Recalling an interview with Stephen Fry, in which he denounces the existence of God because what God would allow a child to (...die of leukemia, suffer abuse, etc, etc).
And - on first reflection you would agree with him. Certainly it's fashionable to disagree with God - at least the God of Roman Catholicism - and even as such it's less the "God" than the interpretations and intermediaries they've appointed on the subject.
But - here I disagree - to even name "God" is to anthropomorphize him - make him in our image. This so that we may more readily understand him (or her).
This is by it's very nature absurd.
We can imagine - albeit poorly - what it would be like to be an ant. If we err it is more than like that we project too much of our own consciousness into the ant - imagining it capable of a bigger portion of consciousness than it has. Think of a popular cartoon starring Woody Allen. But an ant has a finite relationship to us - we can measure the difference in size, in our brains, in our relative scope of duties and perceptions.
No one would believe for a moment that an ant could in any way imagine what it would be like to be ourselves. The difference is too gross, if an ant could imagine being anything other than being an ant, most surely it would become that.
Now, compared to the breadth of the universe as we have perceived it - and the breadth, spanning billions if not trillions of light years, the age - billions of years - and these - to be sure - are no crude approximations of it's size or age, merely the upper bounds upon which we are able to measure them. It is most certainly much vaster and older than we can comprehend. Yet - in our arrogance - we think that we can understand it.
Understanding it, being able to predict and control it would make us Gods.
Clearly we cannot.
The difference in consciousness between us and the universe as we have so far perceived it is of an infinitude of orders of magnitudes greater than that of the consciousness of an ant versus ourselves.
If you take the universe to be conscious, a living organism of sorts - and if this is in fact this is the case, then are there other organisms out there on a similar scale? And - how would we know?
People know that they are a part of society (Most people. No, many people. Some people.) Do your cells know that they're a part of the ecosystem that is your body? Do your cells grieve the deaths of neighboring cells, and if so, of what business is it to you? Certainly no one pays attention to the deaths of their cells, which happens millions of times per day, nor could they be expected to and continue at the level of functioning expected of their organism. A certain callousness must accompany any increment in evolution, the countless daily deaths of my cells is of little to no consequence to the well being of the organism as a whole - in fact - take cancer for example - the death of your cells may be crucial to the well being of your organism.
In any event, while I appreciate his arguments against "God", I don't think they're valid. I don't argue that there is or isn't, only that if there is a God, or higher consciousness, than by necessity it's intelligence and motivations must lie beyond our comprehension.
- Details
- Category: Ideas & Questions
You see the signs - some crazy old hippie camping out somewhere near 12 Mile, large hand-painted signs warning of human induced climate change, "The Anropocene", most people dismiss him. Last year his signs were 3 mile, he's a seasonal visitor.
Most people dismiss him as a lunatic.
I'm not so sure.
Every year we're breaking more and more heat records. Less and less precipitation. Milder and shorter winters.
Tomorrow, the next few days, forecast at 40 degrees Celsius or greater.
I've never seen it that hot out here. Even in Saskatchewan, or the Drumheller Valley.
Never, not once. And it's not even July. And it's going to get worse. Up to 50 degrees Celsius in Kamloops, if you can believe it. 42 in Nelson.
***
Note that "Climate Change" has almost entirely shifted - this is a "Heat Wave" - there's no mention of how Climate Change might have driven or impacted this. We hit new records - year after year, the classic climate change hallmarks - yet now, for some reason, it's off the table for discussion.
This Pandemic, it was just the toe in the door - there's a world of trouble coming. There's a theory of climate change that talks about "Tipping Points" - how - once past a certain tipping point, it's almost certainly irreversible, and the change will only accelerate. We're there.
Think of ball rolling down a slope. Predictable, you know when it leaves, you know when it arrives at the bottom. Simple formula.
But this, this is more a ball starting to fall off an incline, into the abyss, and the scientists, they've foretold it, predicted it, but were silenced, but there's good information out there that were at a critical time in human history. World history - not just ours - and that shit is about to go sideways fast.
And so lockdowns end, eat, drink, be merry, for the Pandemic is over but the end of the world is upon us...
- Details
- Category: Ideas & Questions
I mean, the abundance of fringe theories regarding Covid. By which I don't mean the Wuhan Lab Leak theory, that was mine own theory shortly into the pandemic, discredited largely by Trump's support, and back again in fashion. Nothing destroys credibility like having an idiot agree with you. No, I mean the people that think it's all a hoax, an attempt by the government to seize control, "New World Order" and all that.
It is boggling to me that - given the abundance of news from various sources, people should choose to believe that it doesn't exist. That the lockdowns are an attempt by the government to control the populace. I mean, we have examples of countries that did it right - Australia, New Zealand. And how is it possible that politicians - whose intelligence ranges from minute to diabolical, depending on the country you live in - could orchestrate such a thing? I mean, to believe it's a hoax requires far more faith in government than believing it's legitimate.
Anyways, it's almost over. Breathe a sigh of relief. For the time being.
- Details
- Category: Ideas & Questions
This, in the news a fair bit, museums across the world repatriating items of questionable provenance. But it raises the question - at what point does history belong to the world? Are the great pyramids "The History of Egypt" or are they part of the larger history of the human race? And, in politically unstable countries - such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, etc. - where conflict and change of government frequently threaten collections of importance and interest to the world - is it not them better off in an environment where it can educate more diverse audiences of global backgrounds? Consider the damage done by the Taliban, Looters in the Egyptian riots, etc. - does not their history - or - arguably OUR history - deserve better conservation and stewardship than said nations have provided? Would the Elgin marbles really have survived if left in the Parthenon?
Merely an argument in favor of larger thinking beyond geographical borders when it comes to the world's historical and artistic treasures.
- Details
- Category: Ideas & Questions