Does your god have much hair?

[Silent3]

No, I don't mean literal hair. I'm borrowing some terminology used in physics when talking about black holes. I'm using "hair" as a metaphor for detailed attributes and qualities, functions the deity is supposed to serve, clear impacts the deity is supposed to make in the universe around us and in human lives.

Gods which supposedly have inspired specific holy writings, have performed specific miracles, have spoken to specific prophets, which have specific lists of rules for how people should live their lives -- those are very hairy gods.

Spinoza's god, or any god which is little more than a synonym for the natural material universe, is nearly or completely bald.

The hairier the god, the harder the reality of that god is to defend. There's more to be wrong about, there's more that people might demand evidence for, there's more that simply might strike other people as really weird and turn them away from belief in that god. The more hairless your god the easier that god is to defend, but the significance of belief in such a god in your day-to-day life becomes more academic and abstract. If your god is nearly or completely bald, then little or nothing in your life should change as a consequence of declaring belief in that god.

For some believers, the more hair the better. Hairier gods seem more compelling, more believable than less hairy alternatives. I think this is, at least in part, related to a common psychological phenomenon which causes people to incorrectly judge certain kinds of probabilities. Consider these two statements, and determine which statement you think is more likely:

(1) Alice is an anti-abortion activist and a Democrat.
(2) Alice, who had been pro choice, converted to an evangelical Christian faith. She changed her mind about abortion, but remained a Democrat because of her opposition to the war in Iraq and to torture, and because of her belief that the government should do more to help the poor.

Which seems more likely to you? (1) or (2)? (scroll down for answer)



































(1) is more likely. Why? Because (1) does not rule out (2). If (2) is true, then (1) is also true. But (2) can be false while (1) remains true. Number (2) is a good story for explaining how someone could be both anti-abortion and a Democrat, but it's certainly not the only explanation for how that combination of political stances might arise. Alice could, for example, be a Democrat and an atheist, but a bad personal or family experience with abortion turned her against abortion while otherwise not effecting any of her other political positions.

Regardless of this irrefutable reasoning (it can be mathematical proven using set notation or Venn diagrams) many people will say (2) is more likely than (1). There's something about the sensation of detail, the addition of a believable story, that can ring more true than a bald assertion, especially when the bald assertion goes against normal expectations.

I'd guess this kind thinking is one big reason why hairier gods, and other hairy cosmologies and spiritualisms, are more popular than abstract gods and abstract philosophies. After all, if what you believe in is a Creator God who simply made the Universe then disappeared from the scene, what more is there to discuss or talk about? The person promoting a very bald Creator God can't convey that same feeling of religious erudition, that feeling of deep experience, that a person who offers you a thick tome with study groups you can join. We like it when there's more "there" there. Rich detail is compelling and involving.

Regardless of this desire for hairier gods, however, there's a common contradiction that arises. I think it's usually an unconscious thing, a contradiction that people engage in without realizing they're doing it: They defend, and use as a justification for their beliefs, a fairly hairless god, but they practice belief in a much hairier god than the one they rationally argue for.

For example, many people will use the First Cause argument or Argument from Design to defend their belief in a god. Setting aside the known flaws in these arguments, let's suppose for a moment that, say, the Argument from Design is valid -- the existence and complexity of life, the order of the physical universe, proves that a god must exist.

What does this argument tell you about the Designer God, however? All it tells you is that this god designed the universe and the life in it that we see. It tells you absolutely nothing about any purpose for this life, rules the Designer might want its creations to follow if any, if the Designer is still around to care what happens to that which he designed. The argument certainly tell you nothing about whether this Designer has anything at all to do with the Bible or the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita.

Yet many people will jump from the Argument from Design, which speaks only to a very bald god, straight to a specific very hairy God they want to believe in, never considering that the Argument from Design is about any god other than their personal favorite.