Everything You Know is Wrong pt3

The next question that followed was "Is this phenomena particular to just me?". In other words are there other people who are similarly displaced, and more than that, is the whole human race somehow out of place in this world?
Certainly mankind is unique amongst the animal kingdom. As much as evolutionists stress that we are something like 99% the same as apes, I just couldn't swallow such a materialistic pill. Surely we are much more different from a behavioural and ability perspective than we are similar in just a materialistic sense. I will use the words of G.K. Chesterton to explain what I mean. In "Orthodoxy" he writes:

"That man and brute are like is, in a sense, a truism; but that being so like they should then be so insanely unlike, that is the shock and the enigma. That an ape has hands is far less interesting to the philosopher than the fact that having hands he does next to nothing with them; does not play knuckle bones or the violin; does not carve marble or carve mutton. People talk of barbaric architecture and debased art. But elephants do not build colossal temples of ivory even in a rococco style; camels do not paint even bad pictures, though equipped with the material of many camel's hair brushes. Certain modern dreamers say that ants and bees have a society superior to ours. They have, indeed a civilisation; but that very truth only reminds us that it is an inferior civilisation. Who ever found an ant-hill decorated with the statues of celebrated ants? Who has seen a bee-hive carved with the images of gorgeous queens of old.. No; the chasm between man and other creatures may have a natural explanation, but it is a chasm. We talk of wild animals; but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out. All other animals are tame animals; following the rugged respectability of the tribe or type. All other animals are domestic animals; man alone is ever undomestic, either as a profligate or a monk."

So I am a wild animal, ever undomestic. I think I prefer the idea of being an alien, as it sounds less judgmental, but Chesterton is right. There is something about man that transcends the animal kingdom and sets him apart from it. He alone is able to break the bound of the natural order of things as so he is the only truly wild creature in this world. We have what C. S. Lewis refers to as the "Chest". In "The Abolition of Man" he writes:
"The head rules the belly through the chest - the seat, as Alanus tells us of Magnanimity, of emotions organised by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest - Magnanimity - Sentiment - these are indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal."

It is by this chest that we have attribute of honour, respect, patriotism, sense of duty, humility, romance, and passion (in the non-sexual sense). Not to mention creativity in music and the arts, our ability to decode nature in the sciences, and utilise its power in so many ways. The sheer invention and innovation of the human mind is utterly poles apart from the rigid impulse and instinct of the mere animal. In this we are so far removed from the animal kingdom that it is clear we are of entirely different stuff. I remember having discussions with friends about whether or not an animal has a soul or spirit. If having a soul means possessing the above attributes, then clearly the human race is unique in being spiritual. This spiritual side, which is strangely attached to a very carnal body through the "Chest" of man, marks him as both a creature of physical birth and inherent spirituality.
This clearly must be the reason why I felt so out of place in a world that I was continually told was merely particles of matter joined together by chance and modified over millions of years by random changes to culminate in the human race of today. This explanation not only didn't fully explain the nature of the world, it completely ignored who man is, and what it is that actually makes man, man. How could such a narrow view of the composition of man explain the unique, undisputed character of man, nor ever satisfy our inherent need for purpose and desire for that which is beyond.

Perhaps there are some very defective men who do not possess one, or even a few of these attributes, but is there any man who has ever existed that has never had even a hint of any of them. Perhaps at times we consider we observe, or read about someone who we believe is completely deficient in all respects (though in reality it seems unlikely), and what is our conclusion? That this person is inhuman: a remorseless monster.

So I concluded that for my purposes I had proven the idea that my situation was not unique, and that perhaps this dilemma was common to all mankind, at least to all who are not inhuman monsters, which by definition excludes them from a claim to humanity anyway. By Lewis' account, poor teaching about the nature of humanity, and in my opinion weak rationality from the many pseudo scientists that saturate our media, have brain-washed us into many false ideas about our world and ourselves, that we become no longer able to recognise the absurdity and paradox of our existence in this world. Perhaps this is why we don't realise that we are not of this world,that we are unique in this created existence. We are made of greater stuff than anything we can see, hear or otherwise naturally perceive on this earth, and this leads us to the conclusion that perhaps we were made for a higher purpose than what this world offers.
After a great deal of thinking, this is where I found myself.