For example, an explanation using final causes would claim that a hammer exists so that nails can be banged into wood.

In contrast, the scientific reason for the hammer existing is because someone shaped a piece of wood, forged the head from metal and connected the two together. If the hammer is handled with skill it can be used as a tool which bangs nails into wood.

It is such a simple and widespread idea that it barely needs stating. Things do not exist for what they do; they exist because of the chain of events leading up to their creation. What is obvious to us now was not so obvious 400 years ago. Explanations of why were very often answered with the final cause answer; “things exist to perform the function they perform.”

The removal of teleology and its replacement by cause and effect is one of the most solid principles of what science does, and for the most part is desirable. But is it always desirable? As in most things, at the extremes the rules very often break down. Where a strict application of cause and effect is in most danger of breaking down is at the beginning of the universe itself.

Why? Consider how and why we are here. To get to the current moment in time in the universe’s history we can (if we had sufficient information) trace back the sequence of causes and effects back to the beginning. But what do we find at the beginning and what is the cause of the first cause? Whatever the conditions or principles are present at the first moment it is they which are responsible for all subsequent events. We can then quite legitimately pose the question, ‘Could things have been any different to the way they are now?’ We can also ask ‘Is it possible that things could have been any different to the way they are now?’

There have been a number of philosophers who have felt the need to make this point. Nietzsche’s eternal return is the view that the universe is destined to repeat over and over for all eternity. Spinoza decided ‘everything is as it is and could be no other way.’
Physicist Paul Davis points out that such a view is a valid option today. Video Here

The seed, or set of initial conditions, contain within them the blueprint for all that is going to occur and all that is going to exist. This leads us to quite a different view to the one commonly held that we are here by some pure chance or slice of good fortune. It could be that we are here because that is the only way the universe can be. We are every bit a part of the fabric of the world and every bit as important to the universe’s existence as anything else. The universe is spiritual in its essence equally as much as it is material.

It may be the case that we are the chance occurrence of large configurations of complex molecules which give off blips of thought….. But the evidence does not rule out the case of humans being of fundamental importance to existence and having been written into the blueprint of existence from the very beginning. The final cause of creation is us; the processes between the beginning and now are the causal and necessary links between the two.

Like this? Then Blogbookmark it!

More »

I first came across him in the 1980’s when I first began reading books about the philosophy of science. The Selfish Gene is a brilliant book, popular science writing at its very best, explaining complex ideas with ease. It was the New York Times who classed it as ‘the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius.’

I have mixed feelings about Dawkins. He is clearly a top level scientist and a great writer. He is however a lousy philosopher and a lousy metaphysician. His anti religious rants are not derivable from his scientific evidence, rather they are merely piggybacked on his science and the impression is given that the one follows from the other. It does not. Since The Selfish Gene Dawkins has produced a number of other great books, but seemingly with each step has moved further away from the popular science genre and increasingly taken on the role of waging all out war against Religion. The great writer of popular science has become a savage anti-religious polemicist – preaching rather than arguing his case. In some senses he has become what he detests most.

Now I wouldn’t wish you to think that I am here to mount a knock down argument in the defence of religion. I am not. Much of what Dawkins argues – even at his worst – I can quite happily agree with. I probably agree with 99.9% of everything he writes. But at the core I am deeply unhappy with the fundamentals for which Dawkins argues. The case against God has not been proven. The case for scientific materialism has not been successful. Dawkins embraces everything he says with a materialist spin as if that is how evolution needs to be presented. It doesn’t. And the offensive part of Dawkins words is not the evolution but that materialist spin.

My second gripe with Dawkins is with his proposal for what we should do with the concept of God. He wishes to banish it from speech altogether so as not to give succour to those who he despises. He argues that scientists should cease giving acknowledgement to the God of Spinoza and of Einstein – The Rational God – because the ordinary reader confuses this Pantheist version with the Theist one. This is somewhat backward thinking. If scientists believe the concept is a valid one to have then they should not be browbeaten into naming it something else. Spinoza’s God is a clearly defined, internally consistent concept and can give us deep insights into the ultimate nature of existence.

In conclusion I would like to point out that Dawkins anti-religious views are not something which can be proven false by some scientific evidence. Yet neither are they self evident from the scientific facts as Dawkins generally assumes. The philosophical positions that Dawkins imports into his belief system are not the easiest to defend, and in the case of materialism are generally considered to be false by everyone. There are philosophical positions different to those of Richard Dawkins which can represent the scientific facts in an equally adequate way. For Dawkins to represent his philosophical viewpoint as scientific fact is disingenuous at best and anti scientific at worst.

Like this? Then Blogbookmark it!

More »

We see two apparently different strands making efforts to explain the universe. There is the scientific and the religious. Mainstream opinion tends to hold the view that science is the serious approach whilst religion just offers us an outdated idea dreamed up by superstitious and ignorant ancients.

Whilst agreeing the best route to an understanding of the world is a scientific one I am not so ready to dismiss ideas of the ancients as superstition or ignorance. As long as we are discussing human beings then we can be sure that those who left us ancient writings had every capability that we have in terms of rational thought. Also, with less distraction than modern life and I suspect a lot more time on their hands it could be argued that the ancients had plenty of opportunity to engage in philosophical speculation.

We can see great intellectual achievement in ancient history, the pyramids in Egypt or the plays, architecture and academic works of the Greeks. All of this was from a pre-Christian world the world of the Pagans. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were Pagans and great thinkers too, yet for two thousand years the term ‘pagan’ has been used as an insult.

The time when Paganism was eradicated coincides with the time Christianity rose. The early years of Christianity were a time of terror. In the 3rd century AD. Roman Emperor Constantin decreed that Europe was to be unified under one religion and that religion was to be Christianity. Those who failed to practice the new religion were persecuted and most likely killed.

There was also great division within the new church between those who considered the ancient texts to be literally true and those who considered them to be metaphorically true. More killing ensued as the literalists wiped out all opposition to their views.

Since then those same texts have been subject to re-writing, translation and reinterpreting. It should be no surprise that such influential documents have also been subject to being rewritten and re-interpreted with political objectives in mind.

The first original God was a pantheist one. God and the universe were considered to be the same thing. Human beings on that scheme are a part of God. It is not difficult to speak of this God in a metaphoric way and claim that he is all powerful. All things, all power is God. If God and the universe are the same thing then God is clearly everywhere and in all things. If human beings are a part of God then God is all knowing… at least in the sense that all things that are known are by default God’s knowledge.

This pantheist description of reality was never intended to be an excuse for inventing some super powerful being. Rather it was a metaphoric aid for truly understanding the nature of our universe. Using a pantheist model is a perfectly rational explanation of the world.

The political class in the days of early Christianity used the ancient beliefs for their own ends and objectives. They took the metaphorical aids and used them in a literal way creating a theist God who could be used as a political tool. If God was all powerful He could do as He wished. If God was everywhere, He could watch what you were doing at all times. If He was all knowing He could even know what you were thinking. The Theist God was used to watch over the population, to monitor their thoughts and to dish out cruel punishments for all eternity to those who failed to follow the government line.

Charlatans and fraudsters still use veiled threats and promises of eternal joy in the afterlife to persuade others to engage in actions and to give up money. The Theist God still has its uses for those seeking social and political control or who are trying to get rich on the donations of others.

But people tend to need some spiritual comfort. Science presents a world to us which is cold, random, here by chance and which in some interpretations is cruel. We are told that we are little more than a bag of chemicals which give off blips of thought and after three score and ten years we go back to nothingness from where we, by chance, appeared. This is a poor representation of the facts. The materialist doctrine has long been discarded and its replacement physicalism, is vacuous as a philosophy and says nothing at all about the world. See Materialism and Physicalism for more details

The Rational God then is a scientific and philosophical book. It is wholly rational and it is about the idea of God. Further, it is a book which describes reality and all of science in one easy to understand basic scheme, placing our scientific knowledge into context.

Like this? Then Blogbookmark it!

More »

Place Your Order

Should you wish to find out more then please follow the links in the top navigation bar. Look around the website, join the forum and ask questions. If you want to have a full and comprehensive understanding of the true nature of reality then place your order. I am dedicated to your full understanding of reality. Here’s the link again.

You can reserve your copy here.

Amended post 14th May 2009

Like this? Then Blogbookmark it!

More »

TheRationalGod.com is going to be used for posts which are religious in nature or which deal with religion as a historical subject. Any scientific or metaphysical or philosophical issues will now appear on the new blog site, SpaceTimeInfinity.com Though the two strands of thinking are both seeking to explain existence, they do so in two very different ways. The search engines can now make sense of what typr of blog they are dealing with. This one is religious in nature, the other is scientific or philosophical. The book, The Rational God, is a scientific or philosophical book with important consequences for theological thinking.

I look forward to your company over the coming months.

Like this? Then Blogbookmark it!

More »