Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

My question is not simply asking whether God exists or not. Many people argue one way or another clearly. From my thinking and reading, the issue is one which goes beyond a clear yes or no. This is because there are such differing approaches to the meaning and understanding of what the idea of God signifies. There is the Judaeo- Christian tradition and others which are theistic, but even within those individual traditions there are conflicting ideas.

It is is possible to say that there is no evidence for God at all. However, it could be asked what is proof exactly ? Is this a question which can be answered through science, or is science limited in its methodology and epistemology in this respect. To what extent can the arts contribute to this understanding as well?

One influential movement has been that of the 'New Atheism', especially the ideas of 'The Four Horsemen' (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchkins and Sam Harris. One extremely important book is, 'The God Delusion', by Richard Dawkins, as well as the critique of it, 'Answering the New Atheism', by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. In their analysis, Hahn said Walker query whether the atheist perspective is based on the weaknesses of those who have developed arguments for the existence of God. Also, in criticism of the writing of Dawkins, they point to the way in which Dawkins, in his emphasis on "natural selection has simply replaced the idea of God with that of chance.

So, the aim of this thread is to look at various ideas and images of God, in order to ask what does it really mean to argue for or against the existence of God? Huston Smith, in, 'Forgotten Truth: Tbe Common Vision of the World's Religions', considers the limitations of both theism and atheism. In particular, he queries the anthropomorphic conception of theism. It can be asked to what extent God, as a description underlying reality, can be understood through comparison with the idea of a human person?

In Christianity, there has been an emphasis on God as the Father traditionally but it can be asked whether God has a gender. In addition, there are questions about the qualities of God, including monotheism and other possibilities. Can the idea of God be understood as a reality separate from or imminent in creation itself. I am asking you to consider how you imagine or conceptualize God as the basis for how you consider and answer the question of the existence of God.

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe God exists, and She is an emergent property of life, the Universe and Everything. Thus, She is not a creator-God. She is more like the soul of Everything, just as the Universe is the 'body' of Everything. She is Gaia, extended to embrace all that is, not just this tiny planet. No? OK, it makes sense to me. When asked, I describe myself, religiously or spiritually, as a 'Gaian Daoist'. Make of that what you will.

[JackDaydream]

I believe God exists, and She is an emergent property of life, the Universe and Everything. Thus, She is not a creator-God. She is more like the soul of Everything, just as the Universe is the 'body' of Everything. She is Gaia, extended to embrace all that is, not just this tiny planet. No? OK, it makes sense to me. When asked, I describe myself, religiously or spiritually, as a 'Gaian Daoist'. Make of that what you will.

I am fairly pleased by your response as the first because it is not simply one of saying that the idea of God is gobbledegook. As far as the gender of God, I first thought about that in connection with an English teacher, who was a feminist in a Catholic school, who spoke of God as 'she'. Some male pupils, parents and teachers were outraged, especially as I became aware there was fierce discussion about sexism amongst the teaching staff. I was amused by it all but concluded that if there is a God, this God is probably androgynous. But, to call God 'she' is an interesting contrast to that of patriarchal religious perspectives.

Your mention of Gaia is important too. The idea is developed by James Lovelock and stresses how the earth is a living being. This has consequences for ecology but also about how life is considered, and consciousness itself. The idea of consciousness as embodied or imminent in nature is raised. One writer, Vera Stanley Alder spoke of human beings as 'cells of God consciousness'.

Sometimes, the idea of God seems so remote, even in the notion of the first cause of Aristotle. In contrast, it may be that nature, life and each human being is an aspect to be taken into account. The Gaia hypothesis is important in figuring life in nature and its various aspects and it may be that any idea of God needs to take this into account, rather than seeing nature and God as separate.

[Gertie]

My question is not simply asking whether God exists or not. Many people argue one way or another clearly. From my thinking and reading, the issue is one which goes beyond a clear yes or no. This is because there are such differing approaches to the meaning and understanding of what the idea of God signifies. There is the Judaeo- Christian tradition and others which are theistic, but even within those individual traditions there are conflicting ideas.

It is is possible to say that there is no evidence for God at all. However, it could be asked what is proof exactly ? Is this a question which can be answered through science, or is science limited in its methodology and epistemology in this respect. To what extent can the arts contribute to this understanding as well?

One influential movement has been that of the 'New Atheism', especially the ideas of 'The Four Horsemen' (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchkins and Sam Harris. One extremely important book is, 'The God Delusion', by Richard Dawkins, as well as the critique of it, 'Answering the New Atheism', by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. In their analysis, Hahn said Walker query whether the atheist perspective is based on the weaknesses of those who have developed arguments for the existence of God. Also, in criticism of the writing of Dawkins, they point to the way in which Dawkins, in his emphasis on "natural selection has simply replaced the idea of God with that of chance.

So, the aim of this thread is to look at various ideas and images of God, in order to ask what does it really mean to argue for or against the existence of God? Huston Smith, in, 'Forgotten Truth: Tbe Common Vision of the World's Religions', considers the limitations of both theism and atheism. In particular, he queries the anthropomorphic conception of theism. It can be asked to what extent God, as a description underlying reality, can be understood through comparison with the idea of a human person?

In Christianity, there has been an emphasis on God as the Father traditionally but it can be asked whether God has a gender. In addition, there are questions about the qualities of God, including monotheism and other possibilities. Can the idea of God be understood as a reality separate from or imminent in creation itself. I am asking you to consider how you imagine or conceptualize God as the basis for how you consider and answer the question of the existence of God.

God as a concept can be pretty much anything you choose.

To take the approach of looking at different conceptualisations of god to get closer to some underlying truth about god I think has to face the more likely outcome of telling us more about ourselves and how different prevailing factors influence those conceptualisations.

My parochial conception of god is what I've been taught and absorbed as someone living in a 21st century nominally Christian society, parts of which I accept as 'godly' and parts of which I reject based on my own biases. And I think that's true of most theists and atheists, who throughout history and geography have thought their notions are better than those before them, more refined, more reasonable, more informed, meaningful and closer to an actual godly nature. Whether they believe such a being exists or not.

The god I once believed in was of my time and place, with my own personal fine tuning, which fit my particular psychology. A god of my cultural, explanatory and psychological gaps. If my own experience holds, and the history of religion suggests to me it does, I don't think that's the place to look for some underlying reality about god. The commonalities are a reflection of our shared human concerns, and lets concern ourselves with that rather than abstracting them away.

[JackDaydream]

My question is not simply asking whether God exists or not. Many people argue one way or another clearly. From my thinking and reading, the issue is one which goes beyond a clear yes or no. This is because there are such differing approaches to the meaning and understanding of what the idea of God signifies. There is the Judaeo- Christian tradition and others which are theistic, but even within those individual traditions there are conflicting ideas.

It is is possible to say that there is no evidence for God at all. However, it could be asked what is proof exactly ? Is this a question which can be answered through science, or is science limited in its methodology and epistemology in this respect. To what extent can the arts contribute to this understanding as well?

One influential movement has been that of the 'New Atheism', especially the ideas of 'The Four Horsemen' (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchkins and Sam Harris. One extremely important book is, 'The God Delusion', by Richard Dawkins, as well as the critique of it, 'Answering the New Atheism', by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. In their analysis, Hahn said Walker query whether the atheist perspective is based on the weaknesses of those who have developed arguments for the existence of God. Also, in criticism of the writing of Dawkins, they point to the way in which Dawkins, in his emphasis on "natural selection has simply replaced the idea of God with that of chance.

So, the aim of this thread is to look at various ideas and images of God, in order to ask what does it really mean to argue for or against the existence of God? Huston Smith, in, 'Forgotten Truth: Tbe Common Vision of the World's Religions', considers the limitations of both theism and atheism. In particular, he queries the anthropomorphic conception of theism. It can be asked to what extent God, as a description underlying reality, can be understood through comparison with the idea of a human person?

In Christianity, there has been an emphasis on God as the Father traditionally but it can be asked whether God has a gender. In addition, there are questions about the qualities of God, including monotheism and other possibilities. Can the idea of God be understood as a reality separate from or imminent in creation itself. I am asking you to consider how you imagine or conceptualize God as the basis for how you consider and answer the question of the existence of God.

God as a concept can be pretty much anything you choose.

To take the approach of looking at different conceptualisations of god to get closer to some underlying truth about god I think has to face the more likely outcome of telling us more about ourselves and how different prevailing factors influence those conceptualisations.

My parochial conception of god is what I've been taught and absorbed as someone living in a 21st century nominally Christian society, parts of which I accept as 'godly' and parts of which I reject based on my own biases. And I think that's true of most theists and atheists, who throughout history and geography have thought their notions are better than those before them, more refined, more reasonable, more informed, meaningful and closer to an actual godly nature. Whether they believe such a being exists or not.

The god I once believed in was of my time and place, with my own personal fine tuning, which fit my particular psychology. A god of my cultural, explanatory and psychological gaps. If my own experience holds, and the history of religion suggests to me it does, I don't think that's the place to look for some underlying reality about god. The commonalities are a reflection of our shared human concerns, and lets concern ourselves with that rather than abstracting them away.

It is likely that each person who believes in God has a slightly different understanding. I guess that I began questioning the nature of God when I was struggling with aspects of Catholicism. In other words, my initial ideas were revised and the process is not complete. I began with Jung's ideas on God and aspects of comparative religion that spirituality. I only began reading on the topic of the philosophy of religion when I began using a forum.

Initially, I read writers like Dawkins and it was only in the last few months that I have started to read and think about the ideas on God of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Liebniz and some others. I had read some of Kant's writings in the past. One main issue which arises, which Karen Armstrong refers to in 'The History of God', is that there are different approaches like the God of the mystics and that of the philosophers. It seems that the way most people who believe in God, as well as those may not think about God in the way addressed by various philosophers.

The issue of the philosophy of personal belief or of philosophy arguments is a strange area. Some time last year I was telling my mum about the thread on atheism is not logical. I thought that she as a religious person would find this interesting. I don't think that she was impressed though as she suggested that she was surprised that philosophy went into such discussion about religion.

It is likely that many people would not wish to explore the philosophical issues of God. That is because it can be such a personal and private area. I do wish to read and understand the philosophy of religion because I had been thinking about many of the issues anyway and had touched on some areas in my studies briefly. The reason why I engage and write on these topics is mainly because it helps me think about my reading.

However, at times I do question to what extent such ideas are best discussed on the forum is because they can become heated. The area of religion is fairly sensitive and personal and in some ways an area of personal exploitation, especially if one considers it as being about a relationship with a 'divine' reality.

[Gertie]

Jack

Yes it can be a sensitive issue to bring to a public board for philosophical debate and discussion. I think you have to be prepared for that, or perhaps try theist forums if you want to explore theism in more supportive and specialist surroundings, or as a source for reading recs. Here;s some contemporary western philosophers including Swinburne and Plantinga with links you might want to look into more https://www.closertotruth.com/contribut ... 0d1c3cdd40

[JackDaydream]

Jack

Yes it can be a sensitive issue to bring to a public board for philosophical debate and discussion. I think you have to be prepared for that, or perhaps try theist forums if you want to explore theism in more supportive and specialist surroundings, or as a source for reading recs. Here;s some contemporary western philosophers including Swinburne and Plantinga with links you might want to look into more https://www.closertotruth.com/contribut ... 0d1c3cdd40

Thanks for the link. I will have a read of it. At times, I get stressed interacting about issues connected to religion but some other topics generally. But, it is not as if I never get stressed thinking about them alone. It may be that the issues or posts which can be stressful touch on a raw nerve or blindspot. It is possible to avoid thinking about certain issues but, there may be some value in thinking about the aspects which are difficult. It may be that these represent issues which are most pertinent for reflection and self knowledge.

Of course, sometimes issues such as the existence of God can become like war on the forum. People may keep repeating themselves, determined that their views are the correct ones. Of course, it is likely that the reason why people do this is because ideas which are opposite represent a challenge. It is bound up with the way that ideas are so essential, with people having strong attachments to them and how sensitive philosophical ideas are on a personal level.

[Nick_A]

Jack

For example I'm interested in the essence of religion since it answers my basic questions: What is the purpose of our universe and Man's purpose within it? Of course the negativity of philosophy forums do not allow such discussion. Yet does it have to be that way?

Consider this basic question to be discussed on Zoom for upcoming American Weil Society colloquy. When we understand what prevents it on philosophy forums, we have a greater understanding of the fallen human condition. No grades here. These young scholars are invited to reason. But who remembers how to discuss without negative argument?

"Rethinking Theology" is a group of young scholars working on
the role theology plays and can play in the crises and aporias
of the twenty-first century asking what ultimately matters. In
this panel each of the five members of "Rethinking Theology"
will give a brief summary of how their investigation into the
present state and future possibilities of theology can draw on
Simone Weil. The panel is envisaged as a virtual roundtable
which will include issues like: how Weil’s concept of
decreation speaks to the growing confluence of climate
denialism and Christian white nationalism; how Weil’s
analysis of force illuminates contemporary research in
sociology and political science; Weil’s understanding of
beauty and prayer and their relationship to negative
aesthetic circumstances and feelings; Weil’s reception and
re-application of biblical imaginaries against the backdrop of
fundamentalist biblicism; and eusymbiotic practices in times
of the pandemic and the loss of solidarity. In striving for a
politically sensitive theology, "Rethinking Theology" is
committed to transcending the political thinker/religious
thinker divide in Weil scholarship - not only to do justice to
Weil, but also heading for a theology that is accountable to
the political implications it always bears.

[JackDaydream]

Gertie,
Thanks for the link and the site looks like a good philosophy resource. At the moment, I can't watch 'You Tube' because I need to download a new app first. I looked at a book excerpts on the site, 'The God Equation'. This seems an important book because it looks at the scientific perspective, which is hard to sidestep. It refers to Einstein asking: ' Did God have a choice in making the universe?' 'This is an unusual question because often the idea of God is taken to signify omnipotence, rather than people querying whether God has free will. Jung, in his discussion of the evolution of the image of God in the Judaeo-Christian drama, asks whether God is actually becoming conscious through dialogue with humanity.

Jung is coming from the emphasis on the symbolic understanding of God primarily. There is some mixed opinion as to whether Einstein believed in God. Dawkins suggests that Einstein understood the idea of God metaphorically. However, it is worth thinking about how Einstein, and Jung, may have experienced shifts in their thinking at certain times in their lives.

[JackDaydream]

Jack

For example I'm interested in the essence of religion since it answers my basic questions: What is the purpose of our universe and Man's purpose within it? Of course the negativity of philosophy forums do not allow such discussion. Yet does it have to be that way?

Consider this basic question to be discussed on Zoom for upcoming American Weil Society colloquy. When we understand what prevents it on philosophy forums, we have a greater understanding of the fallen human condition. No grades here. These young scholars are invited to reason. But who remembers how to discuss without negative argument?

"Rethinking Theology" is a group of young scholars working on
the role theology plays and can play in the crises and aporias
of the twenty-first century asking what ultimately matters. In
this panel each of the five members of "Rethinking Theology"
will give a brief summary of how their investigation into the
present state and future possibilities of theology can draw on
Simone Weil. The panel is envisaged as a virtual roundtable
which will include issues like: how Weil’s concept of
decreation speaks to the growing confluence of climate
denialism and Christian white nationalism; how Weil’s
analysis of force illuminates contemporary research in
sociology and political science; Weil’s understanding of
beauty and prayer and their relationship to negative
aesthetic circumstances and feelings; Weil’s reception and
re-application of biblical imaginaries against the backdrop of
fundamentalist biblicism; and eusymbiotic practices in times
of the pandemic and the loss of solidarity. In striving for a
politically sensitive theology, "Rethinking Theology" is
committed to transcending the political thinker/religious
thinker divide in Weil scholarship - not only to do justice to
Weil, but also heading for a theology that is accountable to
the political implications it always bears.

I do think a lot about religion and always have done, probably because I was raised in an extremely religious environment. When I began university, I used to go to Christian Union. The biggest problem which I discovered over time was how so many people were fundamentalist, even though I had not come across the term. I found that they were often opposed to other perspectives, including Buddhism. I came across many who were opposed to writers like Carl Jung. I am more interested in the esoteric approaches to religion, including the ideas of theosophy and writers like Rudolf Steiner.

When working in mental health care the dynamics of religion were complex. In my training a tutor said that people should never discuss religion or politics with patients. The trouble which I found, was that was what the patients wanted to talk about so often. The conclusion which I came to was that the best approach was to discuss aspects of religion, mainly through active listening, but avoid self disclosure. In a way, this easier for me because I didn't have really fixed views, whereas there were so many staff, mainly nurses rather than doctors, who did self disclose and read Bibles in the corridor during the night. I also had many who tried to tell me what to believe based on literalist interpretations. There were some Muslim staff as well, but generally they were less forceful in their ideas.

As far as forums go, I feel that there is more openness towards people ot all opinions on this site, whereas on the other the atheists can be extremely dogmatic. I was rather upset when a person who I was interacting with on that site got banned. The moderators gave their reasons but did not seem to have taken into account the way in which he had been insulted by people many times. I do still use the site, but have been writing on this one more often recently. One person there, tells me that I am a 'psychonaut' with my emphasis on inner reality, although the term does make me laugh.

So, my own approach is to listen to all approaches sensitively, a bit like in working with patients. Philosophy involves the consideration of all sides. Of course, each of has a philosophy or spiritual quest. In many ways that is a personal journey and it is hard for it not to come through in the posts we write. But, generally, I come to the site to exchange ideas, especially in relation to my philosophy reading.

[Nick_A]

Jack

For example I'm interested in the essence of religion since it answers my basic questions: What is the purpose of our universe and Man's purpose within it? Of course the negativity of philosophy forums do not allow such discussion. Yet does it have to be that way?

Consider this basic question to be discussed on Zoom for upcoming American Weil Society colloquy. When we understand what prevents it on philosophy forums, we have a greater understanding of the fallen human condition. No grades here. These young scholars are invited to reason. But who remembers how to discuss without negative argument?

"Rethinking Theology" is a group of young scholars working on
the role theology plays and can play in the crises and aporias
of the twenty-first century asking what ultimately matters. In
this panel each of the five members of "Rethinking Theology"
will give a brief summary of how their investigation into the
present state and future possibilities of theology can draw on
Simone Weil. The panel is envisaged as a virtual roundtable
which will include issues like: how Weil’s concept of
decreation speaks to the growing confluence of climate
denialism and Christian white nationalism; how Weil’s
analysis of force illuminates contemporary research in
sociology and political science; Weil’s understanding of
beauty and prayer and their relationship to negative
aesthetic circumstances and feelings; Weil’s reception and
re-application of biblical imaginaries against the backdrop of
fundamentalist biblicism; and eusymbiotic practices in times
of the pandemic and the loss of solidarity. In striving for a
politically sensitive theology, "Rethinking Theology" is
committed to transcending the political thinker/religious
thinker divide in Weil scholarship - not only to do justice to
Weil, but also heading for a theology that is accountable to
the political implications it always bears.

I do think a lot about religion and always have done, probably because I was raised in an extremely religious environment. When I began university, I used to go to Christian Union. The biggest problem which I discovered over time was how so many people were fundamentalist, even though I had not come across the term. I found that they were often opposed to other perspectives, including Buddhism. I came across many who were opposed to writers like Carl Jung. I am more interested in the esoteric approaches to religion, including the ideas of theosophy and writers like Rudolf Steiner.

When working in mental health care the dynamics of religion were complex. In my training a tutor said that people should never discuss religion or politics with patients. The trouble which I found, was that was what the patients wanted to talk about so often. The conclusion which I came to was that the best approach was to discuss aspects of religion, mainly through active listening, but avoid self disclosure. In a way, this easier for me because I didn't have really fixed views, whereas there were so many staff, mainly nurses rather than doctors, who did self disclose and read Bibles in the corridor during the night. I also had many who tried to tell me what to believe based on literalist interpretations. There were some Muslim staff as well, but generally they were less forceful in their ideas.

As far as forums go, I feel that there is more openness towards people ot all opinions on this site, whereas on the other the atheists can be extremely dogmatic. I was rather upset when a person who I was interacting with on that site got banned. The moderators gave their reasons but did not seem to have taken into account the way in which he had been insulted by people many times. I do still use the site, but have been writing on this one more often recently. One person there, tells me that I am a 'psychonaut' with my emphasis on inner reality, although the term does make me laugh.

So, my own approach is to listen to all approaches sensitively, a bit like in working with patients. Philosophy involves the consideration of all sides. Of course, each of has a philosophy or spiritual quest. In many ways that is a personal journey and it is hard for it not to come through in the posts we write. But, generally, I come to the site to exchange ideas, especially in relation to my philosophy reading.

You will probably appreciate this short video. Prof Needleman describes an experiment in listening. It is rather enlightening. It isn't so easy to let ones guard down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0

[JackDaydream]

Jack

For example I'm interested in the essence of religion since it answers my basic questions: What is the purpose of our universe and Man's purpose within it? Of course the negativity of philosophy forums do not allow such discussion. Yet does it have to be that way?

Consider this basic question to be discussed on Zoom for upcoming American Weil Society colloquy. When we understand what prevents it on philosophy forums, we have a greater understanding of the fallen human condition. No grades here. These young scholars are invited to reason. But who remembers how to discuss without negative argument?

"Rethinking Theology" is a group of young scholars working on
the role theology plays and can play in the crises and aporias
of the twenty-first century asking what ultimately matters. In
this panel each of the five members of "Rethinking Theology"
will give a brief summary of how their investigation into the
present state and future possibilities of theology can draw on
Simone Weil. The panel is envisaged as a virtual roundtable
which will include issues like: how Weil’s concept of
decreation speaks to the growing confluence of climate
denialism and Christian white nationalism; how Weil’s
analysis of force illuminates contemporary research in
sociology and political science; Weil’s understanding of
beauty and prayer and their relationship to negative
aesthetic circumstances and feelings; Weil’s reception and
re-application of biblical imaginaries against the backdrop of
fundamentalist biblicism; and eusymbiotic practices in times
of the pandemic and the loss of solidarity. In striving for a
politically sensitive theology, "Rethinking Theology" is
committed to transcending the political thinker/religious
thinker divide in Weil scholarship - not only to do justice to
Weil, but also heading for a theology that is accountable to
the political implications it always bears.

I do think a lot about religion and always have done, probably because I was raised in an extremely religious environment. When I began university, I used to go to Christian Union. The biggest problem which I discovered over time was how so many people were fundamentalist, even though I had not come across the term. I found that they were often opposed to other perspectives, including Buddhism. I came across many who were opposed to writers like Carl Jung. I am more interested in the esoteric approaches to religion, including the ideas of theosophy and writers like Rudolf Steiner.

When working in mental health care the dynamics of religion were complex. In my training a tutor said that people should never discuss religion or politics with patients. The trouble which I found, was that was what the patients wanted to talk about so often. The conclusion which I came to was that the best approach was to discuss aspects of religion, mainly through active listening, but avoid self disclosure. In a way, this easier for me because I didn't have really fixed views, whereas there were so many staff, mainly nurses rather than doctors, who did self disclose and read Bibles in the corridor during the night. I also had many who tried to tell me what to believe based on literalist interpretations. There were some Muslim staff as well, but generally they were less forceful in their ideas.

As far as forums go, I feel that there is more openness towards people ot all opinions on this site, whereas on the other the atheists can be extremely dogmatic. I was rather upset when a person who I was interacting with on that site got banned. The moderators gave their reasons but did not seem to have taken into account the way in which he had been insulted by people many times. I do still use the site, but have been writing on this one more often recently. One person there, tells me that I am a 'psychonaut' with my emphasis on inner reality, although the term does make me laugh.

So, my own approach is to listen to all approaches sensitively, a bit like in working with patients. Philosophy involves the consideration of all sides. Of course, each of has a philosophy or spiritual quest. In many ways that is a personal journey and it is hard for it not to come through in the posts we write. But, generally, I come to the site to exchange ideas, especially in relation to my philosophy reading.

You will probably appreciate this short video. Prof Needleman describes an experiment in listening. It is rather enlightening. It isn't so easy to let ones guard down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0

I tried uploading a new upgrade app to watch 'You Tube' but the download didn't work so, unfortunately, I wasn't able to watch the video.

However, I would say that I don't think it is easy to listen and not say what one thinks. That is because it is such a natural tendency. I did some psychotherapy training and the rules against self disclosure are far more strict than in nursing, especially as what one said in sessions is analysed in clinical supervision. Part of the problem is that patients may even ask opinions on certain topics, such as God and religion.

I also think that I would find it harder to come across as 'neutral' if I did a job in mental health care again. That is partly because I haven't had to avoid self disclosure for over 18 months now. However, it is also because I am so used to writing philosophy posts on a daily basis, which do reflect a clear viewpoint.

If I get a job in which I have to avoid self-disclosure in the future, I will have to be extremely careful, because even choice of language reveals biases. I would have to avoid asking questions which are slanted by philosophy. The thing is that the issue of God is often one of the biggest issues which a patient is dealing with. There are usually chaplains working in services but covering many different wards, so patients do wish to discuss aspects of religion with nursing staff, especially when they are feeling distressed mentally.

[EricPH]

God as a concept can be pretty much anything you choose.

The only God worth searching for is the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

The god I once believed in was of my time and place, with my own personal fine tuning, which fit my particular psychology.

The creation of the universe is history, and you can't change history. We might want to create an image of God, but that will never change who God is.
No matter what you or I believe about God, we can't change God.

[stevie]

Why spend even one thought?

[LuckyR]

The common understanding of what gods are has changed quite a bit over time. We are all familiar with primitive peoples taking technologically superior explorers for gods. Part of this extreme error can be attributed to confusion associated with addressing the unexpected. However, in the past gods, while more powerful than humans were not omnipotent. Thus the error is understandable.

This relatively superior, yet not absolutely superior position is logical and in fact predictable (psychologically) since humans are the most intelligent beings on the planet. But what would humans think about as gods if in fact there was a superior species on Earth and we were the second most intelligent species? Would we even bother?

Heck, there isn't even a word to describe a smarter and more powerful mortal. It goes from human directly to god. No in-between.