A model God...

[Gently Passing]

I attend the University of Oklahoma. As a scientific person I respect this institution as it has made major contributions to both science and medicine, especially in the Biological sciences, but I must say I am distressed by a new development:

Written on the sidewalks in big, bold letters is the question: "Evolution or Intelligent Design"

...this, at my University, an institution whose reputation will follow me to the grave and beyond.

I don't intend to raise this discussion here as I believe it worthless. What I intend to do is ask the following question:

Is it possible that despite a total lack of evidence, Theism may point to some reality while being completely wrong in a scientific sense?

:bugeye:

Here is my point of view - I believe in atoms.

The atomic hypothesis was first posed by Aristotle (I think) who suggested that all matter was composed of little, inseparable pieces. It turns out he was right - or at least evidence has not overturned his theory in the past 3,000 years.

Well, I was taught, originally, that the atom is a planetary system with electrons "orbiting" a massive central nucleus much like our planet revolves around the sun in our solar system.

This is the Bohr model.

For all intents and purposes it is utterly, completely, absolutely WRONG.

There is no evidence to indicate that the Bohr model is correct and in fact virtually every credible bit of research has indicated exactly the opposite.

In reality (or based on Quantum Mechanics, the most accurate scientific theory ever devised) electrons exist in a probabalistic "cloud" in a region of space around the nucleus, and all "particles" are merely wavelike vibrations in the fabric of space-time.

Weird idea, everybody hates it, but it's accurate to 10^15!! :shrug:

What are you gonna do?

I guess my point here is that God, or what we grew up with believing in Church, is much like Santa Claus...largely an invention or a sort of cultural construction serving multiple purposes, most obvious of those being to control the behavior of the population.

But should we reject the idea of a greater order, a higher intelligence than ourselves based on the fact (yes it is a fact) that there is not a white-haired man up in Heaven just beyond the clouds?

To do is is philosophically abhorrent.

Personally, I think the Christian God, or (with respect to Christians) the God posited by many among them is much like the Bohr model - utterly, absolutely WRONG.

However, the idea that there is at least the potential for some emergent property in the universe to produce an effect that appears to be "design" is worth pondering.

Consider that the keyboard I'm typing on, with all of its atoms interacting electronically sending signals to a complex chipboard communicating these thoughts over the internet is all happening based on emergent complexity arising simply from slight interference in an otherwise resonant spacetime fabric presumably capable of producing only temporary "particle" states such as protons and electrons.

The problem I think is that Christians and scientists both have the same difficulty thinking outside the box of what's around them, of what they've experienced. Science at least admits this weakness, and in fact bases its assumptions on testing the limits therein.

Christianity on the other hand just goes on believing, assuming it's all true because someone told them it was true.

Noble, but silly. Even dangerous.

Intelligent Design is not science, it is an observation. "This looks like somebody designed it."

Well, drop a hundred thousand matchsticks on the floor and you'll probably find a message in there - especially if you happen to speak Japanese.

That's what I mean, though. A million matchsticks can say anything depending on who is looking at it.

Evolution on the other hand is an observable phenomenon. We have seen bacteria in the lab change from one form to another based upon what they have been exposed to in the environment - that's evolution. What do they do to try and maximize their potential for survival? Form colonies. What's a colony?



What's a sponge? This is a basic animal which rides the fence between colony and distinct organism. Cut off an arm you get another sponge.

Weird.

Cut off my arm, you get a one-armed man and a dead, rotting arm.

Well, what is God? God, like "atom" and "organism" is a word. Our model for God is bogus, but what are we observing?

Is it possible that there are properties inherent in the universe, in the human mind that are as yet unknown which provide for certain "miraculous" effects under stressful situations?

Yes!

So what is God? God is our invention, an Intelligent Design of man taking a stab at explaining what is going on around him.

The bogosity of the Bohr model does not nullify quantum mechanics. In fact, that bogus model helped lead us to the discovery of more accurate data which led to the creation of a better atomic model, and eventually to the very accurate description of subatomic reality that we now have.

And it's all thanks to a bogus model.

So don't be afraid, Christians, of throwing "God" out with the wash water when you finally come to reject your bogus conception of a "creator." Simply realize that you have walked the same path many before you have walked, and perhaps some day one of you will come up with something better.

 

[spidergoat]

Is it possible that despite a total lack of evidence, Theism may point to some reality while being completely wrong in a scientific sense?

Yes indeed. Some aspects of the sayings attributed to Jesus show a remarkable insight into the nature of reality. Of course, a literal reading would miss the point.

Douglas Adams wrote an essay called "Is there an Artificial God?". To sum up, religions (and other systems like Feng Shui), have evolved to adapt a culture to it's environment in ways the participants aren't even aware of.

There's a religious calender in Bali that guides the planting of crops. Scientists came in and thought they could do a better job, and yields were increased temporarily. However, the scientific methods later made the crops fail due to pests. The citizens might not have realized how the religious customs guided agriculture in a sustainable way, but it did. This is in spite of the probability that their religion is not literally true.

 

[Enmos]

Yes indeed. Some aspects of the sayings attributed to Jesus show a remarkable insight into the nature of reality. Of course, a literal reading would miss the point.

Douglas Adams wrote an essay called "Is there an Artificial God?". To sum up, religions (and other systems like Feng Shui), have evolved to adapt a culture to it's environment in ways the participants aren't even aware of.

There's a religious calender in Bali that guides the planting of crops. Scientists came in and thought they could do a better job, and yields were increased temporarily. However, the scientific methods later made the crops fail due to pests. The citizens might not have realized how the religious customs guided agriculture in a sustainable way, but it did. This is in spite of the probability that their religion is not literally true.

What would this reasoning mean for (for example) Christianity ?
Are you saying that Christianity works well for Christians despite the probability that God doesn't exist ?

 

[maxg]

The atomic hypothesis was first posed by Aristotle (I think) who suggested that all matter was composed of little, inseparable pieces. It turns out he was right - or at least evidence has not overturned his theory in the past 3,000 years.

While not exactly relevant to you thoughtful post, I would point out that Atomism was a theory among the pre-Socratic philosophers (Leucippus and Democritus were the major proponents). I think your suggestion that god is a theory intended to explain observations or experiences is good but, leaving aside the religious traditions that follow from those individuals who initially theorized the existence of a god/gods, you also should consider that there may have been some legitimate insight into the world that was not necessarily empirical in origin. Think about the fact that some Greek in 2500 years ago determined that matter was made up of atoms bouncing around in space. The same may be true of the Balinese calender mentioned. I don't have an explanation for such intuitive leaps and I'm sure for every one that is "right" there are 100's that are just wacky, so it's hard to evaluate their validity.

 

[spidergoat]

What would this reasoning mean for (for example) Christianity ?
Are you saying that Christianity works well for Christians despite the probability that God doesn't exist ?

Yes, it very well might. For instance, the prohibitions on eating shellfish and pork were probably valuable adaptations to bacterial infections, parasites, or the "red tide". The limitations on sexual behavior could have had alot to do with syphillis or other VD's...

 

[Enmos]

Yes, it very well might. For instance, the prohibitions on eating shellfish and pork were probably valuable adaptations to bacterial infections, parasites, or the "red tide". The limitations on sexual behavior could have had alot to do with syphillis or other VD's...

I agree. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in the bible it's just unfortunate people keep dragging God into the picture.

 

[Gently Passing]

One needs only carry a simple binomial expansion into the mid-teens to see how quickly and dramatically complexity increases simply by the nature of mathematics. What traditionalists often fail to see is that despite the extremely unlikely event of human beings popping into existence, it has taken billions and billions of years.

The Bible does, however, offer quite useful insights into life. Keeping the mother at home to raise the children provides a caretaker for the children, keeps them safe and fed as well as educated in the basic essentials. Low and behold, 50 years after women fought for and won the right to work, millions are now returning to the home longing for the relative stability of the homestead.

Could a man stay at home? Sure. The gender of the caretaker is not the point, the point is that someone cares.

Arguably the Hebrews and early Christians knew nothing of social and developmental psychology or of the negative effects of children being raised by TV and/or strangers in a Day Care center, but yet they had a means (sexist or not) of averting these problems.