Why you believe what you believe I

[Elfhelm]

I don't get how "creation", by which I mean making something out of nothing, is necessary for a definition of God. Is "the Creator" the only God that's possible?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

If there is no God as you believe then how did the earth come to be created, and all living and non living things that exist on it?

I guess I'm not wording this very well, and my brain is tired, so forgive anything nonsensical about to spew from my finger-tips....

I'm not sure how the universe began. I don't know. I don't claim to know. What I feel is right, based on evidence, is that the big bang occurred, or something equivalent, and that all "life" comes from that energy. I suppose the more agnostic-tending aspect of my personality acknowledges that there are more forces in the universe than are 'quantifiable', and that there may be an underlying creating force, per se. What I object vehemently to, is that if this force exists, that it is some kind of god-head/figure-head/Beardy type dude.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to be as clear on this as possible, but my belief system IS a bit wishy-washy, which I explained in my first post - swinging between atheism and agnosticism.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Great example. In anthropology the incest taboo is attributed to the likelihood that it damages economic alliances such as kinship groups. And the morality is structured to maintain those aliances which are tied back to the need to survive.

Elfhelm that is an over-generalisation. Some societies used incest as a means of binding together families to prevent the wealth from 'filtering' out, or as a means of concreting a tie to the throne.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by inked

BoP,
If the self-existent universe is divine, how do you deny it personality, for in Western thought the gods or God are self-aware and therefore personalities.

Are you talking here about my supposition of an underlying "force"? In which case, then I guess I chose the wrong adjective. In any case, a personality imposed upon a god-figure by humanity is a manifestation of "man", so to speak. It is a perception of a personality, rather than a stand-alone one, IMO.

Originally Posted by inked

The universality of the incest taboo is like the universality of marriage, BoP.

I'm not happy with that assumption, Inked. Historically, and culturally, the approach to both marriage and the incest taboo have hardly been a universal one. There have been several different approaches to marriage, kinship alliances, and so forth. To assume a universality kinda wipes out a whole body of evidence, particularly from non-western societies that held practices of kin-ship beyond the 'nuclear' family. Even today, many pacific island nations practice extended families, rather than the mum, dad, 2.5 kids. Universality, IMO, is a bit presumptuous.

Originally Posted by inked

The normative human behaviour and regulation is forbidding closely related individuals from reproducing. The anomalous cases are those which permit it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was merely using the incest taboo as an example of perceived morality. Biologically, statistically, it is not deleterious to our species. There's no particular reasoning behind it other than a cultural taboo, and a fear of mutation (which IS a possibility, but then, so is having a child for women over the age of 40, and yet that is not taboo).

In any case, many societies have differing "sliding scale" responses to this 'taboo'. Some cultures are okay with first cousins marrying, for instance, and some aren't.

Originally Posted by inked

You acknowledge the exceptional nature of the societies which permit it but then assert they are proof of a non-moral source which you state is not damaged reproduction.

I assert no such thing. You are either intentionally misreading me, or being obtuse.

Let's try this again: I believe that morality is a human imposition over behaviours that are either necessary for survival, or cultural impositions. Now, what I'm stating is that the ones necessary for survival are the ones that share some degree of commonality throughout different cultures. The cultural impositions, OTOH, don't, are that's what I mean by morality being relative. For the romans, throwing an unwanted baby on a rubbish heap was okay, but if women try to do that today, it's considered abhorred.

I'm sorry if I'm being really cranky here, Inked, but I think you're trying to run circles around an obvious square, and I'm too tired for this right now.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I don't get how "creation", by which I mean making something out of nothing, is necessary for a definition of God. Is "the Creator" the only God that's possible?

(I think you're talking about my post?)

What I was trying to say is that it's intrinsically impossible to make something out of nothing, so WHATEVER mysterious thing was around before the universe as we know existed (God, goo, or something in between), that mysterious thing must be self-existent (i.e., non-created), and that is one characteristic of the God described in the Bible. I'm not saying it proves the existence of God, just that it indicates it as a possibility.

(but let's not get too far in this discussion; it's BOP's turn )
(unless BOP wants to comment)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

What I object vehemently to, is that if this force exists, that it is some kind of god-head/figure-head/Beardy type dude.

Well, I object to the beardy picture, too, esp. as my personal beliefs include that God is spirit.

I find your vehemence interesting - why do you object so vehemently? If it was just an opinion of yours, I don't see why you'd be vehement. Is it because people tried to force this picture on you and you have bad memories or something? I'm not trying to psycho-analyze you; just trying to understand you more

Again, you say :

Originally Posted by BOP

In any case, a personality imposed upon a god-figure by humanity is a manifestation of "man", so to speak. It is a perception of a personality, rather than a stand-alone one, IMO.

But what basis do you have for your belief that the personality was imposed upon a god-figure, and not the other way around?



I'll repeat your post and my follow-up question again, in case you missed it:

Here's what you said : "Why do I think that if there IS a God(s) that it isn't a personification of "man"? Because I find the notion vaguely silly, and arrogant. There's a whole universe out there, and the notion that that universe would choose to personify itself as a Man is, to me, ridiculously earthocentric. Reminds me of when people used to think everything revolves around the earth."

There are two points in your answer that I'd like to bring out.

One - I wasn't asking about how a "universe" might choose to personify itself. Two - I wasn't talking about "personifying" at ALL. I was talking about how a god/more powerful being that created the universe might choose to create a type of being that he/she/it desired to relate to at some level.

Your answer came ENTIRELY from your preconceived notions about what this god, if he/she/it exists, is like. There are other reasonable ideas out there about what this god might be like, and you are not taking these into account, and I'm asking you to consider the question from this different angle, and NOT in terms of personification.

So would you please re-read my question and give it a shot? Here it is : IF there was a god that created humans with the intent of interacting with them, would you say it makes sense for humans to be somewhat like the god?

[Pytt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's "agnostic", but I like how you said it, too

Well, why not a "God"? I agree that something can't come from nothing, but that argument doesn't eliminate a God any more than it eliminates anything else. In other words, it would also elimate the entire universe starting from ANYTHING - God or goo.

What is DOES indicate is that SOMETHING had to be self-existent (i.e., non-created) in order for ANYTHING ELSE to exist, and that the universe came from that self-existent thing/being. And actually, that describes the God of the Bible perfectly

ok, i think i used the norwegian term if the word.

[inked]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Are you talking here about my supposition of an underlying "force"? In which case, then I guess I chose the wrong adjective. In any case, a personality imposed upon a god-figure by humanity is a manifestation of "man", so to speak. It is a perception of a personality, rather than a stand-alone one, IMO.

Well, BoP mankind has no referent for God or god or gods except human experience and being in the case of talking about it. The highest form of being which we experience is in fact personality. But overemphasis or childish understanding of this image is termed anthropomorphism as I am sure you know. This gets to epistemology - how we know what we know and the nature of language. I am not trying to be obtuse but specific.



[QUOTE BoP]I'm not happy with that assumption, Inked. Historically, and culturally, the approach to both marriage and the incest taboo have hardly been a universal one. There have been several different approaches to marriage, kinship alliances, and so forth. To assume a universality kinda wipes out a whole body of evidence, particularly from non-western societies that held practices of kin-ship beyond the 'nuclear' family. Even today, many pacific island nations practice extended families, rather than the mum, dad, 2.5 kids. Universality, IMO, is a bit presumptuous.[/quote]

Care to give percentages BoP because statistically the examples you cite are in a minority. Evidentiary principles would not give the same weight to the mere occurrence of an anomalous arrangement but also attempt to quantify it in relation to the dominant view(s). This is the aspect of cultural relativity arguments that is most often abused (and I am not atttacking you BoP merely pointing out the state of affairs): the assumption that the existence of an anomaly is equal to the existence of the vast majority of the evidence. In part this comes from the false and artificial objectivity one sees in newspaper columnists and writers who will cite that the current view (which they fail to quantify as held by 99.99% of scientists) is opposed by scientist x and associates (who represent </= 0.01%). This is considered to be balanced reportage but completely fails to state the actual situation. This is the trap I think you incest taboo argument falls into by default as well as marriage. I do not deny that anomalous situations/views/legals systems have existed/do exist/will exist, BoP, I want them placed in the reality context! E.g., there are individuals who regard all killing of humans under any circumstances as wrong and there are individuals who view fellow humans as prey. Is that a fair summary of the views on killing? NO WAY. But that is the type of "balance" that holds the presentation of one alternative viewpoint, no matter how miniscule or insignificant, to be indicative of normative state of affairs. See !





[QUOTE BOP]I assert no such thing. You are either intentionally misreading me, or being obtuse.

Let's try this again: I believe that morality is a human imposition over behaviours that are either necessary for survival, or cultural impositions. Now, what I'm stating is that the ones necessary for survival are the ones that share some degree of commonality throughout different cultures. The cultural impositions, OTOH, don't, are that's what I mean by morality being relative. For the romans, throwing an unwanted baby on a rubbish heap was okay, but if women try to do that today, it's considered abhorred.

I'm sorry if I'm being really cranky here, Inked, but I think you're trying to run circles around an obvious square, and I'm too tired for this right now.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the clarification. But if I understand you, the application of the priciple you espouse would be 'survival" of the moral-est as opposed to the fittest? How would different underlying behaviours differentiate survivability? It's an interesting approach which I have not come across before or don't recall (which at my age is entirely possible, so set me on an ice floe and wave 'bye-bye' or something ).

I don't think you are cranky, BoP. You should catch me on a 48-72 hour sleep deprivation cycle due to babies/surgeries/emergencies. Now that's cranky!!!

[Nurvingiel]

To quote BoP, go like this
[quote=BoP]
end quote =
[/quote]

I think to even attempt to put God into words, we have to anthropomorphize him/her/it at least a little bit. See, we don't even have a proper pronoun!

I know you're just being precise (in your opinion in this case), but I resent the use of the word "anomaly" for marriages that do not fall into the "norm". Anomaly has negative connotations.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by inked

Care to give percentages BoP because statistically the examples you cite are in a minority.

Why would I need to pull out percentages? These cases are well documented. Historically, multiple partner marriage was more prevalent than it is today, and in some societies, it's still practised, eg, muslim. In some indigenous pacific cultures, matrilineal hierarchy dominated, with extended families being the norm. It is STILL the case in a lot of pacific cultures to farm out your kids if you've got too many mouths to feed. The fact of the matter is that marriage, familial practices, kinship practices, etc, have varied through both time and different cultures. There is no universality. And your point that a small percentage only practice these anomalies is immaterial. There's still enough of a deviation, that it can't be considered universal. The whole world does not practice western practices.

Originally Posted by inked

I do not deny that anomalous situations/views/legals systems have existed/do exist/will exist, BoP, I want them placed in the reality context!

I don't see how I'm not. I'm not claiming that these 'anomalous' practices are the be all and end all, but I AM stating that they're evidence enough that there is a degree of variability between cultures.

Originally Posted by inked

Thanks for the clarification. But if I understand you, the application of the priciple you espouse would be 'survival" of the moral-est as opposed to the fittest?

No... I don't use that terminology ("morality"). And anyway, "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer that I'd prefer not to use. Evolution is about adaptation. The fitness of an organism is important, BUT not as important as the adaptivity of an organism. Fitness means jack-shite if the organism can't adapt to sudden changes in the environment. Anyway, to answer your question, I'm only stating that the idea of morality is driven by survival mechanisms, directly, or indirectly, and cultural indicators as well (as referenced by my previous post). I'm not saying that it's anything more or less than that.

Originally Posted by inked

How would different underlying behaviours differentiate survivability?

An interesting question! I wish I had a good answer... I don't, unfortunately. But it deserves consideration. What do YOU think?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I find your vehemence interesting - why do you object so vehemently?

I don't really know, Sharon. I just have an equivalent of Spock in my head shouting, "illogical!" The concept of a "creator force" as anything remotely anthropomorphised, seems a bit... jarring, to me. The agnostic in me doesn't want to completely write off the notion of a kind of creator force, but anything more than that starts to push my atheist buttons.

As for the rest, I'm sorry, again, I'm not going down that particular rabbit-trail. Please leave it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I don't really know, Sharon. I just have an equivalent of Spock in my head shouting, "illogical!"

I used to idolize Spock ... now I see that he missed so much ...

The concept of a "creator force" as anything remotely anthropomorphised, seems a bit... jarring, to me.

Interesting word - "jarring"
*is in a musing mood - I don't mean to be hinting like some obnoxious tv psychoanalyst, I'm just thoughtful ... *

I can see why you think it's silly and conceited, but again, I think that's because you are looking at it backwards ... God isn't made in the image of man; rather, man is made in the image of God, according to one popular belief so I suppose it's not a question of us anthropomorphizing God, but rather God our creator choosing to "godmorphize" us. Result looks the same; different - incredibly different - mechanism. It changes everything and totally invalidates your objections, IMO. (but no comment requested from you, since you don't want to comment - no problem )

As for the rest, I'm sorry, again, I'm not going down that particular rabbit-trail. Please leave it.

I'll leave it now, but on the way out, I'll just say sincerely to you that a reluctance to examine anything in life usually indicates, IMO, that it VERY much needs to be examined Think about it, my dear, wonderful, fun, lively, intelligent, curious, honest kiwi friend


I think there's some other pending questions - do you want me to gather them up for you, like Nurvi did before?

[inked]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inked
How would different underlying behaviours differentiate survivability?


BoP:
An interesting question! I wish I had a good answer... I don't, unfortunately. But it deserves consideration. What do YOU think?


I think the enhanced survivability is the consequence of adherence to a morality which is designed to maximize longevity in the physical, reproductive success in monogamy (limiting disease and maximizing childrearing), and social cooperation rather than individuation to maximize potential for humans. I think it was designed this way. I think variation from this underlying morality/innate survivability results in premature death, poor childrearing, overemphasis on individual rather than social potential, and the loss of humanity rather than its development, thus decreased survivability individually and socially. So I see the abdication of a universally existent morality as a decrease in survivability and a nonadaptive trait resulting in injury to individuals and societies.


note: my quotes gettin betta!

[Nurvingiel]

Ah, but RÃ*an, isn't that belief itself an anthropomorphization! (Woah... I spelt that right!)

It's getting late Inked, so I got lost around 'adherence to morality' but that made me think... practices like infanticide might increase the survivability of a species. But are they moral?

In addition (for everyone), I think morality applies only to humans. Is it immoral for the dominant male lion to kill the cubs of his predecessors? Is it immoral for the cow to eat the last blade of grass, or for the tiger to eat the [insert small cute furry mammal]?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Ah, but RÃ*an, isn't that belief itself an anthropomorphization!

I don't see how it could be; you'll have to explain a bit more, please



Inked - I checked out your post via the "quote" button (which lets me see exactly what is there) and you got the first part right - you put [quote], but you never closed the quoted section with a [/quote].

[Nurvingiel]

I was referring to the belief (which I am not entirely sure you hold, but it doesn't really matter) that God made humans in His/Her/Its image.

If a randomly selected group of aliens believed the exact same thing about the Creator of the Universe, then they would also believe that God looked at least a little bit like them, because they were made in God's image.

Some human beings also believe this. But they can't both be correct. However, both the humans and the aliens are anthropomorphizing God by thinking that God looks like them, because God made them him His/Her/Its image.

I believe that God loves us enough to send His/Hers/Its own Son to die for our sins. But when God was originally creating the Universe and allowing life to evolve, was it really part of His/Her/Its design that some of the beings in the Universe would be look like Him/Her/It?

This implies that we are more special than every other being in the entire Universe, and I find that a bit hard to swallow. It also seems to stem from the literal translation of God creating the world in six days, which I don't believe is the point of that story at all.

Maybe every being in the Universe somehow embodies Gods image. But that takes away from humans being somehow better than all other creatures. It seems that the belief that we were made in Gods image is akin to the attitude that it's okay for us to slowly destroy the world and everything on it (including ourselves).

But this is BoPs time on the hotseat, so here's my question to you:
BoP, what do you think of my above statement, and what thoughts does it give you? (ie. other ideas about the Universe) This question is very open-ended.

[BeardofPants]

Nurv, I very much agree with you on that statement regarding a creator making his little experiment after his own image. It is another one of those sentiments that plagues me... especially since we DON'T know what exactly life would look like on other planets (cf convergent/divergent evolutionary theory). To assume, if there IS other sentient life, that only humans were created in the image of a creator, seems to me, to be the height of arrogance - and it's more of that earthocentric/humanocentric POV, which truth be told, is one of the things that bugs me the most about some theistic ideologies. The notion that we are all god-spawn, and therefore above everything else seems to me to be a bit condescending to a) other possible/potential life in the universe, and b) to our own special ecosystem here on earth. Which leads me to another thing that gives me hernias; the supposed 'ruling' over the other animals in the animal kingdom - that we're supposed to be 'shepherds' for them; to care for them; eat them as our will dictates, and so forth, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, if we're supposed to be shepherds for this planet, we've failed abysmally.

Inked, I will post comments later on today if I have time. Needless to say, I disagree with you.

[inked]

BoP, somehow I knew that was coming down the pike, as the crusader said of the infidels body he had speared climbing over yon parapet!

You may also think of making God in his own image as the height of human ego, but then you neglect the many animal models for imaging god/gods from ancient history Old World and New World. The fact remains that as Pope wrote, man is the measure of all things. By which, even unintentionally, he meant that as a species which is clearly the dominant one on the planet and superior to all others, we applied ourselves as the solution of problems; ergo, anthropomorphization. And, to be completely insensitive to political correctness ( as when not?, I hear you mutter), what about all the wonderful allegations of the feminists that goddess worship really came first? Hmmm?
Seems a good argument could be made for gynocentic thinking as the source of all trouble in the imagination of godness?

In short this babble about the centrality of humanity in the perception of God is rooted in our very ability to comprehend, not our pride. If indeed there were other sentient species on our planet capable of this process and they could express it, their imagery would be species specific for the same reason.

Cheerio and Tally-ho and all that sort of post1046 stuff!

[Tessar]

Just wanted to pop in to clear something up, because I know some people don't understand this:

We don't think we look physically like God, we believe he breathed his 'spirit' into us. In a sense, made us animated.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Just wanted to pop in to clear something up, because I know some people don't understand this:

We don't think we look physically like God, we believe he breathed his 'spirit' into us. In a sense, made us animated.

Except for Jesus. We do look like him.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Just wanted to pop in to clear something up, because I know some people don't understand this:

We don't think we look physically like God, we believe he breathed his 'spirit' into us. In a sense, made us animated.

I, and I don't think BoP either, wasn't saying that everyone, or all Christians, think that, only that there are some people out there who think of man being made in the image of God in a very literal way.

It was to that view, regardless of who holds it, that I was making a comment. That being said, it doesn't bother me if someone thinks of God that way. I just personally feel that it's anthropocentric, for reasons stated above.

Originally Posted by inked

BoP, somehow I knew that was coming down the pike, as the crusader said of the infidels body he had speared climbing over yon parapet!

Lol!! So mean... yet so hilarious!

About anthropomorphization, I don't think it's particularly bad as long as... we remind ourselves that we're not that freaking great.

And yes, we do look like Jesus, but that's a different matter entirely. It's not anthropomorphization because he was the Son of God, and a human, at the same time, which is probably the greatest miracle in Christianity (I'm including his life and his death in this statement, which is very broad, and also why it's the greatest miracle). (And by this statement I'm not trying to say Christianity is the ultimate world religion or anything, but this is a very very important belief to us, and I don't think it's an anthropomorphization. What do you think BoP?)

It has been mentioned before that Christian beliefs are relitively quite radical (as compared to other world religions). What do you think about that BoP? I mean, what are your feelings/thoughts on this statement. (I sound like such a git with that statement, but my intention is merely curiosity, not being a git. )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Except for Jesus. We do look like him.

*sneaks into the bathroom to shave off her beard*


Oh, I'm glad you guys brought that "image" thing up! I can see we need some clarifying! Will be back Monday - weekend too busy to Moot at any depth.