ARE OUR GENES GOD?

Are we, as Richard Dawkins suggests, sacrifices to our genes, or do we have a choice in the matter? The question that arises is how far do we take the sacrificial equation? For instance Dawkins portrays us as: "Survival machines--robot vehicles." The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, Great Britain, 1990.

But isn't that a double entendre? After all, if we are 'robots' doesn't that negate self-awareness?
Dawkins wrote: "We are survival machines--robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." My question is, what does this say about Dawkins' sense of self-awareness and control? Perhaps he is the robot who feels controlled by a power beyond himself--dare we call it a genetic God? His comments all seem to hint that "the devil made me do it," the deus ex machina, the ghost in the machine that is responsible for his behavior and somehow is keeping him from acting responsibly to address his own issues on will.

This idea sets a dangerous precedent, because if we buy into it, the right to "free will" must be thrown out the window. Let's face it, altruism requires action on our part--to change the world in a constructive manner, takes persoal action. If we are controlled by a selfish gene that demands sacrifice without compensation, then the results of the sacrifice would be in vein. Would you not agree with this contention?

Dawkins does not include, as far as I know, any recognition of the importance of numinous transformations of consciousness and the Maharishi effect, that encounter with the Divine which produces an epiphany and changes our direction in life from a selfish mode, to one that produces extreme acts of selfless-sacrifice to others or to the world as a Whole.

In its place he writes about a male mantis that is eaten by the female during copulation to insure the continuation of the species. Unfortunately, this example doesn't include any participatory insights into the male's consciousness of the role he plays in the act. In fact,the interpretation almost comes off sounding suspiciously anti-female--

More specifically, the ultimate question that unfolds, is what part in our genetic evolution do we play? Isn't there something positive in us that influences the future to change the course of human history--wasn't that trait implicate in Darwin's assumptions that evolution has a goal; that of survival--survival for what and at what price, seems the bigger quest.

What is the ultimate implication here, that we change just for our individual self-fulfillment or is it ultimately that the species AND THE PLANET as a WHOLE, is assured?

Somehow I think that beneath it all, God has managed to survive in this Wholeness we have managed to assign to our own demands.

With human conscientiousness~
Nahu Lanham

LEFT BRAIN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORD "GOD"

I wanted to share this information which I found extremely helpful in demonstrating a basic "unknown" about the origin of the word GOD. The origin of the word for God came from the Greek "theos" or "theoria," (θεωρία). The word translates to "speculate," i.e., to think about or to ponder the vision of GOD.

What is most interesting about this interpretation is the little known fact about the origin's of the word God, according to my sources, it all began as an intellectual search for the meaning of the mystic state. Thus, firmly establishing that the etymological origins rest upon an exploratory,cognitive process involving the acquisition of knowledge--clearly an obvious left-brain activity.

And then there is the well known Professor Stephen Hawking who wrote:

"Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly."

Hawkings statement also demonstrates that behind the deepest of some our finest scientific thinkers,there is something undeniably mystical, even though it is demonstrated by an unquestionably left-brained approach to their deepest conclusions about the nature of God's imprint upon reality.

But then again, there have been many scientists who have contributed to our intellectual comprehension of the Whole and its Parts including:

Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilei, Nicolas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler,Louis De Broglie, Albert Einstein, Masaru Emoto, Arnold Mindell, Julian Jaynes, Carl Jung, David Bohm, Michael Talbot, Fritjoff Capra, Robert Boyle, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck and many, many more.

All outstanding logicians of science who believe in God, yet contributed outstanding information that led to humankinds deeper comprehension of the nature of spirit.

My best~
Nahu Lanham