[MEGA] God v.2

[ebola?]

But... isn't there a danger here that by assigning everything to be part of God, we're actually trivializing the concept of God?

Possibly, if one makes a very casual reading of, say, Buddhism.
However, part of mystical practice (which I think anchors spirituality) is holding reverence in the everyday (a sort of meditation).

Or, to put it differently, are all facts about reality equally important to knowing God?

Why would that be? Given any particular thing, not all facts will hold equal importance in understanding that thing.

I have the sense that when people equate reality to God, they have something more in mind than a mere equivalence. I don't know what that is though. Any help?

It is my opinion that when people equate god with 'the all', it differs drastically from identities held by mundane things. Namely, god appears bound with the non-dual, that which lies beyond language and logic. 'The everything' is really a most imperfect pointer-concept.

But...I am pretty ignorant (raised agnostic, stayed so).

Or that, if we have free will, we are continuously creating aspects of reality; are we also thereby creating parts of God?

The way that I think about it is that god may be conceptualized as the the set of all possibilities and preconditions from which the actual emerges. If we hold the axiom that all that is possible occurs in the multiverse, then God must be all. If not, well, god remains in a sense 'the all', as the actual flows out of the possible and nothing else.

So, using metaphor, we are each various aspects of the universe coming to self-consciousness, as actual beings springing forth from the possible, our experiences providing the mechanism through which the universe perceives itself. Would this mean that willing beings reauthor god in part? Not really, as god is this set of prior conditions coupled with all possibility, which is by necessity a static background.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Well, I contended that biologists, physicists, and chemists tend to have relatively high levels of religiosity, usually below but not too far from the rate of the general population. Sociologists and anthropologists tend to be irreligious, as religion becomes an object of study for many of them, enervating it's 'gut-level' impact.

Don't forget psychologists. I've met ones who are spiritual, but seldom ones who subscribe to organized religion. Similar to what you said, psychologists analyze human behavior, and to most of them, religion must be just another human behavior -- something to analyze from an outsider's perspective, not something to do and get into.

It's just nicely ironic, given the moronic political debate about evolution vs. creationism, cast as a strict dichotomy.

Yeah really. Shades of grey indeed. The thing is, I bet many, if not most, American scientists who are religious DO NOT accept or support Creationism. Just like I'd bet most American scientists who are not religious have never spoken out or opened their wallets on behalf of the New Atheists / Brights.

Creationism is far more an artifact of American politics than a cosmic struggle of good vs. evil. It's about a certain set of Americans claiming divine legitimacy
to impose their ways of life on their fellow countrymen. (Those nutters occupy about the same socio-political niche in the US as emperor-worshipping ultranationalists in Japan.) There's plenty of room for robust personal faith, even after rejecting Creationism thoroughly. Especially if your religion is any besides Christianity!

Which brings me to another point: scientists in many other countries see no contradiction between being religious and being people of science. Several Indians I've spoken to about the whole 'culture wars' thing in the US don't see what the big deal is.

I think that the difference is that scientists employ systematic methods to collect empirical data that confirms, unconfirms, or revises theory (particularly governing laws) through which we understand the world.

If an engineer specializes in applying prior technique to concrete situations, that isn't science per se...at least taken alone. However, if this engineer, in creating novel solutions to problems at hand, invents new technology, particularly that which challenges or novel-ly illustrates physical theory, she is a scientist.

We're all scientists occasionally.

Good point. It probably varies from one engineer (or doctor) to another, then, how much actual science they do professionally.

mmm...These surveys are a bit un-nuanced. They ask, "Do you affiliate with any religion?" "Do you believe in a 'higher power'?" "How often do you go to church?" "Would you consider yourself 'spiritual'?" etc. I could look up the exact GSS questions, if you'd like.

I'd definitely like to see a link to the surveys, if you've got them.

 

[dspade]

to beleive that science and god are two different things is odd does not every single advancement in science make god seem more plausible. it is your mental image of god that conflicts science. all im sayin is that sometimes these pieces fit in a little too well to be completely random.

 

[plot_in_us]

there is no beyond that cant be proven or disproven. that is to say i havent read those threads yet. men of science must necessarily be men of god, although many would never put it in those terms.

 

[Binge Artist]

I think it's all a matter of how much "cognitive dissonance" you can tolerate. Plus, the logic of beliefs is quite tricky.

Say you ask Bob, "Do you believe all men are mortal?" and he says "yes".

Then you ask him "Do you believe Socrates is a man?" again he say "yes".

Does this mean that Bob believes that Socrates is mortal? Even if Bob is a rational, intelligent woman, the answer may still be no.

Basically, there's no way to determine if Bob believes the following statement has a truth value of 1: "For all x, (x is a man) implies (x is mortal)."

We think we can model statements with predicate logic, but I think it may be off. Really, predicate logic is just a game played with pencil and paper, so why should we assume that it perfectly models reality, just because it seems to hold with concrete examples? I do believe that when the translation of your (or at least, my) beliefs into predicate logic yields a contradiction, it can be unnerving.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I think it's all a matter of how much "cognitive dissonance" you can tolerate. Plus, the logic of beliefs is quite tricky.

Say you ask Bob, "Do you believe all men are mortal?" and he says "yes".

Then you ask him "Do you believe Socrates is a man?" again he say "yes".

Does this mean that Bob believes that Socrates is mortal? Even if Bob is a rational, intelligent woman, the answer may still be no.

Basically, there's no way to determine if Bob believes the following statement has a truth value of 1: "For all x, (x is a man) implies (x is mortal)."

We think we can model statements with predicate logic, but I think it may be off. Really, predicate logic is just a game played with pencil and paper, so why should we assume that it perfectly models reality, just because it seems to hold with concrete examples? I do believe that when the translation of your (or at least, my) beliefs into predicate logic yields a contradiction, it can be unnerving.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me your post contains the implicit assumption that all true scientists let rationalism guide their thinking globally. My definition of a scientist is much more bare bones -- someone who inquires about their objects of study using the scientific method stictly. Note that this says nothing about how such people [must necessarily / ought to] think about and approach anything beyond what they and their collaborators are attempting to draw scientific conclusions on. It certainly says nothing about approaching matters (such as the metaphysical) that aren't even open to scientific inquiry.

Cognitive dissonance is only really an issue when there are two opposing beliefs in one person's mind. The scientific method is not a belief, it's a method.

 

[Binge Artist]

^I was making a few assumptions.

Let's consider an over-simplified example:
Suppose Bob is an astronomer who believes the literal Genesis creation.

Suppose Bob holds a series of beliefs, which, when translated into predicate logic, imply "(several billion years old) is true of (the universe)". And suppose he translates his Genesis belief as "(6,000 years old) is true of (the universe)."

By my last post, I'm basically saying the following:
1. If I were Bob, I would feel somewhat "unnerved"
2. I could modify the predicate logic translation of my beliefs.
3. I could sort of cooly dismiss predicate logic as "not applicable to reality".

I know my last post wasn't worded too clearly, but it's kind of a complicated idea to the point that, even I'm not sure what I was talking about

 

[BiG StroOnZ]

Everyone is their own god or goddess, it just depends on whether you engender that god (goddess) in you.

 

[thujone]

god is abstract, science is concrete. only a walking conundrum can truly be faithful to both

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ I think that's kind of a false dichotomy. Doesn't everyone deal in both the abstract and the concrete, depending on the situation? I mean yeah, there are people who prefer one over the other, but I think of someone who can deal well in both of them as being balanced and well-rounded, rather than riddled with problems.

 

[thujone]

science is the pursuit of looking at what seems to be abstract and finding the concrete in it. religion is the pursuit of taking what is concrete and turning it into supernatural legend. what really shits me is when christians who favour themselves to be highly intelligent go and say shit like "you can't prove god doesn't exist." riiiiight. well, the christian god can be kind of an asshole. if there's a chance he exists, there's also a good chance all the other gods that were ever prayed to since time immemorial also exist and thus, why continue praying to this one asshole god, in houses of worship long ago demented by the catholic empire? for crying out loud, the catholics even made a fucking medici the pope! what the fuck do they know about ANYTHING that JC was put on the cross for?

science may not be able to prove it's all a crock of shit, but that's only because religious zealots take any crushing defeat by logic as a reason to evolve the legend so that "god," his whereabouts, and his actions become even more abstract and even less possible to probe by scientific methods because all the religious convolutions leave the scientists wondering how sane these people must be in the first place!

this is the major problem with monotheism. there are literally so many fucking contradictions plaguing every mainstream religion that there's no way in hell a true man of science would ever sign up to worship a faith that can NEVER be reconciled with concrete proof.

it's simply a collection of cults for which believers will say anything to defend and because of that, every single believer has their own interpretation of their religion. why not just take the cosmic being out of it, and choose simply to live by the virtues extolled by the mainstream religions? they're good, concrete virtues to follow, and i dare say that without the cosmic being and fervent sectarianism associated with these virtues simply because of a supposed deity standing behind them, we would have a lot less murder done in the world in the name of these cosmic abstractions.

given these realities, i think it's rather silly to say it's a false dichotomy when it's clearly a clean break.

 

[BiG StroOnZ]

god is a word, and it means nothing.

 

[Heuristic]

A simplification of the model but imagine you have 2 different perspectives, the non-dual self and the relative self. The relative self/ego ranks and operates on distinctions of opposites( good, evil ). The non-dual self grasps all things equally as expressions of Spirit. Every part reflecting the qualities of the whole from this view.

The non-dual perspective is the more inclusive one in that the relative self arises as an "object" within the perspective.
So when the relative self moves towards the Good it is also a reflection of the non-dual Self since it is not separate from it. When the relative self shows preferences it is a reflection of the non-dual Self. The non-dual in this way embraces both perspectives.

Hmmm... I'm not sure entirely what you mean when you say that the non-dual self "grasps all things equally as expressions of Spirit." Is there a contradiction between understanding that many things, or all things, have something in common, while also understanding that many things, or all things, have aspects that differentiate them?

For instance, I could say that all matter is composed of atoms, while also noting various distinctions between different types of matter.

And if this is the case... couldn't the non-dual self also differentiate between things it finds good or bad for various purposes?

 

[yougene]

Hmmm... I'm not sure entirely what you mean when you say that the non-dual self "grasps all things equally as expressions of Spirit."

The ego can make these distinctions and ranks. But ultimately the ego is arising within the empty space we label as the Self. The Self doesn't have any rational faculties in and off itself. It only has the capacity to contain phenomena like the self and the world around us. The Self is only rational in the sense that it encapsulates the lower case self, and doesn't differentiate itself from it. Even though the Self grasps differentiation and ranking transitively from the relative self it registers phenomena as well, phenomena or "Spirit".

Is there a contradiction between understanding that many things, or all things, have something in common, while also understanding that many things, or all things, have aspects that differentiate them?

For instance, I could say that all matter is composed of atoms, while also noting various distinctions between different types of matter.

I don't think there is any contradiction in categorizing like and different. I think the paradox is seeing all things as differentiated while simultaneously seeing them as One.

And if this is the case... couldn't the non-dual self also differentiate between things it finds good or bad for various purposes?

Only by extension, the non-dual Self encapsulates the differentiating self and all its attributes.

 

[op8TOOLman]

Old Testament was BEFORE God sent his only child to death for OUR grace.So that WE don't have to kill out 1st born or goats for forgivness.His grace given to us is such an awesome thing.
New Testamen is AFTER Jesus.Now all we must do is KNOW BELIEVE that Christ died for our sins.
Gos just did'nt send two everyday Joes to write his word.He CHOSE his prophets to write his words.

This talk can go until the end of time.I know what I know and truely feel.I also know I'd hate to be an "unbeliever" when all times are done.

 

[op8TOOLman]

I DO NOT believe in a "religion" though.
Religion is man made.Check out churches that are non denominational.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

science is the pursuit of looking at what seems to be abstract and finding the concrete in it. religion is the pursuit of taking what is concrete and turning it into supernatural legend.

Yep. I'm with you so far. Both looking for patterns in the concrete world AND extrapolating from there outward to what could lay beyond, are both pretty normal, integral parts of the human experience.

What really shits me is when christians who favour themselves to be highly intelligent go and say shit like "you can't prove god doesn't exist." riiiiight. well, the christian god can be kind of an asshole.

Depending on what the Christian in question takes as their most reliable source as to the nature of God. This is going to vary quite a bit from one Christian Church to another. Back when I considered myself a Christian, I always considered most the portrayals of the Old Testament God as misguided, but understandable given the context the writers likely lived in. I was always taught (and still believe) that theology and metaphysics have come a long way since then.

if there's a chance he exists, there's also a good chance all the other gods that were ever prayed to since time immemorial also exist and thus, why continue praying to this one asshole god, in houses of worship long ago demented by the catholic empire? for crying out loud, the catholics even made a fucking medici the pope! what the fuck do they know about ANYTHING that JC was put on the cross for?

A very good question to ask, indeed. I'm all for taking to task those who claim to take someone great as their hero, but then, hypocritically, act contrarily to this person's stated principles.

Sure all gods ever prayed to since time immemorial exist. A god is nothing more than a human approximation (usually anthropomorphized) for the ultimate reality that binds and contains all being. This ultimate One is utterly without attributes, and thus not easy to put into words or images. How any given person grasps this ultimate reality and whittles it down to a manageable size, will depend on what life has handed him.

science may not be able to prove it's all a crock of shit, but that's only because religious zealots take any crushing defeat by logic as a reason to evolve the legend so that "god," his whereabouts, and his actions become even more abstract and even less possible to probe by scientific methods because all the religious convolutions leave the scientists wondering how sane these people must be in the first place!

No, that's not why. Science cannot confirm or deny the existence of anything supernatural, because statements concerning that which is by definition beyond the natural and observable are not testable or falsifiable.

this is the major problem with monotheism. there are literally so many fucking contradictions plaguing every mainstream religion that there's no way in hell a true man of science would ever sign up to worship a faith that can NEVER be reconciled with concrete proof.

If an article of faith were ever to be supplied with concrete proof, not only would it cease to be an article of faith, but it would cease to be supernatural too.

And I think if you read the surveys ebola? and I talk about, you'll eat your words. Plenty of people who approach the natural world with a very scientific attitude, give free rein to their hopes, dreams, imaginations, and inherited lore, when approaching the great unknown that lies beyond the natural world.

You're not one of these people. That's cool. I understand the thought processes that make this so for you. But please understand that this is a thinking style preference on your part, which preemptively says yes to science and no to religion. It's nothing intrinsic about being a scientist.

it's simply a collection of cults for which believers will say anything to defend and because of that, every single believer has their own interpretation of their religion. why not just take the cosmic being out of it, and choose simply to live by the virtues extolled by the mainstream religions? they're good, concrete virtues to follow, and i dare say that without the cosmic being and fervent sectarianism associated with these virtues simply because of a supposed deity standing behind them, we would have a lot less murder done in the world in the name of these cosmic abstractions.

We'd have just as much murder, for other reasons, if religion was done away with. It's perfectly human to search for meaning and relate back (what 'religion' literally means in Latin) to the source of all being any way one can, even if that involves putting a human face on the source of all being. This may not be your cup o' joe, but there's nothing odd or perverse about it.

given these realities, i think it's rather silly to say it's a false dichotomy when it's clearly a clean break.

What we're running up against is a difference in thinking style preferences. Not an ideological deadlock.

 

[fizzle]

How do you not believe in religion? Everything in your previous post pretty much summarizes a very specific religion.

 

[op8TOOLman]

Religion is man made.
Seventh-day Adventist,Mormons, Folk religion,so on and so on are all "religions"
To me religion is a set of rules made by MAN that preaches to you a set of guidelines on how to get to Hevan.God gave us grace and if we hold up our end,we'll be there.
I don't need someone who claimsto have dug a scribe out of the ground 100 or years ago in New York to preach to me.(forget the name,but he founded the Mormon Church)
IMO,reading the Bible,doing right and living the word is what is expected.

 

[dspade]

yeah one way or another there is a god. what is god we should be pondering. somothing made time and time made us so what could possibly have shattered the 3rd dimension or what made dimensions to begin with. the christian god can be proven false through the study of religion you find it was taken from other ancient religions but religion will only lead to god if you take the ideals in the right way. as far as i see god is the creator.