Is Belief in God Spritual Suicide?

[Sunstone]

Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?

 

[Madhuri]

I don't think so.
Some people's belief in God will stop them from seeking God. Now that you could argue is spiritual suicide.
But people who believe in God often realise that they do not really understand God's nature. Their life is spiritual as it is dedicated to seeking the divine.

 

[Sunstone]

I actually don't get the impression that many people understand that they really don't grasp god's nature. Instead, after six years on this board, I tend most days to think folks pretty much assume they know and understand their god. But those are just my impressions.

 

[Cordoba]

Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?

I suggest that the starting point for someone searching for the truth is to read, research and think.

At the initial stage there are 2 main options:

a) Either God exists, and we do have a Creator, or

b) God does not exist, and we do not have a Creator

If one goes for the second option, then one would need to find a coherent answer to the question (where do we and this amazing universe come from?), which no non-believer in God has so far been able to answer

If on the other hand one is convinced that this amazing universe must have a Creator, then the second stage would be which god? (i.e. which faith is correct?)

This is where comparative religion and research is needed to find out which of the world's religion is the truth and when that is answered this would be the faith to follow

Why do you think that this process would be spiritual suicide?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I suggest that the starting point for someone searching for the truth is to read, research and think.

At the initial stage there are 2 main options:

a) Either God exists, and we do have a Creator, or

b) God does not exist, and we do not have a Creator

If one goes for the second option, then one would need to find a coherent answer to the question (where do we and this amazing universe come from?), which no non-believer in God has so far been able to answer

If on the other hand one is convinced that this amazing universe must have a Creator, then the second stage would be which god? (i.e. which faith is correct?)

This is where comparative religion and research is needed to find out which of the world's religion is the truth and when that is answered this would be the faith to follow

Why do you think that this process would be spiritual suicide?

Not to go too far off the topic of this tread, but your premise is incorrect.
Just because we cannot answer a question does not mean that we can inject whatever we please, in this case a god, into it. In order to provide an answer one would need some independent confirmation that the answer (you know, evidence), in this case "god", is correct, and we do not have that confirmation.

 

[Onkara]

Not to go too far off the topic of this tread, but your premise is incorrect.
Just because we cannot answer a question does not mean that we can inject whatever we please, in this case a god, into it. In order to provide an answer one would need some independent confirmation that the answer (you know, evidence), in this case "god", is correct, and we do not have that confirmation.

To begin on the premise that there is no evidence for God is equally incorrect, in that case. I am not inclined to agree. It is like the "chicken and the egg, which came first?" one must begin with each and work it out for themselves. In fact one can inject any hypothesis that helps one to come to a conclusion to support that hypothesis, that is after all science if done mathematically/Statistically. The issue is perhaps that "God" cannot be measured, which you reject to?

 

[Onkara]

Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?

Yes, to a degree, because belief itself is limited to the supporting factors. To move away from belief one must support a conclusion based on their own observations i.e. facts. I am not suggesting these facts need to be "proven" to another, but likewise those facts can be investigated by an individual with the probability of arriving at the same or similar conclusions.

Keeping in mind that defining "God" is always an issue and that one could call their cat "God" we need to be more precise and alert. (This is another topic).

It might be "spiritual suicide" if we submit to a conclusion without feeling the conclusion is well supported. But as that person has taken that step themselves, who is to say that it is wrong for them even if it wrong for "me or you"? Quite often it seems that others judge others decisions as being wrong based on their own conclusion? Isn't that basing a conclusion on a bias, or actually our own "spiritual suicide" as we no longer look neutrally or inquisitively beyond our own beliefs?

 

[sandandfoam]

Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?

I think everyone finds what they believe in. I think we are like a train running on a track it lays as it moves forward. Our minds create reality as consciousness unfolds.

Belief in God might well be spiritual suicide, it might also be empowering, liberating and a portal to freedom.

 

[SLAMH]

then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?

Well, it depends on. If belief in God is built upon the concept of realization which means to conceive God as it is, then it would be a suicide as it is impossible to confirm even if someone claim to meet or see God. That is actually due to the existence of variety of disembodied entities in each faith, angels or devils or whatever. For this reason, if someone tells me that he actually gets to know God personally, I really doubt it.

As for my belief, it is not built upon what is not possible to be achieved, but it is about what I'm supposed to do in this life which is worshiping my God and flourishing in life. Grasping the nature of God in not a goal to pursue in this life, but it is a reward in hereafter.

At the end I'd like to share this quote which I find it to be the most meaningful,

“Do for this life as if you live forever, do for the afterlife as if you die tomorrow”
Ali ibn Abi Talib

 

[chinu]

Is it not true that those who believe in god will find only the god they believe in? And is it not also the case that any god the petty mind can conceive of is a petty god? Last, if all of that is so, then is not belief in god a form of spiritual suicide since it would condemn us to -- at the very best -- find nothing beyond our own petty, projected idea of god?

I remembered one quote on this:
"Je tu prem khelen ko chou, siir dhar tali gali meri aou" -# GGS

English: "If you want to play the game of Love then come in my street with your head on your hand"

_/\_
Chinu

 

[LuisDantas]

There are two basic uses for God. As a source of inspiration, and as a false answer. The first is a legitimate and often wonderful religious use. The second is a travesty.

 

[LuisDantas]

I suggest that the starting point for someone searching for the truth is to read, research and think.

At the initial stage there are 2 main options:

a) Either God exists, and we do have a Creator, or

b) God does not exist, and we do not have a Creator

Hi, Cordoba.

I'm afraid this model doesn't work very well. It fails to define the core concepts of God and of a Creator.

If one goes for the second option, then one would need to find a coherent answer to the question (where do we and this amazing universe come from?), which no non-believer in God has so far been able to answer

I don't see why that answer is needed, really. Assuming it is, why not simply take Deism's? It is not much of an answer, but then neither is the belief in a Creator God. It is a claim, but not a real answer, for it doesn't really explain anything.

If on the other hand one is convinced that this amazing universe must have a Creator, then the second stage would be which god? (i.e. which faith is correct?)

This is where comparative religion and research is needed to find out which of the world's religion is the truth and when that is answered this would be the faith to follow

Why do you think that this process would be spiritual suicide?

I personally think it is spiritual self-mutilation, because it begins with the unawarranted assumption that there was a Creation and that if it did exist it had a Will behind it.

As so many other quick and simple answers, it disregards lots of subtle yet true details - and when the details are those of Existence itself, that defeats the purpose entirely, unfortunately. Attempting to find out if a Creator God does exist without first having a clear idea of what that would be is quite pointless and in fact dangerous for both intelectual and spiritual honesty.

 

[jarofthoughts]

To begin on the premise that there is no evidence for God is equally incorrect, in that case. I am not inclined to agree. It is like the "chicken and the egg, which came first?" one must begin with each and work it out for themselves. In fact one can inject any hypothesis that helps one to come to a conclusion to support that hypothesis, that is after all science if done mathematically/Statistically. The issue is perhaps that "God" cannot be measured, which you reject to?

The premise is not only that there is no evidence for god. It is much more expansive than that. The premise is that there is no reason to believe in what cannot be observed, even in theory. Many theists, by defining their god to be unobservable and beyond understanding has in fact removed their god from reality completely and made the concept even more unbelievable.

My position, as an empiricist more than that of an atheist, is that if something cannot be observed, measure or tested, even in theory, then it has no impact on our reality and it therefore does not, for all intents and purposes, exist.

 

[Onkara]

The premise is not only that there is no evidence for god. It is much more expansive than that. The premise is that there is no reason to believe in what cannot be observed, even in theory. Many theists, by defining their god to be unobservable and beyond understanding has in fact removed their god from reality completely and made the concept even more unbelievable.

My position, as an empiricist more than that of an atheist, is that if something cannot be observed, measure or tested, even in theory, then it has no impact on our reality and it therefore does not, for all intents and purposes, exist.

Thank you for elaborating
What if we take their explanation of God to be one which we cannot or will not investigate ourselves as empiricists?

Quite often I find that people are unwilling to accept any metion of "God" as they cannot find an object or being outside of themselves. However, to my limited research, most major religions confirm that God is inside us albeit the way they describe and use words is not always the most helpful for us in 2011.

 

[SLAMH]

I don't see why that answer is needed, really. Assuming it is, why not simply take Deism's? It is not much of an answer, but then neither is the belief in a Creator God. It is a claim, but not a real answer, for it doesn't really explain anything.

Well, it is a claim in a form of answer, while claiming that God doesn't exist actually doesn't resolve the Dilemma of the cause for the existence of the universe.

 

[Onkara]

I agree, SLAMH.
Bowing to science in place of God is not different to "spiritual suicide". In fact it denies even the spirit and reduces mankind to meat.

 

[SLAMH]

I agree. Bowing to science in place of God is not different to "spiritual suicide". In fact it denies even the spirit and reduces mankind to meat.

I think we need to rely on both.

 

[Onkara]

I think we need to rely on both.

I find both science and religion support one another, I would not reject either It is blind faith to put one's faith into science finding the answer to life as it is to deny it. Science has its limits like religion. It is only when there is no duality that there is no disagreement.

 

[SLAMH]

It is only when there is no duality that there is no disagreement.

I like it,it so meaningful.

Thank you Onkara.

No Duality.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree, SLAMH.
Bowing to science in place of God is not different to "spiritual suicide". In fact it denies even the spirit and reduces mankind to meat.

Maybe so. But presuming a God is if anything even more dangerous. It falls squarely into the other extreme, and may easily lead to the most gross forms of self-justification.

Incidentally, no one should "bow" to science. That is not its role.

I also wonder if there is even a dilemma in the lack of knowledge of how Existence came to be. It is legitimate to wonder about that, but it is just as legitimate to just accept that we don't know and it doesn't really matter for practical purposes. If it is a dilemma, it is a very minor one.