Concerning the Silly Notion that "God" must refer to the babytalk version thereof

Great Debates
1

When I first started participating in the board, threads of the ilk “God is Real–a PROOF!” and “Proof that God Doesnt’ Exist” and “Does God Exist?” were present in abundance.

Nothing has changed.

One thing that strikes me over and over again (is that flagellation?) is the (to me) astonishing persistence of the notion that if God exists, i.e., if the term “God” references anything real and is a useful concept/term, it’s got to be the version taught to 8 year olds in Sunday School. God is a semi-translucent male bearded omnipotent entity and if He existed we ought to be able to obtain empirical evidence of His existence. Or else he, as thusly described, fails to exist.

Am I alone in never (at least not since the eruption of my first permanent teeth) considering God to have a physical existence, and in assuming that with the exception of nuts and fruitbats and calculated predatory pastoral types pretending a belief they do not truly hold, adults who ascribe to the notion that “God is real” believe in something that is not a tangible or physically existent reality?

Thinning out the ranks somewhat (perhaps), by the time I had a driver’s license I assumed that while communication with God felt to us like interacting with a wise and kind “presence” that had thoughts and feelings and opinions and perspectives much as we do, it was silly to really think that God was sitting around musing and considering things and developing opinions and having a different attitude towards some issue this week than He had a couple months ago. I figured that by definition, to be eternal meant not changing with the passage of time. Instead, God would be more akin to a reservoir of big-picture conclusively-good perspectives… principles, effectively. That one communicates with God makes it personal, causes us to experience God as Intentional not just as a set of rules governing how things work and how things would have to be in order to be ideal for us. But nevertheless as an abstraction.

Abstractions are real. Justice. Fairness. Compassion. Freedom. Community Belongingness. Clarity. Elegance. Humor. Flamboyance. Sincerity. Can you “prove” that any of these exist? It’s the wrong question, really, isn’t it? One would say, instead, are these terms useful, do they describe things and reflect our experiences of things in useful ways, do they serve to communicate to other people what we’re trying to talk about when we’re doing our best to put human experience into words? Abstractions are useful. Practical. Elements of our vocabulary that describe intangible things.

I assert: that there has been a set of human experiences that was given, among others, the name of “God”; that it is best comprehended as an abstraction personally felt, a communication-experience; that it tends to feel profound, that it tends to motivate and inspire.

I assert: that the English word “good” is of the same root as “God”, that the essence of this abstraction is all wrapped up in the pursuit of That Which Is The Good, being true to that and valuing it for its own sake. The trump card among abstractions.

I suggest: that the human species has found the term and the concepts to which it applies useful and reflective of enough personal experiences to be something undeserving of flippant dismissal stemming from a rejection of the babytalk oversimplifications rife within organized religion — the obtusely, stubbornly literal fairytale stuff of Sky Gods and comic-book Entities that is so well parodied here on the board as the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I also suggest: that at least a very thick cable, if not the whole enterprise, of organized institutionalized religion is something that is antithetical and inimical to the above-described abstraction, and that these are to the reality what taxidermy is to wildlife. For every truly devout, personally inspired person within the clergy, there is at least one other similarly ensconced person who perceives all such sensibilities and awarenesses as dangerous and heretical, and who wants all spiritual truths to be defined, written down, established, and the process by which they came to us officially long over and quite dead. (And for each such pair, a couple dozen, probably, who were attracted to the lifestyle and a desire to do good and be regarded as the clergy is regarded, and who have ended up in their profession much as most other people end up in theirs, without overwhelmingly strong convictions being involved)

2

I agree, this has been particularly annoying to me lately.

However, as far as organized religion goes, I find that if people can come together and combine abilities to be better at things like football, war, computer programming or any other combination of things, that an understanding of the divine can be benefitted by a collective experience. I personally do not find a problem with the idea of psychic connections, and have experienced unitive experiences with groups of people that are similar to combining the psyche of all the people to create one larger psyche that can solve larger problems than each individual can, and that’s one of the things I am more interested in studying. So I don’t necessarily know if I’d relegate organized religion to such a back bin as it seemed like you were doing. Otherwise I more or less agree with your post.

3

The part of me that is in His image can best relate to the part of Him that is most like me. So, I end up thinking of him as a bearded old man, although not translucent. :slight_smile: But thinking about him is philosophy, or theology. I don’t spend much time on that. The person of Jesus is a lot more accessible to my mind. (He did have a beard, though. :wink: )

Being loved by Him is the greatest joy, disappointing Him the most terrifying fear.

I often think of an old friend of mine, long separated from me, who always responded to the phrase “makes baby Jesus cry” with the observation, “He grew up. <pause> He might still be crying.”

So, I have a very strong anthropomorphic view of God. But I don’t look for fingerprints. I don’t look for proof. I look for love.

Tris*

*an old man, with a beard, but not translucent.

4

I’d agree.

I’d have to disagree

If God is ‘that which is good’, how do you explain every instance of natural disaster, plague, suffering, etc…
Isn’t this where some people fall back on ‘mysterious ways?’
Can we truly say that? What about those people who worshiped, say… Set: Lord of Storms?

I agree with your suggestion on the nature of the belif in God, but I think it allows for more variation than you are presently accepting as valid.

When a theist formulates a theory the way you’ve done, it’s rude to respond with flippant and silly retorts.
When other people talk about a God with certainty and dogmatic zeal, it’s sometimes appropriate to point out that there’s as much proof for any other God as their particular God, and that we consider most Gods to be simple mythology, while enshrining our one (or few) favorites.

Again, sometimes that’s exactly what’s necessary. You’ve not ascribed any objective nature to this God, nor defined it’s powers or abilities. So at least at this stage, the correct response is polite and reasoned discussion. For some, however, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a fitting response.

I’d agree with this too, in a somewhat limited sense.

And against them it is fitting to ride into battle upon an Invisible Pink Unicorn :wink:

5

So your neither protestant or Catholic?!?!? How novel.

6

It’s strange, when I read posts like this, it makes me feel like such an atheist, because my view of god is so much more theoretical than that. I don’t have a face of god other than my face in the mirror or the face of whomever it is I am speaking to right at that moment. Though, I tend to have more of a connection to an anthropomorphic goddess spirit that could be something like what you have described as Jesus. I tend to be of the belief that memes are spirits, and that the meme of Jesus is concious and making decisions that affect how we view the overall meme, manifested as our collective memory of Jesus. But this is not different for Julius Caesar, or Cleopatra, though I do suppose I give Jesus a bit more conciousness than other spirits.

I was born on December 25th, and have lived under that shadow my entire life, so it looms very large for me, but I don’t see how Jesus would be upset at me for my behavior, he died for my sins after all didn’t he? So wouldn’t that mean that I am the one upset about my own guilt?

Sorry if I’m hijacking a little. :wink:

Erek

7

Set’s primary modus operandi is “What does not kill you makes you stronger (except if you’re my brother, in which case what does kill you makes you stronger).” His method of dealing with His followers is to challenge them – constantly, harshly, thoroughly – until they are capable of withstanding anything thrown at them and are thus capable, even for only a moment, of identifying with His name, of – as a friend put it once – “becoming He Before Whom The Sky Shakes”.

He was popular in ancient times especially with warlike kings; he was considered the patron of the Ramesesside pharaohs, who conquered stuff a lot. (They also were red-headed – a group considered under Set’s protection; I don’t know if they were left-handed too.)

None of the netjeru are simplistic; Set’s primary role at the cosmic level is chaos in service of order, testing it to make sure that can withstand adversity, and turning destruction on unmaking so that it doesn’t have a chance to cause existence to not be. He’s also one of the comparatively few (two or three depending on how you count) of the Egyptian gods who really likes a good drink (to excess), patron of foreigners, loners, the atypical, and of the aforementioned left-handed redheads. He crowns the pharaoh with His brother, Heru (Horus); one representing order and community, the other strength as an individual. He is often characterised as purely malevolent, which isn’t accurate; a feared god, yes, because of the impersonality of storm and the role of testing things past their presumed breaking point, but not evil.

8

I think you have seen a very subtle point of theology. Guilt turns you away from Jesus. Shame makes you unwilling to turn your fact toward Him. Of course, the human limit of not seeing your face when it is turned away is as silly as my own bearded God Face.

Please try not to let shame hide you. I know that feeling very well, and you will be well rid of it. After you are forgiven, you have to be forgiven.

He did. Next time, share your birthday with Him!

Tris

9

As far as the OP goes, yes! Thank you! That so eloquently put into words my philosophical/religious outlook. I’ve never been able to explain it that well.

I don’t fall back on “mysterious ways” as much as I do ask the question “Why are these not good things?” They’re hard, sure. They’re not fun, sure. They can rip your heart into little bitty pieces and make you rail against the injustice of the universe and shake your fist at the unhearing sky. But they also bring people together in love and support. They make us stop and hug our kids more often. They make us call our mom to tell her we love her. They make us send bushels of cash to parts of the world that have desperately been needing it for years, but not getting it until a tsunami hits. These things bring love into being. Which I think is good. YMMV.

The disaster may be bad. The point of the OP is that God isn’t some old guy on a cloud who’s physically manipulating reality. He isn’t either making or allowing bad stuff to happen, because He’s not a physical being working on the physical plane. Tsunamis hit when plate tectonics gets exciting. Terrorists strike when they’re pissed off about something and feel there’s no better way to be heard. Plagues hit when sanitation is poor or viruses mutate. God (that which is good) is the strength and love and goodness that lets us get through the bad stuff.

If you can get to the place of not seeing sickness and death as a bad thing, there’s no mysterious ways argument needed. Granted, this is harder to do on a personal level. I have a very critical premie at the moment. Will I be a wreck if she dies? Absolutely. What I’m talking about is an ideal state of mind, and one I can attain for periods of time, not one I hold all the time.

10

Problem is, you’re using one definition of God, while others are using the Sunday School definition - the being that created the universe, instructed Noah to build an ark, gave stone tablets to Moses, etc. Still others are using still different definitions. Lekatt who used to frequent these boards, always maintained that God = Love. If nobody agrees on the definition of God, then the concept is rendered unfalsifyable and meaningless. It’s like saying, “Fwnweogkl exists”. It becomes a meaningless character string on which nobody can agree on any actual properties. Add to that the problem of what people mean by “exist”. When I refer to a thing “physically existing”, I mean that we can either directly or indirectly gather empirical evidence of that thing. I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of how a thing that exists, but doesn’t exist physically, is any different than a thing that doesn’t exist at all, unless we’re talking about a completely abstract thing, like an idea or a concept.

Now, one could say that God is a concept and nothing else, but that is at direct odds with billions of people who believe that God does physically exist, and seems quite an unsatisfactory definition.

11

Just to clarify, my post was directed at the OP, not the preceding post.

12

I think the reason why a childlike view of an all caring, all powerful, (then why does he let bad things happen?), all dancing is that is the “real” one. The original flavour. All the transcendental grandma in the sky who want you to learn from your mistakes are retcons, in the worst sense, invented by modern theologians out of whole cloth. The real god, that kids grow up learning about is the Torah/ Old Testament big bad sky daddy who will spank you with lightning if you are bad, or simply does something he doesn’t like.

Those other definitions of god? Piffle.

13

What exactly is a “retcon”?

14

Oops, never mind. . . I just looked it up.

Who knew it was a real word?

15

I’ll keep this in mind for when you’re appointed Secretary of Thought Control, Scott. Until then, I must respectfully disagree. (Oh, and by the way, pick up and read any book by Jack Spong before you decide firmly on that generalization.)

16

Please elaborate.

17

Polycarp, respectfully, I have to agree with Scott. I think, insofar as there is a common feature, most gods start as either animist spirits or ‘big sky daddies’. Zeus, for example, or Ra, and so on. (Simplified horribly, and calling out to the leader of the pantheon, of course - most secondary gods cover things once the Sky Daddy’s around.)

The god of the early hebrews pretty much qualifies as a ‘small sky daddy’, if I have to be honest about it. “I am bigger than the other tribe’s gods. Especially that Baal guy.” That’s what I get when I read the earliest sections of the bible, and think about it for a while.

It took time for people to develop philosophy. It took time for people to think about god, rather than to just believe in him as a big sky daddy. And as our understanding of the world grew, so did our belief system, and our understanding of the god we chose to follow.

Am I in error? I understand Spong’s interpretation of deity is different, but I don’t think (I may be wrong, I’ve never gotten very far in his work the few times I’ve tried to read it… completely alien to me) he’s looking at the origins of belief.

18

To the OP: It seems to me that while your philosophy is well reasoned and I pretty much agree with it entirely, it is not fundamentally different from atheism.

If God is a collection of abstractions or laws (filtered, as it must be, through your own mind and experiences) how then is he different from simple morality as the majority of people understand it? By taking away the Old Bearded Gentleman in your view, you seem to be taking away the supernatural element of God and replacing him with the fundamental truths (or commonly held opinions) about morals, ethics, and lifestyle guides. Again, I’m all for it, but there are a great number of people who truly believe that we live in a magical world. A world in which prayer changes things. A world in which mystical forces surround us and reward the good while punishing the evil. A world in which saints appear in food.

I think that the people for whom the “Is there a God?” debate is a real one, that is, that it could possibly be proven one way or the other, the crux of the matter is: Do we live in a magical world or a mundane one? If you believe in one or the other, the God debate is merely philosophical meanderings, and not a real debate at all, for you know: Magical world = God exists, Mundane World = all we have are some teachings.

So I’m with you. But I’m also an atheist.

19

FinnAgain:

If we say “God” is an abstraction of “that which is good”, what bearing on that does the existence of natural disaster have? I don’t believe I made any reference to “is personally responsible for every event and deliberately made each event occur”.

If every aspect, every event, and every experience possible for humankind were unequivocally good, we’d need no such abstraction, nor even a simple adjective, now would we?

20

I don’t remember where I heard this analogy, but I think of us a drinking glasses and faith as water. As children, we are small glasses. It doesn’t take much to fill us up. As a six year old, I was perfectly content to think of God as a bearded man sitting on a throne in the clouds directly above my head.

As I got grew and matured, my glass got bigger. I daresay my spirituality has matured. I don’t think of God as I once did.

It seems that some people take a different route. Instead of trying to fill their glass up as it gets bigger, they just note that their glass isn’t full anymore and stop trying. Hence the reason they stick with the bearded man in the sky idea, and why a lot of them refer to Magical Sky Pixies and Invisible Pink Unicorns. It’s usually unfathomable to them that a person’s religion can mature as they grow up.