Tag: G.K. Chesterton

  • Avoiding the Birdcatcher’s Trap

    The Sunday speaker focused on avoiding the “trap of the birdcatcher,” taking for granted that Satan is the birdcatcher (“fowler”), only not everyone thinks it is he. Jehovah’s Witnesses do, and also many other faith traditions. Really, more do than don’t. In medieval times, the linkage was well-nigh universal. Augustine, for example, explicitly said so the birdcatcher (fowler) was the devil.

    But, in modern times of “higher criticism,” where people assume each Bible book is a separate island, bearing little relationship to its fellow Book-mate, they are more inclined to say, ‘Nah, it’s just a guy trying to catch birds.’ It’s any human pitfall that might trip a guy up. 

    G. K. Chesterton’s words come into play. The Catholic writer from a century ago called those “wrong who maintain that the Old Testament [and by extension, the New] is a mere loose library; that it has no consistency or aim. Whether the result was achieved by some supernal spiritual truth, or by a steady national tradition, or merely by an ingenious selection in aftertimes, the books of the Old Testament have a quite perceptible unity. . .” 

    It’s like how Jehovah’s Witnesses point out that the Bible was written by some 40-odd writers of vastly different backgrounds, over a period of 1600 years. What are the chances that anything coherent will emerge from that? That it does is powerful evidence to them of the book’s inspiration. But modern people haven’t taken the time to familiarize themselves with the Bible, mostly, or they do so under the guidance of those determined to tear it apart. Its unified nature is lost on them. 

    At any rate, assuming unity of Scripture, you take into account that the New Testament often speaks of Satan laying traps and snares, just like the Psalm 91 birdcatcher. See Luke 13:16, for instance, also “the snare of the devil” of 2 timothy 2:26 and 1 Timothy 3:7. Ephesians 6:11 speaks of the “wiles” (cunning traps) of the devil.

    Anyhow, the speaker ran with Satan as the birdcatcher, then branched out to how hard it was to catch a bird. His brother had tried that, as a child, standing stock-still under the birdfeeder for an hour (it took that long for birds to let down their guard) then swooping up his hand fast to catch one, only to emerge with just a few feathers. “Birdcatcher” sounds a little wussy next to the “lion” description of 1 Peter 5:8, but if you take into account the craftiness required, then it evens out. Thing is, he said, a bird’s eyes are on both sides of its head, giving it a wide field of vision. He contrasted this with how he had noticed that those in the audience had eyes up front and spaced much like his. I had noticed this, too, though I admit, I wasn’t mulling it over the entire time.

    He used a lot of images from his childhood in that talk, alluding to traps he saw set on Saturday morning cartoons when he wasn’t taken out in field service, traps that would catch any creature “except the roadrunner”—including the simple upside down box propped up by a stick. “Those things work!” he related how he had once caught a skunk that way, luring it in with dogfood. Who would think a skunk is going to follow a trail of dogfood, “but it did!”

    Silly putty played into his talk, too. He told how the “iPad of his day” could bounce, be shattered, suck up ink from the Sunday comics, but eventually became such a disgusting blob, full of dirt, ink, and cat hair, that you tossed it out. He likened that to how Satan toys with his victims for a time, dirtying them up, before discarding them.

    close up of a road sign
    Photo by Waldemar Brandt on Pexels.com

    ******  The bookstore

  • Cool Hand Luke: ‘He Beat You with Nothin!’ The Atheist Search for the Origin of Life, Part 5

    For best results, see Part 1 here

    This post is an aside. ‘Origin of Life’ science, as discussed in the lecture series, might easily strike a non-enthusiast as so speculative as to challenge the all-time king of speculation in the guise of science: evolutionary psychology. So it is that I diverge into that other cutting-edge field.

    ***

    The circuit overseer was visiting. It was a week of special activity. We reconvened to plan our afternoon. Nosmo Jones had unexpectedly cancelled his study to bail one of his kids out of jail, so I was open. “Does anyone have any calls?” the circuit overseer asked. “I have – Mr. Strawman out on Pretensia Pond Road,” I said. “You remember him from your last visit.”

    “Does anyone else have any calls?” Silence. I knew Bill Ding had several, and also Sally Shinspits, but they would likely not be home at this time of day. “Are you sure nobody else has any calls?” the circuit overseer repeated. I reminded him again about Bernard Strawman. “He’s told me since our last call that he could believe in God!” I said. “We could build on that foundation.” He’d also said something about climate change in hell, but I hadn’t understood what he had meant by that.

    “Check carefully. Nobody has any return visits?” the circuit overseer asked again, looking desperate. “Maybe we can do street work,” he pleaded. But Brother Bruno’s wife, Brunette, had done street work all morning and her feet were sore. She wanted to ride around for a while.

    Twenty minutes later we pulled into Mr. Strawman’s driveway. A Mercedes was already there, in addition to the Jaguar that Mr. Strawman drove. I rang the doorbell with the circuit overseer in tow. Mr. Strawman answered. He invited us in, told us to take off our shoes, and introduced us to his visitor, Dr. Adhominem. I’d never met Dr. Adhominem, but I’d heard Mr. Strawman speak of him glowingly.

    Mr. Strawman asked us to be seated. He asked us if we would like some orange juice. When we said yes, he explained that he didn’t have any. I settled in my chair for a stimulating discussion that was sure to come! The circuit overseer mentally reviewed his notes for the talk he would give that evening: “Are You Following the Lead of the Angel in Your Ministry?’

    Mr. Strawman and his visitor explained to me the research paper they were preparing to submit to Wonderful Scientist Magazine. It was to be their contribution to the exciting field of evolutionary psychology. “Much of the cutting-edge work in science is in this field,” Mr. Strawman told me. The paper he was co-authoring with Dr. Adhominem, he explained, was on the evolutionary origin of boisterous flatulence. “Back in the stone-age eat-or-be-eaten days,” Mr. Strawman explained, putting the concept in a nutshell, “you wanted to evolve everything you possibly could to scare off predators. And nothing would do the job like boisterous flatulence. It quickly cleared the area, the same as it does in modern times.”

    I was very impressed with this crock of insight. But the circuit overseer said: “Got any evidence of that?” He had heard of something called the Scientific Method. I was so embarrassed. Dr. Adhominem smiled and explained that to become obsessed with such matters was to chase a red herring. The very reason such rapid progress was being made in evolutionary psychology, he continued, was that researchers could work without that sort of distraction. He asserted the time for his breakthrough had come because similar research had been accepted by the scientific community. To tell the truth, I was becoming more than a little mortified by that circuit overseer. Clearly, the man doesn’t know much about science.

    For example, Dr. Adhominem told us about the evolutionary origin of faulty reasoning, something which had long puzzled scientists because it seemed to fly in the face of survival of the fittest. But the April 5, 2010 issue of Newsweek summarized the latest scientific thinking. “Faulty reasoning is really our friend! It enabled our ancestors to learn argumentation!” If there was no cockeyed reasoning, Dr. Adhominem explained, nobody would have anything to argue about. Throw any issue before the masses, and they’d all instantly agree! How could survival of the fittest take place? Smart people can only evolve if they have blockheads to stomp into submission with their clever argumentation. So stupidity has proven to be essential to our evolutionary advancement!

    The circuit overseer said: “That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.” Dr. Adhominem gently suggested the reason: evolution had selected people like the two of us to enable people like himself and Mr Strawman to become brilliant. I felt privileged to have such a role in science! The circuit overseer asked to use the bathroom. “Eighth door on the left,” Mr. Strawman said.

    The three of us remaining strolled out into the back yard. Next door, Mr. Strawman’s neighbor was drooling over his curvaceous girlfriend prancing about in a micro-bikini. I instantly turned away. “Interesting how evolutionary psychology accounts for this phenomenon,” Mr. Strawman remarked. “Indeed,” Dr. Adhominem said. I drew a blank, so he patiently enlightened me. “You’re not going to get far in the struggle for survival if your wife keeps dropping your babies and killing them, are you? Decidedly not!” Pleased with himself, he continued: “But that knockout bombshell of a competitive wife has convenient shelves upon which she can balance as many babies as you can give her. Thus, over the eons, our ancestors began to prefer curvy women and to think them beautiful.” How could I have been so stupid for so long?

    We seated ourselves again inside and the circuit overseer said something about God. Mortified, I slid down into my chair! Mr. Strawman had already explained to me the evolutionary origin of God: “See, any group of individuals will have some riffraff who must be kept in check so as not to disrupt the clan. The trouble is, the riffraff doesn’t like being kept in check. They fight back, and this spills the primordial soup of even the most peaceful clan, spewing evolutionary ripples everywhere. What you need is a superhuman cop, one with whom you can’t fight back! Then those ne’er-do-wells will behave. That’s how the concept of God evolved, with all its quaint notions of right and wrong.”

    “Homosexuality? Surely that has to be a fly in the ointment of your race to procreate,” the scientifically ignorant circuit overseer said, much to my dismay. “Not at all,” Bernard Strawman replied with a smile. “Homosexual men tend to be nurturing, and so they nurture everyone in the tribe, including themselves, giving the entire tribe a competitive advantage,” he said.

    We discussed other interesting things as well. Seeing that he was getting underneath the circuit overseer’s skin, Mr. Strawman asked us as we were leaving how we knew that we were there? “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, how do we know that it makes a noise?” What a fascinating question! “Because the squirrels go crazy!” the circuit overseer said. “I’ll be in the car, Tom.” He’s a fine brother but he really doesn’t know anything about science.

    “What a wonderful experience in the field ministry!” I exclaimed to all as we entered the Kingdom Hall after field service was over. I suggested that the circuit overseer might use it for his upcoming part in the circuit assembly, but he said he already had participants.

    [The boisterous flatulence hypothesis is (for now) made-up nonsense, but all the other ideas have found acceptance among evolutionary psychologists. I predict boisterous flatulence will also be embraced one day soon, since it is only slightly more ridiculous than what has already been accepted by these characters.]

    The circuit overseer said he would never ever EVER go back with me on this call and changed the title of his talk that evening from ‘Are You Following the Lead of the Angel in Your Ministry?’ to ‘Look, Sometimes You Have to Learn How to Take a Hint.’

    However, three years have just about elapsed. He is soon to depart for a new assignment; a new circuit overseer will soon arrive, hopefully one with better appreciation for science. He will thus be the ninth one to aid me in assisting Mr. Strawman in his progress.]

    “The first effect of not believing in God, is that you lose your common sense.” G K Chesterton

    To be continued: here

     

    ******  The bookstore