Definiera Gud

In any discussion of a god-claim, it is crucial to demand a description of the god in question. Many atheists think there would be more atheists if theists would critically examine their articles of faith. Nevertheless, there are important philosophical reasons to insist on a description of the god in question.

Let us examine the following dialogue, taken from George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God: [13]

Mr. Jones: “An unie exists.”
Mr. White: “Prove it.”
Mr. Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days — that is my proof.”

Smith argues that Mr. White was premature in demanding proof without first discussing the hyh definition for the word unie. Otherwise, the word is a series of meaningless sounds — mumbo jumbo — as are the claim and the given proof. This same principle holds for the word God. “His first response should be, ‘What is it for which you are claiming existence?’ The theist must present an intelligible description of god. Until he does so, god makes no more sense than unie; both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is logically absurd.” [14]

This holds true even if the theists asks us to believe solely on faith, without evidence. William T. Blackstone said, “Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted.” [15] Some theists will respond by saying that their god is “ineffable” (not describable; defying description). If this is the case, then an atheist cannot refute the claim because the claim cannot be stated.

Theodore Drange says that in cases like this we best call ourselves noncognitivists rather than atheists. [16] Some are flat-out noncognitivists: A. J. Ayer went so far as to say that “no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance.” [17] Annie Besant wrote, “Never yet has a God been defined in terms which were not palpably self-contradictory and absurd; never yet has a God been described so that a concept of Him was made possible to human thought.” [18] Such philosophers say that theism, atheism, and agnosticism “are equally untenable doctrines because they all rest on a highly problematic assumption about the meaning of the sentence ‘God exists.’” [19]

Drange responds to flat-out noncognitivism by recommending that people “divide god-talk into two categories, the cognitive and the noncognitive (or sentences containing the term ‘God” which can be used in arguments, as opposed to those which cannot be used in arguments).” [20] Michael Martin suggests that primitive ideas of anthropomorphic deities (gods described as having human features or character traits) can be understood by most people, while “religious language is unverifiable and hence factually meaningless when it is used in a sophisticated and nonanthropomorphic way.” [21]

Drange’s conclusion is very useful in deciding whether religious language is cognitive: “Statements cannot be noncognitive if, for example, they are about situations that can be described in stories or depicted on film. And many biblical stories about God have indeed been depicted on film. For example, in the movie The Ten Commandments God is portrayed as a mighty being who knows what is happening everywhere, who speaks to people in a deep male voice, and who brings about spectacular miracles, apparently through some process akin to telekinesis.” [22]