Sunt Lacrimae Rerum

I finished and posted an Office Action on one of my amendments earlier this week. Later, another amendment showed up, so I’m back to five amendments on my Amended docket.

I finished a first action on one of my oldest Regular New applications (the Request for Continued Examination case; I will now work on the non-RCE oldest Regular New). I also did a notice of abandonment on a case which I rejected more than six months ago, after receiving confirmation from the patent attorney that no response had been filed. All of this is OK, especially now that I’m working part-time, but I will still need to grind away to achieve good production for the first quarter of the fiscal year, which ends in two weeks.

I have read Charles Murray’s new book, Taking Religion Seriously, a work that itself deserves to be taken seriously. Briefly, Murray makes an argument from design, that the fundamental physical constants of the universe appear to be very finely tuned to make possible a universe that permits the existence of long-lived stars, of stable atoms, and so forth, enabling the development of life. Then, updating C.S. Lewis, he makes an argument that the existence of the moral sense indicates an awareness of a transcendent, divinely ordained moral order.

Evolutionary biology and psychology have made progress since the 1940s, so there is a counterargument which Lewis would not have needed to address: kin selection. People whose genes incline them to behave in ways that favor the survival of others, especially their near kin, are likely be more successful at passing on their genes. A man who runs a substantial risk of losing his own life in order to save the life of his child or his sibling may be an evolutionary success, even if his altruism leads to his own early death, because his behavior promotes the survival of others carrying many of the genes which he carries. Murray argues that maternal love and the impulse to behave heroically to rescue people who are not close kin are more than evolution could account for. He may not settle the question, but he makes a plausible argument, with a dramatic example from his own experience.

Then Murray addresses the Gospels specifically, presenting arguments that they are reasonably accurate accounts of actual events, written when witnesses were still alive, rather than myths written down later. He also makes an argument, or set of arguments, from the shroud of Turin, as an artifact that could not plausibly have been faked by non-supernatural means.

I still identify as an agnostic, but my view of the chance that religion, specifically Christianity, is true has definitely shifted since I have read the book. I may have more to say about this.