Interbane wrote:RT: "So where is the germ of truth? I think Spinoza got it right in equating God and nature, that is, seeing God as a name for the ultimate reality which determines our fate." I think anything to do with gods and magic and miracles is most definitely the wrong direction from the truth. If there were a germ of truth in the bible, it is in the value of love, and other morals that aren't dependent on magic or gods.
In practical terms, our God is what we value most highly. So, your saying the germ of truth in the Bible is the value of love, is another way of saying that love is the God of the Bible, and that other seeming Gods in the book are false. This also aligns with many comments from Jesus. We should decouple the discussion of Gods from the interpretation via magic and miracles, which have been shown to be scientifically impossible.
RT: "I think of love as a name for the symbiosis of natural systems, including hidden links operating at subtle unknown levels.From all angles, this idea, if analyzed, is only useful for one singular purpose; to validate the idea of a god. You are working backwards, from the idea of god, to what is real. If you start with what is real, you won't need to imagine these subtle hidden links at unknown levels because, very simply, god doesn't exist.
Of course there are subtle hidden links at unknown levels. The world climate is interconnected and has many systemic links which science has not yet understood. The interesting thing for the earth is that ecosystems seem to have internal balancing thermostats, retaining their stability in ways that we do not understand. This symbiosis is entirely natural, but hidden and complex.
RT: "This idea of natural love as the tendency towards complexity also links to what scientists have postulated as the anthropic principle, the observation that our universe provides the conditions which enabled humanity to evolve."I think the tendency towards complexity isn't due to such a vague idea, but rather to the fact that there is a certain level of complexity that is ideal for replication. It's almost analytic in it's simplicity, but it explains the phenomena in it's entirety.
That is a big call. You are saying that when a system gets too complex it becomes less able to replicate. There is no evidence for this. Intuitively, the more complex a natural system becomes, the greater its internal robustness, but also the greater its susceptibility to new external shocks. The anthropic principle is not vague, but rather an analytic description of necessary conditions for the emergence of humanity. Analytically, the universe must be such as to enable human life.
The more difficult synthetic logical argument is that love, understood as hidden linkages, is essential for human life, and is somehow built in to the emergence of complexity. Calling this phenomenon God, as per the epistle of John, is a useful way to interpret our complex context.
Many of your reasonings it seems, if lead to their ultimate conclusion, would place credit for the construction of natural laws on a god, at the beginning of the universe. Everything else not only is frowned upon by ockham's razor, but is the complete and total opposite.
No, I don't think of God as an intentional cosmic creator, except in the sense that natural law provides the structure of reality. Language about God makes more sense as a way of explaining human identity and potential. Good goals need to be aligned with natural law, and can helpfully be codified by the idea that they are from God, representing a shared vision.
What is the explanatory breadth of a hidden connectedness in nature? You could claim that it's useful at some level, but where? Everything already has an explanation, and those that don't are foiled by known unknowns, if that makes sense.
The Biblical term Logos (Reason, Word) can be understood as hidden connectedness. Science is continually seeking new regularities in nature, hidden to previous view. Your Rumsfeldism (:)) ignores the unknown unknowns, the hidden connections in nature which may be determinant for fate. Saying that 'everything already has an explanation' with no recourse to unknown unknowns is a great way to tempt fate. A better approach is to say, yes there are unknown connections, because we don't understand everything, and we should retain an open mind about the nature of the unknown. It could be that ideas from religion have insight into things that are unknown by science.
The only explanatory breadth of hidden connectedness or god as love or an overarching unity... is to claim there is a god. There is no other reason to make these hypotheses! They don't explain why we've evolved or why we love, or help with decrypting the meaning of sacred texts, nor do they provide a useful framework for the explanation of any natural phenomenon.
Of course there is an overarching unity in reality. Invoking it is not a way to claim another entity, but to argue there is a real sense in which all reality is moving in a single direction, just as our planet is spinning around the sun. if there is a sense in which the complex unity of our planet is in some way loving, that is, forgiving towards erring entities within it, this provides a naturalistic way to interpret John's identification of God as love.
RT: "Clearing away the dross, the story of Jesus can be reinterpreted as a basis for dialogue about the large contemporary problems of the world, including how the dominant society lacks understanding of the nature of love, creating a blindness towards fate." There are far more useful and relevant frameworks for understanding these problems.
I'm not surprised you think that Interbane, given the toxic condition of Christianity in the USA. Jesus symbolises the little guy with an important message who is ignored at first, but eventually vindicated.