(*Author's note: I couldn't help but notice that there have been quite a few Benzinga articles recently discussing God. Various articles have addressed everything from the idea of arresting God for murder because of Hurricane Irene to what Jesus would do if he were a Republican to why atheists are so obsessed with God. Of course, I am partly to blame with my recent discussion on the Rapture, the Tribulation, and Bostrom's simulation hypothesis. In light of this recurring theme, I wanted to add some comments on the subject from a philosophical and economic perspective, and I also wanted to clarify and bring light to a major problem with respect to contemporary political discussions with references to "God".)



There are fundamentally only two remaining tenable conceptions of God left in this time period: "God" as a finite, material being, and "God" as a synonym for the universe. Of course, there may be an infinite number of other conceptions of God in the world such as the ideas that "god" is a flying horse in the sky, the Higgs boson, an invisible pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster. But for the purposes of our present discussion, based on the scientific knowledge we have today, the question of God eventually splits into two separate and distinct directions and conceptions.



I want to discuss these two conceptions of God in light of political economy because whatever conception of God we use influences the way the dialogue progresses. Without a sense of clarity and definition in what we mean when we say "God", any reference to God (as being a source for hurricanes or as the object of atheists' obsession) is fruitless.



Most writers referring to God in articles scholarly or otherwise are most likely not thinking of any philosophical or logical implications. Rather, writers are merely discussing a nebulous, fuzzy conception based on cultural and religious history. Writers may be referencing an off-the-cuff image of an old man living in a castle in the clouds. Even so, what we mean when we refer to God should be given due weight and should be clarified...as not all conceptions of God mean the same thing.



It is not fair to anyone for people to critically reference "God" in political/religious speeches or articles when what one persons considers to be God is radically different from what another person considers to be God. This would be like getting into a debate on "the state of Washington" when one person is referring to the state of Washington, another person is referring to Washington, DC, and another person is referring to George Washington. One could say that Washington is in the east, Washington is in the west, or Washington is deceased.



One individual thinking of God may be picturing an old bearded man sitting on a throne in the clouds, and another individiual may be thinking of a nebulous, infinite, eternal, and universal energy force. In this way, even phrases like "in God we trust" and "one nation under God" need to be investigated and explored as they can mean many different things in different contexts; even further, commonly when writers reference "God" there is no additional definition or explication. This may give way to much confusion. As God has become a character referenced in politics and socio-economic mechanics, it is important to remedy this confusion.



Perhaps clarifying one's conception of God can help individuals come to resolution in their disagreements. If we can come to agreeable definitions with respect to God, our common agreement may be that much closer. Of course, one could say that "God" can mean whatever one wants "God" to mean, but this does no good for one who wants to live according to reality and is searching for the truth. Those searching for truth can all agree that truth is the ultimate goal, and if we can agree that there is only one truth, then at the end of the search we should all find the same thing. It is in this spirit of truth and reality that I proceed.



Essentially, the statements "God exists" or "God does not exist" are loaded statements as they have previously determined definitions of "God". One can simultaneously believe in God and not believe that there is literally an old bearded man living in a castle in the clouds above Earth. Likewise, the claim that one believes in the "God of the Bible" is problematic because the Bible has been historically interpreted in thousands of different ways. It is not the purpose of this article to elucidate on those various Biblical interpretations or to argue that one interpretation is greater than the thousands of others. Rather, the purpose is to present the end of the road with respect to realistic conceptions of God. Religious mystery, faith exercises, & mystical exploration aside, the purpose is to present the emerging philosophical dichotomy of conceptions of God based on reality, not religion. If God exists, then He must exist in reality as reality is, not as how we would desire reality to be.



At the end of the search, the philosopher or the scientist comes to a philosophical crossroads of sorts where one could travel in two separate directions: (1) God being a finite, material being with a physical body or (2) God being universal as the whole of reality itself. These two conceptions are often used interchangeably in religious and political discussions, but they should be differentiated with one another as each has different implications for reality and for fruitful dialogue.



#1. "God" as a finite, material being with a physical body. (The "Elohim" option.)



The idea of God being a finite, material being is essentially the idea that this world and/or our entire universe is the product of an extradimensional or extraterrestrial material, physical, intelligent being. This idea has been extrapolated in various ways ranging from God being an extraterrestrial humanoid like ourselves as in Mormonism or Raelism to God being a foreign extraterrestrial altogether as in so-called "ancient alien" theories to God being an extradimensional being creating this universe as a sandbox game as in Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis.



In Mormonism and Raelism, this physical reality of God as a flesh-and-bone individual is often referred to as "Elohim", a word for God in Hebrew. The word "Elohim" is useful for this particular conception because it is plural and can be used in the singular; the word "Elohim" also alludes to a sense of God being a type of race of intelligent beings, i.e. the character of God in the Bible is part of the race of the "Elohim".



And so, if God is a fellow finite partaker in the universe, well then, who created the universe? Who knows? Perhaps the universe always was and always will be a stale, silent, dark mass of nothingness, rock, and energy where life goes on between gods and men. And I wouldn't try looking to extraterrestrial or extradimensional beings for ultimate truth because their perspective is just as subjective as yours; they're just trying to run an experiment or play a game.



What is appealing about this conception is that this is a "God" that one can look at, a "God" that one can talk to, and a "God" that one can hug. This "God" is a person. Of course, this person is not an infinite, invisible spirit, but an actual physical being who created and loves the world as for the sake of God's own desire for perpetuation. With this conception, the history of the Bible appears to make much more sense as "God" at one point walked and talked with humans; the idea of God sending a son, freeing Israel from Egypt, and coming in the future becomes that much more realistic as well. Further, with the "Elohim" option, the idea of an afterlife is not left to being just a glowing, white light for all eternity, but rather an actual physical reality in a world much like ours with beaches and mansions and lush gardens. I've explored some of these ideas in light of Bostrom's simulation hypothesis already at length.



The downside of the "Elohim" option is that it portrays "God" as merely another finite partaker in this universal scheme. In this sense, "God" is a creature...a created being Himself and He may be subject to some greater god. Even so, the prospects of having a God with whom one can converse and a God that will provide a pleasure-filled paradise may be worth sacrificing a sense of God's eternality and universalism as is common in religion.



One could argue that the common conception of "God" used in political and religious speeches & articles could be referring to some sort of universal spirit that can magically change into physical form at-will whenever He wants, etc. However, this idea (though self-contradicting, in that a universal spirit could not intervene as an acting finite being (because such a being would be necessarily perfect in nature), and also concededly deceptive) is essentially the idea that God is a finite physical being who can modify and morph His material nature at will. This spirit-being would have a finite physical reality in the form of energy, but would also have an infinite presence throughout the universe: This is essentially saying that God is a finite being made of energy, i.e. physical matter, dwelling in an eternal and infinite universe.



I shall discuss this in the next section, but such an idea as that of God simultaneously being able to change from universal-spirit to finite being at will is untenable in the long-run as its implications suggest that we are all part of this conscious, acting universal spirit anyhow. (For God to have definition outside the universe, He would have to exist outside the universe, which is logically problematic as the universe is everything that exists.) Thus, the idea of an entity being simultaneously conscious and not conscious of this infinite, universal scheme raises questions on its reality. Further, an all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-loving universal, infinite spirit that can change into a finite form would essentially not be able to act and intervene separating itself from its own creation owing to the nature of logic and spacetime. "Creation" per se would not be possible as the infinite, willful, changing universal-spirit would not logically be able to separate itself from anything else.



The implication of the "Elohim" option on the political economy is that this planet is essentially part of a plan or game and has an intended aim or end. Our participation in the political economy is thus foreordained and driven towards some end by the creator. In the case of an imminent apocalypse where such an intervening physical being is orchestrating our downfall, it would make sense to regard the physical being as a relevant authority directing our lives and the course of this planet. The economic game is thus not about our personal welfare, but the benefit of whoever is running this show. In short, we better behave...



#2. "God" as a synonym for the entire universe. (The "Spinoza", "Einstein", or "Hawking" option.)



For whatever reason, unless you have taken philosophy in college, you have probably never heard of a philosopher named Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza was one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived, and on a personal note, he is my favorite philosopher. It is truly a shame that Spinoza's "Ethics" is not required reading in grade school and high school. Using the Euclidean geometric method and logical argument, Spinoza argued that all of the universe is made of a single substance that we can call "God". Spinoza: "By God, I mean a Being absolutely infinite -- that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality."



The idea that God is the universe (or pantheism) is the second tenable option for a conception of God in this time period. It is significant to note that this conception of God was held by Albert Einstein. Thus, whenever you read about Einstein referring to God, he is referring to the God of Spinoza and not the God of the Bible. Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has also used the word "God" in this pantheistic sense reminscent of Spinoza's ideas.



If the universe is everything that exists and God existed before He created our universe, then before our universe existed God Himself was the universe. And so, when you really think about it, it's not that much of a stretch to identify God with the universe.



But God as the entire universe? You, me, those trees, this building, the pavement, Aunt Susie...are all God? At first, this idea of God-being-everything does not appear to make sense, but that is owing to culturally-engrained ideas regarding God. For all intents and purposes, we should be using different words for the different conceptions of God; for the sake of religious and political discussions, I would be in support of this. In fact, Spinozist commentator Joseph Yesselman uses a different spelling to refer to the Spinozist God: "G-D" for the God of Spinoza as opposed to the more historical and Biblical "God".



If the idea of everything somehow being God sounds unappealing and nonsensical, Yesselman uses a helpful analogy to describe this pantheistic reality: "we are parts of G-D as our body parts are parts of us." In this way, there is an organic interdependence of parts in the universe. And so, it is not that we are all gods unto ourselves, but rather "the sum of the universe" is in the end the Ultimate Being in the universe. In short, you are to God as your lungs or your heart is to you. Okay, so maybe a lung or a heart is a far-fetched example -- a better one would probably be more like skin cells or red blood cells. We are to God what our skin cells or blood cells are to us.



The problem with this conception of God is that it does away with most of the historical romanticism and fanciful imagery that we have been accustomed to when thinking of God. With the Spinozist option, the prospects of a pleasure-filled afterlife also go out the window. Even more, with this pantheistic conception, as Spinoza commented, human organized religion is merely "respect for ecclesiastics". That popular religion is simply "respect for ecclesiastics" may actually be an accurate insight. Spinoza's God is not the most spiritually fulfilling conception of God...but is that because of the ultimate nature of God's existence or our own self-centered personal values? Would people be willing to trade their religiously-fervent long-held conceptions of God if it meant an eternity of bliss? Would people sacrifice true reality for a hopeful taste of heavenly pleasure?



The implication of the Spinoza option on the political economy is that we are all one in light of the Ultimate Being that is the universe. We are united in a symbiotic and emergent universe, and our economic activities are part of God's Being. In this way, when you hear a piece of beautiful music, it is like you are "hearing the footsteps of God". Or when you see ticks on a foreign exchange currency pair going up and down, it is like "watching the footsteps of God". For Spinoza, all the universe is God being. Thus, with the Spinozist conception, life continues on as it has for all eternity past and as it will for all eternity to come. There is an eternal aspect to the universe with God, but don't selfishly be looking forward to an eternity of bliss in heaven; this universe is about God as the Ultimate Being, not you.



With the Spinozist option, there is no creation or apocalypse, because everything was always one with God. The reason why we do not realize this is because of our lack of perception, lack of intuition, and lack of reason. Perhaps if we were more intelligent, we would be able to see that everything is united in the one substance that is God, i.e. God is the only substance in existence.



The fact that some of the greatest minds this planet has ever known including Spinoza, Einstein, and Hawking have adhered to this conception of God seems to give credence to the idea that Spinoza was right that and we are all parts of a very real and imminent "G-D".



Conclusion



When we speak or write about God, we should clarify what exactly we mean. There are many different conceptions of God, but owing to contemporary philosophy and science, I believe that ultimately the question of God comes down to a divided crossroads with two options. Though we may use poetic references to God with respect to politics, religion, and the economy, it does no good if we are not all on the same page with respect to a concise, logical conception of God.



If we want to look at God as a finite superhuman being creating, intervening and acting in the universe, we have to accept the implications. That being the case, it would make no sense to arrest God for a murderous hurricane just as someone who plays "Command & Conquer: Generals" or "Call of Duty" does not expect to be arrested for war crimes!



If we want to look at God as a living, organic interdependent force that is the universe, we also have to accept the respective implications. Perhaps the universe was not created and will never be destroyed; it simply is. Perhaps it is not that God loves us or hates us or is promising us paradise if we do good; perhaps the truth is that God simply is and we are all taking part in the mystery that is the universe.



If we take both the "Elohim" and the "Spinoza" options and put them together, perhaps extradimensional or extraterrestrial beings have been acting in the place of God to relay the much bigger and deeper concept of the Spinozist "G-D" to the primitive species that we are. As with how parents play the role of Santa Claus for their children giving the perception that Santa Claus is reality from the perspective of the children, perhaps extradimensional or extraterrestrial beings have in the past played the role of God in order to relay deeper intellectual concepts about life, love, and perpetuation. In light of "ancient alien" theories, perhaps those extradimensional or extraterrestrial beings were acting as emissaries of a greater "G-D" that they wanted to tell us about. Personally, if intelligent extraterrestrials arrived on Earth, I would expect their "religion" to be similar to Spinozist thought -- with God being a statement regarding the ultimate totality and greatness of the universe.



Of course, when someone like Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry is referring to God, he or she is not speaking to a group of professional philosophers or scientists. Politicians are speaking to hard-working American citizens who may not be philosophizing on these subjects. Even so, we would do well to understand what or who exactly is being referred to when we hear "one nation under God", "in God we trust", or "God bless the United States of America".



And when all is said and done, maybe in finding out the answer to the question of who or what God truly is in reality we will learn who we truly are as well.

-------

Afterthought and Commentary (published Sept. 5, 2011)



1. The image above entitled "One Failed Uplift" by Tomasz Jedruszek gives due justice in art form to the first conception discussed of God as an extraterrestrial arriving in the form of a creator ruling mankind as a sort of king. Jedruszek's fascinating piece "One Failed Uplift" provides stunning artistic imagery in terms of the verses from the Book of Ezekiel: "And I looked, and behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man." (Ezekiel 1:4-5) An epic visual representation of the first tenable option I discussed. In commentary to the image, "One Failed Uplift" captures the mysterious yet epic imagery associated with the idea of God being some sort of extradimensional race of beings with physical bodies.



2. Regarding the possibility of God being an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, benevolent spirit who can change Himself into a finite form, I want to clarify that this conception of God has several major problems. Owing to its inherently contradictory nature, I did not want to go into tedious depth regarding philosophical proofs of its contradiction, but set it aside for the most part as I wanted to focus solely on the two major directions left for God in contemporary philosophy and science.



3. The idea of God as an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, benevolent spirit who can change Himself into a finite form (whether it be a human, bird, fire, or ghost-spirit) raises the question of such a God's knowing use of deception in presenting Himself. Further, before our universe was created, if all there was was God, then this raises the question if there is any real separation between God and His creation at all. If one believes that God is a finite spirit-form being who is not present in hell but is present everywhere else in the universe, then this is effectively the idea that God is a finite spirit-being with a physical form amidst an infinite, eternal universe.



In this case of God as a finite spirit (made of fine, subtle matter akin to gaseous oxygen or hydrogen), we have two options: Either the universe is more infinite and eternal, i.e. bigger, than God (so as to say that the God-spirit has "living space" in which He can move about the universe in finite spirit-form) or God and the universe are equally infinite and eternal thereby compromising God's essential nature in the universe. If God is an infinite, omnipresent spirit, then His spirit must be present in all places, including hell, restrooms, torture chambers, and all sorts of unpleasant locations; even further, if God is an infinite, omnipresent, acting spirit, for God to change Himself into finite form without definitive, sufficient knowledge of God's true nature is essentially deceiving humanity into believing that He may be a finite form of reality when He is not. God-as-a-spirit is thus unable to separate His appearance from being that of a finite physical being or as a microcosmic outgrowth of the universe itself.



Of course, Moses was not tricked into believing that God was literally a burning bush just as how a person is not tricked into believing that the phone operator is a spirit living in the telephone itself. However, Moses actually got to see God's "back parts" (Exodus 33:23) and as such God's true physical humanoid embodiment eventually was revealed to Moses (Exodus 24:9-10). Abraham also saw God in a physical humanoid form as well (Genesis 18:2). The same is true for the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4-5); God's form was spoken of as being a humanoid male. With this in mind, such a trickster-spirit bound to existing as a gaseous substance being the absolute power of Ultimate Reality in the entire universe is to be found wanting in the real world. As was discussed in the "God Dichotomy" article, the first option appears to be more in line with the Biblical narrative.



In short, given the respective contradictions and absurdities with this God-as-merely-finite-or-infinite-spirit conception as have been explored ad nauseum by philosophers throughout history, in our contemporary time period we are left at a crossroads or a dichotomy between two basic tenable theological directions for God's existence: God being (1) a finite, material being with a physical body, or (2) a synonym for the universe. Whereas one's faith may lead one to other various conceptions, for the honest philosopher and scientist, these are the two fundamental remaining options we are left with regarding a God of reality.