Kontemplation is King
(Don’t you hate it when people misspell just to be alliterative?)
On the matter of God’s existence, theists and atheists would likely agree that if there is a supreme, supernatural creator, he is not physical at all but instead an unembodied mind. If this is true, and God does exist, then because we are minds as well, albeit embodied ones, it seems rational to believe that one of the best ways to apprehend truths about God is through concentrated and deliberate thought about him. That’s a philosophical endeavor and one of the reasons, as I suggested yesterday, that philosophy may be preeminent of all the academic disciplines.
The Greek word “philosophia” means love of wisdom. In the New Testament, the only use of the word appears at first read to put philosophy in a bad light. In his letter to the Colossians Paul says, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”1 In context, especially how he goes on in this verse to further describe what he is warning against, it’s clear he’s referencing a particular use of philosophy, one that was man-centered instead of fully incorporating and elevating knowledge of the divine.
But in the Bible we are encouraged, even expected, to love wisdom…to engage in philosophy. Proverbs 8 is a prime example, where wisdom is personified calling out to all who would listen to get wisdom, describing it as more precious than gold, silver, or jewels. Almost every one of the 31 Proverbs speaks of the value and supremacy of wisdom, which is to be expected since it is categorized in the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. And in the New Testament as well, where wisdom is identified with Christ2, we are taught that though much of what constitutes as worldly wisdom is to be largely rejected, the wisdom of God is to be sought and received.3
So when we ponder, contemplate, and cogitate existentiality, what can we learn? Well, if one is unaccustomed to concentrated thought, and I suppose even if one is naturally contemplative, the first thing you might learn is that you’re hungry or need to use the facilities. But if you take care of those issues and return to the thinking position, there’s quite a bit you can deduce about the reality of God from philosophical propositions alone. Philosophical arguments for the existence of God take a variety of forms, all logical and coherent whose conclusions follow necessarily from the premises. Whether or not you accept the truth of the premises will determine whether the argument works for you.
Five of these deductive arguments for God’s existence are:
- The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
- The Kalam Cosmological Argument based on the Beginning of the Universe
- The Moral Argument based upon Moral Values and Duties
- The Teleological Argument from Fine-Tuning
- The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality
Philosopher William Lane Craig has an excellent and extensive overview of these arguments on his Reasonable Faith website here, where he also responds to objections to them from atheists like Richard Dawkins. It’s worth a read. I find them intriguing and thoroughly compelling.
I’ve never formally studied philosophy but I am the contemplative type and the discipline has long piqued my interest. Some of the concepts can be quite difficult to grasp but others are accessible to all in their most basic form. As a young adult and before I became a follower of Christ, I bought a book on ten philosophical ideas, or something like that. Never did get through it. When I as a new believer was confronted with some of the worldly, naturalistic employs of philosophy, I threw the book out, thinking that philosophy was antithetical to my faith. It’s not. Philosophy is a tool, if you will, for discovery, just like the scientific method is. And far from being a sinister stratagem of Satan (which is not what I thought, but…close), philosophy, the love of wisdom, is a primary way we come to know God. And more so, it’s how we love him with our minds.4
This is actually quite untrue. I certainly wouldn’t agree with such a statement, and I know a great many other atheists who would disagree with it, as well. Furthermore, I know a great many people who do believe in deity who would similarly disagree with that statement.
Even if there is a “supreme, supernatural creator,” this does not imply that such a being is non-physical, nor does it imply that such a being is a mind.
LikeLike
Okay. So, if you please, “if there is a supreme, supernatural creator,” what characteristics do you believe he/it would have?
LikeLike
Personally, I wouldn’t even know how to start to answering that question, because it contains far too much ambiguity. “Supreme” in what way? What does “supernatural” even mean?
However, a deist might make a similar claim that there exists some “supreme, supernatural creator” which is, nonetheless, not a mind. Panentheists could similarly claim that there exists some “supreme, supernatural creator” which is, in fact, physical.
‘Non-physicality’ and ‘existence as a mind’ are not concepts which necessarily follow directly from the idea of a “supreme, supernatural creator.”
LikeLike
If you don’t even know how to begin to answer the question, if it’s so ambiguous, how can you assert that you don’t agree with it?
By “supreme” I mean greatest conceivable being. And “supernatural” I understand to mean completely outside of nature…of all that is physical.
LikeLike
Because I obviously can’t agree with a statement that I do not understand. Once I understand the statement, it becomes possible for me to agree with it. However, it is not possible for me to agree with it before I understand it.
I still do not understand your meaning. “Greatest” in what sense? By what standard of measure? I can’t even tell if “greatest conceivable being” is a cogent concept unless I first understand what “greatness” is meant to measure.
I certainly don’t understand what is meant, here, since space is a decidedly physical thing, and since “outside” is a decidedly spatial concept. What does it mean to be outside of all that is physical?
LikeLike
Yes. I concede your first point. I was viewing it as if you were asserting that you “disagreed” with the statement. But not being able to agree and disagreeing are not the same.
By “supreme, supernatural creator” I’m referring to the traditional, theistic understanding of God. I see you’re familiar with William Lane Craig. I’ll refer you to his description of that here.
LikeLike
In that case, your original assertion seems somewhat tautological. The God which Dr. Craig describes in that link is ascribed the properties of being non-physical and yet still a person (which, I’ll assume, implies a mind). So, yes, I’ll agree that if a non-physical, disembodied mind exists, then it is a non-physical, disembodied mind. However, I don’t see how such a statement could possibly be useful.
LikeLike
Whether it’s useful or not is immaterial (no pun intended). I simply stated my belief that most atheists would agree that if there is a creator God, he is a non-physical mind. Whether that’s true or not is also beside the point, as it does not affect the thrust of my post.
LikeLike
I’ll grant this point– and I actually agree with much of the rest of the post. I simply found it to be a particularly odd statement. Now that I realize that you weren’t talking about a generic concept of deity, but were rather talking about an extremely specific concept of a particular god, and that the whole statement simply amounted to a tautology, I’ll admit that I find the statement even more peculiar. It’s a philosophical curiosity.
LikeLike
“On the matter of God’s existence, theists and atheists would likely agree that if there is a supreme, supernatural creator, he is not physical at all but instead an unembodied mind.”
I am an atheist who was a Christian. I know that I did not think of this god as an unembodied mind as a Christian. I also know many many other theists, do not agree that this god or any other is some “unembodied mind”, a quick search of the internet shows that. The bible itself has this god as very much a physical being. Would you say that the bible was mistaken?
Also, if I have thought a lot about this god, and others, and have come to the conclusion that it does not exist, does this mean it does not? I would also point out that the bible does not uniformly say that wisdom is good. Indeed, it says that this god will destroy wisdom, insisting that wisdom is only from this god, which can be demonstrated to be false. The OT is quite a bit better than the NT in respecting wisdom and intelligence.
LikeLike
Welcome back, clubschadenfreude. I will ask you the same as I asked my other reader: what characteristics do you believe a “supreme, supernatural creator” would have?
LikeLike
all powerful, all knowing. It must be physical to interact with a physical universe. If it is not, how does it interact? To clarify, I am not just talking about obvious matter, I am talking about all aspects of this universe.
Your initial claim about theists and atheists is demonstrably wrong and thus false. It is a variant of the Sophisticated Theologian who wants to make her god more and more vague to get around the problems it poses. Your bible says that your god is physical, it stands, it sits, it interferes in the physical realm.
Again, Caroline, is your bible wrong in its claims?
LikeLike
Why must it be physical “to interact with a physical universe”? If it/he brought all physical matter into being, I see nothing illogical or irrational in believing he/it can act in the physical world as a non-physical being.
My statement was that, “theists and atheists would likely agree” on the non-physical nature of God. In order to show that it is “demonstrably false” you would need to prove that a majority of atheists would not agree with that. But that’s really beside the point. My post was not to claim some accord between theists and atheists but to present my view on the philosophical pursuit of God.
If you want to discuss the Bible, please give me chapter and verse (as it relates to my topic) and we can talk about it.
LikeLike
It must be physical to cause change in the universe. What mechanism is it using to cause change? It is very illogical and irrational to think that something can cause change without a mechanism. Believing in magic isn’t rational or logical at all.
No, Caroline, you have made the positive claim so you must support it. You have said that it is likely that theists and atheists would agree that this god of yours has to be non-physical. I don’t believe in yoru god period, so I don’t believe it’s physical or non-physical. I do know that many Christians think it is physical and your bible says it is. Where are your numbers? Your post was an attempt to indicate an accord between theists and atheists. That’s what “agree”: to concur in means and is what accord means: to be consistent or in harmony : agree . If they likely agree, they likely have an accord.
I have plenty of bible verses. I am always pleased to provide them to Christians who do not know them. It is always rather obvious that requesting bible verses is nothing more than a delaying tactic.
Genesis 8: 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the groundbecause of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.
Exodus 24: 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
Exodus 33: 11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.
Exodus 34: 5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”
Leviticus 1: 9 You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. (there are many places that this is said and one can find them using biblegateway.com and searching ‘aroma’)
Deuteronomy 23:12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself.13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.” (this is either about your god stepping in poop or being offended by the poop he made humans to excrete. Your choice on how to take this one)
This god causes the sea to split in exodus. How? This god causes a tower of cloud and flame to appear. How? This god causes an earthquake. How? This god causes manna to fall. How? They are physical acts. This god had to have special places to exist, because his physical existence could harm people (in some cases, in others, no problems with chatting with god face to face). Physical things could block seeing it (the sanctum in the temple and special tent in Exodus) and could block its sight (Genesis 3).
Now I do know the usual Christian attempts to ignore these. They say that well, god only occupied in human form, which isn’t what the bible says at all. They say that it’s only metaphor, but they can’t tell me how they decide this part is metaphor and another isn’t. They try to claim that if something is infinite, it can’t be physical for some reason. WLC is one of the great failures at this because he tries to redefine the term infinity to satisfy his nonsense.
I am curious to see what you will say, Caroline.
LikeLike
When dealing with metaphysical realities, you would need to have a great deal more knowledge than you (or anyone) can possibly have as a finite human being in order to assert that, ‘It is very illogical and irrational to think that something can cause change without a mechanism.” A physical mechanism, I’m assuming you mean.
As for the Old Testament, anthropomorphism is a literary tool used extensively throughout. In order to properly understand the Bible, one needs familiarity with literary genre and common literary forms and expressions of the time in which each book was written, and a good working knowledge of the people it was written to, as well as the general culture in which it was written. If I thought you were interested in understanding I might address each of the verses you quote, as best I could because I don’t understand it all completely, but you clearly aren’t and I would be essentially wasting my time. I’m sorry, Vel, but you and I have been through this before and you have shown yourself to be a typically ardent antitheist, close-minded to anything suggestive of the divine, and intent only on derisive argument and ridicule.
LikeLike
Evidence that there are metaphysical “realities”, please. As it stands that is just one more baseless claim that your house of cards is built on. Until you can prove this nonsense, it is indeed very illogical and very irrational to think that something can cause change without a mechanism.
It is your opinion that the features of this god that are given are simply anthropomorphism and are not literally meant. That is the opinion of a modern Christian who doesn’t want to believe that her forebearers thought her god was just like any other bronze/iron age god. I have quite a lot of familiarity with literature and with the bible and the cultures that it came from. So, Caroline, I know your claims are just opinion and poorly supported opinion at that.
Each generation decides that it knows what its god “really meant” and they change what parts that they claim are literal and what are not.
It’s nice to see you pretend you are psychic and try to tell me what I am interested in and what I am not. What a lovely excuse you’ve created for yourself to avoid having address the chapters and verses I have given you.
It is also interesting to see someone insist that I couldn’t’ possibly understand what is going on in the verses but in the next breath say that she doesn’t understand it “completely”. How do you know that I am wrong then? It only seems that you are seeking to not offer your claims up for examination. You only want someone to say “why yes, Caroline, you and you alone are the one who knows what her god really wants.” With no critical thinking at all.
Your excuse is nothing more than a false claim about me as are all of your other excuses that you have created about me. it bemuses me that a Christian chooses to tell a lie about me and has done so repeatedly, despite what her holy books says about lies and liars I don’t think you have anything to fear, obviously, but I do know that Romans 3 is quite firm about such nonsense, and I personally dislike liars because they do their best to remove the ability to make informed decisions from people for their own benefit.
I am indeed interested in understanding. Please proceed. I am guessing you will refuse, and that will be your choice. However, it will not be based on reality.
LikeLike
The idea of an “unembodied mind” – substance dualism – is just the problem. If that were the case, it should be possible to have a mind with no content, i.e. pure mentality or mental substance simpliciter. Is that a coherent notion? Most philosophers don’t think so, excepting WLC, of course.
LikeLike
Perhaps I should have left out any comment about what atheists might believe. This is what I believe, and everyone is free to disagree.
LikeLike
🙂 No worries. As far as I can tell, an adequately humble fideism is the only rational option for a theist. (I’m not being a smart-ass with that comment – well, maybe a little bit, but not in the disparaging sense.)
LikeLike
I appreciate you not being a smart ass. That’s very refreshing coming from a non-theist. And I’m not being a smart ass neither….well, maybe a little bit. 🙂
LikeLike