What Would You Ask God?

[syrakusos]

Bah! What a bunch of mindless philosophers! (That is what RD2 called C3PO when the forner sought to follow heat signatures to find a community and the latter replied, "Don't get technical with me.")

Myself, I want to know if the challenge is to ask God for the Answer to a Single Question, such as "What is the squre root of 9?" or "Does the Universe have an end?" Both of those are simple. God gives you a short answer.

Or, are we allowed to ask for a boon? "Explain quantum electrodynamics to me."

Aside from a boon for the sake of knowledge, I have nothing to ask of God.

You say I took The Name in vain,

but I don't even know the name.

But if I did, well, really, what's it to ya?

There's a blaze of light in every word!

It doesn't matter which you heard,

the broken or the holy hallelujiah.

I did my best, It wasn't much.

I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch.

I've told the truth. I didn't come to fool ya'

Even though it all went wrong

I'll stand before the Lord of Song

With nothing on my tongue but "Hallehujiah!"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don’t know what, yet there is no reason to suppose it is anything supernatural...

There is something you did not mention in particular, but I put it in that class. That is the concept of God as an intelligent persona not confined to any particular body, indeed pure spirit. This sort of elementary theology, very salient in John, is instantly known false, only valiantly believed true, in our modern world especially. With that sort of cosmic super-intelligence out, God’s a goner.

Stephen,

I don't necessarily disagee with your conclusions, but I don't necessarily agee with them, either.

The problem for me is the epistemological method you used in your post. To say "I don't know what," then claim you do know (using other words) seems like a speculation--at best--to me. I'm not trying to be disrespectul or offensive. I'm merely mentioning the reasoning process I see as expressed in your words.

Ditto for the other quote, but in a slightly different manner. You did a pretty good job of confining "God as an intelligent persona" to one argument only, then concluded "God’s a goner" in general. That, to me, is like saying no gun exists with a barrel at both ends, therefore guns don't exist. A kind of upside-down syllogism.

There are many speculations about superior intellegence, starting with NB's "underlying reality" to biomorphic fields to the religionist's intelligent design. These speculations are attempts to understand consciousness as something more than emergence--a top down influence, so to speak, from a higher form of awareness or intelligence (but not personified as a kind of super human being in spirit form). Incidentally, I am more prone to embrace this understanding (excluding positions premised on traditional religions) as I find the idea of random emergence of form from subparticles, but resulting in the same forms over and over (like holons), too arbitrary to call that anything but a speculation.

And when proponents of it start getting really nasty when I bring this stuff up rather than address my points, I start getting suspicious.

(You don't do that, but many, many others have in my online discussions.)

I, also, find the idea of confining reality to only stuff that can be understood by the human being at his present stage of evolution an arbitrary conceit if compared against historical biological patterns. Looking at the big picture over known and presumed natural history, there seems to be a march toward greater awareness by individual life forms. Why has that march stopped at the current human organism? Is there no longer anything fundamental that humans are not aware of and can become aware of over time? If not, why?

The only fundamental reason I can come up with is somebody says so. And that's not very fundamental in my view.

In my own mind, I can say parts of reality are unknown That goes for whether they exist. And that's as far as I can go. Since this is the case, I refuse to preach something like atheism as fundamentally true because it is fact-based. It isn't. It's fundamentally just as speculative as religion.

What I can preach is that, so far, humans don't know a hell of a lot.

In fact, that's one of the reasons we strive so hard for understanding.

I want to state one cavaet about my understanding. Sometimes people interpret my arguments to mean that I am on the religious side of the debate. It's actually worse than that, though. I reject the debate.

The human mind comes with a prewired bias for dichotomies. Metaphysically, this is reflected in determinism (forms that emerge from the bottom up) versus holistic thinking (forms that are imposed from the top down). Which one is more fundamental? That is the question. I call that a false dichotomy and I embrace them both as equally fundamental.

The best way I can illustrate my conception is by analogy. I admit I don't like to do that as a technical explanation, but it's the clearest I can find right now. I see this constant God versus atheism debate like arguing over which point a circle starts and where it ends. If it's a full circle, the start point will be the end point. It all depends on who is setting the point and which direction such person wants to go in. For some people, the start point of one will be the end point of another. Others will start and end at even different points. In all cases, the circle doesn't care. It stays the same irrespeciive of where the start and end points are set by people.

The best I can do is say some people use religion for good and others use it for evil. Ditto for atheism. But none of that makes either true or false.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

If you asked God a question and if God answered, how would you know it was God that answered?

A boy seemed to be lost and his parents called the police to find him. The police used a helicopter to find him and used a loudspeaker to tell him to go home. The boy went home and said "I think it was God."

You wouldn't. Anyone daft enough to believe god answers question is daft enough to believe any answer he may get.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Finally! Posts #25 and #25 bring up a critical issue not addressed in the original question, "how would you know it was God who answered?"

Luckily, this issue has been addressed - answered - on two separate occasions, by none other than by James Tiberius Kirk, Captain, and later, Admiral of the Enterprise.

No, really.

From Star Trek "Classic,"Episode 2, Season 2,1967, "Who Mourns for Adonais?"

See this summary and discussion of the episode: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2009/09/star-trek-re-watch-who-mourns-for-adonais

And here's the key dialog:

Kirk has given the order to fire. The Enterprise destroys the temple, thus destroying his power source, and re-gaining their own freedom.

APOLLO: I would have cherished you, cared for you. I would have loved you as a father loves his children. Did I ask so much?

KIRK:

We’ve out grown you. You asked for something we could no longer give.

APOLLO: Carolyn, I loved you. I would have made a goddess of you. I’ve shown you my open heart. See what you've done to me. Zeus, Hermes, Hera, Aphrodite. You were right. Athena, you were right.

The time has passed. There is no room for gods.

Forgive me, my old friends. Take me. Take me.

He vanishes. Palamas cries, and even McCoy expresses heartfelt regret at what they had done.

KIRK: So do I. They gave us so much. The Greek civilization, much of our culture and philosophy came from a worship of those beings. In a way, they began the Golden Age. Would it have hurt us, I wonder, just to have gathered a few laurel leaves?

In the motion picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, an "entity" claiming to be God, lures the Enterprise to visit His home planet, in the center of our galaxy (I thought there's supposed to be a Black Hole there? Well, never mind!). In the conclusion, Kirk confronts the entity and exposes His ulterior motives (He needs to hitch a ride on the starship). After a fight against his "supernatural powers," (in which they triumph over the "god." - remember this is Captain Kirk that this God is messing with!). Kirk concludes similarly, that "We don't need you!"(paraphrase - I don't have teext of the scolding that Kirk gives to this God-person)

A theology professor commenting on the film, (quoted in the Wikipedia article from which this is drawn) laments -

"... that the film's theological interpretation is offered by Kirk's words: "Maybe He [God] is not out there, Bones. Maybe He's right here, in the human heart." [okay, thats' not exactly how Ayn would have phrased it ] Schultes agrees, writing that in contrast to the mythic and supernatural aspects found in Star Wars, Star Trek espouses a belief in science and rational thinking. "The immortality we seek in religious belief perhaps does not reside in the hands of a deity or some supernatural force," he wrote, "but rather through natural or technological means that are in our hands. The true gods may simply be ourselves."^[92]

[Jerry Biggers]

For some reason, my last line would not print correctly.

Anyway, here's my conclusion:

So maybe you want to mess with Captain Kirk on this issue?

His dispatching (not to mention, scolding! ) of two gods is enough for me.

[Jerry Biggers]

btw, where's George on this? Perhaps he's said all that needs to be said in Atheism: The Case Against God and Why Atheism?

If so, I think he's right.

[william.scherk]

I cannot find the orginal source for this quote** (beyond Christopher Hitchens), but thought it might shed light on the schmozzle in this thread:

Attributed to Karl Christian Rove, purported to be what he says if asked about his belief in god or asked about his relation to Jesus Christ:

“I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”

This is more or less what I say, with variations, when I am challenged/asked about my beliefs. I usually say this to forestall a lot of yammering: "I am atheist." Should yammering continue, I say something like what Rove is said to have said:

"I am not blessed with faith in a spiritual world."

I live in a place of many religions. In any given week I will have said howdy to Christians (my neighbours), Sikhs (my friendly Mac's Milk), Muslims (at my pharmacy), Rosicrucians (don't ask), Christians (at my volunteer job, co-workers), Jews (at my volunteer job, with the seniors), Catholics (at the monthly community supper I attend), Baha'is (quasi brother-in law), Buddhists (my namesake uncle), converting to Jew (same uncle, don't ask) ... and Jehovahs' Witnesses (uptown at the main crossing). My siblings and half siblings (all five) are atheist/atheist/atheist/agnostic/'Christian' ...

I love a good discussion and argument about faith and religion (and Gnu Atheism), but have developed a much bigger empathy for folks with faith. There is nothing (much) I can do about their beliefs, and there is nothing (much) they can do about my lack of belief/faith.

I never believed in spirits, never had faith in spirits (gawds, gods, Santa, tooth fairy, ghosts, what have you).

Atheist I use as an adjective. I rarely say "I am an Atheist" ... simply "I am atheist".

I am encouraged by Michael's notes on his own development (spiritual values). It is nothing of great (good/terrible) import, in my opinion -- just a straightforward honest telling of his place on the journey. Kudos!

--- Yes, this all might seem very convenient to assert now, after having once taken J Neil Schulman to the brink of rage and despair, but I will place in my defence my last note to him in That Huge Thread That Got A Lot of Readership:

[To Neil, after an apology for bitching and name-calling, emphases added]

I do think this, for what it's worth -- I think you are talented, quite talented, and well-married to your pen. In my heart of hearts I think you would be happier writing the fiction that you so obviously love, and that you thrive on.

For what it's worth, I find the hard kernel of your spiritual cosmology appealing in its simplicity -- the god you describe sounds like the lovely man you want to be, a man who looks into other people's hearts and finds goodness, who is not responsible for other people's badness and failures and pains. The god you describe is especially poignant in his human weakness and his wonder at other humans. He doesn't always understand humans; he yearns to do so. In his humanity he wishes to see his creations (and his loved ones) live on forever, and he wishes only the best from this world and its peoples. He is not judgmental, punishing or wrathful, but kind and forgiving and seeking.

That's the kind of god you want to walk with you and incorporate and it is a wonderful thing.

____________________

** this might turn out to be one of those dratted things, a quoat.

PS -- yup, a quoat:

In an email exchange with Kamy Akhavan of ProCon.org, Rove wrote "I called Mr. Hitchens after he made his erroneous statement and as the true gentlemen he is, he apologized. He has seen a quote in which I remarked on my admiration for the faith of White House colleagues which I felt was deeper and richer than mine and misquoted it. I am a practicing Christian who attends a bible-centered Episcopal church in Washington and an Anglican church in Texas."

Akhavan called and emailed Hitchens to confirm this information, but as of the early afternoon of February 25 had not received a response. In a release, ProCon.org declared that it was unable to find a retraction or contradiction of Hitchens’ claims regarding Rove’s religious affiliations. Rover, then, agreed to have his views published so as to clarify the public record. This was not covered in his authobiography, entitled Courage and Consequences: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight.

Rove's biography was annotated with the above information http://undergod.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=010559

PPS -- see also: http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/04/karl-rove-is-atheist-more-evidence-and.html

Edited January 17, 2013 by william.scherk

[Guyau]

What does the dyslectic, agnostic, insomniac do at night?

He lies awake wondering if there is a dog.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Follow on #31

It wasn’t very long until all the land in the barren hills near King City and San Ardo was taken up, and ragged families were scattered through the hills, trying their best to scratch a living from the thin flinty soil. They and the coyotes lived clever, despairing, submarginal lives. They landed with no money, no equipment, no tools, no credit, and particularly with no knowledge of the new country and no technique for using it. I don’t know whether it was a divine stupidity or a great faith that let them do it. Surely such venture is nearly gone from the world. And the families did survive and grow. They had a tool or a weapon that is also nearly gone, or perhaps it is only dormant for a while. It is argued that because they believed thoroughly in a just, moral God they could put their faith there and let the smaller securities take care of themselves. But I think that because they trusted themselves and respected themselves as individuals, because they knew beyond doubt that they were valuable and potentially moral units—because of this they could give God their own courage and dignity and then receive it back.

Steinbeck, East of Eden (1952).

[syrakusos]

Old joke, Stephen, but you still get the <snare drum roll and rimshot>.

But I have to agree mostly with MSK on the Big Question. I don't know and I am comfortable not knowing. It is illogical to claim that the universe had a creator, but the great chain of being argues for something more than humanity at the apex. Likely we might not perceive it or them starting only a few levels above us. When you consider the sea and land, you have to wonder what lives in the air. I do not mean birds. I mean sprites i.e., upper atmosphere lightening and other entities. Detach yourself from your knowledge base and then perceive the birds and bees. You could describe mating and birth in terms similar to meteorology identifying all the physical processes and missing the essence. So, are storms alive? Are stars alive? Considering complexity alone, how could galaxies not be sentient? I don't know... But I can speculate... and the very fact that I can imagine what I cannot perceive suggests that I am more than the sum of my atoms.

All of that being as it may...

I believe that the ducking and dodging here - God does not exist, etc. - reveals a lack of something or other. Do you know everything you want to know already? Sleeping on this question, I understood that If I could ask God questions, the engagement would probably never end.

Do you have a plan or are you making this up as you go along?

Why do we have the ability to perceive our own mortality?

Are whales, dolphins, elephants, etc., "intelligent" as we humans understand that?

Are humans intelligent as you understand it?

Do other sentient life exist?

Can we meet them? Will we meet them? Will we be happy about that?

What is the unified field theory? Is it close to the truth?

Can you show me negative energy?

Can I perceive changes in time other than the directed arrow I know?

Can you show me that?

Would you?

Can you make a virgin have a baby? Did you?

Got anything to eat around here? Got any beer? Can I have some?

(I just remembered the quip from George Carlin. When do we ask God to answer our prayers? On the sabbath, his one day of rest. Seems like an imposition...)

[Jerry Biggers]

I think that it might be appropriate to note here, that this month is "Squirrel Appreciation Month."

(I'm just saying.... )

This has been a Public Service Announcement.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bah! What a bunch of mindless philosophers! (That is what RD2 called C3PO when the forner sought to follow heat signatures to find a community and the latter replied, "Don't get technical with me.")

Myself, I want to know if the challenge is to ask God for the Answer to a Single Question, such as "What is the squre root of 9?" or "Does the Universe have an end?" Both of those are simple. God gives you a short answer.

Or, are we allowed to ask for a boon? "Explain quantum electrodynamics to me."

Aside from a boon for the sake of knowledge, I have nothing to ask of God.

You say I took The Name in vain,

but I don't even know the name.

But if I did, well, really, what's it to ya?

There's a blaze of light in every word!

It doesn't matter which you heard,

the broken or the holy hallelujiah.

I did my best, It wasn't much.

I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch.

I've told the truth. I didn't come to fool ya'

Even though it all went wrong

I'll stand before the Lord of Song

With nothing on my tongue but "Hallehujiah!"

Leonard Cohen is a genius!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

I think that it might be appropriate to note here, that this month is "Squirrel Appreciation Month."

(I'm just saying.... )

This has been a Public Service Announcement.

You mean because even a blind squirrel can find a nut? '

That would be another question to ask God: How does a blind squirrel find a nut?

You can fall pretty darned short of omniscience when you say "By smell." That opens up some epistemoligical queries. I mean it is pretty easy to ask, "When you say 'red' and I say 'red' do we mean the same thing?" It is more subtle to ask if what you smell is what I see.

[Jonathan]

It is more subtle to ask if what you smell is what I see.

Or to ask if he who smelt it must have dealt it.

J

[Mike82ARP]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

.

How did you put up with so much?

[Leonid]

This is a thread from another place, but I thought I'd post it here and we could kick it around:

If you could ask God just one question, .... What would you ask?

.

How did you put up with so much?

I'd ask " Are you a civil engineer?" Only they put a sewage system through entertainment area.