Dr Free

Hi, Blackthorn, You have presented an intriguing statement of belief, a worthwhile entry into this forum. But it is a complex statement, parts of which I agree with, and parts I am much less certain of. So, following my analytic approach, I would like to examine its parts in much more detail. Yes, subject to refinement in my closing paragraph, though many would claim that what I call God is not the true God. I belong to a Unitarian Universalist Church. For a long time time I have realized that I am not a Unitarian in the original sense of there being a single divine person, as opposed to a trinitarian, who believed that was was three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one God. My resistance to Unitarianism, and to monotheism in general, is not so much that I believe in multiple gods, but that the concept of the divine seems too ill-defined to know how to count gods.But when it comes to truth, I am a unitarian: there is one truth, one reality, against which each of our beliefs can be assessed. Truth is not like taste, where what is good to you and what is good to me can differ without any conflict. When you say you believe something, you are making a claim about my universe, a claim that I must either reconcile with my other beliefs or reject. When we disagree about a matter of belief, at least one of us is mistaken. Now that doesn't mean that any particular case we can always tell who is wrong, and it may turn out that given the evidence currently available we must respectfully agree to disagree. You characterize the relationship between God and us as one of creator and created, as distinct and separate things.I on the on other hand think of us as part of God. God is the whole of which we are (hopefully contributing) parts. The universe is not God's creation, it is God, Godself. The word for this belief is panentheism. (See for example the book In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke.) And God had only one thing to create: Godself. That is, God is constantly creating God's next self, God's future self. This is not accurate to evolutionary theory. Chemical evolution long predated cellular evolution, though it was not strictly Darwinian. (For an excellent and readable discussion of the standard evolutionary model, see Richard Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale.) It is a mistake to think of the individual steps of evolution as "random" or "accidental". Each is at least partly explicable in terms of chemical and biochemical principles. Many of these steps can be and have been replicated in the laboratory.However, I do agree that there remain some significant unknowns. One kind of transformation that cannot yet be readily explained by the current evolutionary model are level-shifts, those puzzling transitions from complex interactions at one level of existence to integrated objects at a "higher" level. Examples: From Quarks to Particles. From the known laws of behavior of quarks by themselves, we cannot explain or predict the laws of behavior of subatomic particles, i.e., electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. From Particles to Atoms. From the known laws of behavior of subatomic particles by themselves, we cannot explain or predict the laws of behavior of atoms, i.e., the 100 or so elements in the periodic table. From Atoms to Molecules. From the known laws of behavior of the elements by themselves, we cannot readily explain or predict the laws of behavior of molecules, i.e., carbon dioxide, phosphates, etc. From Molecules to Active Molecules. From the known laws of behavior of the molecules by themselves, we cannot readily explain or predict the laws of behavior of active molecules, i.e., molecules like proteins that actually change their configuration in the presence of other molecules. From Active Molecules to Cells. From the known laws of behavior of the active molecules by themselves, we cannot readily explain or predict the laws of behavior of biological cells and cell-like organisms such as viruses. In particular it is difficult to understand based only on what we know about active molecules, how teams of those molecules could come to exhibit the properties of self-preservation and self-replication that are the foundation of Darwinian evolution. From Cells to Multicellular Organisms. From the known laws of behavior of cells by themselves, we cannot readily explain or predict the laws of behavior of multicellular organisms such as worms and people. In particular it is difficult to understand based only on what we know about cells, how teams of those cells could organize themselves to hand over the means self-preservation and self-replication to the team as an integrated whole. From Multicellular Organisms to Conscious Organisms. At some point in the evolution of our world (i.e., God), organisms emerged with the power of choice and consciousness emerged. The behavior of earlier ("lower") organisms was algorithmic and stochastic; that is, what they did was based on deterministic laws, and their survival was a matter of chance. Simple animals and all plants depend on this same survival strategy. Complex animals (including at least fish, reptiles, dinosaurs/birds, mammals) discovered a new strategy. For them evolutionary advantage was conferred on organisms that were able to perceive and make choices about their own behavior based on what they perceived about the behavior of organisms at roughly their own level of complexity. That is, they could perceive things that might be food, mates or threats, and they could select behaviors based on the presence of those things and what they might possible do. That such a transformation has taken place at all is not recognized by many scientists; none can explain it based only on the laws of behavior of "lower" organisms. From Multicellular Organisms to God. From the known laws of behavior of multicellular organisms by themselves, we cannot readily explain or predict the laws of behavior of whole worlds composed of those organisms. In particular, although we can at least conceive that the recently formed network of computers and people is analogous to a brain, it is difficult to understand based only on what we know about people and computers, how such a brain could emerge as sentient being. We may agree with Lovelock and Margolis that Gaia is a living being; we cannot yet conceive the form its consciousness might take. Each of these steps reveals a hole in our understanding. Some people react to such holes by concluding that the reveal the hand of God. Others (and I count myself among them) conclude that these gaps are simply things we don't and may never know, but that it is a logical error to argue that since we don't know how it happened, it must have been God's action, therefore we do know how it happened. I would note that for a creationist to take consolation in what science cannot currently explain, is to put their belief in a precarious position. Science has made a habit of finding evolutionary explanations of every claimed example of what God "must" have done. (See Finding Darwin's God, a delightful book by Kenneth Miller, an evolutionary biologist who happens to be a committed Christian.) This is a red herring. There is an interesting similarity between DNA and computer code. But the two are not the same. Evolutionary theory offers a compelling explanation of how slight changes in the code yield evolution. With this I fully agree. And the consequences of this recognition are profound, as I said in my post in the thread When There is No God. That we have the ability to choose among alternatives significantly more various than other animals is clear. But that is a difference in degree, not kind. (See my earlier remarks about consciousness.) This is a beautiful and evocative poem. I'm not sure what we learn from it, except to echo Hamlet's observation that there is more to the world (God) than is dreamt of in any of our philosophies. I agree. People who zip God up in their little black book, put him in their pockets, and think they know their God, have much too small a vision of God. Yes, God and Creation are one.I should also say that I do not believe in God. I have faith in God. I choose to act as though the world is alive and conscious and in need of my help to restore and maintain its health. For the world, i.e., God, is ill, both physically and spiritually. God's health depends, in part, on my choices. I choose to act, as a matter of faith, in ways that will promote the health of the world. In part, that choice is rational self-interest: I am safer in a healthy world than an unhealthy world. But also in part I make this choice simply because it is the right thing to do. It is my duty and responsibility to God, the whole of which I am a part.

As I write this near the end of the Inaugural Parade, my eyes are red from the constant flow of tears. My wife would have been 66 today. She would have been ecstatic to share her birthday with the rebirth of our country with the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. We would have cried and laughed and hugged together in jubilation to see this day come. For us who grew up during the trauma of the civil rights movement, it is especially poignant that an American who happens to be of African descent has become President. It is a major milestone in the culmination of a life-long dream, a dream so well articulated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., nearly half a century ago. That we as a nation have made great progress is clear. May we take time during our celebration to reflect on how far we have to go. May we set our minds and hearts to carry out that dream, so that our grandchildren live in a world in which choices are made among people based on their talents, their skills, their experience and their fitness for a position, not on their race, their religion, their ethnic origins, their gender, or their sexual preference. May God will it so. For us who have lived through good wars and bad, it is gratifying that an American, who believes that our greatest security comes from making friends rather than defeating enemies, has become President. May he always have good counsel in recognizing and dealing with threats to our security, but may he and we realize that our ultimate security will come when all peoples across the globe are as confident as we in their own security, their economic prospects, their freedom to worship and speak as they will. May we take care that our concern for the health of our nation not lead us to so bias our economic and political systems in favor of the United States that we suboptimize global economics and politics. May we act as individuals and as a nation so that peace and prosperity fill the globe. May God will it so. For us who have been buffeted for decades by uncompromising ideological rhetoric, by the worst elements of adversarial democracy, by an almost unbroken series of elections in which we were more concerned to vote against a candidate than to vote for one, it is a relief that an American, who happens to be a Democrat, but who realizes that no one can long lead effectively from either left or right, has become President. May we all join him in reaching across all the aisles that divide us. May he find the wisdom to resist the temptations to wield power on his own behalf rather than on behalf of the people. May we ourselves moderate our passion in our beliefs and causes with a recognition that the people with whom we disagree are good people. May we take the time to open lines of dialog that lead to resolutions of disputes that all parties to the dispute can accept, that allow us to shake hands and sit down to dinner together. May God will it so. For us who have known privation, it is hopeul that an American, who has experienced poverty both personally and in the people has tried to assist, has become President. May we answer his call to service to our fellows in need, in our community, our nation, our world. May we heed our experience that free markets foster increased wealth throughout the economy, but may we also be aware that unregulated greed can wreak havoc on those least able to withstand it. May our new President and our government find the wisdom to prevent damaging excess while preserving the engine of our economy. May we all temper our own demands for personal gratification by accepting the goal that everyone have enough. To quote a prayer by Bob Perks [© 2001, http://www.iwishyouenough.com/wish.htm], I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright. I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more. I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive. I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger. I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting. I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess. I wish enough "Hello's" to get you through the final "Goodbye." May God will it so.