So, What About My Take On What We Were Trying To Do When We Defined God?

First notice how agnostic I’m trying to be here. I’m making no claim to know whether god exists or not. I am befuddled by atheists who do not seem to see that this is a question outside their own conclusion re. the non-existence of god.
I’m merely trying to put our understanding of what “god” means in an historical context.
I understand completely why those who believe in god as a truth have trouble with the whole discussion, but I miss the atheist’s resistance altogether. The theist may well believe that we did not define god, but rather discovered Him/Her/It. I disagree with the theist who believes this, but I understand his/her position.
But the atheist surely recognizes a time when ”god” meant something quite different than it does to any of the world’s current religions today. My first encounter with this idea came when I realized “mythology” referred to any religion which was no longer adhered to. Today’s religions, almost by definition, are distant tomorrow’s mythologies.  No current member of any religion is apt to admit that, though, unless he/she is willing to defy what he/she has chosen to believe. It’s a quandary.
I am a bit different from both the atheist and the believer, though. I don’t know what to think about the existence of a god or the supernatural, but I’m pretty sure that if He/She/It does exist, there’s almost no chance that any of our religions, either present or past, have, or had, any idea what He/She/It is like.
What does seem apparent to me, though, is that we were trying to explain our reality when we came up with any of our definitions of god throughout history. Reality, through most of our history, mainly meant nature, so it is nature that I chiefly focus upon when I try to make sense of it.
What makes sense to me is that we were trying to explain nature when we decided what god was, and what  powers He/She/It possessed. It makes sense to me to this day. Unfortunately, we had no tools for making the assessment when we came to a common understanding of how nature worked, so any effort to define “god” in terms of Nature was bound to fall short. Like I said, it’s a quandary.
It makes sense to me to think of god as being nature. Maybe that’s just me. But trying to understand god as something much larger, as if something could be larger, seems to me to be pure folly: we simply run into contradictions when we pretend to know that much about reality.

Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to So, What About My Take On What We Were Trying To Do When We Defined God?

  1. Hank Raymond says:

    How come you refer to god in the singular? Wouldn’t gods be more accurate? Not he/she/it, but he/she/it/they. And all religions whether current or out of fashion are mythologies. I mean, my god/Jesus Christ, what else can you call it? (oops, sorry about the blasphemy. Please don’t send me to Hell.)

    • George says:

      I guess the he/she/it vs he/she/it/they pt is well taken. but thanks but no thanks for the power to sentence you to hell or not. Its far to far above my pay grade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *