I believe the most important part in any God discussion is to identify if the belief, or truth claim is based on fact, reason, or faith. Arguments based on fact on God are not really relevant. In one says God is, is fact, it is not really worth a continued discussion. And I find the biggest disconnects when one person is making a faith based argument and getting an argument of reason back. Important that both parties are "Godspeaking" from the same basis.

I asked God about this, and He said it pisses Him off too.

Explaining the god(s) is an essential task of all believers, because the gods are our creation and as such are subject to continuous re-interpretation. If one believes the gods are real, they are always (and of necessity) inscrutable. So... explanations are in order.

I believe the most important part in any God discussion is to identify if the belief, or truth claim is based on fact, reason, or faith. Arguments based on fact on God are not really relevant. In one says God is, is fact, it is not really worth a continued discussion. And I find the biggest disconnects when one person is making a faith based argument and getting an argument of reason back. Important that both parties are "Godspeaking" from the same basis. — Rank Amateur

Thanks for the reply! Yes, it seems most helpful if both parties are clear with each other where they are coming from. I have no problem in general with scriptural analysis and commentary of any faith. In general, there are many examples of which that are well-researched. I may find one more convincing or relevant than another. The OP isn’t making a case against commentary. (Not that you are saying such! Just thought I’d throw that in there. :smile: )

You may be familiar with the theoretical language E-Prime. In a nutshell and as I understand it, its main tenet proposes not using the verb “to be”. This is in order to avoid adopting an omniscient point of view, and to avoid discrepancies and inaccuracies. Even about small things. So instead of saying “grass is green”, one could say “at the time, the grass appeared green”. So if it might be helpful to do so concerning commonplace things, would it not be even more critical when talking about the Creator? Every qualifier and modifier helps, like saying “in my opinion” or “perhaps” or “God seems like.. “. It softens the blow, and pulls the punch, so to speak. It may come across as equivocation or wishy-washy. But I feel the larger error and bigger danger is someone talking about the Creator like said divinity is a bug under a microscope, and completely known by the speaker. Who is also kind enough to share this knowledge with those not so blessed.

Also, I’d like to add that parenthetically that I don’t necessarily believe silence is always better on the topic of God. Not advocating some religious version of Wittgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” I think one would sooner get all kids to keep their hands out of the cookie jar, than getting people to stop having opinions about God. :grin: No problem there really.

As bc implies, the prior assumption of a single capitalizable (g)od is quite a leap. I love to talk about gods but God is a rather more specific phenomenon.

If you grant that it is not a matter of fact, that God is. (sorry the cap if it offends - too much Catholic guilt not to)

Then as a matter of reason, the only God claim that i know off that can be argued is if there was or was not at least at one moment - a necessary being. a non contingent being.

All other God claims that I can think of are matters of faith - and discussions are theological not philosophical. Fun to have none the less.

I think where the theist lives in philosophy is a simple claim that belief in God is not in conflict with fact or reason.

Godsplaining: the act of explaining God and/or God’s actions, preferences, nature, personality, etc, usually in extreme detail.

It appears that speaking without a shred of modesty, doubt, or hesitancy about God might seem inspired or confident to some; and seem arrogant and presumptive to others. Is this just preference or a matter of taste or tradition? — 0 thru 9

I live in Massachusetts. People don't talk much about God in a casual way here. I've spent time in Alabama, where they do. They talk about God the way we, and they, talk about the weather, politics, or sports. It's a constantly present factor in their day to day lives and those they know. What you call Godsplaining is just the way they live.

Also, how many people on the forum speak about their beliefs "without a shred of modesty, doubt, or hesitancy?" To a certain extent, singling out religion probably reflects what you see as important and unimportant.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, everyone. Will respond when I get a chance. It is soooo difficult trying to type out a post while driving in rush hour traffic. Multi-tasking, hurrah!

(sorry... bad joke. It’s actually after rush hour. :halo: )

All other God claims that I can think of are matters of faith - and discussions are theological not philosophical. Fun to have none the less.

I think where the theist lives in philosophy is a simple claim that belief in God is not in conflict with fact or reason. — Rank Amateur

Those that believe in God disagree with you.

I asked God about this, and He said it pisses Him off too. — unenlightened

Oh sure! Go ahead and humble-brag some more. Just because you had facetime with the Creator of the entire universe. The same one that won’t return any of my phone calls. So rub it in! :rofl:

If one believes the gods are real, they are always (and of necessity) inscrutable. So... explanations are in order. — Bitter Crank

Well, that is true. It is the central mystery of life and the source of all. So curiousity is not surprising, it is natural. And not just natural, but possibly inspiring. I just wonder how to balance the explanations and the mystery. The wonder and the words spoken about its meaning. Having the golden goose and not being tempted to open it up to find even more treasure.

It reminds me of that old joke about the comedian’s wife or lover: “She walks on the ground I worship”.
Maybe it’s relative where the hallowed ground is.

As bc implies, the prior assumption of a single capitalizable (g)od is quite a leap. I love to talk about gods but God is a rather more specific phenomenon. — mcdoodle

Good point, indeed. Too much strife over that one letter. It reminds me of a quote from (the recently deceased) Daniel Quinn:


And good to see you back again, mcdoodle! :smile:

I live in Massachusetts. People don't talk much about God in a casual way here. I've spent time in Alabama, where they do. They talk about God the way we, and they, talk about the weather, politics, or sports. It's a constantly present factor in their day to day lives and those they know. What you call Godsplaining is just the way they live. — T Clark

:up: That is an excellent comparison drawn from your personal life. Thanks. The way you describe how the people in Alabama are would not bother me, though. (Not that they should care one way or another!) Someone honestly sharing what they hold dear is not a problem. Maybe it’s the so-called experts, or preachers, or those that have a financial stake in it that are the hardest to believe or listen to. Like when you feel like your dealing with a shady used car salesperson, someone with a rehearsed slick spiel, a shell game. Or the Wizard of Oz: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Also, how many people on the forum speak about their beliefs "without a shred of modesty, doubt, or hesitancy?" To a certain extent, singling out religion probably reflects what you see as important and unimportant. — T Clark

I’m glad you mentioned that, for it may not have been worded properly. I do not mean to single out religion. Or belief. Maybe it is just how we talk about God. I would imagine that there are real experts when it comes to “God”. But I would probably trust someone who had religious experiences, rather than a PhD in whatever, or have a TV show. For what is worth, I’d say a person’s core beliefs are foundational to who they are. And they hold the key to their future. If those core beliefs are religious, or spiritual, or artistic, or scientific, or whatever, makes little difference to me. Whatever works for them. It makes a huge difference to them, as it should.

Why employ such a ridiculous term: "godsplaining", rather than simply using 'theology'? The former term seems to be pre-loaded with ridicule for anyone who would want to participate in the activity it defines, so it is "ridiculous" in more than one sense.

Whether people find theology useful, fruitful, useless, fruitless or whatever is an individual matter, isn't it? Are you proposing that its general usefulness or otherwise could somehow be logically or empirically established?

Godsplaining: the act of explaining God and/or God’s actions, preferences, nature, personality, etc, usually in extreme detail. — 0 thru 9

So far no one has made clear just what this means. I do not know what it means, although I have opinions and guesses.

Can anyone put the quote/definition from the OP on solid-enough ground so that it may be examined on its merits? Or alternatively, does it mean anything at all?

Are you proposing that its general usefulness or otherwise could somehow be logically or empirically established? — Janus

No, sorry if that was the impression or message you got. That was not the intent.

Please see my reply above to T Clark. All due respect to a person’s beliefs. That is really not the point I was trying awkwardly to make.

In the OP, I admitted that the term was perhaps nauseating and trendy, although not as popular as its relative “mansplaining”. These are not words I use in conversation. Maybe I was trying to be current and popular. The threads I start usually get about four responses and drop to the bottom. :yawn:

But as goofy as the term is, who in the world would possibly seriously confuse it with theology in part, or as a whole? In fact, the goofiness would separate it from more serious studies, I would wager. If I had meant “theology”, I would have specifically used that word. Cheers.

Fair question! Thanks for your reply. Godsplaining is hardly a word, let alone a thing in and of itself. It is just a label for a concept. The concept I have been chewing on for years. The label I stumbled across during a Google search today. If they go together like oil and water, perhaps it is useful for a salad dressing? :yum:

A while ago, I started a thread about ignosticism. The subject of this thread is a bit different, but with some overlap I think. As long as one keeps in mind that in this thread, I’m NOT referring to God’s existence or even one’s spiritual beliefs, but maybe the way God is talked about. Either logically or not, honestly or not, etc.

You can read the original post here. Hope that might shed some light on my thinking at least.

Thanks again!

When anyone talks about God in any sense at all, I look to see if they have defined or qualified "God" in any way at all. Usually not. Some very smart people over at least 2300 years have tried to fathom the concept, and with some approach to unanimity they have concluded that God is unknowable.

In light of this, what are we to make of anyone who explains God. What even does that mean?

Whatever godsplaining might be under even the most charitable understanding of the term, it cannot have anything to do with religion as most reasonably intelligent folks understand that term. Flying false colours, then, commerce therewith is problematic at best, otherwise impossible. Let the godsplainer fly a true flag, then we can know where he or she is coming from. lacking that, godsplaining is essentially nonsense - often enough not harmless nonsense.

Having the golden goose and not being tempted to open it up to find even more treasure. — 0 thru 9

And then the mysterious old woman who evidently had great magical powers said, "You can do any thing you want to do, except for one thing: Leave the golden-egg laying goose alone. DO NOT," she said--looking me dead in the eye, "I repeat, DO NOT harass, interrogate (enhanced or otherwise), annoy, x-ray, PET scan, MRI, ultra-sound, palpate, or cut into the golden-egg laying goose. The penalties will be most SEVERE!" And then she disappeared. — Fractured Fairy Tales...

If I had meant “theology”, I would have specifically used that word. Cheers. — 0 thru 9

I think expressing any opinion about God counts as theology; although it obviously doesn't have to be good theology....

I think expressing any opinion about God counts as theology; although it obviously doesn't have to be good theology.... — Janus

:up: Ok, that is fair enough as a broad definition. I would not disagree with it. I think I’m advocating a healthy skepticism. More about ourselves, our motives, our words. As is well-known, the list of psychological defense mechanisms is long. Projection, denial, compensation, dissociation, repression, rationalization. Even when greed, fame, and power are not at stake, the struggle for awareness of one’s psychological wants and needs is never-ending.

Or more personally, I’ve experienced each of those defense mechanisms, and more. To counterbalance, I am almost mercilessly skeptical of my own thoughts. About either the simplest idea or the loftiest insight (which was most likely borrowed from somewhere else), the calmer and deeper part says “maybe... maybe... , or perhaps not. Wait a while. Plant those seeds and see what grows from them”.

Out on a off-topic limb here perhaps. But these are some of the background ideas of the OP, for what it’s worth.

When anyone talks about God in any sense at all, I look to see if they have defined or qualified "God" in any way at all. Usually not. — tim wood

Not sure if you are saying that’s a good thing, less than a good thing, or perhaps neither? If you wish to clarify...

As I wrote in the link to the Ignostic post above and in the reply to Janus, I am hesitant and skeptical of the human inclination (temptation?) to attempt to define the divine. To slice and dice, label and categorize, and thus manipulate and dominate. Humanity has arguably grabbed the earth and its natural resources, which has its upside and downside. The Creator would appear safe from our labeling and grasping, no matter how tall the Tower of Babel grows to. I am all for letting the central mystery of the universe be experienced, but not necessarily explained. (Not meaning to be at all anti-intellectual).

Some very smart people over at least 2300 years have tried to fathom the concept, and with some approach to unanimity they have concluded that God is unknowable. — tim wood

Ok, sure. That may indeed be. Personally, I would neither say that God is unknowable, nor would I say that God is knowable. Basically, any statement of others or mine that began “God is... ” is at best a provisional theory, at worst an bold assumption. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Leaps of faith are one’s soul’s choice. Leaps or lapses of logic are better not ignored. I would imagine that possibly makes for an even stronger faith, even though it is itself beyond mere rationality.

''Godsplaining'' is the right term I believe. I think it refers to the whole collection of god-beliefs. Theology as reasoned analysis of what I think ''godsplaining'' means.

I suppose it all depends on what, exactly, a person wants to talk about, or what exactly they think they're talking about: in one word, clarity. If clarity is sense, then nonsense cannot be sense.

It's a reflex to suggest that nonsense can transmute into sense - it cannot, by itself. Where there is realization or epiphany in the presence of nonsense, there is always some other ingredient, some catalyst. To my way of thinking it is the catalyst that's worth capturing and making explicit.

Charity in the face of nonsense is, well, charitable. Beyond that, it's a mistake. Nonsense always comes with price tag - payment not optional. It's usually cheaper to pay and move on. Nonsense indulged can lead to a battering into submission. I would say persuasion either through proof or demonstration, but these are not options with nonsense, hence battering. There is no charity in enduring a battering, or in anyone's enduring a battering.

So the point is that when listening to God-mongers keep your hand on your wallet, your eye on your watch, your feet pointed toward the exit, and at least part of your mind actively monitoring your well-being.

Ok, sure. That may indeed be. Personally, I would neither say that God is unknowable, nor would I say that God is knowable. Basically, any statement of others or mine that began “God is... ” is at best a provisional theory, at worst an bold assumption. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Leaps of faith are one’s soul’s choice. Leaps or lapses of logic are better not ignored. I would imagine that possibly makes for an even stronger faith, even though it is itself beyond mere rationality. — 0 thru 9

There is an apparent prejudiced in the above that beliefs held by faith to be true, have less value than beliefs held by reason. I am not sure why that is in any way true. The real tension comes when faith is in conflict with fact or reason. It which case it loses all value.

It's a reflex to suggest that nonsense can transmute into sense - it cannot, by itself. Where there is realization or epiphany in the presence of nonsense, there is always some other ingredient, some catalyst. To my way of thinking it is the catalyst that's worth capturing and making explicit.

Charity in the face of nonsense is, well, charitable. Beyond that, it's a mistake. Nonsense always comes with price tag - payment not optional. — tim wood

Yes, exactly. Perhaps in other words... one can have many model cars and toy vehicles. As long as one doesn’t try to drive them on the freeway, it is fine for all.

So the point is that when listening to God-mongers keep your hand on your wallet, your eye on your watch, your feet pointed toward the exit, and at least part of your mind actively monitoring your well-being. — tim wood

:up: Haha! Well said, suitable for framing. (BTW, I’m also keeping tabs on the God-monger who has much power over me- the one in my mind).

There is an apparent prejudiced in the above that beliefs held by faith to be true, have less value than beliefs held by reason. I am not sure why that is in any way true. The real tension comes when faith is in conflict with fact or reason. It which case it loses all value. — Rank Amateur

I might know what you are saying here. But could you expand on it somewhat when you can? Thanks.

For now, I will say for that reason can potentially help faith and belief, especially when the beliefs exit the mouth and enter the world. As I noted in the OP, God may be beyond our reasoning, but we are not. Not completely, anyway. Reason is like gravity in some ways, and reason is in harmony with physics. One can seek a religion in harmony with the universe, with matter and energy. Many have sought such a thing, and without falling into scientism either. (If that at all addresses your message! :smile: )

one can have many model cars and toy vehicles. As long as one doesn’t try to drive them on the freeway, it is fine for all. — 0 thru 9

As indulgence, sure; there can be a time and place for indulgence. Just that most folks have no idea what the boundaries are for indulgence. Indulgences are for children, or for the child in us. But they require the hand of a responsible adult. Lacking that governance, indulgence becomes nightmare.

Many of us lead upholstered lives. Rarely is there any event of sufficient force to jar us in our padded comfort. Rigor not required; it just isn't necessary. For example, how far do you walk in a week? And how often do your feet - shoes - touch earth, ground, even grass? Comfort as immediate feeling is real enough. When I have it, I appreciate it. I even try to keep track of what exactly it is. Beyond that immediacy life as comfort, as comfortable, is a terrible illusion, an expensive, even potentially dangerous and ultimately fatal nonsense, if you will.

Or, that is to say, it's not all fine.

I might know what you are saying here. But could you expand on it somewhat when you can? Thanks. — 0 thru 9

Sure - I can by faith alone believe something to be true and act accordingly. As an example - I believe Jesus is God. If there is some plain fact, such as 2 + 2 = 4 that says Jesus is not God, and I continue to believe anyway - than my belief is just foolish. If you can convince me that such a thing as God does not exist by reason, and I continue to believe Jesus is God, than that belief is foolish. But absent any conflict of fact or reason I am free to believe that as true and act accordingly.

:up: Ok, thanks for the clarification. That seems a most reasonable approach, IMHO.