Archive for October, 2007

A postmodern antidote

Posted: October 18, 2007 in Theo/Philo

From ‘Miracles’ by C.S.Lewis

cslreading.jpg

 

 

‘It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. ‘Look out!’ we cry, ‘it’s alive’. And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back–I would have done so myself if I could–and proceed no further with Christianity. An ‘impersonal God’–well and good.

A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads–better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap–best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband–that is quite another matter.

There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (‘Man’s search for God!’) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?’

 

HT: Kindlings Muse

Imagine

Posted: October 18, 2007 in Intelligent Design, Theo/Philo

 

 robots-1.jpg

(late night ramblings)

 

Imagine a barren landscape where nothing grows ,a salt lake, Mare Tranquillitatis,a rock orbiting a neutron star bombarded with radiation or my back garden after the dog has been out there.

Life’s origin, it seems, is a singularity,its ubiquity is not apparent, but not shown to be false.

Science assumes a closed universe,the method both dictates that assumption, and is limited to making only that assumption. A case of the media dictating the message ?

In which case the instigation of life on our barren rock, quite possibly a singular event, was non teleological and could only be the product of chance or contingency.

Imagine that salt lake, mare tranquillitatis or the rock orbiting a neutron star, on that sterile barren landscape imagine atoms in chaos finding there thermodynamic equilibrium, from this imagine some means of self assembly of these atoms into complex machines that are characterised by having not just one initial function, but many, all critical to survival and necessary from the outset.

The commonest of these functions our newly assembled machines have, is to be able to reproduce other self assembling machines. Spontaneous generation by chance or by contingency?

If these are the only options we have, then a problem arises, if life is written into the make up of every atom and into natural law, then where are the Klingon’s ?

The Chance of life’s self assembly, our other option, is widely considered to be so small as to off the scale for anyone to seriously consider.

So what are we left with? Well I guess we can but imagine.

Studentships available ?

Posted: October 13, 2007 in Theo/Philo

collaborative_t.jpg

Are we hard coded to believe in God? Is the fundamental reason why approximately 95% of all the humans living on Earth subscribe to God in some form or other  due to a gene product?

Did we evolve the idea of God to comfort us in our realisation that the universe is cold, dark, empty and never had us in mind. That we are adrift on an endless ocean without a shore ?That we alone face our mortality, we know we will  die.

As the author of ‘The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes’ Dean Hammer says :

“I think we follow the basic law of nature, which is that we’re a bunch of chemical reactions running around in a bag.”

Where is the god gene,what loci is it parked on ?

If the reason we believe is to be found within, the assumption is, that there is no objectivity to God . An assumption which is beyond  the remit of science and relies on scientism.

It follows that if one idea, that of God, requires a gene then of course there are lots of other ideas, will they also require the genes  ?

The agnostic gene, the atheist gene, the  science gene ? the simpsons gene?PhD  Studentships anyone?

The notion that the ideas we have  are as the result of  materialistic forces alone, brings a circular argument that undermines  truth, if we except that  ideas are  generated from evolutionary forces and  genetic pressure,  then this must include the idea that ideas are generated from evolutionary forces and genetic pressure. How do ya like that objectivity ?