Humanism vs Intuition: The Moral Dilemma

In recent history the debate regarding the origin of the world has come and gone, and continues through today. I believe that in the current day, we have boiled all the arguments down to two possible options; complete random chance (that is to say evolution) or purposed creation (intelligent design). There has been heated arguments from either side regarding who in fact has the scientific backing to support his/her cause, and I could tout various scientific findings, theorems, and postulates and whatnot in favor of one or the other. However, the issue I want to address is more at the core of the debate. Some people might be indifferent, stating that we're here now, regardless of how we got here, however, I would argue that knowing where we come from is a crucial or at the very least largely insightful part of understanding and knowing who we (collectively as human beings) really are. However, I am not here to argue in terms of science, but of something I think more people can relate to, which is intuition, the intuition of morality, which I believe is insufficiently addressed by any proponent of evolution.

Firstly, I want to make something very clear. I believe that the idea of evolution is ultimately trying to sell to people the a lifestyle or worldview, which some have called humanism and which is a term that I will aptly adopt. Humanism, basically holds that we are here more or less because we "just happen" to have been created. By some series of mutations and adaptations life was both created and eventually evolved into us. Therefore, ultimately, the only accountability we ultimately have is to ourselves, while we may put ourselves in positions of accountability to others, the boss, the one who has the ultimate say, the be-all, end-all, is the individual. This sort of fits then with the common post-modern philosophy of relativism. The idea, that everything is not only permissible, but also right, each person has his/her own truth, and that each truth is equally truthful. Reality, in essence is defined by each individual. Ultimately, the phrase "there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth".

Now, let us consider the implication of evolution. If we assume that we were indeed created by random chance, then obviously there is no higher order, words such as "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" are all somewhat arbitrary concepts that ultimately are subject to be relative to the definition of each individual. The simple fact that we were the product of dumb-luck, the remote possibility of the right chemicals mixing at the right time, concludes that we therefore are ultimately the bosses of ourselves. At the basic definitive level of things, there would be confusion. Who is to say that the sky is blue? Why can't it be pink? Why can't the sky be A# major 9th? I may think it's blue, but it would be perfectly alright for my neighbor to believe that it's minty. It's a silly example, but, in order for this idea of evolution to be feasible, would that not be what would ultimately happen? Yet, it is universally agreed that the sky is blue.

Moving to another example, let us consider the implications of morality within a hypothetically functional society built from evolved beings. Since we answer to no one but ourselves, ultimately, what my purpose in life is, is to do what makes me feel the best. As the theory of evolution must conclude, we're here "just because" and therefore there's nothing afterward, so logically we need to make the most of what's here now. There is no compunction for what we call "good behavior" or what is socially accepted because there is no benefit from it. Certainly I want to live a comfortable life within the rules and regulations of a social norm, where a government structure will protect me from lawlessness (all this being somewhat contradictory to relativism to begin with, but assuming), I have no reason to be altruistic or the sort. While I may be willing to give up some of my freedoms so that the ones I value may be protected as well, the question then remains, what about those things that we consider good outside the strictures of legality? What about true altruism? Other than a warm and fuzzy feeling, what's there to get out of it? Why bother?

We live in a world of absolutes, and quite simply, if there is a definition of "right" and "wrong" to be had, it must have been determined outside of humanity. I don't think that there is any intrinsic merit to what any man has to say. We trust people's expertise because they have painstakingly studied their area, we trust that astronomers know what they're talking about when they speak of the stars, that a botanist is knowledgeable in a discourse on plant life, a mathematician in the theorems and equations that make up what we know as math. Yet, did the astronomers make the stars? Did the botanist create the plants which he studies? Does the mathematician create the foundations that enables his equations to balance? I would argue that no, these don't happen, and therefore morality and ethics cannot be a simple product of human thought, as humanism would have us believe.

I have yet to meet a person who has not used the word "should" or "ought". As soon as these words are used an absolute is formed and the idea that each person is judged by his/her own standard is thrown completely out the door. I think people will agree with me when I say that the world ought to do away with slavery. If I were to ask or be asked why, I believe a large part of the answer would be along the lines of, "To make the world a better place." In a humanistic society, the idea of better or worse cannot exist, if I were to believe that I define my own truth, that there is no greater being to answer to than myself, then there is only yours and mine, not better or worse. Intuitively we understand that there is something that we can call "good" and "bad", actions that we can call "right" and "wrong". Author Chuck Colson gives this example; there is an elderly woman standing at the corner waiting to cross the street, you have three options; a.) help the woman across, b.) ignore the woman, c.) push her into oncoming traffic. Most people would agree that (a) is the "good" thing to do, and (b) while not "wrong" is still "worse" than (a), and finally that (c) is the obviously wrong thing to do. For someone to say that he/she has never felt guilt, I believe, is for that someone to tell a lie. So, if I were to define what is right and wrong in my life, then how can any of my actions be wrong? More importantly, how can we say that the people who opt to push the lady into oncoming traffic are wrong? Intuitively there just seems to be something about it that seems unjust, downright, I say it again, wrong.

I have heard that perhaps it is the strictures of society, and the laws that govern us within our society that determines what is right and wrong. Let us look at another simple example; there are several young school children lining up to get lunch, right before one child is about to ask the cafeteria working for food, a larger boy shoves the child aside and takes his place in line. Perhaps the shoving could be legally termed as assault and battery, but point is, is that inherently, we feel that the larger boy, who did not wait his turn, has done something wrong. The teacher may not have seen it, and thus may not have done anything about it, but, the child whose place was taken inherently understands that what happened to him was unfair, was wrong. We don't need society to tell us that when something is taken from us that we have been wronged. The concepts of evolution, humanism, etc.. don't answer why that feeling is there. Intuitively we live that there are ways things should and should be, ways that are outside of us. I don't think that this would occur if we all just happened to pop out of some primordial soup. Intuitively, I feel that humanism, specifically the explaination of our origin via evolution addresses the moral quandry that we so often find ourselves in.

To me the logical explanation then becomes, there is some standard that has been set outside of humanity that we're supposed to meet. Logically, the being that set that standard, is the one who made us. Think of a car manufacturer, there is a performance standard that each car has to meet before being sent out on the roads, likewise, we have moral standards that we were designed to meet. I don't know that this answers questions that have been there age long, but it's just my 2 cents when thinking about it.

The New Musical Era

After seeing Mamma Mia recently, I've decide that a decidedly fun way of spending time would be to write musical scripts. Of course, Mamma Mia was inspired by the musical workings of ABBA, so thus, I wondered, could not other artists be taken and epic comedic stories put on stage as well? Say, what about a musical inspired by the works of Starship Jefferson, Journey, The Police, Queen, or even Boyz II Men? The possibilities are endless, simply either make a compilation of best of... or simply take an album and fit all the songs somehow into some sort of convoluted story line. It makes musical theater that much more interesting when you can sing along to the songs.

Fallibility of Doing

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

Galatians 5:22-23

In our current state we're always in a constant struggle of what we are to do with our lives. To me, it often seems like we're living very much in a society that desires the ultimate "how-to"s to life in all its intricate aspects. Oftentimes it almost feels like the purpose of our lives has been reduced to what we've done and what we've yet to do. Accomplishments are the be all end all of our existence. Of course, I don't mean to downplay the importance of the "how"s in life, they're a very important aspect, how something is accomplished is easily as important as the end result of said accomplishment. However, in all our efforts to do the right thing we often forget the importance of why we're doing it. We're so caught up in the question of "what am I supposed to do?" and end up doing things just because. This I feel applies not only to the living of life (be it at work, in school, with your family) but also in the application of Christianity as well. Too often my Christian walk has consisted of "to-do"s that supposedly "ensure" my continuing faith and growth in my relationship with Christ. I need to pray, serve, read my Bible, attend church, minister, evangelize, etc... Please don't misunderstand, there is nothing wrong with anything above, and to exercise a strong Christian faith we all need said discplines in our lives. However, the point I make is that too often my focus in Christianity becomes what I can do, the Christian life becomes a process more than an experience. I believe that the question we ought to focus on isn't, "what do I do?" but "who should I be?"

A pastor once said "We are called human BE-ings, not human DO-ings." It is in our inherent nature to want to do things, we feel that when we are inactive nothing is getting done, and that for anything to actually "happen" our hands need to be doing something. We want to feel "useful" and "productive". There's nothing wrong in that, but when that becomes our main focus, taken to an extreme, when we refuse to sit still because of the "unproductivity" it would cause, we cease to do God's work and we are doing our own. We forge ahead on our own grandiose crusade for God all the while ignoring his call for us to "Be still and know I am God" (Psalm 46:10). Often we cry out for God to show us His way, then rush off to do whatever it is we think God wants us to do before we even stop to hear what God has to tell us. Oftentimes I get in the mindset of "Well, I know what God's work is." and with that mentality our appeal to God for direction becomes merely some sort of formality to appease Him. I know I am often guilty of this, thinking of some idea that would supposedly further His Kingdom, His glory, His honor, and His name. Then justifying myself in saying that if God doesn't want this to work then it won't work out. What if, though, we were to first stop, and listen to God, hear what He has to say and then stepped out in obedience, how much more powerful and effective then would be our efforts? We don't do God's work, God does God's work through us. In recognizing this, we then realize the futility of our own efforts, and how our rush to action often hinders us from the importance of simply knowing God. God doesn't ask of us to do anything, there's nothing we can do that he can't (except sin if you want to be technical), He simply asks us to be still and know Him.

As Christians we often hear this phrase that we are to "bear fruit". My question then would be; what fruit are we to bear? If we look at apostle Paul's answer in Galatians 5:22-23 (see above) then we can see that none of these are simple results of action. We do not create love from some deed, nor patience, nor kindness, nor gentleness, etc... Bearing fruit does not mean working hard to achieve some sort of goal or quota. God does not dispense blessings on commission. He does not say to me "Good work Jonas, you've brought x number of people to eternal salvation." or "Jonas, I think you really need to start working a little harder, you're falling behind and it doesn't look like you'll meet your annual projection of souls saved". In Matthew 13 Jesus tells us the parable of the sower, and likens us to the soils. Now if we really think about what it means to be put into the parable of the sower, how do we bear good fruit? The answer is simply, to be good soil. When we start living life in the perspective of "who I should be" then the "what I should do" ought to come naturally to us. In living out this life, when I realize who I should be, I recognize then that I am not that person, and in doing so, I realize who I really am and the impossibility of becoming who I ought to be outside of the grace that is found in Christ.

New Blog

For the 3 (maybe 4) readers of my blog:

As you may have noticed I have begun a trend of NBA blogging, thus, as it has become quite prevalent, I have decided to start another blog for it. Please visit jacemannba.blogspot.com to see the new ones. This will be fed to my Facebook profile as well. Meaning this blog no longer will as you can only have one feed to Facebook at a time.

The Future of Computer Portability

Well, I'm no expert on any thing, but here's my take on what would be cool for future laptop development. I was inspired this morning after a brief discussion regarding the Macbook Air. Simply put, I believe that the future computer ought to be a Nintendo DS with holographic projection. Interface could be done using the stylus and switching between the screens, and standard use could be a keyboard projection from the touch screen and the monitor projection from the second screen. Dunno, I think it'd work.

My Reads: Fantasy (continued from Nov 12, 2007 post)

As promised, I am continuing my recommendations on fantasy novels to read and why you should read them. I apologize that it's been a while since I've continued this, so please forgive me. Let me continue:

C.S. Lewis:
A classic, I'd read anything by him, not just fantasy, but that's where I started. He only really wrote one fantasy series, the Space Trilogy being something of Sci-Fi which I venture into every now and then. Great narrative and character development, excellent, quick reads.
The Chronicles of Narnia - The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; Prince Caspian; The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair; The Horse and His Boy; The Magician's Nephew; The Last Battle
Contrary to whatever genius that decided after the fact of reading the series that the books have to be in chronological order, this is how the series should be read. Chronologically The Magician's Nephew occurs first and The Horse and His Boy occurs before the end of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe but, you should read it in this order. Simply because, it's the order Lewis wrote them in and he writes each one assuming you've read his previous books. Book 6 (The Magician's Nephew) doesn't make a lot of snese if you haven't read book 1 (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe). Overall, the stories are very well developed and fun to read, I also really appreciate how Lewis puts the Gospel into his work.

J.R.R. Tolkien:
Like Lewis, Tolkien is another classic that I consider a must read. Of course given Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, many people feel this unnecessary. I only have to say, Peter Jackson's movies, as great as they are, hardly do the novels justice. I feel that the movies are even greater in the context of having read the novels, but as a replacement, they are a poor subsitute. Tolkien does so much in depth character development, and touches on so many issues, that he inspires you with the epicness of his story. There's really not a whole lot I can say about it except you have to read it.
The Hobbit
Lord of the Rings - Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, Return of the King
The Silmarillion
A good starting place for Tolkien is always The Hobbit. While his greatest work remains Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, a prequel, is really a wonderful introduction to Tolkien's Middle Earth. The Silmarillion similar to David Edding's Rivan Codex is something of a history book denoting everything that happens before his acclaimed series. The reading can be a little dry, but it does provide a lot of good contextual information.

These are basically all of the "must read" authors from my perspective currently. I'll toss up another list of stuff I've read that you might like (despite my being less enamoured of them than the previously mentioned series and authors) as well.

Much Apologies

So this is for the 3 readers that might be out there avidly following my blog and are wondering where the updates have been over the past week or two. I humbly apologize to them. I have been neglect in updating this post for a while, and while I blame webcomics, I also my blame myself for being lazy. I will attempt to do something more substantial after this cop-out of a post. So again, my humble apologies.