Letters


Create new letter

Created on Aug 25 2011
It is not strange how deep religious beliefs go when they first have gotten a hold on you. I was brought up in a christian home. In a Christian culture. I was baptized and thus became a member in a statechurch wich is protestant. And I became a believer you could say. But at the age of 15 I started questioning the Christian God, and my last serious prayer to the man upstairs was sent to him at confirmation summer camp. Since God didn't give me the girl I wanted and the money i needed I couldn't give a rat's ass anymore. After that day my faith declined more and more, but I was not to become entirely atheist. The christian dogmas still had a grip on my brains and body and intellect. But I did not believe in the Christian God. I was done with him for good at reasoninglevel. Science had a better way of explaining things and when science cannot explain things, it's most likely that science one day will.
The funny thing is I've just finished a doctorate's dissertion about existence, infinity, Yeshua, and God. And I ended up with pantheism. In my 305 pages dissertion I found no logic in all the old arguments for a transcendent God outside nature, and therefore concluded it is possible to claim that since nature is the one and only existing reality and source of evereything, we could use the term God here about nature. In my dissertion I used Dawkins arguments in The God dellusion. Evolution is a fact, and religion has damaging effects on individuals. But I could not somehow get rid of the word God as an explanation here. So I maintained a naturalistic approach and perspective and called out for theistic naturalism; pantheism. Since nature is all that exists, it is most likely God, precisely because of this.
But then lightenling hit me like bomb from space. Pantheism cannot be true. In our language God is a man and is an antropomorphic deity. It is impossible to not talk about God as a man. Everyone automatically speaks of him as a man (even in this sentence), so how could one use "God" when it comes to nature? It's impossible! Nature cannot be defined as man or woman. Hence, pantheism is irrational, inconsistent and illogical. People say God might as well be woman or have female traits. But how could anyone say this about "God". "God" is a man and someone claiming God is not a man but a woman should therefore use the term "Goddess" instead. This term is also antropomorphic. One ends up with inconsistency here. How can people claim God has no sex, or is femalelike, when they like everyone else always talk about God as a man automatically.
The conclusion must be like Dawkins' arguments: how can there be a God, since God would need an explanation and make things even more complicated. Theology is irrational explanations. God could be considered chaos in human nature. We don't need him anymore. We don't need him or theologians. They only make things worse and functions as breaks in scientific development and human enlightenment. The best argument for atheism must be a linguistic one: God cannot exist, since "God" is a man, and to say that such a being exists, would be nothing more than a freudian projection onto the world. It's fantastic to finally dig out the true me that sees thru all the irrational arguments of the religious. Atheism is the only way.
Lars E. Holtan
.