Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 12:16:19 CDT
From: <U21192@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,
Subject: Evolution AND or OF God??

 Hello (t)here!!
I've been reading this group for quite a while now, and have witnessed the
incessant and persistent return of the subject of Creationism vs Evol.
 The arguments are endless, I personally do not see where they lead
but I was wondering if I may offer a new alternative that some people
may want to examine more closely.
 Most arguments from Creationists tend to linger around the central thesis
that there is SOMETHING out there, that has assisted in the creation
of life forms. Whether "thru" evolution or not.
 Why not take it one step further, and assume for the second that
this entity, or "representative" if you will is instead being
created by us, in a sort of subjecive way. That is, man to cover his
fears first "invents" or "worships" some primitive "arbitrator"-element,
(thunder, rain, nature, etc) and as those things become gradually
known, the realms of the representative move higher and higher to satisfy
the ever growing human mind. One could stop here and simply say that
the previous very sort assumption holds true regardless for skepics
per-se. BUT, consider the following alternative:
What IF, we trully HAVE CREATED an external objective outside representative
(call it God in the making) that starts with our subjective suppositions,
and ends up  "existing" somewhere out there.
 Out WHERE? you will ask. Granted, but does it make a difference if IT
lies out there or IN our minds? What is the difference for practical
purposes? History shows that to the extent that we are influenced by IT
in our minds, it doesn't make much difference to look where it is;
particularly in view of the fact that its representation FORCES us to
act in this or that way. Consider for example the typical representative
"Jehovah" with all its developmental stages from its inception from the
first patriarchal societies (whoever they were, lets assume it was the
ancient Hebrews who obviously took some of the ideas from Egyptians
and Sumerians) to its latest development as IT being the Father of the
Christian trinity. My point is the following:
 What if we are dealing with an entity that STARTS out subjectively, and
develops gradually into some immense force that influences our society
to such extremes thruout history. Note the developmental stages of it.
 In the old testament God is a jealous God, a punishing one, a creature
with strange habits, and with not such a forgiving heart.
Christianity comes along, and we face a major dichotomy; Jehovah becomes
the father of the Son, gets out of the picture for Xtians in terms of
importance, and stays the center point for the Hebrews. Yet for even
todays Hebrews the God they know today is much more tollerant and forgiving
than the one from days of old.
 One can clearly see the "developmental" stages as I call them of that
entity. Regardless, what one should be not so quick to judge is the issue
of whether that "entity" or whatever it is, FORCES an objective truth
to it. Even if this thing exists in the minds of its followers, to what
extent is it "subjective"? I don't think we are dealing with subjective
"dreams" today when we see such behaviour as 2.5 followers of this or
that god being driven by things like "divine providence" or "fate".
 Does the subjective belief to that entity, ANY entity forces an objective
part to i insofar as our decisions are concerned? Does Jehovah exist in
the minds of the world's Hebrews today, as Christ does in the minds of
Xtians, or Allah in the minds of muslims? If those entities DO NOT
carry some objective truth with them, how come they manage to influence
our societies so strongly?
 Is it a matter of survival maybe? Are these entities just trying to
simply attain immortality by "using" us to carry their ideas thru time?
If the later is tru, some 'gods' have been doing a pretty good job for
thousands of years. And of course someone's immartallity is his/her
creations, undeniably. So, what exactly is meant by immortallity?
 If immortallity is survival through works, then they have been pretty
good survivors, wouldn't you say? So, to conclude, my thesis is that
as long as there is at least one representative of an idea, the idea
is alive. Of course I am not convinced that this is true, and I will be
the first one to refute it if something comes along, so I am just jotting
down some ideas. Examples about what I mean. Take the last discussion on
Fermat: He is alive (somewhere, maybe just our minds) for as long
as we bother with his last theorem.
Jehovah: is "alive" for as long as there are followers  of judaism.
Christ: is "alive" for as long as there are followers of Xnity.
Allah: is "alive" for as long as there are muslims.
a more "naive" example: "Thunder" is alive for as long as there are are
Indian tribes (here in the US or tribes elswhere) that believe IT is a
spirit.
Specific differences: The Christ of say Orthodox Christianity has a
different evolutionary path (and is for practical purposes a different
"entity", than say the protestant Christ, or the Catholic Christ. Each
"representative" IS the sum essence, as an idea of the doctrines and
evolution of the specific societies that proclaim IT.
 Question is, how objective is the existence of these ideas, and for that
matter the existence of a pink triangle, to end up on a funny note.
 Some people have an inherent desire to "kill" all such ideas, particullarly
those pertaining to religion. While some others need to believe. I wander
if it is similar to a person liking or "believing" in Math or science,
and for that matter, do all the humans endeavors fall onto the following
exposition. I for one, am convinced that science must have some sort of
objective essence to it, and things do not come out of the blue.
 Ramanujan claimed that "goddess Kali" gave him some of his theorems, while
Bach relied on maybe the Christian god to compose those monstrous fugues.
 I don't know myself; It would be nice to hear what you people think on the
subject.
John Galidakis; another little nobody.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++