Book Review - "Your God Is Too Small"

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Sitnam

You aren’t witnessing cause you don’t agree with the position of the author. If you want a debate then, pro tip: Pick a few of the more solid ones and state your contrary position.

What you wrote is a blog entry of your musings, which belongs in MPSIMS. No one has time for this there either though.

For the record, I think this is an entirely appropriate thread for Great Debates. If you don’t “have time for it,” you don’t have to read it.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Irishman

That’s just one way your God could be too small. Since it isn’t, there’s still plenty of others.

Not AFAICT. He leads off with the inner-voice conscience policeman; no; follows up with the pathetic parental hangover; no; and then promptly moves on to stuff like “meek and mild” and “absolute perfection” after saying the Grand Old Man is a problem because some folks see old people as ignorant on science and technology.

I have no need of that hypothesis – or of the “meek and mild” one, since, y’know, a Grand Old Man is neither meek nor mild. Nor do I need the “absolute perfection” hypothesis; a Grand Old Man isn’t that, and isn’t an “inner voice” either.

The whole point of him providing a “Grand Old Man” option is that one can choose it instead of the other options – and the whole point of my reply is that you just need to say “a Grand Old Man who understands radar, as some grand old men do. What is this, 1952? Why, the literal inventor of radar is a grand old man as we speak!”

[mlees]

@Irishman

They use their computer floppy drive door as a cupholder.

You old coot… That would be the CDROM, or DVD drive trays, not a floppy drive door!

[Irishman]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

The whole point of him providing a “Grand Old Man” option is that one can choose it instead of the other options – and the whole point of my reply is that you just need to say “a Grand Old Man who understands radar, as some grand old men do. What is this, 1952? Why, the literal inventor of radar is a grand old man as we speak!”

If your complaint is that his title makes assumptions and that is off-putting, fair enough. If your complaint is that his description titles are lame, go for it. If your complaint is that his “little Gods” don’t apply to you, well, good for you. They still apply to plenty of people.

Personally, I don’t really care that some people see God as an Old Man, and that makes them project him as being out of touch with technology and modern society. I find it somewhat interesting that people were asked the question about God understanding radar, and immediately answered “no”, followed by a laugh. Of course, it’s just an anecdote as presented, and doesn’t explain anything about why. He seemed to think that misconception was a significant reason why people were turning away from Christianity, feeling it didn’t have anything to offer them. He just had to give it some quick label - “Grand Old Man” kinda does that. Old guy with white hair and beard, probably wearing a toga. Wait, that’s Zeus. Somebody like that, but not Zeus. God. Same difference. George Burns. Wait, he’s dead. Yeah, that means he’s really out of tune with modern society.

The fact that you’re smart enough to realize that scientists can be old men doesn’t change the stereotype he’s trying to depict.

But it’s all silliness anyway.

@mlees

You old coot… That would be the CDROM, or DVD drive trays, not a floppy drive door!

:smack:

[Revenant_Threshold]

I think, from your excerpts, what jumps out at me is that his arguments are about reason (or otherwise) to believe, rather than reason for existence - not that that’s necessarily a problem, if that’s what he was going for. His “too small” Gods are personally insufficient to meet the standards he starts out with, but that’s only reason to doubt existence if we accept his standards. Which, at least by those extracts, he doesn’t defend/support.

As he seems to be effectively addressing Christians who, he believes, would agree with those general basic understanding of God that he would also, but then get unstuck when it comes to coming up with concepts of imagining, communicating, and in general interacting with that God, they’re reasonable enough points. As an atheist who personally finds the more humanistic and personal interpretations of gods to be more compelling than the more, uh, vague and philosophical ones, I feel like I can understand a little bit why believers would think that way and also why Phillips would consider it a trap.

The problem with his points about solidity and the insubstantial nature of spiritual “worlds” vs. reality is that it doesn’t actually matter either way for the kind of terms of the debate he’s talking about. Even if spiritual worlds were solid, indestructible, and exacting, it would still be the case that they are insubstantial to us. Phillips is talking as though the solid nature of spiritual life can make it a crutch for us to support ourselves on, but it can’t, because a crutch of solid oak is no greater support than our own limbs if it’s sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

And, yeah, bollocks to the whole “people aren’t comfortable facing life and death without faith”, which is basically the no atheists in foxholes argument. People aren’t comfortable facing life or death with faith. The only thing that can prevent that would be certainty, and certainty can be based in anything.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Irishman

They still apply to plenty of people.

Personally, I don’t really care that some people see God as an Old Man, and that makes them project him as being out of touch with technology and modern society. I find it somewhat interesting that people were asked the question about God understanding radar, and immediately answered “no”, followed by a laugh.

You say “interesting”, and I say “bwuh?”

I can imagine walking up to a believer and asking “Hey, can God make a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it? And could He make a burrito so hot even He can’t eat it?” Those are classics for a reason. Asking a believer “Hey, can God teach a class on radar? Huh? And could He pass a high-school science test? Well, could He?” – look, I’m struggling to picture someone who believes in God and has a “no” ready for questions about whether He can do X where X doesn’t involve some kind of paradox.

[monavis]

@Irishman

I was poking around in a Salvation Army store (I had to get a pair of overalls for a costume, dammit, and they had a pair), when I came across this book sitting on the counter by the checkout stand. “Your God Is Too Small: A Guide for Believers and Skeptics Alike”, by J.B. Phillips. Now I’m an atheist, but I was mildly curious what his arguments were going to be and what he was trying to promote. The blurb on the back says Phillips was a canon of the Anglican Church, so I’m pretty sure where is answer was going to lead, but I wanted to see what he had to say. For a buck, I picked it up.

This book is copyright 1952, so it’s not like it’s new or anything. Actually, that date is mildly relevant, in that in a few places he makes some examples and uses things that relate to WWII. It is a little strange to read him saying, for example, people being conditioned by the war to avoid unnecessary travel, and thus remaining cautious about using the train and going on trips. Then I remember the date puts the war as a very recent event, as opposed to something over 60 years ago. Also, he appears to be British (Anglican Church should be a sign).

Anyway, he structures the book with two major parts: Part One is labeled “Destructive”, where he examines his claims about what some people hold as their idea of God and explains why that idea is insufficient for the modern world and human needs. Part Two is labeled “Constructive” and tries to justify what he feels is an “Adequate God” for modern living and human needs. It doesn’t take a Spoiler Alert to know what his answer is going to be, but the devil is in how he frames it.

He starts off his Introductory with

Aw-Oh. Weak foundation, IMO. He continues:

Actually, this seems a fairly reasonable proposition, with the caveat that that are plenty of people who don’t seem to have this struggle.

After a bit more,

Uh huh. Might have to quibble with that “inner dissatisfaction” thing - seems to be projecting.

He then begins his dissection of Gods that are too small.

1. Resident Policeman - this is the God of your conscience, your inner voice. His argument here is that, on the one hand, conscience is not infallible, and on the other hand, it is unlikely that someone would be moved to worship a nagging inner voice spoilsport.

He gives several examples where he demonstrates that conscience can be too weak or too strong, or can be tweaked to make you feel guilty for things that aren’t really wrong (the aforementioned train travel example) or can make you not feel guilty for things that are wrong (justifying unethical behavior). These arguments are fairly solid.

And he says this isn’t really something we would consider worshipping.

2. Parental Hangover - this is seeing God like your parents, only more so. He starts by discussing how much of our lives are shaped by our attitude toward our parents from our early years. He points out several adjustment problems and neuroses and how they can be traced to poor parenting (overbearing, too indulgent). He goes on to argue that many people take their attitude towards their parents and transfer them to their conception of God. Being afraid of your father will lead to projecting a God that is fearful. Basically, humans are flawed, and so people will project the flaws of their parents onto God.

Here he also calls out a rather “pathetic” type of Christianity that depends upon guilt and fear.

He also mentions that Christ Himself used the analogy of God as Father, but stresses the difference is recognizing the analogy and the direction it goes. He wants to stress the emotional relationship, the love and interest, as a model for the relationship with God.

3. Grand Old Man - this is the old bearded man living in Heaven. The problem with this conception, he says, is that people see God as old, and project the way they see old people on him. He’s forgetful and has trouble with technology and modern science. He’s old fashioned. He mentions a psychological test asking people if they think God understands radar, to which they replied “no” because it’s modern and God is old. The point is that you can’t hamper God, that we need a “living contemporary God”.

4. Meek-and-Mild - His complaint is that meek and mild are lame, milquetoast words that do not adequately describe someone worthy of worship. So he points out that those terms, while often used in hymns and such to describe Jesus, are rather inaccurate for a man who

He said this leads to believers being too afraid to speak their own minds out of a wrong sense of being loving. It also leads to an inaccurate view of “saintliness”. Don’t turn a blind eye to evil or pretend other people are faultless.

5. Absolute Perfection - this is the idea that since God is perfect and demands loyalty, that means humans have to be 100 percent perfect to live up to his standard. This will affect a certain kind of person who is conscientious, sensitive, imaginative and lacking in self-confidence. It will make him guilty and miserable that he can’t live up to the standard of 100 percent.

6. Heavenly Bosom - this is the idea that christianity is a form of escapism, of returning to dependence of childhood, of hiding away from the world instead of going out and spreading the word, of being a symbol and having spiritual muscle.

7. God-in-a-Box - the idea that you have to attend a specific church and “jump through a particular hoop or sign on our particular dotted line” or there’s no God for you. The churchiness, that God is forced into man-made boxes. “Imagining God to be Roman or Anglican or Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian or what have you.” [Interesting note here: while he speaks of a sense of ecumenicalism, of seeing God as bigger than one denomination, I wonder how he would react to the idea of seeing God via Mormonism, with that extra-biblical stuff, or something like Hindu. Probably not be as accepting.]

8. Managing Director - “to think that the God who is responsible for the terrifying vastness of the Universe cannot possibly be interested in the lives of the minute specks of consciousness which exist on this insignificant planet.” This is basically recognizing the true breadth and scope of the Universe, and then limiting the God that can fathom the whole as not being able to see the details. It’s a kind of projecting that a man couldn’t know that much, so God can’t. Kind of like a commander-in-chief can’t know all the soldiers in the armed forces individually, God couldn’t possibly know every person.

9. Second-hand God - relying on fiction (books, films, plays) to create the conception of God. His claim is that there are three main ways that fiction misleads and creates subconsciously an inaccurate conception of God.

a) The tacit ignoring of God and all religious issues: pretending there is no God at all, that men and women have no religious side to their personalities. He speaks of interesting characters making noble sacrifices and achieving utmost happiness and serenity without any reference to God. Conversely, evil characters that in all their lust, cruelty, etc, they have not a streak of conscience. No spiritual force working to make them better.

Amusingly, here he’s criticizing the lack of God and religion in works of fiction, whereas I see too much of the converse.

b)The willful misrepresentation of religion: playing up the negative images of religion, from comic, bigoted, or childishly ignorant of life, to hypocrites. Of showing those as the only images.

c) The manipulation of providence: because the author is crafting the story, he can create whatever kind of providence is required in his story, but that doesn’t bear any resemblance to how reality and life work.

10. Perennial Grievance - the feeling “God let me down”, and carrying that through the rest of your life. The tragic event or prayer that went unanswered that creates the attitude that God is a disappointment.

His argument is that we need to see God as he is and how he works, not expect him to meet our projections. He falls back on the premise of “free will” that creates the inevitable ills and accidents, that the effect of centuries of humans choosing their own wishes over God’s wishes that is what causes the bad things of living.

11. Pale Galilean - it’s a line from a poem, but what he means is a God that provides prohibitions but not vitality and courage. A God that is negative and constricting and joyless and stifling.

12. Projected Image - projecting our own attitudes and flaws upon God.

13. Assorted - here he drops some quick little one-offs.
    a)God in a hurry: “Evangelize now, reach everybody in this generation, hurry hurry hurry.” God was never in a hurry.

b) God for the elite: mystics, God of direct visions and such. “I’m special”.

c) God of Bethel: this is a God of rules and contracts. Follow the Commandments, obey certain rules, behave certain ways. Old Testament stuff.

d) God without Godhead: God as an “enlightened” and “modern” concept, the Ultimate Bundle of Highest Values but not having an identity, de-personalized. (I would say depersoned.)

e) Gods by any other name: “the State, success, efficiency, money, “glamour,” power, even security.” Giving them the influence and command that should be reserved for God.

Okay, this is getting lengthy. I will start a new post for Part Two.

Regarding Part One, I will say he has some valid points in there about the inadequacy of many of these concepts. They do not create a God that is worthy of worshipping. And do nothing to engender believing in him. What remains to be seen is if Part Two will do any better.

I don’t think a Supreme Being would want or need worship any more than a human parent. I had my children so i could give them love and support as needed I would expect the same from any God. To expect worship is a bit egotistical and the being would not be perfect.

[Irishman]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Asking a believer “Hey, can God teach a class on radar? Huh? And could He pass a high-school science test? Well, could He?” – look, I’m struggling to picture someone who believes in God and has a “no” ready for questions about whether He can do X where X doesn’t involve some kind of paradox.

I think it was more of a surprise nonsequitur response rather than any reflection of their beliefs about limitations of God. They hadn’t thought about it, and it came out of nowhere. I suppose if I believed in a God I would expect him to be able to explain quantum mechanics, but if asked the question when not anticipating it, that might be a pause moment. “Um, yeah, why are you asking me this?”

Anyway, moving on with the next installment.
3. Further Clues to Reality - He starts by talking about how everyone is sensitive to beauty, but for some reason true beauty carries an inherent note of sadness. Then he brings up “goodness”, and how we all seem to have an inherent respect for honesty, sincerity, faithfulness, incorruptibility, kindness, justice, and respect for other people. He contrasts this with the evil nature of the Nazi regime, and uses that to say that if there is no such thing as a true morality, then the best we could say is that we personally dislike the characteristics of the Nazi philosophy. Without an objective moral standard, it can be no more than a difference of opinion.

His point then shifts to state that humans have this innate recognition of good/evil and of beauty, but those aren’t concrete elements that can be derived from nature and scientific study. It’s this longing and searching for meaning and worrying about death and evil and disease that shows a universal search for Truth.

4. Is There a Focused God? - Here he takes the argument that if you try to take abstract pure absolute values like Beauty, Truth, Goodness, etc, you cannot very easily visualize them.

The ordinary man must see his values focused in people or things he knows before he can grasp them.

And the same thing applies to God. It would be difficult to know and grasp God as his pure extreme state. We need a “scaled down” version to match the scale of the world.

Then he proposes this hypothetical about God slipping into the stream of history, and taking on a human life, called “Baby A”. He goes on to say that A will grow up as a God “focused” in humanity. This A will speak thoughts and demonstrate through actions the best example of God that a human can be. Because we could see a human version of God, we could relate to Him much better and thereby project the wholeness of God better.

5. If God Were Focused (I) - Yes, he really titles it this way. So Phillips goes on to assert that if A entered life on the planet, there would be certain inevitable phenomena. First, it is unlikely A would be recognized as God in any real sense, at least for a time. They would expect some numinous quality or an aura of divinity. But that wouldn’t be God really being a man, that would be God pretending to be a man. For God to truly be a man, he has to be an ordinary man without superhuman powers.

Second, men might expect to see a mystic, a holy man too caught up in otherworldly aspects to be “perfectly adjusted, wholesome, sane, and non-fanatical”. But that wouldn’t be a God in human form that humans could really connect with.

And yet there should be something about A - a tone of authority, a quiet assurance - that just feels comfortable and right to people, that they inherently and perhaps subconsciously recognize. And because A is human, he will have his share of trouble and temptation, trial and disappointment. But it’s his reactions to these that will show his character.

And because the world is as it is, not everyone will welcome A. Things to look for in A’s visit:
a) A challenge to current moral values.

b) A disturbing probing into motive instead of measurable performance. His insight into what is normally concealed will be disturbing.

c) An insistence on real human values, including the right kind of love.

Most love is either turned in on itself or restricted to a small selected circle. A will point out that Life, Reality, God, and even consideration of their own safety, demand that men should learn to extend the circle of their love and understanding.

d) An endorsement of humanity’s own groping toward truth: true love and self-sacrifice.

e) Endorsement of our appreciation of nature and childhood and family life.

f) A lack of denouncing men as “miserable sinners”.

g) A conflict with the conventionally religious.

h) “A call to all who will listen, to re-centre their lives on the real God, instead of on things or themselves.”

6. If God Were Focused (II) -

The world frequently conspires to muzzle or destroy the truest seers. The way of the prophet and reformer has usually been hard and not infrequently fatal. There is no reason to suppose that any different fate will be the lot of A … it is not unreasonable to imagine that all the truth-hating and self-loving spiritual powers will join forces against this unwelcome intruder. Misrepresentation, slander, the dead-weight of age-long custom and authority, false propaganda - all these weapons will be used against A.

Of course there will be some who see what A was driving at. There will be something of his message and life memorized and recorded.

7. Has A Arrived? - A = Jesus.

Yet if for one moment we imagine the claim to be true the mind almost reels at its significance. It can only mean that here is Truth, here is the Character of God, the true Design of life, the authentic Yardstick of values, the reliable confirming or correcting of all gropings and inklings about Beauty, Truth, and Goodness, about this world and the next. Life can never be wholly dark or wholly futile if once the key to its meaning is in our hands.

This is, of course, why many otherwise honest intellectual people will construct a neat by-pass around the claim of Jesus to be God. Being people of insight and imagination, they know perfectly well that once to accept such a claim as fact would mean a readjustment of their own purposes and values and affections which they may have no wish to make. To call Jesus the greatest Figure in History or the finest Moral Teacher the world has ever seen commits no one to anything. But once to allow the startled mind to accept as fact that this man is really focused-God may commit anyone to anything!

He seems to be saying that people are intellectually dishonest with themselves in order to avoid the responsibility of following God.

Then he lists three remarkable indications that Jesus gave by which men could know his claim is true. Not by scientific proof, but by inward conviction.

(a) If any man will do his (i.e. God’s) will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself (John 7[sup]17[/sup]).

(b) He that hath seen me hath seen the Father (John 14[sup]9[/sup]).

(c) I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14[sup]6[/sup]).

He goes on to claim these are intolerably arrogant coming from a human teacher, but required if coming from Jesus if he really is God.

He then elaborates on the points. If you take on God’s will, you will know the truth. “You can’t know until you are willing to do.” Seems circular.

He basically seems to be making a lot of assertions without proof and arguing that once you commit, you will know and you can’t know until you commit. Gee, thanks.

Okay, that’s enough for now.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Irishman

I think it was more of a surprise nonsequitur response rather than any reflection of their beliefs about limitations of God. They hadn’t thought about it, and it came out of nowhere.

I agree, and I think it’s similar to the subconscious belief that many people have had that God understands you better if you address him in King James English.

[monavis]

@Irishman

I think it was more of a surprise nonsequitur response rather than any reflection of their beliefs about limitations of God. They hadn’t thought about it, and it came out of nowhere. I suppose if I believed in a God I would expect him to be able to explain quantum mechanics, but if asked the question when not anticipating it, that might be a pause moment. “Um, yeah, why are you asking me this?”

Anyway, moving on with the next installment.
3. Further Clues to Reality - He starts by talking about how everyone is sensitive to beauty, but for some reason true beauty carries an inherent note of sadness. Then he brings up “goodness”, and how we all seem to have an inherent respect for honesty, sincerity, faithfulness, incorruptibility, kindness, justice, and respect for other people. He contrasts this with the evil nature of the Nazi regime, and uses that to say that if there is no such thing as a true morality, then the best we could say is that we personally dislike the characteristics of the Nazi philosophy. Without an objective moral standard, it can be no more than a difference of opinion.

His point then shifts to state that humans have this innate recognition of good/evil and of beauty, but those aren’t concrete elements that can be derived from nature and scientific study. It’s this longing and searching for meaning and worrying about death and evil and disease that shows a universal search for Truth.

4. Is There a Focused God? - Here he takes the argument that if you try to take abstract pure absolute values like Beauty, Truth, Goodness, etc, you cannot very easily visualize them.

And the same thing applies to God. It would be difficult to know and grasp God as his pure extreme state. We need a “scaled down” version to match the scale of the world.

Then he proposes this hypothetical about God slipping into the stream of history, and taking on a human life, called “Baby A”. He goes on to say that A will grow up as a God “focused” in humanity. This A will speak thoughts and demonstrate through actions the best example of God that a human can be. Because we could see a human version of God, we could relate to Him much better and thereby project the wholeness of God better.

5. If God Were Focused (I) - Yes, he really titles it this way. So Phillips goes on to assert that if A entered life on the planet, there would be certain inevitable phenomena. First, it is unlikely A would be recognized as God in any real sense, at least for a time. They would expect some numinous quality or an aura of divinity. But that wouldn’t be God really being a man, that would be God pretending to be a man. For God to truly be a man, he has to be an ordinary man without superhuman powers.

Second, men might expect to see a mystic, a holy man too caught up in otherworldly aspects to be “perfectly adjusted, wholesome, sane, and non-fanatical”. But that wouldn’t be a God in human form that humans could really connect with.

And yet there should be something about A - a tone of authority, a quiet assurance - that just feels comfortable and right to people, that they inherently and perhaps subconsciously recognize. And because A is human, he will have his share of trouble and temptation, trial and disappointment. But it’s his reactions to these that will show his character.

And because the world is as it is, not everyone will welcome A. Things to look for in A’s visit:
a) A challenge to current moral values.

b) A disturbing probing into motive instead of measurable performance. His insight into what is normally concealed will be disturbing.

c) An insistence on real human values, including the right kind of love.

d) An endorsement of humanity’s own groping toward truth: true love and self-sacrifice.

e) Endorsement of our appreciation of nature and childhood and family life.

f) A lack of denouncing men as “miserable sinners”.

g) A conflict with the conventionally religious.

h) “A call to all who will listen, to re-centre their lives on the real God, instead of on things or themselves.”

6. If God Were Focused (II) -

Of course there will be some who see what A was driving at. There will be something of his message and life memorized and recorded.

7. Has A Arrived? - A = Jesus.

He seems to be saying that people are intellectually dishonest with themselves in order to avoid the responsibility of following God.

Then he lists three remarkable indications that Jesus gave by which men could know his claim is true. Not by scientific proof, but by inward conviction.

He goes on to claim these are intolerably arrogant coming from a human teacher, but required if coming from Jesus if he really is God.

He then elaborates on the points. If you take on God’s will, you will know the truth. “You can’t know until you are willing to do.” Seems circular.

He basically seems to be making a lot of assertions without proof and arguing that once you commit, you will know and you can’t know until you commit. Gee, thanks.

Okay, that’s enough for now.

I wonder if this is just written after the facts, The writer is giving it’s side of the story and since the Bible is a lot of different writers it becomes impossible to know what is written or said is true. Too many conflicts.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Irishman]

He seems to be saying that people are intellectually dishonest with themselves in order to avoid the responsibility of following God.

Then he lists three remarkable indications that Jesus gave by which men could know his claim is true. Not by scientific proof, but by inward conviction.

He goes on to claim these are intolerably arrogant coming from a human teacher, but required if coming from Jesus if he really is God.

He then elaborates on the points. If you take on God’s will, you will know the truth. “You can’t know until you are willing to do.” Seems circular.

He basically seems to be making a lot of assertions without proof and arguing that once you commit, you will know and you can’t know until you commit. Gee, thanks.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think I could read this book for five minutes without throwing it across the room. The “ignore the data, look deep inside yourself and believe” crap is the first resort of any huckster.

The point that Jesus would be intolerably arrogant if human is from the “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” school. This appears to work well for some people raised Christian, where it is intolerable to think of Jesus as non-special. Being raised Jewish I have no problem with Jesus being arrogant, or self-deluded, or a lunatic, or just a power hungry jerk.

[Irishman]

There’s a bit more of the book, which I will try to get to. I have a couple things going on so can’t do it right away.

I think I missed the part where he repeats the vapid line about “God is Love”. That one annoys the crap out of me.