God Creation

[Some Schmo]

We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are."
-- Anais Nin

Well now that's the succinct way of saying it.

[honorentheos]

The same issue extends to all conceptual ideas that in fact carry immense weight. Community, family, democracy, freedom, justice, prejudice, fairness, good, bad...some of us think the WoW should be taken literally, some think it's really about drinkable caffeine and cigarettes, others it's really a guideline like it says, others that it needs updated and made more strict. Who is right? Of course the instinct is to just dismiss it all as BS. But applying the same approach to everything where others have different views of fundamental concepts eventually leaves us without a society. That being a very oversimplified version of post-modernism. Bro? Bro.

Well, yes and no. Things like community, family, etc are fairly observable concepts, as non-concrete as they are. The evidence for community and family is apparent, unlike that of the various god concepts. I'm convinced we all have unique definitions of the concepts you listed, but that's just us interpreting the actual evidence for them differently. When I say "family," every English speaking person knows fundamentally what I'm talking about. We all think about family in different ways, but there's a real-world concrete concept of what a family is that everyone accepts: people who are related biologically. Where it goes from there is up to every family who participates. And of course, people will extend those basic definitions in ways others would avoid at all costs.

The same can't be said for a concept like gods. There is no starting point everyone can agree on.

This starts to get into a similar discussion as the "manhood/womanhood" threads. If we examine the anatomy of these constructed concepts, we tend to find a germ of "something" at their core that is independent of human experience, then moving outward the cultural meaning assigned to the concept, then the individual's experience which really gives them form. We tend to ignore this layering and just speak of the thing as if it is obviously a thing that "is", and it looks just as we see it to be. And anyone who speaks of it differently is attempting to deceive others or their thinking is warped in some way. Like being raised Mormon warps ones' thinking so they can't as easily understand who God REALLY is. Bro.

With family, there is a biological relationship akin to the male/female dichotomy at the heart of the man/woman debate. But culture has much more to say about a person's definition of what is family than the biological relationship does. And more and more, post-modern people redefine family to include people with whom they share memes rather than genes (memes in the non-internet sense). Some people would inflict violence over an insult to their biological mother while others would be the first to throw out an insult. Some cultures can't fathom how we in the US don't house multiple generations of biological relatives under one roof, and find it a moral deficiency that we send our old to live out their last days in the care of others while we elevate youth.

Who is family? isn't a question anyone on this board would answer exactly the same. And that's one of the easiest, most closely tied to non-uniquely human concepts on my list.

When it comes to the concept of God, I do think there is something of a germ, though I don't think it is independent of human experience. But I also think that's true of justice, rights, liberalism, democracy, and numerous other concepts I value greatly. I think we humans with our unusual sense of conscious self, and ability to imagine, experience our place in the universe in a way that forms the germ onto which cultures assign the concept of God or gods. And frankly I don't think that's terrible in and of itself. People see the ocean in storm, the majesty of a star-filled sky moving in predictable order, experience massive movements of the earth wiping out everything humankind attempted to erect in a place as if to demonstrate our insignificance to whatever caused that to happen, and attempt to understand conceptually what that all means. God can be something wonderous, sublime, terrifying, whatever. But like you've said elsewhere, the idea that it is universal and we all need to accept one person's definition is abusive of reality. I just don't think it's entirely fair to dismiss it as poppycock, either. Poppycock being a technical term, of course.

[honorentheos]

"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are."
-- Anais Nin

The writing of Nin being of course subversive, one cannot help but wonder if this is insightful? or entropic?

[Jersey Girl]

At the outside chance that you didn't post the OP just to pop off (and no judging from me if you did because I sometimes pop off myself)

I had a couple beers last night and it is something I've been thinking about a lot lately, so I suppose I was in the mood to write it down. The vast majority of my posting at this site is just to articulate my thoughts in the moment about whatever.

can you tell me what sort of Bible learning you've had in your life, how that was delivered to you and by what religious institution or was it a family thing?

I read the Bible when I was a kid. Most of the "instruction" I had on it was from LDS Seminary, but of course, my parents and members of the congregation had their own thoughts on it as well.

I don't ever remember being impressed by scripture, or a time when I actually believed it was written by a deity. It always struck me as fiction, which is probably a big part of the reason I started questioning church teachings when I was 9 or 10.

Trying to get a handle on what your background is re:religious teaching. I'm curious about that and I don't think you've ever said. If you did, I missed it or have forgotten it. I'm not in it to win it here, I'm just really interested about this.

I was born into the LDS church. There was never a time when I enjoyed church activity. I dreaded Sundays, so I have little doubt I was motivated to dispute what the church had to say. Lucky for me, none of it makes much sense. If there actually was a religion that was "true" I'd be screwed, because I'd still have no part of it, unless it actually made sense and made my life better.

Also, it seems important to point out, when I started questioning Mormonism, I was questioning the idea of religion, not my church specifically. It never made any sense to me that there was one church the creator of the universe wanted us all to attend without specifically telling us which one.

Thanks for sharing all that! The reason I asked is because your post (as I read it) went from here's a photo of Jesus and now I'll make something up about who I see in the photo. Methinks the beer might have had something to do with that!

[Some Schmo]

I agreed with everything you said about how people interpret family, your honor. My only point is that people will concede a fundamental definition for that word (or any word) if you point out that's the context in which you're using it. And frankly, people can do that with their definition of god (doesn't mean I'll agree with what they think is the fundamental definition of god, however, but context is good for understanding). Makes for good communication.

When it comes to the concept of God, I do think there is something of a germ, though I don't think it is independent of human experience. But I also think that's true of justice, rights, liberalism, democracy, and numerous other concepts I value greatly. I think we humans with our unusual sense of conscious self, and ability to imagine, experience our place in the universe in a way that forms the germ onto which cultures assign the concept of God or gods. And frankly I don't think that's terrible in and of itself. People see the ocean in storm, the majesty of a star-filled sky moving in predictable order, experience massive movements of the earth wiping out everything humankind attempted to erect in a place as if to demonstrate our insignificance to whatever caused that to happen, and attempt to understand conceptually what that all means. God can be something wonderous, sublime, terrifying, whatever. But like you've said elsewhere, the idea that it is universal and we all need to accept one person's definition is abusive of reality. I just don't think it's entirely fair to dismiss it as poppycock, either. Poppycock being a technical term, of course.

I don't dismiss the basic idea of god as poppycock (also using it in the technical sense). I've admitted in this thread, I made my own god too. It is tempting and natural for us to think all things need a creator. That, I get. I've gotten over it by thinking of all the things that's aren't consciously created, like mountains and rivers, or the very concept of emergent properties. But I understand the temptation to believe there's a creator.

What I am dismissive of are the attributes people assign their "creator" that are outrageously and obviously a product of their imagination, like he hates gay people, or any of a million other claims people make about their gods.

[Some Schmo]

Thanks for sharing all that! The reason I asked is because your post (as I read it) went from here's a photo of Jesus and now I'll make something up about who I see in the photo. Methinks the beer might have had something to do with that!

For sure, Jersey Girl. One thing I meant to add is that I stayed in the church until I was 17 when I left home. It was just easier to pretend to my parents than to face their wrath while I lived at home. The first time I realized I no longer had to go was the first day I was supposed to go to seminary after moving out. I was like, holy crap, this is great! I'm going to the arcade.

I will say about my post, the beer had nothing to do with the content, but it may have influenced the tone. As I said, I only had a couple. I've been thinking on this stuff for years now, really. Lately it's come up because of the recent the Supreme Court decision we all have to live with.

[Some Schmo]

Apparently that’s true on a physics and psychological level. <- I watched, like, three Donald Hoffman videos. For your perusal:

https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+ ... video#ip=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

- Doc

You sent me down a rabbit hole. I came back to tell you after a couple of those videos that you sent me down a rabbit hole.

Then I read the replies in this thread and it sent me down a rabbit hole. I'm damned Alice today.

Wait... that came out wrong...

[honorentheos]

I'm damned Alice today.

Wait... that came out wrong...

Reading up on Anais Nin? Nah. You got it right in every sense.

[Some Schmo]

I'm damned Alice today.

Wait... that came out wrong...

Reading up on Anais Nin? Nah. You got it right in every sense.

No, watching Donald Hoffman videos.

[honorentheos]

I agreed with everything you said about how people interpret family, your honor. My only point is that people will concede a fundamental definition for that word (or any word) if you point out that's the context in which you're using it. And frankly, people can do that with their definition of god (doesn't mean I'll agree with what they think is the fundamental definition of god, however, but context is good for understanding). Makes for good communication.

When it comes to the concept of God, I do think there is something of a germ, though I don't think it is independent of human experience. But I also think that's true of justice, rights, liberalism, democracy, and numerous other concepts I value greatly. I think we humans with our unusual sense of conscious self, and ability to imagine, experience our place in the universe in a way that forms the germ onto which cultures assign the concept of God or gods. And frankly I don't think that's terrible in and of itself. People see the ocean in storm, the majesty of a star-filled sky moving in predictable order, experience massive movements of the earth wiping out everything humankind attempted to erect in a place as if to demonstrate our insignificance to whatever caused that to happen, and attempt to understand conceptually what that all means. God can be something wonderous, sublime, terrifying, whatever. But like you've said elsewhere, the idea that it is universal and we all need to accept one person's definition is abusive of reality. I just don't think it's entirely fair to dismiss it as poppycock, either. Poppycock being a technical term, of course.

I don't dismiss the basic idea of god as poppycock (also using it in the technical sense). I've admitted in this thread, I made my own god too. It is tempting and natural for us to think all things need a creator. That, I get. I've gotten over it by thinking of all the things that's aren't consciously created, like mountains and rivers, or the very concept of emergent properties. But I understand the temptation to believe there's a creator.

What I am dismissive of is the attributes people assign their "creator" that are outrageously and obviously a product of their imagination, like he hates gay people, or any of a million other claims people make about their gods.

I tend to frame what you say above as good reason to be openly skeptical of someone's justification for behaviors that are only defensible because "God". The unknowable immensity of the cosmos contrasted with the potential for elevated human behavior above the primal, biological demands that women who the community calls a witch be burned? You sure about that? Two dudes find one another attractive and form a relationship, and the unknowable immensity of the cosmos contrasted with the potential for elevated human behavior above the primal, biological forbids it? You sure? Oh, you mean that the unknowable immensity of the cosmos contrasted with the potential for elevated human behavior above the primal, biological is synonymous with a modern interpretation of the evolved paternal deity of the mythologies of Indo-European/Semitic/Greco-Romantic cultures filtered through socio-economic political dynamics in an increasingly inequitable pluralistic society facing rising climatic catastrophes that are, in part, of their own making? Huh. Seems dubious to say that justifies telling someone else they can't be in a relationship you otherwise have no interest in. But please, tell me how this works...