OK, I stretched “fabrication” a bit and might better have used “untrue,” removing the delibrate factor.
I agree about the vast distances. It is exactly for that reason that, though I like the idea of believing in flying saucers, my actual position is to be way sceptical.* I would say that this may even be so for SETI. But again,
as if we know all there is to know about physics. I’ve myself debunked a few sightings on the spot, yet have seen a few doozies as well as heard of some amazing encounters from people I know to be credible. Also when I worked at the UofA Optical Sciences building, I saw a lot of “saucer” photos that had been sent there for image verifacation. A few were labeled “genuine,” but even then a genuine what? Intruiging, nevertheless.
Yes, we tend to attribute things to a point source, whereas Aquinas and others forshadowed Darwin. One of his contemporaries, Alfred R. Wallace, in one of those weird twofers that sometimes happen in science, came up with the theory of natural selection at the same time Darwin did. In fact, his paper on it was co-published with Darwin’s by the Linnaeus Society in 1878. We don’t hear about him as much because he later went on to ammend his view to include an unseen world of spirit which influences the world of matter.
He wrote, in
The World of Life, “If, as I contend, we are forced to the assumption of an infinite God, …it seems ony logical that the vast, the infinite chasm between ourselves and the Diety is to some extent occupied by an almost infinite series of grades of beings, each successive grade having higher and higher powers in regards to the origination, the development, and the control of the Universe.”
In the eyes of the scientific community, Darwin, despite having originally studied to be a cleric, didn’t make the error of attributing anything
directly to God or a spirit world, so we continue to hear about him. Yet, Wallace’s scheme seems far more inclusive and reasonable on some counts. But not even the Creationists bring him into their picture. I guess this might be because he neither attributed Creation to God Himself, neccesarily, as a point Source.
I sporadically enjoyed Bab 5 back in its broadcast days, and thought it to be, generally, an intelelligently entertaining program. It had a fascinating dimensionallity about it. I think I missed or have forgotten about the monks. Perhaps my dislike for missionaryism acted as a “friar extinguisher.”
As to why we want to believe there are others out there? It may be an extension of our desire for a “we” feeling. It has been shown that contact, physical or even abstract, has a healthy effect on the organism. And I still agree with my Mother. Being an artist, it is nearly impossible to “make just one.” Creativity is a pressure, and is why I contend that Life is a Force, not a manifestation just of the forms we see here on Earth.
I believe it to be a Force that seeks out every possible combination, workable or not, in every possible circumstance. To me this is congruent with the Omniscience of God, in His knowing everything, every possibility, every nuance, both positive and negative. As one friend said “I not only believe that God doesn’t care, I don’t believe He cares either way.” I think there is some truth to this viepoint, especially regarding agency, or free will. The consequences of our decisons are
ours to experience, even to the utter thoroughness described by Dannion Brinkley in
Saved by the Light regarding “judgement.”
But that brings up, for me, my biggest bone of contention in the ID theory. That explanation, as far as I now understand it, without having read the book, gives me a very unlikely scenario. It gives me a picture such as I have witnessed at the Emeryville Model Railroad Engineers Society. That is “God and His train set.” It seems to portray God as a Person who has built a cosmos which He plays around with, its ordinary funcioning “as built” being insufficient for His entertainment, or whatever.
First, God as a Person, in any sense we might understand that, is untenable simply on the basis of the nature of Eternality. That picture of God I conclude to be completely anthropomorphic. If it changes, it is NOT eternal. Eternality, as I understand it, has no component of duration. That is why I postulate Life as a Force that is the ground of growth and activity as the Universe.
And as to the alternatives, given that you believe that there is a possibility that the view to which you subscribe may be wrong, or, better, perhaps, incomplete, there may yet be one more alternative to consider. That is the one that we as Christians tend to ignore as heretical, and yet is an ancient view much simpler in explanation than any of our shenanigans of intellection surrounding evolution, etc.
That view might simply be stated in our terms as a congruancy with the position that God is ALL: Since God is ALL, the manifest Universe must perforce be of His own Nature and Substance and therefore “guided” from within. That would make the movements of the Universe more like the decision on our part to move a finger or to consider a new idea. It doesn’t necessitate an external agency hovering over its train set. It is also far more intertaining, in my opinion, as well as congruent with the idea of Man being the image and likeness of God.
Code:
* Remember, a cynic is what empties into a sceptic tank.
** But then, we have to undersand the studies that have to do with eyewitness accounts. "Eyewitness" is an unfortunatley frail way to determin what actually happened. This of course, has as well to be applied to witnesses of miracles, genuine or not. Witness, eg, the "Masters of Illusion" program. Darned if I can figure any of those out, yet I saw them happen. Does that make miracles necessarily to be a result of trickery? No. But again, in terms of spiritual "technology," maybe Arthur Clark had a point.
