another update: we should be wary of the term ‘atheist’ all around, and as wary of misunderstanding religious views in antiquity when monotheism began its path beyond paganism and polytheism, The term ‘atheos’ was used on occasion by pagans to describe Christians, that is not my usage here, as far as I know. In general the state of mind of a polytheist is one mystery, the encounter of a polytheist with early monotheism another and the state of mind of early christians and/or the church fathers still further complicated. Note also the frequent use of the ‘will of god’ meme.
My point was simply a polytheist moving into monotheism might have been at first confused. But then again the conception of ‘Zeus’ is not so different, given the general muddle of views. Take the greek pantheon, turn all the divinities save Zeus into angels and leave Zeus as one male god, is not so far off.
Thus the giveaway evidence of Indic Samkhya behind Christians doctrines of the Trinity (church fathers?) leaves one slightly baffled. Someone as a beginner trying to fathom god and then encountering Samkhya might well seem justified in blending the two modes.
But it suggests perhaps that early christians might have been influenced by Samkhya.
We can add another note or so here for our possible booklet.
Although the eonic effect is unfamiliar as yet (and canceled totally from three or more directions), it is a useful tool to orient the study of history and evolution. It is utterly simple and yet hypercomplex at the same time. It is a strong suggestion that people don’t study history, and a trade secret for speed readers who have access to very large libraries.
In any case, the ID groups wish to find design in nature and/or ‘intelligent design. But their strategy is flawed. Their religious perspectives grows out of the theology of the Old (and/or New) Testament and the sad irony is that the Old Testament is mostly mythological and can never be used as evidence of design in history..
The eonic effect suggests a far superior account of the eonic effect and correctly exhibits some facets of historical design. But that design has nothing to do with god. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is a fiction, period, over and out. But there is a design to the history of Israel but the issue of ‘god’ is not a form of explanation.
The world of christian/judaic religion is collapsing rapidly and the attempt to cite the history of Israel as (theistic) design in history fails on the spot.
Let’s hope we can get past Darwinism as soon as possible before it destroys the place of science.
It might be helpful to write a short book here challenging Meyer and/or the Discovery Institute. But at the same time, one has to critique the gross confusion of Darwinism on the other side, leaving the whole field the zone of nutjobs, most with PHD’s, some calling themselves scientists. A kind of anger informs the effort given the double cancel culture of both sides of the useless debate over design and evolution.
We can start right off here with some notes based on the text of Meyer. The critique of Darwinism started, as it were, before Darwin and the right idea appears in Lamarck who sets evolution on two levels: a drive toward complexity and a second level of ‘micro’ at the level of adaptation. This double aspect was filtered out of science since the ‘drive to complexity’ or whatever you call it is almost metaphysical. But the result was to stultify the whole field even up to the present time. Remarkable is that this debate lives in the wake of Kant, oblivious to the problems with the argument by design and antinomial character of most of these debates. History shows precisely what Kant indicated: arguments ad infinitum without resolution.
The idea of a ‘god hypothesis’ is interesting and in principle quite ok. But the catch is so obvious it is hard to see how anyone would adopt such terminology. It is still another trojan horse for the religious right.
And the attempt to bring the god idea to science while in principle interesting is in practice not going to work. The term ‘god’ taken as some kind of sacred reference is in reality a cesspool of slovenly semantic usage, contradictory concepts and in general a totally useless muddle of undefined terms. To speak of an hypothesis here you have to isolate the term to its own domain and not turn around and claim you take the idea as a form of faith. That should be obvious but in general these god discussions are a terminal muddle of bad usage.
For myself I am neither a theist or atheist for just the problem indicated. I have no defining semantics for the term ‘god’. The atheist position suffers its own negation: how can you be ‘anti’ here is you can’t define what you are negating?
One can be instead an operational atheist: one can reject the god discourse of the monotheists as incoherent but false in the way it appears historically. Culture needs liberation from the total confusion created in religious minds. There is no duty to believe whatever here.
At the opposite side we have the idiotic world of Dawkins and his cult of natural selection. The mistakes here have been pointed out over and over again, to no avail. The whole field of evolution has been subject to endles confusion here. Dawkins may be a hopeless idiot, but it is hard to grasp how a scientist of the calibre of Krausse could be confused here.
These religious initiatives have worked in the past. In some ways the early american republic, consider Jefferson, was less religious than at the present time. These propagandas initiatives have given Christina religion a comeback of sorts. A complex history, to be sure. But the point is that Meyer seems to have a convincing case here, but in reality it is complete rubbish.
But one might acknowledge that the case for design is strong, and that biologists have created their own confusion here. But the presence of design in nature is not the same as the ‘argument by design’. Design is a naturalistic process visible in all directions and that fact has no good theistic implications. Look at the bacterium flagellum: its design is fantastic. But that has no theological implications, or at least no theological proofs or certainties. We cannot make a case for anything using the rubbish term ‘god’. The same for teleological thinking.
The ID folks go further and speak of ‘intelligent design’. Again, you can make that case but it is not a proof the existence of god. We cannot easily say that nature is intelligent unless we keep the term in quotation marks, ‘intelligent’ design. In fact you cannot safely predicate divinity with the term intelligent. If you do you end up in the hopeless confusions of the in reality pagan version of the Christian god: a personal ‘god’ in a pantheon of one male divinity, etc…AI machines are ‘intelligent’ but not conscious.
And the term ‘conscious’ is another quagmire. Is ‘god’ conscious? If you say so you seem to make ‘god’ inferior to Buddha who took consciousness beyond itself to enlightenment. So is god still unenlightened? The nuttiness meter goes ‘red on’.
So the term ‘intelligent’ applied to nature is in danger of fatal confusions. Better to simply speak of design, at most with ‘intelligent’ in quotes.
We have some notes here to start a book.
But I would be pressed here to enter the material on the eonic effect which can help to clarify the historical issues here and those of the evolution of man and civilization.
No one has ever observed the mechanism of evolution in deep time over the whole period of a given speciation. So we have no grounds for anything except the bare observation of the reality of evolution, whatever the mechanism. But the eonic effect shows us a powerful example of how evolution might occur in deep time. It is a truly difficult subject. The idiocy of Darwin and natural selection is in the rearview mirror once and for all. The ID people are right: they won the design battle but lost the war because they couldn’t resist the temptation to use design examples as theological discussions.
The eonic effect can be taken as controversial but it works anyway because it at least gives the right overall context of evolution. Can you visualize a three-century interval of history? If you can’t you are probably not equipped to grasp the ‘mechanism’ of any kind of evolution.
Wehave enough to start a short book.
But we should note in passing the material in my Samkhya, Ancient and Modern, with the question, were early church Christians atheists?
Note that the doctrine of the Trinity is a real a loan from the Indic Sankhya which is materialistic and atheist as if diffused dinto the occident and virtually created Christian theology which was then allowed to be overlaid with a theistic wrapper. Quite a scandal.