February 2007

I read your argument page and found it amusing. You, like other atheists, attempt to tear down the concept of “God” by building a straw man, religion, and then you tear down the straw man. I do not disagree with the idea that Middle Eastern based religions have brought nothing but havock on this planet. I believe their time has come. Science has also wrought it’s own hell to the humans. However, the idea of a Creator supercedes religion and science, yet is found in both. The concept of a universal intelligence is found in science. All of the information that ever was and ever will be is present, omniscience. The energy of Creation has been everywhere since the dawn of time and is still with us, coursing through our very bodies, stimulating the clumps of gray matter in our skulls to form coherent thoughts, omnipresence. Since our brain function is based on electrical currents, tiny bits of energy, coursing through our puny little bits of star dust, providing us with “intelligence”, I would venture to guess the available and existant energy present throughout the cosmos creates and Intelligence far beyond anything we can understand; yet.

The concept of a Creator is found throughout our history as a race of animals but, is not limited to religions. I believe the concept and imagery of Creator has to be altered from a jealous, wanting, expecting, almost human like being to something more. Ponder omnipotence.

My favorite description comes from the Lakota tribes of the Great Plains of N. America; Wakan Tanka = Great Mystery. In my opinion, humanity’s loss of wonder and mystery has been detrimental. Remember, science really proves nothing but, speculates on everything. Real scientists admit this freely, while lay adherents hold up speculative concepts as the ultimate truth.

I apologize for my berevity and, perhaps verbal wanderings but, it is late and I have to get up for work at 4am.

Please do not hesitate to email.

By the way, I do not believe in accidents and neither does string theory. I prefer overwheling probabilty.

You’ve given me a lot to talk about, and I appreciate that.

To start off, I’m glad you found the argument page amusing — it’s supposed to be.

You are incorrect when you say that I equate arguing against religion with arguing against the existence of a deity. Although the concepts are related, they are certainly distinct. If there is a god, it could easily be a being unimagined by any earthly religion.

And speaking of straw men, I do not say that “Middle Eastern based religions have brought nothing but havoc on this planet” as you imply (perhaps accidentally). Both good and bad has come from religion, but I feel that the potential for bad (particularly in terms of allowing one’s self to be led into irrational practices and beliefs) often outweighs the good.

I disagree with your statement that the concept of a creator is found in science. I will deal with your points one at a time.

“All of the information that ever was and ever will be is present” I don’t see how that can be correct. Even if the universe is completely deterministic, there is plenty of information (the population in a thousand years, for example) that is not currently in existence and could, at best, be calculated only using methods deemed impossible by chaos theory.

“The energy of Creation has been everywhere since the dawn of time and is still with us” I think you’re playing with words here. Energy created during the big bang is with us, that is true, but calling this the “energy of Creation” implies a creator, and you give me no reason to believe there is such a thing.

You say that our brains use electricity and then “venture to guess the available and existant energy present throughout the cosmos creates and Intelligence far beyond anything we can understand; yet”. This is like saying that my car has iron in it and since there is iron throughout the universe there must be more cars out there than we can imagine. Brains using electricity does not imply that energy is thought.

“The concept of a Creator is found throughout our history as a race of animals but, is not limited to religions.” I don’t know how you can say with certainty that the concept of a creator goes back to the beginning of our evolution as a species. That’s a pretty broad statement. I would also say that believing that there is a creator is a religious belief, and therefore don’t see how it can exist outside of religion.

“In my opinion, humanity’s loss of wonder and mystery has been detrimental.” Where is this loss of wonder and mystery? If it weren’t for these, there would be no science. I’m guessing that you are using these terms to mean something like “loss of faith in the inexplicable,” and if so, that’s not something I miss.

“Remember, science really proves nothing but, speculates on everything. Real scientists admit this freely” You’re playing with words again. In a very technical sense, science proves nothing because a theory is never formally labeled as proved. However, in a practical sense, scientists consider many, many things to have been proved. If they didn’t, they couldn’t make any progress. This is like the creationists who argue that evolution is “only a theory” and therefore not to be taken seriously. They are misusing the vocabulary of science.

“By the way, I do not believe in accidents and neither does string theory” I’m guessing that you’re playing with vocabulary here again. It’s true that string theory is deterministic, but that does not mean that “everything happens for a reason” or any such thing (in case that is what you are implying).

Posted on February 2, 2007 at 12:31 am by ideclare · Permalink
In: Comment, Discussion

Leave a Reply