Are Most Convictions Actually True Or Merely Practically So?

For the sake of argument, suppose the ultimate reason many people wholeheartedly believe their perspective on any given matter (not by any means limited to religious/political convictions) is absolutely true and right is because in the context of a social and civil society there is intrinsic benefit in measuring values and especially behavior with 1 standard, however arbitrary it may be. We could say this unconsciously encourages people to persuade others that they are in possession of "the absolute truth".

The proximate reason people wholeheartedly believe their perspective constitutes the unadulterated truth is that they believe it is actually true. So the belief that it is actually true solely as a means to get everybody to “join” the group as a means to adopt the same values such that behavior can be “fairly” evaluated can be said to be practically true. Practically true to the extent that adhering to this 1 absolute standard for conduct and behavior can be beneficial for society regardless of whether it is actually true.

Many will claim this idea is a total mockery of “God's truth”. But my response to those that think it egregious to suggest this is to question their own motivations. If they are particularly angry at the idea of belief being merely practically true and not actually true, could it be that they are (more than likely unconsciously) motivated solely by their belief that they will actually be rewarded by God for being good and/or avoid punishment for not being bad? If this is the case, then their motivations can surely be questioned.

On the other hand, those that do not react bitterly to this supposition probably “get it”. It does not matter whether beliefs are actually true. What matters is that they are merely practically true as a means to improve cooperation and promote positive social interaction within society.

The challenge is getting EVERYBODY behind 1 ultimately arbitrary standard!

Playing God 2

My problem is not with God per se, rather it is with peoples' ideas of Him which cater to their seemingly arbitrary whims. For instance, many believe humanity should use its knowledge and expertise to intervene in debilitating DNA coding errors and other less threatening genetic imperfections. As such, much work is being done to control and hopefully even eliminate diseases, birth defects and numerous other undesirable attributes once and for all. What a great coup for humanity! But for God?

If one supposes DNA errors to be “oversights of God”, then our attempts to repair them seem to assume He does not want these “imperfections". So perhaps many things are NOT the way God would like them to be*? But does this not seem to imply He lacks omnipotence? Otherwise, why would DNA coding errors and other genetic imperfections ever happen?

On the other hand, to deny His being anything less than omnipotent would imply He does have complete authority. In which case, perhaps things are just as they are because He wants them just as they are? To lend further credence to this notion, why is it often said by the faithful that our gravest adversities “glorify God”? In this sense, might our intervention be taking due glory away from Him? How dare us!

Even if it is supposed God wants us to intervene in nature's “imperfections”, this is problematic. For how do we distinguish between that which is sufficiently imperfect enough to elicit our intervention and that which is not. In other words, what is 1)an imperfect enough circumstance such that God would bless our attempt to change it as opposed to 2)an insufficiently imperfect enough circumstance that we must therefore humbly accept?

For instance, I'm pretty much going bald but am probably one of the few that accept and, dare I say, like it. But what about others who are tormented by this same fate? Is this imperfection worthy enough to challenge God's authority or something we must humbly accept? I guess it depends on whom you ask.

What about those who suffer from gluten intolerance? It seems to overshadow hair loss as an imperfection but does this necessarily qualify it as being worthy enough an imperfection to usurp God's authority? Once again, it seems to depend on whom you ask. Maybe God doesn't care what we do? Or maybe He doesn't care so long as we have “good” justification for our intervention?

But how would we determine what “good” justification is? That seems pretty straightforward. Simply appeal to our own arbitrary whims. What then becomes of God's authority on the matter?



*Using the assumption that God does not necessarily want things just as they are, why is it so often assumed or at least implied that every fetus is God's desire and will**? If we assume God does NOT want babies being born with cystic fibrosis even though nature allows for it, why should we anymore assume God DOES want every fetus to be born just because nature allows for it? In other words, if one uses the argument that a fetus is God's will just because “it happened”, it should be no less argued that cystic fibrosis is God's will just because “it happened”. In this case, perhaps we should abandon our attempts to "repair" these types of tragic ailments? Might cystic fibrosis and other crippling maladies be God's unalterable will? My deepest condolences to those faced with these life-shortening diseases. In any case, this perfectly illustrates the apparent arbitrariness of how people “see” God in the way they approach difficult issues like this. But alas, I do not “see” God in circumstances such as these because the "answers" simply cater to the arbitrary whims of people. These issues are very troubling to me. The difficulties of these kinds of decisions seem much more manageable when one eliminates God. In this way, one can take refuge in his or her conscience in resolving issues like this as opposed to seeking God's seemingly nebulous counsel on such matters which ultimately degenerates into nothing but arbitrary whims! This of course implies my own suspicion that GOD, and perhaps more specifically the mere idea of God, is simply a proxy for each individual's EGO. In this way, seeking God is simply appealing to your own conscience. However, the danger in believing it is "God" as opposed to one's conscience that is behind these types of difficult decisions is it systematically inflates one's sense of right(eous)ness. For instance, if my conscience "tells" me something, I will be very forthright that it is merely MY CONSCIENCE/OPINION and as such I will AMIABLY disagree with dissenters! How will one spoon-fed the "truth" straight from the Horse's mouth likely respond? With absolute conviction, "I am hereby incontrovertibly right because my decision comes not from MY woeful, fallible conscience BUT FROM GOD HIMSELF! How then can one reasonably question this? 


**IF it is assumed ALL fetuses are God's "Supreme Plan", then it would seem perfectly fair, perhaps even OBLIGATORY, to implicate God in rapes whereby impregnation occurs. IF, on the other hand, this notion is rejected, why is it so many out there seem to be such staunch advocates of protecting EVERY fetus like they were all of them part of God's "Supreme Plan"?


I know this subject will likely incite anger and hostility in some but this is not my purpose. My purpose is to demonstrate how these kinds of issues are so seldom dealt with anything resembling that of rational thought because they all too often become hijacked by EMOTION. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but I only wish to expose the utterly absurd implications many of these "emotionally-based" conclusions lead to. Henceforth, I only ask that we think more before making audacious moral claims that oftentimes sow nothing but anger and resentment in those that do not see eye to eye with us.

A Societal Problem?

Why do athletes dope? To be the best of the best which is ultimately what spectators seem to want. To substantiate my italicizing of seem, many will readily complain about athletes' tacky behavior, but this does not seem to deter them from attending sporting events. We can say it seems to be a rather symbiotic relationship.

The only reason I believe doping is wrong is because it is declared such. But this no-doping law is itself merely arbitrary, as are most laws. Might we question why doping is banned? Is it because of safety concerns? But there are so many other legal and unsafe practices that athletes routinely engage in so I hardly think this to be a rational reason to ban steroids. Is it because it is deemed unfair to those that do not cheat? Well, I guess this is true, but alas, life is not fair anyway. It is just as unfair for the 4 foot tall “shrimp” who only ever aspired to play in the NBA, but unfortunately uncooperative genes prevented his dream from being realized.

Perhaps one might argue that there is a qualitative difference between natural and artificial characteristics. Well then, what about an athlete who has corrective eye surgery resulting in 20/10 vision? This is an artificial characteristic just as much as the effects of steroids. Should this be banned as well?

Another typical argument is that we aspire to present our kids “positive” role models. Well, if this is the case, I would steer kids clear of idolizing athletes. Rather, I would steer kids toward those that exude first class character.

So if parents, and people in general, truly prioritized role models according to character and not ability, then ability would be less a focal point and hence the athlete might feel less compelled to “cheat” and more compelled to become a better person.

One of the central points of my philosophy is this: we need to become conscious of how we all individually and collectively contribute to the purported “problems” of society.

Pondering The Origin Of Compassion

Where did the ideal of compassion originate? I presume many will feel this an opportune moment to tell me, "the idea of compassion comes from God and GOD ALONE!" Apart from pointing out that this would relegate compassion in itself to complete meaninglessness, why is it so arbitrary?

Arbitrary you ask? Arbitrary in the sense that it is not always followed. As I've made clear on numerous occasions, ideals seem ideal in the strictest sense only when always followed! Otherwise, one could claim to be compassionate toward abused babies and abandoned puppies but show little other than contempt and judgment for child molesters and rapists! This does not seem to make compassion ideal, rather it seems to make it little more than convenient.

So what could reasonably explain each individual's arbitrariness regarding whom to demonstrate compassion to and whom to not? I have an interesting idea as to how we might consciously or probably more commonly unconsciously "calculate" this. We simply accord compassion to those in circumstances we could see ourselves in or have already been in. In this way, we project a sort of "hope" that if the roles were reversed, these same people would bestow compassion on us. A tit for tat so to speak or perhaps a more evolutionary term, reciprocal altruism.

Why, one might ask, does it seem so few have compassion for child molesters and rapists? Because very few (we will desperately hope at least) could ever see themselves committing these kinds of egregious acts! Hence why few seem compelled to sympathize with them.

On the other hand, take those that have committed extra-marital affairs. As I have pointed out previously, if all those that judged others for having affairs did not have it in them to go on and do just the same, there would be far fewer affairs. Perhaps many who have compassion and forgiveness for those who are found out to have had affairs either consciously or unconsciously acknowledge the fact that they would or at least could go on to do just the same (or perhaps already have) and in this sense they are, once again, simply projecting "hope" that if the roles were reversed, these same people would bestow compassion and forgiveness on them!

I think this relegates compassion to being nothing but evolutionary group selection. In this sense, we engage in a sort of reciprocal altruism because it benefits US as individuals! This is decidedly selfish! Not that there is anything particularly wrong with this but then what becomes of the ideal of compassion as having originated from a God that commands or at least desires us to be selfless?


Perhaps the pinnacle of compassion would be forgiving child molesters and rapists? Hmm.....not sure I could do this especially if MY child and wife were their victims!

Why Love?

In order for love to be absolutely meaningful, it seems it must be intrinsic to reality. If one claims a personal God must be believed for love to have meaning, then it does not seem intrinsic to reality. If this is true, love is only arbitrarily meaningful so long as it is believed God exists in a personal way. But if love is only arbitrarily meaningful, it can not be absolutely meaningful.

Do not assume I am claiming God does or does not exist. I am simply pointing out the fact that if love is absolutely meaningful, a personal God need not be believed to give love meaning. This can explain why atheists and non-believers routinely experience genuine love relationships even if a personal God does in fact exist. If a believer expresses puzzlement that an atheist would “love” his wife and children, or anybody else for that matter, what does this imply? That the believer's love is merely arbitrary contingent upon his belief in a personal God. If at some point he abandons belief in God, his love for his wife and children and everybody else would be rendered meaningless because he no longer believes God exists.

Suffice it to say, I don't think this happens upon abandoning belief. Reason being, love is meaningful apart from belief in a personal God. What is strange about this reflection is it seems to support the philosophy that even if a personal God does in fact exist, it would be best for us not to believe in Him because only through our disbelief can we be certain we are experiencing love and other similar ideals in an absolutely and intrinsically meaningful manner.

On the other hand, if one supposes an impersonal God exists, what would the implications of this be with respect to absolute and intrinsic love? Semantically speaking, an impersonal God could be equated to no God at all because if He is impersonal, how is this different than being nonexistent? Therefore, supposing an impersonal God exists would have the same effect as believing no God exists.

So it seems love can only have absolute and intrinsic meaning without belief in a personal God or with belief in, at most, an impersonal One. In this way, love is ostensibly embraced for love's sake, not for God's.

Just Go Ahead And Do Whatever You Wish!

There are some religious crusaders that actually believe the deaths of U.S. soldiers are punishment for “our” tolerance of homosexuality. If this is the case, God's judgment appears very arbitrary.

This suggests to me that we should just go ahead and commit whatever misdeed we wish, because it is likely someone else will be left to deal with its consequences! Conversely, we will likely be left “holding the bag” for somebody else's misdeed just the same.

So if I were so inclined to murder somebody in cold blood purely for enjoyment's sake, perhaps a poor, amiable widow will be left to deal with the consequences of my egregious misdeed? This seems particularly absurd to me as it will hopefully be to others.

Most believe, generally speaking, that a man should reap what he sows. But in this case, God is just a “vending machine” judging favorably the good and unfavorably the bad. As it should be in my opinion.

OK.....I admit it.....I'm SELFISH!

I'm reading the newspaper and come across an editorial questioning how we should deal with the backlog of social security recipients in this fine state of Georgia. “I could not care less about this issue owing to the fact that it does not affect me one iota (at least not yet),” the thought occurs to me.

One might be quick to judge me as being selfish. And you know what? You're right! But ask yourself: is this any different a manner in which "I" justify my viewpoints on society's problems?

If you make incredible amounts of money, what are you going to care about? More than likely voting for a candidate that will keep taxes low to preserve your hard-earned money, something or other.

Conversely, if you make little or no money because of laziness or lack of skills or whatever other reason, what are you going to care about? More than likely the candidate which will maintain and/or create entitlements for you by taxing the “evil” rich.

If this is scoffed at because you rise above this selfish standard, yours is most certainly in the minority. But alas, it is not the minority view that “rules the roost” so to speak. It is what the majority does or thinks. 

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not judging those that think selfishly. This would include yours truly and why would I ever want to judge MOI? I am simply pointing out what is with no implication to what should be.

This not wanting to judge oneself is the principle reason judgment is so arbitrary and hence hypocritical. 

It is imperative to point out that this strict avoidance of self-judgment is almost always unconscious which is why most vehemently deny being hypocritical.

Alas, simply judge and condemn others engaging in selfish behaviors you do not involve yourself in and hide behind or attempt to assuage the evilness of the selfish behaviors you do involve yourself in.

The Insanity And Absurdity Of Life

How do we determine the "right" course of action with "something" that more often than not seems neither "right" nor "wrong" but merely "liked" or "disliked"?

Since the "something" is not likely good or bad in itself, it needs to be "made" good or bad to provide the necessary moral justification for argument and conflict.

On the other hand, I understand that acknowledging the lack of goodness or badness in the "something" itself is not constructive because then HOW THE HELL DO WE DETERMINE WHAT THE "SOMETHING" SHOULD BE IF IT IS ULTIMATELY ARBITRARY?

Hence, in order to choose the "right" arbitrary decision, an ideological war must be waged. This is where politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, notably, come into the fray. They (attempt to) recruit people to their arbitrarily chosen "something" by deluding others into believing there is either their "right something" or somebody else's "wrong something". People thus choose sides and war is waged.

Remember, people actually believe the "something" is over "right" and "wrong", not over mere preferences. But in the end, the chips "fall as they will" and the winner of this arbitrary decision "decides" what is "right".

Think of wars and conflict that result from argument and disagreement over mere preferences (of course it is by definition always believed to be over right and wrong). For if societies at large became aware that they were killing or fighting each other over mere preferences, they would likely cease fighting because of the lack of moral justification. But then how else would we determine what the "something" should be without waging wars or other forms of conflict?

The insanity and absurdity is thus: WE SIMPLY MUST CONVEY FALLACIOUS RIGHT/WRONG DICHOTOMIES TO EVERY "SOMETHING" IN ORDER TO MAKE DECISIONS, OTHERWISE NONE COULD BE MADE!

A Verdict On The Issue Of Health Care

How could something like the health and well-being of our citizens be relegated to the arbitrary whims of bureaucracies? On the other hand, to view health care from the perspective of each human being's every specific need and desire, how are we to expect this kind of personal care to be at all affordable?

It is essentially a debate about treating health care in a utilitarian versus an emotional manner. This is difficult because though the well-being of human beings is perhaps the most sacred of life's issues, it, like any other difficult issue, has severe restrictions placed upon it because we live in a finite world. If only it was infinite!

Unfortunately, there is neither enough money, nor doctors, nor organs to be transplanted, etc. to meet every personal need and desire of every citizen such that we are all treated with the utmost care.

It may be difficult to stomach for many of you but the world does not revolve around you, your parents, your children or Grandma Gertrude. It might be true to say that your world revolves around them. The problem with this is that obviously we all have our own ideas as to whom and what the world revolves around, many of which are in opposition to one another as they are vying for the same limited resources.

Alas, the “World's World” revolves around a collective One, many people and issues of which you could not care less about because they are not part of your world! But the problem with trying to approach health care in a utilitarian manner is that it will by its very nature foment accusations of being cruel and callous simply because this is perhaps the most emotional and fragile issue known to man. How dare we dehumanize our fellow brethren like this!

But to approach it in a purely emotional manner seems to necessitate astronomical expenditures of which nobody seems willing to take responsibility. How do we address this utilitarian/emotional dichotomy? Any response to this that places the answer “somewhere in the middle” simply obfuscates the problem all over again. The middle means a thousand things to a thousand people!

My opinion on this, depressing as it may be for many, leans more toward the “coldness” of utilitarianism. Of course this view will likely incite feelings of dehumanization, but I see this trend taking shape quite nicely in many of our other affairs, so perhaps this is our inescapable destiny?

Personal God?

Personal to whom? To me? To you? To them? I do not believe any type of existent God could be personal. At least insofar as how we individually and, dare I say, selfishly define personal. And why would we not? Or rather how could we not? What is personal if it does not revolve around self? Ideas of a personal God then seem to naturally mimic our individual preferences and whims.

But this will often conflict with a collective concept of what is preferable and desirable for society as a whole which is the only type of view I could ever imagine a hypothetical God espousing. Otherwise, whose side might He be on when there is disagreement?

Do you not see how arbitrary any answer to this is? In light of this dilemma, is it now quite apparent God's view must revolve around a collective perspective?

So in essence, I am saying that our individual concepts as to what makes God personal are by definition very selfish! If God acquiesces to my personal preferences, how then could He be personal to somebody else with competing preferences?

In the quintessential competition that is war, for example, somebody wins and somebody loses. How could God be personal to both? Therefore, there seems to be a dilemma with the idea of a personal God.

The Problem Of Free-Will

Why doesn't God intervene in the mind of a serial killer before he strikes? Because He gives each of us free-will to act as we may, it is thoughtfully reasoned. And this free-will is an intrinsic aspect of our nature which is ultimately what endows us with any semblance of humanity. Without it, we are just robots capable of doing only what God “commands” us to do. But if this is the case, how could God ever intervene in a person's free-will to thwart evil?

It is oftentimes claimed God intervenes to prevent evil from occurring but clearly He does not always intervene in our evil free-will pursuits otherwise there would be no evil. But if He only occasionally intervenes in our evil free-will pursuits, this sporadic intervention appears arbitrary. Being arbitrary, it is difficult to reconcile this to a God who is thought to be all good and always perfect. It seems this God could be at best nobly inspired but somewhat aloof.

There is something that struck me about the problem of free-will and how God might conceivably deal with it. Let's suppose a terrorist is threatening to blow up a building with children in it. Of course the authorities call in a set of negotiators to quell the terrorist's anxieties and plead with him to reconsider all the while the faithful are busy praying for the situation. In this instance, the terrorist stands down. Isn't God great? I knew God would act on the prayers and influence the conscience of the terrorist in order that he not consummate his diabolical plan! Might it also be suggested that the negotiators had at least something to do with this peaceful resolution? In any case, many view this as a "coup" for God.

But suppose the terrorist does not stand down and many school children perish in the blast (it's happened before). How could God let this happen? Well, you see, this is simply a product of free-will and humanity's “love of sin" running amok.

But if free-will ultimately trumps intervention by God, can we reasonably question whether God can ever intervene to resolve crises? Many implicate God's intervention to peaceful endings. But maybe the explanation for peaceful endings has nothing to do with God's intervention? This nicely coincides with situations that do not end peacefully where it is typically reasoned that God could not have interfered with the person's free-will and that is why said atrocity happened.

In the end, I have more peace believing happy endings and sad endings happen independent of God's intervention.

For more on the concept of free-will, please see blog entitled "Pondering The Variability Of Morality"
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2010/03/pondering-on-variability-of-morality.html

Who Doesn't Like Buffet Lines?

Many, especially those of narrow-minded persuasions, claim an “anything goes” approach to religion and truth is akin to picking and choosing from a buffet line. And this is certainly true. But it must be pointed out that even these narrow-minded types are ultimately forced to pick and choose from the same buffet line.

For instance, most Christians do not obsess over choosing what to believe regarding post-tribulation vs. pre-tribulation. But is this not picking and choosing from the buffet line by implying this issue to be superficial and hence unimportant? Maybe it is of utmost importance to God as I am sure a select few would claim? Who really knows? Nobody!

As such, one can only arbitrarily assert that as long as you believe “this” or “that”, the “other” things are superficial and hence unimportant. Religious and other peoples' views on sexuality, acceptable occupations, capitalism, socialism, baptism, political views, environmentalism, racial issues, etc. vary much like all of our plates do in their content as we walk away from the buffet line.

The question is, do these views stem from God or self? If they are from self, this easily explains why so many views are in opposition to one another. On the other hand, if they stem from God, maybe they are all right.

In which case, why do we argue so passionately in favor of "our" individual views if all of them are equally valid? Alternatively, if one view is the pure, unadulterated truth, which one then?

The Collective Struggle Of Existence

It of course goes without saying that even if there was 1 society built upon 1 arbitrary yet coherent ideology, there would still be a collective struggle due to there being a finite supply of resources (mates, jobs, precious jewels and metals, fancy cars, oil, fame, etc.) It seems we were just “made” to be in a constant state of competitive conflict.

If there were an infinite supply of things, we would all presumably have everything we want. But would this make us (feel) happy and fulfilled? Probably not, as our happiness seems unconsciously built upon being above others because of the way we were “made” to be in a constant state of competitive conflict (this to me is a very justified evolutionary trait which is not so justified in today's overly prosperous societies where life-sustaining needs are met many times over). Hence our compulsion to “outdo” others or at least want to.

Apparently, if there were an infinite supply of everything, there would be no way for the ego to survive! On the other hand, if this had been the case, might we surmise the ego would never have existed in the first place? In any case, this is essentially what I envision heaven as, albeit figuratively. A place where Satan (ego) is completely vanquished.*

My opinion is Jesus was talking about this very thing (eradicating ego) but apparently it went largely unnoticed! For heaven to most people is implied to be a realm where NOBODY is suffering. We could conceivably do this today (to a much greater extent at least) but we are burdened by our own SELFISHNESS/EGO. Hence the belief that God will transform us after we die at which point we will FINALLY be able/forced to embrace an attitude that addresses suffering (like sharing resources when so many of us are overflowing with them).

But is this not the essence of SOCIALISM? Why then do we so vilify (especially the "conservative" religious among us) the idea of socialism as if it were some intrinsic evil? Why do people not acknowledge this CONTRADICTION?

Many will retort that socialism would leave little incentive to work causing the wholesale collapse of society leaving ALL OF US to suffer. HUH? How about being motivated to work JUST FOR GOD! Why then do we "need" excessive compensation above and beyond our basic needs? TO BE ABOVE OTHERS! Which is just what I would expect if evolution has shaped us over time to attempt or at least want to rise above others!

Once again, what about being motivated to work as hard as you can simply and only for God? Why then should it matter whether 95% of your income is taken and given to those that don't have it (including for the sake of argument people that don't have wealth simply because, God bless'em, they are stupid and lazy)? Because you are not motivated to do so for God, rather you are motivated to do so for YOURSELF (which of course includes collectives YOU identify with and support)! Please do not be ashamed.....this is how we are wired!

In the end, might the idea of heaven simply have originated to mitigate feelings of guilt due to all the cruelty and "unfairness" inherent in life?


*Would this be good or bad? Perhaps it would be both good and bad.....for it seems war would become a thing of the past (good). But then so would competitive sports become a thing of the past (bad).

How Will We Be Judged?

Will God judge us based on our intentions or on our beliefs and actions? In other words, does there exist an absolute standard by which He will judge us?

If it is absolute, He can not arbitrarily evaluate one person on his intentions and another on his actions. If this is the case, it is problematic when carried out to its logical ramifications. If God judges everybody based on individual intentions, I don't see how He could condemn an Islamic terrorist hell-bent on killing innocent people if this person genuinely believes he is doing so for God's glory.

On the other hand, if God judges us based purely on our beliefs and actions, He would out of necessity have to condemn a retarded cripple only because his misfortune, through no fault of his own, precludes him from harboring a cogent belief of any sort and from doing anything worthwhile for God's sake.

Now obviously many will arbitrarily claim He will judge some based on intentions and others based on actions and still others based on a combination of both. But how would anybody know by which standard he himself will be judged?

Obfuscating Fairness

Canada's Supreme Court ruled that airlines must provide an extra seat for obese people on domestic flights. What about those clinically diagnosed with claustrophobia then? Might these people have just as valid a claim for an extra seat as obese people?

One might suggest only those obese through no fault of their own be eligible for this “perk”. Do claustrophobics anymore choose to be such? How would we determine whether it is through no fault of their own anyway? Only arbitrarily.

Furthermore, why should it matter whether it is their fault or not? If my appetite necessitates that I consume 2 entrees (if genetics had dealt me a 275 pound frame against my better wishes), then I must pay for 2 entrees! In the same way, if obese people require 2 seats, they should pay for 2 seats.

This seems unfair to many. But alas, life is unfair. The sooner one understands this, the more quickly this and other similar arguments become impotent.

The following analogy can shed further light on the absurdity of this argument:

If a person who has only ever aspired to be a brain surgeon just happens to be plain stupid (only because mom and dad, God bless'em, ain't too bright), should he be granted easy access into becoming a surgeon so as to avoid being unfair to him only because he is stupid through no fault of his own? I don't think I want this surgeon operating on anybody I care about!

Life is unfair. Get over it!

Infinite Or Absolute?

Does not the idea of a God based on absolutes restrict Him? How can this be so if He is infinite?

If it is supposed God wears a blue cape, this being analogous to an absolute, then He can not simultaneously don a red one. But if He is infinite, must He by definition wear the red cape along with every other color cape simultaneously?

People tend to harbor restrictive views concerning God arbitrarily. It is often implicitly stated that God can only do or think in a certain manner prescribed by me according to my interpretation of scripture or what feels good to me. But then, just as easily, it is declared that God is so beyond comprehension that one can never know how He might view another situation.

On the one hand, saying God is absolute on a given matter restricts Him thus rendering Him something less than infinite. On the other hand, saying God is vastly bigger than one can ever imagine leaves ideas about Him wide open.

This means many commonly thought absolutes can be less restrictive and, hence, something less than absolute. What is the most likely culprit behind those that are "absolutely" certain? Ego of course.

The "Evil" That Is Profiling

Profiling seems to be viewed as one of the most egregious forms of discrimination these days. I have even heard of credit card companies lowering credit limits on certain customers who shop at certain retailers.

What is the purpose of profiling? Is it for the sake of discriminating maliciously? Blindly following the claims of any number of activist organizations, one could naively be led to believe this to be the case. But generally it is done to save money and time on research in order to make viable decisions regarding each person or situation.

When I turned 16 and got my driver's license, my insurance was twice what it was for my sister! It was so unfair and discriminatory. I was outraged! I was just as responsible and just as good a driver as my sister when she got her license. How dare they have the audacity to charge me double! But this is where profiling is the only viable, perhaps even obligatory strategy in dealing with matters such as these. I knew I was responsible and hopefully my parents and closest friends would have agreed just the same but how would an impersonal insurance behemoth have known this? This is why profiling is necessary.

Unless they performed an in-depth interview and perhaps even attempted to really get to “know” Kurt by assigning a truant officer to observe me for a year, what could they possibly have known about me? Little or nothing! They employ actuaries who pore over statistical trends which point to tendencies certain types of people or situations will more likely than not follow. State Farm did not know me. All they knew was that I was a 16 year-old Caucasian male. From that, they generalized that I would be like other 16 year-old Caucasian males they insured. We could say from their limited research, they concluded I would be approximately twice as likely as my sister to file a claim!

Profiling against people of certain sexes, races, religions, etc. is oftentimes a necessary evil. Even if one argues that certain types of profiling are above and beyond what is necessary, this is arbitrary. In any case, how do we determine the types of profiling that are acceptable or not? Life is unfair. Get over it!

This Works, That Doesn't

It is often claimed by politicians, especially during campaigning, that they will do away with programs and policies that “do not work”. What does this mean? How is the determination made as to a program's or policy's efficacy? This once again is totally subjective based on different peoples' perspectives and above all else opinions.

Many will say being overly “generous” with entitlements for the poor does not work. But if one is poor and lazy, how does this not work for him? Typically we as a society evaluate a program's or policy's viability based on utilitarianism. A given program might serve its constituents exceptionally well, but if the costs of this program are too high for the number of people it benefits, it likely will be construed as something that “does not work”. 

But this type of thinking is merely arbitrary because it is not always followed. Oftentimes, we will pay anything to get back prisoners-of-war or kidnap victims, for example. But this is not utilitarianism, rather it is emotions that account for this type of response.

So how do we determine whether to base difficult decisions on utilitarian principles or emotional responses? How can this line be drawn but arbitrarily? Requiring buildings to have handicap access is likely driven by emotions as the cost of implementing these standards almost certainly outweighs the utilitarian benefits.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not against basing decisions on emotional foundations. Neither am I against basing decisions on utilitarian principles. I am simply pointing out that there is no imperative as to what should be done in any given situation. It is but subjective based purely on competing opinions no doubt shaped and motivated by how these issues affect us as individuals and as groups we represent. This seems selfish. And it is! It is nothing but evolutionary group selection. This is nothing to feel guilty about. It just is!

More Uncertainty!

Difficult lines must be drawn but many will not like them! I will attempt to explain why this is so.

For instance, concerning tax breaks, it seems obvious to most that those of limited means with many hungry children to feed should be entitled to tax breaks more so than others. But what if you were just beyond any given line of entitlement? What if your income and number of children just missed this “line”? Would you not feel cheated? Perhaps you think the line should be drawn to include you? Trouble is, there is always another unlucky bloke who happens to be just beyond this new line of entitlement leaving him feeling cheated just the same as you were before!

There is a seemingly never-ending succession of "yous", at least until everybody is entitled to said benefit. But of course this will never happen because we as a society can ill afford to offer entitlements to everybody. (also problematic with this approach is that it would simply be a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" in turn being ineffectual in redistributing wealth) Things will seldom if ever be “fair” drawing lines because they are by their very nature predicated on discontinuities. But most of life's matters can not be treated as such. Rather, most of life's matters tend to be based on continuities.

For instance, where does an embryo become a living, breathing human being? Clearly, it is not a living, breathing human being at its insemination (this being the left end of the spectrum) but clearly it is a living, breathing human being when it comes out of the birth canal (this being the right end of the spectrum).

Does it ever become a living, breathing human being? If not, is it always a human being or is it never a human being? This is silly, as a small clump of cells certainly can not be a living, breathing human being but I'm pretty positive I am a living, breathing human being! Perhaps it is both human and less than human all the while being neither? This exemplifies what is known as the “barber paradox”: if it can not be human, it must be human. Conversely, if it must be human, it can not be human. Is the set of all sets that are not members of itself a member of itself, or is it not, and if it is not, is it?

On the other hand, if it becomes a living, breathing human being, at what discrete point does it become so? It does not seem to at all but it must. If there is a discrete point whereby an embryo becomes a living, breathing human being, all we can be certain of is its uncertainty. I am using this example as a way to demonstrate the difficulty of drawing 1 absolutely right line in any given situation!

In any case, it appears people instinctively like to draw absolute lines, in all likelihood because they are slaves to their egos' pursuits. The problem with this is the lines themselves are arbitrary because lines are ultimately predicated on discontinuities whereas issues in life, especially the most difficult ones, are predicated on continuities. Therein lies the root of all (intelligent) controversy!

It is tempting to believe there is a discrete point whereby a fertilized egg becomes a baby worthy of protection. Just the same, it is tempting to believe there is a discrete point whereby a person is becoming of a given entitlement. But this is all opinion no doubt shaped by each person's perspective. Project this argument on all issues in life, especially the most difficult ones.

Can we all just learn to get along with all of our differences by realizing nobody is “absolutely” right?

From Where Do Words Come?

One of my clients asked me whether “bacheloring” is a word, for whatever reason. I thought to myself, “why does it matter whether it is a word?” I told her to make it a word!

Who, can we reasonably ask, is the Authority on introducing new words? God? Some super smart person? Presumably new words must come into existence here and there, otherwise how would we have any?

Were all existing words meant to be as if some cosmic force necessitated them to be so? Decidedly not! Words do not seem to be like, say, gravity. For no matter whether we want gravity to be this way or that, it is only exactly the way it is. The same can not be said of words. They are merely arbitrary conventions.

But once again, who is entitled to make the determination as to what can or will be a word? Does it require an advanced degree in astrophysics? Computer science? Perhaps in English or Mandarin? How about requiring only somebody confident and assertive enough to make a word a word? Anybody can do this! There are few things more arbitrary than words. Except maybe opinions?