In other words all complex organs have been produced by physical necessity. The entire process of development from the origin of life to rational beings was inevitable, i.e. sheer physical necessity. Eventually it had to happen for no reason whatsoever.
In that case reasons are replaced by causes⌠I wonder how that affects oneâs faith in the power of reason. Is insight an illusion?
Good Afternoon Toneyrey: I donât know if it was necessary or inevitable. It may have been just the way cosmos grew. Ancient and shamanic cultures had a more organic view of the cosmos. The idea that there are such things as laws that govern some sort of mechanical process developed about the time of Descartes, Newton and the like. Seeing the world on a physical or naĂŻve surface level was also a specialty of the Greeks, and started gaining purchase again during the Renaissance.
I rather think that the organic view will one day win out. If you couple an organic rather than mechanical view of the world around us an apply some common sense about what we find meaningful about existence, or simply what it is that we do as beings, you start coming up with a different view of things. Let me explain what I mean. Anything we do is about experience. Riding a bike, sorrow, pain, happiness, joy, love, anger, rowing a boat, going to work, a day in the park - itâs all experience. That seems to be what weâre about. On Earth, we experience things through 5 senses that we know of, and who knows what else in other regions of the cosmos.
The universe seems to be about experience, and rather than a maker with a plan, perhaps itâs a maker who simply craves experience. If there is no one to experience suns, planets, skies, plants, air and what have you, then what is the point? So what if the universe isnât something other than God growing and experiencing what it makes of itself? Perhaps as it grows, it creates new dimensions of experience. Here on earth it developed as simple organisms that created the dimension of movement, then the sensation of light sensitivity, then organs of vision, sound, touch, taste and so on, until eventually at least on this planet it developed a new dimension called language where it could share ideas with permutations of itself.
There certainly werenât any laws about physics at the moment before the Big Bang, and no laws governing atoms for billions of years after the big bang because there were no atoms at that level of heat. There was only an electron soup. Atoms didnât behave like atoms until there were atoms, and from there it was possibly simply a learned pattern of behavior for atoms to behave like they do. The current model of the universe certainly behaves like atoms on a much larger scale - the biggest things, the smallest things and all things in between behave that way. Electrons around nuclei, moons around planets, planets around suns, suns around galaxies and all the things these larger bodies are made of behave in this way. It looks lore like a pattern of learned behavior rather than a plan. And there is no reason to suppose that there were laws governing any of these things until these things came to be. No laws of how atoms behave until there were such things as atoms, no laws on simple elements until there were simple elements, No laws on complex elements until there were complex elements and no laws on complex polymers until there were complex polymers. Laws are a human syntax of thinking that we have projected onto the natural world in our heads.
In my view, and I have explained my thinking on this, is that God is not something other than what God expresses. God says that IT is the vine and we are the branches. Well, were does a vine end and a branch begin? There are one thing in truth. And people hate this idea, because it puts everything squarely back on us, because itâs a fearful idea to think that no one is going to save you and watch over you. But what is there to be saved from when the whole thing was you anyway?
Just a point of view.
