What sort of reality did God create?

[Runner]

I've recently become enthusiastic about the ancient idea of Idealism. It would explain some pretty large Christian mysteries. Things like, "How did God create the universe ex nihilo (from nothing)" and "How does God hear the prayers of millions of people at the same time?" It also fits the doctrines that "God is spirit" and that God will one day usher in a new creation.

The basic views of reality are (1) materialism - matter is all that exists, there is no spiritual dimension, and consciousness (mind) is somehow a product of matter; (2) dualism - matter and consciousness are separate and distinct aspects of reality; and (3) idealism - consciousness (mind) is the fundamental stuff of reality.

Science operates on the basis of a materialistic (naturalistic) paradigm, and the majority of scientists are hardcore materialists. Ditto for most atheists (but not all - a significant percentage of atheists believe in life after death and a spiritual dimension).

I've been reading the works of Bernardo Kastrup, who is a philosopher and scientist and a strong proponent of idealism. He writes regularly for Scientific American, so he's not some loony. Here are two of his books:

• The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07PGQPV3R/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i4
• Science Ideated: The Fall Of Matter and the Contours of the Next Mainstream Scientific Worldview, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0985Z384W/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1

The first book is much easier to read. The second is heavy-duty, peer-reviewed science.

Kastrup insists idealism is the best fit with the scientific evidence. (He isn't a Christian by any means but is open to spiritual perspectives and writes often about them.)

His basic idea is that all of reality is a mental construct of the Supreme Mind, which we as Christians know as God. You may have heard the old saying "Our reality is God's dream" - that's pretty close to it. Because we're all within the same mental construct we call the universe, we collectively experience it the same way.

So far, so good. God literally created the universe "from nothing."

What about individuals like you and me? We're walled-off bubbles of consciousness within the large whole. Kastrup calls these "alters." We collectively experience the master reality but also have our private inner reality of sensory data, emotions and feelings.

I don't have access to your inner world, nor you to mine - but the Supreme Mind does, all the time, because it is the source of all. Ergo, God knows our thoughts and hears our prayers. In Christian terms, his Spirit indwells us.

This is all speculative, of course, but it would go a long way toward explaining how the relationship between us and God might "work." And it isn't only speculation - considerable science backs it up. Idealism goes back to the ancient Greeks. If you're really interested, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/.

Can I support all this with 14 Bible verses? Uh, no. So if that's your sole criterion, please move along.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There is an important element missing, and that is the moral aspect. Scientists are materialistic but that is in no way validated by science. Science cannot address morals although they are more important than science itself. It cannot address virtue nor evil nor can it even describe what material character information has. And information is the basis of all science and yet they cannot tell you materially what it is...and the material is all they have, being materialists. So they happen to be that because it is a peer required philosophy to have, not because it reflects their work. A fully materialistic scientist is rather a threat than a help to society. Anyway, back to your point.

The explanation or aid in believing God made the world we know as material is OK, if that aids you in believing. I prefer to think he spoke and that energy made the material world, which we know is actually energy. So that fits. But our reality being His dream seems to me to make our reality less valid. We are then only an illusion. That is a state of less real, not more.

The other point that does not fit is our reality is not of a kind that he wants. That is, we do evil. This is also a problem with the idea that he dwells in each of us. In some of us, He would not want to dwell. Some of us we do not even want to be in the same room with let alone being inside of them. Some of what is in some of us is so disgusting, we don't want to think about it. How can then a God who loves truth and love and right choices dwell in these filthy creatures? This is the element missing from the philosophy.

The world has a great deal of beauty and good. That we know moral good from moral evil shows us that God, superior to us, also does. So He is good and knows goodness and beauty. But some of us all the time and all of some of the time are not morally good. So we do not fit into his kind of being. This is the element missing in the view point.

What do you think?

 

[Mister E]

I've recently become enthusiastic about the ancient idea of Idealism. It would explain some pretty large Christian mysteries. Things like, "How did God create the universe ex nihilo (from nothing)" and "How does God hear the prayers of millions of people at the same time?" It also fits the doctrines that "God is spirit" and that God will one day usher in a new creation.

The basic views of reality are (1) materialism - matter is all that exists, there is no spiritual dimension, and consciousness (mind) is somehow a product of matter; (2) dualism - matter and consciousness are separate and distinct aspects of reality; and (3) idealism - consciousness (mind) is the fundamental stuff of reality.

I don't particularly like that three-pronged breakdown in that while it pins materialism pretty accurately, it doesn't do particular justice to dualism nor idealism. A dualist can be an idealist without abandonment. He can understand consciousness to be 'the fundamental stuff of reality' while at once recognizing the dual nature of consciousness itself.

If I was to make the following two statements-- are they materialistic, dualistic or idealistic?

“everything occurs in the soul as if there were no body”

“everything occurs in the body as if there were no soul”

You could argue that the former is idealist and the latter materialist, yet both recognize our dual nature.

Scripture highlights a dual nature of reality over and over referencing the concept of spirit versus flesh, or if you prefer our spiritual (true) nature as opposed to our physical (image-inary) nature. You can find this very concept throughout scripture from Creation - with man made in the image of God to the writings of Paul, and the prayer Jesus taught concerning God's will on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[Runner]

There is an important element missing, and that is the moral aspect. Scientists are materialistic but that is in no way validated by science. Science cannot address morals although they are more important than science itself. It cannot address virtue nor evil nor can it even describe what material character information has. And information is the basis of all science and yet they cannot tell you materially what it is...and the material is all they have, being materialists. So they happen to be that because it is a peer required philosophy to have, not because it reflects their work. A fully materialistic scientist is rather a threat than a help to society. Anyway, back to your point.

The explanation or aid in believing God made the world we know as material is OK, if that aids you in believing. I prefer to think he spoke and that energy made the material world, which we know is actually energy. So that fits. But our reality being His dream seems to me to make our reality less valid. We are then only an illusion. That is a state of less real, not more.

The other point that does not fit is our reality is not of a kind that he wants. That is, we do evil. This is also a problem with the idea that he dwells in each of us. In some of us, He would not want to dwell. Some of us we do not even want to be in the same room with let alone being inside of them. Some of what is in some of us is so disgusting, we don't want to think about it. How can then a God who loves truth and love and right choices dwell in these filthy creatures? This is the element missing from the philosophy.

The world has a great deal of beauty and good. That we know moral good from moral evil shows us that God, superior to us, also does. So He is good and knows goodness and beauty. But some of us all the time and all of some of the time are not morally good. So we do not fit into his kind of being. This is the element missing in the view point.

What do you think?

Again, thanks for the perseverance to wade through the original post, Dorothy Mae.

Because Kastrup isn't a Christian (he seems to lean toward Buddhism), his idealism isn't fully developed or concerned with the sort of things that would concern you or me.

I haven't really thought through all the implications either, to be honest. As you probably know, one popular Christian philosophical/theological explanation for the evil in the world is that this big mess is in fact the best of all possible worlds for accomplishing God's plan - not "the best of all possible worlds" in the abstract, but the best for accomplishing God's plan.

I could see all this being overlaid onto the idealism described in my original post without too much difficulty. Idealism would still leave room for our free will and our moral judgments and choices. I guess I would say that idealism simply explains the "mechanics" of the reality in which we find ourselves, but everything else flows pretty much the way mainstream Christianity posits.

My reference to the old saying "Our reality is God's dream" may have been a poor choice, since it does suggest God is somehow generating and responsible for everything. I don't know where that saying originated, but it probably isn't Christian and certainly isn't something Kastrup would say. I was just trying to give the general notion of idealism - i.e., that mind, not matter, is the fundamental "stuff" of reality.

Dreams, BTW, are utterly fascinating and another of my pet interests. I've always thought they were important clues to the nature of reality that most people just shrug off.

 

[Mister E]

Dreams, BTW, are utterly fascinating and another of my pet interests. I've always thought they were important clues to the nature of reality that most people just shrug off.

Mine also.

I think in the philosophical context that phrase you quote- “Our reality is God’s dream” can be examined— as a friend and mentor once asked me concerning dreams- ‘Have you ever thought (in terms of reality) that you aren’t having a dream, but your dreams are having you?’

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily..... Life.

 

[Runner]

I don't particularly like that three-pronged breakdown in that while it pins materialism pretty accurately, it doesn't do particular justice to dualism nor idealism. A dualist can be an idealist without abandonment. He can understand consciousness to be 'the fundamental stuff of reality' while at once recognizing the dual nature of consciousness itself.

Well, yes. I don't picture too many people here being interested in full-blown discussions of materialism, dualism and idealism even if I were capable of them. I often link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, both of which are excellent, but I've never had any indication anyone actually looks at them.

If I was to make the following two statements-- are they materialistic, dualistic or idealistic?

“everything occurs in the soul as if there were no body”

“everything occurs in the body as if there were no soul”

You could argue that the former is idealist and the latter materialist, yet both recognize our dual nature.

A true materialist isn't going to say "as if" there were no soul. He's going to say there is no soul. That's why hardcore materialists are forced to say consciousness is a byproduct of brain function. That's the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" - how does matter give rise to immaterial consciousness. Some materialists go so far as to say consciousness is an illusion.

Idealism and dualism would be difficult to distinguish in practice. The idealist notion isn't that our reality isn't fully real. We obviously perceive it as material and study it as though it were. The notion is just that it's a mental construct by the Supreme Mind.

I think that's why the Matrix movies were so popular. Many people have an intuitive sense there is something "unreal" about our reality. It's too bad the movies so quickly went down the Hollywood path of good guys versus bad guys and didn't explore the deeper implications.

Scripture highlights a dual nature of reality over and over referencing the concept of spirit versus flesh, or if you prefer our spiritual (true) nature as opposed to our physical (image-inary) nature. You can find this very concept throughout scripture from Creation - with man made in the image of God to the writings of Paul, and the prayer Jesus taught concerning God's will on earth as it is in heaven.

Oh, definitely - Scripture definitely describes reality and humans in dualistic terms. Even if idealism is the Ultimate Truth, things are dualistic from our perspective since we would never be able to perceive God's mental construct as anything other than physical.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Again, thanks for the perseverance to wade through the original post, Dorothy Mae.

Because Kastrup isn't a Christian (he seems to lean toward Buddhism), his idealism isn't fully developed or concerned with the sort of things that would concern you or me.

I haven't really thought through all the implications either, to be honest. As you probably know, one popular Christian philosophical/theological explanation for the evil in the world is that this big mess is in fact the best of all possible worlds for accomplishing God's plan - not "the best of all possible worlds" in the abstract, but the best for accomplishing God's plan.

I could see all this being overlaid onto the idealism described in my original post without too much difficulty. Idealism would still leave room for our free will and our moral judgments and choices. I guess I would say that idealism simply explains the "mechanics" of the reality in which we find ourselves, but everything else flows pretty much the way mainstream Christianity posits.

My reference to the old saying "Our reality is God's dream" may have been a poor choice, since it does suggest God is somehow generating and responsible for everything. I don't know where that saying originated, but it probably isn't Christian and certainly isn't something Kastrup would say. I was just trying to give the general notion of idealism - i.e., that mind, not matter, is the fundamental "stuff" of reality.

Dreams, BTW, are utterly fascinating and another of my pet interests. I've always thought they were important clues to the nature of reality that most people just shrug off.

We are coming from different places but I’m very open to think about things with you. I’ve heard unbelievers say things that are very close to the Kingdom of God. My search is for truth, not merely the joy of searching.

 

[Runner]

We are coming from different places but I’m very open to think about things with you. I’ve heard unbelievers say things that are very close to the Kingdom of God. My search is for truth, not merely the joy of searching.

I'm definitely not an unbeliever, but I get your point. I've often found that a Buddhist or Hindu book will illuminate a Christian teaching better than a Christian one. Many serious Christians have also noted the affinity between Jesus' approach and puzzling sayings and those of Zen.

You may have read or heard of The Cloud of Unknowing, a Christian classic by an unknown medieval Christian mystic. It's basically a manual for achieving deep communion with God. I was astounded when I read it to discover that the technique was exactly that of Zen meditation, but in a Christian context rather than a Buddhist one.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I'm definitely not an unbeliever, but I get your point. I've often found that a Buddhist or Hindu book will illuminate a Christian teaching better than a Christian one. Many serious Christians have also noted the affinity between Jesus' approach and puzzling sayings and those of Zen.

You may have read or heard of The Cloud of Unknowing, a Christian classic by an unknown medieval Christian mystic. It's basically a manual for achieving deep communion with God. I was astounded when I read it to discover that the technique was exactly that of Zen meditation, but in a Christian context rather than a Buddhist one.

The way to achieve closeness to God, the One True God, is quite different. You see, other religions practice various techniques to achieve a spiritual experience. Some can even call this God or Christ. But the real intimacy with God doesn’t come from techniques. Jesus said those who keep his teachings, those are the ones the Father will come to and they will experience intimacy.

Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

So those close to God BEHAVE differently. That why Jesus said to judge a tree (person) by their fruits (deeds.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

When I visited a 99% Buddhist country, I saw the fruit of that faith. Life is cheap. So you see, a Hindu or Buddhist could ignore starving children begging on the street and go into their chamber and meditate and have a wonderful spiritual experience of peace. They could even abuse said children and do Yoga before retiring for the night in full peace and joy. No one who walks with the living God can do this.

 

[christian1724]

If I was to make the following two statements-- are they materialistic, dualistic or idealistic?

“everything occurs in the soul as if there were no body”

Since we (seemingly) experience time, then following Einstein we should expect to experience matter, is that right? I suppose the theory of relativity could just be part of the dream world that Runner mentions. It would seem that we would need some pretty detailed dreaming though.

“everything occurs in the body as if there were no soul”

I really have trouble wrapping my mind around the notion that Truth can be recognized in a strictly physical plane.
(The concept of Truth being 'that which is reliable, trustworthy, unchanging'). The existence of Truth is provable logically. In my worldview, it takes a spirit (soul?) to recognized Truth (which is not based in the physical realm).

You could argue that the former is idealist and the latter materialist, yet both recognize our dual nature.

Since I tend towards recognizing 'the heaven' as being created a 'spiritual realm' and 'the earth' being created as a 'physical realm', I am probably drawn option three (if I were forced to select from the trichotomy that Runner mentioned).

You made an interesting note in another thread about the existence of separations/dividers. I see that/them as a sort of barrier between the two realms, spiritual and physical, in several of the verses in the first chapter of the Bible.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Since we (seemingly) experience time, then following Einstein we should expect to experience matter, is that right? I suppose the theory of relativity could just be part of the dream world that Runner mentions. It would seem that we would need some pretty detailed dreaming though.


I really have trouble wrapping my mind around the notion that Truth can be recognized in a strictly physical plane.
(The concept of Truth being 'that which is reliable, trustworthy, unchanging'). The existence of Truth is provable logically. In my worldview, it takes a spirit (soul?) to recognized Truth (which is not based in the physical realm).


Since I tend towards recognizing 'the heaven' as being created a 'spiritual realm' and 'the earth' being created as a 'physical realm', I am probably drawn option three (if I were forced to select from the trichotomy that Runner mentioned).

You made an interesting note in another thread about the existence of separations/dividers. I see that/them as a sort of barrier between the two realms, spiritual and physical, in several of the verses in the first chapter of the Bible.

That all sounds plausible until someone wrongly accuses you of something serious. Then you, in this physical plane, will instantly recognize the truth and strongly identify the opposite. The ethereal element of philosophy gives way to the concrete reality of the difference between truth and untruth.