The Adult Theist Thread

@boagie,

I think boagie said: ( but not totally sure who is saying this)

"The reason boagie posted the Campbell quote so often is, even if the topic will not be dealt with honestly then the simplicity of the understanding might just stare one in the face. God the mystery, "No mind has touched it, no tongue has soiled it." The Upanishads"

I am honestly confused with this now! Is this not what all world religions (contained with in their primary texts) seem to be pointing to?

1 Reply

@boagie,

Any given concept within the category of theism may be either clear or vague, depending on the individual doing the conceptualizing. Clarity of a concept, however, does not necessarily mean the concept is definable in concrete terms. Humanity, for example, is a clear concept. It is also a concept that defies definition in concrete terms unless you want to reduce humanity to a race of one of the many species of automatons on the face of the earth (which, of course, is one approach that one may choose). Humanity is ultimately a mystery. So is the earth. So is the Universe.

So, if I use the term GOD to indicate, symbolize, or represent in some way "the ultimate creative force behind the universe," or "ultimate reality" or "the ground of all being" or some other attempt to convey what is an ultimate mystery, I am not necessarliy either hiding behind vagueness, nor am I necessarily pretending that I know exactly what I am talking about--the two errors that theists are alternately accused of.

It seems worth noticing too, that when a conception of theism leans toward definitiveness, it is subject to the one charge, and when it leans in the other direction, it is subject to the other. Some, it seems, would set the rules of the debate so that there is no possible way for theism to win.

In the final analysis, though, what seems most important is that theists are pointing to something that is a reality--whether or not you choose to call it "GOD." The various conceptualizations and models of the various theists lie along a continuum that ranges from immature to profound, but for all of them, it is a reality, in that it is something they experience and try to interpret.

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

So, if I use the term GOD to indicate, symbolize, or represent in some way "the ultimate creative force behind the universe," or "ultimate reality" or "the ground of all being" or some other attempt to convey what is an ultimate mystery, I am not necessarliy either hiding behind vagueness, nor am I necessarily pretending that I know exactly what I am talking about--the two errors that theists are alternately accused of.

Yes I can see what you're getting at, I think.

There are those who do literally think of a king of heaven straight out of the Sistine Chapel paintings, or who believe in god without really thinking about it at all.

As a metaphore for the unknowable god seems a rather tidy concept - and one that can't really be denied.

1 Reply

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

I think boagie said: ( but not totally sure who is saying this)

"The reason boagie posted the Campbell quote so often is, even if the topic will not be dealt with honestly then the simplicity of the understanding might just stare one in the face. God the mystery, "No mind has touched it, no tongue has soiled it." The Upanishads"

I am honestly confused with this now! Is this not what all world religions (contained with in their primary texts) seem to be pointing to?

It would be a common theme - that there is an obvious truth waiting to smack people in the face if only they look for it.

Which is why it slightly annoys me when Campbell states "it's as simple as that" - it's exactly the same marketing trick that Churches employ when they erect signs on their front lawns boasting that they "have all the answers".

It isn't a lie as such - because for some people, who want to employ certain metaphores - it will turn out to be "the truth" (at least within context).

It strikes me that there seems to be very little regard for religious positions that stress making your own mind up - all religious positioning comes with some degree of "I have a wonderful insight and if you'd only feel the same way it'd be great for you".

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

As a metaphore for the unknowable god seems a rather tidy concept - and one that can't really be denied.

I think GOD can be known, to some extent, in the same way we can know certain other things. We experience things or people and we say we know them. Those things, even the relatively simple ones, however, remain an ultimate mystery. It is tempting to think that when we know something we know it in some kind of absolute sense, but that is always an illusion.

So, it seems to me that I can know GOD, in that GOD is part of my experience. But if I think I can describe exactly what or who GOD is, I am fooling myself. I may have a mental construct, but such a construct is necessarily only a model. I may try to talk about it, but such talk is necessarily only metaphorical.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

I am having trouble with the two statements:

A statement-

A criticism-
" If one's beliefs are kept vague enough they indeed would insulate one from criticism, but then, the believer would not be saying much of any consequence, which in my opinion is often the case."

1 Reply

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

I am having trouble with the two statements:

A statement-

A criticism-
" If one's beliefs are kept vague enough they indeed would insulate one from criticism, but then, the believer would not be saying much of any consequence, which in my opinion is often the case."

Jay,

Being they are my statements I am interested in just why you do have a problem with them. .

1 Reply

@boagie,

Boagie said:
"Being they are my statements I am interested in just why you do have a problem with them. ."

Given the sequence of posts, I find it very interesting that you are asking me for clarification. For the sake of communication, of which listening is part of that endeavor, and, my truly wanting to communicate with you, I will give it my best.

I am having trouble with them because; they appear to me to be a contradiction! Granted it may only be an apparent contradiction, but that is why I think it is in need of clarification, to give you the benefit of the doubt.

On the one hand:
To make a repeated statement using extremely high abstract concepts, god, metaphor and mystery, (some may even call vague) and when several people ask you to help bring them down the abstraction ladder you seem to brush them off with only a reference link to an authority figure. The irony is, I think there are possible grounds for meaning in your quote, but it is in need of further development. I think others addressing this statement of yours seem to be asking the same questions. I am aware that many writers and thinkers will use a very "condensed short hand" to convey an idea, but at some point the writer will make an attempt to go in to more depth on the subject to help the reader grasp just what they are pointing to

On the other hand:

It would appear to me that you are doing this right here, are you? Maybe I have missed something or I am reading into your statements something that is not intended. All I am asking is for some clarification.

be helpful to try to define terms before continuing a debate about theism/atheism"

1 Reply

@Jay phil,

Jay:)

Well, if it is confusing I shall try to clarify, if one were to simply state something about the great spirit or a higher power without further details that to me is pretty obscure and does not really lend itself to much criticism. As to wanting to be lead by the hand in defining metaphor, every well, Metaphor is a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest. The meaning of mystery is that it is of the unknown.

The statement that all things are metaphors, means just this, the origin of nothing is known to us, thus, all things are referance/metaphor suggesting that mystery which is your own being and the being of the world. As Blake stated, all things open backward to wonder/mystery. Those who say they know are just being silly, it is a mystery, and to deny the mystery without being able to supply evidence solving said mystery is then irrational. Someone else stated this is the mistake of the fundamentalist, but I am afraid the majority of Christians also make this mistake. In literary terms it is a matter of making the distinction between denotation and connotation, connotation is metaphor metaphor is connotation, denotation, or taking metaphor as fact, as concrete, is literalism, and literalism aborts wonder/mystery. If I've missed clarifying something, I will gladly take another crack at it.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

The statement that all things are metaphors, means just this, the origin of nothing is known to us, thus, all things are referance/metaphor suggesting that mystery which is your own being and the being of the world. As Blake stated, all things open backward to wonder/mystery. Those who say they know are just being silly, it is a mystery, and to deny the mystery without being able to supply evidence solving said mystery is then irrational. Someone else stated this is the mistake of the fundamentalist, but I am afraid the majority of Christians also make this mistake. ...

boagie, I appreciate your willingness to spell this out again, though you have done so in other threads. You have the patience of a saint. Must be a gift from God, huh?:bigsmile:

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

boagie, I appreciate your willingness to spell this out again, though you have done so in other threads. You have the patience of a saint. Must be a gift from God, huh?:bigsmile:

Dichanthelium. Smile

I am serious, what is it that is difficult to understand? Perhaps the confusion is caused by its simplicity, can't quite believe a simple statement. The origin of nothing is known, thus, all things are metaphors referencing that great mystery which is the origin of all things. God is but a holding term, a referencing term for that mystery, not its answer.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Dichanthelium.

I am serious, what is it that is difficult to understand? Perhaps the confusion is caused by its simplicity, can't quite believe a simple statement. The origin of nothing is known, thus, all things are metaphors referencing that great mystery which is the origin of all things. God is but a holding term, a referencing term for that mystery, not its answer.

Don't loose your sense of humor! I think we are on the same side and just speaking a different dialect.

0 Replies

The Adult Theist Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know