"Was humanity inevitable? Or is humanity just something that happened to arise because of this sequence of events that took place at just the right time. It's hard to say."That's the closing statement from a recent science article found here. The article deals with the "new findings" of scientists regarding the extinction of the dinosaur population via a massive asteroid/meteorite. (The article begins by offering some observations that would send Ken Ham and his entourage into a convulsing frenzy). It did not take very long, however, before I found myself asking: how is it that scientists can have "a 90 percent probability" rating concerning a supposed event that occurred over 160 million years ago? I say "supposed" because the 90% is banked on the singular event of two asteroids colliding with one another which then hurled cosmic shrapnel toward earth. Why not just a stray asteroid? The culpability of the cosmic order would remain the same--i.e., the impact would still be accidental and the universe would be free from blame.
But that underlying theme is what truly caught my eye--i.e., the theme of a cosmic accident. The blunt force of the article is that with this impact all prehistoric life was extinguished, which then provided the biological context in which new life could begin. Yet, there is no explanation for why this took place other than bad news for dinosaurs and good news for humans. But is it truly "good news"? As the above quote reveals, (and to recapitulate just a little) this cosmic-gospel is that human civilization began via a freak collision in space that just so happened to involve earth in its collateral damage, which completely wiped all living creatures out of existence (except alligators, whales, roaches, and a few others--strangely enough), which then created an environment which fostered a new kind of species to evolve and aimlessly roam the earth hoping that a similar event does not happen to them. In other words: we exist because of unlucky circumstances.
However, this accidental motif to the origins of the cosmos and all created life does not produce an atmosphere in which all life can be valued. Granted, one may choose to value either their own life or the life of another; but, under this framework, that person has no legitimate reason to do so. Their feelings and esteem are meaningless, which then ultimately destroys a chief purpose for having such feelings and esteem. Life has value because it has meaning and because it has a purpose; yet, the accidental theory cannot allow such a reality to exist. What is often forgotten is that the effects of this theory do not limit themselves to the area of physical science alone; the ripples of this crest over into the other "sciences" as well--e.g., psychology, sociology, etc. People, by and large, live their lives in accordance to how they perceive life as a whole. (This "whole" refers not only to existence itself but also to the existence of that specific person and other created beings around them). The cosmic explanation espoused by the accidental motif provides a rather grim psychological perception for social life.
Here's how I see the logic of this motif playing itself out:
when life is accidental, it has no purpose;Yet, this to me is a fundamental paradox within the evolutionary model of creation. A key component to this model is that life is constantly advancing toward the betterment of its existence; yet, the goal to be obtained is nothing more than a nihilism that ultimately ends in extinction. And, it appears to me, that the movement toward this nihilism is prodded by the continual preaching of only the first part of the paradox; yet, this half of the message is couched in language that hides the second part lest no one follow its broad path. Proof that the latter half of the message is unknown can be found in the desire of many to improve the quality of life and/or environment so that future generations can enjoy the fruits of this present desire. But if all life is accidental and there is no ultimate value for life, then these desires are empty and meaningless; therefore, why bother pursuing a better quality of life if there is truly no such thing (or such a standard) in the first place?
when life has no purpose, it has no meaning;
when life has no meaning, it has no hope;
when life has no hope, it has no reason to continue to exist.
It appears to be the case that this approach to life is pursued because it does not discourage individualism, selfish (instant) gratification, or even the dismissal of fair play. Thus, the quality of life is relative to the person. Yet, it does not take very long before the results of this approach to life to manifest themselves in anticlimactic ways. People may reach the top, but they will be utterly alone; people may pursue selfish indulgences, but their appetite for more will never be slaked; and people may bend (or even break) the rules for their advantage, but their sense of true accomplishment will be built on a lie. However, there is a rival creation (and "end times") account that provides a radically different view to this approach to life; yet it is one that is not commonly pursued. Just as the evolutionary account is not limited to physical science, this rival account is not limited to theological discussions. Just as the former plays itself out in how life is lived, the latter completely redefines what it means to live--and to live life to its full potential.
This rival account is opposed to the accidental one because it completely subverts everything the accidental account promotes. The rivaling explanation says: life has a purpose because it was intentionally created; life has meaning and value because it has a purpose; life has hope because it knows it has meaning and value; life has a reason to exist because it has hope in the One who intentionally gave it a meaningful existence. When this perspective toward life is adopted, living life takes on a whole new meaning. The desire to improve the quality of life is justified and is no longer individualistic; the attempts to better the environment are understandable because they are concerned about the entire community of the world; justice is pursued and implemented for the sake of everyone and not just for a select few and their selfish ambitions; and the fair treatment of all humanity is automatic because all human life has incalculable value. Not only that, but there is a hope for life beyond this present mortal life. The promised life to come is one of eternity and immortality with the One who intentionally created all things. Now, that's "good news".
5 comments:
Carl,
Since Jim West has not published my comment, this is in response to your query on his site regarding hiding and escaping through a drain or tunnel in Josephus:
The press releases and news reports are unfortunately erroneous with respect to this detail, apparently reflecting an inaccurate statement made by Ronny Reich.
The fact of the matter is that Josephus nowhere describes groups of people hiding in a Jerusalem drain or tunnel, only "caverns."
However, in War 7.215, Trans. Thackeray (Harvard University Press, Loeb Classics) vol. 3, p. 567, Josephus does state that Judah son of Ari, a Jewish commander during the siege, "secretly escaped through some of the underground passages" and then fled to the Jardes forest. (You will need to look this passage up in Thackeray, because he does not break the text into chapters the way several popular editions do and I have no idea what the corresponding chapter reference would be in your edition.)
Most interesting is the fact that the tunnel is thought to have exited in the wadi Kidron. The treasures listed in the Copper Scroll include a cache of silver hidden near the "dam at the mouth of the Kidron gorge." For discussion, see Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?, p. 145 and p. 419, footnote 56.
It would appear that Reich had Golb's discussion in mind and confused or amalgamated the passage referred to there with other passages in Josephus.
Richard,
You have been an enormous help in this regard. (I was beginning to wonder if I made Dr. West upset with me at some point). I, too, was initially concerned about the validity of the article's statement in light of the fact that a number of various queries produced nothing conclusive. Your reference sounds like what my professor was trying to remember; so I will pass it along to him and see what he says. Thank you again for your help.
I think Jim is deeply upset about the developing controversy over the San Diego scrolls exhibit and has decided to have nothing to do with it or with anything that could be remotely connected with it. I can understand the way he feels, but at bottom I have to disagree with him; as a matter of basic intellectual honesty, I think the public must be given the opportunity to hear both sides of the story. Incidentally, there is an interesting (and at one point highly pertinent) review of Golb's book from the Church History journal, posted at http://dead-sea-scroll-reviews.blogspot.com/
Your professor will probably want to know that Golb has posted an article on this on the Oriental Institute site, with a list of various Josephus passages. It appears that Reich not only blundered in stating that Josephus describes people hiding in this particular tunnel, but he also didn't know that archaeologists discovered several similar Jerusalem tunnels during the 19th century (see the illustrations on p. 3 of Golb's article). It's really astonishing how people simply cannot do their homework. The link is:
www.oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/jerusalem_tunnel_sept2007.pdf
(be sure to include .pdf after 2007, it doesn't show up on the "preview" screen)
Paul,
Thank you so very much for the link. I will definitely pass the it along to my professor--I know he will appreciate it.
I am in 190% agreement with you about the problem of people not doing an little extra work in order to get the facts straight. I'm not exactly sure what the true root of the problem is, however. It seems as though writers of various articles (on the internet) assume that readers will blindly accept the article as "fact" simply because it was published on the internet. This, to me, is quite disheartening. I digress.
Again, thank you for your comment and the reference. I will check it out myself in the next few minutes. Take care, sir.
Post a Comment