Is God a Taoist?

[David Quinn]

Raymond Smullyan's classic article from 1980, Is God a Taoist?, is an interesting read. It explores the issue of free-will in a witty way. It's a touch nerdish, but not unbearably so.

-

[David Quinn]

This is a worrying statement, however:

God: What I am saying is that one who knows me for what I really am would simply find it psychologically impossible to hate me.

It suggests that Raymond Smullyan confines his understanding of God to an isolated compartment in his mind and blocks out the more terrible consequences of knowing God.

-

[David Quinn]

He starts to go off the rails towards the end. For example:

God: In the first place, I have never created any ready-made angels. All sentient beings ultimately approach the state which might be called "angelhood." But just as the race of human beings is in a certain stage of biologic evolution, so angels are simply the end result of a process of Cosmic Evolution. The only difference between the so-called saint and the so-called sinner is that the former is vastly older than the latter. Unfortunately it takes countless life cycles to learn what is perhaps the most important fact of the universe -- evil is simply painful. All the arguments of the moralists -- all the alleged reasons why people shouldn't commit evil acts -- simply pale into insignificance in light of the one basic truth that evil is suffering.

These kinds af assertions are entirely groundless. It is a case of Smullyan suddenly departing from his usual standards of rigorous logical reasoning and inserting, out of the blue, some emotionally-held beliefs.

-

[Matt Gregory]

Raymond Smullyan's classic article from 1980, Is God a Taoist?, is an interesting read.

Classic to who? I've never heard of him or the article.

This is a worrying statement, however:

God: What I am saying is that one who knows me for what I really am would simply find it psychologically impossible to hate me.

It suggests that Raymond Smullyan confines his understanding of God to an isolated compartment in his mind and blocks out the more terrible consequences of knowing God.

Why do we hate God? It doesn't seem logical. It seems more logical that we would hate particular circumstances than that we hate God.

.

[MKFaizi]

God: What I am saying is that one who knows me for what I really am would simply find it psychologically impossible to hate me.

Now, that's a crock.

Sounds more like something my mother would say than something God would say. Here is how my mother would say the same thing: "Wa'ell, Ah am going downstayahs and ah hate to leave you up heah ba yawsef."

Means -- you had better do as I say.

Beyond that, what does God know or care about psychology?

Eighties style New Age leftover bullshit written by an American Southern belle.

This is what I find so stimulating about the enlightened focus up here on the real forum.

Goddamned exciting.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Are you sure the title of that book isn't Is God a Southerner?

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Why do we hate God?

I cannot believe you could ask that question.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

angelhood.

Is it time to dumb this down to the Brothel now -- so that the idiots there can yak on about angels? You know how they are -- they'll talk about anything.

Not like Genius that is entirely focused on higher thought or enlightenment.

Send this stinker down to the Brothel.

Faizi

[Kelly Jones]

.

Why do we hate God? It doesn't seem logical. It seems more logical that we would hate particular circumstances than that we hate God.

It's not logical.

The ego = orienting to divisions, in the mistaken search to find itself in parts of the mind (desire, the other side of hate)

Logically, it cannot find itself in God. So it can only hate and reject what cannot answer that search.


-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is a worrying statement, however:

God: What I am saying is that one who knows me for what I really am would simply find it psychologically impossible to hate me.

It suggests that Raymond Smullyan confines his understanding of God to an isolated compartment in his mind and blocks out the more terrible consequences of knowing God.

-

To me it seems to be nothing but a sound logical statement by Smullyan. It might depend on how we define 'hate', I take it here to be a strong emotion that causes actions or thoughts of rejection. But 'knowing God for what he really is', in terms like 'Whole', 'Nature' or 'Eternity' would inhibit rejection of God. Rejecting 'everything' would also annihilate the rejection itself, unless you'd reject 'everything' minus the part that rejects, which can only arise out of a partial understanding of God; this leads to the conclusion it's impossible to hate God after knowing him and facing the consequences born out of that knowing.

Unfortunately it takes countless life cycles to learn what is perhaps the most important fact of the universe -- evil is simply painful (...)evil is suffering

In a sense suffering is part of all growth or change. Something always has to give. And that's the part that also suffers.

[sschaula]

God: What I am saying is that one who knows me for what I really am would simply find it psychologically impossible to hate me.

I think God was referring to the fact that the mortal would always rationally prefer what God had already done. The mortal cursed God for giving him his free will, yet came around after some reasoning to find that he would choose the same for another mortal. It became psychologically impossible to hate God.

[Matt Gregory]

I took it to mean that it's impossible to hate God in the same way that it's impossible to doubt that A=A. If you tried, you would lose God immediately and end up hating something else.

[Terry]

Beyond that, what does God know or care about psychology?

Eighties style New Age leftover bullshit written by an American Southern belle.

This is what I find so stimulating about the enlightened focus up here on the real forum.

Goddamned exciting.

Ha ha! It's absurd to think that some metaphysically supreme being out there would even care what *we* finite beings think. It's as if He suffers from an inferiority complex. If Smullyan's God exists, He'd have to be a sadistic psycho---no question. It reads like a Monty Python sketch only it made me nauseous.

Hell if God has a plan for me, he sure as fuck isn't making His plans clear.

[sschaula]

Matt, you may be right. I didn't have the patience to read more than 1/3 of it.

[David Quinn]

It's evident that some of you haven't bothered to read the article before being so critical of it. The author, Raymond Smullyman, doesn't really believe in God or angels. He is a taoist/atheist. Indeed, he constructed the dialogue to highlight some of the logical absurdities of theistic belief, not confirm them.

For example, here is the dialogue leading to the "angelhood" passage which I had quoted above:

God: We have gotten sidetracked as it is, and I would like to return to the question of what you believed my purpose to be in giving you free will. Your first idea of my giving you free will in order to test whether you merit salvation or not may appeal to many moralists, but the idea is quite hideous to me. You cannot think of any nicer reason -- any more humane reason -- why I gave you free will?

Mortal: Well now, I once asked this question of an Orthodox rabbi. He told me that the way we are constituted, it is simply not possible for us to enjoy salvation unless we feel we have earned it. And to earn it, we of course need free will.

God: That explanation is indeed much nicer than your former but still is far from correct. According to Orthodox Judaism, I created angels, and they have no free will. They are in actual sight of me and are so completely attracted by goodness that they never have even the slightest temptation toward evil. They really have no choice in the matter. Yet they are eternally happy even though they have never earned it. So if your rabbi's explanation were correct, why wouldn't I have simply created only angels rather than mortals?

Mortal: Beats me! Why didn't you?

God: Because the explanation is simply not correct. In the first place, I have never created any ready-made angels. All sentient beings ultimately approach the state which might be called "angelhood." But just as the race of human beings is in a certain stage of biologic evolution, so angels are simply the end result of a process of Cosmic Evolution. The only difference between the so-called saint and the so-called sinner is that the former is vastly older than the latter. Unfortunately it takes countless life cycles to learn what is perhaps the most important fact of the universe -- evil is simply painful. All the arguments of the moralists -- all the alleged reasons why people shouldn't commit evil acts -- simply pale into insignificance in light of the one basic truth that evil is suffering.

As you can see, his main interest is the amusing logical conundrums which are invariably generated by people's irrational religious beliefs. That being said, I think he goes off the rails in the last passage there.

-

[David Quinn]

Matt Gregory wrote:

DQ: Raymond Smullyan's classic article from 1980, Is God a Taoist?, is an interesting read.

MG: Classic to who? I've never heard of him or the article.

Classic to those who have read and appreciated it! Most probably nerdish types, humanists, Buddhists, Taoists, and other assorted intellectuals with axes to grind against the Christian religion. I remember the article receiving a bit of attention in the 80s.

I took it to mean that it's impossible to hate God in the same way that it's impossible to doubt that A=A. If you tried, you would lose God immediately and end up hating something else.

That's certainly true during the period of experiencing God directly. But at other times, when one isn't experiencing God directly, one can become hateful towards God for the terrible demands he makes.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

So what is the difference between God and Ultimate Reality?

To me, there is no difference.

I do not completely agree with any organized religion that I am aware of. In order to not be hypocritical, I chose to not become a member of a religion. Because many concepts of various religions are so similar, I am reasonably comfortable using the terminology interchangeably when working with people of various religions, but to help avoid misunderstanding I do disclose that I am not a member of any religion.

I believe that we are all like cells of the same body, the whole body being God and the cells including plants, animals (including humans), minerals, elements, and anything else that exists. I believe that reincarnation is usual but not mandatory. I believe there are ghosts and other ethereal entities, and communication with these beings is possible. I believe people do have psychic abilities, but not everyone who claims to be using psychic abilities actually is. Some are trying to defraud others; others are confused about the difference between psychic ability and imagination. Even those actually using psychic abilities can confuse ability with imagination at times. I am not sure whether or not humanity is ready for their psychic abilities yet. It takes a lot of compassion to still love someone who that person knows thinks ugly thoughts or does ugly things (although that would be an effective way of helping that person and everyone that person contacts), and it takes a brave person to face someone who can see every error in his or her history. I believe it is because of this unreadiness that true psychic abilities are generally suppressed. I also believe there is an evolution occurring in people’s willingness to be truthful, which is likely a related developmental step. A historical lack of truthfulness is what deteriorated religions from tools of wisdom to weapons of war. Weapons have evolved further than wisdom, and this fact has become the cattle-prod of civilization. What few of us recognize is that since we are all like cells of the same body, mankind is only prodding itself. The question is: will mankind prod itself to progress or prod itself to death?

[tooyi]

I saw a man upon the stair,
I looked again, he wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today;
Gee, I wish he'd go away.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Nice poem tooyi, but how do you interpret that it relates to the topic at hand?

[tooyi]

It is some old folk rhyme.

Sometimes a poem is just a poem. Sometimes it has the answers to all the questions you dare to ask.

...how do you interpret...

don't

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sometimes a poem is just a poem.

But if it were just a poem in this case, if you are logical, you would have posted it under its own thread. It is not logical to go around randomly posting poems on threads.

[tooyi]

It is not random but very much in context.

One could start talking about semantic spooks et. al. but that would already be like explaining a joke; There for a brief moment for anyone to take but already gone. Remaining are the wails of missed opportunities.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I suspected it was in context, which is why I attempted to elicit a more direct response. Now that we've beaten down your masked response, I'll repeat:

So what is the difference between God and Ultimate Reality?

I gave my answer. What's yours? That both God and Ultimate Reality are illusions that people get hung up on?