What’s So Special About the Word “God”
Andrew Sullivan has been posting for the last couple weeks on a news article that talked about scientists who identified a chemical in hallucinogenic mushrooms that can trigger spiritual feelings. Much of the discussion that followed focused on the differences between scientific and spiritual interpretations. It’s made for really great reading as many of Sully’s atheist and scientifically inclined readers have made there opinions known.
Sully closed out today’s edition with is note:
But what if the universe being conscious of itself is a workable definition of God? In which case, we are indeed made in the image of God but our consciousness is limited by our humanity, by the “fall”. I find far less conflict between these spiritual experiences and the religions that feel threatened by them than others do.
Okay seriously, what is the deal with the word “god” that everyone is so attached to? I mean how many different and new ways to define god are out there.
God is “love”.
God is “nature”.
What about “the universe”? Couldn’t that be god?
Well… no. We already have perfectly fine words for those… “love”, “nature”, and “the universe”. Why do we need to call those things god too?
Do people realize that by being so quick to call anything and everything god, that the word god loses any and all semblance of meaning and explanatory power. I’m pretty sure that a conscious universe is not what Christians pray to at church, or what Hindus pray to in temple. Why are some people so contented with such a nebulous and ambiguous definition of what “god” is.
It seems that “god” is less a noun and more of a… a fraternity pin. A kind of badge that you wear to symbolize that you’re part of a group. Or the password needed to enter an exclusive club.
“I believe in ‘god’ so I’m like you”. Nevermind what that “god” actually is or how radically and exclusively different it is from anyone elses picture of “god”. You said the right words so you’re okay.
panentheism thinks that God is everywhere and in and through everything. this is opposed to pantheism which is ‘God is the earth, or the subjective’ with no transcendence. also it counters classic theism which states God is only transcendent and takes no part in day to day interactions of people.
the fraternity pin style would be more classic theism. pantheism is pagan, not bad, but not fully cooked IMHO. panentheism is the stuff of the mystics. and i’m right there with ‘em.
I’ve met people who have tried to get me to admit belief in some aspect of god.. I’ve insisted I don’t believe in anything, but that I love people and life… and they will imediately say “oh, well that’s god, so you do believe.” And I think, wow what a pathetic attempt to reconcile completely opposing opinions. People love reappropriating words for their own uses, but it’s incorrect. As an atheist, I don’t see words as magical mystical tools to interpret how we like- they have meanings that have been refined over the years, sometimes a little vague when different cultures come up with a parallel but differing concept: god can be a power or force in the universe or an almighty being or a creator… but god cannot be life or nature, because life and nature already have definite descriptors (as you said). Anyway it’s annoying. How much clearer can I be about not believing in a god than saying “i’m an atheist”? If god was just nature, why would anyone need a book about his rules and lessons? The rules of nature are physics, and you can’t break them
“How much clearer can I be about not believing in a god than saying “i’m an atheist”?
-Just thought you’d like the categories… Don’t care what you believe. I do care that you’re informed on what you speak on.
“why would anyone need a book about his rules and lessons?”
-Classic theism question. Pantheism would say you’re right! They would say “God doesn’t need a book and why do you put “he” there when God has no gender?” Lessons we need however. To learn about our world, each other, and to find meaning. Science is find this out too… stating that we are a story people.
Science, IMHO, has forgotten the power of stories and that’s why (well, one of the reasons why) fundamentalism is on the rise. Liberal Christianity and the mystic traditions seem to have forgotten this too and haven’t done a good job of standing up to the fundies either. It’s all stories we tell ourselves in the dark. But note i didn’t say “it’s all just stories…” because i believe the power of story and myth are the most powerful and lasting things on this earth.
I wasn’t replying to you as much as the post itself… and also having a little atheist vent of my own! I agree we need stories, to know about the world and each other- but meaning? As an atheist, possibly leaning towards cheerful nihilism, I don’t want meaning. I don’t need it- I speak for myself, so can’t deny anyone else a thirst for meaning, but I don’t want meaning slapped on top of things I’m perfectly able to deal with at face value. I love stories and they have an important place in my life, but they are stories. I prefer stories to science, but I don’t trust stories like I trust science. If a story tells me a mouse pulled a thorn from a lion’s paw and they became friends, and science tells me lions will either eat or ignore a mouse, I’m going to act according to science’s information and stay away from that lion. Science is not a religion or a movement, it’s a way of studying the world we live in. “Science has forgotten the power of stories” doesn’t mean anything unless you think science is a church that is moving in some direction, and it’s not- just because science happens to be the enemy of religions, doesn’t make it parallel to religion or part of the same category.
I thought it was a rant, but wanted to make sure. The idea of “science has forgotten the power of stories” means a hell of a lot. It is taken from Robert Krulwich’s commencement speech at California Institute of Technology. You can listen to it here. Evidence would be when I asked my confirmands if they had to choose, would they choose Genesis or Evolution. they said Genesis “because it’s easier.”
It made my hair fall out. NOT the right answer.
How exactly is that evidence or anything other than “people like the easy option?”. I’m sure the speech is wonderful but I don’t see how the phrase means any more just because it came out of an important mouth.
I’m sure you’ll have to listen to it to understand the phrase and thus have an informed opinion. If information isn’t your thing, then say so and we’ll leave it at that.