The hiddenness of God

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Ekim,

I think within many religions there is a recognition that much of the conflict and lack of peace in the world derives from egocentric or self centred humans and that this can be overcome by submitting to a (non human) higher power.  The initiators of those religions lived at a time when probably very few people could say 'my life seems to work pretty well' and they discovered a way of fostering an inner well being without the desire for what promotes self righteousness, self seeking, self centred life styles.  Some advocate submitting to a God, as Abrahamic religions do and some have other views as the following quotes show.  One of the problems with organised religions is that there have been 'self' centred leaders creating 'self' centred theologies.

Socrates ......  Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning.   Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being.
Swami Ramdas [a Hindu Bhakta] The changing mind of man cannot be satisfied permanently with anything.  What he likes at one time, he does not like at another.  What he wants now, he does not want later.  The only way for a man to be always happy is to submit to God's will, and leaving everything to Him, be content with the condition in which He places him.  From changing circumstances we cannot get real happiness.  Happiness lies within .... Surrender means inner contentment and peace.
Sri Ramana Maharshi  [a Hindu sage]  It is enough that one surrenders one's self.  Surrender is to give oneself up to the original cause of one's being.  Do not delude yourself by imagining such source to be some God outside you.  One's source is within oneself.  Give your self up to it.  That means you should seek the source and merge in it.

But surely the point of irrealism is that there is no "non-human higher power" to submit to isn't it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

To put it bluntly (as it seems to me), it's a way of making old skeletons dance.

Nice phrase! And yes, that's how it seems to me too. 

A great deal has been invested in the Christian belief system, personally and socially. It is still a source for good in many ways. But for those who no longer believe, but feel that they want to belong to some social group or other, and maybe do something good in the world via group activity, then attaching the label 'god' to the focus of their efforts is a way of prolonging the life of such religious systems.

Yes, it smacks to me of "OK, all that religious facts stuff is clearly a busted flush now but if we can't hold the line on that any more, maybe there's some way we can salvage something from it for the feels?".

However, the Christian God who, beyond space and time, brought the universe into being, and who became incarnate in Jesus and went on to die for our sins - this non-realist 'god' sure ain't that at all.

Well no. As I understand it, the irrealist "god" is a label you attach to the way you'd live if there was a god, only there isn't one. Or something. But then it seems to me you've just shifted the problem sideways - what is it about this god that, if it was real, would enable you to live a better life? How would you decide? If you're a loving person anyway presumably you'd live your life as if there was a loving god; if you're a hating person, you'd live your life as if there was a hateful god etc. What then does the notion "god" bring to the party?   

[ekim]

Hi Ekim,

But surely the point of irrealism is that there is no "non-human higher power" to submit to isn't it?

Then those who believe in the concept of irrealism will live their lives accordingly.  All I am saying is that perhaps for many people, in order to overcome an egocentric or self centred driven lifestyle they find it easier to do so by submitting to a non-human higher power, real or imagined.  Unfortunately there are pitfalls, like fatalism, High Priests, autocrats and dictators using  indoctrination as a means of control.  There is an interesting article which has appeared on the BBC site today ..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/spirituality

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Then those who believe in the concept of irrealism will live their lives accordingly.  All I am saying is that perhaps for many people, in order to overcome an egocentric or self centred driven lifestyle they find it easier to do so by submitting to a non-human higher power, real or imagined.  Unfortunately there are pitfalls, like fatalism, High Priests, autocrats and dictators using  indoctrination as a means of control.  There is an interesting article which has appeared on the BBC site today ..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/spirituality

But the problem with that surely is that, if they don't think any of these possible gods actually exist, they have no reference for something to submit to. Do they look to supposedly "holy" books, to philosophy, to fiction, to whatever pops into their heads, to what?

However vulnerable to reason the claims of religious literalists might be they at least have something(s) they can argue (however badly) to be real on which they can hang their various hats as the objects that will guide the way they live their lives. The irrealists on the other hand have at best - according to their own beliefs - competing works of fiction to choose from, or perhaps whatever they choose to make up that suits the purpose. Again, I fail to see what calling these various fictional characters "god" brings to the way they live their lives in any case. What's the point of it?   

[SusanDoris]

Then those who believe in the concept of irrealism will live their lives accordingly.  All I am saying is that perhaps for many people, in order to overcome an egocentric or self centred driven lifestyle they find it easier to do so by submitting to a non-human higher power, real or imagined.  Unfortunately there are pitfalls, like fatalism, High Priests, autocrats and dictators using  indoctrination as a means of control.  There is an interesting article which has appeared on the BBC site today ..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/spirituality

Interesting article, I listened to all the comments. It is such a great pity that nearly all of them seem to see an inextricable link between spirituality and religious beliefs. This view is, as far as I can see, pervasive and should be challenged at every point.
every human being is spiritual to a greater or lesser degree, since all humans have imagination, and, as I am wont to say, I defy anyone to say that atheists are not spiritual.

[savillerow]

SD years ago I thought i would play the "spiritual"name game to my brain but in the end i stopped using it because ive never once heard or read anything that defines "spiritual". Another religious nonsense word im afraid IMO.

[ekim]

ekim,

But the problem with that surely is that, if they don't think any of these possible gods actually exist, they have no reference for something to submit to. Do they look to supposedly "holy" books, to philosophy, to fiction, to whatever pops into their heads, to what?

However vulnerable to reason the claims of religious literalists might be they at least have something(s) they can argue (however badly) to be real on which they can hang their various hats as the objects that will guide the way they live their lives. The irrealists on the other hand have at best - according to their own beliefs - competing works of fiction to choose from, or perhaps whatever they choose to make up that suits the purpose. Again, I fail to see what calling these various fictional characters "god" brings to the way they live their lives in any case. What's the point of it?   

As regards your last question, the only answer I can tentatively give is based upon the origin of the word 'god', which if I remember correctly is 'that which is to be invoked'.  This means that anything or quality can be a god and subject to worship (given our whole hearted attention).  In order to focus attention on the desired result, objective or quality it was probably easier to personify it in order to sharpen and sustain that focus.  If you desire wealth or riches then Mammon was your god.  If you desired qualities like power, love, strength, peace, protection, immortality etc., there was a god for it to focus the attention upon.  The Abrahamic (One) God is different in that it has all qualities e.g. YHWH-Yireh  ... God the provider, YHWH-Rapha  ...  God the healer,  YHWH-Shalom  ... God our peace. There are the so called 99 names of God in the Qur'an which appear to be basically attributes and the Christian 'God is Love'.  In days gone by, it was perhaps discovered that it was easier to unify tribes if there was one god to worship rather than each tribe having its own god.  Today you can see the same kind (but perhaps more ego driven) of worship of celebrities and the use of the term 'role models'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ekim,

As regards your last question, the only answer I can tentatively give is based upon the origin of the word 'god', which if I remember correctly is 'that which is to be invoked'.  This means that anything or quality can be a god and subject to worship (given our whole hearted attention).  In order to focus attention on the desired result, objective or quality it was probably easier to personify it in order to sharpen and sustain that focus.  If you desire wealth or riches then Mammon was your god.  If you desired qualities like power, love, strength, peace, protection, immortality etc., there was a god for it to focus the attention upon.  The Abrahamic (One) God is different in that it has all qualities e.g. YHWH-Yireh  ... God the provider, YHWH-Rapha  ...  God the healer,  YHWH-Shalom  ... God our peace. There are the so called 99 names of God in the Qur'an which appear to be basically attributes and the Christian 'God is Love'.  In days gone by, it was perhaps discovered that it was easier to unify tribes if there was one god to worship rather than each tribe having its own god.  Today you can see the same kind (but perhaps more ego driven) of worship of celebrities and the use of the term 'role models'.

All very nice no doubt for those who like that sort if thing, but it still misses the central problem: I can “invoke” anything I like - a hamburger that never runs out, a pet unicorn, a holiday on a desert island with Felicity Kendall, you name it. So what though? What does calling any of these things “god” bring to the desire for any of them to be true? I might for example choose to call myself a “never-ending hamburger irrealist” if I was so inclined, but it seems to me that calling it “god” instead is to freight it with significance it hasn’t earned.

What then is the point of the re-branding exercise of religious irrealism?   

[ekim]

Ekim,

All very nice no doubt for those who like that sort if thing, but it still misses the central problem: I can “invoke” anything I like - a hamburger that never runs out, a pet unicorn, a holiday on a desert island with Felicity Kendall, you name it. So what though? What does calling any of these things “god” bring to the desire for any of them to be true? I might for example choose to call myself a “never-ending hamburger irrealist” if I was so inclined, but it seems to me that calling it “god” instead is to freight it with significance it hasn’t earned.

What then is the point of the re-branding exercise of religious irrealism?

If you think you can invoke the things you have mentioned and that they will enhance your life then the thing to do is try it.  Keeeeep praying!  You could start by joining the other acolytes in the Felicity Kendall fan club.  If you are deemed worthy you might get your desired holiday.  However, the major religions tend to be about invoking the inner qualities I mentioned in my last post so that the individual is transformed by those qualities and lives in tune with whatever he/she believes is the source of those qualities.  As regards your last question, I don't really know about the rebranding exercise and only have a passing interest in '-isms' so that I can avoid them.  If realism is taken to mean the sensible world of matter and energy then a number of religions have words or expressions which vaguely point beyond that state.  The Old Testament have two words translated as 'God'.  One is Elohim  which I believe can be loosely translated as 'the powers that be' and the tetragrammaton YHVH which can be translated as 'He is being'.  All very vague and irreal.  If there is a rebranding exercise, it might be in deference to the 2nd Commandment about not creating terrestrial nor subconscious images e.g. concepts of the inconceivable or trying to describe the absolute in relative terms.