“Godsplaining”: harmful, inspired, or other?
Is “Godsplaining” opinion, fantasy, rationalization, educated guessing, or wishful thinking, or some combination of such? If so, is that a bad thing? Is it unavoidable? If not, was is it? An alternate title for this thread might be: Is there a way to talk about God without committing some logical fallacy? If so, is it worth the effort? Alternate title #2: God may be beyond logic, but YOU ARE NOT! :snicker:
Ok, right off the bat... This thread is NOT intended to be about the existence or non-existence of God. Nothing wrong with those kinds of threads, just there are plenty of them already. Also, I don’t mean for this discussion to unfairly and smugly pick on believers of any variety. That would be pointless.
Granted, the term “Godsplaining” is less than five years old, as far as I can tell. And maybe nauseatingly trendy and derivative, as well as being incorrect English usage. Apologies.
But I will give my provisional definition of it.
Godsplaining: the act of explaining God and/or God’s actions, preferences, nature, personality, etc, usually in extreme detail.
It appears that speaking without a shred of modesty, doubt, or hesitancy about God might seem inspired or confident to some; and seem arrogant and presumptive to others. Is this just preference or a matter of taste or tradition?
Despite my preference to lay out my entire position in the OP and give way too much information on the first date, I will leave it at that for now. Thanks!
Ok, right off the bat... This thread is NOT intended to be about the existence or non-existence of God. Nothing wrong with those kinds of threads, just there are plenty of them already. Also, I don’t mean for this discussion to unfairly and smugly pick on believers of any variety. That would be pointless.
Granted, the term “Godsplaining” is less than five years old, as far as I can tell. And maybe nauseatingly trendy and derivative, as well as being incorrect English usage. Apologies.
But I will give my provisional definition of it.
Godsplaining: the act of explaining God and/or God’s actions, preferences, nature, personality, etc, usually in extreme detail.
It appears that speaking without a shred of modesty, doubt, or hesitancy about God might seem inspired or confident to some; and seem arrogant and presumptive to others. Is this just preference or a matter of taste or tradition?
Despite my preference to lay out my entire position in the OP and give way too much information on the first date, I will leave it at that for now. Thanks!
Comments (44)
Thanks for the reply! Yes, it seems most helpful if both parties are clear with each other where they are coming from. I have no problem in general with scriptural analysis and commentary of any faith. In general, there are many examples of which that are well-researched. I may find one more convincing or relevant than another. The OP isn’t making a case against commentary. (Not that you are saying such! Just thought I’d throw that in there. :smile: )
You may be familiar with the theoretical language E-Prime. In a nutshell and as I understand it, its main tenet proposes not using the verb “to be”. This is in order to avoid adopting an omniscient point of view, and to avoid discrepancies and inaccuracies. Even about small things. So instead of saying “grass is green”, one could say “at the time, the grass appeared green”. So if it might be helpful to do so concerning commonplace things, would it not be even more critical when talking about the Creator? Every qualifier and modifier helps, like saying “in my opinion” or “perhaps” or “God seems like.. “. It softens the blow, and pulls the punch, so to speak. It may come across as equivocation or wishy-washy. But I feel the larger error and bigger danger is someone talking about the Creator like said divinity is a bug under a microscope, and completely known by the speaker. Who is also kind enough to share this knowledge with those not so blessed.
Also, I’d like to add that parenthetically that I don’t necessarily believe silence is always better on the topic of God. Not advocating some religious version of Wittgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” I think one would sooner get all kids to keep their hands out of the cookie jar, than getting people to stop having opinions about God. :grin: No problem there really.
Then as a matter of reason, the only God claim that i know off that can be argued is if there was or was not at least at one moment - a necessary being. a non contingent being.
All other God claims that I can think of are matters of faith - and discussions are theological not philosophical. Fun to have none the less.
I think where the theist lives in philosophy is a simple claim that belief in God is not in conflict with fact or reason.
I live in Massachusetts. People don't talk much about God in a casual way here. I've spent time in Alabama, where they do. They talk about God the way we, and they, talk about the weather, politics, or sports. It's a constantly present factor in their day to day lives and those they know. What you call Godsplaining is just the way they live.
Also, how many people on the forum speak about their beliefs "without a shred of modesty, doubt, or hesitancy?" To a certain extent, singling out religion probably reflects what you see as important and unimportant.
(sorry... bad joke. It’s actually after rush hour. :halo: )
Those that believe in God disagree with you.
Oh sure! Go ahead and humble-brag some more. Just because you had facetime with the Creator of the entire universe. The same one that won’t return any of my phone calls. So rub it in! :rofl:
Well, that is true. It is the central mystery of life and the source of all. So curiousity is not surprising, it is natural. And not just natural, but possibly inspiring. I just wonder how to balance the explanations and the mystery. The wonder and the words spoken about its meaning. Having the golden goose and not being tempted to open it up to find even more treasure.
It reminds me of that old joke about the comedian’s wife or lover: “She walks on the ground I worship”.
Maybe it’s relative where the hallowed ground is.
Good point, indeed. Too much strife over that one letter. It reminds me of a quote from (the recently deceased) Daniel Quinn:
[hide] “Unlike the God whose name begins with a capital letter, our gods are not all-powerful, Louis. Can you imagine that? Any one of them can be vanquished by a flamethrower or a bulldozer or a bomb—silenced, driven away, enfeebled. Sit in the middle of a shopping mall at midnight, surrounded by half a mile of concrete in all directions, and there the god that was once as strong as a buffalo or a rhinoceros is as feeble as a moth sprayed with pyrethrin. Feeble—but not dead, not wholly extinguished. Tear down the mall and rip up the concrete, and within days that place will be pulsing with life again. Nothing needs to be done, beyond carting away the poisons. The god knows how to take care of that place. It will never be what it was before—but nothing is ever what it was before. It doesn’t need to be what it was before. You’ll hear people talk about turning the plains of North America back into what they were before the Takers arrived. This is nonsense. What the plains were five hundred years ago was not their final form, was not the final, sacrosanct form ordained for them from the beginning of time. There is no such form and never will be any such form. Everything here is on the way. Everything here is in process.”
? Daniel Quinn, The Story of B: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit[/hide]
And good to see you back again, mcdoodle! :smile:
:up: That is an excellent comparison drawn from your personal life. Thanks. The way you describe how the people in Alabama are would not bother me, though. (Not that they should care one way or another!) Someone honestly sharing what they hold dear is not a problem. Maybe it’s the so-called experts, or preachers, or those that have a financial stake in it that are the hardest to believe or listen to. Like when you feel like your dealing with a shady used car salesperson, someone with a rehearsed slick spiel, a shell game. Or the Wizard of Oz: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
Quoting T Clark
I’m glad you mentioned that, for it may not have been worded properly. I do not mean to single out religion. Or belief. Maybe it is just how we talk about God. I would imagine that there are real experts when it comes to “God”. But I would probably trust someone who had religious experiences, rather than a PhD in whatever, or have a TV show. For what is worth, I’d say a person’s core beliefs are foundational to who they are. And they hold the key to their future. If those core beliefs are religious, or spiritual, or artistic, or scientific, or whatever, makes little difference to me. Whatever works for them. It makes a huge difference to them, as it should.
Why employ such a ridiculous term: "godsplaining", rather than simply using 'theology'? The former term seems to be pre-loaded with ridicule for anyone who would want to participate in the activity it defines, so it is "ridiculous" in more than one sense.
Whether people find theology useful, fruitful, useless, fruitless or whatever is an individual matter, isn't it? Are you proposing that its general usefulness or otherwise could somehow be logically or empirically established?
No, sorry if that was the impression or message you got. That was not the intent.
Please see my reply above to T Clark. All due respect to a person’s beliefs. That is really not the point I was trying awkwardly to make.
In the OP, I admitted that the term was perhaps nauseating and trendy, although not as popular as its relative “mansplaining”. These are not words I use in conversation. Maybe I was trying to be current and popular. The threads I start usually get about four responses and drop to the bottom. :yawn:
But as goofy as the term is, who in the world would possibly seriously confuse it with theology in part, or as a whole? In fact, the goofiness would separate it from more serious studies, I would wager. If I had meant “theology”, I would have specifically used that word. Cheers.
Fair question! Thanks for your reply. Godsplaining is hardly a word, let alone a thing in and of itself. It is just a label for a concept. The concept I have been chewing on for years. The label I stumbled across during a Google search today. If they go together like oil and water, perhaps it is useful for a salad dressing? :yum:
A while ago, I started a thread about ignosticism. The subject of this thread is a bit different, but with some overlap I think. As long as one keeps in mind that in this thread, I’m NOT referring to God’s existence or even one’s spiritual beliefs, but maybe the way God is talked about. Either logically or not, honestly or not, etc.
You can read the original post here. Hope that might shed some light on my thinking at least.
Thanks again!
Quoting Fractured Fairy Tales...
I think expressing any opinion about God counts as theology; although it obviously doesn't have to be good theology....
:up: Ok, that is fair enough as a broad definition. I would not disagree with it. I think I’m advocating a healthy skepticism. More about ourselves, our motives, our words. As is well-known, the list of psychological defense mechanisms is long. Projection, denial, compensation, dissociation, repression, rationalization. Even when greed, fame, and power are not at stake, the struggle for awareness of one’s psychological wants and needs is never-ending.
Or more personally, I’ve experienced each of those defense mechanisms, and more. To counterbalance, I am almost mercilessly skeptical of my own thoughts. About either the simplest idea or the loftiest insight (which was most likely borrowed from somewhere else), the calmer and deeper part says “maybe... maybe... , or perhaps not. Wait a while. Plant those seeds and see what grows from them”.
Out on a off-topic limb here perhaps. But these are some of the background ideas of the OP, for what it’s worth.
Not sure if you are saying that’s a good thing, less than a good thing, or perhaps neither? If you wish to clarify...
As I wrote in the link to the Ignostic post above and in the reply to Janus, I am hesitant and skeptical of the human inclination (temptation?) to attempt to define the divine. To slice and dice, label and categorize, and thus manipulate and dominate. Humanity has arguably grabbed the earth and its natural resources, which has its upside and downside. The Creator would appear safe from our labeling and grasping, no matter how tall the Tower of Babel grows to. I am all for letting the central mystery of the universe be experienced, but not necessarily explained. (Not meaning to be at all anti-intellectual).
Quoting tim wood
Ok, sure. That may indeed be. Personally, I would neither say that God is unknowable, nor would I say that God is knowable. Basically, any statement of others or mine that began “God is... ” is at best a provisional theory, at worst an bold assumption. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Leaps of faith are one’s soul’s choice. Leaps or lapses of logic are better not ignored. I would imagine that possibly makes for an even stronger faith, even though it is itself beyond mere rationality.
There is an apparent prejudiced in the above that beliefs held by faith to be true, have less value than beliefs held by reason. I am not sure why that is in any way true. The real tension comes when faith is in conflict with fact or reason. It which case it loses all value.
Yes, exactly. Perhaps in other words... one can have many model cars and toy vehicles. As long as one doesn’t try to drive them on the freeway, it is fine for all.
Quoting tim wood
:up: Haha! Well said, suitable for framing. (BTW, I’m also keeping tabs on the God-monger who has much power over me- the one in my mind).
I might know what you are saying here. But could you expand on it somewhat when you can? Thanks.
For now, I will say for that reason can potentially help faith and belief, especially when the beliefs exit the mouth and enter the world. As I noted in the OP, God may be beyond our reasoning, but we are not. Not completely, anyway. Reason is like gravity in some ways, and reason is in harmony with physics. One can seek a religion in harmony with the universe, with matter and energy. Many have sought such a thing, and without falling into scientism either. (If that at all addresses your message! :smile: )
Sure - I can by faith alone believe something to be true and act accordingly. As an example - I believe Jesus is God. If there is some plain fact, such as 2 + 2 = 4 that says Jesus is not God, and I continue to believe anyway - than my belief is just foolish. If you can convince me that such a thing as God does not exist by reason, and I continue to believe Jesus is God, than that belief is foolish. But absent any conflict of fact or reason I am free to believe that as true and act accordingly.
:up: Ok, thanks for the clarification. That seems a most reasonable approach, IMHO.
I am, like you, circumspect about committing to any beliefs at all, particularly in the absence of any evidence one way or another. I think it is a matter of psychological constitution and disposition. I have no problem with others being able to believe things without having what I would call evidence for those beliefs. Outside of the empirical domain, where we may have solid evidence, I think there is nothing wrong with believing simply on the basis that it feels right, as long as you acknowledge that the belief is personal, just for you, and should never be imposed on others.
Source: Urban Dictionary
Thanks for the reply. Agree completely.
I may have been going out on a limb requiring some kind of logic in spiritual talk. Guess we have to trust our instincts. Like plants have a geotropism and heliotropism, humans seem to have a deotropism. A reaching toward the divine, a Creator, the supernatural, or the Ideal realm; whatever beliefs the person may have. It could manifest as a desire to be a creator, an artist. If that relates to a growing towards the sun, we also have a desire for grounding, for roots. This is easily dismissed as boring or even holding us down. But it may keep us from being misled.
It is just that people (including me) seem hungry for both the spiritual and for answers. So it is almost like there is a sellers market for hucksters of any faith (or newly minted system) who can can dazzle, persuade, entertain, and provide something that fills the hole in the soul.
Thanks for your thoughtful and sincere messages. Examples of what is interesting and helpful about this forum, IMHO. :smile:
When ideas are framed as ideas, beliefs presented as beliefs, and theories given as theories; then one simply chooses to play along or not. No foul or illegal move has been committed. The danger of assuming an Absolute vantage point is not that that is gives one God’s knowledge, but that one would lead one to think that they have it.
Not attacking religion here, for this criteria includes atheism as well; specifically so-called explicit strong atheism. To claim that God or spirit cannot exist because it has not been proven, or may indeed be unprovable, is most unscientific for it shuts the door on any possible evidence. And it assumes it has an absolute vantage point. The zeal to save the world from irrational religious beliefs may be admirable. But if the “ground rules” for relative and absolute truths exist, they apply to all parties and any position... (including the ones expressed in this post).
There are fair arguments for "God is" and "God is not" - and as such neither camp as of right now hold a superior position - so both camps deserve respect.
I will save my intolerance for the agnostic !!
Good points. Competition is made to be everything. (No surprise in our current culture, I suppose). There must be a winning side, a dominant argument, a conquering genius superhero. In actuality, both spiritual belief and scientific inquiry are rather open-ended processes. Both are agreeable to new inspiration or information, as the case may be.
But when domination is the mission, and the marketers take over, the systems have to be sealed tight and streamlined. They are made military-grade. And completely self-sufficient, with answers for everything. One-stop shopping, no need to search elsewhere for this is your home. Now grab a sword of truth and defend thy home!
But it must thankfully said, I rarely see the extreme position of supposed absolute certainty (argued against in this thread) held by anyone on this forum. Maybe an active mind resists prepackaged insta-beliefs systems delivered to your door. So this may all be preaching to the choir. If so, good for you. :up:
Quoting Rank Amateur
:grin: Oh no, not the ignostic too?! But I’ve found a comfy spot on the fence to watch the parade!
Yea, only marginally tongue in cheek there. I think agnosticism is the most difficult option to defend, if actions are a demonstration of beliefs. Most, all by some social definition act in one way or the other. Largely because the options are dichotomous. The agnostic acts in one way, showing a belief, but wants to hold an intellectual hedge on the other position. Which always sounds reasonable in the God debate, but quite silly in almost any other topic.
You never hear anyone agnostic over Santa or unicorns. Although the primary agnostic argument holds for both.
Maybe there is something in the inherent value of the choice that makes folks want to hold a hedged position
P1. People generally act in accordance with what they believe to be true
P2. People generally act either theistic or atheistic
P3. People don’t in the short term vary between theism and atheism.
C. If people generally act as either theistic or atheistic, that is in accordance with what they believe to be true.
I mention it here to draw some comparison to the point of the OP. Or a possible strategy towards approaching the big questions of metaphysics that avoids both presumption and dogma on one hand, and apathy and a lack of curiosity on the other.
The metaphysical questions Buddha refused to answer might also be relevant here.
When advocating the reduction or removal of some thing or idea, it seems useful to be able to provide a substitute to occupy the space held by that which was to be replaced. For example, one can say to avoid eating such and such unhealthy foods. But since we have to eat something, providing an acceptable substitute helps immensely. And similarly with ideas and beliefs, the empty space will be filled with something, whether it is beneficial to the person or not.
Why is the world so messy? Because nature abhors a vacuum. :grin: