Nietzsche and Christianity - Metaphysical Idealist Critique

[Simon Adams]

Sorry for interfering, but this has been a main field of interest for me for quite a while now. Your intuition is not at all nuts, it's a good exploration in process.

It's a natural and common way to start imagining dimensionality from the idea of point-like singularity. It's a good heuristic method, but we should be careful not to confuse heuristic intuition with most coherent and fundamental ways to think geometry and mathematics. It turns out that in many ways plane is more fundamental than line or point; and if we start from a point, many unsolvable math problems follow. On the other hand, singularity in the sense of "first" flash of light in the darkness is a very deep spiritual concept/event.

Speaking of other hand, chirality (from Greek word for hand) is a very fundamental concept-phenomenon, the necessary "asymmetry" before thinking plain geometric symmetries like Euclidean orthogonal coordinate system becomes even possible: I put "asymmetry" of chirality in scary quotes because I consider it a form of symmetry, not the opposite.

Not sure how the idea of 'gap' enters your discussion, but it also very deep and important. Alain Badiou, a top rate philosopher of mathetics, observes that the very idea of Number follows from the idea of a gap in continuum. In this sense God of the Gap (in the positive meaning, not the mocking meaning) is the same as God of Number Theory. The notion of 'quantum' also refers to a gap in continuum, which is prior to the metaphysical postulation of quantification and discrete separation of numerical quantities.

Before we fall too deep in the gap of quantification, unable to find our way back (as in scientism and attempts to limit divine into any discrete number) another more fundamental relation is worth attending. A gap is less than the continuum, whole is more than a hole.

A gap is discontinuous only in relation to a line, when we lift or drop our gaze below or above the broken line, we can see that the discontinuity was an illusion, we were looking at a plane from a hole in it. And when we allow the plane also to curve instead of staying only flat, perhaps we can also see, with the mind of the eye, that also our own form, with our chiralities of stretching our hands in all directions, is also continuous with the plane.

Some interesting observations thanks Santeri. I’d actually come back on here to delete that whole last part, as once I’d unpacked it on paper it clearly didn’t help make the point I was trying to make. It’s really messy compared to the simplicity of just mind as fundamental unity, and I have no idea what shapes or gaps or spinning relate to in a context that has no space or time. It’s something that’s been with me for a while now but I haven’t paid it much thought.

The fact that you seem to have found some sense in elements that are just a kind of ‘image of a process” to me is intriguing. I hadn’t thought about the natural “gap” in quantum phenomena, the lack of an in between ‘place’. Also natural numbers, ‘the one pulled apart to make two’ etc

Interesting also your comments on the plane as more fundamental. My intuition is of something being folded out, but it’s pull, turn, pull, turn. The first turn creates a plane, in 2D, the next a 3D space, then 4D etc.

Anyway I still think it’s a bit nuts, but maybe I should at least try to work out why it’s stayed with me all this time.

[Simon Adams]

Bizarrely there was an interesting article posted by Donald Hoffman on Twitter this morning which included;

Those are additional calculations to pursue with the new mathematical tools. But the researchers are also continuing to explore the math itself. Arkani-Hamed suspects that the bootstrapped equation that he and his collaborators derived may be related to a geometric object, along the lines of the amplituhedron, that encodes the correlations produced during the universe’s birth even more simply and elegantly. What seems clear already is that the new version of the story will not include the variable known as time.

Where Time Comes From

The amplituhedron reconceptualized colliding particles — ostensibly temporal events — in terms of timeless geometry. When it was discovered in 2013, many physicists saw yet another reason to think that time must be emergent — a variable that we perceive and that appears in our coarse-grained description of nature, but which is not written into the ultimate laws of reality.
At the top of the list of reasons for that hunch is the Big Bang.
The Big Bang was when time as we know it sprang forth. Truly understanding that initial moment would seem to require an atemporal perspective. “If there’s anything that asks us to come up with something that replaces the notion of time, it’s these questions about cosmology,” Arkani-Hamed said.

Thus, physicists seek timeless math that generates what looks like a universe evolving in time. The recent research offers glimpses of how that might work.
Physicists start with the 10 symmetries of de Sitter space. For any given set of inflationary ingredients, these symmetries yield a differential equation. The equation’s solutions are the correlation functions — mathematical expressions stating how the strength of correlations of each particular shape varies as a function of size, interior angles and relative side lengths. Importantly, solving the equation to get these expressions requires considering the equation’s singularities: mathematically nonsensical combinations of variables that are equivalent to division by zero.
The equation typically becomes singular, for instance, in the limit where two adjacent sides of a quadrilateral fold toward one another, so that the quadrilateral approaches the shape of a triangle. Yet triangles (that is, three-point correlations) are also allowed solutions to the equation. So the researchers require that the “folded limit” of the four-point correlation function match the three-point correlation function in that limit. This requirement picks out a particular solution as the correct four-point correlation function.

I don’t have time to think about this right now (cat needs to get to the vet before work..), but maybe non spatial, non temporal ‘geometry processes’ in some kind of stretching out of mind-space is not quite so crazy

[Simon Adams]

On a side note, IMO, there is a good chance that God is a much simpler, friendly, accepting and approachable personality compared to how the followers of monotheistic religions archetypically portray him.

I’ve been meaning to reply to a couple of your posts on this thread Eugene, but I’ve not had much time recently (replying to Ashvin took some of that up!). I think that’s a valid point, but I do also think we anthropomorphism god. The experience of people like Isaiah and Daniel when they see god is one of terror, of feeling weak and unable to face him, not because of anything he does but just the sheer awe at his presence.

From a pantheist perspective it’s of course very different, we’re kind of free to make him in our image in a way. God from a theist perspective is never going to be ‘cute and cuddly’. A ‘divine smile’ (whatever that would be) at cute and cuddly, maybe.

[AshvinP]

On a side note, IMO, there is a good chance that God is a much simpler, friendly, accepting and approachable personality compared to how the followers of monotheistic religions archetypically portray him.

I’ve been meaning to reply to a couple of your posts on this thread Eugene, but I’ve not had much time recently (replying to Ashvin took some of that up!). I think that’s a valid point, but I do also think we anthropomorphism god. The experience of people like Isaiah and Daniel when they see god is one of terror, of feeling weak and unable to face him, not because of anything he does but just the sheer awe at his presence.

From a pantheist perspective it’s of course very different, we’re kind of free to make him in our image in a way. God from a theist perspective is never going to be ‘cute and cuddly’. A ‘divine smile’ (whatever that would be) at cute and cuddly, maybe.

Let's be honest, from a theist perspective He is downright cruel and petty. Theists must jump through a never-ending series of hoops in defense of God's character and actions, and even after that it's not convincing as evidenced by the mass exodus from the Church in the Western world. They take up social/political causes like pro-life, anti-LGBTW, etc. because they have increasingly less of spiritual value to offer the world, as BK writes about here. And it's all because of the hard divide between God-human and the various isolating and alienating dualities in which that divide manifests. It's so frustrating because it's so unnecessary... self-inflicted wounds... playing Russian roulette with the highest spiritual stakes involved.

[Simon Adams]

Let's be honest, from a theist perspective He is downright cruel and petty. Theists must jump through a never-ending series of hoops in defense of God's character and actions, and even after that it's not convincing as evidenced by the mass exodus from the Church in the Western world. They take up social/political causes like pro-life, anti-LGBTW, etc. because they have increasingly less of spiritual value to offer the world, as BK writes about here. And it's all because of the hard divide between God-human and the various isolating and alienating dualities in which that divide manifests. It's so frustrating because it's so unnecessary... self-inflicted wounds... playing Russian roulette with the highest spiritual stakes involved.

We will all find out the reality eventually. All the criticisms of god will look ridiculous, all of our commentary on him like the babbling of babies.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this...

[AshvinP]

Let's be honest, from a theist perspective He is downright cruel and petty. Theists must jump through a never-ending series of hoops in defense of God's character and actions, and even after that it's not convincing as evidenced by the mass exodus from the Church in the Western world. They take up social/political causes like pro-life, anti-LGBTW, etc. because they have increasingly less of spiritual value to offer the world, as BK writes about here. And it's all because of the hard divide between God-human and the various isolating and alienating dualities in which that divide manifests. It's so frustrating because it's so unnecessary... self-inflicted wounds... playing Russian roulette with the highest spiritual stakes involved.

We will all find out the reality eventually. All the criticisms of god will be look ridiculous, all of our commentary on him like the babbling of babies.

I may of course be wrong about that, and my words are just more babbling. But I don’t think I an.

We already found out with the "death of God", at least in the West and all places heavily influenced by the West. Nietzsche saw it clearly and it has been playing out exactly as he expected. An increasingly violent oscillation between totalitarianism and nihilism, with a very fine line between the two, and an explicit public disdain for anything which gives off a whiff of authentic spirituality. The Church is nowhere to be found except in various social and political "causes" that the average person couldn't care less about, while extreme political ideology fills the gaping hole left by it.

I mean, even you have stopped capitalizing His title and pronouns

[Shaibei]

The experience of people like Isaiah and Daniel when they see god is one of terror, of feeling weak and unable to face him, not because of anything he does but just the sheer awe at his presence.

From a pantheist perspective it’s of course very different, we’re kind of free to make him in our image in a way. God from a theist perspective is never going to be ‘cute and cuddly’. A ‘divine smile’ (whatever that would be) at cute and cuddly, maybe.

I don't think the word terror is what i would use. As you said, sheer awe. Indeed, David expresses things differently when he writes:.
"Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous; and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart".
It should also be noted that Isaiah also writes: "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you". And this sounds more like the "feminine aspect", as it were, of God. Jung's Sophia and Neumann's Shekhinah
(Of course there is always the yddish saying "Man plans and God laughs"....)

[Lou Gold]

Let's be honest, from a theist perspective He is downright cruel and petty. Theists must jump through a never-ending series of hoops in defense of God's character and actions, and even after that it's not convincing as evidenced by the mass exodus from the Church in the Western world. They take up social/political causes like pro-life, anti-LGBTW, etc. because they have increasingly less of spiritual value to offer the world, as BK writes about here. And it's all because of the hard divide between God-human and the various isolating and alienating dualities in which that divide manifests. It's so frustrating because it's so unnecessary... self-inflicted wounds... playing Russian roulette with the highest spiritual stakes involved.

We will all find out the reality eventually. All the criticisms of god will be look ridiculous, all of our commentary on him like the babbling of babies.

I may of course be wrong about that, and my words are just more babbling. But I don’t think I an.

We already found out with the "death of God", at least in the West and all places heavily influenced by the West. Nietzsche saw it clearly and it has been playing out exactly as he expected. An increasingly violent oscillation between totalitarianism and nihilism, with a very fine line between the two, and an explicit public disdain for anything which gives off a whiff of authentic spirituality. The Church is nowhere to be found except in various social and political "causes" that the average person couldn't care less about, while extreme political ideology fills the gaping hole left by it.

I mean, even you have stopped capitalizing His title and pronouns

The Church is nowhere to be found except in various social and political "causes" that the average person couldn't care less about, while extreme political ideology fills the gaping hole left by it.

The spiritual church may be re-emerging, re-planting, re-membering in the "folk religions" of de-institutionalized syncretism that are more focused on manifesting spiritual forms.

I mean, even you have stopped capitalizing His title and pronouns

Maybe we should not even utter the names.

[Simon Adams]

We already found out with the "death of God", at least in the West and all places heavily influenced by the West. Nietzsche saw it clearly and it has been playing out exactly as he expected. An increasingly violent oscillation between totalitarianism and nihilism, with a very fine line between the two, and an explicit public disdain for anything which gives off a whiff of authentic spirituality. The Church is nowhere to be found except in various social and political "causes" that the average person couldn't care less about, while extreme political ideology fills the gaping hole left by it.

I mean, even you have stopped capitalizing His title and pronouns

LOL. I’ve never understood capitalising “god”. I guess it’s some people’s way of distinguishing him from ‘a god’, but there is only one, and that’s not his name . Yahweh I would capitalise, as I would Jesus, but I don’t think capitalising his name is high on the list of ways of paying respect to him.

I do get some of your point about “authentic spirituality”, and I’m sure there are people who go to church for cultural reasons. There is also often not enough contemplation, which applies to many of us who switch the TV on and watch ‘mind candy’ for hours on end. Prayer is often talking at god, asking for stuff, not really turning our hearts and minds to him. The church gets involved in political issues, thinking it would be wrong not to comment when the poor, those without justice, the marginalised etc, and wading into areas where the best policy in the long run for the poor, those without justice, the marginalised etc is really not as obvious as it may seem.

All these things and more are surely true. But equally many of this things are related to modern life. We’re used to things ‘on demand’, with ‘instant satisfaction’, with surface explanations that have just more details underneath. We’re used to the sum total of surface knowledge being vastly more than anyone can ever know in detail, and assuming that specialists will together do the hard lifting and give us a bite sized summary in 280 characters, or a 2 minute TV news story. The world is as it is mainly because of the choices us as individuals make, and it’s easy to find external scapegoats for that.

If you look at what really happens in churches in my experience, the VAST majority of priests have dedicated their lives to service of god and service of people. Many carry on working until they are simply no longer able, past their 80s. There are all kinds if spiritual ‘activities’, right from esoteric contemplation to exoteric praise. There is charity, so much work going on that it’s like a major state fully dedicated to helping those in need, the biggest charity organisation in the world by far.

Yes there are problems from time to time, and yes they don’t move with the spirit of the age. But maybe it’s the spirit of the age which is the problem. Consumer choice on steroids, overflowing to the extent we think its healthy to chose our own reality to suit us, swap our partner for one that suits our needs, make our god to suit our needs, even make ourselves as god. We have better standards of living than ever, better standards if health than ever, gadgets that would have seemed like magic yesterday, but are we actually any more content, any happier for all that?

[Simon Adams]

I don't think the word terror is what i would use. As you said, sheer awe. Indeed, David expresses things differently when he writes:.
"Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous; and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart".
It should also be noted that Isaiah also writes: "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you". And this sounds more like the "feminine aspect", as it were, of God. Jung's Sophia and Neumann's Shekhinah
(Of course there is always the yddish saying "Man plans and God laughs"....)

Yes I agree terror is not the right word by itself, but add ‘unimaginable’ to ‘awe’ and we don’t really have a word to use. I’m certainly not trying to deny the more ‘feminine’ aspect, but equally you can’t separate any one aspect. It’s all together as one.