An Atheist Christmas

Although I don't label myself as an atheist, there's little doubt in my mind that my lack of belief in a literal interpretation of any of the 2500 or so gods created by humanity makes me one on the eyes of many. I am fine with that. Yet I manage to enjoy and celebrate Christmas just fine.

Christmas has always been a special time in my family, which has primarily Lutheran roots. For the most part, though, that religious heritage has not figured greatly in our celebrations.

While a couple of members of the family are regular church attendees, others of us are not. I've been to Christmas services several times, of my own choice. I happen to like churches and the "feel" that is given to them architecturally and mythologically. There is, to me, something very unique about a house of worship. I have attended an Orthodox Easter mass in Moscow and made an offering at a Tibetan Buddhist temple in St Petersburg (SEE NOTE 1). And there is something cool about a Christian church at Christmastime.

It was a little more special when I didn't understand that the Christmas story is a lie about Jesus' birth (SEE NOTE 2). And historical evidence that I have seen points to a birth date several months earlier in the year (SEE NOTE 3). The placement of the celebrated date around the winter solstice not only fits with the mythological hero role of someone like Jesus (a bringer of light, and all that), it is also consistent with Christianity's habit of fighting other religions by absorbing their holidays (Halloween is another good example). But although I know that the clergy are lying to the congregation, I still appreciate -- if I may nod to Joseph Campbell -- the power of myth.

Much more powerful for me at Christmastime, though, is the sort of gathering of friends of family, both literally and emotionally, and the idea of doing good toward others. I like to think that some seeds of closeness and decency are sowed at this time of year. I am not a real social person, so the parties and gatherings at this time of year aren't a huge attraction to me, but I know they do some good for many people. And the exchanging of cards and presents, although it is becoming more and more commercialized and trivialized, does make a little more of a connection between people. We are a little more likely to call or write someone we haven't communicated with in a while. The holiday wishes people exchange are a little nicer than the usual iciness we see in public. There are a few more smiles, hugs, and handshakes at this time of year, and that is a good thing (SEE NOTE 4).

The decorations on trees and buildings and in yards provide a sort of -- when done well -- artistic side of the holiday, often while evoking the sense of wonder we felt as children and too often lose as adults.

This time of year, we are reminded of the simple things in life, which also happen to be the important things in life. Although I believe we may set a bad example to children when we lie about the literal existence of Santa Claus, I do believe that the stories of Santa Claus, like many other fables, offer good life lessons (self-sacrifice, generosity, strength in the face of adversity, etc.).

Christmas, like life, is largely what you make of it. I acknowledge the Christian lies and oppression, and the commercialism, and the superfluousness of those who are just as superfluous the rest of the year, and other negative aspects of Christmas. But I won't let those people ruin the spirit of the holiday for me. If anything, it inspires me to work harder to fight such injustices and promote corny things like "good will toward men (SEE NOTE 5)."

This holiday season, I have taken my developmentally-challenged sister Judy to see The Nutcracker (her first time at the ballet), taken her and my 90-year-old mother to see the holiday light display at the Holtsville Ecology Center (funds raised help care for the animals at the center), taken Mom out to find a real wreath for her apartment, and this week we are putting up Mom's tree for her and taking her and Judy out to see the lights on the Montauk Point Lighthouse. Most of the family will gather for dinner Christmas Eve and on Christmas -- it is important to Mom to spend time with all of her five kids this time of year. Between Christmas and New Year's Eve, Diane and I will take Judy to the nighttime holiday happenings at historic Old Bethpage. I won't get to spend as much time with close friends as I would like, but they will -- hopefully -- still be around after my mother leaves us, and I will spend more holiday time with them then.

So, to my friends, family, bandmates, coworkers, online acquaintances, and even those who I don't know and may never know: I wish you the merriest of Christmases and a season filled with wonder, joy and inspiration. I hope you all find the strength and fortune to move closer to your dreams now and in the future.

XXX

NOTE 1: I forgot to take my hat off when I stepped in, and the monk let me know pretty quickly -- even though he spoke neither English or Russian -- that that was a no-no. I made up for it by giving an offering of a book that had been published in the US about the history of that temple. He seemed excited about it -- you know, for a Buddhist monk...

NOTE 2: If you want to argue with me about that, go ahead and write down each account of the birth story, then let me know what you found.

NOTE 3: Yes, I know there is some debate about whether Jesus actually existed, and extremely little contemporary evidence or mention of him, but I get the feeling that there was SOMEONE doing SOMETHING that got all these people excited at the time, and we may as well refer to that person as Jesus. We often cannot see details through the fog of time, but we can detect some sort of movement. As someone who has published two history books and established a cherished reputation as being a stickler about separating facts and fiction, I am well aware that we sometimes just have to admit that we do not know, and perhaps cannot know, many important historical facts.

NOTE 4: Yes, I know the hugs and handshakes can transmit disease... Work with me here, okay?

NOTE 5: Of course, I am using "men" as a gender-neutral abbreviation for humanity.

I Didn't Have An Opinion Of Deepak Chopra Until Now.

I've never had an opinion of Deepak Chopra. Honestly, I didn't even really know what he was about -- what he actually did. It seemed to me that he was one of those people that was mostly famous for being famous, kinda like Paris Hilton. But then I saw this column he wrote. Now I have an opinion.

Take a read through the column, and my commentary will follow. It is from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-perils-of-skepticism_b_373788.html and is called The Perils Of Skepticism.

If you've ever used Google Alert, you know the jolts it can deliver. Whenever anyone in the blogosphere decides to blow a poison dart your way, Google is happy to deliver the news, along with the more positive mentions, of course. Most of my stinging darts come from skeptics. Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking. And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.

Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking. And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.

Statistically, cynical mistrust is correlated with premature sudden death from cardio vascular disease. Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them. In the interests of better health, these people should read scripture, or at least a poem, twice a day. Doctor's orders.

I've debated skeptics, including Richard Dawkins (I spoke with Dawkins for over 90 minutes on camera in Oxford. He extracted 30 seconds from the dialogue and dubbed me the enemy of science.) and I am amazed that they mistake self-righteousness for happiness. A sort of bitter satisfaction is what they reap. No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others. Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads "You're Wrong" so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism. For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them.

It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists. Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe. Skeptics know in advance -- or think they know -- what right thought is. Right thought is materialistic, statistical, data-driven, and always, always, conformist. Wrong thought is imaginative, provisional, often fantastic, and no respecter of fixed beliefs.

So whenever I find myself labeled the emperor of woo-woo, I pull out the poison dart and offer thanks that wrong thinking has gotten us so far. Thirty years ago no right-thinking physician accepted the mind-body connection as a valid, powerful mode of treatment. Today, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes. But soon these forms of wrong thinking will lose their stigma, despite the best efforts of those professional stigmatizers, the skeptics.

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

Let's look at some of these statements. Quoted material will be indented. I will call my response:

The Perils Of Snake Oil Salesmen.

Most of my stinging darts come from skeptics.

And we will see why shortly. But let's start with a definition of skepticism -- a good place would be the definition used by... maybe... The Skeptics Society (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/):

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe... Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

So, basically, skepticism is the use of fact and reason to evaluate claims. Frankly, in a lifetime of seeking honest answers to questions, both big and small, I have not found a better approach.

Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking.

Nearly all science begins with "speculative thinking." Scientists START there, but they do not STOP there (this is a major difference between science and pseudoscience). They then test this thinking. If the tests back up their thinking, then they must present it to their peers via conferences and publication. Other scientists then try to topple the thinking and the facts, using reason and, often, their own experiments. This is a process that takes a great investment of time, money, and reputation. If your data back up your speculative thinking and the data from others' experiments and analysis do so, you are on your way to getting credit for a new discovery or way of viewing the world. If the experiments and analysis of others do not substantiate your thinking and associated facts, you could very well find yourself the recipient of a great deal of embarrassment, loss of funding, unemployment, and other bad things.

In addition, one finds that many of the great scientists were fans of science fiction as kids. Some, like Isaac Asimov, have even been among the greatest writers of science fiction. Are we to believe that Asimov lacked speculative thinking? He was, after all, an industrial-grade skeptic, as well as a professor of biochemistry and -- gasp! -- an atheist/nontheist/rationalist/humanist. He was also the author of about five hundred fiction and nonfiction books (some of them listed here) and an untold number of essays, short stories, columns, etc. He also won many awards for his writing, had awards and a magazine named after him, and left behind a vast legacy of creative skepticism.

Chopra makes the metaphorical implication that a fertile mind requires the application of manure. Skeptics reject -- and disprove -- this fallacy.

And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.

Chopra's technique here is subtle, but obvious: He knows that his target demographic -- the people who pay him for his products -- are more likely than not to believe in gods, fairies, monsters, and all that. So he is recruiting them to his side by polarizing them against skeptics. Notice that he does not say "the concept of God," or "the idea of God," or even "gods." He is talking to, and trying to influence a particular audience. This man is obviously a talented rhetorician. Also, Dawkins' reputation as a prominent atheist means that invoking his name will help to align the credulous to Chopra's side. Nifty moves.

To be honest, though, skeptics are not "annoyed by a nuisance named God." Skeptics tend not to believe in such an entity -- because it does not stand up to factual analysis -- so they cannot be annoyed by it. Chopra is smart enough to realize this. What some skeptics do get annoyed about is the insistence that such entities are factual and that decisions should be made on that unproven assumption. To a skeptic, fact -- not fiction -- is a proper (because it is proven) way to conduct affairs. None of the thousands of gods worshiped by humanity have a factual basis. The difference between a skeptic (or an atheist, though the two are not necessarily synonymous) and a monotheist is that the skeptic merely believes in one less god than the monotheist (SEE NOTE 1).

Statistically, cynical mistrust is correlated with premature sudden death from cardio vascular disease. Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them. In the interests of better health, these people should read scripture, or at least a poem, twice a day. Doctor's orders.

Neat. Check out this little dance he does in this paragraph:

1. In the first sentence, he uses scientific- and medical-sounding words to try to establish himself as being rational and based on fact (note that he does not provide a citation, which all scientific and medical articles do),

2. In that first sentence (it is a good one), he also slides in the word "cynical" -- a word with negative emotional connotations for most people -- as a synonym for "skeptic."

3. In the second sentence, he uses the tired false statement that skeptics believe in nothing (he also inserts "skeptic" where he used "cynic" in the first sentence, further associating skepticism with cynicism and the associated negative feelings). Skeptics believe in facts. They believe in reason. And they believe in these things because they have proven over and over to be worthy of such belief. Skeptics believe that two plus two equals four because it has been proven. Skeptics do not believe that two plus two equals 178,344, because that has not been proven.

4. He believes that "God will outlive" skeptics. An unproven and unprovable statement -- which is how he rolls, of course -- and one that is meant to get those credulous readers to snuggle up to him. He is trying to draw his target demographic closer (and it probably works).

5. The next sentence calls skeptics, who he has already tried to establish as cynics, "these people." He is working to establish a duality again, dividing "us" from "them." Not very wholistic of him.

6. His last sentence (sentence fragment, actually), is telling you that he is the authority here. Many people have been brought up to trust doctors, and he is playing on that. Again, some nifty -- and very skilled and practiced -- manipulation.

That was a busy paragraph. Phew! On we go...

I've debated skeptics, including Richard Dawkins (I spoke with Dawkins for over 90 minutes on camera in Oxford. He extracted 30 seconds from the dialogue and dubbed me the enemy of science.) and I am amazed that they mistake self-righteousness for happiness.

I don't know of this debate, so I cannot comment on that part, but any depiction of Chopra as an enemy of science has been firmly established by himself in this column. Skeptics use the scientific method, and Chopra is working hard here to align people against skepticism. That's pretty much the definition of an enemy, isn't it? From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ENEMY: "one that is antagonistic to another." Isn't that the theme of his entire column!?

He also infers, quite bluntly, that skeptics are self-righteous. Again, the very definition of skepticism shows him to be either ignorant or dishonest (guess which one I think it is). Skeptics hand over claims to fact and reason. They make no proprietary (i.e., self-based) claims merely because "I said so," which Chopra has done in this column. He also sneaks in "happiness," knowing that that is what people seek. He tries to establish his knowledge of the subject while showing that "they" do not possess it. This guy is good.

No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.

Wow. This is a bold step to take in his path of manipulation. Was Newton not skeptical of Aristotelian physics? Was Einstein not skeptical of Newtonian physics? Was the entire field of quantum mechanics not skeptical of Einsteinian physics as a complete explanation? Was Darwin not skeptical of creationism or Lamarck's theory of use and disuse? Is not every scientist skeptical of the explanations for phenomena that have come before? New discoveries are not made by people who accept the world as it has been related to them -- they seek out new information and truths and use thoise things to solve problems and help humanity (and often even non-humanity). Chopra here is telling an outright, 180-degree-from-fact lie. But if you're still reading this far into the column, he probably figures he has you on the hook and now needs to use that same line to haul you into the boat.

Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads "You're Wrong" so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism.

No. The sign says "Prove it." And those with the facts DO prove it.

1. Einstein's general relativity work (as far as the bending of light, which his famous equation predicted, since mass and energy were shown to be the same thing) was not accepted as fact until May 29, 1919, when Eddington provided proof of the bending of light during a solar eclipse. Without proof, science is not... well.. science. Einstein's "gedankenexperiment" techniques were uniquely brilliant, but with out the math AND the proof, it was not enough to build a worldview upon.

2. Gandhi? Okay, you got me here. What?

3. Newton. Newton explained his views with facts. These facts were the best that could be provided by the tools and data available at the time. With more precise tools and more information about the universe, some of his work has been shown to be wrong or just very good approximations.

4. Darwin struggled with the implications of his scientific findings, but accepted the facts. Again, it was anti-skeptics who did -- and still do -- deny his work, and even try to bury the truth it uncovered.

5. Chopra's use of the famous names above was intended to imply that he was on their side and the skeptics were/are not. This is a sort of proof by association with celebrity, which is a logical fallacy, but an effective rhetorical tool when speaking to the uneducated masses. By associating himself with celebrity names, he hopes to give himself more credibility. This works on many people. For people who understand his sleight-of-hand tricks, though, it has the opposite effect (this does not matter to him, as those people are unlikely to give him money, anyway. I told you this guy is smart).

6. Notice that Chopra does not mention the many skeptics/scientists persecuted (Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600, Galileo Galilei was tried for heresy in 1633, etc., etc.) by spiritualists because they did not -- like Chopra -- like being held accountable by fact-and-reason-obsessed skeptics. Chopra is merely carrying on an old tradition of persecuting those who challenge the desire for power and money with facts and reason.

As long as we are invoking the name of Einstein, here's an actual quote from him:

All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

Notice Einstein didn't say that bullshit was the most precious thing we have. Or "spirituality," or warm and fuzzy faux-science. Nope. He said "science." Cross Einstein off the list of people you can use to support your stuff, Mr. Chopra. Of course, if you interested in being honest, you would have already done that.

For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them.

Skeptics do not worship old theories. In fact (there's that nasty word again), skeptics are the ones that overturn old theories/hypotheses/beliefs/assumptions/etc. But skeptics are eager to "shoot down" theories -- both new and old -- if they do not stand up to fact and reason. Fact and truth - unlike Chopra -- can stand up to such an assault. Real scientists/skeptics treat the critical treatment of theories as a good thing, as it points to way to more facts and greater truths.

It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists. Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe.

There's no way to sugar-coat it: This is just a lie. A sense of wonder about the universe is endemic in skeptics, and this is why they dislike bullshit: it deadens the wonder of the universe and replaces it with drug-like complacency and stagnation. Some of the most prominent skeptics (David Attenborough, Carl Sagan, and many more -- including one of Chopra's targets: Richard Dawkins) possess a sense of wonder that practically oozes from them. It is this sense of wonder -- of the possibilities inherent in the unknown -- that drives these people to greatness that very few are able to achieve. And, yes, Einstein was one of these.

Skeptics know in advance -- or think they know -- what right thought is. Right thought is materialistic, statistical, data-driven, and always, always, conformist. Wrong thought is imaginative, provisional, often fantastic, and no respecter of fixed beliefs.

By this point, he is so deep in his lies and misinformation that there is no going back. There is nothing left to do but rally the troops for the charge up the hill.

1. As we have established by the very definition of skepticism, skeptics do not claim to "know in advance." They require proof. And even at that, they recognize the provisional nature of that proof.

2. He purposely confuses "thought" with "proof." Yes, proof is, indeed, "materialistic, statistical, data-driven" and similarly grounded in reality. If not, then why did he appeal to a statistical correlation earlier in his column?

3. He states that skeptics are not "imaginative" or "provisional," or "fantastic," but I think I have demonstrated this lie above. Skeptics are among the most imaginative people there are, which is why they are responsible for the great scientific breakthroughs that help us live longer, stay healthier, travel off-world, understand our own human nature, uncover the secrets of the universe and the atom, and publish and read information (both good and bad) on an internet.

4. As far as not respecting "fixed beliefs," he is pretty much right on that account (a lone fact drowning in a sea of toxic rhetorical detritus!). EVERY belief is subject to study in the skeptic worldview. If it is true, it will hold up. If not... well, aren't we better off without it? Do we really want to live our lives based on lies and misinformation? (SEE NOTE 2)

Before once again reading his final paragraph, I want you to understand something. Deepak Chopra is a brand name. Make no mistake about it, it has a dollar value. That brand name sells consumer products. These products are, he has made it quite clear, not endorsed by fact and reason. Chopra is publishing PR for his products; he is advertising here (SEE NOTE 3). Think of skeptics as a sort of intellectual consumer advocate group. Whereas Consumer Reports (and similar groups and people) bring the ire of irresponsible corporate manufacturers upon them, skeptics likewise evoke the wrath of irresponsible corporate bullshit artists.

Now read his final attack, his coup de grace. And see if it doesn't make you chuckle a little bit:

So whenever I find myself labeled the emperor of woo-woo, I pull out the poison dart and offer thanks that wrong thinking has gotten us so far. Thirty years ago no right-thinking physician accepted the mind-body connection as a valid, powerful mode of treatment. Today, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes. But soon these forms of wrong thinking will lose their stigma, despite the best efforts of those professional stigmatizers, the skeptics.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how a 21st-century snake oil salesman operates. It is brilliant, and both hostile and transparent to those who question it. This is nothing new, just an old tradition with new products and ways of selling them.

If you are a supporter of these sorts of charlatans, I humbly ask that you question some of the undocumented, conveniently warm and fuzzy, manipulative marketing that these people impose upon you. The well-being of the world, now and in the future, is too important to be left to self-aggrandizing con men like Deepak Chopra.

***

NOTE 1: Skeptics believe in one less god than monotheists because there is no more evidence for the literal existence of one god than any other, whereas monotheists (indeed, most theists period) generally believe in one of these gods and not others because they have been told to do so.

NOTE 2: This touches on an inherent ethical aspect of skepticism. Skepticism assumes that truth and fact are good and lies and misinformation are bad. If you reject that assumption -- like Chopra demonstrates he does -- then skepticism isn't for you. Before you send me the "gotcha" note: Yes, all human knowledge/experience rests on some sort of assumption. Skeptics merely work to pare that down to as few as possible, to peel away the layers of fiction to find truth and facts that can be applied in the world in which we live. If you have a better method, the world is waiting to hear it.

NOTE 3: As I mentioned earlier on, I didn't know much about Chopra before I read this column of his. My assumptions about his "products" are based on what he wrote above. It seems pretty obvious that he is a purveyor of pseudo-science, and probably makes a pretty good living at it. Notice that he didn't mention that, either?

Opposite Ends Of The Spectrum

A recent online discussion pointed out a salient point about why I am fond of Buddhists and non-theists , and wary of Christians and other supernatural religionists.

In a discussion about whether or not kids should be indoctrinated about religion -- whether for or against any particular one or religion in general -- there was a split that showed the vastly different worldviews of religionists and non-theists. While non-theists generally believe that children should be allowed to make up their own minds when they are capable of doing so, religionists are quick to want to take advantage of the malleable minds of children. One religionist even posted this quote:

"Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

...As if that is something to be proud of. This person was quite blatantly expressing a pro-brainwashing stance in his religion. This is, though, consistent with the child abuse that is rampant in the Abrahamic religions -- both physical abuse and mental abuse. While we mostly hear about the sexual abuse that these children suffer at the hands of Christians or the beatings --especially of girls -- in Islamic traditions, the mental abuse probably does more long-term damage.

I was encouraged by the general non-theist stance of allowing children the freedom to figure it out for themselves when they are ready and able. That's certainly the camp with which I would want to be associated. This is also consistent with many (probably most) Buddhist sects.

The Order of Interbeing, which I have mentioned here before, has a basic guideline for behavior called The Fourteen Precepts. The third precept reads thus:

Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.

Imagine if all children were given that respect.

So if you happen to be keeping a list of why there's not much likelihood of me adopting any supernatural religion, you can add the fact that I respect -- and care about the well-being of -- children.

Thanksgiving, New Computer, Proverbs, etc.

- I got a new laptop today. My old one has been on the edge for a while, which is why I have been using the Mac (which I initially bought to do audio and video editing) for the last few months. I transferred my old files and should be working off of that computer mostly now. It has Windows 7, which worked pretty well today as we were setting it up.

I have written one published book on each of my last two laptops. I have a project going on now that should be done and off to the publisher this winter, and I hope to get at least one more done within the next two years.

- One of my brothers bought an acoustic guitar and is going to learn to play. I'm going to try to help him along (I already bought him a book, stand, tuner and metronome). I am hoping to get him out to an open mic before too long (notice how vague that time period is).

- In an online discussion about indoctrinating children today, a religionist posted a very telling quote from Proverbs (22:6): "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." The more you look at religious doctrine, the more sickness you find. What this says is "Brainwash children." As if the physical abuse of children by Christians is not bad enough, they actually have mental abuse codified.

- Tip of the day: Going vegetarian just before Thanksgiving, especially in a family with some members who are hostile to the idea, is a tricky thing. But then, doing the right thing often is. :-)

Beyond Hubble.

The orbiting Hubble Space Telescope has given us huge amounts of information on the far reaches of our universe (SEE NOTE). Hundreds of thousands of images not possible from within the confines of earth's atmosphere have been taken in the nearly 20 years since the Hubble left earth and went into orbit. The story of Hubble is a long one, and you should do yourself a favor and visit its web site at: http://hubblesite.org/

But in about five years, a new space telescope will see further out in space (and, hence, further back in time) and add new discoveries to our already massive amounts of data (much of which will not be analyzed for years). From the official James Webb Space Telescope web site (http://webbtelescope.org/webb_telescope/):

The James Webb Space Telescope is NASA's next orbiting observatory and the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A tennis court-sized telescope orbiting far beyond Earth's moon, Webb will detect infrared radiation and be capable of seeing in that wavelength as well as Hubble sees in visible light.

Infrared vision is vital to our understanding of the universe. The furthest objects we can detect are seen in infrared light, cooler objects that would otherwise be invisible emit infrared, and infrared light pierces clouds of dust, allowing us to see into their depths. Webb will unleash a torrent of new discoveries, opening the door to a part of the universe that has just begun to take shape under humanity's observations.

Right now, scientists and engineers are piecing Webb together, creating through cutting-edge technology an innovative observatory that not only withstands intense cold, but uses it to its advantage; an observatory that folds up inside a rocket for launch and unfurls like a butterfly opening its wings upon nearing its orbit.

In 2014, the Webb telescope will launch into space, sailing to the distant, isolated orbit where it will begin its quest. Supernovae and black holes, baby galaxies and planets' potential for supporting life — Webb will help reveal the answers to some of the biggest mysteries of astronomy.

This is a great age of discovery. Hubble narrowed the universe's estimated age from 10-20 billion years to about 13-14 billion years. Webb will narrow that down even more.

Check out those web sites when you get a chance. This is stuff that Newton wouldn't even have dared to dream.

XXX

NOTE: I originally wrote "the universe," but there are some hypotheses out there that indicate ours may be one of many universes, just as our galaxy is one of many galaxies, or as our star is one of many stars, etc.

Perhaps The Best Reason...

There are lots of reasons for living a vegan lifestyle (SEE NOTE 1). Among them:

• Compassion for farm animals. This one is pretty obvious. Farm animals suffer not just because they are killed for food, but because of the horrible conditions in factory farms and the genetic manipulation of these animals to make them more efficient meat producers. "Old McDonald's Farm" is a lie that we hold up to make the torture of farm animals seem less real, or even somehow happy.
  

• Compassion for wild animals. Huge amounts of land are needed to house and grow food for farm animals, decreasing habitat for wild species. Wild species are often hunted near grazing lands because of their prey instincts.
  
  
• Environmentalism. Animal agriculture is inherently inefficient. It requires large amounts of land, water, and energy. It also creates huge amounts of air, water and soil pollution.
  
  
• Labor issues. Factory farming hurts the American worker. Factory farms replace people with automation. Poultry processing is one of the most dangerous jobs in America (without the increase in wage that you might expect to go along with a dangerous job).
  
  
• Human health. The negative effects of a meat-based diet are well known (and, like the benefits of vaccinations, generally denied by extremist nut-jobs).
  
  
• Patriotism. Animal agriculture speeds the use of our natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil, increases our indebtedness to foreigners, increases our taxes, stresses our health care system, and decreases our quality of life.
  

So there are lots of ethical and rational reasons for adopting a vegan lifestyle. But there is an even better one: It pisses off Sarah Palin.

One way of gauging if something is good is to see if it bothers bad people. Veganism meets this criterion. Although you can be damn sure that Sarah Palin will not get a cent of my money (and it pains me to give her any mental- or word-processing time), I heard this week that among the many things she complains about in "her" book (I don't know who actually wrote it) is vegans.

That was good enough for me to desist my consumption of animal products on the spot. When Diane got home from work, I informed her of the matter. I believe she understood.

I was a vegan in my 20s for about five years, so I know I have the strength and discipline to do it (SEE NOTE 2). If I had kept that approach, I would almost certainly not have a stent in my anterior descending coronary artery as I write this.

All I need to do to stay on track when I see a tempting steak or smell bacon cooking is picture Sarah Palin in the Oval Office. If that doesn't scare me straight, nothing will.

XXX

NOTE 1: Veganism is, essentially, a way of living that eschews the use of animal products. It is primarily dietary in nature (no animal flesh, by products, or excretions), but tends to also include the avoidance of purchasing leather garments and such. The impetus tends to be ethical (it reduces the suffering in the world), although veganism for health reasons is fairly common, too. When researching it, one finds that there are many reasons for veganism and extremely few reasons not to do it.

NOTE 2: It can be difficult to live outside the "norm." I lost my way due largely to the hectic life that I adopted over time. Eliminating animal products from your diet is not easy as a blue-collar American with a busy life. That's no excuse for the suffering I have caused, but it is a fact of life.

Another Church Sign

I saw another interesting church sign today. This one said:

JOY IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF DIFFICULTIES BUT THE PRESENCE OF GOD

This immediately prompted some thoughts:

1. This is typical religionist marketing. In essence, it tells the reader that the answer to your problem is not to make any real effort (because that doesn't help); the answer is to buy our product. It's like saying "Clean laundry is not determined by the brightness of the colors or the absence of pathogens, it is determined by whether or not you use Tide." It replaces that which can be measured or proven with that which you must accept as fact without evidence (or even in the face of contradictory evidence). Pretty shifty. Also pretty effective.

2. This is also typical of the brainwashing that religionists must overcome in order to embrace... umm... reality. What this simple sentence on a church sign tells people is that joy is not possible without (insert deity here). This kind of stuff is hammered into their heads from the time they are kids. And it is a message delivered by people who we are told we must respect. This adds the "argument from authority" angle and, although that is a logical fallacy, how many people actually use logic in their daily lives? The emotional part of the brain is much more powerful and easy to access (hence the marketing style). Is it any wonder that religionists are generally -- and I mean this literally -- frightened of free thought and incapable of understanding how people can be happy without imaginary friends?

My version of that sign would be more like "Joy is not the absence of difficulty, but the acceptance of reality."

Call me silly, but I do not see how pulling the blankets over your head makes the monsters go away.

Friendship

I generally abhor the nonsense that gets passed around as chain mail, including the mushy "you are my friend" kind of stuff. Here's one that is more realistic:

1. When you are SAD, I will jump on the person who made you sad, like a spider monkey jacked up on Red Bull.

2. When you are BLUE, I will try to dislodge whatever is stuck in your trachea.

3. When you SMILE, I will know you are plotting something that I must be involved in.

4. When you're SCARED, we will high tail it out of here together (unless you can't keep up).

5. When you are WORRIED, I will tell you 'horrible' stories about how much worse it could be, until you quit whining like a big baby.

6. When you are CONFUSED, I will speak slowly and use little words.

7. When you are SICK, stay the heck away from me, until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have.

8. When you FALL, I will pick you up and dust you off (after I'm done laughing my ass off).

9. This is my OATH, I pledge it to the end. 'Why?' you may ask -- because you are my FRIEND!

***********************

Friendship is like peeing your pants: Everyone can see it, but only YOU can feel the true warmth.

The Miracle at Fort Hood -- Three Perspectives

Yesterday's happenings at Fort Hood, Texas should cause us to examine the roots of such tragedies. I have been pondering the reports (while trying to contain the anger that comes from seeing my Army brethren gunned down from within) and have been exploring them from three primary perspecties: religious, rational, and that of a U.S. Army veteran still dedicated to his nation and to those who share the American military tradition.

The religious perspective is the most positive one. The events at Fort Hood confirm the Word of God and should therefore, deepen the faith of many people and strengthen their belief in God. When I heard of the shooting, I immediately thought of a section of The Holy Quran: Chapter Eight, which deals with The Spoils of War. Let's back up just a bit and look at some of what transpired at Fort Hood:

One man, who was already under investigation by the military, managed to get two handguns into a military building on one of the nation's primary Army posts (SEE NOTE 1). In a thoroughly policed area like that, he then managed to kill 13 people and injure another 30 before being shot four times by police. And he lived. Casualty counts at colleges and high schools by people with multiple semiautomatic rifles and no military police presence don't manage those kinds of numbers. And the shooters generally end up dead. This was an instance of violence that went against statistics. And what is the usual term that the faithful use for instances that stand outside the statistical norms? Yes, a "miracle."

Greater evidence to the miracle theory is given by the words of the shooter (it has been reported that he exclaimed "Allahu Akhbar" at some point during the attack) and the Word of God (which I will quote shortly). There was a clear religious involvement here, which means, if you believe in the supernatural, that the Hand of God was at play.

"Allahu Akhbar" means, essentially, "God is great." Combined with the definition of the word
"Muslim," which translates to "one who submits (to God)," we see our Islamic National Motto, "In God We Trust," in the thick of this violent episode. If we -- and I mean anyone who trusts in God -- actually do trust that God, then we can (and should) go forth bravely and act upon the Word of that God. And we should expect the outcomes of those actions to be in line with the Word of God. Now read Chapter 8, Verse 65 of the Holy Quran along with me:

O Messenger! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

Pretty clear, huh? What is even more miraculous is that God promised a ten-to-one kill ratio here, and this Army Major got thirteen kills. That's pretty close to, but even better than, that promised by God (SEE NOTE 2), and it happened under very challenging circumstances.

And he survived four gun shots! On a military post, you would expect a one-shot kill, not a four-shot wound. Any faithful person has to see that as Divine Intervention.

So I think this episode at Fort Hood is one that religionists can use to support their belief in God, and can use to help sort out which is the One True Religion (in the Quran, God repeatedly refers to Islam as the perfection of religion). There are many more passages that reinforce the above, but I suspect that the point is made and more transcriptions of verse would only add verbosity.

From a rational point of view, I think things are much different. I am certain that rationalists are of the opinion that this is another example of what religion does to people. When people believe strongly (i.e., have faith) in a deity, or collection of stories, or ideology, they are too often driven to extreme deleterious actions. This is often known to rationalists as the "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" problem (it is based on a statement by Voltaire, I believe). And what is more absurd than an invisible magical father figure who encourages violence, hate, and all sorts of nasty things, while still pretending to be loving, merciful, wise, etc.? In the rationalist view, the contradictions and twisted faux-logic of religious scripture inevitably lead to incidents like this in many people who take that stuff as fact. This sort of violence is an unfortunate "I told you so" to a rationalist.

The two perspectives above should show one of the main problems with the power struggle between religionists and rationalists: Horrible events like this reinforce the worldviews of both sides, and that does not bring us closer to solving these issues.

I would like to add a third perspective; that of my own as an eight-year military veteran with a deep love of the Constitution and the nation which it created. Few things are more disgraceful or tragic to my military mind than the idea of a military member purposely killing his own. It is among the most heinous of offenses a member of the military can commit (after the purposeful harming of nonmilitary beings while representing the nation, which brings disgrace to the entire nation and its legacy). I would gladly, and I mean this literally, pull the trigger on this bastard myself. Death with honor and legitimate purpose is something to be welcomed as a member of the military. Death without honor and legitimate purpose is a tragedy (SEE NOTE 3).

The hideous disregard for Constitutional cautions about religion are dragging America down. The fundamentalist/evangelical tainting of American politics and policy has created great problems for us, and will continue to do so (at least we kept Sarah Palin out of D.C.... Phew!). We have a solid foundation for our nation, a document (and colonial history) that should teach us that mixing government and religion hurts both. The more we violate that, the more our society and our government will be degraded. Few things can be more disturbing to a military veteran who stills believes in his oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

I feel for the many people whose lives have been destroyed by this tragedy, but I also feel the pain of knowing that it will be a wasted opportunity to, with the intent of finding honest answers, ask questions about what the hell we are doing to our nation.

XXX

NOTE 1: Fort Hood is not much different in military scope and importance, and therefore security and associated policies, from my two stateside posts: Fort Bragg, NC and Fort Campbell, KY. I never would have dreamed, even 25 years ago, that someone could possess a private weapon on post, let alone two, and get away with it.

NOTE 2: Those who carried out the 9/11 attacks far exceeded that ratio, of course. And then there is the obvious divine protection of Osama bin Laden, who has managed to evade the greatest military and technological power the world has ever known for more than eight years. Note, also, the "people without understanding" comment in the passage. You will probably hear words/phrases like "why," "how come," and various other expressions of non-understanding by non-Muslims about this for a long time. This is further confirmation of the Word of God, of course.

NOTE 3: This is why I opposed the occupation of Iraq before it ever happened, and why the death toll there is doubly tragic to me.

Religious Leaders Helping The Global Climate.

WARNING: I intended this to be not much more than a little news tidbit that mocked some silliness, but I got carried away and used some bad words. If that might offend you, please navigate away from this page. Yes, I could have edited them out, but that would have changed the entire flow and feel of the piece, and I am too much of an artist to do that. ;-)

This morning, I heard a report on BBC News about a historic meeting in the UK. Religious leaders from around the world got together to address global climate change. What did they do?

With Christians and Muslims and Jews and others all together to address global climate change, you would expect them to use their particular skills and knowledge to fix the changing climate. What might these special abilities entail? Faith, and the answers it provides, right? Basically, you'd expect them to pray for a fix, then call it a day, right? Nope. They issued a statement. A statement. I am not kidding. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8333250.stm), "[i]n a statement, the religious leaders urged G20 governments to fight for a deal which would quickly end global reliance on fossil fuels." Yup, they basically prayed to government.

In all fairness, that's not all they did: "The leaders promised to raise awareness of climate change in their communities." Nice. They are going to act as ad agencies doing PSA's. Very nice. "They also said they would support international efforts to help the poorest and most vulnerable people cope with climate change, and redouble their efforts to cut emissions from their own institutions." Okay... That's kind of a non-statement, and certainly not something that we need religious leaders for. In fact, if we could get religions to stop sucking up tons of money to self-perpetuate and made that money available to scientific and technological efforts to deal with climate issues, and to science education in all nations, we just might be able to do something to help those people better deal with climate change.

Why did these religious leaders get together in the UK? Perhaps because a British scientist, Lord May, asked them to do so (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/07/global-warming-religion). A scientist asking religious leaders to help with a problem?! Wow, maybe scientists really do turn to gods when the going gets tough, as evangelists try to tell us. What did he want them to do? Pray? Appeal to the Holy Spirit? Collectively say a dozen or so Hail Maries while facing Mecca? According to The Guardian, he said that "[r]eligious leaders should play a frontline role in mobilising people to take action against global warming." Uhhh... What? "May said religion had historically played a major role in policing social behaviour through the notion of a supernatural 'enforcer', a system that could help unify communities to tackle environmental challenges. 'How better it is if the punisher is an all-powerful, all-seeing deity,' he said." Oh, he wants religious leaders to try to intimidate and coerce the multitudes. Now, that makes sense. Use a group's special knowledge to help out. Who coerces better than the clergy? Lord May did not, apparently, mention prayer in his statement (See? You don't need a collection of religious leaders in order to make a statement to the British press).

So there was no mention of prayer anywhere in this? Isn't that the ultimate mega-tool -- the Cosmic Sawzall -- that only the pious can use?

I did eventually find an article that talked about religious leaders assembling to pray for climate change (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL0793503820070907). This article DOES address prayer for climate change. But that was over two years ago. Shouldn't we be seeing the changes by now? They were praying to the omniscient, omnipresent, loving all-powerful Wizard of... I mean, God, right? Zip-bang-boom! Done! That's the way that god works. I have read it, repeatedly, in that god's own words. Basically "Fuck with me and ye shall be smited! Kiss my ass and ask for whatever and I will grant thee three wishes." So what the hell did they pray for? "'This prayer is a recognition that we have spoiled the earth and we now need to rectify this by changing our lifestyles,' said Musharraf Hussein, a British Muslim leader. 'We seek the help of our creator to acquire the strength and ability to make the necessary changes.' You idiots! Religious scripture is full of examples of the pious asking for divine help and getting entire armies wiped out for them! Seas parted! Plagues! In the face of global climate problems, you ask for help changing your lifestyles!? If you need lifestyle changes, pray for your god to keep you people from lying, stealing, molesting children, starting wars, spreading hate, oppressing minority groups, and killing people. THOSE are fucking lifestyle changes! THIS is a global climate issue! I hope Mr. Hussein made that statement wearing an orange wig, red nose, and really big yellow shoes with red laces.

You're right: I am not taking these religious leaders and their work seriously. How could I? We hear about the power of faith and prayer, but when the shit is on the line they... ummm... issue a statement through the British media. A copping out of biblical proportions (pun intended). In colloquial terms: An Epic Fail. This is like Obi Wan, at the point where Luke is about to try to blow up the Death Star, instead of saying "Use The Force, Luke," going "Umm... Good luck." Come to think of it, when considering the prospect of religions helping to address global climate issues, that'd be my response, as well.

XXX

PS -- Seriously, if this sort of stuff doesn't persuade you that even the clergy know that prayer is bullshit, you are beyond help.

Evolution In A Can

As I returned to town hall after another day of serving the local citizens, I stopped in the restroom, as I often do, to finish the processing of some of the day's coffee and iced tea. As I closed the door, I saw a can of Lysol on the shelf by the sink. It said, quite proudly and in big letters, "Kills 99.9% of germs." I looked at it and said "What about the last point-one percent?" (SEE NOTE 1)

That got me to thinking about how easy it is to show evolution to people, and why it is important that we understand it. It is this simple:

If we spray that Lysol on a germ population, we knock out 99.9% of them (SEE NOTE 1, if you have not yet done so). That last .1% then has no competition for resources (space, food, etc.) and can reproduce more freely -- all this as a result of a genetic coding that gave it a competitive advantage at this point in spacetime (that genetic coding may or may not have ever had any influence on its reproductive ability before now -- SEE NOTE 2).

With that resistant strain having the chance for wider distribution on that surface, it also gains a better chance of coming into contact with something -- like you -- that might transfer it to another surface where it can establish itself and start the whole process over again.

This is evolution in a nutshell (or on a doorknob, if you will). It is, at its core, a very simple process, and one that is easy to show. Where it gets more complicated is with, of course, more complicated organisms. This is why you don't see major changes in a species from one day to the next. It takes place at the level of DNA -- of the many combinations of just four nucleic acids contained in two polymer strands (I'm trying to keep this simple, so I will stop there). For DNA changes to survive long enough to express themselves at the species level of complex organisms take huge amounts of time.

If evolution is this simple, why don't more people understand it? The answers are manifold and complicated, but I will give you the main ones:

1. Scale. Humans have evolved to deal with things on a medium scale. That is, our senses pick up certain-sized things (including sound and light wavelengths). We cannot see DNA with the naked eye, nor are we alive long enough to easily grasp things that take more than our lifetime (SEE NOTE 3). Evolution involves both the very tiny AND the very large. Double whammy.

2. Education. It is no coincidence that evolution is least understood in populations with lower education levels. It takes a certain level of basic science education to understand evolution, and many other important aspects of the real world (SEE NOTE 4).

3. Fear. Humans are afraid of things we don't understand, of the unknown, and of change (change often means an unknown future, after all). Evolution presents all of these things. It can be hard to understand (mostly, IMO, because of inadequate education and/or scale issues), it involves an element of the unknown (of the past and the future), and it IS change. The real world is a scary place, and evolution brings much of that scariness to the forefront. Some people prefer to pull the blankets up over their heads and hope/pray the monsters will go away. Denial, however, is not a valid strategy for survival.

If you find evolution to be a fuzzy concept (even after my explanation), you should start with Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene. It will help you to understand the process much better, and just may change the way you look at the world... including a can of Lysol in the bathroom at work.

XXX

NOTE 1: The more astute reader may ask what that 99.9% actually means. Is it 99.9% of the number of individual organisms? Or is it 99.9% of the types of organisms? Those are two very different conditions. Checking the Lysol web site (http://www.lysol.com/products/disinfecting-sprays/lds-disinfectant-sprays/) gives us the following relevant information: "LYSOL® Disinfectant Spray is an EPA registered disinfectant that kills more than 99.9% of illness causing bacteria and viruses on environmental surfaces in your home. " It doesn't really answer our question, does it? Either way, we see that it gives a competitive advantage to the more dangerous germs.

NOTE 2: This particular coding may very well have been a random mutation, either old or recent, due to things like exposure to the sun (radiation causes genetic mutations) or just a plain old screw-up in the genetic replication process of the organism. It happens, and this is an important point in understanding the process of evolution -- not every change is a result of selection pressures.

NOTE 3: I view this as a sort of wavelength issue, for illustrative purposes. If one were to plot the average human lifespan and the time it takes for a given species to become another species (something that is a matter of great debate and study), as waves on a graph, the wavelength of evolutionary change would be so much larger than that of a human lifespan (yet tiny compared with a wavelength representing, say, the age of the planet) that it would be extremely rare for them to intersect. Add to this the fact that such changes are extremely hard to detect and you can get an idea of why we don't see speciation in complex organisms. It's largely a matter of basic math.

NOTE 4: Americans are lagging behind in this important area. Our overall substandard science education hurts our nation's ability to cope in the world economy, which hurts our social and political power. American "patriots" should be putting science education at the very top of the priority list if they want to see a strong America with a leadership role on the world stage in the future.

Save Your Soul (If You Can Find It)

I approach the idea of a "soul" like I approach pretty much anything else: Just because lots of people believe in it, doesn't mean I will just join the crowd. For me, the idea of a soul ranks alongside Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the various gods, fairies, demons, and all that supernatural stuff, and somewhere below the idea of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster (SEE NOTE).

At the root of the problem is, as usual, a definition. If you want me to believe in something you are proposing, I need some sort of definition, not a fuzzy and moving target that depends on current trends in public superstition.

What I think most people mean start out meaning is "that which makes each of us individuals." If that is the case, well, I accept individualism. I not only see individualism in humans, it is very easy to see in other animals. As a birdwatcher, I have even seen great differences in personality in little birds in the wild (personality generally expresses as behavior).

Where I think many people make a wrong turn (at Albequerque, according to Bugs Bunny) is when they get to the permanence aspect of it. Your soul has always existed and always will exist, they try to tell me. This is something that I call "wishful thinking;" and not fully-formed thinking, at that. The first problem is that it does not fit the soul-as-individual idea. As individuals, we change throughout our lives. Some of us even experience total changes in who we are, due to disease and/or injury. There are disorders that, to me, seem to completely refute the personality-as-soul idea.

How about multiple personality disorders? Do those people have multiple souls?

What about people that have Capgras disorder? This is a disorder that can result from brain injury or disease in which they believe one or more people around them have been replaced by an impostor (I believe that the spouse is a common target of these delusions). We talk about our souls going to hang out with the souls of the people we love (oddly, no one ever asks how that's going to work out with the innumerable loves and families we have all had in the past and will have in the future. That is going to make for some ugly situations in heaven, or wherever -- Heaven is a silly idea for another time). How does such a thing work out for those who die with Capgras disorder? Do they then remember their loved ones? Or do they still believe their loved ones' souls have been replaced by impostor souls?

When does a soul enter a human form? If it is at conception, then what about cells that later split and become identical twins? Does each twin have half a soul? If so, shouldn't that express itself as some sort of half-soul disorder, like only having half the personality traits of a normal person? What about chimeras -- those cases where multiple fertilized eggs fuse into one human? Do these people have double souls?

If our souls (as personalities) reincarnate (and I have not heard an argument that there is anything preventing them from doing so), then why do children act as blank slates? Shouldn't their souls contain the information from previous existences?

What about people with developmental disabilities? Are some souls mentally retarded? When my sister dies, does her soul magically regain whatever normality it supposedly had prior to this life?

And what about animals other than our species? If we argue that they don't/can't have souls because of their different brain structure, then we end up backing up a paragraph and having to accept that those humans with malformed or damaged brains may be people without souls. If brain structure is not the determining factor, then what is? The particular genetic makeup that makes us Homo sapiens? That begs the question of what all these souls were doing before humans arose. And if DNA is the source or holding area or whatever, we should be able to prove or disprove a soul based on arrangements of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. But since DNA is not permanent, we have a problem there.

Which quickly leads us to the question: How many souls are there? Is it one per human? If so, what is the maximum number of them? Do they get recycled? Or is every example of humanity unique? If so, then there are souls just waiting for more human bodies to become available. The number of humans that will ever exist is finite, so the number of souls must be, as well. What mechanism will make sure we don't make more human babies than there are souls available? Will all humans magically become sterile when the souls run out? Or will there be soulless humans for a bit if we run past our quota?

I could go on and on with unanswered questions about souls and examples of how the concept (at least how it has been explained to me) violates what we know to be reality. More and more, we are seeing that our individualism is a construct of our biological structure and information processing (i.e., our genes and our environment). Far from the myth that "we only use 10% of our brain," we are discovering that every part of our brain is a part of who we are, and that injuries to nearly any part of the brain can have huge effects on us. Our "soul," I currently believe, is a delicate, temporary, and precious thing that requires no hocus-pocus to explain, and deserves to be handled with great care.

As always, I am open to refutations of my observations or interpretations of data or concepts, and welcome any evidence you might have for an immortal soul (SEE NOTES 2 and 3). After all, that would make the uneccessary deaths of so many beings much more bearable (even if it does so at the cheapening of the idea of life).

XXX

NOTE: Although I don't "believe in" cryptozoological beings like Sasquatch and the Loch Ness monster, I also don't see anything that prevents them from being a physical possibility. The longer they persist as unfound entities, the less likely they seem to actually exist, but strange creatures are still being found in the wild, especially those that live in the water. Consider how unlikely the Ceolacanth was when it was found in 1938 (Cool web site here: http://www.dinofish.com/). Some cryptozoologicals, like werewolves and vampires, violate basic known rules of biology, so I don't give those much processing time.

NOTE 2: I will anticipate one silly example of support for the idea of a soul before anyone embarrasses themselves by trying to explain it: Near death experiences (NDE's). NDE's (as well as OBEs) have been tested in the lab, and even induced in the lab. They appear to align quite well with what we are learning about the structure and function of the human brain via the rapid data from neuroscience. We are pulling the curtain aside and finding out, more and more, that there is no Wizard of Oz. If we can improve education in the U.S., we'll answer many more of these questions and spooky unknowns faster.

NOTE 3: Some believers in pseudoscience/paranormal/whatever will try to invoke scientific principles. One I like is the "conservation of energy" principle applied in "What happens to our energy when we die? Science says that that energy must continue to exist." Yup. Then your computer or car must have a soul that leaves them every time you shut them down.

New Band Debuts, And Some Buddhist Thought.

Last night's debut of The Bobcats went well. This year's Act1 Entertainment Halloween bash was a crazy one, and it on well after I left around 2AM.

When Diane and I showed up, right around 9, Motif Sounds was already playing. They have a new guitarist, and it hasn't caused them to skip a beat. The new guitarist/frontman is impressive. The next band was My Favorite Mistake, and they rocked harder than I had expected, started out with a female-sung version of Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (Play some AC/DC and you have my attention). Big Daddy & the Bulldogs was next, with Jerry playing bass instead of second guitar. Another solid rockin' set for the evening.

Then my new band, The Bobcats, debuted around midnight. We were a little concerned with the fact that our drummer quit six days prior and we had to draft my friend Andrew (from Triple Seven) and go in with only one full band rehearsal. Everything went well, though, and we had a great time.

After us another new band debuted: Calamity Blue. They were good. The female singer worked the crowd well, even singing while standing on a table at one point. For many people, what she did would have seemed too calculated and hokey, but she pulled it off. That's a band to keep an eye on.

By now, it was after 1AM and the place was still pretty packed. We hung out a bit longer, but Diane was getting tired and I was reaching the "enough to drink on an empty stomach" point and I had to get up for work today.

Overall, a successful debut for the band at one heck of a Halloween party. Kappler's rocked long and hard.

And now for something completely different...

I was reading a blog tonight and the subject of Buddhism came up, specifically the idea of "self awareness." Here's what I wrote:

Not to be too nit-picky, but "self-awareness" is a concept that doesn't translate well as a Buddhist concept. In broad terms, the "self" ("atman") is seen pretty much as a mental construct in Buddhism. The understanding of this leads to a realization of "non-self" ("anatman"). Technically, yes, "self-awareness" is important in Buddhism, but only as a way to remove the delusion of self. The self is seen sort of like an anthropomorphism of a phenomenon, much like the creation of deities and such to explain things we don't yet (or maybe cannot) understand. The tough part about achieving an awareness of non-self is overcoming the fear that creates such constructs (fear of the unknown, fear of being alone, and all those other powerful evolutionary forces that have shaped our neurophysiology).

As to the larger subject of whether or not Buddhism is a religion: It all depends on the definition of religion. The colloquial use of the term as a system of supernatural beliefs leads to a "no" answer. But if we revert back to the original meanings of the word's roots -- essentially, "linking back" -- then it may well be the quintessential major religion, as it is the only one that values objectivity and fact over faith in the works of deluded men. It is almost deist in that respect, I suppose, except that deism tends to be anthropomorphic, too.

The Buddhist realization of "non-self" is, perhaps, the toughest concept to translate into Western thought. When I took a course on world religions in high school, they got it all wrong. The extinguishing of the self doesn't mean that we are one big blob of non-individuals. Quite the opposite, I believe. It has been my experience that Buddhists are more individualistic (i.e., not herd-minded), and I believe that is because of the loss of the limitations that mental constructs like the self create. We tend to compartmentalize and label ourselves, and that requires the erection of psychological walls. Tear down those non-existent walls and you are free to explore more and incorporate those experiences into your everyday interactions and expressions.

To put it in base terms, Buddhism seeks to diminish suffering through the exposing and relinquishing of bullshit. Tell a Buddhist about your "soul" or "self" and he may very well ask you to show it to him/her. With Buddhism as a tool -- for that is all that it is -- one can seek out and find useless and harmful beliefs and attitudes and, as a result, create a more accurate, helpful, and useful mental model of life. One of the biggest parts of that is the understanding of the delusory nature of the "self."

XXX

NOTE: As I freely admit, there are sects of Buddhism that have become quite tainted, making it a duller and less effective tool. But I still prefer an animistic/shaministic/buddhist religion like Tibetan Buddhism over the war- and hate-mongering ideologies that are rampant in much of the human population. We'll never cure humanity of its penchant for ideologies -- especially cold-turkey -- so let's at least try to promote peaceful, loving ones.

The Most Idiotic Thing I Have Recently Heard

If you actually listen to people, you hear some idiotic comments. My favorite recent one...

A woman in one of the buildings in which I work had her fetus die with about a month to go in her pregnancy, and I heard another woman comment, "Well, it's all part of God's plan." There's a plan that includes killing children a month before they are due to be born? "Jesus loves you, but he killed your baby?!" Don't "god-fearin'" folks blow up abortion clinics and execute doctors who do the same thing?

I really do try to be nice, but if someone honestly believes such a thing, many of their civic privileges/rights (voting and driving, especially) should be revoked. If they believe the architect of such a plan is worthy of worship, they are just too dangerous to be allowed to have political or social influence (unless our goal for society is a permanent Dark Ages).

Knowing When To Walk Away.

When engaged in a conversation with someone on a point or points on which we have different views, I try to stick with it, giving the other person as much of a chance as possible to make their point and, hopefully, teach me something, while also trying to make my views and their bases clear. There are times, though, where this is impossible and one has to learn to walk away.

I was involved in an online conversation with a MySpacer on two different subjects. One of them was the presence of "ghosts" or "spirits" in historic buildings (the other was about evolution). The conversation began when I saw this person tell someone else that historic buildings are "notorious" for being inhabited by spirits. Well, since I happen to know a bit about historic sites, have spent much time at them, and have expended a great deal of time, energy and money to help preserve these sites and their history for the good of all, I felt as though I needed to jump in.

I noted how I had a much greater than average exposure to historic sites and their histories, including cemeteries and places where deaths had occurred (including my own 95-year-old house in which at least one person has died) and places that have been tied to ghost stories (SEE NOTE), and that neither I nor anyone that I knew in the field had ever experienced anything not explainable by the physical world. While this is not a scientific study, my level of exposure and network of others with high exposure to these sort of sites lends a much greater statistical significance to my anecdotal reports than someone whose experience and information base is limited to TV and the internet.

In addition to the results of my personal experience, historical research, and discussions with others in the historic field, there is no physical evidence for the spirit world. Yes, there are things that are "unexplained," but that does not mean that they are not explainable. Many things that we now understand quite well were unexplainable for many years: radiation, DNA, fire, viral diseases, etc. Many of these sorts of things were given supernatural explanations, yet we know now that they are easily explainable.

Naturally, my arguments based on fact and reason did not deter the individual. I, and all of the other people I know in the field, were dismissed as not being "in tune" with spirits and I was also hit with the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" falsity. Let's use an analogy here, as I did in my response: Suppose I tell you there is a 12-legged cat in a certain room. If you go in the room and find no evidence of a 12-legged cat or any evidence that a 12-legged cat was ever there, what would be your conclusion? That you weren't "in tune" with 12-legged cats? While I wouldn't fault you for saying at an absolute level that there might theoretically be a 12-legged cat in there, I would think that you were dead-fuck-nuts if you acted like there was a 12-legged cat in that room whenever you were there and told other people there was a 12-legged cat in there. For all practical purposes, I would consider you much more sane if you acted as if there was no 12-legged cat in the room, even if you took a quick look around whenever you walked in that room.

She ended that post by claiming that her belief in demons and ghosts and such did not make her any less "intellectual." Well, here's the definition of "intellectual" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary (the bold italics are my emphasis):

Pronunciation: \ˌin-tə-ˈlek-chə-wəl, -chəl, -shwəl, -chü(-ə)l\

Function: adjective

Date: 14th century

1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c : requiring use of the intellect

When one asserts that something exists because of their experience and/or anecdotal information, when rationality points to its nonexistence, one is being exactly the antithesis of intellectual. There were other misdefined and undefined terms, no references to materials that might provide a basis for her assertions, and gross evidence of an ignorance of some of the subjects being discussed.

My conversations with these people are sometimes almost identical with some conversations I have with my sister, who has a developmental disability. Example: She likes to close blinds during the day and open them at night. I have tried over and over to explain to her that people can see in at night when the blinds are open and the house lights are on. She accuses me of lying when I tell her this. I have even taken her outside at night and showed her, but she still insists I am lying and, in fact, gets nastier and more insistent that I apparently have some evil agenda. This is what it is like to talk to some people who, you would expect, do not have the same limitations as my sister.

It reminds me of Monty Python's dead parrot skit:



No matter how dead you show the parrot to be, they just make stuff up, misuse terms, and say stuff that has no meaning. It is annoying, and a waste of time. While I don't like to walk away from a conversation, if it has no potential for productivity, then I need to learn to walk away.

It is a shame that people believe in baseless BS when there is a wonderfully beautiful and complex world of reality around them. While I feel bad for them, I need to learn that I can't "save the world" and that some people are just destined to live out their lives in a fantasy world. The best we can hope to do sometimes is to control the amount of damage such people do to the world around them.

XXX

NOTE: Two of these sites, which have been the subject of "real ghost stories" (an oxymoron) on TV, happen to be ones where I am generally recognized as the leading authority on their history. On one of these shows, the "haunting" was confirmed. I have not seen the other yet.

A New Retreat Tactic For Christian Fundamentalists?

After years of weakening America with lies, misinformation, and fantasy-based policy-making, religious fundamentalists have been forced into some degree of retreat. Whether this is a linear move toward the future (for the sake of America and humanity, let's hope so) or, more likely, just another pendulum swing, remains to be seen. Regardless, though, watching the retreat and the desperation it has caused allows for some interesting observations.

Earlier today, I read a letter in a popular motorcycling magazine that referenced the supposed "God-inspired Constitution." This is the first time I have seen this phrase, and I can't help but wonder if it is part of a larger movement, since the pious aren't real big on individual thought.

Perhaps the facts about the Constitution are becoming widespread enough to cause this? Not likely. So let's review a few here to see if we can find evidence of this inspiration...

Perhaps there is a mention of God or Jesus in the Constitution? This would seal the deal, right? Well, despite the claims of Christian fundamentalists that the US is a "Christian nation," there is no mention of Jesus (the defining element of Christianity) in the Constitution. Nor is there a mention of the Abrahamic God (SEE NOTE 1).

Maybe we can find this inspiration in the Preamble? Surely, that will explain the inspiration for the document, no? Here it is:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Hmm. "We, the People" ordained and established the Constitution. Not some god. This should be considered blasphemous to any religious fundamentalist worth his weight in... uhhh... frankincense. Muslim fundamentalists realize this, and it is a big part of why we have been under attack from them. The Quran makes it pretty clear that Jew and Christians are roughly the equivalent of other nonbelievers, and the representation of those traditions in our social demographics just makes them that much more nuts (SEE NOTE 2).

But hold on: Religion is mentioned in two places in the Constitution:

1. In Article VI:

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now, wouldn't this be an odd thing to be included in a document inspired by a particular god, especially if that god was trying to establish a nation based on only one of the three religions that worship it?

2. In the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Let's just pretend that I cut and pasted my comments from above and save me the effort, okay?

To further the investigation into the case of divine inspiration of the Constiution, let's ask if the document mentions that infamously-demonic antithesis of godliness: science.

Well, yes, it does, in Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..."

As always, there are a few interesting aspects here:

1. I am no lawyer, but this would appear to be the source of all copyright and patent law in the US (My thanks go out to the founders for the royalty check I received last week).

2. The founders expressed their intent to, quite literally, to promote the progress of science. You know science: That system of fact and reason that has given us things like General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and lots of other things, the most spectacularly successful of them being Evolution. If the Abrahamic god hates evolution, as fundamentalists often remind us, why would it inspire the founders to promote science? Surely, the deity was smart enough to realize this would aid in the discovery of evolution (SEE NOTE 3), as well as bazillions of facts that negate the "facts" of the histories written in scriptures.

3. The importance of science to the founders is shown here, just as it is on the first coinage of the US (photos in my My Photos album).

We could go on for quite some time about it, but I would hope that the idea of a "God-inspired" Constitution has been shown here to be nearly as dishonest and/or ignorant as claims that the U.S. is a "Christian nation."

Christian fundamentalists, it should be recognized, will not easily give up their efforts to inject their wickedness into any crevice that is unprotected. It is what they do. They are very, very good at politics and manipulating power. We will see lots more of these lies expressed in new and mind-boggling ways as time goes on and they are forced further into retreat.

Allow me to inject a personal anecdote here:

Earlier this year, I was asked by a Christian fundamentalist if I was "one of those people trying to take God out of the Constitution." That grandiose display of ignorance and anti-Americanism stunned me like a taser. I don't remember what I said, and it wouldn't matter anyway. Facts and reason do not appply to these people.

If you believe that I might have quoted the Constitution out of context or left out things that would counter my point, please send me your mailing address and I will send you a free copy of the Constitution, with all of the amendments included (I have some left over from Constitution Day). Unlike supernaturalists, I encourage -- and am happy to help -- you to explore the facts for yourself.

XXX

NOTE 1: The year of the Constitution is written as "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven," so some might argue that there is a mention of their god, but keep three things in mind: 1. The founders of this nation were political descendants of Great Britain, which determined the calendar, and we should expect such a calendar from a king who was also head of the official (Anglican ) church of the state. 2. Considering the often-deistic writings of many of the founders, the "Lord" referenced was not necessarily the Abrahamic one. 3. Consider the fact that, following the above, was this phrase: "and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." If the writers of this document were so dedicated to any religion, why would they feel the need to add a secular measurement of time immediately following the religiously-dictated one? That was a pretty radical move, and one that I am surprised has not been more noted by those defending the secularity of the Constitution.

NOTE 2: Certainly, some desperate fundamentalist will point to the word "Blessings" and say that this indicates their God's inspiration of the document, as only their god can offer blessings, but one word nails this: context (fundamentalists hate context). The Preamble makes it quite clear that it is the effort of "the People" that is securing these blessings. Again, blasphemy.

NOTE 3: Yes, I know that Darwin, Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists were/are British, but there have been notable Americans, as well, such as Stephen Jay Gould and George Williams. And let's remember that Hubble's discoveries of the expanding universe took place on US soil -- at the Mount Wilson observatory, I believe.

Why Are Ghosts Nocturnal?

Ever notice that ghosts only seem to be active at night? Ever wonder why that is?

How is it that humans, a diurnal species, somehow become nocturnal after they die?

If "spirits" exist on "another plane of existence" (whatever that means), how come they are sensitive to the day and night cycles of a planet?

If ghosts are "non-physical entities" (whatever that means) why are they constrained by time and space (the things that define physical existence)?

Speaking of space: How come "hauntings" seem to almost entirely happen in isolated settings?

The answer, actually, is quite simple: In fiction, the setting is an important element. A good story requires a compelling setting. Darkness is spooky (diurnal species tend to naturally fear it because they have not evolved to operate well in it) and that fear can distract one's ability to think rationally, making one more likely to believe... well... garbage. In essence, the spookiness of darkness (and isolated settings) numbs your brain so that bullshit can sink in better and the purveyor of that bullshit can manipulate you to whatever ends they may have in mind (like misery, gullibility loves company).

So don't fear the dark, at least not because of ghosts. Fear people who want you to believe unsubstantiated claims. They are much more real and dangerous.

XXX

P.S. - Although it was not my intent, yes, I realize that I also explained why most religions play on fear with threats of banishment to spooky places.

The End of Album-Length Releases?

There was a discussion on WNYC's "Soundcheck" show a few weeks ago about whether single song and EP releases are going to replace album-length releases. I am not sure that albums are completely dead, but the changing avenues of release, financial reality in the music biz, and the human attention span certainly will dictate more short releases.

The music business no longer has a near-monopoly on the ability to release songs or collections thereof to the public. Pretty much anyone with a computer and an internet connection can create music and make it available to the public. In such a case, there seems to be little justification for compiling a collection of a dozen or so songs before releasing them. In fact, it is easier and more reflective of the artist's state at any given time to just release them "as you go."

As for the financial aspect, it takes just about as much money to create a CD with a few songs on it, reproduce it in large numbers, and advertise and distribute it as it does to do so with an album-length CD. And you can charge more for the CD with more songs (since you are including more product per package), which helps to offset the expenses involved. This is probably why albums are favored by record companies. This business model no longer holds as much water. The growing use of downloads over CDs means that the financial justification for album-length releases has largely been nullified.

Just as newspaper and magazine articles are too long to keep the attention of today's Twittering mentality, albums are too long for many of those same people. The idea of a concept album that requires someone to apply attention over the span of many minutes flies in the face of the contemporary one-unpuncuated-uncapitalized-nongrammatical-phrase-at-a-time state of mind and general communication.

So, yeah, I suspect that the album will be going away more and more for a while. But life tends to be like a pendulum, so things may change and we may see the return of the album someday. This sort of change has happened before.

As I will discuss more in a future post, I have been working to put together a side band project based on rockabilly and surf music. Those who know me already realize that this means a great deal of research on my part. I have been, of course, researching songs and artists, as is necessary, but I have also been researching the history behind the music, and this history includes a change like we are seeing now, but in reverse.

When rockabilly was at its peak (ca. 1954-1958), 45's were the medium of choice. A 45, for those of you who never have seen them, is a small record contains two songs, one on each side (SEE NOTE). The decline of rockabilly as a widely popular musical genre in America roughly coincides with the decline of 45s and the rise of albums in the 1960s.

Rather than stopping in a studio every couple of weeks or so to record something that was hot "now," bands worked longer to assemble a more comprehensive approach to releases. Instead of several 45s over the course of months, bands started releasing albums -- more songs, but less frequent releases. This stayed as the standard form of popular musical release for about 40 years. We are now seeing the pendulum swing back.

So while the fate of the album seems largely sealed, fans of that approach can take solace in the fact that these things can, and have, come around -- the pendulum does tend to swing back.

XXX

NOTE: For those of you who don't know, 45s were named for the speed at which they had to be rotated on a turntable for them to be in the right time-frame. Less than 45rpm meant a drop in pitch as the music was played below its recorded speed. Above 45 rpm, the recording would go up in pitch (think of The Chipmunks). Album's were intended to be played at 33 1/3 rpm. And there were even 78s. A form of amusement used to be to play a record at a rate different than that for which it was intended. It sounded funny. Heck, fear-mongering religious fundamentalists used to spin records backward to try to prove there were hidden satanic messages in the recordings. Seriously.

September 11 Thoughts. Eight Years Later.

As I was driving around at work today, I pondered two opposing interpretations of the September 11 attacks and their implications. I thought about it in terms of faith, and in terms of reason (you'll notice that neither of these involves the "9/11 truther" movement), both as interpretations of the events and the obvious implications of those interpretations.

I. Interpretations

1. To a reasonable person, the events of September 11, 2001 seem to have been committed by people driven mad by a literal interpretation of a violent mythology (SEE NOTE 1), combined with innovation, good planning, hard work, and a dedication to an ideology (i.e., faith). All of these things were put together to kill thousands of their fellow human beings, none of whom they knew -- or cared -- anything about.

2. If, on the other hand, you are a supernaturalist, believing on faith over reason as a way of understanding the world, you must have a different view. I will break this down into two groups: a. supernaturalists who do not believe in the Abrahamic god and b. supernaturalists who do believe in the Abrahamic god.

a. Supernaturalists who do not believe in the Abrahamic god have it easy. The problem appears simple: The victims and the perpetrators obviously believed in the wrong god(s) and they were punished for it.

b. The interpretation for supernaturalists who do believe in the Abrahamic god (i.e., an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god or gods -- SEE NOTE 2) is similarly simple: It was God's will. There is no other way. Believing anything less is a betrayal of faith in that god. You either have complete faith in a deity, or you do not. God sent servants to kill thousands of people. We must accept that. This is an M.O., by the way, that is very common in Abrahamic mythology, and one of the "Clear Signs" that this god uses to show its existence (SEE NOTE 3).

II. Implications

Now let's look at the implications of these interpretations of the events.

1. A reasonable person will most likely come to the conclusion that we must work to help people to stop believing in absurd (and childish) notions of killing to appease an invisible friend. This means, among other things,

a. The teaching of critical thinking skills, so that people can judge reality from bullshit for themselves (this is just the old timeless classic "teach a man to fish" parable).

b . The teaching of factual information that shows our interrelatedness with other humans and even non-humans. An understanding of this interrelatedness will raise compassion.

c. The raising of awareness of mental illness, and a dedication to finding ways to treat it (if you don't believe that the terrorists were totally fucking insane, you don't belong in the "reasonable person" group).

To a reasonable person, the above three steps would be a great start, and a positive way to respond to the truly senseless violence of September 11, 2001.

2a. For supernaturalists who do not believe in the Abrahamic god, the implication is simple: The world needs to convert to their religion, then they won't be punished/fooled like this. It is a simple answer. Occam's razor, anyone?

b. For supernaturalists who do believe in the Abrahamic god, it is even easier: There is nothing to be done. All is God's will (SEE NOTE 4). The only thing that might need to be done is to work to dissipate any question there may be of that god's will. Faith can be hard work (but it is easier than assembling facts and thinking about them in a large context).

I'll admit that this is an off-the-cuff argument. I have never pondered this prior to today (9/11/09), so there must be holes in my analysis (if we may call it that). This is further exacerbated by my anger regarding this matter (I can still remember the smell of the towers burning). Feel free to point out any weaknesses.

Eight years after these events, we haven't even discussed the deeper causes of religious terrorism. I can't take a nail clipper on a plane, but there has been no public debate of the effects of brainwashing kids (or adults) with superstitious crap that hinders their ability to act as rational and compassionate human beings. Go ahead and explain that to me.

XXX

NOTE 1: I don't doubt for a second that there are people who will question my "driven mad" assertion. In pre-response, let me point out that there is no rational (i.e., sane) way to comprehend a literal interpretation of the Abrahamic mythology. The texts contradict themselves often, rarely express ideas in a reasonable fashion, evoke negative emotions such as fear and guilt, and repeatedly threaten the reader with punishment if they do not follow the idiotic instructions they are given. One must be pushed by such things into an irrational and emotionally-driven state. The result of this is much of what we read about in history books and in the daily newspapers.

NOTE 2: The reason I say "god or gods" is because of the Christian idea of the trinity (three-in-one god) concept. This is a major bone of contention with Muslims and Jews, and the Abrahamic God states quite plainly that it is blasphemous.

NOTE 3: I am tempted to post relevant scriptural passages here, but if you have spent any time with the Abrahamic scriptures, you don't need me to show how this god nails people it doesn't like.

NOTE 4: Please don't try the tired old "free will" crap. The Abrahamic God makes it quite clear in scriptures that it determines all outcomes. You could argue that a belief in free will is an outcome intended by that god, and that is a fair argument, but you might slip into a feedback loop that could explode your brain. Of course, that would just be God's will, as well.