Spirituality, Religion, Nature

 

 

 

A View of Humanity, the Earth, the Universe, and God,

 

As they are

 

 

After all we said above under the title “Religion and Spirituality”—that the concept of God of the main religions and as  he is believed by most people, is a God born of ignorance—we should consider now some scientific facts that might convince us that a new interpretation of God, humanity and the universe is a must. Religious people and theologians should have been motivated long ago to make that change in the traditional God and religion, but it seems that blindness is more frequent that expected, and that religious tradition is stronger than physical evidence.

 

We have come now to the core of this web page, Spirituality, Religion, Nature. I’ll try to present to people interested in a change in religion and to those who have lost their interest in religion, the evidence that keeping religious traditions and the traditional interpretation of the God of theism is a mistake.

 

I’ll start with a view of Nature in a dimension well known since the Middle Ages by philosophers and theologians, but that has been unable to motivate them for a change, much less the leaders of institutional religions. Spirituality, religion, and nature, are intimately entwined, and we cannot change the view of one of them without changing the view of the others.

 

We will discuss the following topics:

 

-      A Comprehensive Interpretation of Nature

-      The interventionist and Supernatural God

-      Repercussion of the Scientific Revolution

-      Nature, Meta-physics, Metaphysics

-      Spinoza’s God and Philosophy

-      Conclusion: Change

-      Hymn of Nature

 

 

 

A Comprehensive Interpretation of Nature

 

 

We all have a kind of instinctive notion of what nature means; however, when we come to study this concept we realize that it is very complex. Perhaps we do not come to a unanimous interpretation of what nature is and means, but at least we may signal some interpretation that might guide our study. I haven’t found a philosopher or author in whose view and philosophy I completely agree; I found however an interpretation of nature very close to mine, and I may use it as the starting point. This is Dr. Simon L. Altmann’s book “Is Nature Supernatural?” [1]

 

Are Physics and Metaphysics two Different and Separate Worlds? Yes, they are; physics and metaphysics are different fields of investigation, knowledge, and experimentation. However, there is a point at which physics is forced to resort to metaphysics for answers; a “point” at which matter requires a non-material source, [2] or force, or intelligence, since matter is unable to progress and answer aroused questions. That is the point at which physics “touches” the metaphysical, when physics converges with metaphysics asking for the principle of its own existence. Some atheists and physicists deny this proposition.

 

I am going to pick up one of the main ideas of Dr Altmann’s book [3] that can be useful for the purpose of this web page; this idea may give us some light, and clarify this concept of nature that we try to develop here. As a scientist, Dr. Altmann doesn’t have too much to say about metaphysics (science deals with physics, not metaphysics), and nature refers mostly to physical objects; however, as a physicist, he takes a glance into the metaphysical, when the physical subject he is dealing with is unable to provide a full explanation.

 

Comprehensive View of Nature. Dr. Altmann sees nature in a comprehensive way; it is not just what we usually call nature—the physical world—but something more inclusive and universal. To explain his view he presents nature under a triplex perspective:

 

nature 1

nature 2

nature 3

 

It is important that the reader understands well this triplex perspective, since we are going to use this terminology later.

 

Meaning of Nature. According to his view (literally quoted here from his book), nature 1 is something that we do not see; it is the “thing-in-itself,” or noumenon of Kant; it is the noumenal, phenomenally inaccessible nature. He says that what we normally call “nature” is a map of nature 1; call it nature 2 or plain nature, the result of our commerce with nature 1 through the tinted glasses of our perceptual and rational systems.

 

Laws of Nature and nature 3. For Dr. Altmann, there is not such a thing as laws of nature1 because we do not have access to it at all. If we want to talk about laws of nature at all, the nature that we mean is a different one, nature 3, a mapping of nature 1 at second remove, in which most of the objects of nature 2 are replaced by models, because it is only for such models that laws of any kind can be enunciated.

 

So (in my words), nature 2 and nature 3, are mappings of nature 1, first and second remove respectively; they are like manifestations or expressions of one substance: nature 1; and nature 1 is mapped, “copied” or stamped, and observable in nature 2 and nature 3. All three are one reality: nature.

 

Purpose. Is there a purpose in nature? In the line of thinking that I am following—Dr. Altmann says,— we may talk of purpose in cases as when one moves his/her hand to pick up a bottle in order to feed a baby; but, what about the meaning of the universe? That meaning and purpose require a point of reference, and you cannot  point a reference for the whole world, unless you posit something external to it, which is for many people the God they believe in. Science, however, is here out of province; and a scientist qua scientist must necessarily say nothing at all about a transcendental meaning or purpose. [4] Up to here are quotes from Dr. Altmann.

 

We wonder now if we find spiritual meaning and value in nature; and, as meaning and purpose suppose a reference to something beyond the individual, how the concept of God fits in it.

 

 

 

Go to Content

 

HTM NATURE / COMPREHENSIVE        03-03-11

 


[1] Simon L. Altmann, Is Nature Supernatural? – A Philosophical Exploration of Science and Nature (New York: Prometheus Books, 2002).

[2] The concept of cause is applicable and meaningful only in a temporal universe.

 

[3] Simon L. Altmann, Is Nature Supernatural? – A Philosophical Exploration of Science and Nature (New York: Prometheus Books, 2002) 189, 575.

[4] Ibidem, 594-595.