Why Does Man “Go on, about God”, when God is Silent ?
Because prior to the concept of evolution by natural selection – the idea of a creator of all this is was the most intuitively natural idea available.
With the evidence we now have, for how life arises from matter, in a set of stages and levels, each building upon what has gone before, and adding new levels of abilities and options; the idea of god now has only historical interest from the vast majority of those who take the time to study the modern evidence in detail and without predjudice.
In this day and age, the idea of god seems, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be a cultural legacy rather than something consistent with the evidence available.
Unfortunately, the way we have society structured today, few people are taught the essence of science, which is a willingness to challenge everything. Most education systems are designed to reinforce the idea that it is possible to know something with absolute certainty, and the consequence that people ought to trust some source of absolute authority – be that school, community, church, state or whatever.
Real science teaches us that all knowledge is uncertain, and all ideas need testing and evaluation, and we need to be open to the possibility of new evidence.
Thus, while I cannot say that there is no possibility of there being a god, I can (and do) say that it seems extremely improbable to me that there is any sort of god. It seems that the real explanations for how things came to be as they are, are far more fascinating (both in how they worked, and in the possibilities they present for our future) than that of any sort of idea of a creator.
And I get that many will be uncomfortable with that idea, and it is the reality in which I find myself.
It is not my intention to hurt or upset anyone, and it is my intention to be as truthful as I possibly can (acknowledging that I have no access to any sort of absolute truth, I have only the probabilities that I have, based upon the experiences and concepts that I have).
Yeah – 8 paragraphs is about as simple as I can get and still retain some sort of sensible indication of the complexity involved. A book would give a slightly more accurate answer, and a full answer would require the rest of eternity, as it would evolve in the telling, and extend infinitely. Such seems to be the necessary logic of any finite entity investigating any infinity.
I like the way you reference our interconnectivity with everything. It brings clearly to my mind the logical inconsistency between the notions of choice and prescience. If one can have perfect fore knowledge of anything, then there can be no true free choice involved in that thing. True free choice must be, by definition, unpredictable – it must contain freedom. Therefore, simply in logic, a universe that contains an all knowing perfectly prescient entity, could not contain free choice – it is a logical impossibility.
Thus I choose to be an individual with choice, in a universe without god, rather than being an automata in a universe with god.
And I totally align with Brian that our continued existence requires of us that we acknowledge our role in bringing awareness of our linkage to all life on this planet into our decision making. It seems clear to me in logic that we also need to remove economic considerations from our high level decision making, and strongly penalise any activities that create money without delivering substantial human value. And that is going to be a major mind-shift.
We have the ability to create abundance of all the necessities of life, for everyone, and to also have abundance of natural biological systems. And neither of those are natural outcomes of market based activity.
And we need to be clear that many biological systems pose a real threat to human life.
Life is not benign, in any sense.
And higher levels of life can be cooperative and loving.
My plan has been grounded in the concept of 3D printing since 1981. Everyday reality is catching up. What I proposed 32 years ago as a major project, now has many of the components as everyday reality.
Still some significant developments to do, particularly in the software realm, and it is happening.
Atomic level 3D fabricators are not yet fast enough to be useful, and they do exist. I saw the handiwork of one when I was in San Fran 2 years ago.
The whole concept of market valuation is falling apart.
People can intuitively get that stuff isn’t working (evidence the Occupy movement), even if few are consciously conceptually aware of the systemic structures that create the injustice they observe.
We are seeing people tweeking the system trying to hold it together, without any evidence of a clear understanding of the deep systemic issues; so the system will likely limp along for a while yet. I see a vast range of possible scenarios, many of which are not pleasant for many people; yet I remain cautiously optimistic.
More people are starting to question, starting to think systemically, and there is a lot to do (I have spent most of my time over the last 40 years exploring conceptual and strategic options).
This morning I was reading Ray Kurzweil’s “How to create a mind” (btw – finished Rosenberg’s NVC – very powerful practices, but his theories about why the practice works are way off – still a very useful book to read) – and working through the structures of the neocortex he describes, and the systems that tend to evolve in them. It is already clear that we all have much the same capacity, it is just a matter of what we train it to do.
I have never talked about equal distribution; just about a high guaranteed minimum, which is sufficient to allow every individual to survive and prosper. The distinction is very important. People are highly variable. All people neither need nor want the same things. We must see that all have what they need, not the same thing. Some need a lot, some a little, and it varies with time and circumstance.