151
Do you believe in God?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
151 points (79.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43942 readers
587 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Ever read Spinoza?
Not extensively but I'm familiar with the ideas I think. To me it's almost similar to deistic beliefs where one tries to assign a god label to some foundational force in the universe, but in a way that doesn't add any information.
I just refreshed my memory with a Stanford philosophy page on him and I can see why it's appealing. A lot of his axioms make sense and I do believe (in an e=mc² kinda way) that there is only one underlying thing, which is energy. But to define that energy as god just doesn't add anything useful imo. Plus the whole "necessarily existing and containing all properties" thing is a stretch imo.
I think this is a lot more obvious if you go through his reasoning.
Personally, I think it comes down to consciousness/subjectivity/experience. Is there an overarching "creative" consciousness? Obviously the bearded-man-in-the-sky model is childish, but if you think about consciousness objectively enough for long enough, I believe one of two basic explanations becomes necessary:
Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system, e.g. the human nervous system
Consciousness is some field/force/property of nature that conscious beings tap into in some way
No other explanation really holds up to serious scrutiny (though if you have a reasonable alternative, I'd love to hear it).
If 1, it stands to reason that entities larger and more complex than humans should develop consciousness of their own cosmic variety: stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, the totality of the energy composing the universe(i.e. God). It's silly to assume that humans are the precise complexity level which develops consciousness, and nothing higher or lower has any comparable phenomenon.
If 2, that field is functionally indistinguishable from God.
I think the above mentioned bearded-man-in-the-sky, Sunday school conception of God as a glowing hand with a booming voice that descends from the sky muddles things. It's a severe oversimplification and any thinking person is right to reject it, I know I did. Strip away the cartoonish characterizations and the literal interpretation of fantastical scenes from the Bible, and consider the fundamental properties ascribed to the concept. Seriously ponder the nature of consciousness, does any explanation make sense other than the Universe = Energy = Consciousness; omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient?
Thank you for that elaboration.
I definitely believe in point 1 (emergent property). As a bit of an asterisk though I don't think that it's a property that necessarily must emerge from a sufficiently complex system. More of an evolutionary accident than anything else.
However, as far as larger and more complex entities developing consciousness, I think that should is probably an overstatement. I'm open to could develop an emergent property similar to consciousness but then the question becomes what evidence do we have for what? What predictions could we use to test that idea?
Edit: on second thought I'm probably being a little imprecise with "could develop...". I don't know whether those systems could or could not develop consciousness because to the best of my knowledge there isn't any significant evidence about their ability, in one way or another.
Your appeal to evidence presumes we have the context to comprehend or evaluate a cosmic consciousness. Clearly individual cells have some rudimentary, bio-chemical-instinctual proto-consciousness which compels them to avoid chemical threats and seek chemical nourishment, but it would be ridiculous to expect them to understand the complex thoughts of multicellular organisms.
Extrapolate that to the relationship between humans and a cosmic consciousness. If such a consciousness exists, it would be so alien as to be inscrutable to us. The "physiology" of such a mind might take the form of the interplay of fundamental forces, the "psychology" might manifest as the mathematical laws of nature.
As to should vs. could, what is the hidden factor that decides? Where does it come from?