4.1.2.1.1. G-d, Part 1
(2/27/09)

 

1. There are two very good reasons for not believing in G-d. There isn't any evidence, and he doesn't make any sense. (I mean, these are GOOD reasons!)

2. You haven't seen any G-d, and the works attributed to G-d by believers seem better explained through science, and better attributed to evolution.
3. On top of that, He is presented to you as this omniscient, omnipotent "man" who simply exists -- sort of the next, and last, step up from Santa Claus.
4. He seems to have created you to play with. He has defined what is right and wrong. He puts you into these miserable situations with little strength and demands that you be strong.
5. Then, on top of that, He wants you to worship Him. Can you beat that? Can you believe that?

6. Who made this big Santa Claus anyway, and who put Him in charge? Who made Him boss? Who made Him G-d?
7. He certainly isn't very G-d-like -- wanting to play games, and wanting to be worshipped.
8. How can there be a first cause anyway?
9. And, even if there could be, how could it be a big man? Preposterous!

10. And finally, G-d's major claim to fame – promised immortality -- seems to be nothing but wishful thinking.

11. The conclusion is obvious -- G-d is the transparent figment of a desperate imagination and has no basis in fact or logic. Our ancestors pulled G-d out of thin air because they were afraid of dying and because they needed something to “believe in.”
12. Man is the father of G-d -- not the other way around; and necessity is His mother.
13. Case closed.

 

14. Wait a minute! Wait a minute!
15. First off, we humans did not pull G-d out of thin air. If G-d was invented, He was NOT invented BY homo-sapiens -- He was invented IN homo-sapien BY evolution. Clearly, He is part of the “racial memory,” or “collective unconscious” of homo-sapiens...
16. And then, if we interject a little modern science, G-d does make (at least, a lot of) sense. Previously, we just didn’t have enough of the facts to properly judge. And, the ones we did have, or thought we had, pointed the other way.
17. Clearly, we don’t have all the relevant facts now, but facts we have recently gained suggest that there is much more here -- much more in support of the G-d concept -- than had first met our analytic eyes. It seems like our earlier inclinations were right… Step back, and take a new look.


18. Many of the “things” that we think we know, or that we otherwise “believe in,” do not really fit with our naturalistic (physical/analytic) worldview... For instance
a. While consciousness may be the RESULT of purely physical causes, consciousness, itself, would seem to be non-physical... (Link)
b. Most of us sense, or at least imagine, a non-physical dimension, of reality that we call "transcendence" -- if we call it anything. If we think that life has "meaning," or if we believe in right and wrong, or "true love, "we are believing in something transcendent (perhaps, unwittingly) and implicitly believe in an ethical, non-physical, magical, dimension of reality. (Link)
c. Then, if one believes in free will, one believes in magic -- analytically speaking, free will is impossible. (Link)
d. It turns out that existence itself doesn't really make sense. If there was nothing, that would make sense. But, once there is something, we have an unsolvable analytic conundrum. (Link)
e. And then, there’s the fact that life in general depends upon numerous physical constants being exactly what they are. If, for instance, the force of universal gravity was just slightly less than it is, the universe would be all gas. Quite a coincidence that it is what it is… (Link)
f. And finally, our own personal awareness is a statistical miracle. Not only is it non-physical, it is also mathematically impossible. (Link)

19. Then, note that each of these concepts is either not physical or not rational – or, not either. It is in those senses that they are “magical.”
20. We just don’t tend to notice their “magicalness.”
- a. We take them for granted.
- b. We look right through them.
- c. Though, they are staring us right in the face.

21. And then, as a chicken's understanding of reality is to human understanding of reality, human understanding of reality could be to perfect understanding...
a. Is there some reason to think that our different cognitive abilities include all the cognitive abilities possible?
b. Is there some reason to think that we are not making some big, crucial, mistakes, or that we're not missing a lot of critical facts?
c. How long are the tests of time that our past scientific theories of reality stood?
d. How long have our current theories stood?
e . How much could we be missing, or getting wrong?
f . How far do our seemingly exceptional brains take us?
g . Could we humans trying to understand reality be like worms trying to understand calculus?

22. So, it could be that with greater cognitive abilities, we wouldn’t think that non-physical or “irrational” concepts were "magical." We would accept that such concepts could be both real and true. Quantum mechanics, in fact, seems to be revising the definitions of “magic” and "reality" as we speak. (Link)

23. Moving right along -- it turns out that the two hemispheres of the human brain process information differently. One hemisphere processes "analytically," whereas the other processes "holistically." (Link)
24. (Typically, the left hemisphere (LH) is analytic, whereas the right hemisphere (RH) is holistic – but not always. (But, when I say “LH,” I’ll be referring to the analytic hemisphere; and, when I say “RH,” I’ll be referring to the holistic hemisphere.))
25. In other words, it would seem that we humans have two different ways of looking at, or thinking about, the world…

26. And then, it turns out that our "sense" of non-physicality, and our confidence that some irrational concepts are nevertheless true, originate in the holistic hemisphere. The RH is responsible for religious experience and our sense of transcendence. The LH has little or no “truck” with what we currently consider non-physical or irrational or religious. (Link)
27. In other words, it appears that our “magical” beliefs originate in the RH.
28. And, either our LH is magic/transcendence blind, or our RH hallucinates.
29. (And in truth, this kind of hallucinating WOULD make sense in terms of evolutionary theory and natural selection.)
30. (And by the way, we now have a new science called “Neurotheology” – reasonably enough, it studys the neurology of religious experience… (Link))
31. Then, it turns out that we each tend to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other (especially us men) -- and therefore, by one way of thinking. (Link)
32. So naturally, humans dominated by their LH’s tend to have little appreciation for magic and religion. (Link)
33. Then, it turns out that public education in the “west” (or at least the U.S.) teaches mostly to the LH. (Link)
34. And, Kids who excel in U.S. schools tend to be dominated by their LH’s -- and become more so dominated as they progress. (Link)
35. But, we still don’t know whether the LH is transcendence-blind or the RH is hallucinating.
36. But then, if you think about it, what we call "reasoning" is analytic -- whereas, reality itself must be holistic... (Link)
37. Aha!

38. And consequently, trying to understand reality using (ordinary) reasoning must be like trying to solve a calculus problem using ordinary algebra. Or like trying to understand black holes in terms of classical physics or Euclidian Geometry. Or like, trying to divide up a round pizza using a rectangular pastry cutter. The whole being greater than the sum of its parts, something is intrinsically lost in translation, something is missing. (Consider the square root of two and Zeno's Paradox.)
39. In other words, it must be that we cannot fully understand reality using reasoning -- and reality will be "magical" in that sense. Part of reality must not make sense (in that sense). (Look back and think about free will.)
40. In still other words, if we listen carefully, the analytic hemisphere is "telling on itself." It is telling us that it cannot fully account for, or describe, reality... (We are getting this from the proverbial horse's mouth...)
41. And, we are justified in suspecting that this is from where the “magic” we are talking about comes -- and why we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it.

42. So, analytically speaking, parts of reality must be "irrational" and in that sense magical.
43. And, the RH is let off the hook. We still can’t be sure that the RH is not hallucinating, but the main reason for thinking that it is has been eliminated, and the magicalness of religion has a potential, if not likely, savior.
44. And noting that the well-educated tend to dismiss the magical G-d concept, whereas the poorly-educated do not, takes on a whole new slant.

45. And, going back to 18.b,
46.
- 18. Many of the “things” that we think we know, or that we otherwise “believe in,” do not really fit with our naturalistic (physical/analytic) worldview... For instance
a. While consciousness may be the result of purely physical causes, consciousness, itself, would seem to be non-physical... (1)
b. Most of us sense, or at least imagine, a non-physical dimension, of reality that we call "transcendence" -- if we call it anything. If we think that life has "meaning," or if we believe in right and wrong, or "true love, "we are believing in something transcendent (perhaps, unwittingly) and implicitly believe in an ethical, non-physical, magical, aspect of reality.
47. There would seem to be a "living," magical, personal, loving side to reality – a side that makes it all worthwhile…
48. And, what we seem to have here is a Universe that cares, is 'alive' and has a Soul. There seems to be a Universal Soul.

49. I’ll leave you, for now, to think about that.

 

(God, Part II)