God's Talk and Archimedes' Point

From a subversive christian:

As the title of my post on Dawkins explicitly says, my point is more modest: there are better champions of atheism than Dawkins. For all I know, he's an absolute genius when it comes to genetics and evolutionary theory. I'm not competent to judge. But when it comes to Godtalk--not so much.

This is my take as a curious observer:

Dropping the word "God" into a conversation can be like dropping a turd into a party punch bowl.

I think this is generally the case. Even among a party of Godtalkers¹, there is suspicion of the purpose of the entering of the word. Did the person who entered the word do it to make a point about politics, moral codes, or something else? (One example: a Godtalker can introduce the word to say that prohibiting gay marriage is morally wrong with another Godtalker at the same party believing something different. Most everyone is familiar too with how social progressive Christians and social conservative Christians parse and pick Biblical texts differently.) Does Godtalk give the speaker an advantage of authority, or an appearance of authority?

To take a position at an Archimedes' Point² is to take a point outside of a system to achieve an unbiased viewpoint³. What is the Archimedes' Point for Godtalk? One observation could be: Political—or more commonly, sociological—beliefs precede religious beliefs, and hence the Godtalk that results. (The heated Iraq War debate among churchmen is a good example that would support this view.) The Archimedes' Point would be to the place sit back and observe how Godtalking and Godtexts are used in the world.

---

1. Those who are not Godtalkers themselves—But wait! I have just used the G-word so that makes me one, no? Would I then be a Godtalker?—might want to know: What does it take to be a competent one?
2. This term is derived from Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point by Huw Price, who uses Archimedes' vantage point outside the earth ("Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world") to motivate the idea for standing outside time to understand perplexities of cosmology and quantum mechanics.
3. This may be a progressive process, if one is naturally suspicious that "complete" unbias is achievable.