“A new concept of god: “something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled god. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature…that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow…Mars…the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quarters known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us.”
Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God

If you redefine "god" then he exists.

Why assume god is a ‘he’?

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” Carl Sagan

>> Why assume god is a ‘he’? <<

The horse is dead! Stop beating it!

But no one knows where all of that came from. So for lack of a better term, they call that origin point, "God."

I like the definition that one Jewish woman gave, "Someone to whom I can express gratitude."

Ah yes, that's my agnostic Jewish friend. It is a beautiful sentiment from a beautiful woman.

  

This is my beloved son. Check out his quarks.

God= tasty sandwich.

Tasty sandwiches exist which can be verified by multiple independent human observers.

Therefore, God exists.


HH =)

God is a projection onto the cosmos of your world view. End of story.

I believe Carl Sagan was ever attempting to deliver his unique and beautiful understandings of science to a world reliant on "God" in a way that respected belief but clearly showed the limits of religion.

His use of biblial language reveals the bridge he uses as he seeks to connect with the religous community:

"higher power",
"Dragons of Eden",
"Forgive us our errors"
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”

We do well to consider his wise words, such as those he spoke in "Pale Blue Dot":

“The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined only by our own wisdom and courage. WE ARE THE CUSTODIANS OF LIFE'S MEANING. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable.”

New concept? it's at least as old as some forms of druidism.

Somehow your your "God is the Universe" stuff always reminds me of this quote:

"If we are discussing horses it would seem out of place to mix in donkeys and proceed to discuss them all together." Norman Totten


Gods are like opinions. Everybody's got a carefully crafted one. Well, almost everybody.

> Gods are like opinions. Everybody's got a
> carefully crafted one.

+1


---------------
> Well, almost everybody.

Emphatic +1



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2022 04:17PM by Lot's Wife.

Some opinions are bleached.

“A new concept of god: “something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled god. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature…that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow…Mars…the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quarters known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us.”
Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God."

COMMENT: Have you ever noticed how often atheist scientists invoke the concept of "god" (or even "God") to describe what they take to be 'the universal laws of nature?' Of course, the commentators--as well as the scientists themselves--are quick to point out that the term 'god' (or 'God') here equates with respect, awe, wonder, mystery, etc. at the natural order of things, as if they are quite surprised and humbled that nature would manifest itself in such an ordered way.

Of course, we are also immediately reminded that such scientists--intellectually gifted as they are--are not talking about *that* "God;" you know, that made-up, supernatural Being silly people worship on Sundays and pray to for everyday comfort and guidance. But then, if not *that* God, what *are* they talking about; and why do they keep calling it "god?'

Acknowledging a 'universal natural order' (call it what you may) while distancing oneself from any metaphysical intelligent agency is not that easy. As Darwin taught us, order and complexity can come from either the forces of evolution by natural selection or intelligent design, but certainly not out of a hat: that would be magic, and we can't have that. And so far, I have heard of no scientific account as to where the laws of nature *themselves*--for example, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, or Evolution by Natural Selection--evolved by natural means from some prior simplicity. After all, the mystery enters the picture precisely when the origin of such order is considered. But--by God--they insist, this is a natural mystery and not a supernatural one.

The bottom line is that cosmic "order" in the context of "mystery" is just a half-step away from God, the real thing. And since the religious definition of "God" or "god" involves a recognition of both (1) intelligence and (2) agency, and since science has no natural explanation for the origin of order, one starts to wonder what the disagreement is really about--other than the fear of scientists to step out of their scientific domain and into the philosopher's world of the metaphysical. So, let's just call it a *natural* mystery and name it "god" just to confuse people.

Thus, when Sagan (the atheist) states: "Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us,” he must mean just that, "GOD," the real thing! What else could a "greater power" mean? Of course, this new God, is without all the religious baggage that GOD-beliefs otherwise entail. Nonetheless, for people like Sagan, Einstein, and others, a deistic God seems to be alive and well deep within their resistant minds. Maybe all we really need to figure out is what happened to HER?

Sagan wasn't an atheist. He denied atheism and is generally considered to have been a pantheist based on his own statements.

I’m basically a pantstheist, but more specifically I’m a shortstheist.

I have the legs for it!

I would have thought "sumptheist" was closer to the truth. That would explain why your eyes are. . . so. . . you know.

Who among us is closest to being the sump of all things would be an interesting topic.

But I am far too silly a human being to be in the competition.

The great thing about you, EOD is that you always have sumpthing to say.

This conversation needs a sump pump!

"Sagan wasn't an atheist. He denied atheism and is generally considered to have been a pantheist based on his own statements."

COMMENT: Sagan, like many scientists considering the question of God (including Einstein), was often confused and ambiguous when expressing his religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Although, as you say, he denied being an atheist, to my knowledge he never articulated any substantive account of what he believed was behind the orderliness of the universe, or how the concept of God fit into such orderliness.

According to my Oxford dictionary, pantheism is "a doctrine that identifies God with the universe or regards the universe as a manifestation of God." It seems to me that the term "God" to be meaningful at all, implies an intelligent agency of some sort. With that assumption, identifying God with the universe is incoherent since there is no conceptual association between the 'universe' itself and 'intelligent agency.'

Moreover, if someone coherently believes that the universe is a "manifestation of God," then apparently God stands outside of the universe and the universe is a manifestation or evidence of God's existence, but not itself God. That strikes me as just a traditional view of God, essentially disassociated with the universe, except as God's creation. Short of that view of pantheism, and short of pure mysticism, I have no idea what "manifestation of God" could possibly mean.

If Sagan was indeed a pantheist, it would have to be in this second sense, which is just Deism.

You just played the same redefinition game as scat.

And it's just as non-binding.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2370682,2370682#msg-2370682

See comments by CZ

What's that psychological term for someone who can't help but blurt out inappropriate things at inappropriate times?

"Sagan!" . . . "Einstein!"

. . . "Rogan!"

There has to be an internet equivalent.

"Intourrette's?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2022 05:46PM by Lot's Wife.

Or Tournette's.

Long wavelength OCD.

Sounds very similar to the Masonic conception of God as the Great Architect of the Universe.

If you consider ground beef to be a variation of ground peanuts, and ketchup as a variation of jelly, then Burger King sells PB&Js.

It’s all in how well you squint.

I once wrote on these hallowed pages that Fruit Loops are God. No one disproved that, not even OPie, so I take that as affirmation that God tastes good in a bowl of milk and leprechauns.

Now how did the damn leprechauns get in there. . .

No, Froot Loops are from the devil.

Cocoa Puffs are from God.
Consider the strong linguistic connection between Cocoa Puffs and Kokaubeam!

I find your linguistic evidence impressive, but it must be a false positive because Coco Puffs have been cursed with a skin of darkness and therefore cannot be divine.

I don't know that we teach that anymore.

Yes, but words are cheap. Are you mixing Coco Puffs in with your Rice Krispies?

I thought not.

All I know for sure is that the devil is Grape Nuts (with all due respect to Euell Gibbons)

I'm told Euell Gibbons was a regular man. Very, very regular.

Pine trees will do that.

Then again, Euell Gibbons may have been a saint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Year_of_the_Flood

"The novel is littered with his sermons and hymns, where the religious sect revere environmental activists in their own calendar of special saints, such as Saint Euell Gibbons, Saint James Lovelock and Saint Jane Jacobs, amongst others."

Perhaps it's not a new concept.
It was Einstein's concept, only he didn't believe god (nature) played dice with the universe, because he refused to believe in "spooky action at a distance," so he argued against Quantum Mechanics for the remainder of his life.
100yrs later, turns out he was wrong.
The universe is spookier than even Einstein could imagine.
What do we call that 'spooky action at a distance'?
What do we call the combination of the 26 fundamental constants, and 4 fundamental forces combined?
Besides 'god'?

how about

Lambda - The Cosmological Constant

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/graphic_history/

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/graphic_history/univ_evol.html

Does it make sense to pray?

Does make sense to express gratitude to the source of your wellbeing and to give it a name?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2022 12:05AM by schrodingerscat.