WHICH LAW

          There is a great irony in the world.  Science has nearly convinced mankind that we are all just animals.  Our anatomy and physiology is alike, and we appear to have the same needs for survival.  The conclusion many modern thinkers draw from this analogy is that should not, cannot be any moral laws such as taught by the religions of man.  Many people have accepted these conclusions and live their life without moral restrictions.  Of course there are many who believe this but who also practice moral principles and hold themselves to a set of standards based upon their own reasoning. 

          The irony, of course, is that those who believe we are just another species of animal often want to be free of any of nature’s natural restrictions.  They may want to eat without killing. Others may want to kill without eating.  Some wish to have sex without responsibility and others wish to have responsibility but limit reproduction.  Many wish to be left free to believe and preach whatever they want, but do not want to hear any opposition and would restrict the freedom of others to oppose. 

          Animals and plants are not free.  Each has its own nature and limitations.  Many can only reproduce at certain times of the year or at discreet intervals.  None can engage in sexual relations without some cost and responsibility.  Even the consumers must be responsible when they overgraze and area and their offspring suffer.  Something must die if others are to live. 

          Only humans think they are free of these requirements.  Mostly however, it is humans in industrial nations who behave this way.  Americans are especially subject to this irony.  I believe this is because we are now two or more generations removed from the land and nature.  MY grandfathers were all involved with the land in some way.  The law of the harvest, “Reap what you sow”, was engrained in them.  But my parents were only slightly involved in agriculture and that more than most of their generation.  I was raised and lived even more marginalized, except that I chose to study biology for a career. 

          I do not want to live like a caveman.  I don’t even want to live the demanding life of my grandparents.  However, I believe it is essential that Americans somehow get back in touch with nature.  If we intend to be “just an animal” we need to obey nature’s laws.  If we are something different than an animal we need to be living by a higher law. 

SUFFERING

          I have been thinking about science and suffering. 

          I became a scientist in part because I wanted to help people and alleviate suffering.  (The other part was avoiding the draft.)  Science is supposed to alleviate suffering, you know.  Instead I now find myself administering exams and writing columns, both of which may be excruciating to some people. 

          A lot of scientists seem to worry about suffering, although the people who seem to worry most about suffering are people who have never seemed to suffer very much.  Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hutchins, and other atheists are, or were, greatly exercised about suffering, although they themselves have University educations and live rather extravagant and indulgent life styles.  While atheism thrives in industrial nations, the suffering poor of the world seem to embrace religion. 

          Actually I’m not even sure what suffering is.  Presumably death qualifies, although I am not sure why since everyone gets to do that.  We often call surviving death suffering when the one who didn’t survive was a loved one.  Can a team actually suffer a loss?  I suppose pain is suffering, although pain exists on a kind of a continuum.  To what degree do we suffer?  If I skip meals in an effort to lose weight because I suffer from being overweight, am I still suffering? 

          I meet many people who are deathly afraid of being stung by a bee.  Yeah, it hurts, but I’m not sure I would call it suffering.  What about only having one shirt?  Is that suffering?  I guess that depends on how often you are able to do the laundry under those conditions.  What if you don’t own a car and have to live in a one room house?  Interestingly, many people who have to live under those conditions don’t act as if they are suffering at all.  I mean they laugh, love, play, get married, have children, and just have a good old time anyway.  In fact, they don’t seem to worry too much about suffering.  They often seem happier than me.         

          I’m not sure why scientists seem to worry about suffering so much.  Suffering isn’t a science, although my wife thinks I have turned it into such.  She just doesn’t understand how hard it is to be a professional windbag.  Sometimes my back just kills me from standing for all those lectures.  I wonder if being boring counts as a disability. 

          Science is supposed to deal with the real physical world.  I guess suffering feels real enough, but where is it?  Is there a tiny, fundamental particle of suffering out there of which all suffering is composed; like atoms or cells?   We could call it a sufferon.  Then we could classify suffering as to the number, kinds and arrangements of sufferons.  “Oh man!  I have seventeen sufferons today from talking so much!”  Or not.  This could really backfire on us when other people started counting and comparing their sufferons to ours.  Maybe it should remain a little vague.

          Many people seem to be concerned about who is responsible for suffering.  Interestingly, some seem to think it is God’s fault for not stopping it.  Shouldn’t they blame Satan for causing it?  Presumably God can interfere with Satan.  Can Satan interfere with God?  Apparently he can, when he causes suffering.  If God is a benevolent God then He would never cause suffering, even if He occasionally failed to prevent it.  So, who is guilty, the one who caused the suffering, or the one who failed to prevent it?  

          If a scientist fails to prevent suffering is the suffering his fault?  Is it enough to have tried to stop suffering or does it have to be actually stopped before God can take credit?  Well, thankfully, I don’t have to assign blame for suffering; I just have to alleviate it.  Unless suffering is my fault for not alleviating it like a good scientist should.  In that case, I can always blame God. 

           

           

BEFORE HUMANS A WILD ASS

          Before there were humans there was a wild ass and lilies.  Before there were humans there were cockroaches and daffodils.  Before there were humans there were fishes of the sea, fowls of the air, and grasses and herbs of every kind.  Of this the scientists and theologians all agree.  The sequence of Genesis is very much the sequence proposed by scientists for the creation of life.

          It is commonly thought that humans were created last because we were the epitome of his creation.  But what if we are an afterthought?  Does God love his other creations equally? 

          I believe that God loves his other creations in a way that does not necessarily conform to human purposes.  We are concerned with the usefulness of the tree and are confused by what good a mosquito could be for.  God took great pains and time to create beauty, grace, color, seasons, and motion in an infinite variety.  He used patterns that include us, but existed before us.  Did he create it all for us?  Or did He create it all for his own pleasure and delight in creation, and we are allowed to share in it? 

          In fact, we are even asked to exercise dominion over it.  What does dominion mean?  One definition is, “the power of life and death.”  It seems true that we hold that power over his creation.  How sad he must feel at times as he sees the death and destruction of his creations, not for our use, or for further creation, but for senseless greed and waste.