The fact of godlike Human power (A letter from Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood)

(The Screwtape Letters: A 21st century addendum)
Dearest Wormwood,
What has motivated your patient's doubt in the fact of human global warming.

The scientific-media has gone to great lengths to persuade the carnal populace with the knowledge that they may all, individually, have a godlike power over the fact of this imposed warmth.

I am concerned that you are allowing him to dismiss global warming, so easily.

Dearest nephew, you must be aware of the vast amounts of blood and treasure, not to mention the warm CO2 (a.k.a. “hot air”), which has been spilled by our sacred & faithful scientific-media followers, all of which has been done with sanctimonious piety, (as provided by the Proud Spirit of our father down below), and this hard labor has been done so that these mortals may take a prideful comfort, in the fact that there exists a human power to provide global HVAC to the masses.

Wormwood, I recognize that you, probably, remain hopeful that Earth may be moving into a warming era of human history, not unlike our blessed home, and therefore, you do not want to encourage your patient to cool the globe, however nephew, If you should be so FOOLISH as to allow him to deny the fact of man's culpability in the warmth issue, then you are, by necessary inference, denying the almost divine power of the fact of secular Humanism.

Nephew, your actions with your patient, also appear to be denying the fact that mankind's secular activities hold the power to alternately, provide either perdition or salvation by the shear force of human will.

Are you daft? Do you not have enough sense to know that mankind must, at all costs, have and maintain a proud comfort in their ability to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps”? Do you not understand that any silly little concession by you, (a very junior Tempter), is an unforgivable sacrilege, and the penalty for such heresy is no small matter.

Lest you think that our adversary’s quaint little book should hold any sway over our father down below, please remember that he is only bemused by the words “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”

Therefore, you should, with all haste, confirm in your patient’s heart & mind, that human activity is the only physical matter, that holds power to “save”. Whatever “save” means is irrelevant, because humans rarely take time to consider such words in anything other than a temporal sense.
Your Affectionate Uncle,

Screwtape

The Implied Postulate of Theology

Nwahs: The Implied Postulate of Theology
Theology becomes relevant when mankind assumes that he is capable of knowing what God expects from his creation. Man is arrogant enough to believe that this knowledge is within his grasp, and so, he ciphers with his finite mind; presuming that the infinite mind of God may be seized and placed in our collection of empirical facts.
Friend: The thought is intriguing and does have some appeal. I wonder though where this leaves resources like the Bible and our "God given inner compass, the conscience", which helps with discernment and being "Spirit led". I think I believe that it is possible to know God's will with certain and assured limitations, but his is a question I have not really analyzed in depth. I believe that we have touched upon this topic before in discussions of ethics and morality... Any other thoughts?

Nwahs: This philosophical observation has evolved since its first incarnation. Something about it seems too simple to be an error. But, the things, of which you make note, are abrasive to a reasonable mind. So, we are compelled to harmonize a paradox that is inexplicable. The paradox....

• God is mystery. God is Spirit. God exists in the cosmos, but cannot be contained by the cosmos.
• Man is a tiny speck within the cosmos. Man must understand the will of God. Man must obtain the knowledge of God.

The implied presumption of theology utterly defies the being of God. It would be the greatest tragedy in human history. The day when man succeeded in his quest to grasp God's will for creation. This would be the greatest tragedy, because, on that day, man will have wrestled God from heaven and equaled Him on the field of intellectual battle. (...it is unlikely to occur in our lifetime.)
Friend: I am generally very wary, to say the least, of people that make statements like "God wants___________ (fill in the blank)... Like I mentioned before upon hearing James Dobson say, "God wants to use the US to help destroy Islam", which immediately made me ask several very penetrating questions like where he supposedly got that information, why God would need our fighter planes and tanks if he wanted Islam destroyed, who does this guy think he is and what scripture did he get that idea from?" But, I don't think I have ever understood theology as necessarily discovering God's will but rather exploring his nature. As far as will goes, we have discussed whether or not there is a master plan or a script for every person- I don't believe there is. All this comes out in an exploration of the question of freewill. I think my studies of Native theology helped free up my mind on these topics. As you mention, sort of, generally speaking Native Americans thought of God as the "Great Mystery"
Friend: "The Great Mystery" being distinct from "The Great Spirit". They acknowledged that certain aspects of God's nature were simply beyond the grasp of the human mind. All that they knew was that this Creator God was benevolent, having created life in an ordered, cyclical, nurturing, symbiotic , morally conscious section of a vast cosmos, most of which they could know nothing about except by expanding the spiritual nature- which they were actually quite good at. This was a lot easier for them than us because of the distractions in the world we have built for ourselves. They never pretended to know what God's will was- but simply sought to find their own purpose and hopefully fulfillment within creation. I could go on for hours... your turn.
Friend: What I was working up to before cutting myself off was that not ALL, humanity assumes that arrogance of which you speak... the Western mind and the indigenous mind (or some indigenous minds) are actually quite different on that point.... That arrogance and assumption and collection of facts is what we mostly know because that is what this culture that we are living in the middle of has made of itself... but not all humanity and all cultures try to operate that way.
Nwahs: You may be correct about theology. However, my understanding of theology is as a rational approach to understanding the being & essence of deity. The terms of exploring God's "nature", implies that God has a "natural" or physicality that lends itself to being observed naturally. This to me is paradoxical. The statement that started our discussion does not point a finger of blame, shame or prideful guilt at one man, e.g. James Dobson. Instead, it says that mankind has a task that defies reason, in attempting to study a non-creature, i.e. study an un-created life. The statement can't be seen to single out Dobson, Moses, or Muhammad. The issue is that man attempts to know God. As any man comes to believe he has knowledge of God, he is compelled to distribute this knowledge to others. Therefore, by so doing..., arrogance is manifest in the teacher, rabbi, priest, and shaman.
Nwahs: I had been thinking and writing when you posted your comment prior to my last. However, your point about other cultures being less encumbered by western (industrial) thought is not necessarily true. Siddhartha attained enlightenment and then sought to help others follow his path. This implies that he had a deeper grasp of spiritual essence. Lao Tzu recorded the great wisdom of the Tao Te Ching, which implies he had discerned a unique knowledge of the Tao that others did not have. It may be said that Lao Tzu and Siddhartha were most humble of men, but, the fact that they knew they had achieved such humility that should be recorded for the enlightenment of others, is hubris.
Nwahs: I apologize for my cynicism. The purpose was not to be a "kill joy."
Friend: by nature I mean essence- I think of that as the same thing... but semantics can always trip one up... This reminds me of the old saying about how those that speak don't know and those that don't speak do know... but, that statement too is an assertion of knowing and wisdom... and assumption that wise, knowing men hold their tongues and actually know something of the unknowable... lol. In the end, who knows? About all I profess to know about God himself is that there is one and his Spirit can interface with that of a person in a pretty unmistakable way... and even then, the Mystery is not revealed but only confirmed(?)(not sure what word to use there- language has its limitations)
Nwahs: Yes, I thought that I understood you on that. Just so you don't misunderstand my underlying point; the nuance issue comes into play in my understanding. It should not be understood that I am denying the value of seeking knowledge of God, neither should it be understood that I am denying the value of sharing knowledge of God. Rather, what I am saying is that the knowledge men obtain about God, is not so much the result of the men wrestling knowledge from God by great effort and intelligence. The knowledge, therefore, is obtained by a humble acceptance of the revelation from God. It is a spiritual epiphany within the heart, mind and soul.
Friend: I had gotten all that- good summation.

Ethos is reality

Speciously idle questions.

• Does philosophy have any value to the average person in the real world?
• Should real people care what the professors are professing about evolving knowledge & devolving belief?
• Should you care what the politicians are proposing from the chambers of evolving mercy & devolving justice?

The answer is a resounding “Yes!”
Individuals must take interest in the philosophy that is being considered by the men and women who shape the course of our world. The philosophies in these elite circles may not be changed by our considerations, but, the goal should not be to change the world.  The goal, for each individual, is the recognition of Truth.  This is the power of each person.
We, individually, have & hold the power to evaluate thoughts and accept them or reject them. It is just that simple. If after evaluating the philosophy du jour, we find the conclusion of the thought to be untenable, we may remain in command by holding Truth in our minds, and never abdicating to others who desire to think for us. It is our authority as much as it is our right. As an example of the importance of philosophy to average people
I have been contemplating some underlying thoughts about the spirit of the "Age of Reason" & “Age of Enlightenment”. I recently wrote something about the “ethos of humanity” and my wife asked what I intended to say. So, I found myself explaining what ethos is and why I hadn’t just used the common term, “morality”, to express myself.
However, my answer involves the “Age of Reason”, the “Age of Enlightenment”, and almost all of the thinking that occurred as this era matured into our now “Post-modern” world.  I will resist the temptation to make a doctoral thesis out of “Ethos.” If you haven’t already googled, I will save you a step by linking the Wiki on Ethos. You should notice that in the first paragraph, the Wiki references the Latin equivalent, which is Mores. This is the key to my wife’s question.  I maintain that there is not a true equivalency between the Greek concept of Ethos and the Latin concept of Mores.
The Western world-view changed fundamentally with the "enlightenment" and the results of the change could have been expected, because of the philosophy that took root in the minds of the movers & shakers of the western world. Thoughts have costs and philosophies have consequences.
When one evaluates the ultimate conclusions of a thought and he sees that its end is bleak and hopeless, is he “closed minded” to reject the philosophy from his mind?
Metaphysical Naturalism (aka Ontological Naturalism) has been the dominant philosophy of the modern & post-modern era.  Informally, Wikipedia, until recently, classified Metaphysical Naturalism as a “quasi-religion”. Efforts are made to divorce naturalism from religion, however, note carefully what Wikipedia has to say about Metaphysical Naturalism;

"It is presumably not a religion. In one very important respect, however, it resembles religion: it can be said to perform the cognitive function of a religion. There is that range of deep human questions to which a religion typically provides an answer: ... Like a typical religion, naturalism gives a set of answers to these and similar questions."

The value judgments of Ontological Naturalism are based on matter only.  In the modern/post-modern religion of Ontological Naturalism, there is no rational means of appealing to a dimension beyond the observable cosmos to give a framework for values.
Therefore, Nietzsche reaches into his natural “bag of tricks” for a purpose for mankind and he pulls out Übermensch (Super-Man), while Sigmund Freud found the Ego, Super-ego, and Id.
These carnal/material answers from the naturalist philosophers are essential in order to move mankind beyond deity. Because of this evolution of reason & naturalism, ethos was no longer dominant for providing guidance to the actions of the individual, and it was during this time that mores, conceptually, replaced ethos.
Mankind’s Moral imperatives were to be driven by culture; that is to say that our guiding principles could no longer look to unverifiable deities such as Jesus. Also, with this evolution, it was a reasonable extension to consign determination of mores into the hands of the most logical (reasonable) minds, such as Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, & Engels, et al.
While I do not necessarily credit these men for their great philosophical advancements, neither do I fault them, because the logical progression from the mid 18^th Century “Enlightenment” was foreseeable.
And yet, I see the evolution to mores as a degradation of civilization. People assume that "Mores" & "Ethos" are equivalent concepts, but they are not.

• Mores are driven by 'mob' forces from without, e.g. culture, government, community, neighborhood, & even gangs. 
• Ethos however, is a spiritual element that arises from within; it is an application of an internal standard of reality. The standard is irrational, yet, it is spiritually superior.

Consider how the writer of the book of Romans describes, what I am here recognizing as Ethos. ROMANS 7:19-23 ¹⁹ For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do— this I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. ²¹ So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. ²² For in my inner being I delight in God's law; ²³ but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. Note that the writer continually references “I” in this passage.
However, one can see that in verse twenty, the writer divides himself into two individuals.  Even more importantly, he transforms our understanding by his identification of a true self and a false self. In verse twenty-two the writer further enlightens us about who the true self is. True self is the “inner being”. As a disciple of Jesus, this makes sense.  I see the inner being in myself as the man who exists prior to the modifications from without, i.e. the fall.
Mores seek to convert humans into utilitarian tools for society.

We are so obsessed with doing that we have no time and no imagination left for being. As a result, men are valued not for what they are but for what they do or what they have - for their usefulness. ~Thomas Merton

Ethos maintains the value in the individual’s original essence, by acknowledging the value of all other individuals. The manifestation of Ethos is seen first by our attitude and then by our actions towards others.

What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves? This is the most important of all voyages of discovery, and without it, all the rest are not only useless, but disastrous. ~Thomas Merton

Therefore, I would say that Ethos is who we are in our being, while Mores represent who others demand that we become. Mores should be subservient to Ethos, or did you think I forgot about Nuremberg? What do you think? Let me know.

Conventional foolishness of the wise men

A dialogue between two great Greek philosophers; Plato & Diogenes the cynic

• Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one "idea" of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.
• "I can see the cup on the table," interrupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the 'cupness'."
• "That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend 'cupness'."
• Diogenes walked up to the table, examined the cup and, looking inside, he asked, "Is it empty?"
• Plato nodded.
• "So, where is the 'emptiness' which precedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.
• Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts,
  
• but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the 'emptiness'." (emphasis added)
  

Is Plato wise, in his idea of cupness? Or is Diogenes wise, in his assessment of vacuous thought?
The ideas of 21^st Century America are very Platonic, so, I appreciate Diogenes' ridicule of conventional "wisdom", yet, convention is not maleficent per se.
So, what is it exactly, in our postmodern conventions, which rouses my sense of "holy contempt", that is similar to Diogenes' contempt for the Classical Greek culture?
Are there empirical traits that one might perceive and quantify, which might allow a judgment of culture and convention?

I will consider this last question and maybe offer some opinions on which specific traits, agitate me to cynicism.

my creation!

The underlying issues of Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged start well before the terrorist actions of Roark & Galt.
These destructive actions are the actions of gods.
In Rand’s stories the individual becomes his own god and he assumes the authority of God, to destroy what he, himself has created.

Did God have the authority to destroy the world by flood in the days of Noah?
Did God have the authority to destroy the kingdom of Israel with the Assyrian army?
Did he have the authority use Rome to destroy Jerusalem in 70ad?

I think God does have this authority.
God created the earth for his own purposes, and therefore, he has authority to destroy it.

However, even though I say God has the authority to wipe us away, I do not believe that individuals, have unilateral authority to wipe away “our own creation”, as Rand implies…, regardless of how others may attempt to steal or distort our personal work.

The message of Roark and Galt is that an individual holds all authority over his creative works. But, I disagree with the objectivist philosophy.

You may think that I am being hypocritical on this matter, but, there is theological reason from the dichotomy.
Simply, an individual’s creation does not belong to the individual…, our creation remains the property of the uncreated Creator.
My resources are all the possession of God, the talents are God’s and the raw materials of my creation are God’s.

My creation has only one ultimate and legitimate purpose, i.e. it is to glorify Christ.
It is not mine to possess and selfishly hold for my personal glory.
If I destroy the creation of my hands, with the goal of hurting or denying others the value of the thing, as Ayn Rand depicts in her protagonists, then, I am dishonoring Christ and defying my Raison d’être.

Recently, my professional creation has been unethically and immorally looted or mooched by local business competitors on three separate projects. I was tempted to retaliate with an Ayn Rand technique.
Yet, this is not my goal, because, I am a disciple of Jesus, and being His disciple means that my perfect example is not Ayn Rand, John Galt, Dagny Taggart, or Howard Roark, but rather, my model is Jesus Christ.

If you want to discuss the specifics of looters and moochers and how these are the sins which precede the temptations of Howard Roark’s blowing up “his” development and John Galt absconding to the mountains of Colorado, I will be glad to have a cup of coffee with you; we can discuss morals or ethos, and maybe we can find out for ourselves; Who is John Galt?