1a2bcio8

Eh up, Ride on Sunday if anybody is game? I was hoping that perhaps all the new (and old locals) could meet alongside any of the non-locals that would like to join. TF bmx'rs would also be cool as this is my situation. Ben

You're right, I think there are individual variations across the range of science, regarding bias and dogmatism. I should have been more specific there. I wouldn't say that I think science and religion are two battling entities however. In fact, I said in one of my earlier posts that, in general, religion and science are different activities and as such, they shouldn't have a great deal to say about one another. But religion does make (cosmological) statements which are open to science and being that science is a more reliable form of evidence than faith regarding cosmology, religion should bow down to science. However, this goes both ways and sometimes science encroaches on religion where it's not appropriate to do so. Science cannot teach me about my connection to the world, per se. It may say things about an experience but it doesn't give a certain experience regarding the types of religious experience. At their core, science is conceptual (although of course it refers to observation) but religion is about non-conceptual experience - going beyond ideas. I'm afraid though that you've also over generalised against religion as I did for science. Although within every religion we do find dogma, we find this a lot less with some religions, especially regarding their central teaching. Most especially in Buddhism, which teaches never to simply take the word of what it or anyone else says, but to actually have your own experience from which to pass judgement - it is against idle speculation. This is a very open teaching and in line with scientific method. There are variations across the range of all religions in this way and that includes Christianity which has many sects. I am certainly not a religious apologist though. Generally, at their core, I do not think religions have anything to be apologetic of. It's just an unfortunate case of mass misunderstanding of what religion really means. Religion has blatantly been misused. So have cars though but this doesn't make all cars bad. But I respect your view. It's one I've held before but at present, regarding personal experience and otherwise, this one makes the most sense to me. I'll probably be saying something different five years down the line You love it

Yeah, I have to agree with you somewhat on the waffling. I've been getting progressively more lazy throughout this thread in placing my terms into more appropriate ones for a forum thread. Nobody really wants to have to think twice about the meaning of a statement in this context, I guess Unfortunately I often end up unconsciously writing in the styles that I read. These are also the terms that I think in, so it's more of a pleasure to write in the way that I do, that is a waffle to you. Anyway, I still have to disagree. It's true that there are a range of interpretations regarding quantum mechanics. Clearly I chose the interpretation that made the most sense to me and supported my argument but that's because that interpretation fits into my general thinking with regards to reality. I am open to being mistaken. However, my argument doesn't rest solely on quantum mechanics. It rests on other philosophical ideas that I won't waffle about too much Basically I think it's dangerous to wrap up the practice of biology in such simple terms. Just because the process of "looking" gets placed into the single word, "looking", doesn't mean that it is as simple as might be suggested. I'm sure that you know this but often we forget and in a sense make assumptions about such things through that forgetting. Language has a way of doing this to us though. Anyway, within that process are a hugh multitude of interconnected factors which work together to amount to "looking", at least in terms of the actual end experience of looking. Looking is both passive and active. We contribute to what we see, through factors such as language, reason, emotion, assumption, etc. in an interconnceted fashion and which can all manifest in a way unique to the individual using them. Psychology has a wealth of data supporting this type of assertion but cognitive dissonance is one example of the way that we subserve our reasoning to emotion. Looking is not a separated human process but a dynamic process which includes, in varying degrees, all that makes us who we are. Further to this, even other aspects on the environment have an influence on our "looking". Additionally, science is not simply an act of observation. Science is completely enmeshed with reasoning. My biology textbook even admits that science contains both inductive and deductive reasoning. Reasoning, unless dealing with an incredibly uncomplex system, seems to always have unidentifiable or unprovable parts; assumptions which individuals can vary relative to other factors such as emotion. A problem we often see in religion. I'm afraid, science can much be like religion. This isn't to say science is useless. That isn't true. It is probably the best way we can come to predict certain parts of our environment. It's just that it isn't beyond the influences that affect every other human activity. I may be wrong though. I accept that but the above explanation makes the most sense to me at this time.

Apologies for the tangent but I'm somewhat suspicious about the idea of the "unbiased" (or "objective") scientist. Even quantum mechanics, in a form of self-reference, 'proved' of itself (its practice) and all observation that subject and object are interdependent and affective of another rather than separate which would allow for 'real' objectivity. This, I believe, relates to the principle of representation, whereby, consciousness is not the direct experience of reality but like a mirror of it. The shape of the mirror and the way it reflects reality relates to its structure. A bendy mirror creates a bendy reflection. A certain physiological and ideological-emotional composition define the type of reflection found in the representation. In other words, the way we interpret reality is dependent on the uniqueness of who we are and thus we find instant bias. Of course, to a certain degree we do interpret the same reality. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to communicate. The point is, that what we share isn't completely the same, to varying degrees depending on the context involved. Probably there are better or worse movements toward being unbiased or objective, but more likely, regarding anything near absolute, this is another scientific myth, attached to the one where scientists believe their absolute rationality. Fact is, everybody has a set of assumptions (philosophies) underlying their approach and response to anything - usually unidentified and often staying that way until somebody else points them out. Unfortunately many of these have arisen in the childish part of our development. So that's not to say that some assumptions aren't perhaps a little bit more sensible than others. Saying that King Kong, the gorilla tea pot fairy created the universe is perhaps a less sensible assumption. The heart of the matter is, assumptions are inevitable within any conceptual endeveaour because the world is not entirely comprehensible within a set of ideas, so there will always be parts that aren't answered or complete (ala, Kurt Godel and his theorom of incompleteness within any realtively complex system of logic). Furthermore, our emotions exist not separate to our intellect but within the same nexus or field. So at the very least, the end product of science and scientific statement flows from the unidentified assumptions/incomplete reasoning and the effects of emotion regarding the respective subject area. This is the great irony of the supposed rational scientist (and scientific subscribers) who scorn the "faith" or "belief" of the religious individual. Ultimately, they both do the same, just regarding different parts of their respective activities. Yes some assumptions are probably a bit more mature but they still remain assumptions and often assumptions in science are quite childish, often relating to the desire of some all powerful, all knowing system or thing that we can attach ourselves to for security, similar to the reasons for needing God as an entity. This is the reason I always try to promote modesty in our views. We're all stood on similar foundations. No doubt I frequently forget this modesty. In similar regard to science and religion (as commonly held), it might be that I argue for my differing conception of God because I've read that it relates to well-being or the going beyond suffering. I've suffered a fair bit in my time regarding depression so perhaps I more readily ignore or block out the assumptions I inevitably hold regarding the validity of my conception of God because I so desperately want this way of being. This, I think, is just one potential illustration of the way we can operate and the way that we can willfully but often unconsciously overextend the reality of something. If it makes us feel better to do so, then this isn't so much of a surprise. I do think that it is more a habit, at least in the sense of depth, of certain religious members, moreso than subscribers to science.

Al, I think if these matters interest you and you really want to delve into them, Joseph Campbell is an awesome place to start. His studies are cross cultural and they indicate what is the same across differing religions and this gives a good scholarly explanation of 'God' or religion in general regarding the form it takes (mythical story). He even has talks you can watch if you're not down with reading books so much. You can download the "Power of Myth" or "Mythos" through either a torrent or e-mule. I can't recommend his work more. edit: Also Karen Armstrong has some quite accesible work on religion, especially Christianity. She was at one point a nun in a monestry but gave up that position because she could no longer support her belief in God.

I think there probably was a Jesus. In fact, in the absence of Jesus, we find the absence of a spiritual/mystical example (archetype) which would somewhat reduce the weight of the message. If there are no examples of people who are supposedly "enlightened" to God (as a reaslisation not an entity), then I have less reason to believe or pursue such a thing. Although perhaps this doesn't have to matter. Perhaps all that is required for such a resource, is that those who are engaged in writing it have some level of spiritual/mystical awareness. The most essential message could remain the same in the absence of Jesus being real. I personally would prefer to hear of real examples, however. But again, this doesn't matter to me now since I have had the some of type of experiences refered to in religious texts. I guess this last point is actually the most weighty to any religion - personal experience.

Hah, that somehow manages to make everything I just said seem really stupid. Thanks Anyway, but yeah, Heaven, Nirvana, Nibbana, whatever label you want to attach to the monistic realisation of reality. Not so much a place, but a potential way of being on earth, now.

As a methaphor, Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden represents their development of knowledge, from which followed an understanding (or creation) of Good and Evil. More fundamentally, it represents a dualistic identification of the self (and the rest of reality) over a monistic one. Rather than viewing everything as the same (I am all), the world is broken up into bits (I am this, you are that). In so much as something is other instead of same, it is a problem. An analogy is the fear of another human because they want to cause violence to you. If you view yourself as that person, there is nothing to fear. If you view them as separate to yourself, with the meanings that carries (mortality being one), you will experience fear. Where some Christians have often got it wrong, I believe, is with the idea that heaven only follows death and is a consequence of 'right' living in this life. Heaven is a state of being that is open to us in this life and is the realisation of monism; the fundmamental unity/sameness of all things (what is not existence?) which carries with it immortality. I am all. However, this state is not simply a return to the Garden of Eden (purely monistic), because we still maintain a dualistic perception (the ability to discern/conceptualize/talk) but where appropriate to our well being, the monistic view informs our perception and activity. If anybody fancies watching the scholarly, Joseph Campbell link that I put into one of my earlier posts, we find that this metaphor exists (with some surface differences) in other cultures, separated by space-time. Thus we find evidence for the concept of religion/myth representing a description and guide to the conditions of human life. We also find an alternative pole existing to the side of the typical, and I think erroneous, atheism/theism debate.

You don't actually speak for all of us.

Awesome description, Dave. Very concise As I understand it, time is basically as you say. It relates to actual events but the word represents the way in which we have conceptualized (humanized?) those events. Like all language really. More specifically though, time is the additional fourth dimension or expression of the three dimensions of space. However, and most confusingly, in a sense, time doesn't really exist. This is the sense that it is mostly commonly conceived and also, potentially in the sense that the concept of God is misunderstood. This is also in the sense that required Einstien to change the way we think of time in order to change the newtonian model of physics to the model of relativity. I was thinking about this and I think the proper and improper conceptions of time can be illustrated by a diagram: The square represents a less accurate conception of time and is the one assumed by people in general and the older conception of physics (Newtonian). It suggests that, as a dimension time is like an entity. Time, like the three-dimensions of space, exists somewhat independantly of those three-dimensions. Like them, it is a point and thus, in their absence, it still exists. Please forget the obvious problem with this diagram that if the other three points (spatial) are not present then really the fourth (time) shouldn't, given their interconnectedness. What's important is the misconception of seeing time as something which exists per se, similar to, say, physical matter. Our Triangle on the other hand, doesn't show time as something which actually exists in the way that the three spatial dimensions do. Time here actually represents the behaviour of those first three-dimensions. Time in this sense, is not something that really exists but is instead a human description of the relative behaviours of the three dimensions - what are all the separated forms of matter doing relative to each other over a three-dimensional space? More specifically, time is simply a description of the consistent movement of matter through 'matter-less' space. What is a clock other than simply the consistent behavioural expression of the matter that composes it? We can especially understand this if we remove our spatial dimensions (the three dimensions which are both matter and the absence of matter). In this situation, with no interaction of matter with 'matter-less' space (no three dimensions) there is no possiblity of time. To put it more succinctly, time is simply an expression of space similar to the way my anger is an expression of me but my anger is not independent of me. You cannot find my anger separate to me. Yet we often conceive of time as something which can be found. Einstien understood this. And the physical model of relativity is dependent on this understanding of the nature of time. It's the reason why Einstein describes space and time as space-time. The former description separates the inseparable. It creates the impression of time as an entity (space AND time. Much the same way I think God is conceived. People aren't able to recognise God as an expression of what already is. They have to separate God from the appropriate source because our talking of God carries with it the implication of a separateness. We say "God does this or that because of language habits are thus so and not very good for saying that something is both the acter and acted upon. As I think Alan said, God is like the misconception of time or the misconception that because the word anger, in language, exists separately to the word that refers to me (Ben - "he has anger" like he has a trials bike). God as an entity is, in my current opinion, a spook of language. We probably come to this confusion due to a general misunderstanding of language and what general semantics would call a confusion of the levels of abstraction. Levels of abstraction describe the points at which we interpret events. The first level being our basic wordless perception (sight, sound, etc.). The second level being our initial labels (basic words like dog or bike) for the first level. The third level is our labels for collections of the initial labels (concepts like anger, driving, etc. or groups like england, shops, etc.). The fourth level being our concepts about concepts or groups of groups and so on. The levels of abstraction keep going (they are open to infinity) but the rules change as we move through them, relative to their relationship with the lower levels of abstration. Without going into detail, if we confuse the rules of one level with another, we impose qualities that are appropriate to one level of abstraction to a level of abstraction where they are not. Kind've like trying to apply the rules of riding a trials bike onto the rules of driving a car. Thus, we get confusion and try to think about things and act toward things which may not even exist in the context we find ourselves in (like attempting to bunnyhop up a wall in a car). I haven't been completely fair in my description. Nor have I included all the relevant details. To do so, would take me too long and would probably just confuse what is often a novel idea to people - that's if it doesn't already. But please, ask me to elaborate if you don't understand. It took me a decent time to get my head around these matters and I'm still confused. edit: Can people actually see the diagram properly? edit 2: An additional analogy for the relationship of time (space-time) is the relationship between me and my parts (mereology). When I die and my body falls to pieces, are the parts which made me still "Ben"? (molecules and atoms) Or are the parts only "Ben" when they exist in a certain sturcture or relative relationship to one another? Making up dynamic structures such as a brain, a heart, etc. which again in their relationship make up a human. Human words and ideas describe the presence of certain relationships between parts. This is also probably an reason the idea of a soul. Because we imagine an independent self, arising from our names or other labels, existing independently of the structures which allow for any use of a name or label.

Out of interest, do you ever question the validity of your faith? Are you willing to change it in the light of evidence which seemingly goes against it? The eye example shows a good, reasoned, justification for the existence of a God, in the sense that you mean, but it's not much in the way of evidence. It's certainly not empirical evidence of the kind which usually gives the most reliable knowledge. Why can't what is already within the 'world' be enough to allow what happens to the world? (i.e. life, eyes, etc.). In fact, for this latter idea, there's no burden of proof, unlike god as an entity. What is already there, explains it, as opposed to what we assume is there, in some sense, through only reasoning. Put differently, the most reliable forms of knowledge exist when after observing a situation and reasoning about it, we can refer our reasoning back to the initial situation, in some way, to confirm our reasoning. The concept (reasoning) of God as an entity doesn't contain any reference to the reality we live in and so cannot be checked. Similar to the way in which if, through some analogy, I reason that it's the sleep fairy that makes me incapable of getting up in the morning, I am quite unable to check (observe) in reality that there is some truth to it. The idea may have followed from reality but it's thereafter, quite unable to go back to it. This idea is central to science and what makes it, as yet, the most effective way of being knowledgable about our reality. Although, of course, it has it's limits still. But finally, regarding the idea of the world/existence and its contents being enough for what is produced in the world, we find a more scientific statement. It possesses no unobservable parts, it simply refers to what we see, being both the foundation for its present self and the foundation (in a potential sense) of something else at some other point in time. Similar to the relationship between a seed (technically including the environment) and a flower, which we can all check to confirm. Existence has what it needs to become what it will be and this, I think, we can reason and then check. Again, this still represents a limited approach to understanding and I remain open to God as an entity, in the light of some respective change. It just doesn't seem that likely, at present, in the same way demons used to be explanations for human disease. edit: sorry for the incoherrence. I realise my statements aren't entirely clear and I'd like to blame my hangover/general imcompetence

Another unsuccesful attempt at humour on my part

Are you ever sceptical about your scepticism? How about, sceptical about your scepticism over your scepticism?

Thanks, just a shame it's riddled with mistakes, grammatical and otherwise. It isn't entirely coherrent but I'm too lazy to adjust it The ideas aren't really mine though, to be honest. For the most part they belong to the writers of books I've read, specifically those who made sense to me.

Well, I enjoy what you're upto although I did feel it to be a tad repetitive. The fashion victims judging somebody elses way of experiencing fun is still amusing although a bit frustrating. Surely it makes the most sense to ride the way we enjoy, whatever that way is? You'd hope that would be everyones motivation yet I suspect it isn't. To me, these days, trials is just a word that expresses a community of people that ride a certain type of bike. "Community" being the most important word there. It's the reason that despite the fact I'm now riding bmx, I will still be riding with people on trials bikes. Really it's the people in this community that I dig the most. Within that community I like to think that I'd appreciate however somebody enjoys their riding.

Yeah science is great in its own respect. I wouldn't say otherwise. However, it is limited and its domain is not religion apart from the times when religion oversteps its bounds such as with statements about cosmology (i.e. Galileo). Also, the 'fact' and evidence of religion is in the practice of religion, and consequent experience, not simply the belief. This relates to religion in the way I've continaully tried to indicate. Basically, religion contains myth which is symbolic and teaches one how to come to terms with their environment - it comes from a need to deal with the human condition that carries with it certain problems but also has potentilities, not yet realised. We often watch films or read fiction and underlying those stories is a moral of some sort that can teach us about life. Religion is like but with the addition of a spiritual depth - which basically means truths which are true regardless of where you are or which human you are. There are realisations about the nature of the human condition which we can come to realise but which we do not automatically possess. When we look to the study of mythology, we begin to find evidence for some of what I'm saying on an intellectual level (rather than on a level of direct experience that is). What we find is that religions or myths separated by time and space (differing cultures are differing times), all tend, at their core, to say the same thing. On the surface, they are different (just as different languages can refer to the same things) but fundamentally they all address the same problems and potentials of the human condition. In other words there are human problems which are dependent on time, location and who you are and there are problems or potentials which include all people and at times. Relative problems might be technology or lions and constant (perenial) problems/potentials might be the answer to "what or who am i?" or what gives us the deepest sense of well-being. What's great about the latter is the relative problems drop away once we realise the fundamental nature of our situation. So in this sense, yeah the bible is like a work of fiction. But comparing it to Harry Potter isn't entirely fair with respect to the depth into which the bible can teach you about life - minus the relative aspects which aren't really appropriate to the present. The rest of your analogy has a degree of fairness to it, however. Taking what you read too literally is to miss the point about the nature of the thing you are reading. Although I can't recall the quote exactly, which is buried in one of my books, Jesus did warn against taking the word (spiritual words, his included) too literally. The words are trying to teach you something to realise, to experience, not to believe in. Unforunately both 'believers' and 'disbelievers' aren't heeding his advice. Anybody who actually wants the potential of a new way of thinking of religion that dissolves what I believe to be a false argument about religion - god as an entity. You can begin your search by watching some Joseph Campbell on youtube. I sincerely encourage you to do so

The thing is with being Jewish is that it is an ethnic religion which you are born into. It's not something you really choose, in its strictest sense. So Jesus was jewish in this sense. I'm unsure how this might be a contradiction for Christians? Jesus obviously didn't follow the Jewish religion although what he said was often wrapped up in the terms of the prevalent religion of his time and place. Regarding the chaps argument for God based on certain complexities we find in life (human eye, motors, etc.). This is a fair one, on the level of reasoning, I think. Yes, evolution is a way of describing the changes that occur between environment and life but it doesn't explain why there is a potential for life (and eyes and the motors that life can build) present in existence (matter/space-time, etc.) prior to the actual being of life. Nothing explains this with any evidence. Explanations are made but they are all forms of reasoning and to be fair the often have sound logic, although each has assumptions. The point is, nobody actually has a clue why there is a potential for life. We're all basically making noises and in that regard, there isn't much point in getting arsey over the different noises of somebody else. Especially when you realise there's a complete irony when part of the motivation for atheistic noise is the recognition of theist (in the sense of God as an entity only) noise. "Although we both make noises with no definite reference to reality, I claim my noises less like noise, than your noise!" Also, nobody seems to be able to even consider alternative interpretations of the Bible. Literal and non-literal are both equally treated with suspicion and not each judged on their own merits. However, having read some of what Jesus said and relating it to my own practices in Buddhism/Yoga/Mysiticism (all of which are Godless in the sense of God as an entity), I can tell you the experiences I have had are in line with what some of Jesus has said. I can't comment on all because I have't read all. The point is, this interpretation is open to investigation and confirmation or otherwise. Consequently the non-literal interpretation carries with it room for aspects of scientific investigation. In that sense, people (especially those who incorrectly claim science as an argument against religion) should hold their tongues until they've actually taken the time to properly investigate. A second irony is that many people who talk of science often don't realise that they do so in a religious way. Science often carries with it a myth that overextends what it does or can say. Science, quite simply, cannot comprehend all of life/existence. Yet the belief exists that it will explain all, thus debunking or illuminating all practices that are not science. Thus we find science as omnipotent and omniscient, just like the typical God as an entity. This simply isn't true and science has its limits.

Well, that might be appropriate for the human realm whereby, by definition, a painting requires a painter but when we talk of existence, we are probably talking about the circumstances with different rules. An analogy might be that because i have to cycle my bike, that I have to cycle my cat but we can clearly understand that in the context of a bike, we cycle, in the context of a cat, we don't. The latter instruction doesn't really make much sense. Try to envisage cycling a cat. Now why is it appropriate to talk of existence being created because a painting is created? Well, the argument typically goes, by analogy, that the universe seems to possess a structure/orgnisation and the only time we see structure/oganisation being created, separate to 'natural' creation is by humans. Thus, we seemingly have evidence by analogy that what leads to structure/organisation is the actions of an entity operating upon something. The trouble is that we are probably projecting qualities appropriate to human activity into a realm for which they are not appropriate. And I need to finish this at some other point because I'm past the point of being able to think.

i need to retype that, I completely lost my train of thought and ended up taking about a different subject

I guess you can say that God has always been? Personally I don't understand the need for anything to have been brought into existence. Why does something have to come into being? Instead, existence has always been and always will be. The only difference is in the way that existence is expressing itself - varying structures/organisations of planets, stars, molecules, life, etc. at given points of space-time.

Yeah fair enough. I was a bit reactionary there but I guess it dissapoints me slightly that religion is always debated on such literal terms. And thanks for that piece on the formation of life. Interesting stuff that I had no idea about

Hah, I think I'm remembering having discussed this with you before, Tomm First off, I was saying the same for both atheists and theists. Dogma with respect to any set of ideas inhibits intelligence and that is, I think, a good argument against dogmatism in any respect. Being as intelligent as we possibly can about life has to be of benefit? It's simply about acting in accord with the facts that we do have - we know this at present but as history demonstrates, we may know something else in the future, so there's no point being definite about it in the present - that is, I think, an accurate opinion of observance and one that is more weighty than the general absence of fact regarding God. This doesn't mean we can't act on a 99% probability because of the 1% potential against. It makes sense to act on what is most likely now but maintaining a modesty about our present view in light of the ever present 1% simply allows to consider and think about other options, which regardless of how unlikely, may turn out to be true. Being like this in respect to say God, also sets and underlying mentality which can be applied to other areas of life. It's essentially a general attitude that can useful. Otherwise we can end up like those stereotypical old people who bitch about everything that is new. Or, as we see in any area of academia, how older members often resist new ideas, despite the wealth of evidence that often follows it. Ultimately it's a choice but I like to discuss it Argh, Dave. You're lumping all the Christians in together. God means something very different for some Christians as I've tried explaing before. In fact the attitude of Jesus (who was a mystic) wasn't in line with common attitude of the Christians you like to bash God does not have to mean an entity but can mean the realisation of our fundamental nature, not in an intellectual way but more in the way of perception or attitude. It is true that many people misunderstand 'God' and shovel man made qualities into 'it', so to speak, but this is most likely against what God originally means. Claiming this for all of Christianity is like saying because some dogs can give you rabis, all dogs can give you rabis. We need to differentiate between the parts which are different.

Yeah I accept I don't really know but it's enjoyable speculating and evaulating the likelihood of different explanations. It makes life quite interesting to carry around various myths/stories/descriptions about the nature of reality. I think I might disagree, if in fact you mean this; that evolution explains how we came to be regarding a starting point. To a certain extent, evolution describes how/why lifeforms have changed over time but it essentially only starts that description after life has come to be. Life is a prerequisite for evolution but life came from that which was not life. Evolution requires the presence of life forms in an environment, interacting that environment, leading to changes of the life form, on the level of the species over time. To know how life began, we must know what processes changed inanimate material into animate material (life). Clearly we come from the 'ground', so to speak, but how? I find that idea very interesting albeit a bit overwhelming

I think the question that then follows from this, and that might make us think about a 'design', in some sense, regarding a diety or otherwise, is, why is it that the universe contains in it the potential for life? Why does it go from a state of no life (and disorder), to one of life (and order). Could this really be random? Certainly it is in the sense that we can't comprehend but not neccesarily in the sense that it is a complete fluke - something that is not really meant to happen but happened none the less. But there is a problem with saying intentional or design because it infers that they are actions of a something else (i.e. God), rather than that which is both designer and designed. Personally I don't imagine life to be random (unless we mean our comprehension), but I don't want to say it is a design and mean that there is somebody residing over the design. Can we perhaps say that it is the nature of the universe to create life but that we can't say anything about why it is the nature of the universe? Thus all terms like random, design, intent, etc. are a bit useless? Essentially new words for describing the universe would be appropriate, specifically ones that don't anthropomorphise or express qualities of the human condition onto it.

I find that I can reverse the direction of the actual figure if I look at the shadow for a few moments, for which you can easily adjust the direction you perceive it to be going in - then look back at the actual figure and it tends to follow the newly perceived direction. Although it easily seems to flip back.