So What are our Ideas of God and Divinity? How does it affect our lives and art?

[Asher Kelman]

"But I believe God created Darwinian evolution" is a clever answer and I am happy she got the job, but, can she -and all of us- not say we believe that God created Darwinian evolution and not "we know". Of course not. We can say we believe in whatever we want, same as the Astecs believed in Huitzilopitchli. Mabe he, Huitzilopitchli created the Darwinian evolution. We say so because it makes us feel good, and I am not against it at all. Some people may feel good in beleaving that we all humans where created by a Flying Spaghetti, and I'm also happy for them. If they get hired for believing in it/him, good for them.

Leonardo,

Was this on a ceiling of a famous chapel? I missed it then?

Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher:

Exactly, It could have been.

But you probably saw this other one, withe the image of an old man representing God. (It is curious that I have never really pay attention to that image, who is the model-like naked babe being hugged by God on his side?)

Anyway, why is he an old guy and not a woman, and most important. Why not a Flying Spaguetty??

 

[Rachel Foster]

Good point!

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Leonardo,

(It is curious that I have never really pay attention to that image, who is the model-like naked babe being hugged by God on his side?)

Hey - even God - oh, never mind.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

(It is curious that I have never really pay attention to that image, who is the model-like naked babe being hugged by God on his side?)

No you can't do that, Leonardo, even with your fabulous name!

Here there is no hug at all. Rather if you consider it, the folk are getting a protective arm around them!

Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

No you can't do that, Leonardo, even with your fabulous name!

Here there is no hug at all. Rather if you consider it, the folk are getting a protective arm around them!

Asher

You know what. This is an interesting image and I realize that I have seen the part of "man" making contact with "God" many times, but never the rest...

I think that you and me are wrong, this unidentified woman is looking at "man" with a very curios expression, so, yes the God figure is only being accompanied by the folk including an attractive female figure --very atractive-- naked. That happens to be the third largest in terms of protagonism after 1, God, 2 "man".

Anyway, all of this only shows how we play with the idea of God the way we want, and the way we are dealing with cultural issues such as gender at the exact time we "define" this concepts that latter sell as "the word of God". Why is this God-to-man(kind) "contact" is being made with the human male while God is male himself and "woman" is on the side of God being very passive?

 

[Maris Rusis]

So Maris,

How should we face differences>? Do we go out an evangelize to our faith or dismissal of it? Or, do we celebrate diversity and the joy each person has in their own tent?

Asher

Differences are not a problem when religion operates strictly in the vertical plane; a person's relationship, one on one, with their deity.

It seems a human characteristic for religious faith to be extended into the horizontal plane as a way of mediating how one human being will act towards another. And that's where problems can arise if we choose to contend among beliefs.

If there is sacred dirty work to be done the gods never act of themselves. They do not operate in the horizontal plane. Elements of the pious seem always primed for any sanctimonious deed however extreme.

We should be more like gods and allow difference to just be. Is it not remarkable that even outrageous blasphemers are no more likely to be struck by divine lightning than the conspicuously devout?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Is it not remarkable that even outrageous blasphemers are no more likely to be struck by divine lightning than the conspicuously devout?

Maris,

Where did you get that from? No one who thinks Obama is god has ever been struck by lightening!

Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

The notion of "acts of God" affecting believers in the same way as animists or believers in "wrong" Gods is interesting and can be very elegantly illustrated by the story of Nagasaki.

Let me quote from this text :

"Nagasaki is famous in the history of Japanese Christianity. Not only was it the site of the largest Christian church in the Orient, St. Mary’s Cathedral, but it also had the largest concentration of baptized Christians in all of Japan. It was the city where the legendary Jesuit missionary, Francis Xavier, established a mission church in 1549, a Christian community which survived and prospered for several generations. However, soon after Xavier’s planting of Christianity in Japan, Portuguese and Spanish commercial interests began to be accurately perceived by the Japanese rulers as exploitive, and therefore the religion of the Europeans (Christianity) and their new Japanese converts became the target of brutal persecutions.

Within 60 years of the start of Xavier’s mission church, it was a capital crime to be a Christian. The Japanese Christians who refused to recant of their beliefs suffered ostracism, torture and even crucifixions similar to the Roman persecutions in the first three centuries of Christianity. After the reign of terror was over, it appeared to all observers that Japanese Christianity had been stamped out.

However, 250 years later, in the 1850s, after the coercive gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry forced open an offshore island for American trade purposes, it was discovered that there were thousands of baptized Christians in Nagasaki, living their faith in a catacomb existence, completely unknown to the government – which immediately started another purge. But because of international pressure, the persecutions were soon stopped, and Nagasaki Christianity came up from the underground. And by 1917, with no help from the government, the Japanese Christian community built the massive St. Mary’s Cathedral, in the Urakami River district of Nagasaki.

Now it turned out, in the mystery of good and evil, that St. Mary’s Cathedral was one of the landmarks that the Bock’s Car bombardier had been briefed on, and looking through his bomb site over Nagasaki that day, he identified the cathedral and ordered the drop.

At 11:02 am, Nagasaki Christianity was boiled, evaporated and carbonized in a scorching, radioactive fireball. The persecuted, vibrant, faithful, surviving center of Japanese Christianity had become ground zero.

And what the Japanese Imperial government could not do in over 200 years of persecution, American Christians did in 9 seconds. The entire worshipping community of Nagasaki was wiped out."​

Of course, the acts of God are impossible for simple human minds liu ours to understand... or, he had plans for the souls of his beloved Japanese church that was sent in mass for an interview with their maker...

 

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo,

The report appears erudite and compelling. What is the source and when did you learn of this? This story, like the Jews being herded to gas-chambers and the killing fields of Cambodia, the gassing of the Kurds or draining the Swamps of the Arabs living in the fertile marsh lands in Iraq, challenges trust and devotion of millions of religious humanity.

To me, the first question I would have if I ever would arrive at that opportunity, would be to ask a mundane question, "Why does the deer need to be ripped apart by the Lion?" If I could grasp that, then perhaps I could understand why people who might be accused of some sin, are also hunted down, humiliated, tortured, and disposed of in a heartless fashion.

Perhaps because I would even consider framing such a question, impudence will bar me from the opportunity to actually ask it where I could get a reply.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Differences are not a problem when religion operates strictly in the vertical plane; a person's relationship, one on one, with their deity.

It seems a human characteristic for religious faith to be extended into the horizontal plane as a way of mediating how one human being will act towards another. And that's where problems can arise if we choose to contend among beliefs.

If there is sacred dirty work to be done the gods never act of themselves. They do not operate in the horizontal plane. Elements of the pious seem always primed for any sanctimonious deed however extreme.

We should be more like gods and allow difference to just be. Is it not remarkable that even outrageous blasphemers are no more likely to be struck by divine lightning than the conspicuously devout?

Well said!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Differences are not a problem when religion operates strictly in the vertical plane; a person's relationship, one on one, with their deity.

It seems a human characteristic for religious faith to be extended into the horizontal plane as a way of mediating how one human being will act towards another. And that's where problems can arise if we choose to contend among beliefs.

If there is sacred dirty work to be done the gods never act of themselves. They do not operate in the horizontal plane. Elements of the pious seem always primed for any sanctimonious deed however extreme.

We should be more like gods and allow difference to just be. Is it not remarkable that even outrageous blasphemers are no more likely to be struck by divine lightning than the conspicuously devout?

Well said!

Well said!

Rachel,

Yes Maris is articulate in expressing ideas of the verticality versus the horizontal relationships in religion. However, Leonardo just gave a shocking presentation of the failure of the vertical system working from heaven back towards the devoted believers. I expanded his exceptional quote to include other terrible instances when the doors of the heavens closed. Prayers can go up but help does not seem to come down.

It's the verticality that Leonardo focuses on. Man's failure, the subject of Maris' perspective gets paled in comparison to our disappointment that so many devout worshippers can be let down in their moment of despair.

Man can be faulted for sinning. But what room is there for the heavens to allow for deafness to screams of the devout?

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

I am still thinking about that as I believe I've missed the point.

I approach religious beliefs a bit differently than most. I do not look at it from a perspective of whether a particular tenet or belief is "right" or "true." Rather, I look at it from "it can be observed and empirically documented that this person states a given belief or creed is true. Given that person avows the truth of the given belief, what impact does that have on her/his behavior?"

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Rachel,

I am still thinking about that as I believe I've missed the point.

I approach religious beliefs a bit differently than most. I do not look at it from a perspective of whether a particular tenet or belief is "right" or "true." Rather, I look at it from "it can be observed and empirically documented that this person states a given belief or creed is true. Given that person avows the truth of the given belief, what impact does that have on her/his behavior?"

A very rational approach.

I'm not sure it actually addresses all the topics being discussed in the thread, however!

A problem we often run into is positions being espoused on issues that aren't really defined, or at least articulated, or whose definitions are themselves self-contradictory (or there may be a disagreement as to whether they are self contradictory or not).

Some years ago our small Episcopal Church was going to be looking for a new rector, and a committee had been commissioned to develop a questionnaire to be given to the members to probe their wishes and outlooks, the results of which would help to inform the quest.

After we had many of the obvious issues covered, I said, "You know, many Episcopalians consider their 'denomination' to be 'Protestant', and many consider that it is not. That has a lot of ramifications on the 'tone' of the church. I suggest we ask in the questionnaire what is the outlook of the respondent is on that issue."

There was a great uproar, with several people saying, essentially in unison, "Kerr, you're crazy. There is no uncertainty about that. It would be a silly thing to ask."

"Yes, of course", said 'Bob'. "Everybody knows that the Episcopal denomination is 'Protestant'.

"No, no, Bob", said 'Dick". Everybody knows that the Episcopal denomination is 'not Protestant'."

The discussion then devolved into an argument over whether or not that matter was controversial.

The question was not included in the questionnaire.

The secretary of the meeting just shook her head, and noted the discussion.

Five years later, she was Senior Warden (essentially president of the congregation), and I married her.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Rachel Foster]

The field of psychology went through the painful phase of the same terms being used differently. No one seemed to speak the same language. After Percy Bridgman published The logic of modern physics wherein he discussed operationalizing, the field of psychology adopted the practice, to an extreme degree according to some. Still, it makes sense to define our terms. Even if we don't agree on them, we will at least have a starting point.

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

From a thrue Ateapotist...

I don't deny God and or organized religion. I prefer to call myself "materialist" instead of atheist because the second therm implies that I am supposed to have a god and I don't. For example, if someone believed in that Tea Pot-In-Orbit-but-not-seen-by-our-telescopes, then I would have to declare myself "ateapotist", and be a blasphemous whenever expressing my doubts on the existence of a Tea Pot in space. Even if such Tea Pot has never been seen.

So, I think that God and organized religion exist. It is all part of our culture and will be --but I think that the trend is to subside since, for example in the US it went form 8% to 10%, and in the UK 44%. The Scandinavians go way pass the half of citizens that are like me, Ateapotist or materialists-- [I am quoting from memory something that O'Rally, yes, the one on The Factor at FoxNew said on air"]

Of course people can produce and keep whatever idea of how they like their God to be, after all this is the idea of imagining this gods and figuring out the things this god likes form, like things not to eat, for example pork. I don't eat pork, so that one I like. Taking the hart out of sacrificial people or ritualistic murder ... not so good

But, besides ritual sacrifice, I have no problem with people organizing their clubs in whichever way they want.

Regarding miracles or direct divine intervention in creation and/or what happens in the universe, I think that it can be seen in the example at Nagasaki and the other good example that Asher pointed out

..."like the Jews being herded to gas-chambers and the killing fields of Cambodia, the gassing of the Kurds or draining the Swamps of the Arabs living in the fertile marsh lands in Iraq, challenges trust and devotion of millions of religious humanity.​

show that we are on our own. Which is not as bad as it seams. After all we have the laws of science that work 100% of the time in the Universe.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Leonardo, you are more respectful of science than I. I see science as giving us an idea of which theories (that we have formed) are most likely to be true. My personal approach is that any faith that helps a person live a "better" life (which I define as kinder, more responsible, caring) as a "good" religion. After all, I really don't know what the truth is (regarding deities). I can only guess and anyone's guess is as good as mine.

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Rachel

I do not think that science and religion are adversaries, it would be as comparing art and science, or folk dancing and science.

But I take your challenge and close my eyes to imagine a world with no religion, -like the John Lennon song- .. imagine if you can ... probably half of Europe has reached that stage already --I have to research this number--, and it seams that the most culturally complex societies -as opposed to those from nomad and underdeveloped nations-- tend to have more believers that comply with the rituals of organized religion in a more "intense" way. Another example in the US, the coasts that are more prosperous and where communication with the world is more fluid are less religious orthodox than the "Bible belt". I hope I am not oversimplifying and/or being disrespectful. I come from Nicaragua, a highly religious catholic desperately poor and undereducated country, so I know and have seen this trend.

So, if there is no religion tomorrow we would probably not have a big catastrophe and it may even be an overall gain for humanity since religion is cause of much death and suffering in ... religious wars ... example: 9:11

Now, Imagine there is no science.... well, that would be a catastrophe, so no, I am not giving too much credit to science, no way.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I don't think humanity totally without religion can exist. If there were not deities (either "real" or manufactured) humanity would create them. I also don't think religion is "bad." I think the real problem, very simply, is intolerance.

As to science, I only meant that science does not reveal the "truth." In fact, I'm not discounting the necessity of science, I'm only addressing it at an epistemological level. Science does not give us "truth." "Truth" is probably unknowable. Science tells us what is probably true at best. After all, can we really "prove" anything? If you want to go totally solipsistic, it could be that the only "thing" that exists is your own mind.

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Exactly, the less certainty we get from science the more we rely on religion, and it all depends on the person, cultural experience, background etc. There is a tendency for societies to become less dependent on religion and more on science, but science is what has made us in to what we are, from the discovery of fire that had an impact in the way our face looks now --smaller mandible-- to agriculture and cattle -can only remember the Spanish word "ganaderia"-- to the cure of small pox.

It is true that we can't force humans to "give up" the idea of god, but there is and will probably be more and more of us that can live perfectly normal lives having done exactly that. We can be as good fathers as believers and as good citizens. For example. As a Cristian you can kill you dog. It is not a sin or there is no commandment prohibiting you "to kill a dog". But you just don't do it. I wonder if the notion that religion make people be better people can be sustained after careful consideration, maybe Asher can comment on that. What was the role of religion -other religions- in Nazi Germany? Or just look at the God of the Old Testament when sends a plague to kill all first born in Egypt. What would UNICEF say about it if this happened today. Can it be justified with freeing of one ethnic group from slavery? Or when they get to the Promised Land and it had to be cleansed by killing the other ethnic group that occupied it under the pretext that they observed a different religion?

Anyway, I am having a good time with this thread --my mother tends to disengage sooner or latter, but mostly sooner.. Lol

 

[Rachel Foster]

I am a Unitarian. We accommodate most beliefs.

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

I am a Unitarian. We accommodate most beliefs.

good, so I suppose you also accommodate us materialists Apotofteists?

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yup! But I like the teapotist better. With cookies!

 

[Asher Kelman]

I wonder if the notion that religion make people be better people can be sustained after careful consideration, maybe Asher can comment on that.

Leonardo,

All the language tools of man, even words like "up" and "down" are metaphors. That's how we build concepts, relationships, relevance and express thoughts to each other and contemplate our lives.

Irrespective of what's happening in the heavens, on earth, we have to share this planet and even the dust and leaves of the side walk in each village and home. Religion, at the very least, can provide a scaffolding of stories, parables and values by which one can build a the complex metaphorical structure of values. This construction allows for the child to arrange, rank and fix social ideas that will make our cultures work well. I have always said, to be "nice to the others in the tour bus", since we are not permanently alive here, just, as it were, visitors.

When folk grow up, their ideas on religion metamorphose. They accommodate what they were taught with what's kind and practical. The scaffolding is no longer needed and they can still be "good people".

Without religion, what is the code of values one teaches children? That's a rhetorical question, not an argument for some position on the matter.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, I teach my children kindness, honesty, integrity, responsibility. That needs no formalized religion. However, the beauty of most (all?) religions is that they do try to incorporate those values.

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher, I agree with you, but the last part is highly debatable, too bad you sealed by making it rhetorical. Would I lie to my kid? if you say that the world was created by an intelligent being six thousand years ago you may be telling a lie.... but I don't mean that as an argument for a position on the matter also ...

Without religion, what is the code of values one teaches children? That's a rhetorical question, not an argument for some position on the matter.​

 

[Maris Rusis]

Maris,

Where did you get that from? No one who thinks Obama is god has ever been struck by lightening!

Asher

Here in Australia there has always been a tradition of cursing, vitriol, and blood curdling blasphemy incorporated into informal speech between men; this, even during friendly banter. For a continent settled by English convicts, the worst of the worst, it is not entirely surprising. In modern times it seems that even young women are becoming adept at cosmically blistering turns of phrase that would make a bullock driver cringe.

There is a mushroom cloud of invective rising heavenward from Australia every day but the place is not uncommonly lightning-struck!

I myself have bellowed the name of the Christian savior in full (not omitting his middle name) whilst losing a 4x5 view camera into a river and I didn't even feel a tickle of divine high voltage.

Asher, your interest in lightning is truly apt. During the middle ages it was noted that spired churches burned down with remarkable regularity. This seemed to confirm the existence of the Devil who could not abide the prayers and devotions conducted therein. And if the existence of the Devil is confirmed then God must exist too.

The great American, Benjamin Franklin, unravelled this theory with his suggestion for lightning conductors. Now if a church is to be burned the Devil cannot be invoked. An incendiary mob is needed instead.

 

[Leonardo Boher]

Just saying that I approached to another vision of God, much more logically coherent. Won't go into it deeper but with just 2 words it ¡s done: Uncaused Cause.

I finally developed another type of thinking too, which is based in no dualities, just absolutes and the ability to think in parallel between relative thinking and absolute thinking.

I can go really deeper with this, but no time right now... Been for an year (and still) developing an hypothesis about God existence and Asher was right in many points.

Also refuted many arguments against the existence of God and found a very good man, who opened my mind a lot, whose name is William Lane Craig, who guided me to find how to articulate arguments in order to get solid conclusions, which are directly related with formal logic and fallacies.

Okay, I'm going to sleep!

Have nice dreams!!!

Leo

 

[Leonardo Boher]

"But I believe God created Darwinian evolution" is a clever answer and I am happy she got the job, but, can she -and all of us- not say we believe that God created Darwinian evolution and not "we know". Of course not. We can say we believe in whatever we want, same as the Astecs believed in Huitzilopitchli. Mabe he, Huitzilopitchli created the Darwinian evolution. We say so because it makes us feel good, and I am not against it at all. Some people may feel good in beleaving that we all humans where created by a Flying Spaghetti, and I'm also happy for them. If they get hired for believing in it/him, good for them.

I really don't care about names or forms/shapes given to God. God is God and it can have any form He likes if he wants to. If the Spaghetti Monster fits on the God description, then you have God!

For the other hand, a computer machine would never produce means, so it cannot "create" gods after all, therefore, we shall not if we were machines too. And there is another point of view which endorses here, which is experience. We cannot imagine nothing beyond our experience so God (and all what involves, metaphysically talking) couldn't be imagined starting from this premise. Something happened that men could meet God.

I have 3 ideas about how men got experienced a world beyond this one:

1. Someone came and told the story.
2. God itself came and told the story.
3. Psychedelic plants told the story.

I have no idea which one is the one, probably all of them, I don't know, but I'm sure that God isn't an invention of human due it's limited capabilities.

At the end of the day:

1. If God doesn't exists, we wouldn't be talking about this and we would be all "atheists", products of an unconsciousness Universe by determinism.
2. If God does exists, then atheism is a possibility as also, theism so we would be product of our own decisions and indeterminism.

In few words, atheism proves God existence in certain way, because there is freedom of choice.

"Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will". - Jawaharal Nehru

Have nice dreams!

Leo

 

[Asher Kelman]

Bump! I need to reread your fascinating comments Leo!

Asher