Problems with this section; for Frank (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Saturday, November 21, 2009, 23:05 (5262 days ago) @ Frank Paris

When I asked why you limited the "divine promptings" to love, compassion etc., you initially replied: "Mystic experience", though later you felt that was too flippant an answer. But I think it's an answer I shall have to accept. Back in October you explained that in your religious experience you encountered a "God of overwhelming love", and: "Once I had that, I had to account for other things I knew about life in the big city, like all the pain and suffering in the world." Your conclusion was that God was "all knowing [though you have slightly qualified that since], all good, but not all powerful." His lack of power is what exonerates him from all blame for the pain and suffering.-Your theology is built to fit in with the basic premise of a loving God. From my perspective, this entails a leap of faith on a par with that of all other religions and even of atheism (which I would argue depends on belief in the creative powers of chance, though you and George disagree), but there is nothing for me to question here. I would just like to stress again that I have total respect for your faith, just as I have for any faith or non-faith that does no damage. I should add that much of what you say, particularly with regard to mysticism and the inexpressible, strikes an answering chord in me, and I can see the appeal. However, there are still points in the theology itself that I would like to discuss or comment on. In the light of your previous complaints about such forums, I will leave it to you to decide if it's worthwhile responding, and I will not take offence if you abstain, provided you do so without giving in to the weaknesses caused by "limited perspective". I hope that's fair!-1) 20.11 at 02.16: Your main objection to David's concept of a Universal Intelligence who thought up the universe is that "if God knows what's in store for him, he'd be bored silly." The same reasoning may be applied to the more conventional concept of a designer who has endowed humans with free will, or ... less conventionally ... who has specifically thought up the universe for his own entertainment, including the world's suffering. Design doesn't necessarily mean predictability.
2) Same subject: you are eager to side with what you call "scientifically literate" people in rejecting the idea of design. Perhaps you mean the majority of scientists, because there are still plenty who believe in a designer God, and I wonder what your criterion for scientific literacy is anyway. In terms of your own theology, since God knew that his fundamental particles were capable of evolving, I'd say there's a very fine line between accident and design, allowing that God leaves the details to chance in order to avoid boredom. The "programming" could be for an infinite variety, not for anything specific.
3) I'm still puzzled by these particles. "The world is "made out" of God, or tiny "particles" of God. He spins off little "pieces" of himself, fundamental particles, which stick together and rise up in complexity, and produce organisms that are more or less conscious, have more or less experience." (29.10 at 23.27) Can you please explain how these particles of a non-physical God become physical, or have I totally misunderstood the whole concept?
4) You believe God created the laws of Nature, so I don't see why you need to stress your disbelief in miracles. God could have created the world using the laws he himself devised. No miracles needed ... only science.
5) Perhaps the biggest problem I have comes when I look at your theology through the eyes of those who are suffering. (I'm afraid I can't identify with other possible forms of life in other possible worlds.) It's all very well for the folk who make some sort of contact with God's consciousness and, like BBella, come out of their ordeals with new and exciting perspectives, but the vast majority don't and won't. They will suffer and die, often through no fault of their own, in a world God created indirectly (according to your theology) in order to see his own reflection. Since you don't believe in an afterlife, even that "reflection" is fleeting. This doesn't mean your vision is not true, but what may superficially look like a rather beautiful idea ... the universally loving God ... offers precious little comfort. What use to us is a loving God if his love serves only to give him and a few of us an instant's pleasure? The lucky ones will glitter for a moment, so that he can feel pleasantly surprised, but we end up as nothing. It may be so, of course, but in the final analysis what advantage does this theology hold over deism or atheism, other than providing an intellectual framework to support your mystic experience? -I need to stress again that I'm not pushing any counter-theory here. I'm trying to understand yours and to weigh it against others, while bearing in mind that all the theories are based on "myth" in one sense or another.