You may not have intended it this way, but that comes across as both dismissive and irrelevant. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry if it came across that way. But I was indirectly agreeing with your conclusion : "I think this is the best time to be alive". I even added a second PS, that may apply, if you get your bad news first hand. In my retirement gig, I now get to experience some of the "real world" in the urban ghettos of Chocolate City, as contrasted with Vanilla Suburb. Not to mention the napalming of Vietnam.

But you seemed to imply that my somewhat positive worldview is based on Faith instead of Facts*1. Yet I rejected the "overarching narrative" of my childhood and constructed a philosophical worldview of my own from scratch. If I "wanted to believe" a fairy tale, my native religion had a happy ending to look forward to. But my current view does not predict anything for me, beyond this not-so-good-not-so-bad lifetime.

My personal worldview happens to agree with A.N. Whitehead about the Teleological trend in evolution. Which seems to align with your "best time" quote above. Yet, my "real world" has both Good & Bad features. But, like Anne Frank, I choose not to dwell on the downside. :smile:

*1. Excerpt from your post above : "Things may appear a certain way to us because we want to believe. We are sense-making creatures compelled to find or impose an overarching narrative on everything."

'm sorry if it came across that way. — Gnomon

No problem. We're just threshing things out.

But my current view does not predict anything for me, beyond this not-so-good-not-so-bad lifetime. — Gnomon

Fair enough.

But you seemed to imply that my somewhat positive worldview is based on Faith instead of Facts*1. — Gnomon

No. We all see what we want to see. The point of philosophy, as I see it, is to notice what we've overlooked. But how do we get there? That's rhetorical: no need for an answer.

My personal worldview happens to agree with A.N. Whitehead about the Teleological trend in evolution. Which seems to align with your "best time" quote above. Yet, my "real world" has both Good & Bad features. But, like Anne Frank, I choose not to dwell on the downside. :smile: — Gnomon

For Whitehead, I think the divine aim is creativity, higher degrees of complexity, awareness and experience. Whitehead plainly states his view that "God is not a petty moralist" clearly indicating that our human moral concerns may not be relevant to the underlying divine principle. The divine works through nature and natural processes such as evolution. The divine presents the possibility for actualization and satisfaction for each occasion of experience (actual occasion or event) but the divine acts through persuasion not coercion. So the world advances and retreats the divine lure is discarded due to the agency power of all "true actualities" . There is creation and destruction but the overall path seems to be higher levels of complexity, intensity of experience and creative advance. Perhaps artists, musicians and writers are closer to the divine than priests and preachers.

Indeed. Part of me believes that the animal is in a superior position to the human. They have what they need. They require no gadgets, no psychotherapies, no fictional narratives through which to interpret their existence. They act, they live, and that is enough. In contrast, we are burdened by self-consciousness- forever constructing and deconstructing meaning, seeking justification, and struggling to feel at home in the world and often being dreadful to all an sundry while we go about it.

Yes, very much so. One can see human evolution as a devolution in many ways. All this meditation, prayer, self development that religious, or spiritual people strive to master is merely to regain that purity of animals and plants that we have lost. Even within human experience there is a devolution. I once met an old guy while sitting in a forest, he just walked up to me and asked where I was going. During the conversation he (after having mentioned that he was an architect) said that the highest achievement of humanity was the capital order, the classical Greek architecture which has become the standard for most architecture since. That it has been downhill from there.

We mustn’t dismiss our over active brains though, they have given us the opportunity to develop civilisation, scientific knowledge and technology. And all things being well, we will get over our self destructive nature (eventually) and take our role of custodians of the biosphere of our planet. Demonstrating that intelligent life can coexist and live alongside a rich ecosystem.

The function of Modern news networks is to collect information about "dysfunction and suffering: children with cancer, mass starvation, natural disasters, a clusterfuck of disease and disorder" from around the world, and funnel it into your eyes & ears.

Alongside the more sinister role being adopted by our media in recent times. Of spreading populist lies and disinformation. Spreading the propaganda devised by megalomaniac oligarch press barons, to divide and rule, to turn man against man to keep the socialists away. To erode democracy and the rule of law, to oppress the poor reducing their ability to fight back, etc etc.

No. We all see what we want to see. The point of philosophy, as I see it, is to notice what we've overlooked. But how do we get there? That's rhetorical: no need for an answer. — Tom Storm

I agree. So, here's my rhetorical response to "how do we get there?" :
Humans are inclined to accept new information that fits neatly into the current worldview of their social group, whether religious or political or scientific. Such naive tribal certainty tends to result in social conflict between neighboring faith communities. That's why Philosophy, especially Skepticism, was designed to dig into belief systems below the superficial stuff, down to the fundamentals. For Aristotle, perhaps the most fundamental force in the world is the First Cause that set us on the course we now see more clearly, due to the filled-in details of scientific cosmology.

For my own personal worldview, one "overlooked" force in both physics and metaphysics is Information. Which my thesis heretically labels as EnFormAction (Energy + Laws ; Causation + Direction). Physical science has only recently recognized the connection between Active Energy and Meaningful Information*1. My philosophical thesis follows this creative relationship from Big Bang to Atomic Bomb, and Singularity to Single-Mindedness. Yet, I discovered later that A.N. Whitehead had already described this innovative Process in his seminal book, Process and Reality. There, he refers to the First & Final Cause as "God", in a functional philosophical sense, not as a faithful religious belief.

His computer-like Process is not a fait-accompli miracle, but a slowly-evolving trial & error search pattern for some ultimate outcome, apparently defined only in terms of properties & qualia & values, that we can't express in conventional words & numbers. Materialistic Philosophy deliberately overlooks creativity in Nature, due to its historical implications of divine intervention into physical processes. But in my thesis, and Whitehead's, the creativity is built into the program from the beginning. As you said, "we see what we want to see" --- what conforms to our prior belief system. And Materialism is a metaphysical belief system, that guides the believer's eyes toward confirming or contradicting information. It's a good guide for analytical Chemistry, but not for Quantum Physics, or mental Philosophy. :nerd:


*1. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

If pushed, and speaking from a human perspective, you might say the world appears designed and calibrated for dysfunction and suffering: children with cancer, mass starvation, natural disasters, a clusterfuck of disease and disorder wherever you look. Not to mention the defective psychology of humans. But I don't believe this theory either. Things may appear a certain way to us because we want to believe. We are sense-making creatures compelled to find or impose an overarching narrative on everything. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry that's the "narrative" you impose on the world, "from a human perspective". But it "overlooks" a lot of good stuff that gets left out of the lurid tabloid news, and post-apocalyptic dystopian movies. In a competition for who feels the pain of the world most deeply, I would lose by default. That's because I wear a pain-coat called myopic Stoicism*2, which focuses attention on what is within my arm's length, and lets anything beyond that fade into the painless background. :wink:


*2. Happiness : A powerful Stoic quote is "You have power over your mind – not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength." This quote, attributed to Marcus Aurelius, emphasizes that while we cannot control external circumstances, we can control our reactions to them, which ultimately determines our happiness and strength. This quote highlights the importance of focusing on what is within our control, which is our thoughts and actions, rather than dwelling on things we cannot change.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stoic+quotes

The most sophisticated accont of God just is the account of God given by the classical theistic faiths: God is Being and Existence Itself, ipsum esse subsistens. The concept of God as a very powerful superhuman entity, who may or may not exist, on the same stage of existence as creatures albeit very far away, is actually a conceptual construction of Christianity. Predominantly, who we have to blame for that is Duns Scotus and the nominalism of Ockham with their disavowal of the Analogia Entis.

So ironically, we first had the utmost sophisticated account of God before we had the version which is easier to rail against as a naturalist.

The only form I can think of which might be more sophisticated is the thought of the mystics and their extreme forays into the abstruse and their stronger emphasis on the via negativa and apophatic theology ala the Divine Nothingness of Jon Scotus Eriugena.

For Whitehead, I think the divine aim is creativity, higher degrees of complexity, awareness and experience. . . . . There is creation and destruction but the overall path seems to be higher levels of complexity, intensity of experience and creative advance. — prothero

"Divine Aim" is a controversial concept in modern philosophy. But, if you combine physical Cosmology with biological Evolution, it's obvious that the universe started with almost nothing but cosmic Potential, and gradually created Matter (the neatly organized table of elements) from raw amorphous Energy (power to cause change) and Natural Laws (limitations on change), then complexified each stage (suprasystems) of evolution, until Awareness & Experience emerged in the most recent step toward some unpredictable "higher degree" of organization.

So, what was the Big Bang shot-in-the-dark aiming at? As you suggested, complexity & consciousness seem to be on the increase --- at least on the only planet we can observe directly. Yet, some focus their criticism on the pruning effects of natural selection on the fractal branches of creation, including mass extinctions of organisms, and the prophesied anthropogenic Apocalypse. Nevertheless, the "overall path" seems to be an upward curve tending toward some ultimate Omega Point {image below}. Personally, I wouldn't call that ultimate goal the "Cosmic Christ", but the general implication seems to be in the ballpark.

I would also hesitate to predict the transition to a "new state of existence" or "technological transcendence" as postulated by Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near". So, I'm content to accept the non-specific notion of an "aim" or Final Cause guiding the path of evolution. I'll let others prophesy about the details of that a> Ultimate End or b> New Beginning or c> Heat Death. But, I can accept Aristotle's inference that a First & Final Cause (G*D??) is necessary for us to make sense of what's going on. :smile:



*1. "Upward evolution" can refer to two concepts: a general direction of increasing complexity and sophistication in biological or social systems, or a specific type of evolutionary process where systems grow through the development of successive suprasystems, according to Brill. In the former, it's often associated with the idea that evolution has led to increased complexity and sophistication over time. In the latter, it's a specific process where systems develop by adding layers of organization above existing structures.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=upward+evolution

*2. The "Omega Point" is a concept, originating in the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, that describes a future state of the universe where all things are drawn towards a final point of unification and maximum complexity. It's often compared to the Christian Logos, or Christ, who draws all things into himself. The Omega Point is considered a point of spiritual or cosmic significance, potentially marking the end of evolution or a transition to a new state of existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=omega+point

A scientific account doesn’t describe life as an “accident” in any meaningful sense. It simply explains that life arose through natural processes. To call it an “accident” is to impose a value-laden metaphor onto a description that is, at its core, neutral. — Tom Storm

I agree. But I suspect that those who describe Cosmic Evolution as "accidental" do intend to imply a negative value opposed to the notion of intentional divine creation. Randomness is indeed a necessary function of physical & biological evolution. But so is Natural Selection, which implies a positive goal-oriented value. Darwin used future-focused human breeders as examples of selecting plants & animals for desirable qualities in next generations. Those YinYang dual functions work together to produce novel forms, and to test them for conformance to specified values of suitability for human purposes : Fitness. The mechanism of Progressive Evolution appeared, even to Darwin, as-if "designed" to create new generations with higher levels of Fitness (a value-laden metaphor). "To Evolve" simply means to develop in cycles & gradations ; but the term can be assigned either positive & negative values, depending on the worldview of the speaker.

For example, on this forum, some posters respond to "God" questions with scathing negativity. And their low opinion of "the creation" is expressed by denigrating the supposed pinnacle of divine creativity : god-fearing upright apes. Moreover, their devaluation of humanity is expressed in harsh god-like judgements : as when Adam & Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden for daring to dabble in Morality (knowledge of Good & Evil). For example, pastor Jonathan Edwards, in his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", described those moralizing apes, created in the image of God, as "loathesome insects"*1. Ironically some Atheists & Antinatalists ask sarcastically, "is this --- barely moral homo sapiens --- the best that creation or natural evolution can offer?"

Personally, my "value-laden metaphors" would tend to be more positive, since the progression of Evolution did not stop with ape morality. And the burden of justice for post-industrial-age apes has shifted to the artificial Cultures & civil laws that have evolved beyond Material chemical complexity into the realm of Mental standards of civilization. Which some of us still violate to this day. :smile:


*1. "O sinner! The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked."
https://gracequotes.org/quote/o-sinner-the-god-that-holds-you-over-the-pit-of-hell-much-as-one-holds-a-spider-or-some-loathsome-insect-over-the-fire-abhors-you-and-is-dreadfully-provoked-his-wrath-towards-you-burns-like-fir/

The divine presents the possibility for actualization and satisfaction for each occasion of experience (actual occasion or event) but the divine acts through persuasion not coercion. [ ... ] Perhaps artists, musicians and writers [and scientists] are closer to the divine than priests and preachers [and politricksters]. — prothero

A Tolkienesque 'theodicy' (re: mission of the Istari). :sparkle:

The only form I can think of which might be more sophisticated is the thought of the mystics and their extreme forays into the abstruse and their stronger emphasis on the via negativa and apophatic theology ala the Divine Nothingness of Jon Scotus Eriugena — Bodhy

For me, an even more "sophisticated" conception is the natura naturans of Spinoza's unmanifest substance (i.e. Deus, sive natura) that is consistent – imho has strong affinities – with both sub specie aeternitatis acosmism and sub specie durationis pandeism (à la Eriugena).

But you seemed to imply that my somewhat positive worldview is based on Faith instead of Facts*1. Yet I rejected the "overarching narrative" of my childhood and constructed a philosophical worldview of my own from scratch. — Gnomon

No, I don't imply that, since I don't know whether you have a positive worldview or not. To me, it seems like you're working terribly hard to overcome a wounding experience in a fundamentalist religion. I'm not sure I would call that positive. Perhaps it's a determined effort to find somewhere safe?

No, I don't imply that, since I don't know whether you have a positive worldview or not. To me, it seems like you're working terribly hard to overcome a wounding experience in a fundamentalist religion. I'm not sure I would call that positive. Perhaps it's a determined effort to find somewhere safe? — Tom Storm

Ha! :grin:
That's the exact opposite of my childhood religious experience. The Johnathan Edwards quote in my last post was an expression of extreme Calvinism. He focused on our "fallen" nature, as compared to the perfection of God. Hence he imagined that God would be so offended by the sinfulness of creatures created in his own image, that the Creator would gladly exterminate them in the waste-basket of eternal hell-fire. So, if I had been exposed to such a religion, I might indeed be psychically wounded.

By contrast, my small independent church was locally governed by untrained elders, not indoctrinated priests or pastors. So there was no institutional creed, and we were encouraged to freely interpret the Bible, using god-given reason. My little church was Fundamentalist (Arminianism) only in the sense that it believed and taught that the Bible, not the Pope-led Roman institution, was the sole authority on God's intention for the creation.

Ironically, as I began to exercise that rational freedom, I learned that the New Testament was actually Imperial Catholic propaganda, and not the revealed Word of God. So, I gradually evolved away from my youthful bible-based belief system. Yet as I learned more about secular Science, I realized that some kind of First Cause (pre-big-bang) or G*D was logically necessary to make sense of our contingent world, evolving toward some unknown Destination.

My philosophical & scientific self-education continued over the rest of my life, without any formal training, except for basic courses in the four subdivisions of Science. My only philosophical course in college was Logic, which was a math requirement. Since I retired though, this forum has been my philosophical Academy & Lyceum. So, my personal worldview has been tested by plenty of opposing opinions.

Although I am aware of the incomplete evolution of Nature, and the faults & failings of nascent human Culture, my worldview is generally positive. I sometimes refer to it as "Pragmatic Idealism". My knowledge of the mundane practical aspect of Reality comes from physical Science --- including materialistic Chemistry, and semi-material Quantum Physics. But the impractical theoretical knowledge of immaterial Ideality*1 stems from my self-education in Philosophy. So, my "safe place" is in my own mind.

Did Plato & Aristotle have a "positive" worldview? Obviously, Plato's imaginary Ideal realm was a metaphor to strive toward, not an ivory-tower imaginary Utopia. Likewise, my worldview is similar to Whitehead's open-ended "Process" toward some tantalizing ultimate unknown goal. It's also similar to Plato's 2500 year old philosophy of Eudaimonia*2, except that his notion of a Soul, separate from the body, is interpreted in terms of modern Information theory : it's all information, all the way down. If that doesn't make sense to you, you're welcome to peruse the Enformationism website & blog*3. :nerd:



*1. Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
A. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
B. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Plato's worldview :
while sometimes seen as idealistic, contains several elements that can be interpreted as positive and contribute to a hopeful outlook on life and society. Here are some key aspects:

# Pursuit of the Good and Happiness (Eudaimonia):
Plato, like Aristotle, emphasized the concept of eudaimonia, which translates to "happiness" or "flourishing". He believed that true happiness results from the virtuous pursuit of one's potential and living in accordance with reason and moral virtue. The four cardinal virtues – wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice – are seen as essential for a happy life.
# Emphasis on Reason and Knowledge:
Plato highly valued reason as the guiding principle for a balanced and virtuous life, believing it should govern emotions and desires. He saw ignorance as the root of unethical behavior and stressed the importance of knowledge. His famous quote, "the unexamined life is not worth living," underscores the value of critical self-examination and philosophical inquiry.
# Belief in a Higher Reality and the Forms:
Plato's Theory of Forms proposes a higher, perfect, and unchanging reality beyond the physical world, which can offer a sense of hope and meaning. The Forms, including the Form of the Good, are considered the ultimate source of existence and knowledge, providing a basis for objective truth and moral standards.
# Vision of a Just Society:
In The Republic, Plato explored the concept of justice and the structure of an ideal state that promotes the well-being of its citizens. He believed that justice is achieved when individuals fulfill their proper roles, leading to a harmonious society.
# Positive View of Death:
Through Socrates, Plato presented a positive belief in death, viewing it as a potential liberation of the soul from the body. This perspective encourages courage in facing the unknown and highlights the eternal nature of the soul.

In summary, Plato's positive worldview includes the pursuit of a virtuous and happy life through reason and knowledge, the existence of a higher reality providing a foundation for truth and morality, the vision of a just society, and a courageous acceptance of death. These ideas continue to influence philosophical discussions on ethics and the meaning of existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+positive+worldview

*3. BothAnd Blog https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page50.html
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page37.html

, I realized that some kind of First Cause (pre-big-bang) or G*D was logically necessary to make sense of our contingent world, evolving toward some unknown Destination. — Gnomon

Maybe, but certainly not physically necessary for modeling the universe (i.e. physus) and its development (re: cosmogeny).

Also, how does "some unknown Destination" in any way "make sense" of a spacetime that, based on the best current scientific cosmology, is more likely to be unbounded – without beginning or ending like a sphere, torus, klein bottle, möbius loop, fractal series or any of countless nonlinear geometries – than not unbounded (given such scientific speculations as e.g. Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology or Hartle-Hawkin's No Boundary Proposal or Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics)? :chin:

I agree the universe (seems) ontologically contingent but that in no way entails that it had a "beginning" or will "end", only that it is always possible for it to change – develop – including in unpredictable and incomprehensible ways.

Likewise, my worldview is similar to Whitehead's open-ended "Process" toward some tantalizing ultimate unknown goal.

Occult teleology (i.e woo-of-the-gaps).

it's all information, all the way down

And this tell us (explains) what exactly? :roll:

Ha! :grin:
That's the exact opposite of my childhood religious experience. — Gnomon

I'm glad to hear it. :up:

Ha! :grin:
That's the exact opposite of my childhood religious experience. — Gnomon
I'm glad to hear it. :up: — Tom Storm

Thanks. Now that we have established that my philosophical worldview is not a religious search for a "safe place" in heaven, let's consider what it actually is. And what it does not entail.

Because of his history of harshly deprecating ideas that don't fit his personal (immanent) worldview --- seen from inside our directly knowable bubble world --- I don't reply to 's saracastic, supercillious & science-based diatribes against the philosophical concept of Transcendence. Therefore, since you are more reasonable, I will instead direct my response to you.

First, this is a philosophical forum, not a science symposium. So his assertion that it's not "physically necessary" to postulate a pre-bang Cause, in order to scientifically model our space-time universe, is beside the point of this thread about a complete philosophical account of the Creator God concept. Such a philosophical model must explain the source of Energy & Laws that produced the event originally described as-if an explosion of nothing into something*1.

He admits that our universe had a Big Bang beginning, hence is "ontologically contingent". But then asserts that " in no way entails that it had a 'beginning' or will 'end' ". Yet professional cosmologists have reached that very entailment*2. Note that "cold & empty" (heat death) is a return to the presumed original state of nothingness before the the hot & dense bang. What do you think? Is our universe Static & Eternal, or Dynamic & Destined to end?

Then, he declares that it's "more likely to be unbounded – without beginning or ending". That may be true, but the description fits the image of a bubble of space-time expanding from the initial Singularity out into the nothingness of Eternity. We are inside the bubble and can't get out. So, in that sense we are bounded by the limits of physical Reality. Yet. our spooky minds can imagine a view from outside our physical prison. {image below}

How would you characterize his characterization of A.N. Whitehead's Progressive Process worldview :
"Occult teleology (i.e woo-of-the-gaps)". Does that sound like a rational philosophical argument to you? :smile:


*1. Yes, the Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted scientific explanation for the beginning of space-time. It proposes that the universe originated from a single, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded and evolved into the cosmos we observe today.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+the+most+generally+accepted+scientific+hypothesis+for+the+beginning+of+space-time+is+the+Big+Bang+theory

*2. While the Big Bang theory suggests a beginning, it also proposes that the universe is expanding and accelerating, potentially leading to a Big Freeze, where it becomes cold and empty.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=does+the+universe+have+a+beginning+and+an+end

*3. "In Einstein's book about relativity, he says that his theory predicts that the shape of the universe would be finite but unbounded. . . .
Extending the idea to 4D spacetime in an intuitive way is difficult, but one could think of a finite, unbounded Universe as one in which, if you travel long enough in the same direction in spacetime, you come back to where you began, rather than reaching the 'edge of the Universe'."
Note --- Bounded : You can't get out of this world alive.

YOU ARE INSIDE THE BUBBLE UNIVERSE.
Only a transcendent entity gets this view from outside space-time

- I don't[can't] reply to ↪180 Proof's saracastic, supercillious & science-based diatribes against the philosophical[superstitious] concept of Transcendence. — Gnomon

Poor Gnomon, so scared of big bad Reason. :smirk:

Thanks. Now that we have established that my philosophical worldview is not a religious search for a "safe place" in heaven, let's consider what it actually is. And what it does not entail. — Gnomon

No. You’re jumping the gun. A ‘safe place’ just means whatever gives you comfort. I wouldn’t have thought heaven was a candidate here, why would you? I notice that you’re still seem to be riffing off the religion of your youth, which for whatever reason fails to support you in your sense making. That’s understandable and many do likewise. But that’s not my ‘path’, so given we don’t share suppositions, and the fact that I’m not a physicist or scientist, I don’t generally get into speculative cosmology.

No. You’re jumping the gun. A ‘safe place’ just means whatever gives you comfort. I wouldn’t have thought heaven was a candidate here, why would you? I notice that you’re still seem to be riffing off the religion of your youth, which for whatever reason fails to support you in your sense making. That’s understandable and many do likewise. But that’s not my ‘path’, so given we don’t share suppositions, and the fact that I’m not a physicist or scientist, I don’t generally get into speculative cosmology. — Tom Storm

I apologize if I misinterpreted your "safe place". But a synonym is "Haven", an analog of "Heaven".

I am intentionally trying to avoid "riffing off the religion of your youth". So, I don't know how you got that impression. The "religion" of my old age is Philosophy, which doesn't offer a "safe place" in the afterlife, but Ataraxia & Eudaimonia in the here & now. The religion of my youth is "not my path", so what is your path, if not Physics and Material Science?

My retirement hobby is primarily "speculative cosmology", especially the open question of "what caused the spaceless-timeless Singularity*1 to go Bang? Perhaps due to childhood religious "wounding" 's scientific reasoning stops at that boundary of physical reality. But my philosophical reasoning is not limited to the interior of the Bubble of Reality, and can go on to explore transcendent Ideality*2. Does that notion offend your Immanentist sensibilities, as it does for 180? Does Quantum Physics contradict your Materialist worldview? Let me know if the italicized beliefs do not apply to you.

What was your motivation for posting this topic : "I'm interested in conversations about more sophisticated and philosophical accounts of theism"? I don't know exactly what you mean by "more sophisticated", but my amateur philosophical thesis is a unique, non-religious "account" not of Theism, but of Deism*3*4. Is that sophisticated enough for you? :smile:


*1. What is a singularity? :
A singularity is a point in spacetime where the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, break down. It's a region of infinite density and curvature.
In the context of the Big Bang, it refers to the initial state of the universe, a point of infinite density and temperature from which the universe expanded.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+singularity+mathematical
Note --- An infinite state has no place for space or time. But then Mathematical Logic is not restricted to space-occupying Matter, or change-causing Time. So, it can in theory be applied to reasoning beyond the beginning, into such philosophical notions as First Cause.

*2. Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
# Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
# Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

*4. Deist :
Deism can be described as a rational, science-based worldview with pragmatic reasons for believing in a non-traditional non-anthro-morphic deity, rather than a faith-based belief system relying on the imaginative official myths of a minor ancient culture. So a Deist does not live by faith, but by reason. However, on topics where science is still uncertain (see Qualia), Deists feel free to use their reasoning powers to develop plausible beliefs that lie outside the current paradigm.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Perhaps due to childhood religious "wounding" ... — Gnomon

More pathetic projection. :roll:

That the universe (i.e. timespece) "began" is no more certain or determined than "the edge" of the Earth. Again, bad physics –> pseudo-philosophy (–> woo) e.g. "creationism" disguised as programmer-of-the-gaps metafoolery. :sparkle:

What was your motivation for posting this topic : "I'm interested in conversations about more sophisticated and philosophical accounts of theism"? — Gnomon

This from the OP

It's often argued that atheists focus their critiques on simplistic or caricatured versions of God, especially the kind found in certain forms of American Protestantism, with its mawkish literalism and culture-war pontifications, often aligned with Trump. These "cartoon gods" seem all too easy to dismiss. The famous low hanging fruit.

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones.

When God is described as the Ground of Being, this typically means that God is the fundamental reality or underlying source from which all things emerge. God is not seen as a being within the universe, but rather as the condition for existence itself. The implications of such a view are interesting. — Tom Storm

Your next statement and its formulation (like an apologist) is a reason I guessed you are riffing off the beliefs of your youth. You can't resist bagging materialists at most opportunities when there are so few, if any, on this site.

Does that notion offend your Immanentist sensibilities, as it does for 180? Does Quantum Physics contradict your Materialist worldview? — Gnomon

I am not a materialist. I find idealism intriguing. I have no expertise in quantum physics and I know most physicists remain committed to physicalism - what do they know that you and I don't? I couldn't say and it's not my area.

Your next statement and its formulation is a reason I guessed you are riffing off the beliefs of your youth. You can't resist bagging materialists at most opportunities when there are so few, if any, on this site. — Tom Storm

You must not post on the same topics that I do. Ask Wayfarer and Count Timothy von Icarus about their encounters with many Materialists, Atheists, and Empiricists of various stripes. As you might expect, they make paradoxical physical & scientific arguments about metaphysical & philosophical questions, such as this one : about the "nature" & being of a non-physical immaterial god. If it's physical & natural, it ain't a god, it's an idol.

Most of the threads I post on start-out high-minded, but eventually descend into "bagging" Idealists & Theists. So, I spend a lot of time defending my non-religious Philosophical concepts from accusations & characterizations of religious Creeds, scientific Ignorance, and plain Stupidity. I never attack, but I do make counter-arguments, that may seem like an attack on cherished beliefs. Fortunately, a few posters do attempt to make positive philosophical arguments, instead of negative us-vs-them political attacks like 180. :cool:

I am not a materialist. I find idealism intriguing. I have no expertise in quantum physics and I know most physicists remain committed to physicalism - what do they know that you and I don't? I couldn't say and it's not my area. — Tom Storm

If you are not a materialist or a scientist, do you use any alternative term to describe your metaphysical worldview*1. I reluctantly use terms like Deist, which is confused with religion, but try to avoid Idealist, because it just sounds silly & impractical.

Personally, I am not a Chemist, but If I was I would be "committed" to Materialism. Likewise, a professional Physicist should be committed to Physicalism. Back when I was a practicing Architect/Engineer, I was an Empiricist & Theorist, dealing with both material structures and immaterial concepts. But as an amateur Philosopher, my commitment is to Idealism, in the sense of the Science of Ideas.

For all practical purposes, I could be labeled a Materialist or Physicalist, because I live in a world of Matter & Energy. But for theoretical explorations on a philosophy forum, I am an Idealist, because I live in a world of Ideas, and this is a forum for exchanging ideas, not things. But if I lived in the Paleozoic Age, I would be an animal, because there would be no ideas to engage in. :wink:



*1. A metaphysical worldview, often called a metaphysics, is a philosophical system that explores the fundamental nature of reality, encompassing questions about existence, reality, and the world beyond the physical. It delves into what things are, how they exist, and the nature of reality itself. Metaphysics seeks to understand the underlying principles and structures of the universe, including whether it's purely physical or if there are non-physical entities like minds or souls.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+worldview

Does Quantum Physics contradict your Materialist worldview? — Gnomon

Of course not. :roll:

I am not a materialist. I find idealism intriguing — Tom Storm

Like Spinoza, neither am I.

There are no antirealists in foxholes.

If you are not a materialist or a scientist, do you use any alternative term to describe your metaphysical worldview* — Gnomon

No. I guess I'm a kind of simple-minded pragmatist. I do not have any commitments to capital T truth and consider our grasp of reality to be a contingent product of culture and language.

There are no antirealists in foxholes.[/quote]

Yes, I think it was Simon Blackburn who said that the moment a philosopher of any stripe leaves his house, he's committed to realism. Pragmatically that's the world we know, whatever there might beyond human understanding. Personally, I have a limited capacity or interest in speculations - you have a much more intense curiosity and deeper reading than me.

something to bear in mind in all this, is the way in which the rules of the debate have been set by philosophical theology in ages past. All of the terms in lexicon of philosophy, at least up until recently, were dominated by the 'cultural grammar' (to use John Vervaeke's term) of the Bible and the Greek philosophers (mainly Platonist). Many of these rules become what we've been discussing in another thread, 'hinge propositions', which are foundational to any common understanding of philosophical terminology.

A lot of what you think is natural to you — just part of how your mind works — is actually culturally internalized. It has been generated historically and you have internalized it culturally — John Vervaeke

Yet the real context in which we're having these discussions is also subject to the enormously disrupting changes that have occured in modern culture since the 17th century, where long-accepted understandings of the nature of the world have been completely and radically altered. 'Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold'.

Personally, I have a limited capacity or interest in speculations - you have a much more intense curiosity and deeper reading than me. — Tom Storm

If that is the case, why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum? Did you expect responses to your OP to be lists of hard Facts? What is Philosophy, if not "speculations" beyond the range of our physical senses, into the invisible realm of Ideas, Concepts, and Opinions?

Pragmatism*1 is a good policy for routine mundane activities. But when faced with novel situations or questions beyond here & now, that policy may fail to get practical results. If you want to see some arguments against Pragmatism*2 --- e.g. superficiality & lack of empathy --- click on the link below. :nerd:

I am not a materialist. I find idealism intriguing. I have no expertise in quantum physics and I know most physicists remain committed to physicalism - what do they know that you and I don't? I couldn't say and it's not my area. — Tom Storm

What do you find "intriguing" about Idealism? Does it complement or challenge your commitment to Pragmatism & Physicalism? Or does it provide a larger context for your mundane worldview? Is your pet dog "committed to physicalism"? Doggy Ideal : food in bowl good. What does he/she know that you don't?

Until the 20th century, Science was grounded in deterministic Newtonian physics, random Darwinian biology, and spyglass Cosmology. But statistical Quantum Physics, variable Genetic Biology, and creation-event Cosmology have opened-up a whole new world for scientific & philosophical exploration. None of those professions are "my area", but I probably know more about them than the average layman. I feel that I need to know something about the foundations of the Real world, in order to rationally discuss lofty notions about the Ideal cosmos.

Personally, I find all of those technical fields "intriguing". But for us to draw valid philosophical conclusions from such narrow-scope sciences, it's necessary to learn some nuts & bolts about how the world works from those new perspectives. On this forum, some basic familiarity with Quantum Reality should be your "area", if you are going to discuss modern & non-traditional notions of God, and why our contingent world exists. :halo:

A lot of what you think is natural to you — just part of how your mind works — is actually culturally internalized. — Wayfarer

Physicalism, Materialism, Naturalism are philosophical worldviews that have been "culturally internalized" since the 17th century revolution in science. For most of us, they seem natural & normal, and unquestionable. But philosophers feel free to question everything. :smile:


*1. Pragmatism and idealism represent contrasting philosophical approaches. Pragmatism emphasizes practicality and the consequences of actions, focusing on what works in the real world. Idealism, on the other hand, prioritizes ideas, vision, and the potential of what should be.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pragmatism+vs+idealism

*2. Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the practical consequences of ideas and beliefs, evaluating their "truth" based on their effectiveness in solving problems and achieving desired outcomes
While it has influenced various fields like law, education, and social science, it also faces significant criticisms. Here are some of the main arguments against pragmatism:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+pragmatism+is+bad

On this forum, some basic familiarity with Quantum Reality ... why our contingent world exists — Gnomon

:sweat: Oh please ...

It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupidities dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60

something to bear in mind in all this, is the way in which the rules of the debate have been set by philosophical theology in ages past. All of the terms in lexicon of philosophy, at least up until recently, were dominated by the 'cultural grammar' (to use John Vervaeke's term) of the Bible and the Greek philosophers (mainly Platonist). Many of these rules become what we've been discussing in another thread, 'hinge propositions', which are foundational to any common understanding of philosophical terminology. — Wayfarer

The assumptions about God generally involve concepts like omnipotence and omniscience, along with eternal changeless perfection. To many any conception of God that does not accept these as divine attributes is not talking about the God of religion and philosophy. These assumptions are precisely what are called into question in process theology. Charles Hartshorne wrote an aptly named short book titled "Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes" and Whitehead explicitly rejects these as divine attributes instead focusing on creativity, novelty, experience and creative advance as divine attributes.
Yes, modern worldviews involving cosmology, evolution and physics tell us the theology derived from the notion of the earth as the center of the universe, man as the crown of creation and a divine particularly concerned with human moral behavior are all errors which should prompt us to reconsider our notions about what attributes the divine may or may not have. It requires a different conception and a different language from that inherited from the "philosophical theology of ages past".

If that is the case, why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum? Did you expect responses to your OP to be lists of hard Facts? What is Philosophy, if not "speculations" beyond the range of our physical senses, into the invisible realm of Ideas, Concepts, and Opinions? — Gnomon

You are difficult to have a discussion with because you seem to keep turning it into battles you think you’re having with people, instead of actually reading what I’m saying. None of the points you raise apply to my position.

As you probably know, philosophy covers a wide range of activities, some more speculative and requiring specialized expertise than others. Speculations about QM fall into this category, demanding a high level of technical knowledge. So does a good reading of Heidegger, for instance. Other subjects, like morality, value, aesthetics, and meaning, are more suited to open, discursive exploration.

What do you find "intriguing" about Idealism? Does it complement or challenge your commitment to Pragmatism & Physicalism? Or does it provide a larger context for your mundane worldview? Is your pet dog "committed to physicalism"? Doggy Ideal : food in bowl good. What does he/she know that you don't? — Gnomon

I’m trying to read this charitably. Is condescension something you tend to fall back on when challenged? What exactly were you trying to express here?

It requires a different conception and a different language from that inherited from the "philosophical theology of ages past". — prothero

One of the process theologians I really like was John B. Cobb. His book Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism was highly impactful for me. (Coming to think of it, I met him once, at the home of Charles Birch, in the early 1990's.)

Anyway - the point of my comment was that too often, people are speaking from their inherited cultural notions of what is God, truth, reality, and so on, terms which have been constructed in a particular context, and that context, the background against which the terms are being used, has now changed massively. Whitehead and Hartshorne were engaged in that kind of re-evaluation or re-interpretation. The series I mentioned was a set of 52 lectures by Canadian professor of cognitive science, John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (more info). He's doing something similar, albeit on a rather larger scale than pure philosophy.

A lot of what you think is natural to you — just part of how your mind works — is actually culturally internalized.
— Wayfarer
Physicalism, Materialism, Naturalism are philosophical worldviews that have been "culturally internalized" since the 17th century revolution in science. For most of us, they seem natural & normal, and unquestionable. — Gnomon

Hence the importance of understanding such themes and ideas in their historical context. The unfolding of geist, in Hegelian terms.