I have always sort of saw it that way. I kind of see myself as a nerve plexus in a system greater than myself.
Dayum, I was trying to think of how to express that yesterday (my version wasn’t nearly as elegant).
lowbrass I agree with the essence of what you’re saying and I liked the way you put it.
The funny thing is, science and technology are chasing exactly the same goal — there’s this notion that we can solve all problems and control life itself. I like Sheldon Kopp’s remark that nothing can ever truly be “solved”, because “all solutions breed new problems” (and yet, as he says, we’re compelled to do our best nonetheless). Because we’re human; that’s what we do. And - it’s some of the BEST of what we do! I don’t mean to discount it (I wouldn’t BE here without modern medicine); I just thought that was ironic.
I think God as you described works really well for many people – that “God’s will” thing solves their cognitive dissonance nicely, as you pointed out. Probably because it’s true - there really IS no explanation for so much of life. And if the dicta of a religion are constructive (which I think most of them try to be), then people benefit from following them anyway, much moreso than they would from just taking the most expedient path. They serve their communities, they try to raise moral children; it’s not automatically a bad thing, the church-y life.
I think there’s another huge benefit to this God business, and I completely failed to illustrate it with my little concert anecdote. I’m fond of that memory, but using that as my example makes it seem like I believe we should sweat and toil, and then if we’re lucky we’re rewarded with a magical “Ahhh” moment now and then - and that’s God. Do the work, but hand off the credit, it’s His.
That’s not it at all.
So a fair question would be — if it’s not that, and it’s not sinner’s guilt seeking redemption, and it’s not a cosmic “get out of jail free” card, then why profess a belief in God? What’s the benefit?
For me, the experience of God is the experience of things coming together. Now, I’m trying to stay away from confounding frou-frou talk, lowbrass. 
I was thinking of you yesterday while zipping along a flat, empty highway, listening to Philip Glass’s Koyaanisqatsi (“Vessels” anyway), on my way to do some really meaningful work and feeling everything coming together into “more”.
I thought, gee, “God” is a shorthand way of saying “Everything”. Synthesis. And I don’t know how to describe that to you. When I try to put it into words I need to take it apart, talk about this strand and that one (because you have to be specific, language is specific) - but it’s the “together” that makes it God.
There are a lot of times when all I can sense is me. My fears, my anger, my frustration, my anxiety, my thoughts. It can be very lonely. Being aware of God (being in the “together” state) gets rid of the “me” filter. I don’t think about my identity, my ego, none of that. For me, God is simultaneously being aware of myself AND everything else. Not superficial details, but essences. And it’s all (we’re all) pretty much One.
For me, I’m a much better person with that framework. I can just DO, I don’t need to worry, to guard, project, prove, solve. I can be spontaneously of the moment (I think some people call it “flow”). I accomplish things in that mode that I could never do if I were working from my own ego and concerns.
Oh, that’s lovely.
I think Ayn Rand (of all people) said something similar - that life is “the process of stating our truth in reality, giving it form”.
I’ll look for that book, thanks!
I meant to ask you, lowbrass, if you have that sort of “oneness” or “flow” experience, too; and if so, what do you call it?
And because of that you shouldn’t. Furthermore it’s not up to any believer to dictate to you how you should label them. Nor is it up to you to tell them how they should label theirs.
I’m not so sure there is a normal way to use the word God , unless you mean strictly the norm, the most common way. I think the usage varies in such large numbers from supreme supernatural being to universal oneness, that we must accept the various uses and assume the responsibility of clarifying what someone means when engaged in discussion. The various meanings have been around quite a while have they not. Even our forefathers who were deists and students of the enlightenment used the term, the god of nature. They didn’t necessarily mean the God you refer to.
This is also an exploration of the term rather than a declaration.
I sure do appreciate your posts. I agree. for me it isn’t as if God gets all the credit but it is a recognition of our interconnectedness and interdependency. In music the audience is an equally important part of the shared event. If the music feels transcendent it’s not just the musicians and composers and arrangers who deserve credit. Without the audience that shared event couldn’t happen in the same way.
I remember thinking about oneness and how some paths teach that the yin and the yang eventually fade until there is just one. No more opposites. If a give and receive event is just right it’s a wonderful example. In giving freely without attachment the giver also receives. In receiving freely without attachment the receiver also gives, until it is people sharing the same event. The labels of giving and receiving don’t matter anymore.
Amen
In a thread here months ago an atheist described a feeling of awe and transcendence so eloquently that moved me to gratitude. even though we felt differently about what god might or might not be we had still found our point of unity and oneness.
Sounds very similar to zen buddhism, except with the word “God” added.
Regarding feeling God’s presence, have you heard of this experiment?
I’ve heard of the God helmet before. It’s interesting.
Oh, I think it is essential the same path as Eastern philosophies, in a general sense. I haven’t read anything in a long time – but when I was starting this journey I was all over the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching and Zen and the art of this & that. Richard Bach and the Infinite Is. It’s all the same thing, basically (except once I got around to reading a little more about the Tao Te Ching, I learned that many of the phrases I was interpreting one way were actually meant in another, very political way; it’s made me wary of throwing around those terms).
So, which is worse – God or drugs? 
I recommend “Zen and the Art of Archery”. I’m not a Richard Bach fan. I find this amusing, from Wikipedia:
Oh, and neither God nor drugs are bad if not abused.
Maybe I keep having religious experiences because the neurons in certain areas of my brain habitually fire in such a way as to give me such experiences. Whatever the source of the feeling, when I compare notes with other spiritual-minded people, we often find points of agreement with one another about how it feels. (This is not to disparage in any way people who don’t share these feelings–I would tend to agree with most atheist arguments, except I keep having experiences which only religious people want to talk about.)
I responded so positively to fessie’s OP because I experience the sacred in the human realm, whenever humans show compassion and kindness to one another, in a world full of so much suffering, then I feel I’m in the presence of the sacred–the way a more conventionally religious person might feel when praying in church or something.
fessie is asking whether God can be known out of human experience. As far as I can tell, “God” is a term generally reserved for the ultimate in sacredness, however one defines that. If I project the feeling of sacredness in my human experience into a theoretical infinity, I would feel justified in identifying the source of ultimate sacredness as “God” (I prefer to say “Goddess,” but whatever…).
Since the human emotion of having a spiritual experience often feels more overwhelming than the understanding can grasp, if it isn’t actual infinitude it comes across as a pretty good facsimile of it from the subjective human point of view. So this is how I think a person feels something deep and gets from that to “God.”
I’ve found conventional monotheist theologies mostly inadequate to support any spiritual tendency in me. Since I began to approach religion in the humanistic way that fessie describes, my religious experience became much deeper and stronger, and helped to transform how I live my life. When one human being touches another’s hand to help ease their sorrow, that’s what it’s really about for me. This has helped me to show more compassion toward all other beings, which I believe to be necessary to live a good life. This is why I think fessie is onto something really good here.
I still don’t get why you can’t call emotions “emotions”, call human kindness “human kindness”, and omit the extraneous entity. Is it just that you believe really super-strong feelings can’t possibly be natural, and must therefore be supernatural? If so, why do you feel that way?
This is pretty much my question, as well. Why would you feel the need to assign supernatural qualities to something that your mortal body has felt? Atheists feel strong emotions, too; probably in exactly the way you feel them. But we don’t feel the need to assign the mystical attributes to those feelings. We felt them. Our brains and bodies. That’s how humans are built. We’re emotional beings.
Like I said, I think the concept of deity comes from perceiving such feelings of goodness as extending into the infinite. Sometimes these feelings occur so strongly as to overwhelm one’s comprehension and that makes it easy to think of them as infinite or coming from an infinite source.
Well, I get what you’re saying about wrapping your brain around such deep concepts, but I don’t use the words “infinite” and “supernatural” interchangeably. To me they are two different things. Infinite is something that goes on forever; always was and always will be. The supernatural adds an element of magic to it.
I don’t see why anyone would want to default to magic just because something is “whoa!” in scope. Why can’t it just be what it is, without inventing additional components to its existence. Y’all may very well be right, but until you know for sure, why can’t it just be a knowledge gap that we’re trying to close?
I’m glad you’re here. I wanted to run an idea by you and lowbrass because I think your question is valid.
We know people deal with things differently.
Let’s say different people dealing with powerful experiences and trying to explain and make sense of things that are hard to explain and make sense of, use different tools to get the same job done for that inner person.
For some people the spiritual tool in it’s many forms feels more comfortable and works well for them. Atheists use a different tool. Each sometimes look at the other and wonders, “Why are you using that? It looks uncomfortable” It’s an aesthetic choice in that sense.
Sometimes atheists look at believers as if we’re trying to pound nails with a large uneven rock. If we would only drop the rock and pick up the modern efficient tool they prefer we would all be better off.
Believers look at atheists in a similar manner. Some just can’t fathom how you can possibly get the job done with the tools you’ve selected. “How can you possibly build anything worthwhile without the proper tools?” they ask.
In carpentry, in order for a house to come together different tools are required. Not everybody even prefers the same hammer. Rubber coated steel handle or wooden? What weight do you like? What length handle? Different carpenters find that different tools work better for them
Maybe, just maybe we can accept that aesthetic choice of different people and find a way to build something worthwhile together.
Now all join hands and sing.
Perhaps we can rewrite the old Donnie and Marie hit “I’m a little bit country, I’m a little bit rock and roll” to something that works for atheists and theists
I think it is a knowledge gap. What’s wrong with deciding on what you think it is and acting accordingly while you process new information?
Let me answer part of that. Too many people won’t recognize that there is indeed a knowledge gap. They hold beliefs to be absolute and actually resist new evidence that challenges them. Even worse, they insist others look at the knowledge gap in exactly the same way they do.
Well, because it’s a gap, meaning we don’t really know what it is. I can understanding hoping the answer is one thing or another, but to say you’re going with a particular answer until another one comes along doesn’t make sense to me. It’s perfectly ok (and in my opinion, intellectually healthy) to say “We don’t know.”