December 29, 2002

God on Trial

God, a kindly mother or father, is without saying devoutly to be wished. Many of us would settle for the reality of the highly structured hierarchy of the Grecian divinities who in the main control the visible world and are protective. Alas, it is but a wish, a grand fantasy to give us hope that in the end there resides a high purpose to heretofore unspeakable sacrifices and atrocities of early and current development. We pray that our departed loved ones have not died just to be tagged by paleontologists of the third millennium and tossed in the bins of fossils. Even pet owners envision a safe haven for their animal friends so that they are not simply expendable dumb brutes. This is understandably animal faith begging for hopefulness in face of Dostoevsky’s assault on a God who is willing to create irrespective of horrendous catastrophe and tragedy. Those who defend God by explaining away evil inflictions and untold sacrifices as a test of our faith and courage are preaching to the winds of chaos. Those who deny God — that is, an indigenous essence of decoding — likewise are skating on thin ice against the solar winds still in their adolescence perhaps to grow ultimately a better world on the back of horrendous expendability. The agnostic under the guise of indifference actually in his heart plays it both ways or wait and see what science in another millennia can come up with. The Darwinist is incomplete because he focuses on the trees without the forest. Molecular selection is pointless without the chemistry; nor does it account for Bergson’s élan vital of free-wheeling human life connected to some mysterious aim.

Darwinism helps describe, not explain, much of the biological clutter in the world. Natural selection — more apropos, the carrying out of efficient causes inherently coded within its non-transcendental essence — is simply another way of explaining away the blindness of absolute chance and at the same time denying the incursion of deities in development; surely, no divine insertion could possibly bother itself, nor have the patience with the myriad of such atrocities; nor could chance, aside, perhaps from galactic transformation of solar systems, be responsible for systemic élan vital in micro-organisms. Why Philip Johnson bothered to put Darwin on Trial is in itself a mystery since Darwin himself — however conflicting to religion his bias — never intended scientific cultism; rather, in face of eons of time, a systemic account of how to fill in the vast gaps to his theory. Johnson by contrast naturally selects straw men — in the main those who mis-speak of evolution as a “fact” before thorough exploration of all the pieces — to show that because of all the gaps and contradictions in Darwin these gaps are mysteries privy only to God, even though Darwin, however skeptical conceded that conceivably there is breathing room for god to cover his tracks by selecting a particular course of events in the infinite ordeal of evolution.

The latest endeavor to soften the absurdity of creationism is to come up with — philosophers with abandon have used God, First Cause, or Ideas — the entity of intelligent design as though it were something new because it does not contradict the vastness of geological time while giving God a voice but not the final say: as Spinoza would put it there is no divine purpose to the universe.

Neither three, however, give much satisfaction to the ultimate curiosity of mind as in all matters that require definitiveness to why. The biblical story of creation is poetry; even John Paul II implies this in his acceptance of evolution, though inspired by God. Intelligent design is nothing more than this official catholic approval. Natural selection, however godless Darwin might have perceived it, is but the blind faith of instinctive design in molecular realm which is as native as the innate driving force of the entire universe if one accepts the big bang theory of modern cosmology. The very first infinitesimal particle that drove the macrocosm as we perceive it today certainly is inherently a natural selection for the origin of stars. There does not seem to be any doubt that this solar system is the result of a happy accident but because of the vastness of the universe that appears to behave similarly to the Milky Way there is a the probability that happy accidents occur universally and when they do the perception of instinctive purpose takes hold. However ludicrous it is that there is a fundamental law springing from the violence of stars, there is no need to go beyond the acceptance of this ferocious lunacy that might incidentally generate the possibility, if not probability, of some value or good.

The unhappy accidents of natural selection such as the creatures of the deep, the hapless dinosaurs and reptiles and worst of all man’s inhumanity to man cannot possibly be by intelligent design unless one were to accept an intelligence gone mad. Nevertheless, molecular structures appear to be infinite and as a result anything can pop up in the almost unending course of time just as astronomers are continually surprised by the unpredictable behavior of inorganic cosmic dust. There is but one certainty: the mother particle of all that there is may or may not “create” again when it collapses upon itself but deep within its infinitesimal entity there is always the potential for becoming.

However, the big bang theory, widely accepted, may not be the answer either since it is no more than observable data of the modern mind just as the ancients were limited by their era. That stars are literally being blown away by the initial dynamic and presumed to return to its source does not necessarily follow that in the vast stretches of dark matter beyond the stars there is no other source of a beginning in becoming an improved modus operandi of clearer purpose and rapid ascension of macromolecular structures and consciousness rather than this violent accidental pervasiveness bent on ineluctable self destruct even though at its interim stages it may have glittered with magnificent existence teeming with extraordinary, purposeful intelligence of exquisite identities that other star systems have had or will have as their accidental destiny.

Because the universe as perceived is a hodgepodge of accidents, incidentals and coincidentals does not imply that the mother particle is in itself but Chance; it is on the contrary a law unto itself that may very well contain cosmic amendments in its ensuing pulses to eventuate such things as natural and unnatural selection or causation on the cosmic level as well as the molecular. These amendments can give rise to solar systems conducive to molecular development and instinctive saltation in RNA and DNA. There can be no inference drawn that amendments are godly intervention or Plato’s Demiurge working feverishly to make a better world. Nonetheless, what can be drawn is that they are stepping stones to Consciousness, the daughter of the mother particle; for, without this consummation of awareness there is literally no reality, no value, just a busy billiard table on auto pilot signifying nothing as was the case for some four billion years. It may be tempting to ascribe intelligent design to the stepping stones except that infers a conscious deity at the outset of pulsation which is impossible. A deity would by definition be in control at all times, but the perceived universe, in spite of its governing laws and cosmic selections, are inherently out of control. No God would design billions of aimless galaxies, nor a solar system such as ours only to be engulfed in flames as the sun approaches its demise. No, we of human consciousness is stuck with a Mother particle with a learning disability. It could conceivably take millions of more explosions and implosions to get it right — especially with clarity the origin of species, ninety percent of which would hopefully be extinct once and for all.

If in another part of the universe — there can be no other universe — there could be a parallel mother particle that in previous explosions before the current big bang learned a more refined technique — not as blustery, that is, energy under greater control — a much different system could be in progression. Surely, there would be much more focus on conservation, minimizing galaxies, and less taxing on the delicate balance of gravitation and the magnetic field, preventing devastating black holes. For as each big bang progresses toward enhanced consciousness of its intelligent beings, natural and unnatural selection will wane as “artificial” or conscious selection reigns supreme — not till then will there be intelligent design, weeding out redundancy, incompetence, cataclysmic disease and barbarity, let alone arrant evil.

©rrk '72

What Course of Action?

Caught in the act of stealing eight dollars from the cash register of a store in a ghetto, a young black is shot dead by a white police officer. Leaders of the black community gather the next morning to discuss whether or not to embark on civil disobedience in conjunction with this obviously retributive rule of action on the part of the policeman. The consensus seemed to be that the method would be to apply for a license to march on City Hall, and to stage a sit-in until retributive action was taken against the police officer. In the meantime the residents would be alerted not to contribute to the current Policeman’s Benevolent Association’s drive for a new teen-center, even though a direct benefit to their own children. The mothers of children in grades K-3 would be urged to walk their children to school and to J-walk there when approaching a school crossing attended by a policeman. Car-owners would be instructed to schedule a twenty-four hour cruise committee to violate a traffic law each time a police car was sighted, but to be cautioned not to endanger anyone.

When they were about to bring their strategies and goal to a vote, an elder statesman rose from his chair, rubbing his grey whiskers and shaking his head. All eyes turned to him, and the session quieted down as he began to speak:

“You all seem to know what to do but how many of you know why? Oh, I know we’re all in soulful tears for the death of that boy. But is this anything new? Is it so different from the inequities our four hundred year heritage that we must embark on what we know not why? I can’t imagine that by now we are not accustomed to what happens to our race. I am not here suggesting that we accept what happens. But when are we going to start asking why it happens? Is it simply that the policeman was white and the boy black — is that why? Could it not have happened if the boy were white and the policeman black? Are we as callous as our white counterparts that we would admit to not being outraged if the situation were so? Nor, surely, are we saying that it couldn’t have happened had both the policeman and the boy been black. Surely, no one here can deny that white policemen do shoot white youth.

“What, then, are we protesting? The boy’s unnecessary death by virtue of the white policeman’s brutality? What will be the result? The dismissal of the policeman or more probably y his transfer? Is that the ultimate of our actions? — if so, I'll not be a part of it. For you are asking yourselves to deve1op a potentially explosive situation — oh, I know you mean to do this peacefully — but there is no way to control the emotions of the moment when we and most certainly shall, meet resistance. And for what? What guarantee at the next officer on the beat won’t do the same thing, whether he be white, black or yellow?

“No, my brothers, we must ask what principle beyond this case that we are protesting to the point that we are called on to break other laws and possibly shed more blood. Oh, I know, my brothers and sisters, for the sake of that poor black boy’s family you would climb the highest mountain on top of which you'll find a nightmare, not King’s dream; and if you ask I would gladly put a knife through the shriveled heart of that pig. But surely this is not what Martin’s civil disobedience is all about.

“Yes, brothers defy the law of the unjust but obtain a higher sense of justice. What is a police force, brothers? Surely, it is not an occupation force in a fore ign land. Surely, it is subservient to the greater institution of freedom and the pursuit of happiness for what else is it here but to protect this greater institution inherent in every person — and we are, brothers and sisters, in spite of them, persons, indeed. Let us, therefore, raise the following question before we march. Should a policeman patrol a community with his hand on his gun as though he were in foreign soil? Should the requirement be that a policeman here be black or that he be a resident regardless of color — at this stage which is more important? — is alienation a question of geography or color? Does the police academy teach self-defense for the general protection of the community or simply for the protection or its officers? Should not a policeman, if not a resident at least be given released time to participate, to take on another role, in community projects and school functions? And how is it the bobbies in London can trip up an offender with his billy some fifty feet away when ours shoot to kill at ten? And should not the very first aim of our action be that every police man on patrol in this community be assigned to him a carefully screened resident who has proven an interest in safeguarding the well-being of all and by enrolling in the police academy for further instruction and qualification? And that the ultimate of this be a community auxiliary police force trained in law, enforcement and human rights?

“Oh, my sisters and brothers, it is imperative that the rules of our actions be spelled out clearly — that the rules be subsumed under the sense of justice as practiced by Martin Luther King. If we engage in this project simply as retributive action against the concept of policing as it is, the final result will be even less justice than we have now .The city is going to say that we have vindicated the crime of the boy by recrimination of the officer. What will be the result? Either the police will intensify its current practice to the detriment of every citizen here, or worse ignore completely — and we do not deny, I trust — crime on the streets. But even more important, what will become of King's dream? Let us, then, launch our actions in behalf of his dream, in behalf of the ideal practice of law and order envisioned , rather than against what we summarily view as retribution for this singular tragedy. For if we do follow our wrath and passion, the boy shall surely have died in vain."

Aquinas through the eyes of James Joyce:

With the rising of the sleepy eyed, still yawning Renaissance, a very sleepy eyed, yawning schoolboy sputtered: Philosophy is the Handmaiden of Theology. Thus began the Aquinian Age of blurting ingrates who spent billowy, flatulent essays on the Philosopher, the pagan pontiff of schoolmen. From the cloister-fed bowels of monkish pontification growled and bellowed to the outer dimness an incalculable wind of divine incense to entrance the world in reverence. Thus bent on its axis it passively witnessed the embalming and cosmetizing of itself by Tommy's Mortuary, outside of which hung the shingle:

Director: Quaintmommasahwineus •Embalmer; Aridsbottle

Joyce was fond of airing this flatulence round the name of Aristotle — seldom would he conjure the name of Aquinas. One, after all, does not utter: "my, what capital cream and sugar when one praises a cup of good coffee. As much as Joyce himself might have wanted arsesthrottled, exorcism of Aquinas in popping the Aridsbottle cork, pfffpfppfppppfffff pungent fragrance fully fair pouring freezing pools 'pon fallen prometheus pilfered pinioned freedom falming fire--fizzled. The unseen but omnipresent "tunbelly" gassed out its odious, odorous lees, ethereally served through the magic of the Eucharist, artfully, pious drugging and betraying the human spirit to the frigid outhouse of reason without sense--without the warmth of a Blooming heart. Small wonder Joyce would screech, "Upon my word it makes my blood boil to hear anyone compare Aristotle with Plato."

©Rrk, Jan. ‘03

The Doctor Protests Too Much

In the McCarthy era the insertion of “God” in the Pledge was a paranoidal defense against “godless” communism. Granting Michael Newdow that a corrective measure is called for, it will never come to pass because it is as permanently engraved in the minds of Americans as “In God We Trust” on currency. That the good doctor equates this aberration with “civil rights...as important and as serious as any in our history” is ludicrous. He thinks he is perceived as a “second class” citizen who is “allowed not to worship” as though atheism were some weird belief not to believe. On the contrary, atheism is not on a plane of religion or non-religion. It is a philosophy — stripped of faith — intertwined with the scientific nature of the universe.

As such atheism does not deny the symbolic syntax of language. That Congress opens its sessions with prayer is of no concern to an atheist precisely because his perspective is from a distant, intellectual indifference — not from the emotional view that he is free not to worship. An atheist can still be thrilled walking by the magnificent Christmas tree at Rockefeller Plaza without the slightest guilt that he does not feel the need to take umbrage. However odd and demonstrative religious practices to an atheist, they are never repulsive except for gory sacrifices. An atheist does not proselytize — to each his own — and philosophically accepts diversity as natural selection in a complex world. In fact, he himself can accept his own aberrations, such as when he mistakes his thumb for the nail head and yelps “Jesus Christ!”

If an atheist is reared to think religion intrusive, then he is as intolerant as one who takes religion to heart. It is contradictory for an atheist to be an “activist” unless religious activists overtly place him in harms’s way. The utterance of “under God” does no harm for he is capable — unlike some adversaries — to separate fact from symbolism and still be able to live with those who take the symbols as fact.

Welcome

Start

Index 2

Joan's Page

Intro

Images from Imspace Systems Corp;