Counterfeit Gods
A law firm named Tilleke & Gibbins runs The Museum of Counterfeit Goods in Bangkok, Thailand. Counterfeit goods are big business in Bangkok. Although, copying someone else’s product is cheaper and easier than designing your own, to do so is stealing. Similarly, a huge industry across the world claims to help you find God. Some of their traditions stretch back hundreds of years. The standard abbreviation for this industry is GOT (God Observation Tradition). Every GOT claims to lead us to our quest. A cursory examination of the many GOTs reveals an array of contradictory claims. This suggests that most, if not all, are frauds. These traditional industries are producing counterfeit goods that lead to dead ends in our quest. They are unnecessary detours GOs do well to avoid.
In the university’s Fisher Library I found a huge number of books about GOTs. Every GOT with more than a few dozen adherents has a book about it. The sea of GOTs represented by the pile of books on the library table made me feel sea sick. In desperation, I decided to seek help from Dr Imy Haratharama, a colleague of mine at Sydney University. She is an expert in the Comparative Observation of God (the COG’s factory faculty). Dr Imy received her doctorate at the prestigious COG’s faculty of the University of Delhi. Dr Imy is short in height, but long on words. I planned to bump into her “accidentally” in the quadrangle while she was busy on her way somewhere. My plan worked.
“How are you Dr Imy?”
“I am well Albert, and you?” Dr Imy said with her white teeth flashing against her dark complexion.
“I am a little perplexed by the large number of GOTs. They are stalling my work on my field guide on God observation. There are just too many of them!”
“Yes there are, perhaps I can suggest something.”
“I was hoping you could, Imy.”
Dr Imy said, “There is no commonly agreed classification system for GOTs. There is no neutral ground.”
“Didn’t you say you could help me?”
“Ah! You use a classification system that helps you meet your goals. What is it in your case, observing God?”
I nodded and Dr Imy continued, “You can categorise the myriad of GOTs in regard to how they relate to God observation. They should break down into just a few groups, which should simplify things for you. Each has many sub— GOTs but the differences between these would not be a concern to you, although they are to their adherents.”
“Mm, yes that would make things easier.”
“I will give it some thought and email you a list, but keep it to yourself; we can’t have students finding out. Don’t ask me if any of the GOTs has really seen God.”
“Thanks Imy. If you don’t mind me saying, you sound a bit cynical about all these GOTs.”
“Yes, I have been lecturing about them too long, which reminds me, I’ve got a lecture to go to. Let me know if you actually find God. It would make my job a lot easier,” said Imy disappearing into a side door.
Dr Imy emailed her secret GOT categories based on observability. These are Dr Imy’s categories.
I considered the above categories and decided that I needed to find out more from Dr Haratharama. This time I made a lunchtime appointment with Dr Imy at the University’s Wentworth Building Food Court, which has Indian food. I piled on our trays an extra pot of tea and desserts, expecting a long lunch. We found a quiet table (so we did not disturb others). With my field book opened, I said, “Imy, Can you elaborate for me how each of your categories relates to God observation?” Dr Divebottom walked passed. She looked at Dr Imy, gave me a knowing smile and walked on to another table.
“Let’s go through them one at a time,” said Dr Imy, never one to say anything in a summary fashion she could describe in painstaking detail. For the reader’s benefit, I will insert my notebook headings and edit Dr Imy’s meanderings.
“Your first category of GOTs has an observable God,” I started and then waited while Dr Imy sampled her Australian— Indian curried chicken and rice dish.
“Well,” she said, “These GOTs claim to lead observers to God, but there has been much disappointment.”
“Why is that?” I said.
“They didn’t meet God,” said Dr Imy. “They turned out to be counterfeits.”
“This is where Dr Lee’s description of God’s distinguishing features would be useful,” I said. “When we observe what we suspect might be God, we need to be sure it is God.”
“Yes, well good luck with that one, Albert. Now let’s move on to the next group.”
“This GOT is engrossed in the things of God while saying God does not exist,” said Imy.
“How are they different from those who don’t believe in God?” I asked.
“They enjoy the trappings of religion, the robes, the incantations, the candles, incense…. These things are attractive to many who pursue peace, enjoy meditation, and are concerned about social justice,” said Dr Imy.
“But Imy, why are any of these things important if there is no God?”
“I suppose this doesn’t occur to them,” laughed Dr Imy. “They are fixed in their beliefs. Even matters of life and death they resolve by recycling, peaceful annihilation or absorption into the universe. I was a Viking in my previous life.”
“But you’re Indian,” I said incredulously.
“Beauty is only skin deep Albert,” Dr Imy shot back.
Baffled, I returned to the topic at hand, “Why would people want to pursue God’s things but not God?”
“DIY morality has no accountability. God observation can play havoc with one’s world view,” Dr Imy responded.
“This resembles the God avoiders,” I commented. As I had already found, prospective God observers need a fighting spirit to persevere to the end.
“The third category of GOT,” said Dr Imy pouring a cup of tea, “regards God as the principle behind the universe.”
“We can’t see a principle,” I objected.
“No, not in the same way you see a personal God,” agreed Dr Imy, “but God’s invisibility makes him difficult to see anyway.”
“This GOT renders our quest futile,” I noted in my notebook.
“It teaches that an impersonal principle somehow gave rise to personal beings. A principle creating anything is unlikely, but this GOT usually says God created the universe. How an impersonal principle can underpin any system of personal morality is difficult to fathom,” said Dr Imy.
I added what I had learned from Dr Lee, “This GOT views the nasty things in the world as inconveniences, at least for other people. The way of life they seek is ultimately self-serving.”
“Yes,” continued Dr Imy, “But this GOT allows its adherents to rest easy and avoid any anxiety about meeting a personal God.”
“What anxiety?” I said, “If God is good, the observer can make it a priority to meet with God without fearing dire consequences.”
“If it only were that easy, Albert,” said Dr Imy wistfully.
“The next GOT has been around since ancient times. This GOT worships a multitude of gods. You should have no problem finding one there, Albert.”
“But if there is one God, the rest are frauds,” I objected.
“They accept that others might have different gods,” said Dr Imy. “However, most teach that there is just one god but this god manifests as many different gods to different people.”
“Does this cause tensions with neighbours with different gods?” I asked.
“It does indeed, Albert, especially where adherents to this GOT live in the one country. Also, large numbers of adherents of a particular GOT living in the one place results in a multitude of variations. Their devotees are sometimes hostile towards other variants.”
“So, there are even different beliefs within the one GOT. It must be difficult to get along with others in the same neighbourhood,” I added.
“Albert, do any of these gods appeal to you?”
“Imy, all these manifestations are counterfeits!”
“It provides a thriving market for idol manufacturing,” Imy joked, “Besides, millions of people buy them, Albert, so you must take them seriously.”
“Yes, but consulting with a piece of wood or a lump of metal does not compare to meeting God,” I objected.
“So I can’t interest you in a trip overseas?” goaded Dr Imy amused by my reaction.
“This GOTs many gods or one god manifesting as many gods, are chicanery,” I concluded.
“Oh well, let’s go to the next GOT category,” said Dr Imy who did not appear concerned. “This GOT claims to be new, but recycles an old one. It says that God is in everyone.”
“We are all gods!” I exclaimed.
“So, God observation couldn’t be easier, Albert.”
“Calling a sparrow an albatross doesn’t make for an authentic sighting,” I said.
“Celebrities tell of their out-of-body experiences and meeting people from the after-life,” said Dr Imy.
“You could meet your Viking ancestors, Imy,” I joked.
“Surely you believe in the supernatural Albert.”
“I accept that there might be forces at work to convince the unwary observer they have experienced something supernatural,” I said.
“God is supernatural,” said Dr Imy.
“Although God is supernatural, not everything supernatural is God,” I clarified.
Dr Imy added, “This GOT is popular with people driven by the human desire for acceptance.”
“That does not make it likely to be true. Lowering the standard fails to qualify as a sighting,” I said ruling out this GOT.
Dr Imy progressed to dessert, and to the next GOT. “This GOT says there is a God, but God looks on from a distance, and it is such a great distance he is outside of the universe. So, we cannot meet him. The common religious rituals apply, but they do not expect interaction with God and, not surprisingly, they do not have any. This group criticises the other GOTs because its own worldview is devoid of God.”
“An absentee God,” I wrote in my notebook.
Dr Imy continued, “If God created the world and left it to its own devices, he could view everything that happens on Earth from his vantage point outside the universe. However, from inside creation we cannot see God. We do not meet the clockmaker by observing his clock.”
Recognising Dr Imy’s reference to the argument from design, I added, “A clock suggests there is a clockmaker, but clock watching isn’t the same as seeing its maker.”
Dr Imy responded, “We need not view the world and God in such mechanical terms. Since humans are personal, one expects their creator to not be short on personality. If a person wants to meet another person, interaction at the personal level must take place for it to be a proper meeting.”
I had not expected Imy to make that observation. “It would be like going to lunch with someone and just peering at each other across the table without talking,” I agreed.
“Albert, if God simply peered at us from a distance, how would God get to know us? Interaction is essential to observation, and this applies both to God and to us,” said Dr Imy. “I wish you every success in your attempt.”
“But how am I to distinguish a fraudulent view of God from an authentic sighting?” I was asking the wrong person.
“Counterfeit god sightings don’t qualify as God sightings. I am sure by comparison with God, counterfeits will be obvious,” suggested Dr Imy.
“It is often said that the best way of detecting a counterfeit is by comparing it to the original. Still, the counterfeits are an unwanted detour,” I said.
Dr Imy added as we finished our lunch, “People who advocate for the counterfeit GOTs honestly believe in them. They are usually people of integrity, but sincerity isn’t everything.”
“What if they are mistaken, deceived, or even deluded?” I agreed.
“Exactly, but I wish you more success,” said Dr Imy as she glanced at her watch and stood up. “Let me know if you make an authentic sighting.”
I conclude that none of the counterfeit GOT adherents has seen God. Even Dr Imy, as well credentialed a COG’s scholar as she is, admitted she has not seen God. My competitive nature rose within me at the challenge I had set myself. Let us set aside the counterfeit GOTs, and continue on our quest to find God.