The Mote In Your Brother’s Eye: Are Conservatives An Obstacle to Humanity’s Path To Enlightenment?

So, this is quite the revealing video. Now, I’ve known for some time that left-leaning scientists conflate personality with political worldviews. And, as annoying as it is to hear that the chief characteristics of the political right is close-mindedness, a fear of germs, and a powerful tendency to follow Hitler – while the taboo breaking left are all joy and sunshine, there does seem to be some correlation between fear of disease and the closing of ranks in a society. What I find hard to believe is that it has anything to do with political worldviews, but is a part of human nature as a whole. As we witness today, the left seems to want to shut down again, while the right wants to go back out into the world. So, that doesn’t fit the pattern laid out by this evolutionary biologist. [Of course, the answer to this paradox according to Dr. Thornhill is Trump – but I don’t think Peterson is buying it as he politely changes the subject.] Personally, I think that there is room in this world for both risk takers and the homebodies, but what do I know?

Anyway, a lot of the research here is very interesting and, at the end, Dr. Thornhill tells us something of his personal history which explains why he despises conservatives so much and thinks they are all racists. And it’s a heart-breaking story about his dysfunctional family, so it’s understandable, if not very scientific that he feels this way. But then he says that he believes that if we could eradicate all disease then the whole world would become liberal and the human race would achieve ENLIGHTENMENT.

Okay, then. So, maybe he should have not said that out loud as a scientist.

Anyway, I find it odd that he doesn’t recognize the paradox (or cognitive dissonance, if you like) in his own thinking that he has created. His theory is that the fear of germs and disease is what closes us off to those who are outside our in-group and those who exhibit this behavior define what a conservative is because, as a group he tells us, they associate outsiders with parasites and disease. But then he says he believes that once the world is rid of disease, we will have no need for conservatives. So, Dr. Thornhill, a self-described liberal, is associating disease with a group of people outside his in-group and that once both are gone the Enlightenment (purification) of humanity can occur. This, by his own definition, makes him a conservative.

What a world…

What Is Transcendence?

Recently I read a book about different world views. One of the questions that was used to describe each view was whether the universe was considered to be open or closed to transcendence. This is a short-hand way of saying that while the universe follows orderly (physical) processes, the universe may be viewed as open or closed to re-ordering by the actions of God and/or by human beings. For example, a completely mechanistic worldview does not accept that God exists and states that human beings are biological machines. Therefore, transcendence is impossible. The universe is closed.

I have a love/hate relationship with this terminology. On the one hand, I believe this is exactly how most people view the concept of transcendence in this age. As an accurate description of many cultural worldviews and personal mental maps, it is a useful way to look at how people think of themselves and their place in life. It affects how they look at the future (determinate or indeterminate). It explains how they view death and what motivates them in life.

Continue reading “What Is Transcendence?”

Of Gods, Watchmakers, and Unicorns (Part 4)

God Is Not A Unicorn Series

Part 1 looked at the reason why the question of God ‘s existence cannot be satisfied by an appeal to the imagination alone.

Part 2 looked at the different approaches to the question of creation by Philosophy, Religion, and Science.

Part 3 looked at some of the scientific weaknesses of The Big Bang Theory, our modern Creation Myth

Part 4, below, is a post on the question of what do we mean when we talk about God. Secondly, can science address the question of existence and being?


This series began by explaining why the question about the existence of God is not the same type of question as the questions posed by imaginary things like a unicorn. It is time to return to the beginning in order to address how we got to this point in our culture that we think they are the same kind of question.

When we talk about God today, we are rarely talking about the God of antiquity, but more like a modern version of a demiurge.

Continue reading “Of Gods, Watchmakers, and Unicorns (Part 4)”

Turtles All the Way Down: First Proof of God

In my research for the next post in the series, God Is Not A Unicorn, I felt a slight detour was needed for those who are not familiar with an older view of the universe as a reality whole and unbroken. Modern particle physics experimentation has been described like this: It is like smashing an idyllic pond environment with an atom bomb and then trying to explain what a pond is from the pieces that are left over. Scientists break reality into smaller and smaller pieces, then try to reconstruct a model of the universe from those bits and pieces.

In contrast, St. Thomas Aquinas famously put forward “Five Proofs of God” in his Summa Theologiae which looked at the natural universe as a whole system. In this post we are going to look at his first proof: “argument from unmoved mover”. I must warn you that it is not an argument that is easy to understand at first. As moderns, we are unused to this way of reasoning and so often avoid it. It may take more than one attempt to understand what is being said here, but I assure you it is worth taking time to think about these ideas as they are fundamental thought about our very being.

The video below is a pretty good explanation of the first proof of St. Thomas Aquinas (Unmoved Mover). This first proof is often explained poorly (and incompletely). It also explains the context of these proofs. They are not definitive proofs of God. They are considered ways to logically infer the existence of God from reason. (I also like that they make Aquinas talk like a Monty Python Character).

This series of videos also included the modern scientific arguments against Aquinas’s first proof. In this video it is explained that the universe is not a system of interlocking moving parts and so motion must originate from the “unmoved mover.” The modern view is that motion originates through intrinsic forces or laws of nature. In essence – the universe is more like individual forces of billiard balls than a system of forces working on each other. More on that faulty thinking below the video.

Oddly, it seems that this 2nd video misses the essence of Aquinas’ argument. Aquinas argued that the first mover – or unmoved mover – would not be a “force” of the same type of natural forces in the universe. This strange omission underscores the powerful conditioning of our modern culture and the mechanistic view of the universe that exists today. It’s almost as if Aquinas argument is “overwritten” without any real consideration of what he is actually saying. Even if it is true that the “laws of nature” are intrinsic to the physical objects of the universe, this simply means that they are attributes of these objects. (Intrinsic means “belonging naturally; essential.”) That definition begs the question: Where do these intrinsic laws of nature come from? It is circular reasoning to say a thing exists because of its attributes. Avoiding the question of where these laws originate from is not an argument against the Aquinas’ first proof.

This second video also says (wrongly) that the Big Bang Theory proves (in theory) that the universe has a beginning. This conflicts with the idea that the universe is eternal as St. Thomas thought. But, that is not what most physicists think. The canonical response to the joke “What existed before the Big Bang” is “It’s turtles all the way down.” This is a reference to a Creation myth that the world is supported by a giant turtle. It’s from an older joke that when asked “What supports the turtle?”, the answer is “It’s turtles all the way down”.

The truth is that we do not know how the universe was first formed, whether it is eternal or not, or even if the Big Bang Theory is correct. (see Cosmology: Modern Science Creation Story aka The Big Bang Theory (Part 3)).

Some scientific questions stop at the door of metaphysics. There exists, especially among the intelligentsia, a mental resistance to admitting these questions exist. That attitude does not disprove the existence of God, nor does it invalidate Aquinas’ reasoning on the subject.

Amazed At Existence: Celebrate Life

This morning, on a Facebook philosophy page, I saw the following post: “The concept of Death makes the entire human existence meaningless.”

I believe our culture’s loss of life’s meaning comes from the Existence vs. Essence debate we have covered earlier, but I wanted to add another thought about our physical existence that might lift some spirits.

When one thinks of the odds of life happening for anyone it is truly amazing. From the size of the universe, the distance between the stars, the odds of a planet forming that can support life, the eons of evolution, the DNA that managed to form us out of countless combinations, and then surviving the birth process when so many pregnancies end in the womb. The odds against us existing at all are astronomical. Yet, here we are.

Life is always an extraordinary event in the Universe. Celebrate your life.