Dear George,

I agree. Matthew 7:16 is about judgment not definition. I should not have said that it defines religion. I have made a judgment without making a definition and have felt I don't need a definition to make the judgment.

Have you read Durkheim? I have his book but have not read it. It's on my 'to read' list. The next book I am going to read about religion is ​"Society against the State" by Pierre Clastres.

It includes material about the tension between religion and government.

yuyutsu writes: "I am not contemptuous at all towards those who believe that God has attributes. Believing so is a common and valid religious-method which I respect greatly and has lead billions closer to God. One needn't study physics and understand the sun's thermonuclear reactions in order to enjoy its light and warmth."

When you wrote: "What you are referring to are human ideas ABOUT God, of which there are many and which, unlike God, do born and die. You can tell those humans ideas apart from God because they attempt to describe God and assign to Him all sorts of attributes - whereas God Himself has none and cannot be described."......you expressed yourself with a certain conviction fashioned, as I interpreted it, to set you apart from and above the smelly masses. And in doing so you engaged in the very same heresy with which you burdened your interlocutors. You are human and you have ideas about your god and you accorded him/her/it with the attribute of indescribability.

Whence came your knowledge of your god? From the same source as your interlocutors? Are its attributes the main bone of contention between you?

In general, I'm in agreement with David on the broader issue of whether there is a god. The numinous doesn't require a supernatural or spiritual aspect in order to legitimise it.

I subscribe to the view of a godless Universe, might I express it as a 100% god-free Universe? [to use a currently popular turn of phrase.]

As to the natural world, humans are a feature of it and are ineluctably contained within its boundaries. Thus humans can do nothing that is not natural. Thus religion and the entire gamut of human imagination is likewise natural.

Dear Pogi,

Ladies often complain: "Don't treat me like an object - if you are to love me, then love me for myself, not for this-or-that body-part".

If only they fully understood the depth of what they just said!

Some would compromise: "Don't love me for my body - love me for my brains, love me for my ingenuity", or "love me for my charm, courage and kindness", etc., but then they are still off the mark. When someone asks: "Love me for what I am", they ask for the highest, for love that is unconditional of any attributes, because attributes all come and go.

Body changes and becomes unattractive in old age, mind can also deteriorate, character corrupted and wealth lost, yet if you can love someone just for what they are, then you love everyone and everything the same, not even for that final attribute of existence - which is also fleeting.

Only objects have attributes and attributes are limiting. If something is limited, then surely you wouldn't call it 'God'. Take for example the attribute "creator": its bearer is limited because s/he cannot be always the same. Before creating this universe they would be "the one about the create" but afterward they would be "the one who have created".

It is a limitation of mind, not of God, that nothing can be positively described except by its attributes: no attribute - no description.

As for the "smelly masses", they do nothing wrong when they mentally dress God with attributes in order to be better able to worship Him. Perhaps objectively/scientifically-wrong, but neither practically nor morally wrong. How many of us can honestly claim to be able to love anyone unconditionally rather than for this or that combination of attributes? If not, then why not use this aid of assigning God attributes that we love as to attract us and help us love Him?

(continued...)

(...continued)

If for example you are attracted to nature, then you could worship God as "Nature" and be as devout and religious as any Christian. Strictly speaking, the human will is part of nature, but in ordinary language, especially in the Christian culture (probably due to the memory of Adam and Eve's original sin), we tend to use 'natural' as the opposite of 'wilful'. However, if human wilfulness attracts and inspires you, then you are welcome to include it in your worship of God as Nature.

Whence came my knowledge?

This wisdom which I am graced with is not mine. I could have preferred the gifts of simple and humble devotion and the spirit of sacrifice, but I have been given this theoretical understanding instead.

I humbly prostrate myself before the Goddess Saraswati. Let what is Hers remain Hers.

Dear Yuyutsu,
I'm impressed by the reasoning and the analogical representation in your response. Nevertheless, I remain puzzled by the selectivity demonstrated therein.

You wrote: "Some would compromise: "Don't love me for my body - love me for my brains, love me for my ingenuity", or "love me for my charm, courage and kindness", etc., but then they are still off the mark. When someone asks: "Love me for what I am", they ask for the highest, for love that is unconditional of any attributes, because attributes all come and go." It is a broad observation and like so many of its ilk is self-serving and untrue. We might say that there are two basic categories of human attributes, [1] physical attributes and [2] non-physical or personality attributes. Fifteen minutes of Googling will reveal there are quite a few of both that we carry all our life. Attributes do not "all come and go". For many of us some of these attributes define us all our lives and are deciding factors in our education, qualification and work. A talent, a natural expertise can be with us all our lives.......[cont.]

It can be fairly stated that not all attributes are welcome or beneficial. But when you declare that: "Only objects have attributes and attributes are limiting. If something is limited, then surely you wouldn't call it'God'".

"Saraswati is the Hindu goddess of knowledge, music, arts, wisdom and learning. She is part of the trinity of Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati. All three forms help the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva to create, maintain and regenerate-recycle the universe respectively."[paraphrasing Google].

If, for the sake of this argument and in this context, we take Saraswati to represent all gods and goddesses I make the following observations and ask the following questions: Is our goddess an object also [the only thing that can have attributes] or are her "attributes" not in fact attributes? If they are not, then what can they be? What is Saraswati without those things that describe her? If she must be "limited" by being describable then how can it be called 'God'? Here, I remind you of your incursion into this discussion with your: "Take for example the attribute "creator":....." Note well that you branded the descriptive "creator" as an attribute. In similar vein might we treat knowledge, music, arts, wisdom and learning as attributes of one who is expected to be infinitely erudite in them. One who has been DESCRIBED as such, anyway.

"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry." H.L.Mencken