Does God Have A Future?

[elpuma]

"Nightline Face-Off" between Michael Shermer, Deepak Chopra, Jean Houston and Sam Harris regarding the existence of God and its relation to science. On ABC of all places....

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

[elpuma]

Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

An Interview with Amit Goswami

by Craig Hamilton

Goswami is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it. Without an observer, he claims, it only exists as a possibility. And as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and leaning heavily on the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Goswami is building a case for a new paradigm that he calls "monistic idealism," the view that consciousness, not matter, is the foundation of everything that is.

A professor of physics at the University of Oregon and a member of its Institute of Theoretical Science, Dr. Goswami is part of a growing body of renegade scientists who in recent years have ventured into the domain of the spiritual in an attempt both to interpret the seemingly inexplicable findings of their experiments and to validate their intuitions about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life. The culmination of Goswami's own work is his book The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. Rooted in an interpretation of the experimental data of quantum physics (the physics of elementary particles), the book weaves together a myriad of findings and theories in fields from artificial intelligence to astronomy to Hindu mysticism in an attempt to show that the discoveries of modern science are in perfect accord with the deepest mystical truths.

Quantum physics, as well as a number of other modern sciences, he feels, is demonstrating that the essential unity underlying all of reality is a fact which can be experimentally verified. Because of the enormous implications he sees in this scientific confirmation of the spiritual, Goswami is ardently devoted to explaining his theory to as many people as possible in order to help bring about what he feels is a much needed paradigm shift. He feels that because science is now capable of validating mysticism, much that before required a leap of faith can now be empirically proven and, hence, the materialist paradigm which has dominated scientific and philosophical thought for over two hundred years can finally be called into question.

WIE: In your book you refer to this new paradigm as "monistic idealism." And you also suggest that science seems to be verifying what a lot of mystics have said throughout history—that science's current findings seem to be parallel to the essence of the perennial spiritual teaching.

AG: It is the spiritual teaching. It is not just parallel. The idea that consciousness is the ground of being is the basis of all spiritual traditions, as it is for the philosophy of monistic idealism—although I have given it a somewhat new name. The reason for my choice of the name is that, in the West, there is a philosophy called "idealism" which is opposed to the philosophy of "material realism," which holds that only matter is real. Idealism says no, consciousness is the only real thing. But in the West that kind of idealism has usually meant something that is really dualism—that is, consciousness and matter are separate. So, by monistic idealism, I made it clear that, no, I don't mean that dualistic kind of Western idealism, but really a monistic idealism, which has existed in the West, but only in the esoteric spiritual traditions. Whereas in the East this is the mainstream philosophy. In Buddhism, or in Hinduism where it is called Vedanta, or in Taoism, this is the philosophy of everyone. But in the West this is a very esoteric tradition, only known and adhered to by very astute philosophers, the people who have really delved deeply into the nature of reality.

http://twm.co.nz/goswintro.htm
http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm

[tazmic]

So, if conciousness preceeds being, and 'collapses the probability' to create the actual, then there are no quantum probability states at all, or is God not paying much attention?

[nathan28]

So, if conciousness preceeds being, and 'collapses the probability' to create the actual, then there are no quantum probability states at all, or is God not paying much attention?

I was going to say that I was pretty sure this "debate" was going to be too incoherent to watch, but this confirms it.

[23]

So, if conciousness preceeds being, and 'collapses the probability' to create the actual, then there are no quantum probability states at all, or is God not paying much attention?

The problem with attempting to answer your question is that the terms you use (consciousness, being, God, etc.,) mean different things to different people. And to assume that they mean the same thing would not be helpful. But I'll take a stab nonetheless.

Beingness is undifferentiated; beingness just is. Becomingness, on the other hand, is differentiated, because in order for A to become B, you need time and space... the stuff or essence of differentiation.

The question of consciousness preceding beingness depends on what you mean by consciousness.

From my brief swimmings in the waters of advaita vedanta, I've learned that others, who swim in the same waters, have touted that consciousness is the source of differentiation, or becomingness.

If this is the case, then I doubt that consciousness precedes beingness. Since time and space issue forth from consciousness, and beingness is not differentiated by time and space.

For old times' sake (advaita vedanta), one of its more masterful articulators:

[tazmic]

The question of consciousness preceding beingness depends on what you mean by consciousness.

From my brief swimmings in the waters of advaita vedanta, I've learned that others, who swim in the same waters, have touted that consciousness is the source of differentiation, or becomingness.

If this is the case, then I doubt that consciousness precedes beingness. Since time and space issue forth from consciousness, and beingness is not differentiated by time and space.

Thanks for explaining. This would suggest that God is not consciousness, but the ground of beingness, where the quantum propabilities live, and individual conciousness differentiates the actual as becomingness...

I don't think this is what Goswami is claiming. (He says ''consciousness is the ground of all being'' and his book is called 'The Self-Aware Universe'. If it's self aware then why any non collapsed probability waves? This is 'serious' question sQ1)

However, as it is often instructive to read a western philosopher's work as autobiographical psychiatry, or personal psychology... perhaps it is an excersise of greater relevance for the eastern thinkers? (How do they go from their psychological insights to ontology? sQ2)

[marshwren]

Does God have a future? Given the Almighty's past, yeah, i'd say so...takes a really looong time for infamy to dissapate...

[wintler2]

My god is independent of human vanity and undoubtedly has a future.

Belief in institutional gods also has a future, as happy endings and invisible friends are going to become more rewarding beliefs than workaholism & consumerism.

Theorists selling woo also have a future, so long as no-one asks them why quantum variation matters at all, since at our scale its effect is entirely dissipated.

[Simulist]

Paradoxically, any God worth considering is beyond human comprehension.

And any image we settle on as God, isn't.

The future isn't in comprehending God, but in the simple intuition that our existence emerges from the Uncomprehendable knowing us.

Gnosis is not our work, but God's.

[smiths]

Paradoxically, any God worth considering is beyond human comprehension.

well said, thats why so many people are so upset with the ideas of gods in an age of human self-obsession

you cant build an iGod, so it doesnt exist

when i took a lot of acid in my mid twenties, i spent a lot of the time melting into the wobbly wavy space around me and like many before i felt that the interconnectednes and the infinite were obvious,
over and over again when i felt space it seemed that 'it just is'

we think we can know everything,
we actually strive in science for a theory of everything, how fucking stupid is that

i am becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of infinite space,
time is a byproduct of the wavelike nature of space

and for me, it is this coming to terms with the infinite and the fact that there is more to all this than i will ever be able to comprehend that has caused me to climb down from my atheist barricades

[Simulist]

…iGod…

Please don't tell Steve Jobs about this.

With all his current and past liver problems, an "iGod" seems destined to become trouble for all of us.

I can see the ad campaign now, "Pray different."

[Blue]

we think we can know everything,
we actually strive in science for a theory of everything, how fucking stupid is that

i am becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of infinite space,
time is a byproduct of the wavelike nature of space

and for me, it is this coming to terms with the infinite and the fact that there is more to all this than i will ever be able to comprehend that has caused me to climb down from my atheist barricades

No, it's not stupid for science to look for a theory of everything...think about how many new discoveries are made all the time during this process! I think you misunderstand what scientists do. It is the religious people who claim to know everything. Scientists are always seeking new knowledge, ready to disprove their theories.

But I agree with you smiths, the subject of infinity makes us all believers in something, that may as well be called God.

[Joe Hillshoist]

So, if conciousness preceeds being, and 'collapses the probability' to create the actual, then there are no quantum probability states at all, or is God not paying much attention?

I was going to say that I was pretty sure this "debate" was going to be too incoherent to watch, but this confirms it.

Further to that, apparantly god lives in eternity.

Eternity is outside time in the way that we are in it according to most of the myths so therefore god obviously doesn't have a future.

Or a past - such things being unavailable outside of time.

[smiths]

No, it's not stupid for science to look for a theory of everything...think about how many new discoveries are made all the time during this process!

well i have to say that i think we reached a point of rapidly diminishing returns about twenty years ago,
apart form in medical research i struggle to think about high technology advancements that are actually improving life on this planet

could you give me some examples

[Blue]

No, it's not stupid for science to look for a theory of everything...think about how many new discoveries are made all the time during this process!

well i have to say that i think we reached a point of rapidly diminishing returns about twenty years ago,
apart form in medical research i struggle to think about high technology advancements that are actually improving life on this planet

could you give me some examples

Woah. I thought we were talking about deep science like quantum physics. Now you are asking about science that improves life on earth? Okay, I'll switch gears. Right now there are huge solar arrays being erected around the globe, one in California has the potential to light up lots of cities.

Edit:

http://www.awea.org/smallwind/success_stories.html

http://www.wind.appstate.edu/windturbin ... rbines.php