The Philosophy of Creation, Darwinian Evolution and the Absolute

God has made worlds of worlds, and infinite infinities. He Himself is the Absolute, Personal Infinity, Aleph Nought.

God has made worlds of worlds, and infinite infinities. He Himself is the Absolute, Personal Infinity, Aleph Nought.

By: Jay Dyer

One of the most difficult things for people to readjust to is the counter-intuitive (or seemingly counter-intuitive) worldview in modified Platonism that I often refer to.  This reorientation shifts one’s entire perspective on the outer, external world, rendering it again a sacred space, infused with the Divine, as opposed to a brute, “material” realm dominated by chaos, entropy and death.  It is understandable why people prefer this grand narrative (and a depressing narrative it is), despite the protestations of those who opt for this paradigm that we in the other camp are “weak” for choosing older “fictions” like souls, angels and God.  To be sure, the materialists and servants of delusion of brute “matter” have their own deity – the impersonal “forces of nature,” but we’ll set that aside for the moment.

It is crucial that the psyche undergo this repentance, metanoia in Greek, and reorienting, as the attitude mentioned is that of fallen man, viewing his world as one devoid of the supernatural under the guise of “science.”  While the scientific method is certainly a useful tool (I read scientific material frequently), the lack of philosophical education on the part of that community is appalling.  It is precisely the hubristic impetus of fallen man that impels the hardcore dogmatists of the brute, impersonal forces of nature cult to stamp out all such ideas – even the slightest inkling by any of their ilk, tending toward the idea the psyche or mind may not be reduced to chemical reactions, must be swiftly punished.

This is why the discoveries and theses proposed in quantum physics are so disturbing to advocates of scientism, despite their good faith in future science to resolve all questions with strict rationalism.  Never mind the fact that “reason” itself is nonsensical in the deterministic paradigm of Darwinian naturalism, the crusaders of modern empiricism are committed adherents of the Holy Inquisition of Scientism, and no manner of logical argumentation can persuade them otherwise.  Those aware of an alternate version of human history, the Biblical narrative, in which man is a fallen creature in rebellion against his Creator, have a perfectly rational (indeed, the only rational) explanation of these events – and can even explain why man himself prefers his own self-imposed servitude, to quote Kant, rather than submission to the doctrine of Creation.

Creation is crucial because of the implications for the entirety of how man views and operates in the world.  Our worldview will determine the way we act, showing the old adage of lex orandi, lex credendi to be correct.  If the universe is a created reality, then the implications for how things like electrons, matter and other natural processes work will have vastly different meanings.  For example, if there is no Creation, and the universe is either eternal or illusory, the way we operate will be dictated accordingly.  We can look to history to show us cultures where such a fundamental presupposition dominated, such as Hindu India or ancient China.  In these cultures, the dominance of the Absolute as an impersonal reality, with a multitude of lesser deities to be supplicated created a vast array of self-destructive practices amongst those populations.  Starvation in India, while cattle roamed free as divine, and a “divine” emperor in China, where individual subjects had no personal identity.  These are merely examples of basic philosophical presuppositions that undergirded a culture and resulted in a praxis consistent therewith.

The Eagle Nebula.

The Eagle Nebula.

Precisely because these cultures were suffused with the notion that time and the universe was eternal, it became a trap from which the wheel of time and “materiality” had to be escaped, through meditation, radical asceticism, or some other form of mystical gnosis.  If, on the other hand, “material” reality was a created reality, and not a self-subsisting eternal principle of its own, and the fundamental framework of the “stuff” of reality was designed and began at a point in time, the implications would be vastly different.  The creation account of Genesis, for example, presents a very different narrative of history and beginnings than these other accounts.  Although it has been fashionable for the last few hundred years to dismiss the Genesis narrative as a fictional mythology of numerous blended Ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, the fact is, the Creation account of Genesis presents a vastly different theology than any other religious account, aside from even the Egyptian account, which comes close.

This difference cannot be overstated: The biblical account posits that time and “matter” are not evils, traps or the source of any fundamentally oppositional principle, but are rather goods – inherently good, due to being created in time by a good God.  God, being good, does not “create” evil, as if it had any substantial or ontological being.  All being, in the metaphysical sense, in this sense, is created being, and created with the potential to receive the higher divine energies or powers of God.  In other words, creation was such that it was placed in a state in which it might be raised to even higher goods, but this does not mean creation was therefore “bad,” because its initial state was a lesser good.  There is no opposition or dialectic between the good being many, as later western philosophy, and in particular Platonism would posit.  This opposition of the good necessarily being absolutely One (the simple monad), was a Platonic idea that would have its precedent in ancient far eastern thought.

Even the Hermetica and the Egyptian accounts from the Memphite narrative, for example, include the idea that creation was spoken into existence by virtue of a divine Logos, yet ultimately, even in the Egyptian narrative, the overall principle, the ultimate Absolute, is not personal, but an immaterial force.  Thus, at the outset, we are presented with only two possible options for this question – is the Absolute ultimately (supra)rational and personal, or is the Absolute ultimately an impersonal, chaotic force?  There are only two possibilities here, and once we consider this basic philosophical question, we can extrapolate Darwinism as clearly a manifestation of the second.   Though most Darwinian adherents would be at pains to insist there is no ultimate guiding principle, the worldview still tends towards the notion of Forces of Nature determining.  This determination, however, is ultimately irrational and impersonal, aside from the appearance of order, telos and design. (Note that I am not making a classical teleological argument, but a transcendental version of a teleological argument.)

But there are many, many more problems for positing ultimate reality or the Absolute as an impersonal force.  If ultimate reality is impersonal and chaotic, then all localized events, phenomena and objects are also devoid of any ultimate meaning.  Language, mathematics, logic, etc., are thus also annihilated as merely mental fictions, or at best some cosmic force we do not yet understand (yet still impersonal!).  These servants of chaos and abyss are like a cartoon character, sawing off the limb he’s sitting on, to spite his opponent.  If ultimate reality is impersonal, then the thread that links all facts, ideas, objects, patterns, etc., is not real. It is a fiction of man’s chaotic, impersonal mental chemical reactions.  There is no order or pattern actually out there in external reality, and the so-called regularity of nature upon which science is built, induction, is merely a mental projection or interpretation.  Such devastating questions, of course, are the very reason “science” (or scientism) has chosen to discard philosophy as “useless.”  However, these questions do not go away, nor does science determine reality by some will to power dismissal of philosophical questions.  The mere fact that “scientists” dogmatically mandate that no one can ask questions about why or what happened before the so-called Big Bang shows how ridiculous they truly are.

Helix Nebula.

Helix Nebula.

When this is considered, Creation becomes the only logical and philosophically coherent position, as it makes perfect sense of the very principle of coherence itself – as an objective reality.   Despite the Darwinian/scientistic rationalist insistence they alone hold the keys of reason, they have dug a pit they themselves have fallen into, to quote Psalms.  Reason, coherence, pattern recognition, mathematics and logic are not mental constructs, but undeniably operant principles in the objective, external world.  This is how bridges are built, words bring about communication, and the principle of induction makes science possible.  This is also how geometry is math in space, and music is math in time.  Precisely because these principles work in the world to build amazing logic machines, like computers, we can see the basic presuppositions of the reductionistic naturalist are false.  And this point cannot be left unstressed either – the problem at work between someone who espouses such views and, say, myself, is that we have fundamentally opposed beliefs – presuppositions – from the outset.  My presuppositions govern my worldview, as do the presuppositions of the naturalist.  However, we cannot both be correct, as our basic beliefs are fundamentally at odds.

This is why I continually return to the question of objective metaphysical principles as the means by which to engage the opponent and modernity as a whole.  Our disagreement begins with Creation and what the world is.  For me, it is guided by an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God, and all the stuff of reality has its ground in a single Divine Mind.  Reality is, at base, rational, although that rationality is infinite, so it transcends my finite reason.  Regardless, it does not make God irrational, it makes Him supra-rational, which means there are plenty of things I must learn analogically.  In contrast, for the opponent, reality is ultimately irrational, with no meaning, telos, or guiding principle.  It just is, and that brute nihilism is something he must continually confront as he seeks to make reason, science and math function as a supposedly mental fiction in the external world.

The world, for this person, is not something to be ruled as a steward under a good God, but a dark, chaotic, nihilistic, empty place upon which meaning must be imposed, not discovered.  This is precisely why scientism has so often succumbed to brutality and the rape of nature, despite its never-ending claim to worship Nature and exalt “environmentalism.”  It is the impetus of social Darwinianism to ultimately seek the destruction of nature, as nature is not a sacred manifestation of the Divine Mind and Beauty, but a harsh ruler to ultimately annihilate and “perfect” (through transhumanism and the synthetic rewrite).  However, if we in theology are correct, this grand plan is doomed to fail because man is not a god who determines meaning and objective reality.  Man is a steward of God, made with the plan to be made divine and immortal in God’s way, and not in fallen man’s rebellious way.

The recent discoveries of quantum physics are a bright sign, however, as the theses that consider the fundamental substrate of reality to be information, as we see in DNA research and in quantum perspectives of subatomic reality.   Discoveries about the “holographic” model of reality are merely confirmations of the platonic models of psyche and idea as the fundamental substrate of reality.   We are witnessing a revolution that runs completely contrary to the empirical British Royal Society narrative we have so long been fed, and it truly represents the fall of the old Enlightenment empiricism.  However, the new agers and the think tanks have already jumped on board, and already we have a plethora of new age bologna seeking to hijack quantum physics for all manner of nonsense.  As you might already imagine, I would simply remind readers that the critiques applied to absolute impersonalism equally apply to the new agers hijacking quantum physics.  The fact that the fundamental substrate of humans and “matter” are information, and to be more specific, energetic information speaks to a worldview in which we need an infinite, omniscient Mind to string together all the facts, if you will.  Without an infinite Mind linking all the particulars, the connections we make are illusory.  But for metaphysics and philosophy and science to work, we need a rational, linking principle for all of reality.  We need something to hold all this substrate, all these patterns, all these principles together – and the human mind is not enough, since it is finite.

However, there is an Ancient Tradition in Genesis, a Creation narrative, that explains reality as the Creation of a loving God, and as a reflection of eternal principles and archetypes in His mind – called logoi, that are all one in His Logos, or Word.  In Genesis 1, the universe is spoken into existence, through divine fiat, and contains within it, a fundamental meaning.  That fundamental informational meaning, exemplified in something like DNA, is grounded in the eternal, and from thence derives its meaning.  Man, as a creature of God, can thus make advances and learn about the world, even though he and it are fallen, as they progress back towards union with God, and the eventual renewal of all things in God.  Only in this paradigm, with these presuppositions, are science, reason, meaning, logic and mathematics even possible and coherent.  In this sense, our minds are little mirrors of the Divine Mind, a little world, that can contain the many.  For more insights along these lines, see the recommended video below by Johanon Raatz.

See also Dr. Philip Sherrard’s essay, “Logic and the Absolute”

47 thoughts on “The Philosophy of Creation, Darwinian Evolution and the Absolute

  1. Last paragraph…

    The first part, the Creation narrative seems intrinsically correct.
    A Native American would agree with it for instance.
    Personally, I have zero problems with it.

    What if the second part, the “fall” is not exactly correct?
    There have been translators that suggest the wording paints a slightly different story.

    Part of this sentence is just Judaic dogma:
    “Man, as a creature of God, can thus make advances and learn about the world, even though he and it are fallen, as they progress back towards union with God, and the eventual renewal of all things in God.”

    Tell me: Where is the oldest “hard copy” of Genesis that we have?
    Let’s dig in to that a bit.
    I’m talking archeological proof.

    Ideas, dogma, suppositions, oral traditions etc. are neat and all.
    But these very specific ones stem from a hard copy piece of ancient literature.
    Much of this article hinges on it.

    One bad translation or outright faked original document could negate these commonly held ideas.

    Who has the goods? And is the *original* document freely available to look at/study?

    • Look like my article? haha. Then unsubscribe. As I said on facebook:

      Note to readers and subscribers. Originally, I was doing talks on an mp3 player and the old talks were bad quality. Newer audio talks and lectures are much better, and contrary to what a subscriber thought, I am not charging people for interviews done with me where I make “fart jokes.” I send private links to paid subscribers dealing with serious materials from youtube, and I apologize this is still relatively low tech or misunderstood. If anyone wants to donate money for my own servers and whatnot, please do. Public interviews where I joke around are something else, and reflect my personality, as I try to make them interesting and funny to garner a larger audience. I used to do improv, so older clips are just me doing impersonations. Regardless, serious philosophical talks are clearly marked as such. Sometimes I write silly articles to lighten the mood, as well. Previously, all serious topic talks were posted free after a week to unpaid subscribers, but in the last few weeks I switched to the half and half model (half free, half paid), since people were just waiting until I posted it free. This is not a big money enterprise, it’s just me, and it is a lot of work, so for those who are angered by me not responding to dozens of “Illuminati” questions and numerous requests for booklists, I apologize.

      • The climb up to God is heavy, so having a sense of humor is helpful. Nothing wrong with that. I appreciate it, as well as the serious stuff.

      • Jay, no need to apologize for your personality. I guess when you’ve elevated your game to such a high level and gotten in touch with this very high-brow, serious crowd who are forced to not ignore the truth anymore, you start to get stuffy types. Perhaps I’m too new to the blogosphere, but I think it’s a good idea to show all sides of yourself and your personality as you put your message out there.

        So bring it on, fart jokes and all. I’m in! I also liked the improv/impressions I found from like 2010 on your YouTube channel. Glad you left them up. Jeff Gaga was particularly fabulous. LOL

        OH, by the way. I’m separating this comment from my “more serious” esoteric response/question to your article.

  2. Quantum Physics is nearly always associated with new religious movements and pop-spiritualism (especially shallow Orientalism). There’s a dozen or so books out there on the market (probably the more significant being David Talbot’s “Holographic Universe”). A false substitute for traditional metaphysics evidently, but I see where the two approximate each other I guess: rejection of the limiting world-view imposed by Enlightenment rationalism and empiricism, and the ontological and cosmological myths proffered by modern scientism.

  3. An analysis of of the Book Nosso Lar along with the recent movie Astral City (both offered thru Amazon,com) might be helpful to further amplify the themes of Creation & Holographic Universe.

  4. Hi Jay,
    Great as usual – I am slowly coming to a similar worldview, but I struggle on a key point:
    If “reality” is created by God (this I don’t doubt) isn’t the implication that to create meaning he made duality, e.g. good & bad, so how can you say a God is good when he created good & bad? Similarly you can’t say he’s bad either.
    Surely God must be beyond good & bad?
    Or is God being “good” based on faith?
    Or like you say is “bad” just “less good”?

    Anything you can point me to to help on this matter would be appreciated.

    Keep up the good work.

    • Don’t mean to answer for Jay, but the answer to this is somewhat textbook.

      You know that old paradox, “Can God create an object so heavy He can’t lift it?” Well, the answer is yes, He can. In fact, He did: He created free agents whose freedom is so absolute God cannot bend it. However, God did not intend for this freedom to entail the choice between good and evil; rather, He intended for it to entail the choice between multiple goods.

      With the Fall of the Angels, and following that the Fall of Humanity, some of these created free agents opted to “create” their own choice. This consisted of failing to choose any of the infinite (qualitatively and quantitatively) goods open to them. This goes hand-in-hand with the whole theory of evil as a privation of good. What it means in our context is that a free agent cannot really choose to do evil: he or she can only choose to fail to do good. (We say they “choose to fail to do good” so that they can be held responsible for their sin. Ontologically, though, such agents are choosing what amount to phantasm options.)

      It’s a very technical piece, but Joseph P. Farrell’s book Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor is the best work on this subject. Get it for free here.

      • Thanks for that, i’ll (try to!) read it.
        I think the part I am struggling with is you seem to accept the fall as a matter of fact, and everything subsequent is a clockwork result of that.
        For instance, if everything is created by God (I don’t doubt it) how can anything go against Gods will?
        Surely the logical conclusion is that the sum total of “now” is Gods will?
        Otherwise, you are saying humans can disobey Gods will, which by definition means humans are equal to God (which is clearly not true)

      • Your “condescending, ask-and-answered” declaratory introductory sentence aside, a very incisive explanation noted with commendation! Farrell’s contribution to the pursuit of Truth is courageously exceptional. If that introductory sentence read something like: “May I humbly offer this explanation for . . . “, I would possibly attempting a big, sloppy, wet kiss from a dyed-in-the-DNA, “Author”-loving (God) heterosexual! Carry on! But please, seek the ultimate Grace so beseeching uttered under unbearable government-sanctioned, near-death physical duress – ” . . . forgive them for they not . . . “. The “CHI” of consequence: Charity, Humility, Integrity.

      • “However, God did not intend for this freedom….”

        How can *you* (or the fakers writing these books) ever know what “god” intended?

        These people don’t even know what “god” they are discussing anyway. Fact.

      • Pope of Discordia: I accept the Fall as a matter of fact because if it didn’t happen, there would be no greater reason for despair. If agents cannot disobey God’s will, then agents can really be held accountable for sin. If God punishes agents for doing things they cannot help but do–all being in accordance with God’s will–then God is some kind of schizophrenic tyrant who wills transgressions against himself and thus basically punishes people because he feels like it. Welcome to Calvinism (and Islam, to an extent… actually, just go ahead and throw in nearly every single religion and philosophy–just about all of them are fatalistic in the end).

        wholy1: No point in feigning humility about the truth. And privatio boni is indeed textbook theodicy.

        KK: OKK.

        Seriously though, I got nothing for you. I trust that the Law of God is written on our hearts, and that we can tell when we’re disobeying God, even when we convince ourselves we’re obeying Him–so long as we are rigorous enough. (And that means really really really rigorous.)

      • Crapbombs. In my response to Pope of Discordia, I say, “If agents cannot disobey God’s will, then agents can really be held accountable for sin.” This is the exact opposite of what I mean to say. It should read: “If agents cannot disobey God’s will, then agents cannot really be held accountable for sin.” There you go, and sorry for the mess.

  5. I think the intelligent design advocates are on to something. The existence of patterns in nature (e.g.irreducible complexity witnessed in micro-organisms and DNA) suggests a Creator. As for sin, I think it was G.K, Chesterton who observed “anyone who doubts the doctrine of original sin should read the front page of any newspaper.”

  6. Hear that? That’s the sound of my brain oozing out of my ear after watching the video totally blew my mind… (oh wait, if my thoughts themselves aren’t in fact dependent on any physical matter to occur, then I guess it’s not my brain that was blown.) 🙂

    Seriously though, this was quite fascinating. I’ve heard this type of “quantum-mechanics-proves-that-all-reality-is-an-illusion” kind of idea plenty of times from sort of NewAger-Truther-Zeitgeist types, but this is the first time I think I’ve heard it put into a Biblical framework. I do think you’re onto something here, and I’ll be checking out more of work….

  7. Very good intellectual “stuff”, Jay and noted with exceptional commendation!
    Couple of questions to ponder and respond, if you feel so inclined:
    1) If you [do/were to] subscribe to the Judeo-Christian theological assertion of “Blessings”, would said “Blessings” have to have been commensurately established with the “Creation”?
    2) Of the two the most elemental constructs under-pinning concepts of “law” – trusts and contracts, with regard to the former, which “party/principle” – benefactor/grantor, trustee, beneficiary – do you think each individual [being allowed to successfully] manifest in to this “space-time worldly reality” is ‘”appointed”?

  8. “Without an infinite Mind linking all the particulars, the connections we make are illusory. But for metaphysics and philosophy and science to work, we need a rational, linking principle for all of reality. We need something to hold all this substrate, all these patterns, all these principles together – and the human mind is not enough, since it is finite.”

    This is where things get dicey, because it describes the ends of the naturalists’ own false religion. I’m sure you’re familiar with transcendence. Clearly Kurzweil and his ilk believe in God as a future projection of our concept of divinity. To them, that is the only God that ever will exist—the one created from humanity’s imagination from our collective morals and conscious. Put more concretely, this “Deus Ex Machina,” in the form of nanobots allowing man to merge with machine at the Singularity, will step in and serve the very purpose you’ve assigned to the God you and I believe in: To sift through all the conflicting and overabundant information we can’t process because of our mortal minds. Essentially we’ll be upgraded and made “God-like” to keep up with the pace of technology. Sadly, the resulting effect will be a complete counterfeit of God, resulting in a collective mind scenario, which disappointingly has been best represented as the Borg in Star Trek NG. But I don’t know why I’m worrying, if we learned anything from Transcendence (the film), we’ll be fine as a collective mind, as long as the nanobots are ultimately controlled by a benevolent and quirky scientist with the charm (and looks) of Johnny Depp.

    Until this point, I hadn’t identified that our God does serve this purpose, to be the infinite Mind that links all things together (because they’re so darn much information). An amazing thought. It’s particularly compelling, because their future xGod (can’t bear to call IT “God”—whatever IT is (probably a reanimated head in the labs at Oxford)) would be a sort of an Omega, “finally” coming into being after so long. We both know, though, that the true God is both Alpha and Omega. His Truth has and will always bind together and sort out all truths and falsehoods. And his Omega will definitely overshadow whatever counterfeit Omega they bring into being.

  9. Pingback: The Philosophy of Creation, Darwinian Evolution and the Absolute | Freedom's Floodgates

  10. Jay, really enjoy your explorations into the fundamental questions–truly profound ideas up in here!
    Anyway, I was wondering if you or someone help me out; one of the questions I am grappling with is the justifications for our general scientific principles.
    So, in physics for instance, currently we acknowledge 4 forces that have shaped our material (and mental, I guess) realities.
    If the universe formed “at random,” how do scientists justify these organizational forces? That is, if the universe naturally tends toward entropy–disorganization–how do they explain the intelligence inherent in these organizing forces? (or is this just another case where they just talk around “what is” and skirt the issue?)
    keep up the good work

  11. Pingback: Half Audio: Jay on Atheism, W.L. Craig, Jim Holt, Transcendental Arguments | Jay's Analysis

  12. Pingback: 2001: An Alchemical Spatial Odyssey | Jay's Analysis

  13. Pingback: 2001: An Alchemical Spatial Odyssey : Waking Times

  14. Pingback: H.G. Wells’ Time Machine and Scientism Propaganda | Jay's Analysis

  15. Pingback: H.G. Wells’ Time Machine and scientism propaganda

  16. Pingback: Technocratic Mythology Decoded | The Soul of the East

  17. Pingback: Non Serviam – Anarchism as a Dialectical Subversion Tool | Jay's Analysis

  18. Pingback: Non Serviam – Anarchism as a Dialectical Subversion Tool - Alternative Report

  19. Pingback: “Scientism Propaganda: H.G. Wells’ Masonic Time Machine” – An Outsider's Sojourn II

  20. Pingback: The Folly of Anarchism | The Soul of the East

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s