The Death of God

[Ginkgo]

No, YOU'RE looking at it backwards, in choosing to regard the concept of the divine as purely a human construct, which means you've already arrived at your conclusion before you even begin to examine the question.

So, alright. Here's an example:

There's roadkill on the curb of the street. We don't know how it got there, but we do denote it as roadkill. We know that we denote it as roadkill because we already knew what that concept was prior to seeing it. It could have arrived there just by being struck by a car, or by being dropped by a hot air balloon. But do you know that it's roadkill because it is such, or because it's part of your mental tapestry? We know, beyond a doubt, that it's part of your worldview, regardless of whether it objectively exists as such. Your worldview is conceived of as your own, despite whether you credit God to it.

 

[ragashree]

A picture just saved me from a thousand words, I could look at it that way...

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm actually seeing so much symbolism in the crucifixion here.

 

[Lark]

I dont understand the idea that the creation myths disproval equals the death of God, they are only literary tools and to be honest occupy the place of a prayer really, the story in oral tradition was told at the point of opening a project or creative endevour and not as fact. There are creation mythologies globally which serve the same purpose without the controversy. The important elements of it are that God was a creator, not a warrior subduing forces external to itself as had been depicted in many rival faiths and philosophies, that it was done without effort and was followed by rest.

I agree that God can not be dead while it remains an important communicative concept even to athiests and anti-theists, the question then is whether it is a mere psychological construct used in symbolic communication, anthropomorphic even if in an unobvious way, or a reality apart from mankind. Did we create God or did God create us? Regardless of whether it is perpetuated as a live idea.

Dawkins et al would suppose that "God" is an idea, a delusional idea with no redeeming features at that, which through memetic process is self-perpetuating. The contrary view is that God exists, a discernable presence, discovered intuitively but totally distorted by our limited capacities. The thing about the contrary view is that it could to all appearences "look" exactly as Dawkins et al suggest, which is true? I dont know for sure.

The thing about memetics is that simply talking about something "gives it life" in a way, a strange but I believe valid observation, hence the action of many opponents of theism, who want to see it dead, to dismiss with "LOL @ Christianity" rather than attempt any discourse. Its something that was pointed out to me by a champion of homosexuality that whether you approve or disapprove the minute to enter into discourse on it you "profile" it in a way that other sexualities will not be profiled, so even if you oppose its legitimacy, spread or adoption as a mass behaviour, if you mention it, you lose. These are ideas that I'm still trying to fully comprehend, memetics etc. and they dont sit entirely right with a lot of things I think I know for sure more through intuition than thinking but I'm not sure which trait is the stronger and time will tell.

Objectively I think the state does occupy the position God once did, benevolent provider and protector, but disillusionment with this has already set in in a big way, the rival theories which could take its place, marketplace as God, heads of industry as God etc. I believe are worse prospects.

 

[Lark]

So, alright. Here's an example:

There's roadkill on the curb of the street. We don't know how it got there, but we do denote it as roadkill. We know that we denote it as roadkill because we already knew what that concept was prior to seeing it. It could have arrived there just by being struck by a car, or by being dropped by a hot air balloon. But do you know that it's roadkill because it is such, or because it's part of your mental tapestry? We know, beyond a doubt, that it's part of your worldview, regardless of whether it objectively exists as such. Your worldview is conceived of as your own, despite whether you credit God to it.

MT that extrapolation from mental theorising is surely the very definition of the Thinking trait, perhaps that is more to do with typology than objective reality? Reality is heavily filtered through type and its probably a two way street but it has a distinct shape besides our perception of it, I mean unless you're some kind of militant Cartesian or something.

 

[Lark]

MT from reading the thread I've got to ask, are you suggesting "there's a god shaped hole in each of us", I mean is the knowledge or conceptualisation of God an a priori one which we have either as ancestral memory or some other innate trait whether we go on to affirm or deny it?

Sorry if that's needlessly wordy or sounds like shit, trying to understand because talking to yourself about these ideas has helped me shape my own.

 

[Ginkgo]

MT from reading the thread I've got to ask, are you suggesting "there's a god shaped hole in each of us", I mean is the knowledge or conceptualisation of God an a priori one which we have either as ancestral memory or some other innate trait whether we go on to affirm or deny it?

Sorry if that's needlessly wordy or sounds like shit, trying to understand because talking to yourself about these ideas has helped me shape my own.

It's ineffable. Some have suggested that we all try to fill it with various things like riches, art, prayer, etc.

Ever since Kierkegaard suggested this unusually sophisticated "Me-You" relationship with God, there has been a trend in understanding God as a separate entity from the self. I don't think they are separate. I think the are inextricably the same, and because we've regarded God as something that must be "proven" on an external basis, we've forgotten the whole point.

 

[Lark]

It's ineffable. Some have suggested that we all try to fill it with various things like riches, art, prayer, etc.

Ever since Kierkegaard suggested this unusually sophisticated "Me-You" relationship with God, there has been a trend in understanding God as a separate entity from the self. I don't think they are separate. I think the are inextricably the same, and because we've regarded God as something that must be "proven" on an external basis, we've forgotten the whole point.

I think I agree with this, certainly it is like the western vs. eastern thinking in mind-body dichotomy or dualism, this makes me think of the other thread I was just posting in with the piece the OP posted from a catholic (presumably church of england/anglican) vicar.

I too believe there has been too much in the way of externalising and possibly the pscyhological mechanism of projection, attribution etc. has gone awry in augury, anthropomorphism etc. but there is a line which if you cross you have reduced God and faith to a footnote in self-psychology.

Tolstoys interiorisation of The Kingdom of God and Christianity and the other mystics who talked about the interior castle came close but I dont think they crossed that line.

 

[Ginkgo]

I think I agree with this, certainly it is like the western vs. eastern thinking in mind-body dichotomy or dualism, this makes me think of the other thread I was just posting in with the piece the OP posted from a catholic (presumably church of england/anglican) vicar.

Actually, western society started to dip into eastern ones, particularly during the 60's, because it addressed the mind-body thing. For instance, people would indulge in drugs, sex, and other bodily oriented things for spiritual purposes because the previously prominent Christian mode of thought encouraged abstinence from those things, and actually loosened the "God shaped hole" for many, many people instead of filling it (which it was supposed to do).

I too believe there has been too much in the way of externalising and possibly the pscyhological mechanism of projection, attribution etc. has gone awry in augury, anthropomorphism etc. but there is a line which if you cross you have reduced God and faith to a footnote in self-psychology.

The anthropomorphism comes from the fact that people ask themselves "why?" and "How?" things happen interchangeably. For instance, if I was walking down the street and some stray baseball blindsided me, then I might ask "why?", as if to anthropomorphize the baseball, or the fabric of reality. But it's ultimately because I'm anthroporphizing myself and my own perception because I know that I'm a conscious entity.

Tolstoys interiorisation of The Kingdom of God and Christianity and the other mystics who talked about the interior castle came close but I dont think they crossed that line.

Mystics will never breach it present it in a way that can be understood by all because you can't infer symbols to "God" or the collective unconscious. That's antithetical to what the collective unconscious is. Once you infer it, it has become a figment of your own experience and has solidified as conscious.

 

[Coriolis]

Fulfillment of one's trust in God is generally accomplished through human agency. A government can be this agent, whether it is a theocracy or not. Much depends upon the perspective of the onlooker. It always strikes me as odd how people who support Biblical injunctions to care for those less fortunate, to be good stewards of the Earth, etc. etc. oppose government actions indended to do just that. To them, it seems better for government to promote a creed than to promote the actual agenda of Jesus, albeit in a secular way. In a diverse society which includes many faiths plus nonbelievers, one will more readily reach a consensus on the second than the first.

There are many types of faith. Sometimes it is synonomous with trust, as in: I have faith in my friend to be there when I need him; I have faith in my employer to treat me fairly. Faith in government, for those who have it, would seem like this. It might better be termed reliance. Such faith is more of an expectation based upon prior experience and knowledge of the subject person or entity, and is very different from spiritual faith. As such, faith in government need in no way replace faith in God.

Disproving of the Biblical creation story as scientific fact does not invalidate the story's symbolic value. The only problem is the many Christians who continue to insist upon its literal truth. One of my coworkers is such a person. His idea of looking at the Bible critically is to find scientific validity to everything it contains, or to reject it all as rubbish. He can find no figurative middle ground. As Lark pointed out above, "There are creation mythologies globally which serve the same purpose without the controversy." The main difference is that these are generally recognized as mythologies rather than factual accounts. Most Christians I know, however, would take great offense to having their scriptures characterized as "myth", though to me that is a more accurate and in no way derogatory description.

 

[ragashree]

Jesus, Tater.


There is more to this statement than meets the eye!