We Must Understand Nature

It is clearly an outstanding human characteristic and exemplary of an unmitigated arrogance that despite the best efforts of science and its associates, there remains the prevalent conviction among populations that this universe was manufactured exclusively to satisfy the whims of humankind.

In the West, this sentiment is partly derived from interpretations of holy texts, codifying man as privy to dominion over earth. Others agree with their own subjective, ego-centric perspectives relating humankind to the exceptional status of nature’s highest creation. For some, notions of anthropocentrism actualizes the unsustainability of our current paradigms of consumerism and infinite economic growth which by their very premise, threaten sustainable ecology.

One opinion contending with conventional views of our place on this earth is sobering. Nature has not subsumed humankind to a categorical exceptionalism -which is to say nature’s laws still apply to us.

We are an intrinsic development of nature, and as such, we are subject to its laws, cycles, and tides. To dissociate from this disposition is to deny reality for the appeal to a chimerical fantasy that doubles one’s vulnerability to the vicissitudes of the universe.

When crises emerge in our societies, there will be no resolution magically dispensed from a placated, anthropomorphic god of the heavens. The answers to our crises are to be uncovered through synergy between ourselves and natural law. We should flow with the currents of nature instead of hoping to nullify their potencies through fervent belief.

To accede with this idea does not imply a regression to previous states of civilization – doing away with the fruits of technological progress as “naturalists” would assume, nor should it suggest religion as wholly rubbish, but it does connote the necessity of a greater clarity in perception that crisis and dissolution of conventional paradigms are implements of nature’s induction of change.

Nothing stands beyond the principle of impermanence. All things undergo change and if we somehow realize a method of living in coterminous relation to this principle, much worldly suffering will inevitably cease.

This coterminous relationship I speak of is nothing more than the adaptive function of species to prevailing circumstances through change.

When heavy weather precipitates torrents of rain, does not one find it to his benefit that he should build a roof? When the seasons change from the heat of summer to the cold of winter, should not one duly change his/her habits accordingly? If ecological crises furcate from a paradigm disproportional to the resources and the capacities of species of earth, should not the preceptors of such alter their endorsement to others of it?

The challenge however, to behaving in accordance with natural law, is associated with our human propensities. We are creatures of habit, therefore the necessity of change conflicts with the inconvenience of change. But what greater inconvenience visits us when we fail to build our roofs before storms arrive!

It is here that we can hear the echoes of Darwin’s odes of natural selection- that the species with increased capacity to adapt to prevailing conditions is more likely to survive. Though I do not entirely endorse Darwin’s theory of evolution, I am inclined to confess that one cannot reasonably deny that our species holds its consummate function of adaptation in faculties of intelligence.

From our intelligence have come formulations of antibiotics, weapons, innovations in agriculture, and multitudes of tools welcomed for their contribution to our subsistence. What other premise is needed to substantiate the importance of thinking and education?


One object of the human psychology that appears to be ubiquitous is an individual’s existential imperative to affirm a purpose to his existence through an appeal to the concept of an omnipotent and omniscient deity. Atheists take hold of this notion in argumentative supplantations of deity believer’s views by pronouncing that believers believe on a basis predicated by their unaddressed fear of meaninglessness stemming from the lack of a universal creator. The acknowledgement of this meaninglessness would precipitate cataclysmic shifts in their world perspectives.

With this assertion of atheistic ideology I have no contention, for it is evident what importance purpose conferring beliefs are to any individual. My contention is with the atheist declaration that God does not exist, which belies the rationale inherent in their crusades against anthropomorphic divinities described and defined by religious doctrines. Indeed, that falsehood and contradiction saturates these books can be demonstrably ascertained to the inquiring intellect, but from the refutation of the validity of these holy texts, must it follow that one should throw out all mentions and sentiment of God altogether? What I mean to allude to is that the general concept of God – what we perceive God to be – need not be abrogated, but only redefined in accordance with our expanding knowledge of the Universe (an agnostic view).

A common premise as an adjunct to the atheistic refutation is that God is anthropomorphic; a definition inferred from some holy texts which depict the divine architect as jealous, malevolent, vengeful, and at the same time all-loving. These attributes seem to be projections of human qualities and as such one can reason that God is all in the head. But I wonder, what would be spoken by an atheist to the innovation of the God concept that God is not some anthropomorphic power removed or outside of its own creation, but rather enfolded into the entirety of the Universe? What would be said to the expression that everything, from light to darkness, the macrocosmic to microcosmic,  inclusively every single particle, is god?

Tersely explained, the reconciliation with aberrations in the ethics of  god that beset mankind with disease and genocide would be inevitable, for all shades of good and evil would be derived from the One. Even the physical laws so dogmatically declared as the principles that would lead us out of the caves of a numinously orchestrated world could not escape that they too, along with hatred, the irritation of cutting oneself while shaving, and the existential crisis in man, are all the expressed content of the one.

To be straightforward, such a view gives great latitude to the advances of an ideology of divine architecture. Under such, we would no longer be denizens of a world separated from the hand of light and love, but the subjective experiencers of God defining itself in finite dimensions as opposed to the infinite depths of its formlessness. We might realize that from this placid formlessness and unquantifiability arise all the forms of the Universe.

Other ramifications include the recognition of two diametrically opposed aspects of any duality are as a whole unto itself. No longer would the perception of good and evil give rise to the systems which seek to stomp out the negative for the positive of a immutable morality, for the God concept precludes substantiation of absolutes in moral code. What would better suit the resolution of morally impelled disputes among peoples but a relativistic morality where the right choice circumscribes the situation at hand? Such a morality would reflect the nature of the Universe in its ability to change and accommodate circumstance rather than  hold to rigidly immutable principles.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s