11. Natural Religion-God jumping around redesigning the world every hour

11. Natural religion.
God jumping around redesigning the world every hour

When I see a tree twisted out of shape by the winds on
an exposed rocky hillside, and compare it to a tree in a
sheltered grove rising straight up, I am not moved to
see that comparison in ethical terms.
One tree does not seem to me better that the other, more
good or in a moral sense more successful, than the other.

Similarly when I look at other species, lizards and
ants and wild mamals. or any of the other oddities of
which nature abounds with some design changing every
minute – what a challenge this represents to a deity.
Is the more complex ‘better’ than that which is simple.
Is there one way to measure complexity?
Is a monkey better than a lizard?
Or a canary than a snake?
Not to mention the multitude of Insects in the
rainforests and the extinct species of mastodon or
early horse or whatever.

Any rough observation of nature – even that classical
one that we are born, we live, and we die
leads us, when we fully realize that we die,
to realize that our living is part of a process,
not primarily a part of a judgement by some idea, or
some abstract pinciples, or by the God of a book.

So any observation of nature has to involve some notion,
even if only a crude one, of a process of selection and
change – of evolution in the broadest sense of the word
– not evolution as progress, but as change involving
local conditions and selection making the complexity
and occasional weirdness (to us) of the results, that
our lives and species are in a process of constant
(if not continuous) change.

This is not a commitment to any very specific theory
about genes and evolution, or the relation of chance and
adaptation in evolution, but simply an awareness
that the patterns of species that we see are far too
complex to be the product of a personal “God” –
a “God” making individual decisions about individual
creatures, or species, or events.

For this is the popular, if not the theological,
Christian notion of God – and “His” relatives in some
other religions. This notion of an individual making
specific individual decisions about the world has
consequences.

If we accept the complexity and change in the world
before our eyes then this idea would entail a weird
image of such a God rushing and jumping about
redesigning the world of species repainting the picture
every day and hour, with no time left for anything else.
A “God” co-equal with the existence of the very world of
nature itself. A God of diversity and oddities, and
indeed of evolution itself.

—————————

If any of this is relevant, then we clearly have to do a lot more in making clear to people the many different parts to a conception of “god”.

By the way, looking at a number of sites supposedly discussing but
actually advocating a specific set of arguments about “intelligent design” I notice that NONE of them have any possibility of comment
or feedback. Some open “scientific” discussions those are.

Some may wish to look at the website
Thoughts On God, Politics and Man

One response to “11. Natural Religion-God jumping around redesigning the world every hour

  1. Pleas place comments on my new blog. Your input is welcome.
    http://www.thoughtsongod.com/

    Natural Religion-God jumping around redesigning the world every hour

    When I see a tree twisted out of shape by the winds on an exposed rocky hillside, and compare it to a tree in a
    sheltered grove rising straight up, I am not moved to see that comparison in ethical terms. One tree does not seem to me better that the other, more good or in a moral sense more successful, than the other.
    Similarly when I look at other species, lizards and ants and wild mamals. or any of the other oddities of
    which nature abounds with some design changing every minute – what a challenge this represents to a deity.
    Is the more complex ‘better’ than that which is simple.
    Is there one way to measure complexity?
    Is a monkey better than a lizard?
    Or a canary than a snake?
    Not to mention the multitude of Insects in the rainforests and the extinct xpecies of mastodon or early horse or whatever.

    Any rough observation of nature – even that classical one that we are born, we live, and we die –
    and thus when we fully realize that we die, we have to realize that our living is part of a process, not primarily a part of a judgement by some idea, or
    some abstract pinciples, or by the God of a book.

    So any observation of nature has to involve some notion, even if only a crude one, of a process of selection and change – of evolution in the broadest sense of the word – not evolution as progress, but as change involving local conditions and selection making the complexity
    and occasional weirdness (to us) of the results, that our lives and species are in a process of constant (if not continuous) change.

    This is not a commitment to any very specific theory about genes and evolution, or the relation of chance and
    adaptation in evolution, but simply an awareness that the patterns of species that we see are far too complex to be the product of a personal “God” –
    that is a “God” making individual decisions about individual creatures, or species, or events. [For in some way
    that is the heart of the argument.]
    For this is the popular, if not the theological, Christian notion of God – and “His” relatives in some other religions.
    This notion of an individual making specific individual decisions about the world has consequences.
    If we accept the complexity and change in the world before our eyes then this idea would entail a weird image of such a God rushing and jumping about redesigning the world of species repainting the picture
    every day and hour, with no time left for anything else. A “God” co-equal with the existence of the very world of nature itself. A God of diversity and oddities, and indeed of evolution itself.

    If any of this is relevant, then we clearly have to do a lot more in making clear to people the many different parts to a conception of “god”.

    By the way, looking at a number of sites supposedly discussing but actually advocating a specific set of arguments about “intelligent design” I notice that NONE of them have any possibility of comment or feedback. Some open “scientific” discussions those are.

    fadograph.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s