This is a volatile subject. It usually ranks right up there with abortion and capital punishment. Personally, I am absolutely convinced that evolution is a fact of the natural world. But most religious conservatives choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence. But the point of this blog isn't to go through all of that evidence. Any time I talk to "Creationists", invariably I end up hearing the argument - "Why haven't humans evolved?". The obvious point being that if evolution were a true fact, humans would have evolved by now. The most common answer given by "Evolutionists" is that the process of evolution takes millions of years - and humans simply have not been around long enough to show evident signs of evolution (although it is a known fact that the species has increased in height over several thousand years).
But I think there is another answer I very seldom hear. I believe evolution in humans has been severely restricted due to 2 main factors: Technological Advancement and Morality/Sentimentality.
Technological Advancement: Evolution produces subtle changes in a species as it adapts to be more proficient within its environment. But for the first (known) time on the planet Earth - a species exists which can develop specialized tools which does 2 things: reduces the need for the species to evolve and alters the natural environment to meet the needs of the species as it exists today. Just look at the musculature of humans compared to virtually ever other known species on the planet. Pound for pound (relative to our size) humans are virtually the weakest physical species on the planet; a Chimpanzee can literally rip a man a part. Had early humans not developed the ability to produce tools/weapons - it is highly unlikely we would have survived at all, or we would have evolved to be stronger and more capable of protecting ourselves in the wild. But technological advancement leveled the playing field as strength gave no discernible advantage to humans that hunted in groups with tools and weapons.
Morality/Sentimentality: In the natural (animal) world - evolution produces subtle genetic mutations over long periods of time. Those genetic mutations which are favorable and/or advantageous get propagated through the species and becomes more prevalent. Those mutations which are less favorable, generally do not survive long enough to propagate the species with those genetic changes. But our ability to reason and rationalize has brought with it morality and sentimentality. Thus when humans are born with less than favorable attributes, there is always someone that feels compassion or even love - and these "less than favorable" attributes are continually propagated through the human species; stupid people breed all the time (and usually more than they should because they are too stupid to use preventative measures).
Now - it's important to understand that I do not have a problem with either of these concerns. I am certainly not opposed to Technological Advancement. But consider the morality angle... We may find that humans slowly begin to evolve - if we learn to eradicate any humans that do not possess beneficial traits. But where would this take our society - what kind of life would that be? Can we really accept killing or quarantining people because we think their traits are less valuable? And who are we to decide? And ultimately - all this does is create an artificial selection - in much the same way we have evolved chickens and turkeys to be larger, for our consumption. Unfortunately - it is the world's largest Hawthorne Effect. Because we can understand and study evolution - our own evolution is impacted by that very study/observation. Evolution (natural selection) is very real, and the lack of evidence in the human species is no argument against it.
Then again, I could be completely wrong....
Monday, April 26, 2010
Alien life
Perhaps as a matter of coincidence, I had been reading and watching a lot of shows on space recently - most notably getting caught up on the COSMOS series by Carl Sagan - when the new show on Discovery Channel launched (Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking). And speaking of coincidences - the subject of life on other planets is always at the forefront of these shows.
It has got to be the single biggest question anyone ever ponders about the universe. Are we alone? And obviously you can't spit without hitting someone with an opinion on this (and around here that opinion is largely driven by the person's religion). And since I'm generally no different, I'd like to capture a few of my thoughts - albeit without the religious connotations (mostly).
So it seems to be generally accepted that life on earth is the product of a series of "accidents". That is to say that unique occurrences transpired in just the right manner to create molecules capable of creating copies of themselves at which point evolution took hold - and the rest is history.
So the first question then becomes - what is the likelihood of these occurrences taking place in other parts of the universe? Well admittedly it would have to be pretty rare - but considering the size of the universe, the odds certainly increase. After all, our Sun is but one of trillions and trillions of stars in the known universe. So - accident or not, if the laws of physics are such that under the right circumstances, life can occur - then I think it is highly likely that it has happened elsewhere. But it is the next question which concerns me more.
Is there "intelligent" life and will we ever discover it? (I'll refrain from the judgement of "intelligent" life on our own planet.) Provided life exists at all on other planets - the question of intelligent life really only depends on "time". If we accept that evolution would have to follow the same principles on other planets - it is reasonable to believe that intelligent life would eventually arise given enough time. In the case of the earth it took about 2 billion years. But unfortunately - there are some extenuating circumstances to consider, namely that all discernible life on earth has been destroyed approximately 4 times in its history (this includes the extinction of the dinosaurs). Now obviously all life wasn't destroyed - but one would certainly have to expect that this greatly impacted the rate at which we, as a species, evolved. Had the dinosaurs not been wiped out 64 million years ago, there might still be no humans on our planet - yet. So if other planets did not have similar circumstances - intelligent life may have evolved much sooner. And of course, if other planets did have similar circumstances - intelligent life might still have been thwarted. But for the sake of argument we will suppose that it takes roughly 4 billion years (rough estimate of the age of Earth) to produce discernible "intelligent" life.
The universe was roughly 10 billion years old before the Earth even began to form from the remains of a second generation star which had exploded. It is reasonable to believe that a life sustaining planet would have been much less likely to form from younger stars simply due to the lack of heavy materials produced by successive stars. But that said, the life of a star is not a perfectly determinable number - meaning every star does not have a known life span; they can vary by millions of years. So, again, it is reasonable to expect there were planets capable of sustaining life being formed millions of years before our own. And it goes without saying that similar planets are just beginning to form in other parts of the universe. So being conservative - if we look at the life span of the human species over the last 5 billion years - we are barely even a blink of an eye. And unless we can find a way to prevent both man made catastrophes as well as natural catastrophes - we will never be more than a blink of an eye. No matter how long we manage to live, the earth will one day be subjected to natural forces which render life impossible for our species. Life on any other planet should be no different.
So...Can we expect to ever find "intelligent" life on another planet? My opinion is no. As long as we (and any other planetary race) is confined to their home planet, the likelihood of discovering intelligent life on another planet is simply astronomical (pun intended). However, if we and other civilizations live long enough to manage to send sustainable life beyond our home planet and are able to travel at near light speed - then I think the odds could get much better. But I think the greater likelihood is that we will discover a planet which has either A) little more than single celled microbes or B) a "dead" planet which did once have intelligent life forms (or any type of life for that matter). And the same goes for future races who might stumble upon our planet long after we are dead and gone.
The prospect of finding intelligent beings on other planets is both awesome and frightening. On the one hand, virtually nothing else could unite all humanity like the hatred and distrust of another race entirely. And on the other hand, human history teaches us that the meeting of these 2 races isn't likely to be entirely peaceful. But who knows what the universe has in store for us?
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
It has got to be the single biggest question anyone ever ponders about the universe. Are we alone? And obviously you can't spit without hitting someone with an opinion on this (and around here that opinion is largely driven by the person's religion). And since I'm generally no different, I'd like to capture a few of my thoughts - albeit without the religious connotations (mostly).
So it seems to be generally accepted that life on earth is the product of a series of "accidents". That is to say that unique occurrences transpired in just the right manner to create molecules capable of creating copies of themselves at which point evolution took hold - and the rest is history.
So the first question then becomes - what is the likelihood of these occurrences taking place in other parts of the universe? Well admittedly it would have to be pretty rare - but considering the size of the universe, the odds certainly increase. After all, our Sun is but one of trillions and trillions of stars in the known universe. So - accident or not, if the laws of physics are such that under the right circumstances, life can occur - then I think it is highly likely that it has happened elsewhere. But it is the next question which concerns me more.
Is there "intelligent" life and will we ever discover it? (I'll refrain from the judgement of "intelligent" life on our own planet.) Provided life exists at all on other planets - the question of intelligent life really only depends on "time". If we accept that evolution would have to follow the same principles on other planets - it is reasonable to believe that intelligent life would eventually arise given enough time. In the case of the earth it took about 2 billion years. But unfortunately - there are some extenuating circumstances to consider, namely that all discernible life on earth has been destroyed approximately 4 times in its history (this includes the extinction of the dinosaurs). Now obviously all life wasn't destroyed - but one would certainly have to expect that this greatly impacted the rate at which we, as a species, evolved. Had the dinosaurs not been wiped out 64 million years ago, there might still be no humans on our planet - yet. So if other planets did not have similar circumstances - intelligent life may have evolved much sooner. And of course, if other planets did have similar circumstances - intelligent life might still have been thwarted. But for the sake of argument we will suppose that it takes roughly 4 billion years (rough estimate of the age of Earth) to produce discernible "intelligent" life.
The universe was roughly 10 billion years old before the Earth even began to form from the remains of a second generation star which had exploded. It is reasonable to believe that a life sustaining planet would have been much less likely to form from younger stars simply due to the lack of heavy materials produced by successive stars. But that said, the life of a star is not a perfectly determinable number - meaning every star does not have a known life span; they can vary by millions of years. So, again, it is reasonable to expect there were planets capable of sustaining life being formed millions of years before our own. And it goes without saying that similar planets are just beginning to form in other parts of the universe. So being conservative - if we look at the life span of the human species over the last 5 billion years - we are barely even a blink of an eye. And unless we can find a way to prevent both man made catastrophes as well as natural catastrophes - we will never be more than a blink of an eye. No matter how long we manage to live, the earth will one day be subjected to natural forces which render life impossible for our species. Life on any other planet should be no different.
So...Can we expect to ever find "intelligent" life on another planet? My opinion is no. As long as we (and any other planetary race) is confined to their home planet, the likelihood of discovering intelligent life on another planet is simply astronomical (pun intended). However, if we and other civilizations live long enough to manage to send sustainable life beyond our home planet and are able to travel at near light speed - then I think the odds could get much better. But I think the greater likelihood is that we will discover a planet which has either A) little more than single celled microbes or B) a "dead" planet which did once have intelligent life forms (or any type of life for that matter). And the same goes for future races who might stumble upon our planet long after we are dead and gone.
The prospect of finding intelligent beings on other planets is both awesome and frightening. On the one hand, virtually nothing else could unite all humanity like the hatred and distrust of another race entirely. And on the other hand, human history teaches us that the meeting of these 2 races isn't likely to be entirely peaceful. But who knows what the universe has in store for us?
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Tree of Knowledge
This will not be the last post in which I examine passages from the Bible, and provide some of my own thoughts as to the meanings behind them. It is no secret that I consider the Bible to be highly allegorical and metaphorical in nature. That is to say, that the Bible's intent is not to provide an historically accurate account - but rather to inspire through stories that humans can relate to. And where better to start this examination than Genesis.
There are so many questions which arise from the story of Genesis - most are pretty elementary in nature. "If God created only Adam and Eve, then who did Cane marry?" "Was the universe created in 7 'literal' days?" "What about dinosaurs?" Etc... For this post - I am more interested in the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's right - most people forget that it isn't just the Tree of Knowledge. So it isn't general "knowledge" God is protecting them from, but rather the knowledge of right and wrong. And what is the first thing Adam and Eve come to realize with their new found knowledge? They were ashamed of their nakedness.
Now I am sure you could right an entire doctoral thesis on the moral implications of this. But I noticed something the other day which made me look at this story in a different light. My 5 year old son is perfectly content to run around the house completely naked - and will gladly ask anyone, with whom he is comfortable, to give him a bath. And I think this is pretty normal for most kids his age. But over the course of the next few years, through his own natural inclinations, and our parental guidance towards social norms - he will gradually come to understand and have the same "shame" of his nakedness that we all have (well porn stars and nudists excluded). So obviously this made me look at the story of "The Fall" a little differently. Perhaps, it is more a metaphor for the inclinations we have to ultimately become aware and have shame of our nakedness. And from a religious perspective - it's no wonder we would imaging God to be angry about this. Had he intended us to be "covered" he may well have created us differently. And yet here was man - harboring shame for what God had given him.
Now, there is certainly an alternative view to this. After all, ancient Greeks and Romans were known to value the nude form in society - much more than we do today. This would imply that this shame is not innate but rather taught/learned as part of the moral agenda of of those in power - namely those who assembled the passages into what we know as the Bible in the 3rd Century C.E. Never-the-less, it is interesting (to me at least) to consider that the story of The Fall may in fact be nothing more than a simple metaphor for the natural development of humans in society - rather than an actual implication that God did not intend for us to "know morality".
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
There are so many questions which arise from the story of Genesis - most are pretty elementary in nature. "If God created only Adam and Eve, then who did Cane marry?" "Was the universe created in 7 'literal' days?" "What about dinosaurs?" Etc... For this post - I am more interested in the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's right - most people forget that it isn't just the Tree of Knowledge. So it isn't general "knowledge" God is protecting them from, but rather the knowledge of right and wrong. And what is the first thing Adam and Eve come to realize with their new found knowledge? They were ashamed of their nakedness.
Now I am sure you could right an entire doctoral thesis on the moral implications of this. But I noticed something the other day which made me look at this story in a different light. My 5 year old son is perfectly content to run around the house completely naked - and will gladly ask anyone, with whom he is comfortable, to give him a bath. And I think this is pretty normal for most kids his age. But over the course of the next few years, through his own natural inclinations, and our parental guidance towards social norms - he will gradually come to understand and have the same "shame" of his nakedness that we all have (well porn stars and nudists excluded). So obviously this made me look at the story of "The Fall" a little differently. Perhaps, it is more a metaphor for the inclinations we have to ultimately become aware and have shame of our nakedness. And from a religious perspective - it's no wonder we would imaging God to be angry about this. Had he intended us to be "covered" he may well have created us differently. And yet here was man - harboring shame for what God had given him.
Now, there is certainly an alternative view to this. After all, ancient Greeks and Romans were known to value the nude form in society - much more than we do today. This would imply that this shame is not innate but rather taught/learned as part of the moral agenda of of those in power - namely those who assembled the passages into what we know as the Bible in the 3rd Century C.E. Never-the-less, it is interesting (to me at least) to consider that the story of The Fall may in fact be nothing more than a simple metaphor for the natural development of humans in society - rather than an actual implication that God did not intend for us to "know morality".
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Friday, April 16, 2010
Language (swearing)
I am sure that, at some point in our lives, everyone asks that question, "Why is 'shit' a bad word?" I mean - why is "poop" acceptable, but not shit? And to be quite honest, I still don't have a clue. In fact, while doing just a little research, I noticed that a study was done to determine how often profanity is used in normal language. What constitutes "profanity". Well there's the obvious - fuck, shit, ass, etc.. But then there's "Jesus Christ", and even "oh my god". This leads to 2 implications. 1) Who gets to decide what a "swear" is? and 2) There are obviously varying degrees. And although the second implication is not a stunning revelation - it is interesting to try and understand how certain words have come to be worse than others.
But this isn't the actual nature of my post. What I find fascinating, is how we use other words as substitutes for curse words. Religious conservatives will often resort to "darn" or "poop" as opposed to actually using profanity. In more secular environments, you may hear "darn" or the occasional "damn". Recently, I was listening to a Podcast. in which the host stated they could only swear if they were willing to mark their podcast as "Explicit". Their solution? Use the term "F-bomb".
And the irony of all this just makes me laugh. Generally speaking, anyone technologically inclined or capable of downloading podcast, are certainly aware of what "F-bomb" means. Thus, using this substitute doesn't make the podcast any less explicit. And of course, from the religious perspective...Do they believe God doesn't know what words they are trying to avoid? If the meaning is conveyed, and the intent the same, does God really care what words you chose to express it?? A message of hate is still hateful, regardless of the profanity I choose "not" to use.
Don't get me wrong. I still believe there is a time and place for it all. Meeting your girlfriends parents for the first time? Probably ought to cut back on the "fucks". But in the end - these are just common courtesy things like not ripping a loud audible fart in the middle of your boss' retirement speech. You shouldn't need to write a thesis on the ontological argument for profanity to understand that. But to think that simply using substitutes is an acceptable way of conveying your anger or disgust, is just ignorant.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
But this isn't the actual nature of my post. What I find fascinating, is how we use other words as substitutes for curse words. Religious conservatives will often resort to "darn" or "poop" as opposed to actually using profanity. In more secular environments, you may hear "darn" or the occasional "damn". Recently, I was listening to a Podcast. in which the host stated they could only swear if they were willing to mark their podcast as "Explicit". Their solution? Use the term "F-bomb".
And the irony of all this just makes me laugh. Generally speaking, anyone technologically inclined or capable of downloading podcast, are certainly aware of what "F-bomb" means. Thus, using this substitute doesn't make the podcast any less explicit. And of course, from the religious perspective...Do they believe God doesn't know what words they are trying to avoid? If the meaning is conveyed, and the intent the same, does God really care what words you chose to express it?? A message of hate is still hateful, regardless of the profanity I choose "not" to use.
Don't get me wrong. I still believe there is a time and place for it all. Meeting your girlfriends parents for the first time? Probably ought to cut back on the "fucks". But in the end - these are just common courtesy things like not ripping a loud audible fart in the middle of your boss' retirement speech. You shouldn't need to write a thesis on the ontological argument for profanity to understand that. But to think that simply using substitutes is an acceptable way of conveying your anger or disgust, is just ignorant.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Today's Generation
I began working in 1990 stocking groceries. Twenty years later, I am still (relatively) young in the workplace. Needless to say, throughout those 20 years I've worked with a lot of older people. And I can say without a moment's hesitation, that I would not be where I am today had it not been for the time these people took to impart their knowledge (from many more years of experience). But young as I am, I am no longer the youngest generation entering the workplace. I've had the good fortune to work with, employ, and manage people considerably younger (and older) than myself. But I have also had the misfortune to work with older people who feel it is their moral duty to inform the world that the current generation will lead to the demise of all ordered society. And it is to them, that I dedicate this post.
While I certainly do not have the musical background of most, I know enough to be able to relate this analogy. Hitting high school right at the beginning of the 90's, I remember much of the late 80's hair/glam metal as well as the alternative/grunge era. I remember listening to music on the radio, and later the birth of MTV (back when it actually played Music Videos). In 1991, I was forced to trash every bit of music I owned because of its un-christian influence (and there was a parental lock placed on MTV). We're talking about Aerosmith, Van Halen, Led Zeppelin, and yes some Guns N' Roses, Twisted Sister, etc... So I spent the early alternative/grunge years collecting music in secrecy. Now it's easy to dismiss this as right-wing conservative over-religious rhetoric. And in many ways it was. But I can remember how bands like Twisted Sister, Motley Crue, Metallica, and Guns N's Roses (and obviously too many others to name) always seemed to be in the news as evidence of the decay of society and youth in general. But go to a major sporting event and tell me you don't hear them play "Sweet Child O' Mine", or "I Wanna Rock".
But this blog isn't about the evolution of Music. The point is - there is a tendency for every generation to value its own morals and cherish its own accomplishments - by diminishing the values and accomplishments of those who come after them. I have to imagine that there must have been a few old Cromagnons sitting around - well into their 30'2 or 40's decrying that "youth these days" do not respect their elders. "In my day we killed our animals with our bare hands. Now look at these kids making tools out out of bones. Humanity is doomed with this lazy generation."
And yet here we are. If history has taught us anything...it should be that the youth isn't meant to copy the morals of their elders. They are meant to develop the morals necessary to live in their own times. Certainly, if you took me - and placed me in 1845 - there's a good chance I'd struggle to survive. But take anyone from 1845 and transplant them to today - and see if they have it any better. Society is not going to decay because the youth ignores the moral accomplishments of its predecessors. Society will evolve because new generations adapt those values to suit their needs.
Do I like or approve of everything the younger generation does today? Of course not - Harry Potter/Twilight - are you serious???? But do I think that today's youth is going to lead us into ruin? Nope. That's the politicians' jobs (and guess which generation that is).
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
While I certainly do not have the musical background of most, I know enough to be able to relate this analogy. Hitting high school right at the beginning of the 90's, I remember much of the late 80's hair/glam metal as well as the alternative/grunge era. I remember listening to music on the radio, and later the birth of MTV (back when it actually played Music Videos). In 1991, I was forced to trash every bit of music I owned because of its un-christian influence (and there was a parental lock placed on MTV). We're talking about Aerosmith, Van Halen, Led Zeppelin, and yes some Guns N' Roses, Twisted Sister, etc... So I spent the early alternative/grunge years collecting music in secrecy. Now it's easy to dismiss this as right-wing conservative over-religious rhetoric. And in many ways it was. But I can remember how bands like Twisted Sister, Motley Crue, Metallica, and Guns N's Roses (and obviously too many others to name) always seemed to be in the news as evidence of the decay of society and youth in general. But go to a major sporting event and tell me you don't hear them play "Sweet Child O' Mine", or "I Wanna Rock".
But this blog isn't about the evolution of Music. The point is - there is a tendency for every generation to value its own morals and cherish its own accomplishments - by diminishing the values and accomplishments of those who come after them. I have to imagine that there must have been a few old Cromagnons sitting around - well into their 30'2 or 40's decrying that "youth these days" do not respect their elders. "In my day we killed our animals with our bare hands. Now look at these kids making tools out out of bones. Humanity is doomed with this lazy generation."
And yet here we are. If history has taught us anything...it should be that the youth isn't meant to copy the morals of their elders. They are meant to develop the morals necessary to live in their own times. Certainly, if you took me - and placed me in 1845 - there's a good chance I'd struggle to survive. But take anyone from 1845 and transplant them to today - and see if they have it any better. Society is not going to decay because the youth ignores the moral accomplishments of its predecessors. Society will evolve because new generations adapt those values to suit their needs.
Do I like or approve of everything the younger generation does today? Of course not - Harry Potter/Twilight - are you serious???? But do I think that today's youth is going to lead us into ruin? Nope. That's the politicians' jobs (and guess which generation that is).
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Nationalism
This one is bound to piss some people off - if people were reading it. There isn't much difference between Nationalism and Patriotism. And unfortunately I have to say that I am neither Nationalistic or Patriotic. And yes, I am fully aware that the fact that I live in a Western Civilization allows me the freedom to make that type of statement. But invariably, when people hear that, they immediately get defensive. "Our young men are giving their lives for your ungrateful self."
There are so many quotes I am so tired of hearing...
"I don't agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"Can you read? Thank a teacher. Can you read in English? Thank a soldier."
The list goes on. There are a couple of reasons why I am so tired of these statements - some of which I will cover in another Blog later. But let me cut right to the chase... Nationalism (and Patriotism) is nothing but socially accepted racism. That is to say - the belief or idea that we are "better" than another people or culture, Or the fear of another people or culture because they are different. The willingness of a person to die for that cause does not legitimize it. White supremacists had "soldiers" called the KKK. Many would argue that the Civil War was based on racism in which men fought and died for their beliefs. You can rationalize it anyway you like, but it will not change the fact that the basis for your nationalism is routed in your misguided fear or thought that 'we' are better than another.
I have the absolute highest respect for our soldiers that go to war to fight for what they believe in. But I have just as much respect for the men they fight. They, too, go to war for what they believe in. Do I agree with one side more than the other? Certainly. I agree that Terrorism must be stopped (if possible). But my respect for our soldiers is based on the fact that they believe they are doing the right thing and paying the ultimate sacrifice for it, NOT because they are Americans defending America.
But then again, I could be wrong...
There are so many quotes I am so tired of hearing...
"I don't agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"Can you read? Thank a teacher. Can you read in English? Thank a soldier."
The list goes on. There are a couple of reasons why I am so tired of these statements - some of which I will cover in another Blog later. But let me cut right to the chase... Nationalism (and Patriotism) is nothing but socially accepted racism. That is to say - the belief or idea that we are "better" than another people or culture, Or the fear of another people or culture because they are different. The willingness of a person to die for that cause does not legitimize it. White supremacists had "soldiers" called the KKK. Many would argue that the Civil War was based on racism in which men fought and died for their beliefs. You can rationalize it anyway you like, but it will not change the fact that the basis for your nationalism is routed in your misguided fear or thought that 'we' are better than another.
I have the absolute highest respect for our soldiers that go to war to fight for what they believe in. But I have just as much respect for the men they fight. They, too, go to war for what they believe in. Do I agree with one side more than the other? Certainly. I agree that Terrorism must be stopped (if possible). But my respect for our soldiers is based on the fact that they believe they are doing the right thing and paying the ultimate sacrifice for it, NOT because they are Americans defending America.
But then again, I could be wrong...
Dumbo's Feather
In 1941, Disney released an amazing movie - Dumbo. And after just a little research, I am amazed that, for the most part, the movie was presented, and generally accepted, quite literally. But it occurred to me several years ago, that the movie may in fact be a metaphor for many things in our lives - specifically any external influence we believe allows us to achieve more or do more than we might be able to do on our own. This is hardly a difficult conclusion to reach. But I think we can take this metaphor and use it to examine those areas of our lives that we cling to, because we have little or no faith in ourselves.
It is probably no surprise to find out that I honestly believe that "Church" represents one of mankind's greatest feathers. Organized religion thrives on teaching us that we are not capable of strength on our own, that we must rely on God. I firmly believe that Church provides us no power which is not already within us. But like Dumbo's feather, it does provide a value to those who do not recognize that ability within themselves. So it's important to understand that I am not stating that Church has no value. I am stating that its value is provided by the individual who gives it value. And of course this subject could easily dove-tail into a historical treatise on the method in which Organized Religion enforced its control and retained its power throughout the centuries.
And this is what thinkers, like Nietzsche, had so many problems with - namely that Judeo-Christian values promote and place value on the weak willed. So in many ways, this is the Existentialist in me...
I want people to re-evaluate their lives and begin to understand what their feathers are. I'm not suggesting that we always have the means to cast off our feathers, but certainly that recognizing them is certainly the first step. There are many feathers in our lives... Some more obvious than others. Alcohol and drugs are easy. And that isn't to imply that alcohol and drugs are always feathers (one could argue that when used as a form of escapism - it probably isn't acting so much as a feather...). But what about friends and neighbors? What about hobbies? What about our jobs and families? Do we value these things in and of themselves? Or do we rely on them to to provide us a life or meaning we would otherwise struggle to find? In this way - we diminish the value of these aspects of our lives... They become an unconscious "means to an end". "With them (with my feather), I can fly." The value becomes - what it does for me.
So the important message is... The analogy of Dumbo's Feather is not meant to diminish the importance of these aspects of our lives - but to begin to understand their real value on our lives and the value of these things on their own merit.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
It is probably no surprise to find out that I honestly believe that "Church" represents one of mankind's greatest feathers. Organized religion thrives on teaching us that we are not capable of strength on our own, that we must rely on God. I firmly believe that Church provides us no power which is not already within us. But like Dumbo's feather, it does provide a value to those who do not recognize that ability within themselves. So it's important to understand that I am not stating that Church has no value. I am stating that its value is provided by the individual who gives it value. And of course this subject could easily dove-tail into a historical treatise on the method in which Organized Religion enforced its control and retained its power throughout the centuries.
And this is what thinkers, like Nietzsche, had so many problems with - namely that Judeo-Christian values promote and place value on the weak willed. So in many ways, this is the Existentialist in me...
I want people to re-evaluate their lives and begin to understand what their feathers are. I'm not suggesting that we always have the means to cast off our feathers, but certainly that recognizing them is certainly the first step. There are many feathers in our lives... Some more obvious than others. Alcohol and drugs are easy. And that isn't to imply that alcohol and drugs are always feathers (one could argue that when used as a form of escapism - it probably isn't acting so much as a feather...). But what about friends and neighbors? What about hobbies? What about our jobs and families? Do we value these things in and of themselves? Or do we rely on them to to provide us a life or meaning we would otherwise struggle to find? In this way - we diminish the value of these aspects of our lives... They become an unconscious "means to an end". "With them (with my feather), I can fly." The value becomes - what it does for me.
So the important message is... The analogy of Dumbo's Feather is not meant to diminish the importance of these aspects of our lives - but to begin to understand their real value on our lives and the value of these things on their own merit.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Friday, April 9, 2010
Conviction
I generally prefer clear, objective "rules". Which is precisely why I lean more toward deontological values than existentialist values. But I cannot deny that we all have qualities we value differently. For me, one of the most important qualities is "Conviction". I have no objective theory with which to base this - it's just important to me...
There is a quote from the 18th Century Puritan Preacher Jonathan Edwards who wrote "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." The quote went something like this, "Hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized babies." The conviction behind this statement is amazing. Many Protestant Denominations do not believe in infant baptism - primarily because Christ himself was not baptized as an infant, but instead was baptized by choice at a later age. But if you believe in infant baptism, the implication is that we are born unsaved, that we are damned from the very beginning. But the conviction to understand and support the logical conclusion is nothing short of amazing. Anyone with children, who has looked on the face of pure innocence, must certainly find themselves reconciling the notion that a child could be sent to Hell. And I would venture to guess that most choose to ignore the concept and choose instead to cling to their traditions without fully appreciating the meaning behind them. I do not agree with Jonathan Edwards' statement, but I thoroughly appreciate his conviction.
Example 2) I remember I had a College Physics Professor who stated that his favorite historical person (idol) was Galileo. And I remember being very surprised. I mean, from a physics perspective, I'd wager that Newton, Einstein, and perhaps Copernicus would rank higher in terms of their contributions. But I'm no physics major. More importantly, I disagreed with my Professor on the basis that Galileo recanted the notion that the Sun was the center of the Solar System. In the face of excommunication, he disavowed what he knew to be the truth. And this was over a hundred years after Martin Luther had stood up to the church and showed the meaning of Conviction.
The ability to uphold ones convictions is an impressive thing. The strength of will it takes to uphold ones convictions in the face of persecution, ridicule, or even death is what makes a great person.
Then again, I could be completely wrong....
There is a quote from the 18th Century Puritan Preacher Jonathan Edwards who wrote "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." The quote went something like this, "Hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized babies." The conviction behind this statement is amazing. Many Protestant Denominations do not believe in infant baptism - primarily because Christ himself was not baptized as an infant, but instead was baptized by choice at a later age. But if you believe in infant baptism, the implication is that we are born unsaved, that we are damned from the very beginning. But the conviction to understand and support the logical conclusion is nothing short of amazing. Anyone with children, who has looked on the face of pure innocence, must certainly find themselves reconciling the notion that a child could be sent to Hell. And I would venture to guess that most choose to ignore the concept and choose instead to cling to their traditions without fully appreciating the meaning behind them. I do not agree with Jonathan Edwards' statement, but I thoroughly appreciate his conviction.
Example 2) I remember I had a College Physics Professor who stated that his favorite historical person (idol) was Galileo. And I remember being very surprised. I mean, from a physics perspective, I'd wager that Newton, Einstein, and perhaps Copernicus would rank higher in terms of their contributions. But I'm no physics major. More importantly, I disagreed with my Professor on the basis that Galileo recanted the notion that the Sun was the center of the Solar System. In the face of excommunication, he disavowed what he knew to be the truth. And this was over a hundred years after Martin Luther had stood up to the church and showed the meaning of Conviction.
The ability to uphold ones convictions is an impressive thing. The strength of will it takes to uphold ones convictions in the face of persecution, ridicule, or even death is what makes a great person.
Then again, I could be completely wrong....
Monday, April 5, 2010
Science vs. Scripture
The subject of this blog is far too large to accurately convey the message. But if I were to single out the example I intend to use, anyone unfortunate enough to read this would completely overlook the ultimate message here. And I have no doubt it's going to happen anyway, so...
Yes, it's no great secret that the the Bible departs with science in many areas. Scripture says the universe was created in 7 days. Scripture makes no mention of Dinosaurs. The list goes on.
Understand - the subject of this post is not to debate which is correct based on specific subjects. For example - I do not intend to discuss the details surrounding the story of Genesis and the "7 days". I may save that for a later post. But the purpose of this post is to discuss the irony that seems to exist with respect to scientific theories - specifically those which seem to elicit response from those who would believe the literal translation of the Bible.
So in order to do this - I must use examples. What better example to use than the holy grail itself - Evolution. Because (as I've stated) I am not interested in discussing the facts at this time - it is only worth noting that nearly any Bible believing Christian generally refutes the theory of evolution on principle alone - the principle that it is (seemingly) in direct conflict with the Bible. People have spent their entire lives dedicated to proving that scientists are somehow completely incompetent when it comes to explaining the nature of creation. Were I the confrontational type - I'd be inclined to ask those same people, "What causes a ball to drop to the ground when I let go of it?" I'm certain the universal response would be "Gravity, of course" (except those who just have to say "God".) Without hesitation and without questioning, they believe that gravity is the cause of the effect (the ball dropping). And yet Gravity as we know it is only a theory, just like Evolution. Evolution is simply a theory which seems to support all empirical evidence to date - just like Gravity. And yet no one is crying about the dangers of Gravitational Theory.
This isn't some terrific surprise. Obviously Gravitational Theory does not conflict with any particular scripture (and it certainly doesn't imply a human ancestry with primates). So it is interesting to me, that we are perfectly comfortable accepting (as truth) the theories of scientists as long 1) those theories fit our observations and 2) those theories do not imply error in scripture.
Now let's look at the last criteria in more detail. Blind faith aside, I can debate the origin of the Bible. Written by God, inspired by God... Call it what you will, it is external to me. But what I cannot deny - is the power granted me by God, nature (or what ever you believe)... The power to observe and learn from the 5 senses given to me. So - you can begin to see the irony here. Given a choice to believe what I see, what I've learned of the natural world around me, what my senses and reasoning tells me - or the choice to believe a man made document (however inspirational it may be).... It seems far more blasphemous (to me) to deny the gifts handed to me by God in lieu of a book fraught with inconsistencies.
The truth of evolution (and all natural sciences) is not a disproof of God, but rather further proof that God has given us the unique ability to understand and discover the rules which make up this incredible universe. Does that mean that every theory we create is correct? No. Does it mean that we will always be able to understand everything? No. But it should be enough to convince us to look beyond our own hubris and accept the world as God made it - not as we wish he had made it.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Yes, it's no great secret that the the Bible departs with science in many areas. Scripture says the universe was created in 7 days. Scripture makes no mention of Dinosaurs. The list goes on.
Understand - the subject of this post is not to debate which is correct based on specific subjects. For example - I do not intend to discuss the details surrounding the story of Genesis and the "7 days". I may save that for a later post. But the purpose of this post is to discuss the irony that seems to exist with respect to scientific theories - specifically those which seem to elicit response from those who would believe the literal translation of the Bible.
So in order to do this - I must use examples. What better example to use than the holy grail itself - Evolution. Because (as I've stated) I am not interested in discussing the facts at this time - it is only worth noting that nearly any Bible believing Christian generally refutes the theory of evolution on principle alone - the principle that it is (seemingly) in direct conflict with the Bible. People have spent their entire lives dedicated to proving that scientists are somehow completely incompetent when it comes to explaining the nature of creation. Were I the confrontational type - I'd be inclined to ask those same people, "What causes a ball to drop to the ground when I let go of it?" I'm certain the universal response would be "Gravity, of course" (except those who just have to say "God".) Without hesitation and without questioning, they believe that gravity is the cause of the effect (the ball dropping). And yet Gravity as we know it is only a theory, just like Evolution. Evolution is simply a theory which seems to support all empirical evidence to date - just like Gravity. And yet no one is crying about the dangers of Gravitational Theory.
This isn't some terrific surprise. Obviously Gravitational Theory does not conflict with any particular scripture (and it certainly doesn't imply a human ancestry with primates). So it is interesting to me, that we are perfectly comfortable accepting (as truth) the theories of scientists as long 1) those theories fit our observations and 2) those theories do not imply error in scripture.
Now let's look at the last criteria in more detail. Blind faith aside, I can debate the origin of the Bible. Written by God, inspired by God... Call it what you will, it is external to me. But what I cannot deny - is the power granted me by God, nature (or what ever you believe)... The power to observe and learn from the 5 senses given to me. So - you can begin to see the irony here. Given a choice to believe what I see, what I've learned of the natural world around me, what my senses and reasoning tells me - or the choice to believe a man made document (however inspirational it may be).... It seems far more blasphemous (to me) to deny the gifts handed to me by God in lieu of a book fraught with inconsistencies.
The truth of evolution (and all natural sciences) is not a disproof of God, but rather further proof that God has given us the unique ability to understand and discover the rules which make up this incredible universe. Does that mean that every theory we create is correct? No. Does it mean that we will always be able to understand everything? No. But it should be enough to convince us to look beyond our own hubris and accept the world as God made it - not as we wish he had made it.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
