Is the Idea of God's Existence a Question of Science or the Arts?

Jack Cummins

The reason why I raise this question is because the philosophy of religion developed in a different era. Influential writers, like Augustine and Aquinas were writing with a different understanding of the universe, as were the Biblical writers.

So many ideas have changed this, especially Darwin but also more current thinking in the twentieth and twentieth century. This has often lead to the idea that God is a 'delusion', as suggested by Dawkins. Also, the way in which religion has had a negative impact on life, such as the people being encouraged to focus on happiness in an afterlife, has lead to many rejecting the idea of 'God'.

It is hard to see evidence of an actual 'God' behind the scenes. However, there are still questions about where life came from and why did consciousness evolve. It is not necessary to say that God created them or to fill in the gaps. However, it could be that the idea of God is a metaphorical truth, and that may be how Einstein saw the idea of God, and Jung too. In a famous television speech, Jung said, 'I don't believe, I know', referring to the numinous aspects of experience.

I realise that it could be argued that it is possible to experience the numinous without the idea of God. However, I am raising this topic with a view to querying the idea and images of 'God' , especially the clear distinction between theism and atheism, with agnosticism being seen as the other option. I am also not coming from a particular religious viewpoint, and my thinking is partly based on the ideas about comparative religion of Huston Smith on comparative religion . He suggested that both theism and atheism had their limitations. He speaks of dimensions or levels of reality, but sees theism as being inadequate as offering a perspective which is anthropomorphic.

So, I am asking more about how people see the idea of God as a basis for beginning to think about the existence of God. Is it simply best to dismiss the idea of God in relation to scientific knowledge? Or, is time to rethink the notion of God, in line with mythic or symbolic ways of understanding the philosophy of reality, including the underlying source of everything ? To what extent is arts and a basis for understanding the symbolic aspects of the God question, rather than simply asking about the existence of God from a scientific approach. Is science and art completely divided here , or is it about juggling different models to understand the nature of reality?

Tom Storm

↪Jack Cummins

Will this see us revisiting the old non-overlapping magisteria as advocated by Stephen Jay Gould?

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

I hope that I don't sound completely ignorant but I haven't read Stephen Jay Gould. I will google his name, to familiarise myself with his ideas.

Tom Storm

↪Jack Cummins

Not at all. This was one of SJC's memorable contributions - the proposed separation of the religious from the scientific.

Shwah

↪Jack Cummins

No, religion isn't art nor is it science by anyone's account that I'm aware of. There've been a few threads recently that asked the same question and they had some good answers. It doesn't seem like you have any experience with theism. I don't think it's possible to be atheists but the way you treat both is as whims of people's imaginations which would be so amazing if it was that simple and perfectly explained by the dogma of the 20th century.

Wayfarer

I am also not coming from a particular religious viewpoint, and my thinking is partly based on the ideas about comparative religion of Huston Smith on comparative religion . — Jack Cummins

The key question is the meaning of the terms ‘to exist’, ‘to be’, and ‘reality’. Scientific thinking, generally, is focussed on phenomena, and the principles (preferably mathematical principles) according to which phenomena behave. Scientific thinking is also primarily empirical, that is, focussed on what can be detected by the senses, also including scientific instruments, which are nowadays fantastically powerful. Most of the new atheist literature - and this is what interested me in forums in the first place - don’t seem to recognise what this means. So the question the empiricist will always ask is where is the evidence for any such being as ‘God’ - not seeing that, however one conceives of it, God is not a phenomenal reality - as Houston Smith says.

What has been lost in the transition to modernity in Smith’s opinion (and mine also) is the understanding that there are dimensions of reality. The phenomenal domain or realm is, as it were, horizontal - extending outwards to the horizon of the cosmos and the beginning in the Big Bang. But there is no vertical dimension - which is the qualitative dimension. In Smith’s books, he points out that in the traditions of the perennial philosophy, there is the understanding of ‘higher realms of being’ which of course are regarded from the one-dimensional view of modern science as mythological. But in those traditions, what is higher is also represented as what is superior, and nearer to the true origin of the cosmos, which is not temporal in nature.

This is represented in Houston Smith’s books like so:

source

Jack Cummins

↪Tom Storm

I had a brief look and I can see that he separated the religious from the scientific. However, it does seem that he was coming more from a scientific background. The area I am more interested in is to what extent can an arts based view contribute to understanding the nature of symbolic reality. Of course, I can see why some may not see the need for use of the term God. The Buddha didn't use the term God, so I am not wishing to suggest that it is necessary to cling to the concept of God. It is more about an understanding of reality, not opposed to science, but not restricted by such a model, but open to a more symbolic understanding.

theRiddler

God hasn't made Itself readily apparent, so why would you think evidence comes to those who do not seek? Yet sometimes it does, through psychedelics or NDE's for instance.

But, anyway, it's always seemed odd to me that people think if there was a God it would be self-evident. Considering how vastly different and may I say, dull, the world would be if that were the case.

Jack Cummins

↪Shwah

You say that I don't have any experience of theism but I was raised as a Catholic, so I was initially coming from a theistic perspective. However, probably at that stage, I was more focused on Jesus than thinking about God on a metaphysical level. My own questioning of religion involved reading a lot of Carl Jung. I do read on the debate between theism and atheism, including the new atheism. I have read some earlier philosophy of theism but find some of it hard to relate to because it comes from a completely different worldview.

I like sushi

↪Jack Cummins

Again, same issue as elsewhere.

What is meant by ‘god’?

If ‘metaphysical’/‘supernatural’ science doesn’t have any input.

If psychological, there is a lot to say about about what human’s mean by the term ‘god’ and why this term exists.

In the later case both the sciences are arts have something to offer. In the former case there is nothing to say on the subject because such is nothing to us because we cannot talk about what we cannot form a concept for.

Shwah

↪Jack Cummins

I've never heard anyone reduce God down to art or science and I could pick up the psychological vibes. Whatever your experiences are with religion, you communicated in a psychological manner at best. Why would any theist be fine with saying they worship art or physics equations? It seems you already questioned it.

Yes if atheism is to be correct then theism has to be wrong, ridiculous or at least extraordinarily reductive towards some particular otherwise atheism looks foolish and crass. No secular a priori justification provided a strong enough foundation for ending slavery especially after secular capitalism turbo-charged it. So I sorta wish it was "art" or "science" because it would make human psychology look circular, slavish and foolish, as it can only.

Jack Cummins

↪Wayfarer

It doesn't surprise me that you have read Huston Smith as I know that you have read so much on comparative religion. I have read it twice and will probably read it again because there is so much to grasp. Previous to reading it, I had begun to think how limited both atheism and theism were. Then , I came across Huston Smith's, 'Forgotten Truth' and found that it takes the issues underlying the debate between atheism and theism in a much deeper way beyond that division.

I like sushi

God hasn't made Itself readily apparent, so why would you think evidence comes to those who do not seek? Yet sometimes it does, through psychedelics or NDE's for instance — theRiddler

You think those brain states are ‘god’? Why?

Apollodorus

↪Jack Cummins

I think it depends on how we define "God". To some, God is ultimate reality.

In Plato, the divine is associated with truth and knowledge (Republic 508e1-4), and similar statements are found in the NT: “I am the truth and the life” (John 14:6), etc.

Jack Cummins

↪I like sushi

The thing is that people may think of God extremely differently. This depends on background and the difference between the image of God as Jahweh in the OT is different from that of Jesus. Different philosophers have thought of God differently, Gnostics and Spinoza differently from mainstream Christianity. Of course, it is not simply about Christianity because there is Islam and many different perspectives, including those of monotheism or alternatives. In a way, God can be seen as a way of understanding reality itself.

Jack Cummins

↪Apollodorus

Plato's ideas on God are interesting and so different from the way people often argue for or against God scientifically. Also, some other ideas like Plotinus are relevant. It may be that the view of science has made people see the issue rather concretely. Of course, science is extremely important for understanding, but even then, it is a model not reality itself. It may be that science can only go so far in giving a picture. It doesn't mean adhering to creationism or even conventional Christianity, but a wider picture, such as the idea of the Tao.

I like sushi

↪Jack Cummins

If we cannot agree on what we are talking about then all questions regarding it are pointless.

theRiddler

You think those brain states are ‘god’? Why?

No, just that, in those situations, people have reported experiencing God. There is no absolute way to verify it, but certainly the experiences can't mean God definitely doesn't exist.

I like sushi

↪theRiddler

They experienced something. That can be investigated. Why they called what they experienced ‘god’ is something we can also ask them about.

It seems that these experiences are just neurological matters. Or rather, we have no other objective way of viewing them so why bother?

180 Proof

If we cannot agree on what we are talking about then all questions regarding it are pointless. — I like sushi

:up:

Is it simply best to dismiss the idea of God in relation to scientific knowledge? — Jack Cummins

That depends on "the idea of God" at issue.

Or, is time to rethink the notion of God, in line with mythic or symbolic ways of understanding the philosophy of reality, including the underlying source of everything?

I propose this "rethink of the notion of God"

Pandeism, for me, is only speculative and a recent position (derived from both classical atomism & spinozism and yet because it's simpler to convey than either of them) adopted for the sake of those arguments wherein I'm challenged to explain what I'm for once what I'm against (re: antitheism), and my reasoning, fails to be refuted by a religious / theistic interlocator. Epistemically, I am agnostic about this pandeity. — 180 Proof

is consistent enough for my pragmatic (yet ecstatic) naturalism.

... to experience the numinous without the idea of God.

Yeah, I think "God" is nothing but (the most popular and politically useful) one out of countless interpretations (i.e. "ciphers" ~ Jaspers) of numinous experiences, such as "art" (e.g. E. Cassirer's Language and Myth, G. Steiner's Real Presences).

Noble Dust

↪Jack Cummins

I think this is a great topic, especially in comparison to the hoards of boring Theism threads; In fact I really never engage in these discussions anymore, but here I go.

Part of my enthusiasm is because, while reading your OP, I came to a realization that I think is relevant to the topic. I was raised in a Christian environment, and no longer identify with that or any religion. But the typical anti-religious, anti-theistic rhetoric we see so much here still rubs me the wrong way, and I think I finally know why. Hopefully this could be useful to the discussion.

Very simply, the God that atheists criticize on a philosophy forum is not the God that the masses pray to in church. There's a complete lack of communication between the two camps. They talk past one another. Armchair TPF atheists generally don't know much about Sunday morning aunts, and Sunday morning aunts generally don't know much about armchair TPF atheists. And I think you brought up a few pertinent points as to why this is, i.e.

the philosophy of religion developed in a different era. Influential writers, like Augustine and Aquinas were writing with a different understanding of the universe, as were the Biblical writers. — Jack Cummins

people being encouraged to focus on happiness in an afterlife, has lead to many rejecting the idea of 'God'. — Jack Cummins

there are still questions about where life came from and why did consciousness evolve. — Jack Cummins

This is a complex milieu. There are no easy answers, no smart-ass one-sentence (or one emoticon) responses so common to some of the atheist regulars here.

To me, the question of whether God exists is not important. I don't care. But I'm not an atheist. What I do care about is the Sunday morning aunts, and the armchair TPF atheists. I worry about the lack of communication, the complete otherworldliness of their dispositions, despite the fact that they're all the same type of human being. There's a grave misunderstanding underlying this whole theism/atheism debate, and it's costly.

Agent Smith

I like the OP, an unexpected question as far as I'm concerned and thus that much more interesting.

The way I see it, true that art was more advanced than science back a millennia or so. If the divine were to develop affiliations then it probably was with art than science, the former more advanced (poetry, sculpture, paintings, decorations on pottery, walls, pillars, so and so forth), the latter a fledgeling, nascent and simple, too simple to get anything done let alone be an inspiration for something as sublime as god(s).

In good time however, the duo (art and science) began to forge a partnership, an unequal one, in which science was doing all the heavy lifting and art simply tagging along for the ride. The arts have gained more from science than science from art (metallurgical knowledge could be applied to sculptures, the mathematics of perspective meant paintings could be produced with the illusion of depth, and so on). Are the tables going to turn? Have you seen the illustrations in many books on science? There usually is an apposite work of art, in full technicolor, in each chapter.

Art has evolved from representations of people, objects, and nature where the idea was to create a facsimile to something I call "essentialism", a point of view that captures the essence of things and even if this is subjective, it matters not for the spirit is, all said and done, scientific, in the mathematical sense.

Draw your own conclusions...

Noble Dust

in which science was doing all the heavy lifting and art simply tagging along for the ride. — Agent Smith

Not true at all. The assumption here is that whatever it is that science is attempting to understand, art inherently doesn't understand and never will. So the statement is misguided by nature.

Agent Smith

Not true at all. The assumption here is that whatever it is that science is attempting to understand, art inherently doesn't understand and never will. So the statement is misguided by nature. — Noble Dust

I never said that. Figuring out assumptions is not a walk in the park, something I learned the hard way.

Granted that I'm wrong, what's your take on the issue?

What, in your view, is the nexus between science, art, and god?

Agent Smith

Transcendentalia

1. Verum (truth): Science (probably not the whole truth, but definitely a good start)

2. Pulchrum (beauty): Arts

3. Bonum (good): God(liness)

Hindu mantra: Satyam (Truth/scientia) Shivam (Godliness) Sundaram (Beauty/ars).

Noble Dust

I never said that. — Agent Smith

I may have hastily projected that on you; sorry. But if I did, I only projected a view that I read on here a lot, even if not from you specifically.

What, in your view, is the nexus between science, art, and god? — Agent Smith

A big question that I don't have the answer to. Off the top of my head, it's way simpler than we think. There is an intelligence ("god") that emanates the functions that we then observe and describe as science. We make art about it all. That's why art is the best.

Agent Smith

it's way simpler than we think — Noble Dust

I hope so. Can you show me how with a good example, please?

Noble Dust

↪Agent Smith

I just did:

There is an intelligence ("god") that emanates the functions that we then observe and describe as science. We make art about it all. That's why art is the best. — Noble Dust

Agent Smith

↪Noble Dust

Why is that simple? :chin:

Noble Dust

↪Agent Smith

Why is anything simple? "Define simple". :roll: Anyway, it's a simple description of concepts that people make ridiculously complicated, hair-brained arguments for. I don't particularily care about how simple or not simple it is.

EugeneW

You gotta be kidding me! (no offense, Jack Cummins!) Again! I mean, a thread about gods! I truly gonna do research. Look to all ten days of threads on tpf and compare. Im sure the last 10 win! Can take a while though. Now here AI would come in handy? Quantum computer, compare... I wait still a bit with making their announce public, only here, ooooon TeeeePeeeeeeeeeF! Await unbelievers!

Is the Idea of God's Existence a Question of Science or the Arts?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions