others. I would never expect others to renounce their values against their own reason, whether it is in regard to their family members, their career choices or their own personal business. I would certainly not expect men to hate their family members.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also expect men to hate their family members?
The Bible assumes a God which expects men to abandon their judgment. (Cf. Matthew 7:1.)
The expectation that men should abandon their judgment is the desire that men reject their ability to reason. In fact, when the Bible states "Judge not, that ye be not judged," the implicit motivation to refrain from judging is the fear of someone else's judgment. Many believers may say that this means we should not condemn others, but this verse makes no mention of either condemning or others. Besides, there are times when it is morally proper to condemn others. I would never expect or ask others to "judge not" or to suspend their ability to reason. In fact, I purposefully seek those who are not willing to abandon their intellectual and moral judgment. I delight in the use of my mind, which means I delight in my ability to pass sound judgments about things and people. Also, I fear neither the judgment nor the condemnation of others, because I do not accept the implicit assumption that others are in some way superior to me, such that their judgment and/or condemnation is be something I should fear. Rather, I adopt the same correction of such exhortations which Ayn Rand advocated: Judge, and be prepared to be judged. And I expect all men to abide by this principle, even though so very few do.
If I thought I were God, wouldn't I also expect men to abandon their judgment?
Conclusion
So, there you have it, on these 15 counts, I can safely say that I do not presume myself to be God, simply because I have no god-belief. Certainly I could probably come up with many more, but I think these are sufficient to prove my case. More examples can certainly solidify it, but I think this is quite solid enough as is.
So the next time someone tells you that you must think of yourself as God because you have no god-belief, and this puzzles you because you make no such claim about yourself, remember these points, and let him know what you think.
What motivates the commonplace charge that non-believers set themselves up as their own "gods" in their lives, is the resentment which many theists have against those men who are willing to assume the responsibility of moral judgment independent and in defiance of their religious teachings. Many theists find the responsibility of having a mind and of practicing sound moral judgment to be too great a challenge for them to handle on their own, so they flee to a form of mysticism which promises automatic answers to life's tougher problems (such as interaction with others and issues of one's purpose in life). When they encounter those who do not abandon reason in preference for faith, many believers cannot contain their resentment and choose to strike with condescending verbal comments designed to belittle those who rely on their own reason.
Believers should learn to recognize the deeper implications of the off-the-cuff remarks they've learned to repeat from their teachers. Accusations against non-theists, freethinkers and men of reason, that they set themselves up to be their own "god," are guilty of an egregious point of intellectual default. Of course, non-believers have an answer, and that answer is three-fold: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem, the philosophy of
Objectivism.
Anton Thorn
________________________________________
Notes
© Copyright by Anton Thorn 2001. All rights reserved.
[
Back to Top][
Back to Anton Thorn's Main Page][
Back to Problems With Christianity][E-mail Anton Thorn:
tindrbox@aol.com]