FallentoReason 2.0

[FallentoReason]

Hey everyone, I've finished my exams and are now on summer holidays, so I thought I would quickly pop by and share my thoughts about something. I'm interested in hearing the arguments from both sides.

Basically, I've been toying with the idea of Deism. This all came about one day when I was driving home from work. The sunset was in front of me and out of nowhere it just struck me as to how bizarre the sun (and other stars) really is. We have this thing exploding and creating a huge amount of energy that is vital for life, all the while having these rocks that--thanks to gravity--stay close to this source of energy at all times. Thus, we are able to live. So yeah.. out of nowhere I just had this sudden appreciation for the ingenuity of the solar system and each of its components.

I guess you could call the above an Intelligent Design argument, which I actually find has one primary problem with it: am I projecting my understand of the everyday world I live in to things greater than the everyday world I live in (i.e. the solar system)? When I see a tv or a guitar I presuppose that there was a designer, but maybe this isn't true of things in nature. Maybe it's just my cognitive functions toying with me and leading me to rationally believe there is a Creator.

I would say that I only actually have maybe 5% of me invested into Deism as of two weeks ago, but I don't really know what to make of it. For all we know, this "God" thing is just a process that doesn't have anything we could identify as "intelligence", but it was rather a "higher order" natural process that created our universe. Well, maybe that would be called a "supernatural" process, but my point is that maybe it's not the typical supernatural stuff that comes from a deity. Maybe it's just a process in a higher dimension. Whatever it might be, I'm inclined to call it the "Creator" or "God" and I think there's good reason to think there's something more than just our universe.

I guess what I'm wondering is this: why not Deism? As far as I can tell, Deism is led primarily by science and through science and the universe around us we can come to an appreciation of the Creator. But like I said, I personally think it could be anything from a process to an actual Creator. Maybe subconsciously I like the idea of Deism because it gives me room to place my thankfulness for life somewhere. It's a sort of placebo that brings my rational side and my emotional side together. I don't really know...

[KichigaiNeko]

Don't give a tinker's cus buddy . good luck with the exam results ..... hope they are what you need.

[Zen Badger]

What ever works for you mate.

As for myself, I still need evidence before committing to such an idea.

[Whateverist]

Well I've heard people argue that if we think we individually have intentionality who is to say that larger order things such as the earth ('Gaia'), the galaxy or the universe doesn't also? What really is the boundary between me and not-me? The air I breath and my lungs are in a relationship. Same with the water my body needs. Life feeds on life and so is connected in that way. Inorganic matter is taken up into living beings and returns to inorganic states when the organism dies. So the organic and inorganic worlds are tangibly interconnected. So perhaps in describing the networks of which any particular organism is a part we wind up describing parts of the world that go beyond the organism. In that sense the boundary between me and not-me is indeterminate. In some sense we could say instead that we are an aspect of a larger organism.

Ordinarily we wouldn't infer intentionality to anything which is not alive and conscious. But when you look at the way the counterbalancing forces on our planet result in stable states that promote life it can look intentional. Where does the web of life begins and end? Does the sun which fuels it all belong? Would there be any life in the web without the sun?

There is no necessity -so far as we can tell- for inferring deities but neither is there any way of ruling them out. Personally I think Occam's razor describes a good rule of thumb rather than a compulsory conclusion. So I'm not convinced it ever adequately justifies any conclusion. If it gives you the meaning you seek, why not infer a deity?

Perhaps it isn't a question of whether or not a deity exists apart from me so much as it is a question of whether I exist apart from everything else. If I am a part of a larger thing then that thing encompasses my intentionality and so includes it and that of every other creature. Feeling thankful to the greater organism of which we are a part and without which we could not exist is not such a screwy idea.

[Ben Davis]

Whenever I hear Deist arguments, I always think of the wise words of Carl Sagan: "Why not save yourself a step...".

Sheer human awe at the size/scale/complexity/incredibility of the universe is only natural but so too, is everything we've ever discovered about the universe. Remember that there's never been any robust evidence for any supernatural proposition ever and wherever any such propositions have been testable, they've failed those tests.

[genkaus]

Hey everyone, I've finished my exams and are now on summer holidays, so I thought I would quickly pop by and share my thoughts about something. I'm interested in hearing the arguments from both sides.

Basically, I've been toying with the idea of Deism. This all came about one day when I was driving home from work. The sunset was in front of me and out of nowhere it just struck me as to how bizarre the sun (and other stars) really is. We have this thing exploding and creating a huge amount of energy that is vital for life, all the while having these rocks that--thanks to gravity--stay close to this source of energy at all times. Thus, we are able to live. So yeah.. out of nowhere I just had this sudden appreciation for the ingenuity of the solar system and each of its components.

I guess you could call the above an Intelligent Design argument, which I actually find has one primary problem with it: am I projecting my understand of the everyday world I live in to things greater than the everyday world I live in (i.e. the solar system)? When I see a tv or a guitar I presuppose that there was a designer, but maybe this isn't true of things in nature. Maybe it's just my cognitive functions toying with me and leading me to rationally believe there is a Creator.

I would say that I only actually have maybe 5% of me invested into Deism as of two weeks ago, but I don't really know what to make of it. For all we know, this "God" thing is just a process that doesn't have anything we could identify as "intelligence", but it was rather a "higher order" natural process that created our universe. Well, maybe that would be called a "supernatural" process, but my point is that maybe it's not the typical supernatural stuff that comes from a deity. Maybe it's just a process in a higher dimension. Whatever it might be, I'm inclined to call it the "Creator" or "God" and I think there's good reason to think there's something more than just our universe.

I guess what I'm wondering is this: why not Deism? As far as I can tell, Deism is led primarily by science and through science and the universe around us we can come to an appreciation of the Creator. But like I said, I personally think it could be anything from a process to an actual Creator. Maybe subconsciously I like the idea of Deism because it gives me room to place my thankfulness for life somewhere. It's a sort of placebo that brings my rational side and my emotional side together. I don't really know...

If this is what you mean by "supernatural" or "god" or "creator", then even I would be classified as a Deist or a Theist.

Do I believe there is a higher order of natural processes which are currently beyond the our understanding? Yes, I do.

Would I refer to these as "supernatural"? No, because that would require me to put these processes perpetually beyond nature and therefore our understanding.

Do I believe these processes were the driving force behind creation of universe and/or that of life? Yes, I do.

Would I then refer to them as "Creator" or "God"? No, I wouldn't. Because those words assume intelligence or a consciousness. The implication is contained within their meaning.

The reason why this idea is attractive is because it gives you the illusion of reconciliation between your desire to believe in god and your desire to retain intellectual integrity. The reason I call it an illusion is because it makes you intellectually dishonest in a completely different way. And in this case it may be even more dangerous because here you are being dishonest to yourself.

You have been associating the words "God" and "creator" with an intelligent being your whole life. That characteristic is a part of the definition. The words "god" and "creator" are simply labels we attach to specific concepts and by using those words we are calling up those specific concepts in our minds. What you are trying to do here is use the same label for two different concepts - one implying an intelligence and the other not - so that you can rationally justify your belief by convincing yourself that you are only referring to the "non-intelligent" concept, while subconsciously you invoke the other one as well thereby getting emotional comfort you desire. This is a form of self-deception.

On the other hand, I wouldn't expect the illusion to last. If you continue referring the new concept with the word "god" or "creator", the emotional comfort you used to gain from the previous one would gradually fade away. Eventually, your mind would replace the previous concept entirely with the new one and the emotional significance you attached to the word would disappear.

[Kirbmarc]

When I see a tv or a guitar I presuppose that there was a designer, but maybe this isn't true of things in nature.

The problem is that we, as humans, tend to project human features (like intentionality or emotions) on the world. We do it all the time. We get angry at our TV when it doesn't work, even though the TV doesn't have the intention to work or not, so getting angry at it is (logically speaking) pointless. We said the our car "died on us", even though cars can't die (they're not alive). We have feelings for inanimate objects (a favorite pen, or dress, etc.) that obviously can't reciprocate. We get depressed in a rainy day, and we call it "horrible weather" even though it's only horrible for us. If we were toads, we'd probably love rain with Spanish passion.

My point is that the feeling of design is an emotional response, not a rational one. Is it possible that the universe was designed for us? Maybe. But evidence suggests that we were designed by the universe and for the universe, through evolution and selection.

We're like a sentient puddle, that marvels at how carefully constructed the ground is, just with the right hole that fits her perfectly, when it's the puddle that adapted to the hole.

Maybe it's just my cognitive functions toying with me and leading me to rationally believe there is a Creator.

It's an emotional response, it's common to every human being and we do it all time. We just have to be careful not to confuse our good emotional response to what goes well in the universe (and conversely, our bad emotional response for what doesn't go so well) with a rational need for an intelligent or orderly creator.

Do I believe there is a higher order of natural processes which are currently beyond the our understanding? Yes, I do.

The "order" we find in the nature is our attempt to understand processes in a rational way. We construct rules that explain phenomena, but those rules are bound to be changed when we encounter new phenomena. The universe actually doesn't follow an "order" external to it, it just has some features from which the "order" arises. Science is a tentative descriptions of those features.

Sure, we can discover new phenomena, and maybe there are some phenomena that we'll never be able to fully describe, but this do'esnt tell us much about the universe. It tells a lot about our cognitive limits. Anyway, we're good enough to understand how most features of the parts of universe that we usually experience, so even if there's something elusive and impossible to understand, it doesn't interact with our existance too frequently.

[Whateverist]

Is it possible that the universe was designed for us? Maybe. But evidence suggests that we were designed by the universe and for the universe, through evolution and selection.

It is the thought that we were designed by the universe that leads some to suppose a deist. I don't personally.

Sometimes we marvel at the way we 'fit' in the grand scheme. Of course the grand scheme is just the way everything is arrayed in relationship to everything else, as it must be, given its interactive properties. So we too 'fit', as we must, having come into being in relationship to our surroundings and as the continuation of a line DNA.

Though I don't think of there being any cosmic consciousness nexus out there directing everything, there have been times when I have pondered being a part of it all. Collectively we and the rest of the stuff of the cosmos have become what we are and are on our way to becoming something. While I don't feel I have any say in all this I can sometimes identify with being a part of it all. Since I have consciousness and intention when I think of the all of which I'm a part, it is natural to imagine this all being like me in those ways. In a sense, because I am a part of it all and I am aware of this all that we are, the universe is aware of itself through creatures such as ourselves. I don't, however, think that there is any control center that can tap into our awareness to direct or redirect what it is we are becoming. Nothing is in charge but it all continues to unfold as it does regardless. I guess we're just witnesses to it all and that's pretty special all by itself.

[FallentoReason]

Well I've heard people argue that if we think we individually have intentionality who is to say that larger order things such as the earth ('Gaia'), the galaxy or the universe doesn't also? What really is the boundary between me and not-me? The air I breath and my lungs are in a relationship. Same with the water my body needs. Life feeds on life and so is connected in that way. Inorganic matter is taken up into living beings and returns to inorganic states when the organism dies. So the organic and inorganic worlds are tangibly interconnected. So perhaps in describing the networks of which any particular organism is a part we wind up describing parts of the world that go beyond the organism. In that sense the boundary between me and not-me is indeterminate. In some sense we could say instead that we are an aspect of a larger organism.

Ordinarily we wouldn't infer intentionality to anything which is not alive and conscious. But when you look at the way the counterbalancing forces on our planet result in stable states that promote life it can look intentional. Where does the web of life begins and end? Does the sun which fuels it all belong? Would there be any life in the web without the sun?

There is no necessity -so far as we can tell- for inferring deities but neither is there any way of ruling them out. Personally I think Occam's razor describes a good rule of thumb rather than a compulsory conclusion. So I'm not convinced it ever adequately justifies any conclusion. If it gives you the meaning you seek, why not infer a deity?

Perhaps it isn't a question of whether or not a deity exists apart from me so much as it is a question of whether I exist apart from everything else. If I am a part of a larger thing then that thing encompasses my intentionality and so includes it and that of every other creature. Feeling thankful to the greater organism of which we are a part and without which we could not exist is not such a screwy idea.

Wow, I've never heard anything like this before. It's a pretty interesting take on things.

So if I'm not mistaken, what you're basically saying is that the components that make up the universe (e.g. us, rocks, gravity etc.) are necessarily in relationship with one another and through this relationship it makes it seem to us that it was all "intentional". Then that means that the arguments for Intelligent Design cuts both ways in favour and not in favour of some sort of Creator. Food for thought!

---

Whenever I hear Deist arguments, I always think of the wise words of Carl Sagan: "Why not save yourself a step...".

Sheer human awe at the size/scale/complexity/incredibility of the universe is only natural but so too, is everything we've ever discovered about the universe. Remember that there's never been any robust evidence for any supernatural proposition ever and wherever any such propositions have been testable, they've failed those tests.

Yeah, I agree that it's never been proven through science that there exists a supernatural realm and/or a supernatural being. The thing is though that science will never be able to do that because all science does is analyse the "aftermath". Let me give you an example:

I punch my mate in the shoulder. Through scientific analysis we could have determined that I did it with x force in Newtons. What the analysis won't be able to tell us is why I did it. Science can only simply describe to you how it happened.

Again, I have to admit that maybe, as a human, I'm inclined to see the universe as having that "why" component as well as what science tells us about the "how".

[Minimalist]

why not Deism?

Because there is no more evidence for the "Dei" than there is for fucking jesus.

It is really that simple.