God As A Function Of Language
Ok. So I haven’t spoken on this topic in a while. I did have a series on it. 5 parts. God. Some new thoughts have come up recently, and I’m wondering how much validity they actually possess. I’ll let you be the judge.
I will introduce the fundamental foundation of my theory with a question: Is God simply a function of language? In other words, does the idea of God become necessary due to the structure and idiosyncrasies of how human language works?
One problem of human language is the use of words to define words. You reach a point where you run in circles. To quote a famous American President, “it depends on what meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” There comes, again, a point where you can’t define a word without using the word in the definition. Of course, we all “know” the definition of the word “is.” But to explain it is a bit harder. What does “the” mean?
Another issue with language, although not, as I see it, problematic, is the ability to describe non-existent things. I could say, “On the dark side of the moon there is a red Unicorn flying around with Pegasus.” Now, we all know this is absurd. But, at the same time, we can all picture in our minds, generally, what this would look like. We know what a Unicorn “is.” We know, at least those of us even slightly familiar with Mythology, who Pegasus “is.” We know what these things are, yet, they are not real. At least, they are not present in our ontology. How does this happen? It’s how human language is correlated with imagination. Language has a limited potential. This is one of the main ideas dealt with in Metaphysics.
In our quest to understand the after-life, we have, basically, only language as our guide. There is nothing else to rely on. And as we ponder what “Heaven” and “Hell” are, we use, respectively, the best of human language, and the worst. Everything that is most pleasing, uplifting and joyous – these words are used to “describe” Heaven. Whereas, the opposite are used; words describing pain, anguish, torture and the most horrifying of human experience – these words “describe” Hell.
What I propose is that these things, Heaven and Hell, are nothing but the maximum potential of human language. Because language is all we have, then the maximum good or evil can only be, in our imagination, the maximum extent of what our language will allow.
I submit that the ideas of God, Heaven and Hell, and how this applies to all religions, are a natural function of how human language works. If we had words that better described Heaven, then Heaven would be so. As with Hell, it would be so if we had words to describe things more horrendous.