The philosophical conception of god in the age of reason and science.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;125653 wrote:

I didn't know that quote but I completely relate to it. What does God have in common with black holes and Euclidean points? What about Parmenides and his One? We do seem to have a unity archetype on our hands.

Whole = holy. Yes indeed. Hegel offered Germany his Absolute. Kant had the transcendental Ego. Heidegger and Being.

Did Yves Klein feel it, the lure of the radically simple? He painted those strange blue monochromes. Did someone melt the Virgins robes?

Before I had even heard of Heidegger I made this "music" out of reverberated white-noise and called it Being.

Do you like Nicholas Cusanus? He's got some great geometrical metaphors for God who is both the minimum and maximum and the union of contraries in general.

Robert Solomon wrote about the Transcendental Pretense of the Western Enlightenment -- which is basically the claim of objectivity and universal validity, a claim on the Whole (king of kings and lord of lords?)
From Hegel to Existentialism - Google Books

Ahhh yes... there were many along the lines of Cusanus. He was also a major contributor to Leibniz's thinking.

I've never read Solomon, but that sound very interesting, I'll have to look into it.

When you look at the Eastern Religions, the unity theme remains. I heard rumors that Heidegger understood this phenomena, and made attempts to integrate eastern and western philosophy on a bigger scale.

But then he gave up on society and moved away for the rest of his life... :nonooo:

Yves Klein seemed to be a reader of Sartre, as his concept of the void is rather similar to Sartre's vacuum of nothingness. I think in a strange way Sartre understood the universal theme, just in a different way, La Differance.

1 Reply

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;125656 wrote:

Yves Klein seemed to be a reader of Sartre, as his concept of the void is rather similar to Sartre's vacuum of nothingness. I think in a strange way Sartre understood the universal theme, just in a different way, La Differance.

For me, Sartre is very much a man of the universal. Note the adoption of Marxism. As important, note the style. Did Being and Nothingness need to be that long?

He wanted to pretend it was science, not poetry, as science is universal, for the TRUTH is universal....
Also Sartre strikes me as a moralist, as moralism these days is universal, rather than ethnocentric (ethnocentrism is a "sin" against the universal.)
Today's culture (PC) is culturelessness. The only rule is not to take culture seriously. Be polite, tolerant, healthy, sane, reasonable. Yes, there's much to recommend it, but is it only the mask of Global Capital?

I suppose that Reason was God for many during the Revolution. A word to conjure by. A magic word whose transparent magic could dispel the magics of yesterday. Reason demanded only this: thou shalt have no gods before me!

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;125659 wrote:

For me, Sartre is very much a man of the universal. Note the adoption of Marxism. As important, note the style. Did Being and Nothingness need to be that long?

He wanted to pretend it was science, not poetry, as science is universal, for the TRUTH is universal....
Also Sartre strikes me as a moralist, as moralism these days is universal, rather than ethnocentric (ethnocentrism is a "sin" against the universal.)
Today's culture (PC) is culturelessness. The only rule is not to take culture seriously. Be polite, tolerant, healthy, sane, reasonable. Yes, there's much to recommend it, but is it only the mask of Global Capital?

I suppose that Reason was God for many during the Revolution. A word to conjure by. A magic word whose transparent magic could dispel the magics of yesterday. Reason demanded only this: thou shalt have no gods before me!

Even the process of evolution tends to entertain the possibility that we all came from one, and as the Ancients saw it, we will all return to one.

Thus the Alpha and the Omega. All eerie connections.

0 Replies

@prothero,

Yes but working out the details is tricky. All very well to be a 'big picture' person, but there are bills to be paid....

Meanwhile in support of your raptures on mathematics

Quote:

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty - a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture.

- Bertrand Russell.

Although all of that said, the quality of your consciousness is more important than mathematical ability, in my view...

---------- Post added 02-07-2010 at 07:50 PM ----------

also, the East never produced anyone like Pythagoras, and I will bet you a house to a brick that is why the West had the scientific revolution, and China didn't...

0 Replies

@prothero,

God is the source of Consciousness.

0 Replies

@prothero,

It is very easy to choose a god that fits your momentary sentiment. Assessing a god's power is ridiculous and is as arbitrary as some of the most absurd claims made by 'prophets'. There is no reason, whatsoever, to believe in a god. No more reason than to entertain the existence of giant space hamburgers. That is not me being facetious, talk of god tends to bring that out of people. The more important question is how we act despite what the ultimate truth may be.

1 Reply

@gavin25,

Edited: Is there any way to delete posts?:Not-Impressed:

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero wrote:

I am interested in altered conceptions of god which do not conflict with the modern worldview.

Yes, that is a pattern that seems to be occurring - humans consistently think up new concepts of God, or alter older ones, whenever they become inconsistent with reason. I would wager that most people -- even devout theists -- in this day and age think the Mayan god of maize, for instance, is utterly silly. The more we learn about the world around us, the more elusive "God" becomes. It's the last refuge for a man without any answer, and, it seems, a sort of wishful thinking that brings comfort.

What I wonder is how many more generations these supernatural beliefs will be held for, before we ditch the nonsense completely (The truth is, I think the answer is that humans will always hold these sorts of beliefs, but I will employ wishful thinking and say we will end it soon). Things will become increasingly more "spiritual" and less "religious" (since many are beginning to equate religion with being confided, I would say), that's for sure, but it will be interesting to see where we go.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;166331 wrote:

What I wonder is how many more generations these supernatural beliefs will be held for, before we ditch the nonsense completely (The truth is, I think the answer is that humans will always hold these sorts of beliefs, but I will employ wishful thinking and say we will end it soon). Things will become increasingly more "spiritual" and less "religious" (since many are beginning to equate religion with being confided, I would say), that's for sure, but it will be interesting to see where we go.

Do you consider the notion that the universe has inherent striving for order, complexity, life, mind and experience and that there may be some rational intelligence behind the cosmos to be "supernatural" thinking?

Is the notion that there is a "god" who works through nature and natural law (the universe as emmanation or as manifestation) nonsense or silly to you?

Is the notion that the universe is blind, indifferent, and without purpose a scientific conclusion, a rational conclusion, a metaphysical assumption or a philosophical speculation?

1 Reply

@prothero,

I like the simple notion that reality is god. It's not much to chew on, but it puts us all already there, and religion would just be the love of god/reality, including the other human beings who are also already there. I suppose the key point for me is that any monopolization of the god concept results in violence, mental or physical. In some ways, the concept of the Good and the concept of god are closely related.

If we regard fame or wealth as the goal of life, the Good, then metaphorically speaking these serve as gods, as religions. I want an inclusive god-concept that isn't used to beat in the skulls of others. I feel we can all agree on that. I also love science, and don't want crude concepts of god interfering in essence with science, even if ethical concerns steer its application in ideal directions.

If we think of god in terms as all reality, sensual emotional and conceptual, then this same concept will include all the more particular concepts of god within itself.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero wrote:

Is the notion that there is a "god" who works through nature and natural law (the universe as emmanation or as manifestation) nonsense or silly to you?

Silly to me? Yes. I try very hard to make sure I have justification for most of my beliefs, and I don't see any good justification for believing in anything supernatural. I'm not discriminating against "God", if that's what you think. I don't believe that Captain Crunch or Frodo are real beings, either. Very much for the same reasons.

Alas, some people are content with having faith (belief without justification). I'm fortunate enough to not be one of those people.

Quote:

Is the notion that the universe is blind, indifferent, and without purpose a scientific conclusion, a rational conclusion, a metaphysical assumption or a philosophical speculation?

How can a universe be indifferent? I thought that that was an attribute we assign to people, not universes. That there is no god or higher order does not imply that life is meaningless, if that is what you mean. As humans, we are able to find meaning and purpose, whether there be a god or not, wouldn't you agree? A reoccurring pattern I see with those who are spiritual is that they believe that without a higher order, life is meaningless. And maybe that is why they choose to believe - they're afraid of becoming nihilists! I don't know. But what I do know is that life isn't meaningless, no matter if there is a god or not.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;166732 wrote:

Do you consider the notion that the universe has inherent striving for order, complexity, life, mind and experience and that there may be some rational intelligence behind the cosmos to be "supernatural" thinking?

Striving is a purposeful attempt to attain a goal. It sounds like something only sentient beings can do.

Quote:

Is the notion that there is a "god" who works through nature and natural law (the universe as emmanation or as manifestation) nonsense or silly to you?

This doesn't mean anything until god is defined. And since we have a gigantic number of preconceptions about what god is about, using the word just confuses us. If I reword your bit and talk about the notion "that there is a nature and natural laws" is that silly to you?

Quote:

Is the notion that the universe is blind, indifferent, and without purpose a scientific conclusion, a rational conclusion, a metaphysical assumption or a philosophical speculation?

Where are the universes eyes? I don't understand why you are personifying the universe.

1 Reply

@prothero,

Jebediah wrote:

And since we have a gigantic number of preconceptions about what god is about, using the word just confuses us.

Yes, but I've learned that there's really no need to dig deep into what these people mean when they say the word. That's largely irrelevant, because the common denominator is all that matters: it is a matter of faith. And since it is a matter of faith, it is not a matter of reason. And the most depressing thing is, people flaunt having faith, as if it were some sort of positive characteristic to behold. And what they are really flaunting is that they don't have good reason (again, by definition) for believing in the supernatural (or whatever else it is). They are quite literally announcing to the world they are being intentionally unreasonable.

I'm embarrassed whenever I find I don't have good reason for believing something, and to think people actually embrace not having good reason for believing something... ugh, I get shivers.

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;166740 wrote:

Where are the universes eyes? I don't understand why you are personifying the universe.

I think I may be somewhere in the middle on this issue. So I'll try to be the friendly moderate. Some would say that we (and others?) are the eyes of the universe, for the universe as its exists for man exists only within man. And yet man clearly exists only within this same universe.

It's to the advantage of scientific objectivity to forget the subjective element. I recognize that. But I feel that if taken too far, we run into a not unconsidered problem. For whom does a universe exist in the absense of consciousness? And yet what is consciousness but a consciousness of reality? Have we for no doubt justified practical reasons done something not quite logical with this divorce of consciousness from matter-independent-of-consciousness?

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Zetherin wrote:

Yes, but I've learned that there's really no need to dig deep into what these people mean when they say the word.

With god and religion, my impression is that people start with a traditional conception of god (source of morality and goodness, omnipotent, etc) and then when they learn about the arguments against that form of god that reshape what they say about him into a more logically defensible version, but internally keep all the old connections. That is when the argument shifts to "you can't prove there is no god". That statement is only significant to someone who feels that the lack of proof against him is significant to their beliefs.

Reconstructo wrote:

I think I may be somewhere in the middle on this issue. So I'll try to be the friendly moderate. Some would say that we (and others?) are the eyes of the universe, for the universe as its exists for man exists only within man. And yet man clearly exists only within this same universe.

How are we the eyes of the universe? My eyes take in visual information, and send it to my brain, which processes it and does a great many things with it, including giving me the sensation of vision. How do people play that role for the universe?

Quote:

It's to the advantage of scientific objectivity to forget the subjective element. I recognize that. But I feel that if taken too far, we run into a not unconsidered problem. For whom does a universe exist in the absense of consciousness? And yet what is consciousness but a consciousness of reality? Have we for no doubt justified practical reasons done something not quite logical with this divorce of consciousness from matter-independent-of-consciousness?

How can you not divorce consciousness from "matter-independent"? Isn't that what independent means?

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;166742 wrote:

Yes, but I've learned that there's really no reason to dig deep into what these people mean when they say the word. That's largely irrelevant, because the common denominator is all that matters: it is a matter of faith. And since it is a matter of faith, it is not a matter of reason.

I don't think that all talk of "god" is related to faith. For instance, I think highly of religious traditions and yet have utterly no need for miracles, and utterly no need for an invisible god. In my opinion, the best religion is entirely immanent. I suppose it's just a humanism with a strong emphasis on the beauty and mystery of this reality we are born into and that is born in us, or born in us at least as far as concrete individual humans are concerned.

Hegel was an atheist who yet saw the incarnation myth as the ideal religious myth precisely because this myth emphasized that "god" was down here, in the form of mortal men. ("god" is dying on a cross, on a matrix-mother-material --words related...) Human reality is largely conditioned by language, from our physics to our social norms. If one says metaphorically that "god" is just human reality, then "god" is just man the evolving species. Why did Hegel bother with "god" at all? Because he wanted his science to account for consciousness. He regarded science as a model for philosophy to aspire to. He saw, rightly, in my opinion, that physical science dealt with abstractions, but not with the real in its fullness. This is where philosophy can actually supplement science --by closely examining the birth and evolution of scientific and philosophical concepts, issues like the relationship of mind and matter, or the Kantian-type categories that (hypothetically) structure our perception. Perhaps you will agree that science operates on an implicit representational realism. Which is just transcendental idealism, in essence. We don't see atoms with the naked eye. We work with representations. The tension between representation and the represented is where philosophy comes in. Science concentrates on the math, on the experiments. It doesn't tend to dwell on the tricky side issues. Just an opinion.... Smile

0 Replies

@prothero,

Jebediah wrote:

With god and religion, my impression is that people start with a traditional conception of god (source of morality and goodness, omnipotent, etc) and then when they learn about the arguments against that form of god that reshape what they say about him into a more logically defensible version, but internally keep all the old connections. That is when the argument shifts to "you can't prove there is no god". That statement is only significant to someone who feels that the lack of proof against him is significant to their beliefs.

This is largely true. When people begin understanding their notion of god is inconsistent, or contradictory, to something we know is true, they change the notion to fit. And, yes, people often begin falling prey to less obvious fallacies later on, like the one you noted above. "You can't prove there is no god" is a pathetic argument for god, and it is a perfect example of the fallacy from ignorance.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;166744 wrote:

How are we the eyes of the universe? My eyes take in visual information, and send it to my brain, which processes it and does a great many things with it, including giving me the sensation of vision. How do people play that role for the universe?

Well, the idea is this, and I don't know if it will be of any use to you, as it is not practical in any obvious way:

The idea of the universe apart from man, without man, is just that, an idea. Yes, we have excellent practical reasons to assume it was here long before us. I can't deny that. Still, as far as real human experience is concerned, this universe-without-consciousness ironically exists only within consciousness.

Furthermore, this idea exists in the form of a slowly evolved language, a language that is not universal. Even the barest notion of the universe depends upon human language within a living human brain. It's an abstraction. We basically use our imagination to remove ourselves from the picture. But all the while the picture is only sustained in a living human brain.
On the other hand, the brain exists only within this same contemplated universe. And this is the old mind-matter idealism-realism problem, which Hegel and others tried to solve with a fusion of the two. Reality for humans is revealed by language. I'm not saying it's absurd to think of the universe exiting before or after the human species, but it does require a certain leap into the unknown. The problem of "consciousness" (if there is such a thing) and "reality" (if such a thing truly exists apart from life) is not so simple, in my opinion.
I have a deep respect for anyone who even thinks about such things, no matter their leanings. I just wanted to share this Hegelian curiosity, in case anyone else finds its fascinating.

0 Replies

@prothero,

Reconstructo wrote:

because this myth emphasized that "god" was down here, in the form of mortal men.

Yes, many people begin twisting the word around like that. You know why? Because it makes their notion unfalsifiable. It eliminates confrontation. What brilliance! God is reality! Perfect! Let us make whatever we want to exist, reality, so that it will exist by definition! I want Humpty Dumpty to exist, so I will state that Humpty Dumpty is reality. Well, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me, how about you?

It's such a convenient argument, too. I think they hand this stuff out in Spirituality 101. This new age nonsense is really getting out of hand.

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;166744 wrote:

How can you not divorce consciousness from "matter-independent"? Isn't that what independent means?

If there is such a thing as "consciousness," what is it made of? Is it made of sound, color, thought, etc., etc...But this is what "reality" is made of. How does one separate these abstractions? What really is the difference?

William James talked of this, as well as Hegel. What we really have, from his point of view, is just experience. And we then divide this experience up into "consciousness" and "reality" and so on. Objectivity could be viewed as the loose agreement as to what experience we humans have in common.

Now experience remains mysterious. You can tell me that it was "god" or the "big bang" that made it all happen, but those are just words, concepts. And they are still smaller than the experience they intend to explain.

I say we don't need miracles or god-concepts. Experience is "holy" in that life at its best is beautiful. I'm against 99% of religion in that offers some little concept as god. I say that only all human experience is big enough to make the "god" concept satisfactorily meaningful.

But Prothero's view is still quite respectable in my opinion.

0 Replies

The philosophical conception of god in the age of reason and science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know