Sartre once said that he
had evolved a new idea on what an intellectual is. President Obama used the
phrase that he was evolving a new opinion about homosexual marriage decades
later. Evolving subjective intellectual content is a self-regarded activity
these days. One cannot be sure if such intellectual development evolves because
of random chance or the natural selection of saying what the people want to
here most in order to get political power (regardless of the merit of the idea).
If evolution of ideas is powered by conscious, intentional thought then
evolution comprises design. That paradox is ponderous. It means that evolution
and intelligent design are synonyms. Evolving an opinion about the whore in the
harbor of Babylon the Great trading with all the nations of the world might be
easier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g8JVK4Fppw Sartre on 'What an Intellectual Is'
If morality is what
people actually do in a social context, then perhaps ethics is a description of
the normalized procedures for implementing moral choices. Certainly people seem
to choose to do wrong often enough with select ethical criterions, yet perhaps
for atheists without belief in a transcendent moral structure there is no
wrong, but only evolution. How can it be wrong for Hitler to invade Poland
within an evolutionary criterion? For Christians and Dietrich Bonhoeffer that
wickedness of the Reich should have been morally and actually opposed?
One may reasonably oppose
the existence of a logical condition as being present if there is present some
sort of factor that cannot coexist simultaneously.
Not (A & B).
A or B
A & B
If one can prove these
simple conditions to be valid for select, or Universal circumstances inclusive
of an omnipotent God then I suppose one would have a hard to defeat bunker
position with a clear enough logical field of fire, yet I believe that the
presence of evil (if one recognizes evil and is not just atheistically
'evolving' an advantageous position does not satisfy the Universal disjunct
logically.
Not simply because
complex numbers evidently are used for description in quantum mechanics and one
day for quantum computing that transcend the binary 0 or 1 criteria of
computers today, but for the reason that God stipulated right out that people
have original sin and a fallen nature. The premise is that given immortality
mankind might become even more wicked than now. Mankind is given to labor and
women to go through childbirth and mortality would abbreviate the evil of human
experience.
That doesn't mean that
human beingness is bad-only that the human nature to go wrong needs to be
overcome through faith, yet I wanted to remain on logical grounds rather than
that of faith for the present.
I have no idea what sort
of things God might want to accomplish in eternity. I believe that God is
tougher than NFL players with those concussive head injuries however, and he
might be able to withstand tough things in the Universe that he creates perhaps
as stress tests. Certainly human beings going through some of those horrible
times were quite remarkably tough. Those Christians eaten by lions or burned
alive for their faith were of strong moral character. Even some Buddhists that
have burned themselves in protest of war showed a certain ability to overcome
the horrors possible of the mortal coil, yet one would think that it should be
evil rather than one's self that does evil in-the-world.