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

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump

When Rose McGowan appears in Asgard: a review of "Thor: Ragnarok"

The best part of this film was when Rose McGowan appeared in Asgard and accosted Odin and his sons for covering up, with a prettified, corporate, outward appearance that's all gay-friendly, feminist, multicultural, absolutely for the rights of the indigenous, etc., centuries of past abuse, where they predated mercilessly upon countless unsuspecting peoples. And the PR department came in and said, okay Weinstein... I mean Odin and Odin' sons, here's what we suggest you do. First, you, Odin, are going to have to die. No extensive therapy; when it comes to predators who are male, especially white and male, this age doesn't believe in therapy. You did what you did because you are, or at least strongly WERE, evil, so that's what we have to work with. Now death doesn't seem like "working with it," I know, but the genius is that we'll do the rehab with your sons, and when they're resurrected as somehow more apart from your regime,