God is a Metaphor

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: # 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?

GT:
I agree. I was stretching the definition on that count. Although, God `notion` (with the meaninglessness inherent in its construction) can be entertained ironically, like getting into a willing-suspension-of-disbelief.

Re: # 115
Raw:
Right, but we cant do much can we? Can the following statement ever be negated logically:

``All the monkeys in chowk are green in colour``.

Best.

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

GT: that`s right but those unverifiable green-monkeys didn`t inspire an Iliad or a Mahabharata or my fav. Faust.

Re: # 99 Hello zeemax,
First of all i would like to share the problem which i am watching here at chowk.com, people don`t talk about the thoughts written by the writer, they just start their own session and start talking about it, like i have seen hardly 2-3 comments on the work done by ``Dr Sohail``, expect everybody is talking about what thread you have started. If you are so much interested to talk about this why not you write seperately and invite Dr. Sohail to comment on that, and even you can email him directly.

Second what you have asked about weather it is ok or not, then i think after my answer i hope you get the answer which i have given to you.

And again i will request everybody here at chowk.com that please start their seperate thread to talk if they have anything to share with the world, don`t exploit the reputation of others, and don`t answer by using name of ``author``.

Thanks to all.

Re: #drsohail,
``ps...next question khurram...do you consider yourself a Muslim? if yes how do you define it? ``

Of course, I do.
And, I define it by the first kalimah.

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: # 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: # 121

GT: Does the statement,

` all prophets sent by god were true`

the same as your monkeys statement?

Re: # 118

Raw:

Yes, I think both you and I understand each other perfectly. But what follows is for others:

How can you rationally refute the following:

1. ``God dictated the Koran to Mohammed.``

2. ``God induced Homer to write the Illiad.``

You can`t.

Now consider the following two verifiable statements:

1. ``If God does not exist then the Arabic Koran has Chinese characters.``

2. ``If the Koran wasn`t written by GT then the Arabic Koran has Chinese characters.``

Now note the interesting phenomenon. Suppose the Arabic Koran is serached and no Chinese characters are found. What do we conclude, ON THE BASIS of 1 and 2? We conclude that God exists or GT wrote the Koran or both. On the basis of 1 and 2, THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION. To refine this conclusion we need MORE verifiable statements. With the addition of more verifiable statements, some conclusions would be refined but other questions would prop up. And so on and so forth. Can we have the entire set of ALL verifiable statements. The answer is probably No (for this see #107).

Re: # 123 by malikjahanzeb:

Yes.

Re #122, ``How do you know that there is someone real behind this metaphor?``

If by `someone real` you mean a being that `exists` in the sense that its existence can be verified scientifically then I believe that there is no such being. I am not even taking the `green monkey` position that there may be a being whose existence cannot be disproved. I categorically state that there is no such being. What this metaphor expresses is the experience of ultimacy or unconditionality. It is not a subjective or objective experience like other experiences but a dimension of all experiences. Think of what concerns you ultimately. Or the unconditional imperative to act morally, whatever the content of your morality. Where does your concept of true and good come from. It is this reality, which is not an existent thing, but the `ground` of existence that is expressed in the symbol of the Supreme Being.

This article is yet another attempt to undermine human spirituality in favor of whatever concepts are used to declare God as a metaphor. At least 85% of human population does not support the concept being advanced in this article. The author insists on declaring God a metaphor perhaps on the grounds of not being able to find God under his microscope.

Making statements, such as, ‘highly evolved minds interpret scripture metaphorically and interpreted literally by those not highly evolved’, appear to be a highly self serving proclamation. I wonder how any one is going to collect the necessary statistical data to support such assumptions. We all know, there are large number of (intellectually) evolved people in all walks of life, including science, who believe in a personal God or a higher being who created life and the universe.

Every religion and belief system does seem to have various folklores associated with it. The followers of a faith or a religion do not necessarily accept or support many of those tales. But mere existence of such tales does not undermine the central theme of a religion. There have been social, cultural and political reasons behind the origin of most folklores. One should not be throwing the baby with the bath water.

The terms like seven heavens have metaphorical meanings, but only the atheists perceive God to be a metaphor. Those who are not spiritually developed, often have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as they do not find Him directly under the microscope or in a mathematical equation.

The article, ‘God is a Metaphor’ is one of several, that I have seen, written by many atheists with the same bottom line - promoting author’s own thoughts and values. I wonder if the real reason of repeatedly harping on the same subject, using different words, is an attempt to strengthen their own uncertain convictions against some kind of inherent deep seated insecurities causing inner cognitive conflicts.

Regarding the notion holy wars – people always find some reason or excuse to wage wars on each other. If we look at all the current hotspots around the world, we see that the geo-political reasons are driving factors, no body is trying to save God or a religion.

Javed I. Chaudry

Error Message 32AF56:
9:22PM East Lattitude - 2007:04:12