Against Atheism – second addendum

The argument from Reconcilable Concepts

The brief argument that follows is an Addendum to the larger argument Against Atheism (a rhetorical experiment) mounted on this blog in recent days.  Having set out the main argument (here), several attendant arguments are necessary in order to complete this experimental refutation of Atheism. This Second Addendum to the main argument suggests that agnosticism should be considered because some notions of God may be reconcilable with other concepts, or at least reconcilable to the extent that we cannot be certain there is no overlap in meaning.

To this point the argument against atheism that has been mounted could fairly be accused of being grounded in negation and even obfuscation.  The main tenet of the argument thus far is that there is a range of beliefs about what is true in the world that cannot be verified by observation.  People tend to make definite claims about what is true of this unobservable part of the cosmos.  Some claim it is filled with God.  Others argue there is definitely no god.  It has been put that agnosticism – uncertainty – is the most easily defended position regarding what is not decidedly known.

This positive point of argument for agnosticism is grounded in the idea  that what is meant in some instances by ‘God’ is something that is isomorphic with – can be mapped onto – concepts that exist in a Secular cosmos. 

For those sceptical about this idea, the best way to proceed is with an example. At the other end of the scale from the Biblical gods of yore listed earlier are ideas of God I find less implausible.  The Jain faith, best known for its stipulations regarding non-violence even towards insects, has also produced a complex and engaging epistemology based on a set of seven modes of apprehension for the cosmos.  From my limited comprehension of Jaina texts and associated writings God is a deity in whom all seven modes of apprehension coincide.  God is omniscient, then, as is the Christian and Jewish god Jehovah.

The Jaina deity did not create the Cosmos.  The role of this deity is to reveal the cosmos via (or as) intelligence.

Although this conception of God has been raised in contrast with a Christian God, rational philosophers such as Spinoza and Liebniz took a view similar in some ways: for both the mortal world is apprehended because God allows elements of the world to feature in mortal minds.

The Jaina deity appeals because it is an omniscient deity without the problematic role of Creator.  If the deity is the source of objective perspective because its point of view is infinite, then it can be seen (probably in an inadvertently reductive way) as the sum of perspective – the totality of intersubjective intelligence.

In a culture steeped in Individualist tradition, it may be anathema to concede the notion of an individual mind in order to construct a conception of a god.  But tradition aside, this is not a difficult shift to make in abstraction.  Consider all sentient life in the cosmos.  A part of this we can be certain exists – the sentients on this planet.  Depending on prediliction it may be assumed there is much more sentient life in existence than us, here, now.  The totality of sentience in the cosmos constitutes a being of substantial thinking capacity, if thought about this way.

In the ordinary course of things, Western minds think of themselves in isolation, and see other minds the same way.  But for the sake of thought experiment, the shift can be made to considering all sentience in the cosmos in concert – as a generalised thing .  No change is required in the materials or structure of the universe in order that this transition be made.  Only a change in point of view with regards the totality of intelligence in the cosmos.  Seen as a single object, or a force, or a phenomenon – it doesn’t matter which – intelligence is something amalgamated, a gestalt.  This does not resolve the question as to whether what we can imagine in this way is anything like a deity that may or may not exist.  But this question does not need to be resolved to be thought about.

Oddly enough Richard Dawkins is a major proponent of this sort of abstracted view of intelligence.  In much the same way that biological life can be seen as a kind of rash on the surface of a planet, intelligence can be seen as an abstraction.  For Dawkins the representation of intelligence is as a kind of bacteria or fungus, but then Dawkins is a reductive bastard determined to suck every last bit of mystique from the universe.  Intelligence can be seen in an atomic way as ‘memes’, which are a kind of concept particle. Intelligence is limited to particular planets where sentient life evolves.  Then at a certain point in the life-cycle of the planet, memes may blossom and stream away from the planet into space.

Analogy is used widely in this sort of reductive thinking.  The same sort of thinking can be used to cobble together a kind of poor man’s conception of an omniscient (though not necessarily omnipotent) deity.  It isn’t wrong to say that human beings are colonies of trillions of cells, bacteria etc. Not is it wrong to claim that a human being is an integrated whole.  Extrapolating from this model we can say that one mind constitutes a being, and that it does no violence to this idea to assert that all minds constitute a being or entity of another kind.

In order to refute the idea that there is a possible overlap between the Jaina conception of an omniscient deity and an abstract concept of cosmic gestalt mind, it seems to me, the atheist has to go to some extraordinary Lengths.  No, she will have to argue, it is not valid to take the cognitive step from looking at individual minds to looking at minds collectively throughout the cosmos.  Or no, this posited entity comprising all intelligence is still nothing like what might be meant by those who (properly understand) and subscribe to the Jain faith.

 What is proposed here is not the acceptance of any new deity, only the attempt to see some overlap in meaning between concepts from distinct cultures and traditions of thought.  In any case, this is encouragement to speculate without any intention of deciding whether or not we can imagine a deity found in (to someone from the English-speaking world) an exotic scripture.  The question does not have to be decided.  If it is conceded the question can legitimately be raised, then the agnostic’s position is advanced together with the argument against atheism.  A kind of doubt will have been raised, although not necessarily the ordinary kind of doubt.

It might be asked why anyone should want to muddy the clear waters of their understanding about deities in the cosmos by engaging in this sort of abstract speculation.  From my point of view the thoughts presented here as an argument against atheism are the result of subjecting an absolute atheism (my own) to critique and doubt.  The result is the uncertainty in evidence.  This project seems to me a worthwhile and entertaining one in and of itself.  It promises to further understanding of the paired questions ‘what’s true?’ and ‘What can we know about it?’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *