The philosophical conception of god in the age of reason and science.

...
I suggest that the nature of God is as incomprehensible to us as the nature of a human carpenter is incomprehensible to a cabinet. ...

If that is true, then whenever you use the word "God", you LITERALLY do not know what you are talking about. In other words, whenever you use the word "God", you are just speaking gibberish.

I question this perspective. I think the cosmological anthropic theory and the Copenhagen interpretation of QM both graphically illustrate the manner in which our perception of the Universe is essential. The idea that the universe exists as a vast indifferent reality in which we barely feature is another myth, a myth of the modern age. We are the ones who have made the measurements, come up with the theory, and declared it so. We are the universe, figuring itself out. (I am awaiting delivery of a text from the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition, 'You Are the Eyes of the World', which is meditation on exactly this subject. Dzogchen is located within the secular, as distinct from devotional, tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.)

...

I suggest that the nature of God is as incomprehensible to us as the nature of a human carpenter is incomprehensible to a cabinet. ...

If that is true, then whenever you use the word "God", you LITERALLY do not know what you are talking about. In other words, whenever you use the word "God", you are just speaking gibberish.

Many people say that, but it is not true.

There are ways of relating to the spiritual reality other than the verbal and intellectual. There are ways of understanding with the heart or deeper levels of being.

That might be out-of-scope for philosophy. But it is not gibberish.

meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing.

It is not intellectually comprehensible, or describable in purely intellectual terms,

but can be seen 'with the eye of the heart' to use a lovely expression from traditional theology.

It is also meaningful within a realm of discourse - one who has those experiences, or realisations, can communicate with others who share them, even if what is spoken of is somehow pre-verbal or intuitive (as is happening in this thread.) But one expects, of course, that some will protest by saying 'you're talking gibberish, none of this means anything'. But I don't think this is true - it is quite meaningful within its realm of discourse.

...

If "God" is unintelligible, then talk of "God" is gibberish. This is a simple fact, following straight from the definitions of the terms, whether you like it or not.

I know the definition of gibberish. It is more or less equivalent to 'nonsense'. There are many people who think any mystical or metaphysical writing is gibberish. However there is a very large corpus of such writings, in many languages and traditions, which display considerable coherence and meaning once the time is taken to understand them properly, even if those who don't know how to read them think they are all gibberish. And it is true that many such readings abound in paradox, because the spiritual traditions draw on persepectives other than those available to ordinary empiricism and the profane intellect. But the time must be taken to understand them.

What is your attitude to the question of the existence of Deity, anyway? Is such talk meaningful at all? is there any reality that corresponds to the term? Do you think Deity is intelligible? And if it is, please explain it. If you think there is not, then there is nothing to discuss. That seems to exhaust all the possibilities in this dialog.

If the term "God" is defined in a meaningful way, then of course it can be the subject of meaningful discussion. But when it is not defined in a meaningful way, then it cannot be. It is as simple as that.

this age of which materialism was the portentous offspring and in which it had figured first as petulant rebel and aggressive thinker, then as a grave and strenuous preceptor of mankind, has been by no means a period of mere error, calamity and degeneration, but rather a most powerful creative epoch of humanity. Examine impartially its results. Not only has it immensely widened and filled in the knowledge of the race and accustomed it to a great patience of research, scrupulosity, accuracy,- if it has done that only in one large sphere of inquiry, it has still prepared for the extension of the same curiosity, intellectual rectitude, power for knowledge to other and higher fields,- not only has it with an unexampled force and richness of invention brought and put into our hands, for much evil, but also for much good, discoveries, instruments, practical powers, conquests, conveniences which, however we may declare their insufficiency for our highest interests, yet few of us would care to relinquish, but it has also, paradoxical as that might at first seem, strengthened man's idealism. On the whole, it has given him a kindlier hope and humanised his nature. Tolerance is greater, liberty has increased, charity is more a matter of course, peace, if not yet practicable, is growing at least imaginable.

Well I don't want to put myself in the same corner as dogmatic religionistas. It is just that in the modern philosophical outlook, the scientific attitude is somewhat over-represented and often taken as grounds for philosphical and spiritual attitudes which are well outside its province. .

If that is true, then whenever you use the word "God", you LITERALLY do not know what you are talking about. In other words, whenever you use the word "God", you are just speaking gibberish.

So, my statement does not imply that to speak of God is to use gibberish, it only means that, while we can know what seems to be quite a lot about God, that knowledge is only a distant approximation of the Reality of God.

So - please assist in defining the term 'God' in a meaningful way. What do you think such a definition would consist of? So far, apart from accusing a couple of contributors of speaking gibberish, your positive contribution has been zero. So - over to you.

What is the function of this god you are imagining? If it is something that could never conflict with actual experience, what, if anything, are you really talking about? And if it is relevant to actual experience, then it is subject to scientific examination, just like every other experience.

I am reminded of an article about the concept of God being continually diluted until it has no content at all. See:

Antony Flew "Theology and Falsification," 1950

It seems to me that people want to hang onto a notion, even though they find that they cannot accept it as it was originally, as they recognize it as false in its original form. And they even want to hang onto it when it does no "work" and serves no function, beyond making them feel better, because they get to hang onto some small portion of their former ideas. In this case, the small portion appears to be linguistic only, and there does not appear to be any actual thing that remains of it beyond mere words.

I have said that "... the nature of God is as incomprehensible to us as the nature of a human carpenter is incomprehensible to a cabinet." And you have asserted that if my statement is true, then the word "God" must be gibberish.

But consider: Scientist are constantly observing, asking questions, testing hypotheses, and proposing theories to explain the known evidence about the nature of the world. If they, or anyone, could comprehend the nature of, say, the atom, such research would not be needed. As an example, Earnest Rutherford's 1910 description of the atom was quite simple compared to present atomic theory, but people spoke about atoms even in Ancient Greece. Therefore, we can assert that "we do not comprehend the nature of the atom", and perhaps even that, "we will never completely comprehend the nature of the atom," but we have some evidence and some usable theories about what the atom is. To use the word "atom" obviously is not gibberish.

We have, from scientific observation of the workings of creation, some evidence of the nature of God, just as one can get an idea about who an artist is by looking at his art.

We also have the scriptures which give us more clues about the nature of God. Interpretation of scripture is tricky. The literal interpretations that some people spout are naive to the point of turning people away from the scriptures, but an intelligent mind is capable of puzzling out the spiritual meanings from the stories, psalms parables, and other teachings.

Combining the evidence from science, from the scriptures, from meditation, and from practice into a sketchy but consistent theory of the nature of God requires more intelligent study and spiritual practice than most people are willing to exert. But, according to scripture, what we really learn when we develop such an understanding about the nature of God, is an understanding of our true, spiritual selves: our own potential.

So, my statement does not imply that to speak of God is to use gibberish, it only means that, while we can know what seems to be quite a lot about God, that knowledge is only a distant approximation of the Reality of God.

Just saying the word or writing the word GOD has implications that we have to consider. If you observe with a free and uncluttered view of our existence, then you would never presume or attempt at looking for god.