Comments on: The God of Shadow and Vapor http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Stutz http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-55353 Stutz Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:24:20 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-55353 Quote: "The only real difference between Bunting, Armstrong and other apophatic theists on one hand, and atheists on the other, is that they feel compelled to slap the label "God" on something, even if that something is a philosophical abstraction with no content. And that's fine if that's what they want, I really couldn't care less - until they start insisting, inexplicably, that belief in this nullity is a prerequisite for virtue; or worse, that this is what all theists really believe. Both of these claims are transparently false, and when they try to defend them, the apophatic apologists look just as disconnected from reality as the deity they claim to believe in." What a perfect paragraph! This is exactly what I've been trying to say about wishy-washy, New-Age-y, theological, God-of-the-gaps, deistic God-belief for a long time, and you've worded it nearly flawlessly. "The compulsion to slap the label "God" on something, even if it is a philosophical abstraction with no content..." So many people who wouldn't remotely understand the term "apophatic theists" are nevertheless perfectly described by this. You don't have to be a theologian to think this kind of thing. The belief that all religions lead to God, the belief that Jesus is a happy feeling inside, the belief that religion is "a different way of knowing" (a layman version of the non-overlapping magesteria argument): all of these are types of apophatic belief, I would argue. I think this issue is important because it's sort of the last stumbling block that hinders people on their journey away from theism. The Incredible Shrinking God (Shadow & Vapor) will retreat and retreat until it reaches this point, and I think it's important to address this last bastion of illogic. Quote:
"The only real difference between Bunting, Armstrong and other apophatic theists on one hand, and atheists on the other, is that they feel compelled to slap the label "God" on something, even if that something is a philosophical abstraction with no content. And that's fine if that's what they want, I really couldn't care less - until they start insisting, inexplicably, that belief in this nullity is a prerequisite for virtue; or worse, that this is what all theists really believe. Both of these claims are transparently false, and when they try to defend them, the apophatic apologists look just as disconnected from reality as the deity they claim to believe in."

What a perfect paragraph! This is exactly what I've been trying to say about wishy-washy, New-Age-y, theological, God-of-the-gaps, deistic God-belief for a long time, and you've worded it nearly flawlessly. "The compulsion to slap the label "God" on something, even if it is a philosophical abstraction with no content..." So many people who wouldn't remotely understand the term "apophatic theists" are nevertheless perfectly described by this. You don't have to be a theologian to think this kind of thing. The belief that all religions lead to God, the belief that Jesus is a happy feeling inside, the belief that religion is "a different way of knowing" (a layman version of the non-overlapping magesteria argument): all of these are types of apophatic belief, I would argue.

I think this issue is important because it's sort of the last stumbling block that hinders people on their journey away from theism. The Incredible Shrinking God (Shadow & Vapor) will retreat and retreat until it reaches this point, and I think it's important to address this last bastion of illogic.

]]> By: mikespeir http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48412 mikespeir Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:31:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48412 Reginald, from your link: <blockquote>Skipping through the Kabbalah, introduced by the Madonna of Lourdes and Mercy (1459 - )....</blockquote> Let's just say I shouldn't have had food in my mouth when I read that. Reginald, from your link:

Skipping through the Kabbalah, introduced by the Madonna of Lourdes and Mercy (1459 - )....

Let's just say I shouldn't have had food in my mouth when I read that.

]]> By: Reginald Selkirk http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48411 Reginald Selkirk Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:25:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48411 Check out this parodical review of Armstrong's book by John Crace: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jul/07/karen-armstrong-case-for-god" rel="nofollow">The Case for God by Karen Armstrong</a> Check out this parodical review of Armstrong's book by John Crace:
The Case for God by Karen Armstrong

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48329 Ebonmuse Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:16:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48329 *laugh* Point well taken, Scotlyn. *laugh* Point well taken, Scotlyn.

]]> By: Scotlyn http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48328 Scotlyn Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:05:23 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48328 <blockquote>The creationist spewage in this thread has been cleaned up</blockquote> Ebon, when your spewage problems get out of hand, may I recommend that in future you use a sceptic tank?

The creationist spewage in this thread has been cleaned up

Ebon, when your spewage problems get out of hand, may I recommend that in future you use a sceptic tank?

]]> By: Erika http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48310 Erika Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:49:59 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48310 "certain forms of knowledge only come with practice" is quite the insidious phrase because it is just a little off from being true. The phrase plays on the dual meaning of "knowledge". "Knowledge" can mean "truth" or it can mean "understanding". It is true that "certain forms of <i>understanding</i> only come with practice", but I believe that I am not the only one here who thinks that it is not true that "certain forms of <i>truth</i> only come with practice". "certain forms of knowledge only come with practice" is quite the insidious phrase because it is just a little off from being true. The phrase plays on the dual meaning of "knowledge". "Knowledge" can mean "truth" or it can mean "understanding".

It is true that "certain forms of understanding only come with practice", but I believe that I am not the only one here who thinks that it is not true that "certain forms of truth only come with practice".

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48308 Ebonmuse Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:18:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48308 The creationist spewage in this thread has been cleaned up. Sorry for the inconvenience. The creationist spewage in this thread has been cleaned up. Sorry for the inconvenience.

]]> By: Yahzi http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48265 Yahzi Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:38:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48265 "If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its non-existence, we say that thing does not exist. This is called Reason." - Yahzi Coyote One of my favorite quotes by me. It is truly remarkable how people who proclaim that God is unknowable can write so many words about knowing God... "If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its non-existence, we say that thing does not exist. This is called Reason." - Yahzi Coyote

One of my favorite quotes by me.

It is truly remarkable how people who proclaim that God is unknowable can write so many words about knowing God...

]]> By: John Nernoff http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48187 John Nernoff Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:07:52 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48187 If "God" is beyond powers of description than the word "God" cannot be defined, characterized or explained. It remains totally empty of meaning with no referent. It cannot and should not be used in any discussion or claim. If "God" is beyond powers of description than the word "God" cannot be defined, characterized or explained. It remains totally empty of meaning with no referent. It cannot and should not be used in any discussion or claim.

]]> By: Brian M http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48178 Brian M Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:03:35 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48178 "Why is it that different practitioners come up with such wildly different "knowledge"? How can it even count as "knowledge" if it only happens in your own head, can't be checked against reality, and varies radically to the point of complete contradiction from person to person? By what possible useful definition of the word "knowledge" does this qualify? How is this "knowledge" anything other than a hunch at most, and an emotion at least? Not to denigrate emotion... but it doesn't exactly qualify as "knowledge."" Greta...thank you for this discussion: There is an annoying but active poster on another athism blog who spouts mystical b.s. His main schtick is that the God of the fundamenatlists and the bible is not REALLY God. God is some vague indwelling feeling or other he has never been able to coherently describe but that makes him qualified to firmly state the existence of said true God. Why a vague internalized "feeling" constitutes proof is something JohnC has never been able to explain, but... "Why is it that different practitioners come up with such wildly different "knowledge"? How can it even count as "knowledge" if it only happens in your own head, can't be checked against reality, and varies radically to the point of complete contradiction from person to person?

By what possible useful definition of the word "knowledge" does this qualify? How is this "knowledge" anything other than a hunch at most, and an emotion at least? Not to denigrate emotion... but it doesn't exactly qualify as "knowledge.""

Greta...thank you for this discussion: There is an annoying but active poster on another athism blog who spouts mystical b.s. His main schtick is that the God of the fundamenatlists and the bible is not REALLY God. God is some vague indwelling feeling or other he has never been able to coherently describe but that makes him qualified to firmly state the existence of said true God. Why a vague internalized "feeling" constitutes proof is something JohnC has never been able to explain, but...

]]> By: You Can’t Define What You Can’t Define | Stefan Powys http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48172 You Can’t Define What You Can’t Define | Stefan Powys Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:29:31 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48172 [...] Daylight Atheism has a better post than this, on the same subject.) Share/Send/Save No Comments [...] [...] Daylight Atheism has a better post than this, on the same subject.) Share/Send/Save No Comments [...]

]]> By: Steven Carr http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/the-god-of-shadow-and-vapor.html#comment-48159 Steven Carr Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:23:05 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1062#comment-48159 If you cannot tell me what kind of God I believe in then you are an ignorant atheist. If I cannot tell you what kind of God I believe in, then I am a very sophisticated theologian. If you cannot tell me what kind of God I believe in then you are an ignorant atheist.

If I cannot tell you what kind of God I believe in, then I am a very sophisticated theologian.

]]>