Kubrick on God

[Received]

Kill me (justifiably), but I only recently watched 2001: A Space Odyssey, and was (needless to say), utterly and blessedly blown away at the experience. Which led me to this beautiful and articulate quote from an interview:

KUBRICK: I will say that the god concept is at the heart of 2001, but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of god. I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of god. [Extraterrestrials] may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans. These beings would be gods to the billions of less advanced races in the universe, just as man would appear a god to an ant. They would be incomprehensible to us except as gods; and if the tendrils of their consciousness ever brushed men's minds, it is only the hand of god we could grasp as an explanation. Mere speculation on the possibility of their existence is sufficiently overwhelming, without trying to decipher their motives. The important point is that all the standard attributes assigned to god in our history could equally well be the characteristics of biological entities who, billions of years ago, were at a stage of development similar to man's own and evolved into something as remote from man as man is remote from the primordial ooze from which he first emerged.​

Yes, he thinks aliens could have evolved from mere biological matter to machines and then eventually to energy or spirit, which I suppose is something philosophically possible. Aside from being a fascinating idea, he also says (and is evident from the luminous film) that aliens not only evolved on their own, gaining eons in advance over man to gain spiritual form, but were responsible for man's evolution at key stages in history.

To me, though, this simply pushes the goal posts of mystery back. We don't know where replicators came from, which are the absolutely essential ingredient in evolution for us. Perhaps God, or aliens, or God aliens, or pure astronomical chance planted them there. But if aliens planted them there, and they were also evolved, how do we explain their existence when we can't even figure out our own? Further, and much more importantly, if aliens evolved, what is responsible for our universe? It seems like any answer that can be supplied with classical conceptions of God can be used with Kubrick's eccentric theistic view.

However, do you think Kubrick's spirit-alien-deity scheme is feasible as a philosophical possibility, and (big question) do you think it's a better alternative than a monotheistic omnipresent spirit responsible for creation?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

However, do you think Kubrick's spirit-alien-deity scheme is feasible as a philosophical possibility, and (big question) do you think it's a better alternative than a monotheistic omnipresent spirit responsible for creation?

It depends on our objectives. It is usually presumed that metaphysics or questions about higher realities are to be asked in the framework of epistemology. Is it true that such things exist / what's the truth value? And how do we know or estimate this? But what about the instrumental, aesthetic or other value of such ideas?

Given that philosophy and theology can be speculative and uncertain it seems to me that we ought to look at the practical cost or benifit such theories might have instead of - or at least alongside - their putative truth value. You were blown away by the film. +1 for Kubric. That you can know for sure.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Kill me (justifiably), but I only recently watched 2001: A Space Odyssey, and was (needless to say), utterly and blessedly blown away at the experience.

Yes, this transhumanist and quasi-Nietzchean take on god, as revealed in an experience of the mysterium tremendum, has been very influential in my life. Kubrick brought the god concept down to earth, and yet held it high over us as a challenge to overcome our human natures and to strive for something better. I was a transhumanist for a few years, and largely because of this film.

Yes, he thinks aliens could have evolved from mere biological matter to machines and then eventually to energy or spirit, which I suppose is something philosophically possible.

Well, maybe, but Arthur C. Clarke's idea was that the monoliths were superadvanced computer intelligences that had biological personalities "uploaded" to them, thus granting them near-immortality. I think that energy bodies were Kubrick's idea, and that this was probably going a bit too far.

Further, and much more importantly, if aliens evolved, what is responsible for our universe?

Nothing is. The universe is uncreated in this view.

However, do you think Kubrick's spirit-alien-deity scheme is feasible as a philosophical possibility, and (big question) do you think it's a better alternative than a monotheistic omnipresent spirit responsible for creation?

No, I don't believe in "energy bodies". The monoliths are more realistic.

Yes, I think that the idea of ancient cosmic intelligences rocks! But I wouldn't credit them with creating the universe, and I don't see any reason to think that evolution on Earth has been manipulated by such intelligences.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Paul]

There's not logical/philosophical reason to say "No, that is impossible," but the being Kubrick described aren't really gods. He said they were as far beyond us as we are beyond primordial ooze.

But are humans the gods of slime-molds? Worshiping entities like that would be like worshiping volcanos or storms. Sure they're vast and greater than we are, but they don't care about us, don't notice. They won't grant any boons or smite your enemies.

They're not gods, they're just big.

 

[variant]

There's not logical/philosophical reason to say "No, that is impossible," but the being Kubrick described aren't really gods. He said they were as far beyond us as we are beyond primordial ooze.

But are humans the gods of slime-molds? Worshiping entities like that would be like worshiping volcanos or storms. Sure they're vast and greater than we are, but they don't care about us, don't notice. They won't grant any boons or smite your enemies.

They're not gods, they're just big.

Slime molds do not worship us but we are intelligent creatures and if something was that far beyond us and we only sort of experienced it our imaginations might just fill in all the gaps.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

However, do you think Kubrick's spirit-alien-deity scheme is feasible as a philosophical possibility, and (big question) do you think it's a better alternative than a monotheistic omnipresent spirit responsible for creation?

No, to both.

I do love the Blue Danube, though.

 

[The Paul]

Slime molds do not worship us but we are intelligent creatures and if something was that far beyond us and we only sort of experienced it our imaginations might just fill in all the gaps.

Well sure, we can do lots of things slime-molds can't do. But in the face of the beings Kubrick was imagining it doesn't matter. There's something in humanity that might give us an impulse to worship them. The same thing motivates people to worship volcanoes, storms, and so-on.

But volcanoes and storms aren't gods.

 

[tripletiger1200]

No. It still points to a universe that is a closed system. Energy is not created or destroyed, so even if you have very advanced life forms claiming to be gods, then you still have the problem of what exists on the outside of that closed system and how things became that system in the first place.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that such ideas as Kubrics have instructive value if used as examples of various philosophical systems. They help to increase the knowledge base of our society, and prevent us from being too closed minded and dogmatic about religion or other more tenuous beliefs. Also, as Socrates said "The unexaminesd life is not worth living." They can cause us to examine our lives and world views which helps develop intellectual virtues, an aid to cultural progress.

 

[variant]

Well sure, we can do lots of things slime-molds can't do. But in the face of the beings Kubrick was imagining it doesn't matter. There's something in humanity that might give us an impulse to worship them. The same thing motivates people to worship volcanoes, storms, and so-on.

But volcanoes and storms aren't gods.

If the things we worship as Gods somehow implanted the something in us that wants to worship Gods then they are the object of our projected worship.

That we can imagine more Godly Gods than the actual things that inspired our imaginations is irrelevant. What IS God except a sufficiently more advanced intelligent creature? What if an alien DID create the universe proper. What is the difference between a highly advanced God inspiring creature and an exponentially advanced one?

If the scenario was true it is just a matter of reality not living up to our expectations.

 

[The Paul]

If the things we worship as Gods somehow implanted the something in us that wants to worship Gods then they are the object of our projected worship.

Why would they? Even if we could program a slime-mold to worship us, we wouldn't bother. We might program it to do other things. Digest certain materials or excrete certain chemicals, but that's not the same thing. Maybe super-advanced aliens want all the fossil fuels on Earth burned up for some reason we can't understand, so they created an intelligent species that would develop a culture and society dependent upon the energy released by burning fossil fuels...

...it still doesn't matter if we worship them. If such a thing existed and we somehow caught a glimpse of it and began to worship it, it would be exactly the same a praying to a storm.

... What if an alien DID create the universe proper. What is the difference between a highly advanced God inspiring creature and an exponentially advanced one?

If the scenario was true it is just a matter of reality not living up to our expectations.

That's not what Kubrick's talking about, but it's pretty silly.

There's a good chapter in the God Delusion where Dawkins examines the "Boeing 747" metaphor and follows it to its ultimate conclusions. It's quite difficult to justify the possibility of an ultimate creator.