Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

You are an advocate of this global God which will tame the Beast. You are an atom of the Great Beast. What will be required to tame you?

You are an atom of the Beast too. What tames all of us is reason. Humans can't do any better than reason. Reason is what humans are good at. We cannot build weaver birds' nests, we cannot survive by eating plankton, we can't fly like birds fly, we cannot hibernate through the winter. But we can learn from experience.

If there were a God Who intervenes to save us from our follies that would be the really good news. Reason tells us that gods are man-made. Your reasoning, Nick, is deficient in the quality of doubt.

[Belinda]

Reflex, that's an interesting article. What is the difference if any between code and culture? Did you mean that God is a personification of code, or of culture? In any case don't you think that beliefs and practices are separate in that 'God' is what you believe in whereas practice is what you do for a living?

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Rather, religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. Culture can only emerge where there is a common code, but they are so intertwined It can be hard to tell the difference.

“God” symbolizes the source of our consciousness of moral duty and our practices represent a value level — an experiential reality — which is difficult of symbolization.

I don't think of religion as primitive. Unlike your belief, I believe that religion arises firstly from people's view of what constitutes the world and then religion explains the world. Only after that do values appear as means to support and sustain that world view.

God and values have often been symbolised in great art and in folk art. E.g. the Old Masters's paintings of Christian events such as Nativity, Crucifixion,Resurrection, Creation. Values are implicit in all of those: Nativity=God's graciousness: Crucifixion=God's graciousness: Resurrection=God's faithfulness to us: Creation=God's power and favour towards us.And folk art such as the statues and stations of the Cross in RC churches. My background is Christian so I offer Christian examples. Recently however I saw pictures on television of a great famous mosque where God was symbolised without natural imagery but with abstract design especially the beautiful dome of light.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

You are an advocate of this global God which will tame the Beast. You are an atom of the Great Beast. What will be required to tame you?

You are an atom of the Beast too. What tames all of us is reason. Humans can't do any better than reason. Reason is what humans are good at. We cannot build weaver birds' nests, we cannot survive by eating plankton, we can't fly like birds fly, we cannot hibernate through the winter. But we can learn from experience.

If there were a God Who intervenes to save us from our follies that would be the really good news. Reason tells us that gods are man-made. Your reasoning, Nick, is deficient in the quality of doubt.

Are your actions really determined by reason? We have the potential to be governed by reason but suppose our actions are primarily determined by habitual opinions or what we call intellect, emotional reactions and their value judgements, or knowledge acquired through personal experience? Do you accept that there is a difference in quality between opinion based on reason and knowledge acquired through experience? If reason is limited to establishing opinions of which we have a variety of opposing opinions, can't we do better than arguing opinions

[Nick_A]

Dubious

You do ramble on with all the secularism and Great Beast nonsense! I never thought of myself as a secularist because, for one thing, I don’t know to whom it’s supposed to specifically apply, secularism being so diverse in its views. Don’t even know for sure if there is such a thing as a purely secular being; if there is, they must be rare. What I am certain of is that I’m not a theist; also that Nietzsche was a first rate analyzer (though not in all cases) of the human condition, his prose style as well being among the best in all of literature. Wagner should have noticed! Instead, he kept on talking about Schopenhauer.

Secularism refers to people who are governed by their senses and emotions generated by them to satisfy the human need for meaning.

This is simply more evidence that Nick sees those who don't believe implicitly in his deity (aka "secularists") as philosophical zombies, entirely lacking an inner life. In that he displays solipsism, assuming that the "tip of the iceberg" that he is exposed to in other people's minds is the entire mind.

He also does not seem to appreciate that people don't always speak freely about our inner lives, preferring that they remain private rather than splashed around to be besmirched by those who wouldn't understand. Hence, we confide in those close to us, not to aggressive and hostile parties online.

Your fellow humans are far more complex and interesting than you realise.

You complicate matters that are really simple. I've learned both IRL and online tht atheism and secularism are closed to the third dimension of thought Simone Weil alludes to.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

The world is governed by subjective opinions. Atheists are often superior with the quality of dualistic reason which establishes life in Plato's cave. Unfortunately it is usually only because of some sort of shock that a person is able to have this supernatural part of their being awakened which opens them to the vertical dimension of thought which reconciles horizontal dualistic reason into a human perspective. This awareness is a threat to the supremacy of dualistic secularism so must be destroyed for the sake of continuing secular supremacy.

This has always been our difference, You support the efforts leading to spirit killing and metaphysial repression in order to in your eyes advance society and I support what is necessary to allow young minds to open to awe and wonder and the potential for what they are in a universal as opposed to a societal context. It is how it is.

[Reflex]

Whether God is necessary is debatable, but if the recent PBS series on early civilizations is accurate, religion is Indispensable to civilization.

http://www.pbs.org/video/religion-pemjui/

[Greta]

The world is governed by subjective opinions. Atheists are often superior with the quality of dualistic reason which establishes life in Plato's cave. Unfortunately it is usually only because of some sort of shock that a person is able to have this supernatural part of their being awakened which opens them to the vertical dimension of thought which reconciles horizontal dualistic reason into a human perspective. This awareness is a threat to the supremacy of dualistic secularism so must be destroyed for the sake of continuing secular supremacy.

Nah, not at all. I am well aware of this other aspect of consciousness. I know it exists and it is wonderful, but chasing such things is counter-productive. One accepts these things as a gift rather than focusing on what often amounts to metaphysical masturbation. As far as I am concerned, life is for living in the real world rather than trying to pre-empt whatever might or might not happen when we die.

In response your insulting comments, I will not longer take the low road with you and trade ad homs. Enough. More than enough. Nausea.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

Are your actions really determined by reason? We have the potential to be governed by reason but suppose our actions are primarily determined by habitual opinions or what we call intellect, emotional reactions and their value judgements, or knowledge acquired through personal experience? Do you accept that there is a difference in quality between opinion based on reason and knowledge acquired through experience? If reason is limited to establishing opinions of which we have a variety of opposing opinions, can't we do better than arguing opinions

I aim to base my actions upon reason. Like most people I fall short of my ideal and I agree that most people don't achieve their potential. By "reason" I refer to learning from experience especially with the admixture of philosophical scepticism. By "reason" I also mean deduction from first premises, although that IMO is dead end and suited only to be a tool in the service of empirical learning.

The difference in quality between knowledge based upon reason and knowledge acquired through personal experience is that the former builds upon the knowledge and meanings of cultures that are inter-generational and transferable from person to person. The human is inseparable from cultures and cultures is what made humans as humans.

Western cultures change more rapidly than traditional cultures. Western cultures owe much to innovators , artists, and geniuses.

We cannot do better than arguing opinions because the only alternative to our Western , Enlightenment, post-faith, arguing of opinions is to revert to the traditional almost static form of cultures.

For some sentimentalists it would be very nice so to revert to the good old days.

[Beauty]

It is not about whether the concept of God is necessary or even less real, if God is there then God is there, period! No ifs and no buts. So then the question would be, is there a God and why and how and for what and since when and so on. So if your OP is what it says, why you interested in knowing? Because it would be like concept of God is unnecessary leave alone real, so then why have a discussion about that? So then it seems that yes, there is something in the concept of God and that is why we like to discuss it.
God is the generator of definition - G O D
Lord is the lord of right definition - L O R D (notice how God has taken immediate copyright of his/her or its work)

Now the question is are we talking about a human as God or God as creator of the cosmos and so some power. As God as human - we are all fallen Gods, classified devils in Hell, but in Heaven classified Gods. "Know ye not that ye are all Gods and the spirit of God dwelleth in you?" A creator God we don't understand because we don't know the creative principle. There is something like - it and self - itself. it - is a reference to things and self - is a reference to people. This world only has things and people(animals included). And it is all perhaps itself. So the creative principle would be itself, and the created would be it(things) and self(people and animals), and the creator would be THE POWER of all things, source of all intelligence, we do not know such source nor identify with it, so we don't understand the creator.

[Lacewing]

The God concept can be unnecessary for a person absorbed in social life and acquiring prestige. Yet for those in need of the experience of meaning not provided by societal life, the God concept and the inner direction furthering it is essential.

I like that!

Which do you like more: the way it completely skews and limits reality, or the way it glorifies those who need a God concept?

[Reflex]

The God concept can be unnecessary for a person absorbed in social life and acquiring prestige. Yet for those in need of the experience of meaning not provided by societal life, the God concept and the inner direction furthering it is essential.

I like that!

Which do you like more: the way it completely skews and limits reality, or the way it glorifies those who need a God concept?

I like the way it completely skews and limits your reality and liberates me in mine.

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote

In response your insulting comments, I will not longer take the low road with you and trade ad homs. Enough. More than enough. Nausea.

There is no such thing as an insulting comment. Insult may be intended but a person can only allow themselves to become insulted.

Secularism has acquired over time the technique of acting insulted which serves to justify its intolerance of the concept of God. This psychological defense mechanism has resulted in metaphysical repression in the young. This isn’t an ad hom. It is just what happens in the world. The Secular Intolerance thread if nothing else verified this tendancy, This is like a person having a chest cold getting insulted because they are told their cough sounds bad.

Secularism must deny the following: The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it

Why get insulted for pointing out the obvious? Becoming open to the potential Simone refers to reveals the limitations of secularism while pointing out what is essential for a world to live by the ethical standards preached by secularism


Simone Weil, First and Last Notebooks, translated by Richard Rees (London: Oxford University Press, 1970.)

•

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

Are your actions really determined by reason? We have the potential to be governed by reason but suppose our actions are primarily determined by habitual opinions or what we call intellect, emotional reactions and their value judgements, or knowledge acquired through personal experience? Do you accept that there is a difference in quality between opinion based on reason and knowledge acquired through experience? If reason is limited to establishing opinions of which we have a variety of opposing opinions, can't we do better than arguing opinions

I aim to base my actions upon reason. Like most people I fall short of my ideal and I agree that most people don't achieve their potential. By "reason" I refer to learning from experience especially with the admixture of philosophical scepticism. By "reason" I also mean deduction from first premises, although that IMO is dead end and suited only to be a tool in the service of empirical learning.

The difference in quality between knowledge based upon reason and knowledge acquired through personal experience is that the former builds upon the knowledge and meanings of cultures that are inter-generational and transferable from person to person. The human is inseparable from cultures and cultures is what made humans as humans.

Western cultures change more rapidly than traditional cultures. Western cultures owe much to innovators , artists, and geniuses.

We cannot do better than arguing opinions because the only alternative to our Western , Enlightenment, post-faith, arguing of opinions is to revert to the traditional almost static form of cultures.

For some sentimentalists it would be very nice so to revert to the good old days.

Two questions for you. The first is why bad music and bad reasons sound often appear so good?

“How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we are marching into battle against an enemy.” Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Do you believe the beast becomes the overman through reason? Would anything else be necessary?

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

[Nick_A]

It is not about whether the concept of God is necessary or even less real, if God is there then God is there, period! No ifs and no buts. So then the question would be, is there a God and why and how and for what and since when and so on. So if your OP is what it says, why you interested in knowing? Because it would be like concept of God is unnecessary leave alone real, so then why have a discussion about that? So then it seems that yes, there is something in the concept of God and that is why we like to discuss it.
God is the generator of definition - G O D
Lord is the lord of right definition - L O R D (notice how God has taken immediate copyright of his/her or its work)

Now the question is are we talking about a human as God or God as creator of the cosmos and so some power. As God as human - we are all fallen Gods, classified devils in Hell, but in Heaven classified Gods. "Know ye not that ye are all Gods and the spirit of God dwelleth in you?" A creator God we don't understand because we don't know the creative principle. There is something like - it and self - itself. it - is a reference to things and self - is a reference to people. This world only has things and people(animals included). And it is all perhaps itself. So the creative principle would be itself, and the created would be it(things) and self(people and animals), and the creator would be THE POWER of all things, source of all intelligence, we do not know such source nor identify with it, so we don't understand the creator.

For what its worth I agree with you that we don't know the creator. To make matters worse we don't know ourselves. We don't know what we are and why we are here. So we are left with a lot of opinions about the creator and what we are. Now that being the case, in your opinion, is there a way for a person to have a reasonable idea of the relationship between a creator which seems to be beyond the limitations of our senses and what we ARE? What would it take for a person to "know thyself?"

"Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself." - Abba Evagrius the Monk.

[Lacewing]

Which do you like more: the way it completely skews and limits reality, or the way it glorifies those who need a God concept?

I like to way the way it completely skews and limits your reality and liberates me in mine.

That makes no sense. I'm not the one tied to it.

Do you see truth only in that which serves you?

[Greta]

The God concept can be unnecessary for a person absorbed in social life and acquiring prestige. Yet for those in need of the experience of meaning not provided by societal life, the God concept and the inner direction furthering it is essential.

I like that!

The problem is that this is not true. I am almost a hermit and, if I was interested in prestige, I would have a very big problem because I have none.

Do not embrace weak arguments just because they ostensibly are on your side. Rather, you should challenge them as you would challenge any other wild generalisation.