An Awkward Age

I remember growing older
I remember ages five to ten
I remember being slapped on playgrounds
Walking and never knowing when
…they would come
Never a place to run

It’s what all the teachers call
an awkward age
Well I wish that I
Could find out why
I was
…so uncool
And I didn’t know
why I was hated so
I never even met them
“It’s just the way kids are,” they say
“Grow a spine, wish it away.”

I remember growing older
I remember ages twelve to eighteen
I remember waking marked and bloody
And always wishing I could not be seen
…by a soul
crawling into a hole

Well it’s what all the doctors call
an awkward age
and they call them zits
or pimples leaving pits
but then
…pain is pain
And the scars it left
and all the marks I’ve kept
are more than on my face
Into my soul the phrase I’ll heap
“Beauty’s more than just skin deep

I remember growing older
I remember being one and forty
I remember her being in the bathtub
with bad pen marks darkly
…on her arms
crying over all the harms

Now its what I will choose to call
an awkward age
when her mind did start
to fall apart
and I
…grew so strong
And I managed to
do what I had to do
Never mind my own needs
My mighty shoulders may be sore
but I can always take on more

I remember growing older

I remember ages five to ten

I remember being slapped on playgrounds

Walking and never knowing when

they would come

Never a place to run

It’s what all the teachers call
an awkward age
Well I wish that I
Could find out why
I was
so uncool
And I didn’t know
why I was hated so
I never even met them
“It’s just the way kids are,” they say
“Grow a spine, wish it away.”

I remember growing older

I remember ages twelve to eighteen

I remember waking marked and bloody

And always wishing I could not be seen

by a soul

crawling into a hole

Well its what all the doctors call

an awkward age

and they call them zits

or pimples leaving pits

but then

pain is pain

And the scars it left

and all the marks I’ve kept

are more than on my face

Into my soul the phrase I’ll heap

“Beauty’s more than just skin deep”

I remember growing older

I remember being one and forty

I remember her being in the bathtub

with bad pen marks darkly

on her arms

crying over all the harms

Now its what I will choose to call

an awkward age

when her mind did start

to fall apart

and I

grew so strong

And I managed to

do what I had to do

Never mind my own needs

My mighty shoulders may be sore

but I can always take on more

Mist

I’m certain that some of you will recognize that this is written to the tune of Time by Pink Floyd from Dark Side of the Moon.  For those of you who don’t know the song, I’m interested to hear your impressions of it as raw poetry.  I can’t read it without the rhythm going through my head.

——————————

Mist

Quoting all day from the writing that pretends to be reason
Blinding the eyes with the muck and the lies there within
Building up rules with invisible tools from your home schools
Casting out doubt and the skeptical shout as the symptoms of sin

Happy basking in the blissful
Ignorance is such a joy
You are right and they are wrong
And in your faith they can’t annoy
And yet one day you find
Most the world is laughing at you
You were aiming with your guns
Not knowing you were blind

The arrogant truth with intelligent proof has ignored you
Reality goes without hearing a word that you say
Your fantasy world, with its circular curls dims the clear view
May crumble and expose eyes to the sharp truth of day

The dance of life has gone without you
So much beauty you have missed
Playing with the phantom faeries
In the truth obscuring mist
Knowing truths and building reasons is the faithful thinker’s way
The book is wrong
The fight was over
Well before you had your say.

Reemergence of Hope

I  remember being young and full of youth and sprite
And every day I woke up and burst out to the light
And all my dreams and complex schemes to stand on top the world
And every thought a new soul bought to brace a life unfurled

Yet even then the fear of when we show ourselves to be
a non-superstar-istic oh so humanistic vulnerable imperfect being
To be average means so little yet to be normal means so much
Our hands just flesh and bone with no Midas gilded touch

And as the years go past, we fight to hold on to those dreams
but dreams are schemes that reality deems to push off as extremes
and we go along watching death of song begin to rule our lives
and the struggle just to live on must take over all our drives

And then we realize what we lost, and before we give all away
we fight for something we know not what for we know we cannot stay
so afraid of losing all that we forget to give
or so afraid of dying that we forget to live

Links, Climate Change, and RNA (Unrelated but on my mind)

I look with some amusement at the “debate” raging in my last post between Reginald and Mike. Mike is an expert at wordplay, and I find him frankly not worth arguing with. He is not nearly as dumb as some YECs (Young Earth Creationists), but his reason is by nature flawed under the incredible weight of the very, very obvious. I won’t bother really to argue with him, as he quibbles over the color of the flowers in the forest, somehow managing to ignore the trees that exist all around him. The evidence for evolution has long been irrefutable, and our understanding of it and the gaps within it seem (to my untrained brain) seem to be increasing and filling exponentially.

I, myself, have just undergone an epiphany of sorts, having finally having it beat into my head that man-caused global warming is very much a reality. I was, for many years, deceived. I put too much trust in people pretending to be scientists and pretending to use the scientific method. I was a big proponent of the “Junk Science” website, and, considering myself reasonably scientifically literate, I actually believed the bullshit they slung there.  I guess I am prepared to recognize ignorance, or even deception when one is motivated by faith or by “higher” goals. However, I was unprepared to deal with people who deliberately take good science and distort it, or out-and-out lie about it, for such a base reason. I was naive enough about humanity to believe that no one would put the entire planet at risk for the sake of a few extra dollars in their pocket. They are being deliberately deceptive, and the only motivation I can see for them to be this way is pure greed. If their motivation lies in another direction, I am unable to imagine what it could be. Lying for the sake of religion can be argued as simple ignorance (most of the time).  Lying for the sake of greed, particularly on such an important topic as the earth’s climate, goes beyond loathsome.

Back to developments in biology, Ida is a somewhat significant find, but it is exceptional only in its completeness…it is an exquisitely preserved specimen that fills in a gap in the fossil record, but not nearly as critical a gap as my previous entry implied. (see this video link, which puts Ida into the correct perspective far better than I possibly could.) Reginald’s fossil is more interesting from a human family tree perspective.

Even more important with still insignificant media attention was the synthesis of a critical part of DNA in the laboratory using conditions present on early earth. A part of the RNA molecule has been created in a laboratory. That such a complex molecule could be synthesized from “simple” organic chemicals really goes a long way to smashing many creationist arguments to bits. Not that they will ever acknowledge it as such, however. Life from non-life (abiogenesis) has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, but they have been lumped together in the mind of those who don’t understand the science. Without knowledge of the science behind it, evolution does seem to imply the abiogenesis.

The arguments will merely shift to a new gap, of course. We may, with time, be able to create a functioning cyanobacteria within a test-tube, but I personally doubt that we will be able to go beyond that. The earth itself took billions of years to get beyond that step, so my unscientific guess would be that the next step is far more difficult. A cyanobacteria is still a long way away, and also is still a long way away from a living animal.   It really doesn’t matter.  No amount of evidence can convince one who refuses to be convinced. Nothing is provable beyond unreasonable doubt.

Thus, the battle for the world’s “soul” will rage on. The forces of cultural evolution will continue to shape the battle. Reason will force those with something to lose from truth to battle against it more furiously. In order to survive in a world where truth would destroy them, the fundamentalist will have to deny reality even more vigorously. If this were simply a matter of reason I would have some reason to hope that the YECs would eventually change their mind. However, we are dealing with a mindset that believes that a book written by the hands of men is more to be trusted than reality itself. The more successful the reasonable, the more destructive the unreasonable will have to become in order to maintain their world view. When arguments work less and less, violence, the last resort of the ignorant, is likely to become more prominent. It is only through the blind following of an inflexible philosophy that one man can turn another into a demon. The man without dogma has no reason to fly a plane into a building. A man who refuses to think is easy pray for someone or some thing that has motive to do their thinking for them.

For a while I was feeling guilty with my obsession with religion and creationism, but I’ve come to realize that it really is nothing new.  My first book was going to be about religion.  My first fiction novel with have strong religious elements (coming at it from a decidedly non-Christian perspective, however.)

So, I post without apologies.  This is who I am.  Enjoy, if you can.  🙂

Confusion

Our next exercise tonight was to write either a complete physical description of an object and then relate these descriptive words to a family member or to write about an abstraction.  When the abstraction, “confusion,” was suggested, I immediately knew where my affinity lay.  I am on intimate terms with confusion.  For the challenge, I decided to try to write it as a rhymed poem.  I think it came out okay.

——————————

CONFUSION

I watch the morning sun arise
and bring forth new that day
a sense of hopeless loss and fear
and watching all that lay

about my mind in tangled mess
and muddy thoughts profound.
No simple loss of innocence
could ease that scentless hound.

The morning sun, it never changes
yet never is the same.
The ice of frozen memories
melt little with its flame.

How, and who, and why, and what
the questions all abound–
the rock tied to the rope of thought
tossed random all around.

No home in thee.  No home for me.
My unbound thoughts no rest.
No glassy lake of mirrored sheen
to help my mind do best.

The morning sun now in the noon.
The time goes back and forth.
Scrambled eggs of lunchtime sup
and Eastward goes the North.

And so my face goes upside-down
to match my state of brain,
and the morning sun now rise to night
to fall up-down again.

Never Friends

This was the first exercise I completed in a writing class I took tonight.  First, our instructor-led us through several memory-prompts.  We were just to write down a few words that came into our minds with each prompt.  When she suggested, “The first time you went to a sporting event,” something resonated with me.  I ignored her other prompts and scribbled the following.

I remember the crowds – the noise – the overwhelming sense of smallness in a world that I didn’t care for and that cared not about me.  The time clock–ticking down four times.  Popcorn.  Not being heard or being able to hear.

When she later told us to spend ten minutes writing about one of our memories, this was the one I naturally chose.  Our objective was to write continuously–not to lift our pen from the paper.  Continuous stream of consciousness.  I produced the following:

———————————————-

NEVER FRIENDS

The blue seats were better than the yellow.  That was the goal.  The thing to be achieved.  I dashed back and forth with the money entrusted to me to find someone selling the seats represented by small pieces of paper.  I was good.  I could always find the sellers.  But that was the only good part.

Then inside.

Inside there was the clock.  Ticking down 4 times successively.  There was an infinity of noise–enough that I could neither hear nor be heard.  I sat and watched the clock.

The ball would catch my interest sometimes.  If the clock bored me, I would control the ball–make it either fall in or miss the basket.  I was good.  I succeeded 50% of the time.

The yellow seats were better for me–quieter.  The blue seats were better for them.  Closer.  There was food that was better then both.  Hot dogs.  Popcorn.

The place didn’t belong to me.  I didn’t belong to it.  We coexisted–tolerating each other.  We never, ever, became friends.

The Absolute Nature of Uncertainty pt. 2

I learned why the teacher mentioned Descartes in step two of my Proof of the Mischievous God (see my previous post).  Descartes had essentially devoted his life to the question expressed in step two.

To reiterate, step two states the following.

2) God can, then, influence the human mind and make one believe whatever He wants us to believe.  This would certainly fall under the heading of what an all powerful person could do.

Descartes had asked himself the same question.  Is there anything that God couldn’t possible fool us about?  Anything that is, to use his word, indubitable, that is, free from all doubt?

Descartes spent years on the question.  He was a deeply religious man, and wanted to believe that there was some absolute in the universe, some gift that God had given that was beyond all doubt, that we could use to build all of our other proofs about the universe from.

His answer finally came out as the famous expression, one that I hadn’t understood until then.  “Cogito Ergo Sum”, or, more commonly, “I think, therefore, I am.”

What Descartes concluded was that God could not possibly be fooling us about our own existence.  How could God possibly be tricking us into believing that we exist?  If we didn’t exist, who, indeed, would he be tricking?

How could He, indeed.

God could, if He was mischievous and chose to do so, make us believe that two plus two equals five with the same certainty and conviction that we believe, “Cogito Ergo Sum.”

The point is, there could be a flaw in the logic of, “Cogito Ergo Sum.” that we are missing, or something obvious that we are being kept from seeing.

Can I point out what this flaw is?  Of course not, because I believe it to be true.  The logic of his point seems to be irrefutable.

But Descartes was the one who made the rules here.  The legal system tells its jurors that, to find someone guilty, they must be guilty beyond “reasonable” doubt.

By Descartes’ rules, the word “reasonable” no longer applies.  We are no longer talking about “reasonable” doubt, but to be completely beyond “any” doubt.

Descartes’ question is, in essence, is there anything that we can know for sure that is beyond unreasonable doubt.  The problem, of course, is that once one throws out reason, anything goes.  Logic no longer applies.  A madman who is convinced that he is being tricked by God into believing he exists will except no demonstration that he is wrong.

Cogito Ergo Sum depends upon reason, but reason is one of the conditions that doesn’t apply under Descartes rules.

The General Uncertainty Principle does not require that the flaw be pointed out.  All it does is state that a flaw could exist beyond our ability to see it.

To reiterate, NOTHING can be proven beyond all possible doubt, for all possible doubt includes unreasonable doubt, and without reason, the very concept of proof becomes meaningless.

Thereby, if I were to introduce unreasonable “what ifs” to any statement, such as, what if a statement, such as “a=a”, is wrong and God / Venusians / The Flying Spaghetti Monster / The Invisible Pink Unicorn is only making you BELIEVE the statement to be correct, then the statement has not been proven beyond ALL possible doubt.

**************

After I wrote out my little principle, I turned stupid for the next decade or so.

I loved this theory.  I loved the logic of the theory.  And, like a man who falls in love with and marries an axe murderess because she’s got nice boobs, I paid too much attention to the outstanding attributes and almost lost my head.

I spent the next several years of my life believing that absolutely nothing was provable ‑ ‑ that nothing could really be demonstrated with certainty, therefore anything was possible.  I became deeply philosophical during this period of my life.  No one could ever get a straight answer out of me.  I would respond to peoples concerns with relaxed, knowing smiles.  Nothing mattered, so no decision was demonstrably better than any other in the long run.

This is the same fallacy that the nihilist falls into.  Its a basic belief that just because nothing can be proven beyond all possible doubt that nothing can be known or proven at all.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it gives equal weight to reasonable doubt and to unreasonable doubt.  There is absolutely nothing in the argument that suggests that this is necessary.  In the tautological statement “a=a”, we are faced with the overwhelming logic of it’s obvious correctness.  This statement is the cornerstone of all reason.  If it is not true, then nothing else we have ever thought of can be true.

The only way it can be stated as being possibly false is by invoking the Venusian clause.  But, even if the Venusians existed, there is absolutely no reason for us to believe that they would be able to, much less want to, make us believe this.  One would have to be unreasonable to the point of insanity to seriously doubt that this statement is correct.

In other words, just because something is not provable beyond all possible doubt does not mean that it isn’t true.  Just because it is possible to doubt something does not mean that it is wrong.  To believe otherwise is not … uh … reasonable.

Therefore, I retract my argument that it is impossible to prove God’s existence.  God could very easily prove his existence by making his existence known beyond reasonable doubt in a multitude of ways.  Sending the same message to everyone on earth while simultaneously making all the non-believers walk around and quack like a duck would go a long way toward demonstrating His existence.  I still maintain that it is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove His existence beyond a direct demonstration on His part, but I don’t have a proof for this; it’s just a statement of belief.  I can imagine several ways by which science could come up with reasonable proofs for God.  Nothing yet, but that doesn’t mean anything either.

Love and peace,

Alphonsus

The Absolute Nature of Uncertainty pt. 1

Symbol of Uncertainty

I did not want to bring up this particular argument here at this time, but, after trying to write my next post, I found that I could not effectively make my arguments without laying down these logical foundations first.

What follows is a major rewrite of a section of my haphazard book, “Emergence.” The book itself is quite hopeless, and I would never consider trying to publish it without starting from scratch.

******

In college, I took a class called Philosophy 101 in which I was given an assignment. The assignment I was supposed to do would have involved critiquing or supporting the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas in his proofs of God’s existence, or of critiquing or supporting a non-saint named W.I. Matson’s arguments against them.

Well, I didn’t know it at the time, but I have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (non-hyperactive).  This means, among other things, that I have a great deal of difficulty paying attention to arguments that I find to be mind-boggling boring.   I did not then, and have not to this day, read either of these arguments.  It was my contention at the time that God’s existence could neither be proved nor disproved. So, basically ignoring the assignment, I decided to come up with proofs for these contentions instead.

As a first step, I demonstrated that no proof could ever exist for the nonexistence of God. I called this . . .

The Proof of the Mischievous God

1) Suppose that God exists and that this God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

2) God can, then, influence the human mind and make one believe whatever He wants us to believe. This would certainly fall under the heading of what an all-powerful person could do.

3) God could, for example, cause one to believe a false proof for God’s nonexistence, and to believe it for as long as He so chooses.

4) Therefore, there can exist a situation where a proof of God’s nonexistence exists despite God’s persistent existence.

5) Under these circumstances, the proof would be false

6) There would be no way to determine if these circumstances exist, because God, being all-powerful and all-knowing, could keep us from finding out.

7) Any proof for God’s nonexistence could, therefore, be false beyond our ability to prove otherwise.

8) Since a good proof, by its definition, can never have a false conclusion, it follows that God’s non-existence can not be proved.

At this point in the paper, I pointed out that here, at last, was definite proof of something of a philosophical nature. I also noted that the proof had the really cool side effect of disproving the proofs of virtually everything that man had ever done. All one has to do is insert the appropriate proof name in the appropriate places and watch its truthfulness erode.

I pointed out at this point that I wasn’t stating that I believed that God would actually do anything as mischievous as what He does in the proof, only that He could, and that even this possibility is what makes the proof work.

I went on to point out that probably the one proof that this proof doesn’t disprove is the existence of a proof for God’s existence, which was my original goal. How could it be possible, after all, for a non-existent God to make a proof of God’s existence incorrect.

As I hadn’t thought my paper through, and as I was writing it roughly 6 hours before it was due, I did have a moment of panic at this point. After all, at the beginning of the paper, I promised that I would find a way to not only demonstrate that no proof for the nonexistence of God exists, but also that no proof would ever exist for His existence.

And I didn’t know how to do it.

I knew that such a proof existed. I never doubted it for a second. It just seemed so obvious to me, almost like a gimme. But, now that I had committed myself to the gunfight and was walking the eighth step of the ten paces away from my opponent, I realized that the time had come for me to check to see if I had a gun!

It crossed my mind, briefly to be sure, that if I couldn’t think of a proof that would satisfy me, I might actually have to read the stuff that I was supposed to read!  Not only did this run contrary to my sense of ethics, I simply didn’t have the time to properly sit down, analyze the stuff, and then write about it in any way that would most do it justice.

Finally, I seized on a principle that I had gathered from reading science fiction.  The more ridiculous and far out the example, the better it can sometimes illustrate the point that needs to be gotten across.   A situation that is incorrect at the extremes of reason will show where the same situation falters within the bounds.

To demonstrate that no proof for God exists, therefore, was much more subtle than the Proof of the Mischievous God, and relied on a chain of unlikely events.  It was based on the idea that one doesn’t require an all-powerful being to deceive us.  That is, a lesser being may be able to get the job done.  Human beings can be very gullible sometimes, after all.  I called this proof . . .

The Paranoid Principle

1) Let us suppose that God does not exist.

2) Let us further suppose that there exist more advanced civilizations than ours that wish to deceive us, for whatever reason, into believing that our proofs for God’s existence are correct.

2a) As these civilizations are not God, they are not all knowledgeable or all-powerful.

3) Since the civilizations are not all knowledgeable or all-powerful, the possibility exists for us to find a way to disprove the false proof which the advanced civilization could not anticipate or prevent.

4) It is possible, however, that a more advanced civilization could then offer us another proof in which the disproof of the previous proof doe not apply.

5) To this proof, it will be possible to apply 3, and to this, it is possible to apply 4, ad infinitum.

6) We could never be certain that we are not being deceived into believing our proofs until we ourselves become all-powerful and all knowledgeable, at which point the question becomes academic.

The reason why I called this the paranoid proof is that it presupposes that everyone in the universe is against us. The mere fact that this presupposition is ludicrous does not rule it out as being a possibility.

At the end of the paper, I concluded that, in using these two proofs, it is possible to disprove virtually any other proof in the known or unknown universe, and that the mere possibility of a mischievous God necessitates it. I then said that, as these proofs will never get us anywhere in the practical living of our lives, it would probably be best to ignore them and get on with the business of living it.

Well, looking back at it now, I can see an obvious omission in the second proof, in that I never gave reason to support my supposition.

I’m not going to bother to fix this problem now, as I never really did like either proof. The thing that bothered me most about them is that they seemed to work.

My instructor did nothing to dispute them, not really. Other than one comment about Descartes and a few spelling corrections, she did not find fault with my proofs at all. In fact, she told me that I ought to take up philosophy as my trade. She said that the paper was excellent and a lot of fun to read as well: an unusual combination. This gave my ego an extremely unhealthy boost.

But the fact remained that my evidence for there being no proof for God’s existence relied on a bunch of mind-bending Venusians who had nothing better to do than to spend eternity messing wit the earthling brain. It did not seem credible, that the proof for the non-existence of a proof something so overwhelmingly important had to rely on something so absolutely ridiculous.

What was it that made the Paranoid Proof work?  What was the work that the aliens were accomplishing that made them seem necessary?

Well, the aliens were fooling us, weren’t they?  They were there to make us think that our proofs were correct when in fact they weren’t.   They were causing us to be blind with respect to the flaws in our logic.

Was there anything else that could cause us to be blind with respect to flaws in our logic?

Well, that’s no real trick, is it?   A large percentage of our population still smokes, despite overwhelming evidence that smoking adds absolutely nothing to our lives and in fact causes us great physical harm.   Many of the smokers of the world have managed to justify their habit in some way, but whatever way it is, it is pretty safe to assume that there is a flaw in their logic, somewhere.

And it’s not just the nonscientists that use flawed logic.  Scientists used to be able to say quite logically why the sun went around the earth, and more recently, that the planet Mercury always kept just one face to the sun

Even Sir Isaac Newton was wrong, wasn’t he?   I mean, Einstein came along later and showed that the Newtonian universe was not quite correct, or, at least it didn’t apply to objects that began to approach the speed of light.  Of course, at the time, the speed of light was not really understood. The proper inconsistencies hadn’t been discovered yet.   Newton had no reason to suspect . . .

But what were the aliens in the Paranoid Principle?  We had no reason to suspect them, either.   Weren’t they just an expression of . . . uncertainty?

So it’s obvious that aliens are not needed in order for us to have flaws in the logic of our proofs.  Reality and our own lack of total omniscience has a neat way hiding flaws all on its own, doesn’t it?

I thought about this for about two weeks after I turned in my paper.  Finally, I had a new idea.

The General Uncertainty Principle

1) Let us suppose that we have created a proof for something, and we believe it to be true.

2) Let us further suppose that there exists a flaw somewhere in our logic in the proof. Perhaps we added two numbers together wrong somewhere and nobody has caught it. Perhaps there is some unknown law of reality operating that would point out an obvious flaw in the proof if we knew about it.

3) As mankind is a thinking and inquisitive species, it is possible that at a later time we will find the flaw in our proof.

4) It is possible, however, that another, more subtle error in our logic still exists in our new proof. Perhaps we still do not have a complete understanding of the necessary laws of reality

5) To this proof, it will be possible to apply 3, and to this, it is possible to apply 4, ad infinitum.

6) We can never be certain that our proofs do not contain some flaw that is beyond our current ability to recognize. Therefore, nothing is provable beyond all possible doubt.

I’ve never called the General Uncertainty Principle a proof, because, if I did, it would have the somewhat ironic effect of disproving itself. I would have preferred to call this idea simply, “The Uncertainty Principle,” but alas, quantum physics was already using that name.

This post has gone on long enough. I will continue with the critiques and implications of these arguments in part 2.

Why I am an Agnostic

It is my experience that most people in the U.S. are born and raised to some degree already walking on some religious path.  My parents raised me completely without religion in my life.  There, therefore, is no path that has been laid down as a suggestion for me to follow.

Instead, when I became curious about religion, I was faced with hundreds of different paths to choose from.  How could I possible choose?  I could only measure the merits of each against the only accurate map that I knew of: science.  Under this criteria, all of them failed.  I’ve been forced to make my own way through the woods ever since.

I call myself a militant agnostic not because I’m willing to go out and kill for my lack of beliefs.  Many people consider agnostics to be kinda wishy-washy about their beliefs.  I am not.  I am a firmly committed agnostic, and I strongly believe that being agnostic is exactly where where I belong on the theistic spectrum.  Science cannot disprove God’s existence.  God Himself could very easily prove His existence beyond virtually all possible doubt.  As He hasn’t done this, I can only assume that it’s either because He doesn’t exist, or that He has good reasons for wanting us to believe He doesn’t exist.

Unlike many agnostics, I am not just uncertain about the God of Abraham, I am also uncertain about just about any other God you could name.  To be quite honest, in fact, I’m quite atheistic as far as the God of Abraham is concerned.  Not only is the bible quite flawed, the God in that Bible does not behave even remotely like how I’d expect a non-insane God to behave.

No, the God I’m uncertain of would be a far more sane and reasonable God.  My God would have control over the entire universe and be far less obsessed with this little rock we live on.  My God could kick the God of Abraham’s ass through several unlikely dimensions.

The God I don’t know if exists is a God of my own deduction and thoughts.  I will talk about Him as a concept, but I will in no way try to push him down anyone else’s throat.

At times, I will talk like an Atheist.  I fully understand and sympathize with the atheist point of view.  I just can’t quite make that final step.

First of all, I spent so much time playing with the concept of God, and running through various plausible Gods that fit in with our current knowledge of the universe that for me to choose atheism would entail my acceptance of a “belief” that there is no god.  Most atheists profess that belief is not necessary from their point of view as they see no evidence for God’s existence.  This is fine, and absolutely true.  There IS absolutely no evidence for God’s existence.  It still would not feel intellectually honest for me to choose this path.

What’s more, I enjoy thinking about God.  He’s fun.  I kinda enjoy imagining the limitations that an omniscient, all powerful MUST have, despite the fundamentalist viewpoint that there are no limitations.  I enjoy putting God through God simulations in my brain and try to guess how He would come out as a result.

I will admit to some predjudices.  I’ve grown up in western culture, and I’ve got a western bent.  I call this being “God” for example, instead of Allah.  I refer to God as He even though God would almost certainly be genderless if God exists at all.  I do this because the original translations of the Bible had God as a male, and English has a profound lack of non-gender specific third person pronouns.  I have more respect for God than to call Him an It.  It just lacks class, you know?  So if there are any women who have a problem with this, then I leave it to you to come up with a proper non-gender specific third person pronoun for me to use.  Otherwise, I’ll stick with tradition, thank you very much.

I also capitalize the word God and the He, His, Him pronouns because it’s in the rules of proper English, and plus again it just feels more respectful when dealing with the possible creator of the entire f’ing universe.  The concept of a God who has managed to create something this big and complex deserves a capital letter, whether He exists or not.

There are times when I will talk as if I don’t believe God exists.  There are times when I will preach quite vehimently as if He DOES exist.  I am not being disingenuous.  It’s just that I am capable of holding both thoughts in my mind.  Call it doublethink.  It’s my brain, and I can maintain two contradictory thoughts in it at the same time if I want to.  😛

Others may ask me, “What if I’m wrong, and God will send me to Hell for doubting?”  Well, my answer to them would be that then either we would ALL be screwed, or we have nothing at all to worry about.  There are, by last count, an infinite number of potential mutually exclusive jealous Gods out there.  Even if I follow just the God of Abraham, then there are at least three major paths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that could get me flaming if I choose the wrong one.  Within Christianity, the are literally hundred’s of sub-variations of God that promise damnation unless I follow their particular set of beliefs.  There is certainly no safety in belief.

And, if the unproven God is NOT jealous, then I think He will forgive me for doubting.  I’ve lived a reasonable good life.  I’ve helped a lot of people.  I’ve given to charities and gave large tips to my waitresses.  The degree to which I am mentally unsound is not my fault.  I was born that way, and I am doing my darnedest to get past it all.  I am as I was created.  I am very hopeful that any reasonable God would see that.

So, that’s about it.  The atheist really shouldn’t care what I think so long as I don’t try to force my beliefs onto anyone else…no worries there.  The theist, well, they will think what they will think.  I am automatically condemned to eternal torture according to some of their beliefs.  Well, I really don’t like the sound of that, and I’m fully willing to jump into the arms of Jesus if He is waiting there after the truck squishes me.  I’ll just cross my fingers and hope for the best.

Junk Science – A Sin against God?

I was talking to a friend the other day, and she made an excellent point to me that explained why a lot of people don’t have faith in the scientific method.  Part of the problem, you see, has to do with chicken eggs.

30 years ago, nutrition scientists came out and against dietary cholesterol.  Eggs, it was proclaimed by many, were evil, and could lead to heart attacks.

Well, this news was not particularly well taken.  People, it seems, really like eggs.  Eggs have been eaten since the beginning of history, recorded or not.  It is very difficult to make a birthday cake without an egg, and far more difficult still to make an omelet.

Still, science had decreed eggs to be bad, and thus people, trying to be good little healthy citizens, cut back on them.

So how did people react when, in 2007, a study of 9,500 people reported in Medical Science Monitor showed that eating one or two eggs a day did not increase the risk of heart disease or stroke among healthy adults.

Well, they were not outraged.  Mostly, what they did was sigh, shrug their shoulders, and put another check mark in the column on the unreliability of science.

This kind of thing happens all the time, from the perspective of the average citizen.  One week science will say something…the next week science will say the exact opposite.  Scientific predictions fail.  Scientific proclamations are refuted after a lot of fanfare.  To the lay person, there seems to be a very good reason to believe that science is no where near having its shit together.

The problem is a combination of Junk Science and the media.  There is, without doubt, a lot of bad science out there.  The results of experiments are announced before being properly reviewed.  As these experiments tend to make bolder claims (it’s easy to make bold claims based on poor scientific evidence), the media love them.  The media is by and large scientifically illiterate, and is not capable of evaluating the value of an experiment on its own.  Often, they publish the results as 100% factual, even when the results clearly show a significant margin of error and clearly state that more research must be done.

Trust once lost is not an easy thing to gain back.  So, how can we expect the non-scientifically educated public to trust science when they are given reasons every day as to why they should not?

Creationism and Intelligent Design are pure junk science.  Its proponents profoundly reject the scientific method, which, as I said before, might better be described as the accepted truth evaluation methodology.  Thus, quoting out of context, science so bad that even calling it junk gives it too much credence, out-and-out lies, and misinformation and smear campaigns are standard operating procedure practiced by those attempting to promote their agenda.

What seems bluntly obvious to me is that religion, rather than being at odds with science, should be its greatest watch keepers.  The one thing agreed upon by virtually all theists is that God created the universe.  God is, in effect, the universe’s author.  It stands to reason that God, if He is fair, would weave his commandments and laws into the fabric of the universe itself.

Science, being the accepted truth evaluation methodology, is effectively man’s best way to read God’s holy word as it is etched into the universe’s fabric.  The Bible has been demonstrated again and again to be a document which can be read multiple ways.  The universe, on the other hand, is truly inerrant.  Good science will read God’s word within the universe the same way, no matter where you are in the universe, no matter what time, no matter what belief system you were raised under.

So I would LOVE to see religion actually start to defend God’s first and ONLY signed work, the Universe, with the same enthusiasm that they have used to defend the errant words written by man in the past.  Were religious leaders actually to do this, then the conflicts between atheists and believers would diminish to practically nothing.

But this provides that religion defend the universe FIRST, as this would be indisputably in the theists mind God’s first and inerrant primary source, and their own religious works second.  Any work corrupted by the hand of man cannot be chosen over the Universe, which is incorruptible.  Science is very corruptible, but with proper management, it can be used as an ideal tool, and indeed ONLY tool, to reveal God’s true word.

Bad science, which proclaims falsehoods against the universe and thus against God, could be defined as a true sin.  The accepted truth evaluation methodology should be taught in Sunday school with passion and with vigor.  As a non-violent man I don’t feel stoning is a proper punishment, but shunning would certainly be appropriate, and not allowing them to practice the truth methodology again until they can get some better education and can thus repent for their sins would seem more than fair.

And yes, I am totally serious about this.  I am an agnostic, admittedly.  I do not truly know if God exists.  But, if God does exist, then worshiping and studying his creation makes a tremendous amount of sense to me.

Belief is a private choice.  Truth is universal.  Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe, but when it comes to truth, everyone benefits from understanding it as it clearly as possible.

Namasté