Ego and Super-Ego Debate God, Evolution and Science, plus other Important Stuff
The Ego and Super Ego Debate God, Evolution and Science
Exposition - The Narrator speaks
Narrator - Everyone has an opinion! It doesn’t matter whether we know what we’re talking about or not. We still offer up our point of view with the absolute assurance of someone operating with divinely guided wisdom. It’s simply human nature. I suppose it’s possible that some folk don’t do this, but we seldom hear from them, so how do we know they actually exist? This seems perfectly logical to me.
In fact, I hate other people’s opinions, especially if their opinions are sufficiently different from mine, so as to make me uncomfortable. This is the surest evidence of the wrongness of their thinking.
Who says? Me, that’s who! And when I says something, I'm always right! So, let’s dispense with the niceties and get down to the egregious offenses that have caused me discomfort.
I was reading a debate about entropy, on Facebook, of all places. It was a rip snorting debate that made me tingle with excitement. Especially when you consider the subject matter, which was; “Could the second law of thermodynamics be harmonized with evolution?” As I began to salivate with the possibilities, I found myself typing furiously in response. I needed to set the record straight on this entropy business—so I could get back to feeling comfortable, about my personal worldview and all.
What is entropy, you ask? Here’s a simple, easy to understand definition. One devoid of the overly complex, blow-hard-infested definitions offered by scientific types trying to muddy the water for us average folk. Living things are filled with energy or heat, not like the Human Torch kind, but enough energy to keep us going.
Let’s say you’re hit by a truck and die, your body immediately begins to lose heat and decay, rotting like fruit left in the sun. Entropy is the loss of heat and energy, which is then transferred into a different state, Cleveland for instance (Just Kidding.) As it decays it can be consumed by other animals or insects, which in turn, becomes their fuel as they consume it. It can also become gaseous and feed the soil or atmosphere. But it’s never simply lost, dissipating into nothingness.
For me, the debate was more than an exchange of ideas by differing parties, however. It became an internal debate. In other words, I began to talk to myself (Without moving my lips, of course) furiously debating myself in an effort to restore some form of cerebral harmony. In the end, I believe I won, which is good! It’s always bad when you lose a debate with yourself. Yourself goes about being uppity, a real jerk, making you feel bad about yourself.
Having said all that, absent some Freudian analysis and the casting out of demons, I think I came out on top. I've kept a record of the event, completely unedited (except for the parts that made me look bad!) Here it is, the unvarnished truth (More or less) for your consumption and edification. I call it “The battle between the ego and the super ego!” I leave it up to you to define who won.
For the uninitiated, Id, Ego and Super Ego are terms developed by Freud that reflect the various levels of consciousness. The “Id” is that slobbering fool that you can’t take to parties, which is why he was left out of the debate. He’s prone to primal outbursts, a glutton, loves porn and has bad table manners. The “Ego” is your everyday guy, making his way through life with some reasonable awareness of others, does his job, goes home and pays the bills. The “Super Ego” is the artist, poet and intellectual of the group. He’s concerned about philosophy, religion, politics and art—and sometimes, he’s a high highfalutin, braggadocious know-it-all.
What evidence is there that such a diverse cast of characters occupies your body? Not a lot. But it makes a convenient metaphor for the complexity of human nature. To say nothing of a good excuse for bad behavior when all else fails.
The super ego began the discussion by asking a question, knowing full and well that the son of bitch ego would have something to say about it.
Act one: The Conversation Begins
Super Ego – So, what evidence is there that matter and energy combined, could create a nearly infinite range of living and nonliving things out of a microscopic chunk of incredibly dense, nonliving matter, absent an external cause. The second law of thermodynamics suggests that as energy or heat passes from an object it begins to decay. Why wouldn’t the matter that existed a millisecond after the Big Bang begin to decay, like immediately?
Narrator - As usual, the Super Ego, having a super ego started with a lot of big words. Surprisingly, the Ego held his own, at least for the time being, offering up some seismic profundities of his own.
Ego – Because the universe was really, really hot, for a really long time and there was no atmosphere to accelerate the rate of decay, that would be one answer, or is that two?
Super Ego – After it cooled down why didn’t it begin to decay?
Ego – Because, by that time, other things were starting to happen. Fast forward many billions of years, after all of the nearly incalculable number of things that needed to happen, happened, or “Evolved” making a sustainable universe possible—then you get to the earth.
Super Ego - A good question might be; what caused life to begin on earth, and apparently, nowhere else?
Narrator - It was at this point that the Ego started having a bit of trouble.
Ego – Wait a minute! I’ve seen lots of episodes of Star Trek, and believe me, there’s all kinds of thinly disguised, racist human archetypes flying around in outer space! Are you really trying to tell me that in the whole universe, life only evolved here?
Super Ego – Well, if evolution is correct, the probability that life should have randomly evolved at all, is statistically non-existent. I mean, numbers like one to twenty billionth power—or some other such ridiculously large number—and make no mistake, that’s a lot of power! All those episodes of Star Trek aside, there’s no reason why a habitable universe should exist at all, if purely random, unguided, material processes are the sole creative power at work.
Narrator - This should cause a red flag to be raised for any reasonable person. Exactly what kind of creative power do nonliving matter and energy have, throw in the necessary “Space” which you need for material objects to exist in—and then you have the problem of Time. Where’d that come from? “Time” apparently, automatically comes along for the ride.”
Ego –So, why did life evolve here, why not everywhere or nowhere? What makes the earth unique?
Super Ego – The earth isn’t a closed system, like a science experiment in a lab where you’re trying to eliminate contamination from some outside source. In this instance an open system is our friend. Why? Because you can have something outside of the earth that adds that special sauce that makes life possible—from a meteor, or maybe the sun.
On the other hand, if that thing is the sun, can the sun or gravity, electromagnetism, or some combination of these forces be considered reasonable causes? If not, what would be? Before you can have a simple bowl of soup for a meal you have to have the ingredients for the soup. Those ingredients must be combined in the correct order. This is a clumsy metaphor, of course, but only because it’s far too simple. In reality, the universe is infinitely more complex, as is the “soup” that’s necessary to create life. In fact, the term “infinitely” may be too small to convey the sheer complexity of it all. And yet, scientists talk, at least in public, with an air of certainty, much like theologians speaking to the great unwashed—keep it simple stupid—but always speak with great authority—at least if you want the prestige and the money to continue to flow.”
Narrator - The Super Ego appears to be on a roll, which pisses the ego off. Who does that Super Ego think he is, asking and answering all the questions, sounds suspiciously like he’s speechifying to me...I mean to the ego, that is.
Ego - Hey…wait a minute, I’m the one that’s asking the questions!
Super Ego – Don’t worry about it. Not only does this method save space, but, it means that my alter ego has to come up with fewer jokes. So, if you don’t mind I’ll continue. This represents not only incredibly complex and diverse life forms, but their corresponding environments, as well, both of which would have to evolve simultaneously in order for them to be sustainable. What you have are a staggering range of remarkably complex living organism, inhabiting a diverse and finely tuned eco system, existing in an even more finely tuned universe. This fine tuning enables the universe to exist in some habitable form. All of which are governed by exquisitely elaborate laws of nature. Unfortunately, prior to the big bang, none of these laws that govern nature existed. They, like nature itself, seemed to emerge (scientist would say evolved) after the big bang. Why? No one knows—and contrary to all the lofty, self-flagellating rhetoric, we aren’t close to knowing. But few scientists are willing to say this publicly. Grants and all the money and prestige that come with being a genius, aren’t likely to continue if you throw up your hands and say “How did all this happen? How should I know?
Ego - Man…that sounds like science…or math…or some other equally boring subject.
Super Ego – Maybe you/I need to ask ourselves some tougher questions. What kinds of changes would be required at the microscopic level to get to the point where nature has anything to select—to say nothing of the macroscopic level where you have big things; planets, solar systems and galaxies? If you can answer that question, you still have other problems, both big and small. If you’re going to grow a wing that’s functional and not merely an appendage flopping in the wind you’ll need a hell of a lot more than something shaped like a wing. A half a wing would provide no evolutionary advantage. In fact, it would likely be a serious disadvantage. There would have to be literally thousands of small changes to enable a radical change in the body plan of animal to make it possible for it to fly. This is equally true of every individual part of any complex living being or system.
What evidence is there that nature has the capacity to create radically different body plans, representing the full range of living species by a process of selection, acting on random variation. Which is, of course, an anthropomorphic use of language, since nature doesn’t really select anything. Apparently, science can use anthropomorphic language, but not religion, because religious folk are too dumb to know better. Make no mistake, dumb works both ways, though. It isn’t a one way street. It’s more like a super-highway with people traveling in random directions. But I digress! A slight variation within a species, changes in sparrows or finch beaks, for instance, does not, a compelling case make, at least not from a macro-intellectual point of view, Hey, I think I just made up a term.
Ego – Maybe you should form a theory, get a grant, attract some followers who’ll defend your ideas to the death and then begin killing all the infidels!
Super Ego – Could nonliving matter produce high levels of complexity and order through purely random, unguided processes? The answer is obvious. There is no such evidence (relatively speaking, that is) only inference taken well beyond the existing evidence.
Ego - Hey, this is getting boring. How about some humor, a bit of levity? I got one! A Jew walks into a bar with an alligator…....
Super Ego - All right, shut your pie hole, I’m rolling now, don’t interrupt again or you’re out here, subsumed into my higher consciousness! Now, let me continue.
Ego – What an asshole!
Super Ego - That’s why Stephan Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins agree that there appears to be an intelligibility to the universe. Dawkins is willing to except deism or space aliens as reasonable causes for creation—just not a personal god—one who demands some form of moral or social accountability. On the other hand, if the universe is governed by highly specific laws; gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear strong and weak forces, as well as dozens of other preexisting forces, then, intelligible moral or legal codes that govern human behavior would seem a perfectly reasonable expression of the Laws of nature, since humans are obviously a part of nature. To put it another way “Natural Law” as defined by enlightenment philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes or the Mosaic Law and other modern and ancient legal codes were/are attempts to find social order within the natural world. Each appeals to a higher power than human righteousness as a standard.”
The Founding Fathers encoded this as part of our constitution. If human rights were given by man-made government, the government could just as easily take them away. But, if these rights were inalienable, because they were god given and an intrinsic part of human nature, then no government or king could violate them”.
Ego - Moral codes, the Constitution, what the hell are you talking about? Did you say something about aliens? Now you’re talking! Did you see “Alien” vs. Predator?” That was awesome!
Super Ego – I warned you! From here on out it’s just me, no more stupid jokes. I command you to return to my unconscious, where you’ll only occasionally be annoying.”
One of the biggest problems for atheists is the simple minded way in which religion demands allegiance to a particular idea of god—or death and eternal punishment for the infidel. I’m solidly with the atheists on that one. But the notion that human beings are nothing more than matter in motion, when in fact, they are complex beyond anything that science can begin to make sense of, is arrogance personified. It is, likewise, inherently nihilistic. Perhaps, if we thought of god as the great eternal biologist/benevolent farmer, we’d get better traction.
The laws of nature can’t be responsible for the creation of nature, since all of nature, including time, matter, space and energy came into being at the moment of creation. Or to put it another way, after the singularity that caused the ‘Big Bang.” If there is no nature, neither could there be a preexistent law of nature as its cause—not without a “Supernatural” source of law—a lawgiver that supersedes nature, as it were. Is this anthropomorphic? Sure! Do we have any other choice but to see the world in terms of our own experience? At least initially, I don’t think so. Eventually, however, as our knowledge and experience grows we are forced to evaluate our self-delusional world-view, seeking something greater than ourselves as a reasonable arbiter of truth. Reason being the operative word.
Oftentimes, atheists are arguing with televangelists and evangelical, political activists who are eagerly pushing an evangelical worldview on the rest of us. Hypocritical preachers who preach the love of money and power as the beginning of all good, instead of the root of all evil. Send women back to the kitchen, gays back to the closet, and oust the infidel from America’s sacred shores and all will be well with the world. They teach a growing disdain for knowledge with dinosaurs and humans living in a six thousand year old universe, and evil spirits as the cause of human suffering. But that would be like having Thomas Aquinas debate “Mister Wizard” as a proof religions authority over science.
Another prime issue is suffering. Would a benevolent god allow untold suffering if he could intervene, but didn’t? This same question is asked constantly in our political debates. If we could alleviate the suffering of the poor by elevating their standard of living, but don’t, can we really be thought of as civilized? This is a loaded question, since no one is suggesting that the poor shouldn’t be helped. The only real question, is how? Do you give a man a fish, or do you teach him to fish? Is god the great enabler, eager to intervene on our behalf every time we get into trouble, generally as the result of our choices? Or, is god the great teacher, enabling man through his considerable and innate gifts to be self-reliant—necessarily tempered by mercy, love and self-sacrifice? Which story is the bible telling, or science, or politicos, for that matter, and does it matter?
To be continued......
Mark Magula
Exposition - The Narrator speaks
Narrator - Everyone has an opinion! It doesn’t matter whether we know what we’re talking about or not. We still offer up our point of view with the absolute assurance of someone operating with divinely guided wisdom. It’s simply human nature. I suppose it’s possible that some folk don’t do this, but we seldom hear from them, so how do we know they actually exist? This seems perfectly logical to me.
In fact, I hate other people’s opinions, especially if their opinions are sufficiently different from mine, so as to make me uncomfortable. This is the surest evidence of the wrongness of their thinking.
Who says? Me, that’s who! And when I says something, I'm always right! So, let’s dispense with the niceties and get down to the egregious offenses that have caused me discomfort.
I was reading a debate about entropy, on Facebook, of all places. It was a rip snorting debate that made me tingle with excitement. Especially when you consider the subject matter, which was; “Could the second law of thermodynamics be harmonized with evolution?” As I began to salivate with the possibilities, I found myself typing furiously in response. I needed to set the record straight on this entropy business—so I could get back to feeling comfortable, about my personal worldview and all.
What is entropy, you ask? Here’s a simple, easy to understand definition. One devoid of the overly complex, blow-hard-infested definitions offered by scientific types trying to muddy the water for us average folk. Living things are filled with energy or heat, not like the Human Torch kind, but enough energy to keep us going.
Let’s say you’re hit by a truck and die, your body immediately begins to lose heat and decay, rotting like fruit left in the sun. Entropy is the loss of heat and energy, which is then transferred into a different state, Cleveland for instance (Just Kidding.) As it decays it can be consumed by other animals or insects, which in turn, becomes their fuel as they consume it. It can also become gaseous and feed the soil or atmosphere. But it’s never simply lost, dissipating into nothingness.
For me, the debate was more than an exchange of ideas by differing parties, however. It became an internal debate. In other words, I began to talk to myself (Without moving my lips, of course) furiously debating myself in an effort to restore some form of cerebral harmony. In the end, I believe I won, which is good! It’s always bad when you lose a debate with yourself. Yourself goes about being uppity, a real jerk, making you feel bad about yourself.
Having said all that, absent some Freudian analysis and the casting out of demons, I think I came out on top. I've kept a record of the event, completely unedited (except for the parts that made me look bad!) Here it is, the unvarnished truth (More or less) for your consumption and edification. I call it “The battle between the ego and the super ego!” I leave it up to you to define who won.
For the uninitiated, Id, Ego and Super Ego are terms developed by Freud that reflect the various levels of consciousness. The “Id” is that slobbering fool that you can’t take to parties, which is why he was left out of the debate. He’s prone to primal outbursts, a glutton, loves porn and has bad table manners. The “Ego” is your everyday guy, making his way through life with some reasonable awareness of others, does his job, goes home and pays the bills. The “Super Ego” is the artist, poet and intellectual of the group. He’s concerned about philosophy, religion, politics and art—and sometimes, he’s a high highfalutin, braggadocious know-it-all.
What evidence is there that such a diverse cast of characters occupies your body? Not a lot. But it makes a convenient metaphor for the complexity of human nature. To say nothing of a good excuse for bad behavior when all else fails.
The super ego began the discussion by asking a question, knowing full and well that the son of bitch ego would have something to say about it.
Act one: The Conversation Begins
Super Ego – So, what evidence is there that matter and energy combined, could create a nearly infinite range of living and nonliving things out of a microscopic chunk of incredibly dense, nonliving matter, absent an external cause. The second law of thermodynamics suggests that as energy or heat passes from an object it begins to decay. Why wouldn’t the matter that existed a millisecond after the Big Bang begin to decay, like immediately?
Narrator - As usual, the Super Ego, having a super ego started with a lot of big words. Surprisingly, the Ego held his own, at least for the time being, offering up some seismic profundities of his own.
Ego – Because the universe was really, really hot, for a really long time and there was no atmosphere to accelerate the rate of decay, that would be one answer, or is that two?
Super Ego – After it cooled down why didn’t it begin to decay?
Ego – Because, by that time, other things were starting to happen. Fast forward many billions of years, after all of the nearly incalculable number of things that needed to happen, happened, or “Evolved” making a sustainable universe possible—then you get to the earth.
Super Ego - A good question might be; what caused life to begin on earth, and apparently, nowhere else?
Narrator - It was at this point that the Ego started having a bit of trouble.
Ego – Wait a minute! I’ve seen lots of episodes of Star Trek, and believe me, there’s all kinds of thinly disguised, racist human archetypes flying around in outer space! Are you really trying to tell me that in the whole universe, life only evolved here?
Super Ego – Well, if evolution is correct, the probability that life should have randomly evolved at all, is statistically non-existent. I mean, numbers like one to twenty billionth power—or some other such ridiculously large number—and make no mistake, that’s a lot of power! All those episodes of Star Trek aside, there’s no reason why a habitable universe should exist at all, if purely random, unguided, material processes are the sole creative power at work.
Narrator - This should cause a red flag to be raised for any reasonable person. Exactly what kind of creative power do nonliving matter and energy have, throw in the necessary “Space” which you need for material objects to exist in—and then you have the problem of Time. Where’d that come from? “Time” apparently, automatically comes along for the ride.”
Ego –So, why did life evolve here, why not everywhere or nowhere? What makes the earth unique?
Super Ego – The earth isn’t a closed system, like a science experiment in a lab where you’re trying to eliminate contamination from some outside source. In this instance an open system is our friend. Why? Because you can have something outside of the earth that adds that special sauce that makes life possible—from a meteor, or maybe the sun.
On the other hand, if that thing is the sun, can the sun or gravity, electromagnetism, or some combination of these forces be considered reasonable causes? If not, what would be? Before you can have a simple bowl of soup for a meal you have to have the ingredients for the soup. Those ingredients must be combined in the correct order. This is a clumsy metaphor, of course, but only because it’s far too simple. In reality, the universe is infinitely more complex, as is the “soup” that’s necessary to create life. In fact, the term “infinitely” may be too small to convey the sheer complexity of it all. And yet, scientists talk, at least in public, with an air of certainty, much like theologians speaking to the great unwashed—keep it simple stupid—but always speak with great authority—at least if you want the prestige and the money to continue to flow.”
Narrator - The Super Ego appears to be on a roll, which pisses the ego off. Who does that Super Ego think he is, asking and answering all the questions, sounds suspiciously like he’s speechifying to me...I mean to the ego, that is.
Ego - Hey…wait a minute, I’m the one that’s asking the questions!
Super Ego – Don’t worry about it. Not only does this method save space, but, it means that my alter ego has to come up with fewer jokes. So, if you don’t mind I’ll continue. This represents not only incredibly complex and diverse life forms, but their corresponding environments, as well, both of which would have to evolve simultaneously in order for them to be sustainable. What you have are a staggering range of remarkably complex living organism, inhabiting a diverse and finely tuned eco system, existing in an even more finely tuned universe. This fine tuning enables the universe to exist in some habitable form. All of which are governed by exquisitely elaborate laws of nature. Unfortunately, prior to the big bang, none of these laws that govern nature existed. They, like nature itself, seemed to emerge (scientist would say evolved) after the big bang. Why? No one knows—and contrary to all the lofty, self-flagellating rhetoric, we aren’t close to knowing. But few scientists are willing to say this publicly. Grants and all the money and prestige that come with being a genius, aren’t likely to continue if you throw up your hands and say “How did all this happen? How should I know?
Ego - Man…that sounds like science…or math…or some other equally boring subject.
Super Ego – Maybe you/I need to ask ourselves some tougher questions. What kinds of changes would be required at the microscopic level to get to the point where nature has anything to select—to say nothing of the macroscopic level where you have big things; planets, solar systems and galaxies? If you can answer that question, you still have other problems, both big and small. If you’re going to grow a wing that’s functional and not merely an appendage flopping in the wind you’ll need a hell of a lot more than something shaped like a wing. A half a wing would provide no evolutionary advantage. In fact, it would likely be a serious disadvantage. There would have to be literally thousands of small changes to enable a radical change in the body plan of animal to make it possible for it to fly. This is equally true of every individual part of any complex living being or system.
What evidence is there that nature has the capacity to create radically different body plans, representing the full range of living species by a process of selection, acting on random variation. Which is, of course, an anthropomorphic use of language, since nature doesn’t really select anything. Apparently, science can use anthropomorphic language, but not religion, because religious folk are too dumb to know better. Make no mistake, dumb works both ways, though. It isn’t a one way street. It’s more like a super-highway with people traveling in random directions. But I digress! A slight variation within a species, changes in sparrows or finch beaks, for instance, does not, a compelling case make, at least not from a macro-intellectual point of view, Hey, I think I just made up a term.
Ego – Maybe you should form a theory, get a grant, attract some followers who’ll defend your ideas to the death and then begin killing all the infidels!
Super Ego – Could nonliving matter produce high levels of complexity and order through purely random, unguided processes? The answer is obvious. There is no such evidence (relatively speaking, that is) only inference taken well beyond the existing evidence.
Ego - Hey, this is getting boring. How about some humor, a bit of levity? I got one! A Jew walks into a bar with an alligator…....
Super Ego - All right, shut your pie hole, I’m rolling now, don’t interrupt again or you’re out here, subsumed into my higher consciousness! Now, let me continue.
Ego – What an asshole!
Super Ego - That’s why Stephan Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins agree that there appears to be an intelligibility to the universe. Dawkins is willing to except deism or space aliens as reasonable causes for creation—just not a personal god—one who demands some form of moral or social accountability. On the other hand, if the universe is governed by highly specific laws; gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear strong and weak forces, as well as dozens of other preexisting forces, then, intelligible moral or legal codes that govern human behavior would seem a perfectly reasonable expression of the Laws of nature, since humans are obviously a part of nature. To put it another way “Natural Law” as defined by enlightenment philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes or the Mosaic Law and other modern and ancient legal codes were/are attempts to find social order within the natural world. Each appeals to a higher power than human righteousness as a standard.”
The Founding Fathers encoded this as part of our constitution. If human rights were given by man-made government, the government could just as easily take them away. But, if these rights were inalienable, because they were god given and an intrinsic part of human nature, then no government or king could violate them”.
Ego - Moral codes, the Constitution, what the hell are you talking about? Did you say something about aliens? Now you’re talking! Did you see “Alien” vs. Predator?” That was awesome!
Super Ego – I warned you! From here on out it’s just me, no more stupid jokes. I command you to return to my unconscious, where you’ll only occasionally be annoying.”
One of the biggest problems for atheists is the simple minded way in which religion demands allegiance to a particular idea of god—or death and eternal punishment for the infidel. I’m solidly with the atheists on that one. But the notion that human beings are nothing more than matter in motion, when in fact, they are complex beyond anything that science can begin to make sense of, is arrogance personified. It is, likewise, inherently nihilistic. Perhaps, if we thought of god as the great eternal biologist/benevolent farmer, we’d get better traction.
The laws of nature can’t be responsible for the creation of nature, since all of nature, including time, matter, space and energy came into being at the moment of creation. Or to put it another way, after the singularity that caused the ‘Big Bang.” If there is no nature, neither could there be a preexistent law of nature as its cause—not without a “Supernatural” source of law—a lawgiver that supersedes nature, as it were. Is this anthropomorphic? Sure! Do we have any other choice but to see the world in terms of our own experience? At least initially, I don’t think so. Eventually, however, as our knowledge and experience grows we are forced to evaluate our self-delusional world-view, seeking something greater than ourselves as a reasonable arbiter of truth. Reason being the operative word.
Oftentimes, atheists are arguing with televangelists and evangelical, political activists who are eagerly pushing an evangelical worldview on the rest of us. Hypocritical preachers who preach the love of money and power as the beginning of all good, instead of the root of all evil. Send women back to the kitchen, gays back to the closet, and oust the infidel from America’s sacred shores and all will be well with the world. They teach a growing disdain for knowledge with dinosaurs and humans living in a six thousand year old universe, and evil spirits as the cause of human suffering. But that would be like having Thomas Aquinas debate “Mister Wizard” as a proof religions authority over science.
Another prime issue is suffering. Would a benevolent god allow untold suffering if he could intervene, but didn’t? This same question is asked constantly in our political debates. If we could alleviate the suffering of the poor by elevating their standard of living, but don’t, can we really be thought of as civilized? This is a loaded question, since no one is suggesting that the poor shouldn’t be helped. The only real question, is how? Do you give a man a fish, or do you teach him to fish? Is god the great enabler, eager to intervene on our behalf every time we get into trouble, generally as the result of our choices? Or, is god the great teacher, enabling man through his considerable and innate gifts to be self-reliant—necessarily tempered by mercy, love and self-sacrifice? Which story is the bible telling, or science, or politicos, for that matter, and does it matter?
To be continued......
Mark Magula
