Problems with this section (Agnosticism)

by Frank Paris , Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 17:23 (5505 days ago) @ dhw

"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."-You're right about one thing. I went too far in saying that "science has utterly refuted the notion..." etc. etc. I should have said that science has made such a notion superfluous, and by Occam's razor we don't need to make that hypothesis.-But, to be somewhat picayune, I don't think your analogy is valid. I believe that science can "refute the notion that there is a universe beyond our own in which mice eat lions." Not if by "mice" and "lions" you mean mice and lions with the biology they have here on Earth. Naturally, we could conceive of predacious creatures as small as mice that might be able to attack large predators like lions by swarming over them, but then they wouldn't be mice, would they?-You go on to say, "If God is not some kind of being with a mind, I see no difference between God and Nature." Well, we won't have to investigate your conclusion because that is not my hypothesis. In my theology, God does have a mind, an infinitely conscious mind that loves and wishes for our self-actualization, but can only help us get there through persuasion, which requires consciousness both on the part of God and us.-"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." Well, since that isn't what I'm saying, we don't have to following that line of thought.-"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."-I hold to a panentheistic view: God is in Nature, but he is also external to it. God is the ground of Nature and the nature of God determines the nature of Nature. But God is not responsible for the particular forms that arise in Nature.-'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 don't even have to substitute "Nature" for "God" to "have an atheist account of the origin of life and evolution." I think the atheist account is perfectly satisfying. Questions of the origin of life and evolution are questions for science, not theology. It's the kiss of death for theology to get involved in those questions.-'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.'-Fundamentally, our ground is in God. But God is infinite and we are finite. However, we have reach the stage of biological complexity where we can look within ourselves and perceive the identity of our infinite ground with God himself. This happens in experiences of "mystical union with God," as testified by the great mystics throughout the ages.-'You have said this is not so, however, and "All is One".' I don't think you can reach this conclusion through discursive thought. It's something that certain individuals have "realized" from time to time throughout the ages. Meditation practices can shed layer after layer of "illusions" we have about ourselves until ultimately we realize the full identity of the ground of our being with God himself. But for the most part, these are temporary states of being, where our illusions return us to normal consciousness. Any individuals who are permanently in that state of being are regularly identified as "incarnations of God," as Krishna and Jesus were recognized as.-'I'm only puzzled that you should feel it necessary to complicate the pattern by bringing in "God".' It stems from personal religious experiences that I can't and feel no inclination to shake off. Ultimately, I believe that the source of all religions are these religious experiences that compel some kind of belief in God. Religions aren't just a product of wishful thinking, although to be sure this is the basis of most religious belief in most people.