Love, Lies and Opposable Thumbs

I wrote this in a comment:

“Love is impossible without trust. Trust has been undermined by the popular notion that honesty is optional. Honesty is impossible in a paradigm where there is no right and wrong, only amoral species competing for survival with no advantage attributed to honesty. We need to figure out who we are and why our survival depends on honesty, trust and love.”

What I meant was…

We’ve been sold snake-oil science: The notion that we’re nothing but animals with big brains living in a mindless, meaningless Universe.

This belief is death to a species capable of destroying worlds, because it will promote dishonesty which leads to distrust which leads to hatred and ultimately to self-annihilation via H-bombs, predatory genetic engineering or destruction of our own ecosystem through carelessness and toxic waste.

Everything we read is baptized in the “scientific” dogma that a mindless thing called “random DNA mutation” under the influence of “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest” literally writes our hypercomplex DNA codes, the complexity of which we’re only now beginning to catch a mind-boggling glimpse of.

Evolution is taught equally to children and doctors as “infallible” truth, rather than what it is: an uncontrolled, unblinded, non-randomized and speculative interpretation of weak retrospective data that hasn’t been given a thorough statistical analysis because it’s impossible to do so on retrospective, quasi-historic “data.” This is the very sort of weak study design that medical journals would reject as dangerous – if anyone were so naive as to submit such a study to a medical journal, which I can’t possibly imagine nowadays. Maybe in the 1950’s when a political committee voted the “food pyramid” into the scientific arena where it’s done nothing but damage to American health.

Almost everyone believes the evolutionary speculative tale unless they’re part of a fundamentalist religious group with other beliefs.

But either way, our species is heading for extinction because we have made it “normal” to lie to each other.

In commercials, only the sales stats matter, not the truth.

In our courts, the act of winning trumps integrity by virtue of the foundational assumption that there’s a difference between “legal justice” and “moral justice,” and the law, like “settled science” has no moral responsibility.

In politics, winning means infinitely more than honesty because the other side is so clearly evil, dumb and dangerous, no matter which side you’re on. Both sides are saving the world, so the end seems to justify the means, and lying appear to be a useful skill rather than the destructive force that logic would call it if we listened.

In our personal lives our circle of empathy narrows, justifying lies to those outside of it.

In the back of our minds we allow lies because we’re told from kindergarten that we’re just animals with big brains trying to survive. Animals tell lies with their body language and built in camouflage. We lie with our tongues. Other than that, we’re the same, right down to the DNA that was mindlessly coded for us.

And since we lie, we forget how to trust and how to remain steadfastly trustworthy come what may.

When we lose the capacity for trust, we lose the capacity for love. You can’t really love people you distrust. You can’t even know who they are, deep down.

With love off the table, we expand our acceptance of hatred, grudge holding and revenge. We thirst for personal victimhood and someone to blame, while ironically, predators become our heroes.

If we didn’t have opposable thumbs and weren’t able to blow humanity into tiny bits with a small fraction of our nuclear arsenal, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. We could blend with the deceitful but balanced ecosystems of animal behavior that dominate this planet. Camo is in their DNA. Sneaking, hiding and devouring prey are on page one of Earth’s user manual.

That’s what’s so confusing to us.

If we were only ten orders of magnitude stupider, we could survive, living as the hairless apes of soft science’s favorite fairytale.

But we’re too clever with the technology of killing. So the fading of honesty, trust and love are preparing us to push the button on ourselves. Look at Russia. This is not religious talk. This is secular logic that refuses to swallow neo-Darwinism and materialism without chewing.

In order to survive, our species needs to push all cultures toward honesty. Big brains self-destruct without it.

Honesty will resurrect trust and trustworthiness, setting the stage for love, logic and reason… and a rational treatment of sociopathic predators who need enlightened mental health care rather than election to congress.

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Next time you’re writing emails, if you think of it, please tell a cherished friend about my blog ( Thanks! I appreciate your thoughtfulness and help. Someday I’m going to put those little buttons in here to help poor Mr. Zuckerberg make some money.

52 thoughts on “Love, Lies and Opposable Thumbs

  1. Pingback: Will Neo-Darwinism ever become a respected Theory among Space Alien Scientists? |

  2. Pingback: Love, Lies and Opposable Thumbs – Wag 'n Bietjie

  3. Pingback: M. Talmage Moorehead | THOUGHTS OF A POET IN THE RAIN

  4. DogDharma

    Wow! Absolutely interesting ideas!! As someone who has directly faced the problem of honesty in personal relationships and the the devastation of loss of trust due to psychopathy, and who is also interested in the societal ramifications of psychopathy and lack of truth / trust in human society, I’m staggered at the insight. I have blindly accepted evolution even when, really, the “science” isn’t as keen as one would expect. This is the only post of yours I’d read, but how do we rid ourselves of moral relativism without becoming hostage to extremism of all types?

    Thank you for reading and following my blog.

    • Thank you for seeing where I’m coming from. And thank you for reaching out.

      Like you, I don’t have dogmatic answers. I believe in God, but I haven’t identified an infallible source of information. I have a background in Christian fundamentalism that I felt compelled to leave after 9/11/01. I still think there is tremendous value in ancient writings, great wisdom to be gained by an inductive, rational reading, but perhaps danger in the notion of its infallibility for those who allow it to turn off our rational filters and critical thinking.

      I’m hoping that mere exposure to the weakness of the science behind the wire mother of Neo-Darwinism will create doubt needed to free minds from its dogma. Room for rational doubt may be all we, as a species, need in order to learn the value of honesty and therefore survive. Ironically, the proponents of the heartless, loveless non-mind behind the complex information in DNA believe that intellectual honesty has forced their hand in exposing their version of truth.

      You might read, “Signature in the Cell,” by Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge graduate, for a rational view of the science of origins. He concludes that Science’s refusal to even consider intelligent design as a possible origin of the unimaginably complex information within the cell is itself an unscientific bias that is out of step with scientific tradition.

      I would go a different direction and point out that the retrospective “circumstantial-evidence” type of science brought to the study of origins is inherently weak compared to the science required by the FDA, for example… which itself is fallible and produces errors that hurt people at times.

      What do we replace the Neo-Darwinian heartless wire mother with? I think there is clear scientific evidence of intelligent design within the cell. The human mind, at this point, is the most complex thing identified by science. I say we use it to find God, rather than turning it off and believing in the infallibility of weak science, human tradition, or ancient writings. These things are valuable, but once we accept them uncritically, we tend to find our way to violence.

      • DogDharma

        Your blog won’t let me “reply” to your reply to my reply. 🙂 I find it very interesting that we have come from opposite perspectives to reach similar conclusions — although your thinking is astoundingly original.

        I despised fundamentalist Christianity in my youth, and still carry bitterness toward it. I turned to Buddhism instead. That’s what got me through the events of 9/11 and everything else that followed in my personal life — until I had my up-close encounter with a psychopath.

        Now I have a renewed interest in Christianity, of the variety that is progressive and inclusive and welcoming.

        I had always pretty much bought the line that science is infallible, the one way of “knowing.” However, some readings in Buddhism opened my eyes to that fallacy. You might be interested in some of the books by B. Alan Wallace.

        Also, my own thinking was highly influenced by an out-of-print book called “How Real Is Real?” by Paul Watzlawick. And Hayakawa’s “Language in Thought and Action.”

        You wrote, “The human mind, at this point, is the most complex thing identified by science. I say we use it to find God, rather than turning it off and believing in the infallibility of weak science, human tradition, or ancient writings.” The only problem with this is that a system cannot understand itself from within itself. Of course, you are talking about finding God and not understanding consciousness, but God is a higher order than our complex minds. It seems to me we have to wait for God to be revealed to us in ways that supersede science, reasoning, cognition, and certainly blind adherence to human tradition and ancient writings.

        You might also want to check out the writings of Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo. Sri Aurobindo is hard to digest if you haven’t done any reading on Advaita Vedanta and Eastern thought, but he proposes a theory of evolution that includes not just the physical body, or even just the mind, but also the soul.

        Very deep thoughts for so late at night, and now my head is hurting!

        • I too struggle trying to reply to comments on this Oxygen theme. I will try to switch to another theme. Sorry for the technical issues.

          I think I see what you’re saying about God needing to be the one who initiates communication. I agree. I think the communication is probably always there for us, it’s just that it requires common sense to interpret, not unthinking acceptance of dogma. I think I’ve had “coincidences” throughout my life that could be rationally interpreted as messages of guidance from God. It would make sense, in light of the fragility of free will, for communication from God to come to us in a form that is readily dismissible as coincidence. If God spoke the way many of us want him to, we would all be subconsciously forced away from free decision making and into some degree of unquestioning obedience. God could make computers for that, he wouldn’t need us.

          Thank you for all the suggestions of books and authors to read. I need to broaden my horizons.

          I think it’s a good thing that you’re interested in Christianity now. I would call myself a Christian if it were up to me, because I think that Jesus’ admonition to “love your enemies and pray for those who spitefully use you” is the only hope for humanity’s survival now that we have nukes and other WMD. In that sense, I believe Jesus is the savior of the world.

          I don’t, however, still believe that God told Israel to kill the heathen – men, women, children and animals – and take their belongings and land. Not believing that story puts me outside of the fold, I’m afraid. At least by the traditional definition of the fold. Hopefully not by God’s definition.

          I’m not saying that I’m right for sure. I know that God may have to do things that don’t make moral sense to me. I know that the Bible could be infallible and I could be wrong. I know for a fact that my best judgement is wrong about the very nature of reality, for instance, time dilation is not intuitive to me. And quantum mechanics describe a realm that couldn’t possibly exist in human terms, but certainly does exist.

          So I’m not taking a dogmatic stance against fundamentalism in Christianity. I merely couldn’t stay there after 9/11. I sometimes wish I could go back. Fundamentalism makes life better in so many practical ways.

          Hey, I’m sorry your head hurts. Have you tried the biofeedback technique of warming your fingers to relieve headache? It’s very helpful for me.

          • DogDharma

            I was only joking about my head hurting — I’ve been accused of “thinking too much,” and after a while, thinking becomes circular. 🙂

            Much of the Old Testament was problematic for me, including what you cite. In one version of the Matthew scripture, Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Maybe it’s just me, but my reading of that verse was the history wasn’t being erased, but a new and better way of doing things was being offered.

            My own stumbling block was the linchpin of Christianity — the miracles that were performed back then but don’t happen now except as hoaxes as far as I can tell. And being risen from the dead. But our paltry science has accomplished so much, and I’ve had so many of my own “coincidences,” that even now I find I can believe. I like Jesus’ message of championing the underdog and fighting for the disenfranchised, which is the part of fundamentalism I can’t stomach. That is, the idea that everyone but US is wrong, bad, damned.

            If you want to bloat your brain cells even more, you might take a look at the blog which has to do with psychopathy. Look for some articles about Rene Gerard and his scapegoating theory, and how Jesus changed the world paradigm.

            Thanks for your reply to my reply to your reply to my reply. 🙂

            • Glad you didn’t have a headache.

              I’m looking at that web site now, and can’t raise Rene Gerard on their search box. I’ll keep looking. Thanks for the tip, it looks quite interesting.

              I did a post on psychopaths on this blog a long time ago. It’s called “Understanding the Sociopath Character,” and has a picture of a shark – down toward the beginning of the blog. I’d make a link for you but internal links don’t seem to work on this Oxygen theme. Gotta change that.

              You’re going to make an amazing Christian, if you haven’t already joined the ranks. Miracles never bothered me much. I always thought the edges of weird science seemed enough like miracles in their own way to give me intellectual breathing room. The “we are the only ones who will be saved” dogma of fundamentalist Christianity bothered me, as it does you. People supporting the notion of one group having the right Biblical interpretation would say, “Well, they can’t all be right.” I used to think, “No, but we could all be wrong, and God might not see it as such a huge deal.”

              I know what you mean about “thinking too much.” Some people are born to think too much, I guess. As long as you get a little vigorous exercise every day, it’s probably going to make the world a more interesting place for you. And you’ll be a guide for others, like you already are. Next lifetime, I’m going to be a surfer first, though. That’s the only way to be sure. 😉

              Dude, it’s always a pleasure hearing from you. Take care.

                • Thank you. That song has a great message. “Peace on Earth is all it said.”

                  I’m going to take the plunge here and switch themes. This could be disastrous. Haha. The tech people told me I wouldn’t lose any comments, so here’s hoping they’re right.

  5. This is an interesting article. I appreciate your insight. I feel that the writing style is very intelligent. I chuckle with joy at the creativity of some of the article titles. Yes, I think I book would be very relevant and enlightening and your passion for the subject would also make it very popular.

    I am, unfortunately, one of those verbal diarrhea writers and although I don’t count the freckles on the face of my protagonist, I do tend to ramble on (conjunctions are my friend, commas, and the like, in order to extend my sentences without pause and I do this, I believe, because I write from my stream of consciousness which rarely pauses). Feel free to cut this short before approving for public view, but please do not take my words out of context.

    Have you read Michael Singer’s book Untethered Soul? It’s about separating the mind from the soul from the body so that our soul leads the way, our inherent goodness, and eventually all we’re left with is from our true essence: love, trust, honesty, etc, as you were saying. It’s a good read, an easy read and a very honest read.

    What’s the deal with the Darwin thing though? It’s basically survival of the fittest, right? I haven’t read enough of your posts so if you’ve answered this already, please refer me. I totally believe that animal species have evolved via survival. How else could a species exist? The environmental changes cause extinction, there’s no survival when factors such as climate or food sources or hunting have been taken out of the control of the specific animal who needs certain conditions to live and thrive. I suppose bad genetics could account for some causes of extinction, the predominant breeding of inherently degraded DNA continuously would thin out a population (which goes back to the survival of the fittest DNA theory). Maybe it’s not the fittest as in the strongest or more intelligent, simply a combination of survival instincts, good DNA and environmental conditions. So that’s how I feel about animal animals. In short, I do believe animals evolve, survive and thrive or don’t, based on, basically, the fittest (strongest, most intelligent, most capable of reproduction, ability to procure food and shelter for sustainability, etc). Why have some animals become extinct? In the case of dinosaurs, the world may never know, but of the more recent animal extinctions and the endangered species of today?

    I’m making an attempt to understand your words more thoroughly, are we on the same page there, concerning animal animals?

    With regard to animal people, (this part refers to me specifically as an animal person) I believe that we have the ability to change our DNA, to mutate our own cells so to speak. With a positive or negative outlook, mindset, core beliefs (which we choose ourselves), we actually change the neural pathways in the brain and the cells begin to mutate and the DNA actually changes as a result. I believe this to be true after much research during my bout with breast cancer. I didn’t have the gene, or so I was told when I was gene tested (which I wish that I had not done in retrospect but that’s a whole other story) so what’s the deal? I believe that I created the mutation of my cells because of the lifestyle I was living at the time, the place where my mind was at that time and of course various other self imposed factors. Could there have been some environmental factors involved as well? Possibly. There was an area in NJ that had tainted water and a whole hell of a lot of people died from cancer as a result. In my case, I take full responsibility but I will submit to chance environmental factors as well (for instance, my Aunt died of breast cancer and insisted it was due to her exposure during the Chernobyl fiasco, if that the only factor or a contributing factor or a non factor, we’ll never know ). In essence, I believe we can, as a human species, change our own health at the cellular level by changing our own minds and lifestyles. Living an honest life, being true to our soul selves is part of that lifestyle change, as you suggested: loving, trusting, being honest, etc.

    *I must throw in here, because I believe so PASSIONATELY about this: Melissa Etheridge didn’t exactly throw down on Angelina Jolie as I would have had I been given the opportunity and the forum, but she did voice the very same opinion that I stated above: we can cause our genes to mutate. Regardless of the percentages of possibility of breast cancer, this Jolie woman (percent chance of breast cancer according to whom and what research and what other factors), she fucked over a whole lot of people, who were intimidated by fear (as Jolie’s whole decision was motivated by fear), by encouraging, via example, to take radical measures like mastectomy when other things should have been advocated before, measures such as you are describing: love, trust, honesty, peace, kindness, healthy eating and exercise, and living our true essence, our soul’s true desire. By making changes to live our soul’s true desire (which we can find through meditation or prayer, whatever your thing happens to be) we can keep our neural pathways open, connected to and creating more honest living and loving with trust (by default, because after our neural pathways are re-wired to living our soul’s true intentions, we can continue that much more easily) which will, in turn, keep our bodies healthy at the cellular level.*

    I had to say that.

    Moving on: my thoughts on animal people in general (not specific to myself as above)

    We, as a people, animal people, have figured out, somewhere along the way, that lying, dishonestly, lack of trust, loss of true and unconditional love, etc have gotten us somewhere, was useful for some purpose, was necessary for the survival at some point in time. Possibly for the survival of a family maybe in some cases. Take for instance a snake oil salesman. Did he lie? Of course. Did he make money to buy food to support his family? Yep. To him, he did this to survive in his own way. He couldn’t have gotten a job at a local 7-11 store? Maybe he lost his entire farm crop to locusts or drought and that had been his only means of survival. Maybe he had 10 mouths to feed. Did this become part of his DNA? Did it change his neural networks because he had to lie to himself, to believe that it was okay to do what he was doing because it was for the greater good of the survival of his 10 children? Did it become hardwired into his brain after a period of time? Could it be that he couldn’t live with himself lying as he did so he created a truth to it in his own brain. He became one of those people who cannot see or refuse to see, admit or change, his own bullshit because of a higher survival need.

    Then the children grow up learning this behavior and, not wanting to believe that dad was a bad guy or a liar or cheat, or maybe some of the children weren’t old enough to distinguish, and let’s say half of the children grew up to do the same type of thing: lie, cheat, make a dishonest living, but it justified the ends (to him at that time and in that scenario) and at some point through the generations, lying, cheating and dishonestly became more prevalent without the need to lie to oneself as the snake oil salesman did because to some, growing up that way was a true and honest and genuine way to survive. Things like loyalty, trust, love, and all of that good stuff fell by the wayside because the other stuff had become so common place. I’m just throwing it out there, one possibility as to why animal animals are the way that they are and people animals are very much different. Obviously today, the people who lie to themselves and live lives whereby cheating and lying and all of that other stuff stem from various other motives, most of which are not for pure survival or lack of other available choices.

    The thing that I’m learning about now is a spiritual revolution so to speak. The Michael Singer book turned me on to meditating and finding inner peace which super charged my awareness of situations where I was more able to clearly discern when I was being honest and when I was being dishonest. It caused me to question my motives and although the thought of survival never came into play, I wasn’t a snake oil salesman making attempts to feed 10 children, I did notice that the scenarios in which I was being dishonest did have a benefit to me in the moment. Long term, deeper in my soul, my spirit knew the truth and truth sheds light on everything, makes lies dissipate. I find Eckhart Tolle is very insightful on the subject of the spiritual evolution and return to peace, love and happiness although he is, to me, super evolved and his writing can be cryptic at times. And although I am not a huge fan of Deepak Chopra, I do appreciate that he is a medical doctor and when he speaks of healing the body by first healing our spirit, our soul, I do find those writings educational (as I am a medical health professional myself), interesting and at times they do also add a little extra something to my meditation and overall healing of mind, body and soul.

    My two cents.

    So yes, you go boyfriend, write that book man, follow your soul’s true desires and the rest will fall gently into place.

    • Thank you for the encouragement! 🙂 I will write the book.

      I’ll have to read “Untethered Soul,” it sounds interesting. I’ve spent the whole day reading, “Signature In The Cell,” by Stephen Meyer. It’s a 600+ pager about intelligent design. I need water. 😉 It’s an important book, written by a well-qualified guy who studied at Cambridge, England. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the science of intelligent design as it relates to the complexity of genetic code and cell biology.

      The problem I see with evolution is that it oversteps its bounds in several ways, the worst of which is the way it equates humans with animals in moral terms by saying that the genetic code and the complex machinery needed to express and reproduce it (which they knew virtually nothing about when they crowned evolution as a scientific dogma) originated and grew apart from any form of intelligence.

      Do animals adapt to their environment? Yes. Does that mean we are the moral equivalent of lower species? No. Does it exclude intelligent design? No.

      Does believing that we are the moral equivalent of animals put us at increased risk of blowing ourselves to bits with nukes, polluting ourselves into oblivion, designing predatory disease vectors? Yes. It’s common sense.

      But I’ve been wrong before, so hopefully I’m wrong about this, too.

      I agree with you about epigenetics. They are discovering that the old idea of the genes being untouchable by immediate environmental conditions is wrong. Methylation is one of the main ways in which the expression of genetic material can be changed in a heartbeat. I would not be at all surprised if someday they discover detailed mechanisms of how an individual’s mental attitude or behavior can change DNA in ways that now seem impossible to science.

      Scientists don’t know much about anything yet. They tell us there’s more “dark matter” than regular matter, for heaven’s sake. So that means science is virtually blind to more than half the material in the Universe! How are we supposed to take them seriously when they’re dogmatic and say there is no evidence of intelligent design in the complex information of DNA? They’re overstepping and putting our species at risk of self-annihilation.

      Either that or I just need more coffee to forget all this, and get back to writing my novel. 🙂

      • Ha, I was about to explain that I get excited about things I’m passionate about as well when I realized that my caps lock was still on from writing something very passionate I feel regarding this upcoming football season 🙂

        Yes, have some more coffee and get back to writing your book. I do enjoy your posts and your writing is very intelligent. I’m relatively new to the blogging thing so I haven’t read your page in greater detail/depth at this point but I have been enlightened and invigorated with what I’ve read so far.

        Keep us posted on your progress with your novel 🙂

  6. Thank you for these wise thoughts. When I teach nursing students, I often lead with a disclaimer, “The science I tout today may be incorrect next year. Remain curious enough to question it.” I’ve lived long enough to be betrayed by science several times in my life. I prefer intellect and faith applied to any given problem. Your post lyrical and an amazing commentary on this subject. I would also add that those who exclusively worship “the god of the latest science” compose a rather fundamentalist group themselves.

    • I like your wise approach to science. I agree that it’s possible to be essentially a fundamentalist scientist. But to be one, I think a person would have to give up real scientist and feel that it’s more important to win arguments and defend old beliefs than to uncover new things.

      Thank you for your generous comment about this post. I’m wondering if I have the nerve to write a book on this subject. I feel like it’s probably the most important subject I could write about, but I’m not sure I’m up for all the hatred, mockery, ridicule and humiliation it would draw from many well-informed people who “know” Darwinism is a fact that only idiots question.

  7. The only thing at this point in our human “evolution” that separates us from our surrounding animal world is intent. They hunt prey, maim, devour and kill. They also nurture their young, have familial ties and play. But they do not reason. There is no hate when they kill, nothing to lie about to those within their circles. If we are more highly evolved, why is their world being destroyed by the evolved thinkers?

    • I know what you mean. In fact, I’m having trouble finding anyone who opposes thumbs. So where’s the evidence that they’re opposable?

      I enjoyed your article on Czech women. This part stood out to me:

      “To my knowledge, my mother has never parked in a legal parking space. What is extraordinary about her experience isn’t her blatant flouting of the law, but the fact that she has never, ever, not once, paid a parking ticket. The tickets she has accrued have always been dismissed, ignored or torn up on the spot. In one case my mother waltzed out of her workplace to find a police officer actually putting his own money into her meter. Not finding anything in the least bit strange about this, she thanked him cheerfully, then drove away.”

      Your interview with John Dolan on “How NOT to Write a Bestselling Thriller” was entertaining and, of course, insightful, since you and he are professional writers. Here’s something I liked from that:

      “One, make sure the pacing is like that of a snail… crawling… across… a very sticky… dead… badger. You know, like all those chuffing awful travelling scenes in Tolkien, the ones that want to make you tear your own head off. Lots of descriptive info dumps are great for slowing things down. Count the freckles on your hero’s nose, or list all the makes of dresses and shoes she has in her wardrobe. Pontificate endlessly on philosophical issues, making frequent reference to obscure Greeks.”

      Thank you, Victoria Dougherty, for commenting on my blog! 🙂

    • Thanks.

      I found this on your blog and thought it was fresh and interesting:

      “Sure we have a million excuses, the Pentecostal gets resaved, the Catholic confesses, the Baptist repents, everybody else just says, ‘screw it’.”

      I’m not a fundamentalist anymore, but I still believe that there is no substitute for being a good human being.

      I used to say I’d rather be a good person and go to hell than be an evil man who slips into heaven on some legal loophole. I’d stand by that sentiment today.

      Anyway, I probably don’t qualify to talk religion anymore. But I surely respect folks who do.

  8. You have touched on the core issues we face as a species. The divine was written into our inner code. Real change happens when we stop denying it. That divine code continually calls us to better things.

    • Thank you, David. I’m always trying to figure out what’s going on. My dad was like that, too, always curious and ready to look things square in the eyes. He was basically an atheist, though, while I’m convinced God is as real as the DNA code in the nucleus of my cells.

  9. There’s a force greater than God, something that doesn’t help you when you pray and when your are wrong doesen’t punish you. This something is the quest for your soul. The integrity and purity of your soul is not OK in this society; then you’ll have to choose between trust your pure soul or your conditioned mind. One thing is sure: the soul and the mind can’t be separated. If this happens it will be an evolution, otherwise it will be the End.

    • Riophan, thank you for thinking beyond my horizons. What you’re saying makes a lot of sense, even within the confines of my current thoughts about God. We shrink from the notion that there is anything greater than God, but from God’s perspective, I would imagine the quest for our souls is more important than anything else. Analogous to the way I feel about my kids. I’d put their souls above my own concerns and even my own existence. In a heartbeat.
      Yours is a valuable comment. Thank you.

  10. I recognize the issues, but am a little less pessimistic than you. There is no doubt that grave issues exist (the environment being the gravest) but hopefully we will manage them well enough to avoid extinction.

    What a waste of time it would all have been if that were to happen! On the other hand, as the sky radiated enough heat to boil water, the last dinosaur probably looked at all the spikes and armor it had evolved and thought the same thing.

    • I can just picture that poor dinosaur! Great image!

      I agree we’re short-sighted about the environment. Maybe that’s more of a threat to us than the nukes. Either way it seems to come back to moral character and personal integrity.

      Thanks for your great comments!

  11. cpsingleton42

    Interesting proposals.
    Thought provoking.
    I would like to set them against Dawkins and see how high his blood pressure goes!
    Evolution is theory that doesn’t have room for social conscience, love, honesty or care.
    Religion has a moral place in the sphere, if treated by minds who also have love, honesty and care running through.
    The world is crying out for thought such as your piece.
    Well delivered.

  12. I happen to be a “person of faith,” so I believe that God (or whatever one conceives a Higher Power to be), designed human bodies using an adaptable mammalian blueprint that would work on any planet that’s like the one where we now live. Domestic cats are not known for honesty, but even a cat can feel compassion, despite its not having much gray matter above its brain stem (I did a complete dissection in A&P, as part of RN school). Surely, we can do as well as a cat. Honesty would be a good start.

    • I agree that the evidence favors intelligence behind the writing of DNA code. How many steps removed the code writer is from our current crop of critters on Earth is another question. I like your answer. Good point about compassion existing in the hearts of the non-humans here. I’ve seen it too, and it’s probably more relevant to this discussion that I realize at the moment. Thanks for your comment. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, so I respect the place where people of faith are coming from. I still believe in God, but not in infallible books. Probably my loss, honestly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.