Hey! How fun to find a comment on the blog!
I appreciate the agreeable acknowledgement of the spiral model of understanding. That just enables us to figure out why we may not see eye to eye on some things. Of course gaining full circular perspective does help validate the idea that unknown quantities exist from each other on opposite sides of the circle...so far as we know to the lengths of our travels along the spiral....
But let me caution briefly on the quickly offered assumption that a personal God is absolutely out of the equation. The spiritual side of the circle may still evade such that this context is outside of reach. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Let me explain.
I've gone to great lengths to qualify the God myth and its place in humanity's attempts to understand the unknown. I think we're in agreement about all that. But that said, I still stand by the context of my earliest answer to your original question.
"Do you believe in God?"
"Not in the way that notion has been understood to date."
That statement reserves the acknowledgment that there is a spiritual intelligence that informs the phenomena that I'm personally beginning to understand at the quantum level. At the quantum level, everything, as I understand it, is distilled into two quantities, the frequency of its energy and the information in that energy. At this level, everything can be uniquely distinguished. But that just defines the quantities to the level of our current understanding. The unknown aspect is that of the information itself. What informs the energy? Why does it vibrate at its particular frequency and by what means is it informed to the quantity it obtains?
The possibility of an intelligence that informs these unknown quantities is not without question, nor is any refutation of it absolute either.
If I recall, there was a point in our discussions, along with wrestling over Dawkins' fevered defenses of atheism, in which evolution was suggested as proof against the notion of intelligent design. I think that's like fighting fire with a metal hammer.
It's one thing to use the theory of evolution as a pretext for disproving the creation myths - and I believe we may all agree on evolution's dominance in that argument. But to use evolution as a defense against the idea of greater intelligence, I don't think that will suffice, nor does the logic seem to support that argument.
There is intelligence in evolution itself which can be seen in each individual's singular lifetime, let alone the evolution of species. But the validity of evolution does not disqualify the possibility of intelligence within it, nor does it suggest the absence of intelligent design or other worldly non-known entities yet to discover.
So although I offered that all the intuitive "spiritual" discoveries on the right side of the circle, do not have to have a God context to them, I did not say that there is no God context. If you'll recall, I also offered that my atheism is placed against the powers that have propped up the God myth, but it's not nearly as Godless as your own might be, so far to date.
The scientific ability to quantify and explain things only validates those things from the analytical side of the circle. But analytical validation in no way disqualifies them from their existence on the intuitive side of the circle. Holistic views will enable both sides to be seen, and in this context, a personal God may still be in the offing. We just need to find a way to quantify such God's existence analytically...or get taken into some space ship and go pay a personal visit to the energy that informs all things.
How's that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm going to be on Ed's side here ...
Intelligent design doesn't seem to me like a good name for universe's intelligence as it tends to imply an intelligence outside the intelligent being. Then you have the known issue of who designed the intelligent designer. If we're talking of just intelligence underlying all that exists I'd be more comfortable but when design is involved I don't.
I also challenge Ed (and Dawkins) on his previous comment saying the purpose of life is to procreate. Procreate is a means not a purpose. The purpose of life is to evolve (expand comes to mind too) and procreate happens to be a means to accomplish that. It might get to the time where humans for instance don't need to procreate in order to evolve because we find other ways of evolving ... (???)
About the God word, I don't mind calling God to the intelligence in the universe, although it's probably not the best name for it, it makes sense sometimes when talking to a lot of new agers that use this world with a meaning far away from the "man with the beard" and outside of any religion. Sometimes even with the religious ones I can share the God word for the sake of being able to even have a discussion that is usually enlightening to me in order to understand the evolution of religiosity and spirituality and the common grounds among different religions that sometimes have some wisdom on themselves (another couple topics ;).
What I meant to say at the end of my prev comment is that:
I'm not allergic to the "God" word anymore :)
Has anyone got anything to add before I tell you what the meaning of life really is?
I love it. That's not taking sides. That's just clarifying semantics on this stuff.
The chicken and the egg; designer and designer of the designer question just goes on unendingly.
I agree with our attempts to suggest the universe's intelligence without specifically trying to ID its source.
Although some of the works I've read - the wackier ones - in solar systems way the heck out there, the alleged source of all things has this sun-like quality off which the subsequent lesser suns are all just chunks, each with their even lesser chuncks revoling and evolving each into our current forms and features.
Another interesting book I read was called "Earth, The Living Library" in which Earth is merely a collecting place for all the species of the universe...and the key to the attraction Earth provides for all species is found in Earth's ability to provide emotion as an experience toward greater evolution. That was an interesting idea. All good stuff.
I also appreciate the ability to use the God word without religious allergy, as you said. I think that gets to the essence of my relationship to that idea too.
But, as perhaps in Ed's case, no cleaner relationship to this idea yet exists for him. All that he's been exposed to on the God front has been dogmatic and horrible. The other side of the circle contains some incredible spiritual connections that can be considered "God like" without the religious attachments to which we're all agreeably done with.
I especially like the explanations you give for evolution and purpose. I hadn't expressly thought of my personal journey to increase my awareness on these spiritual matters as an evolution, but that's certainly what it is. I've always considered this life as school for the soul...but that's evolution too.
I also agree with discounting the procreation as a purpose proposition. I'm sorry, but Dawkins just fails to bring anything rationally acceptable to the table for me. He serves those looking for a way out of the shackles of their bad religious experiences, but that's where he stops, in my opinion. There are incredible amounts of good spiritual experiences yet to bask in. So I get his purpose - sort of like the cue ball breaking the rack of billiard balls. But the game's just started. Conclusions off such a break are way too premature.
Post a Comment