Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
-
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm
Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Most debates that I have seen regarding the issue of God's existence, or God's morality, or any issue regarding the question of God are typically based on people assuming that God would be a human writ large. This is definitely true of the new atheist movement, which constantly frames its arguments in terms of --- "If God were a person, then God would not do X." As an example, "If God wanted people to know God, then it would directly talk to us." Well, maybe, if we think of God as a person. Christians claim God even had a child, in other words, God is just like a person who decided to spread his seed around.
Although I'm an atheist, I can easily imagine that if a God did actually exist, that it would go well beyond all human understanding. It would be easier for an ant to contemplate Einstein's theories than it would for a human being to be able to figure out what God actually is, if existence is even an appropriate term for a God in the first place.
Maimonides in the 12th century came up with negative theology based upon the realization that no human could possibly know what God even is. When people refer to God, they are really thinking of a God as being partly human. So, Maimonides stated the best anyone can do is state what a God could not be, and never what a God actually is. We can say, for example, a God would not be a human. As an atheist, I remain unconvinced that a God exists, but, if a God did exist, I think Maimonides hit the nail on the head.
That's why it's so comical listening to debates on God. The late Hitchens, for example, accuses God of being immoral because it waited too long to reveal itself and humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years being ignorant of God. But, this argument assumes that a God would act like a human. How would anyone know whether a God would or would not want to reveal itself to us?
It's basically impossible to argue about God without first thinking of God as a person. Yet, if a God did exist, it couldn't be anything remotely like a person. So, it's all worthless bullshit. Literally, the writings of people like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris are every bit the nonsense that the writings of a Ken Ham are, when it comes to the issue of whether a God exists. And for the exact same reason --- they both start off with the same bogus assumption that a God would be like a person.
Are people ever going to admit that issues regarding God are a waste of time?
Although I'm an atheist, I can easily imagine that if a God did actually exist, that it would go well beyond all human understanding. It would be easier for an ant to contemplate Einstein's theories than it would for a human being to be able to figure out what God actually is, if existence is even an appropriate term for a God in the first place.
Maimonides in the 12th century came up with negative theology based upon the realization that no human could possibly know what God even is. When people refer to God, they are really thinking of a God as being partly human. So, Maimonides stated the best anyone can do is state what a God could not be, and never what a God actually is. We can say, for example, a God would not be a human. As an atheist, I remain unconvinced that a God exists, but, if a God did exist, I think Maimonides hit the nail on the head.
That's why it's so comical listening to debates on God. The late Hitchens, for example, accuses God of being immoral because it waited too long to reveal itself and humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years being ignorant of God. But, this argument assumes that a God would act like a human. How would anyone know whether a God would or would not want to reveal itself to us?
It's basically impossible to argue about God without first thinking of God as a person. Yet, if a God did exist, it couldn't be anything remotely like a person. So, it's all worthless bullshit. Literally, the writings of people like Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris are every bit the nonsense that the writings of a Ken Ham are, when it comes to the issue of whether a God exists. And for the exact same reason --- they both start off with the same bogus assumption that a God would be like a person.
Are people ever going to admit that issues regarding God are a waste of time?
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Not in my lifetime.
-
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Not in your lifetime? So, which document from Dawkins does not assume God as a person? Name one.
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
So says the person who just created a lengthy (time wasting) OP on the issue of God.Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:07 pm Are people ever going to admit that issues regarding God are a waste of time?
Yes.Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:07 pm Although I'm an atheist, I can easily imagine that if a God did actually exist, that it would go well beyond all human understanding.
However, something that goes well beyond human understanding does not mean that the something in question (God) does not exist.
And that is what you inadvertently implied in the following statement...
I’m pretty sure that an ant’s little contemplater isn’t equipped to take on (or care about) such issues, however, the same does not apply to us.Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:07 pm It would be easier for an ant to contemplate Einstein's theories than it would for a human being to be able to figure out what God actually is, if existence is even an appropriate term for a God in the first place.
And yes, “existence” is indeed an appropriate term for God.
Based on your above statements, it is clear that you have intuited the correct approach to the issue of God and are simply railing against the anthropomorphic nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds.
And lastly, do you think that pursuing the issue of the possible existence of a higher intelligence presiding over the universe is any more of a waste of time than playing endless hours of video games, or watching football, or following the latest antics of the Kardashians, or posting on philosophy forums?
_______
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:37 pm
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
I think there is something to the idea that our minds evolved to deal with the natural world. They wound up being so amazing, though, that our minds can formulate propositions about things that stretch beyond what we can know anything about. Here is an example: "Does existence precede essence, or does essence precede existence?"
So there is a sense in which the sentences "god exits" and "god does not exist" both stretch beyond where our minds are designed to go.
I should add, though, that if you mean by the term "god" a supernatural being who does things like hear our prayers and watch what we do so he can reward good people and punish bad people -- THAT guy almost certainly does not exist.
(And in the remote chance that he does exist, he rewards those who don't believe in him, because they have correctly used the intelligence the gave them.)
So there is a sense in which the sentences "god exits" and "god does not exist" both stretch beyond where our minds are designed to go.
I should add, though, that if you mean by the term "god" a supernatural being who does things like hear our prayers and watch what we do so he can reward good people and punish bad people -- THAT guy almost certainly does not exist.
(And in the remote chance that he does exist, he rewards those who don't believe in him, because they have correctly used the intelligence the gave them.)
-
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Seeds: Nope, sorry to burst your bubble, but this post was not at all about whether a God exists, but rather a post on how worthless it is to debate the issue.
-
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Seeds: OK, so prove that existence is an appropriate term for God? How so? A person may exist, or not, but how could you possibly know that such a word would even be applicable to an actual God? Only if you assume a God would be like a person can you do so. Which is exactly my point. People assume a God would be like a person, then they go off after making that assumption to argue why a God would or would not exist. How is that even remotely rational? It isn't.
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Actually, you said it was a “waste of time” to debate the issue. To which I added to it a short list of other things that humans do that are probably even greater wastes of time.Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:09 pm Seeds: Nope, sorry to burst your bubble, but this post was not at all about whether a God exists, but rather a post on how worthless it is to debate the issue.
So why single-out that one aspect of human folly as being more wasteful of time than the other things I mentioned?
Furthermore, if we are not allowed to debate whether or not a higher intelligence might be responsible for the unthinkable level of order laid-out before our senses, then we are stuck with the incredulous assumption that chance and serendipity are responsible.
Some of us feel that that is utter nonsense – hence the crux and reason for debate.
I’m a fan of the idea that anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness can be considered as existing – especially an “actual” God.Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:09 pm Seeds: OK, so prove that existence is an appropriate term for God? How so? A person may exist, or not, but how could you possibly know that such a word would even be applicable to an actual God?
Why in the world do you think that in order for God to exist then God would have to be like a person?Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:09 pm Only if you assume a God would be like a person can you do so.
In what way would God have to be like a person?
_______
-
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Seeds: "I’m a fan of the idea that anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness can be considered as existing – especially an “actual” God."
Have you ever looked up the fallacy of question begging?
Have you ever looked up the fallacy of question begging?
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
I thought it was a good OP that points out issues in some wasteful debates that reduce the value of forums with noise.
As regards what I think of as sophisticated theism, the idea appears to be that God is within everyone and everything, and also more than that (synergies?). So, if one was to communicate with such a deity, it would be via the human component of that deity that lies within oneself. That would be the "connection point", accessed via one's intensity and authenticity in needing to "connect".
Some arguments seem to stem from the use of creative imagination in this process, which some rationalists would see as disqualifying from any reality claims. Ideally believers would counter this claim (but they never seem to think of it) that the power of creative imagination is a part of reality in itself and its power tends to be much underestimated. Each side would be right, depending on the angle - technical or functional.
There is much misunderstanding, with people talking at cross purposes between what is technically correct and what is subjectively real.
As regards what I think of as sophisticated theism, the idea appears to be that God is within everyone and everything, and also more than that (synergies?). So, if one was to communicate with such a deity, it would be via the human component of that deity that lies within oneself. That would be the "connection point", accessed via one's intensity and authenticity in needing to "connect".
Some arguments seem to stem from the use of creative imagination in this process, which some rationalists would see as disqualifying from any reality claims. Ideally believers would counter this claim (but they never seem to think of it) that the power of creative imagination is a part of reality in itself and its power tends to be much underestimated. Each side would be right, depending on the angle - technical or functional.
There is much misunderstanding, with people talking at cross purposes between what is technically correct and what is subjectively real.
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:09 pm Seeds: Nope, sorry to burst your bubble, but this post was not at all about whether a God exists, but rather a post on how worthless it is to debate the issue.
Err, wouldn't it be more appropriate to debate the one who wants to know if something exists or not? ...does that one exist?, well does it?
What about that one...would that be considered a worthless issue to debate?
.
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
That's weird, because when ever I come to this forum to read, or write. I don't hear any noise whatsoever, it's actually very very silent, not heard any noise coming from the forum whatsoever.
I wonder if silence is an eternal value that goes un-noticed.
.
-
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Don't Ask: My point was that certain conceptions of God are simply not worth debating, whether it is a theist, or an atheist, adhering to such a conception of God. I just don't see any rational basis to assume a God is like a person, whether it's a new atheist like Richard Dawkins making the claim, or a religious fundie who is making it.
What could possibly be the point of such debates?
What could possibly be the point of such debates?
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
If one is working a pneumatic drill then the rest of the world will indeed seem relatively silent.
Re: Negative Theology and Worthless God Debates
Don't Ask was never one to be put of by pointlessness.Science Fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:07 pm Don't Ask: My point was that certain conceptions of God are simply not worth debating, whether it is a theist, or an atheist, adhering to such a conception of God. I just don't see any rational basis to assume a God is like a person, whether it's a new atheist like Richard Dawkins making the claim, or a religious fundie who is making it.
What could possibly be the point of such debates?