This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[kandrathe]

Why would this be? I would think that if one posits a being capable of creating the phenomenal world itself it would be contradictory to posit that the same being wouldn't also be capable of interfering with it.
[right][snapback]98209[/snapback][/right]

Suppose "God" is not bound by the laws of this universe. We may be as art works, compared to the painter. How many universes are there? How much more complex is the designer from the design? Perhaps the interference is done minimally in a way that is consistent with our comprehensions, and only echos of that interference register to us a "mysteries" indicative of there being a painter.

"Stephen Hawking's God" excerpts below from Margaret Wertheim's PBS TV programme 'Faith and Reason.'

Anthropic Principle

A controversial cosmological principle that the observable universe, as it is, must be compatible with our powers of observation, or else we would not be able to observe it.  Exponents of the principle will often point out that the universe appears to be “fine tuned,”or delicately balanced in its basic physical processes, to allow for the existence of carbon-based life.  Although there are many versions of the principle, usually one can distinguish between (a) the Weak Anthropic Principle, which affirms simply that the existence of human life itself implies that nature must be consistent with having evolved carbon-based life, and (B) the Strong Anthropic Principle, which is concerned with the possibility of alternative universes, yet goes on to state metaphysically that our observable universe must be the only kind of universe capable of evolving human-like creatures as observers.

Only a small range of possible values for the universal constants (such as the mass of an electron) are consistent with the presence of life as we know it. The significance of such apparent fine-tuning of the universal constants is disputed by those who regard it as trivial and those who argue from it to the necessity of life in the universe.

The impetus and tradition for Darwins work was from a long line of "Natural Theology" of the type done by Sir Thomas Aquinas. So, the concept of trying to look at the universe and find revelations of God is not a new one. I think it is clear that Darwinian, and other theories fall short to explain much of the universe, and so in the gap of a cohesive "truth" many people resort back to the old ways of explaining the complex as evidence of a designer. As a truth seeker, I find that a bit of a cop out.

The cosmological argument has also received much critical scrutiny from the time of Kant on, and it must now be accepted that what we know about the universe can never demonstrate whether it has a cause, or whether its existence is ultimately inexplicable.

The demise of natural theology, and its partial rebirth as ‘a philosophical theology or new style natural theology’ are well analysed by John Macquarrie.  The central point to note is that those authors claiming to revive natural theology tend to do so in a way which is ‘descriptive instead of deductive’

But, again in reference to my prior post, we humans seem to need a consistent belief system and also a desire for the pursuit of truth. As old, supposedly empirical truths are debunked and new empirical truths emerge, we disrupt belief systems, and cause much anxiety. There are some convincing philosophical arguments on why Theism may be the most probable explanation for the universe, such as The Justification of Theism by Richard G. Swinburne or the apologetic works of C. S. Lewis as another example. But, again, these are philosophical appeals to a belief system, and are not science.

Science, in it's reliance on the observable, experimentable, and repeatable may never be able to explain most things in our universe. I think we need to allow room for the use of science, and mathematics as a tools for discovering "truths", as well as allow for attempts to fit these truths into the belief systems of cultures. The danger lies in mistaking philosophy for science.