Via 3quarksdaily, here is Richard Skinner (“poet, writer, qualified therapist and performer”) elaborating on Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously. I would argue that they should take him seriously because much of what he says is true, but that’s not Skinner’s take.
Skinner suggests that Dawkins is arguing against a straw-man notion of God (stop me if you’ve heard this before). According to the straw man, God is some thing, or some person, or some something, of an essentially supernatural character, with a lot of influence over what happens in the universe, and in particular the ability to sidestep the laws of nature to which the rest of us are beholden. That’s a hopelessly simplistic and unsophisticated notion, apparently; not at all what careful theologians actually have in mind.
Nevertheless, Dawkins and his defenders typically reply, it’s precisely the notion of God that nearly all non-theologians — that is to say, the overwhelming majority of religious believers, at least in the Western world — actually believe in. Not just the most fanatic fundamentalists; that’s the God that the average person is worshipping in Church on Sunday. And, to his credit, Skinner grants this point. That, apparently, is why Christians should take Dawkins seriously — because all too often even thoughtful Christians take the easy way out, and conceptualize God as something much more tangible than He really is.
At this point, an optimist would hope to be informed, in precise language, exactly what “God” really does mean to the sophisticated believer. Something better than Terry Eagleton’s “the condition of possibility.” But no! We more or less get exactly that:
Philosophers and theologians over the centuries, grappling with what is meant by ‘God’, have resorted to a different type of language, making statements such as “God is ultimate reality”; or “God is the ground of our being”, or “God is the precondition that anything at all could exist”, and so forth. In theological discourse, they can be very helpful concepts, but the trouble with them is that if you’re not a philosopher or theologian, you feel your eyes glazing over – God has become a philosophical concept rather than a living presence.
The trouble is not that such sophisticated formulations make our eyes glaze over; the trouble is that they don’t mean anything. And I will tell you precisely what I mean by that. Consider two possible views of reality. One view, “atheism,” is completely materialistic — it describes reality as just a bunch of stuff obeying some equations, for as long as the universe exists, and that’s absolutely all there is. In the other view, God exists. What I would like to know is: what is the difference? What is the meaningful, operational, this-is-why-I-should-care difference between being a sophisticated believer and just being an atheist?
I can imagine two possibilities. One is that you sincerely can’t imagine a universe without the existence of God; that God is a logical necessity. But I have no trouble imagining a universe that exists all by itself, just obeying the laws of nature. So I would have to conclude, in that case, that you were simply attaching the meaningless label “God” to some other aspect of the universe, such as the fact that it exists. The other possibility is that there is actually some difference between the universe-with-God and the materialist universe. So what is it? How could I tell? What is it about the existence of God that has some effect on the universe? I’m not trying to spring some sort of logical trap; I sincerely want to know. Phrases like “God is ultimate reality” are either tautological or meaningless; I would like to have a specific, clear understanding of what it means to believe in God in the sophisticated non-straw-man sense.
Richard Skinner doesn’t give us that. In fact, he takes precisely the opposite lesson from these considerations: the correct tack for believers is to refuse to say what they mean by “God”!
So, if our understanding of God can be encapsulated in a nice, neat definition; a nice, neat God hypothesis; a nice, neat image; a nice, neat set of instructions – if, in other words, our understanding of God does approximate to a Dawkins version, then we are in danger of creating another golden calf. The alternative, the non-golden-calf route, is to sit light to definitions, hypotheses and images, and allow God to be God.
It’s a strategy, I suppose. Not an intellectually honest one, but one that can help you wriggle out of a lot of uncomfortable debates.
I’m a big believer that good-faith disagreements focus on the strong arguments of the opposite side, rather than setting up straw men. So please let me in on the non-straw-man position. If anyone can tell me once and for all what the correct and precise and sophisticated and non-vacuous meaning of “God” is, I promise to stick to disbelieving in that rather than any straw men.
Update: This discussion has done an even better job than I had anticipated in confirming my belief that the “sophisticated” notion of God is simply a category mistake. Some people clearly think of God in a way perfectly consistent with the supposed Dawkinsian straw man, which is fine on its own terms. Others take refuge in the Skinneresque stance that we can’t say what we mean when we talk about God, which I continue to think is simply intellectually dishonest.
The only on-topic replies I can see that don’t fall into either of those camps are ones that point to some feature of the world which would exist just as well in a purely materialistic conception, and say “I call that `God.'” To which I can only reply, you’re welcome to call it whatever you like, but it makes no difference whatsoever. Might as well just admit that you’re an atheist.
Which some people do, of course. I once invited as a guest speaker Father William Buckley, a Jesuit priest who is one of the world’s experts in the history of atheism. After giving an interesting talk on the spirituality of contemplation, he said to me “You don’t think I believe in G-O-D `God,’ do you?” I confessed that I had, but now I know better.
For people in this camp, I think their real mistake is to take a stance or feeling they have toward the world and interpret in conventionally religious language. Letting all that go is both more philosophically precise and ultimately more liberating.
Sorry for coming so late to the dance~
To Anthony A.:
If you believe that the world is a platonic realm of mathematical forms, that DOES produce an observable difference in the universe: namely, the sort of person you are. If your belief in those forms makes you a genius at math — or makes you an idiot at it — then the difference your belief makes in the world is directly related to the difference that you make in the world. Could you have the same relationship to math as you do with a different set of beliefs? Unlikely. The only question left is whether, on balance, it’s a positive difference.
For my own part, I am not a scientist, but a philosopher. So far, the discussion in this thread has focused on a monotheistic interpretation of God. The “big three” religions may be monotheistic, but far from all of the worlds’ religions are; Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and mystical strains of Judaism are all polytheistic, not to mention modern neo-pagan religions.
In my own theology, Deity arises from the stuff of the universe, not the other way around. Stretching back centuries, belief in the gods (little g) I honor has been part of the cultural subconscious of my ancestors. At the very least, (a qualifier I often use when discussing theology), worship of those same gods allows me to directly deal with buried forces in my id that would otherwise require lots and lots of therapy to reach. Thus, worshipping them causes me to gain uncommon self-knowledge and control over my own emotions, reactions and desires.
Of course, that’s not the extent of my belief. I believe that humans and gods evolved in symbiosis with one another over the course of eons, that as the human mind grew more complex and riddled with psychological needs in greater numbers and strength, that so did the gods grow in power and majesty to fill the need that humanity created. I believe that they are powerful and do make themselves known to those who look. I call them by their old names: Freya, Thor, Loki, Odin and the others.
They are not gods to be cowered before, for they love not cowards. There is an aspect to worship and religious ecstacy which is intensely individual and which can only be experienced through personal gnosis. Connection with the gods makes the divine spark inside of us stronger. More than that, connection with them highlights a way of life that is good to live, which I can rationally see is a good way to live, but which is made more powerful by the evocation of symbols buried in the subconscious.
Could I have come to my way of life through atheistic methods? Certainly. In fact, I came to my current beliefs through a study of existentialist ethics, a la Beauvoir’s Ethics of Ambiguity. But remember that it was Sartre who wrote, “The Existentialist weeps that there is no God.” Once you have wept over the death of “God”, you have made a powerful space for “gods”.
How would the universe be different if there were no gods? It’s analogous to asking how the universe would be different if there were no string theory. It’s a gap that something has to fill. Millenia of cultural evolution has given us gods.
Sean (and anyone else interested), I have just finished a very long post on my understanding of the idea of ‘belief’ and, more specifically, religious belief in ‘God’. It is posted here, if anyone is still interested in this discussion and would care to read about my ideas. This is my sincerest attempt to answer Sean’s initial two-fold question, “What does it mean to have a ‘sophisticated, non-vacuous’ belief in ‘God’?” and “What is the difference between a universe in which ‘God’ exists, and a universe in which it does not?” I hope that, even if no one else hops on over, he shows me the courtesy, by reading, of giving me a chance to answer (even if I am not otherwise a regular commenter on this always thought-provoking blog). Thanks, all.
Taking the liberty of posting this from Ali’s essay. As effective a description of the whole as is possible;
But the mystics and seers, those who have begun the journey into experiential relationship with the Divine that belief initially makes possible, eventually abandon the framework of belief. The spiritual growth of the journey towards ‘God’ demands it, for in the end any name, word, image or idea falls short of the whole. For some, this step away from belief is painful; it presents itself as a crisis of faith, the long dark night of the soul. The mystic Sufi poet, Rumi, writes, “You cannot know your self and God’s Self; either die before God, or God will die before you, so that duality will not remain.” In The Gay Science, Nietzsche writes, “God is dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?” The straw-man belief in a simplistic, anthropomorphic ‘God’ cannot withstand the reasoning mind; but more than this, neither can it withstand the honest search for experience of the spiritual.
Even for an atheist or a materialist, the inadequacy of a simple belief in ‘God’ to satisfy the spiritual and intellectual needs of the self-aware creature can be cause for anger, and even grief. This secret anger, I think, is behind demands such as Carroll’s for ‘believers’ to explain themselves, to justify their seemingly easy faith. These educated thinkers and scientists must certainly have noticed all manner of ignorance rampant in the world, and yet it is this supposed religious ignorance that galls them, that provokes attack. C.S. Lewis said of his atheistic youth that he lived “in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating a world. Why should creatures have the burden of existence forced on them without their consent?” It is this contradiction–that self-aware creatures seem to possess an inherent need for a ‘meaningful’ existence, and yet mere belief in meaning, mere belief in a ‘God’ which might bestow meaning, quickly ceases to satisfy–that incites the loss of faith, the loss of that simplistic belief.
But that same self-awareness, the sense of longing and dissatisfaction itself, can also become the vehicle by which the mystic, the spiritual seeker, emerges from this dark night. One begins to realize that spiritual experiences–experiences of loss, longing and grief regarding the meaningful nonmaterial–persist even in the face of lost faith, even when we no longer have confidence in or use for the words and images we once used to describe and provoke such experiences. The mystic has abandoned ‘belief,’ and yet the life of the spirit continues. The frame has broken, and the workings of art spill over, off the canvas and into everything, everywhere. The line between observer and observed is erased. The Divine is no longer something ‘out there’ to be carefully packed away into definitions of ‘belief’ and carried around like a small worry-stone in the pocket of the faithful.
To the mystic, all things are consecrated, everything is holy–divinity no longer means duality, separating out the sacred from the profane; it means union, the encompassing of all creation and creativity, all potential and activity, within the Divine. To speak of ‘God’ as the ‘ground of being’ and the ‘ultimate reality’ is to speak of spirituality beyond the framework of belief itself. Rumi, who knows that the risk of self-conscious belief is the death of ‘God’, continues, “But as for God’s dying, that is both impossible and inconceivable, for God is the Living, the Immortal. So gracious is He that if it were at all possible He would die for your sake. Since that is not possible, then you must die so that God can reveal Itself to you.” For we are not merely aware of the self, we believe in it. We see others and ourselves as defined creatures, defined by bodies and ideas, emotions and memories–we see “the burden of existence” as something thrust upon us, as if we were something else besides, and our first, simplistic ‘belief in God’ is our clumsy attempt at absolving us of the burden. This belief, too, must be broken open, so that the Divine that is existence, including our own, might be made manifest and experienced fully.
OK, here’s the comment I put at Ali’s thread, the only one yet:
Ali, very thoughtful and beautiful. Really, gives more “nourishment” than the sort of high-falutin’ “mumbo jumbo” about God proceeding from necessary existence, and about contingency and modal realism etc. ad mysterium that I’ve been throwing around at Cosmic Variance.
I had an insight of a message from “God” once, which you can think of as an intuition about the Highest Good and by no means depending on God “really existing” as a Person or thing etc. It was:
I am your eyes and ears,
You are my hands and feet.
Later I found similar sentiments had been experienced by Julian of Norwich and St. John of the Cross. It means, “God” gives or is our insight and conscience, but we must do the good in the world. No March on Washington: no civil rights will just fall from Heaven. If we screw this World up or let it get screwed up, it will be screwed up. Just maybe, we can “all” agree on that?
Quasar9,
I believe those answers would be found in the domains of genetics and evolution.
This is only if string theory is correct, but then there may actually be ways to search out the entire space of universes. And yes, there is one set of laws that produced our region of the universe. This doesn’t mean other regions aren’t different (which seems likely to be the case even if string theory isn’t correct). We just happen to find ourselves within one of region in which life is possible, among what are probably a vast number of regions.
We don’t know. And yes, it is irrelevant, except as a reference point to now. There is no such thing as absolute time, after all.
Neil B.,
It’s not about speculating. It’s about concluding. In order for a definition to be useful, there must be natural conclusions that are not assumed in the definition. The problem is that typically with a god, you can’t actually make any deductions: every effect of this deity’s existence has to simply be assumed. This all flows right back to Sean’s point: unless you can present concrete, testable predictions of your deity’s behavior that flow naturally from its definition, your definition is meaningless. And when considering a creator deity, it really does seem impossible to make any such deductions.
Yeah, but you’re just incorrect here. There is no reason yet to suspect that a natural universe is absurd. Firstly, we don’t know how the physical constants are related to one another at a fundamental level, and, as a result, we can make no concrete statements today about just how fine-tuned the universe is. Secondly, we have no clue how many regions of the universe have been born or will be born in the future: it could well be infinite. If an infinite number of regions either have or will be produced, then it really doesn’t matter how unlikely a universe conducive to life is: eventually one will appear as long as the probability is nonzero.
Furthermore, since we already know that the universe is much larger than what we can observe, it is no leap at all to consider that the universe as a whole might be infinite (if inflation lasted only twice as long as necessary to explain our region, then the universe would have at least 10^90 times more volume than the region we can observe). Finally, if a region such as our own started naturally once by fully natural means, it stands to reason that other regions could also start through fully natural means. So, no, a natural start of our region of the universe is not remotely absurd. Anybody who thinks it is just doesn’t understand how little we know about the fundamental laws.
Ali,
I flipped through your blog for a plain email address, but there wasn’t one. So I’ll stick a note here. If you are looking for places to get published, here is one that might interest you.
http://www.exterminatingangel.com
They published a few of my pieces, so you might mention that I recommended you.
So it seems we can conclude that in a Universe (with or without the god) we expect the laws of physics as we know them to create the right conditions for life to appear and evolve into humans who debate the origins and make up of the universe – and the purpose of life.
It is clear that if there were a God, Sean would expect any Creator to be able to act in his creation – do simple things like change the motion of the planets on a whim, create and destroy life on a whim (other than by cataclysmic mass extinctions caused by floods, asteroids or other global catastrophes caused by objects in ‘predetermined’ or predictable collision trajectories, according to the laws of physics, impacting on Earth), and of course the ability to raise the dead, offer remission from cancer or replace lost limbs.
Mind you what Sean was asking is what would be different about the universe (as we know it) if there were a God. In other words the old rational argument – if we cannot see, touch or measure it, it does not exist.
In other words we can predict a higgs field, gravitons, dark energy or strings & m-theory, but we expect to be able to prove conclusively at some stage whether they exist or not. Whereas with ‘God’ and the ‘afterlife’ or ‘spirit’ world, clearly have no room in the ‘material’ world (by definition?) – and Sean would conclude that a God which cannot be detected, or cannot intervene in the Physical Universe is NO God, or does not EXIST.
However the fact that we cannot detect or mathematically postulate or predict something does not mean it cannot exist, – and viceversa – the fact that we can mathematically postulate something, is no guarantee that it does indeed exist.
So Sean, we remain inconclusively each in our own camp. But if there is an afterlife, and there is a Spirit World – then clearly the universe is different from how we see it, or at least one could safely say we don’t have the whole picture. And not being able to detect or measure something is clearly not proof that it does not exist, as you well know.
PS – This argument is not meant to argue against the buddhist possibility that there may be a Universal Law (without the need of a creator god), but rather to argue that there may indeed be ‘stuff’ out there we don’t know, and cannot yet measure – whether parallel worlds and or ‘spirit’ world.
And perhaps never will, after all it would be pointless if men armed with ray guns and spaceships or aliens and the USAF could invade & occupy Paradise, bringing with them disease, decay and death into Nirvana.
No, but the fact that we cannot ever detect any observable difference that the existence or non-existence of something would entail means that that something is an utterly meaningless concept. There’s just not point in even saying something like that exists, as it’s rather like saying, for example, “Green noises exist.” Those words, when strung together, have no meaning whatsoever. So if you’re saying, “god exists,” but then don’t bother to say what you mean by “god” in any meaningful manner, then you’re not saying anything at all.
And, by the way, nobody is saying anything remotely to the tune of postulation equating to existence. Obviously this is not the case. But at least something which, when postulated, provides specific predictions, then saying it exists has meaning. The statement, “X exists,” becomes intelligible when it would be different if it didn’t. And the question, “Does X exist?” becomes both meaningful and answerable.
Jason, what I am saying is that if there is an afterlife and/or “Spirit World’
the universe is inherently more than we ‘perceive’ – we don’t have the whole picture – since by definition the spirit world is beyond the material world, or if you prefer beyond any ‘event horizon’
Postulating that stealth bombers and/or such things as ‘invisibility cloaks’ are possible and do exist, is meaningless (to you) unless they reveal themselves and effortlessly destroy a country like Iraq (before breakfast), demonstrating massive air superiority?
Just because Sean does not respond to a comment is not ‘proof’ that Sean does not exist, it simply means he is not inclined to comment or respond or get tangled in a circular argument.
I for one would expect any God or even demigods to be powerful enough to be invisible, and above having to demonstrate their overwhelming superiority – in the manner that mere mortals such as US Presidents or British PMs like to.
I would certainly expect the least of demigods to have more power at his finger tips than the President of the US, the USAF and the combined ourtput from US energy and industry. I would expect the least of demigods to be able to eat a bowl of blackholes for breakfast, as if it were a bowl of ‘cheerios’
For all we know God is a Pizza Maker, and this universe is but a bit of dirt in the corner by the fridge of god’s kitchen – and can create Sean’s pizza-like universes to order. Would you like olives, anchovies or pepperoni on yours.
I guess I agree with some things you say. But I find it impossible to understand what you mean is “liberating” with your position. You represent a world-view that says you had to write that blog entry, whether it was true or not. “Philosophically precise” seem to be the last thing this was.
I want everyone to recognize that Sean makes his statements on just the same grounds as an astrologist, a creationist, a magician or Donald Duck, because the ground of all statements (on his view) are determined by how the interaction of particles happened to turn out. Having a physics degree or not doesn’t matter. Who could judge what is the most reasoned view?
Not to mention that it religiously (existentially) turns him into a pathetic creature. Sean, if you want to know what the “non-strawman” God is, then one step would probably be to stop living a chaotic inconsistent life where you think you can transcend the interaction of particles and make valid inferences that are “better” than the results of other interactions of particles. Perhaps you are wrongly of in your materialism from the get go?
People should be profoundly amazed that a talented physicist hold views like this. What makes a person behave so inconsistently? Well the determinist have his answer (he is determined to behave inconsistently). Personally I think he tries to dodge the non-straw man God, who quite frankly could be scary. But also a source of meaning where ones day to day life finally make sense in this complex and beautiful universe of ours.
John Merryman:That we are imperfect examples of an ideal from which we have fallen.
The problem with this logic is that the absolute is basis, not apex. So the spiritual absolute would be the essense of out of which we rise, not a model of perfection from which we fell.
Using this “pyramidal sentence” the ideal is always from the peak, and “not the base” from which you think all physical substances of spirit emerge.
Spirit, is different then the physical substance? Matter states and densities involved reduces spirits workings. Confines it?
Then what’s the point in even talking about it? I mean, unless you want to engage in fantasy or something of the sort. You’ve just defined the spirit world as being unreachable, so it might as well be a fantasy world for all we should care. Not that fantasy doesn’t have its value. I love good fiction. It’s just not reality, and we shouldn’t pretend it is so.
Huh? Camouflage is commonplace. But, more importantly, this is in no way intangible. For example, if you are a military strategist, your strategy may well change dramatically dependent upon whether or not your opponent has certain camouflage technology.
Sean has demonstrated time and again his existence, through his writings and video. It’s the sort of thing that normal humans do every single day. But no deity has ever done this. No deity can ever have been shown to have presented any evidence whatsoever of its existence. And furthermore, many god concepts are built so that there is no possible way that anybody could detect their existence, while those concepts that are, in principle, detectable, have always come up empty. So what reason is there to believe? Besides wishful thinking, I mean?
Jason, I do recognises or acknowledge your arguments, I do not expect you to renounce them or dismiss them as illogical, I expect you to try and see beyond the ‘limits’ you impose yourself.
It would be one of the attributes of any deity to make themselves invisible and or undetectable, if for no other reason than because they CAN. But demanding a deity reveal itself or you would cease to believe in them, is something men & women of in a crisis of faith (and no faith) have faced since ‘time began’
A bit like demanding the higgs boson reveals itself – by xmas – or you will cease to believe in it; or demanding dark energy ‘reveal’ itself or you will hold it to be fantasy and unreal, despite whatever apparent evidence. Of course some people do think strings are a figment of the imagination of some ‘physicists’
However, stating that the spirit world is beyond the material world, is not the same as entering the realm of fantasy and or ‘free’ imagination. It is clearly stating that there is a realm above or beyond that which you can see or measure.
Now to return to Sean’s post, can it act in this universe and does it change what we know of the universe. If it cannot act in this universe what is the point of it. But, suggesting that anything unexpected or unpredicted is simply a ‘spontaneous’ fluctuation or anomaly, or chaos – is avoiding the possibility that ‘external’ forces could be acting in this universe – whether they be simply particles in and out of other worlds, or more exotic causes.
And returning to the world of matter – Star Trek may be well be only fantasy and Science fiction – but it ‘fuels’ the imagination, to search for ways in which we may be able to travel space, beyond our ‘present’ capabilities.
Two thousand years ago someone talking about a silver machine flying at great speed (and breaking the sound barrier) would have seemed like fantasy. The fact that it is possible and can be done, you simply take as a ‘given’ now. Future means of travel, and energy sources are all inherently fantasy – until we either reveal the materials or the means to do it. You may say interstellar or intergalactic travel is ‘theoretically’ possible – but it is ‘pure’ fantasy with the knowledge we have at our disposal (or fingertips) today.
So, should we stop fantasizing?
Plato,
So far as we can define it, consciousness is as much or more an emergent property of networks, rather then the apparent matter of which they consist. So in the context of what we are able to understand, it is a matter of direction, rather then source. We cannot pinpoint the source of this awareness, we can only say that it emerges in a less complex form and from there expands out and up to colonize ever more complex perceptions of material reality.
As a network phenomena, the difference between the neurons in our individual brains and the interactions between individuals in a large social context is a matter of form, rather then function. Whether it is cells in the body, ants in a colony, or humans in society, it a relationship between parts and the whole.
Since we are all motivated by this fundamental sense of self awareness, what is to say that it is only in the details and the mental focus that we are actually individuals manifesting this field phenomena, referred to as ‘spirit?’ Thus it is ‘bottom up essence,’ rather then ‘top down ideal.’
No, Quasar9, it’s about withholding belief until any evidence presents itself. Really, now, people are wrong all the time, and since the number of incorrect beliefs is essentially infinite, while there is only one set of correct beliefs, by holding beliefs for which there is no evidence, or worse, can be no evidence, you guarantee that you are wrong. This, then, is really about how much you care about being correct. If you’re fine with wishful thinking, if you don’t care that the things you believe actually exist but just like to believe them because it’s pleasing, then I guess there’s really nothing more to say. But I suspect most people actually do have a desire to believe what is true.
Now, you gave the example of the Higgs. And let me just say that there is vastly more evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson than there is for any deity. The Higgs boson is a particle whose existence is predicted by a wildly successful and fantastically accurate theory, the standard model. And yet scientists who study this sort of thing will not claim that they believe the Higgs exists. They might claim it’s likely, but physicists studying it the world over fully accept the possibility that we are wrong. In fact, many scientists think that the most likely thing is that we are wrong, and that what we will find at the LHC will be completely unexpected. This is simply because that when we enter a new region of observation, we very frequently find that we end up being surprised. Science has found out just how wrong it is so many times that we have come to expect it. And yet science is based upon evidence. If we end up being wrong all the time by basing our beliefs upon evidence, how much likely is it that we will end up wrong by forming beliefs for which there is no evidence, or worse, for which there can be no evidence?
Finally, you misunderstood what I said about fiction. It does have tremendous value, for a variety of reasons. But we should not pretend it is real.
I started this post as a clarification of my previous post in the context of Sean’s update, but it took on some further themes and I’m running low on time, so I’m posting it anyway;
What Sean seems to be saying in the above quote, is that any concept of God that isn’t of the anthropomorphic variety, is simply closet atheism. This ‘with us, or against us’ model over simplifies a very complex reality. Atheism is its own subjective stance, not the objectivity Sean seems to assume. As three dimensions are not an objective description of space, but the coordinate system of the point these lines cross and a calendar is meaningless without a starting date, it is an objective fact that any frame of reference is inherently subjective. With its quest to order reality into one overarching theory and willingness to explore whatever avenues accepted theory allows, modern science is a direct descendant of the religious tradition of explaining what we don’t know in terms of what we do. While the monolithic tendencies of western theism lack the balanced dualisms of eastern philosophies, it was proven to be a politically potent model that has done much to provide the conceptual desire and impetus to the evolution of the modern world.
The atheistic assumption is that there is an evolving process of complex interaction that developed chemically repetitive patterns, these morphed into biological feedback loops, which evolved conscious awareness as an adaptive trait. This because evolution appears to be a linear process from less complex to more complex structure and biological consciousness entails the most complex structure we find. These odds of this happening would seem vanishingly small, but with infinity to work with, still possible. We, seemingly alone in the local area of the universe, being evidence of that.
So what is the alternative? That some guy up in the clouds unfolded a blueprint and started building? That some essential element of awareness exists as what might be described as another dimension and it happened to bisect these material dimensions at this point called earth, providing the vital function to the biological form? The old guy in the clouds might seem a bit timeworn, but it may be difficult for the current state of science to categorically deny the second, given the extent it postulates other dimensions, even universes to explain the circumstances in this one.
Whether arising spontaneously or as eternal isolated property, consciousness is a field effect that manifests as singular organisms within a developing ecosystem. What we think of as individuality is an evolved structure of mental focus. While this may not be a politically popular description, it is biologically defensible, as any broad examination of the relationship between individuals and the group they are a product of, shows that what seem like clear distinctions vanish upon close examination. Whether neurons in the brain, or faces in the crowd, it is nodes and network. The often overwhelming tendency to go with the herd, whether out of positive hope, negative fear, or all the other ways our base emotions and impulses guide and control us is the bottom up mechanism of this situation. We are part of a larger whole. Admitting that and accepting it is necessary to gain some degree of control over these basic forces. Like guiding a balloon by rising or sinking to the level of the winds going the direction you wish, it becomes possible to guide yourself in this reality. There are any number of cross currents pulling us around and while there are directions we may want to go, such as working toward a more sustainable economic and ecological lifestyle, it is difficult to break out of the current patterns that seem bent on driving us over the edge of political, ecological and economic Armageddon. The fact is that there are larger processes at work here and periodic collapse is a vital part of the renewal process. When you want to start a new world order, it is actually helpful to have the old one self-destruct, even though it can be quite messy. The fact is that what we would like to think of as the norm isn’t sustainable and these currently destroying it, out of their own selfish desires to control as much as possible, are likely doing us all a long term favor. The old system is like a scab being pulled off of a wound, so that it can go on to the next stage and heal further. If one choses cynicism and corruption because it appears to have the upper hand, this hard and lifeless view is the direction that life is moving away from, not toward.
we are animals like all the other animals on the planet. Everything else is the human myth.
Justin, it is about suspending judgement.
You disbelief because there is ‘no’ evidence
I suspend ‘disbelief’ because it is possible.
There is much we do not yet ‘know’ about the material world.
And clearly much we do not know about the non-material world.
Since A God can be ‘invisible’ and ‘undetectable’ – there can be no proof against the existence of god, anymore than there is of god’s existence.
As to what people may or may not expect from god, or what people believe or do not believe about god – that is down to human error – it does not make the possibility in itself of the existence of God an error by default – nor by any scientific proof.
There is no evidence that man can travel to other star systems, but I do not discount it as impossible – though I may not see it with ‘these’ eyes – I guess you could logically call that ‘blind’ faith too.
Quasar9, I suppose you also believe in Santa too, since no proof has been given for his non-existence?
But seriously, without evidence, how do you choose which god to believe in?
Given enough energy space travel to other stars is possible. That has nothing to with faith. We know what it takes. Very is very difficult, yes, but it is a bad example in this context.
Carl
Sorry for that last sentence. Have had a couple of beers now.. 🙂
More on name.
John Merryman:
I do find it difficult to believe this, and if I had to give perspective, how would I give an alternate view to the one you are saying?
Hmmmm…..
Damasio’s First Law
The body precedes the mind.
Damasio’s Second Law
Emotions precede feelings.
Damasio’s Third Law
Concepts precede words.
What is matter forming around the concepts/ideals? Should it not read Mind precedes body? And why not begin in spirit?
A man, blind from birth, is asking me what sight is, and if I can’t explain it to him, insists that I should agree that sight does not exist.
—
Take someone who is your scientific hero. Most likely you cannot understand her/him. Yes, you can understand his results, and even sometimes retrace the steps she made to get to her deep and revolutionary result. But duplicating that act of creativity may be beyond you. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But it is beyond explanation to you.
—
Nextly, language is a shared medium and describes only what we experience in common. It cannot express what we experience purely individually. Inability to describe in words or explain universally is not a barrier to existence (for that matter, we cannot explain a lot of science or most of mathematics to most people). I think there are mathematical objects that cannot be approached by any algorithm. Existence transcends explanations.
—
As to what practical difference God makes, would we even be having this conversation if God made no difference? That is, even a non-existent God which is some people’s delusion makes a difference to this world. How can you say it doesn’t? You’ll say, which law of physics is affected by this? None, but the world is not completely described by the laws of physics, in that you cannot deduce everything that is in this world using the laws of physics, you can at most constrain it. Very real people are performing real actions on this delusion of God, all within the laws of physics. It is an equally valid point of view to take people, and not the laws of physics, to be fundamental. The only universe of interest is that with the potentiality of having people in it.
—
The blind man will, naturally, be incapable of understanding what it means to see at an intuitive level. But he would certainly be capable of being shown evidence for the existence of sight, as well as being capable of understanding the mechanism of sight.
It’s beyond an intuitive understanding. Not beyond intellectual understanding.
Same thing.
This only demonstrates that the concept of God makes a difference. It doesn’t demonstrate that the being itself makes a difference. As to that, some definitions do make a difference, some do not.
Certainly the entire universe isn’t described by the laws of physics we know today, for we do not know all of the laws of physics. But there is no reason whatsoever to expect that there is anything that lies beyond the most fundamental laws of physics, whatever those might be.
CarlN,
we all know that Santa doesn’t ride a sleigh across the sky and bring children xmas presents down the chimney – (except in the movies & story books). Parents buy the xmas presents in shops – and place them under the tree.
But the concept that little ‘elves’ or foreign workers in sweat shops in korea or China make barbie dolls and other xmas toys in time for xmas is not alien. The fact that transport and marketing brings those toys to shops in time for xmas (which starts in October?) is not alien. The fact that you can shop on the internet almost at the speed of light from just about anywhere in the world is a ‘reality’. Spammers try and do what ‘sceptics’ claimed Santa couldn’t do, which is to visit every home in 24 hours, but it takes a lot of anti-spam to prevent it happening.
That god exists is ‘possible’
Which gods exists and which god may be the greater god, are only arguments that are valid once you recognise there is a god. Which video or audio-visual reproduction system is the best or superior once you recignise that video and audio-visual reproduction is possible. Of course the ultimate god or god above gods requires there be one god greater or above all other gods, just like light contains all the colours of the rainbow.
Travel to other star systems may be ‘possible’
However since I am unlikely to see it happen with ‘these’ eyes, to all intents and purposes – according to you – ‘technically’ speaking it does not exist.
Science (or science fiction) has no problems with the concept that you may be able to buy replacement organs ‘off the shelf’ to prolong life, that we may be able to manufacture drugs or treatments to slow down (or even reverse) ageing, or even at some point ‘download’ your personality, knowledge, memory, emotions and feelings onto a chip (and edit as required?) to transplant into another healthy body or golem off the shelf, should your present body become too damage by trauma, disease, ageing, radiation or fire … some even believe you can freeze the body – cryogenics – and be brought back to life.
Seems man (generic humans) really would like to be ‘godlike’. Seems humans would like to be able to control the environment, the body, the mind and life. Seems humans are hardwired to seek something more (godhood?) – higher being, higher intellect or higher power – we just haven’t got the ‘knowledge’ yet.
Seems humans are hardwired or predisposed to dellusions of ‘grandeur’ too, and some humans would like to base longevity on ‘ability’ to pay or god money. Yep, it’s an age old dellusion, that you can buy your way into heaven or paradise, and buy immortality (in the flesh) without having to wait for tiresome things such as ‘judgement of the dead’ resurrection or reincarnation.
Of course not everyone would like to live for ever – gosh, what is left for man to do when he has done everything – but to experience death. But death is all around us and often too close, and often comes unexpectedly and much too soon, and most people would like to delay death (at least for now), and maybe ‘live’ for ever too.
However I am not interested in convincing you that there is a god, or to argue ‘which’ or ‘whose’ god is the greater. Simply, that it is possible that there is a God – a God that clearly can exist independently regardless of whether you believe in god or not. And since one of the attributes of a god would be to be ‘invisible & undetectable’ man is unable to prove god does not exist, neither scientifically or philosophically. After all an Omniscient & Omnipresent god can see into the deepest (and darkest) recesses of the human mind (and soul).
FYI: The God We Don’t Want