NEXT
BACK
Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
Forum
Recent Posts
Post 6. 12/01/2017 . . . . continued
Alternative Theory of Reality & Deity
Theism vs Atheism or Deism
Since modern science has shown Reality to be an amalgam of superficial appearances determined by fundamental forces, I have concluded that ancient sages had prescient-but-primitive intuitions when they postulated the existence of invisible mischievous spirits that make things happen, and make our lives uncertain. However, the apparent consciousness of those little daemons can now be explained in terms of something other than human-like intelligence. Natural processes work with computer-like information & energy exchanges rather than human-like communication. Hence, the alleged “knowing” of invisible (sub-atomic) entities is merely a metaphorical comparison to human consciousness. As far as we know, self-consciousness only emerges at the highest levels of physical organization, where the flow of information exchange is a dynamic whirlwind of complexity, order and randomness. On the other hand, we can imagine that the universe-as-a-whole could be an even more extreme example of information elaboration, and possibly of consciousness.
That holistic conception of a conscious cosmos can be viewed as equivalent to "God", without referring to any specific religious doctrine. Herein, the coinage "G*D" is a philosophical metaphor for a system that seems to be under the control of some universal program, plan, or purpose. The teleological intent of that inferred cosmic design is inscrutable -- and invisible to Atheists -- but the general direction is obvious in the current products of natural processes : initial singularity, to pulsing plasma, to primal forces, to creative energies, to swelling stars, to swirling galaxies, to lumping matter, to bio-cells, to flourishing plants, to roaming animals, to exploring men, to expanding minds, to artificial intelligence. Ironically, the inherent randomness of evolution seems to be somehow steered -- by Natural Selection we're told -- toward increasing functional order within organizational complexity, as newer generations of systems & organisms -- against all entropic odds -- tend to become more efficiently arranged as time goes by.
Yet G*D, as known by our experience of Nature, doesn't seem to be a far-sighted engineer working with bespoke (made to order) components, but more like a near-sighted "tinkerer" using whatever materials are available for here & now needs. But the natural limitations of evolution may actually be more effective in the long run than the top-down magical creation myth in Genesis, which produced amoral Adam & Eve, flawed with sinful propensities and missing navels. Nature-mimicking bottom-up design procedures, despite delayed gratification, are now known in computer circles as Evolutionary Programming. Which has been found to be the most efficent way to create novel systems -- such as Artificial Intelligence -- so complex that their structure cannot be computed within practical time limits. Instead, the programmers let the system create itself from the ground up. So it seems that humans are learning to design their own sentient creatures by imitating the natural methods of the ultimate Creator. Who knows, perhaps that is the purpose of our meandering cosmos : to evolve fledgling gods in the image of their maker. Anyway, Modern Deism may be the only religious worldview that can accomodate both the empirical methods of Science, and the existential needs of Religion, with a realistic notion of divinity.
Post 6 continued . . . . click Next
G*D :
The presumed deity of Deism and Enformationism is not a top-down controller, but a bottom-up organizer. So any interventions will be viewed as acts of Nature. You might call them “intra-ventions” or “immiracles”..
Herein, G*D is envisioned as the mysterious Cause of the mundane Cosmos. It may be merely an abstract concept, as the Hindu Brahman : “the ultimate reality underlying all phenomena”. Or it might be the necessary BEING of Spinoza : “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists”. In any case, it is the most general & generic , universal & ubiquitous, essential & significant concept of all. Hubris? I think not.
Image :
Millions of blind men and their fragmented views of God