Words, words, words

Posted by Matt Berry on June 19, 1998 at 13:18:36:

In Reply to: your characterizations..... posted by Tammy on June 18, 1998 at 13:55:19:

Actually, Tammy, I believe in God ... it's just that I used to be very confused about words, and now I am no longer as confused as I was before. A little progress.

Suppose that God hung a sign on each of two doors, one reading, "Good," and the other reading, "Evil." And then suppose the Devil came in the next day and rearranged the signs, such that the Good door now read "Evil," and the Evil door now read, "Good." Wouldn't you first take a peek behind each of the doors and make a judgment based upon what you see? In this case, wouldn't you choose the door labeled "Evil"? The word is not as important as the substance behind that word, right?

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

In the above, we have an emphasis, not on word-magic, but upon the ability to match up words with reality.

Now, if I see an orange on the table, but I say that there is no orange on the table, then I tell a lie, right? But if I say that there is indeed an orange on the table then I tell the truth. So, when our words do not match up with reality, then we have a lie. When our words do indeed match up with reality, then we have the Truth. So far we agree, right?

Now, suppose that God hung a sign on each of two doors, one reading, "Approach God by following Truth, and the Truth always Affirms reality and never Denies it," and the other would read, "Descend to the Devil by following Lies, and a Lie always Denies reality and never Affirms it."

Next, in comes the Devil and changes the God's door to read, "Approach God by following Truth, and the Truth sometimes Denies reality and sometimes Affirms it ... depending upon whichever supports your accidental cultural inheritance." Within my experience, and within our conversations on this BB, this appears to be the Theist's method today.

It's the Devil's job to mix up all the signs. It's our job to sort them out again ... match them up with reality ... That's how we recognize Truth, consequently, that is how we recognize God. Interestingly, around this REAL God, inter-cultural unity becomes possible. Around the presumption of the superiority of one's own culture, and the language of a specific culture, multiple Gods and Diversity take place and communication between cultures becomes impossible.

Additionally, when I am in Mexico, I speak Spanish. When I am in Japan, I speak Japanese. It would be foolish (and arrogant) of me to presume that the whole world speaks my language and that my language "Rules" in every cultural context. Likewise, when I speak with an Atheist, I use the Atheist word-set. When I speak with a Theist, I use the Theist word-set. When I speak with a mystic, I use the mystic-word set. Words are secondary, recognizing significance in reality is my primary goal. God is not so petty that he cares whether I call him "God," "Deus", "Kami-sama," "Allah," "Buddha," or "Reality" -- or whether St. John shouts out "Hosanna!" or Einstein shouts out "Eureka!"

The point of my posts is that it doesn't matter if I call myself an Atheist or a Theist or a Pantheist. Words are not primary, but secondary. The important thing is to follow the Truth, and I can only follow the Truth by affirming reality. Most Theists are using the word "Truth" to deny reality all too often. In my observations they do not defend "Truth" as much as they defend their own need for cultural superiority ... usually, their own inherited culture. They are Christian by accident, not by conversion.

I am proud to say "I believe in God" ... but only amongst those who demonstrate that God is indeed compatible with His own Creation. In my opinion, the Atheists are five lengths ahead of the those who believe in God. We have much to learn from the atheist about the value of affirming reality, and never denying it.

::... However, this is a pickup point for A, who perhaps as a Theist, does not believe in God so much as he believes in his
Grammar and his Word designations ... but a starting point exists here. For the theist, as with the Boy Scouts, as long as you
can use the word "God" you are OK.

Your characterization of theists is so narrow & self-serving that I can only wonder if you are serious or perhaps speaking in
jest.

I can't respond to this. There's no substance or counterpoint. I am perhaps "narrow and self-serving" (my character flaws -- but I'm just doing the best I can). Perhaps in order to help me improve you could show me the basis for this conclusion, instead of just telling me that I have faults.

I will, however, try to clarify my statement above.

(Recent litigation has changed the policy of the Boy Scouts, but I wish to draw upon its pre-litigation policy -- in regards to Atheists -- for the sake of illustration.)

With the Boy Scouts, my definition for the word, "God," did not matter. As long as I could use the word, "God," in a sentence, such as, "I believe in God," then I could join the Boy Scouts. The belief system involved was incidental. The only children excluded were those who referred to themselves by using the word, "Atheist."

A pantheist who believed that "God is Nature" or "God is reality" or "God is the sum total of the Laws of Nature" or "God is a positive orientation toward life which does not deny reality" ... is accepted within the Boy Scouts, even though, in an ultimate sense, he is very little different from an Atheist -- in the sense that neither believes in supernatural forces.

The words, "Atheist" and "God," are the pivotal point, not the actual nature of beliefor disbelief.

The same holds true among most Theists who have not transcended the presumptions of their own cultural inheritance. Usage of the word "God" is usually sufficient, and an exact definition is often not necessary. In talking with a Pantheist, but not knowing that this person is a Pantheist ... and if this person uses the word, "God," most Theists, in my experience, are perfectly fine ... even though the Pantheist, ultimately, is more akin to the Atheist than the Theist. (Both affirm reality.) Most, Theists, upon hearing the sentence, "I am an Atheist," become irate and emotional ... or seek to demote the Atheist by finding a way to "pity" or "show concern." On the other hand, an Atheist getting angry with a Pantheist, or visa versa, would be hilarious.

Perhaps a Pantheist is only a poetic Atheist? It doesn't really matter. Personally, I find the word "supernatural" to be a contradiction of terms. I believe that God is, was, and always will be a consequence of something real ... something which results from my immediate sensory contact, my ability to reason and solve problems. Anything "beyond" these influences is, by definition, unknowable ... and therefore, irrelevant speculation. If I do indeed receive an influence (however subtle it may be), by its very contact, I must conclude that it does not belong to the realm of a "beyond."

I use the word "God" to represent the beauty and awe in Nature, but I feel more akin to the Atheist than I do the Theist, since most rigid Theists demand that I deny key aspects of reality in order to "believe" ... which to me is an act of dishonesty, eliminating any chance I might have of cultivating a genuine "spirituality."

The funny part is that as soon as I use the word, "God" or "spirituality," many Theists think that I automatically accept the practice of denying factual reality. This is what my previous post refers to ... the word, "God," when left undefined makes everything OK. It is the word, and not the designation of the word, that is essential.

: However, beginning with the word, "Atheist" or "Huxley's Agnostic," would be as if someone had set the door afire and then
asked the Theist to enter ... since the Theist still has superstitious beliefs surrounding words, and the word, "atheist," is the
gateway to Hell. (We only need ask blue to confirm this.) Words are magical incantations.

I can see why theists might back away from further conversations with you. Your arrogance is astounding.

Again. No substance. Yes, my arrogance could be the reason why. Another possibility is cognitive dissonance on the part of Theists. Perhaps if you added more substance to your comments I could respond to them? Perhaps I could see my error? Perhaps you could convert me to your way of thinking? I only require substance.

: The atheist, pantheist and agnostic look beyond words (and other aspects of cultural inheritance) for confirmation in reality.

So please explain to me how pantheism corresponds with reality. How can I verify the reality of the god of nature?

You verify and approach this real God with your senses, applying reason, and never denying reality. God is inseparable from God's creation. There is no "God of Nature" with Pantheism, unless it be the Big-bang or some other scientifically confident theory. God is nature. The word, "God," designates reality. No fact can be eliminated from the equation and no mere wishful thinking can be added. I approach this REALGod by approaching a cheerful orientation toward reality which in turn never denies any aspect of reality.

Pantheism does not "correspond" with reality so much as the Pantheist, as an individual, seeks to correspond with reality. Like Huxley's, Socrates', Buddha's or Epicurus' outlook ... it is a method, not a pre-fabricated template foisted upon the world. It is an acceptance of the principle: I do not align the REALGod with myself. (That is true arrogance.) I align myself to the REAL God (True humility). ... that is the attempt anyway.

• A Human Strategy