Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you mean it can't be communicated? Ever hear of art? Ever hear of dance? Ever hear of poetry, love, song, music, and so forth? What happens to you when you experience the inexpressible? How do you express it? Perhaps you've never experienced such a thing? Surely as a human you must have?

There's a big difference between being influenced by a painting in a way that can't be properly expressed to others and not being able to say what a painting is.

Establishing that "Starry Night" actually exists and has a particular real form comes *before* a conversation about how the painting makes you feel.

I might not be able to question you if you say "I was deeply touched the last time I saw the Bolshoi Ballet perform in New York", but I can reject what you say if you tell me "I was deeply touched the last time I saw the Bolshoi Ballet perform at the bottom of the Marianas trench." Whatever you were touched by, it wasn't the Bolshoi at the bottom of an ocean trench.

Just because you have a hard-to-communicate reaction to something doesn't mean that the thing itself can't be described at all.

 

[Windwalker]

No, I think I'm all the way there... or at least as far as can be gone.

Not according to me. You're still stuck in your mental models.

If "God" describes the indescribable, then we're done. There is not - cannot be - any merit in any theistic position that's based on such a god.

Why? To express the inexpressible, in whatever inadequate way that is, is not without value or merit. It inspires the heart to reach for itself beyond the clouds, beyond the ceiling imposed upon it by the limits of our reasonings. That has incalculable merit to the human being.

Do you think that trading traditional god-concepts for this word-salad navel-gazing makes your position any better?

Do you think that putting others down insulting them calling their thoughts the equivalent the symptom of a neurological disease makes your position any better? Does it help you sleep better at night to stuff your ears with your fingers and call others idiots?

There is no word salad nor navel-gazing going on with me. Saying what you do only betrays you sense of the shallowness of your own position.

Do you really think that atheists - or rational people generally - don't reject the literal nonsense that you're peddling?

I think rational people who have had any sort of experience of the ineffable may possibly understand what I'm pointing to with the words I choose to paint it with. To those who have not had any such experience, well, to them, those who say they have must be mentally ill or deceived, since they themselves have not! I don't think it has to do with being rational. I think it has to do with having a sense of the world beyond just your own thoughts projecting themselves as truth itself upon the rest of the world. I am solidly rational. But that's not the end game of life, by any means.

The rejection is a bit more "meta", but you've actually made your situation worse - at least with traditional theism, there are claims that I can evaluate to see if they're possibly true. You don't even have that going for you.

Sure I do. Have you ever tried practicing any meditation? Go in there, have some experience, then come back and lets have an informed discussion together.

 

[Jumi]

So what is this Dance God needed for? Is it just an inspiring analogy?

 

[leibowde84]

Quoting @kepha31 from a DIR discussion




What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

I think this is a great point. I don't think that the theist should make the demand of the atheist to explain their lack of belief in God until the theist defines what God is to them. Until this happens, there is no guarantee that they are even discussing the same thing.

 

[leibowde84]

Quoting @kepha31 from a DIR discussion




What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

In short, the request to explain a disbelief in an undefined entity is completely unreasonable. There would be no reason to believe in God at all if one did not know what God was defined as.

 

[Iti oj]

Calling something nonsense, meaningless or useless isn't ignoring it.

 

[Windwalker]

There's a big difference between being influenced by a painting in a way that can't be properly expressed to others and not being able to say what a painting is.

Hah! This explains a lot to me. What I was referring to was being the one creating the painting, not the one interpreting the artist! Very revealing. Thank you for that understanding of which side of the canvas you are standing on. You chose that side of the canvas, rather than the other as the default position.

I am saying the artist is the one who is expressing the inexpressible from within himself! He uses the medium because it speaks where words cannot for him. It expresses a sense of the ineffable that a mere description of an object cannot. He is not describing a tree. He is describing the being of a tree, the presense felt or impressed upon him as it stands there, towering and speaking of the ages which inspires in his own soul the greatness of being itself, himself rooted in the earth, in the clouds, in the universe, his heart and soul felt singing back to him through this life that stands before him. He paints, and in the painting is expressed this inexpressible. And those who have a heart as his, feel his voice in the image he paints, and it transport them within themselves to the place of the heart and soul.

And then you look at it as say, "It's a tree. He saw a tree and painted a tree. A tree is real. We can all see a tree. He is very skilled with a brush. Nice colors. It's a tree."

So, there you go. It has nothing to do with being rational. It has to do with being open to the world and the self with the heart. What did the artist really paint? A tree, or God? You see a tree, others see God.

Establishing that "Starry Night" actually exists and has a particular real form comes *before* a conversation about how the painting makes you feel.

And you don't think the words the mystics speaks don't have a real form? They are words, and just like paint on canvas, they are form. It's what is expressed in the form that you object to. You see, to you, when you look at Starry Night you see it is about stars. Others see it is about Beauty expressing the ineffable. You just don't like the interpretations. And you blame them for not being "rational" about it! Too funny.

I might not be able to question you if you say "I was deeply touched the last time I saw the Bolshoi Ballet perform in New York", but I can reject what you say if you tell me "I was deeply touched the last time I saw the Bolshoi Ballet perform at the bottom of the Marianas trench." Whatever you were touched by, it wasn't the Bolshoi at the bottom of an ocean trench.

Who the hell is saying anything like this? Not me. Point me to where I have misstated facts. Strawman argument here?

Just because you have a hard-to-communicate reaction to something doesn't mean that the thing itself can't be described at all.

To your satisfaction of your mode of thought and criteria for validity? I doubt that. It can't be contained within that limited of a box.

All of this is fine if you see the world in 100 different colors. But others who see trillions of colors are not insane. They just have a different type of awareness and can perceive what there all the time. But our languages have not been developed around such awareness, and so speaking of it is like trying to use boxes to portray wind.

 

[Orbit]

No, I think I'm all the way there... or at least as far as can be gone.

If "God" describes the indescribable, then we're done. There is not - cannot be - any merit in any theistic position that's based on such a god.

Do you think that trading traditional god-concepts for this word-salad navel-gazing makes your position any better? Do you really think that atheists - or rational people generally - don't reject the literal nonsense that you're peddling? The rejection is a bit more "meta", but you've actually made your situation worse - at least with traditional theism, there are claims that I can evaluate to see if they're possibly true. You don't even have that going for you.

That God is indescribable is not exchanging tradition for navel gazing. It is traditional apophatic theology found in the mystic traditions of Christianity, Islam, and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why? To express the inexpressible, in whatever inadequate way that is, is not without value or merit. It inspires the heart to reach for itself beyond the clouds, beyond the ceiling imposed upon it by the limits of our reasonings. That has incalculable merit to the human being.

The inexpressable can't be expressed at all. That's what makes it inexpressable.

I think that one of two things is going on here:

- what you call "inexpressable" really is inexpressable. If so, trying to "express" it is bound to complete and utter failure.

- what you call "inexpressable" is actually more like "difficult to express". If so, you should be perfectly able to explain what you mean by "God", though it might take a bit of effort.

Is there another option you see here?

 

[Windwalker]

So what is this Dance God needed for? Is it just an inspiring analogy?

It's an analogy to speak of the form in which the ineffable is expressed. Dance is expressive of the fluidity of movement, or a response of the body and mind and soul to being. It is beyond the limits of definitions and words. Something think if they cannot understand something in words, it's not valid. Yet, what then is the meaning of dance? Why should it be danced at all if words could express it?

"God", is a word to speak of the Absolute, which no words can fully express, not even the word "God". I imagine it like this. Instead of saying the word "God" definitively, pointing to a thing, and object, like saying the word "tree" as you point at a tree, it's like starting with your hands together, and opening them to everything, releasing all singular ideas as you say "God". So "God", as you express the movement of hands outward motioning to everything above and below, within and beyond towards the infinite. I say it this way "God" is the face we put upon the infinite to describe what cannot be described.

So dance then includes not just mental ideas about objects it tries to point to, it expresses the movement of being from the subject dancing, welling up, moving, and creating. This expresses God, in that God is neither the subject nor object, and is both. It is the formless and form moving in freedom. The limit of words again are they are boxes with boundaries and therefore less capable of this freedom of movement, this freedom of expression that comes from the wellspring of the heart in response to being. Knowing that being, is key. To know yourself is to know God. To know God is to know yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That God is indescribable is not exchanging tradition for navel gazing. It is traditional apophatic theology found in the mystic traditions of Christianity, Islam, and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism.

Ah... so it's not exchanging tradition for navel-gazing; it's exchanging one tradition for a tradition of navel-gazing. My mistake.

 

[Orbit]

The inexpressable can't be expressed at all. That's what makes it inexpressable.

I think that one of two things is going on here:

- what you call "inexpressable" really is inexpressable. If so, trying to "express" it is bound to complete and utter failure.

- what you call "inexpressable" is actually more like "difficult to express". If so, you should be perfectly able to explain what you mean by "God", though it might take a bit of effort.

Is there another option you see here?

Just because something is inexpressable doesn't mean we don't try to express it. Art, music, poetry all result from attempts to express the inexpressable emotions that are only imperfectly approximated by the expressive arts. It's not "failure" to try and do so. Mystics across different traditions have tried to express the inexpressable and the result is if we look across traditions, a remarkable similarity of concepts.

 

[Orbit]

Ah... so it's not exchanging tradition for navel-gazing; it's exchanging one tradition for a tradition of navel-gazing. My mistake.

This isn't reasoned argument, it's name calling. Navel gazing? This is just thinly veiled anti-theism that adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Windwalker]

This isn't reasoned argument, it's name calling. Navel gazing? This is just thinly veiled anti-theism that adds nothing to the discussion.

It's what someone says when they feel uncomfortable by another approach to life, like labeling atheists "angry at god", or some such drivel. It's the same thing.

 

[`mud]

hey Orbit,
interesting post, but it exceeds 'navel gazes',
when one can transcend being,
and still see oneself, one will be a god.
No religious formats needed,
one will be one self's own mirror.
But....who will worship ?
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

hey Windy,
"angry at god", really ?
Is that what you really think non-believers are ?
How can one be angry at something that doesn't exist ?
I'm not even 'angry' at angels either, but you know why, don't you ?
~
'mud

 

[Windwalker]

The inexpressable can't be expressed at all. That's what makes it inexpressable.

You're trying to reduce this to a semantics argument? Let's look at what I said again, "To express the inexpressible, in whatever inadequate way that is, is not without value or merit." It's a metaphoric way to say no amount of expression can fully express what is felt our experienced. It's really not so hard to grasp what this means. The paradoxical expression of "to express the inexpressible" means all expressions at their very best are partial and limited in expressing what is limitless. My god, if anyone has ever experienced such a thing, none of this is a problem for their minds. For those who haven't, I'm sure it just sound like so much 'woo'. "If I haven't experienced such a thing, it's not real for others".

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
​

"To know what is impenetrable to us really exists", is the same paradoxical expression as saying to "express the inexpressible". "How can you know something you cannot penetrate with the mind??", Mr. Penguin challenged the Mr. Einstein with his logic of words. You know, in reading what Mr. Einstein wrote above, I think he's saying exactly everything I am saying. As I said, being rational is not the criteria for hearing the music of the spheres.

I think that one of two things is going on here:

- what you call "inexpressable" really is inexpressable. If so, trying to "express" it is bound to complete and utter failure.

- what you call "inexpressable" is actually more like "difficult to express". If so, you should be perfectly able to explain what you mean by "God", though it might take a bit of effort.

Is there another option you see here?

Yes, you only see the night sky with the dull faculties of the mind and reason. You don't have a 3rd option or beyond available to you.

 

[Windwalker]

hey Windy,
"angry at god", really ?
Is that what you really think non-believers are ?
How can one be angry at something that doesn't exist ?
I'm not even 'angry' at angels either, but you know why, don't you ?
~
'mud

No offense, but are you challenged in understanding the words people write? I think if you read what I wrote, I was making a comparison to the sorts of nonsense people say about atheists as a comparison the sorts of nonsense people say about contemplatives as "navel gazers". Here, read it again, "It's what someone says when they feel uncomfortable by another approach to life, like labeling atheists "angry at god", or some such drivel. It's the same thing." See it now?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's an analogy to speak of the form in which the ineffable is expressed. Dance is expressive of the fluidity of movement, or a response of the body and mind and soul to being. It is beyond the limits of definitions and words. Something think if they cannot understand something in words, it's not valid. Yet, what then is the meaning of dance? Why should it be danced at all if words could express it?

"God", is a word to speak of the Absolute, which no words can fully express, not even the word "God". I imagine it like this. Instead of saying the word "God" definitively, pointing to a thing, and object, like saying the word "tree" as you point at a tree, it's like starting with your hands together, and opening them to everything, releasing all singular ideas as you say "God". So "God", as you express the movement of hands outward motioning to everything above and below, within and beyond towards the infinite. I say it this way "God" is the face we put upon the infinite to describe what cannot be described.

So dance then includes not just mental ideas about objects it tries to point to, it expresses the movement of being from the subject dancing, welling up, moving, and creating. This expresses God, in that God is neither the subject nor object, and is both. It is the formless and form moving in freedom. The limit of words again are they are boxes with boundaries and therefore less capable of this freedom of movement, this freedom of expression that comes from the wellspring of the heart in response to being. Knowing that being, is key. To know yourself is to know God. To know God is to know yourself.

To run with your analogy, there are two separate questions here:

- what do you mean by "dance"? (i.e. what does the word refer to? How do we distinguish between dance and other things?)
- what does dance mean to you? (i.e. what is dance's importance to you?)

It seems like you're focusing on the second question while I'm going after the first.

And while there may be plenty that's expressed through dance that can't be expressed any other way, there's still quite a bit - enough to fill libraries and university courses, in fact - to say in plain language about dance.

 

[Windwalker]

To run with your analogy, there are two separate questions here:

- what do you mean by "dance"? (i.e. what does the word refer to? How do we distinguish between dance and other things?)
- what does dance mean to you? (i.e. what is dance's importance to you?)

It seems like you're focusing on the second question while I'm going after the first.

And while there may be plenty that's expressed through dance that can't be expressed any other way, there's still quite a bit - enough to fill libraries and university courses, in fact - to say in plain language about dance.

If you wish to focus on the form of the dance, you miss the meaning of the dance. You are fixated on the mechanics, not the soul behind the dance, nor behind the music, nor behind the words of poets and mystics. If you are fixated on the form, then you miss the meaning. Don't blame the dancer because you can't hear what they are saying.