What do people mean when they say "God" ?

Scioch

I'm not talking about what the average Joe think they mean, because they are likely referring to a conscious all powerful being of some sort who's been meddling in our affairs.

But learned fellows who are intelligent enough not to give much credence to the nonsense peddled by the religious institutions over the years. They know this all stems from assumptions made in the age of ignorance. But yet they think there is something which they call god.

Are they referring to the universe itself ? Existence ? Energy ? Time ? OR is it just an easy term to refer to the unknown without admitting ignorance on the matter ?

robindch

Sounds like you're describing something like Deism. But what exactly do people mean when they say "God"? You'll have to ask them.

FWIW and IMHO, one of the neater Platonic ideas which christianity acquired was the notion that the principal deity was anonymous - something which makes it harder for individual believers to pin fixed attributes to the deity, hence easier for large groups to believe that they, as a individuals within the group, hold group-compliant beliefs concerning the deity.

Michael Nugent

It's generally flexible enough to mean whatever they need it to mean for the purpose of whatever conversation they are having.

Scioch

There must be some commonality to what they perceive to be god though surely ? Even if it can mean different things depending on the conversation it must all amount to something.

Take this guy for example (talks about god at the end 2-3 minutes), clearly intelligent and uses the word "God" but he cant seriously believe he's going to be dealing with an individual. Nobody can, they might just associate it with a biblical image or whatever but I cannot believe for a second they are naive to think an individual is going to interact with them when they die. So really, what are they referring to. In regards to that video its easy enough change the word god to "Universe" and "Myself" or "Loved ones" where applicable.

I take it Robinoch by what you're saying its difficult to pin attributes so therefore difficult to even understand what god is other than a name ? So does that mean in essence they are simply referring to the universe and chance by a different name ? They have no actual understanding of what god is or does or can be ? Excluding people who think he's a white bearded man sitting on a cloud of course.

Dades

Scioch wrote: »

But learned fellows who are intelligent enough not to give much credence to the nonsense peddled by the religious institutions over the years. They know this all stems from assumptions made in the age of ignorance. But yet they think there is something which they call god.

I don't think you can even have the word "god" in a conversation without someone assuming it's their god you're talking about.

I think, like the phrase "intelligent design", the word is now useless for all the baggage it carries.

robindch

Scioch wrote: »

I take it Robinoch by what you're saying its difficult to pin attributes so therefore difficult to even understand what god is other than a name?

No, I'm saying what Michael said -- an anonymous deity can "mean" or do whatever the believer wants, especially when the only agreed attributes are all abstract (like "being infinite", "full of love", "just" etc, etc).

Nothing that you can actually pin something onto. It's just a language game really.

Scioch

robindch wrote: »

No, I'm saying what Michael said -- an anonymous deity can "mean" or do whatever the believer wants, especially when the only agreed attributes are all abstract (like "being infinite", "full of love", "just" etc, etc).

Nothing that you can actually pin something onto. It's just a language game really.

Thats what I said really but as with other words in the language it has to represent something. For most people who say "There is a god" what are they actually saying exists ? And what in reality are they mistaking for a god ? If its not a man with a beard what is it ?

robindch

Scioch wrote: »

For most people who say "There is a god" what are they actually saying exists?

As above, I've absolutely no idea. Go ask somebody for whom that sentence makes sense

actuallylike

It gets me wondering as well. I watch as much as I can in relation to topics on moralism from an atheist point of view (Dillahunty, Harris, etc.) and I end up just wondering how can anyone rightly believe. So I tried listening to any prominent believers to balance it out but I can't find any. Any discussion just resorted to 'the proof's in the bible, etc. and falling into the Russell's teapot trap'. Does anyone have any links to a believer of high intellect that might change my mind because I can't help but leaning towards feeling that any believer is mentally unstable. I know that's a dickish thing to think and I say to myself to cop on every time I lean that way but it keeps coming back to me. Maybe that would be a good idea for a thread in A&A, an atheist's reasoned discussion for believing. Wasn't it Greek philosophers who used to debate each other on a topic then change sides after a set period of time?

Zombrex

Generally "God" has the property of being both responsible for creation and a reason/justification for why he did it.

It is basically assigning a human like explanation for why things exist. Things exist because God wanted X.

The concept of "god" makes far less sense if you assign god to mean a non-purposeful creation event, such as a random flux in an energy field.

The concept of "god" is a window into how humans think, we tend to believe things are made for a reason. "God" is simply a manifestation of that thinking when applied to the universe itself.

Put simply "god" is the agent possessing the notion of the purpose of why things exist.

SmilingLurker

From talking to most believers that I know I take their beliefs to be a vague deist/pantheist ideal. They don't want to question it too much, and generally they use various books as guidelines and stories rather than rules. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking with a touch of Pascal's wager going on. There is a lot of psychological "in-group" think, with a strong social desire to belong.

I don't understand that point of view myself (lack of evidence being the primary reason), but they are easier to deal with than people who insist their "holy" book is right.

Morag

Zombrex wrote: »

Generally "God" has the property of being both responsible for creation and a reason/justification for why he did it.

It is basically assigning a human like explanation for why things exist. Things exist because God wanted X.

The concept of "god" makes far less sense if you assign god to mean a non-purposeful creation event, such as a random flux in an energy field.

The concept of "god" is a window into how humans think, we tend to believe things are made for a reason. "God" is simply a manifestation of that thinking when applied to the universe itself.

Put simply "god" is the agent possessing the notion of the purpose of why things exist.

All of which is based on Judaic presumption, are other religions with gods who are not ascribed those purviews.

Zombrex

Sharrow wrote: »

All of which is based on Judaic presumption, are other religions with gods who are not ascribed those purviews.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "Judaic presumptions". The notion of a creator who created for a reason is hardly a Jewish notion, it is common across human cultures.

Or do you mean the notion of a single god? If so yes that is correct, many notions of god are actually notions of gods. But the basic premise is the same, a way of explaining the existence of the universe through the reasoning and actions of a powerful being or beings.

Greenmachine

Jolly fella with a white beard and a red coat.
Next !!!!!!

Scioch

Zombrex wrote: »

Generally "God" has the property of being both responsible for creation and a reason/justification for why he did it.

It is basically assigning a human like explanation for why things exist. Things exist because God wanted X.

The concept of "god" makes far less sense if you assign god to mean a non-purposeful creation event, such as a random flux in an energy field.

The concept of "god" is a window into how humans think, we tend to believe things are made for a reason. "God" is simply a manifestation of that thinking when applied to the universe itself.

Put simply "god" is the agent possessing the notion of the purpose of why things exist.

Strange the way that notion permeates history, constantly being pushed further and further away as science dispels the myths yet people are so reluctant to let go of it even when the primitive logic behind it has long since become redundant.

At this stage its been pushed so far I think those who look at it with any rationality at all simply use it as a label for "We dont know". Yet at the same time it ties them to the old "Faith" and with that comes notions of life after death. Is that all it is ? Desperate attempt to believe in immortality ? Which I suppose is an inherent characteristic of any life form. Rule no 1, dont die. Perhaps thats what god is, anything to avoid death.

Sorry, half thinking out loud there.

Zombrex

Scioch wrote: »

Strange the way that notion permeates history, constantly being pushed further and further away as science dispels the myths yet people are so reluctant to let go of it even when the primitive logic behind it has long since become redundant.

At this stage its been pushed so far I think those who look at it with any rationality at all simply use it as a label for "We dont know". Yet at the same time it ties them to the old "Faith" and with that comes notions of life after death. Is that all it is ? Desperate attempt to believe in immortality ? Which I suppose is an inherent characteristic of any life form. Rule no 1, dont die. Perhaps thats what god is, anything to avoid death.

Sorry, half thinking out loud there.

There has been quite a lot of fascinating researching into where these concepts come from.

The current understanding, as far as I know, is that humans evolved to process the natural world around them in terms of intelligent agents controlling nature behind the scenes because our brains are largely evolved in order to process human to human interactions and it is easier for our brains to co-opt this functionality when dealing with modeling the world around us rather than come up with completely different abilities in the brain to process the random and chaotic world around us.

So the same processes in our brains that allow us to conclude that Bill smashed up my car because I slept with his wife and I should be concerned because he might be coming over here to kill me also lead us to think that there was a large earthquake because God is angry with us, or the economy is in a mess because we didn't sacrifice all our virgins to Baal.

This research suggests why people turn to religion in times of hard ship and stress. It has been shown that when people feel that the world around them is out of control they revert to this agency way of thinking in order to help the brain process their situation. It is a lot easier mentally to transfer the reality of a chaotic world where lots of different things, some bad some good, are happening for many many different reasons into a mental narrative where bad things are happening to you because you didn't do A, B or C and supernatural agent X is annoyed at you because of this.

Or to put it more simply, "God is angry with America" is a lot easier for people to get a grasp on, mentally, than explaining all the different natural processes that conspired to cause the flooding of New Orleans.

Hotblack Desiato

God is a concept
by which we measure
our
pain
yeah.

Peregrinus

It's a good question, but is it not just as relevant to atheists as to beleivers? After all, it's very difficult to express or discuss atheism without using the word "god", and when an atheist uses that word he, too, must have some concept in mind.

EURATS

Any chance of a lend of a tenner? Towards da mortgage and all...

God is a system!

Scioch

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a good question, but is it not just as relevant to atheists as to beleivers? After all, it's very difficult to express or discuss atheism without using the word "god", and when an atheist uses that word he, too, must have some concept in mind.

Atheism is just a term for lack of belief in a higher being. You dont have to use the word atheism if you dont use the word god. Atheism without reference to god is called logic and reason.

I as an atheist cannot justify the question so it doesnt matter to me what the answer is. Its kinda why I'm asking here, I'm trying to understand what people think exists and rationalise that in my own mind into something I can label.

Doctor DooM

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a good question, but is it not just as relevant to atheists as to beleivers? After all, it's very difficult to express or discuss atheism without using the word "god", and when an atheist uses that word he, too, must have some concept in mind.

I guess it'd be something like "an indefinable, probably non existent supernatural entity the properties of which shift depending on the person using the terms belief".

So while I guess the word has a meaning for me, the meaning is completely ephemeral.

Peregrinus

The conventional definition of "atheist" is a person who lacks any belief in a god. The statement is meaningless if the word "God" has no meaning; hence anyone who identifies as an atheist must, I think, assign some meaning to the word.

Scioch, I think, assigns the meaning "higher being" to it, which is fair enough, but it does invite the question, "higher" in what sense? (We're presumably not talking spatial relationships here.)

Doctor dooM appears to suggest that the term is "indefinable", and at the same time to suggest that the meaning of the term is actually assigned to it by other people, i.e. believers decide for him the significance of his identification as an atheist (assuming he does identify as an atheist).

All of which suggests that the god in which atheists do not believe may be every bit as flexible as the god in which theists do believe.

Scioch

Peregrinus wrote: »

The conventional definition of "atheist" is a person who lacks any belief in a god. The statement is meaningless if the word "God" has no meaning; hence anyone who identifies as an atheist must, I think, assign some meaning to the word.

Scioch, I think, assigns the meaning "higher being" to it, which is fair enough, but it does invite the question, "higher" in what sense? (We're presumably not talking spatial relationships here.)

Doctor dooM appears to suggest that the term is "indefinable", and at the same time to suggest that the meaning of the term is actually assigned to it by other people, i.e. believers decide for him the significance of his identification as an atheist (assuming he does identify as an atheist).

All of which suggests that the god in which atheists do not believe may be every bit as flexible as the god in which theists do believe.

But if someone didnt use the word god or higher being I'd still find my opinion the same. I dont believe we have grounds to go beyond science for answers. I'm an atheist because of that not that because I'm an atheist if you get me.

So take away god and you're changing a lot of peoples views and beliefs and opinions. Mine remain unchanged so its not necessarily dependant on god.

I'm not sure I view it as a higher being, it just seems to be the default meaning of sorts. I know what I mean by higher, I mean outside the realm of human experiences and understanding. But I dont for a second think thats a rational theory. There cannot be any reason to conclude its a being at all.

So in trying to understand what people actual mean I'm wondering if what they call god is the conscious aspect of the stuff beyond our understanding (God = "I dont know, but someone surely did it") or is it anything and everything that we know exists (God = The universe itself, the laws that govern it, or even existence itself).

Doctor DooM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Doctor dooM appears to suggest that the term is "indefinable", and at the same time to suggest that the meaning of the term is actually assigned to it by other people, i.e. believers decide for him the significance of his identification as an atheist (assuming he does identify as an atheist).

All of which suggests that the god in which atheists do not believe may be every bit as flexible as the god in which theists do believe.

Yes, but only in the sense that the people who actually believe the word god represents an entity cannot give a standard definition for what it is. Perhaps it would be better to say that my definition would be a word used by people to represent whatever they want it to, and in that case it's entirely consistent on my part.

God is still the same thing to me always- an entity which doesn't appear to exist but other people assign values to with no apparent real world indicators why- and if someone wants to talk to me about this (and it occasionally happens) I always ask first what they mean when they say god.

Ironically, the question this thread asks too

nozzferrahhtoo

Scioch wrote: »

Take this guy for example (talks about god at the end 2-3 minutes), clearly intelligent and uses the word "God" but he cant seriously believe he's going to be dealing with an individual.

These days I think it is impossible to generalise what people mean by the term "god". I find more and more that the term is being diluted into nothingness. Many people as you pointed out merely use it as a place holder for our ignorance.

There is another forum I post on where a user called MysticPhD goes on and on about "god" but he tries to define the term in such a way as to mean nothing at all. Anyone he gets to accept the term however he will suddenly start telling them they also accept Jesus, the virgin birth and that the universe itself is conscious. Ask him anything about this "god" however and all you will get back is that "You just want to discuss the attributes of that the existence of which is undeniable" or some round about cop out.

So it seems people like that pretend the term does not mean much but will wheel in all kinds of attributes and claims in the back door once they get you to accept the term.

Deepak Chopra was in a public debate with Sam Harris once and near the very end of the debate suddenly moved the goal posts. While the entire debate was about "god" he suddenly said that what he meant all the time was actually "g.o.d." which to him means "Generational Organised Distribution" or something like that. Which I guess means the reason he so clearly lost that debate was that he was actually talking about something else all the time. Silly atheists for assuming he was on the same page and all that.

Still others try to dilute it to "God is love", "God is just the universe" and I have even just seen "God is." as if the speaker really thinks that is a standalone definition of god.

So I think all we can really do is each time we enter a conversation with a theist... find out what THEY actually mean by "god" because it seems these days what people mean by it is as individual as they are.

What do I personally mean by "god"? I mean "A non human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe" and the reason I fall into the "atheist" category is I see no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to think any such entity exists.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

The conventional definition of "atheist" is a person who lacks any belief in a god. The statement is meaningless if the word "God" has no meaning

Is this some sort of trick question? That if it is acknowledged that the word 'god' has a meaning, therefore it must exist? The word Yeti has a meaning, but I don't believe it exists.

What 'god' actually means would depend on which theist I was talking to at the time...

All of which suggests that the god in which atheists do not believe may be every bit as flexible as the god in which theists do believe.

Theists continue to out-do themselves coming up with new ideas of what god is. It's not as if my lack of belief in gods is going to change however more gods they come up with.

You must surely have seen this quote on this forum by now, it's a good one:

Stephen F. Roberts wrote:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

strobe

When I say 'God' what it usually means is that I just orgasmed or banged my little toe off of that sneaky vindictive mother****er of a coffee table in my sitting room.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Is this some sort of trick question? That if it is acknowledged that the word 'god' has a meaning, therefore it must exist? The word Yeti has a meaning, but I don't believe it exists.

No, not intended as a trick question at all. And, if it had been, the refutation you offer here would be entirely effective.

My point is simply that whatever definitional problems there are with the word “god” affect all discourse about god, whether it’s theist or atheist.

I think the only way to escape this is to say, in response to any god-question, something like “this question doesn’t interest me, and I have nothing to say about it”. Which (a) is undoubtedly an atheist position, and (b) seems to be a perfectly coherent and defensible one. But for someone whose atheism is any more fully articulated that that, I think they very early on run into exactly the same definitional problem that theists do.

For example, not to pick on Scioch in particular, but . . .

Scioch wrote: »

But if someone didn’t use the word god or higher being I'd still find my opinion the same. I dont believe we have grounds to go beyond science for answers. I'm an atheist because of that not that because I'm an atheist if you get me.

If I were to ask Scioch about his (her?) beliefs about justice, or dignity, or human liberty, or equality, or the nature of truth, or the music of [insert artiste of choice here], or the novels of Jane Austen, I doubt that his starting position would be that we have no grounds to go beyond science for answers to these questions. Once we move into philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, we’re plainly in a field where science (in the sense of the natural sciences) has a limited amount to contribute. But if Scioch’s instinct is to approach god-questions that way, the Scioch is implicitly assigning “god” to the category of things appropriately investigated through natural science. In other words, he’s working off a definition of “god” in which “god” is either a material entity, capable of empirical observation, or at most an entity sufficiently analogous to that as to be most appropriately investigated through science.

You can argue about that understanding of “god”; you can defend it; you can attack it. The point is that Scioch is operating from that understanding; Scioch’s atheism is not definition-free, as far as the meaning of “god’ goes. If Scioch’s atheism is critically scrutinized, he will have to defend his understanding of “god”.

(And of course he may be quite capable of doing so. I am not attacking Scioch or his atheism, or suggesting that it is incoherent or incomplete. Just that, as he presents it here, it does proceed from a particular understanding of “god”).

On edit: It occurs to me that there’s another atheist position which avoids the definition problem, and is coherent; something along the lines of “I have yet to be offered any understanding of ‘god’ which I am drawn to accept as real”.

That seems to me complete as it stands, and entirely reasonable and defensible. It could, of course, be explored more deeply; the speaker could discuss all the understandings of “god” that he has encountered, and explain his reasons for dismissing each of them. But that would make for a very long night, requiring very many glasses of wine.

Hotblack Desiato

'God' has as many meanings as there are theists.

I don't have to define the meaning of something I don't believe in. Just that I don't believe in that which does not have evidence.

Even Dawkins has said he would reconsider his position in the face of credible evidence. He is a scientist after all.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

If I were to ask Scioch about his (her?) beliefs about justice, or dignity, or human liberty, or equality, or the nature of truth, or the music of [insert artiste of choice here], or the novels of Jane Austen, I doubt that his starting position would be that we have no grounds to go beyond science for answers to these questions.

None of these questions require the existence or guidance of any supernatural being or force. If 'god' is not a supernatural being or force then what is god?

Once we move into philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, we’re plainly in a field where science (in the sense of the natural sciences) has a limited amount to contribute.

That doesn't mean rationality should go out the window.

But if Scioch’s instinct is to approach god-questions that way, the Scioch is implicitly assigning “god” to the category of things appropriately investigated through natural science. In other words, he’s working off a definition of “god” in which “god” is either a material entity, capable of empirical observation, or at most an entity sufficiently analogous to that as to be most appropriately investigated through science.

I can't speak for that poster.
AFAIC 'god(s)' is nothing except a human invention that makes them feel better, and that they legally and without my agreement inflict upon my kids

You can argue about that understanding of “god”; you can defend it; you can attack it. The point is that Scioch is operating from that understanding; Scioch’s atheism is not definition-free, as far as the meaning of “god’ goes. If Scioch’s atheism is critically scrutinized, he will have to defend his understanding of “god”.

Whiskey tango foxtrot over? It is sufficient to define god(s) as the theists who surround and harass us and our kids define that term. It doesn't mean for a picosecond we agree with it.

(And of course he may be quite capable of doing so. I am not attacking Scioch or his atheism, or suggesting that it is incoherent or incomplete. Just that, as he presents it here, it does proceed from a particular understanding of “god”).

Condescending, much?

On edit: It occurs to me that there’s another atheist position which avoids the definition problem, and is coherent; something along the lines of “I have yet to be offered any understanding of ‘god’ which I am drawn to accept as real”.

I suppose even a blind man wielding a hammer can hit the nail on the head every once in a while.

No atheist has been offered a definition of god which they can accept as real.

That seems to me complete as it stands, and entirely reasonable and defensible. It could, of course, be explored more deeply; the speaker could discuss all the understandings of “god” that he has encountered, and explain his reasons for dismissing each of them. But that would make for a very long night, requiring very many glasses of wine.

Why should we take the effort to dismiss what has been asserted with zero proof?