Perhaps, perhaps notl
It is all rather remarkable though.
The religiously inclined will see telos. They do include numerous educated, intelligent and rational people so dismissing them all "as engaging in magical thinking and childish fantasy" may be a little dismissive.

:100: I don't think you are missing anything.

I've always thought so: intentional agents make goals and the only intentional agents known to us are ourselves, mere humans. Am I missing something?

Don’t forget the dolphin’s, etc..

Or is an imagined telos merely an anthropomorphic, indeed anthropocentric, projection? — Janus

"Imagined Telos"*1 and "Projection" make the notion of a direction to evolution sound like wishful thinking. But a more positive way to label that idea is Interpretation or Inference. For example, cosmologists have interpreted the stellar red-shift to mean that the universe is expanding in all physical directions. Physicists have also interpreted physical Entropy as an inevitable result of the second law of thermodynamics. But they also imagined our experience of a flow from past to future as an Arrow of Time*2 : a Telos.

On the other hand, Whitehead's notion of Purposeful Cosmic Telos*3 is both an inference from evidence of the Arrow of Time, and a causal interpretation in terms of the original impulse that set the universe on this course into the unknown. So where are we going, and why?

Scientists tend to not ask Why? questions. But philosophers have always wanted to know Why the world is in the dynamic directional state of, not only expansion, but of qualitative evolution, from near nothing to Life, Mind, and Culture (as a supplement to Nature). As a product of the human (not animal) Mind, Teleology is indeed anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. But is the Telos a projection onto, or an inference from the observable cosmos? :smile:


*1. "Imagined telos" refers to a concept in philosophy and art where individuals or communities envision and create a future purpose or goal. This future purpose is not necessarily based on established facts or historical patterns, but rather on imagination and hope for a better state of affairs.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imagined+telos

*2. The arrow of time refers to the directional nature of time, the phenomenon that time flows from past to future. This is a central concept in physics and philosophy, with the second law of thermodynamics playing a key role in explaining it. While the fundamental laws of physics don't inherently favor a direction of time, the increasing entropy of isolated systems (as described by the second law) creates the observable arrow of time, making it clear that time moves forward rather than backward.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=arrow+of+time

*3. In Whitehead's process philosophy, teleology refers to the idea that everything in the universe is moving towards a specific end or purpose. Whitehead believes that reality is fundamentally a dynamic process of becoming, and that all entities, including humans, are striving towards some form of fulfillment or "telos". This telos is not a pre-determined destiny, but rather a constantly evolving goal that is shaped by the ongoing creative process of the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+teleology

Scientists tend to not ask Why? questions. — Gnomon

Scientists interrogate nature and nature is not an intentional agent that conceives or answers to why questions. Rather they ask more general how questions from which they infer causal explanations and not intentions or purposes. The premodern approach of putting 'why questions' to nature had produced alchemy, not chemistry; astrology, not astromony; geocentricity, not heliocentricity; humors & demonic possession, not germ-theory of disease; Aristotlean teleology of motion, not Galilean-Newtonian-Einsteinian equivalence principle; etc for millennia. Across all modern sciences substantive, methodological and technical progress has accelerated exponentially due in large part to scientists overcoming their innate magical thinking and not wasting time asking inanimate objects and systems "why" they do what they do.

But philosophers have always wanted to know Why

This is a function of reflecting – examining their own thinking – on personal sensations, perceptions, beliefs and what the philosopher assumes she knows. Philosophy begins (and ends) with the philosopher interrogating herself, so asking "why" is often appropriate, even inescapable; and in this way – pointed out above – philosophical speculation (i.e. "Why, self?" is categorically different from scientific theorizing (i.e "How, nature?")

You're welcome, Gnomon. :smirk:

Clearly, what I’m asking for is a survey of different, more philosophical accounts of theism to contrast with the literalist versions put forward by many apologists. — Tom Storm

I assume that by "literalist" you mean those who accept the Christian bible as the revealed word of God. But, I've seen very few bible-thumpers on this forum. So most of the god-models that are discussed seem to be some variation on what Blaise Pascal derisively called the "god of the philosophers"*1. That was probably a reference to his contemporary Baruch Spinoza, and his Pantheistic equation of God with Nature. Spinoza denied the validity of the Jewish scriptures, supposedly revealed by God via human prophets. So his substantial & immanent god-model was derived by human reasoning, which for "literalists" was trivial compared to the omniscience of God.

The exemplars of nuance you mentioned in the OP, Tillich & Hart, are Theologians with some commitment to religious doctrine. Have you found any secular non-religious Philosophers who fit your definition of a nuanced notion of God? C.S. Pierce, A.N. Whitehead, Kurt Gödel, for example. :smile:


*1. The "God of the Philosophers" refers to the concept of God as understood through philosophical reasoning and natural theology, rather than through revelation or religious tradition. This God is often described as an impersonal, abstract force or a maximally great being, rather than a personal, active God as found in religious texts like the Bible.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=god+of+the+philosophers

Baruch Spinoza, and his Pantheistic equation of God with Nature. — Gnomon

Of course there's no such "equation" ... :roll:

Spinoza's formula is Deus, sive natura and not 'natura deus est'. — 180 Proof

S is an acosmist (Maimon, Hegel) and not a pantheist (or pan-en-theist or pan-en-deist) or philosophical materialist. Anyway, to wit:

... But some people think the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as ‘Nature’ understood as a mass of corporeal matter. This is a complete mistake. — Spinoza, from letter (73) to Henry Oldenburg

(Emphasis is mine.)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/993976 :yawn:

I assume that by "literalist" you mean those who accept the Christian bible as the revealed word of God. But, I've seen very few bible-thumpers on this forum. So most of the god-models that are discussed seem to be some variation on what Blaise Pascal derisively called the "god of the philosophers"* — Gnomon

Perhaps you assume that this site is only for talking to itself. In life, I meet many atheists who renounce a cartoon God and the literalists. Jordan Peterson (of whom I am not a fan) puts it like this: "Atheists don't understand the God they reject." I used to hear this from religious friends too. So this thread is partly to assist me to gain a survey of accounts of God that might be richer and more interesting, particularly when I talk to doctrinaire atheists in the 'real world' who think they have mastered the subject. But more generally, I am interested in what people believe and why.

Have you found any secular non-religious Philosophers who fit your definition of a nuanced notion of God? C.S. Pierce, A.N. Whitehead, Kurt Gödel, for example. — Gnomon

I'm more interested in conversations than wrestling with heavy texts. I'm not much of a consumer of philosophy works. Pierce is notoriously difficult to read, so I'll give him a miss. If someone wants to lay out Whitehead's God in this thread, I'll be interested. Whitehead seems to think God has limitations to their power; the omnis do not apply. He argues that God is a kind of apex of the good, and the necessary foundation of our metaphysics. It seems like the traditional account (e.g.,we need God to explain reason and order) but tempered to match modernity.

Do you have a robust reading of Whitehead or Godel's theisms?

Jordan Peterson (of whom I am not a fan :up: ) puts it like this: "Atheists don't understand the God they reject." I used to hear this from religious friends too. — Tom Storm

Yeah, well, I keep encountering theists who don't understand the God they accept, that is, do not propose a cogent, self-consistent 'God-concept' they can talk about (i.e. defend) intelligibly without equivocating and special pleading. It's the theist's 'God-nonsense' – what she (or her tradition) says about God – I reject.

My early reading was influenced by mystical traditions, figures like Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. Which was tempered somewhat by the mystical pragmatist J Krishnamurti.

Interesting, I see an alignment here with the ideology of the Theosophical society and other attempts in the 19th century to bring Eastern philosophy to the West. Which then spurned the various new age movements, the interest in yoga, and Buddhism. And yet Western philosophy has struggled with these ideas and doesn’t seem able to adopt them, or integrate them.
It seems to be impenetrable to the Aristotlean way of thinking, which is centred around the perception and experience of the human brain. It’s like the human intellect is reified and everything else must be explained through the prism of this intellect, or dismissed in some way.

So this thread is partly to assist me to gain a survey of accounts of God that might be richer and more interesting, particularly when I talk to doctrinaire atheists in the 'real world' who think they have mastered the subject. But more generally, I am interested in what people believe and why. — Tom Storm

In the US, the typical, non-philosophical, believer seems to feel the need for a sympathetic person to pray to : Jesus and/or Mary. And Jesus' absentee father-god is sort of a shadowy background figure. Do you think abstract & impersonal Philosophical god-models are "richer and more interesting", or is it intimately personal Mystical models that interest you? Personally, I found anglo-catholic Evelyn Underhill's 1911 book, Mysticism*1, very interesting, because its sophisticated, yet spiritual, portrayal of God was so different from my own literal-biblical childhood Jehovah. But, such direct mystical experience of God is not accessible to those who tend to be more Rational than Emotional. The God of Mystics is not my kind of God.

If you prefer sophisticated & intellectual god-models though, Baruch Spinoza*2 developed a revolutionary worldview for his 17th century milieu. But its very strangeness compared to our normal experience of the world, makes it a poor foundation for a religion of the people. It combines a variety of philosophical elements into a system that has been known by various names, depending on the interpreter : Idealism*3, Pantheism, Acosmism*4, etc. Do you find his Post-Judaism God more amenable than that of the Christian “literalists”? I think of Whitehead's*5 theology as a 20th century update of Spinoza's 17th century god-model, but even his paradigm needs a bit of scientific updating for the 21st century. Which I have attempted to do in my own quantum & information science-based god-model. Definitely not mystical or ecstatic or literal. :smile:

PS___ Obviously, these god-models are not revelations from God, but imaginations of God. And they may be rudimentary Scientific observations of Nature, but mostly of Human nature. Some of Spinoza's ideas are compatible with my own. But I don't consider him my guru.

*1. Evelyn Underhill, a prominent writer on Christian mysticism, viewed God as the ultimate reality and the object of the mystical journey. She emphasized the presence of God in all aspects of life, even the seemingly ordinary, and stressed the importance of both contemplation and action in seeking union with God.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evelyn+underhill+god
Note --- Click on the link for more info.

*2. Spinoza :
Spinoza is often interpreted as an acosmist, meaning he denies the independent existence of the world (cosmos) apart from God. While not denying the existence of finite things, he views them as manifestations or modes of a single, infinite substance, which is God. This interpretation, particularly by thinkers like Hegel, suggests that Spinoza's system prioritizes the unity of God over the perceived diversity of the world, leading to an acosmic view.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=acosmist+spinoza

*3. Spinoza Idealism :
While Baruch Spinoza is not a straightforward idealist in the traditional sense, his philosophy does incorporate elements that resonate with idealism, particularly in his concept of God and the relationship between mind and body. Spinoza's view, often described as objective idealism, sees God as the underlying substance of all reality, with thought and extension (matter) being two of God's infinite attributes. This differs from subjective idealism, which posits that reality is fundamentally mental.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+idealism

*4. An "acosmist" is someone who believes in or adheres to the philosophical doctrine of acosmism. Acosmism, in turn, is the view that the finite world, or the world of our everyday experience, does not have true or independent reality, and that only God or the infinite is truly real. Essentially, it posits that the world we perceive is an illusion or a manifestation of the divine, not a separate, independent entity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=acosmist

*5. Alfred North Whitehead and Baruch Spinoza are both important figures in Western philosophy, but they have distinct approaches to metaphysics. Whitehead's philosophy emphasizes process and becoming, while Spinoza's is rooted in substance and a more static view of reality. Both, however, are considered important figures in the history of metaphysics and have influenced each other's work. 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+spinoza

Do you have a robust reading of Whitehead or Godel's theisms? — Tom Storm

Since I am an untrained amateur philosopher, you may not consider these blog posts a "robust reading". But they may serve as a brief capsule of his Philosophy and his Theology. :smile:

Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality
Whitehead also defined his natural + super-natural lawmaker-deity in terms that are more scientific and philosophical than religious⁷. For example : “non-temporal” = eternal ; “primordial - consequent” = both creator & creation ; “potential” = pre-big-bang world-creating power ; “anti-entropic” = what I call Enformy⁹.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

The Point of Process Philosophy
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the process of Creation.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html

a religion of the people — Gnomon

'Animism' (ancestralism ... or daoism) seems the oldest, and really the only, "religion of the people" that's ever worked for any people. It seems to me all of the cultic-variations (i.e. "fallen" bastards) which have followed, including the vast majority of explicitly 'philosophical belief-systems' (e.g. idealisms, transcendencisms), have been, in one way or another, servants of empire (aka "civilization": missionary, scarcities-consecrating, zerosum-dominance hierarchies).

Non-literal, abstract, impersonal gods, like mystical / ecstatic practices, are just latter-day attempts at slipping out of the 'mind forg'd manacles' of the literal God of priests, preachers, imams, rabbis, gurus ... sovereigns (i.e. "Big Others") and returning – as Gnostics envision? – to an animist milieu or condition – 'the source' (however, only as (genuinely free) individuals, not as "the people").

@Tom Storm @Wayfarer @prothero @Janus

I'm interested in conversations about more sophisticated and philosophical accounts of theism. — Tom Storm

IMO, the philosophical accounts do not point to a God of religion. There may very well be a ground of being, but the big question is: does it exhibit intentionality? If not, then it points to a natural ground of being, not a god.

Is there a good reason to believe the ground of being acts intentionally? IMO, the only reason one might think so, is that teleology requires it - so the question becomes: is there good reason to believe teleology? I haven't seen one.

Non-literal, abstract, impersonal gods, like mystical / ecstatic practices, are just latter-day attempts at slipping out of the 'mind forg'd manacles' of the literal God of priests, preachers, imams, rabbis, gurus ... sovereigns (i.e. "Big Others") and returning – as Gnostics envision? – to an animist milieu or condition – 'the source' (however, only as (genuinely free) individuals, not as "the people"). — 180 Proof

Do you think reason is a useful means of evaluating conceptions of God? I'm aware of its historical use in Natural Theology to 'demonstrate' the divine, but I wonder how far that can be taken. Everyone is convinced their use of reasoning is unassailable. Particularly the Thomists and their Preambula Fidei.

IMO, the philosophical accounts do not point to a God of religion. There may very well be a ground of being, but the big question is: does it exhibit intentionality? If not, then it points more to a natural ground of being. — Relativist

I wonder how useful a ground of being is to us as a concept and what it can mean, other than nebulous notions of foundational guarantee for truth, goodness and beauty.

It’s instructive that biology, having rejected the Aristotelian idea of teleology, had to re-introduce telos, purpose, in a neologism, ‘teleonomy’, referring to the apparent purpose exhibited by organisms. That was because it was impossible to say much meaningful about biology without referring to purpose, as in a broad sense, intentionality animates organic life from the cellular level through every level above it. (Philosopher of biology Steve Talbott has a superb series of essays on this topic in The New Atlantis.)

The issue of purpose and intentionality, and it’s supposed absence from the world, is part and parcel of the scientific and Copernican revolution, grounded as it was in Galileo’s division of the mind and world into the two domains of primary measurable physical attributes, and secondary mental or qualitative attributes. This meant also the elimination of the relics of Aristotelian physics, with its ‘natural places’ and inherent tendencies, in favour of a world in which everything could be accounted for by material causation.

What is overlooked in all this, is the sense in which the Galilean-Newtonian view is a useful abstraction, within which life itself now appears as an anomaly, an oddity, something which has to be ‘explained’ in terms which have already intrinsically excluded it. That’s the plight of modern materialism in a nutshell.

I wonder how useful a ground of being is to us as a concept — Tom Storm

Reduced to the conceptual, it has very limited usefulness. The realisation of such a ‘ground’ is ecstatic, outside the conceptual or discursive intellect.

Animism' (ancestralism ... or daoism) seems the oldest, and really the only, "religion of the people" that's ever worked for any people. — 180 Proof

There’s shamanism, which is one of the very ancient roots of what was to become ‘religion’. So too yogic practices of mystical absorption. Buddhism and Jainism grew out of the ‘sramana’ movement in ancient India, which comprised heterodox (i.e. non-Vedic) ascetics who renounced society and lived in the forests (literally ‘forest-dwellers’.) And by what criterion would you judge that these had, or hadn’t, ‘worked’? All of the Indian religion, Vedic and other, were oriented around mokṣa, liberation from the eternal cycle of birth and death. If you don’t recognise that there is such a state, then of course the entire edifice will be, for you, a fiction, which seems to be how you regard it.

Reduced to the conceptual, it has very limited usefulness. The realisation of such a ‘ground’ is ecstatic, outside the conceptual or discursive intellect. — Wayfarer

And outside of my experince.

Reduced to the conceptual, it has very limited usefulness. The realisation of such a ‘ground’ is ecstatic, outside the conceptual or discursive intellect.

100%

And outside of my experince.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t have the conceptual language to imagine (visualise) such things. Once you do, it’s quite easy to do so. The various traditions teach this knowledge, each in their particular narrative. Although they all amount to pretty much the same thing, with different characters, means and purpose.
What they are teaching is an ability to conceptualise a divinity in the world, the world we inhabit. So that we can develop an ability to see it in action around us a develop deep love and reverence for it in our every day lives, as we perform our daily life activities. The idea being that over time we will exhibit some of the divinity in our lives and society. This role is played in Hinduism by the guru, for example.

Do you think reason is a useful means of evaluating conceptions of God? — Tom Storm

Yes. I don't see why it wouldn't be useful.

Sure. I’ve read about it in books. I have met gurus. I have heard people talk about it. It’s still outside my experience.

Yes, I realise that and the ability to view the world in this way requires a specific kind of training and understanding which can’t be sufficiently put across in writing. It requires direct experience and usually, although not exclusively direct contact and direction from the guru, or their equivalent.
Although I expect that with the rate of development in IT and AI, it will become possible to do this through technology, in the next generation, or two.

I should add, as we are in a Christian society that monastic life does enable monks to achieve this understanding, although, I have no experience of this personally.

I was involved with the 'New Age' movement for much of the 1980s, during which I engaged in a fair amount of guided meditation and similar practices. Many of the people I knew at the time believed they had experienced some form of transcendence. However, over the years, a number of them have come to question those experiences - while not necessarily becoming atheists, they’ve grown increasingly skeptical about it all. I'm not claiming any definitive knowledge here, but I'm struck by how easily people seem to fall into and out of and sometimes back into beliefs.

However, over the years, a number of them have come to question those experiences - while not necessarily becoming atheists, they’ve grown increasingly skeptical about it all. I'm not claiming any definitive knowledge here, but I'm struck by how easily people seem to fall into and out of and sometimes back into beliefs.

Yes, I have seen this as well, (I was involved for a decade during the 1990’s). Traditionally (prior to the New Age movement) people would have a calling, which would mean that they became involved for a deeper seated reason than most churchgoers. The same with New Age, many people became drawn in to the movement who didn’t have a calling, or because friends and colleagues introduced them on a more social level.
Furthermore I am of the opinion that people only go beyond the initial impulse, or experience because they have an innate predisposition for that way of life. Myself being an example, I was seeking this out from a young age, by the time I was 12, I was studying two or three types of divination and reading anything I could lay my hands on that was philosophical, or theological.

Regarding the direction of a guru, the way I see it is that the guru is a conduit and is not necessarily conscious of what they are doing in terms of guiding the pupil. Rather, that it is as much something in the pupil drawing out from the teacher what they need to learn. I am coming to this from the perspective that people who are following this course are only partly aware and in charge of what is going on. That it is a more esoteric (putting the baggage of that phrase to one side) process and the pupil and teacher are developing on an underlying unconscious, or soul( baggage accepted) level and may be unaware of what is going on. Also that there are people living ordinary lives going through these processes entirely unaware of it and may have no interest at all in anything religious, or spiritual.

I am coming to this from the perspective that people who are following this course are only partly aware and in charge of what is going on. That it is a more esoteric (putting the baggage of that phrase to one side) process and the pupil and teacher are developing on an underlying unconscious, or soul( baggage accepted) level and may be unaware of what is going on. Also that there are people living ordinary lives going through these processes entirely unaware of it and may have no interest at all in anything religious, or spiritual. — Punshhh

FWIW, what you describe here is quite consistent with deep learning occuring in the neural networks of our brains. So, based on neuroscience, there is good reason to think we are all unintentionally going through it. Of course, it might be beneficial to realize that deep learning is prone to "hallucinations".

Do you think reason is a useful means of evaluating conceptions of God? I'm aware of its historical use in Natural Theology to 'demonstrate' the divine, but I wonder how far that can be taken. Everyone is convinced their use of reasoning is unassailable. Particularly the Thomists and their Preambula Fidei. — Tom Storm

Sure, we can evaluate and compare different conceptions of God, but I'm sketical this can lead to actual knowledge of God.

Thomism has pros and cons. In its favor: it's a fairly complete, coherent metaphysical theory. I've read a couple of Ed Feser's books on the topic, and he seems to have embraced Thomism because he sees it as a framework for answering all the important metaphysical questions. That said, it's still an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis. If one believes in God, it may be satisfying because of its competeness.

I wonder how useful a ground of being is to us as a concept and what it can mean, other than nebulous notions of foundational guarantee for truth, goodness and beauty. — Tom Storm

I'm thinking strictly of an ontological bottom layer of physical reality, and (possibly) something deeper than the physical. I suppose one could choose to use the foundation to account for minds and beauty.

FWIW, what you describe here is quite consistent with deep learning occuring in the neural networks of our brains. So, based on neuroscience, there is good reason to think we are all unintentionally going through it. Of course, it might be beneficial to realize that deep learning is prone to "hallucinations".

Yes and yes. But what is “going through it” referring to?

But what is “going through it” referring to? — Punshhh

I was alluding to your statement:

there are people living ordinary lives going through these processes entirely unaware of it — Punshhh

A process of subconsiously occuring deep learning.

A process of subconsiously occuring deep learning.

Yes, I agree with that. Although what I was getting at is a growth, or development in the being, so there may be some kind of learning in a biological sense. But more of a flowering process, or metamorphosis. Something deeper than physical biology, perhaps, more on the level of a soul, or atman (baggage accepted).

So the being goes through the process as a result of this deeper transformation. The mind, (including the subconscious), or intellect is playing no more than a supportive role.

What is overlooked in all this, is the sense in which the Galilean-Newtonian view is a useful abstraction, within which life itself now appears as an anomaly, an oddity, something which has to be ‘explained’ in terms which have already intrinsically excluded it. That’s the plight of modern materialism in a nutshell. — Wayfarer

What's a better alternative, and how exactly is it better?

If there is actual teleology in the world, how do you account for it? AFAIK, it entails prior intent; Intent entails a a being with the capacity to formulate and act upon intent. Whether we call this a "God", a trascendental oversoul, or anything else, it strikes me as a rather extreme assumption to think that such a being just happens to exist uncaused. By contrast, the gradual development of beings, somewhere in an old. vast universe, with the capacity for intentional behavior, but considerably more limited powers to act, seems considerably more plausible. As you often note, there are explanatory gaps to this materialist view, but the alternative appear to me to have even more explanatory gaps.