Defining God
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Defining God
The best I can surmise, is:
Abstract thought is a great gift but we became overwhelmed and inadvertently turned it back on itself, creating a concrete being out of the abstract, because that's ultimately more palatable. Over time this has become 'God'.
It has taken on a life of its own- like a well loved character in a play. People speak and even think of God as if 'He' is a conscious being. 'God would do x, God would be pleased with y' etc.
Maybe abstract thought is actually a burden? Is it leaving us susceptible to delusions and mental illness?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Defining God
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to surmise that way, way back when some guy was stronger, more charismatic and smarter than anyone else around. Well that guy is king.
But what if you are smarter but are a weakling and ugly? He can't be king, but he can convince the rabble that he is the sole earthy conduit of a King in the sky that no one else can see.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Defining God
I think we need to bear in mind how long humans have been capable of abstract thought. Maybe 100,000 years at best? Even that's not much in evolutionary time, where attributes of species evolve and refine over millions of years. That would mean our level of abstract thought is quite rough, with much refinement in the future, if civilisation holds up.Lucylu wrote:Maybe abstract thought is actually a burden? Is it leaving us susceptible to delusions and mental illness?
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Defining God
- Lacewing
- Premium Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:45 pm
Re: Defining God
I think it can be a real challenge -- especially if someone doesn't have some kind of balancing energy to go with it. Such a balancing energy might be more fluid and calm than what our world typically maintains. Like the energy of nature. Non expectant... non demanding. Natural belonging. No boundaries. Without that, abstract thought might seem fractured if continually bashing up against a concrete world.Lucylu wrote:Maybe abstract thought is actually a burden? Is it leaving us susceptible to delusions and mental illness?
It's an interesting choice: the delusions of an overly established and structured world/mindset vs. the potential instability of letting go of that. I'm guessing that the attunement of ones spirit energy (energy which is not confined to the physical body) is a crucial navigation system to develop. If we think we are just physical bodies reinforced by structures and ideas, then we will likely be very brittle when structures fail and ideas change. If, however, we focus on shedding the built-up layers that obscure our spirit energy (without creating new layers in the process), we could likely discover our source of naturally balanced energy that has no dependence on specific structures or ideas.
That's my guess!
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Defining God
It's simple really, it's very difficult to invite an impersonal God to tea....or even locate them for that matter.
-- Updated Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:34 pm to add the following --
I guess we can no longer edit our posts? Anyway, the first sentmce to wit I replied was from Lucylu....
-
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: January 19th, 2015, 11:55 am
Re: Defining God
What is the reason behind religion? To enjoy the benefits of heaven on earth and that is shared by all. If the reward in heaven is tenfold it will be in the illumination of our conscious mind. That is what sages etc. are all about, and actually is what Plato referred to in his 7th Epistle 341C, with the words:Hereandnow wrote:Granted, the manufacturing of 'god', the concept, while certainly, if you will, reified by familiarity and tradition (and all the rest), dissimulates the real. You are right, it creates an illusion, but what is it covering? What is the core condition, the bare essence of religion, or, the primal condition that has given rise the concept? Now that is an interesting question. Who really cares, after all, about all of that medieval foolishness. Wipe the slate clean, do (Husserl) an epoche, then see what the question of god and religion is really about. If you think nothing at all; well, you not looking very hard.
I am just pointing at the end he saw that was also real for him, for which the word syzen means "being one with the pragma" seen that we call heaven on earth. They also have par-ousia and syn-ousia when the Final Form is seen and either is actualized in philotic love or is not, at least not yet, and beyond that is not his to say, but is where experience (empeiria) means "in' for him and 'out' for us (as it makes reference to the Universal not home to us).Surely it is by no means verbal, as other modes of learning are. It rather emerges in the soul on a sudden from much emergent dwelling and living with the matter itself, as something set alight by a leaping fire and forthwith nourishing itself.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Defining God
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Defining God
But what is Real is this cup on the table. Here is where the material basis for god is to be found. But this argument is only for interested parties.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Defining God
Therefore, I would define "God" as the Universe. God is the Universe, but, unlike the popular contemporary view, this Universe is more than a gigantic collection of non-living matter and mindless energy....
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Defining God
-
- Posts: 1186
- Joined: June 10th, 2009, 2:27 am
Re: Defining God
“The question posed presumes that mankind's conception of God was a mental fabrication rather than an interpretation of direct experience.”
I don’t much agree with anything that has been written above, so I don’t wish to merely critique Felix. However, I think this post is a good departure for my own view.
One, as one who is committed to skepticism, why ought we think that any god concept is anything more than a mental-conceptual thing? Given this question, it matters little if the concept is a type of mental thing (abstract concept) or a mental interpretation of some direct experience. In either case, the concept or notion seems to remain incurably vague and indecipherable.
Two, the impenetrability of the concept and the utter absence of agreement of interpretation is openly exhibited in your very comments,
“As Jung, William James, Campbell, et. al., have documented, similar conceptions of Gods/Goddesses appear in all cultures throughout the ages, and these entities may be encountered in altered states of awareness, dreams, etc”
Indeed, and yet, not one set of these cultures agreed on which conception(s) are correct, and no small number of them argued and fought bloody wars for such theological correctness.
Felix wrote,
“Perhaps the real burden of abstract thought is that it tends to desiccate our experience so that we lose our innate sense of child-like wonder and affection for Life and come to believe it is only what the latest scientific theories profess it to be.”
Or, maybe abstract thoughts or concepts are NOT all the same. Also, I’m utterly baffled as to why the testable-proven models found in science are somehow robbing us of our child-like wonder. The exact OPPOSITE is actually true. Mathematics as applied to physics, for example, opens us up to an entire Cosmos of understanding and exploration, while other forms of spiritual thought and asserted insights cause confusion, bitterness, hate, and fear.
Felix wrote,
“That too is a dangerous and destructive form of religious fundamentalism.”
Last time I checked, it wasn’t the scientific community and evidenced based movements that were running around slaughtering their fellow man and pushing their unfounded dogmas on the minds of men. If one wishes to be “spiritual” that’s fine, but don’t blame science for getting the method of how we prove assertions concerning reality correct.
Eric D.
- Lucylu
- Posts: 676
- Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Re: Defining God
Exactly! I believe the essence is simply life or the 'life force'. The unknown force which keeps growing, and recovering and flourishing in nature. But it is hard to describe or quantify, and I didn't really want to get side tracked with 'what is God'? What I'm getting at (I think) is that as we developed increased mental abilities, we became overwhelmed, like computers that don't have enough memory. Maybe we don't have the capacity to cope with the extra powers of perception.Hereandnow wrote:You are right, it creates an illusion, but what is it covering? What is the core condition, the bare essence of religion, or, the primal condition that has given rise the concept? Now that is an interesting question.
I'm wondering if religion was always going to be an inevitable side effect of abstract thought. Perhaps it could be seen as a sort of ailment or neurosis which we, as humans, are prone to and which we will always have to strengthen ourselves against and be vigilant of. Much like any obsessive, compulsive behaviour.Greta wrote:Maybe 100,000 years at best? Even that's not much in evolutionary time, where attributes of species evolve and refine over millions of years. That would mean our level of abstract thought is quite rough, with much refinement in the future, if civilisation holds up.
If we are capable of abstract thought and self consciousness, and feel that our existence is difficult, even unbearable at times, it would seem natural to try to latch on to concrete ideas, like life rafts. Perhaps the wars that we see caused by seemingly petty differences, are just people being unable to face abstract thought and their own 'power' as humans, if you like. They fight to the death for what is concrete, even though it is just symbolic. Are they just fighting themselves, in a way? It must be easier to behave like an animal, if being human is too much and I cant see it ever being easy.
Will increasing communication and education be enough to learn to manage our minds?
Its true that we may all have created similar conceptions of Gods but maybe that is just due to how our brains are predisposed to see in certain ways, just as babies are predisposed to recognise human faces. I'm not saying their isn't a 'God' essence and that we shouldn't be thankful for it and remain as wondrous as children, but I'm wondering if we were destined to create religions and form out of the abstract idea of God, because it is just too awesome for our little ape minds.Felix wrote:The question posed presumes that mankind's conception of God was a mental fabrication rather than an interpretation of direct experience. As Jung, William James, Campbell, et. al., have documented, similar conceptions of Gods/Goddesses appear in all cultures throughout the ages, and these entities may be encountered in altered states of awareness, dreams, etc.
Lacewing wrote:If we think we are just physical bodies reinforced by structures and ideas, then we will likely be very brittle when structures fail and ideas change. If, however, we focus on shedding the built-up layers that obscure our spirit energy (without creating new layers in the process), we could likely discover our source of naturally balanced energy that has no dependence on specific structures or ideas.
I'm hoping that what seems like weaknesses now are created because we have not managed our strengths properly. You're right that a natural balance needs to be maintained otherwise entropy of one kind or another will occur. It seems like such a huge task, but manageable if we all take responsibility for one person each- ourselves!Lacewing wrote:Like the energy of nature. Non expectant... non demanding. Natural belonging. No boundaries. Without that, abstract thought might seem fractured if continually bashing up against a concrete world.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Defining God
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Defining God
You have used this locution repeatedly but it is meaningless, as is the claim that God’s existence is a positive. I understand what led to this way of trying to say that God exists, but it defies the logic of English grammar. Existence is not the subject and does not take predicates. Something either exists or does not exist, it does not exist positively or negatively.Fanman:
God's existence is not a negative
The problem is not that experiential evidence is going to be absolutely discounted but that what any individual claims to have experienced is not sufficient to stand as evidence that the experience is of anything other than a product of his or her mind. This is not to absolutely discount experiential evidence but to judge each claim on a case by case basis.Unless experiential evidence is going to be absolutely discounted
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023