This article is a bit old, but I immensely like the idea of "God" being a metaphor for/of philosophy. Does anyone know of articles, works, studies where Hawking elaborated this idea a bit more? Or other scientists or philosophers who thought the same way about the relation between philosophy and religion? Thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I used to think like that. But the reason why nowdays I believe God is "alive" is because I cannot find a scientific explanation to life itself. Not only that, but also, life has nothing to do with science. It doesn't seem to fit with the scientific scenerio. We can find evidence for how our bodies have been created in a scientific manner, but when it comes to life itself, the energy that we are (or at least it feels like energy), then that doesn't seem to fit with any scientific discovery. So "God" is life itself, and "God" resolve this mystery.
Truthseeker, Isn’t that somewhat more than irrational? If the answer isn’t apparent then create a far more complex supernatural answer that surpasses all the complexity that life can offer. Still having trouble with logical thinking I see TS.
Rosa, I'm not sure that I would call God a metaphor for philosophy since the god concept is a philosophical concept anyway, isn't it?
If we think in strict meta-terms, everything is just philosophies and philosophies and philosophies. A philosophy is a way of how one coneptualizes one's life and the meaning of it. This conceptualizing can be done in the idea of a godly entity -- the way traditional religions do, or in the idea of a certain philosophy (regardless whether it contains a godly entity or not). Do you perchance know where Hawking said more about that idea of God being a metaphor of philosphy?
Not sure about Hawking, although I'm sure he mentioned something along those lines in 'A Brief History of Time', via the 'does God play dice' question. There are numerous philosophers who have all but equated God and a philosophy: certainly Spinoza, definitely Leibniz, maybe Kierkegaard, and possibly Hume. Then again, it all depends on your use of the term 'god'. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Which came first, God or philosophy? Think carefully. Anyway, I just think it's fair to mention one of Hawking's destinguished contemporaries, the South African Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! George FR Ellis. (Winner of the 2004 Templeton prize). Beyond ethics, Ellis contends that there are many areas that cannot be accounted for by physics. “Even hard-headed physicists have to acknowledge a number of different kinds of existence” beyond the basics of atoms, molecules and chemicals, he said in his prepared remarks. Directly challenging the notion that the powers of science are limitless, Ellis noted the inability of even the most advanced physics to fully explain factors that shape the physical world, including human thoughts, emotions and social constructions such as the laws of chess.Philosophy represent the fact that humans have discovered that the road to truth and understanding is not just an empyrical exercise. Philosophy didn't die as science gained momentum - it grew exponentially as people tried to understand how it all fit together not only on a cold physical level. It is because of the very nature of science that these limits exist; they will therefore remain, irrespective of scientific advances that may be made in the future. Essentially, investigations of the foundations of science are beyond the scope of science itself.In philosophy, it isn't so easy to deny God's existence, because it doesn't by its nature propose a purely physical world - it must take into account what people think about the metaphysical, about God and who He is. And who He is depends on what we know of Him - where philosophy meets religion. Theology limits itself to specific areas of knowledge - such as revelation and tradition. To simply say that God is a metaphor of philosophy denies that God exists outside philosophy. It makes religion a natural science indistinguishable from pantheism.
Here is an article called Stephen Hawking's God. Short but well worth reading. By the way - does anybody else know about this website? It's amazing: www.counterbalance.org
Jenyar, Think big. Sometimes, in order to see connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena, we can take a term, and "stretch its meaning over time". What the concept of "God" is today -- what could be the equivalent of this, say, 20.000 or 5.000 years ago? Of course. Of course. You need to think of "philosophy" in a much broader way here; by philosophy, I don't mean certain philosophies, like Kant's, Schopenhauer's, Nietzsche's; Zen, Zoroastrian, ... . I am thinking of philosophy as *any* belief system, whatever it may be. *** What I am trying to do is take arguments, dissolve and dissect them, find their premises, bring these premises to extremes, validate or refute them, and then, from what I get, make new arguments. I wish this could be so clearly demonstratable onscreen. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is that you rational logic thinking? Make a complex solution? Why would that be more logical? Isn't nature simple anyways? Aren't you trying to find a single essential particle? Besides, life is not complex. The problem with life is that it is too simple. It is so simple that we have to complicate it in order to understand it... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not logical because I'm simple? Is that logical at all? Where have you being anyways? I haven't "seen" ya for a long while.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay, but first we have to establish the boundaries and definitions we are going to work with. In Hawking's case, he merely took his vision of nature and called it "God", but as the article points out: why bother with the term if what you believe in is nature? Shouldn't we rather say "ideology" then? Philosophy is thinking *about* beliefs, not a belief system itself. "God" could be a metaphor - as in Freud's philosophy of psychology - but that's a philosophical construct. Someone could have a "god" complex, and the god of his complex could be isolated and defined, but that doesn't make it the same as God of Israel, for example. Everybody "believes in the laws of nature", but nobody thinks nature will give them eternal life, or forgiveness. Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised.
Actually Rosa I think "God is a metaphor for the reality" Being such a poetic and absract form of exprtessing that which is reality. A metaphor is what any way?
Jenyar, I'm afraid this won't go smoothly at all, as the crucial definitions which we aspire for ought to be the *result* of this debate. True. But I think the clue lies in re-conceptualizing -- in the hopes that something meaningful may come out. It's a journey without a plan, only the immediate road in view, fortunately or unfortunately. Hm. We have a major terminological problem. With an interesting practical implication: This forum section is called "Philosophy" and the sub-sections are "General philosophy", "Religion", "Eastern religions" etc. What are the discussions in them about? How much are they 'thinking about belief systems' and how much are they merely presenting belief systems? Both are inseparatable to an extent of course. Also, if you go to a library, there is the section "Philosophy". In this section, there are "philosophies" of individual philosophers, as well as "philosophies about philosophies." What should we say: "Kant's philosophy" or "Kant's ideology"? The "Christian philosophy" or the "Christian ideology"? What is the difference if I say "This is my philosophy" and "This is my ideology" -- and "This is my religion"? *** As for the concept (" "?) of God: If a philosophy/ideology/religion (terminology unclear so far) says that God is the creator of everything, thereby including the very philosophy/ideology/religion that makes that statement, then, per definitionem, it must be that God is *outside* of this philosophy/ideology/religion, and this philosophy/ideology/religion only offers one interpretation of God. If anything, philosophy/ideology/religion is a metaphor for God then.
The contemporary theory of metaphor says that to think in a metaphor means to think of one thing in the conceptual realm of another thing. See this.
It's a forced deduction to say God is the creator of everything with qualifying "everything" first. Philosophies are products of our minds, even if our minds are products of God. We are metaphors for God. Religion just returns the compliment.
