Is it reasonable to deduce God from order in Nature?

[marco]

Is it reasonable to look at a lamb and deduce that God set the production of sheep in motion through his wonderful love. Blake wondered why the God who made the lamb also made the tiger to kill it.

When we see the operation of flowers, the human eye, the spider's web... some of us conclude there is a God who fashioned them. How else did they come about?

Thus God is the product of our ignorance. We do not know - ergo God.

Is this a reasonable position to hold?

Should we expect more definite signs of our maker?

And if we accept that some Intelligence made everything, how do we reconcile this Intelligence with the Titan of the Old Testament, hung up on sex, sin and sacrifice?

[Kenisaw]

Gods are the result that the human mind came up with because it needed an answer, could not find the answer, and removed the scary topics of life from the "don't know" box to the "now I can feel better" box...

Of course, a religious person might respond that

Naturalistic theories for the origin of religion are the result that the human mind came up with because it needed an answer, could not find the answer, and removed the scary topics of life from the "don't know" box to the "now I can feel better" box...

That doesn't make a lot of sense with naturalistic theories however, since naturalists expect to cease to exist when they die, have no hope of supernatural intervention during things like tornadoes or cancer, and are able to accept "don't know" as an acceptable answer for topics currently being researched.

But it was a cute attempt at humor anyway, kudos to you for that.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 23 by Mithrae]

It is NOT less reasonable to postulate novel types of being because that is precisely what God seems to be. He is not part of any physical continuum, so why suppose that what works for us, works for God? Does he have arms and legs, and is he visible?

Worrying about consciousness is a smaller problem than imagining God. Consciousness comes with being alive; where it comes from is an unknown or a question for philosophy.

Memetic variation is the stuff of further speculation. Nice idea but irrelevant.

There is no rise to 60% or 70% probability since such numbers are meaningless. I repeat that when we are making guesses about another world, we cannot assume that what applies here applies there. If this were so we would expect to see God wandering around scratching his head.

What you are doing here is assuming - or rather inventing - a "physical continuum" in order to pretend that this discussion must be about "another world." But what do you even mean by 'physical'? The only definitions I've seen are along the lines of either "relating to the body as opposed to the mind" or "relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind"; some folk suggest that it means things accessible to science (a variant on the latter), others simply assert that everything that exists is 'physical.'

The natural dualism that children seem to grow into - first developing a sense of self, then recognizing that the rest of the world is 'not like me' (and eventually, gradually, understanding that some bits of it do seem to have minds of its own) - is philosophically untenable. But that simple, childish notion that the rest of reality is different simply because we can't perceive other minds is also not sound reasoning: How or why could a physical reality produce something that no physical senses or instruments can perceive to begin with?

Why do you make that leap to physical monism, when mental monism or idealism 1) introduces fewer new assumptions, fewer new types of being, 2) creates fewer new problems to explain and 3) has greater explanatory scope and power?

[Mithrae]

Of course, a religious person might respond that

Naturalistic theories for the origin of religion are the result that the human mind came up with because it needed an answer, could not find the answer, and removed the scary topics of life from the "don't know" box to the "now I can feel better" box...

That doesn't make a lot of sense with naturalistic theories however, since naturalists expect to cease to exist when they die, have no hope of supernatural intervention during things like tornadoes or cancer, and are able to accept "don't know" as an acceptable answer for topics currently being researched.

But it was a cute attempt at humor anyway, kudos to you for that.

The most important thing for some people is to believe that their own lives have some sense of meaning or purpose, or will continue after their deaths. For other people, it is more important to feel that there is a sense of meaning or order in their world. The latter desire needn't be limited to any particular explanatory framework; it can be manifest as religious view or as philosophical views like naturalism, or for that matter even many conspiracy theories are a manifestation of it. Some people like being 'in the know,' to have one over all those clueless dupes buying into the mainstream. There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why your generalization about origins of religion is any more valid that a counter-generalization about origins of theories of religion.

Isn't it possible that instead of merely meeting some unmet explanatory needs (not that that's a bad thing), some or even most religions began or were shaped by genuine glimpses of a higher reality?

[marco]

What you are doing here is assuming - or rather inventing - a "physical continuum" in order to pretend that this discussion must be about "another world."

In fact I am saying that you are doing just that: making deductive leaps from what we see here to the world of God.

However, I see you are drawing a distinction between the physical world and the world of the senses, and deducing that God is a native of the sense world. And you think this is a more reasonable conclusion than to say God, the creator of matter and space, exists in some other reality. You are troubled about consciousness emerging from granite, and so am I; you are untroubled about the Solar System emerging from thought.

You can perhaps reason that God may operate on the unseen level of our mental faculties; I wonder how he works his wonders then. Certainly not in any way or world we know.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]


"Some think that there exists Satan in whose heart evil dwells. Before and after Jesus there were good men. I believe there existed and there exist people every bit as nice as Christ seems to have been. They don't all get themselves into trouble as he did."

Really? Look at unjust laws today.
You can go to prison for questioning some historical claims.
As a human race we are going backwards.

Really, we are going backwards? The most personal freedom humans have ever enjoyed, the most knowledge we've ever had, advances that improved the standards of living for the whole species. I have to take exception to that statement. I realize you probably mean morally or some other subjective standard, but still...

For the whole species? Incuding Iraqis?
We kill others because they don't agree with us or because we want what they've got.
How much more barbaric can we get?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]


"Some think that there exists Satan in whose heart evil dwells. Before and after Jesus there were good men. I believe there existed and there exist people every bit as nice as Christ seems to have been. They don't all get themselves into trouble as he did."

Really? Look at unjust laws today.
You can go to prison for questioning some historical claims.
As a human race we are going backwards.

Really, we are going backwards? The most personal freedom humans have ever enjoyed, the most knowledge we've ever had, advances that improved the standards of living for the whole species. I have to take exception to that statement. I realize you probably mean morally or some other subjective standard, but still...

For the whole species? Incuding Iraqis?
We kill others because they don't agree with us or because we want what they've got.
How much more barbaric can we get?

The whole species Monta. That means as a whole. Individual societies may have it bad, but the whole species has advanced as a group. Unless you think knocking holes in people's heads to let out the evil spirits that were causing disease is the "good ol days"?

People kill other people? You act like that is a new development...

[Kenisaw]

Of course, a religious person might respond that

Naturalistic theories for the origin of religion are the result that the human mind came up with because it needed an answer, could not find the answer, and removed the scary topics of life from the "don't know" box to the "now I can feel better" box...

That doesn't make a lot of sense with naturalistic theories however, since naturalists expect to cease to exist when they die, have no hope of supernatural intervention during things like tornadoes or cancer, and are able to accept "don't know" as an acceptable answer for topics currently being researched.

But it was a cute attempt at humor anyway, kudos to you for that.

The most important thing for some people is to believe that their own lives have some sense of meaning or purpose, or will continue after their deaths.

Sure, ignoring reality is the right way to go. People that use drugs to escape reality go to jail for it, but believing in baseless speculation and spending years clasping your hands together talking to no one is entirely OK...

Honestly, I don't care that people believe in whatever they want to believe in. That's their own personal choice. The problem is when they take that stuff and make fantastic leaps of logic with it as it relates to science, like those that claim only god can change the Earth and therefore man cannot change the air on Earth enough to affect the climate. That kind of idiocy has to be fought. When Florida goes under water, it affects everyone, not just the Westboro Baptist Church crowd...

For other people, it is more important to feel that there is a sense of meaning or order in their world. The latter desire needn't be limited to any particular explanatory framework; it can be manifest as religious view or as philosophical views like naturalism, or for that matter even many conspiracy theories are a manifestation of it. Some people like being 'in the know,' to have one over all those clueless dupes buying into the mainstream. There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why your generalization about origins of religion is any more valid that a counter-generalization about origins of theories of religion.

Google "god and psychology" or something like that to view some of the articles and journal entries on the topic. Origins of god creatures is something that is studied, and has been for some time. My generalizations about origins of religions is based on that body of research.

Isn't it possible that instead of merely meeting some unmet explanatory needs (not that that's a bad thing), some or even most religions began or were shaped by genuine glimpses of a higher reality?

I substituted "leprechaun" in for "higher reality". I tried "unicorn" too. No matter what I used, I end up with a baseless claim that is devoid of any evidence or data supporting it.

Please submit your evidence or empirical data for a "higher reality". Skipping to the end and avoiding the middle stuff, you don't have any. No believer ever does, and it has definitely been asked for on this website more times than I care to count. If such proof existed it would been all over the news by now, and be both know it.

So no, I don't think anyone had genuine glimpses of anything. More likely, they injected their coping mechanisms into their experiences and their minds manufactured the rest from there (you can google that too by the way if you want to read more on that)...

[Mithrae]

What you are doing here is assuming - or rather inventing - a "physical continuum" in order to pretend that this discussion must be about "another world."

In fact I am saying that you are doing just that: making deductive leaps from what we see here to the world of God.

However, I see you are drawing a distinction between the physical world and the world of the senses, and deducing that God is a native of the sense world. And you think this is a more reasonable conclusion than to say God, the creator of matter and space, exists in some other reality. You are troubled about consciousness emerging from granite, and so am I; you are untroubled about the Solar System emerging from thought.

You can perhaps reason that God may operate on the unseen level of our mental faculties; I wonder how he works his wonders then. Certainly not in any way or world we know.

"World of God," "physical world," "world of the senses" and "some other reality"? I'm not sure that we're properly understanding each other here. As far as I know there is only one world, one reality. If you believe in multiple worlds it might help to explain why first, because otherwise all these worlds are just confusing.

You've seen or heard of that movie The Matrix, I assume? If so, you probably understand that it is fallacious to assume that reality - the things we see and touch and so on - are necessarily non-mental phenomena. In fact, seeing and hearing and touching and smelling are mental phenomena themselves. But since we all agree that there are things which occur outside of our own minds, in a shared reality, we're left with the question of whether that shared reality is better imagined in terms of mental or non-mental ('physical') characteristics.

As I've already noted, so far as I have yet been able to discover or imagine, there really isn't even any clear way of describing or explaining what is meant by a 'physical' reality except in juxtaposition to the mental. If you know of some way, I'd be glad to hear it. But there's also those three distinct positive reasons for supposing that describing reality in mental terms (idealism) is more reasonable: 1) It introduces fewer new entities, 2) it introduces fewer new conceptual problems and 3) it offers greater explanatory scope and power.



It seems like our misunderstanding might come from a hang-up over Christian dualism, the notion that a Creator is somehow distinct from creation. But I don't even know what that would mean? Substance dualism makes little sense, as far as I can tell. If two substances share no comparable properties in space and time, it's incoherent to talk about them interacting in any way. More reasonable is the view that reality consists of the very mind of 'god'; perhaps nodded towards in Paul's speech in Acts, "in Him we live and move and have our being." That's panentheism in a nutshell - that we are to god as Westeros is to George R. R. Martin.

The case for idealism doesn't necessarily imply monotheistic panentheism of course, though I'd say it's the most elegant perspective: But whether reality as a whole consists of one mind or many, idealism does seem to be a more reasonable view than physicalism.

[Mithrae]

Isn't it possible that instead of merely meeting some unmet explanatory needs (not that that's a bad thing), some or even most religions began or were shaped by genuine glimpses of a higher reality?

I substituted "leprechaun" in for "higher reality". I tried "unicorn" too. No matter what I used, I end up with a baseless claim that is devoid of any evidence or data supporting it.

Please submit your evidence or empirical data for a "higher reality". Skipping to the end and avoiding the middle stuff, you don't have any. No believer ever does, and it has definitely been asked for on this website more times than I care to count. If such proof existed it would been all over the news by now, and be both know it.

So no, I don't think anyone had genuine glimpses of anything. More likely, they injected their coping mechanisms into their experiences and their minds manufactured the rest from there (you can google that too by the way if you want to read more on that)...

Just to clarify I'm not a believer, I'm a sceptic. I'm not selectively sceptical; I question non-religious philosophies as well as religious ones. When presented with some data, the first questions I try to ask are "what does this point to?" and "how strongly does it suggest it?" Then, even if it seems pretty solid or something I'd like to agree with, I try to consider alternative explanations of the same data and consider how plausible those might be. For example: What kind of plausible scenarios might there be in which there really was a god who interacted with the Hebrew culture in its past?

So what do you get if you apply that kind of process to the origins of the biblical religion?

Moses never claimed that he met a leprechaun, did he? Isaiah did not say that he received revelations from a unicorn. The data that we are presented with here is claims of what certain humans have observed and experienced. Empirical observation is one of the twin pillars of human knowledge, and this data points to a super-human origin for the biblical religions (I dislike the incoherent term 'supernatural').

Of course, it points very weakly to that super-human origin; the stories of Moses probably weren't even gathered into the format we have today until the 6th or 7th century BCE, for example, but even in the cases where we have primary sources for such alleged experiences of the divine, we should be rightly sceptical of whether or not those claims are true. Some people deceive themselves, some people deceive others - though not all people or all the time, it's important to note.

All I asked is whether it is possible those claims for the origins of a given religion are true? You didn't really answer, but wouldn't you agree that it is possible, or at least that they are grounded in truth? And if it is possible, then explanatory theories which assume strictly naturalistic origins are merely alternative explanations of that initial data, not proofs against or refutations of the conclusions very weakly suggested by it.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 24 by dio9]

The question for today is :
1. do you see nature as Supportive life sustaining and good or dangerous threatening and bad; good or evil?

2. do you feel yourself to be part of nature or outside ?

3. do you feel you are a good person? Of course you do.