BillM Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Rhino, for the record, I don't see it as a futile exercise either. Please bear with me a moment while I share how I see this. To me, in theism there are two extremes. One extreme says that because God is immanent (present with us in the world, usually through a book or a person or a community), God can be fully known. Or, known enough to say exactly what God is like, what God likes and dislikes, what God's will is in almost every situation. This extreme offers the comfort of, for the most part, purported black and white answers to life - why are we here? where will we go when we die? what is right and what is wrong. The other extreme says that because God is transcendent (above or different or not with us in the world), we can know absolutely nothing about God. God, if God even exists, is so beyond human ken that we have no idea what God is like or what God's will might be. This extreme offers us the freedom of pretty much doing anything we like because our stance is that God is either unknowable, nonexistent, or uninvolved. For me, I don't find either of these two extremes viable for my life. I guess I live in the middle somewhere where I believe certain things about God (such as God's presence with and in us) and the importance of the Golden Rule. But I don't hold to the "certainty" found in both extremes that God can be fully known or that God can't be known at all. I think we can know some things, but not all things. What these things are forms a good basis for discussion, do they not? Some Christian forums have God and God-discussions so "boxed" that there is really no discussion. Doctrinal statements are put forth and everyone is expected to agree to those views of God and not to deviate from the establish definitions and interpretations. I don't believe we have that kind of forum here. But if we go to the other extreme and say that God is either non-existent or so transcendent that God can't be known or experienced, then, as my question asked, why are we having religiously-oriented discussions? So, for me, I like what you said about "catching glimpses of the Divine." This, IMO, is the "middle ground." It implies that we don't fully see the Divine, while affirming that there is still a Divine to be glimpsed. And it is in this Shadowland that I find the discussions (and life itself) the most interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) I have to admit that if God really is as much of the Bible says he is or as conservative Christianity says he is, I would be agnostic or atheist also. I'm not at all saying that this is why *you* are agnostic, I'm only speaking for myself. I don't care for the God found in much of the Bible and much of Christianity. I don't find him, to me, to be very believable or worthy of worship. This I have to admit does not make sense to me Bill. If god is transcendent and by happy unknowable chance evangelical Christians got it right ... how could one say I would be "X"? Asking the question another way what if by unknowable chance there is no god, what would you be? You would be exactly what you are today in both cases. i would argue (philosophically). But neither do I hold to a material, secular view that only things provable through the scientific method exist or are real. I appreciate the scientific method and the Newtonian way of looking at the universe. Nevertheless, I think there is more going on the what materialism can account for, much as astronomers say there is more "matter" to the universe than what we can currently measure, but we call it "dark matter" because it doesn't seem to conform to the normal laws of matter and how we know of its existence and influence. Again science does not prove things!!! I cannot emphasize this enough. Science (or at least the process people carry out - for all their faults) gets a hypothesis and tests it to destruction. It took 250 y to understand that Newtonian Mechanics is only an approximation, a very good approximation. If god was shown to physically or materially exist, scientists simply will refine their meters and scopes and models to include said god. God would join the material world. Your dark matter analogy is no different than god. We have models of the world that don't fit ... we just plop in god that fills our lack of understanding. Of course this is just my opinion. This is where, for me, "unprovable" notions like love and compassion and understanding and joy and patience (etc.) come into play. These things are, IMO, real, but they are not directly measureable. We can only experience their influence. Therefore, again for me, if we could take notions like love and compassion and connection magnify them as being the "biggest" or most important things we know (Love, Compassion, Connection), then these things, for me, become God to me. As to whether this is a conscious Being with a will, I don't know. I can only speculate and guess. But there seems to be, IMO, a More to life and existence that pure materialism cannot account for. It is this More that I call God, but it is sometimes like the God found in the Bible and Christianity, but often not. Unprovable notions like love. I don't think any one is denying these emotions are real. And while the these experiences feel magical, there is a very "real" chemistry underlying these phenomena. Take oxytocin for example. Now for some people to understand that our positive emotions like love and altruism might be a result of simple chemistry is sad or depressing. For me it fills me with awe and wonder. And there likely is a chemical or combination for awe and wonder too. I have no need to make a choice as to whether there is a god or not ... be it of love or something else. Edited July 7, 2013 by romansh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Not to worry Rom ...... God does not require belief.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Rom, has science changed so much since I was in high school? I was taught that science was a method for testing hypotheses for truth or falsehood. If that is still true, I don't see how you can say that it doesn't prove things. It seems to me that it proves hypotheses to be either true or false, right? What you describe is what I call the "Nothing Buttery Syndrome." Love? Oh, that is "nothing but" this enzyme working with that enzyme. Justice? Oh, that is "nothing but" ideas formed by firing synapses in our brains? Compassion? Oh, that is "nothing but"... Again, to me what you describe is the notion that the material world can (and should) explain everything in life. As I've said, I do understand why some people take this point of view. But I think you misunderstand that God, for me, is not the "God of the gaps" that fills my lack of understanding (which would be a big God indeed). Rather, God, for me, is the epitome of our highest ideals. As to whether this is or comes from an actual Person, I do not know. But if it is true that our highest ideals are "nothing but," then, yes, I do find that sad and depressing. Why? Because despite the value we might find in our highest ideals, we would be self-deceived in thinking that there is actually some meaning or purpose in life and that we have any worth beyond the $4.50 that chemists tell us our body is worth. We are "nothing but" chemicals thrown together that have somehow become sentient, nothing more? Like I said, I am biased and believe there is something More. I call this More, God. I can't prove God. But I also doubt that you can disprove the More. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Not to worry Rom ...... God does not require belief.... Despite some of my language, Joseph, I think you're right. For me, God is not some Being out there saying, "Please believe in Me." Certainly not some Being saying, "Believe in Me or else!" For me, God is simply experiencing and living by what we call "the fruit of the Spirit." It's not a cognitive belief-system, it is a participatory way of living. For me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Not to worry Rom ...... God does not require belief.... Funnily enough I did not use that word (belief or believe) in this thread except in reference to free will. Fairies under my garden shed don't require belief either. If you see what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Fairies under my garden shed don't require belief either. If you see what I mean. And neither do protons or neutrons or electrons or gluons, mesons, quarks, or black holes - none of which I have ever personally seen. I wonder if all these things are just human labels we give to unseen forces or influences in our world in order to try to explain our understanding and experiences of the universe. If you see what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rhino Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Rhino, for the record, I don't see it as a futile exercise either. Please bear with me a moment while I share how I see this. To me, in theism there are two extremes. One extreme says that because God is immanent (present with us in the world, usually through a book or a person or a community), God can be fully known. Or, known enough to say exactly what God is like, what God likes and dislikes, what God's will is in almost every situation. This extreme offers the comfort of, for the most part, purported black and white answers to life - why are we here? where will we go when we die? what is right and what is wrong. The other extreme says that because God is transcendent (above or different or not with us in the world), we can know absolutely nothing about God. God, if God even exists, is so beyond human ken that we have no idea what God is like or what God's will might be. This extreme offers us the freedom of pretty much doing anything we like because our stance is that God is either unknowable, nonexistent, or uninvolved. For me, I don't find either of these two extremes viable for my life. I guess I live in the middle somewhere where I believe certain things about God (such as God's presence with and in us) and the importance of the Golden Rule. But I don't hold to the "certainty" found in both extremes that God can be fully known or that God can't be known at all. I think we can know some things, but not all things. What these things are forms a good basis for discussion, do they not? Some Christian forums have God and God-discussions so "boxed" that there is really no discussion. Doctrinal statements are put forth and everyone is expected to agree to those views of God and not to deviate from the establish definitions and interpretations. I don't believe we have that kind of forum here. But if we go to the other extreme and say that God is either non-existent or so transcendent that God can't be known or experienced, then, as my question asked, why are we having religiously-oriented discussions? So, for me, I like what you said about "catching glimpses of the Divine." This, IMO, is the "middle ground." It implies that we don't fully see the Divine, while affirming that there is still a Divine to be glimpsed. And it is in this Shadowland that I find the discussions (and life itself) the most interesting. It is refreshing to hear someone echo my views, I guess lending a little security and companionship that is so sparse when treading the middle ground. I think that's the hardest part for me. Sometimes I wish I could have the certainty of a fundamentalist or dare I say even the certainty that many atheists exude. I'm not exactly fearless and it would make life a lot easier. But I am what I am, and cannot lie about my beliefs. It is strange to me that so many try to convert using fear, when you can't be scared into believing in my opinion. Being afraid only makes you better at lying to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Rom, has science changed so much since I was in high school? I was taught that science was a method for testing hypotheses for truth or falsehood. If that is still true, I don't see how you can say that it doesn't prove things. It seems to me that it proves hypotheses to be either true or false, right? No not really Bill. I would argree I have heard scientists use proof and its derivatives. I can't speak for your education but people's understanding of what is and is not science is improving. Science can disprove or prove a hypothesis false. It cannot prove a hypothesis true. What you describe is what I call the "Nothing Buttery Syndrome." Love? Oh, that is "nothing but" this enzyme working with that enzyme. Justice? Oh, that is "nothing but" ideas formed by firing synapses in our brains? Compassion? Oh, that is "nothing but"... Yes Bill I have that syndrome too, but goes more like this.. Love? that is hormones interacting in unision with the body. That is nothing but [add expletive here] amazing. Again, to me what you describe is the notion that the material world can (and should) explain everything in life. As I've said, I do understand why some people take this point of view. But I think you misunderstand that God, for me, is not the "God of the gaps" that fills my lack of understanding (which would be a big God indeed). Rather, God, for me, is the epitome of our highest ideals. As to whether this is or comes from an actual Person, I do not know. But if it is true that our highest ideals are "nothing but," then, yes, I do find that sad and depressing. Why? Because despite the value we might find in our highest ideals, we would be self-deceived in thinking that there is actually some meaning or purpose in life and that we have any worth beyond the $4.50 that chemists tell us our body is worth. We are "nothing but" chemicals thrown together that have somehow become sentient, nothing more? Bill you are wise enough to understand that you have biases. (see below). I do too. Just ask yourself where do these biases come from? Are they spontaneously created in your mind or are they a result of some sort of chain of cause and effect? Like I said, I am biased and believe there is something More. I call this More, God. I can't prove God. But I also doubt that you can disprove the More. The more we understand our universe, the more of our concepts of god will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Or if you prefer Douglas Adams Resistance is useless. I don't have to disprove god. I would not know how to begin ... what evidence would work to disprove your concept of god? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 What evidence would work to disprove your concept of god? Well, Rom, I guess I would start with a couple of assumptions. (None of us really have a clean slate, you know) So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus was onto something when he said that God is Spirit. And let's assume that the apostle Paul was onto something when he said that the fruit of the Spirit (what God produces in our lives) is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These are, for me, key to my concept of God. So to disprove my concept of God, at least to me, prove to me that these qualities are not good for us individually or collectively. Or prove to me that this "fruit" or evidence for the Spirit does not exist. Give me evidence that these qualities are bad or that they don't exist, and we will have a good starting place in disproving God to me. Fair enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Now for the fun turn-around. Is love God? How would you describe love? Does love take first precedence in your life over and above anything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I would have to say Love is life. It is breathing, thinking, sleeping, getting angry, and enjoying the little things. Love is beating the heart, but some might say is love greed? Yes, it is the love for money and things. Love is small and big at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rhino Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) Love is our goal in life, love is our motivator. For good or bad we worship the things we love, we cannot help it, the two are inseparable. What we worship is our God, or rather God is the sum of all that we worship. Our God is the totality of all that we love. Perhaps if there is a universal God he is the sum of everything that everyone loves. Or perhaps every earthy love is but a shadow of God, a glorious vision of the divine. Edited July 9, 2013 by The Rhino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Give me evidence that these qualities are bad or that they don't exist, and we will have a good starting place in disproving God to me. Fair enough? Let me make an assumption that JC's, no not that one, Joseph Campbell's interpretation of the Garden of Eden story is right, and if we want to get back to the Garden of Eden we should stop thinking in terms of good and evil (bad). So your very prerequisite that qualities could be bad fail at the first hurdle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) Is love God? Or is god a reflection of our biases? or perhaps as Rhino put it God is the sum of all that we worship Edited July 9, 2013 by romansh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rhino Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I do not see this as an illusion that we name God. More that Love and God are one in the same. Love is mans connection to God, but God is much more than one mans bias. He is the full picture, rather than the dots that we attempt in vain to connect. As I said before, to explain God or Love with words I believe is impossible, as it completely misses the point. One can say love is a hormonal response encapsulating an array of emotions to instil a sense of purpose in life while appealing to human 'needs' such as companionship, security, and even more abstract notions like justice. But such a description or any other I have come across cannot do love justice. You could not explain love fully to a man who has never been in love and expect them to know what it feels like. And so it is with God. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rhino Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I should have said in my above post that the God we perceive individually is the sum of all we worship. God in totality is much much more than one mans perception. Or so I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Let me make an assumption that JC's, no not that one, Joseph Campbell's interpretation of the Garden of Eden story is right, and if we want to get back to the Garden of Eden we should stop thinking in terms of good and evil (bad). So your very prerequisite that qualities could be bad fail at the first hurdle. Rom, if, according to JC, we need to stop thinking in terms of good and bad, then to say my prerequisite could be bad fail does not follow, does it? From what little I know of JC (and I need to know more), he likely saw the Garden of Eden as a myth story, right? I know I do. In my interpretation of the myth, mankind was intended to eat the fruit (why else put the tree in the Garden? why else let the tempter in?). So I don't believe that our goal is to get back to a state of innocence. I don't believe we "fell." I can't even find the word "fall" in the Garden story, although our Bibles label it as such. And, just speaking for myself, I wouldn't find it beneficial at all for humanity to adopt a "no good, no evil" policy about ourselves or our world and just let anything happen. To me, if current astronomy tells us anything, it is that life in our universe seems to be rare. So I think it should be cherished, enjoyed, and respected. The fruit of the Spirit, the Golden Rule, and Jesus' two commandments are a few ways we can do that. It has nothing to do with proving (or disproving) an Old Man in the Sky like we find on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Rom, if, according to JC, we need to stop thinking in terms of good and bad, then to say my prerequisite could be bad fail does not follow, does it? Why are you still expressing yourself in terms of good and bad, when Campbell never did and I carefully did not express it as such? This is how Campbell expressed it: “That is to say, put yourself back in the position of paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil. You don’t hear that much from the pulpits.”To be fair he goes on to say: “Why was the knowledge of good and evil forbidden to Adam and Eve? Without that knowledge we would still be a bunch of babies in Eden, without any participation in life." From what little I know of JC (and I need to know more), he likely saw the Garden of Eden as a myth story, right? I know I do. In my interpretation of the myth, mankind was intended to eat the fruit (why else put the tree in the Garden? why else let the tempter in?). So I don't believe that our goal is to get back to a state of innocence. I don't believe we "fell." I can't even find the word "fall" in the Garden story, although our Bibles label it as such. Yes Campbell did treat it as myth. He studied comparative mythology for forty years. Incidently he thought religion turned poetry into prose. And, just speaking for myself, I wouldn't find it beneficial at all for humanity to adopt a "no good, no evil" policy about ourselves or our world and just let anything happen. Quite ... but then the universe has unfolded in such a way that you would think that. Has it not? To me, if current astronomy tells us anything, it is that life in our universe seems to be rare. So I think it should be cherished, enjoyed, and respected. Well I enjoyed my beef and vegetable pie tonight. I suppose I respect the bovine, carrots and whatever the green bits were. I will have to work on the cherishing though. Sorry I thought you said gastronomy. The fruit of the Spirit, the Golden Rule, and Jesus' two commandments are a few ways we can do that. It has nothing to do with proving (or disproving) an Old Man in the Sky like we find on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Ultimately our language is dualistic. It parses things into what is and what is not. We do this for trees, bovine creatures and god or God. This is the orinal sin, I think. I am not going after the old man in the sky - there is no need by and large for that. I am going after the language we use though, Do you actually need a disproof of god? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Rom, I'm not sure I think of our language as dualistic, but I do think it is comparative. Words have meanings by comparing them to one another, but I don't think they always fall into one of two boxes. For instance, there is a difference between you and I as humans, but that doesn't mean that one of us is human and one is not. As far as God goes, no I require neither proof for or disproof for God. I've already shared what I believe God to be and how I experience God. But Campell's notion, if it has been correctly represented, that there is no such thing as good or evil (or right or wrong) would certainly go along way, if it were true, in dismantling my notions of God, wouldn't it? Personally, living in such a society where nothing is considered to be right or wrong would not appeal to me. Although I sometimes question them, I do think we need social mores to guide us along the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) Rom, I'm not sure I think of our language as dualistic, but I do think it is comparative. Words have meanings by comparing them to one another, but I don't think they always fall into one of two boxes. For instance, there is a difference between you and I as humans, but that doesn't mean that one of us is human and one is not. I suspect it is ... the parasites and symbiants shape a tree and vice versa. Yet we think of them as separate. Is the light that falls on a tree separate, is the water and air that a tree takes in separate? Our language is definitely a reflection of the way our brain processes these concepts. Are you and I separate? As far as God goes, no I require neither proof for or disproof for God. I've already shared what I believe God to be and how I experience God. But Campell's notion, if it has been correctly represented, that there is no such thing as good or evil (or right or wrong) would certainly go along way, if it were true, in dismantling my notions of God, wouldn't it? Personally, living in such a society where nothing is considered to be right or wrong would not appeal to me. Although I sometimes question them, I do think we need social mores to guide us along the way. I think we need to be more honest with ourselves. And understand the origin of those mores. We can put a thief in jail without thinking the thief's actions are bad or thief himself bad. Campbell is fairlyy circumspect as to his beliefs. In my opinion ... I have just extrapolated from what I have read of him. But here is anpther Campbell quote: “ … one of the greatest challenges in life is to say “yea” to that person or act or that condition which in your mind is most abominable.” Look at it from a panentheistic point of view. If god is in you, me, rocks, the neighbour's cat and that thief ... then there is a certain cognitive dissonance in thinking of that thief or thiefly actions as bad. In my opinion. If that thief has an absence of god then we need understanding not a condemnation as "bad". Don't you think? Edited July 11, 2013 by romansh 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) “ … one of the greatest challenges in life is to say “yea” to that person or act or that condition which in your mind is most abominable.” >>Don't you think? Obviously, not as Campbell and his followers do. I see no way that I could allow someone to come into my home and want to rape my wife or daughter and say, "Yea, go for it!" To me, harming someone for no justified reason is bad, for it dimishes them and their life. Now, having said that, believe as you like, Rom. Just keep in mind that if you come into my house with the attitude that all things are permissible because nothing is bad or evil, your beliefs will be met by my 16-gauge shotgun and I won't hesitate to blow your f*****g head right off. Edited July 11, 2013 by BillM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Bill i really think you have misunderstood the point/position I am trying to make here. It surprises me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Rom, I think I understand exactly what you are saying. There is no such thing as good or bad. And even the most abominable things should be accepted and encouraged. This kind of thinking is the hinge-pin of moral relativism. I find it interesting that you can assert these things with no challenges, but my post stating that I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones against moral relativism is rated down. Edited July 13, 2013 by BillM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) Bill, You said above you understand exactly what Rom is saying ... "And even the most abominable things should be accepted and encouraged.". Rom never said they should be "encouraged". Perhaps you misunderstood his REAL point? No where did he advocate people doing what you might consider bad. He merely said "If god is in you, me, rocks, the neighbour's cat and that thief ... then there is a certain cognitive dissonance in thinking of that thief or thiefly actions as bad. In my opinion. If that thief has an absence of god then we need understanding not a condemnation as "bad". " To me, he was expressing his "opinion" in what he perceives as a problem in viewing things strictly as 'good and bad or 'good and evil'. That in no way says he doesn't think people who are thiefs should not be jailed or ones home not defended. I as you Bill, would defend my family yet i perhaps as Rom, internally instead of condemming that person think "We can put a thief in jail without thinking the thief's actions are bad or thief himself bad" I know it is a difficult thing for many to understand. I am not saying you are wrong to say, this is bad or this is good, but it is my opinion that there is something to be gained spiritually speaking in understanding rather than condemnation. Just my 2 cents. Also it seems important to me not to take the opinions of others here too personal where they are expressed as such. Though as a member of the community i thought your last 2 sentences in post 72 were as written, went a bit too far and was uncalled to make your point so i gave the -1 peer rating as a member. Joseph (as Member) Edited July 14, 2013 by JosephM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.