The problem with God

[PrinceMyshkin]

The problem with God
is the problem rivers have
when they attempt to flow against the tide.

To God, existence and inexistence
are a one-sided coin but we,
haunted by death, prefer to believe
there are two sides,
which we can flip at will.

In this hollow beneath the mystery
of God’s existence/inexistence
(the distinction between the two
being an artifice of our quotidian minds)

we have heard Sumerian, Hebrew,
Aramaic, Choctaw, each
with a vowel or half a vowel,
a consonant of Godspeech

fragmented, while we stand
firm on Dais Earth,
passionate and fluent,
addressing each other and God

in clicks and glottal stops:
stubbornly, irredeemably polyglot.

[Hawkman]

Mein Dieu, that's profundo:)

A nice idea, god battling against a tide of multi-denominational un-belief in all the languages of the planet. Brilliant!

Live and be well. H

[Demeter'sDauter]

I really enjoyed this; I especially like the image of God as a warrior. Well done!

[hillwalker]

A clever piece, Prince.

Smacks a little of the Tower of Babel - but also exposes Man's arrogant assurace that his interpretation of 'Godspeech' (super word, by the way) is the true interpretation, according to whatever 'civilisation' he happens to be in at the time.

And the last two lines in a way echo the poem's theme - rather like a recurring soundtrack to the whole problem of why men can never communicate effectively while they are so busy babbling.

A brilliant poem.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Hawkman: I'm thrilled that someone (or several) could make sense of this because I wasn't altogether sure that I had.

Demeter's Dauter: Thanks. I hadn't actually thought of God as a warrior but, if I had, I'd have meant Him to be seen as an unarmed one.

Hillwalker: Yes, the Tower of Babel was very much on my mind, though of course I took it a bit further than the OT version.

[MorpheusSandman]

I love this and, again, maybe it's the place my mind's been lately but this very much seems to echo the themes I was trying to express in my last sonnet. FWIW, I think the second half, with its focus on polyglot language (and, suggestively, multi-cultural) and its relation with God is stronger than the first where I don't think the God as river simile plays nearly as well. I might considering excising the third stanza all together; just let that be suggested in the rest of the second half and second stanza. Also, it's a minor point, but I don't know if "irredeemably" polyglot works. I probably would've gone with "unresolvably".

[PrinceMyshkin]

I love this and, again, maybe it's the place my mind's been lately but this very much seems to echo the themes I was trying to express in my last sonnet. FWIW, I think the second half, with its focus on polyglot language (and, suggestively, multi-cultural) and its relation with God is stronger than the first where I don't think the God as river simile plays nearly as well. I might considering excising the third stanza all together; just let that be suggested in the rest of the second half and second stanza. Also, it's a minor point, but I don't know if "irredeemably" polyglot works. I probably would've gone with "unresolvably".

I'm afraid I'm wedded to that first verse, which was the seed of the poem. And as for the third, I regret the prosaic nature of it but thought well of my metaphysical point that "God" was exempt from the limited options, of existence vs inexistence, that we seem to live by, the either/or of the mortal imagination.

I'd need to think more of your preference for "unresolvably" vs "unredeemably" but many thanks for your usual very thoughtful reading.

[Virgil]

Very interesting Prince. I'm not sure I understand the simile of the openning stanza in the context of the rest of the poem, but it's very solid and deep poem. I like it.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Very interesting Prince. I'm not sure I understand the simile of the openning stanza in the context of the rest of the poem, but it's very solid and deep poem. I like it.

As I mentioned in my response before this one, the first three lines came to me from my subconscious, and I often make an intuitive stab at what such lines mean. In this case, in keeping I hope with the rest of the poem, just as there are laws that govern the direction a river may take, my intuition was that neither we nor God could quite reach each other.

[Virgil]

As I mentioned in my response before this one, the first three lines came to me from my subconscious, and I often make an intuitive stab at what such lines mean. In this case, in keeping I hope with the rest of the poem, just as there are laws that govern the direction a river may take, my intuition was that neither we nor God could quite reach each other.

I guess it fits. It definitely makes the poem more powerful.

[MorpheusSandman]

I'd need to think more of your preference for "unresolvably" vs "unredeemably" but many thanks for your usual very thoughtful reading.I think "irredeemably" is a bit strange in this context. I could relate to the metaphor of the "coin" you use earlier, but what exactly is it that can't be redeemed and what should it be redeemed as? I like "unresolvably" because it fits with what's being described; that these different versions of God and the languages used to express, praise, claim, etc. their conflicting conflicts can't be resolved into one.

[lallison]

I love the analogy between god and a river, love it so much I'm going to have to agree with it. God is like a stinking river flowing into the high tide, isn't he. Water flowing into a long, winding river, always changing, always the same that ends up battered and diffusing into the sea. I like its Taoist implications too. Also brings up Siddhartha.

Not crazy about the textbook-like third stanza. Then the poem turn a bit into the linguistics i had to take in grad school. I like linguistics (it's my profession) but figuratively, I like your first stanza best, and feel the rest of the poem doesn't fit with it as well as it could. Not that its bad, I just love your stuck river flowing nowhere more than ancient Mesopotamian languages with a native American one thrown in to boot. I want to hear more about the river.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I love the analogy between god and a river, love it so much I'm going to have to agree with it. God is like a stinking river flowing into the high tide, isn't he. Water flowing into a long, winding river, always changing, always the same that ends up battered and diffusing into the sea. I like its Taoist implications too. Also brings up Siddhartha.

Not crazy about the textbook-like third stanza. Then the poem turn a bit into the linguistics i had to take in grad school. I like linguistics (it's my profession) but figuratively, I like your first stanza best, and feel the rest of the poem doesn't fit with it as well as it could. Not that its bad, I just love your stuck river flowing nowhere more than ancient Mesopotamian languages with a native American one thrown in to boot. I want to hear more about the river.

Delighted that you appreciated the first stanza, the spark for the rest of it. As for the third stanza, I often find it hard to sustain the music of the inspiration and, instead, all too often descend into didacticism.

[blank|verse]

I, too, had problems with the opening simile, mainly because rivers don't have problems flowing into the sea! They're composed of water, which just finds a way round things if they encounter obstacles.

Poetically, this is the more moralistic side of your writing Prince! It's rather too moralistic for me, as it is clear the narrator believes in the existence of God and that it is man who is wrong.

But it's always an honour to be afforded a glimpse into the intellectual workings of the Prince!

[Hawkman]

B/V, In prince's defense I draw your attention to the Severn Bore (I hope I've spelled it right) Rivers can attempt to flow against the tide and when they do can result in little tidal waves that flow upstream. H

[blank|verse]

B/V, In prince's defense I draw your attention to the Severn Bore (I hope I've spelled it right) Rivers can attempt to flow against the tide and when they do can result in little tidal waves that flow upstream. H

But I don't see why that's a 'problem' to the river. How often does it happen - once, twice a year? I think the simile falters as it's based on this pathetic fallacy that the river is actually in opposition to the sea, when it's all really water and doesn't care where it goes or how it gets there. It literally just goes with the flow.

[lallison]

another example is Tonel Sap Lake in Cambodia, where the river actually changes the direction of its flow for a season to double the size of the natural lake. Water doesn't always perform as calculated, one should be quite careful of trying to predict it. There is nothing more unpredictable in recorded history.

[hillwalker]

In the words of Frank Zappa (I think)

'The ocean is the ultimate solution'

H

[PrinceMyshkin]

I, too, had problems with the opening simile, mainly because rivers don't have problems flowing into the sea! They're composed of water, which just finds a way round things if they encounter obstacles.

Quelle horreure! Do they actually flow into the sea against the tide? If so the whole damned poem is meaningless.

I wonder if Hawkman's reply re the Severn Bore resolves the problem? But I had not yet seen the follow-ups by lallison and by you.

[Hawkman]

Additonally, a river flowing against the incomming tide stops, hence the flooding. Anyone who has lived near a tidal estuary will be familliar with this. It is an observable phenomenon. There comes a point when the incomming tide overtakes the outgoing flow. It is why sailing ships used the tide to get upstream. Not whithstanding; there will be sub surface currents caused by salination/termperature differentials, but to say that a river flowing into the sea is not effected by the tide acting in the opposite direction, makes no sense.

[PrinceMyshkin]

it is clear the narrator believes in the existence of God and that it is man who is wrong.


I won't attempt to speak for the narrator of this poem but I used to be a rather fundamentalist atheist in that I would go on and on much as any dogmatic believer about the silliness or worse of theism, but on the road to Damascus I had the revelation that in denying categorically the existence of a God I could neither see nor sniff nor sense, I was being as rigid as those who could quote you chapter and verse as to what "God" wanted... whereupon I became, as I now am, a lapsed atheist.

I do like the idea, however, that if a God exists He/She or It does so in some realm other than our two categories of existence vs inexistence. Much as string theorists postulate many more dimensions than the 4 we used to believe in, I'm prepared to entertain the idea of a God who has several or an infinity of realms between the two and on either side of them.

[MorpheusSandman]

I've always thought the idea of "fundamentalist atheist" and "dogmatic non-believers" as contrasted with their Godly opposites was a bit silly, personally. Mainly because God is just a theory that has yet to be proven and the inductive arguments for Vis existence fail under any kind rigid scientific scrutiny. I once said that God fall under the handful of concepts where belief precedes discovery, while in science, discovery usually precedes belief. Nobody asked us to believe in germs before we discovered them. They were always there, always present, but nobody said "You must believe in germs!" before we took a microscope and actually found the buggers.

It seems to me that most "belief" concepts exist as ways to cope with the unknown; "God of gaps", as they say. It's the ultimate way in which we project ourselves and imaginations onto the universe in order to make sense of it. Not believing is, to some, akin to not believing in humanity itself. It's like if someone were to insult your kids; you'd take it personally. Concepts can certainly become as crucial to people's existence as anything. But for atheists like myself it's not a matter of fundamentalism or dogma, it's about approaching every concept and theory with an egalitarian mood (this means no extreme skepticism or faith) and evaluating the likelihood of its truthfulness on an objective level.

I often phrase it like this: I'm perfect capable of accepting that there's a tremendous amount about the universe that we don't know and are even unaware of. I'm comfortable in accepting that ignorance without trying to "explain it away" in a mode that sounds "right" to me. The moment someone proposes a theory that explains this unknown, it should be approached the same way as any scientific theory; coolly and logically. To do otherwise is to fall into all kinds of traps created by our pre-determined predilections and biases. And humans are extremely ill-equipped for determining truth when left to such devices.

To use an extreme example, it always bothers me that believers don't recognize their own biases. If someone tells them a story that confirms their belief in their God they will accept it as truth without questioning. But if someone tells them something that contradicts that belief, they will utilize every possible method to dismiss or disprove its truthfulness. It's why more than 50% of religious America still doesn't believe in evolution. They are unwilling to actually engage in the evidence and arguments for it, or to event take the word of 99%+ of scientists who tell them it's reality, instead deciding to "not believe" because it conflicts with their creation myths. Sure, there are some believers who choose to engage, but I have yet to see any arguments put forward against evolution that isn't either full of incorrect data/facts or fallacious logic.

Anyway, sorry for vomiting all of this in a thread about your poem, Prince. But you brought up the subject!

[PrinceMyshkin]

You've given me and possibly others a whole lot to think about and while I agree about 98% with what you say, that other 2% continues to intrigue (and sometimes enrage) me:


I've always thought the idea of "fundamentalist atheist" and "dogmatic non-believers" as contrasted with their Godly opposites was a bit silly, personally. Mainly because God is just a theory that has yet to be proven and the inductive arguments for Vis existence fail under any kind rigid scientific scrutiny. I once said that God fall under the handful of concepts where belief precedes discovery, while in science, discovery usually precedes belief. Nobody asked us to believe in germs before we discovered them. They were always there, always present, but nobody said "You must believe in germs!" before we took a microscope and actually found the buggers.


And yet, we will most likely never know which came first, the discovery or the self-revelation of "God" (whom I propose we should call "If"), or the invention of If, like the invention of pacifiers for infants, following which the pacifier is jammed into the baby's mouth and he or she has a learned reflex to suck on it.


It seems to me that most "belief" concepts exist as ways to cope with the unknown; "God of gaps", as they say. It's the ultimate way in which we project ourselves and imaginations onto the universe in order to make sense of it. Not believing is, to some, akin to not believing in humanity itself. It's like if someone were to insult your kids; you'd take it personally. Concepts can certainly become as crucial to people's existence as anything. But for atheists like myself it's not a matter of fundamentalism or dogma, it's about approaching every concept and theory with an egalitarian mood (this means no extreme skepticism or faith) and evaluating the likelihood of its truthfulness on an objective level.

I often phrase it like this: I'm perfect capable of accepting that there's a tremendous amount about the universe that we don't know and are even unaware of. I'm comfortable in accepting that ignorance without trying to "explain it away" in a mode that sounds "right" to me. The moment someone proposes a theory that explains this unknown, it should be approached the same way as any scientific theory; coolly and logically. To do otherwise is to fall into all kinds of traps created by our pre-determined predilections and biases. And humans are extremely ill-equipped for determining truth when left to such devices.

To use an extreme example, it always bothers me that believers don't recognize their own biases. If someone tells them a story that confirms their belief in their God they will accept it as truth without questioning. But if someone tells them something that contradicts that belief, they will utilize every possible method to dismiss or disprove its truthfulness. It's why more than 50% of religious America still doesn't believe in evolution. They are unwilling to actually engage in the evidence and arguments for it, or to event take the word of 99%+ of scientists who tell them it's reality, instead deciding to "not believe" because it conflicts with their creation myths. Sure, there are some believers who choose to engage, but I have yet to see any arguments put forward against evolution that isn't either full of incorrect data/facts or fallacious logic.

Anyway, sorry for vomiting all of this in a thread about your poem, Prince. But you brought up the subject!

I've long had this fantasy of confronting a deep believer with the image of two doors. The one, I would tell him or her, leads to a universe in which God is everywhere; the other universe looks and behaves in much the same way but instead of God, there is a large question-mark. And it's up to the believer to choose the door, but why - is the crucial question - did you choose a or b? The believer might likely answer Because it is the truth, whereas I would continue to wonder Why is it your truth? What deep-seated personal need does it answer?

Again, the response might very well be a version of:


I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. – CS Lewis Is Theology Poetry?


What does he see, I have wished I could shake his shoulders, when the sun has gone down? To see "everything" by the light of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) seems to me terribly self-limiting.

[tailor STATELY]

Thank you for your thought provoking poem and discussions.

[PrinceMyshkin]

"The problem with God
is the problem rivers have
when they attempt to flow against the tide.
already covered in discussion

To God, existence and inexistence (nonexistence)[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Nonexistence occurred to me but it seemed to infer the existence of existence as its opposite whereas I hoped that "inexistence" might be seen as a state all to itself
are a one-sided coin but we,
haunted by death, prefer to believe
there are two sides,
which we can flip at will.
(why not a dodecahedral die ? Oh, and He makes the rules. lol)But "God," according to Einstein, does not play dice with the universe

In this hollow beneath the mystery
of God’s existence/inexistence
(the distinction between the two
being an artifice of our quotidian minds)
(our vain/prideful/ imperfect minds)That would have been a judgment I did not care to make

we have heard Sumerian, Hebrew,
Aramaic, Choctaw, each
with a vowel or half a vowel,
a consonant of Godspeech
(not sure I understand this line of thought)
It derives from the story of the tower of Babel, with God fragmenting what was, presumably, one unified language into a multitude of tongues. Here I take it a bit further...
fragmented, while we stand
firm on Dais Earth,
passionate and fluent,
addressing each other and God

in clicks and glottal stops:
stubbornly, irredeemably polyglot."
(our trials, our education, our loves and losses, our intolerances all to be mercifully judged) "mercifully judged" implies as your final argument makes clear, the existence of an Omnipotent, Omniscient judge
------------------------------------------------------------

No problem with God with me.

I believe: He lives. He sent His only
begotten Son to atone for the sins of
all creation and conquer death.

He sends the Holy Spirit,
a separate personage, to guide those
who are righteous and willing to listen
to His still small voice.

And we have prophets on the earth
once more to guide us in these times
ultimately so that we may be guided
back home, to He that created us in
spirit, after our trials.

Other faiths have similar views, some
more, some less, some more existential.
Those of little or no faith will receive the truth
in due time either on this earthly vale
or after their mortality.

I'll choose the door chosen by the fewest
- that which leads to where my Heavenly
Father dwells, home.

Yet kingdoms of glory of varying degrees
await all who will accept the truth when
faced with it.

Very few will choose outer darkness IMHO
when confronted with it, and even fewer
still will be relegated to sup with Satan
(and 1/3 of the original hosts of Heaven)
for eternity for they will not have had a
perfect knowledge of the truth and (that
very important 'and') denied it.

Such are my views, and I respect the views of others

Thank you for your thought provoking poem and discussions.

I'm at a bit of a loss here because this isn't the forum for theological debate but I will ask on what personal experience do you have all the above or is it the distillation of countless interpretations and re-interpretations of documents of unknown origin?

[tailor STATELY]

Found my crayon remover.

Peace.

[MorpheusSandman]

I've long had this fantasy of confronting a deep believer with the image of two doors. The one, I would tell him or her, leads to a universe in which God is everywhere; the other universe looks and behaves in much the same way but instead of God, there is a large question-mark. And it's up to the believer to choose the door, but why - is the crucial question - did you choose a or b? The believer might likely answer Because it is the truth, whereas I would continue to wonder Why is it your truth? What deep-seated personal need does it answer?

Again, the response might very well be a version of:


I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. – CS Lewis Is Theology Poetry?


What does he see, I have wished I could shake his shoulders, when the sun has gone down? To see "everything" by the light of Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) seems to me terribly self-limiting.These are all quite wonderful thoughts that I entirely concur with. As far as the "what deep-seated personal need does it answer?", I'd say "the desire to know". Just like humans are ill-equipped to determine truth from a logical, objective, detached perspective, we are equally ill-equipped to handle the unknown. The unknown is dangerous, it represents a threat to us. This thinking can be seen clearly in xenophobia which doesn't just concern society and racism, but anything man approaches that is new, different, and foreign. So the unknown presents us with a problem; how do we solve it so we can feel secure enough to live? God is a convenient and catch-all answer. It gives us something to relate to; a being like us who has created us and oversees us like a parent would a child. It gives us a reason to behave in a social setting. It gives us a security to know that since he created everything he has control over everything so we don't need to worry about it.

In fact, while I'd hotly contend the truthful existence of God, I would certainly assert that the psychological and physiological benefits of belief is, on the whole, an extremely positive thing. But this is also just common sense; if you believe someone else is worrying about your problems, then you don't have to. If you believe someone else can heal you, then you don't have to focus on the negative side of sickness. If you believe that you'll be forgiven then you don't have to torture yourself with guilt. Negative thoughts are physical things which harm us in very real and physical ways, so I'm quite sure there is a big difference in a "brain on God" and a brain NOT on God. That's not to say that people who don't believe can't find equally effective ways of dealing with problems and life, but I can certainly understand why belief is so comforting to so many.

But as Bertrand Russell said: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt”"

[PrinceMyshkin]

These are all quite wonderful thoughts that I entirely concur with. As far as the "what deep-seated personal need does it answer?", I'd say "the desire to know". Just like humans are ill-equipped to determine truth from a logical, objective, detached perspective, we are equally ill-equipped to handle the unknown. The unknown is dangerous, it represents a threat to us. This thinking can be seen clearly in xenophobia which doesn't just concern society and racism, but anything man approaches that is new, different, and foreign. So the unknown presents us with a problem; how do we solve it so we can feel secure enough to live? God is a convenient and catch-all answer. It gives us something to relate to; a being like us who has created us and oversees us like a parent would a child. It gives us a reason to behave in a social setting. It gives us a security to know that since he created everything he has control over everything so we don't need to worry about it.

In fact, while I'd hotly contend the truthful existence of God, I would certainly assert that the psychological and physiological benefits of belief is, on the whole, an extremely positive thing. But this is also just common sense; if you believe someone else is worrying about your problems, then you don't have to. If you believe someone else can heal you, then you don't have to focus on the negative side of sickness. If you believe that you'll be forgiven then you don't have to torture yourself with guilt. Negative thoughts are physical things which harm us in very real and physical ways, so I'm quite sure there is a big difference in a "brain on God" and a brain NOT on God. That's not to say that people who don't believe can't find equally effective ways of dealing with problems and life, but I can certainly understand why belief is so comforting to so many.

But as Bertrand Russell said: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt”"

Yeats said much the same thing in his glorious "The Second Coming:"


The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


But surely there's a problem in each of these, in the question who is making these judgments of "the stupid," the intelligent," "the best" and "the worst"? My struggle is to find a secular humility the equal of or possibly even greater than those who are humble because they believe they are inferior to God or that they serve Him best in their humility. The initial premise would be that those who "know" God may indeed know something that I don't know or refuse to 'know' until certain conditions are met and that those conditions would be as rigorous as what is applied in science.

[MorpheusSandman]

But surely there's a problem in each of these, in the question who is making these judgments of "the stupid," the intelligent," "the best" and "the worst"?Actually, both quotes are strongly related to the Dunning-Kruger effect which proves with more scientific accuracy the truthfulness of those sentiments. It basically says that the incompetent overrate their abilities while the competent underrate theirs.

[Kutta]

My struggle is to find a secular humility the equal of or possibly even greater than those who are humble because they believe they are inferior to God or that they serve Him best in their humility.

The proper use of humility (http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/)

[PrinceMyshkin]

The proper use of humility (http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/)

Thanks. I've downloaded this and look forward to reading it. Will add a comment later if I have one.

[tailor STATELY]

"I'm at a bit of a loss here because this isn't the forum for theological debate..."

I answered as before as it seemed a discussion had already broken out, and continued a pace even after my remarks.

"but I will ask on what personal experience do you have all the above or is it the distillation of countless interpretations and re-interpretations of documents of unknown origin?"

In answer to your question, no problem: My faith has the benefit of prophets on the earth in our time who receive direct revelation of the word of God. I believe it. I have received a personal witness of this truth through the Holy Spirit.

[MorpheusSandman]

The proper use of humility (http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/)This is a wonderful article, like most I've read from Yudkowsky. It kinda reminds me of an aphorism by GK Chesterton which said "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." The irony of course is that Chesterton was a devout Catholic believer! Of course, Yudkowsky seems very concerned about elaborating on how we can make sure that what we "shut our minds" on is most likely to be the right thing and, more importantly, that once we've shut them, we are willing to pry them open again if faced with new data that should rightly provoke us to reconsider.

[dizzydoll]

Everybody sees God in a different way so there shouldnt even be a debate about it. I never understood this poem from the beginning and quite frankly I dont care to. God is personal, I hope we can put this poem to bed now.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Everybody sees God in a different way so there shouldnt even be a debate about it. I never understood this poem from the beginning and quite frankly I dont care to. God is personal, I hope we can put this poem to bed now.

Everybody sees trees, flowers, good and evil in different ways, and surely we all benefit from hearing how they see those things? Or are our own eyes the only ones permitted to see and, seeing, to report what they have seen?