Chapter 2: Revelation in Creation Edited

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Chapter 2: Revelation in Creation

The first and most recent book of revelation is the universe and all that is in it. For those who believe in Creator (and I do), creation reveals the nature of Creator through the clues we found and continue to find.

Bruce Sanguin, a United Church of Canada minister, in his book, Darwin, Divinity, and Dance of the Cosmos, proposed that Creator is self-sacrificing and favours increasing complexity. He drew upon what scientists have deduced about the history of the universe through thousands of clues and tests of guesses about what those clues mean. Scientific best guesses based on evidence from creation suggest there have been several generations of stars, and the deaths of each generation created the natural elements. In the self-sacrifice of each generation, the complexity of matter increased along with the potential complexity of the substances they could form. At this minute our sun sacrifices enormous quantities of matter to release energy that flows out from the sun. A small portion of this energy is used by plants to grow, producing living material. Parts or all of the plants are sacrificed to feed animals. Some of those animals are sacrificed to feed other animals including humans, many of which have more complex nervous systems. He used these two examples and others as evidence of Creator as self-sacrificing for the goal of greater complexity. We can also look at how humans used increasing amounts of energy and resources to create more complex societies, and continue to do this.

Related to this evidence is the evidence in nature that living systems with greater diversity of kinds tend to be more stable and resilient than systems with less diversity. I use this evidence to propose Creator prefers diversity as part of complexity, that the more diverse a human society is, the more resilient it will be, and that Creator prefers diverse human societies.

My personal experience of Creator / Spirit is a mix of personal -- feeling singled out -- and generalized flow -- sense of Spirit acting in a broad way in the world around me. Reconciling these contradictory experiences happened when I tied quantum mechanics to Spirit. Just as photons behave like particles and like waves, we can experience Spirit as an individual and as a wave permeating creation.

Observations and examinations of what happens in our world point to a variety of balances of contradictory forces or events.

Metabolism combines anabolism, the building up of complex molecules or structures, and catabolism, the breaking down of complex molecules and structures. Our bodies digest the food we eat, made with complex molecules, creating simpler molecules we can use to build up material in our bodies or we can burn for energy, creating even simpler molecules. Our livers break down red blood cells as they age, and our bone marrow manufactures new red blood cells. Spirit uses complex processes to move creation forward. Empires are built and are broken down. Civilizations evolve and disintegrate. Old growth forests are wonderful places, but nothing is permanent in the world. Even the continents continually change shape. Trying to hold on to anything forever is a lost cause. Human society 1000 years ago is a lot different from human society today, and society even a 100 years from now will be much different from what it is today. There are no constants in creation other than, we assume, certain basic laws. Even change varies in rate and breadth. This suggests that even Creator may be changing.

Cooperation and competition add to the complexity of nature. While cooperation is the dominant relationship in nature as working together usually increases capacity and achievements, competition also plays a role in the evolving of the world.

While most people in western society criticize predators, the web of life needs both predators and prey. Our challenge as humans is evaluating our place, and what kinds of predation to accept and which kinds are no longer acceptable and why. In looking at the natural world, there are no obvious answers, with some people becoming vegan, and some content as meat-eaters.

Related to prey and predator, emotional complexity pairs with neurological complexity. Deer, I believe, do not attach a value judgement to being eaten by cougars. Deer avoid the possibility of being eaten as best as they can.

Humans have developed to the point where we have complex mixes of emotions attached to everything from cute pictures of kittens to raising domestic animals for food.

Thousands of years ago young animals were easy prey to feed hungry people. Now they are cute creatures captivating millions of people. My use of evolve does not mean advance forward here, but reflects the reality of changes that happen for various reasons.

The amity-enmity complex reflects our nature rather than the nature of creator, though it does reflect a kind of wisdom. This complex describes the relationship between the cohesion of a group and outside threats. When external threats are minimal, the members of a group are ready to disagree with or challenge each other. When a significant external threat appears, the members set aside their differences for the sake of the group. While this was initially described for a variety of animal groups, it also applies to people. Recently many Iranians were putting their lives on the line to challenge their government. When the US assassinated Soleimani, everyone pulled together. When people learned their own military shot down the Ukrainian Airlines passenger plane with many Iranians on board, the protests resumed. In terms of faith, members of a faith community more readily challenge the assumptions of the community if it does not seem under attack from elsewhere.

When a group feels threatened or challenged by outsiders, they pull together. Some religious leaders exploit this by fabricating a sense of being under attack, especially by secularism or other religions. In Western nations, we see leaders combining race, religion, and particular moral values to promote support for individuals who appear to contradict almost everything the community was supposed to promote. This is visible in the growth of white supremacist evangelical narrowly conservative followers who are anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-Islam, and anti-immigrant. They claim to be pro-life, but usually do not support social programs that provide food for poor children, support for poor families or health care for poor people, essential programs for supporting the lives of these people.

They also often support lax gun laws responsible for the US have a frightening number of murders, especially of students. Not many pro-life values visible there. The amity-enmity complex clouds perceptions and decision-making, allowing people to avoid criticizing their leaders when they are made to feel under attack.

The amity-enmity complex promotes strong dynamic communities, and stagnant, fear-dominated communities.

The amity-enmity complex is related to sense of self. Humans and other animals operate in part under a pair of drives: preservation of self and risk of self for the well-being of the group.

People with a very narrow sense of self will risk little for the sake of others. People with a wide sense of self will risk a great deal for others, sometimes even non-humans. This aspect of sense of self is shaped in many ways and varies among the members of most groups. Judeo-Christian theology points to Creator having an extremely wide sense of self. Bruce Sanguin suggests Creator has risked and continues to risk all of self for the sake of creation. This wideness of sense of self links to level of spirituality.

To summarize what we can speculate about Creator from clues in creation, Creator is self-sacrificing for the sake of creation and seeks greater complexity; Creator favours complex balances of opposing forces; Creator is infinitely patient; Creator may have quantum nature; and Creator favours change.
 
Last edited:
But how then does this view of Creation deal with the fact that modern cosmology has demonstrated pretty conclusively that, given current observations about the acceleration of the universe's expansion, the universe has an expiry date. Eventually, perhaps gradually or perhaps in a "Big Rip", the universe will reach a point where every point is so far from every other point that no more stars or planets will form and only black holes will remain. And those will boil away due to Hawking radiation, leaving an empty, lifeless void. No more change can happen because entropy has reached, or is close to, maximum. What would a Creator accomplish by that? Is that not more indicative of existence as a natural process, not a Creator-driven one?

The only way out would seem to be multiverse theory, where the Creator transcends the multiverse and the death of one universe is the sacrifice to create a new one but would the Creator you posit really be happy seeing whole universes die?
 
Good points. Maybe multiple levels of being rather than multiversess. It is a question I do not need to answer in mylifetime. The existence of this universe appears to be non-rational, seeming to come from nothing. One math exercise I hated in calculus was working with vectors and matrices that had many dimensions, far beyond our usual four. Also, our insruments probably do not have the means to measure changes in the rates of changes of acceleration of the expansion of the univese.. The current model of expansion fo the universe, I believe is a second or third order equation. We might be dealing with a fourth or fifth order equation for expansion. mmy most relevant task is making sense of the here and now.

As far as I know, dark energy is a speculative construct to expalin unexpected data (the currently observed acceleration of expansion. The converrsion of all energy eventually to entropy is an interesting concept.
 
Also, our insruments probably do not have the means to measure changes in the rates of changes of acceleration of the expansion of the univese.
I think we have already, and Webb might help with that, too. The acceleration is not controversial, though some are questioning the measurements. The cause is what is up for debate. "Dark energy" is not really a thing, just a placeholder name until they figure out what the heck is happening. Like dark matter, we have lots of theories but so far, the ones we have been able to test haven't stood up to the testing.

The bottom line is that the universe is a lot more complex than we know. However, as we have seen in the past, inserting God into what we do not know is a bit of a fallacy. "God" in natural sciences is really just another placeholder like "dark..." until a tested hypothesis fills the gap. It is not an explanation or even a useful hypothesis.
 
Dark Energy ... folk wouldn't believe it anyhow because of its mysterious and mythical leanings! Thus a great place to hide intelligence when the heat of the night seizes the populace!
 
I do not offer God as an explanation for the mysteries of the universe. About 100 years ago we realized the laws of physics that we used to know did not apply at the atomic level and we have wondered to what degree they apply at the level of galaxies. I am not even sure what I call the Holy Mystery is. One possibility is a self aware consciousness of the earth or the solar system or the galaxy or the universe.
 
I do not offer God as an explanation for the mysteries of the universe. About 100 years ago we realized the laws of physics that we used to know did not apply at the atomic level and we have wondered to what degree they apply at the level of galaxies. I am not even sure what I call the Holy Mystery is. One possibility is a self aware consciousness of the earth or the solar system or the galaxy or the universe.

Old acceptances are difficult to disperse! Anything beyond a man-made idealism is diabolical to the powers of corruption ...

I return again to the concept of Lacuna ... weird manifestation of an environment of something that wasn't! Thus incarnate in an old definition?
 
Back
Top