If you listened to Thom Hartman's show today you heard him talking about how Hobbs and other philosophers that tend to support "The Divine Right of Kings" believe that man in general, in specific, and in the agragate, is evil in nature. Were that man war born an animal. You see many so called Christian philosophers believe that the animal kingdom is morally "neutral". Foxes are born to hunt rabbits and that if the fox overhunts the rabbits then there will be fewer foxes, and this will correct the imballance. In like manner, if there are too many rabbits that perhaps the foxes will be better fed and they'll be more of them and this will correct the inballance. But this "moral neutrality" goes all the way back to the "green slime" that was on planet earth three billion years ago. If you believed last night's Nova episode then for the first billion years earth was bombarded with every manner of asteroid and metior constantly so that bacteria had to either go under the sea or under ground. Here they fed on a hydrogen sulfide cocktail that they were able to gain nutrients from. They were anaerobic so did not require oxygen. But then these bacteria came to the surface "when it was safe" and all by themselves invented phytosynthesis to convirt CO2 into oxygen and at long last raise the oxygen level in the atnosphere over the next two billion years to a level which higher forms of life (which hadn't evolved yet) could breathe. Of course today bacteria don't do photosynthesis. So this "green slime" must be a now extinct species that by now has evolved into something else, like algae. In all this the bacteria life form was "morally neutral". All of the social behavior practiced by every wild beast that ever existed is "neutral". It "works" and arguably is part of God's plan for the functioning and possible evolution of nature. This theory states, very akin to some of the fasciest liberals of today, that man is peculiar in his morality in that he is not just A-moral but Immoral. Somehow everything was hunky-dory untill man showed up on the scene. Man is seen by Hobbs as a peculiarly savage "wild beast" that needs to be tamed. And the way that man can be tamed is by a "higher power" (probably the writer) "taking over" and assuming control of mankind. Therefore since man is immoral- - all of his decisions apart from the King or Emperor or God, are immoral. And in the agragate his decisions are immoral. Therefore Democracy can't work but will only result in savagry. A few commentators such as Gene Scott and Rush Limbaugh have spoken of their role as being a "benign dictatorship". It is man's role to "submit to a higher authority". Under Calvinism, this authority "makes itself known" and if you are a devout person that means "God has been preparing you your whole life" to come to the decision point NOW in your life to "submit to the authority that presents itself" be it Pope, King, or Despot. In the liberal scheme of things- - government beaurocricy is that somehow divinely destined Despot Ruler of our lives. Many conservatives, who think like I do, are cheerleaders for the "Power of the People" or populisum movements where "The people take back the power of government". Because they reason (correctly) that if a lot of these decisions by environmental or social beaurocrats or court decisions like Roe vs Wade, were ever put to a public vote they would fail, and the people would have restored things to their right relationship with government beaurocrats as servant to the people rather than their overlords. I disagree with Thom Hartman in that he defines "liberal" as the good guy but I see "liberal" as the envisioned Despot that the philosopher Hobbs believes should come to rule our lives and save us from our savagry such as not using environmental friendly cleaning products or the wrong kind of gasoline with lead in it (God forbid) which would actually improve performance. Parenthetically I find this whole Children's Toys recall as a little on the hysterical side. They are worried about a child sucking all the lead paint off the toy or swallowing magnets.
In a sense, and as we have already illustrated- - man is seen as a singularly evil creation. Therefore since Corporations are neutral- - they have a moral superiority over man and democracy, which is evil. Gene Scott, a Christian, himself has stated that perhaps the ape evolved but that man was created by God. I think the thinking goes that once man had a moral choice the apes and other wild beasts didn't have- - and so became evil by violating this or that divine precept (which wouldn't be invented yet for thousands of years). But in another sense the idea itself of "green slime" evolving into higher life is mocked by Christians. They say that life has already been created in a test tube or at least the amino acids have. According to Christians there just "isn't enough time in the Universe" for life to have in such a "short time" as four billion years. First of all Christian math is notauriously in error. You see this when Chuck Smith starts talking about probabilities. So if your authority is someone who can't do math tells you "there isn't enough time for life to have evolved" you have to take it with a grain of salt. The next thing they tell you is that even if you got the right DNA sequence it would still be a "dead molicule" because it wouldn't have that "divine spark" that is in all life. I guess we'll have to test that theory. The idea of many is that God is a "life force" and a "sensient force" and that is this "consciousness" or "higher consciousness" that is life. Many Christians don't believe there will be animals in heaven because they don't have that "higher consciousness" or "quickened spirit" that humans have. On the other hand, others (correctly, I believe) argue that if there is a "life force" it is in ALL life, from "green slime" to the primates, to man himself. The thing is when you speak of this "life force" with Evolution, it's a whole new ball game. Because you are not just dealing with inanimate molicules any more but a "sensient force" as Captain Piccard would say. Just what makes a "sensient being" is truely a divine mystery. What is that seemingly illusive (magical?) force that makes a life form "self aware"? And the question is "is it an illusion?" Even if it IS an illusion, it's an illusion SHARED by all life forms, and that makes it worth talking about. They say even the individual cells inyour body have a "Will". The cells in your body "want" to heal you. (I guess you just gotta "talk to them") So this green slime that occupied the world three Billion years ago "wanted to evolve", that is, if it were just "given the chance". Once all those lightning storms and asteroid barroges subsided and blue sky appeared these primitive bacteria had a chance to "enlarge their capacities" and evolve and grow into something new. You can't use mathematical probabilities (flawed as they are when Christians attempt to use them) when you're talking about an intelligent Life Force that exists within each and every cell. The cell it itself consciously seeking to evolve. It isn't happening by "accident". Indeed you may say "God" is guiding the process. Whoever (if anybody) was guiding the process it's a pretty good trick for earth to evolve from the sulphuric acid showers and valcanic activity and ash filled, asteroid filled skies of yesterday, to the world that exists today.
No comments:
Post a Comment