Recently I've been doing plenty of thinking around the concept of 'god' as a future development in human consciousness.
I can see the logic in an idea that if humanity is progressing towards something, and that something will become 'god', then in its god-state, time will cease to be a limitation and then the 'becoming god' can re-enter time to guide the progression of humanity to the point where the godself becomes. Progression is thus a loop, being both caused by, and causing in turn, the 'becoming god', which, for want of a better word I refer to in my head as theos.
This idea neatly sidesteps the holes in evolutionary theory, and allows for intelligent interference in a concomitant evolutionary process. A 'guided evolution' if you will, which is only different from a creatio ex nihilo dogma by a small degree. It's still creation, of a sort.
The problem is though, I do wonder if I'm drifting into a sophist trap. When we start getting into the nuts and bolts of the theory, it means a reinvention or a rejection of certain key doctrines which I would hold particularly dear, considering my Christian theological background. Then there's my role in our church, my employment for a Christian charity in a post with a genuine occupational requirement for professing faith, and even my fledgling freelance theology sideline.
I'd put all those things at risk if I suddenly propounded a dubious theological world-view. I don't really want to start my own religion, but I don't think my current religion would be particularly happy to include me in the ranks still.
And, on a deeper level, I'm not sure I really believe it enough to stake my life on it. That's what it comes down to in the end. But if I don't believe in it, what is the point of continuing with the thought experiment, no matter how intriguing it is?