First of all, yes I agree pragmatically the human must inescapably perceive of something that is certain of everything. The belief that certainty of everything exists and that someone somewhere possesses this certainty is I believe the psychological cause that makes perceiving "God" in whichever form inevitable to humans.
Your approach to proving what this God specifically is, is something I can heavily empathize with, although I still do not share the certainty in this God you preach and consider necessary.
Consider your argument:
"There exists an abstract mathematical substrate that has baked specific laws into reality. Laws that make our existence in the universe, or the existence of something very much like us, inevitable."
I do not think this is, frankly, enough. It's certainly perhaps compelling insofar that it builds upon human nature to notice patterns and extrapolate trends of cause and effect onto to the very fabric of reality to conclude reality too must have a cause. It does make a compelling conclusion that if math is real then infinity too must somehow somewhere be real.
But I think Hume answered this by pointing out that another perception humans have is that you CAN'T just blindly deduce from qualities of the parts of something the qualities of the whole of something. Hume articulated the fallacy of composition--that just because humans have a mother humanity need not have a mother--and this trend of doubting our human perceptions and our tendency of projecting what is locally true onto the whole universe really does make sustained belief in a meaningful "God" difficult.
How do we actually know that most other numbers being real in real life means infinity must actually really exist somewhere physically? What if infinity does exist in reality and it's just time? Is "time" mystical enough to call it "God" and be satisfied?
We must soberly confront the fact that what if human nature requires us to believe in God for us to be psychologically healthy, but despite all this belief in God is unfortunately not something our rationality alone is inclined to have us perceive as 100% certain? Maybe human nature in regards to God is just... incompatible. At odds with itself. Our primal intuitions that kept us alive on the savanna notice a basic pattern and scream one thing and our faculties for reason and skepticism scream back doubts. What if humans weren't made to have a psychologically sound worldview? What if evolution is a blind and dumb optimality function that is not required to make a creature whose own nature is compatible nor consistent with other parts of it's nature?
Tldr; I don't find myself particularly certain of the God you posit. And that's what you need: CERTAINTY. No passion without conviction, no conviction without certainty. I think if there is no standard for all beliefs and values that is absolutely certain, and justification for this perception of certainty has been provided, than God might have to be respected as an inevitable conclusion of PARTS of human nature, but other parts of our nature would have us remain in perpetual doubt. And some doubt is fine and inevitable, but the perception as inescapably certain must remain.
So I'll state that we agree that there is a psychological need among the majority population for God, and that without acknowledging a higher moral authority than Man, the state becomes impossible to hold to a moral standard. Thus functional civilizations require some concept of God as moral arbiter if nothing else.
Regarding the rationalist position on God: Infinity is an excellent example, but there are many others. Examples of mathematical objects that MUST exist for our mathematics to function, but also CANNOT exist within the confines of our physical universe. This is an appeal to Platonism as much as anything else. The idea that there is a codified "realm of forms" or "hardware substrate to the software of the universe" or underlying structure that defines reality. It doesn't necessarily need to be "physical" in the sense we understand physicality. With an infinite number of parallel universes.... infinity is still a specific type of number. The substrate structure must be the same. Even imagining a non-mathematical universe is impossible as there are no rules on which to ground it.
So the proposition is something we take for granted: that such an structure exists, and that its full scale cannot fit "inside" our universe. Though in this context 'in' and 'out' are arbitrary terms at best. I'll call it the "Standard Foundation" as the structures title for the sake of clarity.
Likewise it is self-evident that the structure contains objects/forms/concepts that are "real" but do not exist inside our universe, and which we have not yet discovered. We've discovered a LOT of mathematical forms, but it seems very likely that it contains other forms in addition to mere mathematics. Moral forms? Forms for which we don't even have a name? No idea. All we can base this on is what we've already identified/discovered.
Not even time is "infinite" in our universe as all our models have time ending either when it's impossible to measure or in a big rip or big crunch. There's a whole branch of physics dedicated to this end-of-the-universe stuff. Which always has an end-of-time component.
So rationally we can acknowledge that there is a Standard Foundation.
If there is purpose to the Standard Foundations creation of our universe specifically, we appear to have a fascinatingly valuable position in it. Based on thermodynamics it appears that we're an inevitability that will (through trial and tribulation) grow eventually to an incredible level of complexity.
Likewise, the standard foundation doesn't care for us in the same way as a father or brother would, but it "cares" about our position in its creation in the same sense that a home cares about a wooden beam in its foundation or a computer cares about a bit in its programming. Each of us serves a purpose (particularly tricky when it comes to free will, but I can debate that at another time).
There is a component of faith. We have to take on faith that there is purpose to existence at all. That is a dramatic step for those of a humanist/nihilist/atheist perspective. That act of faith of claiming blindly that "we exist to serve a purpose" is, I'll admit, the theological component of all this. We need faith, we need God as a civilization and species. I would argue that it is because God is an inevitable conclusion of much of human nature, we should take on faith that there is purpose.
The ultimate rationalist takes up the position that either there is not purpose to creation, and the theologian the position that there is purpose to creation. Neither has evidence to support the claim, and neither can truly justify making that claim.
One who refuses to take a position due to lack of evidence is caught in a position where both concepts must hold equal purchase/value in the mind. The spirit of that person must be balanced perfectly between the two conclusive positions. So my position, therefore, is that as God is needed for human society to function anyway, not-assuming-purpose is actively detrimental to the society one lives in as well as the self. If you're caught between a positive philosophical position and a negative philosophical position with no evidence to support either... why would a rational being choose the position that holds only negative consequences for the self and the body politic?
So a rational being should choose to believe that creation serves a purpose as not-doing-so is definitionally an irrational choice.
There's the counter-argument. (If we had written these letters back and forth 500 years ago philosophers and theologians would still be debating them today.)
Very interesting article. If you don't mind me asking, what is your faith? You mentioned you're a Non-Abrahamic Monotheist. Could you please elaborate if you want to?
While I see attending church a matter of public good. I consider the Abrahamic faiths to over-emphasize God as a personified and humanized entity. Similarly I think they are overly-reliant on scriptures as a sole instructor. I think that a more expansive view of God as Truth is more accurate where God is regarded as the structural foundation of reality. Figures like Jesus are necessary for people to have a dialogue with God because the "the infinite foundation of all Creation" is too big a concept for folks to wrap their heads around. So they need Jesus, Buddha, similar figures.
Realistically, I think modern Christianity has one of the best positions on the nature of God. So I call myself Christian and effectively am one. When I observer literature and history, however, I see the fingerprints of divinity not solely to be in the Bible, but to be ever-present. Gentle nudges towards a future we can only hope to guess at. The beetle eaten by a bird curses God, the well fed bird thanks God. Ultimately the existence of both plays a larger role in generating a future. The universe is on a quest for increased complexity and divinity, and we've only just started along that path.
If I were to point to a specific piece of literature to describe my beliefs, the best would be the book StarMaker, which I've reviewed here on my substack.
So to answer your question: A Post-Christian. Or Foundationalist. A Follower of the Creator, the Star-Maker.
First of all, yes I agree pragmatically the human must inescapably perceive of something that is certain of everything. The belief that certainty of everything exists and that someone somewhere possesses this certainty is I believe the psychological cause that makes perceiving "God" in whichever form inevitable to humans.
Your approach to proving what this God specifically is, is something I can heavily empathize with, although I still do not share the certainty in this God you preach and consider necessary.
Consider your argument:
"There exists an abstract mathematical substrate that has baked specific laws into reality. Laws that make our existence in the universe, or the existence of something very much like us, inevitable."
I do not think this is, frankly, enough. It's certainly perhaps compelling insofar that it builds upon human nature to notice patterns and extrapolate trends of cause and effect onto to the very fabric of reality to conclude reality too must have a cause. It does make a compelling conclusion that if math is real then infinity too must somehow somewhere be real.
But I think Hume answered this by pointing out that another perception humans have is that you CAN'T just blindly deduce from qualities of the parts of something the qualities of the whole of something. Hume articulated the fallacy of composition--that just because humans have a mother humanity need not have a mother--and this trend of doubting our human perceptions and our tendency of projecting what is locally true onto the whole universe really does make sustained belief in a meaningful "God" difficult.
How do we actually know that most other numbers being real in real life means infinity must actually really exist somewhere physically? What if infinity does exist in reality and it's just time? Is "time" mystical enough to call it "God" and be satisfied?
We must soberly confront the fact that what if human nature requires us to believe in God for us to be psychologically healthy, but despite all this belief in God is unfortunately not something our rationality alone is inclined to have us perceive as 100% certain? Maybe human nature in regards to God is just... incompatible. At odds with itself. Our primal intuitions that kept us alive on the savanna notice a basic pattern and scream one thing and our faculties for reason and skepticism scream back doubts. What if humans weren't made to have a psychologically sound worldview? What if evolution is a blind and dumb optimality function that is not required to make a creature whose own nature is compatible nor consistent with other parts of it's nature?
Tldr; I don't find myself particularly certain of the God you posit. And that's what you need: CERTAINTY. No passion without conviction, no conviction without certainty. I think if there is no standard for all beliefs and values that is absolutely certain, and justification for this perception of certainty has been provided, than God might have to be respected as an inevitable conclusion of PARTS of human nature, but other parts of our nature would have us remain in perpetual doubt. And some doubt is fine and inevitable, but the perception as inescapably certain must remain.
So I'll state that we agree that there is a psychological need among the majority population for God, and that without acknowledging a higher moral authority than Man, the state becomes impossible to hold to a moral standard. Thus functional civilizations require some concept of God as moral arbiter if nothing else.
Regarding the rationalist position on God: Infinity is an excellent example, but there are many others. Examples of mathematical objects that MUST exist for our mathematics to function, but also CANNOT exist within the confines of our physical universe. This is an appeal to Platonism as much as anything else. The idea that there is a codified "realm of forms" or "hardware substrate to the software of the universe" or underlying structure that defines reality. It doesn't necessarily need to be "physical" in the sense we understand physicality. With an infinite number of parallel universes.... infinity is still a specific type of number. The substrate structure must be the same. Even imagining a non-mathematical universe is impossible as there are no rules on which to ground it.
So the proposition is something we take for granted: that such an structure exists, and that its full scale cannot fit "inside" our universe. Though in this context 'in' and 'out' are arbitrary terms at best. I'll call it the "Standard Foundation" as the structures title for the sake of clarity.
Likewise it is self-evident that the structure contains objects/forms/concepts that are "real" but do not exist inside our universe, and which we have not yet discovered. We've discovered a LOT of mathematical forms, but it seems very likely that it contains other forms in addition to mere mathematics. Moral forms? Forms for which we don't even have a name? No idea. All we can base this on is what we've already identified/discovered.
Not even time is "infinite" in our universe as all our models have time ending either when it's impossible to measure or in a big rip or big crunch. There's a whole branch of physics dedicated to this end-of-the-universe stuff. Which always has an end-of-time component.
So rationally we can acknowledge that there is a Standard Foundation.
If there is purpose to the Standard Foundations creation of our universe specifically, we appear to have a fascinatingly valuable position in it. Based on thermodynamics it appears that we're an inevitability that will (through trial and tribulation) grow eventually to an incredible level of complexity.
Likewise, the standard foundation doesn't care for us in the same way as a father or brother would, but it "cares" about our position in its creation in the same sense that a home cares about a wooden beam in its foundation or a computer cares about a bit in its programming. Each of us serves a purpose (particularly tricky when it comes to free will, but I can debate that at another time).
There is a component of faith. We have to take on faith that there is purpose to existence at all. That is a dramatic step for those of a humanist/nihilist/atheist perspective. That act of faith of claiming blindly that "we exist to serve a purpose" is, I'll admit, the theological component of all this. We need faith, we need God as a civilization and species. I would argue that it is because God is an inevitable conclusion of much of human nature, we should take on faith that there is purpose.
The ultimate rationalist takes up the position that either there is not purpose to creation, and the theologian the position that there is purpose to creation. Neither has evidence to support the claim, and neither can truly justify making that claim.
One who refuses to take a position due to lack of evidence is caught in a position where both concepts must hold equal purchase/value in the mind. The spirit of that person must be balanced perfectly between the two conclusive positions. So my position, therefore, is that as God is needed for human society to function anyway, not-assuming-purpose is actively detrimental to the society one lives in as well as the self. If you're caught between a positive philosophical position and a negative philosophical position with no evidence to support either... why would a rational being choose the position that holds only negative consequences for the self and the body politic?
So a rational being should choose to believe that creation serves a purpose as not-doing-so is definitionally an irrational choice.
There's the counter-argument. (If we had written these letters back and forth 500 years ago philosophers and theologians would still be debating them today.)
Very interesting article. If you don't mind me asking, what is your faith? You mentioned you're a Non-Abrahamic Monotheist. Could you please elaborate if you want to?
While I see attending church a matter of public good. I consider the Abrahamic faiths to over-emphasize God as a personified and humanized entity. Similarly I think they are overly-reliant on scriptures as a sole instructor. I think that a more expansive view of God as Truth is more accurate where God is regarded as the structural foundation of reality. Figures like Jesus are necessary for people to have a dialogue with God because the "the infinite foundation of all Creation" is too big a concept for folks to wrap their heads around. So they need Jesus, Buddha, similar figures.
Realistically, I think modern Christianity has one of the best positions on the nature of God. So I call myself Christian and effectively am one. When I observer literature and history, however, I see the fingerprints of divinity not solely to be in the Bible, but to be ever-present. Gentle nudges towards a future we can only hope to guess at. The beetle eaten by a bird curses God, the well fed bird thanks God. Ultimately the existence of both plays a larger role in generating a future. The universe is on a quest for increased complexity and divinity, and we've only just started along that path.
If I were to point to a specific piece of literature to describe my beliefs, the best would be the book StarMaker, which I've reviewed here on my substack.
So to answer your question: A Post-Christian. Or Foundationalist. A Follower of the Creator, the Star-Maker.
Okay thank you. I'm a Catholic that attends a reverent Novus Ordo Mass and I love listening to Gregorian Chants. Peace
Based!
Star-maker is an awesomely good name for God. I will add that to my Sci-Fi lexicon if you don't mind.