h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Our scientific model for atoms is a bunch of spherical objects orbiting around each other. They combine to form molecules, elements, tissue etc.

Our scientific model for a solar system is a bunch of spherical objects orbiting around each other. They combine to form galaxies and so on.

Why is our perception of ourselves on this world any different? I have come up with two possible explanations. Either we can not concieve of ourselves as a bunch of spherical objects, or we cannot concieve of the infinitesmall and the infinite as being of the same nature as ourselves. Upon further examination I find that they are the same answer. Just as our bodies are made up of atoms, cells, tissue and organs, we are just another part of that scheme. We along with the plants, animals, rocks and water are cells, tissues, and organ systems of the planet earth. We feed off of each other helping each other to survive. The animals and plants breathe together acting as the lungs. The Rivers and lakes act as the circulatory system bringing life to the far reaches of the globe. Our planet inturn makes up a solar system, a galaxie, and so on till whenever and wherever it stops. This total entity is what some of us refer to as God, Allah, Buddah etc. Doing good for the planet in turn helps God out. We are God, God is us.

I realize this argument is sporadic, but I am rather tired and just wanted to get that out there.

Our perception of ourselves is different precisely because it is self-perception. As far as scientific evidence currently demonstrates (and I am not naive enough to equate that with 'proof'), atoms, rocks, the earth and the solar system are not aware of their own existence in any sentient or conscious way.

So am I saying that all sentient or conscious beings perceive God? I don't know - but I don't think so.

Pascal (I think) said that 'if horses had a god, he would take the form of a horse'. Probably true. But I think human self-perception - and therefore our theology - is rather more developed than that. In one of these threads, someone compared God to Father Christmas; this is in line with the child-like (I do not say childish) idea of God, an old man in a flowing robe, sitting 'up there' on a cloud. Our understanding of the nature of faith (from a sociological as well as a theological standpoint) demands from us a more sophisticated image of God than that.

Sorry - I've just re-read this, and it really doesn't follow from the previous posting. Oh well.

Just want to say I agree with you both.