RE: A challenge to the thesis of "intellectual laziness" of believers in God
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Interesting article with some really deep questions on the nature of "God". I have come to terms with this idea, and the fact that we'll never truly know its nature.
In order to provide any substantial counter arguments proving to me that the idea of God is an intellectually lazy one, I have some requirements:
I think that this is a good idea, and I would add a further requirement. The word God itself is a loaded concept that activates our biases, prejudices, and preconceived notions. In my journey of discovery, I realized that replacing the word God with "higher intelligence" was more scientifically elucidating. That is, we know that it is possible to create intelligence from the constituents elements of the universe. Our species is an example. There are different levels of intelligence. The intelligence of an amoeba, for example, is different than the intelligence of a cunning fox, the intelligence of the fox is different from that of a human. I think that for the most part, we assume that human intelligence is the pinnacle of creation (natural or otherwise). According to our general understanding, the only other intelligence that is higher than us is God. Therefore, I think that using the term "higher intelligence" opens up new avenues of delightful inquiry. So, the question is no longer, does God exist? Now the question becomes, is there higher intelligence?
Great topic!
Thank you. I can say the same for me. Still, I like to engage myself in these kinds of dialogues and also watch others in doing so. They drive me (certainly for a reason).
Let me think a bit about the requirement you added. I will come back to it.
I am happy that the topic caught your attention.
After some thinking, here is my response to your suggestion.
It's true that the term is loaded, I very much can confirm your observation/experiences.
But I still wouldn't invent a new one. That's the interesting thing about the fact that the term "God" stands alone, is basically undefinable and doesn't want to offer any connection to other definitions. I think that's exactly how it can allowed to be.
Avoiding loaded terms because they are loaded would justify, for example, that nobody says "Hitler" anymore and soon it would amount to a swastika only being associated with a load, which is illogical, don't you think?
What can the swastika do for being viewed one-sidedly?
The in advance given politeness of not wanting to put off another person who is in dialogue with you by not using a loaded term, for example, raises the question of where this shyness comes from. It implies that the interlocutor shuts down from the outset, yes, I agree. How could he realize his reluctance other than by a term which he himself loaded negatively, though? Is there another way to create a space for openness?
Can you decide not to bother with it and demonstrate impartiality precisely by using the term in spite of its loaded meaning? To un-load it again? My answer would be "yes", that is actually what represents a scientifically operating person.
To deal with bias, for me, means to be aware of my own and not having it excluded for reasons of my comfort; this may lead to establish my bias. I need being somewhat uncomfortable and "disturbed" in order to engage. Otherwise, I may find myself in an echo chamber.
However, a loaded term would not be guaranteed to be cancelled out by using an alternative term.
If one is determined to be exclusively negative about it, he is going to do so with either term in the same context.
Basically, you can always take offence at a term, regardless of whether it is an ancient or modern one.
Though, what I could do - and I attempted that down below my post indirectly - to give official biblical information to the figure of God. I could have done better, maybe.
I see where you're coming from. Personally, I think it's better to clarify the term itself to avoid misunderstanding. So, when you speak of God, you're referring to the conception of God in the Christian tradition based on scripture and cultural tradition, correct? It can't be the Hindu tradition because their belief systems, and their ideas of "God", are different from ours. The same goes for other religions like Taoism and Buddhism. So when you speak of God, you're speaking just for the Christian belief of a powerful omnipotent all-knowing being who looks like a human (because we were made in his likeness) and created the universe and all the living creatures using his vast power, wisdom, and intelligence. This Christian God exists outside of us, independent of our existence in a place called heaven. This is the general Christian conception of God as handed to us from written and oral traditions.
So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that some people think that the belief in a Christian God as creator is "intellectually lazy", but you believe that it is not. You believe that the idea of God the creator is intellectually challenging. Further, you're saying that to understand just how challenging the idea of God as creators is, we should modify our conception of God, and we should not take the scriptures or teachings at their word. Instead, the conception of God should be modified according to the set of criteria that you laid out (e.g., not thinking of God as a man).
I have never heard the criticism that the idea of God as creator is intellectually lazy. I don't think that at all. I think the idea of God as creator is intellectually challenging, as evidenced by the body of work that has been written about the topic. There is no need to change our conception of God as you outlined. We can leave the concept of the Christian God as it has been written and taught. I have different ideas about the nature of "God", and Gods in general, but I don't think that those who believe in God as creator are intellectually lazy. Quite the contrary. So there is no argument from me on this matter, and I'm actually surprised it's an issue at all. Some people just enjoy being outraged. 😆
No, I don't. That is why I had the requirements. The interpretation of God is challenging, :D
I referred to what you pointed out, that God is a loaded term. And all I am saying is that in order to unload it, it can be used as a further term. I think that Christians changed since they entered the scene, like everything else changes and that I, who has a Christian background can label me as such without having to adhere to an image like the one you just described. Since I count myself to Christians in general, I find it sensible to communicate about differences in the concept of God amongst my fellas.
I tipped my toe in the water. Interested, in what might be responded :)
I see. So you believe that the belief in God as creator and designer of the universe is an intellectually challenging exercise because it is a flexible idea. So, for example, in the book of Genesis, it says the following
If I understand you correctly, this passage could be interpreted in many ways, but it is up to the individual to make this interpretation, and this makes it an intellectually challenging exercise. One could interpret this bible passage to mean that physically we look like God (thus God looks like a man). Perhaps, intellectually, we resemble God. Spiritually and emotionally as well. It is up to the individual to decide. Regardless of the interpretation, the idea is very advanced and intellectually challenging once you begin examining it closely, and this appears to be your main thesis. The devil is in the details, in a manner of speaking.
Sorry to pester you so much, but your thoughtful posts pack a lot of information, so it takes me some time to unpack it all :)
Correct, yes, this is how I see it. What one makes out of something, depends also on what is in wide circulation. If something is reduced too much, and does not give credit to complexity, then we end up in ridiculing the sources.
The reduction of complexity has positives and negatives, I think.
Since almost everyone who wants to ridicule the bible has not much more in mind than Genesis, but knows nothing about the rest, it tends to become negative when many people start ridiculing one part of a source.
In contrast, when one has enlarged his knowledge about the bible, Genesis and other well known wordings from the bible appear as the essence of something, which otherwise needs a deep study and a mind who had let itself been intellectually challenged.
Yes, absolutely :)
"once you begin examining it closely", you can't help but to formulate more questions in your mind.
This can be inspiring, but it also can discourage, since one becomes aware of the fact that there is a lot to study.
I think the main challenge for me is that I don't understand how someone can say that belief in God as creator is intellectually lazy. Belief in a particular deity might be wrong but not intellectually lazy. There has been a lot of scholarly work written on the Bible and other Christian teachings. So, we know it requires some deep and heavy thinking. Isaac Newton for example was an amazing bible researcher, as only Isaac Newton can. He believed the bible was an alchemical manuscript that contained the workings of the mind of God, and so in addition to his work in physics, he was also an amazing Bible researcher. He embarked in a comprehensive mathematical, symbolic, and historical study of the bible that is breathtaking. His alchemical work is actually more voluminous than his work in physics. This youtube video discusses Newton's biblical work, particularly the book of revelations, which Newton was convinced contained an alchemical recipe. It's a dry lecture but fascinating. It demonstrates that belief in a deity and its religious teachings can be an intellectually challenging endeavor.
Will watch it when the occasion is right. Thank you.
Yeah, I also wondered but I stumbled across this statement here and there, either directly or indirectly. And I never was quite sure how to respond. So, I tried to formulate my thoughts in the above post and just hand the statement back to the ones who might feel addressed. So far, no one felt addressed in that sense. LoL :D
But I am really happy about the lively comment section.
Fortunately, we humans are eager providers to each other and offer those interpretations. I am happy, that not everything needs to be interpreted from scratch. I would say that that what already exists as interpretations, most likely will be combined with what the single interpreter makes of it. There is nothing new under the sun, is it.
When someone who likes to be presented with as little biased information as possible, scientific sources are a very good start (if they happen to be as clean as they can get).
We, the people, make it often very hard for ourselves, since we seem to think that we have to solely rummage in our isolated mind and forget, how rich and wonderful other minds have already thought things through. But of course, one has to find them - which, I think, is nowadays both, the easiest and the hardest at the same time. Since we are so distracted with pathos, we lose the logos out of sight.
Just the website alone, which I have used as a source in my posting, has a huge library. On creation I have found this part.
But then, all films ever seen, all artistic products ever enjoyed (or suffered), are an interpretation of what we humans think of ourselves and the cosmos. Some really excellent, some really crappy.
The interpretation is important because this is what determines how you will act in accordance with the information you receive. You can ignore the information, but if you want to engage in an intellectually challenging exercise with the concept of God as creator, then you need to interpret what is presented to you. So, I don't have a problem whatsoever with anyone who wants to interpret (see my comment on Newton). What I believe is important is to interpret the information in a clear logical manner, so we can follow the line of thinking and question the interpretation if we have to.
I have done an interpretation on Genesis in my new post. I hope, I have done it in a clear logical manner and my chain of thought comes across.
I thank you for pestering me :)
Another problem with avoiding the term God out of courtesy would be that both official scripture (all Bibles and theological texts, prayers, songs) and informal language, institutions and speech are in use. God is such a catchy, quick and strong term and, God forbid, nobody understands when I say "Grüß Gott!" (Greeting God!,as they do in Bavaria) :)
I think that would be too much politeness to one side.