The Human Nature of God
Posted on | February 17, 2010 | 4 Comments
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
— Abraham Lincoln
Faith is the conclusion we draw from the understanding that man is not something that merely is, but is instead something constantly becoming. To become requires faith, because why would we try to do more than just be as we are if not for the hope that we could become something more than what we are right now? It is only through having faith in the existence of the formal good that any person can will themselves to become better. This is a small leap that we all make, every day: that this year, this month, this day, we will be better than we were in the last. This is what we live for.
That so many of us stagnate in lieu of improving is merely a byproduct of our myopic and distractive nature, not our innate want to be good; that some may constantly fail to meet or attempt their goals does not mean they do not have those goals. Apathy or lack of desire to improve could be considered a defense mechanism built up over time as patterns of failure impress themselves upon anemic spirits: the more often the weak-willed person’s attempts to improve are thwarted, the more unconscious resistance they build against trying at all. You’ll find in these people who’ve discovered safe haven in their appetite that they often see life as a chaotic meaninglessness, with a “play to win” attitude void of principle and dignity. In them we can see the self in regress.
In health, we all search for that ideal iteration of the self, the key with which to unlock and negate the door which separates all that we are from all that we could be. In this light it isn’t so absurd to have faith not only in the potential for good, but in that for the best; it is only by trusting to the future the existence of some perfect good that we may ever perform our actions in its general direction. If we have no model for success, we are incapable of meeting success. No runner starts without a finish line.
In this same vein, if so many of us seek God—in the context of omni-benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotency—then it is in our conception of God that we can see the depth of our human nature. God is our finish line. In him, we seek to be good, wise or powerful. God is only the vessel through which many of us intend to reach these traits. But he is more telling of our source goodness than our salvation. That God exists allows us to have faith in more than just a creator, but also (and more importantly) the ideal iteration of the self. God is not merely who we pray to, but who we aspire to become. This is why when we are at our lowest points, we turn to our conception of God: to remind ourselves what we’re capable of when we feel incompetent. Our image of God is really the well of faith in ourselves.
Comments
4 Responses to “The Human Nature of God”
Leave a Reply
February 21st, 2010 @ 2:32 pm
Then again there’s always the possibility that God is God, existing externally of any human conceptions, and likely, His essential nature is such that it exists far beyond the capacity of mortal understanding.
But yeah, we try, and that’s our nature. I think you’re right about why we seek to know God (and more importantly, why we should), but I’m not one to reduce God’s essence to something attainable by humans — not by a long shot. You didn’t necessarily say that, but I would say the sentiment in this piece is generally humanistic.
Duh, right?
February 21st, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
Yeah, I have faith in the metaphysical God, and I believe something exists outside of the physical world. But I think the epistemology of our metaphysical constructs is flawed in that we think we can have faith not only in the unseen but also in the form of the unseen: what it thinks, what it believes, how it looks, etc. It’s in our nature to define things, so I’m not knocking what we view as God, but I believe that our conception of God is closer to what we want to believe than what actually exists.
I think there’s a beauty in our anthropomorphic God, because the characteristics we’ve applied to him are mostly noble and enlightened, which in turn paints a pretty picture of what it is we hope to someday become.
I’m not arguing that God doesn’t exist, but that our depiction of him most likely has less to do with reality than an ideal we’ve created in order to follow. If we analyze all the world’s most popular religions we find similarities in what every culture sees as the ultimate good, and it is in this conception of good that we can find something true, perhaps regarding the qualities of God, but primarily (and more importantly, in my opinion) regarding the qualities of man.
February 23rd, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
I enjoyed this. I find myself plagued by the similarities in popular religions that you mentioned above. If the ultimate good is in these religions, it seems to be masked by the absence of truth. And “good” can really only be measured by truth; if something never existed to begin with, how good can it be?
This is why I find myself distanced from Christianity. I read too much. Maybe I should reread Doctor Faustus and take a lesson.
Good post.
February 24th, 2010 @ 3:16 am
Renee, I need to find myself one of you.