Comment on On the nature of ''God'' from a non-theological perspective. by tajudeen_bin_tijani

Parent Post: On the nature of "God" from a non-theological perspective. · In Reply To

tajudeen_bin_tijani · 3/3/2026, 5:12:26 PM · permalink

7 bumps

saarnok · 3/5/2026, 2:42:41 PM · permalink

It's contained right there in the statement. The order of the universe is god.  
  
You're jumping ahead of the proposition to assume the universe could be different than it is and that some deity is expending effort to maintain it.  
  
This is the position of a lot of nominally Christian theologians, that "god" is consciously controlling everything down to the position of every subatomic particle at all times.  
  
This is the only way they can maintain the overarching mono-theistic principle along with a pantheon of deity-like beings such as demons and angels.  
  
And, it's entirely consonant with the idea that the order of the universe is god.  
  
Most people imagine a deity-being contesting against other beings who have goals of their own, with significant power to effect reality and cause the universe to be other than what the rules of the universe allow. Which is to say, they believe a master deity ordered the universe, or perhaps just a bit of it in contrast to it's "natural", chaotic state into something we recognize as "order".  
  
I believe this idea is demonstrated in the book of Genesis where the elohyim calls forth order from the world, deciding how things will work.  
  
My conception of "god", the universe and order is that it makes no difference how the universe comes to exist. It doesn't need a beginning (but it can have one), it doesn't need a creator, (but it can have one). It simply IS.  
  
From the theological perspective, if one supposes the universe is the output of a deity for a purpose, it is absurd in the extreme to imagine that the rules of the universe do not correspond to the intention of the creator. Thus, discovering the rules of the universe are an attempt to correctly interact with the creator.  
  
From a non theological perspective, anyone who fails to sufficiently ascertain the rules of the universe will fail to prosper within it.  
  
"Good", in both cases, must be to follow the rules of the universe as derived from the universe itself. Texts can be written in ignorance, misunderstood, irrationally applied, corrupted, lost... The universe itself is not corrupted.  
  
We cannot develop technology from reading ancient texts, because those texts to not contain instruction for doing so. We cannot develop strategies for coping with natural disasters by reading ancient texts, not only because they don't contain instruction for doing so, but because they didn't have the means we've developed through technology to do so.  
  
Attempting to appreciate the universe by focusing our attention and our appreciation for life through some lens of "religion", whether by praying to idols or ascribing ultimate wisdom to some text or tradition and conducting ritualistic actions, mouthing certain words in certain times or places... these are all idolatry.  
  
Idolatry is nothing more than the process of assigning some object, ritual, person, whatever as the conduit to address "god" in an attempt to gain favor beyond what is available from following the rules of the universe.  
  
It's not that there are idolatrous religions. Religion itself IS idolatry. You either derive the rules from the universe itself, or you're doing it wrong.

5 bumps

tajudeen_bin_tijani · 3/6/2026, 9:19:05 AM · permalink

2 bumps

saarnok · 3/8/2026, 11:12:51 PM · permalink

1 bump

Signature