[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[KO]
Perhaps Ham is closer to a deist - a God or fundamental particle that does its
bit and then sits back while the universe unfolds - no dogma, no religion.

[Arlo]
Yeah, I mentioned this in my last post. The problem is, that in Ham's
cosmology, human consciousness appears in the timeline as the direct result of
willful deliberation on the part of the "Source". And human consciousness
evolves over time by willful and deliberate "updating" by the "Source". Where
Deism may hold a passive God that sets the ball rolling but sits back and has
no deliberate or intentional intervention with things, Ham's "Source" does
indeed intervene (when He doles out improved consciousnesses to subsequent
human generations). And the appearance of consciousness itself is certainly
interventional by his "Source". So, at best I'd say Ham's "metaphysics" is a
hybrid of Deism and Theism. Nothing wrong with that, as far as metaphors go,
but he should at the least be honest about it. He can peddle theology all he
wants, but to pretend it isn't theology is disingenuous. This is why he simply
will not answer my questions about "how" consciousness evolves, or how it
appears in the historical timeline. He KNOWS his only recourse to answer is the
finger-snapping appearance brought by his Source, and the doling out of
"updated models" again by his "Source". But to say this admits to Deism/Theism,
and he will not do that. And so he asks you to "look away", will resort to all
sorts of distractive rhetoric (last time it was a bounce between calling me a
(gasp!) collectivist, nihilist and scientist). And again, despite my being a
"virulent anti-theist", I actually find many Deistic/Theistic metaphors quite
valuable (in a Campbellian or Gnostic sense, or in the sense Pirsig unites
Quality with The Tao)... but that's another topic.