Is Understanding fatal to Worship?

[blü 2]

Mmmmmm, number porn!

Is that a well-thumbed DVD of Debbie Does the Asymptotic theory of finite dimensional normed spaces with Isoperimetric inequalities in riemannian manifolds I see by your bed?

Even people like myself who are very analytical about the existence of gods and equate it with necessary mental constructs in relation to human evolution have no problems worshiping such a god or gods.

In that case, worship how?

I avidly worship something that I only have proof of as a conscious interpretation of the world. This does not bother me at all and my faith is not hindered by it because it is merely faith and should never enter the scientific arena yet alone the academic one.

"Mere faith" is an interesting expression. Do you mean faith is trivial for you?

But magic has always been a precursor to science. Magic if studied archaically is used for controlling mankind's surroundings.

I'd say magic was useful for controling mankind; it was a contest of human authority that led to the burning of witches.

But what screen-watcher hasn't dreamed of saying Accio beer instead of rising from one's study of the game?
.

 

[blü 2]

Yea!

 

[Sha'irullah]

Is that a well-thumbed DVD of Debbie Does the Asymptotic theory of finite dimensional normed spaces with Isoperimetric inequalities in riemannian manifolds I see by your bed?

Oh trust me, she does more than that!

In that case, worship how?

In any way one pleases and through whatever means one pleases. Through prayer, ritual, conscious acknowledgment or a combination of all 3 as I do. I pray to what I believe to be divine and I prostrate myself before it with the utmost humility, I worship that which I deem most providing.

. . . in short I have a massive fixation with knowledge deities.

"Mere faith" is an interesting expression. Do you mean faith is trivial for you?

Very trivial to me. We all have faith in something whether it be your wife's loyalty to you or your cat's doubtful love towards its owner. Regardless it is nothing to write about.

The only difference is not all of us have faith in the existence of gods. If that is the case it should not be a big deal if such a faith stays in that realm and does not exceeds its limits by making claims of the physical world.

This is why I am no creationist, nor do I accept that prayer can affect the physical world nor do I accept that gods must be supernatural in origin as I have no proof in the supernatural. I do have faith a god may exist in some form or the other but I cannot make much more of a claim than that. God is more of an ideal and less of a real existent thing of itself.

I'd say magic was useful for controlling mankind; it was a contest of human authority that led to the burning of witches.

Agreed but you do not address how horrendous magic truly was. Magic before religion was a way of depravity as well as it led the Aztecs, Druids, Moloch cults, Chinese and New Guinea tribes to practice human sacrifice. It encourage virgin rape, child genocide, and the belief in bodily harm as a means to control external forces. Man explored everything with magic universally without contact with each other.

When magic was introduced to societies it brought the utmost worst in people as it progressed. It has no rational basis and was intellectually bankrupt in every regard. It was if anything a science of human depravity. This is why you see Abrahamic tribes have such an aversion to what they call magic as they all experienced the horrors of the Moloch and Baalah cults.

But what screen-watcher hasn't dreamed of saying Accio beer instead of rising from one's study of the game?
.

Hmmmm, touché

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

PSA: Neither "pre-cursor to science" nor Harry Potter are how magic works.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not suggesting that it is.

Instead I'm saying that there's a religious mindset which accepts the supernatural nature of the deity and may reason from there.

But if the deity turns out to be unmystical, unsupernatural, but is an amazing superscientist instead, then I don't think people are inclined to worship superscientists as such.
.

The religious mindset that you refer to probably related to the majority of religious people, particularly the Abrahamic Faiths. Such a starting point usually has assumptions about the purpose of life and the best path for a fulfilling life.

I suppose one mans food is another's poison.

 

[blü 2]

PSA: Neither "pre-cursor to science" nor Harry Potter are how magic works.

Well, you say that, but your own illustration shows half a dozen patronuses or more, forming and dissolving.
.

 

[Woodmangler]

"It seems to me that there's a religious mindset in which god ─ and his powers and the nature of his existence ─ don't need to be understood in the analytical sense I'm talking about, but rather god is worshiped with consequent emotional rewards for the worshiper."

Addressing this from a Christian perspective:
1. I've heard it said, and I agree that if you've not wrestled with your faith, questioned it, and come to the conclusion that it is valid; that it is questionable as to whether your faith is real/grounded/valid. "Jesus loves me......'cause the Bible tells me so" is a great start for children, but at some time a person has to look deeper. So, I would say that people of faith who have asked the question about God, would understand in the analytical sense rather than the emotional. This is not to say that just because someone sets in a pew on Sunday that they've made the effort. "Not everyone who salutes the flag is a patriot"

2. With regard to "emotional rewards:" There is no doubt that some people to get completely, broken-down emotional in worship, but that's no indication of depth or even sincerity. If there is a personal reward for emotion, I would be concerned over sincerity.
a. Sometimes people get overcome by their perception of the depth of their sin, known only to them and God. Once they grasp the magnitude of the forgiveness they've been granted through Christ's sacrifice and their transformation from fallen to forgiven; they can be emotional to the extreme. So, the emotion is an outcome, not a reward; much the same as someone rescued from some calamity may be emotional at being saved and even over hose that saved them.

 

[blü 2]

The religious mindset that you refer to probably related to the majority of religious people, particularly the Abrahamic Faiths. Such a starting point usually has assumptions about the purpose of life and the best path for a fulfilling life.

Just the assumption of the supernatural, of magic, is enough for what I have in mind.
.

 

[blü 2]

I would say that people of faith who have asked the question about God, would understand in the analytical sense rather than the emotional.

If they had the analytical perspective that I'm talking about, they would have no sense that god was a mystery, or could alter reality independently of the rules of physics. They'd see him as a special being, perhaps with superior qualities, but not supernatural ones. And if they did that, would they then be inclined to worship?

If there is a personal reward for emotion, I would be concerned over sincerity.

I'm surprised by that. The friends of mine who go to church speak of a sense of pleasing reassurance, of comfortable familiarity, as the thing that draws them. As far as I can tell, their belief is authentic although uncritical.

 

[Woodmangler]

"I'd say active acknowledgment of god as one's superior of a more-than-human kind to whom thanks and great respect are due. But since that's off the top of my head, I'm still listening."

Again, from a Christian perspective:

My concept is that acknowledging God as your superior falls far short of the monotheistic view of God. When I think of a superior, I see someone like me that I could either become someday or that is the same as me, only with some gifting, talent, or education that sets them apart - but not that far apart. Of course I can't speak universally for Christianity, but of those I have met, those I have studied with or under, I think this hits fairly close to the mark.

If superior is the term to describe God, then Infinitely Superior might be a better descriptor. When it comes to God, the monotheistic religions that I have any familiarity with see God as completely beyond any approach or familiarity except what God allows. John 4:19 "We love Him because He first loved us (NKJV)". Some other monotheistic beliefs show God as unapproachable and in some cases, disinterested.

 

[Woodmangler]

f they had the analytical perspective that I'm talking about, they would have no sense that god was a mystery, or could alter reality independently of the rules of physics. They'd see him as a special being, perhaps with superior qualities, but not supernatural ones. And if they did that, would they then be inclined to worship?

It looks like what your describing as an analytical perspective I have confused with what I understand to be a naturalistic perspective. Considering that,
if you are looking to a god with "superior qualities, but not supernatural ones" then I doubt that many would worship because that god is only somewhat superior to ourselves and we can always strive to improve. I don't think that is the monotheistic view of a creator God.

 

[blü 2]

It looks like what your describing as an analytical perspective I have confused with what I understand to be a naturalistic perspective. Considering that,
if you are looking to a god with "superior qualities, but not supernatural ones" then I doubt that many would worship because that god is only somewhat superior to ourselves and we can always strive to improve. I don't think that is the monotheistic view of a creator God.

Thanks. No, I agree it's not a view you'll hear in church very often.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Well, you say that, but your own illustration shows half a dozen patronuses or more, forming and dissolving.
.

Those are clearly constellations, blu. Norse, specifically.

 

[PureX]

Have you considered testing this theory? If you stop paying your federal taxes or mortgage, or you volunteer to step into a MMA ring as a competitor, will the concept of power as an "illusion" hold?

Such threats as these have no power over us that we don't give to them.

 

[PureX]

I'm thinking that any God that would want or even accept being "worshiped" doesn't deserve it. And any God that deserves it wouldn't want or accept it. So for me, that pretty much closes the door on the whole religious worship idea.

Now gratitude! That's another story!

 

[Deidre]

Acts 17 does not stand alone, though. Look at Proverbs: "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps." The Hebrew word for faith used in scripture, by definition, refers to a logical, robust, unwavering confidence in the truth, not a blind and unquestioning faith. What's your take?

Are you going to make me read the Bible...again? lol I'll look that up, and I'll comment later.

 

[blü 2]

Those are clearly constellations, blu. Norse, specifically.

What, you think an old Harry Potter hand like me doesn't know a patronus when it forms before his very eyes?

Pshaw!
.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Sounds more like there's a troll in the dungeon. Which one do you think is a patronus: Jormungandr; Dáinn; Veðrfölnir; Dvalinn; Ratatoskr; Þórr's Cart; Duneyrr; Duraþrór; The Eyes of Þjazi?

 

[blü 2]

Sounds more like there's a troll in the dungeon. Which one do you think is a patronus: Jormungandr; Dáinn; Veðrfölnir; Dvalinn; Ratatoskr; Þórr's Cart; Duneyrr; Duraþrór; The Eyes of Þjazi?

The deer. At least.

Is your ship Skíðblaðnir?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Which deer? Dáinn, Dvalinn, Duneyrr or Duraþrór? Also no, it is simply a longship.