|
|
Post by beth on Jun 28, 2011 23:54:29 GMT -5
Carl Sagan's Belief of Creation
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 30, 2011 10:16:40 GMT -5
Bumping this one up because I think it's worth seeing.
Additionally, I'm going to add some questions I was playing around with that led me to this vid ... if not Adam and Eve in the garden .. then what?
Are all evolution beliefs the same? Did Sagan have it right?
A lot of folks still believe in intelligent design. Is it reasonable to hold out for that possibility?
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 30, 2011 12:11:28 GMT -5
I watched a few epsiodes of Sagan's ''Cosmos'' recently because of BBC's ''Wonders of the Universe'' series, and claims from many internetters that Sagan's was far superior.
He's interesting. It's worth watching any of his stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 30, 2011 12:17:15 GMT -5
Your questions are hard, Beth. Tell you what though, 'Stella De Brie' is a great stage-name.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz 
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 30, 2011 12:39:05 GMT -5
A lot of people really believe in intelligent evolution, that is of course things evolve but it's not necessarily random and the ultimate end is for the physical universe to become a single consciousness, God incarnate. I had a Catholic friend once who told me she thought the Bible is in a way backwards, evolution starts with the chaos of Apocalypse and Eden is a vision of the ideal ultimate future.
I think evolution knows where it is going but direction is in a sense internal, not directed from beyond except as far as beyond means some ultimate ground state that everything is formed of.
There are some interesting alternatives to Darwin. I've always had a liking for Lamarck, but Lysenko badly misinterpreted him and since Stalin likef the idea, nobody was going to admit that he was wrong. Rupert Sheldrake though is the most interesting about a lot of things. The physical sciences have largely freed themselves from 19th century belief that bits of stuff in a laboratory can explain systems and emergent properties and order and so on, but the biological ones are still pretty much hung up on that belief that the whole is no more than the sum of its parts. That has to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 30, 2011 14:41:02 GMT -5
Sagan was the man.
|
|
alanseago
Apprentice
I believe in Gosh the father.
Posts: 187
|
Post by alanseago on Jun 30, 2011 14:59:21 GMT -5
I believe in creation. A wobbling earth made of plates that clash with each other creating murderous earthquakes, volcanos that belch molten lava over the peasants?
It wouldn't be admitted to an 'Invention of the Year' contest.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 30, 2011 15:12:20 GMT -5
I've always liked the Gnostic version of Creation. The real 'god' is beyond all knowledge and existence but it has subordinate creative aspects usually paired off as male and female. Then Wisdom, the lowest one who wasn't being wise at all, tried to be creative by herself. The result was an entity mad, bad and dangerous to know who then created an evil flawed imitation universe, trapped all the little bits of the real god in it so they were ignorant and presented himself as its only real God.
Poor old Wisdom realised her mistake and had to appear as a serpent to get the primordial couple to feed themselves real knowledge that woke them up to realise that they were more gods than their keeper and that the life they had thought idyllic because they lacked the intelligence to imagine better was actually horrible and they had to set about the long task of sorting it out to what they knew now that it could be. The creator isn't a god - it's a devil.
It fits nicely. The further back you go in time the worse it gets, and it started with total chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 30, 2011 22:30:57 GMT -5
If one wishes to continue as a believer, it's almost possible to choose a god (or the personal perception of a god) to worship ... the vengeful, violent, old testament God, the loving teacher, Jesus Christ ... or various other representations, recorded in myth and legend. That isn't even counting the God-figures of all the many world religions. A designer God we can trust to be a kind of commander and chief for the Earth. I used to belong to a cyber community that had an on-going poll question: What does God look like? There were almost as many different answers as members. What do you think? What does God look like? For Atheists - you may take a shot or be excused.  So many Gods, so few inhabited worlds. Something to consider. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 3:38:59 GMT -5
Are all evolution beliefs the same? Did Sagan have it right? A lot of folks still believe in intelligent design. Is it reasonable to hold out for that possibility? 1. ALL evolution beliefs are NOT the same. In Sanatan Dharma (advaita school) there is no such thing as creation, creator or created. Ultimately, there is no distinction nor can there be between the creator and the created. The concept of creation itself is an illusion. 2. Have'nt had time to watch Sagan. Will comment when I can. 3. IMO, intelligent design is fantasy. It is not a reasonable hypothesis. Regards.  Prashna |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 3:42:58 GMT -5
NOTHING at all. Brahman is formless and atributeless. Brahman resides in every living thing. Paraphrasing from Shri Shri Chandii, Devi is the one that exists in all beings as awareness, thirst, hunger, intelligence, shadow, memory, mother, .... Regards. Prashna |
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jul 1, 2011 11:52:23 GMT -5
I'll go along with Prashna. In a sense, the question is illegitimate. If we take the NT formula that God is Love, what does Love look like? You're not talking about a thing or a being of the same order as us. That's why it all has to be done through imagery and parable because we are talking about what would not be 'God' if we could understand and define it. That is also why fundamentalism is less bad science than it is bad religion, because it is too busy analysing the words to get the message.
The cosmos knows where it is going
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 1, 2011 17:02:28 GMT -5
I respect your position but think I may have mis-stated the question. It should be "What do YOU think God looks like?". What picture crosses your minds eye if and when God enters your thoughts?
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jul 1, 2011 19:43:49 GMT -5
I respect your position but think I may have mis-stated the question. It should be "What do YOU think God looks like?". What picture crosses your minds eye if and when God enters your thoughts? Light so bright that is blinds |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 1, 2011 22:13:10 GMT -5
Me too, Erasmus .. and I translate that to energy more than anything else. Would never try to prove it or insist anyone else agree, but that's my personal perception.
|
|
Omega
