Philosophy Now Forum

I think that many people that I know think of "worship" as more of "reverence for" than "groveling in front of". In this sense worship for God does not include fear, as in "quaking in fear of his wrath" but reverence for his goodness and benevolence. There is a difference.

thedoc wrote:I think that many people that I know think of "worship" as more of "reverence for" than "groveling in front of". In this sense worship for God does not include fear, as in "quaking in fear of his wrath" but reverence for his goodness and benevolence. There is a difference.

Indeed. The unfortunate translation some versions make of the word "fear" is better translated "extremely respectful reverence," although even that would seem a bit of an understatement when the Object of that reverence is taken to be the Supreme Being. I think the concept really conveys the sense of having a realistic appreciation of actual magnitude and worth of the Object of that respect, rather than "being fearful of" per se.

I say that because the sort of "fear of the Lord" is not really aimed at enemies of God, but rather is a virtue of those who appreciate Him and are...how shall we say...on good terms with Him.

One would hardly advise one's friends to "fear" one in the ordinary sense: and we find that sort of friend-type usage of the word pretty commonly throughout the Torah and New Testament.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Anyone read The Idea of Holy? What most of us meam by the word worship involves "creature feeling" which is a feeling of inferiority in the presence of the creator. And dependence and lowliness. True worship doesn't involve that.

Maybe part of the problem is that you're looking for some clarity from the common understanding of these ideas, and I think t's fair to say that they are activities which many modern people do rarely or not at all. Thus, I think that what you're most likely to get is a fair bit of ridicule from those for whom the concepts are completely alien -- a result which you can see you've already achieved -- and even from those who have some passing familiarity with the concepts, you're likely to get more of a sort of "free association" response, a sort of "what I think worship/prayer mean to me," which might not be particularly informative or result in any consensus at all.

After all, asking someone who has never experienced "worship" what "worship" is would be rather like asking someone who has never been to Paris how he likes the Louvre...he could probably only tell you what he supposes other people have experience there. And that might not be the most accurate way to proceed.

A more grounded way might be to look at what is meant by the term in particular traditions. And if so, I can offer you this piece of the puzzle: that Biblically, "worship" is proskuneo (Greek), an idiomatic coinage meaning to "do reverence toward" something. In Christian traditions, prayer is identified as one possible means toward worship, but prayer is not identical to worship. The one can occur without the other also happening.

In bringing in the idea of "holy," of course, you introduce an additional term...

Nice to meet you, Can. Yes, indeed. I particularly appreciated the definitions of worship. Also, yes, I know prayer and worship are two separate things. What I am trying to get across here is that the conventional definition and the paulian definition differ, and convention ought to be influenced by paul, if not identical.

I think the modern secular equivalents of worship are our obsessions with animal needs such as access to and consumption of resources and mates, and also awe - especially awe of nature*. I consider stars and black holes worthy of deity status for their power and associated creative and destructive capabilities. An entity of that scale and intensity has no need for consciousness because it's already operating at 100%, no additional mustering of resources is necessary. I have much sympathy for Sun, Gaia and nature worship generally; they seem more grounded than most other forms of worship; there is an intrinsic majesty and beauty in nature that generates deep feelings of love in many people. Worship sans anthropomorphication.

As for prayer, meditation and communing with and contemplating nature are rational secular equivalents, and no doubt each activity provides fairly similar relaxation and health benefits.

* human technology is increasingly awe inspiring but I think of it as a part, or emergent extension, of nature, perhaps not figuratively miles from encephalisation.

Jaded Sage wrote:Nice to meet you.

Likewise.

...the conventional definition and the paulian definition differ, and convention ought to be influenced by paul, if not identical.

Yes, quite. Of course, the Pauline conception of worship is Jewish and Christian, but would not match what anyone else might free-associate with the idea.

Immanuel Can wrote: Yes, quite. Of course, the Pauline conception of worship is Jewish and Christian, but would not match what anyone else might free-associate with the idea.

Yes, that is what I am trying to correct. It seems convention is mistaken.

Ps. Thank you for the correction on Pauline

Greta wrote:I think the modern secular equivalents of worship are our obsessions with animal needs such as access to and consumption of resources and mates, and also awe - especially awe of nature*.

I understand the metaphor...but I think it's only a metaphor. And like all metaphors, it captures an aspect of the concept well, but loses another in the process, I think.

I consider stars and black holes worthy of deity status for their power and associated creative and destructive capabilities.

Okay. But may we ask, do you likewise "worship" earthquakes, hailstorms and forest fires? Because they're very powerful. Lightning?

The problem, of course, is that they can't be objects of worship by the Biblical definition of the concept. They're created beings, and lack any intrinsic property of worth that would justify the esteem implicit in the concept of worship.

As for prayer, meditation and communing with and contemplating nature are rational secular equivalents, and no doubt each activity provides fairly similar relaxation and health benefits.

[/quote][/quote]
This is, to be sure, a conception of "prayer." But it's not remotely like the Biblical conception.

You're operating in a very different paradigm. This is why I was proposing that we need to define the term precisely. People talk about "worshiping" impersonal forces or elements of nature, but these are not objects fit for worship in some traditions. Buddhism, for example, would hold that they are illusory, and hence worthy of being ignored, not worshipped. Judaism and Christianity would call that form of "worship" idolatry. An Islamic person would regard your view as heretical and their conservatives would feel justified in decapitating anyone who professed it. Polytheists would worship more "gods" than you would probably consider reasonable. Materialists would argue you shouldn't worship anything, and Humanists that you should worship only yourself. Perhaps only the practitioners of Wicca and New Age mysticism would be wholeheartedly with you on your chosen kind of worship.

Your choice in that matter, by the way, is something to which you are entitled, just as we are all obliged to choose what and if we will worship. As Locke pointed out, it's the most basic of all actual "rights" a human can have. But you're speaking of a very different conception of worship than most traditions would accept.

Fair enough points, Imannuel. I'm looking at the situation from a subjective point of view - how worship, awe, immersion, prayer, meditation and contemplation can all have healthful physiological and psychological effects on people. I see the modern equivalents as the streamlined versions, free of the baggage of imaginary metaphysical dogmas.

Greta wrote:Fair enough points, Imannuel. I'm looking at the situation from a subjective point of view - how worship, awe, immersion, prayer, meditation and contemplation can all have healthful physiological and psychological effects on people. I see the modern equivalents as the streamlined versions, free of the baggage of imaginary metaphysical dogmas.

Why would you want to focus in the benefits when the harm such delusion bring far outweighs any apparent benefit.
Only harm can ultimately from living a lie. Even if you live your whole life never realising the lie, you have passed on the delusion to the people around you and to the detriment of the next generation.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote:Fair enough points, Imannuel. I'm looking at the situation from a subjective point of view - how worship, awe, immersion, prayer, meditation and contemplation can all have healthful physiological and psychological effects on people. I see the modern equivalents as the streamlined versions, free of the baggage of imaginary metaphysical dogmas.

Why would you want to focus in the benefits when the harm such delusion bring far outweighs any apparent benefit.
Only harm can ultimately from living a lie. Even if you live your whole life never realising the lie, you have passed on the delusion to the people around you and to the detriment of the next generation.

Delusion? Those idiots that still murder and rape are either the most foolish theists that exist or truly are deluded by atheism.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote:Fair enough points, Imannuel. I'm looking at the situation from a subjective point of view - how worship, awe, immersion, prayer, meditation and contemplation can all have healthful physiological and psychological effects on people. I see the modern equivalents as the streamlined versions, free of the baggage of imaginary metaphysical dogmas.

Why would you want to focus in the benefits when the harm such delusion bring far outweighs any apparent benefit.
Only harm can ultimately from living a lie. Even if you live your whole life never realising the lie, you have passed on the delusion to the people around you and to the detriment of the next generation.

I've previously provided my views on Abrahamic religions on this and other sites and it's a tad dull for all concerned if I repeat myself.

Greta wrote:a tad dull for all concerned if I repeat myself.

Very thoughtful of you, IC. It was as dull as dishwater the first time round.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Greta wrote:a tad dull for all concerned if I repeat myself.

Very thoughtful of you, IC. It was as dull as dishwater the first time round.

I have political views and find politics interesting in a "car crash spectator" kind of way, but if I wanted to focus on political aspects of things I'd chat on a politics site. Mind you, they're probably soft soap compared with philosophy forums :)

Jaded Sage wrote:If idols are prayed to and worshiped, and alcohol is an idol, then we must reexamine what prayer and worship are, because nobody looks to them in a way that we would normally call prayer and worship. So what are they?

Ignorance transmitted by institutional false prophets.

bobevenson wrote: Whatever people think they are is based on institutional ignorance.

What you are responding to was discarded some time ago. You should at least keep up to date before making your mindless "contributions".