I really don’t get it. How is a vague statement of the utter complexity of the brain coupled with a even more vague statement of the Mind of the Universe, the Mind of Love… an energy that flows through the universe, through every blade of grass…” more scientific than your old Catholicism.
I look at the two hypotheses with which you claim familiarity…
- There is an omnipotent, omniscient God who has personhood and will and created some beings that also have personhood and will. Because He did not want to create mere robots he offered his creation a simple life in exchange for trusting him. They chose the more difficult path of not trusting him and trying to figure out for themselves the pathway to the knowledge of good and evil. They failed. They discovered sinfulness which separtated them from their God. Because He loved his creation and from His Love, He sent His perfect Son to redeem them. He gave enough clear evidence ( See Lee Stroble, “The Case for Christ” for example ) that, “If you seek Him, you shall find Him.” He has many people all over the world who have found him. Many counterfeits have sought willfully to discredit Him, and yet He preserves His Church from age to age.
- There is this vague Mind/Energy/Consciousness which really has no purpose and will and accepts everything and everyone, except that wars, strife, fighting, and chaos keep emerging because the persons whose will is somehow generated by this vague personless Mind/Energy/Consciousness keep feeding their infinitely complex brains which somehow were generated by chance and evolution with the wrong stuff.
I hate to say this but I think proposition #1 makes a hell of a lot more sense and has a lot of historical evidence to back it up. I would really be interested in why from a you consider proposition #2 more scientific or more logical. Would really be interested in your response because its really frustrating to me that people propose very vague ideas of a non-judgmental — non-personable — non willful entity as this mind/energy/consciousness source. I don’t think this is consistent with the fact that our free will has so much power to shape our life. If you think I have done a bad job of summarizing the two hypotheses of your worldview, please correct my summaries. This is a sincere response, I do not want to ridicule you at all, I just wish for you to be faced with the true difficulties of the vague worldview you present and place it with a fair side by side comparison with the God of the Bible.