God Is Art, Influence, And Feelings

This was going to be a response to a thread addressing the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, but I think I'd really like more people to consider the title which is also the point I'd like to make.....This is somewhat meandering philosophy as I am attempting to give you a piece of my mind on the subject of God, and abstract thought.

What are thoughts? Well, hopefully I don't have to explain this one to you. Actually, yes I do have to explain it. Lets start from something physiological though because I don't want anyone getting confused about what is essentially a simple idea.

You and I are biological organisms. We are apes on planet earth in the milky way galaxy suspended in an unfathomable amount of space, and bla bla bla ad nauseum.

We have eyes that see the world, ears that hear the world, nerves that feel taste and smell things, vocal cords, and recently in our current age we have developed several ways to communicate with one another using our fingers as well as having legs to walk on. It would seem that we have evolved to influence and to be influenced by our environment which includes other people.

Therefore, Thoughts are a currency of influence. Thoughts can be said to be a lot of things, but this one is important because influence and inspiration is what you get from the practical application of a thought, even if you do not communicate what you are thinking, your thought is the manifestation of that potential influence and you are its host.

Which leads me to my point that god, and all things abstract are thoughts who's function is to influence and inspire other people and yourself.

Saying god does not exist is not really more practical than saying he does exist.

You could try and say that a body of scientific knowledge is secular, but then you find out that it came from a religious person.

You could try and say that a "good" deed is moral and divine, but Mother Teresa said it herself that she had no faith.

If God does not exist then neither does art, or feelings. This is the best way to transgress the semantic tumor that is God.

 

I generally agree although it depends on the assertions being made.

There are many aspects of science which are not inherently incompatible with religious belief. And an interesting example of morality not necessarily stemming from religious belief.

I do not think this is the best way to transgress the semantic issues surrounding God. In fact, saying God is (fill in specific human activity ) only further compounds the issues imo.

Art is art, love is love, good is good, the universe is the universe.

Perhaps some may glean a relation to a divine process in these aspects of human experience and understanding, but I see no benefit in conflating these topics as being synonymous with God.

There are many atheists who have been moved and even made art. Much like you mentioned in regards to morality, there is nothing necessarily stymied in an appreciation and experience of art without God.

 

I did not mean to make it sound like I was conflating god with an activity. I meant to say that the function of God is the same as the function of art, which i guess can take the form of a performance. I had not thought of that.

And also that the nature of god is the same as the nature of art in that it is open to interpretation.

love, good, and the universe are also open to interpretation, as art exists within the universe. Good is an abstraction and love.....well that one depends on how bitter you are lol

 

I guess what I am trying to say is God should not be considered any more fake than beauty is, because that is its only functional essence.

 

well the origen of the word is a contraction "g'od" of good. i'm of the persuasion none of those things need to be personafied. but i also like the idea of there being stranger things, (including sapient ones) in a beautiful and harmless way, then anything we can ever imagine.

saying god is a he is no more practical then saying god is an it either. we just don't happen to have a gender neutral sapient pronoun. which i believe the lack of creates much needless confusion.

the way i read both baha'u'llah and lao tsu, whatever 'god' is, it is something beyond our even beginning to imagine what it is or might be.

 

Here's some info on etymology, first addressing the (mis) conception you put forth.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god

Now it's supposed actual etymology...

 

Beauty is on everyone's radar, as it can apply to people, places, things. Some people will say stuff like "God is all around" but then others have no such experience. I don't know if I'd use the term 'fake' but I do think God is not an equivalent comparison to beauty and is bound more to cultural framework.

 

Yes, the word god and whatever someone imagines god might be is definitely something that is more particular than the total human experience of beauty.

Some people hear something beautiful when they listen to certain music, and others don't. Some people like peanut butter, some don't.

But at the same time, some see God's hand in the mechanics of the universe, and some don't.

This, an anecdote, is as scientifically precise as you are going to get on both the subjects of beauty, and god.

Stories........from people.

The bible is 1500 pages of anecdotes. Which are stories.......from people. People who were inspired by god.

Inspiration: the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative.

What is more creative than creating the heaven and the earth?

 

So then is god love/beauty/mystery, or is god the jealous Lord Yaweh, a being who for all intents and purposes is really just a kind of person.

You can't have it both ways. This happens in almost every religious debate I've ever seen or partaken in. You can't keep redefining god to mean less and less specific things until finally your god seems to not be much at all like how we originally started debating about him, and then sneak all your original superstition and holy books in through the back door again.

As soon as you say that god is not Yaweh, or god is not "a kind of person", then you have to cease and desist any quotations or inspirations from books such as the Bible, as they are talking about a completely different kind of god.

You say that "god inspired the writers of the bible". Ok, but you also defined god as "beauty". So this means that "beauty inspired the writers of the bible". Well, beauty also inspired Hitler to write Mein Kampf; that is, his perception of the beauty of himself, his struggle, and future of his proud peoples.

The problem with defining god this way is that it immediately stops being a useful concept altogether. If god is anything you like, or need him to be for the purposes of a debate, then you have already conceded that he has no reality outside your opinions of him.

Also, yes, the scientific method was created by someone who was religious, but I do not follow the logic which then means that somehow faith-based thinking gets a free, protected escort through the marketplace of ideas. Descartes could have been a cannibal as well, that would have exactly zero impact on the validity of the scientific method, or of the merits of cannibalism.

 

Your ideas about what or who god is are your own. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And I am not redefining anything that has already been adequately defined. Nor am I "sneaking superstitions and holy books" in anywhere.

What you're saying is:

I am not allowed to be inspired by the bible if I do not believe god is Yahweh.

Correct?

Exactly.

Beauty is not anything I like it to be, or need it to be for the purpose of a debate.

If reality consists of opinions, they become substantial.

Isn't this a thread with beauty in the title? Beauty is also an opinion.

Actually, I think if it was discovered that cannibalism is beneficial to intelligence, there would be a very practical reason to eat people.

As for the scientific method, We haven't always had it, And it is not always practical to employ.

 

The peanut butter and the beautiful music in question, have an objective standing for both individuals in reality, it is the subjective reaction to the stimuli which varies, not the denial of their existence. With the concept of God, there is no objective 'God' stimuli in reality for the individual.

The crucial difference is we can both look at a flower and describe the beautiful aspects of it. For God, particularly of description in the bible, we have to rely on the words of millennia old text, from a culture that is long gone and had extremely different culture in regards to technology, infrastructure, medicine, etc.

 

I don't define god as beauty. When I want to use the word beauty, I say beauty. saying god just confuses people who haven't been told that your use of "god" is as a synonym for "beauty". Interesting to think about 1) Why you redefine the traditional use of the word god to this, and 2) Why you select beauty. What were your steps, how did you think this through, what's your justification.

You redefined god as beauty (a choice that is not common in theology, nor is it common even in new age woo), then you quoted from Genesis with the intent of proving that your definition is sound. I would call that "sneaking in a holy book" for sure. The god in genesis is not anthromoporphized beauty.

You can be inspired by whatever you like, but you cannot take scriptural quotations from a holy book outside the religion/spirituality you profess, as representative of aspects of the religion/spirituality you are professing.

It would be like me saying that for me, God is a game of hide and seek, and then quoting from the Quran "And on that day ye will be exposed, not a secret of you will be hidden" (69:18), as though what I decided in my mind just now was somehow connected to a verse from the Quran, a religion which most assuredly does not propose that God is a game of hide and seek.

Agree, and if pigs could fly . . . I don't see your point. There is still no redemption of faith because the person who dreamt up the scientific method, had faith. No more than we should all drop LSD all day, because psychedelic experiences helped Crick to uncover the double helix structure of DNA.

LOL. "And as for lightbulbs, heating, and medicine, we haven't always had them". As though that in any way imparts upon their utility or value in any way shape or form. We also didn't always have the knowledge that the earth was round and orbited the sun, do you dismiss those facts as somehow petty?

I'd love to hear you give me an example of when the scientific method is not practical to employ. No doubt you'd be hard pressed to give me an example of when faith is not practical to employ, given that it only and always results in the loveliest of human idea snowflakes.

 

I can see how this could be confusing. It is my personal opinion that thoughts are physical phenomena, as is everything else.

Most people think of thoughts like they think of souls. I think of thoughts as something like gravity.

To me, Saying something exists as a concept is very different than saying something does not exist.

You and I speculating about a flowers beauty is still anecdotal. Allegorical.

If you cant find an allegory in 1500 pages of ancient literature I don't know where you will find it.

If someone cant distinguish what words are being used it a different way, then they are already confused.

Perplexity and bewilderment are also in the eye of the beholder.

1. Because the function of beauty and the traditional function of god are the same. They are practical in the same way. You have already made your own example.

You say that "god inspired the writers of the bible". Ok, but you also defined god as "beauty". So this means that "beauty inspired the writers of the bible". Well, beauty also inspired Hitler to write Mein Kampf; that is, his perception of the beauty of himself, his struggle, and future of his proud peoples.
2. I choose beauty because its easy to think about. Its easy on the eyes :daisy:

I have not redefined anything that has already been adequately defined.

I quoted genesis 1:1 because a "genesis" is the origin of something. The source, the start, and the beginning of something creative like the creation of the heavens and the earth.

The inspiration someone might need to keep reading, perhaps.

I mean it might as well read: "In the beginning, something practical happened".

The bible is my source of inspiration whether you like it or not.

Saying "You cant do that" isn't really an argument.....Because yes, I am doing it.

A religion is not a living and breathing organism that can propose things. Only people do that.

The hundreds of thousands of religious denominations are evidence enough that people do not interpret the Bible, the Quran, or any other religious text the same way.

Thats just how it is.

Well I am not here to tell you what you should do. Just that there is a path, a journey and a destination to things that you can do.

Obviously there is something about the scientific method that is not inhibited by folks that choose to pray to a god. Just like there was something about Crick and his LSD usage that did not prevent his discovery.

Those facts are as petty as you'd like them to be. I'm sure people are getting along just fine today believing the world is flat, and it doesn't really bother me at all.

Well, to hear me give an example i'm going to need your phone number. Now use the scientific method to determine whether you're going to give it to me or not.

And of coarse its easy to give an example of when faith can be employed....Why do you think its so prevalent?

Anyone can determine for themselves what constitutes adequate proof because different people are satisfied by different things.

 

Thoughts may be physical but that does not mean the concepts of the thoughts are physical. I can think that All Cats are flying around in the clouds right now, that doesn't make this so. I can think the Devil is fashion, meanness and vegetables... That does not make all these things infused with any actual existing Devil and leaves a lot of room for misinterpretations, none of which are probably very useful or could not be expressed in a less ambiguous way.

 

Abstraction can be used to expose brilliant truths and patterns.

Or;

Abstraction can be used to camouflage complete horseshit and allow for just about any apologist crap and you might want to spew, or meaningless pseudo-intellectual connections or analogies you might want to draw.

 

People see messages from god in their soup all the time. They see Jesus on pieces of toast, and phrases like "The devil wears Prada" can ring very true with enough context.

Saying "Cats are flying around in the clouds right now" is very different than saying "God is flying around in the clouds right now". Cat is a very well understood symbol which represents an animal with attributes and physiology which can be measured. The essence of god, and beauty is fundamentally different than that.

You're absolutely right. Because 'thinking' something about an object does not change that object. If you thought those things, the Devil would actually exist within you.

Misinterpretation is only possible if something is meant to be interpreted a certain way.

The possibility of being right is only valid if there is also a possibility of being wrong.

And we can settle situations like this through inquiry, the scientific method, or if its a person, just ask. Vegetables do not have intentions as far as I know. There can be many motivations behind meanness, and fashion is another one of those things where people do what they like with it.

And to make matters worse, how many people really know themselves? How do you explain a creative work if you don't know the artist? How are we to be sure that the artist knows himself?

Room for misinterpretation is exactly what we need more of.

Brilliant truths, and patterns abound. But there is none of the ladder here. I actually feel quite clever in some of the things I've posted.

 

It's a phenomena called pareidolia, it happens with other non-religious inspired perceptions as well. You may see Jesus here or be an apologist for the people who do but it's a dog's butthole.

 

Another example:

 

And this is a canvas with paint on it.

 

Another example: