Since the time humans begun to look at their environment and
ponder over its workings, they have imagined and dreamed of agencies beyond the
physical macrocosm. Our ideas about God have evolved probably more than any
other philosophy, from the naturalistic gods, to more elegantly engineered conceptions of dualistic God. The diversity in the supermarket of
Gods is staggering, of all shapes, sizes and pretexts. Among them is the
pantheistic divinity, which many trace back to Spinoza in his “The Ethics
Concerning God”, but which in fact is as old as any other notion of God,
pluming its roots in ancient Eastern philosophy. But Spinoza’s ideas were more
atheistic rather than pantheistic, despite that, many continue to propose
similar divine packages. The New Age enthusiasts, among others, assert fancy
philosophical ideas, which plays on the argument of ignorance, to economize the
gaps in our scientific understanding. Similar musings do creep up in science as
well, because hey, science does not always get the brutal scrutiny it should.
The compartments of “consciousness” has much fuzziness
surrounding it, which could easily be filled with conjecture and poorly founded
conclusions. One such example is bio-centrism by Robert Lanza whose
misinterpretation of quantum mechanics and fad philosophy “Is the apple still
there, if you don’t look at it?” is appalling. It is basically the Chopda’s
version of “the moon is not there until you look at it”. Yes, the color does
not exist, but the light waves which produce that color do. Yes, the passage of
time is an illusion but time itself is a fundamental property of universe. To
make such a naive claim that the “universe out there does not exist, and is a
figment of our thought” just regressively plays out logic. Where did the
thought come from? It’s a dug hole with no end.
And here is the trap, God is too vague a term to even bring
down to a narrow set of meaning. Natural laws are natural laws, choosing to
call it God, would just be you having a hard time getting over it. What people often
mean by God is “Anything that created the universe and us”, Oh, okay then, physical
laws are God, whatever soothes your heart. Or maybe they mean “everything which
we cannot control” in that, there is a higher structure that determines the
outcome of events at a human scale. Things which are unpredictable and whose
outcome cannot be known and which requires you to invoke a structure in order
to make sense of them. But that ‘structure’ is basically the statistical
probabilities in a certain range of outcomes, which many adore to call God. Then,
some would ask “What’s the harm in naming God?” Well, nothing, just that you do
not want to spell out the faculties of the world, and simply want them to linger in
mystery for a bit more longer.
Seagull from Ask.fm :)
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'm slightly disappointed but not surprised, as this offered no new data or interesting theory to ponder about. It's just right, based on the knowledge that we posses so far. But "just right" is not enough for me.
First of all, I do believe there is a god or consciousness that's representing the "fabric" of the universe. It doesn't matter what we may call it or how we perceive it/him/her, but we all, at some point of our lives, felt like there's something out there bigger than us. First, I'd have to remind you and the readers that this "thing" is intangible, yet the only ways we posses to measure things are based on our known laws of physics. That is our very limitation. Imo, we have to gather the courage to throw away everything we've learned so far that helps us measure the universe, if we want to understand/perceive the notion of godhood or consciousness.
The main problem is that the scientific community cannot and will not accept knowledge that is not based on imperial evidence, such as I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting, to clarify, is that what there is for us to know, out there, cannot be measured or studied in a physical sense, but it's a construct of the mind alone, therefor, in other words, it can only be understood by being "felt" (which directly opposes how the scientific community accepts new theories).
But let me tell you this: As long as the scientific community don't include subjects such as morality and truth in their study of the cosmos, they will NEVER reach enlightenment and understanding of how it actually "works", as these things are directly intertwine with how our universe functions. You can't have raw knowledge without a brain, can't have a body without a soul.
in other words, they need to study why things work how they do, and not just how.
ReplyDelete