The alleged objectivity of God

[Shaker]

Following on from some thoughts inspired by the seemingly endless 'Searching for God' thread on the Christian Topic, I'm interested to know why it is that almost universally theists of whatever stripe - predominantly Christians here - insist that God is an objective fact for everyone rather than a personal belief of their own; a God that somehow exists externally to their own human mind instead of there and there alone. There may well be exceptions to this stance - I don't know of any personally but I'm sure they must exist - but none here that I know of. It's almost universal that theists regard the existence of their God as an objective fact which is not just true for them individually, but true for everyone else regardless of whether they accept it or not, as atheists obviously do not.

Now of course it's clear that theists don't regard God as being somehow 'out there' as physical objects in the universe are obviously, demonstrably, investigably out there - the planet Venus; the M42 galaxy; comets and so forth. Nevertheless, almost all theists treat the existence of God - supposedly a supernatural entity not composed of matter-energy as is everything else with which we're familar - as a brute fact true for everyone irrespective of their belief in or acknowledgement of this so-called fact. For a poorly defined and unevidenced entity this is rather surprising to say the least. In what sense and on what warrant do they claim that this is the case? Any theist honest or daring enough to admit that their belief is true for them within the confines of their own cranium gets absolutely no argument from me; it's when this private belief is universalised to apply to everyone that I feel the need to start asking the difficult questions as to what warrant there is for this belief. (The main one is rhetorical as far as I'm concerned - there's absolutely no warrant whatever).

What psychological processes are at work here?

[Leonard James]

Is it not that they are just over credulous?

[Shaker]

Maybe ... but is it as simple as that? Claiming that their belief is objectively true for everyone (whether they acknowledge it or not), rather than just for themselves?

[Rhiannon]

The pagans I've known go for the 'true for me' option, but having once been the other side of the fence I'll have a stab at explaining based on what I've seen.

I think it's a mix of church teaching and experience. For someone of a deep faith such as AB the relationship to God feels so real it's difficult to see that other people don't feel and experience the same thing. If you find the feeling of God's presence coming alive through prayer, church attendance, the sacraments etc then you can't understand why other people don't just do the same thing and get the same feeling. And the reason for wanting them to do that is complicated. On the surface you want them to have the good stuff that you do - peace, joy, support etc. But undoubtedly there is an undercurrent of wanting to be right, and wanting to please God, as AB has told us he feels 'called' to do.

I am basing some of the above on feelings I've had in the past myself. I'm not proud of having them; I'm beyond glad that I don't any longer, not least because it's actually quite a turbulent way to live. Why or where they came from I have no idea but the best way I can describe it looking back is a kind of delusion, even a bad dream. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Leonard James]

Maybe ... but is it as simple as that? Claiming that their belief is objectively true for everyone (whether they acknowledge it or not), rather than just for themselves?

Maybe, as somebody suggested somewhere on another thread, there is a genetic inclination involved. Perhaps in ancient times, god beliefs brought unity and strength to tribes, and so conferred survival advantage.

[Shaker]

The pagans I've known go for the 'true for me' option, but having once been the other side of the fence I'll have a stab at explaining based on what I've seen.

I think it's a mix of church teaching and experience. For someone of a deep faith such as AB the relationship to God feels so real it's difficult to see that other people don't feel and experience the same thing. If you find the feeling of God's presence coming alive through prayer, church attendance, the sacraments etc then you can't understand why other people don't just do the same thing and get the same feeling. And the reason for wanting them to do that is complicated. On the surface you want them to have the good stuff that you do - peace, joy, support etc. But undoubtedly there is an undercurrent of wanting to be right, and wanting to please God, as AB has told us he feels 'called' to do.

In modern times I've seen a good number of very liberal believers talk of religious belief in the same sort of terms as artistic creation; thus they liken it to an appreciation of poetry, or of classical music or something similar.

It's another thing that gets no quibble from me, but I do wonder if the people who say such things have really thought through all the implications of what they're saying. I would have thought it pretty generally acknowledged that the aesthetic sense is a subjective one, the very essence of the "OK, it's true for me as in I happen to like it, but your mileage may vary" approach. I like this, you like that, and by rights nobody ought to argue about this (although they clearly do) as it's a matter of personal preference and individual taste - my marzipan is your rat poison, etc. Fair enough; but is this really how some believers see God?

[Hope]

Following on from some thoughts inspired by the seemingly endless 'Searching for God' thread on the Christian Topic, I'm interested to know why it is that almost universally theists of whatever stripe - predominantly Christians here - insist that God is an objective fact for everyone rather than a personal belief of their own; a God that somehow exists externally to their own human mind instead of there and there alone. There may well be exceptions to this stance - I don't know of any personally but I'm sure they must exist - but none here that I know of. It's almost universal that theists regard the existence of their God as an objective fact which is not just true for them individually, but true for everyone else regardless of whether they accept it or not, as atheists obviously do not.

Shaker, you have picked up on the Christian God in particular here.  Since said God claims to be for the whole of humanity, surely for Christians to refuse to take that as their starting point would be to deny their, and his, very nature.  Does it have to be a psychological issue?

[Hope]

Maybe, as somebody suggested somewhere on another thread, there is a genetic inclination involved. Perhaps in ancient times, god beliefs brought unity and strength to tribes, and so conferred survival advantage.

Tribal religion is somewhat different to a global or even cosmic religion

[Shaker]

Shaker, you have picked up on the Christian God in particular here.

Have I? Seems as though it applies just as easily to Allah.

Since said God claims to be for the whole of humanity, surely for Christians to refuse to take that as their starting point would be to deny their, and his, very nature.  Does it have to be a psychological issue?

Well, yes it does, as I see it. At risk of stating the obvious, what you have identified as a claim is precisely and entirely that - just a claim, with no back-up whatever. So what is it at work in the minds of believers in such a God that they claim universality for it, not least given the absence of any cogent definition for it let alone evidence?

[Leonard James]

Tribal religion is somewhat different to a global or even cosmic religion

Indeed, but surely the latter grew from the former.

[Shaker]

Tribal religion is somewhat different to a global or even cosmic religion

There can only ever be (at the most) a global religion, as Earth is the only planet we know on which the phenomenon of religion occurs.

[Nearly Sane]

Tribal religion is somewhat different to a global or even cosmic religion

Heavy, man! Pass the kouchie.

[Rhiannon]

In modern times I've seen a good number of very liberal believers talk of religious belief in the same sort of terms as artistic creation; thus they liken it to an appreciation of poetry, or of classical music or something similar.

It's another thing that gets no quibble from me, but I do wonder if the people who say such things have really thought through all the implications of what they're saying. I would have thought it pretty generally acknowledged that the aesthetic sense is a subjective one, the very essence of the "OK, it's true for me as in I happen to like it, but your mileage may vary" approach. I like this, you like that, and by rights nobody ought to argue about this (although they clearly do) as it's a matter of personal preference and individual taste - my marzipan is your rat poison, etc. Fair enough; but is this really how some believers see God?

For pagans, from those I've talked to it's a case of 'I experience this, it feels real but I know it might not be'. That's why they go for 'true for me'; personal experience is, well, personal.

I don't really think it fits with the Christian God as such. But where most liberals I know come from is the 'through a glass darkly' approach; it isn't so much that God is 'true for them' as 'not true for anyone' because it's so hard to pin down. So then I guess it comes down to what each individual gets glimpses of.

[Shaker]

For pagans, from those I've talked to it's a case of 'I experience this, it feels real but I know it might not be'. That's why they go for 'true for me'; personal experience is, well, personal.

Certainly something I've heard multiple times from Owlswing rather than Alan Burns, for example.

[Rhiannon]

Certainly something I've heard multiple times from Owlswing rather than Alan Burns, for example.

Ht says the same. It's why a lot of pagans don't talk in terms of belief, but if having experiences.

[Hope]

Certainly something I've heard multiple times from Owlswing rather than Alan Burns, for example.

But Paganism has never been claimed as of singular being.  It offers, by its very nature, a variety of possibilities.

[Shaker]

But Paganism has never been claimed as of singular being.  It offers, by its very nature, a variety of possibilities.

Indeed. But claims of a singular being apply to Islam, to Judaism, to Sikhism as well as Christianity.

[Hope]

Indeed. But claims of a singular being apply to Islam, to Judaism, to Sikhism as well as Christianity.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning a singular entity - my fault.  I was thinking along the lines of a 'one-for all' concept.  After all, the other faiths you refer to have historically been tribal/national faiths, which Christianity has never been.

[Leonard James]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning a singular entity - my fault.  I was thinking along the lines of a 'one-for all' concept.  After all, the other faiths you refer to have historically been tribal/national faiths, which Christianity has never been.

But surely it stemmed from one individual of a tribal faith.

[Khatru]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning a singular entity - my fault.  I was thinking along the lines of a 'one-for all' concept.  After all, the other faiths you refer to have historically been tribal/national faiths, which Christianity has never been.

Christianity is Judaism livened up with a healthy dollop of imported paganism.  The dying then rising god being a case in point.

[Jack Knave]

What psychological processes are at work here?

I would flag up Jung here, and the Unconscious, which is where all this god stuff comes from.

The Unconscious is universal and so, therefore for the theist, is their God. Through projection of the Unconscious this 'God' is viewed as being everywhere and all things etc. etc. and for all people, which the Unconscious is.

[Dicky Underpants]

If you look up Rabbi Hillel and the golden rule you will see what I mean

I've heard some suggest that Jesus may have come from Hillel's 'school'. Don't know if the dates correlate.

I like the anecdote about Hillel being asked to sum up the whole of the Torah while standing on one leg: "What is harmful to you, do not do to your neighbour - all the rest is commentary. Go and study."

[Jack Knave]

I've heard some suggest that Jesus may have come from Hillel's 'school'. Don't know if the dates correlate.

I like the anecdote about Hillel being asked to sum up the whole of the Torah while standing on one leg: "What is harmful to you, do not do to your neighbour - all the rest is commentary. Go and study."

What if I self harm, does that mean I can harm other people?

What if I'm suicidal can I kill everyone else?

[Hope]

I've heard some suggest that Jesus may have come from Hillel's 'school'. Don't know if the dates correlate.

IIRC, Hillel's hey-day predates Jesus by 70-odd years.

I like the anecdote about Hillel being asked to sum up the whole of the Torah while standing on one leg: "What is harmful to you, do not do to your neighbour - all the rest is commentary. Go and study."

And, in a way, that would be the problem with the idea that Jesus came from Hillel's 'school'.  Jesus has gone far beyond that rather simplistic summing up.  In fact, many of the 'whitened sepulchres' Jesus lambasts had.

[Hope]

Christianity is Judaism livened up with a healthy dollop of imported paganism.  The dying then rising god being a case in point.

The problem with this suggestion, Khat is that the 'dying and then rising' bit existed within Judaism several centuries before Christ - so its importation must have been extremely slow-burning