Same God?

[Percivale]

I've thought of a good analogy for the question whether Christians, Muslims, Confucians, and the rest believe in the same God or not.
Aristotle and Copernicus, Einstein and Newton, or Fred Hoyle and Stephen Hawking all talking about the same universe?

People who argue that different religions worship different gods generally prove their point by pointing out the differences in beliefs about God that those religions have. But one could point out that the universe of ptolemy or aristotle bears hardly any resemblance to that of hawking and other modern scientists, yet the only person that could use that argument to deny that they are talking about the same universe would be the idealist that denies that any universe exists.

It seems better in both cases to say that everyone is talking about the same god or universe, just have different understandings of it.

Of course this does not apply to polytheistic gods. There's no logical reason Zeus and Thor could not both exist; they are not in competition like concepts of the ultimate creator god, such as Allah or Brahma, are.

I'm sure someone will note that each concept of the universe successfully replaced the previous, unlike in religion where different concepts continue to coexist. This is because natural objects are more conducive to examination than intelligent beings are; it's the same reason that political science and psychology have made so much less progress than natural science.

 

[Davian]

I've thought of a good analogy for the question whether Christians, Muslims, Confucians, and the rest believe in the same God or not.
Aristotle and Copernicus, Einstein and Newton, or Fred Hoyle and Stephen Hawking all talking about the same universe?

People who argue that different religions worship different gods generally prove their point by pointing out the differences in beliefs about God that those religions have. But one could point out that the universe of ptolemy or aristotle bears hardly any resemblance to that of hawking and other modern scientists, yet the only person that could use that argument to deny that they are talking about the same universe would be the idealist that denies that any universe exists.

It seems better in both cases to say that everyone is talking about the same god or universe, just have different understandings of it.

Of course this does not apply to polytheistic gods. There's no logical reason Zeus and Thor could not both exist; they are not in competition like concepts of the ultimate creator god, such as Allah or Brahma, are.

I'm sure someone will note that each concept of the universe successfully replaced the previous, unlike in religion where different concepts continue to coexist. This is because natural objects are more conducive to examination than intelligent beings are; it's the same reason that political science and psychology have made so much less progress than natural science.

In regards the the universe, we can compare and make independent observations with which we can work towards a scientific consensus.

With gods, we only have opinion, and while there are beliefs in gods, we do not need actual gods for those beliefs.

I do not see how you are making the comparison.

 

[Percivale]

In regards the the universe, we can compare and make independent observations with which we can work towards a scientific consensus.

With gods, we only have opinion, and while there are beliefs in gods, we do not need actual gods for those beliefs.

I do not see how you are making the comparison.

I suppose an atheist's point of view toward gods is similar to an idealist or solipsist's view of the universe. In either case, if you don't believe any god or universe exists, then to you only the concepts exist, and since the concepts are different, you have different gods/universes.

But in either case, if there is a referent for those concepts, if what is being talked about actually exists, then the different concepts are talking about the same things, though imperfectly. Because just as it is not possible that a big bang-ist and a steady state-ist could be both right and be existing in different universes, it is not possible that a Christian and a Muslim could both be right and be both praying to different actual gods. Only one god can be the creator and greatest being.

The fact that theories about the universe are more verifiable than theories about God is irrelevant to this argument.

 

[juvenissun]

It seems better in both cases to say that everyone is talking about the same god or universe, just have different understandings of it.

If you accept that, you would end up in having no God. Because you do not know who He really is. (the intersection of all the above will not the true God).

Among all the understandings, there is only ONE which is true. Accept that one, then the others would start to make sense.

 

[Davian]

I suppose an atheist's point of view toward gods is similar to an idealist or solipsist's view of the universe. In either case, if you don't believe any god or universe exists, then to you only the concepts exist, and since the concepts are different, you have different gods/universes.

That is not what I said at all. I said nothing about not believing the universe exists.

But in either case, if there is a referent for those concepts, if what is being talked about actually exists, then the different concepts are talking about the same things, though imperfectly. Because just as it is not possible that a big bang-ist and a steady state-ist could be both right and be existing in different universes, it is not possible that a Christian and a Muslim could both be right and be both praying to different actual gods. Only one god can be the creator and greatest being.

Your analogy fails in that the two differing cosmologies can both offer explanatory power and have evidentiary support in the same universe, to varying degrees of accuracy (they are not truth statements), while the Christian and the Muslim beliefs are mutually exclusive, and can both be wrong (they are making truth statements).

The fact that theories about the universe are more verifiable than theories about God is irrelevant to this argument.

What do you mean by "more verifiable than theories about God". Are there any scientific theories about "God"?

 

[Received]

I've thought of a good analogy for the question whether Christians, Muslims, Confucians, and the rest believe in the same God or not.
Aristotle and Copernicus, Einstein and Newton, or Fred Hoyle and Stephen Hawking all talking about the same universe?

People who argue that different religions worship different gods generally prove their point by pointing out the differences in beliefs about God that those religions have. But one could point out that the universe of ptolemy or aristotle bears hardly any resemblance to that of hawking and other modern scientists, yet the only person that could use that argument to deny that they are talking about the same universe would be the idealist that denies that any universe exists.

It seems better in both cases to say that everyone is talking about the same god or universe, just have different understandings of it.

Of course this does not apply to polytheistic gods. There's no logical reason Zeus and Thor could not both exist; they are not in competition like concepts of the ultimate creator god, such as Allah or Brahma, are.

I'm sure someone will note that each concept of the universe successfully replaced the previous, unlike in religion where different concepts continue to coexist. This is because natural objects are more conducive to examination than intelligent beings are; it's the same reason that political science and psychology have made so much less progress than natural science.

IMV, the problem isn't with gods or universes specifically at all. The problem goes with thinking multiple conceptions of anything means multiple anythings.

I think God exists and hold certain concepts, including that he created the universe. Bill also thinks God exists and holds certain concepts, including that he created the universe. Guy comes along and is like, "hey, you're talking about two different gods!" Why's that? Because although both me and Bill agree on God creating the universe (i.e., being a creator), because we have different perspectives otherwise this therefore means we're talking about two different things.

But is it necessarily true that if we have different perspectives on something, especially if we agree on one important characteristic, that we're talking about two different things? Of course not. Therefore the argument that multiple conceptions of God means there are multiple gods (hence "which God?" as a response) is incorrect.

 

[Crandaddy]

IMV, the problem isn't with gods or universes specifically at all. The problem goes with thinking multiple conceptions of anything means multiple anythings.

I think God exists and hold certain concepts, including that he created the universe. Bill also thinks God exists and holds certain concepts, including that he created the universe. Guy comes along and is like, "hey, you're talking about two different gods!" Why's that? Because although both me and Bill agree on God creating the universe (i.e., being a creator), because we have different perspectives otherwise this therefore means we're talking about two different things.

But is it necessarily true that if we have different perspectives on something, especially if we agree on one important characteristic, that we're talking about two different things? Of course not. Therefore the argument that multiple conceptions of God means there are multiple gods (hence "which God?" as a response) is incorrect.

This ^

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've thought of a good analogy for the question whether Christians, Muslims, Confucians, and the rest believe in the same God or not.
Aristotle and Copernicus, Einstein and Newton, or Fred Hoyle and Stephen Hawking all talking about the same universe?

People who argue that different religions worship different gods generally prove their point by pointing out the differences in beliefs about God that those religions have. But one could point out that the universe of ptolemy or aristotle bears hardly any resemblance to that of hawking and other modern scientists, yet the only person that could use that argument to deny that they are talking about the same universe would be the idealist that denies that any universe exists.

It seems better in both cases to say that everyone is talking about the same god or universe, just have different understandings of it.

Of course this does not apply to polytheistic gods. There's no logical reason Zeus and Thor could not both exist; they are not in competition like concepts of the ultimate creator god, such as Allah or Brahma, are.

I'm sure someone will note that each concept of the universe successfully replaced the previous, unlike in religion where different concepts continue to coexist. This is because natural objects are more conducive to examination than intelligent beings are; it's the same reason that political science and psychology have made so much less progress than natural science.

I don't think this analogy holds up well. Religions have produced innumerable conflicting claims about the divine, but what progress has been made in supernatural knowledge? How does one gauge progress in theology?

I suppose an atheist's point of view toward gods is similar to an idealist or solipsist's view of the universe. In either case, if you don't believe any god or universe exists, then to you only the concepts exist, and since the concepts are different, you have different gods/universes.

But in either case, if there is a referent for those concepts, if what is being talked about actually exists, then the different concepts are talking about the same things, though imperfectly.

'If' being the key word.

 

[JGG]

Like the story of the blind men and the elephant? One blind man holds the trunk and claims it's a snake, the next touches the leg and claims it's a tree trunk, two touch each of the tusks and agree that they must be spears, one touches the tail and claims it's a whip.

As the story goes, a prince comes along and explains to them, while they have different perspectives, they are all describing the same elephant.

I've heard this many times as an analogy to god and religion, as a sort of defense as to why they disagree on the concepts. I tend to agree to a certain extent. But here's the catch: Even in the analogy, none of the blind men's claims were correct, and not one knew what they were really touching.

So what if two blind men touch a tusk, and manage to agree that they're spears, if they're still wrong? If one is touching a leg and one is touching a tail, they are not talking about the same thing. Whether it's a tree trunk and a whip, or a leg and a tail, they are different things. Why do you all pretend that you happen to be the prince who can see all, when you're clearly just as blind as the rest of us?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Like the story of the blind men and the elephant? One blind man holds the trunk and claims it's a snake, the next touches the leg and claims it's a tree trunk, two touch each of the tusks and agree that they must be spears, one touches the tail and claims it's a whip.

As the story goes, a prince comes along and explains to them, while they have different perspectives, they are all describing the same elephant.

I've heard this many times as an analogy to god and religion, as a sort of defense as to why they disagree on the concepts. I tend to agree to a certain extent. But here's the catch: Even in the analogy, none of the blind men's claims were correct, and not one knew what they were really touching.

So what if two blind men touch a tusk, and manage to agree that they're spears, if they're still wrong? If one is touching a leg and one is touching a tail, they are not talking about the same thing. Whether it's a tree trunk and a whip, or a leg and a tail, they are different things. Why do you all pretend that you happen to be the prince who can see all, when you're clearly just as blind as the rest of us?

I've heard the story take on a slightly different form, with the blind men gradually realising that it's an elephant by touching other parts of the elephant's body (e.g., its ears, eyes, and so on) and combining their findings. This version of the story is a metaphor for how science works; how fallible human beings can gradually climb the knowledge gradient even if the information they begin with is impoverished or seemingly unintelligible.

 

[KCfromNC]

IMV, the problem isn't with gods or universes specifically at all. The problem goes with thinking multiple conceptions of anything means multiple anythings.

I think God exists and hold certain concepts, including that he created the universe. Bill also thinks God exists and holds certain concepts, including that he created the universe. Guy comes along and is like, "hey, you're talking about two different gods!" Why's that? Because although both me and Bill agree on God creating the universe (i.e., being a creator), because we have different perspectives otherwise this therefore means we're talking about two different things.

So how many only-begotten sons does the Muslim god have? How many does the Christian god have? The Jewish one?

The problem isn't that we're getting different perspectives from people talking about various aspects of the same thing. The problem is that we're getting contradictory accounts.

 

[Percivale]

I'm very well aware that we get contradictory accounts, and that in each case either one or none of the accounts are correct. But that is the same situation with the different cosmological models people have believed. There's no doubt that Ptolemy's geocentric universe contradicts Copernicus's heliocentric one, or that the Big Bang theory contradicts Hoyle's eternal universe model. But they are all talking about the one universe we inhabit. Likewise, if Christianity is correct about the Trinity Islam's teaching is false on that subject, but nonetheless they are both talking about the one God that created the universe. One ramification for this is that the variety of religions is no excuse for remaining an atheist if one finds the general arguments for theism valid, any more than the different cosmological models are a reason to be a solipsist.

 

[Progguy]

I've thought of a good analogy for the question whether Christians, Muslims, Confucians, and the rest believe in the same God or not.

i am a pluralist

 

[KCfromNC]

But they are all talking about the one universe we inhabit.

Not really, unless you're telling us that people who believe in a steady state universe think the universe behaves the same as people who favor an inflationary one and it is just a question of perspective. But that's not true - the two theories actually describe very different universes along with ways to test and see which one corresponds to the one we actually ended up living in. And we have tested and found many of them to be incorrect - just like all but at most one of the mutually contradictory accounts of gods must be.

Likewise, if Christianity is correct about the Trinity Islam's teaching is false on that subject, but nonetheless they are both talking about the one God that created the universe.

No, they're talking about two totally different concepts of god. That's why the gods in question have mutually contradictory attributes. As you said, tt most one might be correct, in the sense that they propose mutually different states of reality.

One ramification for this is that the variety of religions is no excuse for remaining an atheist if one finds the general arguments for theism valid, any more than the different cosmological models are a reason to be a solipsist.

What's a "general argument for theism"? How would that even work, considering that theism involves gods which are either personal, non-personal, animistic, single, dual, multiple, metaphors for reality, the ultimate reality, irrelevant to actual spiritualism, and so on depending on who you ask?

There's a pretty good argument to be made that the universe exists considering our observations of one. What's the comparison with god(s) again?

 

[ChetSinger]

I'm very well aware that we get contradictory accounts, and that in each case either one or none of the accounts are correct. But that is the same situation with the different cosmological models people have believed. There's no doubt that Ptolemy's geocentric universe contradicts Copernicus's heliocentric one, or that the Big Bang theory contradicts Hoyle's eternal universe model. But they are all talking about the one universe we inhabit. Likewise, if Christianity is correct about the Trinity Islam's teaching is false on that subject, but nonetheless they are both talking about the one God that created the universe. One ramification for this is that the variety of religions is no excuse for remaining an atheist if one finds the general arguments for theism valid, any more than the different cosmological models are a reason to be a solipsist.

You may be interested in how the Jews viewed God's involvement with early mankind. They believed that when God dispersed the seventy nations at Babel he placed an angelic overseer over each nation. Then he turned his back on them and began building Israel, his own personal nation.

In other words, early man's religious experiences were polytheistic. Here's an account of the dispersion in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, an early Jewish rabbinic commentary:

And the Lord said to the seventy angels which stand before Him, Come, we will descend and will there commingle their language, that a man shall not understand the speech of his neighbour. And the Word of the Lord was revealed against the city, and with Him seventy angels, having reference to seventy nations, each having its own language, and thence the writing of its own hand: and He dispersed them from thence upon the face of all the earth into seventy languages.

The seventy nations are listed in Genesis 10. The results of the dispersion are also described in the Song of Moses:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.

Those angels lost their charters 2,000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead. All of the nations are under Jesus' authority since then.

So I don't assume that all of early man's polytheistic beliefs were necessarily false. Unlike us, they experienced a polytheistic world.

 

[TillICollapse]

You may be interested in how the Jews viewed God's involvement with early mankind. They believed that when God dispersed the seventy nations at Babel he placed an angelic overseer over each nation. Then he turned his back on them and began building Israel, his own personal nation.

In other words, early man's religious experiences were polytheistic. Here's an account of the dispersion in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, an early Jewish rabbinic commentary:


The seventy nations are listed in Genesis 10. The results of the dispersion are also described in the Song of Moses:


Those angels lost their charters 2,000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead. All of the nations are under Jesus' authority since then.

So I don't assume that all of early man's polytheistic beliefs were necessarily false. Unlike us, they experienced a polytheistic world.

Do you have any other references concerning the angelic overseer concept, apart from the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Gen 10 scripture ?

 

[ChetSinger]

Do you have any other references concerning the angelic overseer concept, apart from the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Gen 10 scripture ?

Yes. I suggest The Divine Council.com | Michael S. Heiser, PhD, a hub created by Biblical scholar Michael Heiser. He's an orthodox Christian.

They show up in other places in the Bible, too, such as Daniel where they're given titles such as "the prince of Persia" and "the prince of Greece".

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes. I suggest The Divine Council.com | Michael S. Heiser, PhD, a hub created by Biblical scholar Michael Heiser. He's an orthodox Christian.

They show up in other places in the Bible, too, such as Daniel where they're given titles such as "the prince of Persia" and "the prince of Greece".

I know already about some of the scriptural references. I'll check out the Heiser info ... thanks

 

[Davian]

I'm very well aware that we get contradictory accounts, and that in each case either one or none of the accounts are correct. But that is the same situation with the different cosmological models people have believed. There's no doubt that Ptolemy's geocentric universe contradicts Copernicus's heliocentric one, or that the Big Bang theory contradicts Hoyle's eternal universe model. But they are all talking about the one universe we inhabit.

No, cosmological models may be falsified, or provide greater or more accurate explanatory power than another; unlike religious beliefs that are unfalsifiable or lack objective measure. Your comparison fails.

Likewise, if Christianity is correct about the Trinity Islam's teaching is false on that subject, but nonetheless they are both talking about the one God that created the universe.

I do not accept your unevidenced, unfalsifiable assertion of this.

One ramification for this is that the variety of religions is no excuse for remaining an atheist if one finds the general arguments for theism valid,

Atheism does not require excuses. It is not a truth statement, and belief is not a conscious choice.

any more than the different cosmological models are a reason to be a solipsist.

Solipsism fails, in that if we can hypothesize and test the 'reality' we observe, and it behaves in a consistent manner, there is no effective difference.

I do not get these veiled attacks on atheism. "If we could only convince these atheists that our particular god exists, then it would exist." Or something like that....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm very well aware that we get contradictory accounts, and that in each case either one or none of the accounts are correct. But that is the same situation with the different cosmological models people have believed. There's no doubt that Ptolemy's geocentric universe contradicts Copernicus's heliocentric one, or that the Big Bang theory contradicts Hoyle's eternal universe model. But they are all talking about the one universe we inhabit. Likewise, if Christianity is correct about the Trinity Islam's teaching is false on that subject, but nonetheless they are both talking about the one God that created the universe. One ramification for this is that the variety of religions is no excuse for remaining an atheist if one finds the general arguments for theism valid, any more than the different cosmological models are a reason to be a solipsist.

The general arguments for theism are unconvincing, but even if they were somewhat convincing, they would only warrant deism. How do you leap from there to "And the Son of God died for your sins"?