I think you misunderstand me. I don’t think any kind of external agency is doing any of it, not originating the universe, nor life and not our minds either. But I do think there is processing and agency that takes place beneath our notice. That is what I think has given rise to and still supports God belief. I can’t and don’t argue that it is a fact, but for me personally it is the only possibility that makes sense.
1 Like
I beg your pardon MarkD.
sOhhh, the only way for me to reconcile that, forgive me if we’ve been here before or if I’ve only just realised, is that agency emerges in nature in entities other than ‘higher’ (i.e. most complex) creatures like ourselves. I wish it were so! Gaia, Solaris, forests and their staggering, actual capabilities. Greg Bear’s Blood Music and Darwin’s Radio & Children. I see the origin of God belief in our superegos projected on nature, especially in its balancing act and the fine jewelled watches it blindly crafts. I’d like to believe that group selection operates too, but it isn’t necessary, like theism isn’t.
I’m sure you’re in good company in that view. For me though something like “superego” seems far too specific for something we have no way to examine up close. Freudian mythology just doesn’t speak to me. It gives one the illusion of certainty and a schema to read into human affairs.
Humans are set adrift in the power of their hypothetical possibilities which unlike every other mammal leaves them unmoored from the nature from whence they sprang. Except that that nature is still there beneath the surface performing the bulk of the processing which allows us to wallow in our analyses and theories. It permits us to recognize what might fulfill us, something our puny reason cannot begin to deduce no matter how long it tries. The only hope is to recognize that for all our technological might we are helpless unless we make peace with and come to recognize the will of that which has always already been on board. The stories of the Bible as with so many other mythologies hint at this. In the end none are literally true but all reflect something true about our condition and the remedy. We need to be less proud of our capacity for control and more mindful of our limitations.
3 Likes
The way I read what you say is that nature is your God, because humans sprang from nature. You seem to think that God must be an agency external to nature, but pantheists would not agree. The scientific evidence indicates that the universe/nature had a Beginning with the Big Bang.
It seems to me that you have not addressed the primary questions of life, such as does life have meaning and purpose? because you reject the concept of God/YHWH, as the Source of the universe.
Well “God” isn’t a classification that I worry about any more than “superego”. Whatever it is that completes us, no word will capture it and no particular word is essential.
Does not follow. By that logic, your mother would be your God if you believe she gave birth to you.
But more importantly this is an insipid reaction to what is quite a thoughtful observation from MarkD. It begs me to step up to provide a better response.
And yet by that unmooring we are set free to be aware of nature on a much grander scale – to see the big picture rather than being consumed by the details of our immediate surroundings.
That statement itself shows an awareness which the other species really do not have.
I would use the word “imagine” as often the case rather than recognize. For while some do find something to fulfill us, other leap from one thing to another endlessly searching.
Since we have little reason to attribute a will to nature, that has the distinct smell of theism. LOL
This gives rise in me to a suspicion that there something wrong with the phrase “literal truth.” I doubt that the meaning is in actually the words themselves.
Being a believer in a God who chose love and freedom over power and control, I think there is more to this than just an understanding of our limitations. It more a realization that an obsession with control can leave us distinctly lacking in something more important.
1 Like
Thank you.
Yes and what it reveals is astounding. Science has given us such a clear picture of the physical world and much about ourselves as well. If we imagine what it is that completes us as being the biblical God, I have to imagine He would be pleased. Of course I don’t think it was conceived in advance and carried out to perfection. When I think of God as personified, I imagine something more powerful that steps aside for the sake of something promising and yet like Atlas continues to hope up the earth and sky and to go on providing the cognitive processing which makes our detached thinking possible. What we (by way of our cultural specialists in science) can do and show us is amazing. But the basics of what really matters within this wider world is something which the silent part of ourselves must help us to recognize. I don’t think it is something we can engineer our way to without that help.
I do regret the negative shading which “wallow” casts on our own efforts through science and other disciplines to understand our world. You’re right to point out the wonder of it. I think this word only creeps in because by relying too heavily on entirely rational solution we may leave out too much.
I don’t think there should be a distinction between nature and theism. Doesn’t theistic evolution entail an acceptance of natural means as divine options?
Yes!!! This.
1 Like
I wanna say you are serving them?
They serve me. They make me feel good. They are kind. They are tolerant of my privilege. And I go home to my lovely wife in my nice house.
1 Like
I came, I saw, I tried and I failed
Thanks for explaining it though, as I am not very good at these things.
1 Like
You didn’t fail. You were being nice to me. I don’t deserve it. I’m suspect. I act out of enlightened self interest at best.
That is not the same as saying there is no distinction between nature and God, however, which is what I understand you to typically mean, that whatever God is and “whatever gives rise to God belief” is somehow within and confined to the natural, and there is no such thing as ‘supernatural’.
Almost. I think maybe you just don’t esteem nature as highly as I do. I’m not saying what gives rise to God belief can only be the natural world as you conceive it.
The supernatural category only arises when you try to reconcile where this something more is in relation to ourselves and our world but the better we get to know the world the fewer options there seem to be. What do think is the meaning of “supernatural” which most Christians hold? I’ve heard it described as a separate dimension. Why not consciousness? I guess it is because you believe you have authoritative knowledge of who and what God is that you feel compelled to just make up a category like the supernatural.
1 Like
Do you esteem the art above the artist? Yeah, I guess I just don’t.
I’m afraid that rationalization doesn’t connect the evidentiary dots in Rich Stearns’ experience that draws a line that points straight to God… outside of the natural (without breaking any natural laws – very cool!). I don’t suppose you want to talk about connecting the dots that reveal the also very cool picture of God’s providential interventions in Maggie’s experience. Huh. No natural laws were broken in that, either, were there.
Yes, other dimensions fit the evidence quite well. Multiple extra (as in ‘extradimensional’) have been postulated in string theory, I understand (not that i understand string theory 
).
Consciousness, human anyway, cannot orchestrate providential interventions like we have good evidence for, that’s why not.
Yes, it’s an epistemic issue, isn’t it. You might give Bonhoeffer’s hermeneutic more serious consideration.
Absolutely. You’re right – it’s completely irrational. I guess I’m in the same sad ship as Rich and Maggie, nonsensically connecting the dots to make beautiful and interesting pictures, just like so many multiple others have over the centuries (remember George Müller?). Such sad, dreary and discordant Christmas music comes from us too.
1 Like
As far as I am concerned these are public discussions. You do not have to justify your participation in it.
In fact at times the system encourages it.
If there is no difference between nature and theism then Nature is God. There are two ways of doing this. One is to bring nature up to God, which is to reinvest it with wonder and mystery. The problem with this is nature is not God. The other way is to bring God down to the level of nature, but we cannot manipulate God as we can nature.
The third way to see this is to say that God and nature are not mutually exclusive. God created nature so God is not nature. God is separate from it, but God is the brains so to speak behind nature. God uses nature to do God’s purposes in a general way, which is create humanity and a home for humanity through evolution.
Some might say that there is no clear evidence for that statement, but to believe that our universe is some huge coincidence, that 11 billion years of natural history produced this extremely unlikely result, goes against all the rules of logic and science that I can think of.
There is another way to approach this problem. Atheists usually believe that the universe is only physical in nature. This denies the fact that the mind is different from the rest of the body. Others say that the universe is both physical and rational. which leaves a role for God as the rationality of the universe.
I would say that the universe is objectively physical, rational, and spiritual, because it has purpose and meaning. This provides for the maximum possibilities for unity and diversity, freedom and love.
In this discussion I see the difference between my apologetics and that of others. I rise to the defense of Christianity when it is attacked and NOT when someone simply expresses a different point of view.
But part of that is the difference between my Christianity and that of others. I see salvation coming to us by the grace of God, asking from us only faith, such as that which gives what we can to others in need without looking for rewards (i.e. doing good for its own sake). I see no merit in a Pascal’s wager that confers some imagined advantage on me for my opinions over those of others.
1 Like
I often felt the same tension posting on atheist forums: why harangue someone just for believing something you don’t? But it was common for immature nitwits to act as though they were adolescent boys defending their fort from a hoard of girls with cooties. Frankly it bothers me less to be the target of hostility when it is my presence that is the stimulus for it where someone may prefer to have a closed discussion with just the choir. When it is my ‘club’ and it is those I’m choosing to associate with who are being abusive (not that anything Roger has said warrants that description), I was much less comfortable.
2 Likes
@MarkD, Thank you for making that clarification. If anyone observes verbal abuse on this website, please flag it
The purpose of this website as I understand it is to promote understanding and hopefully, but not necessarily agreement. The comments that I make are to elucidate my thoughts and try to clarify the thoughts of others so I can better process them.
I do believe in the concept of the Logos, which is both a philosophical and theological concept and is part of the title of this website. It affirms that Truth is real and comprehensible, which makes it important as humans to seek.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.