The Mind of God (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, February 08, 2015, 15:07 (3576 days ago)
Larry Moran, an atheist Canadian biochemistry professor, has a blog, Sandwalk, named for a walkway on Darwin's property. He castigates atheist Stephan Fry for attempting to know the mind of God.-http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/01/stephen-fry-blows-it-by-assuming-he.html-Moran's warning:-"That's not what Stephen Fry would do. He makes the assumption that he knows the mind of god and attacks the god for not being nice to humans. In other words, he accepts the problem of evil and assumes that the god he is facing gives a damn about some obscure species on a minor planet in one of billions of galaxies. Later on Stephen Fry concedes that he could be talking to the Greek gods or some other gods but by then it's too late. -" The god he is addressing may or may not have done any of the things in the Bible. If he isn't that god then he will know that Stephen Fry is attacking a strawman. If he is the god of the Bible then presumably he/she/it had his/her/its reasons for doing apparently evil things and Stephen Fry is about to get educated about the real mind of god. That may turn out badly for Stephen Fry. - "If you ever run into any real gods I'd advise you not to mess with them.-"Many of my atheist friends think that Fry's response is fantastic because he really shocks the interviewer, Gay Byrne [Stephen Fry on God]. That's naive. Most intelligent Christians have developed some very good rationalizations concerning the problem of evil. They've heard it all before and they know how to respond. One of the classic responses is that cannot they know the mind of god. But Stephen Fry knows the mind of god and this is puzzling because Fry is an atheist."- On this site I have tried to toe the line of not making Fry's mistake. I try to look at evidence for God's purposes, not his personality. I reject the point that He is playful, bored or callus about suffering. I am not sure about the full extent of his powers. They may have some limits. This is why I have my dilemma about how evolution is controlled by God, which I think it is. I admit I think organism have some degree of inventive ability, based on the new epigenetic discoveries. But at the same time I look at the increasingly complex genome controls that are also being discovered, and all I can see is design. I'll stick with my dilemma approach until evolutions' mechanisms are more clearly delineated. Over-analyzing the mind of God is a mistake.-I feel dhw falls into Fry's trap. Just look back at his suppositions about God's point of view. He could be 'bored'. He could try 'experimenting', to paraphrase some of the discussions we've had. Please, lets quit discussions at that level and simply look at the evidence we have in front of us. I admit struggling to understand God's intentions is entering His mind, but only in one aspect. I equate what I see as the results of evolution to imply purposeful design. I do not then look for an emotional content behind those actions. I really do not know why God did what He did. I don't know how bonded He is to us, if bonded at all. We are here. There must be a cause, and perhaps a reason. There may be no reason and no emotion involved. -I know my view of religion is not warm and fuzzy, but look at Eastern religious thought, not really warm and fuzzy, but certainly more realistic in recognizing how little we can surmise about divine levels of reality. We don't need warm and fuzzy. Just stick to the wonder and enjoyment of the fantastic level of life we enjoy compared to the apes. Don't feel sorry for them. They don't have the capacity to know any better what they are missing.-Thank you, God.
The Mind of God
DAVID: Larry Moran, an atheist Canadian biochemistry professor, has a blog, Sandwalk, named for a walkway on Darwin's property. He castigates atheist Stephan Fry for attempting to know the mind of God. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/01/stephen-fry-blows-it-by-assuming-he.html-DAVID: On this site I have tried to toe the line of not making Fry's mistake. I try to look at evidence for God's purposes, not his personality. I reject the point that He is playful, bored or callus about suffering. I am not sure about the full extent of his powers. They may have some limits. This is why I have my dilemma about how evolution is controlled by God, which I think it is. I admit I think organism have some degree of inventive ability, based on the new epigenetic discoveries. But at the same time I look at the increasingly complex genome controls that are also being discovered, and all I can see is design. I'll stick with my dilemma approach until evolutions' mechanisms are more clearly delineated. Over-analyzing the mind of God is a mistake.-Overdoing anything is usually a mistake, but if it is right for you to speculate about God's purposes, it is right for others to challenge those speculations. It is you who refuse to wait until “evolution's mechanisms are more clearly delineated”, and who insist that God's purpose for evolution was to create humans, and that God preprogrammed the first cells with every innovation and lifestyle for the next 3.7 billion years, or gave demonstrations to the weaverbirds on how to build their nests. As for the complex genome controls, there is no reason to suppose that these are not also part of an autonomous mechanism. After all, you remain convinced that the astonishing complexities of the human brain (thank you for the latest post on the subject) serve to make us autonomous and not automatic. DAVID: I feel dhw falls into Fry's trap. Just look back at his suppositions about God's point of view. He could be 'bored'. He could try 'experimenting', to paraphrase some of the discussions we've had. -These are not suppositions but hypotheses, you are paraphrasing one tiny, secondary element of our discussions, and I would hate to be bracketed with Stephen Fry! In our efforts to find coherent reasons for the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution, we have each created patterns. You say God planned things to fulfil a particular purpose (humans). It seems to me just as reasonable to speculate that the operator actually aimed for higgledy-piggledy, or didn't know what he was doing, or was experimenting, as it is to speculate that his goal was humans. DAVID: Please, lets quit discussions at that level and simply look at the evidence we have in front of us. I admit struggling to understand God's intentions is entering His mind, but only in one aspect. I equate what I see as the results of evolution to imply purposeful design. I do not then look for an emotional content behind those actions. I really do not know why God did what He did. I don't know how bonded He is to us, if bonded at all. We are here. There must be a cause, and perhaps a reason. There may be no reason and no emotion involved. -Thank you for an excellent summary of our situation - but the discussions between you and me have not been about whether God is bored, playful, callous, but about whether evolution fits the pattern you have imposed on it. Possible motives for a free-for-all have been incidental. On different threads and at other times there have certainly been discussions - especially with Tony - centring on the problems of evil and suffering, and the image of God that emerges from life as we see it, as well as from the bible. And why not? If we can study life in order to ascertain whether God exists, we can also study life in order to gauge the nature of the being that might have created it and us. The curiosity that motivates the one quest also motivates the other, even if we might never know the answers.
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Monday, February 09, 2015, 18:09 (3574 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:Overdoing anything is usually a mistake, but if it is right for you to speculate about God's purposes, it is right for others to challenge those speculations. It is you who refuse to wait until “evolution's mechanisms are more clearly delineated”, and who insist that God's purpose for evolution was to create humans, and that God preprogrammed the first cells with every innovation and lifestyle for the next 3.7 billion years, or gave demonstrations to the weaverbirds on how to build their nests.-I've answered this objection of yours in the balance of nature post today.-> dhw: As for the complex genome controls, there is no reason to suppose that these are not also part of an autonomous mechanism. After all, you remain convinced that the astonishing complexities of the human brain (thank you for the latest post on the subject) serve to make us autonomous and not automatic.-Once again, those genomic and brain complexities cannot have been developed by chance. IMHO we are autonomous. > > dhw:In our efforts to find coherent reasons for the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution, we have each created patterns. You say God planned things to fulfil a particular purpose (humans). It seems to me just as reasonable to speculate that the operator actually aimed for higgledy-piggledy, or didn't know what he was doing, or was experimenting, as it is to speculate that his goal was humans.-I understand your speculation. I look for a reasonable explanation as to why humans are here. I still maintain we are different in kind, not degree. As for 'didn't know what he was doing', hard to accept that in view of what did appear from the point of the Big Bang. > > DAVID: I really do not know why God did what He did. I don't know how bonded He is to us, if bonded at all. We are here. There must be a cause, and perhaps a reason. There may be no reason and no emotion involved.[/i] > > dhw: Thank you for an excellent summary of our situation - but the discussions between you and me have not been about whether God is bored, playful, callous, but about whether evolution fits the pattern you have imposed on it.-All I have really imposed is purpose. Humans are here. We really don't know the 'why' or the 'how', except both of us see evolution as the underlying process. You are unwilling to accept purpose. That is your right, but it hard to avoid the appearance of purpose.-> dhw: Possible motives for a free-for-all have been incidental. On different threads and at other times there have certainly been discussions - especially with Tony - centring on the problems of evil and suffering, and the image of God that emerges from life as we see it, as well as from the bible. And why not? If we can study life in order to ascertain whether God exists, we can also study life in order to gauge the nature of the being that might have created it and us. The curiosity that motivates the one quest also motivates the other, even if we might never know the answers.-Agreed.
The Mind of God
dhw: As for the complex genome controls, there is no reason to suppose that these are not also part of an autonomous mechanism. After all, you remain convinced that the astonishing complexities of the human brain (thank you for the latest post on the subject) serve to make us autonomous and not automatic. DAVID: Once again, those genomic and brain complexities cannot have been developed by chance. IMHO we are autonomous.-And if the amazing complexities of our brain can make us autonomous, perhaps the amazing complexities of other organisms can do the same.-dhw: You say God planned things to fulfil a particular purpose (humans). It seems to me just as reasonable to speculate that the operator actually aimed for higgledy-piggledy, or didn't know what he was doing, or was experimenting, as it is to speculate that his goal was humans. DAVID: I understand your speculation. I look for a reasonable explanation as to why humans are here. I still maintain we are different in kind, not degree. As for 'didn't know what he was doing', hard to accept that in view of what did appear from the point of the Big Bang.-And I also look for a reasonable explanation as to why the duck-billed platypus is here, and I don't find one in the suggestion that God needed it for the balance of life and the production of humans. Deliberate free-for-all, experimentation, or even - who knows? - “Oops, what have I done here?” Looking closely at the d-b-p, my money would be on a free-for-all. -DAVID: I really do not know why God did what He did. I don't know how bonded He is to us, if bonded at all. We are here. There must be a cause, and perhaps a reason. There may be no reason and no emotion involved. dhw: Thank you for an excellent summary of our situation - but the discussions between you and me have not been about whether God is bored, playful, callous, but about whether evolution fits the pattern you have imposed on it.-DAVID: All I have really imposed is purpose. Humans are here. We really don't know the 'why' or the 'how', except both of us see evolution as the underlying process. You are unwilling to accept purpose. That is your right, but it hard to avoid the appearance of purpose.-You have imposed a very specific purpose, and on analysis it seems very hard to fit that purpose to the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution as we know it. Of course you can escape by saying nobody knows the mind of God, but I see nothing wrong in our looking for other possible purposes that fit in more snugly than the one you advocate.
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 15:09 (3574 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Once again, those genomic and brain complexities cannot have been developed by chance. IMHO we are autonomous. > > dhw: And if the amazing complexities of our brain can make us autonomous, perhaps the amazing complexities of other organisms can do the same.-As usual you blithely slip over the huge gap in human complexity from all the others. Of course, multicellular organisms have their own levels of autonomy. > > dhw: And I also look for a reasonable explanation as to why the duck-billed platypus is here, and I don't find one in the suggestion that God needed it for the balance of life and the production of humans. Deliberate free-for-all, experimentation, or even - who knows? - “Oops, what have I done here?” Looking closely at the d-b-p, my money would be on a free-for-all. -I've agreed that God may well have made life very inventive. we are still unearthing the extent of epigenetic mechanisms. For some of us even the life style of the d-b-p suggests design. I've actually seen some in action in Australia.-> > dhw: You have imposed a very specific purpose, and on analysis it seems very hard to fit that purpose to the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution as we know it. Of course you can escape by saying nobody knows the mind of God, but I see nothing wrong in our looking for other possible purposes that fit in more snugly than the one you advocate.-Your 'hard to fit' problem stems from an unwillingness to accept how vast the gap is between humans and everything else. Please give me one 'other possible purpose' that fits the record without interpreting the intentions of God. Since I accept Him That is my approach, not yours.
The Mind of God
dhw: ...if the amazing complexities of our brain can make us autonomous, perhaps the amazing complexities of other organisms can do the same. DAVID: As usual you blithely slip over the huge gap in human complexity from all the others. Of course, multicellular organisms have their own levels of autonomy.-The gap, which I acknowledge, is irrelevant to the issue of autonomy. Since you now agree that multicellular organisms have their own levels of autonomy, the only slight disagreement between us is over single-celled organisms, which many respected scientists claim also have their own levels of autonomy.-DAVID: I've agreed that God may well have made life very inventive. we are still unearthing the extent of epigenetic mechanisms. For some of us even the life style of the d-b-p suggests design. I've actually seen some in action in Australia.-Life is not inventive. Organisms (and/or your God) are inventive, and an autonomous inventive mechanism designs. Back to the three (possibly four) hypotheses: God preprogrammed the d-b-p, God created the d-b-p separately, the antecedents of the d-b-p used their inventive mechanism to change themselves into d-b-p's, or God gave them half a set of instructions and left the other half to them (= your semi-autonomy). Take your pick.-dhw: You have imposed a very specific purpose, and on analysis it seems very hard to fit that purpose to the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution as we know it. Of course you can escape by saying nobody knows the mind of God, but I see nothing wrong in our looking for other possible purposes that fit in more snugly than the one you advocate. DAVID: Your 'hard to fit' problem stems from an unwillingness to accept how vast the gap is between humans and everything else. Please give me one 'other possible purpose' that fits the record without interpreting the intentions of God. Since I accept Him That is my approach, not yours.-I accept the gap, but not your insistence that the gap did not evolve naturally. Your anthropocentric purpose is an interpretation of God's intentions. Maybe his intention was to produce a higgledy-piggledy bush that followed its own course, or to produce some sort of image of himself (but he didn't know how to do it, whereas you think he did), or to play games with different life forms. All of these could explain the higgledy-piggledy bush. All forms of life pursue the purpose of survival and propagation, which even for many humans is an end in itself, so maybe God created life for its own sake. If you ask me why, I'll ask you why he created humans, but you don‘t like that sort of question.
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Thursday, February 12, 2015, 00:32 (3572 days ago) @ dhw
> Dhw: Life is not inventive. Organisms (and/or your God) are inventive, and an autonomous inventive mechanism designs. Back to the three (possibly four) hypotheses: God preprogrammed the d-b-p, God created the d-b-p separately, the antecedents of the d-b-p used their inventive mechanism to change themselves into d-b-p's, or God gave them half a set of instructions and left the other half to them (= your semi-autonomy). Take your pick.- By the way, I use the term 'life' in a generic sense. I know organisms, which are alive, evolve somehow.I wish I could take a pick from your proposals. I really can't. That is why the dilemma. I have concluded that God guides evolution. I truly believe that, but how is still beyond me. If there is an IM, and epigenetics suggests that strongly, because of my belief that God controls evolution, organismal self-induced changes are semi-autonomous. That is the only way everything fits in my theory. > > dhw: I accept the gap [human intellect being so superior], but not your insistence that the gap did not evolve naturally. Your anthropocentric purpose is an interpretation of God's intentions.-As explained, I work backwards from what we know. Human mental ability is so enormously different from any other animals, that it is an unreasonable advance for ordinary expectations from an evolutionary process.-> dhw: All forms of life pursue the purpose of survival and propagation, which even for many humans is an end in itself, so maybe God created life for its own sake. If you ask me why, I'll ask you why he created humans, but you don‘t like that sort of question.-I am convinced God created life with the purpose of producing conscious humans. I can't take it further. You tell me why He did it if you can. I can't. I'm just glad he did.
The Mind of God
Dhw: Back to the three (possibly four) hypotheses: God preprogrammed the d-b-p, God created the d-b-p separately, the antecedents of the d-b-p used their inventive mechanism to change themselves into d-b-p's, or God gave them half a set of instructions and left the other half to them (= your semi-autonomy). Take your pick. DAVID: I wish I could take a pick from your proposals. I really can't. That is why the dilemma. I have concluded that God guides evolution. I truly believe that, but how is still beyond me. If there is an IM, and epigenetics suggests that strongly, because of my belief that God controls evolution, organismal self-induced changes are semi-autonomous. That is the only way everything fits in my theory.-I think this answer brings our view of evolution a good deal closer, much as I dislike the term “semi-autonomous”! I understand your conclusion that there is a designer, but if I believed in God, I would find the autonomous inventive mechanism a more satisfactory explanation of the higgledy-piggledy bush than the preprogramming or separate creation of every innovation and lifestyle. I would also accept the possibility of dabbling (which could include humans). Since I neither believe nor disbelieve in God (see “Balance”), an autonomous inventive mechanism also fits in with godless evolution (its origin is another subject): indeed, if there is no God, organisms HAVE to invent themselves, even though I don't know of any scientist who has actually put it in those simple terms. dhw: I accept the gap [human intellect being so superior], but not your insistence that the gap did not evolve naturally. DAVID: As explained, I work backwards from what we know. Human mental ability is so enormously different from any other animals, that it is an unreasonable advance for ordinary expectations from an evolutionary process.-How can you judge what is "reasonable" or “ordinary” when we have nothing with which to compare our evolution? All we can say is that if life began with single cells, we don't know how or why these evolved into dinosaurs, duck-billed platypuses, or humans. You can start with any complex organism you like and work back to the same non-answer.-DAVID: I am convinced God created life with the purpose of producing conscious humans. I can't take it further. You tell me why He did it if you can. I can't. I'm just glad he did.-If I were a believer, I could easily accept that he wanted to create humans, but I could not accept that evolution's higgledy-piggledy history denotes that it was all planned from the beginning to turn out the way it did. That is why you have your dilemma: you can't conceive of your God not being in total control, and yet you know that life's history does not fit in with your rigidly defined purpose. I'm also glad we're here, though, whether he did it or not.
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Thursday, February 12, 2015, 21:04 (3571 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I think this answer brings our view of evolution a good deal closer, much as I dislike the term “semi-autonomous”! I understand your conclusion that there is a designer, but if I believed in God, I would find the autonomous inventive mechanism a more satisfactory explanation of the higgledy-piggledy bush than the preprogramming or separate creation of every innovation and lifestyle.... indeed, if there is no God, organisms HAVE to invent themselves, even though I don't know of any scientist who has actually put it in those simple terms.-I still insist semi-autonomous fits work by a designer. Note my entry on CRISPR (bacterial immunity) > > dhw: How can you judge what is "reasonable" or “ordinary” when we have nothing with which to compare our evolution?-We can judge by looking at the whole process. Small advances except the two biggest jumps are single to multicellular (Cambrian) and the human brain. Nothing else is as large.-> > DAVID: I am convinced God created life with the purpose of producing conscious humans. I can't take it further. You tell me why He did it if you can. I can't. I'm just glad he did. > > dhw: If I were a believer, I could easily accept that he wanted to create humans, but I could not accept that evolution's higgledy-piggledy history denotes that it was all planned from the beginning to turn out the way it did. That is why you have your dilemma: you can't conceive of your God not being in total control, and yet you know that life's history does not fit in with your rigidly defined purpose. I'm also glad we're here, though, whether he did it or not.-All I can know is what I see, and then try to make it fit.
The Mind of God
by romansh 
, Monday, February 09, 2015, 16:55 (3574 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by romansh, Monday, February 09, 2015, 17:01
The problem, from an agnostic point of view, with saying someone (Fry or DHW) does not know the mind of god is that they fall into the same trap. I have no way of knowing whether DHW or Fry have nailed god's mind. -Are you suggesting you know god's mind sufficiently to say DHW is wrong?
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Monday, February 09, 2015, 18:14 (3574 days ago) @ romansh
Rom: The problem, from an agnostic point of view, with saying someone (Fry or DHW) does not know the mind of god is that they fall into the same trap. I have no way of knowing whether DHW or Fry have nailed god's mind. > > Are you suggesting you know god's mind sufficiently to say DHW is wrong?-Glad you are back. No, I don't know that dhw is wrong. We simply have different beliefs, but it important for all views to understand that any supposition about God's mind is just that. The declarative statements of religion have no basis in fact. For me I see overwhelming evidence of purpose. Therefore, I see intent. I understand that others will not.
The Mind of God
by romansh , Monday, February 09, 2015, 19:17 (3574 days ago) @ David Turell
David: For me I see overwhelming evidence of purpose. Therefore, I see intent. I understand that others will not.-I see exactly the same evidence and I don't see intent. -I could argue that intent and purpose are wholly human concepts that helps us navigate our lives.-It is difficult to say atoms have purposes.
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Monday, February 09, 2015, 20:18 (3574 days ago) @ romansh
Rom: I could argue that intent and purpose are wholly human concepts that helps us navigate our lives. > > It is difficult to say atoms have purposes.-It is the complex organization of atoms with specific functionality that implies purpose.