Like zombies, we pursue some twisted love (forbidden; defined by emotion). Like zombies, we pursue some twisted wealth (dishonestly or obsessively gained to the neglect of all else). Like zombies, we pursue some twisted fame (self-deity). Like zombies, we pursue some twisted happiness (idolatry). And we, in more democratic societies, go around patting each other on the backs, granting each other overly broadly-defined “rights” like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–like zombies, ever twisting and perverting our universe–a violence beyond comprehension (for “life” can mean we value ours over theirs, “liberty” can mean the ability to do whatever we want, and “happiness” can mean whatever we choose to satisfy ourselves). But also, like zombies, we’re perfectly blind to the fact that we are zombies.

We murdered ourselves when we ate the fruit. And we all did. It wasn’t just Adam and Eve. They ate fruit and tried to be gods. We lie. We pervert. We seek our own pleasure and happiness–idol: ourselves. We fantasize ourselves to be gods. Gnawing on the extremities of others–even our own–as they also chew ours. All the while–committing high treason against the ruler and creator of our universe.

Even if we consider ourselves part of a more refined segment of civilization, the pleasure we supposedly seek for others (as we desperately try to appease our consciences) is really to please ourselves as we fancy ourselves as “selfless”– in the hopes of somehow pushing along a sort of human social evolution – all the while seeking our own smug satisfaction. If we don’t take pride in our individual self, we take it in our kind.

Sexual arousal, for instance, presumably evolved because of its connection to making babies; but of course we can get aroused in all sorts of situations in which baby-making just isn’t an option — for instance, while looking at pornography. Similarly, our impulse to help others has likely evolved because of the reproductive benefit that it gives us in certain contexts — and it’s not a problem for this argument that some acts of niceness that people perform don’t provide this sort of benefit. (And for what it’s worth, giving up a bus seat for an old lady, although the motives might be psychologically pure, turns out to be a coldbloodedly smart move from a Darwinian standpoint, an easy way to show off yourself as an attractively good person.)

-http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The horror of it is that you are dead. Alive biologically, yes. Your heart pumps blood, the synapses of your brain fire, but you’re dead in every way that matters. Unlike zombies, you look physically normal. But just like zombies, you are dead while you live. Worse yet, you’re headed for a second death–beyond the destiny of your current deterioration.

Here we are–dragging our carcasses across the surface of this globe – seeking our own comfort and happiness, chasing money, self-promotion, the latest technology, self-fulfilling relationships, procreating, and starting the whole process over again. On and on, like zombies, we drag along to feed on creation in a twisted, destructive manner in order to derive our own ungodly momentary pleasure.

We rape the planet for our benefit, living well beyond our means. Whether our effects are understood or not, it doesn’t excuse our behavior. If I back over a person in a parking lot, does it really matter if I did it on purpose or by accident? Either way, someone is dead, and I’ll be on trial for manslaughter at least. Purposeful or ignorant negligence is still negligence. Negligence like rerouting rivers by building dams, causing landslides, destroying people’s homes, ecosystems, and the like. Negligence like overfishing at a rate of 2-3 plus times the world’s total sustainability, causing massive population depletion, ecosystem imbalance, etc. Negligence like transporting plants and animals to alien locations, causing extinction of native species. Negligence like spreading viruses between human groups, causing widespread sickness and death (Native American holocaust by germs). Negligence like coal mining which spikes pollution and carbon emissions to record levels, thereby destroying ecosystems and contaminating the atmosphere. Negligence like commercial accidents like the Exxon oil spill of ‘89 and, more recently, BP’s spill which has damaged wildlife far beyond our understanding. Negligence like driving cars to the tune of 12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year plus a host of other by-products which are harmful not only to humans, but the planet at large, let alone the fossil fuels mined and processed to supply the fuel for combustion. Negligence like agricultural poisons and mismanagement of animal by-products resulting in a host of known harmful waste products, not to mention the endless unresearched effects on the environment. These examples say nothing of the dramatic and growing effects of deforestation (stripping the earth’s ability to process carbon emissions and supply oxygen, other contributions to global warming/atmospheric deterioration, food distribution, poverty, child slavery, corruption, plastic islands (as high as 5+ million square miles total), trash productions, immunization tragedies, etc.

There stands the monster. The beast. That hideous, unimaginable nightmare. It’s gangly figure lingers, watching. Watching me. Mouth abnormally wide—swallowing my attention. Then I notice: hanging still—perfectly limp—the pajama-clad skin of a man, much smaller than the creature itself, eyes vacant.  My heart jumps to the base of my throat as, all in one motion, gnarled fingers slip into a hole somewhere in the back of that lifeless skin, separate the folds and the creature climbs, slithering, inside. The body tosses. Zips. Turns. Wakes.

Good Morning to You. Ready for another day? Another game? Another act on this stage—this façade of a personality you put on which hardly resembles what you know lies beneath? Stand backed against the wall, aghast, lost in the mirror. Is this who you are too? Is that what lives inside this—this—body? This shell in which You dwell? Then it hits you. What you see is not who you are. It’s not that simple. You wish it were. To God, you wish…but you’re more than physical. You know that now. This fearful image staring back into your own eyes, now steadily trembling with revelation, does not define You. The realization terrorizes you, reducing your worst fears to moot, as you are faced with not what is portrayed to those around you each passing day, but You—what you Are. The spirit that dwells within—the real You.

Who—what—are we?

How is a worldview to be tested? Three ways are logical consistency (as we discussed), empirical adequacy (does it match what we sense), and existential relevance (does it actually affect how we live?). To study the worldview adequately, we must employ several disciplines: theology, metaphysics (ontology, cosmology/cosmogony, epistemology), ethics, and anthropology.

What follows in the next several posts is not a systematic breakdown of any one of these disciplines alone. It is merely a presentation of reality as I understand it after inductively weighing the evidence in its support. You may ask, “What–are you an expert in all the worldviews across our planet?” My answer is no, I cannot hope to learn all the information available, but if I can break them down into categories, and evaluate them from there I can, through process of elimination, find those worth building inductive cases for. These categories are: 1) only the supernatural exists, 2) only the natural exists, and 3) both the supernatural and natural exist. (Much of the categorical terminology here I’ve derived from Ravi Zacharias, whose ministries (RZIM) can provide further counsel.)

If a claim exists beyond the bounds of the senses, one cannot use the lack of senses to refute the claim; however we may derive skepticism from a lack of evidence. People may be skeptical, for example, of molecules until more evidence is given, though the existence of molecules remained unchanged all along. The claim can be rejected if the senses can definitively prove otherwise–just as the senses can serve as inductive evidence that a particular claim stands.

If there is such an intersection between the natural and supernatural, a true scientist ought to ask questions (second step of the scientific method) of the supernatural claim to determine if it is supported by the natural world. If the claim fails the test of coherence among such categories as origin, meaning, morality, or destiny, or if natural observation definitively negates the claim, then the scientist can rightly deem the claim as invalid. Further tests may include considerations like logical consistency (it cannot both affirm and deny a component). Short of this thorough investigation, however, no valid conclusion may be reached.

If you hear someone described as “sensuous,” you might assume they are sexually provocative. Although that may play a part, let’s get down to the root: a sensuous person is one who is ruled by their senses. Because this term has a negative connotation, however, modern thought substitutes the term “sensuality” with “empirical science.” This is merely a mask for the rulership of the senses–complete reliance upon that which can be seen, felt, tasted, heard, and smelled to whatever degree of scientific “repeatability” you desire. And yet, it is largely believed that if something is not observable, then it does not exist. This was true of cells, molecules, and atoms at one time. Did they suddenly exist when we “sensed” them? How about dark matter and dark energy (the majority of the universe)–did it, too, suddenly exist when formulas necessitated it? How about the supernatural?

The grand ironies are that we humans seek:

• perfect law though crime, for it is law that stands in the way of perceived justice
• peace through war, for it is peace which both sides believe worth fighting for
• economic stability through poverty, for the idea of stability in middle- to upper-classes that is borne on the backs of the poor
• filled appetite through hunger, for a perceived “filled appetite” inevitably prevents another from being filled in our economies
• moderation through obsession, for it is eventual moderation which is believed possible through current obsession
• freedom through bondage, for it is our pursuit of freedom which inevitably enslaves others in a variety of forms
• health through sickness, for it is health or the illusion thereof which is provided by the diseased (or “less healthy”)
• logic through illogic, for “logical” outcomes are pursued through illogical means
• human triumph through tragedy, for it is the hope of human triumph which spurs on the tragedy
• environmental conservation through decimation of nature, for it is conservation which is seen as attainable through temporary decimation
• social evolution through social devolution, for it is often the unleashing of baser instincts which is promoted as progress