Great presentation!

So well argued - Thanks Andrew.

Good rebuttal. I have found that God's Intensity is best explained/understood with/through the emotion of Nostalgia and its "bittersweetness" (see also: "Nostalgia and Spirituality" Biskas, et al. 2022). God's Morality is best explained/understood with/through what I have termed a "Win-Win Utilitarianism Infinite Games Mindset". I agree that the Nature of Whitehead's God is Goodness, but God's Nature is impersonal and therefore can seem to be lacking goodness on first or superficial inspection and interpretation.

Fascinating discussion. When speaking of the Bible, there are several different gods . Even within the Old Testament. Question we can ask ourselves is why God so often referred to as a warlord? Much of the Bible was written by tribalistic warlords of the biblical era. In that era, this masculine God held such an all-encompassing and prominent role in daily life, and was so incredibly violent, that none of us would want to live there. The only thing keeping one tribe from hacking the other into pieces was its ability to do so. As resources were often thin and access to calories or good lands scarce, trade was often held between rival clans or tribes of equal status, or where the cost of going to war might be too high. Otherwise, it was rape, pillage, plunder, and steal. Psalms 137:9 says, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Here we see the barbarism of killing the babies of the enemy born of a different tribe. The God of the Bible was created to fit their time in history and their world. For instance, Exodus 15:3 states, "The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name." The God of the Old Testament was hardly an ambassador for peace, love, or kindness. He embodied the characteristics of a tribal warlord. His moral dictates rarely extended beyond his insular tribe. This was not unique to the Jews alone. So for the rest of the world, it was not kindness but cruelty, not peace but slaughter, not compassion but intolerance, not equality but dominance. Most every tribe believed they were God's chosen and special people. The God of the Old Testament was a primal evolutionary reflection of a tribal world. During that time, many environmental pressures led to an intolerant, masculine God being "reflected back" to their cruel, harsh world. This God brought order out of fear, particularly among aggressive, testosterone-filled men desperate for limited resources, such as access to protein, good farming lands, and women. Starvation and premature death were commonplace. The “God” of the Bible is no exception to these environmental pressures. Submitting to the alpha male is an ancient evolutionary norm, even in the dominance hierarchies of our modern world. Follow him and only him, or there will be hell to pay. This is changing as our environments and access to resources change. As Jane Goodall observed, we are social primates living in dominance hierarchies, quite similar to the robust chimpanzee. In chimps, dominant and powerful alpha males manage lesser males, who assist in keeping the peace because they fear the violent cost of challenging the alpha's position. In Numbers 16, God killed about 15,000 men, women, and children for simply complaining about the 300 God killed the day earlier. When tallying up the numbers, estimates are that God killed about 30 million people in the Bible. Furthermore, the reference to God as the "Lord of hosts" over 261 times essentially translates into the "God of war" or the "God of armies." Now, of course, I have focused here on a very narrow window of the nature and character of the Old Testament God. I have not touched on the metaphorical nature of many stories presented, nor on the moral and ethical ideas they are trying to convey about the nature of existence and the consequences of behavior, both individually and collectively

@IIIJT

11 ай бұрын

Caveat: In the Gospel of Luke, the phrase "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34) illustrates a vision of God that aligns with a more evolved and transcendent understanding presented in this lecture. This depiction of the Christian God does not necessitate one to explicitly profess His name, comprehend His will, or even advocate on His behalf. The underlying theme in this passage from Luke appears to be one of unearned forgiveness and irrational compassion, philosophically speaking.

@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm

10 ай бұрын

I fail to see how this long commentary on the biblical portrayals of God connects to my presentation...

@IIIJT

10 ай бұрын

@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm My apologies! Upon we listening and hearing you out for another half hour, I realize I might've been a tad hasty. While Whitehead wasn't exactly a Christian in the traditional sense, it's clear that his theological perspective was tinted with shades of Christian mysticism from his surroundings. Admittedly, I thought I heard a bit too much of a Christian undertone in your talk and approached it with my own set of biases. And just between us, as I was relaxed on my back porch with a fine cigar and half a bottle of Pinot Noir executed, it looks like I got on a soapbox tangent. Egg on my face 🤦🏽‍♂️ as I listened more so with intent to reply instead of understand. Apologies for the bloviated biblical rant.

@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm

10 ай бұрын

Not a problem, my friend. @@IIIJT

@IIIJT

10 ай бұрын

​@@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm Having listened to your lecture for the second time, I've been deeply pondering its contents over the past month. I hope my question comes across clearly. This evening, I'm enjoying the company of good friends and stimulating conversation, accompanied by a fine glass of wine and an old Scottish handmade pipe filled with Lazy Edna. Alfred North Whihead's process philosophy, God is conceptualized as the 'dipolar deity,' having both a primordial nature and a consequent nature, where God's primordial nature provides the initial aims to actual occasions and God's consequent nature is influenced by and grows with the evolving universe. Given this framework, compare and contrast Whitehead's dynamic God with the contemporary metaphysical speculations that humanity might be living in a type of AI-driven simulation or 'Matrix.' How do both viewpoints address the interplay of determinism and free will, the evolution of consciousness, and the potential implications for human understanding of meaning and purpose?