Higher Power vs. Man in the Sky

[Tathagata]

How come Theists always say "Oh I don't believe in the bearded man in the sky, I believe that there is a higher power or spiritual force."

As if that's somehow a more philosophically respectable position. They're exchanging a more clear definition and concept for something vague, so vague that it's almost a meaningless notion. If it's just a spiritual force, how come it listens and answers prayers, why does he write books, and intervene with humanity?



.

 

[Magic Man]

I think the idea there is that they've led their whole lives under the assumption that God exists. Going from "God exists" to "No god exists" is a lot harder than going from "God exists" to "some higher being exists". That's why a lot of people get stuck on that middle step, and don't ever take the time to take the full plunge. I went through it myself, but I pushed through to the final conclusion.

 

[Erebus]

How come Theists always say "Oh I don't believe in the bearded man in the sky, I believe that there is a higher power or spiritual force."

As if that's somehow a more philosophically respectable position. They're exchanging a more clear definition and concept for something vague, so vague that it's almost a meaningless notion. If it's just a spiritual force, how come it listens and answers prayers, why does he write books, and intervene with humanity?
.

Maybe that's just what they genuinely believe?

Different things make sense to different people.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, a bearded man in the sky just sounds crazy.

 

[sandandfoam]

How come Theists always say "Oh I don't believe in the bearded man in the sky, I believe that there is a higher power or spiritual force."

As if that's somehow a more philosophically respectable position. They're exchanging a more clear definition and concept for something vague, so vague that it's almost a meaningless notion. If it's just a spiritual force, how come it listens and answers prayers, why does he write books, and intervene with humanity?



.

How come all atheists eat babies?
As if it's philosophically acceptable...

 

[Tathagata]

How come all atheists eat babies?
As if it's philosophically acceptable...

Red Herring and False Analogy.


.

 

[LittleSidhe]

How come all atheists eat babies?
As if it's philosophically acceptable...

Please tell me you're kidding here.

Maybe that's just what they genuinely believe?

Different things make sense to different people.

That's what I was thinking as well.

 

[Tathagata]

Maybe that's just what they genuinely believe?

Different things make sense to different people.

But I hear this from people who are Christian which requires belief in a personal God. It's not a mystical force, it's a personal being who has hands ("right hand of the father"), taste buds("a sweet savour unto the Lord"), and even has a male reproductive organ to impregnate Mary.

The Fundamentalsts (these people actually know their theology and scripture) recognize this and criticize those who believe in just a "higher power."


.

 

[sandandfoam]

Red Herring and False Analogy.


.

Ok.

You're starting off from a narrow view of a Christianity, if you want to stew in superiority carry right on.
If on the other hand you're actually interested in modern Christian thought that's not trapped in Biblical literalism there's a wide choice of reading out there.

 

[Erebus]

But I hear this from people who are Christian which requires belief in a personal God. It's not a mystical force, it's a personal being who has hands ("right hand of the father"), taste buds("a sweet savour unto the Lord"), and even has a male reproductive organ to impregnate Mary.

The Fundamentalsts (these people actually know their theology and scripture) recognize this and criticize those who believe in just a "higher power."


.

True, going purely by the book the concept of God is quite limited, but you have to remember that Christianity has NEVER gone purely by the book. Even the most radical fundamentalist doesn't. If Christians want to believe in something that isn't Biblically supported it's really up to them. I'd rather see Christians take the Bible as a basic foundation for their beliefs than to follow it to the best of their ability and end up like the mongrels in the Westboro Baptist Church

 

[Tathagata]

Ok.

You're starting off from a narrow view of a Christianity, if you want to stew in superiority carry right on.
If on the other hand you're actually interested in modern Christian thought that's not trapped in Biblical literalism there's a wide choice of reading out there.

Actually, I am quite aware of modern Christian thought, spearheaded by William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Dinesh D'Souza, Ravi Zacharias, etc. And these people I have the highest respect for. In fact, Lane Craig is more philosophically adept than his opponents and even destroys Atheists in debates.

The Christian apologetics are the only repectable version of Christianity IMO.


Btw, the great Christian thinkers never appeal to a "higher power" or "spiritual force."


.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Personally, I find a bearded man in the sky to be quite plausible. As a matter of fact, I am praying right now that Kareem Abdul Jabbar will save me from my sins . . .





[youtube]hzqdDoe8FoM[/youtube]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzqdDoe8FoM&feature=related

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally, I find a bearded man in the sky to be quite plausible. As a matter of fact, I am praying right now that Kareem Abdul Jabbar will save me from my sins . . .

Makes as much sense as anybody else.

 

[Wandered Off]

How come Theists always say "Oh I don't believe in the bearded man in the sky, I believe that there is a higher power or spiritual force."

As if that's somehow a more philosophically respectable position.

I think the idea is that anthropomorphizing God implies some baggage or limits that "higher power" does not.

 

[ChristineES]

If one is an atheist, of course they are not going to understand how someone could believe in either a "bearded guy" who kinda looks like Leonardo Da Vinci- and they are not going to understand an invisible force, either. Sometimes we all just need to use our imagination.

 

[Levite]

How come Theists always say "Oh I don't believe in the bearded man in the sky, I believe that there is a higher power or spiritual force."

As if that's somehow a more philosophically respectable position. They're exchanging a more clear definition and concept for something vague, so vague that it's almost a meaningless notion. If it's just a spiritual force, how come it listens and answers prayers, why does he write books, and intervene with humanity?

Basically, the majority of laypeople are theologically unsophisticated. They either haven't been educated in how to read text and religious philosophy, or they can't be bothered to educate themselves to do so.

Therefore, modern theists in the West tend to separate themselves out into black and white: a simplistic, highly literalist theology of a God whose anthropomorphic attributes are not metaphor, but fact; or a similarly simplistic, deeply vague and diffuse theology of a God who exists, but is just kind of mindless energy or energized emotion ("God is love").

Comparatively few people are willing to get into the complex nuances of what it means to have a God who is personal, immanent, transcendant, and inherently paradoxical.

 

[fantome profane]

I think the idea is that anthropomorphizing God implies some baggage or limits that "higher power" does not.

It has been my experience/perception that most theists anthropomorphize “God” to some extent or another. Sure many reject the “bearded man in the sky” concept, but still ascribe many other anthropomorphic attributes such as mind, will, ego, and the need for relationship to their concept of “God”. These things are just as anthropomorphic as beards and hands.

But to be fair I have to say that this is pretty much a trap. Any “God” concept that is completely lacking in any anthropomorphic details would be unrecognizable as a “God” concept.

 

[Magic Man]

But to be fair I have to say that this is pretty much a trap. Any “God” concept that is completely lacking in any anthropomorphic details would be unrecognizable as a “God” concept.

Exactly, and this is why I don't think using "God" for anything other than a theistic god helps theological conversations.