"A History of God"

[Gracchus]

Has anyone read "A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam", by Karen Armstrong?

It would make for an interesting discussion, but, as a matter of simple courtesy, please state whether or not you have read it before you post.

 

[Resha Caner]

I haven't read it, basically because I didn't expect it to be different than any other humanist take on religious history. But I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

 

[ranunculus]

Didn't read it but I did watch this well put together video about A History of God.

3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) - YouTube

 

[Gracchus]

Didn't read it but I did watch this well put together video about A History of God.

3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) - YouTube

Very good video, I agree, but ... he did quit reading the book partway through. The point Armstrong tries to make is that "God" could be the intellectual deity apprehended by the philosophers or the the emotionally manifested deity of the evangelicals, or again, the unknowable ground of being experienced by the mystics. These don't exclude one another. One size fits all, because it is adjustable. It can be restyled to taste. We only run into trouble when some people say everyone must believe the same. It is generally the fanatics and simpletons who think there is only one way to see things.

We may start off by reading simple stories in the first grade, and those are appropriate to first graders, but by the time we get to college we have, it is to be hoped but not expected, outgrown those stories. Just so, as children we are shown a simple "God" but as we grow older and have varied experiences our concept of what "God" is will change too. If it doesn't we are stuck with the theological equivalent of "Dick and Jane" and "Goldilocks". (I hold mathematics to be the only reasonable language of theology.)

But even if we eliminate the word "God" from our thinking, because it makes us (or our peers) uncomfortable, we fill that gap with other concepts, perhaps more profound than the incoherent mish-mash that is the "God" of the Bible. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all contain many viewpoints and like the blind men and the elephant they all may be partly right and partly wrong, and certainly incomplete. But the elephant is real, even if it is poorly understood and innately incomprehensible.

Richard Feynman said that anyone who thinks that they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand quantum mechanics. In the same way, anyone who claims to understand God, doesn't understand God. Reality is a tough teacher. The concept of God is a real tool for managing the world, a Swiss Army knife that has many uses, for many different people from morons to geniuses. (Kind of like the Doctor's sonic screwdriver.)

We can, like Einstein, be overawed by reality, and our own ability to comprehend parts of it, just as we may be carried away by music or poetry or dance. It's all part of one thing. We can call it for convenience, God. Our minds like to separate things out, to define things. But we can use many different criteria to set the definitions that divide up the same reality. Some times our definitions overlap, and when we talk among our selves we find that the same words can mean very different things to different people, or even to the same people at different times.

For example we can divide a circle into three parts (a) with two parallel lines, or (b) with with three nonparallel rays radiating from the some point in the circle. The whole set of points that is the circle is covered, but the way we divide it up is quite different. So when person using method (a) names his three parts and the person who uses method (b) adopts those names and they try to have a discussion they fall into confusion and acrimonious disagreement. And we can easily confuse even ourselves if we don't realize that we are really using both methods, or divide our circle with multiply intersecting intersecting complex curves. It would be clearer if I used set theory but some people don't understand even simple math.

I call myself Buddhist, but that does not mean that I am a polytheist, a monotheist, or even an atheist. I am none of those things. I am not separate from any part of what is real. Science tells me that I am a dynamic changing pattern in reality, an electro-magnetic harmony, a puff of dust in the wind, depending on how you look at it, but I am aware of myself, and the world around me. And that, I maintain, is the "image and likeness" of God. (But not God, just an image.)

And as I am, so are you.

I am not offended if you see things differently. I would be surprised if you didn't. That doesn't mean that you can't be absolutely and completely wrong.

 

[Paradoxum]

Didn't read it but I did watch this well put together video about A History of God.

3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) - YouTube

I've also been watching this series. Sadly he hasn't made any in a while.

We may start off by reading simple stories in the first grade, and those are appropriate to first graders, but by the time we get to college we have, it is to be hoped but not expected, outgrown those stories. Just so, as children we are shown a simple "God" but as we grow older and have varied experiences our concept of what "God" is will change too. If it doesn't we are stuck with the theological equivalent of "Dick and Jane" and "Goldilocks". (I hold mathematics to be the only reasonable language of theology.)

Makes sense. What do you mean by mathematics being the language of theology?

I haven't read the book by the way.

But even if we eliminate the word "God" from our thinking, because it makes us (or our peers) uncomfortable, we fill that gap with other concepts, perhaps more profound than the incoherent mish-mash that is the "God" of the Bible. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all contain many viewpoints and like the blind men and the elephant they all may be partly right and partly wrong, and certainly incomplete. But the elephant is real, even if it is poorly understood and innately incomprehensible.

How do you know the elephant is real? Couldn't they be touching various different objects, but call them the same thing?

'Where did we come from', 'The meaning of life', 'Morality', 'Religious experience', 'What happens when we die', could all be different things that are mashed together into the idea of God.

For example we can divide a circle into three parts (a) with two parallel lines, or (b) with with three nonparallel rays radiating from the some point in the circle. The whole set of points that is the circle is covered, but the way we divide it up is quite different. So when person using method (a) names his three parts and the person who uses method (b) adopts those names and they try to have a discussion they fall into confusion and acrimonious disagreement. And we can easily confuse even ourselves if we don't realize that we are really using both methods, or divide our circle with multiply intersecting intersecting complex curves. It would be clearer if I used set theory but some people don't understand even simple math.

Makes sense.

I call myself Buddhist, but that does not mean that I am a polytheist, a monotheist, or even an atheist. I am none of those things. I am not separate from any part of what is real. Science tells me that I am a dynamic changing pattern in reality, an electro-magnetic harmony, a puff of dust in the wind, depending on how you look at it, but I am aware of myself, and the world around me. And that, I maintain, is the "image and likeness" of God. (But not God, just an image.)

So do you believe in a divine intelligent creator or not?

 

[Gracchus]

What do you mean by mathematics being the language of theology?

Mathematics is subject to proof. We can make it as exact as we please.

Consider set theory: Let "A" be the set with elements a(r) with -infinity < r < +infinity where r is a real number.
Now consider the possible subsets of A.
We might define a unit, "U(r)" as any subset such that the unit contains every point bounded by r- .5 and r+ .5 but excluding the boundaries. thus r- .5< U(r) < r+ .5. If we assume that no unit contains any element of another unit then the number of units is equal to the number of integers, while the number of elements is equal to the number of reals. Now if someone else defines a unit "U(n)" as n -1 < U(n) <n + 1 where n is an integer then we are still have the same number of units but we are really discussing two different subsets.
Or consider the mandelbrot set where the part contains the whole in infinite regression. And we are still talking about the same damned numbers, but emphasing and ignoring as we find pleasing or convenient. If we are talking about different things we are calling by the same name, it is no wonder we fall into confusion and dispute.

And with words, even carefully defined, there are emotional attachments, associations we may be barely conscious of that may differ from one person to the next. The word "father" might be very well defined but one person associates "father" with his dear old dad and another associates the word with a drunken abusive brute. One man's sublime poetry is another man's dreck.

I haven't read the book by the way.

So many books, so little time...

How do you know the elephant is real? Couldn't they be touching various different objects, but call them the same thing?

I take it you haven't read the poem either. In this case they all touched the same elephant, but one touched the tail, one touched the leg, one the ear, one the tusk and one the trunk. Lets concede that they agreed on the smell, and they all heard his gut rumbles, but fell into dispute over whether the elephant was like a rope, a tree, a wall, a fan, a spear or a snake. And their various followers, who had not experienced the elephant at all, said that the elephant was a rope, a tree, a wall, a fan a tree, a spear, or a snake, and started killing each other over these different received dogmas.

'Where did we come from', 'The meaning of life', 'Morality', 'Religious experience', 'What happens when we die', could all be different things that are mashed together into the idea of God.

All of those things are concepts we hold about aspects, patterns, subsets of the one reality. We divide the circle one way and we talk about religion, we divide the circle another way and we talk philosophy, still another way is psychology, still another way is sociology, and then we mix up the words from all those different ways of dividing the one circle and grow confused. It is one reality, but we all experience different parts of it, and interpret it differently than others do, or even experience it differently one day than we do another.

So do you believe in a divine intelligent creator or not?

"Divine" is a word that does not arise in any useful (to me) context. "Intelligent" is a matter of perspective and emphasis. And "creator" is the application of the word where we cannot be sure it applies. Patterns arise and change. We may discover how, but we cannot, in this case at least, demonstrate purpose.

 

[ranunculus]

"Divine" is a word that does not arise in any useful (to me) context. "Intelligent" is a matter of perspective and emphasis. And "creator" is the application of the word where we cannot be sure it applies. Patterns arise and change. We may discover how, but we cannot, in this case at least, demonstrate purpose.

So that's a no then? Welcome to the atheist club.


But going back to Armstrong. Is she a fringe historian? or is there some consensus about Judaism starting with polytheistic roots, YHWH starting as the god of war and all that?

 

[Paradoxum]

Mathematics is subject to proof. We can make it as exact as we please.

Consider set theory: Let "A" be the set with elements a(r) with -infinity < r < +infinity where r is a real number.
Now consider the possible subsets of A.
We might define a unit, "U(r)" as any subset such that the unit contains every point bounded by r- .5 and r+ .5 but excluding the boundaries. thus r- .5< U(r) < r+ .5. If we assume that no unit contains any element of another unit then the number of units is equal to the number of integers, while the number of elements is equal to the number of reals. Now if someone else defines a unit "U(n)" as n -1 < U(n) <n + 1 where n is an integer then we are still have the same number of units but we are really discussing two different subsets.
Or consider the mandelbrot set where the part contains the whole in infinite regression. And we are still talking about the same damned numbers, but emphasing and ignoring as we find pleasing or convenient. If we are talking about different things we are calling by the same name, it is no wonder we fall into confusion and dispute.

I really don't understand the maths you just tried to explain to me. Both don't try to again.

And with words, even carefully defined, there are emotional attachments, associations we may be barely conscious of that may differ from one person to the next. The word "father" might be very well defined but one person associates "father" with his dear old dad and another associates the word with a drunken abusive brute. One man's sublime poetry is another man's dreck.

I agree.

I take it you haven't read the poem either. In this case they all touched the same elephant, but one touched the tail, one touched the leg, one the ear, one the tusk and one the trunk. Lets concede that they agreed on the smell, and they all heard his gut rumbles, but fell into dispute over whether the elephant was like a rope, a tree, a wall, a fan, a spear or a snake. And their various followers, who had not experienced the elephant at all, said that the elephant was a rope, a tree, a wall, a fan a tree, a spear, or a snake, and started killing each other over these different received dogmas.

I know the story, I'm just saying that maybe, in reality, religion isn't like lots of people touching the same thing, but rather touching lots of different things and calling them all the same thing. Unless the elephant means everything in existence.

All of those things are concepts we hold about aspects, patterns, subsets of the one reality. We divide the circle one way and we talk about religion, we divide the circle another way and we talk philosophy, still another way is psychology, still another way is sociology, and then we mix up the words from all those different ways of dividing the one circle and grow confused. It is one reality, but we all experience different parts of it, and interpret it differently than others do, or even experience it differently one day than we do another.

Well I would say that religion isn't a correct way to divide the circle.

"Divine" is a word that does not arise in any useful (to me) context. "Intelligent" is a matter of perspective and emphasis. And "creator" is the application of the word where we cannot be sure it applies. Patterns arise and change. We may discover how, but we cannot, in this case at least, demonstrate purpose.

Well yes, I could be more precise with the language used. But simply, do you think there is purpose behind the universe?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This series of videos is first rate. I have recommended the video series at my Facebook Eudaimonism group.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

I've read it. It's very, very much worth reading.

The beauty of the book is contained in the subtitle -- a history of the monotheistic faiths, interlinking texts (e.g., the Old Testament) when possible, then breaking off and explaining cultural history for each religion as well. One of my favorite passages is near the end where she refers to Martin Heidegger's appreciation for Being in a way very similar to the mystics of a Western tradition; i.e., Armstrong is an atheist, but she acts very much like a theist with mystic bent with the question of God and the universe as a whole. What I appreciated most about the book, though, is the cyclical pattern from rationalism to mysticism that each of the three religions goes through over their histories.

 

[Gracchus]

So that's a no then? Welcome to the atheist club.

Well, Dawkins called pantheists and panentheists, "sexed-up atheists", so maybe, (and I remain agnostic in the matter,) I could be an honorary member. (Although I might quarrel with the "sexed-up" part. )

But going back to Armstrong. Is she a fringe historian? or is there some consensus about Judaism starting with polytheistic roots, YHWH starting as the god of war and all that?

I am not going to cut and paste the whole book nor am I going to paraphrase it. Read the book, and form your own opinion.

That said: The book seemed very scholarly to me, with lots of citations, and it showed great familiarity with a wide range of views and opinions. She seemed smart enough not to need fraud. And she didn't seem to be pushing and agenda, just depicting a balanced picture of the hisory of an idea.

I really don't understand the maths you just tried to explain to me. Both don't try to again.

Set theory and abstract algebra are not required courses. But they ought to be!

I know the story, I'm just saying that maybe, in reality, religion isn't like lots of people touching the same thing, but rather touching lots of different things and calling them all the same thing. Unless the elephant means everything in existence.

Well, that is what the book is about, isn't it? Is it even possible to reconcile what the blind men "saw"?

Well I would say that religion isn't a correct way to divide the circle.

I would agree that no religion that I am familiar with has avoided contradictions or explained reality satifactorily.

Well yes, I could be more precise with the language used.

Could you even be precise without involving a contradiction? That is another question about the same elephant. (See, for instance, Goedel's "Incompleteness Theorem".)

But simply, do you think there is purpose behind the universe?

There's the elephant again! It's not simple.

If I were God, (And who's to say I am not? I am agnostic in this matter. ), I might answer that the universe is just one experiment of many to determine how varying conditions (quantum uncertainties) will determine outcomes.

Or maybe it's all just entertainment. In the movie "Zardoz", Arthur Frayn asks, "Is God in show business too?"

That works for me. I'm not bored.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Could you even be precise without involving a contradiction? That is another question about the same elephant. (See, for instance, Goedel's "Incompleteness Theorem".)

I believe that there is a corollary to Godwin's Law, and that is Goedwin's Law.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

I believe that there is a correlary to Godwin's Law, and that is Goedwin's Law.

Aaww...

I was so proud that no on in this thread had brought up Hitler or the Nazis.

 

[Paradoxum]

Set theory and abstract algebra are not required courses. But they ought to be!

Why?? I assume mathematics is the subject you know best?

Well, that is what the book is about, isn't it? Is it even possible to reconcile what the blind men "saw"?

Well I think it is possible to understand the world and our experiences.

Could you even be precise without involving a contradiction? That is another question about the same elephant. (See, for instance, Goedel's "Incompleteness Theorem".)

Maybe.


There's the elephant again! It's not simple.

If I were God, (And who's to say I am not? I am agnostic in this matter. ), I might answer that the universe is just one experiment of many to determine how varying conditions (quantum uncertainties) will determine outcomes.

Or maybe it's all just entertainment. In the movie "Zardoz", Arthur Frayn asks, "Is God in show business too?"

That works for me. I'm not bored.

Considering the amount of suffering that would be involved in that, I find it hard to believe a moral being would run such an experiment.

 

[Gracchus]

Why?? I assume mathematics is the subject you know best?

No. At least, I hope not. Perhaps it is the subject I love best.

Well I think it is possible to understand the world and our experiences.

It sometimes is, for practical purposes. But, I suspect, there will always be some lack or inaccuracy.

Maybe.

There is an answer I approve of almost as much as, "I don't know."

There's the elephant again! It's not simple.

Even if we all studied the same elephant intensively, some of us would see Moti Guj, and some would never see anything but Tantor. We all bring unexamined baggage to our observations.

Considering the amount of suffering that would be involved in that, I find it hard to believe a moral being would run such an experiment.

Alan Watts put it this way: God decides to put on a play. He builds a set and defines the initial conditions. He determines the characters in the cast. There is no script, it is improv theater. He plays all the parts himself, and watches from the audience.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. "

All that is just metaphor, of course.

 

[Paradoxum]

No. At least, I hope not. Perhaps it is the subject I love best.

Fair enough. Maths is ok.

It sometimes is, for practical purposes. But, I suspect, there will always be some lack or inaccuracy.

We will never have 100% certainty, but I think it is wrong to say we know nothing.

There is an answer I approve of almost as much as, "I don't know."

Accepting our ignorance is good, but I think pretending we can't 'know' anything is potentially harmful.

Even if we all studied the same elephant intensively, some of us would see Moti Guj, and some would never see anything but Tantor. We all bring unexamined baggage to our observations.

I don't know what those works mean.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. "

In some ways this (and the rest of it) is nice, but in other ways it makes it all seem meaningless.

 

[TScott]

Has anyone read "A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam", by Karen Armstrong?

It would make for an interesting discussion, but, as a matter of simple courtesy, please state whether or not you have read it before you post.

I read it about fifteen years ago, it's a very good book and I encourage everyone who is curious about the roots of the various world religions to read it.

I especially found interesting her discussion on the roots of the earliest Books of the Pentateuch, or the Old Testament.

As far as the earliest Hebrews being polytheistic, it's obvious just by reading the books of Genesis and Exodus. The name of God that Moses went to see on Mount Sainai is El Shaddai, which translates to God of the Mountain, as opposed to other gods. It could also translate meaning The Highest God or God Almighty which also implies other, lesser gods. In fact when Moses came down from the mountain after his audience with God one of his commandments was to put no god before Him, also implying that other gods were being worshipped by the Hebrew People.

Armstrong points out that these other gods were with the people of Canaan for a long time, and that in fact it was on early Canaan, Sumerian and Babylonian mythology that many of the stories in Genesis were modeled after, and that some of these Gods and Demons such as Baal and Ashtaroth are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

 

[WonderBeat]

History doesn't exist. What to speak of God having a history, lol. No...

There is no such thing as time. Or this world.

 

[TScott]

History doesn't exist. What to speak of God having a history, lol. No...

There is no such thing as time. Or this world.

Even though it's off topic, I would argue that only history exists.

 

[Gracchus]

History doesn't exist. What to speak of God having a history, lol. No...

The book is about the history of the idea of "God", but it needed a catchy title. If you had read it, you would know that even "Christians" don't necessarily agree about what "God" is. But their is a whole spectrum of theology, that spreads almost identically across Juadaism, Christianity and Islam.

There is no such thing as time. Or this world.

This world is real. Your world probably isn't.
I do find it interesting that religion leads so many people to deny reality. I suppose it is one way to resolve contradictory doctrines and cognitive dissonances.
I think you have hidden your talent, meager as it is, under a rock. Or, maybe you just need some professional help.