Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Atheists and the Creator God

The creator God isn't the only kind of God that atheists need to worry about. There is a sense in which the mind creates the universe.

Humans receive data from the physical world through the senses. It is a small subset of all the data that is potentially available. Mathematicians talk about multi-dimensional universes that we cannot even visualise.

The mind imposes an order on this data, in particular through the use of language. This is a kind of collective solipsism. The imposition of order on sensory data is an act of creation. The world we know is a product of mind.

The mind is also capable of apprehending something labelled "God". This act of apprehension may be no more than an odd internal phenomenon of the brain, or it may be associated with an external reality. Whatever the case, it needs to be explained. For example, when a Catholic receives holy communion, they will often report certain subjective experiences which religion gives an account of, using narrative and metaphor. These phenomena cannot be explained away by saying that they are just a particular way that the brain's neurons are firing at that moment, because such patterns on their own can have no meaning.

Associated with this is the experience of "conversion", which at a physical level might be identified with a restructuring of neural connections, but which has the consequence of transforming the individual's view of their self and the universe.

The most hard line atheist is obliged to give an account of this phenomenon, and a physical explanation of the process at a neurological level can only explain a part of the picture. From the religious perspective, on this model, the "Creator God" is operating from the inside. Theology and metaphysics then becomes a discipline to mediate and account for certain kinds of psychological phenomena.

Kommentarer

Unknown sa…
Hmmm...

Quite interesting post, friend.
3 mars 2009 kl. 01:55
Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer