Reeks 1 — GrondslagSeries 1 — Foundation

Sessie 2 — Die God wat Nie Afbeeldbaar Is NieSession 2 — The God Who Cannot Be Depicted

— deurby Attie Retief

Ontmasker die Mites - Moderne Wanopvattings oor God

Inleiding

In vandag se skeptiese wêreld kry karikature van God dikwels die meeste aandag. Gewilde ateïstiese boeke en internet-memes verklein God tot ’n “onsigbare lugfeëtjie” of ’n nors ou man met ’n baard wat op ’n wolk sit. Sulke beelde is maklik om belaglik te maak, maar dit is strooipoppe – wanvoorstellings waarin geen ernstige Christen glo nie. Wanneer kritici God gelykstel aan kinderagtige bygeloof of aan ’n wispelturige ‘man daar bo’, is hulle nie besig om werklik die klassieke Christelike siening van God aan te spreek nie. In werklikheid val baie skeptici ’n “klaarblyklik belaglike strooipop” aan, eerder as die ware begrip van God. Soos een kommentator gesê het, maak dit dit vir hulle makliker – hulle oorwin ’n onbenullige idee in plaas daarvan om met die werklikheid te worstel.

Moderne ateïsme verstaan dikwels die klassieke begrip van God verkeerd. Selfs toegewyde gelowiges kan soms in ‘n te beperkte idee van God verval. Die Skrif herinner ons dat God sowel die Almagtige Koning is wat bo ruimte en tyd verhewe is, as die liefdevolle Vader wat selfs elke haar op ons kop tel (Matteus 10:30). Hierdie balans versterk ons geloof en beskerm ons teen verwarring.

Mite 1: “God is net ’n antieke bygeloof of ’n sielkundige kruk.”

Een van die algemene spotwoorde is dat geloof in God nie meer rasioneel is as geloof in die Tandmuis of Kersvader nie – dat dit bloot ’n gerieflike fiksie is vir die swakkes of onopgevoedes. Die implikasie is dat godsdiens slegs bestaan as ’n sielkundige kruk of ’n oorblyfsel van “antieke bygeloof” wat sal verdwyn soos die wetenskap vorder.

Hierdie stelling ignoreer egter die sterk filosofiese redenasie en lewenservarings wat deur die eeue heen talle denkers oortuig het van God se werklikheid. Ver van net ’n “gap-filler” vir ons onkunde te wees, bied die Christelike geloof ’n samehangende verklaring vir hoekom enigiets hoegenaamd bestaan – insluitend rede en natuurwette. Die blote feit dat die heelal begrypbaar is, dui op ’n rasionele grond van bestaan (Johannes 1:1) eerder as op ’n toevallige chaos.

Filosowe van Aristoteles tot Aquinas tot Alvin Plantinga het deeglike argumente vir God se bestaan aangebied – argumente oor die bestaan van kontingente wesens, oor die begin van die heelal, oor die werklikheid van morele en logiese waarhede, ensovoorts. Hierdie argumente beroep hulle nie op magie nie, maar op verduideliking. Byvoorbeeld, die kosmologiese argument vra: “Waarom is daar iets eerder as niks?” en kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat ’n noodsaaklike, onveroorsaakte werklikheid (God) die beste antwoord is.

Selfs ateïstiese filosowe erken dat die vraag oor bestaan ’n diepgaande een is. Gottfried Leibniz het veral aangevoer dat die voldoende rede vir die wêreld in ’n noodsaaklike wese moet lê wat die rede vir sy eie bestaan in homself dra, eerder as in ’n oneindige reeks van kontingente dinge. Om God as bygeloof af te maak, los nie hierdie raaisel op nie – dit ontduik dit bloot.

Dit is ook belangrik om te noem dat baie briljante, rasionele mense in God glo, wat die idee weerlê dat geloof slegs ’n kruk vir die oningeligtes is. Die ateïstiese geleerde Thomas Nagel het self erken dat hy ontsteld was oor die feit dat “some of the most intelligent and well-informed people” wat hy geken het, teïste was.

Hulle geloof het nie uit domheid of blote wensdenkery gekom nie, maar dikwels uit deeglike nadenke en selfs persoonlike ervaring. Natuurlik kan troos ‘n aspek van geloof wees; God bring inderdaad vertroosting aan die wat seer het. Maar dit beteken nie dat God slegs ‘n menslike uitvinding vir troos is nie.

Om ’n geloof vals te noem bloot omdat dit vertroostend is, is om die sogenaamde genetic fallacy te pleeg – om die oorsprong van ’n idee te verwar met sy waarheid. Ons moet vriendelik daarop wys dat waarheid nie bepaal word deur hoe ’n geloof ons laat voel nie.

Die werklikheid van God staan of val op getuienis en rede, nie op of dit oud of vertroostend is nie. Trouens, die Christelike geloof het nie volgehou omdat dit moeilike vrae vermy nie, maar omdat dit hulpbronne bied om dit te beantwoord.

Eerder as anti-rasioneel, het die Christendom histories die opkoms van wetenskap en filosofie aangevuur (baie vroeë wetenskaplikes was toegewyde gelowiges). Kortom: gelowiges sien God nie as ’n “opium” om hulle te verdoof nie, maar as die Logos – die verstand agter die werklikheid wat rasionele denke en ontdekking moontlik maak.

Ons taak is dus om skeptici uit te nooi om verder te kyk as vlak afwysings en die saak vir God met dieselfde erns te oorweeg as enige ander groot vraag. Soos Psalm 19:2 sê:

“Die hemel verklaar die heerlikheid van God, en die uitspansel verkondig die werk van sy hande.”

Daar is iets daar buite om raak te sien – as ons bereid is om te kyk.

Mite 2: “Gelowiges dink God is ’n groot man daar bo wat af en toe ingryp (’n ‘god van die gapings’).”

’n Ander algemene wanbegrip is dat Christene God voorstel as ’n vergrote mens – ’n “groot ou daar bo” wat meestal weg bly, behalwe wanneer Hy soms met ’n wonderwerk inmeng as iets reggemaak moet word. Kritici soos Richard Dawkins het hierdie idee aangeval en God beskryf as bloot ’n superkragtige wese of “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak” in die lug.

Maar hierdie kritiek is gemik op ’n valse teiken. Klassieke Christendom sien God glad nie as bloot nog ’n wese binne die heelal nie. God is nie ’n ou man op ’n wolk nie, ook nie ’n half-onsigbare engel of ’n ‘hoofingenieur’ wat inkom om gate in natuurlike prosesse toe te stop nie.

Inteendeel, God word verstaan as die grondslag van alle bestaan – die rede waarom enigiets op enige oomblik bestaan of gebeur. Eerder as om net af en toe in te gryp, hou die ware God die heelal voortdurend en aktief in stand. Soos die Skrif sê:

“Hy dra alle dinge deur die woord van sy krag” (Hebreërs 1:3) “In Hom leef ons, beweeg ons en is ons” (Handelinge 17:28)

Elke hartklop, elke natuurwet, elke oomblik van bestaan is afhanklik van God se onderhoudende wil.

Dit is ‘n belangrike onderskeid: God is die primêre oorsaak van bestaan self, terwyl die wetenskap sekondêre oorsake beskryf, die meganismes binne die skepping. Ons hoef nie tussen God en wetenskap te kies nie; God is nie in kompetisie met natuurwette nie — Hy is die Skrywer van die natuur waarop daardie wette berus.

Die karikatuur van ‘n “god van die gapings”, ‘n god wat net ingeroep word om te verduidelik wat die wetenskap nog nie verduidelik het nie, verteenwoordig glad nie klassieke teïsme nie. Soos Thomas Aquinas verduidelik het, is God nie ’n plekhouer vir onkunde nie, maar die noodsaaklike grondslag, selfs vir ’n volledig verstaanbare natuurlike wêreld.

Selfs as elke fisiese proses verklaar is, bly die vraag: “Waarom bestaan daar enigiets? Waarom geld hierdie wette?” En dit wys weer na God.

Christene glo dat God nie ’n “man daar bo” of ’n item binne die heelal is nie. Hy is Bestaan self – ewig, onsigbaar en oral teenwoordig. Die Bybel beklemtoon hierdie verhewendheid:

“Die hemel, ja, die hemel van die hemele, kan U nie bevat nie” (1 Konings 8:27) “God is Gees” (Johannes 4:24) “God is nie ’n man nie” (Numeri 23:19)

Wanneer skeptici vra: “Waarom kan ons God nie sien of opspoor soos ’n planeet of ster nie?” mis hulle die kategorieverskil. God is nie een van die voorwerpe in ruimte en tyd nie – Hy is die bron van alle ruimte en tyd. Om vir God te soek met ’n teleskoop of kernversneller is so verkeerd soos om vir die skilder in sy eie skildery te soek.

Hierdie begrip help ons om weg te beweeg van die idee dat God soos Zeus of Thor is – ’n wese binne die natuur wat nou en dan ingryp. Daardie heidense voorstelling is lankal deur Christene verwerp. ’n Bekende aanhaling, dikwels aan R.C. Sproul toegeskryf, sê:

“God is not just a bigger, better version of human beings. No, He is an entirely different kind of being altogether.”

Die verskil tussen Skepper en skepsel is kwalitatief, nie net kwantitatief nie. Hy het geen beperkinge nie; ons het baie.

Wanneer iemand dus spot: “Jy glo in ’n magiese man in die lug”, kan ons sê: Nee, ek glo in ’n transendente Gees wat die rede is waarom enigiets bestaan en funksioneer. Om Hom tot ’n “ou man” te reduseer, is soos om die son tot ’n kersvlammetjie te reduseer – ’n absurde verkleining.

Deur hierdie misverstaande beeld aan te val, het kritici nog nie die God van die Christelike geloof geraak nie — net ‘n strooipop. Ons kan hulle nooi om met die werklike visie van God in gesprek te tree: Een wat die heelal op elke oomblik onderhou, maar nie beperk is soos ‘n skepsel nie. Hierdie visie verduidelik juis waarom ‘n geordende heelal kan bestaan, omdat dit afhanklik is van die Uiteindelike Ordegewer.

Daar is geen “gapings” waar God nie aan die werk is nie – soos Handelinge 17:27 sê:

“Hy is nie ver van elkeen van ons nie.”

Mite 3: “As God die heelal geskep het, wie het vir God geskep?”

Op die oog af klink hierdie vraag slim – dit word dikwels in ’n aha-toon gestel, asof dit ’n vangs is wat gelowiges se hele argument ontmagtig: “Aha! Julle het niks opgelos nie, julle het dit net ’n stap teruggeskuif.”

Richard Dawkins, byvoorbeeld, skryf in The God Delusion dat die idee van God die raaisel net verdiep, want “wie het die Ontwerper ontwerp?”

Maar hierdie beswaar misverstaan wat Christene bedoel met die woord “God”. Per definisie is God die Onveroorsaakte Eerste Oorsaak, die uiteindelike werklikheid wat nog altyd bestaan het. Om te vra: ”Wie het die Ongeskape Skepper geskep?” is ‘n kategorie-fout, soos om te vra: “Met wie is die vrygesel getroud?” of “Hoe proe die kleur rooi?”

As ons die konsep van God reg verstaan, weet ons Hy is ewig en noodsaaklik, sonder begin en sonder oorsaak. Alle groot Christelike tradisies leer dat God ase (uit Homself) bestaan, terwyl alles anders ab alio (uit iets anders) bestaan.

Dus is die vraag ”Wie het God gemaak?” sinloos, want ons glo nie in ‘n gemaakte God nie. As iets gemaak of veroorsaak is, sou dit per definisie nie God wees nie.

Die verwarring kom gewoonlik van ’n slordige formulering van die argument. Skeptici sê soms: “Wel, julle sê mos dat alles ’n Skepper nodig het; dus moet God ook een hê.” Maar dit is nie wat Christene sê nie. Die tradisionele argument lui: “Alles wat begin bestaan het, of wat kontingent is, het ’n oorsaak nodig.”

God, anders as die heelal, het nie begin bestaan nie en is nie kontingent nie. Hy is die Noodsaaklike Wese: die Een wie se wese self bestaan is, en wat nie kan ophou bestaan nie.

Die heelal daarenteen is kontingent – dit hoef nie te bestaan nie, en volgens die beste wetenskaplike insigte het dit ’n begin gehad (bv. die oerknal). Selfs as ons die ketting van oorsake terugvoer tot ’n oerknal, bly die vraag: “Hoekom is daar ’n heelal? Hoekom het dit wette?”

’n Oneindige regressie van fisiese oorsake los nie die uiteindelike vraag op nie – dit skuif dit net verder terug.

Stel jou ’n ketting voor wat in die lug hang: selfs al is die ketting oneindig lank, verduidelik dit nie hoekom dit in die lug bly hang nie. Daar moet ’n haak wees wat buite die ketting self is, wat dit dra. So ook moet daar ’n Uiteindelike Oorsaak buite die reeks van kontingente dinge wees wat dit alles grond.

Aquinas het dit mooi gestel: daar moet ‘n Eerste Oorsaak wees wie se wese en bestaan een en dieselfde is, ‘n wese wat blote bestaan self is, en nie bestaan ontvang van iets anders nie.

Leibniz het soortgelyk gevra: “Hoekom is daar iets eerder as niks?” en tot die gevolg gekom dat die antwoord lê in ’n noodsaaklike wese wat die rede vir sy eie bestaan in homself dra (sufficient reason).

Daarom maak die vraag “Wie het God gemaak?” ’n verkeerde aanname – dit behandel God asof Hy ’n kontingente wese binne ’n groter stel dinge is.

As iemand sê: “Ek sal net ’n wetenskaplike oorsaak aanvaar, nie God as die oorsaak nie,” kan jy vra: “En wat het daardie wetenskaplike oorsaak veroorsaak?” Uiteindelik kom selfs die skeptikus by iets wat hy as onveroorsaak aanvaar – of dit nou materie/energie is, of natuurwette, of iets anders.

Die vraag is dan: watter een is ‘n beter kandidaat vir ‘n onveranderlike, selfbestaande grond van alles: ‘n blote, dooie natuurstof, of ‘n ewige, intelligente Gees?

Christene glo laasgenoemde maak veel meer sin – omdat dit die orde, rede en doelgerigtheid van die skepping beter verklaar. Soos Psalm 90:2 sê:

“Voordat die berge gebore is en U die aarde en die wêreld voortgebring het – ja, van ewigheid tot ewigheid is U God.”

Mite 4: “Die Bybel beskryf God as ’n kwaai man – gelowiges dink God het menslike buie en ’n fisiese liggaam.”

Skeptici wys soms na gedeeltes in die Ou Testament waar God met menslike eienskappe uitgebeeld word – Hy “wandel” byvoorbeeld in die tuin van Eden (Genesis 3:8), Hy toon toorn of berou, of Hy word as “Vader” beskryf met hande en oë. Dan sê hulle: “Sien? Julle eie Bybel maak van God ’n mensagtige wese met emosies. Is Hy nie maar net ’n groot ou met superkragte nie?”

Dit is waar dat die Bybel menslike taal gebruik om God se dade en gevoelens te beskryf. Maar Christelike teologie het lankal erken dat hierdie uitdrukkings figure van spraak is, nie letterlike stellings dat God fisies of emosioneel ‘n mens is nie.

Hierdie manier van praat het name: antropomorfisme (om menslike vorm aan God toe te skryf) en antropopatisme (om menslike emosies aan God toe te skryf). Dit is analogiese taal: beelde wat ons help om iets van God se werklikheid te verstaan, sonder om te sê dat Hy presies soos ons is.

Wanneer Genesis 3:8 sê:

“En hulle het die stem van die Here God gehoor terwyl Hy wandel in die tuin in die aandwind,”

… beteken dit nie dat God letterlik voete het wat voetstappe maak nie. Dit dui aan dat Sy teenwoordigheid op ’n besondere wyse ervaar is. God is volgens Sy wese Gees (Johannes 4:24) en alomteenwoordig; Hy hoef nie te loop om êrens te wees nie, en Hy het geen fisiese liggaam nie (voor Christus se menswording).

Net so dui verse oor God se “oë” of “hande” op Sy kennis of dade, nie op vleeslike liggaamsdele nie. Die Bybel waarsku selfs hierteen:

“God is nie ’n man dat Hy sou lieg nie, of ’n mensekind dat Hy Hom sou berou nie” (Numeri 23:19)

As mense begin dink het dat God werklik soos ’n mens-beeld of afgod is, het die profete hulle skerp aangespreek. Psalm 50:21 sê:

“Jy het gedink dat Ek net soos jy is; maar Ek sal jou bestraf…”

In Handelinge 17:29 sê Paulus:

“Ons moet dan nie dink dat die Godheid soos goud of silwer of klip is – ’n beeld wat deur mensehandewerk en verbeelding gemaak is nie.”

Waarom gebruik die Bybel dan menslike beelde? Omdat dit die enigste manier is waarop ons as beperkte mense iets van God se karakter en optrede kan verstaan. Ons verstaan dinge soos liefde, toorn, stap, sien – en so gebruik die Bybel hierdie terme om iets van God se werklikheid vir ons beskikbaar te maak.

Maar Christelike teologie herinner ons dat hierdie ooreenkomste beperk is. Ons toorn is byvoorbeeld dikwels irrasioneel of selfsugtig; God se “toorn” is volmaak regverdig en suiwer gerig teen sonde. Ons liefde is gebroke; God se liefde is volmaak.

Wanneer die Bybel sê “God het berou gehad” of “God was bedroef”, moet ons dit lees in die lig van ander Skrifgedeeltes wat Sy onveranderlikheid bevestig (1 Samuel 15:29; Jakobus 1:17).

Soos Augustinus al in die vierde eeu gesê het: God “praat met ons soos ’n ouer wat vir ’n kind lispel” – Hy pas Sy openbaring by ons vermoë om te verstaan.

Daarom is die bewering dat “Christene glo God is ’n bebaarde ou man met buie” ’n strooipop. Geen ortodokse Christelike kerk leer dit nie. Ons glo God is persoonlik: Hy kan ‘n verhouding hê met mense en Hy kan liefhê, oordeel en vergewe. Maar Hy is ook volmaak en vry van die beperkinge van menslike emosies.

Selfs ons eie denke kan soms verkeerd afglip: ons kan God begin voorstel as ’n ou man met ’n spesifieke gesig, of sy liefde as net ’n groter weergawe van ons eie. Ons moet onsself herinner dat God in ’n klas van Sy eie is – Skepper, nie skepsel nie.

Soos Jesaja 55:8–9 sê:

“Want my gedagtes is nie julle gedagtes nie, en julle weë is nie my weë nie, spreek die Here. Want soos die hemel hoër is as die aarde, so is my weë hoër as julle weë en my gedagtes as julle gedagtes.”

Wanneer ons dit reg verstaan, verdiep dit ons aanbidding. God is tegelyk verhewe (almagtig, alwetend, ewig) en naby (Hy sorg vir ons, hoor ons gebede en ken selfs die hare op ons kop). Hierdie balans help ons om te vertrou én om Hom met ontsag te dien.

Van karikatuur na werklikheid

Deur hierdie sessie heen was ons doel om die karikature van God te vervang met ‘n duideliker beeld van wat Christene werklik glo. As skeptici die geloof in God wil kritiseer, is dit net regverdig dat hulle eers die ware argumente en definisies aanspreek, eerder as om ‘n strooipop aan te val.

Sommige New Atheist-skrywers soos Richard Dawkins aanvaar ‘n simplistiese idee van God, basies ‘n supermens binne die heelal, en maak dit dan maklik af. Maar soos ons gesien het, is dit nie die God van die Christelike geloof nie.

Net soos ons sou verwag dat iemand wat ’n vak soos fisika kritiseer eers regte fisika moet verstaan, so behoort kritici van Christelike geloof ook die klassieke konsep van God reg te verstaan voordat hulle dit verwerp.

Wanneer ons die strooipoppe wegvee, sien ons dat die ware visie van God in die Christelike geloof ryker is as die karikature:

• God is nie ’n wispelturige tiran of ’n afsydige afgod nie, maar die volheid van Bestaan, die bron van alle skoonheid, waarheid en goedheid, wat uit liefde geskep het.
• Hy is die Een “in wie ons leef en beweeg en is” (Handelinge 17:28), en tog het Hy ons so lief dat Hy Homself ten volle in Jesus Christus geopenbaar het.
• Hierdie kombinasie van transendensie (verhewenheid) en immanensie (teenwoordigheid) maak die God van die Bybel uniek – ver verwyderd van enige heidense gode of denkbeeldige “onsigbare vriende”.

Wanneer iemand sê: “Om in God te glo is soos om in die Tandmuis te glo”, kan ons rustig antwoord: Nee, die konsepte is totaal verskillend. Die Tandmuis (of Kersvader) is ’n finit (eindige, telbare), fisiese wese binne die wêreld – daar is geen ernstige filosofiese argument of wêreldwye konsensus oor sy bestaan nie, en ons het baie direkte bewyse dat hy nie bestaan nie (bv. ons sien ouers die geld onder die kussing sit).

God, daarenteen, is ’n oneindige, transendente wese – die grond van bestaan self. Die tipe bewyse wat jy vir God sou verwag, is van ’n heel ander aard as dié vir ’n mitiese karakter.

Christelike geloof is dus nie ’n kinderagtige sprokie nie, maar ’n intellektueel robuuste oortuiging wat deur baie van die grootste denkers in die geskiedenis gedeel is.

Laastens moet ons ook self ons gedagtes nagaan – selfs gelowiges kan soms begin dink oor God op ’n manier wat Hom te klein maak.

• Wanneer ons bid maar twyfel dat Hy iets werklik kan verander, vergeet ons dat Hy almagtig is.
• Wanneer ons Hom net nader vir “probleemoplossing”, vergeet ons dat Hy Here oor alles is en aanbid moet word bloot vir wie Hy is.
• Wanneer ons Hom as afsydig voorstel, vergeet ons dat Hy elke traan tel en elke haar op ons kop ken.

Die Bybel bring hierdie balans: God is verhewe bó alles, maar ook naby aan almal wat Hom aanroep. Jesaja 55:8–9 herinner ons om nie ons beperkings op God te projekteer nie; Lukas 12:6–7 herinner ons dat Hy vir die mossies sorg en selfs die hare op ons kop getel het.

As iemand dus ’n karikatuur van God as “wreed”, “kleinlik” of “denkbeeldig” uitbeeld, kan ons innerlik sê: “Dis nie my God wat jy daar beskryf nie.”

En dan kan ons sag en nederig verduidelik wat die Christelike begrip van God werklik is — met die hoop dat selfs al verwerp hulle dit, hulle ten minste die regte God verwerp en nie ’n strooipop nie.

Ons doel is nie om net argumente te wen nie, maar om mense bekend te stel aan God soos Hy werklik is – die lewende, heilige en liefdevolle Here wat in die Skrif en in Christus geopenbaar is.

“God is lig, en daar is geen duisternis in Hom nie” (1 Johannes 1:5)

---

Noemenswaardige Aanhalings

“The God of the Bible is not a god among other gods, not even the greatest being within reality, but the very ground and source of all reality.” –- David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God

• (Die God van die Bybel is nie ’n god tussen ander gode nie, nie eens die grootste wese binne die werklikheid nie, maar die grondslag en bron van alle werklikheid self.)

“An impersonal god—well and good. A subjective god of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads—better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power we can tap—best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband—that is quite another matter.” -– C.S. Lewis, Miracles

• (’n Onpersoonlike god—goed en wel. ’n Subjektiewe god van skoonheid, waarheid en goedheid, binne ons eie gedagtes—nog beter. ’n Vormlose lewenskrag wat deur ons bruis, ’n magtige energie wat ons kan aanwend—die beste van alles. Maar God self, lewend, wat aan die ander kant van die tou trek, dalk op oneindige spoed naderkom, die jagter, koning, eggenoot—dit is ’n heel ander saak.)

“The Dawkins Confusion: the God Delusion argument attacks a straw man, not the God in whom Christians believe.” -– Alvin Plantinga, Books & Culture (Mar/Apr 2007)

• (Die Dawkins-verwarring: die “God Delusion”-argument val ’n strooipop aan, nie die God in wie Christene glo nie.)

“When people think of God as simply a bigger and better version of themselves, they inevitably reduce Him to an idol of their own imagination.” -– R.C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith

• (Wanneer mense aan God dink as bloot ’n groter en beter weergawe van hulleself, verminder hulle Hom onvermydelik tot ’n afgod van hul eie verbeelding.)

---

Besprekingsvrae

• Watter beelde of argumente oor God het jy al teëgekom van skeptici of in die populêre kultuur? Het dit die God wat jy uit die Skrif ken, akkuraat voorgestel, of was dit strooipop-weergawes?

• Waarom dink jy bly karikature van God (bv. ’n kwaai tiran of ’n mitiese “lugfeëtjie”) steeds voortbestaan in moderne gesprekke? Hoe kan ons hierdie wanbegrippe sagkens regstel – by ons vriende, of selfs in ons eie denke?

• Hoe sou jy reageer op ’n vriend wat sê: “Om in God te glo is soos om in die Tandmuis of Kersvader te glo”? Watter sleutelverskille sou jy uitwys?

• Die vraag “As God die heelal geskep het, wie het vir God geskep?” kom dikwels op. Hoe sou jy dit in eenvoudige, verstaanbare terme verduidelik?

• Op watter maniere dink jy stel ons as Christene soms God te eng voor of te menslik voor? (Byvoorbeeld: om net na Hom te gaan as ’n laaste uitweg, of om te aanvaar Hy is “op ons kant” soos ’n stamgod.) Hoe help ’n regte, verhewe siening van God se natuur – én die wete van Sy persoonlike liefde – ons om ons geloof te versterk en ons houding reg te stel?

---

Bybelkommentaar oor Sleutelteksgedeeltes

Jesaja 40:18 – “Met wie wil julle God dan vergelyk, of watter gelykenis sal julle vir Hom uitsoek?” (1953-vertaling)

Hierdaag Jesaja die volk uit om te besef dat God totaal uniek is. Enige poging om Hom voor te stel asof Hy deel van die skepping is, misken Sy oneindige verhewenheid.

Eksodus 20:4 – “Jy mag vir jou geen gesnede beeld maak of enige gelykenis van wat bo in die hemel of onder op die aarde of in die waters onder die aarde is nie.” (1953-vertaling)

Die tweede gebod verbied afgodsbeelde, wat insluit verkeerde of verminkte idees van God. Dit herinner ons dat God nie deur ’n beeld of konsep beperk kan word nie.

Johannes 4:24 – “God is Gees; en die wat Hom aanbid, moet in gees en waarheid aanbid.” (1953-vertaling)

Jesus leer dat God nie ’n liggaamlike wese is wat beperk word deur plek of vorm nie. Om Hom reg te aanbid vereis dat ons Hom ken soos Hy werklik is.

Handelinge 17:24-25 – “Die God wat die wêreld gemaak het en alles wat daarin is, Hy wat Here van hemel en aarde is, woon nie in tempels met hande gemaak nie. Hy laat Hom ook nie deur mensehande dien asof Hy iets nodig het nie, omdat Hy self aan almal lewe en asem en alles gee.” (1953-vertaling)

Paulus maak dit duidelik dat God nie afhanklik is van die skepping nie, maar dat alles in die skepping totaal afhanklik is van Hom.

---

Aanbevole Leeswerk

• Alvin Plantinga – “The Dawkins Confusion” (artikel) ’n Skerp en insiggewende resensie van Richard Dawkins se The God Delusion deur een van die voorste Christelike filosowe. Plantinga wys op die logiese foute in Dawkins se kritiek, veral hoe hy ’n baie simplistiese en growwe konsep van God aanval. Hy wys byvoorbeeld uit dat Dawkins God verkeerdelik as ’n komplekse fisiese objek behandel en die klassieke idee van God se eenvoud ignoreer, en dat Dawkins se redenasie oor waarskynlikheid inkonsekwent is. Hierdie artikel is maklik leesbaar en breek die strooiman-argumente van Dawkins deeglik af.

• C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity, Boek II, Hoofstuk 1: “The Rival Conceptions of God” In hierdie hoofstuk (oorspronklik ’n radiopraatjie) onderskei Lewis tussen verskillende idees oor God in die wêreld – van panteïsme tot dualisme tot die Christelike siening. Hy verduidelik hoekom nie alle “gode” dieselfde is nie, en gebruik analogieë soos wiskunde: daar is net een regte antwoord, maar sommige verkeerde antwoorde is nader aan die regte een as ander. Hy verduidelik ook die verskil tussen ’n blote “lewenskrag” of ’n onpersoonlike god, en die persoonlike God waarin Christene glo. Dit is ‘n toeganklike verduideliking wat help om duidelik te maak wat Christene nie glo oor God, sowel as wat ons wél glo.

• Edward Feser – Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Inleiding Filosof Edward Feser bied ’n moderne verdediging van klassieke argumente vir God se bestaan. In die inleiding beklemtoon hy hoe belangrik dit is om eers te verstaan wat ons met “God” bedoel voordat ons argumente vir of teen Sy bestaan evalueer – sodat ateïste en teïste nie by mekaar verby praat nie. Hy spreek ook algemene besware aan (soos “Wie het God gemaak?” of “Is dit nie maar net ’n god van die gapings nie?”) en wys waarom hierdie vrae die punt mis wanneer mens die klassieke siening van God verstaan. Sy skryfwerk is duidelik en toeganklik, en maak antieke argumente van filosowe soos Aristoteles, Plotinus en Aquinas verstaanbaar vir vandag.

• R.C. Sproul – The Character of God (video-reeks of boekie) R.C. Sproul, ’n bekende Bybelleraar in die Gereformeerde tradisie, was bekend daarvoor dat hy teologie verstaanbaar gemaak het. In The Character of God bespreek Sproul God se eienskappe (heiligheid, soewereiniteit, alwetendheid, ens.) op ’n pastorale en boeiende manier. Hy spreek onderweg baie gewilde wanopvattings aan – soos die idee dat God “net soos ons maar groter” is. Een van sy bekende stellings is dat God nie eenvoudig bo-aan die “ketting van lewe” is nie – Hy is van ‘n heel ander orde. Hierdie bron verdiep verwondering oor God en toerus vir gesprekke oor wanbegrippe.

---

Bibliografie

Primêre Artikels en Analises

• Plantinga, Alvin. “The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ‘ad absurdum’.” Books & Culture, Mar/Apr 2007. (Plantinga bied ’n logies gestruktureerde kritiek op Richard Dawkins se oppervlakkige verstaan van God en die aard van geloof. Hy wys hoe Dawkins ’n strooipop aanval wat nie die ware God van klassieke teïsme verteenwoordig nie.)

• Stonestreet, John & Morris, G. Shane. “So, What God Do You Not Believe In?” Breakpoint, 29 Julie 2024. (Hierdie artikel daag lesers uit om eers duidelikheid te kry oor watter “God” verwerp word. Baie mense verwerp ’n karikatuur wat glad nie die God van die Bybel is nie.)

• Linker, Damon. “The atheist’s version of God is a straw man.” The Week, 10 Januarie 2015. (Linker beklemtoon hoe moderne ateïsme dikwels ’n verdraaide weergawe van God as teiken kies – wat nie ooreenstem met wat Christene regtig glo nie.)

• Broussard, Karlo. “Between Existence and Annihilation.” Catholic Answers Magazine, 1 Julie 2016. (Broussard bespreek waarom God se bestaan nie afhanklik is van tyd of ruimte nie, en hoe klassieke teïsme ’n dieper metafisiese begrip van God bied.)

• Flynn, Pat. “I Believe in Santa, the Father Almighty?” Catholic Answers (online), 14 Junie 2022. (Hierdie artikel wys op die groot verskil tussen geloof in God en geloof in fiktiewe figure soos die Kersvader – en weerlê die vergelyking as onsin.)

• The Daily Apologist. “Who Created God?” Blog post, 23 Januarie 2019. (Die artikel verduidelik waarom die vraag “Wie het God gemaak?” op ’n verkeerde aanname berus, en gee ’n verstaanbare uiteensetting van God se noodsaaklike bestaan.)

Teologiese en Filosofiese Verduidelikings

• Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017. (Veral die inleiding is waardevol vir Sessie 2: Feser wys hoe belangrik dit is om eers duidelik te definieer wat met “God” bedoel word. Hy spreek algemene besware aan en help om klassieke argumente te verstaan.)

• Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952. (Sien Boek II, Hoofstuk 1: “The Rival Conceptions of God”. Lewis verduidelik waarom die Christelike begrip van God fundamenteel anders is as mitologiese gode of onpersoonlike kragte.)

• Sproul, R.C. The Character of God. Video-reeks en boekie. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries. (Sproul bring die klassieke eienskappe van God tot lewe in ’n pastorale styl. Hy spreek wanopvattings aan soos dat God net ’n “groot weergawe van ons” is, en benadruk God se heiligheid en verhewenheid.)

• Barrett, Matthew. “Surprised by the Perfect Being.” Tabletalk Magazine, 12 Julie 2019. (Barrett verduidelik hoe klassieke teïsme God verstaan as die “maksimaal volmaakte wese” – nie ’n wese onder ander nie, maar Bestaan self.)

Hermeneutiek en Bybeluitleg

• Christian Research Institute. “Recognizing and Interpreting Anthropomorphic Language.” Christian Research Journal, vol. 33, no. 2 (2010). (Hierdie artikel bespreek hoe menslike beelde van God in die Bybel verstaan moet word – as metaforiese of analogiese taal wat God se werklikheid vir ons toeganklik maak, sonder om Hom te vermenslik.)

Skrifverwysings en Bybelse Konteks

• Die Bybel (2020-vertaling en 1953-vertaling). Bybelgenootskap van Suid-Afrika. (Alle Skrifaanhalings in die sessie kom uit hierdie vertalings, afhangend van konteks en stylkeuse.)

Unmasking the Myths — Modern Misconceptions about God

Introduction

In today’s sceptical world, caricatures of God often receive the most attention. Popular atheist books and internet memes reduce God to an “invisible sky fairy” or a grumpy old man with a beard sitting on a cloud. Such images are easy to ridicule, but they are straw men — misrepresentations in which no serious Christian believes. When critics equate God with childish superstition or with a capricious “man upstairs”, they are not actually addressing the classical Christian view of God. In reality, many sceptics attack what is clearly a “ridiculous straw man” rather than the true understanding of God. As one commentator put it, this makes it easier for them — they defeat a trivial idea instead of wrestling with reality.

Modern atheism often misunderstands the classical concept of God. Even committed believers can sometimes fall into too limited an idea of God. Scripture reminds us that God is both the Almighty King who is exalted above space and time, and the loving Father who has even counted every hair on our head (Matthew 10:30). This balance strengthens our faith and protects us against confusion.

Myth 1: “God is merely ancient superstition or a psychological crutch.”

One of the common taunts is that belief in God is no more rational than belief in the Tooth Fairy or Father Christmas — that it is merely a convenient fiction for the weak or uneducated. The implication is that religion only exists as a psychological crutch or a remnant of “ancient superstition” that will vanish as science advances.

This claim, however, ignores the strong philosophical reasoning and life experiences that have convinced countless thinkers of God’s reality throughout the ages. Far from being a mere “gap-filler” for our ignorance, the Christian faith offers a coherent explanation for why anything exists at all — including reason and natural laws. The very fact that the universe is intelligible points to a rational ground of being (John 1:1) rather than to random chaos.

Philosophers from Aristotle to Aquinas to Alvin Plantinga have offered rigorous arguments for God’s existence — arguments about the existence of contingent beings, about the beginning of the universe, about the reality of moral and logical truths, and so forth. These arguments do not appeal to magic but to explanation. For example, the cosmological argument asks: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and concludes that a necessary, uncaused reality (God) is the best answer.

Even atheistic philosophers acknowledge that the question of existence is a profound one. Gottfried Leibniz in particular argued that the sufficient reason for the world must lie in a necessary being that carries the reason for its own existence within itself, rather than in an infinite series of contingent things. To dismiss God as superstition does not solve this riddle — it merely evades it.

It is also important to note that many brilliant, rational people believe in God, which refutes the idea that faith is solely a crutch for the uninformed. The atheistic scholar Thomas Nagel himself admitted that he was troubled by the fact that “some of the most intelligent and well-informed people” he knew were theists.

Their faith did not come from stupidity or mere wishful thinking, but often from careful reflection and even personal experience. Of course comfort can be an aspect of faith; God does indeed bring consolation to those who are hurting. But that does not mean God is merely a human invention for comfort.

To call a belief false simply because it is comforting is to commit the so-called genetic fallacy — confusing the origin of an idea with its truth. We must kindly point out that truth is not determined by how a belief makes us feel.

The reality of God stands or falls on evidence and reason, not on whether it is old or comforting. Indeed, the Christian faith has endured not because it avoids difficult questions, but because it provides resources to answer them.

Far from being anti-rational, Christianity has historically fuelled the rise of science and philosophy (many early scientists were committed believers). In short: believers do not see God as an “opium” to numb themselves, but as the Logos — the mind behind reality that makes rational thought and discovery possible.

Our task, then, is to invite sceptics to look beyond shallow dismissals and to consider the case for God with the same seriousness as any other great question. As Psalm 19:1 says:

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”

There is something out there to see — if we are willing to look.

Myth 2: “Believers think God is a big man up there who intervenes occasionally (a ‘god of the gaps’).”

Another common misconception is that Christians picture God as an enlarged human being — a “big man upstairs” who mostly stays away, except when He occasionally intervenes with a miracle when something needs fixing. Critics like Richard Dawkins have attacked this idea, describing God as merely a super-powerful being or “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak” in the sky.

But this criticism is aimed at a false target. Classical Christianity does not see God as merely another being within the universe. God is not an old man on a cloud, nor a semi-invisible angel, nor a “chief engineer” who steps in to plug gaps in natural processes.

On the contrary, God is understood as the ground of all existence — the reason why anything exists or happens at any moment. Rather than intervening only occasionally, the true God continuously and actively sustains the universe. As Scripture says:

“He upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3) “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)

Every heartbeat, every natural law, every moment of existence is dependent on God’s sustaining will.

This is an important distinction: God is the primary cause of existence itself, while science describes secondary causes — the mechanisms within creation. We need not choose between God and science; God is not in competition with natural laws — He is the Author of the nature upon which those laws rest.

The caricature of a “god of the gaps” — a god who is only invoked to explain what science has not yet explained — does not represent classical theism at all. As Thomas Aquinas explained, God is not a placeholder for ignorance but the necessary ground, even for a fully comprehensible natural world.

Even if every physical process were explained, the question remains: “Why does anything exist? Why do these laws hold?” And that again points to God.

Christians believe that God is not a “man upstairs” or an item within the universe. He is Being itself — eternal, invisible and omnipresent. The Bible emphasises this exaltation:

“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you” (1 Kings 8:27) “God is spirit” (John 4:24) “God is not man” (Numbers 23:19)

When sceptics ask: “Why can’t we see or detect God like a planet or star?” they miss the category difference. God is not one of the objects in space and time — He is the source of all space and time. Searching for God with a telescope or particle accelerator is as wrong as looking for the painter inside his own painting.

This understanding helps us move away from the idea that God is like Zeus or Thor — a being within nature who interferes now and then. That pagan concept was rejected by Christians long ago. A well-known quotation, often attributed to R.C. Sproul, says:

“God is not just a bigger, better version of human beings. No, He is an entirely different kind of being altogether.”

The difference between Creator and creature is qualitative, not merely quantitative. He has no limitations; we have many.

So when someone scoffs: “You believe in a magic man in the sky”, we can say: No, I believe in a transcendent Spirit who is the reason anything exists and functions. To reduce Him to an “old man” is like reducing the sun to a candle flame — an absurd diminishment.

By attacking this misunderstood image, critics have not yet touched the God of the Christian faith — only a straw man. We can invite them to engage with the real vision of God: One who sustains the universe at every moment, but who is not limited as a creature is. This vision explains precisely why an ordered universe can exist — because it depends on the Ultimate Orderer.

There are no “gaps” where God is not at work — as Acts 17:27 says:

“He is actually not far from each one of us.”

Myth 3: “If God created the universe, who created God?”

At first glance this question sounds clever — it is often posed in a triumphant aha tone, as though it is a catch that disarms the believer’s entire argument: “Aha! You haven’t solved anything, you’ve just pushed it back one step.”

Richard Dawkins, for example, writes in The God Delusion that the idea of God only deepens the puzzle, because “who designed the Designer?”

But this objection misunderstands what Christians mean by the word “God.” By definition God is the Uncaused First Cause, the ultimate reality that has always existed. To ask: “Who created the Uncreated Creator?” is a category error — like asking: “Whom is the bachelor married to?” or “What does the colour red taste like?”

If we understand the concept of God correctly, we know He is eternal and necessary, without beginning and without cause. All major Christian traditions teach that God exists a se (from Himself), while everything else exists ab alio (from something else).

Therefore the question “Who made God?” is meaningless, because we do not believe in a made God. If something were made or caused, it would by definition not be God.

The confusion usually arises from a sloppy formulation of the argument. Sceptics sometimes say: “Well, you say that everything needs a Creator; therefore God must have one too.” But that is not what Christians say. The traditional argument runs: “Everything that began to exist, or that is contingent, requires a cause.”

God, unlike the universe, did not begin to exist and is not contingent. He is the Necessary Being: the One whose very essence is existence, and who cannot cease to exist.

The universe, by contrast, is contingent — it need not exist, and according to the best scientific insights it had a beginning (e.g. the Big Bang). Even if we trace the chain of causes back to a Big Bang, the question remains: “Why is there a universe? Why does it have laws?”

An infinite regress of physical causes does not solve the ultimate question — it merely pushes it further back.

Imagine a chain hanging in the air: even if the chain is infinitely long, that does not explain why it hangs in the air at all. There must be a hook outside the chain itself that carries it. Similarly, there must be an Ultimate Cause outside the series of contingent things that grounds them all.

Aquinas put it well: there must be a First Cause whose essence and existence are one and the same — a being that is pure existence itself, not receiving existence from anything else.

Leibniz asked similarly: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and concluded that the answer lies in a necessary being that carries the reason for its own existence within itself (sufficient reason).

Therefore the question “Who made God?” makes a false assumption — it treats God as though He were a contingent being within a larger set of things.

If someone says: “I will only accept a scientific cause, not God as the cause,” you can ask: “And what caused that scientific cause?” Ultimately even the sceptic arrives at something he accepts as uncaused — whether it be matter/energy, natural laws or something else.

The question then becomes: which is a better candidate for an unchanging, self-existing ground of everything — a mere, lifeless natural substance, or an eternal, intelligent Spirit?

Christians believe the latter makes far more sense — because it better explains the order, reason and purposefulness of creation. As Psalm 90:2 says:

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”

Myth 4: “The Bible describes God as an angry man — believers think God has human moods and a physical body.”

Sceptics sometimes point to passages in the Old Testament where God is depicted with human characteristics — He “walks” in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8), for example, He shows anger or regret, or He is described as “Father” with hands and eyes. Then they say: “See? Your own Bible makes God a human-like being with emotions. Isn’t He just a big man with superpowers?”

It is true that the Bible uses human language to describe God’s acts and feelings. But Christian theology has long recognised that these expressions are figures of speech, not literal statements that God is physically or emotionally human.

This manner of speaking has names: anthropomorphism (ascribing human form to God) and anthropopathism (ascribing human emotions to God). These are analogical language: images that help us understand something of God’s reality without saying He is exactly like us.

When Genesis 3:8 says:

“And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,”

… it does not mean that God literally has feet that make footsteps. It indicates that His presence was experienced in a particular way. God is in His essence Spirit (John 4:24) and omnipresent; He does not need to walk to be somewhere, and He has no physical body (before Christ’s incarnation).

Similarly, verses about God’s “eyes” or “hands” indicate His knowledge or actions, not fleshly body parts. The Bible even warns against this:

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19)

When people began to think that God was truly like a man-shaped image or idol, the prophets addressed them sharply. Psalm 50:21 says:

“You thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you…”

In Acts 17:29 Paul says:

“Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.”

Why then does the Bible use human images? Because it is the only way we as limited human beings can understand something of God’s character and actions. We understand things like love, anger, walking, seeing — and so the Bible uses these terms to make something of God’s reality accessible to us.

But Christian theology reminds us that these similarities are limited. Our anger, for instance, is often irrational or selfish; God’s “anger” is perfectly just and purely directed against sin. Our love is broken; God’s love is perfect.

When the Bible says “God regretted” or “God was grieved”, we must read it in light of other passages that affirm His immutability (1 Samuel 15:29; James 1:17).

As Augustine said as early as the fourth century: God “speaks to us like a parent who lisps to a child” — He accommodates His revelation to our capacity to understand.

Therefore the claim that “Christians believe God is a bearded old man with mood swings” is a straw man. No orthodox Christian church teaches this. We believe God is personal: He can have a relationship with people and He can love, judge and forgive. But He is also perfect and free from the limitations of human emotions.

Even our own thinking can sometimes drift: we can begin to picture God as an old man with a particular face, or imagine His love as merely a larger version of our own. We must remind ourselves that God is in a class of His own — Creator, not creature.

As Isaiah 55:8–9 says:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

When we understand this correctly, it deepens our worship. God is at once exalted (almighty, omniscient, eternal) and near (He cares for us, hears our prayers and knows even the hairs on our head). This balance helps us to trust and to serve Him with reverence.

From Caricature to Reality

Throughout this session our goal has been to replace caricatures of God with a clearer picture of what Christians actually believe. If sceptics wish to criticise belief in God, it is only fair that they first address the real arguments and definitions, rather than attacking a straw man.

Some New Atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins adopt a simplistic idea of God — basically a super-human within the universe — and then easily dismiss it. But as we have seen, that is not the God of the Christian faith.

Just as we would expect someone who criticises a subject like physics first to understand real physics, so critics of the Christian faith ought to understand the classical concept of God correctly before rejecting it.

When we sweep away the straw men, we see that the true vision of God in the Christian faith is richer than the caricatures:

• God is not a capricious tyrant or a detached idol, but the fullness of Being, the source of all beauty, truth and goodness, who created out of love.
• He is the One “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), and yet He loved us so much that He revealed Himself fully in Jesus Christ.
• This combination of transcendence (exaltation) and immanence (presence) makes the God of the Bible unique — far removed from any pagan gods or imaginary “invisible friends”.

When someone says: “Believing in God is like believing in the Tooth Fairy”, we can calmly respond: No, the concepts are entirely different. The Tooth Fairy (or Father Christmas) is a finite, physical being within the world — there is no serious philosophical argument or worldwide consensus for his existence, and we have much direct evidence that he does not exist (e.g. we see parents putting money under the pillow).

God, by contrast, is an infinite, transcendent being — the ground of existence itself. The kind of evidence you would expect for God is of a wholly different sort from that for a mythical character.

The Christian faith is therefore not a childish fairy tale, but an intellectually robust conviction shared by many of the greatest thinkers in history.

Finally, we must also examine our own thoughts — even believers can sometimes begin to think about God in ways that make Him too small.

• When we pray but doubt that He can truly change anything, we forget that He is almighty.
• When we approach Him only for “problem-solving”, we forget that He is Lord over all and is to be worshipped simply for who He is.
• When we picture Him as distant, we forget that He counts every tear and knows every hair on our head.

The Bible brings this balance: God is exalted above all, yet also near to all who call upon Him. Isaiah 55:8–9 reminds us not to project our limitations onto God; Luke 12:6–7 reminds us that He cares for the sparrows and has even counted the hairs on our head.

So if someone portrays a caricature of God as “cruel”, “petty” or “imaginary”, we can inwardly say: “That is not my God you are describing there.”

And then we can gently and humbly explain what the Christian understanding of God truly is — with the hope that even if they reject it, they at least reject the real God and not a straw man.

Our goal is not merely to win arguments, but to introduce people to God as He truly is — the living, holy and loving Lord who is revealed in Scripture and in Christ.

“God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5)

---

Notable Quotations

“The God of the Bible is not a god among other gods, not even the greatest being within reality, but the very ground and source of all reality.” — David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God

• (The God of the Bible is not a god among other gods, not even the greatest being within reality, but the very ground and source of all reality itself.)

“An impersonal god—well and good. A subjective god of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads—better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power we can tap—best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband—that is quite another matter.” — C.S. Lewis, Miracles

“The Dawkins Confusion: the God Delusion argument attacks a straw man, not the God in whom Christians believe.” — Alvin Plantinga, Books & Culture (Mar/Apr 2007)

“When people think of God as simply a bigger and better version of themselves, they inevitably reduce Him to an idol of their own imagination.” — R.C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith

---

Discussion Questions

• What images or arguments about God have you encountered from sceptics or in popular culture? Did they accurately represent the God you know from Scripture, or were they straw-man versions?

• Why do you think caricatures of God (e.g. a cruel tyrant or a mythical “sky fairy”) continue to persist in modern conversations? How can we gently correct these misconceptions — with our friends, or even in our own thinking?

• How would you respond to a friend who says: “Believing in God is like believing in the Tooth Fairy or Father Christmas”? What key differences would you highlight?

• The question “If God created the universe, who created God?” comes up often. How would you explain it in simple, understandable terms?

• In what ways do you think we as Christians sometimes portray God too narrowly or too humanly? (For example: only turning to Him as a last resort, or assuming He is “on our side” like a tribal god.) How does a correct, exalted view of God’s nature — together with the knowledge of His personal love — help us strengthen our faith and correct our attitudes?

---

Bible Commentary on Key Passages

Isaiah 40:18 — “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?” (ESV)

Here Isaiah challenges the people to realise that God is utterly unique. Any attempt to portray Him as if He were part of creation disregards His infinite exaltation.

Exodus 20:4 — “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” (ESV)

The second commandment forbids idolatrous images, which includes false or diminished ideas of God. It reminds us that God cannot be confined to an image or concept.

John 4:24 — “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (ESV)

Jesus teaches that God is not a bodily being limited by place or form. To worship Him correctly requires that we know Him as He truly is.

Acts 17:24–25 — “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.” (ESV)

Paul makes clear that God is not dependent on creation, but that everything in creation is totally dependent on Him.

---

Recommended Reading

• Alvin Plantinga — “The Dawkins Confusion” (article) A sharp and insightful review of Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion by one of the foremost Christian philosophers. Plantinga points out the logical errors in Dawkins’s critique, particularly how he attacks a very simplistic and crude concept of God. He shows, for example, that Dawkins wrongly treats God as a complex physical object and ignores the classical idea of God’s simplicity, and that Dawkins’s reasoning about probability is inconsistent. This article is easy to read and thoroughly dismantles Dawkins’s straw-man arguments.

• C.S. Lewis — Mere Christianity, Book II, Chapter 1: “The Rival Conceptions of God” In this chapter (originally a radio talk) Lewis distinguishes between different ideas about God in the world — from pantheism to dualism to the Christian view. He explains why not all “gods” are the same, using analogies like mathematics: there is only one right answer, but some wrong answers are closer to the right one than others. He also explains the difference between a mere “life-force” or impersonal god and the personal God in whom Christians believe. This is an accessible explanation that helps clarify what Christians do not believe about God, as well as what we do believe.

• Edward Feser — Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Introduction Philosopher Edward Feser offers a modern defence of classical arguments for God’s existence. In the introduction he emphasises how important it is first to understand what we mean by “God” before evaluating arguments for or against His existence — so that atheists and theists do not talk past each other. He also addresses common objections (such as “Who made God?” or “Isn’t that just a god of the gaps?”) and shows why these questions miss the point when one understands the classical view of God. His writing is clear and accessible, making the ancient arguments of philosophers like Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas understandable for today.

• R.C. Sproul — The Character of God (video series or book) R.C. Sproul, a well-known Bible teacher in the Reformed tradition, was renowned for making theology understandable. In The Character of God Sproul discusses God’s attributes (holiness, sovereignty, omniscience, etc.) in a pastoral and engaging manner. Along the way he addresses many popular misconceptions — such as the idea that God is “just like us but bigger.” One of his well-known statements is that God is not simply at the top of the “chain of being” — He is of an entirely different order. This resource deepens wonder at God and equips for conversations about misconceptions.

---

Bibliography

Primary Articles and Analyses

• Plantinga, Alvin. “The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ‘ad absurdum’.” Books & Culture, Mar/Apr 2007. (Plantinga offers a logically structured critique of Richard Dawkins’s superficial understanding of God and the nature of faith. He shows how Dawkins attacks a straw man that does not represent the true God of classical theism.)

• Stonestreet, John & Morris, G. Shane. “So, What God Do You Not Believe In?” Breakpoint, 29 July 2024. (This article challenges readers to first gain clarity about which “God” is being rejected. Many people reject a caricature that is not at all the God of the Bible.)

• Linker, Damon. “The atheist’s version of God is a straw man.” The Week, 10 January 2015. (Linker emphasises how modern atheism often chooses a distorted version of God as its target — one that does not correspond to what Christians actually believe.)

• Broussard, Karlo. “Between Existence and Annihilation.” Catholic Answers Magazine, 1 July 2016. (Broussard discusses why God’s existence is not dependent on time or space, and how classical theism offers a deeper metaphysical understanding of God.)

• Flynn, Pat. “I Believe in Santa, the Father Almighty?” Catholic Answers (online), 14 June 2022. (This article highlights the great difference between belief in God and belief in fictitious figures such as Father Christmas — and refutes the comparison as nonsense.)

• The Daily Apologist. “Who Created God?” Blog post, 23 January 2019. (The article explains why the question “Who made God?” rests on a false assumption, and gives an understandable exposition of God’s necessary existence.)

Theological and Philosophical Explanations

• Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017. (The introduction is especially valuable for Session 2: Feser shows how important it is first to clearly define what is meant by “God”. He addresses common objections and helps to understand the classical arguments.)

• Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952. (See Book II, Chapter 1: “The Rival Conceptions of God”. Lewis explains why the Christian understanding of God is fundamentally different from mythological gods or impersonal forces.)

• Sproul, R.C. The Character of God. Video series and book. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries. (Sproul brings the classical attributes of God to life in a pastoral style. He addresses misconceptions such as the idea that God is merely a “bigger version of us”, and emphasises God’s holiness and exaltation.)

• Barrett, Matthew. “Surprised by the Perfect Being.” Tabletalk Magazine, 12 July 2019. (Barrett explains how classical theism understands God as the “maximally perfect being” — not a being among others, but Being itself.)

Hermeneutics and Biblical Interpretation

• Christian Research Institute. “Recognizing and Interpreting Anthropomorphic Language.” Christian Research Journal, vol. 33, no. 2 (2010). (This article discusses how human images of God in the Bible should be understood — as metaphorical or analogical language that makes God’s reality accessible to us, without humanising Him.)

Scripture References and Biblical Context

• The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV). Crossway, 2001. (All Scripture quotations in the session come from the ESV, unless otherwise noted.)