New Miscellany 1: Inventing God, our brain. (General)

by dhw, Monday, June 16, 2025, 11:50 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

Inventing God

dhw: […] What saves you from considering these possibilities? I quote: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” In other words, you twist reality to fit in with your preconceptions. (NB I am NOT saying that he is a sadist. I am pointing out that the biblical version of God is open to such interpretations.)

DAVID: Since we have no direct knowledge of God our personal God is what each of us invents. I start with omniscient, all powerful, and ignore all of the OT pronouncements you deplore.

dhw: You have “invented” a theory of evolution which ridicules your omniscient, all-powerful God as being a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, and you have claimed that your invented God is the accepted biblical version but you proceed to ignore all those parts of the Bible that you don’t like. You agree that he may well have thought patterns and emotions in common with us (e.g. enjoyment, interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped, love) but reject any theory which arises from such common characteristics. Your invention leads you to one self-contradiction after another, but you refuse to consider even the possibility that at least part of it might be wrong.

DAVID: I assume, as you must, that any discussion of God accepts that He created our reality which means He controlled evolution, a messy way to achieve His goal, us. Recognize evolution has a directionality toward the more complex and we are the most complex with our brain.

It does not mean he controlled evolution! Nor does it mean that he started out with the single goal of creating us plus food. When will you stop presenting your view of a messy inefficient designer as a fact instead of the illogical and God-insulting theory of your own invention.

DAVID: We interpret that God's love is involved, but Adler cautions 50/50, which suggests all discussions about God are guesswork, based upon individual prejudice.

They only become prejudice when they are beliefs presented as facts, to the exclusion of all other theories. That is your position.

DAVID: Accepting God created us, He must have some sort of interest in us. Anything deeper is guesswork.

As regards interest, I agree. And I also "accept" that if God exists, he must have wanted to create whatever he created. There is no escaping the past existence of countless species that came and went. Your guess is that these were the result of his inefficiency. Other possible guesses are that his interest lay in the unexpected results of a free-for-all, or in new ideas arising from experimentation, or in experimentation in pursuit of a particular goal (closest to your own guess – but targeted, successful experimentation does not = inefficiency.)

DAVID: I use the interpretation in the book: "In the beginning of" by Judah Landa, 2004, 178 pgs.

dhw: Since he offers no support for your theories, why did you even mention him?

DAVID: As a Biblical scholar He offers no criticisms of God as you do.

Yesterday you told us he had only retranslated Genesis! A retranslation is not a critique of anything. You criticize your God’s inefficiency, but tell us that your views are the “accepted” biblical version. I’ve pointed out God’s murderous actions and self-centred wishes as presented in the OT. That does not mean (a) that I believe in God’s existence, or (b) that I believe a possible God is a sadistic egomaniac. I’m simply challenging your beliefs and assumptions in the light of (a) life’s history, and (b) the Bible’s versions of God which you say you accept, but then proceed to ignore.

Introducing the brain: real or imaginary

dhw: I’d have thought it was obvious that the “real” level processes information from outside, and no such process is needed for the “imaginary” level. But which part of the brain is watching the fusiform gyrus to tell us that it’s working at different levels?

DAVID: The frontal cortex.

It always surprises me that in spite of your belief in dualism (as opposed to materialism), you constantly support the theory that consciousness arises from the materials of the brain.

DAVID: Our brain must have a control of this sort, since we have such enormous intellectual capacity for imagination. I think lower forms of brains do not have this and it is a de novo development.

dhw: I’ve had to consult the Internet. Just to clarify: Dogs and chimps have their own fusiform gyrus. We assume they don’t have our level of imagination, but since this is only a matter of “signal strength”, clearly it is an evolutionary development of an existing part of the brain, as are so many of our “extras”. The term “de novo” could be misleading.

DAVID: Did the environmental challenges to our survival require such a brain, as per Darwin? No, it is overkill.

I have no doubt that initially our brain’s complexifications would have been devoted mainly to survival. But our very quest for improvement has led to a vast expansion of our knowledge, experiences and requirements. This expansion would have been implemented by the same cells, since our brains stopped expanding. and so "de novo" is perhaps a bit misleading.