- Luke Hobbs
- Brisbane
- Australia
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Just curious, but why do "creationism" and "evolution" have to be different? Could it not just be God's will to have us evolve?
Everything needs a process, you can't just turn the Moon into a rubber duck at the snap of a finger. So why is it so bad for religious bodies, especially the American Christian Club, to look at evolution? Children are being taught the "Loch Ness Monster is real and thus disproves evolution" doesn't seem logical at all. Just because one cake takes 10 minutes to bake doesn't mean all cakes are that quick...
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Roy Bourque 20+
God's will is reductionism is reverse. As the universe unfolds, it goes through creative processes. Those creative processes are guided by the laws of nature. Why they exist, no one knows. We only know how they operate and what they do as time proceeds. Quantum fields are the source from which all things come and back to where they go. Quantum fields are what is doing the creating.
Evolution is upward causation manifesting itself. It is a creative process. What controls it goes back to quantum fields. They establish the code that makes atoms. They establish the code that sets chemistry in motion. They alone determine what is possible and what isn't. Our understanding of them is what allows us to do anything.
All the arguments against religion go back to religion's failure to understand what God is. We have definitions and descriptions of God based on anthropomorphic reasoning. None of them are correct. Quantum fields are correct, but they are not part of the definition of God. They need to be if we are going to get this problem solved. They are everywhere. They are invisible. They are what is doing the creating. It's a no-brainer to me, but I can't seem to get anyone else to see it.
John Dunbar 10+
Roy Bourque 20+
my assertion comes from a religious experience I had when I was meditating on God at the age of nine. What was revealed to me can easily be explained in terms of quantum fields, although I had never been introduced to the subject prior to that experience. It would be eleven years before I came to learn of quantum fields and I realized that I was seeing the same thing in scientific terms.
What God is, and what religion claims God to be are worlds apart. In the ancient world, religious claims were all built on associations. That is how the right hemisphere of the brain sees things. As such, the creative forces of nature, which are singular at the quantum level, were seen as a creator. There is no truth to a God who has human qualities. But the idea that we can have a personal encounter with the forces of creation is a strong belief in Eastern philosophy, and my experience helps me to understand how they could have come to that conclusion. All our creativity comes from an intuitive bond with what drives creation. I and the father are one is how Jesus put it, and many have had such an experience even if they don't see it in the same light.
Roy Bourque 20+
responding to your comment to my reply to Edward;
You may be right about the word "rebellion" being used to control the masses, but in the ancient world, that is how they viewed the power of nature. Nature is very unforgiving to those who ignore their principles (even today). So death and destruction come to those who rebel against the forces of nature, which is where they got the idea.
As far as the obvious cultural gap, it works both ways. They saw things entirely different than we do. In their day, they saw all things as a function of God because God and nature were entwined. I don't know if their mystics saw God and nature as one, or if they saw nature as a product of God, but they definitely were related. Today, we only see God in things that can't be explained because the Catholic Church took God out of reality when the church saw science as a threat to the doctrines of the church. The word theology used to contain a reference to that which is revealed by nature. Today's definition no longer contains any such reference. That change occurred in the last 100 years.
You say the bible doesn't speak of evolution. I see your point, but if you can't get people to see the truth when so much evidence is available, how would you get them to buy into it when there was no human knowledge of it available back then? And then there is another consideration; scriptures were written from an associative point of view. Modern science is all analytical. That distinction must be taken into view when trying to interpret what they wrote. They saw the creative forces of nature as a "creator". We see them as mathematical models.
John Dunbar 10+
If God is based upon the proper way to conquer nature and ensure our species continuation, then God sits in the opposite sense of what your saying.
When I look at christianity I see a very affective way to control peoples lives. The idea of heaven and hell seems to work well in corralling behavior. Ill grant you that Jesus existed and he was a brilliant man, but I have to say, I believe his words were altered to create a system that allowed for power and control. Believe in me or die, is the feeling I get from christianity, it just doesn't seem to fit with the model of how I would picture Jesus. I just cant imagine any God who punishes or rewards. If you want to call God nature I think that makes sense to a degree, but yahweh just seems like a slave master.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
One issue with treating others as you would like to be treated, is if I killed someone or stole something I wouldn't want to be locked up, but I'm happy to lock up others that do.
Not so sure if we all stopped working and worrying about the future and starting wandering around waiting for the supposedly imminent (for 2,000 year) second coming. My recall is Jesus said the Jewish law still applied. No thanks to many aspects of this.
Who knows what he said or did, assuming a person called Jesus existed, when no one bothered to record it until decades after he died and not much independent evidence. Plenty of opportunity to retrofit. We know some parts of the Gospels in current bible were not in the earliest texts etc. Reading the biblical gospels, except for a few statements, I don't get a sense he was much bothered with non jews.
Roy Bourque 20+
I really like your first paragraph. I live by that philosophy.
Your second paragraph is not how I see it. We learn to work with nature, not conquer it. We will never conquer nature. Nature makes the rules. We learn to live in harmony with it or we suffer for failure to do so.
Your third paragraph is why we must not let others do our thinking for us. I don't believe that Jesus words were altered, I believe that the meaning of Jesus words was manipulated. I don't have a problem with the words in the gospels. I have a problem with how others are interpreting them.
The feeling that you get from Christianity is what organized religion wanted you to get. I am very concerned about that myself. As far as God punishing, I have worked in the industrial field. The power that nature can unleash is unimaginable. If you don't know the rules, the results are unthinkable to what the forces of nature can do to a human. And yet, what you can do when you understand nature is awesome. That is the God that I have come to know.
John Dunbar 10+
Roy you seem to have been intelligent enough to update your beliefs and inject your goodness into the befuddled teachings of the bible. It just strikes me as bizarre that you would want to remain affiliated with a man who taught such gruesome insanity and overall awfulness.
Roy Bourque 20+
"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"; or "do you understand what I am trying to say to you"?
Overpopulation was one of the most destructive forces of the ancient world. If it didn't lead to starvation, it led to war. The Romans were crucifying hundreds of people in order to force their judgment upon them. That is the world that Jesus came into. That all has to be considered when you are trying to understand what is written.
I do not know of Christian groups that go around castrating themselves as a result of reading the gospels. So to use such an example to cast stones at Jesus is a poor play of words. I have known few Christians who step on each other. I have known several atheists who wouldn't think twice about it. So whom shall I follow?
John Dunbar 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
Firstly if your god is basically quantum mechanics (sorry if this is a straw man it's what I took form "quantum fields") then why not just ditch the word god completely and take the next step towards saying the universe governs itself just fine.
Also where does the uncertainty principal fit into your image of god? would it be your way of saying we can't know the mind of god?
Somewhere you ascribed quantum mechanics to things such as evolution by taking a step form quantum to atomic to chemical and so forth. Quantum mechanics loses it's main principles in the macro due to the uncertainty principle.
And lastly creation, especially human creations could be reduced to our mental evolution allowing us to make more and more complex machines to further our survival and benefit the user.
Roy Bourque 20+
Excellent questions. Let me try to explain.
At the age of nine, I had an experience while meditating on God that tied it in with the most fundamental principles of nature. I didn't know of quantum fields at the time so I couldn't understand the whole experience. But nevertheless, it provided a definition of God in my mind that would become concrete. When I learned of quantum mechanics, I was able to make the connection.
I was in the process of replacing God with quantum mechanics when I had another experience. At the time, I was going to a Navy school that was taxing my limits. I was questioning about what I should do. I had a spiritual experience that took me to a future time without me in it. The spirit said if life does not go on, they why does anything you do now matter? I said, I don't know, and I was very distraught. The spirit said, you need to figure that out, and then the experience faded.
My first wife was the victim of childhood abuse. It would lead her into alcoholism and eventually claim her life. During my marriage with her, I prayed for an answer and was helped by a charismatic Christian who led me through the whole affair. She told me why God had put us together and what the outcome would be. She was right about the outcome, and the rest would become more apparent with time.
I used to think that everything happens by chance. The wrench in the gears of that idea comes from the fact that I had a navy roommate into Tarot card reading that saw my wife's death four years before I even met her.
I have since done a lot of personal research in religion and psychology. I have discovered many things that the ministers never tell you. Whether they know it or not I don't know. But I know things that either they don't know, or don't want you to know. I am inclined to believe it is the former and not the latter. There is a side to religion that few have ever seen. That is why I won't let it go.
Stewart Gault 30+
It seems you share a common idea with a lot of people, that if something has an end to it, then what's the point of it.
A few examples of things which end but have meanings (though maybe not totally 100% comparable to life) dinner, you eventually finish the meal you had but it served it's purpose when it was there. The last glass of water you drank has a similar effect. Celebrating birthdays, weddings etc, the day eventually ends so whats the point in celebrating it? Well because it's fun whilst the celebrations are going on and because they end it doesn't take away from the fun and importance of celebrating such days.
My philosophy on this question is almost the opposite of yours. To me life has a definite end which to me is when we die. Now because of this notion I feel a renewed sense of purpose in life. Because I've a finite amount of time on this planet it means that every thing I do couldn't be more purposeful or meaningful. It means I've got to spend every moment of my life doing what matters to me. It means people in the future could look back and say that was the lfie of stewart gault and he did x y and z and made the world better for it.
Along with that I also find problems with living forever, physically, spiritually or mentally, eternity doesn't appeal to me.
Roy Bourque 20+
We're not as dissimilar as you think. I am not ruled by religion. Although I may see life different than you (as still going on after we die), I still cherish the moment. I don't believe we live forever as an individual. I believe that our spirit lives on, and that we live many lives, each one influenced by the past. If I am to come back to this world, I want to leave it better than I found it.
I am dismayed when I see others being used as pawns by those who live for today at their expense. Yet, I have come to see that it happens on both sides of the fence, so I take no offense to your position. If you care about people, which seems to be what I read in your comments, then that is all that matters to me.
What I am trying to do here is to bridge the gap between evolution and creation without adhering to spontaneous creation or trying to pull the rug out from evolution, and to defend my position on why I feel that way.
Please don't confuse me with a fundamentalist or religious zealot. I am not fond of either one. What I know of religion is not based purely on what I have read. I have questioned everything that I have read, and have had experiences that bias how I have come to see the world. My views on atheists have also changed by my conversations on TED. The ones I have met in the past were detestable to me. But they were the exception to the rule. I have read many good comments from caring people who don't believe that life goes on. If they embrace mutual cooperation, then I have no issue with them.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I like the feedback. Your comments are thought provoking.
Stewart Gault 30+