"Believe in . . ? or "Believe that . . ."

[realthinker]

What is the difference between these two statements:


"I believe in God."


"I believe that God exists

[Slopeshoulder]

Did you miss my often-posted essay in post 3?

No.

It just seems to me that belief here has a meaning in religion that it has in no other context.

You wouldn't say, "I believe in democracy" if you did not believe that democracy does or could exist. Or "I believe in love" or justice or chocolate with chilies.

But "I believe in God" according to you may mean, "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief." In other words, "I believe in God" does not mean I believe in God. But it means I hope that there is something, admittedly vague, that validates a belief in something equally vague, (a principle, an ideal or an approach to existence) that I call God.

Maybe I am not getting it, but your statement "I believe in God" seems to be as devoid of meaning as I anything can imagine. Don't take it personally, I find that when the likes of John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Greta Vosper and Tom Harpur argue against something, they are clear and understandable, but when they try to explain what they do believe, it is as clear as mud to me.

This is a fair criticism.

Yes, "Belief" is being used by some of us in a way that is specifically religious, and specifically new. There's nothing worng with that if we're honest about it. Many words have evolving or field-specific uses. It's all trying to use words to capture meaning anyway, and sometimes words have to stretch a bit. (That's what poetry is all about. It evokes more than it says.)

Re Armstrong et. al., perhaps they don't "believe" in anything, if that means to make propositional thruth claims that are out of bounds. Maybe you're asking them to do something they reject in principal while they work to change the game. After all, you wouldn't want them claiming to believe ridiculous unsupportable nonsense would you? Perhaps they are crafting a postmodern faith of a sort, one for which traditional existence claims are meaningless and empty, but for which orientation is everything, and considered meaningful by those who choose to particpate. Perhaps they are helping to birth something new. Or perhaps they are adept in the (sorry...wait for it..) mystical approach to religion which tends to be post-doctrinal, post-notional, and closer to the paradoxes of Zen, but in a Western context. (There's a book out there called (western) Mystics and Zen Masters, or something like that, maybe by Thomas Merton. Christian, dated, but maybe worth a look?). Otherwise, yeah, it's all mud from here.

[scourge99]

Did you miss my often-posted essay in post 3?

No.

It just seems to me that belief here has a meaning in religion that it has in no other context.

You wouldn't say, "I believe in democracy" if you did not believe that democracy does or could exist. Or "I believe in love" or justice or chocolate with chilies.

But "I believe in God" according to you may mean, "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief." In other words, "I believe in God" does not mean I believe in God. But it means I hope that there is something, admittedly vague, that validates a belief in something equally vague, (a principle, an ideal or an approach to existence) that I call God.

Maybe I am not getting it, but your statement "I believe in God" seems to be as devoid of meaning as I anything can imagine. Don't take it personally, I find that when the likes of John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Greta Vosper and Tom Harpur argue against something, they are clear and understandable, but when they try to explain what they do believe, it is as clear as mud to me.

Its relieving to know someone else has the same or a similiar criticism of what has been presented. Thanks.

[cnorman18]

Did you miss my often-posted essay in post 3?

No.

It just seems to me that belief here has a meaning in religion that it has in no other context.

You wouldn't say, "I believe in democracy" if you did not believe that democracy does or could exist. Or "I believe in love" or justice or chocolate with chilies.

On the other hand, all of those (well, with the exception of the last) suffer from the same problem of definition as does my conception, or more properly absence of conception, of God. Just as in those examples, one seeks something and believes in it without a totally clear idea of exactly what it is or should look like. Like whatever Justice's remark about pornography -- "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

But "I believe in God" according to you may mean, "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief." In other words, "I believe in God" does not mean I believe in God. But it means I hope that there is something, admittedly vague, that validates a belief in something equally vague, (a principle, an ideal or an approach to existence) that I call God.

Maybe I am not getting it, but your statement "I believe in God" seems to be as devoid of meaning as I anything can imagine. Don't take it personally, I find that when the likes of John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Greta Vosper and Tom Harpur argue against something, they are clear and understandable, but when they try to explain what they do believe, it is as clear as mud to me.

I don't take it personally, my friend. I know it's a peculiar kind of approach to these questions.

Perhaps it would help to remember the characteristic Jewish approach to Bible study; one thinks of these tales as if they were literally true, but with an awareness that the events probably did not actually happen as reported. I often think of God as if He were a personal God, an intelligent Entity who is actually listening when I speak to Him; but I am consciously aware that that is not necessarily so. I also note that in some contexts, I think of God as the principle of rationality or "making sense" that underlies all that is; or the Tillichian "Ground of all Being"; or the Universal Soul to which we all return like drops to the ocean. Often enough, I revert to the Kabbalistic idea of the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, the Unknowable. Depends on what I'm thinking or doing. All are useful in different contexts.

The key, to me, is the undefined aspect of my belief. I don't feel a need to pin down a single conception of God, which is fortunate, because I don't know how to obtain that information, or how I'd verify it if I could. I realize the solution that makes the most sense to YOU is just to dump the whole concept altogether, but that doesn't work for ME; and the way I'm doing it now isn't getting in my way of being a thoughtful, religious and reverent Jew. I don't know what's in the next guy's head when I'm davening (praying, sorta) in my synagogue on Friday night, either. He may have a that primitive, literalist view that we're all used to seeing -- or he might have something even farther out in his mind than I do. Doesn't much matter, if one is Jewish. We say the same words and honor the same heritage.

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

Does any of that help at all?

[Slopeshoulder]

Perhaps it would help to remember the characteristic Jewish approach to Bible study; one thinks of these tales as if they were literally true, but with an awareness that the events probably did not actually happen as reported. I often think of God as if He were a personal God, an intelligent Entity who is actually listening when I speak to Him; but I am consciously aware that that is not necessarily so. I also note that in some contexts, I think of God as the principle of rationality or "making sense" that underlies all that is; or the Tillichian "Ground of all Being"; or the Universal Soul to which we all return like drops to the ocean. Often enough, I revert to the Kabbalistic idea of the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, the Unknowable. Depends on what I'm thinking or doing. All are useful in different contexts.

The key, to me, is the undefined aspect of my belief. I don't feel a need to pin down a single conception of God, which is fortunate, because I don't know how to obtain that information, or how I'd verify it if I could. I realize the solution that makes the most sense to YOU is just to dump the whole concept altogether, but that doesn't work for ME; and the way I'm doing it now isn't getting in my way of being a thoughtful, religious and reverent Jew. I don't know what's in the next guy's head when I'm davening (praying, sorta) in my synagogue on Friday night, either. He may have a that primitive, literalist view that we're all used to seeing -- or he might have something even farther out in his mind than I do. Doesn't much matter, if one is Jewish. We say the same words and honor the same heritage.

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

Does any of that help at all?

Didya all hear what mama said?

I feel the same way, as a (sorta) Christian, word for word. I also feel that I should announce that Charles and I are getting married.

[cnorman18]

Perhaps it would help to remember the characteristic Jewish approach to Bible study; one thinks of these tales as if they were literally true, but with an awareness that the events probably did not actually happen as reported. I often think of God as if He were a personal God, an intelligent Entity who is actually listening when I speak to Him; but I am consciously aware that that is not necessarily so. I also note that in some contexts, I think of God as the principle of rationality or "making sense" that underlies all that is; or the Tillichian "Ground of all Being"; or the Universal Soul to which we all return like drops to the ocean. Often enough, I revert to the Kabbalistic idea of the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, the Unknowable. Depends on what I'm thinking or doing. All are useful in different contexts.

The key, to me, is the undefined aspect of my belief. I don't feel a need to pin down a single conception of God, which is fortunate, because I don't know how to obtain that information, or how I'd verify it if I could. I realize the solution that makes the most sense to YOU is just to dump the whole concept altogether, but that doesn't work for ME; and the way I'm doing it now isn't getting in my way of being a thoughtful, religious and reverent Jew. I don't know what's in the next guy's head when I'm davening (praying, sorta) in my synagogue on Friday night, either. He may have a that primitive, literalist view that we're all used to seeing -- or he might have something even farther out in his mind than I do. Doesn't much matter, if one is Jewish. We say the same words and honor the same heritage.

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

Does any of that help at all?

Didya all hear what mama said?

I feel the same way, as a (sorta) Christian, word for word. I also feel that I should announce that Charles and I are getting married.

Oh, behave. I've already got people asking me if I'm gay on another thread.

[bernee51]

Perhaps it would help to remember the characteristic Jewish approach to Bible study; one thinks of these tales as if they were literally true, but with an awareness that the events probably did not actually happen as reported.

And this is the differnece between spirituality and religion.

The problem we face is that a vast population believe and act as if the tales and invocations in their pa2ticular holy book are not just the truth but the only truth.

Many have evolved intellectually beyond the mythic but are firmly stuck in the mythic when it comes to spiritulity. Technologically evolved, with all the capabilites that brings, spiritually unevolved, with all the limitations that brings.

I often think of God as if He were a personal God, an intelligent Entity who is actually listening when I speak to Him; but I am consciously aware that that is not necessarily so.

And you are no doubt willing to accept that even if it is not the case (an extant god), it matters not to your experience of the divine.

Unfortunately, for those who 'believe in', this is an anathema

I also note that in some contexts, I think of God as the principle of rationality or "making sense" that underlies all that is; or the Tillichian "Ground of all Being"; or the Universal Soul to which we all return like drops to the ocean. Often enough, I revert to the Kabbalistic idea of the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, the Unknowable. Depends on what I'm thinking or doing. All are useful in different contexts.

I love the ocean metaphor.

And in order to 'taste the ocean' all that is needed is a drop.

The 'ground of all being' is in our DNA, in the atoms of which we are built.

The key, to me, is the undefined aspect of my belief. I don't feel a need to pin down a single conception of God, which is fortunate, because I don't know how to obtain that information, or how I'd verify it if I could. I realize the solution that makes the most sense to YOU is just to dump the whole concept altogether, but that doesn't work for ME;...

If the all we CAN experience is 'now', if we are the ocean, why the need (if it is indeed a need) for the Ein Sof

...and the way I'm doing it now isn't getting in my way of being a thoughtful, religious and reverent Jew. I don't know what's in the next guy's head when I'm davening (praying, sorta) in my synagogue on Friday night, either. He may have a that primitive, literalist view that we're all used to seeing -- or he might have something even farther out in his mind than I do. Doesn't much matter, if one is Jewish. We say the same words and honor the same heritage.

So, in effect, you are culturally Jewish, but spiritually....? What?

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

I see your approach being full of meaning...the 'confusion' you imply is perhaps from a lack of being able to provide a 'label'. The word 'integral' comes to mind.

Does any of that help at all?

Dialogue is invaluable.

[cnorman18]

Edited for, um, focus:

I often think of God as if He were a personal God, an intelligent Entity who is actually listening when I speak to Him; but I am consciously aware that that is not necessarily so.

And you are no doubt willing to accept that even if it is not the case (an extant god), it matters not to your experience of the divine.

Unfortunately, for those who 'believe in', this is an anathema.

True; but I don't claim an "experience of the divine." I am not a mystic. This is all cognitive and intellectually based, for me.

I have experienced transcendent states, but for me they were sterile, stagnant, and something less than fully human. A great "high," and far beyond words -- but words are what make us rational, intelligent, human. It was total immersion in the moment and total awareness, but that is an essentially animal state. Cognitive functioning is necessary for humans, to me. It was a nice place to visit, like sex, but in another direction. I wouldn't want to LIVE there.

I also note that in some contexts, I think of God as the principle of rationality or "making sense" that underlies all that is; or the Tillichian "Ground of all Being"; or the Universal Soul to which we all return like drops to the ocean. Often enough, I revert to the Kabbalistic idea of the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, the Unknowable. Depends on what I'm thinking or doing. All are useful in different contexts.

I love the ocean metaphor.

And in order to 'taste the ocean' all that is needed is a drop.

The 'ground of all being' is in our DNA, in the atoms of which we are built.

Okay, but in my head, rocks, e.g., are part of Being too, and they have no DNA. This isn't exactly pantheism or panentheism, either -- and in any case, it's only one of many viewpoints that I can and do adopt, without prejudice to any.

The key, to me, is the undefined aspect of my belief. I don't feel a need to pin down a single conception of God, which is fortunate, because I don't know how to obtain that information, or how I'd verify it if I could. I realize the solution that makes the most sense to YOU is just to dump the whole concept altogether, but that doesn't work for ME;...

If the all we CAN experience is 'now', if we are the ocean, why the need (if it is indeed a need) for the Ein Sof?

Good questions, I suppose -- but I don't know that any of the premises of them are true.

The Ein Sof isn't a matter of a concept that one needs -- it is the opposite of "concept," the negation of the possibility of a perspective. The Terra Incognita of the mind. If you understand that idea -- you don't understand it.

...and the way I'm doing it now isn't getting in my way of being a thoughtful, religious and reverent Jew. I don't know what's in the next guy's head when I'm davening (praying, sorta) in my synagogue on Friday night, either. He may have a that primitive, literalist view that we're all used to seeing -- or he might have something even farther out in his mind than I do. Doesn't much matter, if one is Jewish. We say the same words and honor the same heritage.

So, in effect, you are culturally Jewish, but spiritually....? What?

You misunderstand. ALL of these approaches and conceptions, or the absence of them, are part of the fabric and spectrum of Jewish belief. My understanding here is not unusual.

"Undefined" is rather more the rule than the exception; that's why it IS a formal teaching of Judaism, while any particular definition of God is not. "The only dogma of Judaism is that there is no dogma." That's straight from my rabbi, and it's not a Zen koan; it's just a fact. Theological doctrines about the nature of God are a non sequitur in Judaism.

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

I see your approach being full of meaning...the 'confusion' you imply is perhaps from a lack of being able to provide a 'label'. The word 'integral' comes to mind.

The only "confusion" in my case is on the part of those who try to categorize my approach or put my understanding of God in a box. I'M not confused at all.

[bernee51]

Edited for, um, focus:

I often think of God as if He were a personal God, an intelligent Entity who is actually listening when I speak to Him; but I am consciously aware that that is not necessarily so.

And you are no doubt willing to accept that even if it is not the case (an extant god), it matters not to your experience of the divine.

Unfortunately, for those who 'believe in', this is an anathema.

True; but I don't claim an "experience of the divine." I am not a mystic. This is all cognitive and intellectually based, for me.

That you express an opinion on the nature of god, i.e. it is ineffable, that "theological doctrines about the nature of God are a non sequitur in Judaism" is IMHO an "experience of the divine". An experience through cognition.

I have experienced transcendent states, but for me they were sterile, stagnant, and something less than fully human. A great "high," and far beyond words -- but words are what make us rational, intelligent, human. It was total immersion in the moment and total awareness, but that is an essentially animal state.

That is exactly it - I see them more as the essence of being - to which the human experience is appended. A "spiritual being having a human experience". A salmon is more "spirtually complete" than you or I.

Cognitive functioning is necessary for humans, to me. It was a nice place to visit, like sex, but in another direction. I wouldn't want to LIVE there.

I could not agree more. Living thre is not an option, however, bringing the awareness of the 'nature of being' into my daily excursions of life is soemthing I work towards. The liberation of the universe from the limtation of my ego.

I love the ocean metaphor.

And in order to 'taste the ocean' all that is needed is a drop.

The 'ground of all being' is in our DNA, in the atoms of which we are built.

Okay, but in my head, rocks, e.g., are part of Being too, and they have no DNA. This isn't exactly pantheism or panentheism, either -- and in any case, it's only one of many viewpoints that I can and do adopt, without prejudice to any.

With you 100%

The key, to me, is the undefined aspect of my belief. I don't feel a need to pin down a single conception of God, which is fortunate, because I don't know how to obtain that information, or how I'd verify it if I could. I realize the solution that makes the most sense to YOU is just to dump the whole concept altogether, but that doesn't work for ME;...

If the all we CAN experience is 'now', if we are the ocean, why the need (if it is indeed a need) for the Ein Sof?

Good questions, I suppose -- but I don't know that any of the premises of them are true.

Anything that is not 'now' is memory or prehesion.

The Ein Sof isn't a matter of a concept that one needs -- it is the opposite of "concept," the negation of the possibility of a perspective. The Terra Incognita of the mind. If you understand that idea -- you don't understand it.

neti, neti.

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

I see your approach being full of meaning...the 'confusion' you imply is perhaps from a lack of being able to provide a 'label'. The word 'integral' comes to mind.

The only "confusion" in my case is on the part of those who try to categorize my approach or put my understanding of God in a box. I'M not confused at all.

I was responding to your "it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once". Perhaps my choice of the word 'confusion' was confusing. I understand from your many posts on the topic that you are seem quite clear as to your religo-spiritual position.

[cnorman18]

I was going to PM this, then decided that there might be others here who would know what I'm talking about.

Edited for, um, focus:

I often think of God as if He were a personal God, an intelligent Entity who is actually listening when I speak to Him; but I am consciously aware that that is not necessarily so.

And you are no doubt willing to accept that even if it is not the case (an extant god), it matters not to your experience of the divine.

Unfortunately, for those who 'believe in', this is an anathema.

True; but I don't claim an "experience of the divine." I am not a mystic. This is all cognitive and intellectually based, for me.

That you express an opinion on the nature of god, i.e. it is ineffable, that "theological doctrines about the nature of God are a non sequitur in Judaism" is IMHO an "experience of the divine". An experience through cognition.

Okay, then I'm with you. I guess I should have divined that before.

I have experienced transcendent states, but for me they were sterile, stagnant, and something less than fully human. A great "high," and far beyond words -- but words are what make us rational, intelligent, human. It was total immersion in the moment and total awareness, but that is an essentially animal state.

That is exactly it - I see them more as the essence of being - to which the human experience is appended. A "spiritual being having a human experience". A salmon is more "spirtually complete" than you or I.

I don't know about "spiritually complete," but properly prepared, they're a delicious experience.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. There are keys to wisdom, and there are also lox...

Cognitive functioning is necessary for humans, to me. It was a nice place to visit, like sex, but in another direction. I wouldn't want to LIVE there.

I could not agree more. Living thre is not an option, however, bringing the awareness of the 'nature of being' into my daily excursions of life is soemthing I work towards. The liberation of the universe from the limtation of my ego.

Have you ever read Krishnamurti? He wrote (or said) that if there were such a thing as "enlightenment," it ought not take 20 years of working toward it; one ought to be able to step into in in a single moment. I can tell you from experience that he was right.

In brief, here's what I learned: that which we call the "ego" or the "self" does not exist, but consists only of the intersection of memory and the present moment, which is both infinite and eternal. But there IS a true self beyond or above that; when one is watching one's thoughts, it is that which watches -- and it is profoundly connected to, or a part of, or one with, everything. There is, of course, much more which is not expressible in language.

If this were a recipe, I would now say, "BAM!"

I love the ocean metaphor.

And in order to 'taste the ocean' all that is needed is a drop.

The 'ground of all being' is in our DNA, in the atoms of which we are built.

Okay, but in my head, rocks, e.g., are part of Being too, and they have no DNA. This isn't exactly pantheism or panentheism, either -- and in any case, it's only one of many viewpoints that I can and do adopt, without prejudice to any.

With you 100%

The ocean is not the drop, and the drop is not the ocean; but superstring theory applies. Particles on opposite sides of the universe are not only connected -- they are the same particle, and change in one results in instantaneous and simultaneous change in the other. We are at once separate and the same, and the whole, aka "God," is at once profoundly known and profoundly unknowable. Silent, because there is nothing that needs to be said.

The key, to me, is the undefined aspect of my belief. I don't feel a need to pin down a single conception of God, which is fortunate, because I don't know how to obtain that information, or how I'd verify it if I could. I realize the solution that makes the most sense to YOU is just to dump the whole concept altogether, but that doesn't work for ME;...

If the all we CAN experience is 'now', if we are the ocean, why the need (if it is indeed a need) for the Ein Sof?

Good questions, I suppose -- but I don't know that any of the premises of them are true.

Anything that is not 'now' is memory or prehesion.

In the satori state, that is true; but it is precisely the virtue, as well as the drawback, of normal consciousness that we can move outside the "now" and access the past and the future through verbal and visual thought and imagination. We experience all that in the now, but the now is not the object of it. That is what makes creativity possible. Enlightenment is a wonderful source of insight into the nature of reality and existence, but you have to leave it in order to DO anything, including actually THINK about it. That's my take, anyway.

The Ein Sof isn't a matter of a concept that one needs -- it is the opposite of "concept," the negation of the possibility of a perspective. The Terra Incognita of the mind. If you understand that idea -- you don't understand it.

neti, neti.

I'll freely admit that you lost me with that.

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

I see your approach being full of meaning...the 'confusion' you imply is perhaps from a lack of being able to provide a 'label'. The word 'integral' comes to mind.

The only "confusion" in my case is on the part of those who try to categorize my approach or put my understanding of God in a box. I'M not confused at all.

I was responding to your "it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once". Perhaps my choice of the word 'confusion' was confusing. I understand from your many posts on the topic that you are seem quite clear as to your religo-spiritual position.

Yeah. I like "integral" better.

Now that I know what love is, I feel more centered than I've ever been. Rather remarkable, really. And I don't claim to understand love, either. I'm feeling things I've never felt before, don't BEGIN to understand, am totally unable to analyze or comprehend, and I don't much care. Analysis isn't necessary. Again: Silent, because nothing needs to be said.

Wisest words I've ever heard in my life:

"Don't push the river. It flows by itself."

[McCulloch]

One might say that not only is my approach not without meaning, from my point of view -- it has more meanings than I can hold in my head all at once.

Does any of that help at all?

Maybe.
Perhaps I'll just stick with what I do understand. Chillies and chocolate. Or that which I kind of understand around the edges, justice and democracy.