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

[-1-]

As the late Henry Neeley, a popular lecturer at New York's Hayden Planetarium during the 1950s once noted: "The navigational use of the stars will continue to be a valuable asset for many years to come. In spite of all the scientific aids that have been developed to do the navigating by robot science, the ancient stars will still be a 'must' for navigator or pilot." Indeed, celestial navigation is still an important part of a navigator's formal training and while we might immediately think of sailors in this regard, the pilot of an aircraft can also sight on the stars in an emergency (and often with an advantage over sailors, being high above any obscuring clouds). [By day, ancient mariners used sundials to navigate.]
The North Star provides guidance for the captain of the ship. Without it ancient ships just turned in circles. Our inner north star can align our being. As we are, our inner being is in a state of chaos and we turn in circles. Our inner north star can turn chaos into organization. Secularism denies the value of our inner north star so struggles against ways of inner alignment preferring instead blind indoctrination for providing human meaning and purpose. Without inner alignment we cannot know where we are going assuring that we cannot end up as human beings.

Please don't misconstrue this is a response to Nick_A or that I invite Reflex to think about my answer. As far as I'm concerned Reflex is another religious fanatic who will defend his faith to the bitter end, so I don't think any normal thinking reasonable person should bother with him either.

This is instead a response to everyone else.

Secularism does not deny the value of the inner north star, to borrow the metaphor from Nick_A's quote. Instead, the inner north star has been replaced by a different one. In the old days (now defunct) the inner north star used to be god, a faith in god, and in trying to find out what god's wish is for us, and then trying to fulfill that wish. Our present day inner north star is a belief in humanity's values, which were evolved via the psychosocial evolutionary process.

I believe that the inner north star, again, using the metaphor, which is the most basic guide responsible for our behaviour, is not lost. Secularism does NOT deny the necessity and functional usefulness of the north star. Secularism instead replaced it with reasoned explanation why it does not have to be God or a worship in him that provides this north star.

Again, this is not a response to Nick_A, and/or a call for Reflex's opinion. Please understand that.

[Nick_A]

Dear Nick_A, although my one previous post was written with tongue-in-cheek, and it reveals irreverence, I assure you I do have tremendous respect for you.

This respect is due to your resilience. I still maintain that your arguments are lame, and ineffective, irrelevant and nonsensical. I admire you nevertheless for your staying power.

Practically the entire forum is stabbing you (myself included in the throng of stabbers), and you do not bend, you do not break, you withstand the barrage of attacks. I can't say you withstand it with dignity or with manning up... it may seem to you that way, but to an outside observer it sure does not look like that. HOWEVER, that does NOT take away from the effect of your incredible resilience.

I can't possibly describe how much that awes me. I would have begged out of the site for much less of a barrage and continual attacks against my views, and against me, than how we are attacking your views, and in frustration how we are attacking you.

Let me assure you that my respect for your strength is sincere. This should not, however, make you interpret that I agree with any of your views.

I appreciate your respect but anytime you truly value an idea, supporting it is easier than you think. But like it or not, you are respecting what I’ve been defending which is that there is something worthwhile in not being inwardly destroyed by group think or what I’ve called the Great Beast.

I can't possibly describe how much that awes me. I would have begged out of the site for much less of a barrage and continual attacks against my views, and against me, than how we are attacking your views, and in frustration how we are attacking you.

You are describing what happens so often in colleges where students because of being attacked by indoctrinated teachers and students give up on the inside and become mindless “snowflakes.” It is another reason I admire Simone Weil. Imagine yourself being condemned by students and administration. For example:

Director of Career Placement, Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote of Simone: “We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again”

Later Albert Camus wrote: “Simone Weil, I still know this now, is the only great mind of our times and I hope that those who realize this have enough modesty to not try to appropriate her overwhelming witnessing…………….”

Regardless of all the attacks, who do you think came out on top? I would say Simone. I'm no Simone but I can admire her dedication to truth which opened her to the most intense condemnation

Since I would rather be condemned than a snowflake, I don’t feel intimidated at all nor is there any reason why you should ever feel intimidated in ways that would make you sacrifice your capacity for impartial reason in favor of acceptable indoctrinated group think.

[Nick_A]

-1-

Secularism does not deny the value of the inner north star, to borrow the metaphor from Nick_A's quote. Instead, the inner north star has been replaced by a different one. In the old days (now defunct) the inner north star used to be god, a faith in god, and in trying to find out what god's wish is for us, and then trying to fulfill that wish. Our present day inner north star is a belief in humanity's values, which were evolved via the psychosocial evolutionary process.

In the spirit of diversity, this is a response to you assumed to be a part of "everyone else." The metaphor refers to the faith OF Christ rather than faith IN God. Jesus remarked concerning the faith of the centurion “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith." Why? The centurion was ruler over those beneath him yet appreciated his nothingness in relation to the quality of being above him. The centurion reasoned as a middle between above and below. To sustain it is the faith OF Christ

The esoteric meaning of the North Star is like the dharma of the east and Plato's forms. The North Star refers to expressions of elementary eternal laws. A person who has found the inner vertical direction leading to eternal truths has found the North Star which can align their being to reflect human meaning and purpose in conjunction with eternal truths as they follow the horizontal direction of life in linear time. As you've described, man's reason replaces eternal truths. Unfortunately the result must lead to catastrophe since the subjective and all its hypocrisy has replaced the objective.

[Lacewing]

The arguments of atheists/agnostics haven't changed in in 10,000+ years, whilst the God-concept has evolved and continues to evolve to accommodate our ever-expanding understanding of the universe.

[Reflex]

ROFLMAO!! You just blew your credibility, big time! I suggest you familiarize with history.

I could suggest a few things to you too. First of all, that this is not an argument what you said above. If you don't provide any evidence, your statement is empty, only an opinion and an opinion about me, not about the topic even.

Why do you do that?

Sorry. My bad.

I have a bad habit of assuming that someone educated enough to participate in a forum such as this is educated enough to know that the pioneers of modern science — Newton, Descartes Galileo and the like — were motivated by the belief that the universe is comprehensible precisely because it was created by a rational agent.

[Reflex]

Reflex, I've not heard them called that before

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kIDWgqDBNXA

[Reflex]

Please don't misconstrue this is a response to Nick_A or that I invite Reflex to think about my answer. As far as I'm concerned Reflex is another religious fanatic who will defend his faith to the bitter end, so I don't think any normal thinking reasonable person should bother with him either.

What do you think this forum is? A college campus?

Secularism does not deny the value of the inner north star, to borrow the metaphor from Nick_A's quote.

True, but it is logically inconsistent with it.

Instead, the inner north star has been replaced by a different one. In the old days (now defunct) the inner north star used to be god, a faith in god, and in trying to find out what god's wish is for us, and then trying to fulfill that wish. Our present day inner north star is a belief in humanity's values, which were evolved via the psychosocial evolutionary process.

That particular "inner North Star" seems to be very, very lost.

I believe that the inner north star, again, using the metaphor, which is the most basic guide responsible for our behaviour, is not lost.

Well, I suppose looks can be deceiving.

Secularism does NOT deny the necessity and functional usefulness of the north star. Secularism instead replaced it with reasoned explanation why it does not have to be God or a worship in him that provides this north star.

An assertion is not a "reasoned explanation." Indeed, secularism is an ideal that has to impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain its goals. Without compulsion, secularism can never co-ordinate its forces, harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms.

Again, this is not a response to Nick_A, and/or a call for Reflex's opinion. Please understand that.

Understood. But life doesn't always give you what you want. (Sheesh. What a "snowflake.")

[Greta]

funny how secularists are dismayed by the heavy presence of the religious, and how the religious are dismayed by the heavy presence of the secularists on this site.

The grass is always greener on this side of the demarcation line.

Not me. The more diverse the crowd, the broader the perspectives considered, although this seemingly comes at the expense of depth.

The issue is not whether people are religious or not but whether they are capable of debating issues without making it personal.

So much for "God" ... no one seems much interested because putting down the enemy is seemingly more fun - for some.

If this continues I'll ask for the thread to be locked and start again.

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote

So much for "God" ... no one seems much interested because putting down the enemy is seemingly more fun - for some.

The chief characteristic of the secular mind and the Greta mind in particular. What else can be expected from a mindset which is closed both to God concepts and the reality of the fallen human condition which separates us from the inner path leading to our source. Then there is nothing left but to condemn those open to God concepts and recognition of the human condition which denies the value of grace for human conscious evolution.

So that being the case get back to denying God and complaining about Trump. You will be happier.

[Dubious]

Thus, after he has implied that x others are deficient humans, lacking in critical human faculties - then his nastiness and hypocrisy make gigantic targets for those who have been so denigrated by him. At that point Nick's troll heaven commences ...

Precisely! He knows well enough, after more than abundant proof, that targets seldom get ignored. He welcomes those in active disagreement - knowing very well the means to actively engage them - much more than the very few who tend to agree with him. It doesn't require insight to realize that an approving majority usually facilitates conversation concluding it sooner than later. If that were to happen, he'd have to find another home to continue his crusade against The Great Beast and all those forever debilitated by not knowing themselves or their fallen human condition.

His obsessions are meant to be used like the proverbial rock in The Myth of Sisyphus whose character, weirdly enough, he resembles for which Sisyphus was punished. The tragedy for Nick would be if the rock stopped rolling; for us if we keep rolling it. Whatever the outcome, he's the most successful troll I ever encountered on any forum.

For those with no objection to an exercise which leads to nothing...go for it!

[Greta]

I've put in the request for locking. The outcome now lies in the lap on the mods

At least the thread remained productive for a fair while, with some interesting debates until it morphed into long-winded Twitter.

[Nick_A]

Dubious wrote

Precisely! He knows well enough, after more than abundant proof, that targets seldom get ignored. He welcomes those in active disagreement - knowing very well the means to actively engage them - much more than the very few who tend to agree with him. It doesn't require insight to realize that an approving majority usually facilitates conversation concluding it sooner than later. If that were to happen, he'd have to find another home to continue his crusade against The Great Beast and all those forever debilitated by not knowing themselves or their fallen human condition.

Quite true. The approving majority is content with its denial of a God concept other than the Great Beast and the glory of Man. It is only possible by becoming willing victims of the human condition which prevents us from experiencing the devolution of human being on earth.

“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Unfortunately very true. The growing worship of the great Beast together with the lack of any conception of objective standards suggesting the conscious potential for human being assures the lack of awareness of oppression. Just pass the remote and the coming social utopia is virtually assured.

It is best to lock the thread. There is nothing left to discuss. The worship of the Great Beast as God and the preferred ignorance of the human condition assures that any meaningful God concept must be denied as disturbing the peace and harmful to the march of progress into oblivion. It is the modern way and the most important victory for secular progressive education. The approving majority applauds.

[Dubious]

I've put in the request for locking. The outcome now lies in the lap on the mods

At least the thread remained productive for a fair while, with some interesting debates until it morphed into long-winded Twitter.

That's too bad because your OP was worthwhile and interesting; one I still expected to respond to in some detail referenced in terms of THEN and NOW. The "now" putting all such god concepts into its historical perspectives vis-a-vis its "real" purpose which can only be described in the ways THEY understood it then.

Most importantly the power of leftover rituals in the present age without any assumption of it's underpinnings being real; a secular reaction and bridge to a theistic past. The question you posed has ramifications beyond its immediate inquiry and would certainly have compounded into more.

The best thing to have done is to completely ignore a troll who has nothing to offer than the ennui of Eternal Recurrence. A personality like Nick's can never be defeated by reason only by total silence which he fears more than reason itself. By simply preaching his views and not justifying them, his job is easy always pushing the same rock down, replete with simplistic quotes and repeated mantras, that others rolled up by the efforts of reason.

When getting dizzy and finally nauseated on a perpetually rotating merry-go-round what's left but to get off and stay off. If others enjoy the feeling, so be it but the OP shouldn't be strangled because of it!

[Greta]

I've put in the request for locking. The outcome now lies in the lap on the mods

At least the thread remained productive for a fair while, with some interesting debates until it morphed into long-winded Twitter.

That's too bad because your OP was worthwhile and interesting; one I still expected to respond to in some detail referenced in terms of THEN and NOW. The "now" putting all such god concepts into its historical perspectives vis-a-vis its "real" purpose which can only be described in the ways THEY understood it then.

Most importantly the power of leftover rituals in the present age without any assumption of it's underpinnings being real; a secular reaction and bridge to a theistic past. The question you posed has ramifications beyond its immediate inquiry and would certainly have compounded into more.

Okay, I am happy to ignore N's repetitive trolling and keep at it, especially since that was apparently his aim - to shut down this line of inquiry. Sorry for bothering you, mods, we'll give it another go

Yes, my main issue was with the shoehorning of what was effectively a war god into this supposedly entirely different concept - the panentheist ground of being. The cynical may consider this to be simply the shrinking god of the gaps, always posited in a new place where there can be no accountability. Still, a gap is a gap, and various possibilities of varying probability can be applied the explanatory gaps.

If nothing else, the transformation of the OT's Jehovah harsh and jealous god into the God of love and understanding simply confused people. The continuing tradition of using a gendered pronoun is both a sign of that confusion, and a continuing cause of confusion. The God of Spinoza is not always gendered; it's a shame that idea can't cut through the unproven promises of Abrahamic religion.

So, given that God's definition is as messy as one of Its definitions - love - I thought I could gain more clarity by cleaning the slate and start again, to imagine what I may have thought about all this without conditioning. However, I am conditioned and can't truly start afresh; there is always a small influence.

[Reflex]

Okay, I am happy to ignore N's repetitive trolling and keep at it, especially since that was apparently his aim - to shut down this line of inquiry. Sorry for bothering you, mods, we'll give it another go

Yes, my main issue was with the shoehorning of what was effectively a war god into this supposedly entirely different concept - the panentheist ground of being. The cynical may consider this to be simply the shrinking god of the gaps, always posited in a new place where there can be no accountability. Still, a gap is a gap, and various possibilities of varying probability can be applied the explanatory gaps.

If nothing else, the transformation of the OT's Jehovah harsh and jealous god into the God of love and understanding simply confused people. The continuing tradition of using a gendered pronoun is both a sign of that confusion, and a continuing cause of confusion. The God of Spinoza is not always gendered; it's a shame that idea can't cut through the unproven promises of Abrahamic religion.

So, given that God's definition is as messy as one of Its definitions - love - I thought I could gain more clarity by cleaning the slate and start again, to imagine what I may have thought about all this without conditioning. However, I am conditioned and can't truly start afresh; there is always a small influence.

Nothing said here addresses the questions posed in the title of the OP.

The various concepts of God are indeed real. The question is, do any of them represent something real? That's hard to say, but it's reasonable to say that some concepts are more viable than others. The paradox critics overlook is that criticism of the God-concept implies awareness of the object being criticized, so it is impossible to deny or question God's existence without also affirming it.

Is the God-concept necessary? Well, anthropologists tend to believe civilization couldn't have risen without it and the beginnings of modern science was motivated by the belief the universe was created by a rational agent and is therefore comprehensible. No critic of the God-concept has proffered a way godless secularism can co-ordinate its forces, harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms without the imposition of arbitrary values.