Sorry, but you're not making any sense. You're blathering on with mystical shit (a Great album by King Missile) and then declaring that others aren't making sense even though they clearly are.

I know the economy is rough, but please go out and buy a clue.

Nature has patterns inherent in itself, and this does not mean it was designed by something outside of itself. The sun 'coming up' every day is not proof of intelligent design - it is only proof of several laws of nature. Is gravity proof of god? Or proof of ... gravity?

The earth was turning long before we developed. Animals have consiousness, and we have more consciousness. We are the very conscious animal, but animal nevertheless. Life has only the meanings we give it, as the existentialists say. There is nothing inherently meaningful in it, except the hoped-for joys of existence, which are not inherent in human society or nature either, as we know.

Your 'relgion' seems more positivism - the cheery voice of the 'can do' American, the power of positive thinking, the complacency of wealth. I just read Jack London's "People of the Abyss" about humdreds of thousands of working class people in the east end of London without food, shelter, jobs, health care - at the height of the English Empire in the 1800s. Suicide was very common. Unfortunately, the 'joy' of existence was not theirs - as it is not for many on this globe today. Unless, of course, misery is just part of the 'intelligent design?' Then what a clock-maker we have!

Redefining God is not something religious followers AND atheists/skeptics/agnostics are willing to do ... both groups are too lazy and reluctant to think outside their own traditional parameters of thought and try to contemplate a Creator that cohabits with science as well as faith. People like Kauffman and others (Einstein is a great example) are trying to do just that, but their audience wants to stick to their traditional view of God and remain entrenched in their beliefs (again, both atheists and theists alike).

I will quote michaelben, a poster from pages past, who summed it up nicely: Bottom line: both God-is-a-crutch-(that-I-don't-need) atheists as well as I've-seen-God-(and-you-haven't) theists will need to change their ideas about what "God" could and should mean *in this day* if they are to stop wrangling over what are in fact long out-of-date and cartoon renditions of God in the minds of both parties.

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. Such a definition would not necessarily negate teachings in the religious texts (texts that were often conveyed in simple parables and symbolisms/metaphors that primitive society back then could understand more readily), and would also make sense in the realm of science, as it should.

@ Lynx (and others) ... it's pretty laughable how absolutely hostile and up-in-arms atheists get when it is even suggested that a higher entity (hell, you don't even have to call it God if the word frightens you to death so much, jeez) may in fact exist. What's the matter, does it hurt your brain too much to allow that realm of thought to occupy your mental real estate?

"it's pretty laughable how absolutely hostile and up-in-arms atheists get when it is even suggested that a higher entity (hell, you don't even have to call it God if the word frightens you to death so much, jeez) may in fact exist. What's the matter, does it hurt your brain too much to allow that realm of thought to occupy your mental real estate?"

I have three problems with alleged believers.

1. One is their flaunting. They build those steeples and afix crosses to the top. And on Sunday mornings, they clang those damn bells. If they closeted their worship, I'd be okay with it.

2. Is God Paris Hilton that he needs so much worship? And if his ego needs some much inflating, why is he worthy of worship?

3. Believers complain when their belief is challenged, but Christian believers are instructed by God to embrace denigration and even death, if they're done for God. So, Spoodles should be thanking us, if he's a Christian operative.

" Kauffman argues that our modern scientific paradigm -- reductionism -- breaks down once we try to explain biology and human culture. And this has left us flailing in a sea of meaninglessness. So how do we steer clear of this empty void?"

This is pure Catholic apologia. The argument is nonsense. There is no evidence of void or creation that has to be filled with intuitive supposition.

Determinism is an invention. Scientific inquiry is not based on hypotheses but on testing hypotheses without presumptions of reality.

Complexity is simply the inability to understand. It is not a premise for the existence of a reality beyond understanding.

When will scientists accept their responsibility to test the assumptions of belief itself as a physiologic process, rather than a source of knowledge based on 'feel right' epiphany?

Misery is largely the story of humanity. We've only gotten comfy in the west fairly recently and millions of us in the United States still experience hunger. Spoodles is writing from his flannel onsie, not comprehending that others are suffering while he taps his keyboard.

Same thing with Kauffman and his genius grant. He's awash in goods and he calls that God.

Say, are you in Ely, MN? If so, you're a lucky dog, for it's lovely country up there.

Kauffman is mistaken in his conception of the problem of meaninglessness. To Kauffman and those who think like him, that existence is meaningless is equivalent to saying that it can't be made meaningful. It's a deeply paranoid belief in the meaning of my existence being guaranteed by some Big Other (if not God, then Nature or History), without which life is unbearable. My objection to Kauffman's pessimism is that we are responsible for the meaning of our universe, of our lives---not the other way around. Meaninglessness does not preclude meaning. Kauffman suffers from what Sartre called "bad faith."