At the PuffHo “Science” section (!), we get an essay by Beth Green, described as a “spiritual teacher, intuitive counselor and consultant.” Inspired by a TED talk by Louise Leakey on human evolution, Green churned out a piece called “Evolution, Humanity, & God“, in which she tries to convince us that we’ve been wrong about God all along. It’s not that a deity doesn’t exist—it’s just not the kind of perfect, anthropomorphic being we thought he was. Instead he’s “an ever-evolving field of consciousness that is moving toward greater self-awareness and integration.” Now that’s the kind of a God worth wanting!
Here’s one bit from her essay that floats the idea of an evolving God. I present it without commentary, save for a bit of bolding (mine) and one reader comment that I’ve pasted at the bottom.
Suppose God was not sitting in heaven planning out the universe with omnipotence and omniscience? Then God could be seen not as perfect and static, but as dynamic and evolving. And then we could see ourselves in the same way: as evolving, not shameful, as manifestations of a God that isn’t perfect either. And having released ourselves from shame, we could face ourselves more honestly, acknowledging our flaws, addictions, cruelty, fear and destructiveness. And we would no longer compare ourselves to the perfect Creator, but have compassion for ourselves as also imperfect and evolving. And now with self-compassion and no longer paralyzed by shame, we could accept ourselves yet simultaneously call ourselves to accountability for our impact on ourselves and others. And we could lend our efforts to changing ourselves in directions that we foresee as more beneficial to ourselves, one another and our planet.
God and we are evolving; it’s that simple. But how do we feel about this idea? It would eliminate shame and blame, but the price would be letting go of the idea of the perfect God. Why is that scary?
Most of us still, consciously or unconsciously, cling to the belief in a perfect God. Why? Because life is frightening, and we need security, and therefore we haven’t gotten over our need for a father, all-loving, all-knowing, focused on us and taking care of us. Because if we create a God to which we can attribute certain characteristics, we just might be able to figure out the rules and learn to manipulate the universe. Because we need somebody to help us, and we don’t trust ourselves or one another.
We don’t need a perfect God to experience the peace, receive the guidance and connect to the bliss of what we associate with God. As a spiritual teacher in the 21st century, I’m ready to share the good news — that it’s possible to have an intimate and profound relationship with a God that doesn’t exist in the old sense. And we can do that by dropping the anthropomorphic view of a God created in our image and embrace the mystery of consciousness in the process of evolution, so that we can truly experience Oneness not only with One another but with the Divine.
I am a mystic, not a scientist, but I have no problem with science. It brings fascinating facts and theories that I can accept, question and/or integrate into my meager understanding. And the idea that we had not one, but multiple simultaneous ancestors* supports my mystical experience of God as an ever-evolving field of consciousness that is moving toward greater self-awareness and integration, with which I can have an intimate relationship. In fact, I can feel closer to this evolving God than I ever felt to the old man with the beard, because this field is not perfect, and I don’t have to feel ashamed of my human imperfection. And it fits with my experience of reality, where nothing is static, where everything is changing, even the rocks being impacted by the forces of nature itself. And it allows me to keep my common sense intact, because I don’t have to pretend that I live in a perfect world.
God must love the theory of evolution, because God is evolving, too.
After working my way through Green’s essay at great cost to my equanimity, I have to agree with this commenter:
*One comment: I’m not sure that Green understands that if several species of hominin existed simultaneously, as appears to have been the case, then only one of them could be the ancestor of modern humans. (If there was some cross-breeding, then of course we could be carrying genes that occurred in more than one earlier species.)
She could have written this essay while she was cosmically unconscious.
Mystic Green is one of many who cannot accept a traditional, personal God. These people often pass through the Unitarian way station on their way to total rejection of God. She has a way to go yet and is desperately searching for something in between God and atheism. I wish her luck and good sense.
I wouldn’t be so sure.
For some that is the way things go. For others, Green’s fuzzy religion which pays only lip-service to science is right where they want to be. It can be just as frustrating to deal with this type of theist as it is to deal with hard-line literalist YECs. They can be just as entrenched.
She’s already there, she’s already an atheist. She doesn’t want to be, so she has redefined god into a vague nonsense that she can claim faith in. Very like Karen Armstrong who is also an atheist but tries to pretend she isn’t.
How could anyone consider attempting to make sense out of the God concept? People do try to cling to a God concept. They are too frightened to give it up. To find out more about her idea here, look up “Process Theology”.
“an ever-evolving field of consciousness that is moving toward greater self-awareness and integration.”
Sounds a bit like Minbari theology from Babylon 5, except they explicitly identify the ‘conscious’ part of the universe as Minbari, humans and other alien species who seek to understand the universe. Which has the benefit of being observable*. Well from the limits of a fictional universe with fictional extraterrestrials.
* Granted, B5 has some metaphysical weirdness in that it is possible to use advanced technology to identify what a soul is and define attributes to it. But at least believing ‘the intelligent, conscious parts of the universe are the beings that live in it’ is pretty straightforward.
B5 was created by an atheist, so consider the source 😉
I dunno. JMS was always a bit soft on religion and over-keen on woo in spite of being an atheist during the B5 era.
Even the idea of the Minbari universe seeking to understand itself through its carbon-based life-forms is bollocks; when viewed through the lens of reality. I loved the idea of making the Vorlons manipulate world religions to their advantage. Some of the more woo-ish claims of mysticism and oneness with the universe were easily glossed over and forgiven.
But JMS appears to have found religion subsequently, making the B5 movie “Over Here” (Lost Tales) one of the most face-palmingly awkward and embarrassing things I ever paid money to watch.
Disclaimer: I adored B5.
Well as a Christian I always was appreciative that JMS recognized religion as an integral part of his B5 universe and mostly tended to give it a fair (if not investigative) shake. Loved the series…but thought ‘Lost Tales’ was bad and poorly produced.
Beth Green’s article reads like the diary of a teenage girl as she pours out her feelings for Justin Bieber. She wants god, like Bieber, to be just how she imagines he should be and they’ll love each other and spend time together forever.
What is with this Deepakesque stuff lately? I hoped we would have moved on from new age crap by now but it seems to be enjoying a resurgence.
Thank you.
If you make a living as spiritual teacher, of course you have to make up this sort of nonsense. I note that she is also an “intuitive counselor”. Perhaps that allows her to counsel folks without any grounding in objective reality whatsoever.
“I note that she is also an “intuitive counselor”. Perhaps that allows her to counsel folks without any grounding in objective reality whatsoever.”
Or maybe gets her a handy, “tax-exempt” status?
Or allows her to get paid to say touchy-feely things about how fluffy the universe is to people instead of having a real job that would require effort.
That is a splendid metaphor! And not just for Green, but all theists, really.
I think you’re close there Ms MacP.
My analysis:- She has regressed to her teens after sticking her toe in adult life & finding it burns. So she invents a parent to look after her wishes/wants while simultaneously claiming responsibility for her own life. Sad state of affairs for a 67yo…
Extracts below are from Beth’s bleeeeurg *vomiting sounds* HERE :-
Coles/Cliff notes:-
** Unhappy with world so decides god doesn’t exist
** Burns out from stress
** Unhappy with life & self
** Decides she NEEDs to believe
** Shortly thereafter god starts talking to her…
That’ll be $500. Please hand it to the receptionist on your way out [money is so tacky isn’t it?]
See you same time next week
Bye
Michael “Freud” Fisher
I think your cliff notes miss what is, to me, the most interesting & bizarre part of that passage–for Beth, the existence of a god is a way of dodging a feeling that she should work against injustice.
Obviously, yes, trying to take too much responsbility for fixing the world can be unhealthy and a good way to get burned out. On the other hand, isn’t precisely the opposite of the usual theist objection to atheism? Beth is saying that -atheism- carries too much responsibility for moral action; it’s easier to leave it to your imaginary friend to take care of.
“…the existence of a god is a way of dodging a feeling that she should work against injustice.”
Just to set the record straight, for many theists, their understanding of God is one that challenges or calls them to work for justice and fight injustice. In fact, this is one area where theists and atheists can meet and share a common value.
If only she had stopped at the understanding that she can’t fix everything instead of invoking a god to comfort her (and probably ward off her fear of revisiting that burned out phase of her life again).
“moved on from new age crap by now…”
Diana, you misspelled “newage.” As suggested by the following word, it rhymes with “sewage.”
😉
“I hoped we would have moved on from new age crap by now but it seems to be enjoying a resurgence.”
This stuff is ever-present; it just changes names now and then. See “counterculture,” late 60’s/early 70’s.
& sub
Do these people really believe in these gods they have invented for themselves? Or is this ‘god’ she speaks of just a metaphor for something rather more abstract? Is this god similar to what a humanist is referring to when they speak of the ‘human spirit’, not an actual entity, but just the unified front of humanity as a whole?
I’ve had conversations with liberal theists of this brand before. It often gets to the point where you have no idea whether they are talking in some poetic metaphorical sense, or if they believe this deity of theirs is a factual entity.
I don’t have a problem taking theistic language to describe senses of wonderment or something similar, but these people so often dodge the question of whether they believe in their gods in a factual sense. They’ll say that it’s factual existence isn’t important, but still refuse to answer the question “Okay, it may be unimportant, but just for my curiosity, do you think it’s real or not?”
Of course, this brand of theism is a broad non-conformist lot, so some are more coherent. But it’s still annoying how many escape any attempt at explanation. Perhaps they realize it’s probably not true, but if they really accept that, it’ll lose the meaning they have ascribed to it? I don’t know. It’s a mindset I can’t get behind, but as a person with no desire for either children or alcohol, I recognize that I’m hardly wired like your typical homo sapien either.
Those theists don’t know, either.
They barf up word salads they’ve run across in their studies, or even made themselves, and think they’ve said something meaningful.
Ask them what it means and you’ll get more salad – because they don’t actually know.
But they feel like it’s meaningful.
Because if there really is no Grand Purpose, her life has no purpose, therefore one must be found!
I suspect Beth Green worships “Teleology” and has fun dressing it up in pretty clothes.
Growing up as a UU, I was constantly told “you can believe whatever you want”. As a kid, of course, it is difficult to differentiate this statement’s legal/social sense (religious tolerance) from its factual sense (i.e. you can believe whatever you want and thereby make it actually true). In high school I read about different religions such as Wicca and Buddhism, and toyed with the idea of inventing my own God. For a while I even believed that each person creates their own subjective reality, so that everyone’s beliefs can be true. But I knew that this made no sense, I caused myself a bit of mental strain trying to reconcile my woo-ey beliefs with reality. During my senior year, I read The End of Faith, and realized that the world really is a certain way and that my beliefs won’t change reality. Instead, I should try to change my beliefs to match reality. So yes, I think it may be possible for some people to believe in a God of their own creation, but it is very difficult to do.
Superfluous garbage. “We have a basic understanding of the world, but I’d like to tack on my ever-evolving God. You know, to grease the hinges.” Nonsense.
Two words: Process theology.
Two more words: Occam’s razor.
It’s a shame she is trying to find comfort in Oogity Boogity, instead of what happens to be true about the universe. That’s sad, but at least she’s not flying planes into buildings.
No, flying planes into buildings requires focus and technical skill. Probably not her long suit.
Maybe we could just get rid of the “God” term…. And just realize that we exist and create meaning in our lives through our deeds, loves, and actions. Our need to figure everything out is a neurotic remnant of our minds attempts at hunting and warring advantage over herds and tribes, as well as rulers setting up a sense of order and rules designed to control behavior. We really don’t need metaphysical concepts to feel meaning in our lives.
Just replace god with universe and what she is saying makes a little more sense.
Well replace god with universe in some places and then do some heavy editing.
“God can evolve. We can evolve.”
She is not writing about the ToE. She is writing about simple change, as in “gosh, Sally, you’ve changed.”
These prog-xians think they can legitimize their banal theology by dropping a few tenuously related scientific buzzwords.
She sounds a bit like Michael Dowd (who spammed here for a short time a few years ago).
I dunno…science has exerted a strong selective pressure on God…
😉 But of course, I agree with you.
I guess if your profession is Spiritual Teacher, you have to constantly strive to find some way to differentiate yourself in the spiritual marketplace.
I don’t think HuffPo even charged her to place this ad. You can’t beat free advertising.
Hey Beth, this bumper sticker’s for you!
And the short dissertation based on the sticker.
Excellent! He mostly focuses on how this relates to the artist, but his first two paragraphs can profitably applied by anyone to him or herself:
“I saw a bumper sticker that admonished “Don’t Believe Everything You Think.” I had been trying to put this notion into words myself for a while when I discovered this pithy advice on the back of the car ahead of me. I find it hard to put into practice. We generally take what’s in our heads as true.
If you don’t question yourself you’ll have what the world rightly considers disorganized, magical, or delusional thinking, or not really thinking at all. Thinking is like believing, but sieved through observation, trial, questioning, and doubt.”
Hmm.
I think Mr. Cohen needs to work harder at actually taking his own advice.
I contest the idea that “the world” is particularly good at identifying magical thinking or delusions. Others may poo-poo your delusions, but only because they prefer their delusions.
Also, what is that malarkey about art? Art is “only worthwhile” if it’s somehow a product of doubt? Says who? First off, that’s really too vague to mean anything. On top of that, this notion that legitimate art must perforce be absolutely cutting-edge, absolutely novel, do something never done before, take huge risks, be experimental, that you can’t know if a piece will be successful until after its been received (after people have cautiously looked at each others’ reactions and a slow consensus has accrued that “yes, it’s safe to say this is good”) etc, is a recent trend. Mozart and Beethoven learned from Fux and Bach. Fux and Bach learned from earlier masters. Bach may have occasionally employed a more complex, perhaps even audacious, harmonic language than his contemporaries or forebears, but he knew what he was doing. There was no doubt that each move was the (a) right move.
Typical eastern philosophy inspired BS.
She probably teaches yoga and is a vegan/rawfoodist/local-organic produce lover.
She reminds me a lot of Deepity.
I thought it was lots of deepity!
At the first reading you think you are reading something profound. But on close examination, it is all BS, and loads of it for that matter!
Looking at this gobblygook my former devout Catholic mindset the first impression I got from this was she is actually admitting that God is not at all dynamic.
The second thing that came to my attemtion was what she will then do with the Jesus problem. If manifestations of a God are not perfect then…. Where was the attonement?
Jesus must not have been the perfect sacrifice we were told he was.
I hope she has armed bodygaurds at the ready now. Some christians may not like her mocking their savior this way.
On the other hand, the atheists will protect her from the mobs. Ironic, eh?
On the contrary, her view of God is very dynamic! Only an evolving God can be compatible with an evolving universe and evolving life. One of the things that resists evolutionary thought among Christians is the notion that God is unchangeable and thus, static. Works fine of you are an ancient Greek whose concept of perfection was that which is totally complete in itself and needs nor wants anything more. Something that is unchanging and anything BUT dynamic. If you want a Catholic view that accounts for the atonement and evolution, try Teilhard de Chardin. Sure, he’s a bit “out there” for orthodox Catholics, but his arguments are intriguing for Catholic and (other) Christian audiences.
His arguement could be as intriguing as all get out for some yet would not have been of any comfort to me when I was a devout catholic- his views were not dogma.
His views contradicted dogma, so his views would have created more of a hell in my mind than the ones I already had.
Not to mention he was a perpetrator of fraud.
He did nothing to help those who know evoultion is true and in fact hurt many by his fraud. There could be many who reject evolution because of his fraud.
That is why it would be nice if definitions could be agreed on before a conversation is started. If we define “god” in specific ways, it exists by definition, and if we define it in other ways, it does not exist, again by definition. The question is whether all those potential concepts deserve the label.
As for the asterisk, is it possible that she means several ancestral individuals as opposed to only Adam, instead of several ancestral species of hominids? The context does not quite make that clear.
To even say that God “exists” is actually nonsensical. God, by definition, would be the ground and source of that which exists. Not someone or something that exists in itself.
Actually, the mid-20th century theologian, Paul Tillich, suggested, not entirely tongue in cheek, that we ought to declare a “100 year moratorium” on the use of the word, “god” because of the baggage that came with it.
Pure WooDooDoo- it is just painful to know that this malarkey is self-propagating and will develop into an industry or some New Age ministry. Taking advantage of folks and their softheadedness with this “software” is almost criminal.
+1 for the term WooDooDoo.
The premise in all these types of philosophical exposition is that “we all agree” on the definition of many strung-together sets of words. No we don’t.
Let’s ask a basic question of Beth Green. We know there is the Natural World, of molecules, atoms, photons, known physical phenomena.
The question: Do you believe there is a Supernatural world? How can you know it exists? And not by “mental enlightenment”. There has to be something about the Supernatural world, that defines it apart from the Natural world. Any information about the Supernatural world has to come from somewhere outside of your mind, outside of the human experience. Otherwise, its features define it as a product of the Natural world.
So, tell us some defining aspects of the Supernatural world.
An evolving god, unlike some of its followers… te he.
I do think this is more benign that fundamentalism.
So is salmonella, usually.
I recall hearing a Baptist minister rail against ‘process theology’ before the turn of the millenium. In addition to the Chopra nose others have mentioned, I get a strong whiff of de Chardin & also the famous Omega Point, in the aftertaste.
As the 8 year-old gypsy eco-protester said, “There’s not enough hippies to save us all.”
Wooo, Woooo and more WOOOOO!
I don’t understand why so many atheists are so quick to poo poo this version of god. I don’t know anything about this chick, at all, but what she’s described is, from what I can see, something like a pantheistic god.
From the spinozian,/einsteinian pov, I like this god. There’s nothing supernatural or mystical about it, not necessarily at least. At best it elucidates some beautiful buddhist-y philosophies, at worst its mutilated by pseudo hippies that lack depth in their understanding of what they’re saying. No harm done – no imposing dogmatic structures to fuck us into oblivion.
What’s the big deal? Focusing on how we’re unified rather than how we’re all different could do us all a bit of good, I reckon.
Mostly because she’s effectively done away with God, but she’s still clinging to the need of something spiritual.
And she’s making a bunch of stuff up that gratifies her personal view of how things ought to be or how they could be. It’s mystical, not real.
Sure, if there is any concept of God that makes sense, it’s the kind of pantheism of Spinoza and Einstein.
But she kind of misses the point of evolution when she refers to God as some “evolving field of consciousness”. She’s just anthropomorphizing again. There is no other reason to suppose consciousness was involved in the origins of the universe. All she has done is provided a little bit of form to an entirely mystical idea of God. By linking her idea of God to evolution while keeping consciousness in a central role, she’s just splitting the difference between natural science and God the intentional creator. She has subtracted out some of the egocentric glorification of both humans and the God they created, which seems good to me.
But she’s still inventing stuff for the purpose of giving psychological comfort to the needy while collecting their cash in exchange. In other words, it’s still just religion, and she’s still a predator.
But again, what’s wrong with this sort of spirituality?
Again, I don’t know anything more about her other than this article, but even Dawkins considers himself spiritual, he just despises the use of the word god.
If God is just a euphemism for consciousness, or nature, or something like that, to highlight the underlying unity of us all, which is scientifically undeniable, then dat b koolz wit me.
Dawkins uses the word “spirtual” to describe awe and wonder and I’ve heard him also say that we should probably stay away from that word because it has been co-opted by religion.
Implying Dawkins’s “spiritual” is anything like Beth Green’s is disingenuous.
Uh… What is wrong is that it is pure unadulterated gibberish. It is nonsense. It is meaningless verbiage. Words are strung together so as to deceive even the speaker. (I suspect.)
Other than that… Well, I guess it doesn’t advocate for the rape of children. So maybe you have a point.
I’m sure that a lot of people see this pseudo-god as a point of exploitation, a way to feed of the gullible masses – fair point. (I’ve actually written a bunch of posts about this).
But not all of it is gibberish. Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Einstein, most Eastern literature, and to a lesser extent, people like Sam Harris, and those willing to see the benefits of psychology that emphasises unity as opposed to separation (generally speaking), have a lot to say about this notion of god.
If you (not you, general observers) remove the term god, and replace it with nature or something similar, then there’s no problem. Semantics (semantics that yes, can be exploited).
If you confuse Beth Green with Baruch Spinoza I don’t really think there is much serious conversation to be had.
I guess what’s wrong with it is that it seems made up and imaginary, and it seems dishonest to represent it as true in some way.
And as for spiritual, I equate that with supernatural, which doesn’t exist in my view. If something can act upon the physical world in any way, then it is part of the natural world. If the supernatural could have any effect or relevence to the physical material world, we could detect its existence, so for all intents and purposes, if it doesn’t impact or interact with the physical, it doesn’t exist.
Spirit strictly as a metaphor is okay. I like the idea of the “human spirit” representing essential and admirable qualities of human consciousness. There isn’t anything spiritual in that to me.
Religion has defined “spiritual” as something elevated above the physical, something incorruptible and eternal. To me this is just an imaginary idea, not something that exists. And what I really strongly dislike about “spiritual” is that it comes along with a kind of devaluing contempt for the physical and material as somehow base or inferior.
This leads to such silly notions as the idea that our consciousness and our emotions being “just” chemicals is something distasteful and meaningless. What this does is take all the awe and wonder out of physical reality and shift it into an imaginary category called spiritual. Such a viewpoint extremely undervalues the physical and elevates a phantom to a place of privilege. The physical is the only thing that unifies us. Why devalue that? What could be stupider?
I don’t like using the term spiritual either. For the reasons you outlined. But I’m not so against it, euphemistically.
An atom is physical. But we can’t see it with the naked eye. We can’t see it without the aid of technology. I don’t feel connected to a person that I hate, or loathe. I see them as my enemy. As someone separate from me. But they’re not. Atoms pass through us. We are essentially made of the same stuff. We’re related. We’re all brothers and sisters, sharing a common denominator – we are earthlings.
To me, this is what spirituality is. Science is the knife that slices up our universe into small portions so we can analyse it and make sense of it. It’s based on separation. And that’s beautiful. Spirituality is the opposite; it’s the whole, the macro, the Oneness. Without constantly reminding ourselves that there does indeed exist a force that ties us together, a very real, physical, tangible, non-supernatural force; call it nature, call it universe, call it whatever you like (spirit is just a shortcut, and yeah, can be misleading), then, well… I’d need more words than I can be bothered writing to show my point.
Religious people use the term universe as a euphemism for god – should we banish the term universe as well? Just because it’s misused? Who cares. That’s both and at once the beauty and downfall of human language – no matter how well something is expressed, there’s always room for misconstruction. Certain terms are more taboo than others. So? Context is key. Why throw out the toad with the baby’s juice, so doesn’t go the expression?
Actually, they mostly use the word “god” for “god”. But they capitalize it. Or they say “Allah” or “Yahweh”. Mostly they don’t use the word “universe” for this ill-defined concept.
One doesn’t banish words. One points out where they are badly defined. One points out where they are inappropriately used. And one doesn’t pretend that a lot of gibberish is actually meaningful.
No, science is not based on separation. The goal of science is to explain how reality works, and one part of that is reducing complex systems down to simpler parts that can be understood in isolation.
But that isn’t a goal, it’s a step in the process of understanding and gaining knowledge. Science is also concerned with integration, with systems, with ecosystems, with explanations for how everything fits together, with the search for a grand unifying theory that integrates everything. Look at how evolution integrates the natural world of organisms in a way that no spiritual tradition ever has done. Okay, Buddhism comes the closest, and among religions it is the one I feel the most fondness for, and it is the most compatible with science. But even Buddhism is corrupted by human ignorance, and the teachings of Buddha are little understood by most who are culturally by birth Buddhists. So there is a difference between the philosophy and the religion, and the religion is corrupt. Buddhism, as taught by Buddha, has no God.
I feel that all the reverence religious people reserve for the divine or the spiritual should be directed at light, space, energy, matter, and the gorgeous and amazing universe those elements create.
You are the one creating separation by preserving the false dichotomy of physical and spiritual. God is not the same as the universe for most people. God is a creator, a redeemer, a father, a source of love and protection and solace, God is really a psychologically anthropomorphic object that nobody can really define. It’s a concept, but not a real entity.
… I don’t disagree with anything you said. In fact, I whole heartedly agree with it all. To be clear, I’m not religious, nor do I believe in any conventional notion of god. I don’t even call myself spiritual, as, as you seem to think too, the term is wishy washy. I’m just playing devil’s advocate. And to me, the woo-woo that a lot of people write about can have value… if stripped from the woo. Similarly, the concept of god can have value, if looked at in a certain light. Tis all I’m saying.
And I give you a Darwin for that, brother! The reality that science shows us is so much better than a pretend world that sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally sullies the material and natural to something less than awesome.
I concede the larger point if we are to take what Sam Harris says as the goodness that comes from meditation and philosophy. I’m on board with that but Sam is talking about that as devoid of all woo that does not distinguish between the natural and the supernatural.
What he said.
What’s wrong with this is that it’s then by category lumped with all the other entities that worship a god. It’s the same old problem of liberal religion actually enabling fundamental religion; if a little bit of God is OK, what’s wrong with a little more? Then a lot more? It’s only a difference of degree, they’ll say; we have more in common than we disagree on.
It may seem like a matter of semantics, but it’s also just another point on the sliding scale of baseless belief; and not on that of rationality and critical thinking.
Careful, you’re flirting with this idea: http://www.quick-break.net/c/2013/01/10/Science_A_bunch_of_assholes_trying_to_prove_shit.jpeg
We poo-poo this version of god because, like all versions of god, it is based in assertions with no evidence. Sure, it’s unlikely people believing in this type of woo will become violent extremists but that doesn’t mean their way of thinking is harmless – believing in this type of woo and letting your analytical skills atrophy leaves you vulnerable to believing all sorts of harmful woo (pseudo science, vaccines are bad, false flag conspiracy theories).
All aboard for the Teleological Train to Nowhere….woo….woo
Now I’ve got Ozzie Osborn’s Crazy Train stuck in my head.
Osbourne. Derp.
Great, now so do I :/
Okay. Here’s maybe where we differ. I’m fine with this if it doesn’t conflict with science. If there is evidence AGAINST something, then the idea has to change to fit the evidence. On the other hand, it seems to me that an assertion that neither can be proven nor disproven is a whole different ball game. To say “There is no God” because there can be no evidence of one is as mistaken as saying “There is certainly a God” because I have faith there is one.
Either way, we’ve stepped out of the realm of science into dealing with unprovable assertions. Again, though, if an assertion does NOT FIT known science, then it must be rejected as unreasonable.
Can we say there are no unicorns? Are you willing to say that there just might be a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Keeping an open mind about Nessie and Bigfoot?
It’s gods and mythical creatures all the way down!
It would be accurate to say, I’m going to go with there is no god because there is no evidence that there is one so it makes no sense to believe there is one. If proof materializes, then I’ll change my mind.
It doesn’t matter what people think most of the time but it also doesn’t mean they’ve reached logical conclusions to get to their beliefs and I’ll criticize those beliefs. Many of my friends are religious, some very devout Catholics, but we understand this is where we don’t agree.
Diana, I don’t think I am playing word games when I say on the one hand, “I BELIEVE/DON’T BELIEVE in God,” and, on the other hand, “There IS/IS NO God”…
…or unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, Nessie, or Bigfoot.
Either way, where’s the evidence?
The best it seems we can do with honesty is to affirm or deny belief. Certitude is beyond our reach.
Where did I say I was certain? I can say I’m confident to a high degree given what I know but I can’t say I’m certain. I don’t believe there is a god/gods because there is no evidence of them. This is a provisional statement based on lack of evidence.
I guess I wasn’t necessarily directing that comment to you, Diana. I apologize if that was what came across. I was stating a distinction that others seem to muddle. I think your “provisional” answer works.
To think that science has, or will ever have, all the answer is arrogant.
I’m technically an atheist with regards to any religious deity, but in terms of what lies beyond the realm of human graspability, I’m strictly agnostic (like most atheists are). We can’t (presently) know what we don’t know, and to think we’ll eventually know everything seems to me just as faith based as any religious belief.
There’s also a lot to be said for Buddhist philosophies (which ostensibly seem to run in close parallel to this chick’s train of thought). There’s a logic behind leaving logic behind. Sam Harris, and Robert Sapolsky, both staunch atheists, elucidate this topic well – without the woo.
Please point out where I arrogantly say that has or will ever have all the answers? I can say that science has more real, provable answers and has gotten humanity a lot further than god of the gaps or new age woo has. Seems the arrogance falls squarely in this woo camp that claims to have all the answers to everything – god.
Sorry I didn’t mean to imply that anything you said was arrogant; I was referring to that line of thinking in general.
Just to be clear, I am, technically at least, an atheist. I value science greatly. But I also value philosophy. And philosophically speaking, I’ve no issue with using the term god to describe the underlying unity of nature. It’s a case of semantics really. Probably misleading for most, which is the reason I don’t use the term god myself. But if you (not you, general you’s) take off your scientific lens, and look at the issue from a point of abstraction, then there’s a lot to be said for this woo-woo… if spoken from the right mind (probably not hers, I’ll concede).
It’s the whole Einsteinian: “…Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison [our perceived separateness, or ego, if you like] by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
We already have a perfectly good word for that… “universe”. You’ll find it very suitable and it carries none of the baggage that the incredibly-poorly-defined-word “god” does. One can use it to refer to things known and yet unknown. And not a bit of woo-baloney is required for its appropriate use.
Spirituality hasn’t been that successful at widening our compassion to all living creatures. Most religion makes very strict distinctions between humans and animals. Biology very nicely unites all creatures.
Evolution is enough to give us the unity you talk of. We are all, every human, every animal, every plant, part of a big family that is unified by natural material reality and its miraculous qualities.
I use miracle in the original Latin sense meaning simply “object of wonder”. Nature is an object of wonder, and the fact that fields form elementary particles that form atoms which form molecules which participate in evolution from which arises consciousness is mind blowingly awesome enough for me without having to add spiritual fantasies on top of that.
“Just” chemicals alone are totally fucking awesome, and anybody who equates that with something meaningless or empty has had their mind poisoned with religious fantasy.
I wrote a reply to your comment, but here’s instead a post I wrote a little while ago that deals with this issue. Not self-promoting (though really, I am), but the post goes into more detail than my comment would.
http://humansareweird.com/2013/04/17/is-belief-in-god-humbling/
You know what, having a job title as “Asshole who tries to prove shit” would rock.
IMO, YMMV, etc.
Totally agree! I would love that title!
As honored in articles like this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-probably-discover-a-new-species-of-frog,32947/
Ha ha, awesome!
Let’s not leave the assholes who try to disprove shit out of this…
How about the version of NO diety?
sp in haste
I think what bugs some atheists about this brand of malarkey is that she doesn’t seem to actually care if it’s true. “Evolution inspires me to think this, so assert assert assert.” That’s a shockingly different value system, so it’s hard to get past “you have no reason to believe this is true” to even consider “that god’s not so bad”.
Time to reprint Miranda’s Holy Rabbit.
I have a post up at a couple of dating sites, and I’ve been seeing “spiritual but not religious” selected quite often (under the “Faith” category). Are these women speaking of Andre Comte-Sponville and his terrific little book on atheist spirituality? Nope. They’re speaking of the mind-melting mush that Louise Leakey is peddling.
But it is interesting to see this development at work and how notions of “God” keep getting pushed back from the original or earliest definitions of the word. At first, “God” was an all-knowing entity who created the universe and oversees its creation (disregarding deism for the moment). Now, “God” is interpreted as a vague “spiritual energy” or “force” in the world. Like I say, I find this interesting.
She starts out by explaining how ‘traditional’ believers have created their ‘perfect’ God to their own needs and wants so they can feel safe and secure.
The essential part of course being that people created their own God.
Then she goes on to do EXACTLY the same thing herself: she creates her OWN God with just different characteristics that SHE feels more comfortable with.
And as usual, the irony is completely lost on her.
But then, as she admits herself: she is “a mystic, not a scientist” .. if we define a mystic as someone who mystifies, then yes, both statements are painfully clear.
Exactly–on both the irony & the “mystic.”
Sorry, I meant to say Beth Green, not Louise Leakey. Too bad there isn’t an edit function for these comments. Jerry, feel feel to make the edit and delete this message! Thanks.
Reads like a female version of Deepak Chopra minus the quantum woo-woo.
Beth Green, condensed:
“Suppose [some bollocks].
Then [some other bollocks].”
Great – thanks Beth.
+1
“spiritual teacher, intuitive counselor and consultant”
aka professional bullshit artist and grifter
“Professional” only in the sense of getting paid for doing it, not in the sense of having expertise.
And in the sense that she professes to know something, which is something quite apart from actually knowing something.
indeed
What a load of hooey.
Actually, such a mystic, evolutionary, view of God is growing in some mainline Christian circles. The hymns of Brian Wren, such “Bring Many Names” suggest a god who is in a state of change and growth. Then there is also the dual influence of “process theology” of Whitehead and Hartshorne and the more mystic “panentheism” reminiscent of the Tao of Lao Tzu which are shaping a view of God as evolving along with creation as it unfolds. This is a god who actually goes BEYOND theism, and as one who is convinced of the reality of evolution, it is a god I can feel comfortable with.
I’m comfortable with the one who brings me pints of good English ale on Tuesday evenings.
Hail Odin! Pixie Farts! Let’s give a toast to all of the self-soothing, self-anointed, godwhatevertheywanttocallit worshipping fairy dusted folk.
How about a Guinness on Wednesdays?
Or–heck! Why only Tuesdays and Wednesdays!? A good daily brew works for me!
My god! A splendid creed!
My father wrote his thesis under the direction of Alfred North Whitehead at Harvard. As the fourth child, I read everything of Whitehead’s work. Then I took evolution courses in graduate school. Poor Whitehead. He never understood evolution at all. This lady must love Whitehead. I know she does not have much understanding of evolution.
That reminds me of a review of the new Superman movie from a Superman fan.
*** SPOILER BELOW ***
He was upset because the latest Superman rewrite didn’t make him out as a (believable) “protector”.
I never got that idea from Superman lore, more like the Great Hero, so I have to assume it is a cultural difference. Religion and/or religious US vs atheism?
Oops. The comment box editor cut the whitespace spacer between spoiler warning and spoiler.
Sorry about that!
Check this out: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10128539/Man-of-Steel-gets-box-office-boost-from-Supermans-God-fearing-fans.html
Warner Bros. explicitly marketed the movie to Evangelical Christians by enlisting pastors to sermonize from the pulpit on the parallels between Jesus and Superman. The idea of a muscular kick-ass hero Jesus that supports our troops is big in right-wing Christian America.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/aug/26/jesus-macho-makeover
Here’s Jesus in the Ring. This is what we have to contend with in the US.
Warner even created a website with draft sermons that preachers of various stripes could adopt and adapt.
How mean and offensive to Christians it would be for me to bring up the story of Jesus kicking over the tables of the moneylenders in the temple, or even the Sermon on the Mount at this time… 🙂
Wow, He’s a hunk!
Hopefully it’s not enough to make you want to become a Christian though…;)
More like wanting to do something decidedly unchristian. 😀 Or so they say…
She says she’s a mystic, not a scientist.
If the degree of mystification I experienced when reading her thoughts is any guide, she’s one of the best.
For once I’d like to go on a science blog that is just science without the ” oh look at what this religious person said” or ” oh look this scientist isn’t atheist enough”.
In a way, I would be satisfied with that, too. Theists and atheists both come to these discussion with too much baggage sometimes, and too much distrust and resentment toward the other. Atheists distrust and resent Christians, for example, because Christians, I believe deep down, distrust and resent atheists for being able and willing to face questions they won’t and spend their time, then, trying to convince atheists what a threatening piece of work they are to their own world view.
I was at one time a Lutheran pastor and then a hospital chaplain. I hated talking to Christians who were convinced of the certainty of their convictions. On the other hand, I enjoyed talking to atheists and found them refreshing when we got past the mistaken assumption that all theists were going to cram their views down their throats. Sure, too many do, but there are a lot more theists and Christians who can walk past a known atheist without comment or imposition of dogma. But, mostly, the ones I liked to talk to were the agnostics. They were the ones who were willing to live with the questions and not fall into any kind of certitude trap, one way or the other.
The trap you’ve fallen into is to think “atheist” is an alternative “agnostic”. I’m both an atheist because I don’t believe in deities, but agnostic from the impossible-to-prove-negatives perspective. (Then there’s the whole problem getting a coherent definition of “god” so a cogent conversation can even be had. But that’s a different matter.)
I think there are atheists who have a certain amount of bitterness toward religion, often with good reason. The ubiquity of religion can make it hard to think your way out of faith. There are “faith traps” everywhere in our society. To reach the point where you feel your thinking is liberated from religious indoctrination can often be an emotionally costly struggle. And it’s easy to get the feeling that you were really screwed over by a big hoax perpetrated by thousands of years of ignorance and simple acquiescence to convention. Atheists often feel impatient and dismissive of religion. This probably makes many atheists sound overly certain.
But that dismissive attitude doesn’t require certitude about the origins of the universe. Some liberal Christians and agnostics cultivate the notion that they are the sophisticated thinkers that avoid the extremes of certitude, religious fundamentalism and atheism, as if atheism were simply an alternate kind of dogmatic faith.
This point of view assumes there is a symmetry between the positive assertion of a belief, and the negative denial of a belief. Atheism does not positively assert a belief, and religion does.
Given the extraordinary uncertainty we have about the origin of our universe, to positively assert one possibility for those origins, especially one that involves anthropomorphic projection onto nature, is to make a presumption that has an extremely low probability of being correct, especially since there is no persuasive evidence that a conscious intentional creator exists. This means there is a tremendous asymmetry between positively asserting a belief about universal origins, and a negative denial of that belief. The atheist says “I don’t know” the origins, but I’m eager to learn more about them. The believer says “I already know.” The atheist responds, “I think you are wrong”. This is a far cry from saying “I know what is right”, which is the way atheists are often portrayed by those who wish to discredit them for political or ideological reasons.
The difference between the atheist and the agnostic is that the agnostic seriously entertains the notion that the bold and arrogant assertions of the religious believers have a chance of being true. I think the odds are so tiny that being an agnostic is a waste of time. Better to stick with uncertainty about those things that lie beyond the frontiers of the knowledge we can have confidence in.
So atheism has little to do with certainty. It’s more like the confidence of having the odds and the evidence on your side. I remain open to new evidence, should it ever be presented, that a conscious supernatural being exists. But given the extraordinary uncertainty and range of unknown possibilities, and given the unsatisfactory nature of positing a being greater than the universe (which leaves me with the even bigger question of where the hell this being greater than the universe came from), there is way too much uncertainty about what came before the Big Bang to actually believe in a God.
To have religious faith is to carve certainty out of a vast unknown reality with little or no actual knowledge to back it up. By actual knowledge I mean knowledge that can be confidently verified empirically.
To be an atheist is to have uncertainty in a vast unknown reality, with a great deal of knowledge to indicate that among all the unknowns, what we do know confidently indicates that the religious idea has little to no chance of being true.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/07/its-my-way-or-the-highway-why-people-are-evangelists-for-their-own-way-of-life.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PsychologyBlog+%28PsyBlog%29
Is someone forcing you to read this site, Abdiel? Or are you just a happily trolling?
Well, there are plenty of those websites, so you don’t have to come here.
I can imagine the slightly revised T-shirt slogans now:
“Please be patient! God isn’t finished perfecting Himself yet.”
I don’t know if others have pointed this out (and I’m sure that you care) but, just in case you are interested, this liberal theologian seems to be just spouting Process Theoloogy. It’s a minority quasi-Christian view going back to Whitehead. A number of the liberal theologians who claim to study the relationship between science and religion are process theologians; an example is Ian Barbour’s “Religion in the Age of Science”.
Not that I agree with Process Theology (I’m an atheist), but I thought that you just might be interested to know where this non-sense is coming from.
It’s always good to know the correct jargon. 😀
She’s just plagiarizing Hegel. Not the first to do so.
True enough, you are right – if she could get through Hegel I would be impressed. Since she is invoking WooDooDoo, it is only fair to pull out some pixie dust.
“Where questions of religion are concerned, people are guilty of every possible sort of dishonesty and intellectual misdemeanour.
…. Thus we call a belief an illusion when a wish-fulfilment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification.
— Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion
I am so looking forward to JREF in Vegas.
“If there was some cross-breeding, then of course we could be carrying genes that occurred in more than one earlier species.”
I thought we did. Like, a few percent Neanderthal genes. But those came from cross-breeding homo sapiens with Neanderthal if I remember correctly, so I guess you mean cross-breeding before the homo sapiens line split off?
Greene is simply thinking of “G”od v.2., an updated, kinder, gentler, new age version of the one humans created created when they didn’t know what to blame for unpredictable weather and death.