Is Understanding fatal to Worship?

[Kemosloby]

But with the right attitude it can on the road to understanding ─ the postulating of testable hypotheses, for example.

Yeah, you should be a climate scientist or expand on evolution theory. Where speculating is truth if you postulate it right...

 

[Sha'irullah]

In the thread Why is God Invisible and Where does he Live? the idea that God lived in another dimension was proposed.

That idea has been around since the latter 19th century, following popular explanations of the maths of Bernhard Rieman (d. 1866) of n-spaces. By 1884 Edwin Abbott had successfully published Flatland, a story of Mr Square who lives in a two-dimensional universe encountering Lord Sphere, a 3D being. This was the age of Spiritualism and astral planes &c and god as a multidimensional being was discussed even more generally as a vindication of belief &c.

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

I don't think that works, but I'm interested to hear other views.

My point is that people have no reason to worship what they understand. If god is simply a multidimensional being then that brings him into the realm of physics and under the microscope (or over the telescope, or as the case may require).

This gives every reason for this said being to be worshiped although the motifs of worship may be different. Worship to appease such a being is only arrogant on the human's behalf and condescending on the god's behalf.

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. Now I have my issues with prayer and the notion that a god can be swayed in its opinions but unadulterated worship is religious ritual in its purist. It is honoring the sacred and in some cases the profane with utmost humility, reverence and submission of human flaws.

He may be a superscientist, but who wants to worship a superscientist? Respect, fine, but worship? No, the thing you do with a superscientist is ask her for her knowledge, and if she won't tell, then to find out by all available means.

Equating a deity with a scientist is a rather bad analogy because it exceeds intelligence and steps into the realm of ideals and absolutes. A scientist does not embody perfection or grace.

Note how no one does that with gods. I don't know a single religion with a department dedicated to the science ─ the nuts and bolts ─ of performing miracles. If I thought the supernatural was out there, I'd be investigating it very hard and very thoroughly, to use that knowledge for humanity and the sheer joy of knowing (aware that commerce and defense (=attack) wouldn't be far behind).

That is because the supernatural is absurd in how so many religious put it and the supernatural is also ludicrous.

No, to worship something, it seems to me you have to think it's beyond understanding of this kind. It can do magic, it can make worlds just by wishing, it can answer my impossible prayers. The moment you truly understand it is the moment all the magic drains away and we're back in the real world.

Perhaps it's an example of the 'no man is a hero to his valet' principle.

This is actually how I feel in a nutshell. It is not supernatural and it is not something that is always exceeding our world because we as humans can experience things like our own thoughts which while in process has no correlation to our brain. We cannot feel our brain or be aware of its existence because it alludes our sense, it feels unworldly yet so pleasant at the same time but it is very real and very natural.

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

 

[Sha'irullah]

Fear what? I worship Kali. In the end, She devours us all and I look forward to this.

You dirty boy!
*smacks bum*

 

[Kapalika]

Yeah, you should be a climate scientist or expand on evolution theory. Where speculating is truth if you postulate it right...

If you think those things are based on speculation you got no idea how science works or at least you're not aware of the hard evidence behind those two.

 

[Tumah]

I don't know a single religion with a department dedicated to the science ─ the nuts and bolts ─ of performing miracles.

Its called Kaballah.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, we should probably develop divergent words eventually for what is now bundled under "worship".

For some people it seems to be some form of attempt at communication or even bargaining.

For others it has more to do with respect or contemplation.

But I don't think it has much of a rational component in the most typical case.

A common situation seems to be instead a matter of group bonding under the superficial appearance of a common purpose; it is impressive how tempting it can be to join even group dynamics that one despises entirely. Ask a firm pacifist while he is among people calling for a military draft.

Another possibly common motivator is the simple need of doing something, no matter how irrational and pointless, to placate a need for seeking control over a situation,

 

[sayak83]

If you think those things are based on speculation you got no idea how science works or at least you're not aware of the hard evidence behind those two.

Just in case u did not know. This person thinks that the academic world and UN are secretly Allied with the Catholic Church in a giant conspiracy organized by the anti-Christ to obscure the true God and His word.

 

[Tumah]

Just in case u did not know. This person thinks that the academic world and UN are secretly Allied with the Catholic Church in a giant conspiracy organized by the anti-Christ to obscure the true God and His word.

wurt?

 

[sayak83]

wurt?

Yep. Kemosloby has said as much several times earlier.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, understanding is fatal to worship. That is how I became a strong atheist.

This person thinks that the academic world and UN are secretly Allied with the Catholic Church in a giant conspiracy ..

Cristians in general, not just Catholic Church, and I am not surprised.

 

[Grandliseur]

In the thread Why is God Invisible and Where does he Live? the idea that God lived in another dimension was proposed.

That idea has been around since the latter 19th century, following popular explanations of the maths of Bernhard Rieman (d. 1866) of n-spaces. By 1884 Edwin Abbott had successfully published Flatland, a story of Mr Square who lives in a two-dimensional universe encountering Lord Sphere, a 3D being. This was the age of Spiritualism and astral planes &c and god as a multidimensional being was discussed even more generally as a vindication of belief &c.

I don't think that works, but I'm interested to hear other views.

My point is that people have no reason to worship what they understand. If god is simply a multidimensional being then that brings him into the realm of physics and under the microscope (or over the telescope, or as the case may require).

He may be a superscientist, but who wants to worship a superscientist? Respect, fine, but worship? No, the thing you do with a superscientist is ask her for her knowledge, and if she won't tell, then to find out by all available means.

Note how no one does that with gods. I don't know a single religion with a department dedicated to the science ─ the nuts and bolts ─ of performing miracles. If I thought the supernatural was out there, I'd be investigating it very hard and very thoroughly, to use that knowledge for humanity and the sheer joy of knowing (aware that commerce and defense (=attack) wouldn't be far behind).

No, to worship something, it seems to me you have to think it's beyond understanding of this kind. It can do magic, it can make worlds just by wishing, it can answer my impossible prayers. The moment you truly understand it is the moment all the magic drains away and we're back in the real world.

Perhaps it's an example of the 'no man is a hero to his valet' principle.

Since the Bible tells us that our reality is a created one, it should be obvious that God doesn't reside in our reality. It is kind of like when a programmer creates a virtual game world. He is not in it, but can interact with his creation. His creation may be able to interact in a limited way with their programmer, depending on the setup and programming.

That God resides in an original reality is also given to us; though, the information given is scant.

Worship
What do you understand with worship? We are told that obedience, and a kind of parent child, or owner pet, like relationship is what we have. The purpose is clear. One reason is to create a social system on earth where people can live in peace and safety, having their needs met while going about caring for the earth. Another is to have a personal relationship with our Creator.

Lately, science is beginning to think of our universe, reality, as a holograph. There are many telltale signs of this, one science factor is that most matter is so empty, another Biblical, hint perhaps, is the ease and speed with which Jesus healed and the resurrection of Lazarus. (of course, these details atheist laugh at)

God is not a magic user, science is what you need to think. The way to understand some things about God is by studying his glory, the creations on earth, the earth itself, and the things found in the heavens. This is encouraged. There is nothing wrong with studies such as the LHC, as long as we do not harm ourselves or the earth.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Note how no one does that with gods. I don't know a single religion with a department dedicated to the science ─ the nuts and bolts ─ of performing miracles. If I thought the supernatural was out there, I'd be investigating it very hard and very thoroughly, to use that knowledge for humanity and the sheer joy of knowing (aware that commerce and defense (=attack) wouldn't be far behind).

Maybe not a department, but a scriptural acknowledgement that when science has proven something to be true that contradicts religion, then science trumps religion.

'Bahá’u’lláh teaches that religion must be in conformity with science and reason. If belief and teaching are opposed to the analysis of reason and principles of science, they are not worthy of acceptance. This principle has not been revealed in any of the former Books of divine teaching.' – `Abdu’l‑Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

In regards to investigation of reality, this too is a religious principle:

'…every individual member of humankind is exhorted and commanded to set aside superstitious beliefs, traditions and blind imitation of ancestral forms in religion and investigate reality for himself. Inasmuch as the fundamental reality is one, all religions and nations of the world will become one through investigation of reality.' – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

 

[Kemosloby]

If you think those things are based on speculation you got no idea how science works or at least you're not aware of the hard evidence behind those two.

I am aware of the "hard evidence", the speculation, the postulation...

 

[blü 2]

When you are following a faith/religion, you don't question.[/i]
That is, I think, there's such a thing as being in a religious mindset, which doesn't include analysis of the assumptions, only the working out of those assumptions.

That is how I view atheism...a conclusion after you evaluate your beliefs.

And fair enough, though there are many paths to atheism.

My grandmother died a little over two years ago, and it rocked my world as an atheist, then. I couldn't make sense of loss and grief without faith, back then, so I soon went back to it. Now that I've healed from her death, I'm again looking at it objectively and coming back to that same conclusion towards atheism.

Yes, grief is one of the faces of love.

 

[blü 2]

basically Jnana is the yoga of realizing that through intellectual understanding.

Jnana yoga - Wikipedia

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.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you are selling Dharma a bit, short, @blü 2 . It is not nearly as similar to Abrahamism as you seem to believe.

Mainly, it is capable of pragmatic as opposed to dogmatic sustentation, and it does not really need belief proper as a core element of the practice.

 

[blü 2]

Maybe not a department, but a scriptural acknowledgement that when science has proven something to be true that contradicts religion, then science trumps religion.

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

 

[blü 2]

I think you are selling Dharma a bit, short, @blü 2 . It is not nearly as similar to Abrahamism as you seem to believe.

Mainly, it is capable of pragmatic as opposed to dogmatic sustentation, and it does not really need belief proper as a core element of the practice.

I confess I've never looked much further into dharma than deciding that if I had to have a god, Ganesha seemed like a good choice. (And though I lunch every month or two with my friend the Buddhist teacher, dharma's never come up.)

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, you should be a climate scientist or expand on evolution theory. Where speculating is truth if you postulate it right...

Harsh! How was I to know you don't like testable hypotheses?
.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the thread Why is God Invisible and Where does he Live? the idea that God lived in another dimension was proposed.

That idea has been around since the latter 19th century, following popular explanations of the maths of Bernhard Rieman (d. 1866) of n-spaces. By 1884 Edwin Abbott had successfully published Flatland, a story of Mr Square who lives in a two-dimensional universe encountering Lord Sphere, a 3D being. This was the age of Spiritualism and astral planes &c and god as a multidimensional being was discussed even more generally as a vindication of belief &c.

I don't think that works, but I'm interested to hear other views.

My point is that people have no reason to worship what they understand. If god is simply a multidimensional being then that brings him into the realm of physics and under the microscope (or over the telescope, or as the case may require).

He may be a superscientist, but who wants to worship a superscientist? Respect, fine, but worship? No, the thing you do with a superscientist is ask her for her knowledge, and if she won't tell, then to find out by all available means.

Note how no one does that with gods. I don't know a single religion with a department dedicated to the science ─ the nuts and bolts ─ of performing miracles. If I thought the supernatural was out there, I'd be investigating it very hard and very thoroughly, to use that knowledge for humanity and the sheer joy of knowing (aware that commerce and defense (=attack) wouldn't be far behind).

No, to worship something, it seems to me you have to think it's beyond understanding of this kind. It can do magic, it can make worlds just by wishing, it can answer my impossible prayers. The moment you truly understand it is the moment all the magic drains away and we're back in the real world.

Perhaps it's an example of the 'no man is a hero to his valet' principle.

Perhaps we should define worship. In my opinion, nobody needs or deserves more than love, affection, gratitude, respect and the like. I do not consider that worship.

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 couldn't respect that which needs to be worshiped or would want that from me.

These are my understandings that are fatal to worship. I think it comes with maturing in the kind of time and place I did outside of the umbrella of religions requiring worship. 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.