Purism

Primus Primus

doi:10.1163/25892525-bja10009

Abstract

Abstract This article presents an ontological proof that God is impossible. I define an ‘impossibility’ as a condition which is inconceivable due to its a priori characteristics (e.g. a ‘square circle’). Accordingly, said conditions will not ever become conceivable, as they could in instances of a posteriori inconceivability (e.g. the notion that someone could touch a star without being burned). As the basis of this argument, I refer to an a priori observation (Primus, 2019) regarding our inability to imagine inconsistency (difference) within any point of space. This observation renders the notion of absolute power to be inconceivable, a priori. I briefly discuss the moral implications of religious faith in the context of Purism: a moral rationalist paradigm. I conclude that whilst belief in God can be aesthetically expressed it should not be possessed as a material purpose, due to the illogicality of the latter category of belief and/or expression. With this article I provide conceptual delineation between harmless religious belief and expression—which, I argue, should be protected from persecution, as per any other artistic expression—and religious belief and expression which is materially harmful to society. Whilst I aim to protect religious freedom of expression on one hand, I duly aim to reduce instances of material faith in God(s) on the other. Finally, I aim to bring hope in the possibility for human salvation via technology—such that they should exist indefinitely as ‘demi-gods,’ defined by conditional, relative power over their environment.

Highlights

I will present an ontological proof for the impossibility of deities with absolute properties—God(s)—by demonstrating that they would be inconsistent with the concept of an absolutely consistent fabric, ‘space,’ which conceivably must be the basis for physical reality
In this article I have attempted to deny the conceptual possibility of God(s)— to ‘rule them out of the equation’—through highlighting that an entity whose power exists absolutely is inconceivable when considered in conjunction with the consideration of the absolute nature of space
We cannot conceive of difference within individual points of space, yet we can so conceive that difference exists across multiple points of space—the states of difference that we know empirically

Summary

The Moral Implications of Material Religious Faith

Should be logical in nature; that which need not be logical should be as one desires. Scientists, politicians, policy makers, police officers, parents, and private citizens, each working towards their respective purposes in a capacity which is needed, possess material beliefs and make material expressions relating to these roles It is logical (I argue; Primus, 2021) that material and formational states each have different moral properties due to the distinct and irreducible natures for which they are respectively sought. The purism worship of any deity which is born out of want, rather than perceived need, will always be protected as a right from the moral rationalist perspective of Purism (Primus, 2021) Such expressions of religious belief are, by their definition, aesthetic in purpose and should be treated as such by material observers. I call upon all active material entities (e.g. humans and government bodies), and especially those within the New Atheist movement, to recognize this distinction; pledge to protect the sanctity of formational religious belief and expression with the same dedication afforded to any other beliefs and expressions of a formational nature.

Conclusion

Works Cited