DAILY SCIENCE FIX - PHILOSOPHY - Want to talk about God?
I want to talk about god. Do you...?
(I wanted to post this last night, but a party intervened)
I believe that things happen for a purpose. I can't prove it. I just feel it in my bones or my soul or gut or spirit or what. I just cannot accept that things happen for no reason; that things are just a series of random events. In a way, that's why sometimes I become obsessed with a determinate universe for then everything happens according to plan. Of course as we discussed in the last two weeks, determinism raises serious issues of free will. How can we have free will if everything that happens as scripted. You can't really. On the other hand true free will that anyone can act out any way they choose, I feel that road leads to chaos.
Here's why I think so: If there is free will then things can happen unpredictably. There is no set path. One could even call that randomness. Indeed as we discussed the last two weeks that it's likely that there is randomness in the universe. A completely determinate universe is hard to swallow.
But if we are free to affect the universe as we see fit and whatever consequences that result from our unpredictable acts, then here's my problem... how could god exist in this scenario? If we express god as all powerful but there is randomness is not the effects of the randomness theoretically more powerful even than god? What if, a stray particle, or a random act of free will from a conscious being sets off a chain reaction eventually destroying the universe? Would an all powerful god allow the involuntary destruction of the universe?
This might surprise you but I believe in god. I don't know if god is a he or a she or an it or even anything that can match what my tiny brain can conjure; if god is the universe or bigger than the universe; perfect or imperfect; if god is time or energy or the laws of physics, or the whole universe; if god has a consciousness or self-awareness. I have ideas but I don't know...no one can. But I believe in something greater than us and I want to share that spirituality with others who believe, many who do not subscribe to any formal religion.
Religion is merely the merger of spirituality with ritual. (Ritual and tradition are very similar) I think the major problem is that people confuse the ritual with the spirituality and then fight over it. The spirituality part at least by my definition respects differences and is never violent or angry or hateful. So anyone that excludes people or hates them is not spiritual in my book and if they say they're religious I consider them merely ritualistic.
I believe somehow god acts. I believe I have experienced the phenomenon of things happening for a reason...many times. I ascribe that to god. But as a logical thinking person I cannot see how god can cause things. Does god obey the laws of physics; does he violate them; is the true truth forever hidden from us? I just have no clue.
I think balance is the fundamental property of the universe. For every force there is an equal and opposite force. Every time something happens it is automatically opposed. This is how the universe keeps us in control. You could call that Yin and Yang.
Maybe that's the key though; god constrains us with limits. We can act but there will be a counter force returning things to balance. The harder we act against order, the harder the counter forces will react restoring the balance. Thus we have free will but within limits and within reason.
How do I justify what I feel to someone who doesn't accept god - like an atheist? I have no problem with atheism; on the contrary it's far more logical. I respect that. I have a hard time arguing with it. But it breaks down for me when you ask it the big questions? I can't accept that everything is just a pile of random bullshit with no purpose, no direction, no plan. I just can't. Even if you show me a determinate universe without a god, it still formed by chance.
Thus I don't find it useful to be an atheist. Again, I have zero problems with atheism and I want to hear from atheists how they get past what I call the big questions. What is going on? Where are we headed? What is our purpose? Why do people suffer? Do we have free will? What is consciousness? What does it all mean?
There's no god in any of those questions but I find God the concept helps me answer those questions. To me god is more about philosophy and psychology than god is about science. But that doesn't make god any less real to me.
There is much science doesn't know but science is good and it's an important part of how we recognize and interact with the world. And science is rational and I am a rational being and I believe in science. But I just think there are things that are greater things beyond our science because this universe contains strains of beautiful order. And that order to me seems to be the purpose that we all exist for. We're all part of bringing that order about. The universe could devolve into chaos very, very quickly and the fact that it doesn't just speaks to me... An atheist would probably say it's just random luck but then we live the existence of insignificant grains of sand with the ability to contemplate the meaning of the universe. And maybe that's true. Ecclesatices says, in the end; its all vanity and chasing after wind. And it's hard to argue with that, even after adding in god.
That's all I want to say for now. But I genuinely want to hear others ideas. I'm not interested in criticizing anyone or even debating. I think god can be approached logically and I'm curious as to others thoughts and concepts. I have learned much by taking to others, and I hope you will open up here in the comments.
Stay Tuned...
Red Cross
For me the God I love. He doesn’t need me, but he loves me.
I seek him, out of love and appreciation. He returns the love and we develop a relationship
I want to keep this relationship, because he is trustworthy and he listens, like a good father and a GOOD friend. Unlike some of our so-called friends; I can lean upon him when I am troubled, because he really wants to help me. I learn from him and I find delight in what he teaches, because I see the wisdom. I see the beauty of his works and I appreciate them.
The challenge though; if I don’t maintain my integrity to this relationship, my friend, THE MOST HIGH of the UNIVERSE, who took an interest in me, is hurt and he withdraws from me. If that happens, I lose the best friend ever.
It is really about LOVE, His love protects me. He really doesn’t need me. I am humbled.
ABUSIVE FREEWILL, HARMS OTHERS
(Galatians 5:13-6:5) 13 YOU were, of course, called for freedom, brothers; only do not use this freedom as an inducement for the flesh, but through love slave for one another. 14 For the entire Law stands fulfilled in one saying, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If, though, YOU keep on biting and devouring one another, look out that YOU do not get annihilated by one another. 16 But I say, Keep walking by spirit and YOU will carry out no fleshly desire at all. 17 For the flesh is against the spirit in its desire, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that the very things that YOU would like to do YOU do not do. 18 Furthermore, if YOU are being led by spirit, YOU are not under law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, 20 idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, 21 envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom.
FREEDOM; WITH NO TEARS OR PAIN
22 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law…... 25 If we are living by spirit, let us go on walking orderly also by spirit. 26 Let us not become egotistical, stirring up competition with one another, envying one another. …….. 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, ………4 But let each one prove what his own work is, and then he will have cause for exultation in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.
FREEWILL, Carry your own load, learn to live in Harmony with each other, receive the fruitage of spirit.
Learning how to apply these things requires a deeper search, but; only if one has a desire to Learn how to live in harmony. LOVE
(Revelation 21:3-4) . . .“Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.. . .
What’s wrong with that?
June 1, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing wrong with that, Resistance, and in this instance, the quotes from the Bible do an excellent job of speaking for you and getting your point across.
June 1, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Resistance -- nothing is wrong with that.
June 1, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe that things happen for a purpose."
Compare: "I believe that things happen from a purpose."
The obvious first question: What is a purpose (that things could happen for/from it)? Consider: purpose == objective in mind
Purposeful determination, aka extended willpower, clearly fits the 'from' version for ordinary people, with or without a "god routine" running. You set a goal, you keep your attention on it and act accordingly, and you might well succeed if you don't die trying.
Just curious: Why the lower and upper case 'god' and 'God'?
I'd be interested to see what this means in particulars:
"I believe I have experienced the phenomenon of things happening for a reason...many times. I ascribe that to god. "
June 1, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lower case "god" is just so people understand I'm talking generically.
As for the examples you request, Ill speak generically.
There are three types I can think of now (there may be more): 1) Where things happen too neatly and seem to click into place. You could call this luck or whatever, but the events often seem to happen despite the odds against it.
2) when I or others act out of character at a particularly opportune time, often changing the character or path of things. This is a little harder than 1) to explain.
3) When I extrapolate things into the future to for things that should otherwise be impossible to predict. And yet...they happen. Maybe self-fufilling prophecy but often it depends on things beyond my control to happen
June 1, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"synchornicity" or "happy accidents"
I don't get the "for a reason" part. That things work out well sometimes is not a matter of purpose. Sometimes I do the right thing in terms of outcomes even for the wrong reason, for instance.
Yes, sometimes things do seem to "come together" favorably and unexpectedly or counter-statistically. It's of course very difficult to evaluate those situations scientifically, because they are statistical outliers.
#3 sounds like it might qualify as purposeful conduct on your part.
June 1, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We tend to try to explain the un-knowable in terms of the unbelievable.
June 1, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the results are often unspeakable!
June 1, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How can we have free will if everything that happens as scripted. You can't really. On the other hand true free will that anyone can act out any way they choose, I feel that road leads to chaos."
That is an artificial dichotomy that supposes it has to be entirely one or the other but not various combinations of both.
I am going to say (PLEASE don't take this as an insult...please) that you, along with many on this planet, fall into a trap that accepts church dogma about God. You presume that God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. In other words, you project the standard issue monotheistic conception of God that is rote dogma of the modern church and then poke holes in it. The fact that many scientists and philosophers play this game is actually rather extraordinary. You can rather quickly disprove the dogma, but that doesn't erase God or universal purposefulness/chaos/free will/determinism from the equation. It is, quite frankly, a strawman.
Now, determinism is practically a given if we believe our senses and the empirical truths that your senses deliver unto us. We can accurately predict much phenomena. We can accurately control a smaller but still large quantity of phenomena. We can prove hypthoses, which in an undetermined chaos could never happen because randomness would infect the effect (and also the cause). A simple way to put this is statistics and the coin toss. There is an equal chance of heads or tails... but on top of that, the coin with two sides exists and will be tossed in order to prove the statistic. Chaos would be the dominant factor if not only could the 50/50 statistic not be proven (perpetual heads flips, or some other lopsided factor), but if the coin itself were to cease physical existence or change factors (two heads, transform into dodecahedron, or assume a liquid state).
So there is a bounded level of determinism if we accept the truth of our perception (and we have reason not to given the predictive power of sense-derived emprical data). But there is chaos, at least for now. We can not accurately predict certain phenomena: weather on the macro level, quanta on the micro level. Quanta is the much more concrete of the two because there is a presumption that given enough data, weather could be predictable. With subatomic particles, however, chaos is a given, a law. The burden is now on a theory which can explain the law... the Copenhagan principles and the multiple universe theory are the two most popular.
So, we don't have to boil it down to one or the other because at this time both comfortably co-exist.
"If there is free will then things can happen unpredictably. There is no set path."
That is not necessarily true. We only have so many choices, ergo free will is immediately bounded. We are not going to float in the air contra the law of gravity while walking down the street, for instance... or by thinking grow an additional hair on our heads. So there is a predictive operation at foot. We can determine how many possible choices exist for a given action and determine a set of effects... giving an aura of omniscience because we know "everything" about a small and bounded set of facts. Nevertheless, we make choices, and those choices come from our discernment over possible factors: what we can recognize. By broadening the path of recognition, we expand our consciousness and increase the number of choices. Ergo, free will can be cultivated, but within concrete boundaries.
Of course, these sets of choices can be narrowed by authorites outside of ourselves. A police state, for instance, or an abusive parent, or a controlling spouse can limit the choices and contract free will.
"But I just think there are things that are greater things beyond our science because this universe contains strains of beautiful order. And that order to me seems to be the purpose that we all exist for. We're all part of bringing that order about."
A simple comparison:
Do we appreciate a painting by analyzing the paint, the canvas, the structure? No.
Then why do we insist that this is the way we appreciate the universe? It is one thing to understand the universe scientifically, but quite another to appreciate it artistically. That is where spirituality and philosophy come into play. That is why I belive, not in a diving creator, but in a divine creative artist using pre-existing materials (perhaps its own essence) to paint a cosmos.
June 1, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is, we can appreciate a painting by analyzing the paint and the structure and the canvas. We appreciate it more, because those things that make up the painting are chosen by the artist for particular reasons.
Understanding enhances and broadens appreciation - Michaelangelo didn't carve statues from a hunk of rock, Michaelangelo went to the marble quarries, he learned how to quarry, he learned what a good vein of marble is, how many cuts are available from a particular vein, where the faults are likely to lie and where and how to make those cuts to avoid or incorporate those faults in the design. He learned how to cut away, what tools are used and when, how much polish is needed and how to polish certain cuts of marble.
It "isn't one thing to understand the universe scientifically, but quite another to appreciate it artistically" it's all things in true appreciation.
June 1, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Understanding enhances and broadens appreciation - Michaelangelo didn't carve statues from a hunk of rock, Michaelangelo went to the marble quarries, he learned how to quarry, he learned what a good vein of marble is, how many cuts are available from a particular vein, where the faults are likely to lie and where and how to make those cuts to avoid or incorporate those faults in the design. He learned how to cut away, what tools are used and when, how much polish is needed and how to polish certain cuts of marble."
Yes, these are all parts of the creative process, and they can facilitate appreciation and awareness of the creation... but do they replace reverence for a work of art? Can they explain the function of a creative work? Can they further explain the why of the creative process?
Ergo, is there not something missing if one strictly looks at a work of art as a sum of its parts and the laws which surround and infuse them?
June 1, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Knowing those things about artists, how they work, how they choose the medium and why they choose the medium enhances our appreciation of the work. Why limit yourself to only one aspect when learning how and why an artist creates something makes it all the better?
Knowing isn't replacing reverence it's adding and creating reverence for the work. Anyone can look at a painting or a work of art and see that it is a nice painting and appreciate it, but when you understand what makes it a good painting you can know why it is great.
A work of art IS the sum of all its parts, it is in knowing how to put all those parts together that makes the artist and the art great. The universe is the sum of all its parts and the more we understand how those parts work and their contribution to the universe that we achieve appreciation.
June 1, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A work of art IS the sum of all its parts, it is in knowing how to put all those parts together that makes the artist and the art great. The universe is the sum of all its parts and the more we understand how those parts work and their contribution to the universe that we achieve appreciation."
But do you presume that a marble sculpture arose without artistic intent or without a creative impulse? And does any of your appreciation explain the existence of the creative impulse itself and its novel consequences?
At a certain point on this planet, genetic material replicated and began life, and accident fails to explain the creative impulse undergirding the universe. That is what I meant by appreciating the universe as art... as a creative generative matrix of novelty and boundless possibility.
June 1, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Randomness doesn't mean something is accidental, it means that there is a probability distribution within finite variables. There is no purpose or design, but there is predictability in outcome. Not every work of art produced by Michaelangelo was successful, not every work produced by the universe is successful, of which earth can testify to - many life forms were unsucessful, it was only by accident that some were.
June 1, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant to say "it is only by randomness that some were."
June 1, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Michelangelo, therefore, a random creative generator dispensing works of artistic value via probability? Or are you saying that probability dictates that someone would inevitably be Michelangelo and that probability explains the novelty of his creative output?
You have to admit, there is a mystery. The mystery of creation and the propensity of the universe to create and reproduce. I am not so quick to dismiss it as chance or coincidence. One day it could be explained scientifically, and I will be a flat-earther. As for now, I err on the side of Kantian (pun intended), and say that there are antinomies that the human mind and its science can not comprehend, and for me therein lie the Holy Spirit for contemplation and worship.
June 1, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that by some divine intervention and/or design there was a Michaelangelo?
June 1, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am saying what Michelangelo did reveals the essential act of the divine via inspired creation.
I am not using God to explain anything, but to in fact throw a little obscuring dirt on probability.
Creativity is a mysterious yet ubiquitous function, and probability/randomness/coincidence doesn't do it for me. That answer is faith based too.
I don't have very many answers, I wouldn't presume that Michelangelo was a product of divine intervention. I don't know. But his and others' work is inspired novel creation. And the craftmanship and dedication only accentuates the core inspiration.
June 1, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We create things because it is a useful trait (combination of invention, imagination and education.)
We appreciate such things because they are created as functions of ourselves; that is, there is no other way to create them but an appreciable one.
It is really pretty simple when one stops sticking weird, implausible explanations in there.
June 1, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now explain the creative process.
For extra credit, two of your three words describing creativity can not be measured or predicted.
Simple on the surface, but better people than I have reached incredible depths.
June 1, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you tell me a single thing (of human origin) that is not -- originally -- the product of a creative process?
That is how people function. They imagine things, they invent things, they study things, they make things.
If there was no creative process, we would not be here wondering about what a creative process might be.
That is not to say that there is not a wealth of information that could be unearthed about when these traits started appearing, which part of the brain of it is responsible and so on, but you are imbuing it with meaning in itself (or begging the question.)
June 1, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Can you tell me a single thing (of human origin) that is not -- originally -- the product of a creative process?"
Can you tell me of a single material thing that is not a product of the creative process?
To paraphrase you: without the creative process, the universe would not exist.
"That is how people function. They imagine things, they invent things, they study things, they make things."
Yes.
"If there was no creative process, we would not be here wondering about what a creative process might be."
Exactly.
"That is not to say that there is not a wealth of information that could be unearthed about when these traits started appearing, which part of the brain of it is responsible and so on, but you are imbuing it with meaning in itself (or begging the question.)"
I am imbuing it with mystery. I am pointing to the essential limitations of mind, pure reason, and pure materialism. You say it's simple. I say it is complicated. We can no more prove or disprove one another's assertions than Richard Dawkins could Bishop Berkeley (or vice versa).
What matters is is that we understand one another in scope and measure.
"Thesis: In the series of the world-causes there is some necessary being. Antithesis: There is nothing necessary in the world, but in this series all is contingent. Both may be true. The thesis may be true of things-in-themselves (other than as they appear). The antithesis may be true of things as they appear."
June 1, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipper - in my defense (and no insult was taken)
I did say,
I dont think I fell into any church dogma trap, and Im speaking as generically as possible. I do tend to think monotheistically but only in the sense that I do not feel there are "competing" entities that are greater than us and I lump it, them, whatever, into one group or unit acting in harmony.
June 1, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How can we have free will if everything that happens as scripted. You can't really. On the other hand true free will that anyone can act out any way they choose, I feel that road leads to chaos."
That is an artificial dichotomy that supposes it has to be entirely one or the other but not various combinations of both.
I am going to say (PLEASE don't take this as an insult...please) that you, along with many on this planet, fall into a trap that accepts church dogma about God. You presume that God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. In other words, you project the standard issue monotheistic conception of God that is rote dogma of the modern church and then poke holes in it. The fact that many scientists and philosophers play this game is actually rather extraordinary. You can rather quickly disprove the dogma, but that doesn't erase God or universal purposefulness/chaos/free will/determinism from the equation. It is, quite frankly, a strawman.
Now, determinism is practically a given if we believe our senses and the empirical truths that your senses deliver unto us. We can accurately predict much phenomena. We can accurately control a smaller but still large quantity of phenomena. We can prove hypthoses, which in an undetermined chaos could never happen because randomness would infect the effect (and also the cause). A simple way to put this is statistics and the coin toss. There is an equal chance of heads or tails... but on top of that, the coin with two sides exists and will be tossed in order to prove the statistic. Chaos would be the dominant factor if not only could the 50/50 statistic not be proven (perpetual heads flips, or some other lopsided factor), but if the coin itself were to cease physical existence or change factors (two heads, transform into dodecahedron, or assume a liquid state).
So there is a bounded level of determinism if we accept the truth of our perception (and we have reason not to given the predictive power of sense-derived emprical data). But there is chaos, at least for now. We can not accurately predict certain phenomena: weather on the macro level, quanta on the micro level. Quanta is the much more concrete of the two because there is a presumption that given enough data, weather could be predictable. With subatomic particles, however, chaos is a given, a law. The burden is now on a theory which can explain the law... the Copenhagan principles and the multiple universe theory are the two most popular.
So, we don't have to boil it down to one or the other because at this time both comfortably co-exist.
"If there is free will then things can happen unpredictably. There is no set path."
That is not necessarily true. We only have so many choices, ergo free will is immediately bounded. We are not going to float in the air contra the law of gravity while walking down the street, for instance... or by thinking grow an additional hair on our heads. So there is a predictive operation at foot. We can determine how many possible choices exist for a given action and determine a set of effects... giving an aura of omniscience because we know "everything" about a small and bounded set of facts. Nevertheless, we make choices, and those choices come from our discernment over possible factors: what we can recognize. By broadening the path of recognition, we expand our consciousness and increase the number of choices. Ergo, free will can be cultivated, but within concrete boundaries.
Of course, these sets of choices can be narrowed by authorites outside of ourselves. A police state, for instance, or an abusive parent, or a controlling spouse can limit the choices and contract free will.
"But I just think there are things that are greater things beyond our science because this universe contains strains of beautiful order. And that order to me seems to be the purpose that we all exist for. We're all part of bringing that order about."
A simple comparison:
Do we appreciate a painting by analyzing the paint, the canvas, the structure? No.
Then why do we insist that this is the way we appreciate the universe? It is one thing to understand the universe scientifically, but quite another to appreciate it artistically. That is where spirituality and philosophy come into play. That is why I belive, not in a diving creator, but in a divine creative artist using pre-existing materials (perhaps its own essence) to paint a cosmos.
June 1, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes, the belief that will likely be the undoing of mankind.
You do not find it useful, because you are shrinking from your responsibility to seek answers to your big questions. Here are my answers at this point in time, in order:
* Everything.
* Further.
* None.
* Because pain is useful.
* No, and "free will" is a meaningless term; your will is not separate from whatever you are, and therefore is bound to the latter. The genetic patterns and external circumstances that affect decisions are so complex to calculate that we could be said to possess "unpredictable will."
* Asking that question.
* Nothing.
This brings to mind another anecdotal assertion I carry around: in my experience religious people are more afraid and unaccepting of (their own) death. This seems illogical, if we assume -- as most religions do -- that said religions have nothing to do with that fear.
June 1, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karl - its the answer "nothing" that I have a psychological problem with. Im am sure that many of my beliefs stem from the fact I cannot accept that answer. I acknowledge you may be right, but I CHOOSE not to accept it.
(aren't you the one that said "religion is the opiate of the people"...if so why am I not getting high from this discussion...LOL)
June 1, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opium is an escape from the harsh reality of the world.
There is no innate meaning or purpose to any of this. Only that which we create. 'S a big responsibility.
June 1, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to be a particular conceit of humanity that they think their own existence has meaning and purpose and the meaning and purpose of all other life is serving humanity.
What purpose is there in great wars where millions are killed, or plagues that destroy civilization or natural disasters in which hundreds of thousands lose their lives and their lives' work? Is that divine direction at work?
June 1, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I had answers to those questions. All I can say is I'd reather believe that those things happened for some purpose (hopefully some greater purpose) than for no reason at all. I know, small comfort.
June 1, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It seems to be a particular conceit of humanity that they think their own existence has meaning and purpose and the meaning and purpose of all other life is serving humanity."
The first part I can ascribe to, but the second is absurd. Some may believe it, but putting the two together negates a large swath of spiritual thinking.
"What purpose is there in great wars where millions are killed, or plagues that destroy civilization or natural disasters in which hundreds of thousands lose their lives and their lives' work? Is that divine direction at work?"
It is certainly man's relation to the divine (power greater than our selves) that infuses these... it all depends on whether you ascribe a purpose or lack thereof.
The answer or lack thereof to whether or not there is divine direction matters not a whit to these problems. They exist regardless of our thinking of them. It is only if we submit to them as divine and unstoppable we prolong the tragedy. This is why I prefer to view spiritual issues in a moral/ethical framework as to what spiritual authority can teach us about ourselves and right action. The authority can be an atheist for all I care. On the material side, my beliefs don't alter the shape of things, so I view the universe as a reflection of our perception of reality.
But a discussion of God's nature? I avoid that at all costs except to puncture the conceit.
June 1, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That people think there is divine intervention in these problems of mankind does matter a great deal. It provides humans the excuse and the rationalization to absolve themselves of their own responsiblity to guide and direct human affairs. We don't have to know or care why we do the things we do, because we have no control over ourselves.
If there is a purpose in suffering, a purpose in our creation, then there is no need to need to explore and learn and change human behavior or our relationship to the universe. If there is no purpose, if the universe is random, them we are free to change and learn from events. We can create purpose where there is none, we can direct our own evolution and our own authority. We can stop being afraid.
June 1, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny I come to the exact opposite conclusions. If there is purpose we must define it, seek it out, trust it, come into harmony with it.
If humans alone are in charge; that makes me afraid!
June 1, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that is my point, yug. We are afraid all the time, which is why we do suffer these calamities. To me, spirituality is belief in humanity.
June 1, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If there is a purpose in suffering, a purpose in our creation, then there is no need to need to explore and learn and change human behavior or our relationship to the universe. If there is no purpose, if the universe is random, them we are free to change and learn from events. We can create purpose where there is none, we can direct our own evolution and our own authority. We can stop being afraid."
I don't see how can draw the conclusion that there is no need to change human behavior if there is a purpose to suffering. Suffering is inevitable so far, but I see nothing in any sutra or gospel telling people to submit to it as the only game in town.
Nor is the second conclusion inevitable given the second statement. I can see where you are coming from, but the existence or lack of purpose behind the universe doesn't impact me either way on morals or ethics. I am not one of those kind of people. There are plenty of amoral pieces of shite that profess the most glorious of religious faiths. There are a few who while atheist have committed great atrocities as well (also, ironically, preaching a faith in the state, the worker, or some other wholly physical ideal). Goodness and kindness, evolution and authority, these things exist with or without God. They are human factors, wrestled upon the human level.
In other words, the human condition is not improved with or without a belief in the almighty.
I think you might be presuming that faith is an impediment to development. I think human nature is an impediment to development, and faith can be abused be it towards the church of Christ or the church of Capital.
June 1, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suffering isn't inevitable, and if you think that the bible doesn't condone it and tell us to submit, you haven't read Job. As to the gospels, well, the crucifixion is a template of submitting to suffering as a sacrifice to a god.
I do think that religion is an impediment to our evolution as a species, at one time it might have been helpful but now it is indeed an impediment.
June 1, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, Im going to agree with both of you (how diplomatic!) Zipper - good points. BevD - good response.
But were not talking about religion. Religion is like a gun, in the wrong hands its deadly. Were talking about spirituality.
June 1, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spirituality can be deadly too. And quite silly.
I consider myself religious, but of disorganized religion... the hermetic strain.
June 1, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read Job, and I have read Jung's answer. I reach a wildly different conclusion from Job than you. Job doesn't teach submission. In the end, Job does question God, and Job wins. A human triumph over the architect of the universe's boundaries... and Job's suffering is reversed. I suggest you re-read God's long temper tantrum followed by Job's assertion.
And saying suffering isn't inevitable is patently absurd. If you don't suffer from the death of a loved one, if you don't suffer from a hot day in the sun or a cold night under the stars, if you don't suffer when an asshole like Bush is President... well... shoot, I don't know.
There may be an end to suffering. Buddha sure believed it thousands of years ago, and he had a point. As of right now, however, it is inevitable, and we must incorporate this inevitablity into our lives.
And the crucifixion is about the son of God submitting to human fate in order to free humanity from sin (suffering). Christ also preached the potential for a kingdom of heaven on Earth, which to me means the end of sin and suffering (the lion lying with the lamb).
I disagree with the idea that religion is an impediment. A casual raading of the New Testament gospels shows a profound moral code that challenges human thought to this day.
We can agree that religion has been manipulated, abused, and can be a crutch. But that is human nature... like blaming the lit match for the fire caused by an arsonist, but giving credit to the fireman for putting it out (without giving credit instead to the water that doused the flame).
It's cool, though. We can disagree. I have had a wonderful conversation with you, and I hope we can have more in the future.
June 1, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zip, I have been rereading Job again. One of the few fine books in the bible I just love. That and Genesis.
At any rate, a fine examination in short form. Another thing, Satan is not the devil here. In the context of the thing or spirit that is cross examining God.
Nothing to do with your argument, it just was always something I saw as strange.
June 1, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommended this earlier. But I thought I would ponder this awhile.
There are so many objects 'out there' that appear to form patterns.
I mean why is our solar system formed in kind of a plane? I know a plane is not three dimensional but our main planets are kind of on a plane. Why does our solar system not look more like the models of an atom? With electrons scattered all over the place.
Why are so many galaxies pictured as containing suns and solar systems kind of on a plane?
Why is our moon just far enough away from us and just the right size to just 'cover' the sun in an eclipse.
God. O yes, I am convinced.
Now whether God or the gods care about human beings is another subject.
Fine post Yug.
June 1, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a "mu" answer for you, dickday:
If the universe did not function as it does, it would not exist. But, importantly, that does not mean that there is a reason: merely that as a product of that universe, to extract our thinking from the state of the universe (a graph in a Hilbert space) is impossible. The only reason we may think there is anything miraculous about any of it is that our brain has been thus formed, and is thus constrained.
June 1, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't abide your "deck of cards" theory about the universe. It is a convenient and unproveable assertion. You can not prove that circular orbits would cause the universe to fall apart instead of eliptical orbits, you can only prove that Kepler's theories about motion are a law.
"The only reason we may think there is anything miraculous about any of it is that our brain has been thus formed, and is thus constrained."
Another convenient and unproveable assertion. Just because an explanation sounds simple and material, doesn't make it any less silly than "God said so."
June 1, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not care what you abide. This universe is this universe only because it is this universe. Whether circular orbits would sustain a system is immaterial: I guarantee you that I, you nor dickday would be arguing about this matter if that were the reality.
So, mu.
June 1, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This universe is this universe only because it is this universe."
A rose is a rose is a turnip.
Mu back.
"I guarantee you that I, you nor dickday would be arguing about this matter if that were the reality."
An odd guarantee.
"Let us state what, i.e. what kind of thing, substance should be said to be, taking once more another starting-point; for perhaps from this we shall get a clear view also of that substance which exists apart from sensible substances. Since, then, substance is a principle and a cause, let us pursue it from this starting-point. The 'why' is always sought in this form--'why does one thing attach to some other?' For to inquire why the musical man is a musical man, is either to inquire--as we have said why the man is musical, or it is something else. Now 'why a thing is itself' is a meaningless inquiry (for—to give meaning to the question 'why'—the fact or the existence of the thing must already be evident—e.g., that the moon is eclipsed—but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical, unless one were to answer, 'because each thing is inseparable from itself, and its being one just meant this.' This, however, is common to all things and is a short and easy way with the question.) But we can inquire why man is an animal of such and such a nature. This, then, is plain, that we are not inquiring why he who is a man is a man. We are inquiring, then, why something is predicable of something (that it is predicable must be clear; for if not, the inquiry is an inquiry into nothing). E.g. why does it thunder? This is the same as 'why is sound produced in the clouds?' Thus the inquiry is about the predication of one thing of another. And why are these things, i.e. bricks and stones, a house? Plainly we are seeking the cause. And this is the essence (to speak abstractly), which in some cases is the end, e.g. perhaps in the case of a house or a bed, and in some cases is the first mover; for this also is a cause. But while the efficient cause is sought in the case of genesis and destruction, the final cause is sought in the case of being also."
-Aristotle, Metaphysics
June 1, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's say that right, please:
"If the universe did not function as it does, it would not exist."
"If this car did not function as it does, it could still function differently. It might be a different make and model, it might run on steam instead of internal combustion or electricity, or is might simply have a dirty fuel injector."
Your statement goes too far in at least two ways.
That said, there are some who marvel at the apparent necessity for cosmological constants to be precisely of the values we determine in order for anything remotely like our universe to exist at all like we believe it does.
June 1, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only simple systems exhibit planar organization, and none are pure. Our system is only approximately planar. The Oort cloud of distant comets is presumed a jumble of orbits in random planes, too far away to have been organized. Pluto is wildly off-kilter, then again, it's more of a comet than a planet. But none of the main planets have identical axial tilts, or even orbital planes. Neptune spins backward, Uranus spins on its side, or maybe it's the other way, I forget.
The reason is simple: in a condensing group with random velocities some plane will win out and organize the others, through gravity. But note that larger systems fail to maintain that, if scrambled by passing through each other, thus elliptical galaxies.
Circles are only a special case of ellipses, which are the necessary result of gravity.
The near-perfect match between apparent size for sun and moon is more trouble than helpful, inviting us to think them similar. The drama of an eclipse scared the shit out of people to no useful result. It was only after Galileo saw spots on the sun, craters on the moon, and satellites around Jupiter that we began to understand what is going on out there.
June 1, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is pretty goooood Tom. Really fine.
Do I see patterns or do I see what I wish to see?
June 1, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pattern-seeking is our bent and our talent. But we aren't alone in a tendency to jump to conclusions, if I correctly remember Mark Twain's comment about a cat that sits on a hot stove being unlikely to sit on any stove ever again, hot or cold.
June 1, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
pattern-seeking is one part, pattern-doubting the flip side of intelligent reason. This is the fine-line balance between prejudice and good judgment. Rational objectivity considers other plausible or even implausible patterns for their truth value, aka "goodness of fit".
June 3, 2009 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd say that I am more agnostic than atheist. But I'm not sure that faith could answer the questions you just posed either.
Faith tells us that God has a plan, that by honoring His word (via holy scripture, Koran, Bible, Torah, etc) we assist his plan in some way, and that only after we die will we get the full picture.
So, if there is an afterlife, I'm going to find out the answers then, so why bother now. If there isn't, well then I've really wasted my time, haven't I?
Science looks for answers. Faith looks for the search for answers. Very similar, but also very different.
June 1, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey CB. Nice to see you.
Thats sounds like religion to me. Now, let me be clear, I have nothing against religion. But religion itelf is neither good nor bad. Its how people use it.
Im talking about a spiritual god. What I believe is that there is something greater than us and we should respect it, honor it, learn from it, come into harmony with it. It does no harm to believe this because when used correctly I think it helps a lot with life and being a good person and answering the big questions.
I really dont care if Im "wrong" in the end because I like to live my life with the idea of God.
I find it useful and it seems to fit me. I respect other peoples opinions on this subject because the point is: everyone is entitled to their own perspective.
Doesn't it all come down to whether or not your a good person? But I wonder, could we all agree on what is a good person?
Thats
June 1, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If history is any indication, this is the easiest question you have posed. The answer seems to always be "no."
June 1, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But it seems like a good thing to believe in; that some day we might.
June 2, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
oopos on the "Thats"
June 1, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gorgeous picture BTW! Where did it come from? Did you take it?
Anyway, here's my response to your post...
Here's what I know:
If there is a God, no human being knows what God is with any certainty or specificity at all. Anyone that says they do is engaging in nothing but pure speculation.
God is neither a benevolent or malevolent, mercurial, strong and majestic grandfatherly super human figure who wears a toga and lives in the clouds watching over his wondrous creation and judging the behavior and activity of his creatures, throwing the occasional lightning bolt about and alternately dispensing good fortune or plagues upon humanity. That is little more than a slight modification of the vision of the Gods of Mount Olympus that all modern, educated human beings recognize as nothing but myth.
The sooner society moves beyond the Mount Olympus version of God, the better off we'll all be.
Here's what I believe:
Assuming God exists, the human brain cannot possibly grasp what God is. It is simply arrogance to assume that we, who do not even know much about how our own brains work, have any idea about what God is or what God wants. The idea of an omnipotent being possessing power capable of creation itself is not something I think humans can every truly comprehend. Thus, I don't spend a whole lot of time even thinking about it. What would the point be?
Accordingly, all we can do whether we believe in the existence of a God or not is to behave in ways we believe to be respectful of the universe we find ourselves in and in ways we believe to be moral and ethical in terms of our interactions with other living things and the world we live in. If we believe in God, then we should act as mentioned and also behave in ways that demonstrate our gratitude to the creator for the creation itself and our existence as well as our own self awareness.
We can find wisdom in books of religion and religious teachings so long as we do not suffocate our minds and souls with the paralyzing toxin of dogma. If we believe in moral precepts of any kind, if we believe in morality a all then we must do so because it is the right thing to do and not because of some fantastic promise of a reward in the great by and by. I have to believe that doing right insofar as one can see the right, simply because we know it is right, should be enough to motivate us and surely whatever rules or laws God may have will have been served by our acting in right ways in accordance with simple decency and humanity toward our fellow humans and all the living things on the planet including the planet itself. Surely, if we have a purpose it is to love and care for each other and to experience all that this life and existence has to offer us in harmony and respect for all other things.
I do not know God's wishes and no one else does either, but I do know what my heart and my mind tell me are right. My heart tells me to believe in a God though I cannot know what that really means or understand but not to worry about it much, and instead to concentrate on living life in such a way as to have nothing to be ashamed of by living a life of loving service to others, to try and leave the world a better place than I found it and to have faith that whatever God may be, that I have done what I could to have been worthy of the time I have been given to exist and be aware and to feel and know and understand what I can.
June 2, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could not have said it better myself.
June 2, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb writes: “Here's what I know:
“If there is a God, no human being knows what God is with any certainty or specificity at all. Anyone that says they do is engaging in nothing but pure speculation.”
I’d say anyone that does not believe that a God, who establishes laws of nature, showing purpose showing order, wouldn’t have a plan.
This same God who created the Earth to be inhabited, would also foresee the need for order.
The only reason there is presently disorder, is our first parents exercising their freewill decided to ignore the requirements. God’s purpose for the planet was temporarily usurped. High jacked.
Humans with Freewill decided they no longer wanted or needed GOD.
Oleeb wrote: “The sooner society moves beyond the Mount Olympus version of God, the better off we'll all be.”
Well how’s that working out for the inhabitants of Earth, You think were better off?
Look at the evidence!A World so full of problems that could have been avoided had our parents chosen the correct course. Freewill though!
The generations that followed with their many forms of Government, wanted to establish their own rules and regulations. How’s that freewill choice working out now?
No more, do I need to see or hear, “ If only we had done this or that.” I say, if only we had listened and observed his commandments, we would not have the suffering, the wars, the fear, and this mess. If only we would seek his insight, his wisdom, his love.
Look how much peril we face, we are living in a time where one insult, one mistake, and POOF! POOF?
Nuclear obliteration. The Planet given a deathblow by Ungodly men and their supporters saying “we don’t need no God. We have the power to be GOD.
Rest assured though GOD will rescue those who meet his requirements He will not allow this Planet to be destroyed.
I guess that’s his freewill. Deliver and protect those who love him and listen and respect his laws.
Oleeb wrote: I do not know God's wishes and no one else does either, but I do know what my heart and my mind tell me are right."
It takes humility. When you say YOU do not know God’s wishes. Is it your wish, to not know? If your exercise of freewill says’s “I do not want to know or listen or meet his requirements, then that is your choice.
When you write about “others not knowing God’s will” that is your error.
When the Son of God told one generation about his knowledge of God’s will, They killed him they tortured him. It was mankind that tortured an innocent man. Not God.
Anyone saying they know the will of God will probably meet the same fate. Then I suppose you might be correct when you say “No one Knows?” If anyone should admit they know, they’ll be hunted down and eliminated. Hey how about you? Do you know God’s will? The ungodly are presently in control, and they will do everything possible to prevent people from knowing.
The knowledge is there, like silver and gold. You have to seek knowledge. It takes effort. How did you learn your math skills? Did your mind and your heart give you the answers without study and making application? It just happens?
Some people have no conscience, why? If you want a Bible trained conscience, you have to study the Bible. It is the manual that trains a persons mind and heart, to be in full accord with the Creators requirements. The Universal Law giver, tells you and others if you want to live in peace and harmony, free from wars and dreaded diseases “LISTEN, LEARN, APPLY, LIVE
To this day the same ATTITUDE, of our first parents is prevalent. The majority of he people says, “I did not learn the requirements, I did not want to learn your laws. We don’t want to listen to you, or your messengers. Go away God.
It is not God or his loyal ones that are going away.
The God who created the Earth decides who will reside on it. (Psalm 37:11) . . .But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
I want to be meek, how about you?
It’s evident to me; to be meek is a requirement
Now you know someone who knows God’s wishes.
June 2, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have faith and that is fine. You do not, however, have certainty. Also fine. Each person has their own path and must find their own way. There is no single path to enlightenment.
June 2, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb wrote “You have faith and that is fine. You do not, however, have certainty. Also fine. Each person has their own path and must find their own way. There is no single path to enlightenment
If my faith, proves of no worth, I have lost nothing; if on the other hand, you choose a different path, it could very well go bad for you. I lose nothing but you lose everything.
For I know as a certainty, the Planet Earth is in peril. It did not take ME by surprise. I was forewarned. Having no escape from what is very likely to occur. I can take steps to avoid the calamity. I seek GODS protection.
These words are TRUE
(Jeremiah 10:23) . . .that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.
(Ecclesiastes 8:9) . . .All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury. .
Would you deny that mankind is close to exterminating themselves?
Written over 2000 years earlier, it was recorded at (Matthew 24:22) . . .In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short. . .
Although it had a different meaning then, the application would surely apply to our day. Unless some intervening power steps in, it is very probable some Nation will acquire or already has the capability to destroy all living things, Biological or Nuclear, why were they developed in the first place? Was their creation a deterrent or a possibility?
My enlightenment, along with the clear evidence, tells me that Godless mankind, instead of looking for enlightenment, is out of control and needs to be reigned in.
The enlightenment was right in front of them all along. It’s just that they didn’t want to believe?
Or could it be they believe and they know God exists, but in their selfishness, they’re arrogance they would destroy mankind, depriving the Rightful sovereign to provide for his faithful.
In effect making sure the meek don’t inherit the Earth, the wicked godless would rather destroy it, than to be submissive to the law and it’s requirements.
June 2, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad for you in your certainty. I do not share it, but I also don't believe salvation is for believers alone so I'm not losing much sleep over it one way or another. I'm hoping you're right and all goes well for creation as a whole.
June 2, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink