Discussions About God.
A Pope in the 20th Century, let's say Pope John Paul II writes an article about God. Obviously he's writing about the God in the Christian Bible. From his perspective he's writing about an universal God, a God that applies to everyone. You may not agree, but that's not the point of this discussion.
My point goes more like this: Popes in the 15th century were also writing about the God in the Christain Bible, too. That's reasonable, right? Also, when Pope John Paul II writes his article about God, he obviously believes that he's thinking about the same God as the Pope in the 15th century. That's reasonable too, right?
But are they actually writing about the same 'God?' I didn't make this thread to discuss the existence of 'God,' and personally I don't care if you agree with Pope John Paul II or not. What I am really wondering is:
Is Pope John Paul II's concept of God the same as the 15th century Pope's concept of God? If you argue there concepts are different, then doesn't that mean that each Pope is writing about a different God?
My point goes more like this: Popes in the 15th century were also writing about the God in the Christain Bible, too. That's reasonable, right? Also, when Pope John Paul II writes his article about God, he obviously believes that he's thinking about the same God as the Pope in the 15th century. That's reasonable too, right?
But are they actually writing about the same 'God?' I didn't make this thread to discuss the existence of 'God,' and personally I don't care if you agree with Pope John Paul II or not. What I am really wondering is:
Is Pope John Paul II's concept of God the same as the 15th century Pope's concept of God? If you argue there concepts are different, then doesn't that mean that each Pope is writing about a different God?
Comments (35)
I would direct your question to Augustine or Aquinas.
They carried the water.
There have been other developments.
What do you want to know?
And more broadly:
When two people on a philosophy discussion forum discuss God, to what extent are they discussing the "same" God?
EDIT: Maybe the reason people can't agree is because each person is talking about a different God.
The pious person might answer that they are talking about the God but each according to his own understanding or according to his own way of expressing what goes beyond all human attempts to express.
But I agree that if there are different concepts of God then to treat them all as if they are all about the same entity or Being or ground or source of being or what have you is problematic.
I mean, if two people write about God differently, then doesn't that mean that the two people are each writing about a different God? They may not agree to that, but to everyone else that's what it looks like.
EDIT: BTW, I'm planning to take this thread beyond the immediate question. For example, if two philosophers write about free will differently, then doesn't that mean each philosopher is writing about a DIFFERENT free will? Perhaps the reason philosophers can't agree on a definition of "free will" is because each philosopher is defining a different "free will."
Well, my reading of the City of God does not fit with the idea of just war. Does that add up to a different God?
If the relationship is so much dependent upon what I think is right at one point or or another, why bother at all?
Just fold "God" into other stuff and carry on.
I will try to represent.
One author who has made a recent attempt is David Bentley Hart, in his 2012 book The Experience of God, which describes God in terms of being “the one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.” He also argues in this book that this description is cross-cultural and very similar to expressions of theistic faith in other traditions such as Advaita Vedanta and Islam.
That said, there is also a sense in which any idea of God is said to be radically insufficient, insofar as whatever else God is, He is beyond any human conception. So according to Paul Tillich, God is not 'the Christian God' or 'the Muslim God' or anything of the kind.
Of course, the response to that is, 'what is he talking about? If it's so "unknowable" then what use is it to anyone?' To which the answer is, the reason such notions are embedded in religious discourse, is because to understand them requires both practice and immersion in the cultural milieu in which they're meaningful. Which is pretty well lost to the modern world, in which we mainly live through symbolic forms and images which have no intrinsic meaning. That is why these ideas are very hard to understand - their meaning only can ever become clear through participation (which is the purpose of ritual).
In regards to the second half, the argument that Muslims, Hindus, Christians, etc. are all looking at the "same" God, but from different perspectives (and that of course all human perspectives are flawed and incomplete) is something I'm familiar with. But, you know, if you're not pious, from the written evidence you can just as easily argue that each person or side is arguing about a different God. There are significant differences between Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, all of which is well documented. The only major similarity is that they all claim to be about "The One True God" as a tactic to demonstrate their superiority over alternatives like the other religions and atheism/agnosticism.
@Emancipate. But why do you assume that? From the written evidence, I can easily argue that the reason people have different perspectives of God is because each person is writing about a different God.
I mean, when a person writes about God they're writing about their concept of God, correct? Since their concepts of God differ, then naturally that means each person is writing about a different God.
Well if you take the position that God is infinite and man is finite, then all of man's different conceptions of God can be thought of as a perspective. Each individual has a unique finite slice (perspective) of the whole infinite. Everyone has a different turn of the kaleidoscope. The Hindus represent this well with many, many Gods as facets of an infinite reality (or God). Ultimate reality as multiplicity.
For others, God refers to something or someone much more concrete and defined, with specific properties that are ‘objectively’ established or stated, and as such are rarely up for discussion. In this respect they are not discussing the same God: neither with the first group nor, I would imagine, with others who discuss God in this way. Whether they accept or reject its existence, they are not seeking any more information about the God they have apparently defined (even if that definition cannot be articulated, either clearly or logically). Any additional information they encounter will be immediately assessed based on whether it contradicts or correlates with their definition.
This is in my experience, anyway.
I don't take a position on God, whether he exists or not, or whether he's finite or not. I'm actually ok with most other people's positions on it. If you're Hindu or atheist or Christian, that's great. As an agnostic, I'm ok with all sides. But my position can be summarized like this: "obviously humans can't see the infinite. I agree with you. But since I can't see it, and you can't see it, and no one can see it, and no one can really talk about it, then why spend the effort? If the infinite can't be comprehended, why try? Shouldn't more effort be spent on subjects we can measure (i.e. finite subjects) such as: [EDIT]
On a biological/physical level, what exactly makes people want to discuss God in the first place?
And, neurologically, when two people discuss God, are they using the 'same' parts of the brain, or are they using different ones?
And, if they have happened to be using different parts of the brain when they discuss God, doesn't that mean each person is discussing a different "God?"
I think you do. As I think everyone must. Because to exist, is to have experience and the way one experiences reality is their unique position of God.
Quoting YuZhonglu
I didn't say you can't see it.
You can perhaps not understand, or experience God in absolute totality (though some would argue you can and I am not going to dispute that). Still, you can explore God as a finite being and experience all that comes with that.
No, as long as they stick to the Nicene Creed there the same God. However the Catholic Church has the problem were every Pope can change the doctrine as he sees fit.
Is the God of the Bible one God? I mean, is Moses' God identical to Elijah's, Isaiah's or Jesus' God? If so, how do we know that their concepts of God are identical?
Of course, each Pope believes they're talking about the same God as the previous Pope. But the written evidence suggests otherwise.
Could it mean there are different Gods in the Bible?
The notion that there is but one god in the Bible...is absurd.
The notion that the Abrahamic "religion" was monotheistic...is absurd.
Neither of those things is so. At least, that is not what the Bible says.
I understand what your saying, if two people write different things about God are they the same God.
This is were the story of the green and red Hat comes to play, just because two people see something different doses mean only one or the other is true. They both might be.
Here is the fact the Nicene Creed in its word described the God of the christians including the Catholic Church. as long as there is no deviations from it, it is the same God. That is how the theology works.
It's been demonstrated through scholarship and archaeology, with use of the bible as a reference, that the bible came from a polytheistic culture that clung to relics of Canaanite gods for some time prior to its monotheism.
The bible implies numerous times that God is different for each person and that it's between each person and God to define the relationship, which seems to be a large part of its appeal. It's intended to be the same God throughout though.
So, is the God referred to in the Bible a distinct deity or a montage of multiple deities?
Personally, I don't think there's any God at all. I think the so-called men of God are just highly sensitive and responsive humans who're trying to reconcile forces of nature with their dawning intelligence and recognition of the large-scale human nature. I think metaphysics, superstition and supernatural representations are just a consequence of the language of those times.
I think if there was an actual deific entity, there would be some consistency beyond what is perceived in the Bible. The only consistency I see is human development and evolution in terms of ideas, practices, society, etc. The deific energy (God) seems dependent upon human activities instead of it being vice versa. It's like God wants what's best for humans but only if humans realise what is good for them. So, ultimately, everything unfolds at the human speed of life.
It's intended to be one God, but each writer of course explains things in a way that is relevant to him, reflecting changes in culture and style, which results in sometimes drastic variation of the facets of God that are focused on. The book was written over quite a span--several hundred years, many changes in scholarship and leadership.
The Christian bible is limited in comparison to the Jewish texts and the translation is a source of some controversy. Also, there's the trinity, which adds further dynamics.