Okay, cheers, I won't say any more since I would be speaking from relative ignorance if I did.

Generally, there has been so much harm done by religious beliefs although some find great comfort in them — Jack Cummins

For sure. And, perversely some take great comfort from the harm done - as an elderly woman said to my gay friend and his partner, "It makes me feel better knowing God will burn you both in the afterlife."

I’ve worked with a lot of people who were brought up in religious orphanages, and many of them were abused by priests, brothers, nuns, and other clergy. Not just the sexual abuse, but also the power games, bullying, and physical violence. Many "victims'" remain religious and think of god as a violent thug who must be obeyed. It's sad. Many also think they are possessed by Satan or demons when it's clear they're just haunted by religious charity.

In "simple-esque" terms. It means you have a father who is not the father you know.

As far as what that means, hinges solely on the individual. But no, it's not that murky. Not that roughly or poorly defined. Not that vague, no, not quite. It has very real meanings that come along with such a belief. With any belief, really. Just ask any person who found out they were adopted. It leads to unanswered questions. Often leading to journeys one would never undertake otherwise. As to whether these journeys lead to what one's mind considers "beneficial" and if they were better off left alone, as some paths are best left untraveled, just as some some sleeping dogs are best left to lie, well, I suppose one would never know until they take the first step into the unknown, now would they? :smile:

Many "victims'" remain religious and think of god as a violent thug who must be obeyed. It's sad. Many also think they are possessed by Satan or demons when it's clear they're just haunted by religious charity. — Tom Storm

:fire:

My God is the God of Einstein, who said his God was the God of Spinoza.

In a word, pantheism. The concept that of all of the universe is God, that all that exists is holy and worthy of reverence. Here's the basic principle of pantheism:

Reverence, awe, wonder and a feeling of belonging to Nature and the wider Universe.
Celebration of our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
Respect and active care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
Promotion of non-discrimination, religious tolerance, freedom of and from religion and complete separation of state and religion.
Realism – belief in a real external world that exists independent of human consciousness.
Strong naturalism – without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Cosmos.

... the God of Spinoza. In a word, pantheism. — Questioner

Spinoza says Deus, sive natura, not 'natura deus ist'. (Contra popular misreadings: acosmism.) To wit:

... But some people think the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as ‘Nature’ understood as a mass of corporeal matter. This is a complete mistake. — Spinoza, from letter (73) to Henry Oldenburg

(Emphasis is mine.)

It does seem that the idea of 'God' is often accompanied by ideas of divine justice, especially the idea of punishment for wrongdoing in the afterlife. This may be a comfort for those who feel injured by injustice. The idea of God often involves a sense of an underlying moral order and accountability for 'sin'.

Pantheism is so different from most forms of theism, because it emphasises immanence and processes. The 'God' is not 'out there' as a supreme judge, but is part of the 'here and now' experience of life. Pantheism can be regarded as subversive because it doesn't involve projection onto a superior being, beyond the realms of human experience.

"Pantheism" seems to me a providential form of panpsychism (or animism).

Yes, I am unsure of the exact differences between pantheism and pansychism, beyond the labels. Both seem to point to some kind of underlying consciousness pervading nature. I am still trying to think exactly what pansychism exactly. I started a thread on panpsychism fairly recently but did not end up any clearer on how thise who regard themselves as pansychists see the idea of spirit.

So many discussions about the idea of 'God' hinge around the way in which spirit and matter are seen. It can be about mere abstraction of philosophical ideas or some kind of personal meaning of how 'reality' seems to work. A large part of this is about subjective interpretation of the objective aspects. The question may be to what extent may an objective picture of the 'absolute' be found within the diversity of subjective experiences of the 'absolute' and renderings of the idea of 'God'?

The question may be to what extent may an objective picture of the 'absolute' be found within the diversity of subjective experiences of the 'absolute' and renderings of the idea of 'God'? — Jack Cummins

Spinoza says Deus, sive natura (i.e. call reality "God or Nature"). NB: 'Quantum foam' works for me (an antisupernatural pandeist :wink:)

What is wrong with the idea of the 'supernatural'? Is it because it is disembodied? I can see the problem of disembodied existence, especially in the form of Plato's idea of the afterlife.

However, I am not sure that embodiment is as simple as as physicalism. I know that you go back to the philosophy of Spinoza but even that may not capture the subtle aspects of the physical or non- physical. I am not sure whether this is captured best in Western or Eastern metaphysics.

I also wonder about the nature of the symbolic and what it stands for. It could be argued that both ideas of God are metaphorical. However, I am left wondering about metaphor and metaphysics. Metaphysics seems more concrete but metaphor seems too reductive. This is how I see the conundrums of the philosophy of myth and religion. In other words, I am not sure what myth and symbols stand for. Anthropology is important but, still, the understanding of the mythological and symbolic aspects of human understanding seems important.

What is wrong with the idea of the 'supernatural'? — Jack Cummins

Nothing except it's an incoherent idea that lacks any natural referent.

Is it because it is disembodied?

More or less.

[It] could be argued that [ ... ] ideas of God are metaphorical.

Agreed.

I am left wondering about metaphor and metaphysics. Metaphysics seems more concrete but metaphor seems too reductive.

I don't understand what you mean by "too reductive". Are you referring to a 'particular metaphysics' or 'metaphysics itself as a topic'?

This is how I see the conundrums of the philosophy of myth and religion. In other words, I am not sure what myth and symbols stand for. 

From 2021 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544753