A Metaphorical God

[Dexter Sinister]

Typically when the intelligent design discussion is demonstrated as 'badly flawed', it is when atheists hold it up against the rigid rules of an omnipotent, all knowing, perfect god. Intelligent design as a broader mechanism of some force kick starting evolution, has turned out a much more elegant and functional product than most human engineering is capable of.

That's not even close to being right. Any thoughtful human engineer could do a much better job of designing the human body than the design we've got, it's a terrible piece of work. Our eyes are built backwards, with the light sensing cells facing away from the light source and behind the blood vessels that supply them, guaranteeing that some number of us with certain circulatory problems, notably diabetics, will go blind. That can't happen to a squid or an octopus,they have much better eyes. The tubes we breathe and swallow through share the same channel, guaranteeing that a certain number of us will choke to death. That can't happen to a whale or an elephant, their breathing and swallowing tubes are quite separate. What can we conclude from that, that the designer likes those critters better? The temporo-mandibular joint and the knee joint are extremely fragile and easily damaged. Our teeth are not very durable, sharks have a much better plan, rows of new teeth behind the current ones that migrate forward as the current set wears out. Our excretory and reproductive systems share the same territory, which is like an engineer putting an open sewer system through a playground. Average life expectancy without modern scientific medicine is in the 30 to 40 year range. I wouldn't call that elegant and functional. What all that shows is an absence of design, just various bits cobbled together rather sloppily in a "that's good enough, it works" fashion, exactly what an undirected process like evolution would predict.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Me, I'm willing to review any evidence of the existence of a God that doesn't amount to tautology. But I never met a preacher yet who wasn't an obvious snake-oil salesman or certifiable moonbeam. If Gawd really wants me to know and love him, he needs to upgrade his sales staff.

 

[Nick Danger]

This brings us 'round again to just what God is. I think the form offered in the Bible is one of convenience, a humanized version of an ultimate consciousness that was at the limit of its authors' imagination, a metaphor. The flowing robes and mane of bright white are a concept that has stuck with us for millenia and is frankly in dire need of revision. Discovering the true nature of God, or the Source, or All That Is, or the Creator, is now the property of science as they seek to answer the very basic questions of where we came from and where we are going, what makes this all work and so on.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

This brings us 'round again to just what God is. I think the form offered in the Bible is one of convenience, a humanized version of an ultimate consciousness that was at the limit of its authors' imagination, a metaphor. The flowing robes and mane of bright white are a concept that has stuck with us for millenia and is frankly in dire need of revision. Discovering the true nature of God, or the Source, or All That Is, or the Creator, is now the property of science as they seek to answer the very basic questions of where we came from and where we are going.

Even when you replace the anthropomorphic Hairy Thunderer with a New Age Fire of Life, you get back to the same tautology. If whatever-you-want-to-call-it is the source and/or creator of all things, then who or what created it? And if the answer is "nothing created it" then why should I believe it created everything subsequent? It's an infinite-regression problem.

 

[Nick Danger]

Even when you replace the anthropomorphic Hairy Thunderer with a New Age Fire of Life, you get back to the same tautology. If whatever-you-want-to-call-it is the source and/or creator of all things, then who or what created it? And if the answer is "nothing created it" then why should I believe it created everything subsequent? It's an infinite-regression problem.

Or I can just accept it as an as-yet-unanswered question that a bunch of people way smarter than me are already working on. That is why I choose to view the whole God concept as fluid and undefined, but it is still a handy name for all the mystery that surrounds us on a daily basis. I don't try saddle the word with any form at all as that entire argument is decidedly without possible resolution at this point in time, but I'm not about to toss the word out because that would go against my current strategy of keeping my options open until better information comes along.

 

[karrie]

That's not even close to being right. Any thoughtful human engineer could do a much better job of designing the human body than the design we've got, it's a terrible piece of work. Our eyes are built backwards, with the light sensing cells facing away from the light source and behind the blood vessels that supply them, guaranteeing that some number of us with certain circulatory problems, notably diabetics, will go blind. That can't happen to a squid or an octopus,they have much better eyes. The tubes we breathe and swallow through share the same channel, guaranteeing that a certain number of us will choke to death. That can't happen to a whale or an elephant, their breathing and swallowing tubes are quite separate. What can we conclude from that, that the designer likes those critters better? The temporo-mandibular joint and the knee joint are extremely fragile and easily damaged. Our teeth are not very durable, sharks have a much better plan, rows of new teeth behind the current ones that migrate forward as the current set wears out. Our excretory and reproductive systems share the same territory, which is like an engineer putting an open sewer system through a playground. Average life expectancy without modern scientific medicine is in the 30 to 40 year range. I wouldn't call that elegant and functional. What all that shows is an absence of design, just various bits cobbled together rather sloppily in a "that's good enough, it works" fashion, exactly what an undirected process like evolution would predict.

Once again you're assuming they directly designed us, not the system in which we evolved. That for there to have been any larger force involved, that it actually said 'hey, these eyes are good enough'. You can't help but function on the assumption that for there to be a god, it has to fit the rules of monotheist religion. It has to have a direct hand in the system, not simply set the top spinning.

Even when you replace the anthropomorphic Hairy Thunderer with a New Age Fire of Life, you get back to the same tautology. If whatever-you-want-to-call-it is the source and/or creator of all things, then who or what created it? And if the answer is "nothing created it" then why should I believe it created everything subsequent? It's an infinite-regression problem.

So, we either have to know everything all at once, or look for nothing? That seems a bit rigid.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Once again you're assuming they directly designed us, not the system in which we evolved. That for there to have been any larger force involved, that it actually said 'hey, these eyes are good enough'. You can't help but function on the assumption that for there to be a god, it has to fit the rules of monotheist religion. It has to have a direct hand in the system, not simply set the top spinning.



So, we either have to know everything all at once, or look for nothing? That seems a bit rigid.

Not rigid at all. My approach to whatever god is being pushed is the same as my approach to fairies. As soon as I'm presented some evidence that isn't pseudo-logical tail-chasing, I'll evaluate said evidence. Until then, I'll live my life without a god, and I'll shine my own shoes instead of leaving them out for the Shoe Fairy.

 

[Nick Danger]

Not rigid at all. My approach to whatever god is being pushed is the same as my approach to fairies. As soon as I'm presented some evidence that isn't pseudo-logical tail-chasing, I'll evaluate said evidence. Until then, I'll live my life without a god, and I'll shine my own shoes instead of leaving them out for the Shoe Fairy.

I once held views similar to those but it occured that I was being a little prejudicial in my perspective in that the God whose exisitence I chose to deny was an out of date relic of an ancient time. The whole idea of God as a divine consciousness just didn't feel right but in things as simple as the sun coming up or a sprouting seed there is the possibility that something more than chance might be at work.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I once held views similar to those but it occured that I was being a little prejudicial in my perspective in that the God whose exisitence I chose to deny was an out of date relic of an ancient time. The whole idea of God as a divine consciousness just didn't feel right but in things as simple as the sun coming up or a sprouting seed there is the possibility that something more than chance might be at work.

Sigh. I don't deny the existence of a god, or gods, or a goddess, or goddesses. There is no credible evidence. I don't believe anything without evidence.

Why is it that so many people see the mere asking for evidence of an extraordinary claim as "denying God?"

Last weekend I achieved sustained flight by flapping my arms really, really fast. I require you to believe this without evidence!

 

[Nick Danger]

Sigh. I don't deny the existence of a god, or gods, or a goddess, or goddesses. There is no credible evidence. I don't believe anything without evidence.

Why is it that so many people see the mere asking for evidence of an extraordinary claim as "denying God?"

Last weekend I achieved sustained flight by flapping my arms really, really fast. I require you to believe this without evidence!

Ah. So more of an agnostic than an atheist. I can relate. By the dictionary definition I would fall into the same category.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Ah. So more of an agnostic than an atheist. I can relate. By the dictionary definition I would fall into the same category.

No, a human being with the mother-wit to not accept extraordinary claims from interested parties without evidence.

 

[Nick Danger]

No, a human being with the mother-wit to not accept extraordinary claims from interested parties without evidence.

I can certainly understand that, but would not those that flat out reject the possibility of those claims be taking a questionable stance as well? I refer to my earlier comment that hardline atheists are cut from the same cloth as unshakeable believers.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I can certainly understand that, but would not those that flat out reject the possibility of those claims be taking a questionable stance as well? I refer to my earlier comment that hardline atheists are cut from the same cloth as unshakeable believers.

I don't think that denying the existence of something for the existence of which there is not a scintilla of evidence is as unreasonable as insisting on the existence and precise nature of something for the existence of which there is not a scintilla of evidence.

What's your position on fairies?

 

[Nick Danger]

I don't think that denying the existence of something for the existence of which there is not a scintilla of evidence is as unreasonable as insisting on the existence and precise nature of something for the existence of which there is not a scintilla of evidence.

Not an uncommon stance by any means, but it deals in absolutes at a point in time where absolute parameters have yet to be established. Isn't it pretty much saying that "until you show me it's right I'm going to say it's wrong". I see a lot of middle ground in the realm of possibility.

 

[darkbeaver]

So there's no intelligent design associated with a humming bird but reverse engineering the bird would require intelligent anti-design. The mysteries behind Darwins evolution easily outweigh those in the bible. Nature can make anything it damn well pleases and a hellof a lot faster than Mr Darwin and his idiot congregation believe. If you want assemblages of the faithful you have to look no further than todays academic temples of particle physics or cosmology and certainly economics..

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Not an uncommon stance by any means, but it deals in absolutes at a point in time where absolute parameters have yet to be established. Isn't it pretty much saying that "until you show me it's right I'm going to say it's wrong". I see a lot of middle ground in the realm of possibility.

As I said, I await any evidence that's not patently obvious wish-fulfillment or tail-chasing tautology.

Let me ask again. You claim that some sort of God exists or may exist, and offer zero evidence. I claim that faeries exist, and offer equal evidence.

What's your position on faeries? Agnostic?

 

[Nick Danger]

Let me ask again. You claim that some sort of God exists or may exist, and offer zero evidence. I claim that faeries exist, and offer equal evidence

That's not what I'm saying at all. Firstly I'm saying that the whole God thing is an unquantified concept. If you want to say that there is no bearded super-being on a throne of fire somewhere then I'm right there with you buddy, but if you're saying that it's an impossibility that some ethereal unifying sub-atomic force that is going to make sense of questions that have been asked for centuries then I'm going to say you're premature.

What's your position on faeries? Agnostic?

Metaphorically it's a cute thought, but I've never seen one outside of movies.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Firstly I'm saying that the whole God thing is an unquantified concept. If you want to say that there is no bearded super-being on a throne of fire somewhere then I'm right there with you buddy, but if you're saying that it's an impossibility that some ethereal unifying sub-atomic force that is going to make sense of questions that have been asked for centuries then I'm going to say you're premature.



Metaphorically it's a cute thought, but I've never seen one outside of movies.

Interesting that you chose the term ethereal (or aethereal, if you like). Are you aware that "the ether" was the mysterious "substance" through which the stars and planets (and later radio waves) moved?

Turns out it was all crap.

That there is some kind of unifying whatever is more emotionally satisfying than there not being any sort of unifying whatever is not exactly an evidence-based argument. It's basically the same kind of balderdash and wishful thinking behind the grow-your-d*ck spam on the internet.

 

[Nick Danger]

That there is some kind of unifying whatever is more emotionally satisfying than there not being any sort of unifying whatever is not exactly an evidence-based argument. It's basically the same kind of balderdash and wishful thinking behind the grow-your-d*ck spam on the internet.

Unified Field Theory is a major branch of research of current quantum physics. You're not even curious as to what they may find?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Unified Field Theory is a major branch of research of current quantum physics. You're not even curious as to what they may find?

There is an utter lack of reason to believe that they will find an intelligence underlying it all. And if they do, will that intelligence be a god? If so, in what sense?

Does the principle of least hypothesis not dictate that unified field theory, if it's ever realised, will be just a set of operating characteristics, like the four known forces? Nothing about the known forces except wishful thinking calls for a governing intelligence, much less one with the morals and manners of a spoiled child, like the Judeo-Christian god.