Occasionally we'll hear a believer define his god as an "unknowable" being. Bizarrely, these folks tend to think that's a real gotcha! moment, because obviously, that means we cannot disprove its existence, and so unless we want to be "closed-minded," then we must admit there is at least the tiniest possibility that it might exist, because we don't know everything, now do we.
This is pretty much the most desperate form any apologetics can take. For one thing, it reduces "god" to the smallest and most insignificant thing it could possibly be: a thing that cannot be known or comprehended at all by our "feeble" human minds. (Yes, I know, why would a god waste his time creating us at all if he just wanted to give us "feeble" minds?) God could not be any more useless than to be indistinguishable from something that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't even exist. Moreover, when an apologist starts arguing like this, you'd do well to point out he's pretty much at variance with Christianity and every other major world religion, as they emphatically are run on the premise that their deities can be comprehended just fine, thank you.
Here's part of a recent exchange with a theist emailer I've been having, which illustrates how wrong this line of thinking is.
The fellow starts:
I am composing this letter in an attempt to prove god exists. I believe god is an electron orbiting the nucleus of a hydrogen atom in the brain you are using to analyze this letter, as well as every other thing in existence or has existed or will exist in this universe or the others if there are others. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, and because we feeble minded humans could not possibly conceive of how everything was created in the first place, I also believe that god is inherently unknowable.
Have I just described something that does not exist? How did I do that? If you could tell me that my god does not exist how could you do that? Better yet how could you even think that? I understand this is an agnostic theist point of view however I cannot see how it is in error.
My first reply went like this:
All you've done in this argument is come up with a new name for the electron: God. It's like new-age people who call "the Universe" God. All they've done is come up with a new word for universe.
If someone were a sun worshiper, and told me in all seriousness the sun was his god, then yes, I suppose I'd have to concede his "god" exists, though I would disagree that the sun possesses any sort of divine powers. And if he agreed with me the sun had no supernatural powers, he's just happy worshiping it as God, then he's simply come up with another word for "sun." What you're demonstrating by your argument is that theists really do create gods as an exercise in trying to understand things they don't otherwise understand, and making the universe more superficially comprehensible by anthropomorphizing it. Conceptually, "God" is a placeholder for ignorance. (And yes, gods typically are defined in ways that defy direct examination, allowing them to retain their divine mystique because "you can't prove it DOESN'T exist!")
He replied today, and here is his letter with my responses in bold.
Thank you very much for responding . I am not sure you understand what I have stated in my letter. I have offered an explanation for and thereby proof god exists in that god is the totality of everything. I believe it fits quite nicely the definition of god.
Well, like the new-ager I described in my previous response, it looks to me like you've simply come up with a new word for "the totality of everything." My question would be, how is this helpful? What is the utility of doing this? Does calling "the totality of everything" a "god" increase your understanding of this totality? Does it help you comprehend plasma physics, dark energy, the way in which the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than slowing down? What does this label "god" contribute to any of this? What do I gain in insight or knowledge by thinking that the atoms in the lettuce in the salad I'm eating right now are somehow "god"? Or is it a label you like for emotional reasons?
At this point I find myself wondering if your only definition of god is "something that simply does not exist". If this is the case then it seems to me this is a closed minded point of view. Is atheism a closed minded point of view? If so, I find it less likely that it is an intelligent view, thou it still may be the correct point of view.
If you admit it might be a correct view, why would be it be less intelligent? Usually one's intelligence can be measured by how correct one's views are. A person who thinks 2+2=4 is more intelligent, in my estimation, than a person who thinks 2+2 might equal 4, but might also equal, for arcane reasons, 728.
As an atheist, I do not define god. All I can do is respond to the definitions (and there are many) of god that are presented to me by believers. I examine those to see if 1) there is evidence to support them and 2) if they provide anything in the way of practical understanding of the world, that could not be achieved through the time tested means of the scientific method. I have to confess that I've not yet heard a definition of god that passes those tests.
But that hardly means I'm 'closed-minded'. Terms like 'closed-minded' and 'open-minded' are thrown about very loosely by believers who want to rebut skeptics, but I don't think they understand the terms. It is not 'open-minded' to believe claims that lack evidence simply because those claims are emotionally appealing; it is simply gullible. It is not 'closed-minded' to demand strong evidence for claims before choosing to believe them; it is simply rational. Skeptics are indeed open-minded, but note that it's the 'mind' in that term that counts. What we are open to is evidence.
Now, looking at your definition of god, it's problematic for a few reasons, and hardly the "proof" you think. First, you simply slap the label "god" on everything that exists, down to the subatomic level, rendering the word basically meaningless. If every molecule, every atom, every gluon, every cigarette butt on the pavement is "god," then it means nothing to be god, and every religion in the world might as well pack it in.
Then you make your big mistake: after offering that definition, you promptly do an about face and declare god "inherently unknowable," something "we feeble minded humans could not possibly conceive of." Setting aside my disagreement with your low opinion of human intellect, if god were really "inherently unknowable," then nothing whatsoever can be said about god. You haven't even got any justification to say god is "an electron orbiting the nucleus of a hydrogen atom in the brain you are using to analyze this letter, as well as every other thing in existence or has existed or will exist in this universe or the others if there are others." Because to say that means you're claiming to know something about god, which you could NOT do if god were unknowable. "Inherently unknowable" means exactly that. There is nothing at all that can be said about an inherently unknowable concept, because it is inherently unknowable.
And this brings us to yet another problem: what exactly is the difference between an "inherently unknowable" thing, and something that does not exist at all? Practically there is none. Now, that isn't proof that something unknowable couldn't ever exist. But as we could not study it, evaluate it, observe it, or say anything about it whatsoever, then for all intents and purposes, it's as good as nonexistent anyway. So why care?
"God" is either something, or it is nothing. If it is something, either it is something we can know (and all the world's religions pretty much run on that premise) or cannot know. If the latter, its existence is of no relevance, as it cannot be distinguished from a nonexistent thing in the first place.
You state that "god is a placeholder for ignorance". Is there something wrong with that? We have finite minds and therefore could not possibly understand completely this concept that humans have called god.
Read what you wrote here again and see if you cannot answer your own question. What exactly is the sense in embracing a concept that you admit "we cannot possibly understand" as if it were some kind of valid explanation for things? (I think you've seen, to a small degree, the problem with your position, which is why you've slipped the qualifier "completely" into the sentence above.)
You're basically saying this: "There are things about the universe I am ignorant of, and so to explain them, I will conceive of a thing called 'god' that itself cannot be explained, let alone understood."
How is that a better way of grasping reality than A) finding out the real answers to those questions, and B) if there are no answers yet, simply accepting that. If you don't know the answer to a question, the honest thing to say is "I don't know," and then making that a springboard for continuing to study. It is not honest simply to place your ignorance on an altar and call it "god."
I believe that we can however take some comfort in the fact that so long as our mind are open that we can live better lives through the small amount of understanding that we have of god.
We're still talking about this "god" you say is "inherently unknowable," right? Sorry, but you've singly failed to explain how we can "live better lives" by choosing belief in some "unknowable" concept in lieu of increasing our actual store of knowledge. I think history will show that we humans are much better off with the greater knowledge of the world we have today through science than otherwise. People in medieval Europe didn't exactly take much "comfort" in their unknowable god while they were dying in their millions from plague and famine. How does ignorance and reliance on belief in the "unknowable" offer a "better" life than one where your worldview actually conforms to reality?