Is it possible to talk rationally about God?

[Wordy]

I'd say his point is that consciousness can be explained in doable bits. There isn't some special stuff or process called "consciousness" but that consciousness consists in being conscious OF things. Better viewed as a verb than a noun. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, any more than viewing running as something that legs do means that running doesn't exist.

Febble wrote like that about Daniel Dennett. That text has noting to do with God but when I translate her take on Dennett and consciousness I see similarities to my personal view on what the word God refers to from a functional perspective.

Functional perspectives are from my point of view rational in that they are about practical solutions, practical interpretations, behavior patterns, a way to see the world, a way to talk about subjective experiences of somebody being there within us if we do as traditions suggests. Relate to the stories from tradition and collectiveally do the rituals prescribed.

God within emerge in a very similar way as something the brain does. God emerge out of the doing. The inner relation one commit to doing.

All the claims about God as the Creator and being supernatural is more like an layer above to make God more grand than the more here and now functions.

99% of the time a believer relate to God is not speculating on "How did God set the Big Bang in motion. How did God create life on Earth.

The believers me have known was most of the time engaged in helping fellow humans. sick people or relatives or themselves having no job or problems with alcohol or drugs or marital problems or feeling insecure fearing to lose job and such very near social reality not about metaphysical or physical theories about String theory or such.

They also was very much engaged in condemning abortion and homosexuality and Stem Cell research and against premarital sex and such. Moral values and such. When they refer to God as the Creator that is more as argument from authority. If the Creator of all that exists has asked us to stop using condoms then that norm in their world get higher value than if consensus among fellow non-theistic humans have reached the view that condoms is a good thing.

They use such views as rhetoric tools but during the three years me was 24/7 sharing their daily life without agreeing with their claims they very seldom had any deeper thoughts about how God could do such things as creating the world. They took such things as if it was a given view that one shouldn't questuion as believer.

They bought the whole package as we say. Goes with the territory to not question such claims at all. A kind of loyalty. William Irons name it "Hard to Fake Signs of Commitment".

Secular groups have such "Hard to Fake Signs of Commitment". loyalty in texts too. During about 1965 to 1975 or so the New Left Movement here in Europe had views that they later gave up on. As long as they had it then it was taboo to question those claims. now after they dropped them they don't want to be reminded of it. The criticism of intellectual views during Mao's Cultural Revolution is one such example.

[Jest2Ask]

I'd say his point is that consciousness can be explained in doable bits. There isn't some special stuff or process called "consciousness" but that consciousness consists in being conscious OF things. Better viewed as a verb than a noun. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, any more than viewing running as something that legs do means that running doesn't exist.

Febble wrote like that about Daniel Dennett. That text has noting to do with God but when I translate her take on Dennett and consciousness I see similarities to my personal view on what the word God refers to from a functional perspective.

I find it interesting that no one has responded to the OP. Could it be that while it is desirable to have a rational, meaningful exchange the subject itself is so personal and subjective (& IMO emotion charged) we are unable to agree upon basic rules, definations of procedure.

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer and I often get lost in the (excuse the expression) word salads being tossed around that I am unable to find a practical point of referant for any of the multiple views being presented. In fact the very word theology is unresolved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Theology is the study of religion from a religious perspective. It has been defined as reasoned discourse about God or the gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality. It is important not to confuse this field with Religious Studies, which is the study of religion from a secular perspective. Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (philosophical, ethnographic, historical) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any of a myriad of religious topics.


Merriam-Webster Online: http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/theology

Main Entry: the•ol•o•gy
Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-lə-jē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the•ol•o•gies
Etymology: Middle English theologie, from Anglo-French, from Latin theologia, from Greek, from the- + -logia -logy
Date: 14th century
1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world


So in my opinion the God of personal experience has little or no bearing to the concept God so often thrown around. It seems to me that God is a catch-all undefined term that many feel justified in attaching (or projecting) what ever emotional, physcological, meta-physical and philosophical justification (etc) basis for their world view, rather than an actual enity (or force ).

In the example you referenced i.e. the act of running what the legs (or a physical enity does, such as running (moving) water or an engine) can be separted from this other running are the two concepts related? Are you not unecessarily creating another possible (unproven / unobserved) defination based on semantics, nothing more. Unfortunately that is the same way I feel about the various God concepts I have encountered.

So I am left talking about what other humans envision or label (feelings, personal experiences etc) not about an actual god/goddes/great spirit, primal force etc etc.

[Febble]

That's interesting, Wordy, thanks!

"God is a Strange Loop". That's where I am right now.

[Wordy]

Jest2Ask So in my opinion the God of personal experience has little or no bearing to the concept God so often thrown around.

But if " the God of personal experience " is the real source that motivated the interpretation of or the construct of "the concept God so often thrown around"?

That you see more merit in "the concept God so often thrown around" than what "maybe" set it in rolling surprises me.

Let me make an unfair comparizon. Folk thought the Earth was roughly flat. Why would you prefer that interpretation to the fact that the Earth is roughly round?

Febble, Does Douglas H. write in a way he maybe could see it that way too?

[Febble]

Febble, Does Douglas H. write in a way he maybe could see it that way too?

Probably not - I don't think it is an important issue for him. But as I spent half a century finding God rather important, it matters to me that I can figure out a way of accommodating the concept, to save me rewriting all my old mental files!

[Jest2Ask]

Jest2Ask So in my opinion the God of personal experience has little or no bearing to the concept God so often thrown around.

But if " the God of personal experience " is the real source that motivated the interpretation of or the construct of "the concept God so often thrown around"?

That you see more merit in "the concept God so often thrown around" than what "maybe" set it in rolling surprises me.

Let me make an unfair comparizon. Folk thought the Earth was roughly flat. Why would you prefer that interpretation to the fact that the Earth is roughly round?

Febble, Does Douglas H. write in a way he maybe could see it that way too?

Hello Wordy & Feeble,

I am well over my head and out on a limb here so bear with me.

I hope I do not exceed my welcome nor interfer with your more personal exchange. Also excuse my use of abbrevations etc e.g. In My Opinion (IMO)

Reality as accurately as we can approximate is much preferable (IMO) to the comfort found by projecting our desires / wishes or interpreting data through filters / lenses of tradition.

The reality of the Earth's shape has direct practical effects that is (or can be) confirmed empirically (AFAIK). I have often wondered if the majority of ancient humankind seriously thought that the earth was flat, or if that is just arrogance on the part of modern (supposedly more civilized ) humans.

I believe there is a common reality behind all religions, yet I think the use of the god term is inaccurate when communicating those internal experiences.

To Illustrate :


http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2007/08/strange-loops-and-theology-part-4-soul.html

Hofstadter writes,
In just as potent a fashion, looking at that photograph of Dad brings him back, to us who knew him intimately, the clearest memory of his smile and his gentleness, activates inside our living brains some of the most central representations of him that survive in us, makes little fragments of his soul dance again, but in the medium of brains other than his own. Like the score to a Chopin etude, that photograph is a soul-shard of someone departed, and it is something we should cherish as long as we live."
----------------------------------------------

When I read this section from I Am a Strange Loop, I immediately thought of Jesus of Nazareth. Again, Hofstadter is not a religious person, so I hesitate to use this very emotional aspect of his book to make a religious point. But I think in what I’m about to say Hofstadter would agree that I’m making a faithful extension/application of his argument.



If Hostadter agrees with you or not is immaterial to me ( I know snarky aren't I ) , okay bear with me on this before writting me off as an insentive idiot (there will be time enough to do that later).

I also lost my Father (when is was 15 ) I keep a picture of him on my dresser.
Like Hostader that picture brings back many memories and invokes many emotions of our relationship. There is a song by Mike & The Mechanics, In The Living Years that whenever I hear it touches on many emotions and a good deal of those I assoicate with memories of my father.

Now the music that Frederic Chopin wrote, or scripture while it deeply touches many people, it is (IMO) far removed from the intimate connections formed by actual personal experience of another human. Yet it seems that you (both) want to somehow make the connection that this universal underlaying personal (subjective) spiritual experience can be placed into the same box religions label god.

I think it is just a convient short hand to assign that god label to so many different thoughts, emotions, principals.

The creator, first cause, ground of being are labelled god. As well as that transcandent oneness, that feeling of awe when looking at the wonders of nature. All these things in many more are grouped (assigned) as attributes to me an as yet proven to exist enity.

I will stop my rambling now but I hope you do understand at least in part , what I am trying to communicate.

[Jest2Ask]

Febble, Does Douglas H. write in a way he maybe could see it that way too?

Probably not - I don't think it is an important issue for him. But as I spent half a century finding God rather important, it matters to me that I can figure out a way of accommodating the concept, to save me rewriting all my old mental files!

Me again , I wonder if you as well as many others are not trying too hard to accommodate the old (traditional, widely accepted) labels to fit a new set of patterns (thoughts, emotions) that more accurately lie outside of the old boxes.

[Febble]

Febble, Does Douglas H. write in a way he maybe could see it that way too?

Probably not - I don't think it is an important issue for him. But as I spent half a century finding God rather important, it matters to me that I can figure out a way of accommodating the concept, to save me rewriting all my old mental files!

Me again , I wonder if you as well as many others are not trying too hard to accommodate the old (traditional, widely accepted) labels to fit a new set of patterns (thoughts, emotions) that more accurately lie outside of the old boxes.

Possibly. But when you've had a set of concepts that have served you well for half a century, recycling looks like a better option than buying new. :)

And I enjoyed your other post. Thanks.

[Wordy]

Jest2Ask, should I understand you to say that what you and many many others refers to as God is the real god and what Febble and I could agree upon could be a better model of what maybe goes on. The citation from Hoefstadter could be taken as one description of it.
He talk about a real human being that now is dead but which is represented in the photo and that seeing the photo kind of let some parts of Dad appear as alive at least in the retold memories played out within him.

My very amateurish take on religion is that it has many sources. Yours is vital too. The political control through authority is another the psychological need to relate to a tradition so one get accepted by the group one are totally dependent on to get help from to survive could be another.

What I try to refer to here is the inner representation of person-hood. How we become persons to each other and others. My Dad is dead now but when I remember him he kind of get represented by memories that "act" or get "enacted" by circuits in my brain that "execute " a kind of "auto-pilot" version of how I interpreted him to be. Those circuits in me let him say things that is not me talking to myself. It is a kind of "virtual" mirrored version of my Dad. The circuits get triggered by my need to relate to him but him not being alive motivate me to go for second best, My memories of him

But also others memories of him. I've met old friends of him and his brother and such and asked their versions of him.

Compare now to Jesus.

We have alleged first witness reports on how he was. What one could expect him to say and act and what alleged intention and mood and mode of operation, goals and aims and such. From all this the executive circuits in me that "played" back my Dad are also able to "virtually" try to represent Jesus within me. Not the historical Jesus but the "ritualized " Jesus of the interpretation the tradition they show us in the Church one goes to.

By the way they interpret the texts they give a slightly different or wildly different version of him. As they see him.

As an Atheist I don't want to have anything to do with him. He is a religious figure and I see him as myth and as Midrash of old texts. Tanaka? A reinterpretation by many small groups wanting to liberate themselves or to gain political power.

But around 1980 I was going down in an emotional despair and close to suicide.
I had to come up with a solution, A way to be Wordy that allowed me to survive.

I contacted every atheist I knew and asked for help. They had no help to give me.

I contacted a Baptist Pastor that had education in Counseling and a Therapeuptic examina to show and long experience of helping people to see meaning in their life.

I told him about my atheistic interpretation of Jesus as a cultural hero and he accepted to do exchanges with me "preaching to him out of my interpretation and he would give his Baptist interpretation but also to not to try to convert me to his. We did a kind of gentlemans agreement to only retell and not to try converting the other.

It worked out good. I survived and lived on the new feeling ok for three years of exploring what it is like to do Christian Theology in different Christian groups. I visited several differing groups from very different forms of Christianity.

My take on Jesus was that as an atheist I could see him as a current social phenomena.
My Mom had related to him. Our society had groups relating to him.

All these described him as if he had been alive and then dead and then resurrected and now alive in a miraculous way in "Heaven". I retranslated every word they told to a social functional ritual level. "Heaven" = The social arena or Theater of playing out God ritually in a Service at Church. Jesus = an inner representation of the groups super hero from way back.

So I talked to that inner representation within me. A mock up version, an ad hoc, ad lib, interpretation, a modern Midrash of all stories me have heard.

The interesting thing was that my brain had the capacity to "represent Jesus" in a way that some Christians did agree was as if I had faith in him. Not that I pretended. The inner representation was not my faked, it was my honest take and true retelling of their tradition but seen through my filter. So my representation was a filtered version.

But that was what they did too. They had a tradition and when they described Jesus they retold him out of their traditions take on who he was, how he acted, what to expect from him to say.

I only had a very atheistic here and now secular version stripped in that no supernatural things was left. So they barked loud when I openly told them that I stood for doing that kind of interpretation and me stood for that that one was true to tradition too.

Read this verse, see it through my filter and you feel how it is true to the intent of the text. They where very skeptical to my interpretations. but it worked out great for me.

I had a mission in life for three years. To bring them the good news of an atheistic Jesus. But after three years me gave up cause it felt wrong to try to give them something they didn't ask for. I felt that such should only be done to people who is motivated and not forced unto them. So I found the Humanists instead and stayed with them up to 1995 or so. I guess me found IIDB around 1996 not sure.

It was the inner Jesus that saved my life and not the Creator or the God that traditional Theologicans talk about.

I think the inner Jesus is more true to scripture. He is the one that touch the heart we have in our brain. The emotional mirrored heart. How it feels like to have relations. The trust and confidence and hope and small talk and exchange of what is on our heart and not the intellectual sophistery of the Theologicans.

[rashreflection]

But as I spent half a century finding God rather important, it matters to me that I can figure out a way of accommodating the concept, to save me rewriting all my old mental files!

so after all this time, turns out it IS a matter of convenience after all

perhaps, in a nutshell, this is why old people generally aren't artistically or socially relevant?

[David B]

But as I spent half a century finding God rather important, it matters to me that I can figure out a way of accommodating the concept, to save me rewriting all my old mental files!

so after all this time, turns out it IS a matter of convenience after all

perhaps, in a nutshell, this is why old people generally aren't artistically or socially relevant?

But old people are artistically and socially relevant! Some of them, anyway.

It's the young whippersnappers coming out with their crazy music and unrealistic idealism who aren't artistically or socially relevant.

Most of them, anyway.

As my father, in effect, used to say to me:D

David B (wonders if you will review the relevance of old people in a few decades time)

[His Noodly Appendage]

Oh dear, Febble. I now know *just* how you have your PC set up. :p

(I fix them for a living)

[Febble]

Oh dear, Febble. I now know *just* how you have your PC set up. :p

(I fix them for a living)

OK, then, fix mine! (Not that you haven't made a good start.)

[Febble]

But as I spent half a century finding God rather important, it matters to me that I can figure out a way of accommodating the concept, to save me rewriting all my old mental files!

so after all this time, turns out it IS a matter of convenience after all

Certainly. I have repeatedly said, I have a God-model because it is useful. I think usefulness is the only basis on which we can evaluate any model. We don't have direct access to reality, only to models.

If my God-model becomes useless, regardless of the tweaks I give it (the theological equivalent of ptolomaic epicycles, perhaps) then I shall trade it in for a nice heliocentric one.

But so far it's still working quite well, tweaks and all.

[Febble]

perhaps, in a nutshell, this is why old people generally aren't artistically or socially relevant?

Well, they are relevant to me.

[rashreflection]

First off, Lizzie, regarding usefulness and models - we've butted heads on this before so I will just say one thing. Would you be willing to read End of Faith sometime? Harris makes some interesting arguments (some of which are contained in the endnotes) against a number of standard liberal ideas used to defend religion, and that is one of them.

Anyway...

Well, they are relevant to me.

You and David B miss the point.

I'm thinking in the grand scheme of things. If you take an honest look at human history, where and how often do you see senior citizens at the forefront of significant movements? Usually just in science; otherwise, they tend to be part of the opposition of those movements! Remember, the "old guard" of any debate always loses eventually, and deservedly so for the most part.

With all of this in mind, this board's scientific orientation makes more sense. Old people kick ass at science, as at its core (read: the scientific method) it never changes. But as I have learned here, even very bright folks like yourself somehow lose the ability to adapt to a changing environment. This is a death sentence in most other fields.

Take music, for example - the rules rarely stay the same for long, and even the very definition of "music" changes over time. Nobody will remember the newer albums from Bob Dylan or the Stones - they have not evolved.

Or how about politics? The US presidential election is a neat microcosm of my central point - the only candidate who is anything remotely close to "revolutionary" is also the only "young" one.


In short, what's relevant to you is not nearly as important as what will be relevant to future generations. My dream is for atheists to form some sort of movement which attains that relevance, but thanks to the makeup of our community I sometimes doubt that is possible.

-Josh

[Jobar]

AFAICT, no two people mean the same thing when they use the word 'God'.

Semantically, it's a concept with no wordless ground. Oh, there's any number of paintings, and tales, and statues, and whatnot; but there's nothing we can point to and say nothing, and thus define 'God' operationally.

Such ungrounded concepts are ultimately irrational.

[Preno]

AFAICT, no two people mean the same thing when they use the word 'God'.

Semantically, it's a concept with no wordless ground. Oh, there's any number of paintings, and tales, and statues, and whatnot; but there's nothing we can point to and say nothing, and thus define 'God' operationally.That's like saying no two people mean the same thing when they use the words "good", "big", "warm", "pleasant", therefore, they are meaningless/ungrounded/irrational concepts. (I have no idea what "a concept with no wordless ground" is supposed to be.)

[Jobar]

With all those words, you can point to various objects or actions which all have those concepts in common.

Preno, you should try googling 'abstraction ladder', or wait until tomorrow when I have more time to explain this. In essence, when we talk about real things, eventually we have to have something that we can wordlessly indicate so that we know for certain our words mean the same thing.

[Preno]

That's a completely different argument, though, and it's not even true. There are lots of things that you simply can't point to, and pointing is ambiguous anyway. The idea that meanings are defined by ostension presupposes a rather simplistic view of language, one that has been debunked since Hayakawa (even if some people refuse to admit it). You cannot separate statements that are true by virtue of the facts of the world and statements that are true by virtue of their meanings, in particular there are no statements that are true merely by virtue of pointing or ostension.

And anyway, if some dude magically appears in the sky and start smiting people, I'm pretty sure we could point to it and say "oh look, God".

[JamesBannon]

Hmm... I'm having difficulty with the question. My immediate answer would be "of course it is" even if one or more correspondents are unbelievers. A thing need not have a concrete existence for discussion about the thing to be meaningful. Were that the case we would be severely limited in what we are able to discuss at all.

[disgracian]

Yes, it' possible to talk rationally about god, unfortunately the results wouldn't be worth it.

"So, is there any actual evidence for this god, and can we even clearly define what the word even means?"

"I guess not."

Cheers,
D.

[Jobar]

Hmm... I'm having difficulty with the question. My immediate answer would be "of course it is" even if one or more correspondents are unbelievers. A thing need not have a concrete existence for discussion about the thing to be meaningful. Were that the case we would be severely limited in what we are able to discuss at all.

Ever tried asking believers if God is an abstract, or a concrete concept? Ties 'em in knots, it does. In fact I've never gotten a straight answer to that question. :D

Preno, just as there are mathematical formalisms that have 'no earthly connection' to reality, as far as we know, there can be logical/verbal formalisms that appear to follow all the rules of logic that similarly have no real meaning. You can have what seems a completely rational conversation about faster-than-light drives, or perpetual-motion machines, or omnimax gods.

If you want to say that 'rational' means the same thing as 'logical', then yes, it is possible to have a rational discussion about god(s). But IMO rationality must be sensible as well as logical; and thus, a subject for rational discussion must have some sensible connection to wordless reality. And that's why I say that rational discussions of things which can't be linked to the world aren't possible.

[Jobar]

The idea that meanings are defined by ostension presupposes a rather simplistic view of language, one that has been debunked since Hayakawa (even if some people refuse to admit it).

Really? I've seen some postmodernist stuff that tried to debunk Korzybski's semantics, but frankly I think that most of postmodernism is BS. (Not quite all, mind you.) Might you have a link to some of this debunking? I'm certainly not an expert on modern linguistic theory, but I do have to say that I've found Hayakawa's Language In Thought And Action to be perhaps the single most useful textbook I saved from my college years. So you may need to count me as one of the ones who "refuse to admit it"!

[Wordy]

Jobar I quote you: But IMO rationality must be sensible as well as logical; and thus, a subject for rational discussion must have some sensible connection to wordless reality. And that's why I say that rational discussions of things which can't be linked to the world aren't possible.

Could we talk about how you use the word sensible here?

I agree that it is possible to be logical about theology without saying anything about measurable reality.

And from a functional perspective rituals seems to create their own meaning. Most likely exploiting underlying structures that get abused by the rituals.

God feels to be real and meaningful but seems in reality to be a symbol for what people do and not something that exists in and of itself.

That is why me in the OP try to point out that God is a doing of the believers body.

God emerge within the believer if they do the thing that let God emerge as an experienced phenomena.

A kind of mature? version of "Imaginary Friends" that some kids had when very young.

Knowing how childish that is seen as they had to come up with something more credible and that could explain why most gods look like Kings and Powers and Lords and AllMighty OmniBeings typically like Clan Leaders or Tribe Leaders. The believer is encouraged to submit to them.

Other gods are more like capricious power of nature that get anthromorphized to have human traits like caring about us if we live up to their wishes. One have to give things to the god so it feels pleased. Or to bargain with the god. You promised us to prosper if we kept to your law kind of gods.

But there is also the very individual inner gods that behave more like Dad and Mom idealized or a big brother or sister that gets idealized and related to as a role model.

When Dawkins describe Jesus he seems to accept that Jesus as a story even if myth could function as an ethical role model.

From a functional perspective that seems logically possible.

Individuals are put into a situation where political actors manipulate to gain or keep power. As individuals they have very little say. If they manage to find a language for their visions of change they could refer to a symbol that describe their collective wants and even if Jesus was a pure myth it is functionally true that from a political perspective the wants are real political acts that the other actors need to relate to.

The symbol refer to real acts that don't turn into thin air even if the symbol is dismissed as a mere metaphor or symbol. Cause the social acts are very real. People vote according to the values hold by that description which refers back to the symbol.

The acts create a loop that let the faith turn into a functional political power that change things in the real world. A kind of secular "incarnation".

The "Imaginary Friends" mature into a "Living God"

Sorry me so wordy here.

How is sensible applied to what I wrote here above. Did I treat the OP in a sensible way?

[Preno]

Ever tried asking believers if God is an abstract, or a concrete concept? Ties 'em in knots, it does. In fact I've never gotten a straight answer to that question.That's more of a symptom that classifying things into abstract vs. concrete doesn't always work. Personally, I would be hard put to say whether the electromagnetic potential is an abstract or a concrete concept. But surely that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as an electromagnetic potential or that it's meaningless to talk about it?
Preno, just as there are mathematical formalisms that have 'no earthly connection' to reality, as far as we know,I would actually disagree with you there, but that's for a different thread (you can raise the question in the thread "Do numbers have independent existence?" if you wish).
there can be logical/verbal formalisms that appear to follow all the rules of logic that similarly have no real meaning. You can have what seems a completely rational conversation about faster-than-light drives, or perpetual-motion machines, or omnimax gods.Well, I think part of the problem is that you use rather unclear terms where there are perfectly clear ones. It is certainly meaningfuly, sensibly and rationally talk about faster-than-light drives. The phrase "a faster-than-light drive" is perfectly meaningful. What you probably wanted to say that it does not have any reference, which may be true, but that's not what you originally claimed. I'm pretty sure we agree that "God" has no referents.

A rule of thumb that I've found useful is that if you have to put "real" in front of a word in order to say what you want to say, you should probably just look for a different word.
If you want to say that 'rational' means the same thing as 'logical', then yes, it is possible to have a rational discussion about god(s).No, I didn't want to say that, you used the word yourself and I just used your argument on different words to show that it's invalid. I don't care what you meant by "rational", but unless you agree that "good", "big", "warm" and "pleasant" are "irrational concepts" (your words), you are being inconsistent.
But IMO rationality must be sensible as well as logical; and thus, a subject for rational discussion must have some sensible connection to wordless reality. And that's why I say that rational discussions of things which can't be linked to the world aren't possible.I would go so far as to say that such terms aren't even meaningful, but I don't think you cannot link God to the world. In fact, it would imo be pretty easy:
if some dude magically appears in the sky and start smiting people, I'm pretty sure we could point to it and say "oh look, God".
Really? I've seen some postmodernist stuff that tried to debunk Korzybski's semantics, but frankly I think that most of postmodernism is BS. (Not quite all, mind you.) Might you have a link to some of this debunking? I'm certainly not an expert on modern linguistic theory, but I do have to say that I've found Hayakawa's Language In Thought And Action to be perhaps the single most useful textbook I saved from my college years. So you may need to count me as one of the ones who "refuse to admit it"!I was thinking more of analytic philosophy of the second half of the 20th century, Quine in particular. I hardly think anyone can call that BS. The point is that every meaningful statement must ultimately be linked to our experience, but that doesn't mean that every meaningful term that refers to something needs to be of the kind that we can simply point to. (And, I repeat, the act of pointing is necessarily ambiguous. What disambiguates it to some extent is the pragmatic context and the linguistic utterances accompanying it. So in order to be able to "define", in a loose sense, linguistic expressions, you already need to know some language.)

I haven't read Hayakawa, though, so don't take anything I say as some sort of informed criticism of him. I am only criticizing your arguments, and I definitely agree that you can talk about some rough levels of abstraction.

[Jobar]

Wordy, I don't think I've ever talked to anyone, believer or unbeliever, who claimed that abstract concepts of god(s) didn't exist.

My point of view is that there is one such concept per person. No two people have exactly the same god-concept.

I think Preno is asking me how that differs from any other concept. When I say the word 'dog', I'm sure no two people visualize precisely the same dog, when they hear the word.

Yet we can talk rationally and meaningfully about dogs, because we're able to link our unique concepts to similar experiences; we can agree that yes, Rover over there is a dog, and so is Fido, and little Fifi, too. We can 'ground' our abstractions in common, concrete, wordless experience. (Preno, I used 'point' as a simple shorthand for that. Sure, I can't point to an electron- but I can still perform a wordless series of actions which results in a common, repeatable experience we can agree upon, and thus apply a common, understandable label to.)

We cannot do this for the concept 'god(s)'. There is no common ground, no concrete experience which we can all agree is the god-experience. There's no way to define it wordlessly. God isn't sensible- perceptible by our senses, augment them howsoever we will.

Thus, the concept of god(s) is incoherent. There's no center to hold to. My definition is just as good as yours, or the Pope's. The only way to argue otherwise is ad populum, or even ad baculum; very common arguments as we all know, but fallacies nonetheless.

Preno, I'll have to put Quine on my (already long and ever growing) reading list. Maybe one day I'll be able to argue meaningfully about his philosophy of linguistic communication. :)

[Wordy]

Jobar, I tend to agree with that reasoning yes but could there be nuances
instead of this "Either/Or" exclusive all or nothing?

God = A particular god as some local Church defines him or her.

instead a particular religious ritual that atheists share?

that ritual in itself doesn't do a recognized theology
but through body language and the words set up
an inner sense of what that is all about for
not only those who practice it but also gives
the onlookers a gut feeling what it is about.

The concept god is rather diversified and not
so specific. One realize that there is thousands
of gods that has come and gone and that they
have had only local influence and most has been
outperformed by other such social constructs.

Odin being beaten by Jehova/Jesus combination.

Exploiting this vagueness is done by groups like
Alcoholic Anonymous. Their concept God is very
vague here in Sweden. I have never started using
alcohol or other drugs not even coffee so I know
only what they reveal on their open meetings.

But some of them here locally say. "God as I perceive him"
which is very individually. While the local Jehova Witnesses
have a very defined take on their Jehova not being same as
the competing Pentecostal or Baptist or Swedish Church
Lutheran versions which to JW is false gods.

My use of "religious ritual" here used broadly. Their whole life
bear witness on their interpretation on what god is to them.

So my OP question is maybe misleading.

Maybe I should have asked something like this?

Are grown up versions of "Imaginary Friends" (IF) rationally possible?

It is known that some, maybe ten percent of humans when very young and
lonely and having nobody to play with they invent inner friends IF to play with.

Such is seen as very childish by other kids so they tend to keep it secret and
not reveal it to others maybe not even to their parents. A kind of inner life?

10% maybe only 1% I have no idea how many. I don't remember me did it
other than remotely. I made up a nice friendly "Alien" girlfriend when I was
11 or 12. I read a lot of Science Fiction at that time.

Now as a retired technician I admire the Cylon skin jobs in the
BattleStar Galactica TV sieries. Such imaginary friend would be nice
to have. Not a god but a made up fantasy figure coming almost alive.

It works as roles in a story cause we are used to do
"suspended disbelief" during the time it takes to look
at the series. Some hour and that is about what it takes
to do a religious service too.

Now the religious believers would not admit they do
"suspended disbelief" and would have a heyday of laughter
if some foolish atheists set up a service for Imaginary Friends.

One would need to experiment with the ritual practice until one would
have something that would work for as many atheists as possible.

In a remote way that was maybe what the Ayn Rand groupies did?

And even more what the Trans-Humanists do now? Their set up looks
to me very much like a secular religion. But they would never see it
that way. To them it is real. To download a brain to a future computer
will sooner or later be done 99.9999% for sure in their way of thinking
while it is almost utterly unlikely as I see it. Highly unlikely to ever be done.

So from my perspective they have "faith" in something as unlikely as
a god. And they think they do very rational talk about downloading
content of their brains. while to me that is poor speculation and hopeless
dreams of fantasy.


To me "the suspended disbelief" I do works rather well during the "service"
of looking at the BattleStar Galactica series. When it ends it is fiction again.

But it is something I as an atheist could share with other atheists?

Doing the ritual of "So say we all"

[Jobar]

Wordy, there used to be a prolific poster to II known as Mad Kally. Her sig line was "God is Santa Claus for adults!" So yes, your idea of god(s) as imaginary friend(s) is quite valid, and we can discuss it rationally as a psychological phenomenon. Since we have real and wordless evidence that the *idea* of god(s) exists in peoples' minds- they build cathedrals, witness on street corners, tear the living hearts out of captives, etc., etc.- we can reasonably talk about the inner experience which generates those actions. What we can't do, is to talk rationally about the gods themselves as if they were a real phenomenon, outside of peoples' heads.

You seem to be looking for some myth or rite which we atheists can accept, rationally and in good conscience. Something to tie us all together. And while I have no idea what form such a myth or rite might take, I do wish you luck with that; I'd like to see it. We need it badly; as things are, we unbelievers aren't able to use our numbers nearly as effectively as the theists do, because they have social networks and power structures built up around their common myths and rites. (Even though those commonalities aren't really 'common' in any demonstrable way, nor are they rational.)

[Wordy]

I guess a lot of atheists would bark loud at what you say there about "needs",
"that is the last thing we need" or some snarky remark. But thanks for your kind
thoughts.

The problem seems to find decent expressions for it. Maybe different groups
"needs " or accept different takes on it.

[Preno]

Well, you can talk rationally about God the same way you can talk rationally about Santa, extraterrestrial life or the largest twin prime. Their non-existence is kinda irrelevant.

[Wordy]

How can you talk rationally about imaginary gods or imaginary friends if I ask you to give example of what such talk could be like? I'm not good at it so I am curious on how you would do it.

"Dear Inner Friend, I know you don't even exists but Preno asserted it irrelevant and
that it is possible to do it anyway so I give it a try now. Hello, anybody home? :) "

Friendly teasing

Give your example, Please.

[Preno]

"God doesn't exist", for example. Or "if God exists, he hates fags".

We can talk about extraterrestrial life regardless of whether it exists. Why could we not talk about God regardless of whether he exists? I don't understand why God is supposed to be so special that not only does he exist, but the word "God" itself is meaningless.

[fundie]

Ever tried asking believers if God is an abstract, or a concrete concept? If someone ased me if I am an abstract or a concrete concept I would say neither, I am a person. It is the same with God, he is a being, with thoughts, emotions and will.

[VoxRat]

Ever tried asking believers if God is an abstract, or a concrete concept? If someone ased me if I am an abstract or a concrete concept I would say neither, I am a person. It is the same with God, he is a being, with thoughts, emotions and will.Just like Santa!

[Quizalufagus]

Well, you can talk rationally about God the same way you can talk rationally about Santa, extraterrestrial life or the largest twin prime. Their non-existence is kinda irrelevant.

Was the twin prime conjecture proved while I was out or something? :p

[Wordy]

Ever tried asking believers if God is an abstract, or a concrete concept? If someone asked me if I am an abstract or a concrete concept I would say neither, I am a person. It is the same with God, he is a being, with thoughts, emotions and will.

if God is an abstract, or a concrete concept?

I'm a lay person so I fail to use such abstract words.

But I agree that during my three and a half year 24/7 "field research" among Christian believers I also got upset about many fellow atheists not getting that God and Jesus are persons one either relate to or not relate to.

Not on same level as Santa at all who only exists maybe two nights and then go dormant while god and Jesus are with us all year around.

Where I part from you is that a person need a body. That is why Christians believe a human body can have several evil spirits, to be possessed.

As atheist I don't believe in spirits or gods without bodies.

I find it most likely that God and Jesus emerge within our own body in same way as imaginary friends emerge when humans are very young.

Our body/brain has a capacity for imagination and we imagine our own person and we imagine agents in everything. The Sun, the Moon, Stars, Wind, and Thunder and Lightning, The Sea, and so on. Biological evolution built us that way to survive. Our imagination invented a whole menagerie of "spirits" living in the woods. Still in the 19 century some people believed in Elves and fairies and such.

My "field research" was an amateurish one ause me is no scholar so it is not worthy of the name research but I "lived" together with christian believers 24/7, I tried to be like them in every aspect apart from actually believing their explanations to be the best model there is.

I used two models at same time. And I openly told them that too. So they where skeptical to why I was there with them at all and they didn't want me in their inner circles but a few of the leaders actually told the others that I could be send by god to test their willingness to share their life with a stranger. So I was tolerated to a certain degree. I participated in every Bible Study Group and Prayer Group and me prayed and interpreted the holy text too together with them. I did a "Midrash" take on Jesus and they didn't like that at all. To them he was a very real person while I saw Jesus as the old testament text "personified" in the story about Jesus.

A hint that this could be a better explanation is when Saul search for christians to capture he get a vision seeing Jesus and Jesus asks "Why are you searching for me and wanting to kill me?" Not word for word I have not looked it up. That text could hint that the group of believers that Saul hunted was sen as Jesus being represented in the believers. Jesus as Christ and thus as The Lord the God emerge in believers doing the will of God.

God emerge out of what a human body does. When believers do the will of God then God emerge within them. Jesus dwells among them as an inner way of relating to the text about him. It is a way to live.

Persons don't exists without bodies and there are no bodies out there in the universe able to reach us so the most likely explanation is that gods emerge as imaginary friends within the believers.

But for imaginary friends to emerge one must suspend disbelief.

Faith is the act of letting go of the disbelief, to come to faith and stop doubting. Such let go feels as a relief and that is why it is contagious almost like a drug. angst and fear subside and one feel at peace and one feel loved and been taking cared of and to belong and be part of something that makes one life feel meaningful but like all drugs it level down and one need a new fix to feel high again and that is why they have the emotional charged revival meetings to let doubting former believers get recharged with trust in God again.

So for to suspend disbelief one need to come over doubt again and again.
I guess that is one reason the believers are so mad about atheists cause we remind them of their times of doubt. Doing Satan's work sawing doubt in us believers they say.

But I find it not fair to compare Jesus with Santa. Believers in Santa don't blow up Abortion clinics or stand outside of schools harassing children to Abortion Clinic owners. Only believers in Jesus do such. There is no Pope for the Santa believers gathering hundred thousands to meet him when he travel the world around. So Jesus is no Santa. Even a 5 year old realize such social facts. :)

Jesus is not like Elvis either but there are some similarities in that Elvis fans do build a myth about him and idealize their Idol in very similar way as the believers in Jesus to spin myths about how nice Jesus is.

Same mechanism of idolization but not same level of social political importance.