Classical theism most definitely holds that God is being itself. (This is not some new insight that Paul Tillich hashed out. This is textbook Aquinas.) But God as necessary (as opposed to contingent) is also a being. It is true that God is not a being among other beings, but this is only true in the sense that God is not a contingent being among other contingent beings. However, God is a necessary being (and therefore being itself) upon which all contingent beings participate in and depend upon for their existence. "God is the only being whose essence is existence itself." - St. Thomas Aquinas
Very interesting discussion. I would agree that we live in an unfinished universe that is evolving towards an ever greater expression of God. However, I think there has to be the source that comes down the mountain as well. You could call it perennialism or you could call it incarnation, or perhaps involution. It is not a matter of a return to an undifferentiated, primordial state, but a return to God after a process of differentiation. God as that inexhaustible depth of being is infinite and not bound by time or space, which would suggest that God transcends time and is available to us now as well as in the future that has not yet come. It’s not so much a case of either Alpha or Omega, but both Alpha and Omega. Maybe all we need to do is tune in and awaken to greater love.
- This is a load of B.S. The relationship of the conscious human mind and what is going on inside a star 100 light years away is null, nothing, void. This guy is yet another example of human hubris that stands in the way of progress in understanding the nature of the universe. Haught is no better than Deepak Chopra in his mangling of logic and the English language. His explanation of None Overlapping Magisteria from Steven Gould is an embarrassment, to say the least. Robert Wright is one of my heroes, I have read his books and taken his class but this is beneath him. Far below.
RW is by far the public intellectual least likely to pander to folk sharing his beliefs. He's been interviewing and/or debating people whose beliefs are profoundly different from his own--and doing it minus vitriol or unnecessary aggression--for at least a decade now. If you've read his books, you know how he thinks about most things; I don't need to tell a fellow RW fan that JH says plenty in this interview that RW is surely, at best, very sceptical of. You'll already know that. To me, the issue that seems to trouble people is some idea that RW used to push-back harder against ideas he didn't agree with, whereas now, he's lost his teeth, metaphorically speaking. I can't help but notice how much calmer and at peace he seems, compared to video footage of him from years ago. (There was 1 interview with Sam Harris a few years back, where RW seemed particularly unsettled.) I'm pretty firmly in favour of the "new" RW; less "scrappy" (someone's Tweet from a couple of days ago) and more centred, reflexive, and hopefully, personally content. I would hate to think I ever got so caught up in the fight, in watching one of my heroes stick it to someone I disagreed with, that I'd want them to do so at the expense of their psychological health/overall well-being, if that makes sense.
@@amandasheard4000 - Thanks for the reply, Amanda. I pretty much agree with you but it's painful to see someone whose opinion I value and think I understand sit by while absolute nonsense is spouted. It makes him seem complicit.
@@ZekeTheElder: I know those feels; sometimes, I look at Bob's face when he's interviewing people, and I see him trying to maintain civility and not just go, "WTF? Did you even use your brainmeats, at all, coming up with that?" And what he actually says is, "...uh, yeah? So how does that tie in with what you said a minute ago, about x....?" But he says it so straight, no mockery at all, like he really believes whomever he's interviewing will dig themselves out of whichever hole they've put themselves in. Occasionally, his guests actually *do* turn it around at that point, and give a better explanation of what they meant--you'd NEVER see most mainstream interviewers nowadays giving guests enough time to talk through what they meant, vs what slipped out during the stress of the interview. Even when Bob's careful, non-judgmental approach leads to folk spouting nonsense and making him raise his eyebrows every 2 minutes, I think the gains are greater than the losses. (I try to remember that, when his more right-wing guests come on, and I'm grinding my teeth in frustration, and Bob's still being gentle and helping them expand their points.... I find it more difficult then, personally.)
Hi James, I am not sure what exactly you have a problem with. I don't think Haught ever said what we are thinking relates to interstellar events. Unlike Chopra, he condemns pseudoscience and back-gate fundamentalism like ID. Chopra thinks your conscious mind is capable of contradicting the laws of nature; but Haught does not. He looks at consciousness in a more Whiteheadian frame as a part of nature. Indeed, Whitehead didn't think there was anything too special about consciousness except it is a rarified example of subjective experience. Furthermore, if anything, Haught is approaching the universe with utmost humility, confessing we simply are not at a vantage point to fully understand the unfolding drama of the universe, of which we may or may not play a continuing role depending on we collectively choose to employ the technology we are developing. Hardly hubris as I see it. His layered explanations example comes from Polkinghorne, not Gould. Indeed, in his book, Science and Faith: A New Introduction, he places Gould's perspective in the Contrast category of science-faith relationships and his own in Convergence (the third category he illustrates is Contrast, populated by thinkers such as Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne). So he is not trying to emulate Gould at all. He is not trying to separate the realms of science and faith like Gould but to integrate them. I have been studying Haught (not necessarily following) for about 4 years now and his is an extremely nuanced position and a complex thesis which easily lends to misunderstanding at just a cursory look. I just wanted to point out some assumptions of yours that seem to be in error. I would challenge you to find anything in Haught's position that is contradicted by accepted scientific evidence. Precisely, and this is important, I don't mean just unsupported, I mean outright contradicted. He is not standing in the way of scientific progress in the slightest. Many of his assumptions and arguments are not necessarily supported by science (or negated) but they can't be because they are non-empirical. This may be what the real issue is for you, that his _interpretation_ of our scientific body of knowledge into a post-Thomistic theology is at odds with other, purely naturalistic, interpretations. But whose to say who is right when both rest upon the exact same data? We are all entitled to our own interpretations, just not our own facts. I personally am willing to entertain all possibilities that are scientifically consistent. The Universe will continue doing what the Universe does despite what you, me or John Haught thinks of it. I certainly don't have THE ultimate answers and I suspect you don't either.
Classical theism most definitely holds that God is being itself. (This is not some new insight that Paul Tillich hashed out. This is textbook Aquinas.) But God as necessary (as opposed to contingent) is also a being. It is true that God is not a being among other beings, but this is only true in the sense that God is not a contingent being among other contingent beings. However, God is a necessary being (and therefore being itself) upon which all contingent beings participate in and depend upon for their existence.
"God is the only being whose essence is existence itself." - St. Thomas Aquinas
Very interesting discussion. I would agree that we live in an unfinished universe that is evolving towards an ever greater expression of God. However, I think there has to be the source that comes down the mountain as well. You could call it perennialism or you could call it incarnation, or perhaps involution. It is not a matter of a return to an undifferentiated, primordial state, but a return to God after a process of differentiation. God as that inexhaustible depth of being is infinite and not bound by time or space, which would suggest that God transcends time and is available to us now as well as in the future that has not yet come. It’s not so much a case of either Alpha or Omega, but both Alpha and Omega. Maybe all we need to do is tune in and awaken to greater love.
- This is a load of B.S.
The relationship of the conscious human mind and what is going on inside a star 100 light years away is null, nothing, void.
This guy is yet another example of human hubris that stands in the way of progress in understanding the nature of the universe. Haught is no better than Deepak Chopra in his mangling of logic and the English language. His explanation of None Overlapping Magisteria from Steven Gould is an embarrassment, to say the least.
Robert Wright is one of my heroes, I have read his books and taken his class but this is beneath him. Far below.
James Brown
So what are your specific objections?
RW is by far the public intellectual least likely to pander to folk sharing his beliefs. He's been interviewing and/or debating people whose beliefs are profoundly different from his own--and doing it minus vitriol or unnecessary aggression--for at least a decade now.
If you've read his books, you know how he thinks about most things; I don't need to tell a fellow RW fan that JH says plenty in this interview that RW is surely, at best, very sceptical of. You'll already know that. To me, the issue that seems to trouble people is some idea that RW used to push-back harder against ideas he didn't agree with, whereas now, he's lost his teeth, metaphorically speaking.
I can't help but notice how much calmer and at peace he seems, compared to video footage of him from years ago. (There was 1 interview with Sam Harris a few years back, where RW seemed particularly unsettled.) I'm pretty firmly in favour of the "new" RW; less "scrappy" (someone's Tweet from a couple of days ago) and more centred, reflexive, and hopefully, personally content.
I would hate to think I ever got so caught up in the fight, in watching one of my heroes stick it to someone I disagreed with, that I'd want them to do so at the expense of their psychological health/overall well-being, if that makes sense.
@@amandasheard4000 - Thanks for the reply, Amanda. I pretty much agree with you but it's painful to see someone whose opinion I value and think I understand sit by while absolute nonsense is spouted. It makes him seem complicit.
@@ZekeTheElder: I know those feels; sometimes, I look at Bob's face when he's interviewing people, and I see him trying to maintain civility and not just go, "WTF? Did you even use your brainmeats, at all, coming up with that?"
And what he actually says is, "...uh, yeah? So how does that tie in with what you said a minute ago, about x....?" But he says it so straight, no mockery at all, like he really believes whomever he's interviewing will dig themselves out of whichever hole they've put themselves in. Occasionally, his guests actually *do* turn it around at that point, and give a better explanation of what they meant--you'd NEVER see most mainstream interviewers nowadays giving guests enough time to talk through what they meant, vs what slipped out during the stress of the interview.
Even when Bob's careful, non-judgmental approach leads to folk spouting nonsense and making him raise his eyebrows every 2 minutes, I think the gains are greater than the losses. (I try to remember that, when his more right-wing guests come on, and I'm grinding my teeth in frustration, and Bob's still being gentle and helping them expand their points.... I find it more difficult then, personally.)
Hi James, I am not sure what exactly you have a problem with. I don't think Haught ever said what we are thinking relates to interstellar events. Unlike Chopra, he condemns pseudoscience and back-gate fundamentalism like ID. Chopra thinks your conscious mind is capable of contradicting the laws of nature; but Haught does not. He looks at consciousness in a more Whiteheadian frame as a part of nature. Indeed, Whitehead didn't think there was anything too special about consciousness except it is a rarified example of subjective experience. Furthermore, if anything, Haught is approaching the universe with utmost humility, confessing we simply are not at a vantage point to fully understand the unfolding drama of the universe, of which we may or may not play a continuing role depending on we collectively choose to employ the technology we are developing. Hardly hubris as I see it. His layered explanations example comes from Polkinghorne, not Gould. Indeed, in his book, Science and Faith: A New Introduction, he places Gould's perspective in the Contrast category of science-faith relationships and his own in Convergence (the third category he illustrates is Contrast, populated by thinkers such as Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne). So he is not trying to emulate Gould at all. He is not trying to separate the realms of science and faith like Gould but to integrate them.
I have been studying Haught (not necessarily following) for about 4 years now and his is an extremely nuanced position and a complex thesis which easily lends to misunderstanding at just a cursory look. I just wanted to point out some assumptions of yours that seem to be in error. I would challenge you to find anything in Haught's position that is contradicted by accepted scientific evidence. Precisely, and this is important, I don't mean just unsupported, I mean outright contradicted. He is not standing in the way of scientific progress in the slightest. Many of his assumptions and arguments are not necessarily supported by science (or negated) but they can't be because they are non-empirical. This may be what the real issue is for you, that his _interpretation_ of our scientific body of knowledge into a post-Thomistic theology is at odds with other, purely naturalistic, interpretations. But whose to say who is right when both rest upon the exact same data? We are all entitled to our own interpretations, just not our own facts. I personally am willing to entertain all possibilities that are scientifically consistent. The Universe will continue doing what the Universe does despite what you, me or John Haught thinks of it. I certainly don't have THE ultimate answers and I suspect you don't either.