Analytic Thought: Consequences for Religious Belief

I really don't see any reason at all why "God" is a better name for the universe itself (if it is the Uncaused Cause) than, you know, "the universe." Sure, "God" is shorter, but it also carries a lot of baggage in terms of the attributes and connections attached to it, whereas almost everyone would know what I mean if I say "the universe." ("Everything that exists in the same natural framework as us and everything we have observed, wither directly or indirectly.")

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

"That's what happened" is not much of an explanation, I think, in Universe A or B or whatever.

Only if Thomas Aquinas was one — which stretches somewhat the definition of the term, I think

Well, perhaps. If Pantheism is true, I guess I can see why one would not want to use a term that has been historically used for a transcendent, personal deity.

edited 3rd May '12 10:36:19 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

You mean to say that "the Bible is only a vague metaphor because I dare not call it lies, and God is actually Plato's Idea of Godd/Beauty/Perfection" is a Tomist concept?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

That isn't what he said at all. Reread the posts, please.

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

Actually, Thomas favored Aristotelian metaphysics over the Platonic one; and the idea that the Bible needs to be interpreted and is not to be taken literally can be traced back at least to Saint Augustine (and quite probably, to even earlier times), who was also the one who identified God with the Platonic idea of good (and even then, it is quite possible than he was not the first one to do that).

edited 3rd May '12 10:44:05 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Isn't that closer to deism?

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

It's not traditional Pantheism, true, but I consider it an off-shoot of it, if you think of it as a sort of mist or fog hanging over everything. It's closer to Pantheism than it is to Theism, I think.

That's part of the problem is that thinking about these things is so individualistic and very unclear. I agree, removing the word "God" probably isn't realistic. But I think that creating an understanding that these things are individualistic and unclear, and talking honestly about what different beliefs actually mean...I think those things can help.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Doesn't Deism assume a "clockmaker God" which started the universe somehow and then stopped interfering with it? Here, instead, I am postulating a God beyond time, which grants existence and reason of being to everything that is, and that is as involved in the Creation now as He always was.

edited 3rd May '12 10:45:54 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Well, the anthropic principle generally falls into "all possible universes exist" so there's no reason why A instead of B, because it's actually A and B, but you're in A, so you can't observe B, so you only question A.

OK; but then I can ask, why do all possible universe exist?

That's a legitimate question, I think — after all, there is nothing contradictory in suggesting that not all possible universes exist.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Because why not? We can't observe things that don't exist, so we have no way of measuring the reasonability of things existing versus not existing except in the context inside a universe.

MOREOVER, I argue that "to exist" is already temporally relevant, so any claims of things that exist outside one's universe really is a non-statement. All you're really saying is "with great supertech, I can create a portal that makes me interact with things I'll call different dimensions"

I mean, when you break right down to it, two universes that never interact with one another and only one universe are not distinct phenomenons to the person in the one universe.

I think I would be safe if I said that most religious doctrines (and most believers, even if their doctrine is more nuanced 'cause they might not know it,) understand "God" as something that has a mind and/or a personality. Usually "God" is understood (often by deists and almost universally by theists) as something with a plan of some sort. So using "God" to refer to the universe would be a very curious way to re-define the word, from that perspective.

Even if Catholic dogma doesn't define "God" as something with a personality or a plan, it's entirely possible that a majority of Catholics believe that God has a personality or a plan.

We can't find definitions that everyone agrees on, but we could try to use ones that are understandable to the "common man," so to speak, and so I don't think it's prudent to call the universe itself "God" unless you understand the universe itself as something that has some plan or personality or a mind.

Again, there are probably millions who would be absolutely fine with thinking "God"="universe" and wouldn't shoehorn any notions of personality or such into the concept of "God," but most people would probably associate the word with something that has a personality.

I don't think the universe shows any sign of planning and I don't think it looks at all as if it even could have a personality, so if I were to call it "God," I would be using "God" in a sense that most religious people wouldn't agree with.

Actually, that kind of non-personal God, or "God=the laws of nature," is probably the God that Einstein believed in. (Actually, he said he didn't believe in a "personal" God.) Same goes for Hawking, who only uses "God" as a rhetorical device (and says so when asked.)

edited 3rd May '12 10:51:44 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I thought the crux of deism was simply to avoid the more supernatural elements of traditional theism; miracles, prophets, divine scriptures etc. Thus allowing for a God that does not interfere in the day-to-day life of the universe on a human level, as it were. It is possible I am getting my terms mixed up, though.

edited 3rd May '12 10:50:21 AM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

I was being a jerk here, but, save for the "I dare not call it lies", which is something I infer, the rest is what I think I've read, and it genuinely puzzles me. If you're not going to speak of God as a god, and think of it as some sort of Platonic Idea of supreme perfect perfectness in every possible trait that humans deem positive, including not-existing-in-the-material-world, then please understand that I don't see the need for you to call it "God" at all, nor to call yourself a "Christian".

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Wait wait, I never said that God has not a personality or a plan. I believe that He does, although His Mind is certainly very different in nature from human minds — for example, it does not belong in time or in space.

Well, definitions are always tricky in matters of religion, I think. Still, I have no objection to supernatural elements in themselves — I certainly believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, for example — but that's not, strictly speaking, necessary for belief in God.

edited 3rd May '12 10:53:15 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

That's not a mind. That's not an anything. It's just a fancy way of saying "let's apply our thinking to something else, but then assume none of the limitations apply."

That's why I always ask "Define God"

And I'll always answer, "If I could, I would be God. And if you could understand, you would".

Well, I don't want to argue definitions. But in any case, I think that the Ultimate Answer contains some sort of element of purposiveness — of "behaviour" directed towards "aims", so to say. That's what I mean when I talk about God having personhood.

edited 3rd May '12 10:56:01 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND, THE CONCEPT OF GOD, UH!

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Well isn't that begging the question.

If you can't even define your own terms, why should anyone bother using them? Or taking them seriously? If it's entirely undefined, then that makes it meaningless-which means we can't draw any conclusions.

It's not entirely undefined. I mentioned the ultimate question; and I said that "God" stands for the ultimate answer. But I don't know the essence of God, and hence I don't know the answer to the question.

edited 3rd May '12 10:58:00 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

We have no reason to posit "God" (if we're stuck using this term for no apparent reason) to be anything other than "The Universe" itself. Ockham's Razor applies, so there we have it.

Well, there you go. I can accept the Universe as an "unexplained" "uncaused cause" and deal with having that question mark behind "where did the laws of nature come from?" If I'm offered a model where the universe and the laws of nature are explained by a God in a deeper level, but that level and God is "beyond causality" or "beyond reasons," then I don't see why that's not just having the question mark one level deeper. I would rather postulate as few entities as I can, as long as I'm not explaining less, so I'd rather assume the universe than assume a God.

Let's go back a bit...

Me:

You:

And then you say that you believe that God has a personality or a plan, and that stuff doesn't come anywhere in my definition of a universe. So "God=universe" isn't applicable in my model, and neither is it in yours, unless you postulate that the universe has a plan or a mind, which doesn't seem to be what you're saying.

So no, my model is not that "God=universe."

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Actually, "the Platonic Idea of supreme perfect perfectness" is an horribly imprecise description of God. It has to be, given that — as I said — God is beyond all understanding and beyond the reach of all reality.

I call Him "God" because that's the name that was always used for Him; and I call myself a Christian because I subscribe to the teachings of Jesus, and I think that He was — barking mad as though this may sound — the Incarnation of this supremely transcendent, abstract God.

But here, I did not want to go into matters of Revelation; rather, I wanted to talk about God using reason alone.

To me it seems more that you think that God is the universe, and that it has not personhood; while I think that God is not the universe, and that it has personhood.

edited 3rd May '12 11:02:57 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I still don't see any reason at all why I can't say "I'm willing to assume the universe until I know what caused it" without sounding like "I believe that universe=god." It sounds like you've decided that anything that anyone assumes as the most fundamental level of existence is automatically God, and I don't think that's very reasonable. It probably fits very well with all the models you might have ever had in your mind, but to me it's just a needless insertion of an ill-defined word into a model that didn't need it.

I mean, I do understand why you want to do that, but I don't need or want to change my definitions to match your understanding of reality if there isn't a good reason to assume a personal dictionary for the duration of this discussion.

I get what you're saying. You might be right that we always can ask "why" for every level that we go. And for you, that question is God. But I'm fine with having it as a question that doesn't have an answer yet, 'cause then I don't have to use words that are usually defined very differently.

Basically, it goes like this:

?->mathematics and the laws of nature->the universe.

For you, it's ?( -> & = ) God->mathematics and the laws of nature->the universe.

See? The concept of "God" seems completely shoehorned in there, but it's probably helpful if you're one of the people who are more content with "God" than they are with "?". I'm not one of those people, so I'm fine with having "?" in my model, rather than "God." Especially as I don't impose attributes to "?". If I thought that "?" has a personality or a plan, then I probably would call it God instead of "?". But I don't.

Similarly, I think that

The laws of nature->unknown event->evolution.

"Unknown event" is abiogenesis. It'll probably be solved some day, but we don't know yet how it happened. For most religious people who accept evolution, it seems to be:

God->the laws of nature->unknown event planned/caused by God->evolution (which might also be directed by God.)

Again, God is shoehorned there for some reason, as if it's more of an answer than "?". In some models, it might be more of an answer, but my understanding of logic doesn't allow me to hold to those models, so it's a non-answer to me.

I hope I've pinpointed the difference.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

For an incredibly loose definition of "personhood."

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-