God as a Spirit - a question for theists

[AHunter3]

@mswas

we have created categories that separate one organism from another. But all organisms live in a larger ecosystem, the life of which depends upon the organisms that inhabit it. …

We believe the human being to be sentient…I subscribe to a collectivist view of sentience. We like to think of ourselves as sentient, but we aren’t. A lone human cannot survive in the wild like other mammals can. …Nothing that we know, we know in a vacuum. Our knowledge is intimately linked toward our ability to function in society. Even the loan woodsman who likes to think of himself as self-sufficient is bound to the millenia long tradition of skills that allow him to ply his trade. Even the very act of swinging an axe is dependent upon thousands of years of human industry, the harvesting of plant matter, and the ability to fashion metal being the foundations of all industry and the physical sciences.

Yes. I was a grad student in sociology. While I do distance myself from the “absolute” assertions of those in the field that individuals’ consciousness is NOTHING BUT a blank slate onto which the surrounding culture has written its thought patterns and beliefs and whatnot, I think the overwhelming vast majority of what we think of as our “own” thoughts are local manifestions of our species thrashing out some thinking that it has been considering, often for several generations.

…[O]ur very ability to perceive is based on external inputs.

We have defined ourselves as being limited to the ends of our skin, but we are more than that, we are our relationships, our homes, our cars, our families, our vocations, etc… There are so many characteristics that are externalities that we consider intrinsically linked to who we are. As such we share some of these externalities, we become a part of larger hive structures. Just as an ant hill and the warrens that exist within it are as much a part of the hive as the individual ants, so too are we in our cities, suburbs, corporations and other such externalities that serve to contain groupings of human beings.

Totally agree. We are vastly more plural, in our consciousnesses, than most of us are aware of.

Human beings are completely and totally incapable of original thought.

No, there I have to part company. “Completely and totally” is wrong, and is a problem. I think individual critiques and communications is the very mechanism by which the hive thinking gets modulated over time. The original portion may be vanishingly small, but it’s also of critical importance.

All of our ideas are recombinant. We take existing ideas and we put them together into larger concepts and then we test those concepts mercilessly, we share them, take them apart and put them back together again. The very act of cognition is a social process.

Yes. I’d ratify that statement.

…We think of our thoughts as being distinctly our own, but they are not. They are built upon a bed of ideas passed down to us by our ancestors.

And that. And most of the rest of the following paragraphs. The human being as plural. I think we’re either in total agreement or very very close to it.

And then, you move onward to what I have sometimes called the “superplural” and I’m with you there as well:

We sprang from the universe by some process that is as of yet opaque to us. How does conciousness arise from the valences of atoms? How did the universe’s matter go from element to molecule, from molecule to protein, and from protein to self-aware being? I see it as folly to assume that consciousness is a process that emerges solely from the human being. The human being is dependent upon too many external factors. We are not separate and distinct from our environment, we are an integral part of it. The Nature vs Artifice argument is one of the grandest category errors in the history of mankind. We are a part of nature. As such, we are the matter of the universe experiencing itself. Even if we are the only fully conscious beings anywhere in the universe, then we are God’s brain. We are able to know the universe through the act of cognition, but the act of cognition is a collective process.

It isn’t easy to put into words and I like your words for it. (But I can’t help trying to add my own, of course). It isn’t quite so much that “I am conscious therefore the universe is conscious (:: points to his own brain :: ) right here” but that infosar as consciousness simply IS (and mine IS; it cannot be illusory; some of things OF WHICH I am conscious could be an illusion but the consciousness itself is self-evidently real; to be an “illusion” it would have to be an illusion TO something and therefore the something consciously experiences the illusion and we still have consciousness), that consciousness has to be something other than a kind of epiphenomenon of causal deterministic behavior of nonvolitional deterministic processes. Consciousness is therefore OF the universe as an integral quality thereof. The universe is conscious. Perhaps as you say that consciousness is manifested locally (in the same way that I myself am conscious but the locus of that consciousness is my head in a sense that it is NOT my foot instead); perhaps we are God’s brain and perhaps not, but yeah, cognition and volition really and truly IS present. Something — and perhaps everything — occurs on purpose.

[raindog]

@Revenant_Threshold

Generally the argument is that, if something interacts with the material world, we should be able to recognise that, even if all we see is the result of the interaction. A supernatural god, which does not exist in any form nor interact with the natural world, may quite certainly exist, but logically, being natural beings ourselves, would be unable to recognise it (and of course it would be unable to recognise us, rendering quite a few of the oft-granted godly abilities somewhat nulled).

And why should you or me accept this “general argument”? Once again, I make no case for the existence of God in this thread. But the fact is, a supernatural God, should he exist, would not------exception for the requirements and limitations we, his creation, ascribe to him-----have any necessity to interact with us.

Further, it is an element of his approach----as I’ve come to understand them----that he isn’t in the business of performing Stupid Pet Tricks in the sky to overtly make his presence known. IOW, it would seem that faith is fundamental to interacting with him.

If that wasn’t enough, there are myriads of things that we interact with a on a daily basis that we don’t fully understand. Virtually thousands; much of which we simply take for granted or overlook. Any one of them could very well be a manifestation of God’s presence. It is entirely possible that this God indirectly interacts with us each and every day and can’t see him---- because of willful ignorance or because we subjectively assign them to something else.

As for your question earlier as to whether the existence of a god makes belief in that god more valid - actually, I would argue that it doesn’t (nor would non-existence make belief less valid). What matters is the existence of evidence for that belief, not the actual existence itself, and whether it is that evidence that the belief is based upon. If I believe in, say, a generic Christian God, because ducks have beaks, my belief is is not very valid whether or not it actually exists. l.

Perhaps we’re misunderstanding each other.

If no God exists, than Czarcasm’s comment, “Your belief is just as valid as any other religious belief” is perfectly valid, wouldn’t you say? I mean,* if none of them exist*, what’s the difference between TSM and Jehovah?

Nothing.

On the other hand…if there is a [singular] God, than it is only this God that can make this type of value judgment. You, me and Czarcasm can sit and make policy here on this MB, but if this God exists we’re tilting at windmills.

[Der_Trihs]

@raindog

But the fact is, a supernatural God, should he exist, would not------exception for the requirements and limitations we, his creation, ascribe to him-----have any necessity to interact with us.

But in that case, God becomes both irrelevant, and something that should be rationally be disbelieved in because all the actual evidence is against God existing.

@raindog

Further, it is an element of his approach----as I’ve come to understand them----that he isn’t in the business of performing Stupid Pet Tricks in the sky to overtly make his presence known. IOW, it would seem that faith is fundamental to interacting with him.

No; if your non-interacting God is real, then faith isn’t an interaction with God either. Faith is just another brain state; if God doesn’t interact with natural phenomenon then it doesn’t interact with faith or anything else we know of.

@raindog

If that wasn’t enough, there are myriads of things that we interact with a on a daily basis that we don’t fully understand. Virtually thousands; much of which we simply take for granted or overlook. Any one of them could very well be a manifestation of God’s presence. It is entirely possible that this God indirectly interacts with us each and every day and can’t see him---- because of willful ignorance or because we subjectively assign them to something else.

Ah; the old God of the Gaps.

[Voyager]

@Der_Trihs

A singular God IS a traditional Western conception, as is referring to such an entity as “God”. And there’s no reason to assume that if there’s such a thing as gods in the first place that there’s only one…except for the “traditional western” belief in monotheism.

I think you’re missing the point of this thread. The books responding to Dawkins don’t even try to defend the traditional Western god. They say that Dawkins is incorrect or irrelevant because no one really believes in inerrency, at least no one we would invite to a cocktail party. I don’t seem to recall Dawkins even referring to the squishy spirit, since its proponents don’t write him nasty letters about creationism, no doubt. He might have said something about not believing without evidence, but I’m not sure.
So, the authors and the reviewers who praise them reject the traditional God just like we do. These people are a minority in the US, but probably outnumber strong theists in intellectual circles. So, going on and on about the traditional God is irrelevant.

BTW, none of these people talk about the “There is no God and Jesus is his Son” contingent, which is embarrassing since it is moderate (and thus ok) but refutable through evidence, which opens religion up to rational examination again.

[Voyager]

@raindog

And why should you or me accept this “general argument”? Once again, I make no case for the existence of God in this thread. But the fact is, a supernatural God, should he exist, would not------exception for the requirements and limitations we, his creation, ascribe to him-----have any necessity to interact with us.

Further, it is an element of his approach----as I’ve come to understand them----that he isn’t in the business of performing Stupid Pet Tricks in the sky to overtly make his presence known. IOW, it would seem that faith is fundamental to interacting with him.

There are a few cases here.
First, there is an existent god who has not interacted with us in any way, shape, or form. That god is certainly possible, and unfalsifiable, but why are we even discussing him? We might as well be discussing the weather on a planet on the far side of Andromeda. That god does not deal in revelation, by definition.

Then there is a god who whispers into the ears of a few faithful, but provides no evidence, not even in the sense of checkable predictions. Why is this god doing this, since he would know there would be no reason for any sane person to believe in these revelations. The Bible, written before the absence of God became apparent, even has a God who is happy to do stupid God tricks. Jesus does also. If that had actually happened, it would have made a bit of sense. So, the god who provides no evidence is either playing games with his followers or cares nothing about us following his commandments - which would be more believable if they weren’t something that can be found in the closest self-help book.

If that wasn’t enough, there are myriads of things that we interact with a on a daily basis that we don’t fully understand. Virtually thousands; much of which we simply take for granted or overlook. Any one of them could very well be a manifestation of God’s presence. It is entirely possible that this God indirectly interacts with us each and every day and can’t see him---- because of willful ignorance or because we subjectively assign them to something else.

Perhaps, but there are many fewer thousands of these things than there were 100 years ago. It’s a classic god of the gaps argument, and not very convincing. Anyhow, the blue pixies make your computer work, not God. Everyone knows that!

[Revenant_Threshold]

@raindog

And why should you or me accept this “general argument”? Once again, I make no case for the existence of God in this thread. But the fact is, a supernatural God, should he exist, would not------exception for the requirements and limitations we, his creation, ascribe to him-----have any necessity to interact with us.

We shouldn’t, in the idea that a god could only be entirely supernatural. Perhaps it is the case, perhaps it isn’t. But, if there is a god that is entirely supernatural, and which does not effect the natural, should not be recognisable and we should not be recognisable to it. If there is a point of interaction, then most certainly it could be possible to recognise it.

As a personal favour, i’d very much appreciate it if, when you refer to a general god, you don’t capatalise the name. Using God, purposefully or non-purposefully, gives the impression you’re talking about a particular formation of the Christian God. We’re not talking about a supernatural God, but a supernatural god. It’s just easier for me to understand which you’re talking about, if that’s ok.

Further, it is an element of his approach----as I’ve come to understand them----that he isn’t in the business of performing Stupid Pet Tricks in the sky to overtly make his presence known. IOW, it would seem that faith is fundamental to interacting with him.

Aren’t you defining a particular god here?

Beyond that, the argument is not about obvious interaction - and, i’d like to add, framing the argument in the manner of Stupid Pet Tricks seems as childish or disrespectful as someone using it to describe the actual actions of a god might be, and I know you share in a dislike for that. The argument is about interaction at all; if that interaction is subtle, then it is still interaction. That aside, the idea that faith is required to interact with a subtle, non-obvious god logically wouldn’t result in the existence of any true believers.

If that wasn’t enough, there are myriads of things that we interact with a on a daily basis that we don’t fully understand. Virtually thousands; much of which we simply take for granted or overlook. Any one of them could very well be a manifestation of God’s presence. It is entirely possible that this God indirectly interacts with us each and every day and can’t see him---- because of willful ignorance or because we subjectively assign them to something else.

Certainly this is possible; it concurs with the argument.

Perhaps we’re misunderstanding each other.

If no God exists, than Czarcasm’s comment, “Your belief is just as valid as any other religious belief” is perfectly valid, wouldn’t you say? I mean,* if none of them exist*, what’s the difference between TSM and Jehovah?

Nothing.

Your second sentence is correct, but your first is incorrect.

Czarcasm’s comment isn’t calling into validity the existence of the deity, but the validity of belief in the deity. The existence of the deity is certainly more valid if it exists, and invalid if it doesn’t. But belief depends, not simply on the existence of the deity in question, but the evidence for it, and the degree to which that evidence supports the belief. It’s possible that a deity exists, and for a person to have great belief in that deity that is, nonetheless, unsupported by the evidence - that would not be a particularly valid belief. Likewise, a deity might not exist, and an atheist might have great conviction that it does not that is unsupported by the evidence - again, that would not be a particularly valid belief. It’s possible to be correct yet your argument be bad, and when the thing in question is the validity of that belief, then the existence of the deity isn’t what the validity hinges upon.

[Der_Trihs]

@Voyager

I think you’re missing the point of this thread. The books responding to Dawkins don’t even try to defend the traditional Western god. They say that Dawkins is incorrect or irrelevant because no one really believes in inerrency, at least no one we would invite to a cocktail party. I don’t seem to recall Dawkins even referring to the squishy spirit, since its proponents don’t write him nasty letters about creationism, no doubt. He might have said something about not believing without evidence, but I’m not sure.
So, the authors and the reviewers who praise them reject the traditional God just like we do. These people are a minority in the US, but probably outnumber strong theists in intellectual circles. So, going on and on about the traditional God is irrelevant.

For one thing, Dawkins criticizes religion in general, not just literalist Christianity. I recall Judaism and Buddhism coming up in The God Delusion. He also refers to the non-extremists as aiding and abetting the extremists; both by making excuses for the extremists and by validating the irrationality of their beliefs by also having irrational if less extreme beliefs. He regards religion in general as irrational, destructive and as leading to moral corruption.

And again; belief in a singular God IS part of the traditional Western God. They aren’t as separate from tradition as they are telling themselves; that’s where they are getting the idea that there’s some single God at all. Including the name.

[pan1]

I define “God” as the universe. To me the definitions of both are the same: Everything.

As to the sentience of God…that’s another question and one I can find no proof either way.

Perhaps the universe is sentient, but it’s awareness of a person or is equivelant to my awareness of a chemical compound sitting on a strand of DNA in a skin cell.

Or Perhaps the sentience of the universe is disjointed and compromises of the sentience of all it’s parts without becoming a colonial network of consciousnesses.

It doesn’t bother me that there is no proof either way. Most teachings of religion say their god is omnipresent. This means God = Everything via simple logic. Hence my rational approach to religion.

As to understanding WHY?..I don’t particularly believe in a big WHY.

As to understanding HOW?..That’s called Science.

It also means I don’t have to see existence in two-tones - religion and science - competing for space. By simply accepting God = Everything, Science (defined as the study of facts) becomes the only way to understand everything. That which we know through science is that which we know of God. It’s a much better state of mind than those who think that science infringes on religion and vice versa.

[Voyager]

@Der_Trihs

For one thing, Dawkins criticizes religion in general, not just literalist Christianity. I recall Judaism and Buddhism coming up in The God Delusion. He also refers to the non-extremists as aiding and abetting the extremists; both by making excuses for the extremists and by validating the irrationality of their beliefs by also having irrational if less extreme beliefs. He regards religion in general as irrational, destructive and as leading to moral corruption.

He does, but I think those he is criticizing are the moderate Christians and other religionists. This is the salad bar religion we’ve discussed again and again. I’m not interested in them, since they are Tin Woodman Christians - they keep chopping off little bits of dogma as science and history disproves them. You present them with the corpse of Jesus, and they’d say that the Bible really means his spirit was resurrected. I don’t recall him criticizing Buddhism, by the way.

And again; belief in a singular God IS part of the traditional Western God. They aren’t as separate from tradition as they are telling themselves; that’s where they are getting the idea that there’s some single God at all. Including the name.

I don’t think their god is a particularly singular god, since it encompasses all. The concept seems to owe something to Eastern religions. And mu [point originally was my speculation that they call this thing god to get the comfort of god belief while rejecting all the nonsense of the western God, nonsense they no longer believe in.

You seem to be saying that they are disguising a standard god belief by calling it spirit. Some people, like kanicbird, do believe in the standard god and some sort of spirit, but I’m not interested in that set of beliefs.

[Voyager]

@pan1

It also means I don’t have to see existence in two-tones - religion and science - competing for space. By simply accepting God = Everything, Science (defined as the study of facts) becomes the only way to understand everything. That which we know through science is that which we know of God. It’s a much better state of mind than those who think that science infringes on religion and vice versa.

Thanks for responding - and you have a good username for it.
How did you come by your belief? Did you start from a standard religion?

[mswas]

AHunter3 On the only point where we disagree. I was using original in the sense of ‘springing from nothingness’. The way you seem to be using original is to consider a recombination of old ideas as being, ‘original’. So I don’t think we are even in disagreement there unless you think that sometimes new thoughts spring unbidden, separate and distinct from our past experiences. It’s an intriguing notion, it would be the sort of miracle that we don’t really think of as a miracle because it’s quiet and completely opaque to anyone but the person who receives said thought. I guess that’s the idea of Revelation, though even Revelation seems to have a material component.

I tend to prefer the idea that all that is knowable in the universe is already there, and that we are capable of knowing it to the limits of our ability to conceive of such things.

[raindog]

@Voyager

There are a few cases here.
First, there is an existent god who has not interacted with us in any way, shape, or form. That god is certainly possible, and unfalsifiable, but why are we even discussing him? We might as well be discussing the weather on a planet on the far side of Andromeda. That god does not deal in revelation, by definition.

Excellent post.

We are only discussing him because the question of his utility, or his intentions, or his goodness (or badness) are separate discussions/threads. What we are discussing is whether he exists at all; and…your point does serve to illustrate a point however: If God exists, his [apparent] uselessness, or noncooperation, is not tantamount to his objective non-existence.

If you would like to make the case that he doesn’t exist as a practical matter----like his lack of apparent utility or involvement for example----than I would say that too is different discussion. In any event, there is a large consensus that he is evident, and active even if many can’t, or won’t see.

Then there is a god who whispers into the ears of a few faithful, but provides no evidence, not even in the sense of checkable predictions.

But you see, to the “faithful” you have chosen a course of willful blindness.

It is true that there is much of the human experience that we don’t know about. In this thread alone, and the “Can beliefs be chosen?” thread we have all kinds of intellectual posturing and postulating and hopelessly convoluted and contorted explanations for things that we fundamentally don’t understand. The universities are filled (and apparently message boards as well…) with philosophers eager to share with us that we’re sub atomic particles spinning together in a sentient soup. Read the threads! Whatever your personal philosophy (no doubt influenced by other people) you can be sure that there is a convenient label for it, a dogma for you to follow, and no shortage of disciples for you to mingle with.

In the end, it really is a question of authority. To the “faithful” there is a tendency to not only ascribe to “God” those things that are not known, (“verifiable”) but to ascribe *objectivity * to subjective beliefs; to go onto the cosmic balance sheet and move a few things around. We call that moral certainty faith; a merging of objectivity and subjectivity and call it all “truth.”

That is a human tendency, not a religious tendency. I’ve been here long enough to have seen thousands of instances where posters have imputed objectivity to their subjective beliefs. What interests me is the blindness that convictions produce. I recently heard an interview with Richard Dawkins and was amazed at the faith he displays—an apparent blindness to the parts of his story that are-----to use the term-----verifiable phenomenon and those that are not. Yet they have been seamlessly sewn together into a story he calls ‘truth.’ Was he even aware that the bulk of his interview was witnessing for his subjective beliefs? I don’t know, but if not he is displaying a faith a level of faith that would make FriarTed blanch.

[Homebrew]

@raindog

What interests me is the blindness that convictions produce. I recently heard an interview with Richard Dawkins and was amazed at the faith he displays—an apparent blindness to the parts of his story that are-----to use the term-----verifiable phenomenon and those that are not. Yet they have been seamlessly sewn together into a story he calls ‘truth.’

Please tell me what assertions of truth he makes that are not testable?

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

We have a set of people who have migrated from believing in a god who cares about our sex lives and diet to believing in a god who is just there, and who clearly makes them feel comfortable. I’m fairly convinced that there are a lot of people who have a need for this kind of belief, a need you and I do not have. You are not going to logically argue them out of it.
But, wouldn’t it be a better world if no god believer tried to impose their beliefs on anyone else, and no got believer had a 3,000 year old book to use as a guide for life?

I agree. Coming from a Christian background where we were encouraged to share the good news and our vision of what is “true” with people, my beliefs have changed a lot. I see the benefit and the need to honor people’s right to choose their own path and what seems to work for them. Can’t we appreciate the principles we agree on whether we are believers or not.
You have helped me to crystallize the idea that believers, and I suppose everyone really, needs to see their belief system as provisional and a work in progress We need to understand the difference between the things we know and what we believe for now. It seems to me that believers lean to the “I know” side far too often.

I also agree that believers need to understand the concept of “interpretation” when it comes to their sacred writings. Books are tools for the journey and may provide food for thought but it is our own consciousness and/or our own spirit, that interprets and draws the conclusions from which we take action. I worry when someone quotes scripture and says “but God said” I point out to Christians who tend to do this that it is really only their opinion and their interpretation, the proof being that other Christians read the same passage and reach a different conclusion.

[cosmosdan]

@mswas

The very act of animism itself is an useful tool. Think of an Android. That is an animistic concept. It is imputing the idea of intelligence upon a machine. Now, an Android is theoretically plausible in some senses. Regardless we know for a fact that we can create robots and that this machines can be animated to perform a particular function, a car is no less animism than an Android. Animism at its root is the ability to imagine something as having an animating spirit. You have since then changed your vocabulary to reflect the scientific/rational environment in which you live.

Der Trihs used the term, ‘imaginary’ as a dismissal. The implication is that they are imagining something that is not there. But the problem here is that imagination is an integral part of cognition. This is a problem I have with getting into Spinoza, apparently from commentary I’ve read he was very derisive of the imaginary and wanted to achieve a life of pure intellect. It seems to fit based upon his philosophy which is a very step by step and logical approach to the formulation of the universe as God. What he did, is what Der Trihs has done, and put the ‘imaginary’ in the category of the ‘not real’, which is a mistake. Just because something is imaginary doesn’t mean that it’s not real. You are now sitting in a building that was originally imaginary, and then an architect sat down with sheets of reconstituted paper pulp, a wooden tube filled with a soft metal, a metal 90 degree angle with lines and numbers written on it, and two metal spikes attached to a metal hinge.

Superstition is when one insists the imaginary exists in a way in which it does not.

A great point. I used to say “without Icarus we wouldn’t have had the Wright Brothers”

[Voyager]

@raindog

Excellent post.

We are only discussing him because the question of his utility, or his intentions, or his goodness (or badness) are separate discussions/threads. What we are discussing is whether he exists at all; and…your point does serve to illustrate a point however: If God exists, his [apparent] uselessness, or noncooperation, is not tantamount to his objective non-existence.

Of course not, which is why I gave the example. You really can’t say anything at all about this god except “I dunno.” The interesting question, and the point of this thread, is why people spend so much time talking about it and not about a million other unfalsifiable things.

If you would like to make the case that he doesn’t exist as a practical matter----like his lack of apparent utility or involvement for example----than I would say that too is different discussion. In any event, there is a large consensus that he is evident, and active even if many can’t, or won’t see.

No, that is exactly the discussion, since there can be no others. And if a god is evident and active, then it doesn’t fall into this class, does it? If it is evident there should be evidence - which has been not convincing for the existence of any god.

But you see, to the “faithful” you have chosen a course of willful blindness.

Sure. The faithful report an oasis in the desert. I have a telescope, and see there is only sand. They say I’m being willfully blind.

It is true that there is much of the human experience that we don’t know about.

So this addresses the question of supporting evidence for revelation how?
You’ve got person A and person B, both with a revelation. By some magic you know that one is loony and the other really spoke to god. How do you tell them apart?

That is a human tendency, not a religious tendency. I’ve been here long enough to have seen thousands of instances where posters have imputed objectivity to their subjective beliefs. What interests me is the blindness that convictions produce. I recently heard an interview with Richard Dawkins and was amazed at the faith he displays—an apparent blindness to the parts of his story that are-----to use the term-----verifiable phenomenon and those that are not. Yet they have been seamlessly sewn together into a story he calls ‘truth.’ Was he even aware that the bulk of his interview was witnessing for his subjective beliefs? I don’t know, but if not he is displaying a faith a level of faith that would make FriarTed blanch.

What exactly did he take on faith? Evolution? That the Bible is wrong? No one in an interview can go and list the evidence for a theory. They are being interviewed because they are an authority, and so speak like one. But the contents of a paper submitted for peer review are far different from that of an interview.

[MrDibble]

@Voyager

You’re not getting the spirit thing. Since we are all a part of god, every post is by god. God also argues with himself, flames himself, and bans himself. God is one confused dude.

God - the Ultimate Sock-puppet!

Sinfest was right all along.

[Alan_Smithee]

This thread has moved a long way from the question posed in the OP. Nevertheless, I would encourage the OP and others interested in the question to actually read the Karen Armstrong book aluded to, The Case for God. The point of the book is not merely to respond to Dawkins, et al., but to present the history of what you call “God as Spirit” theology and to argue that it is far from without president in traditional religious thought. I think Armstrong overstates her case at some points, and she gets several facts wrong. Nevertheless, it’s an excellent book, in this atheist’s opinion. I’d thought about starting a thread on it, but wasn’t sure enough people would have read it.

[Voyager]

@Alan_Smithee

This thread has moved a long way from the question posed in the OP. Nevertheless, I would encourage the OP and others interested in the question to actually read the Karen Armstrong book aluded to, The Case for God. The point of the book is not merely to respond to Dawkins, et al., but to present the history of what you call “God as Spirit” theology and to argue that it is far from without president in traditional religious thought. I think Armstrong overstates her case at some points, and she gets several facts wrong. Nevertheless, it’s an excellent book, in this atheist’s opinion. I’d thought about starting a thread on it, but wasn’t sure enough people would have read it.

I will, since I’ve read some of her other books. As I said, I was going on the reviews. There is another, similar book, reviewed in the New Yorker a few weeks ago which was more of a response to Dawkins than her book is, as far as I can tell.

[mswas]

@cosmosdan

A great point. I used to say “without Icarus we wouldn’t have had the Wright Brothers”

That is precisely the point I am making. We learned how the world works so that we could shape it in accord with our dreams.

An Android is a Golem, pure and simple. Society is hard at work trying to perfect the art of making Golems.