Why I am not a follower of the Abrahamic gods

Be aware that the end goal of religion is not ethics or morality. Rather, following some instructions (say, avoiding things contrary to some moral) are pointed out as being conducive (or at least not contrary) to religious experiences.

Picture this: Iif for you to get to some religious mystical experience you need mental peace and calm, it’d be quite difficult if you stole something, given that at any point, the person you stole from can come to you looking for the stolen thing (and revenge), so you cannot put your guard down.

If religion is discussed by morality/social behaviour alone, it’s like discussing if a car is fuel efficient according to the color of its paint

This is flawed not only because you misunderstand the nature of philosophy, but also because you underestimate how human understanding works.

Ethics deals with the complexities of human life, motivation, responsibility and meaning, all of which have deep emotional, cultural and experiential dimensions. Symbols, metaphors and allegories are not just decorative; they are cognitive tools that enable us to express moral insights and nuances that pure literal reasoning often cannot.

For example, Plato’s ‘Myth of the Cave’ and Nietzsche’s Zarathustra use metaphor because ethical perception often hinges on a transformation of understanding rather than mere deduction. Attempting to remove figurative language from ethics would reduce it to abstract logic, making it more akin to mathematics than a living inquiry into moral life.

Human thought is metaphorically structured. Conceptual metaphors shape how we understand abstract ideas, such as ‘moral high ground’, ‘darkness of ignorance’, and ‘path to virtue’. Cognitive linguistics demonstrates that even supposedly objective reasoning relies on metaphorical schemas. Therefore, a ‘symbol-free’ ethics would be a contradiction in terms, asking us to reason without the very mechanisms through which we think.

Ambiguity in ethical language reflects the complexity of moral experience. Moral life is full of tensions and competing values; ambiguity allows for exploration rather than premature closure. Allegory, for instance, invites multiple interpretations, mirroring the way in which ethical deliberation resists definitive answers.

Nearly all foundational ethical systems employ symbolic or metaphorical frameworks.

  • Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ (a metaphor).
  • Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends’.
  • Utilitarianism’s “greatest happiness” principle.

Even when these seem literal, they carry figurative structures that are essential to their moral intelligibility. Essentially, demanding that ethics be devoid of symbolism is demanding that it be devoid of humanity, and that it speak in a way no moral agent could live by.

Besides bare truth-telling, I said:

You said:

You are speaking for Gary. Are you Gary?

How does your worldview account for action, value, and substance, Bob? Gary?

Do you know how Christianity accounts for it in order to critique it?

“Conceptual metaphors shape how we understand abstract ideas, such as ‘moral high ground’, ‘darkness of ignorance’, and ‘path to virtue’.”

Nope. No conceptual metaphors are necessary to know when there’s a case of each. Moral highground = dude thinks he’s right. Darkness of ignorance = its good to know stuff. Path to virtue = here’s how to do good stuff.

No magic scrolls needed to make sense of what any of that means.

I was thinking something similar. Not that he should pick one of the supposedly two other positions, but more like ‘‘what are your doing?’ and what other options are there. If you are interested in what religions or spirituality deal with, you could engage in the processes of the most appealing one and see what happens. For example. Not that he should do this. But there’s a kind of weird Western idea that belief is central rather than relationship (as on ongoing process) and developing/learning/finding/experiencing. And this focus on belief (which some Abrahamists call faith) is on both sides of the common Western fence. The atheists focusing on there being no reason to believe (and some who think it has been demonstrated there isn’t or can’t be a God) and Abrahamists who believe - and everyone is pretty binary. They believe or they don’t. Like there can’t be gradations or mixed beliefs. No one needs to take a stand and label themselves. Not anymore. Of course if someone wants to say they are theist, atheist, agnostic or something else that’s fine. But what is the goal?

I am speaking about “people like Gary”.

In my view, action does not primarily arise from appetite, ambition or ideological abstraction. Rather, it stems from an inward calling, a recognition of shared humanity, and an ethical response to the situation at hand.

For me, action is more relational and responsive than acquisitive. I like to think that I follow in the footsteps of thinkers such as Hannah Arendt, who saw action as something that happens between people rather than within the will of an isolated individual. However, there are tensions. For example, if one rejects domination and coercion, how can one justify forceful action when cooperation fails? Every worldview must answer that question.

In my view, action is not the assertion of an isolated will, but a response within a living whole that is co-creative. This explains my frustration with ‘elites’ who attempt to contract reality towards self-reference instead of participating in its expansion towards integration.

I would have thought that the value of my thinking was grounded most firmly. I value the intrinsic worth of individuals, the sacredness (or at least the seriousness) of life, and the moral superiority of cooperation over domination, as well as profundity over superficiality. You can therefore see a real hierarchy of cooperation over exploitation, care over accumulation and meaningful discourse over spectacle. In other words, the good life is realised through practices that sustain a community rather than fragment it.

The most subtle question is that of substance. By that, one might mean what is ultimately real, or whether the soul is metaphorical or ontological. Or whether moral order is built into the structure of reality. I don’t view the soul as mere poetry, but rather as something with ontological significance that can be diminished, awakened or misdirected.

As a panentheist, I perceive a reality that transcends material processes and a teleology that guides humans towards a state of wholeness. This involves an increased participation in truth, beauty and goodness, as well as conscious cooperation with the deeper essence of existence. Reality expresses itself in us as enquiry and longing; through this enquiry, it discovers itself. Fragmentation, domination and hoarding are not just immoral; they are also forms of arrested self-recognition.

1 Like

In my view, reality is a participatory whole in which human individuation necessarily generates illusion through our embodied limitations. Suffering catalyses reflection, learning and recognition of unity, guiding beings towards conscious awakening. Action is relational and co-creative, guided by the ethical demands of the situation and the intrinsic worth of individuals. Justice operates as a restorative consequence, purgatorial rather than punitive, revealing the coherence of the whole. Love is the ultimate goal, the universal reconciliation of all things, and history is the sometimes painful, always real pathway through which the Whole comes to know itself and through which we, as conscious participants, return home to unity.

1 Like

A’ight, Bob, I’ma work witchu.

There is absolutely nothing novel, extramundane, or hidden in religious literature about human activity. One can think a story did a fine job at demonstrating an act of forgiveness or honor or sacrifice, but each of these can be reduced to generic material relationships between people and things… all perfectly normal earthly moral dilemmas and challenges. Not special struggles people are put through by a god with clues placed along the way.

Yup, 'fraid the entire spectrum of spiritual conflict and growth is reducible to some bullshit somebody is suffering because of some mundane suckiness. You can dress it all up in fancy stories about biblical fishermen or Tibetan monks, but at the end of the day, the trouble these guys are in is every day run of the mill existential struggle… whether for stone tablets or food stamps is irrelevant.

What you like to do, BoB, is write. Half the time, you are just doing philo-poetic monologues as we’re all being seated… and the other half, you’re in revolutionary mode.

It is a strange kind of Tolstoyean McKennanism. Che Guevara in a crown of pagan lotus petals. A man with a walking cane that could be used as a weapon… but the wise Stoic philosopher would do no such thing. Instead he would stand his ground centered like the zen master and say “there is a conversation to be had here, friend”.

We are so very close in our world view. This is the only sentence I had a real issue with. The eternal ground already knows “itself”/eachother.

This will take time.

Some people experience life as being more than just mundane. They sense, at times, that reality has depth and that there is something shimmering beneath the visible surface. They see ‘between the lines’ or grasp the full truth of a fleeting scene. As William Blake famously wrote, they perceive ‘the world in a grain of sand’. Having lived through the upheavals of the Industrial Revolution and the American and French Revolutions, Blake understood keenly how societies can become mechanistic and dehumanising. In opposition to this limited vision, he advocated what he termed the ‘fourfold vision’, a way of seeing in which the infinite permeates the ordinary.

I recognise something of that disposition in my own life. As a child, however, it bewildered me. When I came across poetry or richly descriptive prose, I didn’t just read the words, I entered them. Like many children, I immersed myself in stories, but my imagination did not stop at the page. My dreams disturbed my parents. I saw presences in the shadows that seemed more real than the certainties of daylight. Concerned, my family took me to see a psychologist. Meanwhile, our frequent moves as a military family meant that I never received a proper education, so I never learnt how to articulate what I was experiencing. My inner world expanded, but my vocabulary lagged behind.

As an adult, I discovered that this intensity of perception was not confined to English literature. When I read in German, I encountered the same depth. Rather than being confused by this, I resolved to cultivate my ability to express myself. I worked hard at the language until my German became more nuanced and expressive than that of many native speakers. It was during this period that I became a Christian and began reading the Bible with a similar intensity. Once again, I found myself reading ‘between the lines’. The narrative yielded layers; the historical became archetypal; and the literal opened into the transcendent. The text was not diminished by this; it became luminous.

Gradually, I recognised that my lifelong encounters with what might be termed visionary perception, through poetry, prose, shadows, and scripture, echoed Blake’s own assertion that imagination precedes language and dogma. He spoke of humanity’s ‘poetic genius’, an innate capacity for imaginative apprehension that education often stifles rather than nurtures. Schools, with their emphasis on rote learning and empirical ‘single vision’, can inadvertently dim the inner light they ought to cultivate.

Blake urged the daily practice of deeper sight: sketching visions, writing prophetic fragments and refusing to reduce reality to mere, measurable fact. During this phase of my life, my nursing background and philosophical inclination unexpectedly converged. I painted. I wrote. I delivered sermons. I acted in plays. I began to see patients in hospital wards and strangers on urban streets as microcosms of a greater drama. This was not in a fanciful sense, but rather as living symbols of the tension between fragmentation and wholeness. Suffering ceased to be merely clinical; it became existential and, at times, prophetic. Through reflection and poetry, I sought to express what lay hidden within the visible.

Yet, as you demonstrate, such a perception is not always welcomed. It can be dismissed as unorthodox, excessive or dubious. Visionary language unsettles systems that prefer containment. What cannot be easily classified is easily rejected. I lost myself in management, doing myself no favours by subduing my nature, and only escaped by retiring.

It was only then that I realised what I had feared might be a pathology was better understood as participation - perhaps even theosis - the gradual awakening to our share in the divine life. Seeing ‘the universe in a teacup’, or glimpsing eternity in an industrial shadow, is not elitist mysticism. It is a human birthright. As Blake wrote, 'Man is all imagination. God is Man, and Man is God, and we exist in Him.” Regardless of one’s views on his theology, the insight remains: imagination is not escapism, but a way of engaging with the depths of reality.

Blake described four levels of vision:

  • the single (mere fact),
  • the twofold (empathic perception),
  • the threefold (intuitive insight),
  • and the fourfold (prophetic unity).

When our vision expands in this way, even patient suffering, urban hardship, and the harsh machinery of the Industrial Age can be transformed into meaningful scenes. The mundane reveals something sacred. Fractures carry symbolic meaning, and shadows are recognised as catalysts for transformation rather than being denied.

This way of seeing things is often stifled by industrial dehumanisation or narrow forms of education, yet it can be reclaimed. This process begins when we trust imagination not merely as fantasy, but as a faculty through which the infinite glimmers within the finite. When that faculty awakens, life ceases to be merely endured and becomes something to be interpreted and participated in. In some small but real way, it is redeemed.

The ironic thing is that the visionaries of the world’s religions probably went through a similar process. Many were rejected at first, prophets were incarcerated or killed, and yet their witness became scripture. I don’t see myself as something special, except that due to circumstances beyond my control, I slipped through the system that tends to dim the light.

I believe that God “knows” in the sense of Erkennen, and divine knowing is not merely the possession of all facts, timeless cognitive containment, or frozen perfection. Rather, it is a relational unfolding, a self-recognition through expression, and a living awareness that includes temporality.

I agree the eternal ground is not a frozen perfection like a block universe where motion (act) is illusion. Motion (act) is the demonstration/expression (Spirit) always in unity with God’s eternal being (Father) and quality/value (Son…Logos). Every moment is alive to God. Eternally new/old.