Tom Honey on God

[Katsuni]

Found an interesting 20 minute speech by a Vicar in the catholic church, one which is actually quite profound and covers alot of interesting concepts.

Before the atheists and agnostics run off, I think yeu should stop for a moment and actually listen to the whole thing. It's far closer to whot yeu may believe than yeu may be thinking.

Furthermore, those who are religious believers should carefully consider the points brought up.

Tom Honey on God and the tsunami | Video on TED.com




Essentially, he boils it down to the two main problems that many atheists point out in god... either he's not all powerful, or he's not all loving, in which case he's not truly godlike. The eventual conclusion that the speaker arrives at, is that God is unlikely to be a singular entity as such, and may either be, or have changed since creation, to become a being that resides within each of us as a touch of the divine, rather than a singular being. That god represents the little things in life, the pleasures and pains we experience regularly.

For me, I have many problems with this argument as well, but he did touch on several thoughts which I have believed for a long time now, after much thought on the matter.

Primarily, he pointed out that a god who was malicious or demanding of worship while returning nothing, would not be worthy of such worship. And that the 'early' christians believed in a god of mythological proportions, rather than one that was more realistic.

In the final moments of the speech, it seems as if this Vicar of the catholic church, through mere common sense and reasoning, has come to the conclusion that 'god', in the sense presented by the church, can not exist, and if he does, then he is not worthy of worship. Instead, his mindset changed to the point that he seemed to become practically a hinduist instead; one observed by reflection upon the inward power, through meditation, and through interaction with others, wherein when touching the inner portion of god from himself, to the inner portion of god to another, a two way conversation becomes a three way one.

Admittedly, I don't know enough about hinduism to know exactly how similar it is, and most of my understanding actually came from the book Siddhartha, which might I add, is a novel which I highly advocate towards anyone seeking understanding of religious matters.

Regardless, the speaker, Tom Honey, seems to be going down much the same journey as Siddhartha did within the book, one of religious and self discovery, which is making an unexpected turn, in which enlightenment is being arrived at in a way significantly differently than any major current religion is capable of providing.

I think, possibly the most profound thing he stated in the entire speech, may have been that, those who believe the strongest in a god without boarders, or boundries, whom is infinite and all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, are in fact those who then immediately turn and bind him down with rules, with dogma, and with chains of laws.

While there are no true answers given, the explanation of his thoughts as he goes through them is quite interesting, as it shows whot I believe to be the true form of religion, and the most pure form of belief. That is, not that which is presented and provided to yeu upon a platter, but rather, one which yeu study, consider, and attempt to understand through and through. To not just "know" by blind faith, but to UNDERSTAND whot it is yeu believe, and to change ones' perceptions based upon that understanding.

I do not truly believe that there can be a god who thinks we should just randomly spin the wheel and pick the "right" religion out of THOUSANDS of possibilities, and if yeu pick the right one, yeu get rewarded eternally, and to choose wrongly is to be punished severely forevermore.

My personal belief, is that any god worthy of worship, would never demand such, and would encourage understanding over blind faith.

It would seem, that though the speaker has not yet arrived at their destination on this matter, that they have finally started upon that path of understanding, and this encourages me that I'm not alone in seeking answers. That being content with the 'knowledge' that there is or isn't anything out there in the form of god, or a pantheon of gods, or multiple pantheons, that to 'know' for certain anything is a falsehood, and that any atheist, or firm blind faith believer has yet to attain. Rather, the greatest truth the vicar had to say... was the simple phrase which almost none of us can seem to let pass our lips.

"I don't know."

For in reality... we don't know. To claim that god does not exist is to claim that yeu know EVERYTHING in the universe, and understand all with intimate detail and understand all correlations between each part amongst the whole. To be an atheist is to claim that all the things that science has yet to explain *MUST* be explainable by science, and that yeu have absolute unswerving faith in that there is not other option, despite that yeu don't even know whot the answers to those questions are.

Becoming an atheist is a form of blind faith I can't adhere to.

So, too, is any other blind faith which claims to know for certain the unknowable.

As such, the only true faith one can achieve, is the knowledge that yeu really don't know. And the only true religion one can have, is to attempt to learn and understand as best yeu can with the limited tools yeu have.

While the speaker did not mimic these exact words... I believe that he has begun to understand the point, if only in a basic, undeveloped manner. Where I myself was perhaps a decade or more ago.

I don't agree with his final conclusion, but I respect the thought process that went into how he reached that conclusion.

This post isn't so much to expound my own beliefs, or to claim that he is absolutely right, but rather, to point out that his speech provides a very easy to follow format wherein he shows HOW he goes through his thought process on the matter, and how he reasons out the basic possibilities and which can and can't inherently be true.

My point in this post, above all else, is to evoke thought in each reader, and to hope that others can start to try to understand, rather than simply accept.

I don't have any more answers than the speaker has, nor does anyone else here. Rather, it is not the answer that is important anyway, but the search for that answer. We can't know the truth, nor can we understand the vast complexities of the universe. Whot we CAN do, is TRY.

I view the video as a pristine example of someone attempting to understand, trying to learn, and upon that correct path. Hopefully someone else here will gain something from the speech, or whot I've written in regards to it. I don't know that such will happen, but it'd be nice =3

And there, again, is that one persistent phrase... the key to everything.

I don't know.

 

[Lark]

I don't agree with his final conclusion, but I respect the thought process that went into how he reached that conclusion.

I really like this you know.

I dont agree with the thesis at all really, that human, all too human, reasoning about God means that God can not be, therefore God is to be discerned as the little things in life? To me that sounds like someone brought low by secularism and the age which makes belief more difficult than doubt or none belief.

I do believe that God is all powerful and all loving, I can not see the apparent contradiction there and I'm left distinctly untroubled by the "Problem of Evil" which troubles a lot of people, an all loving God is not necessarily an interventionist one, the intervention itself could prove to be the more evil in consequence or have further consequences.

If we humans can tell this from simply parenting or the politics of state or social/community intervention, then it should not be difficult to extend the analysis to the behaviour of a diety.

Although I dont entirely believe that thesis because I find it pretty anthropomorphic, God is not a human being, human motivation and understanding and compulsion should not be attributed to God. Its idolatros and heretical to do so in my understanding. Even nonsensical and it stokes atheists and anti-theists and all the rest.

There is also the idea of a grand design or unperceived and unperceiveable design, I read that at the final judgement justice is to be done but also seen to be done, now I dont read that as being divine retribution and the inflicting of suffering per se but the idea that understanding will be visited upon people, the "why?" wont exist anymore.

There is also the idea that hell and purgatory could be a purging process whereby individuals become fully aware of their personal wrong doing and can either "survive" it or remain trapped by it. This would require a God that, to all intents and purposes appears to either "hands off" or complicent, but is infact still loving.

Worthiness and the other words you use in the OP dont strike me as being applicable to my present religious understandings, it is a little like saying is your girlfriend or SO worthy of love, when you are really in love with them, or really reciprocate the love they have for you rather, it does not take that thought or reasoning or whatever. The best and the brightest at all times have, without necessarily condemning scripturalism, tradition, precepts or laws (I believe them necessary for the transmission of accumulated knowledge between generations) known that you move beyond it to some sort of personal relationship.

Objectively speaking, when you read a book, no two people will have the exact same experience, they'll remember different passages, even if there's congruence or equal resonance of content between them. Contact with religions I believe is the same. What matters to God the human, all too human, thing called religion?

The idea that God has changed is an interesting one and Jung writes well on this topic, especially in his reply to Job, perhaps God has evolved and not simply our understanding and perception or discernment. Perhaps there is a divine spark in each of us and through us God experiences his creation first hand but for a few exceptional examples, notably in my tradition Jesus Christ, that presence is not so great and certainly not so great as to be confused with God itself.

This opens all kinds of lines of questioning, which invites the trap of anthropomorphism and attributing human qualities to something which is not human, but in the bible stories of Jesus, supposedly God incarnate, there are stories of progressive revelation and learning through experience, notably his meeting with a syrophenician (spelling) woman who he initially condemns as a tribal/racial outcast, her humble admonishing of his behaviour and faith has a transformative effect on both she and he.

 

[Beorn]

Essentially, he boils it down to the two main problems that many atheists point out in god... either he's not all powerful, or he's not all loving, in which case he's not truly godlike.

The bible is very clear that God is all powerful. It is even more clear that God does not love everyone equally. Ask any Amalekite on that matter.

Primarily, he pointed out that a god who was malicious or demanding of worship while returning nothing, would not be worthy of such worship.

God gives joy in return for worship.

I think, possibly the most profound thing he stated in the entire speech, may have been that, those who believe the strongest in a god without boarders, or boundries, whom is infinite and all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, are in fact those who then immediately turn and bind him down with rules, with dogma, and with chains of laws.

Law and order may seem confining in some sense and yet liberating in another. The law of gravity confines me to the earth, but it is in my best interest to be confined to the ground rather than floating in a powerless fashion up to the sky.

To not just "know" by blind faith, but to UNDERSTAND whot it is yeu believe, and to change ones' perceptions based upon that understanding.

The Christianity of the Bible calls for a faith that is reasonable and not ignorant.

I do not truly believe that there can be a god who thinks we should just randomly spin the wheel and pick the "right" religion out of THOUSANDS of possibilities, and if yeu pick the right one, yeu get rewarded eternally, and to choose wrongly is to be punished severely forevermore.

I don't believe that accurately describes the God of the Bible in any way.

My personal belief, is that any god worthy of worship, would never demand such, and would encourage understanding over blind faith.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about what the "God who is there" is like as opposed to your own personal feelings? If there is a God what do his attributes have to do with your personal beliefs?

It would seem, that though the speaker has not yet arrived at their destination on this matter, that they have finally started upon that path of understanding, and this encourages me that I'm not alone in seeking answers. That being content with the 'knowledge' that there is or isn't anything out there in the form of god, or a pantheon of gods, or multiple pantheons, that to 'know' for certain anything is a falsehood, and that any atheist, or firm blind faith believer has yet to attain.

You seem to presume that people stop seeking after knowledge and truth when they believe there is or is not a god.

Belief in foundational truths allows for the furtherance of knowledge. If you never decide whether algebra is true or not you will never learn calculus.

So, too, is any other blind faith which claims to know for certain the unknowable.

How do you know that God is unknowable. You may not be able to reason your way to the knowledge of god. You may not be able to know there is a god on the basis of the human experience. But, if there is a God is it not possible for him to reveal the knowledge of his existence?

As such, the only true faith one can achieve, is the knowledge that yeu really don't know. And the only true religion one can have, is to attempt to learn and understand as best yeu can with the limited tools yeu have.

Why are you trying to force your one true religion on me?

My point in this post, above all else, is to evoke thought in each reader, and to hope that others can start to try to understand, rather than simply accept.

If the premise of the above statement statement is true (that we must seek to understand before we accept truth) does it matter whether I simply accept it as true or try to understand it but never accept it as true?

I don't have any more answers than the speaker has, nor does anyone else here. Rather, it is not the answer that is important anyway, but the search for that answer. We can't know the truth, nor can we understand the vast complexities of the universe. Whot we CAN do, is TRY.

If you can't know the truth how can you know that it is true that the search for the truth is more important than the truth itself?

 

[Mole]

A Large Resonant Bell

Honey tells us that God is the inner conversation. And how apt, as we are engaged in the never ending conversation here.

You have faith there is an inner Victor and I have faith there is an inner you. We are a faith community.

We start with faith and say I don't know the inner you. Have you done the test? The test that will qualify you in four letters.

And how frustrated we become with one another, as we contradict one another, as we argue with one another and finally insult one another.

And we only contradict, argue and insult because inner intimacy is too scary and painful to bear. Far better to keep one another at a distance.

How ironic, I am as far from you as is physically possible on Earth, but still you need to keep me at an emotional distance.

We have abolished physical time and space on the internet and find ourselves face to face with emotional time and space, so naturally we baulk.

We barely know ourselves, we say, how can we be expected to know anyone else? And yes, how can we?

And yes, we have abolished physical time and space and are left in the noosphere, pure spirits without bodies, with only our emotions to guide us. No wonder we thrash around and thrash each other.

We are so used to looking, we have forgotten how to listen.

But the internet, the noosphere, is a large resonant bell. So ask not for whom the bell tolls.