This quote doesn’t really make much sense at face value, but I do find it amusing that a few of you liked it nonetheless.
It basically comes from a conversation I had last night with a group of friends over some drinks. While the quote sounds blasphemous at worst and disrespectful at best, in the context of the conversation it wasn’t either.
Basically we were sitting around talking about life, and God, and human interaction, and ethics and all the things the tired, relaxed, buzzed people often find themselves talking about. I had posed a question about where one can derive ones should, if not from something above humans, even other smarter humans, and if you contest that your should comes from some sort of innate instinct then how can you trust that that should is really valid. After all, my sober shoulds don’t always quite look like my drunk shoulds. My angry shoulds don’t quite look like my calm shoulds. My 12 year old shoulds look a bit different from my 27 year old shoulds. Surely, while I do have an instinct of ethics, I cannot fully trust that those instincts are the true unadulterated ethics of some sort of universal truth right?
Well that type of question is not a new one by any stretch, nor has it enjoyed any type of satisfactory answer over the ages. That night was no exception, however it did stem quite the discussion. Part way through the discussion, one member of the conversation was attempting to answer, or more to find a flaw in the question itself as if I had violated some sort of logical fallacy. While giving an answer he kept trying to describe some sort of all knowing, supernatural, perhaps spiritual, all powerful, being capable of knowing truth and justice in its entirety, yet is made up of love.
I told him, it sounds like you’re trying to define…oh I don’t know…God or something. He said well I find God problematic but I do believe yada yada yada. We all kind of looked at him and we’re like, “Dude, you just described what like 90% of the planet would call God. It doesn’t have to be God but why can’t you just admit that that’s a possibility?”
He talked around it for a while, making it apparent that he did not like the idea of God, more because of particular individuals in his own life that used the concept of God to hurt him and therefore claimed to not believe in God, yet went on to describe a being more or less synonymous with God that he believes guides his life and all others. But he refused to call it God because it somehow made that being less legitimate, or too traditional or old school for his very trendy definition. He went on like this explaining how his long definition of the Supreme Being was true but the word God simply had too much baggage for him to accept until one of us simply said, “Ok. Let’s not use the word god (fingers making air quotes). Let’s use the word Robbadungdam.” We all got a good chuckle, but the funniest part was the fact that simply by switching the name of the noun from ‘God’ to ‘Robbadungda,’ (a nonsensical word that we could hardly say with a straight face) he then could comfortably talk about this being without any hesitation, never once really deviating from what most other people would simply call “God.”