What makes something divine?

[Resha Caner]

The problem is that "divine" is so nebulous it can apply to varying definitions and still be accurate because there isn't a standard that's universal or agreed upon in any metaphysical structure, practically speaking

That can be said for many words - even those having nothing to do with religion. Have you never had the experience of someone asking you "What does that word mean?", your mind goes blank, and you have to point to a dictionary. I have.

The philosophy of language that makes sense to me states language is not about defining words in some clinical sense, but learning the various contexts of how words are used within your community. I've heard those who study learning in babies/toddlers say that is how we learn language - through repeated associations of sounds with context. Hence someone can say a single word, "thanks", and one time you know they mean it and another time you know they're being sarcastic.

What expectations do you see people having as to what "divine" means? If we're just going from general definitions through natural theology, that's hardly the non believer's fault, it's theologians who promulgate those ideas as somehow self evident about the divine.

I continue to hope people will begin to understand the extreme importance of post 16 from @ViaCrucis

 

[muichimotsu]

That can be said for many words - even those having nothing to do with religion. Have you never had the experience of someone asking you "What does that word mean?", your mind goes blank, and you have to point to a dictionary. I have.

The philosophy of language that makes sense to me states language is not about defining words in some clinical sense, but learning the various contexts of how words are used within your community. I've heard those who study learning in babies/toddlers say that is how we learn language - through repeated associations of sounds with context. Hence someone can say a single word, "thanks", and one time you know they mean it and another time you know they're being sarcastic.



I continue to hope people will begin to understand the extreme importance of post 16 from @ViaCrucis

That's not the same as a word that has subjective intent from the start in that it is open to interpretation far more than something with multiple meanings or that is less well known, those are both entirely separate from a word replete with subjectivity in usage over history to mean whatever fills in a gap of the supernatural

Descriptivist v. prescriptivist yeah, I actually only learned the terms a few weeks ago, but I was always descriptivist really. Tone matters in how you say words as to their sarcasm or sincerity

So basically, your own religion is internally inconsistent because of vying methodologies to present it?
Sounds like a problem you guys need to address, it's not really the skeptic's fault at all, right?

 

[Resha Caner]

So basically, your own religion is internally inconsistent because of vying methodologies to present it?

That's true of every human venture. It doesn't bother me the way it bothers you. Words are an attempt to express truth, but they are not themselves truth.
Did you read post 16?

Sounds like a problem you guys need to address, it's not really the skeptic's fault at all, right?

No, it's not something I need to address in order to talk with you. If I were trying to understand a Sikh, I would need to know the context of his usage of the word. If I'm trying to understand you, it doesn't matter how that Sikh uses the word.

Likewise you don't need to understand how am Anglican in London uses the word when talking with me.

 

[muichimotsu]

That's true of every human venture. It doesn't bother me the way it bothers you. Words are an attempt to express truth, but they are not themselves truth.
Did you read post 16?



No, it's not something I need to address in order to talk with you. If I were trying to understand a Sikh, I would need to know the context of his usage of the word. If I'm trying to understand you, it doesn't matter how that Sikh uses the word.

Likewise you don't need to understand how am Anglican in London uses the word when talking with me.

It's a wall of text, but I'm fairly confident I got the gist of major bullet points that I could summarize if I wasn't busy.

I never claimed words were truth, I agreed that descriptivism was more accurate, not pinning words down


So are you going to explain why your definition of divine makes more sense in any manner or is it just going to be up for debate?

 

[Resha Caner]

So are you going to explain why your definition of divine makes more sense in any manner or is it just going to be up for debate?

Explain why it makes sense? No. It won't make sense to you. And that wasn't the point of the thread. I wanted to understand the approach of others. I've at least gotten an inkling from you.

It's a wall of text, but I'm fairly confident I got the gist of major bullet points that I could summarize if I wasn't busy.

Then I'll be brief. You can ask at least 2 questions of my essence:
1) What are you?
2) Who are you?

Question 1 is the material question, and I can answer that I am a conscious being of the human species constituted of roughly 65% oxygen, 18.5% carbon, 9.5% hydrogen, 3.2% nitrogen, and other trace elements. Though an honest answer, I doubt it gives you the information you wanted.

Question 2 is the spiritual question.

In these forums, 99.9% of the time, people ask for an answer to the material question regarding God. I can give you an answer, an honest answer, but you are absolutely right that it begins with some speculation, and @Silmarien was absolutely right that naturalists will object. No matter who wins that debate, the answer won't give you what you actually want to know.

So, like it or not, you're gonna have to ask the spiritual question.

 

[muichimotsu]

Explain why it makes sense? No. It won't make sense to you. And that wasn't the point of the thread. I wanted to understand the approach of others. I've at least gotten an inkling from you.



Then I'll be brief. You can ask at least 2 questions of my essence:
1) What are you?
2) Who are you?

Question 1 is the material question, and I can answer that I am a conscious being of the human species constituted of roughly 65% oxygen, 18.5% carbon, 9.5% hydrogen, 3.2% nitrogen, and other trace elements. Though an honest answer, I doubt it gives you the information you wanted.

Question 2 is the spiritual question.

In these forums, 99.9% of the time, people ask for an answer to the material question regarding God. I can give you an answer, an honest answer, but you are absolutely right that it begins with some speculation, and @Silmarien was absolutely right that naturalists will object. No matter who wins that debate, the answer won't give you what you actually want to know.

So, like it or not, you're gonna have to ask the spiritual question.

Material explanation can help in its own right, but yeah, I'm not denying that the "who" of someone is going to vary: we don't really know each other to that degree, but if we talked to each others' friends, we could get a better idea on that. But I wouldn't call it a spiritual question, you're insinuating that definition is somehow universally applicable to what I'd call more an interpersonal question, material being impersonal in contrast

What you think I want to know is not necessarily accurate, because if you're assuming I want an answer that fits into what might as well be supernatural without you saying so, then it's already assuming that metaphysics is valid without demonstration

 

[Resha Caner]

But I wouldn't call it a spiritual question, you're insinuating that definition is somehow universally applicable to what I'd call more an interpersonal question, material being impersonal in contrast

So, then, you know what spirit is?

 

[dlamberth]

What makes something divine?

What makes something Divine is the question asked in the OP. Rather than starting out with what "makes" something Divine, I'd rather comment on "seeing" the Divine first. And for that I reference the Mystics who say that seeing the Divine can only be done through the eyes of ones own Soul. The Ego and Mind, they say, are incapable to seeing the Divine. And the Soul, they say, can only be entered via Love. So you could say that what makes something "Divine" is "Love".

 

[muichimotsu]

So, then, you know what spirit is?

I didn't say that, I put forward a definition that's more accessible in nature and doesn't rely on special revelation or unfalsifiable ideas about a deity and soul or the like.

 

[muichimotsu]

What makes something Divine is the question asked in the OP. Rather than starting out with what "makes" something Divine, I'd rather comment on "seeing" the Divine first. And for that I reference the Mystics who say that seeing the Divine can only be done through the eyes of ones own Soul. The Ego and Mind, they say, are incapable to seeing the Divine. And the Soul, they say, can only be entered via Love. So you could say that what makes something "Divine" is "Love".

Doesn't that constitute equivocation fallacy? Defining one thing (God) in terms of a thing we know, but is also more vague in itself (love) seems to muddy the waters, though it's not like apophatic theology does much better. Not that I've read a huge amount of it, I'm familiar with one major writer in the area, Meister Eckhart. But either way, you're talking about what is practically inscrutable (God) in terms of what we can reasonably discuss (either in negation or analogy), so it becomes a matter of certain foundations that lend themselves to speculation rather than anything conclusive

 

[dlamberth]

Doesn't that constitute equivocation fallacy? Defining one thing (God) in terms of a thing we know, but is also more vague in itself (love) seems to muddy the waters, though it's not like apophatic theology does much better. Not that I've read a huge amount of it, I'm familiar with one major writer in the area, Meister Eckhart. But either way, you're talking about what is practically inscrutable (God) in terms of what we can reasonably discuss (either in negation or analogy), so it becomes a matter of certain foundations that lend themselves to speculation rather than anything conclusive

In my referencing the Mystics, they don't work by speculation. If listened to, they talk a lot about inner experience. That's what Meister Eckhart was all about. I don't believe I mentioned or defined God at all. No need for you to add something not said. The Divine has to be experienced to be known. Like Love, you can't talk about it in other than subjective ways. But like Love, they both exist in the Human experience. And as brought up, its through Love that the Divine is seen.

 

[muichimotsu]

In my referencing the Mystics, they don't work by speculation. If listened to, they talk a lot about inner experience. That's what Meister Eckhart was all about. I don't believe I mentioned or defined God at all. No need for you to add something not said. The Divine has to be experienced to be known. Like Love, you can't talk about it in other than subjective ways. But like Love, they both exist in the Human experience. And as brought up, its through Love that the Divine is seen.

You equated God in some sense to love, that's the thing I'm questioning

How can you determine what you experience is the divine without something divine to properly compare it to? If it's purely phenomenological, it doesn't really lend to much beyond vague feelings

There are several forms of love, God is generally referred to in the agape sense, but experiencing other forms of love would suggest God should be more precisely defined, because it would make it that much easier to just generalize God as any kind of sentimental affection in the vein of "love"

 

[dlamberth]

You equated God in some sense to love, that's the thing I'm questioning
How can you determine what you experience is the divine without something divine to properly compare it to? If it's purely phenomenological, it doesn't really lend to much beyond vague feelings

Some of those vague feelings, as you call them have been so powerful that they have been life changing for a lot of people. I wouldn't doubt if you have had those moments. Human Beings are made to experience things. At what point do we ignore what we Human Beings experience in life? Love is a very much a part of the Human experience. The same with the Divine. I think dismissing those experiences as "vague feelings" is dismissing an important part of the Human experience.

There are several forms of love, God is generally referred to in the agape sense, but experiencing other forms of love would suggest God should be more precisely defined, because it would make it that much easier to just generalize God as any kind of sentimental affection in the vein of "love"

The want to define Love is getting into the way of Love. Try seeing through the eyes of Love. See if things look a bit different around ones Self from that angle. Might even see a glimpse of the Divine along the way.

 

[muichimotsu]

Some of those vague feelings, as you call them have been life changing for a lot of people. I wouldn't doubt if you have had those moments. Human Beings are made to experience things. At what point do we ignore what we Human Beings experience in life? Love is a very much a part of the Human experience. The same with the Divine. I think dismissing those experiences as "vague feelings" is dismissing an important part of the Human experience.


The want to define Love is getting into the way of Love. Try seeing through the eyes of Love. See if things look a bit different around ones Self from that angle. Might even see a glimpse of the Divine along the way.

[/QUOTE]

Life changing for someone does not make it a universal in the slightest and it also doesn't make it valid, only having sentimental value.

It's not about ignoring experience, it's tempering our tendency to take those experiences at face value with skepticism

The feelings themselves can have merit, but, again, the problem is a willingness to just accept them rather than having critical thought applied to them even if it's uncomfortable

Having love does not preclude using reason in the slightest, they can strike a balance, rather than favoring one vastly over another.

 

[FireDragon76]

That sounds oddly like post hoc rationalization of God as fitting with what you've already concluded is divine with Jesus, because otherwise you would just be getting into abstractions of natural theology as more a philosophical exercise. But if God is described in terms of Jesus, then the whole hypostatic union still gets into some problems of an entity being fully one thing, but also another that is diametrically in conflict with it (human and divine)

Unless part of the Christian view of the world is that humanity and divinity are not essentially in conflict, but only apparrently so. This is where the doctrine of theosis is relevant, and sidesteps alot of the introspective, guilt-ridden conscience of western Christians, potentially.

Many of the eastern Church fathers had a high view of humanity, as does Judaism, through the doctrine of the Imago Dei.

 

[muichimotsu]

Unless part of the Christian view of the world is that humanity and divinity are not essentially in conflict, but only apparrently so. This is where the doctrine of theosis is relevant, and sidesteps alot of the introspective, guilt-ridden conscience of western Christians, potentially.

Many of the eastern Church fathers had a high view of humanity, as does Judaism, through the doctrine of the Imago Dei.

They don't have to be in conflict to be fundamentally different: cold is the absence of heat, if humans are merely a reflection of God, then it's easy to stretch the metaphysics so that God "turned off" the divinity, but it brings up the question of what this says about his sovereignty if he can just stop being God partly, the whole "sharing" of power in some sense that makes Jews and Muslims bristle

A high view at first glance, but the problem becomes about how that meaning is us as a means to an end, glorifying God rather than embracing a sense that we are valuable because we are moral, thinking agents in ourselves, a end in ourselves

 

[FireDragon76]

They don't have to be in conflict to be fundamentally different: cold is the absence of heat, if humans are merely a reflection of God, then it's easy to stretch the metaphysics so that God "turned off" the divinity, but it brings up the question of what this says about his sovereignty if he can just stop being God partly

This isn't an accurate depiction of Christian beliefs. They don't believe Jesus "turned off" his divinity.

A high view at first glance, but the problem becomes about how that meaning is us as a means to an end, glorifying God rather than embracing a sense that we are valuable because we are moral, thinking agents in ourselves, a end in ourselves

Woah... hold on a minute. Not all Christians are Calvinists. Humans as an end to themselves is thoroughly compatible with some interpretations of Christianity.

 

[muichimotsu]

This isn't an accurate depiction of Christian beliefs. They don't believe Jesus "turned off" his divinity.



Woah... hold on a minute. Not all Christians are Calvinists. Humans as an end to themselves is thoroughly compatible with some interpretations of Christianity.

Not sure there's remotely a full agreement in terms of how to explain it, but the explanation only really matters internally anyway, trying to fit any amount of metaphysics to make sense of what becomes contradictory pretty flatly.

An end in themselves because of being in God's image is still contingent in nature and, I'd argue, hollow, because it's like fulfilling a function programmed into you, even if you have the "choice" to go with it or not. Life itself is a giant game and you're the pawn in pretty much any scenario, predestination or otherwise with a sovereign deity

 

[FireDragon76]

Not sure there's remotely a full agreement in terms of how to explain it, but the explanation only really matters internally anyway, trying to fit any amount of metaphysics to make sense of what becomes contradictory pretty flatly.

An end in themselves because of being in God's image is still contingent in nature and, I'd argue, hollow, because it's like fulfilling a function programmed into you, even if you have the "choice" to go with it or not. Life itself is a giant game and you're the pawn in pretty much any scenario, predestination or otherwise with a sovereign deity

Whether or not one is a Christian or even a theist, the contingency of human life seems self-evidently true.

 

[dlamberth]

It's not about ignoring experience, it's tempering our tendency to take those experiences at face value with skepticism[/quote]
So those experiences of the Divine should be tempered with skepticism? I'd say just the opposite needs to happen. The Divine brings in Sacredness. And we are in desperate need of Sacredness.

Having love does not preclude using reason in the slightest, they can strike a balance, rather than favoring one vastly over another.

Our short comings in today's society is that reason has precluded Love. Human Beings, more than any other creatures on this planet are made to respond to Love. And we've pretty short circuited that aspect of the Human experience.