A proposal for a universalizeable definition of “belief in God”

for a while i called myself an ignostic because we need to know what God is before we can even say whether or not we believe in a given specified God and no one can agree on the definition of “God.”

but i was still interested in this question, and so after some further thought i’ve started to put forward the idea that a useful and concrete restatement of the question of “what sort of theity does someone ‘believe’ in?” is “what fancies does someone have and most respond to when it comes to two questions: 1. why is there something instead of nothing; 2. why is there consciousness instead of a total lack of consciousness–that is, a cosmos filled with un-experiencing, un-feeling, insensate matter?”

and if you ask the question like that, well, basically 100% of people have had some fancy when they pondered those two questions. and if we ask what it means to “believe” in that fancy, well, since no one has any proof one way or another, i think that asking how much “belief” someone has in this fancy is actually something more like asking what amount of “feels-true-ness” they experience in response to it. and i think that basically 100% of people have felt at least one nanogram of “feels-true-ness” when they were having a fancy about what might be the answer to one or both of these two questions.

if we ask what “feels-true-ness” is, maybe an even more precise definition would be that the degree of “feels-true-ness” felt is the degree to which the fancy draws our attention and, relatedly, the degree to which we find ourselves wanting to let ourselves emotionally engage with the fancy.

so under that interpretation, basically 100% of people have some degree of “belief” in some sort of “God.”

my favorite fancy is still that God is love.