Friday, September 25, 2009

Ecocosmology of Big Bangs and God

The dudes over at space dot com are asking some of the Ecocosmology questions.

Tenet 3(e) of Ecocosmology has an interesting, philosophically and theologically challenging aspect to it.

Nevertheless, there is an all important meme in that tenet of Ecocosmology:

e) then repeat the entire process ad infinitum;

(Tenet Three Basics). This tenet of Ecocosmology says that even though species in the universe who are bound to planets near stars may be able to develop effective space travel.

So we can migrate to another planet orbiting another star to perpetuate the species longer.

That process will have to be repeated until that species changes and no longer is a form of life that needs the biological cycle which stars with habitable planets now provide.

That is, unless Tenet 3(f) kicks in.

I will call this Ecocosmology meme "the god meme".

This radical notion is that we must "evolve or morph" into beings that no longer need what we need now, which is "biological everything."

There is a branch of thinking bound to the notion that humanity thought up the god meme, and it has by now evolved into many religions and theological concepts.

One web site offers a book with substantial sections online where many concepts deal with the notion of a go between, a human who can do things regulars can't because of contact with a superior something.

The concept of Ecocosmology we are talking about in this post, however, indicates that humans must become that superior something, must become more than biological, and yes must become like a god or gods.

And of course that would bring up the question "what is god?" which the aforesaid website considers to be an "afterward":

In this book I’ve used the word “god” in two senses. First, there are the gods that have populated human history—rain gods, war gods, creator gods, all-purpose gods (such as the Abrahamic god), and so on. These gods exist in people’s heads and, presumably, nowhere else.

But occasionally I’ve suggested that there might be a kind of god that is real. This prospect was raised by the manifest existence of a moral order—that is, by the stubborn, if erratic, expansion of humankind’s moral imagination over the millennia, and the fact that the ongoing maintenance of social order depends on the further expansion of the moral imagination, on movement toward moral truth. The existence of a moral order, I’ve said, makes it reasonable to suspect that humankind in some sense has a “higher purpose.” And maybe the source of this higher purpose, the source of the moral order, is something that qualifies for the label “god” in at least some sense of that word.

(Evolution of God, Afterward). The Ecocosmology tenet we have been discussing considers the morph from biological to god being as merely a better survival mechanism; but beyond that "a higher purpose" is contemplated in some other circles outside of Ecocosmology.

That other circle deals with the why of it, which would seem to be superfluous rhetoric and polemics, because I would argue that the gist of the matter is "how it can be done", "how can a species accomplish that morph or evolution?".

Some of the ideas of existing theology and of mysticism, which address that subject, will be brought up in future posts.

Keep on morphing in the free world.

No comments: