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

@prothero,

Reconstructo wrote:

But the word "God" is often used as a synonym for the nature of things, or human experience in its totality.

And as I noted before, don't you see how silly that is? It's a cop out. I can redefine anything, stating that it now means X: Captain Crunch is humanity. We know humanity exists, so Captain Crunch exists by definition, right? No. I would have no argument in this case. I just attempted to redefine a word in order to suit my desire for that thing to exist. It's pathetic, really.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167003 wrote:

In a nutshell, I believe we should seek justification for the things we believe. I don't think we ought to believe something simply because we feel it's true. We should use reason, and we should be wary of inconsistencies.

I completely agree with this. However, it should be noted that the foundations of logic and mathematics are too some degree simply intuitive. I've been reading Wittgenstein's Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, and he makes some excellent points. He's of the mathematical doubters. What exactly is the experience of consistency? That's why I love Kant and the rest. They investigate the structure of human reasoning, the better to reason. Reason should thoroughly investigate itself. This is why I like philosophy described as the "science of science." We should be able to give a complete as explanation as possible for our positions. From the ground up. What is reason made of? What do consistent positions have in common that convinces us of their consistency? If it is only their utility, we aren't dealing strictly with logic, but instead are satisfying ourselves with pragmatism. Don't get me wrong. Pragmatism is great, and more than enough for most. I do feel that philosophers should strive for logical consistency as well. Smile

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 06:23 PM ----------

Zetherin;167095 wrote:

And as I noted before, don't you see how silly that is? It's a cop out. I can redefine anything, stating that it now means X: Captain Crunch is humanity. We know humanity exists, so Captain Crunch exists by definition, right? No. I would have no argument in this case. I just attempted to redefine a word in order to suit my desire for that thing to exist. It's pathetic, really.

I see what you mean, of course. But a term like "Universe" is no less abstract. And the term "Universe" is biased against human experience in its concrete form. We don't live in only in our scientific abstractions. As humans, we are creatures of values as well as mathematical patterns. In my opinion, both "god" and "universe" can bottleneck thought. I personally don't in the least need the term "god" and have a healthy distrust of it.

Still, it's cruel to call this word's use "pathetic." What about the intelligent persons out there who like this word? And I'm talking about those who are open for friendly debate concerning its merit, and not the fanatics.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167063 wrote:

Perhaps you might elucidate for us the formative role that belief in Captain Crunch had in the formation of the notion of the individual in the late middle ages. It might also be interesting to consider the differing Jewish, Muslim and Christian perspectives of Captain Crunch, and the consequences of these differences in the subsequent formation of secular philosophy. It would also be interesting to recall the role of the worshippers of Captain Crunch in the formation of the European University system, the hospital system, the creation of formal logic, and the definition of such philosophical concepts as ontology and causation.

I suppose an outline of any one of those topics would suffice, really. Because I, for one, was shamefully unaware of the significance of the deities you mentioned, including the Spaghetti one, in the formation of European civilization.

This is why I used Astrology when making my analogy before. Because it has a history behind it.

0 Replies

@prothero,

And Zeth, do you find Einstein pathetic?

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 06:29 PM ----------

Quote:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein) I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Just to show that an intelligent man can make a fair use of the word. Certainly Einstein is intelligent? And scientific?

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 06:30 PM ----------

The only way I differ from this view is that science does not reveal the structure of my experience of music (to name just one aesthetic example), or more importantly the love I have for my wife and friends. -- & strangers when my mood is right. The word "God" is arbitrary. It's just a sound. It's only the emotion of gratitude behind it that makes it worth mentioning.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167095 wrote:

And as I noted before, don't you see how silly that is? It's a cop out. I can redefine anything, stating that it now means X: Captain Crunch is humanity. We know humanity exists, so Captain Crunch exists by definition, right? No. I would have no argument in this case. I just attempted to redefine a word in order to suit my desire for that thing to exist. It's pathetic, really.

And I think you simply have a strategy of denial. I think your attitude (and again it is not something peculiar to you) is to declare religion=delusion. I mean, it is a very easy, black-and-white view of the world. But then, you admit from time to time that apparently rational and intelligent contributors are religious in some way and this is 'bewildering'. Dawkins says the same thing in The God Delusion. He says he knows intelligent people, scientists even, who are religious. He is gobsmacked by this. Just cannot fathom it. But it is really very simple. Neither you, nor he, understand what being religious means. Just bear in mind I am not a young-earth creationist (and neither is Prothero, far from it.) But due to your monochromatic view of all things religious we are all somehow in the same category. Why? because religion is delusion. Anyway I have spent enough time on this topic so thanks for your courtesy and so long.

0 Replies

@prothero,

Reconstructo wrote:

Still, it's cruel to call this word's use "pathetic." What about the intelligent persons out there who like this word? And I'm talking about those who are open for friendly debate concerning its merit, and not the fanatics.

If they used that as an argument for God, yes, it would be pathetic. This wouldn't apply just to them, of course. It would apply to anyone who attempts to redefine a word in order to make sure said definition is consistent with their other beliefs.

And don't you see a general pattern? Don't you see the correlation between how much we learn about the world around us, and the elusivity of God? Well, I think, for the most part, this is the correlation (I know there are exceptions): The more we learn about the world around us (the greater and more detailed our collective knowledge), the more elusive the notion of God becomes.

Let's look at some ancient polytheisic belief systems: The Greeks had a god of agriculture, wine and festivities, travel, and even one for music and the plague. The Romans had a god for smithing, flowers (!!!), and even a god of doors (yes, doors!!). One of the more well-known Mayan gods was the god of maize. Yes, a corn god. And let's not forget the Egyptian god Horus which was, among other things, the god of kings.

Now, any partially educated modern man is going to think most of these gods are just silly. I mean, a god of corn could actually be used as the basis for a skit on SNL. But what I think is of most importance is to see just how "down to earth" the notion of god was during these times. Gods and goddesses were almost tangible, so to say - there was no confusion as to where they were and why. It was clear just who was directing what, and more, it was clear in regards to what to do (how to worship) in order to appease those directing.

Let's look at some of the more modern belief systems: We of course have the monotheist groups, like the Christians, Catholics, and Muslims. We have this "god is one" movement, predominantly part of the New Age movement. We also have less ancient "non-alchemy-driven" mysticism. And it seems we even have a resurgence of Buddhism, for its softer, more philosophy-driven way of life.

Now let's compare the archaic polytheistic understanding of god with today's modern monotheistic and spiritualistic understanding of god.

Unlike the "down to earth" understanding of god in ancient times, God in the modern world is much less "tangible". In fact, there is continuous controversy, even among those religious, in regards to what is meant by the supernatural words. There's no clear cut way to be a spiritualist (And keep in mind it is en vogue to say you are spiritual these days. "Religious" sounds too restrictive to people - and this supports the theme I'm articulating). There's no clear cut way to worship god. There's no clear cut understanding of what god's role even is. God has become increasingly elusive as modern science has explained away things like genetic engineering (even for corn) and astronomy (goodbye sun gods).

So, what are the options for spiritual people? Spiritual people in a modern world who don't want to be ridiculed for being irrational? Well, from what I've seen, they do one, or more, of these things:

A.) They express their beliefs of the supernatural in the vaguest way possible. In this way, they can avoid contention by shoving bowls of word salad down your throat. It's brilliant - how can you argue with someone when you don't even understand what they mean?

B.) They consistently redefine the word to suit our understanding of the world. God is everything! God is reality, God is humanity! That way, they sit on an unfalsifiable claim, a claim that is true by definition (their twisted definition). In this way, they think they don't appear irrational.

C.) They claim that spirituality and God are experiential and cannot be understood by everyone. In this way, they don't have to humor controversy, since they now have their own personal jesus that only they understand. It's quite a take on qualia, that's for sure.

Whew, that was long. I don't expect you to even read all that. But heck, I'm clicking the submit button either way.

4 Replies

@Zetherin,

Antony Flew "Theology and Falsification," 1950

Quote:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods."[1] Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167115 wrote:

A.) They express their beliefs of the supernatural in the vaguest way possible. In this way, they can avoid contention by shoving bowls of word salad down your throat. It's brilliant - how can you argue with someone when you don't even understand what they mean?

I think for some folks, "God" is just a word taken out of the sock drawer to express a certain feeling. Only a small percentage of humans even care about having a self-consistence conception of their experience.

Of course I'm against any human shoving word-salads down anyone's throat. Be it Pentecostalism or Marxism, etc. I feel there is an ethic that most of us can agree on -- which is simply to not force one's abstractions on others. And I can understand the frustration of having cloudy abstractions thrust on one.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 08:28 PM ----------

Zetherin;167115 wrote:

B.) They consistently redefine the word to suit our understanding of the world. God is everything! God is reality, God is humanity! That way, they sit on an unfalsifiable claim, a claim that is true by definition (their twisted definition). In this way, they think they don't appear irrational.

I think you have missed something on this issue. Let's take Hegel for instance. He wasn't some unknown face in the crowd. In his time, God was generally believed in, so far as I know. Surely the intellectuals were not so consistent on this, but the non-intellectual was presumably faithful in the more usual sense. Could he get away with and should he bother to present his essentially atheistic system as the enemy of all the culture that came before him? Or was it not wiser to incorporate the Christian incarnation myth in a way that utterly denies the supernatural, thereby assimilating all the greatness of Western Culture connected to more literal understandings of this incarnation myth, without moving an inch away from science? Indeed, he wanted his philosophy to be as rigorous as science.

Think in political terms and ask if it's wise to insist on a maximally reductive atheism. Generally, the non-intellectual doesn't care about providing reasons. That's the elitist pursuit of the few and will probably remain so, whether it should or not. On a personal level one can afford a stubborn toeing of the anti-god line, but it becomes more complicated when one's words are echoed everywhere, as Hegel's were throughout Germany.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;167128 wrote:

Antony Flew "Theology and Falsification," 1950

It is also interesting to note that Antony Flew, who was a leading proponent of philosophical atheism for all of his career, late in life changed his position to one of philosophical deism (as distinct from confessional religion), on the basis of the improbability of abiogenesis, and the strength of the argument from design.

Quote:

Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God's existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it".

Source

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167133 wrote:

It is also interesting to note that Antony Flew, who was a leading proponent of philosophical atheism for all of his career, late in life changed his position to one of philosophical deism (as distinct from confessional religion), on the basis of the improbability of abiogenesis, and the strength of the argument from design. Source

Yes. But what Einstein or Flew stated has no particular significance. What they argued can stand on its own merits, or not.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167115 wrote:

C.) They claim that spirituality and God are experiential and cannot be understood by everyone. In this way, they don't have to humor controversy, since they now have their own personal jesus that only they understand. It's quite a take on qualia, that's for sure.

I think of the better aspects of religion as emotional hygiene, and nothing more. Of course this is a dry technical description, for something that argues love (hey, I'm no angel, but I'm happiest obviously when I can love some aspect or another of life)-- The more a religious thinker stresses love, inclusiveness, open-mindedness, the higher I regard them. In my mind, the first step away from including everyone is the end of any religion I can endorse. For me, the myths are pretty deep. If you look at Spinoza, he was excommunicated for seeing both Jewish and Christian myth metaphorically. He was hated for being an atheist. In my mind, he's the perfect example of someone both sides will hate. Because he does try to explain the mind-matter split of reality, and he does try to connect science and religion. The religious will accuse him of atheism and the atheist will accuse him of religion.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;167136 wrote:

I think of the better aspects of religion as emotional hygiene, and nothing more. Of course this is a dry technical description, for something that argues love (hey, I'm no angel, but I'm happiest obviously when I can love some aspect or another of life)-- The more a religious thinker stresses love, inclusiveness, open-mindedness, the higher I regard them. In my mind, the first step away from including everyone is the end of any religion I can endorse. For me, the myths are pretty deep. If you look at Spinoza, he was excommunicated for seeing both Jewish and Christian myth metaphorically. He was hated for being an atheist. In my mind, he's the perfect example of someone both sides will hate. Because he does try to explain the mind-matter split of reality, and he does try to connect science and religion. The religious will accuse him of atheism and the atheist will accuse him of religion.

I'm all for love, but if we need to believe in some spooky supernatural figure in order to show compassion to others, there's a problem.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;167068 wrote:

[SIZE=+4]"...Now faith is the assurance of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses]..." - Hebrews 11: 1[/SIZE]

good work kenneth! something to build on...
how do you read the above? is it saying when we get what we hope for our faith is increased that some unseen cause is facilitating? i do notice that more people who have faith are happy than unhappy-is it the happiness that gave them faith or the other way around?

there must be a way of reconciling faith and reason-it would be stupid to have faith in something that goes against the faculty of reason.

there are ways of perceiving without the use of the five ordinary senses.
what is the reason for trusting a stranger whom you meet-do you consider his clothes and the context of the situation and his storyline and compare to the number of other time you have been approached by a stranger needing help and mathematically determine if it is justifiable to trust him? or do you just have a gut feeling that he is trustworthy or not trustworthy? that is one example of a means of perceiving without using the five physical senses, isnt it?

i think if everyone dissected everything they believe they would find that in some cases there are no reasons for them to believe what they do.

does intuition play no part in the search for truth? is intuition also a myth like the concept of a creator/sustainer/god?

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;167128 wrote:

Antony Flew "Theology and Falsification," 1950

This looks interesting. Thanks for this.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;167135 wrote:

Yes. But what Einstein or Flew stated has no particular significance. What they argued can stand on its own merits, or not.

That's true. Maybe it was just the politeness of Einstein's heart that made him use the word "God." He probably would have been just as happy with "nature." But he seems to have been a friendly guy, and there many many lovable human beings out there who don't bother to sophisticate or ditch their unconsidered conceptions of God.

In Ulysses, Stephen refuses his dying mother her death wish, if I remember correctly. She wanted him to pray with her, or something. Forgive me. It's been awhile. But the point is: isn't it a bit cruel to close one's self off to other humans because of abstractions such god or no-god or maybe-god? Don't we all know someone who has unconsidered beliefs, who yet is kind, likable, worthy of respect?

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 08:46 PM ----------

Zetherin;167137 wrote:

I'm all for love, but if we need to believe in some spooky supernatural figure in order to show compassion to others, there's a problem.

Now that's something we can completely agree on!

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167115 wrote:

A.) They express their beliefs of the supernatural in the vaguest way possible. In this way, they can avoid contention by shoving bowls of word salad down your throat. It's brilliant - how can you argue with someone when you don't even understand what they mean?

B.) They consistently redefine the word to suit our understanding of the world. God is everything! God is reality, God is humanity! That way, they sit on an unfalsifiable claim, a claim that is true by definition (their twisted definition). In this way, they think they don't appear irrational.

C.) They claim that spirituality and God are experiential and cannot be understood by everyone. In this way, they don't have to humor controversy, since they now have their own personal jesus that only they understand. It's quite a take on qualia, that's for sure.

That's pretty good, actually, very succinct. Very important observation about the experiential dimension of religion. In fact it is, as you say, becoming re-discovered through what is characterised as 'new age'. Perhaps the experiential aspect can be seen as a matter of 'qualifying your understanding'. You would not expect to understand the theory of relativity or non-linear algebra without first studying math. There are many other types of understanding that have pre-requisites. Now what if (just hypothetically) the Psalmist is correct in saying 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God'? Or in a more secular expression 'if the doors are perception are cleansed (Blake). You see it might take an extraordinary type of perception to understand that other dimension of existence. I think this is largely lost in the modern context. It has degenerated into sloganeering. Karen Armstrong's excellent Case for God has an indepth analysis of the experiential roots of the Christian religion.

As for 'word salad' - that is a bit sarcastic, although no doubt there are targets worthy of it. But in the context of Buddhism, which is non-theistic but spiritual, there is actually a very precise lexicon within the experience arising from meditation is discussed. But I will leave that for the Buddhism thread.

As for the 'personal take on Jesus', I think the way Christians understand it more a personal relationship with Jesus. I am starting to know what they mean by that, and I think it means something real. I am sure it is not just made up. But I will let them speak for that.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 11:58 AM ----------

Reconstructo;167140 wrote:

That's true. Maybe it was just the politeness of Einstein's heart that made him use the word "God."

Not at all. See Einstein: His Life and Universe, by Walter Isaacson. There is a chapter called Einstein's God. He is absolutely unequivocal in his rejection of atheism. He says things like 'atheists are those who still feel the weight of their chains', and 'I know there are those who say that God doesn't exist, but what makes me really angry is when they quote me to support them'. At the same time, he is dismissive of religion of all kinds, his inherited faith (Judaism) and any form of formal worship or ritualism. He distinguishes between philosophical theism and confessional religion.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 12:06 PM ----------

Jebediah;167135 wrote:

Yes. But what Einstein or Flew stated has no particular significance. What they argued can stand on its own merits, or not.

And I think it does stand on its own merits. My allegiance with God is far more philosophical than it is religious. I think western philosophy without the conception of the 'uncaused cause' is ultimately incoherent, and this incoherence is painfully manifest in the shambolic state of modern physical cosmology and atomic physics.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167133 wrote:

It is also interesting to note that Antony Flew, who was a leading proponent of philosophical atheism for all of his career, late in life changed his position to one of philosophical deism (as distinct from confessional religion), on the basis of the improbability of abiogenesis, and the strength of the argument from design. Source

I, for one, hold atheists who claim to know there is no god in the same esteem as I hold believers. Probability wise, were anyone to claim 100% truth for either side of the argument, that person would have to be infinitely incorrect.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167142 wrote:

Not at all. See Einstein: His Life and Universe, by Walter Isaacson. There is a chapter called Einstein's God. He is absolutely unequivocal in his rejection of atheism. He says things like 'atheists are those who still feel the weight of their chains', and 'I know there are those who say that God doesn't exist, but what makes me really angry is when they quote me to support them'. At the same time, he is dismissive of religion of all kinds, his inherited faith (Judaism) and any form of formal worship or ritualism. He distinguishes between philosophical theism and confessional religion.

jeeprs;167142 wrote:

Not at all. See Einstein: His Life and Universe, by Walter Isaacson. There is a chapter called Einstein's God. He is absolutely unequivocal in his rejection of atheism. He says things like 'atheists are those who still feel the weight of their chains', and 'I know there are those who say that God doesn't exist, but what makes me really angry is when they quote me to support them'. At the same time, he is dismissive of religion of all kinds, his inherited faith (Judaism) and any form of formal worship or ritualism. He distinguishes between philosophical theism and confessional religion.

Thanks for this information, J.

Perhaps I simply guessed wrong. Where I'm standing, an atheism that rejects idolatry used to justify contempt and religion that rejects idolatry that justifies contempt are one and the same thing. You know I have a great respect for certain aspects of the religious tradition. It's a stretch, but one can interpret the story of Jesus as the crucifixion of a man who was essentially an atheist. Jesus was trying to define God as love, in my interpretation. He quoted the psalms (which?) that said "ye are gods." He was accused of blasphemy, of claiming to be God. Of course there are other words put in this literary characters mouth that can be interpreted in the reverse direction. But the Jesus quotes I like point completely away from idolatry and self-righteousness and define religion as nothing but love in the pursuit of a "life more abundant."
Of course I also love the traditions from farther East. And I also love the secular positions that stress tolerance, the enjoyment of life.

The essence of my position is that humans should not use abstractions of any kind to justify their contempt for and exploitation of human beings. Of course those who pursue "emotional hygiene" will naturally develop techniques and a tradition surrounding this pursuit. The down side is that any tradition can be perceived as an elitist minority. This is why I am so willing to embrace atheism, as long as it is not used as yet another abstraction to exclude other human beings from our sympathy. I think of atheism as a purifying flame. That part of the religious tradition that is consistent with atheism is in my eyes the better part. As long as this atheism does not function as yet one more cruel exclusive attitude.

0 Replies

@prothero,

If atheism is the burning away of beliefs that have been beaten into us by conformist traditions then I am also atheist. And I often think along the lines of Jesus being an athesit. Shocking as it seems, I think this is true. But then there are those experiences that can't be accounted for in the framework of (shall we say) metaphysical naturalism (the polite term for materialism). As Gavin says above, the existence or non-existence of G*D is still an open question. Officially I am still agnostic.

1 Reply

@gavin25,

gavin25;167155 wrote:

I, for one, hold atheists who claim to know there is no god in the same esteem as I hold believers. Probability wise, were anyone to claim 100% truth for either side of the argument, that person would have to be infinitely incorrect.

If someone claims that he is going to win the lottery, and plays it every day, and someone claims that he won't, and doesn't play it, you would hold them in the same esteem?

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know