Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 08:31pm PT
|
God may be the primary metaphor in human language.
It is an idea engaged in by every culture and every historical period apparently back even to Neanderthal times. It's born out of an inherent human belief or affinity or desire for an existence, an action, a realm beyond the forms of sensibility.
Those that believe do so because of a deeply seated sense of the sublime in the face of a wildly engaging mystery that permeates our being. What are we? Who are we? Why are we? Why must we die?
The remarkable syncretism of all faiths, both east and west, mitigates against the reality of any individual belief system.
But the mystery stands. Our sense of the mystery, our lives, our loves, our hates seem to require the validation of ritual and belief, and our experience of life is so overwhelming that not believing in a “spiritual” realm can seem unimaginable.
To stand beneath the Sierra sky on a clear moonless night and contemplate our being is to confront directly this great mystery.
But to contain this mystery in the rigidity of some dogma simply demeans it, to name it contaminates it.
If to be overwhelmed by the mystery is to be “spiritual”, then I’m guilty.
But God does a poor job of revealing himself except through the syncretic texts of men which are increasingly read as historical realities rather than the metaphors they are.
My argument isn’t against the amorphous and ultimately indefinable notion of the spiritual, it’s against the extrapolation from that that forms the basis of all organized religions.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 09:02pm PT
|
...the amorphous and ultimately indefinable notion of the spiritual.... Due to the evolutionary quirk of extreme self-consciousness, we're hard-wired for awe in the face of that which is grander and more powerful than we perceive ourselves to be, and are compelled to try to systematize and codify those ineffible chills that run down our spines. Then, once the initial revelatory experience is neatly categorized and packaged for redistribution, we use the shared belief system to enforce cultural norms and mores, thus boosting the group's unity and chances of survival among competing groups with different ethos derived from similar root experiences.
God, therefore, is a tool.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 09:02pm PT
|
The remarkable syncretism of all faiths, both east and west, mitigates against the reality of any individual belief system.
Paul, do you mean the divergence of all faiths? Syncretism is the effort to unify disparate belief systems, but you have seemingly used the term to refer to the disparity itself. I want to be sure that I understand what you intend to say by the above passage.
Also, you refer earlier to the "forms of sensibility," and I find that very intriguing. That phrase is one specifically employed by Kant in a very particular way. Do you mean it in a Kantian sense, or are you just referring to empiricism in general: the epistemological model that all of our knowledge can only be derived from the senses?
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 11:06pm PT
|
madbolter!
I can only respond to the title of the thread(OP)with why I believe in my God...who happens to be Jesus Christ. In order to do so in a clear and concise manner, I find it necessary, when appropriate, to quote His very words! To clarify and support my claims, and supply truth/evidence as to His doctrine in defense to what others purport Him saying.
For instance, someone may state that we should be more like Jesus and preach love, and feeding the poor vs. hell. Or perhaps they will claim that Jesus never spoke of hell(like recently was claimed). And I might point out that Jesus spoke out twice as much about hell as He did about heaven, and support this with scripture. Frankly, there are thousands of churches across America that rarely speak of hell, if ever, if that is what makes one feel comfortable.
I don't consider this "spamming".
I believe it to be a careful and reasoned response, and is given with all due respect.
Please keep in mind that "We are not dealing with flesh and blood, but with principalities, powers, dark forces in the heavenly places..."
But your style is certainly welcome...particularly for those with the philosophical bent!
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 11:07pm PT
|
"in psychology, there is a thing called 'information bias.' we filter out whatever does not conform to what we think is the truth ... we literally will not consider or be open to contrary information, or else we will alter its value or definition so as not to threaten our preconceived notions or given criteria."
thanks for putting a freshly sharpened sabre in my hand, monsieur. 9/11 jibberish? en garde!
paul--i don't see science and religion as the separate realms you deline. science has become very exciting, and it has everything to do with our religious instincts. ms. leichtfuss was near tears here because of all the good things she thinks those who don't share her point of view are missing. i feel the same way about those who ignore the sciences. there is one proviso, however. the paranormal cannot be ignored. the phenomena are there, and they offer a better door into that existential dilemma than the thousands-of-years-old miraculous. if we would approach paranormal matters scientifically, i think we could easily begin to recast the fantastic compulsions delivered by religion into a much more realistic, much less strained understanding of ourselves.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 11:44pm PT
|
btw, the paranormal has nothing to do with the corpus delicti of government involvement in 9/11. these are hard facts any fan of dragnet or lieutenant colombo could understand.
john, your quaint use of the word "matter" ("anything true or real must consist of matter") puzzles me. at the very least, it's matter and energy, per albert einstein, and a difficult but fascinating elaboration of that in what has followed. science tells us our minds, consciousnesses, and therefore sense of the true and real, derive from a complex interplay of matter and energy. the old aristotelian understanding of physics is long obsolete.
|
|
go-B
climber
In God We Trust
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 11:54pm PT
|
God Rules!
|
|
Fredrick
Social climber
Ocean City, NJ
|
|
Prayer Christians, prayer...back on your knees and pray for the lost.
|
|
Fredrick
Social climber
Ocean City, NJ
|
|
Again, for those that didn't get it the first time...
You want/need scientific proof? Well, you're not going to get it for Hebrews 11:1 is very clear on that, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." - Hebrews 11:3
So what else is there? Circumstantial Evidence. The Bible has your proof. To help you get started, read this paper: http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html
|
|
Fredrick
Social climber
Ocean City, NJ
|
|
Then again, the very same article says this:
"The secular community’s response to the same evidence has been predictably apathetic in accordance with their steadfast commitment to methodological naturalism. For those unfamiliar with the term, methodological naturalism is the human endeavor of explaining everything in terms of natural causes and natural causes only. If an alleged historical event defies natural explanation (e.g., a miraculous resurrection), secular scholars generally treat it with overwhelming skepticism, regardless of the evidence, no matter how favorable and compelling it may be."
Sound familiar?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
If God rules, as you say, (you define god in that statement) he, she, it has one hell of a lot of explaining to do! Like why do you kill every creature you have ever made? Like why did you create a world in which life must kill other life to simply survive?
With supreme power comes supreme responsibility and don't forget absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But God seems to be nothing more than the supreme vivisectionist!
|
|
Fredrick
Social climber
Ocean City, NJ
|
|
First of all Paul, I have to commend you for capitalizing "God" but I then have to wonder why you did this? Second, little "g" god refers to satan so "defining god in that statement" is confusing.
|
|
Fredrick
Social climber
Ocean City, NJ
|
|
All this bickering reminds me of when Festus, after hearing Pauls testimony about his conversion from his life as a Pharisee to Christianity:
"Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad." But Paul said, "I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness."
Even my own twenty five year old son said at one point after challenging him on the very same subject, "Man, you're nuts!"
Not a whole lot has changed today eh? And it won't, but prayer has changed many lives so I think its time to do the same.
Glory be to God
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
Frodrick,
I kept starting to write arguments to point out the ridiculousness of free-will and punishment if we suppose your god is omniscient.
I wanted to point out how no god is necessary for all the beauty of existence, but if the god of blind devotion that you describe actually exists then it is responsible for eons of ugliness and horrific pain and suffering.
I wanted to write about those topics and others, but I kept stopping and deleting them because I felt silly--as if I were futilely trying to reason with someone on an heroic dose of acid.
|
|
Fredrick
Social climber
Ocean City, NJ
|
|
Thank God for another day!
Good night.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Wow, things went downhill fast since the last time I checked in on this thread.
Later.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
paul is on the right track with his relative pronoun(s) for god--"he, she, it". i've often thought about that myself.
but we need to take it a step further. come on, all you various and sundry christians, help us out here.
many of you--again, i'm sure there is no consensus--believe that the godhead (don't you love that word? jerry garcia would) is something called a trinity, one god in three persons. wow--it really starts to get confusing here. of course, we have to understand that this is beyond our poor understanding. god clued us in on it through his/her/its/their good auspices--kinda like saying to your dog, "hey fido, E=mc2".
forgive me, friedrich, for not capitalizing anything except the occasional acronym. you'd do well in germany, where they capitalize all nouns. every "thing", they feel, is due this respect. the next question is, however, does this become idolatry? tsk, tsk, it do get tangled. verbs don't need respect. but what of process, largo? could it be that god is a verb?
madbolter: stick around. you can't step into the same river twice.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
the little g refers to satan? maybe at your church of the incestuous minds, fred, but in the big world out there the little-g god has always referred to divinities--pagan, if you will--other than that of the western monotheist tradition.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Too bad Frederick that rigorous, double blind studies have failed to show the efficacy of prayer in influencing the outcome of events.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
God, therefore, is a tool.
cintune science or religion, your point applies to either.
DMT
True.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!