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!
1 comment:
Q. How is that working for us?
A. 2 steps forward 1 step back. In many ways mankind has made great social strides over the generations. For example slavery is not as wide spread nor generally socially accepted. Although we have made strides there are still problems, for example may religious people feel that homosexuals should be stoned to death or that AIDS is the wrath of God, somehow missing the message of love and not judging that their religions say should be one's guiding principals.
Q. How is that working for the squirrels and dodo birds and spotted owls?
A. I think squirrels are doing pretty darn well, the dodo not so well and spotted owls are an example of how western society is trying to learn from past examples and take some responsibility for our impact on the environment. Before human kind walked the planet, there appears to be scientific evidence, that nature had cycles and within these cycles forms of lived came and went. What our role has been and will be in these cycles will forever be debated. One could say that our actions on the planet that have led to environmental issues is all just the same cycle and that Mother Earth will simply continue to exist and life that does not adapt will perish.
Q.Is there such a thing as squirrelism, or are humans responsible for all squirrelkind, too?
A. I think the first question was meant for comic relief, at least I hope so for I did laugh. I think that humans do bare some responsibility for our effect on the planet and those we share the planet with. We don't have to care but should we ignore Mother Earth we could pay a very dear price.
Q. And most importantly, doesn't that make us the center of the universe, too?
A. Having responsibility for something doesn't make you the center of it's universe. Schools have the responsibility for educating children but the school should not be the center of a child's universe.
Humanity has not solved all of it's problems, with nor without religion. Humanity is trying, and has since our first ancestors. We try different systems, clan, tribal, kings, emperors, democracies, communism, socialism, capitalism, paganism, monotheism, atheism, ok I think everyone gets the idea. Some have worked for a time, others evolved with bits and pieces being carried on over generations. We are very much a work in progress.
I think a problem arises in that it is hard for any person to have a perspective outside themselves, ergo each person is the center of their own universe. Any attempt to see the universe with another center is imagining what it is like and will seldom be 100% accurate. And from the personal level to the species level the same problem persists. Will humans ever be able to truly perceive the world and not put themselves in the middle of it?
Post a Comment