Worship should be of something real (which leaves out God)

Yesterday I finished listening to a Philosophy Talk podcast on "Worship." As always, I enjoyed the intelligent insights of the discussants, hosts John Taylor and Ken Perry of Stanford University, plus guest Daniel Speak of Loyola Marymount.

This Philosophy Talk program had a different feel, though. Usually religion takes a backseat to secular humanism on the show, as befits the emphasis on philosophy (literally, from the Greek, "love of wisdom").

In this case, while Speak didn't broadcast his Christianity at full volume it was an obvious murmur that could be heard to some degree in just about every statement that he made. This put him at odds with almost all of the audience commenters and questioners, as well as Taylor and Perry.

Me too.

Much of the discussion revolved around Speak's definition of worship. Which was, essentially: Praising the excellence of something, with a view toward making it a fundamental organizing principle of your life.

So what is most excellent? Well, God, according to Speak -- in line with Anselm's ontological argument. God is the greatest, most excellent, most perfect being that can be conceived of.

Hence it makes sense to worhip this marvelous entity, especially since God can respond to your worship. Nature, on the other hand, can't.

So Speak didn't think much of the notion proposed by Perry or Taylor (can't remember which) that the Earth, nature, was the most deserving of our adoration and worship, since it is the ground of our being, what sustains us and makes life possible.

Listening to the discussion, I never could stop thinking of an objection to Speak's stance which seemed so obvious to me, I kept wondering why the hosts didn't keep pounding away philosophically on this point. (A couple of audience members did, to some degree.)

Namely: if the most excellent entity that can be conceived of, God, isn't real, then worshipping it, making it the fundamental organizing principle of your life -- that's crazy.

Well, maybe "crazy" isn't quite the right word. I can understand why it could make sense for someone to fill their head with imaginary ideas which then become the centerpiece of his/her life.

After all, that's what art is all about, using your own subjective mind to create something. But who wants to worship themselves? That seems terribly solipsistic to me. Yet this is what Daniel Speak and other religious believers advocate: worshipping the thought of a perfect being.

Human thoughts only exist within the human brain.

When asked what evidence there was for the existence of the God he reverences, Speak couldn't come up with any. So the worship-worthy organizing principle of his life, God, isn't anything objectively real. It's a concept which he and other theistic believers use to justify other concepts in a dizzying display of circular reasoning.

Personally (as if there is any other way to talk about this stuff), I don't resonate with the whole worship thing. Even when I followed the teachings of an Indian guru, I never felt like I worshipped him. Or God. Or any other divine being.

The Philosophy Talk guys say "Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something." Hmmmm. Maybe.

But when I feel reverential and adoring toward the majesty of nature, including the incomprehensible vastness of our universe, that doesn't feel like worship to me -- not in the way this word usually is used. Thus I can understand why Speak considers that there needs to be a reciprocity in worship; the object of our worship needs to know how worshipful we are, and respond in some fashion.

(Or at least be capable of responding to us.)

However, this undercuts his argument for worshipping God. If I worship Lady Gaga, for many people an entirely reasonable act, I can attend one of her concerts and be part of a crowd that she is demonstrably able to see, talk to, and interact with. 

Can God do this? There's no evidence of it, because there's no evidence God exists.

So I listened to the Philosophy Talk podcast wondering how the heck such an obviously bright guy as Daniel Speak could fail to see the flaws in his religiously-based attitude toward worship.

His emphasis was on centering one's life around a praise-worthy form of excellence. Yet if this entity isn't objectively real, then we end up worshipping the content of our own mind, an imaginary excellence. That will feel good, since mental masturbation can be as enjoyable as physical self-pleasuring.

I just don't want to worship myself. Or anyone else, for that matter.

But if you want to worship me, feel free. So far I've only got one confirmed devotee: my dog, for a few moments a day, when I reach into a cupboard and grab her favorite jerky treat and chew sticks. As she waits for me to give them to her, I briefly sense a worshipful look on her canine face. For an instant, I'm God to her. Or at least the doofus who hands over valuable treats in exchange for a half-hearted paw shake.

Which reminds me... this You Tube video of a talking dog is hilarious. My wife discovered it and now worships it, along with all other things doggish. Have a look, and laugh:

 

Comments

[David Lane]

i love that dog video..... wonderful

[Marina]

Great video Brian. It made me laugh.....

Marina ;)))))

[star]

Isn't worship about changing ourselves, really, and our relationship to whatever we worship? If I worship nature, presumably I give it more respect, and sure that has an effect on the nature I touch -- I take better care of it, I change how I treat its manifestation in my world. If someone worships whatever they perceive as God, it changes their behavior in the world, how they manifest (whatever they see as) God into the world.

[Frank Haynes]

There are those who believe we are a figment of the imagination and there are those who believe we are the filament of God's illumination

[Stuart Resnick]

> Speak's definition of worship. Which was,
> essentially: Praising the excellence of
> something, with a view toward making it
> a fundamental organizing principle of
> your life.

If I think something is excellent, that's my opinion. "Excellent," "terrible," "good," "bad"... don't exist in themselves, they're made by thinking.

If I think somethings excellent and try to worship or follow it, OK. But I ought to have doubt in my own determination of what's excellent, and be open to changing that opinion based on evidence. If I lose that doubt, my beliefs are blind dogmas.

> God is the greatest, most excellent,
> most perfect being that can be
> conceived of.

So "God" is a placeholder for who/what did the most excellent thing ever: created the universe. But who/what really did create the universe, where did it come from? I don't know; it's inconceivable. So any God that I can conceive of (or worship), isn't the true God.

> Hence it makes sense to worhip this
> marvelous entity, especially since
> God can respond to your worship.
> Nature, on the other hand, can't.

If my mother gives me a shirt for my birthday, she doesn't care so much whether I profusely thank her. But it does make her happy if I wear the shirt.

If you thank God (or Whatever) for what you've got, or worship him in the hopes of getting something eventually... maybe that's all extraneous. There's the other option of just accepting whatever it is that you've got, and focusing attention and energy on how to use it.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Alex]

Totally agreed that worship should be of something real (which leaves out God). Unitarian Universalism (UU) is doing just that. They keep the usual form of Sunday Services (and Sunday Schools) and replace all theistic words by non-theistic humanistic ones. That's why I like UU. Presently, I understand UU as a church of religious humanism. Do you agree?

[Marina]

Hi Stuart,

Thanks for your post. I liked it.

My understanding of it is, we believe we are our identity. Some of us have a negative identity like ‘I’m stupid and worthless’ and ‘try’ to make it better. So we may go to certain workshops, read books, where we may (or may not) come out with a new self identity like ‘I love me, I am great.’ This creates a much more pleasant experience. Now I am happy because I believe (now) that I am great person, a wonderful person. Now we have a new improved identity, a much, much, better one.

To me this ‘I love me’ identity can be a bigger trap than the ‘I hate me’ identity even though they are all identities and none are real. It becomes clear. When you see that, it doesn’t seem to matter what ‘role’ you seem to be playing. Good and bad now seem irrelevant. Though at this stage, it can be easy to fall, for a moment back into the illusion of either identity, but once you see it, you don’t get lost for long in the drama or you don't resist it. Fun.

I can see how a good identity can stop one from understanding further; ‘now I feel good and feel I belong to society’ etc. Some people can ‘stay’ here and be content, and that is fine, if that is what they want.

But the truth for me is a different matter! It is not getting caught, identifying with either I hate me or I love me. Nor is it in rejecting any of this if it is happening. It is about watching, noticing and allowing this experience to be there.

At this point, it becomes fun when you see if anything, anybody or any circumstance can trigger you into identifying, again, with yourself identity(image) either the hate me or love me one.

There seems to be no exclusion of anyone or anything, enemies and friends become the same thing. Everyone and everybody are part of the play. The paradox’s now seem less paradoxical. There is no looking for something outside, from anyone else or anything, yes, they can be pointers but they can’t nor ever will be able to realise it for you. People can give you food but they cannot eat it for you or give the benefits to you. They can tell you what it is like, descriptions, metaphors; feelings associated with it but at the end of the day ‘the menu is not the food’ or nothing like you thought it was going to be.

It is all about taking responsibility for your own life and how you create it.
When you see this, RS, Buddha, Nanak, Catholic Church, Church of the Churchless, or anyone else, cannot appear as bad or wrong. Everything has its place and purpose.

To believe we can achieve(get) something, from someone else, is coming from a place of wanting something that you think you don’t have and ends up as worship.

Marina

[Rain]

Do you, or any of your readers, have any lists of books or videos like this one but aimed at teens who are trying to get along in a country where christianism is pushed down their throats at every opportunity? So many things are for adults and the teens aren't ready for the way the material is handled; yet they need information to use when their christianist friends come to them with their proselytizing.

[Blogger Brian]

Rain, that's a great question. Which, unfortunately, I don't have an answer to. I did Google "teenage atheist" and found a Diary of a Teenage Atheist blog that looks interesting. She seemed to have written fairly frequently for about three years. See:
http://teenatheist.wordpress.com/

This is her About description:

----------------------

Teen Atheist (name withheld) is a teenage girl who lives in a little third-world country where 94% of the population is Christian. She will only refer to her homeland as Predominantly Christian Country, although various hints left around the website may clue you in to what country it is.

Teen Atheist aspires to become a Creative Writing major at her Dream College, which is run by Jesuits. Her short-term career goal is to be a columnist for a magazine, although she secretly longs to be a television screenwriter for a hit dramedy. Or a writer for Rolling Stone, whatever comes first.

[Alex]

//lists of books or videos like this one but aimed at teens who are trying to get along in a country where christianism is pushed down their throats at every opportunity?//

A good question!

The UUA Bookstore might help:
www.uuabookstore.org

This book came to my mind but it is for kids:

Humanism, What's That?: A Book for Curious Kids
http://www.uuabookstore.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=144

Hope this helps.

[Alex]

Humanism, What's That?: A Book for Curious Kids http://www.uuabookstore.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=144

I have this book. I think it is suitable for young teens too. It is in easy-to-understand Q&A format. Example:

Chad (student): But all good people are religious! They believe in God, and only God can make people well--if we pray hard enough.

Mrs Green (teacher): Sorry, Chad, but not all people agree. Not everyone believes in God, but that doesn't make them bad people.

Jesse (student): What kind of people do not believe in God? How can they be good if they don't go to church?

Mrs Green: There are several kinds of non-believers. Some are called atheists, while others call themselves agnostics, free-thinkers, or humanists. All these people are highly ethical. That means, they believe in doing good because it is the right thing to do, not becasue they are afraid of God's puinishment.

(I highly recemmend this small book!)

[Alex]

This is a piece of relevant (old) news:

Swedish orgasm church
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/08/27/Court-rejects-Swedish-orgasm-church/UPI-86031282949188/

They worship orgasm. Orgasm is subjective experience. According to some philosophical perspectives, that is more real than the whole universe. Worshipping organsm is more realistic than worshipping a "God" we don't know exist or not.

[Rain]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will check them out