7 ms·

Is There an Artificial God? (1998)

54 points by bigblind 10y ago

stcredzero 10y ago
When an entity's power level gets cranked up to god-level, is there a meaningful distinction between "supernatural" and "artificial" in this case?
- Udo 10y ago
  That's essentially the old "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" saying that was coined by Clarke back in the day. The interesting part of this comes into play when we're talking about a hypothetical super-advanced life form essentially posing as a supernatural being for the purpose of deceiving creatures of lesser means. It's not actually supernatural activity though, because there are still natural laws governing the advanced being's existence. I would imagine, out there in the vast universe this kind of scam is probably taking place somewhere as we speak, and to those most likely unlucky subjects this distinction between "actually supernatural" and "magic trick" is probably entirely irrelevant. It seems to me that over the course of known human culture, there have actually been several pantheons whose members could be considered non-supernatural in this sense. Essentially this is true whenever we're talking about hero-type deities as opposed to creator-type deities. In principle creator-type deities are still compatible with a hypothetical simulation scenario in which they also choose to take part personally. Needless to say though, we don't appear to be living in such a universe. As far as we can tell, there is no global artificial god, and no artificial god who is local to us. But there might be many local ones elsewhere.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    > It's not actually supernatural activity though, because there are still natural laws governing the advanced being's existence. I would say that "supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean unbound by laws. It just means that the laws in question are not yet well-understood.
    - Udo 10y ago
      That's a fuzzy concept though. By that definition, you could easily make an argument that everything we see is supernatural because aspects of natural laws that are not well-understood can be conjured up in any number of ways, especially if it's up to an individual to define what it means for something to be well understood. And as understanding progresses, it would replace magic piece by piece. You could argue that's what happens with scientific progress anyway, but that's just a psychological description. Very few people are arguing that understanding replaces actual magic.
    - deciplex 10y ago
      Interesting. Instead of looking for God in the gaps of our knowledge, you are defining God to be the gaps in our knowledge. I haven't heard that one before.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        "The Tao that can be spoken of isn't the true Tao."
      - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
        Hmm, not exactly, I think. If, I dunno, Merlin showed up in Times Square tomorrow and started summoning angels, that wouldn't mean that our world is a Lovecraftian place filled with unnatural phenomena forever beyond mortal comprehension; it would just mean that our models of reality didn't go far enough, and we need to do some research and start updating them. I guess I'm saying that actual magic wouldn't be merely indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced science, it would be sufficiently advanced science. Magic is just the flashier, stagier term for the same thing.
        deciplex 10y ago
        I don't disagree with you, but that's not what people usually mean when they say "supernatural" and this is what I was pointing out. Usually, it's taken to mean a bit of literally impossible nonsense that happens anyway. You're right - once something actually happens it falls under the domain of science. Most people don't realize that, or they don't accept it.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  I'm going to choose to be literal. Artificial is defined as "being made by humans". God is defined as "the one supreme being, the maker and creator of the universe". The only way you could have an artificial deity is if human-kind were gods themselves. P.S. thinking of these things in terms of video game powerups is something I find sort of amusing. I can only imagine what Chun-Li vs Jesus would look like.
  - dghughes 10y ago
    Let there be light! http://multivax.com/last_question.html http://multivax.com/last_question.html
    - asimuvPR 10y ago
      I constantly read this piece and talk to people about it. It is quite the experience to see their eyes open up when they realize that there might be a hint of a possibility of such scenario being real. Us being the result of some other intelligent specie flipping the switch ON. Thanks for posting it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
    - Natsu 10y ago
      Well, philosophically you have to go back at some point to something which cannot fail to exist. So while in human terms it might there might be differences of power, it's not really the same.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- roywiggins 10y ago
  A supernatural God is inherently morally good if you subscribe to a monotheistic religion. A sufficiently advanced "mechanical God" may or may not be moral at all. In practice it might be impossible to tell the difference.
  - Udo 10y ago
    > In practice it might be impossible to tell the difference. I agree there is no perceivable difference. As far as I'm aware, the "goodness" of those deities is imbued to them by definition, not because their actions are objectively ethical or even moral by today's standards. If an artificial (whatever that may mean) being someday chooses to present themselves as that sort of deity, it could exploit this exact same mental vulnerability in humans. It's the ultimate might-makes-right assertion. The only difference would be this being actually exists outside of people's imagination.
    - jacobush 10y ago
      What does God need with a starship?
      - boznz 10y ago
        ..What does a god need with people?
        stcredzero 10y ago
        God likes porn, but for some fetishistic reason, likes it better when naturally evolved sentients are making it.
    - roywiggins 10y ago
      Cargo cults might be an analog. > Cult members worship certain "Americans" (such as John Frum and Tom Navy), who they claimed had brought cargo to their island during World War II, as the spiritual entity who would provide the cargo to them in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs.2C_and_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs.2... And my personal favorite: > The people of the Yaohnanen area believe that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, the consort to Queen Elizabeth II, is a divine being. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement
- mratzloff 10y ago
  This has nothing to do with the posted article. Did you read it?
  - Udo 10y ago
    Why not discuss something tangentially related if people feel like it? Is it necessary to play did-you-even-read-the-article gotcha?
mratzloff 10y ago
This was an excellent speech that was perfect reading for a Sunday afternoon. Thanks for posting! Put simply, the argument is that religion may be a kind of emergent evolutionary phenomena that has a collective value that we may not yet completely understand, but that nevertheless fills some vital role in a way superior to any of our conscious attempts. Basically, despite the universe emerging from bottom-up processes rather than top-down, there may still be a legitimate coordinating role at the top that we subconsciously fill with our artificial gods. It's a longish piece of writing, but I highly recommend reading the full text.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Razengan 10y ago
  Reposting a comment from a similar discussion here... Religion might just be the precursor to Science; a sapient species trying to make sense of their world and consciousness, plugging the holes in their understanding with whatever means currently at their disposal. Unless they're born with complete and accurate knowledge about everything in the universe, I think all intelligent life out there is going to have a religion or some form of superstition at some point in their civilization. Hive-mind intelligences or strictly hierarchical biologies (e.g. queens/workers/drones) may not need concepts like morals or Law or guidance for social conduct, but they may still invent stopgap explanations on their way to understanding mortality and the weather and stars and such. EDIT: "Religion" in this sense need not necessarily involve the concept of deities either. There are major religions in our own world that do not place a focus on higher beings.
  - zbyte64 10y ago
    This is my personal belief as well. The evolution of monotheism appears to be a boon for scientific thought: it sets up the idea that the rules are the same everywhere.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    The problem with Science is it has nothing to offer you when you're fucked. When you're fucked, science will just tell you you're fucked. Religion, on the other hand, will tell you that God is right there with you, and you can just keep going and you'll find a Way. This is also the reason why I think white atheism is sometimes racist. If you are a white person who has generally had it easier than people of color, then it's really convenient to say "I don't need faith, I am pretty good just letting reality be all there is". If your reality is that your children keep getting shot by police, or if your reality is that your husband was hung for demanding some white customers pay for the goods they bought, then Science is actually not good. Science will tell you it's bad and it's not getting better. But religion will offer you peace. And then there's the fact that science has historically been conducted by white people for white ends. Which isn't to say black science isn't an (awesome) thing with a (long) history and a promising future. But to say "just throw out your ancient cultural knowledge about how to survive in a hostile world, science has got your back"... coming from a white person to a black person? Easy to say when science has largely been about improving white lives. The same thing applies to class: atheists with steady employment sometimes think poor people who believe in God are stupid. But unless you grew up poor I don't think that's fair to say. Someone who never thought they had any choice other than crime, someone who ends up hurting people, killing people, driving into situations where their friends get killed..... When you go through that kind of stuff, and you're sitting in prison and you have nothing to do but think back over your life... You see how evil you've been. You see the harm you've caused, over and over. Science will tell you that when you get out you're probably going to end up in the same environment. Science will say you're probably going back to prison. You'll probably hurt more people. That's a dark place to be. But religion won't say those things. Religion will tell you to forget about what's probably going to happen and instead to look for your path. And religion will tell you that there are forces in the world which are good and which will always be there with you no matter how bad it gets. Those situations are where religion really shines. And populations who end up in those situations over and over again need something like that. If you came from that background, or any background of tribulation, and you are an atheist, I have total respect for that. I would love to buy you a beer and listen to your thoughts if you're into that kind of thing. But if you came from a white family, are relatively employable, and generally treated as a citizen in good standing in your country, then I think Atheism for you is a racist, classist, and cruel worldview. I think you should switch to atheism-leaning agnosticism with a willingness to learn about religion with fresh ears.
spriggan3 10y ago
If God created us, then who created God?
- pmarreck 10y ago
  That argument only works in a constant-vector-forward time-dimensional context. ;)
  - cjjuice 10y ago
    Can you elaborate on that? Seems to me there must me a creationary force that is uncreated.
    - Udo 10y ago
      > Can you elaborate on that? By "constant-vector-forward time-dimensional context" he essentially means causality. > Seems to me there must me a creationary force that is uncreated. That is not strictly true in the larger context of physics. Emergent phenomena do not need to be explicitly created, they can arise spontaneously based on simpler parameters. The (religious) idea that higher-order concepts beget lower-order concepts is true almost nowhere in nature. It's just "a thing" for humans, since we are tool creators and our tools are generally less sophisticated than ourselves. In nature, higher-order things grow out of lower-order things by mere virtue of their properties without any creative act being involved. For example, a collection of atoms will form molecules, not because someone has intentionally designed those molecules, but because the atoms' properties allow for the formation and interaction of molecules.
      - cjjuice 10y ago
        What do you think about the intelligibility of the world? If the universe was not created, why can we predict it with such accuracy? Wouldn't it just be random? To me, the fact that science even works is evidence for creation.
        10y ago
pmarreck 10y ago
While sitting on the fence of this whole question, it simply astounds me that most religious people don't have an answer to this (IMHO) very obvious question/problem with the popular God conception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil Again, not making a criticism, just an observation that I find oft unanswered
- cjjuice 10y ago
  It is perhaps that hardest objection to overcome. St. Thomas Aquinas gave a good crack at it IMO ( http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm ) Something I find insightful is he argues that, like cold is an absence of heat, evil is simply an absence of good (God, grace, ect.)
  - jules 10y ago
    That doesn't solve the problem since heat and cold don't choose to be present or absent while God does.
    - cjjuice 10y ago
      I am not saying it "solves" it. I don't believe it can be "solved". We can only postulate ideas, choose what pleases you.
      - zbyte64 10y ago
        More accurate to say that the hot & cold analogy does not fit. St. Thomas Aquina efforts were sabotaged by the lack of scientific understanding of his time.
        humanrebar 10y ago
        What have scientists (I'm not a fan of personifying science itself) discovered about the nature of good and evil?
discreteevent 10y ago
He mentions "The fabric of reality" by David Deutsch. It's a very good book (IMO) and not primarily about multiple universes so don't let that put you off if you think it's rubbish. He does a really good job outlining Popper's theory of science as explanation. Also one thing he notes is that it is really extraordinary that the universe gave rise to something that can understand it. We are the universe looking at itself and understanding it at a more and more fundamental level as time goes on.
mizzao 10y ago
Even as a Christian, I am still open to the possibility that religion may be an artificial construct. One important purpose it may serve is to motivate individuals to advance social welfare (and be happy while doing so) when we would otherwise only have reason to be selfish. (Never mind for now that this presupposes that there is an objective "social good" that exists in the first place). However, for religion to work, we can't be aware that it is artificial -- otherwise we'd stop following it. So we do have to believe wholeheartedly, aside from occasional philosophizing of existential questions. Yet, the existence of an unmoved mover is still an alternative explanation. At this point, the line between artificial and supernatural is indeed blurred.
- strgrd 10y ago
  How can you believe the story and the purpose of something wholeheartedly when its premise is scientifically untrue? Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite. There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. The universe is ambivalent to the karmic relations we see from our perspective. Karma can be common sense (you do good, good will follow), but in speaking to the spirit, karma has placated humanity into believing that mother nature or god is at the controls. It is time to abandon the belief in the soul, the spirit, and eternity, and unless evidence presents itself otherwise, embrace the temporal reality before us.
  - mizzao 10y ago
    I'm a scientist (coincidentally, an empirical one) but I still don't believe that all truth can be discovered scientifically -- that is, through repeatable data collection and experimentation. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God by doing experiments. Your worldview seems to be pretty close to Scientism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), which I think some would consider a religion in itself. Sure, the problem of evil is an objection to religion, but follow your premise to its logical conclusion and good/evil doesn't exist at all. There is really no reason to want the world to be a better place, preserve the planet, and so on. Is that really a world you want to live in? > Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite. Do you think so? At least in the United States, religion is generally seen as the domain of the less educated and impoverished, not the elite. Today, you and I are free to determine our own definitions of morality. > There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. Sure there is evidence. It's just historical and relational. It's not something that can be tested through the scientific method.

54 points by bigblind 10y ago

When an entity's power level gets cranked up to god-level, is there a meaningful distinction between "supernatural" and "artificial" in this case?

Udo 10y ago
That's essentially the old "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" saying that was coined by Clarke back in the day. The interesting part of this comes into play when we're talking about a hypothetical super-advanced life form essentially posing as a supernatural being for the purpose of deceiving creatures of lesser means. It's not actually supernatural activity though, because there are still natural laws governing the advanced being's existence. I would imagine, out there in the vast universe this kind of scam is probably taking place somewhere as we speak, and to those most likely unlucky subjects this distinction between "actually supernatural" and "magic trick" is probably entirely irrelevant. It seems to me that over the course of known human culture, there have actually been several pantheons whose members could be considered non-supernatural in this sense. Essentially this is true whenever we're talking about hero-type deities as opposed to creator-type deities. In principle creator-type deities are still compatible with a hypothetical simulation scenario in which they also choose to take part personally. Needless to say though, we don't appear to be living in such a universe. As far as we can tell, there is no global artificial god, and no artificial god who is local to us. But there might be many local ones elsewhere.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > It's not actually supernatural activity though, because there are still natural laws governing the advanced being's existence. I would say that "supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean unbound by laws. It just means that the laws in question are not yet well-understood.
  - Udo 10y ago
    That's a fuzzy concept though. By that definition, you could easily make an argument that everything we see is supernatural because aspects of natural laws that are not well-understood can be conjured up in any number of ways, especially if it's up to an individual to define what it means for something to be well understood. And as understanding progresses, it would replace magic piece by piece. You could argue that's what happens with scientific progress anyway, but that's just a psychological description. Very few people are arguing that understanding replaces actual magic.
  - deciplex 10y ago
    Interesting. Instead of looking for God in the gaps of our knowledge, you are defining God to be the gaps in our knowledge. I haven't heard that one before.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      "The Tao that can be spoken of isn't the true Tao."
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      Hmm, not exactly, I think. If, I dunno, Merlin showed up in Times Square tomorrow and started summoning angels, that wouldn't mean that our world is a Lovecraftian place filled with unnatural phenomena forever beyond mortal comprehension; it would just mean that our models of reality didn't go far enough, and we need to do some research and start updating them. I guess I'm saying that actual magic wouldn't be merely indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced science, it would be sufficiently advanced science. Magic is just the flashier, stagier term for the same thing.
      - deciplex 10y ago
        I don't disagree with you, but that's not what people usually mean when they say "supernatural" and this is what I was pointing out. Usually, it's taken to mean a bit of literally impossible nonsense that happens anyway. You're right - once something actually happens it falls under the domain of science. Most people don't realize that, or they don't accept it.
chris_wot 10y ago
I'm going to choose to be literal. Artificial is defined as "being made by humans". God is defined as "the one supreme being, the maker and creator of the universe". The only way you could have an artificial deity is if human-kind were gods themselves. P.S. thinking of these things in terms of video game powerups is something I find sort of amusing. I can only imagine what Chun-Li vs Jesus would look like.
- dghughes 10y ago
  Let there be light! http://multivax.com/last_question.html http://multivax.com/last_question.html
  - asimuvPR 10y ago
    I constantly read this piece and talk to people about it. It is quite the experience to see their eyes open up when they realize that there might be a hint of a possibility of such scenario being real. Us being the result of some other intelligent specie flipping the switch ON. Thanks for posting it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Well, philosophically you have to go back at some point to something which cannot fail to exist. So while in human terms it might there might be differences of power, it's not really the same.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
roywiggins 10y ago
A supernatural God is inherently morally good if you subscribe to a monotheistic religion. A sufficiently advanced "mechanical God" may or may not be moral at all. In practice it might be impossible to tell the difference.
- Udo 10y ago
  > In practice it might be impossible to tell the difference. I agree there is no perceivable difference. As far as I'm aware, the "goodness" of those deities is imbued to them by definition, not because their actions are objectively ethical or even moral by today's standards. If an artificial (whatever that may mean) being someday chooses to present themselves as that sort of deity, it could exploit this exact same mental vulnerability in humans. It's the ultimate might-makes-right assertion. The only difference would be this being actually exists outside of people's imagination.
  - jacobush 10y ago
    What does God need with a starship?
    - boznz 10y ago
      ..What does a god need with people?
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        God likes porn, but for some fetishistic reason, likes it better when naturally evolved sentients are making it.
  - roywiggins 10y ago
    Cargo cults might be an analog. > Cult members worship certain "Americans" (such as John Frum and Tom Navy), who they claimed had brought cargo to their island during World War II, as the spiritual entity who would provide the cargo to them in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs.2C_and_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs.2... And my personal favorite: > The people of the Yaohnanen area believe that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, the consort to Queen Elizabeth II, is a divine being. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement
mratzloff 10y ago
This has nothing to do with the posted article. Did you read it?
- Udo 10y ago
  Why not discuss something tangentially related if people feel like it? Is it necessary to play did-you-even-read-the-article gotcha?

mratzloff 10y ago

This was an excellent speech that was perfect reading for a Sunday afternoon. Thanks for posting! Put simply, the argument is that religion may be a kind of emergent evolutionary phenomena that has a collective value that we may not yet completely understand, but that nevertheless fills some vital role in a way superior to any of our conscious attempts. Basically, despite the universe emerging from bottom-up processes rather than top-down, there may still be a legitimate coordinating role at the top that we subconsciously fill with our artificial gods. It's a longish piece of writing, but I highly recommend reading the full text.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Razengan 10y ago
Reposting a comment from a similar discussion here... Religion might just be the precursor to Science; a sapient species trying to make sense of their world and consciousness, plugging the holes in their understanding with whatever means currently at their disposal. Unless they're born with complete and accurate knowledge about everything in the universe, I think all intelligent life out there is going to have a religion or some form of superstition at some point in their civilization. Hive-mind intelligences or strictly hierarchical biologies (e.g. queens/workers/drones) may not need concepts like morals or Law or guidance for social conduct, but they may still invent stopgap explanations on their way to understanding mortality and the weather and stars and such. EDIT: "Religion" in this sense need not necessarily involve the concept of deities either. There are major religions in our own world that do not place a focus on higher beings.
- zbyte64 10y ago
  This is my personal belief as well. The evolution of monotheism appears to be a boon for scientific thought: it sets up the idea that the rules are the same everywhere.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  The problem with Science is it has nothing to offer you when you're fucked. When you're fucked, science will just tell you you're fucked. Religion, on the other hand, will tell you that God is right there with you, and you can just keep going and you'll find a Way. This is also the reason why I think white atheism is sometimes racist. If you are a white person who has generally had it easier than people of color, then it's really convenient to say "I don't need faith, I am pretty good just letting reality be all there is". If your reality is that your children keep getting shot by police, or if your reality is that your husband was hung for demanding some white customers pay for the goods they bought, then Science is actually not good. Science will tell you it's bad and it's not getting better. But religion will offer you peace. And then there's the fact that science has historically been conducted by white people for white ends. Which isn't to say black science isn't an (awesome) thing with a (long) history and a promising future. But to say "just throw out your ancient cultural knowledge about how to survive in a hostile world, science has got your back"... coming from a white person to a black person? Easy to say when science has largely been about improving white lives. The same thing applies to class: atheists with steady employment sometimes think poor people who believe in God are stupid. But unless you grew up poor I don't think that's fair to say. Someone who never thought they had any choice other than crime, someone who ends up hurting people, killing people, driving into situations where their friends get killed..... When you go through that kind of stuff, and you're sitting in prison and you have nothing to do but think back over your life... You see how evil you've been. You see the harm you've caused, over and over. Science will tell you that when you get out you're probably going to end up in the same environment. Science will say you're probably going back to prison. You'll probably hurt more people. That's a dark place to be. But religion won't say those things. Religion will tell you to forget about what's probably going to happen and instead to look for your path. And religion will tell you that there are forces in the world which are good and which will always be there with you no matter how bad it gets. Those situations are where religion really shines. And populations who end up in those situations over and over again need something like that. If you came from that background, or any background of tribulation, and you are an atheist, I have total respect for that. I would love to buy you a beer and listen to your thoughts if you're into that kind of thing. But if you came from a white family, are relatively employable, and generally treated as a citizen in good standing in your country, then I think Atheism for you is a racist, classist, and cruel worldview. I think you should switch to atheism-leaning agnosticism with a willingness to learn about religion with fresh ears.

spriggan3 10y ago

If God created us, then who created God?

pmarreck 10y ago
That argument only works in a constant-vector-forward time-dimensional context. ;)
- cjjuice 10y ago
  Can you elaborate on that? Seems to me there must me a creationary force that is uncreated.
  - Udo 10y ago
    > Can you elaborate on that? By "constant-vector-forward time-dimensional context" he essentially means causality. > Seems to me there must me a creationary force that is uncreated. That is not strictly true in the larger context of physics. Emergent phenomena do not need to be explicitly created, they can arise spontaneously based on simpler parameters. The (religious) idea that higher-order concepts beget lower-order concepts is true almost nowhere in nature. It's just "a thing" for humans, since we are tool creators and our tools are generally less sophisticated than ourselves. In nature, higher-order things grow out of lower-order things by mere virtue of their properties without any creative act being involved. For example, a collection of atoms will form molecules, not because someone has intentionally designed those molecules, but because the atoms' properties allow for the formation and interaction of molecules.
    - cjjuice 10y ago
      What do you think about the intelligibility of the world? If the universe was not created, why can we predict it with such accuracy? Wouldn't it just be random? To me, the fact that science even works is evidence for creation.
      - 10y ago

pmarreck 10y ago

While sitting on the fence of this whole question, it simply astounds me that most religious people don't have an answer to this (IMHO) very obvious question/problem with the popular God conception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil Again, not making a criticism, just an observation that I find oft unanswered

cjjuice 10y ago
It is perhaps that hardest objection to overcome. St. Thomas Aquinas gave a good crack at it IMO ( http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm ) Something I find insightful is he argues that, like cold is an absence of heat, evil is simply an absence of good (God, grace, ect.)
- jules 10y ago
  That doesn't solve the problem since heat and cold don't choose to be present or absent while God does.
  - cjjuice 10y ago
    I am not saying it "solves" it. I don't believe it can be "solved". We can only postulate ideas, choose what pleases you.
    - zbyte64 10y ago
      More accurate to say that the hot & cold analogy does not fit. St. Thomas Aquina efforts were sabotaged by the lack of scientific understanding of his time.
      - humanrebar 10y ago
        What have scientists (I'm not a fan of personifying science itself) discovered about the nature of good and evil?

discreteevent 10y ago

He mentions "The fabric of reality" by David Deutsch. It's a very good book (IMO) and not primarily about multiple universes so don't let that put you off if you think it's rubbish. He does a really good job outlining Popper's theory of science as explanation. Also one thing he notes is that it is really extraordinary that the universe gave rise to something that can understand it. We are the universe looking at itself and understanding it at a more and more fundamental level as time goes on.

mizzao 10y ago

Even as a Christian, I am still open to the possibility that religion may be an artificial construct. One important purpose it may serve is to motivate individuals to advance social welfare (and be happy while doing so) when we would otherwise only have reason to be selfish. (Never mind for now that this presupposes that there is an objective "social good" that exists in the first place). However, for religion to work, we can't be aware that it is artificial -- otherwise we'd stop following it. So we do have to believe wholeheartedly, aside from occasional philosophizing of existential questions. Yet, the existence of an unmoved mover is still an alternative explanation. At this point, the line between artificial and supernatural is indeed blurred.

strgrd 10y ago
How can you believe the story and the purpose of something wholeheartedly when its premise is scientifically untrue? Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite. There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. The universe is ambivalent to the karmic relations we see from our perspective. Karma can be common sense (you do good, good will follow), but in speaking to the spirit, karma has placated humanity into believing that mother nature or god is at the controls. It is time to abandon the belief in the soul, the spirit, and eternity, and unless evidence presents itself otherwise, embrace the temporal reality before us.
- mizzao 10y ago
  I'm a scientist (coincidentally, an empirical one) but I still don't believe that all truth can be discovered scientifically -- that is, through repeatable data collection and experimentation. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God by doing experiments. Your worldview seems to be pretty close to Scientism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), which I think some would consider a religion in itself. Sure, the problem of evil is an objection to religion, but follow your premise to its logical conclusion and good/evil doesn't exist at all. There is really no reason to want the world to be a better place, preserve the planet, and so on. Is that really a world you want to live in? > Religion is an artifact of one of the most ancient forms of control. Today, it is an institution used to espouse the morals of the elite. Do you think so? At least in the United States, religion is generally seen as the domain of the less educated and impoverished, not the elite. Today, you and I are free to determine our own definitions of morality. > There is no evidence that bad people will be punished when they die. There is no evidence that the good will be rewarded. Sure there is evidence. It's just historical and relational. It's not something that can be tested through the scientific method.