You say God I say Tomato

I am pleased that my rambling discussion about theology received a few responses. I have decided to continue the discussion by posting and then replying to two of the blog comments I received.

However, before I do that I should probably use this post to do a little update. This Friday is to be my last day with my current employer. Starting on January 2nd I will be working for Simutronics Corporation on their 'Hero Engine'. This wasn't a simple life decision to make and I took into account many factors. I really enjoy my current position and love the people I work with. The reasons for leaving were a bit more abstract. Here in Saint Louis the major highway that goes from the suburbs into downtown is going to be shut down completely for two years and be disrupted starting this spring. My employer lets me work from home a couple of days a week but, still, I often have to commute. I dislike the commute intensly and I don't like being so far away from home. If I want to attend a meeting or go do something with my kids after school I need to do a lot of scheduling to make it happen and guess at traffic volumes. My commute can be as short at 38 minutes one way if there is no traffic and I speed the whole way. If it is in normal traffic then the same commute takes between an hour to an hour and fifteen minutes. Multiply that times two and you are looking at as much as two and a half hours a day just to go into the office and back. Once the highway construction begins it will be virtually gridlock.

It's not just me, everyone is thinking about this. It is as if the city is going to fracture in two. People will try to work in the suburbs or move to the city. There is one other major artery north of the city but the general assumption is that it will be in constant gridlock due to the overflow from the other highway being closed.

One of the other perks I will have at my new job is a private office. Currently I work in an 'open office' plan which is how many companies operate today. I'm sorry, I just don't get it. How can a software engineer concentrate and 'get into a zone' with all of the distractions going on around them? Sure, you can wear headphones all day long but it isn't the same thing. At Simutronics I will have a private office where I can hang my games, awards, and even the standup cut-out from Planetside. I will be able to stock bookshelves with my entire collection of computer books, something I have really missed having these past three years.

Simutronics has a couple of new contracts and a lot of work. I am friends with everyone in the company and some of those friends go back for over fifteen years. I last worked for Simutronics seven years ago. About ten years ago after I left Electronic Arts I started with Simutronics and worked on 'Cyberstrike 2' which was published by 989 Studios. After that I worked on a game engine prototype that used some neat technology. I left Simutronics to go to work for Sony Online Entertainment and started up the Saint Louis office where we had nearly 30 people at one time. After Planetside was finished, and it was announced the Saint Louis office was going to be closed, I went to work for Ageia where I contributed technology for their physics middleware. It has been great and exciting work. Once again I had the good fortune of working with some unbelievably brilliant engineers doing some very exciting technology.

I have been working with this technology long enough that I am really itching to actually put it in a game engine. I want to go beyond just cool demos and start making really cool effects in games. At my new position I will have the opportunity to do this and more. I am still maintaining a professional relationship with my previous employer and hope to continue the great friendships I have forged with Adam, Pierre, Mathias, Simon, Dilip, Richard, and others.

Now, in response to the blog comments I received.

Someone going by the handle of “BeagleFury wrote”

The Freemasonry "belief in god" does not seem completely logical or rational to me. Are you saying that if I believe in a god defined by murder, lying, greed, cheating, and otherwise "bad stuff" (I.E, I believe in the old testament god ;-) -- "all this christ stuff is for the sissies" kind of theist), that I would qualify for freemasonry, but if I were an atheist who believed in the inherent good that every human has, and other than my belief in the divine, was very "Christ"-like in my life, I would not qualify to become a freemason? Makes one go "hmmm..".

I agree, it would make you go ‘hmmm..’. That is why I was trying to make the point that we all believe in something. Most self-professed atheists; after they finish telling you all of the Gods they do not believe in, will gladly tell you what they do believe. They generally believe that a Universe exists, that the Universe is responsible for all of creation, and that this Universe is ordered by a beautiful set of principles and rules that are deeply rooted in mathematics. They almost all believe in evolution, DNA, and human consciousness. These atheists are often driven to pursue knowledge of creation through the scientific method and their own personal experiences with reality.

They believe in something larger than themselves that created the heavens and the earth, all living things, and ultimately our society and culture. This Universe not only evolves physically but also from the standpoint of information as it is transmitted through DNA and, ultimately, through human consciousness facilitated by our language and technology.

Now, I can get most atheists to admit that they ‘believe’ in all of these things, just as I do. The only difference is that I choose to refer to these beliefs as ‘God’ and they refuse to do so. The reason they refuse to do so is because they have made a significant investment in the various definitions of God that they are accustomed to attack as a form of personal entertainment.

Holding a pantheistic view of God is not a new concept or ‘redefining’ the word. It is a view that is held by a number of world religions and numerous branches of philosophy (neoplatonic thought fitting the most nicely.)

”I'm also not certain I could just redefine a word in order to justify making an statement and oath. For example, if I define "Bed" and "Sleeping" as being "Chair", and "Typing on a computer", and then promise you that "I am sleeping in my bed" as I write this post, there seems to be the sense of dishonesty -- to me.”

Yes, but bed, chair, sleeping, these words are fairly concrete. God, on the other hand, has many different definitions from person to person. If the definition of God is to be ‘the creator of all things’ and you happen to believe that the Universe is the creator of all things, then you have no redefined anything. Calling the Universe God is a completely acceptable form to use. Robert Anton Wilson referred to it as ‘natures God’.

”By a similar argument, I don't think you can really redefine what it means to be a god, and then state you are a theist, because you believe in the term you've just defined as being a god”.

I think you can. As do billions of people on the planet. Each person decides what the word ‘God’ means to them at a personal level. You must remember that every person is an atheist; for we all refuse to believe in someone else’s God. To be an atheist is to state what you do not believe about the origin of the Universe and, in contrast, to be a theist is simply to state what you do believe about creation.

“However, to give you some benefit of doubt, if you in fact think that the universe has all the qualities necessary of a god, then I suppose you can say you are a theist. I too believe in the universe and all the wonderful complexity it creates, but I do not believe in a god.”

Once again we return to a matter of semantics. Apparently you don’t believe in ‘a God’ but you do believe in *my* God.

“Stating that the universe is a 'clockwork' machine is understating the way the universe works by several billion orders of magnitude, and doesn't factor in the ideas of emotion, sentience, and consciousness that we experience. We don't really understand consciousness and sentience in ourselves, so certainly, the universe could be sentient and conscious -- but this does not make it a god.”

My definition of God (Universe) makes certain assumptions about the fractal nature of reality and a makes reference to set theory. Since I believe the Universe is God and I acknowledge that I am, in fact, self-aware, conscious, rational, sentient, and a portion of the Universe then, by extension, this makes me a piece of ‘God’; as are all things, living, non-living, or otherwise. I do not believe that the fact that we are conscious beings within the Universe, compelled to understand creation, any sort of a coincidence. I view it from a very holistic point of view and believe we are touching upon something quite profound. You gain similar insight from studying Zen Buddhism.

Next Tom Accousti wrote:

First he quoted my comment where I said: "God was in agony listening to the infinite possibilities of creation within it before it burst forth into the Big Bang"

If you haven't done so, I strongly reccommend that you read Scott Adams' "God's Debris" - a fantastic take on this very concept.

John, I had a similar issue back when I thought about joining; I took my obligations with the Tao Teh Ching on the altar. In the course of discussions with several brothers (online and in person) one of them said sometihng like "You believe less in the Architect and more in the Architecture." That seemed rather fitting.”

Actually Tom, I took that little bit from a lengthier quote from the writings of Seth. The complete definition of God from Seth is as follows:

“Note: Seth uses the word "God" sparingly, usually he speaks of All That Is or the Primary Energy Gestalt.

If you prefer, you can call the supreme psychic gestalt God, but you should not attempt to objectify him.

What you call God is the sum of all consciousness, and yet the whole is more than the sum of Its parts.

He is not one individual, but an energy gestalt. He is a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever expanding consciousness, that creates simultaneous and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence and eternal validity.

Its energy is so unbelievable that is does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, fields and systems, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls.

Dimly remembered through what you would call history, there was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known. All That Is existed in a state of being, but without the means to find expression for Its being. All That Is had to learn this lesson, and could not be taught. From this agony, creativity was originally drawn, and its reflection is still seen. All That Is retains the memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus toward renewed creativity. Desire, wish and expectation, therefore, rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within the dreams of All That Is, potential beings had consciousness before any beginning as you know it.

In Its massive imagination, It understood that the cosmic multiplication of consciousness could not occur within that framework. Actuality was necessary if these probabilities were to be given birth. All That Is saw an infinity of probable, conscious individuals. These probable individual selves found themselves alive within a God's dream and they clamored to be released into actuality. All That Is yearned to release them and sought within itself for the means to do so.

Finally, with love and longing It let go of that portion of itself, and they were free.

The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.

All That Is loves all that It has created down to the least, for It realizes the dearness and uniqueness of each consciousness which has been wrest from such a state of agony. It is triumphant and joyful at each development taken by each consciousness, and It revels and takes joy in the slightest creative act of each of Its issues.

All individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is as It once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source... and yearn to give it actuality through their own creations.

Now in the same way do you give freedom to the personality fragments within your own dreams and for the same reason. And you create for the same reason, and within each of you is the memory of primal agony-- that urge to create and free all probable consciousness into actuality.

The connections between you and All That Is can never be severed, and Its awareness is so delicate and focused that its attention is indeed directed with a prime creator's love to each consciousness.

All That Is knows no other. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like Itself may exist. It is constantly searching.

All portions of All That Is are constantly changing. All That Is is constantly seeking to know Itself, for seeking itself is a creative activity and the core of all action.

You, as a consciousness, seek to know yourself and become aware of yourself as a distinct individual portion of All That Is. You automatically draw on the overall energy of All That Is, since your existence is dependent upon it.

The portion of All That Is that is aware of itself as you, that is focused within your existence, can be called upon for help when necessary. This portion of All That Is looks out for your interests and may be called upon in a personal manner. A psychic gestalt may seem impersonal to you, but its energy forms your person. “