On 'Views of God' -- and Religion

Judge not a person's view of God by your perception of its 'epistemological correctness'. Rather, judge it by the degree of 'humanistic-existentialism' in its ethical system -- in other words, its self and social value. .

Example: My mom has a view of God that is a very 'orthodox, Protestant view' -- she believes essentially what she was taught in Sunday School and Church.


My 'unorthodox, multi-dialectic, humanistic-existential view of God' is quite radically different than anything you would learn in Sunday School or Church -- particularly in its epistemological, metaphysical, and mythological manifestations.

However, my mom is a very kind, generous, giving woman who continues to do more good community and family deeds in a week than I will generally do in a month or even year. So who am I -- or anyone else -- to argue with the 'epistemological correctness' of her view of God and religion. Her view of God and religion certainly generates more community and family good will, harmony, and integration, than anything I will probably write in Hegel's Hotel in the duration of my lifetime.

However, I can only be me -- and by extension -- project my beliefs and values through Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy. To be sure, I would like to think that my more unorthodox 'multik-dialectic, humanistic-existential' view of God has similar self and social value -- probably stronger on the self-assertion, and weaker on the social altruism -- than my mother's view. And she's living her view while I write mine.

The point here then, is that epistemologically, metaphysically, and mythologically' these views may be quite different but as long as each view is supported by a 'strong system of humanistic-existential values' -- meaning a spiritual and/or religious philosophy and lifestyle showing a working balance of self-assertion and social compassion -- then what else can and do we want?

Is it worth our while to drag each other into the mud claiming that 'my view of God is right and your view of God is wrong'? Too much religious righteousness, narcissism -- and especially militancy -- will take us all right to 'Hell on earth' -- if not to that mythological and metaphysical place we call 'Hell' in the bowels of the earth.

Put another way, the more pre-occupied we become with drawing our epistemological and moral-ethical values so tight and conservative, so righteous and anal-retentive, so focused on the 'Either/Or', 'Heaven and Hell', divisive, intolerant, angry, hateful, and militant syndrome -- to the point where ourselves and others can barely breath and function without doing something 'religously wrong' (and/or hypocritically hiding our own 'sins' from others), the more self and socially dysfunctional this type of religion is going to become.

This type of vision does not promote 'the oil of human kindness, unity, integration, and harmony'. Rather, it promotes wars between individuals, between cultures and sub-cultures, between religions and sub-religions, between nations and parts of nations...


Conclusion: Judge not a person's view of God by your perception of its 'epistemological correctness'. Rather, judge it by its system of a balanced network of self-assertive and socially compassionate values -- projected metaphysicallly and mythologically into an 'all-encompasing idealistic view and vision of 'God' -- and then 're-owned' or 'assimilated' back into our personality in a way that suits us, fits for us, and makes us better people to live with, both within ourselves and outside of ourselves towrds all the people we need to share the Earth with cohesively; not fight and kill each other over it like Hobbes and Schopenhauer knew what they were writing about (which unfortunately, they at least partly did), or like we are all participants in William Golding's 'Lord of The Flies', 1954 (which it seems like we at least partly are).

-- dgb, June 10th, 2008, modified June 15th, 2008.


..................................................................................

From Wikipedia...


Lord of the Flies is an allegorical novel by Nobel Prize-winning author William Golding. It discusses how culture created by man fails, using as an example a group of British school-boys stuck on a deserted island who try to govern themselves with disastrous results. Its stances on the already controversial subjects of human nature and individual welfare versus the common good earned it position 70 on the American Library Association's list of the 100 most frequently challenged Books of 1990–2000.[1] The novel was chosen by TIME magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present.[2]

Published in 1954, Lord of the Flies was Golding's first novel, and although it was not a great success at the time — selling fewer than three thousand copies in the United States during 1955 before going out of print — it soon went on to become a bestseller, and by the early 1960s was required reading in many schools and colleges. It was adapted to film in 1963 by Peter Brook, and again in 1990 by Harry Hook (see "Film adaptations").

The title is said to be a reference to the Hebrew name Beelzebub (בעל זבוב, Ba'al-zvuv, "god of the fly", "host of the fly" or literally "Lord of Flies"), a name sometimes used as a synonym for Satan.[3]

.....................................................................................