Is Understanding fatal to Worship?

[PureX]

I honestly do not understand the concept of "worship". I don't know what that word is referring to, experientially. My suspicion is that it relates to a relationship based on power, and the weaker subjugating themselves to the stronger. But I have always understood that power is an illusion that the weak allow the strong to presume unto themselves. And that has never been part of my nature.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

 

[An Dà Shealladh]

I fight to worship myself.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for your input, and the link. I see from the link that the intellectual understanding takes for granted that the practice has supernatural concepts of the self and the purpose, and to that extent corresponds with an Abrahamic religious frame of mind.

But my notion here is that if you were to take to those concepts skeptically and analytically, to understand from an evidence-based PoV how a god might exist and how it might actually do things, then if that resulted in gods at all, it would seem unmysterious like our hypothetical superscientist, and without its aura of magic, it wouldn't be a natural object of worship.

Worship is not the proper way of approaching God for one who is skeptical or analytical. For such a person, it would be his practice of logic or Mathematics itself by which spiritual progress will be achieved. To such a person, God may appear as the impersonal mathematical structure of the world itself. That form is no less real than elephant headed ganesha. That is the Dharmic perspective.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Baha'i teaches a single omnipotent god, no? If so that too is from within a religious frame of mind, I'd have thought.

The Baha'i Faith teaches there is an omnipotent single God, but also that God is an unknowable essence. There is a great deal of freedom of thought in that concept as with a worldview that exalts science and reason above superstition and dogma.

I wouldn't assume that existing within a religious framework is for idiots or prevents achievement in the scientific realm. Far from it. If you look at the Nobel prize winners throughout history, most have some religious affiliation.

 

[osgart]

wouldn't a perfect being be against worship, and more motivated by friendship. a perfect God might try to raise followers up to be equals. but to worship something seems like idolatry. a vain practice.

 

[Woodmangler]

Looking through the threads it appears that this topic is a mile wide and hinges on several things, below are just a few:
1. Who/What do you believe is god/God/or not?
a. Depending on that concept, is God understandable?
I. If so - to what degree?
II. If not - why not?
2. Where do you see yourself in relation to that God/god - or no god?
3. What do you define as worship?
a. If God/god worth your time and thanks, is that worship? Or, is it a religious exercise that "all good folks" do?
b. Is it a prescribed ritual with requirements laid down to the "faithful"?
c. Is it internally manifested, or external, or both?

This is just scratching the surface of personal beliefs and world views that directly or indirectly affect worship or the absence of it.

BTW please forgive my fumbling. I'm new to this forum and still getting used to using this tool.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

My point is that people have no reason to worship what they understand.

Nonsense. I understand the thunderstorm, the cycle of the seasons, the harvest, etc, and yet I still find cause to worship the gods that work through those things in thanks and celebration of all that is provided to us.

 

[Kapalika]

Thanks for your input, and the link. I see from the link that the intellectual understanding takes for granted that the practice has supernatural concepts of the self and the purpose, and to that extent corresponds with an Abrahamic religious frame of mind.

But my notion here is that if you were to take to those concepts skeptically and analytically, to understand from an evidence-based PoV how a god might exist and how it might actually do things, then if that resulted in gods at all, it would seem unmysterious like our hypothetical superscientist, and without its aura of magic, it wouldn't be a natural object of worship.

There are a lot of Dharmic religions and schools that don't require, address, or have a deity or concept of supernaturalism. There are some atheist Hindus on this site even and atheism and Buddhism ,and nontheism and Buddhism have a very long history together.

Worship is not the proper way of approaching God for one who is skeptical or analytical. For such a person, it would be his practice of logic or Mathematics itself by which spiritual progress will be achieved. To such a person, God may appear as the impersonal mathematical structure of the world itself. That form is no less real than elephant headed ganesha. That is the Dharmic perspective.

This too.

 

[Socratic Berean]

... Christianity... Only when I step away from it, can I analyze it objectively. When you are following a faith/religion, you don't question. Because you're not supposed to. Not all faiths are closed minded like that, but the Abrahamic faiths are definitely not open to personal discovery or interpretation...

What is your take on scripture that applauds people who do not blindly follow, but who use their minds and resources to analyze claims before they follow a given teaching, like we find in Acts 17?

 

[Deidre]

What is your take on scripture that applauds people who do not blindly follow, but who use their minds and resources to analyze claims before they follow a given teaching, like we find in Acts 17?

That it contradicts the passages that go against it.

 

[Socratic Berean]

...I have always understood that power is an illusion that the weak allow the strong to presume unto themselves.

Have you considered testing this theory? If you stop paying your federal taxes or mortgage, or you volunteer to step into a MMA ring as a competitor, will the concept of power as an "illusion" hold?

 

[Socratic Berean]

That it contradicts the passages that go against it.

Acts 17 does not stand alone, though. Look at Proverbs: "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps." The Hebrew word for faith used in scripture, by definition, refers to a logical, robust, unwavering confidence in the truth, not a blind and unquestioning faith. What's your take?

 

[blü 2]

Lovely stuff, math is equivalent to fornication in my book.

I guess I agree with that, since I can't work out whether it sells maths short, or fornication.

But if one worships a god with the full intention of honoring such a being on the basis of its pure beauty and originative power then to the worshiper it is everything that gives satisfaction to their heart.

I have no argument with people doing that, but this is the frame of mind that goes with religious worship as you say.

My thesis here is that if instead you take an analytical approach to gods, the way they exist, the technique of miracles, the handbook of Do-It-Yourself Universe Making, you've moved to a mindset that is much less likely to worship what it finds.

Equating a deity with a scientist is a rather bad analogy because it exceeds intelligence and steps into the realm of ideals and absolutes.

For my purposes it's the exact analogy, because behind all magic there's method, and the aim of skeptical enquiry is to discover that method.

A scientist does not embody perfection or grace.

What if the answer to that is, perfection including perfect grace are only found in the imagination of the individual?

But gods are designed, perpetuated and pushed for the exact purpose of worship

They're in a competitive marketplace, and sales are important, I guess.

 

[blü 2]

Worship to me means fawning, groveling, and self-abasement. There need not be any positive feelings for the object of worship at all, just fear or self-interest.

I was excluding fear from my definition. And what might look like fawning and groveling and self-abasement might seem like honest adoration and proper respect to the kind of worshiper I have in mind.

I see myself as an autonomous agent, a citizen and not a subject, an equal. There is no place for worship in such a mindset.

No argument from me.
.

 

[blü 2]

Worship is not the proper way of approaching God for one who is skeptical or analytical. For such a person, it would be his practice of logic or Mathematics itself by which spiritual progress will be achieved. To such a person, God may appear as the impersonal mathematical structure of the world itself. That form is no less real than elephant headed ganesha. That is the Dharmic perspective.

Go Ganesha!

 

[blü 2]

I wouldn't assume that existing within a religious framework is for idiots or prevents achievement in the scientific realm. Far from it. If you look at the Nobel prize winners throughout history, most have some religious affiliation.

I'm not suggesting that it is.

Instead I'm saying that there's a religious mindset which accepts the supernatural nature of the deity and may reason from there.

But if the deity turns out to be unmystical, unsupernatural, but is an amazing superscientist instead, then I don't think people are inclined to worship superscientists as such.
.

 

[blü 2]

wouldn't a perfect being be against worship, and more motivated by friendship. a perfect God might try to raise followers up to be equals. but to worship something seems like idolatry. a vain practice.

You remind me of my astonishment when some fundamentalist Christians maintained that Yahweh had dictated the Psalms to tell us how he liked to be praised. I can picture Donald Trump doing that, but an omnipotent perfect being? ... as you say, no.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I guess I agree with that, since I can't work out whether it sells maths short, or fornication.

Mmmmmm, number porn!

I have no argument with people doing that, but this is the frame of mind that goes with religious worship as you say.

My thesis here is that if instead you take an analytical approach to gods, the way they exist, the technique of miracles, the handbook of Do-It-Yourself Universe Making, you've moved to a mindset that is much less likely to worship what it finds.

Ahhhh, I only got this toward the end of your post. This is understandable but it would not change the pantheists who are already worshiping such a thing. Even people like myself who are very analytical about the existence of gods and equate it with necessary mental constructs in relation to human evolution have no problems worshiping such a god or gods.

I avidly worship something that I only have proof of as a conscious interpretation of the world. This does not bother me at all and my faith is not hindered by it because it is merely faith and should never enter the scientific arena yet alone the academic one.

For my purposes it's the exact analogy, because behind all magic there's method, and the aim of skeptical enquiry is to discover that method.

I disacknowledge prayer for this very reason which I hope you are not conflating.

But magic has always been a precursor to science. Magic if studied archaically is used for controlling mankind's surroundings. Of course it is not real and has offered little results I do not think this would change magic even if it were real. This would benefit magic if anything.

Now if a god was understood in such a scientific basis I am sure it would disturb many Abrahamic religionists but I doubt the pagan or polytheistic communities would be hindered by this. To some extent the Islamic community may enjoy this as early Islamic theology was extremely blatant in how it treated Allah as a cosmic force almost and excluded divine morality from the factor.

What if the answer to that is, perfection including perfect grace are only found in the imagination of the individual?

I agree to this 100% except I cannot fathom a scientist having the quality of perfection. He is human afterall and although he may be an idealization of a type of person he/she lacks the quality or worship.

They're in a competitive marketplace, and sales are important, I guess.

Also agreed upon. Religion is undoubtetly a marketplace of ideas and expressions that try to find buyers. Many religions are scams, fraudulent or just have high prices.

 

[sayak83]

Go Ganesha!

 

[blü 2]

1. Who/What do you believe is god/God/or not?

Yes, I'm discussing believers.

a. Depending on that concept, is God understandable?
I. If so - to what degree?
II. If not - why not?[/i]
It seems to me that there's a religious mindset in which god ─ and his powers and the nature of his existence ─ don't need to be understood in the analytical sense I'm talking about, but rather god is worshiped with consequent emotional rewards for the worshiper.

3. What do you define as worship?

I'd say active acknowledgment of god as one's superior of a more-than-human kind to whom thanks and great respect are due. But since that's off the top of my head, I'm still listening.

c. Is it internally manifested, or external, or both?

Both. Certainly the idea of gathering for praise is a basic idea of having a church at all. And if you don't have a positive response to this internally then it loses its religious element, no?
.