Humans: center of the universe?

Many (most?) Christians would say that humans are the pinnacle of creation according to the Bible. God made Man the ruler of the beasts, gave him dominion over them, and generally has a pretty close and human-centric relationship with mankind. Perhaps there is a squirrel version of the creation story and a squirrel Bible and a squirrel Adam and a squirrel Christ and I am just being anthropocentric, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the power of thought, memory, imagination and abstract thinking make us humans pretty unique.

Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael, a book I highly recommend for its thought-provokingness even if I don't agree with it all, says humans just happen to be the pinnacle of creation now. At one time, jellyfish ruled creation. They looked around and said, "Hey, I'm the most advanced creature in all creation. I rule!" Only to be supplanted by humans. You can easily see why he says that someday there will be other creatures more advanced than humans, and we'll be in the jellyfish category looking up the chain of evolution at more advanced beings. I can only guess that Richard Dawkins would agree, but when I read his book again I'll keep an eye out for that thought.

If evolution were the motive power in the universe, I guess that would be a reasonable conclusion. The problem I have with it is that it removes all intention from the universe, the idea that there might be a creator with a purpose, but then I'm one of those God-believing guys.

My understanding is that Daniel Quinn, and probably Richard Dawkins, and other non-God-believing folks, consider it egotistical to think that humans are the center of the universe, the pinnacle of creation, the ruler of all we see.

Believing we are the ruler of all the earth is problematic when we take it to an extreme and feel that all the resources are here to serve us, so we can cut down the rainforest and hunt to extinction and other silly notions. To quote Spider-man's uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." As the firstborn son, and having wrestled the topic of primogeniture, I can attest to that philosophical principle as very important. But I digress...

My reason for posting today is the perceived conflict I saw when I was thinking about humanists. The definition of humanism, as I understand it, is the ability of humans, without supernatural intervention, to be able to determine truth and morality by human means and human interest. No need to refer to a external referee called God, we could just get a rational bunch of people together to determine the best course for humanity.

I have several reactions and questions. How is that working for us? How is that working for the squirrels and dodo birds and spotted owls? Is there such a thing as squirrelism, or are humans responsible for all squirrelkind, too? And most importantly, doesn't that make us the center of the universe, too?

The Baha'i Faith had this to say in 1929:

Humanity, whether viewed in the light of man’s individual conduct or in the existing relationships between organized communities and nations, has, alas, strayed too far and suffered too great a decline to be redeemed through the unaided efforts of the best among its recognized rulers and statesmen—however disinterested their motives, however concerted their action, however unsparing in their zeal and devotion to its cause. No scheme which the calculations of the highest statesmanship may yet devise; no doctrine which the most distinguished exponents of economic theory may hope to advance; no principle which the most ardent of moralists may strive to inculcate, can provide, in the last resort, adequate foundations upon which the future of a distracted world can be built. No appeal for mutual tolerance which the worldly-wise might raise, however compelling and insistent, can calm its passions or help restore its vigor. Nor would any general scheme of mere organized international cooperation, in whatever sphere of human activity, however ingenious in conception, or extensive in scope, succeed in removing the root cause of the evil that has so rudely upset the equilibrium of present-day society. Not even, I venture to assert, would the very act of devising the machinery required for the political and economic unification of the world—a principle that has been increasingly advocated in recent times—provide in itself the antidote against the poison that is steadily undermining the vigor of organized peoples and nations.

I think it is much more egotistical to claim a spot at the center of the universe than to acquiesce to the determination of the director of the play of life. Isn't there a difference between a president elected by a majority of the people and representing the people's will and not (just) his own and a dictator who seizes power?

No matter who puts us at the center of the universe, we humans have a great responsibility regardless of whether we will be supplanted by some more greatly evolved being. They wouldn't be very happy if there is no place for them to go swimming because all the water is polluted. (Those more advanced beings are actually our children, who will do a much greater job than we are.)

I wrote this will listening to Roine Stolts song Humanizzimo. Highly recommended if you like 20 minute songs!

And so it begins...again...and elsewhere too

Here is hoping (and planning) for a new start. One with more focus and dedication. And regularity. A healthy dose of blogging fiber should do the trick.

The move is complete, sort of. Still in boxes, still arranging and rearranging and buying those necessary things that you need when you move from a small apartment with a roomy bathroom to a large apartment with a cozy bathroom. We have room, glorious room! I can frolic and cavort and not have to go outside to do so.

Of course, as most moves usually do, this one did not go as smoothly as planned. I am leeching internet access from someone's unrestricted wireless network (Thanks to you for making my life sooooo much easier!) and working from my cell phone since Time Warner and I had a little misunderstanding about what Tuesday means. Do I really need to babysit every interaction I have with deliveries and appointments? (Don't answer that. I know. Who is John Galt?)

So now I'll start looking in earnest for my very own copy of The God Delusion so I can share some thoughts about Richard Dawkins' thoughts.

I'll also start writing in earnest on the new blog which you can find here. It is called Eyes on Genocide. I plan to bring attention to what Ward Churchill calls "A Little Matter of Genocide" which unfortunately has been a recurring theme throughout human history. Well, since I truly believe that mankind is on the brink of maturity (an understanding which comes from my beliefs as a Baha'i) then it is time that genocide becomes a thing of the past. It is a topic that is controversial and passionate, but one we cannot ignore.

I guess that I would say I have developed two metathemes for these two blogs. Rodin's Muse is focusing on the harmony of science and religion while Eyes on Genocide focuses on the oneness of humanity. I guess I shouldn't find it surprising. Those are the two main reasons I became a Baha'i and they form the foundation of my belief system.

So what do you say. Let's have at it. We'll meet regularly for our virtual discussions and try to make the world a better place. Agreed?

The long time off is ending

Phew. What a whirlwind. A 12-day trip, 2010 miles, dozens of meetings, missed turns, crowded rest areas, traffic jams and construction, and I finally get home Sunday night just to start packing for a move this weekend. My resolution is to make a schedule (and stick to it) in the new apartment that puts blogging front and center. Then I'll pick up some momentum, some regular readership, and start working on this book idea.

As if that wasn't enough, I was moved to start another blog, too. I know, I hear ya. If you can't spend the time writing on one blog, why write two? I'll fill you in later on the new blog.

We'll see if my resolution works for the new place.

He died for our sins

Today, July 9th, the Baha'i world commemorates the Martyrdom of the Bab.

The founder of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, teaches us that miracles are not to be used as proofs, mostly because they do not work. Do you know anyone who became a Christian because they were told that Christ walked on water, or a Jew because they were told that Moses parted the Red Sea? Miracles only convince the already convinced. They don't even convince eyewitnesses because the Bible is rife with doubters who saw Christ perform miracles.

I don't expect anyone to read the story of the Martyrdom of the Bab and then become a Baha'i. I simply want to share that to me it is one of the most compelling and moving stories of martyrdom I have ever heard.

It is easy to read it and say "Yeah, right, that story was concocted by Baha'is to add miraculous proof in order to gain converts." Well, that would go against the provision against using miracles as proofs, so if we know they don't work then why use them?

What is interesting is that this happened in 1850. As the link above points out, it was reported in newspapers around the world. There were roughly 10,000 witnesses gathered, some of whom recorded their observations. A bit of investigation can reveal non-Baha'i sources. This wasn't something that happened 2,000 years ago. This was something that happened just before the U.S. Civil War, as Harriet Tubman was leading the Underground Railroad. There were 30 States in the U.S. This was after Samuel F.B. Morse sent the words "What Hath God Wrought" across the telegraph lines from Washington D.C. to Baltimore. (If you want some other Baha'i synchronicity, look at what else happened the day before on May 23, 1844.)

So this story isn't irretrievably clouded in antiquity. It is just amazing. And it is about a pure-hearted youth who had a dangerous mission - to bring God's Word to humanity and prepare the way for one who was to come after him. He died for that in a most horrendous way: shot by a firing squad of 750 militia men.

And He died for our sins.

May my spirit be a sacrifice for the wrongs He suffered.

Read more here.

Them's fighting words!

Alright, I'm a little worked up this morning.

As I said a couple of posts ago I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I am reading it because I have friends who question God's existence and I wanted to see what a popular and respected (these are my assumptions) scientist would say. I expected something along the lines of rational arguments about whether God exists. A large part of the book is basically an attack on religion of any kind and those who profess faith. Today was the last straw.

I have been keeping notes as I read it, both of things I disagree with and things I agree with. I have just finished his eighth chapter on What's Wrong With Religion? and his misguided attacks are going to provide the topics for an upcoming series of posts.

A few things have to happen first. I'm going to be moving soon, so between travel for work and packing I will be very busy in July. Look for my rebuttal starting in August. I also have to acquire the book since I am reading a library copy and it will take more than two weeks to say all I have to say. If Mr. Dawkins is reading, send me a copy. Otherwise I'll buy one. Although I don't agree and don't want to support your efforts with one more book sale, I'll gladly chalk it up to supporting dissenting voices because I believe we should engage in dialog and that we shouldn't feel threatened by opposing views.

I'm sure Mr. Dawkins is probably shaking in his boots at the thought of my response. (Actually I'm sure he'd be shaking from uncontrollable laughter.) Stay tuned as I take on Goliath... (Oh those useful religious allusions.)

On a strangely related note, I just got done also watching a video entitled The Islamic Connection which is a lecture by Walter Veith. To ruin the punchline, Islam was created and controlled by Catholicism to wage war against "true Christians" and to protect access to Jerusalem. This is "proven" through reference to various secret societies and use of symbols and testimony from secret Masonic texts. Sigh.

Needless to say I find both extremes, Mr. Dawkins anti-religiousness and Mr. Veith's anti-everything except his religion, to be equally misguided and lacking in spiritual insight. Of course by definition Mr. Dawkins would probably say there is no such thing as spiritual insight, but we shall explore that.

No Water Birds

So I get up this morning, still half asleep. I am making a copy of the lease we just signed on a new apartment and my sleepy eyes catch one of the sections and read "No Water Birds" which just didn't make sense.

I blinked a couple of times and looked more closely. Ah. No Water Beds.

As I started chuckling, I could just imagine the damage that could be done by flamingos.

Or storks.

Herons.

Pelicans.

Ducks.

Eww... Canadian Geese.

I know it isn't much, but I'm heading out of town this weekend to lovely Vermont on Saturday and lovely Maine on Sunday for work, so that is all you get until next week.

Rodin's Snooze

Man, time is crazy! I can't believe how many days can go by in the blink of an eye. There is some reference to time-dilation or faster-than-light travel just waiting to happen, but instead I'll rely on other witticisms like playing with the name Rodin's Muse to find something appropriate to the recent dearth of posts.

Rodin's snooze.

Rodin's cruise.

Rodin's lose(r).

If we can't be self-effacing, we need a different line of hobby, eh?

So this blog is increasingly turning in to an exploration of science and religion. There are many ramifications to that. The reconciliation of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, logic and emotion, art and science, yin and yang, etcetera etcetera. It may not be a permanent thing, but it is certainly worthy of exploration. Here are some thoughts coming at you, stream-of-consciousness like.

I was watching a show I taped from EWTN, a Catholic broadcasting station. (DVR Rocks!) It was called "Has Science Discovered God?" I was pretty impressed with the premise and arguments despite the horrible quality of the video. It seems to be based on evidence described in the book "The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God" by Roy Abraham Varghese who briefly shows up in the video. I'll share more of the specifics later. I found it very thought-provoking. Just look up "cambrian explosion" to get an idea of what they are talking about.

In order not to too loudly proclaim the death of atheism I thought I'd give "The God Delusion" a whirl to see what Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist, has to say. I'm only part way through it, but I have to say that the condescension, over-generalization and smarmy nature of the book are off-putting to say the least. It is similar to my complaint about the "debate" between Kirk Cameron and "anything-but-rational response squad." If you can't debate and postulate without trying to humiliate, if you can't engage in dialogue with respect, how can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously? Dawkins makes many good points, but they are lost amongst his strident disrespect which stems, ironically, from his feeling of being disrespected as an atheist. Come on. What happened to the golden rule? Or is that too religious to be of value?

I apologize for the lack of substance in this post. I thought with five days off of work I'd be able to post before this, so this is the best my tired brain can do tonight because I just couldn't tolerate another day without offering my two cents to the universe.

Ah, Rodin, forgive me.