22 Apr 10
Originally posted by finneganHow did you conclude, particularly after the explanation I offered you, that my post "propagates tiresome and discriminatory ways of thinking"?
A post on a forum is not a comment between acquaintances. A post that propagates tiresome and discriminatory ways of thinking merits a response.
😵
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell I know even less about the polytheistic religions of this day and age.
But I would have thought Greek mythology irrelevant in this day and age -- surely it would be more pertinent to consider existing theists and their beliefs?
I believe that includes various Indian religions, various African ones, and I don't even know what the Australian Aborigine religions have in terms of gods.
Is it your claim (and black beetle's) that all religions, including polytheistic ones, have a central God figure that is a creator god, and all other gods are sort of minor gods? Is it also your claim that all members of those religions believe in the existence of said creator God?
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI claim that every theist regardless of her/ his religion accepts by definition that "God is the ground of all being". Whoever does not accept it, s/he is not a theist. This is the reason why I told you earlier:
Well I know even less about the polytheistic religions of this day and age.
I believe that includes various Indian religions, various African ones, and I don't even know what the Australian Aborigine religions have in terms of gods.
Is it your claim (and black beetle's) that all religions, including polytheistic ones, have a central God figure that is ...[text shortened]... o your claim that all members of those religions believe in the existence of said creator God?
-- "God is the ground of all beings" means that the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe is attributed to God, and this claim is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion.
😵
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don’t think that one can say anything about “all religions” (the term “religion” itself is subject to disagreements over definition), or even all theistic religions. But with regard to polytheistic religions—
Well I know even less about the polytheistic religions of this day and age.
I believe that includes various Indian religions, various African ones, and I don't even know what the Australian Aborigine religions have in terms of gods.
Is it your claim (and black beetle's) that all religions, including polytheistic ones, have a central God figure that is ...[text shortened]... o your claim that all members of those religions believe in the existence of said creator God?
Not all perhaps, but certainly a number. Olodumare in the Yoruba tradition comes to mind; the Dagda of the Celtic tradition perhaps; the Egyptian myths too, I think. (Although I seem to recall that Olodumare assigned creation of the world to Shango, and that task may have been usurped by Eshu Elegba.) The thing is that many of these traditions do seem to have a “high god” (male or female, or androgynous) in the background, so to speak.
I don’t think that the Norse/Germanic mythology really does, since I think it begins really with the first “man” being licked out of the original ice by a primordial cow. Odin (the “all-father” ) descends from that event. I’m just going from memory, though; Ullr might know more about that one. The Norse mythology as we have it is perhaps a conflation of two earlier and distinct ones: the Aesir (ruled by Odin) and the Vanir (ruled by Freyr and Freya, male and female, the lord and the lady).
“Creation” can be a problematic term, too, since in some mythologies the world is “engendered”, rather than “fabricated”; but I don’t think that’s really germane to the point at hand.
I’m really running on recall here, which may not be really helpful; but I’m just too lazy right now to go re-checking. Maybe the above gives some places to look…
22 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleI disagree. If you were to say “source of all being”, that would be better. But the phrase “ground of all being” is problematic in theisms where god is “wholly other” from the creation, and has been the subject of theological dispute (at least in Christianity; Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, was criticized by some for his use of the term, as it is seen as too non-dualistic).
I claim that every theist regardless of her/ his religion accepts by definition that "God is the ground of all being". Whoever does not accept it, s/he is not a theist. This is the reason why I told you earlier:
-- "God is the ground of all beings" means that the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe is attributed to God, and this claim is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion.
😵
It is problematic in such theisms because God is not seen as “being-itself”, but a being that is non-caused, but the cause of all other being. In other words, these theistic expressions are strictly dualistic, and the cosmos is not seen as being engendered from the ground, but created ex nihilo.
EDIT: I am, of course, a non-dualist. And I use the phrase “ground of being” only within that context.
EDIT 2: Tillich used the phrase "ground and source", in a way that recognized the difference.
EDIT 3: I realize that this is all a semantic issue within the “technical jargon” of theology; but it is there. That’s the only reason that I raise it.
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by vistesdI am aware of the variation that you mentioned, but to be frank I evaluate the "source" and the "ground" as synonyms either in the context of theist systems based on the idea of a "wholly other" from the creation "sources/ cause/ Creator God/s", or in the context of systems based on the concept of a "not wholly other" from the creation "sources/ cause/ Creator God/s". Methinks the concept "God is the source of all being" can be acceptable in baith "wholly other from the creation" and "not wholly other from the creation" theist systems, and I consider the same regarding the idea "God is the ground of all being".
I disagree. If you were to say “source of all being”, that would be better. But the phrase “ground of all being” is problematic in theisms where god is “wholly other” from the creation, and has been the subject of theological dispute (at least in Christianity; Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, was criticized by some for his use of the term, ...[text shortened]... hnical jargon” of theology; but it is there. That’s the only reason that I raise it.
Anyway, I thank you for the lave and I will rephrase my claim as following:
-- "God is the ground/ source of all being" means that the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe is attributed to God, and this claim is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion.
😵
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleWell then, a significant proportion of people claiming to be theists, or at least members of religions, do not use the same definition as you for 'God', nor do they believe in a 'God' by your description. I guess they are therefore not "Theists" by your definition. I know for a fact that despite being brought up Anglican, I was never definitively "Theist" by your definition.
I claim that every theist regardless of her/ his religion accepts by definition that "God is the ground of all being". Whoever does not accept it, s/he is not a theist. This is the reason why I told you earlier:
-- "God is the ground of all beings" means that the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe is attributed to God, and this claim is accepted by all the theists regardless of their religion.
😵
Of course, you are cheating big time, as you are making a claim, based solely on a definition ie it is not a claim at all, but rather simply a definition. ie you are saying "the definition of 'theists' is xyz therefore all theists xyz." The mistake you then make is to try and apply this to those claiming to be theists and religions in general (which are by your definition frequently not theistic in nature).
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are wrong. Actually they do share the main theist belief, according to which the observer universe is created by a so called "Creator God" -otherwise they would simply be not theists.
Well then, a significant proportion of people claiming to be theists, or at least members of religions, do not use the same definition as you for 'God', nor do they believe in a 'God' by your description. I guess they are therefore not "Theists" by your definition. I know for a fact that despite being brought up Anglican, I was never definitively "Theist" ...[text shortened]... ligions in general (which are by your definition frequently not theistic in nature).
It is irrelevant the fact that some theists dispute over the idea that the so called "creator" is a "wholly other" or a "not wholly other" from the creation -the main theist thesis is that the observer universe is created by a so called "Creator God", and this is the reason why it is considered by every theist regardless of their religion that "God is the ground/ source of all being".
However, kindly please feel free to believe whatever you estimate is accurate according to your evaluation of the mind😵
22 Apr 10
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleI think you're just wrong here.
You are wrong. Actually they do share the main theist belief, according to which the observer universe is created by a so called "Creator God" -otherwise they would simply be not theists.
I could define a god as any uncreated, self-generating sentient being, for example; and a theistic belief system as one which admits of such gods—even in a universe which itself is without beginning and uncreated. And I actually think it is closer to the mark than yours. That is, I think it comes closer to the essential quality for a being to be called a god—as opposed to particular attributes or activities—in a way that does not, exclude systems of belief that I would not know what to call other than theistic. Even here, however, I am failing to include some beings that are referred to as gods within their respective systems.
I’m also wondering if there’s a bit of a “no true Scotsman” fallacy at play here: “No theism is without a creator god—well, no true theism”. And I do think that how members of a given belief system view themselves counts for something.
That, however, assumes that I can find god-systems that do not have a creator god “ground or source of being”. My interest is now piqued enough that I’m going to spend some time at my bookshelves over this. 🙂 Besides, it seems to me that this dispute has reached a point where some evidentiary considerations ought to be introduced.
However, if I am correct that Norse mythology (at least as it has survived), for example, does not have a creator-god—and I might be wrong on that, but hypothetically speaking for now—would you call that a non-theistic (no gods) system of belief?
__________________________________________
And I think this discussion illustrates some disagreement I have (at least provisionally) with twhitehead as well: a definition as precise as he might want (sorry to talk about you in the 3rd person, tw!) perhaps cannot be had—or, if it can be had, might become sufficiently abstract as to become inaccurate, as regards corresponding to the actual landscape of beliefs. That is, under something like a correspondence theory of truth, the definition would not accurately correspond to the reality. The more narrow the definition, it seems to me, the more likely this is to be a problem. (But I might be recalling his point wrongly; perhaps all he wants is a definition that is in itself non-contradictory.)
That seems to be, in part, the basis of his disagreement with your definition: precise as it may be, it seems (at least at first blush) to exclude systems that it would seem one could hardly call nontheistic (or no-god) systems—and that certainly their believers would call god systems.
Again, I’m going to take some time for research. It’s possible that I will conclude that I am wrong on all counts.
22 Apr 10
One quick word before I’m off to do some “chores”:
Maybe this whole discussion illustrates the reason behind Wittgenstein’s dictum, “Don’t look for the meaning, look for the use.” We’re debating the meaning of theism, rather than examining how various groups use the word (in whatever language) “god(s)”.
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by vistesdThis discussion brings me great satisfaction my friend, and if I ‘m lucky enough I will learn a thing or two; since I know you love the good stories here I go, for the Norse mythology is very rich and colourful.
I think you're just wrong here.
I could define a god as any uncreated, self-generating sentient being, for example; and a theistic belief system as one which admits of such gods—even in a universe which itself is without beginning and uncreated. And I actually think it is closer to the mark than yours. That is, I think it comes closer to the essentia ...[text shortened]... take some time for research. It’s possible that I will conclude that I am wrong on all counts.
Ginnungagap –literally the Cup of Illusion/ the Abyss of the Great Deep/ the shoreless, beginningless and endless yawning gulf/ the Primordial Living Space/ the Cup that contains the Universe (and therefore: the Cup of Illusion!) was primary bounded by Fire and Ice. When these elements met, they combined to form the giant Ymir and the cow Audhumbla, who nourished Ymir. Audhumbla survived by licking the salty ice blocks, and from her licking emerged Bur, the grandfather of the Aesir. Ymir, father of the frost giants, sweated a male and a female from under his left arm. Odin, the son of Bur's son Borr, killed Ymir. The blood pouring out of the giant's body killed all the frost giants Ymir had created, except Bergelmir. From Ymir's dead body, Odin created our world. Ymir's blood was the sea; his flesh, the earth; his skull, the sky; his bones, the mountains; his hair, the trees. The new Ymir-based world was Midgard. Etc etc -but the point is that according to the Norse mythology Odin created our world!
Back to HereNow, methinks “Ymir” stands for the personified matter of our globe in a seething condition. I have the feeling we ‘re talking about a cosmic monster in the form of a giant, who is killed in the cosmogonical allegories of the Eddas by the three Creators -the sons of Boer, Odin, Wili and We, who are said to have conquered Ymir and created the world out of his body. This metaphor shows the three principal creation forces of nature (separation, formation and evolution) conquering the raging “giant” matter, and forcing it to become a world. This ancient pagan way of describing the genesis of the world is in my opinion by far better than the attempt of the Abrahamic religions, which they are forcing us to accept that the world was created by a “creator” out of nothing -but that ’s another story.
Back in the Norse mythology: in that rich tradition we find Yggdrasil too, the ash tree that grew from Ymir's body and whose branches covered the world and supported the universe! Yggdrasil is the “World Tree of the Norse Cosmogony/ the Tree of the Universe, of Time and of Life. This tree has three roots, which reach down to cold Hell, and spread thence to Jotun heim, the land of the Frost Giants, and to Midgard, the Earth and dwelling of the children of Men. Its upper part stretches out into heaven, and its highest branch overshadows Waihalla. The Yggdrasil is evergreen because it is daily sprinkled by the Norns, the three fateful sisters (the Past, the Present, and the Future), with the waters of Life from the fountain of Urd that flows on our Earth. Yggdrasil will wither and disappear only on the day when the last battle between Good and Evil is fought!
So, in my opinion, the Ancient Norse mythology is extremely close to the African beliefs as mentioned by our Green Palladin on the 6th page of this thread😵
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by vistesdFine, I would anyway come to this point -but I will cover baith the meaning and the use, for baith are essential🙂
One quick word before I’m off to do some “chores”:
Maybe this whole discussion illustrates the reason behind Wittgenstein’s dictum, “Don’t look for the meaning, look for the use.” We’re debating the meaning of theism, rather than examining how various groups use the word (in whatever language) “god(s)”.
Let’s define theism -I copy pasted from the Merriam-Webster the following:
Date: 1678
:belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
Obviously I was talking about theists and theism, regardless of the religion of the theist and according to this definition specifically. And what exactly had in his mind back in 1678 the English theologian and philosopher Ralph Cudworth, who offered the notion “theism”? In the beginning a Puritan and later a non-comformist, Cudworth, the most famous Cambridge Platonist of his era amongst else, he was fighting hard against those who set God's will or the will of a human sovereign above reason. Against Hobbes's atheism, materialism, determinism, individualism, and ethical relativism, Cudworth defended theism, dualism, free will, organic political theory and ethical absolutism (http://www.answers.com/topic/ralph-cudworth).
Methinks this is the proper backround regarding the exact meaning and the proper use of the term “theism”, my dear vistesd. And it seems to me that by definition a theist either believes firmly that "God is the ground/ source of all being", or s/he is not a theist.
Of course I would be very glad to learn more about a theist concept that does not accept the idea of a "Creator God"
😵
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleBut only by your definition of "theist". It is not the most commonly used definition. More importantly you made similar claims about "religion", and I think you would would be stretching definitions even further if you were to claim that "religion" implies "theism" implies "creator God".
You are wrong. Actually they do share the main theist belief, according to which the observer universe is created by a so called "Creator God" -otherwise they would simply be not theists.
Most importantly, you seem to be simply overlooking the fact that a significant proportion of people claiming to be members of religions are not theists by your definition.
Lastly, even those who do believe in a God who created this universe, are probably largely agnostic regarding whether or not said God is "the ground of all being". I know outspoken Christians here would say that God was not created by a higher God, but I doubt they have any good reason for that belief. Any sensible person would consider the answer unknown.
22 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleIt’s not often that you and I disagree! 🙂 Usually we find that we have just been examining and agreed upon principle from different angles. Now, with regard to your presentation of the Norse mythology:
This discussion brings me great satisfaction my friend, and if I ‘m lucky enough I will learn a thing or two; since I know you love the good stories here I go, for the Norse mythology is very rich and colourful.
Ginnungagap –literally the Cup of Illusion/ the Abyss of the Great Deep/ the shoreless, beginningless and endless yawning gulf/ the Primordi ...[text shortened]... to the African beliefs as mentioned by our Green Palladin on the 6th page of this thread😵
Excellent! Now, the pre-existence of fire and ice implies (even if in a seething “chaotic” way) pre-existing substance co-existing with Ginnungagap.* None of the Norse gods represent the “ground or source of being”; Odin (or Odin, Villi and Ve) created our world out of pre-existing substance. Ymir has as much claim to being “the ground and source of being” as do the gods. (Midgard, as you note, is only one of the nine worlds.)
It seems to me there are four possibilities, of which the above is the fourth below (for simplicity I am expressing them monotheistically):
(1) God is a pre-existing, uncaused, sentient being who creates all other being out ex nihilo, but not out of godself.
(2) God is a pre-existing, uncaused, sentient being who engenders all other being from godself. In this case, God can be truly said to be “the ground of being”, since God is the original being-itself—and all manifestations are manifestations of that: from that and of that. All creatures are manifestations of the divine being itself. (In a proto-trinitarian formula, God is ground of being, generative power of being, and being-itself—as in the Shiva-Shakti-Spanda formulation of Kashmiri Shaivism).
(3) God is a pre-existing, uncaused, sentient being who co-exists with some pre-existing, unformed substance (prima matera?), out of which being as we know it is formed.
(4) There is some pre-existing substance out of which God (or gods) arises, who then subsequently form all the rest out of that. Their divinity rests upon that shaping/forming function.
I take all of these as theistic formulations, so long as the gods are seen as sentient and acting deliberately. (Though Kashmiri Shaivism apparently uses this theistic symbolism metaphorically, and ends up being pretty nondualistic: “Nothing there is that is not Shiva”.)
In Taoism, it can be (and has been) argued that the Tao does not represent some pre-existing ground, but that the implicate ground and the and the (evolving) manifestations have always been co-extensive. The dynamic coherence and the “over-rhythm” of that process is called Tao; specific rhythms, variations, are called Te. (That is not the only understanding of Lao Tzu, but is one that I am currently exploring; another is that the Tao represents the “field”, and Te represents the “force” (power) as aspects of—or ways of talking about—the process.)
_________________________________________________
*I’m not sure that your interpretation of Ginnungagap in terms of illusion is strictly correct in terms of the original; “yawning gap” could be interpreted other ways, e.g., similar to the tzitmzum. Not that I disapprove of it, just that I’m not sure that that represents an original understanding within the context of that mythology itself.