WHY GOD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
March 1, 2010
I mentioned at the brief blurb for The One Thing that I should have probably titled the book differently, namely, The Universe (Why God Had Nothing to do With It). And of course I noted also that I already had another book with the very same subtitle.
I had no sooner made this comment than it occured to me that there is yet a third book that also could have been differently (possibly even more appropriately) titled, using once again the same subtitle. I am referring to the book Jesus: A Likely Story. It could just as well be titled Christ: Why God Had Nothing to do With It.
When this occurred to me, I couldn't help but stand back and mumble to myself, "Well, that's interesting."
It would appear that the idea embodied in the phrase Why God Had Nothing to do With It is a virtual theme song for me.
And I must point out that it in no way suggests an atheistic perspective. The attitude suggested by the phrase Why God Had Nothing to do With It is absolutely neutral with regard to God's existence. If the sentiment is a reflection of anything it is surely the nature of that hypothetical Being.
If there really is a Supreme Being, it is difficult to imagine It doing anything.
Doesn't the quality of being supreme imply a form of perfection, or completeness? If so, then we must ask, whenever it is suggested that this Being created the universe, precisely why It did so. If It is indeed perfect, why would It do anything?
Try as I might, I cannot think of a reason. You say that God took some sort of action. I ask why. Was It uncomfortable? Did It not like the situation that It had previously found Itself in? If It is truly complete, why would It go to the trouble to do so much as lift a finger?
Action of any kind suggests some sort of dissatisfaction with the current state. If you are sitting comfortably, why would you move? If you cross your legs it means that you were not perfectly comfortable with your legs uncrossed. So you take action. You cross your legs.
You say that God made the universe. I ask why. Was It uncomfortable without it? I can think of no fathomable reason why a pristine entity, situated in a state of absolute perfection and completeness, would undertake any form of action.
And I repeat: this is in no way suggesting that there is no such thing as a Supreme Being. It is not a declaration of atheism. It is simply a demand for consistency. If you insist that there is such a thing (as a Supreme Being), then you should be prepared, and willing, to go with it, to follow through. To claim that there is a Supreme Being and then, in practically the same breath, further claim that It created the universe is to change course, to virtually engage in a contradiction. I would be willing to concede that a Great Being created the universe, but not a Supreme One. There is a difference (and a very important one) between being Great and being Supreme.