And Dog Created Man

One of the most troubling questions brought before pastors, priests or any other apologist for God is this: Why did God create mankind? While I would argue some things just are the case, to say God did create man with no further explanation would be disturbing to any believer who wishes to assume there is a perfect being that at the same time has reasons for its actions. (It seems odd to me a perfect being would have reasons for its actions, that is to say, has desires.) Apologists hate this question primarily because the faithful hate being challenged on their beliefs and secondarily because they simply don’t know. But asking why God created mankind is important if we’re to be inclined to follow the dictates of any creator of ours. The answer to such a question would give human life direction, a direction we would be able to say we might be compelled to follow if we also hold the belief that we should listen to our parents for no other reason than they created us.

The fact that apologists don’t know the answer to this question is evidenced by pages and pages of Google searches that turn out the same few unsatisfactory explanations or dodge the question entirely, as if you had put the question to a nearly deaf lunatic. Here are some of the explanations:

Christianitytoday.com is of the opinion that mankind was created to play a rule in some ultimate plan God has for the universe. However, prior to this revelation, the author of the article, Dawson McAllister, acknowledges that God has no need of us per se, but decided to make us out of His love for us, a love which preceded our very existence. (How is McAllister sure our creation wasn’t done out of malice? This would seem more consistent with the world we actually live in.) BUT since God did make mankind, we might as well serve some purpose for Him. While we don’t know this purpose, we can help fulfil this purpose by worshipping God, first of all. Nevermind that McAllister states earlier that God did not make us out of some vain need to be worshipped. The explanation ends with the unfounded assertion that we need God, not the other way around. Please note that this decrepit reasoning doesn’t necessarily make McAllister a bad person, just a poor thinker.

Goodnewsaboutgod.com’s explanation, given by an M.D. (allegedly) is that our existence is necessary for the redemption of our spirits from sin by dying. Feel free to read that again. Apparently God cannot stop or redeem the sins of eternal beings – such as, say, a fallen angel – so God had to make mankind so that someone could be saved from sinning by choosing to follow God. "Thus humanity is made the vehicle through which the reconciling of the universe is to be effected, even though all efforts of humanity itself are in vain and come to nothing, and it is left to God to provide, in the person of His Son, the one effectual means by which this reconciliation is to be accomplished." So it seems God is not omnipotent after all. God isn’t much of an architect either, if He’s relying on mankind to redeem the entire universe. Should of just created the universe right the first time, God. Just sayin.’

 John D. Morris of the Institute of Creation Research is a bit more humble and is inclined to say, in part, that this is a sufficiently difficult question to fully answer. But Morris tries anyway, saying that God is love and (for some reason) showers love upon things that deserve punishment. (I know, I know.) Morris continues: “But in His love He desired reciprocal love, so He created man in His own image. Man was given the ability to respond to God's love or reject it. In the beginning man enjoyed full fellowship with God, but soon rejected Him, bringing the ruination of all creation. This wasn't God's intention, so He implemented His plan for creation to fulfill its intended purpose.” Morris begins his piece by saying we don’t know why we were created, then says he does know why. But if what Morris is saying is right, God is fallible. Moreover, Morris’ claims conflicts with other apologists who insist that God did not create us in order to be worshipped. But, in being consistent with other apologists, Morris claims our existence is part of some greater plan though whatever this plan is is never fleshed out. Morris claims to be a PhD, but his institution’s website will not say of what. No surprise there.

One of the more (?) baffling answers is given to us by gotquestions.org. Their short answer is that God desires worship even though God doesn’t need it because God is perfect. Question: As I hinted at earlier, wouldn’t a perfect being be free of desire, of the need to please itself? And, for no apparent reason speaking on God’s perfection, the anonymous author goes on to illogically conclude that in God’s perfection, He cannot make anything greater or even equal to himself because than God would not be the One true God. That’s the equivalent of saying I could not have a son who is better than me because then I would not be the one true Theory Parker. The answer provided eventually concludes that we were created to have the pleasure of knowing God, which surely does not speak to the vanity of God which so many other apologists avoid saying. 

Lastly, for now, Biblestudy.org claims “The culmination of God's creation was to create US, man, which is what Genesis clearly states (see Genesis 1, especially 1:26),” in effect saying that mankind is the equivalent of the star you put on top of the Christmas tree, that last little touch that really makes the tree come alive. Basically, mankind is a decoration. But God also made this pinnacle of God’s creation incomplete – only a physical being – and only worshipping God makes the physical creation complete by adding its spiritual dimension. Deeper into Bilblestudy’s explanation, things get stranger and further from any rational explanation by asserting we are basically copies of God who can become equal to God if we follow God’s dictates.

Now, it can’t be the case that all of these viewpoints are correct, so one or more of them are wrong. (Likely, all of them.) If any one of them were correct it should be obvious and that would be the default answer. The plethora of answers indicates apologists are simply guessing. But we must reiterate why this question is important: We should know why we are created if we are to fulfill any purpose our creator (or creators) may have laid out for us. But would that purpose even be necessary to follow?

Imagine if you will a deep sea robot sent to record data from the ocean depths. If the robot were able to reflect upon it’s own existence, it might ask why it is doing the job laid out before it, that is, collecting data. Should the robot say to itself, “Well, this is what my creator wants me to do, so I’m going to do it”? The robot is under no obligation – simply because it was created by someone – to do the job it was programmed to do, and if it doesn’t do its job or fails in its job, it creator doesn’t condemn it to hell. If anything, the creator of the robot will say, “That’s unfortunate. I should build a better robot next time.” The creator doesn’t hold the failure of the creation against the creation, he or she holds it against themselves. [While it can be granted that the robot needn’t know why it is collecting data for the creator, a self-aware robot may not choose to follow its programming for any number of reasons. It may not like the job laid out before it or may not like the creator’s ultimate reason for creating it. Or it may not do its job due to a glitch.]

To draw the analogy closer to home, imagine you have a child and the child grows into a rebellious teenager, or heaven forbid, a ‘moral’ vegan. Is the child you created obligated to follow your rules such as eating meat simply because you created them? What if your intended purpose in having a child was to create a pro football player? If they don’t make the cut, do you hold it against the child? Surely too many people hold the acts of the child against the child, at least over the short term, but this is simply the avoidance of responsibility by their creator. Or is it? When there is a conflict between the creator and the created, who is at fault?

The only possible answer is no one. There is no reason for a creation to follow the dictates of a creator simply for the act of being created. After all, the creation usually has no say in the matter of it being created. At the same time, the creator cannot account for every action the creation might take, not unless they were omniscient. Theologically, the problem in God’s creations not following the dictates of God are God’s fault because God should have known better if God is omniscient.

Back to how this relates to the purpose of mankind from the apologist’s perspective. People ask apologists why mankind was created, but for the most part, the answers are unsatisfactory or at best, partial guesses. If God at all requires or desires worship, God is vain. This is unacceptable to most fair-minded theists, or they will at least try to avoid saying this outright. If instead mankind is part of a plan, which plan is it? If the purpose of mankind is to follow God in hopes of redemption from original sin, this is both redundant and cannot be mankind’s original purpose since there was no sin until Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. If mankind is part of some greater plan we are not privy to, this is not very convincing in trying to get a skeptic to follow God since we can’t know that God’s ultimate plan isn’t evil. Moreover, mankind is under no obligation to follow God’s plan just because God decided to create mankind. To be obliged in such a respect, mankind would have to know the full details of the plan while at the same time universally conclude that the plan was good (insofar as we recognize goodness beyond the dictates of the creator or creators). The only other reason someone might feel obliged to praise and follow God is because their life is so good they want to thank someone. That’s all well and good, but this is not the same as being obliged in the true sense of the word.

If you’ll notice, a man or woman confident in themselves and able to give their own life direction doesn’t ask why mankind was created or what their purpose in life is. It is a person in a moment or moments of weakness (who is also the easily led on occasion) who will ask “Why am I here?” The answer is “Why do you want to be here?” Obviously, by the myriad of answers given by apologists, they have answered the question for themselves. They simply don’t realize that is exactly what they have done.

Why am I here? To tell you that you can tell yourself why you are here. If you believe God gave you free will for a reason, then use it.

What You Are Not Entitled To

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” - Harlan Ellison

My previous blog bemoaned the current state of affairs on college campuses, noting the extreme narcissism among student that have resulted from the extreme liberal views of their parents. While it is easy to understand extreme liberalism as a consequence of the extreme conservatism that proceeded it, such a backlash has resulted in a county-wide culture in which far too many Americans believe they’re entitled to whatever it is they want. But entitlement is never a given without some explicit written agreement such as a work contract. “Joe Smith and I agree and sign here that I will build a house for him and in exchange I am entitled to be paid by Joe Smith X-amount of dollars.” No appeal to any unwritten social contract can be made either as if such a thing actually existed, everyone would play by the same rules. It is clear not everyone does. So, for the sake of clarification, here is what you or anyone else is not entitled to:

You are not entitled to take up two spots in a busy parking lot. You are not entitled to park wherever you want because you have a nice car. You are not entitled to speeding because you left the house late. You are not entitled to reckless driving because you don’t know where you are going. Nor are you entitled to reckless driving because you want to answer an unimportant text. You are not entitled to other drivers being careful around you because you display a ‘Baby On Board’ sign. You are not entitled to play your car stereo way too loud at 3am because you have a small penis. You are not entitled to take up two seats on public transportation.

You are not entitled to act out because your parents didn’t get you a pony when you were seven. You are not entitled to an award or a grade for simply trying or showing up. You are not entitled to a corner office because you have a college degree. You are not entitled to take care of personal business on company time. You are not entitled to a tip for shitty service. You should be entitled to fair compensation for a job but unfortunately someone is always willing to do more for less pay.

You are not entitled to be a dick because you can’t handle your liquor. You are not entitled to riot whether your team wins or loses a big game. You are not entitled to be a bitch because it is your wedding day. You are not entitled to make someone else’s wedding day all about you. You are not entitled to leave trash wherever you want because you are too lazy to put trash where it belongs. You are not entitled to leave dog waste lying around because you ‘forgot’ a plastic bag when you left the house for a walk.

You are not entitled to believe whatever you want and force it upon other people. You are not entitled to have your beliefs go unchallenged. You are not entitled to your own facts. You are not entitled to make racist or sexist comments without expecting a backlash. You are not entitled to be a racist because you are a minority. You are not entitled to call all men pedophiles because you are a feminist.

You are not entitled to receive love from another person no matter how much you love them. You are not entitled to kiddie porn under the assumption it constitutes ‘free speech.’ You are not entitled to drug women who won’t sleep with you. You are not entitled to anyone else’s body. Ever. For any reason. You are not entitled to welfare because you cannot keep your legs closed.

You are not entitled to your privacy if you actively seek fame. You are not entitled to special treatment because you are famous. (Famous people receive special treatment because businesses want their money. This does not equal respect or admiration.) You are not entitled to special treatment when you say, “Do you know who I am?” If you think otherwise, you are entitled to a punch in the mouth.

You are not entitled to be happy. You are not entitled to anything. The world doesn’t owe you a living.

I am entitled to key your key if you park like a jackass.

The Age of Assholes

The trend of political correctness has existed for so long now, especially on college campuses, it has become standard operating procedure in the collegiate arena. Whilst even the most innocuous racist or sexist comment or behavior now results in the immediate suspension of the perpetrator, a disturbing new trend has emerged over the past few years in which a student can take ‘legitimate’ issue with anyone – including professors – whose ideas or words offend them. The institutions of higher learning seem to have become infected with what many liberals would consider ‘fake liberalism,’ which in reality is liberalism taken to its logical conclusion: protection of one’s beliefs from any criticism or critical analysis whatsoever. While liberals once criticized this kind of behavior from white Anglo-Saxon males, they failed to see the ultimately disastrous consequences of their own worldview. Political correctness has run so rampant that most notable comedians – the truly observant member of society – refuse to play colleges anymore.

The atmosphere has gotten so bad in academia that college professors in public universities now have to include in their syllabus fair warning, or a ‘trigger warning,’ that the course may include ideas that may be objectionable to a student. Even so, this doesn’t appear to protect the professor from repercussions should they upset a student. I’ve seen it myself, when a philosophy professor hypothesized that Jews and Muslims have a prohibition against pork because of the threat uncooked pork posed two millennia ago. A Muslim student (a red headed Irish lad, strangely enough) reported our professor after expressing his displeasure with such speculation, nevermind that the student had signed up for a philosophy class.

Colleges, being in the business of making money like any other business, understandably don’t want to upset students who are paying tuition, which itself has become exorbitant. What has changed about today’s students though is that they now enroll in college with the expectation that there will be no challenges to their beliefs because they are special, whereas students of yesteryear went to college precisely because they wanted to be challenged in their beliefs and wanted to ‘be relieved of their ignorance’ while the onus was on them to become special*. While Caitlyn Flanagan, author of Better Watch What You Say: How the New Political Correctness in Ruining College, says what is happening in colleges now is the result of 30-years of identity politics and is the fault of parents, she doesn’t seem to see exactly what the result of parental coddling has done to the latest generation; it has produced the most narcissistic generation of all time. (This honor formerly bestowed upon The Greatest Generation of WWII era fame, who at least worked to deserve their narcissism.) Couple this with the rise of social media, and there is no wonder we are now living in the Age of Assholes.

[* Bill Maher sees the previous college model as outdated and the model for Millennials is more akin to a country club. Notice how observant a comedian is.]

It has long been observed that an American in their 20’s is primed to take up some great cause as hormones still raging from their emotional adolescent years linger in their bloodstream. But unlike college students of old, Flanagan notes, today’s college student has nothing invested in the battles they choose. They are not going to become estranged from their parents or friends or risk being shot by police during a demonstration or be reprimanded for shouting down a guest speakers whose ideas they disagree with. When a college student has nothing to lose by taking up a cause, they are compelled to believe their cause is all that more just and are even less inclined to hear anything to the contrary, which reinforces how wonderful they think they are. This is why David McCollough Jr.’s speech “You Are Not Special” back in 2012 caused such an uproar among liberal parents; the kids he was addressing were getting ready to go off to college. Can you imagine today’s college student, who has no grip on reality, entering the real world and expecting everyone to reaffirm their beliefs? You don’t have to imagine. It’s happening. If there is a culture war currently raging, it’s a war on reality in which everyone’s views are sacred. Socrates turns once more in his grave.

Clearly, even the most half-witted bumpkin knows not everyone’s views are equally valid or deserving of respect. (Kindly refer to my entry, The Flaw of Multiculturalism.) But what consequences has this attitude wrought? On one hand, gays and lesbians have finally been granted the right to marry and this is at least one thing that is as it should be. A critical eye has also been focused upon police brutality in America, which seems to be as it should as well. But this is where the slope starts getting slippery for social issues, as white American males become ever more vilified since they are traditionally regarded (by minorities and white college kids who have no interest in self-preservation and exhibit ‘white guilt’ though they themselves have done nothing wrong) as lacking the appropriate respect for other’s beliefs.

On the other hand, while these same college students and social activists bemoan the current state of The Union, they fail to do anything to prevent it from becoming worse. They don’t do anything to curb teen pregnancy rates which are the highest in the industrialized world. They don’t do anything about the root causes of gun violence which again are the highest in the industrialized world. They don’t do anything about incarceration rates, you guessed it, the highest in the industrialized world. They don’t do anything to address the problem of homelessness except enable the homeless by giving them handouts. They don’t do anything about math and science scores which rank in the lower half among first- and second-world countries. This may be why they don’t do anything about the national deficit, because they cannot add and see the problem for what it is. They don’t do anything to address the staggering lack of press freedom or journalistic integrity now that U.S media is less about facts and more about political posturing and grandstanding. And they surely don’t care that an ‘institute of higher learning’ would rather have their money than make them think. Are these things to feel special about?

Perhaps the surge of narcissism has a lot to do with the ever present specter of existential angst and having the tools to ignore it (that is, again, belief affirmation by parents and schools, and social media). But no matter how special anyone feels, they nonetheless remain a speck on a minor planet in orbit around an average star in an average galaxy in an unremarkable region of the universe who is going to die someday. And that means you. That means you are not special. Not even Steve Jobs was, so don’t feel bad.

The flood of narcissists ignore the basic premise of their own philosophy at their peril: If their own beliefs are beyond reproach because their specialness is a priori, everyone’s beliefs are beyond reproach and this leaves no room for criticism of even the most evil person or people, not even white people. Of course, the narcissist in all their assholishness, will reply that it doesn’t matter if anyone else is special; it is only their specialness that matters. Leave it to narcissists to ignore the flaw of their own argument regarding their specialness. But, I suppose it takes a special type of ‘intelligence’ not to see this.

Click here for a link to David McCollough’s speech, “You Are Not Special.” It is critical reading for today’s self-righteous college student. Assuming they can read.