How do/don't you rationalize God
- Thread starter Lerxst
- Start date
I'm a spiritual agnostic.
I personally refuse to believe that organised religions have adequate explanations (maybe, except Taoism). With mainstream religions like Christianity, I heard reasonable arguments that the description of the world creation is an allegory for the Big Bang, why the evil exists, etc. I would even go further and say, OK, maybe the original message was valid but distorted by the church(es) and all kinds of revisions and censorship. What I cannot reconcile with, however, is the inconsistency and inefficiency of the communication between the Supreme Being and select groups of people.
First of all, why? Why an omnipotent being needs cooperation of one of its creations, and in time when they really were not very much in control of the rest? Why pick one group of people, whisper something to a delegate, and disappear - only to reappear in a hundred years saying, "C'mon! Why aren't you doing what I said? You gonna pay for this!" And then, conveniently disappear forever. No more online updates, folks, just wait for a few millenia until I arrive onsite.
I'm sure there is a way to explain this as well, but as a huge fan of Occam's razor, I cannot ignore that the easiest explanation is the way people thought back then. "We're the centre of the universe", "Earth is the same as the universe", "We need to make people believe into something so the society does not fall apart".
Please don't misunderstand me. I think religion played an important role in the development of humankind. Not only it was an exercise to build a complete model of the world, but it also kept society together like a glue. As Voltaire said about his servants when his guests derided religion, “If you let these people hear that, they will become savage as lions. It’s all very well for us to say these things among ourselves, but if these people hear us scoffing at their religion, they won’t obey a word I tell them because religion is what makes them good.” But now, many if not most humans are mature enough to handle the fact that not everything can be explained. And, if it was useful, does not mean that it was true.
I do not accept the idea that "you have to have faith". I put my hand behind my back and close a few fingers. How many fingers are closed? Would you make your entire life and potentially eternity depend on one guess?
So this is regarding religion.
Regarding God: if God exists, it may not be a single being. I am more inclined to see some kind of universal spirit, which may have its own laws similar to the physical laws of our universe, and may not be a single consciousness, but rather a huge hive mind. Probably the best guesses are the "Black Eagle" from Castaneda's books, and the kind of multi-verse creator from Stapledon's Star Maker.
I believe that there is some kind of substance wanting to gain consciousness, resulting in life, then complex life, and eventually sentient life. I don't think it actually cares what its creations think about it. The difference between us humans and many animals on the mental level is a lot less than most people think. Dolphins give names to each other (a proven fact); some crows know to use and even make primitive tools; some chimps use spears to hunt.
Some quantum physics researchers started venturing into the area of consciousness. Quantum entanglement, indeterminacy, etc. sound a lot like whatever was implied about the soul, connections between people being far apart, and more. I believe in time, science will produce adequate answers to these questions.
I personally refuse to believe that organised religions have adequate explanations (maybe, except Taoism). With mainstream religions like Christianity, I heard reasonable arguments that the description of the world creation is an allegory for the Big Bang, why the evil exists, etc. I would even go further and say, OK, maybe the original message was valid but distorted by the church(es) and all kinds of revisions and censorship. What I cannot reconcile with, however, is the inconsistency and inefficiency of the communication between the Supreme Being and select groups of people.
First of all, why? Why an omnipotent being needs cooperation of one of its creations, and in time when they really were not very much in control of the rest? Why pick one group of people, whisper something to a delegate, and disappear - only to reappear in a hundred years saying, "C'mon! Why aren't you doing what I said? You gonna pay for this!" And then, conveniently disappear forever. No more online updates, folks, just wait for a few millenia until I arrive onsite.
I'm sure there is a way to explain this as well, but as a huge fan of Occam's razor, I cannot ignore that the easiest explanation is the way people thought back then. "We're the centre of the universe", "Earth is the same as the universe", "We need to make people believe into something so the society does not fall apart".
Please don't misunderstand me. I think religion played an important role in the development of humankind. Not only it was an exercise to build a complete model of the world, but it also kept society together like a glue. As Voltaire said about his servants when his guests derided religion, “If you let these people hear that, they will become savage as lions. It’s all very well for us to say these things among ourselves, but if these people hear us scoffing at their religion, they won’t obey a word I tell them because religion is what makes them good.” But now, many if not most humans are mature enough to handle the fact that not everything can be explained. And, if it was useful, does not mean that it was true.
I do not accept the idea that "you have to have faith". I put my hand behind my back and close a few fingers. How many fingers are closed? Would you make your entire life and potentially eternity depend on one guess?
So this is regarding religion.
Regarding God: if God exists, it may not be a single being. I am more inclined to see some kind of universal spirit, which may have its own laws similar to the physical laws of our universe, and may not be a single consciousness, but rather a huge hive mind. Probably the best guesses are the "Black Eagle" from Castaneda's books, and the kind of multi-verse creator from Stapledon's Star Maker.
I believe that there is some kind of substance wanting to gain consciousness, resulting in life, then complex life, and eventually sentient life. I don't think it actually cares what its creations think about it. The difference between us humans and many animals on the mental level is a lot less than most people think. Dolphins give names to each other (a proven fact); some crows know to use and even make primitive tools; some chimps use spears to hunt.
Some quantum physics researchers started venturing into the area of consciousness. Quantum entanglement, indeterminacy, etc. sound a lot like whatever was implied about the soul, connections between people being far apart, and more. I believe in time, science will produce adequate answers to these questions.
Last edited:
Just re-read the thread (after answering 
). What a great thread! I actually expected people to talk in terms of faith but everyone is making rational analysis with mature and reasonable ideas.
Great video, Bikerdelic (I posted my previous answer before seeing it). You might like this short story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely_Maybe_(novel)
). What a great thread! I actually expected people to talk in terms of faith but everyone is making rational analysis with mature and reasonable ideas. Great video, Bikerdelic (I posted my previous answer before seeing it). You might like this short story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely_Maybe_(novel)
My thoughts on God and the universe:
We'll never know the truth about God, because people have their own motivations, and they are the writers of what God meant. The true messages will either get lost in translation, or it will be politically manipulated to suit the needs of the writers (see The Bible).
... Oh and one last thing: the reason that there's such a huge difference between the Ten Commandments angry God persona and Jesus is that in all likelihood, Jesus (Yeshuah) never claimed to be the son of God, and was really a rabbi/philosopher, that went about creating a reform Judaic belief-system to protest the power of the rabbis in the old system. Then, as time went on, people started making the stories better and better. You know how your own/your friends stories can get better and better over the course of a weekend? Now imagine how much greater they could get over a couple of hundred years when people decide to put your story into a religious book - with you as the Christ all-mighty.
We'll never know the truth about God, because people have their own motivations, and they are the writers of what God meant. The true messages will either get lost in translation, or it will be politically manipulated to suit the needs of the writers (see The Bible).
... Oh and one last thing: the reason that there's such a huge difference between the Ten Commandments angry God persona and Jesus is that in all likelihood, Jesus (Yeshuah) never claimed to be the son of God, and was really a rabbi/philosopher, that went about creating a reform Judaic belief-system to protest the power of the rabbis in the old system. Then, as time went on, people started making the stories better and better. You know how your own/your friends stories can get better and better over the course of a weekend? Now imagine how much greater they could get over a couple of hundred years when people decide to put your story into a religious book - with you as the Christ all-mighty.
Just re-read the thread (after answering
Quote Originally Posted by Bikerdelic View Post
So what if! what some people believe to be God is in effect the very consciousness of the universe which is also paradoxically connected to our own?
Here is a short video link concerning the developments in quantum physics and is good link for further research for anyone interested in this field of science.
The truth is out there and within.
Great video, Bikerdelic (I posted my previous answer before seeing it). You might like this short story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely_Maybe_(novel)
Thankyou Soulpatcher for sharing that, the novel reminds me a little of the writings of Michael Moorcock. Two great books to read by Michael are both concerning time travel, one book "Behold the man" is about a guy who travels time in a machine in search of the real historical Jesus, I won't tell you the rest as it would spoil the effect of the book if you were too read it, but it does have a poignant ending. Also "Dancers on the edge of time" is a great read.
Well I have set up a little humble page on face book called "Mysterious universe" where I have collected interesting video's relating to the subject of quantum physics and the new discoveries that relate to human consciousness, Buddhism and other schools of thought. I add from time to time interesting videos that either concern the nature the quantum science or that of spiritual philosophy. Its a place where I can reveal some of the links and some of my own ideas.
Check out the discussion between the quantum scientist and the Dalai Lama, its a bit long winded at first as the Dalai Lama is using a translator to fully understand the questions and answers, but it is very revealing and explains what I was referring to in some of my threads, concerning knowledge being a fundamental force of the universe and existence, explained far more scientifically than I could ever hope to muster.
here's the link if your interested in reading further.
https://www.facebook.com/Gnosticmystic?ref=hl
An interesting author, thanks for recommending.
Well, I personally am more scientifically inclined, but this is a great perspective, thanks.Bikerdelic said:
BTW, re alternative interpretations of Jesus / Judas. This one is a bit extreme but not completely illogical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Versions_of_Judas
I can't. I wasn't even in Kindergarten yet when I broke my brain trying to figure out how a God who knows everything could possibly create someone He knew wouldn't choose to become Christian and would roast in eternal hellfire could still be considered "loving." Also, if this God is omnipotent, majestic, etc, why does His happiness depend upon the adoration of these little ants? It made no sense at all. And as for suspending disbelief...Why did He create us with that pesky inquisitiveness?
Can't buy the white-bearded guy on the golden throne, and I've tried. Really, really hard.
But I can't buy athiesm, either. And agnosticism is just too indecisive for me. "Life of Pi" sort of argues for an agnostic commitment, and as contradictory as that sounds, it's still more sensible than a loving god creating beings specifically as Hell-tinder.
So I believe in a Divine, but declaring that I know the nature of this Divine is way past my scope. My friend once said, "physics is the language of God." Maybe the Divine is the exquisite weaving of chaos and calculus we see in fractals and all through nature. Maybe it's the ability to feel love, to appreciate beauty, dolphins rescuing sailors...explained at least in part by Darwin, but pretty nice nonetheless.
Chaos lies beneath every clean Euclidian curve, and chaos isn't afraid when we sculpt it into it's own coordinate system, because there will always be another layer to peel back.
Can't fathom a finite, individual, human-like God, but A Divine...that I can rationalize just fine. It doesn't demand that I turn off my brain.
Can't buy the white-bearded guy on the golden throne, and I've tried. Really, really hard.
But I can't buy athiesm, either. And agnosticism is just too indecisive for me. "Life of Pi" sort of argues for an agnostic commitment, and as contradictory as that sounds, it's still more sensible than a loving god creating beings specifically as Hell-tinder.
So I believe in a Divine, but declaring that I know the nature of this Divine is way past my scope. My friend once said, "physics is the language of God." Maybe the Divine is the exquisite weaving of chaos and calculus we see in fractals and all through nature. Maybe it's the ability to feel love, to appreciate beauty, dolphins rescuing sailors...explained at least in part by Darwin, but pretty nice nonetheless.
Chaos lies beneath every clean Euclidian curve, and chaos isn't afraid when we sculpt it into it's own coordinate system, because there will always be another layer to peel back.
Can't fathom a finite, individual, human-like God, but A Divine...that I can rationalize just fine. It doesn't demand that I turn off my brain.
[MENTION=9465]Gerty[/MENTION]
There's nothing wrong with being agnostic, as it's just admitting what you don't know, which many would consider to be prudent.
It is not necessary to form a belief about everything - and in fact most of the time you don't form beliefs about unknown things. Truthfully, how often do you go down the road and look at every single house and form opinions about what it looks like inside, how many people are in it currently, and what exactly they are all doing? It's unnecessary isn't it?
So that brings up the question: why is it important to be decisive on this in the first place?
There's nothing wrong with being agnostic, as it's just admitting what you don't know, which many would consider to be prudent.
It is not necessary to form a belief about everything - and in fact most of the time you don't form beliefs about unknown things. Truthfully, how often do you go down the road and look at every single house and form opinions about what it looks like inside, how many people are in it currently, and what exactly they are all doing? It's unnecessary isn't it?
So that brings up the question: why is it important to be decisive on this in the first place?
[MENTION=9465]Gerty[/MENTION]
Also, sprinkles' wager corollary (I just invented it):
Pascal's Wager states:
1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
sprinkles' corollary is as follows:
1. The neighbor is having a heart attack, or is not
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that the neighbor is having a heart attack. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you might save their life; if you lose, they might die.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that they are having a heart attack. You might embarrass yourself many times by checking and being wrong, but it only takes the one time to not check and they die when you could have saved them.
Also, sprinkles' wager corollary (I just invented it):
Pascal's Wager states:
1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
sprinkles' corollary is as follows:
1. The neighbor is having a heart attack, or is not
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that the neighbor is having a heart attack. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you might save their life; if you lose, they might die.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that they are having a heart attack. You might embarrass yourself many times by checking and being wrong, but it only takes the one time to not check and they die when you could have saved them.
Anthropomorphisms abound in the Old Testament.
My take is that God is not angered, or indeed affected in any way by our decisions. He's perfect & perfectly happy - and nothing we do either adds, or takes away from his happiness.
God doesn't need us, or our worship.
The first commandments are to help us, not God.
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] - Pascal's Wager only works for those who can accept the bearded guy who knowingly and lovingly creates creatures specifically to burn through eternity.
Of course I am agnostic in the most fundamental sense. I do not know if there is a Divine, and I generally find any arguments attempting to prove or disprove his/her/its existence circular (or silly)
Logic prevents me from accepting Fundamentalist Christianity. I tried - growing up in a hyperreligious home will do that to you!
But for me, believing and knowing are not synonymous. "Life of Pi" is on high school reading lists, an easy read, but the author buries some big concepts in his parable. Although he explicitly berates the agnostic for his "dry, yeastless factuality," the theme of the story is agnostic belief. Although he subtly proves the "unknowableness" of the existence of God, he urges the reader to choose to believe - or not believe.
So I choose to believe in a Divine. Not the desert God, and probably not a discrete, sentient entity. I know athiests who admit that the Divine can't be disproven, and are more comfortable believing that no Divine of any sort exists. For these athiests, their choice may be a product of temperament, personality, or socialization, just as my choice to believe is a product of my own makeup and experience.
Pascal. Pfft. If I get turned away at the pearly gates because of my quasi-pantheistic, fuzzy view of the Divine, ol' petey's done me a favor. I'd much prefer to spend eternity with Gandhi than Fred Phelps, so bring on the sunscreen and cold beer - will be a lively eternity!
Of course I am agnostic in the most fundamental sense. I do not know if there is a Divine, and I generally find any arguments attempting to prove or disprove his/her/its existence circular (or silly)
Logic prevents me from accepting Fundamentalist Christianity. I tried - growing up in a hyperreligious home will do that to you!
But for me, believing and knowing are not synonymous. "Life of Pi" is on high school reading lists, an easy read, but the author buries some big concepts in his parable. Although he explicitly berates the agnostic for his "dry, yeastless factuality," the theme of the story is agnostic belief. Although he subtly proves the "unknowableness" of the existence of God, he urges the reader to choose to believe - or not believe.
So I choose to believe in a Divine. Not the desert God, and probably not a discrete, sentient entity. I know athiests who admit that the Divine can't be disproven, and are more comfortable believing that no Divine of any sort exists. For these athiests, their choice may be a product of temperament, personality, or socialization, just as my choice to believe is a product of my own makeup and experience.
Pascal. Pfft. If I get turned away at the pearly gates because of my quasi-pantheistic, fuzzy view of the Divine, ol' petey's done me a favor. I'd much prefer to spend eternity with Gandhi than Fred Phelps, so bring on the sunscreen and cold beer - will be a lively eternity!
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] - Pascal's Wager only works for those who can accept the bearded guy who knowingly and lovingly creates creatures specifically to burn through eternity.
Of course I am agnostic in the most fundamental sense. I do not know if there is a Divine, and I generally find any arguments attempting to prove or disprove his/her/its existence circular (or silly)
Logic prevents me from accepting Fundamentalist Christianity. I tried - growing up in a hyperreligious home will do that to you!
But for me, believing and knowing are not synonymous. "Life of Pi" is on high school reading lists, an easy read, but the author buries some big concepts in his parable. Although he explicitly berates the agnostic for his "dry, yeastless factuality," the theme of the story is agnostic belief. Although he subtly proves the "unknowableness" of the existence of God, he urges the reader to choose to believe - or not believe.
So I choose to believe in a Divine. Not the desert God, and probably not a discrete, sentient entity. I know athiests who admit that the Divine can't be disproven, and are more comfortable believing that no Divine of any sort exists. For these athiests, their choice may be a product of temperament, personality, or socialization, just as my choice to believe is a product of my own makeup and experience.
Pascal. Pfft. If I get turned away at the pearly gates because of my quasi-pantheistic, fuzzy view of the Divine, ol' petey's done me a favor. I'd much prefer to spend eternity with Gandhi than Fred Phelps, so bring on the sunscreen and cold beer - will be a lively eternity!
Yeah I guess in that sense, divine is more an adjective than a noun. Kind of like how Tao is not a thing, but is rather the underlying nature of all things in a holistic sense. It's indescribable because humans must resort to individuation and static instances in order to convey anything, so a human cannot discuss all of Tao as it is holistic. People talk about big picture, but the picture is always just big (relatively) - it's not the whole picture, because in order to conceive of and describe it, something must be left out, otherwise you'd literally be contemplating it forever and never be done. That is why Tao cannot be spoken.
Just re-read the thread (after answering
Great video, Bikerdelic (I posted my previous answer before seeing it). You might like this short story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely_Maybe_(novel)
Here is my turn to end that...
Up until I was 25 for so I think I sort of \ kind of believed in "God" because it was implied I should through my family and on TV etc... But I asked questions throughout my life. By the time I was 35 I was pretty much an all-out atheist in the since that I did not believe in most peoples definition of "God'. However there were still vestiges of it left in my head. By about 38 — 39 or so I made an all-out effort to answer the question for myself once and for all, to come to a final conclusion because I was tired of thinking about it. Through massive research and information gathering I finally decided that nothing like the God described in the bible existed. It was about this same time I became very very sick. Some days I wonder if it’s a coincidence. I used to shake my fist at the sky, telling the imaginary God I would punish it for all the wrong it let happen in the world but when I came to my end conclusion, I stopped doing that. Where did all that anger go if I couldn’t let it out anymore? Well naturally you turn it into yourself not to let it out into the world. I suspect that alone can make you sick.
The short story here is, while I am personally sure there is no God, I am not sure the lack of belief in one is healthy. For as completely odd as that sounds….
I'm gonna hit this in chunks
got to say I whole heartedly disagree with the concept of God being emotionless or atleast always happy.
i can't find any biblical support for it.
got to say I whole heartedly disagree with the concept of God being emotionless or atleast always happy.
i can't find any biblical support for it.
Christian mythology, or commonly referred to as the bible, is just like all other mythologies. Antiquity and depth/breadth of believers are not indications of truth, they never have been. Like most mythologies the bible incorporates many things, basic tenets and justifications of belief being the primary ones. All ancient mythos tend to give "god"-like beings human emotions. I think this is because our understanding of the unknown is always tainted/affected with our own (human) foibles. I consider "god' or the Creator as the knowable unknown. My understanding of a higher power is that it is the keeper of the great balance, the foil to the known, as there is What Is, there is What Is Not. In my imperfect understanding, I am only capable of catching glimpses of what casts the shadow. When I free myself from the shackles of what I think and see past what is real, I enable myself to embrace the unknown and step closer to the Creator.
