Problems with this section (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 13:07 (5505 days ago) @ Frank Paris

Frank has responded to questions posed by David and myself, but has not got beyond my own first paragraph.-First of all, thank you for taking so much trouble over your response, and apologies if our welcome to the forum has put you straight into the hot seat. Matt's references to process theology have whetted our appetite, and your arrival on the scene promises to open up new dimensions, but please don't be put off if we grill you!-Your response has covered some of the points I raised in my post, but do please read the rest of it as it will provide you with some of the background from earlier discussions.-You write: I don't think it's possible to talk about God in objective terms.-No problem. We only want to know what is your subjective view of God.-You write: If you have to ask what I mean by "the sense of the sacred" [...] then not much of anything I am likely to post up on this forum is going to be of interest to you.-Even the most fundamental of atheists, such as Dawkins, can have a sense of wonderment at life, which may be akin to your sense of the sacred. As an agnostic, I have no difficulty equating the one with the other. Part of me bows down in awe to God, part of me bows down in awe to an impersonal Nature. -You write: I'm with Dawkins in claiming that science has utterly refuted the notion of some kind of being "out there" or even "within" that has a mind that can conceive complex forms and somehow "force" them into existence according to his will.-First of all, science cannot refute such a notion, any more than science can refute the notion that there is a universe beyond our own in which mice eat lions and my useless football team wins the cup every year. Secondly, you say "None of that is needed! The laws of nature by themselves are sufficient to effect the myriad of forms that we see in the natural world. In my theology, however, the laws of nature proceed from the very essence of God." 
If God is not some kind of being with a mind, I see no difference between God and Nature. In that case, you are saying that the laws of Nature proceed from the very essence of Nature, which is certainly logical but not very illuminating. If you are not saying that God is Nature, then God must be different from Nature, in which case perhaps you could explain in what way.-You go on to say that the "fundamental particles are little pieces of God, supremely unconscious pieces of God because they are so simple" but these "collect together". These organisms eventually "reach a state of complexity where they themselves become conscious and can "hook up" with God. Before that point, evolution truly is undirected and completely out of the conscious control of God." 
Apart from the "conscious control" (of which more in a moment), you need only substitute "Nature" for "God" and you have an atheist account of the origin of life and evolution. You have said the same in your response to my first paragraph: "Metabolism [...] is just something perfectly natural that happens in a "soup" of chemical reactions." I have tried to summarize the problem in the second paragraph of my first post to you, which briefly is that this simplistic version of the origin of life and evolution ignores the extraordinary complexities involved, and entails precisely the same atheist faith in chance that I personally find just as impossible to embrace as faith in some sort of designer.-Your next step appears initially to move you away from atheism: "But once (for example) organisms reach the point where they have a sense of beauty, God can step in and start "taking over", little by little. Human beings are merely on the threshold of coming under the conscious control of God." This indicates that your concept of God is of something conscious, and terms like "step in" and "take over" suggest some kind of being that is separate from ourselves. You have said this is not so, however, and "All is One". Are you, then, arguing that undirected "natural laws" have chanced to create consciousness, and our human consciousness makes us aware of the sacredness, the wonders, the one-ness of existence, and these are what you call God? If so, why bother with the word God at all? Why not say life is the product of impersonal, unconscious Nature, and we conscious humans are just beginning to understand and appreciate Nature's wonders? -That, I would say, is atheism. And I see nothing wrong with it if one is prepared to gloss over the complexities involved in the emergence of life and consciousness. I'm only puzzled that you should feel it necessary to complicate the pattern by bringing in "God". But as has frequently happened in my discussions with Matt, I may have totally misunderstood you, in which case I hope you'll be patient and will try again!