The Potential Man

A couple of weeks ago Nathan and I had lunch at Small Bar on Division. It was a warm Sunday afternoon and we met for a fellowship. The purpose was not to discuss religion or God, but being that this was the first time we had seen each other since the start of this blog it was an inevitable topic.

I don’t remember the specifics of a lot of our conversation because most of it was a slow dance down to the point of contention in our belief systems. I believe it sprang from a discussion about Nathan’s post on science and my response. Which was more or less defining the aims of science verses the aims of religion. And it is my flaw to unfairly associate belief in a higher power (God) with religion. I don’t know if I see it as a flaw though, because in my point of view the two are inseparable, a veritable chicken and the egg. But other’s will tell you, Nathan perhaps, that they can be taken apart. And that point of contention eventually lead us down an interesting path, at least from my point of view.

As you do when talking abstract philosophy you tend to walk on stilts that look ridiculous to anyone not in the conversation so I hope that by diving into this you can follow.

We where talking about what the idea of God does for humankind. And I’m going to obviously rely on my impressions and ideas mostly because I honestly can’t remember much of Nathan’s. Sorry buddy but I’m more important to me then you are. Anyway, he can fill in the gaps in the comments. Okay, enough wasted time here I go.

In my opinion the purpose of God (one of perhaps, I have a lot longer to live so this list might grow) is to provide an example of good for humans to live up to. An almighty Father, both vengeful and just who practices unconditional love but simultaneously holds a hard line for the rules is the general picture of God I was taught to believe in. Of course this is the “character of God”, as Nathan calls it and not the God of the Bible, which in that case this description is sugar coated, and can be contradicted by actually reading the Bible, but then again that’s by opinion. So the character of God is the perfect example we should all strive for.

And I agree, depending on your definition of the character of God. I was telling Nathan, as I’ve told other people, and alluded to in previous comments, that I can have a conversation with a believer such as Nathan and understand their concepts as long as I view the word god as the power within me that allows me to experience the character of god. (Note the lower case) And that is a lot of reasons why this blog exist. I recognize similar feelings and experience without God that many ascribe to God. Thus leading me to think there is something else at work there.

And that’s where my head was as I sat over a pizza that that stupid ignorant Christian Nathan so kindly bought and shared with me in a time when I was broke and hungry. And it made me think, what is it that I am living for? I’ve long given up on the idea of a meaning to life, but should I rethink that?

The meaning of life is a term that expects and answer from an outside point of view I think. It almost demands a deity to hand us a card as in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, and read the answer like a talk show host would. I would argue it is the desire to transfer responsibility that springs this way of thinking. But science and reason has told us that every experience is derived from the mind, so why not the meaning of life? So it dawned on me that the meaning of life is for us to choose. That’s why there can be no one answer, and why the giant computer in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy chose 42. Isn’t it just like a machine to chose a number? And on that note, the question is probably up to us as well, but I’ll let the philosophical implications of that go for now.

But moving even beyond that we talked further about God as the ultimate good example. And the crux of our difference in opinion was exposed. See Nathan accepts that a Father God created us and watches us with love and awe. And we as his children are to be like him and to serve him. In a nutshell anyway, sorry if the mushy language mucks it up. And I believe that that ultimate good example is our own potential as individuals and as a species. I argued that by having the examples of history we can project our potential into the future and thus live our present lives to bring about the best possible version of that. Nathan however argues that it is necessary to have a separate God and thus a solid definition of good, and as a result evil. But I would go further and say that our definition of good has never been solid. In fact if you take the Ten Commandments I’m sure you can find examples in cultures around the world where each one is consider the antonym of the stated law in the Bible. (Wouldn’t that be a fun challenge?)

And even if it can be shown to be universally accepted as wrong to covet your neighbors donkey it still doesn’t diminish the fact that morality is created by community. How many times have we seen small groups commit strange acts that seem perfectly normal to them?

Now in theory the idea of an unfixed good is a good idea (is it? Ha!). But this goes back to the basics, no evidence for a God has been shown. I, and others like me, cannot rely on lack of evidence. But can a Christian really even claim an unfixed God? Hasn’t the morality of God changed over time? Even by rejecting the dogma of religion and forming your own individual view of God aren’t you shifting the morality of God? The same God that the majority would claim to this day was sending all homosexuals to hell? It is very clear that the morality of God is changing with our times. That’s why women can wear pants!

So overall, my point is the potential of humankind being our beacon in the distance. And at various times in history the ship we have sailed towards the beacon is the ship of God and religion. But as we get closer to the point in the distance we need to realize that that ship is ours and the point of light is not the kingdom of God, but our own kingdom here on Earth.

Did you follow that analogy? Well I want to say it again anyway. I think it can be shown that everyone strives for the potential of humankind even if they claim that they are striving to be like God. The harm comes in when people sacrifice what’s best for a fictional God over what’s best for humankind. It leads to stagnation and back peddling. The power of the mind to create, explore, love and express ideas is not the product of God but the product of our minds.

Okay, I’m going to stop being preachy, but I can’t help getting excited about my own personal potential and how it contributes to our race. And conversely getting frustrated by snags along the way.

So let me know what you think. Do you agree? Am I way off base? Am I standing on stilts still? Is this just a form of humanist dogma? I don’t know, let me know.