Here I explore Jefferson's and Madison's Deism through a contemporary lens. More intimately, though, you can see why I no longer consider myself an atheist.
Very glad I stumbled upon this. Beautifully written!
Whitehead is popping up everywhere recently. I can’t help but think this proposed revolution you speak of is sparked, at least in part, by process philosophy. The conversation around synthesis is only just beginning, and it offers so much light and so much hope.
Also, your concept of God has some similarities with Gnostic creation stories, which I’ve always loved.
I feel as I am walking among giants, a mere common man myself. It’s a heavy lift, exploring these questions. Existential, scientific, philosophic, and more. Yes, the Universe seems emergent and a process. Life is a refutation of the laws of physics, that all systems tend toward lower energy states and entropy. We still do not understand what makes life “ tick”. We do not understand what makes “ consciousness’. We see the power of feedback loops. Look at the relationships we have with man’s best friend. Do they exhibit some real understanding of our emotions or are we imputing this ourselves? Or is there a lot of both?
Where does evil fit in with this emergent unfolding universe? What explains it? Or even defines it? It is like porn, you know it when you see it? But then when explained by the Great Deceiver, you are no longer sure.
Why are we here? What is the end game? As you ask, why does God seek to be worshipped by imperfect beings doomed rom the start? Perhaps he does not seek but only invites? Perhaps it is we who need, not the other way around.
To exist, is to exert. True yes, but to truly exist is to exert profusely, without ceasing. That we are here to struggle seems evident. What is our dessert but a brief respite? The universe is still a great and beautiful mystery, with superb order emerging within seeming inorganic chaos.
First, the problem of evil persists. I don't think this conception is a Platonist/Manichaean/Gnostic/Mainstream Christian conception. What we call evil is part of dual nature of the whole. Good = Perfection = Bliss is too Platonist. Evil amounts to aspects of the whole we do not like but the concept makes directionality possible.
Why are we here? What is the end game? These are questions from which answers and more questions unfold like the universe itself, in a process of becoming. Questions are female and answers are male. They come together to beget more questions and more answers (and more begeting) in a process that is probably unceasing, like a fractal, but the fractal is not nothing. On its face, "Why are we here?" is the ORIGIN Question and "What is the end game?" is the PURPOSE Question. Such questions seem bind us to linearity and time--like Hegel's Absolute Spirit as telos. So they're worth asking. But they strike me as inviting us into that fractal of inquiry.
In short: I DON'T KNOW. But let's keep asking and answering.
Liberalism--humanity's liberatory project (not leftwing or rightwing) is a project for the here and now. It is not the cure for "evil," but rather a mechanism for managing it while preserving pluralism.
More wishful thinking. People get old and die. That’s the nature of our existence. Inventing a cloud wizard to help reconcile you to the fact may seem to help, but you’re just going down the road of fantasy wish fulfillment.
Who? There's no talk of Heaven or "sky wizards" here. There's no talk of an afterlife. Are you reading something into this? This is basically an argument for agnosticism as opposed to atheism, which is a kind of faith. I should know as I was a strident atheist for most of my life.
If I define an atheist as someone who believes they have positive proof that there is no god, then I’m not an atheist. I just think there is too much wishful thinking involved to conclude that there is a god. Especially without evidence.
many of the founders were masons. Once in Colorado way up in the hills old mining town, walked the length of a mason cemetary. as a bartender in sierra navada mountains one year, was give a wonderful book that was about mason philosophy and its religious aspects too. the idea that god exists everywhere in all things equally, is from the masons. the book was a bit corny. but I still have it. in philosophy section of my library.
So, did you have anyone unsubscribe after this? Or write you off (in spite of extensive agreement on other subjects) for this one tiny deviation from atheist orthodoxy?
Max, you’re one intrepid soul for getting into this theme. Ah, well!
My first impulse is to set aside metaphysical arguments entirely.
(1) Priming. A very interesting study by Ara Norenzayan (“God Is Watching You,” 2007) found that casually mentioning that a ghost had been seen in a test room significantly reduced cheating. Similarly, in Hull, Asda in Leigh, and elsewhere in the UK, cardboard cops reduced shoplifting by 75%. These are examples of “priming,” where a suggested authority can positively shape behavior, even when the suggestion is completely false.
(2) Hedging irrationality. This idea is best illustrated by G. K. Chesterton’s quote:
“There may have been a time when people found it easy to believe in anything. But we are finding it vastly easier to disbelieve anything.”
The point is that human beings, those wildly imaginative bipeds, are going to believe fabulously insane stuff, no matter how often or convincingly you teach sweet reason to them. Therefore, it is best to have religion corral these inevitable fabulosities, and put a dogmatic leash on them.
There is no better illustration of this principle than the current so-called educated elites of Western universities. They are overwhelmingly atheistic – and thus supposedly more reasonable – and yet they are prey to every secular religious hysteria, from climate extinction in 2050, to anti-Semitism, to the latest nonsense from Greta Thunberg or AOC.
But getting to the metaphysics....
You, like most readers of Underthrow I suspect, approach the spiritual-from-physicalism aspiration from complexity theory, especially from “emergent AI.”
Quantum mechanics offers a completely different approach.
Several quantum physicists assert an anthropic principle at the heart of the universe. The principle’s weak form simply considers the knife edge of conditions by which conscious life came about and the congeniality, at the very least, that allows conscious beings to know its physics. The principle’s strong form asserts that the very structure of the universe _necessarily_ will result in conscious beings at some point. That form would imply many universes, or “multiverses,” (see Leonard Susskind) some number of them being free of the “carbon chauvinism” by which element the life familiar to us is possible. And then multiverses would seem to imply some form of “natural selection” by which life-rich universes, whether carbon-based or not, have a survival advantage over lifeless universes (see Lee Smolin).
But the heavyweight champion of quantum speculation regarding consciousness is Roger Penrose. He cites the 1984 discovery by Dan Shechtman of a unique aluminum-manganese “quasi-crystal” that forms not by the sequential layered growth common to most crystals, but instead forms, Penrose asserts, under the influence of some non-local quantum-mechanical ingredient. Since the quasicrystal cannot form in local sequence, this quantum-mechanical ingredient must find the global pattern by “trying” many different atomic combinations simultaneously. This quantum “pattern trying” is the very essence of consciousness.
Now a quantum universe “congenial” to the mind is one thing, but such a universe that is somehow “superconscious” and sympathetic is quite another.
I would rather demur, humbly laboring in the practical uses of an impulse to religion that seems to be impossible to eradicate.
[Minor issue: “penial gland” should be “pineal gland.”]
I have always understood the Strong Anthropic Principle as suggesting a Transcendent Maker, rather than an Immanent Emergence.
I am also not smart enough to consider the role of time in all of this. But I'm at least barely smart enough to ask how time relates to process in terms of both being and becoming at both quantum and cosmic scales.
I'd be curious to get your own take on all this.
I have been struggling with the idea that people are better behaved when they think they're being observed, a point that goes back ages, but seems to be updated with social science research. A Great and Powerful God removes the Ring of Gyges.
Very glad I stumbled upon this. Beautifully written!
Whitehead is popping up everywhere recently. I can’t help but think this proposed revolution you speak of is sparked, at least in part, by process philosophy. The conversation around synthesis is only just beginning, and it offers so much light and so much hope.
Also, your concept of God has some similarities with Gnostic creation stories, which I’ve always loved.
Great read. Looking forward to more.
I feel as I am walking among giants, a mere common man myself. It’s a heavy lift, exploring these questions. Existential, scientific, philosophic, and more. Yes, the Universe seems emergent and a process. Life is a refutation of the laws of physics, that all systems tend toward lower energy states and entropy. We still do not understand what makes life “ tick”. We do not understand what makes “ consciousness’. We see the power of feedback loops. Look at the relationships we have with man’s best friend. Do they exhibit some real understanding of our emotions or are we imputing this ourselves? Or is there a lot of both?
Where does evil fit in with this emergent unfolding universe? What explains it? Or even defines it? It is like porn, you know it when you see it? But then when explained by the Great Deceiver, you are no longer sure.
Why are we here? What is the end game? As you ask, why does God seek to be worshipped by imperfect beings doomed rom the start? Perhaps he does not seek but only invites? Perhaps it is we who need, not the other way around.
To exist, is to exert. True yes, but to truly exist is to exert profusely, without ceasing. That we are here to struggle seems evident. What is our dessert but a brief respite? The universe is still a great and beautiful mystery, with superb order emerging within seeming inorganic chaos.
I look forward to continued reading.
It seems he'd saying “liberalism” will cure all that evil 😏
I'm happy to answer questions.
You'll have to address Christopher, he has the questions. Have a nice day!
Fair. I should have addressed a couple:
First, the problem of evil persists. I don't think this conception is a Platonist/Manichaean/Gnostic/Mainstream Christian conception. What we call evil is part of dual nature of the whole. Good = Perfection = Bliss is too Platonist. Evil amounts to aspects of the whole we do not like but the concept makes directionality possible.
Why are we here? What is the end game? These are questions from which answers and more questions unfold like the universe itself, in a process of becoming. Questions are female and answers are male. They come together to beget more questions and more answers (and more begeting) in a process that is probably unceasing, like a fractal, but the fractal is not nothing. On its face, "Why are we here?" is the ORIGIN Question and "What is the end game?" is the PURPOSE Question. Such questions seem bind us to linearity and time--like Hegel's Absolute Spirit as telos. So they're worth asking. But they strike me as inviting us into that fractal of inquiry.
In short: I DON'T KNOW. But let's keep asking and answering.
Liberalism--humanity's liberatory project (not leftwing or rightwing) is a project for the here and now. It is not the cure for "evil," but rather a mechanism for managing it while preserving pluralism.
More wishful thinking. People get old and die. That’s the nature of our existence. Inventing a cloud wizard to help reconcile you to the fact may seem to help, but you’re just going down the road of fantasy wish fulfillment.
Who? There's no talk of Heaven or "sky wizards" here. There's no talk of an afterlife. Are you reading something into this? This is basically an argument for agnosticism as opposed to atheism, which is a kind of faith. I should know as I was a strident atheist for most of my life.
If I define an atheist as someone who believes they have positive proof that there is no god, then I’m not an atheist. I just think there is too much wishful thinking involved to conclude that there is a god. Especially without evidence.
I certainly understand this impulse.
many of the founders were masons. Once in Colorado way up in the hills old mining town, walked the length of a mason cemetary. as a bartender in sierra navada mountains one year, was give a wonderful book that was about mason philosophy and its religious aspects too. the idea that god exists everywhere in all things equally, is from the masons. the book was a bit corny. but I still have it. in philosophy section of my library.
I wrote my own version of this today: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/day-stopped-being-atheist
So, did you have anyone unsubscribe after this? Or write you off (in spite of extensive agreement on other subjects) for this one tiny deviation from atheist orthodoxy?
I did!
Max, you’re one intrepid soul for getting into this theme. Ah, well!
My first impulse is to set aside metaphysical arguments entirely.
(1) Priming. A very interesting study by Ara Norenzayan (“God Is Watching You,” 2007) found that casually mentioning that a ghost had been seen in a test room significantly reduced cheating. Similarly, in Hull, Asda in Leigh, and elsewhere in the UK, cardboard cops reduced shoplifting by 75%. These are examples of “priming,” where a suggested authority can positively shape behavior, even when the suggestion is completely false.
(2) Hedging irrationality. This idea is best illustrated by G. K. Chesterton’s quote:
“There may have been a time when people found it easy to believe in anything. But we are finding it vastly easier to disbelieve anything.”
The point is that human beings, those wildly imaginative bipeds, are going to believe fabulously insane stuff, no matter how often or convincingly you teach sweet reason to them. Therefore, it is best to have religion corral these inevitable fabulosities, and put a dogmatic leash on them.
There is no better illustration of this principle than the current so-called educated elites of Western universities. They are overwhelmingly atheistic – and thus supposedly more reasonable – and yet they are prey to every secular religious hysteria, from climate extinction in 2050, to anti-Semitism, to the latest nonsense from Greta Thunberg or AOC.
But getting to the metaphysics....
You, like most readers of Underthrow I suspect, approach the spiritual-from-physicalism aspiration from complexity theory, especially from “emergent AI.”
Quantum mechanics offers a completely different approach.
Several quantum physicists assert an anthropic principle at the heart of the universe. The principle’s weak form simply considers the knife edge of conditions by which conscious life came about and the congeniality, at the very least, that allows conscious beings to know its physics. The principle’s strong form asserts that the very structure of the universe _necessarily_ will result in conscious beings at some point. That form would imply many universes, or “multiverses,” (see Leonard Susskind) some number of them being free of the “carbon chauvinism” by which element the life familiar to us is possible. And then multiverses would seem to imply some form of “natural selection” by which life-rich universes, whether carbon-based or not, have a survival advantage over lifeless universes (see Lee Smolin).
But the heavyweight champion of quantum speculation regarding consciousness is Roger Penrose. He cites the 1984 discovery by Dan Shechtman of a unique aluminum-manganese “quasi-crystal” that forms not by the sequential layered growth common to most crystals, but instead forms, Penrose asserts, under the influence of some non-local quantum-mechanical ingredient. Since the quasicrystal cannot form in local sequence, this quantum-mechanical ingredient must find the global pattern by “trying” many different atomic combinations simultaneously. This quantum “pattern trying” is the very essence of consciousness.
Now a quantum universe “congenial” to the mind is one thing, but such a universe that is somehow “superconscious” and sympathetic is quite another.
I would rather demur, humbly laboring in the practical uses of an impulse to religion that seems to be impossible to eradicate.
[Minor issue: “penial gland” should be “pineal gland.”]
Love this comment. Really good. I wish I had more time to reply and hope to find some next week. // Also, thank you as ever for catching the goof!
I have always understood the Strong Anthropic Principle as suggesting a Transcendent Maker, rather than an Immanent Emergence.
I am also not smart enough to consider the role of time in all of this. But I'm at least barely smart enough to ask how time relates to process in terms of both being and becoming at both quantum and cosmic scales.
I'd be curious to get your own take on all this.
I have been struggling with the idea that people are better behaved when they think they're being observed, a point that goes back ages, but seems to be updated with social science research. A Great and Powerful God removes the Ring of Gyges.