My counter-thesis:
The idea of God as the creator of life is in fact an intellectually challenging one.
Since it challenges the intellect, to think of God as creator, requires an enormous effort of the mind, in order to understand what might be a useful take on the God figure.
In order to provide any substantial counter arguments proving to me that the idea of God is an intellectually lazy one, I have some requirements:
- Don't think of God as a man.
- Don't think of him as a wizard.
- Don't think of him in any terms from the dictionary which refers to "male" or "bearded".
- Don't take any citations from biblical sources and present them as literal. Use them only in the form of a metaphorical sense. Hence, leave out the claim that our earth was created in "six days".
- Do not dismiss the rich scientific and philosophical sources as "stupid beliefs", but argue objectively.
- in order to do so, cite the exact source from which you were inspired to argue my thesis, be specifically and not randomly.
My argument plays the ball back to the one who might attribute intellectual laziness to me, and whose own justification against God is to speculate ...
... that "something" came into being from "absolutely nothing"; ...
... by chance.
That is probably the crudest shortcut an intellect can take and therefore the laziest of all.
To be fair, though, if someone refers to "nothing" as indeed something specific - even if I'd find it a crooked way of expression, please, say so and give a reference..
To assume intellectual laziness
behind the fact that someone is thinking that for every intelligent design you also might need an intelligent designer, is the opposite of laziness - when thinking about the origin of life.
But if instead I take an extremely drastic shortcut and claim "It had happened randomly." And then full stop. How would you characterize it? As a genuine effort of my mind?
I say that this expresses clearly the unwillingness to reason, not willingness. Since it says, life happened for "no reason". So, if you take that as the hard core conviction of ones mind, this mind just stated that it does not want to reason. Which disqualifies it for dialogue.
That "the cosmic and earthly events are random"
and can not be seen as impressive showcases of the result of design, which we are the very witnesses of, requires from my point of view not looking closely at the fact that life,
- exactly and at this time of humanity being on earth,
- in exactly this place earth,
- provided with the precise amounts of all needed interacting elements - on it and around it - sun and galaxy, in view of other galaxies,
- exactly friendly in environment for beings like exactly us,
must be such a gigantic coincidence of such favourable known factors coming together that one asks the legitimate question:
Why is this so intelligent? And in the face of such harmony, who might be the creative mind behind it, who the creator?
The point in debate goes to Mister Ross (watch the above video).
You can think like Mister Atkins if you have no certain admiration, nor astonishment, nor awe, nor humility before what you call (your) life and the universe. Who, for example, likes to explain life by saying that it's "merely" building blocks, particles, elements, etc., but don't give off a creative spark on their own.
Creation points to creativity. Creativity and creation is more than mere this, and it is other than mere that.
It's as if you just heard the most beautiful, most perfect composition of a piece of music,
that puts you to wonder how on earth the artist was capable of giving us such a masterpiece, and someone else strolls along and answers: "It's just notes on a piece of paper."
He totally spoils the moment. And probably holds himself back from imagining the situation of having to be the creator of something so magnificent that everyone seeing or listening, is full of awe and wonder.
Now, it is factually correct to say that music is based on notes.
But is it only that? It is also correct to say that music is based on logic. It is not correct to say it is mere notes.
This is nothing, which can be said to just happen randomly.
In the same way, it is correct to state that life consists of particles (in the microscopic and the macroscopic sense alike).
Behind an artists masterpiece is a mind who put genious, effort, devotion, logic, ergo "reason" and time into his creation. He was thoughtful, planing, weighing, correcting, debating, reasoning with his work of composition. Such things who play along as if they were the easiest thing to put to life, which appear to be naturally so, are no random things. They are the opposite of random.
We always do what we regard as "just natural" - as self-evident - precisely after we have received evidence for it. Before we knew the evidence, something was not self-evident at all. We wondered. And because we wondered, we startet to investigate. We wanted proof.
Now, if you do not wonder, you see no need whatsoever to have the urge to find out.
It does - indeed - require an immense mental effort to look beyond the "mere" explanation of existence
that is taken for granted by a person, precisely because it is so self-evident - after we have found the evidence. For, of course, it must be factually correct. What the non lazy mind does, is to come up with an added explanation that, once you have dealt with it and really understood it, makes perfect reason. It's inclusive, not exclusive. It includes more and more dimensions.
But only and only then, when you have completely detached yourself mentally from your fixed conviction of mere explanations and "nothing buts" - that is one of the most difficult, hardest endeavours a person can undergo.
Let me give an example:
Since I grew up with cars, cars have never been a special thing for me. But the fact that every car ever driving on the road was the result of extremely intelligent thinking, planning and realisation, is something I can remind myself of if I threaten to forget it.
The explanation that all living and all matter came out of nothing,
for no reason (in the literal sense) no matter where you start the beginning of creation, is not only the laziest, not only the most unreasonable explanation, I can imagine. It is not even an explanation. It is the obvious rejection of wanting to reason. If you compare it with the attempt to explain it by intelligence, it loses.
If you have accepted God as reason, as logos, it is not that you want to know less. Quite the contrary. You do want to know more. Since you are fired up and all inspired to dive deeper and deeper into knowledge. If you feel no inspiration, you just want to establish your position and not change a thing, since establishment feeds you.
Given the fact that Christians were highly invested in bringing to fruition what we call today "science" through opening the gates to scripture and intellectual exchange. Monasteries can be seen as early universities. And given the fact that Christianity would not have happened if no one Christian would have had started to question the deities of the Pagan world.
How would you argue against my given thesis, if so?
The first of the Ten Commandments was a useful source of inspiration for me.
The term pæsæl "image" in the prohibition of images (Dohmen 1985, 41-48) refers to a sculpture of different materials. It only occurs in cultic-religious contexts, never in artistic contexts. In antiquity, images of deities were their visible and powerful representations. They therefore had to be ritually produced by specially authorised specialists and animated by opening and washing the mouth (Berlejung 1998). The prohibition of images therefore does not prohibit pictorial representations in general, but rather the production of a cult image, namely that of Yahweh; for other deities are already excluded by the prohibition of foreign gods. The term təmûnāh "form" refers to the external form and visible shape. The associated relative clauses describe all areas of the world with heaven, earth and the underworld. They emphasise that Yahweh cannot be adequately represented by anything in the world. The prohibition therefore excludes not only a representation of Yahweh as a hybrid being (B.B. Schmidt 1995, 79-82), but also any cult image of Yahweh.
Source: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/ressourcen/wibilex/altes-testament/dekalog-zehn-gebote-at
A German website, translated "biblical science" - I translated from the part "1.8.1. Prolog, Fremdgötter- und Bilderverbot" (Prologue, Prohibition of foreign gods and images)
My own interpretation of this is that it is reasonable not to want to form an image of God, as not only is it impossible to do so accurately, but the moment I look at a certain shape and form, I am in danger to limit my intellect to look at this certain shape and form.
If I assume that the concept of God (to use this more common term) became a concept precisely because it is not really possible to describe, draw or sculpt God, because every visualisation is a reductive method of including everything that we perceive in terms of intelligence and harmony in the universe, the commandment "Do not make an image of me" is only logical.
Since I consider that previous cultures did precisely this and thereby reduced complexity - which nobody needs to criticise them for - then the statement that it would be pointless to really want to imagine God is an extremely reasonable one. Reason is based on the realisation that it would be an attempt to reduce the complexity of life. As a scientist in his own right, the cults of the past need not be criticised for being "stupid", but can be seen as being less progressive.
However, in order to be able to talk to each other at all, a conceptualisation is needed in the absence of all images, hence the term "God". Insofar as this has become an abstraction, the intellect must endeavour to follow the abstract. That, indeed, requires tedious thinking.
Picture source:
Screenshot from the The German Bible Society where it deals with the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments.
Interesting article with some really deep questions on the nature of "God". I have come to terms with this idea, and the fact that we'll never truly know its nature.
I think that this is a good idea, and I would add a further requirement. The word God itself is a loaded concept that activates our biases, prejudices, and preconceived notions. In my journey of discovery, I realized that replacing the word God with "higher intelligence" was more scientifically elucidating. That is, we know that it is possible to create intelligence from the constituents elements of the universe. Our species is an example. There are different levels of intelligence. The intelligence of an amoeba, for example, is different than the intelligence of a cunning fox, the intelligence of the fox is different from that of a human. I think that for the most part, we assume that human intelligence is the pinnacle of creation (natural or otherwise). According to our general understanding, the only other intelligence that is higher than us is God. Therefore, I think that using the term "higher intelligence" opens up new avenues of delightful inquiry. So, the question is no longer, does God exist? Now the question becomes, is there higher intelligence?
Great topic!
After some thinking, here is my response to your suggestion.
It's true that the term is loaded, I very much can confirm your observation/experiences.
But I still wouldn't invent a new one. That's the interesting thing about the fact that the term "God" stands alone, is basically undefinable and doesn't want to offer any connection to other definitions. I think that's exactly how it can allowed to be.
Avoiding loaded terms because they are loaded would justify, for example, that nobody says "Hitler" anymore and soon it would amount to a swastika only being associated with a load, which is illogical, don't you think?
What can the swastika do for being viewed one-sidedly?
The in advance given politeness of not wanting to put off another person who is in dialogue with you by not using a loaded term, for example, raises the question of where this shyness comes from. It implies that the interlocutor shuts down from the outset, yes, I agree. How could he realize his reluctance other than by a term which he himself loaded negatively, though? Is there another way to create a space for openness?
Can you decide not to bother with it and demonstrate impartiality precisely by using the term in spite of its loaded meaning? To un-load it again? My answer would be "yes", that is actually what represents a scientifically operating person.
To deal with bias, for me, means to be aware of my own and not having it excluded for reasons of my comfort; this may lead to establish my bias. I need being somewhat uncomfortable and "disturbed" in order to engage. Otherwise, I may find myself in an echo chamber.
However, a loaded term would not be guaranteed to be cancelled out by using an alternative term.
If one is determined to be exclusively negative about it, he is going to do so with either term in the same context.
Basically, you can always take offence at a term, regardless of whether it is an ancient or modern one.
Though, what I could do - and I attempted that down below my post indirectly - to give official biblical information to the figure of God. I could have done better, maybe.
I see where you're coming from. Personally, I think it's better to clarify the term itself to avoid misunderstanding. So, when you speak of God, you're referring to the conception of God in the Christian tradition based on scripture and cultural tradition, correct? It can't be the Hindu tradition because their belief systems, and their ideas of "God", are different from ours. The same goes for other religions like Taoism and Buddhism. So when you speak of God, you're speaking just for the Christian belief of a powerful omnipotent all-knowing being who looks like a human (because we were made in his likeness) and created the universe and all the living creatures using his vast power, wisdom, and intelligence. This Christian God exists outside of us, independent of our existence in a place called heaven. This is the general Christian conception of God as handed to us from written and oral traditions.
So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that some people think that the belief in a Christian God as creator is "intellectually lazy", but you believe that it is not. You believe that the idea of God the creator is intellectually challenging. Further, you're saying that to understand just how challenging the idea of God as creators is, we should modify our conception of God, and we should not take the scriptures or teachings at their word. Instead, the conception of God should be modified according to the set of criteria that you laid out (e.g., not thinking of God as a man).
I have never heard the criticism that the idea of God as creator is intellectually lazy. I don't think that at all. I think the idea of God as creator is intellectually challenging, as evidenced by the body of work that has been written about the topic. There is no need to change our conception of God as you outlined. We can leave the concept of the Christian God as it has been written and taught. I have different ideas about the nature of "God", and Gods in general, but I don't think that those who believe in God as creator are intellectually lazy. Quite the contrary. So there is no argument from me on this matter, and I'm actually surprised it's an issue at all. Some people just enjoy being outraged. 😆
No, I don't. That is why I had the requirements. The interpretation of God is challenging, :D
I referred to what you pointed out, that God is a loaded term. And all I am saying is that in order to unload it, it can be used as a further term. I think that Christians changed since they entered the scene, like everything else changes and that I, who has a Christian background can label me as such without having to adhere to an image like the one you just described. Since I count myself to Christians in general, I find it sensible to communicate about differences in the concept of God amongst my fellas.
I tipped my toe in the water. Interested, in what might be responded :)
I see. So you believe that the belief in God as creator and designer of the universe is an intellectually challenging exercise because it is a flexible idea. So, for example, in the book of Genesis, it says the following
If I understand you correctly, this passage could be interpreted in many ways, but it is up to the individual to make this interpretation, and this makes it an intellectually challenging exercise. One could interpret this bible passage to mean that physically we look like God (thus God looks like a man). Perhaps, intellectually, we resemble God. Spiritually and emotionally as well. It is up to the individual to decide. Regardless of the interpretation, the idea is very advanced and intellectually challenging once you begin examining it closely, and this appears to be your main thesis. The devil is in the details, in a manner of speaking.
Sorry to pester you so much, but your thoughtful posts pack a lot of information, so it takes me some time to unpack it all :)
Correct, yes, this is how I see it. What one makes out of something, depends also on what is in wide circulation. If something is reduced too much, and does not give credit to complexity, then we end up in ridiculing the sources.
The reduction of complexity has positives and negatives, I think.
Since almost everyone who wants to ridicule the bible has not much more in mind than Genesis, but knows nothing about the rest, it tends to become negative when many people start ridiculing one part of a source.
In contrast, when one has enlarged his knowledge about the bible, Genesis and other well known wordings from the bible appear as the essence of something, which otherwise needs a deep study and a mind who had let itself been intellectually challenged.
Yes, absolutely :)
"once you begin examining it closely", you can't help but to formulate more questions in your mind.
This can be inspiring, but it also can discourage, since one becomes aware of the fact that there is a lot to study.
I think the main challenge for me is that I don't understand how someone can say that belief in God as creator is intellectually lazy. Belief in a particular deity might be wrong but not intellectually lazy. There has been a lot of scholarly work written on the Bible and other Christian teachings. So, we know it requires some deep and heavy thinking. Isaac Newton for example was an amazing bible researcher, as only Isaac Newton can. He believed the bible was an alchemical manuscript that contained the workings of the mind of God, and so in addition to his work in physics, he was also an amazing Bible researcher. He embarked in a comprehensive mathematical, symbolic, and historical study of the bible that is breathtaking. His alchemical work is actually more voluminous than his work in physics. This youtube video discusses Newton's biblical work, particularly the book of revelations, which Newton was convinced contained an alchemical recipe. It's a dry lecture but fascinating. It demonstrates that belief in a deity and its religious teachings can be an intellectually challenging endeavor.
Fortunately, we humans are eager providers to each other and offer those interpretations. I am happy, that not everything needs to be interpreted from scratch. I would say that that what already exists as interpretations, most likely will be combined with what the single interpreter makes of it. There is nothing new under the sun, is it.
When someone who likes to be presented with as little biased information as possible, scientific sources are a very good start (if they happen to be as clean as they can get).
We, the people, make it often very hard for ourselves, since we seem to think that we have to solely rummage in our isolated mind and forget, how rich and wonderful other minds have already thought things through. But of course, one has to find them - which, I think, is nowadays both, the easiest and the hardest at the same time. Since we are so distracted with pathos, we lose the logos out of sight.
Just the website alone, which I have used as a source in my posting, has a huge library. On creation I have found this part.
But then, all films ever seen, all artistic products ever enjoyed (or suffered), are an interpretation of what we humans think of ourselves and the cosmos. Some really excellent, some really crappy.
The interpretation is important because this is what determines how you will act in accordance with the information you receive. You can ignore the information, but if you want to engage in an intellectually challenging exercise with the concept of God as creator, then you need to interpret what is presented to you. So, I don't have a problem whatsoever with anyone who wants to interpret (see my comment on Newton). What I believe is important is to interpret the information in a clear logical manner, so we can follow the line of thinking and question the interpretation if we have to.
Thank you. I can say the same for me. Still, I like to engage myself in these kinds of dialogues and also watch others in doing so. They drive me (certainly for a reason).
Let me think a bit about the requirement you added. I will come back to it.
I am happy that the topic caught your attention.
Another problem with avoiding the term God out of courtesy would be that both official scripture (all Bibles and theological texts, prayers, songs) and informal language, institutions and speech are in use. God is such a catchy, quick and strong term and, God forbid, nobody understands when I say "Grüß Gott!" (Greeting God!,as they do in Bavaria) :)
I think that would be too much politeness to one side.
the odd cosmic "coincidences" of the materialist worldview are what caught my attention. it's too unlikely to be random and at "the tail-end of an explosion".
officially of course there is an explanation for everything. but once i look a bit deeper and ask questions like a curious kid, i can usually no longer find satisfactory 'non-lazy' answers.
i found that most things society deems "self-evident" are provably false. which i never would have believed ever!
but to me nothing is certain anymore. we have to start from scratch as most of the 'truths' we have picked up in life are propaganda, worldview-indoctrination. cult speak. but zen what do i know? ahahahahah
whenever i found the catch in something and pointed it out, noone wanted to hear it. seemed they had all ventured far enough they assured me. "no need to look further, we got it now, it's alright! we know the truth already!"
how lazy ;)
Before I let myself be taken in by all the doomsday talk since 2020, I was also regularly in good spirits that serious scientists say that the deeper they look, the better and more sophisticated their devices are, the more questions they have and the more they assume an intelligence, i.e. God. What works back on them is the fact that maths and the other natural sciences make possible what they call a finely tuned universe.
I haven't lost the desire to listen to these types of researchers who out themselves as theists or believers and it does me good to experience this. I am nowhere near being able to grasp the maths behind it and can therefore only summon up an understanding of it with my limited abilities. However, as communication is usually not by means of formulae but by means of linguistic language and a scientist is able to translate what otherwise only experts understand, I am happy to listen.
So, the message from that scientific side is not that "We know everything and that is that."
I think that the craziness of our time makes us more able to spot a cult, and to see the difference between it and culture, don't you think?
Bye, bye
yes!
are you familiar with rupert sheldrake?
Absolutely. I once emailed with him for a certain project we had in mind. I think, I saw all of his speeches online. And was digging up his website, as well. :)
I am currently leading a group of students, mostly PhD students, in a detailed study of Sheldrake's Science Set Free.
That is great to hear. I am now very curious about the outcome.
When did you start the group?
We started about 5 weeks ago. Next week is our final session.
It’s been good. Most are international students, from a wide variety of disciplines. All have had their thinking challenged. We’ve had some really good discussions.
and some have argued that culture and cult are identical ;)
good old Terence McKenna ... :)
I would not call it "culture", like he does in this clip though, but cult, yes.
aye
Well, I have decided after long reflection and testing of my capabilities that I am unfit, incompetent, and incapable of knowing.
I have no idea. I wasn't there, didn't see it, and can't say. I'm lucky I can tie my shoes.
Thanks!
Now, that is not the worst thing one can do and have as an insight. I agree on that. But since man wants to reason, wants to deal with this topic, obviously, we are in the game.
Apart from that, wanting to believe in God, is a coping mechanism, in order to not become fatalistic about our mortality. From my point of view, it is a decision to believe in God. I, for my part, am satisfied with people deciding for it and find that is better than to die in the midst of a mental struggle, incomplete. Because, a struggle it is.
Guten tag! Dear @erh.germany !
As an East Asian Christian, I don't know much about Logos.
However, seeing the mystery of life existing only on Earth in an infinite universe, I believe that God created the universe!
As the Bible says, I believe that God created life only on Earth!
The Earth, the only place where life exists in an infinite universe that cannot be understood by human reason or science, is the greatest mystery of the universe!
Danke !
Auch, einen guten Tag :)
To see "the mystery of life" as something inspirational, is a good start, I think.
If you refer to the Bible, like you do, a common reaction I experienced and observed, is to get it ridiculed. That, for example, was one reason I never started to read it and tooted in the same horn. Since I started to investigate the more earnest materials, I began to be more open towards biblical sources.
Do you have any biblical sources which could be of interest? And also to give an interpretation of yours?
The thing is, those of us who believe in God just know there is one because of our encounters with the Lord. That in itself is enough.
Am not one to know how to help you come to terms with this topic but the answer I can give you is to ask God for the truth you are seeking.
I believe in God. But it's not as if I've always done so. There are a lot of people who don't want to decide in favour of faith because they are in doubt. Those who doubt feel the challenge in what makes them doubt. It is extremely difficult for people who have grown up in predominantly secular circumstances to find God and it is not enough to say that God will come to you. In order to come to him, people need other people who meet them intellectually and accept their challenge. It is very easy to say ‘I don't believe!’ just as it is easy to say ‘I believe’. Reasoning both, on the other hand, is an act of courtesy and a dialogue that needs to be conducted between Christians and non-Christians. Don't you think?
It's understandable. For some people, looking and researching at church history helps. So perhaps you can start with that too. Am just giving you what I can as I am not capable of discussing/debating such topics since I am not an expert in it. 😁 I can only offer second hand info based on what I've read and watched. 🙂
I've seen several conversion stories online and some said reading abt such history, like by the early church fathers, made them realize the answers. Hope it helps. God bless on your spiritual journey.
Thank you, since a journey, it is. If you like to see in a society more of what Christianity wants to offer, the Christians themselves have to come out of their own spaces and dare to debate on a level; meaning that the level of debate and challenging each other needs to be led in that open space. That also requires some courage to face someone who is good at arguing and to meet the arguments in a manner the other one can accept.
― G.K. Chesterton
I would describe modernity as Chesterton did here.
God bless you, too.
Yep, plenty of Christians who can discuss and debate such topics. For sure you can find someone out there. So many Catholics have also posted content online. Have not tried searching regarding your concern though but I do hope you will find the answers soon enough. 😉
Right. I must say I agree with much of what you say. Personally I am not as familiar with the Old Testament as I am with the New. As far as I know, sometimes God is described more in a human form, while at other times he seems to be more in a philosophical and non-physical sense. But since he is creator of heaven and earth, this seems to indicate a non-physical pre-existence. It is a difficult thing to interpret.
I believe that in its origins the conception of God could be physical and become in this aspect similar to the gods of pagan religions. This, of course, is different from the Christian conception of God based on the New Testament.
In both cases, I believe there is enough merit to not be easily dismissed.
Even the ancient pagan religions, which today may seem nonsense, have more depth and logic than meets the eye. Whether they are interpreted literally or figuratively.
For me it is hard to grasp.
There is a video that was uploaded today on YouTube (in a channel that, in my opinion, is one of the best on religion and related subjects) that I think is related to this topic, you can watch it if you wish:
Although the argument of the video was originally given by a Muslim philosopher many centuries ago, nevertheless, this same argument is currently used by some Christian philosophers and theologians.
It is definitely a very interesting topic. I find all this religion, philosophy and mythology quite fascinating.
I'll add any other thoughts on the subject that pop into my head.
Cheers to you!
Hi to you,
good so see you.
Yes, I also find it to be a topic of fascination. It never gets out of interest. I would be happy to read other thoughts on the subject from you.
indeed, indeed. That is why trying in doing the interpretation and discussing it with more in depth interested folks, gives richness to the culture in which one is being born into. I lately find that my thoughts circulate more than ever around my Christian heritage, and I attribute it to my old age. Our elders used to say "one day you'll understand." Here I am :)
I did an interpretation on Genesis on todays blog post. If you like, head over and see what you can add or make of it from your perspective.
Sincere greetings!
P.S. thank you for the video link.
Yes, I'll take a look.