Religions don’t spring out of nothing; they are (arguably) an archetypal expression of the psychic totality of a culture, of experience and the meaning that this experience invokes in a particular communication community. The concept of God (or gods) is central to this crystallisation of meaning. How should a rational observer understand the term ‘God’ without recourse to the grounding postulates internal to any particular religious dogma? If ‘God’ signifies something that has meaning in every culture, then what meaning is expressed thereby? Does this commonality imply that inter-faith coherence is possible, despite ostensibly conflicting beliefs?
RE: « If ‘God’ signifies something that has meaning in every culture ...»
Meaning is not the same as reference to anything actual. Moreover atheism is not a modern aberration. Various early Indian religions did not accept the existence of deities and some Eastern religions still some don't. Interfaith commonality would have to be in the area of ethics and humanitarian values and not some underlying gist that some notions of deity in some religions happen to have in common.
Michael Kowalik
Presumably what differentiates a religion from mere myth, legend, or fiction is that the religion has key terms that it alleges refer to actual entities, forces, whatnot. Of course such allegations could be mistaken. Also, if a religion has no doctrinal term(s) for a deity or deities then there is no inevitable commonality with religions that do have such a term or terms, except that their followers may speak the same natural language in which such terms appear. So an atheist knows what a theist means by the term "God" and the theist knows (or should) that the atheist means that too, but they differ over whether an existent answers to the meaning. As for "symbolic essence", after specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of a term and specifying some of its paradigmatic connotations, what more are you asking for? It's role in a discursive practice, broadly construed? Sure, there will be an umbrella practice in which debates between atheists and theists take place, but the common core will be a minimal one on which their disagreement (re existence of God) is based rather than an interfaith meeting of minds concerning a mysterious symbolic essence. So again, I think morality/humanitarianism must be the level at which commonality is possible.
Michael Kowalik
RE: 1. All cultures practice some kind of deificationMaybe metaphorically. But that doesn't say much.
RE: 2. Deification is a value-commitment or a presupposition of ultimate value.
Well, that sounds better than "God is a value judgement", which just seems a category mistake. But "ultimate" seems wrong. There can be hierarchies, deified pharaohs, and religions that subordinate their gods to a preexisting matrix or moral order (even the Mormon god doesn't do creatio ex nihilo).
A plausible way of escaping the Euthyphro dilemma is to acknowledge that the divine command theory of ethics is mistaken, that God does not create moral values but that they are logically independent and presupposed by his commands, which in turn suggests that God himself is not ultimate at least as regards being the source of moral value.
A hierarchy can be ontologically or causally ordered, starting with a god being merely a component of a whole. Ancient Egyptian religions were much like that, but if you want a monotheistic example, arguably the Mormon creatio ex materia seems to put the preexisting materia at least on a par with God.
Michael Kowalik
You're right, I overlooked your reference to agency. However, I hold to a notion of moral standards specifiable in causal-dispositional (a.k.a. causal powers) terms, so actual agency is only required at a logical or ontological level at which the dispositions or powers have their manifestations. Be that as it may, my account would allow for (and conceivably require) a supreme being or ultimate agent with less than maximal attributes, i.e. a guy more like Amun-Ra than Anselm's "being than which none greater can be thought". But I also regard the maximal ("omni") properties as a source of incoherence so that may be the lesser evil.
Michael Kowalik
The dispositional view of moral judgements or standards is arrived at (grounded by?) by an abductive argument based on how we deploy the language of our everyday moral discourse.* The dispositional analysis of a moral judgement would be that if an agent X in a certain state were to find himself in certain circumstances, he would have an attitude of a certain kind (e.g. approval or disapproval). Rough and oversimplified for sure, but the point is that a counterfactual conditional statement can be true even when there is no X that satisfies the conditions, i.e. when the antecedent is false and the disposition is not manifested. (E.g. compare: X is soluble iff X dissolves under conditions C, which can be true even if X never finds itself in those conditions.) So, although agency is a feature of the analysis, an existent agent is not required for the counterfactual to be true. But of course once you have an actualized disposition you ipso facto have an actual agent.___________
* Such a position is outlined in Peter Glassen, "Are there unresolvable moral disputes?", which can be downloaded here: http://en.bookfi.net/s/?q=are+there+unresolvable+moral+disputes&e=1&t=0
Michael Kowalik
Ultimately circularity is unavoidable since assumptions always have to be made and everything that's said is limited by a finite vocabulary. The question is, how vicious is the circularity? If you accept that we have an established workday moral discourse that isn't merely vacuous façons de parler, that we typically make certain distinctions e.g. between moral and merely aesthetic judgements, that we engage in genuine disputes over what is morally right, and that some motives typically cast doubt on our sincerity in moral judgements, then certain things will follow and some explanations will be better than others.You ask, "why we Ought to have a genuinely moral standpoint". "Ought" is a value term. Are you asking for a moral judgement, or just a pragmatic judgement, or what?
http://en.bookfi.net/s/?q=the+senses+of+ought&e=1&t=0
God is a contrivance of human imagination, constructed by the collective ego in an effort to make our own species consequential within a cosmos that otherwise dwarfs us to insigificence, and to negate the disheartening reality that all things die and not even the universe itself is immortal.
God is not a what. Ask WHO is God? God a mystery and always will be unless you choose to have a relationship with Him. I say him because as human we anthropomorphize all and cannot relate or understand anyone or anything non humanly, hence this is why we give feminime and masculine attributes to just about every quality of creations manifestations. As humans God is (but not limited to) the ultimate Father, Friend, King, Savior, Protector, Guide and lover to every individual who chooses to seek this eternal and omnipresent relationship beyond their limited finate relations.
One main characteristic feature of God is intelligence. The creative force, that is also renewing, preserving, destroying, Life is intelligent, in how atoms and molecules interect, trees grow, plants photosynthesize, babies are shaped in mothers wombs by this intelligence that is life that is GOD. Most agnostics and ethiest can agree that this intelligence exist whether they call it God or not or relate to it as a person. We relate to this intelligence daily as it keeps our heart beating, our blood flowing, our eyes seeing, our hair growing and so many other funtions that we know we can not do ourselves independent of our relationship with GOD the mystery. How can we know what God is when we dont even know what we are?
The Bible tells us "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." This fear is more of a wonder and awe yet still what are we more afraid of than the unknown?
The correct answer to the question 'What is God?' is a silent refusal to answer the question.
Id say a mystic is someone who has a relationship with the mystery.
We dont know what death is, its a mystery yet we relate with it. God will remain a mystery revealing only what we have the capacity to understand. A mystery God is because God is infinate and eternal and a human is limited and temperal.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
Socrates
Baroque Spinoza's philosophical view states that God is a “substance” with an infinite number of attributes, thus the attributes possessed by any other substances must also be possessed by God. Spinozism says God has other unknown attributes that are not defined in our world. So his point of view teaches us that a precise definition of God cannot be provided.
In Islam, God is the only source of all perfection and the cause of existence for all beings and has an eternal nature. No creature like him. His nature is the same as his attributes. It is a fact that has no nature. Neither seen in the world nor in the futurity, it has a perfect presence and connection with its creatures everywhere. The existence of God and some of His attributes can be proved by sense and reason, but not all of His essence is understood by the limited sense of mankind.
Therefore, the nature of every human feels the presence of God; some respond positively and some deny it.
Sincerely ...
Michael Kowalik
Glassen is not a moral conventionalist, unless you mean by that our everyday dialectical practices in moral-reasoning, broadly construed, and not the particular content of moral judgements most people are prone to profess. Labels that come closer to the mark might be ideal observer/judge theorist, response-dependence theorist, (constrained) intuitionist, (sort of) moral sense theorist. I actually think your metanormative view can be reconciled with Glassen's view. As for sincerity, it figures in his evaluation of agents and their character or virtuosity, but not in his account of rightness, which is merely act-evaluatory. Time for me to move on to other things. Cheers.
Michael Kowalik
, to err is to go astray; take it or leave it, or ask me what is the criterion of going astray.
In classical time it was acknowledged by Christians and non-Christian philosophers alike that all religion and cultures speak of something which is the best, or can be conceived to be the best. or the greatest of all things. In the year 1078 Anselm, a Christian monk, coined the phrase "something than which nothing greater could be thought" as an expression of that concept. He then proved that the God in whom he believes alone is something than which a greater can be thought.
That argument is disgracefully misrepresented as a version of 'the ontological argument for the existence of God, but it is nothing of the sort, since he relies on the premise "Whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist", which is entailed by the first clause of the Nicene Creed and is therefore a belief, not an a priori truth.
Of course, it might seem that that premise begs the question of the existence of God, but it can be shown that his conclusions follow validly when that premise is discharged in the course of the argument.
So the answer to your question is: God is that than which a greater cannot be thought. Anselm succeeded in proving that that God so truly exists that He could not be thought not to exist.
Michael Kowalik
The equivocation fallacy which you allege occurs because you import into the text a distinction between 'the idea of an ideal' and 'the ideal signified by that ideal'. To talk of ideas in that way is Lockean, not Anselmian. Anselm never talks of ideas as quasi entities 'in the mind'. It is true that he uses the expression "in intellectu", but since he concludes Proslogion II with saying that "something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is both in intellectu and in re", he could not be identifying an idea with a reality.
I suspect that your alleged equivocation will land you with a representative theory of mentality and a correspondence theory of truth - in the strong sense which posits representatives which correspond to, but are different from, what they represent. I maintain that such theories are ultimately incoherent.
Rather I interpret what he means by "in intellectu" differently. He says in De Veritate as a teleological theory of truth in which in thinking and speaking we aim our attention towards some reality, but sometimes miss the mark. When, however are aim is accurate, what is aimed at and what is in reality is the same.
Howbeit, Anselm does not even attempt to prove tat God exists in Proslogion II, only that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is in reality. That same conclusion can be validly deduced from a quit different premise: "Everything in the observable universe has a beginning", without having to speak of anything being 'in intellectu'! I have a book forthcoming which articulates that Anselmian cosmological argument.
Dear Michael Kowalik
In Islamic theory, God is regarded as a soul and does not have a body; so he shares some characteristics but cannot be understood and interpreted by all the attributes of God with the wisdom and ability of limited human thought.
1) A fact that has no nature: something without a body and a spirit that cannot be seen by the eyes.
2) Perfect presence and connection with: God is aware of all human beings, protects them from vice and invites human nature for goodness.
3) “The existence of God and some of His attributes can be proved by sense and reason” How?
A) Religious Proof: In all the scriptures, the theme is that God is aware of all human actions and invites man to goodness and avoid vice.
B) Intellectual proof: The unmoved mover, a great theory by Aristotle. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover) in a nutshell:
a) The beings that are seen in the universe are all changing and moving.
b) According to the principle of causality, every movement needs the stimulus and the creature that created it.
c) Because death and the separation of causes are not possible, then there is a need for a stimulus that is itself stable and unchanged.
Therefore, the existence of God as a creature that has no movement and is always constant is proved.
In addition, you can see other proofs of God in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
"The most authentic and strong arguments are Cosmological, Ontological and Teleological arguments."
4) The answers will vary depending on your outlook and worldview. For example, in Islam, the concepts of origin and the resurrection are determined.
The order in the world (for example in themes such as birth, heartbeat, and death) needs a creator who does not die because these themes are constantly being repeated. Another example is who has determined that White Blood Cells (WBC) have specific tasks? And can't he do the Red Blood Cell (RBC) tasks?
Another point is that a writer or a poet creates an artwork. He has access to all of his writing, he knows how to delete the sentence and create another. So all sentences depend on the creator of the artwork.
So can anyone but a great and unlimited creator be able to create a world of greatness? When all the order in the body is created by Him, will a man not feel close to Him?
5) As mentioned, God has all the good attributes and is free from all bad traits. In addition to all the good traits that can be attributed to one person, he has other special traits that humans cannot understand. We are finite beings with finite attributes but God is infinite (He will not die) and His attributes are at their highest and infinite which cannot be evaluated by man. He sees everything and he can't be seen.
Sincerely ...
Initially, the matter must be classified, because the subject of God is related to the metaphysical side, and research in this field can only be considered in mental consideration based on its effects in reality, and this is what Averroes discussed in the Manual of Care and Invention and (Anselm) in the Existential Evidence and (Emmanuel Kant) in the moral evidence, as for the problem of the truth of God, there is no way for the mind to reach it, so the heavenly messages were a mental necessity because it is the only way to " see" the unseen attribute of Unseen God.
Your question is supposed to be to verify the truthfulness of the Apostles in communicating what they received. And if the intellect validates the Messenger’s sincerity, there will be no need for mental assumptions about the existence of God, because only then will you verify the information that you have received. I hope that my answer is complete. I have discussed all these matters in my thesis entitled (Making Gods)
Michael Kowalik.
The truthfulness of any person depends not only on his sincerity but on the conformity of what he says with reality. Match the text to reality. Whoever tells me that a coronavirus exists cannot be confirmed as sincere, no matter how sincere, except with the knowledge of patients or those dying from it or examining the virus in the laboratory, and this ،of course does not affect the knowledge that we called the coronavirus, influenza, or pneumonia.
Arab scholars have a rule that says: (There is no problem in convention)
God doesn't exist. When cultures invent a God or Gods, they are inventing an imaginary super powerful being to explain phenomena they don't understand.
Michael Kowalik
I think it is to get what I want when I act intentionally.
Michael I am a Christian. Your question cannot be answered truthfully without referring to religious dogma. I know some may say that nature reveals that there is a God. Some believe that Creation itself reveals that there is a God of love. However, to understand God you must read what writers who have had a personal encounter say about the matter. Therefore, you cannot leave religious dogma out. I read the Bible and I have found God's love in the Bible, but I also have a personal relationship with God; therefore, God is loving to me, God is kind to me, God cares about me. I did not have to read religious dogma to know this. I have a personal relationship with God. We communicate with each other, so he knows how I feel and I know how God feels. God is knocking on the door of the sinners' hearts. He's saying let me come in. If you let me in I will come in and talk with you. We can share a meal together as friends. Those who are victorious over sin will sit with me in my kingdom and my Father's, (Revelation 3:20-21). I hope you understand. God Bless!!!
The second King of the Israel Nation was King David. He wrote many songs to God. In his 23 Psalm he symbolize God as a Shepherd and his followers as sheep. David said in the first verse of Psalm 23 NLT, "The Lord is my Shepherd, I have everything I need". David is sharing I have no worries because the Great Shepherd is taking care of me. God does not have a form so man cannot see God because he is a Spirit according to St. John 4:24, "God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". This is saying that God is a sheer being and those who worship him must do it our of their very being, their spirits, their true selves in adoration. It's who you are and the way you live that count before God. Your worship must engage your spirit in the pursuit of truth. That's the kind of people the Father is out looking for: those who are simply and honestly themselves before him in their worship. You must do what the word of God says to know that your relationship is with God. The word of God says if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead you will be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. When you do this you will become born again. Your spirit that has been dormant on the inside will come alive and you will be able to fellowship with God, the Holy Spirit. To let God speak to you, you must read the Bible, pray, and fellowship at a church with others who believe like you so that you will grow in your new life in the Spirit. Sometimes God will speak to you in your Spirit and you know it's him because your spirit connects with his spirit which is holy and not evil. Galatians 5:22-23 tells you what the fruit of the Holy Spirit is. Or what the qualities of the Holy Spirit is. Every believer who has been born again has these qualities. If you need to know what it is meant by born again read what Jesus said in St. John 3:3-8 from the Message Bible. I wish I could be with you to help answer your questions and pray with you. I hope you understand. God Bless.
Michael Kowalik
What does truth mean and how can we know when we have found it? What is epistemic humility?
Can we be sure that that truth poseeses us?
Is truth the foundation of our existence?
Michael Kowalik You must start from the axioms, if you suspect that you exist or that the sky is above or that one is not equal to two, then this is a problem that will never reach reality
God is the ground of all being, from whom the universe came in an act of love.
Any culture can understand that.
Daniel Maille
Universe created by an act of love? Is God a sentient being or a force? What is the ground of all being?
Virgil Matthews Michael Kowalik
to understand ontological priority and grounding, see Aquinas, or any philosophy encyclopedia online.
you don't really need to ask what love is, but if you do, you might never know.
Early religions were based on a fear of nature.
Current religions are based on a fear of death.
Gods are secondary things to these fears.
I assumed you had raised the question to gain insight and understanding, I didn't realise you expected people to write short essays for the sake of it. It's a bit much to ask. Got o to stanford online and search 'ontological priority and grounding'.
Virgil Matthews God is minded, and He is the ground of being. hope that helps.
Michael Kowalik
My best reference for something greater than reason begins where reason reaches is limits is Dr. David R. Hawkins map of levels of conciousness. See it here and notice how reason js at level 400 and every level/state of conciousness has a different view of God: http://chriswmetz.com/consciousness-energy-level/
'The “Map of Consciousness©” is clinically sophisticated in its depiction of each level’s emotional tone, view of God, and view of life. For example, “Fear” views God as punitive, whereas “Love” views God as loving.'
- https://veritaspub.com/dr-hawkins/
Love is the unifying web. It keeps Mother close to their young in the animal kingdom. Its the photosynthesis relationship between plants and the sun. Love is the ground for bonding to take place between fathers and sons. We love our food because we such a relationship with it we depend on its nourishment, love nourishes, is tk give and recieve. Love is the basis for true charity and philanthropy. Love is the prerequisite for all unity and that usity is our strength. The greatest laws are to 1.Love God with all your heart, mind, body and soul....and to 2.Love everyone as your self.
This is also the Buddhist basis for compassion. We are to love everyone and everything as ourself because they really are our true self. People go through similar things at same times. Growth is collective. When there is high tide all ships rise. There is a unseen network not only between trees, not only between humans, the network is always up and running and all that is is a part of it. Nothing is separate. Separation is an illusion of a limited perception defiled by egocentric narcissism that has forgotten to or been conditioned to not perceive from the consciousness itself not degraded by a false sense of pety identity.
Now love will be or wont be the ground of being depending on each persons semantics of the word love. The Greek say there are 8 types or expression of live but I am sure there are more.
Philia — Affectionate Love. Philia is love without romantic attraction and occurs between friends or family members. ...
Pragma — Enduring Love. ...
Storge — Familiar Love. ...
Eros — Romantic Love. ...
Ludus — Playful Love. ...
Mania — Obsessive Love. ...
Philautia — Self Love. ...
Agape — Selfless Love.
“mettā” is Buddhist “universal loving kindness.”
One Love is what Rastafarians promote
There are many expressions of love yet it is all from one source or under the same umbrella. The lack of love is hate. If everything was hate than life would not exist. Life forms exist because they love living, all wish to survive as long as they have love. The whole planet of our existence would have self destucted in self and other hate suicide/homicide if not for love being the ground of all life forms being, both animate and inanimate.
God is love and love is life. The only argument would be in the semantics of these words meanings. Yet the only true meaning is in experience and not abstract reasoning.
Jesse Pauly.
I don't understand any thing U posted. It appears to be your idea of love with no explanation.
Jesse Pauly
the ground of being can't depend on semantics, though our understanding of that ground might involve semantics. And, on a side note, if you want to include photosynthesis as an example of love, then you're drifting into nonsense.
Daniel Maille
How is relating the natural world to the spiritual non-sense? If we are to talk about God we cannot get around Gods light and how we recieve it whether we are religious, spiriual, agnostic or ethiest. I find it non sense limiting love to only humans. It can be argued that wild plants and animals know God better than most humans.
Hemoglobin (in our blood) and Chlorophyll (from photosynthesis) have similar structures. The main difference is that hemoglobin is built around iron (Fe), where as chlorophyll is built around magnesium, (Mg)
Also the heart chakra is Green for a good reason. Anything we don't understand seems like nonsense until we get it.
Jesse Pauly
God does not exist unless U are saying the Universe and everything in it , plants, animals, mountains, dirt, are all God.
All is the work of God. A good work of architecture is not the architect. There is a difference between the creator and creation. Though I agree it is easy to think Beethoven's music IS Beethoven himself.
Jesse Pauly animals and plants don't have consciousness for knowing God. You make the meaning of 'love' so wide as to render it meaningless, and relating it to the structure of blood is ridiculous.
With a mechanistic view of nature, no plants and animals do not have consciousness of their creator any more than a clockwork has conciousness of its clockmaker. With a sentient view that plants and animals are sentient beings, they are aware. Amimals may be more concious than humans of both nature and God if we look at facts such as animals fleeing a location weeks befor a earthquake or tsunami accurs while humans stick around oblivious of whats about to happen.
In my view Love is great and wide, not little and narrow, just as is my view of God. Omnipotent and omnipresent.
Humans being part of nature rely on its conciousness for its own. Throughout history cultures have ingested plants that reveal and increase their conciousness of God and the divine, why? How? Because plants DO have conciousness of God and metaphysical realities themselves.
Is every shaman and their cultures in history on tablets for claiming certain plants sacred? How about all the Native Americans that went on vision quests, fasting and the great spirit revealed their life purpose to them through animals that spoke to them?
One example in the Old Testement of the Holy Bible we can read how Gods Angel opens up a dockeys mouth to speak to a man named Balaam. (Numbers 22:28)
I am here to try to come to a good conclusion on the origional question posted here- What is the essential meaning God gives throughout cultures and is true interfaith coherence possible?
Jesse Pauly
GOD doesn't exist. The shamans, native Americans, bible stories claiming God spoke to them through plants or other animals just flst out lied.
Jesse Pauley
There is no purpose in life. It just exists, but has no purpose.
Michael Kowalik
I mean by God the non-existent supreme being of the Universe that makes everything happen. Not the named superbeings like Zeus, Yahweh, Thor and the thousands of other Gods created by humans since humans came down out of the trees and migrated from Africa. In my view, God is all there is. God is the Universe and everything in it, including U , me, and everything that exists. When I say God doesn't exist, I mean the named Gods don't exist, not that the Universe doesn't exist.
Why is it not a truth claim? You keep talking about truth and truth claims and I don't understand what U mean . Please explain.
Michael Kowalik
So how is my contention that God is all there is not a truth claim? Of course there is no way I can prove this since it is not independent of my personal preference. But any other definition of God I or anyone else will give has same problem. So if that is true, according to your criteria, nobody can answer the question.
Jesse Pauly
Not only does life not have a purpose, but life is an accident. It is on Earth and if life exists anywhere else on the trillions of planets in our Universe, life is an accident on them.
Michael Kowalik
I said God is all there is. I said nothing about God's existence.
Virgil Matthews your claim about truth requires all truth to be verifiable. That is asking too strong. There are certainly mind independent truths which are not verifiable.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology