Someone asked on a blog discussion forum: "What are the attributes of God?" Needless to say, I joined the discussion, and the following is a partial attempt at an answer to the question.
To make sure that no-one misunderstands, I should just say that I'm not here arguing in favour of any religion over any other, and I'm not trying to evangelise or convert anyone. I'm treating the question NOT as a religious one, but as a philosophical one.
As usual, it starts with semantics.
The word "attribute" refers to a property or characteristic of an object. Many people would argue that the question is meaningless, since God is necessarily beyond all attributes. They would then refer to God by saying all the things that God is not. For example, God is not green, blue, red etc etc, and also God is not colourless and so on. The problem with this approach is that it's a bit negative, as it doesn't say what God actually is.
It seems logical to assume we can say (if God exists at all) that God is alive. Some would also say that God is love, although there is a problem with this, due to the slight double meaning of the verb "to be" which can be used to refer to an attribute, or to an identity. If it's the latter meaning, then you can also say "Love is God" which has far-reaching effects in terms of one's religious belief. Best I think to use the phrase with care.
The reason why it's necessary to try to avoid attributing any properties to God, is that these will impose a limitation on God, reducing God to the level of a created being. (Of course, it wouldn't actually reduce God, but would reduce our conception of God, or in other words, it would lead to the creation of an idol.) The important point is that God is free from all "earthly" limitations.
The interesting part of all this for me, is that the God who is followed by Christians, a very large proportion of the population (and many of them do not seem to be aware of this), chooses voluntarily to accept limitation, in order to share in the sufferings of humanity, by being born on earth in the form of a man, Jesus, an act which is being celebrated all over the world on this very day!
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
The Key Words of a Discussion
I participate in quite a lot of forum discussions, and I really enjoy them. People there have (I think) got used to me going on about having clear definitions of key words in the discussion. Anyway, I make no apology for doing this. I'm a philosopher (or anyway, a trainee philosopher) so it's what I do.
Let me explain to you what I mean about defining terms. Let's say you and I decide to have a discussion about oak trees. Now you know what an oak tree is, you have seen them before, you know a lot about them. Now, on the other hand, when I was very young, my parents took me to see an apple tree, and they said, "There, you see that? It's an oak tree." (I don't blame them for this, by the way, they didn't know any better.)
Now our discussion might go like this:
You: Ah the oak is the most majestic of trees!
Me: What? No, it's quite a small tree really.
You: No, you're quite mistaken, it's very tall.
Me: Oh well anyway, it's nice to have an oak in the garden. And the fruit is so good to eat.
You: What?? You actually eat acorns?
Me: Of course I do. Doesn't everyone?
You: No certainly not, what a disgusting idea!
Me: Well everyone I know eats them, they're delicious. You really should try them, you know.
You: Ugh, what a strange person you are. Nothing would induce me to try them! Acorns would make you ill.
Me: It's you that's strange! We make them into pies mmmmm! And there's a tasty drink you can make from them too.
You: Aaaargh!
And so on. Eventually, we might come to blows, or go off and form some armies and fight a war over this issue. Or we might realise we're talking about a different meaning of the key word of our discussion, and then we might start to agree.
You see what I mean? Often, people have discussions in which words like truth, beauty, goodness, knowledge, existence, proof, reality, God are used. These words are all highly charged with meaning and association. It's only to be expected that they will have different associations for different people. But people don't seem to take this into account, and they argue with each other. The arguments are often a waste of time and energy and stress, because, like the two people arguing about the oak tree, they are using the same word but meaning different things.
That's why I always want to have the important terms of the discussion clearly and exactly defined before joining the discussion. I think if everyone did that, then we could really get somewhere.
Let me explain to you what I mean about defining terms. Let's say you and I decide to have a discussion about oak trees. Now you know what an oak tree is, you have seen them before, you know a lot about them. Now, on the other hand, when I was very young, my parents took me to see an apple tree, and they said, "There, you see that? It's an oak tree." (I don't blame them for this, by the way, they didn't know any better.)
Now our discussion might go like this:
You: Ah the oak is the most majestic of trees!
Me: What? No, it's quite a small tree really.
You: No, you're quite mistaken, it's very tall.
Me: Oh well anyway, it's nice to have an oak in the garden. And the fruit is so good to eat.
You: What?? You actually eat acorns?
Me: Of course I do. Doesn't everyone?
You: No certainly not, what a disgusting idea!
Me: Well everyone I know eats them, they're delicious. You really should try them, you know.
You: Ugh, what a strange person you are. Nothing would induce me to try them! Acorns would make you ill.
Me: It's you that's strange! We make them into pies mmmmm! And there's a tasty drink you can make from them too.
You: Aaaargh!
And so on. Eventually, we might come to blows, or go off and form some armies and fight a war over this issue. Or we might realise we're talking about a different meaning of the key word of our discussion, and then we might start to agree.
You see what I mean? Often, people have discussions in which words like truth, beauty, goodness, knowledge, existence, proof, reality, God are used. These words are all highly charged with meaning and association. It's only to be expected that they will have different associations for different people. But people don't seem to take this into account, and they argue with each other. The arguments are often a waste of time and energy and stress, because, like the two people arguing about the oak tree, they are using the same word but meaning different things.
That's why I always want to have the important terms of the discussion clearly and exactly defined before joining the discussion. I think if everyone did that, then we could really get somewhere.
The Over-Heated Discussion
The following post is a reprint of a post of mine on BlogCatalog. It mentions a discussion thread "Does God Exist Or Not?", started by me, which had attracted a large number of replies and comments. One fine Sunday morning, we woke up to find the thread had been suddenly and summarily deleted! Needless to say, someone started a NEW thread to discuss the deletion, and the post below is my little contribution to the new discussion. Some might say that I'm being too apologetic, some might say I should apologize more, but I've tried to express my true feelings about it. Why have I made a copy of it on this blog? Maybe you can guess the answer...
It was me that started the thread in question.
First of all I'd like to make a sincere apology for any trouble that the thread has caused. It was never my intention for that to happen.
I started the thread originally just to advertize a little post on my blog, which was looking at an ancient argument of "proof" of the existence of God by St Anselm of Canterbury. Thus you could say that my motives were mixed! One, I wanted to encourage an academic discussion, and two, I wanted some visitors to a blog that was new.
Imagine my surprise when the thread got hundreds of comments! I did not realize before that the existence of God or not was a subject of so much controversy. I had thought it was a dry-as-dust academic point.
As to the posts that were "nasty", I don't know what those were really. One post said that the ontological argument was aleph null stupid, which didn't seem to be an entirely well-considered counter-argument, but as it was not a long way from the truth, it was OK, I thought. There did seem to be a lot of bantering between people who clearly knew each other, and were continuing conversations they'd already had. But if there were any personal attacks, I must have missed them, because I didn't see any.
I did, however, read some very well-written posts arguing for one side or the other, and it's a real shame to lose them like that. Maybe I'll get deleted for saying this, but I think it's a worrying feature of the internet that your work can be deleted instantly, without any chance of appeal, by someone who doesn't like what you've done or said.
One of my main interests is in the phenomenon of misinterpretations. This is when you say one thing, but the hearer interprets your words in a way you hadn't thought of, and so believes you've said something else entirely. It's one of the main themes of Shakespeare's Hamlet, by the way! I'm fascinated by how a quite heated discussion can arise from one of these little misunderstandings. This is why I think it's so important for everyone to do philosophy, which among other things stresses the need for a precise definition of each word before it is used in a discussion.
I say this because its possible that a post of mine may have been the cause of the deletion. If so, it's because I may have expressed myself badly and caused a misunderstanding. The thing is, the thread seemed to have gone dormant, with no replies for the previous 5 days, so I thought I'd add a little last word, where for the first time, I actually gave my own view on the question! This was purely for my own pleasure, as I didn't think anyone was interested in the thread anymore, and would never see it. There was no nastiness intended in that last post, but it's possible that, as I just said above, it might have been misinterpreted, I don't know.
I don't want people to be nasty to each other. I like to hear both sides of an argument, and it's a good thing when they are strongly felt, but I believe that people should respect their opponents and learn from them.
Anyway sorry guys.
The link to the new discussion is http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/there-are-threads-being-deleted-again-instead-of-just-being-locked
The post on this blog that I was trying to advertize was http://filosofia08uk.blogspot.com/2008/10/ontological-argument-for-existence-of.html
The irony in all this is that the original thread was about a philosophical question, not about religion as many people assumed.
It was me that started the thread in question.
First of all I'd like to make a sincere apology for any trouble that the thread has caused. It was never my intention for that to happen.
I started the thread originally just to advertize a little post on my blog, which was looking at an ancient argument of "proof" of the existence of God by St Anselm of Canterbury. Thus you could say that my motives were mixed! One, I wanted to encourage an academic discussion, and two, I wanted some visitors to a blog that was new.
Imagine my surprise when the thread got hundreds of comments! I did not realize before that the existence of God or not was a subject of so much controversy. I had thought it was a dry-as-dust academic point.
As to the posts that were "nasty", I don't know what those were really. One post said that the ontological argument was aleph null stupid, which didn't seem to be an entirely well-considered counter-argument, but as it was not a long way from the truth, it was OK, I thought. There did seem to be a lot of bantering between people who clearly knew each other, and were continuing conversations they'd already had. But if there were any personal attacks, I must have missed them, because I didn't see any.
I did, however, read some very well-written posts arguing for one side or the other, and it's a real shame to lose them like that. Maybe I'll get deleted for saying this, but I think it's a worrying feature of the internet that your work can be deleted instantly, without any chance of appeal, by someone who doesn't like what you've done or said.
One of my main interests is in the phenomenon of misinterpretations. This is when you say one thing, but the hearer interprets your words in a way you hadn't thought of, and so believes you've said something else entirely. It's one of the main themes of Shakespeare's Hamlet, by the way! I'm fascinated by how a quite heated discussion can arise from one of these little misunderstandings. This is why I think it's so important for everyone to do philosophy, which among other things stresses the need for a precise definition of each word before it is used in a discussion.
I say this because its possible that a post of mine may have been the cause of the deletion. If so, it's because I may have expressed myself badly and caused a misunderstanding. The thing is, the thread seemed to have gone dormant, with no replies for the previous 5 days, so I thought I'd add a little last word, where for the first time, I actually gave my own view on the question! This was purely for my own pleasure, as I didn't think anyone was interested in the thread anymore, and would never see it. There was no nastiness intended in that last post, but it's possible that, as I just said above, it might have been misinterpreted, I don't know.
I don't want people to be nasty to each other. I like to hear both sides of an argument, and it's a good thing when they are strongly felt, but I believe that people should respect their opponents and learn from them.
Anyway sorry guys.
The link to the new discussion is http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/there-are-threads-being-deleted-again-instead-of-just-being-locked
The post on this blog that I was trying to advertize was http://filosofia08uk.blogspot.com/2008/10/ontological-argument-for-existence-of.html
The irony in all this is that the original thread was about a philosophical question, not about religion as many people assumed.
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
This argument (the ontological argument) comes from St Anselm of Canterbury, who lived from 1033 to 1109. He said that the existence of God can be deduced from just the idea of God. Just because we can think about God proves that God exists. It goes like this:- By definition, God is that being greater than which none can be conceived.
- God can be conceived of as just a thought in your head, or as really existing.
- It is greater to exist than not to exist.
- Therefore, God must exist.
A monk whose name was Gaunilo replied to this by saying that you could use this to prove anything at all. For example, you could have the idea of a perfect pizza, "greater than which none can be conceived". Therefore such a pizza must exist, because if it did not it would be less great. As this is ridiculous, it shows that you cannot infer that something exists from the IDEA of its being perfect.
St Anselm replied that the ontological argument does not work for pizza (or anything else); it only works for God, as the relationship between God and perfection is a unique one.
Anselm distinguished here between "accidental" properties and "essential" properties. A pizza might or might not have the property of being the greatest conceivable pizza. It's an accidental property, not an essential one. But if God exists, then God must be by definition the greatest conceivable being. It is an essential property of God. But to actually BE the greatest conceivable being, God must exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)