Religion Reverses Everything
Why would it be arrogant to think oneself a blink in the cosmic eye, something which won't last very long, and which the cosmos won't remember very long, but humble to think oneself one of the beneficiaries and intended eternal such of the creation of the cosmos?
If it were two men telling each other about the status they each held within the same framework, the former would be humble and the latter arrogant. In an obvious social sense.
But the creationist is not believing your claim to be a blink in the cosmos. He is believing that you too are one of the reasons God wanted to make the universe. He thinks you are wrong about the framework quite as much as you believe him wrong about the framework.
So, neither of us is being arrogant or humble in the social sense to each other. Is then either of us humble or arrogant towards the cosmos?
On your view, there would hardly be any cosmos enjoying either one's humility, nor any cosmos indignated at either one's arrogance. If CONSCIENCE as such is just a blink, and the "eye" itself unconscious, that is unseeing, how would it be affected by any minute modification within that blink?
On my view there is consciousness all over the cosmos. God who alone spans it all in omniscience and omnipotence, and all the angels, each of which span much more knowledge than the human one and has much more might than the human one. That is sth which can be affected by humility or arrogance, adversely or again benevolently.
So, assuming the cosmos is full of consciousness the way I think, and at least God, plus some angels having had occasion to deal with my writings, plus some angels to whom God revealed it (including but not limited to the famous "man in the moon" whose services as a calendar Muslims still are using), what would God and the good ones among the angels enjoy as humility and what would they consider as arrogance?
Another angel was talked about when St Thomas More pointed at the Sun before kneeling at the scaffold and said "I'll be above that fellow", or when same angel was nearly adressed as "our brother Mister The-Sun" by St Francis.
If I am right that Our Brother Mister The-Sun is created by the same God who has created my soul, if I am right that we are called to get even above both Moon, Sun, and stars, to where the Cherubim, Seraphim and Blessed Virgin Mary adore the Lamb of God - who of these would be offended at my arrogance for saying it?
Wouldn't they perhaps rather be offended at the arrogance of a certain pretty recent collective in recorded human history who are saying "there is no creator, Gagarin found no such thing in space" as if that were looking well enough? Or even the angels might be somewhat offended when the lights they have are supposed to be lifeless masses of "burning gas" and in motion only as dictated by vectorial laws concerning inertia and gravitation. Perhaps, no?
Assume, at least for a moment as an experiment, the Geocentric perspective as an INERTIAL framework. If that is true, angels are dancing around a very intricate countrydance with some very surprising quirks. A show which would lead less prejudiced men, such as Abraham according to Josephus, to see that:
- there are dancers, not just holes in a ceiling shutting us off from a big fire
- they are much further off, dancing much faster, and are much bigger than it seems
- therefore, as they aren't hitting each other to pieces, they all obey a choreographer.
The one which Abraham thought a truer God than the gods he had for a moment served. Or, as St Thomas Aquinas would have said: the one we all call God.
So, getting back to your attitude as it is usually, if this true God exists and these dancers exist, if it is not just a kind of illusion, like Heliocentric Ideology would have it ... who of us is more like the bad critic who doesn't even get a pure genius of artwork?
So far, AronRa has not answered. Perhaps he is busy.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Hormizdas, Martyr