Talk:God/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Scientific perspective

I've cut this last section back to what could be verified. The Catholic Church has a position on this, but the position should simply be reported, not endorsed by Wikipedia. Many people would argue that there are inconsistencies, or at least tensions, between the scientific viewpoint and/or current scientific paradigms (on the one hand) and traditional theological conceptions of God in the Abrahamic religions (on the other). This is probably a very common view among scientists, which was part of the reason Stephen Jay Gould wrote a whole book trying to refute it. It is also a popular view among secular philosophers. It may also be held by some religious folk of a more "fundamentalist" leaning, many of whom believe that much modern science is wrong, e.g. about the age of the Earth; however, perhaps they don't see a conflict with their conception of God as such but merely with accounts of His doings. More particularly, the view that certain ideas are matters of personal acceptance, if it does reflect some version of the scientific viewpoint, is not what the Vatican is saying and does not reflect the traditional theological position. That position is that God actually is objectively good, and that accepting this is not just a matter of personal choice. Metamagician3000 14:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"It is also a popular view among secular philosophers" is absolutely right. But this also indicates that the dispute is between different branches of philosophy (and by extension theology and religion) and not between "science" and religion". Science (by which I understand the natural sciences, Naturwissenschaften) restricts itself to a certain field and has nothing to say beyond that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's really only one view of the proper roles of science and religion, which is actually related to what I was about to write here... -- Beland 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So we have an entire article on the relationship between religion and science. I've moved the quote from the Vatican to that article because it's an interesting detail. On its own, it's just a religious perspective on the relationship between science and religion. The title of the section sounds like it should be about scientific perspectives on God (since God is the subject of the article). I've linked to the other article, and tried to pull together some threads into this section that are more specifically on that topic. I don't know whether the intention was to have that here, or a broader science/religion discussion, or a summary of the existence debate (which now has a separate section, anyway) or what. I've tried to stick with what should be relatively easy to document, but there are many individual claims which could be better documented rather than depending on the other article to do so. -- Beland 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ontological argument

I'm puzzled as to why this argument gets a (short) section of its own. I suggest that we either have a short section on arguments for the existence of God or delete this section entirely. The fact is that teleological arguments are much more in vogue at the moment, and very few philosophers are prepared to defend ontological arguments. It seems kind of arbitrary referring to this argument in particular. Metamagician3000 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief overview of the major arguments, with a {{main}} link to Existence of God (which is where Arguments for God redirects) ? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

upon the subject of numbers.

I would like to ask the learned members here about the subject of numerical supiriortiy. As I understand the situation Omnithistic religous groups outnumber strict Monothists aproximately 3 to 1 across the planet. This would lead to a nead to remove the final sentance of section 2 as per pillars 2 & 3. 207.90.106.76 05:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Please see User:KillerChihuahua#Soapbox, the sources are there. Not sure where else the statistics are on Wikipedia, but as the subject is the bare numbers I trust the sources on my page will do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Related comment to Str1977 regarding this edit - missed the "western" bias completely, thanks for catching that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record the "Western World" statement was not intended as a bias but rather the only expediant way of expressing the rough geographic area involved. I think that the alternitive is both more wordy and less acurate, but it is an acceptable NPOV substitute. Emperors Harbinger 18:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

KC, no problem. I am here to help.

Harbinger, of course in a way "Western" can be understood so as to include Islam (cultural theorists sometimes do this) as opposed to "Eastern" India and China. But such a reasoning here would be circular, as this concept of Western is defined, among other things, by monotheism. As for alternatives being wordy, I do not know whether we have to lay out a map in this place. I think some places is enough.

Re the numbers: if I am not misinformed, there are 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims in this world, which makes up 50% of the world's population. Roughly, of course. Str1977 ^{(smile back)}

• Major religious groups gives 54% for Christianity + Islam. -- Beland 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Abraham Dharma.png also apparently shows that Abrahamic religions dominate most countries in the world. I've started a new section in the God article on statistics to make this sort of information easier to find. Feel free to contribute; it especially needs statistics on what kind of God various people believe in, according to opinion polls. -- Beland 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection and gender dispute

This article is still protected due to the dispute over whether to use the masculine pronoun, and discussion on this page has stalled. I would like to try to move toward consensus. This is not a contest where each of you is expected to prove the correctness of a particular conception of God. What we need to do is find some wording that respects multiple points of view, including that:

• God is male.
• God is female.
• God transcends gender.
• God does not exist.
• God deserves a special capitalized male pronoun all His own.

I would propose avoiding pronouns altogether and simply writing "God". To avoid excessive repetition, the phrase "concept of God" can be used and neutrally shortened to "it". Other phrases may also be interspersed, such as "supreme deity" or other phrases appropriate to the particular conception of God under discussion. -- Beland 06:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

awesome idea :) Blueaster 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. MerricMaker 14:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How about something like the following for the lead sentences?

• God is the [. . . . . ] with the relative preference among scholars being that God is a "He," an "It," or a "She."[ref] Roughly 20% of the scholars writing about God say that God ignores humanity[ref] or does not exist.[ref]

--Rednblu 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to use percentages you really can't generalize on something like this. Better to just go with using God. MerricMaker 02:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So what would you suggest for the first few sentences to represent the significant published views about God? --Rednblu 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure:

Historically, Abrahamic faith traditions have defined God in masculine terms. While some feminine imagery exists in the Old and New Testaments, the overriding masculine language has been reflective of an overridingly masculine culture in which women and women's ideas are marginalized. More recently, feminism has observed that masculine language applied to the Abrahamic God is simply reflective of the male-dominated culture and limits conceptions of God to human limitations (i.e. misogyny, racism, class bias). Reflecting this insight, as well as movements to de-anthropomorphize God in general, language and concepts about God have steadily converted gender-specificity to neutral terminology which is intended to distance theology from concepts embedded in cultural biases.

or something like that. MerricMaker 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Great! --in my opinion. How about the following as another alternative?

• Historically, monotheistic faith traditions have defined God as a supreme being in masculine terms to be worshipped as a "He."[ref] Other scholars say that it is wrong to limit God to the person of either man or woman; so they prefer to write of God as an "It," a supreme being without gender.[ref] Furthermore, some modern scholars conclude that, while some feminine imagery exists in sacred texts, the overriding masculine language has been reflective of a culture controlled by men, such that women and women's ideas are marginalized; so it may be important for society if people consider equally the parts of God that are "She," the supreme being.[ref]

And maybe a few more general statements, with the rest of your worthy summary going in the body of the page adding detail to the various views. Just another variation. I would vote for your version just as well. What does anybody else think? --particularly someone favoring the "He" or "It" versions of God? --Rednblu 06:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need any large discussion revolving around the pronoun "he". A discussion of God and gender, properly referenced of course, is another matter´. But please no original research and no "other scholars" when there have been no previous scholars. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we must be clear that we're speaking about the Abrahamic conception of God. Other formulations are far too different to be encompassed by this discussion. MerricMaker 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless the male pronoun of "He" (capitalized) continues to be used, here in Wikipedia, when referring to God then this article will look ridiculous to people from Jewish/Christian/Muslim religions and culture (which is the majority of english speaking people, I would think). God fathered Jesus, so He is therefor male (at least He consistently presents Himself to mankind as male, which is good enough). Unless "He" continues to be used then this article will lose further credibility to the point that it will become useless as a reference. It will have turned into a joke, instead. For whatever reason, God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind as male. Changing the personal pronoun in an on-line encyclopedia will not change that fact, despite the desire of some who may want to change that fact. KeyStroke 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Let's look at the actual facts. Our editing principle here is that we "represent all significant views fairly and without bias." And the only significant views that are allowed on the God page are the verified views of published scholars. Would you agree? Doesn't it matter what scholars have measured about what people around the world actually believe about God--including gender? For example, Ulrich Riegel, assistant professor of Practical Theology at the University of Würzburg, and Angela Kaupp, associate professor of Practical Theology at the University of Freiburg, wrote "God in the mirror of sex category and gender: An empirical-theological approach to representations of God," Journal of Empirical Theology, 2005, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 90-115, and they find that of the empirical sample of 1439 subjects, 38% viewed God as both masculine-and-feminine, 30% viewed God as asexual without either male or female traits, and 32% viewed God as some form of "He," a male. Of this sample, "48.4% of the respondents were female, 51.6% male; 67.1% were Roman Catholic, 23.5% Protestant and 5.3% of no denomination" (Riegel and Kaupp 2005, p. 108-109). How do we determine what views are significant to start the lead section? --Rednblu 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rednblu, one way (of several ways, I concede) to look at those figures is that 70 percent attribute all or half-male attributes, 30 percent attribute no traits, but do those 30 percent deny God as an intelligent entity? "It" seems to be rudeness when referring to a being who merits respect and has the respect, whatever their creed, of Jews, Christians and Muslims, who make up a huge majority of the world's population and an overwhelming majority of the English-speaking population. Let's assume of those 30 percent, at least half acknowledge that God is not a "thing" but a sentient being, and therefore unworthy of "it", so now we have 85 percent. If we can call a boat or a car a "she", and if languages such as French and Spanish can attribute male or female gender to inanimate objects, then, that's another 7.5 percent.

So, 32 percent male + 19 percent (half of those who view dual gender) + 15 percent (half of those who attribute no gender traits but wouldn't rudely say "it") + 7.5 percent (the other half of those who attribute no gender traits, but would choose male or female based on their language culture having no neuter)= 73.5 percent who view God as male or would allow some use of a male pronoun in the absence of an acceptable neuter. GBC 22:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the gender of God is (if He has a gender). It is also irrelevant what people think His gender is (as well as being irrelevant as to whether or not people think He has a gender). What is relevant is that in the foundational texts which record how God has revealed Himself to man, God has revealed Himself as male. It has been accepted in untold quantities of texts (books, magazines, tracts, newspapers, on and on) to refer to "He" as the personal pronoun for God. This effort to change that precident is just obfuscation for the enjoyment of a very small few who want to throw confusion into the mix, who want to make talking about God difficult. The english language has no neuter personal pronoun, so this is taken advantage of by those who just want to make things difficult when talking about God. KeyStroke 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? "It" is a neuter personal pronoun in English. Let's look at the facts. Here are some examples.

• Somebody knocked, but I could not tell who it was. I could see that it was a man--with a long gray beard. I called loudly, "Who is it?" The answer came, "It is I, the Great I Am. Come, and follow me; hold your head high, thrust out your chest, and know that you are really it." (emphasis added) --Rednblu 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I have to disappoint you, but in this case "it" is a general "it". It does not refer to anyone but to the general situation. You could also say "there is ..." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not, we use English rules here. The grammatical function of the personal pronoun is the same if you say the following.

• Somebody knocked, but I could not tell who He was. I could see that He was a man--with a long gray beard. I called loudly, "Who is He?" The answer came, "He is I, the Great I am. Come, and follow me; hold your head high, thrust out your chest, and know that you are really He." (emphasis added) --Rednblu 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All you have shown us with this quote is that you can find a quote. All you're doing is playing a game of "pick your scholar" if you go about things that way. Better to be representative of the whole issue than just your personal opinion backed up by quotations you have selected to substantiate it. 150.199.110.146 18:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We have boged again.

Let us see what we have here, all who think the system set forth at the begining of THIS section say AYE and sign all oposed say NAY and sign...

Aye: It just looks god, er good. Emperors Harbinger 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of gender dispute

Well, I have managed to change the article to avoid using any pronouns or sounding terribly awkward, so I think it respects all the points of view that I listed and that people have raised. I added a vary short note under "Names of God" about the pronoun dispute.

Certainly the issue of God's gender is a major theological question, and deserves treatment in the encyclopedia. It turns out we already have an entire article devoted to this issue: God and gender. That article looks like it needs a lot of work; it's currently tagged for cleanup due to a recent dump merge, and it needs to be expanded in coverage. It might be a good idea for the people who were discussing this issue above to contribute over there, and once it's stabilized, we can put a summary of the result here (if the current brief reference is insufficient). -- Beland 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work! --ElKevbo 22:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What do people think? --Rednblu 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That works out well. Emperors Harbinger 04:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)