| Re: ...Science Reinvents God... by Stuart Kauffman |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: jonathanjonathan Date: Sep 11, 2008 19:02
>> It is our choice whether we use the God word. I believe it is wise to do so.
>
> No, it is extraordinarily foolish to do so.
>
> First, Kaffmann's god will be confused with
> longstanding notions of God, such as he who was his
> own son/father and who demanded a blood sacrifice for
> sins. This god has nothing to do with Kauffmann's
> notions of emergence.
The whole point is to try to come to a common
definition of the concept. Not an easy thing to do
of course. But the only way to arrive at some
consensus is if the concept is defined by scientific
ideas that are rational and testable.
So the debate at least has a chance of succeeding.
>
> Second, it is likely that that Kauffman's equivocation
> is deliberate. By using the word "God" to describe
> something wholly unconnected to traditional notions of
> the term, he can thereby pluck dollars from the
> pockets of people who believe in that traditional God
> and who seek evidence that science supports a belief
> in God.
This concept of God is not all that different from the
typical ideas. With emergence, God would come at
the /end/ of the evolutionary ladder, not at the beginning
as is custom.
A simple frame of reference change.
Once that frame of reference change is accepted, the
concept of God essentially defines itself as an naturally
emergent creation from what already exists. That makes
the definition open to scientific debate.
God would be a naturally emergent wisdom perhaps
expressed by the processes of nature.
Collective intelligence perhaps. That which is as
above us, as we are above animals.
Whether one worships the process, or a specific
emergent creation is like the difference between
a ..."syllable and sound".
>
> --
> -----------
> Brian E. Clark
>
| 
