Can we ever be certain the "God" is more than just a philosophy or way of thinking?

[punkdbass]

I must admit, even in my most religious or spiritual times, if you were to ask me at the end of the day whether or not I am certain that my spiritual experiences are indeed with "God" (some sort of external, transcendent, personal, conscious Being who cares about you) rather than just with myself and the universe/nature, I don't think I could ever give you an affirmative yes or no to that question. Lately I've been thinking that it's impossible to ever be certain of such a question.. You could argue that it's irrelevant as to what the true source of your spiritual experiences is, rather what's important is that the transformative power of these experiences is indeed real and pulling you in a positive direction.. but does that trouble or disturb you at all?

Perhaps the answer is simply "no," and that this is where "faith" comes into play, and if so, do you find it disturbing at all to put so much time and energy into beliefs you can never be certain of? Does it make you wonder if there exists a philosophy/way of thinking out there that can be just as meaningful and fulfilling to you as your religion, but does not require the sacrifice of intellectual honesty? I guess then the question becomes whether or not it is more honest to believe in something you can't be certain of, or to not believe in something you can't be convinced is fake.

Yes I realize it obviously depends on how you define "God" but I hope you guys understand the point of my question. Can you ever be certain that your spiritual experiences are indeed with God and not just you interacting with yourself and the natural universe? Do you find this at all troubling? Ironically, although my religious/spiritual search for meaning and truth has brought many blessings to my life, it has also been a great source of anxiety for me. I am constantly torn between 2 paths: pursuing religion and dealing with the anxiety due to uncertainty of the true source of my spiritual experiences, or giving up religion and dealing with the anxiety of living in a universe without any inherent meaning or purpose.

 

[idav]

Yes I realize it obviously depends on how you define "God" but I hope you guys understand the point of my question. Can you ever be certain that your spiritual experiences are indeed with God and not just you interacting with yourself and the natural universe? Do you find this at all troubling? Ironically, although my religious/spiritual search for meaning and truth has brought many blessings to my life, it has also been a great source of anxiety for me. I am constantly torn between 2 paths: pursuing religion and dealing with the anxiety due to uncertainty of the true source of my spiritual experiences, or giving up religion and dealing with the anxiety of living in a universe without any inherent meaning or purpose.

In my view it is a trick question. I have no doubt that we all come from the same source whether you wanna call it god or nature but to me the two are synonymous.

I don't think it is necessary to resort to nihilism. If we have purpose then so does nature, we are proof that nature is intelligent since we are nature.

I try not to let it bother me that there will never be 100% certainty because at some point we can at the very least be certain enough. As long as we are not completely satisfied with an answer it motivates us to continue questioning and exploring.

 

[Quintessence]

I kind of sidestep this entire problem by A) being a pantheist, or not recognizing a distinction between reality and the gods, B) having an ontology that defines reality much more broadly than most in my culture seem to, and C) recognizing and accepting the intrinsic limits to human knowledge and perception.

But that isn't to say I can't relate. In many respects the issue is even more complicated for a polytheist because there's not just one god that is the source of your religious experiences. It could be any number of gods, and how do you know which one it is? There are no hard and fast rules to determine that – at the end of the day, all you can do is trust yourself. If you learn something else later that changes your mind, change your mind. Do what works for you, right now in this exact moment, and don't fret about the infinite tomorrows. So long as the work you are doing is meaningful to you and benefiting your life, roll with it. That's kind of my rule.

 

[arthra]

Philosophy and "thinking" can only go so far in my view... although love of wisdom is necessary.

The heart and soul also have needs...

 

[Onkara]

Excellent question.
I had to come to accept that it was my mind's fate to explore and search endlessly. Whilst there is a mind there will be thoughts, doubts and philosophising. In a way it doesn't make much difference (the doubting and questioning I mean) because it is just going on as God willed the mind to work: the mind doesn't have a lasting choice over that matter because the mind itself is subject to material existence and change. A good hobby can direct the mind more effectively.

So there are ways to step away from it. If asked why one maintains credulity in their choosen path, a reply might be "because I feel good", and feeling good is probably justifiable enough to any skeptic train of thought.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Many people have the capacity to be absolutely and utterly certain about a whole range of things that they have no legitimate reason to be certain of. I used to have a downstairs neighbor who was certain the CIA was after him.

 

[LuisDantas]

Certain? No, no way. Darned certain in a personal sense? You bet.

Although personally, I happen to think that it is too unimportant a question for anyone to worry about what the truth would be.

 

[Straw Dog]

Theology takes us further away as we attempt in vain to cram into categories that which is transcendental. Metaphors work better than metaphysics when it comes to approaching God. Emptying the mind also works rather than shackling it with theological concepts.

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

Well the fact that humans are made in GOD'S Image,and in His likeness. Since we are personal,and relational beings. So is GOD in Whom we live,move,and have are being.

 

[George-ananda]

I must admit, even in my most religious or spiritual times, if you were to ask me at the end of the day whether or not I am certain that my spiritual experiences are indeed with "God" (some sort of external, transcendent, personal, conscious Being who cares about you) rather than just with myself and the universe/nature, I don't think I could ever give you an affirmative yes or no to that question. Lately I've been thinking that it's impossible to ever be certain of such a question.. You could argue that it's irrelevant as to what the true source of your spiritual experiences is, rather what's important is that the transformative power of these experiences is indeed real and pulling you in a positive direction.. but does that trouble or disturb you at all?

Perhaps the answer is simply "no," and that this is where "faith" comes into play, and if so, do you find it disturbing at all to put so much time and energy into beliefs you can never be certain of? Does it make you wonder if there exists a philosophy/way of thinking out there that can be just as meaningful and fulfilling to you as your religion, but does not require the sacrifice of intellectual honesty? I guess then the question becomes whether or not it is more honest to believe in something you can't be certain of, or to not believe in something you can't be convinced is fake.

Yes I realize it obviously depends on how you define "God" but I hope you guys understand the point of my question. Can you ever be certain that your spiritual experiences are indeed with God and not just you interacting with yourself and the natural universe? Do you find this at all troubling? Ironically, although my religious/spiritual search for meaning and truth has brought many blessings to my life, it has also been a great source of anxiety for me. I am constantly torn between 2 paths: pursuing religion and dealing with the anxiety due to uncertainty of the true source of my spiritual experiences, or giving up religion and dealing with the anxiety of living in a universe without an y inherent meaning or purpose.

Yes, I understand your point and you are well-spoken.

My thoughts are that you are coming from a western perspective of dualism (that God and His creation are two things).

In Hinduism there is also strong schools of dualistic thought. But I think for people of higher intellect (such as yourself) one can find problems (like you discuss) with that school of thought. At the risk of sounding elitist, there is a school of thought that goes beyond dualism (called non-dualism; Advaita in Sanskrit). In Advaita thought all is God; creation is a great thought projection of God. Our goal then becomes Self-Realization=God-Realization and the kind of issues you brought up dissolve.

 

[punkdbass]

Yes, I understand your point and you are well-spoken.

My thoughts are that you are coming from a western perspective of dualism (that God and His creation are two things).

In Hinduism there is also strong schools of dualistic thought. But I think for people of higher intellect (such as yourself) one can find problems (like you discuss) with that school of thought. At the risk of sounding elitist, there is a school of thought that goes beyond dualism (called non-dualism; Advaita in Sanskrit). In Advaita thought all is God; creation is a great thought projection of God. Our goal then becomes Self-Realization=God-Realization and the kind of issues you brought up dissolve.

Interesting, I will need to look into that.

Thanks for all the helpful replies guys!

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, I understand your point and you are well-spoken.

My thoughts are that you are coming from a western perspective of dualism (that God and His creation are two things).

In Hinduism there is also strong schools of dualistic thought. But I think for people of higher intellect (such as yourself) one can find problems (like you discuss) with that school of thought. At the risk of sounding elitist, there is a school of thought that goes beyond dualism (called non-dualism; Advaita in Sanskrit). In Advaita thought all is God; creation is a great thought projection of God. Our goal then becomes Self-Realization=God-Realization and the kind of issues you brought up dissolve.

Dear George

In my understanding neither Dvaita or Advaita was considered to be "superior" rather they are both equally authentic schools of Vedanta?

And what about two other Hindu schools of thought, that work as a sort of via media between Dualism and Non-Dualism - Achintya-Bheda-Abheda & Vishishtadvaita? Could there not be an argument that a position embracive somewhat of both strict Advaita and strict Dvaita without falling into the absoluteness of either of these two extremes, is to be preferred?

IMHO "identity with a difference", "inconceivable one-ness and difference" ie (from Wikipedia)

The theological tenet of achintya-bheda-abheda tattva reconciles the mystery that God is simultaneously "one with and different from His creation". In this sense Vaishnavatheology is not pantheistic as in no way does it deny the separate existence of God (Vishnu) in His own personal form. However, at the same time, creation (or what is termed in Vaishnava theology as the 'cosmic manifestation') is never separated from God. He always exercises supreme control over his creation. Sometimes directly, but most of the time indirectly through his different potencies or energies (Prakrti). Examples are given of a spider and its web; earth and plants that come forth and hair on the body of human being.[9]

"One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva -- simultaneous oneness and difference." (A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)[4] The analogy often used as an explanation in this context in the relationship between the Sun and the Sunshine.[10] For example both the sun and sunshine are part of the same reality, but there is a great difference between having a beam of sunshine in your room, and being in close proximity to the sun itself. Qualitatively the Sun and the Sunshine are not different, but as quantities they are very different. This analogy is applied to the living beings and God - the Jiva being of a similar quality to the Supreme being, but not sharing the qualities to an infinite extent, as would the Personality of Godhead himself.[11] Thus there is a difference between the souls and the Supreme Lord.

The position above is closer to that of the mystics of the Western religions, both Islam (Sufism) and Christianity as in:

"...There follows a third kind of experience, namely, that we feel ourselves to be one with God, for by means of our transformation in God we feel ourselves to be swallowed up in the groundless abyss of our eternal blessedness, in which we can never discover any difference between ourselves and God...When love has carried us above all things, into the Divine Dark, we receive in peace the Incomprehensible Light, enfolding us and penetrating us. What is this Light, if it be not a contemplation of the Infinite, and an intuition of Eternity?...God in the depths of us receives God who comes to us: it is God contemplating God.... This brightness is so great that the loving contemplative, in his ground wherein he rests, sees and feels nothing but an incomprehensible Light; and through that Simple Nudity which enfolds all things, he finds himself and feels himself to be that same Light by which he sees and nothing else. This resplendence is nothing other than an act of gazing and seeing which has no ground: What we are is what we see, and what we see is what we are, for our mind, our life, and our very being are raised up in a state of oneness and united with the truth that is God himself. We feel no difference between ourselves and God, for we have been breathed forth in his love above and beyond ourselves and all orders of being...and in this loving and being loved we always feel a difference and a duality: this is the nature of eternal love. And there we find distinction and otherness between God and ourselves, and find God as an Incomprehensible One exterior to us. There in the mystical experience all is full and overflowing, for the spirit feels itself to be one truth and one richness and one unit with God. Yet here there is an essential tending forward, and therein is an essential distinction between the being of the soul and the Being of God; and this is the highest and finest distinction which we are able to feel..."

- Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck (1294-1381), Flemish Catholic mystic

Ruysbroeck, as a characteristic Western mystic of the Rhineland schools, seamlessly blends what Indian philosophy and modern scholarship would call "non-dualism" and "dualism".

At once so personal and intimate, a union of love beyond the reach of the mind, it is also described in terms familiar to Advaita (Non-Dualism) in Indian philosophy. In the Upanishads this is encapsulated in the memorable saying Tat Tvam Asi (Thou art That). Ruysbroeck is saying the same here. In the unitive state, the person attains to a union of indistinction with God in which he or she can discern no difference between themselves and the Absolute Spirit. We are what we are looking at; God is us and we are God, like staring out our own reflection in the water.

Ruysbroeck does not end here in a state of undifferentiated monistic identity with God but rather explains that union does not destroy our distinct personality. I and Thou always remains on some level, a union of love, while being transcended on another by a feeling of utter absorption into the "Divine Truth".

The position of "simultaneous oneness and difference" allows for both a personal relationship to a personal Creator, such as with bridal imagery, and an impersonal oneness of consciousness with a supreme reality that moves in everything and is beyond conception.

I would like to know your view of this "school of thought" which is present in Vendantic Hinduism and in the Abrahamic religions :bow:

 

[ChristineES]

I consider myself to be very spiritual and I have a strong belief in God but there are times when I question this in the back of my mind. I used to feel bad about it- like I didn't have enough faith or something, but I realize now that it is perfectly natural.

 

[Straw Dog]

Personally, I've found that grasping at abstract beliefs, not grounded in direct experience, is a setup for future doubt. Too many people commit themselves to unstable notions offered by others instead. A living faith is much more than seeking to possess a set of rigid beliefs and notions. Faith implies practice and evolves naturally.

In general, I don't see much value in claiming a "belief in God". It's like someone being proud because they believe in love rather than actually participating in love (giving/receiving). Really, people are just saying that they're grasping at some particular transitory concept about God rather than directly participating in Presence.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well the fact that humans are made in GOD'S Image,and in His likeness. Since we are personal,and relational beings. So is GOD in Whom we live,move,and have are being.

So your god is human? How can a 5 to 6 foot tall being create all that you see around you? If you believe we are made in God's image then why do you not believe in Zeus?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I myself have never questioned the existence of god or doubted his presence. But what I have always never been certain of is the true oath to god. It has always been a confusion of Islam and Deism for me. Deism has no sense of certainty while Islam does, Deism entirely complies with the laws of science while Islam can vary on certain issues, Deism has an impersonal viewpoint of god why Islam has a personal one.
The certainty of the true path to god has always been the issue for most and this sometimes leaves people to uncertainty often. Perhaps I am the first "Islamic Deist"?

 

[George-ananda]

Dear George

In my understanding neither Dvaita or Advaita was considered to be "superior" rather they are both equally authentic schools of Vedanta?

And what about two other Hindu schools of thought, that work as a sort of via media between Dualism and Non-Dualism - Achintya-Bheda-Abheda & Vishishtadvaita? Could there not be an argument that a position embracive somewhat of both strict Advaita and strict Dvaita without falling into the absoluteness of either of these two extremes, is to be preferred?

IMHO "identity with a difference", "inconceivable one-ness and difference" ie (from Wikipedia)




The position above is closer to that of the mystics of the Western religions, both Islam (Sufism) and Christianity as in:





Ruysbroeck, as a characteristic Western mystic of the Rhineland schools, seamlessly blends what Indian philosophy and modern scholarship would call "non-dualism" and "dualism".

At once so personal and intimate, a union of love beyond the reach of the mind, it is also described in terms familiar to Advaita (Non-Dualism) in Indian philosophy. In the Upanishads this is encapsulated in the memorable saying Tat Tvam Asi (Thou art That). Ruysbroeck is saying the same here. In the unitive state, the person attains to a union of indistinction with God in which he or she can discern no difference between themselves and the Absolute Spirit. We are what we are looking at; God is us and we are God, like staring out our own reflection in the water.

Ruysbroeck does not end here in a state of undifferentiated monistic identity with God but rather explains that union does not destroy our distinct personality. I and Thou always remains on some level, a union of love, while being transcended on another by a feeling of utter absorption into the "Divine Truth".

The position of "simultaneous oneness and difference" allows for both a personal relationship to a personal Creator, such as with bridal imagery, and an impersonal oneness of consciousness with a supreme reality that moves in everything and is beyond conception.

I would like to know your view of this "school of thought" which is present in Vendantic Hinduism and in the Abrahamic religions :bow:

I understand that there are various ways of explaining God's relationship to the creation. One can spend a lifetime studying these. All the writings you quote are quite intelligent sounding.

Perhaps I shouldn't have implied that Advaita was the superior school. But my desire here was to address the quandary described in the OP from an eastern or western-mystical perspective without losing readers interest with sanskrit terms and a lengthy discussion.

I wanted to say that the best way for the OP person to resolve the quandary was to think that getting closer to God and getting closer to your Self are really the same thing.

 

[1robin]

So your god is human? How can a 5 to 6 foot tall being create all that you see around you? If you believe we are made in God's image then why do you not believe in Zeus?

That is not the imagine in question. The physical is trivial in comparison with the spiritual. It more accurately means personal (intentional) and moral (capability not mastery).

Ravi said it best. The atheist view on what happens after death is "nothing". Because when they ask the dead what happens they say "nothing".

 

[punkdbass]

Yes, I understand your point and you are well-spoken.

My thoughts are that you are coming from a western perspective of dualism (that God and His creation are two things).

In Hinduism there is also strong schools of dualistic thought. But I think for people of higher intellect (such as yourself) one can find problems (like you discuss) with that school of thought. At the risk of sounding elitist, there is a school of thought that goes beyond dualism (called non-dualism; Advaita in Sanskrit). In Advaita thought all is God; creation is a great thought projection of God. Our goal then becomes Self-Realization=God-Realization and the kind of issues you brought up dissolve.

Do you have any links, books, or other resources you could send me for learning more about Advaita? I really like the idea of God being a universal consciousness, and our goal being to unify one's awareness and consciousness with this Ultimate Reality.

 

[Vouthon]

I understand that there are various ways of explaining God's relationship to the creation. One can spend a lifetime studying these. All the writings you quote are quite intelligent sounding.

Perhaps I shouldn't have implied that Advaita was the superior school. But my desire here was to address the quandary described in the OP from an eastern or western-mystical perspective without losing readers interest with sanskrit terms and a lengthy discussion.

I wanted to say that the best way for the OP person to resolve the quandary was to think that getting closer to God and getting closer to your Self are really the same thing.

Nicely expressed and I agree vis-à-vis the original poster. You have been most helpful too him and I see completely where you are coming from. Sorry for writing a length post on the topic, it was just the point about "superior" that I wanted to clarify :yes: Otherwise I agree with you, and appreciate the guidance you have given to the OP.