A God with Emotion?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have had a limited exposure to religion as a whole. My father was a pastor, and I followed Christianity devoutly, until somewhat recently. Ever since I've begun to consider myself to be agnostic, I've found that there are a lot of questions that I wondered while I was religious that I never really allowed to be though about. (not sure if that made sense)
One of these questions is;
Why would the God of Christianity have emotions?
From my understanding of the brain, emotions are merely physical chemical reactions, not intangible forces. I believed (and I'm pretty sure most Christians believe) that God does not exist in a physical realm like we do. With that said, how and why would God have emotions?
The Bible clearly states numerous times that God was happy, sad, angry, etc. But emotions are chemical reactions, right? So what's the deal with all this?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,918 • Replies: 26

No top replies

@Smiley451,

I think most christians belive in the soul, and therefor, that feelings are something more than chemical reactions. God has as soul so why shouldn't he have feelings?

2 Replies

@Lily,

It's a good question. God, being omniscient, should know everything, therefore negating the emotions. (emotions, in their most simple form, usually come from an unplanned event. Winning the lottery, receiving a gift, a family member dying, etc.)
We have free will, so God doesn't know what we will do next. But either God is all powerful or he isn't. (Apologetic: he removed his ability to know our will)

Lily;76591 wrote:

I think most christians belive in the soul, and therefor, that feelings are something more than chemical reactions. God has as soul so why shouldn't he have feelings?

The OP is looking for scientific proof; you are begging the question in saying that we have a soul. (or Christians believe in the soul as fact)

To appease smiley, you would have to first prove a soul, and then prove that it had a scientifically unexplainable effect on emotion. Neither can be done. Science can explain and detect emotions, and even predict them to an extent.

1 Reply

@Smiley451,

Smiley451;76566 wrote:

I have had a limited exposure to religion as a whole. My father was a pastor, and I followed Christianity devoutly, until somewhat recently. Ever since I've begun to consider myself to be agnostic, I've found that there are a lot of questions that I wondered while I was religious that I never really allowed to be though about. (not sure if that made sense)
One of these questions is;
Why would the God of Christianity have emotions?
From my understanding of the brain, emotions are merely physical chemical reactions, not intangible forces. I believed (and I'm pretty sure most Christians believe) that God does not exist in a physical realm like we do. With that said, how and why would God have emotions?
The Bible clearly states numerous times that God was happy, sad, angry, etc. But emotions are chemical reactions, right? So what's the deal with all this?

Hi,

What science is measuring is the manifestation of emotions, e.g. some physical reaction. No one knows what is the impetus, the source of these emotions. Where does it come from?

If you go deep into the nature of material, you only find energy, and deeper within that you find - elementary particles which exhibit strange behavior depending upon how they are observed.

But you do not find hate, love, anger, fear. These are not material though they manifest in the material just like energy manifests into matter (e=mc**2). So there are great mysteries out there that still need to be explored and understood - if you are of such a mind to do so.

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
Niels Bohr

If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.
Niels Bohr

In so far as God is concerned. It depends upon how you think of God. Spinoza's God is one that manifests as the Universe, and within the Universe there is emotion. To say of one is to say of the other. It is an attempt to describe all that is and the mystery of it all.

The Dao that can be spoken of
Is not the everlasting Dao. ...
Dark and even darker,
The door to all hidden mysteries.
[Dao De Jing]

I feel the exploration of the cosmos begins with the imagination and creativity with the mind. So don't sell your short! Smile

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Emotions: Hmmm God being omniscient would know all emotions, but maybe not have them unless there were one perfect emotion, which would be experienced at all times. Or possibly s/he it would feel all emotions at all times. Either way knowing the emotion that would best help the bible people do what they were supposed to do without taking away their agency. If God were feeling all emotions at all times, no matter what he told the israelites that he was feeling it would be true.

As for the spirit/body problem of emotions being "chemical". That point is pretty moot unless you discount the spirit/soul as the prime agent in a dualistic union. If the spirit/soul is the prime agent, then the base emotion would be the spirit's and the bodily chemical reaction would be the body's reaction to the spirit's direction.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Smiley - God is such that language cannot perfectly describe Him. Even the use of "Him" can only be figurative, as sex is a scientific designation.

The language of God is necessarily figurative language because the experience of God in ineffable. A good analogy is beauty - we can describe beauty in many different ways, but none of them are perfectly accurate. Each description points to the truth, but is not the truth itself. Such is the language of God - the language points to the truth, but cannot be the truth itself.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

I much prefer the Spinozist God as I was always bothered by any personification of him. I'm now wondering if the emotively caring father God is believed to exist because people want to? I plan on going through the Bible again, and I remember noticing the caring Father being absent in the Bible more than one would at first think. His will is much more a dominant idea than his compassion which is more often a quality given to Christ.

0 Replies

@Lily,

Lily;76591 wrote:

I think most christians belive in the soul, and therefor, that feelings are something more than chemical reactions. God has as soul so why shouldn't he have feelings?

I agree whole heartedly. God is all and knows all. Just because we never met him or talked with him face-to-face does not mean that he has not walked this earth or interacted with us in some form or another. He created man after his own image therefore, man has inherited the emotions of God.

I see it like this; you are the result of your mother and father. You have their genes, some of their personality, and etc. Well, we all are apart of God. Our spirit is that connecting bridge to him. So why wouldn't he have emotions? How else would he be able to understand the things that we go through and isn't forgiveness an emotion or the byproduct of sorrow?

1 Reply

@MrEnigma,

S.Joseph;77655 wrote:

To appease smiley, you would have to first prove a soul, and then prove that it had a scientifically unexplainable effect on emotion. Neither can be done. Science can explain and detect emotions, and even predict them to an extent.

You make a good point here. What really makes the biggest difference is what was embedded in us since early childhood. The influences we have, influence our idea of God. This is typically very traditional. Science and Theology have yet to prove what God is, therefore to understand emotion may be difficult.

To discuss one portion of it, is it not important to know what God is beforehand? God is what we've made him to be... our perception of him or it or whatever.

richrf;77659 wrote:

What science is measuring is the manifestation of emotions, e.g. some physical reaction. No one knows what is the impetus, the source of these emotions. Where does it come from?

Exactly, what's the control center. Where's the command center and the source of them? We don't know so we've created various ideas and myths of a Deity. As man evolves, that idea changes or evolves with man.

richrf;77659 wrote:

If you go deep into the nature of material, you only find energy, and deeper within that you find - elementary particles which exhibit strange behavior depending upon how they are observed.

Yes, and these energies are light. Light reflecting light... something to think about.

richrf;77659 wrote:

But you do not find hate, love, anger, fear. These are not material though they manifest in the material just like energy manifests into matter (e=mc**2). So there are great mysteries out there that still need to be explored and understood - if you are of such a mind to do so.

Great point. The answers however are closer to home than the cosmos I believe. I think that so many of seek answers or a God outside of us that we rarely recognize that same light within us. So the mystery will continue for many.

richrf;77659 wrote:

In so far as God is concerned. It depends upon how you think of God. Spinoza's God is one that manifests as the Universe, and within the Universe there is emotion. To say of one is to say of the other. It is an attempt to describe all that is and the mystery of it all.

Yep, almost everyone has a different and slightly twisted idea of what God should be. God is our perception of him. Our deity is merely a reflection of our perception.

Labyrinth;77830 wrote:

I much prefer the Spinozist God as I was always bothered by any personification of him. I'm now wondering if the emotively caring father God is believed to exist because people want to? I plan on going through the Bible again, and I remember noticing the caring Father being absent in the Bible more than one would at first think. His will is much more a dominant idea than his compassion which is more often a quality given to Christ.

All these God's are merely ones idea of a God. The Bible is an idea of man and thus the writings of man. Jesus is fantastic however, we are finding that the quotes and writings pertaining to him were actually passed on verbally possibly decades after his death and resurrection and that most of what was written in the Bible on Jesus was written by the same individual.

These are things to take note of as you read. I have the bible on my iPhone and read it quite often because it is a good book. Is it the end-all be-all, I don't believe so as it was still mans perception of his world and the writings of men organized, altered, translated, changed and published by man.

I think the biggest mistake is not looking inward and recognizing just how much we are responsible for our thoughts and actions and emotions.

MrEnigma;78729 wrote:

I agree whole heartedly. God is all and knows all. Just because we never met him or talked with him face-to-face does not mean that he has not walked this earth or interacted with us in some form or another. He created man after his own image therefore, man has inherited the emotions of God.

Says' who? Is this what you believe? What is this belief based upon? You see it one way yet another will see it differently. 4000 years after Adam and Eve were on earth, some MAN writes a story about them... Is this enough for anyone to believe?

MrEnigma;78729 wrote:

I see it like this; you are the result of your mother and father. You have their genes, some of their personality, and etc. Well, we all are apart of God. Our spirit is that connecting bridge to him. So why wouldn't he have emotions? How else would he be able to understand the things that we go through and isn't forgiveness an emotion or the byproduct of sorrow?

Great point here. However I must point out that while we our connected and 'God' is omnipresent, we are also completely autonomous to the extent of our separation from this idea 'God'. If God be within, then why do we seek answers without?

Good discussion... I thought I'd just drop by and stir the pot a bit. :whistling:

1 Reply

@Justin,

Hi Justin,

Thanks for sharing your comments and views with me. I enjoyed reading them and I pretty much agree with all that you suggested.

Thanks again.

Rich

0 Replies

@Smiley451,

The idea of God with emotion is no more or less believable than a something we can't describe that lives somewhere and is or is not omni<insert anything> that we can/can't know and is/isn't a being (or not).

0 Replies

@Smiley451,

God as portrayed in orthodox Chrisitan theology is a fusion of Greek metaphysics and philosophy with Semetic monotheism. Augustine favored Plato and Aquinas favored Aristotle. The notion of God as eternal, changless, immutable, impassive is from the Greek notion of eternal perfect forms. That which is perfect does not change.

The Biblical portrayal of God is different. In the Bible God makes mistakes, argues with his creation, get angry, feels regret, etc.

I am a panentheist and a process theology person so the notion of God changing, struggling and suffering on behalf of and with his creation (i.e. the Biblical view) is much more compatible with my theologlical notions.

0 Replies

@Smiley451,

So does God suffer with his creation?
Does God change with the universe?
Is a god who does not suffer and does not change capable of being in love and relationship?
Is this impassive, immutable, eternal, changless God really the one that corresponds to your notion of reality?

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;79194 wrote:

The Biblical portrayal of God is different. In the Bible God makes mistakes, argues with his creation, get angry, feels regret, etc.

The "God" in the Bible is not just one God. El and Moses' God, YHWH, were once two different deities. Over time, they merged, and even after this merger, the God continued to evolve. Jesus did not introduce a new God, as some people say, he simply continued that long history of evolving the God concept.

And that concept continues to evolve today. We find new ways of expressing that basic human experience.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;79489 wrote:

The "God" in the Bible is not just one God. El and Moses' God, YHWH, were once two different deities. Over time, they merged, and even after this merger, the God continued to evolve. Jesus did not introduce a new God, as some people say, he simply continued that long history of evolving the God concept.

And that concept continues to evolve today. We find new ways of expressing that basic human experience.

I agree with that. The question then becomes what concept of god is compatible with our current times and our current view of reality?

1 Reply

@prothero,

As if there were only one such concept?

And who is to say that older views cannot be "compatible"? Of course, then we have to wonder if it is possible to have older views: I tend to think that, as modern readers, we will read ancient scripture in a way that is necessarily different from the way the writers understood the material.

0 Replies

@Smiley451,

At any given time there are multiple concepts of the divine, of course. But
There are dominant concepts
In ancient time there were multiple gods and spirits an almost universal concept.
The dominant concept then became one of monism east or monotheism west.
The modern problem seems to be is there a god at all? What could God possibly do?

All scripture and all god concepts tend to be interpreted in light of our broader worldview our more basic metaphysical assumptions and philosophical specualtions.

Individuals will have their own particular views but usually some concept dominates the society and culture. The dominant ideals or values of a culture can determine its survival and its overall direction.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;79498 wrote:

But
There are dominant concepts
In ancient time there were multiple gods and spirits an almost universal concept.
The dominant concept then became one of monism east or monotheism west.

Monism and monotheism are compatible, and monism did not become such a dominant eastern concept as monotheism did in the west. Sure, monism was and is popular in the east, but it is also widely rejected: by Buddhism, for example.

prothero;79498 wrote:

All scripture and all god concepts tend to be interpreted in light of our broader worldview our more basic metaphysical assumptions and philosophical specualtions.

Right, every view that is currently held is modern. But that is view as in the individual perspective - the view might be different while the object of observation is the same, you know?

prothero;79498 wrote:

Individuals will have their own particular views but usually some concept dominates the society and culture. The dominant ideals or values of a culture can determine its survival and its overall direction.

I would go on to say that the dominant views, and the exercise of those dominant views, is the primary determinant as to the future of the broader belief system.

0 Replies

@Smiley451,

The OP ask does god have emotion? At least that is my interpretation. And if so would imply a god with the ability to smile as well as frown to be extremely simplistic as far as this dialog anyway as we effort to distinguish between the two that will end up in the same discussion it always ends up at; where does the "frown of evil" come from? Good and evil both have their "emotional/stoic manifestations", no doubt! If we are, as it is assumed by some to be "in the image of that god, it "has" to conclude that god has them also? As the wise Epicurus tried to establish in his questions about omnipotence of which I agree in that evil is the "absence of god" rather than "of god" as we attempt to define evil from this "erroneous assumption" from our sensate existence. IMO as I have often maintained and still do that we created god in our image, not the other way around.

It is at the root of all our confusion as it wqs to Epircursu and myself, frankly. As a matter of a fact judging from those images of Epicurus and myself, Ha, we look a lot alike, except my nose is not as big, ha.

There is no doubt that we are "emotional" developments and exist in a reality that allows us to "sense" existence as we know no other that would be contridictory. How that is defined is we are "extensions" of that god as those "emotions" and their manifestations illustrate that confusion in that the frown is "negative/evil" and the smile "good/god". Which I happen to agree for it is the most compatible; reaching a final summation that 'evil' does not exist except in that confusion. Evil is "our creation", not god's. when we develop that "good nature/smile/compatible" eliminsting that "evil/confusion/frown/incompatible" human creation we approach a "happy state" and it chemical rewards: bliss, ecstasy, rapture, etc....................................

Epicurus, an advocate of ataraxia (nirvana, enlightenment, flow (pshchology-"in the zone, in the groove, focus, and can be equated with what "rapture" means) It can also be understood as defining the beginning (ignorance) to enlightenment (group/flow/understanding) meaning individual focus in a particular field without effort, compatible and senergistic as a result of the "evil/dark cloud/foreboding/pressure" no longer hovering and influencing our consciousness as we "whistle while we work" naturally releasing those "chemicals" as an emotional reward; A smiling, emotional experience. Whew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:a-ok: IMMHO.

William

0 Replies

@Smiley451,

The God of the Abrahamic traditions has always been dominantely conceived of as
A moral agent and as
A personal God.

If there is no such thing as evil, then it is hard to see how one can view god as a moral agent.

God as the ground of being or the essence of existence is fine as far as that goes but it creates no basis for belief in any kind of transcendent values (either aesthetic or moral).

In the absence of transcendent values then values become a matter of individual opinion (nihilism) or of social consensus or convention (moral relativism).

For people coming out of the traditional western religious orientation. This would be equivalent to no god at all, a conception of god as a blind impersonal force without moral sensibility and indifferent to human concerns. Roughly the same world view as atheism. ( a universe or god of blind indifference).

1 Reply

A God with Emotion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know