The Experience of God

[dastardly stem]

This is an interesting post, in that the claim of “God’s existence” has to be, by its nature, circular and self-serving. I read some paper a long time ago, it was by, I think, a sociologist or ‘socio-biologist’ from Harvard where he coined the term (I think) of xenopsychology and discussed ‘sentience quotient’ where not only the Other’s psychology would necessarily be alien to us due to its genetic or fundamental make-up, but Its sentience quotient would be unknowable unless we shared genetic and environmental imperatives. Whatever reality-pressures that brought them into being would be the factors that create their psychology, and whatever state of advancement they’ve achieved would also make them knowable or unknowable to us.

The fact that a god would not only be constructed very differently from us, and the fact that a god would be an incalculable orders of magnitude more intelligent AND processing bits of information at rates incomprehensible to us would make us incapable to understand its nature, its psychology, its Being. You might as well tell us God is a Black Hole, it’s the same thing in every sense of the concept.

All well put. This highlights some other main problems with the god concept. if he is and we can't fathom him anyway, what really are people thinking is out there? You say black hole, I tend to break it down to nothing. God seems to be nothingness--and what's the point of identifying nothingness? This kept coming into my thoughts while reading this book too. His descriptions and definitions became so ambiguous I couldn't tell if he was telling me nothing is behind it all or everything is. If God is just everything, then, I mean, Ok...whatever. If God is nothing, then same.

Furthermore, and perhaps more terrifying if the idea terrifies you, if this God does exist and is programming Reality (if It’s not Reality Itself), then you’re just a deterministic data set operating within the parameters an involved God has with Itself. There’s no free will, unless you’re willing to just believe otherwise, then we’re back to circular reasoning set forth in the opening post. And if that’s the case, we need to discuss existential dread and what motivates the individual to avoid accepting annihilation.

- Doc

Yep. If there's a God that is not a something but is the ground of everything, then we're nothing but figments of imagination to him, doing whatever it is he destined us to do. Hart's arguments for free will never really attempted to address the topic, but he was adamant there must be free will.

[dastardly stem]

Sounds like he wants to take a moment of clear enjoyment and make some great big project out of it.
Take a moment of simplicity and make a big conceptual engine to pull it around in circles.

Is this the book that wants to equate God with our moments of bliss, or to have such moments be experiencing God? I do not feel at all comfortable with such a mix. It might tangle my enjoyment of life and might diminish the role and hope of God.

I experiment with the idea that contemplation might glimpse order and relationships that are a closer reflection of God than harried everyday moments. But God may be be importantly in the harried and troubled moments in life not just the harmonious.

Good points, huckelberry. His god isn't a god at all, it seems to me. If someone believes in God they actually envision a something. They actually have someone who cares in mind. I don't think he'd say God doesn't care, or whatever...but his explanation doesn't help, as I saw it.

[dastardly stem]

Props for reading David Bently Hart, most people don’t give that much time or expend that much effort listening to somebody they don’t agree with.

I think one of the biggest disconnects Hart struggles with is putting his own beliefs in terms that are relatable to those who share an atheistic outlook. His eastern orthodox faith and theology is grounded in a Aristotelian framework (and to lesser extent, a Platonic framework too) that really isn’t shared by most people in the West. I don’t think he is fully aware of just how much is lost in the act of communicating his beliefs, because he doesn’t seem to expend much effort in trying to mitigate it.

Take your example of the problem of interaction in Cartesian substance dualism, I don’t think Hart sees a problem because he most likely adopts a position of hylomorphism (a more modern take on Aristotle’s metaphysic) where that kind of problem doesn’t really make sense. He probably didn’t spend any time explaining that Cartesian metaphysics is an explicit rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and so, the baggage that Descartes has to deal with doesn’t always carry over to his view.

I also see it cropping up again when he sort of uses a transcendental argument against naturalism on the issue of “being”. By transcendental, I mean the strategy of taking a view held in common between both parties (i.e. things exist) and then asserts that a necessary condition for this common view to be true is that there must be a “ground” for this being and the only possible ground is God.

The problem though, is that contemporary philosophy doesn’t view ontology in this manner, when we speak of “ground” we mean something that is determinative, but not causal. This becomes important because the topic of causal relations is sort left to the topic of physics and philosophical commentary on physics.

In much the same way the problem of the interaction between the mental substance and the physical substance doesn’t make much sense to a hylomorphic view, the grounding of being doesn’t make much sense to anglophone philosophy. To us, it is obvious that there can be an infinite regress, there is an entire branch of modern mathematics that allows such a thing.

Maybe that's the lesson here? If you want to successfully convey your views to another party, it might behoove you to learn enough about that party so you can effectively communicate your beliefs in terms that are more relatable to them.

Thanks, Stak. That was an extremely helpful response. And I think you've nailed Hart's position, obviously you've considered his ideas before. But yes, his point stated early in the book was to speak to atheists and help them understand why they are wrong and he is right. But I don't think he did a fair job in defining an atheist position and I don't think he attempted to simplify his take enough for us lay readers to make much of his points. As I said, to me it seemed like he intentionally attempted to confuse his readers rather than clarify anything as he intended. That is extremely frustrating for me.

He probably didn’t spend any time explaining that Cartesian metaphysics is an explicit rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and so, the baggage that Descartes has to deal with doesn’t always carry over to his view.

if he did, I didn't catch it. He seemed to be defensive of a Cartesian dualism approach concluding it'd be impossible to think mechanical processes could ever produce thought or imagination. With that, as I recall, he moved to say it's more likely there's a spirit working on a brain than not, so the mechanical approach doesn't work at all. I may go back and see if I can pick that up better now.

I might have to consult some more material before I really get what he's saying. But as I said earlier, if he thinks, as he suggests, he's definitively proven an atheist position untenable, I'd imagine he's coming up short. We can simply dismiss most of his presuppositions from the outset, I'd say.

[Rivendale]

Props for reading David Bently Hart, most people don’t give that much time or expend that much effort listening to somebody they don’t agree with.

I think one of the biggest disconnects Hart struggles with is putting his own beliefs in terms that are relatable to those who share an atheistic outlook. His eastern orthodox faith and theology is grounded in a Aristotelian framework (and to lesser extent, a Platonic framework too) that really isn’t shared by most people in the West. I don’t think he is fully aware of just how much is lost in the act of communicating his beliefs, because he doesn’t seem to expend much effort in trying to mitigate it.

Take your example of the problem of interaction in Cartesian substance dualism, I don’t think Hart sees a problem because he most likely adopts a position of hylomorphism (a more modern take on Aristotle’s metaphysic) where that kind of problem doesn’t really make sense. He probably didn’t spend any time explaining that Cartesian metaphysics is an explicit rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and so, the baggage that Descartes has to deal with doesn’t always carry over to his view.

I also see it cropping up again when he sort of uses a transcendental argument against naturalism on the issue of “being”. By transcendental, I mean the strategy of taking a view held in common between both parties (i.e. things exist) and then asserts that a necessary condition for this common view to be true is that there must be a “ground” for this being and the only possible ground is God.

The problem though, is that contemporary philosophy doesn’t view ontology in this manner, when we speak of “ground” we mean something that is determinative, but not causal. This becomes important because the topic of causal relations is sort left to the topic of physics and philosophical commentary on physics.

In much the same way the problem of the interaction between the mental substance and the physical substance doesn’t make much sense to a hylomorphic view, the grounding of being doesn’t make much sense to anglophone philosophy. To us, it is obvious that there can be an infinite regress, there is an entire branch of modern mathematics that allows such a thing.

Maybe that's the lesson here? If you want to successfully convey your views to another party, it might behoove you to learn enough about that party so you can effectively communicate your beliefs in terms that are more relatable to them.

Thanks, Stak. That was an extremely helpful response. And I think you've nailed Hart's position, obviously you've considered his ideas before. But yes, his point stated early in the book was to speak to atheists and help them understand why they are wrong and he is right. But I don't think he did a fair job in defining an atheist position and I don't think he attempted to simplify his take enough for us lay readers to make much of his points. As I said, to me it seemed like he intentionally attempted to confuse his readers rather than clarify anything as he intended. That is extremely frustrating for me.

He probably didn’t spend any time explaining that Cartesian metaphysics is an explicit rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and so, the baggage that Descartes has to deal with doesn’t always carry over to his view.

if he did, I didn't catch it. He seemed to be defensive of a Cartesian dualism approach concluding it'd be impossible to think mechanical processes could ever produce thought or imagination. With that, as I recall, he moved to say it's more likely there's a spirit working on a brain than not, so the mechanical approach doesn't work at all. I may go back and see if I can pick that up better now.

I might have to consult some more material before I really get what he's saying. But as I said earlier, if he thinks, as he suggests, he's definitively proven an atheist position untenable, I'd imagine he's coming up short. We can simply dismiss most of his presuppositions from the outset, I'd say.

If we compare this to other subjects that have deep philosophical/materialistic underpinnings like Physics or Chemistry the choice of language is imperative. I don't know if he purposely wrote in this way because it is the only book of his I have "attempted" to read. Mormon/Theist apologists do this all the time. Dan Peterson for example will constantly chide Gemli with never "reading" the material. Normally this is a good argument for why someone does not understand a particular topic. I will not get much out a technically written textbook without the prior knowledge.

When I was in college I took Linear algebra with only an Algebra 2 background in High School. It was miserable. I had no idea what 99% of the text even meant. I felt this way many times with this book. It was only after taking the course again and forcing myself to learn all the vocabulary and all the mathematical symbolism that it all clicked. I am sure this is my problem. However, there are certain thumbnail sketches that can be articulated which enhance general themes which was his problem. Dan likes to throw out NDE, dowsing, mathematical paradoxes to support his world view. Hart does something similar. You would think that explain it like I'm five would be relevant when eternal salvation is on the line.

Orthogonally related, but I still enjoy my A from that linear algebra class.

[dastardly stem]

If we compare this to other subjects that have deep philosophical/materialistic underpinnings like Physics or Chemistry the choice of language is imperative. I don't know if he purposely wrote in this way because it is the only book of his I have "attempted" to read. Mormon/Theist apologists do this all the time. Dan Peterson for example will constantly chide Gemli with never "reading" the material. Normally this is a good argument for why someone does not understand a particular topic. I will not get much out a technically written textbook without the prior knowledge.

When I was in college I took Linear algebra with only an Algebra 2 background in High School. It was miserable. I had no idea what 99% of the text even meant. I felt this way many times with this book. It was only after taking the course again and forcing myself to learn all the vocabulary and all the mathematical symbolism that it all clicked. I am sure this is my problem. However, there are certain thumbnail sketches that can be articulated which enhance general themes which was his problem. Dan likes to throw out NDE, dowsing, mathematical paradoxes to support his world view. Hart does something similar. You would think that explain it like I'm five would be relevant when eternal salvation is on the line.

Orthogonally related, but I still enjoy my A from that linear algebra class.

What I learned from the DCP's complaints to Gemli was/is I don't recall DCP ever offering good reason to Gemli to venture. He acted like he had to, but in each case Gemli explained well why it didn't matter if he read the material or not. It wouldn't have impacted the points he raised. I feel like that's a bit true with Hart's work. I don't' know that he's offering anything all that useful anyway. He's trying to be interesting and technical. Fine...take a stab at that. But if you want to make a valid case, make it...don't poke around, in what seemed to me in circles mostly, and pretend that poking did anything of value to the atheist position.

I think we can all agree we carry our own biases and presuppositions to the table. But Hart seemed to act as if his biases and presuppositions only matter. He can poke at the atheists by complaining about their own perspective but he doesn't win if he fails to recognize in each approach he takes he carries a burden. Reading his book was like talking to a presuppositionalist, literally. I simply don't see any reason to buy his Aristotelian/platonist perspective. That's why every time he went on about the need for a ground, I could only hear him telling me god was best defined as nothing. Yeah...I mean if you wan to say there's a God and he's nothing...great. That's probably about as good as anyone will get, it seems to me.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sounds like he wants to take a moment of clear enjoyment and make some great big project out of it.
Take a moment of simplicity and make a big conceptual engine to pull it around in circles.

Is this the book that wants to equate God with our moments of bliss, or to have such moments be experiencing God? I do not feel at all comfortable with such a mix. It might tangle my enjoyment of life and might diminish the role and hope of God.

I experiment with the idea that contemplation might glimpse order and relationships that are a closer reflection of God than harried everyday moments. But God may be be importantly in the harried and troubled moments in life not just the harmonious.

Good points, huckelberry. His god isn't a god at all, it seems to me. If someone believes in God they actually envision a something. They actually have someone who cares in mind. I don't think he'd say God doesn't care, or whatever...but his explanation doesn't help, as I saw it.

I don’t think his (Hart’s) argument settles the issue at all. If we’re talking about a univeral-god-being (UGB) then we’re talking about a ‘sentience quotient’ that really is all encompassing, which results in what you described in your response to me above as ‘nothingness’. If we’re talking about an entity with the greatest theoretical intelligence possible, that can process all the information occurring not just in this universe, but across the multiverses (if that exists), and in Reality in toto, then that Being is incomprehensible even to a Galactic AI using all the power harnessed to process information. We’re talking orders of magnitude so far removed that even hyperintelligences wouldn’t understand what a UGB is or how it operates.

Conversely, it follows that a UGB would simply look at anything that processes information, from a ‘dumb’ fly to a, say, Type-III super-AI as pointless to interact with because ‘we’ don’t possess the literal faculties to see anything whatsoever from its POV. It’d be like someone trying to discuss Kant with an atom. That’s how far removed a UGB would be from a human being. It’d literally take a UGB an instant, literally an instant, to absorb or read or comprehend the sum total of human knowledge. And then it’d have a perfect understanding of it from every possible view - from the writer to the reader. It’s just a level so far beyond what mankind can ever possibly relate to that the argument Hart makes is laughably absurd.

So, your statement about nothingness stands because there’s simply an information processing problem between an atom and a god. The gap is logically and philosophically impossible to cross.

No wonder Joseph Smith just gave up and decided to start fuckin’ kids.

- Doc

[Physics Guy]

It seems clear that an ultimate kind of God would be far beyond our understanding, while that God would presumably understand us completely and effortlessly—for whatever ineffable value of “understand” may apply. It’s not clear to me, though, that such a God would therefore have no interest in us.

One of us could surely only command an infinitesimal fraction of such a being’s attention. An infinitesimal fraction of the attention of such a being, though, might be more than the most intense human love.

[DrStakhanovite]

Thanks, Stak. That was an extremely helpful response. And I think you've nailed Hart's position, obviously you've considered his ideas before. But yes, his point stated early in the book was to speak to atheists and help them understand why they are wrong and he is right. But I don't think he did a fair job in defining an atheist position and I don't think he attempted to simplify his take enough for us lay readers to make much of his points. As I said, to me it seemed like he intentionally attempted to confuse his readers rather than clarify anything as he intended. That is extremely frustrating for me.

I think there is a tendency for theists writing ostensibly apologetic material to focus on what they perceive to be “popular” forms of unbelief in lieu of engaging the more obscure yet more substantial manifestations. I can imagine the rationale for doing this is along the lines of, “More people are being influenced by a Christopher Hitchens, Penn Jillette, or a Sam Harris than a Jordan Howard Sobel or a Graham Oppy, so I should focus on the former instead of the latter.” I can appreciate why that appears to be a prudent course, but I think it is fundamentally misguided.

Every person you engage with exerts some kind of influence over you whether you are conscious of it or not and so if you wade into a pile of bellicose atheists and start responding to them, you run the risk of behaving like them or worse. Religious fundamentalists of every stripe understand this very well, but their folly is to try and insulate people from ever being influenced by those outside the community in the first place; it is a short term solution that inevitably will fail. I think the best course of action is to be mindful of the influence and take appropriate steps to mitigate the negative aspects and accentuate the positive.

So Hart comes to the contemporary issue of theism versus atheism and starts surveying the landscape by reading post 9/11 critiques of religion by atheists. What he finds is an aggressive denunciation of religious belief predicated on social issues like Creation Science and Intelligent Design advocates trying to manipulate school boards, rampant sexual abuse perpetuated and shielded by clergy, violent acts of terrorism, discrimination directed at LGBT individuals and communities, and so on. These litanies against the social ills of practiced religion are joined with refutations of the classical arguments for God’s existence and rebuttals to contemporary arguments that, at best leave a lot to be desired and at worst are totally incompotent. All of this material is organized around the motif that there is no intellectually respectable form of religious belief and those believers who are undeniably intelligent are assessed as being religious for social and psychological reasons that make them suspect.

It isn’t hard to understand why Hart decides to push back in a similar manner, but in doing so his message gets lost in all the rhetoric and intellectual posturing. In all his chest-thumping about how atheism has no foundation to it, curious readers struggle to understand just what exactly Hart is trying to say or even what he really believes outside theism is better than atheism. I’m sure there was a sizable audience who were happy to read atheists getting a taste of their own medicine by someone capable of delivering it, but serving fans is better left to entertainers than theologians.

[dastardly stem]

I don’t think his (Hart’s) argument settles the issue at all. If we’re talking about a univeral-god-being (UGB) then we’re talking about a ‘sentience quotient’ that really is all encompassing, which results in what you described in your response to me above as ‘nothingness’. If we’re talking about an entity with the greatest theoretical intelligence possible, that can process all the information occurring not just in this universe, but across the multiverses (if that exists), and in Reality in toto, then that Being is incomprehensible even to a Galactic AI using all the power harnessed to process information. We’re talking orders of magnitude so far removed that even hyperintelligences wouldn’t understand what a UGB is or how it operates.

Conversely, it follows that a UGB would simply look at anything that processes information, from a ‘dumb’ fly to a, say, Type-III super-AI as pointless to interact with because ‘we’ don’t possess the literal faculties to see anything whatsoever from its POV. It’d be like someone trying to discuss Kant with an atom. That’s how far removed a UGB would be from a human being. It’d literally take a UGB an instant, literally an instant, to absorb or read or comprehend the sum total of human knowledge. And then it’d have a perfect understanding of it from every possible view - from the writer to the reader. It’s just a level so far beyond what mankind can ever possibly relate to that the argument Hart makes is laughably absurd.

So, your statement about nothingness stands because there’s simply an information processing problem between an atom and a god. The gap is logically and philosophically impossible to cross.

No wonder Joseph Smith just gave up and decided to start fuckin’ kids.

- Doc

Yes. I'd have no idea why UGB cares at all. He's making it all happen as it happens anyway. He's the ground of all being noting persists without him. Since everything is just moving, dying, flying, floating, digesting and decomposing, I can't see how it possibly matters to him or it or whatever it is we're talking about. It sounds like we just have to tell ourselves he cares, but really only cares about us and, on that, only some of us...because we really need him to. Hart seems to suggest he cares because we exist...but he doesn't care about ants, or star dust because I mean we're people and of course he cares about us.

[dastardly stem]

It seems clear that an ultimate kind of God would be far beyond our understanding, while that God would presumably understand us completely and effortlessly—for whatever ineffable value of “understand” may apply. It’s not clear to me, though, that such a God would therefore have no interest in us.

One of us could surely only command an infinitesimal fraction of such a being’s attention. An infinitesimal fraction of the attention of such a being, though, might be more than the most intense human love.

Why would he have interest in us? Why not find interest in unfound microbes on the moons of Jupiter if they are there? If he's interested in us, is he interested in virus' too? Is his interest a "I need something to watch" kind of thing? Or is his interest in a "I really want these particular thingies to succeed in some way, even though I'm also causing, you know, serial killers and despots, earthquakes and Tsunamis? Sure their egos and motivations are causing death and destruction at times, but their innovations, as they see them, are, what, making life easier for them, and extending their disease filled lives."

Or do we want him to find interest in us because we love each other, and whatever we find good in that must be good to him?