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

[Pattern-chaser]

I disregard Gaia due to its association with new age romanticism.

That's me told, then, isn't it?

[JackDaydream]

One other important aspect besides good and evil as being part of the evolution of the idea of God is the question of gender in relation to God. In Christianity and other thest religions, including Islam, God is considered as masculine as the 'father'. This has been queried with the issue of whether God is 'she', androgynous or beyond physical conceptions of gender.

Male dominance is prevalent in most societies (citation required). Masculine action and passive feminine are very explicit in Chinese symbolism, see Tao Te Ching. However in Chinese symbolism male (Yang) does not dominate the female (Yin) but is the other aspect of change.Yin is more basic than Yang.

The act of copulation in mammalian species with wombs always involves the female as vessel and the male as penetrating the vessel. Jahweh disapproves of both homosexuality and masturbation as He makes clear in the Old Testament, and so the tradition of male dominance over women was set in holy writ for maybe three thousand years in Europe and the Middle East.

I don't know enough about ancient African traditions to comment except that division of labour between males and child bearers was a practical matter, and that among the Mende of Sierra Leone
the puberty initiation for boys was matched in status by that for girls.

To a large extent the emphasis on gender constructions in religious contexts reflects patterns in the social order, often with the religious ideas being used as a form of justification for the social. This is what may have lead so many people away from religious perspectives, especially with so many contradictions inherent in the system. A major example would be how it became apparent that there was so much paedophilia behind the scenes in contrast to the extreme rigidities of the Catholic Church.

It is about sexuality and the body in general. As you said in your post previous to the one which I am replying to, Jesus is the human example of immanence. Nevertheless, the depiction in mainstream Catholicism and Christianity, as opposed to Gnosticism, has often been of a puritanical Jesus. The contrast with Gnosticism involves the idea of Mary Magdalene as a possible lover of Christ. The whole idea of puritanical views of sex and the body is also portrayed in the picture of Jesus being born from a Virgin.

Puritanical and ascetic ideas about the body are bound up with the idea of 'sin' and also arise in other traditions with an emphasis on overcoming the lower passions. However, in the development of the idea of God, there is an emphasis on the transcendent, which is often otherworldly and body rejecting. Of course, there have been attempts to reconcile the body and its appreciation, including the sensory, with Christianity, especially in the teachings of Christ. This has been important in those who see Jesus's teachings as having potential for the acceptance of homosexuality in the spirit of compassion.The whole comparison between the Old Testament and New Testament idea of God is interesting and I wonder to what extent such parallel developments occur in ideas of God in many other religious perspectives, or even the notion of God being considered as outdated.

The ongoing issues of undersanding of the idea of God may occur in conjunction with overall philosophical understanding of ideas about the debate over materialism vs idealism, as well as the picture of nature and sexuality as the essential life drive. Even though I speak a lot of Jung, Freud's ideas on both sexuality and religion have been significant in trying to think of the idea of God down from abstract metaphysics into the domain of human culture.

[JackDaydream]

One other important aspect besides good and evil as being part of the evolution of the idea of God is the question of gender in relation to God. In Christianity and other theist religions, including Islam, God is considered as masculine as the 'father'. This has been queried with the issue of whether God is 'she', androgynous or beyond physical conceptions of gender.

The latter. Definitely the latter.

It is interesting that you tuned into the idea of 'beyond physical conceptions of gender' because I was wondering if my own thinking was a reflection of an upbringing in Catholicism. The idea of androgyny is important in Hindu thinking, as there are many androgynous gods.

I remember at my mixed Catholic comprehensive school there was such outrage from some teachers when an English teacher, who was a feminist, chose to speak of God as 'she'. I even knew a boy in sixth form who was so unnerved by this teacher that he left the school.

[JackDaydream]

As another question for thinking about the idea of 'God', it can be asked to what extent is the idea of God fictitious? .This would probably involve the question of what is fiction and fact, but it not be straightforward entirely, especially in the construction of worldviews.

[JackDaydream]

I just wish to add, before my thread fades, that I am not wishing to argue for or against the existence of God, but simply look at the various meanings of the idea of God. This is because there are so many threads which come with a clear intended aim of proving and disproving the existence, especially mocking the idea completely. My aim is a little different, more with the aim of looking what the limitations of knowledge are and the various assumptions are in the understanding of the specific assumptions of the concept of God.

[Stoppelmann]

I am writing this thread because often in discussions there is a lack of clarity over who or what 'God' is conceptualized. Also, I have been reading 'Philosophy Now' (October/November 2022), which has a number of articles on the God in philosophy.

I think there will never be clarity amongst human beings in the question of who or what God is, just a number of metaphors, anecdotal evidence of experience, spiritual insights, scriptures from revered prophets and sages, and it will come down to the individual spiritual practise to conceptualise it for the each of us – or not. I know for myself what I associate with the word God, but it illudes me to explain that clear enough for others to understand. I can, like many before me, point to God as I perceive him and that’s it. I like this part of St Paul’s address at Athens:

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else … God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’” He quotes two people, the Cretan philosopher Epimenides, and the Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus, as well as hinting at the story of Adam and Eve, to describe the “unknown God” that he proclaimed.

He then went on to talk about Jesus as the man God has appointed to be judge of the world, and given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead, which is anecdotal, and divides his listeners, as it always tends to do. This, to me, is the weakest part of his address, and counter productive, as we later see in his letters, and to this day, this kind of address divides audiences and gives no clarity.

One writer, Benedict O'Connell, in an article, 'God and Humility' points to the limitation of knowledge about God. He says, 'In stating that "God exists", we are professing something that only a being like God, who is omniscient could know.' O'Connell draws upon the Medieval theologian, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, of God being 'ineffable, and the argument that the nature of God cannot be communicated.

Having read the article you mention, O’Connell struggles with the fact that on the one hand theologians talk about God’s ineffability, on the other they list attributes that beg the question, how can they know? The answer is, they take them from analogies that we find in scripture. But again, this is people pointing and as I have quoted elsewhere, the Zen master says he points to the moon, but people are fascinated by the finger pointing and less with the moon. I think that humility is very important, but above all, God is a perception that is as ephemeral as the stars at night, as a wisp of smoke, as a fleeting intuition, and tends to be between the lines, around the corner, or an afterthought that lingers. That is why traditions all over the world use poetry and mythical stories, allegories and enactment, which are methods to convey a feeling, a sensation or induce a thoughtfulness that otherwise is lacking.

One favourite example is the story of Elijah, who is told to “Go out, and stand upon the mountain before the Lord … And, behold, YHWH passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice...” The word for “small voice” can be translated as a whisper, a murmur or a sigh and the story breaks off abruptly, suggesting a moment of silence for thought.

One other aspect of exploration is the difference between a belief in a personal God who has an intimate relationship with individual human beings and of Deism. In 'Deism: Traditional & Contemporary', Robert Griffiths argues that, 'Deism is belief in the existence of a creator God who does not interfere in the universe, and in particular, in the lives of people.' He suggests that the potential audience attracted towards this philosophy position in the current time may be 'Christians and other religious people who are becoming confused or alienated by doctrinal disputes and are instead looking for a rationally simple "core" to their beliefs.'

The lack of interaction of people on a poetic level with scripture and contemplative reading, calls up the pragmatic theories of people that in a way are emulating the Tao te Ching (or Dao De Jing), the Stoics, Epicureans or Aristotelians. If one reads the Dao with an open mind and with a goal of finding the core of wisdom within it, it is amazing how similar the book can sound to the perennial classics of Western thought and Deism. When the Jesuits send back their explanations and translations to Europe, Tao was translated as God, and so basically as Deism, but perhaps Panentheism is closer, literally “all in God,” which is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.

The idea of God is a big topic, but I am trying to keep the outpost fairly short. As I am asking you about your view my own is, in summary, that the idea of God is about whatever source of life comes from, including mind and matter. However, I am not sure that this implies any disembodied being as such, separate from nature and emergent consciousness. The various images of God, as deities, are the symbolic ways of seeing the underlying nature of reality. Both theism, atheism are human constructs. I am not sure that the split between theism and deism works fully because it seems to split off the past from the ongoing processes of unfolding of consciousness and life experiences and interpretation of such experiences. Deism may work if it involves a God. What are your own thoughts on the concept of God?

I tend towards a panentheist view, or various forms of idealism, mainly because modern physicists have been speculating in that direction, and abandoning the materialist view that has dominated since the enlightenment. It coincides with a non-dual exegesis of the New Testament that reminds me of the Advaita Vedanta tradition, whereby Christ is telling his followers that he is one with God, and they are too! They must only wake up from their illusion, which has connotations with Vedantism. In this understanding, God is the underlying consciousness that calls everything into being, and we are his eyes, ears and hands in the world, and extensions of that consciousness.

As Alan Watts said, “Jesus Christ knew he was God. So wake up and find out eventually who you really are. In our culture, of course, they'll say you're crazy and you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in a nut house (which is pretty much the same thing). However if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, 'My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God,' they'll laugh and say, 'Oh, congratulations, at last you found out.’”

Another one of his ditties: “If you know that "I", in the sense of the person, the front, the ego, it really doesn't exist. Then... it won't go to your head too badly, if you wake up and discover that you're God.“

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this thread because often in discussions there is a lack of clarity over who or what 'God' is conceptualized. Also, I have been reading 'Philosophy Now' (October/November 2022), which has a number of articles on the God in philosophy.

I think there will never be clarity amongst human beings in the question of who or what God is, just a number of metaphors, anecdotal evidence of experience, spiritual insights, scriptures from revered prophets and sages, and it will come down to the individual spiritual practise to conceptualise it for the each of us – or not. I know for myself what I associate with the word God, but it illudes me to explain that clear enough for others to understand. I can, like many before me, point to God as I perceive him and that’s it. I like this part of St Paul’s address at Athens:

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else … God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’” He quotes two people, the Cretan philosopher Epimenides, and the Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus, as well as hinting at the story of Adam and Eve, to describe the “unknown God” that he proclaimed.

He then went on to talk about Jesus as the man God has appointed to be judge of the world, and given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead, which is anecdotal, and divides his listeners, as it always tends to do. This, to me, is the weakest part of his address, and counter productive, as we later see in his letters, and to this day, this kind of address divides audiences and gives no clarity.

One writer, Benedict O'Connell, in an article, 'God and Humility' points to the limitation of knowledge about God. He says, 'In stating that "God exists", we are professing something that only a being like God, who is omniscient could know.' O'Connell draws upon the Medieval theologian, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, of God being 'ineffable, and the argument that the nature of God cannot be communicated.

Having read the article you mention, O’Connell struggles with the fact that on the one hand theologians talk about God’s ineffability, on the other they list attributes that beg the question, how can they know? The answer is, they take them from analogies that we find in scripture. But again, this is people pointing and as I have quoted elsewhere, the Zen master says he points to the moon, but people are fascinated by the finger pointing and less with the moon. I think that humility is very important, but above all, God is a perception that is as ephemeral as the stars at night, as a wisp of smoke, as a fleeting intuition, and tends to be between the lines, around the corner, or an afterthought that lingers. That is why traditions all over the world use poetry and mythical stories, allegories and enactment, which are methods to convey a feeling, a sensation or induce a thoughtfulness that otherwise is lacking.

One favourite example is the story of Elijah, who is told to “Go out, and stand upon the mountain before the Lord … And, behold, YHWH passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice...” The word for “small voice” can be translated as a whisper, a murmur or a sigh and the story breaks off abruptly, suggesting a moment of silence for thought.

One other aspect of exploration is the difference between a belief in a personal God who has an intimate relationship with individual human beings and of Deism. In 'Deism: Traditional & Contemporary', Robert Griffiths argues that, 'Deism is belief in the existence of a creator God who does not interfere in the universe, and in particular, in the lives of people.' He suggests that the potential audience attracted towards this philosophy position in the current time may be 'Christians and other religious people who are becoming confused or alienated by doctrinal disputes and are instead looking for a rationally simple "core" to their beliefs.'

The lack of interaction of people on a poetic level with scripture and contemplative reading, calls up the pragmatic theories of people that in a way are emulating the Tao te Ching (or Dao De Jing), the Stoics, Epicureans or Aristotelians. If one reads the Dao with an open mind and with a goal of finding the core of wisdom within it, it is amazing how similar the book can sound to the perennial classics of Western thought and Deism. When the Jesuits send back their explanations and translations to Europe, Tao was translated as God, and so basically as Deism, but perhaps Panentheism is closer, literally “all in God,” which is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.

The idea of God is a big topic, but I am trying to keep the outpost fairly short. As I am asking you about your view my own is, in summary, that the idea of God is about whatever source of life comes from, including mind and matter. However, I am not sure that this implies any disembodied being as such, separate from nature and emergent consciousness. The various images of God, as deities, are the symbolic ways of seeing the underlying nature of reality. Both theism, atheism are human constructs. I am not sure that the split between theism and deism works fully because it seems to split off the past from the ongoing processes of unfolding of consciousness and life experiences and interpretation of such experiences. Deism may work if it involves a God. What are your own thoughts on the concept of God?

I tend towards a panentheist view, or various forms of idealism, mainly because modern physicists have been speculating in that direction, and abandoning the materialist view that has dominated since the enlightenment. It coincides with a non-dual exegesis of the New Testament that reminds me of the Advaita Vedanta tradition, whereby Christ is telling his followers that he is one with God, and they are too! They must only wake up from their illusion, which has connotations with Vedantism. In this understanding, God is the underlying consciousness that calls everything into being, and we are his eyes, ears and hands in the world, and extensions of that consciousness.

As Alan Watts said, “Jesus Christ knew he was God. So wake up and find out eventually who you really are. In our culture, of course, they'll say you're crazy and you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in a nut house (which is pretty much the same thing). However if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, 'My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God,' they'll laugh and say, 'Oh, congratulations, at last you found out.’”

Another one of his ditties: “If you know that "I", in the sense of the person, the front, the ego, it really doesn't exist. Then... it won't go to your head too badly, if you wake up and discover that you're God.“

I thank you for your detailed answer and it is likely that there is so much variation in the perspectives of the nature of God, and they may change in a person's life. I also realise that while I said that I was not asking about the actual existence of God, it is likely that the understanding of that may depend on whether or not one believes or not. Like you, I do have a lot of sympathy with panthenism and the belief in an underlying sense of 'the divine' and, possibly coming from that perspective makes it easier to speak of it as a concept than some other more concrete viewpoints.

As for the the Alan Watts quote, a lot of people see the idea of God in the person of Jesus as the 'son of God' and miss the idea of everyone being a son or daughter of God as well. From my understanding of the Bible, even though Jesus was aware of his own unique role, as the prophesised Messiah he did not claim he was the only son, praying, 'Our father...' The mainstream Catholic concept of the Trinity may have created a bit of muddled thinking here, with reference to the Jesus being understood as being part of the three in one of the Son, Holy Spirit and The Father.

[Pattern-chaser]

One other important aspect besides good and evil as being part of the evolution of the idea of God is the question of gender in relation to God. In Christianity and other theist religions, including Islam, God is considered as masculine as the 'father'. This has been queried with the issue of whether God is 'she', androgynous or beyond physical conceptions of gender.

The latter. Definitely the latter.

It is interesting that you tuned into the idea of 'beyond physical conceptions of gender' because I was wondering if my own thinking was a reflection of an upbringing in Catholicism. The idea of androgyny is important in Hindu thinking, as there are many androgynous gods.

I would extend your idea: God is beyond human conceptions of ... anything and everything. If God exists, She is so very different from any other entity that we have encountered in our real lives, there is really nothing we could say about Her, with confidence.

[JackDaydream]

One other important aspect besides good and evil as being part of the evolution of the idea of God is the question of gender in relation to God. In Christianity and other theist religions, including Islam, God is considered as masculine as the 'father'. This has been queried with the issue of whether God is 'she', androgynous or beyond physical conceptions of gender.

The latter. Definitely the latter.

It is interesting that you tuned into the idea of 'beyond physical conceptions of gender' because I was wondering if my own thinking was a reflection of an upbringing in Catholicism. The idea of androgyny is important in Hindu thinking, as there are many androgynous gods.

I would extend your idea: God is beyond human conceptions of ... anything and everything. If God exists, She is so very different from any other entity that we have encountered in our real lives, there is really nothing we could say about Her, with confidence.

It is true that God represents the known unknowns and that is why philosophy arguments for and against lack any solidity. The philosophers and theologians tried to come up with specifics but these were often fanciful and woolly. The atheists say that there is nothing there and see God as covering the 'gaps', but these gaps remain even with so much scientific knowledge.

Apart from trying to formulate the idea of God into words and logic, images have been important in communicating the various conceptions. The Ten Commandments stated that the creation of images of was forbidden. However, in the development of the Christian Church images of Christ and many icons have been prominent, with art playing a complementary role to written texts.

Perhaps, the reason why images were advised against in The Old Testament was because they could be 'worshipped' and almost mistaken for reality itself. The role of images may sometimes be different from conceptual logic, be it is often more spontaneous. As a teenager I had a specific symbolic experience of God on the borderline of sleep. I saw a cathedral-like dome and a throne on an altar, as well as angels and demons on the other. There was an intense light on the throne, and I knew that the light represented God. A voice spoke from the light, saying, 'In your own heart, you will know on which side of the altar you will stand', and I jolted awake. It was an unnerving experience and I spent a lot of time trying to understand it. I had been reading 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' by William Blake a few weeks previous to this, and had started reading Jung, which did help in thinking about the symbolic experience.

Anyway, the point which I would argue is that as human beings we try to formulate ideas and images of God but these are only representations in the human psyche. So much is speculation about God and the unknown, as the logical positivist, AJ Ayer, argued. Interestingly, I read that when AJ Ayer was in hospital, a short while before he died, he had a near-death experience, which led him to say that he would need to revise his viewpoint on the subject of God. It is a pity he died without writing down his revised thoughts.

[Gertie]

I am writing this thread because often in discussions there is a lack of clarity over who or what 'God' is conceptualized. Also, I have been reading 'Philosophy Now' (October/November 2022), which has a number of articles on the God in philosophy.

One writer, Benedict O'Connell, in an article, 'God and Humility' points to the limitation of knowledge about God.He says, 'In stating that "God exists", we are professing something that only a being like God, who is omniscient could know.' O'Connell draws upon the Medieval theologian, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, of God being 'ineffable, and the argument that the nature of God cannot be communicated.

One other aspect of exploration is the difference between a belief in a personal God who has an intimate relationship with individual human beings and of Deism. In 'Deism: Traditional & Contemporary', Robert Griffiths argues that, 'Deism is belief in the existence of a creator God who does not interfere in the universe, and in particular, in the lives of people.' He suggests that the potential audience attracted towards this philosophy position in the current time may be 'Christians and other religious people who are becoming confused or alienated by doctrinal disputes and are instead looking for a rationally simple "core" to their beliefs.'

The idea of God is a big topic, but I am trying to keep the outpost fairly short. As I am asking you about your view my own is, in summary, that the idea of God is about whatever source of life comes from, including mind and matter. However, I am not sure that this implies any disembodied being as such, separate from nature and emergent consciousness. The various images of God, as deities, are the symbolic ways of seeing the underlying nature of reality. Both theism, atheism are human constructs. I am not sure that the split between theism and deism works fully because it seems to split off the past from the ongoing processes of unfolding of consciousness and life experiences and interpretation of such experiences. Deism may work if it involves a God. What are your own thoughts on the concept of God?

The universe is the way it is for some reason which is probably ultimately beyond our ken, calling that 'God' strikes me as meaningless and adds nothing (except whatever baggage we ourselves attach in addition). 

So for me the notion of 'God' has to be meaningful in some profoundly important way, say in terms of purpose or goodness. 

But one of the probs with the term is it can mean just about anything to anyone. Tho it generally has entailed the idea of great power beyond us, and often subsequent worship. 

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this thread because often in discussions there is a lack of clarity over who or what 'God' is conceptualized. Also, I have been reading 'Philosophy Now' (October/November 2022), which has a number of articles on the God in philosophy.

One writer, Benedict O'Connell, in an article, 'God and Humility' points to the limitation of knowledge about God.He says, 'In stating that "God exists", we are professing something that only a being like God, who is omniscient could know.' O'Connell draws upon the Medieval theologian, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, of God being 'ineffable, and the argument that the nature of God cannot be communicated.

One other aspect of exploration is the difference between a belief in a personal God who has an intimate relationship with individual human beings and of Deism. In 'Deism: Traditional & Contemporary', Robert Griffiths argues that, 'Deism is belief in the existence of a creator God who does not interfere in the universe, and in particular, in the lives of people.' He suggests that the potential audience attracted towards this philosophy position in the current time may be 'Christians and other religious people who are becoming confused or alienated by doctrinal disputes and are instead looking for a rationally simple "core" to their beliefs.'

The idea of God is a big topic, but I am trying to keep the outpost fairly short. As I am asking you about your view my own is, in summary, that the idea of God is about whatever source of life comes from, including mind and matter. However, I am not sure that this implies any disembodied being as such, separate from nature and emergent consciousness. The various images of God, as deities, are the symbolic ways of seeing the underlying nature of reality. Both theism, atheism are human constructs. I am not sure that the split between theism and deism works fully because it seems to split off the past from the ongoing processes of unfolding of consciousness and life experiences and interpretation of such experiences. Deism may work if it involves a God. What are your own thoughts on the concept of God?

The universe is the way it is for some reason which is probably ultimately beyond our ken, calling that 'God' strikes me as meaningless and adds nothing (except whatever baggage we ourselves attach in addition). 

So for me the notion of 'God' has to be meaningful in some profoundly important way, say in terms of purpose or goodness. 

But one of the probs with the term is it can mean just about anything to anyone. Tho it generally has entailed the idea of great power beyond us, and often subsequent worship. 

I do appreciate your point of view and I do have some sympathy with atheism. My own thoughts shift around on the whole continuum between theism and atheism and I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another. I see the idea of God as such a complex one philosophically, even though I am aware that for many churchgoers it is simple. I started in that context, and I juggle many positions, and, if anything, don't like labels that much because they seem like fitting into little boxes. It is likely that on some level I am still influenced by my Catholic upbringing, even though I haven't been to church for over a year. Apart from thinking about the basis for God's existence, I do see that the idea of God , or lack of God, can be used and abused in social and political life.

[Sy Borg]

I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another.

It's surprising how many people doubt Zeus's existence.

Why can't they keep an open mind? How can they be so sure that Zeus is not real?

[JackDaydream]

I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another.

It's surprising how many people doubt Zeus's existence.

Why can't they keep an open mind? How can they be so sure that Zeus is not real?

I never believed in Zeus, but I have known a few people who were pagans and did believe in many deities. I found the ideas of van Daniken, Zachariah Sitchkin and Graham Hancock, on gods who came from otherworlds interesting at one stage, but did conclude that the viewpoint was too concrete, in failing to distinguish the symbolic point of view.

It is likely that some people have a more open mind and others don't. It may be partly dependent on the background one comes from and partly about one's own approach in thinking. While many on this forum view the idea of any belief in God as absurd, in real life a large proportion of the people I know, including close friends, regard lack of acceptance of God as ridiculous.

To some extent, I wonder to what extent we even choose our beliefs. Of course, there is the extent to which anyone chooses to pursue various ideas and worldviews. I have chosen to follow through different worldviews and would not have done so if any one stood out as the ultimate one. Some are more inclined to sit on the fence looking in on all the various horizons. I am not sure that the fence is the most comfortable place to be rather than in a safe field with familiar territories, rather than meandering around in the wastelands in between.

[Sy Borg]

I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another.

It's surprising how many people doubt Zeus's existence.

Why can't they keep an open mind? How can they be so sure that Zeus is not real?

I never believed in Zeus, but I have known a few people who were pagans and did believe in many deities. I found the ideas of van Daniken, Zachariah Sitchkin and Graham Hancock, on gods who came from otherworlds interesting at one stage, but did conclude that the viewpoint was too concrete, in failing to distinguish the symbolic point of view.

It is likely that some people have a more open mind and others don't. It may be partly dependent on the background one comes from and partly about one's own approach in thinking. While many on this forum view the idea of any belief in God as absurd, in real life a large proportion of the people I know, including close friends, regard lack of acceptance of God as ridiculous.

To some extent, I wonder to what extent we even choose our beliefs. Of course, there is the extent to which anyone chooses to pursue various ideas and worldviews. I have chosen to follow through different worldviews and would not have done so if any one stood out as the ultimate one. Some are more inclined to sit on the fence looking in on all the various horizons. I am not sure that the fence is the most comfortable place to be rather than in a safe field with familiar territories, rather than meandering around in the wastelands in between.

I see no reason to divide humanity between those who belief in ancient deities and those who don't, no more than I would parse us based on whether we approved of the Roman Empire or not.

Ultimately Yahweh was the Israelite response to their hated rivals, the Canaanites, whose deity Ba'al was once the most powerful and expansive one around. So the Israelites borrowed a number of attributes from Ba'al to beef Yahweh up, until it was the strongest deity. Sacred stories of many ancient cultures intermingled constantly.

So we can say that today's God evolved from Yahweh. In the end, it's just giving credit to humanesque characters for the extraordinary achievements of the Sun and the Earth. It's not miles from politicians being apportioned credit or blame for global economic conditions. The driver is the same. Ego and solipsism.

Is there consciousness within other complex systems in the universe? I'm open to it, though many aren't. If we lived within a conscious system, how would we know? In this, we need to be cautious of confirmation bias.

[JackDaydream]

I am just so surprised that so many people claim to be so certain one way or another.

It's surprising how many people doubt Zeus's existence.

Why can't they keep an open mind? How can they be so sure that Zeus is not real?

I never believed in Zeus, but I have known a few people who were pagans and did believe in many deities. I found the ideas of van Daniken, Zachariah Sitchkin and Graham Hancock, on gods who came from otherworlds interesting at one stage, but did conclude that the viewpoint was too concrete, in failing to distinguish the symbolic point of view.

It is likely that some people have a more open mind and others don't. It may be partly dependent on the background one comes from and partly about one's own approach in thinking. While many on this forum view the idea of any belief in God as absurd, in real life a large proportion of the people I know, including close friends, regard lack of acceptance of God as ridiculous.

To some extent, I wonder to what extent we even choose our beliefs. Of course, there is the extent to which anyone chooses to pursue various ideas and worldviews. I have chosen to follow through different worldviews and would not have done so if any one stood out as the ultimate one. Some are more inclined to sit on the fence looking in on all the various horizons. I am not sure that the fence is the most comfortable place to be rather than in a safe field with familiar territories, rather than meandering around in the wastelands in between.

I see no reason to divide humanity between those who belief in ancient deities and those who don't, no more than I would parse us based on whether we approved of the Roman Empire or not.

Ultimately Yahweh was the Israelite response to their hated rivals, the Canaanites, whose deity Ba'al was once the most powerful and expansive one around. So the Israelites borrowed a number of attributes from Ba'al to beef Yahweh up, until it was the strongest deity. Sacred stories of many ancient cultures intermingled constantly.

So we can say that today's God evolved from Yahweh. In the end, it's just giving credit to humanesque characters for the extraordinary achievements of the Sun and the Earth. It's not miles from politicians being apportioned credit or blame for global economic conditions. The driver is the same. Ego and solipsism.

Is there consciousness within other complex systems in the universe? I'm open to it, though many aren't. If we lived within a conscious system, how would we know? In this, we need to be cautious of confirmation bias.

The main difference between some, but not all of some of the beliefs in many deities was the emphasis on idolatry and sacrifice. There are aspects of this within the Judaeo- Christian religion as well, with the idea of Jesus sacrificing his life as an atonement for sins. The ritualistic symbolism has often been part of religion and the Yahweh of the OT was an angry God.

Many images of God were anthropomorphic and the difference with Jesus, who was that he was a human being and presented a whole set of teachings of ethics and an example of how to live. In this sense, he is very similar to the Buddha, in presenting a philosophy as opposed to simply being a deity expecting to be worshipped.

Generally, the various religions and images reflect the prevalent understanding of the human condition and perspective on reality. It is likely that the twentieth first century shows chaotic diversity and divisions. In some ways it is a godless wasteland of fragmentation of many systems of ideas and so much despair about the future of the planet.

The question of consciousness amidst this all is the most controversial aspect of philosophy. Many hold onto materialism and others cling on to extreme forms of belief in God in the Abrahamic religions. I find that I spend so much time perplexed, trying to make sense of the world and what, if anything, lies beyond it. I am not convinced that it is mere nothingness.