philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 01, 2018, 12:52 (2034 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: You omitted the three explanations of life’s origin that I was referring to! I will therefore repeat them: an unknown mind called God, the creative genius of chance, the evolving intelligence of materials. Belief in any of these requires faith beyond reason.

TONY: Faith is "assured expectation". Without reason, there is no assurance.

Assured by what/whom? Faith is a firm belief and/or trust in something or someone. Atheists have faith in the creative genius of chance. I’d put your faith/firm belief in an unknown, sourceless mind called God on a par with theirs, as going beyond reason. (That doesn’t mean theists and atheists do not have good reasons for their respective beliefs in God/chance: it simply means that both theories leave so many unanswered questions that one needs to go beyond reason in order to have a firm belief in either.)

DHW: Once more: I have no more idea how personality and consciousness, or the complexities of life, can arise from impersonal materials than I have of how personality and consciousness and a designing mind can always have been there, without a source, for ever and ever in the form of your God. Hence my agnosticism.

TONY: Neither can I, hence the reason I believe(as opposed to 'have faith') that his consciousness grew over time from formless energy.

I see no more reason to believe that formless energy has somehow always been conscious, but "grew", than to believe that formless energy transmuted itself into materials, which over time somehow produced and developed their own forms of consciousness.

DAVID: Here we are the same yet different: I think God is energy but was always conscious at the level that is currently present. I don't think formless energy plasma can develop intelligence and consciousness on its own.

But you do think that formless energy already had omniscient intelligence and consciousness which came from nowhere.

TONY: Since when does someone not gain experience/knowledge through the process of creation? I think flora and fauna has purpose, but I also see traces of sheer joy in creation. I think the better question is, why shouldn't he create things that are simply whimsical and fun?

DHW: I love it. You are coming closer and closer to my hypothesis that your God created material life as a spectacle for himself to enjoy. And I will also go along with you that the spectacle would widen his experience through pleasures and pains unknown to the spiritual world […]

TONY: No, not really. I believe there was far greater purpose beyond mere 'spectacle'. However, He is described as the 'happy god', in addition to his other qualities.

He is also described as an angry God, an indifferent God, a jealous God etc...I await more news of the “far greater purpose”, other than for your God to “grow”, which still fits in neatly with the “spectacle” from which he can learn all the time.

TONY: I see no reason he would not take joy in his creation.

Nor do I. He would hardly have created the great spectacle if he didn’t want to enjoy it.

TONY: I simply disagree that 'spectacle' or 'boredom relief' was his primary purpose.

I’ve left out your car analogy, because all designers have a purpose. By all means disagree, but a) can you fault the logic of the hypothesis, and b) as above, please sum up in as few words as possible what you think was the primary purpose.

DHW: How does “love” counteract the logic of your God continuing to relieve his initial boredom/loneliness by creating the on-going spectacle of material life, filled as it is with love and hate, pain and pleasure etc.?

TONY: Because love is not self-serving.

Don’t you derive personal joy from loving your family? And doesn’t your personal joy “serve” you? (That does not preclude sacrificing your own interests to serve theirs.) Or are you thinking specifically of your God’s love, meaning that he couldn’t have created the spectacle to relieve his isolation/boredom because love is not self-serving. See above and below for the self-serving joy of love. However, if your God exists, and although we could then be in shocking trouble if he doesn’t love us, how do you know that he loves us? (Cue for David to scream: "Too severely humanizing!")

DAVID: No, love can be rewarding in receiving love in return.

TONY: I do not disagree. However, consider what you said. It can be rewarding to BE loved (i.e. receiving the other person's non-self-serving love.)

We can say that the reward for loving and being loved is personal joy, which is self-serving. So you can serve yourself by gaining the pleasure of serving someone else or of being served by them. I still don’t know why you think love precludes the possibility that your God’s prime purpose was to put an end to his isolation/boredom. Having something to love and be loved by (self-serving or not) would be a great way to fill the void, and would explain the anger and frustration so rife in the OT, while we can also have him enjoying the weird and wonderful goings-on as the pre-human spectacle unfolds itself (because I very much doubt that trilobites and dinosaurs would have shown him much love). I still think you and I are developing a similar vision here as regards your God’s purpose, even if it is too severely humanizing for David.