God-talk
Any set of words that contains “God” as a lexical unit is senseless; there is nothing cognitively asserted except what is imagined by the speaker. Each speaker’s imagination will be unique. Therefore, when a speaker (apologetic or antagonist, to any degree) utters a set of words which contains “God” as a lexical unit, nothing will be asserted except what is imagined by the speaker, and no speaker will imagine the same ideatum exactly. What must be address is this: Can speakers coherently express what is imagined at all? (Is “attending church” coherence? Is a social norm a manifestation of coherence?) Why can speakers utter propositions with inconsistent ideatums at all? (e.g. “My God is not your God”; etc.)
Asserting your stance of antagonism does not express what you are opposing, unless you suppose that everyone else knows exactly what it is you have for your ideatum.
Scholium 1
The “forgotten sculpture” refers to an ancient story of a sculptor who, as a young man, builds a magnificent marble statue. In his hurriedness and continued work, his sculpture becomes misplaced or dropped in a bush near his shop. Years later, the sculpture reveals itself to him at his feet as he’s entering his shop. Now, he knows that he crafted the object, that it was the expertise of his hands which brought it into existence. However, what he has forgotten is his inspiration, his emotional drive and feelings at the time of chiseling the muscles and fabric of the toga. He has forgotten the meaning behind the statue. He must derive a new meaning from what he sees, what he possesses at the moment. However, what of the emphatic connection he had with it long ago?
This is what “God” is. It is a forgotten concept. And in seeing this, who are we to reject or deny any other person’s statue? Who are we to even talk, as if it were important to us, about this man I have described and the emotional complexities he shares with his statue?
When we speak about God, we talk about another man’s perfection. There is no “private God”; that said, we must understand how this word “God” and its meaning fits into our language. To reject it by an outward expression of disbelief does nothing to help or hurt this endeavor. Describing yourself as being “of God’s people” does just the same. These activities of “defining oneself” do nothing fruitful, nothing worthy of comment.
But I suppose it is the absurdity of human suffering which compels us to act so naïvely, so immaturely.