Something cosmic like what she says...but make it more "Jesusy"!

[GeorgeJ]

@GeorgeJ, what does deism mean to you? I can never figure out just what it means anymore when divorced from the 18th century context. Are we still at clockmaker God or has the concept of deism changed?

I guess you could say I'm a cross between 18th century deism and modern deism.

...but I don't want to get off topic here by explaining what I mean......

 

[Silmarien]

Maybe....but many existentialists have a disdain for reason. I don't believe she is advocating that at all.

Eh, not all of us. I'd say that we just have a heightened appreciation for the limits of rationalism and the paradoxes inherent therein. But I did not read this as existentialist either.

Well, she seems to be willing to 'extend' herself to some moral actions in response to her "awe" of the universe, and the fact that she was also fully aware of the seeming paradox that......uh, "we exist, and we can't see how, really! Ain't it amazing!"

Well, I think you need to go a bit further than realizing how odd existence is to hit genuine existentialism. If this is existentialist, then pretty much every approach to religion is, and that's not at all the case.

 

[Silmarien]

I guess you could say I'm a cross between 18th century deism and modern deism.

...but I don't want to get off topic here by explaining what I mean......

Oh, I don't think Philo will mind. But I won't press you if you don't want to. Maybe in the world religion section sometime?

 

[GeorgeJ]

I'm sure he wouldn't mind, and I don't mind, but my explanation would invite comments from the peanut gallery and might throw this thread way off course!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe....but many existentialists have a disdain for reason. I don't believe she is advocating that at all.

....mmmmmm. Perhaps. But it could be made out that Pascal counts as a "kind" of existentialist (fideist to some extent?). Besides, I'm not really beholden to specifics when it comes to Existentialism itself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Eh, not all of us. I'd say that we just have a heightened appreciation for the limits of rationalism and the paradoxes inherent therein. But I did not read this as existentialist either.

Well, I think you need to go a bit further than realizing how odd existence is to hit genuine existentialism. If this is existentialist, then pretty much every approach to religion is, and that's not at all the case.

I guess we can argue over the 'real' meaning of existentialism. Of course, then we'll also have to argue over who the real owner and proprietor is of a single chicken egg: The Hen who laid it, or the human who grabbed it and claimed, "It's mine!!!" [.....excuse my temporary slide into existential iconoclasm.]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sure he wouldn't mind, and I don't mind, but my explanation would invite comments from the peanut gallery and might throw this thread way off course!

....from my view, this thread was essentially sunk upon being released into the water. But, that's par for the course around here I've noticed. So, talk about what you want, everybody else does.

 

[Silmarien]

I guess we can argue over the 'real' meaning of existentialism. Of course, then we'll also have to argue over who the real owner and proprietor is of a single chicken egg: The Hen who laid it, or the human who grabbed it and claimed, "It's mine!!!" [.....excuse my temporary slide into existential iconoclasm.]

To be fair, there is no real meaning of existentialism. After all, if there were, existence would not precede essence! (It doesn't entirely, Sartre, but that's beside the point.) And almost literally every existentialist ever has claimed to not be an existentialist, so...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To be fair, there is no real meaning of existentialism. After all, if there were, existence would not precede essence! (It doesn't entirely, Sartre, but that's beside the point.) And almost literally every existentialist ever has claimed to not be an existentialist, so...

Anyway, I do understand how it's very contestable to see Mayim as an existentialist in the vain to which you and I are used to categorizing it, and from that more academic angle, you're right. It's just she doesn't quite sound like a deist to me either, but then maybe she is; or maybe she's just "an aspiring Modern Orthodox Jew." [her words]

 

[GeorgeJ]

or maybe she's just "an aspiring Modern Orthodox Jew." [her words]

That's it!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I don't mean that part. Specifically where she talks about God as somehow being the laws of the universe. It's a very immanent conception of God, with no reference to transcendence. I have seen deists talk like that before, though technically speaking it's probably pantheistic rather than deistic.

Yes, I can see your point. But then, I don't think it's too big of a jump to say that God is somehow directly involved in the structure of the universe; for Him, I think, being spiritually involved isn't distant from being physically "involved" with His Creation in some way. He is both immanent and transcendent in most Christian theologies.

Moreover, I think I sense just a tiny bit of allusion to a more 'substantive' type of Ground of Being, one maybe even with some Panentheistic tone, in Colossians 1:16-17. Of course, these verses are somewhat vague, no doubt, but I think the language at least leaves it open to our creative, existential imaginations, and it is in this vain that I appropriate and reflect some of the things that Mayim says in her video.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey Folks, I just thought I'd drop by--again--and hand off this nifty little video I found, one made by that science gal from The Big Bang Theory (yes, Mayim Bialik, who plays Amy Farrah Fowler). She has some interesting things to say which seem to reflect in a substantial way---and also in what I'd count as a philosophical kind of way---my own feelings about science and religion.

Sure, sure. I know. She's not a Christian! And sure, she's actually a brilliant person in real life when offset and not in front of the sitcom camera. But, hey! I like what she has to say (even if I'd add some "come to Jesus" things in there as well, if I could). Her message is short, but it's meaningful. So, if you want, take a quick listen to what Mayim shares and make whatever comments you want to make ....

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I made it to 2:27 before I was unable to continue. I don't know what it is that this is supposed to be contributing as neither Christians nor atheists would defend this nonsensical "position." "God is gravity"... OK, thanks for nothing. Nothing she said is relevant, helpful, insightful, original, intelligible, or possessing any redeemable quality known to mankind. Please rate this post as optimistic; I did my best.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I made it to 2:27 before I was unable to continue. I don't know what it is that this is supposed to be contributing as neither Christians nor atheists would defend this nonsensical "position." "God is gravity"... OK, thanks for nothing. Nothing she said is relevant, helpful, insightful, original, intelligible, or possessing any redeemable quality known to mankind. Please rate this post as optimistic; I did my best.

I think her position is quite sensical and if she were a Christian, her view wouldn't be too far off from that of the Christians at BioLogos. I found Mayim's comments about how she approaches science while still valuing her Jewish religion to be very reflective of the way in which I approach Christianity, but since you were "unable" to continue beyond the 2:27 mark in the video, I guess we'll just have to pass on any further discussion about what might have been "redeemable" within Mayim's sentiments.

At least you tried, and that's what counts, I guess.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think her position is quite sensical and if she were a Christian, her view wouldn't be too far off from that of the Christians at BioLogos. I found Mayim's comments about how she approaches science while still valuing her Jewish religion to be very reflective of the way in which I approach Christianity, but since you were "unable" to continue beyond the 2:27 mark in the video, I guess we'll just have to pass on any further discussion about what might have been "redeemable" within Mayim's sentiments.

At least you tried, and that's what counts, I guess.

So you agree that God is gravity?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you agree that God is gravity?

Yes, No. As I told @Silmarien above, I'd be ok with a more or less (~) panentheistic conceptualization of God. So, I'd be willing to say that God is somehow "at play" within the nature of the cosmos, Imminent to what we think of as the laws of physics but not dependent upon them, and yet still Transcendent to them as well.

I tend to think of God's Ground of being, as it may be in relation or our universe, in a way that approximates the two figures I lifted from the I-net below:

1) Here, the (substantive, changing) sphere "represents" our universe, while the larger cubic matrix represents God's unchanging being. The arrows wouldn't represent flow as much as they do an original, imminent permeation within the universe which resides as an aspect of His being.

2) Here's perhaps another way to look at it. God speaks His Word which not only causes the universe to come into being, but also carries it along, and it moves and changes as an entity that is different than the whole of God Himself, but is yet happening within a finite way within God's being; and it is His being and power that carries the movement of the universe along ... although I don't know what Mayim Bialik has in mind in the OP video, it might be something like this, except like I said in the OP ... I'd just make it more "Jesusy"! (Besides, Mayim's just a neuroscientist, what does she know? [Of course, I'm being tongue-in-cheek here in questioning her qualifications ... ])

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, No. As I told @Silmarien above, I'd be ok with a more or less (~) panentheistic conceptualization of God. So, I'd be willing to say that God is somehow "at play" within the nature of the cosmos, Imminent to what we think of as the laws of physics but not dependent upon them, and yet still Transcendent to them as well.

I tend to think of God's Ground of being, as it may be in relation or our universe, in a way that approximates the two figures I lifted from the I-net below:

1) Here, the (substantive, changing) sphere "represents" our universe, while the larger cubic matrix represents God's unchanging being. The arrows wouldn't represent flow as much as they do an original, imminent permeation within the universe which resides as an aspect of His being.

2) Here's perhaps another way to look at it. God speaks His Word which not only causes the universe to come into being, but also carries it along, and it moves and changes as an entity that is different than the whole of God Himself, but is yet happening within a finite way within God's being; and it is His being and power that carries the movement of the universe along ... although I don't know what Mayim Bialik has in mind in the OP video, it might be something like this, except like I said in the OP ... I'd just make it more "Jesusy"! (Besides, Mayim's just a neuroscientist, what does she know? [Of course, I'm being tongue-in-cheek here in questioning her qualifications ... ])

Ok. I obviously don't hold your position but it's vastly more reasonable than hers. She said "God is gravity." She's refering to pantheism. I think you were a little to eager to agree with her. The reality is that you don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok. I obviously don't hold your position but it's vastly more reasonable than hers. She said "God is gravity." She's refering to pantheism. I think you were a little to eager to agree with her. The reality is that you don't.

That's great. You sound just like Jerry Coyne in your assessment of Mayim Bialek.

Let accommodationism blossom: Mayim Bialik reconciles science and religion

And you're right, of course--my belief set isn't identical to Mayim's, and I actually said as much to another poster above. In fact, I agree with you (and Jerry Coyne) that she may very well be somewhat pantheistic in her outlook, perhaps relying on quasi-religious cues she's taken from Spinoza or Einstein, or whoever, and adding or synthesizing these with her generic Judaism.

Nevertheless, I do have to point out that what she says in the later part of her video--the whole of which you seemed to have had trouble keeping your attention attuned to and thus missed out on--focuses on more phenomenalistic and perceptual ideational processes which, I think, do play a part in the overall way in which Christian faith holds "meaning" for people, although this isn't to say that everyone will somehow sense identical feelings or have identical insights about God if Jesus/God just happens to be real.

 

[LoAmmi]

Ok. I obviously don't hold your position but it's vastly more reasonable than hers. She said "God is gravity." She's refering to pantheism. I think you were a little to eager to agree with her. The reality is that you don't.

I'm reminded a bit of a story my rabbi told me a long time ago. (Keep in mind that I have no belief at all that this is some kind of factual, historical story)

There was a little boy who never could settle down in the synagogue. During prayers he would wander around, try to get people's attention, and otherwise disrupt the service. The parents were upset because they simply could not get the boy to settle down and pray. Then one day, they went to a lake in the middle of a forest. Around Sunset they walk out to call the boy in and they are shocked to see him beside the lake praying. After he finishes, the parents ask him why he prayed here but not the synagogue. The boy says, "I can't feel Him there. I feel Him here!"