Freethought & Rationalism Archive

garsy · 01-02-2003, 03:04 AM

To conceptualise something either concrete or abstract, like a mathematical equation for instance, it has to 'be' in some sense. Given the premise that the being known as God, with all the attributes attributed to him, does not exist, what is it we are thinking?
As a nonbeliever, I guess I name God by the definitions of believers. Someone who is a believer and not just an idiot giving idiotic reasons for God's existence, must 'know' God in another way than I do-- a kind of experiencing, rather than a knowing only, it seems to me.
This induced state, a living of fantasy is a choice, to experience their lives as a religious narrative, rather than as the existent narrative of time\space, to which the abstract of narrative belongs.
Any thoughts upon this, folks?

excreationist · 01-02-2003, 03:16 AM

This sounds like a philosophical question rather than a joke...

Anyway, I think "God" is just like an invisible friend or parent... they call it/him "God" because of the concept's superiority and power over other things in the universe. For them, "God" is the name they use to talk about a force - a force with a personality. (Well I guess for some people, "God" doesn't have a human-type personality - it is a more mystical force)

God is also an explanation for things that are hard to understand - e.g. "how did everything get here?" - "an invisible force called 'God' made it all".

BTW, the concept of "God" can evolve throughout a believer's lifetime -
see the book "Stages of Faith" by James W. Fowler:

Quote:

Stage 1--Magical World
Ages 2-6, perceives the world through lens of imagination and intuition unrestrained by logic e.g., lives in a magical world in which anything is possible

Stage 2--Concrete Family
Ages 6-12, sees the world as a story--concrete, literal, narrative family of ritual and myth e.g., "In the beginning, God created the . . ." Stage 2 collapses when teenagers use newfound power of abstract thought to deconstruct previous understanding of the world e.g., risk of rejecting religious beliefs of parents, and identifying with surrounding secular culture

Stage 3--Faith Community *
Teenager to early adulthood or beyond, sees the world through the lens of the peer community e.g., unconsciously "catches" faith, values, and way of thinking from peer group or subculture tends not to question the accepted ways of thinking e.g., "if the Bible says . . . it must be true" or "if some group says . . . it's the Truth" difficult dealing calmly and rationally with issues that touches on one's identity

Stage 4--Rational Constructs *
Adulthood (if) traditional answers stop making sense e.g., beliefs previously unquestioned are called into account develops the capacity to step back (usually for the first time) and examine beliefs with reason universe is reconstructed with self-chosen concepts might experience deep disappointment/anger on finding some beliefs did not stand up to investigation

Stage 5--Numinous (Supernatural/Mysterious) Universe
Mid-life or latter (if) it seems we have run up against the limits of rational thought e.g., the search for certainty can end in feelings of failure/despair we come to live in a spiritual universe of mystery, wonder, and paradox e.g., we might return to sacred symbol, story, tradition, liturgy, spiritual community, but no longer captured in a theological box

Stage 6--Selfless Service **
Rare stage for many. Identifies deeply with all humanity, and spends themselves in service of worldwide issues of love, and justice e.g., Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.
________________

(*) To those in stage 3 or higher, the next stage looks like a loss of faith, and the previous stage is repulsive. This can be seen when stage 3 engages in witch hunting, and stage 4 baits and taunts stage 3.

A longer "Stages of Faith" summary

GunnerJ · 01-02-2003, 06:27 AM

I think there's a better home for this...

Perchance · 01-02-2003, 06:44 AM

I would name the Christian God similarly, by the ideas of believers (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and so on). This is the only way I can think of it, because it's so abstract. I think it's easier to conceptualize other gods- such as Ares, Vishnu, or Thor- either because they actually have acknowledged human representations or because they're the gods of particular things, so those things can stand in for them.

However, I too don't really understand the idea that some people have "experienced" a deity. They may have felt something powerful and moving, but I think there's probably another good, non-supernatural explanation for it that they didn't want to or didn't bother to look for.

-Perchance.

Philosoft · 01-02-2003, 07:54 AM

I usually take "God" to mean "any potentially existing being" since I have yet to encounter a thinkable concept of a god named "God." In that capacity, I can internally translate meaningless questions like, "Can God do X?" into the more palatable, "Can any potentially existing being do X?"

It may be a pedantic disctinction, but I guess I feel the need to be consistent about my noncognitivist position with regard to "God."

garsy · 01-02-2003, 08:26 AM

Hummn...
Very like the cognitive development stages of Piaget and Vygotsky-- but I am more interested in the invariable rather than variable thought processes -- how the 'mind' if you like that can believe and the mind that does not believe co-exist.
An instence of something that one person may think i.e understand, and another not understand as a consequence of a belief
What would that be?
Necesserally, to answer my own question with a possible hypotheses, it is a fundermentally differing structure of the brain rather than the ability to contain the concept that constrains us.
If religious thought is universal how is it that it is so, for we who do not believe in a God remain capable of thinking Him?

01-02-2003, 10:39 AM

Do you believe in pixies? Can you think of them? It's all in the imagination.

garsy · 01-02-2003, 11:35 AM

Do I believe in pixies?
And there you have it!
I cannot prove they exist nor don't.
I feel foolish answering that they could or do or might or might not exist.
So why do I not feel as foolish argueing that God does not exist?
Remember this: it is not a worthwhile enterprise to consider whether pixies are or are not, and because we are too little removed from that history which held God to be we are conditioned even as we deny Him to take the whole thing seriouslly.
It is not a question of imagination alone -- culture comes into it, also.
Able-thinkers today hold that He is existant, so we are bequeathed the tradition and delight (?) in argueing against.
One day, the agrgument will be a small historical foot note in the annuals of Man, known only to a few academics: 'God. A deity held to be by primative thinking man.

excreationist · 01-03-2003, 02:46 AM

This thread is repeated, at least initially, in the Existence of God(s) forum...

Perchance · 01-03-2003, 06:27 AM

Garsy,

I don't see anything to feel foolish about, even when we're discussing something we don't think exists. It can be done for the purposes of discussion or analogy, or for sheerest fantasy. (I admit I like to see what fantasy authors come up with to be their version of theism, even if it too often repeats the "earth mother" motif). I would feel foolish if I had to say, "God exists," just to pacify a theist, or "Fairies exist" just to pacify someone who believes in them. But I don't. I'm just discussing them, the same way that people have discussed unicorns, pixies, fairies, selkies, and mermaids for centuries without necessarily sharing a belief in them. When science and travel started shrinking the places where make-believe could hide and making it doubtful that, for example, unicorns could exist, they didn't die. They just moved into poetry.

-Perchance.

01-02-2003, 03:04 AM	#1
garsy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Leeds via London, England Posts: 14	As God does not exist -- what are we thinking when we think 'God'? To conceptualise something either concrete or abstract, like a mathematical equation for instance, it has to 'be' in some sense. Given the premise that the being known as God, with all the attributes attributed to him, does not exist, what is it we are thinking? As a nonbeliever, I guess I name God by the definitions of believers. Someone who is a believer and not just an idiot giving idiotic reasons for God's existence, must 'know' God in another way than I do-- a kind of experiencing, rather than a knowing only, it seems to me. This induced state, a living of fantasy is a choice, to experience their lives as a religious narrative, rather than as the existent narrative of time\space, to which the abstract of narrative belongs. Any thoughts upon this, folks?

01-02-2003, 06:27 AM	#3
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	Moving out to GRD I think there's a better home for this...

01-02-2003, 11:35 AM	#8
garsy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Leeds via London, England Posts: 14	Do I? Do I believe in pixies? And there you have it! I cannot prove they exist nor don't. I feel foolish answering that they could or do or might or might not exist. So why do I not feel as foolish argueing that God does not exist? Remember this: it is not a worthwhile enterprise to consider whether pixies are or are not, and because we are too little removed from that history which held God to be we are conditioned even as we deny Him to take the whole thing seriouslly. It is not a question of imagination alone -- culture comes into it, also. Able-thinkers today hold that He is existant, so we are bequeathed the tradition and delight (?) in argueing against. One day, the agrgument will be a small historical foot note in the annuals of Man, known only to a few academics: 'God. A deity held to be by primative thinking man.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2003, 06:44 AM	#4
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	I would name the Christian God similarly, by the ideas of believers (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and so on). This is the only way I can think of it, because it's so abstract. I think it's easier to conceptualize other gods- such as Ares, Vishnu, or Thor- either because they actually have acknowledged human representations or because they're the gods of particular things, so those things can stand in for them. However, I too don't really understand the idea that some people have "experienced" a deity. They may have felt something powerful and moving, but I think there's probably another good, non-supernatural explanation for it that they didn't want to or didn't bother to look for. -Perchance.

01-02-2003, 07:54 AM	#5
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I usually take "God" to mean "any potentially existing being" since I have yet to encounter a thinkable concept of a god named "God." In that capacity, I can internally translate meaningless questions like, "Can God do X?" into the more palatable, "Can any potentially existing being do X?" It may be a pedantic disctinction, but I guess I feel the need to be consistent about my noncognitivist position with regard to "God."

01-02-2003, 08:26 AM	#6
garsy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Leeds via London, England Posts: 14	Hummn... Very like the cognitive development stages of Piaget and Vygotsky-- but I am more interested in the invariable rather than variable thought processes -- how the 'mind' if you like that can believe and the mind that does not believe co-exist. An instence of something that one person may think i.e understand, and another not understand as a consequence of a belief What would that be? Necesserally, to answer my own question with a possible hypotheses, it is a fundermentally differing structure of the brain rather than the ability to contain the concept that constrains us. If religious thought is universal how is it that it is so, for we who do not believe in a God remain capable of thinking Him?

01-02-2003, 10:39 AM	#7
himynameisPwn Guest Posts: n/a	Do you believe in pixies? Can you think of them? It's all in the imagination.

01-03-2003, 02:46 AM	#9
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	This thread is repeated, at least initially, in the Existence of God(s) forum...

01-03-2003, 06:27 AM	#10
Perchance Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,059	Garsy, I don't see anything to feel foolish about, even when we're discussing something we don't think exists. It can be done for the purposes of discussion or analogy, or for sheerest fantasy. (I admit I like to see what fantasy authors come up with to be their version of theism, even if it too often repeats the "earth mother" motif). I would feel foolish if I had to say, "God exists," just to pacify a theist, or "Fairies exist" just to pacify someone who believes in them. But I don't. I'm just discussing them, the same way that people have discussed unicorns, pixies, fairies, selkies, and mermaids for centuries without necessarily sharing a belief in them. When science and travel started shrinking the places where make-believe could hide and making it doubtful that, for example, unicorns could exist, they didn't die. They just moved into poetry. -Perchance.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.