17 Reader Responses

1. JK Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 3:39 am

   If life wasn’t designed with a purpose in mind, can it still find fulfillment in achieving some purpose?

   Yes, absolutely it can! There would be no belief in a Christ or “random” mutations in biological populations without the thinkers down here on Earth to do it first. Therefore, any claim to empirical knowledge must occur first by a prime mover. The prime mover, is always, has always been and will always be he/she who excercises her freewill.

   The only knowledge of Tim that I have is what he writes and what he claims he says is the truth according to him. That’s it.

   Still, the human social psyche wants to create a physical icon for you — your face, your shadow, your shape. Not obsessively so. But face it, all of us netizens would love to see what one another look like. It is one of the last great primitive joys this Internet will enable for us.

   I’ve long argued that if God was so powerful he’d have a website. An indisputable realm where god can be known. If it’s easy enough for the likes of me to universally publish my words, then so to could God, should he find himself so inclined.

   I’ve also always said, if God were real, his crazy “PTL” UHF stations would come in more crystal clear than even the UPN affiliate. But they don’t. Why, one wonders, is God so technologically impotent? Why does he seem as clueless and hateful as his Earthly minions? Why is the American Missio-Christian culture always, easily, ten years behind the cultural curve?

   Its behind “the curve” because it is more at the mercy of its inertia than its countercultural counterparts are of theirs. Like a Star Destroyer taking plodding evasive maneuvers. This is perhaps why they are seeding the dual purpose attacks we seem to have been experiencing. They supply the crime and the multiple conspiracies all at once and then keep track of their curves as they play out in the public.

   This is where police action comes in. And this is how that’s going. . .

2. alistair Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 10:38 am

   i think trying to argue toward a reasonable proof either for intellegent design or for evolution becomes silly. a trip through www.lloydpye.com will raise some eyebrows mind you.

3. alistair Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 10:43 am

   here`s a thought. we`ve had creation myths for centuries. science has had thier version for about 100 years. the thing i like about science is that the closer they look the less there is to see. where`d the missing link go?

4. psicosm Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 11:26 am

   If one were a process theist, then the random nature of the evolutionary mechanism would pose no threat to teleology.

   BTW, long time reader, first time poster, love your site.

5. alistair Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 12:16 pm

   yes. the thingy is that on one hand we are tought to be rational and logical. in the next breath we are told to have faith. both faith and reason fail to explain how hairless hominoids arrived here out of place, surrounded by abundant food sources that themselves are alien to the ecostructure competing with large carnivorous praedators for sustenance.
   no matter which arabesques we perform intellectually or theologically we still can`t describe our place here in a meaningful way. we are a biological anomaly. a frail, hairless animal with no natural protection mechanism except intellegence.
   there are those marginalised theorists that are suggesting intervention as an explaination for our existance. but for the lack of evidence for an alien race of geneticists, there is some rationale to the arguement.

6. Antony Flew (former atheist) quote Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 12:20 pm

   I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before. And it was from Aristotle that Aquinas drew the materials for producing his five ways of, hopefully, proving the existence of his God. Aquinas took them, reasonably enough, to prove, if they proved anything, the existence of the God of the Christian revelation. But Aristotle himself never produced a definition of the word “God,” which is a curious fact. But this concept still led to the basic outline of the five ways. It seems to me, that from the existence of Aristotle’s God, you can’t infer anything about human behaviour

7. Fell Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 1:31 pm

   The thing that rubs me the wrong way is that I’ve come to personally see “intelligent design” as more reasonable. Teleology and cybernetic structures exist all around us, but the thing is that anyone can prove to themself one point of view or another.

   Christians have hijacked the whole thing as a replacement for their God-created-the-universe-in-seven-days schtick.

   It’s seriously hard these days to have a conversation without someone thinking I’m a buffoon for not believing in evolution but “intelligent design,” or people call me creepy for studying the occult.

   Oh, life is hard…

8. Andrew Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 1:41 pm

   I could see how humans could concieve of their own purpose, but it seems much duller than the type of purpose that comes with teleology. It seems almost viral, in fact. We continue to propegate the species, we colonize the solar system, then the galaxy. We develop intergalactic travel and colonize other galaxies. Until finally, thousands of years from now, we are the dominant species in the universe. The collective human race becomes god.

   Of course, on an individual level, we could decide to serve other purposes. Like, for instance, I know plenty of guys who have made getting laid their purpose for existence. Well, not just getting laid, that’s unfair. Any short-term stimulant seems to suffice. But getting laid has a greater appeal than most others.

   It reminds me of an observation someone made: Human beings were made to worship. If we don’t worship a god, we will find something else.

   In most cases, we seem to choose to worship ourselves.

9. Nicq MacDonald Says:
   July 29th, 2005 at 3:52 pm

   The problem that science, theology, and philosophy are all running into today is this- while evolution has pretty much been confirmed to be a fact of history (not to mention genetics), none of the neo-Darwinian models of how it works really fly as a complete “theory of evolution”, despite how much Dick Dawkins likes to protest (unconvincingly) to the contrary. The problem with Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is that it has no explanatory power- it’s not science, it’s “god in the gaps” hypothesizing (and I think the ever-outspoken John Derbyshire put it best- “My God is not a lab technician!”) Intelligent Design can’t explain jack until it explains what God is, how God intervenes in the process of evolution, and why God would engage in such a ridiculous enterprise to begin with. To make matters worse (or better, depending on perspective), if the answers to these questions were found, it’s all too likely that the same evangelicals who are such strong boosters of ID would find themselves abandoning it overnight! When God and his/her motives turn out to not be what you thought…

   So, basically, I’m tired of the whole debate, based as it tends to be on silly, simplistic conclusions and false dichotomies. My personal theory of how we ended up here (a Demiurge/God that “emanated” from infinite emptiness during the “time compression” immediately before the Big Bang programmed the universe as a device for his own resurrection, through the manifestation of ever-more advanced forms of life that would eventually restructure all matter and energy in the universe to rebuild “God”- that’s the “cliffs notes” version, anyway) is fairly absurd and seldom makes much sense to anyone who hasn’t already poured over a ton of literature on cosmology, evolution, metaphysics, and mythology, so I seldom try to push it.

   The idea that “elites” are trying to push evolutionary theory does have some interesting “conspiratorial” qualities to it. I’ve been reading a massive amount lately, and in the last two days I read two amusing books which, oddly enough, articulated a similiar message- “Forgotten Truth” by Huston Smith, and “Matrix Warrior” by Jake Horsley. The former, by one of America’s most respected religious scholars, basically contends that reality is multilayered, that science and evolutionary theory ultimately cannot explain reality without reference to the transcendent, and that progress is a myth, a modern approach to the theological problem of hope. This simple little book, written by a respectable MIT professor, is among the most subversive little texts I’ve ever read- and given how much occult literature I’ve been through, that’s saying something! In 150 pages, he pretty much demolishes modernity, wipes his hands with it, and walks away. But he makes some interesting contentions- first, evidence from scholars tracing homonid evolution have evidence that many of our ancient Homo Sapien cousins had larger brains and healthier bodies than we do- which indicates that there might be a grain of truth to ancient myths of more enlightened eras preceding ours. On top of that, he goes further, and wonders if an even earlier human race might have been so spiritually awakened and not of this world that they left no trace. He also goes out on another limb and suggests that historical evolution might have occured through the interference of archetypes- primordial forms “dropping in” life as the system evolved to support it. While he was only speculating, it does seem like an interesting take on macroevolution (nowhere does Smith argue with microevolution, which has been one of the most useful and observable theories in biology. He just argues that macroevolution doesn’t work- which is one of the problems that neodarwinism is having.)

   Now, Horsley, on the other hand, was writing a sort of “guidebook” to using the “mythology” of the Matrix films in life. I picked up the book on a whim, thinking that it might be amusing- and found out that Horsley is actually extremely perceptive and knows what he’s talking about. The general idea is that most people live brainwashed lives, repeating the same patterns over and over, inside a technological “matrix” ruled by elites and ideas- like evolutionary theory. While he never mentions evolution, I can’t help but think of the various paranoid Christian contentions regarding the way in which “Darwinism has destroyed morality”. While I’m an amoralist and care little for fundy blather to begin with, they have a point- if there is no telos, no liberation, who cares? Live your hypnotised life, enjoy your little pleasures, don’t worry about the beyond. This is similiar to Nietzsche’s concept of the “Last Man”- the creation of democracy, capitalism, and socialism, a man so mechanized that he ceases to feel. In contrast, the spiritual Ubermensch (Horsley’s “Matrix Warrior”, “Matrix Sorcerer”, and “Lucid”) tries to break the conditioning- while he still lives in the same reality as everyone else, he knows it’s a game, and plays it as such; his meaning comes from trying to attain liberation and self-overcoming. We have to create our meaning- we either take what is put in front of us (the Last Man- like Andrew said, guys who make short-term stimulation their goal in life), or we reach for liberation and self-creation. Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant to this ultimate existential decision (Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, atheist and theist, are at one on this point- you either choose or you don’t)… the only person who can decide is the individual.

10. alistair Says:
    July 29th, 2005 at 4:47 pm

    exactly. the issue in evolution is one of deciet. selling micro-evolution, which is species adaptation, and macro-evolution, which is a horse turning into a dog or a monkey with 24 chromasome pairs turning into a human with only 23. doesn`t happen. can`t, and unless a scientist with a fully equiped biolab interferes(which they`re trying to do.) won`t. inarguable fact. stop now, whoa, dogma beyond….. danger. please. stop. dave….i don`t feel so good.

11. Nicq MacDonald Says:
    July 29th, 2005 at 4:57 pm

    alistair: The other problem, however, is that this battle is being portrayed as one between Christians (and religious Jews- every other religion in the world is irrelevant, of course) and “godless materialists” (who are all hedonistic, immoral, hateful “liberals”)- but where do you put those of us who don’t buy into either dogma? As long as this whole debate is seen in such silly, manichean terms, we really can’t get anywhere.

    That, and the argument doesn’t make sense from another perspective- much of the debate involves what theories are taught in public schools, and public schools are woefully deficient in the areas of philosophy and theology (I’m all for studying the Bible in school… and the Qu’ran… and the Pali Canon… and the Tao Te Ching… and the Upanishads… and the Confucian Analects… but such a curriculum has about zero chance of finding it’s way into the schools, and if it did, it would only be a matter of days before lawyers from the CC or the ACLU would be in court trying to do away with it)… trying to fit “Intelligent Design”, which is basically a philosophical or theological point, into a curriculum that isn’t equipped for it is nonsensical.

12. Fell Says:
    July 29th, 2005 at 5:13 pm

    I saw The Matrix Warrior at the bookstore some time ago and thought it looked ridiculous, simply by the cover. I guess the old adage here is…

    So I suppose I should check it out next time.

13. Nicq MacDonald Says:
    July 29th, 2005 at 5:54 pm

    It’s actually not a bad book (and the cover designers for many books should be drug out into the street and shot, IMHO)… the author, Jake Horsley, basically weaves together the mythology of the Matrix with metaphysics borrowed from Castaneda. I read a fair bit of Castaneda back in high school, but I never really resonated with his ideas- mainly because I didn’t “get” them until now. Another quirk that isn’t mentioned in the book, but shows- from what I’ve read by Horsley online, he’s a Thelemite. A lot of Thelemic ideas about the Will get into the blend too.

    All in all though, while it’s presented as a guidebook to “becoming the One”, what it really seems to be is a treatise on the ethics and lifestyle of a Scientific Illuminist. It ties together quite a few (uncredited) ideas from Crowley, only Horsley gets the point across in a much clearer manner.

14. lord moranosa Says:
    July 29th, 2005 at 5:55 pm

    the yank and pull between ‘evolution’ and ‘creationism/intelligent design/god-snapped-his-fingers-and-behold’ reminds me of the classic sci-fi movie king kong versus godzilla.

    as a child, i adored godzilla on many levels, while king kong i thought was just an oversized dumb gorilla who growled loudly and beated his chest as a way to exhibit his alphahood. then came the ultimate showdown in my mind as a child - the throw-down that would settle the showdown once and for all between godzilla and king kong.

    when i first saw king kong versus godzilla, mind you after viewing every godzilla versus film i knew of at the time, i was utterly crushed by the fact that king kong really won by default, and didn’t truly take godzilla down for the count on his own (..and i was very bothered by the fact that godzilla was deemed as the ‘bad monster’ while king kong was considered the ‘hero’ of the film…).

    but then i became a man, and i realised in viewings of king kong versus godzilla many years later, that the story was one written from the perspective that king kong was the ‘good monster’ that saved the day from a rampaging godzilla, in other words, the film was only a single perspective of many possible perspectives observing the monster archetype between king kong and godzilla.

    during my undergrad days as a psychology major, i took a course in genetics, taught by a self-proclaimed born again christian genetics professor who preferred being called dr. o as his first name was oscar. now what dr. o proceeded to teach his class was that evolution and creationism was one in the same, and didn’t require the semantical arguements for one and never the other. as a born-again christian, dr. o felt that so-called ‘christians’ refused to accept and observe that god dwells within the details, and that scientific evidence was there to prove not so much the existence of ‘god’ but the perpetual presence of god within the very details of his work. as a rather simple example, dr. o pointed out that an artist remains by definition, an individual who creates unique personal forms of expression regardless of whatever ’style’ that artist has been dubbed to ‘follow’, but at the same time one can clearly recognise the difference between a piece by dali, and a piece by picasso because of the differences in the details.

    but yet, picasso and dali remain ‘artists’ who created unique forms of expressions. this couldn’t be overlooked by anyone willing to recognise their art works first of all. second of all, they would need to be willing to view their artwork from a subjective perspective that wouldn’t distract from the objective understanding of the basics of art and what art attempted to convey and express from the artist’s point of view.

    the arguement by christianity, and the arguement by the scientific community that ’supports’ darwin’s thesis seems to be a pointless bickering that as a child, i would indulge in with regards to godzilla being the ‘better’ monster that king kong. the same type of bickerings that were common in high school about what band was the ‘better’ band. from dr. o, i realised that god dwells in the details, and that gathering scientific evidence to either support god’s existence or support god’s non-existent becomes a matter of attempting to hedge one’s bet. where god doesn’t exist for one, god remains apparent and obvious for the next individual.

    perhaps the arguement needs to not disprove nor prove god’s existence - this has been attempted by ‘modern man’ to the point where persecution, corruption, falsehoods, and wars have arisen to ‘prove the point’. such an utter waste. leave god in the details, and allow the details to guide and to inspire the liberation that many are currently seeking.

15. rg Says:
    July 30th, 2005 at 12:54 am

    “Is evolution really random, thus killing teleology? If evolution is random, does that mean life is random? If life is random, does that make it meaningless? If life is meaningless, then is morality meaningless? If life wasn’t designed with a purpose in mind, can it still find fulfillment in achieving some purpose?”

    Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Maybe.

16. alistair Says:
    July 31st, 2005 at 10:15 pm

    enjoying the details is a great way to exist. opinion, one way or another, is exactly that. science and religion are after one thing. the public purse. we get drawn into polarising to one side or another and then concretise into that position by calling ourselves scientists or religious. i can find a position of comfort in saying i don`t know what the hell is going on but the miracle of life goes rioting on around me, nonetheless. it would be nice to be able to thank someone for all of this but, hey, here we are…………………with questions……………in the middle of beauty. could be worse.

17. alistair Says:
    August 1st, 2005 at 10:38 am

    where to put those who don`t buy either arguement, religion or science? on the planet earth. the question remains, where did we come from, or what are we, or how come we`re different from all the other animals in that we are weak, hairless, smart and have the ability to reach our top running speed faster that any other animal. we are anaerobic runners. sprinters. ideal for hunting in packs in enclosed areas where the prey is confined. cities. urban warfare.(sorry, just got free associating on my own idea.) it does seem that we are in need of technology to make our dreams into reality.