Sorry I have not posted anything in a while; I've been working on a political campaign.
I recently came across the idiom "God is Love," which I believe refers to a requited loving relationship between the biblical God and his (or it's, because why would God have a gender?) worshipers, i.e. if you promise to love God, he/she/it/them will love you in return. Instead, I began thinking about this phrase in what could be it's most literal meaning: God, or a belief in God, is in fact love.
I suppose I'll have to have a different definition of love than is typically adhered to; love, in this sense, would represent a feeling or acknowledgement of belonging and acceptance regardless of personal or physical faults, traits that are often mocked or scorned in society. The fact (as claimed by proselytizers) that God would accept a person regardless of their downfalls is a comfortable feeling, almost like being wrapped up in the arms of a lover. That someone, whether they are a supernatural deity or not, is willing to accept the totality of a person means that those who consider themselves faulty will have some chance at redemption, since God is all-forgiving and understanding (at least in some beliefs).
Thus, the feeling of embracing the notion of a God is one of love- acceptance, comfort, a jovial quid pro quo of love and forgiveness.
One would wonder whether this would set a bad precedent, i.e. if one's relationships always fail, there is always the love of the intangible God to fall back upon. Does that mean that instead of attempting to improve one's acknowledged faults, one would simply turn towards the comfort of a supernatural being? Does this negate human love in any way? Would a love (a true love instead of a superficial one that many hold) of God require a diligent and constant devotion towards maintaining the preternatural relationship? There are too many open-ended questions for my taste.
Being the ardently Socialist-Communist-Jedi-Lennonist (not misspelled) Atheist that I am, the consideration of a relationship with an omnipotent being doesn't concern me. I go about my life as anyone else- seeking comfort, warmth, love, friendship, happiness, prosperity, etc. If I do, mazel tov; if not, tough luck.
Anyway, there's my two cents on that. In other news, I need to study for the GREs. They're in a month. Hooray.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Ad Infinitum
As I have been relatively busy so far after moving into college, I haven't had time to update my blog. My psych teacher recently asked us an online question about belief and religion, and I thought it interesting enough to post on here. Included are my answers.
What role in the life of the individual is played by a belief in God?
Being an Atheist, I can safely assume that I am in no way objective in my beliefs, but I will try to be as much so as is possible. Being an Atheist also means that I made a concerted effort believing in some kind of deity, but I eventually rationalized to myself that there was, in fact (at least to me), no existence of any tenable God of any kind. The concept of any god, in its origins, serves as an explanation for the natural world around us-i.e., the seasons change because Demeter only sees her daughter Persephone for 1/3 of the year (Greek mythology). In modernity, a belief in God is typically accompanied with a belief in some kind of afterlife and the perpetuation of life after death. It is a very comforting thought to believe that a deceased relative is continually living in a "better place" rather than simply dying.
In trying to understand someone, how much importance should we give to studying that person's attitude toward and faith (or lack thereof) in a god?
When attempting to understand someone, we must not only gauge their belief in a god, but the belief in the mythology surrounding the god. For example, the "great flood" as described in the bible would have been scientifically impossible on Earth because of the massive amount of heat that would have been released after the enormous rainfall, not to mention the gathering of two animals of every species from around the planet crossing great distances and oceans to simply reach one boat. It is not impossible, but certainly extremely implausible.
To be concise about my point, one has to be religious within reason. One simply should not dismiss what others would consider scientific fact simply because it contrasts with one's religious beliefs (Galileo and the church).
If we think of the idea of God as referring to any principle or power, however defined, in which one believes absolutely and with certainty, is there anyone who does not believe in a god?
If it is defined as such, then seemingly everyone believes in some sort of God. If that is the case, the Tea Party can be considered a "God" (though I shudder at the thought), Rutgers can be a "God", and greed can be a "God." There is a difference, however, between absolute belief in something and actual worshipping.
Do all people have such a faith somehow expressed, somehow anchoring their existences? Or is human life possible in the actual absence of such absolute commitments? If our task is to understand a person, can we do so without including a central consideration of what that person's areas of faith and certainty are?
All people have faith in something- I for one have faith in the Mets, though they continually let me down every single year. I do not, however, anchor myself into their every undulating phase. I do feel a bit depressed with each loss (though I've gotten used to it), but it is not enough to drive me to the edge of insanity (though they have tried). I should hope that most people do not entrust their lives into a concept without actually considering themselves before said concept. To be clearer, I hope that no one so inextricably links their lives into some religious meaning so deeply that they end up not being able to reason without relating to their deity.
Understanding a person without knowing their preferences in faith and religiosity is like eating in Tillet Dining Hall- you see that it's food (or used to be), but you're just not sure what it is. There is a certain "level", if you will, of people that is beyond faith and is simply the person's own beliefs, but it takes extraordinary circumstances to reach that level.
There's my opinion, though I personally already disagree with myself.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
What role in the life of the individual is played by a belief in God?
Being an Atheist, I can safely assume that I am in no way objective in my beliefs, but I will try to be as much so as is possible. Being an Atheist also means that I made a concerted effort believing in some kind of deity, but I eventually rationalized to myself that there was, in fact (at least to me), no existence of any tenable God of any kind. The concept of any god, in its origins, serves as an explanation for the natural world around us-i.e., the seasons change because Demeter only sees her daughter Persephone for 1/3 of the year (Greek mythology). In modernity, a belief in God is typically accompanied with a belief in some kind of afterlife and the perpetuation of life after death. It is a very comforting thought to believe that a deceased relative is continually living in a "better place" rather than simply dying.
In trying to understand someone, how much importance should we give to studying that person's attitude toward and faith (or lack thereof) in a god?
When attempting to understand someone, we must not only gauge their belief in a god, but the belief in the mythology surrounding the god. For example, the "great flood" as described in the bible would have been scientifically impossible on Earth because of the massive amount of heat that would have been released after the enormous rainfall, not to mention the gathering of two animals of every species from around the planet crossing great distances and oceans to simply reach one boat. It is not impossible, but certainly extremely implausible.
To be concise about my point, one has to be religious within reason. One simply should not dismiss what others would consider scientific fact simply because it contrasts with one's religious beliefs (Galileo and the church).
If we think of the idea of God as referring to any principle or power, however defined, in which one believes absolutely and with certainty, is there anyone who does not believe in a god?
If it is defined as such, then seemingly everyone believes in some sort of God. If that is the case, the Tea Party can be considered a "God" (though I shudder at the thought), Rutgers can be a "God", and greed can be a "God." There is a difference, however, between absolute belief in something and actual worshipping.
Do all people have such a faith somehow expressed, somehow anchoring their existences? Or is human life possible in the actual absence of such absolute commitments? If our task is to understand a person, can we do so without including a central consideration of what that person's areas of faith and certainty are?
All people have faith in something- I for one have faith in the Mets, though they continually let me down every single year. I do not, however, anchor myself into their every undulating phase. I do feel a bit depressed with each loss (though I've gotten used to it), but it is not enough to drive me to the edge of insanity (though they have tried). I should hope that most people do not entrust their lives into a concept without actually considering themselves before said concept. To be clearer, I hope that no one so inextricably links their lives into some religious meaning so deeply that they end up not being able to reason without relating to their deity.
Understanding a person without knowing their preferences in faith and religiosity is like eating in Tillet Dining Hall- you see that it's food (or used to be), but you're just not sure what it is. There is a certain "level", if you will, of people that is beyond faith and is simply the person's own beliefs, but it takes extraordinary circumstances to reach that level.
There's my opinion, though I personally already disagree with myself.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Saturday, November 7, 2009
To be or not to be
To tackle a subject as broad as "God," I would have to write my own novel. I will have to try to condense everything, unless someone actually wants me to write a novel. I wouldn't mind.
God: the ultimate power of the universe, the matter of all creation, the father of all being, or, simply an illusion. God is the factor that divides and paradoxically unites humans the most. For centuries, those believing that they are of righteous piety have struck down others with the claim that their god is superior. For what reason would humanity have so much devotion to a character neither seen nor heard?
This necessitates an understanding of the origins of the concept of god. The most well-known example of this would be the ancient Greek religion, whose mythology continues to strive in contemporary society. Greeks, unlike today's major religions, were polytheists. They deified rivers, oceans, mountains, and anything that seemed mystical or phantasmagorical. We can analyze their reasoning through a very simple idea: lack of scientific knowledge. While the Greeks were aware that the world was round and that the stars were (to some extent) heavenly bodies, most ancient peoples attributed all life to some creator. Many couldn't comprehend living on a planet, orbiting a sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy amongst billions upon billions of other galaxies. People were unaware of the structure of a living cell or natural selection. They believed what ego taught them to believe, and that is a subject all in itself.
Ego, the part of the self which creates personality, pride, and determination, one might say. It also allows us to be arrogant and obdurate. As Aristotle put it, man is different from animal because we have the ability to reason. That being said, it would then be logical to reason that because only man has the ability to reason that we are, by some standard, special. This raises the question of "why?" Why were humans chosen instead of deer, or platypus? This hearkens back to ego; the arrogant belief that nothing is chance. Thus, a higher being created us. Logical? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Skipping ahead a few millenia, past the cold-blooded killings of the crusades and the dank, unproductive time of the middle ages, we stop at a man called Nicolas Copernicus. Many (hopefully) would know that he was the literal beginning of the scientific revolution. While it may have been Galileo who was persecuted for believing in heliocentrism, it was Galileo who defended Copernicus' views on the solar system. As many know, it took the church approximately 500 years to issue an apology to Galileo.
Continue ahead to present day, past the discoveries of Newton, past the postulates of Da Vinci, past Kepler, past Einstein, to today, November 7th, 2009. Consider the great scientific strides made between the time of Copernicus and today: the invention of the telescope, the discovery of the animal cell, the invention of the microscope, the invention of the atomic bomb, planes, space shuttles, an international space station, and computers. One would think that with all those scientific innovations, religion would become less important as humans discover their place in the universe.
Pictured: Andromeda Galaxy
Instead, we see the persistence of theocracies and the denial of basic human rights based on someone's religion. We also see this (warning: not for those opposed to reason):
God is now the reason for everything. Some pray to him on daily basis, thanking him for bread. If that is the case, why not pray to the farmer who grows the wheat? Why not pray to the owner of the Stop & Shop, thanking him for importing this bread from Kansas? Hell, why not just pray to the cashier, thanking him/her for not telling you to go f*ck yourself? One can plead in court that one was "inhabited by the devil" when one commits a crime. Since when is NOT taking responsibility for one's actions the human action?
It is interesting to note that only one brain chemical separates the cognitive processes of apes from humans. One. Imagine if a different kind of ape had become the dominant species on the planet. Would they have worshiped the same gods we have? Would they have killed in their names? Would they have the same struggles that we do today? Possibly. One can only speculate how similar we are to our simian ancestors; however, one thing is certain: we may not consider ourselves animals, but at our core, we are not human either.
I could continue on this subject, but most people would not read it.
Das Flüg
God: the ultimate power of the universe, the matter of all creation, the father of all being, or, simply an illusion. God is the factor that divides and paradoxically unites humans the most. For centuries, those believing that they are of righteous piety have struck down others with the claim that their god is superior. For what reason would humanity have so much devotion to a character neither seen nor heard?
This necessitates an understanding of the origins of the concept of god. The most well-known example of this would be the ancient Greek religion, whose mythology continues to strive in contemporary society. Greeks, unlike today's major religions, were polytheists. They deified rivers, oceans, mountains, and anything that seemed mystical or phantasmagorical. We can analyze their reasoning through a very simple idea: lack of scientific knowledge. While the Greeks were aware that the world was round and that the stars were (to some extent) heavenly bodies, most ancient peoples attributed all life to some creator. Many couldn't comprehend living on a planet, orbiting a sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy amongst billions upon billions of other galaxies. People were unaware of the structure of a living cell or natural selection. They believed what ego taught them to believe, and that is a subject all in itself.
Ego, the part of the self which creates personality, pride, and determination, one might say. It also allows us to be arrogant and obdurate. As Aristotle put it, man is different from animal because we have the ability to reason. That being said, it would then be logical to reason that because only man has the ability to reason that we are, by some standard, special. This raises the question of "why?" Why were humans chosen instead of deer, or platypus? This hearkens back to ego; the arrogant belief that nothing is chance. Thus, a higher being created us. Logical? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Skipping ahead a few millenia, past the cold-blooded killings of the crusades and the dank, unproductive time of the middle ages, we stop at a man called Nicolas Copernicus. Many (hopefully) would know that he was the literal beginning of the scientific revolution. While it may have been Galileo who was persecuted for believing in heliocentrism, it was Galileo who defended Copernicus' views on the solar system. As many know, it took the church approximately 500 years to issue an apology to Galileo.
Continue ahead to present day, past the discoveries of Newton, past the postulates of Da Vinci, past Kepler, past Einstein, to today, November 7th, 2009. Consider the great scientific strides made between the time of Copernicus and today: the invention of the telescope, the discovery of the animal cell, the invention of the microscope, the invention of the atomic bomb, planes, space shuttles, an international space station, and computers. One would think that with all those scientific innovations, religion would become less important as humans discover their place in the universe.
Pictured: Andromeda Galaxy
Instead, we see the persistence of theocracies and the denial of basic human rights based on someone's religion. We also see this (warning: not for those opposed to reason):
God is now the reason for everything. Some pray to him on daily basis, thanking him for bread. If that is the case, why not pray to the farmer who grows the wheat? Why not pray to the owner of the Stop & Shop, thanking him for importing this bread from Kansas? Hell, why not just pray to the cashier, thanking him/her for not telling you to go f*ck yourself? One can plead in court that one was "inhabited by the devil" when one commits a crime. Since when is NOT taking responsibility for one's actions the human action?
It is interesting to note that only one brain chemical separates the cognitive processes of apes from humans. One. Imagine if a different kind of ape had become the dominant species on the planet. Would they have worshiped the same gods we have? Would they have killed in their names? Would they have the same struggles that we do today? Possibly. One can only speculate how similar we are to our simian ancestors; however, one thing is certain: we may not consider ourselves animals, but at our core, we are not human either.
I could continue on this subject, but most people would not read it.
Das Flüg
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What is God?
I hope that this turns out to be an interesting movie; I will give my two cents about what I think God is at another time. Right now, studying.
Das Flüg
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Das Religio!
Just a note:
I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:
Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.
Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.
There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?
Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.
There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.
One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.
addendum (after viewing several comments):
There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?
One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.
Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?
The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.
Das Flüg
I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:
Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.
Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.
There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?
Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.
There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.
One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.
addendum (after viewing several comments):
There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?
One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.
Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?
The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)