How "The God Problem" Is at the Heart of All Human Suffering

Have you ever considered how dangerous it is to entertain the possibility of the divine in human form?

Over the last few days, I've been spending a lot of time contemplating this article by

Jeffrey David Hines

. It’s a response to this article.

My Response to Walter Rhein

Jeffrey is not afraid to wrestle with some heavy hitters such as Immanuel Kant, and though I'm familiar with Kant, I haven't had the privilege of giving his work the attention it deserves.

When I was about 17, I picked up a copy of The Critique of Pure Reason. Because this was the 1980s, I probably purchased it at a Waldenbooks located in a mall in the Twin Cities. During my senior year of high school, I'd become very frustrated with the education I was receiving. I graduated with a class of 106 students in a town of 2,000 people. It was a rural, conservative area, and any form of education was regarded with contempt.

Imagine thinking it an act of rebellion to walk through the halls of your high school carrying Kant's Critique of Reason. That book was on some list of the “100 greatest novels ever written” (as if you could reasonably boast to curate such a list). Anyway, it was what I had, so I read all the books on it during my senior year (I wrote a story about this for Medium, I'll share it at some point).

I remember “getting caught” reading the book in the hallway by the economics teacher. He wrinkled his nose and said, “Why are you reading that?” He seemed to think I was wasting my time. It wasn’t the response I’d hoped for.

Later, the English teacher, too, noticed what I was reading. “Kant,” he said, nodding his head in approval.

To which one of my quick witted friends replied, “What did you call me?”

That was the extent of our intellectual discourse in high school.

Actually, I retract what I said before. I didn't read all the books on that list. I distinctly remember that I never finished Kant. But I dabbled in it, and I'm sure it was mentioned a couple times on Northern Exposure.

Jeffrey David Hines

quoted Kant in his response to me, and, as is often the case with great thinkers, it doesn't take too many words to kick the machinery of my brain into gear.

“From such crooked timber as humankind is made of, nothing entirely straight can be made.”—Kant

To which I have this to say.

“I disagree.”—Walter Rhein

Immanuel Kant lived from 1724 to 1804. It's always a matter of interest to me how many people live their entire lives within the confinements of an assumption they don't think to question.

In this case, the assumption is that human beings are flawed. People say that as if it can’t be questioned, but I don’t think it’s true. In fact, I think it’s a lie. Even if you don’t think it’s a lie, scientific inquiry requires you to at least explore other assumptions.

Where is the peer reviewed scientific proof that human beings are flawed? Where’s the data? Where are the academic papers? Let’s see the math.

We don’t have it.

Lately, I've been turning my attention to what I feel is the detrimental influence of Christianity, particularly the concept of sin. I don't believe in sin, and I take great offense when anyone suggests that I am a sinner. That's not my belief system, and making that declaration is therefore an infringement on my religious liberties.

We’re so conditioned to believe in the concept of sin, that we don’t stop to consider how that concept might be a plague upon the human race.

Consider that the concept of sin was used by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 to justify the slave trade. He approved of the enslavement of “heretics.” Later, when human slaves began to convert to Christianity to escape slavery, the Bible was retro-fitted to suggest a connection between race and sin.

This is how we devolved into our current punishment based society. It’s killing us.

Connecting “sin” to race was done through a perverted misreading of The Curse of Ham. I think you can easily defend the claim that the concept of sin is directly responsible for the rise of racism, white supremacy, and fascism.

These are serious problems. Why do we just assume this is “human nature?” We’re smart. We can do better than that. These lazy assumptions are irresponsible, and they deprive us of the ability to fight back.

The concept of sin is itself rooted in the assumption that human beings are inherently flawed. Therefore, if you allow yourself to consider that human beings might not be flawed, you empower yourself to fight some of the most terrible philosophies of evil which have been allowed for centuries to infect the world.

Teachings are flawed.

Not human beings.

I'm just saying we need to discuss this. This is why I push back when people say things like, “Christ's teachings are valid, but they've been misinterpreted.” I think it's to the benefit of all humanity to acknowledge that Christ's teaching have influenced the rise of racism and white supremacy, and are therefore dangerous.

These facts are irrefutable by the way. We don’t talk about it, but it’s true.

Just consider this alternative perspective on history. You don't have to agree, but I strongly believe that everyone should at least be familiar with the argument that the assumption of sin leads to suffering.

In his thoughtful response,

Jeffrey David Hines

discusses the flawed nature of humanity's collective decisions. I agree that when human beings get into groups, concepts such as “group think” take over and colossally devastating decisions are often the result. However, I hesitate to attribute this tendency to evolution.

If evolution made us inclined to make bad decisions, then how is it that human beings have ever made any good decisions? Also, if it has been proven that human beings are capable of making good decisions (and I think even the most cynical among us will have to admit that's the case), then we should examine the mechanism for how these things come about.

I've concluded that good decisions are a result of proper education. That is, if your control group is comprised of well-educated people, you’ll likely find they are more inclined to make good decisions than a case group comprised of people who have been misled by lies and superstition.

Bad information leads to bad decisions.

Bad teaching leads to bad decisions.

Evolution might play a part, but it’s not the only part.

Essentially, this argument is another way of saying that the teachings of Christ are flawed. To be more specific, I believe we get into major trouble when we attempt to assign the divine to what is essentially human.

I call this issue “The God Problem.” It can be summarized by saying that even though people who claim they preach “the word of God” are quick to point out their own human frailty, I think their ideology is tainted by their insistence on a belief that divinity can take human form.

They harbor the secret aspiration to be a God themselves. Once that model is established in their imagination, they aspire to “be that” with or without conscious awareness.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that human beings should not be in possession of Godlike power. Not in the sense that “human beings are flawed,” but in the sense that a fish shouldn’t aspire to drive a truck. A fish is not built for that just as human beings are not built to be Gods. That’s not our purpose.

I think that by holding in your mind the idea that perfection is possible, you corrupt your own ability to fortify your commitment to reason.

We live in a society that is plagued by patriarchal, authoritarian, and “strong man” models. These models are derived from a secretly harbored and coveted belief in a model of divinity in human form. Though men claim only to be the “mouthpieces” of the divine, I suspect that they secretly aspire to be regarded as a divine entity.

By becoming a “mouthpiece” they think they become “closer” to the divine. What does that mean? We don’t ask and it’s a pretty dangerous line of thought.

Aspiring to achieve the perfect model of the divine in human form has a prominent disadvantage in that it tends to overlap with the concept of fascism.

The “divine” leader cannot be questioned.

The “divine” leader determines what behavior should be punished.

The “divine” leader determines what is true.

The “divine” leader can never be wrong.

So it has to be you.

This is terrifying. Those who hunger for power tend to establish ruthless, unquestionable control. The problem is that there can never be a “benevolent dictator.” The divine in human form does not exist.

First we bend the knee, then we’re made to place our head on the chopping block. This is the culmination of the philosophy of sin. The “God problem” ends up with everyone dead.

Perhaps if the human race was educated to question the existence of the divine, the mass of the population wouldn't be so inclined to misinterpret authoritarianism as an example of the divine in human form.

In other words, I think the lines get blurred. Human beings become so conditioned to believe there is a savior, that they can be tricked into turning over their autonomy to an oppressor.

I don't think all of this is a product of evolution. I think it's a product of irresponsible teachings that fail to give equal time to arguments that question the accuracy of traditional beliefs. We become so conditioned to accept certain uncharitable assumptions that we fail to recognize the distinction between the laws of nature and the misguided fabrications of humanity.

Somebody smart once said “Question everything.”

I don’t see a lot of evidence of people doing that.

The quote itself is likely inaccurate and misattributed, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valid.

Throughout various times in history, the impulse to question religion was grounds for death. If people are willing to burn you at the stake for asking a question, you’re probably onto something.

Even though we live in marginally more civilized times, people are still inclined through a misguided sense of “respect” to concede the divinity of Christ's teachings. Go to enough barbecues, and you instinctively learn to avoid any thoughts or actions which might result in you getting thrown on the grill.

But if we consign ourselves to an ideological cage of misconceptions, we become enablers of human suffering.

That's not to say that there isn't any good in the teachings of Christ. My problem isn't what Christ said. My problem comes with the uncontested assumption that Christ represented the divine in human form. I think that any acknowledgment that the divine can exist in human form creates a pathway for authoritarians to establish themselves as unquestionable leaders.

Even people who only claim themselves to be representatives of the divine secretly harbor aspirations that they might become divine. I think that's inevitable. It’s a corrupt line of thinking

If you want to talk about an evolutionary frailty of human beings, then I think that is an example: Human beings are vulnerable to ruthless fantasies concerning a dream of divinity.

Therefore, my proposal is that we teach the words of Christ the same way that we teach the words of other famous philosophers such as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. There are concepts in all those writings that are brilliant, and concepts that are absurd. Through centuries of human intellectual inquiry and ingenuity, we’ve been able to separate the useful thoughts from the dangerous ones.

It does us no good as a race to disregard the teachings of all the brilliant scholars who have come along throughout the centuries because we’ve convinced ourselves that one speaker from long ago was the divine in human form.

Where do you think the idea of book burnings comes from? If we have the one truth, why do we need all the others?

Alternatively, if we maintain the discipline of looking at all human works with a discerning eye, we can extract the good and leave the bad, to the benefit of all. By falsely assigning divinity to flawed language, we throw tinder on the flame of human agony.

Until we leave “the God problem” behind, I fear for the survival of our race. I strongly believe that the pain human beings experience today is derived from the essential deceit of maintaining the belief that the divine can take human form. For 2,000 years false teachers have claimed that model represents our “salvation.” The time has come to consider whether that model might actually contain the seeds of our destruction.

I think there's evidence.

This publication is reader sponsored. If you have the means, please consider sponsoring at whatever level is comfortable for you!

My CoSchedule referral link

Here’s my referral link to my preferred headline analyzer tool. If you sign up through this, it’s another way to support this newsletter (thank you).