Anthropomorphizing God

In many discussions about God, those who consider it possible that God exists are accused of anthropomorphizing nature, even if those proponents don't claim any human attributes for God except conscious will.  In fact, attributing any supernatural powers and/or the ability to create the universe would be non-anthropomorphic, and even reasonable, if those supernatural powers weren't exercised in this universe where, so far, there exists no evidence for it.  The only possible evidence is the universe.

On the other hand, when I say that God mustn't intervene without destroying our free will, many who make the first argument also argue that if God exists, how can It not help people in danger or trouble?  But wouldn't thinking that God should intervene be to anthropomorphize It?

This is not to argue for or against the existence of God, only against the supposed necessity that belief anthropomorphizes It.

I have reluctantly resorted to using the impersonal (but capitalized) pronoun, It, when referring to God.  Using a gender pronoun leaves one open to the argument of anthropomorphizing God.  And as just stated, the only human quality we can attribute to God, if It exists, is conscious will.  That says nothing pro or con about whether God cares about us.  But, since a God with supernatural powers could ostensibly create anything instantaneously, except sentient creatures with free will, that would imply divine interest and caring.

Abandoning the use of any pronouns for God altogether, becomes tedious and distracting.

Defining the supernatural:  One possibility is that the supernatural is a total lack of natural law or even a physical universe or cosmos, in which our universe could be suspended as a mere bubble.  Another possibility is that our universe is just an extrusion, if you will, of our four dimensions within a broader (infinite?) cosmos composed of many more, even an infinite number of dimensions, which could be governed by natural law as well.  The supernatural could then exist even if there were no God.

Is This a Test?

I passed these two guys recently who were stopped at a red light. They were flailing their arms to some tune I couldn't hear, obviously enjoying that particular moment in their lives. It started a chain of thought; what about the billions of people who don't have all the resources we have for enjoying life in the wealthier countries? What about those who are capable of achieving fulfillment in life wherever they are? And what about those with greater talent, intellectual ability, courage, appreciation for living or a propensity to be good or evil? If there is a God and this is It's test, we obviously aren't all given the same starting point.

Would all the rewards be equalized out to make it fair somehow? Or (I'm not suggesting rank), is there a natural recognition of those who made the greater or lesser use of their time here? Would we judge others as we would ourselves, in the light of undeniable Truth, recognizing the need for oblivion for some, and to feed on the brighter light of others?

Doesn't the greater obstacle or the greater the achievement from one's starting place deserve more respect? Would the rich child who grows up in the freedom of Singapore or the wealth of the US who saved the world, be more or less worthy than a street urchin in Zimbabwe who risked his life to save another's? Is fairness even an objective. Think of an audience enjoying the talents of the performers they see on stage or screen, only now all types of talents and accomplishments would be appreciated in the same way.

For the moral subjectivists, should this recognition be a goal in this life, is that possible, or should we go further and attempt to give equal respect to everyone no matter what they do? Should we make Hitler equal to Gandhi, for instance? If not, how do we differentiate?

As you can see, this post is more questions than answers.

Intelligence

Intelligence

“People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost.”—H. Jackson Browne 

Success can be defined as looking back on your life so far, and saying I did the right thing.  I'm proud of who I was (not of who I intended to be or what others believed I was).  Put another way, we could have no greater fulfillment than to say to ourselves, honestly, "Well done".

We berate people who acquire wealth (unless we are one of them), but if it was acquired and used with honor (which we tend to assume was not the case), they have a lot to be proud of in providing for their families as well as jobs and prosperity for others.  Money, fame and especially power all require great character to avoid their misuse, but they are far from being the only forms of success.  If, say, two people independently make a significant discovery, but only one achieves public acclaim and monetary rewards, is the other not also successful if the only issue was the luck of timing?   If a person in Japan had been able to warn us of the attack on Pearl Harbor, thus saving many lives but lost his own life anonymously in the process, would he not have been a success, or even a hero—even if the warning had been ignored?  Are husbands and wives not successful who raise responsible children in a supporting atmosphere?  There is only one quality required for success—character.  And if character is maintained, success is automatic.  We can't be a person who missed the acclaim and then drop out. We can't say, I'll bum my way through life then make sure I go out in a blaze of glory. We can't abrogate the responsibility for raising our children to a pill.   People with character do the right thing all the time, when no one is watching, and when everyone is watching.  The judge we all stand before on judgement day is Truth, stripped of our illusions and in its unavoidable light, we are unable to lie to anyone, including ourselves, and forced to be our own judges.

Man's superior tool for achieving success is his intellect. Much has been made of some types of intelligence, while others are downplayed.  Is society not missing out if we don’t try to develop them all?  What follows in this section are some basic types of intelligence, observed and noted by your humble author as food for thought.  They are certainly not to be considered definitive.  Call it a semi-educated shot-in-the-dark.  One thing is certain, intelligence should be a matter of more serious study without the obstacle of cultural bias.

The moron, the multitalented genius and the idiot-savant form a triad inside of which we can all be found. Studying intelligence is a matter of importance.  If we recognize and learn more about the vagaries of intelligence, instead of reducing everyone down to a basic IQ number that emphasizes some attributes and de-emphasizes others, we will enable people to more fully recognize their capabilities and level of success.   They will then become more productive members of society and more fulfilled as individuals with a better sense of their self-worth.  In the meantime, until we do learn more, we mustn’t sell ourselves short.  Many view themselves as being of lower innate intelligence, when in actuality what they may have is a deficiency in the surmountable attributes of knowledge and confidence.

We’re all familiar with those who can learn to play a musical instrument by ear, instinctively operate a computer, thread a football through a defense to a tertiary receiver, or solve a mathematical problem with ease.  They are naturals at what they do.  We may not all have such superior natural skills, but we do all have the potential to be better than most at something.

The decision to include the following list was a difficult one and there is no claim to any expertise in intelligence, but it may spark an interest in the many avenues for fulfillment that there are.  The point is that we must learn who we really are beyond our illusions and what we’re good at by looking first at what we enjoy doing which so often leads to a subject that is a combination of both.  If this section helps some to consider an unexplored aspect of themselves, that’s all that’s intended here.

What is offered below is a speculative list of possible types of intelligence that may help some recognize an ability that they had previously considered superfluous, but now worth developing if for no other reason than to develop their self-confidence.  It should be understood that this list, or an eventual more refined one, is only the first of many steps to come as we move forward from the straight-jacket of our very limited IQ measurement or other commonly recognized characteristics of intelligence.

Of the types of intelligence listed here, it should be pointed out that knowledge itself is not one of them as that is one of the things to which we apply our intelligence.  Also, it is doubtful that math, verbal or artistic ability are discrete types of intelligence, but are more likely just combinations of the other forms.

Active Memory—Amount and detail of raw knowledge retained and retrievable on demand (Rote memory).

Passive Memory—Amount and detail of raw knowledge retained and retrievable with prompting such as with multiple choice questions (forms a considerably larger amount of information storage than active memory for most people.)

Cognitive Speed—varies for each individual depending on the application such as information retrieval or motor reaction time.

Multitasking/thinking under pressure—self explanatory.

Muscular coordination—Athletic ability and physical aspects of speech.

Hand eye coordination—playing a musical instrument, working with tools/machines.  Related to muscular coordination, but less dependent on strength and endurance and more on finesse.

Social Receptivity—Ability to receive and interpret social signals. One who can read body language and between the lines.          

        Factual Receptivity—Ability to comprehend facts and ideas.

Social Projection—Ability to project social signals and impart emotions to others such as with leadership, charisma or intimidation.

Factual Projection/problem solving—Ability to communicate facts and ideas or apply them.

(The previous four are very interrelated and are the most easily subjected to suppression or distortion by the emotions, especially factual receptivity.  Gamesmanship, leadership, “followership“ and intimidation are skills resulting from the combination of these abilities.)

Symbol recognition—interpretation of words and other symbols or symbolic ideas.

Linear Logic—If a=b and b=c concluding that a=c; looking forward several steps in a chess game.

Intuitive Intelligence—The ability to make a "leap of logic", or better stated, to make an intuitive leap; e.g. decoding anagrams, finding a relationship between two or more seemingly unrelated facts.  Many times it occurs after studying a problem, the answer suddenly appears as an epiphany or in a dream.  It is the most ephemeral form of intelligence and hardest to define with probably many sub-facets; one of which would be characterized as imagination or the ability to create original ideas.

Sense of humor—ability to originate, communicate or understand something that is humorous or amusing.

Sense of irony—ability to originate, communicate or understand something that deliberately contrasts apparently opposite meanings for humorous or satirical effect.

Artistic intelligence—abilities encompassing the inception and/or interpretation of any of the arts. It is the expression/understanding of artistic, original creativity.

Spatial awareness—(e.g. Is my right front tire going to further flatten that road kill up ahead.)

Focus—the workhorse of intelligence which is important to all the other types.  It comes in the form of concentration and persistence, which is harder to measure since it may need evaluation over periods of time as long as a lifetime.  Someone low on cognitive speed but high on focus would probably be seen as smart but slow or a late bloomer.

   

The incorporation of reason into one’s understanding of the world is sometimes avoided because it appears to require an intimidating amount of effort and intelligence.  Living requires effort, but avoiding reason can be more wearing than abiding by it due to the nagging realization that we aren’t being honest with ourselves leading to the effort spent maintaining the wall of emotion and tangle of lies fending off reason.

Further, like a little exercise for the body benefits our physical as well as our mental stamina, so too the appropriate use of both reason and emotion actually becomes soothing with use instead of their being an irritant.  As for applying intelligence, the only things required is an understanding of the nature of Truth and determining one’s particular intellectual abilities which we all have in some areas—and all of which are almost certainly not possessed by anyone.

Abortion

No issue is more contentious or morally complex than abortion because it deals with the rights of two individuals and when we achieve our moral right to life, liberty and property. As with almost any issue, moral or otherwise, when trying to think through where we stand on it, the place to start is the extremes.

Aborting a healthy fetus in the process of being born can only be considered murder.  On the other hand, forcing a 13 year old girl who is 1 hour pregnant as a result of being raped by her father to carry the baby to  term, is nothing short of a moral travesty.  Yet we insist on reducing abortion down to Pro-Life and Pro-Choice labels.  The fact is we don't have the necessary information to make an informed moral choice in many cases.  We can draw an artificial limit, say the first trimester, but that won't cover all situations in determining by whose or what authority we make these decisions--God, the Law, or a family and their doctor.

Any claim to divine authority is specious given that there is nothing in the Bible about it, and all we have are those putting words in God's mouth that the human right to life starts at conception.  Some even claim that divine determination is violated by contraception.   On the face of it, for those appealing to revealed religion for their authority, abortion is being used as an instrument of power and control.

At the other end, the same could be said about statists who would use the law to give complete authority to the mother with no rights whatever for the baby until it is born, which is no less an artificial limit, or less "holy", than conception.

The fact is we already limit human rights according to age, and few would argue with it.  We limit a child's right to liberty and property until they reach some arbitrary age of majority at which point they legally acquire the rights they didn't have a few moments before.  Some would say the right to life is different, but tell that to the billions throughout history who lived under horrible oppression, and others who risked or lost their lives in an effort to achieve that liberty.  The question this raises is, why isn't there some theological, or secular, explanation for the arbitrary acquisition of our rights to liberty and property?  The Bible says that you must not commit murder and that you must not steal.  But then it also gives tacit approval to slavery and human sacrifice.

The Golden Rule is the only moral guidance we have, or need, except for the moral complexities of dealing with our children--born and unborn.

This complex issue pushes to the limit the principle that the only thing that should be legislated is morality.  It would seem, at this point, that all we can legislate would be in the realm of the previously mentioned extremes, and each of those come to a point where that legislation would be arbitrary and thus without moral authority.  We must acknowledge the complexity of this issue and come, somehow, to realize that this must be done on a case by case basis, with the mother making the decision in this area where the law cannot reach, with the advice of her family, her doctor, her society and her faith.

In this "no-man's land" or grey area (between the extremes which can be legislated), the woman must have the final authority, not because it's her body, but because it's her child.  And since it is still ultimately a moral issue, the freedom of religion is the final legal authority for her moral authority.  The current legal problem here in the US where a retail store chain (Hobby Lobby) is being forced at the cost of over a million dollars a day to provide health care funds for abortions against the religious beliefs of a private company and any number of its employees, is an egregious example of the violation of the necessary separation of church and state; not to mention the First Amendment to our Constitution.

Religion vs. Philosophy

Why is religion, and philosophy for that matter, important?

Originally, somewhere back in civilization’s deep, dark past, religion was the equivalent of science. Grog, in his cave, tried to make sense of the natural world around him; a nature that appeared to be a benefactor and source of fear at the same time. Truth and knowledge were sought. But it wasn’t long before some were able to use that fear and confusion as a source of control if it was manipulated properly.

Later still, someone developed the carrot and stick idea and added rewards from the gods in this life as well as the next, for proper behavior. The original morality consisted of a simple form of the Golden Rule, but it was necessary to include honoring and providing for the gods as part of that favored behavior; and as time passed many more extraneous rules were added to the code of behavior, which eventually ascended to greater importance than proper behavior towards each other. Then finally someone consolidated all the rules from all those gods into rules from just One God, and that mixture of mono/polytheism is where we stood at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment and the ascendancy of science and the scientific method.

While science has been very successful at acquiring knowledge, the issues of morality (a code of conduct for how we treat each other), virtue (a code for our personal behavior), and of fulfillment and purpose in this life (and perhaps the next), appeared to be beyond the reach of the scientific method. So religion, with all its baggage, maintained its position of spiritual authority—albeit a reduced one.

Enter philosophy, the attempt to use reason to combine knowledge and the metaphysical. But the latter wasn’t subject to reason since there was no knowledge available (other than pure hearsay) with which we could deal. Thus two usually unstated assumptions were made: Human life is of ultimate value, and a laissez faire divine being created the universe. If neither of those was the case there was no possibility for good order or hope for an ultimate purpose.

Today, we stand on the verge of the realization that morality is the only thing that should be the subject of civilization’s legal code—we should never legislation personal virtue. Organized religion continues to fight this principle as if its life depends on it, which it does. It won’t submit to the ascendancy of philosophy for the same reason that governments resist submission to political and economic reason…..the ability to use power to favor an individual or an elite class structure.

Though we have made great strides in science and technology, it appears that we are no closer to conquering evil with good because we still depend far too much on emotion to make our decisions. Progress will not be made until we learn to employ our emotions as the engine to pursue our goals, with reason at the wheel.

Separation of Church and State

“The morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.”—James Madison 

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."--John Adams

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."—George Washington

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.” ― Thomas Paine

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people (the First Amendment) which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”—Thomas Jefferson
_______________________________________________________________________________

There are plenty more such quotes, but they won’t impress anyone determined to believe that separation of church and state is defended only by a small vocal group.  Most people haven’t noticed how many believers in God, including a surprising number of Christians are for the absolute separation of church and state.  Baptists have been among the most stalwart supporters, and it was in their defense that Jefferson created his now famous “wall of separation” analogy, in 1802, expounding on the meaning of the First Amendment.

John Leland, a Baptist minister from Massachusetts, supported Madison against Patrick Henry’s attempt to establish state support for religion in Virginia.  Leland said, “If all the souls in a government were saints of God, (and) should they be formed into a society by law, that society could not be a Gospel Church, but a creature of state."  That Baptist position survives to this day in the American Baptist Convention, which resolved in 1963, and reiterated in 1983 and 1993, “that separation of church and state is central to our American heritage; that it has made possible a measure of freedom not previously achieved under any other system; that it is indispensable to our national policy of equal rights for all [religions], and special privileges for no religion.”  Freewill Baptists, American/Northern Baptists, Bible Baptists, General Baptists, National Baptists, Primitive Baptists as well as Methodists hold similar positions.

Where then does the virulent and vocal opposition to the mere mention of separation of church and state come from?  From the Southern Baptists, who split from their brethren in 1845 in order to defend the biblical sanctity of slavery.  They are now the dominant evangelical leaders opposing separation of church and state, even though in 1963 their Baptist Faith and Message said:  “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.  Church and state should be separate.”

It wasn’t until 1995 that the Southern Baptist Convention voted to condemn its historic support for slavery and failure to confront racism in the South.

Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance seems like such a small thing, but it is the seed of what can become a dangerous violation of  the separation principle.  And what is the motivation behind it but an attempt at indoctrination, after all.  President Eisenhower, when signing the bill to add it to the Pledge (and also "In God We Trust" to paper money, making it the country's second moto with E Pluribus Unum), said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. ... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

Spiritual weapon indeed.

The Holy of Holies

“The Truth is clever. The minute we create an idol for it, it becomes a lie.” -TPT



Is rule by fear as used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein or Taliban/Iranian theocracies et al. any different than that of the Biblical Jehovah, held by dogma to be an object of fear? Are we not taught by biblical scripture to fear God?

In I Samuel 8—“God” begrudgingly accedes to the selection of a king to reign over Israel. Why did the Israelites desire a king against "God’s wishes" for continued rule via the priests, prophets and judges with Saul as “God’s” spokesman? Because the theocratic priesthood used the name of God to justify their corruption. Samuel warned the people of the power of a king but didn’t mention that corruption would be just as much of a problem with a king as it had been with the priests and judges. The people didn’t disagree with Samuel’s warnings, so we are left to conclude that the corruption of their theocracy was worse than the picture he painted of life under a king.

History’s most successful and revered leaders lead through respect earned by demonstration of ability and integrity, not fear.
The temple in Jerusalem was designed to represent the source of fear and awe the theocracy wished to project, but it’s Holy of Holies was as empty of Truth as are all such shams created to validate the power of its custodians. It was itself an idol, and as with all idols, a lie; the great temple, adorned with flowing sacrificial blood, was constructed to shelter fear in a barren room to perpetuate and reinforce a lie. A building is a building unless it is said to be holier than the rocks and stones around it. Then it becomes an idol.  You can’t enshrine Truth in a temple or behind an altar--only in our minds and hearts.

Truth itself is the Holy of Holies, the universe its temple and the souls who seek it are its apostles.