I've defended the god-idea, and capitalize the word God out of respect for English grammar as much as out of respect for whatever or Whomever it is I am referring to. Having said that, I'd be happy to dispense with the word god, or the idea of a being called God which automatically calls to mind tyrannical and irrational beings like Jehovah, and replace it with a term that better clarifies the idea I'm referring to when I use the word God.
Like Spinoza, my notion of God is not as a supernatural being. The word supernatural is a nonsense word, like the word 'nothing'; they both refer to...nothing (I realize the word 'God' may also be a candidate for the category of nonsense words). I conceive of God (and it's only my personal conception) as an extremely advanced, extremely intelligent Agent of some kind which is beyond human capacity, which means beyond the capacity of modern science, to even study, let alone understand. Or, when I'm feeling like an atheist (which is most of the time), God refers to all that going on in the Universe, macro and micro, which is beyond human understanding. It's a matter of reverence. I believe the idea that we understand all there is to know about physics is plain old hubris. It's fine to be an empiricist, a skeptic, a totally objective scientist with a deep respect for facts and truth and reality; but if someone like Einstein can contemplate God, or use the term without feeling embarrassed, than that should mean something. I think it should mean something also that the majority of scientists are not atheists. It DOES NOT mean that atheism is wrong; not hardly. Majority doesn't equal correctness; all I mean is that these highly trained numbers of individuals, a lot of them, feel a reverence and awe about the universe and have not committed themselves to the idea that the human brain can understand all there is to know about the world, and that any kind of romantic view of reality ought to be tossed into the rubbish bin automatically. Such treatment of eccentric, radical visions and ideas is akin to book-burning, in my opinion, it solves very little and doesn't progress humanity. Tolerance, even in the face of a radical theory, like those of Hameroff and Penrose, and others like them (there are many) should be common practice. Offhand dismissals and mockery won't improve the effort to find common ground amongst one another. It never has worked. Even Carl Sagan, as pure an atheist as could be, who never, ever gave an inch when it came to the idea of gods or God, was tolerant, kind, and patient in his rebuttals of such, and held an undying awe and reverence for the universe, and for those "as subtle as we."
The word God, at least how I use it, refers to that which we do not understand about the Universe, or it refers to a sublime Entity that really exists. It depends on my mood. I'm sure the term is offensive to people who respect facts and who reject Woo and any kind of mental masturbation and navel gazing. I apologize for that offense.
edit: It depends on my mood. << I understand how stupid that statement is, but I'll let it stay in there anyway.
Like Spinoza, my notion of God is not as a supernatural being. The word supernatural is a nonsense word, like the word 'nothing'; they both refer to...nothing (I realize the word 'God' may also be a candidate for the category of nonsense words). I conceive of God (and it's only my personal conception) as an extremely advanced, extremely intelligent Agent of some kind which is beyond human capacity, which means beyond the capacity of modern science, to even study, let alone understand. Or, when I'm feeling like an atheist (which is most of the time), God refers to all that going on in the Universe, macro and micro, which is beyond human understanding. It's a matter of reverence. I believe the idea that we understand all there is to know about physics is plain old hubris. It's fine to be an empiricist, a skeptic, a totally objective scientist with a deep respect for facts and truth and reality; but if someone like Einstein can contemplate God, or use the term without feeling embarrassed, than that should mean something. I think it should mean something also that the majority of scientists are not atheists. It DOES NOT mean that atheism is wrong; not hardly. Majority doesn't equal correctness; all I mean is that these highly trained numbers of individuals, a lot of them, feel a reverence and awe about the universe and have not committed themselves to the idea that the human brain can understand all there is to know about the world, and that any kind of romantic view of reality ought to be tossed into the rubbish bin automatically. Such treatment of eccentric, radical visions and ideas is akin to book-burning, in my opinion, it solves very little and doesn't progress humanity. Tolerance, even in the face of a radical theory, like those of Hameroff and Penrose, and others like them (there are many) should be common practice. Offhand dismissals and mockery won't improve the effort to find common ground amongst one another. It never has worked. Even Carl Sagan, as pure an atheist as could be, who never, ever gave an inch when it came to the idea of gods or God, was tolerant, kind, and patient in his rebuttals of such, and held an undying awe and reverence for the universe, and for those "as subtle as we."
The word God, at least how I use it, refers to that which we do not understand about the Universe, or it refers to a sublime Entity that really exists. It depends on my mood. I'm sure the term is offensive to people who respect facts and who reject Woo and any kind of mental masturbation and navel gazing. I apologize for that offense.
edit: It depends on my mood. << I understand how stupid that statement is, but I'll let it stay in there anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment