THE ANTHROPOMORPHIC SHAPE OF GOD
Albert Einstein put into words a thought that's been bouncing around in my head now for many months: "I cannot prove that a personal God does not exist, but were I to speak of him I would be a liar." I cannot pretend to know exactly what he meant by these words, but they aptly conclude an idea that has been growing in my head now for some time.
The idea began with words from Baruch Spinoza:
I am struck by how anthropomorphic, how anthropocentric are our conventional descriptions of God's attributes and behaviors. God is oftentimes equated with perfection. His attributes are maximal, infinite in nature. As to power, he can instantiate all that is logically possible. As to knowledge, he can know all that is logically possible. As to location, he is everywhere at once. So basically, God is the theoretical limit of all a human can imagine. If we were to concoct a concept of maximal human potential, we would arrive at much the same description - perhaps even an identity. So I am skeptical of our ideas of God's nature. At best they are incomplete, but it's entirely possible they're simply a product of our imaginations.
God is oftentimes presented as intervening in human affairs and taking an active interest in the outcome of human events. He created the universe and all that is in it as a hospitable environment for humanity, the crown jewel of his creative genius. He set forth laws for humanity to observe. He constructed a lineage through which he might rescue humanity in its utter failure to obey the laws. Ultimately, he destroys the universe and judges humanity based upon specific criteria outlined in the revised version of the laws he set forth for humanity to observe. So basically all reality is audience and stage, eagerly awaiting the human drama to play out in all its glory.
If we were to concoct a mythology to explain our presence and purpose in this world, it would play on the same themes: human aspirations, failures, and hope in the midst of suffering, with humanity playing the central role of both hero and villain. It would follow a multitude of unique story lines, but would undoubtedly reinforce the idea that human life and progress, or lack thereof, is of paramount importance in the unfolding history of the universe and God's plan. I am skeptical of our mythologies as well. At best they are metaphorical, but it is entirely possible that they are simply a product of our most desperate wishes.
In the end, I think all religion and theology is little more than our self-delusional love affair with ourselves. I believe we think too highly of humanity and its place in reality. It's an unfortunate arrogance, a smugness I believe stems from pervasive insecurities. We simply cannot imagine how beings with such a complex configuration could have been born of naturalistic origins. We cannot conceive of how an infinite entity could not help but take an interest in the attitudes and behaviors of creatures so amazing. We dare not accept that our sentience exists without a pre-ordained purpose. We are too important, too special, too "human" to fade into future, entropic darkness. We must've been designed, for we cannot tolerate the idea of being alone, accidental, and mortal. It's a sad, undeniable truth: we are terminally egotistical. Self-awareness has instantiated us the self-proclaimed rulers of and reasons for the universe, when at most we may only rule ourselves - if at all - and recognize purpose in how we live, not that we live.
Do to Spinoza's observations and my consideration of the matter, I believe Einstein was correct. All my ideas of divinity are infected with humanity. If God is infinite, then all my human ideas based on human imagery are mere patronizations of the truth. If God exists, I have no idea what he's like or even what is meant by such existence, for it too is a human notion. So if I were to speak of him, everything I uttered would be a lie. As for others who have spoken, God has become in their minds the great, sovereign man in the sky. The mythologies suggest he rules over us, but I argue that they unwittingly imply that in reality he serves us. His utility is a comforting salve for the human condition pandering so perfectly to our egotism, that the entire affair as presented by the holy men of the ages seems entirely fabricated. If I believe in a God at all, I do not think our troubling history, much less ourselves, are as important to him as we often wish.
Whether it's redundant or not I’ll summarize: Our concept of God is a very human idea, and that we're born into a theological culture that considers the universe humanity's inheritance isn't a surprising thing to discover. In fact, puffing ourselves up as the vanquishers of the earth and rulers of all the beasts and vegetation in the world, thereby drifting into a theology that reflects this unfortunate and often destructive arrogance, is a very human thing to do. I therefore see that both the idea of God and the content of our spiritual mythologies could quite easily be the products of human invention. These observations do not even inductively prove this conclusion, but they do support it. So take it for what it's worth. Anthropomorphic Gods and anthropocentric mythologies are exactly what one should expect to find if humans created them. Is this purely coincidence?
Afterthought: It isn't as if this phenomenon is mere socialization, like we're just coincidentally taught that we're the center of the universe. This belief is deeply ingrained in us, as if we biologically need that assurance. Folks want so badly to believe we're special, important, that it seems only a matter of time before someone would create stories that addressed those desires, providing some assurance of our proper place in the pantheon of all things.
So the next time a Christian labels me arrogant for denying her God, I could just as easily reply that she is arrogant for proposing him.