Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other natural physical laws, like electromagnetism or the speed of light?
As such, would it not amount to a 'governing principle' describing and limiting the extent of our freedom of thought and action, much like, say, gravity or heat limit what our physical bodies can do, beyond which it encounters resistance?
If so, did men and women then give human thoughts, feelings, and motives to something which is purely impersonal?
Many scientists now believe something like this could be true.[mindmatters.ai]
God isn't. It does not exist, but a false human conception.
If you define 'god' as consciousness, it exists. If everything has consciousness, from the very tiniest particle, to you (very big IFs), everything is 'god.'
So, the line of thought goes, the people who created these religions (and god) were really trying to describe, explain, and understand consciousness, their own and everyone elses'.
That they projected THEIR and everybody else's consciousness into a separate "entity" or "entities" may have been simply a result of their inferior understanding of the nature of the physical universe and what are it's constituent parts.
As our understanding of it--and consciousness--increases, it stands to reason, the closer we get to understanding "reality" itself.
@Now that you have said that, please elucidate. Please clarify and provide the intellectual or evidence basis for such a statement,.
That seems to me to be a contrived, needlessly complex explanation for the rise of religious thought among early people who grappled with things like where the sun went at night and why diseases struck down some people and not others. I don't think these folks who lacked an understanding of heliocentrism and germ theory had developed a framework for natural limits of the universe, a constant speed of light, or some convoluted notion of universal consciousness and applied the "god" label to any of that.
Of course not. They may have just taken what they percieved with their five senses and made sense of it the only way they knew how: through their own very limited understanding...that's why it ended up turning into the convoluted mess we call religion!
Maybe.
Anything could be, but I find that I can maintain peace of mind without depending on unsupported imaginings. If evidence emerges, I will adjust my worldview accordingly.
That said, I have no trouble using religious language metaphorically. I value peace and cooperation over war and discord. This doesn’t come naturally. Xenophobia is adaptive. Seeking consonance with fellow humans is a learned skill. It requires practice.
80% of my fellow humans carry worldviews based on god concepts. I feel no obligation to believe as they believe, but I find great value and meaning in finding ways to interact with them peacefully.
When they use the word ‘god’ I find that if I take it to be a metaphor that personifies the entirety of reality, we can continue in peaceful communication, and no one’s worldview is injured.
Intraspecies conflict is what will be at the root of our extinction.
Getting along with groups larger than 150 is unnatural.
It requires compromise.
Compromise requires practice.
That does not mean all the compromise has to come from my side; there’s plenty to go around. Separation of Church and State is a value I will stand firm on. But that doesn’t require me to call my neighbor an idiot, or insult his worldview. I can just remind him to read the Constitution.
Many scientists? You sound like Trump now...
I'm going by the articles I read.[mindmatters.ai]
God is a fictional character. My take, if there is anything bigger than us, it's beyond our comprehension. I just revel in the awe and the mystery.
The is evidence for electromagnetism and the speed of light. There is none for god.
Here's the article:[mindmatters.ai]
Invisible deities are imaginary, made up by humans.
As an atheist, I chose rational thought, not magical beliefs.
I feel comfortable with mystery in life. Science is advancing every year.
I totally agree and that's my point exactly.
“God” is just a label. To say that God did all this is just another way of saying that we don’t understand reality and have no idea what it means.
Yes, Universal Consciousness, if there is such, is a natural phenomenon. Giving a human face to universal consciousness might be justified if you consider individual conscious awareness to be an extension of the universal. In that case God is subjective. Of course thinking of God as having a human-like body is nothing but metaphor.
The article from which I extropolated my admittedly [mindmatters.ai] idea:
I believe that starting the post of with "Is 'god'" makes the rest irrelevant. The exact same queston could have been asked without inserting the "god" word. Such as "Is there a governing principle that describes and limits the human ability to have freedom of thought and action similar to other universal laws like gravity and heat?"
Inserting the concept of god into the question is superfluous as if there is such a governing principle, there is nothing about it that implies a god any more than gravity or heat does.
I was just saying maybe HUMANS called it 'god,' and built religions around it make it comprehensible. But 'it' was simply consciousness itself.
By giving 'it' human characteristics, then, they only obscured it's true nature.
The article: [mindmatters.ai]
@Storm1752 Just to be clear, are you saying the application of the concept of "god" was purposely put on the concept of panpsychism, or universal consciousness? I would say no. They applied it to much simpler concepts like the lightning that started the fire that destroyed their crops one season. I'm hard pressed to believe that they were staring at their navels and came up with the philosophical concept of universal consciousness that included rocks and trees. The article itself discusses it as a new phenomenon and not generally accepted and makes no historic claims that it affected any culture or philosophical thought in the past.
Not any scientists I am familiar with.
The article:[mindmatters.ai]
@Storm1752 LOTTA wooo.... and quantifiers in every single sentence! Not exactly definitive science.......
Mind Mattets Podcasts are produced by a marketing organization known as Morris Creative Services, which is a subsidiary of a larger marketing organization known as, the Quad Organization.
The Mind Matters Podcast features discussions with leaders in the fields of psychology, education, and beyond, with an emphasis on gifted/talented and 2e (twice-exceptional) children and adults. Mind Matters explores parenting, counseling techniques, and best practices for enriching the lives of high-ability people.
I could not find any info on what their criteria for acceptance of research material. Their podcasts are well linked and associated with many well known and established sites.
The scientists and periodicals in which they published are pretty obscure. They represent an incredibly small contingent of researchers in their fields. Doesn't mean they are wrong, but they are not a convincing set of credentials. I followed several links in several of the associated articles, was not impressed.
I believe the typical definition and understanding of 'god' (or 'God' ) isn't impersonal. From my belief and understanding, describing the phenomenon you mention as 'god' lend itself to misunderstandings of what is being discussed. Einstein would refer to God when talking about natural phenomenon and those who understood God differently would claim Einstein to be religious like themselves. I would think we would be better off avoiding the term God in favor of other descriptions - 'natural physical laws', 'governing principles', etc.
In terms of humans personifying the inanimate and nonpersonal, I believe it is clear that humans tend to naturally think in think in this way. We are a pattern seeking species and we will find patterns where none exist. We will also find faces from random patterns. This phenomenon is apparently something we do from an early age since infants are attracted to faces more than other patterns and shapes.
The first 2 words are a problem, " is 'god'" no, god isn't. The force of nature already is impersonal, so that doesn't work well. A "universal consciousness" is a stab at mystifying the simple fact of not understanding how our brains work. The fact we use sound, sight, and touch for communication when the brain is functioning should show there isn't a need to have a universal connection when our brains stop working at death or unconsciousness (not sleep)...
Humans all the time give thoughts, feelings, and motives to impersonal items...then the last sentence has the "trump card" "believe" in it.
"See the problem"
Yeah, I see it.
I think of myself as inhabiting a body, but it could just as easily be some other body and it'd still be me.
Or would it?
If I was different in looks, physiology, and circumstances, would I be the same person?
Is there something uniquely ME about me, or am I interchangeable with everyone else?
Are we ALL interchangeable, or is there something uniquely YOU about you?
Btw, I can't speak for "many scientists," but I'm not sure they "believe" consciousness is universal, just that it MIGHT be.
@Storm1752
Still have to use the word believe, a true scientist wouldn't use the word believe. They would say "it isn't proven to be possible and untill it does it can be discarded...
@Storm1752 My friend, the body any of us inhabits is the one made by the union of 1 single sperm cell and 1 single ovum that is ALL there is to it.
The fertilized ovum develops into an embryo, then into a foetus and finally into a human baby, what becomes of that tiny baby is a matter of what it eats, learns and does as it grows, that is the only and major choice we have in life, we cannot inhabit any other body EXCEPT the one we are born as.
@Triphid Agreed halfway... maybe we will be able to inhabit another body some time in the future. It might be a scientific possibility that we haven't discovered. Maybe there will be a great scientist someday who will be able to transfer human conciousness to a computer. Maybe another great scientist will be able to create a body that can effectively host that conciousness. Who knows just yet?
Non of the above. God is a figment of your imagination.
Not talking about 'god' as a 'thing' or 'entity,' but as consciousness. Or are you yourself a figment of your own imagination?
Do I exist, or are you just making me up?
Bullsiht! God does not exist in any way or in any form. The rest is just illusion & delusion. Or do you have any evidence? Évidence is everything.
Here I am, I really exist, yes, I have eaten a taco. What more evidence do you need of my existence?
I have only my own experience as a living, breathing, conscious person. Do I exist? Do you? Does the chair you're sitting in?
If you are suggesting that our thoughts and nature are in some way limited by the very nature of nature...well, yes. Did humans anthropomorphize nature...well, yes to that, too. But, what need is there to call nature, even if it involves some elementary consciousness, a god? I am not into nature worship and I don't think that nature is into being worshiped.
I'm saying that's what men do when they create religions. Maybe the 'god' I think may exist is the impersonal consciousness all matter down to every single atom has.
I don't KNOW exactly what I'm saying. I'm not trying to start a religion here![mindmatters.ai]
@Storm1752 Basic consciousness is awareness of one's surroundings or environment. All life has a certain level of consciousness. Even AI senses and monitors its environment and to that extent possesses some consciousness. It is simply silicon-based intelligence rather than carbon-based intelligence. Self-consciousness may be nothing more than (neural) feedback loops that allow one to be conscious of one's consciousness. In that case, a certain level of intelligence will automatically and naturally lead to self-consciousness, even potentially and eventually in AI. I don't really think of consciousness as being anything special or mysterious but inherent to life. Now, I suppose you could speak of a collective consciousness of the Universe but it does not necessarily follow that it is centralized into a Supreme Intelligence. In fact, I see no evidence of that, just human projection of human consciousness onto nature. Nevertheless, it does seem that there may be some guiding principles to the formation of the universe and the life within it that we usually refer to as the laws of physics or the laws of nature. This would, it seems, include the characteristic of consciousness endemic to life.
It's not that I'M calling it 'god.' It's that some other people interested in understanding "reality" do, indirectly, by imagining consciousness is centered in a hierarchy, going from the least to the most organized, which must have an apex, a crown.
This is patterned on man-made social structures, right? But it could be an anarchy instead, or a democracy. Or something else. Or nothing.
Maybe we just ARE.
And to suggest we and/or our self-realization are to be "worshipped" is ridiculous, and may betray a misunderstanding of who and what we are, which is everything, so to speak.
Should "everything" be worshipped? Of course not.
Probably. The anthropomorphism of such a force provides the problems we face with anthropocentric beliefs.
Physical laws are deduced by observation of natural events. There's no sense in making one up which has no observable effect and calling it 'god'. That's just silly.
Tell that to those people who corrupted the word to the point it's no longer useful as a convenient shorthand for consciousness. When one hears or reads it they automatically think of an "entity" much like a person, except with superhuman powers without limit. This is stupid and ridiculous by today's standards. Yet some people still believe it.
They'd be much better off, of course, building their beliefs systems on the much firmer foundation of observable fact. You and I know this.
But even scientists have to then take the latest factual building blocks and deduce from that new hypotheses on which to base future research. This is how knowledge accumulates.
So what are pure fictional speculations today are tomorrow's facts
Without empirical evidence your ‘universal consciousness’ is effectively non-existent. If it existed it would manifest and be known. It might be that we have not progressed enough to describe it, the way people could not understand lightning in the Stone Age. Or nuclear forces until the 20th century. All known forces did manifest themselves even when “science” or natural philosophy did not understand them. The empirical evidence was (and is) there but no one could understand it. Not so with “god”.
Why go all the way to 'universal' consciousness, then? Why not just your OWN consciousness, as a human your self-awareness?
I'm not saying it's 'god,' merely what men CALL it. By doing so they obscure it's true nature by then giving it emotions and feelings, when it's really an impersonal 'energy' which flows through EVERYTHING.
That's the thought, anyway. [mindmatters.ai]