A Cross Examination of the Fallibility of the Humane God

There is a conceptualization of God that exists outside of the individual. As is the definition given to god is developed historically, there exists a requirement that the object of spirituality and the individual exist separately. When they are to be considered comparatively, of course, there can be no congruence between the two especially when their characteristic of existence is brought into evaluation. The relationship between the diety and the affirming individual must be called into question to understand the role the individual plays in the development of the diety. 

For this paper, the term humane god will be used to describe a concept of god that contains morally valued humanistic attributes related to goodness. The humane god carries varying degrees of kindness, forgiveness, and humility. Indeed, this is a god of flaws as it is meant to reflect the flaws and attributes of the beings that create said diety. The acquisition of these attributes, both flaws, and strengths, is based on different logical arguments which will be analyzed. The development of the humane god will be defined in conjunction with an assertion that the benevolent god is also deeply flawed and not an ultimate conscious being of power. The two can not exist simultaneously. The philosophies of Feuerbach, Hegel, and Nietzsche in relationship to the moral character of god will be examined to critique the humane god. Materialistic religion, master-slave dialectic, and morality will be brought into the discussion to criticize the proof behind the defense of a humane god. 

A great malady to human spirituality is individualism. Indeed, each individual exists separately from one another as the object that it is. But from this existence, there is the tendency to assume that the essence of the individual is contained within existence and existence only. The two rather exist separately and are not contingent on each other. Indeed, the essence is best displayed and comprehensible through existence. But essence does not necessitate its existence to still be the essence. The existence of particle qualities and values of god are not reflective of god’s essence by their nature of existence. 

Feuerbach begins his argument in Essence of Christianity by drawing attention to the difference between the religious in comparison to the nonreligious. While not all humans are religious practicing, humans as a species carry the capacity to practice religion and hold spiritual claims. What separates the two is the presence of a species consciousness which can be obtained and practiced through the internal dialogue of an individual that centers on their essence. Here the object of existence must confront its essence to obtain species consciousness. Yet to put oneself as the object of contemplation requires the confrontation of one's cognitive limitations. These limitations that are discovered through this act of self-reflexivity are often misunderstood to be common to the species. Of course, species consciousness is what is necessary for religious capacity, but the limitations of one's conscious ability are specific to the individual as opposed to the species. The consciousness of one's limitations must have existed, and as stated earlier that existence does not directly reflect on essence as they are two separate things entirely. The mistake that is made in the act of self-reflexivity is misattributing these limitations to the essence of the species. 

The consciousness of existence is then turned on the object of spirituality, god. The limitations of the individual's capacity to reach a species consciousness are then attributed to god. The priority of existence over essence necessitates that god must too hold the limitations of the individual. While the individual recognizes their limitations, by applying them to god they are simultaneously categorizing these attributes as both of spiritual superiority and humanistic shortcomings. Benevolence as a barrier to consciousness is turned onto god. The individual has thus idolized a specific description of human morality that is also claimed as a hindrance. 

Feuerbach’s argument rests on premises that are based on objective analysis of religion as opposed to any assertion of a priori premise. This is the sentiment expressed in the preface to the second edition of The Essence of Christianity. Feuerbach avoids establishing any sort of premise by categorizing his own as de facto based on the historical and philosophical facts of religion. And while a foundation of historical facts is as close to objective as one can get, there exists a history outside of Feuerbach’s knowledge. One must be aware of the accuracy of the history they hold before asserting it as a foundational premise. Even drawing on the personal history of a single individual, there still exists object historical elements that are often left from the consciousness simply due to their distance. Thus historical premises can be held but must be done so with the knowledge that they require their acknowledgment of subject and object experience. The spiritual object takes precedent over the thought; the former being a catalyst. The material world is then crafted as a determinate for what exists in our minds. Idealism requires thought as a prerequisite to the object; therefore truth and reason are founded in thoughts outside of the immediate objects in existence. Feuerbach is very clearly breaking away from this idealist presupposition by placing importance on objects themselves. Though as the conclusions Feuerbach draws are developed, it is important to consider that historical evidence does not exist without ideas in itself. Indeed, history will continue to move and evolve as a reflection of the human consciousness and the corresponding argument can not be easily refuted, but history is molded from the ideas in existence before the actions that compose it. The historical premises that Feuerbach draws on are objects to the thinker solely because he is many steps removed. 

The creation of a benevolent god rests on the moral assignment of individuals. Benevolence includes kindness, compassion, the ability to forgive, humility, general recognition of limitations, and personal capacity. Neitzche holds all of these traits to be representative of slave morality. The existence of societal structure necessitates a struggle for power of power between slave and master and with this comes the creation of separate moral identities. 

Nietzche also claims that the development of slave morality requires the active refute of those with master morality. By assigning god slave morality, the identity of the entity containing the

The dialectic between slave and master is crucial to understanding the translation to morality. The interaction between varying levels of self-consciousness is a requirement of Hegel's dialectic. An element of this dialectic is framed as a zero-sum game in regards to one's existence. Of course, the construction of master and/ or slave necessitates limited power. If this were not the case, there would be no struggle between the two and thus eliminating the dynamic. The application of slave morality, or the categorization of such, applied to god requires a necessary struggle of a master. The power distribution of consciousness is called into question when it relates to identifying the holder of master morality. The existence of a humane god implies the attribution of elements of slave morality. 

If the humane God has these attributes, then it is necessary that they were assigned by the master consciousness. When referencing Feuerbach’s assertation of the individual assigned their flaws to god, it can then be understood that the master in this dialectic is the individual themselves. The humane god’s existence is contingent on the distance the individual creates between themselves and the value of benevolence. Individuals prioritize master morality for themselves while simultaneously acknowledging that they are incapable of achieving these moral elements. 

Feuerbach has demonstrated that God’s creation is dependent on the individual's recognition of their flaws, one of which is the inability to acknowledge flaws within themselves. The religious individual contains a species consciousness but fails to identify their reliance on existence as a premise for proof. Due to this, the individual assigns god benevolent features creating a humane god that contains the same flaws as the individual. These flaws are reflective of slave morality which is a direct result of a struggle against those who contain master morality. The humane god is now categorized as the slave within the struggle of morality, necessitating that the individual is the master. When considering Hegel’s slave master dialectic, the power struggle of consciousness is seen between the individual and god. Since god has been assigned, by the individual, attributes of slave morality, then the individual is the holder of the master's self-consciousness. By framing the flaws of the individual's existence, not of the species’ essence, the humane god has become the slave to the individual. This power struggle is of course forever ongoing, but the created dynamic posits the humane god as fallible in the perpetual confrontation of consciousnesses despite the now relic thought of the humane god being a superior conscious being. 

Bibliography 

Berg, Henk de, and Duncan Large, eds. “Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72).” In Modern German Thought from Kant to Habermas: An Annotated German-Language Reader, NED-New edition., 81–96. Boydell & Brewer, 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt6wp91n.7.

Smith , Simon. “Beyond Realism: Seeking a Divine Other.” Vernon Press , 2017. 

Feuerbach, Ludwig. 1957. The essence of Christianity. New York: F. Ungar Pub. Co.

Harvey, Van Austin. Feuerbach and the Interpretation of Religion. Cambridge Studies in Religion and Critical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.uno.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=54509&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Arnold V. Miller, and J. N. Findlay. 1977. Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1998. Beyond Good and Evil. Dover Thrift Editions. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Smith , Simon. “Beyond Realism: Seeking a Divine Other.” Vernon Press , 2017.