The Ontological
Argument is still frequently used by Christians in an
effort to prove the existence of their favorite
deity. Therefore, let us direct it specifically
to their Yahweh-Jehovah entity, to see what
"Truth" might be derived from a rigorous
application.
First, we must
bear in mind that the Christian God is officially
described as "perfect," and if that
description is accurate there is little room for
further argument. However, even casual
examination of Judeo-Christian scripture reveals a
number of God's traits which, if exhibited by an
ordinary mortal, would be regarded not as examples of
perfection, but as serious faults, some perhaps even
severe enough to warrant imprisonment or confinement
in a mental institution. Indeed, it
would be difficult to imagine a greater blasphemy
against a truly benevolent God than much of the holy
scripture itself. Thus, either
conventional ideas of perfection are completely
off-base and need to be spiced up with generous doses
of duplicity, paranoia, torment, exploitation,
extortion, rage, and murderous intent, or the biblical God
isn't really as perfect as he
is purported to be.
The scriptures,
it turns out, offer wildly inconsistent descriptions
of God. On the one hand, he is
characterized as loving, supremely just, eternally
constant, and infinitely merciful. Yet
on the other, many policies and actions ascribed to
God reveal him to be vicious, indiscriminately
vengeful, impulsively capricious, and tantrum-prone.
It would appear that God (if indeed there is only one
of him) suffers from a severe and often violent
multiple-personality disorder. In
addition, if the scriptures are (as many insist)
God's own inspired word, then the multitude of
discrepancies between the evidence of the universe
(God's creation) and the scriptural account of it
(God's word) logically point to the following
possibilities, all discomfiting:
-
EITHER the physical
evidence of the created universe is true, but
the scriptures are inaccurate, in which case God
is fallible (at least as a
record-keeper);
-
OR the scriptures are a
literally true representation of God's word,
but the physical evidence of the created
universe is faked, in which case God
is a deceiver;
-
OR something / someone
else (Satan?) created that part of the
universe (i.e., almost all of it)
which does not conform to scripture, in which
case God is not the sole (or even
primary) creator.
The only other
alternative, short of renouncing reason altogether,
is to deduce that the Bible is not the literal word
of God, but instead a disjointed and
self-contradictory collection of allegorical legends,
antiquated laws, and rather biased history, only
marginally helpful in assessing man's relationship to
God in the modern world. This, more or
less, is the position adopted by most mainstream
Christians and serious theologians nowadays.
Yet there are
still many who doggedly insist upon a literalist view
of the Bible—evidence and reason be damned!
Confronted by mounting conflicts between the observed
and scriptural versions of the universe, as well as
the many documented incongruities of God himself, we
find ourselves (if we allow ourselves to think about
it) in a most troubling predicament. Let
us see what (other than simply not thinking
about it) might be done to remedy it.
If devout
Christians cannot imagine a greater concept than
their biblical Lord God, it is certainly not because
they are short on imagination, but most likely
because they are forbidden to do so under pain of
damnation. However, as a non-believer
I do not perceive myself to be under any such threat,
so I shall dare to speculate. Even
with my own rather limited capacity for make-believe,
this simple heretic can easily imagine...
-
...a perfect
Creator who gets everything just
right the first time, thereby precluding any
need for subsequent tinkering (miracles) to
fix things that get out of whack...
-
...a faithful
Chronicler whose scriptures
accurately describe his own creation, so
precisely that there could never be doubt
that both were products of the same mind and
hand, no matter how great the eventual reach
of scientific discovery and the probe of
honest inquiry...
-
...an eloquent
Author who phrases his scripture so
clearly as to preclude misinterpretation by
anyone or in any language, and who makes it
equally accessible, not just to a chosen few,
but to every person who ever lives...
-
...a just
Lawgiver who makes it impossible for
divine law to be violated, just as violation
of natural law is already impossible, thereby
obviating the necessity of perversely cruel
damnation...
-
...a skilled
Maker who, when creating man,
ensures that his crowning creation's natural
instincts are in harmony with divine law
rather than in direct conflict with it...
-
...a caring
Father (or Mother) who indelibly
inscribes his (or her) unmistakable will upon each and
every soul at the moment of birth (or
conception, or whenever soul is supposedly
installed) to guide it unerringly through
life...
-
...in other words, a
God whose first act of creation
would have been something even more important
than light: coherence.
We could
continue with quite a few more items, but what we
have already illustrates a concept considerably
superior to the primitive and inconsistent entity
referred to in the Bible as "God."
Does this mean that, because this concept is clearly
greater than the biblical one (allowing that the
concept of coherence is greater than that of
incoherence), this deity must exist and the biblical
one must not? Certainly not that I
would seriously argue. Yet if
Christians' own Ontological Argument were valid, then
this would be the inescapable conclusion.
I therefore expect that those believers who still
credit the O.A., upon reading this, will presently be
rejoicing in the streets in celebration of this new
"proof" of the existence of God.1
For it would seem that, merely by formulating a
greater concept of such a being, we have
simultaneously created the being itself!2
= SAJ =