Is God Perfect?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Now this is very interesting, Tom. Thanks for your thoughts.

I agree we are discussing a western concept of an omnipotent god, and whether that concept stands up to scrutiny according to its own terms. I did not anticipate we would also review other religions' concepts of godhead too ~is godhead the perfect blow-job?~, but if it helps, it is certainly worthwhile doing so.

I wonder if Milton was trying to deal with the question of gnosticism; but I don't think so. I don't believe that anywhere in the poem is there any reference to a Monad or that God is a demiurge. And Milton would certainly not thank Satan for freeing Mankind from the control of a being who was either evil or only of limited goodness. Although Milton has been described as a heretic, that was not because he held gnostic beliefs, but rather because he was a monist and believed that all things, animal, vegetable, mineral and divine were the same. He was also anti-episcopal and a republican, which would have made him very unpopular in England before and after the interregnum and would have increased the antipathy the Establishment held for his religious views. I'm sure he believed God to be absolutely perfect.

Furthermore, I'm not sure we're considering what moves the prime mover. Only the notion of divine perfection. Is that different?


I don't think any modern religion - even fundamentalist ones - thinks that reasoning about the nature of God is heretical, although it might be concerned that heretical ideas could result from "incorrect" reasoning. But I don't think we should let that stop us. Do you?

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

Furthermore, I'm not sure we're considering what moves the prime mover. Only the notion of divine perfection. Is that different?

Aristotle has this all covered. It hinges on the assumption that a pot can never make a potter. According to the prime mover has by necessity be perfect since the harmony of nature is in such perfect balance. Thomas Aquinas explored this extensively. Darwin cracked it, so now Aristotle's theory isn't necessarily the only logical way to go. Philosophy is still exploring where Darwin's new paradigm of thought will take us.

I don't think any modern religion - even fundamentalist ones - thinks that reasoning about the nature of God is heretical, although it might be concerned that heretical ideas could result from "incorrect" reasoning. But I don't think we should let that stop us. Do you?

TYWD

If you read various histories of monotheism you'd be surprised. Thinking it's morally okay to reason about the nature of god is fairly modern. It's historically been frowned upon. Karen Armstrong's "History of God" is a good one to read about that. In Islam, I forget his name. But the main Islamic philosopher in the Wahabist branch of Islamic thought did extensively argue that it was heretical. It was/is fanatically anti-science.

I don't believe in heresy or hell so I'm not bound by any constrictions to argue about anything.

[Beatrice]

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has." -Martin Luther

[TomOfSweden]

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has." -Martin Luther

But Martin Luther's whole point was to question religious authorities and make up your own mind...and since he's a religious authority then....I think you can see where I'm going with this.

[rce]

Aristotle has this all covered. It hinges on the assumption that a pot can never make a potter. According to the prime mover has by necessity be perfect since the harmony of nature is in such perfect balance. Thomas Aquinas explored this extensively. Darwin cracked it, so now Aristotle's theory isn't necessarily the only logical way to go. Philosophy is still exploring where Darwin's new paradigm of thought will take us.
...

I believe you are wrong on the importance of Darwin. The "Copernican" change of views from Aristotle to modern day science and philosophy was Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Fernuft.

Kant described why you could not look at the world in the way Aristotle did. Th science in Aristotle's tradition was about explaining everything as a cause of the "first immovable mover". Kant, however, claimed that logic and mathematics where the only two areas where we can know what is right, thus the only two areas open for real science.

Later on, scolars of other sciences managed to save science and developed the way we look at science now, where something is scientifically proved if it is by far the most probable answer to a question, for instance through statistical measurements and empirical tests.

[TomOfSweden]

I believe you are wrong on the importance of Darwin. The "Copernican" change of views from Aristotle to modern day science and philosophy was Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Fernuft.

Kant described why you could not look at the world in the way Aristotle did. Th science in Aristotle's tradition was about explaining everything as a cause of the "first immovable mover". Kant, however, claimed that logic and mathematics where the only two areas where we can know what is right, thus the only two areas open for real science.

Later on, scolars of other sciences managed to save science and developed the way we look at science now, where something is scientifically proved if it is by far the most probable answer to a question, for instance through statistical measurements and empirical tests.

I think you are right in down playing the importance of Darwin in a strictly scientific/rational sense. But almost nobody got it back then. What I mean is that it wasn't until Darwin came with his theory people in general started putting two and two together. It wasn't until then the religious community reacted.

This is still today the major issue. The laws governing the universe are so distant that it's hard to see how they aply to us directly. So what if we don't any longer need 13 angels correcting the orbits of planets, (which where required for the earth in the middle thoery). But when it comes down to me and my body and my origins, it gets personal. I think the reason why the focus is on Darwin and creationism rather than the Kopernican revolution is 100% emotional. I'm pretty certian that if you ask any devout to-the-letter Christian who belives in creationism, they'll have no problem with Kopernicus or Kant.

Anyhoo. Let's replace "Darwin" with "new science" and I've said the same thing. But it's a lot less clear what I mean.