[IG]
Ooooh Errr ... the anthropic view. We get to the "ooops vs god" debate again.
[Arlo]
My main points are these, Ian, I think you'd mostly agree. (1) Any
"metaphysics" that, at best, simply ignores the historical timeline,
or at worst is rendered absurd by observable history (but yet asks us
to just forget about that absurdity) is not one to take seriously.
(2) There are certainly better options that the dichotomous "oops" or
"God" (which is, in effect, what Ham (and Platt) both offer). I
myself do so adore "Aha!". But when we make claims about being here
"for a reason", or that "man apart from the cosmos" was so ordained
to exist to serve (in some capacity) the Primary Source, one must
consider these claims as they are made reasonable or absurd by what
we know about history. Example. Ham claims "man" was created by a
needy God for the sole purpose of worshipping the Source's
"magnificence". It is wholly fair to ask, what was the "purpose"
served by other creations that for millions and millions of years
held dominance in the timeline? Were they a mistake? There to one day
produce "man" his oil? If, as Ham claims, "man" was created to fill
the void in a needy "God", why did that "God" (Essence) wait millions
and millions and even billions of years to produce man? Why not just
start with man right off the cuff. Even if one says "time is nothing
to a Primary Source", I'd ask, still then why do we see ANY preceding
"world" to "man" at all? Was the entirety of pre-history solely made
for the purpose of "setting the stage for man"?
I also think it holds significance to ask "was/is man alone in the
cosmos with his pre-ordained and deliberated existence?" The
Occidental tradition (discounting Gnostic interpretations) tends to
view "man" as the sole valuable creation in the cosmos, giving man
dominance over all other things. If man wipes out a species of
buffalo, its of no great concern, as they were simply intended as
"resources" for man to use as he so chooses. The metaphysics Ham
espouses tends to (from what I can tell, as I get no straight answer)
view the cosmos in this same way. "Man" was intended to worship the
Primary Source, all other things are conveniences and resources for
him to exploit. If it is NOT this way, if (say) "oak trees" also
serve some special role and were "intended" by the Source for reasons
that have nothing to do with "man", then that (I think) would tend to
inform a wholly different approach to the world (one I side with, a
gardener metaphor, as oppposed to the miner-metaphor described
above). So making a claim about the "intendedness of man" begets
further inquiry, fair inquiry.
Ham also claims that "consciousness evolves" (a claim I agree with).
And yet one must offer some form of "process", some mechanism, some
"way" this occurs. My opinion is that the growing-complexity of the
social milieu, into which successive generations are born, accounts
for the evolving consciousness in the species. To date, the BEST Ham
has offered is that subsequent generations of humans hold more
evolved consciousnesses because The Primary Source doles out better
versions to each generation. I think to this it is also fair to ask,
even if its for speculation, "why?" Why does Essence give my daughter
a "better consciousness" that He gave to some distant Neanderthal?
All fair, and necessary, questions.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
