God and 'Monism'

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Hello.

I have been thinking a little and it seems to me that arguments for the existence of God, and the nature of that God are often prone to crop up from time to time on this forum. Much of the time we may see such questions being almost solely focused on whether we can rationally proof God's existence, and because this is forum's theists are usually Jews/Christians/Muslims, the nature of the Divine entity is often considered monotheistic in nature, as opposed to polytheistic which is tantamount to a cardinal sin in said religions.

However one particular understanding of God which has not (at least it appears to me) been given too much consideration is that of 'monism'. Now monism may be easily seen as equivalent to pantheism, but I wish to avoid confusion here. The monism I want to discuss does not define God as the natural universe and with it all matter, the laws of physics and so on, but rather something more abstract, namely 'reality' and 'existence' etc.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

I do not claim to believe in God at all but through my studies I became very attracted to the idea that should God be proven to exist, then it seems to me that the only logical conclusion is monism, as the classical monotheistic idea of God just doesn't seem to be the obvious conclusion when we consider the definition of God. So what am I talking about?

I will take my argument from Spinoza, for it is this great thinker and his book Ethics which began to make me think about these issues. Ok, we need to start by agreeing on some definitions.

(D1) Either something is contingent, namely the reason for its existence is attributed to something else other than itself, or it is necessary, namely it is a cause in itself - the reason for it's existence is attributed to it's own essence and to nothing else.

(D2) A Substance is something that's conception does not depend on the conception of another thing. Moreover, it is necessarily existent.

(D3) An attribute is the way in which the intellect perceives of a substance as constituting it's essence. In other words an attribute is fundamentally what an object is in essence..

(D4) A Mode is the modification of a substance, or more precisely that which requires one to conceive of something else for us to conceive of it's existence. we might also call them affectations. In other words, all things that are not substances or attributes of a substance, must be modifications of a substance.

(D5) God is understood to be absolutely infinite - a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses an eternal and infinite essence.

Premise 1 - A substance exists independently of anything else given D2, it's definition is that it requires the conception of no other things besides itself for existence.

Premise 2 - A substance can only be distinguished from another by virtue of it's modifications or attributes. Nothing else exists outside of the intellect which could enable us to distinguish one substance from another but through it's modes and attributes.

Premise 3 - There cannot be two or more substances with the same attributes. This is because the attributes form the essences of substances, and thus for two or more substances to have the same attributes would mean they have the same essence - which is another way of saying that they are the same thing. Obviously the same thing cannot exist in two different places at once, being two different things and one thing all at the same time - that is absurd.

Premise 4 - Given that the definition of God is a being of infinite attributes, it follows that there can be no other substance but God. For if we hold that no two substances can have the same attributes, then there can only be God, for there are no attributes left outside of him for another substance to consist of.

Premise 5 - There is only one substance and that is God. All other things are either attributes of God or modes of God.

I do not wish to create a discussion solely around the strength of this argument, but also to open a debate about monism and to see whether there any others who have found this idea of God as intriguing as I have.

Thanks.

[paximperium]

I find the idea of Monism and it's less monist cousin, Deism inherently empty, useless and mainly an emotional attachment to the concept of "god".

While it may seem rather nice and cosy, it doesn't really do much of anything. Defining god as "all" and "everything" is nice...but what does it really accomplish?
Does this god have a goal, a purpose, an intelligence?

It is essentially the last vestiges of comfort and emotional attachment to god left just before a Monist/Deist/Panthetheist makes that final jump into atheism.

[H'ethetheth]

I find the idea of Monism and it's less monist cousin, Deism inherently empty, useless and mainly an emotional attachment to the concept of "god".

While it may seem rather nice and cosy, it doesn't really do much of anything. Defining god as "all" and "everything" is nice...but what does it really accomplish?
Does this god have a goal, a purpose, an intelligence?

It is essentially the last vestiges of comfort and emotional attachment to god left just before a Monist/Deist/Panthetheist makes that final jump into atheism.As far as I understand it, materialism is a form of monism; it doesn't really have anything to do with the existence of Gods.

[paximperium]

As far as I understand it, materialism is a form of monism; it doesn't really have anything to do with the existence of Gods.
Well materialism/naturalism is classically monist which is my I find Monism as a god belief odd.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I find the idea of Monism and it's less monist cousin, Deism inherently empty, useless and mainly an emotional attachment to the concept of "god".

While it may seem rather nice and cosy, it doesn't really do much of anything. Defining god as "all" and "everything" is nice...but what does it really accomplish?
Does this god have a goal, a purpose, an intelligence?

It is essentially the last vestiges of comfort and emotional attachment to god left just before a Monist/Deist/Panthetheist makes that final jump into atheism.


I disagree. I see few people ever attempting this move before jumping to atheism -- the jump to atheism, especially in adolescence, stemming from sudden realization of religions' utter silliness most of the time.

From what I've seen, this is more a move back toward a particular relationship. Look at the idea. It is atheism, where theism is defined as belief in a personal god.

This is a philosophical position that I think we are all forced to (I may say that, however, because that is where I find myself forced) as a reflection of what we experience as reality. It isn't cold; it isn't warm; it just is. Monism makes the most sense (at least to me), certainly more than dualism or pluralism which ground all religions outside Buddhism or philosophical Taoism.

The bit about God, though, is just this -- again, look at the idea -- it's a placeholder word. We could replace "God" with "Universe" or "Ground of Being" and arrive at the same place. Putting "God" in that place carries the idea that "we" should hold "all that is" in a reverential stance. Using "God" in that place serves only one purpose and that is to remind that we are not anything special but that all of existence is grand and awesome, subtle and ferocious, and we owe it reverence.

Think Francis Collins and his thought disorder. Seeing that frozen waterfall would make all of us stare in awe at the beauty around us. He, however, made the unwarranted leap to theism instead of sticking to a more rigorous philosophical position, like the above. We all feel the same thing that Collins felt, and our language tends to associated reverence with the divine; but we needn't slip into our culture's easy categories that try to describe the divine in the simplest terms and stories. Some people feel uncomfortable using the word "God" in this situation (sometimes using it at all) probably because confusions can arise so easily and theists try to pretend that this "God" is somehow similar to their "God". I think it would be nice if we could move beyond such issues and reclaim the word "God".

[paximperium]

I disagree. I see few people ever attempting this move before jumping to atheism -- the jump to atheism, especially in adolescence, stemming from sudden realization of religions' utter silliness most of the time.

From what I've seen, this is more a move back toward a particular relationship. Look at the idea. It is atheism, where theism is defined as belief in a personal god.
Interesting point. Several Deist and Panentheist that I know became atheist and then through philosophical longing for something more backslide a bit to these leftover beliefs.


This is a philosophical position that I think we are all forced to (I may say that, however, because that is where I find myself forced) as a reflection of what we experience as reality. It isn't cold; it isn't warm; it just is. Monism makes the most sense (at least to me), certainly more than dualism or pluralism which ground all religions outside Buddhism or philosophical Taoism.
Agreed.


The bit about God, though, is just this -- again, look at the idea -- it's a placeholder word. We could replace "God" with "Universe" or "Ground of Being" and arrive at the same place. Putting "God" in that place carries the idea that "we" should hold "all that is" in a reverential stance. Using "God" in that place serves only one purpose and that is to remind that we are not anything special but that all of existence is grand and awesome, subtle and ferocious, and we owe it reverence.
Well, sorry but I find labelling things with such loaded words rather...childish and a tad dishonest. God has a very specific meaning to most of humanity and relabelling the universe/cosmos as god is none too useful and even true.
I guess it allows people to answer, "Yes, I believe in god..."


Think Francis Collins and his thought disorder. Seeing that frozen waterfall would make all of us stare in awe at the beauty around us. He, however, made the unwarranted leap to theism instead of sticking to a more rigorous philosophical position, like the above. We all feel the same thing that Collins felt, and our language tends to associated reverence with the divine; but we needn't slip into our culture's easy categories that try to describe the divine in the simplest terms and stories. Some people feel uncomfortable using the word "God" in this situation (sometimes using it at all) probably because confusions can arise so easily and theists try to pretend that this "God" is somehow similar to their "God". I think it would be nice if we could move beyond such issues and reclaim the word "God".
I could call the Universe my Bob, Santa Clause or Zeus but why bother? I have no attachment to the word nor would I care if the word was used for a tampon.

[.13.]

This is a philosophical position that I think we are all forced to (I may say that, however, because that is where I find myself forced) as a reflection of what we experience as reality. It isn't cold; it isn't warm; it just is. Monism makes the most sense (at least to me), certainly more than dualism or pluralism which ground all religions outside Buddhism or philosophical Taoism.

While paximperium agrees with you, I don't. I don't think it makes the most sense. That isn't to say that I find it less sensible than the other options. I just can't tell. Admittedly I don't know much at all about philosophy so it could just be my ignorance of the subject. Or it could be my ignorance about particle physics. My reasoning:

1. Ultimate nature of 'stuff' can't be known.
Given this we can't tell if all elementary particles are made of the same 'stuff'. Or if they are different 'stuff' interacting with eachother through the four fundamental forces.

2. Ultimate nature of 'stuff' can be known.
Science (or just me) hasn't found out what 'stuff' the elementary particles are made out of.

In either case I can't tell whether monism, dualism, or pluralism makes the most sense. But if 2. is true, I could possibly someday say which seems the most sensible option.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, sorry but I find labelling things with such loaded words rather...childish and a tad dishonest. God has a very specific meaning to most of humanity and relabelling the universe/cosmos as god is none too useful and even true.
I guess it allows people to answer, "Yes, I believe in god..."



Well, it's certainly possible since we don't always know our own beliefs, there being often hidden assumptions underlying most of our thinking. But, if you really listen to what people who make these arguments say, they are not trying to be dishonest, nor do I think they are fooling themselves. I certainly do not think that Spinoza was trying to pull a fast one. I'm sure there are folks who use this to "get by"; there are people who will use any idea to do such things.

"God", unfortunately, does not have a specific meaning; that's why we argue about the idea all the time. Like all words, there are family resemblances amongst the many uses of the word; and one of the old philosophical uses of "God" refers to the "ground of all Being" not to some personal sky-daddy. "God" in that sense -- the sky-daddy bit -- is a reflection of only part of our culture. The idea of "God" as a completely impersonal "ground of Being" dates back to Aristotle, so I don't think it is fair at all to call it dishonest or a trick or childish unless you want to call the entire philosophical tradition dating from Aristotle childish. If you want to do that, then you've got to throw out science with the rest of the bathwater, since his discussion of metaphysics was part of his over-arching system. We needn't accept his teleological physics since that wasn't really an underlying part of his metaphysics, at least as I could make sense of what he wrote.


I could call the Universe my Bob, Santa Clause or Zeus but why bother? I have no attachment to the word nor would I care if the word was used for a tampon.


Of course. We could insert any word into that place, since it really is just a place-holder for something that we can't really describe.

Why bother? I'll try to explain again -- it is because of connotations that the word "God" has in our culture, as "that which deserves reverence". It really doesn't matter if you personally want to or do not want to use the word. I certainly don't care one way or the other; but I think it important that the point of the OP is not completely lost in semantic games. The important issue is that we not get bogged down into using the word in other ways, playing the theists game, so to speak.

Listen to critics of atheism, and they often say one thing over and over -- "you guys just don't get it." Whenever that phrase comes up it means, as I'm sure you know, "You're thinking about this the wrong way." If you take the time to listen to what theists say, their critique usually boils down to -- "you guys just don't feel anything" or "you are not reverent". You and I both know that is pure BS, but when theists see atheists being irreverent in something like substituting "Bob" for "the ground of Being", they think "that's just wrong" and lash out. Personally I'm tired of all the partisan bickering. Really, what they are on about is this issue of a particular orientation toward the Universe -- a feeling of reverence. Sagan didn't shy from using the word "God", and this is how he used it.

Unless I'm fooled by the issue of false consciousness (which is always possible) using the word in this way is not a crutch, nor is it an attempt to get something out of nothing. It is a particular way of relating to the world. That's all.

I don't ask that you agree or do the same, but I hope that you understand the position.

[Ichneumonwasp]

While paximperium agrees with you, I don't. I don't think it makes the most sense. That isn't to say that I find it less sensible than the other options. I just can't tell. Admittedly I don't know much at all about philosophy so it could just be my ignorance of the subject. Or it could be my ignorance about particle physics. My reasoning:

1. Ultimate nature of 'stuff' can't be known.
Given this we can't tell if all elementary particles are made of the same 'stuff'. Or if they are different 'stuff' interacting with eachother through the four fundamental forces.

2. Ultimate nature of 'stuff' can be known.
Science (or just me) hasn't found out what 'stuff' the elementary particles are made out of.

In either case I can't tell whether monism, dualism, or pluralism makes the most sense. But if 2. is true, I could possibly someday say which seems the most sensible option.


I think the ultimate nature of 'stuff' cannot be known, but that does not mean that we cannot tell the difference between monism or dualism or pluralism when it comes to elementary particles. Go back to the original post in this thread -- the bottom line is that a single substance makes more sense because it is parsimonious. If there is more than one substance, in the way that we are using the word 'substance', then the different substances, by their very nature, cannot interact. If there are other substances that do not or cannot interact with the 'stuff' that we see 'out there', then what difference does it make? Pragmatically, one substance is the only position that makes any sense to me.

[quarky]

One of the problems with atheism, imho, is the implication of some sort of unified outlook.
Atheism comes in many flavors. Some atheists have a specific lack of belief in a specific notion of God...and not much else. Others are physicists, intrigued by sub-atomic particles, whom have studied theology. Its a pity to be lumped together with a word.

[Jimbo07]

Personally I'm tired of all the partisan bickering. Really, what they are on about is this issue of a particular orientation toward the Universe -- a feeling of reverence. Sagan didn't shy from using the word "God", and this is how he used it.

Agreed, and I'll digest further:

"God" is a very convenient intellectual placeholder to repeating -

I recognize that I am a very small being compared to the universe. When I stand in the shadow of a mountain, or gaze upon the splendour of a frozen waterfall, I'm sometimes overwhelmed by feelings that I sometimes lack the vocabulary to fully describe. In addition to appreciating the beauty of the natural world, I have a healthy respect for the dangers contained therein, and do not presume to proclaim that I am somehow separate from, or better than, what has developed in the universe. I am astounded by the many similarities between us and animals, and marvel at their behaviour, not pretending for a moment that we are different in kind. Recognition that humans and animals are machines, albeit machines which are wonderful and complex beyond our current ability to reproduce, only furthers my respect and wonder at what nature hath wrought. The timescales of the universe make me feel insignficant, yet this feeling is also liberating. Moreover, strong statements about the ultimate nature of the universe cannot yet be made, and cosmologists do not have the answers to some of the most interesting and fundamental questions. It is, in fact, the idea that these questions are not answered which make them interesting, and about which scientists should contine to strive to obtain more information.

Nowhere do I suggest that there is some kind of great supernatural hobgoblin granting wishes and sullying virgins. Call my beliefs a form of Deism, if you will.

If atheists wish to get upset with Deists, even though both agree that zombies don't turn water into wine, well... whatever floats their boat, I guess.

[Ichneumonwasp]

One of the problems with atheism, imho, is the implication of some sort of unified outlook.
Atheism comes in many flavors. Some atheists have a specific lack of belief in a specific notion of God...and not much else. Others are physicists, intrigued by sub-atomic particles, whom have studied theology. Its a pity to be lumped together with a word.


Yeah, it's one of the problems with all the words we use and one of the primary reasons that we keep repeating the same semantic games. It's gotten to the point where most people now just ask for a definition of "God" or "theism" or "atheism" anytime one of these threads surfaces. It always looks pedantic, but otherwise we get twelve pages of ranting when people use different definitions of the words. I guess it passes the time.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Agreed, and I'll digest further:

"God" is a very convenient intellectual placeholder to repeating -

I recognize that I am a very small being compared to the universe. When I stand in the shadow of a mountain, or gaze upon the splendour of a frozen waterfall, I'm sometimes overwhelmed by feelings that I sometimes lack the vocabulary to fully describe. In addition to appreciating the beauty of the natural world, I have a healthy respect for the dangers contained therein, and do not presume to proclaim that I am somehow separate from, or better than, what has developed in the universe. I am astounded by the many similarities between us and animals, and marvel at their behaviour, not pretending for a moment that we are different in kind. Recognition that humans and animals are machines, albeit machines which are wonderful and complex beyond our current ability to reproduce, only furthers my respect and wonder at what nature hath wrought. The timescales of the universe make me feel insignficant, yet this feeling is also liberating. Moreover, strong statements about the ultimate nature of the universe cannot yet be made, and cosmologists do not have the answers to some of the most interesting and fundamental questions. It is, in fact, the idea that these questions are not answered which make them interesting, and about which scientists should contine to strive to obtain more information.

Nowhere do I suggest that there is some kind of great supernatural hobgoblin granting wishes and sullying virgins. Call my beliefs a form of Deism, if you will.

If atheists wish to get upset with Deists, even though both agree that zombies don't turn water into wine, well... whatever floats their boat, I guess.


Nominated.

[Hokulele]

"God", unfortunately, does not have a specific meaning; that's why we argue about the idea all the time. Like all words, there are family resemblances amongst the many uses of the word; and one of the old philosophical uses of "God" refers to the "ground of all Being" not to some personal sky-daddy. "God" in that sense -- the sky-daddy bit -- is a reflection of only part of our culture. The idea of "God" as a completely impersonal "ground of Being" dates back to Aristotle, so I don't think it is fair at all to call it dishonest or a trick or childish unless you want to call the entire philosophical tradition dating from Aristotle childish. If you want to do that, then you've got to throw out science with the rest of the bathwater, since his discussion of metaphysics was part of his over-arching system. We needn't accept his teleological physics since that wasn't really an underlying part of his metaphysics, at least as I could make sense of what he wrote.


I think the main problem with defining God as "that which deserves reverence" is that it relegates God to a passive role, when historically gods are an active force. Thinking on this further, stating that a monist God deserves reverence implies that such a god can accept (or theoretically reject) such reverence. And once again we are treading the road towards dualism.

I completely agree that reverence is an important element of human consciousness, but rather than suggesting that anything has earned or deserves reverence, and risking the introduction of anthropomorphism, I prefer to view the issue from the personal end. I can gift anyone or anything with my reverence, but it is my choice and stricly for my personal gratification. Whether or not any such person/object appreciates it, acknowleges it, or even deserves it, doesn't enter into the equation at all. The other benefit of this view is that I can also recognize that some elements of universe are reverence-inducing, others aren't, without necessarily rejecting the universe as a whole, or using such reverence to justify creating a hierarchy of worth.

[Jimbo07]

Yeah, it's one of the problems with all the words we use and one of the primary reasons that we keep repeating the same semantic games. It's gotten to the point where most people now just ask for a definition of "God" or "theism" or "atheism" anytime one of these threads surfaces.

Actually, that's been a beef I've had with those threads. It has been said that the term "God" is loaded and so we can't use it as a catch phrase for all of the vague undefined things we feel about the universe. I haven't yet, but I will respond, that given that "God" is a loaded word, so is "atheist." We, unfortunately, are not coming to our beliefs in a cultural vacuum. People have complained that "God" is not the physical default. The problem is that "God" [I]is[I] the cultural default.

I guess it passes the time.

:D

Nominated.

Thanks, but wholly unnecessary. It started as a sarcastic rant and inadvertently wound-up expressing something similar to what I sometimes feel!

ETA @ Hokulele:


I completely agree that reverence is an important element of human consciousness, but rather than suggesting that anything has earned or deserves reverence, and risking the introduction of anthropomorphism, I prefer to view the issue from the personal end. I can gift anyone or anything with my reverence, but it is my choice and stricly for my personal gratification. Whether or not any such person/object appreciates it,

Well, from a 50,000 foot perspective, even our ridiculous little feelings don't matter, reverence or no. We're organisms and whatever feelings we imagine we're having, are the products of stimulus response, passed through various filters...

... but the feelings are real to me. At this stage, we seem to be expressing opinions about how we personally view the universe, not what really is.

[Nick227]

1. Ultimate nature of 'stuff' can't be known.
Given this we can't tell if all elementary particles are made of the same 'stuff'. Or if they are different 'stuff' interacting with eachother through the four fundamental forces.

2. Ultimate nature of 'stuff' can be known.
Science (or just me) hasn't found out what 'stuff' the elementary particles are made out of.

In either case I can't tell whether monism, dualism, or pluralism makes the most sense. But if 2. is true, I could possibly someday say which seems the most sensible option.

I think the real main issue is around the kinds of questions that language drives our brain to ask.

I started a thread around a quote from Pinker's last book recently and, thinking about this issue more, what I find intriguing is that language appears to configure our brains to seek causation in a prescribed manner. The conceptual models that language use favours lead us to examine the world in a certain way. They lead us to attempt to ascribe causality in a certain way. They lead us to investigate in a certain way.

Little wonder then that "God" is the answer for so many people. Until we can either move beyond language or find a way to factor in this stuff how is anyone going to find any realistic answers?

Nick

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think the main problem with defining God as "that which deserves reverence" is that it relegates God to a passive role, when historically gods are an active force. Thinking on this further, stating that a monist God deserves reverence implies that such a god can accept (or theoretically reject) such reverence. And once again we are treading the road towards dualism.

I completely agree that reverence is an important element of human consciousness, but rather than suggesting that anything has earned or deserves reverence, and risking the introduction of anthropomorphism, I prefer to view the issue from the personal end. I can gift anyone or anything with my reverence, but it is my choice and stricly for my personal gratification. Whether or not any such person/object appreciates it, acknowleges it, or even deserves it, doesn't enter into the equation at all. The other benefit of this view is that I can also recognize that some elements of universe are reverence-inducing, others aren't, without necessarily rejecting the universe as a whole, or using such reverence to justify creating a hierarchy of worth.


This may sound like a flippant answer, and perhaps it is, but what if you remove the (in)definite article before "God"? That way we don't talk about a god or the gods as though they are things. In terms of the relationship that "God" denotes, as you say, the feeling is purely one-sided, since there is no one to feel on the other side. And, really, there is no thing to receive reverence. The reverence is our approach to the totality of all that is. It is just a human response to the universe. And I think it serves as one of the innately (?) human needs to belong to something greater. Some studies of happiness suggest that people are much happier when they immerse in some task or something greater than themselves.

The problem arises when people think that "God" necessarily means "person" -- that clearly is dualistic. I think that is why John phrased his OP the way he did.

[Hokulele]

... And, really, there is no thing to receive reverence...


Exactly. So why the need for a label?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Exactly. So why the need for a label?


There's no need. It just serves that purpose. It's a short-hand way of saying that you feel reverence for the ground of everything. The word "Universe" doesn't carry that connotation.

[Jimbo07]

There's no need. It just serves that purpose. It's a short-hand way of saying that you feel reverence for the ground of everything. The word "Universe" doesn't carry that connotation.

"Universe" has three syllables! :boxedin:

In otherwise perfectly reasonable sayings in a secular context:
- Universe damnit!
- Oh my Universe!
- Universe help me...
- Oh Universe, Oh Universe, Oh yes... :o
- The Universe helps those who help themselves.
- There but for the Grace of the Universe go I.

:D

[bokonon]

Exactly. So why the need for a label?
We typically attach labels to things to make it easier to talk about them with other people. It is irrelevant whether the rose can appreciate our appreciation of its scent, the label is still useful. Saves having to say, "You know, that flower, which may be red or pink or white or yellow, that grows on a thorny stem, smells sweet, and grows in a complex radial mass of convex and concave petals."

I, too, think it would be useful to reclaim the term "God" even though doing so may lead to instances of confusion. To me, its usefulness is not for backsliding atheists, but for theists feeling drawn to reason.

As it is, those who experience these feelings of reverence and attach them to the default word have almost no choice but to take the next step and associate the word with some cultural tradition that includes a book with lots of nonsense in it. I'm convinced that this is what underpins a lot of the "personal relationship" anecdotes.

If instead people could experience feelings of reverence and awe, and NOT conclude that the feelings themselves infused some unrelated Abrahamic text with validity, I think it would be a step in the right direction.

It's probably natural for human beings to desire a feeling of attachment to something bigger than themselves -- family, community, country, world, cosmos. We are naturally attached to so many things bigger than ourselves, but don't often take time to appreciate them.

I feel profound reverence for all the people in the past (and present) who have made it possible for me to live as I do. The people who developed agriculture, learn to make glass, smelt ore, synthesize plastic, publish books, keep food fresh, and thousands of other things I couldn't possibly manage on my own. Most of them will never know of my gratitude.

I revere the almost unimaginable chain of life that stretches in an unbroken line from the earliest who-knows-what to the guy typing these words right now. What an incredible relay this has been, passing the spark of life from one to the next over uncounted millenia, and if any one of them had dropped the torch, I wouldn't even be here. Most of those little critters were dead before my great grandfathers courted my great grandmothers, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation.

I appreciate gravity (most of the time), the forces which make molecules possible, plants that spin sunlight into sugar, living at the bottom of an ocean of oxygen, and photons that whisper to me of things far away.

If calling such feelings "reverence for God" will help even one other person see that experiencing such things doesn't have to mean subscribing to the bigotry and blinders of bronze-age philosophers, I'm in.

[paximperium]

There's no need. It just serves that purpose. It's a short-hand way of saying that you feel reverence for the ground of everything. The word "Universe" doesn't carry that connotation.
Well only little quibble is exactly Hokulele's position when it comes to labeling the universe "god".

As already mentioned "god" has a very strong cultural implied meaning, which is that of a personified deity(whatever that means to the individual). This just leads to a whole lot of confusion when non-theist use god to a different meaning. The misquotes by Einstein "God does not play die." etc. is an example.

I understand the need to describe the awe and reverence(why do need to do so is an interesting question by itself) of the cosmos but god is just a poor word for it.

Its like calling someone who likes kids a pedophile. While pedophile might mean someone who likes kids, its current and almost universal meaning is a child sexual abuser.

[thesyntaxera]

If calling such feelings "reverence for God" will help even one other person see that experiencing such things doesn't have to mean subscribing to the bigotry and blinders of bronze-age philosophers, I'm in.

Me too. I don't take too much issue with the use of the word. To me god is a metaphor anyway, so invoking the word to describe the wonders of the natural cosmos and all things contained within isn't so bad. I think the hard atheists, and dogmatic religionists need to lighten up a bit. Your not going to get everyone to agree with you, so why not concede a little space to coexistence?

[paximperium]

I think the hard atheists, and dogmatic religionists need to lighten up a bit. Your not going to get everyone to agree with you, so why not concede a little space to coexistence?
Sorry but that is insulting. This is a discussion and debate, why should I concede a point that I disagree with?

You may not mean it but your statement makes it sound like this disagreement links me or others to "dogmatic" religionists and that somehow I do not support coexistence is insulting.

I'm not much of a "hard" atheist(just an impatient and aggressive one) but I do care about a philosophical discussions and framing questions.

[quarky]

I'm in favor of a sort of enlightened poly-theism for soft-core atheists.
Breaking the awe into units could be useful, especially in distancing one's self from Tammy Faye Baker and Jimmy Swaggart.

In stead of Zuess, the carbon cycle.
In stead of Jesus, the nitrogen cycle.

That sort of thing might be more flexible than straight up yes (on the one god deal) or no (as in, no I'm not down with the one god)

My hunch is that the chasm between polytheists and mono-theists is deeper than the one between atheists and polytheists.

All an atheist needs to do to become a theist is put a name on the sum-total observation. No church required.

[Hokulele]

There's no need. It just serves that purpose. It's a short-hand way of saying that you feel reverence for the ground of everything. The word "Universe" doesn't carry that connotation.


I guess that is where I differ. For me, the reverence is generally triggered by something specific at the moment, else I would probably wander around in a useless haze much of the time (no snide comments please!).

We typically attach labels to things to make it easier to talk about them with other people. It is irrelevant whether the rose can appreciate our appreciation of its scent, the label is still useful. Saves having to say, "You know, that flower, which may be red or pink or white or yellow, that grows on a thorny stem, smells sweet, and grows in a complex radial mass of convex and concave petals."


Yes, but the rose is something. God in this sense is shorthand for everything, as far as I understand. Is it really everything generating the reverence?

I, too, think it would be useful to reclaim the term "God" even though doing so may lead to instances of confusion. To me, its usefulness is not for backsliding atheists, but for theists feeling drawn to reason.


Then why use an unreasonable concept? To me that sounds a bit condescending, kind of like offering a security blanket assuming they cannot handle the long version of reality.

As it is, those who experience these feelings of reverence and attach them to the default word have almost no choice but to take the next step and associate the word with some cultural tradition that includes a book with lots of nonsense in it. I'm convinced that this is what underpins a lot of the "personal relationship" anecdotes.

If instead people could experience feelings of reverence and awe, and NOT conclude that the feelings themselves infused some unrelated Abrahamic text with validity, I think it would be a step in the right direction.


I can see your point, but I still think it better to get the conclusion sooner than later.

It's probably natural for human beings to desire a feeling of attachment to something bigger than themselves -- family, community, country, world, cosmos. We are naturally attached to so many things bigger than ourselves, but don't often take time to appreciate them.

I feel profound reverence for all the people in the past (and present) who have made it possible for me to live as I do. The people who developed agriculture, learn to make glass, smelt ore, synthesize plastic, publish books, keep food fresh, and thousands of other things I couldn't possibly manage on my own. Most of them will never know of my gratitude.

I revere the almost unimaginable chain of life that stretches in an unbroken line from the earliest who-knows-what to the guy typing these words right now. What an incredible relay this has been, passing the spark of life from one to the next over uncounted millenia, and if any one of them had dropped the torch, I wouldn't even be here. Most of those little critters were dead before my great grandfathers courted my great grandmothers, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation.

I appreciate gravity (most of the time), the forces which make molecules possible, plants that spin sunlight into sugar, living at the bottom of an ocean of oxygen, and photons that whisper to me of things far away.


I completely agree, however once again, that isn't necessarily everything. For me, the biggest challenge with the "one with everything" and "reverence for the universe" is that it misses what I have found to be a blind spot for most people, theists or not. This is the whole concept of scale. I fully admit that I cannot grasp the size of the universe, other than in some mathematical sense. I can barely grasp the size of the planet on which I reside, and the scope of human mentality.

Rather than lumping everything together into God, I prefer to take life, the universe, and everything in smaller bites. I still get the warm fuzzies looking at Saturn, smelling a rose, or giving my dog belly rubs. I just don't extrapolate that out into something it isn't. Meh, maybe I just have a hyperactive parietal lobe (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research.asp).

If calling such feelings "reverence for God" will help even one other person see that experiencing such things doesn't have to mean subscribing to the bigotry and blinders of bronze-age philosophers, I'm in.


This is very true, and I would be all for it if I thought it might work, but again I feel it is somewhat patronizing to theists, rather than helpful. YMMV.

[drkitten]

Premise 3 - There cannot be two or more substances with the same attributes. This is because the attributes form the essences of substances, and thus for two or more substances to have the same attributes would mean they have the same essence - which is another way of saying that they are the same thing. Obviously the same thing cannot exist in two different places at once, being two different things and one thing all at the same time - that is absurd.

Premise 4 - Given that the definition of God is a being of infinite attributes, it follows that there can be no other substance but God. For if we hold that no two substances can have the same attributes, then there can only be God, for there are no attributes left outside of him for another substance to consist of.

Premises 3 and 4 are obviously false, even within the limited confines of this theory (and therefore the theory itself is not well-founded).

Premise 3 is obviously false because two substances can obviously share a subset of their attributes; for example, two separate cups of tea are in different places, but are both "cups of tea," (and therefore, hot, liquid, caffienated, desired-by-me, etc.) You can possibly rescue premise 3 by saying that two substances cannot be identical in all their attributes, but in that case,...

Any substance of finite attributes would obviously be distinct from God even if it shared all of its attributes with God. God, for example, may have the attribute of "desired-by-me" [by definition, if Lewis is correct], but He is not the only thing that I desire. So premise 4 is incorrect if we correct premise 3.

But premise 4 is also incorrect in and of itself; just because God is defined as a being of infinite attributes, He is not a being of all attributes. The set of even numbers {2,4,6,8,10,...} is an infinite set, but not an all-inclusive one. There are other things, like 1, 3.5 and even "yellow" that are not part of that set.

And God, again, by definition, does not have some attributes. From a theological perspective, for example, He cannot be "evil." He cannot be "limited" or "ignorant." But even leaving theology out of it, He cannot have the attribute "has only finitely many attributes" as one of His infinite attributes.

While there may be argument supporting monism, this isn't one of them.

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Premises 3 and 4 are obviously false, even within the limited confines of this theory (and therefore the theory itself is not well-founded).

Premise 3 is obviously false because two substances can obviously share a subset of their attributes; for example, two separate cups of tea are in different places, but are both "cups of tea," (and therefore, hot, liquid, caffienated, desired-by-me, etc.) You can possibly rescue premise 3 by saying that two substances cannot be identical in all their attributes, but in that case,...

Any substance of finite attributes would obviously be distinct from God even if it shared all of its attributes with God. God, for example, may have the attribute of "desired-by-me" [by definition, if Lewis is correct], but He is not the only thing that I desire. So premise 4 is incorrect if we correct premise 3.

But premise 4 is also incorrect in and of itself; just because God is defined as a being of infinite attributes, He is not a being of all attributes. The set of even numbers {2,4,6,8,10,...} is an infinite set, but not an all-inclusive one. There are other things, like 1, 3.5 and even "yellow" that are not part of that set.

And God, again, by definition, does not have some attributes. From a theological perspective, for example, He cannot be "evil." He cannot be "limited" or "ignorant." But even leaving theology out of it, He cannot have the attribute "has only finitely many attributes" as one of His infinite attributes.

While there may be argument supporting monism, this isn't one of them.

Actually I should have stressed this, we can also distinguish between two different existent things by either their affections/ modes/ contingent properties or their attributes/ essential properties/ nature.

So for example I can distinguish between TWO triangles based on non-essential properties that they have. One might be an equilateral and the other a right angled, for example. These are contingent properties because they are not necessary to the objects being triangles and you can remove such qualities and you'd still have triangles. Another contingent set of properties might relate to place and position in relation to one another so two triangles might be identical in every way except for the fat that one is my left and the other is on my right. Again these are contingent because they are not essential to the triangles being what they are, they define particularities about them.

However we can state that time is a contingent property for two reasons. Firstly we already know that it is not a contingent property because it's essential to the universe. But there is a much more important reason why time isn't a contingent property - the definition of God excludes that. It states that any property can be instantiated in God's essence because God's essence expresses itself in infinite properties. That means that any possible property that you can relate to a thing can be related to God - any property, by definition. So all properties are part of God's essence necessarily. That means that time is an essential property of God too. It follows from the definition.

[thesyntaxera]

Sorry but that is insulting.

Sorry you feel that way.


This is a discussion and debate, why should I concede a point that I disagree with?

Because it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks on this topic; there is no wrong way to look at it, so there is little to debate and argue over....and just so you know, I wasn't referring to this thread(or you) specifically, but those radical hardliner atheists whose heads may explode because someone admits they have an affection for the term god, and may actually use it as a descriptive term for something like nature or the universe. Given the number of poetic interpretations the word god can imply, saying it's not a very good word is kind of funny. Saying it's a word you are not comfortable using is perfectly fine though. There doesn't have to be some universal word for describing nature's beautiful sublimity, however many cultures and poets have described it using god as the analogy. So what's the big deal?


You may not mean it but your statement makes it sound like this disagreement links me or others to "dogmatic" religionists and that somehow I do not support coexistence is insulting.

It could just be you who is reading it that way. However, there are self described atheists who are just as dogmatic and fundamental about their core beliefs concerning god as some religionists. It feels to me that a lot of the time these two polar opposites make things difficult for the more moderate secular and religious people.

I'm not much of a "hard" atheist(just an impatient and aggressive one) but I do care about a philosophical discussions and framing questions.

As do I. I just don't see any real need for conflict over the word god. Being atheist or agnostic or ignostic or a resident of planet X shouldn't preclude the use of a term.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well only little quibble is exactly Hokulele's position when it comes to labeling the universe "god".

As already mentioned "god" has a very strong cultural implied meaning, which is that of a personified deity(whatever that means to the individual). This just leads to a whole lot of confusion when non-theist use god to a different meaning. The misquotes by Einstein "God does not play die." etc. is an example.

I understand the need to describe the awe and reverence(why do need to do so is an interesting question by itself) of the cosmos but god is just a poor word for it.

Its like calling someone who likes kids a pedophile. While pedophile might mean someone who likes kids, its current and almost universal meaning is a child sexual abuser.


Tha's fine. I'm not asking that everyone agree with this use of the word -- I simply see utility in it. This really is a semantic debate, so there is no right or wrong answer; it's just an issue about how we use language.

I would re-iterate that God has been used precisely in this way in philosophy for centuries, so it isn't as though anyone is trying to create a new meaning for that word. It's more an attempt to reclaim that old meaning and force the fundie "misuse" of the word -- that which limits God to personhood cannot be God -- out into the light where it can be beaten to a bloody pulp.

You needn't agree. But, yes, Einstein used the word in the same sense. As did Sagan and Martin Gardner (though he was a little more forceful about it).

[Ichneumonwasp]

I guess that is where I differ. For me, the reverence is generally triggered by something specific at the moment, else I would probably wander around in a useless haze much of the time (no snide comments please!).





Well, there is reverence within individual experiences and there is reverence for "the big everything". The individual experiences -- being awed by a sunset -- may simply remain the individual experiences, or they may be linked to a greater idea -- feeling a part of the totality of everything -- the sort of "mystical" experience. Alternatively, some folks do spend time contemplating monism, as I'm sure you do too, and want a way of talking about the emotions it creates. It's still just an event triggered in the temperal-parietal-occipital junction (most likely) and is probably strongly non-dominant hemisphere in origin (so, it doesn't correspond to any "reality" out there, but we use words to talk about our experiences and to correspond to our experiences of things that are "out there" in some sense. The idea of the "totality of all" may simply exist only inside us, but we still need some way of talking about it. "God" used to be one word for it.

I don't think we all must use the same word for it, and possibly "God" is so far gone in fundiespeak that we can't reclaim it. I don't think that is necessarily the case.

A few years ago while mowing the lawn -- the prime mystical motivator in this universe -- I realized that the argument for a single substance maps to the ontological argument in some sense. The problem with the way the ontological argument is used in Christian circles, I think, is that the folks who spout it limit God in the process. God, a being of which none greater can be conceived, is then conceived to follow some pre-conceived idea of what the word "greater" (or in another form of the argument, "perfect") means. But, as the arguments against Anselm show (think the perfect island argument), the limitation of God to only good attributes is part of the problem. In a philosophical context, perfect or greatest, really mean "all". If the ontological argument has any worth I think it essentially argues the trivial fact that everything that exists exists and that totality is what is labelled God.

One way of looking at this is to argue that the theists get it wrong. What they call "God" is just a human construct. Why can't we work toward reclaiming that word as the old philosophers used it?

[drkitten]

But there is a much more important reason why time isn't a contingent property - the definition of God excludes that. It states that any property can be instantiated in God's essence because God's essence expresses itself in infinite properties.

And this is why the definition of God that you have given fails epically.

That means that any possible property that you can relate to a thing can be related to God - any property, by definition.

From this, I can only conclude that "evil" is not a properly, nor is "sinner," nor "covered in peanut butter," nor "limited in time and space."

Which, of course, is hogwash. All of those are clearly properties -- and in fact, "covered in peanut butter" is one of the things I would consider to be an attribute (an essential and fundamental property) of the bottom half of a peanut butter sandwich. If it ain't got peanut butter in it, it ain't a peanut butter sandwich.

So that's one way we can distinguish God from, say, a peanut butter sandwich. It is an essential attribute of a peanut butter sandwich that it be covered in peanut butter, but God need not be (and usually isn't, if you look at the artistic depictions). Similarly, it is not necessary that a peanut butter sandwich be all-knowing, but that is a necessary attribute of God. Ergo, peanut butter sandwiches are not God, despite what my young niece might wish to believe.

[Ichneumonwasp]

What is essential about a peanut butter sandwich? Seems to me that it's existence depends on being constructed of component parts?

[quarky]

more jelly, please

[Hokulele]

The idea of the "totality of all" may simply exist only inside us, but we still need some way of talking about it. "God" used to be one word for it.


OK, this makes sense to me and I can agree with this.

I don't think we all must use the same word for it, and possibly "God" is so far gone in fundiespeak that we can't reclaim it. I don't think that is necessarily the case.

<snipped to the conclusion for space>

One way of looking at this is to argue that the theists get it wrong. What they call "God" is just a human construct. Why can't we work toward reclaiming that word as the old philosophers used it?


Hmm, I vaguely recall Thales arguing for first principles using arguments from historical ancestors prior to the explicit invention of god/gods (thanks to a reminder from blobru in another thread). Similar to the way God is currently used, these first principles required forces and actions, whereas the type of totality you are talking about cannot be a force or take action. I think I have to go back and re-read some Greek philosophy.

So little time, so little memory.