Can you see the problem with assuming that concepts can be entities?

Question

I drive past this Church sometimes and scoff at a banner they’ve got hanging on their fence which faces a busy road; “God is love” it declares in bold lettering, a simple message that even a retarded child could understand, because after all, they’re obviously not appealing to society’s great minds. But love is a concept whilst God is an entity and this is a contradiction in terms. Are modern Christians tricked into assuming concepts can be entities to better enable them to maintain the delusion which imprisons them? I’m thinking about how often Christians seem to think science and evolution are some kind of entities competing with their god for their faith.

Answer 1

It's really no trick, and that's why it's extremely effective in the instance of Christianity.

Because they emanate from humans, all ideas and concepts have an organic component to them. This is self-evident, as the concepts require a human host in order to exist and even come into being in the first place.

Because of this ineradicable organic component, concepts also have a survival instinct, just like humans do. They will fight to survive in the "marketplace of ideas".

Christianity has developed into a highly evolved grouping of concepts, with defense mechanisms to keep adherents from discarding the Christianity concept and thus hindering its survival advantage. For instance, the "eternal damnation" concept is one such defense mechanism. The concept of Hell is another.

Also, the evangelical portion of Christianity ("spread the word") is its reproductive element, how it propagates itself into other humans and thus increases its probability of survival.

Even Christian Biblical scripture hints at the notion. One of its gospels begins, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God..." What is a word, but the spoken or written expression of an idea or concept?

Christianity will even sanction murder when competing with rival religions for supremacy (Crusades, Inquisition, current Islamic wars). Why is murder okay in that instance? Because it snuffs out the bearer of the rival religious concept, and thus damages the rival's survival advantage.

Did you ever consider why the Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations oppose birth control and abortions? It's not because abortion is murder, because Christianity has sanctioned murder many a time during its history (Crusades, Inquisition).

No, it's because abortion and birth control reduce its survival advantage. Christianity thrives in conditions of poverty and relative ignorance. Therefore, it is to Christianity's advantage to attempt to ensure that there are as many impoverished, uneducated people in the world as possible. Birth control and abortion hinder that goal.

There is a branch of science which deals with the study of concepts as organic entities possessing their own survival instincts. It's called memetics. In memetics an idea or concept is known as a "meme", and a group of ideas functioning together (just like a multi-celled organism) is known as a "memeplex". Christianity is one such memeplex, and a highly effective one at that.

So it's really no surprise that Christianity would attempt to equate its central premise with a positive human emotion. Doing so greatly enhances its survival advantage. If by doing so Christianity can convince its adherents that God IS love, then perception becomes their reality and a self-fulfilling prophecy is created which also aids in the conversion of new subjects-again, increasing Christianity's survival probability.

I strongly suggest you read up on memetics if the topic interests you.

Answer 2

But that's what gods are, all gods -- the intersection between concepts and entities -- the embodiments, the personifications of Universal Themes, Cultural Institutions, and Natural Forces. A more concrete form of the abstract. They act as intermediaries between the Human Mind and the Abstract Concept. We can interact with them through prayer, meditation, and ritual, which brings us closer to understanding and coping with these concepts. The literal "reality" of the Gods is to a large extent irrelevant -- they can be experienced, interacted with, and the worshiper can form a beneficial relationship with his or her god. Did we create them, or did they create us? Or, was it a two-way street? A bridge built from both sides -- humans reaching up to them, they reaching down to us? That is what I believe.

So, yes, concepts can be entities.

Answer 3

Ummmm, no.

Love is more than a concept. But then again, the statement "God is love" does not mean that god is merely an emotion. The statement means something more like "God is all loving", or "God is the source of all that is good and loving".

One may say of an individual "He was bravery personified". That would approach what is meant here.

The problem is your lack of understanding of what is actually being stated. You do not understand the intent of the statement. That particular one has been used for a while. To the Christian, it has great meaning, and to the person who does not understand, it causes them to question. It seems to have been effective in this instance.

Answer 4

I only see a problem with the claim if you insist that gods are beings distinct from anything else in the universe...which is kind of contrary to my concept of a god.

Then again, this question is clearly written with the presumption that Christians are idiots, which really isn't constructive here.

Answer 5

If it upsets you that much why do you take great delight in scoffing at the banner as you drive past ?There are signs everywhere much worse than that one.God is love, and his love is very different from human love.God's love is unconditional and it's not based on feelings or emotions.He doesn't love us because we're lovable or because we make him feel good.He loves us because HE IS LOVE.He created us to have a loving relationship.
I don't have a problem with science and evolution competing with God. You assume too much.

Answer 6

A nihilist manifesto? guidance isn't know-how. effective. regardless of if guidance is a call for of know-how. An crucial to stress a dichotomy upon a physique of know-how that asks us to anticipate that a given finite physique of guidance isn't the two guidance and information concurrently is a dictate that abstraction can no longer assimilate guidance into sensible application. Any commentary (a priori or a posteriori) will demonstrate the alternative. whilst I believe the sentiment (distinction is unavoidably the end results of judgment) i do no longer concur with the top (all distinction is unfair for this reason negating it from the class of know-how). in my opinion the author has the two with the aid of mistake or intentionally asked us to anticipate a straw-guy view proper to the theory of know-how and the tactic of epistemology. we don't look for to declare that know-how is strictly a binary immutable distinction that exists autonomous of any exception. particularly we ask that know-how is a justified axiomatic that informs our judgements extra effectively than trial and blunder with the aid of distinctive function of precis and sensible adventure. guidance is inert without wakeful theory, few could deny this, yet interior the form of decision interior the employer of any merchandise or entity empirical or rational, then we are confronted with kind in association of guidance relative to that which perceives and the ideas that are the end results of and that informs that's judgements. the purpose of know-how is to forgo the choose for for direct empirical adventure, and to declare with accuracy that a given association wherein some guidance is accessible, unavoidably means that different guidance could be garnered with the aid of skill of the prescribed strategies. this does not exclude exceptions proper to a given empirical adventure, regardless of if observations to the alternative are seen anomalous and/or incredulous interior the form that such observations can't be reproduced. for this reason we come across that the skeptical crucial continues to be inherent in our epistemological technique, however the exhibit call for that epistemology would desire to account for all guidance or can assert no know-how as a place is differed, as this place (regardless of if genuine and valid) is contradicted with the aid of the likely sensible purposes of the tactic of technological know-how and if genuine yields no longer something of epistemological fee.

Answer 7

I agree and don't particular like those signs either. Also I think to deny science and evolution is ignorant. But to think we have the corner on how God is perceived just because we are comfortable with our own ideas isn't OK either. For some God may be love

Answer 8

Your first assumption is that things that exist in the mind are not real, when in fact, they are more real using the ancient Greek definition of reality. Beings and Concepts can easily intermold.

Answer 9

Yes- take the Bush-Howard-Blair entities who set on a path of destroying the western world.

They're competing with sanity, and sanity seems to be losing. (I know glum Gordon Brown is now UK PM, but still.)

Answer 10

God created science and used evolution as part of His creative process.

I see nothing competing for my faith there.

Funny when science finally got around to developing a "Big Bang Theory" of creation, it was eerily consistent with the biblical account in Genesis!