The various roles of God and Theism, and why we should remind ourselves of their variety

[LuisDantas]

Some recent discussions brought me to notice that, for many people, an important or even defining attribute of god-beliefs is that they are a source of moral authority.

It should be little surprise that such people have a hard time understanding and accepting other social situations, and often become quite irritated by non-monotheism and even the suggestion that there might be an actual valid alternative to strict monotheism.

But that is hardly a necessary role for a god-concept. It is arguably not even a very natural one. For many people it is instead a source of inspiration, a name to use to address mysteries of nature and existence, or even simply an idea that we have learned not to question too much lest there be strife in the family.

Which role, if any, do you see as valid or more natural than others? Why?

 

[metis]

It could well be a chicken & egg situation, namely did God (or Gods) create the morals that we should follow or did the morals that our culture had get imposed on the God (or Gods) people came to believe in?

And here's the answer, and it is... [oh shucks, a computer glitch ]

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't personally think so, @metis .

It seems clear to me that morality arises inevitably from sentience, while god-beliefs are basically an accident of aesthetical perception.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Some recent discussions brought me to notice that, for many people, an important or even defining attribute of god-beliefs is that they are a source of moral authority.

It should be little surprise that such people have a hard time understanding and accepting other social situations, and often become quite irritated by non-monotheism and even the suggestion that there might be an actual valid alternative to strict monotheism.

But that is hardly a necessary role for a god-concept. It is arguably not even a very natural one. For many people it is instead a source of inspiration, a name to use to address mysteries of nature and existence, or even simply an idea that we have learned not to question too much lest there be strife in the family.

Which role, if any, do you see as valid or more natural than others? Why?

I take Buddha as one source of moral authority.

Everything, all light and life depends on the sun. So we may have a candle or a torch or an electric light but however bright they shine, without the existence of the sun their light would be vanquished.

That doesn’t mean that candles or torches or electricity do not give light but they are ‘dependant’ on the sun’s existence, while the Sun is independent of them and is their light giver.

So what I understand is the ‘essence’ or ‘root’ of morals and attributes are those Suns of Reality such as Buddha, Jesus and Zoroaster. And that we, like the candles or the branches of that tree. A branch can be cut and the tree still exist but if the root is cut out the entire tree is destroyed.

We pass down morals, ideas and guidance reveived from the Manifestations and eventually claim them as our own but my understanding is we are just a branch or a candle dependent very much on the root or the sun which is the Manifestation for each age.

Everything has a source. Light has the sun. A branch has its roots and morals, the Manifestations.

Millions of people in Asia fashion their lives and lifestyles on Words of Buddha uttered thousands of years ago because He was a unique Educator, a moral Source for the world. Billions have turned to these Educators for moral guidance and continue to do so.

 

[Liu]

I believe in amorality, and I'm a pantheist, therefore nope, no morals from my deity.

Unless you count as morals the laws of cause and effect or any other lessons of life.

I also derive what could be considered morals from my religion, but they are rather recommendations, i.e. if you are in situation x, it will likely benefit you to do y.
Surely my religion influences my behavior, but it doesn't change my moral values, it rather strengthens me in exploring and pursuing them.

Okay, well, I'm also an auto-theist, i.e. I consider myself a manifestation of the divine. Therefore, "morally right" is whatever feels that way to me, and in that way I do get my morals from the divine. But I guess that doesn't count

 

[LuisDantas]

I take Buddha as one source of moral authority.

And according to many of us, that is not a natural reading of his teachings.

Everything, all light and life depends on the sun. So we may have a candle or a torch or an electric light but however bright they shine, without the existence of the sun their light would be vanquished.

That doesn’t mean that candles or torches or electricity do not give light but they are ‘dependant’ on the sun’s existence, while the Sun is independent of them and is their light giver.

I appreciate the poetry, but I don't think that is accurate as a factual report, nor as an illustration of the origin and sustenance of morality.

I understand that you feel differently, and I guess that I can't convince you. Your convictions are your own.

So what I understand is the ‘essence’ or ‘root’ of morals and attributes are those Suns of Reality such as Buddha, Jesus and Zoroaster. And that we, like the candles or the branches of that tree. A branch can be cut and the tree still exist but if the root is cut out the entire tree is destroyed.

We pass down morals, ideas and guidance received from the Manifestations and eventually claim them as our own but my understanding is we are just a branch or a candle dependent very much on the root or the sun which is the Manifestation for each age.

Sure, transmission of moral parameters and even of moral wisdom certainly does exist.

You seem to share of what I understand to be a fairly popular conception that such transmission is actually necessary for practical diffusion of morality.

I don't think that is a a very accurate conception, though. It is my understanding that morality can and often does develop in a much less centralized way - not too rarely as a consequence of questioning the transmitted parameters, even.

More than that, I stand convinced that such decentralized questioning and individual actualization of morality is actually indispensable, and in fact necessary to keep received morality somewhat valid.

From what I know of Bahai Theology, I would assume that you disagree and that you think that we shold instead expect new Manifestations from God to give us the parameters to correct our course in due time?

That is poetical enough an idea. But I don't believe it to be true, nor do I think it is much of a loss that it is not true.

Everything has a source. Light has the sun. A branch has its roots and morals, the Manifestations.

Millions of people in Asia fashion their lives and lifestyles on Words of Buddha uttered thousands of years ago because He was a unique Educator, a moral Source for the world. Billions have turned to these Educators for moral guidance and continue to do so.

Somewhat true, but IMO hardly decisive or complete.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And according to many of us, that is not a natural reading of his teachings.



I appreciate the poetry, but I don't think that is accurate as a factual report, nor as an illustration of the origin and sustenance of morality.

I understand that you feel differently, and I guess that I can't convince you. Your convictions are your own.



Sure, transmission of moral parameters and even of moral wisdom certainly does exist.

You seem to share of what I understand to be a fairly popular conception that such transmission is actually necessary for practical diffusion of morality.

I don't think that is a a very accurate conception, though. It is my understanding that morality can and often does develop in a much less centralized way - not too rarely as a consequence of questioning the transmitted parameters, even.

More than that, I stand convinced that such decentralized questioning and individual actualization of morality is actually indispensable, and in fact necessary to keep received morality somewhat valid.

From what I know of Bahai Theology, I would assume that you disagree and that you think that we shold instead expect new Manifestations from God to give us the parameters to correct our course in due time?

That is poetical enough an idea. But I don't believe it to be true, nor do I think it is much of a loss that it is not true.



Somewhat true, but IMO hardly decisive or complete.

All we understand is that each age has its needs and a Manifestation or Educator is sent to ‘offer’ guidance. People are always free to choose the path they wish to walk upon.

It’s not obligatory to turn to the Manifestation. His only aim is to offer assistance.

 

[LuisDantas]

But how necessary do you see turning to the Manifestation as being? How much of a difference does it make to have heard and understood such a message as opposed to the many conceivable alternatives?

 

[sayak83]

Some recent discussions brought me to notice that, for many people, an important or even defining attribute of god-beliefs is that they are a source of moral authority.

It should be little surprise that such people have a hard time understanding and accepting other social situations, and often become quite irritated by non-monotheism and even the suggestion that there might be an actual valid alternative to strict monotheism.

But that is hardly a necessary role for a god-concept. It is arguably not even a very natural one. For many people it is instead a source of inspiration, a name to use to address mysteries of nature and existence, or even simply an idea that we have learned not to question too much lest there be strife in the family.

Which role, if any, do you see as valid or more natural than others? Why?

Well, I believe that the Multiverse is an eternally evolving, eternally brachiating, highly self-correlated mega-organism that is rooted in something more fundamental out of which many such Multiverses rise to create new types to brachiating realities. That fundamental is some sort "living and breathing" mathematical structure. Beyond this it gets difficult to see.

Thus, understanding why the laws of physics are the way they are may require us to think in terms of biology and evolutionary principles. Also sentient civilizations may play a crucial role in evolution and growth of various universes... resulting in a kind of positive selection.

Take it as wild speculation if you like. This is my sense of it.
Remember you asked.

 

[LuisDantas]

So in a nutshell, you believe that there is a Creator of Existence?

And (I take it) that is another, traditional role for the God-concepts that you see as worth mentioning in this thread?

 

[Truthseeker]

But how necessary do you see turning to the Manifestation as being? How much of a difference does it make to have heard and understood such a message as opposed to the many conceivable alternatives?

I see it is very important to turn to the Manifestation.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see it is very important to turn to the Manifestation.

May you elaborate on that?

Also - and this is IMO a very interesting question - how avoidable would the effects of the Manifestation be?

Would you agree with me when I say that raisings of moral awareness and moral understanding tend to be very communicable and therefore to benefit people who may be very far from their specific origins?

I also think that moral advancement tends to require many prerequisites that are likely to manifest in somewhat symultaneous ways in various places, but that is speculation from me.

 

[metis]

I don't personally think so, @metis .

It seems clear to me that morality arises inevitably from sentience, while god-beliefs are basically an accident of aesthetical perception.

I gave two options that are diametrically opposed to each other, not siding with either one, so I don't quite understand the "I don't personally think so" part of your response. Could you clarify?

 

[LuisDantas]

I gave two options that are diametrically opposed to each other, not siding with either one, so I don't quite understand the "I don't personally think so" part of your response. Could you clarify?

Sure! Sorry, I should have done that already.

I think that restricting ourselves to the two options of "god creates morality" and "morality shapes gods" is a bit of an oversimplification, among other reasons because morality arises spontaneously and IMO unavoidably, while god-beliefs do not.

Morality is a very practical need for any people who may have to deal with social relations. It is not really possible to avoid developing it in some form. God-beliefs happen very often, but are ultimately not nearly as well-defined nor as frequent as morality.

 

[metis]

Sure! Sorry, I should have done that already.

I think that restricting ourselves to the two options of "god creates morality" and "morality shapes gods" is a bit of an oversimplification, among other reasons because morality arises spontaneously and IMO unavoidably, while god-beliefs do not.

Morality is a very practical need for any people who may have to deal with social relations. It is not really possible to avoid developing it in some form. God-beliefs happen very often, but are ultimately not nearly as well-defined nor as frequent as morality.

Thanks for clarifying this, and I tend to lean in the direction that you may be correct but I simply am not sure.

However, where I am more confident about is that at least most concepts of "God" or "God's" are likely inaccurate because there's way too much variance cross-culturally and they all can't be right. Nor does the "my way or the highway" approach make any sense to me because there's no objectively-derived evidence to support that position regardless as to where it comes from.

 

[Truthseeker]

May you elaborate on that?

Also - and this is IMO a very interesting question - how avoidable would the effects of the Manifestation be?

Would you agree with me when I say that raisings of moral awareness and moral understanding tend to be very communicable and therefore to benefit people who may be very far from their specific origins?

I also think that moral advancement tends to require many prerequisites that are likely to manifest in somewhat symultaneous ways in various places, but that is speculation from me.

Specifically, if the world doesn't turn to Baha'u'llah we won't have world unity. I don't think we can achieve that all on our own. We can have a world government without Baha'u'llah, but with no real unity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Specifically, if the world doesn't turn to Baha'u'llah we won't have world unity. I don't think we can achieve that all on our own. We can have a world government without Baha'u'llah, but with no real unity.

Do you think it is conceivable that others might reach roughly the same general conclusions as Baha'u'llah independently and ultimately decide to cooperate with the same goals without necessarily perceiving him as a Messenger from God?

 

[Truthseeker]

Do you think it is conceivable that others might reach roughly the same general conclusions as Baha'u'llah independently and ultimately decide to cooperate with the same goals without necessarily perceiving him as a Messenger from God?

Yes, people do that. But there wouldn't be enough of them.