Man created God? [edited]

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

The names aren’t important. The discoveries are.

Oh, I see. We are to discover the ideas but not the authors of those ideas. If you were to write a term paper for me and not cite the authors you borrowed from (and believe me, almost everything you know is borrowed) I would give you the paper back and demand you cite your sources.

It’s not nice to pass off other people’s ideas as if they were your own.

What is the matter with you, Tom? Is it that your authorities are so weak that you’re ashamed to identify them?

By the way, the vigor with which Voltaire and Jefferson and other deists repudiated the atheists shows that they were not doing so to avoid being tagged with the label. In Jefferson’s case he was privately blasting the atheists in a letter to Adams. Nor did Einstein have to worry about that. He defied the atheists with great gusto. The point is that he saw nothing in science that would justify atheism. You can try all day and all night to explain that away … but the truth will out.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

The names aren’t important. The discoveries are.

Oh, I see. We are to discover the ideas but not the authors of those ideas. If you were to write a term paper for me and not cite the authors you borrowed from (and believe me, almost everything you know is borrowed) I would give you the paper back and demand you cite your sources.

I’ve not suggested I’d like to claim the work of others as my own. That would be dishonest. The name of the author of papers I cite doesn’t establish anything toward my hypothesis. Instead, the results and observations and analysis in their work is what matters. Naming names is just fine to keep things straight as to who said what when, but the scientific validation for an idea comes from the performance of those ideas in real world tests, not from the fame or name recognition of the author.

It’s not nice to pass off other people’s ideas as if they were your own.

Where have I suggested anything like that?

What is the matter with you, Tom? Is it that your authorities are so weak that you’re ashamed to identify them?

First, my name’s not Tom. I don’t know where you got that, or the idea we’ve discussed things on another forum. We may have but I’m not aware of it, if so. Why do you call me Tom?

As for authorities, my authorities aren’t celebrities or famous names. In building effective and reliable models of reality, what’s authoritative to me is evidence, and ideas that account for that evidence, make precise predictions about what evidence will be found in the future, and are liable to falsification. That’s what I consider to be authoritative as a basis for knowledge. I’m quite familiar with a lot of great minds, inside science and out. Charles Darwin and Alfred Einstein and Richard Feynman are the three greatest scientific thinkers I know of. But none of them have the least bit of authority beyond the performance of their ideas as regards truth about reality. I’m happy to mention them as a way of getting at their ideas, but I’ve no interest in appealing to their “authority” outside of what their ideas and discoveries objectively demonstrate.

By the way, the vigor with which Voltaire and Jefferson and other deists repudiated the atheists shows that they were not doing so to avoid being tagged with the label. In Jefferson’s case he was privately blasting the atheists in a letter to Adams. Nor did Einstein have to worry about that. He defied the atheists with great gusto. The point is that he saw nothing in science that would justify atheism. You can try all day and all night to explain that away … but the truth will out.

There’s nothing in science that demands atheism, or theism. Science is about natural explanations for natural phenomena. It cannot speak coherently on supernatural subjects and questions. Atheism or theism obtains outside of and on top of any witness of science.

-TS

 

[Leela]

That kind of cultural context provides some insight into why an atheist would profess some nominal Deism or theism, even after such laws had lost some of their teeth. Atheism was a cultural taboo. For all the denials of Paine and Jefferson and Franklin, an atheist typically finds their words, reasons and dispositions immediately familiar.

-TS

I wonder if the same negative connotations for atheism explains Einstein’s position. He would use the words “religion” and “God” and when asked to explain what he meant, he would say exactly what I mean by atheism. The difference between Einstein and I seems to be a choice concerning whether the vocabulary of religion is worth keeping. Einstein apparently thought it was. For me, in this current political climate, using the words as he did would only result in misunderstanding, as they clearly did in his time as well since he always had to correct other’s interpretations of his beliefs.

One bit if confusion is that the word atheism is sometimes used to mean that one has knowledge that gods do not exist (an untenable position that is rightly criticized by all the thinkers Charlemagne cites) and atheism as a simple lack of belief in gods (which is how I use the term). Charlemagne seems to insist on attacking the latter position as if it were the former. All this is a good argument for dropping the word “atheist” from our vocabularies as well.

 

[mary1173]

Oh yes, the lemming argument for the existence of god “If god does not exist then why does everyone believe in him” or from the perspective of the lemming “If leaping off that cliff is dangerous then why is everyone else doing it” or “if the world is round then why does everyone think that it’s flat” or “If the earth orbits the sun then why does everyone think the sun orbits the earth”?

Belief =/= reality. Sadly, this argument for the existence of a god appears to be the best argument theists have left.

so then, you don’t believe in God? Why do you believe that your interest is so intense for this web site? You must WANT to be able to learn something about God or understand God better, no? Keep searching for the answers you seek. Hopefully you will understand that God gave you the intellect to do so.
Peace
Mary1173

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

I’ve not suggested I’d like to claim the work of others as my own. That would be dishonest. The name of the author of papers I cite doesn’t establish anything toward my hypothesis. Instead, the results and observations and analysis in their work is what matters. Naming names is just fine to keep things straight as to who said what when, but the scientific validation for an idea comes from the performance of those ideas in real world tests, not from the fame or name recognition of the author.

I guess you’ll never be cured of this allergy for authors.

Again, with that allergy in mind, I see no point in communicating any further with you. Good bye and God bless.

Charlie

 

[tonyrey]

I’m all over the place on this thread as it is, based on the questions I’m fielding. I think it’s kinda-sorta-nominally related to defending the idea that man has created God in his own image, but a full defense of all the subjects you listed as natural phenomenon would be quite a lot of work here, and would bring us way far afield.
-Touchstone

Then it’s time to put our views into the context of the original question so that we are not at cross-purposes.
You believe:

1. Man has created God in his own image.
2. Matter is eternal or it has emerged from a void.
3. Mind has emerged fortuitously from matter.
4. Personality, rationality, consciousness, autonomy, purpose and value have emerged from that which lacks personality, rationality, consciousness, autonomy, purpose and value.
   I believe:
5. God has created the universe with persons in His own image, i.e. creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable beings.

Naturalism is a more economical explanation but theism is simpler, more adequate, more coherent, more elegant and more fertile. Theism is also more intelligible because we have direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable activity whereas naturalism provides no explanation whatsoever.

Naturalism is a more economical explanation but theism is simpler, more adequate, coherent, elegant, fertile and intelligible because we have direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable activity. To regard
finite minds and matter as created implies that they have something in common - their origin and their contingency. They are both subsidiary aspects of the Supreme Reality. To regard them as entirely disparate and incapable of interaction is to restrict reality to human categories - an absurd view. It amounts to imposing limits on the power of the Creator.

Naturalism does not explain how the brain is aware of itself and directs itself or where its control-centre and consciousness are located or where decisions are made or which part of the brain can be held responsible for its activity. The view that “Consciousness is impossible without extramental objects” overlooks the fact of self-consciousness. Is that an illusion? If not, how do you define the “self”?

Everything you perceive may be an illusion but to deny that your thoughts exist is to contradict yourself. So it does not follow that the “objective existence of things outside the mind is the basis for the objective existence of the self.” Even to refer to the mind or self as an entity is to beg the question. It is inconsistent with the belief that it consists solely of brain states. Moreover if mental states are just physical states of the body humanity has been labouring under a colossal delusion for thousands of years. The onus is on the naturalist to explain how all mental states, particularly qualia, are physical states and how they are integrated.

The logical outcome of naturalism is nihilism. To regard persons as the product of atomic particles is to devalue everything. It implies that there is no sound basis for believing in human rights. How can human rights be explained as the result of electro-chemical processes?

 

[RobbyS]

Then it’s time to put our views into the context of the original question so that we are not at cross-purposes.
You believe:

1. Man has created God in his own image.
2. Matter is eternal or it has emerged from a void.
3. Mind has emerged fortuitously from matter.
4. Personality, rationality, consciousness, autonomy, purpose and value have emerged from that which lacks personality, rationality, consciousness, autonomy, purpose and value.
   I believe:
5. God has created the universe with persons in His own image, i.e. creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable beings.

Naturalism is a more economical explanation but theism is simpler, more adequate, more coherent, more elegant and more fertile. Theism is also more intelligible because we have direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable activity whereas naturalism provides no explanation whatsoever.

Naturalism is a more economical explanation but theism is simpler, more adequate, coherent, elegant, fertile and intelligible because we have direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable activity. To regard
finite minds and matter as created implies that they have something in common - their origin and their contingency. They are both subsidiary aspects of the Supreme Reality. To regard them as entirely disparate and incapable of interaction is to restrict reality to human categories - an absurd view. It amounts to imposing limits on the power of the Creator.

Naturalism does not explain how the brain is aware of itself and directs itself or where its control-centre and consciousness are located or where decisions are made or which part of the brain can be held responsible for its activity. The view that “Consciousness is impossible without extramental objects” overlooks the fact of self-consciousness. Is that an illusion? If not, how do you define the “self”?

Everything you perceive may be an illusion but to deny that your thoughts exist is to contradict yourself. So it does not follow that the “objective existence of things outside the mind is the basis for the objective existence of the self.” Even to refer to the mind or self as an entity is to beg the question. It is inconsistent with the belief that it consists solely of brain states. Moreover if mental states are just physical states of the body humanity has been labouring under a colossal delusion for thousands of years. The onus is on the naturalist to explain how all mental states, particularly qualia, are physical states and how they are integrated.

The logical outcome of naturalism is nihilism. To regard persons as the product of atomic particles is to devalue everything. It implies that there is no sound basis for believing in human rights. How can human rights be explained as the result of electro-chemical processes?

It ends with what Lewis called The Abolition of Man." So it is literally diabolical because the Devil wishes us to deny the creation which he wishes to dominate but only to destroy, being unwillling to conceded that this is beyond his power.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m glad that you agree that there is an important question that we have to answer before we would need to coinsider whether or not Jesus told the truth about himself.

No I am not saying that we have to answer that question before we need to consider whether or not Jesus told the truth about Himself. What I am saying is that if you approach it from that angle then there is no empirical evidence to back our claim that Jesus did say all those things.

I and all Christianity do not accept it that way.
St Augustine said something like, faith is believing what you cannot see. The gift of faith is seeing what you believe.
For an atheist that will be something very hard to comprehend.

What sort of evidence do you think I should be considering that you think I’m not considering?

No evidence. Faith does not work or depend on evidence.

I know God exists in the deepest recesses of my soul and I know Jesus is God but don’t ask me to explain that to you because I can’t.

Here is a little story (as best I can recall it ) from the book “Miracles do Happen” by Breige McKenna.

Sister Breige has the gift of healing (believe or not) and one time was asked to (I think) give a reatreat to a group of priests.

A priest told her that he will believe in miracles if he saw one. It so happened that one of the priests in the group had a gangrenous leg and the decay is very evident.

Sister Breige prayed for him and his gangrene was healed the next morning. When the doubting priest saw this he still did not believe. He said that maybe the other priest did not have gangrene after all.

I think you can only come to faith once you come to accept (even tentatively) that there is a realm other than the natural world.

I don’t know what you could mean by other ways of knowing. There are lots of ways to inquire. What means of inquiry do you think I’m not using?

That’s just it. You are inquiring too much. Maybe you should just let go.

I don’t see how humility is the issue. It seems to me that people who don’t claim to know things that they don’t actually know demonstrate more humility than those who claim to know things about the universe and our history with absolute certainty that no scientist or historian could claim to know within her own field of inquiry.

Not being certain about something because one does not have proof is not humility. It is simple fact.

The root for humility is humus (of the earth). It means recognizing that we are creatures.

But how can you recognize and accept your creaturedness if you do not even believe in a Creator.

 

[Leela]

The root for humility is humus (of the earth). It means recognizing that we are creatures.

But how can you recognize and accept your creaturedness if you do not even believe in a Creator.

This comment surprises me. Usually believers oppose what I say by telling me that they just can’t imagine themselves as being creaturely in this way.

 

[Touchstone]

Then it’s time to put our views into the context of the original question so that we are not at cross-purposes.
You believe:

1. Man has created God in his own image.
2. Matter is eternal or it has emerged from a void.
3. Mind has emerged fortuitously from matter.
4. Personality, rationality, consciousness, autonomy, purpose and value have emerged from that which lacks personality, rationality, consciousness, autonomy, purpose and value.
   I believe:
5. God has created the universe with persons in His own image, i.e. creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable beings.

Naturalism is a more economical explanation but theism is simpler, more adequate, more coherent, more elegant and more fertile. Theism is also more intelligible because we have direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable activity whereas naturalism provides no explanation whatsoever.
The ‘simplicity’ of theism is disingenuous. Saying “God is simple” is not an explanation for God, or God’s knowledge, intentions, and mechanisms. For instance, if God is distinct from the universe, but as an omniscient being God is at least as complex as the universe, knowing all the details.

Saying “God is simple because I don’t know how he works” is not what simple means in terms of parsimony.

Naturalism is a more economical explanation but theism is simpler, more adequate, coherent, elegant, fertile and intelligible because we have direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational, conscious, autonomous, purposeful and valuable activity. To regard finite minds and matter as created implies that they have something in common - their origin and their contingency. They are both subsidiary aspects of the Supreme Reality. To regard them as entirely disparate and incapable of interaction is to restrict reality to human categories - an absurd view. It amounts to imposing limits on the power of the Creator.

Yes, too elegant by half, though, in the same way handwaving is a simpler way to explain things. Gods pushing the stars around the heavens as was once supposed has the same recommendations for it, and is in fact just a rudimentary form of your argument here. It’s way easier to explain to other ancients that a god is pushing the stars around the sky in terms of being a coherent, fertile, adequate, and intelligible explanation. The actual explanation can’t compete with artificial ones – the “Goddidit” answer will always wins because it imagines a being who can do anything, anyway he wants, effortlessly – don’t ask how, but he can. It’s just the appearance of adequacy as an explanation, and imaginary coherence.

All answers cohere if you posit an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent God with an inscrutable will. That which explains everything explains nothing.

Naturalism does not explain how the brain is aware of itself and directs itself or where its control-centre and consciousness are located or where decisions are made or which part of the brain can be held responsible for its activity. The view that “Consciousness is impossible without extramental objects” overlooks the fact of self-consciousness. Is that an illusion? If not, how do you define the “self”?

It’s not an illusion in the sense that consciousness and self-consciousness aren’t real phenomenon. It is an illusion, for many anyway, that that process is somehow “disembodied” or supernatural. Humans are generally unaware of the intense kinds of computations that have to happen second by second in their brains to effect the kinds of visual chunking and pattern recognition that allow them to navigate and interact with the environment around them. It’s so ubuiquitous we’re hardly aware it is happening. Self-consciousness is similar in its transparency to us.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Everything you perceive may be an illusion but to deny that your thoughts exist is to contradict yourself. So it does not follow that the “objective existence of things outside the mind is the basis for the objective existence of the self.” Even to refer to the mind or self as an entity is to beg the question. It is inconsistent with the belief that it consists solely of brain states.

I think what you are missing is the transcendental nature of consciousness to thought. You don’t think without consciousness, without some relationship to other objects being constructed in your mind. Consciousness is a predicate for self-awareness, and conscious depends on awareness of extramental objects.

Moreover if mental states are just physical states of the body humanity has been labouring under a colossal delusion for thousands of years. The onus is on the naturalist to explain how all mental states, particularly qualia, are physical states and how they are integrated.

Does this mean that “God” wins as some kind of “default”, if you are not satisfied with the current science? God is proved by the gaps in our knowledge? 3000 years ago, was the onus on the scientist of the time to show that planets moved according to physical law, rather than than the muscle of the gods?

Aristotle understood the celestial spheres to each be moved by a different god – a “divine unmoved mover” – whose force obtains from love. If the motion of the planets is law-based, and not the object of motion-by-love from the gods, does this idea languish for millenia until modern astronomy is able to provide an in-depth, mechanistic explanation?

Science doesn’t have exhaustive answers for all phenomena, and it never will. But the pattern couldn’t be more lopsided. In the history of man’s learning, how many credulous superstitions have fallen to the progress of knowledge? Too many to count. It’s not a matter of overconfidence or delusions of man’s grandeur. Empirically, we can just look back and see that overwhelmingly lopsided pattern of history: superstitions getting supplanted by natural knowledge time and time again, with superstitions conspicuously lacking their own successes in supplanting scientific explanations. Past performance is no guarantee of feature performance, but the trend lines for superstitious answers are really, really bad.

The logical outcome of naturalism is nihilism. To regard persons as the product of atomic particles is to devalue everything. It implies that there is no sound basis for believing in human rights. How can human rights be explained as the result of electro-chemical processes?

No, nihilism is a moral choice, and a self-defeating one. It’s by no means the only choice available to those willing to apprehend the universe in a disciplined, rational way. Man has reached the modern day through millions of years of development, and comes equipped with a capacity to reason, to empathize, and a social, gregarious disposition. These are building blocks of human rights. We are social animals by nature, and so we participate in social hierarchies and social contracts. We are empaths, so we have an innate understanding that our aversion to pain and suffering is shared by our peers. We have the ability to reason, and those can harmonize those ideas into an understanding of the autonomous value of individuals. We want our own autonomy, and to be treated unfairly, and not to be made to suffer gratuitously. We thus apprehend our own value for ourselves, and our reason and empathy provide the basis for understanding that value obtains for other humans around us, for we are human as they are human.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

The ‘simplicity’ of theism is disingenuous. Saying “God is simple” is not an explanation for God, or God’s knowledge, intentions, and mechanisms. For instance, if God is distinct from the universe, but as an omniscient being God is at least as complex as the universe, knowing all the details.

Obviously saying “God is simple” is not an explanation for God, or God’s knowledge, intentions, and mechanisms. Only a fool would attempt to give a detailed explanation of the nature of God.

“Saying “God is simple because I don’t know how he works” is not what simple means in terms of parsimony.”

There is a difference between simplicity and parsimony. An explanation which is too parsimonious, e.g. everything comes from atomic particles, is inadequate and unintelligible unless it is supported by evidence. Simplicity stems from coherence rather than false economy. Theism is simpler because it is related to our own direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational activity.

“Gods pushing the stars around the heavens as was once supposed has the same recommendations for it, and is in fact just a rudimentary form of your argument here. It’s way easier to explain to other ancients that a god is pushing the stars around the sky in terms of being a coherent, fertile, adequate, and intelligible explanation.”

Your version is an unexplained Big Bang pushing particles around and blindly producing rational beings by means of fortuitous arrangements of molecules and random mutations of genes.

“All answers cohere if you posit an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent God with an inscrutable will”

All answers cohere if you posit an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, loving Creator who has created human beings in His own image with the power of reason, self-determination and a capacity for love. You omitted to acknowledge the fact that we have direct knowledge and experience of creative activity to which the achievements in art, literature, music, science and philosophy bear ample witness.

“That which explains everything explains nothing.”

On the contrary, that which explains everything explains everything. Naturalism explains nothing about the origin of personality, consciousness, autonomy and responsibility yet claims to explains everything in terms of atomic particles.

“Humans are generally unaware of the intense kinds of computations that have to happen second by second in their brains to effect the kinds of visual chunking and pattern recognition that allow them to navigate and interact with the environment around them. It’s so ubuiquitous we’re hardly aware it is happening. Self-consciousness is similar in its transparency to us.”

The extreme complexity of electro-chemical computations makes consciousness unintelligible? To whom? To us! What does “us” refer to? In your opinion, a set of extremely complex electro-chemical computations. So a set of extremely complex electro-chemical computations is unintelligible to itself. If ever there was an artificial explanation this is it - literally. The electro-chemical answer always wins because it imagines itself as being capable of doing anything, producing every aspect of reality naturally and effortlessly – don’t ask how, but it can and yet it cannot explain how! It’s just the appearance of an explanation but it is no explanation at all amidst the imaginary coherence of universal, purposeless electro-chemical activity.

“I think what you are missing is the transcendental nature of consciousness to thought. You don’t think without consciousness, without some relationship to other objects being constructed in your mind. Consciousness is a predicate for self-awareness, and conscious depends on awareness of extramental objects.”

How do electro-chemical processes have “transcendental” effects? To transcend is “to rise above or go beyond the limits… to be prior to, beyond, and above the universe or material existence”. (Merriam-Webster). It is impossible to refute naturalism because naturalists are always moving the goal-posts to accommodate new discoveries. They are in an impregnable position because they never define what “nature” is. If they were presented with undeniable evidence that telepathy occurs they would argue that it has an unknown natural cause.

Once again you have evaded the question of what the self is or how the brain is aware of itself and directs itself or where its control-centre and consciousness are located or where decisions are made or which part of the brain can be held responsible for its activity. That which explains nothing explains nothing…

 

[tonyrey]

Aristotle understood the celestial spheres to each be moved by a different god – a “divine unmoved mover” – whose force obtains from love. If the motion of the planets is law-based, and not the object of motion-by-love from the gods, does this idea languish for millenia until modern astronomy is able to provide an in-depth, mechanistic explanation?

Aristotle believed in one “divine unmoved mover”. Your objection is based on the false assumption that “law-based” and “motion-by-love” are mutually exclusive. Theism supplements mechanistic explanation with teleological explanation whereas naturalism is restricted to a backward view of causality (in both senses of the term)

Science doesn’t have exhaustive answers for all phenomena, and it never will.

Then why do you exclude the possibility of any other explanation of rational beings?

But the pattern couldn’t be more lopsided. In the history of man’s learning, how many credulous superstitions have fallen to the progress of knowledge? Too many to count. It’s not a matter of overconfidence or delusions of man’s grandeur.

Why are you so sure? You seem to regard man as the supreme rational being…

Empirically, we can just look back and see that overwhelmingly lopsided pattern of history: superstitions getting supplanted by natural knowledge time and time again, with superstitions conspicuously lacking their own successes in supplanting scientific explanations. Past performance is no guarantee of feature performance, but the trend lines for superstitious answers are really, really bad.

You equate all non-scientific explanations with superstition and knowledge with science. On this reckoning naturalism is a form of superstition because it is non-scientific, i.e. it does not have a scientific basis. It is based on the metascientific assumption that only scientific explanations are valid.

No, nihilism is a moral choice, and a self-defeating one. It’s by no means the only choice available to those willing to apprehend the universe in a disciplined, rational way.

This implies that morality has a rational basis in an amoral universe.

Man has reached the modern day through millions of years of development, and comes equipped with a capacity to reason, to empathize, and a social, gregarious disposition. These are building blocks of human rights. We are social animals by nature, and so we participate in social hierarchies and social contracts. We are empaths, so we have an innate understanding that our aversion to pain and suffering is shared by our peers. We have the ability to reason, and those can harmonize those ideas into an understanding of the autonomous value of individuals.

If human rights are based solely on a capacity to reason and empathize, on a social, gregarious disposition, on social hierarchies and on social contracts they are insignificant in an indifferent universe and cannot possibly be categorical imperatives. It also implies that human beings are the sole beings with rights…

We want our own autonomy, and to be treated unfairly, and not to be made to suffer gratuitously.

This implies that autonomy and fairness are objective realities in a universe devoid of autonomy and fairness.

We thus apprehend our own value for ourselves, and our reason and empathy provide the basis for understanding that value obtains for other humans around us, for we are human as they are human.

This implies that our value and the principle of equality are objective realities in a universe otherwise devoid of value and equality.

 

[tonyrey]

It ends with what Lewis called The Abolition of Man." So it is literally diabolical because the Devil wishes us to deny the creation which he wishes to dominate but only to destroy, being unwilling to concede that this is beyond his power.

I agree it amounts to the abolition of man - which is diabolical in the case of the Devil who knows that God exists - and I don’t exclude diabolical inspiration as a factor in human evil. (We have only to think of the Holocaust.) But I’m sure most atheists are not motivated by the lust for power or deliberate rejection of a greater Being than themselves. They are simply unwilling to admit the possibility that truth, goodness, justice, beauty, freedom and love exist independently of man…

 

[Touchstone]

Obviously saying “God is simple” is not an explanation for God, or God’s knowledge, intentions, and mechanisms. Only a fool would attempt to give a detailed explanation of the nature of God.

That seems quite a problem, then. In terms of parsimony, materialism is efficient; it doesn’t introduce entities beyond what we have in evidence already – material stuff. A Christian explanation entries this new entity - God - which is not just problematic with respect to parsimony (*entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity), *but that entity is completely intractable, inscrutable in terms of explanations. It’s precisely what Ockham’s Razor seeks to avoid in promoting economy and succinctness.

There is a difference between simplicity and parsimony. An explanation which is too parsimonious, e.g. everything comes from atomic particles, is inadequate and unintelligible unless it is supported by evidence. Simplicity stems from coherence rather than false economy. Theism is simpler because it is related to our own direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational activity.

Simplicity is not a derivitave of coherence, I’m not sure where you got that or are going with that. Coherence means the parts fit together in a logically consistent way. Enormous, complex systems can be fully coherent, and simple propositions can be incoherent.

In terms of explanation, unless we suppose we should expect to have all the answers right now, much of the naturalist view is provisional, understanding the current limitations of our understanding and the history of our discovery. We didn’t know what the mechanism for heritable traits was when Darwin published Origin. The argument from ignorance would have suggested “Goddidit”. It was more than a hundred years later that we got a handle on DNA and genetics, but our observation is that sustained effort has produced a stunning record of natural explanations for natural phenomena.

Your version is an unexplained Big Bang pushing particles around and blindly producing rational beings by means of fortuitous arrangements of molecules and random mutations of genes.

No, my version is an unexplained Big Bang that features physical law which governs the interaction of matter and energy in such a way that complexity and order and even biological life (in pockets at least) are emergent. Reliably, predictably emergent.
Randomness drives creativity and differentiation at low levels, but the overall system is law-based.

All answers cohere if you posit an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, loving Creator who has created human beings in His own image with the power of reason, self-determination and a capacity for love. You omitted to acknowledge the fact that we have direct knowledge and experience of creative activity to which the achievements in art, literature, music, science and philosophy bear ample witness.

Witness of what? Music, therefore God? Is that really what you consider a reasoned conclusion?

On the contrary, that which explains everything explains everything. Naturalism explains nothing about the origin of personality, consciousness, autonomy and responsibility yet claims to explains everything in terms of atomic particles.

It’s not a view designed to answer all questions apart from observations. That’s precisely the epistem problem with an imagined God – it’s exactly what’s needed if you want to invent an idea that can magically answer all questions, as it is perfectly plastic in its explanatory. God can be, do, and think in any way we can conceive of (and more!), and there is no evidence or observation that can falsify. It’s not a ‘true’ idea, even possibly, simply because there’s no meaning to ‘true’ if there’s no possible falsehood. Naturalism, on the other hand, is constrained to observations, empirical grounding and reasoning from those grounds. So it is decidedly not “perfectly plastic” like God is in terms of explanation. We can only work with what we can establish phenomenonologically on naturalism.

The extreme complexity of electro-chemical computations makes consciousness unintelligible? To whom? To us! What does “us” refer to? In your opinion, a set of extremely complex electro-chemical computations. So a set of extremely complex electro-chemical computations is unintelligible to itself.

Do you think to make your heart beat? Are you aware of the autonomic nervous system signals controlling your respiration? If not, how can that be? Consciousness, like breathing, is “infrastructure”, a built-in function that happens by necessity, not by volition, and so is perceptually transparent. It is intelligible to us, it’s just apparent in our active thoughts, any more than keeping our heart beating with the medulla oblongata is.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

If ever there was an artificial explanation this is it - literally. The electro-chemical answer always wins because it imagines itself as being capable of doing anything, producing every aspect of reality naturally and effortlessly – don’t ask how, but it can and yet it cannot explain how! It’s just the appearance of an explanation but it is no explanation at all amidst the imaginary coherence of universal, purposeless electro-chemical activity.

Well, as it happens, just yesterday a report got put out by New Scientist yesterday, and relays the results of some neurological experiments that appear to gain some ground on just this topic:

Possible site of free will found in brain
NewScientist:

Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College London, says the experiment breaks ground because it p(name removed by moderator)oints volition to a specific part of the brain, allowing scientists to experimentally control it.
“That’s extremely interesting, because up to now it has been very difficult for neuroscientists to deal with the idea of intentions or wishes or will,” he says.

This is just what I happened to notice yesterday. Neurology is a rich field of experimentation and discovery right now, all though these are very hard problems, advances like this in our observations and evidence are exemplary of how arguments from ignorance eventually crumble and fail, replaced with natural knowledge.

How do electro-chemical processes have “transcendental” effects? To transcend is “to rise above or go beyond the limits… to be prior to, beyond, and above the universe or material existence”. (Merriam-Webster). It is impossible to refute naturalism because naturalists are always moving the goal-posts to accommodate new discoveries. They are in an impregnable position because they never define what “nature” is. If they were presented with undeniable evidence that telepathy occurs they would argue that it has an unknown natural cause.

By “transcendantal” I did not mean “transcendent” – different concepts. Rather, I was using the term in the sense of “transcendental argument” – see here. Consciousness must be a reality, because it’s a predicate for thought itself. If you think, you must be conscious.

As for nature, it is whatever we discover it is. That’s the whole mission of science, to explore as fully as we can the “territory” and nature of nature. We don’t, and can’t define it up front. And you are right, if telepathy were demonstrated empirically, work would immediately begin to explain it in natural terms. This is the mind of science. We have a similar example at hand in real science – “spooky action at a distance”. Experimentally, quantum entanglement and non-locality look “telepathic” on the part of separated particles. But scientists don’t just give up and say “Goddidit” – even the Christian scientists. Natural explanations are sought for the phenomena, and on that particular problem, we’ve made good headway.

Once again you have evaded the question of what the self is or how the brain is aware of itself and directs itself or where its control-centre and consciousness are located or where decisions are made or which part of the brain can be held responsible for its activity. That which explains nothing explains nothing…

There’s a whole lot out there in the literature on this. I’m not a neurologist, but from the reading I’ve done, and talking to people who are in that profession, there’s a lot of inertia in that discipline right now in terms of discovery and models of cogntion, self-contemplation and volition. See the article I linked to above, for just a starter.

But even if I say “consciousness is a mystery”, which I think is still a fair assessment, there’s no evasion in saying that. It’s just acknowledging where we are in the discovery process. We didn’t have a clue what DNA was in 1850. You would/could have asserted your argument from ignorance on that mechanism then as you do now with consciousness. There’s no guarantee in science that we will develop a robust, mechanistic answer on some fixed timeline, or even ever. But the track record of science now over several centuries supports the conclusion that this problem, like so many others, does have a natural, rational explanation.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

I agree it amounts to the abolition of man - which is diabolical in the case of the Devil who knows that God exists - and I don’t exclude diabolical inspiration as a factor in human evil. (We have only to think of the Holocaust.) But I’m sure most atheists are not motivated by the lust for power or deliberate rejection of a greater Being than themselves. They are simply unwilling to admit the possibility that truth, goodness, justice, beauty, freedom and love exist independently of man…

Well, for my part, I not only admit that possibility, I don’t see how it can be dismissed as a possibility. The argument is not that it’s impossible from atheists, or at least this atheist, but that supernatural arguments for the “supernaturality” of those topics are jsut very weak and unconvincing, arguments from ignorance, typically.

But it’s definitely a possibility that cannot be ruled out.

-TS

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

To all you unbeliever’s
“The Monkey’s Disgrace”
Three monkeys sat in a cocoanut tree,
Discussing things as they’re said to be.
Said one to the others,“Now listen, you two,
There’s a certain rumor that can’t be true-
That man decended from our noble race,
The very idea is a disgrace.
No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
And you’ve never known a mother monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk:
Or pass them on from one to another,
Till they scarcely know who is their mother.
And another thing you’ll never see:
A monk build a fence round a cocoanut tree,
And let the cocoanuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monks to taste.
Why, if I put a fence around a tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me.
Here’s another thing a monk wont do:
Go out at night and get on a stew,
Or use a gun or club or knife
to take some other monkey’s life.
Yes, man decended, the omery cuss:
But, brother, he didn’t decend from us.”
Just in case you might want to know it from the monkey’s point of view! God Bless Nancy

 

[tonyrey]

“As for nature, it is whatever we discover it is.”

Exactly. It is impossible to refute naturalism because naturalists are always moving the goal-posts to accommodate new discoveries. But if you cannot define “nature” it is a meaningless term. Yet you confidently continue to use the term “natural” as if is self-evident. I suspect you really mean “tangible”, “material” or “physical”. For you the whole mission of science is not to explore the nature of nature but the nature of reality as a whole because you equate reality with what is “natural”. Your mind is firmly closed to the possibility that you are mistaken.

“There’s a whole lot out there in the literature on this. I’m not a neurologist, but from the reading I’ve done, and talking to people who are in that profession, there’s a lot of inertia in that discipline right now in terms of discovery and models of cognition, self-contemplation and volition.”

Inertia?! You have still failed to explain what the self is.

“But even if I say “consciousness is a mystery”, which I think is still a fair assessment, there’s no evasion in saying that. It’s just acknowledging where we are in the discovery process. We didn’t have a clue what DNA was in 1850. You would/could have asserted your argument from ignorance on that mechanism then as you do now with consciousness.”

The fact that there has been scientific progress does not entail scientific omniscience or the possibility of “a scientific theory of everything”.

“But the track record of science now over several centuries supports the conclusion that this problem, like so many others, does have a natural, rational explanation.”

Another instance of an unintelligible statement. What on earth does “natural mean”? Anything that science explains?

“Simplicity is not a derivitave of coherence, I’m not sure where you got that or are going with that. Coherence means the parts fit together in a logically consistent way.”

Exactly and that results in a unity that would otherwise be lacking, i.e. simplicity. They do not generally fit together by chance but by design. Enormous, complex systems are fully coherent if they are unified by one agent and one overriding purpose. Complexity at a subordinate level does not exclude simplicity at the highest level. That is precisely the flaw in an atomistic view of reality which stems from neglect of synthesis in favour of analysis and loses sight of the overall elegance and simplicity of belief in one Creator.
Theism is simpler than atheism because the concept of God coheres with our direct knowledge and experience of creative, rational activity in ourselves - which fails to cohere with a mechanistic universe.

"It was more than a hundred years later that we got a handle on DNA and genetics, but our observation is that sustained effort has produced “a stunning record of natural explanations for natural phenomena.”

What’s surprising about that? Now, if it were a stunning record of natural explanations for supernatural phenomena you would have something to gloat about! But you don’t believe in the supernatural for the simple reason that you view the natural as infinitely expandable.

“No, my version is an unexplained Big Bang that features physical law which governs the interaction of matter and energy in such a way that complexity and order and even biological life (in pockets at least) are emergent. Reliably, predictably emergent.
Randomness drives creativity and differentiation at low levels, but the overall system is law-based.”

The components of your version:

1. “An unexplained Big Bang”.
2. Unexplained physical law, i.e. a statement of unexplained regularities.
3. Unexplained emergent complexity.
4. Unexplained order.
5. Unexplained biological life .
   Randomness does not drive creativity at all. All it does is produce variations. Creativity requires intelligence.
   The overall system is indeed law-based but in your scheme of things randomness is the fundamental mechanism without which nothing could develop.

“Reliably, predictably emergent”

Are you suggesting that the entire process of evolution from molecules to man could have been predicted? By whom? A scientist?

“Witness of what? Music, therefore God? Is that really what you consider a reasoned conclusion?”

You obviously have no appreciation of any form of beauty whatsoever and regard it as an insignificant illusion. Your notion of randomness-driven creativity leads inexorably to the conclusion that all human creative achievements ultimately originated in fortuitous events. Science itself is derived from a stochastic process! This must be the supreme metaphysical conjuring trick… apart from the derivation of everything from nothing. I think you regard matter as eternal - which would be consistent with your deification of Chance.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s precisely the epistem problem with an imagined God – it’s exactly what’s needed if you want to invent an idea that can magically answer all questions, as it is perfectly plastic in its explanatory. God can be, do, and think in any way we can conceive of (and more!), and there is no evidence or observation that can falsify.

This is a perfect description of the Goddess we call Chance. Infinite plasticity without limits to what it can achieve, infinitely more powerful than reason because it has created reason and is the source of everything that exists - except the raw material produced by the Big Bang. Alas, materialism is not so parsimonious after all because it postulates three factors: matter, laws and randomness. Unless, of course, you derive laws from randomness. One Supreme Being would still be a more parsimonous explanation.

Unlike the Chance hypothesis theism is falsifiable because God is regarded as not only omnipotent but also infinitely loving. Many attempts have been made to establish inconsistency between these attributes and the existence of evil. Another falsification would be that the destruction of virtually all life on this planet by a cataclysm (not caused by man) would militate against the view that the world is designed by God. Another would be the scientific discovery that all human behaviour is explicable in terms of physical events and no one is morally responsible. On the other hand, no physical event could falsify the Chance hypothesis.

“We can only work with what we can establish phenomenonologically on naturalism.”

This is a meaningless criterion until nature is defined.

“Do you think to make your heart beat? Are you aware of the autonomic nervous system signals controlling your respiration? If not, how can that be? Consciousness, like breathing, is “infrastructure”, a built-in function that happens by necessity, not by volition, and so is perceptually transparent. It is intelligible to us, it’s just apparent in our active thoughts, any more than keeping our heart beating with the medulla oblongata is.”

You misunderstand my point:

1. You imply that we cannot understand consciousness because of the extreme complexity of electro-chemical computations…
2. You believe “we” are a set of extremely complex electro-chemical computations.
3. So a set of extremely complex electro-chemical computations cannot understand another set of extremely complex electro-chemical computations.

Am I alone in thinking there is something missing in this explanation?

“Empirically, we can just look back and see that overwhelmingly lopsided pattern of history: superstitions getting supplanted by natural knowledge time and time again, with superstitions conspicuously lacking their own successes in supplanting scientific explanations.”

You equate all non-scientific explanations with superstition and knowledge with science. On this reckoning naturalism is a form of superstition because it is non-scientific, i.e. it does not have a scientific basis. It is based on the metascientific assumption that only scientific explanations are valid.