God – As A Concept

As intellectualism continues to collapse, new ideas about God and religion are always being developed. Mainstream religions are splintering into smaller and smaller subgroups. Each professing to be the only holding the truth. Naturism (a development of failed intellectualism) has brought Veganism, hyper-veganism, environmentalism, animism and shamanism. The goth (another development of failed intellectualism) has brought – vampire goth, monster & demon goth, witches and wiccans, rpg goth, punk goth, and death metal goth. Beyond this, LSD experiments to expand the chemical minds of intellectuals have produced religions like Scientology. The latest is an intellectual compromise – God as a concept.

There are now a whole new set of groups who view God and religion as concept – and that truth is individual. “Do you believe in God? - We do not have a defined doctrine of God. Members are free to develop individual concepts of God that are meaningful to them. They are also free to reject the term and concept altogether. --- Most of us do not believe in a supernatural, supreme being who can directly intervene in and alter human life or the mechanism of the natural world. Many believe in a spirit of life or a power within themselves, which some choose to call God.” [www.uunashua.org/100quest.html, 100 Questions That Non-Members Ask About Unitarian Universalism] This means that any one can have a truth – a god (or many subgods or demigods). The problem is that if everyone has a truth, then is anything wrong. What, then, happens to ethics? Morality?

In India there is a practice (truth) called sutti, in which, the wife of a Hindu husband is burned alive on his funeral pyre. Women who believe in feminism, believe the women have equal rights to men, and this is wife abuse. Under universalism (God as a concept) who's right? This dilemma has not been lost on many, and ironicaly, come from the very intellectuals whose existence is built on it. “Problems with Kant: Leads to Real (Strong) Moral Dilemmas --- A Real Moral Dilemma is one in which there is no morally correct resolution. No mater what one does, one has done something wrong. (This is to be distinguished from apparent moral dilemmas which are simply situations in which determining the morally correct thing to do is difficult.--- For Kant, since ALL DUTIES are absolute, one can frequently find oneself in situations where one ought to two things, but one cannot do those two things. (e.g. Honor the promise to meet one’s friend for lunch and save a drowning child one happens to see on the way to lunch.) There is no correct resolution since no matter what one does, one would violate the Categorical Imperative. Now, a moral theory that results in frequent real (strong) moral dilemmas has got to have something wrong with it. It’s impractical, especially if you think the whole point of a moral theory is to tell us what we ought to do (action guiding). But it also suggests theoretical problems as well because most have a strong intuition that a correct moral theory would always direct action.” [http://www.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Notes/Ethics/Prima%20Facie%20Duties.htm] A clear demonstration that this “new” concept is actual a post-modern concept that destroyed intellectualism – God is not real, just a concept!