Little bits of truth in Doodle Surround Sound?

The gospel according to Stanislaw Jerzy Lec:

“At the beginning there was the Word–at the end just the Cliche.”

This is a telling reality of many churches.

It is sensationally true. 
So true that it has shaped how those outside the Church perceive those inside the church. So true that it doodles the caricature. So true that it turns up the volume on the stereotypes.

It is sadly true.
For many on the inside, there is some form of theological laziness. Instead of struggling with digging into the depths of the Story of stories found in the Book of books, there are many who would rather have someone else expend the effort and hand them the nugget of truth. Typically, that nugget comes in some form of memorable wording.

Ergo, “Cliche.”

Sadly many churches have expressed their religious dialogue and thoughtful discourse in this way. Meaning it is hardly a dialogue and seldom thoughtful. This is something of the reality within in the walls of the church.

But it is not the whole picture.

It isn’t always this way.
It hasn’t always been this way.
It won’t always be this way. 

But It is part of the picture. 

In stereotypes.
In caricatures.
In cliches.

There is a little bit of truth in such criticism. There is a little bit of truth disguised with memorable words. And I find it sensationally and sadly ironic that you made your point with such memorable words.

Memorable words in Doodle Surround Sound.

In the beginning were sounds of song and the sips of soup?

The gospel according to D. H. Lawrence:

“Brute force crushes many plants. Yet the plants rise again. The Pyramids will not last a moment compared with the daisy. And before Buddha or Jesus spoke the nightingale sang, and long after the words of Jesus and Buddha are gone into oblivion the nightingale still will sing. Because it is neither preaching nor teaching nor commanding nor urging. It is just singing. And in the beginning was not a Word, but a chirrup.”

These are bold assertions about what was believed to be happening in the beginning.

With none to witness it, assumptions are made. It is believed that it all began with chirrups of daisies and the gurgles of primordial Campbells. This is a nice thought. But it is quite incoherent with any philosophy that struggles with the tensions of life, reality, and truth.

I am perplexed by these thoughts that have not be tempered by anything other than an appreciation for the resilient beauty of nature. In considering the “brute force” that crushes, he declares these two characters representatives. Really?! Mr. Lawrence, could you not have picked some religious leaders that actually embraced some kind or any kind of “brute force?”

Jesus?!

Buddha?!

Ignorance is bliss when sitting in the garden with a bowl of chicken noodle soup. Ignorance is far from bliss when wrestling with who certain people really are what they were really all about. But even the ignorant stumble across truth from time to time.

With the sounds of birds singing and the songs of flowers there is this gentle reminder of what may linger longer than time itself. What lasts longer than the pyramids? What lasts longer than the institutions that claim to follow Jesus or Buddha? What lasts longer than this world with all of its flowers and fowl?

Life does.

There was life at the beginning. There had to have been life prior to such a beginning to bring about the life that chirruped. There will be life after these things.

It is not the resilient beauty of nature that has been noticed. It is the resilient beauty of life as noticed in nature.

Life is resilient. 
Life is full of beauty.

Would Morpheus and Optimus Prime agree with Mr. Freud?

The gospel according to Sigmund Freud:

“We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be.”

Why would we ALL have such desires or wishes?

There seems to be at least two reasons.

Either our wishing brings about this design, or our design brings about these wishes.

The former assumes certain theories about the nature of things and concludes that the wishful thinking is what we tell ourselves in order to make things seem very nice. The latter assumes certain theologies about the nature of things and concludes that the wishful thinking was hardwired into us and that tells us something of ourselves. 

Both reasons are legitimate explanations of the way things are.

Both.

That is, both explain reality by assuming other things to be true. 

If one believes that there is no God, then God is something we have designed to meet the needs of our wishful thinking.

If one believes that there is a God, then wishful thinking is something we have been designed with to reveal our need of God.

These assumptions or presuppositions will interpret the other reasons as unreasonable in as much as they consider their own reasons as reasonable enough to convince all others.

Both reasons might be consistent with their own assumptions.

But can both be true of reality?

If you think so, 
then I wish you the best bliss ever conceived of by the ignorant masses on both sides of this matter.

If you think not,
then I wish you would think deeply about whether the answers from either side really answer the questions that reside within you.

Perhaps, there is more to reality than meets the eye and we are in need of being transformed

Perhaps, there is more to life than the matrix and we are in need of being enlightened.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps both?!

“Anything less would be uncivilized” and unnoticed?

The gospel according to Aristotle:

“Men create the gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life.”

What of the beliefs that God is represented in other life forms?

What of the belief that man was created in the form of God?

That Aristotle would ponder something so obvious is incredible. This man of great intellect is asking his audience to consider how mankind projects himself into the deities that he worships and the religious expression he pursues. This is obvious.

Obvious to be true in his culture.

Obvious to be false for other cultures and sub-cultures.

One only has to consider the religious landscape of the world to understand the bold ethnocentricity of Aristotle’s “civilized” thought. Were all the other religious strata and substrata outside of his culture unworthy to be considered and he formulated his thought?

There are at least three categories of cultural imaging to be considered:

First, some create gods in the images other than their own. It is undeniable that other cultures have created God with the images of animals, plants, or even a perfectly balanced nothingness of nirvana. This reality is not addressed in Aristotle’s sophistry.

Second, some do create gods in their own image. This is well stated by this philosopher as he expounds on the crafting of religion in his own culture and considers the fickle nature of the residents on Mt. Olympus. Within in this cultural context, as well as others, this is quite true.

Third, some consider mankind to be created in the image of an invisible God. Though, there is considerable debate as to what this IS, some have written about what it INVOLVES. I am not so sure what the image is because I struggle with imagining that which is immaterial. But I am quite confident that the image involves a series of relationships that places mankind in proper perspective with all of reality, both material and immaterial. Though this image is not physical, it does not remain unnoticed.

Suffice to say, the task of justifying Aristotle’s statement in a way that is both culturally aware and theologically accurate is well beyond my philosophic abilities.

Perhaps, it was an error in his thought.

An error so glaring that its expression in a civilized culture would go unnoticed only if such a culture assumed the rest of the world to be barbaric.

Are all ideas of God wrong and unforgivable?

The gospel according to Marquis de Sade:

“The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind.”

Obviously, this thought reveals certain presuppositions of the one who penned the statement. It might prove beneficial to consider assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Perhaps.

But for now, let us not quibble about such things.

I would have to agree with much of why this may have been written.

Quite often, these ideas of God that mankind has come up with are disturbing. Even disgusting. But not all. Many ideas of God twist Him into a despondent, malevolent, and disconnected Being. Some ideas twist Him into the opposite. Few ideas struggle with understanding God as He has revealed Himself.

Are all of these ideas of God equally unforgivable?

Even if these are misconceptions of God?

Perhaps a question that needs to be asked would be something about whether or not our ideas of God match the reality of God. If such a reality is to be grasped.

If one is condemning mankind for ideas of God that misrepresent God, then one might say its unforgivable. Though in this scenario, there remains ample reason to forgive those who have misunderstood. If God exists as He has revealed Himself, then His existence and reality can not be fully grasp by our finite faculties. If such is the case, then it would be wise to recognize such limitations and forgive readily.

If one is condemning humanity for all ideas of the sort, then the condemnation reveals a spirit of hostility that is equally unforgivable. In part, because all perceptions of God are not the same. If God does not exist, then ideas that bring out the worst in mankind might deserve the above sentiment. 

But is it wise to group these ideas with other ideas that bring out the best in mankind?

Perhaps this idea is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive Marquis de Sade.

But I have good reason to forgive Marquis.

What?

My belief in God.

Is this sucking perspective surrounded by stink?

The gospel according to Edward Abbey:

“From the point of view of a tapeworm, man was created by God to serve the appetite of the tapeworm.”

Humor is noted.

But how does one assume such a parasitic paradigm?

Obviously, there is an undercurrent of “survival of the fittest” mentality that allows this to make any sort of sense. The tapeworm attaches to the human and sucks life-sustaining nutrients from its host. Its way of life is better in that it lazily leeches from the efforts of its host. It is higher up on the food chain than humanity, therefore we know why God created humans. The human serves it’s needs.

Interesting as it may be, does this interaction of species in any way erode or build significant arguments for or against the existence of God? On the contrary, it seems that this thought sucks life-sustaining elements from this discussion as it lazily leeches from the efforts of its better proponents.

Please allow me to tell you what you get from a tapeworm’s point of view [please forgive me this vulgarity].

Its a bunch of sh…shoved fecal matter.

Would I be inaccurate to suggest the same is true of this quote?

Is this reasoning manufactured, impaired, or under the influence?

The gospel according to Lenny Bruce:

“If you believe that there is a God, a God that made your body, and yet you think that you can do anything with that body that’s dirty, then the fault lies with the manufacturer.”

You CAN do anything with that body.

Noble or ignoble.

Good or bad.

Clean or dirty.

Why?

Namely freewill.

The Designer designed the design with self-determination. This self determination, this potential, or this choice can be said to be freewill. It is the freedom to choose between legitimate choices. The manufacturer made a product that had freewill. There are some who argue against freewill by suggesting its presence is merely an illusion.

Is this what is being said? If not, then not much is being said.

If it is true that “you can do anything with that body,” then at least one alternative [its opposite] to “dirty” must also be an option. This then becomes more of a discussion regarding freewill, would it not?  

If you believe that there is freewill, then your line of reasoning to the manufacturer’s blame becomes unreasonable.

Freewill.

Blame.

Who gets the blame for driving an auto while impaired or under the influence? Certainly not the manufacturer, but the driver who was impaired and influenced by his own choosing. 

Made with a freewill.

A free choice was made.

Let us be reasonable.

Or for that matter, you could choose not to be and blame God for it.

Is it not magic with eyes shut or open?

The gospel according to Anonymous:

“Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species representing changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one’s eyes shut and wailing ‘Does not!’”

All I am hearing from Mr. Anonymous is a straw man wailing.

Someone has offered a bunch of “ologies” that make their case for evolution weaving it all together into perfect  tapestry of chaos and then there is this person wailing a song about if he only had a brain. Perhaps this stitched clothing stuffed with straw shows something else. Some would say that those “ologies” along with more “ologies” support an entirely different theory.

There are many who are satisfied with claiming, “The Magic Man done it.” As there are many who are satisfied with claiming, “The Magic of Timely Randomized Chance done it.” 

The Magic Man.

The Magic of Timely Randomized Chance.

But not all Christians have their eyes shut.
Just as not all Atheists have their eyes open.

Where to begin and why continue?

The gospel according to Fyodor Dostoyevsky:

“As for me, I’ve long resolved not to think whether man created God or God man.”

How much passion and zeal ought one to expend towards any degree of apathy? If one is indifferent on such matters, then does it really matter or make a difference to do or say anything at all? Is this not a paradox of thought and practice?

How much must be known before being convinced of agnosticism? If one can not know something about certain matters, then how can it be known that it can not be known? In coming to know that you can not know is a matter of knowledge that requires knowing. Again, is this not a paradox of thought and practice?

Both of these descriptions might sound nice but make little sense regarding these matters.

Is it possible to convince another of apathy or even agnosticism? There are inherent difficulties in efforts to argue others towards such realities. The former doesn’t care and the latter doesn’t know.

Inconsistent.

It seems this statement is full of sentiment and devoid of sense. How does one write about something that one has “long resolved not to think” about? This statement is either a thoughtless one or inconsistent one. Either way, it makes this statement irrelevant for the discussion of God’s existence or non-existence.

Irrelevant.

This is a self-declared admission of inconsistencies and irrelevancies.
Dominated by sentiment.
Deficient in sense.

Where to begin and why continue?
I don’t know?!
I don’t care?!

Does survival of the fittest continue to yearn?

The gospel according to Stephen Jay Gould:

“We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer–but none exists.”

Has Dr. Gould offered science’s answer to one of the BIG questions of reality? Questions that have lingered throughout the centuries of recorded history. Questions that must be answered by every philosophy of life, every paradigm of plausibility, and every belief system out there. Some have answered these questions well, and so they have survived to this day. Some have answered these questions poorly, and so they are read about as a history of yesterday. One of these questions might be asked as follows:

Where did we come from?

Certainly, Mr. Gould has offered his answer to [or question of] the question that has been asked. Many have embraced this answer [or questioning]. But in the answering of this question, other significant questions begin to surface: assumptions? presuppositions? biases? belief system? ground of belief? worldviews? paradigms? plausibility structures? and the like.

Some of these matters are revealed in the thoughts penned by Gould that follow the thought quoted in this book of books.

“We may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer–but none exists… We cannot read the meaning of life passively in the facts of nature. We must construct these answers ourselves–from our own wisdom and ethical sense. There is no other way.”

How does one know that no higher answer exists for such a question? Unless of course, one is assuming that no answer is the answer. This whole matter of “passively” reading anything from “the facts of nature” is somewhat disingenuous. Allow me to tell you which scientists have “passively” gone about their scientific pursuits: the forgotten and unknown ones. Those that are remembered [this would include Gould] are the ones which were driven to pursue what answers could be discovered through the discipline of science. Finally, I couldn’t agree more with the matter of constructing answers from “wisdom and ethical sense.”

To contend that “we may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer-but none exists” is a construction built on his own wisdom and ethical sense. Indeed, “there is no other way.” To say that there are no answers to such a question is to presume the following answer: “None of the above.”

This is an answer, is it not?

The question might appear simple, but it is not.
The answers might appear obvious, but to unpack them becomes a daunting task.

If one were to assume that this answer is supported upon a philosophy of life [not just biological life, but all of life and all of reality] that IS true, then what can this tell us of where and who we are right now? 

In this whole matter of surviving by “hook and crook,” there has been the survival of this nagging little riddle. Why do we ask questions like these? Why do we yearn for answers like these? If survival of the fittest is a truth to be embraced, then what do persons like Gould do with the fact that religious beliefs are still surviving and thriving, even in paradigm shifts best described as postmodern?

Some of us may not know why we yearn, but we do know that we yearn. Others may question the significance of it, but they can’t question the existence of it.

Answers may vary, but the question doesn’t.
Answers may fade into history, but the question doesn’t.

Everyone is faced with this yearning, many ask questions, some say there are no answers. Does this satisfy the reality that you know to be true? What is the naturalistic explanation for this yearning? What was the reason for it to evolve into the human psyche? Since it was a part of the evolutionary process, then on what basis do we have to question it or when it should be ignored? Why does it insist to persist?

We yearn.

The yearning is there.
The yearning has to be dealt with.