Perhaps this from Roedy Green will help you to understand the intention here and the perspective required. It is not THE point of the thread. But it is one of many many examples of the kind of open thinking that is encouraged. We have had dogmatists on the thread: Individuals who believe that their God is the one and only God, and that someone else's God is an impostor. Such bigotry is tolerated, but it is not the norm here...
Introduction
The religions of the world disagree on the nature of God and even whether God exists. How do you know which is right, if any? Let us humbly admit we have no way of knowing for sure. This essay is a set of suggestions on what to do in this situation of doubt.
The Nature Of God
But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
-- Job 12:7-9
Traditionally we have taken our images of the nature of God from the dusty minds of men long dead. There are other places to look. If we define God as the creator of the universe, then the creation is ripe with clues to the nature of God. Even an atheist can work with this definition of God. God, when defined as the creator of the universe, may be a scientific principle or even the null set. You can make guesses about the temperament of an artist by studying his paintings. Similarly you can make some guesses about the nature of God by studying His style in doing the creation.
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh..
-- anonymous
For some reason, whenever people think about God they get a pained expression as if someone had poked a broom up their ass.
-- anonymous
But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
-- Job 12:7
Generalisation About The Nature Of God
What might you guess about the nature of the creator from examining the creation?
God works on a mind-bogglingly immense scale. Earth is but the tiniest spec in the cosmos.
God likes variety. Consider the bewildering variety of fishes in a coral reef.
God is cruel, or is for some reason is unwilling or incapable of combating cruelty. Animals kill each other. Billions of animals every year suffer and die of overcrowding, starvation or dehydration. Humans do the most hideous things to each other and God almost never intervenes.
God is not at your beck and call to perform miracles for you. God seems to run the universe, nearly always, by rigid mathematical rules.
God is no prude. The sex life of the periwinkle is evidence.
On the small scale, God is big on using simple, indestructible, resusable, absolutely identical buiding blocks. Nearly all of ordinary matter in the universe is made of only three basic building blocks, the proton, neutron and electron. On the large scale, there is much more variety.
God is big on recycling. The sun recycles sea water to fresh through the rains. Plants recycle CO2 to oxygen. Bacteria recycle corpses to plant nutrients. Every atom in your body was once part of a star.
God's sense of aesthetics is big on fractals and asymmetry.
God is not big on permanence. Everything changes, even if slowly. Even the dinosaurs went extinct after millions of years. Even the continents drift and change shape. Even the sun will eventually stop shining.
Hedging Your Bets
What if the Muslims are right, and the Qur'an is the best description of the real God, and he calls Himself Allah? What if the Buddhists are right and the creator of the universe is beyond our comprehension. The closest we can come to grasping God with our limited minds is to think of the void? What if the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct, and their booklets are actually the closest you can get to God's will? What if God is so utterly beyond human comprehension that any description in words is a pathetic joke? What if the universe itself is far more marvellous than we ever dreamed, and it is capable all on its own of God-like actions such as creating life?
You can call God, "The Real God", addressing by title rather than by name. You can't then be accused of worshipping the wrong God. The real God, (or the creator God) is defined as the creator of the universe. With that definition, even atheists can play. We might just as easily have defined the real God as the sustainer of the universe, or the destroyer of the universe. For the more pragmatic, we could have defined the real God as that which answers prayer. These alternate definitions may or may not refer to the same entity or principles.
Temporary Assumptions
People usually learn their beliefs about God from their mothers. This is why the beliefs are held with such irrational certainty. People are sure their religion is superior to all others even if they have no exposure to other religions. If one religion truly were superior, how could it be nearly all Americans believe in Jehovah, and the Thais in the Buddha, and the Iraquis in Allah?
Given that we can't honestly be sure, what would be some conservative working assumptions? Not all religions and ethical systems are this strict, but few would condemn you for the following extra diligence.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume God considers all species important.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume God does not particularly favour man over other species.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume God wants the natural world left pretty much as He created it.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume God wants you to avoid harming other people just because they have differing religious beliefs from you.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume God wants you to care for your body with proper nutrition and exercise.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume the best way to ascertain the nature of God is to study the entire creation, not just religious scripture.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume God would prefer you to seek win-win solutions where the needs of all species are considered.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume you can determine the morality of an act by thinking about its effect on the long-term comfort and survival of our species and the planet as a whole.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume you should fight injustice.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume you should refrain from deception, dissembling and lying.
Until there is substantial evidence to the contrary, assume you should keep your agreements.
We never know for sure. |
