Defining God as Ignorance

[info being]

The longer one is free from the influences of religion, the more clearly one is able to see it. I was watching a discussion on Slovak television last night between 5 scientists, from different fields, who all agree that science cannot explain everything and so, therefore, there must be a higher power or God.

Of course I've heard this argument before. After all, it is probably the least controversial, most non-committal position on religion to say that you believe there "must be some sort of higher power". While such a position on the matter is safe and non-offensive, it is equally absurd.

Next time a person says something along these lines, ask them exactly why they believe there "must be a higher power". The experts I mentioned on this panel have apparently thought long and hard on the topic. They explained that, while science can explain how things work down to the most intricate detail, science cannot explain why. Imagine a child asking a question such as, "Why does the light bulb make light?" You can explain all the details about electrons, circuits, etc., but you will probably only have the same question repeated, "But I still don't understand why the light bulb makes light." Why light? It's an interesting question that demonstrates nothing other than ignorance. In this case, I'm not using the word ignorance as a negative thing. To the contrary, to ask that question shows a sort of humble respect for the fact that we don't really understand space and time completely.

But it is a very long and absurd leap to say that, because I do not or cannot fully understand this matter, there must be a God in the sky who is watching us, who sent his only begotten Son, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, down to earth to save us from our sins. A complex mind, a humble mind, is able to accept the fact that we don't know everything...we cannot know everything. This doesn't make us weak, it makes us humble and respectful to nature and our place in it. A simple mind arrogantly makes up or believes ridiculous stories in a desperate attempt to provide comfort by pretending that complete truth and wisdom can be obtained.

Another interesting example was discussed. An environmental scientist discussed the idea of photosynthesis. He described the perfection and elegance of this process. He talked about how there is perfect balance, no waste, no externalities. He concluded that only a Higher Power could have designed such a thing. What he demonstrated was an embarrassing lack of understanding about the principles of evolution. In fact, evolution explains photosynthesis quite well.

Evolution explains everything life is and everything life does. Evolution involves living organisms competing for resources. The sun is a resource and plants take advantage of it. They also take advantage of water and CO2. What they produce as a byproduct is oxygen. But one organism's waste is another organism's resource. Animals breath oxygen and can eat plants. The net result looks like perfect balance, when in fact it is the result of a process. That process is evolution. Where there isn't enough water, plants don't grow. Where there aren't enough plants, animals don't exist. What we see is a state of balance, but it isn't because it was designed that way; rather, it is because some organisms died and others succeeded...some species lived and others went extinct. While we humans might perceive a perfectly designed balance, it is only because we are biased by the perspective of our existence in a single space and time. What some people can't comprehend is that billions of years led up to this moment and a lot of stuff had to happen to make things the way they are. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand evolution. Evolution is the most basic principle of science. You cannot call yourself a scientist if you don't understand it thoroughly.

On a side-note, it cannot be true that both evolution is true and religion is true. If you understand evolution as everything life is and everything life does, if you understand that every idea, every word, every thought is a product of the process of evolution (not just the biological aspects of life but also the behavioral), then you understand that our notion of religion is, itself, a product of evolution. You understand that The Bible, The Koran, or any other religious work is simply a product of the process of evolution. Evolution explains it perfectly.

One of the survival traits of being human is the desire to understand and explain. It is this very important impulse which has led us to survive and thrive in a harsh natural world. But we have to be honest about the limitations of this impulse. The simple fact is that we will never know whether anything happens after death. We will never comprehend the concept of infinity or understand what was before time. We will never understand exactly how something may have come from nothing. There are concepts we are probably not able to understand. We have to find the courage to resist our egotistical need to feel that we know everything. We need to stop "plugging-in" the concept of God whenever we encounter something we do not, and cannot know. It is perfectly acceptable to be at peace with the idea that some things cannot be known. The alternative (making up stories to explain the things we don't know or cannot know) makes a person look really silly.

Look at it mathematically:

(What we do know) + (What we don't understand, or "X") = (Complete and perfect knowledge)

Are we going to plug in religious stories and pretend we have complete and perfect knowledge, or are we going to find peace in letting "X" be "X" (which it always will be, regardless of how hard we try to explain it away)?

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. "God of the gaps" = "God as ignorance"

I rather like that meme.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. " ... (a) complex mind, a humble mind ... "

Around HERE?

:evilgrin:

--d!

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. I think that's cop-out ignorant reasoning, too - for scientists or for the faithful

Especially sad when scientists do it.


"I can't explain this; therefore, it must be God" is bullshit. Does a disservice to science, and does a disservice to God.

Seriously, taking that reasoning back a few ten thousands of years, it should have been equally as valid to say "I don't understand fire, therefore God" or "I don't understand how wheel works, therefore God".

Nasty.

As a believer, I think science shows us HOW God works; but I can't imagine science ever PROVING that God exists, though perhaps in 10,000 years we'll have the technology. And saying idiotic shit like "Wow, I can't explain that, therefore there must be a God" is silliness. And ignorant. And dishonest.

Believers should have the courage and integrity to admit that they (we) believe because of feelings and irrational experiences of the divine.

[patrice]

4. Defining what people call "God" as Ignorance.

On the subject of "God", I'm with what Cormac McCarthy says in The Road.

This would be a "God", not of gaps, but of phenomenologically concrete micro connections.

[customerserviceguy]

5. One of the arguments I've used

with fundie friends and acquaintances when they seek to engage me on this topic is: Suppose we assume a creator god? (and I don't.) How does knowledge of that further inform us as to which set of dusty old writings correctly describe that being? How does that provide evidence that there is still something out there that: a) Has an influence on that creation, and b) Can be influenced by us to make changes in the things that have been created, by the way we behave in 'worshipping' that being?

Sometimes they get a bit flummoxed, but I guess it looks that way to me because they keep using circular 'reasoning' that comes back to their favorite set of dusty old writings.

[sellitman]

6. What you said is logical.

If you don't understand logic then Religion is the next logical choice.

[BeFree]

7. Easy

Its called gene manipulation. We've just started doing it. In a hundred years, if we live that long, folks will be able to manipulate genes at will and make all kinds of nasty creatures.

Its how evolution works - by slowly manipulating genes over time.

Generation
Organization and
Destruction

G
O
D

GOD

[patrice]

8. We are in the habit of over-estimating the power of language and, thus, thinking by objectification,

instead of thinking of/by/as Process and, in particular, the process known as Experience stripped of all of its artifical appurtenances down to phenomenology.

[elehhhhna]

9. ooh, snap!

[Boojatta]

10. Surely this part is an inside joke?

Evolution is the most basic principle of science. You cannot call yourself a scientist if you don't understand it thoroughly.

[info being]

11. Surely you will elaborate

[Boojatta]

12. For example, consider this part:

An environmental scientist discussed the idea of photosynthesis. (...) What he demonstrated was an embarrassing lack of understanding about the principles of evolution.

If you called him "an environmental scientist", then why can't he call himself a scientist?

[info being]

13. Most people would have seen the bigger picture

I'm perfectly comfortable with that inconsistency. So you're saying that if I had used the word "so-called scientest" you would have had no problems with my post? Seems like kind of a silly point you just made.

[Boojatta]

14. One facet of the bigger picture is that biological science relies upon...

physics and chemistry, but not vice versa. Thus, it's possible for someone to acquire substantive skills and knowledge in physics and/or chemistry without acquiring thorough knowledge of any aspect of biological science. It could be made difficult in practice for people to acquire credentials as "scientists" unless they acquire knowledge of biology, but policies designed to have that effect wouldn't demonstrate that knowing biology is an intrinsic part of being a scientist. Such policies would demonstrate something closer to the opposite.

[info being]

19. What I meant to say is that it shouldn't be that way

[Why Syzygy]

15. How does evolution explain the ignorance of believing in God? nt

[rrneck]

16. Mind if I fool around with your formula?

(What we do know) + (What we don't understand, or "X") = (Complete and perfect knowledge)

(What we can measure because it has already happened) + (What we can prognosticate because of what we already know) = (The human condition)

God is real. So is Gandalf. And Jesus is just as real as Iago. If anyone needs verifiable evidence of those people, they could measure the behavior of the people who are exposed to them. Just like light from the sun which can make plants grow and deserts bake, our prognostications can help us suffer and overcome the depredations of life on the planet or it can get virgins thrown into volcanoes.

A human being has a given physicality that can be measured. Defining that physicality is a fairly straightforward process. Defining what is human is a lot more difficult. Actually being human includes a pattern of behavior that assumes a dependence on a set of expectations. Ideas like reciprocity, integrity, justice, and retribution are among the skills that humans posses that contribute most to our definition of humanity. Other species exhibit those skills, but we are by far and away better at it than any other species on the planet. What are heaven, hell and eternity but the ultimate prognostication?

For every biologist there is a anthropologist. For every doctor there is a psychiatrist. For every architect there is an artist.

[patrice]

18. Thanks for this.

(What we can measure because it has already happened) + (What we can prognosticate because of what we already know) = (The human condition)

God is real. So is Gandalf. And Jesus is just as real as Iago. If anyone needs verifiable evidence of those people, they could measure the behavior of the people who are exposed to them.

I like this very much. They are just as real as we are. It is the sort of thing that makes me think about those micro-connections, patterns of behavioral tendencies, manners of being, synching up for no identifiable "reason" whatsoever, over millenia of seconds, like balls in a plinko game. We don't see/feel this so well now, because we've so wholly objectified life, alienated ourselves from experience, called it this, that, and the other thing, rather than letting it be whatever it is. So it often is with that with which Religion concerns itself. We have it backwards. Instead of letting the pattern manifest itself, we pick a motif and filter out anything that doesn't fit. We call this "identity".

Just like light from the sun which can make plants grow and deserts bake, our prognostications can help us suffer and overcome the depredations of life on the planet or it can get virgins thrown into volcanoes.

A human being has a given physicality that can be measured. Defining that physicality is a fairly straightforward process. Defining what is human is a lot more difficult. Actually being human includes a pattern of behavior that assumes a dependence on a set of expectations. Ideas like reciprocity, integrity, justice, and retribution are among the skills that humans posses that contribute most to our definition of humanity. Other species exhibit those skills, but we are by far and away better at it than any other species on the planet. What are heaven, hell and eternity but the ultimate prognostication?

Indeed. Other than reflex, what other more basic process, than prediction, would there be? And so we gave labels to our calculus and over time came to mistake the labels for the physical configurations within the process that the labels were only to point to.

For every biologist there is a anthropologist. For every doctor there is a psychiatrist. For every architect there is an artist.

Eventually. So, from the individual perspective, the questions are about things such as "Does the artist come along to feed those 'micro-connections' with the aesthetics of truth at an appropriate moment and, thus, save their prediction from the ruin of too much structure? Or is the artist late, or out of synch, so that a faulty prediction reduces or eradicates certain tendencies previously manifested in the patterens/connections? Is "shape without form", "shade without color", force paralyzed, gesture without motion?

Depending upon what/when the connections are (e.g. anthropologist? psychiatrist? artist?) patterns shift a bit, change colors, or fade altogether. What was expected to be "real" isn't and something else may or may not be.

[rrneck]

21. You're welcome

Indeed. Other than reflex, what other more basic process, than prediction, would there be? And so we gave labels to our calculus and over time came to mistake the labels for the physical configurations within the process that the labels were only to point to.

Heh. Don't get me started on Simulacra. ("Put down the French philosopher and step away slowly") Sometimes we even come to revere our labels as gods instead of the divinity they were designed to describe. You're right. It's hard enough to deal with changes in the physical world and what it does to our thinking, but we also have to deal with the product of our own thoughts that seem to exist outside us and affect the trajectory of our lives. Self awareness can be a bitch.

like balls in a plinko game...Instead of letting the pattern manifest itself

That's sounds like a fair description of quantum mechanics. The way I understand it, light can be understood as either a particle or a wave, depending on how you measure it. If you measure it as a particle, that's what it is. If you measure it as a wave, that is what it will become. We can never know exactly what a particle will do. When we know exactly where it is, we won't know its velocity, and vice versa.

So, from the individual perspective, the questions are about things such as "Does the artist come along to feed those 'micro-connections' with the aesthetics of truth at an appropriate moment and, thus, save their prediction from the ruin of too much structure? Or is the artist late, or out of synch, so that a faulty prediction reduces or eradicates certain tendencies previously manifested in the patterens/connections?

The former I think. The artist sets up a feedback loop between the work and the viewer. If it's a good one, the loop will continue to feed itself because of the self awareness of the viewer. Some call it a relationship, others call it existential angst. Come to think of it, the latter could be existential angst. Hmmmmmmmm

[cosmik debris]

17. Slightly off topic, but

Your post reminded me of a conversation in the movie The Big Chill.

Michael: I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.

Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.

Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

The less you know, the more you rationalize.

[Warpy]

20. That was my favorite exchange in an otherwise deplorable film

I kept in touch with a lot of my movement friends. While some might have been that slim, not a single one was rich. Social work and other human service jobs pay shit, and that's what most of them ended up doing. Well, that and food service, which pays worse.

"God of the gaps" is what I find most scientist friends believing in, which is really "god of the we haven't invented the equipment to verify theories yet."