Hi Dave
Dave Moller wrote:
> Not really in relation to a specific post but the
> general topic.
>
> I've witnessed similar discussions in various forums
> and one thing that always strikes me is what are we
> doing.
>
> There are traditional fundamental views of god. Ie
> the bible is literal and true. These groups rely on
> faith, as in I don't necessarily have tangible
> evidence for my beliefs but I have faith that they are
> true. I have respect for people who can make this
> leap of faith even though I don't think I could, it
> takes enough faith for me to believe that tomorrow
> will be reasonably consistent with today.
Um. I know a lot of people who have faith that they can drive a
motorbike or a car after consuming a considerable amount of alcohol.
With out trying to be too dismissive, I think that people who have a
considerable amount of great faith in the afterlife should perhaps be
treated with a degree of caution.
After all, we've had an awful lot of press lately about the promisses of
houri-filled paradise for the ********s who flew into the WTC. But
recently a lot less press for the absolute "Christian" conviction that
the believers will be taken into the bosom of Jesus in the Rapture come
Armageddon - and who apparently were/are? a significant factor in
controlling the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America.
There is reasonable expectation. And there is suicidal
irresponsibility.
> Then you have groups that decide, "hang about, what we
> believe could be termed god". or "we are god". The
> process they work through to justify their use of the
> label is always an interesting one to witness and
> often it is hard to fault the logic.
>
> But... there is a major difference between the
> application of "God" as a label for say dynamic
> quality and the faith of traditional believers. I
> don't need to make a leap of faith or believe anything
> beyond my world view to take the label and stick it on
> what I currently believe. So what have I achieved.
> I'm now carrying the word "God" around with me but I
> would still never put myself in the same category as
> the traditional believers because I've only taken the
> label by redifining it.
>
> As silly analogy (my favourite tool). I have some
> vodka on my desk. Now on analysis I find that it is
> clear, colourless and (nearly) flavourless. Well, I
> can't see any characteristics that are different from
> water so I will now call it water. I haven't cured my
> alcoholism, I haven't turned the vodka into water, all
> I have done is redifined what water is to include the
> substance formerly known as vodka.
Good vodka is "almost" flavourless if ice cold. Water it isn't.
But trying to avoid analogy, <<God>> is hardly as concrete a term as
<<Water>>.
<<Water>>, or for that matter <<Vodka>>, fulfils a very definitely set
of repoducible qualities that very few people would disagree with
[unless of course you got flogged a gallon of raw sewage in a desparate
situation].
<<God>> is in the "mind of the beholder".
I find it a difficult question to answer : "do you believe in god?"
Technically the response is that I am an atheist : there isn't some
geezer with a long beard and flowing robes in the sky determining th
outcome of reality. That concept is a cultural product. But the stock
answer to that is that "science doesn't have the answers" which is fair
enough - <<Science>> in its principal presentation simply dodges the
question. Which I suppose is something of the form "what is it to be
human?", or as a kid would have it "where do I come from?". Legends &
mythology and church used to deal with that. And, By God, we are all so
much poorer for ignoring those questions.
It doesn't really come as much surprise that a set of people who still
ask these questions are completely offended by what they see in a
materialistic culture. Well, I'm pretty offended by the concept of
stoning women to death who want to know more about the world - I never
said they had to be right to have a point though.
The accurate response to the DYBIG question is "your concept of reality
is flawed". But that is a bit of a non-sequitur. [Heh, alright I KNOW
IT'S <<MU>>, OKAY!!]
But I don't agree with the "We Are God" presentation at all. This is all
too misinterpretable as anthropocentric.
<<This Is God>> sums it up so much better.
After all...
Heaven and Earth are not benevolent.
To them men are like straw dogs destined for sacrifice.
The Man of Calling is not benevolent.
To him men are like straw dogs destined for sacrifice.
The space between Heaven and Earth is like a flute:
empty, and yet it does not collapse.
When moved, more and more emerges from it.
But many words exhaust themselves on it.
It is better to regard the 'within'.
[Dao De Jing/5 tr. Richard Wilhelm, tr. H.G. Ostwald
Routledge & Kegan Paul ISBN 1-85063-011-9]
Not exactly the most life-affirming bit of script I have read, but there
you go.
Does it matter to a culture that a few of its carrying cells are
exterminated? Given the concept of the "Great Game" and the
justifications of those who execute it...
And more down to earth, there is the absolute willingness to put up with
the death toll of road accidents but conduct crudsades on much less
life-threatening behaviour... [leave that to your imagination]
"We" might just as well be a bunch of proteins moshing on a pinhead.
So "proteins are god", "DNA is god", & delving into the sub-physical
realm "superstrings are god". "Culture is god". "Science is god".
"David Beckham is god" -- sorry only kidding, science is obviously not
god ;-)
I guess its all part of the unfolding nature of quality that can be
called god.
ATB
Hamish.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:34 BST