Among the numerous contradictory misconceptions about God, there is the assumption many traditional believers have about what God believes. The Nov. 30, 2009 edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) revealed that the belief in God having beliefs is typical throughout the American society. In the PNAS survey, participants reported their own belief about an issue, their estimate of God's belief on that issue, along with a variety of other people including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, baseball’s Barry Bonds, former President George W. Bush, and other “average Americans“. The survey indicated that belief in God’s beliefs crosses most monetary, ethnic, and religious demographics, if not all. Theosophically, the notion itself of God actually holding beliefs is a false assumption, stemming from an incorrect understanding of the concept of omniscience.

What is divine omniscience? Typically it means “all knowing”, which strongly implies knowing everything which is possible for the human, created mind to know. But this only scratches the surface of an understanding of divine omniscience. One of God’s universally understood attributes is that of the infinite. This necessarily means that all of God’s attributes are infinite in nature, and true understanding of these attributes is not possible for the human mind to comprehend. But, if we use the notion of infinity and apply it to all divine attributes, we expand our traditional description of God beyond merely anthropic definition.

Let’s apply the rather novel concept of all divine attributes being infinite in nature, to the notion of omniscience. In doing this, we find that God is not merely all-knowing, but rather is infinite in knowing. This new perspective leads us to the conclusion that God’s knowing is not only infinite, but also immediate and unlearned. What is there for an infinitely knowing being to learn? Nothing. God knows everything, thus there is no need for learning with respect to God’s mind. Learning is a necessary quality for created minds to have, without question. But there is no need for learning with a mind that is infinitely knowing.

At this point we can address the notion of God holding beliefs, and summarily reject the notion entirely. Belief is best defined as the converse of doubt. This also means that belief, no matter how strongly it is held, brings the possibility of doubt with it. What is there for an infinitely knowing mind to doubt? Nothing! In the mind of God, there can be no doubt. Conversely, in the mind of God, there can be no belief. Belief is a necessary ingredient with respect to the created mind, which allows for possible understanding when faced with less than concrete evidence. This also demonstrates that it is the human, created mind that conjures belief, not God’s mind.

The entire notion of God holding beliefs is based on a false, anthropomorphic, human-ego-based mental machination. We believe. God doesn’t believe. God knows!

Views: 127


You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!

Join Theosophy.Net

Comment by Mikhayl Von Riebon on December 28, 2009 at 6:25pm
Yay, thankou. ive formulated this myself but a little differently (its funny when the same point is reached but from different angles).

firstly to hold a belief means one holds a particular position on a subject. this position is relative; qualitative and finite. all the things that the infinite is not. to be infinite would be to be undefined. so to state god believes this or that would be to define him. the beauty of it then means that for god to have any particular views on morality or even to be personally involved with the existence of man would be to conflict with the idea of the infinite. of course we could believe in a highly powerful yet finite god who still has direct influence over us, but who wants to worship a finite god?

unfortunately this raises two problems for theosophy, a. its moral code only has a socially and historically specific basis and also b. its idea of spiritual progress becomes undermined.

Comment by Leslie Corrice on December 21, 2009 at 1:08pm
Tero, I was also raised Christian...good old Calvinist fire and brimstone. After I married, I practiced Roman Catholicism. Not much different, actually. Regardless, the incessant dogmatism and lack of scriptural foundation in organized Christianity made me a heretic. I felt alone, though, until I read the 17th century theosophy of Vizcountess Anne Conway. In the process, I discovered my personal beliefs fell right in line with her, Isaac Newton, John Locke, and several other pre-enlightenment figures of England. All of them were heavily influenced by Knorr von Rosenroth's latin translation of Zohar and a few other Kabbalist writings. Last year, I found an english translation of Zohar on which made me realize I have been an un-aware Kabbalist since I was a child. I have a website on it in my profile, should you be so-moved. Peace...
Comment by Mark R. Jaqua on December 9, 2009 at 1:47pm
Well, HPB was the one to popularize the term 'theosophy' in modern times, but as you infer it is a rather generic term. I try to use capital "T" Theosophy, for Blavatsky's system, and small "t" for the generic term. The G-word is very muddy ground, it has drastically different meanings for different groups. Words, like people and nations, have histories, and meanings and influences that cling to them, so I avoid using it. Yes, Blavatsky studied Kabbala also, its worth studying and she supposedly had a "well-thumbed" copy. One may follow whatever system one wishes, and march to his own drummer, and your statements would no doubt be shocking in many circles.
Comment by Leslie Corrice on December 8, 2009 at 4:03pm
Blavatsky's theosophy isn't the only theosophy in existence. Every spiritual doctrine has it's specific theosophy. Blavatsky's generative principle, out of which the universe came to be, is essentially what I refer to as "God". My personal theosophy is decidedly Kabbalist, which also rejects the notion of an interceding creating force, much the same as Blavatsky. Vizcountess Anne Conway, of the 17th century, has often been compared to Blavatsky by many scholars, and she was decidedly Kabbalist. If there are "interceders", they are angels, to this view. Regardless, those who believe in an interceding God (the majority of the world) contradict themselves with such notions as "God believes in us." I'm trying to reveal the contradictory nature inherent to their "belief".
Comment by Mark R. Jaqua on December 8, 2009 at 3:36pm
In Blavatsky Theosophy or philosophy, there's no such being as a "God." The Supreme in her philosophy is an absolute Principle, which has no relationship whatsoever with the relative world, persons, nations, beliefs.... anything, although each individual has a connection with it on the inside, as everything is an indirect manifestation of it. It is called by various names: the Absolute, Atman, Brahman, Parabrahman, etc. It is pretty much the same belief or philosophy as Buddhism or Advaita Hinduism. The world is seen as operated by Law on every level, with no possible intercession of any god or gods.

Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2024   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service