News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

A God That Could Be Real

Started by SGOS, April 23, 2015, 09:33:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

SGOS

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/04/23/401643807/a-god-that-could-be-real-in-the-scientific-universe

Well, I guess you have to read her book to get to the meat of her argument.  It might be an interesting idea, or not.  I probably won't read it, as I don't think it can contain anything an atheist hasn't considered.  It seems to me this was written for those who want to have a god, but who are willing to discard their definition of an inherently fictitious God in exchange for something that might be real so that they can fulfill a spiritual need.  I think some theists are already at that point.  But as an atheist, I have at most a mild curiosity about her philosophy.  I don't need to rethink anything so I can have a god.  I don't need a god.

From her blog, which she apparently uses as a place to advertise her books:

QuoteDoes God have to be part of our understanding of the universe? No. But if scientists tell the public that they have to choose between God and science, most people will choose God, which leads to denialism, hostility to science, and the profoundly dangerous mental incoherence in modern society that fosters depression and conflict. Meanwhile, many of those who choose science find themselves without any way of thinking that can give them access to their own spiritual potential. What we need is a coherent big picture that is completely consistent with â€" and even inspired by â€" science, yet provides an empowering way of rethinking God that provides the human and social benefits without the fantasy. How can we get this?

Science can never tell us with certainty what's true, since there's always the possibility that some future discovery will rule it out. But science can often tell us with certainty what's not true. It can rule out the impossible. Galileo, for example, showed with his telescope that the medieval picture of earth as the center of heavenly crystal spheres could not be true, even though he could not prove that the earth moves around the sun. Whenever scientists produce the evidence that convincingly rules out the impossible, there's no point in arguing. It's over. Grace lies in accepting and recalculating. That's how science moves forward.

What if we thought this way about God? What if we took the evidence of a new cosmic reality seriously and became willing to rule out the impossible? What would be left?

We can have a real God if we let go of what makes it unreal. I am only interested in God if it's real. If it isn't real, there's nothing to talk about. But I don't mean real like a table, or a feeling, or a test score, or a star. Those are real in normal earthbound experience. I mean real in the full scientific picture of our Double Dark universe, our planet, our biology and our moment in history.

These are characteristics of a God that can't be real:

1. God existed before the universe.

2. God created the universe.

3. God knows everything.

4. God intends everything that happens.

5. God can choose to violate the laws of nature.

I explain in my book, A God That Could Be Real, why physically each of these is impossible, but I don't think the scientific readers of this blog need that. The point I want to make here is that this list pretty much agrees with most atheists' reasons for dismissing the existence of God. But this is no place to stop. We've merely stated what God can't be. We haven't considered yet what God could be.

We've all grown up so steeped in some religious tradition or other, whether we've accepted it or rebelled against it, that it's hard to grasp that the chance to redefine God is actually in our hands. But it is, and the way we do it will play a leading role in shaping the future of our planet.

To me, this is the key question: Could anything actually exist in this universe that is worthy of being called God?  My answer is yes, and in my next blog post I'll explain what I mean by "a God that could be real."



The Skeletal Atheist

QuoteThese are characteristics of a God that can't be real:

1. God existed before the universe.

2. God created the universe.

3. God knows everything.

4. God intends everything that happens.

5. God can choose to violate the laws of nature.
She goes in to state some shit about some shit, doesn't really matter. What matters is could I call a being that doesn't fit these criteria a god? I'd call it an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence, but hardly a god. It may be my western mind at work, but a god manipulates reality rather than works within it.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

drunkenshoe

It's not an interesting idea. It's the same idea she thinks she can replace.






"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

stromboli

Meh. I can think of several ideas fielded here on the forum, such as the universe itself being intelligent, that might well fit into her god paradigm. Jury's still out, regardless. "That could" isn't the same as "that is".

GSOgymrat

I'm open to reading more. I put her book on my reading list.

SGOS

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on April 23, 2015, 09:55:13 AM
She goes in to state some shit about some shit, doesn't really matter. What matters is could I call a being that doesn't fit these criteria a god? I'd call it an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence, but hardly a god. It may be my western mind at work, but a god manipulates reality rather than works within it.

I would doubt that most theists could accept the idea of a God which can't have those basic, but impossible, characteristics either.


Quote from: stromboli on April 23, 2015, 10:59:17 AM
Meh. I can think of several ideas fielded here on the forum, such as the universe itself being intelligent, that might well fit into her god paradigm. Jury's still out, regardless. "That could" isn't the same as "that is".

My guess is she will be proposing a form of Pantheism.  A real universe as a God, but not necessarily having supernatural abilities.  Maybe she has other suggestions.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2015, 11:02:40 AM
I'm open to reading more. I put her book on my reading list.

She's got my curiosity too, and I'm considering reading more, but maybe I'll wait to hear your synopsis.

Solitary

Without any evidence how could anyone think a God, or gods are real in any shape or form. It's still God, or gods in the gap of our knowledge. Solitary :wall:
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Termin

QuoteDoes God have to be part of our understanding of the universe? No. But if scientists tell the public that they have to choose between God and science, most people will choose God, which leads to denialism, hostility to science, and the profoundly dangerous mental incoherence in modern society that fosters depression and conflict.

   Umm no, you simply cannot make a satisfactory claim of knowledge God exists without sufficient evidence, you don't need proof to have "Faith" in God. Science does not state You must choose.

QuoteMeanwhile, many of those who choose science find themselves without any way of thinking that can give them access to their own spiritual potential.

  Well she needs to define what she means by  spiritual potential here. She's speaking of science as it's an all encompassing philosophy.

QuoteWhat we need is a coherent big picture that is completely consistent with â€" and even inspired by â€" science, yet provides an empowering way of rethinking God that provides the human and social benefits without the fantasy. How can we get this?

  First you have to determine which God , and I don't think she wants top start a Holy war.

QuoteScience can never tell us with certainty what's true, since there's always the possibility that some future discovery will rule it out.

   You just said you wanted to use science, but now you are saying Science cannot say something is true...

QuoteBut science can often tell us with certainty what's not true. It can rule out the impossible. Galileo, for example, showed with his telescope that the medieval picture of earth as the center of heavenly crystal spheres could not be true, even though he could not prove that the earth moves around the sun. Whenever scientists produce the evidence that convincingly rules out the impossible, there's no point in arguing. It's over. Grace lies in accepting and recalculating. That's how science moves forward..

If science can rule out something as being impossible.... She likes to gamble doesn't she ?

   
QuoteWhat if we thought this way about God? What if we took the evidence of a new cosmic reality seriously and became willing to rule out the impossible? What would be left?

   Hopefully there would still be some chocolate.

QuoteThese are characteristics of a God that can't be real:

1. God existed before the universe.

2. God created the universe.

3. God knows everything.

4. God intends everything that happens.

5. God can choose to violate the laws of nature.

  If God can't choose to violate laws of nature, that means God must abide by them.


   
Termin 1:1

Evolution is probably the slowest biological process on planet earth, the only one that comes close is the understanding of it by creationists.

Hydra009

QuoteDoes God have to be part of our understanding of the universe? No. But if scientists tell the public that they have to choose between God and science, most people will choose God, which leads to denialism, hostility to science, and the profoundly dangerous mental incoherence in modern society that fosters depression and conflict. Meanwhile, many of those who choose science find themselves without any way of thinking that can give them access to their own spiritual potential. What we need is a coherent big picture that is completely consistent with â€" and even inspired by â€" science, yet provides an empowering way of rethinking God that provides the human and social benefits without the fantasy.
Ah.  I've heard of this.  I believe it's called wishful thinking.  Yep.

Aroura33

Looking over her blog, I think her book will propose Spinoza and Einstein God. I personally struggle with that concept, it seems to me they just redefine the natural universe and the laws that govern it to mean God, although Spinoza seemed to also propose there was a consciousness there as well, Einstein did not.
I would not be unhappy if more people were to embrace this kind of natural idea as God. It is a giant improvement from any current religions. It embraces scientific ideas and has no dogma.

So yeah, it still doesn't make sense to me to call the universe and natural laws god, but if it helps people get away from other retardo dogmatic religions, then great!
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.  LLAP"
Leonard Nimoy

SGOS

QuoteWhat we need is a coherent big picture that is completely consistent with â€" and even inspired by â€" science, yet provides an empowering way of rethinking God that provides the human and social benefits without the fantasy.

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 23, 2015, 12:58:49 PM
Ah.  I've heard of this.  I believe it's called wishful thinking.  Yep.

Having spent far too much time in my life trying to mash God together with facts that are consistent with reality, I suspect I've already searched through her solutions and found them wanting.  I don't want to relive that futile search.  There are other things to learn, other problems to solve.  Let me die in peace, content with reality and the limits of my own understanding.  It's not all that bad.  In fact, I kind of like it.

Hydra009

Quote from: Aroura33 on April 23, 2015, 01:01:06 PMI would not be unhappy if more people were to embrace this kind of natural idea as God. It is a giant improvement from any current religions. It embraces scientific ideas and has no dogma.

So yeah, it still doesn't make sense to me to call the universe and natural laws god, but if it helps people get away from other retardo dogmatic religions, then great!
I suppose, but I'd rather people get off the whole God stuff entirely.  Going from a very harmful superstition to a mildly harmful superstition isn't much of a win for rationalism in my book.

Aroura33

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 23, 2015, 01:42:44 PM
I suppose, but I'd rather people get off the whole God stuff entirely.  Going from a very harmful superstition to a mildly harmful superstition isn't much of a win for rationalism in my book.
Well, if her book proposes Einstein's God, then there is no superstition at all.  But really, I don't know if what she proposes included the supernatural, or not.  It could still just be redefining the word God to mean the natural universe.  You may not like people using the word God for that, but at least it is a coherent and working definition (if still meaningless to us).
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.  LLAP"
Leonard Nimoy

PickelledEggs

That is one long, drawn out way of saying "buy my book"...

NakedTracyBlack

I'm not sure why a god who created the universe couldn't exist or a god who existed before the universe.  That's all supposing that our universe is the only thing there is.  There's no evidence of anything more, but it's imo at least a possibility.

Of course my beliefs would be considered weird by most.