Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Russell, what of the heart? the spirit? the soul? are these only natural as well? Are we only collections of matter and energy that are guided by scientific laws? Is ours just a question of strict materialist versus supernatural possibility?

my heart is an organ in my chest that moves blood around. my spirit is an abstraction used to distinguish between my brain, the organ, and the thoughts that occur there. (you could call it a bunch of chemicals and electricity, though, and be very correct) my soul, evidently, is a measure of how much I listen to sleazy jazz music. i've been told i don't have much.

as to your question if we "are only collections of matter and energy that are guided by scientific laws?" i'm gonna have to go ahead and say, yes, that's all. i honestly don't understand why some people aren't content with that, but i find life no less meaningful when defined that way.

you summary is essentially correct. some of us are naturalists, and some of us are spiritualists, and that is the core of the disagreement.

I also agree that is the core of the disagreement

Are my behavior, personality, and decision-making based solely on natural events that at the lowest levels I have absolutely no control over? If that were true, I'd be content with it Isn't that why we get offended when someone gets in our face and tries to shove their beliefs down our throat? We aren't content to be force-fed what we perceive to be wrong about who we are and what we should be doing

It's fascinating how differently people think about things when their disagreement is regarding the existence of anything beyond the natural world

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I also agree that is the core of the disagreement

Are my behavior, personality, and decision-making based solely on natural events that at the lowest levels I have absolutely no control over?

well, everyone is certainly a product of their environment, to a certain degree. after that, i think it's up to each individual to maximize their potential however they see fit.

A week or 2 ago I heard that a study has shown that ants recognize themselves in a mirror. It seems they have a sense of self. If that is true then what is the difference between them and us?

Except for the physical and social differences, and the fact that they lack a significant amount of grey matter, they could be us.

If that is true, then why wouldn't an ant have a soul. The most compelling religious reason is 'because it is in this here book' or 'because these very old men (not women obviously) say so'
And if they have a soul, what would that mean for the foundations of religion, not to mention your soul if you squash insects without regard.

Conversely, if ants do not have a soul despite the fact that they are sentient and have a sense of self, then why would we have a soul. I mean, other than 'because'?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

The problem (as I see it) with your statement rests in this:
God is defined as being someone that does not have to adhere to natural laws.

Am I correct in this?

Then how about a God that is NOT outside of those laws but merely has an infinite greater knowledge of how those laws work. He doesn't work ABOVE those laws...but WITH and THROUGH those laws.

Besides that he loves us.

(That'd be a close description of the God I've gotten to know)

I agree with this description. But it does have interesting implications if you adhere to organized religion.
Because this image of divinity is disconnected from the institutions that people have built around their faith.

As someone said earlier in the discussion: going to church doesn't make you christian any more than standing in the garage makes you a car.

With this image of God(s), it doesn't matter if you are christian, mormon, muslim, hindi or whatever. And this seems right. After all, these are just definitions made by people, based on 10th hand hearsay and 10th hand translations of accounts that were written down 100 years or more after the facts.

It's pointless to talk about right and wrong when it comes to which religion to choose, because with all the different religions around, the chances that you'd pick the right one (if one existed) would be astronomically small. Who's to say that the tribesmen in the rainforest are not right in their worship of nature and the spirits?
Ultimately I think it doesn't matter which building you enter -if any. your actions are what matters.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Russell, what of the heart? the spirit? the soul? are these only natural as well? Are we only collections of matter and energy that are guided by scientific laws? Is ours just a question of strict materialist versus supernatural possibility?

I don't think it would be strange at all that a supernatural creator would give his creation something by which to discover him outside of the natural.

The soul is an interesting concept, it is what people claim "defines" them, it's their innermost being. But to raise a question, how is that different from the unconscious mind? We have a similar lack of empirical evidence that either exist, neither are physical items, and both act "through" us as if a separate entity on occasion.

As for sensing the creator, sure, if you allow for a supernatural creator there may be supernatural forces that inspire us in any number of ways.

But seriously, if the claim is that we have a "feeling" that God is amongst us, or a "feeling" that we can "know" God by, then I'd have to ask why he decides to make people "feel" like he exists in the form that is conventional for the region they grew up in. You don't "feel" that the Olympian gods are anything more than folly do you? How about the gods of the Vaishnavite tradition of Hinduism?

I just mean that it's incredibly hard to get out of our own cultural biases and that invoking things like nondescript senses is only suitable for affirming personal beliefs, they can't be used for a communal discussion.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

The problem (as I see it) with your statement rests in this:
God is defined as being someone that does not have to adhere to natural laws.

Am I correct in this?

Then how about a God that is NOT outside of those laws but merely has an infinite greater knowledge of how those laws work. He doesn't work ABOVE those laws...but WITH and THROUGH those laws.

Besides that he loves us.

(That'd be a close description of the God I've gotten to know)

The problem is that statements like "infinite greater knowledge" implies supernatural capability, because such a concept is not acceptable in a finite reality.

If he must be considered as a natural entity, then we as humans have the capability to understand him as we do the laws of the universe, given enough time. At which point we have the right to be considered on a similar level as he.

May I ask your reasons behind determining that he loves you/us? I really would like more insight on this.

Originally Posted by Bruno

A week or 2 ago I heard that a study has shown that ants recognize themselves in a mirror. It seems they have a sense of self. If that is true then what is the difference between them and us?

Ants are tiny and squashable, that's the difference. Might makes right! (as long as I'm mighty!)

Originally Posted by Bruno

Except for the physical and social differences, and the fact that they lack a significant amount of grey matter, they could be us.

So Adam and Eve were ants. Now what?

Originally Posted by Bruno

If that is true, then why wouldn't an ant have a soul. The most compelling religious reason is 'because it is in this here book' or 'because these very old men (not women obviously) say so'
And if they have a soul, what would that mean for the foundations of religion, not to mention your soul if you squash insects without regard.

God only answers the praying mantis. Maybe the ants do have a soul. I don't think that means anything for the foundations of religion. An ant soul is still not a human soul And hey! Women can be just as dry and crusty in religious dogmatic tradition as men - let's not discriminate based on gender alone

Originally Posted by Bruno

Conversely, if ants do not have a soul despite the fact that they are sentient and have a sense of self, then why would we have a soul. I mean, other than 'because'?

God only knows
It seems like we're coming back to the if-I-can't-make-sense-of-it-myself-then-it-can't-be-true sort of argument. It's a great argument until you realize that your ability to make sense of it really doesn't change what was true before you ever came on the scene.
I'm not saying that's any better or worse than the well-I'm-going-to-believe-it-anyway-regardless-of-what-natural-science-and-man's-logic-dictates argument. Neither have any bearing on what is really taking place, do they?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The soul is an interesting concept...how is that different from the unconscious mind?]

I don't know. I'm always conscious and you can't prove to me otherwise (can you prove to a dead man that he's dead?) - do you mean the subconscious? Either way, my mind would be part of my soul, wouldn't it? Unless my mind is just a collection of electrical signals and hormones washing around responding to each other in completely natural and predictable ways. But what is a decision if not a choice that someone makes? Does every event always have a naturally predictable reason? Or are those signals merely tools I can choose to use to communicate my immaterial ideas and reasons with the natural material world?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

if the claim is that we have a "feeling" that God is amongst us, or a "feeling" that we can "know" God by, then I'd have to ask why he decides to make people "feel" like he exists in the form that is conventional for the region they grew up in. You don't "feel" that the Olympian gods are anything more than folly do you? How about the gods of the Vaishnavite tradition of Hinduism?

I just mean that it's incredibly hard to get out of our own cultural biases and that invoking things like nondescript senses is only suitable for affirming personal beliefs, they can't be used for a communal discussion.

It's no different in the case against God. If the claim is that there is no God because there is no feeling that we can know God by, then we have to ask why people claim to feel like he exists in any form. And naturalists have been improving on their answer to that question for centuries, just as theologians have been improving on their answer to why everyone doesn't feel the same thing from God. Neither can disprove the other, and yet either God is or God isn't.

What nondescript senses are you talking about that can't be used for a communal discussion but that are necessary to sense God? Do you know what God feels like? If you don't know, can you assume nobody else does? I don't know but reason alone is an indication to me that I am not just what can be scientifically measured and observed.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The problem is that statements like "infinite greater knowledge" implies supernatural capability, because such a concept is not acceptable in a finite reality.

Why not? It is if you consider the fact that because of his knowledge He has had the time to aquire this amount.

If he must be considered as a natural entity, then we as humans have the capability to understand him as we do the laws of the universe, given enough time. At which point we have the right to be considered on a similar level as he.

Somewhat correct. Although wedo have the right to be considered on a similar level as He on certain points (He has always in all of his communications referred to us as His children...and do Children not have the potential to become like their parents?) He has progressed somewhat further than we.

May I ask your reasons behind determining that he loves you/us? I really would like more insight on this.
I'm sorry...but this is where no physical evidence can be brought forth. It can be tested in a personal sphere. But no physical proof will exist other than a personal conviction. But considering the fact that He at one point has conferred with His children (us) and given them advice, and that He is a parent all implies that He loves us. No conclusive proof though.

As for a reply to Bruno.

Actually it Would matter how you live. Depending on what we need to do/know to aquire knowledge like Him.
As for if it would matter which religion you'd chose in this life....Personally I think it matters only in part. Since God would be a just God as well as a loving God he'd also provide the means for those who didn't have a chance/made misstakes (not blatant disregard) as to what is right to correct these things.

So in a way it wouldn't matter since someone who's made a wrong choice will have a chance to correct this....but on the other hand it's a lot less hassle (and personal anguish) to just do it right in the first place.

I just had a thought:

I'm an Objectivist (or, at least I agree with many of their ideals) and think that there IS an objective truth about the universe, and that with enough study and observation, humanity may eventually learn what that truth is, though it will most likely be a process of gradual refinement. it prolly won't happen during my lifetime.

spiritualists believe that objective truth can't even be known through study and observation, but rather through faith. (at least, not ENTIRELY through study and observation) this is problematic because there are many kinds of spiritualists and many of their belief systems are mutually exclusive. (that is, you can't believe all of them, but there are exceptions to this rule)

so how to pick which spiritualistic belief system to subscribe to? the naturalists and Objectivists are all compatible with eachother, but not so with the spiritualists. many of their belief systems claim that following a different belief system equals eternal suffering or something else undesirable.

again, how can you pick which spiritualistic belief is true? well, rationally, you can't. ever. they are all equally valid or baseless, depending on your views, and cannot objectively be evaluated one over the other. nearly all spiritualists seem to follow the system that they were raised on, although there are exceptions to this rule. the only other criteria is that one system may "feel more right" than another, and i don't think it's wise to make decisions like that based only on fleeting emotions.

so, to all the spiritualists out there, apart from your emotions, why do you think that your particular system of belief is more correct than everyone else's?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It seems like we're coming back to the if-I-can't-make-sense-of-it-myself-then-it-can't-be-true sort of argument. It's a great argument until you realize that your ability to make sense of it really doesn't change what was true before you ever came on the scene.
I'm not saying that's any better or worse than the well-I'm-going-to-believe-it-anyway-regardless-of-what-natural-science-and-man's-logic-dictates argument. Neither have any bearing on what is really taking place, do they?

Your absolutely right, we cannot ever determine the exact nature of a god, and our attempts have no meaning to the rest of the universe.

To quote Jennifer Hecht, a renowned poet and award winning intellectual, "we, as humans, live in a 'meaning rupture' within an impartial universe", or something like that.

But the point is that human's have an inescapable notion that all things ought to have a purpose, because we cannot separate "purpose" from our own actions. The ever present question "Why?" is the manifestation of our intellectual bias. As far as we know, empirically, no other entity in the unfathomably large Universe places any rationality on actions going one way or the other, but it is historically cited that we "see purpose" in the Universe.

One has to ask whether this is anthropomorphism in action.