"Intelligent Design"

Recently I watched a documentary called "Flock of DoDos". And in it they discuss the relatively recent push of Creationists attempt to provide a more scientific approach to their beliefs under the flag of "Intelligent Design". The Documentary did a fairly good job of presenting the evidence, and the guy doing the documentary was very up front about his firm belief in evolution.

The basic premise is this.... Creationists were not winning any ground because of the "Separation for Church and State" portion of the Constitution. So they came up with this concept of Intelligent Design which is meant to be packaged as a more scientific approach. It basically claims that life is far too complex to have been developed through random acts of nature, thus it must have been formed by some Creator. They are quick to point out that the "Creator" may or may not be God. This allows them to cry out that this should be taught in schools along side the "Theory" of Evolution.

I don't intend to get into the details, but I will call out one humorous example they use. After being shown a picture of a normal Mountain Range, they ask the person to describe the forces required to create that Mountain Range. They then show a picture of Mount Rushmore and ask the same question. Their point being that... This is analogous to life. Life is so complex that, like Mt. Rushmore, it must have been created by a designer. Well I could write at length how that really isn't a comparable analogy. But instead I want to address a different concern I have with this approach.

In my opinion, this is a very dangerous approach. Honestly I think I prefer the view of hard core Creationists. They state that God did and base their faith on the Bible. While I may not agree, I don't think their views challenge the Scientific Approach like the Intelligent Design approach does. It basically comes down to this one question... What is the practical purpose of believing in Intelligent Design? That is to say, if we choose to accept that idea how then should we proceed?

Now if the answer is that we should still continue to pursue the ultimate causes, that we should continue to scientifically study the underlying forces that created life... Then what's the difference in believing in Intelligent Design versus Evolution. The difference becomes moot since you still believe that science plays a role and is capable of discovering the truth. Thus by practical implication, this cannot be the true purpose of believing in Intelligent Design. So this really only leaves one other choice... That we should not bother trying to learn or study the forces of Evolution, but should instead accept that it was created by some grand designer and move on to other things.

And this is where I have a huge problem. Who gets to decide that evolution of life is the one aspect of Science where we should cease our attempt to understand, and leave it to the concept of a higher power? This becomes merely a subjective decision. If we were to apply this same logic to all science, where would we be today? What if scientists looked at the Himalayas and decided that these mountains were so majestic we couldn't possibly begin to understand the Creators Methods? What if we looked into the universe and decided that it was so complex and amazing that we simply didn't need to bother studying it? How little would we know of our universe?

The concept of Intelligent Design is not simply a creative way for Creationist to repackage their beliefs. My personal opinion is that it is ultimately detrimental to the very pursuit of Science because it seeks to place subjective limits on what we can and what we cannot know. And if that isn't what it seeks to do then it has no practical value other than to simply be stubborn about accepting Evolution as a fact. In short, there is nothing intelligent about the "Intelligent Design" Theory.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Ignorance

I'm not likely to provide any new perspectives in this post, but I wanted to capture my own thoughts and perspectives. 

It is in our very nature to look for people or groups who do not fit in to our society, or at least the vision we have of our society. When tolerance and common sense finally allow us to recognize our faults, we simply shift our ignorance to another group.  Ultimately one would hope that we can begin to recognize this and stop the cycle, but I fear that may never happen.  It's fine to distrust others; it's when we use that distrust to enforce our perspectives on others that things get ugly.

So let me start with a few assumptions.  First, I'll make the assumption that most people would agree with the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence. Now, if we assume "these truths to be self-evident" then we can make a few other assumptions as well.  What is the primary purpose of any "law" in our government? Well, obviously it's first purpose is "protection".  But if we keep in mind the first assumption, we can better clarify the nature of law...  Beyond just protection, the purpose of any law is not to protect me from myself, but rather to protect me from anyone who would hinder my rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This can be seen by the fact that most common laws are created to "prevent" certain activities.  You cannot drive faster than this limit, you cannot steal, you cannot rape, you cannot kill.  All of these laws are designed, not to enforce our "moral beliefs" but to protect individuals from being negatively affected by the actions of others (there would be no speed limit laws if speeding was completely incapable of harming others).  However, there are also laws which prescribe actions.  You must pay taxes (is just one primary example).  But even these laws are meant to "protect".  We have these laws not because we are trying to enforce a moral code, but because we "protect" fairness.  Without these laws, some individuals would most certainly never pay their taxes, which over burdens those who do. 

Now unfortunately there are laws which have been passed which seek to do more. And despite your personal and moral beliefs, it seems imperative (to me) that we understand that the nature of any law should be to protect our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness from any group or individual who would attempt to take that away.  [And yes this means, despite my own personal beliefs, laws against the personal use of drugs really violate that premise - but I'll save that for another day.]

So now we come to the irony, and the primary purpose of this post.  There is a movement going on right now which seeks to define marriage as only the right of a male and female, essentially depriving gays and lesbians from the right of marriage (and this actually recently happened in North Carolina).  I say ironic, because if we accept the assumptions listed above, this law would (and does) allow the government to deprive individuals of their basic rights because of the religious intolerance of others.  If we accept those fundamental concepts, then in truth, there should be a law that states, no one shall prevent the marriage of two consenting individuals.

Yes, marriage is a religious sacrament.  And if there is no religious denomination that is willing to "marry" 2 individuals, then so be it.  But marriage is also a legal recognition of 2 individuals entering into a legally binding contractual obligation that provides for certain benefits and protections.  For example, being "legally married" allows me to cover my spouse on my Health Insurance policy.  Being "legally married" allows me to file as such for taxes and claim the same benefits as any other married couple. 

But more importantly (perhaps) is the fact that "allowing" any 2 consenting individuals the right to "marry" doesn't in any way impact the rights of those who choose to marry in the traditional fashion.  Legalizing gay marriage does not deprive anyone of their right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; denying that right does.

Obviously this discussion could go on forever.  Right wing conservative Christians want to use the Bible to attack gay marriage.  The validity of that approach can certainly be debated.  You can also point to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's for African Americans (as well as Women's Rights) as examples of past intolerance's.  Perhaps we still have strides to make in these areas, but we are certainly much further along than we were 50 years ago.  I can only hope that it doesn't take us 50 years to reach the same conclusion with respect to Gays and Lesbians (or any other minority).  There are many ways to debate this issue.  But for me, there is nothing to discuss.  If we can agree that laws are not meant to enforce the beliefs of one group or individual, but instead to protect its citizens' civil liberties - then this entire subject is moot.  If you do not want homosexuals in your church, that is your right.  You want to use your Freedom of Speech to speak out against Homosexual behavior?  That, too, is your right.  But if you want to deny others the same basic rights that all human beings should have, then you have crossed the line.  And there should be laws which prevent that. 

Ignorance is only blissful to the ignorant; it's hell for those subjected to ignorance.

This time, I'm not completely wrong...

Capital Punishment

Ok, I've been holding on to this subject for long enough.  Capital Punishment is one of those extremely sensitive and polarizing subjects which can cause many arguments.  And this is also one of those few cases where I cannot clearly state that my belief has any more merit than another.  However, my intent with this post is to examine some of the more common justifications to truly understand the logic behind these ideas.  So with that in mind, let's start with one of the most often used justifications...

Capital Punishment is a deterrent: First off, from the small amount of research I've done, the evidence does not seem to support this.  But even without research I think that a firm understanding of how we act and re-act can also show this statement to be invalid.  There are numerous types of murder, but let's focus our attention on the 2 big players...  Pre-Meditated and Crime of Passion (by Crime of Passion I simply mean that the act of killing was neither planned nor accidental).  If you consider the motivations of these events, can you actually believe that the Death Penalty would actually stop the action, especially on a large enough scale to notice?  If a person is planning to murder another person, this implies that the person is already aware of (and understands) the consequences, but is choosing to murder in spite of the known "deterrent". In the case of a Crime of Passion, I think it is pretty self-evident that the person is in a state of emotional confusion and any concept of the "deterrent" is not likely to stop the action from occurring, especially if this person is already pre-disposed genetically to this type of crime.  In short, we tend to believe that Capital Punishment is a deterrent because the majority of people are thinking rationally about a situation most of them will never find themselves in.  In keeping with my general philosophy, I just do not think humans (in general) stop to consider the consequences of an action they are already committed to.

Related to the concept of the Death Penalty as a deterrent, I once read an article which presented an interesting idea.  Consider you have robbed a bank. Now during the course of this heist, either your face was seen (or your identity was somehow compromised), or worse someone is accidentally killed (whether by your actions or not).  Now - your punishment just went from a few years in jail to the Death Penalty... IF you get caught.  So at this point, what reason would you have for leaving anyone else alive.  If you kill everyone in the bank, you've reduced your chances of being identified, and even if you are caught, they can only kill you once.  So, in this case, the concept of Capital Punishment can actually cause a single fatality to escalate exponentially. 

Eye for an Eye: This is one of my favorite justifications.  Supporters of Capital Punishment love to use this over-quoted Bible verse, as though it single handed justifies Capital Punishment.  There are 2 things I find to be humorous about this.  First is the fact the people love to use this one verse because of it seemingly unquestionable nature.  And although it cannot be said that Jesus was "against" Capital Punishment, he certainly presented a much more compassionate behavior towards people.  But you don't hear people quoting Jesus when calling for Capital Punishment; instead they only use the verses that support their causes.  Secondly, is even more ironic.  Murder is the only crime for which we (typically) shout "Eye for an Eye".  There are virtually no other violent crimes for which we cry "Eye for an eye".  If a man brutally rapes a woman, no one cries Eye for an Eye then.  No matter how heinous, murder is virtually the only crime for which people suddenly want to cry Eye for an Eye.  If this one statement really does justify the nature of punishment, why do we not use it as the basis of all punishment? 

Capital Punishment as a Punishment:  The very name can also tell us something.  Despite your personal belief, the purpose of incarceration in the U.S. is supposed to be more for "rehabilitation" than it is a punitive measure.  However, Capital Punishment (as the name implies) is meant to be just that.  But who are they actually punishing??  On the off chance that the person actually goes to a firery abyss, well then I suppose that is certainly punishment. But let's suppose for a second that he doesn't... Then what?  You've ended this person's life. Which means they are no longer in any pain or miscomfort. The only people you are truly punishing are the loved ones of this person.  They will have to endure life knowing that their loved one was put to death (regardless of their guilt).  And furthermore, these people are often burdened with negative judgements for simply being related to a murderer.  If, as a society, you feel that punishment is warranted, why wouldn't you punish the person responsible and not other innocent family members?

Our "Judicial System": The few times I have told people that I was not a supporter of Capital Punishment, invariably I have to hear..."Oh you think they should just be allowed to sit in prison and watch TV, play games, read, excercise, etc....?"  Nope.  Why would you assume that??  I said I didn't support Capital Punishment. I didn't say "I'm a complete moron who doesn't understand 'justice'". I'm not going to go into my particular beliefs right now, but suffice to say I think that people who are truly guilty of such heinous crimes should be truly punished, and death (in my opinion) is just an easy way out.

And finally, there is the issue of guilt.  This is problaby the most difficult part of the argument in my opinion.  But the bottom line is simply that, there are just sometimes when you cannot know the absolute truth.  We must hope that our legal system does everything within its power to ensure the accused has a fair trial.  Regardless of the "punishment", there is always the chance that new evidence could later prove the innocence of the accused.  But given that this is the case, it's even more reason to move away from Capital Punishment.  Once the accused is dead, there is absolutely nothing that can be done.  However, if the accused was alive and being punished, the accused could at least be released and compensated for his suffering.

At the end of the day, Capital Punishment will always be a very emotional subject. Yes - I certainly try to evaluate.."How would you feel if someone killed one (or both) of your children?"  Yes I can imagine that there would be an overwhelming sense of vengenace and hatred.  But my emotional state at that time, does not change the facts.  Killing the accused would do little to comfort me, and would do nothing to actually punish the guilty person(s).  But I can onlyu hope I am never in that situation. 

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

WWJD

What Would Jesus Do?

So a few years ago there was a huge movement in which this slogan was plastered on everything. On the surface, it seems pretty straight forward. Think about your actions... is this something Jesus would do? ... Or how would Jesus handle this situation? Unfortunately there are a few problems with this.

First off is the obvious. It continues to reinforce the concept that we cannot think for ourselves. I am obviously incapable of making the right decision on my own... I'd better stop and consider what Jesus would do.

OK, is let's say I do this. Isn't this a bit like telling a physicist to ask What Would Einstein Do? I mean, it is the extraordinary qualities that made those people who they were. If we could all accomplish what they did just by thinking like them... Well those people wouldn't have been very special. There is a reason we place such value on people like Jesus. Despite your religious beliefs he was an extraordinary historical figure... literally. He was not ordinary, and to think that the average person could just "be like Jesus" is foolish.

But there is another problem I have with this question. And it really is a core principle of my own personal philosophy. I touched on it in a previous post... It is the simple notion that humans rarely stop and ask themselves "how" they should behave. And even if they do, they rarely behave in a manner contrary to their nature simply because they processed someone else's theory. In fact, the opposite tends to be true more often than not. Humans are compelled to act, and they do so according to their nature. And they will either maintain a belief system which supports that behavior, or they will find a way to rationalize that behavior within the belief system they have become accustomed to. You can ask yourself all day long... What Would Jesus Do? But the person that answers will still be you. And you will dig through your limited knowledge about this one person, and dig up the answer that best justifies the action you were already going to take. Only now, you've denied yourself the satisfaction of understanding your own potential and traded it in for the belief that someone else has helped you, or worse yet... made the decision for you.

I have been impressed and amazed by numerous figures throughout history... Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Martin Luther, Immanuel Kant, Martin Luther King, Jesus, Mohammed.... the list can go on for a long time. All of these people helped to change the world. But none of them ever changed who we are as people. And I could stop every time I had an important decision to make and try to imagine what any of these great people might do in a similar situation. And the only thing it will do is waste time.

So go ahead... Ask what Jesus would do. At best you will simply arrive at the decision you were already going to make. At worst, you will make a decision which you cannot justify or rationalize to yourself, and you will regret it forever. Jesus never asked, What would Dad do? Jesus acted according to his will, and his beliefs. You want to act as Jesus did? You should do the same. Act according to your will. Stop trying to be someone you aren't.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

The Devil and God's Plan

There is an interesting facet to human actions. It's nothing new; you've heard it all before. When individuals do "good" we generally praise the individual. Rarely do we praise God for the actions of a "good" person. But when someone does something truly evil, we are quick to blame the Devil. No one (especially those of religious faith) wants to accept that people can do "evil" on their own, or that God could allow such actions. Again, this is no great revelation.

However, there is another peculiar irony in which we are also guilty...one which I have not heard discussed very often. Let's examine the human reaction to "natural" phenomenon.

When we see beautiful things in nature, we are apt to praise God. When a new child is born, when the crops come in plentiful, when the sun breaks through a particularly heavy storm, etc.... In these cases we so often thank God for his creation, wisdom, and mercy. But when major catastrophes occur, something interesting happens... we do not blame the Devil. When an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, etc.... kills countless humans, we do not blame the Devil (in fact we don't blame the Devil anytime a life is taken). Instead we consider it to be part of "God's Plan". "God works in mysterious ways." We still cannot accept that God would allow these actions to occur, but rather than seek out something to vilify, we rationalize the occurrence as being a part of a grand scheme which we cannot understand. And this leads to 2 conclusions.

First, the "Devil", that is to say a negative deity, was created out of the distinctly human condition known as "free will". You see, even the perception of free will ultimately leads to the concept of morality...that our actions are a result of choices. The concept of the "Devil" was created to both rationalize "evil" actions, while at the same time creating a negative consequence in an attempt to deter future evil actions.

Second, because we cannot associate the "actions" of the natural world with free will, we cannot associate these unfortunate natural occurrences with choice. And as such these events seem to be outside the realm of the Devil. The natural world, the events which govern it, and its consequences are all solely governed by God.

Now...why is this important to recognize or understand? Well in many ways it just comes down to rational thought processes. If we choose to believe that God is in control... If we choose to believe that God takes an active role in this world... Then we are forced to believe that God either makes these horrific tragedies occur, or that (at very least) he allows them to occur. And the only way to rationalize that concept is with the absolute epitome of all Deus ex Machinas..."God's Plan". When humans cannot know the cause, or rationalize, an action, they have no choice but to admit that their conclusions were wrong, or resolve the problem with some unknown force/creation.

And now the plot thickens. As I pointed out in my last blog, the reality is, no one can ever fully know the original cause of all that is. So in many ways, we are all forced to accept (at some point) a Deus ex Machina. But the current problem is that many accept that Deus ex Machina long before they should. Bill O'Reilly was famously quoted recently as justifying the existence of God because of the tides. Right or wrong, for Bill O'Reilly his Deus ex Machina was the tides. To him, that was the ultimate unexplainable proof that God existed. We, of course, know that the tides do have a very real cause (gravitational pull of the Moon) as governed by the physical laws of nature. But for many others, their Deus ex Machina comes in when they can no longer rationalize the shear horror of natural catastrophes. Because they are incapable of accepting that their concept of God is wrong, they must rationalize that it is simply God's Plan which they are incapable of understanding.

But there is a far more logical answer. The universe was created by God, but the universe operates without God's interference. Admittedly, the concept that "God created the universe" is, in itself, a Deus ex Machina. But it is one which no rational thought can disprove. Regardless what scientists discover, they will never be able to prove that God did NOT create the universe; they can only continue to prove that His creation does not require his involvement. Within the universe, all actions are governed by a set of physical laws. The universe simply exists. It's actions are only "bad" when we deem them to be bad because of the impact to us as a species.

In Summary: Rationally speaking, the Devil cannot exist without God. But the opposite is not true. God can exist without the Devil; and in all likelihood...He does. And God does not cause "good" things to happen, nor does he allow "bad" things to happen. God's creation simply exists as it was meant to.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Does God Exist?

It is probably one of the most pivotal questions in the history of humanity, as a rational, thinking species. Is there a higher power? The existence of God has generally answered 2 primary questions: 1) How was this all created? and 2) What is the objective basis for morality? For now, I will focus solely on God's existence as creator, not judge.

There is an interesting argument called the Creation-Evolution Argument. But here is the irony. "Creation" as defined by Judeo-Christian theology is actually the combination of both the Creation of the Universe and the Creation of Life. While the Bible handles these 2 "events" together - science has 2 distinct theories about these events. The Creation of the Universe is explained by the Big Bang model, and the Creation of Life is described by the Theory of Evolution. Yet the common Judeo-Christian complaints are generally focused more on the Theory of Evolution. Both scientific theories are in direct opposition of the written "Word". But the Theory of Evolution attacks the ego of man as it implies that we are the descendants of a "lower" species. But I digress.

So, for the purpose of this discussion, I will consider the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be related in the sense that they describe the formation of both the universe, and life within it. But there is also another correlation between these two theories that I will address later.

Now - in this discussion it is imperative that we disregard the Bible as a "source" of record. I certainly value the faith others may have - but belief in the Bible is, in many ways, just a symbol of faith. You may have Faith that it is the literal translation of God, and that is fine. But within the realm of a serious analysis, it is no more reliable than a child who believes all good people come from rainbows. And many would be furious at this point After all, if we accept this to be "fair" terms have we not disarmed the Judeo-Christian beliefs altogether??

I say no. Proof of God's existence is everywhere to be found without the Bible. And therein lies the problem. So you see, without the Bible, and its parables - we can find evidence of a grand architect, of a creator. But that does not imply that he created the universe as written in some book. In spite of all the physical evidence, it is just extremely difficult to imagine that all of the complexity of life has been the result of random accidents.

And yet it is that very randomness which is the primary correlation between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. Both theories share a common idea... Within a constrained set of laws, and given enough time and space, randomness will create complexity. The galaxies, and stars, and all of the various types of planets are all creations of random acts within a constrained set of physical laws (gravity, magnetism, etc...). Similarly, all life has evolved through a series of small random changes over billions of years within the constraints of physical (and chemical) laws.

Now - speaking of cop outs... It is easy to state, "Well if this is truly how nature works, then that is how God intended it to work." In the scheme of things, there really is nothing wrong with this premise - and I will be coming back to it. But recently, I'd say "science" has been guilty of the same thing. Recently, Stephen Hawking proposed that the Universe does not "require" a God. What was his premise? Randomness. You see - Hawking theorized that perhaps our universe was only one of an infinite number of other universes. So we are right back to the original notion... Given enough time, randomness will create complexity. So while there may very well be an infinite number of universes out there which have produced nothing more than disparate gases - other universes like ours, have created vastly complex systems of life. The only "soundness" to this theory is that it is consistent with out basic concepts of creation, scientifically speaking.

So where does this leave us? Judeo-Christians may cling to their written Word, but ultimately the Bible is no proof or disproof of a God. Atheists may cling to the science of the random, but again this is no proof or disproof of the existence of a God.

The answer? Faith. Just faith. On the surface, this answer seems to imply that we must have Faith that God exists. But in truth it goes beyond that. The mind is incapable of conceiving of the beginning of time and space. We can theorize about it as a concept, but we are not actually capable of understanding any moment in which Space and Time did not exist...thus we are incapable of fulling understanding how all of this could have been "created". So, from an atheistic perspective, the only answer our minds can comprehend is to simply state that "it has always existed". But even this is difficult to swallow, because the mind has just as hard a time trying to understand infinity. The point is this....science may one day prove how everything began, but I very seriously doubt it. Either way, at this point in our civilization there is no proof either way. Thus an atheist's claims are based on faith just as much as a Christian's claims. In the end, an atheist must rely on faith that the universe was created and runs due to randomness - because there is no way to conclusively prove that it's creation was itself a random act. And what else is Faith but belief in the absence of proof? And of course from a religious perspective, having faith that God created all, does not necessarily imply that God must be an active participant in his creation.

So there it is... Ultimately the question of God's existence is a bit of a moot point with respect to human knowledge and understanding. Science may one day prove itself, and of course there is always the possibility (I guess) that religion may prove itself (rapture, etc...). But until either of those days are upon us, atheists and Christians alike (as well as all other religious beliefs) are resigned to faith for a creation belief.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

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...