<The Gods of the world have always been subject to the tribunal of human reason and held accountable for their system of holy lies and pious frauds.>
Well, clearly by any definition of 'god' then they were proven false gods, which is of course very integrous and were major advancements to humanity. The fact that many 'gods' have been proven false does not preclude existance of 'god' however, as basic science theory shows us.
<Space and Time are the fields which make a unified view of experience possible. >
I don't know that time or space are viewed as 'fields' by science as much as they are concepts. It's not my forte however.
<As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.>
Actually I don't know that an opinion is even necessary... but that's JMviewoint I suppose.
<>>an anthropomorphic god is what you're talking about.<<>
No entity is so majestic and holy where he falls outside the realm of human critique. That is to say, the gods are accountable for their actions (or lack thereof) and words.
Well, first of all, that's a new topic... the old point stands, your view of god seems to be based on an 'anthropomorphic god', which looks to me is simply your interpretation of what you think god should be, be doing, etc.
< That is to say, the gods are accountable for their actions (or lack thereof) and words.>
Again, this implies a god separate from the universe, no an omnipresent god, or 'field' talked about by those who supposedly have experienced such. As if god had the strings to a puppet {earth?} and played around with such. If this IS what god were like, I'd agree with you. But again, if god isn't, then rejection of "god" based on the fact that we actually know god {how else can one come up with ideas of what it's all about?}, when we don't is simply opinion, and actually has only an unknowable amount of truth implied in the statement.
Next, 'critique' seems to imply judgement or intellectual discussion. This is exactly where physics has hit a wall in it's "search" for the unified field. That does NOT preclude it's existance, yet intellectualization about it often resembles a 'Zen Koan' even amoung the elite leading edge in the field.
<Moreover, if God is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being?>
Exactly! And none of the great figures of history {Jesus, Buddha, Krishna} on which the institutional religions {that we both distrust... but I think you seem to imply are the basis of any possible "god"} are based have said. The exact same thing. "Forgive them, they know not what they've done" "Ingorance is the basis of all suffering", etc. Even Socrates {last post} said such no?
<In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?>
But the concept of "Karma" simply states that everything one does has consequences. Pretty much right down the line of modern physics. "Punishment" and "judgement" imply a 'personal' version of Karma. If every action has "consequences"- these can look 'positive' or 'negative'. If Hitler's soul went on and was able to in some way experience the consequences of what he did, that experience alone could easily be heralded as "hell", "punishment", etc.
The institutionalized, dognmatic intepretation of statements by these teachers could easily turn them into a personalized version of the real meaning. Any "council" held periodically by the CAtholic Church could intepret words and teachings based on the individual reality of those making the statements. If a powerful one of them had Father figure issues, they might interpret teachings to imply punative judgement by 'god', even though so many passages directly contradict that and speak of god's infinite compassion that it's hard to believe that such teachings could possibly be interepreted... yet they are.
< Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.>
That is NOT always 'anthropomorphic'... it it clearly stated even in some Catholic Dogma that those souls are in 'heaven'... and you're not necessarily picturing a 'person'. Further, the Catechism points out that 'god workds in strange ways'... and that simpy praying for something or something to happen is actually not the way to pray {see AA below}. Of course I agee that you point IS the prevelent view. Again, prevelent view doesn't preclude 'god'.
AA is an interesting example of invoking a 'higher' power so to speak. A 'spiritual' but not 'religious' {like the masterfully written basis of the United States} organization was founded on the experience of Bill Wilson, who, a hopeless alcoholic went to see the famous phychotherapist Carl Jung several times to seek a 'cure'. After failure on failure Jung said he couldn't help him, however he had noticed in this experience that some in his situation had actually had their life experiences soar from the depths to very high level existance though completely giving up, admitting to hopelessness, and seeking help through a 'higher power'. Now, one can explain this simply as 'bottoming out' or whatever... but the admission that one on his own cannot help himself and invoking help through what {if not} is similar to 'prayer' has shown incredible proven results. Interestingly it's apparently the real down and outers what are really able to give up... and those with 'marginal' problems, or problems they wont admit {wont give up} dont' do nearly as well.
DAK |
