Who was the responsible party?

I have heard this phrase used quite a bit on this forum section and I got curious about the origin of the "god did it theory". When was this alleged theory first developed and who was the person responsible for writing the alleged theory?

 

Come on all you non-theists in the membership of this forum.. surely someone of your group would know the answer to that question.

 

It's alluding to the "god of the gaps" argument, made popular by El Senor Dawkins. It's not deep philosophical insight, but rather a common retort to theological arguments, that since god manifested all things (the internets included) then therefore any deeper understanding or intellectual investigation is beyond inquiry. Which is variably true and false.

The problem comes when someone is perceived to reflexively assert "a god" as an explanation when more intricate detail can be, and are, actually explained by other reliable methods. So arguments like "if humans came from apes, then why are there still apes?", fall in the category of ignorant because humans are defined as apes. These other reliable methods are then cast aside by apesters, when they try work accurately for other conclusions. Then the apester's methods of analysis are called into question.

This seems to me to be more of a misapplication of processes than it does of a consistent outcome, that can be relied upon, for further analytics.

 

That is all very interesting and informative Beast Mode, however, when someone misapplies a term used in a formal label, such as the term 'theory', doesn't it make one wonder where the integrity of the person making such a claim is at? To me, it seems almost as though a premeditated lie is being told if in fact there is no such "theory".

 

Well the word theory, has multiple usage. I have a theory about how the Kansas City Royals will go this year is afar less rigorous process than the theory of gravity. A philosophical theory will be somewhere in between. It does not have the rigor of a scientific theory, but will need to fit in the bounds of it particular principles to be valid or even considered for discussion

 

In this section of the forum, when the term 'theory' is used, it is commonly associated with scientific theory or mathematical theory. All too many times have the Theists on this forum been ridiculed for using one of those alternate meanings of theory. So, when a member mentions 'theory' as in the "god did it theory", I have to presume that the member is speaking either of a mathematical theory or scientific theory. At any rate. whether it be scientific, mathematical, or philosophical, the theory has to be in written format so that those who want to be a participant in such discussion can know what the parameters of the discussion are. So where is the written theory? If even that were known, then their is a likelihood of finding out who the author is and the date of publication. Even in the example you stated, you have placed your theory in written format.

 

I've heard this used before, but mostly as an almost explicit straw man argument by atheist, (Dawkins does so in an explicit elegant sophisticated way).

They group together naive pre-modern modes of perceiving and archaic belief onto all forms of religion/spirituality, and are unaware that spirituality exist and can thrive without the archaic pre-modern baggage.

Since pre-modern spirituality and post-modern spirituality are both non-modern they are easily confused (science is modern).

Modern science stomped pre-modern religion's butt (with many good side effects, technological innovation and freedom from dogma, etc..) , but threw out the baby (path to transcendent reality) with the bathwater (archaic beliefs and non-scientific interpretation of the universe)

What is not helping is a sect of the Post-Modern .... the New Age crowd, who are acting like the Romantics (a return to the wholeness before the collapse of modernity (before art, science and morals were differentiated)). They are combining bad science and fruit loops mysticism, and another example of spirituality appearing looney to the established holder's of truth.

So in a way it's guilt by association, a bigoted stereotype, an act of profiling (tongue-in-cheek).

When they think of a religious/spiritual person, they automatically picture someone who may be a good person, but just doesn't understand or accept reality as honestly as they do. They perceive them as essentially not as developed in their beliefs and worldview, when in reality, their absolutist scientific positivist belief system is becoming seen as an unnecessary limiting and outdated framework of perceiving reality, to those at the cutting edge and top-tier thought. (Worldviews can be mapped and stages emerge, the modern science minded atheistic view is a bit behind the times now).

 

Most religious individuals do not have issues with science and the knowledge we have gained using it. Christian schools tend to have very good science programs and it is relatively difficult to find a Christian who refuses to even consider the understandings we have gained through science....oh and to the person you quoted above....Human's are APES along with Gorillas, Chimps and Orangutans.

Issues with science and knowledge gained from it tend to occur within a very tiny population and sect of Religions.

AboveAlpha

 

Exactly, and that pre-modern outlook bounces off of them and onto anyone on a contemplative path. Like how Kansas keeps insisting on not teaching evolution.

 

Seems that you are saying that they were acting through ignorance. That would almost seem to be out of character for ones who are supposed to be the intellectually superior (by their own accounting). I also believe that the "pre-modern baggage" that you reference is not something that is or can be associated with all Theists or even all Christians. Not all people think alike or share common understandings that are universally applicable to all others when dealing with the subject of religion.

 

That has not been the case since Feb 13 2007

The change was brought about when Kansas voters ousted 4 of the 6 who voted on the committee for the new educational standards in the first place.

 

Meanwhile... back to the topic of the OP... who was the responsible party?

 

Well, it is beginning to appear that the original claim of a 'god did it theory' was a lie considering that no such theory is in existence. To call the statement "god did it" a theory when the statement is not presented as a theory indicates that someone told a lie and others are promoting the continuation of that lie.

 

No, but it's possible to make effective generalizations that hold relevant meaning without declaring it's truth for everyone involved. This should be obvious... like "Many conservatives support the 2nd Amendment Right." That is a generalized but common feature of conservative.

(By the way this is a bit lengthy but necessary to establish the basic framework for pre to post-modernity. Please reserve judgement til the end.)

I am first asserting that not only are we living in the post-modern world (along with the more visible modern world), but the "post-post-modern" world is starting to gain structure and is beginning to emerge. I also propose that you sir, are in fact the bearer of a post-modern worldview.

Using part of the definition of "Post-modern" from the link you sent, you'll see I already established the meaning of Post-modern I was referring to "In general, the postmodern view is cool, ironic, and accepting of the fragmentation of contemporary existence. It tends to concentrate on surfaces rather than depths, to blur the distinctions between high and low culture, and as a whole to challenge a wide variety of traditional cultural values."

I said "What is not helping is a sect of the Post-Modern .... the New Age crowd, who are acting like the Romantics (a return to the wholeness before the collapse of modernity (before art, science and morals were differentiated))" (That was their way of coping with the (fragmentation or split.)

Modernity fragmented the world into morals (religion), science and art. Prior to that, they were undifferentiated...like Da Vinci's medicine, art, and religion were not very differentiated (apply that to the general inter-subjective norm of the time.) The Church pretty much served as the accepted domain of art, morals and science.

Modernity emerged with a focus on individualistic rational mindset, of wanting to know empirical truth (of the physical objective variety), without having to filter that truth through the dogma of the church, and also did not mind using that knowledge for capitalistic endeavors (modernity was the personality behind the industrial revolution to wall street, along with rampant consumerism and ecological plunder/crisis). Well science began to have so much success and some of the empirical evidence contradicted the Church's doctrine, cosmology and entire belief system and it began creating friction (as evidenced by Galileo's proposed Heliocentric Model), and the church (and the entire contextualization of the world) split basically into the 3 spheres of art, morals and science.

The first sardonic utterances of "the God did it theory" were likely spoken in the early modern movement. Modernity gained traction in the Renaissance, came to full fruition in the Enlightenment and is still going strong today (and can still be seen "emerging" in 3rd and 2nd world (pre-modern) nations.)

The positives of Modernity were and are the principles that Post-modernity claims as there own (and strictly enforce) and are "freedom, equality and justice, representational democracy to guarantee rights over King's rule (we all have certain inalienable rights), John Locke's "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of race, sex, creed (America atleast had it in writing), civil and political rights (freedom of speech religion and assembly.

Gerhard Lenski, a great Sociologist, documented that slavery was a part of every pre-modern societal type such as tribal, foraging, horticultural and agrarian. The only societal types in all of history to effectively ban slavery were those that emerged with or after Modernity. Voltaire's scream of "Remember the cruelties!!" was an expression of how many must have felt about the pre-modern oppression (acting through the belief in God or gods),

It is worth noting that Pre-Modern religion did not enact these liberties on the world, Modernity did through the major vessel of governance that acted without the control of the Church...this ideal can be traced in the United States by looking at the most influential (modern) philosophers studied by the founding fathers...primarily Locke, Rousseau and Hume.

Anyway... science, technology and innovation changed the world from "short brutish lives" to prosperity and comfort being available to vast portion of all humans (as we see in much of the world today). Confident with convincing victories over pre-modern religion, modern science went to it's logical extreme, and declared only what it saw as real- "Objective Reality". The world became flatland, and the most hard-nosed modernist believed in no consciousness, no values, no interiors, no meaning, no depth, no Divinity, no God, no Transcendent Reality.

Well this became known as "The Disenchantment of the World" and was understandably unsettling to those who recognized the self-evident reality of consciousness...so this became the start of the Post-modern revolution....

Now to show that your worldview is atleast in some respects, aligned with Post-modernism...see if any of these claims are atleast similar to your own worldview...

"[The Post-modern Paradigm] is simply the claim that there is no truth, only interpretations, and thus the "sliding scale of [referents]" means that the authority of science-can simply be swept under the rug with not much further ado." We are free from modernity because we are free from truth and verification in general. Postmodern philosophy is defined by what it's proponents reject. They reject foundationalism, essentialism, accepted rationality, representational knowledge, metanarratives, big pictures of any kind (that encompasses individuals) , realism, final vocabulary and canonical descriptions."

The Three Post-Modern Assumptions

1) Reality is not in all ways pregiven, but in some significant ways is a construction, an interpretation. (Constructivism)
2) Meaning is context-dependent, and context are boundless. (Contextualism)
3) Cognition must therefore privilege no single perspective.(Integral-Aperspectival)

After seeing every one of these reflected in your view of reality (mandatory iteration and dislike of broad grouping or classifications, a proponent of subjective idealism (extreme post-modernism), and a fixation on not seeing depths in consciousness...only surfaces everywhere, shows unequivocally that you reflect many Post-Modern ideals. (References?- every post of yours in the "What is Objective Reality" thread.)

To speed this up..Post-post-modernism would be seeing the depths in consciousness, and how reality subjective/objective is a holistic seamless whole in harmony, no dissociation but an integration of art, morals and science (much more to this at another time)

Absolutely they have, but modernity took the reigns of power from religion and give rights to people that religion isn't supposed to touch (this obviously wasn't always the case, and is still not the case in much of the world in pre-modern countries.) As far as religeon kicking sciences' butt in spirituality, there is no doubt. I'm sure you're familiar with New Age...they have some beliefs like we can consciously collapse the wave-function of the Copenhagen Interpretation in QM so that we can manifest our destiny...saying that this is what Jesus meant when he said "Therefore I say unto you, whatever things you desire, when you pray, believe that you receive them, and they will be yours." (I'm not questioning the power of prayer, I'm showing an example of a scientific spirituality (Modern and Post-modern New Ageism)

Mainstream modern science, the ones who know they're right.

Did you really decide to finish writing that sentence out instead of deleting it?

And you know what bias that's called now.

It's not about being better! It's about understanding what level someone is at. Everyone has a right to be who they are, and it's more compassionate to them if we really understand their needs or even how to effectively communicate to them. Hierarchies are not bad, bad people make hierarchies bad. Denying that humans develop through psychological stages is like saying babies are on the same psychological level as adults. Or saying there is no differences in the colors of the rainbow.

 

For the moment, I will focus on only one of your comments (the other comments are still in consideration).

I do believe that there is a word missing from your comment. That word would be "intuitively" to precede the word "know".

 

I would have just added on.... "but who are actually only partially right."

 

That would work just as well.

 

Like I've posted before.....the first five books and many others in the bible are written in third person. It's like a video gone virul which shows an up close view of someone gliding on their home made wings half way down a 1000ft cliff....who was that masked man who made the video.......would you believe photoshop?

It didn't happen!!

 

If that is what you prefer to believe, then have at it.

 

to not believe that would make you that guy who thinks the youtube of the cliff jump is real. either because you're 9 years old, or because you have an overwhelming dissatisfaction with real life, and need the dramarama of magic.

 

Who said that I believed it? Are you always so presumptuous?

 

Now back to the topic of the OP. Has anyone found the author of the "god did it theory"? Guess not. So that would mean that whoever promotes the notion and usage of such a theory is living in a fantasy world of make believe, tooth fairies, teapots in the sky, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, etc.

 

Well....go ahead and explain to me who was there when god delivered the ten commandments to Moses. It was written in third person....why? Who was that masked man who was always along but was never recognized. Kinda like a fiction writer isn't it?

 

It was written in 3rd person because Moses didn't scribe the Torah. The "Oral Torah" was passed down an unbroken chain until it was written...so the actions were described from a 3rd person perspective.

 

Yeah Yeah.....I repeat.....who was the writer? Moses was given credit for writing the books but by it being written in 3rd person he definitely didn't write it himself. You think maybe it was his wife LOL