On Godmakers

      On Godmakers

          A letter to Andrew Sullivan

      Dear Andrew Sullivan: 

      You were angry at Dennett for calling something Karen Anderson said a “deepity” - i.e. a statement superficially true but on closer inspection meaningless. It would seem that deepities are a kind of philosophical truthiness; they feel truer than they are.
 

      Certainly deepities exist, and I'm glad that Dennett gave them a name. I call it “chocolate talk” - i.e. rhetoric that's delicious but has no nutritive value. But chocolate-talk is not confined to religious apologia; you can find delicious deepities in motivational talks, advertising, politics and ideology in general. Religious apology is simply a special case of ideological chocolate-talk.
 

      What Dennett quoted from Anderson, “God is the God behind God” seems to me to be prime fudge. It really is delicious, but I don't think it exactly a deepity; for its vacuity is apparent on the surface, but another meaning emerges on closer inspection.
 

      For consider words # 1, 4 and 6 of her deepity:
      “God ... God ... God”
      God, god, god! The classic cry of one in the throes of passion. This reveals the sexual nature of her deepity.
 

      If you think this Freudian analysis is over-reaching, then consider the remaining words, # 2, 3, and 5:
      “... is the ... behind ...”
      Is the behind! I rest my case.

      Should I then retort that Sex is the God behind God? Or, to be more polite, Love is the God behind God? No, for other passions can make gods. There is hate, and fear, and ambition, and greed; all are known god-makers. What they all have in common is that they are desires. Therefore I counter-propose, for your evaluation:
 

      Desire is the God behind God.
 

      I cannot take credit for this, for it echoes themes in Greek, Hindu and Buddhist philosophy.