Personal Scandal?

To me, the idea of somebody being “personal” to somebody else implies in some way a type of “bribe”. For one could say I am being “personal” to a friend of mine who happens to be competing for a contract by giving it to him simply for that reason. In other words, my choosing this friend has less to do with him being the best contractor and more to do with the fact that he is my friend. Hence, my “personal” response to him is essentially a “bribe”.

Now if it just so happens my friend is the best contractor for the job and as a result I choose him, it is not a “bribe” as it were nor is it “personal” in any way. It is simply on account of him being the best contractor for the job! With this insight then, the idea of a “personal” interaction between God and individual seems almost scandalous or at least highly suspect.

It is quite interesting to apply this same principal to the contempt society seems to harbor toward politicians that do this same thing. But if politicians are criticized for engaging in these kinds of personal favors (aka bribes), why is it us "average Joes" are not criticized for doing the same thing*?

For instance, many favor doing business only with those that represent groups they identify with and/or support. "I need a plumber! Does anyone know of a good Christian plumber?" If one is to avoid the implicit bribery and scandal inherent in this type of decision making, he should choose the best plumber regardless of his religious persuasion or lack thereof. Otherwise, this decision is but a personal favor (aka a bribe).


*Presumably many will claim that politicians are called to a higher standard than us "average Joes"! But then how would we determine the "threshold" at which this kind of "personal bribery" goes from something that is 1) simply expected and perhaps even respected to something that is 2) downright sleazy and scandalous?

The Internet: A Blessing Or A Curse?

Personalized internet filters are a great way to provide only the content each individual prefers. This seems very convenient and fairly innocuous concerning somebody's favorite types of movies and music. But what about tailoring an individual's news sources (most of which today is merely opinion and rhetoric) only to those that are preferred? What is bound to stem from this?

People become so identified with their chosen perspectives which only further reinforces the polarity of today's society. How then are we ever to settle life's most pressing issues?

In this regard, though we may exercise our freedom by listening only to those "news" sources that appeal to us, what does this systematically lead to? Enslavement to very narrow-minded perspectives. In this case, our freedom to listen to preferred news sources becomes a paradox in itself: ironically it leads to enslavement.

An interesting corollary to this is that one's perception of reality seems to become more “real” than reality itself, in turn exacerbating the already existing polarity causing more resentment, more hatred, more suspicion and other such destructive thoughts.

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?

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?

God And Bioethical Considerations

The more I ponder the discipline of bioethics, the more I become dissuaded of the existence of God. At least a God that could reasonably intervene on our behalf such that He might be considered personal. The ironic thing is this comes in response to having read Francis Collins' “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”. Ironic in that he is a self-professed Christian.

In the end, trying to “fit” a wonderful, personal God into the obviously callous and cruel nature of reality seems to necessitate absurd explanations as to why a child would be born with cystic fibrosis, something or other.

Concerning the discipline of genetic engineering, it would seem that God can choose to be either personal to the wishes of those who believe genetic engineering in all its grandeur is an affront to His authority or personal to the wishes of those who believe He has given us the fortitude and perhaps even His blessing to reverse these genetic “oversights”. In other words, he can't be personal to both.

With this realization, it becomes difficult to endorse the idea that God is personal to us all. Perhaps He is personal to NOBODY?

If one outright rejects this supposition, a challenging follow-up question to the notion of this Creator being personal is personal to whom? I have pondered this extensively and have concluded, perhaps regrettably to many, that the idea of a personal God does not seem to overcome simple scrutiny. How can God be personal to all of us when it seems the vast majority of our prayers and desires seem to conflict with that of other faithful followers? For instance, how would God personally intervene in the lives of countless God-fearing males all seeking the affection of the same God-fearing female?

If one chooses to overlook this “problem”, he is burying his head in the sand like an ostrich to deny what is perfectly obvious.

Alternatively, if one believes God is personal, this would of course imply that He is personal to him. Does this not seem of utmost arrogance? Where is the humility?

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.