Classics and the Western Canon discussion
James, Var Religious Experience
>
James, Week 8, Lectures 18, 19, 20
Borum wrote: "Os Guiness seems to put the difference very succinctly here.https://youtu.be/q9Czx0fAic0"
Thanks for pointing out that video. It led me to this link, which isn't succinct, but I found it worth watching:
A World Safe for Diversity: Os Guinness discusses religion and pluralism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1AnD...
I was not familiar with Os Guinness.
Roger wrote: "The consensus scientific explanation for our brains is that they arose by random mutation in a species of savannah apes, and persisted because they helped those apes survive and reproduce on their savannah.."There is a self-contradiction in that explanation. "Mutation" means change, "survive and reproduce" means remaining the same. You can't remain the same by changing.
Kerstin wrote: "David wrote: ""God of the gaps""1. We may never figure everything out. How would we know if we did?
2. Some perspectives do indeed claim that religious beliefs are a type of superstition.
All religious people are superstitious, but not all superstitious people are religious.Kerstin wrote: "Because we know how some things work, such as the krebs cycle or photosynthesis, doesn't automatically imply there is no designer."
Grayling, A.C.. The God Argument (p. 17). Bloomsbury UK. Kindle Edition.
True, but the fact that we can and do know some things and none of it yet involves a designer makes it much less probable there is a designer.
The other things that Roger pointed out are mostly human judgements and behaviors. For example, altruism is not so hard to figure out when you keep in mind evolution works on populations not individuals and add a little game theory. We should also remember what Francis Crick called Leslie Orgel’s Second Rule, "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
Kerstin wrote: " God, therefore, is in the "place" which we will never penetrate through our own abilities, but we know there must be more. This is what Christians mean when they use the word "mystery."
This is the god of the gaps fallacy and exactly where the rule of uniformity of nature should be keeping us from jumping to conclusions. As for Christian "mystery" I can only think of the style of its early beginning as a mystery religion: http://www.earlychristianhistory.info...
Kerstin wrote: " A very strong argument can be made, because these things are so complex and highly ordered the chances of this happening at random and in the short time we've had life on earth is mathematically absurd."You have several arguments all rolled into one. The argument from design, the argument from complexity, and something similar to the fine tuning argument that also argues against the impossible odds of our current situation.
The are not good arguments for God because these sorts of things are precisely what occur naturally if there were no God. Additionally, people often equate natural processes with random processes. Natural processes proceed by necessity, not randomly. If the properties of the universe were determined by natural processes, it is inappropriate to apply probability because chance does not enter into it nearly as much as commonly assumed.
"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."
— Stephen Hawking
"Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist."
— Richard Carrier
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
— Douglas Adams
David wrote: "All religious people are superstitious"Only if one considers faith irrational.
altruism is not so hard to figure out when you keep in mind evolution works on populations not individuals and add a little game theory
How does altruism figure into evolution's survival of the fittest? If natural instinct dictates one's survival, the fate of others is irrelevant.
How does evolution work on populations except biologically? All ethical concepts are philosophical.
This is the god of the gaps fallacy and exactly where the rule of uniformity of nature should be keeping us from jumping to conclusions.
For any place within this universe the laws governing the universe are obviously applicable. However, they would not be applicable to realities before the big bang or outside our universe.
There is no jumping to conclusions here, but an acknowledgement of human limitations. Things that will never be known point to a reality beyond our grasp.
Kerstin wrote: "How does evolution work on populations except biologically? All ethical concepts are philosophical. ..."Not that sharp a delineation, necessarily, the scholars/researchers are suggesting. If cooperation tends to aid survival, as it often does for animals, then those creatures exhibiting that characteristic should be more likely to breed and propagate that characteristic to future generations. I have never looked closely at the scientific papers, but that is the gist of the argument as I understand it. (A number of years ago I had the privilege, as a retired curious senior, to audit a course on Religion and Evolution taught by Robert Pollack under the auspices of Union Seminary. In a series of follow-on sessions, he took us to original papers to trace some of what were then new pieces in understanding how certain traits could appear. Fun weeks....)
David wrote: "Kerstin wrote: " A very strong argument can be made, because these things are so complex and highly ordered the chances of this happening at random and in the short time we've had life on earth is ...The are not good arguments for God because these sorts of things are precisely what occur naturally if there were no God..."
How can you know that? If you can't prove there is no God, how can you assume these qualities naturally exist without God?
David wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "David wrote: ""God of the gaps""1. We may never figure everything out. How would we know if we did?
2. Some perspectives do indeed claim that religious beliefs are a type of super..."
I never mentioned altruism.
I think the argument from design (at the level of fundamental physical properties) is a powerful one. Of course the one Universe we see has to allow advanced life in order for us to be in it, but why should the Universe allow life? The best current explanation that I know of is the hypothesis that universes pop into being all the time in riotous profusion, with all manner of different physical laws governing them, and we're in one of the infinitesimally few that allow life. Of course, there is no evidence at all of this, and to my mind it's pretty extravagant, but who knows? The hypothesis is impossible to falsify.
James says that the proofs of the existence of God never convinced anyone, but I wonder. I think they certainly help cement the faith of those with both religious experiences and sharp intellects. And Aristotle worked himself into belief in something much like a god (his "unmoved mover") without any evidence of religion.
Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "The consensus scientific explanation for our brains is that they arose by random mutation in a species of savannah apes, and persisted because they helped those apes survive and repro..."Mutations produce occasional changes. Most are pernicious and die out, quickly or slowly. A few help survival and reproduction, and those persist.
Roger wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "The consensus scientific explanation for our brains is that they arose by random mutation in a species of savannah apes, and persisted because they helped those apes surv..."Yes, but what survives as a result of the mutations is no longer the original organism, therefore to say that mutations help the survival of the organism is a self-contradiction.
Janice(JG) wrote: "how can you assume these qualities naturally exist without God?"That is a great question Janice. Here is what I was able to find for you.
1. Because our gaps in understanding seem to be of the origins of things. We know what happened after the big bang and our models accurately and naturally predict the universe we see. We don't know the origin of life (yet), but evolution predicts the type of bio-diversity that we indeed see.
2. This is how induction works. We cannot and do not start with God and work backwards.
3. The limits of our understanding, whatever they turn out to be do not make a difference. The assumptions of ontological and methodological materialism are more honestly and practically held provisionally than the assumptions of supernatural agency are held with or without certainty.
4. Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.
”If a philosopher or social scientist were to try to encapsulate a single principle that yoked together the intellectual process of civilization (sic), it would be a gradual dismantling of presumptions of magic. Brick by brick, century by century, with occasional burps and hiccups, the wall of superstition has been coming down. Science and medicine and political philosophy have been on a relentless march in one direction only -- sometimes slow, sometimes at a gallop, but never reversing course. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. . .Some magical presumptions have stubbornly persisted way longer than others, but have eventually, inexorably fallen to logic, reason and enlightenment, such as the assumption of the divine right of kings and the entitlement of aristocracy. That one took five millennia, but fall it did.5. The gaps are shrinking.
—Gene Weingarten
Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.6. We will never run out of gaps which means ultimately the god of the gaps turns into the argument from first cause which also fails. The ultimate "gap" that likely cannot be bridged is "well, god started everything", because even if something like the m-theory explaining how our universe could have "big banged" in the first place was proven to be true someone could always ask, "yes, but what created the membranes?".
—Neil deGrasse Tyson
The question atheists want to know is, in light of all that we do understand and its decidedly non-supernatural nature, how can anyone still honestly assume supernatural agency for the things we do not understand, especially with such absolute certainty?
Nemo wrote: "Yes, but what survives as a result of the mutations is no longer the original organism, therefore to say that mutations help the survival of the organism is a self-contradiction. ..."It seems to me your point is as much definition as it is fact. I think this morning of some of the pictures I have seen of a particular bird (finch?), each with a peak unlike enough to justify a different varietal name. I see a similar issue in the tracing of the entity we call "Homo Sapiens" -- at what point do anthropologists identify a different organism. Then, we can go to that (dangerous) world of micro-organisms where few mutations are required to produce a different microbe in terms of drug resistance. Is the mutation the "same" organism? Naming is both arbitrary and creative.
This thinking reminds me of the story found in Genesis 2:19-20: So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field...
We are probably all aware of many of the things that can follow from the assignment of a name. A fun one is the on-going debate on calling Pluto a "planet" or not.
One of the things these past ten or so years poking around B&N and Goodreads has brought to my attention is the extent to which human knowledge is transmitted, even created, by story as much as by the scientific empirical disciplines of observation and measurement and replication -- not that either ever manages to be entirely independent of the other (nor should want to be, imho).
Nemo wrote: ". . .but what survives as a result of the mutations is no longer the original organism, therefore to say that mutations help the survival of the organism is a self-contradiction."Every organism is unique to begin with anyway, isn't it? Even you do not have the same fingerprints either of your parents had.
James set out to consider religious experiences scientifically, gathering and systematizing the observable data. He concluded that there was indeed something to mystical experience that warranted further study. Was his conclusion correct?
Roger wrote: "James set out to consider religious experiences scientifically, gathering and systematizing the observable data. He concluded that there was indeed something to mystical experience that warranted f..."I would agree that further study is warranted. But if the below passage is his conclusion, hypotheses is as far as we can take it.
They tell of the supremacy of the ideal, of vastness, of union, of safety, and of rest. They offer us hypotheses, hypotheses which we may voluntarily ignore, but which as thinkers we cannot possibly upset. The supernaturalism and optimism to which they would persuade us may, interpreted in one way or another, be after all the truest of insights into the meaning of this life.
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (pp. 331-332). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
David wrote: "The question atheists want to know is, in light of all that we do understand and its decidedly non-supernatural nature, how can anyone still honestly assume supernatural agency for the things we do not understand, especially with such absolute certainty?.."
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg
(I don't drink alcohol, but I'd like to have whatever Heisenberg was drinking.)
I was raised by atheist scientist parents, and grew up with the belief that all religions were superstitions caused by ignorance. However, unlike the militant new atheists, we didn't attack religion, but ignored it as irrelevant.
That changed when I went to graduate school and met many Christian intellectuals. I still remember the first conversation I had with a professor of mine. I asked her how she, a scientist, could believe in the existence of God. She smiled and said that the more she studied nature, and was awed by its beauty, the more she was convinced of her faith in God. That's the point where I got off my intellectual high horse, and started to pay attention.
(more later)
I find the Veritas Forum a very good resource for people interested in the relationship between faith and science. It features many prominent intellectuals, scientists and philosophers who are willing to share their thoughts and personal journeys of faith, as well as engage in dialogues and debates with the other side.1. Ian Hutchinson, Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, MIT
"Complements or Contradictions: Faith and Science "
2. Ard Louis, Prof. of Physics, Oxford University
"Science and Faith"
3. Francis Collins, Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH)
"The Language of God"
Nemo wrote: " Francis Collins, Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH)"The Language of God""
I read the "The Language of God" ages ago. At the time I had heard an interview with Francis Collins on the radio, and was thoroughly intrigued. Sadly to say, I don't remember much of it. Maybe it is time for a re-read. :)
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: " Francis Collins, Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH)"The Language of God""
I read the "The Language of God" ages ago. At the time I had heard an interview with Francis C..."
I prefer watching talks to reading books on this subject, because the Question and Answer sections at the end can be quite thought-provoking and entertaining. :)
Nemo wrote: "I prefer watching talks to reading books on this subject, because the Question and Answer sections at the end can be quite thought-provoking and entertaining. :)"I can imagine! The Q and A sessions after good talks are never long enough. Just when it gets really interesting the time is up.
Nemo wrote: "I find the Veritas Forum a very good resource for people interested in the relationship between faith and science. It features many prominent intellectuals, scientists and philosophers who are will..."Thanks for the suggestions from among the forums. I am not familiar with any of those three. (I spent Sunday morning listening to Os Guinness rather than the church service I usually attend during that time period. While I missed the contact with others in the community, I enjoyed the intellectual stimulation he offered, even though he holds some positions with which I strongly disagree -- some of which I have watched my own denomination wrestle over in the sometimes perhaps overly verbose ways of position statements volleyed against position statements, votes after long hours of discussions....-- a Presbyterian way of "discerning God's voice.")
Nemo wrote: "David wrote: "However, unlike the militant new atheists, we didn't attack religion, but ignored it as irrelevant. "Well, I have to give your parents point for trying. :)
It almost sounds like in return the ruling militant religious in all of their history, and certain DNC officials just this week, simply ignored atheists as irrelevant. Instead, now that some atheists are brave enough to call attention to certain uniquely religious privileges and "faux pas" they are viewed as attacking instead of simply critical? Well, maybe they are. I would agree the rhetoric gets pretty thick sometimes because the more extreme elements are the loudest. :)
I have explored the accommodationist perspective for quite a while but ultimately found it simply to be just more "kinder and gentler" presentations of the god of the gaps argument that all fail to resolve the cognitive dissonance.
Jerry Coyne lists several varieties of accommodationism in his book, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible
1. Logical compatibility - posits there is no logical reason why religion and science are incompatible. This would require something like the Epicurean gods existing completely apart from humans and never interacting, a pure form of Deism, or religions that would alter their doctrines when they become incompatible with the latest in science.
2. Mental compatibility - makes the argument that because many scientists are religious and many religious people embrace science the two must be compatible of which your video links are examples of. The argument confuses coexistence with compatibility. It is like claiming marriage and adultery are compatible because many married people are also adulterers.
3. Syncretism: Syncretism pantheistically holds there are many paths to truth and attempts redefine one to include the other by combining and blending different beliefs. Problems with this are that science leaves supernatural agency and events out completely and this does cannot be acceptable to most religions which are too dogmatic, especially monothesitic ones that additionally claim interacts with man. This also seems to be part of James' approach in suggesting a "science of religion".
4. Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Posits that the goals of science and religion are completely separate. Science attempts to find out about the natural world and religion is concerned solely with issues of meaning, purpose, and morals. This however is impossible because religion insists on its "miracles" and making knowledge claims that not only overlap, but conflict with science. These conflicts arise well before we approach the more extreme fundamental and literal religions. It just isn't going to work when 73% of Americans violate NOMA by claiming at least some acts of God are responsible for living species. Religion also would claim supernatural entities as the source of all morality, which clearly ignores morality's secular origins.
David wrote: "Mental compatibility - makes the argument that because many scientists are religious and many religious people embrace science the two must be compatible of which your video links are examples of. The argument confuses coexistence with compatibility."Science and faith are compatible not because the same person can believe in both, but because they are consistent with one another. The scientists in the videos have given reasons why they believe science and faith are consistent and complementary, including discussions of miracles, morality and many others.
I can give my own reasons, if anyone is interested, but if those scientists, speaking from reason and evidence, cannot convince people, it is unlikely that anything I say will make any difference.
Nemo wrote: "I can give my own reasons, if anyone is interested, but if those scientists, speaking from reason and evidence, cannot convince people, it is unlikely that anything I say will make any difference. ..."I like some of the things Os Guinness says about the importance of freedom of conscience in one of his videos - how it differs from freedom of speech, for one thing.
Nemo wrote: "I find the Veritas Forum a very good resource. . ."First, thanks for the video links. Since Francis Collins seems to be the most popular so I decided to watch that video first. Here are some doubts to ponder. :)
First he says, "I won't give you a proof tonight". Well why not just cut to the chase and make your case? Then he seems to take William James' tact that faith is useful because it helps terminal patients face their imminent death.
His evidence boils down to the same failed arguments all currently still circulating that nobody bothers to either thnk about or spend some time researching, probably because they are what they want to hear.
1. There is something instead of nothing, therefore God.
2. The Big Bang happened, therefore God.
3. Fine Tuning, therefore God.
4. Argument from complexity. (I was very dismayed to hear him use this one, especially after rejecting ID and irreducible complexity)
5. God's plan includes evolution. So now he claims to be able to read God's mind and attempt syncretism at the same time?
6. Moral laws and altruism. see my earlier posts concerning populations evolving and not individuals.
7. "Science must fall silent on anything outside the natural world." This is NOMA not allowing science to overlap outside of its own magesteria and assumes a supernatural world for which there is no evidence. Funny though, he tries to insert morality into science as evidence of god - see 6. This is one example why NOMA does not work.
8. You can't disprove God. Well, you can't just say, "God cannot be disproved, so therefore God exists. You can't disprove little blue unicorns inhabit the center of Mars so therefore little blue unicorns inhabit the center of Mars.
9. Humans have special status because God made us that way. I guess it is hard to be humble.
10. Jesus is the solution to man's fall from grace. OK, so he is a Christian but that does not prove God exists.
11. God is outside of time and nature. won't work. This doesn't work. He would be frozen and unable to move or even create. If he thinks the world is complex, how much more complex would a creator have to be and how would that come about?
12. At least he indicates that ID and and its latest big argument irreducible complexity should be rejected.
13. Conflicts between Genesis and Science is resolved by interpreting it properly and it cannot be taken literally.
14. Pantheism is not consistent because it does not explain the Big Bang, fine tuning, or satisfy the need for a personal god and Jesus. He kept alluding to "evidence" for Jesus and the resurrection but like the proof he said he wasn't going to provide, he does not offer any.
15. I agree with his assessment of the move "Expelled".
16. Finally, he resolves the problem of evil with the statement, "God works in mysterious ways" which pretty much ends the discussion about it...there is no where to go after that. Which is surprising since he discussed some things with C.S. Lewis who wrote an entire book on the subject.The Problem of Pain
Lily wrote: "I like some of the things Os Guinness says about the importance of freedom of conscience in one of his videos - how it differs from freedom of speech, for one thing. ."How?
There are times, such as this, when speech is not just a matter of freedom, but of obligation.
Re: AltruismThe evolution theory is a bad theory to apply to morality, because it is contradicted by observations. As Dr. Collins explained in the video, the "reproductive advantage" works only if one individual or a small group possesses it -- if everybody has it, it is no longer an advantage, so altruism must be limited within a small group of people, if the evolutionary explanation is correct. But, the fact is that people sacrifice themselves for those of a difference race, even for members of other species of living things.
Re: SupernaturalI'm adopting the definition from merriam-webster.com
"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;"
By this definition, mathematical and logical truths, the laws of nature are supernatural, because they transcend time and space, they are not part of the observable universe, and yet they also operate in time and space, because everything in the observable universe obey those laws.
With this imperfect analogy, one may conceive that God creates and upholds the material world, though He is incorporeal, and operates in time and space though He transcends it.
Nemo wrote: "Re: AltruismAs Dr. Collins explained in the video, the "reproductive advantage" works only if one individual or a small group possesses it -- if everybody has it, it is no longer an advantage, so altruism must be limited within a small group of people,"
In Dr. Collins' video, he gave the example of one (1) man, not the entire platform, jumping down to the tracks to protect the man having a seizure. The rest of NYC applauded him for it.
Altruism is a somewhat nebulous concept that involves "doing something for someone, or some thing else that brings no gain to oneself," and evolved over thousands of years as a social strategy when "every man for himself" didn't pan out so well.
Sometimes both actually benefit. Because we often regard altruism as a virtue, they guy in NYC was lauded as a hero and probably also experienced some level of personal satisfaction. Some people are actually selfishly motivated to perform altrustic acts.
The argument from altruism is ultimately just another god of the gaps argument if you are unconvinced of any one of the moral or ehtical naturalistic theories alone or in combination. At its basic naturalistic level, altruism works better than the alternative.
The agrument from altruism is included under the argument from morality that declares God is the source of all morality, therefore if objective morality exists, God must exist. Thats the argument, also known as the divine command hypotheses.
Problems:
1. The existence of God is assumed in defining somethign that already exists. Attempting to prove the existence of God in this manner is circular reasoning and probably begging the question as well.
2. There are other more credible and probable explanations for morals other than divine command.
3. The clash or morality between multiple beliefs, much like the gods arguing in Plato's Euthyphro, destroys the argument.
4. Also destroyed in the Euthypro is the divine command hypotheses. Does God carry good, or does good carry God? I.e., Does God say it is good becuase it is intrinsically good, or is it good because God says it is good? The question to ask here is, can God command something that is evil to be a good?
4. For Abrahamic religions, God's actions, mysterious or not, or not exactly moral. Also see the problem of evil.
5. The biggest problem is that since Divine Morality is actually derived from natural morality religion and the gods themselves aren't necessary for humans to have morality, divine or not. If Divine morality contradicts naturalistic morality (which it seems to on certain points), Divine Morality and thus the gods themselves are actually malevolent.
Nemo wrote: "Re: SupernaturalBy this definition, mathematical and logical truths, the laws of nature are supernatural, because they transcend time and space, they are not part of the observable universe, and yet they also operate in time and space, because everything in the observable universe obey those laws."
Do you think that redefining things this way is fair? Isn't this simply begging the question? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest....
Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses. More generally, a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Still more generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.Whether you are begging the question or not, you are confusing the abstract with the supernatural and you do not have my permission to redefine things this way. :)
To beg the question is to assume something that you have no right to assume. What don't you have a right to assume? The conclusion itself, obviously, or any proposition that is just the conclusion stated in different words. Clearly, to use any argument in which the conclusion is also one of the premisses is to reason in a circle: reasoning from the premisses to the conclusion brings you back to where you started.
David wrote: "Do you think that redefining things this way is fair? Isn't this simply begging the question?."A definition is not an argument, and therefore never begs the question. I adopted an existing definition of supernatural from Merriam Webster. You're welcome to adopt a different defintion, but my analogy still stands.
David wrote: "The argument from altruism is ultimately just another god of the gaps argument"As someone once said, God is not "god of the gaps", but God of the whole show. He is manifested in things we do understand, even more than in those we don't.
I've explained why the evolution theory doesn't work for morality, but it doesn't mean that no natural theory can describe moral behaviour. The argument from morality would work only if morality actually exists in nature.
Returning to my Sistine Chapel analogy, the existence of morality in nature points to a moral being behind nature, just as the existence of the Sistine Chapel points to the virtuoso Michelangelo.
Like the argument from design, the argument from morality is not deduction, but induction, making inferences from the seen to the unseen, the known to the unknown. These arguments don't prove, but strongly suggest, the existence of a supremely intelligent and moral being.
From Goodreads collection of quotations on stars:“A philosopher once asked, "Are we human because we gaze at the stars, or do we gaze at them because we are human?" Pointless, really..."Do the stars gaze back?" Now, that's a question.”
― Neil Gaiman, Stardust
Lily wrote: "From Goodreads collection of quotations on stars: ..."“Nature is pitiless; she never withdraws her flowers, her music, her fragrance and her sunlight, from before human cruelty or suffering. She overwhelms man by the contrast between divine beauty and social hideousness. She spares him nothing of her loveliness, neither wing or butterfly, nor song of bird; in the midst of murder, vengeance, barbarism, he must feel himself watched by holy things; he cannot escape the immense reproach of universal nature and the implacable serenity of the sky. The deformity of human laws is forced to exhibit itself naked amidst the dazzling rays of eternal beauty. Man breaks and destroys; man lays waste; man kills; but the summer remains summer; the lily remains the lily; and the star remains the star.
...
As though it said to man, 'Behold my work. and yours.”
― Victor Hugo, Ninety-Three
Nemo wrote: "A definition is not an argument, and therefore never begs the question. I adopted an existing definition of supernatural from Merriam Webster. You're welcome to adopt a different definition, but my analogy still stands."But you are indeed making an argument whose conclusion is "[therefore] one may conceive that God. . ."
The analogy is a question begging analogy, or at least a weak analogy made by equivocating abstract objects and supernatural objects which sets up the circular reasoning.
I see the appeal in some of the advantages you seek to gain by this analogy though.
1. I appreciate the attempt to make something we do not understand, the supernatural, like something we do know something about, the abstract.
2. It explains how God can be outside of time and space where people like to put him these days.
3. It is consistent with His claim of immutability, although I am not sure what other religions may think of that.
4. It explains how God can be infinite. (see 4 below)
5. It would explain the complete lack of material empirical evidence and how there could never be any, ever.
We may need to modify it a bit to cover some of the problems:
1. Stopping at "one may conceive that God. . ." is still very vague, unless your full intended meaning was, "One may conceive that God is just as I wish to conceive him to be."
2. The immutability you gain with abstract objects, like any other object outside of time are indeed frozen and incapable of movement or thought. For example, the number 1 never changes or thinks.
3. An additional consideration is that supernatural objects, now like abstract objects, lack causal powers and I do not think you want to imply a God without causal powers.
4. If the analogy allows us to conceive of a single God, what prevents us from conceiving of an infinite number of Gods the same way we conceive of an infinite number of numbers? This is a problem for monotheistic religions only.
5. If the analogy somehow allows us to conceive of a single God only, which one? Abrahamic God, deist God, etc.?
5. Furthermore, it reduces God to an entity of human mental construction. Did numbers exist before people existed to think of them? Will numbers or God persist if people no longer exist to think of him?
6. Your conclusion that we may now, "conceive of a God. . ." sounds suspiciously like, we can "imagine" a God, which is susceptible to what atheist have been asserting all along; that God is imaginary.
7. I think analogies, assertions, and arguments like these are squarely centered in the morass of the scholarly monster god that James discusses. I suppose God is going to be complicated though. He has to be even more complex than all of those so called impossibly complex material things, which prompts a whole other line of questioning.
David wrote: "...a whole other line of questioning...."Personally, I find the “God of gaps” and “intelligent design” and “watchmaker” all intellectually and rationally unsatisfying arguments. But neither can I sit in sessions like the more abstract ones on the physical universe at the World Science Festival (as I did a couple of years ago) and follow all the arguments presented. I am willing to concede, at least until more data is available, along with changed societal incentives, that something about genetics, DNA, hormones, …., has permitted male brains to attain “higher” levels of mathematical facility than has been demonstrated by women through history to date. I can little more “understand” “dark matter” than I can God, not that the analogy has much, if anything, to do with the “existence” of either one, and humankind is highly unlikely, regardless of my lack of understanding, to discontinue trying to “determine” the existence of each.
I have little interest in pushing or defining “God” into the Supernatural, whatever that might mean. I am very interested in the manifestation of the divine here on earth – as in the prayer, “on earth as it is in heaven.” Do I have any more grasp of the meaning of “heaven” than I do of “justice” or “freedom” or “beauty” or “truth” or of any other similar word we might choose to compare? Probably not, but, as for those other words, I do have generations of human debate, quarrels, logic, war, sacrifice, hope, idealization, despair, … to ponder and to consider. And not alone, but rather in community, with others who perceive that they, too, are the “best” (and worst?) starshine and dust have been able to configure to date on the planet Earth in galaxy “Milky Way.”
David wrote: "a weak analogy made by equivocating abstract objects and supernatural objects which sets up the circular reasoning."All analogies of God are necessarily weak, but they are not circular, because they don't return upon themselves as circular arguments do. Hopefully they serve a good purpose.
It would explain the complete lack of material empirical evidence and how there could never be any, ever.
Just as all the material objects are evidence of the abstract laws of nature, which we cannot see, so the whole creation is the evidence of God, who is invisible.
" supernatural objects, now like abstract objects, lack causal powers and I do not think you want to imply a God without causal powers."
Laws of nature are abstract objects, expressed in mathematical language, and if they have causal power, as is the view held by physicists, so do supernatural objects; if abstract objects have no causal power, there is a good argument for divine agency.
"it reduces God to an entity of human mental construction. Did numbers exist before people existed to think of them?"
The laws of nature persisted before man came into existence, but our ability to conceive them doesn't reduce them to a mere fantasy; OTOH, if the laws of nature are mental constructs, that is, if they don't exist outside the mind, and the universe began without men, there is a good argument for a supreme Mind.
Lily wrote: "I am very interested in the manifestation of the divine here on earth – as in the prayer, “on earth as it is in heaven.” "Are you referring to the Incarnation or something different?
Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "I am very interested in the manifestation of the divine here on earth – as in the prayer, “on earth as it is in heaven.” "Are you referring to the Incarnation or something different?"
My closest "answer" that I can probably put into words is that sense of being called to something greater than the self, so my reference could probably be labeled "metaphorical," but that doesn't quite seem adequate. (One of the more comical exchanges between a physician friend and myself (view spoiler) Spoiler may contain language offensive to some.
Nemo wrote: "All analogies of God are necessarily weak, but they are not circular"I thought question begging analogies took this form:
x is similar to y (where the similarity depends for its strength upon some assumption which begs the question).
x is P.
Therefore, y is P.
If I understand your argument correctly you are claiming:
x[Our conception of the supernatural] is similar to y[our conception of abstract objects.](the similarity depends on the strength of this very premise that begs the question, which by your own admission is weak by necessity)
x([Our conception of the supernatural] is P(Our conception of God].
Therefore, y[Our conception of abstract objects] is P[Our conception of God]
Nemo said: "Laws of nature are abstract objects, expressed in mathematical language, and if they have causal power, as is the view held by physicists, so do supernatural objects; if abstract objects have no causal power, there is a good argument for divine agency."
1. I do not think anyone can make any claims about what supernatural objects could and could not do if they exists because we have never experienced them. This is clearly an example of pretending to know things one doesn't know.
2. I am suspicious of your claim that causal power is irrelevant by claiming abstract objects both have and do not have causal power but suggest divine agency in either case.
3. Not all physicists claim that abstract objects have causal power.
. . .imagine the world as "something like a great chess game", and then suggests that "the rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics .... If we know the rules, we consider that we 'understand' the world" (Feynman, et al. 1963, p. 2-1).In other words the game is not its rules. Abstract objects like number, pure mathematics, and physical laws, just to name a few, do not exist and do not have causal power. So if we are to stick with the question begging analogy, God does not exist and cannot have causal power.
4. Finally, I think the type of causal power we are looking for is efficient cause, something that sets things in motion. I suggest that you are confusing formal cause for efficient cause:
Material cause: A Monopoly board, money, and game pieces.
Formal cause: Monopoly rules (The abstract objects)
Effecient cause: The players playing the game, exchanging money and moving pieces. (the Agents)
Final cause: To provide entertainment.
Nemo said: "As someone once said, God is not "god of the gaps", but God of the whole show. He is manifested in things we do understand, even more than in those we don't."
This takes question begging to a whole new level and makes for a very presumptive deductive argument. This statement clearly shows the "god of the gaps" arguments are deductive arguments that first presume a god. It is a little like knowing how to perform 8 out of 10 magic tricks but declaring all 10 of them must be real magic, when in fact they are all tricks and some are cleverer than you are.
Nemo said: "no natural theory can describe moral behavior."
Of course it can and does simply because the benefits of moral behavior outweigh the consequences of immoral behavior.
"Men are punished by their sins, not for them." ~Elbert Hubbard, Love, Life and WorkNemo said: "Like the argument from design, the argument from morality . . .strongly suggest, the existence of a supremely intelligent and moral being.
I am not sure you really want to use arguments like these. The analogy in the argument from design fails due to being extremely reductive; a watch does not just imply a watchmaker. A modern watch is the progressive culmination of generations of multidisciplinary craftspeople and designers. In other words the watch is just the latest iteration in a chain of uninterrupted, progressively different devices which were adapted to specific demands (sound familiar?)
These are definitely "god of the gaps" style deductive arguments. It is exactly like knowing how to perform 8 out of 10 magic tricks and declaring the last two are too hard to figure out and are thus must be real magic. Russel was right, "what is needed is not the will to believe, but the will to find out."
David wrote: "Of course it can and does simply because the benefits of moral behavior outweigh the consequences of immoral behavior...."It is not clear to me how you can make that claim, except as a definitional tautology.
1. Just for the sake of clarity, here again is the analogy I'm making between the Christian conception of God and abstract mathematical concepts. a. God, who is incorporeal, creates and upholds the material world; He transcends time and space, but also operates in time and space.
b. Mathematical and logical truths, the laws of nature, are not part of the material universe, and transcend time and space, yet they also operate in time and space, because everything in the material universe obey those laws.
As I understand it, this conception of God is not a recent development, but has always been the orthodox Christian teaching. St. Augustine expounds on it in his Confessions and many other works.
The purpose of the analogy is not to prove that the belief is true -- if it can be conclusively proven it would cease to be a belief and become knowledge, but simply to show that faith is consistent with reason, which is the whole point of this conversation.
2. You made a good argument for divine agency with your example of "efficient cause". The "players" in Feynman's chess game analogy (one of my favourites) are "gods".
3. My point on morality: the existence of moral beliefs and behaviours in nature (regardless how they came about) points to a moral being behind nature.
The watchmaker argument is arguing for intelligent design, not necessarily a single designer, so even if many generations of designers work on the improvements of the watch, the argument still stands. According to your own suggestion, the evolution process is also by intelligent design.
I think this discussion is moving away from James' book to a more fundamental discussion on religion itself, but it's been very interesting. It's hard for me to step in the discussion but some of the questions raised and the answers given have helped me a lot on my own personal dilemmas. Thanks.
Borum wrote: "I think this discussion is moving away from James' book to a more fundamental discussion on religion itself, but it's been very interesting. It's hard for me to step in the discussion but some of t..."Thank you, Borum, for the feedback. Glad to know that you've been helped by the discussions. My job is done here, and I'm looking forward to BK discussions.
As Dostoyevsky says: If there is no God, then all things are lawful. Not all things are lawful. Therefore there is a God.
Roger wrote: "As Dostoyevsky says: If there is no God, then all things are lawful. Not all things are lawful. Therefore there is a God."SPOILER!
Roger wrote: "As Dostoyevsky says: If there is no God, then all things are lawful. Not all things are lawful. Therefore there is a God."I didn't read BK yet, so I don't know the context, but is that a paraphrasing of 1 Cor 6:12?
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Borum wrote: "Roger wrote: "As Dostoyevsky says: If there is no God, then all things are lawful. Not all things are lawful. Therefore there is a God."I didn't read BK yet, so I don't know the context, but is t..."
I've never thought of that connection. We'll have to look at the context when we get to that passage in BK.
I finally succeeded in formulating some thoughts on James - in a review this time. Not the smart thing I would like to write, but it is 'something else'.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Confessions (other topics)The Problem of Pain (other topics)
Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible (other topics)
Songs of Kabir (other topics)
Ethics of Belief and Other Essays (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Michael Morwood (other topics)Robert Pollack (other topics)
Os Guinness (other topics)
Atul Gawande (other topics)
Admitting our ignorance is not a fallacy, but a matter of honesty, not pretending to know what we do not know.
The point I'm making is simple: we can aspire to fill the gaps in our knowledge, of the universe and of God, only by first admitting our ignorance. To pretend to know what we do not know forestalls any attempt at gaining real knowledge.
To use an analogy, it is neither ignorance nor laziness to say that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel came about not by chance, but by the genius of Michelangelo. There are gaps in our knowledge of both the artist and his work, but we can endeavour to fill those gaps.
(P.S. I'm not making any arguments for or against the existence of God, yet. I'd be happy to examine them one by one with anybody who is interested, though I doubt the efficacy of such discussions.)