Who is God?
As some of you may know, I believe that the world is ripe for a new ideological framework; what I call An Ideology of Common Sense. Instead of believing what we want to believe, it may well be time to begin believing in what makes sense. If the world is already coming together technologically and economically, it makes sense to come together ideologically as well, in order to pave the way for the unprecedented level of cooperation that a world economy will require. And so, I would like to devote a few posts to the idea of An Ideology of Common Sense, and with your kind indulgence, I begin with God.
It may not be politically correct to talk so openly about God. Who am I, after all, to even begin to explain the mystery that is God? And yet, we may have no choice but to begin talking about such things, because in the absence of common sense talk, people tend to grab hold of notions which make no sense, and which can easily threaten our very existence on this good earth. Some may say, “Let’s blow ourselves up in God’s name.” I say, “Let God speak for Himself, and when He does, I suspect He’ll use the language of Common Sense, as has been His custom since the beginning of time.”
So we begin with first principles. Does God exist? I think He does. How do I know this? Well, scientists theorize that some 13.7 billion years ago there was a great explosion, appropriately named The Big Bang, which brought the universe into existence. Before The Big Bang there was nothing. And after, there was everything. So to my mind; whoever or whatever caused that explosion to happen is certainly “godlike,” in every sense of the word, and is therefore God. Call it The Big Bang, or a force of nature, or a random confluence of events…call it what you will, but whoever or whatever caused the universe to come into being is God. This mode of analysis is reminiscent of Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs for the existence of God. I thought up of it myself; I want you to know, only to find out that Aquinas beat me to the punch some 700 years ago. Must have been quite an ambitious little fellow, God bless his soul.
What else do we know about God? Um…pretty much nothing. That’s right folks, you heard it here first. We really don’t know anything about God other than the fact that He created the universe. Listening to us talk, you’d think that we knew everything there was to know about God. But if we are true to ourselves, we really don’t. And in that vacuum of knowledge, since we know nothing about God, we proceed to create Him in our own image.
Here’s how this craziness works:
• God created the universe.
• As part of His creation, God created us in His image.
• Therefore, we are creators as well.
• As part of our creation, we choose to create God, in our image.
• Since we are imperfect, we taint God with our imperfections, and fashion Him to suit our needs.
So what’s wrong with this picture? By tainting God with human frailties, we can easily delude and manipulate ourselves into believing that God would have us do all sorts of crazy things, in the same way that we convince ourselves to act loony with respect to one another. And once we come to believe that we are acting in God’s name, no less, how difficult it becomes to curb our enthusiasm for the nasty things we choose to do.
And so, I got to thinking: What concept of God would make more sense? In answering the question: Who is God; I would say, with all due respect for other opinions and beliefs, that I think of God as the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe. In other words, since all we really know about God is that He created the universe, then it would make sense to associate Him with that creation, and with the various forms of energy that it took to bring that creation about, including: radiation, heat, electricity, kinetic energy, and of course, the energy of intelligence.
Does it help us to make sense of things to say that God is the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe? I think it does. For example, if someone asks, “Do you have a personal relationship with God?” you could say, “I certainly do. His creative energy flows through me, and mine flows through Him.” If someone asks, “Why is there evil in the world?” You could say, “God is the Creator of all things. If He wanted to create good, He had no choice but to create the possibility of evil, because we could not know what is good without also knowing evil, good defining itself by its juxtaposition to evil.” If somebody says, “Let’s kill one another in God’s name,” you could say, “Since God created each and every one of us in His image, when we choose to kill one another, aren’t we, in effect, spitting at God’s face?”
It is time to make sense of things. Don’t you think? And the one thing we were given to bring about a semblance of order to this world is the notion and the language of Common Sense.
del.icio.us
BlogMemes
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Google
Reddit
Facebook
TwitThis
Mixx
Loading ...
i.e. Vedanta
It delights me to see such a series of questioning expressed so openly, it is a shame however, that this post hasn’t received more responces. I wonder why.. is it because most people are already certain? or is it instead that some of us feel that we can never be certain?
I just have one point Nissim… you say:
How do we really know that God created the universe? And if you are able to critically examine and question other aspects of our preconceived ideas, should we then not question one of the most fundamental elements of our idea of God and this universe?
are you OK?
This whole post is based on assumption that you didn’t prove it at the first place! isn’t it stupid?
4 sure, you should be religious because your assumptions are religious! read more
False… no one knows the answer to what was before the Big Bang.
Also your post addresses the Western religion’s creation story. So saying that I say the raven created humans and Sedna created the animals. Enough said.. bie bie…
Tamara, thanks for your comment. Let me try to clarify, even though I realize that I will not be able to bring clarity to the mystery that is God. What I’m trying to do with An Ideology of Common Sense is to show that we can use universal notions of common sense to discuss almost anything, and in that way, to find common ground.
You are right to question anything you wish, and in fact, I am all for questioning many of our preconceived notions. Associating God with the act of creation makes sense to me. Why? Because something very miraculous happened some 14 billion years ago. Whatever that something was, I choose to call God. The word God is just a word. We could choose to call it The Big Bang. It makes no differences. Whatever that force was that brought the universe into existence is indeed worthy of being called God, if the word God is to have any meaning.
But once again. It’s not really so important if you agree with my understanding of God. What is important is that we can talk about it, you and I, in a rational way, and create some sort of bridge between us. Therein lies the hope for mankind. If we are ever going to shift this world the in a different direction, one that points to the possibility of peace, it will start with finding a language that we can all relate to, and for me, that language is the language of common sense.
And Jina, thanks for your comment as well. No, I don’t know what there was before The Big Bang. But what I’ve read suggests that there was no time and space, and for me, that seems pretty close to “nothing.” Also, if you wish to use other names for the idea of God, that’s OK with me. For me, the idea of God is pretty universal in that it suggests a power beyond us. But even if God is beyond us, it doesn’t mean that we can’t try to understand Him, and even relate to Him in a way that makes more sense. My whole point is that it seems silly to pretend we’re as smart as we think we are, without bringing some common sense notions to some ideological issues which can easily determine our fate in the near future. But thanks for your valuable contributions.
[…] Mideast Youth - Thinking AheadArticle: Who is God?Originaly Posted On: 2007-11-11 […]
I could not agree with you more. I think if more people were to see it this way, the world would be so much of a nicer place. Language and labels place such limits on the possibilities of our interaction with one another.
You refer to an An Ideology of Common Sense, I am curious as to what criteria one would use to establish what could be considered, or fall under this ideology.
Tamara, I am working on the criteria to be used for An Ideology of Common Sense. But I love what you said, “Language and labels place such limits on the possiblities of our interaction with one another.” That’s a big idea, and is reflective of the intellect that is characteristic of this extraordinary website. Your comment suggests that words and labels can often get in the way of the meaning behind the words. So we get hung up on the controversy of the words, instead of delving into the meaning behind them.
I can give you a taste of An Ideology of Common Sense. For me, common sense is the intuitive wisdom to conform our thoughts and actions to universally shared truths and vlaues. The “intuitive wisdon” is the wisdon that comes from within. “Thoghts and actions” because it is not enough to think straight, you have to act on what you know to be true. “Truths” are the realities we perceive, “values” are the realities we aspire to. And why are these truths and values “universal?” Certain truths and values are so logical, so fundmamental, and so self-evident, that they are universally percieved as true, and therefore universally accepted.
Three such universal principles are: The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good. The Golden Rule, “Treat others as you would have them treat you,” is found in every religion on earth. Why? Because it makes sense, that’s why. It makes sense like math makes sense. I would suggest that The Golden Rule would have us treat each other well by Investing in one another.
The Golden Mean, “The the truth is somewhere between two extremes.” I would suggest that The Golden Mean would have us think straight by moderating our views and using Common Sense as our Ideology.
The Greatest Good, “Bring the gretest good to the greatest number.” I would suggest that The Greatest Good would have us maximize justice by organizing ourselves around a Vision of Hope.
Putting it all together, as Thomas Jefferson might have put it, “We find this truth to be self-evident: Ideology plus Investment equals Hope.”
An Ideology of Common Sense is a way of elevating common sense notions to ideological status. It is a new framework for rational discourse based on the premise that there are universal truths which we can all relate to, and which defy mundane labels. Two plus two equal four, here, and in China as well. Why should ethical behavior be any different.
Whatever you wish to know about it, I will be more than happy to explain. Thank you for your interest.
Nissim:
Honestly I read this essay immediately after you posted it here, but I didnt have anything to say. If it were so easy to build up a consensus among people over a critical point like God… yeah, world would be a much better place.
Just a footnote About Thomas Aquinas’ proofs: this biologist, Richard Dawkins, tried to refute these so-called proofs in his book The God Delusion… this man clearly doesnt have any grasp of either modern philosophy or modern logics… but unfortunately what he claims about Aquinas’ proofs seem to be true. Dawkins owe these claims to some people like Kurt Gudel, a mathematician of 20th century, who contributed to Proof Theory and Modern Math-Based Logics… They showed why proofs of this kind are flawed.
have a good time with your Common Sense
Mohammad, thank you for your comments. I read Dawkins’ book and frankly I too was not very impressed. I think that his refutation of Aquinas’ proofs had to do with the idea that if God was the first cause of things, then who caused God? But to my mind, Aquinas had a point. Whatever caused The Big Bang is worthy of considerable admiration, no matter what you call it, and even if He or it had a theoretical predecessor.
I would point to two things in defending the notion of Common Sense: substance and procedure. It is true that substantively we can use our common sense and end up with different conclusions. I am not saying that common sense will cause everyone to agree. However, it may teach us better how to disagree. And that’s where procedure comes into play. By using our common sense, we will be better able to put things into perspective, and to work through our toughest issues while maintaining our sense of logic and our basic humanity.
The world is coming together in many ways. We need a way to relate to each other that brings us together to solve some of the more intractable problems. We know instinctively that we share much more in common than divides us. It is time to give expression to that commonality by speaking to each other with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.
It’s all a bit naive, I know. But it may be even more naive to watch as we cavalierly approach the great abyss.
Was it because you agreed with the point being made
I think that is precisely what Nissim is attempting to do. Its a tall order, indeed. Guess what… you may be already part of it!
You don’t have to be religious to believe in humanity.
@ slopes
you call this humanity!!!! it’s stupid common-sense that he used to call it prove there is a fucking God!! what […] are you talking about? where is this […] God that your foolish common-sense can cover your ass in it too? i guess it would be alright for all of you to go and teach history in ass-cleaning department because it’s common-sense!
Please watch your language and respect the author of this post regardless of whether or not you agree with him. This is a civil website.
Humans are smart, we can build aircrafts and monkeys can’t. Not sure what you are trying to say here. And your common sense, in order for something to be common sense, it has to be explained without logical fallacies. Also you don’t get to define the meaning of the term common sense, it’s already there. If your explanation don’t meet the requirement for the already defined term… find something that does instead of trying to redefine a term.
Pointless and demeaning, get off that high ground you think your in.
hey point, you’re missing the point.
nissim is saying you can talk about God using common sense as a common denominator. IF you can talk about God, then any other subject that divides man should not be out of reach.
Jina,
Our species has been around for some 2,000,000 years. For 99% of that time we hunted and gathered and were pretty friendly to one another, as depicted in the movie The Rise of Man on the Discovery Channel.
Some 10,000 years ago we decided to become “civilized,” and for some reason we ceased to be “civil” to one another.
For the last 2000 years, mostly everyone was poor and the world population was under 250 million.
In the last 200 years, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the world population grew to over 6 billion today, and a great deal of wealth has been concentrated particularly in the West.
And in the last 20 years, Globalization has made it possible for the world to come together as part of a global economy.
So my question to you is: “Is that where we’re heading?” Are we going to come together as a global economy, where everyone on earth has a place at the table—a stake in his or her future? Or are we going to allow our technology to be turned against us in war and destruction?
The smarter we get, and the more technological we become, the more wisdom we need to survive. We can make nuclear weapons, but can we avoid nuclear proliferation? We can make cars, but can we avoid Global Warming? We can philosophize about our religious beliefs, but can we avoid religious strife? Can we find a smart balance between our intelligence and our wisdom?
You say that I did not properly define “Common Sense.” If you read my post to Tamara, you will notice that for me: Common Sense is the intuitive wisdom to conform our thoughts and actions to universally shared truths and values. I can define common sense this way because to my mind, I don’t think that as yet we have a handle on what it means, even though it is at the heart of our salvation as a species.
You take offense at my thanking you for your comments. You deduce from this that I think of myself as inhabiting “high ground.” Actually, I’m just trying to be polite. I honestly believe that each and every comment, good or bad, is a blessing because it points to the possibility of coming together. Just by having you react to me gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, something could actually happen along these lines.
And let me make one thing clear; I don’t think of myself as on “high ground.” I prefer to think of myself as the Village Idiot. But I take comfort in thinking that even a Village Idiot could stumble upon something important. In my life’s journey, I have stumbled upon Selling a Vision of Hope, as a way to help bring peace:
1. Speak to one another with Common Sense and with a sense of personal dignity.
2. Invest in one another under the banner: “We stand ready to invest in you, if you are ready to invest in yourselves.”
3. Use an Ideology of Common Sense along with some well placed Investment Dollars to Sell a Vision of Hope in our time.
4. Sustain the hope with some serious Public Diplomacy Programs like Empowering Women.
5. When necessary, fight, and fight hard, but position the fight within a Vision of Hope. Raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose.
6. Marginalize the extremists, on all sides, in the eyes of their own people, by beating them at their own game.
Now Jina, I think this could help bring peace to the world. Any suggestions?
When humans lived in a collective, we had to support each other or we would have died off. But we still fought each other, two collectives or two tribes fought one another for land and food, these fights didn’t occure often because of our population and other threats.
Now we continue to do the same but on a larger scale because of our ability to use advanced tools. We used to be animals who could use sticks… we remain the same, only thing is that our sticks are guns and bombs now. I see no difference between us now and us before. Stakes are high, that’s all.
There is a high possibility that we will one day annihilate each other because of our “differences” or an asteroid comes and wipe us out… whatever works.
My impression, from what I’ve read, is that the cavemen were pretty good to one another. Would you kill your neighbor just to steal a couple of peanuts? Why bother?
There is a scene in the movie I mentioned where one clan has a nice cave and plenty of food. Another clan comes along, without food or shelter. Would they fight one another? No. The comfortable clan took them in, as part of their own clan, so as to increae the gene pool for procreation.
But you are right to say that with our technology, the stakes are getting higher. And you are also right to say that we are coming perilously close to annihilating one another. That would be very selfish indeed, to our children, and our children’s children, and the countless generations yet unborn. Who are we to deny them the bounty of life?
So how do we stop that from happening, Jina, you and I? There is not a lot of time left. History is progressing at a rapidly increasing pace. Where are we heading, and what can we do to shift this world in a slighly different direction, one that points to the possibility of peace?
Very easy… give everyone a gun in their hand and tell them to use it… and at the end of it we’ll have peace on Earth.
not a people person are you?
Without life there is no earth.
Well that’s the choice, isn’t it; peace among the living, or peace among the dead? One way or another there will be peace. But will there be anyone around to enjoy it?
Human life is not the only life on Earth. I suggest you go read about the creatures that call Earth home.
As you pointed out “Humans are smart, we can build aircrafts and monkeys can’t”. I agree. In fact, humans can solve complex problems better then any other species.
Without us, who will solve the ecological problems that are on the horizon. Who will cure diseases and plagues that can wipe out entire species in blink of an eye. Who will prevent asteroids from smashing our planet into peaces. Maybe we can, maybe not, but we will definitely try better then any other living thing.
But if we don’t get the chance to at least attempt to solve the complex issues that will face all Earth’s inhabitants at some point, because we are distracted by our own conflicts, then we, humans, will be responsible for loss of all life.
We killed of more animal, plant, insect.. species than we saved… not buying your argument. Our existence is similar to that of a parasite.
We already are responsible for most loss of life, human and non human.
Biology says we have to survive no matter what… we will do just that, we will wipe out more and more species so we can grow, we will destroy the very planet we live in. When everything runs out, we will destroy ourselves and we are seeing this already.
I used to think we can save ourselves from destruction, I was young and stupid… not any more. Reality bites but ohh well.
Then we’re on the same page. We are heading towards destruction.
If your comments are any indication of your character, then something tells me you don’t give up so easy.
There IS a refreshing alternative to armageddon: Selling a Vision of Hope.
I think the discussion has shifted somewhat. But I think God is essentially beyond even the best critical analysis even when taking into consideration the infinite factors that prove or disprove Him.
Imagine you are in a box. You want to believe there is something outside the box. You do believe it. It is a sad existence if you don’t. But all your conclusions and theories are based off what you know, and all of what you know is based on your experiences in the box. So the tools you use to quantify something outside the box are inherently futile. So…my point is…well figure it out.
Does it have to be a sad existence if you don’t?
For those who call themselves atheists or agnostics, there is only so much worldly and intellectual satisfaction to be attained. There is ironically scientific studies done on those who consider themselves believers and those who do not. Those who do not are much more susceptible to suicide, depression, marital and social/personal relationship problems.
This is just one example.
Omid:
I enjoy the way you get into discussion; it bears an evidence of your academic thinking. About your comment: with regards to the famous example of Box, you are to an extent true and to another extent wrong.
Firstly, you are right. Modern science, following its very essence which takes into account just observable phenomena, has nothing to do with those possible objects which may do exist outside of Box. Pay attention that ‘observable’ is equal to ‘measurable’ in this sense, and when a thing is not measurable, that is out of the league of practical sciences. ‘Pain’ is a good example: very observable, but not subject to a quality measurement. (Reference: “Developing Nursing Knowledge: Philosophical Traditions and Influences” by Beth Rodgers => Chapter 5)
Secondly: you are wrong. Before going a step further, pay attention to the fact that there are 2 general grounds of results derived from science: Synthetic and Analytic. Without getting into the complicated glossary of philosophers, let’s suppose that some of these results are based on experience and some of them are not based on experience.
About that part of the results which are based on our experience, there is an extensive debate that whether they do apply to objects outside of the Box or not. Following the skepticism of Hume (which reduces Causality to a daily habit, not a rule; etc.) leads to an even worse condition: we may not apply these results to the objects inside of the Box.
For those results which are not based on experience and do not bear any limitation, they will apply to any object, whether inside of the Box or outside of it. For an example, check the Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel.
Now, a very important question arises: is modern science capable of setting some limitations on the nature of God? Or, on the other hand, on our understanding of God? That’s the mark, try to hit it!
Hi Mohammad,
Thanks for the note. However, I still think your analysis is still arguably within the box. Each point you bring up is using conclusions, analysis and theory based on deducible observations, whether abstract or tangible it doesn’t matter.
Frankly no. We may be able to detect residue and signs of faith in ourselves, and God but in the end it has always been a question of faith. Religion, in whatever form, has been the source, I believe, for our desire to learn through science. Although that may be hard to conclude given the disastrous ignorance that has plagued religious fanatics now and in the past, science and religion have always been complimentary–whether we knew it or not.
Einstein, Aristotle, and other great thinkers and scientists always left the question of God above what their peers and people around them could comprehend. It is and will always be a universal and personal quest. No proof put forward by anyone is enough to completely shift our thinking. Its an internal and I believe spiritual nudge, that lets us hope and believe in God.
I can’t believe the quality of analysis going on here. Keep it up and you may just be able to blow a circuit on my computer. But you see, we can talk about things, even things like God. And therein lies the hope.
I have a belief in ‘God’, but I also ask myself, if God does not exist or instead if God is dead, will that change the way I live and view the world? Will it change what will happen to me after I die? And I have to answer, and I might add very honestly, No, I dont think it would. I would still view the world as full of wonder and inspiration and life worth living and fighting for.
Tamara, everything in the World is worth fighting for and indeed there are many wnderful things full of beauty and inspiration. No one said there wasn’t. Moreover, if there is a God, which I believe there is, all the beauty and glory in the World is just a drop compared to what God is or has.
Living your life the way you want is one of the greatest gifts and only real thing that is yours. For those who say God is dead, I kind of laugh. Its such a boring and dull statement that its not even appealing conversation.
Tamara, to my mind there are two levels of meaning: there is the meaning we create for ourselves, and there is the meaning beyond the meaning we create for ourselves. In a way, God covered us both ways. If you don’t believe in Him, He still gave us enough beauty to fill our lives with meaning. And if you choose to believe in Him, then there’s that extra measure of meaning that you can tap into. Maybe I’m a bit too simplistic. But it seems that something must have created it all, and if I choose to call that something God, I don’t see where I’m going wrong. And it gives me an extra source of meaning to think that He is watching, and sometimes interfering, and that I’m playing a part in the wonder of His creation. Strange as it may seem, if there really were no God, then I suspect we would have no choice but to create Him, and then He would indeed exist, if only in our minds. For Him, that would probably suffice.
Omid,
Actually you did say that it would be a sad existence if we didn’t believe in God. I don’t mean to be pedantic, but I am trying to make a point. I will try to explain, but as I have said before the limits language puts on us, especially on talking about something like this, are enourmous and restrictive, contributed by our own preconceptions of such things as God and the universe.
Nissim, Well again I have to say I agree with you quite strongly. I also believe that a belief in ‘God’ makes it easier for us to accept death and contemplate the afterlife. It gives us meaning beyond this world, which however should not be justification for the dismissal of this world in anticipation for the next. The denial of the body in this life is a common feature among certain religious ideologies. This I find to be tragic. And it is this that I feel is more damaging to this life than a lack of beleif in God. When a belief in the afterlife becomes more important and more desirable than this life.
Omid:
As said above, there is an extensive body of philosophical arguments about God, that Box, etc. let me point out few things:
The ‘Synthetic a priori judgments’, proposed by Emanuel Kant, are exactly what refutes your assumption. Kant said that Mathematical Judgements are such things; therefore they do apply to everything.
An example of such judgements is “Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel”. This theorem briefly says that in every logical system, there are true statements which will never be proved, i.e. there are unprovable true statements as well as unrefutable wrong judgements. this theorem, however, does not identify those unprovable true statements. Existence of God (whatever the definition) might be one of these statements.
Lets explore it with an example: Modern physics states that no object might travel faster than light.
(to the surprise of fanatic fans of science, it should be noted that there is no way to prove such theories: it is just a theory which best covers already observed phenomena.)
Your God, or mine, is not something absolutely out of Box. it has some sort of connection with the inner side of the Box. once you clarify your position on God and his relation with our world (i.e. inside of Box), I can show you one point in which he or a thing attributed directly to him comes in touch with our Box and becomes observable. in that very point, atheists would claim, he/that thing should obey physical rules.
It would take hundreds of life times to attain these worldly knowledge… so I am don’t think I need stories of boogy men to satisfy myself. Get back to me in a thousand year from now and lets see what kind of answer I have for you.
How does a belief in God have any relation to wordly and intellectual satisfaction?
This is the problem with such discussions, each believer or not, thinks themselves superior to the other, becuase of their held belief. It is here that the idea of Common Sense fails to hold ground. Because the way we feel and the way we react to something that is so personal and dear to us, is far from Common Sense.
This is why we have to realise, that a person chooses to believe what they do, because it makes their life have more meaning or more full, for them. We need to stop passing judgement and assuming we know what is best for someone else. No one is superior to another, and if you do believe in God, that should be acknowledged.
Tamara, I believe that Common Sense always holds its ground, like mathematical theorems. It is we who often lose ground by believing in things that make no sense. Take, for example, your idea that people often place undue belief in the reality of an afterlife, even to the extent of forgoing their lives right here and right now. As you suggest, it is wrong to do that. Common Sense would suggest that God put us on this earth to live, not to kill, and not to die, before our time.
I choose be believe that the life I have here and now is the only life I may ever have. That way, if there is no afterlife, I will have made the most of my life right here and right now. And if I am wrong- it could happen- and there is an afterlife, then I will hopefully be able to enjoy that, after having lived a full life on earth. You see, that’s how common sense works. It covers you coming and going. Common sense is probably our only hope, but thankfully there seems to be a lot of it left on this website.
Well yes exactly, but we can not lose sight of the fact that we as human beings are prone to such things, it is evident throughout history and still now. I am not disagreeing with your ideas, on the contrary I find that our ideas converge on many levels, but I am uncertain of how we could approach Common Sense as a characteristic of all people, especially those who follow religion in the way that has become so obviously misled. And for these people to be open to such discussion, they would be required to, at least, loosen the grip on their preconceived ideas of what God and the universe really are.
Mohammad,
My idea of God is based on the traditional sense but I think it is safe to say, also a bit more. As a Baha’i, God to us is and will always be unknowable. The only notion we have of God and our ideas of Him, is through his messengers and prophets.
I apologize to anyone who may not agree with this but it is what I believe.
God is so far beyond His creation that, throughout all eternity, human beings will never be able to formulate any clear image of Him or attain to anything but the most remote appreciation of His superior nature. Even if we say that God is the All-Powerful, the All-Loving, the Infinitely Just, such terms are derived from a very limited human experience of power, love, or justice. Indeed, our knowledge of anything is limited to our knowledge of those attributes or qualities perceptible to us:
“…Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden.
As our knowledge of things, even of created and limited things, is knowledge of their qualities and not of their essence, how is it possible to comprehend in its essence the Divine Reality, which is unlimited? … Knowing God, therefore, means the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes, and not of His Reality. This knowledge of the attributes is also proportioned to the capacity and power of man; it is not absolute…”
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this along the lines of what you were talking about right?
Tamara, an Ideology of Common Sense will require one hell of a sales job, but considering the alternative, what choice do we really have?
I am not disparaging religion. I believe that religion can be a pathway to God, as can art, music, philosophy, and even science. But whatever pathway you choose, you will need a compass to guide your way, and I can think of no better compass than the universal compass of Common Sense. If something in your religion, or your way of thinking, does not make sense, then let it go. All religions contain certain scriptural passages which make no sense, and which are not palatable to the modern mind. That’s why they make “white-out.” Get rid of that junk, even as you hold on to your deeply help beliefs.
There have been scores of religious, political, economic, and social ideologies which ended up on the trash heap of bad ideas. The trouble is that the conflicts over bad ideas have left behind millions of corpses in their wake. Since 1950, some 85 million people have been killed in such conflicts, and that doesn’t even include the two world wars. I would guess that more people have been killed by the hand of man in the last 200 years, than the previous 2 million years of human existence. Now, with the technology available to us, the potential for mass killing is even greater.
The bottom line: We either begin to make sense of our lives, or we’re going down. That’s the deal my friends, and I don’t see any way around it. Since life began on this planet, 99% of all species have become extinct. I prefer not to follow in their footsteps
Who said this is a bad thing
What’s so good about it, Jina? Are you saying that becoming extinct is something to look forward to? I guess we’ll have less to worry about, that’s for sure.
Nissim,
I agree with you. So how would we put something like this into practice, so that it would have an impact on the current issues going on in the world? How can we use this to change the path we are headed along?
Tamara, I think you’re asking me how to bring world peace. It’s a tall order, as you can well imagine.
I think we should do everything we can to Sell and Implement a Vision of Hope:
1. Ideology:
Raise the notion of Common Sense to ideological status. Speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. Common sense will inspire our thinking and inform our speech.
2. Investment:
Invest in one another. Invest in projects which resonate with hope, which create jobs, and which protect the environment, under the banner, “We stand ready to invest in you, if you are ready to invest in yourselves.” Give everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future.
3. Hope:
Use An Ideology of Common Sense along with some well placed Investment Dollars to Sell a Vision of Hope—a Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom—on the Arab street, in the Muslim world, and in the world as a whole. In short, Ideology plus Investment equals Hope.
4. Diplomacy:
Sustain a Vision of Hope by launching a series of Public Diplomacy Programs, including: a Media Campaign, a program to Empower Women, a Student Exchange, a Cultural Exchange, an expanded version of the Peace Corps, and a series of International Conferences.
5. Fight:
When absolutely necessary, fight, and fight hard, but position the fight within a Vision of Hope. Raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose.
6. Marginalize:
Marginalize the extremists, on all sides, in the eyes of their own people, by doing what they do, only better. The extremists will not be able to capture the public imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.
I know I sound like a broken record, but that’s it in a nutshell. The idea is to get the word out, and then to implement. You get the word out by doing what we’re doing right here, and any other way you can come up with. You implement by getting the attention of people who are wealthy enough or powerful enough, or both, to actually make something happen along these lines. For example, if you can get a wealthy businessman or businesswoman to start an industrial zone in the West Bank, then you could use that project to show to the world that a Vision of Hope could be made real, if people only wish to make it so.
I know it sounds a bit out there, but I think it could work, and I’m beginning to meet people who are actually in a position to make it happen, if they become so inclined, which of course is a big “if”.
Whether you agree with the poster or not, this is the type of thinking , brainstorming and discussion (without the anger and cussing which does nothing to help but only continue to perpetuate the problems) It’s ok to disagree, but we need to keep thinking HOW are we going to solve these problems, war,famine,poverty,raciscm etc.
It is so easy to cuss, call names, get mad, and blame so if you want to do that, start your own website called I hat everything and no one can tell me I am wrong. Something like that.
For those who want to discuss the problems in the world and how we can solve them, keep the discussion rolling. We may not be able to change everything, but each piece or part we change for the better gets us that much closer to peace and that much further from oblivian.
My thoughts on this subject: Religion ( or the interpretation by man) has destroyed the earth. Who’s GOD would tell a person to kill for his beliefs? And who is to say which religion is right or wrong. Until we all agree that you can believe what you want and I can believe what I want to, nothing will change.
History to is the detriment of this world. History is only usefull if we learn from it, not hold grudges because of it. OUr ansestors and leaders and extremists of today have collectively F’d up this world for the rest of us who are just trying to live with peace and equality.
The problems of this earth are not going to be easy to fix, obviously, but can’t you see? It’s up to us. The youth, the people, the ones who are able to eat and not starve, the ones who are fortunate enough to be able to even use a computer or say our thoughts the way we feel.
The ones who are not one of the millions of Sierra Leoneans have had limbs cut off by machete. If you are able to have a cup of water everyday and not just a few drops. I could go on.
If you in your heart no that there are those that suffer much more than you.
Then I am talking to you. These are the people who need US. You me, our family and friends who may be blinded and ignoring the problems of the earth and going about their daily life.
They have us so stuck in arguing with each other, blaming each other, seperating us. You see, if we as a whole ever combine and get together for one movement they cannot stop us.
As long as they keep us arguing against each other, they have us trapped and will continue this path. The rich will get richer, the poor will die, the extremists will have reason to continue to perpetuate their aggression and the powers will respond with war.
I swear, these leaders are like children. Why do they want to destroy the world? Why spend 4 trilion dollars on a war when that could have been enough to build up these countries? Why do sunis and shia kill each other over religion and the past? why is there so much hatred and blame ? Why can’t we just STOP………………
………………………..
………….
……………………………
and start over?
It’s up to us, it has to change now!
We are all here writing things, even if hatefull sometimes, because we are passionate about change. Is there not ONE thing we can agree on?
I challenge every single person who has commented on this article, if you comment again, be humble and just for once say something without arguing about right or wrong or calling names and agree that. Just answer this one question with no other comment.
Do you wish for peace and equality throughout the world?
If you answer is no, then you probably don;t belong here. Go start a hate website.
If your answer is yes, then take the time to write a post about your thoughts, your frustrations, and most importantly what you think are our options. How can we change things.
So I ask you again, Do you wish for peace and equality throughout the world?
My answer is YES.
Good form.
But I must say, or at least reiterate what you said, we must be united and share a common goal. Peace is simply the absence of war. Is that so hard?
If it peace we want we must petition, protest, write, and fight our officials into submission. It gets real easy to declare war when, if you do, something actually happens.
If I may share this statement entitled, The Promise of World Peace:
To the Peoples of the World:
The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet—in the words of one great thinker, “the planetization of mankind”.
Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behavior, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be unconscionably irresponsible.
Among the favorable signs are the steadily growing strength of the steps towards world order taken initially near the beginning of this century in the creation of the League of Nations, succeeded by the more broadly based United Nations Organization; the achievement since the Second World War of independence by the majority of all the nations on earth, indicating the completion of the process of nation building, and the involvement of these fledgling nations with older ones in matters of mutual concern; the consequent vast increase in co-operation among hitherto isolated and antagonistic peoples and groups in international undertakings in the scientific, educational, legal, economic and cultural fields; the rise in recent decades of an unprecedented number of international humanitarian organizations; the spread of women’s and youth movements calling for an end to war; and the spontaneous spawning of widening networks of ordinary people seeking understanding through personal communication.
The scientific and technological advances occurring in this unusually blessed century portend a great surge forward in the social evolution of the planet, and indicate the means by which the practical problems of humanity may be solved. They provide, indeed, the very means for the administration of the complex life of a united world. Yet barriers persist. Doubts, misconceptions, prejudices, suspicions and narrow self-interest beset nations and peoples in their relations one to another.
It is out of a deep sense of spiritual and moral duty that we are impelled at this opportune moment to invite your attention to the penetrating insights first communicated to the rulers of mankind more than a century ago by Bahá’u’lláh, Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, of which we are the Trustees.
“The winds of despair”, Bahá’u’lláh wrote, “are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably defective.” This prophetic judgement has been amply confirmed by the common experience of humanity. Flaws in the prevailing order are conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states organized as United Nations to exorcise the spectre of war, the threatened collapse of the international economic order, the spread of anarchy and terrorism, and the intense suffering which these and other afflictions are causing to increasing millions. Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behavior is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable.
With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the harrowing apprehensions tormenting their daily lives. On the other, uncritical assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free play to individual creativity and initiative but based on co-operation and reciprocity.
As the need for peace becomes more urgent, this fundamental contradiction, which hinders its realization, demands a reassessment of the assumptions upon which the commonly held view of mankind’s historical predicament is based. Dispassionately examined, the evidence reveals that such conduct, far from expressing man’s true self, represents a distortion of the human spirit. Satisfaction on this point will enable all people to set in motion constructive social forces which, because they are consistent with human nature, will encourage harmony and co-operation instead of war and conflict.
To choose such a course is not to deny humanity’s past but to understand it. The Bahá’í Faith regards the current world confusion and calamitous condition in human affairs as a natural phase in an organic process leading ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single social order whose boundaries are those of the planet. The human race, as a distinct, organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to the stages of infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members, and is now in the culminating period of its turbulent adolescence approaching its long-awaited coming of age.
A candid acknowledgment that prejudice, war and exploitation have been the expression of immature stages in a vast historical process and that the human race is today experiencing the unavoidable tumult which marks its collective coming of age is not a reason for despair but a prerequisite to undertaking the stupendous enterprise of building a peaceful world. That such an enterprise is possible, that the necessary constructive forces do exist, that unifying social structures can be erected, is the theme we urge you to examine.
Whatever suffering and turmoil the years immediately ahead may hold, however dark the immediate circumstances, the Bahá’í community believes that humanity can confront this supreme trial with confidence in its ultimate outcome. Far from signalizing the end of civilization, the convulsive changes towards which humanity is being ever more rapidly impelled will serve to release the “potentialities inherent in the station of man” and reveal “the full measure of his destiny on earth, the innate excellence of his reality”.
clergy omid:
again is writing bulls…
Where is the study about atheists or agnostics in your link? go read your link before write anything out of illogical brain-washed religious mind
It was an example of how spirituality helps.
On another note…your criticism is indicative of some serious hostility toward religion. I always wonder how people become atheists. Its usually out of spite or some “scientific” excuse they justify. Sometimes its just ego. Or maybe they judge the followers of their religion as the religion itself and then of course they seen error, frailty, mistake, hypocritical behavior and then somehow make the jump to paint the whole faith.
Thats illogical.
if you can’t prove something you can’t hold on to it
I agree. You are absolutely correct. Little things like math, calculating your taxes, making a recipe, or other tanglible things, yes.
But religion, or in the case God, is not subject to being proved. If it was able to be proved or disproved for that matter, we would all be on the same page. But we aren’t.
For example, every person in the whole world knows that the sun rises and sets. That there are 24 hrs in a day, and no doubt we all need water and oxygen to survive. No argument there. Its proven.
But, when people try to disprove God, they try to use logic, science and even mean comments to do it. In the end they have proven nothing. You can get very close with these methods to becoming aware of a “ya or nay” on God. But in the end, its the same thing that decides whether you believe or not. Faith.
Ironic.
Omid T : I really like that post. We get so caught up in the “today” we forget about tomorrow.
Omid:
dont waste your time with such so-called atheists. that kind of science they advocate is unable to prove anything: they can only say “if A is true, then B is true”… and that would be really great if they could say such a thing in most of their so-called scientific arguments; the more accurate form of reason they follow is this: “if A is true, then B is more likely to be true”… and even liklieness in this case is a matter of doubt: just a guess, nothing more.
the practical science they follow, let me know, if it has ever proven anything… without a BIG IF before it…
if you are really sincere in your claim that you obey just those things which you have a doubtless proof for it… you should never fly with an airplane, since there is no way to PROVE (that kind of proof you ask us to bring for GOD’s existence) that it can fly, and even if it can fly there is no way to prove that it can land… etc
Ignorance taken to a new level… lets ignore those who don’t believe in “god”… right…
False… or hostility toward stupidity… whatever works.
False, ok… Earth is flat, go dive off of it.
Kind of like you, but you are a thesists… hmm…
That’s why I don’t consider yourself as a representative of your faith, if I did, then I would have to make foolish judgment about your religion.
You want to provide me with a source to back this up or did your god tell you this?
Jina:
if you pay a little more attention to the comments you are going to criticize, you will find out that there is no need to ask such questions.
1- what I recommended Omid was not to waste his time to find a scientific proof for the existence of God (of that kind that Atheists ask us to bring), for that Science, i.e. Practical Sciences, are inherently unable to prove anything.
2- Omid asked you to visit a page as a sample, and there are enough scientific studies which suggest that a system of belied might help the person establish a better quality of life.
Nissim,
Well I was asking how we can work towards world peace. And I think you outlined that rather well. And I don’t think it is out there at all. I think that kind of movement is exactly what is neccessary. And as And points out it is up to US to actively work towards that change NOW.
Omid,
I see your tolerance towards different religions, but I feel that a tolerance towards ‘athiests’ is also necessary. I understand the fustration of having to deal with some trying to prove the denial of ‘God’ but we must also appreciate that that is their desired belief. There are people from every ideological stand point that will try to force their ideas on us, and some who are happy for it simply to be their own. We must not allow the forceful few to rile our emotion and disrupt the work we can do with everyone else.
Jina, Tamara et al,
Hey i apologize if I came off a little intolerant or arrogant. Far be it from me. often times we forget that the words you type lack a tone and moreover there is no visual cues or body language to supplement what I am saying. There is often an image or idea we have in our minds about how someone is conveying what they are saying in a chat or a forum. its usually erroneous.
In any case…atheists are not any less deserving of respect. Of course not. Whatever floats your boat. it was the logic I viewed and come across often when talking to them that I was questioning. Mohammad is right though, most of the time the discussion only leads downhill.
Atheists and theists will forever bitch with one another over this till we all turn into dust.
Like every other issues, no one is willing to look at the point of view of the other side because of our preconceived notion that we are right or other’s don’t know much because I am something they are not… bla bla bla… intolerance come in many forms… this is just one of it… bla..
Just because we believe we are right or think we are right doesn’t mean we can’t examine and look at the others point of view. We need more of that to foster