Naming the divine

Euphemism

I have a question for the great mass of people on this site who are neither atheists nor religious.

I don't believe in God. I don't think that there's some supernatural being who performs miracles, or inspires holy writings, or listens to prayers, or judges the dead, or anything like that. I don't believe that the world has been designed, at least not in the sense of a great mind planning and controlling its creation or development.

At the same time, I do believe in spirituality. I believe there is an order and rightness in the world, which makes love and compassion the winning qualities in life, rather than selfishness. I believe there is something universal and transcendent, and that we are better people when we are in touch with it. The best description I found was written by Buddhist author Mark Kornfield in his introduction to Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (ed. Marcus Borg):

But there is another notion of God, namely the sacred as "Godhead": as the unborn, uncreated, undifferentiated formless source of all that is.. To borrow a phrase from Paul Tillich, God (as Godead) is "the God beyond god," the sacred reality beyhond all personalized conceptions of God.

This abstract godhead--the sacred, the transcendent--is essentially something within our subconscious, something that we find within ourselves. And yet, it is also something universal, something that people of all temperaments and all cultures feel a connection to.

So my question is, do you call this transcendece "God", and why or why not? Is the idea of God merely an anachronistic fiction that distracts us from the fact that we are whole within ourselves? Or is it a necessary and beneficial recognition of the fact that spirituality is universal?

frenchbabyface

First of : I Agree totally with your concept

So my question is, do you call this transcendece "God", and why or why not?

No because it is not like god to me

Is the idea of God merely an anachronistic fiction that distracts us from the fact that we are whole within ourselves?

Simply YES (to me) the idea that we are not able to take care of ourselve and our people ... the idea that we need MORE ... something unreacheable ... (that you'll feel to pay for it ... LOL)

Or is it a necessary and beneficial recognition of the fact that spirituality is universal?

Somehow ...

Narkissos

I would definitely avoid the word "God" (except, perhaps, in "prayer", and I would rather think it as "my god" in lower case).

After giving a personal try to the modern theological game of "redefining God" (in which game Tillich is a central figure), I came to realize we would always lose at such a game. For "God" (capital) is not a mathematical unknown "x" which could be redefined. It's a word of our language with a very definite meaning (immortal, almighty, creator...). Every new "definition", such as Paul's "weakness and folly of God", or "John"'s "God is love", will be at best understood as a "communication strategy". In the beginning and in the end God has to be God, weakness turned into power, folly into wisdom, and love triumphant and all-embracing. First and last there is no such thing as "revelation", because the basic definition of God absorbs and annihilates every revelation.

So I keep on seeking, although not a "God beyond god". Within myself, perhaps, but also without myself. Spirituality involves ek-stasis as well as introspection. It may be more "intersubjective" than "subjective" (cf. Emmanuel Levinas' critique of interiority, or even Jaspers' formula "truth begins with two"). It is also related to language, and implies my personal connection of "real", "symbolic" and "imaginary" in a Lacanian mood. Thinking of Lacan, I wonder if the "Other" figure which is no "other one" wouldn't be a good candidate for the "beyond God" (provided, of course, it is not imagined as a god or godhead!).

BluesBrother

OK, I am not adept at deep debates . I suppose my comments may seem unfashionable, but the one truth that I cannot depart fom is the existence of God and the wonder of creation.

Everything else may be up for debate, but common logic and observation of the world around us leaves me without doubt that this earth has the hallmark of design by a superior intelligence

If one accepts ,"Order and rightness" from where did it come? Order does not come out of random, unguided events.How did man, alone among the living beings, acquire the beautiful qualities of goodness, rightness, justice and love? We have ability's that are unnecessary for evolutionary development, abstract appreciarion of art,music etc. Why does man alone have a "Universal spirituality", if it were not given by a Universal spirit creator .

If the name "God" is out of favour, then call him something else, but I still believe that he is there.

frenchbabyface

I understand what you mean BlueBrother BUT

What if some kind of order was just naturalnow if you can believe in a powerfull god (who didn't show up yet) why not believing in a systeme of minimum of order (survival intelligence and force in every atomes instead of one powerfull intelligence) ? hum ? ...

this may be only an hypothese but not less acceptable than god's existence ... to me ...

Euphemism

Narkissos... sounds like I have some more reading to do. Damn you, why do I always feel that way after I read your posts? j/k I was hoping you'd post in this thread. I'll try and find out more about those authors you mentioned.

frenchbabyface... thanks for your feedback.

BluesBrother... I understand your viewpoint, and respect it. It's been debated to death elsewhere on the board, so I'll just leave it at that.

drwtsn32

bluesbrother:

Everything else may be up for debate, but common logic and observation of the world around us leaves me without doubt that this earth has the hallmark of design by a superior intelligence

If you are so inclined you may want to read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. The wording on the cover: "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design."

Narkissos

Euphemism: sorry my references are mostly French! That's the interest and limitation of an international board. I'm pretty sure that Levinas is translated into English, I have more doubts about Lacan since his work is closely linked with the possibilities of the French language: but there may be good adaptations too. Another French writer I read much too late is Jacques Derrida, but I think English-speaking readers know him better than we usually do...

Blues Brother: I tend to think that because we invented language, logic and design, we are prone to read the same "human" and "personal" features into reality. But even when I was a believer I was somewhat conscious that my aesthetic appreciation of the universe was particularly directed to things which imply a measure of chance, or random. Such as the configuration of stars, the form of mountains, clouds or waves on the ocean. To misquote Einstein, seems like we are especially fond of God when he does play dice. The universe as we know it is certainly the result of a number of wills, or desires -- the "natural" propension of things and living beings to BE with and against each other. Personally I don't see the need of an additional, overhanging Will above. Yes, the question remains: why something rather than nothing? But it is OUR question, the question of beings already involved in the "something" and who (by chance?) became able to figure out the "nothing" -- as a mere possibility of language, implying "yes" and "no". But it is another thread...

peacefulpete

Your mentioning of Einstein reminded me of the unfortunate results of using the term "God" when describing the sense of awe and wonder felt by great thinkers and everyman. He was a dyed-in-the-wool nondeist, yet Creationists including the JWs have quoted him out of context using the word "God" as proof that he was a believer!

Like Narkissos said it seems best to avoid languge that the uninformed will misinterpret. For this reason I'm not very excited about efforts to describe people like ourselves as "Brights". What is your take on this Narkissos? Do you know about this effort? Search online "brights skeptic".

gumby

Blues bro.

the one truth that I cannot depart fom is the existence of God and the wonder of creation.
Everything else may be up for debate, but common logic and observation of the world around us leaves me without doubt that this earth has the hallmark of design by a superior intelligence

My feelings exactly!

The problem for me and others however is......where is he? Why do we also see the horrible side of life? Killer diseases, viruses, starving people, earthquakes, tornado's, and such? Why does it seem this god started things out so wonderful, then decided to go on a trip and leave us to fend for ourselves? That....is the mystery to me.

Gumby

Naming the divine

Share this