This, That, the other and more

Serious conversations (part 33):

2012-01-20T18:03:00.000-06:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The thirtieth through thirty-third entries deal with death.

So stating that we will be able to cheat death at some point and assuming we live long enough to see that happen, would I want to live forever?

For me, I think I will eventually get bored, and we all know that forever isn’t really forever. In a very large number of years, the universe will no longer have any useable energy, and we won’t be able to exist (thanks to the second law of thermodynamics). So we will die; even with technology, we cannot cheat death. (I say that with certainty based off of current knowledge, perhaps there is a way around all of this, whether through multiverses or whatever.) But the fact remains, with /nearly/ unlimited time, I’m going to run out of stuff to do, probably.

However, the sum of human knowledge doubles every few years (that rate surely is not sustainable), so I could live forever and not run out of things to do (learn). [Speaking of inventing things to do, my friend theorized that perhaps our “reality” is just a program inside a computer and our actual selves are computerized and our consciousness is living out this existence as an experiment for our true selves.] However, the “Big Chill” is what, 1 with 100 zeros behind it years away. I occasionally get bored now, and I’m only 26. Imagine being 10^100 years old though. I suppose the question is, is forever longer enough to get bored with infinity?

To end the discussion on death, we are all hard wired to be scared of death. We certainly wouldn’t get very far if no living creature feared death. Evolution and natural selection wouldn’t work; creatures would die before expressing and passing along superior traits. Interestingly, I often consider the various ways I could die in a given situation. I suppose that’s a bit morbid, but I think being aware of possible hazards prevents me from being injured.

I definitely want to leave a legacy of sorts (a good one), but being obsessed with leaving an imprint can definitely cloud your judgment (a la G.W. Bush). I want to have accomplished something so that one of the branches of sciences is positively impacted. That is probably a bit grandiose, but I’m not demanding that I get an equation named after me or I receive a Nobel Prize. I just want to have done something very useful. Perhaps I don’t want to leave a legacy as much as I want to be merely remembered. (More on legacy and becoming mechanized in the next few S.C. entries.)

Tenth Annual Christmas Mass E-mail

2012-01-01T17:56:00.000-06:00

Greetings and Salutations,
        Welcome to the Tenth (yes the tenth) Annual Christmas Mass E-mail. I hope this finds each and every one of you well.
        I recently had the statistic re-quoted to me that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to master something. To add a bit of perspective to that number, if you were to practice an hour every day at your occupation of choice, it would take you almost 30 years to reach this magic number of 10,000. Thirty years to be good at something, what dedication! In thinking about all the time I have spent on all my music and instruments, I am, perhaps, a quarter of the way to it. In a way, it is somewhat depressing that it takes so long to be "good" at something, but in another way, it is very exciting because you will continually get better. I am elated to think that if I keep working, someday I might be four times the musician that I am now. Just think how much better you can be at whatever you want by the time you're reading the 11th annual e-mail. Do it; make it happen.
        Conversely, I have the terrible tendency (and this year is no exception) to be unable to say no. Given that it takes so long to master the hobbies that I find enjoyable, I frequently ask myself why I’m working on things I have no interest in. By doing something that does not fulfill some part of myself, I am denying myself the mastery of activities in which I find great comfort and pleasure. There are probably very few of us that have put 10,000 hours of time into a favorite hobby or pastime or even perhaps profession, so we all have room to improve on the activities that make us happy. If you are doing something that does not make you happy or improve your quality of life, move on; let it go; say no. And that thing you’ve always been meaning to do, start. You’ll always be 10,000 hours away until you work on that first hour. Three hundred and sixty-six days from now you will still be a year older regardless of if you learn something new or not, so you might as well begin now.
        Lastly, I want to pull a quote (hopefully not completely out of context) from another Christmas letter from one of my professors. He said, “…the lessons and events of life are seldom the things that we see on the surface; there is almost always something deeper. Such is our life. We see what we choose to see…” (Perhaps after a few thousand more hours I shall be as articulate and profound as he.) I ask you to see what you normally would not see. Take time to pause, reflect, and ponder on the events of your life. They are unique to you, and only you can absorb the lessons that will best reward you. You owe it to yourself to see. Find that deeper meaning, and do not be afraid of what your life lessons might teach you.
        And that’s it. I finally finish my career at MSU in May. In some ways I am sad to see it go, but I am more excited about what lies ahead (more school in some far away location). I must assume the same for many of you — sad to know that another year has gone by, but excited to begin anew. Once again, congratulations to all of you who have really done something amazing this year, whether it’s finishing a degree, getting married, starting a family, finding a new passion in life or any other accomplishment. But never be satisfied; always strive for more. Always question, learn, grow; otherwise, what’s the point?
        Enjoy the season, appreciate the little things, and take the time to give yourself some credit for making it as far as you have. Reply to let me know how you’re doing and what you’ve accomplished; wanting to hear from you is half the reason I send this every year.

And the requisite bad joke…
A woman was shopping at the local supermarket where she selected:
A half-gallon of 2% milk
A carton of eggs
A quart of orange juice
A head of lettuce
A 2 lb. can of coffee
As she was unloading the items on the conveyor belt to check out, an obviously drunk man was standing behind her watching as she placed the items in front of the cashier. While the cashier was ringing up the purchases, the drunk calmly stated, “You must be single.”
She was a bit startled by this proclamation but was intrigued by the derelict’s intuition, as she was single. She looked at the five items on the belt and saw nothing particularly unusual about the selection that could have tipped off the drunk.
Curiosity getting the better of her, she said, “Well, you know what, you’re absolutely right. But how on earth did you know that?”
The drunk replied, “Cause you’re ugly.”

Best wishes, happy holidays,
Battalio
http://www.battalio.com/

Serious conversations (part 32):

2011-12-09T14:43:00.000-06:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The thirtieth through thirty-third entries deal with death.

Serious conversations (part 31):

2011-11-18T17:21:00.000-06:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The thirtieth through thirty-third entries deal with death.

It has taken me a while to come to terms with the fact that there is a good chance my existence will simply cease upon my death instead of my soul joining God, but I now take solace in the fact that we may be able to cheat death for at least a while, which leads me to…

What do I think about medical technology extending life (perhaps indefinitely)?

The people who are dying right now (the 70, 80 and 90 year olds) had a life expectancy of half that when they were young. I do not believe it is unreasonable to assume that we will be able to live double the expectancy of right now (so about 150ish). It always seems as if medical technology is on the cusp of something great but just out of reach. At some point we will get there -assuming we don’t destroy ourselves first, whatever there is. (This makes me mention the fact that when I retire from the profession of meteorology I want to pursue an MD, mostly because I want to work on life extending technologies and/or learn enough about medicine to help extend my own life at least. Just call me selfish.) Either we will find the genes that control aging, figure out how to clone ourselves and insert our consciousness from one body to the next (like the asgard from Stargate), or (as my friend thinks will happen first and within the next few decades) we will be able to place our consciousness inside a computer. We probably have a few more decades of Moore’s law (the law that says computer processing power doubles every 18 months) holding, and by the end of it we will have computers (perhaps quantum ones) that can process a lot faster than our brains can. It will only be a matter of finding a way to put ourselves inside a computer. I feel very uncomfortable with that. I am not sure placing my consciousness inside a computer is really me anymore. I do feel okay with slowly replacing my parts with computer parts until I am eventually completely computer. I don’t know why. If tomorrow I could transfer my consciousness from a purely organic form to a purely mechanized form, I would not feel comfortable doing it, but if over the course of some arbitrary length of time I gradually exchanged pieces of my brain for silicon wafers, I would feel comfortable with that. I’m not so sure I know why that is. A directly related question is what is the actuality of self, not just our feeling of it? Are we actually just a collection of cleverly arranged molecules in our brain or is self the collection of all molecules in our body? I have no idea.

Serious conversations (part 30):

2011-10-28T16:25:00.000-05:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The thirtieth through thirty-third entries deal with death.

Are you afraid of death? Why, why not?

At present I am not. Part of that is naïveté certainly. Part of it is because I am rather young and in theory I won’t have to worry about it for at least half a century. I take a dual approach (one from my vaguely Catholic side [I could pick any religion, but I’ll stick with Catholicism because I know it best and, well, I have to pick one.] and one from my agnostic side). If God exists I think I’ll go to heaven or at least purgatory (assuming that exists) (I haven’t committed any of what the Catholic Church calls mortal sins, which is a debatable term in and of itself.); however, I no longer regularly confess what “sins” I do have to a priest. I, of course, don’t know how important confession is to God, but neither does the Catholic Church really, so who knows. It just happens to be one of the seven sacraments. (I also question the authority of priests. I know some really sinful priests. How much can they really do to absolve me when they sin worse than I do?) I don’t preach the Bible anymore and seriously doubt the existence of God, but I think I’m a good person and remain open to the possibility of God and evidence asserting that claim. I believe that being a good person and acting in genuine accordance with what you feel is moral is good enough to get you some points. (I’ll repeat that if God really wanted us to blindly believe in him he shouldn’t have made his existence so logically improbable and given us reason and logic to have figured this out. So how can he punish someone simply for using his “gift” of logic? [I refer you to my “This I Believe” series that can be found earlier in this blog on more about what I believe.]) I still attend church and try to pay attention, but I admit most of the reason of my attendance is because I get paid rather well to play music. But I try to believe, and that is the point is it not?

So under the assumption that I will get to heaven, which I am reasonably confident of, and that heaven is a nice place, why worry about death?

Agnostically, I have focused myself on not wasting my time under the assumption that when I am near death if I feel I have accomplished all that I can and want, I will have no regrets (besides wanting more time). If I have lived a life I am proud of – one that has made me and others happy (I refer you back to the discussion of happiness [S.C. Parts 20 and 21] as to what I think makes me happy.) such that I feel fulfilled, then I will have done all I can do in life. I think that it is the fear of regret that causes such fear of death.

Serious conversations (part 29):

2011-10-07T13:06:00.001-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twenty-ninth entry is a selection of comments on relationships.

        This is more a comment about marriage and relationships in general, but to what extent are all relationships arranged. I'm not talking about fate but mere happenstance. By our choices in life we are arranging to meet and intersect with a certain subset of the world's population and diverge from the rest. There is absolutely nothing stopping me from moving to Europe permanently (practically speaking), and by not doing so I have arranged for myself to not have any chance to be in a relationship with most people in Europe. All of our choices set a sequence of events in motion that preclude certain individuals from intersecting with our lives and include others. Our every action arranges who our eventual partner (or lack thereof) will be.

Arranged marriages:
        I think it is more than just selfishness and the idea that the family is important that keeps people from submitting to arranged marriages in the west. Some of it is that western society has decided that the family should support what an individual member does so long as it isn't self destructive. Individuality is much more important than unity. The family should be happy because its members are happy.
        I just don’t understand how arranged relationships can work at all unless one partner is submissive (or just really lucky that personalities match). A relationship is a delicate balance of wills. Unless one member doesn’t care ever, there will inevitably be conflict within a relationship. Part of a relationship is coming to terms with differing opinions, and I believe that is what makes the healthiest relationships – those where both members are tolerant and patient. Those relationships that are thrown together without a chance for the individuals to adapt to new surroundings and a new structure of power are doomed to at least be rocky. Also a relationship must be based in trust and be respectful. It would be difficult to trust someone you did not know.

In general:
        We are all told to strive toward a relationship. Emphasis is placed on finding someone. A lot of that has to do with the beliefs of religions, Christianity in particular, that the son leaves the mother and starts a family of his own etc. – that famous scripture from Corinthians that is read at every single wedding in the US. I kind of resent that thought. For the longest time in high school and for a few years of college I placed such emphasis on defining myself by a current relationship that I lost sight of who I really was. It has only been recently that I no longer define myself by who I am with (or not with as the case might be). I define me by me.
        Relationships are so very random and chance. This might be why religions have embraced them so much. This is another element of our lives we cannot control, but it certainly is something God can control. If we pray enough and in the right way to him, perhaps he will grant us that perfect somebody to spend the rest of our lives with. I contribute my general success with relationships mostly to my luck and the fact that I’m quite patient and forgiving and I tend to attract similar people, not that I have been destined by fate or gifted by God.

Serious conversations (part 28):

2011-09-17T15:16:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth entries are a collection of comments on my views of academia.

        I’ll first clarify that in my experience professors generally have some amount of ability to teach otherwise they would have gone into some other research occupation, for the federal government or the private sector.
        Even where teacher student ratios are not 1:1, an enthusiastic instructor/professor can have a lot of the same qualities as an individual teacher. Obviously they can’t have some qualities, like tailoring a class to fit one student, but they can redirect energies when the entire class is deficient in an area. Imagine for a second if you had Richard Feynman teaching a class, that would be a lot of fun. Practically, there aren’t enough teachers for everyone to have that kind of one on one time with every student. Would it probably be the best way for everyone to learn? Yes, but it isn’t possible. Education has turned into a mass production line. We are tying to get as many people the highest education as humanly possible. This is a commendable goal, but that goal is getting away from the ideal. It isn’t enough to simply have an education – it must be a good education.

        Grading is also an issue, and it’s one I’ve had to start dealing with since I starting teaching classes myself within the last couple of years. The thing is that while grading is anonymous to some point, the teacher, being human, will remember that you are a good student or a bad student. When I get tests back, I feel like I’m making the professor proud because they will usually give a nod of approval or comment on how I did. Grading isn’t completely anonymous. I, too, when grading become disappointed in one of my ‘A’ students when they make too low a score. Conversely, I’m also very proud when one of my poorer students does very well. It shows me that I’ve been doing a good job of teaching.

Student opinion in the selection of professors:
        I’ve been privy to several professor searches. Each of the candidates had to give a lecture in a respective course their position would end up teaching. At the end of the lecture the students and current professors would rate the professor on how he/she did. I ended up sitting through most of the lectures, and quite a few of what were otherwise solid candidates were rejected based on the student’s opinion. Obviously a process like this doesn’t happen everywhere, but I found it very refreshing and eye opening. Additionally while I was working on my music minor a couple of years ago, they hired a new professor, and they had a process very much like this. And student opinion was again taken seriously. While State isn’t known for its great research in music, it is very well known for its meteorology department. What I am glad for is that the ability to teach is just as important to MSU as is the ability to bring in research dollars.

Serious conversations (part 27):

2011-08-26T17:11:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth entries are a collection of comments on my views of academia.

My friend had commented that she had a difficult time relating and communicating with professors. I replied:
        I see, understand, and respect the title and hierarchy (undergrad, masters, Ph.D. candidate, post-doc, professor) of academia, but I don't feel like I can only talk with people one level above me. I find all the levels accessible. In general, most professors I’ve found have been very friendly and approachable. Most of the professors are only 20 or so years older than I am, so they aren't intimidating (and actually I’m on a first name basis with several of them).
        Interacting with professors is very important. They teach not just what you can learn in their classes, but so much more about what it is they do, how to do research, how to write. The more I interact with them the more I think I'd like to become a professor. The biggest thing I don't understand is finding and getting grant money and where it comes from etc. I'm good at finding scholarship, assistantship money, but that seems much different.
        I do hold the title of professor in pretty high esteem though. The last year or so since I've been looking at grad schools, I've been going through lists of professors at universities and seeing their resumes and what they are working on, I do feel very intimidated and a bit nervous to contact them. I think there is a perceived wall of academic separation because you don't know the professors well enough.
        I also believe that being able to meet a professor outside of academia would be different than going to them after class or during office hours. I think you’ve [my friend] just had bad luck with professors. The professors I know go out of their way to make you feel comfortable and not be too intimidating. Why be intimidating at all? Intimidation prevents the spread of ideas, which is the point of academia.

A comment on asking stupid questions:
        I know this is cliché, but often when you don't understand something, most other people don't understand it either, so I got over the problem of asking questions a while ago. I'm probably one of the annoying people that asks too many questions, but that doesn't bother me. If I'm known as the annoying questioner, so what. I let my grades speak for how well I understand, not how many "stupid" questions I ask. Although sometimes when I am taking a class from new professor, I do feel nervous about asking something, but once there have been a few grades in the class, and I know the professor knows that I'm attentive, I become much more comfortable asking.

A letter to my congressman

2011-08-05T20:48:00.002-05:00

Sorry, but this is going to be one more post of a political nature before we resume the “serious conversations”. Instead of being continually frustrated with the Congress over the budget impasse, last weekend I decided to write my representative. He is Gregg Harper, a republican from the third district of MS, and one of the sponsors of the Cut, Cap, Balance bill the republicans originally pushed. I wrote:

“I realize most of our district is quite conservative, but I implore you to take a more moderate stance regarding the debt ceiling situation. Regardless of if you believe Cut, Cap, and Balance is the solution, it will not be able to pass. You need to compromise with Democrats, and I hope you do not consider compromise a dirty word the way many of your fellow Republicans do. It will only take a couple of house Republicans to stand up for the good of the country and say enough is enough with political posturing and break with the party line.

I am not saying that you should be the one to compromise simply because I lean more liberal than conservative. I would encourage the same if I were represented by a Democrat. I am saying this because most of the country wants and needs you to compromise, otherwise we quite possibly will be dooming ourselves to another recession. Would it not be an inspiration to the state of MS if you were one of the ones that spoke out for it - that thought of the need of the country before your party's own political aspirations.

We independents are tired of the partisan squabbling. I beseech you to work with the other side before it too late, or if you are unwilling to break on your own, encourage Reps. Boehner and Cantor to compromise on your party's behalf. Don't let a few outspoken individuals on the extremes of the political spectrum dictate the country's future. Work cooperatively, and do it soon.”

He (or one of his staffers) replied:
“Thank you for contacting my office regarding the federal debt limit.

Despite the president’s rhetoric, House Republicans are the only lawmakers in Washington who have moved not one, but two bills that offer a balanced approach. From calls and emails to my office, it is clear that the great majority of folks in Mississippi and our district understand defaulting on America’s financial obligations is not a realistic option for our economy.

I have supported two plans to prevent a national default, establish hard caps on future spending and ensure spending cuts that exceed a federal debt limit increase.

The “Budget Control Act of 2011,” which Congress passed on August 1, 2011, would cut and cap spending by $917 billion over 10 years, exceeding the $900 billion debt limit increase contained in the act. It also creates mechanisms for an additional debt limit increase with additional budget savings of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and requires both houses of Congress to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment this year.

This action came after the Senate failed to proceed on the House-passed “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.” This bill remains stalled in the Senate along with the House-passed fiscal year 2012 budget resolution that reduces federal spending by $5.8 trillion over the next decade relative to the current-policy baseline and proposes entitlement reforms, which is a historical step for Congress.

The House of Representatives did its job this year, passing a budget and two plans to avoid a national default while waiting for the Democratic-controlled Senate and the White House to get around to addressing the nation’s debt crisis.

With nearly one in ten Mississippians out of work, Washington continues to borrow at unsustainable levels, which is why Congress must act to drive down spending and shrink the size of the federal government. The “Budget Control Act of 2011” is a down payment on that effort.

I appreciate you sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.”

That seems like a pretty canned response. Blah, blah, blah, this is what I did and sponsored even though I knew it wasn’t passible (ignoring that I directly asked him to compromise), but I tried anyway instead of compromising ...it’s their fault, not mine, etc. I wrote back:

“I appreciate your actions and work in resolving the budget impasse. I will take issue with only one item. You have said, "The House of Representatives did its job this year, passing a budget and two plans to avoid a national default while waiting for the Democratic-controlled Senate and the White House to get around to addressing the nation’s debt crisis." Let us not pretend that those bills the House passed were nothing but political maneuvers designed simply so that house republicans could respond to calls of inaction from constituents. Certainly it was recognized that those bills would be non-workable to your partners in the senate or the white house, yet they were written and debated anyway, wasting time that could have been used working on an actual compromise. Please, do not act as though the House of Representative's stubbornness did not contribute at all to the crisis. The potential disaster was cause as much by Republican's stubbornness as Democrat's stubbornness. I assure you the American people recognize that there is enough blame to go around for everyone. Do not point fingers. We are intelligent enough to assign blame on our own. Again though, I thank you for your work in reaching the comprise that was passed.”

Shockingly, I didn’t hear back on this message. I hope they are understanding that we are tired of their power-hungry megalomania. Even though my representative almost assuredly doesn’t care what I think because I’m not a republican, everyone still needs to write your congressmen whenever they are doing something egregiously wrong and tell them what you think or vote them out. Realistically it probably won’t accomplish much, but at least then you earn the right to complain.

Edit (8/8/11): I just heard back from Rep. Harper. I reads as follows:

"Thank you for contacting my office regarding the federal debt limit.

Despite the president’s rhetoric, House Republicans are the only lawmakers in Washington who have moved not one, but two bills that offer a balanced approach. From calls and emails to my office, it is clear that the great majority of folks in Mississippi and our district understand defaulting on America’s financial obligations is not a realistic option for our economy.

I have supported two plans to prevent a national default, establish hard caps on future spending and ensure spending cuts that exceed a federal debt limit increase.

The “Budget Control Act of 2011,” which Congress passed on August 1, 2011, would cut and cap spending by $917 billion over 10 years, exceeding the $900 billion debt limit increase contained in the act. It also creates mechanisms for an additional debt limit increase with additional budget savings of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and requires both houses of Congress to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment this year.

This action came after the Senate failed to proceed on the House-passed “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.” This bill remains stalled in the Senate along with the House-passed fiscal year 2012 budget resolution that reduces federal spending by $5.8 trillion over the next decade relative to the current-policy baseline and proposes entitlement reforms, which is a historical step for Congress.

The House of Representatives did its job this year, passing a budget and two plans to avoid a national default while waiting for the Democratic-controlled Senate and the White House to get around to addressing the nation’s debt crisis.

With nearly one in ten Mississippians out of work, Washington continues to borrow at unsustainable levels, which is why Congress must act to drive down spending and shrink the size of the federal government. The “Budget Control Act of 2011” is a down payment on that effort.

I appreciate you sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance."

Sound familiar? It should; it is the same automated message that I got the first time. So, even though you can contact your congressman, you only probably get a staffer who decides which pre authored message you get replied with.

I'm going to try one last time. He is my latest e-mail:
"Just checking to see if a real person is behind this
In a previous e-mail, I took issue with a statement you sent me by e-mail regarding the budget crisis. This account replied with the exact same message as before. That somewhat aggravates me. Either there is just a robotic message that you send in reply to everything or there is a staffer behind this with a very poor sense of humor. Either way it is a waste to even bother with this form. If I cannot get in touch with my congressman and get a serious response, I'll just vote him out of office.

Again I say, don't pretend that the House had nothing to do with the impasse that occurred. It insults the intelligence of your constituents."

With today's 5.5% drop in the market again today (mainly because of the political stupidity of the Congress), I am instituting a new political strategy. If there is an incumbent, regardless of whether he was a republican or democrat, I am voting against him. I believe all of us moderates and independents are tired of being ignored. Gregg Harper, I am voting against you. I don't care if my only other option is a monkey. It can't be any worse than the congress we have right now.

Comment on the News

2011-07-15T15:22:00.000-05:00

All the “news” is anymore is an opinionated commentary designed to sway a line of thought. The “news” is not a delivery anymore. It is an ultimatum. Either you believe what the news tells you or you are wrong. And what it amounts to is simply a power grab by a lot of deluded megalomaniacs who have beliefs founded in nothing more than their own opinion which in turn, depending on the commentator, are dubiously based in fact. It is an institution of stupid people just smart enough to know they can pander to an army of stupider people and wield immense power. They influence the weak minded, and unfortunately there are a lot more stupid people in the world than there are smart people. (Whether or not I’m one of those stupid people is up for debate.)

I could site examples of many people that are clueless when it comes to science, society, and politics, but I won’t because of politeness. They are convinced to believe because people on TV tell them that’s what Jesus, Yahweh, Mohammad [insert other favorite deity here] would want them to do or that a “real” American, Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican [insert favorite political ideology here] would do this. That terrifies me. Again, I have no problem with a leader influencing when it is based off of facts and evidence, so I have no problem influencing those that listen to the “news” as long as only things that are truthful to best of human understanding are presented. The problem is a lot of the news is only vaguely true. Rumors are published with little verification, and truths and statistics are misrepresented to assert a particular political ideal. A commentator’s opinion is given as fact. Speculation becomes substantive.

The best solution to the “news” is education. More logic, math, science, and ethics courses need to be taught in high school. People should understand what a logical fallacy is (the “news” is brimming with examples of logical fallacies [e.g. straw man, appeal to the masses – which is a fallacy almost every single voter poll commits]); they should comprehend basic statistics so they know when a commentator is merely pulling numbers out of a hat. They should grasp basic scientific concepts like evolution. And they should at least have a clear understanding of what they personally believe is right and wrong. All of this is nice, but it will take a long time to change the public’s desire to be told what to think. Thus (as many things appear to be), the time to act and reform education is now. Individually, each of us should devote ourselves to being as educated on a subject that impacts society as we possibly can. Additionally, encourage others to seek out the facts on their own. Don’t just tell other people what the facts are. Educational growth comes from the journey to knowledge, not just the knowledge itself.

Secondly, let us all agree to just stop watching the Becks, O'Reillys, and Olbermanns of the world. The only way they go away is if we tell them to by ignoring them.

Serious conversations (part 26):

2011-04-27T14:35:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twenty-seventh entry is a comment on my own self motivation and desire for power.

        I am pretty self motivated, but I get much more done when I am working within an organized structure (I believe I have mentioned this before). And I very much agree that leadership roles force me to do things in a timely and organized manner when I otherwise would not be as efficient. A couple of examples: I love playing the piano, and I am highly motivated, but I get so much more done when I have a group that imposes deadlines or I am merely taking lessons with a teacher. I practice more frequently and more diligently. I get more done. In choir, the piano is the lead instrument (a step below director if you will.), so I am looked towards in music direction, and I have to be prepared when I go into practice. It forces me to be at the top of my game. Two, I love being in school, and part of that is because I learn and do things so much faster than if I were left to learn of my own accord. To tie it back to the subject at hand - in a way collecting all the degrees that I have is a way of becoming more powerful in that I can claim more knowledge in more subjects, assuming the truism knowledge is power. Those structures pressure me to do my best, and leave me feeling much more accomplished than if I were to go off and self-impose those goals. For me, structure is key in accomplishing all that I do. Without it, I would be the deadbeat that does nothing but watch tv.

        I agree with your (my friend’s) tendency toward social awkwardness argument, and it is an interesting thought that had never occurred to me before. I also am certainly much more comfortable conversing when I am in a position of authority. I could site numerous examples in my mind of the truth of this argument. When I am a peon in an organization, I keep very much to myself, but I am very extroverted when I am in a position of power. And I become more extroverted as I gain power. I believe the relationship is directly proportional for me. A lot of my friendships have occurred because I have introduced myself to someone in an organization because I had a position of authority. And I must believe that had I not felt extroverted as a result of my position, I would have much fewer acquaintances.

        It is interesting that most of our actions and beliefs are a result of us trying to gain control of situations and circumstances that we would otherwise not be able to influence. In a way we are slaves to our own need to be in charge.

Serious conversations (part 25):

2011-03-11T17:34:00.000-06:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twenty-sixth entry is on power and generosity:

Why are people generous? You could make the case that every action is taken in self interest - that Gandhi did what he did to help better his country and by bettering his country, it made his life easier. Or that Mother Theresa worked to help the world so that the world she lived in would be better. You could go even farther than that. Those who give to charity give to make the world they live in better and on top of that giving to charity makes the person feel better about themselves because they’ve been taught by society and religion to believe that giving is a good thing. So following that line of reasoning, no one is generous or kind. We are all in it for ourselves.

But is this truly the case? I don’t know. It comes down to, “can people be intrinsically good?” Who establishes what is good but our own moral compass?

I too am drawn toward power (I don’t turn down any sort of officer position in any group I’m a part of.); I don’t exactly know why, but I would speculate that it’s because I have a superiority complex (assuming that term exists). I really believe I can do a better job at most things than at least a simple majority of other people – in other words I think I’m at least slightly above average. There must be many people that can do everything that I do better; however, I realize that those people will inevitably usurp my power and take charge because they are better and probably smarter than me. If I am left in a position of power, I must be either doing a decent job or there isn’t anybody around who could do better than me. So in my mind I’m helping any organization by taking charge. (During the previous 8 years and to some extent now, I think I could do at least as good, if not many times a better job than the President of our country. [me and everybody else in the country probably]) I realize this makes me smug and a megalomaniac, but why deny what I know to be a character flaw. Being aware of that fact allows me to better control it.

Additionally, I get very bored quite easily (no matter how many hours a semester I take nor how many organizations I join, I always find myself bored rather frequently during any given semester. [Aside: I believe this to be one of the reasons why I like gardening so much. I could work day and night for months and never completely finish working in it. Weeds grow too fast, among other things.]), so I always find ways to give myself lots of things to do, Generally you have more responsibility (and things to do) when you are in charge of instead of just being a part of some group.

Serious Conversations (Part 24):

2011-02-18T15:17:00.000-06:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twenty-fifth entry is even more on leadership, power, and influence:

It is wrong to attempt to conceal your opinion inside a presentation of the facts. An influential leader should clearly delineate what is fact and what is opinion, and no where in any of that should be any false presentation of information.

There is a problem discerning who is grabbing for power simply to have it and who is seeking authority with the desire to better the world. Those who have the betterment of society (and a well reasoned thought process) in mind when influencing are deserving of our attention. Those who do not deserve our ridicule. The problem is we often figure out after we have put someone into power whether or not they deserve our attention.

I am of the opinion that our leader should represent the common good, so even if for example, Obama were to lead us away from oil against a majority opinion, he can still be wielding his influence for good because his reasons could be more just than the reasons for those who wish to remain with oil. Example: a lot of people for continued offshore drilling are those that make money from it. Again, it’s all about education. If the random person on the street could see what is obvious to every scientist in the world - how much damage we are doing to the planet - we would have figured out how to rid our economy of oil decades ago. The random person on the street though believes what they are told by people they are influenced by, and those people might be influenced by ulterior motives (power, lobbying interests, money etc.) and don’t have the common good in mind.
But what represents the common good? It certainly isn’t majority opinion all the time. Even democracies can be fallible. A democracy after all is balanced carefully between the appeal to the masses fallacious argument (which is a fallacy every poll on any issue commits) and the appeal to legitimate authority (experts) which is a credible argument. The problem is how many people when presented an issue are an authority on the subject? Not many, so we have to hope that enough people understand enough of the subject such that adhering to a binding vote isn’t committing a fallacious argument. The line each democracy walks is very thin.

I think this is more of a question than we can answer: at what point is the exercise of power and influence too much by a leader of a democracy? It depends I suppose. We will know it’s too much when we see it. The insurance against leaders eventually exerting too much influence and ensuring that any poll or vote is a legitimate referendum is education. By increasing the amount of independent thought, we can prevent one incorrect line of thinking from becoming too prevalent simply by means of being helped by influential leaders. To increase the education of the entire country helps everyone more than the mere sum of everyone’s individual education.

Ninth Annual Christmas Mass E-mail

2011-01-07T14:38:00.000-06:00

Greetings and Salutations,
        Welcome to the Ninth Annual Christmas Mass E-mail. I hope this finds each and every one of you well.
        As I draw from the year’s experiences to write the Annual Christmas Mass E-mails, they always seem to be longer during the years where my life has been hectic and shorter during the dull years. I’ll be honest, some years the e-mail ends up being rather short. However, as I’m sure some of you will attest, this has been a very un-dull year: leaving places behind, but finding new welcoming locales; losing many good friends, but gaining even more; doors closing, but windows opening.
        In trying not to be loquacious, I’ll only touch on a couple of themes of my year. I, along with a lot of my friends, turned a quarter of a century old this year. Just wow; we’re getting old. Now that I can rent a car, not much to look forward to next year I suppose. (I hope some of the [older] adults this goes out go get a chuckle about me lamenting about age.) Every year seems to go faster than the last (I think I said that last year, but I’m losing my memory in my advanced age). Perhaps it has something to do with the pace of life demanded of us, but perhaps it has more to do with ourselves -– getting wrapped up in the things that need to get accomplished instead of enjoying the process of life itself.   Regardless of how busy I am, I try to take a few minutes every day to relax, meditate, do yoga (not really), and think. It keeps life from passing by too quickly. Being deliberate is certainly something all of us could do more of in our lives.
        I finally graduated college (2 majors and 3 minors no less), only to go straight back to grad school. What can I say? I love school. I know a lot of you have moved on now, and I hope you’ve found a passion for what you are doing that enables you to be excited for every day. Those of you that are stuck in a rut of sorts (and I don’t just mean a job), I challenge you to escape and never quit searching for what it is that motives and moves you.
        The last overarching theme/lesson I learned this year was one of humility. (Admittedly, I am pretty awesome, but occasionally I get knocked down a peg or two.) Not only does life demand of us a faster pace but a more narcissistic viewpoint. (If you won’t fight for yourself and proclaim your amazingness, who will?) However, occasionally a perspective is granted that shows you are not near infallible, you are not the most gifted, you are not even particularly special. It is in those times that I’ve learned to ennoble those around me that /are/ near infallible, most gifted, and particularly special. I have found that the ones who do continually exemplify those qualities are those that are humble, and the ones that often miss those qualities (including myself) are the ones who are not humble. And it is generally the humble among us that are the best of us. So here is to all of you near infallible, gifted, and special people, good job; don’t let us braggarts outshine you.

        And that’s it, although a bit more garrulous than usual. Once again, congratulations to all of you who have really done something amazing this year, whether it’s finishing a degree, getting married, starting a family, finding a new passion in life or any other accomplishment. But never be satisfied; always strive for more. Always question, learn, grow; otherwise, what’s the point?
        Enjoy the season, appreciate the little things, and take the time to give yourself some credit for making it as far as you have. Reply to let me know how you’re doing and what you’ve accomplished; it’s half the reason I send this every year.

And the bad joke...
There was a magician on a cruise ship, and he was quite good. He was performing the highlight of his show when the captain’s parrot walked onstage and squawked, “It’s in his sleeve!”
The magician chased the bird away.
The next day the magician was performing his highlight again (in front of a smaller audience) when the parrot walked onstage and declared, ‘’It’s in his pocket!’’
The next day, as he was performing the highlight, he saw the parrot in the crowd, but before the parrot could ruin the magic trick, the boat crashed into a rock and sank. The magician was lucky enough to find a board on which to float. Unfortunately, on the other end of the board was the parrot. They stared at each other for three full days, neither of them saying anything, when suddenly the parrot said, ‘’I give up, what did you do with the ship?’’

Happy holidays and best wishes,
Battalio
http://www.battalio.com/

Serious Conversations (Part 23):

2010-12-17T17:20:00.000-06:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twenty-third entry is more on leadership and influence:

I find that those who most want to lead do not deserve our following, but those that have it thrust upon them are the best leaders. (Modesty is a good quality for a leader, but must be balanced by the passion for the position.)

My friend posed these questions to me: What does this (the dichotomy of leaders needing to influence but also be tolerant of opposing ideas [see previous post]) mean for democracy? Everyone gets an equal vote, but in reality, most people vote because they have been influenced by some leader or other. The leaders wield the true power. If you're a democratically-elected leader, presumably your duty is to represent. Does that mean you must try /not/ to blatantly influence people?

My response: The difference is whether the influence is based off of evidence and logic or simply the desire of the leader to wield power. If a leader has logic and evidence in support of his argument, then his influence pursues a good end. A leader should merely articulate the facts, and it is up to an intelligent public to recognize the facts from the opinion. (This is why I would argue there are so many problems with the world. I am a pessimist, and I believe most people are lazy and dumb.) Also I believe we have to take into account the amount of influence a leader is trying to exert - back to my shades of gray comment. I don't believe any leader will truly, completely successfully change the mind of a voter. They are trying to convince those that already have a similar view of an issue that their differences in opinion are small. Obama would try to convince fellow liberals/democrats that his specific plan on whatever topic is close enough to what they believe in that they should support it. He isn't trying to change the mind of a staunch conservative/Republican. [As an aside I'm reading "Billions and Billions" by Carl Sagan, and he makes the point, what exactly are conservatives trying to conserve? With their drilling and consume first, ask questions later attitude, it certainly isn't the environment. I found that interesting.]

So, yes, it is the duty of a leader to not blatantly influence the public but instead to present facts in support of their point of view. The amount of influence a leader wields depends on the intelligence of the populace to weigh the facts presented by their leader against what they perceive (and hopefully investigate) as the truth.

Serious Conversations (Part 22):

2010-11-25T23:52:00.000-06:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. These are my edited responses from that conversation. Time to take the series in a completely new direction. The twenty-second entry is on leadership and influence:

Change happens. And it is accepted that leaders use their influence to cause change, but where do those leaders come from? Generally people are influenced by those they respect, and each group of people has those individuals which lead the majority. I believe the reason leaders are the minority and followers the majority is that most people are lazy and are happy being told what is best for them. Now, people are influenced by those they like or respect, but what makes someone like or respect someone else? Is it merely the sharing of values and ideas? Does the respected have certain virtues (honesty, integrity, courage, etc.)? Or are we human beings more shallow (attractiveness, charisma)? If we respect out of virtue and like-mindedness then the leader is appropriately chosen, but if we chose based on physical parameters then our decision is doomed to disappoint. [How much of an election is based off of the physical characteristics of the candidates I wonder.]

We are also taught that we should politely accept our differences in opinion from others, so how do leaders handle the need to change and influence topics while still respecting the opinions of others? It seems to me that influence is what most of our society is based on now. I would even argue that the scientific method is based off the need to influence fellow scientists, and moreover it is unprofessional and downright foolish of a scientist not to be influenced when they are wrong. We should confine our discussion about topics where there is no right or wrong point of view. In that case, I find we listen to the leaders we already substantively agree with in that we listen to those that already mostly share our views [I doubt Obama has convinced any Republican that a public option is a good healthcare proposition.]. This is why when there are opposing views there are leaders that support each idea. [This is where I would go into a discussion of shades of gray - i.e. no leader has exactly our point of view in mind. At that point, do we settle for someone who is close enough? In our political system the answer at the moment is yes.]

So it comes down to what topics is it permissible to accept the myriad of opinions and what topics is it important to argue and to attempt to influence. That is more of a personal question as to what each individual cares about. That is a result of one's societal standing, childhood development, religious upbringing (e.g. devout Christians feel homosexuality is a sin and must be abolished due to their religious upbringing. I, being not so religious, think it is a personal decision, and at the least the government should provide no preference to hetero/homosexuality. And there are many other examples of course.). The point I'm trying to make is that each decision, topic, or problem is different as to whether influence is acceptable, and the reasons for that are the same reasons that define our own personal development as individuals. In general, the more important the topic is to us, and the more fervently we feel about an issue, the more apt we are to believe it is acceptable to influence others.

Serious Conversations (Part 21):

2010-09-24T15:11:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. In this, the twenty-first entry, I decide that happiness is a process:

        Happiness is a process. You attain a level of achievement, become satisfied that you have done a “good” thing and then move on to a higher level of achievement (for example, wanting to eat, then learning a trade, then buying a home, then collecting stamps as a hobby). We are never tired of being happy because there is always another level of achievement to shoot for. And when I say level of achievement, I don’t mean some existential spiritual state. I am speaking of a state of being. Because happiness is a process, trying to do things that make other people happy is not what someone should do to makes themselves happy. Everyone is at a different level of achievement, and I would think that no two people are ever at the same level of achievement, therefore happiness is unique to the individual. Also, some people never get beyond a certain level of achievement and once you reach that point you are happy performing the same process over and over again (e.g. a person sticking with the same hobby for their entire life) A lot of the time though the person will move on to another level and find happiness doing another thing like moving on to collecting coins instead of stamps. (I think I should clarify, I don’t necessarily think one level of achievement is better than another because who am I to say so. I am talking about different levels being higher than one another because it is easier for me to visualize moving on from one object of happiness to another) The point is that we are always striving to get to a new level of achievement. And these levels can branch and cause you to try new things and do new things. Happiness is a process.
        I think the question is not what makes us happy?, but what are “good things” one does to become happy? I think that doing those good things is what makes a person happy. I believe that those good things are different for every person, and because I’m a different person now than when I was even a couple of seconds ago, those good things change very quickly. Perhaps that’s why different “good things” cause different levels of happiness at different times and why were are happy doing different things, or that we feel like performing one hobby or “good” act instead of another. When we are at a different time we are a different person, and that person has a different want, a different “good” act to perform.
        So what are those good things? I believe these are set on several levels: biological, philosophical, and societal, so there is no set list of things to that a person can strive for to perform those good acts that will make them happy. Although I’m tempted to try to categorize the possible good things, I think that would be a waste of time. So just to give a definition of a good thing: a good thing is an object of one’s attention that causes or aids in the continuation of happiness, where happiness is a state of being characterized by contentment and satisfaction of one’s life. However, there is something I can’t seem to quantify in addition to that. I don’t like my definition of happiness. It seems there should be more to it than that. But I need some sort of definition to start. Hopefully, I have more on this subject later.

Serious Conversations (Part 20):

2010-09-06T16:24:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twentieth entry concerns happiness:

My friend began by saying that there is more to happiness than merely the secretion of chemicals in the brain caused by pleasure. She suggested that because we are a social species an activity that brings an individual pleasure may not cause happiness because that activity is “socially unacceptable, considered useless, or somehow otherwise doesn't fit in with what our higher reasoning values”. For something to make you happy it must make you happy on an individual level and be acceptable socially and be valued to you on a higher reasonable level. These activities will depend on the individual and depend on social influences and culture. Some are happy doing trivial things or happy doing socially frowned upon things because they have “eliminated internal conflict, either by changing what they do or by changing what they value”.

I answered by describing what some others have thought of happiness:
        Aristotle considers happiness the contemplative life, specifically contemplating what truths there are in the universe. “the life according to reason is best and pleasantest, since reason more than anything else is man. This life therefore is also the happiest.”
        Eudoxus thought that happiness was pleasure. Pleasure being an object of choice, and an object of choice is ‘excellent’ and good, and because he saw that all things move towards and do what they find pleasurable, pleasure must be the chief end and goal. This is however a fallacious argument, appealing to the masses.
        Aristotle also thought that happiness was doing noble and good acts because they are self sufficient (i.e. that they are ends to themselves and “do not lack anything” [whatever that means]). It was also widely agreed upon that you need to have other people around to be happy-to contemplate life with, to do pleasurable things with, to do noble acts with.
        Also I would say that if pleasure is the sole avenue towards happiness then it is obvious why no one is happy all the time. Pleasure is the result of an activity. Simply because we are human, we cannot be pursuing activity all the time; we get tired. Thus pleasure cannot be continuous and then happiness is not continuous.
        So after all of this, I would say that happiness is a combination of things: pleasure, amusement, contemplation, and the achievement of “good” things. Where a good thing is an end which is noble, virtuous and helps people. I also think that some are content in simple pleasure and amusement because they don’t have contemplation and good things. I also think that many are addicted to simple pleasure and thus don’t care about the contemplative life. Lastly, I think that to be happy you must have a combination of all those things I mentioned above-one or two won’t really cut it.
        I know I am sounding like an expert on this, and perhaps I’m just trying to be an expert on my own happiness and generalizing it to everyone else. But I think that I’ll find it much easier to achieve happiness if I understand what it is, even if it is just my own personal happiness and not some universal truth, which I don’t believe exist anyway.

Serious conversations (part 19):

2010-08-19T16:00:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The nineteenth entry deals with deciding upon a purpose in life:

        I think that it is useless to plan out your entire life, but I wonder how much you should plan out, what is prudent and what is excessive. Obviously at some point plans will become meaningless because they are so far in the future, and there are entirely too many variables to be considered. Even the most carefully thought out plans are lacking at some point in the future. However, short term plans are very useful. They help steer and guide so that you aren’t lost in the tedium of day to day activities. You should take heed of how you feel and what you’re thinking about and allow that to be your guide. And if at some point, despite your best efforts, you’ve found that you’ve taken a misstep, you can always go take a few steps back and continue. The beauty of life is that you can always change your mind.
        While I don’t think you need to have an ultimate goal or accomplishment in mind, I do think everyone needs a purpose in life. If that purpose is to figure out what your purpose is then that is fine, but really living a contemplative life, one of the things I think leads to happiness, means trying to figure out what your purpose is and then acting out that purpose. However, your purpose doesn’t have to be some lofty ideal. I believe that loosely my purpose if several fold: One, my first purpose is to be happy, not a just a physical happy, but a psychological happy as well. Two, a purpose of thought, to be self aware and constantly questioning what it is I believe and do, and if this questioning leads me away or towards religion then so be it. Three, to return what I have been given (whether by divinity or chance or fate) to the people around me, that can be through my talents, actions, personality, and words - to make other people around me better off and happier than they were.
        Perhaps your purpose could be achieving set ambitions and goals. Perhaps it doesn’t matter as long as you are determined to figure out what that purpose is eventually. I for one know that I always feel very fulfilled when I do critically think about my existence.

Serious conversations (part 18):

2010-07-27T14:01:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The eighteenth entry wonders what is a worthwhile pursuit:

        In trying to figure out what exactly I should be doing with my time, I’ve come to ask myself many questions, the foremost being, what is a worthwhile pursuit of my time?
        It seems to me worthwhile pursuits should fall into a couple of categories (outside of working to fulfill basic needs – food, shelter, etc.). One, personal development, exploration, and awareness - as in learning about something new, contemplating one’s existence, meeting new people and learning about them and learning what they know. Two, advancement of the human race - as in helping others, yourself, or your environment. Three, understanding of the universe – as in discovering new truths about the universe or simply learning how it works (the sciences, and philosophy). Four, recreation – as in the pleasures and pastimes that keep our spirits up and allow for a level of unrestricted joy. We need recreation and entertainment just for the sake of it to give our minds time to relax outside of sleep. I think that trivial things are fine as long as that is not all someone does. Also, I think enabling others to perform worthwhile pursuits is a worthwhile pursuit (e.g. parenting).
        The question is now why I think those are worthwhile? Perhaps a worthwhile pursuit is an action that helps fulfill our purpose in life. I loosely define my purpose in life to be happy. I am happy when I am doing something in one of those categories. This makes sense to me even though that is circular reasoning.

Serious conversations (part 17):

2010-07-02T23:29:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The seventeenth entry concerns friendship:

My friend began speaking about friendship from the point of mutual communication, wondering does a friendship exist with no communication, and how she believe she had set up a communication barrier of sorts by not participating in some forms of communication.
“The people I’ve maintained good contact with emphatically DOES NOT map directly onto those to whom I was the closest while we lived in the same place and interacted in person. It instead maps simply to the people who are best at communicating by the same methods that I prefer to use to communicate.”

I responded:
        I can say almost uniformly that everyone has difficult developing friends and relationships when moving somewhere new. Almost everyone I knew that moved on to grad this year has expressed difficulty in fitting in to the new place and finding new people. It just takes time.
        People, as I'm sure you have noticed, like to talk. The advantages you give e-mail are some of the same things others would call disadvantages. People have so little time to sit down and actually write well thought out e-mails. And granted, I like having a serious conversation written for the sake of having a record. (I've many times sat down and read the entire way though our serious conversation.) But typing things out just takes so much longer to do. However, casual communication - the how are you? or here's something interesting that's just happened in my life - are so much easier to have via phone for most people. (Plus, despite becoming much better at it in the last few years, I have a hard time finding stopping points in conversations so instead of politely excusing myself from a conversation I end up leaving awkward silences, so I don't really talk on the phone all that much anyway.)
        I think that communication is a big part of relationships, and that without it relationships are very difficult. I can however think of a few people I still have a friendship with that I don't really talk to anymore. Some relationships can be picked up and continued despite a lack for communication for a very long time. It depends on the relationships, but to give a general statement: most relationships would fail without communication in my opinion.
        Getting back to making close friends, I read an article a while ago talking about friendships. It said that on average 70% of a person's friends change every 7 years. It went on to say that people find friends along similar avenues. So if you found friends via theatre activities or band or via your profession, that is how you would continue making friends.
        The point is you can't live in a bubble and expect to make friends. That was the problem I had my freshman year at state. I didn't go do anything. Once I did begin branching out, friendships just happened. Once you begin your professional career, assuming you don't just work and go home everyday for your entire life, you will find people your age to interact with.

Serious conversations (part 16):

2010-06-19T22:54:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The sixteenth entry in this series is another short comment on religion, specifically its prevalence:

        My friend made a very good point about why people need religion. To expound: One of the reasons a lot of people hold onto religion into adulthood is because church is more about believing in a religion. It is about socialization with others. Adults in general only socialize around people involved in work or activities involving their children. The largest social outlet for adults outside of those two areas is church and church sponsored activities. Most people need to be around other people to develop and be sane human beings. One of the best parts of humanity is being able to be with others. Church provides that necessity.
        Another unrelated reason religion is so prevalent is that religion provides an easy way to complain and ask for wishes. And if someone gives up religion they give away a level of control of their lives. To explain: when you believe in a greater power than yourself, you can pray to that power to fix things you cannot. So when someone gives up on that power they admit there exist circumstances outside of their control. They lose a level of control.

Serious conversations (part 15):

2010-05-29T21:42:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The fifteenth entry concerns self determination:

To quote my friend:
The problem is this: in a world where you can do just about anything, how do you decide what to do? When you're smart enough and educated enough to do almost anything there is in the world to do, how can you possibly figure out what you should do, what you want to do?

Ever wondered about why the fiction stories that seem to appeal most to our world now involve people who are fulfilling their "destiny?" Take something like Star Wars, Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings, and you find a hero who is simply playing out something they were always meant to do because of their bloodline or because of some particularly extraordinary thing that happened to them that doesn't really leave them much choice about what to do with the rest of their lives. That's how they become great. Indeed, it seems like heroes in these types of stories are the ones we like best. We hold some romanticized notions of destiny and fate that really play almost no bearing on everyday life today. Granted, it is undoubtedly much easier to craft an interesting story when you have a definite problem and a character with an unavoidable fate, much easier than writing a story about a character with no specific inclination toward anything or any particular obstacles in his way except the anxiety of self-determination. But that's what real life is like for people like us. It's terrifying to think that we could literally do /anything/.

In a way, life would be easier if some huge challenge or extraordinary circumstance suddenly landed in my lap because then I would know exactly what to do. Whatever it was might be extremely difficult, but it would be easier than making a choice about what to do in the first place.

Here’s what I said:
I have often pondered about self determination as well. Having taken a lot of different classes (by way of changing majors multiple times), I figured out I could pick just about anything I wanted to do and to it just as well as any other person. This is part of why I keep collecting degrees. (If I had unlimited money I would do that for the rest of my life; I really enjoy learning.) I get an inkling about an interest, and I go investigate it. This is the blessing of our youth. If we have an interest, we can go pursue it. So what if you decide that the path you are taking is wrong. At worst you've wasted some of your time (and money). I think this is what most self-determined people end up doing-trying stuff until they like it. I know a lot of people who change careers mid-stream. It is just a matter of being patient enough to wait until you have found a vocation.
        Unfortunately, some people are anxious about self-determination, and they just go to the first and easiest place they can go. I think this is partly the reason people working just awful jobs don't leave, because they are scared of what to go do next, not necessarily that they wouldn't be able to find something next, just that would have to find something.
        I agree that actually making the choice about what to do is harder than actually doing something. The problem is, I don't really know how to go about making the final determination of what I should do. I just have to hope that my future self will be able to make a better choice than I can presently.

Serious conversations (part 14):

2010-05-15T10:44:00.000-05:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The fourteenth entry has general comments about a career and college (With a paragraph about classical music just for the heck of it):

         I think once you get far into a profession, most people are devoted to their field. Undergrads are there because they know no better. Grad students are in a field because they think they will like it. Doctoral students because they believe they will enjoy making it their career. Post docs because they can see the light at the end of the tunnel. And professionals because they know enough about their field to be excited.
        I am of the belief that as an undergrad you narrow down your career path to one field, and grad school is where you figure out what you want to do in that field. There are numerous exceptions, for example physicists or mathematicians going into meteorology or some sort of engineering as they go into grad school. But in general, that’s how I see the end of college, a increasing narrowing of scope.
        A lot of finding the perfect job is luck; a large portion of it is diligence though. That’s the part I’m determined in making sure is in my favor. You just have to try until you find what it is you can do for 30 or 40 years of your life. You just have to look into something that you might be interested in and finding who it is that hires those people, what degrees they have, what is their job description, what other duties they have, etc. The possibilities are endless really, especially in the age of information we are in today.
        (In reference to the last bit of part 13 of this series.) I am not aspiring to be a professional musician or conductor, but if it ever happened, I believe I would be happy doing it. As far as composing is concerned, that’s the problem with contemporary “classical” music; there are so many other genres of music, that not many people really listen to it anymore. There is also something to be said of music not being appreciated in the era it is composed. For example, rioting at the Rite of Spring, but now it's considered fantastic, same with a lot of Schoenberg. Bach wasn’t even appreciated in his time. I’m certain that fifty years from now we will look back and see the “great composers” were right in front of us. Although it concerns me that “classical” music is not appreciated as much as it should be. A lot of that has to do with the perception that classical music is boring. The real problem is that you actually have to pay attention, be absorbed by the music. It takes effort to listen to classical. Pop music has made everyone a passive listener. As long as there is a repeating set of chords, a heavy bass line, and some vulgar lyrics, it can become popular. You don't need much brain activity to listen to it. Although there is some quality popular music being made, the vast majority of pop music is geared towards those who don't actively listen, they just follow along as a lemming.

Serious conversations (part 13):

2010-05-02T20:52:00.003-05:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The thirteenth entry is a continuation of the part about where I am going in life:

A long time ago I figured out that I was going to have a hard time in deciding what to do with my life. I enjoy doing too many things. I considered music for a while, but I also enjoyed building things, so for a while I wanted to be an engineer, which is part of the reason I started out majoring as one. My dad started making me go to the library right after I began going to junior high, which is one of the things I am most grateful to my dad for actually. I always had a curiosity about physics, so I began reading about it. That's where my physics kick began. For what ever reason, I also loved watching the weather channel. I still don't know why I like it so much, the material repeats every 30 minutes. So, I got into meteorology and reading about it as well. And meteorology is after all, only applied math and physics
Forgetting changing majors so many times, the biggest problem still remains what to do after all my school, and how much school do I want. I do intend on getting at least a master's. At this point I'm already signed up for a program. I suppose I'll decide on whether to get a doctorate once I'm a ways into my masters.
After school, I'd like to get a job. Where becomes the issue. Currently, I'm playing with the idea of staying in higher education and trying to get a tenure track position as professor. From what I've seen of it, I think I'd like research and teaching. I have also toyed with the idea of going into the National Weather Service. It's difficult to get into because they consolidated the offices about a decade ago, so there are significantly fewer positions. But, after a few years, you get paid very well. However, they work in shifts, and seniority does not get you out of working the night or weekend shifts. You get paid a 10% bonus for working then, but I'm not so keen on the idea of working outside the regular 9-5 workday, much less having to change my schedule every few weeks. In TV, the pay and hours stink for the first ten or so years (avg. salary starting out is less than 30,000 and just about everyone is given a weekend shift, meaning you work just about your entire 40 hour week in two days. No thanks.) I am good at the TV stuff, but I don't really want to deal with the stress and publicity of it.
That's about it. In spite of all that though, if I could make a nice living playing the piano or any other instrument and composing, or especially becoming the director of an orchestra/symphony (my dream job), I would drop everything and do that. I fall more and more in love with music every day. Don't get me wrong, I love meteorology and physics and the rest as well, but music is my passion. I also think it might be interesting to become a philosopher or writer. That would be something very interesting to try.

Serious conversations (part 12):

2010-01-09T22:57:00.000-06:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The twelfth entry is about where I am going in life:

Both my friend and I are having difficulty in narrowing our focus in life. Here’s what I have to say about it.

        College is becoming more about gaining life experience, which we all would do without college anyway, but a specific kind of life experience. An experience which will enable us to parse out ideas, troubleshoot problems, embrace diversity, and become a better person than a life experience without college. College in general is a good idea, regardless of whether or not you come out of it in a specific field. However, I am not necessarily saying that each further layer of education narrows your choice of career by a level. I'm just saying that after you finish a layer of education you have a smaller world cone of possibilities that you could become, for example with a degree in physics, you probably wouldn't go to grad school for theatre. An undergrad degree has narrowed your scope at least some, though not to a specific field.
        I think it's obvious to say that as the average person becomes more and more educated, undergraduate degrees will erode in prestige; you'll have to have more degrees for the same reward in a career. Also, as the body of knowledge of our race grows, an undergrad degree makes up a smaller and
smaller percentage of knowledge that can be known. Eventually people will have to have careers that are very specific simply because a human brain isn't capable of understanding the amount of knowledge in a general field. So, comparatively not long ago an equivalent undergrad education would give you enough knowledge to make breakthroughs in a field that cannot be done today. Therefore, we cannot blame ourselves completely for neither being able to specialize enough nor for being as enthusiastic as we should simply because the world around us is changing, not so much the typical undergrad.
        My enthusiasm for different things changes all the time, hobbies, different music, books, etc. So, I would think that it would be no different for a field. Perhaps it will just take us time working in different things we find intriguing to find the subject we can become excited about. The beauty about college is that you are exposed to many different fields and can try out many different subjects to find one that suits you.

Eighth Annual Christmas Mass E-mail

2009-12-25T18:46:00.000-06:00

Greetings and Salutations,
        Welcome to the Eighth Annual Christmas Mass E-mail. I hope everyone is well.
        I don’t know about all of you, but for me, not only do the years go by faster and faster, but they get busier and busier as well. There always seems to be something to do or something that needs to be accomplished - never any time to take a step back and just be. Tomorrow I’m going to do that; I’m going to spend some time pausing and reflecting. I invite you to do the same. Reflection can go a long way towards contentment, and I think we could all use a bit more of that.
        Once again, congratulations to all of you who have really done something amazing this year, whether it’s finishing a degree, getting married, finding a new passion in life or any other accomplishment. But never be satisfied. Always strive for more. Always question, learn, grow; otherwise, what’s the point?
        As my present to you this year I’ve uploaded some arrangements of Christmas tunes. Some are me just being goofy; others are pretty okay. You can find them at http://www.battalio.com/battalioxmas.html
        And that’s all I’ve got this year. Enjoy the season, appreciate the little things, and take the time to give yourself some credit for making it as far as you have. Let me know how you’re doing and what you’ve accomplished; it’s half the reason I send this every year.

And the joke...
A group of chess enthusiasts checked into a hotel and were standing in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories. After about an hour, the manager came out of the office and asked them to disperse.
“But why,” they asked, as they moved off.
“Because”, he said, “I can’t stand chess-nuts boasting in an open foyer.”

        Merry Christmas,
                Battalio

Serious conversations (part 11)

2009-12-13T22:13:00.000-06:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The eleventh entry is a continuation of part ten about art:

        My friend continued:
        Most great masterpieces were painted on commission. An artist didn’t sit in his studio and paint because he wanted to or had something he needed to express. He painted because a wealthy person wanted him to paint something for him, either as decoration, or to simply display their wealth and power for all to see. But now, those paintings are in museums so the masses can view them just to say they have seen them. So originally, the subject matter of the painting did matter; it was full of political or religious or social symbolism. However, they existed not for the sake of art as we consider it today, but for something else.
        My reply was:
        I suppose the greatness of those commissioned artists of before has to do with the ability of those who commissioned the works to purvey them to the general populace. In effect, the church and government becomes the art critic. This portrait of me as king or this depiction of the last supper is important because I say so. Marvel at its awesomeness you peasants. Okay, not that dramatically, but I think my point remains. My question being: does greatness only come from commission, only from an imposed purpose so others will find and "know" the purpose as well instead of some abstract, relative thought?
        Perhaps considering how artists of our time have become renowned would help us in contemplating how art becomes great. How did Andy Warhol or Norman Rockwell become famous? I think it might be that they had a sense of the every day man. That's cliché. Rockwell painted scenes that a random American would recognize and say, "Hey, that could be me." Or, "I might actually live that." Warhol started with some work of icons of Americana, the Campbell soup labels or Coke bottles. (He stayed famous for eliciting controversy, but became famous for his art.) Their main draw was appealing to the everyman. You have to appeal to the masses to be remembered.

To sum up what I think:
        I would be of the line of thought that art will always be created; whether or not an artist can support themselves doesn't matter. People will always be inspired to create, regardless of any financial implications. I would say the individual needs art that expresses outside the political, economic, and social power of the owner, but that art doesn't need to be financed by an outside power. Again, people will create what comes to them naturally along with what they are paid to create.
        I guess to finish: Art is a work that expresses a thought, feeling or idea through various media. An artist is anyone who creates that work. That's a broad definition, but I’m not a philosopher.

Serious conversations (part 10):

2009-11-27T10:54:00.000-06:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The tenth entry in this series is about art:

        I think there is a caveat to the typical definition of art. (My friend began the discussion with the sort of definition a critic or textbook would give: art is a timeless expression of some feeling or sentiment.) Art may be a timeless expression of some feeling, but that feeling can be different for different times. Great art will be able to continuously fit into the mold of attractiveness for a time period. The question is who defines truly great art? Who gives art meaning? The short answer is an individual. Just because a critic or the populace decides something is a great piece of art doesn't make it great to you.
        My friend has a hard time getting a particular feeling or expression when viewing art. She is far more interested in the historical context within which it originally fit than with what the painting might express. She believes that many probably do not find something meaningful in art. She supposes that it means far more to them to be able to say that they have seen the painting, rather than to actually look at the painting. So, the true value of the old masterpieces now is that we can say we saw them. A critic might disagree, but in terms of the popular masses, they probably only look at art because other people tell them to. The question is why are some pieces are art “great”, but others not? And is greatness something intrinsic to the piece of art or a result of critics influencing the public or something else?
        I replied: Just because you don't feel that a particular piece of art isn't expressing something to you doesn't make it meaningless and consequently not art. Art doesn't necessarily have to impose meaning to everyone for it to be great. Art can be considered simply for its own beauty, its appeal to the senses. That can be technical beauty, as in the level of skill the artist had to demonstrate to create the work. It could be the intrinsic beauty, as in the colors, composition or form of the subject is pleasing to the eye. Or I suppose it could be the contextual beauty, as in the meaning we give to a subject makes it beautiful, the sunset is beautiful, two people in love is beautiful.
        I can't say why a great painting doesn't impart meaning to some people. It could depend on the kind of person one is, an analytical person interested in facts as opposed to an emotional person concerned with beauty. When I find myself in a museum, I never to try force any emotion out at the sight of piece of art. Meaning can be very subtle, and a lot of the time I don't get it either, but sometimes meaning will jump off the canvas and hit you. You just have to be open to it.
        It is probably correct to say that most people see art because others say they should go see it. Most people follow instead of lead. People are attracted to what they are told is attractive, find beauty in what they are told is beautiful, see meaning where they are told to see meaning, so I would agree that critics of art steer us to what they conclude just because they are held in authority. Although, it might be because you are seeing something that's one of a kind, unique. A painting can also connect you to the time period it represents. A picture is a thousand words.
        However, some pieces and artists are great because they were the avant-garde for a new way of thinking, a new way of artistry or simply because they were one of the first masters of a particular genre or medium. That might have inspired the interest of the masses at first. I would imagine though that the continued influence of the great works has to do with a bit of everything - originality, critics, fashion, political and social relevancy.

Serious Conversations (part 9)

2009-11-13T23:33:00.000-06:00

        This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The ninth entry concerns family:

        With this entry I must start with my friend’s side. She has a rather large extended family that she doesn’t have much in common with, and she often questions her obligations to her family and what she gets from her family.
        She begins by saying that family is the group of people who are supposed to be there regardless of the circumstances and who should delight in your happiness and be pained in your sadness. The love of a family is more than enjoyment of one another’s company. In a biological sense, we are attached to those with whom we share genes. Socially and culturally, there is pressure to protect and care for our family members.
        Friendship, on the other hand, is optional. Our friendships change as our interests change; we are looking for something specific - pleasure, company, common interests - in our friends. Family, though, is forever; we are tied to our family by our genes and by mutual family members. And it seems we are supposed to get something different from our familial relationships besides enjoyment of company or common interests.
        But what is it, where is it, and at what point do you decide, with a particular relative, that you just don't have it? Or is the question, “would I feel that something significant was missing if I didn't see them anymore? Would they?” What makes me care deeply for some family members and not others.

        I, unfortunately for my friend, have very little context to help here. I have a very limited family, not more than half a dozen that I ever see, and probably less than 20 total. So I have very little to draw from. In these couple of paragraphs is the best response I could muster:
        So, firstly, family love is different, yes, but why? I think it's mostly cultural. Something along the lines of a long time ago, when humanity was much more lawless, and trust was in short supply, you could trust your family, and that's all you could trust. And trust is the first step to building a friendship which can then lead to love. I also think it might have something to do with a desire to return what love and companionship is given us. This would explain why you would care for those who care for you. The family members one cares for have established a lasting connection to you. It's selfish, but that's what humanity is.
        I really don't feel pressure to like or be around extended family. If I like a family member, I don't look at those relationships any differently than ordinary friendship. If I stop liking them, I stop interacting with them. I don't really dislike any of my family though. I suppose my problem with all this is I haven't spent enough time around my family to know whether or not I like them. I feel my obligations to family are simply being courteous and civil. And that’s about it.
        To say the least, my friend was unsatisfied.

Serious conversations (part 8):

2009-11-01T00:25:00.000-05:00

This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The eighth entry concerns the purpose of science in my life and how religion fills in the gaps.

Here is how I view the end of science. Just because I can't understand the soul and heaven and God (if they exist) doesn't mean I can't understand everything else. If we understood the universe except for religion, then I would have to think about the end of science again, fortunately we’ll probably never fully understand the universe. Until then why stop pursuing science just because we one day might understand everything except religion? Just because we can't describe the soul or God now doesn't mean we won't some day get there. I think religion and science can describe the same thing, just in different ways. What I can call creation, you can call evolution and the big bang. One being right doesn't mean the other is wrong. If science, then not religion or if religion, then not science is fallacious, a dichotomy in the most horrid sense. Both can exist simultaneously and not only exist but help on another.

This I Believe (20)

2009-10-23T10:38:00.000-05:00

This is part twenty of my “This I Believe” series. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I hope to figure some of what I believe here.

I have one last thing to talk about for now (I’ll start this series back up once I come to more conclusions.): a thought that occurred to me a while ago. All the other times I’ve suffered a lack of faith it has been because I was mad at God for whatever reason, being depressed, loosing a friend, being lonely, etc. Right now though, I’m doing very well. I’m happy, productive, and usually around people I enjoy. So why am I having a hard time now? I think it’s because I’m finally not thinking like a child anymore. I am being very critical of everything that I am exposed to. I can step back and take a logical look at my culture, religion, politics, etc. and not have the influence of adults shade my judgments. And those judgments are very skeptical of religion. To again sum up my worldview:

1.)God is unreasonable, but because of his nature, God doesn’t have to be reasonable to human beings. No matter how unreasonable God seems, if reason cannot prove without any doubt God does not exist, religion can always claim that God does not have to be reasonable. Also if God does exist, He should not condemn a person to whom He gave logic and reason for logically thinking, as long as they truthfully consider the universe. Good acts can save.
2.)We cannot know all evidence in regards to the God question. God can neither be 100% proven nor 100% disproven. Questions will always remain. Reason is not helpful when it comes to religion.
3.)There is a small chance God does exist. Regardless of how small this chance is, faith can bridge the gap. Faith is believing when there is no proof. Notice I say no proof. If there is absolute proof God does not exist, faith no longer has a place. Also, faith without some doubt is not really faith. If one believes without any doubt, that is credulousness not faith. God requires faith, not blind following.

Thus, does God seem probable? No. Is God possible? Yes. Do I want to believe? Yes. How strong is my faith? Obviously not strong enough, but I think that as imperfect human beings, no believer has that quality.

This I Believe (19)

2009-10-04T23:13:00.000-05:00

This is part nineteen of my “This I Believe” series. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I hope to figure some of what I believe here.

I pose the following question: Why did God stop performing obvious large scale miracles after Jesus? God could have a much larger following if he would just perform a parting of the Red Sea or some other active miracle.

Option one is that God doesn’t exist and the Bible is a myth.

Option two is that God needed the big miracles to start his following, but now that he has that large following, large miracles that interfere in the development of man aren’t necessary. And that He is trying to inspire faith of those who believe (e.g. what point is faith if the object of belief is obvious?)

The point I again want to make is that every time I think up or am presented with an argument against God, religion always finds some sort of loophole around what doesn’t appear to make sense. And that’s all it has to do, simply remind that the possibility exists for divinity, not rebuff an argument against it.

This I Believe (18)

2009-09-20T22:50:00.000-05:00

This is part eighteen of my “This I Believe” series. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I hope to figure some of what I believe here.
Here I want to comment on two concepts: faith and hope.

Faith, in the simplest sense I can think of, is believing in something, a thought, a person, a worldview, when you have no proof for the correctness of your belief. Faith also requires knowing that your belief is true regardless of a lack of evidence supporting that belief. I think that faith without doubt is not faith. Faith without some doubt is acceptance.

I am a follower of Kierkegaard in this sense. There will never be sufficient evidence to demand belief, but faith alone will be enough to demand belief. Doubt is the rational part of the brain telling you that what faith demands is nonsense. But by its own nature faith flies in the face of that and is meaningless without the doubt without which it is simply credulousness.

Hope, on the other hand, is wanting something when you have no proof for the correctness of your belief yet also not knowing or being sure how correct that belief is. Hope is wanting but doubting.

Hope is wishing something will happen, but faith is believing something will happen.

To make sense of this I picture an isosceles triangle where the two legs of the triangle are hope and credulousness, and the pinnacle of the triangle is faith. Faith requires some of both hope and credulousness to exist, but faith is not either of those two.

This I Believe (17)

2009-09-04T23:35:00.000-05:00

This is part seventeen of my “This I Believe” series. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I hope to figure some of what I believe here.
This post poses an interesting question regarding original sin.

Here’s an interesting thought: God created the world in six days. Some time afterward Adam and Eve committed the original sin. From then on, all humans would have original sin that would have had to be cleansed via the Resurrection. If then it only took seven days to create the universe, why not just start over again? God is omniscient. He knew that from the original sin onward that everyone would be tarnished and would suffer. Why go though with the trouble on continuing with a sinful people? (Because He loves us and couldn’t destroy the future of everyone because of two people.) Why then did He let us continue for however long until He gets fed up with us and floods the Earth (the Noah story) and kills every human except for one family, who because of Adam and Eve all still have original sin and will then repopulate the Earth with people who will still have original sin. Why not just stop it from the beginning? Wipe out the universe, start over again. It makes no sense.
The best answer I can come up with is that because of original sin of Adam and Eve, all of His creations (even if He started over) would be stained as well. You can also call Adam and Eve a myth, an explanation of why God felt compelled to give us free will, a reason I find more believable. The problem is, if Adam and Eve is a myth, what else is? Possibly everything.

This I Believe (part 16 comments on the comments part 5)

2009-08-27T23:27:00.000-05:00

After all the name calling, superfluous comments on everything ranging from my psychological state to the Christian thoughts on homosexuality, and approximately 400 posts and comments, the following three quotes sum up what I now consider my world view. I’m sure this will change, but it is what it is right now.

Wesley: “You're realizing you can't win an argument based on reason, so now you're falling back to, ‘Well, I know God doesn't make sense, but that's because God doesn't have to make sense. He's beyond our understanding, so he's immune to reason - he doesn't have to follow the laws of the universe was we know them.’ My answer to this is that if there were a God who made himself logically impossible to us, I'm sure he won't be surprised when people do not believe he exists.”

Anon2: “So Wesley, you don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God. That does not mean there is no God. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence. Therefore, it is possible that God exists. If it is possible, then faith has its place.”
 Wesley: “You say that ‘if it is possible that God exists, then [I] should be an agnostic.’ This is a very common criticism - the response is this: every atheist is infinitesimally agnostic. It is possible that your omnipotent and omniscient God exists, but it is infinitesimally possible. The point is this: there is some point at which an unlikelihood becomes an impossibility. If you are familiar with the mathematical concept of a limit from calculus, then you should understand this.”

These three quotes sum up my thinking about God and religion. Formally:

1.)God is unreasonable, but because of his nature, God doesn’t have to be reasonable to human beings. No matter how unreasonable God seems, if reason cannot prove without any doubt God does not exist, religion can always make this claim. Also if God does exist, He should not condemn a person he created with logic and reason for logically thinking, as long as they truthfully consider the universe. Good acts can save.
2.)We cannot know all evidence in regards to the God question. God can neither be 100% proven nor 100% disproven. Questions will always remain. Reason is not helpful when it comes to religion.
3.)There is a small chance God does exist. Regardless of how small this chance is, faith can bridge the gap. Faith is believing when there is no proof. Notice I say no proof. If there is absolute proof God does not exist, faith no longer has a place. Also, faith without some doubt is not really faith. If one believes without any doubt, that is knowing not believing. God requires faith, not blind following.

This I Believe (part 15 comments on the comments part 4)

2009-08-14T17:11:00.000-05:00

        This post deals with some of the comments from the post “Serious Conversations (part 7)” I’ve really focused in on just the things I felt were important.

Anon2: “All worldviews require at least some faith, but Christianity, as the only one that accurately portrays reality, requires the least, because its claims can be shown to be objective fact.”
Actually, no they cannot be proven to be objective fact, that’s the point. It only appears to be objective fact because you assume that it “accurately portrays reality”. I also think that moral relativism holds if there is no God.

Anon2: Agnostics are "atheists" when it comes to most religions. Why does the agnostic feel that it's quite all right to play dumb [when it comes to the Christian God] but not in the other cases? The agnostic must believe that he has evidence for the existence of the Christian God that prevents her from outright dismissing Him. (Actually, that's the best case scenario from an intellectual perspective. The worst case scenario is that the agnostic is afraid to admit that he does, in fact, dismiss God all together.) … If agnostics want to play dumb they have to explain why playing dumb makes sense in certain cases but not others. … The main argument I have heard that is pro-agnostic is that ‘Church wastes time’
Truthfully, I think that anything is infinitesimally possible. I choose to formally address the Christian God because that is the faith I was indoctrinated in. I suppose I could randomly pick some other infinitesimally possible deity and address him/her. In this sense I lump all popular religions together. I cannot prove or disprove any of them. They are all possible. The difference is that there is a tradition of belief that is why it is different to address all formal religions and ignore an obviously made up religion. For why I only attend a Catholic church see my previous posts, but to reiterate in short: Church is about the people and interacting with those good people, not just worshiping a deity that may or may not exist.

Anon2 referring to Occam’s razor: “the universe cannot replace God as explanation for its own existence. The universe is finite in both size and time. …How did this universe decide to create itself? …The laws of physics are designed with such precision that it is almost inconceivable that they could be the result of chance. …Random chance does not design such a well-crafted universe. All the atheistic explanations for such an exquisitely defined universe require the presence of trillions of other universes, of which ours is the one which happened, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Therefore the atheistic explanation actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an intelligent designer is obviously a much simpler explanation.

I am familiar with Occam’s razor, and it would be useful if you could prove that intelligent design is much simpler. The problem is who are you or anyone else to say that the multiverse is more complicated than an intelligent designer. It is relative. There is no way to prove it. How is it obvious that the multiverse or any other explanation is simpler than God.

I refer you to this post I made on the anthropic principle:

[…]
The weak argument refers to the selection of specific times and spaces in the universe for the development of intelligent life. In summary the weak anthropic principle says our existence coincides perfectly with conditions for intelligent life because life would not be around to measure the perfect conditions for its existence if those conditions did meet the needs of intelligent life. To restate, we would not be here to measure stuff if the stuff we were measuring precluded our existence. The strong argument generalizes the weak argument to include fundamental constants and forces of physics. The conclusion to this is we are in a universe where the forces and constants are such that we can exist. (Which, I know, is rather obvious.) An implication of this is that there are universes where forces and constants do not include our existence. So, we are left with a theory of the multiverse, that we are in one of an infinite number of possible universes.
        By introducing this idea of the multiverse, the strong anthropic principle selects our universe as one in which life can exist. This is analogous to the weak version of the anthropic principle selecting our planet at our time for intelligent life, which is also somewhat analogous to the Darwinian theory of Evolution selecting our genes for life.
        So, which is simpler a multiverse, which we cannot prove, or God, which we also cannot prove. At best these considerations leave us agnostic.

This I Believe (part 14 comments on the comments part 3)

2009-07-24T21:47:00.000-05:00

This post deals with some of the comments from the post “Serious Conversations (part 6)” I’ve really focused in on just the things I felt were important.

Anon: The reason you [Wesley] can't understand this [to know God exists] is because you've never had a conversion experience. And guess what, you never will because you have decided to reject the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and for this, we Christians believe you will spend eternity separated from love and from a God who loves you.
If to know God is real you must blindly believe enough to have a personal conversion experience seems a bit inadequate. So to have a conversion experience (i.e. to know that He exists) you must know he exists in the first place. So only the people who are willing to believe in something that does seem possible are the only ones rewarded. That is counterintuitive.   Anon: God did not make himself logically impossible to us. In fact, He made it very clear for us.
HOW? Where? If the answer is the Bible, then your argument is moot. The Bible was written by human beings. We are all fallible. To say the Bible was inspired by an omnipotent being is one thing, to say it was actually written by an omnipotent being is another. Example: Just now, God told me that the Bible is wrong. A Christian would say I was lying. To which I would respond, no I’m not; God told me I’m telling the truth. The problem is neither of us can prove what we are saying. That’s what is wrong with the Bible. It was written thousands of years ago by people who have purported to have been talked to by God. There is no way to prove the Bible is true other than the circular argument that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. That is obviously fallacious just as me saying God spoke to me is fallacious.
 Anon referring to Hell: “The Bible tells us that God is righteous….Righteousness deals with justice and justice deals with the Law. This means that God will always do that which is right and He does so according to the righteous Law that He has set forth. How many good works must he perform in order to undo an offense against an infinitely holy God?...”
Because He is loving He forgives. I believe an atheist can “sin” (even though he doesn’t believe in God, he can still recognize that he has done something immoral) and really feel sorry for what he has done. If he does feel sorry and remorseful, I feel that he has corrected his wrong. The point being when a believer sins are they are less guilty simply because they also believe in something that does not logically exist but still have faith for? Thinking that one is required to have a priest (as in the Catholic faith) absolve them of sin for salvation is also silly. The priest is given power by the church, human beings run the church, human beings, unlike God, are fallible, therefore priests are just as fallible as any lay individual is. The notion that you must be absolved to be forgiven is silly. I believe that if you are truly sorry even in the “silence of our own hearts” you are forgiven. Because God is infinite, He is also infinitely forgiving if we are truly sorry)

Anon “But if an atheist were to be diagnosed with terminal cancer, then this would be the time to watch him or her. They would be forced to think about a greater spiritual purpose in my opinion. But now, as long as they are without problems or plaguing events in their lives, why bother?”
This is true. I wonder how many non believers, whether they are premeditated nonbelievers or lazy nonbelievers, beg God for forgiveness and convert just before they die. I wonder if I will do this. I won’t really know until I am presented with a situation like this. I hope that I will be at peace with whatever decisions I have made throughout my life and will be content with my faith or lack thereof.

This I Believe (13)

2009-07-13T12:56:00.000-05:00

Christianity is a leap of faith, and that leap is believing that everything in the Bible is 100% true and inspired by God. If you can accept that, then everything else taught by Christianity follows. If that isn’t obvious, then Christianity is a leap of faith.
The following is in response to some possible proofs of the credibility of the Bible.  1. The unity of the Bible--
Thanks to Wesley here are several examples of the Bible contradicting itself. These could be attributed to human error of course, but if there are these obvious contradictions, how many more non obvious untruths are there?
God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine? * Seven (2 Samuel 24:13) * Three (I Chronicles 21:12) How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark? * Two (Genesis 6:19, 20) * Seven (Genesis 7:2). Despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9) Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem? * Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40) * No (Joshua 15:63) Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary? * Jacob (Matthew 1:16)  * Heli (Luke 3:23-38) In the count how many fighting men were found in Israel? * Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) * One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) Jesus descended from which son of David? * Solomon (Matthew 1:5-16) * Nathan(Luke 3:23-38) Did Jesus bear his own cross? * Yes (John 19:17) * No (Matthew 27:31-32) Who killed Goliath? * David (I Samuel 17:23, 50) * Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19) Does the Earth spin around in space? * No (1 Chronicles 16:30)

So when it comes to specifics the Bible isn’t consistent all the time, but the major themes are connected throughout the book, those of love, faith, hope and a righteous God are well maintained. I’m not sure if this is coincidence or if it is a sound argument. It does seem improbable that the overarching themes would remain intact, but simply because it is improbable without intervention does not mean impossible. In my mind this is one of the (few and) best attributes the Bible has going for it: its consistency.
 2. The Bible is non-mythical---
This is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Yes, the creation story in Genesis can be interpreted to fit with science, but what about other stories, Noah and the Ark, Moses parting the Red Sea? What is the difference between the “miracles” of the bible and “myths” of other religions? The only difference is that miracles of the Bible are not myths because the Bible is assumed to be true; besides that, the two are different in name only. The Bible is miraculous because the Bible says it is true and miraculous. Some of these stories you might call miracles, but others are obviously just stories, like the fashioning of Eve from a rib of Adam. And if some stories are just metaphor, how does one determine which stories are miracles and which are just stories and myths? Also, just because the Bible has historically accurate accounts of ancient peoples does not mean it has accurate accounts dealing with God.
 3. The Bible is intact---
Define intact. If by intact it is meant that the Bible is how it is right now, then it’s intact, but what about all the purported books and manuscripts that aren’t part of the “intact” Bible. If the Bible is correct just because there are a lot of really old pieces of paper with transcriptions on it, then what about the gospels of various other people, Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Judas? Those are really old accounts of Biblical happenings. And there are other books that are accepted in one version of the Bible and not in another. There are seven books in the Catholic Bible that aren’t in the King James Version, including, for example, the book (2 Maccabees) that contains one of the major passages that Catholics take the concept of purgatory from. The acceptance of some books and not others appears random or if not then motivated by politics, power, and personal preference. The Bible is not intact; it only appears intact.
 4. The Bible tells events ahead of time---
I’ve explained this point as illogical several times already. I predict that in a couple of lines I will randomly say the word “tomato” in the middle of the sentence. You cannot make predictions, then fulfill them yourself, and call them inspired by divinity. Can passages be specifically and undeniably dated so that an absolutely accurate timeline be created for when prophesies were made and fulfilled? No, so the Bible cannot be independently verified. The Bible is believed because the bible says it should be believed, therefore tomato this argument is moot. Wait, did you see what just happen? The prophesy I made was fulfilled, there must be a God. See how silly that is.

Again, do I want God to exist? Yes. Do I want the Bible to be true? Yes, but there appears to be reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the Bible. Reason does not appear to be helpful in proving the existence of God or the truth of the Bible. At best it is also not possible to prove the inexistence of God or the falsehood of the Bible. So again I say that Christianity and any other religion requires a leap of faith.

This I Believe (12)

2009-07-01T22:20:00.001-05:00

I’m about to be brutally honest. Here is the problem. Not only do Christians of the evangelical variety believe they are correct because the Bible tells them so, but they also believe they are better than people that are more moral, more caring, more loving, and that are just generally better people than they are, just because they were indoctrinated in or adopted the “correct” religion from childhood. Also, it is demanded of them to correct the heathen masses who aren’t Christian exactly as they are Christian or rebuke and condemn them if they refuse.

And if “God” supports this, then that is not a God I want to believe in, a god of intolerance, hate, and mockery. And if hell is complete separation from a petty, intolerant god, then I welcome it. But, I believe in a God of love, and perhaps that isn’t the Christian God they believe in and perhaps it is, just the actual Christian God. Condemn me all you want.

The problem with religion is that all religions are based off of books (Bible included) of dubious credibility - books that have contradicted themselves and were written by fallible, corruptible human beings even if they were inspired by divinity. On top of this, it is left up to other corruptible, fallible human beings to interpret what those books say. So now not only can the original manuscripts be wrong, but the interpretation of an incorrect manuscript be wrong. And the fact is no Christian has any idea, nor does anyone else in any other religion. Everyone thinks they know, but no one actually does for sure. One may feel moved by divinity, but are they sure, really sure? Is anyone sure? Or do they just think they’re sure? (Is there anything beyond a feeling? And how do you express, convince others that your feeling is correct?) That to me is the definition of gullibility: the ability to believe in the credibility of something that can be wrong in so many ways but can never be questioned by the believers simply because that object of belief maintains its own legitimacy.
And maybe that is why I don’t have faith anymore, because it seems that people with an absurdly strong faith in any religion are gullible. I really don’t know. All I know is that I don’t want to believe I was created in the image of an intolerant, petulant, revengeful, and seemingly unintelligent (if ignoring good science [i.e. evolution] is a requirement) being.

The difference is, not every Christian is like Anon2 (or Anon1 for that matter), and that’s why I can still call myself Christian, because there are decent, intelligent people of that religion. Truthfully, I think we’ll all end up in heaven, assuming any divinity exists (I think that only then will we understand each other.), but for very different reasons. Both of us are undoubtedly misguided, but that’s why God is all loving, because by being human we could never please the intolerant, petulant god you speak of. Everyone has some measure of doubt. Let me repeat that. Everyone has some measure of doubt (We wouldn’t be human if we believed all the time.). So how do you measure how strong someone’s faith is against another’s? If good works aren’t good enough for God, how much faith does it take for them to become good? If good works are filthy rags simply because we don’t believe, then all works are filthy rages because at some point everyone doesn’t believe because we are all human. If we did believe 100% all the time we would be divine. No one could get to heaven otherwise.

This I Believe (11, comments from pt. 10)

2009-06-29T21:48:00.000-05:00

I explicitly said that faith and hope were two different things in the last post. I don’t see why you’re now trying to convince me of this. I also never defined faith and hope, so I don’t see how it appears that I’m confused between the two. Also what you gave wasn’t a definition. “Faith is having [hope] in a faith dimension.” That isn’t helpful at all.
 As far as children and religion goes, obviously it was a mistake of me to talk about Dawkins even once. The posts from a year ago where I talk about Dawkins were simply me expressing my thoughts on Dawkins. I do not agree with him on most things. So, I assure you, you don’t need to convince me that he says some stupid things. Two, there is no possible way those studies are unbiased because they are trying to quantify qualitative results.  Again, the church is more than the beliefs it espouses. The church is the people that make up the church. I attend church for more than participating in religious ceremonies. I attend for the people and the community.
I also stay because I love playing the music. Notice I said play and not perform. I do not care about showing off my talents. I do it because I enjoy it. The music I play in church is the closest I get to having faith anymore. If God exists, then I believe and am comfortable with what the Catholic Church does and says.
 Again, I realize that faith and hope are different; I said that explicitly. But I disagree that if I don’t believe I can’t hope, because that’s exactly how I feel. For the very reason that hope is not faith, I can hope and still not have faith. And no, I’m not courageous. I am human; that’s why we need God isn’t it?

I keep going to church because I want everything the church says to be true. I do understand that wanting (hope) it to be true, believing (faith) it to be true, and it actually being true are completely different things. I also know, however, that after great moments of doubt there often come great moments of faith. I want to always have my foot in the door of the church so to speak. That’s why I don’t leave.
Question: you say that you will only make it to heaven “if [you] have faith, and inherently in [your] heart KNOW that He will take [you]”, but you say two sentences later that “No one knows, MBat!” I’m really confused. Do you know or don’t you? Or am I missing something?

A new thought: I do think that being a good person alone helps you get into heaven. 1 Corinthians 13:13-“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” The greatest of these is love, not faith. The question is does being a loving, charitable and hopeful person make up for not having a strong faith. I would argue yes. Obviously others would argue no. Perhaps I’m being narcissistic, but I just don’t see how a God who gives us reason would then demand we have faith (which is contrary to reason) for salvation when there is a reasonable doubt whether God exists.

This I Believe (comments from last post)

2009-06-28T15:02:00.000-05:00

I think it would be better for me to respond in posts instead of commenting because then there won’t be 100 comments on one post.

I agree that hoping that God exists will never help me; that doesn’t keep me from hoping though. Hoping and having faith are two different things. I hold out this hope because I want God to exist even though at this point I do not think he does. I want there to be an omnipotent, loving being that looks out for me and that created the universe. Isn’t hoping that God exists better (in your opinion as a Christian) than giving up on God altogether?

As far as childhood indoctrination, I don’t think this is an important point. I’m never going to be a child again, so I don’t particularly care if this is true at the moment. I will reconsider this when I have children. The main point of it is this: the child should not be forced into a religion. The problem is that it would be difficult for any child to choose a religion when they have no way of getting to nor communicating with other people from other religions. Children may not be forced into a religion, but at least all children are predisposed towards the religion of their parents. The thing about religious children being more well behaved children is that when children are not indoctrinated with religion it is because they are instead left on their own. Although many of the statistics sited are probably correct, the flaw is that when children are not indoctrinated with religion it is because the parents aren’t around enough to teach them anything. For those studies to be valid you would have to take a group of loving religious families and compare them to equally nurturing and loving atheist families. If you were to take atheistic parents that were around and showed just as much affection as religious parents, I would be the results on the child’s behavior would not be conclusive.

I am still Catholic because the Church is more than just what its beliefs are. The Church is also the people that are members of the Church. The feast for that concept is the Body and Blood of Christ that we celebrated not too long ago. I still call myself Catholic because while I do not espouse all the beliefs of the Church, I value the people and their ideals. One can be a member of an organization and not believe everything the organization believes.

I also agree that faith and reason are two different things, but just because they are different doesn’t mean I can’t use both of them. But yes, reason cannot help you in areas of religion, and faith is not useful in science and logic. Presently we can’t use reason because to find answers because we lack information. Should the answer in those situations automatically be faith? No (for example in deciding if the big bang proves the existence of a creator). As Wesley said every atheist is infinitesimally agnostic because there is the chance that God exists in the same way there is a chance that the force of gravity could stop working tomorrow. That chance is not a reasonable doubt, but merely a chance. That is where I hope. That is where I try to apply faith, but my faith is not strong enough to fill in this chance, and that is why I do not believe in a personal God, but that I hope.

The thing is though that there is free will. God doesn’t stop the heart of callous, blasphemers. And calling God a megalomaniac is probably blasphemy, but I don’t believe, so it doesn’t bother me.  I understand that prayer is two way conversation and that most prayers are asking for things that are not willed by God, but the fact is that most prayers are essentially wishes to God. I do still pray. Let me just say what I pray for. Under the hope that God exists, I ask him to show me the “Way and the Truth” wherever that may take me and to help others with that same goal. I also acknowledge my talents and gifts, and I express where I would like my life to go. Lastly I pray for the decrease of misery and pain in the world.
If God doesn’t exist there is still a use for prayer in my mind. It helps solidify my desires and wants, and makes me grateful for what I have been given and helps put into perspective the misfortune of others. I think that level of awareness is a good thing.
I have a question. Didn’t Moses convince God not to destroy the people of Israel when they made the Golden Calf? Wasn’t that changing the will of God?
 The problem with saying that the Bible has 2,000 fulfilled prophecies is that those prophecies were recorded by the Bible and then purportedly fulfilled and recorded in the Bible. I would be much more interested in independently proven prophecies made by the Bible, and even then there is now no way to prove anything from 2000 or more years ago actually happened.

This I Believe (comments on the comments part 2)

2009-06-16T22:19:00.001-05:00

        Let’s start from the beginning. This post will only deal with comments from “This I Believe (part 4)” and will thus be rather short. None of the anons had really joined yet, so this was really just a couple of points between myself and Wesley.
        Firstly, no, I don’t really believe in a personal God (as in a God that “…interferes in the physical world for [my] sake.”) anymore. I really want there to be a personal God. I want to believe that there exists an intelligence that if I only hope (pray) hard enough and in the correct way that he will grant me wishes, but this does not seem to be the case. (As an aside and I suppose to see if the anons are back, I’ll will say this: yes, there are some things that are beyond human control [e.g. natural disasters and a lot of other things], but most prayers are for silly things that would be more easily solved if people weren’t as lazy [e.g. oh God, please let me pass this test] or things that if God does exist He probably doesn’t care about [e.g. oh God, please let my foot/base/basketball team win]. If everyone took a bit more personal responsibility, the need for prayers to be answered would be greatly reduced.) Yes, a lot of “miracles” happen, but in the end, I think a lot of those “miracles” will be attributed to our own stupidity and lack of understanding. It seems far more likely that miracles are a lot of chance, coincidence and people taking the initiative to help themselves. Just because I don’t believe in a personal God does not mean I don’t hope there is something greater than myself.
        Secondly, I believe that the primary reason for the continuance of religion is childhood indoctrination. I think that if we let a child develop without religion and then try to teach that child any religion once that child has developed the logical part of the brain, the child would reject it as silly.
        I don’t believe in what Catholicism believes, but I do believe in the institution that is the Church - the “Body of Christ”, the people that make up the church. The Church has a lot of good, decent people that do good works, so while I don’t really espouse many of those beliefs, I do believe in the people. The Church (and when I say that I mean the people of the church) has helped me a great deal. And because of that, I will continue to support Catholicism.
        Wesley is absolutely correct in his summary of my methodology for “minimizing the possibility of ‘accepting things on faith that are wrong’”. Namely:
1. “Figure out as much as you can with reason. 2. Begin believing things for which you have no evidence (or even evidence of likelihood) and call it ‘faith.’”
        I use the all too familiar risk-reward idea. Here are the possibilities. One, God doesn’t exist, but you believe. You die; nothing happens. Two, God doesn’t exist. You don’t believe; nothing happens. Three, God exists. You believe; you live in “paradise” for eternity. Four, God exists. You don’t believe; you suffer in hell for eternity. (In a future post I’ll comment on how I think that if option four is true, then God is a petty, childish megalomaniac.)
Am I, if I were to become a atheist, willing to bet against option four for eternity? No, so I must still force myself to believe even though reasoning tells me it is silly. (I’m sure Wesley and the anons must be exasperated with me now.)
        I’ll end this part with saying that I agree that God seems infinitely improbable, but because we do not know for certain I cannot dismiss the possibility that a God, even a personal God exists. I simply have a difficult time believing that. Moreover, I want a personal God to exist. I want an omnipotent being watching out over me, but it does seems like it is a fairy tale.

This I Believe (comments on the comments part 1)

2009-06-07T21:26:00.000-05:00

The next few posts will deal specifically with the comments I have received to my previous posts. Only three posts had much discussion with them: “This I Believe (part 4)”, “Serious Conversations (part 6)”, and “Serious Conversations (part 7)”. I’ll deal with each set of comments separately. Firstly I’d like to make some general comments.
It is interesting to note the ratio of how much commentary everyone left to useful comments. I pasted all the comments into a word document and the result was 293 pages of 12-pt Times new roman font. However, I deleted a lot of it because I found it irrelevant (e.g. the name calling, arguments on specific authors, like Dawkins, the argument on homosexuality, anon. 2 soliciting five positive comments to speak intelligently [which I still maintain is a bribe], the argument of anon 2 actually being an agent of the devil [which I first interjected as a joke to demonstrate how childishly the anons were behaving], I could go on and on about the pointless items discussed.) or when people repeated themselves. The end result was only 24 pages of relevant, original discussion. So only about 8% of the comments posted were useful. A PDF of the comments I found relevant can be found at “http://www.battalio.com/comments.pdf” I’m sure many of you will be aggravated by me leaving out something you feel important. Leave it as a comment later on if you want me to look at it again.
In reference to specific Biblical passages, I ignored references to the Bible in arguments where the Bible was used to justify its own veracity, that being a fallacious argument. In cases, mostly between Ted and anon 2, where specific topics about religion were argued, for example what is hell or do demons exist, I considered those references because in those arguments the presupposition is that God exists and Bible is true.
I should also say I deleted or ignored comments I felt needed no reply - places where I find it obvious that the argument is true or false. Let me justify that statement. I’m certain both anon. 1 and 2 will condemn me as a narcissist. I will repeat; this is my blog. While others might find our commentary useful, I don’t think I need to justify myself for every thought I have. I’m not trying to convince anyone but myself. If I am comfortable with my own logic, I don’t care what condemning statement others have.
As well as deleting entire comments, I deleted sections of comments I found irrelevant, obviously true/false, snipes at one another’s intelligence, et cetera.
I am leaving comments off until I post my responses to the first set of comments. I suspect that to be complete in the next week or two. I again apologize for having to take that step. I felt that the conversation was being pointed toward places I really don’t want this blog to head, namely politics. I will end that discussion with this: Despite the prevailing opinions of many, politics has nothing to do with religion and vice versa. In political discussion most confuse ethics with religion. Politics should be a case were they are separate entities. If your ethics are defined by religion then fine, but do not directly inject religion into politics. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.

Serious Conversations (part 7):

2009-04-05T23:20:00.000-05:00

        A bit of a disclaimer, this is the seventh in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.
        These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot. This entry is about control.

        Previously my friend hit upon an important point, that religion and science are different methods for explaining the same thing. Also, she noted that religious ceremonies were created so we could control God. Here is my perspective: I find it difficult to let go completely of religion because I like the hope of control. Assuming what I pray for gets answered, I can in some respects control whatever I want. But with the things I cannot control (for example, a safe drive, an extra scholarship offer, acceptance to whatever grad school, that it will/will not rain today), without prayer, I really have no control. They are left to luck and chance. So, letting go of religion means letting go of a level of control. I think that’s part of the reason that religion is so hard to disavow. Who would want less control over their lives? Christianity is particularly good about saying that if God hasn’t answered your prayers yet, you aren’t praying enough or in the correct way. Prayer and religion give people a way to swing the odds in their favor, and people are greedy. They will take whatever method they can to get what they want, even if it is trying to use God to hurt others chances, say for winning a football game or getting a job. (Let me just say as a matter of personal belief, even before I started questioning my faith, God does not care if you win a football game. Your prayers for your team were no stronger or better than the prayers for the opposing team. God doesn’t care. Stop thanking Him. He didn’t do anything to help your team.)
        Control might also be considered the root of religion and part of the reason why religion is still around. Faith gives you a level of control where logically or scientifically you should hold none. But to tone that statement down, and to not give faith undue credit. “Miracles” do happen in the sense not that God has necessarily done something for you, but in the sense that, for example, life is very resilient and can heal itself without an explanation from medicine (or insert some other “miracle” in place of a medical miracle). I would expect that the occurrence of that will continue to decrease as we become more and more knowledgeable about ourselves and the universe It’s just easier to attribute “miracles” to an omnipotent God than it is to attribute them to our own ignorance. The part of me that still clings to belief wants to believe in the miracles though, but as we understand more and more of the world, I feel it will become more and more difficult.
        I’m also inclined to believe that culture had a major influence on the survival of some religions over others. It would make sense that dominant cultures, that for whatever reason became dominant, would have a greater chance of spreading their religions. And that fits the facts. The dominate cultures of the Far East have religions that dominate the Far East, and the dominate cultures of the West have Judeo-Christian religions that have come to dominate the West.
        And again, I believe it is the very nature of religions that ensure their survival. Judeo-Christian religions are very big about spreading the faith. Followers are even told they will be rewarded for more and more converts. I’ve never heard of the Ancient Roman or Greek religions being about that.

Serious Conversations (part 6)

2009-03-05T15:02:00.002-06:00

A bit of a disclaimer, this is the sixth in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.
These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot. This entry is about the origin of God and Science.

My friend and I have taken up several other topics, but we are currently revisiting religion. I will post our conversations on family, art, and a comment on what we want to do with our lives further on in the series.
I began the conversation:
The older I get, and the more stuff I learn about, the harder and harder it is to believe in a religion. Being a child and believing in a religion is easy because children can be convinced of everything. Which, from a atheist’s perspective, is why religions force parents to teach their children about faith at an early age (It could also be why in the Catholic Church you must agree to raise your children Catholic if you want to be married in the Catholic Church.) because they are so impressionable, and it’s easy to convince them to believe. The older I get the more I realize that if I hadn’t been raised in a religion, I probably wouldn’t be religious. This is a scary thought. Religion could be the second Christmas myth, and unlike Santa Claus, when we get old enough no one tells us that Jesus is just a made up story for the sake of the holiday, which is quite possible. The question becomes, where did religion come from? If it’s just something that we conscript children into, who conscripted the first generation? Could Jesus be a real person? What about Moses, Mohammad, Buddha? How unlikely is a God who created all of us? What about a Son who died for us? (Notice I still capitalize the names. I still haven’t given up on religion completely.) If God didn’t create the universe, where did it come from? Perhaps the answer is in front of us; perhaps we will never know.

To sum up my friend’s reply: Humans, being curious and having a desire to understand all that they see, came up with way to explain all the phenomena around them. God was attributed as the doer of the unexplainable. If there was not an obvious explanation it must be God. And humans wishing to control whatever they can to better their condition created religion via ceremonies, rites, sacrifices, worship, to influence of that entity with controlled the unexplainable.
She continued: Just like religion, science was conceived to explain what was confusing. Science was just another method to make order of the chaos. And like religion, science has changed over the ages. The science we know today is not like the science of the ancient Greeks. What we consider science today is based on the, well, scientific method: developing a hypothesis and testing to see if that hypothesis is correct. Before the scientific revolution, science was not this. Scientists used Aristotelian logic to try to derive truths about the world without much experiment, most of which turned out wrong.
Science and religion did not really become separate things until around the 1800s or so, and they didn't come into direct conflict until much later, when people began questioning one from the other’s point of view. My point is that religion and science are sort of different ways of addressing the same questions (explaining the things we don't understand). But you can't really judge one of them by the other one's rules and standards.

Well, where does this leave me? At best I can believe with the part of me that still has faith. (Faith being believing in something which by definition you have no proof of.) And calling myself agnostic with the scientific part of me. I’m not saying that science and religion contradict each other. As my friend said, they were created as different methods of explaining the same world. And today, many religions embrace science. I’m saying that science doesn’t need religion, and that religion can adapt itself to whatever science proves. There will never be a way to prove religion wrong. Religion will always redefine itself. But the question is, do I still have faith?

This I Believe (part 7)

2009-02-11T21:58:00.001-06:00

This is part seven of my “This I Believe” series. I’m going to be spending most of the time delving into my struggles in deciding what it is I actually believe. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I consider myself a man of science, but I also consider myself a man of faith. So, where am I exactly? I hope to figure some of it out here.

Sentient Puddle
As a quick post, here is an analogy speaking about the argument from design. This is from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy writer and atheist Douglas Adams. Imagine an intelligent puddle of water. This puddle, in contemplating its existence, realizes that the world must be designed for him because the hole in the ground in which he exists (his universe) fits him so well. There must be a creator. The puddle exists in its universe until it evaporates.
What we, and the puddle, don’t realize is that perhaps the universe is not made to fit us but perhaps we are made to fit the universe, a la evolution. A creationist would say that means nothing, perhaps evolution was the instrument God used to create the Earth. There is the element of reasonable doubt. All a theologian has to do is come up with some explanation to cover whatever new science reveals as a truth about the universe. Religion, as has been the case since the dawn of man, can evolve just as science does.

This I Believe (part 6)

2009-01-21T22:43:00.000-06:00

This is part six of my “This I Believe” series. I’m going to be spending most of the time delving into my struggles in deciding what it is I actually believe. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I consider myself a man of science, but I also consider myself a man of faith. So, where am I exactly? I hope to figure some of it out here.

Call this “What I actually Believe”
Special thanks to --jam for getting me to do this.

When I first sat down to do this (figure out what I actually believed in), I wasn’t sure I believed anything. Then I realized I was forcing it, and I wasn’t looking at a large enough scope. I do believe in several things, most of them concepts. Here are a couple.

I believe there is a purpose to me. Whether or not that purpose is to be self determined or whether it comes from some other entity I cannot say. I can say what purpose I have given myself, and that purpose is three fold. One, my first purpose is to be happy, not a just a physical happy, but a psychological happy as well. Part of that happiness is doing what I like to do and being around who I like enjoy being around. Two, a purpose of thought, to be self aware and constantly questioning what it is I believe and do, and if this questioning leads me away or towards religion then so be it. Three, to return what I have been given (whether by divinity or chance or fate) to the people around me, that can be through my talents, actions, personality, and words - to make other people around me better off and happier than they were.

To sum this up: I believe in the Pursuit of Happiness, the Enjoyment of Life, the Ability to Question, and the spread of those Ideas.

Second, I believe in the connection between humanity. For whatever reason, we are self aware; we can learn; we can grow. We can only do these things when we interact with others. Except for some, we need companionship. We need friends with whom we can share our joys and our sorrows. Life is empty without others to share it with. Conversation with a good friend is hard to beat.

I hope there is something much greater than this tiny little existence I have, but there is no way to know. But I can say with absolute certainty that those things above exist to me. They are important: happiness, enjoyment, thought, friendship. They are the something bigger to me that I believe in.

The Seventh Annual Christmas Mass e-mail

2009-01-01T15:48:00.002-06:00

For those of you that somehow didn't get this (I had a lot of e-mails bounce back this year; update your facebook e-mail address, people.), here is the Seventh Annual Christmas Mass e-mail.

Greetings and salutations,
Welcome those old and new to the Seventh Annual Christmas Mass e-mail.
I've been sick the last several days, so this will be short-only a thought or two. Firstly, let's do some math. As I get older and sort of wiser, I have noticed one thing in particular, that time goes faster and faster the older I get. The average life span of an American male is about 70. I'm 23 so 47 years left. Forty-seven times 365 is 17,155 days, times 24 is 411,720 hours, times 60 is 24,703, 200 minutes. I could go on, but 24 million is a lot, or is it? I'm already a third of the way done with my life on average. What have I done or accomplished? Quite a bit I hope, but there is always more I can do. Here is my first thought: don't give in to boredom and laziness. Use the time wisely. I can't say how many times I've gone through a day where I could have done a lot, but I never actually got anything accomplished. What a waste of time and space. There is always something to do. Learn a new hobby, make a new friend, read a good book. Not all of us can win the Nobel Prize or become president, but we can all use our time wisely. And that means savoring every fleeting moment.
Secondly, I don't know about the rest of you, but I see the light at the end of the tunnel that is school. That light happens to be the freight train of real life though. I've done and am currently doing a good job of putting it off, but I know the real world is coming eventually. To those less successful than me in avoiding the real world, good luck; I will be joining you at some point, maybe. A lot of you are getting jobs, going to grad school, and even starting families. (Congratulations to everyone that is getting married.) May you find contentment, personal accomplishment, and a bit of joy.
And that's all I've got this year. Enjoy the season, appreciate the little things, and take the time to give yourself some credit for making it as far as you have. Let me know how you're doing; it's half the reason I send this every year.

And the required bad joke...
During a visit to the mental asylum, a visitor asked the Director how do you determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalized.
"Well," said the Director, "we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup, and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub."
"Oh, I understand," said the visitor, "A normal person would use the bucket because it's bigger than the spoon or the teacup."
"No," said the Director, "A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?"

Merry Christmas,
Battalio

This I Believe (part 5)

2008-12-11T20:18:00.001-06:00

This is part five of my “This I Believe” series. I’m going to be spending most of the time delving into my struggles in deciding what it is I actually believe. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I consider myself a man of science, but I also consider myself a man of faith. So, where am I exactly? I hope to figure some of it out here.
This short entry is a comment on the lack of respect in the argument over religion.

Theists and atheists do a really good job of insulting each other, but many fail at actually proving or even really arguing anything. Many people of faith find Richard Dawkins offensive. I, however, find that people who prescribe to his beliefs more offensive than he. (Before I get a bunch of atheists mad at me, I also find many religious people offensive. [Pat Robertson comes to mind.]) They have a self righteous, childish, indignation for people of faith because they have found a leader, someone to champion their cause, and they are willing to bash whoever it takes to make sure Dawkins’s message is heard.
The fact of the matter though is that both sides of this argument are pretentious. Both believe they are absolutely correct and don’t care if insulting the opposition makes them or anyone else appear foolish. I am very turned off by both sides of the atheist/theist debate when they resort to name calling, which unfortunately they both do frequently. I don’t want to read a book or critique when a person resorts to calling people naïve or stupid. They spend so much time insulting the other side that one never actually gets to the point. If you can’t intelligently defend your argument or retort another’s, do not fill your essay with mindless blather. It helps no one and hurts your cause. Isn’t the point of argument to find a resolution? What many of these people do is make matters worse.

This I Believe (part 4)

2008-08-31T14:10:00.001-05:00

This is part four of my “This I Believe” series. I’m going to be spending most of the time delving into my struggles in deciding what it is I actually believe. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I consider myself a man of science, but I also consider myself a man of faith. So, where am I exactly? I hope to figure some of it out here.

This entry into the series will focus on “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, specifically a critique of some the more ambiguous points. A kind of editor’s note: these are undeveloped ideas and just about each paragraph is a separate thought. If I have more time, I will explore these ideas more thoroughly later.

Dawkins argues that a free, omnipotent God controlling every atom and answering every prayer usurps the role of science. He feels that science must be able to explain everything, and that a supernatural power that is not ruled by science lessens the meaning of science. In effect, the argument defines science as something that can have no holes, that must be omniscient, that must explain everything without any supernatural causes (GD 147-8). That argument is no better than making Science a kind of God. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but the wording he uses is what bothers me. It is almost as if he is making science a religion, which is a bit worrisome in itself.

Dawkins argues that a grand designer would be so complicated that he would need an even more grand designer to design Him. He has something there, but he’s trying to constrain religion, which is difficult to do. Religion has God conveniently boxed up as an omni-present, omnipotent, omniscient being. By definition, there is nothing greater than He. If he's everywhere, he's always existed. He doesn't need a creator. If he is all powerful, it doesn't matter how complicated He needs to be. He's all powerful. If he's all knowing, it doesn't matter how much knowledge it took to create the universe. But his argument does reveal that argument by design can be a circular argument, i.e. if the world is so complex that there is no way it cannot be designed, then there must be some complex being that designed it, but if there is a being more complex than the universe, who designed Him. Et cetera. (See the paragraph on the Kalam Cosmological Argument in part 3 of this series.)

Dawkins is also unnecessarily hostile towards religion. Several times throughout the book I found myself feeling insulted by his derogatory comments on religion, and here I am reading the book because I might agree with him. He is correct in saying that I only am so easily insulted because I have been raised religiously, and I should try to remove the chains of thought that a religious mindset had lock me to. But that does not change that the feelings I have toward religion are there now. There's nothing I can do about those preconceived notions, much less the preconceived notions of others who are merely reading his book out of curiosity. If his goal is to make atheism more accepted and make theism seem less ominous, he is being self-defeating. He would do better trying to cater to those individuals who are being introspective instead of being belligerent.
However, his hostility might serve a purpose. By attacking God, Dawkins is attempting to cut down the barriers that many, including me, have against crossing God's infallible commands. Although I felt resentful occasionally, every once in a while I did have to step back and say, "Wait, he does have a point." The God of the Old Testament is, to quote Dawkins: "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynist, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Turning one into a pillar of salt just for turning one's head around out of curiosity seems a bit harsh of a punishment. I do have a hard time combining the God of the Old Testament to that of the New.

There is an element of the straw man in the book as well. Dawkins tries to take the best elements of science to dispute the worst elements of theology. To quote Marilynne Robinson, "If religion is to be blamed for the fraud done in its name, then what of science? Is it to be blamed for the Piltdown hoax, for the long-credited deceptions having to do with cloning in South Korea? If by 'science' is meant authentic science, then 'religion' must mean authentic religion, granting the difficulties in arriving at these definitions." One cannot defeat the egregious errors of religion and ignore the errors of science. While true that science did eventually uncover the Piltdown hoax and the fraud of cloning in South Korea. Religion is also attempting to flesh out the inconsistencies in its own beliefs.

One of Dawkins most interesting propositions is that of the "meme." A meme is a gene of culture essentially. It's a bundle of cultural beliefs that are passed on, so to speak, from generation to generation. A key distinction between genes and memes is that memes don't necessarily help the holder of that meme survive; it is just the meme itself that is surviving. Dawkins supposes that memes are why religions have remained so strong despite the lack of proof. For example, a religion is aided in it own survival if one of its beliefs is that God or some other higher power punishes disbelief. The religion will survive if punishment is sufficiently awful. Hence why Christianity and Islam have become so prevalent. Who would want to be thrown to the eternal fire? Or who wouldn’t want 72 virgins when they die?

I believe Dawkins’s largest fault is his bias. Dawkins does not speak with a single theist; just as Strobel did not speak with a single atheist. Many of his critics, both agnostic and religious alike, point out that Dawkins does not take on some of the greatest writings of religion, instead focusing on dismantling it from the edges, as opposed to facing some of its best literature head on.

Confused by my logic? Leave me a comment. Next, a comment on the lack of respect in the argument over religion.

This I Believe (part 3)

2008-07-25T22:00:00.000-05:00

This is part three of my “This I Believe” series. I’m going to be spending most of the time delving into my struggles in deciding what it is I actually believe. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I consider myself a man of science, but I also consider myself a man of faith. So, where am I exactly? I intend on defining what is faith, considering non-overlapping magisteria, and many other topics.

This entry into the series will focus on “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel, specifically a critique of some the more ambiguous points. I will go through a list of some of the illogical points he makes, plus comment on a couple of items to his credit.

Strobel and his interviewees use apples to oranges analogies to try to affirm God's existence. For example, in Chapter 6 Robin McGrath asks you to picture this: Suppose when we first send a human to Mars we discover a biosphere constructed with an atmosphere supportive of life. Would we not immediate believe that an intelligence beyond our own created it? The answer is yes obviously, but when you change "biosphere" to "universe" and "intelligence" to "God" in that argument you create an awful logical fallacy. On Mars, it is "obvious" that nature did not create the biosphere. To call it obvious that the universe is not created via natural processes is petitio principii (begging the question). It's what we are trying to answer in the first place. If it were obvious that the universe was created artificially, as the biodome was, then the argument would be valid, but it is not obvious-that is the whole point.
I could come up with many other examples of that, but you get the point. Just be careful if you read this book. Despite Ocham's razor, question the simplest sounding of arguments; they are usually too good to be true.

Here is a more compelling argument: Strobel focuses a chapter, Chapter 5, on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. To summarize: 1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.) The Universe began to exist. 3.) The Universe has a cause. That cause is God.
Saying that another physical process caused the Universe simply pushes the argument back a level. What caused the cause? This is an intriguing argument. I find it difficult to easily find a hole in it. (Warning: Physics mumbo jumbo) Saying that quantum fluctuations caused the Universe implies that an energy field had to exist (and something for it to exist in) before hand. What caused that? We're talking about the Universe being created from nothing, absolute nothing. Virtual particles are caused from an energy field, not exactly nothing. There are also p-branes (physicists love their whimsy) in string theory and the aforementioned multiverse. [I’ve already talked about the multiverse (see Part One of this series). P-branes and just about everything dealing with string theory are improvable, just like the multiverse, so it’s a moot point to bother with them in this discussion, but p-branes are a mathematical construct composed of multiple dimensions, any integer from zero up. The thought is that the universe is inside one of these p-branes (the p is just a variable, so that a three dimensional brane would be a 3-brane.), and these p-branes are floating around in something, and every time they collide with one another, they form a new universe. That’s really simplified, mostly because I have a hard time understanding it. If you’re interested, there’s a lot of literature on the internet.] Anyway, the point being, what caused the universe? And granted, just because we don’t have a reason now, doesn’t mean we won’t have a reason eventually.

Next, in Ch. 7, Strobel discusses with Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards evidence of God from Astronomy. The main rebuff I’d like to give is on the rare Earth hypothesis. The theory being that the Earth is so fine tuned, so perfect, so one in a quadrillion that it has to be designed. Here’s my case against that argument: just recently earth sized planets have been discovered around stars. I believe the percentage of planets with stars is about 1 in 10, or at least that is the best estimate so far. With the discovery of earth sized planets orbiting even some of the stars we can see, I can say without a bit of reservation (although there is a chance I’m wrong) that there must be another earth sized planet in the Goldilocks zone. The Goldilocks zone is just a clever way of saying that a planet is in an orbit where is temperature is just right for liquid water to continuously exist.) I also must dismiss the arguments about the rarity of having a molten iron core (the iron core creates the magnetic field around the Earth that protects us from all kinds of high energy particles that could kill life), and a moon of the right size and distance because even with a one in a trillion chance, there are billions or more chances for the exact conditions to exist more than once. I’m afraid astronomy doesn’t support the rare earth hypothesis anymore.
I must say that I don’t know enough about most of the biological evidence presented to make a determination on it one way or the other. It has convinced me I need to spend some time reading up on biology because that’s a subject in which I’m deficient. (But look at Part Two of this series for a discussion of irreducible complexity.)

The biggest problem with the book though is that despite Strobel’s claims to being unbiased, there are no religious skeptics interviewed, and almost all of those interviewed have doctorates in philosophy or theology, not science. This really needs no explanation. It’s difficult to call oneself unbiased when you have no arguments that differ from your own presented.

Confused by my logic? Leave me a comment. Next, a dissection of some of the dubious points made by each of the authors, continuing with Dawkins’s “The God Delusion”.

This I Believe (part 2)

2008-07-11T22:18:00.000-05:00

This is part two of my “This I Believe” series. I’m going to be spending most of the time delving into my struggles in deciding what it is I actually believe. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I consider myself a man of science, but I also consider myself a man of faith. So, where am I exactly? I intend on defining what is faith, considering non-overlapping magisteria, and many other topics.

Next, I’m going to present a summary of evidence for and against God concerning evolution and irreducible complexity from Lee Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator” and from Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion”.

Strobel interviewed several scientists, most notably biologist Michael Behe. He argues that evolution cannot explain certain systems because they are too complex to evolve naturally, and thusly must have been designed.
Having done a bit of research into Behe I have discovered his claims while though intriguing are disputed my the majority of biologists. In fact there is a considerable amount of work debunking all of Behe claims. There is even a case decided where Behe was a witness in which the court dismisses Behe’s claims. (See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) Still though, I believe an explanation of this is in order.
Behe provides several examples of irreducible complexity; the eye, blood clotting, and flagellum. To begin his discussion he provides the example of a mousetrap. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Remove even just one component-the spring, wooden base, the closing bar-and it no longer works. Behe argues the same for each of his examples. I’ll describe just one. Consider a blood clot, if the clot doesn’t form over a cut, no matter how small, you’ll die. If a clot forms in the wrong place, your brain for instance, you’ll die. If a clot doesn’t completely cover a cut, you’ll die. The system is highly choreographed. According to Behe, blood clots have to follow a sequence of ten steps using 20 different components (C. for a C. pg.209). Remove just one of the components and the system falls apart. The system is useless if step six of ten fails. How did these 20 components come together to create this system?
Behe also argues against gene duplication (the accidental creation of an extra copy of a piece of DNA where the original copy performs its intended function and the extra copy can perform a new function). To revisit the mouse trap: say you have the spring but not the base. Now via duplication you have two springs, so you have two springs and no base. That’s still useless. How does the extra spring become a base?
Again, however, there is scientific evidence disproving this claim. (see http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527.full) The puffer fish cited in the article has three less of the genes Behe contends are need for blood clotting. And the question follows what is the fewest amount of genes needed for the supposedly irreducibly complex system to continue to work. That’s unknown, but even if one of the ten steps is removed then the system still finds a way to work debunks this example. Behe has many other examples which you may want to research on your own.
Conversely, Dawkins contends that irreducible complexity is a myth thanks to natural selection, gene duplication and genetic redundancy. Dawkins claims that components of irreducibly complex systems can have served other functions before becoming a link in an irreducibly complex system. For example, a gene in blood clotting might have been used to code information for the storage of oxygen in red blood cells before it was used to trigger solidification in the presence of open air.
Dawkins has a separate title, “Climbing Mount Improbable” (which I hope to read in the future), that goes at length into explaining seemingly insurmountable leaps in evolution by a sequence of small steps. Each step is slightly advantageous to life so these steps are added one on top of the other until you have a creature that, for example, doesn’t die if it receives a cut. Dawkins likens it to getting to the top of a shear cliff by walking to the other side of the mountain and ascending the gentle slope on the opposite side.
One last topic of interest Strobel includes is the mind-bogglingly large amount of information stored in DNA, which is likened to the cliché of monkeys on a typewriter producing not just Shakespeare but the entire volume of knowledge of mankind. All that information, except the origin of the very first piece of data, can be explained by natural selection. The problem is where did that very first piece of data come from that directed replication. Strobel refuses chance based on the improbability of proteins randomly forming a chain of replicating DNA. However, I would argue that our friend the anthropic principle might have something to say about that. The logic being that we wouldn’t be here to consider the first piece of data if that first piece of data didn’t replicate. Still though, that’s a bit of stretch. Where did that first piece of information come from? I don’t know.

Confused by my logic? Leave me a comment. Next, a dissection of some of the dubious points made by each of the authors, beginning with Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator”.

This I Believe (part 1)

2008-07-03T23:01:00.001-05:00

Now that I'm in full summer mode, eight hour workdays, five days a week with nothing much else to do, I can continue my serious blog posts. This is a long one.
We are well into my series of “Serious discussion…” posts (I’m working on part six currently.), and I’d like to begin a new series that I'm calling "This I Believe." I’m going to be spending most of the time delving into my struggles in deciding what it is I actually believe. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I consider myself a man of science (always), but I also consider myself a man of faith (mostly). So, where am I exactly? I intend on defining faith, considering non-overlapping magisteria, and many other topics.

First, a discussion of two books I have read recently.
I think of myself as an equal opportunity offender-someone who can offend not only the religious but the nonreligious as well. So, with that in mind I'd like to comment on some of my reading as of late. Within the last few months, I have read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Both have their moments, but it's interesting that both use the same scientific facts to create a thought process that proves their arguments. They are arguing for a dichotomy; there is a God or there isn't. One of them must be wrong. Figuring out who is wrong is a problem. Despite philosophy being logical it's hard to prove wrong. (Which I suppose is the point, if it were easy I certainly wouldn't be worrying about it now.)

The first stepping stone they use is the anthropic principle. I've touched on the anthropic principle before, but I think it bears a second look. Both books spend a chapter or two each touting anthropic reasoning as proof of their argument. How is that possible? What does this have to do with God? What is the anthropic principle?
The universe has some very precise constants, fine-tuned is the clichéd phrase for it. So precisely tuned these constants are that the chances for just one of the constants (there are a lot of constants) being supportive of the universe we see today (galaxies, stars, planets made of stable atoms and molecules) are, according to some studies, along the order of one in ten billion raised to the 123 power (Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, New York: Oxford 1989, pg 344). Our universe, being more than 1/10,000,000,000123 against us being here, seems rather difficult to be scientifically explained. But wait…
The anthropic principle dates back a few decades, although allusions to it go back as far as 1900ish. A man named Brandon Carter first formally proposed the anthropic principle to defeat an argument for the Steady State Theory of cosmology which contended that not only are all places identical, but all times are also identical. This helped defend the now (mostly) accepted Big Bang theory. The argument comes in two forms, a weak argument and a generalized strong argument (kind of like how special relativity is generalized by general relativity). The weak argument refers to the selection of specific times and spaces in the universe for the development of intelligent life. In summary the weak anthropic principle says our existence coincides perfectly with conditions for intelligent life because life would not be around to measure the perfect conditions for its existence if those conditions did meet the needs of intelligent life. I imagine some of you just went, “What?...” To restate, we would not be here to measure stuff if the stuff we were measuring precluded our existence. The strong argument generalizes the weak argument to include fundamental constants and forces of physics. The conclusion to this is we are in a universe where the forces and constants are such that we can exist. (Which, I know, is rather obvious.) An implication of this is that there are universes where forces and constants do not include our existence. So, we are left with a theory of the multiverse, that we are in one of an infinite number of possible universes. Dawkins proclaims the multiverse as an alternative to the Teleological argument for the existence of God. (To sum up the Teleological argument in a sentence: God exists because the universe is too perfectly designed for there not to be a God. That’s a vast simplification. I suggest a bit of research on the subject - perhaps a topic for a future blog post.)
By introducing this idea of the multiverse, the strong anthropic principle selects our universe as one in which life can exist. This is analogous to the weak version of the anthropic principle selecting our planet at our time for intelligent life, which is also somewhat analogous to the Darwinian theory of Evolution selecting our genes for life. So instead now of exemplifying his atheistic view, Dawkins inadvertently advances an agnostic view of the uni/multiverse. A bit of explanation: Dawkins affirms that the multiverse is an alternative possibility to God having a hand in explaining the implications of anthropic reasoning (i.e. That despite the chances of humanity existing being infinitesimally small, there are an infinite number of universes in the multiverse, so the chances don’t matter. We are in this universe as opposed to the infinite other universes because if our universe didn’t support life we wouldn’t be here to consider it.). The problem with this is there is no way to prove a multiverse exists, just as we have no way to prove the existence of a diving maker. So, instead deifying a multiverse, we have to relegate Dawkins’s argument to an agnostic argument.
Strobel takes a different approach. Strobel asserts that the chances are so small for the conditions to be met for life that there must be some sort of overall intelligence or purpose in creating the universe. To dismiss the multiverse, he sites several scientists (specifically, John Polkinghorne) as discrediting the multiverse theory as “pseudo-science” and “a metaphysical guess” (pg. 140). But again where does this leave us; agnosticism. There is no way to prove God; there is no way to prove the theory of the multiverse. On this Strobel and Dawkins merely redefine the argument.

Confused by my logic? Leave me a comment. Next a short discussion on evolution and irreducible complexity.

Serious conversations... (part 5)

2008-06-25T22:48:00.000-05:00

I apparently forgot to post the last serious conversation. Here it is:

A bit of a disclaimer, this is the fifth in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.  These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot.   Before every single religious person starts chomping at the bit, let me say this is not an argument about whether there is a God. This is more philosophical in nature. Also let me say that my unnamed friend is one of the most moral, responsible and decent people I have ever met, so no one take the high ground until you’ve read the entire series, and still don’t take it then either. This fifth entry is about my individual purpose to life.

Some time ago I started to read (and still haven’t finished, you know me) The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. He set out his purpose of life as being for Eudaimonia. (Eudaimonia is usually translated as happiness, but a better translation is that of human flourishing.) Aristotle says Eudaimonia is the pursuit of virtue through rational activity. (Aristotle then goes on to explain the virtues he refers to: rationality, relationships, scientific knowledge, character, etc.) I am using this philosophy as the opposing crutch to my purpose relating to there being a God. Eudaimonia makes up for what I find purpose-lacking religiously. It's an interesting concept. All humans strive knowledge (most of us at least) and happiness. (I am realizing already that I'm not going to do as good a job as Aristotle at explaining this.) Those things aren't good enough; that's why most people feel unfulfilled. You need all the other virtues to get anything out of life. It's the combination of character, intellect and knowledge that makes life worth-while.
It's curious that we are the only creatures that have to have a purpose to life. We are a very goal oriented species, and we are very good at inventing reasons for life. I think a lot of this as to do with the fact we are one of a few species that has free time. We can provide more than our needs, so we have to find things to occupy our time. Animals don't care they might not have a purpose if there are too busy fending off the latest predator to think about it. If we can't find things to fill that time we wonder why we are here if we can't do things we want instead of need.
If you can have a purpose to life without religion, then that is very commendable and independent of you. I can't. I wouldn't say I envy you though because I do like and genuinely believe in my religious convictions, but I will say I don't see how people can subscribe to an existence where the only reason they wake up is to be one day closer to death and therefore heaven. I need more than just religion as a reason to wake up in the morning. If I were you, I wouldn't be embarrassed of it though. There's no reason to be, in almost the same way I'm not embarrassed because I'm Roman Catholic and not Greek Orthodox or Baptist or Muslim or Hindu. Subscribing to a faith is all concept is just as commendable as being able to live with no religion at all.
For me the fact remains that I need both faith and reason to survive. I find that at some point along the way my convictions fail with just one and without the other.

A Change of Persuasion

2008-06-21T15:10:00.001-05:00

After a lot of thought and deliberation, reading a lot of books, I have decided to amend my philosophic persuasion. Don't freak out on me; it isn't as drastic as you might be thinking. I will continue to be a Roman Catholic. While I am Catholic mostly because my grandparents were Catholic, I have come to independently believe in Catholicism as well, but as I get older I no longer have to live exactly by the tradition of the Battalio family. (Interestingly, I have an uncle who used to be a Dominican [I think] brother but left because he thought that the changes made by Vatican II were too extreme. He's still Catholic, just not a brother.) I have a more developed sense of self. And I think that I have become a more thoughtful person. As a consequence, I must include an extra identifier to my system of believes besides Catholic. But, do I still have faith? Yes. (Most of the time.) Am I still Catholic? Most certainly yes. However, I also must face what reason suggests.
For a theory to be scientific, it must have repeatable, testable outcomes (hence why string theory is very controversial). Scientifically, there is no way to prove God. God is not a scientific theory. (Although some may argue otherwise.) In this way I must also now face that I am an agnostic as well as a Catholic. I have faith that He exists, but I believe there is no way to scientifically verify this. Thus the term "agnostic Catholic" encapsulates both my religious affiliation and my scientific affiliation. I feel that any person of science or reason should, if they claim religious affiliation, also claim a scientific persuasion. Obviously you cannot claim a religious affiliation and also be an atheist, but you can differentiate yourself between Agnosticism, arguing that God cannot be proven, arguing that there is a way to prove God or believing that science and religion are two separate entities that have no business even considering one another.
Given my definition of Agnosticism, many of you are probably agnostic. In fact, I bet many of you consider all of this a statement of the obvious. Obvious or not, one needs to have a firm stance on where they are philosophically, even if it is just an expression of ignorance, as my philosophy usually is.
I have ideas for about seven or eight more blog posts, so I will hopefully get out at least that many before the semester begins.

summer work

2008-06-01T23:21:00.000-05:00

A quick update on what's been going on. I know it's been a while. I'm done with my eighth semester, and instead of graduating and doing something with my life, I'm staying a MSU for another year. I'm busy trying to get my fifth year paid for. You see you only get MTAG, MESG, and the ACT Academic scholarship for four years. Those paid for a sizable chunk of my expenses, so I'm working to get private scholarships to cover the deficit. Otherwise, I'm trying to find a job over the summer. The story is moderately long, so here goes...
Two months ago I called my boss at the Corps of Engineers, with whom I have worked for four years. He was no longer the boss; he was the "acting branch chief." He did tell me that most people had money to pay me and projects to work on, so I wasn't worried about a job for the summer. He said he would let the new chief know I wanted to come back. Well, I waited a few weeks with no response. I wasn't surprised, messages are rarely delivered in the government. I began calling the new boss about six weeks ago. I left her a voicemail and an e-mail. No response. After getting home I begin calling her office everyday, calling the secretary, calling people I know that work in my branch. The people I got a hold of told me she was out. So, I patiently waited. I apparently missed her several times, but despite my e-mails and voicemails, she didn't respond. I finally got tired of being ignored, so I asked the secretary for her home phone. I finally spoke with her and she told me that no one had any money or work currently. She also told me she meant to let me know a month earlier that I would not have a job, but she forgot. And that was that.
Had I found out several weeks ago, as I should have, I could have procured another job at the Corps before all the high school students got out of school. But now, there are very few spots open. I am frantically asking all the people I know that work for the Corps if they know of any jobs. I have a glimmer of hope, but it's very small. I hope I don't have to work some sort of retail or service job. But we'll see.
As an aside, I am proud of myself for not getting very angry with my new, ex-boss. I was furious with her when she told me, but I calmly accepted it. The fact remains though that at best she is rude and inconsiderate and at worst incompetent. It's like I'm living a Dilbert cartoon. I do not enjoy it.

Bowl Game

2007-12-30T14:34:00.000-06:00

I am looking for a copy of the Liberty Bowl. If anyone has it, I would be much obliged to have a copy. Gracias.

The Annual Christmas E-mail

2007-12-25T00:17:00.000-06:00

Greetings and salutations,
Welcome those of you old and new to the sixth Annual Christmas Mass e-mail. If you're wondering how I got your e-mail, don't; it's best not to know.
I've been doing some reading over the last year on religion. My good friend Jeff Armstrong pointed me toward The Case for... Faith, a Creator, Jesus series by Lee Strobel, an atheistic journalist turned Christian. Also, I am most of the way through The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, an atheistic biologist. I've started on Either/Or, a book on combining an aesthetic, hedonistic life view (essentially someone who just wants to have fun) with religion and ethics by philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard. From a physics standpoint I'm also looking at Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, a discussion of how finely tuned the universe appears to be for our existence, by Martin Rees.
I've turned to various literature for one reason. Ponder for a moment how unlikely God is. Certainly the world is complex and appears designed, but how much more complex would an omnipotent being need to be to create all we see around us? Natural selection and physics explain so much, and what cannot yet be explained can be attributed to our ignorance. Perhaps it's just the scientist in me that craves concise, concrete answers or perhaps I just more of a skeptic than I care to admit.
All of this to make a point: an unexamined religion, faith, moral compass, world view, whatever you like, means nothing. Faith isn't really faith if we aren't doubtful of what we believe sometimes. We are no better than trained monkeys if we simply go through life accepting what we are told to accept. Do not read into what I'm saying. I'm not trying to make anyone feel like a monkey, quite the opposite. Everyone at some point has made a conscious decision what to believe; going to a religious service, tossing a handful of change to the bell ringers outside Walmart, smelling the roses, all conscious decisions we make. Humans by nature are skeptical and inquisitive. We just need to remember to kindle and encourage our nature as often as we can, otherwise what's the point of being human? That for me is my purpose in life, to discover whatever the Truth is, and to have some fun along the way. I wish that for all of you as well.
For years, the good Catholic in me has ended my prayers with this: "May all who are lost find the Way, the Truth and the Light." Recently though I have begun to end with this: "May everyone find the Way, the Truth, and the Light wherever it make take them." Whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, agnosticism, atheism or any of a hundred different belief systems, let people go where they need to go with the hope that eventually we will all individually find whatever Truth exists in the universe.
Enjoy the season, appreciate the little things, and take the time to give yourself some credit for making it as far as you have. Let me know how you're doing, it's half the reason I do this twice a year.
Merry Christmas,
Battalio

Serious Conversations... (part 4)

2007-09-24T11:34:00.001-05:00

A bit of a disclaimer, this is the fourth in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.
These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot.
Before every single religious person starts chomping at the bit, let me say this is not an argument about whether there is a God. This is more philosophical in nature. Also let me say that my unnamed friend is one of the most moral, responsible and decent people I have ever met, so no one take the high ground until you’ve read the entire series, and still don’t take it then either. This fourth entry is about the purpose of all of existence.

My friend had just commented on the lack of a purpose for noncomplex life. The example was an amoeba. My friend had also commented on why we need a purpose to life. No other creature needs a purpose; why should we need one? Lastly, my friend pointed out we need to differentiate between the purpose for all of existence, the purpose of life, and an individual’s purpose. I responded…

Perhaps an amoeba is just a by product of the evolution of life; perhaps an amoeba has already served its purpose, as simply an early step of life. And now the amoeba simply exists just because it knows no better. It could be also that one of the purposes of an amoeba is to support the ecosystem(s) in which humanity can thrive.
Sentience could be the goal of the universe, or at least life, to figure itself out, and the purpose of everything around us is to support us in trying to figure the universe out. (It’s also true we could be just a stepping stone to something even more important than us. Actually, I hope we are; if we aren’t, we still have some serious evolving to do if you ask me.)
I wonder why we need a purpose in life. Why can’t we just live like everything else? I don’t think anything else needs a purpose to life. I doubt any animals can think about things of this nature, so why are humans so insistent on having a purpose to life. I don’t have a good answer to that. (Here is the best answer my friend could come up with: Humanity is a very goal oriented species. We make “to do” lists, we set career goals, the government supposedly has a set of goals for Iraq. We’re all about doing things for reasons. Perhaps humanity’s need for a purpose of existence is just an extension of our human nature.)
My friend pointed out that a person’s purpose in life might be to find their purpose in life. (Even though that’s circular reasoning.) I think that could be a valid thing to say, but if there really isn’t a purpose to life, then that person has wasted their life. This is why I need something more to my purpose in life than just finding my purpose. There has to be more to the purpose than the purpose. Was there a purpose to the universe at all before humanity came around to start looking for a purpose? I don't know.
I'm a believer in the anthropic principle. (The anthropic principle is born out of physics. It comes in several forms, but the gist of it is this: The universe is very fine tuned for our existence. So fine tuned that any infinitesimal change in any of a number of constants [e.g. the fine-structure constant, the masses of any of the fundamental particles, the strength of any of the fundamental forces, the speed of light, etc. etc.] would throw the universe so out of whack that the most complex form of matter would be random protons and neutrons flying around [and perhaps not even that]. No atoms, no stars, no galaxies, and no life. Our existence is a big coincidence. How does science explain this? By the anthropic principle, which states: we wouldn’t be here to measure the fundamental physical constants if the constants were of a strength precluding our existence. In other words, we are here now because if things were different we couldn’t be here. That may seem like circular reasoning, and actually it kind of is except for the theory of the multiverse. It states that there are an infinite amount of universes each existing simultaneously with different properties. The reason we are in this universe and not in any other is because of the anthropic principle. The multiverse is a very vague, unprovable concept in physics, but it has an elegance that appeals to me.) And to me the anthropic principle is enough to answer the “how we are here?” of existence for me. Assuming God doesn't exist, I really can't think of a reason for the universe or life or anything really, except for that principle. (I find it necessary to have a reason beyond God for there to be a universe. Some people are blessed-or cursed depending on your view-to have a faith where faith is all you need. I am not one of those people.) But being here now, I'm glad the fundamental forces are in balance and that light travels the speed it does and that the proton isn't a bit heavier.

Existence as a whole may not have a purpose, but individuals can give themselves a purpose. Next a discussion of that.

Serious conversations... (part 3)

2007-07-22T20:46:00.000-05:00

A bit of a disclaimer, this is the third in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.  These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot.   Before every single religious person starts chomping at the bit, let me say this is not an argument about whether there is a God. This is more philosophical in nature. Also let me say that my unnamed friend is one of the most moral, responsible and decent people I have ever met, so no one take the high ground until you’ve read the entire series, and still don’t take it then either. This third entry consists of some of my thoughts on organized religion. (As a kind of editor’s note, one paragraph doesn’t necessarily flow with they next. They can be read independently.)

Prepare to be offended. Sorry. Religion has the tendency to make people deny the scientific truth. (Before everyone gets up in arms let me provide an example: it took the deaths and imprisonment of many scientists [e.g. Galileo, although he specifically wasn’t killed by the Church] before the Catholic Church would admit the earth went around the sun. Same too with evolution. [I can’t think of anyone killed because of it though.]) Whether this critical skepticism (I’m not saying skepticism of science is a bad thing; I’m saying the reason for the skepticism could be misguided.) is an unconscious, learned response or something someone chooses to do depends on the person. I am not saying most people blindly accept religion but possibly.
Religion also does a good job of making sure people don't question its validity. Religion says it's good for people to question their faith, but most religious people I know don't act that way. (In my quest for an understanding of faith, I am about to read a book by an atheist about why religion is nonsense. I think I've read enough books about why there should be a God, I think it's time to view the other side. I'll let you know if it's any good.) I believe this stems from the fact that those with religious power do not want to give up that power because in the not so distant past religious power meant you had political power. And the way to keep political power is to keep the masses stupid or at least unquestioning.
People have a tendency to mix religion with everything (By that I mean use religion to influence decisions that have nothing to do with religion.) under the assumption that religion is always right simply because it was ordained by God. (Before you get up in arms with that statement let me say that just because God ordained specific people to “manage” his followers doesn’t mean they can’t still screw the religion up. [Anyone heard of the Avignon Antipapacy?])
Most people worry about religion being injected into science, where it really does not belong. I’m not concerned with that. Science can do a very good job of defending itself against purely religious ideals. The thing that worries me most is people confusing religion and politics. Politics has no defense against religion, and one need only look at the president to see some of the consequences of religion dominating political decisions. It seems every day we get closer and closer to a theocracy. That does worry me. (And just because it’s a theocracy of my own religion doesn’t make me worry less. Just because the Taliban was an Islamic government didn’t mean those with that faith liked it there.)
Humanity's need to believe in something greater than itself is very strong, and I have no idea where it comes from. Religion would say that is God trying to "bring us home." I don't blindly subscribe to that; I hope. I think it has to do with there not really seeming to be an obvious purpose to existence. One has to find it. And religion is the easy way out, because let's face it, most people are too lazy to figure out a purpose, and religion is a convenient, easy way to have a purpose to life. (Don't take that to mean I think all religious people are lazy, unintelligent people. I don't, but some people actually are.) I think that's why so many people accept a religion without understanding it. (As an aside, I think that's where the majority of problems concerning religion come from, people not really understanding what they believe.)
The only thing I can say about organized religion demanding that other organized religions are wrong is that I hope I've picked the correct religion. I know that must be unsettling to you. It is to me as well. The truth is, there is no way to know which is actually right (if any) until you die, so there is no use in worrying about it.
The interesting thing about organized religion is that if you don’t already subscribe to one, and you don’t see one you like, you can start your own. There are so many Christian denominations alone, who would notice another. And besides, I would argue that you don't need to belong to an organized religion to be religious. Organized religion is a forum and a place for people to celebrate what they believe as a community. And community is what humanity is all about. That’s purpose enough right there.

Next, let’s move onto the meaning of life…

Serious conversations… (part 2)

2007-07-09T22:21:00.000-05:00

A bit of a disclaimer, this is the first in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.
These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot.
Before every single religious person starts chomping at the bit, let me say this is not an argument about whether there is a God. This is more philosophical in nature. Also let me say that my unnamed friend is one of the most moral, responsible and decent people I have ever met, so no one take the high ground until you’ve read the entire series, and still don’t take it then either. This second entry is about the use of profanity.

A discussion of cussing can become very complicated because it has to do with religion, emotion, etymology, culture and an assortment of other disciplines I can't come up with off the top of my head. I think I've been able to get away with never cussing because I'm not a very angry person. There have only been a couple of times in my life where I've been really angry. I have just never had the need to cuss. I find it worrisome, though, that society finds it more and more necessary to use cussing as filler words. It's really odd though; even I'll admit that a joke becomes funnier if a couple of cuss words are thrown in the right places. I have no idea why that is. (Does anyone out there have a reason for this phenomena?)
I really can't find anything that makes cussing improper other than religion, and that can be tied to culture again. I know the Catholic church believes cussing to be any phrase that demeans a person, so if I call you stupid, that’s cussing. It’s an extreme that I’m sure everyone finds difficult.
I still can’t figure out why it is I don’t cuss. (in the societal sense, not the Catholic church sense; I call people stupid all the time) There are many times where the word will pop into my head to use as filler for a joke, and I know the joke will be funnier if I put it in. I simply can’t make myself say the word. It isn’t family influences; my mom and dad cuss just as much as any other adults. I have even caught my little brother cussing from time to time. All of my close friends cuss. Most of the teachers I’m friends with cuss. And I can’t think of a single person whom I look up to in a religious sense that doesn’t have the occasional (not sometimes not occasional) profanity slip, including many a priest. If it isn’t religion and it isn’t culture or family, what is it? The best reason I can come up with is two fold. Most of the adults in my life when I was very little did a very good job instilling the “badness” of cussing. Being an impressionable child I took it as truth. The reason everyone else eventually figured out there is nothing wrong with cussing and I didn’t is because I had, or have as the case may be, a twisted, almost grotesque, need to be different and better than everyone else. Since from childhood I “knew” cussing was bad, my inner desire to be better than everyone else filled in the gap where I would have given up on keeping a cussless vocabulary. And now it has become force of habbit.
Before I end I’d like to comment on the meaning behind the word. It is not the meaning of a cuss word more than it’s feeling represented by the word that is to some degree reprehensible. It’s the feeling inside the person that gives the word meaning. This is the reason that as society progress and regresses “improper” words change. For instance, not so long ago children’s ears would be covered if someone said dang, shoot, heck, or darn or any of a number of other words that people, including myself, use to replace their “stronger” (by today’s standards at least) counterparts. Language continues to evolve and grow as the society driving it grows as well. It wouldn’t surprise me if before I die I end up saying words that are currently bleeped on tv simply because no one considers them cuss words anymore. As for now, there is no point in trying to do something that I don’t really want to do, so cuss words still are still left out of my reach.

Next, a bit of talk on organized religion…

Serious conversations... (part 1)

2007-07-02T22:25:00.000-05:00

A bit of a disclaimer, this is the first in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.
These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot.
Before every single religious person starts chomping at the bit, let me say this is not an argument about whether there is a God. This is more philosophical in nature. Also let me say that my unnamed friend is one of the most moral, responsible and decent people I have ever met, so no one take the high ground until you’ve read the entire series, and still don’t take it then either. This first entry is about consciousness and religion, kind of.

My friend had just had a conversation about consciousness with a group of neuroscientists and chemists. Everyone, except my friend, agreed that even if one could describe to the last atom the entire human body, one still wouldn’t have a description of the person. In essence, a human consciousness is more than the sum of its parts. Consciousness transcends the physical even though it is common knowledge that imbalances in brain chemistry can dramatically affect one’s personality (consciousness), and thought is simply electricity jumping across neurons in the brain. My friend was astonished that even without religion being mentioned there seemed to be some implication of it, and my friend asked for my insight. (And some lovely insight I have.)

Here is my response:
Christianity, and probably most other religions, forgets that there are other religions, other philosophies, other points of view, and so the faith doesn’t realize what would be common sense to someone with a similar religious background is crazy to someone with another way of viewing the world. Just because religion wasn’t mentioned in the conversation doesn’t mean that’s what everyone implied. This being America, and America being rather self centered, they might have assumed you realized it was in some sense a religious conversation.
It comes down to this. Assume religion is right, assume a soul exists. If they were referring to the soul of a person and not just their consciousness in your conversation, then they are right. I think we would agree that despite all those crazy people on tv, there is no way to quantitatively describe the spiritual realm, assuming it exists at all. Now assume religion is wrong, and they were talking about a soul. You were right. This argument is purely religious and not what we are talking about.
Now assume they were talking about human consciousness. This is certainly philosophy and has nothing to do with religious faith. I am thinking right now; I have consciousness; I exist. No religion there. I would, the next time you speak with them, ask them this: does human consciousness, not the soul, transcend the physical? Does human thought amount to more than some endorphins and electricity? Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? That makes sure you are both talking about the same thing, nothing religious about it. (Keep in mind Christianity takes the human consciousness and soul to be two completely different things. You can screw up one and save the other for instance. This is why there is ambiguity in your conversation.)
I assume you want me to answer those questions I just asked. Well, I can answer them in one word, maybe. It’s something that would have to be tested. You would have to describe every smallest unit of the human brain (molecule, atom, quark, whatever the fundamental particles end up being), run a model, and see if the human brain you just modeled did the exact same thing as the model a percentage of the time that could be attributed to quantum fluctuations. (I would assume that by the time we come up with that much computing power we will be able to also predict what percentage quantum mechanics would skew results by.)
Do I believe it could be possible to completely map out a brain’s neural pathways and reproduce my consciousness exactly without any more input? Yes, I see no reason it wouldn’t be possible. Might it be impossible? Yes to that as well. In actuality, I’ve come to accept that there is no way to know until it’s tested. It isn’t common sense to me either way. Might personality differences arise out of quantum mechanics? Certainly. (That might be a really interesting thing to do research on actually.) Do I believe the soul transcends physical description? Yes, but I am a religious person, and I don’t think that’s what you are talking about.

[So, we concluded that consciousness doesn’t necessarily transcend the physical, but it might. I would need a bit more proof one way or another to persuade me, but it would be cool to talk to a computerized version of myself.]

Next, look for a discussion of profanity in society.

And update on life

2007-06-06T21:38:00.000-05:00

Non academic post time. I feel it to be time to fill you in on the happenings of my life.
The last semester ended well. I feel it was a bit of a waste though. I only took 17 hours, and nine of them were freshman level communication classes. It was way too easy, and I feel guilty about how easy it was. I won't have to worry about that ever again though. Next semester should be a doosy. I will be taking 19 hours- a mix of music and meteorology. I am taking broadcast meteorology practicum I (2 hr.), water recourses (3), weather analysis I (2), Synoptic Meteorology (3), satellite and radar meteorology (3), music theory (3), ear traing-essentally the music theory lab (1), recital hour (0), piano lessons (1), and but of course marching band (1). The schedule would be great if I were only taking the meteorology classes. 10:00 to 2:00 with an hour for lunch at 12 on MWF and 9:30-12 on TTH and a 2:00 on Tuesday. That is the picture perfect schedule. However the music classes are freshman level (I'm only getting a minor.) so they are both at
eight. Consequently, I have 8:00 classes M-F. Great. I hate waking up early.
Drum majoring should take up a lot of time as well. I am looking forward to not having to learn a bunch of drill coordinates, but the other side of that is all the extra time it's going to take with, I may add, no increase in scholarship. Welcome to the real world I suppose.
I am still hoping I get to play piano for choir this year. It's something I've wanted to do since I came to State. I know I would love doing it, so I hope that comes through.
But at least I'm done with Math. I finished my math minor last semester. I don't have the piece of paper that proves it. (I obviously won't get thatuntil I graduate.) But I can still put it on my résumé.
Work is work. Vicksburg is Vicksburg. (I wanted to get an internship with the National Weather Association, but I completed enough classes yet. Next year it will happen.) The government pays well, but it's a tad, how shall we say it, dull. Vicksburg is always nice. I love having my piano. (Which I need to get tuned; it sounds awful.) And I love being able to putter in the garden every day. It's all wonderfully relaxing.
The only bad thing about summer is being away from everyone. It's hard to be used to having everyone around every day, and then you're left with yourself, family and your old high school friends- who, may I add, become more and more scarce as I get older. That's how life is though, always finding new, interesting people. Next time, how about a post on investing, my blossoming hobby?

Unwanted, newfound popularity

2007-05-30T21:10:00.000-05:00

It's been a while. Sorry, I have no other excuse than being lazy. Before I go on with this entry, let me say, I'm not trying to brag. There is a subtle difference between what I'm about to do and bragging. (I just don't know what it is.)

I've never really been popular. I've been tolerable and oftentimes downright agreeable but never popular...until now. Sure, this is only transitive; the effects are wearing off as I type. And as soon as I have to use my authority, any shred of popularity I have left will be gone. But the fact remains, right now, I'm in. This all because of one little (comparatively speaking) thing. I'm going to be one of the drum majors at MSU next year. (Actually, it's funny. I've been unpopular because I'm dorky, but being drum major [arguably the epitome of dorkiness] has made me popular. That, I know, has to be irony at its finest.) I don't really find my newfound position the success of a lifetime. (I hope.) I didn't even find it that difficult to get. It's just something I've managed to do with my life. But my family and friends act like I just became the President (not that that office really means anything anymore). Everyone has made a huge deal about it. In effect my approval rating has to be over 50% (the other 49% being Ole Miss fans), which I take to mean I'm popular. That's a loose definition of the word, but it'll probably be the closest I'll ever be to whatever popularity actually is.

I have to say I don't like it, popularity I mean. Don't get me wrong, I like attention just as much as the next narcissist, but at some point the attention smothers you. It prevents you from being who you are. I can't just brush off every person who gives me a copy of the article from the newspaper or calls the house to congratulate me. I have to modestly accept the kind word. It's not that I'm ungrateful. It's just not that big a deal to me and, consequently, shouldn't be a big deal to anyone else. (Not that the position isn't a big deal, the position itself is big.) I'm happy everyone's happy for me, but I'm sure everyone else has better things to do than offer me praise. (Yes, I'm being modest; mark it in your calendar. That was this year's quota.)

I'm used to being myself, and that usual self isn't very popular. My usual self is used to constantly fighting my way up the popularity ladder, not standing above the sticker that warns you not to step beyond the next to last rung. There's a small part of me that feels pressured to fit into some sort of popularity stereotype. (Don't ask me to define that.) And I don't like it. I enjoy being the Trekie who gardens and plays cello in between managing his stock portfolio while sipping amontillado sherry. (I could go on, but you get the point.) I like being different, and everyone liking me (except the Ole Miss fans) worries me. It means I have nowhere to go but down. I can only hope that whoever is holding the ladder doesn't get distracted by one of the cheerleaders.

The Annual Easter Mass E-mail

2007-04-13T14:13:00.001-05:00

Greetings,
This is the Annual Easter Mass E-mail, while smaller than its Christmas equivalent, I hope it to be just as meaningful. Sorry it's a day late; I can tell you are missing it. I've had four people ask about where the e-mail is. So, here it is. And away we go...
There is an interesting Hebrew word I came across as I was skimming though a very old translation of the bible. The word is sèlah. It's a verb meaning (I think) stop, pause and consider. I find that very appropriate to our situation in this day and time. How many times do you come to the end of the day and all you've done is run around without actually doing anything? Show of hands. I'm raising mine in case you don't know. It's really true though; life is busy. I often wonder where the days go. And if I can't even find the time to enjoy being alive how am I going to think about things that are really important- like, I don't know, for instance, God? He's a pretty big thing not to be stopping, pausing and considering. And when it comes down to it, we may not do all the things he wants us to do (or more usually we do things he doesn't want us to do), but really, how much does it put us out to just think about the Big Guy? Not fall on our hands and knees and sing at the top of our lungs an alleluia or give a prayer of thanksgiving for every little thing that has gone right (or wrong [Wrong things can be good sometimes.]) in our lives or beg for forgiveness or plead for healing or just break down and complain to Him, but to just think about it All.
Step back for a second; how improbable is everything: God, an allpowerful, timeless Being, decides that he's lonely and wants to make us and the universe. So, there it was, it and we were good, and he loved it and us etc. But we were insanely stupid, gluttonous and greedy. We were kicked out of paradise (blame it on the woman). Well, Mr. Allpowerful Being had a bit of a dilemma: we had free will, we screwed up, now what. If I get to heaven this is the first thing I'm going to ask God: how much did you have to drink when you decided that the way to save us all was to let us kill your Son? I mean really, how does that work? Because I don't get it. Well, we kill Him, we can get back into heaven, another timeless thing where we are all happy all the time. And then end of story except not end of story because heaven will never end.
Got a headache yet? And that was just one paragraph. The universe and God are pretty big things not to be stopping, pausing and considering. So, this Easter Season I'm not going to spend all my time worshiping at the foot of the cross. I (and I hope you too) am going to sit outside with a glass of tea and contemplate how crazy God is: crazy creative, caring, compassionate, loving, generous, and generally just pretty amazing.

Sèlah.

Happy Easter,
Mikie

I can't help myself:
Two eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly, so they lit a fire in the craft. Unsurprisingly it sank, proving once again that you can't have your kayak and heat it too.

I'm Mr. Lonely..

2007-03-03T21:06:00.000-06:00

Who among us hasn't been lonely? It's a rhetorical question that I can answer. Everyone. It's a horrible place to be in, and I find that that is one of the last problems I'm having to deal with. Am I lonely now? No, I probably know and am around more people now than I knew during the entirety of high school combined. The problem is this: once I have adapted to a situation I can be very extroverted, but when I am new somewhere I am terribly shy. It takes me a year or two to realize that I know enough people to be extroverted. It's a paradox I know, but one I can't seem to get around. I am afraid of being alone, not now but sometime in the future. And I know that eventually I will be there again because I can't be a 20th year senior. I have to leave MSU eventually, and with that comes awkward silence for at least a year. This is a problem I can only think of one solution to: learn to always be extroverted. That can be very challenging to someone who isn't accustomed to introducing yourself to the interesting group of people on the far side of the room. It's also something I can't practice until I have to practice it. And so, I am left where? Ignoring my fear, and hoping that as I mature I can fight though my introductory shyness. That's a really open ended answer-one that doesn't really satisfy me, so I continue to search.

The World at Eye Level

2007-02-16T18:12:00.001-06:00

It used to be that I would always look down when walking around either because of being tired or just not wanting to deal with people. But, I have found that there is a whole other world found just by looking up. When I am not listening to music, I now make sure to look up at the people I pass. Everyone is much more friendly than I have ever given them credit for. Everyone you make eye contact with makes some kind of acknowledgment of your existence-either a hello or nod of the head. At first, I was annoyed by this; I just like seeing the world all around me, which I may add, is much nicer than the grass directly below my feet. Now that I've been doing it for a while, I enjoy having everyone around me. It certainly puts me in a better disposition. I think that's because most of the people who look up are in a good mood, otherwise they wouldn't be looking up, and consequently, their good mood enforces my good mood. I suggest everyone try looking up every once in a while.

The Act of Judging

2007-01-12T11:34:00.001-06:00

I am sitting in Mass Media Wednesday afternoon, and I begin to daydream. (Nothing against the teacher. He's interesting, but intrinsically, the class material is boring.) For whatever reason, I start reminiscing on high school. And inevitably I recall how much of a perfectionist I was. Not grade wise (I'm still a perfectionist in that right now.) but of me being a perfectionist as far as being the goodie goodie. Me being who I am and being a goodie goodie and being self aware enough to know that, I always felt morally superior to everyone else. If you ever randomly come across one of the 40 people I graduated with, ask them. They'll agree I'm sure. I felt this way when I entered college as well. I was alone for the most part my freshman year, and looking around at everyone having fun only elevated my moral high ground. (This will just be fodder for everyone, but actually when I was in high school I seriously entertained the idea of entering seminary. It had a lot more to do with being lonely than feeling morally superior though.) I think I'm getting off track, allow me to make my point. It is this, making mistakes has made me a better person morally. Allow me to clarify. Being a self-righteous, obtuse fool always made me judgmental, horribly judgmental, towards all the people whom I thought I was better than, which, for the great majority of that part of life, was everyone. I would always go out of my way to find what it was they did that I found to be a transgression. I would then latch onto that, and I would be able to figuratively stand on their shoulders and preach to them. Whenever I saw someone, I spent a lot of time doing that in my mind. It consumed my small social life. However since then, I have faltered and made some mistakes myself, some obvious things, but in my mind it's the not so obvious things that pulled me away from my podium. Going into all of that is a bit more private of a conversation than I'm willing to talk about here, but suffice to say having been there, I feel no less human, and I understand where it is everyone is coming from now. They aren't any less of a moral being than I am now or was or will be. For humanity, the moral playground is level, no one is taller than anyone else. It was wrong for me to judge everyone, and it hurt me more than it did anyone else. Now that I'm walking on the same ground everyone else is, I don't spend time judging others, and I think that makes me a better person than being able to say I haven't made any mistakes myself. So even if the mistakes were transgressions in and of themselves, those mistakes have stopped what in my mind is the greatest transgression, playing God. And to me that is a fair trade off.

the semester

2007-01-08T17:46:00.000-06:00

Time for a regular post again. I have something in mind for my next academic post already though.

A couple of things firstly, for whatever reason, I haven't been sleeping very well at all. I only got five hours of sleep last night, and seven the night before. I am really delirious without enough sleep. It's crazy. I hope I can sleep tonight.

Secondly, the federal government is good. I worked over the entirety of the break, but thanks to holidays, I received four days off with pay.

My MWF schedule is going to be amazingly easy. I have three communication classes. They are all freshman level classes. I have to catch up since my major switch. The teachers are really funny so far, and one class doesn't even have tests to take. And I already have three classes canceled. It's wonderful. I'm glad I switched majors.

I am going to have a lot of free time this semester. I am done on Tuesday and Thursday at 12. I don't know what I'm going to do in the afternoon. I am going to take piano lessons for my minor, but that will take up only a bit. So, does anyone have a suggestion as to what I can do? Not necessarily work, but if it's fun work, I wouldn't mind.

I think I'm going to really enjoy myself this semester. I can't wait.

The Annual Christmas E-mail

2006-12-30T11:50:00.000-06:00

While I'm at home I get a chance to catch a random five minutes of NPR here and there during my drive to and from work. (Go ahead and laugh, I like NPR.) On Monday mornings the news features a spot during the time I usually leave the house called "This I Believe." It's a short essay written by a different person each week in which they describe what it is they find fundamental to their existence, and one doesn't often get the usual answer. On my way to work last Monday (the 18th) the segment featured a Franciscan priest. He had an intriguing statement about faith. I'll do my best to summarize:

Faith is a mystery. Our definition of faith is the opposite of what it is supposed to be. Scientists can deal with the existence of black holes and a principle that demands we not be certain of most things going on in the universe, but those with contemporary faith assert that we must know everything beyond any veil of uncertainty. People of that faith demand closure and clarity, but those who possess real faith are the ones that can accept ambiguity and paradox.
The people who know Holiness are the most humble, and those who don't know try the hardest to show that they are humble. The ones who have come to terms with the mystery are the ones that can say they honestly don't know, but the ones who haven't are the ones who pretend to know everything (remind you of anyone you know)

How amazingly astute and true all of that is. Isn't that the definition of faith, to believe when there is no proof? For the longest time, I had difficulty dealing with that. Why have reason when I shouldn't use it? Faith should serve my every need. I got past this obstacle with a metaphor. Faith and reason are the shoes on my feet. I'll get a lot further with both than I'll ever get with just one or the other alone.

Reason is what makes us human, but faith is what gives us our humanity.

I don't get much more stream of consciousness than that thankfully. Enjoy the season, appreciate the little things, and take the time to give yourself some credit for making it as far as you have.

Politics of a choir related nature

2006-12-21T19:42:00.000-06:00

A thing I've learned in the last few months is that whenever you get
a group
of two or more people together, there will always be politics. I say
this
because a huge amount of it has been going on in two church choirs
I'm in. I
won't go into the one I'm in while in Starkville, but the choir I'm
in here
in Vicksburg is startling me at how much political maneuvering goes
with me
oblivious to it. I'll do my best to describe what's going on without
offending anyone if someone from the choir comes across this. At the
moment
my choir is in full Christmas mode. That's what we are focused on,
playing
before a packed house an hour before Christmas vigil Mass starts on
the 24th.
It's what we've always done. One of the best pieces we perform is a
Cannon
in D violin duet which has always been performed by one of the best
violinists I've ever known, who attends college at the moment, and a
high
school aged girl who's rather good herself. It's a wonderful
arrangement,
and one of my favorites anyway. This year though the choir director has
arranged for his son to play instead of the college aged girl. He just
straight up told her mom that he wanted his son to play, didn't even
ask the
girl usually playing it if it was okay. Now, keep in mind that his
son is
about a decade younger than the girl he is replacing, and nothing
against the
son, but he isn't nearly as good as she is. I understand forcing
kids along
helps motivate them, but this is just the director using his power to
live
vicariously through his son. It isn't fair to the girl that has
always done
it. And it makes the choir sound bad if the directors son messes up
because
he is under so much pressure. He and the high school aged girl
practiced it
in front of the choir a few nights ago, and it was rather lacking. I
don't
see how it can be anywhere near the level of how it has been in years
past
with just a week and a half of practice time left for them.
I was going to site another example from the choir, but this post is
too long
now. The lesson of this post being never take anything for granted;
people
(no matter how innocuous) in organizations (no matter how charitable)
will
always abuse their power. It is human nature. It's a sad fact of life.

Half way through college

2006-12-12T18:03:00.000-06:00

I'm halfway through college again. After having an unpleasant
freshman year,
an unfulfilling third semester and an unequivocally depressing fourth
semester, it's finally gotten to the point where I'm enjoying
myself. This
last semester, the fastest one I've been through, I've found the most
rewarding. I've decided upon a major (for the third time) that I
finally
think I will be happy with. I've settled upon a few reasonably
diverse and
entertaining groups of friends. And after struggling to cope with
rejection
a couple of times over, I've finally gotten to a point where I can
have a
healthy relationship; I don't have to have my girlfriend around all
the time
just so I can feel fulfilled. The latter is definitely the most
important
point I've come to during this last semester. All the "loves,"
crushes and
girlfriends over the past half a dozen years that I've used to fill
my lack
of self worth all seem a bit childish. Hindsight being 20/20 I can
see that
it was actually a good thing that none of them worked out. Whether
or not my
current relationship works out, I know that if it does end, it won't
end with
me slumping into a six month long depression. Knowing that things can
quickly change, but that you can change just as quickly with them is
a good
place to be in life.

a milestone

2006-11-28T18:45:00.000-06:00

Having turned 21 just a couple of weeks ago, and being a reasonably
literate person, I thought this would make a good blog entry. In the
last week or so I have discovered that alcohol tastes pretty good.
When I went home for Thanksgiving I decided that one afternoon when
the whole family was out of the house I would take my first drink.
Wednesday afternoon my brother and father went hunting and my mother
went to work. After they left, I sorted through the myriad of
bottles we have stashed away. (My parents don't drink, but my dad's
parents owned a liquor store, "Battalio's Beverages." Ah,
alliteration. So, we have a lot of liquor that no one ever drinks
left over from the closing of the store.) At the very back of the
shelf, I found a bottle of golden sherry. I don't know why it's
golden. It's actually red. I dug through the kitchen cabinets and
uncovered a sherry glass. (In hindsight, I have no idea how I know
that that was a sherry glass. I still don't know it's a sherry
glass. The only cue I could be taking it from would be watching a
lot of reruns of Frasier.) With bottle of sherry and glass in hand,
I marched to the front porch. I think I've described the porch
before, so here's the short version: we live in a small
neighborhood, as in very little traffic. Our front porch has a swing
off to one side that overlooks all my gardens. Every morning I drink
a cup of coffee there. It is completely relaxing. I decided a
while ago that there, by myself with no pressure and no one to see,
would be where I took my first drink. I filled the small glass, set
the bottle down, began swinging, and took a sip of the sherry. This
is now going to sound naive, even for me, but that was one of the
best moments of my life. Prior to that experience, I had no idea
what alcohol tasted like (sans church wine, which is not a very good
representative sample of what alcohol should taste like) At first
there was a slight burning sensation, but that quickly wore off,
blending into a slightly sweet, yet tart warmth that once swallowed
pervaded my entire body. I let out a long sigh. I had made it.
After six years of high school, and two and a half more of college
all the peer pressure, all the jeering, all the wanting to fit in but
failing miserably came down to a sip of that red liquid. Suddenly
all the teasing was worth it. I had made it.
No, waiting to start drinking until I turned 21 doesn't make me
better than all the people who decide, or have it decided for them,
to start drinking when they are young, sometimes very young, but it
does make me better than all the people who said I couldn't do it.

a milestone

2006-11-28T11:04:00.000-06:00

Having turned 21 just a couple of weeks ago, and being a reasonably literate person, I thought this would make a good blog entry. In the last week or so I have discovered that alcohol tastes pretty good. When I went home for Thanksgiving I decided that one afternoon when the whole family was out of the house I would take my first drink. Wednesday afternoon my brother and father went hunting and my mother went to work. After they left, I sorted through the myriad of bottles we have stashed away. (My parents don't drink, but my dad's parents owned a liquor store, "Battalio's Beverages." Ah, alliteration. So, we have a lot of liquor that no one ever drinks left over from the closing of the store.) At the very back of the shelf, I found a bottle of golden sherry. I don't know why it's golden. It's actually red. I dug through the kitchen cabinets and uncovered a sherry glass. (In hindsight, I have no idea how I know that that was a sherry glass. I still don't know it's a sherry glass. The only cue I could be taking it from would be watching a lot of reruns of Frasier.) With bottle of sherry and glass in hand, I marched to the front porch. I think I've described the porch before, so here's the short version: we live in a small neighborhood, as in very little traffic. Our front porch has a swing off to one side that overlooks all my gardens. Every morning I drink a cup of coffee there. It is completely relaxing. I decided a while ago that there, by myself with no pressure and no one to see, would be where I took my first drink. I filled the small glass, set the bottle down, began swinging, and took a sip of the sherry. This is now going to sound naive, even for me, but that was one of the best moments of my life. Prior to that experience, I had no idea what alcohol tasted like (sans church wine, which is not a very good representative sample of what alcohol should taste like) At first there was a slight burning sensation, but that quickly wore off, blending into a slightly sweet, yet tart warmth that once swallowed pervaded my entire body. I let out a long sigh. I had made it. After six years of high school, and two and a half more of college all the peer pressure, all the jeering, all the wanting to fit in but failing miserably came down to a sip of that red liquid. Suddenly all the teasing was worth it. I had made it.
No, waiting to start drinking until I turned 21 doesn't make me better than all the people who decide, or have it decided for them, to start drinking when they are young, sometimes very young, but it does make me better than all the people who said I couldn't do it.

Perhaps I should do a bit of explaining

2006-11-23T00:21:00.000-06:00

Those of you have had nothing better to do will have noticed that
I'm no longer a physics major. Knowing how obsessed I am with that
discipline, I'm sure this is a puzzle to most of you. Allow me to
explain myself. Sure, physics is great, but what exactly am I going
to be doing with that? I'll either teach or do research. I wouldn't
mind teaching, but I want to get a doctorate which would almost force
me into teaching college--something I don't want to do. Research is
the other option, but I hate lab work. I mean I absolutely abhor it,
so research in any form or fashion is excluded. Plus, I don't like
the thought of sitting in some office all by myself somewhere working
8-5 a day five days a week. I don't like being like everyone else.
So, here I am.
Why broadcast meteorology? Isn't it obvious? Everyone who knows me
well enough to know I love physics also knows what an obsession I
have with The Weather Channel. I can watch it all day. You may also
remember last May when I got my name and a photograph I took on TWC.
I have never been so happy in my life. In short, I love weather.
It's fascinating. I chose broadcast meteorology because I love being
in front of people, and, I think everyone will agree with me, I have
quite the flair for the dramatic.
This will be the third major change of my college career, and I hope
this is the right one. And consequently, the last one. We'll see.
I'm also going to getting music, math, and communication minors. I'm
only one class short of a math minor, so I figured why not.
Communication comes with the broadcast part of meteorology. And the
music minor comes from the fact that I've taken too many piano
lessons just to quit at music now. Plus it will give me a piece of
credible proof that I'm decent at piano. So, this will all give me
another two and a half years at state. As of now, I'm only half way
done, and hopefully the last half will be the best half.

Independence

2006-10-10T14:28:00.000-05:00

Okay, another somewhat serious post.
I have been reasonablly free of parental guidance for two years, but
I find I miss it at times. When being told what to do amounts to
being told where or what to eat for dinner or being told to go to
church, I find that welcomed. I am an indecisive person; during my
freshman year my parents would give me money, just for the heck of
it, so I was somewhat obliged to do what they thought I should.
Recently I have realized that I, quite seriously, am on my own now.
I pay for everything sans cell phone bill and car insurance, which
amounts to 750 or 800 a year, easily affordable if my parents were to
tell me they were going to quit paying for that. It's really quite
frightening. Am I ready for that? I have no idea, but I am still
okay after a year of doing it. Independence is complicated. There
is so much to manage: bills, food, shelter, etc. Granted I don't
have much more than food to deal with at the moment, but I believe
you see my point. You can mess up one thing, and you have to decide
if you pay the electric bill or the water.
There is another point I want to make. It comes back to the
"impressionability" post I had a month or so ago. In this sense I
want to think of independence as being different, standing out in the
crowd, non-conformability-in a good sense. To be specific, I want to
be able to see everyone around me as being happy, generally fulfilled
people, and see me at the same time striving to be where they are,
but independent enough to be able to say their way to happiness will
probably not be my way. I need to go about being happy my way, and
quit assuming that if I follow someone else I will end up just as
they are. That's a horribly wrong assumption that has been
demonstrated to me the hard way multiple times. The problem is I
haven't learned it. I still want to be like everyone else, even
though I know that isn't going to work for me. It all comes down to
courage really-to become independent of everyone around me. It's
scary to be independent. I'm sure everyone has realized that by
now. So how do all of you do it?

a regular blog post

2006-09-22T11:59:00.000-05:00

How about a regular blog post for once? Nothing that requires a dose
of ibuprofen after I've finished writing it. (I've already got
another serious topic I want to talk about, but I'll save that for
next time.) Does anyone realize that we are already a third done
with the semester? How scary is that? Enough with rhetorical
questions. A lot of people say the spring semester goes by fast. I
submit that the fall one does faster, mainly because of football
season and band. I've had one Saturday so far this semester where I
haven't been doing anything, only the second one. And while this
Saturday is an away game, I'm going on Fall retreat this afternoon.
And next Saturday is, correct me if I'm wrong, fall break I believe,
so that's a Vicksburg trip for me.

Every day during the week, I finish with classes at two, so I have
three hours to kill before band. I tend to be rather useless during
that time, watching Star Trek reruns instead of doing homework. I
have recently been offered a part time position doing website stuff
for a friend I know who works in the research park. It will just be
5-10 hours a week, a perfect amount for me. I need to e-mail the guy
I'm supposed to contact. I think I'll do that before I go to lunch.

In something completely unrelated, I've had a sore throat for the
last five days, and it's really starting to tick me off. Apparently
it's some kind of virus that's like strep throat, but that isn't, and
because it's a virus and not a bacterial infection, there isn't a
thing to do about it except wait it out. Stupid modern medicine.
This disease will not keep me from having a good time on the retreat
though. It was delightful last year, and appears to be that way
again. Nothing like a bunch of Catholics worshiping Mary.

impressionability

2006-09-12T18:35:00.000-05:00

I have recently come to the conclusion that I am too impressionable
of a person. Someone can say in passing, "well, I don't even have a
tv in my room." I then wonder what is wrong with me because I watch
an hour or two of tv a day. Someone else can say, "well, I do school
work at least a few hours everyday outside of class." I then think
I'm a lazy bum because I don't do nearly that much work each day.
Someone can brag about how much they read a day, and I feel
discouraged because somedays I don't read a single paragraph.
Someone can have a part time job and it makes me feel
unaccomplished. A few years ago I was rather proud at myself that I
really didn't care what anyone thought of me. I'm not sure what has
happened since then. Again, perhaps this has something to do with my
general lack of self esteem. I have gotten better about it recently,
but I still have a long way to go. It needs to come to the point
where not only can I say to myself I read the right amount or I do
enough school work, but I can defend myself if I am questioned about
that. Right now I would defend myself if someone were to call me
lazy, but only because one is expected to defend one's self, not
because I would actually believe what I would be saying. Fighting
for self improvement is hard place to be in college.

The big question

2006-09-07T16:39:00.000-05:00

I find when I contemplate life and seriously think about life, I tend
to just get depressed. When I live life and not contemplate my
existence, I find I'm happier, so the question is , which would I
rather be: A self examined, depressed human being or an ignorant,
content fool. I will admit that's a bit of a false dichotomy, but is
it so much of a stretch?
For example, as I'm sure everyone knows, I wasn't in the best of
moods last semester, but then I was thinking a lot about everything.
Now, I am fantastically happy, but I haven't been thinking about
anything except school. It could have something to do with the fact
I'm so busy and have no time to think. And I seriously have to
consider, do I want to think about the universe and risk unhappiness,
or do I prefer the way I am now and can live with the risk of denying
the beauty of my ability to be self-aware? To reduce it to another
dichotomy: do I want to be a person or a trained monkey? Some
people might get a chuckle out of that, but I am really torn about
this. I want to examine my life, (Is the unexamined life worth
living?) but on the other hand I would like to enjoy life at the same
time. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the examined life is
an unhappy one. I am saying that to me, right now, it is. At the
moment though, I'm leaning towards enjoying life and thinking later.
I should enjoy college. Twenty years from now I'm not going to
remember the epiphany (unless it's a really good one) I had while I
was sitting in my room reading Aristotle, but I will remember going
out and enjoying myself. However, I can't help but feel a sense of
loss if I don't explore my existence continuously.
Another good question is why am I this way? The biggest question
some people face is which bar they are going to get drunk in
tonight. I have to decide whether or not I want to be happy. To
finish this entry I will have to point out that in examining this
question right now, I'm effectively choosing to examine my life, and
it really isn't so bad if I force myself to see the utter bliss life
has to offer. Even the hopeless vastness of the human mind will have
a hard time pulling me down then.

a celebration

2006-09-05T16:11:00.000-05:00

Pretend this entry was written on Sunday. That's when I meant to
write it, but being home, I was too lazy to do anything.

There are three Catholic Churches in Vicksburg. One of the older
ones, St. Mary's, celebrated its centennial this weekend. St. Mary's
is the majority black church in Vicksburg, but for whatever reason my
grandparents attended that church even though it is the farthest from
my house. So, for the first twelve or thirteen years of my life I
attended that church. I have quite the connection there. I was
baptized there and I have first communion and reconciliation there.
And because of that I felt I should attend the celebratory Mass. I
was very much in for a surprise. There were thirteen priests
celebrating. Eight of those from the Jackson diocese. (In case you
are curious, 8/72 yields over a tenth of the entire Jackson diocese
there.) Mass lasted almost two hours. And if you hadn't known it
was a Roman Catholic service, you would have guessed that we were in
some amalgam of a Pentecostal and Southern Baptist church. There
were people yelling Amen during the homily. The priest was pounding
on the pulpit. And the music was a cultural awakening of sorts, a
full choir with an older woman with a spectacular voice banging on an
old, upright, out of tune piano. The word that comes to mind is
honky tonky, the piano, not the woman. The organ was a classic,
almost stereotypical sound one would expect from a Southern, small
town black church, a lot of vibrato, a sound that echoed through the
entire church. The entire experience was something I've never been
around. I'm not sure what I don't have very many memories of the
church when I was young. But I did like it, something else to make
life interesting.

I'm sorry

2006-08-30T15:49:00.000-05:00

This has been a month coming, but occasionally, for brief periods of
time, I get a life. The last month was one of those times. I don't,
however, mean to imply that I won't have life again for while.
(Possibly, likely even, but I hope to prevent that.) This post will,
I hope, skim over things to fill the people in who actually pay
attention to me. As my routine solidifies, perhaps I'll have more
time to write. And I know most people spend a grand total of five
minutes updating their blogs, but I proofread. (The world would be a
much better place if we all proofread.)

The big thing happening at the moment is me trying to decide if I
really want to be a physics major. Over the last few years, I think
I've put up a good front being excited about it. The thing is
though, I'm not sure I really enjoy it as much as I should. I am
supposed to be taking three upper level physics courses, but I
decided to take only one and instead take two meteorology classes to
see how I like it. (Those of you around me know how excited I was
when I got my photo on TWC, so imagine if I were really on there.) I
don't think I could live with myself if I didn't at least give
meteorology a chance. I like it too much. So far though, I am
loving the intro to meteorology class.

I'm slightly proud of myself. I have fixed a friendship that I
thought was beyond fixing. I hope it's a sign I'm maturing. I won't
say anything else about it to spare the person I'm talking about.

After much haggling and persistence, I got a single room. I finally
talked to someone in charge about three days before I had to come up
here for band camp. It took the woman five minutes to give me a
single room. I must have called that department a dozen times before
i got anywhere. I am back in Suttle (Those of you aquatinted with
the building are cringing at the moment I'm sure.) again though.
It's my own fault. I was offered a nicer room in a nicer dorm, but I
turned it down to save $1200 a semester. I am so cheap. When I
first got into my room I was terrified of being stuck here again, but
it's not as bad as I anticipated. I think it will be okay.

I went through a week of miserable depression when I first got here.
I think it was just me readjusting to Starkville. There is something
about this town that is depressing. It's an intrinsic quality I
can't describe. And it takes me a little bit to get used to being
here again.

I am considering getting a job designing some website stuff. I don't
know if I am good enough to do it though. It's only part time, but I
will have even less free time if I do decide to take the position.
Life should be more care free at 20. I shouldn't be having to make
so many decisions. I don't want to grow up.

second to last week of summer

2006-07-26T23:31:00.000-05:00

Work is finally done. Can't say I miss that. I think I will return during Christmas break, and that will be my last time there. I have absolutely no intention of being in Vicksburg next summer. I would like to get some sort of internship somewhere, preferably out of the southeast as well. I need to get out and live a little.

I found out on Friday that I have a roommate. Since then, I have been scrambling to change that. I will admit it's my own fault this is happening. The housing department sent the e-mail out about it in the middle of June, but I just skimmed over it thinking that they wouldn't give me a roommate after I didn't have one last year. I figured out something was terribly wrong when I checked my account with the school. I noticed that they charged me less this semester than for the room last year. The dorm I would be moving into is nicer than the one I was in last year. Everything is nicer than sutttle, so I knew something was amiss. I checked the e-mail again, and randomly embedded in the middle of the e-mail was a guy's name. They didn't even say here is your new roommate assignment; they just stuck his name in the e-mail. My only hope, because it's so late, is that since they built the new freshman dorms, the old freshman dorms, which are nicer than the upperclassmen ones anyway, were half empty and they let upperclassmen move into them last year. I hope it is safe to assume that this will be the case again. I don't know why I'm letting this bother me so much; there's nothing more I can do about it right now. I, of course, e-mailed the department about it last week, and I called them. I was told that they now only handle housing assignments over e-mail, which is stupid. I still haven't gotten a response, and if I haven't by this afternoon I'm calling again. And hopefully I will get something a bit more of substance from them.

This weekend my family and I are supposedly going to the beach. It has been a while since I have gone on any vacation with them. This will be interesting.

Last week of work

2006-07-18T22:38:00.000-05:00

To tell you the truth, before last week I wouldn't have minded staying an extra week here at work. I don't need $350 more dollars, but why waste the opportunity? Right now though, I'm sick of being here. Last week was horrible. I helped set up a training class for some engineers. That was way too much work. I had to stay an hour and a half late on Friday afternoon, and I missed what could have been a very interesting experience in tango lessons. It's ironic that one of the few times I've actually looked forward to going out is the only time I have to stay late at work. The tragedies of responsibility. Now that that is finished, I can wholeheartedly say that this is my last week here. They would have to double my pay to get me to stay an extra week.

The volvo is out of commission at the moment. One of the sensors that monitors fuel consumption is broken. It's expensive to fix, but after that the volvo will supposedly get much better gas mileage. So hopefully because gas is $19 a gallon the savings will add up quickly.

I finished the pond kind of. There is still a leak in the stream that I can't seem to find. And the dirt around the beginning of the stream keeps settling because it's wet because there is a leak which is making it leak even more. It's really starting to become annoying. Oh well, something to do Saturday afternoon.

Before this summer I was really dreading coming home, but now that it's coming to a close, this is probably one of the best summers I've had, even though I haven't really gone out and done much of anything. I was right; I just needed to get away from it all for a while. Let's hope my current peace of mind continues well into the upcoming year.

The week in review

2006-07-08T21:30:00.000-05:00

This week's lesson: a three day work week is good, even if it is hectic. Last weekend (Saturday until Tuesday) I was in Memphis visiting a couple of friends there. It was very enjoyable and relaxing not having to be in Vicksburg with nothing to do, even if we really didn't go and do anything amazing while I was up there. It was nice meeting new people and generally chit chatting about nothing. I think we might have to start making this a regular occurrence while we aren't in school, but next time they're driving four hours and spending over $50 on gas for their drive. I will say, though, that the money for gas was easily made up for in all the free food. Thanks again Ms. King.

Yesterday at work I had to lead a web cast. I've been planning it all week, all of three days. (It really is good only having to work 24 hours but get paid for 40.) It's the first time that I've ever had to be the one in charge of a meeting here. It was a learning experience. And I think it went very well, even though I was a bit long winded; I talked for an hour and a half. But I feel really cool now, a milestone in my working life, even though I have no intention of working there after college.

I learned how to tango last night. I'm not very good, mostly because I'm a 20 year old white guy, but I think it'll definitely earn me some points when I tell girls I can though. Hopefully, no one I ever tell that to will happen to have a cd of music on them. But I do wish I had a Brazilian supermodel laying around so I could practice.

I have less than a month of summer left, and as of the first of the month, we are half way through the year. I'm only 20; time shouldn't be going by this quickly. At least I only have ten work days left, and after that I will revel in having two weeks to do as I please. I'm looking forward to it.

lunch

2006-07-01T11:49:00.000-05:00

I'm feeling anxious about something. I'm not sure what. Perhaps it's my upcoming visit to see Wes and Ohno in Memphis, but I don't know why I would be anxious about that. I'm actually looking forward to breaking the routine that I've set up so far this summer. It also could be that I'm now half way through with summer and haven't done as much as I set out to do. (I know I've mentioned here that before.) And that I'm really not looking forward to next semester as much as I looked forward to last semester during Christmas break, and that's probably because last semester was a let down and otherwise disaster to me. So in this regard, I guess I really should look forward to next semester because it certainly can't be worse than what I put myself through during the spring. All of this, though, still leaves me without an answer as to what I'm anxious about.

A few days ago I joined a friend for lunch; we eat together every Wednesday. (Let me mention something about Jeff for context: He has a faith to be envied if you're religious, or a faith to be mocked if you're an atheist. He is one of the most devout people I know, Catholic or otherwise. He's Baptist.) To continue, as anyone who ever reads this should have figured out by now, my breakdown of sanity had a lot to do with a crisis of faith, and as remedy to this crisis, I have been collecting the opinions- on God, on religion, on faith in general- from all the people I know whose views I respect and who have widely differing opinions on just about everything. (If you're a good friend of mine, don't be hurt if I haven't talked to you about it yet. I can only talk to so many people at a time and keep everything straight in my head.) My conversation with Jeff proved very helpful, as have most of the conversations I've had with people. His reasoning for God is as follows: the universe is too beautiful for there not to be a God. (A wonderfully simple logic, although I might have over simplified it.) The reasoning is very pretty, for lack of a better word, but it still isn't enough for me. Someone remind me to talk about the anthropic principle in physics at some point. (The truncated version: if the universe weren't pretty, we wouldn't be here to witness it. I should have asked Jeff about it, next time.) Now that this post is too long, the point of all this being, my search continues unabated.

This and that

2006-06-24T00:13:00.000-05:00

Nothing even remotely thought provoking today, just some little
pieces of stuff that's been going on the last couple of weeks. I
have finally started to work out, and I still hate it. Here's hoping
something worthwhile comes of it. For Father's Day, I told my dad I
was going to start and finish laying new flooring in the biggest room
upstairs. That has been a big project and a lot more work than I
thought it would be. I have finally gotten around to redesigning the
pond; another big project. And lastly, I'm starting to go through my
address book and calling people to see how they are, so if you know
me reasonably well, and I have your number, be expecting a call. Oh,
and I'm going through and calling all the good looking girls first,
so if you're ugly, a guy or both it might be a few weeks. So, be
patient. Anyway, besides just either being lazy or occasionally
doing other things, I'm really starting to enjoy the summer. Life
ain't too bad.

...and I certainly would like to think of myself as a virtuous man.

2006-06-19T22:23:00.000-05:00

Before anyone even reads this, yes I know the whining is getting old.
My problem is that I don't have any self esteem when it comes to
women. I've been myself, or at least what I think is my true self,
with every girl I've ever cared about, and it wasn't good enough for
them. I've also never asked a girl out first and she said yes, and
yes, I know I've complained about this specific thing before here.
But I'm just making the point, again I think, that I have no self
esteem for a good reason, not just randomly. This lack of self
esteem would be not a problem if I was okay by myself and happy
single, which I was not okay about at all last semester. (Hence the
depression.) I also think I've said this: it's funny how quickly
one becomes accustomed to being with someone and how hard it is to
get used to only being with yourself again. I think I'm finally
beyond the latter. (Hence the lack of depression the last couple
months.) A lot of the difficulty in getting passed the depression
was that I had forced myself into a competition of relationship
status, not just with all of my exes, but with every other couple I
was in contact with. I wanted what they had, mostly because I had
just had it too and really wanted it back. Also because I thought I
was at my happiest with someone. I am now finding out that isn't
necessarily the case. And I think for everyone that this realization
is a matter of time, a long time in my case. I can finally say I'm
very much okay now. My patience finally has paid off. You see (the
now reoccurring closing cliche) patience is a virtue, and I certainly
would like to think of myself as a virtuous man.

Beside the word gullible in the dictionary there is a picture of me

2006-06-09T21:44:00.000-05:00

I will have a busy weekend this weekend yet not as busy as last.
Last week and this week, both pianists from the church have been out
of town, so I was "elected" to play for both Sunday morning Masses.
Consequently, I had two different choirs with two completely
different styles and two completely different sets of music to play.
To top that all off, I had to play for a funeral Saturday morning,
and earlier that morning, I had to play the national anthem on
saxophone for the city swim tournament. I think I should tattoo the
word "gullible" across my forehead. The only good result of my
busyness was that I haven't been bored at all (except at work) for
the last two weeks. That, I do believe, needs to continue. It's a
good feeling to get through a day and realize you've not only just
made 70 bucks at work, but you've helped your brother with algebra,
practiced the piano for a couple of hours, spent some time in the
garden and gone on a very relaxing bike ride. The feeling of
accomplishment is a good thing. And I'll risk being cliché again;
humanity would be better off if we all felt that way more often. I
need to quit with posting clichés all the time. Oh, and I now have
a $200.00 iPod paperweight.

random bits of info from my life

2006-05-29T11:57:00.000-05:00

I had thought about taking up swimming this summer, but my dad has
just about convinced me to lift weights again. It won't be something
I'll look forward to, but rather something to hopefully take up time
and make me feel better about myself. I must admit though that when
I was doing it last summer I absolutely hated it. I'm really not
built to exercise that much, and I'm too lazy. Then again, I really
don't want to be underweight for the entire time in my life that I'm
attempting to pick up women, so I suppose I should try to gain all
the weight back. I ended up gaining 15 lbs. last summer, but I lost
it all when I got back to State. However, at the end of last summer,
I did feel pretty good about myself, and I dare say I looked a lot
better as well. Either way, I need to make up my mind; I'm only home
two more months or so.

My iPod is broken again, and this time the warranty is up. So this
time I'm going to have to replace it with my own money. I've learned
a good lesson from all my electronics troubles with Apple in the last
six months: when buying from Apple, buy the extended warranty. I
think though that I'll wait for the new iPods to come out. The sixth
generation iPod is supposed to have a touch screen control instead of
the click wheel, so while expensive it will be cool.

My period of relaxation is over. I start work tomorrow at eight
thirty. Two months of probable boredom begins then. Great.

Confession

2006-05-26T00:57:00.000-05:00

This happened a while ago, but I need something good to talk about.
I went to confession a few weeks ago. I talked to a priest whom I
will inevitably never see again. I'm glad I did though. He had some
good advice. I told him about my problems with faith and with my
general lack of self confidence at the moment; both of which stem
from my lack of a girlfriend [read as: lack of affirmation of self,
(there's a word for it, but I forget what it is)]. (Yes, I know lack
of a girlfriend is a childish reason, but that's the point of this
entry.) I will admit I felt kind of gypped from the encounter,
mostly because it was so short, and I got a lot out of the little bit
he did talk. But here's the gist of the thing: He told me it was
about time to let go of my ex from fall semester, and I really have
no choice but to agree with him. We dated three months (me and the
ex, not me and the priest), and it ended about six months ago. (At
the moment every time she pops into my mind I try to come up with a
song that gets stuck in your head really easily, because let's face
it, I'm sure by now I have analyzed any and all possibilities
concerning it, so no use just obsessing on it.) He also said that I
should figure out who I am before I try to be with someone else.
That I believe is the key piece of information concerning my
depression and quite frankly horrible semester I just got out of. I
need to figure out who I am. That will fix a great many things once
I do figure it out. I believe myself to be well on my way at the
moment, and consequently, I haven't had a badly depressing day since
I've been home. I have finally realized what I have done with both
of my ex-es; I let caring for them cover up my lack of concern for
myself. That's really unhealthy, even more unhealthy than just not
caring for one's self. I have such low self esteem, not just with
women but in general, that I try and find other more worthwhile
people to care about so I don't have to think about myself. I truly
think it's time for that to end, and that is what this summer is
going to be about.

summer begins

2006-05-16T12:40:00.000-05:00

I have to say that one of my favorite things to do while I'm home and
not working is to sit on the porch swing, right after I get up (and
while no one else is home), with a cup of my mom's fantastic coffee
and admire my garden. I do a lot of thinking there, and at this
point in my life, it is my favorite place in the entire world. If I
never got tired of sitting, I would never leave. I haven't even been
home an entire two full days yet, but I've already spent about four
hours there. I'm typing this post there in fact. The coffee is
starting to get cold though.

Now that the semester (and the wedding [that I played cello in, not
my wedding, although...]) is over, I am finding time to genuinely
think about things. The first conclusion I have reached in the last
couple of days is that I can't just forget last semester (Actually, I
suppose it's now two semesters ago, fall semester.); I have to have
memories to replace all the stuff about fall semester I wish to
forget. Spring semester was not a semester I wish to remember either
though (I dare to say it is something I wish to remember even less.),
so I don't really have any fond memories with which to come back to
every time my mind begins to dwell on things I'd like to forget
(Well, I suppose forget is a strong word. It's part of who I am, so
perhaps a better phrase for right here is to leave alone for the time
being.) So, having figured that out, I'm now going to try to make
myself a few good memories I can take away from this summer and bring
with me next fall semester. The question now becomes how. I think
the best thing to do is to call up some friends I haven't talked to
in a while, especially ones I know are in the same town as I am, and
go and do something. (Those of you who know me know I hate cliches,
but an idle mind is the devil's workshop.) I also think it is time
to renew my interest in some hobbies that I was almost obsessed with
before college yet dropped afterwards; painting jumps out in my
mind. Those are now my goals for the next two months. And we'll
just see how they go.

And with that, it's 12:30; I'm hungry.

The Weather Channel

2006-05-12T14:14:00.000-05:00

My life is now fulfilled. My picture and name is on weather.com.
It's the daily weather pic for May 12, 2006. And if you watch TWC
from 3 till 5 this afternoon, the 12th, you'll get to see my picture
and name on national television. What a way to end the semester.
The picture was taken from my seventh floor room in Suttle on
Wednesday during exams. Life is good.

For times gone by

2006-04-21T20:49:00.000-05:00

I'm feeling really nostalgic this evening. Maybe it's because it's
another Friday night, and I'm in my room, alone, again. Maybe it's
because I only have three more weeks before this semester is all
over, and I really haven't enjoyed this semester at all. As a matter
of fact, I've hated this semester, even more so than the two
semesters of my freshman year here. The last four months, in my
eyes, have been a waste of my life. Sure, my grades will end up
where I want them to be; I somehow always manage it despite how far
behind I am in something. But college life should be about a whole
lot more than grades. Really, all of life should be about a whole
lot more than work. Unfortunately, I don't know what that whole lot
more should be. It seems that other people have figured it out, and
that's why they like being here (Here as in alive. Not that I don't
want to live; it's just that I'm not enjoying it.). I, however,
haven't the slightest idea as to what it is I want out of life. I've
been thinking about it the entire semester, and I'm nowhere closer to
an answer than I was before. I really want something amazing to
happen in my life, and it's getting to the point where I need
something, anything to happen.

the Good life?

2006-04-11T18:35:00.000-05:00

What is the good life? That is something I've been asking myself lately, although, not directly. I read a poem in English class earlier today. (I must admit, if I weren't so terrified by the professor's tests, and if the class were only a fifty minute class instead of 75, I would seriously enjoy it and want to take a class by the same teacher again.) The poem is by Ben Jonson and called "Inviting a Friend to Supper." Read it if you get the chance or the desire. Ignoring all the political stuff in the poem, it describes what the speaker thinks would be the good life: food, friends, intellectual conversation and so forth. This has led me to thinking since I got out of class this morning. I know I'm not happy where I am (by am I don't mean just physical location of my body, but I include that in the word 'am' as well), and I suppose I have a bit of knowledge as to why, namely, I don't do anything worthwhile. Which leads me to thinking, "What is worthwhile?" And that leads back to "What is the good life?" The good life is not a superficial, and usually hypocritical, belief in a deity. The good life is not sex or drugs or drinking (even though that's what society tells us it is, and I will be the first to admit; it's hard to ignore society). The good life is not wealth and figuring out how we can be lazy for the rest of the life (that is confusing the easy life with the good life). The good life is advancing yourself and bringing others along with you as you go. By advancing I mean not just intellectually, physically or spiritually, but they are terrifically important. By advancing I mean living up to principles you set for yourself, not ones God or government sets up for you to believe. I also certainly don't mean to set goals like write a to do list each day; then once you've done that for x number of years, you've led a good life and can die in peace. I mean the good life is living to the set of values your find honorable and worthy of a sentient human being, i.e. yourself. What those individual values are is a matter of the individual. I know, however, that finding those values begins with questioning all the physical and spiritual and intellectual, questioning society, questioning the easy life. We even need (especially so) to question ourselves, because being fallible predestines us to being wrong just as often as we are right, if not just as often then more so. The good life is living up to lofty standards you place on yourself and being able, when it's all over, to step back and say, "Yeah, I got it right." That, of course, is under the assumption that you will be wiser when you die than you are now so you can realize whether or not you got it right. As for the now, it's worth our time to quit being lazy or getting drunk or high to figure out in what ways we can be more virtuous people.

All of that is the best answer I have for anything at the moment. Work with me here I'm struggling with it just as everyone else.

Some results of not thinking...

2006-03-27T10:16:00.000-06:00

I think I've figured out why people do drugs and why some religions
make their members take drugs to meet with "God". I have been sick
over the weekend, and have been taking Ny Quil. (As a side note,
that stuff tastes awful. One dose is 30 mL, two tablespoons; that's
a lot. You'd think they could concentrate it so it wouldn't be so
much, but no. The first night I took it I decided to off it in one
big gulp, not realizing what a mistake that would be. You know that
uncontrollable shiver one has when you're cold; that's what happened
when I drank it. My body was racked with spasms of utter horror.
You can't just pour a liquid down your throat; you're mouth has to
close to get all of the air out, and in that two seconds of sheer
terror before I forced myself into swallowing, I almost spewed the Ny
Quil across my room. Afterwards, I almost threw it up. That's how
bad it is.) Let me say that Ny Quil is very potent stuff. I took
some Saturday night, and all day Sunday I was groggy. However, in my
drug induced stupor, I kept having what I thought were amazing ideas
and thoughts about life and religion and love, et cetera, et cetera,
ideas that I was proud of myself for having. But now, the things I
can remember from yesterday are absolutely inane, things I wouldn't
even attempt to transcribe here. So that leads me to think that if
an over the counter cold remedy can put me in such a state that I
have insane thoughts, thoughts which I think are better than sliced
bread at the time, I wonder what a true hallucinogenic would do to
someone. Mind you, having gone through this, I honestly don't want
to ever take an illicit drug, partly because they aren't regulated,
so you have no idea what is actually in it. But mostly because I
don't even want to imagine the loss of control of one's self that
taking a drug whose sole purpose was to make you loose yourself would
entail.
Anyway, out of a 48 hour weekend, I slept almost 30 hours of it, but
I'm still tired right now; however, I have class in a bit. At least
I feel better today.

Some results of thinking...

2006-03-17T22:16:00.000-06:00

God (or whatever or whomever you wish to place faith in) does not give you what you want. He (or She or It or They as the case may be) also does not give you what you need. He gives you something much more valuable than any of that. He gives us the ability to get what we need all on our own. He is also generous enough to give us the ability to get what we want as well. Instead of whining about what is wrong in our lives to whomever it is you happen to have a belief in, we all have in us the ability to go and get it ourselves; it's always there. We just can't see it. It's the finding what makes us happy that makes life interesting. I'll admit that sometimes not having anything to be happy about and not seeing where the happiness could come from is really unnerving and upsetting, obviously. I should know; I'm going though a very difficult one of those periods right now. Since I am in one of those periods right now, the only solace I have is that I can be happy all on my own; I just need to get there. The big question is how. And that is the beauty of the journey, or so I keep telling myself.

What am I doing?

2006-03-03T18:26:00.000-06:00

I am having a hard time with life in general. I am questioning
everything. Physics as a major, grades (as in why are they important
to me), happiness, control, of myself and of other's control on me.
LIfe, it's purpose, what I want to do, where I want to go, and other
things I can't seem to define into words. I feel as if I am on the
cusp of an epiphany, but I don't know what it is. And I don't know
if I will even get there.
As kind of a way to organize all the random things I ponder about,
which I do a lot of now, as in hours at a time, I am finding small
issues I can question, because I am having a hard time defining the
big questions it is I want to answer. It's all such a jumble in my
mind.

I am so lonely all of a sudden. I don't know what is going on. I
don't have anything to look forward to, next week is another week of
school, and then another and another. Summer I will inevitably be
home alone with nothing to do, only to come back and start a new
school year here with nothing to do. I need something interesting to
happen in my life. I'm tired of just existing.

My punishment...

2006-01-23T22:31:00.000-06:00

I understand that a university wants to graduate a well-rounded
student, and that's why we have core classes that have nothing to do
with our major. I don't mind that. That makes sense in the long
run. I want to be a well-rounded student. But why must they make it
all so painful? I wouldn't mind a literature class where we read a
work in class and then write a short essay about it, an essay where a
misplaced comma won't drop the grade a whole letter, an essay where I
don't have to regurgitate the opinion of the teacher or an old, dead
writer. I would enjoy lit then, but the way lit is taught to people
who aren't majoring in a language is, in short, punishment. I should
not have to spend more time reading out of my lit book per night than
I should be working on, say physics (my major), homework. I should
not have to worry more about a class that has nothing to do with my
major than with a class that is my major. That's stupid. That's
punishment. That's teaching me to resent having to take lit again.
That's teaching me to make faces of disgust whenever the word
literature is mentioned. There must be a better way to make us the
perfect, well-rounded student.
Thank you. I feel better now. I just finished reading the
Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. It took an hour and a half to
carefully read it. It was great, can't you tell.

I'm not bored at home? What is going on here?

2006-01-05T20:24:00.000-06:00

So, as of a few days ago, I only have two more weeks to be home
to relax until I have to go back to school. I'm not ready to go back
yet, but I will be soon I think, once all of my friends are gone
again. I had a pleasant-ish surprise last Saturday night. A good
friend of mine from high school has come into town, from Notre Dame,
to attend a wedding. He and another friend who is in the Air Force
and stationed in England have come over the last couple of nights,
and we have played Risk, which I'm sure to some sounds boring, but
that's the way we are. I'm finally having a game board thing this
Saturday at my house. I'm rather excited about that, which I'm sure
sounds pathetic to some people, but that's the way I am. It will be
the first time in a year and half that enough people will be in town
to have one. I'm looking forward to that. Nothing else is really
going on. I'll post an entry about what's been going on at work
eventually.
On a completely different note, this whole being single business
I'm still not quite used to again. It's funny how one can so quickly
become accustomed to dating someone, but when it's over it takes a
long time to go back to how you were before. Or maybe it's just that
way with guys. Perhaps in a month or something I'll be ready to
start looking for a new girlfriend again. I already have one in mind
I'd like to ask out, but I don't think I'm ready. Or could it be I
don't want to be rejected twice in the span of a month and a half. I
think it might be the latter, which leads me to an interesting thing
to whine about. I think I mention it too because I have been
pondering it over for a while now. I have never asked out a girl and
she said yes. Every single girl I've dated (okay, all two of them,
but saying every single girl makes it sound like a lot, and it makes
me feel better) has asked me out. And it makes me wonder because it
isn't as if I have only asked out three or four girls. Over the
years, I've probably asked out over a dozen. One would think that at
least one would say yes to if nothing else, get a free dinner and
movie out of me. Maybe all guys have this kind of luck, or maybe I
haven't asked out enough girls, or maybe it's just me. I can't help
but wonder and depress myself about it.
You know, why do I even write any of this on a blog? I have no
idea, the only person, apparently, that reads this is my ex-
girlfriend, besides that no one that I really care about, or to be
more specific, cares about me actually reads this. So why? I think
admitting it to yourself is a good form of therapy.
MBat