Higher Levels of Confusion

I apologize for the paucity in prolificacy as of late.

I am currently in the U.S., engaged in the unimaginable…

investigating the potential for repatriation.

Sunday I celebrated, with extended family, some of whom I hadn’t seen in well over a decade, the 100th birthday of my dear Grandma Essie.

Someone remarked during the festivities that Grandma was borne the same year Mother’s Day was declared a national holiday…

Grandma Essie wittily retorted, as has been her style over the last 10 decades, that she’d taken full advantage of President Wilson’s decree.

Back to today’s post theme, I remember Anthony Robbins once telling seminar participants that the more confused they felt, the closer to a breakthrough they were.

Well, I’m currently reading The God Delusion by evolutionary biologist and unabashed atheist, Richard Dawkins. The book, while fascinating, is most definitely leading me to higher levels of confusion.

I was already relatively relaxed with the idea that christianity holds no more truth in it than any of the other religions that man has conceived, contrived and contorted over the ages.

Just consider for a moment the question of whether life exists on other planets.

Science estimates that there are probably a billion planets located in so-called goldilocks zones, where it’s not too hot, nor cold, but just right to support life.

That’s only about 1% of all the planets they estimate that the entire universe contains.

Now, could any of those planets actually support biological life forms?

Well, I guess the fact that we’re currently riding on exactly that type of a planet indicates a resounding YES!

In other words, there’s an extremely high probability that life does in fact exist out there, since we do in fact exist…right here.

We may never know for sure simply due to the unimaginable distances that lie between us and them.

On the other hand, is there any probability whatsoever that “they” are reading from the same religiously inspired books in the futile attempt to explain the perplexities of their existence…

not a chance in heaven, or hell.

That notion just doesn’t cut the mustard with me anymore.

Which is a slightly difficult thing for me to write in light of the fact that the same extended family I introduced above will unanimously declare me nuts for the thoughts I just expressed!

Nevertheless, one thing is for sure, and I believe Dawkins himself would readily agree…

There’s this lingering mystery behind it all. As much as science has advanced, and continues to do so, it still can’t explain…

the unexplainable.

Now, Dawkins would say that just because that’s the case, doesn’t mean we automatically resort to the intellectual sloth of conjuring up some Intelligent Designer to fill in the gaps.

After all, who, or what, designed the designer?

And that maybe this amorphous sense of purpose has some connection in those gaps.

That the purpose for my existence lies somewhere in there.

In this blog I take the bold leap of suggesting A purpose.

Now, do I know it to be THE purpose?

No, I would never presume such knowledge.

The most confusing chapter in Dawkin’s book, so far, has been the one that deals with this very question of purpose. The one in which he refutes the idea (repeatedly suggested in this blog) that the human capacity for good emanates from that same Intelligent Designer that Dawkins rather effectively poopoos.

Dawkins alternatively suggests that our tendency to engage in altruistic acts, or good, is built into our genes (and/or memes) via natural selection…

the engine that drives evolution.

Now, such a built-in altruism would have to be by nature focused intently on self or species propagation. But much of the altruism we actually witness in our world is certainly less focused and more broad based.

Why is that?

Well, Dawkins says that it’s just a case of misfiring of the survival urge.

For example, a mother bird has the natural urge to feed the chirping mouths that share her nest. But if a cuckoo appears (a brood parasite that sometimes shows up in the nest of other species) she will work just as hard to feed that one as well…

a misfiring of her altruistic urge.

So, Mr. Dawkins, am I to be led to believe that Ghandi, MLK, Mother Teresa, Mandela, and others of their ilk were simply engaged in acts of altruistic misfiring when they sacrificed their own lives for the lives of others?

That they did so purely by means of an evolutionary accident?

I find it easier to believe that they were led to do so by that mysterious sense of purpose that perplexes me and to which this blog is directly addressed…

Not just for ourselves to enjoy, but for future generations to have that same privilege.

We humans are impact-full creatures. We tend to leave a larger footprint than any of the other complex life forms that have evolved along with us on our planetary ship.

Maybe that’s why it’s most important for us to be impact mindful.

That idea admittedly offers little solution to the as of yet unsolved mysteries of material existence…

But it does lead me to a more inspired purpose for my being than the notion that any positive impact I might be able to make is simply the result of…

evolutionary misfiring.