I choose to remain cynical.
I am cynical by choice.
Cynicism and pessimism are two very different breeds of depressing. Cynicism, in all reality, is not true depressing, while pessimism is. Pessimism puts a negative spin on everything; cynicism sees the world for what it is. Unfortunately, in the world that we live in, things are not so great. Because of this, people seem to believe that cynicism is no more than depressing. I say cynicism is rejecting what was never there. I admit to having a cynical point of view, but at least there is on chance that I be accused of being ignorant. Ignorance is as much of a choice as cynicism; I choose the lesser of two evils.
I was once taught by a man who claimed that only children could get away with, or afford to be cynical. They have no other burdens in life, and are therefore not weighed down by the decay of society. I respect the man to no end, and regard him as a true genius in a world full of superficial genius. I also understand where he is coming from. I choose however to reject it and replace it with my own mindset. I fully understand the burden and eventual effects of cynicism. I also understand that consequences that exist while wearing rose colored glasses. I choose to be cynical. This is not a pessimistic choice. My life may not be as joyful as anothers, my thoughts may be heavier with burden than a child, but I am not ignorant, and cynicism aids me in that rejection.
This was a short post, but I think it was necessary following accusations of pessimism.
Kudos to mankind,
we have failed,
the only difference between you and I is that I accept our failures.
January 28, 2009
January 17, 2009
Evolution - The UNDENIABLE Truth
So this will be a fairly short post, and it relies on information and thoughts provoked yet again from G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.
G.K. Chesterton discusses the inadequacy of evidence denying evolution (which I included in my previous post), and manages to deliver a conclusion that evolution actually intensifies the existence of God than if no evolution were to have existed. Paraphrasing his words:
If man simply came to earth one day with humble beginnings through Adam and Eve and ate the apple to create sins, life would be much LESS simple and extraordinary than if we accept evolution as our past.
If man were to have evolved over thousands of years then our story is much more exciting and supernatural. If man were in fact just another animal who managed to evolve from the constraints that animals have upon them, gaining our free will, our advanced (and constantly advancing) society, and developing into civilized, highly communicative beings, then that is not only highly believable, but it is a credit to the human race, and to God. See, evolution is more natural than an inclination that we were simply dropped onto an earth, already made without us. The natural, in that sense, actually becomes more supernatural than what is perceived as being supernatural. (That last concept was a direct paraphrase of Chesterton's main idea presented).
He then continued to explain that evolution does not destroy man's past. "Cavemen" were never actually found to live in caves. Caves were found with paintings on the wall and it was deduced that cavemen used these caves as homes. But isn't it is much more reliable and sensible to say cavemen used caves, and they painted animals and such on the walls. That is what we know of their caves. This makes cavemen HUMAN. Art is a human construct fed by human intuition and, in some people, instinctiveness. So they were artists and used their natural environment to spread this art. Yet were are constricted by these theories that cavemen were brutal beings who beat their women and had no communicative dialect other than grunting. They're also followed by their discovery of fire and of the wheel. I can guarantee you that neither of these discoveries were accidents or coincidental. One final argument in favor of our past as that there is no way for us to determine a "primal being's" (such as a caveman's) brain map. There is no way to definitively determine that they were in fact barbaric and were not as advanced as us. They did not speak English, that does not mean they didn't communicate. Through anthropology, we know that their skeletal structure was very different from ours, and was actually more comparable to a primate. We also know that their outer appearances were more comparable to a primate. What we don't know is a definite answer to their intellectual capacity or civilized society.
It is logical to assume that they weren't as evolved as we are now, it is not logical to assume we have a past of mindless apes who made fire and beat women before killing sabretooth tigers with clubs.
Chesterton was ahead of his time and managed to accept evolution while keeping within the constraints of religion. C.S. Lewis (possibly the most notorious religious writer) agreed with Chesterton's writings and supported them.
There is too much evidence supporting evolution to deny it. But accepting evolution can be done within the constraints of religious belief. It is much more impressive to have us evolve from what we know as "cavemen" than to have us simply appear on earth one day.
It seems the more we evolve and the more we are learned, the more we consider ourselves wrongfully superior. Our behaviors and lifestyles are right for our time, but were not necessary in the past (and most still aren't truly necessary).
The minds of men are not inclusive.
G.K. Chesterton discusses the inadequacy of evidence denying evolution (which I included in my previous post), and manages to deliver a conclusion that evolution actually intensifies the existence of God than if no evolution were to have existed. Paraphrasing his words:
If man simply came to earth one day with humble beginnings through Adam and Eve and ate the apple to create sins, life would be much LESS simple and extraordinary than if we accept evolution as our past.
If man were to have evolved over thousands of years then our story is much more exciting and supernatural. If man were in fact just another animal who managed to evolve from the constraints that animals have upon them, gaining our free will, our advanced (and constantly advancing) society, and developing into civilized, highly communicative beings, then that is not only highly believable, but it is a credit to the human race, and to God. See, evolution is more natural than an inclination that we were simply dropped onto an earth, already made without us. The natural, in that sense, actually becomes more supernatural than what is perceived as being supernatural. (That last concept was a direct paraphrase of Chesterton's main idea presented).
He then continued to explain that evolution does not destroy man's past. "Cavemen" were never actually found to live in caves. Caves were found with paintings on the wall and it was deduced that cavemen used these caves as homes. But isn't it is much more reliable and sensible to say cavemen used caves, and they painted animals and such on the walls. That is what we know of their caves. This makes cavemen HUMAN. Art is a human construct fed by human intuition and, in some people, instinctiveness. So they were artists and used their natural environment to spread this art. Yet were are constricted by these theories that cavemen were brutal beings who beat their women and had no communicative dialect other than grunting. They're also followed by their discovery of fire and of the wheel. I can guarantee you that neither of these discoveries were accidents or coincidental. One final argument in favor of our past as that there is no way for us to determine a "primal being's" (such as a caveman's) brain map. There is no way to definitively determine that they were in fact barbaric and were not as advanced as us. They did not speak English, that does not mean they didn't communicate. Through anthropology, we know that their skeletal structure was very different from ours, and was actually more comparable to a primate. We also know that their outer appearances were more comparable to a primate. What we don't know is a definite answer to their intellectual capacity or civilized society.
It is logical to assume that they weren't as evolved as we are now, it is not logical to assume we have a past of mindless apes who made fire and beat women before killing sabretooth tigers with clubs.
Chesterton was ahead of his time and managed to accept evolution while keeping within the constraints of religion. C.S. Lewis (possibly the most notorious religious writer) agreed with Chesterton's writings and supported them.
There is too much evidence supporting evolution to deny it. But accepting evolution can be done within the constraints of religious belief. It is much more impressive to have us evolve from what we know as "cavemen" than to have us simply appear on earth one day.
It seems the more we evolve and the more we are learned, the more we consider ourselves wrongfully superior. Our behaviors and lifestyles are right for our time, but were not necessary in the past (and most still aren't truly necessary).
The minds of men are not inclusive.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)