Is God Definable?

[Zoombie]

Originally Posted by Alvah

Can a table define or understand the carpenter?
Can a painting define or understand the painter?

By the same principle, we cannot define or understand God.

Just my opinion :^)

Except...a table isn't alive. A painting isn't alive. That's the problem with the old "You can't shake a nut and a bolt together in a bag and have them screw together. Just as how you can't have blabidy bla, evolution is wrong."

A table can't react beyond, say, breaking when you try to make sweet love on it, and a painting can't react beyond burning when you light on fire. It can't ask questions or say, "HEY! HEY! GET A ROOM!"

So...a better analogy would be "Can a bacteria understand the geneticist that bred it?"

And the answer is...probably not, but it can sure try.

[benbradley]

God is defined in different ways depending on the religion, and even several ways within a religion. In Christianity, God is often said to be omnipresent (meaning He is everywhere at all times), yet in Christian contexts I have heard, and even seen on a church marquis, "If you're not close to God, who moved?" indicating that God might not actually be everywhere.

This appears to me to be a simple logical contradiction, but from my previous experiences I can see where it could be interpreted as an aspect of God too mysterious for human comprehension.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by Pat~

AM, I'd have to agree with Ruv here; I've never heard of mysticism being described as a personal study of self before. In fact, Christian mysticism is all about union with the divine--an absorption with the divine that seems to dissolve awareness of self, so that self is not even something one is conscious of anymore.

E.g. in the Eastern Orthodox practice of hesychasm, but equally I think in some Roman Catholic devotions, and some of the trance-like stuff that seems to come out of the US deep south.

[AMCrenshaw]

"AM, I'd have to agree with Ruv here; I've never heard of mysticism being described as a personal study of self before. In fact, Christian mysticism is all about union with the divine--an absorption with the divine that seems to dissolve awareness of self, so that self is not even something one is conscious of anymore."

You are correct in saying that Christian mysticism is all about the union with the divine, but how does it happen? The awareness of the self is the displacement of the self into God, whose Will Is Done.

Ruv: "In all these cases it looks to me like the mind trying to do two things badly: either capture its own nature or try to be larger than it can reasonably be. At best I think it can produce relaxation and creativity; at worst I think it can produce psychoses, narcissism and grandiose delusions. I have acquaintances who are deeply involved in such practices and I've seen examples of both."

You work through your own mind and body to understand its nature in relationship to the rest of the universe. Once you realize that "there is nothing new under the sun," that nothing is "yours" because "your" "self" doesn't actually exist, then you have achieved "self" knowledge. Have you heard of The Mirror and the Lamp ? Or St. John of the Cross? Or of the Dalai Lama's Universe in a Single Atom? These people all point to the same thing: the most observable thing is our own mind and body. Even if we observe things we believe to be external, what we are really receiving is how the mind and the body reacts to the external. How it categorizes it. Finds meaning in it. So in understanding the self, you understand the supposed Other. In Christian mysticism, that Other is God. In Buddhism, that Other is the Dharma. In atheistic terms, the speaking subject.

"haven't used the term 'esoteric' in this discussion, and I'm not sure that I need to, but since you raised it...

1655, from Gk. esoterikos "belonging to an inner circle," from esotero, comp. adv. of eso "within." In Eng., originally of Pythagorean doctrines. According to Lucian, the division of teachings into exoteric and esoteric originated with Aristotle.

So, just more 'initiation' and 'mysteries' in my view."

The "inner circle" is decribed in my other thread (Zen Christianity). Check it out if you are interested. My model (the bull's eye) is Greek, I believe.

The inner circle also refers to the Gnostics, whose texts were buried and whose followers were nearly destroyed by Christians. So. That explains the secrecy.

I do want to ask, though, if either of you have studied it? I am trying not to be condescending because I haven't studied atheism, nor traditional Christianity in any depth. So I'm learnin' lots there. But I have delved deeply into the different forms of mysticism - from Catholic to Hindu, to Kabbalistic, etc (It's actually my main study at university). One thing I will repeat is this: the main form I meant to discuss was Esoteric Gnosticism. The means by which we reach Inner Knowledge.

AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by AMCrenshaw

You are correct in saying that Christian mysticism is all about the union with the divine, but how does it happen? The awareness of the self is the displacement of the self into God, whose Will Is Done.

AMC, I think you've overlayed your personal dogma and methods to reconstruct and reinterpret what others attempt and perceive. I think it unlikely that the people you're talking about would always see it or describe in the terms that you've used. I was very careful in my last post to use the word 'perceive' in describing mysticsm because I think it is very perceptual and open to multiple interpretations. Just as you can apply your perceptions to every mystical action you see, others can too.

You work through your own mind and body to understand its nature in relationship to the rest of the universe. Once you realize that "there is nothing new under the sun," that nothing is "yours" because "your" "self" doesn't actually exist, then you have achieved "self" knowledge.

This position is familiar territory to me. It occurs in Buddhist and Hindu thought. I think that you've tacked the "self knowledge" bit on the end though (or adopted it from someone who did); other practitioners prefer to describe it differently.

I'll return to an earlier point: I think that some practices are very good for producing calmness, peace and creativity. But I don't see them as mystical practices. I also don't believe that they have anything to do with the Universe in any physical sense. I think that it's just an aesthetic sense.

I have also observed that practitioners who drive these practices too hard lose awareness, compassion and competence in key social and personal areas. My conclusion? That emptying our minds once in a while is good mental hygeine, that getting past our neuroses is a good thing, but that our minds are not well designed for being empty all the time. If you'll forgive some frankness, all the practitioners I've met personally who think they are literally one with the universe have been universally psychotic.

These people all point to the same thing: the most observable thing is our own mind and body. Even if we observe things we believe to be external, what we are really receiving is how the mind and the body reacts to the external. How it categorizes it. Finds meaning in it. So in understanding the self, you understand the supposed Other.

There's a lot written around solipsism and connectedness. Ken Wilber likes to write on this topic. You can drown reading it all. I can see the appeal: if it worked, you wouldn't have to worry about conflict any more. But I think it's a form of denial.

I believe that conflicts arise from any of three reasons: insufficient resources and opportunities, poor understanding of our natures, and poor morality. Any one of these is enough to create conflict.

There are people strong-minded enough to decide that starving and marginalisation doesn't matter to them, but realistically in a competitive and ruthless world, those people die out pretty quickly. The survivors are the ones who realise that they don't have equity and act on that. In practice, none of the "We are One" practitioners I know personally would go gently into that good night... they rage against inequity when pushed, same as everyone else. There are a few, very few rare exceptions. They set fire to themselves or let tanks roll over them to protest wars, or donate a kidney to a stranger. The rest I feel, are just poseurs.

There are plenty of greedy people acting from emotional deficit, and here almost any form of calming, reflection and realignment with reality helps. Meditation helps. Prayer helps. Exercise and sports help. Massage helps. Sitting in a quiet room with aromatherapy helps. Anything that brings people out of their past into their present is beneficial.

Morality requires us to recognise difference and individuality. If you do that then you're not really subscribing to the "One Self/No Self" view of the world. That's merely an aesthetic, not a decision-making framework. It's a very soothing aesthetic, but just one of many self-rationalising narratives we can tell ourselves while we do whatever we were disposed to do anyway.

[AMCrenshaw]

First of all, be mindful of how you sling around Dogma. But you are right. I am a mix of ever-thing.


"I have also observed that practitioners who drive these practices too hard lose awareness, compassion and competence in key social and personal areas. My conclusion? That emptying our minds once in a while is good mental hygeine, that getting past our neuroses is a good thing, but that our minds are not well designed for being empty all the time. If you'll forgive some frankness, all the practitioners I've met personally who think they are literally one with the universe have been universally psychotic."

Neurosis is essentially the opposite of what occurs. If there is a unity, then the consequence is love. All actions come from love. Compassion comes from unity, which is possible even with difference. Emptying our minds allows new things to come to us so that we appreciate everything we encounter, and can respond to it openly.

Also do we consider the Dalai Lama psychotic? I doubt it. The Buddha? I don't think so. Gandhi?



"There are people strong-minded enough to decide that starving and marginalisation doesn't matter to them, but realistically in a competitive and ruthless world, those people die out pretty quickly."

(I am a bit confused by this statement)




"The survivors are the ones who realise that they don't have equity and act on that. In practice, none of the "We are One" practitioners I know personally would go gently into that good night... they rage against inequity when pushed, same as everyone else."

I can't agree more. The former is one who loves because they know there should be equity. The latter is really confused.

"Morality requires us to recognise difference and individuality."

Who is really an individual? How is it possible to truly be an individual? Everything we know and think is shaped by what is in the universe and what is in society. We cannot ever think of something that doesn't exist (even if it only exists in the imagination). Individualism is a delusion. Period. And it lends itself to self-preservation more than community preservation. Why? We know already. Because the individual is more important. It wants to come first.

"If you do that then you're not really subscribing to the "One Self/No Self" view of the world."

This is simply not true. In reality, an apple is different than an orange. In the universe there are thousands of "attributes" and someone who is attentive allows these things to be different. But if you realize that they are connected- and we know they are, and we know we all are- and if you are devoted to that realization at all moments, there is no indecision. There is only love. In a given situation, you will always love. The same way an atheist community does well for the sake of humanity, a person connected entirely to the universe loves for the sake of the universe. It is that 'god' aspect you mentioned earlier that binds us.

[Pat~]

Originally Posted by AMCrenshaw

You are correct in saying that Christian mysticism is all about the union with the divine, but how does it happen? The awareness of the self is the displacement of the self into God, whose Will Is Done.

No, I don't believe that's how it happens (through 'awareness of self.') It's basically about Love. When you love anyone more than self, self 'disappears.' (We see this in the example of a parent who'd risk their life for their child.) The same is true when you love God more than self; self disappears--but the catch is, truly loving God=obeying Him...laying down one's life (or will) for Him the same way Christ did for us. (John's gospel covers this so well.) So union with the Divine is all about Love/Obedience. That spiritual union of will is at the same time a spiritual union of love which transcends self, and is the highest spiritual experience known to man.

People who understand or believe this do not obey God or do His will out of fear but out of a force much more powerful--Love. True relational love prompts you to find joy in a self-forgetfulness that sublimates your will to that of the Person you love more than yourself.

[AMCrenshaw]

Which I agree with entirely, and said as much in the previous post to Ruv.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by AMCrenshaw

First of all, be mindful of how you sling around Dogma

My karma ran over your dogma?

Neurosis is essentially the opposite of what occurs. If there is a unity, then the consequence is love.

Having observed some practitioners now, I'm convinced that what is being sought is not unity but just its perception. I'm very serious in saying that all those I know who genuinely believe they've achieved it are psychotic.

All actions come from love.

One of the psychotics I know bit the ear off his sister-in-law in the name of love. He believes that he's one with the universe. Go figure.

Also do we consider the Dalai Lama psychotic?

I consider the Dalai Lama to be a political figure more than a religious one. I don't believe that he has ever claimed unity with the Universe - though perhaps others have claimed that for him, and he has allowed them to do so. If he ever did claim such a quality, I think it could be disproved very quickly.

The Buddha?

I don't think I'm qualified to talk about the psychology of Gautama Siddhartha.

Gandhi?

I assume that you mean Mohandas Gandhi, as opposed to Indira say. I view him as an extraordinary negotiator and a very devout Hindu. I don't know that he ever claimed unity with the universe, though I acknowledge that he sought something like that.

"Morality requires us to recognise difference and individuality."

Who is really an individual?

Our needs are clearly individuated by time, place, history, circumstance and our individual perceptions of these things. That's sufficient for this dicussion, I think.

"If you do that then you're not really subscribing to the "One Self/No Self" view of the world."

This is simply not true. In reality, an apple is different than an orange. In the universe there are thousands of "attributes" and someone who is attentive allows these things to be different. But if you realize that they are connected- and we know they are, and we know we all are- and if you are devoted to that realization at all moments, there is no indecision. There is only love.

This is what I mean by self-justifying narrative, AMC. Many people act from compassion, but compassion without understanding can produce results ranging from the misguided to the downright inhumane - and the actor doesn't always know at the time.

Can you claim unity with the universe without a deep understanding of your fellow humans? I'd argue not. If one claims unity without that understanding then it's just an aesthetic narrative. But if one claims to have that understanding and another can demonstrate that one doesn't, then that's evidence of either fraudulence or psychosis, yes?

[Sarpedon]

Just a word. Gandhi was not a religious figure. He was a lawyer.

In his own words "I am a politician who tries to be a saint."

The religious term "Mahatma" was applied to him. Its not really a religious title, it basically means he's an extraordinary guy.

[Use Her Name]

God is not even God's name, it is a title. I almost think that God is what any individual wants (it?) to be, so I would think that one person's or group's definition would not necessarily coincide with another group or individual. In order to be defined shouldn't something have some sort of non-abstract qualities? Or, is one of the major tasks of religion to define God?

[AMCrenshaw]

Sarp: He was a lawyer. But we was, after that, a Jainist non-violence/civil rights practitioner. A supposedly very-religious experience. Also, have you heard of socially engaged religion? Hard to separate from politics.

"Many people act from compassion, but compassion without understanding"

And this is what I am saying: there are degrees of compassion. One of them is full and the rest are not. By full I mean any and all actions that do come from the actual sense of unity.

"Can you claim unity with the universe without a deep understanding of your fellow humans? I'd argue not. If one claims unity without that understanding then it's just an aesthetic narrative. But if one claims to have that understanding and another can demonstrate that one doesn't, then that's evidence of either fraudulence or psychosis, yes?"

And as I would have said before, that unity is something beyond "belief." So the people you know, who claim "unity" with the universe, obviously do not have it because they claim to have it. To claim it, in short, is to proclaim an I, which does not exist the way language would allow us to believe. Regardless, it's a silly thing to go around saying. In The Historical Buddha, for example, it took people a long time just to say that he seemed "awake" and "in tune" although he had been (apparently) since he was 30 or so. In fact, most of the praxis of his philosophy was built around meditation because that would allow Right (Ideal, Perfect) Mind and thus Right (Ideal, Perfect) Action. Or, to put it in modern slang...pre-meditation.

Also. Because what I am discussing is such a difficult task (hence why there are so few Buddhas, Saints, etc), it is easy to say that People I Know Mess It Up all the time. My response is that they are either not devoted, or sincere enough.

Remember, it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Ever consider what riches that man may have possessed-- as a parable? I will give you some examples: Excess money. Excess property. These are obvious, yeah? How about: Ego and all its desires. The thing that stand between us and the realization of our interconnectedness is our ego.

"Our needs are clearly individuated by time, place, history, circumstance and our individual perceptions of these things."

I would like to have this discussion. Perhaps at another point. But suffice it to say that I think time, place, history, circumstance, biology, psychology, sociology, etc determine individual perceptions.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by AMCrenshaw

And this is what I am saying: there are degrees of compassion. One of them is full and the rest are not. By full I mean any and all actions that do come from the actual sense of unity.

The people I know who most avoid doing bad disengage from the world and thereby do less good for it. Those who do a lot of good also do some bad. If you want to posit the existence of true, you'll have to name these people and demonstrate to me that they are more active than the good people I know, yet still blameless. I think that will be a difficult task. You would have to exclude Mohandas Gandhi (who slept naked alongside his niece to test his chastity), Mother Theresa (who allowed and encouraged the suffering of those she cared for as a passage to the afterlife) as recent examples.

I don't believe that a moral unity with existence is possible, because existence is not unified under any human morality that I've seen. This being so, anyone who is active and engaged in caring for people is also going to hurt people sometimes. I think that there aren't any saints, just devout hermits who avoid looking bad by avoiding getting too involved - and that to me, is not informed by compassion so much as spiritual self-interest.

[AMCrenshaw]

"The people I know who most avoid doing bad disengage from the world and thereby do less good for it."

This is an interesting point. But the main thing to remember is that they are bettering their mind (Pre-meditation) to better their actions. The story of Buddha, and the principle we should listen to in my opinion, does not end when he reaches enlightenment. Rather, after he has "awakened," he re-enters society to help it.

Mother Theresa was an interesting woman on a lot of fronts. I'll say it that way.

I put it in another post: Dorothy Day. She founded The Catholic Worker (and, I think, is being considered for canonization), which houses sick people, drug addicts. The organization has a community garden, extra rooms. They help people find jobs, prepare for interviews, etc. The worst you could say of her is that she was a really hard-nosed woman, and did not allow herself to be taken advantage of. And she had an abortion, I think, which is "bad" to some people (Don't quote me. )

Benedict Spinoza. Damn interesting man. Led a peaceful life, and yet added a cosmological argument for God/Nature/Pantheism that has been difficult to refute entirely.

Also, I'm not 100% about this, I'll be honest; however, aren't there certain things that are always (seem to be, admittedly) true about human morality? For example, "Hate never dispels hate. Only love dispels hate. This is an eternal truth." -- The Buddha


Regardless, I'm not talking about moral unity anyway. I'm talking about existential unity, which is possible to perceive because it is the reality of our existence.

AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by AMCrenshaw

This is an interesting point. But the main thing to remember is that they are bettering their mind (Pre-meditation) to better their actions.

I feel that there's a huge difference between doing good, and enabling oneself to do good. While both are useful, enablement without doing good is largely meaningless and I think, often deluded.

Regardless, I'm not talking about moral unity anyway. I'm talking about existential unity, which is possible to perceive because it is the reality of our existence.

I'd put it differently: that existential narrative is arbitrary because our capacity for self-deceit is immensely adaptive. We can tell ourselves an unending series of elaborate stories to justify, rationalise and critique behaviour that doesn't substantially change. We see this in gambling addicts, alcoholics and other dependents and I believe that we can see it in everyone else too, in defending bad habits and unnecessary self-interest. These stories may have no impact at all on what we do, how we do it or how doing it changes us.

When I look to see spiritual development, I look to see changes in what people do and how they do it. I look for insight revealed by unusually effective action; unusual levels of effort delivering unusually valuable benefit. I look for people doing not what is comfortable or attention-gaining, but what is most useful. I also look for sustainability in these things, rather than just one-off flukes with elaborate marketing to garner praise and admiration. Such people exist, but not always where we expect to see them: publicity hounds, life-coaches and religious leaders are not always our best advisors. But even seeing it, I don't expect to see some sort of spiritual perfection, and I don't trust it when it's claimed.

Fundamentally, no matter how 'existentially connected' someone may claim to be, if he's just sitting at home meditating then I don't believe that he's connected with anything more than his own imagination and sense of self-importance. The boneyards are full of armchair metaphysicians and 'pub philosophers' who have accomplished very little other than self-justification.

[Higgins]

Originally Posted by Use Her Name

God is not even God's name, it is a title. I almost think that God is what any individual wants (it?) to be, so I would think that one person's or group's definition would not necessarily coincide with another group or individual. In order to be defined shouldn't something have some sort of non-abstract qualities? Or, is one of the major tasks of religion to define God?

If one means some specific God-like being and not some other minor or Major Diety, it might be important to distinguish God-A from God-B. The fact that such an effort seems irreligious suggests that the Divine Object of religion is the last thing on the Religious Minds.

For example suppose we had a thinking chair that wondered why it was painted red. It might look at itself and think "God must like Red"...what are the chances that the chair is right or that anyone would ever have any idea whether the chair was right?

If one just means that one has some vague idea that it all must mean something, then couldn't that be defined as some vague idea that it all must mean something?

[AMCrenshaw]

"I feel that there's a huge difference between doing good, and enabling oneself to do good. While both are useful, enablement without doing good is largely meaningless and I think, often deluded."

I agree, especially about the deluded part. I have not and will not say that this path is the path for everyone. But those that can do it are enabling themselves in a way that reflects the way things really are.

"Fundamentally, no matter how 'existentially connected' someone may claim to be, if he's just sitting at home meditating then I don't believe that he's connected with anything more than his own imagination and sense of self-importance."

The thing is, you are making a narrative out of something that a practitioner would not. They, as I said before, do not claim anything. They do. And I would contend that any person who is contemplating the universe in order to enable them to do good in the world is doing good. The last point you make about imagination and self-importance is largely due to the narrative you and I have created out of it. It has no relationship to reality. "Self" importance is exactly the thing they seek to rid of. Which is a great step toward reaching existential unity, and consequently, "purity of heart," compassion, love, etc. How is actually humbling oneself an act to gain attention? If you consider the implications of actually be humble, of actually being one, of actually being compassionate at all times, then you realize very quickly and very clearly that the narrative we attribute to this phenomenon is weak. It is brittle, because it lends itself yet to terminology that is no longer useful. One, for example, being "I." Eliminate this from the narrative. Try.

That's what they are doing.

AMC

p.s. Since you're engaging me, have you read Thich Nhat Hahn, Meister Eckhart, or Thomas Merton? I think they do a lot better job of saying what I am trying to. Thich is a Buddhist, Meister is nearly a pantheist, and Thomas Merton a Trappist. Interesting fellows I think you would enjoy because they are centered on "god" as we've described it here.