Problems with this section (Agnosticism)

by Frank Paris , Friday, November 13, 2009, 00:47 (5488 days ago) @ dhw

"I had, perhaps erroneously, assumed there was a link in your theology between genetic codes and the evolution of consciousness"-Absolutely an erroneous assumption. I have absolutely no idea whether our particular genetic code is required for the evolution of consciousness, although I rather doubt it. That's also a scientific, not a theological, question.-"I now no longer know what you consider God capable of."-In our universe or in general? If you're talking about just our universe, I'm confused that you're confused. I don't know how I could make that any clearer than I already have. The fundamentals are set up such that no miracles against the physical laws of nature are needed for the emergence of life and eventually consciousness. As Griffin says, "reenchantment without supernaturalism."-"I find it difficult to believe that God, given infinite time and his infinite consciousness, and given his purpose, which is to see himself reflected in the universe, does not have the conscious ability to create the genetic codes."-Maybe in general, but not in our universe. In our universe, it wasn't necessary. The fundamentals are capable of doing this on their own. If God did it in our universe, this meant he pushed matter around independent of natural laws, i.e. worked miracles. My theology dispenses with miracles, as does science and the process theology from Whitehead to Griffin. God's relationship with genetic codes on our planet is extremely abstract: his fundamentals were created with the potential to create the genetic codes on Earth, and who knows how many other perfectly working but entirely different genetic codes on other planets? This is simply not an interesting theological question, and I don't know why you seem to be so hung up on it.-"Your faith that chance can achieve what God can't..." (my italics)-Doesn't, or chose not to in our universe, would be better ways to put it.-"it adds a great deal of fuel to the atheist argument that we don't need God to explain anything"-I never denied that we don't need God to explain anything natural that happens in the world. Personally, I only need God to explain my own religious experience, and I believe that mystics throughout the ages are not lying when they claim to have had experiences that sound very much like my own, and that they also required God to explain these experiences. I think the only question for you and me is whether my theology is coherent and consistent, not whether it is connected to anything real. I believe it is, but also it absolutely doesn't matter to me whether you believe it is.-"so why bother with him at all?"-You obviously shouldn't. You don't have any reason to, so don't fret about it. I do. So I have my theories.-'If you prefer a more learned formula, then I'll just murmur "Ockham's Razor".'-Fine, if that makes you happy. Be done with all this, then. In your experience you have every right to apply that principle. But I'd betray my own experience if I did.-"David Turell's very welcome comments seem to me to offer a much clearer and more coherent image of God, and it will be interesting to see if he can untangle the threads better than I can."-You think I'm opaque. You should give Whitehead a try sometime.