This is an excellent remark, and IMHO indicates that Christ is the revelation, so that we comprehend Him as a human and also we endeavor beyond to the Son of God.
I believe “human” and “person” are often equated with exactitude. Is it possible to be a person without being human? When I say human, I see and think of a limited being at one place, at a time, and using some type of transportation to move to the next location. A person must have the criteria of personality: mind, emotion, and volition (will). I believe GOD is not a human but a Person unlike us! GOD is incorporeal, unlimited, and cannot be traced or placed beneath a microscope! Our finite minds will not ever comprehend an Infinite GOD. All humans are a person but all persons are not human. Thanks!
But are our limited minds up to the task of measuring the mind of God? Are we in any position to differentiate between a mind a lot greater than our own and one that is truly “infinite”?
Welcome to the forum, Edward!
Good questions. And I have a feeling that each new generation must answer those questions for itself. Not that they should have to start from scratch, mind you. Perhaps that is the gift that prior generations pass along to subsequent ones: the testimonies of past struggles and answers given to all those very questions. But ultimately, I think each generation has to answer those for themselves too.
In a sense you’re already preaching to the choir here. Those among us who believe have already accepted that everything and everyone is a special existence and special creation (regardless of whether or not it appears ‘happenstance’). So I guess your question hinges on whether or not you are trying to make it a permanent foundation for belief and to compel belief of others. Not many of us here subscribe to ID (or even science generally) as an adequate foundation for faith. It might serve as a stepping stone for some, but not as an exclusive place for the roots of faith to find their nourishment. I would say that the true foundation (Christ) provides and will provide the deepest answers needed as we need them. But I say that as a matter of faith that I continue to grow into, not as a matter of certitude or science.
Please elaborate. This comes across as suggesting that if we are directly created, we would not need to eat.
Excellent thoughts and questions.
In a large part it depends what we mean by human. Many equate this to the biological species and I do not. I believe it has much more to do with an inheritance of the mind from God by which we are His children. In that case God would be the direct origin of our humanity and thus in some sense the original human… even more so with Jesus taking Adam’s place as the new Adam. And yet I agree there is still a fundamental difference. We are made in the image of God much like a reflection in a mirror where there is a likeness but also profound differences. I think it means our infinite potentiality is reflection of God’s infinite actuality, which is the foundation for a parent child relationship which has no end… the very substance of eternal life. But that means there is the profound difference between an infinite being and we who are finite beings.
It is automatic for me to extend this beyond merely the distinction between man and God to ask about other beings in the universe? aliens? Are they persons? I think it takes more than intelligence to be sure - something we are now simulating quite well with computers. Perhaps we should ask if they even have a notion of personhood at all and if that notion would even mean anything to them? Can they be persons when even they would find little comprehension or sense in the idea at all?
Mitchell, Ron, Mervin, and MarkD, thanks for the welcome! I see you guys jumps hard on new guys! LOL!
All jokes aside, I am a proponent of “Intelligent Design” and our human inability to grasp or comprehend such an Intelligent Begin, epistemologically, without divine invitation and revelation for infinity! I value Rom. 11:33 within my cognitive pursuit to know the Life-giver and Sustainer of Life and my impossibility of omniscience. Others may not agree or resort to the Holy Bible as my “point of reference” to know and pursue knowledge of the Creator! What can humans create without using material which is existing? We engage conversations as the earlier metaphysicians with assumptions, grapples, ponderings, and theories which the results are circular and dead-ends. Thousands of years have passed and how much more do we know now than they through dialectical struggles? Dialectical struggles actually lead to dialectical tension, everybody wants to be right and gets upset when others disagree! I am convinced the answer resides within the knowledge of Creator-GOD. I need no-one to agree with me or get upset about their opinion or opposition - they have that right! I have concluded based on research and reverberations, humanity is not the answer or have the answer!
Resorting to the Holy Bible, “man” is the only creature not spoken into existence. Man came directly out of GOD…not physical image but GOD’s Spiritual Image, which is GOD’s greatest and most praised creation! Humanity wants answers, but they continue rejecting the One Which has Omniscience! You Guys Are Great!
Sigmund Freud the creator of psychoanalysis came up with the thesis that the reason why religions emerge in history is out of people’s natural fear for the forces of nature. We’re afraid of the cyclones, we’re afraid of the volcanoes, we’re afraid of diseases that can invade our bodies, we’re afraid of death.
Out of this fear of nature we create religion. We create a god who rules over the storm another over the seas. For Freud he believed it was the fear of nature that created religion.
I’m not a believer myself but that is one more thing I disagree with Freud over. His thinking is simplistic in the way it is for most pioneers. I don’t see how that explains why God belief should have been selected for long before there was institutional religion. Would a psychological comfort blanket really serve so well as a cultural foundation?
Let’s not forget that evolutionary spandrels are a real thing. I’m not saying that religious belief is a spandrel, but we shouldn’t assume that all characteristics are the result of direct selection for that characteristic.
I guess the most we can say is the trait seemingly favored was at least less of a handicap than the alternative(s).
Do you agree that culture is a vehicle for evolution for our kind now, and probably the more important one as it allows for much quicker adaption.
In other words, the driving force of evolution is variation, NOT natural selection. Selection is a filter and rather loose one at that. Sometimes a population with all its wonderful genes is wiped out by a local disaster, while another group just gets lucky – so sometimes natural selection survival advantages have very little to do with it.
Before Gregory arrives with rhetorical fists swinging in outrage, I will say that I certainly do. It might not be quite as mechanistic as the biological process, less random and with much more intention and design involved. But think they are both examples of the basic trial and error learning process.
Freud’s thesis is that all these created gods of nature were ultimately combined and in time became one god. I would think from Freud’s perspective this created god loses significance as man progresses. He would give an example like this: Previously, sailors prayed to the god of the seas before a voyage… Today Boeing 707 pilots don’t pray before flying he or she checks the charts, radar, and weather - they have no fear of the storm or a storm god that doesn’t exist > science has defeated the storm god.
What is interesting is that this logic didn’t work for the disciples in Mark 4 where Jesus silences the waves. Freud cant answer that
We also have other objective evidence, modern-day firsthand factual reporting of God’s providential interventions, actually consistent with Jesus calming the sea, as noted elsewhere recently.
We enjoy having fresh perspectives to grapple with! I resonate with your praise for a Creator whose thoughts are indeed higher than any thoughts we could hope to have. Along with Romans 11:33, I also like passages (like found in Job 28) where it is acknowledged that man searches out the ways of God too - with some success!
Just a note to help you as you interact around here: If you wish to react to a bit of someone else’s post, just highlight a selection in their post and a grey “quote” box will appear there beside your selection. Click it, and it inserts that quote into your response (or even starts up a response for you if you haven’t already begun one.) This does a couple things. It shows others what specific thing you are reacting to which really helps provide context for your continued discussion, and it also notifies the person whose post you quoted so that they know somebody (you!) have responded to something they wrote.
What I am saying is that it may not be the trait, but an aggregate of multiple traits. If religious beliefs are actually detrimental (and I’m not saying they are) it could be offset by much stronger beneficial trait caused by the same genetic changes that give rise to religious belief.
I very much agree. I think feral children are a really great example. These are kids that grow up from a young age without being part of human society, and they suffer from cognitive issues. The human brain needs human culture, society, and language in order to develop properly. That’s just one facet, and there are probably many more.
Variation, natural selection, and and neutral drift are all important mechanisms. It’s not a matter of one reigning supreme over the others. However, an evolutionary spandrel can be the product of natural selection, just not the selection of a specific trait in isolation. For example, a mutation can greatly increase human intelligence, but it also comes with religious belief. If the aggregate increase in fitness between the increase in intelligence and the formation of religious beliefs is beneficial then the trait will be selected for, even if religious beliefs in isolation are detrimental (as stated in previous post, I am not saying that religious beliefs are actually detrimental, just using this as a hypothetical).
We see the material world and use our five senses to explore and explain our investigations. Many years examiners have attempted to explain the natural and spiritual worlds as antipole. Some scientists desperately sought to disprove the existence of GOD and Theologians often rejected science. However, the Holy Bible advocates both worlds originated for GOD! Therefore, researchers needed to expand their knowledge and each needed to dig deeper!
We now understand, those of us which are not lost at sea, theology encompasses the natural and spiritual worlds. The spiritual tells us what God did in the material or physical world, and the natural explains how GOD did it to a point. We call this reasoning and logic - Natural and Spiritual Theologies, but if they cannot use their five senses to explain GOD, then to them HE is not Real! HOW DO WE DEFINE REAL? WHAT IS REAL? WHEN DO WE FIND IT?
Living in the natural world, one could not ever know GOD in HIS Infinite Glory and Wisdom! Is it not interesting how the Cosmos introduces us to GOD but does not tell us how to meet HIM or reach HIM?. No! Man did not create the GOD of the Universe! GOD was not created! However, men who reject the GOD of the Universe wanted a GOD which they could manipulate! Men opposing GOD do so, because they do not want to be accountable to HIM. Therefore, they advocate “autonomy” (a ton of me) not a Ton of GOD!
Here in the first five minutes and 12 seconds is one rationale for saying that we/God create each other. I may have to fiddle with it to see if I can limit the video to just that section. No this will do, the portion of the original video of interest here begins at the 1:17:48 point in the original video I watched and ends when the interviewer speaks again after just a little more than five minutes. I would like to ask @jstump, @Mervin_Bitikofer, @mitchellmckain, @Jay313 and @Christy with whom I discussed a quote from his first book, along with anyone else interested, what they think about the compatibility of what he says with Christianity.
The person being interviewed here is Iain McGilchrist, author of The Master and His Emissary. A book in which he never says much explicitly about God even though the book has been of interest to a number of theologians. This interview is about his next one, The Matter With Things, in which apparently he does try to say something about God. I think it interesting that he thinks isn’t possible to say anything adequate and yet it is too important a topic not to try. I wonder if that resonates with anyone else here?
I watched (I think) the segment you described and heard nothing that that would dissuade me from the conclusion that what he thinks is incompatible with Christianity, especially since he considers himself to be panentheistic, or so I understand. God is a separate entity from the physical, and personal, not some hypothesized and ambiguous ‘something’ which proceeds from the entirety of our spacetime cosmos.