That is the very definition of “pick and choose”.
It could be that a supernatural being does exist, but we experience it in a very abstract way, like a Plato’s cave. We see these strange shadows from the being, and each of us makes our own interpretation of what we are seeing. Like this hand shadow:
Some people think the shadow is from an angel, from a fairy, from a demon, from a bird, from hands intertwined, from a cardboard cutout, or whatever. We each interpret the shadow in our own way. But what we think is making the shadow may be totally incorrect. We base our guess on our experiences and the details we can see. A lot is missing from what we see. That could explain why there are thousands and thousands of various versions of religions and gods.
I don’t really think it’s a problem if different people have different interpretations of of these mystical shadows. If someone thinks there’s an old man behind it all while someone else thinks that selenite crystals ward off evil spirts, that’s up to them. But I do think it would be great if such people would realize that they are just making a personal interpretation and it may have little basis in reality. If their beliefs help them get through life, great!, but they should realize that they are just making a guess and it may not be true at all.
Far, far too often those personal beliefs do not stay personal and heavily influence family, friends, neighbors, laws and governments. In fact, far too often their beliefs require them to try to influence people to obey the same gods, if not actually believe in the same gods.
That’s true for every kind of belief, including politics. That is the reason it is so important to have a perfect model. There is no human you could model yourself after that would not eventually fail you.
Yeah, the same seems to go for most gods. I do not need a “perfect model”-I just needs one that constantly improves itself over time.
It is perfectly possible to posit an ideal of human behavior without resorting to the supernatural, and to make it your life’s work to attain that ideal.
This is one version of the get-out-of-jail-free card that believers always fall back on eventually, if they think of it. “I believe in God but I cannot explain God because He is beyond my ability to comprehend.” That’s supposed to be “deep,” I suppose. Reliance on actual knowledge, reason and understanding is oh, so shallow.
That is a stretch, most likely based on how it might be for you. There is nothing shallow or hypocritical or deep for that matter in saying you can’t comprehend something. It is just the way it is.
My mother-in-law once mentioned that to me.
Later in the same conversation, she explained that homosexuality was a sin.
Actually, I can’t quite comprehend the square root of -1, but I gather it represents a mathematically useful concept rather than something that exists in the world.
God is not a useful concept.
Saying that you can’t, and that nobody can, is definitely shallow.
God is evil, not perfect. And a perfect model just makes failure inevitable because humans are incapable of perfection, assuming perfection is even a meaningful concept for most things.
Much better to have more realistic ideals that are humanly achievable and don’t try for some impossible perfection. “The perfect is the enemy of the good” applies to moral choices too.
When you believe in things that you don’t understand then you suffer, superstition ain’t the way.
~ Stevland Hardaway Morris
I’d rather people admit that they are unable to fully comprehend a being capable of viewing the path of every atom in the universe than claim that they know how such a being thinks and that what it cares most about it what pronouns we use.
Thing is, the entire point of believing in a God is to use that as an excuse to stomp on everyone else. If someone says they believe in an “unknowable” God but don’t know what it wants, they can’t really use that as a justification to smash people so they’ll never take that position.
So they’ll ignore logical consistency and claim God is unknowable when criticized, yet completely knowable when it comes to who to oppress and how. Or, they’ll drift into some kind of agnosticism or apatheism because there’s no point in a God that can’t be used as a weapon, so why bother going through the motions?
I plan to start doing pull up this week at the park. I seriously doubt if I can do one. If not, I’ll go to the negative pull-ups.
I posted in the wrong threadI posted in the wrong thread.
I’m gonna disagree with you here. People believe in God for lots of reasons.
Although there are certainly plenty of people who do use their belief like that.
I seriously do not understand this. Do you believe God has any general attributes? Is God big or small? What - if anything - did/does God do? What are God’s attributes? Is God good/bad/chaotic? Is the God you believe in what most would understand to be the christian God? If so, does it differ in any respects? How could God be a model for you if you cannot comprehend God?
What you suggest seems quite vague to me. I’m uncertain how such a vague belief appeals to a rational being, and is any better than no belief.
If Disney has taught me nothing else, what I did learn: God has a fondness for under-age nudist cherubs with musical talent.
So there is one data point. And one I would wager is precisely as accurate as any other.
But why not just put the
If you are willing to accept that there are things out there that you can’t comprehend, then why not push the incomprehension back one level and leave God out of it. Rather than say, “I can’t come up with how the universe can be how it is without God, therefore there is a god (who I accept that I can’t comprehend)”. Why not simply accept that the universe works without God in a way you can’t comprehend?
(Does anyone else find it annoying that autocorrect randomly capitalizes god?)