Wednesday, May 30, 2007

wax museum



let us, for a moment, indulge the creationists that the universe and earth was created by a deity. this concept has been cleverly made politically correct through terms such as "intelligent design." suppose we ignore all evidence of evolution; we ignore tooth and claw, immunizations, and halibut (a fish that was clearly distorted quite pathetically not by beautiful design but through environment.)

does this even begin to suggest that we know anything about god? from simply a scientific perspective, god would appear either comedic or cruel. lions have claws and teeth, and antelopes have legs in which to flee. which does god prefer? perhaps neither, but simply a great violent spectacle such as the romans enjoyed at the colosseum.

it's also been within our inventiveness to conceive of thousands of gods, and intricate soap operas where supernatural deities defend egos amongst themselves, often times using humans like chess pieces within their celestial games. is it fair to say that our concepts of god are merely based upon time and place?

take the judeo-christian god. in our earliest concepts of this god, there was no mention of microscopic organisms. adam was presented with lions and tigers (and to some, dinosaurs) in which to preside over. why not bacteria? why not yersinia pestis (otherwise known as the bubonic plague)? could it be that we humans could not conceive of such a thing as disease at this time and place?

surely--for it wasn't holymen telling the europeans to wash their hands and avoid rodents. the black plague was punishment by god for sin. now we know quite different. but it simply was the best gauge for the situation as we were able to conceive...a supernatural bridge between humanity and understanding the natural world.

it is even more fascinating (and disappointing) that even today, pastors will claim that HIV is god's punishment for homosexuality, with as much as we know about microbiology. this religious theory does not explain, however, that lesbians rarely, if at all, contract HIV through sexual intercourse. earthquakes and tsunamis represent the great anger of a vigilant god, but in reality are simply the scientific result of a cooling planet.

the truth remains that even if we accept a creationist point of view, we still have to deal with evidence. the fact is, no evidence leads us to conclude that any one god, or gods, are correct. so then we're still reliant on faith--the belief in something where there is no supporting evidence.

the chaos as result would be incredible. even now, i think most believers do have doubt about their beliefs, and consider that they might be (gasp) mistaken about their religion. this doubt, for all purposes, might be the last shred of reason and rationality that keeps them sane and functioning in a civilized world.

if we all were absolute true believers in any single god, much would have to change. we could, without reservation, sacrifice our children to our deity. we could pass theocratic laws supporting the systematic genocide of adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, and the college student with a sunday evening shift at the laundromat.

the perseverance of those who promote intelligent design would hopefully conclude that jesus is the son of god, but it will not. instead, the possibility of all gods that ever existed in our minds and history are fair game.

and if that day should come, i think i'd be a Thor worshipper.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Hitchens vs. Hannity

Christopher Hitchens spars with Hannity & Colmes over the life of Jerry Falwell

Monday, May 28, 2007

belief in believing

a co-worker of mine introduced a book to me entitled, "hidden messages in water," by masaru emoto. the premise is quite simple. a so-called "doctor" in alternative medicines from the east performed some experiments with water crystals to see if water, in itself, has the ability to react to external variables--in this case, types of music, types of imagery, even select words such as "fool" or "cute." the hypothesis is simply that water, making up a substantial portion of our bodies, can be affected by positive or negative energies, and thus, react in a way that would affect our spirit.

the author presented images of the crystals that appear to react to these variables. water presented with symphonic melodies, or positive words such as "cute", formed crystals that were found to be symmetrical and harmonious. on the other hand, water presented with heavy metal or negative words such as "fool" spawned ugly, fractured crystals. some crystals, the author claimed, formed images of guns and children.

james randi, a skeptic who is known for offering large sums of money in exchange for paranormal proof, has offered one million dollars if emoto can replicate the results in a double-blind study--a feat that has yet to occur, no doubt as result of emoto's apparent popularity in the new age world of paranormal quantum faith healing.

like the "theory" of intelligent design, paranormal claims have attempted to infiltrate the realm of science, skew the results and ignore the grueling scientific method, in order to create false truths about life. and it's popular, as well. walk into any bookstore and compare the science section (usually small and tucked away) to the new age section, vast and littered with tarot cards and other paraphernalia.

some recent gallop polls have suggested that 25-40% of americans believe in at least one paranormal event, anything from ESP, astrology, ghosts or telepathy. even more recently, gallop suggested that 82% of americans believe in god, and another 9% believe in some sort of "universal spirit." mind you, that each of these subjects have zero scientific evidence. the common solution for believers of the paranormal is to claim that either "faith and god is beyond scientific understanding" or simply choose to distort and twist science so that it somehow concludes their point correct.

i find the latter to be more prevalent, simply because modern science is doing such a profound job at discrediting the supernatural, that it is almost impossible to ignore the evidence.

the "creation museum" has recently opened in kentucky, proclaiming the scientific truth of creationism--which usually represents the belief that the universe and the world was created by god not more than 6,000 years ago. this museum features (wait for it) humans walking alongside dinosaurs--even noah stored baby dinosaurs upon the ark (well, now that that's settled.) the blatant disregard for the facts, and ultimately truth, is so prevalent in our culture that it astounds me that we all still bear the psychological grounding to function together.

well, perhaps astound is not completely correct. god certainly gets plenty of lip service, but do people really believe in their so-called faiths? religion and new ageism had bridged the gap between us and our world in human infancy, filling it with gods and mysticism when the scientific method and technology was unavailable to us. there is much we know now--third graders know more about the universe than did the so-called great theologians of our past--st. aquinas, augustine and the rest. (it was of course, st. aquinas who taught the archaic belief that unsaved children are sent to a state of limbo, now just recently renounced. are these the types of things we should spent our years on this planet considering?)

no doubt, the belief may require no evidence, but it is clear that people want to believe--or as carl sagan put it, the "belief [is based] on the deep-seated need to believe." and obviously, most can't tell the difference.