Contemporary usage of word "create"

[donsnow]

First, since we’re in a Catholic Philosophy thread and since the OP is about the misuse of the word “create” in relation to our Creator, this thread does not question the existence of God nor the Catholic Church’s teachings about Him.

For the purpose of this thread, God is a given as taught by our Holy Roman Catholic Church.

I listen to the radio for my news. I hear people use the word “create” in lieu of “develop”, “compile”, “compose”, “produce”, “devise” and etc. It grates my nerves every time I hear this abuse of that word.

Here is what’s open for discussion: Since God created everything that we use to manufacture or build things, etc., we should not arrogate ourselves to the position of creators with Him. The OP question is: Shouldn’t the word “create” be kept to what God does, and not used for people’s endeavors?

I’ll check back tomorrow.

Regards,
Don D. Snow

 

[reggieM]

That’s not a bad idea in my view. We share in God’s creation by making things ourselves, but its a different kind of thing then the act of creation which belongs to God. So, there should be a different word for it.

 

[In_Spiration]

Ignoring purely semantic matters, I think you’ve got a good point. Most of the time, “create” means ‘procreate’ or ‘arrange functionally’ or something similar. On the other hand, it seems that man has a power for an analogous mode of creation that is a different sort of thing than just his making artifacts. I’m thinking of something like “ideogenesis” or perhaps, in the end, autonomous decisions. What prior “stuff” is an abstract idea formed out of? Do we create our own will in any legitimate sense? If not, would that amount to a loss of freedom? I’d say an argument can be made that we are at least “partially self-creating” beings, revolving around the notion of free will.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I don’t really agree with the concept of reserving human words solely for describing divine things. English after all wasn’t ‘developed’ with divine purpose, but for the common man. Even the language of the Church, Latin, is no where near divine in origin. Treating a word like it is special and should only be used in a certain way denies the way language naturally develops and changes over time, AND it leaves us open to the possibility of being offended about something that we feel is a misuse of the word and claiming we are being offended for God when really we are just defending our own creation. There are already enough things in this world that make people angry, I would hate to add to this to the list.

 

[donsnow]

That’s not a bad idea in my view. We share in God’s creation by making things ourselves, but its a different kind of thing then the act of creation which belongs to God. So, there should be a different word for it.

Actually, ReggieM,

Thanks for responding.

There’s lists of words once in common usage to designate human activity rather than the word “create”.

For material things, there’s:
Build.
Construct.
Make.
Fashion.

For immaterial things such as songs or texts, there’s:
Compose.
Compile.
Devise.
Construe.

And, other words which have been suffocated by the abuse to the word “create” are:
Assemble.
Produce.
Fashion.
Arrange.
Contrive.

And other words.

I don’t understand why, other than laziness, conceit or lack of vocabulary, that people over use the word “create” when there’s so many other more appropriate words.

 

[donsnow]

Ignoring purely semantic matters, I think you’ve got a good point. Most of the time, “create” means ‘procreate’ or ‘arrange functionally’ or something similar. On the other hand, it seems that man has a power for an analogous mode of creation that is a different sort of thing than just his making artifacts. I’m thinking of something like “ideogenesis” or perhaps, in the end, autonomous decisions. What prior “stuff” is an abstract idea formed out of? Do we create our own will in any legitimate sense? If not, would that amount to a loss of freedom? I’d say an argument can be made that we are at least “partially self-creating” beings, revolving around the notion of free will.

Hi, In Spiration,

Thank you for posting and for bringing up some very good viewpoints and questions.

Although you may not have meant this, I deem procreation as the one time people share with God in creating other humans.

Your “analogous mode of creation” and “autonomous decisions” have been handled quite nicely for centuries with such words as:
Decide.
Reckon.
Calculate.
Choose.
Freely.
and other such words referring to mental activities, imho.

I deem our free will as a gift from God, reflecting our Creator in us. Personally, I think our freedom of choice is tied in to free will, but I cannot express that in more words than I have, here.

 

[donsnow]

I don’t really agree with the concept of reserving human words solely for describing divine things. English after all wasn’t ‘developed’ with divine purpose, but for the common man. Even the language of the Church, Latin, is no where near divine in origin. Treating a word like it is special and should only be used in a certain way denies the way language naturally develops and changes over time, AND it leaves us open to the possibility of being offended about something that we feel is a misuse of the word and claiming we are being offended for God when really we are just defending our own creation. There are already enough things in this world that make people angry, I would hate to add to this to the list.

Hi, Mr. Sebast,

Thank you, for your post. It brings up a very good point. When considering people’s feelings, I think the feelings of all parties need to be weighed out. Frankly, I think that the ability to use words, or “speech” is a Divine gift, among others, separating us from animals. Second, many words in the English lexicon are reserved for use only in their designated vernaculars and/or nomenclatures. I refer to words referring only to mechanics, technology, electronics, and other professional fields of human behavior.

So, with the reservation of words in common usage among specialists, I see nothing wrong with reserving the word “create” to refer only to an act of our Creator.

In closing, while weighing out everybody’s proposed feelings, I think there’s a balance we should consider. For example, how many are offended by abusing the word “create” viz how many are offended by reserving the word “create”?
Not to mention, careful attention to the charge of abusive language by dragging the one word referring to God’s ability through ungodly people?

Please address my questions.

My opinions are no better than yours and that’s what we’re discussing here, is our respective opinions. Of course, your opinions are no better than mine, either.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Hi, Mr. Sebast,

Thank you, for your post. It brings up a very good point. When considering people’s feelings, I think the feelings of all parties need to be weighed out. Frankly, I think that the ability to use words, or “speech” is a Divine gift, among others, separating us from animals. Second, many words in the English lexicon are reserved for use only in their designated vernaculars and/or nomenclatures. I refer to words referring only to mechanics, technology, electronics, and other professional fields of human behavior.

So, with the reservation of words in common usage among specialists, I see nothing wrong with reserving the word “create” to refer only to an act of our Creator.

In closing, while weighing out everybody’s proposed feelings, I think there’s a balance we should consider. For example, how many are offended by abusing the word “create” viz how many are offended by reserving the word “create”?
Not to mention, careful attention to the charge of abusive language by dragging the one word referring to God’s ability through ungodly people?

Please address my questions.

My opinions are no better than yours and that’s what we’re discussing here, is our respective opinions. Of course, your opinions are no better than mine, either.

While it is true that in many fields specialists do tend to develop their own jargon, they never really tend to try and claim that nobody else is allowed to use it, nor do they get offended when someone outside their field uses it for something else. You can never really be assured, especially with modern communications technology, that any particular word won’t be picked up for something else. Just think of how many words in our language have double meanings. Certainly I can understand the desire to reserve a word to separate what God creates from what we develop, but choosing a word that is already common vernacular is the type of thing that can easily build unneeded conflict. Perhaps the herbew word ברא (Bara’ [pronounced baw-raw] would be a better choice in this instance. You go back to the original word used in scripture, and it allows for the introduction of something new to the people listening rather than trying to change something they already have a meaning for.

 

[donsnow]

While it is true that in many fields specialists do tend to develop their own jargon, they never really tend to try and claim that nobody else is allowed to use it, nor do they get offended when someone outside their field uses it for something else. You can never really be assured, especially with modern communications technology, that any particular word won’t be picked up for something else. Just think of how many words in our language have double meanings. Certainly I can understand the desire to reserve a word to separate what God creates from what we develop, but choosing a word that is already common vernacular is the type of thing that can easily build unneeded conflict. Perhaps the herbew word ברא (Bara’ [pronounced baw-raw] would be a better choice in this instance. You go back to the original word used in scripture, and it allows for the introduction of something new to the people listening rather than trying to change something they already have a meaning for.

Hi, Mr. Sebast,

Thank you for posting. And, except for one thing, I think you’re right in what you wrote. And, even that one thing is only technically wrong. You see, the word “create” has been in common usage as replacing all the other words which are more appropriate only for a small length of time. Only in the recent decade of my 67 years has over use of the word “create” become common. Do you now understand my point?

My post is a lament and a desire to correct a frivolous modern buzz usage of the word we’re discussing. Perhaps the abuse of the word will pass, with time.

I respect your opinion, but prefer my opinion as to the usage of the word “create.”

Regards,
Don

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Can man create elements that are stable?

Can man create anything from absolutely nothing?

Can man take a batch of chemicals and assemble them into a living, breathing animal (much less a human being)?

Until man can do those things, he is not a CREATOR. He can create something new from what God provided, but he can Create nothing for nothing at all.

I can create a Lemon Meringue Pie (and a very good one by the way). BUT, I can NOT create a lemon all by myself. Neither can anyone else.

 

[reggieM]

Actually, ReggieM,

Thanks for responding.

There’s lists of words once in common usage to designate human activity rather than the word “create”.

For material things, there’s:
Build.
Construct.
Make.
Fashion.

For immaterial things such as songs or texts, there’s:
Compose.
Compile.
Devise.
Construe.

And, other words which have been suffocated by the abuse to the word “create” are:
Assemble.
Produce.
Fashion.
Arrange.
Contrive.

And other words.

I don’t understand why, other than laziness, conceit or lack of vocabulary, that people over use the word “create” when there’s so many other more appropriate words.

Great points, Don. I am going to become more aware of those usages in my own vocabulary from now on. Creation truly does belong to God alone – under the strict and correct definition of the term.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Hi, Mr. Sebast,

Thank you for posting. And, except for one thing, I think you’re right in what you wrote. And, even that one thing is only technically wrong. You see, the word “create” has been in common usage as replacing all the other words which are more appropriate only for a small length of time. Only in the recent decade of my 67 years has over use of the word “create” become common. Do you now understand my point?

My post is a lament and a desire to correct a frivolous modern buzz usage of the word we’re discussing. Perhaps the abuse of the word will pass, with time.

I respect your opinion, but prefer my opinion as to the usage of the word “create.”

Regards,
Don

Well considering I am only 24 you would have to understand that I would obviously have a different understanding of the word than many older members of the forum. I grew up with create being a common term that was often used outside of theological/religious context.

 

[ProVobis]

Here is what’s open for discussion: Since God created everything that we use to manufacture or build things, etc., we should not arrogate ourselves to the position of creators with Him. The OP question is: Shouldn’t the word “create” be kept to what God does, and not used for people’s endeavors?

I tend to agree with Patrick S on this one. Percentagewise there is a relatively low number of English-speaking people who are Catholic. (Compared with, say, a language such as Polish.) Many atheists speak English and it’s simply doesn’t make sense to force them to use the same meanings you do when it comes to worship or discussion of the Deity. That’s why we have worship languages that are just for worship and not everyday language. We’re taking a things a little bit too far when we’re allowed to worship in our vernaculars and then try to force everyone of all faiths and non-faiths to comply with that translated terminology. There is a growing number who think that the complete suppression of the Latin was a mistake and with good reason. There is no such thing as a perfect translation and there is a high probability what works in one language just won’t work in another. There is also a growing misconception that any translation is better than nothing. Many times the translation has actually been a detriment to the full understanding of the original. And English theology isn’t necessarily Catholic theology (“one in being,” for example.)

 

[donsnow]

Can man create elements that are stable?

Can man create anything from absolutely nothing?

Can man take a batch of chemicals and assemble them into a living, breathing animal (much less a human being)?

Until man can do those things, he is not a CREATOR. He can create something new from what God provided, but he can Create nothing for nothing at all.

I can create a Lemon Meringue Pie (and a very good one by the way). BUT, I can NOT create a lemon all by myself. Neither can anyone else.

Well, my position disagrees with your overuse of the word “create” in you two closing statements.

You can create something new from what God provided and I can devise something new from what God has created.

You can create a lemon meringue pie, but my mother could cook or whip up a delicious lemon meringue pie. I can make a great Irish stew. Me nor my family never created anything and we used the right words for what we did.

So, there.

 

[donsnow]

Well considering I am only 24 you would have to understand that I would obviously have a different understanding of the word than many older members of the forum. I grew up with create being a common term that was often used outside of theological/religious context.

Thank you, for the humility and respect of your post.

I’m sad for the younger generations. Our media has shredded a magnificent and eloquent language and English word usage. You never had a chance to know better than what’s out there, now.

Thanks, again, for posting.

 

[donsnow]

I tend to agree with Patrick S on this one. Percentagewise there is a relatively low number of English-speaking people who are Catholic. (Compared with, say, a language such as Polish.) Many atheists speak English and it’s simply doesn’t make sense to force them to use the same meanings you do when it comes to worship or discussion of the Deity. That’s why we have worship languages that are just for worship and not everyday language. We’re taking a things a little bit too far when we’re allowed to worship in our vernaculars and then try to force everyone of all faiths and non-faiths to comply with that translated terminology. There is a growing number who think that the complete suppression of the Latin was a mistake and with good reason. There is no such thing as a perfect translation and there is a high probability what works in one language just won’t work in another. There is also a growing misconception that any translation is better than nothing. Many times the translation has actually been a detriment to the full understanding of the original. And English theology isn’t necessarily Catholic theology (“one in being,” for example.)

Hi, Pro Vobis,

I find your post thoughtful with valid insights.

Maybe you and Patrick are right.

But, even as I agree I am being too extreme to protect the word “create” from vulgar usage, it doesn’t change the sadness of my lament nor the motive of correcting poor word usage, as I wrote in my Post # 9, which prompted my starting this thread.

God loves you,
Don

 

[reggieM]

I tend to agree with Patrick S on this one. Percentagewise there is a relatively low number of English-speaking people who are Catholic. (Compared with, say, a language such as Polish.) Many atheists speak English and it’s simply doesn’t make sense to force them to use the same meanings you do when it comes to worship or discussion of the Deity. That’s why we have worship languages that are just for worship and not everyday language. We’re taking a things a little bit too far when we’re allowed to worship in our vernaculars and then try to force everyone of all faiths and non-faiths to comply with that translated terminology. There is a growing number who think that the complete suppression of the Latin was a mistake and with good reason. There is no such thing as a perfect translation and there is a high probability what works in one language just won’t work in another. There is also a growing misconception that any translation is better than nothing. Many times the translation has actually been a detriment to the full understanding of the original. And English theology isn’t necessarily Catholic theology (“one in being,” for example.)

Those are interesting ideas. But also, I don’t think I really understand some of it. I don’t know that we’d be forcing anyone to do anything.

Perhaps it’s like how some Jewish people use the term “G-d”.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps it’s like how some Jewish people use the term “G-d”.

So that’s what it is! I wondered about that but was afraid to ask. Thanks.

 

[donsnow]

I guess, actually, it goes back to private usage. I can restrict the word “create” in my personal vocabulary to refer only to God’s work, and enjoy the exercise of all the other words in my speech and writings. Just walk my own talk, here.

God loves all of you,
Don

 

[lemondiesel]

Shouldn’t the word “create” be kept to what God does, and not used for people’s endeavors?

No because we are an extremely arrogant species

But I do agree with you. I think the term “create” is a term that should be left to the beginning. Everything else, that we as humans create, should be called manipulate. I mean, that is essentially what we are doing, manipulating the already created