[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[kieffer odigaunt]

Hi Arlo,

2008/12/11 ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>

> [Ham to KO]
> Now I ask you: is that Theism or Deism?
>
> [Arlo]
> Ham has said that at some point in the historical timeline, call it Point
> Alpha, there were primates that did NOT have consciousness. Then, at a
> later
> point, call it Point Beta, there were primates that DID have consciousness.
>

To some extent (that is with some qualification) I can agree with his
statement, first being: the effect we refer to as consciousness.

>
> Perhaps Ham would care to explain "what changed?" between Point Alpha and
> Point
> Beta?
>

I think we both know that within the framework of his thesis he cannot
answer.

>
> Ham has also said that consciousness evolves. That is, at some point in the
> historical timeline, call it Point Alpha, there were distant humans
> (Neanderthals, e.g.) that had a lesser evolved consciousness than at a
> latter
> point, call it Point Beta.
>

Again, without any nit-picking, I, and I think you also, agree with this
statement.


>
> Perhaps Ham would care to explain the process by which the consciousness of
> those at Point Alpha "evolved" into the greater consciousness we see at
> Point
> Beta?
>

Same as above; Ham could only explain this by falling back on to Darwin.


>
> Although he has been given every opportunity to do so, the ONLY answers
> coming
> from Ham are (1) Essence "poofed" consciousness into the timeline, evidence
> of
> a deliberate and intentional act by The Source, and (2) The Source doles
> out
> new-and-improved models of consciousness to man over time, the same way
> Ford
> updates its pickups every year.
>

Ham is in the Intelligent Design camp.


>
> Ham also claims we were "intended" to be here, that is man was created by a
> Source that wanted something to "perceive its magnificence". While such a
> needy-Source would do better creating therapists than adulators, it
> certainly
> demonstrates a theistic approach.
>

If such a 'Source' were to reveal itself I would curse it!


>
> But I've asked, as it has (to me) important ramifications; if "man" is so
> intended as part of this Divine Plan, are "oak trees" as well? What about
> dinosaurs? What vanity did they fulfill for The Source?
>
> I ask you, KO, to consider Ham's "thesis" as it makes history
> comprehensible,
> or as it is rendered absurd by history.


I havent seen Ham attach any dogma to his Source - maybe he is the ultimate
subversive convertionist - he more or less said in another post that all the
theology gets in the way of persuading those with ideas like ours. When you
get down to it - the God idea is about some few humans taking power over
many other human sheep.

>
>
> At best, Ham's thesis is an attempt to de-contextualize Occidental
> theology, a
> "God" that creates "man" to worship him, gives "man" dominion over the rest
> of
> creation (those "oak trees" are simply a resource and tool for man to use
> as he
> sees fit), in short a God that has created a cosmos as a stage for man,
> whose
> purpose for being is to revel in the Magnificence of the Source.


Those religions that push the idea of humans as the gardeners, caretakers of
the planet are the best of a bad bunch - but even then that good idea is
still only the hook and the real intention is still to subjugate.

>
>
> Theism. (Or a theism/deism hybrid).
>

I think so.


Arlo, by discussing Ham's idea we somehow perpetuate it. I hope that Ham has
the flexibility to really question the foundations of his thesis. He has put
in a lot of work and it always is very difficult in such situations to
abandon that large investment.

-KO