I understand what your saying, and I'm certainly not going to speculate on why you believe, but I do have one question; Can subjective reality ever conflict with objective reality? If the answer is no, then I fail to see how it isn't just another God of the gaps.
A "God of the gaps" explains what is not explained scientifically with religious belief.
So a "God of the gaps," as well as a raging fundamentalist God absolutely in conflict with scientific observations (say, someone who believes in a flat 4-cornered earth, so we aren't flinging around barbs at any posting here.)
The objective/subjective decision is one that acknowledges basic good manners. It's just plain rude to say "believe this because I believe it so hard." It's fine to say "Hey try dropping a larger and smaller cannon ball from a tower, and you'll see they drop at the same rate." It's even fine to say "Hey try flying in a plane until you find the edge of the flat 4-cornered world." What is not fine is for the flat-worlder to tell you he believes so hard you must believe or there will be otherworldly consequences, in a proactive manner when said belief isn't even in point. Similarly I would not, except in response to said assertion, say to him "YOU! Ignorant flat-earther!!! get on a plane goddammit!!!"
As to my own belief regarding God, Wildo, there's no gap-filling, except one puzzler I have never worked out, vis. the development of subjective consciousness itself.
I can accept that sufficiently complex amino acids interacting just so can combine to form what we call life. After all there are compounds and particles constantly being formed, that behave in this way or that, and under certain circumstances (the circumstance itself being a bit of a gap, but I think people imagine lightning to be involved,) I can see the protein-rich soup yielding the one-celled organism.
No problem with an eye showing up, or a heart, or pretty much any of our constituent parts. The senses sense, the brain responds, the organism continues to evolve, no real gap there for me in any of it.
But what puzzles me is the development of introspective consciousness. We see this most easily in one another, and perhaps in some of the animals. Not "who put it there" or "what is it for", but "how the hell did
that happen?" Or even "How the hell
can that happen?"
At any rate, as far as a God of the gaps goes, I think that particular puzzler is one of my pet applications of said notion. I stipulate though that I'm fascinated by attempts to explain how and why the light bulb went on. Remember Julian Jaynes? As time went on his ideas of what played which part in the human brain sort of got left in the dustbin...but it was a hell of a try. I'd love to see the next step, but unfortunately science is concerned with the objective.
Pretty funny, huh... it's a really really hard task to even theorize about. But it's this big elephant in the room. I'm ready and eager to see good books on how consciousness came to be, and if you know of good theories I am all ears. You'll note I don't demand the gap to preserve the God; I only perceive it.
As to what my own religious faith
is, I try not to go into great detail (no, not because it won't hold up to scrutiny, but because if there's a God, he's bigger than my ability to make the case.) Suffice it to say any God worthy of the name necessitates a cosmos without true division; i.e., these divisions at some plane are illusory. This is in harmony with some of the Buddhists, and (I think) with old Foggy here. It is also the only meaning of the Shema, from man's point of view, that makes real sense. Think of it all as bound up and mutually dependent; the golden rule essentially becomes not to stick yourself in the pee hole with a needle. If all partakes of God, why would I harm myself, by harming "another"?
At any rate, one could say "yes, but that's just application of atomism to the individual; we are all forces and particals whizzing around. That does not imply or prove any sort of religion."
And that's why I don't try to foist beliefs on others. Indeed I wouldn't know
how to go about objectively proving such a structure, and people can live just fine without it.
As to how we're organized into these selves, not to mention these more easily explained clumps like rocks and planets, at the bottom there is always the next question, and that gives us a great gift, a world full of (literally) wonder, and we are fortunate or blessed enough to have minds to ask the question. It took billions of years to come by such minds, however they came to be, and I'll be damned if I'll shut it off.
But it's been decreed that by the sweat of my brow shall I make my bread, so gotta go for now.
PFnV
