I think the best way for me to start this project is to share some of my thoughts about humanity. Since I observe and experience the world from this perspective, it should be useful to (inadequately) define it. Then everyone can identify my biases, understand my prejudices, and take my insights with however large or small a grain of salt they wish.
I understand humans beings to be loving and good-natured. For the greater part of our younger years, we are entirely dependent on older humans; for the greater part of our older years, we commit ourselves to providing for younger humans. We have friends who we love unconditionally (familial), friends we make love to (romantic), friends we connect with (personal), and friends we struggle to connect with (cordial). Our reciprocal commitment to these people forms the moral compass that motivates nearly all human action.
In this sense, I cannot subscribe to libertarian individualism that views human beings as isolated and callous individuals committed to the sole function of selfishly maximizing personal happiness. To view humans from this perspective only is to commit a grievous distortion. Trying to explain the birth of a child through a max-Util function is like compelling a circle to have squared sides -- it requires violent force.
What libertarians correctly observe is that human beings are deeply imperfect, incapable of completely understanding the infinite mass of information around and within them. But like a paper mache model, they use only this one substance to construct their idea of humanity. We are infinitely complicated and imperfect, but we have deeper commitments and powerful faculties that overshadow our imperfections. We obligate ourselves to people, ideals, and objectives. We strive for greater understanding -- of ourselves, of other people, and of the massive and massively confusing world around us. I do not see our deep moral commitments as evolutionary baggage, but rather as the fundamental life force of our existence.
Beyond this fundamental existence, humans possess an intricate consciousness of self and a capacity for language that sets us apart from other species. I hope this blog will mostly be an exercise in language and consciousness, helping to refine the tools and objectives we use to understand reality and communicate our findings. That said, it would be insufficient to contemplate these human issues of consciousness and language without considering the most fundamentally human question -- the God question.
I understand God to be a fundamentally human concept: our struggle to reconcile our own consciousness, our own mortality, and our seeming insignificance in relation to the massively complicated and seemingly unfeeling universe we live in. God is a humanizing force. God makes the universe ordered and comprehensible, imbues all living things with a sacred dignity, and reinforces a sense of wonder with the intricate beauty of the world around us.
However, throughout history, the God question has been phrased incorrectly. When people ask, "Does God exist?" or "Do you believe in God?" they commit an inherently stupid and divisive oversimplification. It is as if someone were to ask you, "Do you believe in orange?" or "Does orange exist?" One answer is, "Of course, I believe in orange. It's right there." The other answer is, "No. Orange is merely a human creation, an arbitrary line in a spectrum. You cannot find perfect orange in reality, so it is stupid to believe in it." But both of these answers end up sounding arrogant and childish because the question itself has been phrased incorrectly. The God question is not a yes or no questionnaire, it is an existential mystery.
Some better formulations of the question would look like, "Why us?" or "Why now? Why here?" The truth is, it's a mystery -- a frightfully humbling and beautifully elusive mystery.
These are questions we cannot answer scientifically or logically, and thank god. Too many wars, too many horrors have been committed in the name of The Answer for me to justify giving an answer to the God question. To me, God is a question, not The Answer. And in the eternal conversation of human existence, I hope I will always err on the side of posing more questions rather than declaring more Answers.
