It seems to me that Deepak is asking us to look beyond the horizon of the knowable, and of conscious thought, and that that original moment of creation, if called "God" helps us to step out of the mind that thinks everything can be boiled down to understandable bits. If beyond duality, the concept of "God" will eventually force us to look beyond human concepts of "good" and "evil"--which are human concepts dealing with human motivations and actions, and not entirely useful outside that context. Rather than tying ourselves into theological knots trying to explain the universe in terms of an anthropomorphic deity...or holding as an item of faith that there is no overall pattern to reality that might be considered "living" or "conscious" however much we expand our definitions, he is inviting us to have faith, or at least grasp that every world religion might have a different thread of the same cosmic tapestry. We don't know...mor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Future of God: A New Theory of the Divine
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
:..step out of the mind that thinks everything can be boiled down to understandable bits."
Science and all other rational pursuits are predicated on the notion that reality is composed of understandable bits,i.e that the Cosmos is knowable. I've absolutely zero wish to step out of my rational mind and to be deprived to the most fulfilling and gratifying quest conceivable,the effort to understand existence.
"Trying to "prove" the existence, or non-existence, of the Divine is an old, old game, and neither side ever really wins"
As far as I'm concerned, the combined efforts of Hume, Shelly (The Necessity of Atheism) and Darwin won the game centuries ago. The faithful merely refuse to listen.
"..there is no overall pattern to reality that might be considered "living" or "conscious""
Mystics and theologians commonly bandy these terms about nonsensically, often speaking of "living gods and spirits". For myself and many others schooled in the sciences, living and conscious have specific, non-nonsensical meanings. As explained succinctly by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, living things are replicative entities subject to Darwinian evolution. Genes, Viruses, bacteria, plants, animals and possibly memes are alive. Eternal, changeless and non-reproducing fictional entities are not.
Ethiopian Infidel, who said that gods and goddesses don't reproduce? The stories in the mythology of most religions have lots of reproduction going on. (Zeus, anyone?)
I still maintain that deities exist in pretty much the same way that mathematical objects, such as the complex numbers and probability measures, exist. The kind of atheism that Dawkins et al. espouse would eliminate such things as not having any physical existence, so far as i can see, in spite of the fact that they are certainly based upon rational thought.
"I still maintain that deities exist in pretty much the same way that mathematical objects, such as the complex numbers and probability measures, exist."
Except you can actually do something with numbers.
All you can do with a Deity is manipulate someone with an emotional appeal.
"I still maintain that deities exist in pretty much the same way that mathematical objects, such as the complex numbers and probability measures, exist. "
IMHO, concepts bear validly based on how well they correspond to verifiable external reality. The obvious utility of complex numbers, probability functions and the like in mapping Space-time, describing subatomic behavior and in illuminating innumerable other facets of reality suggests mathematical objects are firmly based in reality. I'd think that Dawkins, the mathematical Physicist Victor Stengler and other such Atheists for whom science appears to be the Raison D'etre, would affirm the reality of mathematical concepts and decry attempts to link these with myth.
"..who said that gods and goddesses don't reproduce"
Here I reflexively envisioned the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. Although the various polytheist deities were said to sire one other another, they obviously didn't undergo Darwinian evolution, a principal criterion for life.
I am not sure why the reality involved must be external. I find that working with, meditating on, and sometimes studying assorted deities makes me happier, less prone to depression, and more motivated to do creative mathematical work, maintain good relationships with my family and friends, and generally function better.
I agree that deities can be used to manipulate others. This is a danger, just as there is danger that an understanding of nuclear reactions can be used to kill millions of people very quickly. This does not prove that an understanding of nuclear physics is bad. I cannot see why the dangers of religious practice prove that religion is bad. I admit that I think monotheism is a bad thing, as is the belief that gods and goddesses have any objective existence in the physical world.
Something for contemplation, from Spinoza as I understand his ideas.
There can fundamentally only be one sort of stuff in the universe. If there were completely different sorts of things, they couldn't interact with each other, nor could one sort of thing perceive the other.
Therefore, mind and matter are not fundamentally different, and presumably overlap.
What this means in practice is left as an exercise for the student.
"Therefore, mind and matter are not fundamentally different, and presumably overlap."
Mind is the organization of a species of matter termed Brain, which Darwinian Evolution has molded to model the environment and to select responses that promote survival and procreation. As such, Mind isn't "different" from Matter; it's a dynamic process that continually restructures brain matter, as waves re-pattern the seas.
"I am not sure why the reality involved must be external."
Is there any other type of reality?
"Is there any other kind of reality?"
Of course. Subjective experience, what makes me happy, sad, etc., is my internal reality. So are my likes and dislikes. My reality includes, for example, that loud rock music with lots of intense bass is unpleasant. REALLY unpleasant. I do not claim that this is part of external reality.
Post a Comment