For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
[The following is a recap of the comment stream which followed a statement from two years ago, about a BBC video featuring Daniel Dennett. This new post was prompted by an exchange with the moderator COEXISTEential. He didn’t get far with out spinning out into the predictable foolishness. I have not included the brief but tedious exchange beyond the howdy-do.]
Darwin’s theories opened the door to a better understanding of God. But these fellows minds, are as conditioned by primitive imaginings, as the ancestors they think they’ve displaced.
Dan Lennon – “This is ironic at best and disingenuous at worst. Religion has fought science at every turn as science has displaced superstition with natural explanations. That is why Darwin, who was a believer, lost his faith. You can say that science merely reveals in greater detail the way in which God works if you like, but that is merely a preference on your part, since the facts themselves neither require nor imply a creator. On the contrary, the more we know about how the universe works the less it seems to be under any purposeful direction, and certainly not with human interests in mind.“
Yes, the irony of the situation is not lost on me. But I stand by my comment. There is nothing ingenuine here.
The faith that Darwin lost, was in his mental constructs regarding an anthropomophized creator. I assume these arose from the Christian conditioning of his times.
Mental constructs are not God. We exist therefore we are created. The purposefulness of “our” relative experience does not adequately summarize that of the singularity of God.
And following from this, the constructs of “I’, “We”, “Our”, “Mine” are not what they seem.
Without some effort to comprehend a non-dualistic sense of Entirety, you are NOT talking about God.
Is this more clear?
Dan Lennon – “Why do you think that your thoughts about god are anything more than mental constructs?“
The point is that I understand that my imagining is a limitation, and as such is merely a subset of reality.
Just as my finite sense of self or “I” is a subset of the infinite “I”.
Infinite because that is the root cause. What is experienced as Universe, (including awareness, if that isn’t obvious), is the emergent characteristic of Singularity.
Paradox. Knowable but not in terms of “this and that” or even “me and God”.
COEXISTential- “You may need to explain why it is that more educated people tend to be less religious.
Likewise wealthier people tend to be less religious. If you’re educated you understand your world better, and thus don’t need God as an explanation. If you’re wealthy, you’re somewhat insulated from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, i.e. things that you can’t predict and would need God to explain.
Your post implies a cognitive dissonance-quelling acceptance of the inevitable, alongside retention of the improbable.“
There are assumptions in your comment that echo those that motivated my original statement.
My understanding is actually more in line with evolution than that. There is a continuation of refinement in the theological temperament. As knowledge fills in gaps, we move closer to actual engagement with Infinitude.
The bridge to the gods of fire, wind, sun and moon does not get burned, but attention coalesces into contemplation and cognitive absorption with singularity. As I said, the root cause, infinitude.
Petitions for prosperity and even knowledge are replaced by the quest for freedom.
The sense of ownership that those properties reinforce, is an illusion. We are not the body and it’s mind any more than the Sun is just a star.
[I wish to reiterate the main point at this time:
“Without some effort to comprehend a non-dualistic sense of Entirety, you are NOT talking about God.“
The full conversation can be found here though you may need to first cancel an advertisement, pause the video, and expand hidden comments, to see it.]