a God that could be real

[Uwe]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/...that-could-be-real-in-the-scientific-universe

...it's hard to grasp that the chance to redefine God is actually in our hands. But it is, and the way we do it will play a leading role in shaping the future of our planet.

To me, this is the key question: Could anything actually exist in this universe that is worthy of being called God? My answer is yes, and in my next blog post I'll explain what I mean by "a God that could be real."

I tend to agree with the author/blogger: a modern spirituality born of real science would be valuable, if only to finally dispel the older ideas.

I'll be interested to see her next blog post...and your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Perspicuo]

If a thing isn't aware, cannot communicate and does not have a will capable of affecting other things in an important way, it does not deserve to be called a god.

And if, "But if scientists tell the public that they have to choose between God and science, most people will choose God", reasoning people cannot be so wussy as to give in to untruth... much less invent such a thing, which is so ethically wrong I can barely wrap my head around the possibility.

And about the rest, I'd say this author is keen on mental masturbation.

 

[OLDMAN]

Does the truth matter, if it does...then we have to be brave enough to allow for it.

 

[Juma]

Does the truth matter, if it does...then we have to be brave enough to allow for it.

Of course the truth matter! And the way to model it! Our current opinion of it? not so much.

 

[Uwe]

Right, the truth is critical. But as Pilate asks, "what is truth?"

The sticking point in my thinking has been that the value of religion is social, and therefore the 'truth' is that it is socially created.
"God" works because we/they all agree to pretend that it exists.

Is there a way to get the tangible benefits from a non-pretend higher-power?
Have there ever even really been tangible benefits?

 

[Keith&Co.]

...it's hard to grasp that the chance to redefine God is actually in our hands..

Not at all. Creationists have redefined 'evidence' for years.
And we usually reject their attempts to shoehorn their version of evidence into the discussion.

So the benefit of a scientifically defined god-concept would merely be equally cosmetic. People that don't look too closely may be less upset if scientists are 'godly' but once they realize that by 'god' we do not mean that we agree with their religious view, it'll go back to the current status quo. They're right, we're wrong, etc.

just like they currently say Mormons worship the wrong Jesus...

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems to me that what qualifies as "God" is just a matter of definition - as is typical of any philosophical concept. All our current religions have different definitions. Scientists who wished could easily define god as the laws of physics that we know a good deal about and are still learning more. Would this qualify as a religion? If not, why not - Zen Buddhists don't have a sky-daddy but they are considered to be a religion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Scientists who wished could easily define god as the laws of physics that we know a good deal about and are still learning more. Would this qualify as a religion?

But what's the point of calling that 'god?'

 

[skepticalbip]

Scientists who wished could easily define god as the laws of physics that we know a good deal about and are still learning more. Would this qualify as a religion?

But what's the point of calling that 'god?'

Just to fuck with the JesusFreaks that knock on the door to save us.

 

[Uwe]

"So say we all."

We could choose a word to refer to the ideal to which we aspire and measure ourselves. "God" has that meaning to some now, consider, "we are God's hands and feet."
That principle always fascinated me, since it implicitly accepts that God itself has no power.
Such power resides in the people and their commitment to the goals and intentions attributed to God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But what's the point of calling that 'god?'

Just to fuck with the JesusFreaks that knock on the door to save us.

Well, that's why I have a sword rack on the wall facing the front door....

 

[Juma]

"So say we all."

We could choose a word to refer to the ideal to which we aspire and measure ourselves. "God" has that meaning to some now, consider, "we are God's hands and feet."
That principle always fascinated me, since it implicitly accepts that God itself has no power.
Such power resides in the people and their commitment to the goals and intentions attributed to God.

But that is ridiculous. So we all aspire to be a megalomaniac monster that creates flies that nests in eyes? That creates living thibgs that needs to kill another living things to survive? That creates such much evil?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sounds like a pretty irrelevant redefinition of God that can just leave the god concepts out of it.

 

[Uwe]

How about, "Dear Leader," then?
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Theodore Roosevelt?
Superman? Malcolm Reynolds?


We have heros and leaders, many of whom relied upon god-concepts themselves.
Why not one hero to rule them all?

 

[Uwe]

"So say we all."

We could choose a word to refer to the ideal to which we aspire and measure ourselves. "God" has that meaning to some now, consider, "we are God's hands and feet."
That principle always fascinated me, since it implicitly accepts that God itself has no power.
Such power resides in the people and their commitment to the goals and intentions attributed to God.

But that is ridiculous. So we all aspire to be a megalomaniac monster that creates flies that nests in eyes? That creates living thibgs that needs to kill another living things to survive? That creates such much evil?

You can if you like. I won't judge.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We have heros and leaders, many of whom relied upon god-concepts themselves.
Why not one hero to rule them all?

Slave owning deists or deluded theists?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How about, "Dear Leader," then?
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Theodore Roosevelt?
Superman? Malcolm Reynolds?


We have heros and leaders, many of whom relied upon god-concepts themselves.
Why not one hero to rule them all?

I wouldn't mind worshipping Superman, but I have a feeling that Batman is going to whup his ass next year and undermine the basis of my faith.

 

[Juma]

But that is ridiculous. So we all aspire to be a megalomaniac monster that creates flies that nests in eyes? That creates living thibgs that needs to kill another living things to survive? That creates such much evil?

You can if you like. I won't judge.

I thought you meant that that was what people worshipped: what they aspired.

 

[Uwe]

How about, "Dear Leader," then?
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Theodore Roosevelt?
Superman? Malcolm Reynolds?


We have heros and leaders, many of whom relied upon god-concepts themselves.
Why not one hero to rule them all?

I wouldn't mind worshipping Superman, but I have a feeling that Batman is going to whup his ass next year and undermine the basis of my faith.

I'll call it now: they fight to a draw before uniting against their common foe. Cue the horn section.

 

[Uwe]

I thought you meant that that was what people worshipped: what they aspired.

Oh, I interpreted your earlier comment as generalizing about a strawman idea of a god that you'd like to see eradicated. I apologize if I misinterpreted. The problem of evil would dissolve once the 'creator' and its 'will' are excised from the new 'faith,' so that line of argument seemed out of place in the thread I've started here. Thus my sarcastic reply.

Most people I know (I don't have any fundamentalist friends) seek and find the good aspects of their religions, while ignoring or refuting the bad parts. Christians 'aspire' to be like Jesus, whatever their conception of that entails. Likewise The Prophet, or the Buddha, or the [Hindu deity to be named later].