Immediate reality

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Matt Berry on June 25, 1998 at 15:59:24:

In Reply to: I believe in the Infinite universes posted by Pierre Charles on June 20, 1998 at 01:00:25:

Today anybody uses the word "God" to mean almost anything. Why not simply abandon the word completely.

This is the way I see the choice too: to get rid of the word altogether or to redefine it so that it matches up with human reality a little better.

In the meantime, from a realist's point of view: "Sometimes God. Sometimes atheism." It is essential to know the definitions of the conversant before "throwing a word out" ... and also before using it. Ironically, the truly effective approach is to use the God word-set and Atheist word-set alternately, according to the demand of the context. It is only upon the mutual understanding of word-definitions that the "truth" of your message can be communicated. A strict pantheist and an atheist arguing over the word "God" would suggest the ignorance of at least one of the two, and possibly both. In short, it would seem wise to understand each other's definitions first before "throwing anything out."

One other point: if the greater number of the population are not able to see beyond their own cultural symbols, and if they hold these symbols, in and of themselves, to be THE significance ... then they are somewhat vulnerable to manipulation. Whoever owns the symbols, owns the true believer. For example, the Mormon claim to hold the "keys to the kingdom of God" make this church the "only true religion" in many member's eyes. Another example is the Christian Theist's absolute requirement for a theology restricted to the Bible as the one and only means of salvation. These "one and only claims" promote institutional control, often at the expense of individual growth. In my opinion, these people are being taken advantage of. They are culturally and institutionally dependent, and being dependent, are limited intellectually and spiritually. If this is true, then our ethical choices are...

Because your are affraid the believers won't speak to you. For me its easy, I'm not here to convice them of my understanding of the world.

Hmm... well the fact that you are writing this suggests otherwise. Let's be at least that honest with ourselves. I think we all have an inner need to express our deepest beliefs and disbeliefs ... our deepest thoughts want out ... and they will out in someway or another. I think that's what you and I are doing here. We may also need the "in your face" communication from time to time ("Speak the rude truth" ~ Emerson)... but this still represents a need for expression, and corresponding with that need for expression is the need for readers. And having readers, wouldn't you rather be understood than misunderstood?

But "they" are here to save me of my misconceptions. That's the difference.. I believe that God is, was, and always will be a consequence of something real ...

I thought that God was the Cause without causenot a consequence.

I respect your definition. The upshot to my posts defines God as follows. Recognizing "God" is a cerebral consequence of advantageous sensory contact with reality. Recognizing "God" is reality dependent. More importantly, calling this positive consequence by the name of "God" is not at all important. The entire scale of word-sets is available in the depiction of a joyful orientation toward reality.

something which results from my immediate sensory contact, my ability to reason and solve problems. Anything "beyond" these influences is, by definition, unknowable ... and therefore, irrelevant speculation. If I do indeed receive an influence (however subtle it may be), by its very contact, I must conclude that it does not belong to the realm of a "beyond."

That's why I prefer not to use the word "God" but Infinity if a speak of the universe

Sounds fair.

, and Elohim if I speak of the Creators of humanity. I accept that we have no proof of what Elohim is. For me it is "Those who came from the sky"

What does that mean, "Those who came from the sky?" How would that definition be any more relevant to your life than a definition which said, "Those who came from Detroit?" It is a matter of greater physical distance, but nothing more. It is also no more significant than J. Smith's version of "spirituality" ... which merely takes the same human condition and problems and transports them to a new time and place, "Kolob" ... all of this irrelevant speculation is at the expense of shedding light on the human condition and experience. If I were transported to another time and place, whether Detroit, Kolob, or "Heaven" -- I will still arrive with the same human predicament, the same hang-ups ... only the time and place will have changed. Same drama, new stage. (But perhaps I misunderstand the significance of the assertion, "those who came from the sky"?)

: I use the word "God" to represent the beauty and awe in Nature, but I feel more akin to the Atheist than I do the Theist, since most rigid Theists demand that I deny key aspects of reality in order to "believe" ... which to me is an act of dishonesty, eliminating any chance I might have of cultivating a genuine "spirituality."

Spiritualize matter and demystify religion, that should be the role of "True" science. When I meditate I "feel" with my senses this harmony and unity with the Infinite, the hebrew "En Sof" of the mystics.

Here, you and I connect. Recognizing this "unity" is a matter of recognizing the nature of perception and our involuntary view of this single reality from many angles ... we have, then, multiple manifestations of a single substance.

The way I see it is something like this:
We discern a "fact" precisely because we ignore, involuntarily, the greater reality surrounding that fact. (In the world of animal behavior we might call this "discernment" a type of "umwelt.") Therefore, whenever in the possession of a "fact," we are also forced to admit to a whole from which that fact was separated cognitively. Achieving this recognition and contemplating the nature of this whole -- this "undifferentiated reality" -- constitutes most of the "mystical" aspects found in almost all major religions. This "mystical-real" recognition is also entirely compatible with Atheism and Materialism. (Don't hold me to this single, admittedly over-simplistic statement. A better summary can be found at http://www.threegraces.com/humanstrategy/summary.htm)

: You verify and approach this real God with your senses, applying reason, and never denying reality.
I do not align the REAL God with myself. (That is true arrogance.) I align myself to the REAL God (True humility). ... that is the attempt anyway.

And our knowledge of Infinity with the instrument of science can confirm only a "True" prophet's message. If not he's a false prophet. That's my position. But let's not forget that the instrument is still young. Just think of everything the space telescope has permitted us to better understand.

Is understanding astronomy of greater importance than understanding the human mechanisms of behavior? ... or understanding how it is that people manage to believe the ridiculous? It would seem that understanding how and why we "believe," on a behavioral level, would be of highest priority in the pursuit of knowledge. And understanding this step and putting it in place just may show us that "prophets" and "philosophers" and "authoritative statements", altogether, are not nearly as important as understanding things on our own terms.


[ Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Click here!