as for the god discussion..


bufo, you said that too many issues arrive when one tries to add 'God' to the equation

I would say that too many issues arrive with every way of trying to find the beginning

Sure we know that a some billion years ago all matter was concentrated in a small point, as all sorts of indirect data show. But this also creates many issues, because how comes in that moment things happened, and not before or after? and how comes everything was all together in the first place? and how comes there is any existence at all?

These questions are too big for us at the moment, and any supposition is just that, supposition..

What I can see from my experience is that (even if it overly and superficially said) there is a unity behind all multiplicity. Im not talking about a god, or even a being.. It is some kind of Ultimate level of things, beyond words.

I also think there must be some sort of exchange route between these two opposing levels, multiplicity (or the 'phenomenal world' and the underlying unity, just like there is between every other opposite. If we look at the yin yang, for example, its not made of two static black squares but of a flowing shape that gives the idea of movement between the two opposites. I couldn't say, though, what kind of interchange happens, in what level. I wouldn't say that its a bearded god dealing with affairs on earth, thats just too much childrens christianity. I do see how christianity in it's essence, though, has something good and I can 're-signify' certain of its (in my opinion) misunderstood ideas.

In any case feel that the important is to be pragmatic and take our ideas to practice. If one's world view is intolerant, rigid, cold and unwelcoming, exaggeratedly comforting, if it makes one lazy, stressed, extremist, unhealthy, then its not one I would follow.

Intelligent beings can be caught in situations where they'd be forced to act unintelligently. Game theory is all about this.
69ron refers to a prisoner's dillema-like situation, where all in. And the fact where all in it is because we force eachother into this situation. the collective mind may be much more stupid then the individual. For instance, you could have trafic regulations determining that trafic entering a roundabout/commuter train have priority over those leaving. It would be a stupid rule, but if everybody follows it, not to follow it would be a more stupid decission wich could lead to accidents.
Nevertheless, throughout evolution we and many other creatures as well have learned to overcome these strategic interaction problems. Frans de Waal has written interesting books on this topic, regarding intelligent social behaviour in primates and apes.
We are quite able to act wisely, though it always requires some effort. The larger a community the weaker it becomes in this perspective. Great succes always has a downside to it. Overall i think history proves our appetite for creation is greater than that for destruction, given the fact destruction is so much easier.