Religious language

[Kevin Solway]

K: You can think of cause and effect as the will of God.

D: Why?

K: It's a useful way to think of the relationship between cause and effect and the Totality.

D: How?

I find the expression more succinct, and more information-loaded, or suggestive of meaning than the alternatives.

For example, when you understand that "God" is the Totality of Nature, or "the All", and that all things happen through cause and effect, which is both the hand of God, and also the "will" of God (the determining force of the All), then you understand fully that all things happen exactly as they are determined to happen, and that there is no fighting against it. All things truly happen "God willing".

Wise people interpret the words "will of God" as cause and effect.

In my experience wise people interpret the meaning of words from the context in which they are used.

Sure. I should have said that wise people use the words "will of God" to mean cause and effect. And, generally speaking, they also interpret it that way when listening to other wise people.

It is my will that such words as these will perish with the religions and the religious.

I would like to eliminate foolish usages of words, rather than the words themselves. The main reason being that if we get rid of all words that are used in a foolish way, we won't have any words left!

[Ataraxia]

[
I would like to eliminate foolish usages of words, rather than the words themselves.

Well in my opinion a very good start would be to not use will and 'God/All' in the same sentence.

Inshallah.

'Will' is what animals ,or humans have,or do.It's an anthropomorphic concept.Assiging as something that the Totality 'does' is bastardizing English.

[Kevin Solway]

'Will' is what animals, or humans have, or do. It's an anthropomorphic concept.

I don't see a problem with it. It's just poetic language, as all language is.

For example, we might say that a fast moving vehicle "wants" to keep moving in a straight line. Nobody would imagine that the vehicle in question has a human desire to keep going in a straight line, would they?

Our language is full of figures of speech just like that.

[Kevin Solway]

I think it confuses a clear understanding of the aforementioned relationship. What misappropriation of the word will! This kind of poetry is dead.

What about when we say that a fast moving vehicle "wants" to keep moving in a straight line. Is that kind of poetry dead as well?

All of language is built upon such poetry.

I think it's just that you're not used to using the word "will" in that way, so it doesn't seem right to you.

"The will of God" is a perfect example of a foolish use of words. I've never heard it uttered by anyone wise

I think Jesus was wise, and I expect that he would have used such expressions. Christians have certainly given Jesus a bad name — to put it mildly — but when you understand exactly what he is driving at, then his wisdom is undeniable. Unfortunately Jesus's best teachings were excluded from the bible (eg, the gospel of Thomas), but those of his teachings that were included in the bible are not incompatible with his best teachings, when they are correctly understood.

For all the incredible foolishness to be found in religion, it is clear from some of their teachings that there were at some time in the distant past some relatively wise individuals (at least for Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism). In Buddhism and Hinduism, these relatively wise individuals seem to be even more common than in Christianity.

I suppose it becomes a matter of whether one wishes to be understood

But if you define, up front, that by "God" you mean the Totality of Nature, or "everything", or "the All", and that God is not a conscious being, then "the will of God" becomes a lot easier to understand, does it not?

[DHodges]

I think it's just that you're not used to using the word "will" in that way, so it doesn't seem right to you.

It doesn't seem right because it sure as hell looks like a deliberate misuse. The way you define God, it's obvious that it does not have "will." This is why you are accused of bait and switch tactics.

There is no reason to use 'poetic' language when you know it is misleading and will be misunderstood, and there is a simple and direct way of saying it. It smells really bad.

[Pye]

DHodges: It doesn't seem right because it sure as hell looks like a deliberate misuse. The way you define God, it's obvious that it does not have "will." This is why you are accused of bait and switch tactics.

There is no reason to use 'poetic' language when you know it is misleading and will be misunderstood, and there is a simple and direct way of saying it. It smells really bad.

Well said. But perhaps impossible for the messianic of mind to accomplish.

At the moment, I am getting higher clarity here from deja vu alone.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think it's just that you're not used to using the word "will" in that way, so it doesn't seem right to you.

It doesn't seem right because it sure as hell looks like a deliberate misuse. The way you define God, it's obvious that it does not have "will."

Will can only can mean inclination, really, in any sane context. And if it's so obvious when it comes to the context, that there's only inclination - the way things are caused to happen like a breaking wave which is willing to break and being willed by the tides - then what is the problem, Dave?

[brokenhead]

I think it's just that you're not used to using the word "will" in that way, so it doesn't seem right to you.

It doesn't seem right because it sure as hell looks like a deliberate misuse. The way you define God, it's obvious that it does not have "will." This is why you are accused of bait and switch tactics.

There is no reason to use 'poetic' language when you know it is misleading and will be misunderstood, and there is a simple and direct way of saying it. It smells really bad.

Hodges is correct on this one, IMO.

From OneLookDictionary: "Will - noun: the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention"

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ah yes, as David Quinn wrote: "...the bible of group-think, the dictionary"

Even so, the same dictionary also opts: "how a person wishes his or her possessions to be disposed of after death." And lets not forget "determination" and "inclination".

Since it was obvious, according to Dave that in the context it couldn't involve a conscious act, then perhaps it's kind of uhmm obvious to go with the meaning of plain cause and effect determination or inclination instead? Where is the misuse exactly?

It's like looking up suffering in a dictionary and then throw the book at Gautama when he opens his mouth. It's a sign of a mind made up not to listen seriously.

[brokenhead]

It's like looking up suffering in a dictionary and then throw the book at Gautama when he opens his mouth. It's a sign of a mind made up not to listen seriously.

Diebert. It's a sign of a mind made up not to automatically agree. A mind that would not confuse Gautama with David Quinn.

[Shahrazad]

Kevin,

I think Jesus was wise, and I expect that he would have used such expressions.

In hindsight, it didn't work out too well for Jesus, who ended up with a cult built around his misleading expressions.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's like looking up suffering in a dictionary and then throw the book at Gautama when he opens his mouth. It's a sign of a mind made up not to listen seriously.

Diebert. It's a sign of a mind made up not to automatically agree. A mind that would not confuse Gautama with David Quinn.

Disagree all you want but so far you have no more substance than a partial reading of a dictionary, appealing to its authority on a philosophy board of all places.

The larger point about Gautama was of course that when he speaks about suffering, he's not just talking about the run-of-the-mill meaning. That's obvious from the context. Since Quinn, like many others on this forum, is dealing with similar subject matters, the least you could do is not throw books but allow for a broader, deeper meaning of words that you might be used to so far.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What I find more interesting is the link with inclination, desire and the roots for the term suffering (also the ancient Chinese roots).

Nietzsche: "This world is the will to power"
Buddha: "Life is suffering"
Buddha: "Suffering is born from desire or craving"
Solway: "Man is born to trouble, as sparks fly upwards"

The world is willed and shaped through desire. But desire lies in ignorance, especially of cause and effect, as even when you think you desire, choose or want, you are determined to do so by ten thousands things. One of these things is likely to be ignorance of that very fact, multiplying any gravitation with a hundred times.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In hindsight, it didn't work out too well for Jesus, who ended up with a cult built around his misleading expressions.

Not in his lifetime, as far as the records tell. What happened with his expressions (assuming there was a 'he') is what always has happened and has to happen eventually to anything said on the topic. One could say the truth gets crucified, no matter how it's expressed. Perhaps Jesus accepted that and moved on nevertheless. I think the parable of the mustard seed and the other one of the sowing of seeds clearly shows understanding of how much against the tides this process works.

[Shahrazad]

Diebert,

Not in his lifetime, as far as the records tell.

No, but what's the difference? It happened soon enough.

What happened with his expressions (assuming there was a 'he') is what always has happened and has to happen eventually to anything said on the topic. One could say the truth gets crucified, no matter how it's expressed. Perhaps Jesus accepted that and moved on nevertheless.

So, people are going to distort truth no matter what we say, so we might as well aid them in this process by being intentionally misleading?

-

[DHodges]

Since it was obvious, according to Dave that in the context it couldn't involve a conscious act, then perhaps it's kind of uhmm obvious to go with the meaning of plain cause and effect determination or inclination instead? Where is the misuse exactly?

It's a misuse because it is very common for people to attribute will to God. It is a very common religious sentiment.

Using God with a capital G in this context is misleading because it is used as name for the Christian god, also known as Jehovah.

Using the exact same phrase a Christian would, but saying you mean something different by it? Sure.

[Dave Toast]

From OneLookDictionary: "Will - noun: the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention"

Am I missing something here?

Human will and universal will are exactly as free (capable of conscious choice, decision and intention) as eachother, i.e. not free, or figuratively speaking only.

A dictionary definition of human will would be exactly as figurative as would a dictionary definition of universal will.

What misappropriation of the word will!

That depends on what meaning of the word 'will' you think is more appropriate, the common useage or the truth of the matter. One might even argue that the truth of the matter is always appropriate, rendering the common useage the misappropriation.

Speaking philosophically, the truth of the matter is the more appropriate. And the truth of the matter is that human will and universal will are identical.

Pushing the common useage towards the truth of the matter facilitates understanding. Reappropriation of common misappropriations, or exploiting the concepts behind common misappropriations, are valid and powerful faclitators of understanding.

Wise people use the words cause and effect when speaking of cause and effect.

Not necessarily. Not if they're talking to someone who doesn't truly understand cause and effect, and its greater ramifications, for example. To do so would not be to express what they mean but to express what the other person understands - an exercise in futility. Wise people use whatever tools are appropriate for the task.

[Kevin Solway]

In hindsight, it didn't work out too well for Jesus, who ended up with a cult built around his misleading expressions.

I'm not sure to what extent that was his own fault. His best teachings, for example, were excluded from the bible. Human beings have a natural tendency to reject the seed and keep the chaff.

Do you remember "The life of Brian"?

Brian: "I'm not the Messiah. I'm not."

Crowd: "Only the Messiah would say he wasn't the Messiah!"

[Kevin Solway]

It's a misuse because it is very common for people to attribute will to God. It is a very common religious sentiment.

Using God with a capital G in this context is misleading because it is used as name for the Christian god, also known as Jehovah.

Using the exact same phrase a Christian would, but saying you mean something different by it? Sure.

Let's say that "creation science" gets to be taught in school science classes, and proves to be very popular. Over time, it is conceivable that what is known as "science", by the majority of people, is no more than a fundamentalist interpretion of the bible.

Then, if you look up "science" in the dictionary, it might say, "The literal word of God, as listed in the Bible."

Are you going to continue to use the word "science" as it was previously used, or are you going to let the fundamentalists steal the word from you?

That's the way I see it with the word "God". In my judgement the word has an original, wise meaning, but foolish people have attempted to steal the word away for their own foolish purposes.

[David Quinn]

Apart from any other consideration, the severe allergic reaction that people have towards religious words and poetic expression, and the rigidity of mind that this allergy engenders (as exhibited by some of the posters above), is sufficient reason for wise people to keep using them.

You can't hope to be free-thinkers if you keep creating barriers for yourselves.

-

[brokenhead]

Over time, it is conceivable that what is known as "science", by the majority of people, is no more than a fundamentalist interpretion of the bible.

Ah -ha! I knew it!

I knew there was something you were afraid of, Kevin. And that's just it. Well, don't worry. No one is going to tool around with grade school curricula. At least not here in the US.

Science and religion get along famously nowadays. It's only you philosophers who seem to be uncomfortable.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Using God with a capital G in this context is misleading because it is used as name for the Christian god, also known as Jehovah.

To you these various meanings of 'God' might look vastly different but from the perspective of people with a low degree of consciousness, there's hardly any difference. Actually their notion of 'God' is closest they might get to appreciate anything bigger, more transcendent than themselves and their little imaginary contrived worlds.

To use completely different terms like lets say Marklar or some complex poetic twist like Tao won't really improve the situation, really. They come with their own set of limitations and confusion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So, people are going to distort truth no matter what we say, so we might as well aid them in this process by being intentionally misleading?

It's already 'distorted' the moment it's being said actually and from there on it only gets worse most of the time. I guess there's always a listening, wisdom dissecting ear implied.

To abuse an old Zen saying: this stick hits you 30 times when you speak; this stick hits you 30 times when you don't.

[Ataraxia]

Apart from any other consideration, the severe allergic reaction that people have towards religious words and poetic expression, and the rigidity of mind that this allergy engenders (as exhibited by some of the posters above), is sufficient reason for wise people to keep using them.

You can't hope to be free-thinkers if you keep creating barriers for yourselves.

-

*shrug*

Philosophy is just another craft;language the tool of the trade. It seems to me if one would really strive to achieve the level of artisan then better to use the right tool for the right job.I think that was Nietzsche's real strength.

If one wants to convey the idea that the All is deterministic,then say that. Talk of "God's will" just muddies the waters.

However if the goal is to be a religious artisan then poetry is fine.But why would one want to be one of those?

Ataraxiaxxx

[DHodges]

Are you going to continue to use the word "science" as it was previously used, or are you going to let the fundamentalists steal the word from you?

Yes, actually, I would let them have it. I'm not on some crusade to protect the English language from change (which is impossible anyway). Fundamentalists do a rather large amount of stupid shit, and there are a hell of a lot of them. If they have corrupted a word to the point of uselessness, let it go.

Words are not that precious. It's easy enough to make up a new one, or add qualifiers to the word to make the meaning clear: real science, old school science, empirically verified science, secular science.

The religious use of "God" as a being is not new. It's been around for hundreds of years at least. The usage of "God" in the sense used by deism and pantheism and such (as all of reality) came along later. Religion had the word first. They are not corrupting it.