Language differentiates sentience. An ape can vocalize and sign perhaps hundreds of “words” but has no capacity for written language. If I write profound sentences on paper, the ape might literally chew on the page, and the meaning is lost.
It occurs to me that climate/science denial may fit such patterns. No amount of evidence or proof has any value in a discussion unless the parties share a common language.
Ignorance isn’t the issue.
Denial is not only more convenient than comprehension, it’s comfortable.
If the climate “debate” is nauseating, take Creation Science as a parallel. (Do we benefit from the historical perspective of Copernicus under the tyranny of the “Church” in the Age of Enlightenment?)
If one can accept that the nature of God transcends our comprehension, one might analogize that God speaks languages unknown to us.
So, one’s human limitations are that the Attributes one perceives of the Creator influence one’s awareness. God’s languages are universal: Love being one (the Bible is a love letter.) God also wrote beautiful mathematical messages.
Take timelessness as one of the Creators’ attributes.
Lim(t)14.8B years / t -> infinity = 0
If that makes sense? Scientific Cosmology fits Genesis. Perfectly. God is conversing in language we can apprehend.
Or do we chew on God’s profound truth and finding it distasteful, spit it out?
Illustris Project: An online, big-data, supercomputer anchored mathematical/physics-defined model of the cosmos.
