Is there such a thing as a deity?

[Jim]

The religion forum lacked a thread asking the core question central to all religions and at the root of much religious debate, so I took it upon myself to post one. I know that the answer to this question is often complex, so I encourage everyone who responds the poll to also reply to the thread.

My answer is no, but with a qualifier. If the existence of a deity were to be completely proven to me using solid, tangible evidence, I would have to believe it. As it stands, though, I see no proof and therefore cannot believe that deities are anything more than myths. The same goes for any kind of supernatural activity.

[dong]

What do you mean by a Deity? Should I presume a personal definition and attempt the poll, or is there a standard that you'd like us to assess?

[Jim]

For the purpose of the poll, consider deity to mean supreme being in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term, but also inclusive of multiple gods (which may or may not be "supreme beings"). This means everything from Baptist Christianity to Hinduism to ancient Greek mythology to your own personal mix of beliefs (provided that it includes a supreme being of some kind). The supreme being does not need to also be the creator, though it often is.

Anything verifiably born on this planet doesn't qualify. No rock stars, TV people, philosophers, etc.

[dong]

Okay, in that case, since I am best described as non-theist universalist agnostic, I'm flipping up between I don't know and No (edit: I chose the latter). I also could have picked I don't care as that wouldn't have been inaccurate either. Here, I am not questioning the value of faith, but I refer to the metaphysical incongruity in defining a supreme being separate from the universe. My understanding of Christianity and religion in general directly contradicts the insistence on placing stock in faith as I believe that this gives rise to a series of necessary paradoxes. For that reason I am more amenable to the buddhist philosophy as I like to maintain awareness above all else.

[Martyr]

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know but I voted "I do not care." Both apply.

[palefrost]

Interesting topic. I believe in a creator.

I believe my creator is not human hearted. I think we are a byproduct of something bigger. This doesn't lesson our role here but we do have a place in the grand scheme. I think our perceptions and brains our limited so we cant really grasp everything. We are psychologically limited. Unfortunitly we are left with a feeling of something more but are unable to find the answers we seek because our brains filter out so much.

I also dont agree on the term of "supernatural" I dont think anything is "supernatural". Its just beyond our knowledge or brain power to understand it. :)

[LyricB]

The great thing about believing in God or a "deity" per se is that it's based in faith. You don't have concrete proof, but in your heart you know it's true.

On a personal note, my thoughts that there is a God were solidified when I had my babies...I can't look in their eyes and not think that they're gifts to me from something higher than myself.

[Jim]

The great thing about believing in God or a "deity" per se is that it's based in faith. You don't have concrete proof, but in your heart you know it's true.

On a personal note, my thoughts that there is a God were solidified when I had my babies...I can't look in their eyes and not think that they're gifts to me from something higher than myself.

My problem with faith is that it could be applied to anything. I can have faith in the existence of vampires, talking trees, mystical rocks, ad nauseam. Does it mean that these things exist in reality? Of course not. The thought process that results in faith is little more than an emotional reaction or an exercise in imagination.

Take faith far enough and it becomes psychosis. Psychotic people also have beliefs that aren't grounded in reality, but are instead based on emotion and imagination. The main difference between psychotics and religious people is that the latter tend to form groups and establish their factually unsupported beliefs as "faith." The former get medicated, ostracized, and/or locked up in hospitals.

So when does faith cross the line from religion to psychosis? There are surely many examples of people who exist somewhere on that line.

[dong]

Take faith far enough and it becomes psychosis. Psychotic people also have beliefs that aren't grounded in reality, but are instead based on emotion and imagination.

I'm going to have to call you there on two counts. Most importantly, it's not psychosis, we term this delusion...and delusion may accompany psychosis.

Also, you appear to make an arbitrary distinction between emotion and imagination and rationality. I wouldn't place much stock in the common perception that "emotionalism" and "intuition" necessarily invoke "irrationalism". I would thus suggest taking a close look at how our modes of analytical theorising and empirical inputs interact. Given this, it is in fact difficult also to pick up what defines a delusion medically (tangentially I'm writing a piece of fiction on this theme) but a common presentation from a logical/rational perspective is, say, an uncharacteristic belief which is insisted upon rigidly despite either being contradictory or unlikely, that rational modes of thought are unable to overcome. To go all Popperian, this may include presumptions of unfalsifiable statements, which is arguably what "faith" could be reduced to, and that's where it loses "grounding in reality".

Tangential: I've said it before, but that faith fundamentally differs from science in this nature does not place them at odds as they pertain to different domains of thinking about existence.

But, as I think Jim points out, the problem is that they tend to be used antagonistically. Faith isn't supposed to be, but ends up being the "filler of the gaps." The charge that could be laid against many scientists of old, on the flip side, is that they tended to overstep their boundaries...but technically this issue has changed since philosophy and science are now generally regarded as separate fields.

[palefrost]

I believe if you have faith in something no matter what it is..it can become that. :p For example if i were to call a rock my god and preyed to it each day, then other people started praying to that rock. It would in fact become real.

[dong]

I believe if you have faith in something no matter what it is..it can become that. :p For example if i were to call a rock my god and preyed to it each day, then other people started praying to that rock. It would in fact become real.

Well, when it comes to faith in non-falsifiable things as deities, then, yeah, I believe that it would become a real phenomenon (but nothing to do with noumena!) A god to whom nobody prays is not a god at all.

Of course, having complete faith in, say, being able to jump off a building and not die will not necessarily save you from dying, if your faith is not well founded. The universe is best seen as existing independently of us (we have greatest analytical power in presuming so) and as such we do have parameters to which we are all restricted. To try denying any of this is where the whole "delusion" conversation comes in...of course as to what is delusion and what is reality can be controversial. Power of the mind really is something but it isn't everything, methinks.

[Plumley]

I believe there's something because our world seems too complex to be coincidental. I have no idea what that something is. What I do know is that I'm not brave enough to be an atheist.

[dong]

I would remind you that atheism too is a faith :P

An atheist (or a pair of them rather) once told me that agnostic was a coward's way out. A philosopher then told me that it was more than ballsy to not only face that one did not know, but also could not know of the existence of a god. To me, it's simply the most accurate way of looking at things in that I can do most (analytically) with that model.

Of course, people generally (I'm no exception) like to find the something "more" than our empirical experience, because we're just limited beings ourselves. I try to straddle the middle ground between thinking humans are the center of the universe, acknowledging our weakness and requiring a dependence on the notion of a greater being. It's not easy, especially the way we have come to think of things. And that's also why I respect faith (and to a degree, religion).

[Agaric]

This is a question that's been asked countless times and there's no answer that will satisfy either camp. The simple truth is you're not going to get proof of the existence of a deity. What are you going to say? We detected a large body moving through a magnetic field around Earth, or something to that nature? Science would just kick in an explain it logically. Deities exist because people will them to. Even if something exists as a thought, that thing still exists, do you agree?

I don't often think about finding proof and all that because it's a waste of time. People believe in certain things, other people don't believe in certain things.

[dong]

Deities exist because people will them to. Even if something exists as a thought, that thing still exists, do you agree?

Aiyaiyaiyaiyai...uh, let's be reeeeal careful about how one goes about making ontological commitments shall we? :p

In one sense, I would completely agree with you. Being a certain strand of agnostic, when drawing analogues between religious doctrines and metaphysical analyses, I tend to think of deities specifically as constructs of thoughts, and to a certain degree collective consciousness. But care must be taken in distinguishing between that which is phenomenal (processed and tied to our consciousness) and that which is purportedly noumenal (i.e. "things within themselves" independent of our consciousness...that which is "empirically real"). As such, I would actually go so far to say that "a god that nobody acknowledges is not a god at all", but I would not apply the converse reasoning to it, for I contend there is a difference between a thought itself being real (if this notion is even valid), and the object of the thought being real.

I suspect that those who are more religiously inclined/inclined to faith would much rather argue for the real existence of a deity as independent from our consciousness, or even the limits of our perception including the universe itself. How this manifests also depends on the ontological perception of the person, I suppose. As far as I'm aware, in the Judeo-Christian religion, only a few unorthodox Anglican subdenominations hold the central doctrine of the real existence of a deity as being one dependent upon that of the perception of the worshippers. This in itself entails further difficulty regarding consistency and applicability of religious doctrine and then it becomes a rather large mess.

I don't often think about finding proof and all that because it's a waste of time. People believe in certain things, other people don't believe in certain things.

Well, I would agree with you here IMO. I think most people here, if not all, are past the stage of "proving" and have acknowledge that despite purported (and misapplied) antagonism, faith is really a matter of...faith.

[mamab]

I don't think anyone can answer that question for another, and I don't know if "God" can be verified. Yes, I believe in God. Can I prove He exists? No, I can just tell you that I'm a different person than I was before. I believe I am more loving than I used to be and that the differences in me are verifiable. Just ask my husband. ;)

Can I "prove" that God exists? No. Can you "prove" to me that He doesn't?

[dong]

Nope! And I don't consider it necessary to or not to. Bottom line: faith is one of those things that no matter how much you talk around it, still has an essentially autonomous component. Personally, it is my choice that my current conceptual framework generally disallows for a traditionally theistic notions and it is my awareness of this which makes me wish to carry out useful dialogues...like the one in this thread!

[mtatum4496]

When it comes to religious matters, I tend to remember the advice I found in a novel by Robert A. Heinlein. One of his more popular characters once observed "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

The point being that while I am always happy to discuss religious matters with others, I long ago abandoned the concept of "converting" others to my way of thinking. If I happen to say something they find value in, that may eventually lead to the individual choosing to alter his or her mindset of their own accord.

Being Universalist in my foundational faith understandings, I tend to try to see the good in others, try to learn something about different ideologies and cultures, and am free to operator on the assumption that each of us find our own way to the Ultimate Reality in our own way and our own time.

Not believing in eternal punishment kinda helps a little too.

[dong]

The point being that while I am always happy to discuss religious matters with others, I long ago abandoned the concept of "converting" others to my way of thinking. If I happen to say something they find value in, that may eventually lead to the individual choosing to alter his or her mindset of their own accord.

...

Not believing in eternal punishment kinda helps a little too.

Yes, I do agree with this point (it's the same as Agaric's above). But there is one problem I am aware of when it comes to traditional interpretations of Christianity here: the evangelical imperative of the Great Commission. It is claimed that the religion/faith is meaningless without the initiative to spread the word, for propogation against all odds is the trademark of the faith in early times. While I don't think it is nearly as applicable nowadays there seems to be substantial philosophical grounds for claiming that it still behooves one of the faith to actively spread it- usually though this is accompanied by the counterbalancing threat that if one doesn't follow this they are somewhat incomplete or not genuine in their faith.

When I hear this I quip Paul's words which go back to Jesus' words about leading by example at these would-be-evangelists. There is no point in preaching about Christianity if one cannot legitimately defend their own integrity (Jesus had a lot to say about that too), and as it stands, it's a sad truth but most people seem to have gotten it very very wrong. This is why I am critical of most outreach and organised evangelical groups: their religious intentions supervene on their altruistic intentions and this usually undermines, not strengthens result.

[mtatum4496]

I think the difference here when it comes to the Great Commission is that the directive is to proclaim the beliefs - not to shove them down somebody's throat and tell them they are bound for eternal torment if they don't accept them.

So on the one hand, yes the true believer can and should be willing to express his or her beliefs - both in word and in deed. But it is one thing for me to tell you what I believe to be true - it is quite another for me to preface my profession with verbiage that indicates that you must believe as I believe or you are lost. The Great Commission does not authorize or impel me to engage in that type of behavior.

[dong]

I think the difference here when it comes to the Great Commission is that the directive is to proclaim the beliefs - not to shove them down somebody's throat and tell them they are bound for eternal torment if they don't accept them.

I believe that this is quite clear- although necessarily subject to interpretation. The irony here is that I acknowledge the interpretational bias but I insist on certain aspects...just like those who choose to ram it down your throats.

[tater03]

I belive in God, no I don't have any proof all I can say is that believing helps me in all aspects of my life. I also don't hide that I believe but I also don't impose my beliefs on others.

[hokeshel]

Some people are going to think this it pretty far out there but, here ya go. I believe that not only is there a God watching over us but, that he is in partnership with a Goddess. I think that there are many worlds out there we can not even comprehend. I think that they there are Gods of these other worlds as well.

[mtatum4496]

There's more of that mindset than you may be aware of Hokeshel. Along with the Heavenly Mother concept that you are familiar with, many faith traditions acknowledge the presence of the Divine Feminine with their concept of God or within their understanding of multiple deities.

[mamab]

I, personally, have a problem with the concept of a Divine Feminine. Granted, I'm coming from a Judeo-Christian background, but I just can't grasp it. It just doesn't "feel" right to me. In the Cherokee tradition, of which I'm learning more of since I found out of my heritage, they also see "God" as being male more than female. I don't know that I'll ever be able to accept a goddess or divine feminine idea. It may be fine for someone else, they're welcome to believe what they want, but I think it's wrong.

[hokeshel]

Mamab, when you say God is more male than female are you referring to two different beings, as I am, or; are you referring to one God that has a feminine and masculine side? Do you mean that there may be some feminine Godly influence ro that there is only masculine influence? DO you believe in multiple Gods or just one?

[dong]

brief interjection: Were one to follow a traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation, then by definition that would be strictly a singular deity. I really don't think that the question of gendered alignment is a core concern as far as theology goes, BUT in social terms it's a significant question. One could argue that the insistence on an interpretation of He and our Heavenly Father is rooted in a chauvinist patriarchy which often manifests in most societies graced by the Judeo-Christian presence, but as you can see this is quite obviously an issue of gender politics more than anything else.

[mtatum4496]

Early Christianity certainly was more diverse in its understanding of Deity than what became normative Christianity at the time of the various councils and the final assembly of the New Testament canon. The Unitarianism of the 17th through the 19th century can trace itself back to early days, as can just about any gnostic version of Christianity, as well as the concept of the Father, Son, and Spirit being separate entities with the last two working under the direction of the Father.

It is important to remember that what we have come to think of as traditional or normative Christianity did not emerge full blown - it took a lot of infighting for power and a lot of political manuevering to come up with what most folks would swear is "true" Christianity.

One thing I do wonder about - are there are documented works from the first century or two of Christianity that tell us more about the role of women in the early church? That to me seems to be a missing piece of the puzzle, aside from the occasional reference here or there.

[dong]

Thanks for that. The interesting (or frustrating) thing is that as far as politics goes, at present a consideration of the histoy of the Church is seen as largely irrelevant, although it could really shed some very important light on what is consistent and what isn't (because that's always a huge argument).

I suspect that documented works from the early days of Christianity would have been lost, either because they've scattered to the winds or because they were systematically destroyed as part of a patriarchal plot, or perhaps because the patriarchy already existed in society, they were never written.

[mtatum4496]

I suspect you are correct, Dong. Destroying documents so that a new status quo can be achieved, or as a means of protecting a status quo, is not anything new.

Heck, think of all we could know about the cultures of the indigenous American cultures if so much of their records had not been destroyed by European explorers and their attendant priests, who wanted to rid the natives of their heathen ways.

[dong]

We've heard of other cultures (Aztecs, ancient Chinese) wiping themselves out in a spectacular cultural implosion, and examples of attempts to great cultural Purges (Cultural revolution in modern China, Hitler's attempt to subvert all culture under a religion with himself as its deity), but the unfortunate truth (and one that does nothing to alleviate the troubles of an embattled institution) is that the cultures motivated by Judeo-Christian derived ideology had this habit not only of repressing documented evidence in their own societies but also destroying that of others (for God is the one and only...why would any other be relevant?)

This is why I get annoyed when budding (and well-established) Christian apologetic scholars claim that the most compelling proof of Christianity (notwithstanding the inherent problem in THAT) is that it has the most documented proof- this is because wherever the Church is culturally dominant, it naturally suppresses documents that detract or dare to suggest otherwise than its own specific agenda, be that what it may in whatever era. That's the downside of having a regulated core.

[FourBear]

One specific example I can think of is Diego Landa, who purged many important Mesoamerican documents at the time of the Spanish conquest. I think he was a Francisan, but I can't remember for sure. Only a few documents were "saved," and only because they had been previously discarded into trash piles where they couldn't be found by prying Spaniards.

[mtatum4496]

One specific example I can think of is Diego Landa, who purged many important Mesoamerican documents at the time of the Spanish conquest. I think he was a Francisan, but I can't remember for sure. Only a few documents were "saved," and only because they had been previously discarded into trash piles where they couldn't be found by prying Spaniards.

Yes,I remember reading about this. Destroying the documents was meant to make the forced conversion to the "true faith" easier, as it eliminated references for future generations and demonstrated the "inferior" nature of MesoAmerican faith traditions. Would that more of those documents had been spared. I can't help but think we would have learned a great deal from them.

[berlinlife06]

I do believe in God, and that there is one God, but I really don't care that much. I stopped being religious and consider myself a former catholic, so really I don't care and it is not really important to me as a religious factor. I am happy in my life, and that gives me the feeling that God is with me! I know, weird, but it works for me!