October's Autumn Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Do we then teach them, ok well God gave us minds so that now we need ID psychology; we need ID chemistry because God created the elements; we need ID physics as God created the laws that run the universe? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Des -- You had a lot of good stuff to say but the absurdity of actually doing the above made me really laugh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Actually the absurdity thing was the point. I'm glad it added a bit of humor! ;-) I wanted to take the argument that ID takes and stretch it to the most absurd point possible. Funny thing, imo, that they have focused on evolution. There is a whole world of science out there and they haven't begun to get into requiring God in those sciences. The "new (very old) definition of science that they seem to be using is an "explanation of the natural world". By that "definition" then the earth could just as well have been created on the back of a great tortoise as one Native American myth has it (I think). NO fair saying most (or any) scientists don't subscribe to it. Hey it is an explanation. It just does not happen to be the Judeo-Christian one. Shouldn't we teach this one in schools too? They get very upset about this sort of suggestion! Prayer in the public schools, ok have the wicca teacher lead one. They don't like that idea! I don't either. But I'm not the one suggesting the integration of religion and education. --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 The Creator/creation model does have positive metaphorical value for expressing the meaningfulness and purposefulness of the universe in relation to God. But philosophically I steer clear of it, because it suggests an image of God as a kind of craftsman or artifacer. This image tends to suggest that God fashions the world out of some sort of raw material, rather than out of the divine being itself, and that therefore God is not ultimate reality. Furthermore, on this model, God is not the source of our being, just our form. For all practical purposes though, it's probably still one of the best models we've got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Well I think I get your drift Fred, but there is a fatal flaw to the idea that God is some kind of potter creating out of some kind of clay. What is God creating things FROM. From nothing essentially. Therefore God would be, in this analogy, both potter, clay and creation. That's pretty divine, imo. --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 Well I think I get your drift Fred, but there is a fatal flaw to the idea that God is some kind of potter creating out of some kind of clay. Right, that's what I was getting at. That's where the analogy breaks down, which why I don't use the "Creator/creation" analogy when I'm in a more precise metaphysical mode. But the analogy has other good aspects to it, and it's still a lot more accurate than other alternatives -- a meaningless universe, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.