you asked a genuine and legitimate question in your post. This entitles you to a polite answer (to the best of my ability); not to the hostility I
often manifest, when people throw predigested doctrines my way.
There are some 6-7 billion relationships to 'reality' on this planet, a somewhat specific one for each individual (and that's just mankind). Very few,
if any, of these relationships to 'reality' are static; the dynamics of life constantly expose us to polarized situations, where needs and drives
emerge. Individually from experiencing hunger if you're starving, to wanting complex, abstract conceptual models of 'meaning' (e.g. a method or
ideology trying to 'explain' a greater coherent pattern).
In the case of 'meaning', there's no end of different approaches used by mankind. All kinds of 'tools' have been used, from intellectual logic to
practical meditational efforts of symbiotic harmonization. By themselves none of these 'tools' are perfect either, the understanding or answers
derived from any of them aren't better than what the 'tool' intrinsically allows.
I apologise for this convoluted philosophy, but I can't see any way around it, if I am to present 'from where I am coming'.
My belief is, that curiosity and some ability to make choices are prominent parts of how mankind create 'tools' or 'maps'. Also here the individual
range is great. From a scientism clockwork universe or a theological predestination model to potential ultimate 'freedom'. Those deciding on a
clockwork universe/predestination actually have used the option of choice. ONCE. They have chosen the model, which makes further choices un-necessary.
And consequently curiosity will be restricted to observing how 'god's will' or the clockwork mechanism manifest.
Alternatively (and that's my option) one can choose to choose more. Maybe 'free will' can be encouraged and cultivated, and maybe curiosity doesn't
kill the cat always.
Rustami, if you're still around and doesn't reject my premises completely, the above is my rather weird 'answer' to your question about how one can
talk about 'god'. At the present: We can't talk ultimatively about 'god'.
Neither from the exclusive, passive model of: No choices, restricted curiosity, based on limited fundamentalistic un-researchable assumptions.
Assumptions which from the start contains botht the questions and the answers. I don't want to be rude, but a passive acceptance of un-examined
assumptions mostly leads to conflicts with other models based on different assumptions.
But NOR does the option of an open, inclusive model of choices and endless curiosity automatically lead to conclusive understanding or knowledge. The
best we can hope for here is an increasing approximation of 'truth'. From this option much critic has been voiced against closed, doctrinal
fundamentalism, callling fundamentalists spineless and 'clinging to straws'. I think, this is nobody's business, if some people individually need
'straws'. We open-system individuals aren't always that omniscient or 'integrated' either.
So am I only enamoured by my own megalomaniac ruminations, presenting endless wishy-washy cosmetic relativity and we-don't-know despair, or is there a
kind of up-and-down which can be used between open and closed ideological systems?
For me the answer is easy: It lies in social skills (defined extensively). If the 'straw-clingers' decide that their answer must be pushed, enforced
or established as a monopoly, we're out of the area of 'ideology' and into psycho-sociology. It's no longer a question of 'truth' or 'reality', but of
very disturbed personalities, in extreme cases bordering on sociopathy, where ego-gratification is the major motive. A 'truth' doesn't become more
true, because it's backed by invasive methods.
Naturally the inverse situation, invasive suppression of 'straws' is an abomination also, and places the suppressor in the exclusive group too.
So the first position of 'talking about god' is in a social context. Sounds crazy, but I said 'talking', not yelling or bringing out the flaming
Sorry about this long post, and to make sure: It hasn't made Bogomil less grumpy. Until the finer points in 'social skills' have been aired (and that
could be a long process), I'll stay with my usual, unpleasant character, yapping. This post is an exception.
edit on 28-9-2010 by bogomil because: This post almost exceeded my mental capacities