Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

The answer that makes most sense is that the creator is US, and we reward and punish ourselves through karmic law, and/or our very own belief systems that trap us within hells of our own making.

RS, I'm an argumentative cuss, but the above quote, which refers to reward and punishment, is yours.

I'm afraid I don't buy into reincarnational karma. We have this life, and for that I am abundantly grateful. I remember the "Seth" entity talking about how people create their own reality, and the ones that don't believe in an afterlife go "unconscious" after they die, therefore living out their own belief. But then they "wake up" and go on about the business of the afterlife and all the lessons that come with it. If that turns out to be true, I can live with it.

[Megan]

Hi, Angela

Even if "God" appeared on earth and performed feats of supernatural acumen, we still couldn't prove it was the ultimate Creator God, and not some lesser trickster who was still lots smarter than us--an ET, say.

It's an extrapolation of the Gödel problem of being unable to step outside the system (I may get whacked for that)--we lack objective ground to stand on to prove anything ultimately.

IOW, in order to prove conclusively that a being was "the ultimate God" we'd have to transcend that Being in order to know that, which gets us into an absurd logical situation.

Expecting materialist science to solve fundamental existential problems is asking a bit too much, it seems to me.

And I think it's fairly easy to say the Intelligent Design (ID) arguments do not spell "the end of science" or even nearly so, at the present time.

That is a premature leap to God of the gaps argument, and I think science is hardy enough to be carried a great deal farther than Michael Behe's arguments for Intelligent Design.

The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mentioned Stuart Kaufman, and there is also Mark Baldwin, and 'The Baldwin Effect:'

Baldwin's most important theoretical legacy is the concept of the Baldwin effect or "Baldwinian evolution".

Baldwin proposed, that there is a mechanism whereby epigenetic factors come to shape the genome as much as — or more than — natural selection pressures.

James Mark Baldwin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Epigenetic considerations render Behe's ID arguments inadequate, it seems to me. But genetic determinism is dead too.

[Angela]

Megan, it's true, there would likely be problems with whatever evidence "god" would provide. But let's not forget, he's omnipotent, right? He could transcend those problems, if he chose. He could even jam me with belief. That pesky "free-will" argument shouldn't get in His way of forgiving me and sending me to heaven, if he really Loves me. I would see that he has done it for my own good, and let him off with a warning.

I've given him some good-faith chances, too. Not long ago I had a cd stuck in my car stereo -- it would not budge -- and I prayed: "God, I'm serious. You get this cd out of there, and I will seriously reconsider my position. I won't even demand that it be a miracle -- I will push the eject button myself. This offer expires when I get to work. That gives you a good 35 minutes to save my soul. If I have to get my brother to fix it, I will take that as proof that you either don't exist or you're not interested in convincing me." Guess how that turned out! And my brother made me buy him beer!

And you're right, ID might not pose an immediate threat to legitimate science. I think it does, though. Much in the same way you were worried about dangerous ideas flourishing earlier in this thread, I think that in Kansas and other places that are overrun by religion, the ideas that flourish among pressures put on science (not to mention libraries! oy!) put the kids there in danger of believing that men used to ride dinosaurs, and then growing up to run for high political office or other positions of influence and spreading the virus.

[nara]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

Sounds plausible, but only if ALL orchids then looked like female bees. But as you know, there are hundreds of varieties of orchids, most of which do NOT look like female bees. Why do they thrive as well, then?

The world is diverse, different climates different species etc. Bees are not the only way for an orchid to pollinate. Many self pollinate, many are pollinated by other creatures such as wasps, flies, butterflies, moths, birds, and ants. Bees help keep that species of orchid thriving while other creatures ensure that other orchid species continue to thrive. If all orchids ONLY relied on bees to pollinate then yes, bee orchids would be extremely widespread. Bees would still on occassion visit non bee orchids so even then other species of orchids would still exist but not as abundantlly.

You also suggest that a plant has actually taken on genetic information from an insect. ...
The orchid, while organic, does not possess the complex brain necessary to analyze the female bees DNA and splice its genetic info into its own in order to alter the physical makeup of its species.

I did not suggest anything like that. What I meant by 'mutation' was that the coloring of the petals in the orchid changed to resemble a bee, not that the orchid and bee share DNA.

What is it that evolutionists have against the idea of a higher intelligence than human beings? I'm not preaching the biblical god here. So why are you so adamant that there can't be a creator or creating intelligence simply because an old man with a beard has yet to appear before all in the sky?

I replied to your original post because you said "The ONLY explanation in my mind had to be that some conscious INTELLIGENCE was tinkering with nature". I'm was trying to show you that a tinkering conscious intelligence isn't the ONLY explanation. It could be possible but its not a given.

You can't accept Darwin's logic and just poopoo everything that follows. That's what the pure creationists did when he came along. Theories need to be updated constantly as new discoveries are made, using not just scientific facts and evidence, but also human logic and intuition. One does not come up with a theory and then try to fit square pegs into that theory's round holes. If an undeniable square peg turns up, one must then adjust the theory until some square holes logically appear to accept the pegs.

Always keep an open mind. You're only human.

I agree, but sadly I find that anything related to god or spirituality is a peg that fits any hole and one that people employ when they get tired of looking for the peg specially fitted for the hole. Of course one might say that if a peg fits any hole then maybe there is something to be said of that... and I agree. In fact I read your post in the thread "Do clones have their own souls?" and I could agree with about everything you wrote.

I'm not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole when I say that evolution, without intelligence, could be responsible for a bee orchid.

[Angela]

SUCH an organized thinker! Nara, I want to be you when I grow up!

[Megan]

Angela, I think in a discussion of God from a scientific point of view, we hardly need conjecture on our personal relationship, or lack thereof, with this possible God, as that is a metaphysical subject rather than a scientific subject.

Whether or not a possible God is omnipotent is not a scientific question, because the existence of God is not falsifiable, not even by Bruce Lipton after his epigenetic epiphany.

My point was that any scientific experiments to prove God's existence, even if God seemed to be interactive in them, would prove absolutely nothing about the existence of an ultimate Deity, because of the problem of infinite regress.

We are left with an insurmountable existential dilemma, scientifically speaking. That is why I think scientists are naive, at best, when they argue for proof of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design, as presently formulated, is dependent on genetic determinism [edit: and natural selection and mutation being the mechanisms of evolution], and genetic determinism has already been disproved by the Human Genome Project.

If we are going to have to keep moving 'the God of the gaps' further and further back because of scientific advances, prudence would suggest it best not to make such claims to begin with, IMO.

I think the fact that science is in a squeeze between the age of the universe and the complexity of the biosphere is going to make it extremely unlikely that, "evolution, without intelligence, could be responsible for a bee orchid," in the sense that I'm assuming Nara meant [edit: namely, natural selection and mutation].

Now, with a built-in anthropic factor, evolution could be responsible for a bee orchid, if you assume that evolution itself is teleological in the sense that evolution favors the production of life.

I'm perfectly fine with not calling that "intelligence," but I think you have to call it built-in information.

[Angela]

Ack! Megan! so many big words so early in the morning. I'm going to have to have a cup of coffee, look up some words, and read your links before I can reply to you! Please be patient with me! (looking for a snoozing smilie.)

My first response, though, is: I don't think science should adopt a "we can't know, so we won't look" point of view about why or how the Universal Soup began.

(p.s., did you just ask me to not talk about my personal relationship or lack thereof with god? or were you saying something else.)
Angela.

[Megan]

Hurry thou not, Angela, and enjoy your coffee--but here's another word fer ya:

Abiogenesis is usually sort of conveniently lumped in with evolution, as in, "first the primordial soup, then the primitive lifeforms," etc.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. ...

Since it is difficult to prove abiogenesis has occurred, and even more difficult to falsify it, the hypothesis has many such critics: even in the scientific world. Nonetheless, research and hypothesizing continues in the hope of putting together the specific building blocks thought to yield abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At best, the time frame for abiogenesis to have occurred is up for grabs.

Edit:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
--Francis Crick

Francis Harry Compton Crick OM (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004) was an English physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material"

Francis Crick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I am definitely not asking you "to not talk about my personal relationship or lack thereof with god" if you want to.

Alls I'm saying is that that's between you and your own heart, and materialist science, religion (or moi) better not be commenting on your heart or anyone else's, it seems to me.

And religion as well as politics would do well to let science do its thing, hands off. I could say quite a lot about Intelligent Design and what's behind it, but I think that's a topic for another thread and would just muddy the waters in this thread.

Edit:

By Angela

I don't think science should adopt a "we can't know, so we won't look" point of view about why or how the Universal Soup began.

Heavens-ta-Betsy, me neither! That's why I argue against the Intelligent Design folks' claim that we've hit the scientific wall with Behe's "irreducible complexity."

I don't think it's the case at all that science has hit the wall, but I think we're going to have to adopt the anthropic principle in some form to carry the scientific project forward.

Edit: But I'm not saying that proves Creationism!

[Rocket Surgery]

Originally Posted by Angela

RS, I'm an argumentative cuss, but the above quote, which refers to reward and punishment, is yours.

Ahm tho thowwy.... (removing foot from mouth)....

You know, I questioned whether it was you or me as I was typing that, but was too lazy to go back and look. But I was kind of right if you accept the theory that we're all the same consciousness (groan)....

Anyway, my most sincere apologies. I grovel... GROVEL with indignation!

I'm afraid I don't buy into reincarnational karma. We have this life, and for that I am abundantly grateful. I remember the "Seth" entity talking about how people create their own reality, and the ones that don't believe in an afterlife go "unconscious" after they die, therefore living out their own belief. But then they "wake up" and go on about the business of the afterlife and all the lessons that come with it. If that turns out to be true, I can live with it.

Hypothetically, if given a choice between one earthly experience versus countless lifetimes, why would anybody choose just one? Life seems so short to me; I'm just starting to really figure things out, and my life is already half over.

Just go to your local park and sit and watch kids at play. (Though not for too long, these days ). That right there is reason enough to want to reincarnate over and over again. Just to be able to have all that unbounded energy and youth and innocence and wonder about life again.... I'd much prefer a universe set up like that with all its challenges and infinite experiences to live out than one where it's a one-shot deal and then everybody lays around the pool for eternity -- except of course when they're expected to lay prostrate at the feet of "God the Father."

Is that what you mean by "the business of the afterlife"?

Fundamentalist religious concepts seem very backward compared to new age thinking, from my POV at least. In fact, I'd wager that without the threat of eternal punishment in hell, most fundamentalists would drop their belief systems like an old, worn-out shoe in favor of a "God" that is at least as evolved as the most enlightened human.

~ RS

[Angela]

RS: yes, if I get a choice, I choose multiple lifetimes. I just don't think it's likely. But I don't mind if I have to go unconscious for a little bit when I die, and then wake up and go about the business of the afterlife. I could probably use a little rest.

By "the business of the afterlife" I was referring to the process of being dead for awhile, figuring out what kind of lessons would be best learned in the next life, choosing my parents and situation, building my body, and incarnating. Or going to the level beyond the cycle of reincarnation. I wasn't thinking about laying around at god's feet. If I do reincarnate, I'm going to take better care of my own feet next time around.

Your sister in consciousness,
Angela

[Rocket Surgery]

It was either Seth or Dr. Peebles who talked about going to sleep being referred to as "the little death."

He says that each of us "dies" every night when we go to sleep and we "reincarnate" every morning when we awaken; the only difference from reincarnating between lives is that we return to the same body.

So, what you're talking about, to me, is no different than going to sleep or hibernating for a time. I don't think of it as "dying" or even being unconscious, and I don't fear it any more than I fear falling asleep each night.

BTW.... anyone reading this thread, consider getting a flu shot if you've not yet had one this season. I'm getting strong messages in this regard. I got two in the past two weeks, and was suspicious, so I asked the universe for one more specific and random reminder if it was a truly urgent message for me to get one. That was just a couple of days ago. Today, I filled my gas tank, and was surprised to see a video monitor light up on top of the pump ( a new feature at that station) after swiping my card. It began to play ads and PSA's. The very first ad was a PSA... reminding me to get a flu shot!!

I'm going to stop in at the doctor's office tomorrow.

~ RS

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

It was either Seth or Dr. Peebles who talked about going to sleep being referred to as "the little death."

Not Hamlet? I'm pretty sure Hamlet was first.

[Megan]

While sifting through untenable beliefs may be entertaining, may I ask if science affords any of you a sense of awe? How about looking into your newborn baby's eyes?

If so, is that sense of awe in any way something more fundamental than the mere epiphenomenon, the side effect, of neurons firing and synapses, you know, synapsing?

epiphenomenon

A secondary phenomenon that results from and accompanies another.

epiphenomenon - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Are we conscious because we are machines and at a certain level of complexity, machines become conscious, or is consciousness something fundamental in the universe, as we conceive the laws of physics to be?

Does the feeling of awe actually mean anything, beyond the mechanical?

If Seth and Dr. Peebles and Hamlet can speak to us, can science speak to us? Poetry? Art? Can our own hearts speak to us?

[Megan]

By Rocket Surgery, 12-07-2006, 10:35 PM

Consciousness is present in all things because all things are a product of consciousness. That is, of course, what subjective reality is all about.

If one believes in an objective universe where this was all created out of nothing and the laws of evolution determine our destiny, then it will remain quite difficult, if not impossible, to ever accept the notion that a dog, a fish, or a tree also has consciousness, let alone a rock or a molecule of Polonium 210.

Self-awareness to the extent that humans experience it is but a product of brain complexity and function.

When anything is wired to the point where it can record and preserve memory of its experiences within its physical form, I believe that is the point at which so-called self-awareness happens.

Origination of consciousness

Interesting. I just read that thread. Julian Jaynes is interesting too.

Perspective of Mind: Julian Jaynes

Hey, RS, maybe the laws of evolution *themselves* are conscious, since "consciousness is present in all things," as you say?

Edit: RS, according to the following article, your thinking has elements of emergence theory and protopanpsychism in it, would you agree:

The other broad approach to the issue of consciousness [besides Cartesian dualism] is emergence theory, the idea that self-awareness and qualia can arise from complex computational dynamics in the brain.

The critical assumption here is that mind’s architecture is largely computational, but that consciousness emerges through the concert of myriad neuronal interactions. In this sense, consciousness is an epiphenomenon or metaphenomenon of the brain's machinations. ...

That said about dualism and emergence, there is a third, albeit controversial, perspective that should be considered: panprotopsychism.

This is the notion that essential features or precursors of consciousness are fundamental components of reality which are accessed by brain processes. In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that all parts of matter involve mind.

Neuroscientist Stuart Hameroff, a proponent of this view, argues that consciousness is related to a fundamental, irreducible component of physical reality, akin to phenomenon like mass, spin or charge.

According to this view, the basis of consciousness can be found in an additional fundamental force of nature not unlike gravity or electromagnetism.

This would be something like an elementary (self)-sentience or awareness. As Hameroff notes, "these components just are."

Sentient Developments: Protopanpsychism and the consciousness conundrum, or why we shouldn't assume uploads

Qualia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, I didn't know anyone was actually saying outright that consciousness is an additional fundamental force of nature, which is what I've intuited for a long time. Never heard of panprotopsychism before.

If true, this has huge implications for what bylto/Mark said in his opening post on this thread:

THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS A LIVING, ONGOING PROCESS OF CREATION.

[esn]

Excellent !
I cannot recall when I have enjoyed a thread this much.
So many beautiful minds...
Thanks, thanks very much.

OK, I am collecting some thoughts for your consideration, but presently cannot remember where I left them.


Regards,
Eric

[Megan]

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. Hurry back!

Hey, I thought the painting called Transfigurations (chakras everywhere!) was also evocative of Mark's words:

THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS A LIVING, ONGOING PROCESS OF CREATION




Sentient Developments: Protopanpsychism and the consciousness conundrum, or why we shouldn't assume uploads

[Andrew Brunelle]

I believe the whole reason Mr. Dawkins is so far to one side is because that's the only way anyone will listen to him. If he did not do his whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" thing, we wouldn't even be talking about him. If he wasn't blind to religion, we wouldn't be having this debate. Without him going to the lengths he has, he's just another scientist or pro-science guy. But the way he writes and speaks, he has become THE anti-religion, pro-science guy.

[Angela]

Hey there, Andrew -- just to clarify, the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't Richard Dawkins', it's just one of many many things he's referred to in passing in his writings that have been noticed and commented on a lot by others. The FSM (may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage) was introduced to us by an unrelated fella, Bobby Henderson, who wrote an open letter to the Kansas City School Board requesting that they teach the gospels of the FSM alongside Intelligent Design, seeing as how the evidence for both is equally plausible. see Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for more information.

In regards to evolutionary science, i.d., and spiritual development, the subject of this thread, Dawkins probably would have come up even aside from his recent book, The God Delusion, which has made him so well-known. A book he wrote 30 years ago called the The Selfish Gene, along with his subsequent research, writings, and teaching, has made him one of the preeminent voices in evolutionary science.

It's not like he's some johnny-come-lately media whore, as some ad hominests would like to paint him.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I believe the whole reason Mr. Dawkins is so far to one side is because that's the only way anyone will listen to him. If he did not do his whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" thing, we wouldn't even be talking about him. If he wasn't blind to religion, we wouldn't be having this debate. Without him going to the lengths he has, he's just another scientist or pro-science guy. But the way he writes and speaks, he has become THE anti-religion, pro-science guy.

andrew, dawkins has been taken to task by theologians, atheists, scientists and politcial scientists alike because his comments about religion and its effects on various conflicts are completely off base. I posted links clearly showing this (which remains unrefuted). In short it is Dawkins making what he accuses creationists of doing - making unfounded comments with no basis in reality.

For example his comments that there are is no dividing line but religion in indo-pakisthan wars and northern ireland troubles is patently inaccurate.

In doing this he simply brings more misinformation not only into the science-religion debate but those naive enough to believe him start to think that,for example, if religion were to just vanish so would the indo-paksitan wars.

He he adds nothing postive to otherwise interesting discussion/issue.

to me, meghan has boiled down the issue :

While sifting through untenable beliefs may be entertaining, may I ask if science affords any of you a sense of awe? How about looking into your newborn baby's eyes?

If so, is that sense of awe in any way something more fundamental than the mere epiphenomenon, the side effect, of neurons firing and synapses, you know, synapsing?

Science tells us hows, not whys, even , i think when they claim that spiritual revelations are just illusions. or hallucination's..
or that a mothers love is just something to make you feel good and is produced by x-chemical to she'll feed her crying kid and not abandon them...and thus the species can continue (but why should the species want to continue - that's not a science question)
science is not the right 'tool' to answer these questions, anymore than a hammer and chisel are proper for painting or a brush and oil paint for sculpting.
as john polkinghorne said about an atheist physicist who speculated that the universe would eventually implode and everything in it vanish "it seems rather pointless, doesn't it"

[Angela]

John Polkinghorne, in his book 'The God of Hope and The End of the World, "This life is too hurtful and incomplete to be the whole story. We shall all die with unfinished business and incompleteness in our lives. There must be hope for more." The "hope for more" he describes in the book is limited to christian afterlife beliefs, and he says life is pointless without that hope.

Dawkins, on the other hand, feels lucky and happy to be living this one life, and does his best to make the most of it here and now. As far as he's concerned, this life is glorious and complete; there's no need to hope for anything after death in order to make this life meaningful and rich.

I must once again point out that Dor continues to judge Dawkins without ever having read Dawkins' work, and having declared that he never intends to.

[dor]

The poster above has crossed the line to outright lying, or denial. I cited his quotes from an article published in full and linked. I invited response and the same denial, in the face of reality was the response - as inaccurate as Dawkins assement of Norther Ireland.

below is an example:

Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today's most divisive label of group identity and hostility.
Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/29/2006 | Is religion the root of all evil?

a. northern ireland: protestants are low land scottish (and referred to as "Ulster Scots")
b. indo-pakistan - "In the early 16th century, Muslim armies consisting of Mongol, Turkic, Persian, and Afghan warriors invaded India under the leadership of the Timurid prince Zahir-ud-Din-Muhammad Babur.....this thread- or this board isn't enough space to go into India -but in short, he is wrong - Muslims ARE a different ethnic group just like Christians are largely of Portuguese and Syrian descent

the link is to an article written by dawkins and cited in the link:
Richard Dawkins is the author of "The Ancestor's Tale," "The Selfish Gene," and other books. His series "The Root of All Evil?" appeared earlier this month on Channel Four television in the United Kingdom. A version of this essay appeared in the London Independent.

[Angela]

You're right, Dor, I'm sorry that I had not realized you quoted that article in full. I apologize for that; I was basing my statement on your own declaration that you intended to never read his book, in which his views are outlined and are so much different from what you paint, in my view, as to be unrecognizable.

It's hard for me to accept that you read the whole article and understood his larger point, because of your constant harping (pun intended) and focus about how his views on Northern Ireland and Pakistan troubles consisting of largely religious divides are wrong, and you are right. But I will take your word for it.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

Science tells us hows, not whys, even , i think when they claim that spiritual revelations are just illusions. or hallucination's..

I always knew there was something fishy about those creationist scientists.

Originally Posted by dor

as john polkinghorne said about an atheist physicist who speculated that the universe would eventually implode and everything in it vanish "it seems rather pointless, doesn't it"

And everyone eventually dies. Why stay alive?

Am I misinterpreting the thread when I perceive that you're all still talking about Dawkins? I mean, it's clear the dor is weaving his subpoints into it as if they were arguments, but the main topic is Dawkins, right?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Why stay alive?

why indeed?

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Am I misinterpreting the thread when I perceive that you're all still talking about Dawkins? I mean, it's clear the dor is weaving his subpoints into it as if they were arguments, but the main topic is Dawkins, right??

no i was not the one who brought it up,

andrew said "Without him going to the lengths he has, he's just another scientist or pro-science guy. But the way he writes and speaks, he has become THE anti-religion, pro-science guy."

and then Andrew offered a reason why Dawkins is criticized, I pointed out the reasons why, backed them up with statements by dawkins, atheist critics and my own, easily verifiable comments about conflicts which Dawkins not merely over simplified, but showed gross misjudgement and outright falsification.....then I was accused of lying... I merely corrected a false statement.

[Michael Chui]

I did not say you brought it up; I merely said you were weaving your own subpoints into your posts.

[Megan]

And he deserves it, bless his heart, he inspires so much interest!

Richard Dawkins: Anti-spiritual or Anti-superstitious?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

at you read the whole article and understood his larger point, because of your constant harping (pun intended) and focus about how his views on Northern Ireland and Pakistan troubles consisting of largely religious divides are wrong, and you are right. But I will take your word for it.

this really is the last time I am responding to you because it's complete waste of time...but.

once again i will quote him
imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indian partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland "troubles."
Do you understand his larger point? His 'thesis ' is no religion=no conflict in these regions.

he doesn't just say this once, but twice:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and various regions of Indonesia and Africa.
as the other links I put said (by two atheists) this is beyond a simple error - but grossly naive, grossly inaccurate, intellectually dishonest (refuses to bring up governments of atheistic communism are the biggest killers of all time). and provide an unrealistic solution. his 'theisis' is if we embraced reason and rejected God (oh like 1789?!) we'd have a world like John Lennon's song. This from someone who claims to know about biology?!
You claim i did not read the article - the article is so filled with inaccurate lies i could write a book about it. I pointed out a good half dozen easily verifiable ones in previous posts, which you didn't bother to read, but nonetheless, blindly accused me of not reading his works, 'in full' (which I doubt you have done with polkinghorne).
My point is he is embracing as distorted a view of the world as creationists. Him Tim Haggard belong in the same massage palor.

[Angela]

Dor, thanks for having wasted a little more time in responding to me. I understand that you won't waste any more time on me -- ya big chicken -- but here's my responses to you, anyway:

-- "lies and gross inaccuracies." well, you're pretty convinced that your opinions are "right" about the political intricacies of the world, so I'll let you be on that. The reason I haven't responded to your proddings is that I recognize what you're saying is your opinion -- which I leave you free to hold. I don't agree with you, though, that because someone sees things differently that they're lying.

-- "intellectually dishonest" In Dawkins' books, he addresses the issue of atheists, communism, Hitler, et al at length. But you call him intellectually dishonest for not addressing the issue. You're merely ignorant of his having done so. He says a lot of stuff in his books, elegantly and interestingly. Also he takes responsibility for what he does say.

-- rejecting god. He never suggests "Reject God, y'all!". He wouldn't reject something that doesn't exist. I'm quibbling. You probably had a different word in mind.

-- Polkinghorne. No, I have not read his works in full, just some. The difference being that I wasn't editorializing Polkinghorne as you do Dawkins. I merely quoted him directly.

-- Dawkins/Haggard/massage parlor. boy, that was a nasty little metaphor, I must say. Dawkins is married to a pretty hot babe, though -- the actress Lalla Ward (from UK's Dr. Who), and my guess is he's not in the habit of hiring male prostitutes. Haggard's minions have suggested Ted may have strayed because his wife wasn't adequately performing her wifely duties, so all you wives out there better spruce up! (I'm paraphrasing.) Ted was only doing what he had to do, I guess.

Danger Man has given me his blessing to put Dawkins on my "list". Y'all know what I'm talking about, right?

[Rocket Surgery]

Originally Posted by Megan

Hey, RS, maybe the laws of evolution *themselves* are conscious, since "consciousness is present in all things," as you say?

Edit: RS, according to the following article, your thinking has elements of emergence theory and protopanpsychism in it, would you agree:

Well, mainly I was referring to physical "things" having consciousness within them. Though certainly thoughts, ideas and laws are PRODUCTS of consciousness, I'm not sure they can CONTAIN consciousness. Perhaps they simply ARE another form of it rather than a container per se.

Re "emergence theory," my reference to wiring and self-awareness should not be confused with the term "consciousness." My current belief is that EVERYTHING there is IS consciousness; more specifically it is all contained within the OUC (One Universal Consciousness). The self-awareness I refer to is the individual human ego that we all perceive to be our separate "self" which occupies our brains/bodies. I think this is a "sub-self" of our higher selves which reside OUTSIDE of the space-time illusion, similar to we have our own "sub-selves" which come into being within the dream state while we sleep.

When our physical bodies "die," I believe that our ILLUSION of this current self-awareness loses its identity to the extent we allow it, and is absorbed back into the higher self and relegated to the memory thereof; again quite similar to how we "remember" the seperate and self-aware egos we believed were our true selves while in the dream state.

Each of us is but one of infinite Points Of Experience of the OUC. The self-aware egoic personality is a by-product of the Mind WITHIN THE BRAIN, whose function it is to act as the interface for the soul between non-physical Mind and physical space-time. Put more simply: our body is a Space-Time Craft; our brain is the Computer interface of the Craft; and our Mind is the Pilot of the vessel.

After a few years of total immersion in Space-Time, looking out through our 5 senses, it's no surprise we ultimately accept this reality as the ONLY reality. But we visit non-physical reality EVERY NIGHT in our dreams, and most of us write this off as yet another product of the physical BRAIN, and not the Mind.

Yet SCIENCE has proven that we dream several times per sleep period. However, the only dreams we ever remember are those we were having right before waking up. If dreams were solely a product of the physical brain, then they should also be recorded in physical memory.

I believe dreams are not remembered because they are NOT in fact occuring within our brains, but rather within our Minds while OUTSIDE the body. We remember those dreams right before we waken because they occur when we are returning and merging back into the physical, and therefore fragments are able to creep into the physical memory banks of the brain. But unless we CONSCIOUSLY go over those dreams immediately upon waking up, those memories also quickly fade back into the ether, and are NOT recorded into physical brain memory. Liken this to doing a "quick save" to your hard drive. If you don't, the work you had stored in RAM memory vanishes, does it not?

Brain equals HARD DRIVE; non-physical Mind equals RAM.

Physical "death" is a "hard drive crash", but Mind has its own "network server" that all experience is recorded upon with constant automatic saves happening. The hard drive is not repaired -- just like here -- as that would be inefficient. It's the data that counts, and that's all recorded and backed up many times over.

Each of us is but a single "project" in the eternal creative career of the OUC. The OUC is the ultimate cosmic Artist, and we are all INDIVIDUAL compositions, paintings, novels... Masterpieces on His canvas that we call "lifetimes."

I CHOOSE to believe this over random chaos theory for several reasons, not the least of which is because of its BEAUTY of PURPOSE.

If life is truly just an accident of the physical universe, then there is no purpose to it, and it then becomes ILLOGICAL to pursue any goal that is not self-serving and hedonistic. Those who are true atheists and nihilists are the delusional ones when they speak of doing selfless acts and doing good "for its own sake." If all that awaits us is oblivion after one brief lifetime, then the LOGICAL pursuits must be those which will lead to the most MATERIALISTIC and PHYSICALLY pleasurable existence one can attain.

Education and knowledge become relegated to having meaning only inasmuch as its personal attainment leads directly towards enhancing one's personal self-serving lifestyle. Proclaiming abstract concepts such as contributing to the betterment of mankind is a complete waste of time if one believes their personal world ends forever at physical death. What is it to them if the rest of the universe is annihilated the very next day?

This, to me, is some of the strongest evidence going against a random, physical-only universe. The fact that even self-proclaimed atheists continue to pursue selfless and altruistic goals in the face of their own beliefs. It's because deep down, they don't really want to be atheists at all. Why do you think they continue to lurk and post on forums such as this. They LONG to be convinced someway, somehow, that there is true purpose to existence and consciousness.

Sadly, they just can't seem to wrap their Space-Time brains around the concept of a "leap of faith."

~ RS

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

Each of us is but a single "project" in the eternal creative career of the OUC. The OUC is the ultimate cosmic Artist, and we are all INDIVIDUAL compositions, paintings, novels... Masterpieces on His canvas that we call "lifetimes."

I CHOOSE to believe this over random chaos theory for several reasons, not the least of which is because of its BEAUTY of PURPOSE.

If life is truly just an accident of the physical universe, then there is no purpose to it, and it then becomes ILLOGICAL to pursue any goal that is not self-serving and hedonistic.... The fact that even self-proclaimed atheists continue to pursue selfless and altruistic goals in the face of their own beliefs. It's because deep down, they don't really want to be atheists at all. Why do you think they continue to lurk and post on forums such as this. They LONG to be convinced someway, somehow, that there is true purpose to existence and consciousness.

Sadly, they just can't seem to wrap their Space-Time brains around the concept of a "leap of faith."~ RS

RS -- sorry to chop up your quote, I just wanted to respond to those parts. I LOVE your allegory of each person's life being a masterpiece of art expressed by the OUC. That is beautiful and poetic, and a lovely way to look at your fellow humans.

Now, as to your saying it's illogical for someone who believes there is no purpose to life to pursue any goal that's not self-serving and hedonistic. Here's how my logic works: I believe there is no inherent purpose to life. It just is. I also believe it's wonderful to be alive! and my logic tells me that others probably feel similarly. So, it makes perfect sense to me to want to share whatever I've got with others, to create situations, relationships, and objects of beauty, and to behave responsibly with the hope that the world might be an even better place to live after I have died. Why? Because that's the meaning I make. It's a meaning that makes me feel good, and therefore it's self-serving (but not hedonistic, I don't think!)

I'm sure there are others who make altogether different meaning in their lives. That is their business. But I assure you that I don't "long to be convinced" not to be an atheist. And while I can indeed wrap my brain around the idea of a leap of faith, I don't need to make a leap of faith in order to live a life of love, contribution, and morality. These all fit perfectly into the meaning I give life, without any need for religious faith.