Pseudoxtian?

A screenshot for Shidemn from my dashboard, with an interesting detail underlined in red:

This is either an incredible coincidence, or proof of the suspicions of many Poe’s law claimants.

Consider this evidence for my belief that ridiculousness is found among theists *and* atheists pretty evenly.

Man, the Hairless Ape

What makes humans different than non-human animals? We clearly have much in common with the great apes; I’ll use them as a counterpoint.

There’s definitely evidence that apes can make fairly long term plans, but humans invest in 401(k)s, train years for the olympics, etc. This is a difference in degree and not kind, just like many other ape/human differences. It makes me wonder, are humans just supercharged simians? Human exceptionalism would demand a difference in kind.

There are a few “difference in kind” attributes of humans of which I’m aware: the ability to purposefully teach, to direct the development of the surrounding environment, and many more. All the examples which come to mind seem to relate to imagining a certain end and controlling variables in order to bring it about. This seems to be the key trait which the great apes lack.

So does this mean that manipulation in service of imagination (let’s call it imagulation!) is the great delineator? Do all ideas of human exceptionalism hinge on this ability?

It’s interesting to think on how this could relate to the idea of man being created in God’s image. Certainly “imagulation” is something deeply associated with God. I really am trying to give evolution a fair shake, to try and avoid bias in my exploration of naturalistic origin explanations, but these sorts of observations make it very difficult. I can easily understand an imagulating creator making imagulating beings, but environmentally-directed mutations don’t seem to be a likely imparter of such an ability. Maybe someone can explain? Help!

UPDATE 5/25/08: I recently came across this page on the Great Ape trust website. None of the videos surprised me very much, as they all seemed like behavior I’d seen before and could easily label as behavioral conditioning. All the videos, that is, until I saw the “novel sentences” video where a bonobo, Kanzi, displays behavior that I could only describe as “imagulating”! I’m officially placing an extra tally mark in the “Evolution” column.

This actually quite surprised and delighted me; what an amazing thing to see! Philosophically however, I’m not quite sure how to group the “differences in kind” between great apes and humans anymore. If anyone out there has an idea as to what the through-line may be, I’d be excited to hear it.

Calling Lucy Lowe!

Well Lucy, if you’re reading this, feel free to comment with a few examples of some of the more “awkward” Bible texts of which you’re aware, and your positions on them. It will be interesting to explore, consensus or not.

Questioning Shidemn

Here’s an interesting conversation I had with an atheist blogger; many common issues came up that may be enlightening to read:

Shidemn said:

…there are things that i find illogical in the christian religion (all but we are focussing on Christian), but there are also many thing that just dont work with my morals, but ill get to that later, the thing that i find illogical is this, God is supposed to be an almighty judge, who apparently creates people in his image, some good, some bad, but my problem with all this is, is this, he is said to have created us as perfect, but yet given us the ability to become flawed, which is just illogical to me. So that is one of some thing i find illogical, but back to my other point the religion goes against my morals, like that it says gays are sinners and should be punished in hell for being such, this is terrible!, i am straight, but i am a full suporter of all gays, they are born gay so they cannot control their sexuality and should not have to Christianity basically says that being gay is something god does to people (dont know why) and then ultimately punishes them for it, but it also asks these people to repress their sexual tendencies if they want to go to heaven. I find that to be terriblly immoral.

_________________________________________________________

Poppies said:

First, thanks for your candor. You have a refreshing way of speaking passionately about your opinions without demonizing the opposition, which is really rare. Nice job. 

Regarding your first point, I think you’re implying that it’s a contradiction to describe God as creating “perfect” creatures who then somehow became “not perfect”, that the possibility for imperfection belies perfection.

While I think it’s questionable to describe man as being created “perfect” since that descriptor isn’t used in the biblical account, I nonetheless argue that reason demands free will be present in any “perfect” individual. It’s only logical that a free agent is of a greater existence than an automaton. Accordingly, perfection must logically include the possibility for imperfection. This is paradoxical and non-intuitive, I’ll concede, but it’s nonetheless eminently reasonable. Am I missing something?

As for your second point, the rhetoric which singles out gays or anyone else “outside” of Christianity as being somehow especially targeted for punishment has always seemed disingenuous to me. If an asian man breaks into a black man’s home in the middle of the night, and the homeowner shoots the intruder, it would be outrageous to conclude from this that the black man was racist towards asians. Similarly, God doesn’t have any issues with gays, jews, atheists, etc. per se, he has an issue with sinners, those who transgress law, no matter their background.

I sympathize with your feelings toward gay people; I’ve had and have many very good friends who are gay. There’s been a very unfortunate anti-biblical tendency to portray gays as intrinsically hell bound by some nominal Christians, and even non-Christians, but that’s not what the Bible says. The deal is that *everyone* is a sinner, we all need forgiveness, and no one reaches perfection in this life. To judge gay people as “higher order” sinners of some sort is hypocritical, and hypocrisy is the sin Jesus spoke against more than any other. In reviewing all these points, I hope you see that you’ve received a skewed view of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.

Perhaps I haven’t picked up on some important point, but I fail to see any lack of logic in Biblical Christianity thus far. I’m truly open, feel free to clarify any errors I’ve made.

_________________________________________________________

Shidemn said:

poppies-

OK i have a quick question for you (the point will be clear later once you answer it), were you raised as a christian, in other words were your parents, or did you grow up and decide one day to become one?

It is interesting you said that you dont think man is created perfect, which differs from MANY other christians that i have had the fortune to talk with, this in a way confuses me and also entigues me. I think it is as a said rare that you do not think that, as many do, why would you say that your god didnt create man perfect (more for christian readers, i dont think your god would create man perfect if he indeed did exist), but why do you think that? But the thing within that that i find illogical is just that perfection=imperfection ultimately ending to hell o heaven, it just seems wrong to me, but this is simply how i think.

Secondly you say you sympathize my feelings towards homosexuals, why? I support them, and think that it is wrong that religions say they are evil or amoral. I think that it is simply natural, some people are just different than other, simple. Really you think that it i who have gotten a skewed view of what the bible teaches on being gay, why dont you tell me exactly where in the bible it adresses it and i will read it, as i have a bible that i have read (some of).

And not to seem like a dick here, but of course you dont find it illogial, you never will because it is so intertwined into your being, that you wholeheartedly belive it with every bit of your being, and it is that exact thing that makes it why i will never accept religion. But i think it is through these debates that makes your religiousness, and my atheistic ways thrive. we are presented with opposing views we interpret them in our own way, and that becomes another debate, and i guess that ultimately the best thing that can ever come from this is that we come to a FULL AND COMPLETE understanding, seeing as how total enlightment can not ever be accomplished.

_________________________________________________________

Poppies said:

I wasn’t raised as a Christian, which is part of why I was able to avoid the whole “Christian culture” thing which has very little to do with the Bible.

If you describe having freedom to do evil as being imperfect (which you seem to, though I don’t think you’ve logically proven that such is the case), then it’s quite clear from the Bible that man was created “imperfectly”. The Bible never describes man as being created “perfectly” by your definition; man is instead described as “very good”, which in the original Hebrew means “exceedingly valuable”, “exceptionally pleasing”. My understanding may be different from many Christians, but I’m not too keen on reading things into the Bible that aren’t there; that’s where 90% of troubles with Christianity begin.

Moving on, I sympathize with your feelings toward homosexuals because I think of my gay friends being treated as pariahs and labeled as arch-sinners, and it pains me. Whether homosexuality is “natural” or not isn’t really impactful, as one could argue that cannibalism, rape, or any of a host of other distasteful choices can be found in nature. What you said is quite true, though, everyone is unique, we all make different choices, good and bad. In a biblical weltanschauung, we are free to do so, and no man has a fundamental right to forcibly curb any other man’s actions unless they impinge on someone else’s rights or property. It is our unfortunate cultural missteps that lead so many to believe it is not only within their rights but part of their duty to try and force others to believe and act as they do.

You asked me to direct you to where the Bible speaks to homosexuality; I respectfully and apologetically have to decline. You see, I’ve found the Bible to be a complex work which can be very easily abused if read without a strong sense of holistic context, which can only come through at least a modicum of study of some of its key component books. Suffice to say that the Bible teaches homosexuality as an act, not an identity, and one that isn’t helpful in leading people to a thriving life. Note, though, that directly after one of the most famous passages regarding homosexuality, the Bible says that anyone who judges another person’s actions as despicable condemns themselves, because they themselves act just as despicably. This is a common theme in the Bible: we must recognize the image of God inherent in *everyone*, and stop trying to compare ourselves self-righteously.

Regarding the selection bias you reference in your final paragraph: I recognize you’re not trying to be offensive, but you must understand as one who has wrestled with theism and still finds it somewhat distasteful and constantly seeks for contrarian evidence, I find it hard to swallow your presumption that I’m not ready to drop the whole shebang in an instant upon finding clear, critical problems. If the emotionally-charged embracing you describe is truly how you approach your own beliefs, I would respectfully caution you that beliefs which aren’t loosely held aren’t beliefs, they’re dogma. Reference the oft-misquoted Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.

If you know of incontrovertible cracks in the foundation, please, do share. I seriously do have an open mind and would be utterly grateful. I sure don’t want to waste my life!!

_________________________________________________________

Shidemn said:

Poppies- so because of this
“My understanding may be different from many Christians, but I’m not too keen on reading things into the Bible that aren’t there; that’s where 90% of troubles with Christianity begin.”
I am left wondering what you mean by this, do explain please.

“It is our unfortunate cultural missteps that lead so many to believe it is not only within their rights but part of their duty to try and force others to believe and act as they do”
This makes me wonder why? Do you think that you are supposed to force you will on others without their own consent?

“If the emotionally-charged embracing you describe is truly how you approach your own beliefs, I would respectfully caution you that beliefs which aren’t loosely held aren’t beliefs, they’re dogma.”
How are they dogma?

Sorry for all the questions in my comment here.

_________________________________________________________

Poppies said:

The first thing you quoted from me simply means that many Christians read their own presuppositions and prejudices into the Bible, rather than just taking in what’s actually there. For instance, lots of Christians think the Bible says “money is the root of all evil”, but it actually says “love of money is a root of all kinds of evils”, which is a pretty significant difference, especially since Jesus taught on money more than any other subject and considered it neutral, just a tool. That’s one of the more benign examples, lots of contemporary “Christian” statements about homosexuality aren’t so benign, and they’re not biblical, either. Such statements unfortunately represent a stumbling block for people like you who see homosexuals as people and not as miscreants. Accordingly, I find this tendency to misread and misquote the Bible quite maddening. Context!!

I’m not sure what your second question is getting at, but no, I think it’s a travesty to try and force someone to act or believe against their will. I think that to do so is a fundamentally blasphemous action, since God Himself gave us the gift of free will. Now, having said that, I also believe in the “marketplace of ideas”, and I’m not at all sympathetic with those who cry foul when their ideas or actions are questioned or denigrated. There’s a very unfortunate tendency by some people opposed to Christianity to claim persecution when Christians speak out against their positions. Such people often claim to believe in free speech and the separation of church and state, but then they often try to silence Christians by using government force!

As for beliefs not loosely held being dogma, I would think that’s pretty self explanatory. If you allow your beliefs to completely define who you are, then you will find it difficult, if not impossible, to change your position if you discover new information or a new perspective which you would otherwise find convincing. Such calcified thinking is often attributed to the religious among us, but it’s found just as often in secular individuals. That’s not to say one shouldn’t act on the truth they find, just that one must remain intellectually flexible and nimble in the pursuit of truth. To be otherwise is to claim the attainment of perfect knowledge!

_________________________________________________________

Shidemn said:

Poppies-
Well i get right to it then.
I asked:
“Do you think that you are supposed to force you will on others without their own consent?”
You replied:
“I think it’s a travesty to try and force someone to act or believe against their will”
SO:
What i was getting at (you will notice i ask question that may not make sense until a later time) was you think that you are not suppose to force you will on others, without them consenting to your will. Now the purpose of this is, how do you explain the missionaries that make africans convert before they can have food that they brought with them. It sickens me, and not to mention i hate when they come to my house, i just want to put a big sign that says “athiests welcome, missionaries go away”….but enough of my little rant, back on subject

You said:
“If you allow your beliefs to completely define who you are, then you will find it difficult, if not impossible, to change your position if you discover new information or a new perspective which you would otherwise find convincing”
SO: 
Actually whenever i have time i am constantly researching philosophies, religion, science, anything that may lead me to a discovery for myself, and my beliefs, so as for the beliefs completely defining me, you have no idea how much they do, lol.

Ohh yah, as for you first paragraph i didnt really have a rebuttal to that, i actually almost completely agree with what you said and had nothing to continues that stent of our conversation.

_________________________________________________________

Poppies said:

I can explain the actions of “missionaries” who require “conversion” before distributing relief quite easily: they’re asshats who don’t take the Bible seriously.

Seriously Shidemn, do you have issues with biblical Christianity, or just with the caricature you’ve been handed by pop culture? I’m more than excited to learn about any logical inconsistencies, textual issues, archeological anomalies, etc. you may know about, but so far you’ve presented mostly appeals to emotion based on faulty information. With all due respect, it concerns me, considering the stakes of this particular issue.

_________________________________________________________

Shidemn said:

Poppies- sorry about that then i have no “textual issues, archeological anomalies”, and i have given examples of the logial inconsistencies i can find, perhaps i could direct you to another blog that discusses the same topics.
http://chillinatthecabstand.wordpress.com

But perhaps you could ask me more questions.

_________________________________________________________

Poppies Said:

lol, I’m definitely familiar with Chillin’s blog; I haven’t found substantive contrarian ammo there, though he’s got great taste in music 

I guess there’s one question I have left: based on our comments about selection bias and intellectual “nimbleness”, I wonder how you determine the appropriateness of your thresholds for evidence. What I mean is, anyone can be convinced of anything given the right evidence, but most people have tendencies toward skepticism or gullibility due to the intensity or weakness of their personal data filters.

In your case, you seem to tend towards skepticism regarding biblical Christianity. There’s certainly a level of skepticism that is healthy, but there’s also a level of skepticism that’s so intense that it’s irrational (denying gravity, for instance). How do you personally determine whether your filters for acceptable evidence are reasonable or not?

_________________________________________________________

Shidemn said:

poppies- well i would have to say that my basis of what is rational and what it not rational is really just another one of those things that is completely individual to people. I say this because certainly as there are indeed people out there who believe in god and think that it is rational, and the polar opposite being atheist. So obviously (to me) people decide for themselves what it means to be rational, and so on. In the case for me identifying my own rationalities…well you know i never really put thought to it, lol. I would have to guess that seeing as how i am, questioning everything and rarely believing much that i am told. I would have to say that i decide what is rational to me by decoding if you will the given issue at hand, so say i have to determine what is rational in this situation.

Im in a car, i about to hit a large animal.
a) I am going to swerve
b) I will allow the car to hit the animal.
Now without going into personal moral codes, i would first think ok i have always been told to hit it, being that it is safer, but thinking to myself in this brief moment i would pick to swerve away, because it simply seems to be the most logical thing, at the time, which it may later prove to be a terrible decision.

SO i guess the whole point of that would be to basically say that when presented a current issue at hand, e.g. hitting a large animal, or even deciding not to believe in God. I would just pick which is the most logical option to myself. Now this would also imply that my choice is not limited to a singular choice, being i may later decide that i was indeed wrong, This is exactly why i have my blog, to further investigate my choice of being an atheist, to trully discover the truth in life is impossible, but it would be a life well lived if it were the only thing you did, in my opinion.

I hope my ramblings were not all to senseless to you, i tend to do that.

_________________________________________________________

Poppies said:

Okay, I understand. Basically what you’re describing, whether you realize it or not, is relativism; that every person makes up their own reality and should live by their own set of standards.

Most people in our culture espouse this view, and almost everyone holds the position inconsistently, because really, a sociopath and a philanthropist are equally justified by this way of thinking.

Best of luck to you, Shidemn. You seem bright and seeking, and I hope you continue to reflect upon your positions, because I think you’ll start to see some of the things I saw back in the day which led me to biblical Christianity.

God and Economics

This post discusses one of Ludwig von Mises’s key insights which formed the basis for the differentiating factor of the Austrian school of economics.  It’s an interesting article, and I couldn’t help but notice many parallels between Mises’s arguments and those of theists.

I found it particularly interesting that Karl Popper was referenced.  I’ve found his “Black Swan” criticism of certainty within deductive empiricism to be a helpful illustration of how “random hypothesis” procedures can’t be transferred to explorations about morality, logic and other universal concepts.  One can never reach a useful theory through only trial and error; one must begin with some reasonable a priori principles.  This line of reasoning can be employed to show the weaknesses of naturalistic explanations of uniquely human traits; nature has only trial and error mechanisms, and thus the complexity and harmony of human intelligence, aesthetic appreciation and morality aren’t explained by it.

The recent subprime loan crisis in the U.S. provides an interesting economic anecdote for this principal.  Some of the brightest mathematical minds of our day were employed by investment banks to model behaviors of borrowers, and their models showed that a strong return with an acceptable amount of risk could be reached via certain “packaged” combinations of high quality and low quality loans.  These models were pimp-slapped by reality when defaults on loans reached levels far outside of the historical norms used as a given, and the economic carnage is expected to reach into trillions of dollars.

Here’s hoping we can find a way to limit the intellectual carnage caused by similar ill-advised confidence in empiricism in theistic/atheistic discussions.

If the medium affects the message, how will the Christian message be affected by the new media?

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has invited bloggers to respond to the question posed in the title of this post, and so respond I shall:  I’ll explore various characteristics of new media, and then expound on how I think old-time religion will be shaped by new-time outlets.

“Pull” media, as opposed to the “push” media of television, radio, etc., provides users a large menu from which to choose items to their individual taste; no longer are those on this side of the digital divide (more on this later) relegated to the dictates of the anointed media conglomerates.  This encourages the development of a dynamic, varied and extremely competitive media landscape.  Such an environment tends to reinforce strong individuality, as the many actors in this drama must amplify their voices and views to be effective; it’s no coincidence that Dr. Ron Paul’s strong libertarian ideals tickled the fancy of Netizens across the U.S.  

The gospel can be very fruitful in these conditions.  If Christians refuse to dull the tang of their message with watery concessions to secular culture, the naturally radical nature of faithfully following Jesus will be a boat of signal in a sea of noise.  Speaking intelligently, loudly and unswervingly about timeless truths will be refreshing in a time of mushy thoughts and half-hearted positions.  I believe the Christian message will grow bolder due to these strongly individualizing conditions.

The anonymity afforded by new media often combines with intense individuality to create a volatile brew.  Discourses which would be fairly civil in the flesh become furious, flailing pwnage fests on the hills of our many digital fiefdoms: “How dare you interrupt my individualized comfort with your alternate views, I believe I will craft a Hitler reference or two…”.  I’m afraid the days of respectful dissent may be behind us.  Christians will have to develop thick new media armor to sustain an engaging minority presence in this majority secular world.  Effective presenters of the good news will truly have the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness; especially self control.  Nothing will weaken the Christian message quite like its deliverers getting down into the mud with anonymous God bashers.

The new environment is also marked by speed, speed SPEED, like a gazelle set on fire and pointed toward a lake. The oft lamented tiny attention spans encouraged by schizophrenic MTV editing seem downright glacial in comparison to the furious link leaping made possible with our T5,000,000 lines.  The Christian message will feel great pressure to display in many forms, in many places in order to catch the passing eye or ear of a possibly open minded media surfer.  We’ll need our presentation of the Message to be as attention grabbing as a peacock in heat if we hope to make it vital; expect to see creativity abound in effective Christian communications.  Please note: there’s always a danger in thoughts like these that people may interpret them, wrongly, as a dumbing-down of the gospel.  Engaging presentation and spiritually nutritious content needn’t be mutually exclusive; we’ll need to be careful to maintain the integrity of the Christian message while we tap dance, juggle and write in Latin and Greek simultaneously.  Christians have been notoriously poor at this task, so I think we’ll probably see a few more missteps of oversimplification in the name of “seeker-sensitivity”.

Ever since Internet, Inc. pushed out Web 2.0 onto shelves, we’ve also been encouraged to be interactive with new media.  It’s not enough to just collect all the RSS feeds and bookmarks that we find stimulating, we must enter the fray ourselves and add our ever-so-important contribution to the glut by blogging, uploading media, spreading viruses and belly-bashing the sumo wrestler for a “free” iPod.  We also connect with our fellow travelers; birds across the globe can discover they are of a feather and virtually flock together.  The isolation of earlier new media wanderings has given way to billions of mouse-clicking cliques.

The Christian community is thus given a great opportunity to add their perspectives to the idea marketplace, and to invite newbs into encouraging relationships.  I think we’ll see more apologetics-oriented bloggers, more online sermon audio archives, more digital Christian community in general.  This can have the effect of strengthening believers who know other Christians only virtually, which can in turn help the gospel spread even in areas of persecution.  In all this, though, we must be careful to not “forsake the assembling together of ourselves as some do”, lest we lose the real offline interaction so important to our humanity, our families and our faith. 

Finally, as hinted at early on in this post, new media intensifies generational and socio-economic divides.  I’d love to see my parents talk to their grandchildren via webcam, but as they never became particularly computer savvy and live in a rural area snubbed by internet providers, this probably won’t happen soon.  We’re likely on the cusp of information-haves gaining ever greater advantages over have-nots, dwarfing the already extreme differential.

Enter Christians opening internet access centers for the poor, providing computer training, supporting community WiFi efforts; just as a warm meal encourages gospel receptivity in a hungry person and acts as a great object lesson, so too can bridging the digital divide engender positive associations and reflect Jesus’ standing in the gap for us.  The Christian message will need to reach the un-wired, too, if it is to stay compelling.

Christianity has a remarkable track record of maintaining its core through social and technological upheavals, and I’m sure the new media phenomenon will not erode this foundation.  Built on the Rock itself, the message will remain as critical as ever, though carried as it is by human messengers, I’m sure we’ll see the new tools at our disposal misused from time to time.  Despite the frailties of man, though, I’m excited to see how Christianity will find its voice in this latest technological epoch, and to stand witness to God in the machine.

Back to Keith

Sometimes when I get an idea in my head, I can’t seem to stop thinking about it.  So, all these months later, I now have new insight into the “Thought Experiment” referenced a few posts back: I now think my first response to Keith is actually more solid than I originally thought. 

I basically said that if indeed those who would hurt a child fell into some sort of sleep just before the act, the Argument from Morality would be even stronger than it is, and I think it is one of the strongest arguments for supernaturalism and God as things are.  Only the most uncomfortable of rhetorical acrobatics could explain such a sleep in any non-supernatural way (although I’m sure some would try, perhaps postulating that natural selection selected the mechanism in order to preserve the genes in the children).  True free will requires choice, and if the alternative to believing in God isn’t somewhat reasonable, there really is no true choice but to believe in Him. In a similar way, Marshall “Why Does God Hate Amputees” Brain doesn’t think through what it would mean for practically all amputees to grow back their limbs after receiving prayer.  Suddenly, God would no longer be an option, but a requirement. 

There are two counters to this line of reasoning I’d like to tackle: 

1. God supposedly revealed Himself to people in the Bible, yet they still had choice
   a. However, He often only revealed Himself after a person had already become set in their path
   b. When (a) was not the case (i.e. Adam and Eve), a somewhat reasonable counter-choice against God was presented (”you will not surely die, God doesn’t want to you to become powerful like Him”, etc.)
   c. Further, the only cases I know of either (a) or (b) involve God working out the plan of salvation, and He seems to be pretty quiet in history otherwise 

2. If God allows for a world which is set up to create a seemingly reasonable alternative to Him, “God” is an unfalsifiable idea, since any proof against His existence could be swept under the umbrella of His allowing free will (somewhat along the lines of a young-earth creationist saying the world was created with apparent age).
   a. If God didn’t break into history, I would allow for that.  But since He did, and left behind numerous bits of falsifiable archeological/historical/textual evidence, this is a moot point.

Humanity: Kickin’ mammal butt, taking names

I’ve been thinking: if evolution is true, why is it that humans are so far advanced past even the most advanced mammals in intelligence?  There’s no great buildings erected by simians, or photorealistic art created by whales, or exponentially increasing medicinal breakthroughs helmed by dogs.  If all mammals share a common ancestor, we would expect to see a roughly similar level of intelligence development among them all.  There are certainly some non-human mammals who are smarter than others, but nowhere near the order of magnitude between humans and the most advanced mammalians.

One could argue that a whale has hugely more advanced intelligence than a paramecium, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.  A paramecium hardly has resources for intelligence, but whale and elephant brains are huge compared to ours.  Many scientists believe brain size can be a decently accurate indicator of intelligence, so what’s up with these lazy beasts?

One could also argue that our fine motor skills allow us to better express our intelligence, but it wouldn’t be too hard for an elephant to utilize their trunks to make intelligible markings on the ground indicating a language of some sort, or markings indicating abstract mathematical reasoning.  Could it be that these creatures are so beyond us that we just don’t comprehend the subtleties of their grand superiority?  I doubt it; I’m no Einstein by any stretch of the imagination, but I can appreciate his transcendent intelligence.

Any time I try to put on an evolutionary perspective, I find myself thinking: if this is true, why do I perceive beauty in a sunset, or feel gratitude, or desire meaning and autonomy?  You won’t see much discussion of these sorts of questions in Talk Origins and similar evolution apology sites.  I wonder why?

quiet, easy to dismiss

quiet, easy to dismiss

heaving with beauty, torrid raw hunger of life

squeezed into the tip of a point

forgotten, abused for convenience

overwhelming, simply bypassed

hard-won satisfaction with disease

still overwhelming, pivoting

remembered.

expanding point, enveloping, inviting, becoming

aching awe, blinding pure fury love

quiet,  set inside like a wall  

Mad No Longer

After taking several months to ponder the last post, I feel I’ve come to somewhat of a conclusion: If a human’s possible moral freedom is limited even in the slightest way, humanity in general is wronged deeply, not unlike how human life in general is cheapened by a single murder. Possible moral freedom should be thought of as that freedom which exists inside the necessary limits of the physical world (as humans are physical) and of social/cultural behavior firewalls (as humans are social creatures).

Moral freedom is connected deeply to who we foundationally are, for much of our humanity comes from our ability to make moral choices.  Accordingly, there is no such thing as unnecessary evil.  For humans to exist as we know them, evil must exist, from minor to horrific levels.

After surveying the various views, this one seems to be the most resonant with reality.  Nonetheless, thinking through it all has really made me fall in love with God’s subtlety, respectfulness, and grandeur all the more.