God is a Metaphor

Believers can be choosers in the absence of concrete evidence. These words mean nothing whichever one you use: God, X or supernatural intelligence. For an unbeliever and agnostic, these words will be metaphors (including God) signifying the unknown.

Re: # 112

Raw:

For the agnostic, God does not signify the unknown. The agnostic is indifferent between the existance of God (with whatever unverifiable definition) and the non-existance of God (with the same unverifiable definition). The agnostic is not a disciple of determinism.

Re: # 113

Dear GT...I am throughly enjoying your feedback and comments. I used to have the same

interpretation of Agnosticism as you have until i read a book THE ROAD TO REASON by Pat

Duffy Hutcheon. In that book on page 88 about Thomas Huxley the founder of the

philosophy and movement of Agnostics. I quote ` Thomas invented that term in 1869 when,

as a member of the new Metaphysical Society, he had felt that the need for a name for his

own philosophical position. His concept (derived grom the Greek gnosis meaning

knowledge) was to be antithesis of `gnosticism`...the mystical creed of an ancient Persian

cult which had believed in the possibility of a mysterious, direct accesability to ultimate

truth. Thomas taught, instead that the empirically tested facts of science are the

only `truths`. accessabile to fallibale humans and BLIND FAITH THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. In

explaining agnosticism Thomas said that it is not WHAT we believe that matters so much as

WHY and HOW we believe it. `Moral responsibility lies in diligently weighing the evidence.

We must actively doubt; we have to continually scrutinize all our views, not take them on

trust.``

What Thomas Huxley was attempting with his new concept was switch the emphasis from

the specific CONTENT of the beliefs that human held (whether these acclaim or disclaim the

existenceof something) to the PROCESS by means of which people attain and retain them

over time. For him agnosticism was `not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in

the rigorous application of a single priciple...it is the fundamental axiom of modern

science...do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or

demonstrable` He was, in fact, changing the emphasis to the scientific method of inquiry,

with all its strengths and limitations, as the sole source of reliable knowledge. However, his

concept was much misundersttod, even by supporters, and to this day many humanists

tend to write off agnostics as people who merely refuse to take a stand or the question of

atheism.``

I found that quotation interesting. I thought you might too. sincerely sohail

Re: # 117

Sohail:

Thanks for the quote. Did not know about Huxley. The definition that I used was mine and I believe that it is generally accepted. But my definition does not contradict Huxley`s in any manner. There are certain `statements` (or definitions) which simply cannot be empirically verified. What does one do then? Well, you remain agnostic:)

Let me give an example of such a statement: ``All the monkeys in chowk are green in colour``.
Note that there are no monkeys in chowk (or so I think), hence I cannot verify whether they are green in colour or not.

The Greeks were the first (to my knowledge) to accept this as a premise of logic: If the antecedent is false then all implications are true. I do not know whether the Chinese and indians ever considered it as a rule.

Best.

Re: # 121

GT: Does the statement,

` all prophets sent by god were true`

the same as your monkeys statement?

Re: # 123 by malikjahanzeb:

Yes.

Re #110 Raw_Dust?

When did I dodge anything?

Yes, I believe in God. But NOT as a supernatural intelligence that exists. That is a metaphor, as I said in my very first post.

Re: # 111 Let`s see if you do face questions:

How do you know that there is someone real behind this metaphor? Is it your subjective guess?

Does this reality you call `God` have traits which can be talked about non-metaphorically? For example, will we be right if we say that your god is jealous of other gods?

If the metaphors we use to address god are only helpful to us, what`s in it for the god who is independent of these metaphors?

Re: # 111

dear khurram...i appreciate your honest and candid response. words whether holy or

unholy never do justic to our life experiences and truths. sometimes they conceal as much

as they reveal.i was amused by Raw Dust though. he asked the right question in 20 words

that i could not ask in 200 words. i learnt something from Raw Dust...thank you both of

you. chowk is getting more interesting. one learns something new every day.

.sincerely sohail...sohail

ps...next question khurram...do you consider yourself a Muslim? if yes how do you define it?

khurram:
donot dodge the question when you have been asking all kinds of questions on this board. It`s simply not cool. Answer the author without referring to how ``expansive`` or blah the subject is.

Lemme rephrase:

Q - Do you Believe in the existence of supernatural intelligence?

OR

Do you Know the existence of supernatural intelligence?

call super natural intelligence God, if that is convenient.

gracias.

Sohail and khurram:

Am following your discussion with a lot of interest. I felt like sribbling a few lines on `truth` or `reality` myself, though it may have nothing to do with your discussion. So apologies in advance.

1. I BELIEVE that `truth` or `reality` is relative - relative to one`s frame of reference or ken if you may. Assume that there are two rational beings - scientists say. Now assume being 1 can perceive only two dimensional objects and being 2 can peceive both two and three dimensional objects. Furthermore, being 1 exists on the surface of the water in a glass that being 2 is holding. Being 2, now, dips a perfect cylinder into the glass of water and dips it down and up vertically (perfectly) without taking it out of the water. Note, that being 1 will observe a static circle while being 2 will obseve a non-static cylinder. Thus both of them will disagree about the velocity of the object they perceive. Their relative ``truths`` or ``reality`` is different.

2. Actually, Point 1 does not imply that `truth` is relative for it is based on the assumption that being 1 cannot perceive three dimensions. After all, being 1 should be able to rationally figure out the existance of 3 dimensions even if she were not able to perceive it. In other words, I had assumed a restriction on the frame of reference. Is this a valid assumption? I argue below that it is. I do so by drawing on a well known theorem from set theory to show that a frame of reference cannot be created to include ``everything``. For this I need to get a bit technical. Define a NORMAL SET to be a set which does not include itself. Therefore, its complement is a set which does include itself. Call this an ABNORMAL SET. Of course this set may or may not exist. Now define a set which contains all normal sets and only normal sets and call it U - the universal set. Note that the universal set contains ALL perceivable sets that we know can exist! But unfortunately, such a universal set U cannot exist. For if it were to exist then it would either be normal or abnormal but not both. So suppose U were normal. By definition it would contain itself as U contains ALL normal sets, but then U would be abnormal - a contradiction. So U must be abnormal, but then it would contain itself - an abnormal set. By definition, U contains ONLY normal sets. So this couldn`t be too. Thus the set is neither normal nor abnormal. Therefore it does not exist!

So ..... ``truth`` is simply relative. It is relative to an ad-hoc reference set. Since this reference set cannot include ``everything``, we cannot have absolute truth. But we CAN RATIONALLY believe in it. That is another topic which is difficult for me to put down in words.

Re: # 107
dear GT....thank you for your keen interest in my dialogue with Khurram....

i am going to respond to zeemax and khurram about social and moral values...may be you

can share your views also....sincerely sohail

Re #101 drsohail

Thank you for taking the time to reply in such a detailed and thoughtful manner.
Your reply reminds me of a little book I read,
My Search for Absolutes by Paul Tillich
(The entire book is online at http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=1628)

You seem to be engaged in a similar search. It appears you are at the stage where you have accepted scientific knowledge as an absolute. When I was a teenager, I believed that myself. If you read that book, you may realize that there are stages beyond that.

You are right that this is an expansive subject and can fill an entire book. The only comment I would make here is regarding your reference to scientific knowledge as objective truth. It is not clear to me how scientific knowledge can lead similar objective truth in the human world of values and meanings.

You also asked if I have ever had mystical experiences. If you mean the dramatic kind of experiences that come from temporal lobe disturbances then the answer is no. For me, it has been a slow and gradual awareness over a lifetime of ordinary experiences.

Re: zeemax,

I do have a question for you too.
Would you support the right of a religious minority to practice incest if they claimed it as part of their religion?

Re: malikjahanzeb,

These are intra-religion issues. Every religious tradition is flexible enough to adapt and overcome challenges thrown up by new situations. They do not require a rejection of religion itself.

#87 by khurram,

Thanks. That was helpful.