--- Thanks, one writer in a previous post says science is blind to the purposful intensification of consciousness (presumably in human observers, for example); but the writer infers wrongly that this is outside of science. Actually, there's a non-purposeful possible explanation, fully within the realm of science: Backward causation. Causation in two directions is an accepted property of quantum realms; but due to the "decoherence" principle, instances of backward causation seem to fizzle out or become less common in the macroworld. Possibly, not...just overshadowed by causation going in one direction,f rom past to present to future. The future not only casts a shadow into the past, but can cause it, to a certain extent. The bottom line is that if one starts with a presumption of pre- existing creatures (human, & godlike, in some dimension), the very existence of such entities will send causes into new, formative baby universes, acting as a type of non-purposeful guide. Then, what people grok/feel regarding evolution (many Hindus for example), will be that evolution was "guided". Actually, the veneer of supposed guidance may actually be a form of backward causation.
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "We must question the story logic of having an all- knowing, all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." > > -- Gene Roddenberry > > " Science without religion is lame, but Religion without Science is blind. " > > - Albert Einstein > > > TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:52:18 -0000 > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Atheist Delusion > > > I have to agree. To me this seems like the projection > of "purpose" onto a universe that is in no need of one > by someone who is in desperate need for one. > > Religionists need to see a "purpose" to life, because > 1) they tend to have a need that someone or something > guiding it or designed it, and 2) because they are > deeply imprinted by dogma that's been telling them > since they were born that there *is* a purpose to it > all, and a designer behind the scenes. So *naturally* > they look at the world and tend to see purpose and > design behind it. Someone with no "dogmatic alliances" > doesn't necessarily see the world that way. > > There is a "precedence" implied in the words that the > author used in the excerpt above that's telling IMO, > about "the world that we have to integrate into our > religious visions." The religious visions have to stay > intact, while integrating the world into *them*. > > That's what I think is going on with most attempts to > justify religion with pseudo-science. It's making the > results "fit" the dogma, drawing bulleyes around the > arrows. It's the same thing we see in the TMO ME > "studies." The "results" of a large group of people > bouncing on their butts is a foregone conclusion > because that is part of the religious vision and thus > sacrosanct. The facts must be integrated *into* these > religious visions, even if a lot of squishing square > pegs into round holes is involved, because the visions > represent "truth." > > And they suggest that atheists are "deluded?" :-) > > For me, it's like what Curtis said earlier about a > type of music he just doesn't "get" or resonate with. > I just don't "get" the desire to find a "purpose" > behind life. It's the *same* life, purpose or not. > I could waste my incarnation pondering what it "means" > and the "whys" of everything, or I could just enjoy > the fact that life is pretty groovy. > > > > > --------------------------------- > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. >
