a God that could be real

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Ya, that's fine but realistically, why would Superman ever need to unite with Batman?

That's like Mike Tyson saying "Well, it looks like these guys are in serious need of a beating. Come on, Pee Wee Herman, let's pound some manners into them". Pee Wee Herman may be a fine gentleman but he really can't add much to Mike Tyson's effectiveness in a fight.

It's like when the Avengers bring Hawkeye along. When you have the Hulk and Thor in a fight, it's a moot point as to whether Hawkeye bothers to join in. Batman is irrelevant in a fight that has Superman there.

 

[Uwe]

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?

I didn't say they weren't //flawed// heros, but the grade-school versions of historical figures are held up as people to be emulated. Would Ralph Nader, Albert Einstein or Carl Sagan be more to our needs? Bernie Sanders? Barney Frank?

 

[Uwe]

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

Ya, that's fine but realistically, why would Superman ever need to unite with Batman?

That's like Mike Tyson saying "Well, it looks like these guys are in serious need of a beating. Come on, Pee Wee Herman, let's pound some manners into them". Pee Wee Herman may be a fine gentleman but he really can't add much to Mike Tyson's effectiveness in a fight.

It's like when the Avengers bring Hawkeye along. When you have the Hulk and Thor in a fight, it's a moot point as to whether Hawkeye bothers to join in. Batman is irrelevant in a fight that has Superman there.

<Nocks steel broadhead arrow> What did you say about Hawkeye?

 

[skepticalbip]

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

Ya, that's fine but realistically, why would Superman ever need to unite with Batman?

That's like Mike Tyson saying "Well, it looks like these guys are in serious need of a beating. Come on, Pee Wee Herman, let's pound some manners into them". Pee Wee Herman may be a fine gentleman but he really can't add much to Mike Tyson's effectiveness in a fight.

It's like when the Avengers bring Hawkeye along. When you have the Hulk and Thor in a fight, it's a moot point as to whether Hawkeye bothers to join in. Batman is irrelevant in a fight that has Superman there.

Obviously, no one would take on Superman unless they have some Kryptonite. Somebody needs to be there to put the Kryptonite into the lead box... it's gotta either be Batman or Pee Wee Herman.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, that's fine but realistically, why would Superman ever need to unite with Batman?

That's like Mike Tyson saying "Well, it looks like these guys are in serious need of a beating. Come on, Pee Wee Herman, let's pound some manners into them". Pee Wee Herman may be a fine gentleman but he really can't add much to Mike Tyson's effectiveness in a fight.

It's like when the Avengers bring Hawkeye along. When you have the Hulk and Thor in a fight, it's a moot point as to whether Hawkeye bothers to join in. Batman is irrelevant in a fight that has Superman there.

<Nocks steel broadhead arrow> What did you say about Hawkeye?

Does it matter? What's going to happen? Hawkeye gets mad at me? Ohs noes.

 

[Juma]

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].

It IS a correct description of any creational god. (As for example the abrahamitic god of christianity, judaism and islam)

 

[Uwe]

The promised 2nd installment:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/04/24/401931739/a-new-way-to-think-about-god

This infinitely complex phenomenon, which has emerged and continues to emerge from instant to instant, growing exponentially and shape-shifting, can accurately be said to exist in the modern universe. It's as real as the economy, as real as the government. It doesn't matter if you're Hindu or Christian or Jewish or atheist or agnostic, because I'm not proposing an alternative religious idea. I'm explaining an emergent phenomenon that actually exists in our scientific picture of reality. You don't have to call it God, but it's real. And when you search for a name for it, it may be the only thing that exists in the modern universe that is worthy of the name God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm explaining an emergent phenomenon that actually exists in our scientific picture of reality. You don't have to call it God, but it's real. And when you search for a name for it, it may be the only thing that exists in the modern universe that is worthy of the name God.

Why is it worthy of that name? What definition of 'god' does it fit?

 

[Uwe]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
"3 : a person or thing of supreme value"

On the other hand, the point of the blog post is about judo-tossing the word's definition and expanding it. In that context, the definition of capital God becomes something like, "the emergent quality of goodness to which and by which human progress is directed." Which, I suppose, is my answer to your first question as well.

 

[Keith&Co.]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
"3 : a person or thing of supreme value"

On the other hand, the point of the blog post is about judo-tossing the word's definition and expanding it. In that context, the definition of capital God becomes something like, "the emergent quality of goodness to which and by which human progress is directed." Which, I suppose, is my answer to your first question as well.

So, we've scientifically determined that there is this 'good' thing that directs human progress?
That doesn't sound too terribly scientific.

 

[ronburgundy]

"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,

The word "god" has way too many other pervasive meanings and implications that are not and will not be rationally defensible or scientifically supportable. The very fact that you capitalized it (as most people do) is because it a proper noun treated like a person's name because the concept of God is fundamentally a "person"-like entity with intellect and will that the concept of a "person" entails. Nothing in science supports such a personhood, so it doesn't support any God in any sense in which that word applies.
Any effort to refer to a scientifically valid notion as "God" will only cause confusion and harm, and gross misrepresentation of what the science actually supports.

 

[Uwe]

The word "god" has way too many other pervasive meanings and implications that are not and will not be rationally defensible or scientifically supportable. The very fact that you capitalized it (as most people do) is because it a proper noun treated like a person's name because the concept of God is fundamentally a "person"-like entity with intellect and will that the concept of a "person" entails. Nothing in science supports such a personhood, so it doesn't support any God in any sense in which that word applies.
Any effort to refer to a scientifically valid notion as "God" will only cause confusion and harm, and gross misrepresentation of what the science actually supports.

This is good objection. People already have an image of their creator and borrowing that entity's name would be fraught with issues. I agree that 'we' don't want to use the name God in any official way, which is not to say that I have a better suggestion.

However, if a movement to in fact co-opt that word DID manage to gather a critical mass, they might also accrue certain benefits. God is a feeling they get when they are at peace. God inspires them to charity. God commands them to forgive their neighbor. God sure provides us with a beautiful ocean/sunset/flower. Weakly-churched individuals who are cognizant of the dissonance between their faith and their acquired knowledge may more comfortably transition into a non-supernatural religion that retains some of the rhetoric of their hereditary faith community.

God, The Universe, Gaia, Karma...the word(s) should not be given new power, but retain connotations of the ineffable, numinous experience that our converts rightly cling to from their past. It would be a passive assault on the old faiths if our new naturalism can claim to subsume the attractive concepts which those loaded-terms denote.

 

[Keith&Co.]

God is a feeling they get when they are at peace.

But why call THAT god? Why not call it a feeling of peace without pretending that there's some external sponsor for the internal feeling?

 

[Uwe]

Because mankind is a communal animal whose feelings of self-worth, happiness and peace are contingent upon those around him.
God is other people, in exactly the same way as hell is.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Because mankind is a communal animal whose feelings of self-worth, happiness and peace are contingent upon those around him.
God is other people, in exactly the same way as hell is.

So, what, you think that we can't be happy unless there's something we can call 'god' for the sake of calling something god?

I think it'd be better to abandon the term 'god' exactly because so many connotations are heaped upon it. Come up with a whole new way to present scientific findings for something. Call our ideals something like 'ideals,' because the term doesn't imply things we'd rather not lump in there.

 

[ryan]

We can create a god and let it have power over us. Future supercomputers could simulate every possible scenario and program it to have a specific response for each one. The responses to these almost infinite scenarios would have to be agreed upon by world leaders. If a scenario comes up that the computer god does not recognise, then it just won't do anything, and we could have a default vote.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We can create a god and let it have power over us. Future supercomputers could simulate every possible scenario and program it to have a specific response for each one. The responses to these almost infinite scenarios would have to be agreed upon by world leaders. If a scenario comes up that the computer god does not recognise, then it just won't do anything, and we could have a default vote.

Or give it ten options to choose from and a randomizer, like a D10.

Why call this thing a god?

 

[bilby]

We can create a god and let it have power over us.

It has been done. Lots and lots of times. The trick would be for us to STOP creating Gods and letting them have power over us.

 

[ryan]

We can create a god and let it have power over us. Future supercomputers could simulate every possible scenario and program it to have a specific response for each one. The responses to these almost infinite scenarios would have to be agreed upon by world leaders. If a scenario comes up that the computer god does not recognise, then it just won't do anything, and we could have a default vote.

Or give it ten options to choose from and a randomizer, like a D10.

Why call this thing a god?

It would do everything that the Christian or Islamic Gods are said to do except the punishment wouldn't be as bad.

 

[Juma]

Why call this thing a god?

It would do everything that the Christian or Islamic Gods are said to do.

Except... that they doesnt? At all?

I mean: create the entire universe, read everyones thoughts all the time, flood the earth, etc etc