Can we get from God to religion?

[Demogorgon]

This is a matter that interests me, I have not bothered to discuss it here before as there is little point in talking about theology or religious philosophy here, but I will give it a try.

Suppose we assume that God does exist. This isn't something I believe incidentally, but it is important to assume it for the purpose of this exercise. Can we get from such a position to legitimate religious belief? By that I mean can specific beliefs in God be derived from the general belief that God exists? If so, can we do so only be presuming that there are certain extraordinary realities that can be experienced in different ways, or is it possible to consistently hold that a particular religion is accurate as opposed to any other?

[Dean]

This question has multiple answers. The logical answer to your question is no, because there is nothing from which to derive specific characteristics.

But belief in god is not this rational. It indicates submission to an archetype that one builds in their own mind, so it is liable to characterize the religious institutions which encourage a belief in god. So I would say a belief in god necessary indicates certain characteristics.

[Kronos]

Can we get from such a position to legitimate religious belief? By that I mean can specific beliefs in God be derived from the general belief that God exists?

Depends on what kind of "God" is in question. Monotheism, polytheism, deism and pantheism are the contending models, the former three are anthropomorphic/centric and operate with elements of dualism and transcendentalism (not the social movement...the philosophy). Pantheism, the simplest, is an an immanent monism as opposed to transcendent substance dualism, as in Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas, Augustine, Anslem, Berkeley, Descartes, and other neo-platonist rationalists/idealists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Existance alone is not a basis for worship. It's one thing to recognise that something exists and to take it into account, it's quite another to make a servile display of oneself.

[redSHARP]

if God was real (i am leaving the gods out of this for now), and wwas able to shw his existance, we still would fuck it up. he would say something, and then a million people would interprate it and there would be 20 million conclusions about what God said. even in the literal sense, if there was God, we would still fuck up. and dont get me started on what would happen to politically; lets just say a lot of people would be dead.

[rampantuprising]

i think a point that has to be considered is that if there are "certain extraordinary realities that can be experienced in different ways", they would then have to interpreted by the individual that experienced them, and you could have a different interpretation for each individual that has that experience, possibly even being meshed with the ideals that that individual already believes in (not to mention the personality of that person that would question the validity)

[mikelepore]

Even if the classical arguments for God's existence, the argument from design or from first cause, were valid, all they would leave us with is the conclusion: there is some kind of creative agency about which nothing more can be said. There's no logical way to get from there to the position that most religions actually hold: that it's necessary to obey certain rules and go to a certain building on a certain day and recite certain words while wearing certain kinds of clothing. All we would have is: there is some sort of creative power that has no further characeristics that can be determined. Therefore, ironically, the people who want to propagate their favorite religions, and in the process they cite philosophcal arguments for the existence of God, are saying something that's irrelevant to their own cause.

[Kronos]

there is some kind of creative agency about which nothing more can be said.

Yes but what we conceive as "created", and the concept of "creation" itself, is only an idea which we have as a consequence of positing "ends" to our own intentions- when we consider something to be done and complete, it has reached the qualification of being considered "by design". For example, a tool, say a shovel, is a "thing" insofar as the material it is composed of is arranged in such a way that the combined parts (the raw elements) interact with each other (the laws of physics) and because of that are considered to be an instance of "intelligent design". The shovel was "created" by an intentional appropriation of material elements.

This idea is merely projected as an explanation for reality as a whole, the universe without us, objective truth, so on and so forth. If we, as intelligent beings, manipulate and combine material properties to "create" things...and, in turn, experience the "life" of the product as "time" passes, we intuit "change".

So when you combine the anthropocentric concept of "create" with the notion of natural continual change, and the infinite nature of the universe, the religious accidentally emerge the concept of "design"- the religious assume that everything is a design, and following that, that there must be a "designer" which itself was not subject to creation, time, and causality. It would be pure disembodied intelligence, impossible for a material universe.

This is perhaps why religions that conceive of "God" as a transcendent entity are so logically absurd or ridiculous...and hard to believe...simply because of the logical feats necessary to "make sense" of the fundamental premises.

The idea of "design" cannot be projected onto the universe itself because the universe has no ends and is not teleological. Such things are our concepts and exist insofar as we live and manipulate material things.

But the manipulation is not a "free" act, so the intentions...like the material events, are causal in the sense that they do not transcend material effects. When you decide to raise your right arm and open the cabinet...your actions are not involved in any kind of material teleological process- they are not evolving to enhance, progress or complete anything in a material sense. It is only the idea that introduces "intelligence" into the scheme here.

I think there can be an immanent creative agency in the universe but I do not believe that the whole process is involved in "becoming" something else. In different words, I say that there are "pockets" of organization and "stasis" in the universe. We are the result of one such pocket..the extent of which I cannot speculate.

Nonetheless in our case we are only projecting a human capacity onto the universe, but the universe demonstrates intelligence because it has produced us. The intelligence here is not a "thinking, intending universe" but a product of a certain elemental organization of material bodies.

"God" is "nature", nothing else. All things interact causally and nothing can exist which cannot interact causally with something else. Since at least two different attributes are necessary in reality (object and concept))- it follows that both must be causally interactive and cannot transcend each other, that is, they cannot deny or resist an influence of force upon one another, nor can they not influence the same on the other.

If the "mind" is necessary to know the object, the world, then nature has the attributes of concept and object. Knowing and having ideas is then a "mode" of substance...not something that is parallel or correspondent to the material, see.

So we have a "God", which is nature, and not a designer of nature or an intelligence, an intentional agency for the universe. We have "mind", which is one of at least two different attributes, we have "material", and we have a completely "determined" causal system.

Spinozeans do it better.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think we need to know more about the deity you are proposing. What are this god's attributes? Do they care about us as a species or as individuals, or are they simply a creator? Etc.

If a theistic god exists and is accessible, I would try to find out more about the entity - it would be the most important thing to do in life, I expect.

-Alex

[Kronos]

I think we need to know more about the deity you are proposing. What are this god's attributes?

The term "deity" is a polytheistic concept and therefore it is anthropomorphic- it is a personification of human natures into a "God" figure. Ultimately it results from inadequate rational knowledge...as it is emotional, or "ethical", and it conceives of "God" as a sentimental thing.

Consider that the greeks gave the deities qualities and characteristics which were representative of human qualities and characteristics. In fact there was a "God" or lesser "God" for every emotion in the entire spectrum of human nature.

"God", or "nature", has infinite attributes. It must, because an "end" cannot be conceived for existence, so the quantifiable states of material are infinite, as is "time".


Do they care about us as a species or as individuals, or are they simply a creator?

Again this is an inadequate emotional idea. Nature does not "care" about anything, and "God" is not a "creator" as in the sense of being a transcendent cause of existence which is not a part of that caused existence. Actually, I cannot even say that much- there is no "first cause" in existence.

I mean by "inadequate emotional idea" what Spinoza means. An emotion is an experience we have when we have insufficient understanding of the causes of the effects which result in our emotion. In such a state we are in what Spinoza called "bondage", which is essentially an irrational state of ignorance. How often do you find yourself reacting to some affliction with exaggerated behavior....only later to calm down and examine the situation, deciding that your behavior was "silly"? We all do this. The degree to which we act in a reactionary way (responding to an emotional experience) depends on our rational understanding of the reasons and causes of the emotion. When an affliction is understood as a necessary thing which had to happen, we no longer can "blame" what we isolate as a single cause. Without the right to blame anything, we lose the right to make and expect ethical obligations. Such things are relative, so the emotion of "care" is relative to the degree that the person who experiences the emotion feels and thinks that certain actions are necessary that are called "caring". To "care for this or that" means to be ethically concerned in the security of something. For this, there must be a threat. For this, there must be a prior sense of pain, or the anticipation of pain if said "caring" is not provided. However, although "pain" and "suffering" are undesirable, they are nonetheless necessary causal circumstances. We cannot think of them as "evil" or "horrible" things...these are over-reactive emotional concepts. We must remain rational and provide caring, charitable acts for the right reasons. The right reason, of course, the founding premise, is a utilitarian perspective from within a materialistic concept of reality...completely devoid of any "religious" themes.

I don't "care" about anything, really. All I can do is assume that other beings have a very similar capacity for the pleasures I, myself, have, and if I incur no loss from it, I should assist them in those pursuits.

I am a cold, hard, rational emotionless revolutionary ubermenschean stoic, kind of.

[Kronos]

If a theistic god exists and is accessible, I would try to find out more about the entity - it would be the most important thing to do in life, I expect.

Kierkegaard mentioned that it wasn't what he could "know" that was a problem for him. The guy was beyond brilliant and could figure any God out, I assure you. The problem for him was knowing what to "do".

Enter existentialism. You find me the most complete, most rock solid religious doctrine that sets out a code of conduct for man.....and I'll find exceptions, paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas everywhere in it.

I cannot disagree enough with Kierkegaard's "three stages" of life. The final stage, the commitment to the religious sphere, exceeds anything else in its degree of absurdity. The "leap of faith" is precisely what you don't want to take.....indeed, cannot take honestly. One should remain in the transition from the aesthetic to the ethical, I think.

[Kronos]

You know, if you think about it, all documented mythology in language and symbolism (art before grammer evolved) was a kind of aesthetic entertainment branch of industry. All else aside, in any society there are fundamentally two major activities- work and play. Mythology was a form of play, of cinema, of drama, that had a life very much like our modern day consumer celebrity discourse. This means the gods were invented as a means of artistic expression only, originally, but later took on political significance and began to be interpreted as "real" rather than ideological.

Once creating "religion" and "myth" became an occupation....it all went down hill. And it did. The only thing "real" in the last five thousand years is the work that has been done. We could all be worshiping the spaghetti monster and still we would have to work, no?

Marx wins again: the material reality precedes the intellectual reality. Consciousness is a product of reality, not vice versa.