God Without The Supernatural

[_CaliforniaKid]

Don't many theologians already think God is "natural", as in "natural theology"?

My understanding of natural theology is that it merely uses the natural world as a source for theology. I.e., it draws inferences about the creator from his creation. It doesn't necessarily imply that God is "natural", and in fact I suspect that most natural theologians would have explicitly repudiated such a notion.

[_Gadianton]

CK:

The largest population of natural theologians were deists. Prior to them, it's sketchy because it's kind of hard to admit a causally closed aristotelian universe (minus human free will) and also say that there are "supernatural" miracles. I usually get the sense that faith or reason are fair game, but that faith and revelation is sort of a shortcut.

Don:

Rather, I'm asking whether it makes sense to use the term "God" for anything we could all agree is part of the natural world.

Well, I think I sort of understood that, so I brought up options besides miracles. I do think your definition of "supernatural" is pretty good, by the way. In thinking in terms of holism, what you paraphrased from your Jewish reconstructionist is important to consider. It would seem that if science (or even analytic philosophy), as it is largely admitted as a reductive enterprise, fails to properly explain cherished values and so on, then it would be bad for atheists to claim values and morals under the domain of reason if they can't explain how that reason works. Simon Blackburn poses this as a serious problem for moral realism generally. So it would be just as bad for atheists to claim more than they should under "science" and "reason" without some idea of how the issue would be resolved. (we have an idea of how gravity might be resolved while analytically defining objective morality is far more controversial). So maybe there is a hint of mystery and grand importance in holistic relationships between people and their cultures that defies the grasp of mainstream scientists and philosophers, and the irreducible nature of it connects enough with elements that have been associated with "God" to make it workable. But it would still be hard to see a debate between that kind of theist and an atheist as a "God - no God" debate rather than a debate primarily over other ideas not necessarily connected to "God".

[_Some Schmo]

It would be quite accurate, I think, to say that I stopped believing in faith before I stopped believing in Mormonism. Religious faith, as I've understood it for some time, means believing beyond one's evidence. One may see some evidence for the existence of the gold plates, Jesus' resurrected body, or God, recognize that this evidence is not sufficient to compel belief in the same way that, say, the evidence compels us that, sadly, George W. Bush is still our president. So an additional act of belief is necessary, a leap, a decision to believe. Such decisions are not required in ordinary cases of belief. No one speaks of "choosing" to believe that Bush occupies the Oval Office, or that gravity operates, or that the earth goes around the sun. These beliefs, based on sufficient evidence, arise naturally in the mind as the force of this evidence is perceived--no additional act of will is required.

Religious belief is different. "Faith" just means believing a religious proposition beyond the evidence by an act of the will. Perception of the evidence is not sufficient to establish these propositions, or faith would be redundant--a choice to believe what is already and necessarily believed without choice.

But if we believe beyond our evidence, we run into the problem of arbitrariness. Evidence is the guide that tells us what warrants belief. Sufficient evidence tells us we have sufficient warrant for believing something. Insufficient evidence tells us we do not have good enough reason to hold the belief. So, if we believe something without good enough reason (sufficient evidence), we have no good reason to believe that thing in preference to something else. Our selection of beliefs would be merely arbitrary, at least relative to the probable truth of those beliefs. We might choose to make the "leap" of faith in Mormonism, but would have no more warrant for making that leap than for making the leap to believe in Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism, or Rastafarianism. To believe beyond one's evidence just is to believe arbitrarily. Belief then becomes a matter of circumstance (I was born into this faith or that, or encountered this one before I could encounter any of the others), or of whimsy (I prefer this belief to that). But what do such circumstances have to do with truth? Why would Mormonism, or Islam for that matter, be more likely true if I were born into it? Should each of believe we are the holy child, whose birth into a religious tradition certifies it as divine? If not, then birth has nothing to do with what one should believe to be true. And what about preference? Should we, in fact, as Alma 32 says, let our "desire to believe" work into actual belief? Sure--provided we're omnipotent gods whose desires have the power to determine reality. Short of being that, or pretending we are, we should bracket our preferences out of the question altogether. I very strongly prefer, and wish with all my heart, that the Holocaust had never happened. But this wish has absolutely nothing to do with what I should believe. The case is the same for the historical narrative of the Book of Mormon and the story of the Resurrection of Jesus. I would be thrilled beyond measure to learn that Jesus had risen from the dead and ensured the immortality of me, my loved ones, and all mankind. But my desire for this to be so is as irrelevant to its actuality as my desire for the Holocaust to have not happened is irrelevant to its actuality.

I thoroughly enjoyed what you wrote here. I've been thinking about the subject of "belief choice" for quite some time now, read many posts on the subject, and this is by far the best articulation of what is going on with people with respect to their belief mechanism, in my opinion.

The only thing I really want to point out is that I don't think we can "bracket our preferences out of the question altogether" primarily because I think we aren't even aware of our preferences in many cases. I think people choose what to believe (in cases where the evidence is insufficient to make a valid determination of the truth - whether that ignorance is escapable or not... some people don't necessarily want to see all the evidence) based on what they unconsciously believe will most benefit their current situation. I think that's how a person's religion is most likely chosen in the first place (including the choice whether to stay in the religion of your parents or not. Likely not a conscious choice, but one that has to be made at some point as one journeys into adulthood).

In fact, I believe it's safe to say that a person's belief in the nature of god is an exact reflection of the sort of god that is most comfortable for them to believe in for whatever personal reasons they may have.

[_DonBradley]

Hey SS,

(You really need new initials, man!)

I agree that in practice we can't or don't entirely bracket out our preferences. We can, perhaps, occasionally do so. But it would probably be impossible to do so systematically throughout our thinking. So, inquiry and belief formation not guided by our preferences, like logical thinking more generally, becomes an ideal for us to strive.

Don

[_DonBradley]

I've been asked, privately, some questions that would make a nice contribution to the thread--e.g., why not just stick with a term like "collective humanity," and not open the door to something metaphysical?

This could probably be a whole discussion in itself. Here are a few quick thoughts:

I understand this concern. After reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris, I became a rather severe critic of liberal religion, because I thought it simply fed back into the more conservative and dangerous forms of faith (e.g., apocalyptic Christianity, ultra-Orthodox (and therefore theocratic and territory-based) Judaism, etc.) By retaining the faith tradition and the notion of "God," I thought, the liberal religionists help keep these things societally legitimate and alive among their children; but because of the inherent weakness or instability of the liberal position ("it's true, but not literally true," etc.), the children tend to revert to the conservative forms of faith. (This is happening in the US right now: liberal Christian denominations are shrinking, as is Reform Judaism, as their former practitioners swell the ranks of fundamentalist denominations and Orthodox Judaism, respectively.)

My point certainly isn't to open the door to something "metaphysical," or to provide a back door into fundamentalist religion. The conception of God with which I'm working is intended to be entirely naturalistic. This God exists in the same sense as another complex concept, like "western culture," "the US government," or "society," could be said to exist. Insofar as the term doesn't refer to a physical object, it is more abstractly conceptual than, say, the term "chair," but I don't see this making it something "metaphysical," or supernatural.

One reason I wouldn't necessarily just use the term "collective humanity" for what I'm calling "God" is that I don't simply mean the latter as reference to only the persons comprising humanity, but also as something including their continuing influence on others through culture. And, further, I mean it to refer to humanity, and human culture, past, present, and future, considered as a whole. I don't see this being captured in an existing term like "collective humanity."

This doesn't explain, of course, why the term "God" should be used. I think it should be used because I think it fits. Once it's understood that the supernatural aspect of the term has been dropped, much of what's left from the notion of God seems to apply perfectly. People routinely thank God for the knowledge, material prosperity and material culture, moral thought, and biological existence they enjoy. But these things can be attributed to collective humanity, through the survival of our forbears in the form of culture. The proper recipient of the thanks given, or a proper recipient, would be our human forbears. So, 'thanksgiving,' a traditional spiritual/religious virtue--and I think inarguably a true virtue--has a natural, human object, even though the thanks are generally misdirected toward a supernatural entity. The many who thank the giver of these blessings, calling this entity God, are properly thanking collective humanity (as framed in this discussion). This is what "God" properly refers to.

"God" is also an appropriate term, I think, because there's value in sacralizing the collective human enterprise. Entire secularization of human society has not been friendly to close-knit community, which has tended to have a sacral basis. As secularization has proceeded, we haven't seen the enhancement of community and a sense of larger, collective purpose, but the erosion of these things. Collective humanity and human culture might be seen as an effective "substitute" for the supernatural sacred, providing larger purpose and a basis for communal bonds. But I think this wrongly frames things. Whatever human beings may have said was the basis for their communities, life purpose, moral thought, gratitude, etc.--e.g., a supernatural God, the actual basis of these things has always been cross-generational humanity itself. The larger purpose of the lives of those of the past was not that it served Allah, or Yahweh, or God under any other supernatural identity, but that it contributed to the ongoing life of collective humanity. And collective humanity, not the named supernatural deity, was the source of its traditions, the proper object of its thanks, and so on.

So, I'm not suggesting that collective humanity, across time and including its cumulative effects through culture, is a stand-in for the supernatural God, but, rather, that the notion of a supernatural God has served as a stand-in for this collective humanity. What has been termed "God" has always been colletive humanity, however badly supernaturalized and otherwise misunderstood. The cultural and personal function of the concept of God, quite often, served to focus energies on larger life of the community, and therefore of humanity. From a functional perspective, I think collective humanity is simply what "God" is and always has been.

This is not to say that the concept of a supernatural "God" hasn't been used negatively and self-servingly, and doesn't, in our time, tend to hinder valuable objectives in science, foreign policy........ But I don't think God has been used purely as a tool of exploitation. Rather, God has, again, been a way of conceptualizing a meaning that transcends oneself, one's own interests, and even one's own life--the collective, trans-generational life from which we draw all that we have, and into which we contribute all that we create.

This concept of a universal giver, a higher purpose, an object of our gratitude, the source of our knowledge of morality and of the world, and the source of whatever immortality we will have--the concept of "God"--should be rescued from the supernatural trappings of particularistic religious dogmas. It doesn't belong to them. It belongs to humankind, whose collective life and purposes it reflects.

It isn't this concept of a source of our gifts, a universal purpose, and a trans-individual life that's wrong. It's identifying it with a particular figure from mythology, attributing to it "omni" powers, and separating it from humanity. These errors can be discarded, while the underlying concept to which they've been accreted is retained and built upon. And why shouldn't it be? Though the concept has been housed within mythology, faith-based dogmas, protective priesthoods, and oft-misguided precepts, it isn't identical to these, nor are they necessary to it. It isn't a concept that needs to be destroyed, but one that needs to be liberated.

A concept that provides a strong basis for living with a sense of humility, deep purpose, abounding (and expressed) gratitude, and other virtues transcending egoism is too valuable a thing to leave only to those willing to believe what just ain't so.

Don

[_truth dancer]

When I think of God as everything in the Cosmos, it tends to greatly dilute, rather than enhance, a sense of larger purpose.

I totally understand this.

For me, when I think of myself as a reflection of this Divine essence it totally enlargens and expands my sense of purpose. The idea of separateness distracts, divides, and removes the sense of oneness I sense. (Not saying this is true for anyone else, nor do I feel it is some sort of ultimate truth.. just my personal experience, and why the "God is a man", idea doesn't fit into my mind and heart).

Human beings are purposive beings; so a trans-individual, collective human God might comprehensibly be seen as a sort of purposive entity. While individual purposes have varied over time, certain purposes have been common to most human beings throughout history, and these have helped shape the trend of human destiny, which can be seen as the direction which God has been taking. Most of the rest of the Cosmos, on the other hand, outside of humanity, appears for all we can tell to not be purposive. The Universe, as you noted, doesn't really have any "aims." So to identify the Universe as God over identifying humanity as God is to make God impersonal rather than transpersonal and non-purposive rathher than purposive. I--necessarily--identify less with such an impersonal entity and draw less (if indeed I draw any) sense of larger purpose from it.

I'm interested in your above statement I bolded. What purposes are common to most humans other than surviving and procreating? (I know you said "history" but I'm thinking of the past few hundred thousand years).

While I agree that from what we can concretely measure or observe, humankind seems to be purposeful in ways not seen in the rest of the universe, however, I believe that humans are the very same power, essence, energy as everything else. The very same purpose that was in the beginning is that which flows through the human. I do not see how it could be otherwise. Humans, in my opinion are just "a" way for the universe to show itself; "a" way awareness can emerge. The exact same energy/essence brought forth a galaxy and a butterfly and self awareness. It is all one

Whatever has come into existence, whatever will, is a transformation of the one original energy/essence. (IMHO... smile).

I agree that in many ways my perspective does eliminate a "personal" God. I definitely do not believe there is some sort of entity (human or otherwise) dictating or directing our human experience. I would offer that this does not mean our lives are not purposeful, or that God/Universe/Source is not unfolding in a particular direction. I think it most certainly is.

From the first moment of our universe, latent and unformed was the reality of self awareness. It has showed up in the human but it did not have to.

Humans, in my opinion, are "a" way our particular universe has brought forth an awareness of itself. This is the amazing, miraculous aspect of the human. ;-)

I'm not trying to promote my experience here... (smile) just sharing. I'm not a philosopher, scientist, or otherwise brilliant person, I just love the topic and have spent considerable time pondering and exploring my personal experience of existence.

:-)

~dancer~

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Don,

I like your idea of God as proxy for collective humanity. Given that utilitarian ethics are focused on the good of the collective, and that Christian morality in several important respects coheres with utilitarianism, I'd say that to some extent that is precisely the role that the God of Christianity plays in the historical drama. I also think that Christians' rejection of biblical ethics (e.g. on the subjection of women) in favor of a more modern ethic suggests that this is functionally, if not exactly, how they conceive Him. Where "His" ethic contradicts that of common humanity, Christians in at least some cases are willing to concede the point to common humanity.

-Chris

[_DonBradley]

A few more thoughts:

We are in the middle of the Third Great Awakening. Religion is thriving in the US. For the past few decades, religious belief and attendance at religious services has been rising. And the religions that are growing are the conservative ones.

Why? Or, really, why?!! Isn't it more obvious than ever that the human species was produced by evolution, that the biblical corpus was produced by human beings, that there was no global "Flood," etc., etc., etc. Absolutely!

So why, as it loses intellectual credibility, would religion, and particularly conservative religion, be steadily gaining ground?

I'm not an expert in this area, and am not sure anyone fully knows the answer. However, there has been a great deal of research on this, and I'm familiar enough with the general trends of some of it to hazard some probably-safe opinions:

1) People want a sense of meaning and a source of intrinsic values, a shield from the meaningless welter of secular sound-bytes around them. Materialism has also been on the rise in the US. Acquiring fame, the perfect body, and s***loads of "stuff" is much of what our culture is about. In a culture centered on extrinsic values, with no sense of larger purpose, and without significant communal bonds, it's natural for people to turn to traditional religion for solace and a corrective against (post-)modern values.

2) Parents want their children to grow up in communities, and particularly in communities that will give them clear moral and behavioral standards. The most common age for religious disaffection is late adolescence--leaving home. But the leaving is usually only temporary. The most common time for return to religion is the birth of one's first child. Parents--good parents--will always be concerned for the social and moral environment in which their kids grow up. Parents take their kids to church for much the same reason they move them to a good neighborhood: they want good influences on their kids. Keeping the kids away from temptations like alcohol, tobacco, and, of course, crack, meth..., and early sex, etc.--parents worry about this kind of thing. Secular society simply fails, with a capital "F," to provide real, close-knit community, much less authoritative guidance. So, again, parents turn to conservative religion.


The solution chosen to these problems of post-modern American life is problematic for a number of reasons including that conservative religion:

1) Isn't true.
2) Perpetuates certain regressive attitudes toward others (e.g., gays).
3) Promotes views of reality that are divisive and inaccurate, imperiling our power to make intelligent democratic decisions.

Creationism, belief in the holiness and prophetic desiny of the Jewish state, apocalypticism, Old Testament legal provisions, and opposition to other faiths are just a few of the "contributions" made by conservative faith to our national political discourse. Such archaic beliefs are worse than irrelevant in our present world. They are luxuries we cannot afford. Misunderstandings on this level promote bad medical policies--costing human lives, needless restrictions of liberty, a refusal to look at the long-term effects of environmental degradation (as a friend once told me, "Heavenly Father won't let us run out of natural resources"), entanglement in the Middle East, the targeting of the US by terrorists.......the list goes on.


But to simply note that conventional religion isn't what it claims to be and can have damaging effects isn't enough, and isn't going to achieve anything. People aren't flocking (however literally) to conservative faiths because these faiths are wrong and politically harmful. Nor are they flocking to them because they're stupid. People are thronging the conservative churches, and synagogues, in part because these places really do offer a corrective to some of the problems of US society, at least for them and for their families.

Unless or until there are obvious and readily available alternatives to conventional religion, people are not going to stop embracing it as the solution. For this reason, among others, I think it is incumbent upon those not aligned with faith-based religion to develop non-faith-based means of promoting spirituality and community.

Though I've been reflecting on the possibility of a naturalistic conception of God for personal, rather than societal, reasons, I do think such concepts need to be developed and promoted also for the greater good--because human beings, at least a great many of us, seem to need spirituality and spiritually-based community--or at least we function better and believe we raise our children better when we have these than when we do not.

Skeptics, atheists, agnostics, etc. in this country have, on the whole, been an absolute joke when it comes to recognizing the need for community, much less spirituality. So people are left with a choice between community and spirituality, on the one hand, and good thinking and accurate belief, on the other. No one should have to make such a tragic choice. The human needs for community and spirituality should be met within the context of communities centered on the best of human values and consistent with the best of human knowledge.

Recognizing the pan-human core to the God traditions of the supernaturalist faiths, and rescuing that concept from mythology and dogma would be an important step. A forward step for humankind.

Don

[MODERATOR NOTE: Do not use the "S" word, or any of its variants, in the Terrestrial Forum.]

[_DonBradley]

Hey TD,

Internet communication is inherently 'dangerous' when it comes to conveying the right feeling. So, I need to add a disclaimer, in case my thoughts, when experienced as words on a screen, without expression or inflection, come across as dismissing your experience or in any way criticizing you. We've known each other through various venues for, I think, about five years now; so I assume this wouldn't be a problem anyway. But, just in case, I'll disclaim....

I'm going to tell you why the perspective you've offered, as I understand it, doesn't "take" for me, at least not as a total approach to the spiritual life, or as one to be preferred to my own gropings toward a pan-human deity. I'll take what I deem to be fair "shots" at arguments and points--telling you how they strike me, and where I see them as illogical, unworkable, not the best approach I can perceive, or just not able to provide what I personally am looking for.

To start with: I have felt, and could feel considerably more a sense of mystery and wonder in the face of the universe, but I have been unable to find my sense of purpose in what has no purposes of its own. While I think the sense of wonder and mystery are genuinely spiritual emotions, a spirituality based on the universe itself appears to me to have decided limitations compared to one centered on purposing beings, particularly the grand design or set of purposes that emerges from the community of humankind.

I explain this further below, in response and dialogue with your comments:

When I think of God as everything in the Cosmos, it tends to greatly dilute, rather than enhance, a sense of larger purpose.

I totally understand this.

For me, when I think of myself as a reflection of this Divine essence it totally enlargens and expands my sense of purpose. The idea of separateness distracts, divides, and removes the sense of oneness I sense. (Not saying this is true for anyone else, nor do I feel it is some sort of ultimate truth.. just my personal experience, and why the "God is a man", idea doesn't fit into my mind and heart).

Personally, I don't see how emphasizing a purposeless universe as the center of my spiritual life would enhance my sense of purpose. The universe has no purposes. Purposes belong to purposers, and these are, by the meaning of the word "purpose," sentient beings. The universe may be friendly to the occasional existence of life, but this not the fault of any intention it has to be so. It is entirely indifferent to our deepest values, and to everything else. Although there is much about our universe to contemplate and wonder at--and I'm sure I do this far too little, and could not do it sufficiently in any case--there are things such contemplation cannot provide. One cannot relate to the universe in the way one can to a conscious being, one cannot share in its values and purposes--because it has none, and any gratitude expressed toward the universe is necessarily tempered by the fact that the universe could not even in principle receive such gratitude and is as indifferent to the gifts it gives as to the destructions it metes out. One death comet or asteroid and the universe would snuff out humanity as dispassionately as it gave rise to it. And we would not be missed.

Unfortunately, the universe is largely unavailable for religious or spiritual purposes. It doesn't, and can't, take the place occupied in conventional religion by God or gods; and having no purposes itself, it can provide none for us. Those looking for purpose must simply look elsewhere, into the world of purposing beings. And the purposing beings we know are human beings.

Human beings are purposive beings; so a trans-individual, collective human God might comprehensibly be seen as a sort of purposive entity. While individual purposes have varied over time, certain purposes have been common to most human beings throughout history, and these have helped shape the trend of human destiny, which can be seen as the direction which God has been taking. Most of the rest of the Cosmos, on the other hand, outside of humanity, appears for all we can tell to not be purposive. The Universe, as you noted, doesn't really have any "aims." So to identify the Universe as God over identifying humanity as God is to make God impersonal rather than transpersonal and non-purposive rathher than purposive. I--necessarily--identify less with such an impersonal entity and draw less (if indeed I draw any) sense of larger purpose from it.

I'm interested in your above statement I bolded. What purposes are common to most humans other than surviving and procreating? (I know you said "history" but I'm thinking of the past few hundred thousand years).

Human beings have largely share the desires, yes, to survive and to procreate. "Procreate" here should, however, not be limited to the sense of sexual activity, but also to the nurture of children, and even adult children and grandchildren. Parents and grandparents intend explicitly to benefit their children and grandchildren, and implicitly (and sometimes also explicitly) to benefit future generations who will survive them. Common human goals over time have also included learning about one's environment, mastery in skills and achievement, the experience of flow, the acquisition of material benefit, and the experience of happiness.

But, I actually misspoke (miswrote?) when I stated that the direction God has been taking is comprised of the common goals of human beings across time. What I meant to say was that the direction God has been taking is comprised of the large-scale trends of humankind. The level of complexity and integration among and between human societies has increased steadily for millennia, with even major wars and catastrophes providing only slight and momentary deviations in this robust trend. The knowledge, material wealth (material culture, technology, capital), and (consequently) power of humanity have also grown steadily (and in recent years exponentially). And the moral awareness of the species has also been on a fairly consistent upward trend.

The latter might be disputed by some who would insist that the 20th century shows humankind at its most blood-thirsty. But this is fallacious. Homicide was a regular feature of hunter-gatherer life (and still is among continuing hunter-gatherer groups like the Yanamamo). The average person today is far less likely either to kill or to be killed by another person than was the case across the great bulk of human history. And the 20th century was perhaps the bloodiest in history not because killing became more widely accepted, more people wanted to kill, or a greater proportion of the population was killed than in past ages, but because greater societal organization and technological advancement made mass killing by perverse ideologues easier, and because a burgeoning population provided more potential victims. Our increased ability to do violence shows, not that we are more evil than we used to be, but that we bear a greater moral burden to ensure that violent leaders do not rise to power and that inter-group crises do not escalate into warfare.

While I agree that from what we can concretely measure or observe, humankind seems to be purposeful in ways not seen in the rest of the universe, however, I believe that humans are the very same power, essence, energy as everything else.

This is entirely meaningless to me, unless we're simply talking about humans being comprised of the same physical particles and subject to the same physical laws as the overwhelmingly lifeless remainder of the universe. And if that's what's under discussion, I fail to see what it has to do with purpose. Neutrinos and the curves of space-time have no purposes. Realistically, to say that we share in their purposes is simply to say that we have none either.

The very same purpose that was in the beginning is that which flows through the human. I do not see how it could be otherwise.

I easily see how it can be different--and how it must. While you may see the universe as having something vaguely like 'aims,' you acknowledge that it doesn't actually have aims, goals, or purposes at all. Only conscious beings do; and humans are unlike the universe as a whole in being conscious. It doesn't follow that if an infinitesimal part (the human) of the universe has conscious goals, then the universe as a whole must, and has all along. I can't remember the name of the logical fallacy of reasoning from the parts to the whole (the fallacy of composition??), but a fallacy it is. It would be like arguing that if one Nazi was really well-intentioned toward the Jews, then Nazism as a whole was, from the beginning, as well. Only the analogy fails entirely to capture how truly infinitesimal we are compared to the universe, and therefore how little our purposes can glibly be translated into its purposes.

Humans, in my opinion are just "a" way for the universe to show itself; "a" way awareness can emerge. The exact same energy/essence brought forth a galaxy and a butterfly and self awareness. It is all one

While the same underlying orderliness of the universe is behind the butterfly, the galaxy, and human being, not to mention the AIDS virus, the death comet, and the black hole, this has no obvious relationship to purposes at all. If the universe's purposes were to be judged by the entirety, its primary purposes would have to be ajudged the increase of disorder (entropy) and the maintenance and enlargement of unimaginably large domains of empty space (or perhaps dark-matter-filled space). I should hope it goes without saying that these are not the purposes for which I live, and for which I hope others are living. There is a radical, unbridgeable divide between human purposes and the overall trends of the universe. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

I agree that in many ways my perspective does eliminate a "personal" God. I definitely do not believe there is some sort of entity (human or otherwise) dictating or directing our human experience.

Do you see this impersonal deity-universe as in any way lacking relative to a personal or trans-personal God? Are there any spiritual needs the latter might meet that the former could not?

I would offer that this does not mean our lives are not purposeful, or that God/Universe/Source is not unfolding in a particular direction. I think it most certainly is.

I would agree that our lives are not without purpose, but would say that this is because we, as purposers, provide that, and not because it is provided by a non-purposing universe. To the extent that human beings allow the universe as a whole to provide a model for their own purposes, it seems to me that they could reasonably arrive only at either 1) no purposes at all--since the universe itself has none, or 2) purposes quite alien to truly human aspiration, such as the increase of entropy. The universe could serve as a positive model of purpose only if we ignore its unconscious, and therefore non-purposing, nature, and pick out minor trends in the universe while ignoring the major ones (e.g., emphasizing the increasing complexity of life on earth, while ignoring the increasing entropy of the universe as a whole).

From the first moment of our universe, latent and unformed was the reality of self awareness. It has showed up in the human but it did not have to.

Humans, in my opinion, are "a" way our particular universe has brought forth an awareness of itself.

True. But I see a decided difference between latent potentials that end up being realized and actual purposes. And while we could emphasize the latency of self-awareness at the first instant beyond the Big Bang, we could also emphasize the latency of planentary decimation, individual death, species extinction, cannibalism, and, particularly, of increasing entropy. The increase of entropy was latent and inevitable in a way and to a degree that dwarfs the probability and scale of the emergence of consciousness. However fortuitous our arising within the universe, it is an infinitesimal sideshow to the real drama--that of increasing entropy, like children playing footsy at one of the myrid performances of Hamlet over the past four centuries.

If we are seeking a sense of awe and fortuitousness, and of the preciousness and fragility of life, we should look at our place in the universe--and I would not have us do otherwise. But if we are looking for meanings that would actually mean something to us, as human beings, we must look someplace else. And I do not know where else to look but the human world.

This is the amazing, miraculous aspect of the human. ;-)

It is! That we are the universe made aware of itself, or at least the tiniest atoms of the universe aware, in a measure, of the whole, is remarkable. The scale and majesty of the universe dwarf anything we ever dreamed in our myths. And, necessarily, in this discussion of what contemplation of the universe and our place in it doesn't provide, I've been minimizing that. The universe, and our tiny, fortuitous, remarkable place in it, should evoke awe, a kind of humility, and a feeling of being privileged just to be, over and against the much greater probabilty of non-being. That I could benefit from contemplating the universe more deeply and frequently, and understanding and experiencing its wonders and scale more fully, is, with me, beyond the least doubt. But this is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether it makes sense, or more sense, to, if you will, 'worship' and to unify our purposes with those of the vast and beautiful but indifferent universe, or with the contingent and relatively small, but purposeful, passionate, morally aware, and improving body of humankind. To me, it's clear that the latter is better suited to provide moral guidance, a meaningful object of our gratitude, and a source and end for our purposeful actions.

The universe and the pan-human 'God' would, in this framework, have distinct, if inter-related, places in our spiritual lives, with purpose and mutual connection being found principally in God, rather than in the universe as a whole, which has given rise to God.

It seems to me that perhaps, TD, you and I are seeking and expecting different things from spirituality, with yours focused more on contemplation, wonder, and the grandeur of wide scales and astronomically improbable good fortunes, while mine is focused more on integrating our individual human purposes into something larger that will survive us and on building human communities.

I may be wrong.

Don

[_truth dancer]

Hey Don,

First I deeply respect and admire you and have always totally enjoyed our conversations. I am not uncomfortable in the least to have my thoughts or opinions challenged or criticized. I really like the conversation.

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. I always learn something from you! I approach the topic as one still very much on the journey, In other words, I do not claim to know anything and hopefully will spend the next half of my life expanding, growing, and continually discovering my truth.

I'm not really trying to argue my point or even remotely suggest it is ultimate truth... (I’m quite sure it is not, smile), but just sharing how I experience life. One thing I have discovered is that there is not a “one way fits all” approach to the spiritual journey. I know my views and beliefs have expanded over the years, and I believe most (or many) people also find this true. What rings true for some, doesn’t quite fit for another, so I am not at all offended if my perspective doesn’t make sense to others. (I expect that it does not). LOL!

To start with: I have felt, and could feel considerably more a sense of mystery and wonder in the face of the universe, but I have been unable to find my sense of purpose in what has no purposes of its own. While I think the sense of wonder and mystery are genuinely spiritual emotions, a spirituality based on the universe itself appears to me to have decided limitations compared to one centered on purposing beings, particularly the grand design or set of purposes that emerges from the community of humankind.

I get this… I do not know what the ultimate purpose of the universe is, other than the meaning we give it. I don’t think we are capable of grasping what is beyond our human limitation. But yeah, I can see this is not exactly reassuring, motivating, or comforting. 
The way I see it, we ARE the universe so our purpose IS the purpose of the universe. Not in totality of course but certainly an aspect of it.

What I do feel is an overwhelming awe at what is. I can't even put it into words. It takes my breath away and fills me with wonder. I can't get over it. For me, in my very limited form with limited abilities I sense this as a glimpse of the divine/God.

In other words, I think the divine/God is so much more than anything limited to the human. While of course our experience is centered on OUR particular awareness of the universe, I think this is just a tiny reflection of God.

In terms of purpose... first, I get that my view doesn't work for most people. (smile). I suppose our obvious purpose is to keep our genes going; to survive and to procreate and as you stated, to keep our offspring alive. Underneath this however, it seems that there is a near constant purpose of everything in the universe and this is to transform energy. As far as I can tell, this is what we do. This is what everything in the universe does. Am I wrong on this? I am open to being corrected here. ;-)

So, for me, I have the sense that my purpose is to transform energy the best way I can. What I bring forth is how I am sacrificing my life, and it is the gift I give to God. Whatever I do with my life is how I am transforming energy, and creating the universe. I have a limited amount of energy to use and as it is consumed it is sacrificed on the alter, so to speak. This is the core of my personal spiritual journey.

Personally, I don't see how emphasizing a purposeless universe as the center of my spiritual life would enhance my sense of purpose.

I understand.

The universe has no purposes. Purposes belong to purposers, and these are, by the meaning of the word "purpose," sentient beings.

I see it somewhat differently. :-) While I do of course see our human purpose as bringing forth something unique (at least to our understanding), to the universe, I wonder if the purpose of the universe is at the core of what is the human experience. In other words, in my view, we are an extension or reflection of the one essence, so again our purpose IS the purpose of the universe.

The universe may be friendly to the occasional existence of life, but this not the fault of any intention it has to be so. It is entirely indifferent to our deepest values, and to everything else.

I see your point but to my way of thinking, we ARE the universe, not separate from it. Our deepest values are a way the universe is showing itself. Our ability for self awareness IS the universe discovering itself.

One cannot relate to the universe in the way one can to a conscious being, one cannot share in its values and purposes--because it has none, and any gratitude expressed toward the universe is necessarily tempered by the fact that the universe could not even in principle receive such gratitude and is as indifferent to the gifts it gives as to the destructions it metes out.

The way I see it, the universe is not an environment in which we exist, but the totality of existence, of which we are a facet. What we bring forth is a furthering of its expansion. The story is unfolding as we participate in its creation. In other words, we don’t need to look outside for purpose or meaning.

I agree that the universe is not “receiving” gratitude as we want to believe God does, not at all. I think gratitude is about the human experience, NOT in the recipient of such. I think gratitude changes our hearts and minds, helping us experience wholeness.

I have immense gratitude in my heart toward the universe. I sense the gift of life comes from everything that has ever existed. In each moment of joy, (and every moment), I find myself knowing that it took billions of years to bring this moment into existence. It took the life of the universe for me to feel a moment of ecstasy. I just can’t get over this. I seriously can’t. I look at my children and know that the universe brought them forth into my experience. It is almost too much to take in. How can I feel anything but gratitude for all of it?

One death comet or asteroid and the universe would snuff out humanity as dispassionately as it gave rise to it. And we would not be missed.

Yep… but does this mean there is no purpose? A star explodes creates a solar system. Because the star is gone doesn’t mean it didn’t bring forth something, or contributed to the further unfolding of the universe. I do not know exactly what/how humans will contribute outside our experience but I sense the gifts we have brought forth (self awareness, compassion, sentience, etc. etc. etc.) are pretty amazing, and in some way express the divine.

Unfortunately, the universe is largely unavailable for religious or spiritual purposes. It doesn't, and can't, take the place occupied in conventional religion by God or gods; and having no purposes itself, it can provide none for us. Those looking for purpose must simply look elsewhere, into the world of purposing beings. And the purposing beings we know are human beings.

Sort of. :-) I actually think most of our myths have derived from the heavens. I think our human stories have largely come from human guesses about nature and the workings of our universe. The Gods are a reflection of this need to anthropomorphize the mystery. It seems to me our stories are always based on what we can experience.

I think much of religion is largely NOT working today because we know more about our universe, but the guesses we come up with today will be replaced by those who follow us with further light and knowledge. ;-)

What I meant to say was that the direction God has been taking is comprised of the large-scale trends of humankind. The level of complexity and integration among and between human societies has increased steadily for millennia, with even major wars and catastrophes providing only slight and momentary deviations in this robust trend. The knowledge, material wealth (material culture, technology, capital), and (consequently) power of humanity have also grown steadily (and in recent years exponentially). And the moral awareness of the species has also been on a fairly consistent upward trend.

Totally agree here!

This is entirely meaningless to me, unless we're simply talking about humans being comprised of the same physical particles and subject to the same physical laws as the overwhelmingly lifeless remainder of the universe. And if that's what's under discussion, I fail to see what it has to do with purpose. Neutrinos and the curves of space-time have no purposes. Realistically, to say that we share in their purposes is simply to say that we have none either.

No, I’m not talking about neutrinos and the curvature of space time. :-) I’m talking about essence. I’m not explaining myself well, (not the first time), I think there is a one Source of which everything is. One divine essence.

I think humans are just a recent creation, a result of everything that has ever gone before. But our essence IS the same essence, the only essence that exists. We are a reflection, expression, or facet of this essence.

In terms of purpose, I’m saying that whatever purpose WE have, IS the/a purpose of the universe because we are the universe.

I easily see how it can be different--and how it must. While you may see the universe as having something vaguely like 'aims,' you acknowledge that it doesn't actually have aims, goals, or purposes at all. Only conscious beings do; and humans are unlike the universe as a whole in being conscious.

Hard to explain. I do not think the universe has a plan, or a blueprint, or goal. But it seems to me that it most certainly does have tendencies and some sort of intrinsicness. For example we know it is creative, we know it is transformational, we know it is expanding, etc. etc. etc. (I’m forgetting about the whole space/time issue). My observation is that while there is no specific outline to follow, there is, and has been since its origin an unfolding that ultimately resulted in self awareness. I’m not a debater as you well know, (smile) but the reason I say that this result was latent since the beginning is because if anything in the very first moments of the universe was altered we would not exist. Everything needed to be as it is for us to be at this point. I’m not saying it was planned from the beginning… it was “a” potential from the beginning. Somehow laced into the very essence of the universe was/is the ability for the universe to look back upon itself.

There is a radical, unbridgeable divide between human purposes and the overall trends of the universe. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

Again, the way I see it is that our purpose is the purpose of the universe/God. I do not see a divide at all. :-)

Do you see this impersonal deity-universe as in any way lacking relative to a personal or trans-personal God? Are there any spiritual needs the latter might meet that the former could not?

I believe it would be lovely to have some divine being/God loving humans, helping us out, caring about us as a loving mother and father. Altering outcomes, intervening etc. I just do not see this. I do not feel it. However, I totally get why humans the world over embrace this belief. I see why belief has helped humans survive over the ages. It certainly does give a sense of peace and comfort to many. It may well be reality. It just doesn’t seem so to me.

I truly believe the spiritual (life) journey is an individual one. If holding the view of a personal God is helpful and gives meaning to one’s life it is a lovely belief in which to hold.

Similarly, for me, viewing the universe as one Source, or feeling a part of the infinite Divine, gives me a sense of peace.

I in no way suggest I know anything… it is just the way I personally experience life and existence.

I would agree that our lives are not without purpose, but would say that this is because we, as purposers, provide that, and not because it is provided by a non-purposing universe.

Yes!!! The purpose we feel IS the/a purpose of the universe. We are not separate.... IMHO.

The universe could serve as a positive model of purpose only if we ignore its unconscious, and therefore non-purposing, nature, and pick out minor trends in the universe while ignoring the major ones (e.g., emphasizing the increasing complexity of life on earth, while ignoring the increasing entropy of the universe as a whole).

The universe is all of it. Not just minor trends… ALL of it. Yes. I think this is very important to realize. I have a sense we do not like to contemplate this, it is uncomfortable nevertheless the way I see it, it is the way of existence.

The thing is, again, I believe we find “truth” that reflects what we experience and in terms of God, I think we find or create God in a way that speaks to our heart and mind. I think this is reflective in human history, in our myths and stories. Always God seems to reflect what people see as their reality.

It seems to me that perhaps, TD, you and I are seeking and expecting different things from spirituality, with yours focused more on contemplation, wonder, and the grandeur of wide scales and astronomically improbable good fortunes, while mine is focused more on integrating our individual human purposes into something larger that will survive us and on building human communities.

Ummm… I don’t think so. I think my sense of spirituality combines the wonder and awe with the creativity of our lives. It is really about how I can participate in the unfolding story. It is about what I will sacrifice my life for. It is about allowing the divine to flow through me as I create something more in this universe. Ultimately all of it speaks to relationship; to God and to each other (which again I see as one essence). My view most definitely involves integrating our individual human purposes into something larger that will survive us... absolutely.

Everything we do is part of the story. What we create, we create as part of the universe. How we live and what we bring forth IS the very universe unfolding.

OK, this is getting long and probably not very clear. :-)

Lots of fun to explore this topic. I truly enjoy reading the experiences of those who contemplate this journey as do you. Thanks for your thoughts, opinions, insights, and wisdom.

Don't feel like you need to respond to all my thoughts... I totally get they probably don't make sense, nor do they provide any answers for anyone but me.

:-)


~dancer~