>
> "Brian E. Clark" wrote in message
> news:MPG.233313f35aa0531a98b69e@newsgroups.comcast.net...

>> In article >> @bignews1.bellsouth.net>, jonathan said...
>>

>>> 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".