What's God Like?
(While this is just an email I've decided to include it as a post because next week I'm going to do some entries on evolution)
Dear J,
I don't know how serious you are about pursuing this question but if you are I'll reiterate my main point: If you want to understand these things you can't do it on your own, you have to read books. I would suggest anything by GK. Chesterton. He was Catholic, exceptionally well read, very bright, and a lot of fun. The first thing you should do is expose yourself to the quality of mind of the men who have thought about these matters.
I will mention one concept: The Christian God reaches out to His people because He desires that they should worship Him. He is a judgmental God but a loving God. He does not desire His people's damnation but their salvation. He desires to gather his children to Him and so constantly is present to them; in their conscience, in their hope, in their despair, in their constant consciousness of Him . There is no man who does not know God because the Christian God never departs the mind of man, this is an ever present invitation to salvation. But he has given man free will. Man can chose to accept that invitation or not. This is his given nobility, Man can pridefully chose his own destruction. But God stands always in welcome, His house and His arms open. --Normally this concept is expressed more succinctly: "Knock, and ye shall enter."
And if rather than considering these matters as a personal quest and desiring instead just knowledge, you still have to read books.
The concept of other "major" religions I consider trivial.
I am presently concerning myself with questions about evolution. K has the concept that in time man will evolve to the point that a new perceptive capacity will develop. It's his contention that the laws of logic and order that we're able to perceive are not the full explanation of how the world works. He believes that if at some point we do develop this new perceptive capacity, then we will see true physics and true logic, and the unsolvable problems and the mystery of meanings will disappear. I think he's nuts that it's going to happen through evolution and I know it's not going to happen for me, but I do consider the concept interesting and do rather believe it.
As part of looking up the various speculations on our evolutionary future I've discovered that both Neanderthal and Cro Magnon had larger brain capacity than modern man. Neanderthal was slightly larger than Cro Magnon (I don't have the number handy); Cro Magnon was 1600cc. The world average for modern man is 1350cc.
This is kind of fun. I've been to dozens of "science" web sites. The Darwinians handle this embarrassment in differing ways. Most simply ignore the numbers and assert brain size evolution has been constant since Lucy up to the present. Some simply lie, and assert Neanderthal was 1350cc "the same as modern man". Some, in very learned papers, argue the early measurements were wrong; some say it doesn't matter anyway, brain organization is what determines intelligence, not size.
I don't much care, but to see the embarrassment is fun. This is a "blip" in the argument, it's not so aesthetic when the theory has to explain a reversion. Of course the theory can explain it because it in fact explains nothing, but it loses some of the compelling force of inevitability when it has to explain how an apeman had a larger brain than Einstein.
Dear J,
I don't know how serious you are about pursuing this question but if you are I'll reiterate my main point: If you want to understand these things you can't do it on your own, you have to read books. I would suggest anything by GK. Chesterton. He was Catholic, exceptionally well read, very bright, and a lot of fun. The first thing you should do is expose yourself to the quality of mind of the men who have thought about these matters.
I will mention one concept: The Christian God reaches out to His people because He desires that they should worship Him. He is a judgmental God but a loving God. He does not desire His people's damnation but their salvation. He desires to gather his children to Him and so constantly is present to them; in their conscience, in their hope, in their despair, in their constant consciousness of Him . There is no man who does not know God because the Christian God never departs the mind of man, this is an ever present invitation to salvation. But he has given man free will. Man can chose to accept that invitation or not. This is his given nobility, Man can pridefully chose his own destruction. But God stands always in welcome, His house and His arms open. --Normally this concept is expressed more succinctly: "Knock, and ye shall enter."
And if rather than considering these matters as a personal quest and desiring instead just knowledge, you still have to read books.
The concept of other "major" religions I consider trivial.
I am presently concerning myself with questions about evolution. K has the concept that in time man will evolve to the point that a new perceptive capacity will develop. It's his contention that the laws of logic and order that we're able to perceive are not the full explanation of how the world works. He believes that if at some point we do develop this new perceptive capacity, then we will see true physics and true logic, and the unsolvable problems and the mystery of meanings will disappear. I think he's nuts that it's going to happen through evolution and I know it's not going to happen for me, but I do consider the concept interesting and do rather believe it.
As part of looking up the various speculations on our evolutionary future I've discovered that both Neanderthal and Cro Magnon had larger brain capacity than modern man. Neanderthal was slightly larger than Cro Magnon (I don't have the number handy); Cro Magnon was 1600cc. The world average for modern man is 1350cc.
This is kind of fun. I've been to dozens of "science" web sites. The Darwinians handle this embarrassment in differing ways. Most simply ignore the numbers and assert brain size evolution has been constant since Lucy up to the present. Some simply lie, and assert Neanderthal was 1350cc "the same as modern man". Some, in very learned papers, argue the early measurements were wrong; some say it doesn't matter anyway, brain organization is what determines intelligence, not size.
I don't much care, but to see the embarrassment is fun. This is a "blip" in the argument, it's not so aesthetic when the theory has to explain a reversion. Of course the theory can explain it because it in fact explains nothing, but it loses some of the compelling force of inevitability when it has to explain how an apeman had a larger brain than Einstein.
posted by mouse at 2:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home