Required Reading: Spinoza's Metaphysics, Omnipresence, Religion and the infinite thing, Naturalistic Pantheism
The idea of a God that is synonymous with universe mirrors the description of God that is laid out in 17th century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s Ethics. In it, he frequently used the phrase “God or nature,” rather than merely "God" or "Nature" indicating that the two are essentially the same. (It’s worth noting here, that Spinoza was a Portuguese Jew, and not so much concerned with worries that the Catholic church might call him a heretic). Additionally, in the Ethics, God or nature (the infinite thing) has an infinite number of attributes or properties, two of which are Extension and Thought.
Extension in Spinoza's Ethics is analogous with my description of absolute space. Objects (which are known in these circles as ‘substance’) occupy space; that is, they are extended in space in terms of width, height, length, depth, etc. Spinoza described the differences perceived between those objects (substance) as being Modes – modifications of substance. So, in the context of the concepts that have previously been explained, these modes are what I have been calling "finite divisions" within the infinite thing. That which makes a hammer different from a salad is a mode. That which makes those objects perceivable at all is their extension, which is itself an attribute of the infinite thing.
If God is the same thing as the universe or nature – one infinite thing, and extension and thought are attributes thereof, it follows that human beings and all other living and non-living things are modes. The implication is that humans are not separate from god. In fact, humans are not truly separate from anything at all. The distance and separation we normally imagine between ourselves and god (up there), or ourselves and universe (out there), is an illusion. Neither a universe which surrounds us (readily apparent), nor a god which is ubiquitous (perhaps less apparent) is truly beyond our reach – and they are not at all separate from one another.
Next Week: On events, in which I explain the nature of events, and their relation to this whole ... thing.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
On religion and the infinite thing:
Required reading: On God as Infinite, On the Identity of the Infinite, Omnipresence, Pantheism, Panentheism
Because we are assuming that God, space, and time are one and the same, the claim that the universe (of which space and time are facets) is the infinite thing does not exclude god from existence or infinity.
As I have already said, God, space, time, events and the universe are all the same thing. It is perfectly reasonable to call that infinite thing whatever one wants, but it is unreasonable to suggest that its components are different or separate if they are each described as infinite – a quality which precludes multiplicity.
The question is then “what is the significance of a god that is the same thing as the universe?” My answer is “no more significance than usual.” Certainly, it will affect the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God as being the benevolent man who lives on a cloud (which has already lost much of its credence), but it need not affect the truly spiritual aspect of any religion.
A conception of God as ubiquitous is found in many religions and approaches to spirituality, such as Taoism or Gaia theory (both forms of pantheism). However, the idea of an omnipresent god has faded from western religion, while it is far more common in the east. Ubiquity need not damage theistic religions – including Christianity, in any case.
Space and time are the building blocks of physics, and God is synonymous with them. As such, the implications for both prayer and science are numerous. The power of prayer to influence events is easier to imagine, considering the interconnectedness of people, their minds, their wills, events, and the forces behind them. Meanwhile scientific advancement and experimental pursuits could be considered holy events.
That said, it is my position that if God is one with the universe – the infinite thing – then prayer and worship are virtually redundant. The delivery system for matters of faith is instantaneous and ubiquitous. The mundane would be divine; holiness would reside within all things. God would no longer be beyond reach; no longer distanced from us.
However, it is up to each person to decide how to respond to this hypothesis. It would be as valid to venerate all things as it would to continue worship the same as always. Of course, for some, the question of whether worshipping rocks, supernovas, serial killers, and cheese - for each of these things is of God/the universe/the infinite thing – will seem a bit superfluous. So far as atheists are concerned, this issue would have no relevance.
Next Week: On Spinoza and the infinite thing, in which I explain how this "infinite thing" and its ubiquity relate to the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, for whom I have a philosophical boner.
Because we are assuming that God, space, and time are one and the same, the claim that the universe (of which space and time are facets) is the infinite thing does not exclude god from existence or infinity.
As I have already said, God, space, time, events and the universe are all the same thing. It is perfectly reasonable to call that infinite thing whatever one wants, but it is unreasonable to suggest that its components are different or separate if they are each described as infinite – a quality which precludes multiplicity.
The question is then “what is the significance of a god that is the same thing as the universe?” My answer is “no more significance than usual.” Certainly, it will affect the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God as being the benevolent man who lives on a cloud (which has already lost much of its credence), but it need not affect the truly spiritual aspect of any religion.
A conception of God as ubiquitous is found in many religions and approaches to spirituality, such as Taoism or Gaia theory (both forms of pantheism). However, the idea of an omnipresent god has faded from western religion, while it is far more common in the east. Ubiquity need not damage theistic religions – including Christianity, in any case.
Space and time are the building blocks of physics, and God is synonymous with them. As such, the implications for both prayer and science are numerous. The power of prayer to influence events is easier to imagine, considering the interconnectedness of people, their minds, their wills, events, and the forces behind them. Meanwhile scientific advancement and experimental pursuits could be considered holy events.
That said, it is my position that if God is one with the universe – the infinite thing – then prayer and worship are virtually redundant. The delivery system for matters of faith is instantaneous and ubiquitous. The mundane would be divine; holiness would reside within all things. God would no longer be beyond reach; no longer distanced from us.
However, it is up to each person to decide how to respond to this hypothesis. It would be as valid to venerate all things as it would to continue worship the same as always. Of course, for some, the question of whether worshipping rocks, supernovas, serial killers, and cheese - for each of these things is of God/the universe/the infinite thing – will seem a bit superfluous. So far as atheists are concerned, this issue would have no relevance.
Next Week: On Spinoza and the infinite thing, in which I explain how this "infinite thing" and its ubiquity relate to the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, for whom I have a philosophical boner.
Friday, May 7, 2010
On the identity of the infinite:
Required reading: Identity, infinity, holism, On God as Infinite
No two things can be infinite. That which is infinite is all that there is, by definition. If space is infinite, then God cannot also be infinite. If it is the case that God exists, then God must be infinite in accordance with Anselm’s ontological argument.
So, with those statements in mind, it appears that
a) nothing is infinite
b) only one thing is infinite and all others are not
or
c) that all of the things we believe to be infinite are one and the same thing.
Based on my earlier arguments, it would be counterproductive to choose (a). In selecting (b) we must assume that both time and space are finite, and god does exist, or that either time or space is infinite (but not both) and god does not exist. In selecting (c) we must assume that god, space, and time are all infinite, and the same infinite thing. In fact, given that (c) makes the many into one, we can now also accept (b), which is always true of the infinite by nature.
So, any thing that is infinite is the same thing as whatever else is infinite, and “the thing than which nothing greater can be thought” must be something even greater than what is normally thought of. To clarify: while god is defined as the thing than which nothing greater can be thought, common conceptions of god do not also include the descriptions of space and time. But, here I am claiming that god is space and time; that space and time are god.
Space and time, meanwhile, are the medium in which our physical experiences are built. The greatest physical thing that can be thought of is the universe; a structure encompassing space (which includes matter), time, and also energy. I posit that the universe is synonymous with the infinite thing. Indeed, the word universe means “all in one.” While the universe is typically a physical thing, it extends into the non-physical through time, the laws of physics, thought, and – for the sake of inclusiveness - the spiritual. Each of these affects, and is affected by the physical.
Next Week: On religion and the infinite thing, in which I hypothesize what it means for god to be synonymous with universe.
No two things can be infinite. That which is infinite is all that there is, by definition. If space is infinite, then God cannot also be infinite. If it is the case that God exists, then God must be infinite in accordance with Anselm’s ontological argument.
So, with those statements in mind, it appears that
a) nothing is infinite
b) only one thing is infinite and all others are not
or
c) that all of the things we believe to be infinite are one and the same thing.
Based on my earlier arguments, it would be counterproductive to choose (a). In selecting (b) we must assume that both time and space are finite, and god does exist, or that either time or space is infinite (but not both) and god does not exist. In selecting (c) we must assume that god, space, and time are all infinite, and the same infinite thing. In fact, given that (c) makes the many into one, we can now also accept (b), which is always true of the infinite by nature.
So, any thing that is infinite is the same thing as whatever else is infinite, and “the thing than which nothing greater can be thought” must be something even greater than what is normally thought of. To clarify: while god is defined as the thing than which nothing greater can be thought, common conceptions of god do not also include the descriptions of space and time. But, here I am claiming that god is space and time; that space and time are god.
Space and time, meanwhile, are the medium in which our physical experiences are built. The greatest physical thing that can be thought of is the universe; a structure encompassing space (which includes matter), time, and also energy. I posit that the universe is synonymous with the infinite thing. Indeed, the word universe means “all in one.” While the universe is typically a physical thing, it extends into the non-physical through time, the laws of physics, thought, and – for the sake of inclusiveness - the spiritual. Each of these affects, and is affected by the physical.
Next Week: On religion and the infinite thing, in which I hypothesize what it means for god to be synonymous with universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
