Is anthropomorphising healthy?

[Bro Dave]

It is, of course perfectly natural for us to see reality by projecting upon it what we deem "reasonalbe". To do otherwise, would be insane. But, we can never address the root questions about what is "rational", because we are locked in by rules which we have decided to agree are logical and therefore rational. The universality of such logic must at least be called into question, if we are to be as objective as we are able. But that makes the scientific community uncomfortable, because they, like the religious community, feel the need to declare certainties. Well, sorry, but it is not possible in either case. I believe that our natural tendency to anthropomorphise God is actually healthy, if never accurate. The old grind that God created man in his image, and man has been returning the favor ever since, has the ring of truth. Philosophycally, it makes sense that as the "creatures" grow towards the perfection of their Creator, they project their highest concepts onto their image of as much of the Infinite One, as possible. That of course means this projection, being flawed from the start, must continuously be challanged and reconstructed as our perceptions grow.
Sadly, this necessary destruction and rebuilding process tears at the fabric of the visible part of the religious community. It creates very human, very flawed versions of what is meant to be a "perfect" deity. It is not that God is imperfect, only that our ability to protray perfection is doomed!
Science has gone through many similar itterations as its foundations have been destoryed, and rebuilt over the centruies. In fact, physics itself is under assault at this very moment!
Change is the normal condition of our world, and of us. Trying to claim certainty, therefore superiority by either the religious or scientific communities is just a reflection of how far we still have to go.

Bro Dave

[ST88]

It is, of course perfectly natural for us to see reality by projecting upon it what we deem "reasonalbe". To do otherwise, would be insane. But, we can never address the root questions about what is "rational", because we are locked in by rules which we have decided to agree are logical and therefore rational. The universality of such logic must at least be called into question, if we are to be as objective as we are able. But that makes the scientific community uncomfortable, because they, like the religious community, feel the need to declare certainties. Well, sorry, but it is not possible in either case. I believe that our natural tendency to anthropomorphise God is actually healthy, if never accurate. The old grind that God created man in his image, and man has been returning the favor ever since, has the ring of truth. Philosophycally, it makes sense that as the "creatures" grow towards the perfection of their Creator, they project their highest concepts onto their image of as much of the Infinite One, as possible. That of course means this projection, being flawed from the start, must continuously be challanged and reconstructed as our perceptions grow.
Sadly, this necessary destruction and rebuilding process tears at the fabric of the visible part of the religious community. It creates very human, very flawed versions of what is meant to be a "perfect" deity. It is not that God is imperfect, only that our ability to protray perfection is doomed!

Is Anthropomorphism healthy?

I think you make a good point about the way people think about God. But your thesis seems to be that as long as we are aware that anthropomorphizing God is always going to be wrong, it's OK to do so. I'm not sure where that gets us. What is the value of the exercise?

You also seem to be arguing that history represents a progression of thought about God towards some ideal that may or may not happen sometime in the future (but we're getting closer). But is it really OK to talk about such a progression when the primary philosophical line of reasoning that can be traced through written history largely leads away from religious thought?

[Bro Dave]

Is Anthropomorphism healthy?

I think you make a good point about the way people think about God. But your thesis seems to be that as long as we are aware that anthropomorphizing God is always going to be wrong, it's OK to do so. I'm not sure where that gets us. What is the value of the exercise?

God is INFINITE, and the only way to bridge this gap between the two extremes of the fininte and the infinite is from the bottom up. The process of slowly becoming perfect, even as God is perfect allows a natural eventual way of literally sharing God's presents.

You also seem to be arguing that history represents a progression of thought about God towards some ideal that may or may not happen sometime in the future (but we're getting closer). But is it really OK to talk about such a progression when the primary philosophical line of reasoning that can be traced through written history largely leads away from religious thought?

The use of "logic" in the material sense is simply incapable of ever describing God, to say nothing of actually revealing Him in any personal sense. Ultimately we will see an end to the apparent conflict between science and religion. They describe different aspects of reality, and can never be actual disagreement. When the non-physical brings its meaning and values to the physical, the dynamic is beauty and life itself.

Bro Dave

[Amphigorey]

You mean like if Buddha and Allah and Jesus were playing blackjack and Satan was dealing and had a six showing, who would be most likely to double down?

[AlAyeti]

Bro Dave,

Bravo.

Job heard the same thing. I bet he'd agree with you.

[LillSnopp]

The use of "logic" in the material sense is simply incapable of ever describing God, to say nothing of actually revealing Him in any personal sense. Ultimately we will see an end to the apparent conflict between science and religion. They describe different aspects of reality, and can never be actual disagreement. When the non-physical brings its meaning and values to the physical, the dynamic is beauty and life itself.

To discard Logic makes it perfectly clear that its not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you, as you would only refer to your faith. Ironically enought, you use your mind to have this faith, and yet, you dont question your thoughts about it, but you question logic, which is what humans base their reality on. Good luck with that.

[Bro Dave]

The use of "logic" in the material sense is simply incapable of ever describing God, to say nothing of actually revealing Him in any personal sense. Ultimately we will see an end to the apparent conflict between science and religion. They describe different aspects of reality, and can never be actual disagreement. When the non-physical brings its meaning and values to the physical, the dynamic is beauty and life itself.

To discard Logic makes it perfectly clear that its not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you, as you would only refer to your faith. Ironically enought, you use your mind to have this faith, and yet, you dont question your thoughts about it, but you question logic, which is what humans base their reality on. Good luck with that.

To declare that only what we call logic is capable of describing creation, is to limit your access to most of what exists. Logic is simply a tool we use to make sense of all the sensor inputs to our brains. It is a plattern recognition tool, and when used within our physical world as we have so far been able to sense it, it has worked well. However, even now, quantum physics seems to have crossed over the boundries of what is "logical", or even rational. We are effectively space microbes on a fleck of space dust somewhere on the extreme edge of our galaxy. Let's not get to puffed up over how knowledgeable we are, or to exclude eveything not yet experienced. Can you use logic to describe Love, life or beauty? If not, then you may want to reconsider your stance. Besides, tell me if it turned out you were illogical, how would you ever find that out???... What "tool" you would use to figure out that you were illogical?

Bro Dave