• MikeL
    644
    This OP makes me feel a bit uncomfortable because of the conclusion, but like most of us here, I am in the pursuit of truth and I would value your thoughts. I am pursuing a line of reasoning that has sprung up since joining this site through my own ops and discussion with other members, and has come into sharper focus after reading StreetlightX's post on ‘A Sketch of the Present’ and debating the origin of life in ‘On the transition from non-life to life’ by Javra, as well as other discussions on creativity. It is not religious but attempts to use reason to offer one interpretation of an omnipotent God and its role in society.

    The scientific theory of life begins with the atoms which form into molecules, then cycles and systems, then cell groups and so on until the entire organism is formed. The bottom up way of thinking is intuitive as we can see how constrained systems at a certain point might form new, higher order systems.

    It is important to put God in at this level if we wish to express our beliefs and be consistent with the current state of scientific theory. For me, I would prefer to think of God as being innate to all matter: An inherent property (perhaps in the realm of physics not discovered yet) that allows atoms to spontaneously form. Other’s may think of it as a single guiding force in the universe, or a sentient being directing actions, but even so the conclusions when followed through become a little confronting.

    If we create a God model that attempts to scientifically explain life step by step, like science does: When the atoms were only atoms and that was the highest order of life, God was forming them into molecules. He was the God of atoms. Once they were constrained as molecules, God was forming them into cycles and systems and so on. There was the God of cycles and systems and so on.

    Each layer had an emergent layer put upon it that constrained it. Apokrisis talks a lot of this restraint, so I don't think I need to go too much into it. With the restraint came the loss of freedom - an entropic urge was constrained. Perhaps, if you believe in the 'Old Man' interpretation of God, you could you reason that God was no longer with the atoms and molecules, but had moved on to the next level, growing that into something even greater. (Or if he is still on the level of atoms and molecules, what does that imply?)

    Humans became the highest level of order in this continuum, and inherently they sensed a higher order yet again. There was none- yet. Just as at one point there was none for molecules. This higher order notion was not a passing fancy – it arose because it was fundamental to who people were and how they came to be. It was the driving force that had created them, and had created the tiers below them, and so it was innate to them. The idea of God is worldwide.

    The higher order people sensed made them believe that there was something that was looking over them, enclosing them from above, just as the cells had enclosed the systems and cycles and just as the systems and cycles had enclosed the molecules that had trapped the atoms. Each level of complexity had arisen from the work of the entities on the lower tier, and God was the driving force.

    Humans hunted for the higher order, as they still do. It wasn’t hard to find candidates. When they were in nature, the higher order became the heavens, or nature itself. The idea that ‘what formed people is out there’ was perhaps the innate realisation that there was something out there – even though it had not materialised itself, yet. It was the same force that was acting on the molecules, or that is inside us all (depending on your view).

    Sensing this higher order, and conforming to the principles that conceived them, people inadvertently, at local degrees of freedom, without realising the larger scheme into which their own actions played, began to create a higher order: A world larger than themselves, driven by the the directionality of life.

    And for a while the new order suited their purposes, there was increased security from other entities (army) and a regular supply of reactants (food) as well as convenient waste removal systems and an immune system – police force. The system allowed communication (media) and central control (government). It was easy to flow through the system (major roads are called arteries), and people began to specialise their skills so that no longer could one person be a jack of all trades.

    And so humans continued to build this new order, hardly noticing the constraint that now fell upon them, and certainly not equating it with God – instead, they counted their blessings and understood that security came at a price.

    And the constraint continued to tighten. In today’s western society, people are in the grip of constraint by the layers of government and big business above them that they can no longer regulate with any great effect. They are losing their entropic energy of choice and creativity, just like the bound atom had its choices constrained. Compare lifestyles today to that of the 60s and 70s in terms of what we can and can’t do in the eyes of the law, for instance.

    The people know it’s happening, that order is being imposed from above and that’s why, across the world, they are trying to choose different leaders and governments who might break the constraint. But, the layer has closed in above us. Is it too late?

    So how could we look at this in terms of God, what does it all mean? If you can nod a 'maybe' at the contention so far, you can probably do better with its interpretation than me, but here are some ideas.

    If you buy the assertion, then perhaps this is all happening like the building of the tower of Babel. Maybe it is the urge to reach God that is in all life, making it climb, and like the tower of Babel it may all collapse upon itself. Maybe that is God’s will. We will, as Apokrisis has reminded me, consume all the reactants in the bowl of earth.

    Or, perhaps the idea of God is merely the sensation in life that there is a higher structure, as that is true of all lower tiers of life, and maybe the notion of God, the feeling of God being present only lasts for only long enough for the next layer to be built and then God moves into that. How are today’s beliefs fairing in western society, where hope is harder to come by? If so, where to next and what’s coming?

    OR as a last thought - is society a false God?

    Thoughts?
  • MikeL
    644
    In summary, we can define God as a Creative or building force innate within us all, that causes life to grow itself and enclose itself within higher levels like stacked Russian dolls, ultimately causing a reduction in free will and choice.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    In summary, we can define God as a Creative or building force innate within us all,MikeL

    No reason you can't use the word God, but you might as well just call it Mind, after all it is your mind and all of our minds that are doing it all, so might as well take credit for it. It was your mind that created the post. We are all basically that creative impulse.
  • BC
    13.2k
    You are (of course) not the first person to assign God the task of supervising the atoms so that they eventually become the Acme, Zenith, and Crown of creation.

    The question of where God stands with respect to Creation is unsettled; some people want to do what you propose; some people want God to be apart from matter, but altogether sovereign over it. Some place God outside of nature altogether, and then quite a few just eliminate God's position altogether.

    It seems to me that the mainline Judeo-Christian approach is the second one: God isn't "in" nature (no tree-dwelling for God), God is sovereign over matter -- all matter -- over the whole universe, God being its sovereign creator. The writer of the Genesis story didn't have this concept at hand, but just as God hovered over the face of the deep, you are proposing that God also hovered over the hot vent at the bottom of the deep and willed atoms and molecules to bind together in the desired way, over time.

    During the 6 days of creation God repeated His benediction on creation "and it was good". What God makes IS good.

    Oddly enough, some fundamentalists / evangelicals / pro-apocalypsists are quite indifferent to the "good creation". To them all that matters is Jesus and heaven. Whatever happens to the world--to nature, creation--is irrelevant. Polluted, creatures going extinct left and right, dead oceans, filthy rivers -- It's all going to go down the drain anyway when Jesus pulls the chain and flushes all the sinners down the sewer into hell.

    It seems to me that the mainline Judeo-Christian view is the best one for Western civilization. It yokes us with responsibility to care for and about the world--not just humans, but all of creation. Humans - eastern, western, northern, and southern - are too short-sighted to leave us to our own devices. We all need some kind of prompt to take care of our only world.
  • MikeL
    644
    Is that your definition of mind, Rich? How would you describe mind in your own words?
  • MikeL
    644
    Hi Bitter Crank, I guess you're right about the idea of God as a creative force being out there, but where I change the story a fraction is by suggesting that the force entombs us within a larger structure.

    The belief that something is there inadvertantly directs us to create it, and in doing so to change us into the tools of a system away from being individuals with individual freedoms.
  • Wayfarer
    20.7k
    New Advent Encyclopedia entry on 'Logos'

    It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ. For him the Logos, which he seems to identify with fire, is that universal principle which animates and rules the world. This conception could only find place in a materialistic monism. The philosophers of the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ were dualists, and conceived of God as transcendent, so that neither in Plato (whatever may have been said on the subject) nor in Aristotle do we find the theory of the Logos.

    It reappears in the writings of the Stoics, and it is especially by them that this theory is developed. God, according to them, "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He is the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). Conformably to their exegetical habits, the Stoics made of the different gods personifications of the Logos, e.g. of Zeus and above all of Hermes.

    Note the reference to Hermes, the 'messenger of the Gods' and inspiration for Hermeticism, which has remained an alternative current in Western culture throughout history. The notion of deity as a pervading intelligence, rather than a supervising architect, has therefore been an aspect of the Western theistic tradition all along, although formal Christian doctrine is hostile to it, and on that account it has generally been an underground movement. But I think there are many resonances between the Greek 'logos', some forms of the Indian 'dharma', and the Chinese 'Tao', as being like innate, ordering intelligence or principle which regulates growth and development from within, so to speak.
  • MikeL
    644
    Thanks Wayfarer. I love this forum. What a breeding ground for new ideas when we have so many experts in so many fields all blending their knowledge!

    Is there any more specific information on Logos and his role in life as you have shown above? Or any other of the religions, that might guide our ideas here? Any reference to self-encapsulation and loss of freedom through this force?
  • Wayfarer
    20.7k
    'Logos' is not a person so much as a principle. It's the root of 'logic' and also of the suffix -logy, as in the various branches of knowledge - biology, psychology, etc. So, as such, logos is one of the foundational concepts of all philosophy and indeed science; another being 'ratio', which is the ground of 'rationalism' and indeed 'reason'.

    In terms of understanding the background and development, you could do worse than listen to the series, The History of Philosophy Without any Gaps, Kings College, London, https://historyofphilosophy.net/ . Adamson gives recorded talks on the subjects, starting with Miles of Thiletus and the other founders. They're about 20 minutes each and quite approachable. The talk on Heraclitus goes into the idea of Logos.

    Material on hermeticism is a bit harder to access. There's a popular writer called Gary Lachman who writes on esoteric and alternative philosophies, his books are a reasonable starting point.
  • MikeL
    644
    Thanks, I'll check it out. 20min sounds a good length for me.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Is that your definition of mind, Rich? How would you describe mind in your own words?MikeL

    Mind is the active force of the universe that is observing, creating, learning and evolving.
  • MikeL
    644
    That sounds like a good definition. Learning and evolving implies directionality. What do you think of the entombing ourselves idea?
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Not clear on this idea. Can you elaborate?
  • MikeL
    644
    It comes down to the mind, the creative force, God, whatever it is that drives life.
    Life is built like Russian stacking dolls.

    Each layer begins with freedom. Atoms kicking about on a nice summer's day find themselves bonded into a molecule and suddenly with limited mobility.

    The molecules flitter about in the Great Soup of Creation :) but then find themselves constrained inside cycles - good food to eat.

    The cycles become entrapped in cells. Useless parts are discarded. Everything serves a purpose or is gotten rid of. It's streamlined efficiency. No freedom to just flitter about anymore.

    The interesting thing though is that each level entraps itself. The molecules end up forming the systems. It is their creation and their captor.

    Humans too, with this intrinsic drive inside to create, end up creating this world around us. Government, Big Business (Big Pharm - I know you'll like that one). But they have entrapped themselves, no different to the molecule. Same force, same feeling inside.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    No need to think of it as entrapment. All living things (minds), at various levels or layers, are cooperating in the evolution of the mind (universe).
  • MikeL
    644
    I use the word entrapment because there is a loss of personal freedoms. The entropy has been constrained. We have been constrained. Creative expression is driven out by bureaucratic thinking which demands to see the paperwork on everything you are trying to do.

    Government decrees we can no longer walk our dogs along the beach, or picnic by that river. Big Business insists you pay back twice the money they lent you. Rents go up, bills go up, wages fall. You are replaceable in the workplace so you had better conform. The layer we create does not see us. It sees the commodity they can use.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Yes there are constraints. It adds problem solving and interest to life.

    Dreams have no constraints.
  • BC
    13.2k
    A god, or logos, some kind of transcendent spirit is wanted. When one contemplates the immense complexity going on in 1 cell, never mind the biosphere and the universe, it seems to many of us just too damned complex to have happened without guidance. This isn't a scientific reaction, of course. On an intellectual level, I'll say "Yes, life did self-assemble, but it had a very long time to work out the details. Life has self-assembled on many planets in the universe. Matter can self-assemble into more complex forms, and it does--inorganically as well as organically. Mind is not beyond the capability of matter." On an emotional level, given the faith I received as a child, a God-directed biosphere and universe beyond is preferred.

    That's where the tension comes in: Does one go with the intellectual approach of science, or the intellectual approach of religion? I don't hold them irreconcilable; we can accept that God was the primum mobile -- the first mover. But combining scientific and religious thinking doesn't resolve the tension entirely, because "how God was the first mover" still has to be resolved.

    We've been stewing over this pot for a long time.
  • BC
    13.2k
    The History of Philosophy Without any GapsWayfarer

    Thanks. It's philosophy instruction just the way I like it: Short and to the point. Audio only is an underrated media style.
  • Sephi
    14
    Not meaning to be a party pooper, but I really have a lot of trouble humoring propositions originated in effectively broken premises.

    It seems to me that you're trying to conciliate your version of a deistic god, or maybe pantheistic, with the universe as we know it. While I'd consider those concepts of gods to be the most "compatible", I can't help but remain stuck on a few problems.

    Basically, how I describe the deistic god is: pick the very first thing that existed, and slap the name god on it. Problem is, god was not really defined, and now it totally lacks meaning. It's just a name you attributed to the first thing that is currently known to science.

    Your concept sounds maybe more pantheistic, more complex than the above, but it still seems to suffer from similar problems.
  • MikeL
    644
    Hi Sephi,
    You're right. A lack of a singular definition for God has both rendered it both disprovable AND brought it under great scrutiny.

    I'm not quite following your logic in relation to this OP though. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean, for instance when you say it is just a name I attributed to the first thing that is currently known to science? What problems can you see?
  • Sephi
    14

    I would say the lack of a definition (among other things) has rendered it unfalsifiable, rather.

    About the deistic god thing, I'm just saying it's an arbitrary decision, to attribute the name God to a thing, when there's not a clear definition from where to determine what kind of thing it ought to be attributed to in the first place. And besides that, it's a decision that will likely be revealed to be wrong, since the first thing that existed is only the first thing until science finds something else that existed before it.

    Now, your concept is different, but also seemed in a way a bit arbitrary. It sounded like you attributing gods will to the natural "flow" of physics (the formation of molecules and so on, which science explains through the forces of physics and other things). I must admit though that I haven't read the posts you mentioned.

    The relation to the OP is that I was reading it and constantly getting that warning in my head that the premise (God) was not quite justified... (and yea, I don't believe in god and all that, but I don't mind humoring these concepts)

    To give you a quick example of what was going on in my head: if I was telling you a story about how hunters are stupid for hunting birds with spoons... you'd be listening to me with amusement and thinking "but... no one ever hunts birds with spoons!". :)
  • MikeL
    644
    Hi Sephi, you are right. I am exploring the theme of god and offering possibilities that can be reconciled with my understanding and observations of the world. I am not trying to define god outright, but rather take this tangental view of a creative force. To do this I am trying to marry some concepts together. Namely:
    1) People of faith believe in a higher power
    2) Life is stackable and with each new stack freedom is lost from the things that created the next level.
    3) Society is like a next level beyond people, and it too is reducing our freedoms.
    4) So the link I am proposing for thought is:
    Society is a continuation of the stackable nature of life, which reduces freedoms. Because the stacks are built by the underlying factors, and because people believe in a higher power, perhaps the higher power is the force that is causing the stacking.

    Do I actually believe this? No. But I want to run the logic through people such as yourself and see how it comes out in the wash.
  • BlueBanana
    873
    Compare lifestyles today to that of the 60s and 70s in terms of what we can and can’t do in the eyes of the law, for instance.MikeL

    This sounds like a very regional issue of your home country.
  • BlueBanana
    873
    That is a false premise because your definition is not how God is defined. First, the definition does include "the first being that existed", but not "the first the first thing known by science to have existed". Second, there are other definitions for God, which vary between religios and persons, but often include such things as being sentient and being responsible over the creation of the World.
  • MikeL
    644
    I've seen that 70's Show on TV. Regional and global issue I would say. They are different worlds with different degrees of freedom.

    My definition of a God being a sentient force and presiding over the creation of life is not too far off track. As to being the first thing that existed, the creation of the universe caused the creation of the atoms that were imbued with the sentient force for assembly and system layering. God can still be the first.
  • BlueBanana
    873
    Could you present some examples of the freedom that we've lost in the last decades? Even being somewhat familiar with the show, I can't think of any.

    As for the definition, that comment was a reply to Sephi. I don't (think I) have any problems with your definition.
  • MikeL
    644
    I'll give you an example Blue Banana. Business. It used to be that if you wanted to start your business, you could open a fruit shop, or a milk bar, even a coffee shop, and you could do alright at that.

    But now, big business has closed off those options. If I want to open a fruit shop, I am not competing against massive corporations that have merged and taken each other over and can now buy an apple for 2c and sell if for 10c while you cannot buy it yourself from the grower for cheaper than 12c.
    So too, the milk bars have been sucked into the malls, the small takeaways are now global franchises, and there product is good. Better than your product.

    It's not to say you can't open a successful business, but the degrees of freedom to do so successfully have been restricted.

    Take 'Shark Tank' the show for example. Venture capitalists wanting to turn a buck invest in new ideas. Sounds great right? So someone comes in with an idea for a gym. The capitalists agree it is good and throw a couple of million dollars at it. Now, everybody in that space who has been trying to build their gym from the open garage to the small outlet is displaced. Who will go to their junky gyms when there is a nice shiny one with better equipment opening just down the road?

    When you think of governments and laws and by-laws, you have to ask yourself for every new law they bring in, some fine, some no parking space, are they also repealing an old law? Or is it just another law in the web of laws that control your life.

    I am not arguing the necessity of the laws. Indeed no parking zones are critical for access to certain areas etc, but they are, nonetheless, laws that did not exist before. For every law no matter how much it is for our own good, for every big business providing high quality cheap goods, no matter how much the consumer benefits, it is a degree of freedom that is lost.

    The choices to move in those directions are restricted.
  • MikeL
    644
    And to further the point, those people who cannot make it in business now are forced into the workforce as employees. And what are employees but the workers of much larger businesses. From being in control to being the grunt.
  • Sephi
    14
    That is a false premise because your definition is not how God is defined.BlueBanana
    I haven't defined god... But what you're saying makes no difference. As you said each person has their own definition, so I generalized their applications. And yes, I know of other definitions of gods, but I was referring specifically to the Deistic one, and only as basis to illustrate my reasoning.
  • BlueBanana
    873
    That's not the Deistic definition either because it includes the god creating the world.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.