God is a Metaphor
Khalid Sohail April 8, 2007
#1 Posted by sri on April 9, 2007 12:06:37 am
This is a familiar quote... and I am paraphrasing here so pardon my butchering
``Sometimes I wonder if Humans are the best invention of God or God is the best invention of Humans``
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#2 Posted by kaptain on April 9, 2007 12:17:45 am
Indeed, when maturity reaches a level where the Universal `System` is failed to be understood, that`s overheating of intellect.
#3 Posted by masadi on April 9, 2007 12:38:13 am
The author writes <<< Scriptures were written in the context of a particular pre-existing language and culture; only if we appreciate those linguistic and cultural traditions can we understand their scriptures as part of their mythology. >>>
Similar claims can be made about so called scientific writings and the modern mythology of the present, that it is written in the context of a particular social structure, even though it claims to transcend them to the realm of the objective, as does religion. Maturity is not indicated by reducing everything to the least common (basic animal) denominator as is being done by the so-called ``enlightened`` dominant groups of the present, it is indicated by concern for truth as fact, and a methodology of arriving at the truth not based on Freudian ghosts that you worship, that are not much different to religious dogma, but a method of falsification and disconfirmability. Also note that social phenomena like religion cannot be studies and generalized upon based on psychological studies, that is why we sociologists refer to your kind as quacks, or shrinks....
Then he writes <<< I think that when humanity reaches the stage of mental growth and cultural evolution when most people can understand scriptures as folklore and not as divine revelations, can view them as mythology rather than stories, and can differentiate facts from fiction, there might be more wisdom and peace and fewer conflicts and holy wars in this world >>>
A non sensically weak and immature conclusion. What is ``cultural evolution``? and what standard are you using to state that one is more ``evolved`` than the other. Bringing up kids to feed the corporate machinery is that more ``evolved`` culturally? , I think he is relying on Herbert Spencer`s ``Social Darwinism``, which wants to protect the status quo of Western imperialism. Scriprtures represent folklore, just as much as speculative theories represent the folklore of the scientific community.
The scientific methodology is just as valid when applied to modern mythology as it is to religions of the past and God as objective fact apart from culture is still a very much alive topic among cosmologists, physicists and biologists, as is the predispostion of humans as part of their society to develop religious institutions. Your premature closure of the subject merely reveals your biases and premature thought patterns possibly casued by the dumbing down process of corporate culture that you are referring to as ``evolved``.
Similar claims can be made about so called scientific writings and the modern mythology of the present, that it is written in the context of a particular social structure, even though it claims to transcend them to the realm of the objective, as does religion. Maturity is not indicated by reducing everything to the least common (basic animal) denominator as is being done by the so-called ``enlightened`` dominant groups of the present, it is indicated by concern for truth as fact, and a methodology of arriving at the truth not based on Freudian ghosts that you worship, that are not much different to religious dogma, but a method of falsification and disconfirmability. Also note that social phenomena like religion cannot be studies and generalized upon based on psychological studies, that is why we sociologists refer to your kind as quacks, or shrinks....
Then he writes <<< I think that when humanity reaches the stage of mental growth and cultural evolution when most people can understand scriptures as folklore and not as divine revelations, can view them as mythology rather than stories, and can differentiate facts from fiction, there might be more wisdom and peace and fewer conflicts and holy wars in this world >>>
A non sensically weak and immature conclusion. What is ``cultural evolution``? and what standard are you using to state that one is more ``evolved`` than the other. Bringing up kids to feed the corporate machinery is that more ``evolved`` culturally? , I think he is relying on Herbert Spencer`s ``Social Darwinism``, which wants to protect the status quo of Western imperialism. Scriprtures represent folklore, just as much as speculative theories represent the folklore of the scientific community.
The scientific methodology is just as valid when applied to modern mythology as it is to religions of the past and God as objective fact apart from culture is still a very much alive topic among cosmologists, physicists and biologists, as is the predispostion of humans as part of their society to develop religious institutions. Your premature closure of the subject merely reveals your biases and premature thought patterns possibly casued by the dumbing down process of corporate culture that you are referring to as ``evolved``.
#4 Posted by Ahadaustin on April 9, 2007 2:15:43 am
I believe in the sun even though it is slow in rising.
I believe him without realizing. I believe in rain though
there are no clouds in the sky. I believe in truth even though
people lie. I believe in peace though sometimes I am violent.
I believe in God even though he is silent.
I believe him without realizing. I believe in rain though
there are no clouds in the sky. I believe in truth even though
people lie. I believe in peace though sometimes I am violent.
I believe in God even though he is silent.
#5 Posted by samar1982 on April 9, 2007 2:29:30 am
To not think of anything is metaphysics enough.
What do I think of the world?
Who knows what I think of it!
If I weren’t well then I’d think about it.
What’s my idea about matter?
What’s my opinion about causes and effects?
What are my thoughts on God and soul
And the creation of the world?
I don’t know. To think about such things would be to shut my eyes
And not think. It would be to close the curtains
Of my windows (which, however, has no curtains).
The mystery of things? What mystery?
The only mystery is that some people think about mystery.
If you are in the sun and close your eyes,
You begin not to know what the sun is,
And you think about various warm things.
But open your eyes and you see the sun,
And you can no longer think about anything,
Because the light of the sun is truer than the thoughts
Of all philosophers and all poets.
The light of the sun doesn’t know what it does,
And so it cannot err and is common and good.
Metaphysics? What metaphysics do those trees have?
Only that of being green and lush and of having branches
Which bear fruit in their season, and we think nothing of it.
We hardly even notice them.
But what better metaphysics than theirs,
Which consists in not knowing why they live
And in not knowing that they don’t know?
“The inner makeup of things…”
“The inner meaning of the Universe…”
All of this is unreal and means absolutely nothing.
It’s incredible that anyone can think about such things.
It’s like thinking about reasons and objectives
When morning is breaking, and on the trunks of the trees
A faint glimmer of gold is dissolving the darkness.
To think about the inner meaning of things
Is superfluous, like thinking about health
Or carrying a glass to a spring.
The only inner meaning of things
Is that they have no inner meaning at all.
I don’t believe in God because I have never seen him.
If he wanted me to believe in him,
Then surely he’d come and speak with me.
He would enter by my door
Saying, “Here I am!”
(This may sound ridiculous to those who,
Because they aren’t used to looking at things,
Can’t understand a man who speaks of them
In the way that looking at things teaches.)
But if God is flowers and trees
And hills and sun and moon,
Then I believe in him,
I believe in him at every moment,
And my life is all a prayer and a mass
And a communion by way of my eyes and ears.
But if God is the flowers and trees
And hills and sun and moon,
Then why should I call him God?
I’ll call him flowers and trees and hills and sun and moon.
Because if to my eyes he made himself
Sun and moon and flowers, and trees and hills,
If he appears to me as trees and hills
And moon and sun and flowers,
Then he wants me to know him
As trees and hills and flowers and moon and sun.
And so I obey him.
(Do I know more about God than God knows about himself?)
I obey him by living spontaneously
As a man who opens his eyes and sees,
And I call him moon and sun and flowers and trees and hills,
And I love him without thinking of him,
And I think him by seeing and hearing,
And I am with him at every moment.
alberto caeiro
What do I think of the world?
Who knows what I think of it!
If I weren’t well then I’d think about it.
What’s my idea about matter?
What’s my opinion about causes and effects?
What are my thoughts on God and soul
And the creation of the world?
I don’t know. To think about such things would be to shut my eyes
And not think. It would be to close the curtains
Of my windows (which, however, has no curtains).
The mystery of things? What mystery?
The only mystery is that some people think about mystery.
If you are in the sun and close your eyes,
You begin not to know what the sun is,
And you think about various warm things.
But open your eyes and you see the sun,
And you can no longer think about anything,
Because the light of the sun is truer than the thoughts
Of all philosophers and all poets.
The light of the sun doesn’t know what it does,
And so it cannot err and is common and good.
Metaphysics? What metaphysics do those trees have?
Only that of being green and lush and of having branches
Which bear fruit in their season, and we think nothing of it.
We hardly even notice them.
But what better metaphysics than theirs,
Which consists in not knowing why they live
And in not knowing that they don’t know?
“The inner makeup of things…”
“The inner meaning of the Universe…”
All of this is unreal and means absolutely nothing.
It’s incredible that anyone can think about such things.
It’s like thinking about reasons and objectives
When morning is breaking, and on the trunks of the trees
A faint glimmer of gold is dissolving the darkness.
To think about the inner meaning of things
Is superfluous, like thinking about health
Or carrying a glass to a spring.
The only inner meaning of things
Is that they have no inner meaning at all.
I don’t believe in God because I have never seen him.
If he wanted me to believe in him,
Then surely he’d come and speak with me.
He would enter by my door
Saying, “Here I am!”
(This may sound ridiculous to those who,
Because they aren’t used to looking at things,
Can’t understand a man who speaks of them
In the way that looking at things teaches.)
But if God is flowers and trees
And hills and sun and moon,
Then I believe in him,
I believe in him at every moment,
And my life is all a prayer and a mass
And a communion by way of my eyes and ears.
But if God is the flowers and trees
And hills and sun and moon,
Then why should I call him God?
I’ll call him flowers and trees and hills and sun and moon.
Because if to my eyes he made himself
Sun and moon and flowers, and trees and hills,
If he appears to me as trees and hills
And moon and sun and flowers,
Then he wants me to know him
As trees and hills and flowers and moon and sun.
And so I obey him.
(Do I know more about God than God knows about himself?)
I obey him by living spontaneously
As a man who opens his eyes and sees,
And I call him moon and sun and flowers and trees and hills,
And I love him without thinking of him,
And I think him by seeing and hearing,
And I am with him at every moment.
alberto caeiro
#6 Posted by zeemax on April 9, 2007 2:32:35 am
Dr. Sohail,
... when humanity reaches the stage of mental growth ... cultural evolution ... understand scriptures as folklore ... not as divine revelations ... mythology ... can differentiate facts from fiction, there might be more wisdom and peace ....
This is a serious question, and I really hope you will answer it despite my past transgressions, your being an acknowledged humanist for which I congratulated you.
The institution of marriage and the abhorrence of incestuous relationship arises solely from ancient scriptures, which you believe to be folklore and fiction and the sooner dispensed with the better.
In that event, I presume with a high degree of confidence that you support the following couple`s court battle for their rights? If not, why not?
A German brother and sister take their fight for the right to a sexual relationship to the country`s highest court.
... when humanity reaches the stage of mental growth ... cultural evolution ... understand scriptures as folklore ... not as divine revelations ... mythology ... can differentiate facts from fiction, there might be more wisdom and peace ....
This is a serious question, and I really hope you will answer it despite my past transgressions, your being an acknowledged humanist for which I congratulated you.
The institution of marriage and the abhorrence of incestuous relationship arises solely from ancient scriptures, which you believe to be folklore and fiction and the sooner dispensed with the better.
In that event, I presume with a high degree of confidence that you support the following couple`s court battle for their rights? If not, why not?
A German brother and sister take their fight for the right to a sexual relationship to the country`s highest court.
#7 Posted by samar1982 on April 9, 2007 2:36:27 am
Re: # 5,
This is a poem by alberto caeiro/fernando pessoa.
Samar
This is a poem by alberto caeiro/fernando pessoa.
Samar
#8 Posted by parthaab on April 9, 2007 3:35:20 am
I always have abhored the concept of religion, inspite of my fanatically religious upbringing.
Some questions continue to intrigue me :
Why is that we continue to brainwash our children, that too systematically, into believing in God, whether we may or may not believe in it ourselves?
How is it that even if we `grew up` enough to stop believing in ghosts, we do trust in God?
Why is that the western countries, supposedly `pure and godless`, continues to finance conversions in poorer countries like Africa and India?
How do we trust in religion, (which claims to be pro-peace) when it has been proven time and again to be more violent than any political organisation? (whether or not the church disowns Hitler)
When lies told for the sake of religion are so blatant, ( Mother Therasas miracles for eg.,), we still continue to trust in the church`s miracles?
How could we end up in this believing mess?
Have we lost our sense of rationality, or has it been robbed from us?
#9 Posted by Cobra on April 9, 2007 3:52:19 am
Prathab, it`s a matter of faith. Even non-believers get into situations that warrant them praying for miracles sometimes.
People fight, negotiate, form ideological groupings for one reason or another. If not for god then for race, if not for race then for culture, if not for culture then for money, if not for money then for women; or something else. That`s in our blood. It`s like an animal instinct. May be that`s what it means to be a human afteral.
As for belief in god, god may be a metaphor for imaginary or material things around us but it`s also true that until we uncover all the secrets of universe we will always attribute the unknowns to the god or some divine power.
People fight, negotiate, form ideological groupings for one reason or another. If not for god then for race, if not for race then for culture, if not for culture then for money, if not for money then for women; or something else. That`s in our blood. It`s like an animal instinct. May be that`s what it means to be a human afteral.
As for belief in god, god may be a metaphor for imaginary or material things around us but it`s also true that until we uncover all the secrets of universe we will always attribute the unknowns to the god or some divine power.
#10 Posted by paradox on April 9, 2007 5:58:28 am
Dr. Sohail
Another good contribution. You are right in saying that its pointless when an atheist and a believer argue against or in favor of God. To me statements like these are meaningless, for which there is no way of proving either right or wrong. This is the view held by the school of logical positivists, like A.J.Ayer and to a large extent by Russell as well.
Obviously one cannot apply the ``theory of correspondence`` to verify the existence of God. Even the ``theory of coherence`` cannot help us understand the concept of a personal God. Science fails us as well for there is no way of knowing, what happened before the singularity as all know laws of physics breaks down.
In spite of all the above discussed problems, I think an atheist and a believer are quite similar as neither can come up with a way to verify there respective positions. Therefore I think the only reasonable alternative is being as agnostic and keep searching for the truth
Regards
Brampton. Canada
Another good contribution. You are right in saying that its pointless when an atheist and a believer argue against or in favor of God. To me statements like these are meaningless, for which there is no way of proving either right or wrong. This is the view held by the school of logical positivists, like A.J.Ayer and to a large extent by Russell as well.
Obviously one cannot apply the ``theory of correspondence`` to verify the existence of God. Even the ``theory of coherence`` cannot help us understand the concept of a personal God. Science fails us as well for there is no way of knowing, what happened before the singularity as all know laws of physics breaks down.
In spite of all the above discussed problems, I think an atheist and a believer are quite similar as neither can come up with a way to verify there respective positions. Therefore I think the only reasonable alternative is being as agnostic and keep searching for the truth
Regards
Brampton. Canada
#11 Posted by freethinker on April 9, 2007 6:09:17 am
God, metaphor or not, has been the focus of attention of mankind since ancient times. The more objectively one thinks about God, the more he starts believing that it indeed is a metaphor created by human imagination.
The center-piece in Newsweek (April 9, 2007) is about God. It includes a piece captioned “The God Debate” between the Christian pastor Rick Warren and the atheist Sam Harris who is the author of “The End of Faith.”
Homer wrote, “All men need God,” (ca 800BC). And Plato wrote, “A certain portion of mankind do not believe at all in the existence of gods,” (ca 400BC). We have Homers and Platos in our societies but thank God (pun intended) no one is put to death for blasphemy these days. In Pakistan and in some other Muslim countries, some blasphemers were sentenced to death but the sentence was not carried out on any case.
To a question from the mediator, Warren replied, “If you’re asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don’t. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used.” He also said, “..there are clues to God. I talk to God everyday. He talks to me.” Warren however did not specify if this dialogue between him and Him is literal or metaphorical. Does God speak to him in English?
There will always be believers and non-believers. The important thing is that they should be able to converse with each other peacefully.
Going by our recent history, it appears that our religious beliefs will give way to and accommodate our scientific discoveries. The number of Galileos will increase with time.
Mohammad Gill
The center-piece in Newsweek (April 9, 2007) is about God. It includes a piece captioned “The God Debate” between the Christian pastor Rick Warren and the atheist Sam Harris who is the author of “The End of Faith.”
Homer wrote, “All men need God,” (ca 800BC). And Plato wrote, “A certain portion of mankind do not believe at all in the existence of gods,” (ca 400BC). We have Homers and Platos in our societies but thank God (pun intended) no one is put to death for blasphemy these days. In Pakistan and in some other Muslim countries, some blasphemers were sentenced to death but the sentence was not carried out on any case.
To a question from the mediator, Warren replied, “If you’re asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don’t. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used.” He also said, “..there are clues to God. I talk to God everyday. He talks to me.” Warren however did not specify if this dialogue between him and Him is literal or metaphorical. Does God speak to him in English?
There will always be believers and non-believers. The important thing is that they should be able to converse with each other peacefully.
Going by our recent history, it appears that our religious beliefs will give way to and accommodate our scientific discoveries. The number of Galileos will increase with time.
Mohammad Gill
#12 Posted by GT on April 9, 2007 7:44:57 am
Sohail:
Essentially, people find it difficult to deal with uncertainty. Much more difficult is the issue of unawareness. Bayesians have dealt with uncertainty in a way that most people will be uncomfortable with. For example, subjective probabilities are defined in a state space which is KNOWN. Even when probabilities are replaced with non additive measures, the state space is KNOWN. And this is the best that mainstream mathematics has been able to do (all these works are based on the foundations developed by Kolmogorov). My point is that uncertainty and unawareness as people perceive them is difficult to model in mainstream logical systems. So the gap, if you allow me to use the word, is usually filled in by beliefs which transcend logic. These beliefs could be those of a Believer, atheiest or an agnostic. Since these beliefs have to be formulated they could indeed be based on languages. And languages, as far as I know, are not confined to the bounds imposed by logic. Thus, I agree with you. However, I disagree that these and only these beliefs drive people to war and violence. Without perceived economic gains there would be few wars. But many would disagree with me. And it is from this set of people that the fodder of war is drawn, often in the name of some of the BELIEFS that I talked about earlier.
#13 Posted by GT on April 9, 2007 7:51:42 am
Re: # 6
Zee:
Though your question is directed to Sohail, do let me hypothesize that non-endogamous groups evolved at the expense of endogamous groups. So it may have had very little to do with religion. Moreover, following Sohails thesis, some people realized this and codified it in their religions.
Zee:
Though your question is directed to Sohail, do let me hypothesize that non-endogamous groups evolved at the expense of endogamous groups. So it may have had very little to do with religion. Moreover, following Sohails thesis, some people realized this and codified it in their religions.
#14 Posted by eastmwest on April 9, 2007 8:15:21 am
Re: # 6
Zeemaz your arguement is patently absurd. As a physician I can assure you that the societies where incestous marital bonds are most rampant and the genetic consequences most deleterious are in Islamic societies. Here is a link on consanguinity:
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003130.html
The preponderance of first cousin marriages in the Muslim world is astonishing. I know you might think this is vastly different from this brother and sister but you fail to understand the these first cousins are often themselves the product of first cousin marriages. It doesn`t take a scientific genius to figure out that after a 2-3 generations it is akin to marrying your brother or sister which is precisely what happens in many Muslims societies. The phenomenally higher rate of recessive inherited disorders among such communities is well documented. Recently the British Health Minister appealed to the Pakistani community in England who comprise 3.4% of all births but ~30% of all inherited recessive disorders to basically stop marrying their relatives. Saudi Arabia is a goldmine for pathologists for the same reason. What has not been well studied is the effect of all this inbreeding on intelligence but I can assure you it has been speculated although not publicly argued the the often poorer academic performance of Muslim communities compared to other Asian and Europeans might be attributed to this. In spite of ample evidence showcasing the genetic problems associated with consaguinous marriages there is little public advocacy for reform in Muslim communities. Partly this stems from the fact that it is sanctioned in the Quran. I wonder if you are equally disturbed by this phenomena which is real, prevalent and not one anecdotal case from Germany. What you featured is not the ``norm`` what I am describing is.
Zeemaz your arguement is patently absurd. As a physician I can assure you that the societies where incestous marital bonds are most rampant and the genetic consequences most deleterious are in Islamic societies. Here is a link on consanguinity:
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003130.html
The preponderance of first cousin marriages in the Muslim world is astonishing. I know you might think this is vastly different from this brother and sister but you fail to understand the these first cousins are often themselves the product of first cousin marriages. It doesn`t take a scientific genius to figure out that after a 2-3 generations it is akin to marrying your brother or sister which is precisely what happens in many Muslims societies. The phenomenally higher rate of recessive inherited disorders among such communities is well documented. Recently the British Health Minister appealed to the Pakistani community in England who comprise 3.4% of all births but ~30% of all inherited recessive disorders to basically stop marrying their relatives. Saudi Arabia is a goldmine for pathologists for the same reason. What has not been well studied is the effect of all this inbreeding on intelligence but I can assure you it has been speculated although not publicly argued the the often poorer academic performance of Muslim communities compared to other Asian and Europeans might be attributed to this. In spite of ample evidence showcasing the genetic problems associated with consaguinous marriages there is little public advocacy for reform in Muslim communities. Partly this stems from the fact that it is sanctioned in the Quran. I wonder if you are equally disturbed by this phenomena which is real, prevalent and not one anecdotal case from Germany. What you featured is not the ``norm`` what I am describing is.
#15 Posted by Minhaj on April 9, 2007 8:44:57 am
Hi Dr. Sohail,
I loved this essay. I disagree with one thing you said. You mentioned that Hazrat Mohommad was using metaphors and people took those things literally. In my opinion, he was being literal. I think when he spoke of fire and maidens in heaven these were not metaphors. Even back then the Arabs were into excellent poetry and literature. So I think they could make the distinction between metaphors and literal claims. People dont die for metaphorical statements. They die to gain actual eatable rewards like honey and grapes and things they can feel like cool breezes and gorgous companions. But I whole heartedly agree with you that to fall for such claims is not the act of a bright man.
I loved this essay. I disagree with one thing you said. You mentioned that Hazrat Mohommad was using metaphors and people took those things literally. In my opinion, he was being literal. I think when he spoke of fire and maidens in heaven these were not metaphors. Even back then the Arabs were into excellent poetry and literature. So I think they could make the distinction between metaphors and literal claims. People dont die for metaphorical statements. They die to gain actual eatable rewards like honey and grapes and things they can feel like cool breezes and gorgous companions. But I whole heartedly agree with you that to fall for such claims is not the act of a bright man.
#16 Posted by khurram on April 9, 2007 9:48:19 am
God is NOT a metaphor.
But, we can only talk about God metaphorically. We think of God as a Supreme Being - a being with extreme supernatural powers. That supreme being is a metaphor (or a symbol).
But beyond the symbol there is a Reality that is being pointed to by the symbol. That `God beyond God` is not a metaphor.
A person who takes the symbol literally would think that there is actually a person with God-like powers in some corner of the sky. That would be a mistake. But you are making the opposite mistake - denying the reality behind (or beyond) the metaphor.
As Ghalib said,
Parey Sarhad-e-Idrak say hai apna masjood
Qiblay ko ahl-e-nazar Qibla-numa kehtay hain
But, we can only talk about God metaphorically. We think of God as a Supreme Being - a being with extreme supernatural powers. That supreme being is a metaphor (or a symbol).
But beyond the symbol there is a Reality that is being pointed to by the symbol. That `God beyond God` is not a metaphor.
A person who takes the symbol literally would think that there is actually a person with God-like powers in some corner of the sky. That would be a mistake. But you are making the opposite mistake - denying the reality behind (or beyond) the metaphor.
As Ghalib said,
Parey Sarhad-e-Idrak say hai apna masjood
Qiblay ko ahl-e-nazar Qibla-numa kehtay hain
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- jayp: Re: # 53 thanks madani... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- Pardesi: Breaking News for ahmedmadani... Uneven Democracy : The
- a_r_j_u_n325: #94 Posted by... The Strange Case of
- a_r_j_u_n325: #95 Posted by... The Strange Case of
- RiazHaq: Re: # 90 bhs7:... The Strange Case of
- jrabamind: Dear Parthaab, The study referred... Communicating Medical Errors
- anil: Re: # 20 Dost sahib: “Indians... Uneven Democracy : The
- shankar: #93 Woah...the mullah said he... The Strange Case of
