What if God was an event?

Great Debates
141

What does supernatural mean? Something outside nature? No, I’ve discarded that way of thinking. I find religious experience in the natural world (which includes my own nervous system).

Not sure if I understand the question. All I know is, human experience generally includes a sense of relating to the sacred, like Martin Buber said, “I-Thou.” It just looks to me like human nervous systems are made in such a way that they consistently produce this experience.

I say yes to both, I don’t know why they would have to be mutually exclusive. What I’m describing is my own attempt to make coherent my understanding of my spiritual states in a completely non-dogmatic way.

The last question you asked has often been discussed by Pagans and Witches who use rituals to invoke deities. Is there really a being who exists apart from us, who we communicate with in this way? Or is it a way to access potential that is entirely contained within us humans? In my opinion–and this is a generally shared view in Pagan circles–it doesn’t matter either way. What matters is that we are pleased with the results when we do the rituals. I think most of the Pagans I know tend toward the latter view, but don’t see any importance in the distinction.

When I pray, I feel like there’s two-way communication going on, that I’m in contact with a benevolent intelligence. This comforts me and helps me feel my existence is supported. It helps me a lot to get through my life. As for thanking, yes-- most of my prayer consists of simply expressing gratitude.

What about the “human trait” you asked about? If this is inherent within the human being (I think it is), then is it possible to develop it without deities? Yes. There is a way to produce experiences of the sacred within oneself without necessarily postulating a deity–the techniques of tantric yoga. In Tantra, shakti means power inherent within the human being, but the word shakti is also used as a Goddess name. Some tantric yoga is practiced with deities and some without. Does it matter which?

Anyway, my response to the OP was not about rituals, just the sense of the sacred encountered in worldly life. The times I feel the presence of the sacred most strongly is in acts of human compassion and kindness. I’m not calling this feeling “God.” You seem to have misunderstood this. The gist of my argument was here, but it was overlooked because of quibbling over my use of the word “infinite” in a non-mathematical sense. Well, the word does have a non-mathematical meaning, look in the dictionary. The example I saw there was “infinite patience.” It just means ‘endless’ in Latin is all. Everybody knows you can’t quantify or measure units of patience.

I think it’s worthwhile to work toward a non-dogmatic, non-authoritarian understanding of the sacred. I also think it’s possible to speak of “God” (not my choice of words, but let’s go with it) in a nondogmatic way that doesn’t do violence to traditional concepts of a supreme being.

Like in my example, feeling the presence of the sacred more strongly when there are acts of compassion. Perceiving light or sound more strongly means you’re closer to the source, maybe perception of the sacred gets stronger closer to the source too. When this perception gets so strong as to be completely overwhelming, it seems as though the source of it is able to keep giving more and more, and never be exhausted. (This is where I used the word “infinite” in an ordinary non-technical sense.)

It isn’t the feeling itself that I would deify, but the strengthening of the feeling points to an awareness that it can keep getting stronger and stronger without limit. So the perception is that there exists an ultimate source of goodness, of love or compassion. “God” or whatever you call deity has always been used to name this source of the sacred, however sacredness is defined. The “most sacred.”

This doesn’t necessarily postulate a “supreme being” who exists independently of creation. I don’t think it’s such a good idea to believe in a sovereign being separate from us and holding authority over us. I also don’t think that particular formulation is necessary to a universal definition of “God,” it’s specifically a Christian dogma. I suggest “most sacred” or “source of sacredness” as a universal definition of God, because all cultures have some sense of the sacred, however differently they define it.

This brings me back to fessie’s OP where I started. I agree with her because I think she’s describing a sense of the sacred that can be encountered in everyday human experience, and it’s such a beautiful way to look at it.

142

Hmmm…this seems to be straying very far from the original topic. I find the use of the word “infinite” to describe an emotion to be an odd usage of the word, and no I don’t think I’m discounting any valid definitions of “infinite” other than those definitions that would constitute religious jargon. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say now, or how it relates to any point I made. I’ll just say, in response to your previous question: “Are you suggesting we live by stripping all associations of meaning from our cognition of the world?” The answer is no, and I have no idea why you would think I ever suggested such a thing. I’m just suggesting that it makes more sense for me to call emotions “emotions”, and not call them “God”. I don’t consider that to be stripping anything away, since it’s a superfluous entity unnecessary to explain the phenomemon. The emotion is still there without having to re-name it.

143

Oh, and your point is taken about that being an analogy. Sorry if I implied otherwise.

144

I think we’re all doing the best we can; or trying to, anyway. But I can’t applaud a statement like this:

(bolding mine)

…because it sounds kinda crazy. Why, if a person found that god didn’t exist, wouldn’t he say that he was wrong about the superhero component but that he was still living a good, caring, responsible life and that was enough for him? Why would you continue with the faith after it had been proved that there was no god? Where’s the value add in that? You’re doing everything right. No need to hang onto something that obviously had nothing to do with your successes as a human being.

145

I appreciate your non-dogmatic view of these things more than you know. However, the definition of sacred overwhelmingly leans toward the religious, so I won’t use that word to describe the feeling I get when I feel connected to The Big Picture and the human condition. It confuses things.

I applaud the pagans who question whether or not they’re communicating with deities and I’m glad you get a positive result via the rituals. But if it doesn’t matter whether deities exist or not, why would someone include them in the mix? I don’t see the value in that.

Whatver gets you through the night (I *most certainly * would have thanked John Lennon for the music, had I ever had the opportunity to!).

Well, it doesn’t matter to me, but I think with regard to truth seeking, it matters.

I know what infinite means, in the non-mathematical sense. I use it all the time when employing hyperbole. I can’t locate where you used it (actually, I thought it was Fessie who used it). But I’m sure I read it as “endless” the same way that I would use it when exaggerating to make a point.

See, I think that’s why it bothers me that you use it. I think you look at life and the human experience similarly to the way I do, except that you use some language that would lead most people (cough) me (cough) to believe otherwise. For purposes of communication, these words aren’t working. If you take those words away from the christians (for purposes of this discussion) how do they communicate what they believe? For all practical purposes, they own the words. There are other words for the rest of us that would get the job done in half the time.

I never perceive goodness to be infinite. It ebbs and flows with everything else. Certainly I appreciate when goodness is on a roll, so to speak, but I don’t get the ultimate source perception. It comes from everyone; independently and arbitrarily. There’s no central fountain from which it flows.

I agree, with the exception of the parts I don’t agree with. :wink:

146

No I’m not saying that. I do recognize and fully acknowledge the difference between objective and subjective truth.

I thought I made that clear in post 106 What I said in post 124 was this

I asked you if you saw your own statement of “Love is the most important thing in life” as truth. Do you? Please answer directly. If you think it cannot be truth because of it’s subjective nature then we have at least defined a major difference between us. I’ll explain more in my response to your post 131

147

This is interesting in two parts.

I understand your objection to the surrendering your will to something else. Some perceived otherworldly being. I am frustrated when people use god or other supernatural terms to try and avoid personal responsibility.

“I was directed by god to do X.” Or worse, “as god directs us through the bible,” make me a little uneasy. Some people seem eager to feel guided by something outside themselves. Eager to someone push off personal responsibility. In that eagerness they often allow themselves to willingly believe that their pastors know better than they or they accept what they are told. IMHO it’s crucial for the spiritual journey and true growth to accept full personal responsibility. It’s fine to feel moved by something you can’t really explain, but people must take full responsibility for their interpretation of whatever forces move them, and the choices and actions that follow.
You’re right. It is arrogant when anyone assumes they know what god thinks.

That being said, I don’t think morality can be arrived at intellectually. It must be IMHO, our emotions and intellect working together. The spiritual journey is an exploration of our own consciousness. We explore our motivations both conscious and subconscious hoping to make more conscious choices. We explore the depth of our connection to the people and world around us. Through a healthy discipline we seek to change how we feel about things. To change how we perceive our relationship with others, and in so doing how we act and react.

148

I don’t consider myself an atheist although plenty of Christians would find me blasphemous.

I’m saying that whatever it is that we are seeking and using the word god as a reference point, the concept of a being separate from ourselves, that resides “out there” somewhere is not good one. Our connection to god and each other lies within and that is where we should focus.

It’s sensing that we are part of something more and striving to understand and live within that understanding. A blending of our intellect and emotions that we call our spirit. If we are part of that something more, how can that something be “other” worldly?
We can separate our heart and our mind from the rest of our bodies but if we do that we die. Instead , to promote health and physical harmony we try to care all the body parts. Each cell , though separate is of the same stuff. Is it not?

Within god we are one spiritual body. Our perception of ourselves as separate is part of the problem. When one cell cares for the other the whole body benefits.

149

Thanks. I’m borrowing this. I’ll bring it back when I’m done :slight_smile:
I love simple analogies like this that contain an important kernel of truth.

My Bahai friends have a simple one I like. Everyone is drawn to the light. The problem start when people start worshiping the lamp.

150

What makes me even more uneasy is the fact that so many people don’t take credit for the good they do in their lives. I believe a healthy ego is necessary to being part of a healthy society. I remember an exchange Eve (I think) had with someone regarding her less-than-desirable neighbors or somesuch. One poster said something to the effect of “you think you’re better than them.” Eve’s response was, “Yes! I am better than them!”

*Of course * some of us are better than others. That’s where certain benchmarks of behavior are created within a society. This doesn’t mean we are unequal in terms of human or civil rights, or that we all sort of meld into some bland vanilla flavor, but it does create (an admittedly arbitrary) goal for members of a society to strive for.

151

Mind if I toss a question back?

How do you live without prayer?

152

Hopefully in the process, a shift in consciousness occurs. Instead of seeking to do the will of a separate supernatural being, we are seeking to be in tune with what we are already a part of. We surrender our false perceptions of being separate. I understand how the language can be disturbing. I often think that we need to work toward changing the language that dominates the spiritual discussion. That too is a process.

153

I’m not sure who you were directing this at, but I’ll answer.

I’ve always lived without prayer. I wasn’t raised in a church or religion. I’m 50 years old and have never felt the need to pray. I don’t believe there is a being that hears, answers, or cares about prayer.

154

I concede that a shift in language would help.

Again, what works for you, or me, doesn’t have to be what works for someone else. I can’t look into your heart and mind and know which is the right path for you, or you for me. We can, as we are doing here, share opinions, experiences and perceptions.

It does. Is it possible it takes the interaction of these many different paths for humanity as a race to progress toward truth?

I’m not sure we should allow Christians to own those words. An alternative would be to work to shift the perception and definition of such words as sacred. Even god. Since those concepts are so very widespread and spirituality so diverse I’m not sure we can abandon those terms or allow them to become language that draws boundaries that separate us. For many believers it’s a matter of not letting either the fundies or the atheists set the definition, and then turn to us and say “your definition isn’t valid” I’ll grant you that the need to communicate effectively in a language that doesn’t separate us is an important point.

By seeking goodness, and/or our common connection, we can move forward as individuals. If we do that then humanity as a race must move forward, albeit, slowly and painfully. I don’t think it has to be independently or arbitrarily if we actively seek it out within ourselves and others.

On this we agree :smiley:

155

How about meditation?

156

This has a lot to do with perception to as well as brutal honesty. We don’t achieve of fail in a void. Many factors and other people come into play. I think it’s fine to feel good about an accomplishment but we tread shaky ground if we think “Look how good I did”
I understand what you mean about language that doesn’t allow an individual to take any credit and instead seeks to give it all away to some external supernatural being. The good and the bad of our lives is a product of us interacting together. For me that means when I experience something wonderful I feel gratitude for the experience. As a writer I’d have to confess a certain sense of tapping into a creative source rather than “Hey, look what I did”
Also the expression of whatever our gift is becomes meaningful within the context of others. If I am appreciated as a singer it is because the audience is there to share the experience with me. The experience is dependent on the interaction of an us. I can celebrate me, but only honestly as part of the whole.

Even some of us being “better” is perspective.

157

No–that’s better, but it’s got some baggage, too.

I’d say thinking, planning, musing, wondering, reminiscing, hoping are all words that work for me.

158

I finally got around to reading this OP. I like this a lot. I’m going to print it out and study it in the context of some of the texts I have (yes, including the Bible.) By golly, fessie, I think you’re onto something here – an Experiential God. Yes, indeed, I like this a lot.

159

Agreed. But give credit where credit is due, based on your own perspective. If you’re off a bit, someone will come along with an example that will make that quite apparent. :wink:

160

The more I think about your response, the more I think maybe you didn’t get what I was saying. Sometimes good and bad happen independently of other people. You don’t need another person’s approval or interaction to feel pleased with something you’ve done. I don’t think this aspect of the conversation is all that deep. Be pleased or proud of your accomplishments. It’s good for society. That’s all. I see nothing wrong with that.