I appreciate the feedback.
Yeah, I was thinking about that book It’s All God, which I own but never got around to reading, because what’s the point? Once you’ve said “it’s all God” there’s really nowhere else to go.
My thinking is that there IS some kind of widespread phenomenon behind (most?) people’s application of or belief in God. They’ll say “I believe in God because of” and then describe an event where, gee, something significant DID happen. People see it in art, music, newborn babies, calculus. I think they experience something in the world that is a “meta-truth” (if that’s the right word) that confirms their own arrangement of reality, that mirrors and expands on themselves. And I think we’re guided by and need those bits and pieces.
There was a piece in Time about Einstein’s God, from a new book that’s come out. Apparently he was a fan of Spinoza’s God. Here’s a quote, that’s actually from a different website, but I think it gets at what I’m trying to say:
See, for someone of great knowledge, of the world and of Self, God would be huge. But for someone of little knowledge of self and world, God would be small - but not necessarily any less significant. I’m sort of predicating this on my experience that the most peaceful, wise people I know of are also the most aware of God’s presence.
Yet, too, there are “non-God” phenomena as well. For me, anyway, at least. There’ve been times, episodes, in my life when I stepped away from my authentic self for a number of reasons. When I get back into God, I get back into my Self.
And yes, I could put God in quotes here, because I am stepping away from the model used in most religions. But I think this phenomenon is the fuel that keeps the religious model going. People wouldn’t walk away from sermons feeling “Yeah! Right!” if it didn’t resonate with them for some good reason. I think this might be the thing religions tap into.
The God-model I’m trying to create doesn’t provide certain outcomes, but I don’t think that’s true of other descriptions of God, either, unless one sticks to a completely literal reading of the Bible.
But I think the God-model I’ve described is consistent with the need for a moral life, which is a cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian God (right?). You could look at studies that confirm pretty much universal human needs, like a moral, meaningful life, and this model would corroborate that.
I also like the Holy Trinity from Catholicism, and have an interpretation of that to offer. I posted this in the “Value of Faith” thread, but my “Holy Ghost” wasn’t ready yet.
I think that, in a sense, a reliance on the Bible (or any other “Holy Document”) for understanding and directing life (“faith”) is really a lot like relying on empiricism and logic. They’re both external mechanisms, constructs. A person can run their experiences through those machines and what comes out, that’s “true”, because they believe in the validity of the construct. That’s actually where their faith resides, in the machine or the book. Everything else is disregarded, sometimes for good reason, and sometimes merely because it’s threatening.
Here’s something to consider. I’ve borrowed a bit from that Catholic school I went to in first grade.
The “Holy Document” (Bible, Koran, whatever) is “The Father” - someone else’s tale, someone else’s reality. But a reassuring story to many nonetheless. I think most famous religious documents have some real wisdom, mixed in among the superstition and politics. It’s a necessary starting point - my children are 3 and they’re starting to ask those questions, but they’re very literal. They need my story as a beginning framework. Some people, though, want to keep their tale locked in time, want their children to repeat it word-for-word. Some of them retain their insistence on literalism, refusing to look at the Bible in a new light.
Logic and empiricism are “The Son” - an individual’s own experience. Kids don’t have any logic until they’re at least 4, and they can’t grasp it abstractly until around age 7. And yes, in many ways it’s a huge improvement over “The Father”; the new telling of the story has room for growth and improvement because (1) it’s used by an individual on their own quest and not tethered to collective knowledge, and (2) it’s based on the new accumulation of empirical knowledge that has passed since The Father figured things out.
Yet empirical facts, on their own, lack meaning. They don’t contain any value statements. Utility alone doesn’t determine “goodness”.
Which brings me to the third part - the “Holy Ghost”. Perhaps the Holy Ghost is the sense of Other through which we sense our Selves. It’s fleeting, yet present; personal, yet shared at times.