| Revision as of 19:17, 11 April 2008 view sourceFriday (talk | contribs)19,776 editsm Reverted edits by Scooter619 (talk) to last version by Th1rt3en← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:57, 16 April 2008 view source Ratmandall (talk | contribs)5 edits ←Replaced content with 'FUCK RELIGION'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| FUCK RELIGION | |||
| {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} | |||
| {{dablink|This article is about the term "God" in the context of ] and ]. See ] or ] for details on ] usages. For other uses, see ].}} | |||
| {{god}} | |||
| '''God''' is the principal or sole ] in ]s and other belief systems that ].<ref name=Swinburne>] "God" in ]. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', ], 1995.</ref> The singular, ] ''God'' of ] religions is commonly contrasted with the ''gods'' of ] religions. | |||
| God is most often conceived of as the ] and overseer of the universe. ] have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different ]. The most common among these include ], ], ], ] (perfect ]), divine ], ], and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being ], a ] being, the source of all ], and the "greatest conceivable existent".<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early ], ] and ] theologian philosophers, including ],<ref name=Edwards>]. "God and the philosophers" in ]. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', ], 1995.</ref> ],<ref name=Platinga>]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> and ].<ref name=Edwards/> Many notable ] developed ]s for the ],<ref name="Plantinga" /> attempting to wrestle with the apparent ]s implied by many of these attributes. | |||
| ==Etymology and usage== | |||
| {{main | God (word)}} | |||
| The earliest written form of the Germanic word ''god'' comes from the 6th century ] ]. The English word itself is derived from the ] *''ǥuđan''. Most linguists agree that the reconstructed ] form {{PIE|*ǵhu-tó-m}} was based on the root {{PIE|*ǵhau(ə)-}}, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".{{Fact|date=March 2008}} | |||
| The capitalized form ''God'' was first used in ]'s Gothic translation of the ], to represent the Greek '']''. In the ], the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in ].<ref>]; "god n. ME < OE, akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base * ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; ]; the Almighty </ref><ref> Dictionary.com Dictionary.com; "God /gɒd/ noun: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. 8a. the upper balcony in a theater. 8b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.</ref> In spite of significant differences between religions such as ], ], ], the ], and ], the term "God" remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of ] and ]. | |||
| ==Names of God== | |||
| {{main | Names of God}} | |||
| ] can vary widely, but the word ] in English—and its counterparts in other languages, such as Latinate '']'', Greek ], Slavic ''Bog'', Sanskrit '']'', or Arabic '']''—are normally used for any and all conceptions. The same holds for Hebrew '']'', but ], God is also given a proper name, ], harking back to the religion's ] origins. God may also be given a proper name in monotheistic currents of Hinduism which emphasize the ] (]), mostly either of ], ] (or ]) or ]. In the ], when the word "Lord" is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the personal ] name of god, Yahweh. | |||
| It is difficult to draw a line between proper names and ] of God, such as the ], the ], and the various lists of ] in Hinduism. | |||
| ==Conceptions of God== | |||
| {{main|Conceptions of God}} | |||
| ] fresco ''Creation of the Sun and Moon'' by ] (completed 1512). ]] | |||
| Conceptions of God vary widely. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. The ] include the ] view of ], the ] of ] mysticism, and the ]. The ] differ in their view of the divine: views of ] vary by region, sect, and caste from monotheistic to polytheistic; the view of ] is almost non-theist. In modern times, some more abstract concepts have been developed, such as ] and ]. Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/articles/does_god_matter.html | title=DOES GOD MATTER? A Social-Science Critique | work=by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader | accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref> The contemporaneous French philosopher ] has however proposed a ] as ] essence of ].{{Fact|date=January 2008}} | |||
| ==Existence of God== | |||
| {{main|Existence of God}} | |||
| Many arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed and rejected by philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers. In ] terminology, such arguments concern schools of thought on the ] of the ] of God. | |||
| There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God are sometimes nonspecific, while other definitions can be self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types, while others revolve around holes in evolutionary theory and order and complexety in the world. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Conclusions reached include: "God exists and this can be proven"; "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (] in both cases); "God does not exist" (]); "God almost certainly does not exist"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html|title=Why There Almost Certainly Is No God|Publisher=Richard Dawkins, The Huffington Post}}</ref> (''de facto'' ]); and "no one knows whether God exists" (]). There are numerous variations on these positions. | |||
| A recent argument for the existence of God is '']'', which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as ]."<ref name=DIposition>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign|title=Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-05-13}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/393410a2d36e9b96329c2faff7e2a4df/miscdocs/intelligentdesigntheoryinanutshell.pdf|title=Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell|publisher=|date=2004|accessdate=2007-05-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/|title=Intelligent Design|publisher=Intelligent Design network|date=2007|accessdate=2007-05-13}}</ref> It is a modern form of the traditional ], modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the ],<ref><cite>"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's ]. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the ] associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes."</cite> ], 2005, testifying in the ] trial. .</ref><ref> "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." Jodi Wilgoren. ], August 21 2005.</ref><ref> Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", ].</ref><ref> Joseph P. Kahn. ], July 27 2005.</ref><ref> Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file).</ref><ref> "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." ] 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.</ref><ref name="aaas_pr"> ].</ref> believe the designer to be the ] God.<ref>"the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." ], ], December, 2005</ref> | |||
| ==Theological approaches== | |||
| {{Main article | Theology}} | |||
| Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including ], ], ], perfect ], divine ], and ] and ] existence. God has been described as ], a personal being, the source of all ], and the greatest conceivable being existent.<ref name=Swinburne/> These attributes were all claimed to varying degrees by the early ], ] and ] scholars, including ],<ref name=Edwards>]. "God and the philosophers" in ]. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', ], 1995.</ref> ],<ref name=Plantinga>]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> and ].<ref name=Edwards/> | |||
| Many ] developed arguments for the existence of God,<ref name=Plantinga/> while attempting to comprehend the precise implications of God's attributes. Reconciling some of those attributes generated important philosophical problems and debates. For example, God's omniscience implies that God knows how free agents will choose to act. If God does know this, their apparent ] might be illusory, or foreknowledge does not imply predestination; and if God does not know it, God is not omniscient.<ref name=Wierenga>Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in ]. ''The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy''. ], 2001.</ref> | |||
| The last centuries of philosophy have seen vigorous questions regarding the ] raised by such philosophers as ], ] and ], although Kant held that the ] was valid. The ] response has been either to contend, like ], that faith is "]"; or to take, like ], the ] position.<ref>{{Cite journal |first=Michael |last=Beaty |year=1991 |title=God Among the Philosophers |url=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53 |journal=The Christian Century |accessdate=2007-02-20}}</ref> Some ] agree that none of the arguments for God's existence are compelling, but argue that ] is not a product of ], but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position summed up by ] as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."<ref>]. '']'', 1669.</ref> | |||
| Most major religions hold God not as a metaphor, but a being that influences our day-to-day existences. Many believers allow for the existence of other, less powerful spiritual beings, and give them names such as ]s, ]s, ]i, ]s, and ]s. | |||
| ===Theism and Deism=== | |||
| ] holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal, and is personal, interested, and answers prayer.{{Fact|date=June 2007}} It holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world.{{Fact|date=June 2007}} Catholic theology holds that God is ] and is not involuntarily subject to time. Most theists hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, although this belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Some theists ascribe to God a self-conscious or purposeful limiting of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. ], by contrast, asserts that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future. "Theism" is sometimes used to refer in general to any belief in a god or gods, i.e., monotheism or polytheism{{Fact|date=June 2007}}. | |||
| ] holds that God is wholly ]: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it. In this view, God is not ], and does not literally answer prayers or cause miracles to occur. Common in Deism is a belief that God has no interest in humanity and may not even be aware of humanity. ] and ], respectively, combine Deism with the Pantheistic or Panentheistic beliefs discussed below. | |||
| ==History of monotheism== | |||
| {{main | Monotheism}} | |||
| ] (], Sistine Chapel): God creates ]. The concept of God as a singular patriarchal "] " is common in ] (]) monotheism.]] | |||
| The concept of monotheism sees a gradual development out of notions of ] and ]. In the ], each ] had a local patron deity, such as ] at ] or ] at ]. The first claims of global supremacy of a specific god date to the ], with ]'s '']'' (connected to ] by ] in his '']''), and, depending on dating issues, ]'s ]s to ]. Currents of ] or monotheism emerge in ] in the same period, with e.g. the ]. Philosophical monotheism and the associated concept of absolute ] emerges in ], notably with ] (c.f. ]), elaborated into the idea of ] in ]. | |||
| According to The Oxford Companion To World Mythology (David Leeming, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 153), "The lack of cohesion among early Hebrews made monotheism - even monolatry, the exclusive worship of one god among many - an impossibility...And even then it can be argued that the firm establishment of monotheism in Judaism required the rabbinical or Talmudic process of the first century B.C.E. to the sixth century C.E.". | |||
| In ], a person who spontaneously "discovers" monotheism is called a '']'', the original ''ḥanīf'' being ]. | |||
| Austrian anthropologist ] in the 1910s postulated an '']'', "original" or "primitive monotheism", a thesis now widely rejected in ] but still occasionally defended in ] circles. | |||
| ===Monotheism and pantheism=== | |||
| ] hold that there is only one god, and may claim that the one true god is worshiped in different religions under different names. The view that all theists actually worship the same god, whether they know it or not, is especially emphasized in ].<ref>See Swami Bhaskarananda, ''Essentials of Hinduism'' (Viveka Press 2002) ISBN 1884852041</ref> Adherents of different religions, however, generally disagree as to how to best ] God and what is ] for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the ] or have exclusive access to ], generally through ] or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is ]. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is ], i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is ], where everybody is seen as equally right; an example in Christianity is ]: the doctrine that ] is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is ], mixing different elements from different religion. An example of syncretism is the ] movement. | |||
| ] holds that God is the universe and the universe is God. ] holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. The distinctions between the two are subtle, and some consider them unhelpful. It is also the view of the ], ], Hinduism, some divisions of Buddhism, and ], along with many varying denominations and individuals within denominations. ], Jewish mysticism, paints a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God — which has wide acceptance in ], particularly from their founder ] — but only as an addition to the Jewish view of a personal god, not in the original pantheistic sense that denies or limits persona to God. | |||
| ===Dystheism and nontheism=== | |||
| ], related to ] is a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly-good or is fully malevolent as a consequence of the ]. One such example would be ] or the ]. There is no known community of practicing dystheists.{{Fact|date=January 2008}} | |||
| ] holds that the universe can be explained without any reference to the supernatural, or to a supernatural being. Some non-theists avoid the concept of God, whilst accepting that it is significant to many; other non-theists understand God as a symbol of human values and aspirations. Many schools of ] may be considered non-theistic. | |||
| ==Scientific positions regarding God== | |||
| Because the ] is dependent on the ] when arriving at conclusions about any discrete aspect of Human knowledge, there is a lack of consensus as to the appropriate scientific treatment of religious questions, such as those of the ], ] and properties of God — mainly because of the lack of a common definition of God, and the inability to objectively verify this definition using the scientific method had there been an agreed-on definition that could be taken as a ]. However, unlike the ] sciences, the ]s of ] and ] have consistently shown the observed universe to be a structured and eminently ordered environment, including what the pre-scientific and early scientific Humanity considered to be a ] phenomena. Invariably, lack of objective empiric verifiability of the existence of God has led to ] which forms the basis of ]. | |||
| However, the contribution made by monotheistic teachings to the modern social sciences based on the ] has been confirmed in many ways, not the least through the developments in ] and its major branch of ], ], ], ] and governance, ] and ]. Developments in these disciplines were direct precedents to the development of empirical and formal sciences that had not developed to same degree in ] religions. | |||
| ] proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "]" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the ], such as those relating to the ] and ] of God, are non-] and are the proper domain of ]. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.<ref> {{cite book |title=The God Delusion |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |year=2006 |publisher=Bantam Press |location=Great Britain |isbn=0-618-68000-4}}</ref> Another view, advanced by ], is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."<ref>{{cite web | last=Dawkins | first=Richard | authorlink=Richard Dawkins | title=Why There Almost Certainly Is No God | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html | accessdate=2007-01-10}}</ref> A third view is that of ]: any question which cannot be defined can not be answered by science and is therefore either nonsensical or is not worth asking, on the grounds that only empirically answerable questions make sense and are worth attention.{{Fact|date=December 2007}} | |||
| ==Distribution of belief in God== | |||
| {{main|List of religious populations}} | |||
| ] ie: ] (ie:], ], etc.) or ] (Turkey), although it is not a European country, majorities tend to poll highest.]] | |||
| As of 2000, approximately 53% of the world's population identifies with one of the three Abrahamic religions (33% Christian, 20% Islam, <1% Judaism), 6% with Buddhism, 13% with Hinduism, 6% with ], 7% with various other religions, and less than 15% as non-religious. Most of these religious beliefs involve a god or gods.<ref>National Geographic Family Reference Atlas of the World p. 49</ref> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <div class="references-small"> | |||
| * ], <cite>Nigeria leads in religious belief</cite> | |||
| * ], <cite>The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience</cite>, Palgrave/St Martin's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-4039-6457-2 | |||
| * ], <cite>The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief</cite>, Free Press, 2006. ISBN 0743286391 | |||
| * ], <cite>While Most Americans Believe in God, Only 36% Attend a Religious Service Once a Month or More Often</cite> | |||
| * ], <cite>God: A Biography</cite>, Knopf, 1995, ISBN 0-679-74368-5 . | |||
| * ], <cite>A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam</cite>, Ballantine Books, 1994. ISBN 0-434-02456-2 | |||
| *] Family Reference Atlas of the World, National Geographic Society, 2002. | |||
| * ], <cite>The 2004 Political Landscape Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized - Part 8: Religion in American Life</cite> | |||
| * Sharp, Michael, <cite>The Book of Light: The Nature of God, the Structure of Consciousness, and the Universe Within You</cite>. Avatar Publications, 2005. ISBN 0-9738555-2-5. | |||
| * ], ''Systematic Theology'', Vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951). ISBN 0-226-80337-6 | |||
| </div> | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| {{wikiquote}} | |||
| {{wikinews2|Nebraska Senator sues God|Court papers filed on behalf of God respond to lawsuit by Nebraska Senator}} | |||
| {{Spoken Misplaced Pages|God_Article_Spoken_2008.ogg|2008-01-06}} | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| {{Theism}} | |||
| {{Belief systems}} | |||
| {{Religion-related topics|hide}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Link FA|nn}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 07:57, 16 April 2008
FUCK RELIGION