quote:who, or what, is that something? I tend to think that everything we learn about the universe gets us closer to that something.
The way one learns is by collecting evidence, and rejecting false conclusions. If God is an unfalsifiable premise, you can't do that.
The way one learns about what?
Anything.
Or, anything which is important enough for one to care about being accurate.
Technially, I could "learn" that France is an island at 12 degrees latitude, that it's national language is HTML, and its capital is a pile of wet socks, if by "learned" you only mean "heard, remember and believe".
But the far more meaningful definition of "learning" invovles knowing things which are actually true. And you can't determine this without a robust and reliable method of determining what is false.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You completely missed the point of my question, probably because you are making assumptions about who I think God is. But didn't I already say, I don't know who or what he is and that I think science is how we learn about him?
Let's go back to the question...
The way one learns about what?
You said: Anything.
Great. Stop right there.
Anything. Everything!
The universe.
The way I see God, he is precisely what we are studying. He is the universe. When we learn things, we are learning about him.
The rest of what you've been saying you really ought to save for a different believer (maybe one with a strict doctrinal approach) because I have no problem with your way or looking at the world. It's absolutely consistent with what I believe. Most beliefs are consistent with what I believe, actually.
It's all just semantics. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: The way I see God, he is precisely what we are studying. He is the universe. When we learn things, we are learning about him.
But the universe isn't a "him". Or a "her" for that matter. It's just the universe. Either you are talking about God as a person, (which is how the word is prtty universally used) or you aren't. Calling it "God" and "him", and then saying "Oh, I meant the whole universe" is equivocation.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My view of God is neither unique nor equivocation. If you're really into learning, you ought to take a stab at understanding as well. I haven't gotten into details about my belief system...can't imagine why I wouldn't want to...even when I tell people their beliefs are entirely consistent with my own they start proselytizing. Well you know what, the universe can handle more than one way of looking at it.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: My view of God is neither unique nor equivocation. If you're really into learning, you ought to take a stab at understanding as well.
Using the term "God" pretty much establishes that you are talking about some kind of person. The universe is not a person. If you are flip-floppng between the two definitions depending on which argument is being discussed, that's equivocation.
Praying to the universe, for instance doesn't change anything external to the mind of the prayer. Trees and stars, and the atoms they are made of don't answer prayers. Only persons can answer prayers by changing the external universe.
So are you really using the term "God" to mean something that doesn't respond to prayers? To an impersonal universe that doesn't care about humanity on any level?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are the consequences of your belief? Take the hypothetical Christine who does not take 'God' as a premise; how does her behaviour change? What experience does she expect which is different from what you expect?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: My view of God is neither unique nor equivocation. If you're really into learning, you ought to take a stab at understanding as well.
Using the term "God" pretty much establishes that you are talking about some kind of person. The universe is not a person. If you are flip-floppng between the two definitions depending on which argument is being discussed, that's equivocation.
Praying to the universe, for instance doesn't change anything external to the mind of the prayer. Trees and stars, and the atoms they are made of don't answer prayers. Only persons can answer prayers by changing the external universe.
So are you really using the term "God" to mean something that doesn't respond to prayers? To an impersonal universe that doesn't care about humanity on any level?
swbarnes2, I'm an atheist, and I have a very good from India who for all intents and purposes is an atheist as well, or at least agnostic. He considers himself religious in that he lives by a certain creed and has a spiritual master back home in India. He is an extremely intelligent scientist here in the states. We've had many many many a long and frustrating conversation about the universe where he spoke about "god". It took us a long time to realize that when he uses the word god, that term has no relation to the western conception of the word god. He doesn't believe in any sort of personal god, god is not an individual, or even conscious, does not answer prayers, takes not active role in the universe, and as far as i can understand is, to him, basically a pattern of relationships that define the universe. What proceeded after this realization was another long and protracted conversation about terminology and definitions, with the result of him basically saying that he refuses to change the word he uses because our western conception of that word is so off from the reality of it.
While I don't think Christine's conception of god is exactly like my friend's, I think the point is valid, and as at the root of the misunderstanding here.
To be fair, I did drive the point home to my friend that understanding your audience is important, and that when you use particular words with english speaking people, those words have certain accepted and understood meanings, and if you are using that word differently, unless you are explicit by what you mean by it, it will necessarily lead to confusion on both sides.
Our conversations flow much smoother now since I usually ask him to define what he means by something before I reply with what I assume he meant.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Strider, I think that helped, although you're right that I am not using the term the way your friend is, either. I have heard it used exactly that way, though. I've had a number of excellent conversations with people who have a wide range of ways of looking at God...anywhere from the spiritually atheist view of your friend to the eastern views which include the Void and Tao, among countless others.
swbarnes2: Even your concept of prayer is very Judeo-Christian, which makes it very difficult for me to answer any of your questions.
I realize that I probably added to the confusion on this thread by hinting at my beliefs (I hate that word...can I use ideas instead?) without fully describing them. I think in the post that started all this I was doing a simple compare/contrast with another poster on our approaches to religion. After that, I probably should have stopped talking. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I've never really gotten where the vehemence stirred up by people believing for themselves in religion comes from. I'm talking about people who are not intent on forcing it on others, who are intelligent and psychologically healthy who have a personal belief in religion. What is the big problem here, that they have a belief that they can't be sure is true?
MrSquicky, my guess is that the vehemence comes from the feeling that we (I am presumptuously including myself in the intelligent and psychologically healthy group) give credence, legitimacy and a foothold to those that are intent on forcing their beliefs on others and whose beliefs are not so benign.
There is some validity in that.
On the other hand, by lumping us all together and making it an all or nothing proposition, they frame the argument in precisely the way that is most advantageous for those people who think that their specific beliefs should become law. They amplify the already-too-loud voices by buying into the fantasy that those people represent religious people as a whole.
Christine, you and I agree on a lot.
swbarnes2, we anthropomorphize God in order to better have a relationship with God. We can't wrap our heads around a God that is infinite, so we deal with facets of God. Because we call God "he" or "she" or "father" or "mother" (yes, people do use the feminine more and more these days) does not mean that that is all God is.
Strider, my idea of God is closer to that of your friend than it is to the "superman in the sky" that is often imagined. And much closer than it is to the God that has sometimes been described by other Christians here.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb, although we've had this conversation before with little result, I invite you also to answer my question to Christine. What would be different in your expectations or actions if you did not "choose to believe"?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What are the consequences of your belief? Take the hypothetical Christine who does not take 'God' as a premise; how does her behaviour change? What experience does she expect which is different from what you expect?
I'm not ignoring you, but I want to think about this for a while. I don't think it's a simple question or an easy answer. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Using the term "God" pretty much establishes that you are talking about some kind of person. The universe is not a person. If you are flip-floppng between the two definitions depending on which argument is being discussed, that's equivocation.
Assuming that God must be some kind of person is a very short sighted view of God.
Lets put it this way:
Who created everything?
God.
If he created everything, what did he create it out of?
My answer--God.
Hence God is the Universe, the molecules, the atoms, the water, the stars, the people and the forces that move all of those. God is time, and space and energy and everything.
Just because you are Anthropomorphizing God doesn't mean we all do.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, and I have answered before. How would I know? I would be someone else.
Are you really so incapable of exercising imagination on this subject? If you could be convinced that your god does not exist, what would you do differently?
quote:Hence God is the Universe, the molecules, the atoms, the water, the stars, the people and the forces that move all of those. God is time, and space and energy and everything.
This being so, what is wrong with the phrase "The universe", which carries no religious baggage; and what is the purpose of going to church, as you perhaps do?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, how would you be different if you choose to believe? How would you be different if you had always believed?
What is wrong with the phrase, "The Universe" is that it doesn't carry religious "baggage".
And it doesn't describe all God is. Nor does it imply a relationship or suggest a method for interaction.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how would you be different if you choose to believe? How would you be different if you had always believed?
This is not the question I asked you; if it is the question you heard, then I agree that it is unanswerable. My question was, however, "How would your actions be different, and what different experiences would you anticipate?"
To answer the symmetric question I will have to assume a religion I converted to or was born into; I'll pick Mormonism. I would then go to church fairly often; pray or meditate frequently; tithe; go on a mission, assuming I converted young enough; drink no coffee or tea; and probably marry within the religion. I would expect prayers to be answered often enough to notice; answers to difficult questions to appear in my head when I prayed about them; and, most significantly, I would expect an afterlife.
quote:And it doesn't describe all God is. Nor does it imply a relationship or suggest a method for interaction.
Very good; this being so (assuming of course that Darth_Mauve will agree with you), Darth_Mauve should not have implied that his god can be summed up as being what the rest of us refer to as the Universe.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KM--hmm, the Universe is described as everything in reality. You posit that God is everything, and then some.
I'll grant you that, but don't underestimate how much "the Universe" really is.
God is the Infinite, plus.
KOM, I notice you are capitalizing "The Universe." Instead of just the universe--which has a scientific definition, you talk about the Universe, which seems to me to be a word for everything, and then some.
Perhaps (don't shoot the blasphemer), the Universe is the infinite, plus.
My comment about the Universe = God stands corrected. I did not mean to imply there were limits to God. I was just pointing out that for many people God is much much more than some powerful old man sitting in the clouds. Those who limit their definition of God to that have a really small god.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or Darth Mauve may have a different idea of God than I do.
KoM, would you be you, then?
I do not know how much of how I relate to people around me is a function of the fact that I believe that they are all "children" (aqain, do not take this metaphor for reality) of the Divine. I would possibly be even crankier than I am without that concept. I imagine that I would not think to be grateful. I don't know that I would sing as a large part of my singing is religious and singing was one of my first and still is a primary response to God.
But all of this is hypothetical. I would not be who I am. Just as I would not be who I am if I believed in a cruel, capricious, smaller God.
Added after seeing DM's post: Probably not all that different, then. If one said, "the Universe plus (that plus being Love?) with who one has a relationship" that would be closer than the small, superman-in-the-sky, type god.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't see why not. There was a time when I did not make love on a regular basis; was I a different person then? There was a time when my opinions were much more left than they are now; did that make me a different person? I have a continuity of experience with both those younger versions of myself, and identify myself with them. I don't think this is a useful way to approach the problem; actions and anticipated experience are much more easily communicable, and way less dependent on philosophical questions. Nobody has made any real progress on questions of identity for 2500 years; this suggests to me that the problem is either too hard, or not a problem at all; in either case, discussions that depend on such answers are not likely to be fruitful.
quote: I would possibly be even crankier than I am without that concept. I imagine that I would not think to be grateful.
I do not think this is psychologically realistic. Let's take 'cranky' first; by analogy with myself, I imagine that you experience this as annoyance when people talk to you, and sometimes snap at them in consequence, while most of the time stopping yourself. But I suspect that you do not stop yourself with the thought "That is not very godlike", or indeed any conscious thought at all; rather you just make the decision to snap or not at a subconscious level. I doubt your surface-level beliefs would change this process. However, we have at least reached the level of the empirically verifiable; it would in principle be possible to test whether atheists are more cranky than theists of your kind, with theists of other kinds as a control group.
As for gratitude, this seems very woolly to me. Grateful to whom? If your feeling would, perchance, better be expressed as "Glad to be alive", I don't see why that should change. If on the other hand it is that you occasionally stop up and perhaps pray internally, "God, thank you for creating all this", I can see that stopping, yes. Would you clarify for easier discussion?
Notice that both these 'actions' are internal, states of mind, and that predictions about one's future states of mind are notoriously unreliable.
quote: I don't know that I would sing as a large part of my singing is religious and singing was one of my first and still is a primary response to God.
As an anecdote, I sing fairly often. I do think, though, that the difference between a kmb who sings and one who doesn't is not, as these things go, large. If this is really all that your god-belief causes you to do, I'd have to say it's not a very important belief. Consider the actions your belief that electricity works causes: Every day you flip dozens of switches, expect dinner to be warm, and post on Hatrack. These effects are much larger, IMO, than the ones you report for believing in your god. Is it really so small?
quote:KOM, I notice you are capitalizing "The Universe." Instead of just the universe--which has a scientific definition, you talk about the Universe, which seems to me to be a word for everything, and then some.
My exact words, including capitalisation, were "the phrase "The universe"". Using a capital 't' in 'The' is a grammar point, indicating the start of a new phrase. I have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:God is the Infinite, plus.
That's very fine. What does it mean? Again: What actions would you take if you did not believe this, or how would you expect life to be different? If a belief doesn't imply some sort of difference in your expectations or actions, then it's just words and you might as well be speaking in tongues.
quote:You posit that God is everything, and then some.
I do nothing of the kind and have no idea how you extracted this from my words.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After a great deal of thought, and reading the subsequent discussion, I think I've come to the conclusion that however much you, KoM, want to have this conversation in terms of actions and expectations, I personally do not find them to be relevant.
You see, to me, the endless philosophizing is fruitful. It's all about wondering and thinking, generating ideas, sharing those with others, and then coming up with new ideas. I like the word idea far better than belief -- it's more malleable.
Why? Because I feel a deep spiritual need to do so.
I'm not sure if you feel the same need -- you do seem to like the conversation, however fruitless it becomes.
Or, to put it another way -- it's not about the destination, it's about the journey.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would possibly be even crankier than I am without that concept. I imagine that I would not think to be grateful.
I do not think this is psychologically realistic. Let's take 'cranky' first; by analogy with myself, I imagine that you experience this as annoyance when people talk to you, and sometimes snap at them in consequence, while most of the time stopping yourself. But I suspect that you do not stop yourself with the thought "That is not very godlike", or indeed any conscious thought at all; rather you just make the decision to snap or not at a subconscious level. I doubt your surface-level beliefs would change this process. However, we have at least reached the level of the empirically verifiable; it would in principle be possible to test whether atheists are more cranky than theists of your kind, with theists of other kinds as a control group.
What I italicized is almost exactly what I do. I am far nicer to you than I would be if I did not constantly and consciously remind myself that you are a child of God and that God wants me to treat you kindly.
quote:
As for gratitude, this seems very woolly to me. Grateful to whom? If your feeling would, perchance, better be expressed as "Glad to be alive", I don't see why that should change. If on the other hand it is that you occasionally stop up and perhaps pray internally, "God, thank you for creating all this", I can see that stopping, yes. Would you clarify for easier discussion?
Notice that both these 'actions' are internal, states of mind, and that predictions about one's future states of mind are notoriously unreliable.
What I italicized. And not necessarily internally. Sometimes out loud and sometimes expressed as song, or service, or kindness...
quote:
quote:I don't know that I would sing as a large part of my singing is religious and singing was one of my first and still is a primary response to God.
As an anecdote, I sing fairly often. I do think, though, that the difference between a kmb who sings and one who doesn't is not, as these things go, large. If this is really all that your god-belief causes you to do, I'd have to say it's not a very important belief. Consider the actions your belief that electricity works causes: Every day you flip dozens of switches, expect dinner to be warm, and post on Hatrack. These effects are much larger, IMO, than the ones you report for believing in your god. Is it really so small?
KoM, you have no evidence at all for your estimation of how large a difference not singing is to me. Nor did I say or mean to suggest that it would be the only difference.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You see, to me, the endless philosophizing is fruitful. It's all about wondering and thinking, generating ideas, sharing those with others, and then coming up with new ideas. I like the word idea far better than belief -- it's more malleable.
I suspect you would not like to have your belief in or ideas about a god characterised as an intellectual game with no real-life consequences. But that seems to be what you are describing. Is your religion really no more connected to action than literary criticism is?
quote:What I italicized is almost exactly what I do. I am far nicer to you than I would be if I did not constantly and consciously remind myself that you are a child of God and that God wants me to treat you kindly.
Well then, bluntly, I do not believe you. Nonetheless, we appear to have found something one might characterise as a belief, to wit, that your god wants something. Would you like to describe the world in which your god wants something else? How would it look different from this one?
quote: Sometimes out loud and sometimes expressed as song, or service, or kindness...
Again, I do not believe you would stop doing the songs, services, or kindnesses.
quote:KoM, you have no evidence at all for your estimation of how large a difference not singing is to me. Nor did I say or mean to suggest that it would be the only difference.
I can only go by what you say. It appears to me, though, that you're having difficulty coming up with any other specific activities you would stop doing. Are you really suggesting that this is a life-changing list, compared to the actions of my hypothetical Mormon alt, which indeed are performed by many of the Mormons on this board?
I also note that nothing stops you singing about other things; people who enjoy singing generally find a way to do so, religious or not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You see, to me, the endless philosophizing is fruitful. It's all about wondering and thinking, generating ideas, sharing those with others, and then coming up with new ideas. I like the word idea far better than belief -- it's more malleable.
I suspect you would not like to have your belief in or ideas about a god characterised as an intellectual game with no real-life consequences. But that seems to be what you are describing. Is your religion really no more connected to action than literary criticism is?
No. But you won't accept any answer I would give you, as evidenced by your treatment of others, so why should I bother? Suffice to say I have a deep spiritual need that is fulfilled by my ideas about God and the nature of the universe. Anything else, apparently, you probably wouldn't believe anyway.
posted
KoM, you can only go by what I say and yet you don't believe what I do say. Yeah. Pretty fruitless conversation. I think I am done indulging you for now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. But you won't accept any answer I would give you, as evidenced by your treatment of others, so why should I bother?
Because of finding endless philosophical discussion fruitful? Plase notice that already, you have apparently conceded the point you tried to make in your previous post: There, you did not wish to discuss this in terms of action and expectation. Now you apparently agree that this is the proper way to approach the matter, since otherwise your beliefs are detached from actual life; your worry now is that your statements about hypothesized actions would not be believed. Is that not a rather quick overturning of a philosophical point? It follows that you may expect to gain other insights by continuing the discussion.
quote:Suffice to say I have a deep spiritual need that is fulfilled by my ideas about God and the nature of the universe.
Would you like to clarify the distinction between this, and a need to believe that your security blanket keeps the bogeyman out of the closet?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: KoM -- You are not engaging anyone in a philosophical discussion. You are proselytizing.
Since your religion apparently consists mainly of discussion of ideas, what is the difference?
Well, in your case the difference is that you don't want to listen, you only want to talk. You twist words and concepts to suit your purpose. You take words out of context and make up context out of words. You are abrasive and attempt to use verbal trickery to make your point. Most of all, you completely disdain and disrespect anyone who does not believe the way you do.
I am not interested in fighting off verbal attacks.
And FYI, I never said that my "religion" consisted mainly of anything, let alone a discussion of ideas. I've been purposefully vague about my spirituality. Once again, you are trying to put words in people's mouths.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not interested in fighting off verbal attacks.
A splendid excuse for being unwilling to actually think and discuss, as opposed to listening to echo chambers which reflect back your own assumptions in ever-so-refined variations.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not interested in fighting off verbal attacks.
A splendid excuse for being unwilling to actually think and discuss, as opposed to listening to echo chambers which reflect back your own assumptions in ever-so-refined variations.
A splendid example of your disdain and disrespect.
quote:Nor does it imply a relationship or suggest a method for interaction.
If I can cut through a lot of the hostility that's dogged the last few posts, I do have a question about this:
Kate, a "relationship" implies reciprocity. If the universe were not engaged in a reciprocal relationship with you, how would you tell? What would be different?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Suffice to say I have a deep spiritual need that is fulfilled by my ideas about God and the nature of the universe. Anything else, apparently, you probably wouldn't believe anyway.
What specifically is the difference between a "deep spiritual need" and a plain desire? I really enjoy ice cream, but I'm not sure that such enjoyment tells me anything about the ultimate nature of ice cream, other than the fact that it makes me happy to eat it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nor does it imply a relationship or suggest a method for interaction.
If I can cut through a lot of the hostility that's dogged the last few posts, I do have a question about this:
Kate, a "relationship" implies reciprocity. If the universe were not engaged in a reciprocal relationship with you, how would you tell? What would be different?
I don't really know. I do know that what I can control - my response and my interaction - is different.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:May you wake up smarter than you went to bed.
What would be really interesting is if she did wake up smarter than when she went to bed, yet couldn't explain how, and so people refused to believe her and called her irrational.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
