god

BaldFriede said:

"There is absolutely no contradiction between believing in science and believing in God. Many scientists believe in God, and their scientific knowledge only increases this belief. Some people seem to have the impression that if there was a God he would have to meddle with his creation all the time, and we would hence see all kinds of supernatural acts. And the fact that we don't see any is a proof for them that he doesn't exist. What a strange concept of God! How weak such a God would be if he had to interfere all the time!

No scientist so far can explain why we have a consciousness. Where does this quality arise from? It must have to do with the complex structure of the brain, but what in this structure is it that creates consciousness? Is it possible that structures that rise to a certain level of complexity somehow gain a consciousness? If so, it is pretty well possible that the whole universe, being the most complicated structure of all, has a consciousness. And it does not seem a bad idea to call such a universal consciousness "God". This concept of God would meet the three most essential qualities of God - omnipresence (the universe is everywhere), omnipotence (everything which is possible happens within the universe) and omniscience (this consciousness would contain all the knowledge in the universe, and perhaps it would be aware of its own parts; we can at least propose that. Don't forget this is nothing but speculation!)

Mark that this concept of "God" is quite different from the Christian concept. One of the qualities of such a God would be that it (the pronoun "he" in this context seems inappropriate) is an evolving God."

Superb!   Although, I would disagree that this decription of God, consciousness, etc. is somehow mutually exclusive of the Christian concept of God.  Taken together with your equally relevant observation that many of the pre-eminent scientists believe(d) in God (especially Darwin), there is really no "contradiction" in an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient God, and the "evolution" of consciousness in humankind.

Indeed, your comment about how "weak" a God would have to be to feel s/he had to "interfere all the time" is very much in keeping with the Christian concept of God.  One of my mentoring ministers put it beautifully: "God does not interfere; however, God can be asked to intervene."  (He was, of course, referring to prayer.)

Yet I would go further in "bringing together" your two comments.  Like you, I believe that "consciousness" could not possibly have been the result of "evolution" (forgive me if I have misconstrued your statement); indeed, I believe it was the only aspect of humankind's "ascendance" that was not a part of the evolutionary process.  In this regard, it is this very "consciousness" that I believe is the only aspect of human evolution in which God did "interfere" - or in which s/he took an "active" role.  That is, I believe that evolution cannot account for the moment - which I believe would have had to be literally a very specific moment; it could not have happened over time - at which homo sapiens was able to say (in Rene Descartes' legendary words) "I think, therefore I am."  That "moment" could only have occurred as the result of "divine intervention," and in no other way.

Indeed, I believe this is why we have not found - and will never find - the "missing link."  Because even if there is an absolute physical link between primates and humans, it would still not explain how the brain of a primate could possibly have "developed" consciousness as the result of the evolutionary process.

That's my treatise for the day...  Hope it was at very least amusing...

Peace.

Eemu Ranta wrote: It is my belief (for it is nothing more than that) that one day the science will understand the universe, and everything will have a logical explanation. This is why I find the Balds' God a bit less contradictory.

one of the most important parts of what Friede and I were trying to convey is that God does not only exist in the things that are still inexplicable to man, so even if mankind ever solved all the riddles of the universe (which is highly unlikely, by the way; I recommend to read the introduction of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould to the excellent book "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer, Anchor Books 1997) there would still be a room for God. the position that there were so many things sciences would never be able to explain, and hence God would be needed, was taken by 19th-century theologists, and of course with the advancement of science they fought a retreat-battle all the time. but, as Albert Einstein once said, "The most inexplicible thing about the universe is that it is explicible".

BaldJean:

You note Einstein's quote that "The most inexplicible thing about the universe is that it is explicible."  Apparently, he was a man of contradictions (), because he also said, "Either one believes that everything in life is a miracle, or that nothing in life is a miracle."  He himself, of course, believed the former.

A rather enigmatic fellow, that Einstein...

Peace.

James:

Hmmm...there is at least one facet of your position that I believe can be satisfactorily answered.

You said, "If any of you can explain to me what the outward signs of self-awareness are, please do so - consciousness is such a uniquely inward phenomenon that nobody can assert that only humans possess it."

Using the scientific method - which includes reproducible experiments, "falsification" and observation - I believe that the idea of "self-awareness" as we know and understand it in any living thing other than humans is pretty solidly established to be unlikely if not experimentally unfounded.  One need only observe the behavior of a living thing to determine its "degree" of "consciousness" - which is different from "self-awareness."  That is, a thing can be "conscious" in some sense without necessarily being "self-aware."

In this regard, if any living thing on earth other than humans were in fact "self-aware," their behavior would be different than it is - and that behavior would be both observable and testable.  However, no living thing - including the highest primates - shows an observable, testable "self-awareness."  Yes, some "higher" life forms - certainly primates and dolphins, as well as horses, pigs and even dogs - can be "taught" things, and can show a certain degree of what might be called "lower-level consciousness."  But none of these creatures exhibits a "self-awareness" that affects its behavior and its interaction with other species and the world in general.

Human self-awareness is, as you say, an "intangible" quality, and admittedly largely undefinable.  However, our self-awareness is most prominently exhibited in our behavior: in the way we "handle" and interact with our environment.  Indeed, one could additionally argue that the ability to consciously alter one's environment is the determining factor in "self-awareness."  Consider.  A beaver builds a damn, which does, in fact, alter its environment.  However, they are not doing this out of any "conscious" much less "self-aware" motive, but rather from instinct. However, humans can and do alter their environment out of a conscious, self-aware wish or need to do so.  This facet of "self-awareness" is not found in any other living thing.

As for the aspect of consciousness that we call "feelings," an animal can certainly be frightened, "angry," perhaps even "happy" (or at least "satisfied" or "content").  But what an animal cannot do is to say to itself "I am frightened" or "I am content" - and to modify its behavior in reaction to those "thoughts."  That is, as with its interaction with its environment, it functions on an instinctual level, and not on a consciously self-aware level.

As noted, the behavior of animals and other potentially "conscious" living things has been studied and observed for centuries.  And even if no "tangible," "experimental" or "falsifiable" "proof" exists one way or the other, the observable behavior of those animals - both in the wild and in captivity - goes a very long, solid way to proving that only humans have the "self-awareness" of which we are speaking.

Peace.