ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 27, 2009, 04:01 (5538 days ago) @ David Turell

On the subject of the "humanness" of the gods, you wrote that Xenophanes could be saying it's really just that of ourselves and our race collectively looking in the mirror. "When you take all the humanity away from god(s) and make them that totally abstract...I actually agree with some Christian theologians when they say that there is no point in worshiping such a cold and distant deity." 
> > 
> > I agree too. But you seem to have taken no notice of my reverse speculation ... namely, that God has created us in his image: we, the design, reflect the designer. I don't, of course, mean in form, but in our mental/emotional/ intellectual makeup. I won't repeat the arguments I put forward in my post of 24 September at 22.04, except to say that this perspective seems to me to provide a logical basis for the human side of God, although of course it runs counter to the "perfect" image fostered by the main religions. 
> > 
> 
> This discussion is exactly why my position only goes to the universal intelligence proposal. We cannot know anything about God's attributes or his personality, but for some reason I do feel comfortable with the thought that there is a greater power out there. Since He created us through evolution, He might have some feelings of closeness toward us. How close, only He knows. And I can live with that. Was I predisposed before I entered into my 30 years of study? No. But I was convinced by the time I had studied the findings of cosmology, the standard model, the discoveries of particle physics, all of which tied together so beautifully. Studying Darwin only convinced me more. Since we did not observe evolution, and his theory is so full of holes, it has to be taken on faith that life appeared de novo from inorganic matter and ended up as complicated as human biochemisty is known to be. Out of nowhere we see an extremely complex DNA/RNA code to run life. From the simplest to the most complex, all life has to have that code. It had to appear with the earliest, the very first true living organism. An ameba has a DNA molecule longer than ours, more bases and only a few genes. Fit that into Darwin.-Well, my notion of predisposition digs alot deeper into subconcious areas; none of us ever think we're predisposed at any time, but we are. I am, you are (and were), and so is/was all the rest of us. It isn't possible to be impartial. -As for the Amoeba claim, natural selection is only supposed to operate if there's a need. The genome can grow as big as it wants, its only going to kill a creature if it develops something 'bad.' This falls into that category of "neutral" mutations we were discussing sometime before. You've got good, neutral, and bad.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"