You're viewing a single thread.
I have a more complicated answer these days than I used to... the short answer is "no," but the caveats make it longer.
I don't believe in a god in the sense of an all knowing human type being that has thoughts and wishes and passes down commandments -- basically, not the religious kind of God.
At the same time, I appreciate a lot of the Jewish traditions I grew up with, and Judaism has a lot more lassitude around what "God" means to you. To me, it's Baruch Spinoza's conception of God ... basically, just "the universe," of which each person is an integral part.
So in a "college freshman on acid feeling one with the universe," kind of way, sure I believe in God. In a, "He got upset I masturbated way," then no, not at all.
Yeah, in a "God is the fundamental aspect of humanity" (whatever you decide that is, but often described as love or something similar), sure. That isn't what people normally refer to, nor does it actually really mean anything at all. If I call an apple a rock, does that really mean anything? Sure, it can be my understanding of it and it isn't wrong, but it also isn't useful. It's potentially worse than useful and actively confusing.
It's potentially worse than useful and actively confusing.
Welcome to philosophy! I'd recommend reading Spinoza, he lays it out very intelligently.
It's simultaneously a way of disproving the existence of God (he was kicked out of his Jewish community and hounded around Europe by the Catholics for his atheism), and a way of replacing it with the concept of the infinite / of the universe. Lends itself to meditation and contemplation, but not to any kind of religious dogma.
BTW, the concept has nothing to do with love, or the fundamental aspect of humanity, etc. It's just infinite extension, which encompasses every aspect of humanity, and of everything else.
I'm aware. I was giving another example that has been used by other philosophers, but I can't remember who off the top of my head. It just doesn't seem useful to me. It seems more like a way to continue using the word for nostalgic reasons but without the meaning we know the word to have. It isn't wrong by any means, it just muddies the water of what is being discussed.
God is pretty much universally known to refer to a being. Using it to refer to a non-being, to me, seems to be a purposeful attempt to not have to accept the challenges to the concept but continue on with what you believed anyway.
It isn't wrong by any means, it just muddies the water of what is being discussed.
The "nature of God" was never clear water to begin with. It certainly muddies it versus the traditional Christian definition, but that is one paradigm out of literally thousands.
God is pretty much universally known to refer to a being.
Not really, unless by "being" you mean "thing that exists."
Using it to refer to a non-being, to me, seems to be a purposeful attempt to not have to accept the challenges to the concept but continue on with what you believed anyway.
It's a redefinition of the concept. Spinoza's approach takes the elements of the nature of God that are agreed to by Christians and Jews, and demonstrates their incompatibility with "bearded dude in the sky"; that's the point of the language, and I like it.