I received the following constructive response to some of my thoughts and have decided to share this latest effort to clarify my Earth Centrist perspective.
Hi, Peter,
Many theists believe in evolution, viewing it as god’s means of creating humans, so evolution is a bit of a red herring in this debate. We do have the concept of god in our minds, but that tells us nothing about whether there is a god or not. We have the concepts of trees and unicorns; the former exist, the latter don’t. We need further argumentation to make a case for or against god’s existence.
Regards,
Thank you for responding and engaging with my ideas.
Your note invites some clarification.
This isn’t about lip service to evolution.
This is about our relationship with the thoughts we possess.
This is about taking Descartes' (pre-scientific) reduction of what we can known about the human condition, which he boiled down to: "I Think, Therefore I Am” - to a modern scientifically informed reduction of our actual human condition: "I Am, Therefore I Think."
We are evolved biological sensing creatures, product of a half billion years of Earth’s evolution - what that tells us is that our mind is produced by our body/brain interacting with the world. (Solms, Damasio, Sapolsky, etc.)
This brings us to a realization that it isn't a question of whether Gods are real or not.
It is about appreciating that God's are the product of our own human thoughts.
Meta-physical figments within our minds - outside the realm of physical world.
You write: "We do have the concept of god in our minds" - but that is exactly what begs the question: "How does an assumption of God become a Being of God?"
We know that trees exist because there's tons of independent data driven facts about trees, and you can touch them and cut them up and build with them. But a horsie unicorn never makes it past an assumption since there isn't an iota of physical evidence for such a creature.
The cornerstone of appreciating our human condition starts with appreciating the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide. The difference between biology and our consciousness.
In that light, God becomes a valid inhabitant of our human 'mindscape' - (the totality of our thoughts, feelings, understanding) - that is our meta-physical realm.
While realizing that Gods are not components of our physical reality, with its laws of nature, material elements, nor of Earth's geological biological pageant of evolution that created and sustains us.
(This Earthly realm that we had better learn how to take into our hearts and minds and expectations fast, or face increasing environmental and social degradation as today's destructive extreme weather roulette and political insanity combines with humanity's self-absorbed nature and self-serving actions to speed humanity's final chapters.)
Thank you for making the space to allow me to share and discuss these questions.
Hi, again, Peter,
Remember that the debate is about the existence of god (not the concept of god), so that’s what we need evidence for or against. It doesn’t contribute to the debate simply to deny that god exists, since that just begs the question. You have started to address the question by noting that there’s virtually no good evidence for god’s existence. I agree with that, but many people don’t and they provide what they take to be good evidence.
Best,
Hi,
Your response simply begs the question rather than answering it. You haven’t engaged with the debate yet. What is your evidence that there is no god outside our consciousness?
Thank you professor,
You haven’t engaged with the debate yet.
You mean the two thousand year old never-ending debate? Is God real?
How we frame our questions limits what they can teach us.
I’ll concede I wasn’t out to figure out God, near as much as being out to figure out Me. Along the seven decades of engaged living, science fact based learning and introspective thinking, I discovered our Gods (as are all of our thoughts, etc) are self created by our body/brain engaged in living, and I can’t understand why that doesn’t get discussed up front. (The same is true of all other biological creatures, scale and complexity changes, still all of them need to be aware, process, act.)
Are we talking about a personal God?
Okay, sure personal Gods certainly do exist. The point is that we are their creators. It explains why our God’s fit our personality so well.
The key point is, growing to appreciate that our own body/brain/experiences are what create our personal God, along with all of our other conceptions.
What is your evidence that there is no god outside our consciousness?
Outside of our consciousness, there’s nothing but biology and physical reality engaged in its dynamic dances - our only contact with that realm is through the membranes of our senses-body-brain, projecting it’s best impressions onto our living minds, (consciousness, spirit, soul, awareness.)
Suppose there may be a God out there within the fabric of physical reality, it would be lightyears beyond human understanding - so what’s all the handwringing for?
By that point, what are we asking for anymore?
I myself when looking at micro videos and the teaming complexity, I know it’s overwhelming and a feeling of something creeps in - nothing wrong with that - the wonder and mystery and jaw dropping functioning complexity. Understand it for what it is, a thought, a feeling, entertaining an idea - remain humble and aware of how little we do know and that we are bascially animals, alotted our share of time and then we die back into Earth.
God means nothing to me one way or the other, it is the wonder, and the magic of synchronicity as life takes us where it will, the grand mysteries, those are what hold meaning and can enthrall me for a lifetime.
Yesterday evening I received another email from my friend and today I sent him the following response. .
Very cool Professor,
Now we’re having fun, I welcome your critique and the opportunity to clarify my words:
Well, that explains why we were talking at cross purposes the whole time. You never intended to address the questions the panel members were asked to address: Is there a god?
I’m addressing the question by striving to explain why it is an irrelevant question - one that says more about human self-absorption than god. A distraction in these modern times.
The only serious way to understand god, or God, is to appreciate the scientific evidence that it is we people and our biological Being who create our Gods. As we do music, art, politics, science, etc., from within our minds.
And is it rational to believe in god?
Sure it is rational to believe in Gods, same as it was also once rational to believe in our US Constitution. But both are human concepts and ought to be recognized as such.
It would have helped if you had made that clear at the beginning.
I work hard on writing as clearly as possible, including my handout for the panel event. That is also why I welcome such critique, so that I can learn to do a better job of conveying my thoughts.
The question was “Is there God”. Answering requires some nuance.
There are Gods and we ourselves create them for our own rational purposes, they are part of the meta-physical reality our minds conjure and ought to be acknowledged.
The key understanding comes with a realization that there are no justifications for imagining human-aware-Gods within the physical matter, and biological processes of our material world, that gave birth to our bodies and experiences. What science can study.
You stated misleadingly that god exists in our minds, but that’s false.
No, I did not.
I stated our Gods are actually factually created by our own body, brain, interacting with life.
The concept of god exists in our minds, but that shouldn’t be confused with the claim that god exists in our minds.
Please explain how would that work?
Again, how does an assumption transmute into a Being?
All we have is our perceptions and thoughts.
I’m into science (evolution) based philosophy, whereas that sounds like theology based philosophy. I’m not trying to be rude, but that needs to be clarified since so much of (popular) philosophy is still hobbled by too many unacknowledged theological undercurrents while pretty much side-stepping the implications of modern biological understandings.
So much confusion that was avoidable.
I’m sure we agree on many things: There probably is no god. We are purely physical beings, the products of evolution. Humans invent concepts like that of god to satisfy their desire to explain the universe and perhaps to feel that they have some control over what happens in their lives. And many more…
Absolutely. I agree, your paragraph should be an introduction to the dialogue.
It begins with a deep appreciation for the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide. Which brings one humblingly face to face with the reality of our own relationship with the knowledge we possess.
It also brings us closer to appreciating that we are evolved biological sensing organisms, products of this Earth’s processes, interwoven into the fabric of our biosphere and that we carry a heavy moral and practical responsibility (however poorly) toward Earth, rather than a “God” who is simply our Ego reincarnate.
Thanks for your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment