Thanks very much for a rich and thought-provoking post. I'm also a fan of Robert Wright, but I've only read "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny", so I'm grateful for the information and quotes from another book of his.
Your overall attitude toward science, and your general view of ethical, theological, intellectual as well as biological evolution, all lead me to think that any argument I'd have would amount to nit-picking. Well, so be it: here's some nit-picking I feel compelled to do.
On the one hand, you acknowledge that the Bible, as a document created, propagated and translated by humans, is imperfect. On the other hand, you attribute some very special and unique attributes to the life and teaching of Jesus, particularly the notion that he was physically resurrected after his death (although the "nature" of his "physicality" at that point was vaguely "special", in ways that so far are only described in terms of attributes that do
not apply).
But you also acknowledge that the sole source for all "direct" information (i.e. evidence) about Jesus' life, teachings and resurrection is the Bible, where the particular text involved was apparently not committed to writing until decades after his death (and - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - those "original" texts were apparently or presumably written in a language (or languages) that Jesus himself did not speak).
So the apparent firmness of your beliefs about Jesus Christ would seem to have some motivation that goes beyond the text, and even beyond your presuppositions about "intelligent causation" for all creation, and the ongoing "involvement" of the creator in the various goings-on within this creation. I've seen/heard a lot of people express the notion that they have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, in the sense that he is perceived as being present and communicating with them "directly" (by means of an internal experience of "revelation", an "inner voice", etc). Do you count yourself among this group?
Do you believe that Jesus was perfect and without error in everything he did and said, despite having lived a human life? If so, and given that the
not-inerrant Bible is the only source of evidence/direct information about him, how does this belief inform or influence your views, your decisions, and your actions?
If you count yourself among the people who believe they have a personal relationship with Jesus, do you have full confidence that you have been and will always be correct in discerning that it's actually him "speaking" to you, and that you always, immediately get a correct understanding of what he is "saying" to you? (If you don't count yourself in that group, perhaps someone who does could respond to that.)
There's plenty more I could nit-pick about - and I probably will in subsequent replies: the origin and ramifications of ethics/morality, the nature of the "on-going involvement" being exercised by the "creator" that you're trying to describe, and the general question of why any such "creator" would necessarily hold the kind of interest in mankind that you believe it does.
Given the scope of the OP, I'm looking forward to a lengthy thread here.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (minor grammar repair)
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
