The God "Metaphor"

From an article entitled “All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor” by by PZ Myers, Pharyngula.

Originally posted from scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 … _godly.php

My thoughts pretty much when it comes to how many religious folks claim God cannot be thought about with reason, and is more metaphorical, and then still argue they can communicate with God, that he is deserving of worship, etc.

Any comments?

‘The only truth to which I hold here is that there is no god and no evidence for one.’

This statement is ignorant: there is evidence for God (Scripture, Revelation) and one cannot prove the non-existence of God since the claim that ‘God exists’ is non-rational.

Hi dd,

A metaphorical God is seen metaphorically because understanding him is beyond reason to some extent. Yet, if man is in God’s image and likeness, it might be right to use metaphor to the extent that man has functions analogous to those in God (esp. intellect and will). Make sense?

mrn

I agree with this. I see God as a borderline concept like infinity which stands at the terminus of all numbers. (That was a similie not a metaphor. Ha!) Biologists, physicists scientists often use metaphors when describing arcane matters. Isn’t a “selfish gene” an anthropomorphic metaphor? Should I therefore, conclude that the author who coined that term is deluded and no such gene exists?

I thought that’d be an appropriate quote to start with. I guess it’d be helpful to start by inquiring as to how you define “evidence.” For instance, if somebody ran up to you screaming, “I just saw President Bush and former President Clinton kickboxing on the front lawn of the white house!” I’d assume you would insist on evidence before believing it. And in that case, I’d also assume your evidence would have nothing to do with how “sure” the other person felt. It’d have to do with pictures, video, or editorials written about the event.

If another person claimed to be Superman, and could fly at the speed of sound, again I’m assuming you’d require evidence to believe it.

In addition, I agree that one cannot prove the non-existence of anything, which always brings us to the same point: you can’t prove the non-existence of unicorns either. Or trolls. Or magic. You can’t disprove the existence of anything. It’s hardly an argument worth considering.

To what extent? I’d be interested to hear how many different opinions one could conjure up from theists on the matter, as it sounds like a convenient caveat to allow anybody to flex the boundaries of any given religion to argue their beliefs.

In addition, IF AND ONLY IF man is in God’s image would it be appropriate to conclude that the use of metaphors might be appropriate, but since there is no reason to start at such a premise, I’ll reject the conclusion.

As soon as one defines what God is, one can be argued about that point, and most likely they’re going to lose as one would have no reason to believe them over any other person without evidence. And when I use the word, I am operating under the definition here:

Absolutely. Because there really and truly is no such thing as a “selfish gene,” as I’m sure Dawkins would agree. Did you mean that we should not conclude that there are no such things as genes, simply because “selfish gene” is a metaphor for a concept?

No. What is the non-metaphorical referent for Dawkins’ “selfish gene”?

Well, more accurately I understand the “selfish” gene to be the personification of a gene propogating in its own self interest. If Xunzian wants to shed more light on the subject feel free, but Dawkins was written by somebody who inquired as to how he thinks a gene could actually be “selfish,” lacking the understanding that it was a personification of an unconscious entity.

Did I misunderstand your question?

It seems to me you understood the question but you have not relieved the gene of anthropomorphism. Humans can be “selfish” and possess “self interest.” A gene would have to have a mind to do so wouldn’t it? I’m asking for a non-anthropomorphic definition.

The non-anthropomorphic definition of a gene? I’m confused. =(

I think Felix wants what Dawkins means by a “selfish gene” if he is not anthropomorphizing it. I think also that this was answered already; genes replicate and copy themselves as if they were selfish. From our perspective we would be tempted to define them in those terms because we ourselves operate in them. Only an idiot would think that they are conscious (similar are those who assume that’s what Dawkins meant).

Maybe I’m confused too though :stuck_out_tongue:

If Dawkins, or anyone for that matter, thought along the lines of a gene being consciously selfish, I would agree that he/she is begging to be described as delusional. Similarly and without mitigation is the one who extends that anthropomorphism upward at an even less understood God, who apparently can barely be understood by us to begin with (except by those who have the ability to construct metaphors, then they have somehow peeked into this hidden peep-hole to revelation in doing so).

I feel the need to involve myself with this thread because my parents’ beliefs have come to settle in this shroud of metaphor. They realize that the claims of Christianity taken literally are absurd, but somehow think that redressing them in a metaphor does the trick (and not to mention, any further applied intellect after thus far is “idolatry of the cerebral”).