What is God?

[alexey]

Perhaps you've not heard of natural theology?

I tried to tell you the word "nature" has no clear meaning.

Agreed.

I doubt it.

Sounds like we agree that naturalism is a system that has nothing to do with individuals being sure or not being sure.

 

If you care to learn more about naturalism, you can explore how naturalism is defined and how it accounts for things like "purpose".

[Kosher Ham]

I always have felt like if there is a God...I certainly need to earn my miracles...but I also need God to confirm my faith directly.

 

Seems to me God would do that on your first visit to a place of worship.

 

I do have problems with thinking people lived nearly a century in any era. That's simple nonsense.

[s0crates]

Sounds like we agree that naturalism is a system that has nothing to do with individuals being sure or not being sure.

I honestly have no idea what this sentence means.

I do not think the word "naturalism" has any clear meaning. If something happens, then it is natural. Obviously.

How we get from there to atheism is a mystery to me. Do you think God is unnatural by definition? I could show you plenty of theologians who would argue otherwise.

I can't really tell what this business about being sure is getting at. I'm just trying to say the inference from science (or "naturalism") to atheism is not sound.

It's really not even a scientific question, it is a philosophical one.

If you care to learn more about naturalism, you can explore how naturalism is defined and how it accounts for things like "purpose".

It will take me time to dig through the dozens of definitions. The thing is basically every thinker for the past 100 years has called himself a naturalist, and I'm worried it will be hard to find a definition that applies to all of them.

I mean hell, William Paley was a naturalist.

[Kosher Ham]

That dude that runs up my cable bill for ordering too many movies.

[alexey]

I honestly have no idea what this sentence means.

I do not think the word "naturalism" has any clear meaning. If something happens, then it is natural. Obviously.

How we get from there to atheism is a mystery to me. Do you think God is unnatural by definition? I could show you plenty of theologians who would argue otherwise.

I can't really tell what this business about being sure is getting at. I'm just trying to say the inference from science (or "naturalism") to atheism is not sound.

It will take me time to dig through the dozens of definitions. The thing is basically every thinker for the past 100 years has called himself a naturalist, and I'm worried it will be hard to find a definition that applies to all of them.

I cannot make sense of the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" either.  Does the word "supernatural" have meaning?

 

How do you define the reality which we inhabit?  How do you define god?  Does god interact with the reality that we inhabit?

 

Answers to these questions have changed over the years.  Traditionally god was defined as an entity that inhabits a super-reality yet interacts with our reality.  Can you make sense of that? 

 

If we drop the super-reality stuff and define god as a part of our reality, then what is it made of?

[Renegade7]

Dharma

 

Why are people who don't belive in God posting in a "What is God" thread anyway? 

[PeterMP]

Reality is what it is. Great things are at stake indeed - rethinking ourselves and our role in the universe.

Sean Carroll talks about this around the 8th minute (good news and bad news)

 

That actually might be the worse part of his opening statement.

 

"If you love somebody it is not because that love was put into you by something outside. It is because you created that inside yourself."

 

Given a materialist/naturalistic world view, how would one go about creating love inside of themselves?

 

Wouldn't love for somebody else be the product of a set of external stimuli creating a biophyscial/chemical state inside of the person?

 

Does the "us" include the bacteria living in "us"?

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/16050

 

Essentially, he's making an argument for free will, while simultaneously rejecting any mechanism that could create free will.

[s0crates]

I cannot make sense of the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" either. Does the word "supernatural" have meaning?

Only inasmuch as the word "natural" does, which is to say the meaning is inordinately vague for this type of discourse.

If you're just trying to say there is no spooky stuff like men walking on water or rising from the dead, then obviously I agree.

How do you define the reality which we inhabit?

Hard question. Roughly, reality is interdependent events in process.

How do you define god?

Really hard question. I'm not sure I can answer it. I don't think God is like Santa Claus or Zeus, if that's what you're getting at.

I might offer a tentative definition such as the following, God is the unifying principle of nature. (Thus natural, not supernatural). On this view nature is more God's manifestation than God's creation.

Does such a God exist? I don't know, but I think we would be premature if we ruled it out based on our current scientific understanding.

Does god interact with the reality that we inhabit?

I'm not much of a theist, but if I were forced to take up the position, I would say God interacts with the universe just as my mind interacts with my body, and just as my mind and body are not two, neither are God and nature.

Don't assume theism is biblical literalism. That's a straw man. There is some very sophisticated theology out there.

Frankly I'm uncomfortable advancing any positive statement about God or His existence, as I'm agnostic about the matter myself, I'm probably not the best advocate for theism. I'm much better as critic of scientific pretensions.

But since you put the questions to me directly, I tried to answer, just understand my position is not one of certainty. If it were an ardent theist arguing with me, his arguments would be equally scrutinized. See earlier in the thread if you doubt it.

[alexey]

That actually might be the worse part of his opening statement.

 

"If you love somebody it is not because that love was put into you by something outside. It is because you created that inside yourself."

 

Given a materialist/naturalistic world view, how would one go about creating love inside of themselves?

 

Wouldn't love for somebody else be the product of a set of external stimuli creating a biophyscial/chemical state inside of the person?

 

Does the "us" include the bacteria living in "us"?

 

Essentially, he's making an argument for free will, while simultaneously rejecting any mechanism that could create free will.

These are great but very simple questions.  You can easily find answers to them if you are interested.

[PeterMP]

These are great but very simple questions.  You can easily find answers to them if you are interested.

 

As near as I can tell the atheist takes one of three routes:

 

1.  Be stupid/dishonest. As Carroll had done.

2.  Redefine free will from its traditional sense and hope nobody complains, which Dennet does.

3.  Assert that free will doesn't exist and it is just an illusion, which is what Sam Harris generally has done.

 

Of the three, I like Harris' approach the best.  At least it is honest.

 

Again, how does anybody look at that and really believe long term that these statements are positive with respect to naturalism/science?

 

It isn't like I'm generally uneducated on the topic.

[s0crates]

That actually might be the worse part of his opening statement.

"If you love somebody it is not because that love was put into you by something outside. It is because you created that inside yourself."

Given a materialist/naturalistic world view, how would one go about creating love inside of themselves?

Wouldn't love for somebody else be the product of a set of external stimuli creating a biophyscial/chemical state inside of the person?

Does the "us" include the bacteria living in "us"?

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/16050

Essentially, he's making an argument for free will, while simultaneously rejecting any mechanism that could create free will.

You see the problem clearly.

[alexey]

Really hard question. I'm not sure I can answer it. I don't think God is like Santa Claus or Zeus, if that's what you're getting.

I might offer a tentative definition such as the following, God is the unifying principle of nature. (Thus natural, not supernatural). On this view nature is more God's manifestation than God's creation.

Does such a God exist? I don't know, but I think we would be premature if we ruled it out based on our current scientific understanding.

A unifying principle of nature cannot be ruled out - it can be discovered or not discovered.

I'm not much of a theist, but if I were forced to take up the position, I would say God interacts with the universe just as my mind interacts with my body, and just as my mind and body are not two, neither are God and nature.

Don't assume theism is biblical literalism. That's a straw man. There is some very sophisticated theology out there.

Do you claim that a mind can exist without a body?

[s0crates]

A unifying principle of nature cannot be ruled out - it can be discovered or not discovered.

Seems to me we've discovered lots of laws at least consistent with such a principle.

What we've discovered certainly doesn't prove it, but nor does it disprove it, which is my claim.

Do you claim that a mind can exist without a body?

Not at all. You miss my meaning. As I said, mind and body are not two kinds of things. They are both abstractions from true reality, which is manifestations, interrelated events, happenings, occurrences.

[alexey]

As near as I can tell the atheist takes one of three routes:

 

1.  Be stupid/dishonest. As Carroll had done.

2.  Redefine free will from its traditional sense and hope nobody complains, which Dennet does.

3.  Assert that free will doesn't exist and it is just an illusion, which is what Sam Harris generally has done.

There is some nuance missing here, but generally you are correct - naturalism will not satisfy those who consider indeterminism to be required for free will.

[s0crates]

You keep using this word "naturalism." It seems to me shameless. The word is much too vague for this level of analysis. It doesn't tell me anything.

Do you think nature is blind and purposeless? That's the question.

[alexey]

Seems to me we've discovered lots of laws at least consistent with such a principle.

What we've discovered certainly doesn't prove it, but nor does it disprove it, which is my claim.

Maybe this is about the burden of proof. I see atheism (lack of a belief) as the default position. Believers in god carry the burden to define god and justify the belief.

Not at all. You miss my meaning. As I said, mind and body are not two kinds of things. They are both abstractions from true reality, manifestations.

Do you claim that a mind can exist without a body? This is a yes or no question.

[s0crates]

Maybe this is about the burden of proof. I see atheism (lack of a belief) as the default position.

I agree lack of belief should be the default position, but that is not atheism. We call that agnosticism (literally "not knowing").

Atheism (literally "no God") is the belief that there is no God.

Come on. This is just basic vocabulary.

Believers in god carry the burden to define god and justify the belief.

Surely this is a fair challenge, but if you are going to be like Dawkins and say science proves atheism, then I'd say you've taken on the burden of proof.

Do you claim that a mind can exist without a body? This is a yes or no question.

I already answered this, once before you asked it, and once after. I said no, I do not claim that.

[alexey]

Do you think nature is blind and purposeless? That's the question.

The atoms, as far as we can tell, are blind and purposeless.

The people are not blind and purposeless, even though they are made out of atoms.

Emergent properties - we talked about this. Surely you don't think that people who advance naturalism failed to account for apparent intentionality of humans?

Lack of belief should be the default position, but we call that agnosticism.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

This is just basic vocabulary.

Agnosticism is lack of knowledge.

Atheism is lack of belief.

[s0crates]

There is some nuance missing here . . .

The irony of this statement.

[alexey]

I have to call it a night - thank you for the great discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]"

[PeterMP]

I agree lack of belief should be the default position, but that is not atheism. We call that agnosticism (literally "not knowing").

Atheism (literally "no God") is the belief that there is no God.

Come on. This is just basic vocabulary.

 

There are some (and what appears to be growing number of people) that define atheism as claiming no belief in God.

 

When alexey says he's atheist, at least what he'll tell you he's claiming is essentially the more traditional sense of the word agnostic.

 

Some even would combine the words, and you could be an agnostic atheist (which is how I think alexey would define himself).

 

Under this set up, I could be included as an agnostic (I would not claim that I KNOW that God exist).

 

I'd be an agnostic theist.

 

Now, I have a hard time reconciling the idea of being an atheist in that sense (i.e. without belief) while making (or supporting) the arguments that Carroll is making.

 

That certainly sounds like somebody that is positively rejecting the existence of God.

 

alexey, what would call somebody that positively rejects the existence of God?

 

What would you call somebody that has said:

 

"It is, indeed, almost certain that God does not exist."

[s0crates]

The atoms, as far as we can tell, are blind and purposeless.

The people are not blind and purposeless, even though they are made out of atoms.

I'd say it follows that reality is not blind and purposeless. One well wonders how the purposeless stuff can result in the purposeful stuff.

Most of the interesting work has to do with this basic issue. I think it is one of the key intellectual questions of modernity, up to the present day. A variety of theories try to answer it, most fail (e.g. behaviorism, functionalism).

Once again, I think the root of the problem is Cartesian intellectual baggage.

Emergent properties - we talked about this. Surely you don't think that people who advance naturalism failed to account for apparent intentionality of humans?

It is not that there is no account, it is that the account fails. Behaviorism, for example, was a catastrophic failure in its account of volitional consciousness. It didn't even get up to the level of being wrong.

[s0crates]

I have to call it a night - thank you for the great discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]"

That's what I said. Atheism is the belief there is no God. Why mince words? Be specific. "A-theos" means no-God.

[s0crates]

There are some (and what appears to be growing number of people) that define atheism as claiming no belief in God.

When alexey says he's atheist, at least what he'll tell you he's claiming is essentially the more traditional sense of the word agnostic.

Some even would combine the words, and you could be an agnostic atheist (which is how I think alexey would define himself).

Under this set up, I could be included as an agnostic (I would not claim that I KNOW that God exist).

I'd be an agnostic theist.

Yeah you're right about the trend in usage of these words. I hear this equivocation of "atheism" and "agnosticism" all the time in my freshman classes. I don't know where it came from, but it it is quite irksome.

Now, I have a hard time reconciling the idea of being an atheist in that sense (i.e. without belief) while making (or supporting) the arguments that Carroll is making.

That certainly sounds like somebody that is positively rejecting the existence of God.

Yes. That is an atheist in the truest sense of the word, in the sense that he would affirm the proposition "There is no God."

That is simply what the word means.

alexey, what would call somebody that positively rejects the existence of God?

What would you call somebody that has said:

"It is, indeed, almost certain that God does not exist."

I think your question to alexey gets to the root of my complaint about using the words in this muddled way.

If "agnostic" and "atheist" are to mean the same thing, then what will we call what we used to call an atheist?

It is similar to equivocating "free will" with "being uncoerced." It makes nonsense of words so as to evade key questions.

Philosophy requires precise terms, this is just obfuscation.

[s0crates]

There is some nuance missing here, but generally you are correct - naturalism will not satisfy those who consider indeterminism to be required for free will.

It's not indeterminism that is required but self-determinism. The key question (to avoid the compatibilist evasion) is this: Do I make myself in any meaningful way?

Maybe the answer to that is no, but if so we are all operating under an illusion. Normally that is no big deal, you see an illusion and know it is just that, but in this case it is not so simple.

This illusion, if it is one, is an illusion that is pervasive and seemingly impossible to do without. Consider:

1. Free will is inevitably presupposed in practice. When you have to make a decision, such as paper or plastic, you cannot just say, "I'm a determinist. Que sera sera." For you to even imagine doing that is only intelligible to you as a volitional act.

2. Think of the enormous amount of resources we devote to rational decision making. We spend so many calories maintaining this volitional consciousness. We spend years teaching our children how to deliberate. If free will is an illusion, then it seems like we waste a lot of resources maintaining the illusion. Do we find such waste elsewhere in biology, expensive biological processes that have no effect on the organism?

3. Perhaps most importantly, free will is required for moral responsibility. That is: Ought implies can.