Does your god have much hair?

[Silent3]

No, I don't mean literal hair. I'm borrowing some terminology used in physics when talking about black holes. I'm using "hair" as a metaphor for detailed attributes and qualities, functions the deity is supposed to serve, clear impacts the deity is supposed to make in the universe around us and in human lives.

Gods which supposedly have inspired specific holy writings, have performed specific miracles, have spoken to specific prophets, which have specific lists of rules for how people should live their lives -- those are very hairy gods.

Spinoza's god, or any god which is little more than a synonym for the natural material universe, is nearly or completely bald.

The hairier the god, the harder the reality of that god is to defend. There's more to be wrong about, there's more that people might demand evidence for, there's more that simply might strike other people as really weird and turn them away from belief in that god. The more hairless your god the easier that god is to defend, but the significance of belief in such a god in your day-to-day life becomes more academic and abstract. If your god is nearly or completely bald, then little or nothing in your life should change as a consequence of declaring belief in that god.

For some believers, the more hair the better. Hairier gods seem more compelling, more believable than less hairy alternatives. I think this is, at least in part, related to a common psychological phenomenon which causes people to incorrectly judge certain kinds of probabilities. Consider these two statements, and determine which statement you think is more likely:

(1) Alice is an anti-abortion activist and a Democrat.
(2) Alice, who had been pro choice, converted to an evangelical Christian faith. She changed her mind about abortion, but remained a Democrat because of her opposition to the war in Iraq and to torture, and because of her belief that the government should do more to help the poor.

Which seems more likely to you? (1) or (2)? (scroll down for answer)



































(1) is more likely. Why? Because (1) does not rule out (2). If (2) is true, then (1) is also true. But (2) can be false while (1) remains true. Number (2) is a good story for explaining how someone could be both anti-abortion and a Democrat, but it's certainly not the only explanation for how that combination of political stances might arise. Alice could, for example, be a Democrat and an atheist, but a bad personal or family experience with abortion turned her against abortion while otherwise not effecting any of her other political positions.

Regardless of this irrefutable reasoning (it can be mathematical proven using set notation or Venn diagrams) many people will say (2) is more likely than (1). There's something about the sensation of detail, the addition of a believable story, that can ring more true than a bald assertion, especially when the bald assertion goes against normal expectations.

I'd guess this kind thinking is one big reason why hairier gods, and other hairy cosmologies and spiritualisms, are more popular than abstract gods and abstract philosophies. After all, if what you believe in is a Creator God who simply made the Universe then disappeared from the scene, what more is there to discuss or talk about? The person promoting a very bald Creator God can't convey that same feeling of religious erudition, that feeling of deep experience, that a person who offers you a thick tome with study groups you can join. We like it when there's more "there" there. Rich detail is compelling and involving.

Regardless of this desire for hairier gods, however, there's a common contradiction that arises. I think it's usually an unconscious thing, a contradiction that people engage in without realizing they're doing it: They defend, and use as a justification for their beliefs, a fairly hairless god, but they practice belief in a much hairier god than the one they rationally argue for.

For example, many people will use the First Cause argument or Argument from Design to defend their belief in a god. Setting aside the known flaws in these arguments, let's suppose for a moment that, say, the Argument from Design is valid -- the existence and complexity of life, the order of the physical universe, proves that a god must exist.

What does this argument tell you about the Designer God, however? All it tells you is that this god designed the universe and the life in it that we see. It tells you absolutely nothing about any purpose for this life, rules the Designer might want its creations to follow if any, if the Designer is still around to care what happens to that which he designed. The argument certainly tell you nothing about whether this Designer has anything at all to do with the Bible or the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita.

Yet many people will jump from the Argument from Design, which speaks only to a very bald god, straight to a specific very hairy God they want to believe in, never considering that the Argument from Design is about any god other than their personal favorite.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. You are basically talking God concepts here

What God really is cannot be determined by humans, I believe, for Whatever That is is beyond our comprehension. The Lakota people call it Wahkah Tankah for a reason--It is a Great Mystery. That mystery can be best examined by going within one's own being and asking. The Lakota way to do this is through physical challenges--the sweatlodge, vision quest, and sun dance. I find it interesting as this form of spirituality has no written holy book, and yet the God concept and the practices are similar to what mystics of other spiritual paths do.

[phantom power]

2. Your god is hairless.

:evilgrin:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. which is sort of funny if you know many Lakota people

they wear their hair very long.

[Silent3]

4. You're adding hair without realizing it.

If God in beyond our comprehension, then what are you looking for in the sweat lodge? Stuff that you can't comprehend once you encounter it anyway? How do you know, if you really, truly don't comprehend your God, that visions quests and sun dances are proper techniques for learning more about God, or contacting God? Why not picking random pages from a phone book and filling in Mad Libs to get closer to God, or why not a social thing like a million people reading tea leaves, as viewed by a video camera, and texting in their votes about what the tea leaves mean to a live national broadcast a la American Idol?

Why would you assume that getting closer to God is helpful rather than harmful?

You strive to be vague, but you're making implicit claims about this God, probably without realizing it: That for some reason its important to seek something from this God, be it feelings, knowledge, direction, purpose, etc. That this God is useful, helpful, positive. That this God can be found internally, is somehow reflected in the inner state of the human mind, particularly in ways opened up by altered states of mind.

Most of all, this God is somehow important in ways that other unknowns aren't. Let's define a new word...

gowlorbin: noun. A thing that exists with absolutely no definable properties, is beyond comprehension, and is beyond reach of scientific investigation.

Would anyone spend time in a sweat lodge seeking gowlorbins? What's the difference between a god and a gowlorbin that makes one important and the other not? If there is no difference, and you take "gowlorbin" as a complete synonym for God, why does either matter beyond a mere intellectual curiosity like a word game?

If the point of these activities for seeking God isn't actually God but the journey, isn't invoking the word "God" simply bringing in loaded term with a lot of excess baggage that doesn't really apply?

Despite the fact that you claim that your God is beyond comprehension and cannot be determined by humans, don't you find yourself thinking of it as some sort of personality, intelligence, or awareness, probably one in some way concerned with human affairs?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. What is one looking for?

Experience. That is what spirituality is. It cannot be taught, it cannot be bought, but sometimes it can be caught. But the essence of that experience is something that cannot be put into words.

Do I think of God as some sort of personality, etc? No. When I think of God I think of my experiences.

[Silent3]

10. Eating a Twinkie is "experience". Standing in line...

...at the Department of Motor Vehicles is "experience". If these all count as "God" just as much as whatever one experiences in a sweat lodge or by smoking magic mushrooms, then "God" is nothing more than a synonym for experience, albeit a synonym with excess baggage.

If I believe I experience things then do I believe in God? If so, that's a very bald, and not especially compelling, God to believe in, at least in terms of anything that one needs to call out as any different that simply being aware of being alive.

Or do you speak of "special" experiences, some that are more godly than others?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Mystical experience n/t

[Silent3]

12. And let me guess...

...you can't tell me what "mystical" means, because "mystical" has to be "experienced" -- and conveniently has not one single explicable, definable, or testable property about it, unlike plenty of other things that can be explained, defined, or tested, at least to some degree in, in some fashion, without being experienced.

So what god is is mystical, and mystical is undefinable and so is god, but they're both somehow more than ordinary!

[Why Syzygy]

15. That doesn't sound reasonable.

I've never been scuba diving. Yet, divers have described their experiences. I've even seen film footage. But, I still don't know the experience.

[Silent3]

16. The existence of scuba diving, however, is not in dispute.

Sure, you can't fully know what scuba diving is like until you do it, but no one is telling you that the only way you can know that scuba diving exists is to experience scuba diving.

Scuba divers can, even if their words don't create a full "you are there" feeling, describe quite a bit about what scuba diving is like.

Scuba divers can bring back pictures.

One scuba diver can tell another scuba diver what he found diving at a given location, and that other diver, without first having to believe what the first diver told him, can find the shipwreck or coral formation or whatever it was he was told about.

Someone can indeed teach you how to scuba dive. You can be resistant, you can be trying it under duress (you lost a bet, it's a training requirement, etc.), but you can still learn and experience scuba diving anyway.

Scuba divers can bring back things like fish and shells and pieces of coral and scientific data that have real-world impact on non scuba divers.

Ah, but the "mystical", at least as some people in love with mysticism will tell you... that's different. No pictures can be brought back, no verifiable information is available, words can't even come anywhere close to describing anything important about the mystical at all, you have to "open" to it to experience it, no one can teach you, etc., etc.

There is one thing in common with scuba diving, however: They both seem a little fishy to me. :)

[Why Syzygy]

17. You start out as a bald Atheist and then jump to a very hairy Atheist. nt

[Silent3]

18. And that's supposed to mean exactly what?

Or do you prefer playing the Wise Master who "teaches" by saying obscure things that someone else is supposed to figure out?

[Why Syzygy]

5. My God has more hair than I will ever know.

Yet, he demands very little.

[Silent3]

6. In the context of this discussion, hair you don't know about...

...isn't hair at all. This discussion is about how you describe your god, and stuff you don't know about can't be part of your own description or definition.

Yet, he demands very little.

Demands of any sort, however, are "hair". If you think that there's anything, even if it isn't much, that your god demands of you, that's a part of your definition of god.

[Meshuga]

7. My God got a brazilian wax. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

8. Am I the only rec ? Really?

The possibility of a hairless god is the only thing that keeps me from being a strong atheist.

[Evoman]

13. Old post of mine...somewhat relevant to the topic.

This was part of a former post I made on the "fluid nature" of god (with some editing), in an argument with a christian. Note that you can replace Christian with any other religion.

"Talking about god with a christian is like having a kung fu fight. The christian starts of from a starting "Believing in Jesus, and God being a loving being who helps us out" fighting position. The atheist mulls his opponent, and then throws some half-hearted logic punches . His Jesus Position is immediately shown to be lacking, the christian drops back to a deist fighting position, into a "Quantum Physics and Unknowable God" stance. The theist is not fighting back, for he can't penetrate his opponents "No Positive Claim" defense and instead diverts all his energies to his own defense.

However, the atheist is no longer demolishing his opponent...after all, he does't know 100% that god doesn't exist. Nevertheless, his continual attacks are wearing out the theist, bit by bit, as the theist keeps sliding around trying to avoiding kicks and punches, and using absurdly vague forms to defend himself.

However, soon enough the atheist says, out of breath and feeling pity for his opponent,..."fine, I will let you go. I am tired, and I have already shown you the weakness of your original fighting style." The theist goes running back to his Kung Fu school, and tells the other masters that his Jesus Kung Fu was succesful and it stopped a full-fledged Atheist Rational Master. Jesus Kung Fu is strong indeed!

[struggle4progress]

14. Why? Are you hoping to get a reliable recommendation for a barber?

[Boojatta]

19. There aren't enough institutions popularizing a fairly hairless god.

Regardless of this desire for hairier gods, however, there's a common contradiction that arises. I think it's usually an unconscious thing, a contradiction that people engage in without realizing they're doing it: They defend, and use as a justification for their beliefs, a fairly hairless god, but they practice belief in a much hairier god than the one they rationally argue for.

Should people cut off contact with religious institutions based not on differences of opinion over practical policies, but based on what seems to be basically a matter of doctrine? I would think that the typical atheist response to schisms based on doctrinal disputes is amusement at a lack of solidarity resulting from what could be portrayed as disputes about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."