What is Faith?

Faith is not "belief in spite of proof." Faith is "belief in the absence of proof."

This is an important distinction to me. It amazes me how many "Christians" I meet who try their best to deny, and even disprove, Evolution. Yet curiously, the same people are not vigorously trying to disprove the theory of gravity, or general relativity, or quantum mechanics.

I recently read an article which gave a wonderful definition of "fact". As it stands, nothing can truly be none as 100% factual. After all, you could always question the very nature of existence itself (perhaps we are all just dreaming). So scientifically, fact is generally accepted to mean that the probability is so great that there is no meaningful reason not to support that idea. The fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is only factual in so far as - there is no meaningful reason to consider that it wouldn't.

Now based on that definition, evolution is a fact. There has been no legitimate scientific discourse in the last 100 years that has attempted to suggest otherwise. What is currently unknown is the mechanisms which cause Evolution. But it is a fact, that all life on Earth has evolved from simpler organisms and will continue to evolve.

But back to the matter at hand... So many absolutely refuse to accept this "fact" based on the false pretense of "faith". I call it false, because they believe they are being faithful - by continuing to believe in the Bible, rather than all rational evidence at hand. This is not faith. Faith is not the blind acceptance of spiritual ideas that contradict all natural evidence. If you want to know how the natural world was formed and continues to form, you need only understand the natural facts. If you want to have faith in spiritual possibilities, you must have faith in the absence of all proof - because the natural, physical world will never provide you with any proof of the spiritual world.

Faith is not belief in spite of proof. Faith is belief in the absence of proof.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Philosophy Reborn

Continuing on from my previous concepts... I have 2 basic theories...

1) The objective basis for moral and ethical behavior has its origins with the evolution of the human species. Those actions which provided the greatest advantage for survival were ultimately deemed "morally good".
2) As such, most of our actions are not determined by active "choices". Rather, we "react" based on our genetic predispositions. Humans have the unique characteristic of utilizing "will power" when external forces persuade us to act contrary to our genetic predispositions.

So one question (not yet addressed) is... How/Why have we developed such complex notions of free will, and the entire philosophical study of morality and ethics (deontology, consequentialism, etc...)? In other words - if my theory is correct, how/why are those other theories incorrect?

Evolution is responsible for producing variations in species which allow for greater adaptation and survival. Not all mutations are advantageous though; it's simply trial and error. Early, in a certain primates development, one species developed the capacity to "reason". That is - he/she developed greater mental capacities that allowed them to put more complex thoughts together. This lead to several other advancements: utilization of tools, language, specialization of duties, etc.... And although "reason" would prove to be a significant advantage, it would ultimately allow humans to diverge from the natural processes of "natural selection". In some ways, humans simply rebelled from evolution in much the same way we have recurring fears that computer AI may one day rebel against its human creators... that all-important concept of "self-awareness".

The strategic advantage brought about by "specialization of duties" ultimately allowed something new... spare time. Once humans were no longer in a constant state of survival, they had time to think. And their processes were probably no different than people today (relatively speaking of course). "Who am I? Why am I here? What is my purpose? Etc...?" This is when reason turned to one of its main faults... It attempted to explain the unknown using the only thing it had - what it sees every day. Thus the complex functions of nature were attributed to anthropomorphic creations...gods created in the image of man. Most of these early religions focused less on the moral and ethical issues of right and wrong, but instead merely attempted to explain the natural world as well as humans role and interactions within it. But as humans began to coalesce into larger communities and civilizations, these questions of morals and ethics became more pressing. As with today, most human beings have a good sense of right and wrong even without tremendous exposure to complex religious or philosophical ideas. But as with all other natural interactions - the question was "Why". Once again - humans turned to religion. So, before long religions like Zoroastrianism and early Judaism began preaching the notions of a "heaven" and "hell" - the idea that "bad or evil" actions would be eternally punished.

For hundreds, or even thousands, of years this was the basis for human concepts of morality. Certainly, minor details were different from one culture to another - but the primary concepts were the same. From time to time, there were certain individuals who attempted to explain behavior through other methods - a seemingly more logical, or even secular, approach. These people were ultimately called philosophers. But in many ways, I would submit that this was still not much different than what humans had previously done with religion. In short, the only real difference in religion and (what was to be) philosophy, was that philosophy did not "require" the concept of God to determine the basis of moral and ethical behavior. Certainly many philosophers still believed in a God of some sort - but they did not believe one had to rely on his existence to explain human behavior.

So...Philosophy (for me) is reborn. After all, it has every right to attempt to explain human behavior just as religion continues to do so. And it would certainly be foolish to think that my own notions (which I am currently blogging) are not themselves, philosophical ideas - of sorts. But I would submit that any philosophical or religious notion that implies humans have some greater capacity toward free will than we have hitherto exhibited, is inconsistent at truly understanding humans as an intrinsic part of the natural world.

It is the great irony that evolution produced our capacity for reason. Yet that very same capacity was responsible for our misperceptions of "self". I don't believe any philosophy or religion has yet successfully persuaded us (as a species) to act in contradiction of our natural predispositions. They are, instead, just anthropomorphic rationalizations of our genetically predetermined behavior. (Yes - there will always be examples to the contrary. But I submit that the human capacity of "will" plays a factor. But I would also point out the variations in the natural world as well. I've see lions and tigers show affection contrary to our notions that they are always killers.)

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Alien Life (2)

We are currently looking for life on Mars and other planets - and looking hard. But as an ignorant observer, I wonder about the real probability of finding life - regardless how small. The conditions for life to begin are extremely rare (relatively speaking it seems). But when it does, it seems life will evolve and spread constantly. Earth has shown that life (in some form) exists in almost every conceivable spot on the planet - even the most harsh environments. And from what I can tell the environment on Earth 2 billion years ago when life began was certainly not the lush tropic filled world we see now; it would have been a barren wasteland. So....when I look at Mars, I have very little faith that we will find anything beyond:
1) Evidence that life may have once existed for a very, very short time
2) Any existing life is in an extremely early form of development like that of the Earth 2 billion years ago.

Regardless how harsh the environment on Mars - I cannot help but believe that if life had ever evolved millions or billions of years ago - it is a very high probability that the planet would be teaming with life, which would require very little effort to find/discover. The fact that we are having to search so hard indicates to me - very little chance of finding life. But of course, that doesn't mean will not find other interesting aspects (perhaps flowing water at one time).

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Tough Road (Part 2)

Assuming you read Part 1: http://theepitomeofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2010/06/tough-road-part-1.html


I'm now faced with the difficult task of showing how a predetermined moral character can coexist with free will.

So first, I have to put the "will" into perspective. It seems to be that (at a basic level) all of our actions are driven by 1 of 2 forces - Will or Instinct. So let's get a better understanding of the two.

Instinct. Many associate this with the more subconscious (almost animalistic) behaviors - survival instinct, sex drive, hunger, etc.... However, I give "instinct" far more credit. Acting in accordance with ones own natural proclivities. Example - the decision to walk into a store and purchase an item instead of stealing the item is (for most) not an exercise of the will; it is purely instinctual behavior.

Will. I describe will power to be those actions we commit which are contrary to our instinctual behavior. This is an important distinction (for me at least). Will is not the drive to act; it is the drive/ability to act against our instinct.

I will provide a personal example. I do not drink alcohol. This is not a recent decision; I have been this way since I was in high school. For years I have defended this in numerous ways... I've used logic at times to suggest that I do not want to "make the mistakes of others". Or I have have considered that I simply have a stronger will power than others to resist (especially peer pressure). But looking back - I realize that the inclination was never really there to begin with. In short - it has been no real exertion of will to fight the temptation to drink, because there was no temptation to begin with. I've rationalized it in the past - but the reality is I am simply genetically predisposed to "not drink". And in fact, it would require more will power for me to drink than not.

So the question now is... What drives us to employ our will, why do we not act on instinct alone - all the time? The answer is (in part) Newton's First Law of Motion - an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force is applied. I say "in part" because I do not believe it is external forces alone. After all, other living creatures continue to act according to instinct, even when faced with external forces; the actual behavior may be different but it is still driven by instinct none-the-less. So what additional variable causes humans to employ their "will"? Naturally - I believe it is our capacity for reason - that aspect of human nature which allows (even compels) us to question and rationalize those external forces.

When faced with any scenario, regardless how important or trivial, we are inclined to act according to our predetermined instinct, unless our interpretation, or rationalization, of external forces compel us to employ some measure of will either contrary or beyond our natural instinct.

Then again, I could be completely wrong....

A Tough Road (Part 1)

It took me years to "define" my religion. And I did this for a reason. There are many out there who reject the classical or traditional views of Christianity (and all other religions) and pretend to have their "own" belief system. And generally what I have found is that these people fall into 2 categories: 1) Their ideas were espoused 400 years ago and is nothing new, or 2) Their ideas are not based on any observable, supportable evidence (it's just some crazy idea they made up). My religious belief can be described best as ____________ (that's a discussion for another day, haha).

As I have stated before, I had generally accepted Kant's notion of Deontology as the system of "ethics/morals" that most closely aligned with my beliefs. But recently I have had a shift. And not surprisingly - after a little more research - it turns out that my ideas have (kind of) been around for quite a long time. While I wouldn't say it is identical - the themes are certainly close enough.


You see, my general premise is that although humans have free will, their basic moral character is predetermined by their genetic make up. On the surface, this is very similar to the philosophical view Compatibilism - the idea that free will and determinism can coexist. And although I certainly agree with free will, it is the determinism part I have a problem with. So I have to layout my problems with determinism while at the same time showing how my theory distinguishes itself. Secondly, like Compatibilism, I have to show how free will can coexist with predetermined moral character.

I have a tough road ahead.

Determinism: Basically the notion that all actions have been predetermined by the environment; there is no such thing as free will. I'm not afraid to admit that a basic reading of determinism sounds very closely related to my basic notion that our basic moral character is predetermined. But the primary difference is that I do not believe our "actions" are actually predetermined. Let's look more closely at Determinism from 2 primary points of view: Religious/Spiritual and Secular.
- Religious/Spiritual: One may believe that a spiritual entity (God) is the omnipotent being that has predetermined all actions. I will not attempt to argue against this perspective. This is a purely faith based perspective which is not based on any empirical evidence. I have nothing against one's faith - but there is no point in trying to discuss 'logically'.
- Secular: Without any spiritual interference or supernatural influence, the events of the natural world are governed by one undeniable force: the laws of physics. Under the right circumstances, those very laws produced life. With life, came a new set of governing principles - evolution. Without free will, I do not believe humans would have ever impacted the process of evolution; and if you have read any of my other blogs you know that I firmly believe humans have had a major impact on the evolutionary process. In short - the natural process of evolution gives me no reason to believe that humans would have become sentimental and sympathetic to humans with unfavorable traits. In my humble opinion, the very fact that humans are capable of choosing mates based on any other value than those that will ensure the greatest chance for survival is a direct contradiction to the natural process of evolution. And as such is the best argument for the notion of free will.
(In an ironic tangent... as the early human ancestors were evolving, the ability to 'reason' would have simply been a new trait which greatly increased our chances of survival - yet at the same time would ultimately be the trait which ensured humans would no longer breed only for the purpose of increasing the species' chance for survival.)

So in other words, without any supernatural influences, I equate determinism to the natural process of evolution - the natural course of actions as predetermined by the laws of physics and other environmental processes. But the moment we were able to "choose" a different path - we exercised our free will.

So - how do I now reconcile this notion of free will with the concept that our basic moral character is actually "predetermined"?

To be continued....

Philosophy is Dead (Part 3)

Assuming you read part 2: http://theepitomeofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2010/06/philosophy-is-dead-part-2.html

So where does this leave me? Thanks (in large part) to Immanuel Kant, there are 3 primary schools of thought with regard to ethics and morality: Deontology, Consequentialism, and Nihilism. And although not a traditional "philosophical school of thought" - I would include Religion as well. To this day, I have always skewed toward Deontology. Now I'll be the first to admit that I do not believe any one system of belief is adequate. There are situations in life that always require exceptions. But as I began to draft up this blog, I found myself scared that perhaps I had become a nihilist. I say 'scared' because I have traditionally been least fond of Nihilism (regardless of my fondness/respect for Nietzsche). But fortunately, I don't believe this is the case. Nihilism seeks to prove that either A) there is no basis for objective morality, or B) there is a basic primeval morality which drives us to do what is in our own best interest. So in actual fact, my belief is a direct opposition to Nihilism. Nietzsche believed that the "Christian" moral code was a slave mentality. At this moment - I am prepared to disagree. The Christian moral code is merely a reflection of the basic genetic instinct of humans to support our society.

That said - is the Christian (or any religion) moral code perfect? Absolutely not. After all - like all other philosophical approaches it was written by the few - for the many. Although the underlying themes are determined by the human genetic make-up, these schools of thought attempt to provide a basis on how "all" people should act.

And yet - while I am glad that I can confidently say that my proposal is not Nihilistic in nature - it still saddens me. This proposal is eerily close to "predestination" which I have never liked. Predestination technically implies that your "salvation" is predetermined. My premise here implies that "how you act" is predetermined by your genetic make-up. But sadly, I have seen virtually no evidence to disprove this idea. Sure there are people who will claim they have changed. But I am willing to bet that on closer observation you will see this is not the case. Although they may have "learned" a new moral code through necessity or repetition - but if these outside forces are removed - they are more inclined to return to their natural state than they are to continue with the "learned" behavior, especially when placed in a situation where the "learned" behavior is not in agreement with their predetermined genetic make-up.

Through circumstances beyond my control, I was forced to question the nature of faith, belief, and our actions at a relatively young age. And after years of study, I found that I agreed with Kant's deontological views (in the area of morality). It was the approach to which I could most easily relate and defend. And for the last 15 years or more I have done just that. But it has occurred to me recently, that not once have I ever actually based my actions on any deontological thought process. That is to say I do not stop and consciously think, "Can I will that my action become a universal law?" Minor decisions are not worth the time. And when evaluating major decisions I generally know how I want to resolve and will always look for ways to rationalize my behavior - even if it is to suggest that "Deontology" doesn't work in this case. So looking back I realize that deontology was simply the philosophical principle which most closely resembled the moral principles I already had.

Wrap up: Any philosophical or religious basis for ethics and morality is ultimately ineffective at providing an objective "reason" for our actions. More specifically no one particular method will inspire, or cause, you to act in a manner which your genetic make-up did not already determine. In the end it is like developing a complex methodology of determining why you like a certain color. No argument is going to cause you to like a different color than the one you do - and ultimately you will simply choose the philosophical argument which happens to justify your color. But all hope is not lost. New behavior can be learned - but not through philosophical or religious "preachings" - but through pressure from outside forces and your own genetic ability, or inability, to adapt to those forces.

Then again, I could be completely wrong.....

Philosophy is Dead (Part 2)

Assuming you read Part 1. http://theepitomeofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2010/05/philosophy-is-dead-part-1.html

There is a long standing debate which can be summed up nicely by the term "Nature versus Nurture". And up to this point in the discussion, my basic premise focuses on the nature side of the debate. But being the "epitome of mediocrity" I am - I cannot ignore the nurture side of the debate; I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I believe both play equally in our development.

It happens that there is a very nice example I can use to effectively address both my central premise - as well as the nature versus nurture debate. Given that we live in the digital era - I strongly recommend you watch the movie "Les Miserables" with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush (and yes you should probably read the original Victor Hugo novel as well). On the surface, it would seem the general theme is that we can change; we do not act according to our genetic make up. But there is an interesting dichotomy here. In the story, a seemingly hardened criminal (Valjean) is transformed into a successful, morally righteous business man and philanthropist by a single act of kindness. But we also learn why he was imprisoned in the first place. As a young boy, Valjean was homeless and starving and in an act of desperation he stole some bread. The instinct to survive overruled his instinct to obey/support the needs of the society and for this he was imprisoned for nearly 20 years. So I could argue that Valjean was genetically predisposed to be a man of acceptable moral quality - but through the circumstances of his birth, he was forced to abandon these qualities. However, while on parole 20 years later, he stayed with a priest. The priest caught Valjean stealing at which time Valjean struck him down. This was not an act of desperation. But I would submit that this was 20 years of nurture. Valjean had "learned" a new moral code - take what you want when you can. That was the method of survival in prison. It is my belief that Valjean was genetically predisposed to be a "good" person. Through desperation and circumstances he was put into a position in which he learned a new moral code. But when the opportunity presented itself - through the kindness of the priest - Valjean quickly reverted to those moral codes his genetic make-up had provided him.

In a way, one could point out that this story actually refutes my point. After all, Valjean was able to "learn" a new moral code. This opens the door for us to believe that ethics really do have their place - it helps us teach the expected values of a society. But I am still inclined to disagree. While in prison, Valjean most certainly did not attend religious sermons or read philosophical treatises which "taught" him how one should conduct themselves in prison. Instead (just like the original theft) Valjean was merely adapting to survive. He had been placed in an environment in which the overwhelming majority was comprised of that 10-20% of society which does not have the genetic predisposition to function appropriately (and it is to be expected that 10-20% of the prison population - like Valjean - does have the "correct" genetic make-up). Later, when given the opportunity, it was much easier for Valjean to "transform" since his natural inclinations were never removed; he was never genetically altered. Had Valjean's original genetic make-up been "evil" - this act of kindness by the priest never would have changed a thing.

I believe nurture can certainly play a role in our development. But I believe that (for the majority) nurture is already steering us down the path our genetic make-up has already determined. It is only when placed in an environment which requires a new moral code, that nurture takes hold for our own survival. But at the first opportunity - our brains snap back not unlike a stretched rubber band returning to its natural state when you finally remove the external forces. (Note to self: can't wait to dissect A Clockwork Orange now, haha)

To be continued....

Philosophy is Dead (Part 1)

Philosophy is dead. More specifically, I should say, that branch of philosophy which deals with ethics and morality. And in fact, I presume it always was.

Now I readily admit, this is not a premise I believe to be absolute (at this point) - merely an hypothesis. But the more I think about it, I'm inclined to believe that our actions are determined more by our genetic make-up than our 'beliefs'. And to take it further - I believe that our very 'beliefs' are dictated by our genetics as well.

I have conjectured before, that the very evolution of the human race was dependent on our intellect - the ability to make tools, etc... But certainly it goes beyond this. Humans also learned to survive by living in packs - societies. Obviously, those humans which helped preserve the pack were more advantageous than those who did not. Through the natural course of evolution, ethics and morality were not matters of "right and wrong" - but were instead matters of survival. This was no unique characteristic in nature; plenty of other species survived in the same manner. But humans did develop a unique characteristic later - complex thought. This of course led to numerous new developments, the ability to reason, language, etc... But for the purpose of this discussion, the most important development was the concept of "I" - the awareness of one's self.

I'd love to explore the psychological impact of this - but, again, for the purpose of this discussion we will leap forward a bit. From our ability to reason, and our understanding of our self came that wonderful notion of "free will". Now certainly, this concept was not formalized until many years later with the advent of true philosophical thought - but the notions of "choice" existed none-the-less. And so it was that man slowly began to believe that his choices were his own.

Now, let's shift gears for a moment. If you look at most laws today, you will find that the largest majority of them are based on the actions of a few - not the majority. In fact, in most cases, the majority dictates that "their ways" are the accepted ways (majority rules). Now - look closely at philosophy and religion. Is it any different? It occurs to me that devices are little more than means by which we rationalize the actions of the majority and condemn the actions of the few. In short - the majority do not act according to our accepted beliefs - but instead our beliefs are a direct result of our genetic predisposition to act in the interest of society.

To be continued....

Evolution

This is a volatile subject. It usually ranks right up there with abortion and capital punishment. Personally, I am absolutely convinced that evolution is a fact of the natural world. But most religious conservatives choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence. But the point of this blog isn't to go through all of that evidence. Any time I talk to "Creationists", invariably I end up hearing the argument - "Why haven't humans evolved?". The obvious point being that if evolution were a true fact, humans would have evolved by now. The most common answer given by "Evolutionists" is that the process of evolution takes millions of years - and humans simply have not been around long enough to show evident signs of evolution (although it is a known fact that the species has increased in height over several thousand years).

But I think there is another answer I very seldom hear. I believe evolution in humans has been severely restricted due to 2 main factors: Technological Advancement and Morality/Sentimentality.

Technological Advancement: Evolution produces subtle changes in a species as it adapts to be more proficient within its environment. But for the first (known) time on the planet Earth - a species exists which can develop specialized tools which does 2 things: reduces the need for the species to evolve and alters the natural environment to meet the needs of the species as it exists today. Just look at the musculature of humans compared to virtually ever other known species on the planet. Pound for pound (relative to our size) humans are virtually the weakest physical species on the planet; a Chimpanzee can literally rip a man a part. Had early humans not developed the ability to produce tools/weapons - it is highly unlikely we would have survived at all, or we would have evolved to be stronger and more capable of protecting ourselves in the wild. But technological advancement leveled the playing field as strength gave no discernible advantage to humans that hunted in groups with tools and weapons.

Morality/Sentimentality: In the natural (animal) world - evolution produces subtle genetic mutations over long periods of time. Those genetic mutations which are favorable and/or advantageous get propagated through the species and becomes more prevalent. Those mutations which are less favorable, generally do not survive long enough to propagate the species with those genetic changes. But our ability to reason and rationalize has brought with it morality and sentimentality. Thus when humans are born with less than favorable attributes, there is always someone that feels compassion or even love - and these "less than favorable" attributes are continually propagated through the human species; stupid people breed all the time (and usually more than they should because they are too stupid to use preventative measures).

Now - it's important to understand that I do not have a problem with either of these concerns. I am certainly not opposed to Technological Advancement. But consider the morality angle... We may find that humans slowly begin to evolve - if we learn to eradicate any humans that do not possess beneficial traits. But where would this take our society - what kind of life would that be? Can we really accept killing or quarantining people because we think their traits are less valuable? And who are we to decide? And ultimately - all this does is create an artificial selection - in much the same way we have evolved chickens and turkeys to be larger, for our consumption. Unfortunately - it is the world's largest Hawthorne Effect. Because we can understand and study evolution - our own evolution is impacted by that very study/observation. Evolution (natural selection) is very real, and the lack of evidence in the human species is no argument against it.

Then again, I could be completely wrong....

Alien life

Perhaps as a matter of coincidence, I had been reading and watching a lot of shows on space recently - most notably getting caught up on the COSMOS series by Carl Sagan - when the new show on Discovery Channel launched (Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking). And speaking of coincidences - the subject of life on other planets is always at the forefront of these shows.

It has got to be the single biggest question anyone ever ponders about the universe. Are we alone? And obviously you can't spit without hitting someone with an opinion on this (and around here that opinion is largely driven by the person's religion). And since I'm generally no different, I'd like to capture a few of my thoughts - albeit without the religious connotations (mostly).

So it seems to be generally accepted that life on earth is the product of a series of "accidents". That is to say that unique occurrences transpired in just the right manner to create molecules capable of creating copies of themselves at which point evolution took hold - and the rest is history.

So the first question then becomes - what is the likelihood of these occurrences taking place in other parts of the universe? Well admittedly it would have to be pretty rare - but considering the size of the universe, the odds certainly increase. After all, our Sun is but one of trillions and trillions of stars in the known universe. So - accident or not, if the laws of physics are such that under the right circumstances, life can occur - then I think it is highly likely that it has happened elsewhere. But it is the next question which concerns me more.

Is there "intelligent" life and will we ever discover it? (I'll refrain from the judgement of "intelligent" life on our own planet.) Provided life exists at all on other planets - the question of intelligent life really only depends on "time". If we accept that evolution would have to follow the same principles on other planets - it is reasonable to believe that intelligent life would eventually arise given enough time. In the case of the earth it took about 2 billion years. But unfortunately - there are some extenuating circumstances to consider, namely that all discernible life on earth has been destroyed approximately 4 times in its history (this includes the extinction of the dinosaurs). Now obviously all life wasn't destroyed - but one would certainly have to expect that this greatly impacted the rate at which we, as a species, evolved. Had the dinosaurs not been wiped out 64 million years ago, there might still be no humans on our planet - yet. So if other planets did not have similar circumstances - intelligent life may have evolved much sooner. And of course, if other planets did have similar circumstances - intelligent life might still have been thwarted. But for the sake of argument we will suppose that it takes roughly 4 billion years (rough estimate of the age of Earth) to produce discernible "intelligent" life.

The universe was roughly 10 billion years old before the Earth even began to form from the remains of a second generation star which had exploded. It is reasonable to believe that a life sustaining planet would have been much less likely to form from younger stars simply due to the lack of heavy materials produced by successive stars. But that said, the life of a star is not a perfectly determinable number - meaning every star does not have a known life span; they can vary by millions of years. So, again, it is reasonable to expect there were planets capable of sustaining life being formed millions of years before our own. And it goes without saying that similar planets are just beginning to form in other parts of the universe. So being conservative - if we look at the life span of the human species over the last 5 billion years - we are barely even a blink of an eye. And unless we can find a way to prevent both man made catastrophes as well as natural catastrophes - we will never be more than a blink of an eye. No matter how long we manage to live, the earth will one day be subjected to natural forces which render life impossible for our species. Life on any other planet should be no different.

So...Can we expect to ever find "intelligent" life on another planet? My opinion is no. As long as we (and any other planetary race) is confined to their home planet, the likelihood of discovering intelligent life on another planet is simply astronomical (pun intended). However, if we and other civilizations live long enough to manage to send sustainable life beyond our home planet and are able to travel at near light speed - then I think the odds could get much better. But I think the greater likelihood is that we will discover a planet which has either A) little more than single celled microbes or B) a "dead" planet which did once have intelligent life forms (or any type of life for that matter). And the same goes for future races who might stumble upon our planet long after we are dead and gone.

The prospect of finding intelligent beings on other planets is both awesome and frightening. On the one hand, virtually nothing else could unite all humanity like the hatred and distrust of another race entirely. And on the other hand, human history teaches us that the meeting of these 2 races isn't likely to be entirely peaceful. But who knows what the universe has in store for us?

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Tree of Knowledge

This will not be the last post in which I examine passages from the Bible, and provide some of my own thoughts as to the meanings behind them. It is no secret that I consider the Bible to be highly allegorical and metaphorical in nature. That is to say, that the Bible's intent is not to provide an historically accurate account - but rather to inspire through stories that humans can relate to. And where better to start this examination than Genesis.

There are so many questions which arise from the story of Genesis - most are pretty elementary in nature. "If God created only Adam and Eve, then who did Cane marry?" "Was the universe created in 7 'literal' days?" "What about dinosaurs?" Etc... For this post - I am more interested in the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's right - most people forget that it isn't just the Tree of Knowledge. So it isn't general "knowledge" God is protecting them from, but rather the knowledge of right and wrong. And what is the first thing Adam and Eve come to realize with their new found knowledge? They were ashamed of their nakedness.

Now I am sure you could right an entire doctoral thesis on the moral implications of this. But I noticed something the other day which made me look at this story in a different light. My 5 year old son is perfectly content to run around the house completely naked - and will gladly ask anyone, with whom he is comfortable, to give him a bath. And I think this is pretty normal for most kids his age. But over the course of the next few years, through his own natural inclinations, and our parental guidance towards social norms - he will gradually come to understand and have the same "shame" of his nakedness that we all have (well porn stars and nudists excluded). So obviously this made me look at the story of "The Fall" a little differently. Perhaps, it is more a metaphor for the inclinations we have to ultimately become aware and have shame of our nakedness. And from a religious perspective - it's no wonder we would imaging God to be angry about this. Had he intended us to be "covered" he may well have created us differently. And yet here was man - harboring shame for what God had given him.

Now, there is certainly an alternative view to this. After all, ancient Greeks and Romans were known to value the nude form in society - much more than we do today. This would imply that this shame is not innate but rather taught/learned as part of the moral agenda of of those in power - namely those who assembled the passages into what we know as the Bible in the 3rd Century C.E. Never-the-less, it is interesting (to me at least) to consider that the story of The Fall may in fact be nothing more than a simple metaphor for the natural development of humans in society - rather than an actual implication that God did not intend for us to "know morality".

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Language (swearing)

I am sure that, at some point in our lives, everyone asks that question, "Why is 'shit' a bad word?" I mean - why is "poop" acceptable, but not shit? And to be quite honest, I still don't have a clue. In fact, while doing just a little research, I noticed that a study was done to determine how often profanity is used in normal language. What constitutes "profanity". Well there's the obvious - fuck, shit, ass, etc.. But then there's "Jesus Christ", and even "oh my god". This leads to 2 implications. 1) Who gets to decide what a "swear" is? and 2) There are obviously varying degrees. And although the second implication is not a stunning revelation - it is interesting to try and understand how certain words have come to be worse than others.

But this isn't the actual nature of my post. What I find fascinating, is how we use other words as substitutes for curse words. Religious conservatives will often resort to "darn" or "poop" as opposed to actually using profanity. In more secular environments, you may hear "darn" or the occasional "damn". Recently, I was listening to a Podcast. in which the host stated they could only swear if they were willing to mark their podcast as "Explicit". Their solution? Use the term "F-bomb".

And the irony of all this just makes me laugh. Generally speaking, anyone technologically inclined or capable of downloading podcast, are certainly aware of what "F-bomb" means. Thus, using this substitute doesn't make the podcast any less explicit. And of course, from the religious perspective...Do they believe God doesn't know what words they are trying to avoid? If the meaning is conveyed, and the intent the same, does God really care what words you chose to express it?? A message of hate is still hateful, regardless of the profanity I choose "not" to use.

Don't get me wrong. I still believe there is a time and place for it all. Meeting your girlfriends parents for the first time? Probably ought to cut back on the "fucks". But in the end - these are just common courtesy things like not ripping a loud audible fart in the middle of your boss' retirement speech. You shouldn't need to write a thesis on the ontological argument for profanity to understand that. But to think that simply using substitutes is an acceptable way of conveying your anger or disgust, is just ignorant.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Today's Generation

I began working in 1990 stocking groceries. Twenty years later, I am still (relatively) young in the workplace. Needless to say, throughout those 20 years I've worked with a lot of older people. And I can say without a moment's hesitation, that I would not be where I am today had it not been for the time these people took to impart their knowledge (from many more years of experience). But young as I am, I am no longer the youngest generation entering the workplace. I've had the good fortune to work with, employ, and manage people considerably younger (and older) than myself. But I have also had the misfortune to work with older people who feel it is their moral duty to inform the world that the current generation will lead to the demise of all ordered society. And it is to them, that I dedicate this post.

While I certainly do not have the musical background of most, I know enough to be able to relate this analogy. Hitting high school right at the beginning of the 90's, I remember much of the late 80's hair/glam metal as well as the alternative/grunge era. I remember listening to music on the radio, and later the birth of MTV (back when it actually played Music Videos). In 1991, I was forced to trash every bit of music I owned because of its un-christian influence (and there was a parental lock placed on MTV). We're talking about Aerosmith, Van Halen, Led Zeppelin, and yes some Guns N' Roses, Twisted Sister, etc... So I spent the early alternative/grunge years collecting music in secrecy. Now it's easy to dismiss this as right-wing conservative over-religious rhetoric. And in many ways it was. But I can remember how bands like Twisted Sister, Motley Crue, Metallica, and Guns N's Roses (and obviously too many others to name) always seemed to be in the news as evidence of the decay of society and youth in general. But go to a major sporting event and tell me you don't hear them play "Sweet Child O' Mine", or "I Wanna Rock".

But this blog isn't about the evolution of Music. The point is - there is a tendency for every generation to value its own morals and cherish its own accomplishments - by diminishing the values and accomplishments of those who come after them. I have to imagine that there must have been a few old Cromagnons sitting around - well into their 30'2 or 40's decrying that "youth these days" do not respect their elders. "In my day we killed our animals with our bare hands. Now look at these kids making tools out out of bones. Humanity is doomed with this lazy generation."

And yet here we are. If history has taught us anything...it should be that the youth isn't meant to copy the morals of their elders. They are meant to develop the morals necessary to live in their own times. Certainly, if you took me - and placed me in 1845 - there's a good chance I'd struggle to survive. But take anyone from 1845 and transplant them to today - and see if they have it any better. Society is not going to decay because the youth ignores the moral accomplishments of its predecessors. Society will evolve because new generations adapt those values to suit their needs.

Do I like or approve of everything the younger generation does today? Of course not - Harry Potter/Twilight - are you serious???? But do I think that today's youth is going to lead us into ruin? Nope. That's the politicians' jobs (and guess which generation that is).

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Nationalism

This one is bound to piss some people off - if people were reading it. There isn't much difference between Nationalism and Patriotism. And unfortunately I have to say that I am neither Nationalistic or Patriotic. And yes, I am fully aware that the fact that I live in a Western Civilization allows me the freedom to make that type of statement. But invariably, when people hear that, they immediately get defensive. "Our young men are giving their lives for your ungrateful self."

There are so many quotes I am so tired of hearing...

"I don't agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"Can you read? Thank a teacher. Can you read in English? Thank a soldier."

The list goes on. There are a couple of reasons why I am so tired of these statements - some of which I will cover in another Blog later. But let me cut right to the chase... Nationalism (and Patriotism) is nothing but socially accepted racism. That is to say - the belief or idea that we are "better" than another people or culture, Or the fear of another people or culture because they are different. The willingness of a person to die for that cause does not legitimize it. White supremacists had "soldiers" called the KKK. Many would argue that the Civil War was based on racism in which men fought and died for their beliefs. You can rationalize it anyway you like, but it will not change the fact that the basis for your nationalism is routed in your misguided fear or thought that 'we' are better than another.


I have the absolute highest respect for our soldiers that go to war to fight for what they believe in. But I have just as much respect for the men they fight. They, too, go to war for what they believe in. Do I agree with one side more than the other? Certainly. I agree that Terrorism must be stopped (if possible). But my respect for our soldiers is based on the fact that they believe they are doing the right thing and paying the ultimate sacrifice for it, NOT because they are Americans defending America.

But then again, I could be wrong...

Dumbo's Feather

In 1941, Disney released an amazing movie - Dumbo. And after just a little research, I am amazed that, for the most part, the movie was presented, and generally accepted, quite literally. But it occurred to me several years ago, that the movie may in fact be a metaphor for many things in our lives - specifically any external influence we believe allows us to achieve more or do more than we might be able to do on our own. This is hardly a difficult conclusion to reach. But I think we can take this metaphor and use it to examine those areas of our lives that we cling to, because we have little or no faith in ourselves.

It is probably no surprise to find out that I honestly believe that "Church" represents one of mankind's greatest feathers. Organized religion thrives on teaching us that we are not capable of strength on our own, that we must rely on God. I firmly believe that Church provides us no power which is not already within us. But like Dumbo's feather, it does provide a value to those who do not recognize that ability within themselves. So it's important to understand that I am not stating that Church has no value. I am stating that its value is provided by the individual who gives it value. And of course this subject could easily dove-tail into a historical treatise on the method in which Organized Religion enforced its control and retained its power throughout the centuries.

And this is what thinkers, like Nietzsche, had so many problems with - namely that Judeo-Christian values promote and place value on the weak willed. So in many ways, this is the Existentialist in me...

I want people to re-evaluate their lives and begin to understand what their feathers are. I'm not suggesting that we always have the means to cast off our feathers, but certainly that recognizing them is certainly the first step. There are many feathers in our lives... Some more obvious than others. Alcohol and drugs are easy. And that isn't to imply that alcohol and drugs are always feathers (one could argue that when used as a form of escapism - it probably isn't acting so much as a feather...). But what about friends and neighbors? What about hobbies? What about our jobs and families? Do we value these things in and of themselves? Or do we rely on them to to provide us a life or meaning we would otherwise struggle to find? In this way - we diminish the value of these aspects of our lives... They become an unconscious "means to an end". "With them (with my feather), I can fly." The value becomes - what it does for me.

So the important message is... The analogy of Dumbo's Feather is not meant to diminish the importance of these aspects of our lives - but to begin to understand their real value on our lives and the value of these things on their own merit.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Conviction

I generally prefer clear, objective "rules". Which is precisely why I lean more toward deontological values than existentialist values. But I cannot deny that we all have qualities we value differently. For me, one of the most important qualities is "Conviction". I have no objective theory with which to base this - it's just important to me...

There is a quote from the 18th Century Puritan Preacher Jonathan Edwards who wrote "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." The quote went something like this, "Hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized babies." The conviction behind this statement is amazing. Many Protestant Denominations do not believe in infant baptism - primarily because Christ himself was not baptized as an infant, but instead was baptized by choice at a later age. But if you believe in infant baptism, the implication is that we are born unsaved, that we are damned from the very beginning. But the conviction to understand and support the logical conclusion is nothing short of amazing. Anyone with children, who has looked on the face of pure innocence, must certainly find themselves reconciling the notion that a child could be sent to Hell. And I would venture to guess that most choose to ignore the concept and choose instead to cling to their traditions without fully appreciating the meaning behind them. I do not agree with Jonathan Edwards' statement, but I thoroughly appreciate his conviction.

Example 2) I remember I had a College Physics Professor who stated that his favorite historical person (idol) was Galileo. And I remember being very surprised. I mean, from a physics perspective, I'd wager that Newton, Einstein, and perhaps Copernicus would rank higher in terms of their contributions. But I'm no physics major. More importantly, I disagreed with my Professor on the basis that Galileo recanted the notion that the Sun was the center of the Solar System. In the face of excommunication, he disavowed what he knew to be the truth. And this was over a hundred years after Martin Luther had stood up to the church and showed the meaning of Conviction.

The ability to uphold ones convictions is an impressive thing. The strength of will it takes to uphold ones convictions in the face of persecution, ridicule, or even death is what makes a great person.

Then again, I could be completely wrong....

Science vs. Scripture

The subject of this blog is far too large to accurately convey the message. But if I were to single out the example I intend to use, anyone unfortunate enough to read this would completely overlook the ultimate message here. And I have no doubt it's going to happen anyway, so...

Yes, it's no great secret that the the Bible departs with science in many areas. Scripture says the universe was created in 7 days. Scripture makes no mention of Dinosaurs. The list goes on.

Understand - the subject of this post is not to debate which is correct based on specific subjects. For example - I do not intend to discuss the details surrounding the story of Genesis and the "7 days". I may save that for a later post. But the purpose of this post is to discuss the irony that seems to exist with respect to scientific theories - specifically those which seem to elicit response from those who would believe the literal translation of the Bible.

So in order to do this - I must use examples. What better example to use than the holy grail itself - Evolution. Because (as I've stated) I am not interested in discussing the facts at this time - it is only worth noting that nearly any Bible believing Christian generally refutes the theory of evolution on principle alone - the principle that it is (seemingly) in direct conflict with the Bible. People have spent their entire lives dedicated to proving that scientists are somehow completely incompetent when it comes to explaining the nature of creation. Were I the confrontational type - I'd be inclined to ask those same people, "What causes a ball to drop to the ground when I let go of it?" I'm certain the universal response would be "Gravity, of course" (except those who just have to say "God".) Without hesitation and without questioning, they believe that gravity is the cause of the effect (the ball dropping). And yet Gravity as we know it is only a theory, just like Evolution. Evolution is simply a theory which seems to support all empirical evidence to date - just like Gravity. And yet no one is crying about the dangers of Gravitational Theory.

This isn't some terrific surprise. Obviously Gravitational Theory does not conflict with any particular scripture (and it certainly doesn't imply a human ancestry with primates). So it is interesting to me, that we are perfectly comfortable accepting (as truth) the theories of scientists as long 1) those theories fit our observations and 2) those theories do not imply error in scripture.

Now let's look at the last criteria in more detail. Blind faith aside, I can debate the origin of the Bible. Written by God, inspired by God... Call it what you will, it is external to me. But what I cannot deny - is the power granted me by God, nature (or what ever you believe)... The power to observe and learn from the 5 senses given to me. So - you can begin to see the irony here. Given a choice to believe what I see, what I've learned of the natural world around me, what my senses and reasoning tells me - or the choice to believe a man made document (however inspirational it may be).... It seems far more blasphemous (to me) to deny the gifts handed to me by God in lieu of a book fraught with inconsistencies.

The truth of evolution (and all natural sciences) is not a disproof of God, but rather further proof that God has given us the unique ability to understand and discover the rules which make up this incredible universe. Does that mean that every theory we create is correct? No. Does it mean that we will always be able to understand everything? No. But it should be enough to convince us to look beyond our own hubris and accept the world as God made it - not as we wish he had made it.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

A theory for the very large?

You cannot start a paragraph with, "I'm no philosophy major..." without somehow implying that you intend to assert that you do indeed have some knowledge of philosophy. While the subject of this blog (as many of mine will be) is philosophical in nature, I am ultimately completely aware of my extreme ignorance of all general philosophical premises which have been posited throughout the course of human history. So... my ignorance is submitted as an initial assumption for this course of thought.

I am relatively aware (as most are) of the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant and others whose general ideas certainly recognize the limits of human thought and our place in nature. But that said, the average (amateur) person who seeks to study a very general understanding of philosophy will no doubt, at some point, realize how the vast majority of ideas and premises seem to single out the human mind as something beyond or above the natural world. This isn't some expression that we are somehow supernatural at all. But instead, that the human capability of understanding reason, self-awareness, morality, etc... is somehow unique to the natural world. And on the surface level this may appear true. Certainly, we do not believe that most animals and plants have complex notions of freedom, or the will in general.

And yet, lately I am reminded just how much we really are a part of the natural world, and how even our thought processes are (in many ways) dictated by the very laws of the natural world. For example, I recently posited that perhaps our notions of the dialectic were not all that realistic. That instead, our social evolution is not predicated by a continually perfected process, but instead by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And tonight, again I find a fascinating link to theories (or laws) of the natural world. It has occurred to me that when it comes to questions concerning my own subjective actions, I really have very few questions any more. How should I act? Is this wrong? What does that mean? Etc... Certainly it was a painful effort to get there, but I can confidently say I have no mysteries about the nature of my own personal behavior. However, when I consider problems of society, I find many questions which I cannot so "easily" answer. That is to say I cannot state that "this theory" or "that theory" should conclusively answer the problem. Subjects like, abortion, capital punishment, racism, ethics, etc.... So why is it the rules which govern the self, cannot answer the problems of society? Sure...you can rationalize this one quite easily. "Everyone is different." But that isn't good enough for me.

So, once again just a little digging into the world of physics led me to something interesting. There seems to be 2 general theories which govern the natural world. From these 2 theories, all other laws of nature are derived. The first is the Theory of General Relativity (the theory of the very large) and the second is the Theory of Quantum Mechanics (the theory of the very small). What physicist have discovered (not recently) is that at incredibly small sizes, the theories of relativity do not apply - the very laws of space and time break down. And it is here that you must apply quantum mechanics in order to understand the behavior of the objects.

I couldn't begin to understand these theories. But it certainly opens up an interesting comparison to our own behavior. At the personal level, for the individual, there may very well be a general theory which can be used to govern the behavior of that person. But when you begin to look at a society, suddenly those rules begin to break down and you require a new theory - a theory of the very large.

I'm not suggesting that these theories do not exist. Deontology, consequentialism, hell...even all of religion in general are attempts at theories for the very large. "How does one act/behave with respect to all humanity." But here is the kicker.... Is there one theory which, like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, can answer all problems laid before it. (Caveat: Einstein's theory is still just a theory and there are competing theories which may still be proven to be more accurate or not.) The answer is a resounding, "Yes!". Which one? The answer, again resoundingly, "Beats Me!". But I have a theory.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Organized Religion

Living in the Bible Belt South, it's impossible to go very long without being asked, "Where do you go to church." Undoubtedly I'd be asked much more if I had more social contact than I do. And obviously, the biggest gripe I have is that when people find out you do not attend church, it is beyond their comprehension that you may actually be "religious". Instead you are labeled - most often as a non-believer. But don't worry - this post isn't about expounding my beliefs. It's about the dangers, the problems I see with organized religion - the "church" concept in particular.

Short back story: My wife goes to church and has a few friends that she has met as a result. One of these friends is a 28 year old woman who married one of her high school teachers (he is now in his 50's). She is not working, but is going to school to get a degree. They have three children, one of which has a disability and not expected to live many more years; she requires a lot of attention and special care. This woman has been struggling with her marriage for a few years now, but it is quickly coming to a boil. She just recently had a major surgery which has her in a wheel chair and unable to lift more than 7 pounds. Her husband has decided to drive to Atlanta every weekend to act in plays - for free. And he has now left her wheel chair bound to take care of 3 kids on her own.

My wife, and several other friends from church, are helping this young woman out. And she deserves every bit of help she can get. So you might be quick to point out - that without her church friends she would not have this help. You'd be right, and I will come back to that point.

My problem is that this woman actually believes that she is not "allowed" to divorce her husband. Apparently he has not been unfaithful or physically abused her. And some of her church "friends" have gone so far as to tell her, "God never said you were meant to be happy" - implying that she has no grounds for which to divorce this piece of shit husband. It doesn't take a Rocket Surgeon to see the problem here. It is this exact mentality that keeps me from ever going to church. I would never agree with anyone who thinks God expects us to suffer like this - especially for the sake of a 'marriage'. I've got news for you - that marriage is over; the only thing left is a legal document and God didn't write that.

I've said it before - Religion has 2 major purposes: 1) Rationalize our existence and 2) Provide an objective basis for morality. But organized religion seeks to do more. It seeks to dictate morality and beliefs. But to me - Organized Religion has only one value and that is Social. And in that aspect it is no different than Shriner's, or the Moose Club, etc... It provides a way for people of relatively common beliefs to "congregate" and socialize. For those who see value in that and enjoy it - I say more power to you...Church is great for that. But the day you let it interfere with what you know is right - you deserve the pain you cause.

There is only one unpardonable sin - and that ain't divorce.

Then again, I could be completely wrong.

What is the "epitome of mediocrity"?

A few months ago, I posted a comment on FaceBook - which was in fact more of a hypothesis for the thoughts I plan to lay out in today's blog. The thesis basically stated... Generally, I have always been a proponent of the Hegelian Dialectic. And why not? It's a perfectly sound idea that most people would agree with. The current state (status quo) is your Thesis. As this Thesis is imperfect, over time an Anti-Thesis forms to counter balance the problems in the Thesis. Inevitably, these 2 will clash and the result will be the Synthesis. This Synthesis becomes the new Thesis, and the cycle repeats. In the business world (and I am sure in other worlds as well) this is referred to as Continual Process Improvement (CPI). Regardless of Toyota's problems, their CPI practises have been leading industry standards for decades - and not surprisingly have caused most businesses to incorporate such measures. (Always look for ways to improve the status quo.)

But how do you measure success? In the business world, it's pretty easy. Did the Synthesis result in more profit? But when you begin to apply this to your personal life, and even more so to a Society, it becomes more difficult. Are you "happier" because of the changes you made? Can you measure the increased happiness? Was the Return on Investment (ROI) worth the change? Is a social change better just because more people are happy?

So in the end - the problem with the dialectic (for me) is the definition of "better" or for that matter - "perfection" (since that is always the ultimate goal of any dialectic system - just like moving toward the End Zone 1/2 the total distance each time [hint: you will never reach the goal]). And upon further investigation, I stumbled on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which basically states that all things move toward a state of equilibrium. Put an ice cold glass of water in a room, and it will warm to "room-temperature." I put that in quotes because the reality is, the "room-temperature" will actually decrease because of the ice cold water that was introduced in the system. In a sufficiently large enough system, this change is imperceptible (and of course we have variables such as heating/air which combats any effect the water may have had).


Examining life today, I see more "movement toward equilibrium" than I do any "continual process improvement". Most laws and social demonstrations are aimed at appeasement. But it is important that this be read NOT as a criticism. Like the Second Law of Thermodynamics itself, you cannot criticize the process; it is defined by the natural order. So, by this logic, society is moving toward equilibrium, blandness......mediocrity. And whether we agree with it or not, without external forces to intervene (I'll discuss these another time), this will be the course of mankind.

Zarathustra asked, "Man is something which shall be surpassed. What have you done to surpass him?" Fairly spoken from one of the founders of the Existentialist movement. But I submit, that as a creature of the natural world, we are bound more by the laws of nature than our self-prescribed philosophical ideals.

Go forth and be different. Go forth and be that ice cold glass of water. But you too will melt away, and all that shall be left will be a colorless puddle in a huge ocean....a huge, perfect ocean.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Complacency

Well, as this is my very first blog I thought I would start with a subject that is a bit ironic. It's all about the role of complacency with respect to personal and social development. It is a subject which has returned to my thoughts on numerous occasions lately.

I believe we all understand (to one degree or another) the negative conotations of complacency. Is it true that we have become complacent about the war? Sure. Is it true that we have become complacent about straving kids in thrid world nations? Sure. What about those living in our own country? You bet. But what does that really mean?? What am I supposed to do about it? Consider for a moment what your life may be like if you could really keep yourself from becoming complacent of all the ills of the earth - a being of pure empathy. You would be wholly consumed in your grief, or your amazement. True - this is no revelation. And it certainly isn't an excuse for our inaction. But I believe this perspective should keep us from looking with disdain on others who do not seem to share our "passions". (Passion here defined as those unique aspects in life which are seemingly immune to complacency - more to come on that.)

I wear a Vietnam MIA/POW bracelet on my right arm. I put it on when I was in 10th grade - and it's been off my wrist approximately twice since then (roughly 20 years). When asked why I wore it (still) I used to answer that it reminded me of the consequences of war. But I was fooling myself. I did't walk around looking at my wrist in deep contemplation of the tragedies of Vietnam; most days I couldn't have told you the guy's name imprinted on the bracelet. I still wear it today, but for a different reason. I wear it to remind me of how we all become complacent of those things we see every day and how important it is that we have this ability.

Complacency has its benefits. We generally refer to it as "acceptance." But it is complacency none-the-less. I spent 5 weeks in Europe. And during that trip I saw such beauties and wonders I could never have dreamed of. Standing in St. Peter's Cathedral with the sun shining down through the dome on the tomb of St. Peter is something words just cannot describe. And the peace and tranquility of traveling down the Rhine River is breathtaking (ironic?). And it struck me that surely life must be so much better in these places...Well of course you know that isn't true. Why? Because these people have become complacent of their surroundings; it's the only thing that allows them to carry out normal every day life.

But I believe complacency has an even greater benefit. I believe it is the single most important factor in the develoment of human knowledge. Consider the definition I provided for "passion". Hobbies are just one example of this - but you could just as easily look at astronomers who grew up looking at the stars and dreamed of being astronomers or even astronauts. For each of us, there are things we just cannot get enough of. It would seem that for these "passions" complacencny has no hold; we are always thinking about them and we always want more. But it is here that I believe complacency plays its most vital role. Complacency is what allows us to further our knowledge and continue to learn more. Imagine if Einstein had been content to learn about algebra and never went on to study physics. You can call it acceptance - but at the end of the day, it is your ability to stop being amazed and continually move forward ever looking for that next more amazing thing that drives you to learn more. It is in our nature to never be sated.

And this concept should not be over-looked easily. How many e-mails will you get over the course of a year showing you the innocence of a child becasue they take things at face-value; or how cunning they seem because they can see through the stuff we take for granted? We are humored to see human development at its best - the mind free of its complacency in the every day.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...