Faith and God

[konfused]

Just looking for some comments to the following.

 

1) What are people's understanding of the word faith?

 

2) Is the concept of god a reductionist notion?

[quankanne]

"Faith" is my relationship with God, or rather, my being open to his greeting. "Spirituality" I suppose is how I express my faith, shaped by a strong Mexican Catholic background and me coming of age after Vatican II. "Religion" is the vehicle for my faith and spirituality.

 

concept of God a reductionist notion? I don't follow … though I did find the following entry at webster.com

 

reductionism

 

Main Entry: re·duc·tion·ism

Pronunciation: ri-'d&k-sh&-"ni-z&m

Function: noun

1 : explanation of complex life-science processes and phenomena in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry; also : a theory or doctrine that complete reductionism is possible

2 : a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms

- re·duc·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective

- re·duc·tion·is·tic /-"d&k-sh&-'nis-tik/ adjective

 

if you mean that in explaining or grasping the concept of God in simplistic terms, then yeah, because I believe that God equals love. And it doesn't get any simpler than that because everyone has experienced love to some degree and is capable of grasping God when he's identified as that. It's less about "making" God into something, but using a common emotion or concept to identify him ...

[Joelle]

1) What are people's understanding of the word faith?

 

In my opinion, faith is a choice - a choice to place trust & loyalty.

 

2) Is the concept of god a reductionist notion?

 

What's a reductionist notion? Please clarify.

[Sideburns]

...Faith isn't always a choice. Believing in certain things be it God or Government can be conditional, Most christian born children grow up believing Christ died for our sins etc... Just food for thought, it can be argued both ways, just representing another side of the coin.

 

Anyhow to the main event...

 

Descartes tried to prove the existence of God, and he does an alright job of it (for a 17C man).

 

He says that any effect can not be of less value than it's cause. Much like a boiling pot of water; if you put a pot on a cold stove the water will not boil, but as you increase the temperature of the element the water will boil accordingly matching the temperature of the element. So you can now clearly and distinctly percieve that any cause must be equal or greater than the effect it produces. "Ex nihilo nihil fit" --Nothing comes from Nothing---

 

So human beings can not have been created by something of a lesser 'value' so to speak, than that of a human being. Therefore the first human beings had to be created by something of greater position in the hierarchy of existance than we are. And seeing as human beings can have reasonable and unreasonable doubts about different things we are obviously not perfect and must be the product of something much greater than ourselves.

So eventualy, when you get to the top of the hierarchy of existence you must encounter a being that is perfect, of which there are no doubts. This is what we call "God"...The all-perfect being.

Therefore, according to this, God is not a reductionist theory.

...If you chose to believe this.

 

I personaly have trouble believing this because...

God is the idea of "perfect". And existence is a perfection because it comes from 'god'. As an idea God is perfect, because ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing comes from nothing. Human beings can not have been manifested from nothingness, so God must exist in some tangible form. But for God to exist in the realm of the physical he/she/it can not be perfect, because no representation of an idea can ever be as perfect as the idea or 'form'. Therefore God is fallible and not perfect. Only the idea of God is.

 

If you're having trouble with this, think of a triangle in your mind, and ask yourself is it the perfect triangle? The answer of course is no, because there is no such thing as a perfect triangle, the only perfection is that of "triangleness", meaning what is inseperable from being a triangle, which we all know as the Angle Sum Triangle Theorem (all interior angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees) other than that a triangle can take a million different forms.

 

So the idea of God is perfect, but any manifestation of God can not be so, because it would be just one of an infinite number of combinations the 'idea' can take form as (kind of like all the worlds different religions). And as nothing comes from nothing, God can not have been created by an idea.

 

Anyhow, it's almost 4am and I don't know if this makes sense to anyone anymore.

 

P.S.

If you're a devout "faitful" to whatever religion or creed I'm not trying to put it down...It's just a pickle I'm in, being a constant seeker or rationality and reason.

[konfused]

What's a reductionist notion? Please clarify.

 

Meaning that the concept can be broken down into simpler and simpler parts and can never be fully clarified. For instance, the above poster said God was equal to love. So a reductionist would ask: Does that make God equivalent to the hormones in my body that cause me to feel love?

 

Moreover, it means that terms like love and god cannot be defined because they are subjective notions. I don't know what the above poster meant by love. I think I know, but I can never be quite sure. Same goes for any of those abstract emotions. A reductionist would try to define such emotions in terms of something that is measurable, like hormones.

 

Just curious as to if this is why the bible is so important; because it provides an objective 'measure' of god, i.e. a defnition, that all can share.

 

BTW, no picking on the above poster, just using as an example.

[superconductor]

On the assumption that God is all-powerful, all-consuming and omnipotent and all the rest, I can no more have a personal relationship with God than a worm can have a personal relationship with me.

 

A Cartesian notion of God doesn't work either, at least to me. Since the acceptance of God is based on faith - that is, belief in things unseen (or otherwise sensed) - there can't possibly be a reductionist notion of experiencing God.

[blind_otter]

Just looking for some comments to the following.

 

1) What are people's understanding of the word faith?

 

2) Is the concept of god a reductionist notion?

 

a form of reductionism is intrinsic to all scientific explanation. Arthur Peacocke writes:

 

The breaking-down of unintelligible, complex wholes into their component units, the determination of the structures of those pieces and what functions they can perform, and then the fitting of them together as best one can, hypothetically at least, in order to see how they function together in a complex whole, are such common ploys in experimental science that most practising scientists would consider it scarcely worth remarking upon.

 

The physicalist assumption is of primary importance to scientific examination of life as we know it. It goes without saying that humans are, essentially, made up of elemental components, and without those components, life would not exist. But it seems to me that, the understanding that life is something beyond a collection of specific elemental components -- is just as intrinsic.

 

To me faith is a transpersonal concept, or relating to something greater than yourself, rather than interpersonal. St. Augustine said "Crede, ut intelligas" ("Believe in order that you may understand"). It has to do not only with believing in something unconditionally, but also believing something that someone else teaches you because you have faith that they are teaching the "truth" as it were. In order to progress in the learning process in school, you must have faith in your teachers. Your textbooks. The research and information presented to you without your direct examination.

 

It is the bridge between the finite and the infinite.

[EnigmaXOXO]

1) What are people's understanding of the word faith?

 

To have belief and/or hope in something bigger than ourselves. Whatever that may be for each individual.

 

2) Is the concept of god a reductionist notion?

 

Perhaps, in that it keeps one humble --- While at the same time holding us accountable and/or responsible for how we choose to conduct our lives.

[konfused]

 

The physicalist assumption is of primary importance to scientific examination of life as we know it. It goes without saying that humans are, essentially, made up of elemental components, and without those components, life would not exist. But it seems to me that, the understanding that life is something beyond a collection of specific elemental components -- is just as intrinsic.

 

If you're talking about a soul than I cannot relate, but if you're talking about the relatedness of all life with or without god than I agree. I've never felt more humble in all my life than when I realized I had no more purpose (physically speaking) than a housefly.

 

To me faith is a transpersonal concept, or relating to something greater than yourself, rather than interpersonal. St. Augustine said "Crede, ut intelligas" ("Believe in order that you may understand"). It has to do not only with believing in something unconditionally, but also believing something that someone else teaches you because you have faith that they are teaching the "truth" as it were. In order to progress in the learning process in school, you must have faith in your teachers. Your textbooks. The research and information presented to you without your direct examination.

 

As a teacher I wish more students had this kind of faith.

[EnigmaXOXO]

I've never felt more humble in all my life than when I realized I had no more purpose (physically speaking) than a housefly.

 

Yeap. Our species is expendable. Like the dinosaurs, the earth could shake us off like a bad case of fleas (or we could exterminate ourselves) and life in it's biological form would continue to thrive absent our input. Other life forms would probably stand a better chance of surviving without us!

 

But "purpose" for your brief existence is whatever you choose to make of it. Giving some meaning to your life NOW rather than questioning whether or not it will serve some meaning after your dead and gone is a far better use of your time. (I think).

 

And I think being a teacher is a noble purpose. It requires giving more back than you receive. Something you can feel good about later on when you're facing your mortality and looking back to take an honest inventory of your life.

 

YOU will feel satisfied in knowing your tiny life has made a positive difference… no matter how small, in the grand scheme of things.

[quankanne]

Just curious as to if this is why the bible is so important; because it provides an objective 'measure' of god, i.e. a definition, that all can share.

 

BTW, no picking on the above poster, just using as an example.

 

am not offended that you've tried to break down my thoughts into something you can fathom ... which is a kind of reductionism in itself, because you are attempting to define through words or ideas that you comprehend. Which is why I used love to define God. While your ideal or experience is different from mine, we've both been exposed to love – the hormones, yes, but even more importantly, that psychological act of giving self to another wholeheartedly and without expecting something back.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's more to God than just the attempt to explain him using the five senses – to believers, God is visceral, or felt inside. Not necessarily explained by standard measures or concepts, but with what you're filled with inside as you consider your relationship with him ...

[superconductor]

... to believers, God is visceral, or felt inside. Not necessarily explained by standard measures or concepts, but with what you're filled with inside as you consider your relationship with him ...

This is where things start to get a little hazy.

 

By stating that a knowledge of God is based on feelings - no matter how powerful those feelings may be - makes two assumptions:

1. Feelings are very tenuous, and undefinable. For a God to base knowledge of Himself on the fluttering basis of feelings completey ignores the rest of our senses, and we rely upon those senses, as human beings, to observe our world. In short, we require facts, and God doesn't supply them. So, either He can't, or He chooses not to. Neither one makes any sense;
   
2. Those who have these feelings have an extremely difficult time describing them to others. If God's mission (so to speak) is to bring human beings into the "fold," then this manner of getting people to "see the light" is fraught with difficulty and mis-interpretation.
   

Again, it's important to note here that those who have such experiences are not delusional; the feelings are very real, very strong and mean a great deal. But to those, like myself, who thought they had a relationship with God but saw no proof and felt spiritually abandoned, it's cold comfort.

[Outcast]

Neither God nor Love are reductionist 'notions'. Humans continue to try to grasp 45th C information with 21st C brains. It's an amusing sort of ego we tiny beasts cling to. We attempt to shrink Knowledge into something small enough that will fit into our tiny little craniums.

 

My understanding of humanity's place in the universe was enlightened by Horton Hears a Who. I'm pretty convinced we're microbes on a speck of dust on some vast cosmic creature's butt. And that Love/God is knowable in small measure by a function that's not discovered or discoverable at this point in history.

 

Faith taps into that function.

[quankanne]

In short, we require facts, and God doesn't supply them. So, either He can't, or He chooses not to. Neither one makes any sense;

 

I guess I'm looking at it from a different angle: my belief is visceral, it's of value only to me, and it helps me to take that leap of faith between fact and trust in the unknown that is God. My "proof" of him is that I am able to hear his call to me.

 

kind of like a dog-whistle, if you will; not everyone is capable of hearing that pitch that high, yet the proof that those things work is evident when you use it on a dog.

[konfused]

am not offended that you've tried to break down my thoughts into something you can fathom ... which is a kind of reductionism in itself, because you are attempting to define through words or ideas that you comprehend. Which is why I used love to define God. While your ideal or experience is different from mine, we've both been exposed to love – the hormones, yes, but even more importantly, that psychological act of giving self to another wholeheartedly and without expecting something back.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's more to God than just the attempt to explain him using the five senses – to believers, God is visceral, or felt inside. Not necessarily explained by standard measures or concepts, but with what you're filled with inside as you consider your relationship with him ...

 

Using words to express thought is the cornerstone of reductionism.

 

Love can mean so many things. For instance, the love of a man for his wife, a man for his dog, a man for his sport, a man for his child. All are defined as love but have different feelings. We might say that we understand each other, but we can never be sure.

 

As a nonbeliever, I think that all emotions or feelings experienced by believers are also felt by me. If believers had extra hormones or different configurations that accounted for such feelings, they would be measurable and observable. More likely, I attribute the same feelings to other causes.

 

And let us also remember that our behaviors and motives are sometimes hidden from us. When you say give yourself to another without expecting something back, you are undoubtedly referring to unconditional love. Just because we think it is so doesn't make it unconditional. I would claim that the Golden Rule was construted by our subconscience and to compensate our rational minds invented god. But this is a subject for another post.

[superconductor]

My "proof" of him is that I am able to hear his call to me.

I've heard other people talk of this as well, and I will admit that I'm in awe of their unshakeable confidence. But what, specifically, makes you believe that God is somehow calling you?

[quankanne]

When you say give yourself to another without expecting something back, you are undoubtedly referring to unconditional love.

 

it's not that *I* say it is or isn't unconditional ... but the fact that however I slice it, it's love. Especially when I have the capacity to hate or feel apathy. You feel these things, I have no doubt, but in my case, the difference is in my perception of what love is. A biochemical trance? A trained response? Or something freely indulged in because it springs from deep within?

 

I've heard other people talk of this as well, and I will admit that I'm in awe of their unshakeable confidence. But what, specifically, makes you believe that God is somehow calling you?

 

thank you for asking! Again, it's something visceral, not easily explained (which I consider it ironic since my profession relies heavily on words, hee hee) but more instinctual. Sorta like breathing. Whether or not you are aware of this very act, your body is designed to fight for that breath and your responses will kick in to get that precious air when you try to disrupt that flow.

 

what I have with God is like that, even as I go through periods of not attending Mass or not praying or even doing my best to be spiritually lazy. There is an implicit understanding that I am His and he is mine. Period.

[Joelle]

Meaning that the concept can be broken down into simpler and simpler parts and can never be fully clarified. For instance, the above poster said God was equal to love. So a reductionist would ask: Does that make God equivalent to the hormones in my body that cause me to feel love?

 

Moreover, it means that terms like love and god cannot be defined because they are subjective notions. I don't know what the above poster meant by love. I think I know, but I can never be quite sure. Same goes for any of those abstract emotions. A reductionist would try to define such emotions in terms of something that is measurable, like hormones.

 

Just curious as to if this is why the bible is so important; because it provides an objective 'measure' of god, i.e. a defnition, that all can share.

 

BTW, no picking on the above poster, just using as an example.

 

Thanks for clarifying. In light of your explanation, I don' know whether or not God is a reductionist notion. Like I mentioned in other threads, I'm still seeking God, so I don't have a strong idea of what He is (yet).

 

However, I did give the reductionist notion some thought. Let's use yourself as an example and the reductionist idea. What do you think YOU are? Are you made up of your body? If yes, breaking down your body to it's components, are you skin, hair, organs, etc? Breaking it down further, are you cells of skin, hair, organs, etc.? Are you simply ONE of those cells? Am I applying the reductionist notion correctly?

 

Or are you the SUM of all those cells?

 

I guess I'm speculating on the accuracy (or credibility) of the reductionist notion. Can something or someone be defined by their basic components? If yes, why aren't people single-celled animals?

[konfused]

. My "proof" of him is that I am able to hear his call to me.

 

How do you know what you hear is god and not one of those pesky schizophrenic voices? Not trying to be an ass? Would it be that the corresponding behaviors are not self-harming?

 

Like I mentioned in other threads, I'm still seeking God, so I don't have a strong idea of what He is (yet).

 

Don't sell yourself short, He might be a She. Seems you've narrowed it down quite a bit.

 

Can something or someone be defined by their basic components? If yes, why aren't people single-celled animals?

 

Dawkins described our bodies as survival machines housing many independent genes. They are even smaller than cells. Simply chains of amino acids. Such an idea is not for the faint of heart. I sometimes wish I'd never learned of it. It has been accepted in the biological field, however.

 

Happy hunting

[Outcast]

Well, if you want to go reductionist all the way, we're just an assemblage of a massive number of little bits of energy.

[Sideburns]

Hahaha, I love all these posts, there're some thinkers out there and it's awesome.

 

Unfortunately I'd be here all night responding to every post I'd like to so I'll respond what I've picked out from the second page.

 

Here it goes...I disagree with the last post because (IMHO) complete reduction isn't us being little bits of energy. Complete reduction of everything would make everything a mere idea, with no empirical qualities whatsoever, I truely believe everything in existence is made of of the forms.

Energy is a representation of an idea, even if we didn't create it, something else did, which means the end of the line does not exist at "energy" it exists somewhere that is governed by ideas or what Plato called "Forms" stating the e.g. I used earlier "Triangleness"

But so far we have no way pinpointing exactly where that finish line is so to speak, but I think as a species we have a reasonable idea where it lies.

-----

In order to progress in the learning process in school, you must have faith in your teachers. Your textbooks. The research and information presented to you without your direct examination.

 

Only to a certain level, then to progress further you must call into question what those have taught and you steadfastly believing without doubt. If you never doubt what you're being taught you're a mediochre student at best.

 

...Once again it's nearing 4am and I have no idea if what I said makes sense, feel free to yell at me if you want.

[blind_otter]

Only to a certain level, then to progress further you must call into question what those have taught and you steadfastly believing without doubt. If you never doubt what you're being taught you're a mediochre student at best.

 

...Once again it's nearing 4am and I have no idea if what I said makes sense, feel free to yell at me if you want.

 

No yelling.

 

And yet Einstein's theory of relativity did, indeed, have a mathematical proof. Most of the front end work of the proof done by Einstein's first wife, who sold her rights to feed her kids. Every mathematical proof begins with certain assumptions, "givens" that you must believe in to follow through to the logical conclusion of the proof. I have never seen one that didn't.

 

And don't even get me started on nonsense words. James Joyce can bite my butt.

[quankanne]

How do you know what you hear is God and not one of those pesky schizophrenic voices? Not trying to be an ass? Would it be that the corresponding behaviors are not self-harming?

 

discernment. And the fact that schizophrenia doesn't run in my family!

 

coming from the background that I do, being catechized as a kid and now through my work, it's easier for me to discern the hand of God in things, mostly because I believe that it's there, working for our good and producing positive or uplifting results in my life.

 

I never really thought of spirituality in terms of mental illness – to me, most mental illness is due to an out-of-whack body chemistry that results in that behavior that tends to be negative or excessive, which is opposite of how I define God. Simplistic, yes, but it works for me.

 

... on further reflection, it's prolly less a "voice heard" than knowledge of Him. Because the catechism I've had is never-changing, it's easier for me to give creedence to my belief – the Catholic Church isn't going to stray from her teachings on faith and Christ and God or split over differences. There's an atmosphere of consistency, which leads to a sense of surety, for me.