ChaBad Debate

=====I recently visited Chabad.org, as I am doing research for a book I hope to write by the end of 2008. While I was there, reading the articles, I came across an article entitled "Proof of the Existence of G-d." The article is quite lengthy, and the point thereof is evident. I read the entire article, and I couldn't help but to feel bad for the author. After thinking about it a moment, however, I remembered that religion is a system based on faith, not on academic argument. The lack of the necessity of academic and scientific support for philosophical and religious faith is definitely the saving grace of many of the articles found at Chabad.org.
=====I honestly don't understand the motivations of people who, while claiming to have the utmost faith in their God, try to build logical and academic arguments for their God's existence. The entire concept doesn't make any sense to me. Either you have faith, or you do not. Faith in a matter, by definition, should preclude the search for proof of the matter. Once you begin a mission to prove the matter of your faith, you have ceased exercising your faith. You cannot have both faith and logic. Faith is the belief in ideas that logic cannot support.
=====You cannot have "faith" in science, for example. Science is a process by which theories are constructed from the observation of facts. Science needs evidence to support facts, and it needs facts to build theories. At no point is it possible to "believe" in something that logic cannot support. Science, by definition, requires logic and experimentation to function.
=====Despite this seemingly obvious initial flaw in the arguments for a Biblical God, I will still analyze the arguments presented by the author for academic and logical merit. To keep things ordered, I will address the issues one at a time and use block quotations from the original article.
=====The first point formulated by the author is the "just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there" argument. The author writes:

Prove the existence of G–d? In truth we must analyse the question before we attempt an answer. What is considered a proof? How does one prove that anything exists? Take, for example, a blind man. Does colour exist for the blind man? He cannot see colour yet it still exists. That fact is established by others who can see. The blind man believes and trusts that his fellow men can see that colour does exist although it is beyond his personal experience.

For a further example, take electricity. When we turn on a light can we see electricity? The answer is no, we see only its effect. Take gravity. When an object falls we cannot see, hear, feel, taste or smell gravity – we see only its effect. All agree that gravity is an undisputed fact of nature – since we see its effect. Scientists today are still baffled as to exactly what is the “stuff” of gravity.

The author is overlooking one of the fundamental elements of science. The author is overlooking the fact that science deals with natural phenomena and uses physical evidence -- be it a matter of the five sense, mathematical calculation, or otherwise directly observable or measurable data or result -- to build an understanding of that phenomena. The author is making the suggestion that scientists postulate theories and ideas without direct physical evidence.
=====The difference between the author's assertion that the presence of God can be observed via its effect on a living creature and the theory that gravity pulls things toward the center of the planet is that the latter is based on physical, measurable evidence. The effect of God on a human being cannot be measured. It is not genuinely possible to scientifically measure what one might describe as "happiness" or "spirituality." Even if it were possible to measure these things, a heightened level of "happiness" and/or "spirituality" would simply be an observation in the change of emotional state -- it would not be proof, or even evidence, that God was the cause, let alone that God even exists.
=====Electricity can be measured and its effects on objects and environments can be witnessed in a tangible and physical sense. Colour can also be measured and analyzed on the colour spectrum. The blind man would not know colour existed without a seeing person's observations, but a seeing person would not know colour existed without the physical sense of sight and the observation of the beaviour of light in the spectrum. Electricity and colour are natural and physically observable phenomena and are in no way related to the emotional "feeling" or philosophical "seeing" of the presence or power of God. The fact that the Biblical God is not physical, but metaphysical, makes any scientific debate over His existence impossible.
=====In his next argument, the author turns from the scientific to the legal and historical in an attempt to prove God's existence. The author says:

In a court of law the strongest proof that something happened or existed is a witness statement. Seeing is believing. You cannot compare something seen to something heard.

The "strongest proof," though I assume he means strongest evidence, in a court of law that something happened, especially that it happened a particular way, is forensic evidence. As the author says, "You cannot compare something seen to something heard." For this reason, forensic science, which allows a judge and jury to "see" evidence and data from a crime scene, is more powerful than eyewitness account. Witnesses are human so they can make mistakes and/or lie. Forensic scientists must use scientific method through experimentation and observation to verify the claims of eye witnesses. Without forensic science, which relies entirely on physical observations, cases are almost impossible to "prove" -- such is the "case" for the Biblical God.
=====The author follows this incorrect assertion with another, suggesting:

Any historical fact is proven by those who witnessed and recorded the event. It follows that the more witnesses to that event, the more bona fide the fact.

The author has just put the entire discipline of archeology out of work. Obviously, recorded history can be flawed or even invented. To get to the facts of recorded history, archeologists must search for clues and evidence as to the true nature of ancient events. The author seems to misunderstand science at every level and in every discipline.
=====The misinterpretation of what constitute a fact continues. The author offers the reader a bit of circular reasoning, arguing:

All agree, however, that the Jews left Egypt and, forty-nine days later, stood before Mount Sinai and heard the Ten Commandments from G–d.

This is known, not just because a book (the Torah) tells us so, but simply by tradition – by the fact that generation after generation of Jews have transmitted this story, and that it is based on the actual experience of an entire nation. It therefore remains an undisputed historical fact. The Jews who left Egypt witnessed the Ten Plagues, the Exodus, and revelation at Sinai, and transmitted these events down the generations.

I say this is circular reasoning because the author's argument boils down to the idea that the Torah is not the source of Jewish tradition, even though Orthodox Jews observe Jewish tradition based on what the Torah tells them to be the facts and to be the laws. The author comments further:

In fact, had there been “Chinese whispers”, a distortion of the story over generations, we would have ended up with different versions of the story. All agree, however, that the Jews left Egypt and, forty-nine days later, stood before Mount Sinai and heard the Ten Commandments from G–d.

Chasidic Judaism is a form of Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is defined as, "The branch of Judaism that is governed by adherence to the Torah as interpreted in the Talmud," by the American Heritage Dictionary. The author is overlooking the fact that traditions, as they exist is Judaism today, are derived entirely from the Torah and the books written to "decode" the Torah (like the Talmud). The Torah is thousands of years old. The traditions and stories that have been passed down through the millennia have gone unchanged because they have been taken from the Torah which had been used as reference material for thousands of years. There is no way of knowing how many different stories and traditions there were before the information in the Torah was recorded and ultimately institutionalized, so there is no way of knowing what alterations have been made to the traditions and stories since the time before the Torah had been written.
=====For the record, there is no historical evidence that there ever was a Hebrew Exodus from Egypt or that there ever were ten plagues or that there ever was a Moses. The Torah offers no date for this event, and clouds things further by never mentioning the name of the Pharaoh who resided over Egypt at the time of the alleged Exodus. You would think, in these oral traditions, that one of the greatest enemies to the ancient Hebrews -- and the first human opponent of God -- would be a person worth remembering by name. Almost every random and kindly shepherd is recalled by name, every Canaanite chief and family history, every animal sacrificed and when, every exact number of wizards, priests, prison wardens, and women is remembered with precise detail; yet, the Pharaoh is unnamed. Aside from the fact that archeological evidence actually suggests that the Egyptians would have probably been on good terms with the Hebrews, if they were ever in fact in Egypt, the story is extremely suspect due simply to the lack of a name for the residing Pharaoh.
=====The author goes on to attempt to prove the existence of God through the application of the history of the Jewish people; however, I think, from the flaws in the Exodus story, it is safe to say that this idea is also an exercise in circular reasoning and move on. To even begin to take this idea seriously, one must be willing to admit that there was, in fact, an Exodus from Egypt by Hebrews and that there was, in fact, a Moses. Archeological evidence suggests that the likelihood of either of those two pieces of information turning out to be an actual fact is extremely low.
=====From there, the author begins listing passages from the Torah, solidifying the fact that the history and traditions of the Jewish people come directly from the study of the Torah. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that any of the stories in the Torah are historical facts. There is no way of knowing how much of the original oral tradition made it into the Torah as it has been for the last few thousand years. There is no way to scientifically prove that the Torah scrolls or the Dead Sea scrolls were even written by Jews -- it just seems like it would make sense. Somehow, the author forgets that to exhibit faith, one must believe something that cannot be proven and to give that thing relevance beyond scientific proof. The author demonstrates his lack of faith in God by attempting to prove the existence of God through the utilization of his faith in the Torah as unquestionable fact. Somehow, God is questionable, but the Torah is not.
=====I'm not a religious person. Still, I think, no matter what religion you practice, it seems silly to put the unquestionable truth of an inanimate object above the unquestionable truth of the existence of your God. The Torah, however, cannot be proven to be true through science. As the Torah cannot be proven truth with science, then the Torah can only be debated in the realms of the philosophical. If the Torah, then, is only a piece of philosophical literature, where does that leave the Biblical God?

Righteous are the Wicked, For They Can Do No Wrong

=====Atheists, in their never-ending quest to distribute rationality throughout the world, rely on certain intellectual weapons pretty regularly. Of these weapons, one is a particularly popular bit of philosophical criticism which is usually challenged with the same go-to response from their opponents -- "[God] works in mysterious ways." The bit of philosophical criticism I am referring to is, of course, the question, "If there is a God, then why do bad things happen to good people?"
=====I have never been very impressed by the question. For one, it is a hypothetical and philosophical point being used to win an academic argument. Philosophy is ok for spiritual discussions, but, when one is dealing in academics, facts are the only truly useful weapons in one's arsenal. Since no debate about religion is a debate of the spiritual -- the spirit is a hypothetical object which, in order to use in debate, must be proven to exist -- no one should really be falling back onto philosophy to get an advantage. However, if one is going to turn to the philosophical to stagger an opponent before delivering a deathblow with fact, I think the question should be rethought.
=====Instead of asking why bad things happen to good people, I think it would make more sense to ask why good things happen to "bad" people. By "bad" I mean the people that religious opponents would ordinarily label as such -- atheists, agnostics, homosexuals and evolutionists (evolutionist being anther word for scientist). Instead of asking "why would God flood New Orleans and kill so many devout Christians," ask "why do people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner, an atheist and an agnostic respectively, have billions of dollars, healthy families, and extremely successful careers?" Instead of asking "why would God allow infants to die of AIDS and cancer every day," ask "why do people like Ian McKellen and Elton John have such mass appeal and enjoy so much success in their endeavors?" In this sense, it is OK to allow your opponent's assumptions of what is morally right and wrong, according to their dogma, to be accepted as truth.
=====If it is an unquestionable truth that the bible and God define what is right and wrong, then the opponent will have to accept the fact that good is being done to bad people, despite God's will. In the reverse case, it is too easy to say that "[God] was punishing the greater wickedness of the people, and some of the faithful were sacrificed to do this greater good," or that "[God] works in mysterious ways." In this case, it isn't just mysterious, it's basically mocking.
=====If God punishes the evil by creating floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases, and mudslides, then why are some of the evil people doing so well? To suggest that God actively punishes people is to suggest that God has a favoured people. To suggest that God is actively playing favorites is to suggest that God is a participating player in the events of the world, every day. It would stand to reason that God would also actively reward the righteous, as He regularly does in most Holy books. While this slightly negates the concept of "free will," it also necessitates a very reasonable conclusion to be drawn; God's favorites aren't always as they appear.
=====Clearly, some of God's favorites are atheists and homosexuals. In the scheme of things, these people must really be his favorites for, no matter what they seem to do against his Word, they can apparently do no wrong in His eyes. If God is actively punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous, then Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Ian McKellen and Elton John are being rewarded for something -- and then some. While others are struggling to fit into God's bizarre model of human behaviour, and still only managing to be lower to middle class (as, statistically, most devoutly religious people are), others knowingly and intentionally laugh in the face of God yet still receive his hearty blessing in the form of success, happiness, and excess.
=====Even some of the most rabid opponents of God as a concept are routinely being blessed with bounty and success. Richard Dawkins's every book goes directly to the best seller's list in multiple countries. Neil Tyson has several television shows, well sold books, and a successful teaching career to his credit. Albert Einstein, who once said, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion" (Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954), and who suggested that the idea of a personal God was naïve, had an incredibly successful career and became a living legend in the scientific and pop-culture worlds before dying at a respectable old age. Joseph Stalin, who murdered hundreds of thousand of monks, nuns, and priests of various religions, converted the Orthodox Russian Church into a Stalinist patriotic institution in his own mental image, and committed general mass genocide and countless acts against humanity, died as a successful, undefeated, and essentially worshipped ruler at the age of 74 in his own bed. Clearly, these individuals just have something about them that God can't help favoring in spite of brash disrespect and misbehavior.
=====It is harder for the opponent to dismiss this idea as God working mysteriously, or as God committing a seemingly unjust act to accomplish some greater good. To conclude that God has made these men successful to accomplish a greater good would be to admit that these men, despite their positions and beliefs (Stalin aside), are good people who share their wealth through charities and spread their wisdom which advances the sciences and improves the state of living in general. The opponent will only have two weapons against this understanding and both can be turned on their wielder.
=====The first point of attack the opponent may make could be to point out that Carl Sagan died of cancer -- albeit at a respectable age -- and that Stephen Hawking suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease. This approach has a pretty major flaw. The flaw is in the fact that, despite being stricken with illnesses, both Hawking and Sagan were able to advance their sciences and our understanding of the Universe and were it came from. Stephen Hawking continues to push on, discovering more information about our true origins, every day. Both men's unyielding success, in the face of great illness, would mean that God, despite his best efforts, cannot stop an over-intelligent and extremely determined and mortal human being from accomplishing a goal. This fact would suggest that God is not all powerful; in fact, it would make Him a little less powerful than Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking's will to discover and spread knowledge.
=====The second point of attack for the opponent may be to use the old and reliable standard: "God does these things to test our faith." That would mean that God, in his infinite wisdom, can be equated to a blatantly biased school teacher. If one, even the opponent, had a school teacher who gave all the kids he liked, for personal reasons, good grades, but, no matter how well you did or how hard you studied, never gave you more than a C, one would naturally hate that teacher and think he was unprofessional. Also, if one had a teacher who regularly gave out bad grades to good students, but good grades to bad students, just to teach the good students to try even harder, he would most likely be fired and barred from teaching in general. Rewarding good behavior with negative reinforcement is psychotic and proven to be detrimental to a learning mind; wouldn't God know what best works, psychologically, on minds He himself created?
=====God might make the occasional bet with the Devil regarding the faith of his subjects, take poor Job in the Abrahamic religions for example, but nowhere in the Holy texts, that I've read, does God openly reward evil doers to prove a point. In fact, God regularly punishes evil doers and rewards the righteous accordingly. God only "tests the faith" of his followers by nonsensically punishing the righteous to the breaking point. This is true of pretty much every religion with a God or gods.
=====The final cop out that the opponent may try to use is the idea that "God is beyond our mortal understanding, so we cannot question his work." This is, usually without realization, an open admittance that the opponent cannot possibly know anything about God. This means that the opponent must also acknowledge -- likely with coaching -- that they cannot be sure that any text written is an accurate illustration of God or God's behavior. In other words, you wouldn't allow, in any other context, someone to propose that a particular story that they've heard about someone "sounds like something that someone would do," and then, in the next breath, say that they really don't know how that someone thinks and could never predict or understand any of that someone's thoughts or actions. If you point out the fact that to understand a Holy text as the true sentiment of God is to suggest a knowledge of the mind and motivations of God, then you will back the opponent into a corner to either reject an unquestionable understanding of Holy texts as the true work of God or gods, or to accept that God doesn't just seem to favour the wicked to an inferior mortal mind which cannot conceive of His motivations, but that he does, sometimes, favor the wicked and his actions can be understood and recognized by mortals for what they are.
=====It is best to avoid debating religion in completely philosophical terms. The first step to any religious debate is to point out the fact that religion is so devoid of any real information or fact that it cannot legitimately be debated in academic or scientific terms. To do so would mean to use physical evidence to dispute a metaphysical idealism. Obviously, disproving claims and stories found in religious texts with facts and information is easy -- sometimes too easy, causing your audience to be confused by the simplicity. Religiously minded people are more receptive to philosophical ideas; so, starting a religious debate with some philosophical criticism is a good way to prime the opponent for more academic questions and information later in the debate.
=====The rewording of this classic philosophical proposition strengthens the point that is being expressed and removes many of classic philosophic rebuttals. It leaves three possibilities on the table between you and your opponent. One -- God does play favorites, and sometimes his favorites are the wicked. This possibility would be uncomfortable to even the most profoundly devout zealot. Two -- God does not share your definition of right and wrong and is rewarding and punishing people for reasons other than what is read in Holy texts. This possibility means that the Holy texts are incorrect, fallible and, thusly, not the word of an infallible God. Three -- God does not punish or reward anyone, wicked or good. Again, a possibility that would suggest that the stories in the Holy texts never actually took place or that God stopped actively caring about three-thousand years ago. All three possibilities turn the tide of any philosophical religious debate in the atheist's favor and create the leverage needed to ask more concrete, scientific, and academic questions that can genuinely create an irrefutable impact.

Send Ralph René to the Moon Foundation

=====It is 1969, and most of the greatest minds in the country -- and the world -- are witnessing a new era in science, technology, and civilization. Two of the greatest powers in the history of the world have been engaged in a race to be the first to land human beings on the surface of the moon. Ultimately, one of these two nations is finally named the winner; all of humanity wins the prizes that result from the contest. Even into 2007, advances in science and technology spawned by the space race continue to benefit the entire planet.
=====Despite the scientific benefits and advances in technology that exist because of NASA's missions to the moon, into the solar system, and beyond -- resulting in things like the international space station -- there are people who believe that these historic events never actually took place. These people believe that all space missions, from the first lunar landing to the missions to the space station, have all been faked. They believe that these events have been faked because they believe these events are impossible. These brave and revolutionary thinkers believe these events are impossible, even in the face of irrefutable evidence and undeniable proof. These skeptical individuals, like the NASA scientists themselves, spend their lives pondering and writing about the perils and problems of space travel. Unlike the NASA scientists, however, the skeptics do not use real science, research, logic, common sense, years of academic study, decades of field experience and research, decades of technological development and understanding, or care about the importance peer review. Skeptics, such as Ralph René, are a special breed, indeed.
=====Ralph René is the publisher of several books supporting various conspiracy theories. René's favorite conspiracy has always been the supposed hoax that was the moon landing. René likes to employ bizarre logic and point to nonsensical pieces of information to support his mind-numbing, suicide-inducing claims. No matter what evidence, or straight-up proof, is presented to René, he remains strong in his fight for all things mentally devolutionary. A visit to his website, while profoundly depressing, is necessary to fully understand the scope of stubborn ignorance that can exist within the human brain.
=====One might be led to ask, "Aren't people like René clearly just looking for attention? Don't you think these people are simply out of their minds? Shouldn't we just ignore people like René?" My answer to those questions is, without pause, "Yes, yes, and no." I don't believe we should ignore people like, René, or anyone who might evangelize stupidity. The stupidity spread by these seemingly silly characters is easily spread to the populace because most people, similar to René, do not feel like doing their own real research. It is often more fun to believe mysterious and mystical ideas than it is to do research and believe common sense fact. One need only point to the firestorm that is religious practice to support that statement. So, it is not practical to ignore people like René, because these people affect the overall intelligence and cultural demeanor of large pockets of the populace. In fact, in a recent poll, 20% of American Citizens stated that they believe that the moon landing was a hoax concocted by the United States government. The ability for conspiracy theories to sway the thinking of developing minds and to discourage these minds from seeking real, solid information makes people like René a legitimate menace to the respectability, intelligence, development, and credibility of the human species.
=====To eradicate the disturbing threat posed by Ralph René and his contemporaries, I think it is the duty of all rational human beings on the face of the planet to finally prove René wrong. All rational avenues -- such as showing René solid evidence, explaining to René why all of his beliefs are scientifically unfounded, and demonstrating laser bouncing technology left on the moon by the first Apollo manned mission -- have been explored in the fight to educate Ralph René. No matter what physical evidence is shown to him and no matter what piece of scientific fact, that contradicts his understandings of the Universe, is given to him, René can always invent some kind of a theory about special effects magic or trick computer technology to explain away the truth. This leaves me with one final option that it seems no one else has considered. We, the rational people of Earth, must literally and physically send Ralph René to the moon.
=====Once on the lunar surface, it is my belief that Ralph René will have to once and for all admit to his cartoon-like logic. No matter what kind of story he tries to use to explain away his physical presence on the moon, René will ultimately have to come to terms with the reality of his predicament -- that or we just won't bring him back. Being on the moon, like the original astronauts, will also fill René with an apologetic, humbling embarrassment that would hopefully be so powerful, that it spills over and destroys the hold that such conspiracy theories have on the human mind the world over.
=====I, George Paul Davis III, am asking you, the rational world citizen, to help me meet this goal. Help me send Ralph René to the moon. All that is needed to complete this culturally necessary task is the funding to train and prepare René to attend the next NASA mission. We will also need funding to create a craft to take René from the space station to the surface of the moon and back. If each rational human being on the planet donated five dollars to this righteous fund, it would be only a matter of time before Ralph René was hanging his head in shame, bathed in the unfiltered light of the sun on the shores of the Sea of Tranquility. I believe it is our responsibility to future generations to put an end to this long-standing intellectual cancer. We can do it. Let's send Ralph René to the moon.

Scientific State (Part II)

=====I have stated in other posts that I believe that an entirely neutral, scientific state should be formed somewhere in the world -- a state with allegiance only to the betterment of the planet and its inhabitants. Religion would have no place in the scientific state, nor would its views be sympathetic to religious need or ceremony, for religion is the natural enemy of objectivity and humanity. That having been said, I suggested that the scientific state be placed in what is now Palestine and Israel because of all the murder and devolution to civilization that religion has caused there. As a result of my statements, some people misunderstand my motivations and say that if I really saw to such an operation that I would be no better than those I am replacing. Misunderstanding is not without merit, as I forgot to mention that, in the hypothetical universe of my mind, the seizing of Palestine and Israel would be entirely non-lethal.
=====If it were possible to truly rally together all the great scientific minds of the world for this one cause, then such a task would probably have to be done before the founding of the actual state. When all the great scientific minds of the world are brought together in one place, the official scientific state or not, it opens the door to the development of new technologies. Technologies could be developed that made warfare largely non-lethal.
=====One of the first missions of the united scientific community would be to improve upon, and to develop, new non-lethal weapon technology. Improvements could be made to reduce the risks of death caused by the use of non-lethal weapons. Electrical and percussive stun weapons could be developed that were practical on the battlefield. New armors could be developed that made all who wore them largely impervious to lethal weapon attacks; so, it would be practical to engage an enemy, while using only non-lethal means, which was utilizing lethal force. Netting, restraining, and containing weapons and tactics could be developed that met the standards of practical military strategy. New radio and electromagnetic technologies could be developed that rendered missiles useless against either side. Fully automated and remotely controlled machines, armed with non-lethal weapons, could be developed to engage enemy forces that are too dangerous for a human army to handle. An entirely new method of warfare could be developed that would practically eliminate fatality, but maintain the desired result. Aside from technology, the formation of the scientific state would also reduce the risks of warfare in less direct ways.
=====No country in the world, regardless of might or strength, would want to engage a military force that would be, without question, the most technologically advanced in the history of civilization. Even if the scientific state used exclusively non-lethal means to fight any battles it might need to, all other countries would be aware of the unlikelihood of victory. Losing wars is not only bad because a nation loses the lives of its people, but because it leaves that nation vulnerable to invasion, occupation, and assimilation. The scientific state would be a growing state, like all nations are, so it would be no secret that it would eventually need to expand. The need to expand coupled with a technologically superior military and the opportunities created by military victory would make the scientific state a very uneasy target for the militaries of all other nations to consider.
=====The scientific state would not view the world as a group of governments, however. The scientific state would see the people of the world as separate from their governments. Food, aid, medical technologies, educational tools, and architectural advancements would be shared with the people of the world. Military technologies would not be shared with the governments of the world. For example, even if the scientific state were to be repeatedly attacked by the Unite States military, the scientific state would not cut the civilians of the United States off from the benefits of scientific advance. The people of the United States would be seen as a separate entity from the United States government and military. The scientific state would view all the civilians of every nation as world citizens. It is in this way that the scientific state would be truly neutral. It isn't difficult for one to surmise why the mere existence of such a state would generate the hostility, fear, and condemnation of many world powers -- no nation wants its people to feel as though they have some kind of power beyond the established government.
=====In these ways, and many ways unmentioned, the establishment of a scientific state in Palestine/Israel would not be comparable to the war that currently wages in the "Holy land." As few lives as technologically possible would be lost, on either side. The point of the invasion would not be to eliminate an enemy, but to secure land and relocate inhabitants who don't do anything with the land but kill one another. Once founded, the point of the scientific state would not be to oppress people with religion and justify murder, but to improve the over-all condition of the planet, and every species, in every conceivable way

Universal Oneness or Universal Dumbness?

=====I often find myself meandering through MySpace profile after MySpace profile when I am bored. I read the profiles of my friends and then I read the profiles of their friends. When I read profiles, I don't just check out pictures to see how hot someone is or just look to see where they're from or scan the page to find out what colour their aura is or what Friends character they are. I actually read everything they put legitimate time into making known. I read "blogs," a word it is very painful for me to use -- yes, I do take myself that seriously, and I am that pretentious. I read bulletins and try to find pieces of art or literature that the people have created. I try to get an understanding of their beliefs and ideals. After I've done that, I will sometimes research interests or topics that the person made known and of which I had previously no knowledge. One of the most frequently made references by the MySpace user is the goal to "become one with the universe."
=====Granted, many of the people that proclaim the aspiration probably do so within a jocular context. Be they casual Buddhists, care-free fun-loving yuppies, politically-minded New-Agers, or just youths who have recently been exposed to many cultures, the humourous and playful connotations of universal oneness exists within a lot of social groups. Despite the lack of cold, hard sincerity, the concept still strikes an idealistic chord with many people.
=====I can, on some level, understand the need for a connection between the self and the Universe. I have a very significant interest in astronomy and the physical laws that make up the Universe. I study these things independently for no other reason than to be entertained and to understand my habitat in a broader sense. The more I learn and know about the Universe, the more my appetite for information grows. I take the time to read about things like gravity, relativity, time, space/time physics, and molecular science because I know that with each bit of information that I learn I increase my sources of general inspiration. I realize that the more that I know, the more weight the things that I say carry in conversation and debate. I realize that the more that I know, the more I can use that information to communicate new ideas and to stimulate the people that I care about to want to develop new ideas.
=====One of the things I have taken from my interest in astronomy is the understanding of how the Universe is made. To be clearer, I mean I understand what the Universe is made of and how those elements interact to create different cosmic phenomena. Without getting into specifics, the Universe is made of a series of reoccurring materials and laws. The same materials and laws that go into making a star also go into making a planet, a tree, or a human being. In essence, a human being is made of the same "stuff" as a star. As Carl Sagan once said, "[w]e are starstuff that knows it exists." In other words, even though stars are beautiful, giant, burning balls of inanimate gas, we, as an intelligent, sentient species, are made of the same materials and are of one like origin. Furthermore, the source of the materials that created the star is the same for the materials that created you or I. In the beginning of the creation of the Universe, but, in this case, more specifically, our Galaxy, all of the elements, atoms, energies, and laws of the cosmos swirled around and produced everything within it from the same cosmic soup. Since matter can never be created or destroyed, when a star dies and explodes, creating a nebula, whatever is formed from the materials within the nebula are essentially just that star all over again. Those materials will swirl around a center of gravity and can potentially create a whole new solar system. It is likely that that very process resulted in the creation of our own solar system. The materials that made the original star came from the same soup that created the galaxy; and, the same materials that and laws that created our galaxy came from the same soup as those that made every other galaxy. In this way, everything that exists within the Universe is invariably and eternally connected. Some people claim that the material world, including everything in the physical Universe, is an illusion; so, when they say "one with the Universe," they mean spiritually.
=====Spiritual oneness is a concept that is difficult for me to understand. I suppose greater understanding of the concept could be reached if a universal definition of the "spirit" could be established. Unfortunately, many different people will have many different ideas as to what the "spirit" is. For the sake of this piece, we will use the definition that is the most general -- "The part of a human being associated with the mind, will, and feelings" (The American Heritage Dictionary, definition 6.a.). I will alter that slightly and say that it doesn't just apply to human beings when one speaks of spiritual universal oneness. So, the spirit is the part of a being that makes up, or is comprised of, the intellect, drive, and emotion of that being. Some people might use the wording "core being" to define the same principal. In any event, the spirit, for the sake of this discussion, is essentially the consciousness of an entity. So, to attain spiritual universal oneness is to blend ones own consciousness with the consciousness of everything else in the universe. Once it is defined, spiritual universal oneness becomes a terrifying concept for me to comprehend. Forgetting, momentarily, that, despite what materials any object in the Universe is made of, only living creatures can have a consciousness -- thus greatly reducing the scope of such a "universal" oneness -- why would combining an individual's consciousness with that of another ever be a good thing?
=====Individuality is wholly defined by a person's unique perception and understanding. A being's consciousness is the corner stone to building unique insights and perceptions. An attempt to shed such individual perception or consciousness is an attempt to establish conformity. Conformity is essentially just mass likeness or sameness. If one shares the same consciousness with many other beings, then one is conforming to an established singularity. Concepts such as this can be found through-out history, and they are rarely good ideas. Specific examples are Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Puritan New England, or any fundamentalist religious or political community. Establishment of conformity, or a single consciousness amongst a community, is necessary for the control and command of individuals. Individuals are dangerous to the function of mass control. Individuals have incredible intellectual, creative, and rebellious powers. Without individuality, there is no art, there is no rebellion, and there is no expression.
=====Human beings have the need to express themselves, because they understand that each person is comprised of their own individual perceptions and insights. By painting a picture, building a sculpture, or writing words on a page, a being invites everyone that sees the piece to take a glimpse into their own personal Universe. Each person looks at the Universe and comprehends that information in completely unique ways. In this way, on planet Earth alone, the existence of individuality makes it possible for there to be about six billion Universes -- six billion new worlds to explore and understand; six billion different takes on art and literature; six billion versions of one song. Without expression, everything we love as a species would immediately lose all meaning and passion. Without expression, life itself would serve no purpose.
=====Even if one argued that this singular universal consciousness would be comprised of all the different perceptions, they are losing sight of some inarguable facts. People, as a result of their individuality, can disagree. If two people have conflicting viewpoints, no matter how much empathy or understanding one has for the other person's argument, they can never truly understand one another completely and would negate one another in this singular consciousness. For example, you cannot think that cold-blooded murder is both right and wrong. Making such self-defeating arguments would be meaningless, and, regardless, there would be no reason to express the argument because there would be no reason for anyone to listen -- everything would already be of one mind.
=====Losing all expression, art, perception, and individuality is an extremely destructive and thoughtless goal. I cannot understand wanting such an existence for one's self.
=====If your goal is to be literally and physically one with the universe, well then, congratulations; your goal was accomplished at your conception -- actually, it was accomplished at the conception of the Universe itself. If your goal is to have one consciousness with every other consciousness in the Universe, well then, sorry; I pity those with such little regard for life, art, and individuality.

Scientific State (Part I)

=====Few things spiritually motivate the fundamentalist -- religious and pretty much every other kind, too -- like talk about the end of the world. Tonight I watched the two hour special on the History Channel chronicling human civilizations love affair with the Apocalypse. The show covered a lot of the scenarios and beliefs that surround the topic, but it largely centered itself within the beliefs presented by the Old and New Testaments.
=====From the time I was able to conceptualize death -- a moment I dont actually remember, but it must have been some time before the age of three -- until about the year 1998, I had a nagging fear of worldwide holocaust. The fear was much less severe after about the age of eleven, when the U.S.S.R. fell. Before that time, however, the fear was something that I contemplated at least once a day. I believe that this contemplation, when mixed with heredity, led to the clinical depression with which I would eventually be diagnoses. My strong belief in the inevitable devastation of the entire planet as well as everyone and everything I ever loved was fueled largely by my exposure to religion -- both Catholic and Protestant.
=====My fear of nuclear annihilation was lessened, by a very small amount, when I was about five years old. It was around this time that my mother married a Muslim. After seeing that religion could be different for different people, a concept not readily administered in church, I gained hope that religion could not only be optional, but fallible. In this sense, I suppose it was my search for hope that led me to become what some might consider an Atheist. I do not consider myself to be a true Atheist, but this is beside the point. This information is being given so that my perceptions can be understood more clearly. Had I not been exposed to the existence of Islam as a youth, I am pretty sure that I would have to have been institutionalized, eventually. Ironically, it would be the existence of Islam that would allow my fear of global holocaust to remain intact after the fall of the U.S.S.R.
=====Shortly before the fall of Soviet Russia, the United States began war on a new enemy. That enemy was Saddam Hussein. It was told to children, of which I was one, that Saddam Hussein was wholly evil, which he may be, and that he wanted to destroy the United States and Israel with powerful weapons. My brief moment of relief from the fear of seeing my family, and myself, be melted where they stood was swallowed whole by these teachings. It seemed as though I was really the only kid in my group of peers that had any legitimate fear or understanding of what my teachers were implying. To ease my stress over the situation, I rationalized that Iraq was by no means the world power that the U.S.S.R. was, at the time, and that they would probably not be able to acquire or use the rocket technology necessary to create a full-out nuclear war. This rationalization probably enabled me to maintain my sanity well into my teen years.
=====Today, my fear of global holocaust as facilitated by war is greatly diminished. If one were to estimate some percentages, it would probably read something like 100gbsp;between the ages of three and five, 85 etween the ages of five and ten, a brief period of near 0round the age of eleven, a return to fear of about 70 etween the ages of eleven and fifteen, a slight reduction with a fear of about 55 etween the ages of fifteen and nineteen, back to an area of around 0-5 etween the ages of nineteen and my present age. With an adult mind, I have a greater understanding of what people are actually willing to do and what they really want for themselves. Dictators want power and wealth. You cannot have power and wealth when you have destroyed everyone and everything. Fundamentalist groups, like Al-Qaeda, present a slightly scarier reality, when it comes to killing everything on principal, but dont possess the means necessary to carry out such a plan. Being as the only real threats to global annihilation are groups that wouldnt be able to fit the bill for such a task, my fear is basically nil.
=====It is amazing to me, though, that there are adults, around the world, who not only believe that the end of the world is coming, but that, through the power of their religion, they can bring it about. More specifically, I am talking about the Christians who believe in an Anti-Christ, and the fundamentalist Israeli Jews who they wish to aid in building the Third Temple on the ever-so-magical Temple Mount. These people believe that if they rebuild Salomons temple, which has been destroyed on two occasions, where the Dome of the Rock now stands, that it will usher in the events described in the Book of Revelations. In other words, God cannot, or will not, bring about events such as the coming of the Four Horsemen, the Rapture, the raising of the dead, or the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven, until these people construct a building. So, this means that not even an infallible God can escape becoming the victim of red-tape. Despite the humour of the situation, the bloodshed and war that it creates is not as funny -- not as funny. There has to be something darkly funny about a nation of adult human beings killing each other and their children over a game of Dungeons & Dragons.
=====It is clear to me that these people -- the Muslims, who have claim to the land through conquest, war and victory, the Jews, whose only claim to the land is biblical and barged in to claim half the country out of nowhere, and the Christians, who back the Jews and cause all sorts of trouble in a place they dont even belong -- are not responsible enough to be in possession of so much land, let alone a country.
=====In other postings I discussed how religion retards the growth of science and development. I believe it is time that a place existed in the world that was outside the grasps of the religious right. One might say that China and other forced Atheist states are already ahead of me. But, you see, China forces ideas on to its people, or it did, and it also retarded the development of many thought processes, arts, and sciences that the government saw as threatening. I am not talking about a communist, Atheist state. I am talking about a state that is established outside of all forms of developmental retardation. I am talking about a state in which all of the worlds scientists are automatically given citizenship, and, with that citizenship, the supplies, resources, and freedom to advance their ideas and research to levels it cannot reach while the religious or idealistic fundamentalist groups try to pin it down with unreasonable laws. Dont misunderstand; the religious right is only a part of such social retardation. Leftist fundamentalists also seek to retard certain helpful sciences. I am talking about a state free of all scientific limitation. I could fathom no better way for these religious fundamentalists, and religion itself, to atone for all the death, suffering, and developmental stagnation it has caused than by surrendering "The Holy Land" to such a cause.
=====I know what youre saying; "but, George, the son of God was born in that place! Moses led hundreds of thousands of slaves from Egypt across a desert for forty years to found that place! Mohammed talked to a winged man with a magic rock in that place! We cant just give it up!" My first response is, "Do you hear the words youre saying -- I mean, really hear them?" Then, I remember who Im speaking to and I offer compromises.
=====The first compromise I offer is the betterment of the planet in exchange for your patch of desert. Without limitations, science could probably advance five times as quickly as it does right now. That means that medical science, astronomical science, historical science, and biological science could go from the year 2006 to the year 2056 in the next ten years. That means that new medicines and vaccines, like a cure for AIDS and cancer, could, and probably would, be discovered and save millions of lives. That means that new strains of plants and food resources would be developed that save billions of lives. That means that we would better understand the universe and space-travel, and work on a possible solution to the overpopulation of the Earth. That means we could advance our understanding of the ecosystems of the world and better understand how to prevent human contamination and destruction of these environments and ultimately save billions more lives of all species, humans included. That means that we would develop better ways to produce the products that we need to sustain civilization that would reduce the negative affects on the environment. That means that the overall well-being of the entire planet, and all the lives that it harbors, would be greatly improved, just because the great scientific minds of the world were given a place to converge and study freely. I dont think any God would frown upon its creations being made healthier and stronger.
=====The second compromise I offer is automatic peace. If you people had nothing over which to fight, then you wouldnt be fighting. You could simply move the source of your religion from the material world into the supernatural world, where it belongs. You could hold your religion in your souls and in your hearts. Your religion could be one of spirit, not of rock, sand, concrete and dirt. If that was the case, it wouldnt make any difference what religion anyone was.
=====If the prospects of billions of saved lives and an end to fairy-tale wars doesnt interest you, and you believe you would eventually want to fight the new scientific state for the Holy Land, then I can still offer you one final compromise. That compromise would be unity. You guys could stop blowing each other up, for a little while, to unite against a common foe -- common sense. I would sleep well knowing that, because I chose to move in on the Holy Land, Christians, Jews and Muslims could band together as brothers in arms. Maybe such a union would lead to long-lasting understanding. Maybe such a union would lead to the idea of sharing these lands you have all dubbed equally holy; though, not so holy that killing people all over the place with in it is out of the question. Obviously, God hates chicks way more than murder. But, I digress. I was offering you the gift of unity as compromise, or trade, for the Holy Land.
=====I know little about what God wants. I leave that up to you people. If God is really into all the murder and hate you guys create, because people dont worship it like it wants them to, then I guess Im out of line. If God is into the harmony, health, peace and prosperity of its creations, despite what they believe, then I think Im well within my rights to lay claim to these lands.
=====I need two things from the rest of the world. I need places for the people that would be moved out of these areas to live, without any trouble. Africa, China, and South America, Im looking at you -- be a team player. Everyone would benefit equally from the nameless scientific state. The scientific state would not be shackled by government or religion. The scientific state could spread its discoveries and benefits all over the globe. I also need all of the worlds scientists to agree to migrate to this new state. Think of how much work could be accomplished if you didnt have all that bureaucratic red-tape around which to work. Scientific minds, more dedicated to the advancement of the field than to patriotic notion, from countries that ordinarily could never be brought together would be able to work side-by-side, sharing each others advancements. All of the worlds knowledge could be centralized in one neutral state. If the prospect of the Holy Land isnt your speed -- an idea I only propose because Im a jerk -- then find an island somewhere. Find any place that such a state could be established, and establish it. If the rest of the world can make these two concessions, this state should be established immediately.
=====I dont think anything could halt global holocaust quite like the all-around betterment of the entire planet and civilization. Consider all the fear and loss that could be avoided by the founding of the scientific state. Disasters would be better managed or avoided, hunger would be eliminated, and disease would be all but mastered. For the good of humanity, for the good of everything we know, even the good of all that is holy, this needs to be done.

Religion and I

=====I am often misunderstood in regards to what I feel and think about religion. I am not what one would call a staunch Atheist, nor do I "hate" religion. I have been told that my views, about a lot of things, are negative, spiteful and hateful. Granted, I see nothing wrong with the emotion of hate, as it was implanted in the mind of every creature by nature, and I believe that rational hate, as created by rational anger, has its place. However, I do not believe in any religion, and I think it's all ridiculous nonsense, but I don't hate it in and of itself. I hate what religion does.
=====Religion has no good side. Well, it has no good side that could not have existed without the religion. Kindness, compassion, love, and brotherliness predate religion -- probably humanity, too. Religion does not create these things, it doesn't make these things possible by existing, and it doesn't perpetuate these ideals by itself. It does, however, cause -- though not create -- prejudice, bloodshed, torture, murder, the retardation of all science, the retardation of social development, the waste of economical resources, the waste of land, the waste of building materials, the waste of time, and the waste of most general resources. All of the harmful situations it causes, merely by existing, outweigh whatever small and intangible good it may have done during its ten to twelve thousand year history.
=====The ways in which the existence and practice of religion has caused prejudice, bloodshed, torture, and murder are far too obvious, in my estimation, to waste time talking about in detail. Just look at the battles between the Irish Catholics and Protestants, the Indian Muslims and Hindus, or the Middle Eastern Jews and Muslims to learn more about that. If war for the sake of intangible nonsense doesn't satisfy you, read all you can about Gandhi's feelings toward the black population in South Africa, or how the Serfs were treated in Lama ruled Tibet-- religiously fueled caste systems are a nice example of these obvious pratfalls, too. I think, though, religion has done more damage to the planetary population, including all species, by purposefully retarding the development of science, technology, and rational thought.
=====War and hate predate religion, too. Don't get me wrong. But why do those two things exist? Well, there are a lot of reasons to fight a war. Most of those reasons have something to do with survival. For instance, if you are the leader of a tribe, or even a country, and you don't have enough land or food to take care of your subjects, you have to start trying to expand and attain means of survival. This might mean you have to try to take some of your neighbor's land. Maybe your neighbor has more fertile land, and you don't even have enough resources to last your people another year. In this case, you fight your neighbor for his soil, and possibly his horded resources. But, that neighbor might not have enough resource and land to share, and certainly isn't going to give up those hard earned assets without a conflict. These are rational reasons to fight -- it's base survival.
=====Base survival is why all creatures in the animal kingdom war. Religion has done little -- more like nothing -- to develop ways to prevent these kinds of situations from happening. Instead, religion makes it possible for the people of one tribe or country to justify their actions by deciding that they are the chosen people of God or gods, thus have a greater right to survival than the other tribe or country. It isn't hard to be the chosen people of a God or gods created within your own culture. With science and technology, forces of which religion stands in direct defiance, it is possible to develop ways to prevent these kinds of base survival confrontations from taking place. With different technologies in architecture, it is possible to develop and utilize new ways to efficiently distribute and use land; with different technologies in agriculture, it is possible to develop and utilize new methods to maximize crop harvests, selectively breed or alter plants so that they bear the optimum nutritional value while taking up the least amount of acreage; with different technologies in medicine, it is possible to develop and utilize new ways to heal illness, improve the quality and longevity of life, and learn more about nutrition and exercise. Technology cannot exist without science. In these, and many more, ways, science could help bring many rational and necessary human conflicts to an end, whereas religion can only mutate such conflicts into acts of emotional and cultural precedence.
=====Religion causes the retardation of scientific development in many ways. Throughout the years of all religions, not just Christianity, many scientific and medical fields of study have been randomly dubbed immoral or sacrilegious and consequently outlawed. This slowed the evolution and theoretical development of such fields to a crawl, or even a standstill, during many of the human races formative years. One can only speculate how much farther along, had the Dark Ages and the crusades not interfered with development for hundreds of successive years, our medical and scientific knowledge would be. It is possible to say that we could be at least two to three hundred years ahead of ourselves, had the world's greatest minds been allowed to come together and study all science during those times. Today, religion still makes it possible for people to want to fight against medical and scientific advance. Followers of religion have fought to make it illegal to develop many important fields: stem cell research, a potentially powerful tool that could be used to not only completely understand the human body and how it works, but to fight cancer and many other degenerative and genetic diseases; humane methods of euthanasia, which, for some people, is the only escape from a life of endless and hopeless agony; genetic engineering, a field that, again, could not only help us to understand the make up of all life on the planet, and thus help us to develop better medical techniques and medicines, but DOES allow us to grow crops, for the entire planet, that are more resilient, more bountiful, more manageable, and completely safe, which have already saved billions of lives across the globe. If the religious or otherwise fanatically idealistic minds of the world succeed, or would have succeeded in some cases, in stopping these fields of research, they would have been responsible, directly, for the murder of billions of people. Religion's ability to cause the retardation of scientific development is quite possibly its most dangerous liability.
=====The religious also seek to put an end to other fields of study, such as evolution. Evolution is the scientific model for the development of life on this planet. Some of the arguments against evolution are too ridiculous to go into with great detail, but if you'd still like to take a peek, look here and here. Amongst some of the arguments made by the religious against evolution are: "How can so much functional complexity exist in the world without an intelligent plan behind its creation and execution?"; "How can so many 'advanced (a word they love to misuse in an evolutionary context)' species have developed on our planet from just single celled organisms?"; "Evolution has no model for 'devolution (something they just decided exists),' so only religious Creationism can account for things like flightless birds, legless lizards, and unnecessary bodily organs, right?" The rebuttals to the arguments against evolution are all fairly simple or rationally simplistic.
=====The first argument, about how so much complexity can exist without an intelligent plan, comes from the religious Creationists' lack of understanding and study of evolutionary principal and theory. It is the understanding of these people that evolution is based on completely random variables. They don't understand, at all, the meaning of natural selection. Natural selection is the means by which some species survive over others and genetic differences develop in those species. Natural selection works very much the same was as selective breeding works in agriculture. However, in nature, the process is slowed a little. For example, if a farmer wants to make sure that he has a good herd every year, he will try to breed the biggest, strongest and healthiest animals he can to ensure that their offspring inherit these traits. Natural selection works the same way. Let's say that a species of animal, a pig perhaps, lives in an environment which is rapidly changing. The weather has gone from warmer weather to slightly colder weather, and new predators, with sharper teeth and claws than usual, have moved into the territory due to the climate changes. It will be the pigs of this species with the thicker layers of fat, predisposition for longer body hair, and thicker skin that will have the better chance of surviving into adult hood and mating with other members of its species that also had these tools of survival. Over as little as twenty generations, as it has been found, these slight genetic differences can become completely developed and perfected mutations. Over a few hundred generations, these mutations stabilize and the pig becomes a new species or subspecies. Other members of the species that did not have the predisposition for thicker blubber, longer hair, or thicker skin would have either been killed off or moved out of the area in search of a climate more like the one for which they are suited. Therefore, natural selection is not random at all, but simply a version of selective breeding brought on naturally by necessity and circumstance. In a sense, there is a plan, but there is no active intelligence behind it; the plan is for survival.
=====The second argument, about advanced forms of life coming from life forms that are but a single cell, is my personal favourite. Not only does it exhibit the Creationists' lack of study of the scientific theory that they are trying to disprove, but it exhibits their lack of perception of the world around them. Firstly, in this argument, Creationists ALWAYS misuse and misunderstand terms like "advanced" in an evolutionary context. "Advanced" is not something that is decided upon by a panel of human beings, scientists or clerics, and it is NOT relative to the genetic complexity of a species. "Advanced," as determined by the stand point of evolution, is based on the ability of a species to survive and to thrive. Secondly, the act of a complex organism evolving from a single celled organism is an event that happens all the time. In fact, we see the result of this event roughly two-hundred fifty thousand times a day, around the world. I am referencing, of course, to the conception, development, and birth of a child -- be it human or otherwise. If such a development can take place, over only nine months, inside the confined universe of an animal's body, why is it so difficult to understand how it could take place, over billions of years, inside the body of the true, infinite Universe? I don't understand that kind of reasoning; they just aren't trying to employ common sense.
=====The third argument is one invented entirely by the Creationists and has no bearing on anything remotely scientific -- evolution included. It is the concept of "devolution" within the context of the theory of evolution. This doesn't really exist, at least not in the way they think it does. An example of their argument can be found at the Answers in Genesis website, but I'll give a quick overview of it for the sake of this piece. According to the Creationists, if an animal has four legs, like a lizard, and at some point it "reverts" back to having no legs, similar to a snake, this is an instance of "devolution." In other words, they believe that the animal with four legs is "more advanced" than the animal with no legs. Again, as mentioned previously, that is not how one defines "advanced" in an evolutionary context. Most, if not all, snake species have "toes," located near the reproductive organs, that are used for various things. It is believed that these "toes" are the remnants of legs that have since evolved away. What the creationists are also missing in this example is the fact that all change in natural species is the result of adaptation and mutation. So, all change is considered "evolution," because whether the animal gains an organ or body part or loses one doesn't make any difference; it is adapting to a new environment in the most efficient way possible. It is quite possible that in a particular environment, or series of environments, that some species of lizard would find it easier to catch particular prey, move through particular terrains, escape particular predators, maintain body temperature, and/or swim without the use or need of legs, but, instead, with a stronger, larger body. So, over a few generations, the appendages get smaller and smaller, and their bodies get longer and stronger, as those are the generations that are most likely to survive and breed, until eventually the legs are gone and the body is a streamline, well articulated, powerful muscle. The loss of the legs is not "devolution," as the creationists believe, but evolution. In that particular environment, whatever it may be, that particular species of lizard is more apt to survive with no legs and a modified body, while other species of lizards may adapt in other ways that allow them to maintain their more lizard-like qualities in the same environment. Both resulting species are well adapted and evolved to survive and thrive in their environment, and neither is more "advanced" than the other, but they are both better suited to survive than was whatever animal from which they evolved. So, despite the Creationists' claims that a) devolution exists in the world, and b) the theory of evolution has no model for it, evolution does have a model for when a creature adapts to lose organs or appendages that have been rendered unnecessary by environmental change.
=====Such disregard for logic, science, and, as a result, humanity does tend to get me worked up. Not too much, though. I am in rare form when I am truly in a rage over anything. It does happen, though. It doesn't even have to be over something one might consider profound, and I am not ashamed or taken aback by my anger. I embrace it as one of the many gifts of emotion bestowed upon me by natural selection. But, despite my anger, to whatever degree I might experience it, I do not hate religion. I simply understand the lack of need for such a cultural device in this day in age. I also realize the hindrance that religion has become to the development of the world. I realize that, as long as people continue to give it the power, religion will continue to stall and retard the growth of science, culture and civilization, and I'd like to see that come to an end. I think its ok for people to practice, study, and appreciate religion -- as a belief structure -- in the privacy of their home or private club. I just don't think its ok for religion to be practiced, studied, or appreciated -- as a belief structure -- anywhere else.
=====I am not a staunch Atheist, because I have a few ideas about the origin of existence, and some of them do involve a "creator." However, I don't believe that such a creator would be particularly benevolent, omnipotent or supernatural. Instead, I think it would be intertwined with the very essence of nature and the cosmos. Perhaps, time, being necessary for any progress to take shape, would had to have been present before all other things; otherwise, all other things could not have progressed into being. So, perhaps time, being the first thing, created the means by which the rest of the universe came into formation. If something creates, it must be creative, and, in order to be creative, there must be some kind of intelligence at work. That is, of course, a very fanciful theory. It is less a theory, actually, and more a game of thought. I do not consider or label myself an Agnostic, because I think to do so would be to label myself indifferent. I can't fathom how someone could be wholly indifferent to the origins of the Universe, so I can't be an Agnostic; and, I do believe in the possibility of a natural, not supernatural or spirit-based, creator or god, so I am neither a true Atheist.