Thread: God does not go where he is not wanted Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029267
Posted by Cameron PM (# 18142) on
:
How true is that? A wayfaring priest said that to me a while ago, that somehow a God that is everywhere does not go where he is not wanted.
Is this true, or am I just being duped?
[ 14. August 2015, 01:40: Message edited by: Cameron PM ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Depends on what he meant. If he was speaking literally, it's nonsense, as there is nowhere God is not, even in hell. If he was speaking metaphorically ("God respects the free will of people and does not force himself upon those who reject him"), well, that's mostly true (there are a few exceptions, and then there's Judgment Day....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
"Going" involves not being somewhere then being there at some later point in time. God is not in time nor in space. God doesn't "go" anywhere because God does not have a location (or locations) in the space-time continuum.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I should add that I have heard this kind of language used to attack public schools for not having school-led prayer, or not teaching certain religious dogmas as part of the curriculum, or being accepting of LGBT people, and so forth. The implication being that the schools have "kicked out" God and God will now turn them over to their just punishment by abandoning them.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cameron PM:
How true is that? A wayfaring priest said that to me a while ago, that somehow a God that is everywhere does not go where he is not wanted.
Is this true, or am I just being duped?
May I ask why you believe there is a God there in the first place? (This is a genuine question, not a put-down or anything.)
When I was a child, I understood from my parents' belief that of course God wasn't watching everyone all the time, but was there to help those who help themselves. Continuing on through life and finding that it didn't do that either, my belief evaporated!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I on longer believe in God as a person (or three persons as some say) although the words are often useful as metaphors/descriptions as we think in 'people' language.
I think God is in and through absolutely everything, there isn't anywhere that God isn't. God is that which holds the whole caboodle together.
Not wanting, not recognising God isn't going to change that.
Myself, I am tired of God and want nothing to do with him/her/it, but that won't change the way things are either.
(Not true, of course, as I keep coming back to talk about him/her/it!)
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I on longer believe in God as a person (or three persons as some say) although the words are often useful as metaphors/descriptions as we think in 'people' language.
I think God is in and through absolutely everything, there isn't anywhere that God isn't. God is that which holds the whole caboodle together.
Not wanting, not recognising God isn't going to change that.
Myself, I am tired of God and want nothing to do with him/her/it, but that won't change the way things are either.
(Not true, of course, as I keep coming back to talk about him/her/it!)
That sounds very similar to my position. Not an atheist. Have a very strong sense that there is something more than what we see and that this matters hugely but very jaded by the ridiculousness that is humans trying to cram the divine into 'thou shalts' and 'thou shalt nots'.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The God of Ps 139 is much how I,ve experienced it, give or take a couple of verses.
Still more of an atheist than a religious nutter I, like posters above, find it almost impossible to completely dissociate with God dispite all the 'ridiculousness'.
I don't claim to speak for anyone else or anything else, yet personally would say God does withhold His/ Her gifts if I wilfully ignore, or turn away from Him/Her.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I understood from my parents' belief that of course God wasn't watching everyone all the time, but was there to help those who help themselves. Continuing on through life and finding that it didn't do that either, my belief evaporated!
You don't believe in God because your parents didn't understand Him? Seems a bit of a shame.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
My experience is that God is everywhere. Whether or not you experience God in locations is up to you.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I no longer believe in God as a person (or three persons as some say) although the words are often useful as metaphors/descriptions as we think in 'people' language.
Nice post - very sensible, in my opinion, especially as the world runs as it does within our solar system, the galaxy and the universe, whether humans believe a god is involved or not. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
I think God is in and through absolutely everything, there isn't anywhere that God isn't. God is that which holds the whole caboodle together.
Whatever it was that caused the start of the universe, then calling it by a name like God, or a singularity, doesn’t alter that cause; and of course that is still something which has to remain under the heading ‘we don’t know enough yet to be able to say with certainty’. quote:
Not wanting, not recognising God isn't going to change that.
And adding in God adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. quote:
Myself, I am tired of God and want nothing to do with him/her/it, but that won't change the way things are either.
Agree. I was tired of him/her/it long ago, recognising its total lack of ability to do anything. I hope that my small contributions to, e.g., the BHA will help in some small way to tip the balance so that belief in it becomes a minority view. quote:
(Not true, of course, as I keep coming back to talk about him/her/it!)
It is certainly an interesting subject , is an integral part of history, knowledge of which enables each generation to learn more about how humans behave.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
That sounds very similar to my position. Not an atheist. Have a very strong sense that there is something more than what we see …
Do you think this is because of your childhood and the prevailing way of things at the time. It was for me. quote:
…and that this matters hugely but very jaded by the ridiculousness that is humans trying to cram the divine into 'thou shalts' and 'thou shalt nots'.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
My experience is that God is everywhere. Whether or not you experience God in locations is up to you.
Pretty much my view. If you won't talk to God, or listen for God, he might as well not be there.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I understood from my parents' belief that of course God wasn't watching everyone all the time, but was there to help those who help themselves. Continuing on through life and finding that it didn't do that either, my belief evaporated!
You don't believe in God because your parents didn't understand Him? Seems a bit of a shame.
On the contrary, my parents retained their belief in God and my father in particular was convinced he had a hot line to god!My lack of belief was entirely my own idea as a result of education, life's experiences and, even more in later years, the increasing wealth of scientific facts
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
My experience is that God is everywhere. Whether or not you experience God in locations is up to you.
Pretty much my view. If you won't talk to God, or listen for God, he might as well not be there.
I wonder - can you pinpoint what it is that defines the difference you believe is made by God?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
O dear - I find myself empathising with other posters on this thread. Despite being a paid-up member of the C of E (and a BSM* to boot), I find it very hard indeed to believe in the tiny, grumpy, and vengeful god (note the lower-case g) peddled by my fellow-believers.
If god exists (and I truly believe he/she/it does), then he/she/it is everywhere (however large or infinite that might be).
I hope I'm not breaking any copyright if I quote from that very wise and sensible member of the C of E, Richard Hooker (1554-1600):
'....our soundest knowledge is to know that we know [God] not indeed as he is, neither can know him.....his glory is inexplicable, his greatness above our capacity and reach. He is above, and we upon earth; therefore it behoveth our words to be wary and few.'
O how I wish 'Christian' ministers and preachers would heed those words......
(*BSM - C of E Lay Reader aka Blue-Scarfed Menace, or A Thorn In The Vicar's Side).
Ian J.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder - can you pinpoint what it is that defines the difference you believe is made by God?
I know you didn't ask me. But for me the answer is that at the bottom of everything is God. So I don't feel alone even when I am alone, even after death there is God and God is Good.
I know this could well be wishful thinking, but I haven't shaken it off yet.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Luke says that Simon Peter's first words to Jesus were "Depart from me". Jesus didn't.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
There's a notion that God withdrew in order to make space for his creation.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I want Him. He's here. I'm still alone, weak, ignorant. Like everyone else. That's OK.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder - can you pinpoint what it is that defines the difference you believe is made by God?
I know you didn't ask me. But for me the answer is that at the bottom of everything is God. So I don't feel alone even when I am alone, even after death there is God and God is Good.
I know this could well be wishful thinking, but I haven't shaken it off yet.
Thank you - I always like reading what you write.
I can't think of anything to add just at the moment.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder - can you pinpoint what it is that defines the difference you believe is made by God?
From a practical standpoint, the difference that God being there makes is that it reminds me that I am not God and I am not in charge. That relieves me of the need to judge events and people, including myself. It also reminds me that I am only in charge of doing the best I can and that the outcome is not up to me. Frankly, that I do not need to attach to the outcome, or how people feel about me.
From a very personal viewpoint; having had the experience of God being there at a time when I thought I had sunk as low as a human could get let me know that I am still loved even as I am imperfect and have a less than perfect history.
Knowing God loves me as an imperfect person leads me back again to knowing that I need not judge any other person. As in the Lord's Prayer, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
You need not have my experience.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cameron PM:
wayfaring priest
Tangential, but what do you mean by a wayfaring priest? It sounds like one of those Medieval rogues who seduce widows and steal all the sausages.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's a notion that God withdrew in order to make space for his creation.
As Irving Welsh puts it in The Acid House quote:
Nietsche was wrong. I'm not dead. I just couldn't be bothered
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's a notion that God withdrew in order to make space for his creation.
Isn't that from Plotinus?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's a notion that God withdrew in order to make space for his creation.
Isn't that from Plotinus?
I thought it was from one or more of the mystics and I had to look up Plotinus because I don't think I've come across him before - his ideas strike me as heretical exscept insofar as there elements of (Eastern) Orthodoxy that have adapted some of his ideas.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Simone Weil was a big fan of the idea.
I thought Plotinus was more of an "overflowing" kind of guy, but I'd be happy to be disabused....
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Wow, so much that I can't empathise with here (and certainly feel rather uncomfortable with people who identify as Christians saying it).
I see God hovering over the waters of people* all the time, whether they have invited God in or not. To me it's very sad that people either choose to ignore God's presence (either around them, the presence of the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, or the presence of the Person of Christ in the Bible and being alive today) or cannot sense it. God's immanence is a huge part of how I see and otherwise sense God.
*the waters in the Bible symbolising chaos, so God hovering over people in their chaos
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's a notion that God withdrew in order to make space for his creation.
Isn't that from Plotinus?
I thought it was from one or more of the mystics and I had to look up Plotinus because I don't think I've come across him before - his ideas strike me as heretical exscept insofar as there elements of (Eastern) Orthodoxy that have adapted some of his ideas.
It's an idea in Kabbalism.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'm almost sure, at any rate, that the "God withdrawing himself" thing is in the Kabbala.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
It is - Lurianic kabbalism. It's not intended to be interpreted literally.
(ETA - the doctrine is called tzimtzum, or similar)
[ 14. August 2015, 22:19: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It is - Lurianic kabbalism. It's not intended to be interpreted literally.
But of course. It can't be taken literally because God is not physically extended, that he might contract.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's a notion that God withdrew in order to make space for his creation.
Isn't that from Plotinus?
I thought it was from one or more of the mystics and I had to look up Plotinus because I don't think I've come across him before - his ideas strike me as heretical exscept insofar as there elements of (Eastern) Orthodoxy that have adapted some of his ideas.
Strictly speaking, he can't be heretical, because he wasn’t a Christian. He was a Platonist. He was however, a big influence on Christian mystical and theological thought.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Well, neo-Platonist. His ideas also turn up in Jewish mysticism.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, neo-Platonist. His ideas also turn up in Jewish mysticism.
We call him a neo-Platonist, but that's an anachronism. He probably wouldn't have seen himself in those terms.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder - can you pinpoint what it is that defines the difference you believe is made by God?
From a practical standpoint, the difference that God being there makes is that it reminds me that I am not God and I am not in charge. That relieves me of the need to judge events and people, including myself. It also reminds me that I am only in charge of doing the best I can and that the outcome is not up to me. Frankly, that I do not need to attach to the outcome, or how people feel about me.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. That sounds like an eminently sensible and useful philosophy! Have you ever considered taking it a step further and giving yourself, being the person with the evolved brain who has, in fact, done all the thinking required, the credit for the conclusions you have come to and the decisions you have made? quote:
From a very personal viewpoint; having had the experience of God being there at a time when I thought I had sunk as low as a human could get let me know that I am still loved even as I am imperfect and have a less than perfect history.
I can well understand that. When I was young and had to get myself through and out of a very difficult situation, I already knew that, although I believed in a God, it wasn’t going to actually do anything to help! I was not alone, though, but had two children who needed my care. quote:
Knowing God loves me as an imperfect person leads me back again to knowing that I need not judge any other person. As in the Lord's Prayer, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
You need not have my experience.
It sounds as if you have gained courage and strength by all that you have learnt from your difficult experiences. Age and maturity certainly help to refine our opinions!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It is - Lurianic kabbalism. It's not intended to be interpreted literally.
(ETA - the doctrine is called tzimtzum, or similar)
I always wonder if Simone Weil got her ideas about God's withdrawal from Kabbalah, as they are rather similar, and she was Jewish.
But she has the nice idea of a double kind of withdrawal or negation. Thus, God withdraws, to permit creation to take place, but then if I withdraw (or negate myself), God is found again.
This is curiously like some Eastern ideas, e.g. 'neither I nor the world exist' (Zen), which don't take you to God, since they don't do that, but to a kind of pleroma, I suppose, which is as near as dammit.
Tzimtzum is fascinating, but Google covers it OK. One of the interesting aspects of it is that the divine withdrawal leads to a 'conceptual space', which is intelligible, and thus helpful to humans and other intelligent life, e.g. ants. Again, this is curiously like some Buddhist ideas, but then, I guess that the 'perennial philosophy' pops up all over the place.
I forgot to say that these ideas have been used to counter the notion of divine hiddenness, since God's withdrawal appears to conceal God, although this is a kind of illusion. I am the one who is hidden!
[ 15. August 2015, 09:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm almost sure, at any rate, that the "God withdrawing himself" thing is in the Kabbala.
Yes - thank you - that's much more likly to be wherfeI got the idea from.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
I’m right up there with Boogie and Macrina, and nine tenths of the time with Susan. Not a Theist by any manner of means, but not an Atheist because of the Something Else, some thing other than the physical creation. It’s been called God and given all sorts of attributes, most of which I can’t accept, but the I find life of Jesus illuminating. And as God, it’s worshipped with prescribed words and rituals, some beautiful, many irrelevant from my point of view.
Belonging to a ‘religious organisation’, according to a report in this morning’s paper, is the only social activity associated with sustained happiness, ahead of volunteering/charity work, taking educational courses, or participating in a political or community organisation.
‘It’s not clear to us,’ says the report,‘how much this is about religion per se, or whether it may be about the sense of belonging and not being socially isolated.’ There is something in this, but some posts on SoF make it sound as though churches are not all happy places, and I suspect that Susan Doris is happier than many of their members.
GG
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Certainly not all churches are happy places, GG, but the ship is deliberately a place where we malcontents can sound off. We are not typical, be we theists, atheists or whatever.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I’m right up there with Boogie and Macrina, and nine tenths of the time with Susan. Not a Theist by any manner of means, but not an Atheist because of the Something Else, some thing other than the physical creation. It’s been called God and given all sorts of attributes, most of which I can’t accept, but the I find life of Jesus illuminating. And as God, it’s worshipped with prescribed words and rituals, some beautiful, many irrelevant from my point of view.
I wonder - do you think you could estimate how much space that 'something else' to which you refer takes in your brain? I retained a similar vestigial spot for many years before I realised it was using up a microscopic area that I could fill more usefully!
quote:
There is something in this, but some posts on SoF make it sound as though churches are not all happy places, and I suspect that Susan Doris is happier than many of their members.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I reckon it's genetic make-up and I was lucky with my set of genes!
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Yes but SusanDoris - why does everything have to be useful?
Posted by Cameron PM (# 18142) on
:
I'm thinking that reducing God to a mere "being" is the cause what I was told. He is far more than that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes but SusanDoris - why does everything have to be useful?
Many beautiful things are of no use whatever. But they're still beautiful.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I raise my glass to uselessness.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Yes mousethief and LeRoc, that's what I was getting at. Uselessness is something to be embraced.
Posted by Cameron PM (# 18142) on
:
Thereby making it useful.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cameron PM:
Thereby making it useful.
Word games.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
When I was a child, I understood from my parents' belief that of course God wasn't watching everyone all the time, but was there to help those who help themselves. Continuing on through life and finding that it didn't do that either, my belief evaporated!
There is nothing at all Christian about the notion that 'God helps those who help themselves'. It's a facile platitude redolent of folk religion which you won't find in the Bible. For one thing, it suggests that God is only interested in strong, capable folk who can sort their lives out!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It's also rather silly to think God is "there" for the purpose of tending us. Rather like Santa Claus, as if he had no life of his own!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There is of course the interesting encounter between the risen Jesus and the disciples on the Emmaeus road, which I suppose may reveal something about the Divine intentions.
quote:
28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.
In this particular incident, God the Son remained as he was asked to do, but disappeared when He had accomplished a specific purpose.
Of course all those in this thread who have pointed to the absurdity of limiting God are correct. "God cannot be grasped; if he could he would not be God."[Evagrius of Pontus, from memory]. So I'm not suggesting that Emmaeus provides a general rule. But it may give us an inkling. There is some value to God in our often confused requests to Him that He remains in communion with us. Even if it is only a revealing of our variable ability to be aware of His presence. We are children, learning.
[ 20. August 2015, 06:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? Robert Browning
We can talk and relate to God. One way. He talks and relates back by OUR feeling and thinking. We can do it in parallel play in worship. We can do it person to person, with the strange mixture of positive and negative synergies of that: when that's good, it's very, very good. And when it's mediocre, frustrating, worse ... when there is no 'meeting of minds', no hug ... we still have our inner reach to God.
Is that 'of the Spirit'? What else could be?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
"Only the echoes of my mind"? (Harry Nilsson)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes but SusanDoris - why does everything have to be useful?
Ah, yes, thank you - I can see that 'useful' was not a good choice of words!
Hmmmm, perhaps I should have said something about using the liberated space for more rational thinking about God; or, for thinking beautiful thoughts; or, storage space for tap dancing choreography ....?!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye Barnabas62. What else is there? In my mind? In me? A badly told story of sense data and compressed stories: emotions. Part of the sense data is awareness of the Jesus story, which only recently for me trumps all other God stories. And my invoking God as my counsellor, therapist, friend a letter write away, who can't write back.
I have never experienced magic or transpersonal psychology from another entity. I never will as an obligate aerobe.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Hmmmm, perhaps I should have said something about using the liberated space for more rational thinking about God; or, for thinking beautiful thoughts; or, storage space for tap dancing choreography ....?!
Do we have such limited space, that we must conserve it so? Is thinking about revealed theology in a zero-sum game with thinking about tap dancing choreography? Can I not do both? Will my mind fill up like a hard drive, and not hold any more?
To go back to Isaac Newton, he wrote reams and reams about his wacky personal mysticism, and alchemy, and many other woo-woo subjects, but also formulated the foundational laws of the modern science of motion, and co-invented the calculus, among many other things that any non-axe-grinding atheist would applaud enthusiastically. Somehow, he was able to do both.
I should think that the rest of us, in our much much smaller way, should be able to do both also. Unless you can give me a convincing reason why not?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Hmmmm, perhaps I should have said something about using the liberated space for more rational thinking about God; or, for thinking beautiful thoughts; or, storage space for tap dancing choreography ....?!
Do we have such limited space, that we must conserve it so? Is thinking about revealed theology in a zero-sum game with thinking about tap dancing choreography? Can I not do both? Will my mind fill up like a hard drive, and not hold any more?
What is 'revealed theology'? quote:
To go back to Isaac Newton, he wrote reams and reams about his wacky personal mysticism, and alchemy, and many other woo-woo subjects, but also formulated the foundational laws of the modern science of motion, and co-invented the calculus, among many other things that any non-axe-grinding atheist would applaud enthusiastically. Somehow, he was able to do both.
If he had been an atheist, whether secretly or openly, do you think he would have been unable to work out the practical, mathematical and scientific work he did? What actual difference do you think his mystic-type ideas made? I might suggest they were more of a hindrance than a help! quote:
I should think that the rest of us, in our much much smaller way, should be able to do both also. Unless you can give me a convincing reason why not?
My personal reason is easy - no God/god/s, but no, I doubt I could convince you.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Thought of you after the shower, B62. I could schlepp from Emmaus to Jerusalem and back every day for the rest of my life and Jesus would neither come nor go except in my thinking, regardless of His omnipresence, of the fact that, as the Muslims say, God is as close as our carotids.
I have the stories. I invoke Him present. I invoke - make up - a dialogue. I tell another story. And the more I do, acknowledging the mystery, the more helpful I find it. The more my God-shaped hole is cleared of unhelpful nonsense. Of self-condemnation, shame, fear, delusion, superstition, magical thinking, what-if: Bronze and Iron Age and Modern thinking.
I would not be able to do this but for God going where He was needed 2000 years ago in person and continuing to go after, as before, but with more effect, in the Spirit poured out on all flesh.
[ 21. August 2015, 07:19: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
If he had been an atheist, whether secretly or openly, do you think he would have been unable to work out the practical, mathematical and scientific work he did?
Where did I suggest that? Sorry, you are changing the subject. You spoke as if we had a limited amount of space for thinking, and that freeing up space by not thinking about God would make other things possible. I gave an example of someone who thought about God a lot, and it didn't prevent him from doing science and math. And you turn this into me saying he couldn't have done it if he were an atheist? Excuse me? It begins to look like you are grinding an axe rather than engaging in honest discussion. I hope this is not the case.
quote:
What actual difference do you think his mystic-type ideas made?
I'm not saying there's a difference. I'm saying they didn't prevent him from the science/math.
quote:
I might suggest they were more of a hindrance than a help!
Of course you might. And like so many other things you claim of the same sort, you would have no evidence or argument for it except your own feelings.
quote:
quote:
I should think that the rest of us, in our much much smaller way, should be able to do both also. Unless you can give me a convincing reason why not?
My personal reason is easy - no God/god/s, but no, I doubt I could convince you.
Nice way to make it personal. Not, "I cannot give you a good reason," but "I cannot convince you." Make it my fault.
[ 21. August 2015, 10:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
You can of course argue the reverse - that so far from Newton having his mind clouded by mystical ideas, and he would have done even better science without them, that he was of the kind of personality who looks into many areas of human experience and knowledge. Call it a polymath if you like, but I am sure that some people are like this, and that if you constrict one area of their interests, you do them an injury, psychologically speaking.
Another example is Goethe, who is well known as a poet, painter, scientist, mystic, and also a minister of state. You could argue that his romanticism and mysticism were a hindrance to other stuff, but I would strongly dispute that.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yeah, in their cases more was definitely more.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Whilst not myself being a scientist I always felt, having fallen for religion/faith/spiritualism,(call it what you will), that the two concepts are not diametrically opposed.
If we get into the *thou shalt not's*, and God did or doesn't like that etc. ect. then your average scientist isn't likely going to grant the matter brain time.
Yet when you start dealing in the ultimate wonder of it all, and see someone like Stephen H struggling to fathom the origin of... well... Everything? Then you really start to see science and religion converging. For one to shut it's mind to the other will only ever produce limiting.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0