Making Bigots Inside and Outside the Church?!

The gospel according to Edward Abbey:

“Whatever we cannot easily understand we call God; this saves much wear and tear on the brain tissues.”

Indeed, this is true for many.

But the same could be said of many who embrace Mr. Abbey’s worldview, presumably. There are some who save wear and tear on their minds by chalking up the intricacies of the universe to vast amounts of time, minute possibilities, mechanisms of chance and the god-like function of survival of the fittest. They do so, not because they are experts in the field or have even studied much of evolution, but because of what they have been told and taught.

In this sense, School and Sunday School mirror each other in methodology whether they are preaching or teaching.

The method: Teach the basics until they are able to wrestle with the specifics.

Many evolutionists would say that the textbooks teach the system in a simplified form that doesn’t reflect the complexity of its shape. But it has to be taught in a way that can be grasped. This is the way that the brain develops. Teach complex ideas in simple ways until the mind is able to compute the nature of complexity that is woven into the system of thought. The hope is that there will come a time when the student will be able to wrestle with the nature of the specifics that aren’t as nicely packaged as one would like. But this doesn’t happen for everyone.

Many theists would say the same.

Then there are some in both schools of thought would say otherwise. They are free to think what they wish, though it seems a bit wishful and doesn’t seem to reflect the true diversity of aptitudes in the world.

With respect to degrees of aptitude, I would contend that there are brains that can handle the wear and tear of complex issues and there are brains that would rather focus on things more practical [as they might argue]. There are theorectical minds, practical minds, thoughtful minds, simple minds, and others not mentioned.

So many types of minds ON BOTH SIDES of the fence.

To say otherwise would be to articulate a form of bigotry and save much wear and tear on the brain tissues. Certainly, it would be easier to preach or teach. I would say that a person that doesn’t bother with such matters is not necessarily a bigot, but one who makes the kinds of statements that Mr. Abbey made is.

A bigot.
Or a big idiot.

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.

Can we know anything about what the whole of creation knows?

The gospel according to Camille Flammarion:

“Men…have had the vanity to pretend that the whole creation was made for them, whilst in reality the whole creation does not suspect their existence.”

One could argue that there is vanity in asserting that creation doesn’t even “suspect” the existence of man. How can one empirically verify anything about the “whole” of creation when we can’t even confirm what percentage of the universe is presently known?

This statement is bold.

Rather, this statement is quite arrogant. In fact, I believe there is a better way to describe it. Please allow me to misquote another to suggest the better description.

“Men…have had the vanity to pretend that the whole of creation [...] does not suspect their existence.” 

Precisely, this statement is one of vanity.

It assumes something that might very well be impossible to know as a whole. Since the whole universe has not been discovered. Consequently, the whole of creation is not known. It is obvious that the author’s worldview is filling in the black holes of the unknown in order to make a statement that can not be proven. 

Without even knowning the whole of everything created, one can know some of what has been created and ascertain that much of the world [a small, but better known part of creation], not only suspects our existence, but suffers from it. This can be empirically verified. 

In fact, I would agree with the idea that creation wasn’t made for man, but for other reasons, and those reasons put mankind in a unique position unlike the rest of the known creation. I will concede that a bit of my worldview is filling in spaces of unknown as well. But I am arguing from what is known.

One additional note that I find ironic. In trying to contend that man is insignificant with respect to the entire universe [a point that might be argued at another time], this person describes it in terms of man. Creation is personified. It is given anthropological characteristics to suggest something impossible to support. The universe is described with qualities attributed to mankind, this is a bit “suspect,” if you follow.

If you don’t see the irony, perhaps I am merely reading too much into what is trying to be said. I do realize this to be a figure of speech.