A middle ground - based on expanding Sheldrake's thinking is that "group mind" (collective consciousness, or even a collective intelligence combined with a directed unconsciousness evolved from morphic fields) fits the definition of divinity in a defensible, scientific way.
Of course, this kind of sensibility and rationality please no one - the
evangelicals hate it more so than the atheists... which probably means it is
as correct as human mentality can imagine.
From: Edmund Storms
I have always been interested in how people describe a
"Creator". Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super
intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an
interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a
creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred
regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a
reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here
to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting
events. At which level are you describing the "Creator" and what use is the
concept to anyone?
Chris Zell wrote:
Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He
seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator
behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if
they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth
important? Why aren't some lies better?
I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that
we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and
anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense -
and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
