In my dreams, I met an atheist (or perhaps an agnostic). It, for I suspect that the creature in question was neither masculine nor feminine, I will call Raven, for its dark and flighty manner, and its opportunistic approach of swooping in on carrion arguments. Yes, I argued with an imaginary bird and, what’s more, in my dreams it may not have even been a bird. I attribute that identity post-sleep.
Why must God? Raven crowed.
Why indeed? must have crossed my mind. Whatever belief system you hold, it requires at least a modicum of faith. Humanity does not possess objective answers on all accounts. Our finite minds cannot easily comprehend the infinite, and, according to the logic of the universe by which we abide, there cannot have been an infinite past behind us. Time is a strange phenomenon, an invention by which we live and die. Let’s say you are a runner, and while standing at where the race was supposed to start, the referee approaches and tells you to retreat a hundred paces at least, for the starting line is behind you. Once you arrive, the referee continues his or her frantic waving, indicating you’ve simply not gone far enough: the starting line is at least five-hundred paces earlier. If the starting line is infinitely far back, you will never reach it.
The same quality is true of time.
I understand your foolish argument, Raven cawed, interrupting me. But the universe was once without time, and time was constructed in a quantum effect and so on. Forgive me if my science is fuzzy, but –
Okay, okay, I replied, frowning at the dark matter peering at me with beady eyes. I’ll try another tack. Let’s assume that the prevailing theories of science in regards to evolutionary theory are correct. Evolutionary theory suggests that, according to macroevolution, species adapt and evolve according to a set of mechanisms: genetic drift (some reproducers in a population are luckier); genetic variation: sex, gene flow, and mutations offer a varying of genetics in a population over time; and natural selection: since there is variation, and unlimited growth is impossible, not everyone gets to reproduce according to their full potential.
What happens when you have a population who, through evolved natural process, cognitive capability, creativity, and sentience has greater control over heredity, potentially? Humans have no natural predators, and even the mechanisms that subvert population explosion are few, and rarely stop us long. Using our heightened awareness of what we deem the ideal candidates for reproduction, can we not, hypothetically, take a democratic vote of what we deem the greatest genetics worth passing into mankind’s future? For instance, why should the strongest, smartest, best-looking, healthiest, most creative exemplars of humanity be given license to procreate at a level unreserved for those of lower quality?
If there is no God, everything is permitted. ~ Ivan in the Brother’s Karamazov
One of the gravest problems with science and a lack of divinity is a lack of moral standard. If there is no God, there is no agreed-upon moral law. Why should you or they or anyone decide what is right, what is good, what is lawful? If I am the smartest, most creative, handsomest person this world knows, what is right is what I have invariably chosen. I know better than the rest of those beneath my level. Where religion and morality break down, we’ve made gods of man. The government may have decided that killing is wrong, rape is wrong, stealing is wrong, driving fast is wrong – however, if the pursuit of happiness is this country’s highest ideal, and those things bring me happiness or serve to increase humankind’s generations and evolutionary process, who can tell me that murdering someone is wrong? I can scarcely discuss these arguments as they disgust me so much.
Think of it this way: if I am stupid, foolish, ugly, ill, or uneducated, I have no place in society. Simply eating up the money of advantaged and successful people is, in a bizarre, scientific-naturalselection-amoral viewpoint, a sin, a gross evil. I’m holding back the evolution of mankind in a positive manner, and if evolution and science IS the standard by which we live, only the privileged should be granted the selection and choice of mating and procreation. Suddenly, A Modest Proposal doesn’t seem so farfetched. A whole slew of satire falls into place as a respectable, moral future that we should endeavor towards, right?
However extreme these statements, unless an alternate code is supplied, a differing standard by which we might measure goodness and morality, then Ivan is right: everything is permitted. There can be no true value system. And why should I trust yours or theirs or anyone’s value system but my own? I’m the only being I can prove possesses any rationality in the first place. I can’t prove you or anyone else actually exists. If there is no God, everything is permissible.
But deep within, you are crying out “no, no no!” You watch the news each day and cringe at each continuing horror and travesty shown. A war, a rape, a murder, a car crashing and people rushed to the hospital, sickness and poverty and pain, heartbreak and natural disaster and tragedy – each is almost enough to force you to turn off the television, dismayed at the turn of the world. Are all of these things evil, inherently? And you see a long-separated family reunited, a soldier returned from war or holding a child of the enemy and pulling it from danger, or firemen rescuing a cat from a tree, or a spontaneous healing of cancer. These things bring smiles and tears of joy, unbidden, to your face. What is good, you ask? There are goods that span cultures and times, and evils that change not since the beginning of man. Can you change morality? And who are you to do so? If you claim there is no god, and set yourself up as one, what are you?
Why is God? the creature called, unruffled by my words. Why does God?
I sighed. Good question my fine, feathered friend.
Sometimes this is the hardest question. The question of evil definitely requires the greatest consideration. Once, I heard the question answered very strangely: why do bad things happen to good people? The response? They never do. It is almost a Jewish response, though current Judaism holds that humanity is intrinsically good. But the idea is that there are no “good” people. There is none righteous, no not one. There are people who strive and endeavor for a moral life, and perhaps even succeed at a greater capacity than others, but does this mean they are good? Without the blood of salvation, would God consider their actions weighed and worthy of eternity? I am not the judge of salvation.
I wish I had more time to write, so that I could flesh all of this out. I feel like I’ve placed several straw-mans up and skeletons without flesh. Someday, I’ll have enough time for writing a full essay with actual research and careful planning, again. Maybe for NaNoWriMo I should write a series of essays instead of a story. I could do all sorts of exciting research and fun things. Well, we’ll hold that off for another day. Time to drink some delicious cider.
No comments:
Post a Comment