Our surprising God? |
The universe as we know it is physical. Therefore, in the absence of any strong reasons to think otherwise, the immediate assumption is that God would be physical as well. It's probably not even meaningful to talk about a spiritual realm: to my knowledge, there's no real definition of what "spiritual" even means. Besides, if God was spiritual, then as I argued in the counterpart to this post, he would have no obvious reason not to make the universe spiritual as well.
What might we expect God's goal to be in creating this universe? Contrary to what most religions of the world believe, we shouldn't necessarily assume that God particularly values humanity—or even life of any kind. If life was the goal, we would expect the universe to be teeming with it in every nook and cranny, yet Earth is the only planet we know of that has any. God seems to love dark matter and black holes more than any living creature, and of the little life that does exist, insects, plants and bacteria seem to be much higher on the divine priority list. Evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane was on the right track when he observed that "the Creator would appear as endowed with a passion for stars, on the one hand, and for beetles on the other."
At least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "post-human" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.The idea is that if posthuman civilizations run a lot of detailed computer simulations involving sentient beings, it's far more likely than not that we're in one of those simulations. Both David Chalmers and Bostrom himself assign a 20% probability to this idea. While a simulator probably wouldn't meet the classical "omni" definition of God, they would certainly be one in the broad sense of a highly intelligent creator who wields virtually limitless power over their creation. So what would be the motivation of these demigods? Bostrom has some speculation on that as well:
[P]erhaps future historians would create a Matrix that mimicked the history of their own species. They might do this to find out more about their past, or to explore counterfactual historical scenarios. In the world of the Architect(s), Napoleon may have succeeded in conquering Europe, and our world might be a Matrix created to research what would have happened if Napoleon had been defeated. Or perhaps there will be future artists who create Matrices as an art form much like we create movies and operas. Or perhaps the tourist industry will create simulations of interesting historical epochs so that their contemporaries can go on themed holidays to some bygone age by entering into the simulation and interacting with its inhabitants.As fanciful as this conjecture may seem, I think it's far more reasonable and grounded in real-world experience than any of the major religions.
Given the massive amount of suffering in the world—both in human society and in nature—there's no reason to expect that God desires to minimize that suffering. In fact, philosopher Stephen Law has observed that given what we know about the world, we could argue the propositions "God is perfectly evil" and "God is perfectly good" with roughly equal effectiveness.
So what have we learned about our hypothetical God from our observations of the world? Based only on the known facts, we might predict that God (if he existed) would be...
- Physical, not spiritual
- Unitary, not triune
- Genderless, not male
- Fond of dark matter and lower life forms
- A cosmic experimenter
- Indifferent to our suffering
A physical God raises a problem. If you were to make, say, dough, as in bread dough, you don't make it from other dough, right? To make dough, you use other, non-dough ingredients (flour, water, yeast), otherwise you didn't make anything, you just expanded it. So if God is physical, then the world would be an expansion of God (ie: pantheism). This would also limit God to being uni-present, rather then omni-present. This would also mean that, technically, we could fly out there and touch him (but he's just hiding really well?). The point is that for something to be created, it needs to not already exist, and there needs to be a creator. The creator conjures up the dough. Now the water, flour and yeast are all created, and so are their molecules and so on. I think this fairly eliminates a physical God. Along the same lines, we also have time, space, relationship, energy, mind, logic, abstract reasoning, life. These are all a type of "dough". They come either as an extension of God, or creation of God, but are not God. Thus if God is the baker or time, space and morality, what kind of baker is bound and limited by his bread? Can't he shape it as he pleases, and it eat or sell it under equal terms? What obligation does the baker have to the dough?
ReplyDeleteJust a note: someone linked to this post on reddit, so there's quite a bit of discussion going on there.
ReplyDeleteI've seen apologist books try to force Jesus as the creator because of the vastness or the fine-tuneyness of the universe. This usually involves a equivocation in "all powerful" as "very powerful" versus "all capable", or a jump from "pretty smart about planets or cells" to "all knowing". All galaxies look similar and obey the same physics. The thing that created our universe wasn't very imaginative. Look also at atoms - every atom of a given element is identical. The creator seems to have been working with off the shelf components. Likewise the 6-day creator who made animals seems to have been stuck with the skeletons he could find at the store or merely twiddled the fur and feathers settings on a kit he was given for Giftmas. There's not a lot of specially new and unique things in our universe at any scale.
ReplyDelete