This letter is associated with the following article:
Letters
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:00 AM

God enough

We should see the ceaseless creativity of nature as sacred, argues biologist Stuart Kauffman, despite what Richard Dawkins might say.

Read other letters about this article

  • Wednesday, November 19, 2008 07:40 AM

    @ Jazztao (a few pages back)

    QUOTE: "The "ceaseless creativity" of Kauffman's "God" is just that: ceaselessly creative. It never stops evolving and subsequently new things, unpredictable things, emerge. Sometimes the things are viruses, and sometimes the things are cuddly, stuffed animals, but "God" doesn't give a shit because "God" isn't some being with a will--as is the God you won't let go of--"God", in Kauffman's estimation (and mine), is ever-present, ever-emerging, ever-ultimately-unknowable nature; the totality of the source and substance of the universe!

    My mind just reels! at the thought that someone fighting the materialist battle hasn't ever had an experience where they felt dissolved into the beauty and vastness and simple/complexity of the universe in a way that caused them to know that they were greater than themselves. I just don't believe it! Most people feel that in some way at some point in time. It reels! more! that someone having had that experience would be so violently afraid of a symbol that could point to that experience.

    Like it or not, that experience, when experienced as a religious person OR as a non-religious person, is the same essential experience."

    A thousand thank-you's Jazztao for articulating God the way you did. The main problem I see in the whole "existence of God/non-existence" debate is that most skeptics/atheists, etc., as well as followers of religion ALWAYS define God in the same old damn way ... as if He is some white-bearded old guy sitting up above, hell-bent on judgement and wrath. The so-called "mythical" God from the holy books, defined in utterly human terms (don't get me started on the Holy Trinity debacle).

    Why was God defined in human terms to begin with? Way back when, soon after the start of civilization, humans were still evolving, including their capacity for intelligence, understanding, and knowledge. Messages in the holy books (Old Testament, Torah, Qur'an) were told in simple parables, symbolic form, so that people of that time could better understand the significance of what was being revealed (the core moral teachings). This includes descriptions of God, heaven/hell, etc.

    We are now significantly more evolved that we can look at God at a more scientific and elevated level of discourse. If we look at God as an entity of sheer physical force of nature of a magnitude that we, as humans, can never fully comprehend (and perhaps are never meant to), then it becomes easier to allow for the possibility of the existence of an entity of overwhelming power and "intelligent design" beyond ourselves. A Creator, if you will.

    Once we (and by we I mean both religious followers and aforementioned skeptics/atheists/agnostics) get past the hang-up of defining God strictly on a limited, primary level as a big ol' guy staring us down with his wrath, then minds are opened to the possibility of what Einstein, Kauffman, and others are saying.

    P.S. Another argument I keep hearing defending the non-existence of God is, "well, if there was a God then why are there bad things on earth like violence, wars, famine, poverty, natural disasters, etc.? I mean, if He was so smart and all-knowing, all-loving, wouldn't He get rid of those things in the first place/not allow for them so there is no needless suffering/pain? Huh?"

    My argument back is ... why are we defining God as someone who is supposed to create a Utopia for humans, free from all pain, suffering, negativity? How would a utopian world test our potential and possibilities as human beings? Often, potential, skills and abilities are strengthened/developed through adversities, obstacles, outright tragedies in life. Our world is not pretty, but it's not meant to be at each and every moment. Then again, there are moments of sheer sublime beauty and grace, such as what Kauffman describes seeing in nature, and in acts where man is helping his fellow man. A universe devoid of anything ugly, painful, tough would not allow for us to see and appreciate those moments of beauty and kindness when they appear. An intelligent Creator knew this all along.

Most Active Letters Threads

392

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
167

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
109

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again
55

Police to talk to Woods

Early morning crash raises questions, and revives tabloid speculation

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon