Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone

[Jumi]

What I find fascinating is that a great deal of traditional Christian theology sounds a lot like Windwalker does, or like what we are now calling non-traditional theism, in comparison to what we take to be the "traditional" theology. It is in an effort to make that point that I am often quoting those writers. The history of western monotheism is complicated, let alone ideas about Divinity in other religions. In many respects, I consider myself a "traditional theist", but there is certainly a question of which tradition. I think Windwalker is criticizing a particular approach towards the question, and traditional/non-traditional doesn't quite capture the distinction. He also speaks about mythic/literal vs symbolic or mystical, which is probably closer.

I think it might be appropriate is to call "traditional theism" "what is mainstream theism today".

 

[Looncall]

A better way to say it is how do you know Absolute Truth. That is very different than saying knowing "something is Absolute Truth". I would not say I know something is absolute truth, because that would be referring to something I'm thinking or believing as being true. I'm speaking of Truth itself, which is not "a truth", not something someone believes in. Anything we believe in is a partial or relative truth. Anything I think about is a partial truth. It's a perception of Truth itself.

So then to answer how does one know Truth itself, not to sound too cryptic here, but I touched on this before, you know your Self. You get in touch with being itself, not an idea about what reality is, not an idea of who you are, or an idea about the truth about something or another. It is sinking into just simple, pure Awareness, without any thought about it. It is experienced as Pure, and is not in conflict with ideas, but is the foundation of all ideas that arise. So Truth is not "a truth", not a propositional idea, but the foundation, the nature of all relative truths that arise from it, partial lights. If I state an idea about something, it is always partial, always relative. And this is as equally true for me as it is for anyone. It's the nature of thoughts and ideas.

Is this a kind of essentialism?

Is there Truth that is in truths that makes the truths true?

This also sounds related to reification. Does there need to be a something for truths to be true?

 

[Jumi]

I think what he means by Truth is something that is not as obvious as "A therefore B" fact checking. I might be wrong though.

 

[Windwalker]

What I find fascinating is that a great deal of traditional Christian theology sounds a lot like Windwalker does, or like what we are now calling non-traditional theism, in comparison to what we take to be the "traditional" theology. It is in an effort to make that point that I am often quoting those writers. The history of western monotheism is complicated, let alone ideas about Divinity in other religions. In many respects, I consider myself a "traditional theist", but there is certainly a question of which tradition.

I appreciate you pointing this out and perhaps modifying or clarifying how I use the terms may help. I'll get to this more in a moment.

I think Windwalker is criticizing a particular approach towards the question, and traditional/non-traditional doesn't quite capture the distinction. He also speaks about mythic/literal vs symbolic or mystical, which is probably closer.

Yes, and thanks for pointing out I may be stepping on some toes in the use of the word "traditional". I am speaking specifically of the exoteric, mythic-literal view. I call that "traditional" because that is what defines a certain point of view that is synonymous with. The traditional believer holds to the mythic-literal understanding in your mainstream church-goer. Though the apophatic and other mystical is a part of "traditional" Christianity, it is much rarer and found mainly in monasteries, and pretty much non-existent in mainline Protestant Christianity. I consider that part of the Christian lineage itself, a small but potent part, but the "traditional view" of mainline belief is quite literal, exoteric and not esoteric.

So when I say traditional it is more in the line of the nature of how one approaches their religious beliefs and the surrounding value spheres. It would be in line with saying the warrior, the traditionalist, the rationalist, the postmodernist, the integralist, etc. It's not speaking of it not existing historically, but what the dominant mode is. The dominant mode of understanding God in traditionalist Christian thinking is exoteric, mythic-literal. I of course welcome your critique of this.

The recognition that these more apophatic approaches are also quite traditional is one reason why we might hang on to the word 'God', or 'Theos', or etc. Although I think the arguments about baggage are compelling, and I think we also agree that the word itself is not necessary.

I think one reason why I like to hang on to it in a sense it to break it free from the shackles of seeing it as only the mythic-literal understanding that defines what God is. It's a certain empowering of the word to say something valid beyond the mythic view. Call it stubbornness on my part to refuse to give all the power of a word to fundamentalist ideas. Call it reclaiming the word away from them.

But another reason too is that to just "call it something else" often times waters it down to mean some bloody scientific fact. "Why not just the universe then if that's what you mean when you say God?" Because I mean MORE than just what we think of when we say "the universe". The meaning is washed right out of it. The other words I use which I've listed before is Absolute, Infinity, Ineffable, Source, Ground, Spirit, and so forth. Those say considerable more than saying God is the universe. Universe is fine, if it includes all the other meaning of the other words I mentioned, but that's not what most people hear when you say the God is the universe.

So that "baggage" goes both ways. Context man, context.

With regard to the implicit insult of believing someone is wrong, or has only a partial truth

Once again this becomes an example of what people think they are hearing and loading words with connotations that are not intended. I didn't even think that saying a view is a "partial truth" would offend anyone! To me, all views are partial truths! All of them, my own not excluded. They are all relative to the context from which was are perceiving and speaking from. No exceptions. Are there some views that are "better" than others? Sure, but "better" itself is relative to context.

The way I think of partial truths are this. When they are able to include multiple perspectives, they become more "fuller" truths, because they are more inclusive. Generally speaking this is "better" because it takes into account greater perspectives. Inclusive holds more than exclusive can. But relatively speaking, a more inclusive view may actually be detrimental to a system that is designed to be exclusive: hence the battle between traditionalist views and progressive and liberal views. The progressive view, the more inclusive view threatens to destabilize the system put in place to support the traditionalist view. Now, I swerving way off topic here, but this is just intended to give a peak into how I hold these things in my partial, relative point of view.

I think if we always infer an insult in a disagreement

I think the sensitivity comes when someone is holding to their view as exclusively correct. To have it called partial, grates against that. If I am guilty of something it is not being sensitive to that in others. To myself, I'm happy to have ideas I hold to be challenged. But they do have to actually demonstrate they understand what the view is first to adequately challenge it. I take it as an opportunity to learn.

At least for myself, I try to separate the value of a person from an evaluation of what they know, or where we agree or disagree.

Amen to that! I don't consider the mythic view of God "idiotic", or people who believe that way to be "idiots". It's simply a particularly limited view that has a considerable growth laying ahead for them that is not being realized. It serves a purpose in the whole, but has room for growth, to put it truthfully. Seeing God as a Parent in the Sky, has utility, to a degree. But with any general worldview, it has it's pros and cons. The cons is what we see mainly in it exerting itself as "The Truth!" in a modern and postmodern world, and this is where the atheist comes in with it's positive offerings, in challenging the negatives. Then it too has it's negative side as well, which we have been addressing in this thread from a 'post-atheist' perspective.

 

[Ouroboros]

I do not insult atheism, I applaud it, while at the same time understanding it as "partial truth".

Exactly. It's the beginning of understanding. Not the end destination. It's part of the journey, in fact, in my life I see it as the first real step on my journey. Before my deconversion, I was stamping in circles in the ground, on the spot, and thought I was moving on. And I was doing it to the tune of preachers and pastors instead of getting out there myself and see it with my own eyes. Atheism, that's when you leave that circle spot. It's like growing up. It's the adolescence and moving out from home on the spiritual level.

 

[Shad]

The problem is, when a pantheist propose their view of God, their definition of God is rejected, and they're told that the only definition of God that is allowed is the sentient external entity being God that both pantheists and atheists agree doesn't exist. If the definition is forced by the agnomist that gnomes only represent by green-hat sub-terran creatures, then it only proves the problem this thread is about. The atheist insists on that God is only defined in the way which the atheist and other non-theists don't believe in.

I accept their definition once they identify their argument as pantheistic. However if they do not it is still their problem for not clarifying their concept as different from concept X or Y. The defination is only forced when there is a lack of details from the proponent.

Dawkins? I didn't bring Dawkins into the discussion. I respect him, and he has contributed a lot in my opinion. The example I provided was to show that both parties in a discussion assume that the other party agree on the same definition of God, when in reality, they can be miles apart without knowing it. I've been there so many times, to the point that I know I just can't jump in and tell people "God doesn't exist" without first knowing what God they specifically are thinking of.

I mentioned Dawkins as he would be an example of a agnomist making rebuttal to a concept in a dialogue with himself only. In his books on God he is all over the map treating every doctrine as if every form of Christianity shared these concept.

 

[Koldo]

There is a certain tendency towards thinking that a shift of position entails a vertical climb, and it is easy to perceive it happening all across the board, but that is very much of an oversimplification on our part.

 

[Ouroboros]

I like "Cosmos" because it's nice and naturalistic and reminds me of Carl Sagan. "Ultimate Reality" I'm not sure about - what other kind of reality is there?

The Ultimate Reality would be whatever it is if it's confirmed that our universe is just a hologram. It's an illusion. It's not real, in itself, but something else is the real-real behind this fake-real. That real would be the more real, or hopefully the ultimate real. The substrate of existence as such is deeper than the world we see. But even so, the substrate (perhaps Higgs field?) brings about the existence of all things, and hence all things are part of the substrate, and all things are ultimately one.

(There was some article about the holographic universe just a few weeks ago in a publication by some researchers, but I haven't read it.)

 

[Ouroboros]

I accept their definition once they identify their argument as pantheistic. However if they do not it is still their problem for not clarifying their concept as different from concept X or Y. The defination is only forced when there is a lack of details from the proponent.

I tried in another thread and felt that I stepped into the hornets nest. Having pantheistic views is unwelcome by both theists and atheists both. It's a heresy in both camps.

The story still is not just about if gnomes exist or not, but that the dialogue between the two groups have problems understanding each other.

I mentioned Dawkins as he would be an example of a agnomist making rebuttal to a concept in a dialogue with himself only. In his books on God he is all over the map treating every doctrine as if every form of Christianity shared these concept.

Christian shared concepts. He's only addressing those. But there are theists with non-Christian concepts. The atheist should not assume that a theist is a Christian.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think it might be appropriate is to call "traditional theism" "what is mainstream theism today".

That's a good question. I'm starting to think that atheism is the "mainstream theism" today, so to speak. Not that it is a theism, but atheists are the most vocal people framing religious questions, how to define God, what God is, does God exist, what does atheism and theism mean, all those things are today driven online by a growing atheist community. The theistic views are so varied that no one has the leading voice. The atheists have a simpler, direct, and more unified message, so it's easier to group together under common ideas.

 

[Shad]

I tried in another thread and felt that I stepped into the hornets nest. Having pantheistic views is unwelcome by both theists and atheists both. It's a heresy in both camps.

The story still is not just about if gnomes exist or not, but that the dialogue between the two groups have problems understanding each other.

It does not bug me. As I said I find is more compatible with what we know than other concepts.This of course is my opinion.

It is a dialogue lacking in details which makes it useless. It is not about understanding but about communicating ideas properly then understanding. Some people never get passed the first step either by ignorance or by willful ambiguity.

Christian shared concepts. He's only addressing those. But there are theists with non-Christian concepts. The atheist should not assume that a theist is a Christian.

Divine Simplicity is not a shared concept but he addressed this concept in his book God Delusion as if it was in chapter 4.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So then to answer how does one know Truth itself, not to sound too cryptic here, but I touched on this before, you know your Self. You get in touch with being itself, not an idea about what reality is, not an idea of who you are, or an idea about the truth about something or another. It is sinking into just simple, pure Awareness, without any thought about it. It is experienced as Pure, and is not in conflict with ideas, but is the foundation of all ideas that arise. So Truth is not "a truth", not a propositional idea, but the foundation, the nature of all relative truths that arise from it, partial lights. If I state an idea about something, it is always partial, always relative. And this is as equally true for me as it is for anyone. It's the nature of thoughts and ideas.

Sorry but I still don't understand what "Truth" is supposed to be, or how it relates to non-conceptual awareness.

 

[Looncall]

The Ultimate Reality would be whatever it is if it's confirmed that our universe is just a hologram. It's an illusion. It's not real, in itself, but something else is the real-real behind this fake-real. That real would be the more real, or hopefully the ultimate real. The substrate of existence as such is deeper than the world we see. But even so, the substrate (perhaps Higgs field?) brings about the existence of all things, and hence all things are part of the substrate, and all things are ultimately one.

(There was some article about the holographic universe just a few weeks ago in a publication by some researchers, but I haven't read it.)

I would need evidence before buying into this. There is lots that we do not see in the usual sense because our senses are limited, but our instruments do just fine.

What really puzzles me is how navel-gazing is supposed to provide knowledge of this supposed Ultimate Reality (TM).

 

[Windwalker]

Sorry but I still don't understand what "Truth" is supposed to be, or how it relates to non-conceptual awareness.

I'll use another analogy. Think of it as the "wetness" of the ocean. It's not a particular wave or inlet, a particular depth, a current, a tide, etc. It is the same in all form. But to know "wetness" you simply fall into the Ocean. There is "a wetness". "Truth" is therefore the "wetness" of every wave. It is sensed, not thought about.

 

[`mud]

Look out.....your button is getting wet.
~
'mud

 

[Windwalker]

What really puzzles me is how navel-gazing is supposed to provide knowledge of this supposed Ultimate Reality (TM).

I'd like to redirect you back to Post #294 where I addressed that the mystical experience has nothing to do with proving external realities outside of ourselves, such as proving a God "out there" exists. You thanked me for making that clear in Post #301. This post here now seems you are still confused about this?

I wish to add something here about the term "Navel Gazing". What the mystic is doing is in fact not navel gazing. It is not "self-indulgent", by any means. It is the opposite of that. That term is a pejorative, and does not at all describe the reality of what is going on with these "explorers of the interior", which more aptly describes the mystic. They are in the true sense of the word explorers. We explore the inner landscapes to seek a fuller, deeper, and wider understanding of the nature of truth and reality as revealed by knowing and understanding who and what we are as humans.

In this sense, we are scientists of the interiors of human beingness. It is a form of research, and vast amounts of insight and knowledge is the result. Instead of being some "mastabatory" excersies of self-indulgence (what the term navel gazing means), it is rather about expanding our limited sense of self to include the entire world. Rather than being a narcissistic gaze, it destroys narcissism. Sri Aurobindo quite accurately described in as three motions: inward, upward, outward. It begins by going within, seeing and understanding, clarifying the mind of the one seeing which then opens us beyond ourselves. Consider it like putting on the oxygen mask first in the airplane. You need to breath clearly first before you can be of help to others. Once you are clear, then you see the needs of others and are able to be responsive.

I hope this clarifies why such a term that attempts to speak to what the mystic is doing is extremely inaccurate, and insulting. Navel gazing can occur in the world, indeed. But it's not a description of the mystical exploration in any sense of the word.

 

[Looncall]

Yet, you claim to gain knowledge of the universe without any input from it. If what you claim is that there is some kind of special sensing mechanism that meditation or whatever uses, I would want to see evidence of it.

All this has too much of the religious-type scam about it for me. I do not doubt that the mystical experience feels just as mystics describe; I am just doubtful that their interpretation is accurate.

The mystic (or, more important, the mystic's teacher) may be living from a begging bowl, but it is still someone else who spends his days knee-deep in nightsoil in the rice paddy.

 

[Windwalker]

Yet, you claim to gain knowledge of the universe without any input from it.

The universe exists within us, does it not? If you define the universe as stars and planets and galaxies, that I use my reasoning mind with the tools of science as aides to help understand and gain knowledge of it. Again, we are talking about interior knowledge. I am the universe. I am 14.5 billion years of evolution in a skin sack. The mystical experience is an exploration of the one who is doing the looking out at the world. We need both. Not just one or the other.

If what you claim is that there is some kind of special sensing mechanism that meditation or whatever uses, I would want to see evidence of it.

Self-awareness is the name of the game, NOT doing science exploring the world of rocks and trees and galaxies. The sensing mechanism that meditation uses is what we already are, getting in touch with Awareness unobstructed. It's simply getting rid of the debris that clouds what we are able to see. Meditation is like the Hubble telescope of the interior world. It's put above the interference of the atmosphere to see back to the Big Bang and before in yourself. In an nutshell, meditation offers the meditator and unobstructed view into the reality of who we are. It's not about studying the world of form.

I am hoping in my responses at some point the difference I am speaking of will become clear. This is about the interior world, not an investigation of the exterior world.

All this has too much of the religious-type scam about it for me.

If it is as I hear you imagining it is, I can see your point. There is nothing scamming about self-investigation. If someone makes pronouncements of fact from that space, that they have discovered what Dark Matter is because God told them in meditation, then kick their asses to the curb! I'll be right there with you kicking their ***.

I do not doubt that the mystical experience feels just as mystics describe; I am just doubtful that their interpretation is accurate.

Please help me out here. What is this interpretation you believe you are hearing? Let's focus on that because it seems clear to me there is a deep misunderstanding of what is being claimed.

The mystic (or, more important, the mystic's teacher) may be living from a begging bowl, but it is still someone else who spends his days knee-deep in nightsoil in the rice paddy.

I don't follow this.

 

[Ouroboros]

I would need evidence before buying into this. There is lots that we do not see in the usual sense because our senses are limited, but our instruments do just fine.

But the things I mentioned are things science are debating. They've not been confirmed, but in physics, they're trying to figure out how the world works and what lies beneath it. They're calling it other things, like multiverse, and such. I didn't mention anything that is not part of contemporary science.

What really puzzles me is how navel-gazing is supposed to provide knowledge of this supposed Ultimate Reality (TM).

Navel gazing? I'm not sure why this is navel gazing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'll use another analogy. Think of it as the "wetness" of the ocean. It's not a particular wave or inlet, a particular depth, a current, a tide, etc. It is the same in all form. But to know "wetness" you simply fall into the Ocean. There is "a wetness". "Truth" is therefore the "wetness" of every wave. It is sensed, not thought about.

I think there are different ways of experiencing things, and so there are different kinds of truth.