Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?

[JackDaydream]

Is the purpose of this thread to discuss what God consists of or whether God exists?

Primarily I was thinking of it more as being ideas and images of God, but to some extent the question of what is 'God'. However the question does God exist overlaps, so it is likely that depending how this far this thread develops, it would be likely that some discussion of God's existence would be likely. I keep an open mibd because threads are collaboration and I see it as being about experimentation, partly depending who happens to read it and join in.

[JackDaydream]

So, I am asking the question of what the concept of God may incorporate, whether you are theist or atheist, or somewhere in between

At the surface, it probably comes down to an attempt to explain posited existence. It seems to fail at this though (see below).

It has evolved significantly from that often into a form of government or other means to solidify what we call civilization. It serves a useful purpose, especially in societies where freedom of speech is discouraged.

You take it wrong.

How does something come from nothing? East answer: God.

Easy, but it fails, since that answer doesn't explain the reality of the first cause. Sure, one can hand-wave that away with 'eternity', but one can do that with 'something' just as easily and avoid the need to invoke a needless complication to the model.

Asking how something comes from nothing presumes that something came from nothing, so maybe the question is wrong.

I haven't ever interacted with you, so I am pleased to do so. I would certainly agree that there civilisation and governments play a significant role in the historical and political development of religion. In regard to Christianity, the nature of discourse was a large factor especially in relation to what was included and excluded in the Biblical canon. A lot was over the issue of Gnosticism. However, one of the central people was Origen, although it is likely that he had some involvement within the Gnostic movement despite being part of the mainstream leaders.

I haven't studied theology in any depth but my understanding is that Augustine linked in the ideas of Plato, and that Aquinas brought in those of Aristotle. The idea of the first cause was very important in the development of science and this may have been important for ideas, including the enlightenment.

However; it is likely that the ideas of science which have developed, especially in secular humanism are very different in the development of the understanding of causation. Part of this has involved the development of the the Cartesian-Newtonian model of reality. This throws the issue of materialism in understanding causation but it is likely to have led to varying models different from Aristotle. I don't wish to go into a tangent, so I will stop here other than by saying that the idea of causation in relation to the concept of God can probably be seen from varying angles. Also, if I am asking the wrong question or questions, I am interested to know what is better to ask in furthering philosophical understanding?

[Halc]

Also, if I am asking the wrong question or questions, I am interested to know what is better to ask in furthering philosophical understanding?

I didn't suggest you were asking the wrong question. The comment was about the "How does something come from nothing?" example that Sculptor1, provided as an example of something that often invokes 'god' as an answer. I'm more used to a working like: "Why is there something instead of nothing" which is probably the wrong question for the same reasons since there seems to be no self-consistent answer to it.

As a direct answer to the title (and not an answer to 'why is there belief in God, upon which most of the replies focus), 'God' perhaps signifies an answer to the unanswerable, a sort of god of the gaps function. As science answers more and more questions, the gaps change and thus so does the role of the god. A deity is no longer needed to haul the moon across the sky each day, nor to even create Earth, but there's than pesky big bang, something not even suspected until the 20th century. The universe is pictured by the naive as existing in time and thus in need of being caused, a gap ready to be filled.

[Sy Borg]

God is basically anthropomorphised nature. Natural phenomena with human-like intent.

[JackDaydream]

Also, if I am asking the wrong question or questions, I am interested to know what is better to ask in furthering philosophical understanding?

I didn't suggest you were asking the wrong question. The comment was about the "How does something come from nothing?" example that Sculptor1, provided as an example of something that often invokes 'god' as an answer. I'm more used to a working like: "Why is there something instead of nothing" which is probably the wrong question for the same reasons since there seems to be no self-consistent answer to it.

As a direct answer to the title (and not an answer to 'why is there belief in God, upon which most of the replies focus), 'God' perhaps signifies an answer to the unanswerable, a sort of god of the gaps function. As science answers more and more questions, the gaps change and thus so does the role of the god. A deity is no longer needed to haul the moon across the sky each day, nor to even create Earth, but there's than pesky big bang, something not even suspected until the 20th century. The universe is pictured by the naive as existing in time and thus in need of being caused, a gap ready to be filled.

Your idea of 'God' as filling in the gaps is an area which I wonder about because the gaps shift. The perspective of reality has shifted so much with scientific understanding. The biggest mystery at the present time is the nature of consciousness. There is so much query as to whether it can be regarded as an aspect of neuroscience and this leads onto the issue of qualia. However, it is possible to fill in the gap with God being seen as the source of consciousness. This may be where God is used as a form of mysticism, for covering up areas of mystery and some may see this as a form of fuzzy thinking or glossing over and, thereby, as inadequate. It is questionable to what extent the use of God is used in connection with mysteries. Some may query whether human beings need to fill in the gaps or can live with gaps and mystery.

[JackDaydream]

God is basically anthropomorphised nature. Natural phenomena with human-like intent.

The issue of anthromorphism is definitely a big questionable aspect of the human understanding and idea of God? It involves the paradox as to whether God created human beings in the image of 'himself' or whether God created humanity in the image of humanity. Even the issue of the gender of God comes into this because many have seen God as masculine, as the Father. On the other hand, some have used the term 'she' or see God as androgynous, which shows how the idea or image of God is variable in accordance with the human imagination.

[Sy Borg]

God is basically anthropomorphised nature. Natural phenomena with human-like intent.

The issue of anthromorphism is definitely a big questionable aspect of the human understanding and idea of God? It involves the paradox as to whether God created human beings in the image of 'himself' or whether God created humanity in the image of humanity. Even the issue of the gender of God comes into this because many have seen God as masculine, as the Father. On the other hand, some have used the term 'she' or see God as androgynous, which shows how the idea or image of God is variable in accordance with the human imagination.

For some reason, Sun gods seem to always be masculine and Earth gods like Gaia are usually feminine. Seemingly that the Sun is doing it and the Earth is taking it, so to speak.

In patriarchal societies, men had a lot of responsibility. When male children were in trouble, they could call on their father to support and protect them. As adults, who acts as their backstop? The father of fathers.

[JackDaydream]

God is basically anthropomorphised nature. Natural phenomena with human-like intent.

The issue of anthromorphism is definitely a big questionable aspect of the human understanding and idea of God? It involves the paradox as to whether God created human beings in the image of 'himself' or whether God created humanity in the image of humanity. Even the issue of the gender of God comes into this because many have seen God as masculine, as the Father. On the other hand, some have used the term 'she' or see God as androgynous, which shows how the idea or image of God is variable in accordance with the human imagination.

For some reason, Sun gods seem to always be masculine and Earth gods like Gaia are usually feminine. Seemingly that the Sun is doing it and the Earth is taking it, so to speak.

In patriarchal societies, men had a lot of responsibility. When male children were in trouble, they could call on their father to support and protect them. As adults, who acts as their backstop? The father of fathers.

The symbolism of the solar and lunar is important as complementary opposites which may be equated with the masculine and feminine. This leads back to the Taoist viewpoint of opposites.

The anthropological understanding of religion is also useful in understanding the evolution of the images and ideas of God. It is interesting that cave paintings depict goddess images, especially in cave paintings. Even within Christianity, as Jung has suggested, there is an emphasis on the Virgin Mary, especially within Catholicism. I have known some Christians who are critical of Catholicism saying that Catholics 'worship' Mary. That is a bit of an exaggeration but, certainly, she is revered and Catholics do pray to Mary for intercession, as they do to some of the saints who are believed to be in heaven.

It is worth thinking about in the early Christian church there was a fusion between the Judaeo-Christian tradition incorporating and developing from the ideas of paganism, which was more based on the feminine aspects of reality, such as the earth mother. There was also, in Gnosticism, an emphasis upon Mary Magdalene, who was, in contrast to the Virgin Mary represented the Sacred prostitute.

So, it can be said that the human picture of 'God' is based on shifting aspects of human understanding, including the masculine and feminine, sacred and profane, as well as good and evil. The force of evil is frequently seen within Christianity and some other theist religions as being the devil, or Satan.

[Sculptor1]

You take it wrong.

How does something come from nothing? East answer: God.
Asking if the question is even meaningful; philosophy.

Some regard the idea of something coming from nothing as more meaningful than others. It depends partly on the way materialism or idealism is viewed as the basis for life at all. The idea of the Big Bang may explain the way the universe was created but it does still leave the question as to what created matter in the first instance. One book which explores this is, 'Genesis: The Story of How Everything Began', by Guido Tonelli, (2019). He is a scientist, who was responsible for his discovery of 'the God-particle, or the Higgs Boson , and even though he interprets the account of science with mythical account of Genesis on a symbolic level he sees some parallels between the two.

In the particular book which I am referring to, he sees aspects of truth as being portrayed, such as some of the sequences of evolution having some basis in the Biblical account. Also, he argues that the idea of nothing prior to existence is based sometimes on the concept of the void, but arguing that while the idea of a void is sometimes based on the idea of it being nothing, the concept of the void may involve potential. That is how he sees manifestation.

In connecting the mythical with science, his ideas do show the problem of trying to separate the sciences and art in understanding. Both contain the aspects of the opposites a bit like the idea of the yin and the yang in the idea of the Tao. It may be that some Eastern thinkers, including Chiness philosophy have a better understanding of opposite and less splits than sometimes seen in Western philosophy, including science and art, as well as mind and matter. Also, some thinkers in Hindu tradition see both the physical and the world of mind, but see it with there being some other hghet level of consciousness as being behind both the mind and matter.

Genesis never had anything meaningful to offer.
Science offers models which are descriptions.
I'm puzzled why anyone would think that seeking meaning here is apposite, and puzzled by the arrogance that they might find a worthwhile answer.
Where is the humility?

I see mythical thinking as complementary rather than as in actual conflict. Of course, some aspects have been used in ways which have had negative repercussions. It probably depends how concretely ideas are taught. I was brought up with the Bible and probably one of my earliest philosophy struggles was in the understanding of evolution. However, my English teacher, who seemed to have read a lot on mythology in connection with English literature enabled me to think about symbolic ways of understanding. Of course, some people, especially the fundamentalists take so much in the Bible literally.

In thinking about the evolution of religion it is worth thinking about the mindset of the earliest thinkers. One writer who I find helpful is Julian Jaynes understanding of the evolution of the idea of God. He sees a less clear distinction between inner and outer understanding. The inner aspects of early humanity, he argues were comparable with those who are seen as schizophrenic and may have experienced thoughts as if they were 'voices'. The inner was viewed as out there objectively and projected onto figures who were taken to be gods, such as in the form of Moses receiving the commandments of God.

It is not necessarily about going backwards to the state of consciousness of an early time because science has revealed the empirical as being significant in understanding of the objective. However, the only thing is that while science goes beyond the mythology which were part of religion, even aspects of science are based on representations in the mind, especially models. Both mythology and theoretical models are constructs but not a description of 'reality' itself.

Jaynes is a perfect example of verbal masturbation. An idea claimed to be a genetic change for which there is zero evidence. Whatever change Jaynes might have noticed is perfectly understandable within the bounds of cultural logic.
But God is dead, and have little to recommend the notion unless you prefer the lazy and stupid attitude where belief has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with need and desire.
Reality is not like that.
I'm not sure why you want to problematise the fact that models are not reality. A moments though will tell you what is obvious that the senses we have evolved give us partial access to reality. Since we use a human metric, then what is the problem with relating to "reality" with a human metric? We know that science has extended our senses deep in the the macroscopic and microscopic, detected waves a frequencies beyond our perceptions. And yet you still cling to the mystical nonsense of fantasy.
God is not significant.

[Sculptor1]

Is the purpose of this thread to discuss what God consists of or whether God exists?

Neither.
Literally, is the idea of God is significant.
It does not assume existence, or of any consistency.
It's about an idea. not an actual thing.

[JackDaydream]

God is basically anthropomorphised nature. Natural phenomena with human-like intent.

The issue of anthromorphism is definitely a big questionable aspect of the human understanding and idea of God? It involves the paradox as to whether God created human beings in the image of 'himself' or whether God created humanity in the image of humanity. Even the issue of the gender of God comes into this because many have seen God as masculine, as the Father. On the other hand, some have used the term 'she' or see God as androgynous, which shows how the idea or image of God is variable in accordance with the human imagination.

For some reason, Sun gods seem to always be masculine and Earth gods like Gaia are usually feminine. Seemingly that the Sun is doing it and the Earth is taking it, so to speak.

In patriarchal societies, men had a lot of responsibility. When male children were in trouble, they could call on their father to support and protect them. As adults, who acts as their backstop? The father of fathers.

The symbolism of the solar and lunar is important as complementary opposites which may be equated with the masculine and feminine. This leads back to the Taoist viewpoint of opposites.

The anthropological understanding of religion is also useful in understanding the evolution of the images and ideas of God. It is interesting that cave paintings depict goddess images, especially in cave paintings. Even within Christianity, as Jung has suggested, there is an emphasis on the Virgin Mary, especially within Catholicism. I have known some Christians who are critical of Catholicism saying that Catholics 'worship' Mary. That is a bit of an exaggeration but, certainly, she is revered and Catholics do pray to Mary for intercession, as they do to some of the saints who are believed to be in heaven.

It is worth thinking about in the early Christian church there was a fusion between the Judaeo-Christian tradition incorporating and developing from the ideas of paganism, which was more based on the feminine aspects of reality, such as the earth mother. There was also, in Gnosticism, an emphasis upon Mary Magdalene, who was, in contrast to the Virgin Mary represented the Sacred prostitute.

So, it can be said that the human picture of 'God' is based on shifting aspects of human understanding, including the masculine and feminine, sacred and profane, as well as good and evil. The force of evil is frequently seen within Christianity and some other theist religions as being the devil, or Satan.

The reason why I find Julian Jaynes' ideas important is not about the idea of God specifically but in the understanding of consciousnes. His account looks at the developments through picture making into language, including song and poetry. Language is so central to consciousness and the formation of concepts.

The idea of God being dead, which is based on the move towards secular humanism, may not be strictly true in the sense that there are so many people who do believe in God. I do wonder about the demographics of this and cultural variability and how much research on this is actually done, as it would be so extensive to research the beliefs of everyone in the world.

Part of my own interest is not so much as to say that there is a God. I see it as a big question indeed, but I am not satisfied with some forms of materialistic determinism, such as the outlook of Daniel Dennett, who was one 'the four horsemen' in the development of the new atheism. It is materialistic determinism which I query so much and that is what leads me to speak of science as being only representation. It is more of an awareness of what Karl Popper described as 'the limits of knowledge' in his understanding of science as a paradigm.
.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is about different paradigms and James Frazer, in his, 'The Golden Bough' which is an anthropological text, spoke of the general progress though the stages of magic; religion and science. He also suggested the possibility of one beyond all three and I have wondered what that might entail.

Wisdom? Understanding?

[Nick_A]

I am adding something which just came into my head when I closed my eyes. Part of the reason why I am adding something to mine, to create a new slant to my own, partly as a thread on more or less the same question just after mine, so I am hoping that the two can go off in a little different direction so that the two don't clash.

After writing my thread I lay back on my bed and closed my eyes. In my mind's eye I visualised a spiral curling or swerving in and out of everything. It could be like some kind of energy, almost like some kind of force like electricity. I also wondered whether this is whether this is what is is conveyed in the spirals of spirals in Celtic knots.

I am thinking that it would be worth people thinking of the image or images which come into your mind when you think.of God, including those of childhood if you were brought up as religious. If not, can you visualise the idea of the absence of God, or is that not possible. That can be a starting point for reflection. I may also change the word in the title from idea of God to image of God and will send an email to the administrator, so that the title can actually be a bit different to the other thread. Also, this would tie in with my own reading of Jung on God because he emphasises that it is only possible to 'know' of God in such a way, in religious experiences. So, whether or not you believe in God I invite you to close your eyes and imagine...

Hi Jack

Does God create Man or does Man create God? If man creates God then the lower form of didactic reason or dianoia allows us to imagine our own reality. This is sufficient for many. However if God creates Man, it can be felt at the depth of Man's being through higher reason or noesis: (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)

A person must decide if their need for meaning, for God, is satisfied through fantasy or reality and practice what leads to what motivates them.

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

[AverageBozo]

Is the purpose of this thread to discuss what God consists of or whether God exists?

Neither.
Literally, is the idea of God is significant.
It does not assume existence, or of any consistency.
It's about an idea. not an actual thing.

Amen. That’s what I would have expected.

[Sculptor1]

Is the purpose of this thread to discuss what God consists of or whether God exists?

Neither.
Literally, is the idea of God is significant.
It does not assume existence, or of any consistency.
It's about an idea. not an actual thing.

Amen. That’s what I would have expected.

I've not read the whole thread, and would imagine that many may want to ask other questions, but ..wait
And Someone has managed to change the thread title. - making the thread heretofore pointless