and so it goes...
For the second time in my short career, I've been laid off. And by the same company no less. Given the clime of the mortgage industry and its continuing self-implosion it's hard to find anyone who hasn't been greeted with walking papers. All, except of course those who actually caused all this mess. They'll walk away with millions.
Greed, irrational exuberance and loss of common sense. You would think those who exuded such qualities should be the ones punished. But they play a different game than we do. No matter, what's done is done and there will be no justice I can attain so best move on and figure out what next to do with my life.
Happy Labor Day weekend.
»Comments (1)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
a point of view
Army of Dude. I put this in my contemplated section, but I thought I'd call a little bit more attention to it with its own blog entry. The stuff about the Army's stop loss program and "re-enlistment" is quite disheartening, to say the least. If you'd like another point of view on the war in Iraq from a soldier directly involved in it (if you can't stand the shallow news coverage) it should be required reading.
»Comments (1)
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
a good fit?
Well, I’ll be. I was in the market for some new sunglasses and I decided to swing over to the Oakley site to see what they had going on. It had been a while since I’ve considered Oakley as an eyewear supplier, I think since high school when Oakleys were all the rage. Obviously I was turned off by the overpricing and somewhat dismayed at their “style”. Not a crack at them for wanting to push the envelop on design, it just wasn’t for me (plus no way moms was gonna spring $160 for sunglasses I’d eventually lose or break… heh, and neither was I).
So I took a peek, just to see how they had evolved over the years. Still overpriced and their designs are still… for the beholder. But what did catch my eye (yeah I know, I’m full of them) was the Asian fit section. Oh I had to know what that was all about as I have an "Asian-like" face. And it turns out, all the complaints I had about sunglasses I’ve gone through over the years just might have been answered by Oakley’s R&D. I have to give them props for recognizing that there are large contingents of differently shaped faces out there that could use some sporting eyewear without having to go totally custom or settle for ill-fitting glasses.
I promptly placed an order for a pair to know if indeed I could finally own a pair of sunglasses that fit nicely and comfortably. If it works out, I hope Oakley would apply their Asian fit to other less egregiously trendy frames or other manufacturers would catch on and look at offering different fits for their glasses.
a follow up to my examination of moral conduct
I was asked some questions about my answers to questions posed in a morality study by a commenter of my last post. They had posed: One, if instead of pushing a man off the walk-way I’d jump myself to save the five men and two, if the five men were family would I make such a sacrifice.
A very interesting twist, but I think it would make the decision process extremely too personal to be used as an “objective” way of studying why a person makes the ethical decision they do. Of course, in keeping with my original reasoning for not pushing the man off the walk-way, I’d no more jump myself to save them. Now if they were family would I kill another person or myself to spare them… well that would depend on how much I like those family members, wouldn’t it?
»Comments (2)
Thursday, August 23, 2007
of moral conduct
My recent discussions with Josh have reminded me about a discussion on NPR (link here) a little while ago that had a discussion on the science behind making moral decisions. They were studying the brain as people were asked moral questions and noticed certain parts of the brain would always fire up based on the question and response. Interesting stuff, but anyway what I remembered in particular was the question asked during that segment about saving lives on a train track. The first part of the question was (to paraphrase),
There are five men working on some train tracks and are oblivious to the fact that a train is fast approaching them. You are too far away to warn them by yelling or to run to them before the train hits them. All five will surely die. You notice a lever next to you. You realize pulling this lever will release construction debris onto another worker next to the five men. This will kill the worker, but will save the five other workers on the train tracks as they will notice the accident and move from the tracks before the train strikes them. The question is, do you pull the lever which will kill the one worker but save the five others from being hit by the train or not pull the lever a spare the one worker, but allow the five to be killed by the train?My gut reaction to the question was not to pull the lever. After further analysis, I still went with not pulling the lever. Of course, the respondents interviewed that were featured on the segment said they would pull the lever. Now, the second part of the question (again paraphrasing),
Now there is the same situation with the five workers on the track and you can’t warn them in any way about the train coming. But instead this time you’re on a walk way above the workers and there is no lever to pull but a man standing next to an opening in the walk way. Now, if you push the man off the walk way, he’ll fall next to the five workers saving them from the train, but the man you pushed would die. So the question now is would you push the man to save the five workers or not to push the man and let the workers die.Of the interviewed respondents, most of them said that no they would not push the man to save the workers. Even though the net affect is still the same, you’re still killing one man to save five others in both scenarios, but for some reason if you’re coming into physical contact with the man you’re killing you’re less likely to want to kill him to save the others. And of course my answer was still no, I would not push the man.
My justification for not killing the one man in both scenarios? Because I did not want to be the person making the judgment of who should live and who should die. I know there’s an aspect of greater numbers, surely saving five lives is better than expending one right? But is it? Knowing nothing of people involved in the scenario how could I murder one to save five people I know nothing about? I couldn’t. Who was I to pass judgment? Who was I to play God? So in the end, my resolve was to let fate play out. Why? Because in my reasoning, the workers were on the track, they knew the danger involved and if they failed to pay attention in such a hazardous condition then accidents happen, but do I commit murder to save them because they failed to take the proper precautions? No, I do not think so.
»Comments (1)
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
it doesn't mean anything... does it?
I happened to catch a little blurb in the USA today about the importing and exporting of American flags. If I remembered correctly it was like $5.3 million worth of flags were imported versus the $1.7 million worth exported. And the biggest manufacturer of the imported flags? China. The irony of the last communist superpower being the major manufacturer of our Old Glory is quite profound if you look at it closely. But of course, I don’t know what metric they used to qualify the flags, like if they were the little plastic ones you get at gas stations or more robust ones made of cloth or some other non-plastic material.
But what was most salient about that blurb was the memory of when I was little, maybe around nine or ten, and I was at a July 4th parade. I noticed that the little flag (the plastic variety) I was waving around had ‘MADE IN CHINA’ stamped prominently along the bottom stripe. Realizing the irony even then, I pointed it out to my dad who got rather upset and scolded me. I’m not sure why the reaction, but I was left confused as to it would illicit such a response.
Oh and as an aside, I wish I had Danica McKeller as my junior high math teacher. But then again, Ms. Marseilles wasn’t too bad.
And the post, post script, I happened to catch the movie Little Manhattan at the hotel the other day. And I'll be damned if it wasn't a romantic comedy that made you remembered what it was like to fall in love or at least your first kiss. Something romantic comedies are supposed to do, but somewhere along the way lost that focus. Although it's from the point of view of fifth graders, it's actually very good at capturing the emotions and apprehension involved with your first crush. Would have to recommend it if your looking nice feel good smile.
And on a webmaster note, hmmm... never noticed that issue with IE and the comments section, though the last time I used IE was version 5.5 and it was working then. Guess I'll have to revisit the code to see if I can do anything about that. Otherwise, like it was suggested, use Firefox.
»Comments (2)
Thursday, August 09, 2007
"The Next Six Months"
Taken from a forum that has been discussing and debating the situation in Iraq ever since the war drums began to roll, though the listing may have been lifted from another source. After reading through this, for those of you still believing this is a just and necessary war or that progress is being made, it’s hard to hard to not come to the conclusion that either 1) no one knows what the hell they’re talking about and need to STFU or 2) they’re being dishonest about the reality of the situation. Perhaps both? But it’s hard to continue to listen to the propaganda that a satisfactory resolution is coming anytime in the near or intermediate future or that there is any sort of “success” going on in Iraq. Hell, just going by the following statements (note made mostly by those who are supposed to have a “handle” on the situation) it has been nothing but failure after failure after failure.
"It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Might we be seeing a pattern maybe? You kind of get the feeling that it’ll always be another “six months” with this debacle. It’s like the previous request for “six more months” was never made. When it comes time to be held accountable for the previous “six months”, the immediate answer when no demonstrable progress has been made or none of the benchmarks (if any were even made or communicated) have been met is to say, give it “six months”. And you just know, when something that may even resemble “progress” is had, proponents will say “see, we told you, just give us the time we asked for and things will work out”. It’s like, if I just keep saying “I’m gonna when the lottery this time” and never win until one drawing I win $5,000 and then claim, “see I told you so”.
Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/2003
"I don’t know because I don’t know how quickly we’re going to act in the form of sending troops. I don’t know how quickly we’re going to be able to provide them with the security. So, it’s sort of up to us. But I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical."
John McCain, 9/10/2003
"The important thing is to realize we are about to enter into a very critical six months. We have got to get on top of the security situation properly and we have got to manage the transition. Both of those things are going to be difficult."
Tony Blair, 1/5/2004
"Iraq now faces a critical moment."
President Bush, 5/24/2004
"The next nine months will be critical."
Zalmay Khalilzad, 6/29/2005
“The next few months will be critical as the new government must establish security, continue to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, and prepare the Iraqi people for national elections scheduled for January 2005.”
Sen. Dick Lugar, 7/22/2005
"I think the next 18 months are crucial"
General Barry R. McCaffrey, retired, 7/18/2005
"I have long been invested with ensuring the development of a peaceful, democratic Iraq. We are nearing the resolution of that process, and the next months will be critical."
John Bolton, 8/4/2005
"And the developments over the next several months will be critical"
General David Petraeus, 10/5/2005
"...I believe that we are on the right track to start significant reductions in the coming year."
Zalmay Khalilzad, 10/25/2005
"I think we have a six-month window here to get it right."
Joe Biden, 11/27/2005
"we've got to stay firm for the next six months. It is a critical period."
John Warner, 11/27/2005
"We will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year"
John McCain, 12/4/2005
Citing recent polling data and his recent experience in Iraq, Dr. Pollack believes Iraqis are in favor of reconstruction and against the prospects of civil war. Therefore, this gives the U.S. a critical six month window of opportunity to bring some form of stability to Iraq.
Summary of speech by Dr. Kenneth Pollack at Georgetown University, 3/2/2006(this is Pollack of O'Hanlon & Pollack NYT article infamy)
Ashraf Qazi, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Iraq, told the Security Council in an open briefing this morning that the next six months in Iraq are going to be critical. He warned, “The cloud of pessimism that has further darkened as a result of recent developments has to be lifted.”
UN briefing, 3/15/2006
"The next six months will be critical in terms of reining in the danger of civil war. If the government fails to achieve this, it will have lost its opportunity."
Zalmay Khalilzad, 6/7/2006
"I think between now and Christmas is the crucial time"
General Barry R. McCaffrey, retired, 6/11/2006
"Everything we've done for the last three years has brought us to the present chance," Caldwell said. "We now have a prime minister with his Cabinet in place. We have a window (or opportunity) of five months - maybe seven at the most to effect change. If the people of Iraq don't see a difference in that time, we are going to be extremely challenged come December."
Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, 6/16/2006
"...I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home."
Joe Lieberman, 7/7/2006
"The next three months are critical."
Lee Hamilton (of the Iraq Study Group), 9/20/2006
"I don't have a date, but I can see over the next 12 to 18 months, the Iraqi security forces progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities for the country."
General George Casey, 8/30/2006
"...Look, if you talk to most military experts, we’re in a critical and crucial time. We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months."
John McCain, 11/12/2006
REED: General Abizaid, how much time do you think we have to bring down the level of violence in Baghdad before we reach some type of tipping point where it accelerates beyond the control of even the Iraqi government?
ABIZAID: I think it needs to be brought down within the next several months.
REED: Ninety days, 60 days?
ABIZAID: Four to six months.
Senate Armed Services Committee testimony, 11/15/2006
"I cannot answer on behalf of the U.S. administration but I can tell you that from our side our forces will be ready by June 2007."
Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki, 11/30/2006
"I think it's probably going to be late summer before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods."
General George Casey, 1/19/2007
An elite team of officers advising US commander General David Petraeus in Baghdad has concluded the US has six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.
Guardian UK, 2/28/2007
"The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure ... What I am trying to do is to get until April so we can decide whether to keep it going or not. Are we making progress? If we're not making any progress, we need to change our strategy. If we're making progress, then we need to make a decision on whether we continue to surge."
General Raymond T. Odierno, 7/9/2007
"And I think, therefore, this is an interim report from us on the surge, and it’s basically saying nothing more dramatic than give it six more months or so, maybe nine more months."
O'Hanlon & Pollack, 8/5/2007, clarifying the intent of their now-infamous NYT article.
Tell me again who said this would be nothing like Vietnam? No, no they were right. This is much worse.
»Comments (4)
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
a worthy discourse
Hey Josh, good to hear from you! I’m sorry I missed out on the reunion, It would have been nice to catch up with everyone. But I’m sure I’ll be back home soon enough.
I thought the last entry might raise a voice or two and help revive a languishing place of contemplation and discourse. By all means, the comments section was meant to include debating! It is through discourse that we find ourselves and the meaning of others. How else do we find common ground if we can’t relay our thoughts? In response to your comments to my previous post on a previous discussion with another friend, my thoughts follow. But let me first preface (as I have before) that I probably fall into the camp of agnosticism. Falling to one side or the other of that position goes against my personal reasoned efforts to understand how can one put so much faith into belief or non-belief when they have in fact no truth or fact to support their belief? It all relies on faith. Furthermore, how can one argue one idea as being right and the other wrong if at the heart of the matter lies personal belief? No objective, authoritative source exists to contradict one side or the other. And to me at least, it makes no sense to argue one way as “right”or the other as “wrong” since there are no facts to either side, merely faith. But what is true is what we do during our lives and the affects of our actions while we live.
In my plebian knowledge of human thought and development, I would be hard pressed to agree with the supposition that atheism is the default instinct on this particular matter. In fact, I’d say it would be the opposite. Often times, what we can’t explain is attributed to a power beyond which we cannot or dare not understand (though rarely to chaos or randomness it seems, something always has to be in control, which is another curious inherent belief or disbelief of man; that we aren’t helpless and frail in the incalculable vastness of the universe). But being limited in our capacity to even begin to imagine the unimaginable, such a superhuman power takes on a familiar form nonetheless. Hence, a long white-bearded man in flowing white robes commanding the cosmos becomes our guiding force. His existence and power must then also fit a construct easy for us to consume lest His power and command are so far beyond our comprehension He would hold no power or command over us at all. But no mind, the argument of who should bare the burden of proof is a nonstarter as it’s the same argument of proving God does or does not exist. Essentially both sides have no facts other than their own faith which proves nothing. Atheists begin with prove to me He exists. Theists begin with prove to me He doesn’t. And it goes downhill very fast from there.
It’s true at least in Penn’s assessment that being devoid of faith in the existence of God should allow one to attain an anti-solipsistic approach to life. I don’t necessarily agree with this, as you’ve stated, because certainly one can be so while believing in the word of God. It is indeed a leap in logic to state that removing belief in God allows you attain an anti-solipsistic approach to life. However, I don’t agree with the assertion that if one lives in an atheistic universe it would be impossible for them to comprehend “moral” concepts of good or bad. Or ethical concepts such as what one ought and ought not do. First of all, moral concepts are core to the individual made up of nurture and nature. What a person believes is right or wrong; good or bad is influenced by many different sources including that of religion, but I have a hard time believing that such concepts can only be divined from God (which it would seem you’re suggesting by questioning how an atheist could reconcile moral concepts if they’ve no guiding source of knowledge such as His infallibleness). Perhaps, an atheist could develop a moral code simply by natural observation? Over the many centuries of observing man and nature, could it be possible that they might have discovered what one should believe as something good or something bad or evil? Or perhaps maybe from another source? The ancient Romans and Greeks did not have God as you know Him to be, but many other gods from whence they presupposed morality. Or what of Hindus or Buddhists? Do they know nothing of moral concepts? Pagans? Wiccans? But perhaps bad examples since they based a moral code on some form of god or supreme power. Then perhaps philosophers? Which brings me to other part of your question, from whence the ought. However, I believe ethics is a whole other category of debate that has been carried out over eons of historical and current debates. But can the “ought” solely be defined by the word of God? My irritation at this is that the “ought” can only be divined by some supreme being upon high or through religious dogma; that concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil can only come from theological study. There’s this whole thing called Philosophy that attempted to answer the very questions of what we ought and ought not do that sprung up before theology (at least formally anyway). Were their attempts at rationalizing ethical behavior merely divinely inspired without them knowing they were be directed by the hand of God or were their own mental facilities sufficient enough to determine how one should act? Does one need God to tell us what we ought or ought not do or might we be able to figure some of that out on our own?
For me personally, I feel there are a great many other reasons to dismiss or at the very least mitigate the influence of organized religion other than it preventing me from discovering divergent view points in life or because of a subset of knuckleheads. Bigotry, stunted ideology, abuse of power, and predatory proselytizing, are just some other things. But that’s not to say religion doesn’t offer a real contribution to the betterment of mankind. Spirituality and faith are real and powerful influences on our lives, I’m just of the opinion it’s been corrupted by “religion” one to many times that has made religion more of a blight than a blessing thus far.
Why is it such a preposterous concept that man could achieve world harmony of its own accord? Last I checked religion has had a pretty miserable track record in that regard as well. I would rather the world come together in peace and harmony of its own accord rather than because it was directed to do so by God. I’d prefer the former because it means we as a species finally realized the importance of moving together in lock step and are genuinely working together for the betterment of all mankind while being able to retain our individuality; differences of opinion, thoughts and feelings which contribute to evolving and adapting necessary for healthy longevity. I have a hard time with the latter because it requires that we all give up aspects of individualism, forces or eradicates those that don’t conform, relies heavily on tradition and places more importance on pleasing an unknown being rather than working for mankind for the sake of bettering mankind.
Why is suffering meaningless in an atheistic world? Or impossible to have a reason for it without God? Does pain and suffering mean any less when there is no God to preside over it? Are you implying that God is the reason for suffering, to dole our punishment because we failed to do His bidding? In what way does God answer the question of why you should act in a way to alleviate suffering? Must the justification for being moral lie in the meeting the requirements of God? Can not justification be simply if I live a moral life, I better my own and those around me? For example, let’s take thieving. It’s a commandment. Thou shall not steal. Okay. God said don’t do it. That’s the justification. Now remove God, then why must I not steal? What justification do I have to keep me from stealing? Could it not be so that one reason that if they were to steal they’d be stolen from? Perhaps maimed or killed for stealing? Wouldn’t those be valid justifications for not stealing without requiring God command them not to steal?
It would seem I do espouse form of relativism. In a way I suppose that’s true. I would posit that there are some things “true” to the individual. However in my post I meant truths as they pertain to “belief”. If I believe the sky is red and you believe it to be blue, yes those can be truths according to our belief and relativism. But they are not absolute truths, or rather undeniable fact. And facts can be proven regardless of your personal “truth” or belief. We can explain that the sky does indeed exist as a certain shade, at a certain time when viewed with the naked eye. If we compared your eyes to my eyes and they function the same and light is filtered through our eyes the same, and that light should be filtered and viewed as a specific color - blue, then one of us is wrong the other is right because a fact exists. The sky is blue whether you choose to believe it or not. Now, in the absence of verifiable fact who would be right and who would be wrong? No one can ever know until verifiable fact is established. Thus no one could be wrong or right if it only comes down to personal “truth”, i.e., belief. Personally, it’s a no-win debate, does God exist or not can’t be proven until a baseline fact can be established. And to note, Penn did not state God does not exist as fact, merely that he did not believe God existed which he believed allowed him to live a life he goes on to explain. Relativism is inherently true for everyone insomuch that everyone has their own truths (but really their own beliefs that without fact can be truths). But relativism can only go so far until fact is established; fact being a truth universal to everyone (you know throw a rock up, it’ll come back down). At that point, relativism no longer applies. One should be careful to equate belief to truth and truth as fact.
And Jeff, thanks for your input as well. However, if one doesn’t believe in the tenets of eternal life, then what? But your point is vital part of what Penn was talking about. As you’ve stated, to paraphrase, it doesn’t matter if you are a positive influence on humanity or not, your reward for having eternal life lies only in you believing in and accepting Jesus Christ. One could be a destructive blight on humanity, committing devastating atrocities, but in the last remaining seconds of life all one has to do is atone for their sins, accept Jesus Christ as their savior and eternal life in the presence of God is granted. That doesn’t seem right does it? To reward for a universally acknowledged despicable existence? An atheist shall never know the glory of God for living a life obliged to the betterment of human existence simply because he does not believe in Christ, but a murder will because they chose faith in the few remaining moments of their life? Now that is something I have a hard time believing.
»Comments (4)
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
there has to be better than this
Watching the presidential candidate debates and point/counter points from the many “expert” analysis of talking heads and so-called pundits, I’ve become more and more despondent about the state of our political leadership. Even my enthusiasm for my leading choice for the next president has been tempered by his sinking into political debate-as-usual which has become tantamount to name calling and nanny-nanny boo-boos.
Where the hell is genuine debate? Where is civil discussion that isn’t just about proving your one point right and your opponent’s wrong, but also educating each other on the valid points of the argument to arrive at an answer to a problem that takes both sides into consideration to produce a solution? Why do trivial (in terms of what the government should be focusing on) matters dominate the political landscape when much graver issues require an earnest review? You tell me what’s more important for the government to be focused on. Abortions or national infrastructure? Education or gay marriage? Foreign policy or steroids in sports? But then politicians are only held accountable to those that vote. And it seems voting has become more of an emotional thing than of reasoned accountability. Since I’ve been following politics, I’ve seen a steady erosion of actual thought and a rise in the superficial. I know in some way, politics has always been like that, but now it just seems almost de facto; an acceptable way of life which is not in the least acceptable. And it’s not necessarily the fault of politicians. The people have become dumb and overly dependent on someone else to tell them what to think. But what with a failing educational system, an ever increasing materialistic culture, and news outlets peddling sensationalism instead of actual information it’s no wonder the public has a hard time scratching below the surface. I swear, it’s like we’re the second coming of Rome, only our rise and fall is happening on a expedited time table.
And I can’t even begin to tell you how disheartened I am with the current Congress and it’s leadership. Much like the 2004 presidential elections, the Democratic Party is on course to a massive self-implosion and further debauchery of the political system when they were poised to offer a real change and a reversal to the corrupt machinations of a government system so punch-drunk on arrogance, greed, and shallowness actual governance became an annoyance to their self interests.
»Comments (1)
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
where have I been.
Things with work have been going ninety miles an hour since May and you’d think with all the time I spend in airports, on planes and hotels I’d have more time to spare my thoughts over the electronic ether, but funny how that goes. At any rate, things may be slowing down in the near future, but I can’t be for sure. But I’ve recently rediscovered how much I liked writing my own words so I’m making a more concerted effort to keep it a part of the daily routine… I guess until I hit another block. Yet, there have been quite a few things that have happened over the last few months that have been very blog worthy, though I haven’t the time to write, which is unfortunate since it helps me distill the meaning behind events, but I do hope I can remedy the situation soon. Until then, please give a glance over small debate I had a while back with a good friend of mine. I was reminded of it just recently. Perhaps you’ll have some thoughts of your own to add (I’m trying a primitive attempt at curtailing the bot spamming that was going on in my comment section, so commenting is turned back on but you can only comment on entries within the last two months). I know it’s a cop out and that I haven’t been blogging as much as I’d like, but it’s a good thing to mull till my next entry.
Based on the article that I contemplated a while back (there’s a summary of it on the left side of the page or you can just click here to read it). My good friend posted a response on his blog. Below is a repost of his response and my response follows. That should give you something to chew on till I get back into the swing of things!
Penn Jillette is the taller, louder half of the magic and comedy act Penn and Teller. He is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and has lectured at Oxford and MIT. Penn has co-authored three best-selling books and is executive producer of the documentary film The Aristocrats.
In this editorial article found on NPR’s wesite,Penn Jillette announces “This I believe: I believe there is no God.” He then goes on to tell us why he believes there is no God. I think that I am a bright fellow, not especially smart but enough to see through colander arguments (arguments that do not hold water). Penn continues to pronounce that,
“Believing there’s no God means I can’t really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That’s good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.”
I have read this over and over again and I cannot figure out what he means… it is as though he thinks that being nice and thoughtful to people is the way to happiness. Penn also goes on to say that believing in God leads him to be less solipsistic or the theory that only the self exists or can be proven to exist. He says,
“I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I’m wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate.”
If none of us believe in a God, Penn states we can all agree on reality… What is reality then the one we live were all cultures and people are shaped by their beliefs in God or gods… This is the one common denominator in all cultures… Only since the scientific driven modern age has this view of Atheism really taken root, a beleif that was soon uprooted by the failings of science to answer all the questions of life. We now stand at a crossroads where the hope in science has failed and the hope in God has been refused. So what have we? Penn has his family, and his self-made life, full of love, rainbows, and hallmark cards. We are now falling into the age of self-diety where all we need is around us to make us a God of our own universe… which leads us to want to help others…?
What I believe is the Love of the Creator, who not only knit me together in my mother’s womb, but knew my name and called me his own. Penn leads us to believe that belief in God leads to suffering and conflict, but this was not the intent of the message of Jesus - who preached a revelutionary nessage of love. This love sent him to the cross, and this love will send those who believe to the cross… we must die daily to live a life of love, for loving is not easy nor does it come natural. It is the conquest of the heart to defeat the nature of the flesh -which is the antithesis of love: hatred, jealousy, wrath, envy, et cetera.
I hope that Penn will soon find that the belief in no God is no belief at all, but rather a justification that his way is the best way…
“…and man did what was best in his own eyes.” - Dueteronomy 12:8
My response…
Ah a salvo in what could be quite a discourse that has been had be many a thinker for ages… and depending on your point of view, as so often is the final decider in such discussions, there is and isn’t a correct supposition. My dear friend, it’s a bold statement to make of the antagonist’s argument when your own may be just as full of holes. But then again, a colander wasn’t designed to hold water, but rather drain the excess for nice clean fruits and vegetables (or al dente pasta!). Perhaps you missed the intent of colander arguments? : )
To be honest Sam, I think you may have misunderstood his statement, which you say as much before attacking his belief. Short of asking him yourself, and him relaying his meaning directly to you, don’t you think it a bit harsh and unfair to criticize and make assumptions of a statement that you, by your own admission, do not understand? And then to continue an argument for your side by substituting his intent and meaning with your own interpretation which is something that favors your argument or at the very least puts in a light easier for you to cast a shadow over?
Not knowing his full intention as well, I submit my interpretation of his statement which you may take into consideration and form a rebuttal. I took his statement, “Believing there’s no God means I can’t really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That’s good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.” as this…
The sins committed against your fellow man aren’t forgivable by asking God to forgive you. Without God to turn to, you are left with forgiveness only being granted by those you sinned against. And that forgiveness may only be granted by kindness (you making amends to the person you sinned against and in their kindness they would forgive you) or by faulty memories (that enough time has passed that the bearer of your transgression no longer feels the pain or has forgotten about enough so as to forgive you) And knowing that your only salvation comes at the hands of those you sinned against rather than a God who may grant mercy upon you by saying a remorseful prayer, that might make you more inclined to make sure you treat people right when dealing with them. No where does he assert that happiness is attained through treating people kindly.
Of course, one may argue, if you were truly living righteous you’d treat people right the first time around regardless. But we all know that isn’t reality. Many people, including Christians, will mistreat and allay their guilt (if they feel any) by asking for forgiveness from God and then may even feel justified enough that they never feel the need to make amends to actual person they mistreated.
The next statement you quote, “I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I’m wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate.” I think is again a bit misjudged. True it is a solipsistic approach, but I don’t think (again my conjecture) it’s one of the self-indulgent variety but more so of the only being able to verify the truth of one’s on existence, that is to say the only thing that is truth for both you and others is that fact that you exist. I think it’s more inline with the idea that instead of predicating our existence and behavior on a deity whose truth only comes from the power of belief, we should probably rely more on the fact that we exist here now and that in reality all we have is each other to count on. That there is no God orchestrating our lives but the sheer chaotic interaction of many individual truths. It’s a scary proposition if you’re searching for an answer to why you’re here or what happens when you die. The answer may not come from imploring God upon high who may or may not divine your inspiration but rather what you do with your life here on Earth and the legacy you leave behind. I wouldn’t go so far as to say belief in God or gods is the one common denominator in all cultures, so obviously because at a minimum there are those that don’t believe in such. But perhaps they are just outliers and mutations in the natural order of things. I would submit that spirituality, a feeling of being a part of something bigger than oneself is more a commonality among peoples rather than a specific belief in God or gods. I will even go so far as to posit the God and/or gods are constructs of man. The irony! Our almighty Creator, in fact, created by His very own creations. What we know to be absolute truth is that we exist. Everything else relies on our reason, belief or interpretation. Is truth something we believe or is it something that’s irrefutable by all regardless of their belief? In other words, is truth internal or external? Or must it be both?
I think other aspect of the quoted statement above is that by removing the constraint of a particular dogma, you’re free to think of other ideas and beliefs without having to conform them to your own. Ideas and beliefs are then subject to circumspection on their own merits, not whether or not the fit within your own mold of what and how things should be. Now to your opinion the modern scientific drive. I wouldn’t say that it has only been in this modern age that Atheism has taken root. Personally I believe Atheism is a bit suspect itself, because the truth that God does not exist isn’t infallible either. But regardless, science itself, I’ve long argued, isn’t well suited to explaining the why of things, but merely the how, where, when and what. In conjunction with introspection (as a person and society), philosophy and honest, objective discourse we may arrive at better understanding the mysteries of science. But to dismiss science as a tool to finding the answers to life is extremely premature and I’d say prejudiced.
I wouldn’t say science has failed to give you all the answers you seek (and that’s not even to say, perhaps it has, maybe you just don’t feel it’s a sufficient answer), but perhaps it’s just still working on it. Has God given you all the answers you seek, or He still working on it? This idea that because science hasn’t come up with definitive proof of whatever your supposition is, it must be failed is rather myopic. I’m sure at every point in a generation, we’ve come to a crossroads of reason and belief. And every time thus far it turns out we need both to continue in our search for answers. However, the process of science lends itself to test and retesting. It is able to, for lack of a better word, evolve with our capability to understand. God requires something quite the opposite it would seem. Belief in Him requires boundaries of thought to be set up and to fit everything else within those limits. It’s a static formulation of ideas in which the ultimate goal is to create a vacuum of existence. A singular thought process and a singular understanding, which is actually quite contrary to human nature no wonder it’s hard. If God made us the way we are, then why subject us to a life that goes contrary to it. To test us?
So at this supposed crossroads, it would seem we have quite a bit more than your conclusion. For Penn and his family, he’s found what he believes works best for him and his existence. And as much as you believe you’re way is right, so to does he believe his way is right. And that is what the core of this argument seems to be about. You believe in what you deem to be the truth. He believes in what he believes to be another truth. Yet you also suppose that in the absence of believing in God, you must believe or deify something else, and in your estimation he believes himself to be his own God. I personally find that a faulty conclusion especially since no where does he indicate that’s his belief. It’s merely his personal ideology that life would be better without believing in God, but believing in humanity and that our actions might be better served with that fundamental idea than putting faith in an omnipotent, omniscient being that will guide us to a better life and society (to date still hasn’t done so, in fact the results have been quite contrary). Why it is that one must believe in God or be a Christian in order to have some success of wanting to help people? To better the lives of others? To see society move forward in its understanding of life? Are you implying that without God or acceptance of Jesus, you can not be a positive influence on humanity? I certainly find that to be a very false premise.
So you say Penn’s lack of faith in God is a justification for him to claim his belief is better? Better for whom? Better for him, you, society? And are you saying your belief in God is justification for you to tell me and others that your way is the best way?
»Comments (1)