Crosswords3 mins ago
Knowing And Naming God
46 Answers
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) asks how can we know anything about God. He considers whether God may be named by us at all, whether we say things about God properly or only metaphorically, whether our names for God are synonymous univocal or equivocal, and if analogical, is God or the world or the analogue? Whether the names for God are tensed, i.e. is the word 'God' a noun or a verb?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I read the article about God the Verb. What's being described is pantheism, isn't it? Pantheism must be a heresy, mustn't it, Sandy?
And what about this bit:
"Another way I like to imagine God is as a kind of dance. Do you know the dance called the conga?... That’s the kind of dance through creation I imagine God doing... All of creation is invited into the dance, but especially women and men...". Isn't that the kind of god being celebrated in The Wicker Man?
And what about this bit:
"Another way I like to imagine God is as a kind of dance. Do you know the dance called the conga?... That’s the kind of dance through creation I imagine God doing... All of creation is invited into the dance, but especially women and men...". Isn't that the kind of god being celebrated in The Wicker Man?
v_e; "All of creation is invited into the dance," - now you're humming!
http://
http://
Forget the Buddhism. Forget the lip service to the "great" religious traditions. I think our Khandro's an honest-to-goodness pagan. And nothing wrong with that, say I. If you were to infer "gods" (or higher powers) from the world we observe, then polytheism, a multitude of gods, with varying powers and moral attitudes, has far more explanatory power than monotheism with its internal contradictions does. I'm quoting again from David Hume whose extreme scepticism was surprisingly anticipated 500 years earlier by Aquinas if I am to believe Khandro's representation of the Saint's views.
I do not see how polytheism is more explanatory than monotheism, nor why the latter has to have contradictions. If one believes in a single creation then where is the need for more than one source of it all ?
To hypothesise different responsibilities to different Gods seems a complication too far surely ? A bit like the old adage, why use one word (deity) when a few hundred will do ?
To hypothesise different responsibilities to different Gods seems a complication too far surely ? A bit like the old adage, why use one word (deity) when a few hundred will do ?
My point was not particularly to argue the case one demiurge or many , OG, but to compare the relative plausibility of the two explanatory schemes.
Let's look at the world through the eyes of people ignorant of science. They see powers at work which they don't understand and over which they have very little, and often no, control. These powers work often for them. But they can work just as often against them: what is a calm sea with a fair wind today may become a tidal wave and a hurricane tomorrow.
Polytheist's explanation: there is a God of the sea, superior to us in power, but, like us, prone on occasion to anger, malice and pique. When he's in a good mood the sea is calm; when he's p****d off he sends storms. This theory accounts for all the facts, and leaves only the practical problem of how do we keep him on our side. Result religion, priestcraft, animal and human sacrifice.
Explanation 2: the whole of creation is the work of a single supreme Deity who shares none of our limitation and, moreover, loves and has a plan for us. This theory accounts (maybe) for half the facts, but leaves us with the tricky theoretical problem of explaining the other. Result: religion, priestcraft, animal and human sacrifice, St. Thomas Aquinas and Khandro.
Any reflection on the residual problem in the second explanation reveals the inherent contradictions in traditional monotheism. How can He have the qualities attributed to Him and at the same time be responsible for what we see?
Let's look at the world through the eyes of people ignorant of science. They see powers at work which they don't understand and over which they have very little, and often no, control. These powers work often for them. But they can work just as often against them: what is a calm sea with a fair wind today may become a tidal wave and a hurricane tomorrow.
Polytheist's explanation: there is a God of the sea, superior to us in power, but, like us, prone on occasion to anger, malice and pique. When he's in a good mood the sea is calm; when he's p****d off he sends storms. This theory accounts for all the facts, and leaves only the practical problem of how do we keep him on our side. Result religion, priestcraft, animal and human sacrifice.
Explanation 2: the whole of creation is the work of a single supreme Deity who shares none of our limitation and, moreover, loves and has a plan for us. This theory accounts (maybe) for half the facts, but leaves us with the tricky theoretical problem of explaining the other. Result: religion, priestcraft, animal and human sacrifice, St. Thomas Aquinas and Khandro.
Any reflection on the residual problem in the second explanation reveals the inherent contradictions in traditional monotheism. How can He have the qualities attributed to Him and at the same time be responsible for what we see?
v_e; What a limited outlook you have! only two explanations, I can think of many more. For one thing, in scenario 1, I'm not ignorant of science; I think I have a reasonable layman's understanding. As for your 2nd "explanation" I don't believe God gives a toss what becomes of us.
I'm pleased to be categorised with St. Thomas Aquinas (though unworthy of that tribute) but I resent being in the same cohort as animal and human sacrificers -I'm (almost) a vegetarian for that reason, and I've never had to resist an urge to behead anybody.
I'm pleased to be categorised with St. Thomas Aquinas (though unworthy of that tribute) but I resent being in the same cohort as animal and human sacrificers -I'm (almost) a vegetarian for that reason, and I've never had to resist an urge to behead anybody.
I think I see where you are coming from. If there are multiple entities then you can split good things from bad and thus think you have an explanation for all, but a moment’s thought would bring you to the idea that you are unlikely to guess it all right from the start, that where there is confusion it has to be down to a lack of understanding; so I'm unconvinced that a Polytheist explanation holds up for long.
A tribe decides on a God of the sea, then later (or more likely at the same time) you find you need a God of everything else, the forest, the lightning, the sun, the volcano. It is surely most likely you quickly collude these would all be the same powerful entity ? Or the splitting of blame is never ending.
Whereas the only issue with the monotheist hypothesis is that one doesn't understand why things one doesn't like, still occur. Which is something I’d like to know the answer to as it is a weakness in the argument; but there again no one can claim to know everything. Worth noting that qualities attributed to God would be there from human claims/beliefs, which can be mistaken. I see no issue with an entity having responsibility for all though. But it may not confirm to what we insist it should be.
A tribe decides on a God of the sea, then later (or more likely at the same time) you find you need a God of everything else, the forest, the lightning, the sun, the volcano. It is surely most likely you quickly collude these would all be the same powerful entity ? Or the splitting of blame is never ending.
Whereas the only issue with the monotheist hypothesis is that one doesn't understand why things one doesn't like, still occur. Which is something I’d like to know the answer to as it is a weakness in the argument; but there again no one can claim to know everything. Worth noting that qualities attributed to God would be there from human claims/beliefs, which can be mistaken. I see no issue with an entity having responsibility for all though. But it may not confirm to what we insist it should be.
Damn, just deleted my answer.
"Only" two for a specific argument, Khandro. Plenty more ideas on the supermarket shelves, most notably the traditional dualisms Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, both of which attempt to address the problem of Evil rather than to fudge it.
"God doesn't give a toss"!. Isn't this Epicureanism? Have you read Lucretius? It's certainly more Spinoza (last week's Spiritual Hero of the Week) than Aquinas (this week's).
Despite his apparent scepticism about the adequacy of human language to describe the Deity except through metaphor and weak analogy, Aquinas didn't attain his positions as philosophical authority and saint without having subscribed to a host of "facts" for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The Virgin Birth, the Incarnation and the Resurrection to mention but a few.
"Only" two for a specific argument, Khandro. Plenty more ideas on the supermarket shelves, most notably the traditional dualisms Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, both of which attempt to address the problem of Evil rather than to fudge it.
"God doesn't give a toss"!. Isn't this Epicureanism? Have you read Lucretius? It's certainly more Spinoza (last week's Spiritual Hero of the Week) than Aquinas (this week's).
Despite his apparent scepticism about the adequacy of human language to describe the Deity except through metaphor and weak analogy, Aquinas didn't attain his positions as philosophical authority and saint without having subscribed to a host of "facts" for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The Virgin Birth, the Incarnation and the Resurrection to mention but a few.
I apologize for the unintended slur, Khandro, but if you insist that Judaeism, Christianity and Islam are "great" religions, and that the world is richer because of them, then being damned by association is a risk you run.
As you know, two of these religions advocate animal sacrifice under the extraordinary delusion that a morally perfect Being would take pleasure in such gratuitous cruelty. You (sorry, I) might have thought that this simple and undeniable fact would, in itself alone, have seen these superstitions long since laughed out of existence. Christianity has superior notions. Not that it condemns animal sacrifice, of course. No, rather these were a prophetic ritual reminding its participants of their sinfulness and the need for reparation, and prefigured the only sacrifice competent to atone for original sin and reconcile man to God, that of God become man, Jesus of Nazareth.
You and I agree about chopping people's heads off.
As you know, two of these religions advocate animal sacrifice under the extraordinary delusion that a morally perfect Being would take pleasure in such gratuitous cruelty. You (sorry, I) might have thought that this simple and undeniable fact would, in itself alone, have seen these superstitions long since laughed out of existence. Christianity has superior notions. Not that it condemns animal sacrifice, of course. No, rather these were a prophetic ritual reminding its participants of their sinfulness and the need for reparation, and prefigured the only sacrifice competent to atone for original sin and reconcile man to God, that of God become man, Jesus of Nazareth.
You and I agree about chopping people's heads off.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.