The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 19, 2018 7:46:36 GMT
If God is naturalistic and apersonal, how does that really differ in practice from an atheistic naturalist conception of reality? I would say it differs in that a naturalist's perspective of god is still a perspective of god, while an atheist may insist that such a perspective is absurd, for no god exists... not even a pantheistic or naturalistic god. But if God is merely defined as nature itself, surely to deny this God would be to deny nature? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 14:16:06 GMT
I would say it differs in that a naturalist's perspective of god is still a perspective of god, while an atheist may insist that such a perspective is absurd, for no god exists... not even a pantheistic or naturalistic god. But if God is merely defined as nature itself, surely to deny this God would be to deny nature? It's certainly a bit of semantics... some atheists may care for those semantics more than others  |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2018 14:43:22 GMT
But if God is merely defined as nature itself, surely to deny this God would be to deny nature? It's certainly a bit of semantics... some atheists may care for those semantics more than others
I bet it's the other way. If I were a theist I would certainly object to a definition of "God" that didn't specify a supernatural being with its own separate consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 19, 2018 14:52:47 GMT
Everything is indeed one thing in so far that we are 'are made from star dust' etc, etc. But that does mean the necessity of an over-arching mind. In my experience the grander and vaguer the concept of 'god' grows by interpretation the less specific its supposed powers and character are. Ultimately 'god' can end up as a purely symbolic gesture towards a functioning reality of no recognisable aims or responsibilities. Who said anything about an "over-arching mind"? For many the idea of 'god' drags in all sorts of notions of a preferred candidate of a deliberate, controlling supernatural. But obviously I am aware that, away from such 'old time religion' at least, those more sophisticated notions can be found. It would be silly though to ignore one of the most common (and fought about, and clung to) understanding of the term. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 21, 2018 21:14:12 GMT
"It's a criticism because if we're trying to describe how reality actually is, then we should separate how it is from how we conceptualize it. Thinking it "one thing" is a subjective, conceptual thing, rather than an accurate description of what reality itself is." Sure, I never presented it as anything else. Also labeling the universe as "one thing" is no less incorrect than labeling a word a a 'cognate'. "I think it's debatable whether the universe or the laws came first." That doesn't really make sense to me. Physical laws are not like legal laws. They are not written down somewhere, separate from the actions of individuals themselves. Considering this I dont see how that could be possible as "laws are useful fictions like "centres of gravity" are. "Calling chess a game is categorizing it into a larger/more universal concept (chess is a game, not all games are chess); I don't see how calling the universe "God" is categorizing it (all universes are gods, but not all gods are universes?)." 'God' has a meaning and the meaning is the criteria for something being that something. By saying "The universe is god" you are implying the universe satisfies condition x, condition y etc. I dont see how that is not categorizing. "Inventing words to describe something that's invented like language can't be correct or incorrect; our descriptions of reality most certainly can be correct or incorrect, and mistaking our conceptions of reality for how reality is is a particular mistake that many make constantly." Words CAN be applied consistently and correctly. If I say Astrology is science I am obviously incorrect. This is no different. "When I'm talking about "laws coming first" I'm talking about whatever it is that causes reality to behave like it does. "Laws" are indeed just our descriptions of how it behaves, but it behaves how it does for some reason." I dont see how it could come first. When we look at how things behave like they do it is because of how they are. That's like asking "what came first, the things that causes psychological "complexes" or human behavior itself?" "God has a meaning but that meaning typically has connotations like "consciousness being" which the universe doesn't have." The concept of god as an unthinking thing has been around for a long time. " I don't really see how calling the universe "God" is adding anything meaningful that calling it the "universe" doesn't already cover." Seriously? The word "universe" is a proper name as it is called in philosophy. Calling something by its proper name tells you nothing about it. That's just as ridiculous as saying "Why call bob's computer a machine when we can just call it bob's computer? Doesn't that already cover it?" or "Why refer to Donald Trump as the President of the United States when 'Donald Trump' already covers it?". |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 22, 2018 2:30:10 GMT
"Inventing words to describe something that's invented like language can't be correct or incorrect; our descriptions of reality most certainly can be correct or incorrect, and mistaking our conceptions of reality for how reality is is a particular mistake that many make constantly." Words CAN be applied consistently and correctly. If I say Astrology is science I am obviously incorrect. This is no different. "When I'm talking about "laws coming first" I'm talking about whatever it is that causes reality to behave like it does. "Laws" are indeed just our descriptions of how it behaves, but it behaves how it does for some reason." I dont see how it could come first. When we look at how things behave like they do it is because of how they are. That's like asking "what came first, the things that causes psychological "complexes" or human behavior itself?" "God has a meaning but that meaning typically has connotations like "consciousness being" which the universe doesn't have." The concept of god as an unthinking thing has been around for a long time. " I don't really see how calling the universe "God" is adding anything meaningful that calling it the "universe" doesn't already cover." Seriously? The word "universe" is a proper name as it is called in philosophy. Calling something by its proper name tells you nothing about it. That's just as ridiculous as saying "Why call bob's computer a machine when we can just call it bob's computer? Doesn't that already cover it?" or "Why refer to Donald Trump as the President of the United States when 'Donald Trump' already covers it?". Words can be applied correctly or incorrectly in terms of matching their definitions to the phenomena we're describing, yes, but that's not what I was talking about. That's the question about laws though: do things behave like they do as a "brute fact," or is there something more fundamental underlying their behavior? Plenty of God concepts have been around for a while, but that doesn't mean that the word God doesn't have certain strong connotations in this time and place. Again, your examples are about classifying specific things under a more general category. This isn't what you're doing by calling the universe God. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 22, 2018 12:49:42 GMT
"Inventing words to describe something that's invented like language can't be correct or incorrect; our descriptions of reality most certainly can be correct or incorrect, and mistaking our conceptions of reality for how reality is is a particular mistake that many make constantly." Words CAN be applied consistently and correctly. If I say Astrology is science I am obviously incorrect. This is no different. "When I'm talking about "laws coming first" I'm talking about whatever it is that causes reality to behave like it does. "Laws" are indeed just our descriptions of how it behaves, but it behaves how it does for some reason." I dont see how it could come first. When we look at how things behave like they do it is because of how they are. That's like asking "what came first, the things that causes psychological "complexes" or human behavior itself?" "God has a meaning but that meaning typically has connotations like "consciousness being" which the universe doesn't have." The concept of god as an unthinking thing has been around for a long time. " I don't really see how calling the universe "God" is adding anything meaningful that calling it the "universe" doesn't already cover." Seriously? The word "universe" is a proper name as it is called in philosophy. Calling something by its proper name tells you nothing about it. That's just as ridiculous as saying "Why call bob's computer a machine when we can just call it bob's computer? Doesn't that already cover it?" or "Why refer to Donald Trump as the President of the United States when 'Donald Trump' already covers it?". Words can be applied correctly or incorrectly in terms of matching their definitions to the phenomena we're describing, yes, but that's not what I was talking about. That's the question about laws though: do things behave like they do as a "brute fact," or is there something more fundamental underlying their behavior? Plenty of God concepts have been around for a while, but that doesn't mean that the word God doesn't have certain strong connotations in this time and place. Again, your examples are about classifying specific things under a more general category. This isn't what you're doing by calling the universe God. If calling the universe god isn't categorising then what is it? "Words can be applied correctly or incorrectly in terms of matching their definitions to the phenomena we're describing, yes, but that's not what I was talking about." Exactly. That's all I am doing here. What did you think I was doing? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 22, 2018 13:21:27 GMT
Words can be applied correctly or incorrectly in terms of matching their definitions to the phenomena we're describing, yes, but that's not what I was talking about. That's the question about laws though: do things behave like they do as a "brute fact," or is there something more fundamental underlying their behavior? Plenty of God concepts have been around for a while, but that doesn't mean that the word God doesn't have certain strong connotations in this time and place. Again, your examples are about classifying specific things under a more general category. This isn't what you're doing by calling the universe God. If calling the universe god isn't categorising then what is it? "Words can be applied correctly or incorrectly in terms of matching their definitions to the phenomena we're describing, yes, but that's not what I was talking about." Exactly. That's all I am doing here. What did you think I was doing? If I say "I am Brad Pitt," I'm not categorizing myself as Brad Pitt, I'm saying Brad Pitt and I are one and the same; if I say "Brad Pitt is a human," then I'm categorizing him. If you're saying "the universe is God," it's saying they're same thing, as opposed to categorizing it. You had said: "labeling the universe as "one thing" is no less incorrect than labeling a word a a 'cognate'." In response I said: "Inventing words to describe something that's invented like language can't be correct or incorrect; our descriptions of reality most certainly can be correct or incorrect..." It can only be "one thing" from a conceptual perspective, not from a reality perspective. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 22, 2018 17:32:22 GMT
If calling the universe god isn't categorising then what is it? "Words can be applied correctly or incorrectly in terms of matching their definitions to the phenomena we're describing, yes, but that's not what I was talking about." Exactly. That's all I am doing here. What did you think I was doing? If I say "I am Brad Pitt," I'm not categorizing myself as Brad Pitt, I'm saying Brad Pitt and I are one and the same; if I say "Brad Pitt is a human," then I'm categorizing him. If you're saying "the universe is God," it's saying they're same thing, as opposed to categorizing it. You had said: "labeling the universe as "one thing" is no less incorrect than labeling a word a a 'cognate'." In response I said: "Inventing words to describe something that's invented like language can't be correct or incorrect; our descriptions of reality most certainly can be correct or incorrect..." It can only be "one thing" from a conceptual perspective, not from a reality perspective. Brad Pitt is a proper name. "God" is not a proper name. It is a category we put things into. Just like "President of the United States". "One thing" refers to certain type of something. If you know nothing about the contents of a box and somebody tells you it contains an "individual thing" you absolutely learn something new about it because in order for something to be considered "one thing" it must have certain properties. If we give something a definition it can be applied either correctly or incorrectly in accordance with that definition. So we should call the universe an "individual thing" for the case of consistency and because it provides a correct description of reality. When somebody says x is a pizza this is shorthand for saying x is circular, has a base, contains cheese, tomato sauce etc. The same applies for saying x is an "individual thing". If you saying x is not y you are saying x lacks certain qualities of y. If you say x is not an "individual thing" you are saying x lacks the properties that make individual things individual things. So no these are statements about reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 23, 2018 2:26:36 GMT
If I say "I am Brad Pitt," I'm not categorizing myself as Brad Pitt, I'm saying Brad Pitt and I are one and the same; if I say "Brad Pitt is a human," then I'm categorizing him. If you're saying "the universe is God," it's saying they're same thing, as opposed to categorizing it. You had said: "labeling the universe as "one thing" is no less incorrect than labeling a word a a 'cognate'." In response I said: "Inventing words to describe something that's invented like language can't be correct or incorrect; our descriptions of reality most certainly can be correct or incorrect..." It can only be "one thing" from a conceptual perspective, not from a reality perspective. Brad Pitt is a proper name. "God" is not a proper name. It is a category we put things into. Just like "President of the United States". "One thing" refers to certain type of something. If you know nothing about the contents of a box and somebody tells you it contains an "individual thing" you absolutely learn something new about it because in order for something to be considered "one thing" it must have certain properties. If we give something a definition it can be applied either correctly or incorrectly in accordance with that definition. So we should call the universe an "individual thing" for the case of consistency and because it provides a correct description of reality. When somebody says x is a pizza this is shorthand for saying x is circular, has a base, contains cheese, tomato sauce etc. The same applies for saying x is an "individual thing". If you saying x is not y you are saying x lacks certain qualities of y. If you say x is not an "individual thing" you are saying x lacks the properties that make individual things individual things. So no these are statements about reality. Generally, "god" is only a category when it's used in polytheistic religions, not in monotheistic ones where it does function as a proper name (hence the capitalization). I thought I'd already covered this in previous posts. The things we tend to call "one thing" are often made up of billions (or more) particles in configuration space. We only group that configuration as "one thing" mentally in order to conceptualize reality in a way that's relevant to our existence/experience. So calling the universe "one thing" really only says something about our conception of it, not how reality actually is. Your pizza example doesn't contradict what I'm saying here. I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm not denying the existence or usefulness of mental categories, of grouping multiple things into a singular category or concept; what I'm saying is that doing so is a way of constructing useful "maps" of reality as opposed to saying something that's perfectly accurate about the "territory" of reality. When you look at a map, it certainly contains symbols that represent elements within the territory, but just as maps necessarily compress reality so that they don't contain every speck and spot and leaf and pebble that's in the territory, our mental maps do the same thing. Conceptualizing anything as "one thing" is just a way of talking about our mental concepts/maps, not really a way of accurately describing reality. |
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Feb 23, 2018 3:14:51 GMT
First reaction is to thumb's down the OP's position. Too many problems arise when people start extrapolating and considering the universe a thing like other every day things.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 23, 2018 18:56:08 GMT
Brad Pitt is a proper name. "God" is not a proper name. It is a category we put things into. Just like "President of the United States". "One thing" refers to certain type of something. If you know nothing about the contents of a box and somebody tells you it contains an "individual thing" you absolutely learn something new about it because in order for something to be considered "one thing" it must have certain properties. If we give something a definition it can be applied either correctly or incorrectly in accordance with that definition. So we should call the universe an "individual thing" for the case of consistency and because it provides a correct description of reality. When somebody says x is a pizza this is shorthand for saying x is circular, has a base, contains cheese, tomato sauce etc. The same applies for saying x is an "individual thing". If you saying x is not y you are saying x lacks certain qualities of y. If you say x is not an "individual thing" you are saying x lacks the properties that make individual things individual things. So no these are statements about reality. Generally, "god" is only a category when it's used in polytheistic religions, not in monotheistic ones where it does function as a proper name (hence the capitalization). I thought I'd already covered this in previous posts. The things we tend to call "one thing" are often made up of billions (or more) particles in configuration space. We only group that configuration as "one thing" mentally in order to conceptualize reality in a way that's relevant to our existence/experience. So calling the universe "one thing" really only says something about our conception of it, not how reality actually is. Your pizza example doesn't contradict what I'm saying here. I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm not denying the existence or usefulness of mental categories, of grouping multiple things into a singular category or concept; what I'm saying is that doing so is a way of constructing useful "maps" of reality as opposed to saying something that's perfectly accurate about the "territory" of reality. When you look at a map, it certainly contains symbols that represent elements within the territory, but just as maps necessarily compress reality so that they don't contain every speck and spot and leaf and pebble that's in the territory, our mental maps do the same thing. Conceptualizing anything as "one thing" is just a way of talking about our mental concepts/maps, not really a way of accurately describing reality. If God in monotheism is only a proper name then why do people say things like "there is no god" and include monotheistic gods in that sentence? Regarding the rest. I have no idea where you got the idea I disagreed with any of that. All I was saying is calling the universe and Individual thing is categorising and therefore describing how it is (whether implicit or not). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 19:19:49 GMT
I would say it differs in that a naturalist's perspective of god is still a perspective of god, while an atheist may insist that such a perspective is absurd, for no god exists... not even a pantheistic or naturalistic god. But if God is merely defined as nature itself, surely to deny this God would be to deny nature? Good question – I used this link on a recent thread of mine, but I think it speaks to both this topic and the “Morality is Evolving” thread – I’d be interested in your thoughts. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2018 23:20:40 GMT
But if God is merely defined as nature itself, surely to deny this God would be to deny nature? Good question – I used this link on a recent thread of mine, but I think it speaks to both this topic and the “Morality is Evolving” thread – I’d be interested in your thoughts. Might take me a while to get through that! Anything in particular about it that struck a chord with you? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 24, 2018 1:36:03 GMT
Generally, "god" is only a category when it's used in polytheistic religions, not in monotheistic ones where it does function as a proper name (hence the capitalization). I thought I'd already covered this in previous posts. The things we tend to call "one thing" are often made up of billions (or more) particles in configuration space. We only group that configuration as "one thing" mentally in order to conceptualize reality in a way that's relevant to our existence/experience. So calling the universe "one thing" really only says something about our conception of it, not how reality actually is. Your pizza example doesn't contradict what I'm saying here. I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm not denying the existence or usefulness of mental categories, of grouping multiple things into a singular category or concept; what I'm saying is that doing so is a way of constructing useful "maps" of reality as opposed to saying something that's perfectly accurate about the "territory" of reality. When you look at a map, it certainly contains symbols that represent elements within the territory, but just as maps necessarily compress reality so that they don't contain every speck and spot and leaf and pebble that's in the territory, our mental maps do the same thing. Conceptualizing anything as "one thing" is just a way of talking about our mental concepts/maps, not really a way of accurately describing reality. If God in monotheism is only a proper name then why do people say things like "there is no god" and include monotheistic gods in that sentence? Regarding the rest. I have no idea where you got the idea I disagreed with any of that. All I was saying is calling the universe and Individual thing is categorising and therefore describing how it is (whether implicit or not). Because there are multiple monotheistic gods which would make it a category if including all of them; but if you're only picking one and saying that is God (and there are no others), it really doesn't make sense to use it as a category since then there's only the one, and X (the universe, in this case) is it. Then it's not really a category. Because you keep saying you're "describing how it is," and you're not describing how something is by categorizing it. Categorizing it is a way of organizing our maps, not really "describing reality." |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 24, 2018 11:12:33 GMT
If God in monotheism is only a proper name then why do people say things like "there is no god" and include monotheistic gods in that sentence? Regarding the rest. I have no idea where you got the idea I disagreed with any of that. All I was saying is calling the universe and Individual thing is categorising and therefore describing how it is (whether implicit or not). Because there are multiple monotheistic gods which would make it a category if including all of them; but if you're only picking one and saying that is God (and there are no others), it really doesn't make sense to use it as a category since then there's only the one, and X (the universe, in this case) is it. Then it's not really a category. Because you keep saying you're "describing how it is," and you're not describing how something is by categorizing it. Categorizing it is a way of organizing our maps, not really "describing reality." Re maps. So what? That's not an excuse not to be a theist. All I am saying is God has a set of properties normally associated with the signifier "god". If you believe God has the properties described ahove then you are not an atheist but really a theist. To me a theist is not someone who believes in a being that they call god but someone who believes in a being with the properties normally associated with god. Saying "these are only mental categories and not describing how the world really is" is like saying matter is only a mental category and that therefore materialism is wrong. No. God is not a proper name. That's why atheists say things like "Your god is not real and neither are any gods". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 13:31:47 GMT
Good question – I used this link on a recent thread of mine, but I think it speaks to both this topic and the “Morality is Evolving” thread – I’d be interested in your thoughts. Might take me a while to get through that! Anything in particular about it that struck a chord with you? Yes, it is long - I found it while searching some ideas here that reminded me of Whitehead and his conception of God as a "fellow sufferer." I think what most applies to the 2 threads I mentioned is his thought on the "problem of evil" as expressed on pages 18 - 20: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 16:51:45 GMT
I would say it differs in that a naturalist's perspective of god is still a perspective of god, while an atheist may insist that such a perspective is absurd, for no god exists... not even a pantheistic or naturalistic god. But if God is merely defined as nature itself, surely to deny this God would be to deny nature? Sure. And if god is merely defined as bananas, then surely to deny that god would be to deny bananas? The question is whether applying that definition actually serves any useful purpose. Otherwise it's just semantic masturbation. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 24, 2018 17:41:54 GMT
But if God is merely defined as nature itself, surely to deny this God would be to deny nature? Sure. And if god is merely defined as bananas, then surely to deny that god would be to deny bananas? The question is whether applying that definition actually serves any useful purpose. Otherwise it's just semantic masturbation. What would be a definition of God that has a "useful purpose"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 17:55:29 GMT
Sure. And if god is merely defined as bananas, then surely to deny that god would be to deny bananas? The question is whether applying that definition actually serves any useful purpose. Otherwise it's just semantic masturbation. What would be a definition of God that has a "useful purpose"? One that distinguishes it from other things which we already have names for. The use being that we could then discuss it with one another and all know what the hell we were talking about. |
|
