Talk:God/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

A rather radical (yet sensible) suggestion

Oughtn't we to add Template:In-universe to this article? 61.68.135.198 04:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Depends. Is the universe we live in fictional? JuJube 04:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but God is, as is the universe of stories in which he appears. An impressive collection, but a fictional one nonetheless. 61.68.143.181 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Any objections? If not would somebody please add this template to the top of the page? 61.68.143.181 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, particularly the section prohibitting "bias for or against religion, faith, or beliefs." Best, --Shirahadasha 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely a WP:NPOV issue. The articles on most religions are written from an out-of-universe perspective; this should be the same for this character, although he does appear in a wide range of fictional universes. 59.101.164.46 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Christians do not believe that the bible is a work of fiction. Non believers obviously will. It's not a point of view problem I see being resolved easily... 82.28.21.130 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, many if not most Christians probably recognize the bible for the cobbled work of fiction that it is, and interpret it symbolically, not literally. The problem is that few of them seem to do so consistently, picking and choosing the parts they believe to be literally true, and which parts are symbolic. By what standard are these distinctions made? How many still believe in the literal story of Adam & Eve? Noah? Moses parting the red sea? The virgin birth? Jesus walking on water? Turning water into wine? The resurrection? The existence of God? --Serge 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

At least several hundred million, in round figures; more than that if we restrict our consideration to the NT. Personally I draw the line at Noah, which is also the last part of the Bible that can retain its essential meaning without being literally true. Moses is more probably true; NT events certainly are. But that's just me. See below TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts are not made true or untrue by the weight of opinion (I give you Nineteen Eighty-Four as the best example). Please see below.

I'm naive enough that only after many, many years of occasionally contentious online discussions that I see the above response as a sure sign of completely specious argument; replying as if I was not answering a question that was directly asked, but was instead arguing a different point entirely. I was not arguing truth by the weight of opinion. I was answering the questions asked in Serge's post. Period. If all you want to do is argue for the sake of arguing, please go away. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Serge, what does this have to do with the article? Are you seriously suggesting we use the "in-universe" template? the original suggestion looked like a troll to me. bikeable (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a valid point, but given the number of people who really believe it's not fiction, the tag would be a violation of WP:NPOV. --Serge 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Serge's first post; I disagree with his second. It might be a tad offensive, but then it might be offensive to atheists or Buddhists to suggest God might exist, or offensive to pagans and Hindus to suggest there's only one of them. Suppressing facts because they're offensive is called censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. There are two types of information on Wikipedia: facts, and opinions. Opinions cannot be proven, only debated, and the application of Template:In-universe to an the Religion article would be silly. But here, Religion is the opinion-part, and God is the fact-part. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the stories about any god at all are not fiction, or at most fictionalised history? There's no shame in fiction. Any religion, including atheism, is based on some fiction concerning God. Money is a fiction. Hours are fictional divisions of the day. Adding Template:In-universe here is no different from adding it to an article treating Homer's Iliad as a true account of the Trojan War. Roccondil 07:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the stories about any god at all are not fiction, or at most fictionalised history? Yes. Christianity in particular relies heavily on the historicity of the New Testament in its essential parts. This is not to say that every episode in the NT is recounted word-for-word as it happened, or that minor confusions such as Luke's error on the census didn't creep in, but that it's as correct as any other history that tries to convey the personalities of those it describes. As St. Paul put it, "For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." The one fact that Christianity absolutely cannot do without is the Resurrection, and without the living God the Resurrection cannot have happened.

I think Bikeable's suggestion is pretty clearly unworkable, but on the other hand there's no claim on the table in this discussion that God's existence is provable with scientific rigor. That's actually not surprising based on longstanding traditions about God's nature and the way he has conducted relations with humanity, so we don't need to reach for any special pleading to say that.

In any event, aren't you being more than a little disingenuous by saying the tag would not be an NPOV violation when WP:NPOV clearly says it would be? TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In the first case, that's where the "fictionalised history" part comes in. In the second place, the Resurrection is not a matter of fact; it's believed by many people, but that's not the point. For lack of a better word, it's fiction. In the second, it doesn't contravene NPOV at all. The neutral point of view, and the only logically tenable one, is agnosticism: God's existence cannot be proven one way or the other, and any religious belief, be it theistic, pantheistic, atheistic, whatever, is to a greater or lesser extent a matter of fiction. Although I am not an agnostic myself, it is clear as day to me that agnosticism is the very NPOV we need to discuss the other points of view from. The template is a temporary one, until the article is rewritten accordingly. If Template:In-universe is too controversial, let's settle for the milder Template:NPOV. Roccondil 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) In the first case, it's not of necessity any more fictionalized than, say, Barbara Tuchman's historical books, which are not generally so considered. You're just trying to apply a different standard for religion than for everything else. In the second place, you're again changing the subject which again tells me you're not making a serious point. I was explaining why {{in-universe}} is a direct violation of an explicit statement at WP:NPOV by highlighting the importance of the belief in the historicity of these events, which makes placement of that template a direct attack on most of Christianity. Since you can't win that one, you're taking a different tack on it. It's wrong, but it's also not at issue.

I'm very, very tired of any article on a subject that might be even mildly controversial becoming a battleground of the absurd. An article about God ought to be about various beliefs about God. You don't have to assert the either truth or falsity of any belief, including belief as truth or falsity per se, to cover the subject. If the article leans toward a position of affirming one POV over another, atheism included, then that ought to be corrected. As far as I can see, the only changes really called for are a mention of agnosticism and atheism in the intro, and addition of brief sections on them in the body of the article. There are already sections on the existence question and on the scientific perspective, but they're both too broad to adequately represent the POVs. NB: There are already articles on Atheism and Agnosticism about those POVs, and Existence of God to describe the controversy, so it's not as if Wikipedia doesn't adequately cover these subjects. So if you want to add the sections, you can go for it as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, I see no pervasive problems with this article that placement of any of the tags would solve. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. You can add the in-universe template as soon as you find a reliable source which proves rigorously that God does not exist. Good luck. bikeable (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's rather missing the point, bikeable. I don't have a problem with religion. But can you prove Middle-earth does not exist? Can you prove The Force does not exist? Can you prove the Roswell UFO incident does not exist? Of course you can't, and in each case there are those who claim they do exist (seriously or otherwise), but you surely wouldn't deny that they're fictional. If people write stories about things which are not demonstrably real, those stories are called fiction. Only stories which for whatever reason we call "religious" or "holy" or "sacred" or whatever, and only a small percentage of those, are exempt to this rule. Why? Why should they be exempt? The template is a temporary one, until the article is modified to present these things. Roccondil 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicely argued. But this is not Epistemology 101; nothing is knowable if your standard of proof is too high. Let us stick to WP standards: We need reliable sources. I can find a number that indicate that Middle-earth is the literary product of a certain twentieth-century English author; I can find a number that say that The Force is the product of a young American screenwriter. Claiming otherwise in those articles would be giving undue weight to marginal crackpot theories. As you say, agnosticism is the correct NPOV approach, whereas the template in question explicitly calls the subject fictional. That's as POV as you can get. And despite millennia of effort, no one has evidence one way or the other about God.

A more sensible approach might be to write an "agnostic" template saying something like, evidence is uncertain as to whether the subject of this article is real or fictional. But either that template would apply only to God (and possibly to the Higgs boson, or we would have to apply it to every single page on wikipedia -- since, of course, you cannot prove that Albert Einstein existed any more than that Middle earth does not. bikeable (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but in most cases we don't need to prove something exists in order to be able to say it (probably) does. The overwhelming weight of evidence says that Qatar, Sirius, General Relativity and Jesus all exist(ed); the overwhelming weight of evidence says that Middle-earth, the Force, Roswell and God do not. Evidence isn't proof of course - we can't prove God doesn't exist, any more than we can prove he does - but it's a more probable and likely explanation, as well as a simpler one. Evidence is uncertain about many things, historical incidents, scientific theories and the like. If the agnostic template would only apply to the article (which you're right, it would), it would be more sensible to incorporate its material into the article itself, which I have done. Roccondil 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The supreme reality?

The opening sentence currently is:

The name God refers to the deity held by monotheists to be the supreme reality.

What is meant by "the supreme reality", and are there any citations for this definition? I'm going to mark it as needing a citation. --Serge 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to changing the opening sentence to the following?

The name God refers to the sole deity believed by monotheists to exist.

I think that's more accurate. --Serge 06:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Serge 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I reverted recent edits because I believe they represent a tone inconsistent with the NPOV policy. As but one example, statements like "theologians choose attributes from a wide variety of mythical and supernatural..." imply that theologians fabricate attributes -- that they are making up essentially arbitrary choices out of their own heads or from "myths" -- which is an express violation of WP:NPOV's prohibition of anti-religious bias. Please discuss changes like this here first. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you reverted all of my changes, including the ones discussed above, even though I made them separately. Anyway, I applied the changes from above, and some minor corrections that I think you will agree do not violate NPOV. --Serge 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. No worries. The article just requres some care with wording. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The opening line

So, even after my update, I still have a problem with the opening line:

The name God refers to the sole deity held by monotheists to exist.

The issue is that while each monotheist believes that exactly one deity exists, the sole deity that every monotheist believes in is not the same one. That is, the God believed in by Christians is not the same God believed in by Jews (e.g., the former sent the Messiah 2000 years, the latter has not yet), Moslems, Mormons, Unitarians, Hindus, etc. etc. Further, even individuals of a particular faith have different and conflicting concepts of God (e.g., the God described by a literal interpretation of the Bible vs. one derived from a more symbolic interpretation). None of this this is captured by this statement. So what I think it should say is something like:

God is the term used to refer to any particular one of countless monotheistic concepts of a sole deity.

But I suspect it could be said more succinctly. Any suggestions? --Serge 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

The term God is used to refer to any particular one of the concepts of a sole deity held by monotheists to exist.

--Serge 04:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The term is often thought of as a proper noun as distinct from a noun referring to a concept. --Shirahadasha 05:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. How about:

God is used to refer, by name, to any particular one of the conceptions of a sole deity held by monotheists to exist.

--Serge 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that still doesn't capture it, since the word is commonly used to generically refer to an unspecified conception of a sole deity. So how about this:

God is used to refer, by name, to an indefinite conception of a solely existent deity held by monotheists to exist in some particular form, or to any particular one of those definite conceptions.

--Serge 05:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I settled on this:

The title or name God refers to an indefinite conception of a solely existent deity held by monotheists to exist in some particular form, or to any particular one of those conceptions defined to have certain specific attributes.

--Serge 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that's a terrible opening line. Nothing personal, but that line is very awkward and abstruse. You need to give up a little forced preciseness for more readability. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I entirely agree. Serge, I really appreciate your work on this, but the first line is nearly unreadable. I think we were better off with

The name God refers to the deity held by monotheists to be the supreme reality.

...if we could fix up the "supreme reality" bit, we'd be in business. sorry. bikeable (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, but the current version is problematic:

The title or name God refers to an entity believed to exist as the aware intelligent ground of being and sole creator of the universe.

First, can we agree to work on it here, and then make the changes? Second, what does "the aware intelligent ground of being" mean? How about this:

The title or name God refers to a deity believed by monotheists to be the only god that exists.

--Serge 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the point I tried to convey with the above version that is lost in the current version: Even monotheists are atheists with respect to all the other gods, even those that other monotheists believe to exist. For example, a Catholic monotheist who believes a pope-recognizing conception of God exists does not believe the Mormon conception of God, that recognizes Joseph Smith to be a prophet, to exist, and vice versa. --Serge 21:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you meant, and it's a good point. but I think it's far too nuanced for the first sentence. furthermore, it may be somewhat tautological -- someone who is monotheistic by definition believes in only one God, and furthermore believes in their God... so the other possible Gods are not really an issues. I'm not sure exactly how to put it, but I would not spend too much of the first sentence arguing this point.

Anyway, I like the version you use above, although I would delete "title":

The name God refers to a deity believed by monotheists to be the only god that exists.

However, I think that "existence" is a bit paltry for the first sentence -- anyone called God generally has a lot of other attributes, typically, supreme authority, source of goodness and morality, etc etc. If we can add more attributes that are generally accepted (they do not necessarily need to be universal) to the first sentence, it would add a lot. God refers to much more than just the fact that he is unique. (Wow, this stuff is hard to describe.) bikeable (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, how about something along these lines?

The name God refers to the deity, usually considered the creator of the universe and often identified with reality itself, who is believed by monotheists to be the only god that exists.

I changed back "a deity" to "the deity", because "a" sounds funny -- God with a capital G followed by monotheists is the only God, even though there many be numerous conceptions of God to choose from. whew. I still think this adds a bit too much weight to the monotheistic angle -- as if, for example, a god could be the creator and supreme reality and still be one of many. well, it's just a place to start. bikeable (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In general I like it, but I continue to be surprised by the reality connection. I am not familar with the "ultimate reality" (referenced in an earlier version) and "identified with reality" connotations. What does that mean? --Serge 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, that is probably too wishy-washy, and too specific -- it seems a bit pantheistic. I was thinking of a God without whom you wouldn't have a universe, i.e., a God who is in some sense the same as reality itself. but that's not a necessary view. the 1911 Britannica [1] uses the term Supreme Being, which is a nice way to put it, but does also seem vague. bikeable (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I captured most of the above with this:

The name God refers to an entity believed by monotheists to exist as a deity and sole creator of the universe.

--Serge 00:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that as an improvement. Are we absolutely certain all monotheists belive God to be the sole Creator? Is that the defnining charactersitic of God (which it needs to be if its the only attribute mentioned in the lead). And "to exist" seems wordy and quibbling, sorry - "to be" is more succinct and flows better. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

God in monotheistic religions is not necessarily the sole creator (unless you restrict the moment of creation to very first instance of creation) but the is necessarily the cause of all causes, the only eternal being as opposed to all his creatures. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, "prime mover", "prime cause" would probably be better. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

God is the name most commonly used to refer to any one of countless conceptions of a deity believed by monotheists to exist, usually held to be the creator of the universe.

--Serge 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I'll update accordingly. --Serge 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

countless vs. numerous

After applying the change above, it was almost immediately changed, without discussion, to:

God is the name most commonly used to refer to any one of numerous conceptions of a deity believed by monotheists to exist, usually held to be the creator of the universe.

Every single monotheistic believer who lives, or who has ever lived, has his own unique conception of "God". It seems to me "numerous" is a gross understatement of this, and "countless" is more accurate. No? In any case, can we please hash this out here on the talk page rather than in the article? --Serge 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Waiting one day for objections to be raised is rather hasty, IMO. My objection is primarily firstly, that "countless" is a nebulous extreme, which by its nature is prone to being used as an exaggeration or as hyperbole; and secondly, as this is the monotheistic god, it is unlikely that it is accurate. Finally, "God is the name" or "God is the word" has been hashed out numerous times on the talk page of this article, adn this article is about the concept, GOD, most emphatically not about the "word" GOD, else we wouldn't have the Jews and the Muslims here would we? In fact, all we'd have are English speaking Christians in this article. The entire edit is problematic, erroneous, and inaccurate. I chose to change one high-blown overstated word, rather than revert the whole mess. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary defines "countless" as "too numerous to be counted; very many". That seems appropriate. No hyperbole. There is no single concept to which the name "God" refers. It's like having an article named John, or Palm tree. When people use the word "God", which one of countless conceptions they are referring to totally depends on who is using it and in what context. That's what this article is about, as it should be. --Serge 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no such thing as "the monotheistic God". Every monotheist believes in his own conception of God (and is an atheist with respect to every other conception of God). Even in general terms, Catholics believe in the concept of God that recognizes the Pope and manages Purgatory, Protestants don't. Mormons believe in the monotheistic concept of God that recognizes Joseph Smith to be a prophet, Jews, Catholics, Moslems, Catholics, etc. do not. Most monotheists believe in a conception of God that answers at least some prayers, but not all do. The differences go on and on, and are countless. There is no such thing as "the monotheistic God". --Serge 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a certain atheist bias in the lead paragraph now. At first I suspect that Richard Dawkins had written it, but he would have mentioned the Juju at the top of the mountain as an example of a monotheist God. As far as I know, most theist do contend that there is at least some underlying unity the notions of the divine. While people have different conceptions of God, it is still the same God, be he called God or Allah. --Merzul 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an objective and legitimate NPOV question: If it's a different conception of God, how can it be the same God? --Serge 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea how people can claim there is one God or how they explain religious plurality, but they do, and we should respect their brave efforts. ;) I guess the reason they get away with it is because when they argue philosophically they use abstract and nebulous concepts of God that even atheists believe in. When they go home and practice their religious life, they certainly hold beliefs that are contrary to each other; but once in a while they go to inter-faith meetings and find their common core or something. --Merzul 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually the basic argument is that God is unknowable and mysterious, and each person is seeing one aspect of His Holy Oneness. There is an analogy, I don't remember, with an elephant or something, that one person saw the nose and thought it was a water pipe, the other person saw the legs and thought he was a pillar. I'm just making up, but there really is an analogy that "explains" how contradictory conceptions can be unified, it had to do with an elephant. I hope this convinces you. --Merzul 20:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the spiritual elephant. --Merzul 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but multiple partial conceptions of the ultimate same thing would not be inherently contradictory. I mean, either God recognizes Joseph Smith to be a prophet, or not. In the Mormon conception he does, in most others he does not. From a neutral NPOV, the various and countless inherently contradictory conceptions cannot be referencing the same God. --Serge 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? By this logic, I'd imagine you'd say that the electron has to go through either the one hole or the other. Surely it can't go through both at the same time -- and certainly not in a way that both passages interfere with each other. We report what's observed here. We don't report what we personally think is logical. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it took my some time see your quantum-point here, but how theists reconcile their differences is a deep question, and while it is too complicate to make logical sense to me, I know they do hold the position that there is one God. Of course, the problem of religious amibguity is very serious, and here's a book trying to respond to these problems. In any case, I think the way theists are going forward now is to search for something spiritually relevant in other tradition, they don't actually seek a common core like I caricatured. Here is an interview with the current Templeton prize winner Charles Taylor, I will quote the relevant section:

Q: If you were hired to consult with all the great world religions, with the idea toward finding a pluralistic solution that guaranteed mutual respect, how would you get around the obvious problem that the closer the world religions come together, the more they must flatten their beliefs into a universal theme, denying their depth and differences?

A: It's a very, very deep question and when I've been in dialogues across these barriers, that haven't been of that watering down kind, but where there's something else, there's a deep sense that there's something very important and valid there even if you don't end up believing it. That in this other spirituality there is something very deep. I've talked to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and I've said 'tell me what really makes you tick, and don't water it down, and I'll do the same for you.' And this has been a remarkably spiritually rewarding experience for me. You don't need to find some middle-point, some syntheses, that doesn't make sense . . . The Dalai Lama, someone I admire very much and I've had some discussions with said about this issue, 'you don't put a yak's head on a sheep's body.'

Our current lead doesn't reflect this attitude that most monotheists feel about other spiritual traditions, namely that "there's a deep sense that there's something very important and valid there even if you don't end up believing it". --Merzul 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Should that kumbaya attitude even be part of an article on "God"? I'm beginning to think God should be a redirect to monotheism. --Serge 02:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article does say This article discusses the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism, which makes sense for an article about God with a capital 'G'. He isn't just any old deity, He is the "one and only", he is The One God, who will forgive you for making fun of my kumbaya attitude. :P --Merzul 03:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this section is getting lost, so I started a new one, Opening line violates NPOV?, at the bottom. --Serge 00:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)