![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
G?d-talk is doubletalk, in Java
Feb. 7th, 2007 12:35 pmSince everyone else* I know seems to be writing about this, I guess it's my turn:
If you believe, as I do, that the world is made of stuff, which is arranged in patterns in space and time, that the patterns obey laws, and that there is no other stuff which can affect these patterns other than the aforementioned stuff, and you also talk G!d-talk, then your G?d-talk is doubletalk.
Doubletalk not because it is false — it's very true, in its way — but because most of the G!d-talk we hear around these parts has a certain general form, which has a certain most obvious interpretation in terms of what those sorts of words generally mean when they are used elsewhere, and that is not what you mean by your G!d-talk.
Mostly, when people use G!d-talk, they are using it for certain implications which the vernacular interpretation (where G!d is a big Person) shares with the more metaphorical view which I (and many of you, apparently) hold. However, a lot of people seem to get bothered when told that this means it mostly doesn't matter how you interpret their G!d-talk — they really want you to interpret it the way they do. I will now explain why I think that's silly, using the following ( Kabbalistic Java program )
If you believe, as I do, that the world is made of stuff, which is arranged in patterns in space and time, that the patterns obey laws, and that there is no other stuff which can affect these patterns other than the aforementioned stuff, and you also talk G!d-talk, then your G?d-talk is doubletalk.
Doubletalk not because it is false — it's very true, in its way — but because most of the G!d-talk we hear around these parts has a certain general form, which has a certain most obvious interpretation in terms of what those sorts of words generally mean when they are used elsewhere, and that is not what you mean by your G!d-talk.
Mostly, when people use G!d-talk, they are using it for certain implications which the vernacular interpretation (where G!d is a big Person) shares with the more metaphorical view which I (and many of you, apparently) hold. However, a lot of people seem to get bothered when told that this means it mostly doesn't matter how you interpret their G!d-talk — they really want you to interpret it the way they do. I will now explain why I think that's silly, using the following ( Kabbalistic Java program )
