God is personal? What the heck does that mean?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-08-27 03:57pm

R.O.A wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:Weak persons need a close-by personal God in the same way that a person with a fractured tibia need a close-by crutch.

Although admittedly kicking the God-crutch out from under people is much more rewarding, for both parties, than kicking away the literal kind.
Is that to say that only a strong person believes in an inpersonal one?

You find something objectionable about the proposition? Those who need crutches are generally weaker than those who do not. An impersonal God is less of a crutch than a personal one.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-08-27 04:06pm

R.O.A wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:Weak persons need a close-by personal God in the same way that a person with a fractured tibia need a close-by crutch.

Although admittedly kicking the God-crutch out from under people is much more rewarding, for both parties, than kicking away the literal kind.
Is that to say that only a strong person believes in an inpersonal one?

No.

The difference between believing in a 'personal' God, and an 'impersonal' one, impresses me as the difference between being on crutches for a broken ankle, versus being on crutches for a fractured tibia.

R.O.A · Post by **R.O.A** » 2008-08-27 05:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:
R.O.A wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:Weak persons need a close-by personal God in the same way that a person with a fractured tibia need a close-by crutch.

Although admittedly kicking the God-crutch out from under people is much more rewarding, for both parties, than kicking away the literal kind.
Is that to say that only a strong person believes in an inpersonal one?
You find something objectionable about the proposition? Those who need crutches are generally weaker than those who do not. An impersonal God is less of a crutch than a personal one.

Why is it more acceptable to believe in a god that will not interfere in your life vs. a god that will?

Consider the following scenario:

Two people have spouses suffering from a terrible disease. They have a small chance of surviving and there is no medical cure. Both individuals believe in god and one of them decides to pray to him for help.

Out of options both of them need some kind of crutch to fall on and they both turn to religion, having no other way to control the situation.

Why is it that if one believes that god will answer his prayers (More of a personal god) he is somehow intellectually lesser than the other that does not ask for help (more impersonal).

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-08-27 06:08pm

R.O.A wrote: Why is it more acceptable to believe in a god that will not interfere in your life vs. a god that will?

It isn't inherently more acceptable, but it is arguably less harmful. The one who believes in an impersonal god is less likely to act upon advice from invisible sky pixies in their head telling them what to do.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-08-27 06:33pm

R.O.A wrote: Why is it more acceptable to believe in a god that will not interfere in your life vs. a god that will?

One implies a more primitive and superstitious mindset. Whereas one has just relogated items of personal ignorance (creation of the world, etc) to godly magic, the other has determined that unseen magical forces have a personal interest in their life and will no doubt behave in accordance with the "demands" of these forces to get some sort of magical influence over their lives.

Consider the following scenario:

Two people have spouses suffering from a terrible disease. They have a small chance of surviving and there is no medical cure. Both individuals believe in god and one of them decides to pray to him for help.

Out of options both of them need some kind of crutch to fall on and they both turn to religion, having no other way to control the situation.

Why is it that if one believes that god will answer his prayers (More of a personal god) he is somehow intellectually lesser than the other that does not ask for help (more impersonal).

He's relying on superstitious behaviour to dictate his approach to life and problems, just like Skinner's pigeons (described by Dawkins here). I wouldn't begrudge someone for doing that specific example, but it is the same superstitious line of thought that causes harmful traditions and rituals, e.g. circumcision, human sacrifice, etc.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-08-27 06:34pm

R.O.A wrote: Why is it that if one believes that god will answer his prayers (More of a personal god) he is somehow intellectually lesser than the other that does not ask for help (more impersonal).

From the (subjective) standpoints of the praying observer who actually believes that a personal god exists and that of the believer in an impersonal god who won't intervene, there is no "difference" intellectually. Both believe what they believe and act on it.

From the objective (reality) standpoint, there is little actual evidence to indicate that there is a god at all much less one who will intervene. The observable behavior of the universes and our lives suggests that even if there were a god being that it doesn't do anything any way. Thus the person who believes that god will actually do something is less in touch with reality, and slightly more so than that of his/her impersonal deity counterpart.

The danger from praying to a god who one believes is personal is that if the desired result does not come about, then now there can be more questions to be asked and additional frustrations added. Why didn't god heal them? If it's part of his plan, than why is it part of his plan? Is my faith not strong enough? Why did they get sick in the first place, and etc. A person who doesn't believe in a personal god won't have to worry about that sort of thinking in the first place because they already know their god won't intervene anyway.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-08-27 10:46pm

R.O.A wrote:Why is it more acceptable to believe in a god that will not interfere in your life vs. a god that will?

Because one of them is more stupid than the other one.

Consider the following scenario:

Two people have spouses suffering from a terrible disease. They have a small chance of surviving and there is no medical cure. Both individuals believe in god and one of them decides to pray to him for help.

Hooray for him for wasting his time?

Out of options both of them need some kind of crutch to fall on and they both turn to religion, having no other way to control the situation.

The difference is that one of them believes in a real-world phenomenon which won't happen, in addition to believing in an afterlife. The other one knows he/she is probably going to die regardless of prayer, and chooses to assuage his/her fears by believing in an afterlife. They both believe in irrational things, but the first person believes in more irrational things. To be specific, the first person believes in:

- Miracles
- Afterlife

The second person believes in:

- Afterlife

They're both irrational yes. But the first person is more irrational, because he believes in more irrational stuff. Get it? Or do you need it explained in even greater simplicity somehow?

Why is it that if one believes that god will answer his prayers (More of a personal god) he is somehow intellectually lesser than the other that does not ask for help (more impersonal).

See above. I can't believe people actually need something this obvious explained to them.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2008-08-29 04:43am

Sorry for going off-topic (no response to this random statement is neccessary), but I've always found the God Emperor of Mankind in Warhammer 40,000 to be an incredible attractive idea. It would be great if such a thing were real.
The concept of an ultimate fulfilment of our patriarchal tribal instincts is amazing.

Those lucky people in that fictional universe get to rationally worship an incredibly powerful being who exists for the betterment and protection of mankind, who provides tangible effects and even, once, walked in flesh as a leader without equal, an unstoppable warrior and an amazing scientist.

Okay, enough off topic.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2008-08-29 07:16am

Cykeisme wrote:Sorry for going off-topic (no response to this random statement is neccessary), but I've always found the God Emperor of Mankind in Warhammer 40,000 to be an incredible attractive idea. It would be great if such a thing were real.

Fiction is great in that it can always be as inviting as you want it to be. For example, if you're a bronze-age nomad, having a mighty warrior spirit who leads you to victory against your enemies and declares you sovereign of all you survey sounds swell.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-08-29 10:37am

Lagmonster wrote:
Cykeisme wrote:Sorry for going off-topic (no response to this random statement is neccessary), but I've always found the God Emperor of Mankind in Warhammer 40,000 to be an incredible attractive idea. It would be great if such a thing were real.
Fiction is great in that it can always be as inviting as you want it to be. For example, if you're a bronze-age nomad, having a mighty warrior spirit who leads you to victory against your enemies and declares you sovereign of all you survey sounds swell.

Wow that story sounds vaguely familiar...