Re: Snake oil religion

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

D: It's comforting to know that some things are entirely predictable

You're the one who supposed, " Some toughish questions " are contained

within this silly article.

Toughish? How so?

Ha!

The ID project is in ashes, which is why the superstitious have gone to

plan B, which is to martial forces so as to " take a vote " on what should

be taught in science classes. Hey, and if science gets tossed and an

infantile version of Christianity gets put in, t'is democracy!

***

What amazes me is when phony rationalism (pseudo-rationalism) ends up with

both feet in the superstitious camp. The WS article preaches to the

ignorant because it is itself an ignorant article. Nothing toughish in

such an approach. It might as well be selling Ouija Boards or peddling

Psychic Friends' Network.

(Why would conservatism get fused to supernaturalism in this folk-religion

mode? I thought conservatism might wish to protect what already is

certainly known against unnecessary and new age or magical innovation.)

But I get your own disinterest in science; you might not be able to vet

such nonsense.

regards,

[Guest guest]

--- Calhoun wrote:

> What amazes me is when phony rationalism

> (pseudo-rationalism) ends up with

> both feet in the superstitious camp.

I may rue writing these words, especially as they are

put together with little forethought and in haste.

For the most part, I too consider ID as dolled up

creationism - at least as I understand it. But I must

say, that it doesn't have to have both its theoretical

feet firmly planted in pseudo rationalism. Indeed, in

a very basic sense, I too hold that our great universe

is the product and project of a wondrous mind/being

too big and indescribable for my poor words - or

anyone elses for that matter. I starting to think, as

did Edinger and others, that what the primary problem

is our image of the divine (Imago Dei) is its

inadequacy for our time. This is not a new problem -

indeed Mankind is continually revising its notion of

what God is (with much storm and strife), in light of

more up to date information. But the new info must be

tempered with the ancient wisdom available to us as

well methinks.

The main problem I have with ID is that it usually

seems to be espoused by those who have a fairly fixed

view of the Divine - one that is most often anchored

within orthodoxy (God " out there " ). This merely

perpetuates the problem IMO. It is not our answers

that are the problem so often, but our questions.

My concept of God (as it is evolving) is that

everything in the universe is but a part of the Divine

being. And we, individually, are his/Its eyes, ears,

etc. It perceived and rejoices in its creation only

through us. This seems consistent with my reading of

the ancient gnostics and with the Corpus Hermeticum

which I find to be so enlightening just now. Each

being is merely one tiny facet of the expression of

the Divine, which encompasses all at once. And, just

as each being manifests the divine in a unique way, we

are each part of the One that It/He is. I AM indeed.

So, given this peculiar idea of the Imago Dei, perhaps

I could find some community with the ID idea of

creation. What I'm not clear about is whether the

notion of the divine that I have tried to articulate

above could be embraced within ID idea.

It does seem to fit the concept articulated by Nicolas

of Cusa, Jung and others that the Self is the center

AND the totality of the psyche since, in this concept,

the psyche would be something that we all connect with

at the deep center, while it (Psyche)is simultaneously

the totality of which we are individually only a

speck.

We each exist within the collective unconscious, as

conscious specks/beings. How's that for a mind

twister? Perhaps this too is superstitious -

non-rational? But rationality only get us so far it

seems.

Greg

__________________________________________________