I suspect many people who know me must be sure that I am incapable of worshiping. That my arrogance must come in way of entirely submitting myself to some entity. The moment I think of this possibility, the knee-jerk reaction of my mind (knee as the seat of intelligence, anyone?) is to dismiss the suspicion as half-knowledge of how I view the world.
But when I reflected a bit deeper at the idea, it seems plausible. Yes, I am incapable of considering someone so great that I entirely subordinate my existence to someone else's. I can respect people, admire them, but worshiping a person would entail declaring nothing else could ever be better in any way. And most important, I cannot worship an idea or a hypothesis. It would have to be someone I could touch, I could talk to, I could question, and yet get answers from.
When I tried to imagine what would be that person I could be capable of worshiping like, I was shocked, I could actually think of...qualities that she would possess, but not a person possessing those qualities. A person perfect in all respects I could think of, and would have to be better than me in all...so much better that I could never imagine to equal her. Infinitely intelligent, infinitely patient, infinitely just...not procrastinating in matters of justice, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely persevering, infinitely meticulous, infinitely moral, vulnerable yet infinitely strong, infinite...and yet a whole, a mortal, someone with a defined origin and a fixed end. I could indeed worship such a person. And, I know I would worship this person with all I have. That would be my divine.
But till such time comes, I will rejoice in my arrogance of having no deity to bow before. To have an existence supplanted by no one else's.
I will wait...
But when I reflected a bit deeper at the idea, it seems plausible. Yes, I am incapable of considering someone so great that I entirely subordinate my existence to someone else's. I can respect people, admire them, but worshiping a person would entail declaring nothing else could ever be better in any way. And most important, I cannot worship an idea or a hypothesis. It would have to be someone I could touch, I could talk to, I could question, and yet get answers from.
When I tried to imagine what would be that person I could be capable of worshiping like, I was shocked, I could actually think of...qualities that she would possess, but not a person possessing those qualities. A person perfect in all respects I could think of, and would have to be better than me in all...so much better that I could never imagine to equal her. Infinitely intelligent, infinitely patient, infinitely just...not procrastinating in matters of justice, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely persevering, infinitely meticulous, infinitely moral, vulnerable yet infinitely strong, infinite...and yet a whole, a mortal, someone with a defined origin and a fixed end. I could indeed worship such a person. And, I know I would worship this person with all I have. That would be my divine.
But till such time comes, I will rejoice in my arrogance of having no deity to bow before. To have an existence supplanted by no one else's.
I will wait...
I like how you've spruced up the blog. It looks better. The plain white background was a bit hard on the eyes.
ReplyDeleteWorship? I'll have to think about that.
I could not worship anything that was human, if it had the same drawbacks that I had.
Thanks teleprompter for visiting!
ReplyDeleteThis blog is an answer to those elements in the society that purport needless servility as virtuous in name of humility. You may find the idea reminiscent of works of Ayn Rand.
When I use the adverb "infinitely", I just mean the very pinnacle of human abilities. But it's highly unlikely that a single person could have all the virtues to that extent. And, if there indeed be one, I won't mind worshiping.
Also, I only think of those attributes as virtues which have to be developed, and not the ones with which a human is born. Conversely, I've not counted mortality (as in antonym of "immortality" :) ) as a human weakness; it's a given.
Personally, to cite an example, I'd respect a person with bad handwriting who improves it with constant practice more than one naturally endowed with beautiful handwriting.
Analogously, even if there were to be a God (omnipotent, omniscient, etc.), I won't have any extra respect for that God. It's just like how I can't admire a person for inheriting a legacy, but, one innovating and working hard to earn that much wealth would definitely become worthy of my admiration.
Hope I've been able to put across my abstract point clearly.
TC.
It sounds to me that there is such a being worthy of worship and that Being is even greater than you describe, for such a Being would necessarily be. That Being is God as shown to us through Jesus.
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that your writing about the topic of worship shows that somewhere in your being you desire to have such a being to worship. Worship is an act that is not for God’s benefit, but for ours. We gain something indescribable when we enter communion with God through worship. God didn’t design us to be worshippers because He needed our praise, but because we need to praise. His creation was designed to communion with Him at the highest of levels and worship is a huge part of that. It is the path by which we can connect with Him from our spirit to His Spirit.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading and commenting!
Yes, I do have a desire to find someone with qualities I mentioned. That'd give me something to look upto in life. But also that someone would have to develop those qualities rather than possess them inherently; someone who'd have started as my equal and then gotten that ahead (intellectually, morally, philosophically). I want that someone to be tangible, not an outcome of my overworked imagination. I want that person to answer...with reasons and with consistency in allround explanation of the Universe and human nature. I don't want to delude myself into believing that ideas and thoughts my mind generates are that being's words.
If any of the purported Gods anywhere in the world would've fulfilled these criteria, I'd have been more than glad to start believing and worshipping.
By the way, I don't believe in them, but I found the philosophy ingrained in "Upanishadas" of Vedic tradition much more philosophically appealing than the Biblical description of the world.
Take care.
I think it is a drawback of our human language that we are limited in our thoughts by it. Probably we get too hung up on semantics.
ReplyDeleteEven though I don't see any problems with worship per se, I would probably stop at respect, and not take it to worship. My definition of worship would be blind allegiance. And, I don't think I can provide my blind allegiance to anyone - even if he/she were perfect - or maybe wouldn't feel the need to.
Yes, I know words can be very limited in the meanings they can convey. When I say worship, maybe I mean "Wow! You exist!". That feeling is not captured by respect or even reverence. The feeling I'm talking of has an element of exhilaration also. Love might come close to it, but still it won't have an element of reverence.
ReplyDeleteSo, I think worship is the only term that comes close to what I'm trying to convey.
But more important, this introspection was a mental exercise to find out if I were vain "beyond repair" :)
Welcome to the blog, and thanks for the comment!
Take care.
Ketan, do you think a human being can become to be that person?
ReplyDeleteWould it not be more likely that someone who is eternally good and perfect and holy who can be tangibly experienced would be worthy of worship. Also if you mean you want someone who has experienced the pain of this world and overcome it, then I would understand that and I believe you will find that person in Jesus, who while He was without sin, experienced the sin and pain of this world by voluntarily taking it upon him and putting it all to death. Once He took it to the grave, He rose victorious over it so that we can too.
Karla,
ReplyDeleteI'd want that person to BECOME great as against ALREADY being great.
Yes, overcoming the pain of this world would be ONE of the indicators of attainment of that greatness, but with regard to relieving pain, I'd any day believe let's say Edward Jenner or the people who found application for penicillins had much greater role to play. Also the one I could worship will not try to boss over others saying, "just do what I tell you to without asking any reasons". Rather, that person will elaborate upon the basis for what they say, and ensure complete understanding so that I take RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences of my actions. If it is binding on me to follow someone's ORDERS exactly, I cannot take responsibility for my actions because I never had choice! It'd become the responsibility of one issuing those orders. But, if I CHOOSE to take those orders, I've to take responsibility for making that choice (of taking the order). But the plain fact is in matters of morality (mind you, not law), it never is binding on you to "take orders"! The problem is your incorrigible belief that following a certain (the one that YOU were born with, and are thus fond of) system of moral dictats JUST CANNOT go wrong! Following it JUST CANNOT have undesirable effects! Analogously, what stops me from proclaiming the same (infallibility) for the principles I follow? Just that I'm not as well known?
There's one more problem with your suggestion--I don't want the one I worship to be someone's (including mine) hypothesis or imagination. I should have met that person and should get answers to my questions and feedback on my ideas in realtime!
Take care.
If this conversation bothers you I will stop. I don't want to offend you.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it wouldn't be too enjoyable to follow orders of a commanding being, I am not advocating for that. And I agree that we are responsible for our own choices. Nor can I claim to have infallible knowledge of what is right and wrong. And I agree that person worthy of worship would not be someone imaginary, but someone that can be encountered, related to personally both ways, communicated with, known most intimately heart to heart, and very trustworthy.
You still describe the Christian God.
Thanks Karla for your concern, but honestly there's nothing for me to be offended about as I don't have any emotions attached to the entity we're discussing (i.e., God). Your last sentence was totally unrelated to all that you said in the preceding ones! Please do something about it. I don't have any problems following any authority--I do that day in and day out. Also, there are so many things that are not in my control, but I'm alright with that, just that I've never felt the need as my thinking has evolved to attribute all that to some intelligent entity who'd also have an intention. TC.
ReplyDeleteMy last sentence was to say the ideal you describe of the being worthy of worship fits the Christian God. The negative things you describe that you would not want in the being worthy of worship do not describe God. It sounds to me that the being you are describing exists and can be known.
ReplyDeleteKarla,
ReplyDeleteHow do I know personally any God or talk to him/her without actually using the power of my own imagination? In that sense none of the Gods I've encountered fulfill that criterion of meeting face-to-face. Fulfillment of that criterion is important not because I would get a materialistic confirmation of God's existence, but because that's the only way I could be sure that that entity's providing me with something that's not already present within me (say wisdom, answers to unanswered questions and how the Universe works).
TC.
Good question. I think though that our imagination is given to us to help us see beyond our natural capability, to help us see what is really there. I think if we could reduce God to merely someone physical who we could neatly define and encounter on our level then He wouldn't be God. I am, however, not talking about a God who is some kind of cosmic static nor some kind of whimsical entity that man cannot know intimately.
ReplyDeleteNow He did come into our world and show Himself as man in Jesus. Scripture says He dwelt in bodily form. Jesus said if you've seen me you've seen the Father. So there is this aspect of Him taking human form for a time.
I think there are many levels on which we can know God. As we grow in relationship with Him we grow in our relational encounters with Him.
I have talked with many people and listened to many pastors and read many books and I have heard a whole host of ways that God interacts with them. He's interacted with me in different ways over the years.
Our hearts betray His reality. They long for that ultimate personal relationship on the level of worship. We desire to be known, and our earthly relationships show us that there is something greater than those that those cannot compare to. We cannot find the fulfillment human to human that our hearts cry out for. That yearning in our hearts is designed to lead us to Him who can fulfill it. What happened is that we were created for this communion with Him and our separation from Him creates this yearning for the restoration of what ought to be. When we follow that path of our desire we find communion with Him and wholeness in our being.
Karla,
ReplyDeleteThere are a few people (dead/alive) who've impressed me a lot. Say, Ayn Rand, an Indian singer called Shaan, author of one of the books on medical physiology--Late William F. Ganong. I've been so impressed with them and so strongly desire to talk with them, that I've eventually ended up talking with them! Just that applying a bit of thought would tell me that it's nothing but fantasy. Likewise, I could think of what one of my friends would have said in a given situation, and then myself carry on an entire conversation from that point, but again that'd be my imagination. When I used to believe in God, I too used to have such 'conversations'. But when I stopped believing, I stopped having those conversations, and that too quite effortlessly. In fact, I realized I was playing 'split-personality' while having those conversations, and the answers that I used to 'get from God' were nothing but my own overworked imagination.
I can't know whether you have encountered God previously and whether those conversations were really with Him or your own thoughts. I do know though that God does communicate with us and that you can have real relationship with him. Not imaginary or fabricated, or wishful thinking, but real.
ReplyDeleteI can give you a few examples that I have experienced. Twice I have had people that I no nothing about me that I had never met and had no connection to tell me God told them I am a writer and that I have a passion for writing. The first time was over ten years ago and it was a middle aged man who had been walking with God many years and he told me several things that came true and several things about myself that I knew were true. In fact all those who heard him knew it was true. The next time was a year ago and it was a young girl probably in her late teens or early twenties who was praying for me and all of the sudden started telling me about myself including that God has given me a gift of writing and that He wants me to use it.
That's just two examples. I have had many many other examples of other people telling me things they could not of known if God hadn't told them. One person actually told me something about a friend of mine who wasn't present that was completely accurate.
Personally I have had a few times where I felt God was telling me something about someone and I told them and it really encouraged them and was accurate.
Other times when I hear from God it's like a gentle knowing/realization, a wisdom and a peace, about what to do in a situation that I didn't have previously. Sure it's subjective. I could be hearing wrong. I could be mistaken. But I have seen the truth in it many times.
Actually much of mine and my husband's life right now is wrapped up on following things God has spoken to us through dreams which have later been confirmed with outside sources speaking what they feel God is saying without knowledge of the dream we already had. All of our big life choices right now are a direct result of God speaking into our lives. We are banking everything on His reality and the reality of what He has told us. We are that certain that He speaks and that He has a plan that He has revealed part of to us regarding our lives.
Let me say that I understand the desire for a tangible experience, something that cannot be explained away by stray thoughts or coincidence or wishful thinking. I think that is a good thing to want. I have had such tangible experiences in the last few years. They've been amazing and yet there is so much more to experience.
I've had a few curious coincidences but none of them have been in anyway indicative of existence of God.
ReplyDeleteEven if I've to assume for the time being that it was indeed God that was manifesting through those strange encounters, how does the nature of that existence of God fulfill my criterion of immense knowledge and wisdom? Has God come and told you what's the treatment for AIDS or certain kind of cancer, or why people of one religion/sect kill each other, or what to do about poverty in developing nations, or how to produce electricity in nonpolluting fashion and from renewable sources? A person of even admirable wisdom would provide insight (at least individually for one of the named issues, if not all), if not out and out solutions.
Do you mind revealing the solutions or reasons for the above problems when you come to know of them through God with which you've been conversing? Needless to say, I as well as the whole of humanity would be very grateful for such solutions. If you just might feel I'm acting difficult, then, I'm not. As it's precisely those kind of practicable solutions that I expect of the one I'd consider of worship. And that's what I'd meant by immense wisdom and answering my questions when I'd want the answers.
TC.
He does have all those answers. And when we get to know Him we can learn them and help others with them.
ReplyDeleteJesus empowers us to heal the sick. To bring healing to hearts, minds, bodies, economies, nations, the land etc.
I have seen people miraculously healed. I have experienced such healing myself. God does have these answers and does want to speak them to us. The question is are we listening? And do we want to listen?
The revealed word already has many answers, but He doesn't stop there. He talks to us about these things and will show us how to bring the truth to these situations to give life.
Karla, If I go and whisper verbatim what you've written above into a cancer patient's ears, he/she will get alright?
ReplyDeleteHuh? I didn't write any special words. In fact, it doesn't take special words. Someone who is walking with Jesus has the power to pray for the sick and see them healed. I know one person and have heard of others who have been healed of cancer. I do not know while all are not healed. There isn't a magic formula. But I have have read many a story of such a healing.
ReplyDeleteThe oddity of this situation is you want God to fit your description of what you think he should be, yet the basic premise of acceptance of the quality of being God is that God doesn't fit in any way our limited human imagination and any attempt to understand 'God' as a concept or a person using our natural, limited faculties is doomed to fail at the outset.
ReplyDeleteThe upanishads (or any vedic scriptures for that matter) that you claim to are familiar with state the same thing as above.
Then again, you may not accept this since the belief of atheism, in general, starts of with "There is no God, because there is such thing possible".
Ironical. We are limited by our own logic and we always try to fit everything we see in to our logical analysis, even somethings which defy logic.
"Karla said... My last sentence was to say the ideal you describe of the being worthy of worship fits the Christian God"
ReplyDeleteThat's is interesting... I didn't know there were multiple 'God's!! What an odd idea!
Ambi,
ReplyDeleteIn this post, I've not tried to define God. I've tried to speak of a feeling called worship. I've not talked of worship as an act, but any other emotion like love hatred, envy, etc.
My disbelief in existence of God has nothing to do with it, because I'd stopped feeling 'worship' for God, even before I stopped believing in his existence!
What I simply mean is there was a long period during which I'd believed in God's existence, but did not feel like worshiping.
Why?
1. The way most of the world's God was defined, the concept seemed similar to that of an attention-hungry, vindictive boss, who'd give you promotion if you are a sycophant, or if you do not praise/emotionally blackmail enough, then God would punish you on Earth as well as after death. Such concept was far from something I could respect, love or look up to.
2. My own concept used to be somewhat close to that of a deist God. I used to talk to God. Used to say 'sorry' and 'thanks', etc. I used to ask for very few things for myself. When I was 10-11 years, I'd wished for first rank (so the joke of 'Educational post' is much more on the person I had been rather than on God), but at certain point I realized how base and unjust was it to ask God to do me a personal favor. At that point I started (whenever I'd) praying for world-peace, protection of ecosystem, etc. But still since was inherently great, there was nothing inspirational, nothing to look up to or try to emulate.
Somewhere down the line, I had a choice to believe or not believe in God 'cuz just like any other hypothesis, I had to decide if it added anything to our ability to explain the observable phenomena or not, or add anything to my purpose of a more fulfilling life, and I found the God-hypothesis redundant.
I'd have for instance, rejected the hypothesis of law of gravitation had mankind not been able to prove it through harmonic motion of pendulum or verifying it multiple times by launching satellites.
But the bottomline is, I never really worshipped God!
I've never read Upanishads. Just had read their article on Wikipedia, and I'd found their conception of Universe more philosophically advanced and satisfying than Biblical description, but not appealing enough that I'd embrace it as actionale knowledge.
Also, Karla is unlikely to respond. Why, if there can be one God, there can't be multiple or zero number of Gods?
TC.
"but at certain point I realized how base and unjust was it to ask God to do me a personal favor."
ReplyDeleteHow strange is it that I too realized the same thing, yet it took me on a path which only strengthened my faith?
"but not appealing enough that I'd embrace it as actionable knowledge."
Again, you judge something as actionable or not based on just appeal, which is again based on your own self-restricting caveats. Without making a sincere attempt at knowing exactly what is being said but judge a source of knowledge as being valid or not is not exactly 'scientific', if I may put it that way.
1. Our realizing same thing, yet pursuing different courses in our belief-systems.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's amusing. :) As we interact more, might discover what traits led to this divergence between our thoughts. :)
2. 'Scientific'.
I might've not been able to explain what I mean by 'actionable'.
It may seem a very mundane and irreverent purpose, but let's say I'm having fever and I don't like suffering from it. I do one simple thing. I take a tablet of paracetamol. There're many gaps in our understanding of how it works. And this makes it somewhat unscientific that I'd still take the same pill as I'm relying on some authority, and that too all of this ultimately is based on the epistemological axioms of science, which are nothing but fanciful assumptions! But the point is, it works! Each time it works, thousands of scientific theories are getting tested. And each time, any scientific development works, apart from proving its value to me for my worldly life, a lot of theories along with the original axioms get verified.
Let me enlist a few very grossly. I know I'm just making my response long. But what has happened with many of us is that science has seeped so much into our lives and because familiarity breeds contempt, we've started taking it for granted, forgetting how many times it day-in-day-out verifies the original axioms and also the chain of reasoning connecting them to endresults like paracetamol!
Origingal axioms --> quantum physics + electrostatics + atomic physics --> organic + inorganic chemistry --> applied chemical engineering + pharmaceutical knowledge + knowledge of factors in blood that raise body temperature + basic normal functioning of the brain and mechanisms that control temperature + molecular biology (knowledge of structure of proteins and how certain compounds interact with specific parts in the brain to increase body temperature) + pharmacology (how the body deals with paracetamol and what all paracetamol will do in the body) + statistical data of efficacy and side-effects (imagine, any random foreign substance could be so toxic that it could've killed me!) --> packaging of paracetamol
Now, assuming all the above theories to be 'correct' I use paracetamol and it works! Look at the (highly abridged and yet) long chain of reasoning that made paracetamol work. If any of the theories were to be wrong, it would never work! Same applies to any 'technology' you use in life!...
1. Our realizing same thing, yet pursuing different courses in our belief-systems.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's amusing. :) As we interact more, might discover what traits led to this divergence between our thoughts. :)
2. 'Scientific'.
I might've not been able to explain what I mean by 'actionable'.
It may seem a very mundane and irreverent purpose, but let's say I'm having fever and I don't like suffering from it. I do one simple thing. I take a tablet of paracetamol. There're many gaps in our understanding of how it works. And this makes it somewhat unscientific that I'd still take the same pill as I'm relying on some authority, and that too all of this ultimately is based on the epistemological axioms of science, which are nothing but fanciful assumptions! But the point is, it works! Each time it works, thousands of scientific theories are getting tested. And each time, any scientific development works, apart from proving its value to me for my worldly life, a lot of theories along with the original axioms get verified.
Let me enlist a few very grossly. I know I'm just making my response long. But what has happened with many of us is that science has seeped so much into our lives and because familiarity breeds contempt, we've started taking it for granted, forgetting how many times it day-in-day-out verifies the original axioms and also the chain of reasoning connecting them to endresults like paracetamol!
Origingal axioms --> quantum physics + electrostatics + atomic physics --> organic + inorganic chemistry --> applied chemical engineering + pharmaceutical knowledge + knowledge of factors in blood that raise body temperature + basic normal functioning of the brain and mechanisms that control temperature + molecular biology (knowledge of structure of proteins and how certain compounds interact with specific parts in the brain to increase body temperature) + pharmacology (how the body deals with paracetamol and what all paracetamol will do in the body) + statistical data of efficacy and side-effects (imagine, any random foreign substance could be so toxic that it could've killed me!) --> packaging of paracetamol
Now, assuming all the above theories to be 'correct' I use paracetamol and it works! Look at the (highly abridged and yet) long chain of reasoning that made paracetamol work. If any of the theories were to be wrong, it would never work! Same applies to any 'technology' you use in life!...
...The probable difference between how you and I view the world is in my believing in gradation ('greys'), and your seeing things in either/or (black or white) fashion. That's why you talk of lack or presence of faith, and I of relative trust v/s distrust and probabilities.
ReplyDeleteScience is also human conception, and whatever other modes of acquiring knowledge you might be hinting at are also human conceptions. I'm a simple human being, and I have certain needs which all animals have, and also desire to acquire/do things that give me pleasure. Imagine, science makes such far-fetched predictions (for instance, whatever you type through your keyboard will reach my cell phone screen as it is!) starting from a few (let's say 10 in all) fundamental axioms, and those predictions get verified on so many overwhelmingly great number of occasions that you'd complain if this chain would be broken! Because you've got so used to all the chain of reasoning being validated day-in-and-day-out right from the birth!
Tell me, which other chain of reasoning provides you with food, electricity, soft bed, computer without using any of the theories of science? Which other system is so very verifiable? What you choose to call caveats are actually my priorities for life. If you consider this kind of verifiability a redundant caveat, then, I cannot ask you to change your view. Your and my basic parameters to accept something as truth itself are different!
Apart from being a deist, I've also been a pantheist for quite some time (BTW, both are not mutually exclusive; a God could be both pantheist as well as deist or just one of the two).
Let me assume there's a supreme energy/consciousness that has permeated the whole of Universe, and since I'm a part of it, it also is present within me. Let's also assume, such an entity has intentionally and with intelligence designed the Universe the way we perceive it. I have no problems with these assumptions. I can accept them to be 'truth'. But what next? How has this truth altered my life? How do I verify it? Under what circumstances can this hypothesis be falsified (like, if suddenly someday, all paracetamol tablets stop working, or produce erratic effects like transforming me into a frog, at least one of the scientific theories would be falsified!)? And most important, how will this knowledge cure my fever without using the above chain of reasoning that has led to development of paracetamol?...
...If you honestly feel my caveats are unnecessary, then we'll have to agree to disagree. :)
ReplyDeleteAlso, you've yet to answer why there cannot be multiple gods?
TC.
PS: One of my 'installments' of response got duplicated. It sometimes happens on posting from cell phone. Please excuse! :)
"Science is also human conception"
ReplyDeleteWrong. It is simply what is inherent in nature. We simply discover it.
Your caveats are not unnecessary, but using them in order to define your own standard of judging anything or anyone else would give you a result you like, but not what actually is.
Other than that, there is little else for me to respond.
As for your other question, can we have multiple or zero Kings or Presidents for a single country? For me, I go with the authority of the vedic scriptures on this.
Just give a simple reply... no need for another long typing session, that too from a mobile!! :O
Then again, I think you will do it anyway.
Ambi,
ReplyDeleteI'll have to elaborate on reality-perception duality here.
It is assumed as if there is an 'absolute reality' (Universe exists; we exist). Science, as you and I say is merely our attempt to describe that reality based on our sensory perceptions as well as our trying to link various pieces of data together by terming a few of them as 'cause' and few as 'effects'--a status, which in turn can change depending on context, which we like to call 'logic'. And this perception+interpretation+logic (deduction) = conclusions (which are to be verified through induction) is what is science.
So though, absolute reality is not a human creation, but the description and picture that thus forms is very much human, individualistic, and thus subjective. In that sense science is a human conception.
Science is like an image captured of an object on a camera film. It's not the object itself! Your image could turn out more blue than the object if there'd be a blue filter before the lens! But that you can never know unless someone tells you of the filter!
So, that's the difference between 'reality' and it's 'description' given by science.
Why can't there be two kings fighting for control over a kingdom--one king is just and benevolent; the other, malicious and sinister. The state of the kingdom would depend on who's more powerful at any given time! We'll not talk of zero kings as you're not prepared for that number, as I far I can see it!
Now again see, you want answers in 'yes' or 'no' (black or white), and ask questions thus, whereas, I see things as 'mostly, yes' or 'mostly, no' (shades of grey).
Do let me know, if the length of this reply leaves lesser margin for complaint. ;)
TC.
The mother doesn't require a child's worship.
ReplyDeleteand a child doesn't require a mother who is superior, or perfect.
a child doesn't require a mother who would give all the wants, just a mother who take care of the needs. (eg a medicine instead of an icecream)
i feel the God-human relationship is like the parental relationship.
actually more than worship, i feel love is important..
In temples, I bow to the steps (they were also made of the rocks like idols and let people stamp on them) before bowing to the idol..(ok bowing is just a form of worship)..
and even if my parents drive me crazy, when i see their pic, i cant help being reverential to them..
God exists, though I dont know if God meets your requirement,
Worship is not a requirement from God.
Humans created religion, God created humans and spirituality..
hope i made sense:)
Hello, WDM!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately this post is too short and too misundrstood!
The post is not about God at all. It is about a feeling called 'worship'. I know, no one conventionally considers worship as a feeling, but rather, thinks of it as an act. This post was a mental experiment.
One of the possible causes of people turning atheist, I've heard is, their arrogance, which would not allow them to acknowledge someone else's superiority. I too had been subtly accused of this character-flaw!
So, with this post I realized, if I would find a person fitting all the criteria mentioned in the post, I would feel an emotion of total submission. But submission won't be the only component of this feeling. It will have elements of love, attachment, respect, awe, disbelief (that something so good could exist), the need to protect it from destruction/contamination. I could not find a conventional name for that feeling. Love misses the mark 'cuz, in my frame of mind, there would be a compulsive need for equality between the two, and not much margin for awe, there would be a strong degree of attachment/dependence. Whereas, respect also comes close, but does not inspire in me a feeling of attachment and comfort.
But all these feelings would culminate in what I realized--"Wow, you exist!" So when I linked you to the favorite blogs' list, I wanted to point out how I have indeed felt that way for a few humans! But of course, they are not perfect, but in certain ways I think of them as superior to me.
I was heartened to conclude I do not have "ego issues"! :)
Yes, you made perfect sense. I hope, now my post makes better sense to you! :)
There are a lot of things atheists are accused of, and I do not defend or justify myself in all cases. But in case of each accusation, I do try to take an honest, objective and introspective view, which sometimes result in posts like these.
I would be seriously interested in knowing what do you think of atheists (not atheism), and if you've found any common traits among them.
Thanks and take care!
ketan thanks for throwing light. i had a feeling i was missing something..but couldn't understand till you pointed it out..
ReplyDeletehmmm not sure, about atheists..i would think they are people who want to be practical..who have not experienced God or choose to not experience God. But I am pretty sure that God doesn't care if you are an atheist or not..as long as you don't mess up others lives..
I would prefer an athiest to a foaming fundamentalist..
PS : when it comes to concepts,(materialism, atheism etc) unless i am asked the question, i wouldn't think or wonder..and wouldn't have much of an opinion..
(the donkey in my name is not out of humility.)
Okay. The “worship” which I have talked about in my post is different from the worship which you are talking about here. Since you do not believe at all in God, to you, worship comes this way. While since I believe nature (meaning, every single element in the universe) to be God, I like to believe worship is respect and non-destructiveness towards one’s surrounding. So, in that post I used the word “worship” with regards to (my idea of) God.
ReplyDeleteI find complete sense in your idea of worship, too, in its own context. Furthermore, I am pleased to know you used “she” for that person. Personally, though I have different thoughts on “love” and life-partnership, which so far I have never reveled. I like to believe such a person exists. But this faith is dwindling with every passing day and development of my thoughts… All for good, though. Well, if you were not even slightly referring to “love” and “life-partner”, then pardon my misunderstanding.
Hi Darshan!
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading and such an elaborate comment!
If nondestructivity is an important component of the worship you're talking, then I understand. I find destructivity overrated and bugging. But the worship I mention also has an aspirational angle - I would like to try to become (in terms of tangible attributes) like the one I worship!
Well, the 'she' in the post did not have anything to do with love. It is a linguistic fad. I could've used 'they' or 'he/she' or just 'he'. But you might have noticed, because of emerging concept of gender equality, in mass media 'he' is sometimes replaced with 'they' as a generic pronoun, but it is grammatically wrong, and also somehow would have damaged the fluidity of thoughts in this post. But in many blogs, you'll find 'she' instead of 'he'. So I too chose 'she'.
But anyway, I too had wondered how the feeling of worship I had described was different from love. And fortunately, I've already dealt with that in my response to Wise Donkey - just one comment before yours. :)
Of course, if I find a perfect female - who would be worthy of my worship, who would be single, the practical problem would be how would I get her to like me?!!! ;) Okay on a more serious note (not to mean the last concern is not serious), if I would think so highly of someone, I would intrinsically consider myself unworthy of her love. I would find it unfair on her if a relationship were to develop between us.
Incidentally, the only case of true love I had experienced, had precisely begun thus. I was in total awe of her, and had never even imagined myself to be worthy of her. And yet, she once confessed to me that she liked me. It took me over a year from that point on, to convince myself that I should trust her judgement and maybe I could be worthy of her! :) But anyway, later on we broke up.
Quite possibly 'excess' idealism (on my part) had some role to play. It was bitter, but a learning experience. Today, my idealism stands somewhat diluted making way for practicality.
Glad to know you're realizing that perfection might not exist. But I'll tell you the real problem - even 'mere' "near-perfection" is quite rare to find. ;)
"But this faith is dwindling" Shouldn't you have used 'hope' instead of 'faith'? ;) ...
...I'll leave you with a question, and (my) answer to it might serve as an advice with respect to how aggressive to be in your posts, the desired perfection in your life partner, and even another very short post (click) on my blog, basically how to lead life - "is idealism an end in itself or is it supposed to serve some other (higher) goal"? ;)
ReplyDeleteThanks again!
TC.
Hey Ket, this is an excellent post! I take it as a fairly good reasoning for NOT worshiping :)
ReplyDeleteTelling you true, I never felt a need to worship, coz I could never come to terms with the idea of worshiping. To me loving is the highest form of passion and submitting yourself to someone. Worshipping is so imperialistic. Thanks for giving me a bit more insight on it in a more mature manner than I could have been!
In fact, your maturity amazed me. I could not have imagined you to be younger than me until you told me! Whereas I was happy to have seen a youngster being so rational and knowledgable, I was disappointed for you being born after me! :(
Hehehe . .sorry if I'm mean ;)