Thank God for Evolution

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

science.howstuffworks.com/light7.htm

I have a hunch that matter isn’t based in burnt out old stars.

The stars do not need to be burnt out in order to emit chemical elements.

Shalom.

Man is his own God.

When we come to realise our responsibility and our own divine role within creation then we will be liberated from the chains of imposed and restricted Godhood.

The responsibility of being your own master and god is the first step into the birthing of YOU in a cosmos that is waiting to be conceived in human consciousness. Please do not impose chains of godness onto the abyss, I think you will find that the rest of the cosmos will throw them right back at you.

As for deeper revelations into the insight of man himself, well, ‘As above, so Below’.

Pax et Lux

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MffpEVD0jww[/youtube]

[/youtube]

I love that flick… love the 1962 version even more…

youtube.com/watch?v=jARp24AJWLk

Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” is, IMHO, a failed attempt to prove human evolution does not entail purpose. This is the traditional atheistic argument against a creator God. The book fails to convince anyone that humans do not have a spiritual nature, that out rational nature is sufficient to describe all that it is like to be human. Nowadays Dawkins is wasting his time bad mouthing fundy Christian mythology, an easy target for atheists.

That was cute. Question : Can a speck of reality know the whole of reality even if it’s made of the same stuff?

Dowd says, in a nutshell, that his evolution gospel – The Greatest Story ever told – can be accepted by theists and atheists alike :

Seriously, in all but the most polarized settings, my reframing of what we might be pointing to when we use the word “God” resonates with ardent atheists and with the scripturally minded. I recall a time when I addressed an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship group of students at a university in eastern Canada. One young man came loaded for bear. Along with his King James Bible, he brought a copy of Strong’s Concordance. He challenged me from the get-go. “Lighten up, John,” someone finally called out to him. “Give the man a chance to present his viewpoint.” Well, after my talk and the discussion period, John gave me a bear hug. “Now, I don’t go along with everything you say,” he began. “But I’m not threatened by your ideas.” Similarly, I have been delighted by responses from most atheists. In Colorado Springs, an older man blurted out in the midst of my presentation, “Finally, a God that makes sense!”
~~ Dowd, Michael. Thank God for Evolution (p. 122). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”—Albert Einstein

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”–Albert Einstein

hm. that’s a philosophical question, which means it’s a very strange and elusive question. let me ask you something before i attempt an answer; what would a wrong answer to that question look like, and would you know one if you saw it?

(we must proceed very cautiously here lest we suffer a bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language. i just stole that from wittgenstein, btw.)

Can a piece of my burrito know all of the burrito, even if it is made of burrito? I don’t know, dude, sometimes they plop all of the sour cream in one spot. Isn’t that annoying? I kind of want every bite of my burrito to have a proportional amount of every ingredient. Is that too much to ask?
But let me save you some trouble here, homie. Burritos don’t know anything. They don’t gots brains.

images.complex.com/complex/imag … wkibqk.jpg

I think therefore I am. Burritos don’t think therefore they ain’t am.

But you get my point, right phoneutria? We can only know a small part of the universe, therefore an even smaller part of Dowd’s Greatest Story ever told, i.e. the 13.8 billion year evolution of this universe, evolving all the way up to the consciousness writing and reading this post ; howbeit a very limited consciousness at that.

. . . The eyeballs of this grand universe, according to Dowd (and prolly Primack and Adams) ; the universe looking back at itself.

A few decades ago philosopher Colin McGinn opined that consciousness is too complicated for the mind to explain.

True. I think Dowd sees “Ultimate Reality” as God because of his evangelical background. The word God to him is a symbol of what he assumes to have to exist, which is ultimately, well, reality. In fact, in his book he calls reality God.

It’s his thing ; something that we all can agree upon ; that doesn’t depend on believing ; reality is, well, a actual real thing ; we might say as real as the consciousness writing and reading this post.

Hey, I haven’t finished reading his book. But maybe the evolution of the universe from 13.8 billion years ago, all the way up to this living consciousness, is why Dowd asks and says :

In earnest …
HD

That’s pork brain, man. That’s not 100% authentic burrito brain. I ain’t eating that.

yeah, but, so what? Is there a point you’re making? I missed it. Sorry, I’m stupid.

Surely one can’t look back at itself with one’s own eyes. That’s gotta be someone else’s eyes then.

For your consideration: “Reality reconciles science and religion”: Michael Dowd at TEDxGrandRapids
youtube.com/watch?v=1QeTWVw9Fm4

An inspiring talk for those of us who believe in a possible marriage of science and religion as providing evidence of Reality.