The Adult Theist Thread

I like what you've said there. Your definition of Religion is helpful, because my friend is adamant that Atheism is a religion. I have always opposed this view, although, up until now, I have not had the correct justification for my argument.

Also, your definitions open up what looks like a hole in the lexicon to me. Whilst some view this as what they like to call, 'a chickening-out attitude,' I firmly believe that it is a possibility that a God could exist, even though I regard myself as an atheist on the grounds that the existence of a God seems unlikely due to how I have learnt to perceive life and the universe. It annoys me when one other particular friend of mine denies even the slightest possibility of a Godly existence without any ounce of tangible justification. It seems obvious to me that the existence of God is at least possible, largely because , like you said, God can be used for such a variety of different specific definitions. On top of this, many of the definitions of God also describe some kind of existence that wouldn't necessarily ever be able to be 'discovered', and so we wouldn't actually realise if it did. Surely that means that the possibility of its existence still remains?

Anyway, thanks again for the above post, even though I am not an adult. Or a theist.

Both sides of this debate overgeneralize about the other. The willingness to be imprecise seems to stem from a general annoyance about some tiny subset about the other side. I agree with you that definitions are helpful. The problem, however, is not the lack of agreed-upon definitions, but rather that people seem to like lashing out broadly and ignore definitions. How many times are scientists lumped with Richard Dawkins? How often are theists lumped with George W. Bush? You can't take the most annoying representative from the opposite school and use them as a model for an argument.

Dichanthelium,

The concrete concept of a god as of supernatural origin/nature is universally irrational. If one's beliefs are kept vague enough they indeed would insulate one from critizism, but then, the believer would not be saying much of any consequence, which in my opinion is often the case.
God is a metaphor, everything in existence is a metaphor, referance to the mystery, all things open backward to mystery/wonder. While it is true most of us would not care what the other man believed if in that belief it did not effect themselves, however unfortunately, irrational beliefs do effect the body politic, thus effect us all, often in deprimental ways. Generic Christianity is a problem in this sense, mainly because generic Chistianity is literal Christianity.





God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
Joseph Campbell

I was raised a Southern Baptist. Everyone in my family is a Southern Baptist. I was urged by my parent to find my own path in life and this is what I have come up with.

1: God, like any other concept of higher purpose, power, spirituality, is important because it gives people who are incapable of finding their own hope something to look forward to and something to aspire to. (This is not to say that they are better or worse, only different.)

2: Belief can be an amazing tool or a horrid master depending on how much power the belief is given by the individual.

3: Religion is an organized version of blind obedience carried out to, in most cases, an extreme beyond its original intent. I see religion as having the intent to guide people to a peaceful solution. Instead it is often not researched enough and is simply accepted with little to no true understanding as most Christians that I have met are the type to judge and discriminate indefinitely.

4: I am an agnostic because I reject the plausibility of a sentient being who is all powerful, all knowing and in every object. Empirical evidence should have been found by now but I am also not stating that it is not possible. Only unlikely.

5: Any sort of argument based around Theism/ Atheism is rather comical and ironic to me as it is only argued for personal reasons. God is rarely involved in these debates and they always tend to lean toward the personal impact of one or the other. The ironic comedy being that God in all religions teaches non-violent selflessness and this seems to be an impossible goal as everyone takes opposing ideas personally rather than opening up to the possibility that the other may be correct. This is rooted in the Theist ideas of supreme correctness and the Atheists idea that the Theist is wrong. In short, theism, in itself, has the weakness of over using belief on an emotional level.

6: Morality has nothing to do with religion and if the only reason that you are moral is for your God then perhaps it would be a good idea to evaluate yourself as a person. Some of us need no insentive or punishment in order to act in accordance with the prospect of benefit to ourselves and those around us. Soetimes we just like to do what is right for the sake of doing what is right.

I do not necessarily reject God and I do not necessarily accept the lack there of. All I do is live to the best of my ability within the boundries of the lessons I have learned through living. My experience is far stronger than any book I have ever read and I refuse to limit myself to only one possibility. Whether I am right or wrong, I am not afraid of the consequences because I have accepted that not knowing is far more rewarding than believing myself correct through ignorance.


That is my reason for agnosticism. I am friends with many Christians, Jews, Muslims and even Hindu and Taoists. I try to be the bridge between the massive gorge between them.

Traditional beliefs are not "universally irrational". We inherit many ideas from elders, community leaders, parents, and people we respect. It is rational to trust their word. Some of these things may prove to have no empirical basis if one chooses to investigate them as such -- but that doesn't make the concrete concept of god irrational any more so than the concrete concept that those two grownups in your house are your biological parents. It's a matter of blind faith that you're related to them without a DNA test to prove it -- but it's not irrational to assume it's true.

There is no "generic Christianity" except for the bare bones basic stuff that unites all the disparate traditions. What does a Coptic Christian in Egypt have in common with a Pentacostal in El Salvador?

Aedes,

The child like the believer often does not question, can we say then that anything of the imagination is irrational when taken as substantial? The believer denies the mystery, for something conjured, can any believer tell me in fact the origin of anything. All that is possiable is metaphor, it is a mystery, to deny that, is irrational. Yes Christianity is a ghost, and one cannot criticize what one cannot identify, sure has political clout though.


God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
Joseph Campbell

Boagie, what do you mean by "the concrete concept of a god"?

If God is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? (Play on words unintended!) And...If everything in existence (including God) is a metaphor, and presumably you believe in everything in existence, how can you not believe in God?

Not trying to be a smart-ass! I just want to understand what you mean...

Also, again, I think there is very strong and general agreement that religious beliefs that are unsupported by reason do not have a legitemate place in the political arena. But that issue is distinct from the basic concept of theism, isn't it?

Hi Dichanthelium!!

:)It is the difference between denotation and connotation, a connotation is referential, denotation is concrete, it says this is it, the whole ball of wax. Most people use the term god in the way of denotation, but, if you cannot look passed that concrete term, god as denotation, then it is in your way. I think it is why Carl Jung stated that religion is a defense against a religious experience. This way of denotation is a means of getting in our own way. God as metaphor is again referance, a connotation indicating a great mystery.


"If everything in existence (including God) is a metaphor, and presumably you believe in everything in existence, how can you not believe in God?" quote

:)Well, if you think of god as the totality, as in Spinoza's god, then yes, I could go long with that, seeing as there is in fact no such thing as a closed system, it is even a reasonable assumption.


:)Separation of church and state was foundational to the formation of the government of America, immigrants came to America to flee religious persecution. So yes, it is a question aside.



God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
Joseph Campbell

I have to admit that I was a bit surprized to see a second thread on the seemingly same subject, here. However, I very much appreciate the effort to define terms for a particular discussion/debate/thread--it's so very much more an organized methodology!

While I have nothing to add, at the moment, towards the general debate (and apologize for that much) I would like to see if I could encourage some adjustment to the definition/descriptions given in the OP. (I will be honest and candid, at the same time, and express that I hold no expectations or hopes for adjustment at this very point in time, but that maybe over some course of time, consideration on the boards may be given.)

[indent]Firstly, I would (as some will have gathered by now) strongly urge a division of the word 'god'--namely, God and god. This is the standard well-written and evidencing-thorough-investigation dictionary entry's style. The reason is because the English word (as especially expounded on by the full, Oxford English Dictionary) god has, at one general point in time, become used as a proper noun--a name--in place of YHWH. It is also for that reason that careful writers will use Allah when speaking of Islam's god-model. (although it's the same thing, basically) The generic, common noun, god, therefore, can be used for all other unnamed (having no given name) god-models.

The Particular Religions, could likely be all more simply grouped in together under religious belief-systems. 'Religious,' being the adjective form of religion (explained below) and these being systematic, or more institutionalized--often with what will amount to databases--than a group of people who fall under some similar catagory due to an emotional based position--say, a scientist, naturalist, or Elvis fan--and point towards a god-model of some sorts.

Religion, then, will probably be better described as a resultant abstract body, or network of loosely bound individuals of a similar emotional state. This is because the core inertia of religiousity (here used in a non-negative nuance, and without the element of extreme--simply as a pure descriptive term for that particualr emotion) is, in fact, an emotion.

In this sense, Einstein was a very religious person, thus his religiousity was very high. Richard Dawkins is a very religious person, as was Jean Henri Fabre①, because their religiousity was very high. Naturalism, in this definition/description, is a religion, as would be science②, Surrealism (the art form), and atheism (and agnosticism). These would not fall, obviously, under the catagory of religious belief-systems, it should be made clear.


With this much, theism would fall into place, giving reference to any god-model will do the trick there--God or god, Allah, Shiva, Yebisu (and it's a good beer, too !:a-ok:) [/indent]




① A French entomologist who had been denounced by the Roman Catholic Church for teaching, among other things, the fetilization of flowering plants in classes of young women.

②　I wish to clarify that I personally hold scientism to be a negative extreme of science, and I personally do not vouch for it; pure science, and scientific method, alone, are different from that general extreme view.

Greetings boagie,

I really like this statement of yours, I have seen you repeat it in many posts, but I have not seen a post where you go in to depth about its meaning. I really think it is a meaningful statement but would like to hear in more detail what you exactly mean by it. It's obviously very important to you, you have repeated it so many times. Could you please point me to a past post of yours where you have elaborated on it, or would elaborate on it at some point. I truly would like to learn more about it. I have recently been reading some Joseph Campbell.

Thanks

How do you know your parents are your own? Have you done genetic testing? Or is it a matter of faith that cements the "mystery" of where you came from? Is their word and your memory beyond any doubt?

You've been using these two words a lot lately, "metaphor" and "mystery". The problem is, 1) you're using them without defining them as relevant terms, 2) you're assuming the truth of this assertion without proof.

I'd love for you to restate your position without using either of those words (or other effective synonyms).

Aedes,

I suspect a little dishonesty here, but I'll have a go, the word is not the thing, god is not the thing, the word god is not the thing, we do not even know what the thing is, the word is a shot in the dark, it indicates, points to the unknown, as it is felt, not reasoned, that it is the unknown that supports the known world---------always, always open to wonder!!!

As to the parent thing we do not know without checking, as the believer does not know, for he does not have the means to check--its a MYSTERY!!:brickwall:




God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
Joseph Campbell

I'm being serious. If you're repeatedly using a term that no one else is using, or you're using it in a different way, then one way to bridge the gap is to use different terminology. I *think* I know what you mean, but it's hard to agree or disagree when the 'mystery' and 'metaphor' hammer is beaten again and again.

So you've displaced the terms I objected to onto two other terms, "word" and "thing".

Look, I know that you know what you mean. And I think I probably know what you actually mean. But for you to argue your point effectively, you need to start with concepts and words that we can all latch onto.

Do you watch Lost? You know how lately people have been having headaches and nosebleeds and dropping dead because the Island is skipping around through time and they don't have an anchor? Think of that as a, well, a metaphor () of what's going on here. If we're not anchored in terminology or concepts that we agree with, then how can we follow you down a path of reasoning?

Here's what I'd say if I were you (this is not my argument -- this is my interpretation of your argument):

1) Life is mysterious, grand, sublime. We have an infinitesimal experience of this universe. There is an emptiness beyond the edge of our knowledge. And there is some natural human drive to look beyond that edge, to push the fog and the darkness farther away, to see how we as evanescent little things somehow connect to everything else.

2) Throughout history, and before science allowed us to light up that darkness, stories arose and took hold. Stories of us as a people, stories of our ancestors, stories that knit our world with our lives, and our lives with our morals. These were the stories of powers greater than us, and of course we often projected human attributes onto these powers. And because our lives were indeed at the mercy of forces bigger and stronger, we developed traditions to curry favor with these forces, to somehow find a way to live a good and happy life, and if nothing else find happiness in whatever lies beyond this life.

3) Science has paved a stepwise path between our experience and things that in the past we never could have known for sure. And because of this, we should now see that many of the stories we used to tell are not actually the Truth, though they served that function for aeons and ages. Rather, we can now reinterpret them as metaphors for what lay beyond that darkness.

4) Science builds on itself, it produces practical rewards, and it's in our interest to foster and cultivate it. But adherence to old traditions despite the advances of science could be considered willful ignorance, and it could hold us back.


Is that a good way of encapsulating your argument? I have to say that it's not a bad series of points, and many people will largely agree with it. Points 3 and especially 4 are going to resonate differently with people based on their points of view, and point 4 is where you want your conversation to land.

I'd generally support your point of view except that I think that even the symbolic value of cultural traditions is extraordinarily important to us. You see, there is more than just that "mystery" out there. There is celebration, there is togetherness, there is the sublime, there is artistic expression, and there is the comfort of identifying with a group. Science may tell us about these phenomena, but it's not going to tell us what to do.

You know my background somewhat, but I'll try it out on you just to illustrate where I'm coming from (and perhaps my point of view is a bit idiosyncratic -- but you have to acknowledge that it's a cool kind of postmodern):

1. I'm a first generation Jewish American. My dad was born in Hungary and my mom in Germany in the years after WWII ended

2. I practice Judaism, albeit not super-actively. We light Shabbat candles every once in a while, we celebrate Passover and Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur and Hannukah. I had a Bar Mitzvah, we had a Jewish wedding, my son had a Bris.

3. I don't believe in God. At least not the literal existence of God or the literality of his actions as described in our tradition. [Maimonides, the greatest Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages, wrote in Guide for the Perplexed that belief in God was absolutely required to be a Jew]

4. I DO believe in the critical centrality of God to the tradition I come from, and I believe in the relative reality of God to many people in my family and in my family's history. What is relative reality? Think of it as the fact that these people have lived their entire lives knowing that God is real. It doesn't matter if they're incorrect in a cosmic sense, because no one lives their life in a cosmic sense.

5. Most of my family died in the Holocaust, and my grandparents (all four) were among the only survivors of their families. Their stories are as horrible as anything you'll read anywhere. My grandmother once recounted hiding in the wall in the Lodz ghetto with her family during the liquidation, reciting the Shema (the holiest Jewish prayer) over and over.

6. To be a practicing Jew honors what they went through. It connects me with my ancestry who lived in a world far different from mine. It affirms that I will never lose sight of where I came from. And it guarantees that my son, who is lucky enough to know 2 of his great grandparents, will ALSO know where he came from and perhaps pass it down to his own children. A friend of my father's from Hungary had the same story as my dad's family. They converted to Catholicism after the war. His kids, who are my age, don't identify at all with what their family survived. If they were Jewish, they probably would -- it would be there to remind them.


And yet close that drawer in my brain and you get me -- a fully American, rather atheistic / rather postmodernist / rather existentialist / rather liberal guy, who is embroiled in medical science and medical education and clinical care in the ivory tower of American academia. Pretty modern, pretty progressive, etc.

How is religion an impediment to me? It's not -- it's an inspiration -- because sometimes there is beauty, even tragic beauty, in the mystery.

Aedes,

I can appreciate that for you and many others your religion is a cultural enrichment, as well as many things that support both the individual and the group in living their lives. This however does not lend itself to the crediability of the premise of god as a concrete term. You can say that you do not understand the term metaphor and/or the meaning of mystery. I will perhaps pretend to believe you, but others reading this I doubt will believe you, a man of your educational background that does not know what metaphor means or what mystery means has lost creditability. I know your intent is not to deal with the fact that it is a mystery, that the false claims are of more worth than the concept of truth, but this is a philosophy site, you are not the curator of this museum of scared ideas, here no ideas are sacred. Do you really think that because the truth be admitted here, that any cultural religious heritage would crumble?



God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
Joseph Campbell

Thank you.

No, my whole message is that I'm not clear that you understand them (in this context). This is because you use the terms repeatedly without defining them, and you have difficulty articulating your point without those terms. It's not about what the words mean -- it's about what the terms mean.

You owe your ideas more than you're giving them. I articulated at length what I think you mean. I'm not sure you read it. If so, it would be instructive for you to use that as a seed to better articulate your own ideas.

Do you really think that your as yet undefined conception of truth is generalizable?

Aedes,

Try this on, any object, thing, person or animal's origin is ultimately unknown, thus they are all references to that unknown. I am afraid I do not believe you are willing to deal in an honest manner around this topic so, this is said in closing-------edit:-SAY GOOD NIGHT GRACIE!! You two own this turf!! holy ground. Edit: NOT AS DISAPPOINTED AS I AEDES!!



God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.
Joseph Campbell

Boagie, I'm quite disappointed in you. I wrote a very long and I think thoughtful thread trying to explore (and thereby validate) your point of view. If you won't even read it let alone respond, and you just give a pithy definition of mystery and then take your ball and go home, then I have to wonder if you're really invested in your point of view. I mean I'm one of the people here who largely agrees with you (at least in substance if not in style). If you can't even reach common ground with an ally, then why do you bother to take on people you disagree with?

Thanks for a very long and thoughtful post. I do wonder, though, what you mean by that first assertion. Do you really mean that all theists are "people who are incapable of finding their own hope"? What does it mean to find your own hope?

This strikes me as a very narrow view of religion. Are you sure your definition is not based primarily on observation of particular immature expressions of religion?



What is the problem for which religion intends to provide a solution?