The Symmetry Of Space And Time

Classical theories on physics are all fine and dandy.....until one seriously ponders physics at its QUANTUM level.....

Something has been bugging me as of late. Although the speed of light (186,000 some odd miles per SECOND) seems very fast, what puzzles me more than this "quashing" of speed we pathetic humans could ever dare comprehend is the ramifications this has on SPACE ITSELF!

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, as one approaches the speed of light, time dilates.....in other words, when compared to another body closer to "rest", time for the body moving very quickly transpires more slowly.*

But because Einstein's theory of special relativity creates symmetry between space and time.....space ITSELF actually shrinks along with the slowing of time!

So to reiterate, as one approaches the speed of light, time dilates and space shrinks.....but perhaps most interestingly, as one ATTAINS the speed of light, time ceases to tick at all and space shrinks down to a singularity! Perhaps OMNIPRESENCE is theoretically attainable at the SPEED OF LIGHT?

In this case, could it be possible (OR PERHAPS OBLIGATORY) that ONE photon of light explains the WHOLE universe? For if SINGLE photons of light can FOREVER travel at the speed of light and at this speed time COMPLETELY dilates, would it not seem a SINGLE photon could be EVERYWHERE simultaneously and hence explain the WHOLE of the universe?

Could this hypothetical "SINGLE" entity be GOD? If so, what would this GOD look like?

IF this God constitutes EVERYTHING, perhaps God is "ALL OF US AND EVERYTHING"? Pardon the offense, but this would include CHILD MOLESTERS, FECES, RAPISTS, AND EVERYTHING WE HUMANS ASSOCIATE WITH "TERRIBLENESS"! Don't forget that this would include all that is considered DIVINE as well! 



*Of course the dilemma in determining which body is moving faster is entirely dependent on the chosen reference frame. For example, imagine Johnny is running toward the back of a train moving at 80mph. Further suppose his none-to-pleased father is resting comfortably in his seat. Who is moving faster? If one's chosen reference frame is the train, clearly Johnny is moving faster. But if one's chosen reference frame is the ground, clearly his father is moving faster.

Let's Just Cut The Crap.....

Incentives, incentives, INCENTIVES! Will you please give me more incentives to do the very things I claim to value so highly? If this is how we think as a society, then we value nothing but reward and recognition.

This is a tacit admission that we do not value the very things we claim to value. Rather, we value predominantly, perhaps only, reward and recognition. Not that this is wrong or bad, nor particularly right or good either. Apparently it just is what it is.

With this in mind then, can we cut the crap about claiming to value things in themselves and realize that what we are ultimately after is reward and recognition? Examples follow:

- We need to offer children incentives for working hard in school!
- We need incentives to compel people to better care for themselves!
- We need tax write-offs for charitable donations (to our selfishly selected causes)!
- We need God (or at least belief in Him/Her/It) in order to compel us to be compassionate and merciful
- We need belief in reward and punishment rendered by God to compel us to seek virtue and avoid depravity
- We need others' approval to validate our beliefs and actions

Counterpoint: we shouldn't NEED any of these things if we value, or at least claim to value the underlying values themselves!

My own suspicion is we do not value the values, rather we value only what benefits can be had (if this isn't selfish, what is?) through the practice of said values.

In the end, if society takes an honest account of what it actually values, I'm afraid INCENTIVES are a necessity. For if there were no incentives to do the things we claim to value so highly, I can only imagine the result: a totally self-absorbed society devoid of feeling or sympathy for anything outside of selfishly chosen causes.

What's doubly alarming is that oftentimes the practicing of our selfishly chosen causes is ultimately at the mercy of incentives! Which implies we value very little other than reward and recognition via incentives.

For atheists, this comes as no surprise and is logically concluded. For theists, on the other hand, an account must be made of our ultimately selfish behavior.

How Do YOU Derive Meaning In Life?

Ultimately, existence could be seen as pointless regardless of what is believed or not.

If one who would otherwise be bad is good simply to meet the demands of God, it could be construed as meaningless. This is merely bribery or manipulation.

Alternatively, if one is terrible only because he believes God's grace will suffice, it could also be construed as meaningless. This is sheer arrogance!

Or if one is terrible only because he believes nothing, this could be viewed as meaningless too. If there is no God to appease, his only “hope” seems to be bettering himself at the apparent expense of everybody else. There is just something “cold” about this.

On the other hand, one who believes nothing but is nonetheless good could be viewed as meaningless as well. Why be good if it precludes him from maximizing his own desires and ambitions?

And last, one could be good independent of his belief but believe anyway. This could be seen as meaningless because why would he believe if he was already good? Possibly his only reason for believing is that he genuinely believes it to be true as opposed to believing only because he thinks great benefits will ensue and/or he will avoid eternal judgment.

Refer to my discussions on the nature of belief and it will reinforce my argument that belief's only worthwhile contribution is that it can, not necessarily will, make otherwise bad people good or at least relatively better. The reason I say it can as opposed to will make people good or better is because some people systematically become worse through the use of arrogant self-righteousness.

My point here is not to sow hopelessness. It is to demonstrate that because we are all different, there are numerous ways to find meaning in life.

Must Heaven Be Larger Than A Narrow Box?

Why are views regarding who will go to heaven and who will not seem to be getting less restrictive? Because as different cultures with different religious views come together as a result of globalization, it becomes more and more apparent that exclusive views are no longer tenable.

In the USA, for example, the European settlers (invaders might better describe it for the realist) came over here and decimated the native people and subsequently adopted a predominantly Christian landscape. Up until the USA started seeing substantial numbers of non-Christian peoples, there were largely Christians and atheists. Even now, though probably not as much, atheists are thought of as largely expendable and as such it is easy to believe they will not get into heaven and worse yet will suffer eternity in hell.

But what about a wonderful neighbor who happens to be a Muslim, Buddhist or member of some other belief system? Is one prepared to believe these people will not adopt a place in heaven solely because they did not adhere to or believe in the “right” system? Increasingly less so I would say.

So what is a believer in "some will go to heaven and some will go to hell" to do with this new reality? Most will simply conjure up their own arbitrary belief to circumvent this dilemma. “God will ultimately evaluate us based on intentions,” something or other. (see How Will We Be Judged? for further consideration)

But then how does belief have anything to do with this? If we are evaluated on the basis of belief, then one must believe. On the other hand, if it is based on the purity and intention of a person's heart, why does belief matter in the least?

Does God Prefer Paternalism Or Self-Reliance?

I shall preface this by supposing a paternalistic and socialistic society of God's would not seem oppressive or evil because it would be the choice (perhaps this "choice" could only ever be conceived through God's use of force and manipulation?) of every member to partake in “spreading wealth and resources evenly”.

In any case, I want to digress into a discussion concerning believers in God and their thoughts on how society should view paternalism and self-reliance from a purportedly “Godly” perspective.

First off, is it not painfully obvious that any view of this dichotomy is completely arbitrary? Some will espouse a God that inspires complete self-reliance whereas others will espouse a God that inspires complete paternalism. But of course far more will espouse a God that is some combination of the two. The overly confident will arrogantly assume God desires whatever combination of self-reliance and paternalism they deem ideal.

But I don't think “God”, whatever one sees as God, can be placed in one of these groups (or even in a combination of them) because they are merely interpreted by the limited perspective inherent in an individual. But God's perspective can not be individual. God's perspective must be collective. And I think God's interpretation of these ideals is that they are both good and bad, both true and false simultaneously. Neither is ideal in itself nor is any combination thereof because we humans are forever engrossed in a collective struggle, especially of ideals.

Ultimately, I believe God's view on this (again, whatever God might mean to you) is for humanity to be One such that it is the desire and choice of all humanity to share wealth and resources freely. In this sense, it is socialism through desire and choice not through force and manipulation. I am NOT by any means claiming this is what we should strive for, or am I?

In any case, this is my view as to how God sees it. Whether most, including myself, are willing to deliberately embrace a socialistic society seems very far-fetched. Is this perchance what makes it ideal? Perhaps this is why most envision heaven as a place beyond here?* For they very much wish to experience a totally socialistic society, perhaps unconsciously, but have it not in them to embrace this because it would entail redistributing their (my) coveted wealth and status.

I think Jesus advocated a socialistic society predicated on choice, not through government force or manipulation nor guilt for that matter. However, it seems governments must ultimately force or manipulate. Otherwise nobody wants to pay for and/or support necessities outside their interest(s). Everybody wants to party but nobody wants to clean up! In any case, Jesus talks about giving out of the heart, not doing so out of a sense of duty or obligation. Giving out of a sense of duty or obligation will likely lead to resentment, bitterness, guilt and perhaps above all feelings of self-righteous entitlement. This seems to be our Achilles' Heel if you happen to be one that envisions a world such as this. On the other hand, if you are one who sees the current world as ideal, maybe it is not an Achilles' Heel at all. Maybe it is exactly as it should be!

Many (especially the religious among us masquerading under the auspices of "working for God") will correctly but naively claim this type of society would undermine incentive and motivation to put forth maximum effort or any at all. The problem with this is that it implies they are motivated only for the sake of reward and compensation. But then what becomes of their claimed or at least IMPLIED pretext of "working for God"?

Furthermore, if everybody imagines a “heavenly” realm where we are all of us perfectly happy and harmonious, might this be a place where we are all equally endowed with resources yet feel not the least bit cheated because we are so happy and fulfilled being ourselves and hence doing that which we love? In this way, wealth would be of little importance. I am not by any means claiming this to be my reality nor am I necessarily suggesting society should follow this model. I am simply pointing out that peoples' conception(s) of what heaven is or should be, literally or figuratively, seems to mimic this. Which suggests people want this type of society. The question is, why must we wait?

Presumably because many (including moi) can not bear the thought of parting ways with our hard-earned wealth and status. This is why many leave it to God in the "Great Beyond" to change their attitude. As in, “God, I can not embrace a socialistic attitude here. It would require me to share everything I own with all others, many of which I do not care for in the least. I would like You to change my attitude when I get to heaven so I can willingly embrace sharing with all Your miscreants.” Of course most ideas of heaven are devoid of materiality rendering the idea of sharing irrelevant anyway! Such is the absurdity inherent in these kinds of ideas when scrutinized even in the least.



*Please see further corollary to heaven in the following blog posts:
 
A Heavenly Realm
A New Take On Heaven
The Collective Struggle Of Existence

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!

Is Man Trustworthy?

It's funny how those with dogmatic views on "hot-button" issues so arbitrarily justify or deny the democratic process. For instance, concerning referendums to sanction gay marriage, if the majority votes in favor of not legalizing gay marriage, the vociferous "anti-gay marriage" advocates will claim that "man's" verdict is the infallible truth. What a great service democracy is for humanity! 

But how does one suppose these same "anti-gay marriage" advocates would respond if 75% of voters were in favor of legalizing it? "Well, ah, this verdict just, um, demonstrates how sinful and depraved we are, uh, as a society!" We must, therefore, seek God's counsel on this issue! Of course a truly open-minded interpretation of "God's Word" doesn't really have anything to say about gay marriage one way or the other.

Are you starting to see that behind this kind of reasoning is NOT God but competing EGOS all trying to have things their way? Perhaps many of us have taken Burger King's advice a bit too far?

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.

The Relativity Of "Absolute" Truth

It's funny how people interpret things in contradictory fashions. For instance, in this new age of greater tolerance, non-denominational churches typically gain members at the others' expense. The proponents of non-denominational churches then go on to claim that God is blessing churches that address the importance of being “relevant” to today's more tolerant and pluralistic society. 

What will the dwindling sects claim? That Jesus said the path of truth is very narrow and the general masses turning away from this “narrow path of truth” is incontrovertible evidence that theirs is the one and only “true” path.

Notice how each justifies whatever is in a very ad hoc manner. This is why I say “absolute” truth is simply a concoction of the ego. Alas, this nicely explains why there are so many opposing claims of “absolute” truth.

A Futile Argument: Attempting To Make God Necessary For Moral Values To Be Meaningful

The more one tries to convince others that moral precepts have no value apart from God, the more he demeans the values themselves. This is problematic as it implies that values, such as compassion and forgiveness, are only meaningful if it is believed they originate with God. This is a complete MOCKERY of Him! 

How so? Well, it essentially implies that the only reason said moral precepts are followed is to avoid angering God or perhaps just to curry favor with Him, aka "bribery". But if I were God, which thankfully I am NOT, it would insult Me more that My children were following My "good" moral precepts only out of fear and perhaps in order to curry favor with Me as opposed to following them simply because they were deemed good in themselves!

Once again, it is as if one is saying, "OK God, I will be frank with you. I think your moral precepts are pretty lame but if they are the values you want me to live by, then I will do so (with at least a hint of reluctance). Now if one denies this, he is simply acknowledging that God is not necessary for moral precepts to have meaning.

Should The People Decide?

Concerning an issue like gay marriage, should it be determined by a public referendum? If so, should a public referendum in favor of slavery be valid just the same (as I'm sure society would have at some point in the past favored)? If not, why should a public referendum against or even in favor of gay marriage be any more valid just because a majority of its citizens desire it? Just the same, what would a public referendum in Nazi Germany have yielded? Perhaps solidarity with Nazi propaganda?

Majority opinion on a given issue does not necessarily make it right or good, nor does it necessarily make it wrong or bad. How then are we to know what "progress" really is? It seems neither majority opinion nor supposedly benevolent politicians offer any clear answers to this. Perhaps we should seek God to shed light on such matters? If so, the question now becomes, whose God?

Even if majority opinion suggests we follow "God X" (of course as per my fundamental argument even this is dubious), there is still no consensus as to how we are to view "God X" anyway. Does "God X" want a society built upon self-reliance (strive for a more capitalistic approach) or does He prefer a society built upon reliance on Himself and by extrapolation others (strive for a more socialistic approach)? Does He want society to be conformed or tolerant? Does He want a society that places judgment on our failures and scandals or grace, mercy and forgiveness? Does He want a society that embraces ecological balance even at the expense of humanity or does He prefer a society that places utmost importance and care on humanity?

Of course the obvious response to these questions would be to say that God's "truth" lies somewhere in the "middle" of all these dichotomies. But this obfuscates the problem just the same because there is no consensus as to what the "middle" actually entails. Ultimately, people harbor conflicting views of the same God!

Who then can we necessarily trust? Not the masses, surely. Neither can we trust allegedly benevolent politicians. Nor apparently even GOD!* How about trusting ourselves as individuals? I must confess that this scares the living daylights out of me! Trust myself? In any case, how shall we address our intense disagreements? 



*I can't help but think peoples' supposed "trust in God" is simply a proxy for trusting themselves. In other words, it is a projection of EGO onto "all-knowing and infallible God". This in turn elevates peoples' mere opinions to stratospheric "holier than thou" heights because after all, they come not from self but from GOD. So in essence, we seem to arrive back at the idea of trusting ourselves as individuals. But once again, how shall we address our intense disagreements?

What's Your Favorite Color?

There is a story based on ancient Greek thought concerning a professor who teaches a young boy law without charging tuition. It is only stipulated that fees be collected upon the boy's first successful case. However, after countless hours of being taught law, the boy decides to become a musician instead, much to the chagrin of his professor.

Wanting to collect fees from the boy, the professor figures he can sue the boy and win whether the court rules in his favor or not. His reasoning is thus: if he wins, the court rules the boy must pay tuition fees but even if he loses, the boy wins his first case, which, as per the agreement, would entitle the boy to pay up. The boy, who represents himself in the matter, sees things in a slightly different light. If he loses, obviously nothing is owed the professor because he fails to win his first case. But even if he wins his first case, the court rules in his favor meaning he owes nothing to the professor. So who is right?

Both are right. Each argument is logically sound. This paradox has puzzled many a philosopher for centuries without resolution. It is impossible to resolve this with any sort of “absolute” solution. Ultimately, whichever “right” answer is chosen is as subjective as one's favorite color. Neither answer is the moral imperative. This is how I see much of reality. I think this paradox illustrates why accepting alternative viewpoints is so beneficial for society. We need to stop claiming there is necessarily a good/bad or right/wrong dichotomy to everything just as a means to feel more right(eous). I used to discredit the idea that what is right for one is not necessarily right for another as liberal nonsense but in light of the aforementioned argument I now deem this mantra valid.

An example of this argument might concern God and fairness. What is fairness concerning financial matters? Many “conservative” people believe God's fairness concerning financial prosperity is based on the idea that one should reap what he sows. People that are smart and productive will thrive whereas those that are not will struggle. Where then is the grace (as in a man should not reap what he sows)?

On the other hand, the more “liberal” types tend to believe God's fairness concerning prosperity is based on the idea that one should not reap what he sows. Prosperity should in this case be distributed more evenly than will naturally occur thus necessitating higher income redistribution. Take wealth from productive people and give it to those, God bless 'em, that just don't want to produce or are very poor at it. There is of course grace here but where is the personal responsibility (as in a man should reap what he sows)?

Before progressing further, I want to say it is my belief that both of these viewpoints are valid or invalid if you like. In other words, neither is a moral imperative in itself. They are different ways of dealing with the fact that reality as we experience it is a trade-off.

Many staunch conservatives will claim liberals use income redistribution as a means to buy votes. And this certainly is true. But can not the liberal perspective claim the same thing concerning conservative dogma? “If you vote for me, I will create income tax sanctuaries for your hard earned dollars!” It is the same method of “buying” votes that liberals use so effectively.

It is so hard for one side to see the other as being in any way valid because each so badly wants to be “absolutely” right. The challenge in dealing with this conservative/liberal dichotomy is that we ultimately must reach a compromise because there is little chance either extreme would or could ever happen.

And herein lies the dilemma. What is the “proper” level of moderation concerning, for instance, taxes and income redistribution? It's just like picking a favorite color! We will be arguing about this for the rest of time to no avail! How about trading democracy for a dictatorship?

Though many will likely cringe at the thought of a dictatorship, who do people think rules Heaven? The Supreme (perhaps benevolent) Dictator a.k.a. GOD. So what could possibly be wrong with a dictatorship? Maybe democracy isn't the optimal form of government after all? So what's your favorite color?

The Power Of Metaphor

It is my opinion that those who take an overly literal interpretation of any given belief often and easily become distracted from any real meaning said belief might contain. Real meaning in the sense that it can provide practical insights with which to approach life and its associated problems which will arise sooner or later if they have not already.

For instance, taking the story of Adam and Eve literally, I get distracted by the talking snake. No amount of pleading has or ever will compel me to believe this literally. There is just no rational reason for me to believe there has ever been a snake that talked (except, of course, in the world of Harry Potter).

Literalists might figuratively (pardon the irony) feel compelled to argue such details as the type, size and venomousness of snake God or Satan might have appointed to the task of leading humanity astray. But this kind of information serves no practical purpose in dealing with life's matters. However, if this story is taken but metaphorically, it easily becomes meaningful.

I have dealt with this story specifically elsewhere, so I will summarize. Adam and Eve were “told” not to eat from the forbidden tree. It matters not whether God or an authority figure or perhaps even their individual consciences “told” them not to eat of the tree. What matters is that they rebelled against this “command” and it cost them dearly. As a result of this transgression, they became aware of their nakedness and were ashamed, whereas before they knew not even the concept of shame. They squandered away their “innocence”! Once this decision was made, it set into motion a host of negative repercussions precluding a return to “the good 'ole days”. Dealing with the painful consequences of this misdeed then became a prerequisite for any further progress. This is meaningful.

Imagine if people used this metaphor as a tool to avoid making rash or unwise decisions regarding any number of issues in life. One who is tempted to try cocaine, for instance, may want to ponder the meaning of this metaphor before he tries it. Cocaine is very addictive and as a result its use commonly leads to ruined or at least greatly hampered lives only because it was tried just once. The same can be said of young teen-age couples “creating” babies thus greatly limiting their potential options in life. Any number of different scenarios can be supposed making it personal to all of us.

Remember, when people lust for short-term gratification, there is likely despair and anguish in the long-term. Add to this the fact that everything is a trade-off and this metaphor becomes an encouragement to think twice before giving into temptation especially when it involves trading long-term benefit for short-term gain. This is but one of myriad ways a metaphor like this can be applied practically. I love metaphors because they beg us to ponder their meaning(s)!

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!

The Evolution Trap: Balancing Belief In The Biblical God With Intellectual Credibility

Many are reluctant to reject evolution outright fearing they will undermine their intellectual credibility. However, it becomes problematic to posit any sort of quasi evolution because at some point, difficult lines must be drawn necessitating choices that seem to preclude any sort of "middle ground".

For many claim they believe in evolution but NOT Darwin's strictly atheistic sort. At this point, it becomes a different flavor of evolution entirely. As such, why not just fabricate another name for this distinct ideology? For instance, if one is led to believe in evolution just enough so as to avoid jeopardizing his intellectual credibility but not enough to challenge his deep-seated religious convictions, he might believe any given species can evolve but outright reject inter-species evolution. And also likely believe "man" was lovingly crafted by God Himself.

In this way, God, whatever that might mean to somebody, got the ball rolling such that evolution (of lower level organisms at least) became necessary and "man" itself was specially created "as is, ready to go right out of the box!" Strictly speaking though, this is simply "creationism" all over again. For it is "God" Who simply paved the way for lower level evolution and custom engineered "man". In essence, He created. So why not just call this "Creationism 2.0"?

Carefully reflecting upon the beliefs of Francis Collins, the current Director of the National Institutes of Health, a seemingly insurmountable obstruction to believing in both evolution and the idea of a "God breathed soul" must be accounted for. In his book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief", there is something crucial he fails to explain: if we evolved from primates, at what discrete point did "WE" attain our coveted souls?

As such, if I were to investigate my family's lineage, it seems going back far enough would produce forebears something less than human. Oh how I grieve there being no chance to meet them in the afterlife only because they lacked souls! Did God think about this?

Now if one supposes primates have souls like "US", why would it stop here? What other species might be endowed with souls as well? Might mosquitoes have them too? As such, from where do we derive our moral justification for putting OURSELVES above all other species if many of them have souls just like us?

On the other hand, one can simply appeal to the unfalsifiable stand of, "well, that's just how God wants things!" The problem with this is it explains NOTHING. This type of view prohibits any sort of critical thinking. Perhaps that's just how God wants things? My own suspicion is "God" is simply a proxy for individual egos. In which case, how does "God" want things? However YOU say.

A Challenging Thought Experiment For The Believer

For those who buy “hook, line and sinker” C.S. Lewis' argument about Jesus being either Lord, lunatic or liar (of course implied as the “evil” type), what is your appraisal of Christ's teachings in themselves?

As I have said before, if people are led to believe his teachings are only meaningful if he literally is the son of God and literally rose from the dead, this is problematic. For it is essentially a tacit admission that everything he taught lacks meaning in itself. Hence the reason many fervently add the caveat that we must literally believe in his claim of being God and literally believe in his resurrection for our respect toward him to be “valid” in any way.

The problem with Lewis' implication of Jesus being a lunatic if he is not literally God is that upon scrutinizing his teachings (the vast majority of them at least), it is difficult to argue they have come from the mouth of a crazed lunatic. Now if one rejects this argument, is he not making a scathing indictment of Christ's teachings by insinuating they have come from the mouth of a crazed lunatic?

I have thought up a valid reason Jesus, as merely a highly enlightened human being, may have felt led to equate himself to God without being so. I do not really “believe” this. I simply offer it as a “thought experiment” to expose a truth of profound importance. Imagine Jesus going about his days with an incredibly enlightened mind which he very much wanted to share with the world. As he goes about introducing his ideas, many people display keen interest and attraction to him. The more curious people become of his eccentric and “other worldly” ideas, the more inclined they are to ask him whether he is God. Initially, he is honest. “No, I am not.” This seems to dissuade people from listening to him anymore. But upon further questioning, he eventually responds, “yes, behold, I am God!”

Why might he do this? Because he is an “evil” liar? No, because he badly wants to share his enlightenment with others and it just so happens the most “efficient” way, perhaps only way, to get people to want to hear what he has to say is by propagating the idea that he is in fact God. Would this be “bad” lying? I hardly think so (though I fully sympathize with one that posits all lying to be bad in itself*).

In this case, he is neither Lord nor lunatic nor “evil” liar. Perhaps he is a liar of the “good” sort? “Good” not only as in cunning but morally as well. What “good”, of the moral type, would lying do in this case? Bring hope and meaning to people, including myself!

This “thought experiment”, as I alluded to previously, exposes a truth of profound importance. What truth might this be? That it does not matter whether Jesus was literally who he claimed to be! If one finds meaning in what he taught, then it is meaningful in itself rendering insignificant whether Jesus was literally who he said he was. On the other hand, to deny this is to denigrate all that he taught, implying any faith in God's “divine” precepts to be nothing but a complete mockery!


*Though if one posits all lying to be bad in itself, he must uphold this moral imperative absolutely. As such, if you are a parent or future one, do you hereby promise not to indoctrinate your kids with the "lies" of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny among many other innocuous lies? Husbands with overly large pregnant wives, if she asks you whether she resembles that of a beached whale, will you be honest? Are we probably better off being lied to by our government as to how it protects us from enemies? Perhaps you might like to recant your conviction that all lying is bad in itself?

Those Greedy Bastards!

Where does greed begin? In other words, at what discrete point does one's action(s) become that of greed? What with all the financial and other problems people are experiencing with this latest recession (2009), it seems almost obligatory for emotions to quickly and confidently allot blame and create all manner of scapegoats in the process. Those greedy bastards they are!

This sentiment is or at least seems well justified but which select few are the “true” greedy bastards at which to channel our anger? Isn't it obvious? Or is it? It seems apparent which are overly greedy and which are not greedy in the least, but what about the vast majority of us that seem neither greedy nor not greedy in the least? Where do we fit?

Can each of us be labeled either greedy or not greedy in the least? Not likely because if there is a discrete point at which one becomes greedy, this seems unfair because the person only slightly higher on this “scale of greed” will be looked at in a totally different light. Meaning, a person who is only slightly more inclined to greed than another is greedy whereas the other is not greedy in the least.

Of course it is obvious what the typical response will be to reconcile this dilemma. We all possess varying levels of greediness! In other words, there exists a great chasm between greediness and lack thereof spanning a continuous spectrum. With this admission though, it seems we have simply recreated the original dilemma.

Once again, where does greed begin? If assessing greediness must be done on a continuous spectrum, what level of greediness is the threshold by which one is to be labeled greedy? On the other hand, we could ask the opposite. By how much must one lessen his greed so as not to be labeled greedy?

Here is the crux of the issue. Only arbitrarily can we ever determine this. Suffice it to say, there will not be consensus on this. So who is “right”? All of us? Or perhaps none of us? What do you think? What might God think?

See link below for further discussion:

The Machine That Is Greed
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/machine-that-is-greed.html

An Inescapable Truth About Belief

If a religious believer does good deeds beyond which he would otherwise do as a nonbeliever, these superfluous deeds are clearly motivated by reward and/or fear of judgment. In this sense, these “good” deeds seem to lack authenticity. As such, they are merely contrived.

Now, if the believer says that he would perform all his good deeds even if he didn’t believe, then why does he believe? Because it redeems his soul something or other? Belief can actually do something? Well then, in that case, I can't help but think Satan would be saved as well. For how could Satan thwart God’s plans and lead us astray so easily if he didn't believe in and know God.

The point here is to demonstrate how meaningless belief is. Ultimately, a person is what he does and not what he believes or at least claims to believe. See link below for further corollary to this:

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2010/04/obfuscating-christian-doctrine-of.html

The Delusion Of Impartiality

I don't get it.....all this concern and fear that potential judges might base their rulings on politics? Might? Of course they will rule based on politics! That is the whole point! Why would one suppose die-hard conservatives and bleeding-heart liberals find it so important that one of their own is chosen to judge? Presumably so these judges will make decisions that cater to their preferred political positions. Trouble is, it is guaranteed to piss off “the others”!

In my opinion, potential judges should ideally be apolitical. Could this ever happen? Is it even possible for anybody to rule impartially without politics getting in the way? Probably not. As the eminent Canadian physician-philosopher Sir William Osler told the Yale University graduating class in 1913, “every man has a philosophy of life in thought, word, or in deed, worked out in himself unconsciously.

The following analogy quite clearly exposes the absurdity of believing court rulings can ever be free of political preferences. Take a conservative judge and a liberal one. To digress slightly, the fact that these labels are acknowledged to begin with demonstrates the utter futility of trying to approach judgments apart from political preferences. In any case, suppose the conservative believes criminals should be judged to the full extent of the law. On the other hand, suppose the liberal believes criminals should be extended grace. Further suppose our “Book of Law” is the Holy Bible. Can each justify a ruling based on his preferred political position?

Certainly, because the Bible endorses both judgment and grace. Our Constitution is no different in this respect. This “gray” area is the cause of all argument and conflict. By advocating different perspectives, we can reach contradictory but equally valid conclusions. Which is “right”? Both or neither if you like. It is difficult if not impossible to avoid making decisions based on political inclinations! Especially from judges that outright claim specific affiliations.

In the same way, the U.S. Constitution supposedly calls for doing "whatever need be" to protect its citizens but then it also prohibits the torturing of enemy combatants. Do these guidelines seem contradictory at least in some cases*? Yes! Therefore, no matter whether we do this or that, it will justifiably be viewed as subverting the Constitution from one perspective or another! When difficult decisions like this are faced, YOU ARE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON'T!

*Because of the relativity of just about everything, one can easily craft definitions of things in such ways as to neutralize or at least mitigate these contradictions. For instance, those who wish to get information from enemy combatants in any way conceivable will thus define torture as something apart from what THEY do. Alternatively, those who want to coddle dangerous enemy combatants will thus argue that withholding the use of torture will not place any greater a danger on its citizens than will torturing them.

Therefore, there is no RIGHT answer. Or if you prefer, perhaps we could say there is no WRONG answer!

Dilemma Of A Freethinker

Let's suppose only freethinkers without belief in a personal God have difficulty finding meaning in life. This is of course nowhere near actuality, but bear with me for the sake of argument. In this case, it is commonly asserted that the reason a freethinker becomes depressed is because he does not acknowledge and, therefore, have faith in a personal God. Instead, he attempts to explain life through thought and rationality and as such is precluded from believing in any sort of personal deity.

Well then, why might he become depressed apart from belief in a personal God? Of course many will confidently assert that only belief in God can ever fulfill him and provide meaning. In this case, it is obvious why he becomes depressed. Because he does not tap into the “treasure chest” that is God.

But an opposing perspective could just as easily claim the reason this freethinker depressingly concludes life has no meaning is because there ultimately is no personal God and hence, the only way to avoid feeling depressed about life's meaninglessness is to just believe in something warm and fuzzy regardless of whether it is actually true or even remotely likely to be true. But of course once one has acknowledged this thought, it is too late. 

There is just no way a freethinker can now decide to “believe” something warm and fuzzy simply for the sake of believing something warm and fuzzy. I am a freethinker and believe there is meaning in life apart from belief in a personal God. In this way, life can be absolutely meaningful.

As I've alluded to previously, a personal God might exist but I see more meaning without belief in Him because belief in Him would simply render any meaning I have in life relative, contingent upon my believing He's there. And if meaning in life is merely relative, it can not be absolutely meaningful. Can it?