Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 10:32 AM
176 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 174 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,912 Year: 11,735/29,783 Month: 757/1,642 Week: 171/460 Day: 10/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 1 of 3 (698270)
05-05-2013 2:55 AM


The God Hypothesis Revisited
Perhaps I should not have used Delusions of Grandeur as the title of my post. It could very easily be misinterpreted as a self-effacing defense mechanism. Considering the humble nature of this post it would be an irony if it were to be interpreted that way. But not unprecedented especially considering the nature of the topic and the debate sparked by my previous post on this debate.

Considering the education and motives of those most prominently involved in this debate namely Dawkins, Behe , Hitchens , Dembski, Dennett etc. … to use a psychological term usually reserved for for those with serious mental illness such as schizophrenia may be going too far for some. But I assure you I am using the lesser meaning of being blinded by egoism and confirmation bias that TOE or Theories of Everything wrapped up in a neat little box Whether it be of Natural Selection or Intelligent Design.

The Reason my last post was called The God Hypothesis was because Richard Dawkins proposed the idea that God was a provable and there for disprovable conceptual framework of the origins of life and intelligence.

In chapter 2 of The God Delusion Dawkins referring to the God of the old testament of the bible says of the biblical deity “it is unfair to attack such an easy target”.

Yet this is exactly what he does. He starts by making the self-evidently true claim that Monotheism is not really an improvement on Polytheism. Then he goes right back to his easy target. Monotheism. But even Dawkins only rates himself a strong 6 on a scale from 1-7 in the spectrum of Theist to a Strong Atheist.

That is the poster child of Atheism states on Monotheism that God is a very low probability and that he lives his life as if he is not there. Dawkins is not firmly committed to 7 as a strong Atheist that asserts God as certain proven in his lack of existence. So Dawkins whole book The God Delusion is based the idea that God can only be conceived in Monotheistic terms. That is he assumes the same thing his adversaries assume in this debate.

Namely only God as “A person” /Creator I.e. Designer is conceivable as worth considering or rejecting.

So I came to this board because of research and because I know those on the other side of this debate are creationists in disguise. So posting on boards that support Intelligent Design would be an exercise in futility. So that being taken into consideration,... I knew that would mean that any debate on Intelligent Design versus Natural Selection would revolve around God of the Bible... whether posters admitted to this or not.

Those who claim it could be aliens or super architects are only kidding themselves. Without a Monotheistic God The Discovery Institute could not promote their Social Engineering Agenda to create a Moral Imperative based on Theocratic Principles.

Dawkins point in The God Hypothesis was to Challenge NOMA of Gould. And rightly so . So let me begin by stating what the God Hypothesis of Dawkins and of Intelligent Design Advocates everywhere is ...that Dawkins maintains is falsifiable .

“The God Hypothesis suggest that the reality we inhabit also contains a supernatural agent who designed the Universe and at least in many versions of the Hypothesis –maintains it and even intervenes in it with miracles, which are temporary violations of his own otherwise grandly immutable laws.”

The God Hypothesis of Dawkins goes on to point out that those scientists of the NOMA School of thought should concede that a Universe with a Supernaturally Intelligent Creator is a very different kind of Universe from one without…

Again this frames the debate on both sides. So let’s start by defining Supernatural. First the Theist definition that buffers Christianity and Judaism.
su•per•nat•u•ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

There is no point in defending these theistic principles since Theism itself is self-evidently absurd on the face of it. These definitions have to do with magic and Gods of Myth. Although number 2 is a bit iffy since technology does appear to violate and go beyond natural forces even though technology cannot operate outside of physics and is there for natural by definition.

Now back to Dawkins. Dawkins freely admits that his book The God Delusion is not about demolishing Pantheism.
“My title The God Delusion does not refer to the God of Einstein and other enlightened scientist of the previous section.”

As stated before my God Hypothesis is based on Pantheism. Of which Dawkins refers to as sexed up Atheism. So you would think Atheist would welcome me. After all, the one thing Atheism lacks is seduction. Theism is very well disguised Nihilism. Atheism on the other hand is quite naked in its Nihilistic leanings.

Atheists do not claim that life is meaningless but on the contrary that life itself has all its meaning self-contained in the whole process. And I have to agree on this principle but I challenge what materialist see as the “process” of life and what is Natural versus Supernatural. I also contend "self-contained" meaning is a contradiction in terms as well as superfluous.

Atheist would lean to the extreme definition of Supernatural originated by theist but not claimed by theist because of the Pejorative implications.
Definition 4
4.
of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
That is the Religious or Magic definition which brings to mind why Intelligent Design proponents even attempt to frame their opinions in scientific terms.

I think a more workable definition would be definition 1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

But then if I am to argue that the Supernatural exist I certainly would prefer a better word then one that suggest a theological Deity or religion in any sense of the word. This is why I proposed Quantum Physics as is for a framework that transcends Newtonian Law as we know it. This also allows for Pantheism as I see it. Where God is not a supernatural deity as we know it in religion that can be understood as a personification of our desire to be ruled by divine justice and our addiction to a law giver as conceptualized by the mythological deities on monotheist.

Instead we met God and God is us. But this cannot be true because Atheist have disproved all known God Hypothesis(s) and Religious leaning scientist see the hand of God everywhere and their God is definitely "other" than us. In other words God can only exist if he is not us and since science has disproved all God(s) outside of us the only debate is whether science trumps theism. Obviously I think there is another viewpoint.

In a world where we could create Virtual Universes on our computer fine tuning would be conceived as a team of scientist creating a program or set of programs set to evolve Universes. These Universes by nature could not by definition be perfect. Would our goal be to maximize life while minimizing suffering? Or would the programs be designed to fine tune a Virtual Universe suitable for life and once initiated progress to the point of creating competitive organisms that by nature must fight for survival or become extinct?

In scenario 2 would we be considered benevolent beings by any sentient beings' standards that we could conceive of? If not why do we assume that making God into a single person with unlimited intelligence would not only necessarily follow as a benevolent deity but we also assume that the alleged deity could conceivably provide more meaningfulness and purpose then we could by ourselves?

The idea that the whole Universe was designed by a benevolent deity simply to advance a species known as humans and make them happy but only in an afterlife based on their behavior in this one goes beyond delusions of grandeur and borders on complete insanity.

The other extreme offered by materialist atheist that ignores all advances in Quantum Physics and attempts to sweep under the rug the hard problem of Consciousness in order to advance pure egoism is not much better. Both delusions are based on the delusion of grandeur of thinking we have it all solved.

Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture. This is where Theist leaves us with their moralism and “Intelligent Design”. And their Anthropomorphic God cannot console us the way they think he can.

Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. Examples include depicting deities with human form and ascribing human emotions or motives to forces of nature, such as hurricanes or earthquakes.

To a Theist a God without human form or emotions is not personal and therefore not desirable.

Anthropocentrism is the position that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[2] The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy.

Now here we have a concept that covers the full spectrum of human thought from Theism to Humanism and even to Nazism or Eugenics!

My point being... that Atheist in this debate have the same delusions of grandeur that theist have... They assume that we are bags of flesh that have a right to pursue our own desires based on a mixture of our own values feelings of guilt or what we think we can get away with in this life.

Contrast that with theist beliefs that we are divinely created beings that were created so... that God can test us as experimental subjects in a program on ethics... that will result in eternal damnation or salvation depending on your level of faith and obedience.

Both views support social engineering to get us to the “right way of thinking”.

But if we are God then perhaps we are part of a self-aware universe and maybe we should be more concerned with waking up to our true nature then in trying to think ourselves out of one box after another only to wake up to more and more complicated boxes.

Maybe Pantheism isn’t Sexed up Atheism. Maybe Einstein was actually on to something that didn’t fit into Mythological Constructs that regular Theism depends on to thrive. And maybe he understood that E=Mc squared has to lead to Mc squared = Energy. Maybe this energy was awareness itself and that is why Quantum Physics is so strange . If the source of Energy is Awareness itself then that would explain why the hard problem of Consciousness is so hard to explain away.

Maybe we have something that simply can not be fit into equations and is not in itself supernatural but definitely not something Newton could have envisioned with his Divine Watchmaker. Perhaps our Universe is not Mechanical in any sense of the word and therefore Quantum “Mechanics” is a misnomer. Perhaps the Universe like our Earth is organic and alive. Maybe the material Universe like our brain is a source of consciousness that cannot be traced back to its source because be their very nature a Universe does not exist by itself but only in relation to other Universes .

If we are to escape our delusions of grandeur ironically we may find that there is more to us than just our imagination or what we term as observable reality. Maybe what we term "observable reality" is only one level of reality and our "observation" of reality is only a filter that lets us perceive only levels of reality that conform to our own egotistical biases. Unfiltered by ego and observed without filters reality may be perceived as awareness itself.

Perhaps Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox can be resolved by accepting that not only is the cat both alive and dead but that we ourselves exist outside of this Space Time Illusion and that is Awareness that is the major component in the Quantum Flux that generates Universes . Maybe I am wrong. But I do not assume that I have it all solved.

I see science as an extension of philosophy as meant to probe the questions of our existence. I see religion as a means to control the masses by instituting accepted dogma by consensus. When science gives into an agenda to promote politics as usual with fear of Climate Apocalypse or Evolution as a random event that is obviously a form of Biological Determinism so as to promote a more “liberal“ agenda ..then science starts to look a lot like religion. Although I admit that this is not to promote Theocracy ...still even in this case... the base is still ideological ...and therefore Political in nature.

In both cases it is Confirmation Bias that fuels the debate. If we were to clear away confirmation biases perhaps we would not find anything that could be called Pantheism. Perhaps my attempt to escape the delusion of false alternatives is delusional in of itself. I prefer not to assume the nihilistic conclusion that delusional thinking is built into our nature.

I do not feel that I have it all solved. I think that on the contrary that we should pursue truth even if it makes us extremely uncomfortable. I believe that Awareness is truly significant. I believe that Awareness can bridge the gap between Quantum Weirdness and the Hard Problem of Consciousness and has Cosmological Implications.

Like any other Hypothesis …my God Hypothesis would have to be tested and substantiated. Dawkins refers to the Religions of man and Intelligent Design as the “God Delusion” but he doesn’t say that the God Hypothesis is to be mocked or ignored. He states that this is a real hypothesis and that and Intelligently Designed Universe would be different Universe than the one we observe. And I concur. Which is why I never implied in my God Hypothesis anything that would substantiate ID or Creationism. Because I do not see our Universe as Intelligently Designed but as a self aware work in progress attempting to grow spiritually by waking us up in the process of becoming aware through us and other sentient beings.

So although I did not imply ID as substantiated, ...I did imply however that both Supernaturalism and Materialism are outdated views..and perhaps that it is time to pursue other lines of questioning in seeking the true nature of both reality and illusion before declaring that it is all solved by science or religion.Perhaps it is time for both science and religion to move over and let philosophers do their job before we move on from trying to seek the true nature of reality as a case closed where we are only really debating who won.

Thoughts?

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-05-2013 3:44 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 2 of 3 (698272)
05-05-2013 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-05-2013 2:55 AM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
Please consider putting this topic under Intelligent Design not Creation Miscellany. I am challenging Intelligent Design here although I am doing this with Pantheism not Evolution with Natural Selection.My Pantheism is close to Einsteins and therefore not supporting Creationism in any form.I do not pay lip service to Evolution like the ID movement does. I do agree something is going on but nothing predetermined by a Deity. Anyway I just don't like the word Creationism. It puts me in with Bible Thumpers. And I think the Bible and all holy books are bunk.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-05-2013 2:55 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1875
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 3 of 3 (698278)
05-05-2013 5:34 AM


Thread Copied to Intelligent Design Forum
Thread copied to the Delusions of Grandeur? thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018