Corollary to "Five Problems In Contemplating God"

1.1) "The existence of the world itself, and the beauty of the world prove God's existence."

Again, you are apply values to Something you know Nothing about. Canst thou measure God's hair molecules under a microscope? Canst thou take a DNA swab from the inside of his right cheek, and compare against human DNA? Canst thou ask him to stand against a wall, and measure His height? "Jesus - Age 6...Jesus - Age 7..."

Therefore, thou shouldst take a minute to really ponder. Until you know the very nature of God--the very stuff of God--the brick to his house--the H2O to his water-- you will find it difficult to prove or disprove his nature by way of nature itself.


2.1) "The absence of evidence against God's existence proves His existence."

It's the same kind of logic as saying "God is fake because I cannot see Him." The absence of evidence only reveals unanswered questions. Both belief and nonbelief require an amount of faith. The subject--a believer or nonbeliever--assumes the general nature of the answers to unanswered questions. The subject assumes. (S)he has no way to substantiate those beliefs.

Five Problems in Contemplating God

1) Assuming God to necessarily exhibit specific personality traits, and then using though traits to prove God's existence or non-existence.

"Life is terrible and therefore, God is a myth, because God, who would be wonderful, loving, would make the world a perfect."

Your perception of perfection has failed to cling onto the foundation of reality. You need to prove that God having certain traits, and the nature of reality in light of those traits, proves or disproves his existence. Reality can still be if your percetion of God is false.

If you see that the sky is beautiful and the grass is green, you only know that the skiy is beautiful and the grass is green. You only know that you feel good. You may think God is there, but you've yet to see him. You have what you call evidence of his existence--and this evidence is the product of life. For evidence, however, you need a visible culprit to pin it on. Where is God, visible to us all (in a literal sense, not metaphorical)?


2) Assuming absense of evidence to prove God's nonexistence.

"I see no God. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

It's like saying, I have never met George C. Hoover or heard of him, or seen a photograph, though I have stories. Therefore, Hoover is a myth. He does not exist. You only know that stories about God have failed to convince you of the being's existence. You nothing showing direct evidence of God's existence. You have science, and test evidence to affirm this lack of direct evidence. Also, however, you understand that there is a lot you don't know. You knwo there is a big shadow out there, the unknown. And the only way to understand that shadow is to jump in it. So, never mind guessing--test it. Jump into the shadows, and shed light on it. Then: repeat, for infinity. If God exists, okay. If God is a myth, okay. Either way, you've poked at the truth. Just remember that self-proclaimed rational atheists who assume anything are just theists playing a different song with the same instrument.


3) Assuming God to be male. Or female. Or both. Or neither. Or everything.

I was almost going to ask, "What would got need a pair of genitals for?" And then realized that I would falling into the same trap.


4) Confusing attacks on religious establishments as attacks on God.

Just because a person criticizes a policy of the Pope, may not mean that the person aims to personally talk smack about God. But a traditional Catholic would be inclined to view direct criticism and insults against the Pope to be sinful and displeasing to God, regardless of the criticizer's point. To some sects of believers, the earthly institution of worship is inseperable from the heavenly overcast.


5) Assuming that every religion reveals a path toward understanding the ultimate nature of reality.

The similarities may say more about humanity than about our environment. A multidisclipinary study on this subject would be fascinating--psychology, biology, history, political science, literature and religion. Anyone recommend really good books? The closest thing I can think of now that I have already read is America's Constitution: A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar, which covers a legal, historical, and political aspects of the US Constitution and its relationship with the nation itself.

Religion: Belief; and Effect on People

Miss Sarah Itzkoff mentioned this film trailer on her status line.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous

The movie is Religulous. It stars Bill Maher, and is about him interviewing religious people about religion's absurdities. I saw the trailer. It got me to thinking. The essay is not a direct answer to the trailer, but definitely birthed from it. Placenta and all.
**

I.
Religion is only secondary in:
- method of social control
and
- means to explaining how the universe was created

Religion, first and foremost, is a coping mechanism.

To believe "I don't know" about the nature of life or afterlife is pretty creepy for most people. If you are unable to feel fear in considering "I don't know" you've either spent your patience considering it as I have, or lack all parts of the brain used to feel fear.

Life sucks when your life might mean nothing. When you are only skin, muscle, and organs. When your heart stops, and the body falls apart, and ants pick at your remains to return to their Queen. When you look at some guy on the subway follow his ex-girlfriend around, and he is obviously harrassing her. When you see a child with a fresh bruise under his eye. When you see that a murder remains unsolved, and the police will probably fail in catching the killer. When you sit down and look at your children, and worry that they, despite your preference to the opposite, are only meat.

Religion and God are means to deal with the crappy parts of life. It's pretty damn nice to believe that after that murderer dies, he'll get what he deserves. It's nice to believe that abused children are cared for. It's nice to think that your life is more than meat.

If the sincere belief in God reflects an insanity in the believer, then the insanity is a reaction to a kind of despair.

Atheists, too, have dealt with this despair in their own personal way. Whether or not you have God in your consciousness, you must deal with life's absurdity and apparent hopelessness in some way, and many, religious or not, do. To live, people tend to support their living with a kind of logic, even if that logic is plugged with a hole or two.

Ultimately, our presence clinches the deal. We're already here, and few of us, upon believing life's meaninglessness, would commit suicide. Why? Because suicide hurts. If you eat chocolate, your tounge is happy. If you get a message, your back feels great. If you watch a funny movie, you laugh. If you have sex, you're probably in a good mood. Pleasure, even if that pleasure is scant. That's why people continue living, even when their explaination of life is irrational (religion), or incomplete (atheism).

The logic of living serves the reality of living. Rarely the other way around. When you find yourself alive (in the maternity ward, among the other babies, figuring out how your fingers work) you will from then on dedicate life to the act of living. The only trick from then on is explaining the reason for that living, so as to make that living more pleasant.

Maybe you could believe in Christ. Or some other God. Or maybe believe in some vague lifeforce in the universe. Or be apathetic, sweep the life question into the closet, and continue eating tostitos with cheese dip (a delicious meal). Either way, life is nicer when backed by a pleasant ideaology (eg. Human beings have dignity, and dignity is a true sort of substance.)

Faith. Faith, ever present. That the work that you do is actually worthwhile, beyond the pleasure you recieve from it. That people do good for you, and that good is really altruistic, etc, etc.

****

II.It seems that a lot of criticism against religion has to do with religion as a corrupting institution.

That religion has been associated with violence cannot be disputed. ("Christ be with you," said the Crusader, and then he threw the baby into the well.)

So if we prove that religions are the source or major cause of brutality among people--at least when those religions are used as a reason for this brutality (like the Crusades)--then yes, religion can be a corrupting institution like slavery. In other words, if we simply removed religion from an area, or the world, then people would act more civilly from one another.

Ir seems, however, people are beasts, in general. Beast: a creature that lives at excessive expense of others. If religion has no real effect on how people act, then even if we remove all traces of traditional religion from the Earth, people would still commit acts of brutality and oppression. Indeed, I argue that violence in the name of religion is in fact a perversion of religion. It has nothing to do with the true idea behind the religion except cometically. These jerks just happen to worship a God, for personal gain.

I think that commentators overestimate the power of social institutions. These institutions come and go. But the thing that brings them together, again and again, is the human desire to live and to succeed at living even at the expense of others. This personal desire is the Ultimate Institution, and it originates in the heart. If we miss this core, then we can remove religion, the corporations, the gov'ts, etc, yet we will keep running into the same problem of depravity among peopole.

With or without the idea of God hanging above us: the Holocaust, that Waco mess, the War on Terror (R), and Priests diddling children. These or similar events will still occur. Because people are feeders. Because the act of violence is satisfying. Because sex is satisfying. Etc. And in the face of that satisfaction, Man submits. He submits to his only true Lord. The only question know is how he will justifying his worship to himself. And, trust me, he will find a way.

I will say no more for now.

This subject requires a lot more experience, research, and wisdom than I am able to provide at this time. It's better to keep the mouth shut rather than blab in a public, idiot way.

Turning the Other Cheek

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

This is why I fall short of calling myself a Christian. That’s a hard rule to follow. ‘Do not resist an evil person.’ That means, should a person attack you, you should be meek. You should take harm rather than give back harm. This results in another bruised cheek. This results in criminals walking the streets, this results in your family getting hurt.

I think this is the make it or break it rule. The dividing line between the ideal Christianity and Christianity in practice. Quite a few people accept the text so far as following the text will help sustain them in the present, physical life. Some will justify their violence using the New Testament.

That’s how Christian people call for assassination or war. Because they are unable to follow the rule, and sometimes justify breaking it as going for the public good. That’s like Michael Corleone going to church. So to me, when a Christian shows or feels ill will toward another, that is about the most serious sign that that Christian lacks an adequate faith.

I know, because when I learned, some time ago, that ill will was the definitive sign of a lack of faith. I find believing in God difficult. If I believed in God, using the heart, I would mind my ill will. Instead, bitterness carried itself to the point that I lost the affection of quite a few acquaintances. I learned that death, loneliness and pain are only feared in the absence of faith. Without faith, family members cry at funerals. Etc.

Yet what Christianity seems to be about the aspiration toward holiness. It accepts sinners. It takes it for granted that practitioners have sinned. Jesus died for sinner. Sin is the major, even definitive, point of the religion. It serves as the foil of how people should act. It serves to show that life should be lived in the service, for the sake, to the goodwill of others so that they can have Heaven on Earth.

I aspire to become a Christian. I aspire to purge my heart of evil. To become a selfless person, or close enough. I am definitely at the stage where when I see that Christianity is used as a justification of ill will, I get pretty pissed.

Imagine a guy with a club shouting: “God loves you, faggot,” and bashing another man in the skull.

It’s something beautiful warped inside out.

Vengeance (1st draft)

I have yet to meet God. I am uncertain of a metaphysical engine that fumes with love, and sneers at the slime dripping through the streets. I am uncertain of its form, and more uncertain of its existence. Therefore, this essay--and perhaps all my essays--restricts itself to the form of the universe. The way it seems to me rather than the way it has been told to us.

A completely ninhilistic viewpoint of the world fucks up the need for an essay, since it assumes that nothing matters, inherently speaking. IE. That all meaning stems from the biological, rather than biological steming from the meaning. Maybe that's true, that there is no substantial meaning in the world. People, do, however, react with feeling and constructed meaning. From this, I can only assume that they is a meaning in our heads. Should there be no God, and our lives built upon wholly biological processes, there is nothing to say that there is no meaning in the universe. Only that there is no God, and that what we call the souls rests in our skulls. But this fails logically knock out all ideas of morality. This may mean, however, that meaning varies from person to person, from biology to biology.

The problem of vengeance stems on the idea that those who have been hurt deserve to seek retribution. They should, in a moral sense, hurt those hurt who hurt them. For vengeance to be justified in a utilitarian sense, more good must come from it than harm. It the target of vengeance will likely hurt others again (eg. a serial killer) retribution will be warrented since an act of vengeance will eliminate all possibility of the future atrocity occuring. If the target serves the public good, however, then utilitarianism can mess things up. Should the target be a billionaire philanthropist, sending him to jail for an assault charge may cause more harm than allowing him to remain free, since his money should save hungry children, send people to college, aid the efforts to clean up after an environmental disaster, etc.

Let's assume, to complicate things, that people have a difficulty understanding the public good. They have a difficulty separating their needs from the needs of others. In this case, which I believe to be pretty damn pervasive, utilitarianism is only an idea. It's pretty damn hard to stick to. Maybe if the billionaire's assault ended in an black eye, then the victim might be able to forgive and forget. But let's say the assault ended in the victim becoming a quadrepligic. Then the parents of that victim would sure as hell have a difficult time sticking to a utilitarian view of the word. I mean, shit, unless technology fixes things, their kids is going to be physically dependant forever.

FOREVER.

The parents will be inclined to purchase a weapon, repay the quadrepligia, and then some. Even if they decide to not seek vegeance, they will almost certainly have some trouble getting over the situation, if they ever do get over it.

"Vegeance is mine, I will repay" says the LORD, in the most hard-ass declaration of all time. If this is true, then everything is okay. No matter what happens, and who is hurt, GOD will settle the score. He will know what to do with the billionaire.
Let's assume, though, that God doesn't exist. So where are we? Obviously, in pretty fucky situation. And this situation gets evewn more fucky when people's perception of God allows them to take violence into their own hands. Many people of the Abrahamic faiths have been involved in a considerable amount of violence throughout history. I reject the notion, however, that the violence stemmed from the faiths, but from the interpretation of the faith (my interpretation, in all fairness, could be mostly wrong as well). That people have been able to skew the commandments of God to allow mass atrocities is something that says more about Man than about God.

The 9-11 attacks are very interesting since they are direct antagonism between two cultures that serve separate religions--Christianity and Islam. My knowledge of the islamic tradition on violence is incomplete, so I'll focus on the Christian interpretation of this event.

America has been considered a Christian nation, in a cultural sense. this is true. Most of our presidents and people have been christian. Some would argue (perhaps incorrectly) that this nation was founded wholly on Christian ideals, and therefore should look at the Christian faith as a moral backbone.

"Turn the other cheek," Jesus says, in the most difficult-to-follow commandment of all time. Submit to others, though they persecute you. Love, though others hate you. For Jesus (I can't remember which gospel at the moment, I think it's in Matthew that he says this) loving our enemies is the most commendable act a person can do. However, some people can define love for friends differently from love for enemies. A mother protecting her son from a burgler, may think, "I love you enough not to wish death upon you," before stabbing the burgler in the eye with a butterknife."

Taking a leap of faith, and allowing God pay vengeance is very difficult to do. For anyone. Only iffier in a situation is someone taking vengeance, and hurting people who may deserve this.

The 9-11 attacks further illustrate this. Perhaps the attackers believed that the people in the planes and buildings deserved death since they were American. Or that God's judgement render the deaths of innocents justified. However, in an atheisitic sense, vengeance only leads to more vengeance. When they attacked the buildings, they gave the US gov't reason and an opportunity to engage in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Deaths caused by US forces would make the friends and relatives of the dead wish for earthly retribution. When the attacked flew those planes into those buildings they began (actually, continued) the chain of violence.

"I'm going to go to Afghanistan to get the bad guys who did this to us," says a volunteer to the US marines in 9-12-01.

"I'm going to make those American pigs pay for this," says a farmer after a missile blows up his house.

And then the violence spills into more violence, and different groups go for what they think they deserve. And the chain goes on and on, with everyone saying in their hearts, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay."

Politicians

I.
Let's assume that humanity is comprised of two elements: the Angelic, and Demonic. Let's define these elements in the most broad, agnostic way possible, ie. with angelic representing 'desirable behavior' and demonic representing 'undesirable behavior'
Positive theories of government inherently assume that anarchy hurts the public good. They assume that the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough to create chaos, unless a benevolent 'Big Brother' exists to sustain order. It assumes that the act of murder must be punished, or other potential murderers will kill without fear of reprisal.It assumes that banks must be regulated, or money will be misused and placed in inappropriate hands in inappropraite amounts.It assumes that the chaotic part of humanity exists as a substantial force to occasionally override the Angelic.

Yet, if the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough as a force, then the government--the 'Big Brother'--cannot be trusted as we would trust as a benevolent, omnipotent God. People make up governments, and therefore pollute that government with their flaws.
II.This all sounds pretty damn obvious. But we like to knock our politicians, or put them on pedestals. No middle ground. No acknowledging that 'They are who we would be in their situation.' The public, generally, paints their politicians as either Angels or Demons. The problem with this stems from the fact that 1) if we consider them angelic, we overlook their flaws. Democracy requires the public to be active in the government. Therefore, if the public official makes a mistake, the public should rectify this mistake. He is not God. He is only a man. And any one of us (of both sexes) are capable of doing his work about just as well. Indeed, if we can choose a good leader, and recognize the leader's good traits, then don't we have the potential to also having those traits?

2) If we paint the official as demonic, then we risk overlooking our own demons. We overlook that possibility that 'They are who we would be.' Again, you may disagree, considering that you are unlike the guy who spends $80,000 on hookers. But what if you were rich? What if you were tempted to do something that could damage your standard of living, your marriage, your life...and you had the chance to get away with it? You could cheat on your spouse, and never get caught. Would you do it? Did you do it? You could steal $1 million from the bank, and pay your way through college. You could cheat on the exam.

Again, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing worse than this is when a little power corrupts absolutely, and in the case of some, this is true.

Opportunity, power. "They are who we would be' Ignorance to this fact, is like a tapeworm. And when we pull that fucker out of our ass, it's gonna hurt.

It's gonna HURT. So, it takes courage to acknowledge and battle our personal flaws. It takes the ability to look at what's happening, and choose righteousness. Rather than allow righteousness to choose us. Because if we wait for a situation to arrive that allows us to display our angelic side, we often fall into a demonic state. The demonic state is more vigorous than the angelic in choosing us.

III.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram tested people's obeidience to authority. Look it up, for your own benefit, but I'll give you a summary. A subject is deceived into thinking he will be the 'teacher' while one of the experimenters pretends to be another subject, a student. The real student, the teacher, is told by the main experimenter to ask the student a number of questions. The teacher is to give the student an electric shock for every wrong answer provided, and each subsequent shock will be more powerful than the last. The student will get questions wrong on purpose. At one point, the student will feign a heart condition, and ask for mercy. (In the classic application of this experiment, the teacher and student are in separate rooms, and they can only hear each other's voices.) The experimenter simply tells the teacher to continue the experiment, no matter what the student cries out. Finally, the student stays quiet, and the teacher is unsure if the student is still alive. The experimenter urges the teacher to continue, and shock the student again if the student fails to answer.

An average of over 60% teachers, in the many reproductions this experiment, continued it to the end: where the teacher will administer the maximum shock of 450-volts three times, despite quiet from the student all three times. This is how I interpret the results of this experiment: to be good people, we must take an active stance. We must acknowledge our temptations, and we must be ready to accept any discomfort. For the sake of rightheousness, we must be a sort of masochist. We must be ready to boycot a racist bus system. We must be ready to be arrested. We must be ready to disagree with our friends. We must be ready to be totally embarrassed. Otherwise, if we don't, then we are hypocrites when we declare our love of goodness. Instead, we would rather be comfortable in our own evil.

IV.
Many want a democratic president, a 'liberal' president because they are very disgusted with the actions of the current 'conservative' president. They--both the supports of the Democrats and Republicans--are caught up in a gang-mentality. But true Democracy rejects the gang mentality. It assumes that people make up their own mind. It assumes that every individual is a separate political party.

I am leaning toward Barack Obama for the upcoming election. He seems like a smart, strong man. I enjoyed his racism speech, and his speech on religion a few years back. I need to do more research on him before I can say I truly want him for president. (By the way, where is the love for our local politicians?) But, even when I do this research, I must acknowledge that this research falls short of knowing the real man. Falls short of what he might do in a stressful, compromising situtation. If we have lived at all, we have had experiences where the actions of others surprise and disappoint us. Our parents, our friends. They do things that shatter our positive, angelic perception of them. We, too, have performed acts that suprise others. We ran into a compromising situation, and fell in danger of choosing the greater of two evils. And often times we did choose that evil.

It's 2:07pm, and I've got to go somewhere. So let's wrap this up--Choose well, not just in the election, but in life, period. Choose the choice that you know is right. Not the choice of our parents, or our society, necessarily. Choose the choice of righteousness. Choose even though your heart will break. Choose though your feet hurt. Choose though the world sneer at you with its beastly glee.

Atheism: Faith in God, part 2

A argument states that any sort of theism, at least Christianity, is irrational because of the lack of evidence of a God outside of "the Bible says so." Fair enough.

It is fair to debate the form of God. whether He is a he or a she. Whether He of the nature to be refered to using capitalized pronouns. His form, size, power, limitations, and quintessential nature. Because of his apparent absence from human affairs, it is fair to debate whether he is Jehovah, Allah, Christ, Zeus, or someone else. This is up to debate like the particular color of the skin of certain dinosaurs.

To assume God's form, let alone existence, is irrational. Just as irrational, however, is atheism that assumes God's nonexistence. Or, at least the nonexistence of a force that fills the shoes of God.

*Tangential note: we can assume this force to have a conciousness because we, people, have individual consciousnesses. God needn't set out to produce specific creatures*

Dr. Albert Ellis, I believe, explained his atheism by saying the existence of a God is so improbable as not to be worth anyone's attention. Even if I am quoting him out of context, let's analyze this argument anyway. To assume the probability of the existence of an object requires knowledge of that object. Eg. The probability of a pipe leaking, the probability of a car running out of gas after a certain amount of driving. Now, we can observe the form of a pipe or gas tank. The existence of God presents a different problem. If He exists, we, in general, fail to notice him in any meaningful way.

He cannot be observed as does a pipe or gas tank. In order to consider the probability of His existence, we must narrow down something of His 'Godness.'
To compare, consider the bottle of Mountain Dew I am drinking. Whether the bottle contains urine can probably be proven. Scientists have analyzed the components of urine. If urine was introduced into the Dew during production (say, an unruly employee pees in the mixture of the drink, and the urine gets so deluted that it cannot discolor or make the drink smell or taste bad) we could find it out. Provided, however, I cannot note the urine with my naked senses, I will choose to leave the matter at faith, and continue to drink the drink. The probability is so improbable, I believe, that that it is hardly worth my attention.

Not so with God. For as long as I am uncertain about the nature of God, I should stay away from passionate declarations about the probability of His existence.

A good place to start in considering his existence would be science and related topics. Biology, Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Astronomy, other subjects, and how these subjects interact. Especially how they interact. Learning more about the world can show us its origins. Perhaps the more interesting discovery ever will be discovering the nature of consciousness. How it works, how and when and why it arrives at birth, how and when and why and where it ends at death. What changes during certain situations. How consciousness differs between individuals, and between species.

Perhaps a better understanding of consciousness will lead to a better understand of God. Without this understanding, then any belief or nonbelief in God remains faith-based.

Faith in God

I.
The existence of God remains in doubt. Either he exists or he doesn’t. Or he exists in some of kind of semi-existence, or as a creature birthed by human imagination, like the deities in Neil Gaiman’s novel, American Gods. Or something completely different.

The problem with the human experience of God is God’s immeasurability. Regardless of his status, it seems unlikely with our current level of technology that we can measure him/she/it. We cannot ask Him to stand with his back to the wall so we can measure His height. We cannot place Him on a scale to find His weight. We have failed to trap Him inside a room. We cannot do interact with him in these ways, by virtue of his apparent absence from our ability to sense the world.

The beautiful thing about the idea of God is that it is both apparently improvable and definitely undeniable. Yes, He could present himself to us, provided he is omnipotent and able to appear and disappear at will. Otherwise, we are left with the hearsay of the religious and their religious texts. The religious texts declare that God’s apparent absence is trivial. They would say that he exists, nonetheless, like an extrasolar planet yet to be discovered, or the ruins of Atlantis. People hundreds of years ago may have unappreciated the existence of extrasolar planets, but those planets did exist when our telescopes could only reach as far as Jupiter (or maybe God is playing a trick on us).

God is unlike the color of the sky. People can agree about the color of the sky because it is there. Outside of whether two people share the same mental concept of ‘blue,’ they will agree that the sky is blue.

Not so with God. His absence insures we cannot disprove his existence. The existence of God in an atheistic world is an example of the ultimate assumption because there would be no God at all to assume God’s existence. In an atheistic world, we made Him up. Even here, however, the assumption dies hard. The nonexistent cannot be disproven. We can disprove erroneous theories of gravity. We can disprove erroneous theories of how water interacts with fire. We fail to disprove imaginary objects and beings, however.

Besides, if he existed, he can evade our methods of detection. An eternity can pass, and humanity’s technological sources can rise exponentially, but an omnipotent God, in an Abrahamic context, has more power in His pinky than we ever could as a collective whole. If God has a pinky, anyway. Some say he does. Some say he doesn't. Some say it is sacriledge to suggest he has a physical form. For any one to state this claims, they must choose to believe in something that cannot be proven, or is yet to be proven. Even atheists need to take a leap of faith in order to say that God is nonexistant. But He could very well exist despite His absense.


II.
With or without God, we are limited creatures. Despite advances in technology, we still struggle with abstract concepts, like duty, love, and peace. Without an agreement on the physical embodiment of such concepts, we continue to live half-lives, kill ourselves, kill each other, eat ourselves to obesity, and waste time on illogical acts like Unrequited Love, and video games.

The trick of this "disagreement" goes further than broad socialculturaleconomicreligioushistorical definitions and buries itself in the consciousness of each individual. This explains why a man in a relgious society will murder his children, commit adultery at the risk of death, and why people contradict themselves, why they become hypocrites, saying one thing and doing something that contradicts the spoken word. Big talk of "Christianity, the military-industrial complex, and Hate" fail to pin down why individuals are so different from one another, and subject to behavior that works outside the bounds of accepted ethics. Individuals, rather than societies, must pin down the idea of God. And this is always the case for individuals make up societies, not the other way around. People find God and value systems for themselves.

Though generations have passed, and the dead leave behind books and books and books of information, the information remains useless as long as the young have yet to discover the information. The experiences of a past generation influence the environment of succeeding generations; but the interpretation of that experience and the interpretation of the environment are up to the succeeding generations. The succeeding generations choose a vaue system--let's say, capitalism or communism--and live their version of the value system. Great Britiain's socialist programs are different from Cuba's socialist programs. To look at this from another angle: even though a son takes after his father, the son's life will be unique from the father's. So even though the son may consider himself to have the same value system as the father, his unique experiences will insure that he interprets his value system in a manner different from how the father interprets his value system.

For example: even though different groups of Christians share the same holy book, their worshop of God differs from one another. Catholics practice in a way different from the practice of Baptists. These different groups interpret the Bible in their own way (and don't get me started about the beliefs of individual members...).

More chaos exists for economic systems, because economic systems are based wholly on theory and must be implemented before it can be accepted or critiqued with authority. Therefore, countries tend to revamp the economy and bank system only after serious economic depression. The regulating bodies of the economy were simply ignorant to the fact that a depression would happen. Experience can teach us what certain events bring about, and experience can lead us to have different interpretations of the same event. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center will produce a more emotional effect on a war veteran than a 5-year-old from Kansas. Even among veterans, the opinions will vary. Our experiences, the value systems we grew up with, and the value systems we choose to follow, are our Gods.

And this is a chaotic system, because the value systems are unfixed. They change from person-to-person, moment-to-moment. Even among war veterans, the emotional response to the 9/11 attacks will vary. In a sense, because of this chaos of thought, people live without God. At the very least, God refrains from programming us to operate under uniform and specific values...so it would seem; I could be wrong; God could be causing me to type these letters without my knowledge and/or your knoweldge. I cannot prove that God is doing this, and I cannot disprove that he is. When you get down to it, the absence of God leads to this delicious paradox.

We are left, for all intents and purposes, to fend for ourselves. And because nothing is certain, everything relating the value systems is an act of faith. When we point at the point, and say, "This side is America; this side is Mexico," we are a chain in a link of faith that began with the creation of the world, continued when the nomads from Asia settled in what is now the southern United States, continued when they themselves broke into different groups, continued when the European settlers fought with the "Natives" and kicked the Natives out to form "The United States of America, though the land is only the United States of America to anyone who believes what maps say. The only reason the border is where it is is because of an agreement between the US and Mexican governments. Nothing metaphsical, just arbitrary.

Even the effect of war can be artbitary. Though bullets often play the role of the fearsome LORD, but the truth found in bullets must still be interpreted and misinterpretation begins with an interpretation. So if metaphyiscal truth can be found in a bullet, the truth can confuse the truthseeker despite the clear effect of a bullet fired from a gun.


III.
And so when we look for that truth, we are stuck with our assumptions. Not because we want to, but because we have to. Every act is an act of faith. Our first lesson in faith arrives when we are
babies, and assume our parents continue to exist when they hide behind a blanket.

"Peekaboo! You can't see me!" "Mom? Where are you?" We paused, and looked. "Mom? Mom!

Ahhh!"

And then she lowered the blanket and revealed herself.

"Oh, Mom, there you are."

And then she again covered herself with the blanket.

"Ahhhh!"

Sooner or later, we came to assume Mom's existence, even though she was absent from the room. Our relationship with God is similar, and even more one-sided because while we can find our mother if she is physically present, an omnipotent God can choose to remain hidden despite our best efforts to discover Him. Yes, He plays the most fabulous game of Peekaboo.
Yet, we some of us assume God, even without hard evidence of His existence. We assume this as we assume that other people share our mental concept of the color blue. I wrote the first draft of this essay in a subway train in New York City. Your only evidence of this claim, unless you happened to see me, is this very sentence. I may be lying or otherwise incorrect. I am telling the truth. I can't prove it to you, and therefore, your acceptance or declining of these claims is an act of faith. And faith is an act of resignation to reality due to lack of certainty about that reality. We simply believe. Or don't

Lots of questions.

In any case, even if the universe had a beginning (from a big bang, or a creator God), there is still the question of what happened before creation. And the question of what will happen in the future--as in, what is the end of time? What is the nature of infinity?

Even if the universe, aa Hindis put it, repeats itself, there is still the question of how and when that repetition began, or at least the nature of infinity.

All matter in the universe could become nonexistant. And light and energy would dissapate 100%. But what would be left? Nothing. But what is nothing? It is the absense of matter and energy and anything else of substance. But am I assuming that substance and things of being have to be subject to observation in order to truly exist?

Time could go on. Forever. But what's at the end of eternity? How can time stretch out backwards and forwards? We can comprehend the nature of a regular rubber band, or a regular line, with beginning and end. But what about a line that stretches out forever in both directions? Is this even really possible? Is our experience or capatity to comprehend this too limited to answer this question?

And Physicists out there who can help with this?

God? You out there?
:(
I think it's time to increase my reading load in physics.

Resolved: Organized Sports are More Dangerous Than Organized Religion

Written December 2006

Is there really any need for comparison? Really? Isn’t the main point we must consider is that people are crazy?
On the part of religion you’ve got
people blowing themselves up,
killing pretty much every person in Jerusalem during the crusades,
murdering no less 6 million in Europe,
and much death.

On the part of religion, you’ve got Fred Phelps and his congregation protesting the funerals of soldiers because the United States government doesn’t take a tougher stance on homosexuality.

Yes, yes, religion is more dangerous than sports on a sociological standpoint because God has been used for justification of mass slaughter. Not so with sports--at least not so often.

But look at organized sports. I once met a guy who played for the NFL who said that basically everybody there was a rapist.

You’ve got Mike Tyson—I don’t know if all the stories are true, but you’ve guy a million peoples saying that punches old women in the mouth, has bipolar disorder, threatened to murder his first wife.

And he’s a convicted rapist.

You’ve got Don King, who still, in the most sympathetic portrayal of him, comes off as really shady.

You’ve soccer riots, drunken fights. During the 1960s, in a boxing match, Bernardo Paret got tangled in the ropes, and his opponent, during the next 3 to 4 seconds, hit him 18 times before the referee pull him off. Paret died before he hit the canvas.

Beer, beer, beer, beer,

And traffic jams after a game, people just take your fucking time, if you take your time, then no one is going to crach, why don’t you understand that trying to squeeze through a small opening with cause problems

The only good thing that sports has done for us is that during a tampa bay buccaneers home game, two men got into a fight, and the security arrived, pulled out a tazer, and everyone in the surrounding seats crying

"TAZER"

"TAZER""TAZER"

Look, everyone, before you say sports are the downfall of civilization,
or religion is the cause of all of societies problems, just consider humanity by itself. People will kill you just to watch the blood pour out.
People rob from each other. They are untrustworthy, fake, selfish, domineering, abusive. If you give them the chance, they will rob you. If you give them the chance, and it serves their interests, they will do whatever they want to you. Even if it’s just for fun.

So let me review.

You’ve got Neo-Nazis in Europe hanging out at soccer matches and maliciously booing the non-white players.

You’ve got Ultraconversative Jews getting into fights with the participants in a gay-pride parade.

You’ve got The Tampa Bay Devils Rays, and they haven’t had a winning season in history.

And you’ve priests, from the Roman Catholic Church, my church, diddling little boys.
Obviously when they were weighing eternal damnation with their immediate urges, they decided "To Hell with Jesus."