Does Intelligent DEsign Belittle God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” G.K. Chesterton
 
EdWest
Since you tacitly agree with my other points, I’m surprised you ask what you do. Faith is limited thinking. It bases action and consequences on an unproved premise. It also limits thinking to strictly adhere to the viewpoint of one system’s deliniation of events. We don’t trust a purely scientific, Republican, Democratic, Communist, Libertatrian, whatever ideogical system to give us all the facts. But because our faiths, whatever they are, purport to have the one and only truth, we tend to stop looking, whether we are Muslim, Jew, or Christian. Instead of questioning our own lineage of belief, we accept it at face value and militate against other systems, failing to realize that the wholeness of the picture may bear more clearly on our position than just our own belief. Yet because it is ours, we project it as Truth onto the world. I call that limited, whatever your religion and whatever you call upon to substantiate it in terms of faith, because ultimately, that is belief, not fact, and therefor limited, I think, in anyone’s book.

This kind of thing reminds me of the woman who wouldn’t learn Spanish when it would have served here very well to do so. When asked why not, she said “God writ the Bible in English, and that’s good enough for me.” More limited that most religionists, but the pattern is identical.
How much of what you know can you substantiate for yourself? How much of what you know is based on trust?

If given the truth, why would you look elsewhere for it? Why would anyone learn Spanish if they did not want to?

When the telephone was developed, people were told it would bring the world closer together, and the same for radio, film, television and so on. An increase in communication would show the world how similar we all are - our dreams, our desires, our goals and our common humanity.

A collection of facts may be interesting by themselves but how we use what we know makes all the difference in the world.

Even if you had a varied series of facts, how would that be to your advantage?

Peace,
Ed
 
Ed, I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. I started regular attendence at Mas at 3yo, as best memory serves. I attended Roman Catholic schools taught by clergy from grade three through twelve. During that time I had clergry as friends, as did the family, as we often had visitng priests as guests. I often went on retreats both as a part of school functions and as a free agent. I regualarly did novenas and was actually mentioned in one of them given by a Redemptorist Father. I regularly met and talked with my friends about the Catholic Church and was very active in proselytizing. I excelled in catechism, and in high school was part of a small team the won a rather large trophy for knowledge of Catholic theology “against” larger teams. I was knowledgeable to the point that I was invited once to a conference that excluded me only on discovery that I was not ordained. I was considering, for some time, going to seminary. Until their passing, a number of well respected priests were close firends. The last one that died had a crowd so large at his funeral the large school gym where it was held couldn’t hold them. I dearly loved him as a teacher and Mentor through the many years of our asociation. I was also an altar boy and often volunteered to do maintainance work at our Church. I was in a Church Choir, as was my Dad, who was very acitve in Catholic and other social justice activities. My Mother is a devoted and prayerful person who still goes to Mass at 86yo, and somtimes it is I who take her there. I have been from my early youth to this day a student of religion and philosophy both academically and on my own, having as well met with and talked with clerics of both Catholic and other faiths for many years, some whose names I believe you would easily recognize. I have read and considered everything regarding the Catholic faith that has come to me since childhood. I have been as well graced by several mystical experiences of various magnitudes.

I tell you all this because I do not take invlovement in a faith lightly. But I have a conscience, and I have to deal with what comes to me by my best lights. For you and many, that would be faith in the Church. That is well and good, as it was for me. Yet as it happens, experiences come into our lives that make re-evaluations necessary. I had one such that litterally pulled the underpinnings of who and what I thought I was completly out from under me, both underemoniously and without warning. It was an experience of a very particular nature, but I didn’t know that at the time. Because of my ignorance, I did my level best to discover, within the faith, answers for the questions that arose from that experience. They were genuine and sincere questions based on the nature of the state of awareness that came to me in that sudden and, I think, uninvited way, unless what happened was the answer to years of intense prayer. Perhaps it was.

Suffice it to say that there were no answers forthcoming within the persons and literature of the Church that I had access to. Eventually, because of my research, I started to find things that matched part of what I had come to in my assesment of my newfound knowledge, or lack of it. Whereas I was dismissed or even scoffed at within the Church for having the questions I did, I discovered that what I had experienced had a rather ancient and profound history. In fact, it corresponded to the hidden teachings behind even Catholic mysticism, especially as put forth by Meister Eckhart, the highly regarded monk.

I was fortunate, incredibly lucky, actually, to find a living proponent of the teaching I speak from and which is at the same time my experience. My Mentor was a man of astounding accomplishment in the area of metaphysics. such that Jesuit scholars, the very learned of many churches, and even the teachers of Eastern and other systems came to him and found that impasses they had reache disolved under his analysis. He was talented, as appearently I am not so much, in explicating in their own terms how things were seen from another level. I only wish I had the loftiness of his ability, But the fact is, as I saw repeatedly, there is a more esoteric Understanding of the matters we usually attribute to simple faith. My own experience had simply been a sudden and unprepared for incident easily explainable in a more fundamental system that has been around since before Abraham and is yet alive today.

That Understanding is ancient, and is even at the root of Christianity, but is obscured due to certain unfortunate events at the begining of the records of Church teaching. And it is real, despite detracotors who wish ot classify it as something it isn’t. I have alluded to those events and teachings, with little avail. as I have often stated, as well as being a bouy and an anchor, faith can as well be a prophylactic. Once it is clear what that Understanding I refer to is about, the teachings of Jesus open in and entirley more wonderful, glorious, practical, and meaningful way.

So all that is to say that I am not here talking through my hat, or blowing smoke. I know that I know what I know, and what I offer is a apossibility of education and familiarity with ideas not commonly addresed in the popular versions of world faiths. Yet it is experientiallly demonstrable that it is at the root of these faiths, if but one is willing to see. For that reason, despite opposition from some on here, I speak my piece in case someone actually can slip through the door.

That has no negative connotation on Catholicism, it just offers another step that is available if one so chooses. For the vast majority, their faith is excellent, save that in fact it is incomplete in the crunch, as it is exactly that: faith. It is not knowledge, despite being even deep and profound knowledge about a system.

 
I am wondering what any of this has to do with the topic of this thread.

Maybe you should start another one on whatever you are talking about, which completely eludes me at this point.
 
Actually, it has everything to do with it. I’m proposing that the methodology both of science and of faith are inadequate for a satisfactory understanding of the question of ID, or creation/big bang, or creationism. Both faith (the Abrahamic stand) and science (materialism) leave out the crucial factor in the examinaton of the laternatives. I have siply laid out, when asked, how I arrived at my understanding of that question.
 
Detales

*Both faith (the Abrahamic stand) and science (materialism) leave out the crucial factor in the examinaton of the laternatives. I have siply laid out, when asked, how I arrived at my understanding of that question. *

So how do the alternatives(?) help us decide whether God is belittled by Intelligent Design?
 
It is very simple. When you know that 2+2=4, the other answers disappear for lack of support, just like a baby drops one toy for another and forgets the dropped toy. ID etc, can be seen for what they are: imagination substituting for Reality until Self is known as All.

ID et al are lines on paper. They are not the paper. Without the paper there can be no lines for the pen of you attention to draw on. No matter how clearly you describe even the paper with your writing, the writing will never itself be the paper. But the paper, the pen, and your writing are all in the same Mind. When you understand that the God you are looking for is the light to your looking, you will understand what ID is/is not. Right now you are only thinking about “IDeas.” But when you know you know, you know you know. Faith and thought are contents, not Substance. Where are “you” in that?
 
Detales
*
Faith and thought are contents, not Substance. *

At the risk of completely derailing this thread, faith and thought are the contents of what?

And if you don’t giver me at least one answer that isn’t gibberish, I’m through with you. :rolleyes:
 
It’s funny, isn’t it? what is giberish to some makes perfect and complete sense to someone on the same page. That is no problem, and if my answers are disturbing to you, or since you find them confounding, it would be better for you to disregard them. I’ve only posted in response to your question, anyway.

Think about how things happen in your life. Have you ever done anything that you didn’t think of first? I mean, even if it is a knee jerk thing, it happens in your mind first as a response to condition either inside your mind or what you think is outside it. Remember, seeing, hearing, etc. are all internal events, and if your brain didn’t correct fro it, your world would appear up-side down because of how your eyes work. Mind is always first, then action. And if you watch carefully, you will find that awareness is actually a manifestaion of something even more subtle called Consciousness. This is not arguable, it is simply proven by self observation in anyone who wishes to do the dilligence.

So, what I mean by thought and faith being contents, is that they are objects of awareness. That awareness is an subjective experience of mind. You have through your life accepted certain things as true, or certain dynamics as being true. All that is built up in your mind as as approximation of the world you think you live in. It is not itself the world. As we know, the map is not the territory. Yet naturally, we think of it as being equal to the world because it is* our *picture, and it works for us.

Your picture or mine would not work very well in a primitive desert culture, say, or if we had to survive in the Arctic. It only works where we are. Part of that working is faith, because it is contents we learned or accepted growing up. It works because a whole lot of people agree with us for the most part. But it is in fact handed down contents from one mind to another. That is true even if the handing down is through a book. That applies for any faith and any contents.

But if you study how all that happens, you discover that the contents, ie intellectual knowledge, is just that. Intelectual knowledge. You and I werent there when the egg hatched, so to speak. So we belive from books what they say, and because that belife is a mental act, we say that it is "in " the mind, therefor it is contents. Substance is an entirely differnt “matter” lol! It is That which does not change. In fact, that is the test of Reality. If it changes, it is not Real. It may be actual, or experiencible, but it is not Real in an absolute sense. Only God as God is Real. God’s creation has a manifest reality dependent on the Allness of God, but it exists in Mind, that aspect of God which for the sake of education we can say is the manifesting activity of God, at that level called AM. I is Substance, Am is manifestaiton. That is the totality of the dynamic. There is another step, but so far that is likely a lot for you to chew.

Don’t worry if you don’t agree, or don’t get it. I matters not a whit. Eventually you will see. Then we might have a nice chat that is more inclusive than the seeming contention we are now part of. If you don’t wish any further communication, then Bon Chance! Practice your beliefs with all the might you can muster. It is the best thing you can do, short of contending with these ideas.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC
 
Detales

I think I understand some of what you said, if not all.

Thought and knowledge are contents of awareness? Didn’t we already know that?

How does that fact impact on Intelligent Design? Are you saying our notion of Intelligent Design is a bogus content of consciousness.

If so, why?
 
Father Coyne believes “God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity… God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

Father Coyne is using freedom in two senses in the same sentence. God’s freedom clearly implies the power of choice whereas freedom in the evolutionary process is no more than blind indeterminism - of which random mutations are an example. He cannot have it both ways!

If God **never **intervenes He is reduced to a **passive **observer who does absolutely nothing to control the course of evolution… or events. Surely this contradicts the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who ensures that there is no unnecessary evil or suffering in the world. Belief in miracles is at the very heart of Christianity.

Surely Intelligent Design bears witness to God’s power and love whereas Father Coyne’s view belittles it…
 
Father Coyne believes “God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity… God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

Father Coyne is using freedom in two senses in the same sentence. God’s freedom clearly implies the power of choice whereas freedom in the evolutionary process is no more than blind indeterminism - of which random mutations are an example. He cannot have it both ways!

If God **never **intervenes He is reduced to a **passive **observer who does absolutely nothing to control the course of evolution… or events. Surely this contradicts the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who ensures that there is no unnecessary evil or suffering in the world. Belief in miracles is at the very heart of Christianity.

Surely Intelligent Design bears witness to God’s power and love whereas Father Coyne’s view belittles it…
But just a few miracles then opens the question for why doesn’t God prevent suffering? Sure, if he’s a “hands off” God then that would explain it, but if he performs miracles here and there (toast and tree trunks aside) then why not perform them enough so that it actually helps people? In short, why heal a leper but not create antibiotics or just explain how germs work?
 
Yes, we did know that. What we don’t know as a constant fact before our attention is how much we rely on that contents to be an accurate map of the entirety of existance. We forget our role in the picture as map maker. We aquired our particular values as to the importance of certain “landmarks.” We forget that we forget anything that is not relevant to us in the terms of our particular map. We even forget that our language makes certain assumptions about reality that may not be true to fact, and yet we reason with that language, or system of symbols, tusting it completely to deliver correct results.

So we make, necessarily, a map of the world according to the best information we have. All of that information is an approximation, and useful for navigating within our world as we see it, especially if we live in a situation where our map is re-enforced by our group of associates who have similar maps they perhaps recieved from generations past. The story of the holiday ham comes to mind.

That is also why “lamb of God” had to be translated some time ago as “seal pup of God” for the Esquimaux who had no idea of lambs or shepherds or fig trees. Or why the jungle dweller couldn’t understand that the antelope he saw miles away from a mountain top he was taken to were full sized. He had never in his life seen anythng farther away than 300 feet at most. He also got sick in the truck on the way, because he had never gone faster than his own run could carry him. And of course we know about the cargo cultists who built airplanes from sticks hoping to attract the real thing, not understanding about modern technology, which to them appeared as magic.We see the world according to our learned perceptions. All of us.

But none of that is “bogus.” It is just where people’s awareness is and needs to be. It serves for what we need in order to cope fruitfully with our circumstances. And today, we have a different circumstance in which it would behoove us to make a study of how we ourselves think, and what we take for granted, given that all the village mentalities in the world are now clashing and vieing for a place in the accounting of things.

That is so in every field of human experience. It is easier to reach a level field in such things in most aspects of maths and sciences, because those are repeatably demonstrable. It is not so easy when it comes to such things as food preferenc, or cultural habits, or even religion.

In the matter of religion, it is easy to see that even major groups of similar believers in the major world religions start from different premises, different revalaions, and emphasise different ideas as being fundamentally important. There are even two Christian sects that base their dissimilar religions on two haves of the same sentence!

So all I am advocating here, relative to ID or anything else, is to step back and look at ourselves as being created in the image and likeness of God, and asking ourselves how this is true as distributed over the entire race of Man, It would be difficult to exclude someone from that proposition if they are but human. In other words, it would serve us to look at the phenomenal nature of Man as discoverable both by objective and subjective analysis as Man. We might then find some patterns that apply to the interpretations of even our religious beliefs relative to everyone else’s that are common and can dissolve some of our more imagined belifes of separation, even betwen science and religion.

This may be particularly useful in the subjective realm of understanding. Very few people undertake an asiduous study of hwo they themselves percieve, recieve, and think about information, and about wht premises they have accepted, accurate of no, about how they think about these ideas,

In particular, we take for granted that we are aware. We are even more discounting of the idea that our own awareness is a “personal” example of a general principle called Consiousness. This idea of consciousness can be pointed to by the feeling of “I” the we each have, and which doesn’t change despite whatever content or indivduated awareness carries as freight, useful or not. A simple survey of how people in general behave can lead us to the conclusion that though everyone feels tob “I,” some of the contents of their awareness is more or less useful in coping with the world, their jobs, others, or themselvs.

I further propose that those cultures which ahve had the liesure to do so, in the East and West, have consistently over at least the past 5000 years produced viable and experiencable insights as to the nature of Man relative to God and Creation that are of extreme value, if understood. I am therefor concerned that any belief system, whether it be atheistic, scientific, or religious, should discount those dicoveries pertinent to our own nature simply because or the tenets of their particular system of world experience mapping.

ID is one of those systems of mapping, and of course it has elements of actuality as its components. But in the larger picture, they may not fit exactly the way we might think, had we but another perspective to triangulate from.

So again, I’m not claiming anything is “bogus.” I’m claiming that there is a more inclusive way of perception that is wider and deeper that, if known, or even if competently know about, might influence some aspects of consideration relative to ID.
 
Tony

*Surely Intelligent Design bears witness to God’s power and love whereas Father Coyne’s view belittles it… *

Yes, the irony of his answer is that evolution by random mutation *does *seem to belittle His role in the entire affair.

Detales

*So again, I’m not claiming anything is “bogus.” I’m claiming that there is a more inclusive way of perception that is wider and deeper that, if known, or even if competently know about, might influence some aspects of consideration relative to ID. *

Can you expand on the bold words?

liquidpele

*But just a few miracles then opens the question for **why doesn’t God prevent suffering? **Sure, if he’s a “hands off” God then that would explain it, but if he performs miracles here and there (toast and tree trunks aside) then why not perform them enough so that it actually helps people? In short, why heal a leper but not create antibiotics or just explain how germs work? *

Let me tell you something: I have learned that the people who are the dullest people on earth are the ones who have never suffered, or who have never suffered very much. Suffering breeds character. It is a test of our character. Even suffering that attends death is the spur to every atheist’s last chance to be saved when he cries out “Oh my God!” And if he doesn’t cry out, he is truly a fool.

You want him to be saved and his disease cured? For what? So that he can spend a few more years blaspheming God with impunity?

It may well be that God sometimes belittles us in our own minds so that we can be empowered by His grace. In nothing we do or say can we ever belittle God except by fooling ourselves that we have done so.
 
But just a few miracles then opens the question for why doesn’t God prevent suffering?
Do you mean why doesn’t God prevent all suffering?
Sure, if he’s a “hands off” God then that would explain it, but if he performs miracles here and there (toast and tree trunks aside) then why not perform them enough so that it actually helps people?
How do we determine what are enough miracles?
In short, why heal a leper but not create antibiotics or just explain how germs work?
How would antibiotics be created and germs explained? What would be the means by which God communicates this knowledge?
 
liquidpele

*But just a few miracles then opens the question for **why doesn’t God prevent suffering? ***Sure, if he’s a “hands off” God then that would explain it, but if he performs miracles here and there (toast and tree trunks aside) then why not perform them enough so that it actually helps people? In short, why heal a leper but not create antibiotics or just explain how germs work?

Let me tell you something: I have learned that the people who are the dullest people on earth are the ones who have never suffered, or who have never suffered very much. Suffering breeds character. It is a test of our character. Even suffering that attends death is the spur to every atheist’s last chance to be saved when he cries out “Oh my God!” And if he doesn’t cry out, he is truly a fool.

You want him to be saved and his disease cured? For what? So that he can spend a few more years blaspheming God with impunity?

It may well be that God sometimes belittles us in our own minds so that we can be empowered by His grace. In nothing we do or say can we ever belittle God except by fooling ourselves that we have done so.
I get the feeling that it is you that doesn’t know what suffering is. You try to make it sound noble… I can’t help but think how delusional that sounds.
 
Do you mean why doesn’t God prevent all suffering?
How do we determine what are enough miracles?
How would antibiotics be created and germs explained? What would be the means by which God communicates this knowledge?
Not even all suffering, just the needless.

I’m not trying to define how many are enough. You said we should believe in miracles, and I’m asking why if there are miracles and God interferes with this world, why would God not do more?

I was talking about Jesus specifically there, but my point was more general. Why would God hold back on miracles?
 
Not even all suffering, just the needless.
How do you determine what is needless? Specific example would be useful…
I’m not trying to define how many are enough. You said we should believe in miracles, and I’m asking why if there are miracles and God interferes with this world, why would God not do more?
And I am asking how many more? It is impossible to address vague assertions. Why don’t you ask why God doesn’t prevent **all **suffering?
I was talking about Jesus specifically there, but my point was more general. Why would God hold back on miracles?
If you mean work a miracle for every disease, deformity and disability I have already pointed out that a spate of miracles would undermine the order and regularity of nature.
 
liquidpele

*I get the feeling that it is you that doesn’t know what suffering is. You try to make it sound noble… I can’t help but think how delusional that sounds. *

Well I’m not in the business of inflicting suffering on others or myself for the purpose of testing character. I believe we all get plenty of that sooner or later without the need to brag about our suffering.

My point is just that suffering, while painful, can produce great consequences. Ask this of anyone who has suffered greatly for a cause, even a cause he never imagined before the suffering began.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top