My thoughts on 'God'

Sorry, Jonquil, but logic is only one adaptational possibility for humans. You find illogical connections apparently from the fact that you prefer only certain types of connections. You would find both Whitehead’s and Chardin’s evolutionary Godhead illogical. Why should I have to tell you what Spinoza said. If you read him, you’ll see my points about him.
About God:

  1. The big bang of physical matter and the Eden of the human psyche are not beginnings in the sense of some thing coming from no thing. They are transitions within an evolving universe.
  2. No lonely deity, surrounded by no things, decided to create matter to play with and mind to communicate with.
  3. God was and is the evolving process of development, which we characterize, as it affects us, as creativity and destruction.
  4. From the human perspective creation and destruction are translated into good and evil. Some religions see good and evil as the yin and yang of the whole process, not as separate and opposing.
  5. The transcendence of God is inclusion of all that is. The immanence of God is the individual connection with all that is.
  6. Religions of time as opposed to eternity or reason as opposed to spirituality mistake parts for wholes. This seeing is inevitably destructive.
  7. The whole cannot deny its particulars or dissolve them into something they are not; but the particulars can deny the whole, while not actually being separated from it, and act as if it does not exist. That is the negative side of free will.
    Conclusion: The Godhead includes us.
    Where I differ with Whitehead’s and Chardin’s views of evolution is that I do not see the dispersal of particulars as evolving toward some saturation point or omega.

Isn’t whatever gets you through the night your default God?

It is if you’re human. Ontology is a given; it’s already certain. It is as much a part of physics as it is of metaphysics. Why separate the extension of matter into mind as if two separate and opposing conditions existed? The human experience involves being, becoming and belonging. Being is the ontological ground, the given. Becoming and belonging are ontology socially conditioned. Theism, as noted in its natural expression by aborigines, is all about proving onself worthy of existence, seeking a certainty of survival. Please do not confuse the mythology of expressed needs with the ontology of the need. It’s all about who’s right and who’s wrong, at least among so-called civilized cultures. Who’s right and who’s wrong are protestations of certainty as it is believed to be.

Well, certainly you can talk at me and around me, and continue writing in a series of illogical, discontinuous non sequiturs. However, it doesn’t make for real discussion, does it, because then we don’t have a basis for mutual understanding or sequential ordering of ideas.

This is an interesting list. I presume these ideas come directly from Whitehead and de Chardin, but there is no way of telling which is which. It would probably be helpful to see how these ideas progressed and how one writer influenced the other. You have, of course, ignored Spinoza and the other questions brought to your attention, but your personal conclusion at the end might be interesting to discuss.

Why exactly don’t you see the dispersal of particulars as evolving toward some saturation or omega point? What is your alternative idea?


Only the first statement is a fact, the rest are opinion.

The only factual statement you can make about God is “Truth is God”. It is correct even if God is not a sentient super-being.

No. These ideas do not come directly from Whitehead and Chardin. Most of them are my take with help of Spinoza and some Eastern philosophies. I cannot talk around you because you cannot see logic or reason for what they are in actual human experience. Non-sequitur is your way of denying what you will not try to understand. Your interest in the list shows some signs that you are not totally motivated by the bracketing of process that is our logic. Our experience of being structured organisms and the structure of our logic are isomorphic, not identical. While I could make a case as to how one emerges from the other, I thought we were discussing ideas about God. You can either accept or deny my takes; but you cannot evaluate them by referring to logic–to the description of experience, which may or may not be accurate.