Missive From God

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Thanks.

The next question is of course what is that evidence in nature and reason which leads to the conclusion there is a (Deist) god ?

Only the watchmaker argument ?

For myself, I would have to say that conclusion from any of the things I listed has to involve some kind of personal decision, since all of them can be argued. Even if someone has a mystical experience that seems to involve some sort of divine communication, I think the questions of the source of that experience still need to be questioned (e.g., the unconscious), as well as how much the nature of that experience stems from the mind’s attempt to “translate” that experience into content that it can understand and deal with.

Now I might decide, for instance, to embrace a given religious perspective because it enriches how I live my life, even if I cannot be certain of it’s ultimate truth. (Didn’t Urs von Balthasar make some such “aesthetic” argument? To a certain extent, isn’t G.K. Chesterton there as well?) I don’t think any such decisions are riskless—nor do I think they’re invalid, as long as one recognizes the risk and does not sacrifice their intellectual integrity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wouldn't the act of Creation itself imply a positive goodness? Don't we normally value acts of creativity as a positive good?

Well, to call it an act of Creation in itself implies that there is a creator, rather than simply a natural process.

With that said, I think you have a point. We’ve been posting past each other (that is, I post and then see that you’ve also addressed the question), but that maybe has to do with the “aesthetic” argument that I’m exploring. I once said—unreasonably, yes, and without thinking—that I would be more inclined to decide there’s a God because there’s a Beethoven, than because there’s an oak tree. I suppose a Taoist would argue that there’s a Tao because of the complex harmony that seems to hold the whole thing together. I’m still thinking about it, but perhaps creativity, harmony, beauty, love are at least reasons to decide to live as if there’s something afoot in the universe, even if they are not really “proofs.”

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, to call it an act of Creation in itself implies that there is a creator, rather than simply a natural process.

With that said, I think you have a point. We’ve been posting past each other (that is, I post and then see that you’ve also addressed the question), but that maybe has to do with the “aesthetic” argument that I’m exploring. I once said— ...[text shortened]... /i] to live as if there’s something afoot in the universe, even if they are not really “proofs.”

I was responding from the point of view of a Deist, who does believe that there was a Creation by a Creator and not simply some natural process. I think that the idea that the universe is incredibly complex but that it's workings seem ordered and potentially understandable to humans made and make Deism an attractive philosophy to people inclined to the rationalist thinking modes of the Enlightenment. Whereas the idea that there is a God or Gods who are peculiarly interested in the comings and goings of your particular people was an attractive idea to ancient peoples who's whole world and concept of it was related to their personal dealings with others.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I was responding from the point of view of a Deist, who does believe that there was a Creation by a Creator and not simply some natural process. I think that the idea that the universe is incredibly complex but that it's workings seem ordered and potentially understandable to humans made and make Deism an attractive philosophy to people inclined to the ...[text shortened]... peoples who's whole world and concept of it was related to their personal dealings with others.

Gotcha. I misunderstood. I think I see it now: given the belief that there’s a creator God, the very act of creation itself can allow us to say things about the further nature of that God, based on how we value creativity as a positive good itself… Have I got it right this time? (Just putting in my words to see if I understand it.)

It is an attractive position. My only problem with it—and I may be misconstruing Deism here—is that it still posits a God that somehow exists “outside of” creation, rather than a more monistic viewpoint that the cosmos is manifestation of God as ground-of-being in particular forms. There’s a line from Kabir that I can’t find, but from memory goes something like: “The Holy One manifests himself [sic] in myriad forms; I sing then glory of the forms.”

Originally posted by vistesd
Gotcha. I misunderstood. I think I see it now: given the belief that there’s a creator God, the very act of creation itself can allow us to say things about the further nature of that God, based on how we value creativity as a positive good itself… Have I got it right this time? (Just putting in my words to see if I understand it.)

It is an attractive ...[text shortened]... like: “The Holy One manifests himself [sic] in myriad forms; I sing then glory of the forms.”

Yes that the act of Creation itself and the form of what was created give us insights into the type of entity that did the Creating is, I think, a central theme to Deists.

I don't think there is a general consensus among Deists about God's ultimate nature and his relation to this (the only?) universe. Looking through the websites, some say it is unknowable, some say he is eternal, etc. etc. The idea that a Creator merged with his Creation so that everything in the universe is a part of the essence of God on a journey who's ultimate destination is unknown even to God is a rather aesthetically pleasing one to me; it postulates a Creator who's more of a gambler and seeker rather than the God we see so often portrayed here as someone who desires worship of his own greatness (what a boring concept!).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes that the act of Creation itself and the form of what was created give us insights into the type of entity that did the Creating is, I think, a central theme to Deists.

I don't think there is a general consensus among Deists about God's ultimate nature and his relation to this (the only?) universe. Looking through the websites, some say it ...[text shortened]... ten portrayed here as someone who desires worship of his own greatness (what a boring concept!).

The idea that a Creator merged with his Creation so that everything in the universe is a part of the essence of God on a journey who's ultimate destination is unknown even to God is a rather aesthetically pleasing one to me; it postulates a Creator who's more of a gambler and seeker rather than the God we see so often portrayed here as someone who desires worship of his own greatness (what a boring concept!).

Wow! Recced for that. I couldn’t say it better. (There actually is a similar stream of thought in Jewish mystical theology; but I don't think I've seen it summed up so well.)

Originally posted by vistesd
If I understand what you’re getting at, it seems to me that there are four perspectives from which people conclude that there is a God (or at least, as Teilhard de Chardin put it, that there is “something afoot in the universe” ):

(1) Conclusion from evidence in nature and reason (No. 1’s answer on page 2).

(2) Conclusion from (acceptance of) writte ...[text shortened]... glier natures as well? (My stepfather is a Deist: I’ll have to ask him when I get the chance.)

THE CREATION, FIRST REVELATION OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE


VATICAN CITY, NOV 9, 2005 (VIS) - Psalm 135, the "great Hallel" or solemn hymn of praise sung by the Jewish people during the Passover, was the central theme of the Benedict XVI's catechesis during the general audience, held this morning in St. Peter's Square in the presence of thousands of faithful.



The key word of the psalm is "mercy," the Pope explained, "part of the language characteristically used by the bible to express the alliance between the Lord and His people. ... Within this relationship, God does not appear as an impassive and implacable Lord, like destiny against whose mysterious power all struggle is useless. Rather, He appears as a person Who loves His creatures, Who watches over them, follows them on their journey through history, and suffers from their frequent unfaithfulness to His merciful and paternal love."



For the psalmist, said the Pope, the first sign of this divine love is to be found in the creation. "Before discovering the God Who reveals Himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all. ...There exists, therefore, a divine message secretly inscribed in creation, a sign of the loving faithfulness of God, Who gives his creatures being and life. ... The prayer of praise arises, then, from the contemplation of the 'wonders' of God ... and is transformed into a joyous hymn of praise and thanksgiving."



"Thus, from the works of creation it is possible to ascend to the greatness of God, to His loving mercy. This is what the Fathers of the Church teach us," said Benedict XVI and quoted the words of St. Basil the Great on Genesis, affirming that "if some people ... 'imagine the universe without guidance of order, as though at the mercy of chaos,' the sacred writer 'immediately enlightened our minds with the name of God at the beginning of the story: In the beginning God created. ... If, then, the world had a beginning and was created, seek out the One Who began it, the One Who is its Creator'."

AG/PSALM 135:CREATION/... VIS (Vatican Information service) 051109 (360)

Originally posted by no1marauder
Glad we settled that, but why would you worship a monster when you can worship the nice, pleasant Creator God that Deists do? If you're going to be in the God-believing at all business, that is.

Why is he nice and pleasant, exactly? Seems to me he stuffed up, what with all the dying and so forth that's happened since he left. Didn't finish the job properly.

Originally posted by vistesd
For myself, I would have to say that conclusion from any of the things I listed has to involve some kind of personal decision, since all of them can be argued. Even if someone has a mystical experience that seems to involve some sort of divine communication, I think the questions of the source of that experience still need to be questioned (e. ...[text shortened]... mind’s attempt to “translate” that experience into content that it can understand and deal with.

Sidebar--

Your post (in what is one of the more interesting discussions I've read here recently) reminds me the science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick's "pink light experience".

"In the early months of 1974 Dick experienced hallucinations, dreams, synchronicities and Gnostic visions that he collectively referred to as “2-3-74,” shorthand for “February/March 1974.” Dick would spend the rest of his life attempting to unravel the meaning of these events in a thousand-page handwritten manuscript he came to call the Exegesis. Even when his fictional output slowed, he continued to work on the Exegesis every night, analyzing, interpreting and sorting through 2-3-74 as well as his published novels and short stories. Besides its function as mystical exegesis, it also served as a daily diary, a prolonged self-analysis, and a dream journal. Very rarely in the history of literature do we have such an open window into the mind of a writer, penetrating his deepest spiritual and psychological space.
Dick came to believe that an alien intelligence/technology (that could quite possibly also be God) was communicating to him through an interface he called the Vast Active Living Intelligence System, or VALIS. This system took the form of a ship in outer space, delivering highly concentrated doses of information to him through beams of pink light. Dick himself described it as an “invasion” of his consciousness “by a transcendentally rational mind.” He also came to believe that coexisting within himself was a “plasmate.” Dick believed that his plasmate was an early Christian, who, though very much alive in the First Century, was simultaneously interpenetrated into Dick’s body and mind-space. Like many of the protagonists from his own novels, Dick believed in the possibility that he was hallucinating his current life, and was really living in another place and time, in this case the Roman Empire. (This is the origin of the haunted phrase frequently found in his later writing: “The Empire Never Ended.&rdquo😉 He also experienced a series of voices that fed him information, telling him things that he couldn’t possibly know otherwise, including a just-in-time medical diagnosis of his new-born son – whose life was saved by an emergency hernia operation.
Dick was well aware of how insane this all sounded, and he wrote endlessly in his Exegesis about different explanations, and why he finally came to believe in the veracity of his spiritual experiences. One “proof” of his sanity was his claim that crazy people don’t doubt their own sanity. Those who knew him at the time, living in Santa Ana in a modest apartment, considered him eccentric, disheveled, personally unhygienic, intense, gentle, arrogant, emotionally hair-triggered and religiously bizarre, but quite possibly the most brilliant person they knew, and certainly not a delusional schizophrenic. Despite his numerous psychological problems, his friends considered him to be quite “sane.” "

(http://www.themodernword.com/scriptorium/dick.html)

Originally posted by orfeo
Why is he nice and pleasant, exactly? Seems to me he stuffed up, what with all the dying and so forth that's happened since he left. Didn't finish the job properly.

Since the Deists don't believe their Creator God to be omnipotent, I don't think this is a valid criticism. While one can criticize an all-powerful, all-knowing God for everything that happens or will ever happen in the universe, a Creator who merely forms the universe he can according to certain rules is not responsible for every act in it. A Deist would say that creation is magnificient, beautiful and good in toto and that the Creator "did the job" (i.e. Creation) splendidly.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sidebar--

Your post (in what is one of the more interesting discussions I've read here recently) reminds me the science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick's "pink light experience".

"In the early months of 1974 Dick experienced hallucinations, dreams, synchronicities and Gnostic visions that he collectively referred to as “2-3-74,” shorthand for ...[text shortened]... ds considered him to be quite “sane.” "

(http://www.themodernword.com/scriptorium/dick.html)

That is interesting. My counter-argument would be that sometimes we discount the power of our own (subconscious) mind, and so sometimes conclude that a really powerful experience must have come from outside, so to speak. I only argue, for myself too, that we must always allow that such experiences are self-generated, without that being any sign of insanity.

This is an interesting thread, and I’m still thinking about Ivanhoe’s last post about “natural revelation,” and our ability to draw conclusions from it. With all the caveats I posted above, I tend to agree.