Unoriginal

All I’m saying is, if there isn’t a God, it’s a rum business for evolution to produce an animal that can contemplate the end of its own existence. I’d call it a cruel joke, but then, there’s no Joker.

Comments

  1. Quin Finnegan says

    Okay, I'll bite. One problem is in treating EOG and evolution as antinomes.

    Here is the first thing I pulled up on Zenit.

    Treating Evolution as dispositive in the argument of EOG is a sham for both Richard Dawkins and PBXVI, which is why PBXVI would never do so.

    I think claims that Evolution proves there isn't a God rest on beliefs about the role of chance, or randomness, in determining life. It seems to me that deniers of the EOG treat randomness as a metaphysical truth underpinning Evolution without acknowedging its metaphysical status. If we acknowledge metaphysical problems as such, we will probably come to acknowledge that many of them may never be "solved" (where does time go?); we may also come to reconsider certain teleological assumptions as well. Such as "why do I need my argument to be true?".

    Another problem is in claiming that because there is a joke, there must be a joker. This is analogical to the idea that because there is Creation, there must be a Creator. This is true insofar as we use language to lead us to believe it is true, but what if "creation" isn't created at all? What if it simply "is"?

    Personally, I suspect that all the above are true. Creation is created by a creator, and because of that simply is, or maybe it's better to say beessence can coincide with existence, though not often recognized as such by mortals such as myself.

    And life can be a cruel joke, and there is a Joker.

  2. Quin Finnegan says

    Why is the title of this post "Unoriginal"? Because you don't really believe in your own objection? Or because you do?

  3. Quin Finnegan says

    My ego demands that I repost these comments as Original Posts. "Original"?!? Hah!

  4. Rufus McCain says

    WTF is EOG?

  5. Quin Finnegan says

    The opposite of ego, maybe.

  6. Quin Finnegan says

    Or maybe ego's security.

  7. Quin Finnegan says

    Sorry. My own shorthand for "Existence of God". I should probably write EoG, or just spell it out, but I use it in class a lot, and just abbreviate.

  8. Matthew Lickona says

    Quin,
    I wasn't arguing about anything at all. I certainly wasn't setting up God against evolution. I was saying that if there isn't a God, then man is something of an evolutionary monster – one whose peculiar adaptation, call it reason, including the ability to think abstractly about things like the meaning of life and the end of one's own existence – is at once triumph and curse. To say that evolution's production of humanity can be seen as a cruel joke in the light of God's nonexistence is not to make any claims about the truth of either God or evolution.

    Nor was I claiming that "because there is a joke, there must be a Joker." I was saying that the tragedy of man's existence is compounded as he dreams of stamping a Mind on a mindless universe, that man is tempted to regard his existence as a cruel joke in the light of God's nonexistence, but he can't even do that, because if God doesn't exist, then there is no Joker to tell the joke, and as you say, it's simply the way things are, horrible and without any humor at all.

    What I said was not any kind of objection to anything, except insofar as calling something a "rum business" is an objection. That is, except insofar as saying the situation sucks is an objection to said situation. I called the post unoriginal because I am well aware that similar sentiments have been voiced before.

  9. Matthew Lickona says
  10. Quin Finnegan says

    Yeah … don't know how I missed that. Too serious. Again.

    Poor Quigley.

  11. Jonathan Webb says

    Matt, good example of what Percy called the queerness of life, and the failure of the secular mind to even acknowledge it.

    What did he say? Something about being born in Queens, raised in Manhattan and buried in The Bronx?

  12. cubeland mystic says

    The seculars do acknowledge the queerness of life, they commit genocide in the name of a greater good.

  13. Matthew Lickona says

    Thanks, Jonathan!

  14. Matthew,

    To jump on Cube's bandwidth bandwagon, consider too that the whole purpose of this historical illusion known as Progress is itself an attept to work out on our own (FXXX God – that is, if He even existed!) the monstrosity of our current evolutionary status.

    It's why your Arthur C. Clarkes and Isaac Asimovs needed to write their own version of the Book of Mormon. Once called it 2001: A Space Odyssey; the other called it Every Damn Thing I Ever Wrote.

    But your point is well taken. Because if it can be demonstrated that each new example of "progress" fails in virtue (vice?) of its historical chauvenism toward the past (e.g. The Clarkean Moonbases never happened – and the Starchild seems even further away than ever…) then your insight represents a successful application of the ontological pliers to the EvoAths' metaphysical balls…

    JOB

Speak Your Mind

*