Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Bowden · 04-11-2002, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spirit Branded:
Hello Wide-Eyed Wanderer (not Rainbow Walker by any chance?)

Ummm, no; just Wide-eyed Wanderer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spirit Branded:
You said :-
Well, I can't speak for all atheists, but I personally have yet to encounter a god or a description of god that didn't originate as 'an offshoot of humans'.

May I recommend the first chapter of the Gospel according to Saint John.

If all things were made by God he can hardly be an "offshoot" of humanity.

Thanks for the comments and recommendation, Spirit Branded. Philosoft has addressed the tautology in your post; I want to add that by saying 'offshoot of humans' I was using Bartok's phrase from his original post, and I used it to refer to "anthropomorphic" or theistic gods, like the ones Bartok listed. Bartok was drawing on John Shelby Spong's arbitrary and rather warped redefinition of theism and atheism, and I was responding primarily to that.

To clarify and put it back into context: I have yet to encounter any notion of 'god' - including the one described in John ch 1 - that isn't anthropomorphic, having human attributes. Perhaps somewhere on earth there is such a god-concept that remains meaningful and relevant to humans, but I haven't come across it yet.

Genesis claims that God created man in the image of God - but the reverse seems true: God was created by men and has human attributes (anger; the ability to change his mind; a disturbing tendency to punish people for the sins of others; the need to rest after hard labor).

The Bible god's human attributes are exaggerated - or as Bartok put it, "loftier than humans, superhuman if you will." Judaism painted its picture of God a bit differently than the Greeks or Hindus did, but the underlying anthropomorphisms are right there in the Bible accounts.

If we consider Zeus or Thor or Vishnu, and subsequently conclude that they are manmade despite their respective religions' claims to the contrary, then it seems only fair and consistent to apply ourselves to the question of whether Yahweh is in fact manmade, despite the Bible's claims to the contrary.

I've now re-read John 1 (and BTW, I remember preaching a pretty good sermon on it, shortly before I left the ministry a few years ago). It is poetic and "deep"-sounding, but the god described therein is just the OT's anthropomorphic god, Yahweh, upgraded and mysticized quite a bit through an infusion of Greek god-concepts, along with a bit of hagiographic narrative. Nothing shows that it's not just a more sophisticated rendering of an ancient anthropomorphic god.

Spong is trying to further sophisticate our concepts of God beyond those used in the Bible, by eliminating all theological dependence upon the anthropomorphic details. That's nice (some of those anthropomorphisms are pretty wretched and reflect badly on God's character), but Spong doesn't give us any reason to believe that he knows for certain that the God he's talking about is real, any more than the writers of scripture do. Creating a god-concept, or adapting an earlier one, as the gospels and Spong do, does not mean that there's really such a god.

To assert that the testimony of John 1 (or any other passage in the Bible) is prima facie evidence for God's existence and attributes is unwarranted. Those who do not already believe in the Bible's authority (for example, Hindus, Taoists or atheists) need a compelling reason to think that the authors of the New Testament actually wrote concerning things they knew, and weren't just making up their god like every other false religion does.

Hope this clarifies my earlier post.
Regards,
Wanderer

Ron Singh · 04-11-2002, 11:45 PM

Ahh..The fundies ruin it for rational theists like me

. *prepares for birrage of attacks towards self*

Jayhawker Soule · 04-12-2002, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bartok:
An atheist, by Spong's terms, could believe in a nontheistic god, one that resembles more of the characteristics of wind.

Quote:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

The wind is amenable to scientific study. I believe in the wind.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

free12thinker · 04-12-2002, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bartok:
A while back I read a book by John Shelby Spong which in part suggested that theism should be abolished and replaced by atheism. However, his version of atheism is a tad different than what one might immediately think of when hearing this term.

Spong defines a theist as one who believes in a set transcendental being, a god that exists as a thing "out there" or "up there." A theistic god would, for example, be the old bearded guy who sits on a throne "up there" who occassionally points his finger and makes it rain or something. Theistic gods include Zeus, Marduk, and even the warrior god of the Israelites, Yahweh.

Now, the way he defines atheist is "one who doesn't believe in a theistic god." This does not rule out any type of god, just ones that exist as set beings, loftier than humans, superhuman if you will. An atheist still possesses the potential to believe in a god, just not the ones that are an offshoot of humans. An atheist, by Spong's terms, could believe in a nontheistic god, one that resembles more of the characteristics of wind. They could believe in a god that, to use Spong's term, is the "ground of all being," something that is in all creation and is a part of it, rather than something that exists apart from it.

Your thoughts?

PS-I apologize if this topic or something similar to this topic has been done. I'm new here and haven't read every inch of the forum yet.

I think the most important distinction between a theist and atheist is the lack of need for a god, not the differences in traits between gods. To an atheist, it's not just the idea of the god (as described in the bible), that sounds preposterous, but instead, it's the idea of "any" god that sounds preposterous.

I certainly hope no one ever downgrades the intelligence of atheists by changing the belief to a grounded god, someone who created us, but is on our level. That would taint the whole atheist mentalities that:
1) What we see is what we get
2) For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction
3) Our faults are our own
4) Our accomplishments are our own
5) Our morals and ethics are based on the human experience
6) The human condition is a beautiful, nasty thing.

Philosoft · 04-12-2002, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sikh:

Ahh..The fundies ruin it for rational theists like me

. *prepares for birrage of attacks towards self*

Okay, I'll bite. What does a rational theist such as yourself have to say about the apparent dilemma of anthropomorphic god concepts?

Skepticwithachainsaw · 04-16-2002, 02:38 AM

Opps, sorry for the delay D.H, I forgot I posted here.
Right I could have phrased my post rather a lot better, but anyway�
I agree that you can build a perfectly workable system of morality without reference to a personal, personified God, hell I certainly do. However what I meant to say is that I see no way of constructing a system of morality based on a belief in such an impersonal god.

I can�t argue against your concept of �God� (it doesn�t seem a Right word to me, to many attachments to a �bearded old guy in the sky�) indeed it is one of the main reasons why I am agnostic, I simply don�t know, and I think that even Logic and Reason could possibly become invalid when dealing with something outside our �universe�, as it appears that our concepts of logic and reason are derived and abstracted from our experiences (yep, I�m an Empyricist�).

The only possible argument I can level against it is to question where it (or it�s idea�s even) came from, your explanation still begs the question of how it came to be conscious, intelligent and creative if it had nothing else to relate too(for a further explanation check this thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000230" target="_blank">Here</a>.

However my ultimate point was that belief such an entity doesn�t seem to effect or provide any rational, concrete certainly. Indeed even your belief was right it would have no effect on our everyday life (well apart from answering a few large philosophical questions�

). In effect you are really an agnostic but with an explanation that is at one improvable but also irrefutable.

Your idea is an interesting one and I hope you don�t think I am violently against it but your �Faith� doesn�t really change much�

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticwithachainsaw ]

D.H. Cross · 04-17-2002, 09:46 PM

I am the one responding to the quoted material.

Hi Skepticwithachainsaw! I like your name!

Quote:

Originally posted by Skepticwithachainsaw:
I agree that you can build a perfectly workable system of morality without reference to a personal, personified God, hell I certainly do. However what I meant to say is that I see no way of constructing a system of morality based on a belief in such an impersonal god.

I agree because my brand of morality would have one conceptualizing beyond the dualistic categories of "good" and "evil". I tend toward believing that---in the name of fairness---if one wishes to live his life according to some "animal law" and/or pure instinct, then I would not condemn that person per se. However, if he harmed another while following this course, then I would expect him to be treated according to the status he has afforded himself: That of an animal. Many have said that was is "natural" is justified; indeed, many terrible deeds have been performed due to social-Darwinian inspired thinking such as that. But, as one of my favorite sayings goes, "it is *natural* for us to defecate in our pants and yet we find it 'good' to be toilet trained".

I know you have said nothing of Natural Law, nor in any way have you promoted social Darwinism in your post, so don't worry, I bring up such notions only as examples of what I *don't* believe. And so I strive to be unnatural: That is, more than an animal . One "unnatural" trait I think is real compassion, and not just the quid-pro-quo sort of reciprocal altruism spoken of in the book The Moral Animal. I speak of the Hindu notion of "Thou Art That", the recognition of the same essential human nature in others and the beginning of real empathy for fellow human beings. But compassion does not always imply pacifism either, as Arjuna and Krishna have shown in the Bhagava-Gita. Interestingly enough, I find that the studies of E.O. Wilson (sociobiology) are most helpful in putting human behavior into perspective, and I get a most interesting perspective when I read his works in the light of the late Joseph Campbell. I realize that Campbell was sometimes more of a poet than a scholar, BUT he was on to something when he said that myth was the "organs of the body in conflict with each other". For example, the "mind" versus the sex organs, or the "heart" versus the mind. Myth, he said, is born of such conflict, and researchers such as Robert Wright and E.O. Wilson place it all into a brilliant tapestry. The problem is seeing where metaphor ends and facts begin. But I digress, I think...

"God" as a personal entity is not comforting to me in the end. If any such being existed, I'd think it to be a demon, the thunder blowing Yahweh-Sabot of the Old Testament.

 I can�t argue against your concept of �God� (it doesn't�t seem a Right word to me, to many attachments to a �bearded old guy in the sky�) indeed it is one of the main reasons why I am agnostic, I simply don�t know, and I think that even Logic and Reason could possibly become invalid when dealing with something outside our �universe�, as it appears that our concepts of logic and reason are derived and abstracted from our experiences (yep, I�m an Empiricist�).

Theologians have for centuries realized the paradoxical nature of the all-too-human notions of God, even in the Judeo-Christian tradition. They devised what is called "Negative Theology", trying to explain god in terms of what he is NOT, because he/she/it is beyond all categories of thought. The mystics do the same worldwide, although in different contexts and with different interpretations of their experience.

The only possible argument I can level against it is to question where it (or it�s idea�s even) came from, your explanation still begs the question of how it came to be conscious, intelligent and creative if it had nothing else to relate too

"IT" never became conscious as a single directing entity, as I see it, because we are IT. I like the Hindu conception: we are drops of sea spray from a wave of a vast ocean of consciousness, each of us at once individual and collective. My explanation is a combination of Eastern and Western thought, and I make no claim to originality. I like the works of Ken Wilber, although he is often thrown in the New Age section of the book store (which is not fair). I like his ideas, but I don't know if he is right...Wilber's "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" was an interesting read, but it didn't get great reviews from the average reader. Nevertheless, much of my thought is influenced by him.

However my ultimate point was that belief such an entity doesn't�t seem to effect or provide any rational, concrete certainty. Indeed even your belief was right it would have no effect on our everyday life (well apart from answering a few large philosophical questions�

). In effect you are really an agnostic but with an explanation that is at one improvable but also irrefutable.

I am not an agnostic in the popular sense, that is I am quite sure there is no God in any Theistic sense. If you mean agnostic in attitude, almost in the empirical sense, then I'd have to agree. I'm open to new paradigms in the strict scientific sense. I think that having a sense of wonder, or contemplating the Mystery of life allows the childlike sense of discovery to remain. As soon as one says, "ah ha!" and claim to have the answer, mystery and charm is drained out of the world, and you live in a flatland with no depth.

You're correct that an outlook like mine would not change the average person, but perhaps that is because most people don't enjoy contemplating Mystery and only get frustrated when they find there are no concrete answers. Especially those with a Aristotelian viewpoint.

Your idea is an interesting one and I hope you don�t think I am violently against it but your �Faith� doesn't�t really change much�

I am enjoying your discussion!

Well, faith is belief in that which has no evidence to support it, so I don't have faith in my ideas. I acknowledge the Mystery and try to keep that sense of wonder alive in me. I try to follow the Buddhist advice to stay away from loathing and desire, or walk between those paths if possible, but I have no desire to snuff out the self as though it were illusory. The East has too little respect for Individualism sometimes, no? Thank you for responding!!

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]

04-16-2002, 02:38 AM	#16
Skepticwithachainsaw Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In your Imagination Posts: 69	Opps, sorry for the delay D.H, I forgot I posted here. Right I could have phrased my post rather a lot better, but anyway� I agree that you can build a perfectly workable system of morality without reference to a personal, personified God, hell I certainly do. However what I meant to say is that I see no way of constructing a system of morality based on a belief in such an impersonal god. I can�t argue against your concept of �God� (it doesn�t seem a Right word to me, to many attachments to a �bearded old guy in the sky�) indeed it is one of the main reasons why I am agnostic, I simply don�t know, and I think that even Logic and Reason could possibly become invalid when dealing with something outside our �universe�, as it appears that our concepts of logic and reason are derived and abstracted from our experiences (yep, I�m an Empyricist�). The only possible argument I can level against it is to question where it (or it�s idea�s even) came from, your explanation still begs the question of how it came to be conscious, intelligent and creative if it had nothing else to relate too(for a further explanation check this thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000230" target="_blank">Here</a>. However my ultimate point was that belief such an entity doesn�t seem to effect or provide any rational, concrete certainly. Indeed even your belief was right it would have no effect on our everyday life (well apart from answering a few large philosophical questions� ). In effect you are really an agnostic but with an explanation that is at one improvable but also irrefutable. Your idea is an interesting one and I hope you don�t think I am violently against it but your �Faith� doesn�t really change much� [ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticwithachainsaw ]</p>

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

04-11-2002, 11:45 PM	#12
Ron Singh Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fremont, CA Posts: 163	Ahh..The fundies ruin it for rational theists like me . prepares for birrage of attacks towards self

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.