Can belief in a higher power be combined with Evolution

[OAT]

Re: religions are man-made?

First they were revealed and later set down in writing.. that's my two cents!

Then God must be really inefficient. He easily could have materialized for all of us his book not written by any intermediary. Either that God is out to confuse all of us, assuming God exists. Come to think of it, God wants us to be confused and ignorant so that he could see us battered each other silly. Yup, God really exists as evidenced by the mess in the world.

 

[Thomas]

Re: religions are man-made?

What do you mean by "no contact with reality at all?" Our natural world surely influences us.

Indeed it does. I stand by Aristotle's "there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses." It has taken me many years to realise that my Catholicism stems from my belief in the natural world, not the other way round.

To some degree religions will always be 'man made' because they are human attempts to understand the Divine, and because man is free. But that does not preclude the Divine from attempting to make Itself known to man.

But I don't see how one makes the leap from being influenced by our environment to being influenced by the invisible man in the sky.

That's a pity. It's not a 'leap', really. Or rather, for me, it was not an inquiry that stopped at easy assumptions and assurances of science. It was, and is, a struggle.

It's a matter of seeing. For some the environment is opaque, it just is what it is. For others, the world is somewhat translucent, so what may well be utterly invisible, impenetrable and incomprehensible to one, may be, by degree, luminous, permeable and intelligible to another.

Regardless of my psychological state if I sit outside in snow, my body will get colder, if I jump in a river, I'll get wet, if I lie out naked in the sun, my skin will burn. All of these results are predicable, testable and measurable. They are not the invention of my psyche.

No ... but the impressions, conclusions and actions that result from the experience will be.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[citizenzen]

Every book of the bible, the koran, the vedas, the sutras were written by man...

OK. So everything man has written is man made, the invention of his own psyche? No contact with reality at all?

Here is why I described this as a leap. You responded to wil as if reality did not include our natural world. He said these books were written by men. That would imply a very natural origin. When you then asked, "No contact with reality at all?" You're not acknowledging that the natural world is (at least part of) reality and is informing and influencing those writer.

So then to my post you respond...

Indeed it does. I stand by Aristotle's "there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses." It has taken me many years to realise that my Catholicism stems from my belief in the natural world, not the other way round.

To some degree religions will always be 'man made' because they are human attempts to understand the Divine, and because man is free. But that does not preclude the Divine from attempting to make Itself known to man.

And to this view I can agree and see as rational. The natural world influenced those writers, the divine influenced those writers, politics, religious beliefs and social issues influenced those writers. I'm sure there was a great deal of "contact with reality" in the formation of those books.

 

[Vajradhara]

Can a belief in a higher power or deity be combined with accepting evolution?

Namaste keith,

thanks for the post.

i'd say yes to the generic phraseology you've used however some groups will define their deity in such a manner as to make biological evolution unacceptable.

so as they say in the states "your mileage may vary."

metta,
~jae

 

[Thomas]

Hi Citizen —

Here is why I described this as a leap. You responded to wil as if reality did not include our natural world. He said these books were written by men. That would imply a very natural origin. When you then asked, "No contact with reality at all?" You're not acknowledging that the natural world is (at least part of) reality and is informing and influencing those writer.

And the supernatural. I think I read Wil as saying the books were written by men, without divine inspiration or influence, whereas I would say they\re written by men, divinely inspired.

And to this view I can agree and see as rational. The natural world influenced those writers, the divine influenced those writers, politics, religious beliefs and social issues influenced those writers. I'm sure there was a great deal of "contact with reality" in the formation of those books.

My 'contact with reality' includes the supernatural and the natural.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I am of the opinion that secularists make claims on behalf of science that no scientist would be happy making.

In short, secularists who argue 'science' as sufficient to disprove God are expressing a 'blind faith' in science as the ultimate authority on everything.

Max Planck said:
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

And another I like:
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."

And perhaps most of all:
"It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him."

God bless,

Thomas

 

[citizenzen]

I think I read Wil as saying the books were written by men, without divine inspiration or influence...

While you'd have to ask him specifically for clarification, he did not deny inspiration or influence in his post.

I am of the opinion that secularists make claims on behalf of science that no scientist would be happy making.

Hang on then.

You yourself fall into this category and it's demonstrated in this very thread. When I said this about your favorite psychologist, Iain McGilchrist...

From what I've seen so far McGilchrist sounds like a fine writer and respected psychologist. We will however, have to see how his theories stand the test of time and experimentation.

You replied...

I tend to read it the other way round ... he's theories are founded on hard evidence.

Even McGilchrist himself is not so adamant that his theories are the whole truth. Here is an excerpt from an interview where he seems far less certain than you...

However knowledge is never certain, always provisional. At the end of the book I say that it would surprise me if there turned out to be no correlation between the two ways, not just of thinking, but of ‘being in the world’ that I describe, and the two cerebral hemispheres, but I would not be unhappy. I say that, not as one reviewer seemed to assume, because I don’t believe my own thesis, but because having drawn attention to these two coherent ‘takes’ on the world is itself an important step forward. Many people will not care whether these ‘takes’ are actually to do with differences in their hemispheres or some other part of the brain or even the spinal cord – so for them it would still have meaning, I hope. But while, like all models, it is provisional and just a basis for further thought by others, I would be amazed if it were ever shown to have no validity at all. There is just far too much evidence.​

So perhaps you can sympathize with your presumed secularists, as you seem to share the same tendency.

 

[wil]

I think I read Wil as saying the books were written by men, without divine inspiration or influence, whereas I would say they\re written by men, divinely inspired.


My 'contact with reality' includes the supernatural and the natural.

God bless,

Thomas

I see no supernatural, I think it is all natural. I don't believe in miracles, I think there are no miracles and it is all a miracle.

v. di·vine
v.tr.
1. To foretell through or as if through the art of divination. See Synonyms at foretell.
2. a. To know by inspiration, intuition, or reflection.
b. To guess.

3. To locate (underground water or minerals) with a divining rod; douse.

v.intr. 1. To practice divination.
2. To guess.

I cannot divine which books were divinely inspired and which were not.

As it appears we have two divinations of Genesis, and of Noah, which were later combined. As we have the Y, E, P, D who all wrote, edited or whose writings, stories were combined...were those that combned them divinely inspired? And was it divinely inspired to include the satirical op-ed piece...Jonah and the Big Fish?

And are these the only books divinely inspired. I'd say if ANY books are divinely inspired, all of the biblical books, translations, editing and additions were not, and that they are not the only books that were divinely inspired.

Either way, they were ALL written, transcribed, translated, added to, suptracted from and edited by man. I believe that was my original point. And I don't believe man has done much of anything yet in this world that he has not left his fingerprint on.

In the quantum world we are discussing the influence of the observer on an experiment and we actually have the werewithal to think the writer has no influence on what he has 'divined'? That in itself would be a quantum leap.

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: religions are man-made?

Then God must be really inefficient. He easily could have materialized for all of us his book not written by any intermediary. Either that God is out to confuse all of us, assuming God exists. Come to think of it, God wants us to be confused and ignorant so that he could see us battered each other silly. Yup, God really exists as evidenced by the mess in the world.

God wants us to think for ourselves, to think rationally, to be articulate, autonomous, independent, practical and make good judgments, not to blindly follow orders.

This is why I dislike the idea in fundamentalist Christianity of "the inerrant word of God," the Five Solas, Five Fundamentals and the idea in Islam and/or among many Muslims of the Quran being a miracle from God sent to "correct" the errors in the Tanakh and New Testament.

It fails to recognise the human ability to learn from mistakes, the ability for self-correction, intuition and demonstrate wise judgment. It assumes that the most important wisdom that we immediately need in our lifetime here on earth will come only from above rather than down here and within ourselves.

It suggests that what God created is too stupid to make their own decisions. It's not a very flattering view of God if Man always needs advice from above. I think the point of being here is that we're supposed to figure it out for ourselves. Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right?

The Tanakh simply reminds us that we already have the ability to discover the way back to God. We just might not have all the important information. The point of the Tanakh is not to tell us that we're too stupid to figure it out, but to eliminate questions we might ask. The story of Adam and Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit tells us that we are smart enough to understand the way back without it being dictated to us.

Not everybody will figure it out in the same way. Different people will ask different questions, but hopefully everyone will eventually figure it out.

It is therefore right that whatever religion leads back to God be a man-made religion. God put us here to learn how to survive without Him. If He ever has a message for us, we should have ears to listen, because He may not share His advice ever again. We should listen to what He has to say not because He will blast us to oblivion if we don't, but because we can't help ourselves if we miss important information. We are masters of our own destiny. God is just our helper. It is our fault if we fail.

This is just my independent view. I don't know what the official Jewish or Muslim view is. I have some idea of what the official Christian one is (I used to know, but have since forgotten because I have turned against fundamentalist, evangelical and charismatic Chrisitanity -- I consider it quite legalistic and arrogant in boasting about its ability to provide us with the one-size-fits-all ideology that suits everyone).

I am of the opinion that secularists make claims on behalf of science that no scientist would be happy making.

I think you have the wrong idea of what secularism is about. Secularism is about balance and sharing. It is about sharing society with others who have different opinions to you and where no single group or person dominates.

I am a "secularist" myself and try to keep that balance.

In short, secularists who argue 'science' as sufficient to disprove God are expressing a 'blind faith' in science as the ultimate authority on everything.

To me, anyone who promotes an ideology (in this case scientism) that upsets the balance of various groups in society is not a true "secularist."

Atheists who promote scientism by giving people reasons to not believe in God are just as bad as Christian missionaries who want you to believe Jesus is your saviour. Missionaries violate the natural balance of opinions in society by trying to impose biases on people's thinking without letting them develop their own independent views. Atheists who go around trying to give people a reason to not believe in God, the supernatural or divine are a kind of missionary that violates this balance.

Missionaries . . . heck, they're just a nuisance.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Re: religions are man-made?

Atheists who promote scientism by giving people reasons to not believe in God are just as bad as Christian missionaries who want you to believe Jesus is your saviour.

Jesus is your saviour if you want him to be

Missionaries violate the natural balance of opinions in society by trying to impose biases on people's thinking without letting them develop their own independent views. Atheists who go around trying to give people a reason to not believe in God, the supernatural or divine are a kind of missionary that violates this balance.

Missionaries . . . heck, they're just a nuisance.

well if you have the gift of eternal life and walk in intimacy with God the Father why would you not want to share that with People and who would not want that ?

 

[Saltmeister]

Re: religions are man-made?

Jesus is your saviour if you want him to be

Most of the time, Jesus isn't economically or financially profitable. That's why people aren't interested. There are plenty of people who make money off Jesus, but they are few.

Not everyone wants to live in the kingdom of heaven. For anyone not seeking heaven this is the question they'd ask. What do I have to benefit from hearing about Jesus? Will it help me get rich?

People have heard of the saviour story hundreds of times. I just don't think Christianity is all about the "saviour" thing. I think there are things we have missed. Over-emphasis on the saviour story distorts our understanding of Jesus, his teachings, life, death and resurrection.

well if you have the gift of eternal life and walk in intimacy with God the Father why would you not want to share that with People and who would not want that ?

People just don't care about that stuff. You're either inviting new people to be followers of Jesus or preaching to the choirs (converted). Churches should have a central collective database (across all denominations) of people so that they don't seek out people who are already "in" or have already been "asked" and waste time. That is far more efficient. Being repeatedly told the same story is annoying.

Why is it that Christians still call their houses of worship "churches?" It's not a very good strategy for getting people to join your community. Christian missionaries just never learn.

What I would like to see is a "sneaky" type of church that doesn't call itself a church and doesn't use any of the terminology normally associated with Christianity but disguises itself as something different. But deep inside, at the very soul of the community is a "church." The people there have trained themselves to avoid the common terminology, so that whatever spirituality they have is not dependent on commonly-used words, but the heart and soul.

Of course, they'd still have bibles, but they'd be "very sneaky" with the way they use them. The bibles will be read privately and secretly. New members will not know the community uses bibles until they have been in the community long enough to understand why they are there. That is when the secret will be revealed. They will then be trained to keep the secret.

Too much of Christendom is driven by external appearances rather than real internal transformations. This is why I dislike the over-emphasis on the saviour story. It disregards everything else Jesus taught. Jesus taught other things like loving your neighbour, charity, being liberal and not judgmental, to be humble and the saviour story just drowns all that out.

Your outward demeanour/behaviour and your inner attitude is just as important. It is a kind of orthopraxy, a way of thinking coming straight from the heart that can radiate goodness from within.

I think a good exercise is to try not to appear "Christian" and think about what is really important deep inside you. Repeating the saviour story over and over again doesn't make you a "Christian" in the sense of being a follower of Jesus. I think what makes you a "true Christian" is knowing how to think and act without letting people know you are "Christian" or using all the common terminology. This requires a lot of training.

People need to get away from the literal interpretation of the NT Canon, and make their "Christian" beliefs independent of any fixed, overused and cliche words.

 

[wil]

Re: religions are man-made?

God wants us to think for ourselves, to think rationally, to be articulate, autonomous, independent, practical and make good judgments, not to blindly follow orders

I like it.

This is why I dislike the idea in fundamentalist Christianity of "the inerrant word of God," the Five Solas, Five Fundamentals and the idea in Islam and/or among many Muslims of the Quran being a miracle from God sent to "correct" the errors in the Tanakh and New Testament.

I think to each their own

It fails to recognise the human ability to learn from mistakes, the ability for self-correction, intuition and demonstrate wise judgment. It assumes that the most important wisdom that we immediately need in our lifetime here on earth will come only from above rather than down here and within ourselves.

ah but if you continue to read often many books tell you it is within. I think we are here to gain insight and experiences in 3d that we can't get as beings of light

It suggests that what God created is too stupid to make their own decisions. It's not a very flattering view of God if Man always needs advice from above. I think the point of being here is that we're supposed to figure it out for ourselves. Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right?

The Tanakh simply reminds us that we already have the ability to discover the way back to God. We just might not have all the important information. The point of the Tanakh is not to tell us that we're too stupid to figure it out, but to eliminate questions we might ask. The story of Adam and Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit tells us that we are smart enough to understand the way back without it being dictated to us.

Not everybody will figure it out in the same way. Different people will ask different questions, but hopefully everyone will eventually figure it out.

agreed... I think for someone nature, paganism is enough, for others they need Zeus, for others Zaruthruster, or Lao Tzu, or Krishna. For some Moses is enough, we Christians needed Jesus (which makes him a saviour for us by proxy) and the new testament to understand, for Muslims, Mohammed and the Koran made it clear....still others needed Bob Marley before they grocked it. It goes on and on with the Bahaulla, the hadiths, Billy Graham, Bhudda and more.... but if left to their own devices, would they all figure it out...how many lifetimes would it take if we did not stand on the shoulders of those that wrote it down or shouted it from the rooftops??

It is therefore right that whatever religion leads back to God be a man-made religion. God put us here to learn how to survive without Him. If He ever has a message for us, we should have ears to listen, because He may not share His advice ever again. We should listen to what He has to say not because He will blast us to oblivion if we don't, but because we can't help ourselves if we miss important information. We are masters of our own destiny. God is just our helper. It is our fault if we fail.

I don't ascribe to a doing, helper, personal G!d. G!d to me is principle, not entity.

This is just my independent view. I don't know what the official Jewish or Muslim view is. I have some idea of what the official Christian one is (I used to know, but have since forgotten because I have turned against fundamentalist, evangelical and charismatic Chrisitanity -- I consider it quite legalistic and arrogant in boasting about its ability to provide us with the one-size-fits-all ideology that suits everyone).


I think you have the wrong idea of what secularism is about. Secularism is about balance and sharing. It is about sharing society with others who have different opinions to you and where no single group or person dominates.

I am a "secularist" myself and try to keep that balance.

ah yes, everyone go to their workplace, and after work to the bar, an eatery or their family, and when they decide if they decide enter a mosque, temple, synagogue, church, or alter in the woods (wow that was a great typo....I never made the connection as to the actual need for an altar, as a crutch to alter you!) an altar in the woods (pardon me for being temporarily giddy, a state of bliss is flowing over me, as I just needed a salty response to connect a number of dots....bless you my brother)

To me, anyone who promotes an ideology (in this case scientism) that upsets the balance of various groups in society is not a true "secularist."

Atheists who promote scientism by giving people reasons to not believe in God are just as bad as Christian missionaries who want you to believe Jesus is your saviour. Missionaries violate the natural balance of opinions in society by trying to impose biases on people's thinking without letting them develop their own independent views. Atheists who go around trying to give people a reason to not believe in God, the supernatural or divine are a kind of missionary that violates this balance.

Missionaries . . . heck, they're just a nuisance.

Ah, but your promoting your idealogy on this forum just assisted me.

 

[Thomas]

Even McGilchrist himself is not so adamant that his theories are the whole truth ...

... But while, like all models, it is provisional and just a basis for further thought by others, I would be amazed if it were ever shown to have no validity at all. There is just far too much evidence.​

So perhaps you can sympathize with your presumed secularists, as you seem to share the same tendency.

Not quite. The uncertainty that McGilchrist refers to its the future result of the process that is so evidently in play, not the body of evidence he has amassed to support his thesis.

I am sure about what McGilchrist is sure about, the differentiation of the way the two hemispheres see the world, that is proven medically, but I draw my own conclusions, which are contingent, as he does ...

For example, he traces major trends in the development of religion in culture, and I have used the same model to trace developments within the Catholic Tradition itself.

Whilst I, along with McGilchrist, believe that Roman Catholicism retains its right-hemisphere appreciation of, and the intuitive and empathetic communication with, 'the Other', through its saints, its music, symbolism, art and architecture, and most of all through the Liturgy, I also see the Curia, the administrative office of the Roman Catholic Church, demonstrates the same left-hemisphere tendency to bureaucracy and authority, legislation and litigation, with all the negativity that such implies.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

I see no supernatural, I think it is all natural. I don't believe in miracles, I think there are no miracles and it is all a miracle.

That's my point. The distinction between natural and supernatural ceases to exist, you simply conflate the two, ignoring the bits you don't like. So really, everything is natural, because you don't accept the supernatural at all. There are no miracles, because there can't be in the world as you construe it. Myth and metaphor are either lies, or fictions. God is just an abstract concept in the mind.

The trick is in the notion that the 'now' is new, and therefore the past is redundant. That's a nonsense by any measure, but it's exactly what your guy was saying on the video I watched. What is 'now' is shaped and formed by the moment prior to it ... tradition is not, as you assume, some old stuff getting in the way, tradition is the sum of human wisdom and experience.

By focussing on the 'new' as somehow the only authentic interpretation of the moment, you manage to steal everything from wisdom, experience and tradition, and reinvent it, according what you want it to mean.

I have to say Wil, if you really believe that Jesus gave the Parable of the Sower, with no reference to God, nor to Himself, but purely as an exercise in psychology ... then words fail me ...

But from then on, it's a short step to declare all the qualities that belong to the divine, as belonging to oneself — another aspect of the left hemisphere, medically proven, is its unbridled and unrealistic optimism.

Now, tell me: One doctrine says "There is me, and there is God", another doctrine says, "There is me, and God is in me." Which one sounds like the ego speaking?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Re: religions are man-made?

I think you have the wrong idea of what secularism is about. Secularism is about balance and sharing. It is about sharing society with others who have different opinions to you and where no single group or person dominates.

No it's not ... it's about where the secularist viewpoint is the only acceptable viewpoint, and that is obvious with regard to the ongoing attack upon religious institutions. In law people are not allowed to hold moral values or beliefs that do not conform to the secularist agenda.

I am a "secularist" myself and try to keep that balance.

OK. But that's not the common experience. Secularists want every reference to Christianity removed from the European Constitution — as if the history of Europe could be understand without any knowledge of Christianity.

Secularists want to close faith schools, and suppress any moral or ethical choices that are founded in any kind of religious ideology, on the ground that such might be offensive to others, either intellectually or materially ... whilst not for one moment accepting the idea that some people might find secularism offensive.

In effect secularism imposes a set of rules that applies to anyone but not themselves. How can they otherwise?

On a debate on BBC Radio 4 the secularist was made to look a fool when he tried to make a Muslim educator look a fool. The Muslim pointed out they teach the Muslim moral doctrine, and, as required, the state moral doctrine (which is actually a non-doctrine), and then discuss the relative values of both doctrines, whereas the state is not required to teach anyone else's moral doctrine, and does not question its own.

To me, anyone who promotes an ideology (in this case scientism) that upsets the balance of various groups in society is not a true "secularist."

But secularism is an ideology. It cannot not be.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Now, tell me: One doctrine says "There is me, and there is God", another doctrine says, "There is me, and God is in me." Which one sounds like the ego speaking?

God bless,

Thomas

hmmm Thomas... I don't know, ask our elder brother...

(Luke 17:20-21)
20 And when he (Jesus) was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

[citizenzen]

Now, tell me: One doctrine says "There is me, and there is God", another doctrine says, "There is me, and God is in me." Which one sounds like the ego speaking?

The first one.

It is the greater ego that thinks their existence and being is separate from God. It would be akin to the droplet of water in the ocean that says, "There is me, and then there is all that water," as if the two aren't one in the same. Denying the interconnectedness is the greater hubris.

 

[Paladin]

Thanks CZ, I can't give you any more rep points but this is spot on.
@Thomas:
This is a very humbling thing, and not egoistic. Even though I hesitate to use a charged term like "God" it makes sense that all things are interconnected.
Thich Nhat Hanh refers to it as "interbeing"
It is this very perspective that prevents beings from thinking they are "special"

 

[Sam Albion]

Can a belief in a higher power or deity be combined with accepting evolution?

It depends how you view evolution, and it depends how you view God.

If man, in his striving for God, admits that instead, he strives for self, for completeness, perfection, to be made ... more, or better, in some way, then of course, man will evolve into God, or as close as he can get.

Yet; if you view the belief in God to be something primitive, something... old fashioned, then striving for God, today, is a retrograde activity, a slipping backwards into darkness...

 

[Amergin]

It depends how you view evolution, and it depends how you view God.

You can view evolution. You cannot view God. God is invisible, intangible, immeasurable, inaudible, and without evidence that he/she/it really exists outside of the human imagination.

If man, in his striving for God, admits that instead, he strives for self, for completeness, perfection, to be made ... more, or better, in some way, then of course, man will evolve into God, or as close as he can get.

I do not like the term of striving to be God and evolving into God. That sounds grandiose and delusional. Man strives for survival and perpetuation of his/her offspring. Evolution is the processes in which humans have unintentionally strive for knowledge, success strategies, survival, with all of the mutational experimental models of which nature selects the most adapted. In the case of operate this unintentional process involved apes that divided into two general directions. The fluctuations of climate from the Ice Ages, climate, and a host of other changes and catastrophes selected out more adaptive individuals. This coming and going of forests and spread of grasslands and scrublands presented a challenge for survival of the most adaptive. Those apes that retreated with the forest and occasionally treed savannah lived in trees and failed to become bipedal. The other group moved onto the grasslands and nature selected out bipedal as an advantage. It made gait faster. It gave him height to see predators and prey in the high grass. Loss of body hair with increased sweating pores enabled him to run extensive distances in the sweltering heat. It also freed his hands to carry food, babies, and handle rocks and sticks as defensive tools. Australopithecines were the first to have a fully modern human gait. Five species of those and nine species of Homo advanced because increased intelligence with progressively larger brains allowed Homo to advance from chipped stone axes to space ships, silicon chips, nanocarbon tubules, and blue diamond chips.

There is no evidence that this was a grand plan. It happened in millions of trial and error physical changes from gene mutations, for which nature selected out those best adapted to survive. It is not a plan for perfection, it is a stop and go stepwise series of changes more from luck and spurred on by natural challenges such as climate changes and environmental changes.

Some apes survived by tree adaptation, huge size and enormous strength (gorillas), or partial ground ambulation and higher intelligence (Chimps.) Other animals such as ancestors of rhinos succeeded by near armoured skin, muscle power, a lethal nasal horn, and surprising speed. Elephants survived by selection out for intelligence and great size. Unfortunately, the Mammoths failed because of competition with human hunters in a climate change so rapid that they could not adapt.

Yet; if you view the belief in God to be something primitive, something... old fashioned, then striving for God, today, is a retrograde activity, a slipping backwards into darkness...

God was initially a plethora of spirits who invisible made things in nature happen. Human imagination gave those names and gradually merged them into fewer and finally one "god". Primitive humans gave all spirits and god a personality. Since they only knew about human personalities, they made God a superhuman. Social order and tribal societies constructed God in the image of the War Lord who led the people, led wars, made the rules, and punished dissenters. Our modern Gods such as JHWY, Allah, Brahma, Ormuzd, and Trinity-Christ are all designed by the human brain in the form of a primitive warlord. Somehow, that God of the imagination has not further evolved. He is still the Stone Age War Lord.

Amergin