Skip to main content

Creationism--> Evolution --> Imagination

The moving force we likely know, but is not worthy of our love

The universe, according to Dawkins, was put together randomly--not out of love, or hate, or volition, or disinterest. We find this disconcerting, because we are meaning-craving human beings. What I find strange is that Dawkins isn't more respectful of our need for things to BE beautiful, by which I mean, moved out of true love, not just out of fascinating processes, not just SEEM beautiful--to see in a forest something that is intrinsically spiritual and good, rather than just a marvelously successfully adaptive/adapting manifestation. If everything before us was made without intent--conditions simply lead to changes, formations--then why should it interest us so? That is, Shouldn't we become less interested in the fact of what is out there, now that we know it better, and more interested in how we--as meaning-making, as makers with the potential to create out of empathy, true love--are prone to see/perceive this world we have been born into? Our phenomenological experience is to me the God mind out of which so much great matter, might be fabricated. Since WE can be loving, personable movers/makers, shouldn't our focus come to be on what we fabricate in this universe--not just our technie, our machines, but lifeforms, too? Shouldn't we insist that scientists be more than not demon-haunted? Shouldn't we expect them to be empathic, emotive, poets, too--who don't just study the world about us, but transform it into something as personable, as truly relatable, as we instinctively are prone to engage with it as?

Just to be clear: yes, creationists are demon-haunted, not to be listened to. Yes, corporations who bio-engineer are currently hardly poets at work creating loving things. Yes, Dawkins can be very inventive and exciting in his explorations, but is not fully worthy of us, either.

@ Patrick McEvoy-Halston

Your unfortunate relativistic gobbledygook is as exhausting as it is meaningless.

"The universe, according to Dawkins, was put together randomly--not out of love, or hate, or volition, or disinterest. We find this disconcerting, because we are meaning-craving human beings"

The knowledge we have about how randomly the universe was put together has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins' (or anybody else's) assertions or beliefs and everything to do with scientific facts.

Speak for yourself if you find it disconcerting. I am positively nowhere near the "meaning-craving" anything you choose to be.

"Shouldn't we become less interested in the fact of what is out there, now that we know it better, and more interested in how we--as meaning-making, as makers with the potential to create out of empathy, true love--are prone to see/perceive this world we have been born into?"

So now that we as a species are getting so good at really understanding the world we live in, in the most wonderful and USEFUL ways (basically, acquiring more knowledge - the stuff that rapidly evaporates our incapacitating mysticism) - now we should "become less interested" in that and more interested in... realizing our potential as meaning-making makers, or something. And by the way, "we" (scientists, clear thinkers, humanists, etc) are plenty interested in how human beings perceive the world. Read "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. Warning: you will find it deeply disconcerting as a meaning-maker.

And then there's this (best for last)...

"Shouldn't we insist that scientists be more than not demon-haunted? Shouldn't we expect them to be empathic, emotive, poets, too--who don't just study the world about us, but transform it into something as personable, as truly relatable, as we instinctively are prone to engage with it as?"

No. Absolutely not. We absolutely, definitely should not do that.

Cheers (Untimely demise, response to post, “Creationism vs. atheism: It’s on!” Salon, 23 November 2009)

I don't understand why the self-assembly of our amazing planet and the resulting biosphere isn't miracle enough for people's spirituality. (Alteira99, response to post, “Creationism”)

@altaira99

re: "I don't understand why the self-assembly of our amazing planet and the resulting biosphere isn't miracle enough for people's spirituality."

It's cool. It's astonishing. But the fact that Moby Dick might eventually be written if you let a bunch of chimps pound at a keyboard for a few millenia, is interesting too: but if it was the fact of it, I think our assessment of the book would lessen. It was written by someone motivated to create something lasting, meaningful, and great--it was MEANT to speak to us, and that's a much more beautiful thing.

The earth wasn't, and to a certain extent should leave us a bit non-plussed--more entranced by the fact that we can imagine it as worthy of love--by ourselves, that is, and become way more interested in what we fashion out of the raw materials.

Evolution somehow lead to something that takes over in a way superior, fantastic sense (we need to stop speaking as if we're still operating under some other force: natural selection randomly lead to something--us--that is motivated, that can act out of love--not, that is, unknowingly out of a desire to spread the love meme). Tyrell was something in Blade Runner; but he created something far superior in Roy, who knew life was in the science, in a way I can respect.

Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

...and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. (Wendy in California, response to post, “Creationism”)

Originally posted as letters in response to:

“Creationism vs. atheism: It’s on!” (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…