RAH - A more rational concept of God and religion

"If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."

I like that. Especially from someone, like Prof. Davies, who understands the cosmos, and the language of mathematics which describes it, so much better than I do. All I can do is marvel at it all.

As I marvel, I realize how privileged and blessed I am and want (need) to say "thank you". But to whom?

Enter, through the side door of my imagination, a kindly, wise old man with a long white beard. Call him God, if you like, but not the Abrahamic God of holy (inadequate, though historically and culturally extremely interesting and important) scripture, who is supposed to have made us in his own image, but in fact (as pointed out by the ancient Greek philosopher, Xenophanes) was himself made by men in their less than perfect image.

There is an inherent personal and social need for "religion" (L. religare = to bind together), I believe, and perhaps also for "concepts" of God, to suit each individual, but it needs to be based on science and the "Uncertainty Principle" of human knowledge and understanding.

Science has undermined traditional religion, based on holy (inadequate) scripture. We need it now, urgently, to help us create replacements, for our personal and social needs, that are far more rational and fit for purpose. Most importantly, we need "religion" to help us create alternatives to the existing socio-economic order, which is deeply rooted in our animal nature and behaviour (unsurprisingly, in view of human origins), and thus so grossly materialistic and inherently unsustainable.

[ytrewq]: "Why not propose that God was created by the big bang and it took Him a while to get his act together?"

I like that idea. I mean, understandably, "He" must have been totally dazed - to the extent that He is in fact STILL getting "His" act together. And maybe (although perhaps I'm being a tad too anthropocentric here) we humans (our emerging self-awareness) are an integral part of the process?

3rd Post

[Kidogo], Thanks for the information about Teillard De Chardin, which I didn't know (or had forgotten). I also appreciated and agreed (I think) with your elaboration.

All discussions of "God" are fraught with misunderstanding, because everyone seems to have their own notions of what the word means. It is best, I find, not to take them, or oneself, TOO seriously. The truth is out there, and in us, somewhere, but there's no way that we are ever going to understand it with certainty. Let's just enjoy (rather than get screwed up) trying.

[Kidogo]'s post

" . . . . . The French anthropologist (and Jesuit) Teillard De Chardin believed that God was the universe and was indeed in the process of self invention/creation rather than a meta creator designing the Universe from without. These views got him a slapped wrist and his books were placed on the index precisely because Catholic theologians understood (what religiously motivated intelligent designers do not) that God is not a necessary condition to accepting that the universe may be a self organising entity. Occams razor requires the elimination of all but essential categories and even in a "strong anthropic" goldilocks scenario - God is still not essential."

To: Guardian CiF Re: A more rational concept of God and religion Date: Tuesday 26 June 07

In response to article by Paul Davies, "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it" Link to article and thread at The Guardian. "If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself." I like that. Especially from someone, like Prof. Davies, who understands the cosmos, and the language of mathematics which describes it, so much better than I do. All I can do is marvel at it all. As I marvel, I realize how privileged and blessed I am and want (need) to say "thank you". But to whom? Enter, through the side door of my imagination, a kindly, wise old man with a long white beard. Call him God, if you like, but not the Abrahamic God of holy (inadequate, though historically and culturally extremely interesting and important) scripture, who is supposed to have made us in his own image, but in fact (as pointed out by the ancient Greek philosopher, Xenophanes) was himself made by men in their less than perfect image. There is an inherent personal and social need for "religion" (L. religare = to bind together), I believe, and perhaps also for "concepts" of God, to suit each individual, but it needs to be based on science and the "Uncertainty Principle" of human knowledge and understanding. Science has undermined traditional religion, based on holy (inadequate) scripture. We need it now, urgently, to help us create replacements, for our personal and social needs, that are far more rational and fit for purpose. Most importantly, we need "religion" to help us create alternatives to the existing socio-economic order, which is deeply rooted in our animal nature and behaviour (unsurprisingly, in view of human origins), and thus so grossly materialistic and inherently unsustainable. 2nd Post [ytrewq]: "Why not propose that God was created by the big bang and it took Him a while to get his act together?" I like that idea. I mean, understandably, "He" must have been totally dazed - to the extent that He is in fact STILL getting "His" act together. And maybe (although perhaps I'm being a tad too anthropocentric here) we humans (our emerging self-awareness) are an integral part of the process? 3rd Post [Kidogo], Thanks for the information about Teillard De Chardin, which I didn't know (or had forgotten). I also appreciated and agreed (I think) with your elaboration. All discussions of "God" are fraught with misunderstanding, because everyone seems to have their own notions of what the word means. It is best, I find, not to take them, or oneself, TOO seriously. The truth is out there, and in us, somewhere, but there's no way that we are ever going to understand it with certainty. Let's just enjoy (rather than get screwed up) trying. [Kidogo]'s post " . . . . . The French anthropologist (and Jesuit) Teillard De Chardin believed that God was the universe and was indeed in the process of self invention/creation rather than a meta creator designing the Universe from without. These views got him a slapped wrist and his books were placed on the index precisely because Catholic theologians understood (what religiously motivated intelligent designers do not) that God is not a necessary condition to accepting that the universe may be a self organising entity. Occams razor requires the elimination of all but essential categories and even in a "strong anthropic" goldilocks scenario - God is still not essential." http://www.spaceship-earth.org