Confused philosophical approach to God (needs religious development)

[Dasein]

In some sense this is just another 'I'm an atheist, but go ahead and sell the idea of God to me' thread, but in a very important sense it is not.

Where to start?... I guess I should point out that I'm an undergrad Philosophy student at the moment, hoping to do an MA/MPhil and possibly a PhD after my degree. I think this is important purely because the philosophy I read has a big influence on my particular perspective at any given moment, and no more so than in this particular subject area.
Anyone who has read Kant, Wittgenstein or Heidegger would be incredibly useful in helping me sort out my views at the moment, if there are any other philosophers on the forum!

Secondly, have patience with me. Some of the things I say might sound mildly heretical to some who are particularly conservative or traditional in their beliefs about God, but I mean no offense, I just have a creative mind

Thirdly, some history. I was raised as a Catholic and up until the age of maybe 13 or 14 I still believed. I was only a practicing and fairly devout Christian until 12 or 13, however (I am now 20 years old). As such, with nearly 14 years of Catholic school under my belt I'm fairly well versed in Catholic beliefs, though no doubt I'd like to hear some of the non-Catholic views of certain issues, as I'm decidedly less confident in my understanding of them. Feel free to ask away about why I became an atheist if you feel it's relevant (or even if you're just curious)

Fourthly, I'd consider myself agnostic because I don't see enough reason either to believe or not believe, though I used to be a pretty staunch atheist when I first stopped being Christian.

Fifthly, my posting here is in light of certain developments in my views as of late, along with a past history of flirting with Christianity and different religions since I became an atheist. (again, feel free to ask away; some of my flirtations with Christianity I believe may now be relevant, though not for an already-lengthy introductory post)

Finally, I guess I should get on with some of my warped opinions, and the point of this thread!
In short, I've been intellectually probing the possibility of God as of late, though in a way I haven't before. Following in the footsteps of Maimonides, it might actually be easier to start in an apophatic manner!

Despite the background in philosophy, proofs are right out of the question. I don't think (and I'm sure you'll agree) that they are in the least bit convincing either for or against the existence of God and are, at best, a booster for those who believe already.

Similarly pure scripture is not convincing enough for me. Another one which may be useful enough for the believers, but not for the unconvinced. (though examples from the Bible may be useful if used in a slightly different way)

Here's where it might start getting shaky..

This may be old hat for some of you, but I've come to a new understanding of the notions of non-corporeality and in-finiteness (hyphonated for a purpose) with respect to God, largely in light of Kantian metaphysics.
I guess that previously I always thought of non-corporeality or non-spatiality or non-temporality (&c) as being somehow within this world, just 'different' in some way. But I think the point is that it makes no sense to try and know anything further than the fact that it's NOT temporal/spatial etc... (c.f. noumena). So in this sense I've come to a new understanding of God's attributes.
For me it's a big step, as previously I would have dismissed the notion of non-spatiality or non-coporeality or non-temporality as nonsense. Rather than thinking of it as the negation of temporality/spatiality, I now think of it as outside of the domain of either polarity.

In a similar fashion, the subject/object distinction and the object/predicate distinctions that plague philosophy seem not to apply either, as both are in some sense analogous to spatiality. Objects have qualities and as such, our language therefore has an object/predicate distinction. Since God is not spatial, He cannot be considered to be an object with certain properties, as He is traditionally referred to as. Again it is not the negation of this that I am proposing, but rather the removal of God as an entity from the sphere of such polarities. (and as a consequence, the removal of literal, propositional talk of God from meaningful language. with respect to this, Tillich is probably the closest thing I can think of that is an explicitly religious exploration of religious symbolism, though by no means the only one)

[Excuse my slightly contradictory talk of God as an 'entity' or any other object-talk about God; it's not deliberately hypocritical, but rather a natural result of how deeply the distinction is engrained in our language.]

Another important point which, like the past two, I'm still relatively shaky and unclear on, is that I think it's imperative that 'belief' in God (if it can be called such a thing) is not just a cognitive state. The believer does not differ from the nonbeliever just in virtue of whether or not he holds such-and-such a proposition ('God exists'; 'i believe in God' &c..) as true. Rather, I feel that the believer must differ from the non-believer in virtue of the way he sees the world. The believer sees the world as something different to the nonbeliever.
Tied in with this seems to be two things. Firstly, the aforementioned impossibility of applying the object/predicate distinction to God; if it doesn't apply, then no single proposition can be the difference between a believer and a nonbeliever. (though it is possible that the fact that they hold such-and-such a non-literal proposition may be an indication of their belief/faith)
The second consequence is that belief must be tied to practice. As an (unsatisfactory) analogy, the person who believes that the government is after them will act differently, not just sit around thinking 'oh they might kill me in a moment'. In a similar fashion, the believer sees the world in a different way and acts accordingly.

In a point I'd like to develop, I think there's some appeal in this quote about Wittgenstein which may shed some light:
"He likened the ritual of religion to a great gesture, as when one kisses a photograph. This is not based on the false belief that the person in the photograph will feel the kiss or return it, nor is it based on any other belief. Neither is the kiss just a substitute for a particular phrase, like "I love you." Like the kiss, religious activity does express an attitude, but it is not just the expression of an attitude in the sense that several other forms of expression might do just as well. There might be no substitute that would do."
Though I would prefer to avoid some of the anti-realist implications that this might imply if one is not familiar with Wittgenstein (ignore how horribly pretentious that just sounded; I merely mean to imply that it might be more nuanced than it first appears)

I think I'm done with this leg of the explanation. I'll end up rambling even more if I carry on!
My question then, if there is a single 'question' I want to discuss (sorry, I did read the posting guidelines!), is what you think of these views. Secondly, how can these views be incorporated or reconciled with traditional Christian standpoints?

As you can tell I think one of the only relevant ways for me to begin deciding on whether or not I'll take a stance on the question of God is for me to head down to a church this easter and take part in some celebrations wholeheartedly. To try to see things as a believer, see how it is. (one important aspect I haven't mentioned is the importance I believe the phenomenal aspect of religion must be for the believer, though this is implied by previous points)

And in general, this information is all background so you know what will or will not be a particularly relevant answer to the question:



Why should I 'believe' in God rather than not?



,.....I apologize profusely for probably coming off like an ass; I ramble too much! My apologies if I also sound pretentious, I just want to explain myself fully and (hopfully!) eloquently!

 

[BobW188]

I scanned this more than read it, and it has been more than four decades since my last philosophy course, but I think your observations are good and very much on point. At rock bottom, when we deal with God we deal with mystery. That might not be so, or be less so, to those like Abraham and Moses who dealt with God directly, or with those alive at the time of Jesus who saw him or followed him; but to the rest of us our faith will be as Paul described it: belief in things unseen and, within the limits of spacetime, perhaps unseeable. We "kiss the photo" knowing that, like all photos, it is but a pale, two-dimensional representation of the real person.

I'd only suggest that you expand your plans to include the whole of Holy Week. Take in the services for Palm Sunday. Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter. This will give you a broader context. The outcome? Who knows; but my faith teaches me that if you sincerely seek, you will find.

 

[ebia]

Another important point which, like the past two, I'm still relatively shaky and unclear on, is that I think it's imperative that 'belief' in God (if it can be called such a thing) is not just a cognitive state. The believer does not differ from the nonbeliever just in virtue of whether or not he holds such-and-such a proposition ('God exists'; 'i believe in God' &c..) as true. Rather, I feel that the believer must differ from the non-believer in virtue of the way he sees the world. The believer sees the world as something different to the nonbeliever.

Tied in with this seems to be two things. Firstly, the aforementioned impossibility of applying the object/predicate distinction to God; if it doesn't apply, then no single proposition can be the difference between a believer and a nonbeliever. (though it is possible that the fact that they hold such-and-such a non-literal proposition may be an indication of their belief/faith)
The second consequence is that belief must be tied to practice. As an (unsatisfactory) analogy, the person who believes that the government is after them will act differently, not just sit around thinking 'oh they might kill me in a moment'. In a similar fashion, the believer sees the world in a different way and acts accordingly.

In a point I'd like to develop, I think there's some appeal in this quote about Wittgenstein which may shed some light:
"He likened the ritual of religion to a great gesture, as when one kisses a photograph. This is not based on the false belief that the person in the photograph will feel the kiss or return it, nor is it based on any other belief. Neither is the kiss just a substitute for a particular phrase, like "I love you." Like the kiss, religious activity does express an attitude, but it is not just the expression of an attitude in the sense that several other forms of expression might do just as well. There might be no substitute that would do."
Though I would prefer to avoid some of the anti-realist implications that this might imply if one is not familiar with Wittgenstein (ignore how horribly pretentious that just sounded; I merely mean to imply that it might be more nuanced than it first appears)

I don't have a problem with that as far as it goes.

As you can tell I think one of the only relevant ways for me to begin deciding on whether or not I'll take a stance on the question of God is for me to head down to a church this easter and take part in some celebrations wholeheartedly. To try to see things as a believer, see how it is. (one important aspect I haven't mentioned is the importance I believe the phenomenal aspect of religion must be for the believer, though this is implied by previous points)

Absolutely, but choose your church well. (I'm not sure how you would do that, but... )

 

[adimus]

I would simply raise the issue of the resurrection of Jesus. I think the historical records both from the Bible and from other historical sources are the most serious reasons to believe in God as well as being the most foundational aspect of Christianity.

 

[drich0150]

Why should I 'believe' in God rather than not?

It completely depends on what you are trying to obtain, How you wish to benefit from a relationship with him, and why you feel a need to "believe."

 

[Joveia]

Some good thoughts. One thing I found helpful regarding my reading of Kant was his putting the 'speculative metaphysic' off grounds. For instance, we can only imagine objects in some form of dimensional space, so when I imagine an abstract number of '2' I visualise it as kind of having some form in space somewhere... which is obviously completely impossible. Because abstract objects are outside the way our mind works (visualising everything in dimensions) we mess up our analysis of them. When I imagine God intellectually I make the same mistake... in the sense that my imagination of God is always deeply lacking as an intellectual idea. But that could never say that abstract objects or God don't exist, of course.

 

[Dasein]

I scanned this more than read it, and it has been more than four decades since my last philosophy course, but I think your observations are good and very much on point. At rock bottom, when we deal with God we deal with mystery. That might not be so, or be less so, to those like Abraham and Moses who dealt with God directly, or with those alive at the time of Jesus who saw him or followed him; but to the rest of us our faith will be as Paul described it: belief in things unseen and, within the limits of spacetime, perhaps unseeable. We "kiss the photo" knowing that, like all photos, it is but a pale, two-dimensional representation of the real person.

I'd only suggest that you expand your plans to include the whole of Holy Week. Take in the services for Palm Sunday. Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter. This will give you a broader context. The outcome? Who knows; but my faith teaches me that if you sincerely seek, you will find.

That sounds like a pretty good description of what i was trying to capture with the quotation.

I thought that I was away for most of Holy Week, but it turns out I get back the week before, so I think I will do what you said. I have an ex who is a really devout Christian and she has a good church (apparently) so I think I'll go along to one or two services with her that week.

I would simply raise the issue of the resurrection of Jesus. I think the historical records both from the Bible and from other historical sources are the most serious reasons to believe in God as well as being the most foundational aspect of Christianity.

I think that you (if you have a desire to convince me) would have to give some pretty hefty reasons for this. I deliberately avoided many aspects of religion like historical facts, religious experience and so on, because I don't know how it would fit into the broad picture I was attempting to weave together. And insofar as it remains on the cognitive, empirical side of things, there seem to be no good reasons to believe that anything of that manner happened (so in that respect my considerations have been exclusively about a general notion of a Deity and the Holy and Faith, not about any specific God or religion).

It completely depends on what you are trying to obtain, How you wish to benefit from a relationship with him, and why you feel a need to "believe."

Could you expand on this please?

Some good thoughts. One thing I found helpful regarding my reading of Kant was his putting the 'speculative metaphysic' off grounds. For instance, we can only imagine objects in some form of dimensional space, so when I imagine an abstract number of '2' I visualise it as kind of having some form in space somewhere... which is obviously completely impossible. Because abstract objects are outside the way our mind works (visualising everything in dimensions) we mess up our analysis of them. When I imagine God intellectually I make the same mistake... in the sense that my imagination of God is always deeply lacking as an intellectual idea. But that could never say that abstract objects or God don't exist, of course.

This is the kind of point that I was aiming for with regards to the Kantian influences. The notion that anything speculative about that which is outside of spatio-temporal perception (and thus, through the link that logic has with the Categories, language also) is unjustified is something I wished to pick up on.



Thank you all for your replies.