The Definition of God, Dammit (Part Two)

[Note: This entry is ancillary to last year’s blog, “The Definition of God, Dammit.”]

Does God exist? Before we can even attempt to answer such an awkward question, a universally acceptable definition of God is the most fundamental matter that must be settled. Whether or not any god can be said to exist will lie in our ability to define what qualifies as a god. If we are unable to define what a god is, then can God really be said to exist? How would we recognize God? Without a standard we can all agree upon for what qualifies as a god, we are faced with several prospects: That all definitions of a god are possibly valid, all definitions are invalid, or all definitions are at least worth considering because one may in fact be correct. Yet without that universal definition, we can’t be sure who is right and who is wrong. It may also be that God indeed exists despite our ability to define the extraordinary, but if we are unable to identify the qualities associated with a god as a means of recognition, then the whole concept of a deity existing in reality is rather useless if not downright irritating. Like elevator music. 

Can God be universally defined? Despite our seemingly advanced ability to communicate, we have not been able to adequately do this. Hindu's have a certain idea about what a god is, while Muslims have something entirely different in mind. No two religions ever appear on the same page (duh, otherwise they’d be the same religion). It cannot be the case that all concepts of God are equally valid because many religions exclude the possibility of other gods besides their god(s). What it comes down to is this: for a god to exist there must be one definition of what characteristics constitute the deity, so that we are able to identify God in much the same way we are able to identify a coconut, being that there is a general consensus of what the term “coconut” means even regardless of the language being spoken. With that definition we are able to recognize coconuts as being what they are. Either we have a term that identifies an entity or entities as a god or gods, or we do not. If not, the rational man cannot conclude God exists because you cannot believe in what has no definition^*. Feel free to become an atheist by default.

[* You might be thinking that if you were to encounter something you did not know the name of or have a name for, you could believe in the existence of something for which there is no definition. This is false. You may not realize it, but whichever one or more of your senses has perceived the whatever-it-is has attached certain characteristics to the whatever-it-is as a means of recognition. Only if deprived of all your senses would you not “recognize” anything.]

Is it the case that the idea of God is so incredible that the human mind (designed by God some would say) simply cannot define the word? That is in fact the argument of many agnostics. However, agnostics cannot show that this is not possible, merely that it just hasn’t happened yet. Hypothetically speaking, if a clear cut, unilateral definition of God were handed down tomorrow, agnostics would have to wrestle with that definition and come to a conclusion one way or the other. If the agnostic is going to suspend judgment about the existence of God based on lack of a definition, again, there is no practicality whatsoever in supposing that God might exist, unless the agnostic is accepting a form of Pascal’s Wager^**. If God actually does exist (ahem, citing a proper definition) I wonder if the G-man forgives such ambivalence.

[** From Wikipedia: Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is more advantageous than not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments. The incompleteness of his argument is the origin of the term Pascal's Flaw.]

The problem is that even as great as our communication techniques are, they are often inadequate in explaining just about anything, object or concept, when you really want to be a prick about it. Asking for the definition of “X” is a time honored tradition among philosophers meant to demonstrate that an opponent has no idea what they are talking about. If a chair is defined as an object that you sit on that usually (but not necessarily) has four legs and back support, well then, lots of things might qualify as a chair. Lots of things might also qualify as a god, but if we’re talking about the “One True God,” then only one definition will do.

That brings us to “conceptual failure.” Have you ever had an idea that seemed reasonably clear in your own mind but that you found difficult to put into words clear enough for another person to understand? This doesn't make an idea automatically false or invalid, but without clarity what good is this idea of yours in the first place? A god may be well defined in someone's own mind, but that this definition probably has little universal acceptance implies a conceptual failure. For atheists this is not a problem; we don't go around trying to define that which does not exist. An ambiguous concept doesn’t exactly lead to credibility, folks.

Sometimes the problem lies with the words we use to explain ourselves. Words sometimes have different meanings depending upon the context in which they are used. For example, suppose I say to you, "I'd love to own a Jaguar." If we're talking about luxury cars the meaning of my statement is obvious. On the other hand, if we're talking about exotic pets perhaps you would try to talk me out of such an idea being that I can barely keep a house plant alive. On the other, other hand, if I’m talking about luxury cars and you think we’re talking about exotic pets, this might as well be an episode of “Three’s Company.”*** You see, context can be used to manipulate words to create all kinds of puns, double entendres, or plain ol’ confusion for the unsuspecting. Frankly, it's amazing that any one knows what anyone else is talking about. Arnold sure didn't know what Willis*** was talkin' 'bout.

[*** Showing my age here, folks.]

What we could really use is a language in which one word meant one thing regardless of context. Until then there will be no suitable definition of God, which is no doubt a great relief to the believer. After all, this will mean that God cannot be shown whether to exist or not and faith can rush in to prop up a theists’ righteousness. At the same time, though, the theist faces the dilemma that despite all the faith in the world, all concepts of God should be considered equally valid since prove their point linguistically. Though the theist appeals to faith in hopes that they've picked the correct religion with the proper definition of God, they cannot disprove anyone else’s definition of a god. That’s a mighty big hurdle to clear. What the theist is not admitting here is that really, they're playing Russian roulette with God. Well, go right ahead and blow your brains out guys. It'll be your defining moment.

The Necessity of Art to Freedom

In America, we are living in an age when millions, excuse me, billions of taxpayer dollars are funneled into bullets, bombs, and luxurious embassies for U.S. emissaries around the world. The necessity to do so may be subject to debate, but one has to wonder given all those tax dollars, who is getting shortchanged? Should more government money be spent on education? Perhaps if school funding were more than an issue once an election cycle, senior government officials, by virtue of their education, would have seen 9/11 as inevitable and taken the necessary steps politically (if not militarily) to prevent the terrible events of that day.

In the need to fulfill many government services, federal and state legislators routinely shortchange public schools. School lunch programs, the athletic department for all non-essential sports (only football is essential, obviously) and the art departments are usually the first to fall in the battle for funding. But are these programs even necessary? Yes, they are all vitally important. However, if school administrators must decide upon which of these departments are most necessary, especially which one is most valuable to freedom, then the art department may be the most valuable.

Though art is often taught in pre-school through middle school, it is done so almost as an afterthought. By the time a student reaches high school, training in art is not likely to be offered, presumably because art is not as valued as math, science, or history. (Let’s put aside America’s abysmal scores in these subjects for the time being which would otherwise lead us to question the value of those subjects as well.) Among those subjects, though, history is nothing like math or science, and history is not particularly crucial given America’s One-Billion-Hamburgers-Sold, consumer-driven society that routinely ignores historical facts. Why then is history required for high school students? Because it teaches them something, particularly the way the prevailing local government wants students to develop their worldview.

Traditionally with art, it has been taught because of what it does where what it does is necessary in safeguarding freedom. We should be requiring art classes in high school because developing artistic talents aid in the development of critical thinking and communication skills. Art teaches us to think in different ways, providing us with an ability to evaluate the world around us. There is also the matter of what art does for students as a means of self-expression.

Although art is a form of communication primarily associated with visual arts, it encompasses so much more. Art also comes in the form of music, literature, and our bodily movements. Art can be found in architecture and other forms of technology as well. As a form of communication, it is a language that coveys lessons and messages that, “…succeeds where words fail” (Lynn Olsen). And it is a language every bit as important as mathematics. As Albert Einstein said, “The value of an education…is not the learning of many facts, but the training of the mind to think of something that cannot be learned from textbooks.” Is it ethical to deprive a student of the unique voice and ear art has to offer?

What are the implications of withdrawing art appreciation from our schools? Without the ability to recognize and decipher the language of art, we open ourselves to manipulation. As columnist Lynne Olsen once noted, “Totalitarian rulers recognize the power of art.” The Nazi’s, for example, instituted strict rules upon artists with only themes sanctioned by the state being allowed for the sake of manipulating public opinion. If a student does not learn to think in different ways, they become prone to monotonously linear thinking, and easily swayed to believe any truth a government may want to invent.

 

Case in point 1: American cable news. Cue the Fox News logo; red, white, and blue. Not only are these colors the colors of the American flag, they are primary colors well known to lure flies into spiders’ webs. The Fox News channel logo is quite intentionally, and they have the rating to prove it. As stock quotes and headlines tick by, a once ever present “Terror Alert” graphic reminded the public that war is permanent. Down the fauxhole our taxpayer dollars go.

Case in point 2: Advertisers use art to manipulate consumers all the time. All one has to do is mention the words “Coca-Cola,” and immediately, flowing white cursive lettering on a red background – a color combination know to invoke hunger and thirst – forms in one’s mind. But who would know to resist this application of art without any art training? Without critical thinking and communication skills, anyone is at risk of being open to propaganda and advertising. If students do not learn to be creative, conventional wisdom cannot be challenged, and what America is left with is a population susceptible to corporations, fascism or some other form of tyranny.

Many tyrants have imposed restrictions on artists. Art as a form of self-expression is vehemently opposed, leading to a culturally bleak existence. An existence without art, as artist Zel Brook put it, “…is the same as telling us that we should go through our days ignoring our senses, with endless days of frustration…with no hope the situation will ever change.”

In the 18^th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, surrounded by the constant turmoil and conflict in Europe, explained that engaging in the arts is the only way to release one’s self from an otherwise painful existence. Another philosopher, the ill-regarded Karl Marx, felt that repressing an individual’s expression with art will ultimately result in noncompliance or violent revolt, given that in totalitarian or fascist societies, the public has no outlet for social criticism. Likewise, teenagers who have not been instructed in art face limited means of expressing themselves or will become the target of criticism by their classmates when they buck the status quo when they do express themselves in a unique manner. Is the American teenager’s obligatory rebellion or fits of depression a product of artistic repression, from not being heard?

Art helps express the ineffable. Cathy McGuire, an art therapist in Portland, Oregon, says, “The physical act of creation connects our bodies with the external world…what we are really making is ourselves.” As any parent can attest to, it’s hard enough to communicate with their children. Limiting the means by which they can communicate only complicates issues. Surely, parents would rather understand their children than roll their eyes at them. Or would parents simply rather their children be compliant with their governing beliefs? With parents often attempting to mold their children in their own image, I suppose they should then be happy with the disposal of any art department. Why bother questioning advertisers who will attempt to manipulate everyone into buying their products, the safety or efficacy of those products be damned? Politicians, men of power who love nothing more than more power, why wouldn’t they want to cut funding for the arts in public schools; they simply don’t want people thinking for themselves if they expect to remain within a sphere of influence. 

That is the problem faced with art. Without artists, the world is a colorless and dull world shaped by the demands of the figures of authority. Whether or not such a world is the world we should be living in is another question, but without all the practical tools and languages with which to debate the question, how can we be sure of the truth?

Few people will dispute the pleasure of freedom. However, it should be realized that freedom and artistry cannot live without each other. Is it necessary for the arts to be taught in high school? Yes, it is vital to everyone’s freedom if freedom is in fact what we value.