Who is “God” ?

@mriana but the bottom line is all definitions are human creations and as the Tao says the Tao that can be defined isn’t the Tao at all.

So however one defines it, it is all just a human definition and isn’t a god at all.


I like that.

It would be impossible to understand the essence of the Creator as we are his creation and the idea of the creation understanding the Creator is the same as a table trying to understand the carpenter. Of course we can learn about Him, pray to Him, and worship Him. But ultimately our mind would fall short of fully comprehending our Creator.
Okay, so the "creator" is evolution (that is cumulative change over time) and we can learn a lot about it, though there will always be more to learn.

@citizenschallengev3 Thank you. As for the second part, I don’t think I said that second quote, so I’m not sure how to answer that.

Yeah, I should have credited @heartnsoul19.

I agree with the heartnsoul that we’ll never fully understand evolution or the complexities within our bodies and the universe beyond. Though we are giving it a heck of a shot. Too bad we don’t spend as much time digesting what we already know, so fail to comprehend the most of it.

Interestingly we can see an example of who God is, in the writings of our new pal Dad1 -

God is the human EGO run amuck, and materialized.

Who/what is God? My current best guess goes something like this…

My best guess is that the best religious people are pointing to some phenomena which is real, but they are typically doing so using language which was crafted thousands of years ago for uneducated peasants who lived short hard lives.

Imagine that you had to explain sex to a five year old. You would likely use a highly simplified fable like story which doesn’t really begin to describe everything that is involved. You would be incapable of describing sex to a five year in a comprehensive manner, but you would be capable of making the five year feel their question had been addressed.

Many moderns understandably reject the ancient religious stories and language, because they were never designed for us. To me, it seems one approach for us is to try to separate the very out of date stories from the topic which the stories are trying to address. Discard the primitive stories, and continue with an investigation.

The atheist perspective relies heavily on observation of the real world. We might keep in mind that the ancients who cooked up the major religions were much more involved with the real world of nature than we moderns are. Consider for example, the native peoples of North America. They lived directly on the land every minute of their lives, and were entirely dependent on it, for thousands of years.

Point being, if we are to adopt observation of the real world as our path, it might be wise to listen to those who are far more expert in observation of the real world than we are. It seems that religion in some form arose out of that experience in pretty much every time and place.

The challenge for us may be to try to experience what these native peoples experienced, and then discuss that experience in language better suited to our own time and place.

1 Like
You would likely use a highly simplified fable like story which doesn’t really begin to describe everything that is involved. You would be incapable of describing sex to a five year in a comprehensive manner,
Hmmm, well, unless it's a farm kid. What them mammals do is the same (well we do add a lot to it, regardless) we do the same thing, with the same outcomes. There's nothing impossible about the concept and many kids are way sharper than most adults will give them credit for.

 

Recently it occurred to me that what Stephen Gould was missing was a much more fundamental divide that is crying out for recognition. Specifically, the Magisteria of Physical Reality vs the Magisteria of our Human Mindscape.

In this perspective we acknowledge that Earth and her physical processes and the pageant of evolution are the fundamental timeless touchstones of reality. Part of Earth’s physical reality is that we humans were created by Earth out of her processes.

Science shows us that we belong to the mammalian branch of Earth’s animal kingdom. Yet, it’s undeniable that something quite unique happened about six million years ago when certain apes took a wild improbable evolutionary turn.

By and by besides the marvel of our two hands, we developed two feet and legs that could stand tall or run for hours and a brain that learned rapidly.

During that evolutionary process something extraordinary fantastical was born, the Human Mindscape.

On the outside hominids learned to make tools, hunt, fish, and select plants, plus they mastered fire for cooking and better living.

On the inside our brains were benefiting from the new super nourishment while human curiosity and adventures started filling and stretching our mindscapes with experiences and knowledge beyond anything the “natural” physical Earth ever knew.

While the human mind and spirit are ineffable mysteries, they are also of tremendous consequence and real-world physical power. They drove our growing ability to study and manipulate our world, to communicate and record our experiences and to formulate explanations for a world full of mysteries, threats and wonders.

People learned to think and gossip and paint pictures upon the canvas of cave walls, or even better, upon the canvas of each other’s imaginations. We’ve been adding to our brain’s awareness and complexity ever since.

Of course, while all this was going on the human mind was also wondering about the ‘Why’ of the world it observed and the difficult, fragile, short lives we were allotted. In seeking answers to unknowable questions it seems inevitable that Gods would inhabit our mindscape. I suspect inspired by buried memories of being coddled within mom’s protective loving bosom those first couple years of life.

No doubt these “Gods” enabled further successes, though not through super-natural interventions, but rather through their ability to form, conform, reform and transform the mindscapes of the masses of people beginning to congregate. Thus, combining pragmatic civil societal needs with universally felt, but keenly personal questions, fears, and dreams.

After the middle ages tribal stories, accepted ancient doctrines and religious “truths” were no longer enough to satisfy our mindscape’s growing desire for ever more understanding and power over the Earth. The human brain took another tremendous leap forward in awareness with the Intellectual Enlightenment and the birth of serious disciplined scientific study.

Science’s success was dazzling in its ability to learn about, control and manipulate Earth’s physical resources and to transform entire environments.
Science was so successful that today most people believe we are the masters of our world and most have fallen into the hubristic trap of believing our ever fertile mindscape is “reality.” Which brings me back to Gould’s magisterium and his missing key.

The missing key is appreciating the fundamental “Magisteria of Physical Reality,” and recognizing both science and religion are products of the “Magisteria of Our Mindscape.”

Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.

What’s the point?

Religions, Science, political beliefs, heaven, hell, even God they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.

That’s not to say they are the same thing, they are not!
Though I think they’re both equally valid human endeavors,
but fundamentally qualitatively different.
Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls,
Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that.


I think it comes down to first appreciating that our God come from within of we ourselves. Definitely not some thing shining down from something outside of physical reality - nothing about that make any sense. Nor is it necessary. Earth and Evolution offer plenty of meaning and wonder. Our self made gods offer nothing we can actually use to inform our life, beyond helping regulate human interactions, society and to offer the comfort of a teddy bear - because they are reflections of our Ego’s, not some supernatural agency.

Definitely not some thing shining down from something outside of physical reality – nothing about that make any sense.
A notion that it has to make sense is a faith based belief fundamental to atheism.

Reason is a very poorly implemented methodology of a single species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. Or perhaps one of billions of universes? Why would any phenomena the scale of gods be bound to follow such a rule system???

Atheists cling to the “reason is god” notion, in spite of any proof that such an enormous claim is true, thus becoming heretics to their own methodology. And they do so for the same reason that theists cling to their holy books, they want it to be true. It’s human nature to want to know how things work, what the rules are, because such a knowing gives us a sense of control, of being safe.

 

 

 

@tanny

Atheists cling to the “reason is god” notion

No atheist has called reason “god” nor do they consider it “god”.

No atheist has called reason “god” nor do they consider it “god”.
I'm agreeable to "highest ranking authority" or something like that.

@tanny

I’m agreeable to “highest ranking authority” or something like that.

That made absolutely no sense, not even in response to what I said. I take it you agree with those in authority, especially the one considered to be the highest ranking one in authority? Just who would that be? Is it imaginary or a real person? People are highly fallible and imaginary have no power, unless you give it to it, whatever it is and even then it’s not powerful, except to the one who believes it exists for real.

1 Like

Sorry, sloppy typing on my part. By “highest ranking authority” I didn’t mean some person, but rather a methodology one can look to for answers.

Theists look to their holy books. Atheists look to human reason. Neither have been proven qualified for addressing the very largest of questions, but we want the sense that answers are available somehow, so we pick an “authority” and put our faith in it.

so we pick an “authority” and put our faith in it. -- tanny
I don't. That was the mistake that I realized I was making for most of my life. A lot of people make it, so I don't feel bad about it, but once I broke myself of it, it's hard to go back. Once you know you are doing it, you can either double down, say it's the only way to approach the problem, then start defending your territory, or you can learn to question everything and live in those questions. I like the constant learning. I like knowing that there are viewpoints that I've barely begun to understand.

@tanny

Theists look to their holy books. Atheists look to human reason.

Really? You think atheism is a religion, with an authority like all other religions? I’ll let Cristina Rad handle this one, because she did it so well when someone else said something similar and I think it fits what you’ve said here:

Christina Rad! Haven’t listened to her in a long time. A wise beautiful goddess in her own right. :wink:

I checked her channel, seems like three years since her last video. I hope she’s doing okay these days.

 

Oh look what I found from January 1, 2020, an interview with her. Her frustration is easy to appreciate.

 

A notion that it has to make sense is a faith based belief fundamental to atheism.
Isn't a rejection of "human striving to make sense" an invitation to utter disconnect from the world we exist within, and from there a short road to insanity?

Seems to me the drive to make logical sense out of the world is what’s driven human thinking from the gitgo. Heck ,it’s why in the old days we created our gods to begin with, to help us make sense of an incomprehensible world.

Neither have been proven qualified for addressing the very largest of questions,
What questions would those be?

Yes, she hasn’t done anything for a long time and I also hope she’s doing well. I haven’t dropped onto her website for a while. Maybe she’s posted something there.

Yes, she hasn’t done anything for a long time and I also hope she’s doing well. I haven’t dropped onto her website for a while. Maybe she’s posted something there.
Nothing newer than three years there. Check out her interview with "TheThinkingAtheist" at #347334.
Seems to me the drive to make logical sense out of the world is what’s driven human thinking from the gitgo. Heck ,it’s why in the old days we created our gods to begin with, to help us make sense of an incomprehensible world.
Sure. But the fact that we want reality to make sense to us by some method or another does not in itself prove that this is possible. Some people really want the Bible to provide them with answers to the largest questions, but that doesn't prove the Bible capable of providing such answers. Other people really want human reason to provide them with answers to the largest questions, and that doesn't prove anything either.

Some will say we have to choose the best option we have. Ok, but just because a nine year old knows more about math than a four year old does not equal the nine year old having anything useful to say about particle physics. Point being, even if we had proof that reason is a better methodology than religion, that doesn’t tell us whether reason is qualified to deliver meaningful credible statements on the largest of questions, such as those addressed by God claims.

The unwarranted leap at the heart of atheism is the typically unexamined assumption that because human reason is proven very useful at human scale, it is therefore automatically qualified to address any question, no matter how large. There is no proof such an assumption is true, thus such an assumption is fairly labeled an act of faith.

This atheist assumption can be compared to a common theist assumption that because the Bible has brought comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years the Bible therefore is a credible authority on the largest of questions. That is, in both cases, theist and atheist, we see an unwarranted leap from a proven fact, to very unproven wishful thinking speculation.

Some readers may now rise up in anger at this comparison between theism and atheism, a comparison which puts all of us in pretty much the same boat. When such anger arises, here’s why. Some people, both theists and atheists, will form a personal identity out of their chosen ideology. This personal identity usually involves some form of perceived superiority. The theist may feel they are holier than somebody else, while the atheist may feel they are smarter. Thus, when their chosen ideology is challenged, whether theist or atheist, some people will experience the challenge as a personal attack.

When this is pointed out they, the theist or atheist, will often go in to denial mode and claim they are mad because “theists did this!” or “atheists did that!”. But the anger itself tells the true story, even if the angry person can’t hear that inconvenient story at the moment.

 

 

@tanny - The unwarranted leap at the heart of atheism is the typically unexamined assumption that because human reason is proven very useful at human scale, it is therefore automatically qualified to address any question, no matter how large. There is no proof such an assumption is true, thus such an assumption is fairly labeled an act of faith.
There is no proof of anything if you want to get into nit picking. You can't even prove that the sun will be coming up in the morning, it's an assumption, that has been accurate for the past four and and a half billion years, so we trust it will happen tomorrow as it happened today.

Your “unwarranted” is a spicy chestnut. My thinking is warranted by a life time of attentively experiencing life and pondering these questions among others. You know the life considered and all that. The Bible does advise to Seek and we shall discover. If we can keep our Ego’s at bay. Now at 66 I’m amazed at how well that advice worked.

That is, in both cases, theist and atheist, we see an unwarranted leap from a "proven" fact, to very unproven wishful thinking speculation.
Sure, I'd could agree with that, if you'll allow the scare quotes around "proven."
Some readers may now rise up in anger at this comparison between theism and atheism, a comparison which puts all of us in pretty much the same boat.
That is false. The religious pride themselves in their Faith, that is far removed from "believing" in demonstrable facts and allow facts to drive our understanding of what we witness and experience.

For the religious their “faith” gives them a unique license to ignore and even contemptuously disregard physical evidence and “proven” facts. The genuine atheist allows facts to dictate their “beliefs,” as those facts improve, those clearer facts drive our developing understanding of the world around them. While the religious remain trapped within the tiny box their religious dogmas force upon their minds.

Thus, when their chosen ideology is challenged, whether theist or atheist, some people will experience the challenge as a personal attack.
You make that sound as though that behavior is a special aspect of being a theist or atheist, rather than a fundamental biological fact of us insecure self-obsessed human beings, something that permeates all of our thinking and interactions with others to a greater or lesser extent.
But the anger itself tells the true story, even if the angry person can’t hear that inconvenient story at the moment.
Of course, you may be misunderstanding the source of that anger. Embracing demonstrable lies, refusing to consider evidence that's in front of their eyes, playing the religious zealots superiority card via shutting down all thinking processes. Might all that not fall under righteous anger, not actually aimed at the person, so much as the behavior?
..., even if the angry person can’t hear that inconvenient story at the moment.
What inconvenient story is that?