Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[DBT]

I honestly do not understand how it is that people dare to comment about the OT without having so much as looked at Spinoza's treatment of the subject.

Spinoza being the ultimate authority on the nature of the OT and its God?

And my question was: How do you explain the numerous and quite apparently literal references to the existence of a God of Israel, the Will of God, the works of God, etc?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But the problem is when one of those sides refers to itself as "real" Judaism. It's fine when people have different interpretations of a faith, but saying that focusing on these parts and ignoring these other parts is the essence of the faith and focusing on those othe parts means you don't understand it is not fine.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But the problem is when one of those sides refers to itself as "real" Judaism. It's fine when people have different interpretations of a faith, but saying that focusing on these parts and ignoring these other parts is the essence of the faith and focusing on those othe parts means you don't understand it is not fine.

Is All Quiet on the Western Front a book about the reality of WWI or merely a tool for helping us understand it? Without question there has always been literal Jews. The question we really are asking is has there always existed a metaphorical interpretation of Judaism all along? Was that part of the intent by those who created the religion? I'd argue for an emphatic, yes. As we know, humans have the same emotional needs today as they've always had. There has always been smart and dumb people. I don't think smart people ever have been literal about spiritual matters.

I saw a survey on how theistic top level scientists defined God. They came up with some very creative concepts. None of them believed in a kind of personal God who listens to prayers. I believe it was the same situation in the ancient world. I think there's always been some acceptance among the educated elites that this God thing isn't as straight forward as our religious leaders would have us believe. The Jesuit order are famous for downplaying the divinity of Jesus or any miracles. And they've been around a while.

We all know religion evolves over time. So does religious holy texts. I can't think of a reason why both literal and metaphorical interpretations of the Torah can't both be real Judaism? They can have been included in parallel. Writing and collating the Torah was a messy affair that spanned 500 years. It's a mess of various schools of scriptural interpretations. We know that for a fact. So why couldn't one of these various interpretations that made it in be a metaphorical one? I think that is highly likely.

So which of the interpretations are more real Judaism? Does it matter?

 

[No Robots]

Spinoza being the ultimate authority on the nature of the OT and its God?

Yep.

And my question was: How do you explain the numerous and quite apparently literal references to the existence of a God of Israel, the Will of God, the works of God, etc?

I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. Spinoza provides an adequate answer to your question. Let's not mess up the thread with teaching the basics.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Yep.

And my question was: How do you explain the numerous and quite apparently literal references to the existence of a God of Israel, the Will of God, the works of God, etc?

I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. Spinoza provides an adequate answer to your question. Let's not mess up the thread with teaching the basics.

Spinoza provides an answer that YOU except. However what modern Jewish movement accepts Spinoza as the final answer? The answer is none. There are many Jews who really are in accord with Spinoza, they just don't know it. Very few people have "a philosophy" or "world view". and don't care to have one. So what Spinoza says is really not material as most people don't even know who Spinoza is.

 

[DBT]

Yep.

And my question was: How do you explain the numerous and quite apparently literal references to the existence of a God of Israel, the Will of God, the works of God, etc?

I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. Spinoza provides an adequate answer to your question. Let's not mess up the thread with teaching the basics.

Maybe not everyone agrees with Spinoza's 'answer' to the question of a belief in a literal God of Israel. If Spinoza is arguing that all of the writers of the OT books intended the God of Israel, 'Yahweh,' as a metaphor, I call bullshit. It was clearly meant to be a literal God, a literal creation, with literal burnt offerings and literal massacres carried out on what the hierarchy claimed was the literal commands of their literal God. Based on the implications, Spinoza was probably engaging in the philosophical exercise of polishing turds. Not literal turds of course, but metaphorical turds.

 

[angelo]

“The greatest secret of monarchic rule...is to keep men deceived and to cloak in the specious name of religion the fear by which they must be checked, so that they will fight for slavery as they would for salvation, and will think it not shameful, but a most honorable achievement, to give their life and blood that one man may have a ground for boasting.”
― Baruch Spinoza

 

[No Robots]

It is very hard to accept that Judaism's conception of the Absolute is as completely abstract as that of any other civilization. Most people just cannot fathom that Jahve is cognate with the Greek One, the oriental Tao, the Indian Brahman. To accept this means accepting that the Jews themselves completely misconstrue their own spirituality, as do the converts to Judaism who call themselves Christians. Likewise, the contemporary critics of religion continue to misunderstand that which they purport to criticize.

 

[DBT]

It is very hard to accept that Judaism's conception of the Absolute is as completely abstract as that of any other civilization. Most people just cannot fathom that Jahve is cognate with the Greek One, the oriental Tao, the Indian Brahman. To accept this means accepting that the Jews themselves completely misconstrue their own spirituality, as do the converts to Judaism who call themselves Christians. Likewise, the contemporary critics of religion continue to misunderstand that which they purport to criticize.

The only problem is, the OT doesn't describe an abstract God.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is very hard to accept that Judaism's conception of the Absolute is as completely abstract as that of any other civilization. Most people just cannot fathom that Jahve is cognate with the Greek One, the oriental Tao, the Indian Brahman. To accept this means accepting that the Jews themselves completely misconstrue their own spirituality, as do the converts to Judaism who call themselves Christians. Likewise, the contemporary critics of religion continue to misunderstand that which they purport to criticize.

God/gods are in all religions remarkably abstract. We wouldn't accept such a flimsy definition for anything else in our lives. Imagine buying a car and all you have to go on are some old stories about what people have done with their car. All stories being incredible. No specs. No in-depth explanation. And the big one for all Abrahamic religions, the kingdom of Heaven, basically just skimmed over. This is essentially the reward for belief and following the rules. We're supposed to be there for an eternity, so one would expect that people are at least a little bit curious. But no. They are not. It's as if there's some sort of tacit conspiracy within the religions that everybody understands it's bullshit, but let's-just-not-talk-about-it-It-won't-end-well.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is very hard to accept that Judaism's conception of the Absolute is as completely abstract as that of any other civilization. Most people just cannot fathom that Jahve is cognate with the Greek One, the oriental Tao, the Indian Brahman. To accept this means accepting that the Jews themselves completely misconstrue their own spirituality, as do the converts to Judaism who call themselves Christians. Likewise, the contemporary critics of religion continue to misunderstand that which they purport to criticize.

The only problem is, the OT doesn't describe an abstract God.

The OT god is a Pagan god. The pattern in paganism is that gods are both anthropomorphic, as well as embodiments of some concept. In pagan holy texts it's quite ok to slide back and forward between these. Gaia, in Greek mythology, for example both has a human form, as well as actually being the ground you walk on. In paganism, this is unproblematic. Ares both has a human form as well as being the embodiment of anger fuelled rage. As if Ares, both having a human body is able to enter your body and mind somehow. Also, unproblematic for pagans.

It follows that we have every reason to believe that Jehova in OT is described as both as having a human form, as well as having all his unembodied super powers. And that it's ok to slide between these two.

The ancient Greek philosophers found this sort of reasoning abhorrent. They hated it. But nobody else cared back then. Now in our post-scientific world the idea of having more precise definitions for... well... everything is spreading. But even in our world plenty of people are still okey with flimsy definitions for God. So there's really no reason to think that Jews back when the OT was being written and collated would have any problems with it.

But no... it doesn't make any sense. But that's not what we are discussing. We're discussing whether or not an abstract god was the intent by the authors of the OT. If we look at the Pagan pattern the correct answer would be; both. Jehova is both an abstract god as well as an anthropomorphic god. No, you don't need to like it for it to be true.

 

[angelo]

God was born out of superstition pure and simple. I doubt the OT authors had any particular god in mind when their imaginations ran wild. It was also born out of ancestor worship in many ways. Each family had their own gods.

 

[DrZoidberg]

God was born out of superstition pure and simple. I doubt the OT authors had any particular god in mind when their imaginations ran wild. It was also born out of ancestor worship in many ways. Each family had their own gods.

There's actually been quite a lot of research into this. I do think they had a particular god in mind. Judaism started out as ordinary Paganism. Jehova was the god of war an general manliness. Initially the covenant was about sacrificing certain other aspects in life in exchange for favours in war. This is where the henotheism starts. The acknowledgement of the existence of other gods, but only worship of one of them. What happened was that over time other gods abilities started to be incorporated into Jehova, expanding the god from a god of war to a god of war, and let's say fertility (Dagon). Eventually the abilities of all other gods had been incorporated into Jehova making it omnipotent. This of course happened so gradually that people didn't notice. But it is apparent in the OT text itself. Reading that god as an omnipotent god makes no sense what so ever.

What makes this so hard to study is that gods frequently changed names and evolved very rapidly. For example. Chemosh, which was the Moabite god of war and fish. Chemosh seems to have been a complete mirror of Jehova and worshipped in a similar fashion (except the fish part). When Moab was conquered, Jewish priests started wearing Moabite fish hats. That same hat is now worn by the pope. As we all know Rabbi's do not wear them at all any longer. They stopped wearing them a very long time ago. But somewhere along the line Christian priests incorporated this from Rabbi's, retained it, and the rest is history.

http://biblelight.net/dagon4.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosh

here's a list of other gods in the region, all of which at some point or another was included into Jehova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canaanite_deities

So basically, it's been a long slow evolution all the time. I do think they always had a specific god in mind, but what this god was changed rapidly and frequently. Which is why the OT is so damn incoherent. But none of this precludes Jehova being at least partly an abstract/metaphorical entity.

 

[DBT]

The only problem is, the OT doesn't describe an abstract God.

The OT god is a Pagan god. The pattern in paganism is that gods are both anthropomorphic, as well as embodiments of some concept. In pagan holy texts it's quite ok to slide back and forward between these. Gaia, in Greek mythology, for example both has a human form, as well as actually being the ground you walk on. In paganism, this is unproblematic. Ares both has a human form as well as being the embodiment of anger fuelled rage. As if Ares, both having a human body is able to enter your body and mind somehow. Also, unproblematic for pagans.

It follows that we have every reason to believe that Jehova in OT is described as both as having a human form, as well as having all his unembodied super powers. And that it's ok to slide between these two.

The ancient Greek philosophers found this sort of reasoning abhorrent. They hated it. But nobody else cared back then. Now in our post-scientific world the idea of having more precise definitions for... well... everything is spreading. But even in our world plenty of people are still okey with flimsy definitions for God. So there's really no reason to think that Jews back when the OT was being written and collated would have any problems with it.

But no... it doesn't make any sense. But that's not what we are discussing. We're discussing whether or not an abstract god was the intent by the authors of the OT. If we look at the Pagan pattern the correct answer would be; both. Jehova is both an abstract god as well as an anthropomorphic god. No, you don't need to like it for it to be true.

I can't imagine that there would have been many people that cared about an abstract God, they probably just wanted a Powerful SkyDaddy/Ruler/Caretaker/Monarch that looked after their needs and interests, given the expected burnt offerings, prayers and supplications. Much the same as these days.

 

[No Robots]

All human knowledge started with the abstract, the absolute, the infinite, the remote and the ultimate, and only slowly proceeded to the concrete, the proximate, the relative and the limited. Mankind started out with religious beliefs, then proceeded to metaphysical contemplations, then to philosophic speculations, finally to scientific investigations. At first, mankind concerned themselves about God, the universe, the soul, the beginning and end of things, and the purpose of existence; then they began to concern themselves about the material world, the stars, the earth, the land and water, the laws and processes of nature; and, finally, they began to concern themselves about man himself. Mankind started with God and ended with man; man was the last concern of man himself. Mankind plunged into religious problems, before they sought to solve the real problems of life; they speculated about metaphysical realities, before they sought to understand the physical realities; they studied the horoscopic relations of the constellations to man, before they directed their gaze heavenward for the purposes of astronomy; they concerned themselves about the psychology of God, before they took up the study of the psychology of man. And so it was in all other directions. For thousands of years mankind spent their best intellectual and spiritual endeavors to solve religious, metaphysical, philosophic and political problems, at the same time neglecting their material needs of life. Economics and human psychology have just begun.--A Program for the Jews, an answer to all anti-semites, a program for humanity / Harry Waton​

 

[DrZoidberg]

The OT god is a Pagan god. The pattern in paganism is that gods are both anthropomorphic, as well as embodiments of some concept. In pagan holy texts it's quite ok to slide back and forward between these. Gaia, in Greek mythology, for example both has a human form, as well as actually being the ground you walk on. In paganism, this is unproblematic. Ares both has a human form as well as being the embodiment of anger fuelled rage. As if Ares, both having a human body is able to enter your body and mind somehow. Also, unproblematic for pagans.

It follows that we have every reason to believe that Jehova in OT is described as both as having a human form, as well as having all his unembodied super powers. And that it's ok to slide between these two.

The ancient Greek philosophers found this sort of reasoning abhorrent. They hated it. But nobody else cared back then. Now in our post-scientific world the idea of having more precise definitions for... well... everything is spreading. But even in our world plenty of people are still okey with flimsy definitions for God. So there's really no reason to think that Jews back when the OT was being written and collated would have any problems with it.

But no... it doesn't make any sense. But that's not what we are discussing. We're discussing whether or not an abstract god was the intent by the authors of the OT. If we look at the Pagan pattern the correct answer would be; both. Jehova is both an abstract god as well as an anthropomorphic god. No, you don't need to like it for it to be true.

I can't imagine that there would have been many people that cared about an abstract God, they probably just wanted a Powerful SkyDaddy/Ruler/Caretaker/Monarch that looked after their needs and interests, given the expected burnt offerings, prayers and supplications. Much the same as these days.

I think you're view of religious people today is overly simplistic. Humans like gathering around symbols. Empty symbols that can be filled with content. Take football fans for instance. It's got all the building blocks of any religion. There is tradition and ritual. There's your congregation/team. Us/them. As the sheer number of various sports to root for proves, the rules of the game is secondary to the important function. To root for your team. The analogue for god in sports is the rules of the game. An abstract entity that does exactly nothing. It just exists as something the followers have to gather around. All sports fans agree that the rules can be changed and tweaked. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that sports fans get to project their hopes and dreams onto it. The god of religion works in the same way.

People in the ancient world knew this. There's been some great works exploring the supporter-culture of the red's and green's of ancient Rome. They were two home teams of chariot racing in Constantinople. It had quasi-religious overtones and everybody knew this.

The important thing to acknowledge is that an abstract God can have a function. And once you accept this you'll see various god and god-like symbols pop up all over the place.

Here's another analogue. A MacGuffin. It's a plot device used to push a plot line forward in fictional stories. The MacGuffin is an object that various characters are struggling to get hold of. But the nature of the MacGuffin is really irrelevant. It's only function is that people want it. Typically the MacGuffin is simply introduced like this thing that people want. The Ring in LOTR. Or R2D2 in Star Wars. So abstract entities and symbols can be powerful, and useful psychological tools, even if they don't actually exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

 

[No Robots]

The nonconceptual knowledge of God which we have in the just act inevitably seeks words so that it can persuade and arguments so that it can demonstrate, and thus effectively order others to justice. This was the starting point of Socrates, who set out to combat the relativism of the sophists, which left the people of Athens defenseless against the injustice of the emerging petty commodity economy, giving them no criterion by which to judge the transformation of the polis into an instrument of private gain. It was also the starting point of Marx, whose critique of religion as an obstacle to social progress ultimately has more in common with prophetic critiques grounded in experiential knowledge of that unnameable-bringing-into- being which Judaism calls (YHWH) than with the atheism which is a reflex of the marketplace and an option for nihilism and despair.--Spirituality and Dialectics / Anthony E. Mansueto, Maggie Mansueto, p. 39-40.​

 

[Unbeatable]

Humans like gathering around symbols. Empty symbols that can be filled with content. Take football fans for instance. It's got all the building blocks of any religion. There is tradition and ritual. There's your congregation/team. Us/them. As the sheer number of various sports to root for proves, the rules of the game is secondary to the important function. To root for your team. The analogue for god in sports is the rules of the game. An abstract entity that does exactly nothing. It just exists as something the followers have to gather around. All sports fans agree that the rules can be changed and tweaked. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that sports fans get to project their hopes and dreams onto it. The god of religion works in the same way.

God, how depressing. You've just provided a concise explanation of why I hate sports fandom, and in your description, I can see similarities to other sorts of fandoms.

 

[DBT]

I think you're view of religious people today is overly simplistic. Humans like gathering around symbols. Empty symbols that can be filled with content. Take football fans for instance. It's got all the building blocks of any religion. There is tradition and ritual. There's your congregation/team. Us/them. As the sheer number of various sports to root for proves, the rules of the game is secondary to the important function. To root for your team. The analogue for god in sports is the rules of the game. An abstract entity that does exactly nothing. It just exists as something the followers have to gather around. All sports fans agree that the rules can be changed and tweaked. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that sports fans get to project their hopes and dreams onto it. The god of religion works in the same way.

People in the ancient world knew this. There's been some great works exploring the supporter-culture of the red's and green's of ancient Rome. They were two home teams of chariot racing in Constantinople. It had quasi-religious overtones and everybody knew this.

The important thing to acknowledge is that an abstract God can have a function. And once you accept this you'll see various god and god-like symbols pop up all over the place.

Here's another analogue. A MacGuffin. It's a plot device used to push a plot line forward in fictional stories. The MacGuffin is an object that various characters are struggling to get hold of. But the nature of the MacGuffin is really irrelevant. It's only function is that people want it. Typically the MacGuffin is simply introduced like this thing that people want. The Ring in LOTR. Or R2D2 in Star Wars. So abstract entities and symbols can be powerful, and useful psychological tools, even if they don't actually exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

Sure. I didn't suggest that my casual remark represented my view on religion thoroughly and completely. It was a brief remark. As you say, of course there many other factors: Culture, identity, providing answers to the big questions, fellowship, social interaction, the promise of eternal life, ultimate justice.....

 

[DrZoidberg]

Humans like gathering around symbols. Empty symbols that can be filled with content. Take football fans for instance. It's got all the building blocks of any religion. There is tradition and ritual. There's your congregation/team. Us/them. As the sheer number of various sports to root for proves, the rules of the game is secondary to the important function. To root for your team. The analogue for god in sports is the rules of the game. An abstract entity that does exactly nothing. It just exists as something the followers have to gather around. All sports fans agree that the rules can be changed and tweaked. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that sports fans get to project their hopes and dreams onto it. The god of religion works in the same way.

God, how depressing. You've just provided a concise explanation of why I hate sports fandom, and in your description, I can see similarities to other sorts of fandoms.

It's not just fandom. It's really any aspect of social congruence that goes beyond just your close circle of friends. I used to work with organising parties. We fiddled around a lot with where to put the DJ. The more we made the locale look like a church the more people loved it. The DJ as the priest. The turntables as the altar. The music as God. The decore and lights to add mystery.

Even in science itself you get similar spontaneous organisations. The god of science is the truth and the pursuit of it. The scientists are the translators between the common man and the divine (ie the truth).

God is whatever it is that keeps people together. It may or may not be purely abstract and empty. The important thing is that it works.