Something To Believe In

So many of the comments found on stories about science's triumph over religion are of the nature that the issue is either too hard to answer or only leads to another question that would require the intervention of a god. How silly.

The question of a god is a non sequitur. It's a question that only comes up when humans temporarily fail to answer some other question and insert a god of some sort. It's a stop-gap placeholder that has unfortunately become permanent for so many people. Gods--all of them--are an invention of the human mind to try and fill a void that someone can't live with, for whatever reason. It is a flaw in the human psyche, nothing more.

We discover new things all the time--every day, in fact. None of those discoveries has ever pointed to the exiistence of a creature that lives and works outside the rules of the universe and chooses to communicate through hallucinations, ghost writers, and images on tortillas and toast. They always point to that idea being garbage.

Even as the evidence mounts, some humans will still believe differently because it is in their flawed nature to do so. A belief can literally be anything at all so it's not a virture at all. Every time a new question comes up through scientific research, it doesn't mean that someone's magical deity is the answer. It only means we haven't figured it out yet. And, until all the scientists permanently go home we will continue to accumulate more information and better answers. If you want to believe in something, that's a worthwhile place to start.

No Need To Respect Religion

I'm not worried about being seen as mean or disrespectful--or some similar charge--when it comes to believers. We know from a whole host of studies and basic wisdom going back at least to the ancient Greeks, that the attitude with which someone gets challenged has little affect. Any direct claim of disapproval of something that someone has claimed to be part of their worldview will always be defended. Change only seems to come when they find out on their own, first through indirect exposure to information then a personal search.

There will be exceptions, of course. But I don't remember ever reading a de-conversion account that says anything like "I decided to investigate my own beliefs because atheists are so nice about their stance." As another point, people have always "converted" and followed some of the world's biggest assholes, both political and religious. It's not a great deterrent, I don't think.

Now, I'm not claiming I'm an asshole or someone to be followed. (But, others may disagree on the asshole thing.) But the idea that being kind and nice and respectful or whatever seemed intuitive, but it's ironically not the case very often. People make friendships and valid and meaningful relationships on these traits, but they are not the traits that people look for when looking to people for other reasons.

With that being said, there's also no reason to come in guns blazing all the time either. When it comes to the question of whether there's a god or not, it is a question that I think can be answered, even in the universal sense. But, more importantly, I think it's a stupid question. It's not based on anything reasonable and is not worthy of respect.

I think of it similarly to when people assert that some ancient boxer could have defeated some current champion. Maybe it's a fun question to ponder in a bar over a few beers, but it's not something to be taken seriously. Same thing with the claims of a magical deity that lives and works outside the laws of the universe. It's a non-sequitur, meaning it's not worthy of consideration. Having an open mind doesn't mean that every assertion needs consideration--or respect.

On taking a stance on a universal god, it's technically impossible to prove a negative. But, at some point you reach a point after a certain amount of time that any claim can be said to be false after repeated attempts to show claims of it's validity continue to fail. Any claim that some new piece of future evidence is valid would also have to re-validate all of the accumulated proven failures to that point. Holding out some hope for that is close to win the lottery on the night there's no scheduled drawing.

That's my two cents. I know others disagree, and that's okay. We are all in different places when it comes to this stuff. But, personally, I feel I've moved on and, like learning to ride a bike, I don't need to keep revisiting how to do so.

Awful Past v. Unknown Future

I wish I knew more about the details of why people not just support people like Michele Bachmann, but are so vehement about it. Time after time she has been shown to be either a liar or so horribly misinformed that if she were the basis of a Saturday Night Live skit instead of in congress, everyone would laugh openly at her.

What is it about people that allows them to accept obvious bullshit as truth, and with so much vigor? It's a serious human flaw that I think all of us suffer from--some more than others, of course, as with most afflictions.

Maybe it's simply something innate that causes us to want to maintain the status quo, even for those who are the worst off under it. Change for those who are vulnerable is more feared than attempting to make improvements. Maybe it's that simple.

The often-used claim that things were better in the past and returning to it would be preferable also has an appeal because it's a known condition, even if that condition is made up and lied about. It can be sold as a known commodity, which is more comforting than the unknown future touted by those who want change to occur there. Plus, for groups who were seen as better off in the past, members of that group who are now struggling can more easily support a move backwards, even if its a subconscious energy. Some whites, for example, might see themselves as better off before integration and the Civil Rights movement. Returning to a segregated society might seem to be an advantage.

So, maybe, anyone who promises to either maintain the current system--or go back to something familiar (even if it sucked)--has an appeal that causes people to fight for it rather than taking what is seen as an unacceptable risk to improve society.

Throw a god into the mix and the future gets even scarier if humans are allowed to tinker with it. Someone's god may not like it.

Detox From Love

Simply being apart is an aphrodisiac when a couple first gets together. When that situation fades, it is a hard fall, similar for some to a detox period.

Noah The Hoarder

It would be a funny premise for a SNL comedy skit to set an episode of "Hoarders" on Noah's Ark.

The Human Queen Bee

According to a TED talk by Wade Davis, there is a tribe that sequesters future tribal leaders in a cave for 18 years before being allowed to assume their role. In essence, they create a leader by raising him via a special process until adulthood. This process produces an altered human different from everyone else. It seems to be similar to the creation of a queen bee. An otherwise normal bee is treated differently while being raised to adulthood when they emerge as a queen.

The More The Messier

It seems that, by default, we tend to think in binary terms—yes, no; on, off. If true, this pulls us toward quickly eliminating all but two (or maybe three) options when faced with a decision. We want clean options from which to choose—do this or don't; don't do that, do this.

Maybe this can be glimpsed from the infant perception of numbers. Small children see things as ones and twos and nothing much more. Anything more than that is simply more than one—one and more than one is the binary categorization. Adding more complexity is not natural to a very young human brain, and maybe it's more pervasive throughout life than typically acknowledged.

When given choices we would rather have fewer, even though we protest otherwise. Fewer choices makes life easier to manage.

We also look and risk and reward this way—I will win or not, I will get hurt or not.

There is a comfort level that exists when we have made a choice between a very small list of options rather than from a huge list of options because a larger list increases the odds of being wrong. Usually only one option is "right," so the odds go down of choosing that option the more choices available to us. Dealing with complex probabilities amongst a large list of choices or outcomes is not a place we like to find ourselves either.

When Nothing Is Real

If anything that is shown to be impossible is still claimed otherwise by believers due to the unlimited magic powers of their meddling deity, how can anything experienced, observed or tested be declared as accurate and true? If no universal laws are off limits to manipulation at any point and in any manner, then there's no way to verify anything at all.

Evolving Together, A Dual Beginning

It is known that for any species to survive, let alone thrive, there needs to be a symbiotic relationship with at least one other. No one--individual or species--can survive for very long without help, at least on this planet.

I wonder if the work that gets done by scientists on evolution and abiogenesis is missing an important point by concentrating on individual species/individuals. When looking for the reasons as to why life began and why it evolves, it might be more fruitful to look at the possibility that multiple changes in more than one individual or species need to occur together in order to be successful, at least in some cases. Maybe that's a part of the reason why it takes so long for evolutionary changes to occur and why it took so long for life to begin.

A single change in one individual or one species can surely be propagated to others and remain. But, looking at the effects of those changes on relationships with outside groups might provide more accurate and detailed answers to some of the remaining questions about how life not only got started but how it kept going once the right mix of cooperatively existing species was achieved--until the next change(s) that stuck around came along.

On Taxing Churches

Technically, churches are supposed to stay out of politics for the privilege of being tax-exempt. If they are taxed then many would demand to be able to legally get involved in politics. And, since the advent of the mega-church, that would not be a good thing.

However, on principle I do think that churches should contribute to the society in which they live by paying taxes. Some people will equate them with non-profit groups who are also tax-exempt, but churches don't provide any services for the public good. They may have "sister" programs that provide some services, but they could remain tax-exempt as long as they remain secular in nature.

If I had my way, I would make purely religious organizations subject to taxes AND keep them away from politics. It would take a constitutional amendment because of free speech issues and Supreme Court rulings that overturned regulation of political contributions. But, I think it would be worth it in order to keep church and state separated in wording that's clear.

As far as the economy goes, it would actually help. It would reduce government deficits (or their rate of increase), which would calm and stabilize markets. The amount of money from each church would be minor, so each church wouldn't be hit hard. There could even be a threshold where the tax kicks in so very small churches don't get hurt.

As far as society goes, it would be hard to predict. On one hand, people could feel more connected to society in having to pay to help support it. For conservatives, this should be understood because it is they who so regularly claim that being given something for free means that it's not respected and gets abused. If that's true, then churches should contribute so they don't feel like freeloaders. On the other hand, if there is a backlash where church people claim that if they pay taxes they should also take over the government, that would be awful. I'm sure both sentiments would emerge but I don't know which would prevail.

Jungle God

It would be entirely appropriate to make a documentary on crazy American religious people in the same tone and manner documentaries are done about religious beliefs of Amazonian jungle tribes.

Good Socialism

The political right does, in fact, think that collective socialistic action is perfectly fine--as long as it's in the form of a corporation, a place where individuals are collectivized for the sole purpose of making money for owners and upper management. Collective action that benefits everyone else is what's seen negatively.

Hunger Strike For God

I often wonder if those people who "fast" in order to get their god to act in their favor realize that it's very much like a hunger strike.

Zero And Deities

The concept and mathematical use of zero is something that took thousands of years to be accepted as valid by the human race. The concept of nothing being a real and logical value to be used like anything else is not intuitive. Math itself needed to advance to the point where zero was needed to solve increasingly complex problems in order for its acceptance to solidify.

Similarly, the concept of no god may need to take a similar path before our species fully accepts it. It has a late start compared to zero, but the concept of a deity-free universe (or multiverse) is gaining hold. Those who don't see it as possible are digging in their heels, but we are facing problems that can't be solved if people believe a deity is in the mix somewhere directing things. Our universe only makes sense if deities are removed. 

It's Not Deserved

Whether dirt poor or filthy rich, neither is deserved.

Lonely Proof

One thing that I find outrageous from believers is that their claims of proof depend on trying to knock down the people who disprove their claims. Proof doesn't require anyone else's presence or involvement. It should be able to be placed on a table in an empty room and anyone else who comes along later and sees it can accept and validate it on its own merits. Believers don't get that.

On Agnosticism--It's Bullshit

There is a new book out by Vincent Bugliosi called Divinity of Doubt. In one of the book reviews Bugliosi calls himself an agnostic and said, "As an agnostic, I believe that the question of God's existence is impenetrable, that it is beyond human comprehension."

Leaving behind the point that he said "I believe...," making him a believer, this is the kind of bullshit I find maddening--someone who is too blind or too afraid to take the final step out of belief and into reality and decides to wimp out. I can understand if someone is still moving toward reality and is in the transitional state of agnosticism. But for those who think it's a valid place to permanently rest someone's mind, it's sad because it's actually someone trying to have it both ways.

Let me explain.

The concept of supernatural beings (deities) with the ability to alter the laws of physics and nature is a human invention. There has never been any proof, nothing even close. All we have are “visions,” ghost writers, mystics, story-tellers, and the like. As humans we can make up stories about all kinds of things, and do. In almost every case we know that the stories are fiction and treat them as such, never trying to prove they’re real.

However, from time to time, we get a person who presents us with a story that they insist is real even though there is no proof, much better explanations for what they claim happened, just too far out to be considered fact, or without enough information to make any conclusions. This last scenario is where agnosticism sneaks in, but badly. A reasonable point is twisted just enough to make it still seem valid while killing its reasonableness.

To say that someone’s claim doesn’t come with enough information to show its validity is not the same thing as claiming the question is ultimately “impenetrable.” Time and time again throughout history claims that something will never be accomplished by our lowly species have turned out to be false. Therefore, to claim that something is “beyond human comprehension” is in my book to assert the claim to be bogus.

We, as a species, have proven that we can figure stuff out, lots of stuff at an ever-increasing rate. If someone comes up with a question that is ultimately not able to be cracked, the question itself is faulty, not the human attempts at trying to crack it. It is a bad question and should be thrown out. It certainly doesn’t deserve to be promoted as so difficult that it can’t be answered--ever--and, therefore, is to be given a place of honor.

This kind of question falls into the same category has ancient aliens in UFOs having built the Egyptian pyramids, would Spiderman beat Batman in a fight, or if cows have a soul. They’re not “impenetrable,” implying some status worthy of special status. They’re bullshit questions to be discarded.

So, for those who make the claim that the question of any particular god’s existence is too hard for us to answer, come up with a better question. In this case a much better question would be: Why do humans continue to believe? It is a question I’m sure we can crack.

Similarities Between Believers And Hoarders

When watching a show on hoarders, many of the things said by not only the subjects, but their families and psychologists had me thinking that's there are a lot of similarities between how hoarders and religious believers see the world. Let me see if I can explain.

First, I am starting with a view of belief that is something I use and is likely not used by many others. This view is that a belief is intertwined into a person's self-identity so deeply that to alter it is very similar to committing suicide. A person's identity of their self is not only physical; it also includes the way we see the world--our place in it, how it works, the rules we accept as valid to explain what we experience, etc. Just like when our physical bodies are assaulted, we automatically react self-protectively when our beliefs/views are attacked, too. If we were to change those beliefs on our own, the assault would be a self-inflicted one and, therefore, suicidal.

Now, back to the hoarders. One of the psychologists actually used the word "assaulted" when describing how a subject felt when his sisters were cleaning out his apartment for him. He argued to keep his stuff, even the garbage, and brought stuff back into the house that had been removed. He was looking for any reason he could think of to not change. His stress levels went up and he couldn't even stick around for the entire time. This, to me, is the same reaction you would likely see in someone who's beliefs are being "cleaned out" and "assaulted" by an outsider who doesn't agree with their view of the world. The self-identity of the person was so infected with the view that all of his stuff was useful and special (similar to divine, in my book), that he didn't see the clutter as anything other than worthy of the effort exerted in collecting it.

After the cleaning was done, he was described as "subdued" and was "not used to all this order" in his apartment. Being subdued I can relate to many stories I've heard from people who de-converted from a religious belief when it was first accepted. There's no celebration, no sense of euphoric relief, just a subdued attitude that they now have to accept reality. Not being used to "order" screams out to be used as a metaphor for when science replaces religion in a person's life. The order isn't perfect, but is certainly more in-line with reality and certainly would illicit a similar response.

In another case of a woman who hoarded pigs--hundreds of them--she couldn't see that her initial intentions to help a few pigs had morphed into something completely different. The pigs took over the house, which was condemned, and eventually were all taken away and euthanized because they were diseased and in general poor health. The woman said the pigs were "her life" and wanted to start over because she had a "special relationship" with the pigs. Again, the similarity to religious beliefs stands out for me. How often to believers say their god is "their life" and have a "special relationship" with it. They even take care of their god(s) with offerings, sacrifices, rituals, etc. to keep the god(s) happy, many times to the point of not taking care of their selves, their property or family.

Another woman explained that all the stuff was "a part of me" and couldn't see the clutter as clutter. Most things appeared to be unopened and never would be. But, when she was shown a picture of her stuff taken by her daughter, she could recognize the piles of stuff as clutter and not treasure. She described herself as "two people," one who could see the truth in the picture and one who couldn't when looking at the actual stuff. It was suggested that it would take hundreds of "sessions" of help from a therapist to get her to accept the reality of her situation. Her sense of her self is so strongly connected to the clutter that for her to see her self separated from it--it is "a part of me"--that to remove it would be like killing a huge part of her self.

It seems to me that a lot of mental conditions could be seen and treated with the idea in mind that they are being asked to commit suicide. I don't know if there is a psychological method that has been developed that can be used to ask people to commit selective suicide or not. But, if so, it's probably worth trying in a wide set of circumstances. If not, one should be developed.

The Power Of Wealth

Too much wealth in the hands of too few causes too little wealth in the hands of too many.

Corruption No More

It sometimes seems that corruption is simply a set of actions in queue to be legalized.

Government Adversary

It's hard for a country's people to be happy when the government becomes their enemy.