GENIUS FORUMS

When I read the Bible, or the writings of Kierkegaard, or those of Meister Eckhart, it is obvious to me that the best interpretation of the word "God" is "Nature", or "The All", or "Totality", "the Infinite", etc.

They were panthesists to me. For their philosophy to work, as in to become emotionally acceptable to them, they needed some "thing" to be bigger and better and greater than them, so that they could apply their efforts to this thing.

In essense this is no different to any other religious person.

Therefore I think my own use of the word God is correct, and the usage of modern Christians is wrong. Why should I let them hijack the word? Should I let them hijack the entire language? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't believe they should be allowed to diminish the language in any way at all. So I'm trying to steal the word back off them.

And what a myriad of emotions are expressed in this paragraph?
"Those fucking bastard cunts are taking my God in vain. I'll teach those motherfuckers who is right and righteous."

To quote something a dude called Peter Strawson said, I've said, and others here have said in the past.

"Many philosophical problems arise when one takes terms and constructions out of their normal linguisitc contexts, and these problems can be solved by careful analyis of everyday useage of language.

I highlighted the word problems, because there would be no need for truth is there were no problems, and problems are just emotional desires.

Jamesh wrote:To quote something a dude called Peter Strawson said, I've said, and others here have said in the past.

"Many philosophical problems arise when one takes terms and constructions out of their normal linguisitc contexts, and these problems can be solved by careful analyis of everyday useage of language.

I highlighted the word problems, because there would be no need for truth is there were no problems, and problems are just emotional desires.

Jamesh;

The quote and your comment are very interesting. The quote is specifically about a category of problems, philosophical problems. When you wrote, “problems are just emotional desires”, did you mean that emotional desires cause philosophical problems? That seems odd to me. If you did mean that, in what way do emotional desires cause philosophical problems? Can you give me an example?

clyde

Jamesh wrote:

When I read the Bible, or the writings of Kierkegaard, or those of Meister Eckhart, it is obvious to me that the best interpretation of the word "God" is "Nature", or "The All", or "Totality", "the Infinite", etc.

They were panthesists to me. For their philosophy to work, as in to become emotionally acceptable to them, they needed some "thing" to be bigger and better and greater than them, so that they could apply their efforts to this thing.

Perhaps, but not necessarily.

Nature is infinitely more powerful than us, is it not? And it's possible to speak, poetically, of Nature in personal terms - eg, "Mother Nature".

I'm not convinced that Jesus, say, needed to view Nature as Lording it over him just to satisfy his emotional needs. To the contrary, he seemed to identify himself with God, and this was probably the main reason he was killed.

In essense this is no different to any other religious person.

Have a read of "The Gospel of Thomas". The Jesus presented in that scripture is a lot different to the ordinary religious person. There, he definitely identifies himself with God (ie, Nature).

"Many philosophical problems arise when one takes terms and constructions out of their normal linguisitc contexts, and these problems can be solved by careful analyis of everyday useage of language.

I pretty much agree with that.

But I'm not going to let foolish people hijack the language if I can help it.

The everyday interpretation of the Bible doesn't tell us, for example, the meaning behind the words of the real Jesus (if he ever existed).

As a pantheist, I agree with Kevin here. While pantheism is a religious position, it need not have much in common with the more familiar egoistic religious traditions. I think it is a mistake to dismiss the pantheist position wholesale on the basis that it is "just another religion." In my experience, most pantheists will much sooner side with atheists and rationalists than with Christians or Muslims.

Kevin, are you an atheist?

Kevin Solway wrote:Therefore I think my own use of the word God is correct, and the usage of modern Christians is wrong. Why should I let them hijack the word? Should I let them hijack the entire language? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't believe they should be allowed to diminish the language in any way at all. So I'm trying to steal the word back off them.

I've heard this explanation before... it does not have the ring of truth to it. Let's construct a metaphor.

Let's say a lot of people believe in unicorns, but Bob doesn't. But Bob talks about unicorns anyway, and tells you that you can find them in Africa.

When pressed, he says he is referring to the rhinocerous. Since it only has one horn, it is, logically and obviously, a unicorn, by definition. He tells us that he is against the abuse of language and is trying to steal the word back from the unicornists who abuse it - he is using it correctly, and they are not.

In my view, Bob is full of shit. He is deliberately mis-using the language. When you use words in a way that you know will be mis-interpreted (even if you can argue that it is technically true), you are lying. There is no honest, legitimate reason to say "unicorn" when you mean "rhinocerous".

DHodges wrote:Kevin, are you an atheist?

It depends what you mean by "atheist".

I don't believe in a God who is a person, or who is an intelligence or an "agent" of any kind, who goes around doing things with some purpose in mind.

In that sense I am an atheist.

However, I think it can be a valid use of language to refer to the All, or Nature, as "God our Father" in the same poetic manner that we speak about "Mother Nature" - without any intention to suggest that what we are talking about is either a person, or male or female. I believe there is a long tradition of the use of language in precisely this way.

And just as we can speak poetically of ourselves as being creations of Nature, without any implication that Nature is intelligent in any way, so can we speak of God as being our creator.

It just takes a while to get used to the different use of the word. I grant that it's a bit jarring at first.

I was brought up to think that the word "gay" meant something like "bright and happy". So when I learnt that it can also mean homosexual (and seemingly unhappy), it took a bit of getting used to. But it wasn't impossible to adapt.

So I think we can adapt to this "new" use of the word "God" as well.

Let's say a lot of people believe in unicorns, but Bob doesn't. But Bob talks about unicorns anyway, and tells you that you can find them in Africa.

When pressed, he says he is referring to the rhinocerous. Since it only has one horn, it is, logically and obviously, a unicorn, by definition. He tells us that he is against the abuse of language and is trying to steal the word back from the unicornists who abuse it - he is using it correctly, and they are not.

But what if Bob has discovered an extensive, age-old and valuable literature from his own country, which, in his opinion refers to this African rhinocerous using the word "unicorn"?

And importantly, what if the majority of his own country's population have understood the "unicorn" to refer to a powerful being in the sky who has instructed them to all kill each other and others mercilessly upon threat of eternal punishment in the flames of hell?

Would it not be a service to these people to dispel them of their unfortunate delusion?

There is no honest, legitimate reason to say "unicorn" when you mean "rhinocerous".

I understand your frustration, but I think I explain a legitimate reason above.