:o
Maybe he’s not a member and doesn’t know any dopers. Don’t admit anything until you hear from his lawyers. I’ll tell the Lopez people to piss off.
I’d elaborate on this to say that going for what “feels right” when you don’t know it’s right isn’t doing much in the way of moving forward toward the truth.
Will do!
IMHO in order to go forward we all need to make assumptions that might be incorrect. There’s no other way possible. You are able to go forward not knowing if god exists with expectations that the truth will be forthcoming. I go forward in faith that my belief will help me discover the truth as well.
Certainly we should consider all the objective evidence we can but we make decisions about the subjective as well. What we value. In that regard we do all make assumptions and some of those are bound to be incorrect.
See…I don’t get that. I see a blank until I get the information. I cannot fill in the blank with a “belief.” I can hope that the blank will be filled with the answer that seems to make sense to me, but faith and hope are two distinctly different emotions.
This is correct when considering objective facts. This is what often gets blurred in discussing religious beliefs. If the goal is truth objective evidence must be considered rather than denied or ignored.
We don’t live and choose based only on objective facts. What we hold true subjectively, what we value, plays a huge role in the course of our lives. If I use god belief as my vehicle who’s to judge if I’m traveling incorrectly.
of course it is. How do you judge which behavior gets the best results? How do you judge which choices are the most rewarding for you and others? It isn’t pulled from a void for sure. You have reference points and past experiences but still, you have to go, with what feels right based on objective and subjective evidence, all the while,not knowing if it is right, or if it will yield the best results.
I don’t think this is true. You may see a blank when it comes to viewing god as an objective reality, but you still must have some sort of a belief system that carries you forward. When you make a choice isn’t it faith that allows you feel it was the proper choice based on available information? You know your knowledge isn’t complete and you can’t be completely sure of the outcome, but you have enough information to make the choice. In the choosing, more information becomes available.
For believers , it includes god in various guises for reasons that suit them. It’s okay if you don’t understand why it suits them or if they don’t understand why non belief suits you. It should be enough to wish each other well on whatever the chosen path and trying not to harm each other.
Honest, I am aware of all the problems that come with people embracing myth and superstition to eagerly. I’m only proposing a better vehicle toward understanding. As we’ve seen here on the boards, atheism is no guarantee of being a more rational person with superior contributions. Belief isn’t superior or inferior. It’s just one of the available paths.
IMHO when either side seeks to eagerly to prove the other wrong and insist on being right in areas where the evidence is inconclusive or non existent we cease to honor their right to choose and in doing so are not honoring our own.
Johanna, I’m delighted and humbled that this OP was significant to you - thank you for sharing that.
lowbrass It’s my view that objective facts are largely without meaning. They don’t really tell you what to do next, or what’s important (beyond major life/death issues, of course).
Richard Bach’s divorce - I’m not familiar with his concept of soulmates (Illusions is the only one I read) - maybe he DID make a fool of himself. Personally I don’t think a divorce means the whole thing was a sham. Perhaps it was just a chapter.
Kalhoun, I think that for some people the decision to insert a God entity in what could otherwise be simply a human experience (of elation and awe) has to do with the ego. Keeping it in check, keeping it healthy, maintaining some balance; not getting too cocky, with success - or devastated, by failure. I think it’s a huge aid to living productively.
As to the “magic” element (which I’ll go ahead and address although I hope you understand that I’m not doing so in order to defend either the Old or New Testament God) – You might be right to suggest that the tools to understand everything just need to be devised. I don’t know, you might be right – lots of people are on that journey, and I admire some of what they’re accomplishing.
I feel like the tool, any tool, any word, is only ever going to be capable of quantifying a few aspects, because “understanding” is by definition fixed in time. It has to be specific, in order to be quantified. I quoted Kopp once - “All solutions breed new problems.”
So why shrink “it”, why put limits on our conceivably perceivable reality?
Why not just leave an unanswerable question instead?
I think that’s the point of the Zen koan.
I fear that when you read this, you’ll say “Aha! It’s willful ignorance, laziness, fear of rigorous examination, just as I suspected! You’d rather bless magic than do the work!”
Perhaps, though, some people find that doing the work only scratches the surface of “understanding”. Perhaps some people feel that the details we can generate through our ever-increasing body of knowledge are still just details, objective facts, and not underlying truths.
Well, sure. We use past experience to make decisions in the world. But the realm of god’s existence pretty much automatically goes into the “other worldly” column, which I don’t believe exists (due to lack of evidence). You can play it out as if it does exist, but that doesn’t mean it does. Believing doesn’t actually yield a different result than not believing does with respect to moving about in this world.
Believing doesn’t always mean better results for sure, but for the individual believing or not believing does yield different results. People gravitate to what seems to fit them better for their own reasons. Looking at god as an objective truth would be “other” worldly. Looking at god as a vehicle for the inner journey of personal growth in the moment, here and now, is something else. Again, it’s just a matter of individuals choosing what vehicle {belief system} feels comfortable for them. If my vehicle leads me to be a kinder person and a better contribution to society great. If you travel in a different vehicle and also become a better contribution to society I won’t say"But hey!! You’re in the wrong vehicle" I’ll honor your vehicle and appreciate your contribution. It would also be incorrect for you to criticize *my *choice of vehicle. It’s my trip, and my choice.
Of course if I’m one of those drivers trying to run over you feel free to criticize my improper use of the vehicle.
Poetry and mythology share a common origin. Poetry draws analogies between something in the individual human experience and something in the wide universe. Kathleen Raine’s lines (to pick a random example) - Because I love / There is an invisible way across the sky - make no sense at all in terms of hard science. “Amo Ergo Sum” is a poem about a woman experiencing her feelings of love as connecting her with everything happening in the universe. I think Raine did a brilliant job of using poetry to tell what that feels like. If described in terms of physics, I don’t know, could you make it sound interesting and meaningful?
Mythology is language suited to telling what religious experience feels like, while poetry is language suited to telling what love feels like. The question of why would I add mythology to my understanding of the world sounds like a strange question. As far as I know, poetic and mythic ways of understanding life have always been an integral part of my world. I might as well ask why would anyone want to subtract this.
Both questions would be mistaken. Kalhoun and lowbrass, I’m not adding anything, you’re not subtracting anything. You get by fine without it, I don’t see any value for me in denying it. I like it in my life, and can’t imagine how anyone would have a problem with that.
I don’t feel I can speak for all religious people, let alone be called to account for what dogmatic people say. I feel more in common with poets – like Kathleen Raine who doesn’t follow any particular religion – than with dogmatic thinkers of any persuasion.
My approach to religion is individual and personal. I don’t think it’s possible to make any objective statements of faith at all, let alone require everyone to believe a certain way. Any statements of faith I make apply to me alone. I’ve been able to find other people–mostly Pagans but not all–whose religious experiences are similar enough with mine that we can easily talk about them together. Sorry if the terms we use are meaningless to you. We’re not intending to shut you out of our conversation, but we still like being able to talk to one another, and we find meaning in this stuff.
Someone who never listened to music would find music fans’ talk about bands and genres to be incomprehensible and pointless. Like that, we’re just mythology fans is all. This thread should be moved to Cafe Society.
Hmmm…art as god? Is that what you’re saying? There are so many definitions these days that I have a hard time understanding what most believers are talking about.
For purposes of communication, when I say god, I use it in the traditional way. A supernatural being that created the universe, interacts with men both during life and after death, and who is worthy of worship.
I feel connected with other people through art and believe that music and art can facilitate unity among people where other methods fail. I feel that art is far more important to the task of human understanding than our leaders know. But that’s not god.
I agree. If I don’t know something, I don’t feel the need to find a placeholder for that blank until such time as I know the answer. I just leave it blank.
Of course, in this case I do know the answer. I am as sure God doesn’t exist as I am sure the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist, which is to say the possibility, while not zero, is extremely low.
I don’t agree with your equating “What we hold true” and “what we value”. I value certain things, but those are opinions of mine, and is an entirely different matter.
“Blue is my favorite color”
“Love is the most important thing in life”
“Loud people annoy me”
These are all subjective beliefs. They may not have the same true/false value for me that they do for others.
“The sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees”
“Lions live in Africa”
“There is a sentient being who created us and the universe”
These are objective statements that are either true or false, and have the same true/false value for everyone. They cannot be true for one person and false for another person.
These are two different categories of beliefs. “Truth” and “values” are not the same thing.
I can’t either. I certainly don’t have a problem with it. Do you have a problem with me expressing my beliefs?
I think I already mentioned that something that makes you feel good obviously has value; value isn’t the issue. When I say you’re “adding” something, I mean you’re using an additional entity to explain something that already has an explanation, i.e. emotion. The problem to me is that, if one uses “God” to explain why one has strong emotions, what exactly stops one from positing more extraneous entities? How do you know “Fleen” doesn’t explain “God”, and how do you know “Blubger” doesn’t explain “Fleen”, and how do you know “Rapaboow” doesn’t explain “Blubger”? If you deny all these things, then what’s the value in doing so?
I decide what’s important to me. Don’t you?
Well it’s just my opinion and you certainly don’t have to agree with me. I did read one of those books of his, and he just went on and on about how he was sharing this spiritual journey with his soulmate, like it was such an incredible mystical thing, and it honestly sounded like a load of new-agey hogwash to me at the time. And the fact that he’s not with her anymore sort of confirms that to me. The book certainly gave no indication that he thought he was in “a chapter” and that they would ever stray from each other.
God is X.
The word is simply used the same as a mathematical variable. It is used to name anything that is outside us, beyond us or unknown to us. Which is almost everything. Hence, the variable (“God”) gets used a lot. I like X better. It carries no baggage or intent (other than admittance of incomprehension.)
We are part of, and aware of, only such an incredibly infinitesimal part of the universe. Everything else–all that vast unknowable X is quite a wonder to us–the ultimate wonder.
But problems come about when people try to name, describe and co-opt X to their own purposes. Problems occur when people try to impose their own mechanisms of comprehending X onto others. I think it is best to leave the unknowable and the unreachable just so. Sadly, many humans haven’t seemed able to resist the temptation of projecting their tiny, ephemeral wills and ideas onto that which is forever unreachable.
There is no God in the way that you think of “Him”. There is no God like the one you were taught about as a kid, or read about. Those things weren’t God (X), they were hand-me-down, mis-translated and garbled descriptions of the way somebody quite a while ago described his concept of X to someone else. They are inaccurate descriptions of a thing that can’t be described in the first place.
There is no God in any way that you can even imagine, unless you imagine “Him” as a complete unknown. How can I know this? How can I be so arrogant as to presume what you can know and feel and believe? Well, actually I don’t presume to know anything at all about you or your deepest personal thoughts. I simply realize that nothing can be known about the unknown. The moment you say you know the unknown is the moment that I can safely say that you don’t know what you are saying.
I feel it is better, for me at least, to not even try to know X. One can not know even the first thing–even the tiniest detail. Because anything you know, can not be “God”. God is X. Or Y if you prefer, but even presuming as much as assigning a name to the unknown is presuming too much. Better to just to be at peace with the fact that nearly everything is unknowable and eternally beyond your (and my) comprehension.
It’s OK. We don’t need to know all this stuff, and we no longer have any need to invent an entity that *does *know everything.
I don’t consider myself an atheist, but I might as well be one as far as the rest of humanity is concerned. That’s because any “God” that any human can attribute any traits or details to; that they can describe in any way other than “utterly unknowable” is a description of something that only exists within that person’s mind–not anywhere outside of it. Therefore, it is not a “God” in any way that I consider meaningful to the universe outside of the imaginer’s head.
So I appear effectively atheist. Yet I do not consider myself one because I am aware that there exists X that is outside of our scrutiny, and I believe that that same X is the basis for the “God” myths and legends that have been passed down and around to humans throughout our history.
In a certain way “God” does exist, but only as a void–an unknown–a null set. Calling it “God” only adds to the confusion and messy problems of humans wanting to “own” part of something (X) they can never have or ever know about.
Humans have always shown possessiveness and ownership by giving things names. You can’t own this, so why try to name it?
[Yes, I realize that I am naming it by calling it X. I only refer to as X in the same way one uses X to represent the unknown in a math problem. I guess some people (some Jews I think? — I don’t know much about organized groups of X interpreters) refer to it as G-d. I have noticed that before but hadn’t really thought about it until now. I guess I see why they do it! Why try to name the un-namable and unknowable?]
I certainly don’t have a problem with it. I prefer Johanna’s value add to many other flavors because I’ve never seen her try to legislate it. She treats it as personal business, and that’s as it should be.
Johanna, questioning the why behind your beliefs is not the same as trying to take them from you. I’ve heard the “art as god” definition (if that’s what you were saying) before, and while I don’t agree with it, I’d still like to know why you do. Expressing my opinion, as you express yours, opens the door for answers to questions that have piqued my curiosity.
I think I Love Me and Johanna are both right, because art is X, too.
Funny that you would put it that way, “art as God”, because what brought me to the OP was a remark Miller made in an art thread:
Who “God” is to us is largely a function of where we are in our lives, too.
Which is consistent with “God is infinite”.