On the counting of Gods, and why it can never be an important matter

[LuisDantas]

I have come to the conclusion that, if religion is to last for a few more centuries, it will have to learn to deemphasize the concept of deity to a degree that current Christians and Muslims will have a very hard time dealing with.

Fortunately, we will have a few generations passing by, making the transition somewhat gradual and less painful than it would otherwise be.

As for why I have reached that conclusion: because playing too much with god-concepts has been harming religion something fierce and making it at one time destructive and irrelevant.

Religion, contrary to widely spread misconceptions, doe not have and can never have much to do with "God". God is a tool, a resource to be used for expressing doctrine. Or rather, they are a multitude of such tools.

One of the main dangers of lending too much significance to "God" is that it is hopelessly confusing and leads people firmly astray. One would think that believers would be well aware of how varied god-conceptions are and adjust their practice and expectations accordingly. Many in fact do, but the mainstream tends to neglect that rather obvious need.

While it is technically impossible to tell whether there is a God, and it is demonstrably impossible to prove that there is none, those are ultimately considerations of no practical value.

What does matter is not the literal existence of any deity, but rather how people relate to various god-conceptions.

That should be fairly obvious, but surprisingly, it very often isn't. Many a Christian has somehow convinced himself that it is in some sense important to convince other people to believe in the "correct God". It is even worse with Muslims.

One has to wonder what those groups understand religion (the word) to mean.

What meaning could belief in a god-conception ever have that was not shaped mainly by the effects on the believer himself or herself? Regardless of the ultimately unresolvable and uttterly unimportant question of whether there is anything existing that ought to be called a deity for some reason (hopefully a not entirely arbitrary reason), the actual relevant part of god-belief (if any other parts even exist) is certainly that directly related to the believer.

The alternative is just too dysfunctional and self-defeating: the proposition that somehow there is at least one True God out there that is at once transcendental to our considerations and in dire need of our accurate recognition.

I for one don't think that can be made to work. But it could make interesting fiction.

 

[PureX]

While it is technically impossible to tell whether there is a God, and it is demonstrably impossible to prove that there is none, those are ultimately considerations of no practical value.

What does matter is not the literal existence of any deity, but rather how people relate to various god-conceptions.

That should be fairly obvious, but surprisingly, it very often isn't. Many a Christian has somehow convinced himself that it is in some sense important to convince other people to believe in the "correct God". It is even worse with Muslims.

One has to wonder what those groups understand religion (the word) to mean.

One has to wonder, indeed.

All too often our discussions about religion on this site are like rich people sitting around discussing the stock market as if it were the economy. When it is not.

Religion is not just ideological religious dogma. It is not just fear-driven superstition. It is not just fantasy driven hopefulness. It is not just cultural pride and identification. It is not just a personal moral code. It is not just a collection or ancient myths and 'wisdom literature'. It is ALL OF THESE THINGS to varying degrees to a lot of very different people experiencing life in very different ways. So yes, one has to wonder, indeed. And no big single answer is going to be forthcoming. Because the phenomenon of religiosity is far too big and complicated for that.

What meaning could belief in a god-conception ever have that was not shaped mainly by the effects on the believer himself or herself?

Exactly. And having said that, what right do any of us have to presume to understand, or to judge? And yet, boy, we do presume we understand, and we do presume to judge, don't we!

The only real question that matters regarding religiosity is; is there anything I can do to help? Can I share my experience of it in a way that others may find something useful for themselves? That's really about it, I think. Beyond that we each have our own demons to deal with and will have to find our own means of dealing with them. The intellectual debates and arguments about religion are really are just a bunch of 'smart-@sses' being smart-@sses. It's mostly meaningless gibberish intended to inflate and shore up the ego.

 

[George-ananda]

I have come to the conclusion that, if religion is to last for a few more centuries, it will have to learn to deemphasize the concept of deity to a degree that current Christians and Muslims will have a very hard time dealing with.

As we go forward in modern times, what I feel will happen is a progressive transitioning from a strong dualist perspective (God and creation are two) to an increasingly non-dualist perspective (God and creation are not-two; the infinite consciousness and love is the core of all of us).

The hard-dualists and their thinking is already in decline today. New Age type ideas (or non-dualism or whatever terms) are rising under all traditions and people who have rejected past traditions. This is the positive evolution of human thought.

 

[Salvador]

I have come to the conclusion that, if religion is to last for a few more centuries, it will have to learn to deemphasize the concept of deity to a degree that current Christians and Muslims will have a very hard time dealing with.

Fortunately, we will have a few generations passing by, making the transition somewhat gradual and less painful than it would otherwise be.

As for why I have reached that conclusion: because playing too much with god-concepts has been harming religion something fierce and making it at one time destructive and irrelevant.

Religion, contrary to widely spread misconceptions, doe not have and can never have much to do with "God". God is a tool, a resource to be used for expressing doctrine. Or rather, they are a multitude of such tools.

One of the main dangers of lending too much significance to "God" is that it is hopelessly confusing and leads people firmly astray. One would think that believers would be well aware of how varied god-conceptions are and adjust their practice and expectations accordingly. Many in fact do, but the mainstream tends to neglect that rather obvious need.

While it is technically impossible to tell whether there is a God, and it is demonstrably impossible to prove that there is none, those are ultimately considerations of no practical value.

What does matter is not the literal existence of any deity, but rather how people relate to various god-conceptions.

That should be fairly obvious, but surprisingly, it very often isn't. Many a Christian has somehow convinced himself that it is in some sense important to convince other people to believe in the "correct God". It is even worse with Muslims.

One has to wonder what those groups understand religion (the word) to mean.

What meaning could belief in a god-conception ever have that was not shaped mainly by the effects on the believer himself or herself? Regardless of the ultimately unresolvable and uttterly unimportant question of whether there is anything existing that ought to be called a deity for some reason (hopefully a not entirely arbitrary reason), the actual relevant part of god-belief (if any other parts even exist) is certainly that directly related to the believer.

The alternative is just too dysfunctional and self-defeating: the proposition that somehow there is at least one True God out there that is at once transcendental to our considerations and in dire need of our accurate recognition.

I for one don't think that can be made to work. But it could make interesting fiction.

None of us earth-bound humans currently can possibly know how many gods if any there really are, because we can neither falsify nor verify which particular god hypothesis is proven as correct theory, nor can we know if any particular meta-narrative is actually true. If the scientific materialist meta-narrative were true, there'd be no gods. If the abrahamic God narrative were true, there'd be one God who created everything. If the deist meta-narrative were true, there'd be one god or many gods who created the universe. If a pantheon mythological meta-narrative were true, there'd be as many gods as ascribed by the particular pantheon belief system somebody has chosen to follow.

Perhaps most everyone of us can simply agree there's no telling how many if any gods there could actually be.

 

[LuisDantas]

If the scientific materialist meta-narrative were true, there'd be no gods.

Why do you think that? It seems to me that it is impossible to tell.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have come to the conclusion that, if religion is to last for a few more centuries, it will have to learn to deemphasize the concept of deity to a degree that current Christians and Muslims will have a very hard time dealing with.

Fortunately, we will have a few generations passing by, making the transition somewhat gradual and less painful than it would otherwise be.

As for why I have reached that conclusion: because playing too much with god-concepts has been harming religion something fierce and making it at one time destructive and irrelevant.

Religion, contrary to widely spread misconceptions, doe not have and can never have much to do with "God". God is a tool, a resource to be used for expressing doctrine. Or rather, they are a multitude of such tools.

One of the main dangers of lending too much significance to "God" is that it is hopelessly confusing and leads people firmly astray. One would think that believers would be well aware of how varied god-conceptions are and adjust their practice and expectations accordingly. Many in fact do, but the mainstream tends to neglect that rather obvious need.

While it is technically impossible to tell whether there is a God, and it is demonstrably impossible to prove that there is none, those are ultimately considerations of no practical value.

What does matter is not the literal existence of any deity, but rather how people relate to various god-conceptions.

That should be fairly obvious, but surprisingly, it very often isn't. Many a Christian has somehow convinced himself that it is in some sense important to convince other people to believe in the "correct God". It is even worse with Muslims.

One has to wonder what those groups understand religion (the word) to mean.

What meaning could belief in a god-conception ever have that was not shaped mainly by the effects on the believer himself or herself? Regardless of the ultimately unresolvable and uttterly unimportant question of whether there is anything existing that ought to be called a deity for some reason (hopefully a not entirely arbitrary reason), the actual relevant part of god-belief (if any other parts even exist) is certainly that directly related to the believer.

The alternative is just too dysfunctional and self-defeating: the proposition that somehow there is at least one True God out there that is at once transcendental to our considerations and in dire need of our accurate recognition.

I for one don't think that can be made to work. But it could make interesting fiction.

Louis, Consolidation of power or the attainment of influence requires dividing people over issues. You divide, then you conquer. That's common everywhere and happens at multiple levels. It happens in offices, in blue collar jobs, armies and in any group large or small. A peacemaker is willing to let things go, and then automatically problems disappear. Without division there is no possibility of control, and suddenly there is no reason to continue arguing. That is how I view this issue. In this case the question about the nature of God is a matter of who controls the definition of God, and the beneficiaries of the struggle are those who cling to the goal.

 

[Salvador]

Why do you think that? It seems to me that it is impossible to tell.

I stand corrected by you, science doesn't delve into the unknowable.

 

[LuisDantas]

I stand corrected by you, science doesn't delve into the unknowable.

I tried to point out in the OP how the concept of god is too vague to have scientific significance, but maybe I failed.

 

[Salvador]

I tried to point out in the OP how the concept of god is too vague to have scientific significance, but maybe I failed.

You've succeeded in making the point of how a vaguely defined notion of God lacks scientific significance. I usually define God as being our genetic code's creator, but the commonly accepted definition of God I've often come across is that being a highly benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient supernatural universe creator; of course, there's zero evidence for the actual existence of such a deity.

How do you define "God"?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I have come to the conclusion that, if religion is to last for a few more centuries, it will have to learn to deemphasize the concept of deity to a degree that current Christians and Muslims will have a very hard time dealing with.

Fortunately, we will have a few generations passing by, making the transition somewhat gradual and less painful than it would otherwise be.

As for why I have reached that conclusion: because playing too much with god-concepts has been harming religion something fierce and making it at one time destructive and irrelevant.

So might you say that religions are demonstrably less potent as history proceeds? As a religion gains more and more history under its belt, it acquires more and more scholars and commentaries that focus on itself. With enough history, a religion might have scholars in it that say literally anything about the meaning of its content, as original human views simply pile up as naturally as they would. Thus, the impetus to form a new religion begins, as there is need to sever spirituality from the old and make it fresh. In 100,000 or 200,000 years, we have surely burned through many religions in this way.

 

[LuisDantas]

So might you say that religions are demonstrably less potent as history proceeds?

Religion that insists on clinging to divine revelation by way of prophets and scriptures has no other possible future, that much is clear to me. Far too self-absorved, far too centralized to fulfill even its basic self-imposed duties. Those creeds unavoidably depend from day one on the good will of their own adherents to selectively disregard, redefine and complement parts of their own doctrine in order to even exist.

In short, they are inherently dysfunctional because their premises are so at odds with themselves. But they are also enveloped in social rituals that create an expectation of protection and privilege based on the pretense that they somehow work nonetheless.

The insistence on defining themselves in theocentric ways, when gods are actually very arbitrary and personal ideas, makes for very schizo conceptions of "religion". Conceptions that have a certain set of goals, but have convinced themselves of having a completely different one. And are therefore destined to spend much of their energies attempting to rescue themselves from their own efforts, often for no one's benefit.

Which is why I don't define religion that way.

As a religion gains more and more history under its belt, it acquires more and more scholars and commentaries that focus on itself. With enough history, a religion might have scholars in it that say literally anything about the meaning of its content, as original human views simply pile up as naturally as they would.

With the proviso above, I agree.

Thus, the impetus to form a new religion begins, as there is need to sever spirituality from the old and make it fresh. In 100,000 or 200,000 years, we have surely burned through many religions in this way.

I don't expect that to continue for nearly that long.

 

[LuisDantas]

You've succeeded in making the point of how a vaguely defined notion of God lacks scientific significance. I usually define God as being our genetic code's creator, but the commonly accepted definition of God I've often come across is that being a highly benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient supernatural universe creator;

How common is such a conception, though? Shinto's Kami seem to have created only Japan. Both the Bible and the Qur'an have odd warnings against adoption of "other gods", indicating that apparently even those books do not adopt quite that definition of God.

I don't think very many people actually adopt such a conception of God. The ones that do tend to make a big deal of it, perhaps because at some level they realize that most other people don't believe in that.

Indeed, such a conception has a lot of problems, to the point of being self-contradictory and dysfunctional. It is perhaps the only family of god-conceptions that can be disproven outright, which is no small feat.

of course, there's zero evidence for the actual existence of such a deity.

How do you define "God"?

I do not. God is even more of a freestyle concept than religion itself. I honestly don't recall anything more arbitrary.

And I am very much an ignostic (I don't know what other people mean by "god" until and unless they try to explain) and an apatheist (I don't mind whether there are any gods - mainly because anything can be a god or fail to be), even more than I am an atheist.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That should be fairly obvious, but surprisingly, it very often isn't. Many a Christian has somehow convinced himself that it is in some sense important to convince other people to believe in the "correct God". It is even worse with Muslims.

I tried to point out in the OP how the concept of god is too vague to have scientific significance, but maybe I failed.

I think science at times defines God well. A single point to which all come forth.

Regards Tony

 

[LuisDantas]

I think science at time defines God well. A single point to which all come forth.

Regards Tony

Uh?

I... don't think that is at all true.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Uh?

I... don't think that is at all true.

Sure, that is OK.

The concept I put forward is my idea on this quote;

"I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things. I am the Countenance of God Whose splendor can never be obscured, the Light of God Whose radiance can never fade." (Epistle to Muhammad Shah, Selections from the Writings of the Báb)

And Science

What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

Regards Tony

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The insistence on defining themselves in theocentric ways, when gods are actually very arbitrary and personal ideas, makes for very schizo conceptions of "religion".

I see. Well of course you know that not all spirituality allows for dogmatic styles. There is paganism, gnosticism, satanism etc. where you can think of your own conception and have it be valid

Religion that insists on clinging to divine revelation by way of prophets and scriptures has no other possible future, that much is clear to me. Far too self-absorved, far too centralized to fulfill even its basic self-imposed duties.

I see, well some religions specifically limit divine revelation to only a few people, and say they only existed hundreds of years ago, and others don't