Your View on God - Subjective or Objective?

[bryant69]

I was originally going to do this as a poll but it seemed like there were too many possible gradations - do you see your view on God (and Religion and Souls and so on and so forth) as reflecting an objective or a subjective relity? Or which of the following categories do you see your view of God fitting.

Objective - My view on God reflects what is actually out there - in so far as people do not share my view of God, they are simply incorrect in their views on this subject.

Subjective - My View on God works for me but I can see how other views might be equally legitimate.

In between you might have views like the believer who believes that all paths eventually lead to God - each religion having elements of truth that lead you to understand the realy of God. Or someone who's opinion is that he has no way of knowing whether God exists, doesn't think it does exist, but sees no harm in others practicing a religion if it gives them comfort - so on and so forth.

Probably a lot of other ideas I haven't thought of as well - I will say my observations are that most, but not all DU Atheists believe their views to be the objective truth, while most DU Theists tend to be more Subjectivist.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Deep13]

1. objective-there either is divinity or there is not.

If it is subjective it begs the question in what way is god real?

I respect a person's right to be religious and I can respect a person who is religious. I cannot, however, respect the religion itself. People who are religious accept the existence of something that does not exist.

[flamin lib]

2. All I know

is that I can't possibly know.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. I am probably in the objective camp, especially on useless acts like prayer.

When you have methodists praying against catholics, simply because SMU plays Notre Dame, well, that is just laughable.

When you have christians praying for someone's health - to the exclusion of modern medicines, surgery and drugs, well, I see that as abuse.

When you have christians forcing their 5 yr old kids to stand up on live TV, and claim that they are renouncing their sins, and have the TV audience cheer their being reborn, that is pure, utter and unforgivable child abuse.

Prayers do not work. IN a subtle double blind study out east, a famous medical center tested the power of faith and prayer.

The two groups consisted of pretty equal numbers of self-described believers and agnostics who had a serious surgery.

The two groups were broken down even further, with one group receiving no prayers and the other getting prayers from strangers.

The findings were spectacular. Those believers who had strangers preying over them actually had higher rates of infections, of complications and generally had worse results than the control group.

If you need more proof, ask any christian if they ever prayed to win the lottery. Then ask them how that prayer thingie turned out.
Of course, their brainwashed answer is simple: It's god's will. YEah, right. A ready made excuse that excuses the complete and total failure of prayer to have any impact on reality.

[bryant69]

5. Could you post a link or more information on that study please?

Enough information that I could track it down. Thank you.

Bryant

[charlie]

8. Previous discussions from R/T

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=58737
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=58644

[bryant69]

13. That's interesting - thanks for the link

I don't find it conclusive, though.

Bryant

[nannah]

6. well said. eom

[More Than A Feeling]

4. I have been postulating a subjective view of God

as reflected in my prior thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=100297&mesg_id=100297)

I'm mulling the possibility that all any of us believers are doing, whether we think their view objective or subjective, is worshipping our own idea of God, and it's entirely possible that that idea and the actual God are entirely different.

My question for you is this: If your observation is correct, what accounts for the difference?

[Lerkfish]

7. as a progressive christian....

I ascribe to part of your middle choice, summed up fairly well by you:

In between you might have views like the believer who believes that all paths eventually lead to God - each religion having elements of truth that lead you to understand the realy (sic) of God.

[bryant69]

10. I'm a lousy typist.

[Lerkfish]

25. sorry, wasn't dissing your typing, just wasn't sure which word you meant

there, so put (sic) in case I read it wrong.

at any rate, you're ok in my book.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Put me here, too nt

[Double T]

9. There is a 'great spirit' BUT.............

the 'great spirit' DOES NOT 'subscribe to' or 'endorse' man made 'negative energy' religions.

[bryant69]

11. What are negative energy religions?

And are there positive energy religions?

This description seems a bit like some of the gnostic dualisms, where religions who are not worshipping in the right way are actually worshipping the devil.

Bryant

[sam sarrha]

15. because the Prophets of all the major cults were schizophrenic.. insane in insane.. out

look at Abraham.. he was going to sacrifice his son and burn him on an Altar to gOD.. because a voice from gOD told him to kill his son... so how many people who hear voices that tell them to kill their children today are Prophets and not schitzophrenic..???

and Mohammad was a direct DNA relative of Abraham..

[Double T]

16. Examples of man made 'negative energy' religions.............

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

[bryant69]

19. Do positive energy religions exist?

The Quakers perhaps?

Bryant

[Double T]

21. Possibly Quakers, Possibly Mennonites; there probably are others.

Individual spirituality is more likely to be 'positive energy', then a man made 'negative energy' 'organized religion'.

[sam sarrha]

23. the Buddhists feel this world is pretty hopeless but their focus in on helping the other suffering

people, Mahayana. one develops the potential of their minds in order to acquire the 'Skillful Means' to help the others escape the suffering of Samsara.. that is pretty positive.. check out the Dalai Lama's writings.. he has a new DVD out on Ethics and society.. really cheap at http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com and some other stuff of interest

the Buddhists dont believe in babysitters, the gods cant help themselves out of samsara so it follows they cant help you..

Buddhism is a very logical and actually scientific method of training the mind, it isn't a Religion of any kind.. it is more of a psychology if anything.. but if you want to call it a religion, fine.

they dont believe a supernatural being Created the earth nor rules it... they dont concern themselves in the origin of the universe.. Robert Thurman said that eliminates a lot of boring debate..

[sam sarrha]

17. check out these people.. very intelligent, thoughtful,,, .LINK>

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.html

[bryant69]

18. Thank you for pointing out that some religious people are bigots

I would have no way of realizing that without your helpful hint.

Bryant

[sam sarrha]

20. enlighten me as to why they are bigots...

[sam sarrha]

12. gOD/Religion is a Phenomenon of the mind filling in the blank spaces. it does it all the time in oth...

ways.. perspective is not what it appears to be.. it is a construct of the mind to deal with things that dont make sense..

if you make a grid and look thru it at someone laying on a table feet tword you and connect the dots on the grid the resulting drawing will be one with really BIG feet.. the mind cant deal with that so it Adjusts what you see..

religion is quite a bit like that.. only it is with concepts the mind is not structured to understand so it creates something to fill in the holes... and it looks real, but is actually a hallucination.

personally i like the Buddhist 'Wheel of Life' explanation.. see http://www.buddhanet.net search wheel of life

[Red State Prisoner]

14. Definitely Subjective Here

I'm a Christian, but only in so far as my way of acknowledging a higher power. I realized long ago that no one religion is the one and only path. A Muslim, Jew, or Pagan are every bit as worthy as a Christian in my view. Of course I also believe that life, for all it's joys, carries enough pain and suffering to assure everyone passage into whatever afterlife may exist. What the hell do I know though? :)

[SidDithers]

22. Objective...

based on empirical evidence. There's no evidence to support the existence of a god, so my position is not to believe there is one.

If empirical evidence were to somehow appear, then I would re-evaluate my position.

Believing in something without evidence is a subjective opinion, so I would tend to agree with your assessment in the OP.

Sid

[sam sarrha]

24. believing in gOD/s would be Apriori logic.... the cause of most suffering

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. Subjective, by your definition

I have my spiritual path, but it is by no means the be all and end all. God is very personal, and also very mysterious by human standards. That may be why some Indians call God "The Great Mystery" (Wakan Takan)

[kwassa]

27. Subjective

My belief is that God is so great that no one can objectively know him.

[charles22]

28. What is your view?

[bryant69]

32. I tend towards objective but most if not all Roads lead to God.

Bryant

[charles22]

33. Ok, thanks.

[Evoman]

30. Nobody is really subjective...

I won't bother discussing sects and religions or "paths"....its just superfluous bullshit, as far I'm concerned. The real meat of the issue is this: either god exists, or he does not. Period. Whether god is an energy, or whether Jesus is god, or whether god loves cats more than dogs, is not important, when you haven't proven, or given evidence for, that core issue.

People who believe in god like to make out that their subjective...and maybe on the little questions they are. But when it comes right down to it, you either think that atheists are wrong or right. By saying that atheists are "on a different path", your presupposing that God exists, and that we are finding him in a different way. You can't conceive that god does not exist.

On the core issue, nobody is subjective. On the little issues, you can be (but even then, not very many people REALLY are....if they didn't think their way was better in some way, then it would be very difficult to pick a path). The only reason atheists are not considered subjective is because we don't give a shit about the little issues...we're tackling the big one. We are starting from first base.

[bryant69]

34. Well some of those things that you lable the little questions

may not be the little questions from a Theists point of view. For example does God care about Orthodoxy (knowing the right stuff) or Orthopraxy (doing the right stuff). It's easy to concieve of a Theist concluding that an Atheist was a genuineling good person despite their lack of belief in God, and so in the long run they'd be OK for example.

Bryant

[Evoman]

35. Thats my point Bryant.

They are not little issues to theist, but they are to atheists. The biggest question, the most important question, is wether god exists at all. Once you pick yes or no, then you can start caring about all the other stuff.

Thats why atheists can't be subjective...because the question of gods existence is NOT subjective. And thats where we are stuck.

IF you were to ask theist the specific question, "Are you subjective about your own RELIGION", then you might as well leave atheists out of your post completely.

If you were to ask a theist the question, "Are you subjective about Gods existence or Reality", then we atheists can participate, but the answer would be automatically no, anyhow.

You get my drift?

[bryant69]

36. I get your drift, and It makes sense to me

But not all atheists see things the same way, so didn't want to shut that door. Some of the posts Az (who is an Atheist as near as I can tell) has made inspired this post as well, because my assumption had been what you just said. And then I read what he or she had written and it made me reconsider.

Bryant

[Az]

31. Nearly everyone will tend towards objective

See we all build internal structures of what we believe to be the world. This is our internal working model of the world. By nature we believe this to be a relatively accurate model of the world and thus believe it to be true. This is the very nature of belief. If we believe God to exist then we believe it is true in the world. If we do not believe God to exist then we believe that is true of the world.

Some of us may entertain the notion that we could be wrong.

I think where your issue strikes is in that the atheist position tends to be binary. That is there is or is not a god. But the theist position tends to be more mallable in that different notions of god are possibe. You cannot have multiple notions of no god. Its kind of an all or nothing thing. But it is very possible to think there is something out there but not be sure if you have the right idea of what it is. So from your position someone elses notion of god could be better than yours.

The thing to note of this is that the theist is still equally objective in opinion regarding the existance of god as the atheist is re the absense of god. Its just the specific sort of god is much more open for consideration.

[ulysses]

37. subjective. I think.

I do occasionally veer toward the "I don't know and you don't either" pov when pushed, but I'm usually open to the idea that this doesn't work for everyone.

[xchrom]

38. your poll reminds me that -- i think --

it wasn't until the 1800's -- along the lines of what we now think of dominionsim and other cults -- that christians didn't really belive in a ''personal god''.

that's a rather modern development.

liturgical christians lean more in that direction -- though of course are affected by the times thye live in.
but -- let's say prayer as an example -- those might be more general, all purpose prayers for the occassion -- dying, birthing, birthdays, etc.

[kiahzero]

39. Both

My personal view of the divine is certainly subjective, but I have a meta-narrative going on that I think reflects objective reality if such a thing exists.

[immoderate]

40. I'll agree with your supposition.

I think that atheists will generally think that what they sense will comport with reality (whatever that is.) And theists, at least those around here, will attest that their faith is personal, rather than dogmatic. I think that fundamentalists will think differently.

This is a losse correspondence though.

--IMM

[Danger Mouse]

41. Subjective.

Definitely. The whole 'I'm right you're wrong' thing isn't my bag.