You don't need any holy texts to determine that god doesn't exist and to argue against one's existence. While the path to atheism often winds through the ranks of the devout, one's disillusionment with the idea of a holy god only precludes a single variation of a supreme being. For some that may be enough, but there is a more absolute way to realize the world. From a debating standpoint, it should be our goal to reach a simple conclusion; one that can be falsified with a single fleck of evidence, yet holds up in the face of every lie. Simply, there is no evidence for the existence of god. The fact that there is a bible or a quran or a Torah makes no difference in the matter.
It has been said too many times that the bible is full of contradictions, but any self-respecting Christian will deny this is true. We pull parts from the quran to make our points, but every Islamic sect has their own interpretations of it. We go back and forth about mythology and how unlikely it is to be right. Here's the deal, though: none of it matters. There is no god and nothing is holy. It IS all myth. There is not a single biblical argument for the existence of god that will ever matter in the realm of reality. Appeals to emotion have no bearing on actuality. Life goes on no matter how we imagine it to work. Therefore, I simply don't bother treading within the pages of fantastical text when reasoning.
I am not an atheist because I reject all holy texts. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for god and what we learn through science tells us that there is no room for a god in any of it. I am not rebelling against god because there is no god to rebel against. I study the world, the reality we live in, and have found no case for god outside of our silly, fallible, emotional minds. Though many people use god as a tool to explain the world around them, those who know more do not make the same assumptions. Because god is never implicated in our understanding of reality (for those who actually understand it), all things attributed to "him" are moot.
To me, arguing holy texts is akin to fighting on your opponent's turf. They can get dirty and tell you that you're misinterpreting their beliefs. It is easy to write off criticism as misunderstanding. In the end, it doesn't matter how you interpret it - it is all nonsense in the way of understanding our physical reality. It doesn't matter if the bible is moral or immoral, it is fiction. The miracles that Jesus performed have no significance because he never existed. I could give a shit what Allah thinks or how perfect Mohammad is, because it is all a flight of fancy. I deal in reality and any debate I have will be based on hard, verifiable facts - things that if you actually do deny, you deserve to be called an idiot.
I also don't deal with hypotheticals. You've heard the arguments before. If atheists ran the world, we'd all be living in despair. Stalin's killings were motivated by atheism. These are unverifiable statements, again. The stuff of fantasies and overactive imaginations. As it happens, I completely disagree with the negative conclusions that religious people produce about non-believers. So, we're down to option vs opinion. Who is right? This is an impossible debate that deserves no attention. While we are entitled to our conjectures, this alone does not make them more worthy than others.
I am not saying we should not read the bible. I'm not saying that the stories within are useless in any sense. Simply, using it as grounds for debate on the topic of whether a god exists is missing the point. We can move the debate out further, to reality, where if we can determine that no god exists, then all texts that rely on one's existence become irrelevant in the conversation.
If someone wants to argue points that I don't care about, I tell them swiftly that they're talking about unverifiable, subjective ideas and that no discernible fact could possibly be derived from any of it. Therefore, if one wants to debate, we can do so upon things that are real, tangible, and actually make a difference in our reality. It is only within those boundaries that we can develop real, living ideas. While the hypotheticals and the fancy myths may influence the behavior of billions of people, progress is rarely made by rehashing bad ideas. And believe me, religion is a really bad idea. The fact that the world is so mired in fantasy tells me that the path of progress points outward, toward rationality. While this may be my opinion alone, I intend to use real, substantial ideas to help me see clearly.
The rest is fluff.
28 May 2010
Why I Don't Bother With Holy Texts
Labels:
Atheism
25 May 2010
Understand DNA, Understand Life.
One of the most pressing questions I've had in the past regarding life was how a cell knows what it is and how to act in the presence of others. We are, after all, beings made up of multiple cells that all work together to do amazing tasks. Though seemingly coordinated, our cells aren't really aware of themselves or others, but they certainly act like it. To the untrained mind, complex reactions like the immune system and orgasm seem like products of a cellular intelligence, but they're not. The question nagged me until I finally set about on a question to figure it out. The simple answer is "DNA," but that doesn't begin to explain the elegance with which cells interact with each other to form multicellular organisms and, eventually, us. The other key to the puzzle is "local rules," or, as Richard Dawkins explains, simple instructions on how to perform, actualized by genes, replicated within every instance of a cell, all working as if conducted by a leader. Asymmetrical cell division, which accounts for the varying types of cells, affects the available elements within a cell, causing differentiation. Mash it all together and life makes more and more sense.
An aside: There is no need to throw one's hands up and proclaim overwhelming complexity anymore. Nor is there room for cop-outs like claiming that all of this knowledge is merely theoretical. The recent breakthrough synthesis of a living bacteria cell from man-made DNA puts it all to rest. We know how life works and it certainly isn't god. The most remarkable point gleaned from this feat, in my opinion, is the triumph of science amidst all the doubt in its competence. It works, suckers. I've heard proponents of Intelligent Design actually claim that the synthetic DNA experiment actually reinforces their idea. Beyond saying they are idiotic, I would like to state that you cannot piggyback on the triumphs of the principles you flat out deny.
Once I understood that life works on a minuscule level, the rest seemed to fall into place. Natural selection can be reduced to a simple idea: which DNA molecules successfully replicate and which do not. The entirety of life is nothing more than a DNA replication engine. We are nothing but vessels for our DNA to replicate through. The first question to challenge this is, "Why would DNA go through all the trouble and energy of creating an entire living organism just to replicate itself when it could be a single cell that just divides itself?" A valid argument. It is true that it takes a significant amount of energy and resources to become us and then to find a mate and reproduce and that seems like such a waste when more efficient ways are available. Once again, there is a simple answer and there is a complicated answer.
Life is an arms race. Keeping in mind that natural selection is a passive result more than it is the agenda of nature (hint: nature has no agenda), life on Earth today is simply a reflection of "what worked." In the beginning, survival of DNA (More accurately, RNA. DNA developed later.) was as simple as a cell dividing to become another organism. All cells need energy, however, and over time, a few things happened. Some organisms became better at using energy than others, resulting in the monopolization of resources. This spelled out the demise of some strains of DNA, while others flourished and continued to slowly change over time. The ones that became better and better at monopolizing the resources won out. Eventually, different abilities evolved that affected how cells interact with each other and their environment. Some cells attacked other cells, so the ones to survive were the ones that were either fit to destroy or fit to survive. Some organisms developed new ways to take advantage of the energy around them, so their survival became independent of the survival of other organisms until, of course, they became food. Every new advancement changed the game and the rules for survival favored different and opposing traits.
Evolution: a giant game of one-upmanship. So, why go through all this trouble? Over the course of a few billion years, the arms race has veered so far off the course of simple cell reproduction, that our DNA now contains so much information about adaptive changes, enough to create us. Along the way, the adaptations have not been ideal (See: vagus nerve), but they have been enough.
Before I get too excited, I should return to the original point. Science is hard. It is complicated, convoluted, confusing and confounding. But it works. And if you go through the effort to understand how it works at even the smallest level, the rest works itself out. Understand DNA's role in a cell's creation and management. Understand the local rules of a cell as determined by its DNA. Understand the chemical reactions and why they happen. Understand life. You may say that this takes all of the passion out of existence, but that's not my problem. If life sucks without the idea that there's some magic, you can blame your parents for bringing you up with unrealistic expectations. As for me, I love the elegance of it all. The fact that I am nothing more than a bag of interacting molecules is rather cool. Know your true self and live it.
An aside: There is no need to throw one's hands up and proclaim overwhelming complexity anymore. Nor is there room for cop-outs like claiming that all of this knowledge is merely theoretical. The recent breakthrough synthesis of a living bacteria cell from man-made DNA puts it all to rest. We know how life works and it certainly isn't god. The most remarkable point gleaned from this feat, in my opinion, is the triumph of science amidst all the doubt in its competence. It works, suckers. I've heard proponents of Intelligent Design actually claim that the synthetic DNA experiment actually reinforces their idea. Beyond saying they are idiotic, I would like to state that you cannot piggyback on the triumphs of the principles you flat out deny.
Once I understood that life works on a minuscule level, the rest seemed to fall into place. Natural selection can be reduced to a simple idea: which DNA molecules successfully replicate and which do not. The entirety of life is nothing more than a DNA replication engine. We are nothing but vessels for our DNA to replicate through. The first question to challenge this is, "Why would DNA go through all the trouble and energy of creating an entire living organism just to replicate itself when it could be a single cell that just divides itself?" A valid argument. It is true that it takes a significant amount of energy and resources to become us and then to find a mate and reproduce and that seems like such a waste when more efficient ways are available. Once again, there is a simple answer and there is a complicated answer.
Life is an arms race. Keeping in mind that natural selection is a passive result more than it is the agenda of nature (hint: nature has no agenda), life on Earth today is simply a reflection of "what worked." In the beginning, survival of DNA (More accurately, RNA. DNA developed later.) was as simple as a cell dividing to become another organism. All cells need energy, however, and over time, a few things happened. Some organisms became better at using energy than others, resulting in the monopolization of resources. This spelled out the demise of some strains of DNA, while others flourished and continued to slowly change over time. The ones that became better and better at monopolizing the resources won out. Eventually, different abilities evolved that affected how cells interact with each other and their environment. Some cells attacked other cells, so the ones to survive were the ones that were either fit to destroy or fit to survive. Some organisms developed new ways to take advantage of the energy around them, so their survival became independent of the survival of other organisms until, of course, they became food. Every new advancement changed the game and the rules for survival favored different and opposing traits.
Evolution: a giant game of one-upmanship. So, why go through all this trouble? Over the course of a few billion years, the arms race has veered so far off the course of simple cell reproduction, that our DNA now contains so much information about adaptive changes, enough to create us. Along the way, the adaptations have not been ideal (See: vagus nerve), but they have been enough.
Before I get too excited, I should return to the original point. Science is hard. It is complicated, convoluted, confusing and confounding. But it works. And if you go through the effort to understand how it works at even the smallest level, the rest works itself out. Understand DNA's role in a cell's creation and management. Understand the local rules of a cell as determined by its DNA. Understand the chemical reactions and why they happen. Understand life. You may say that this takes all of the passion out of existence, but that's not my problem. If life sucks without the idea that there's some magic, you can blame your parents for bringing you up with unrealistic expectations. As for me, I love the elegance of it all. The fact that I am nothing more than a bag of interacting molecules is rather cool. Know your true self and live it.
Labels:
Science
19 May 2010
A Reason For Reason
Sam Harris once made a speech about the community title of "atheists" and how we (speaking for fellow "atheists") are fools for accepting the label. While I hesitate to let go of the prestige, I agree with him. To paraphrase, we are allowing ourselves to be grouped into an opposing viewpoint and thus be marginalized. Polls state that atheists are among the least trusted demographic within the US and by identifying ourselves as atheists, we are allowing people to lump us in with all of the misconceptions about us. Now, abandoning the title of "atheist" does nothing to change the fact that, yes, we are atheists, but it opens up the door for much easier progress. Harris states, simply, that there are bigger fish to fry than simply proving people wrong about god. By switching agendas, from godlessness to simply reason, we become much more accessible. The focus switches from claiming something doesn't exist, to fighting for a positive cause. Reason. This is a concept that few people would stand against.
A friend's words to me now make sense. When he said that he didn't like the idea of a group of people who stood against something, rather than for something, I was quick to correct him. In my eyes, the word "atheist" has grown to mean a lot more than just "doesn't believe in gods." Rather, the community that has developed around atheism has become more of a pro-truth, pro-science, pro-reason, pro-logic group. Though the word "atheist" within the dictionary implies none of that, from a logical standpoint, the congregation of people simply based off of their lack of belief seems kind of silly outside the context of a support group. Do I seem like the kind of person who needs support? Obviously, from an outsider's perspective, we are none of those things. We are simply against. We are here to rain on parades. Though it is not true, we consent to the definition when we apply the label to ourselves.
So here comes the realization that we need better PR. Atheism may be the logical conclusion to the application of our principles, but there is a journey that must take place before we reach our destination. We have always been advocates of using reason to solve problems and answer questions, but fighting under the banner of reason is quite different. There are not many groups out there who would outright deny reason as the best course of action. In fact, we might find ourselves with unlikely allies when we apply the idea of reason instead of atheism. Moderately religious or spiritual people would more easily fight along side a movement for reason than they would a movement for atheism. Additionally, the decidedly positive spin on the issue would earn more sympathy than the "grumpy atheist" personification does. When we fight for reason, we put ourselves on the right side of any argument.
With this, I would like to rededicate my blog to a few simple principles. The first of which is reason. I am on a mission to destroy arguments that fail the test of reality. I hope to find myself on the correct side, obviously, but I have a different way of determining I am correct. Some people think they are right because they meet some condition (eg. they are important for some reason), however the more reasonable way to determine correctness is to observe the benefits and detriments of the policies you uphold. In other words, you can't be correct before you know the answer. The next principle to which I dedicate my blog is evidence. This is the basis of all reason, the existence of fact, the only path to truth. Though evidence can lead one astray at times, it is not the evidence's fault for doing so - only our overeager minds in their drive to make sense of the world. Evidence is all that we have and it must not be ignored. Finally, I dedicate my blog to liberty. There is no question in my mind that freedom is the single most important aspect of human society. Though there are many questions that could cast doubt on the importance of freedom (One that comes to mind is that of finding a solution to overpopulation), I am dedicated to the search of solutions with freedom in mind before a single obstruction is ever considered.
The battle continues, but for me, it has a new name. We've always been fighting for reason; from getting the government to enforce the first amendment by removing references to god, to the defeat of crazy ideas like Intelligent Design. But it's always been too easy for people to dismiss us because they see us as flighty snipers of their freedoms. Now we have a retort. "So, you're saying you don't agree with a reasonable proposition?" Preposterous.
A friend's words to me now make sense. When he said that he didn't like the idea of a group of people who stood against something, rather than for something, I was quick to correct him. In my eyes, the word "atheist" has grown to mean a lot more than just "doesn't believe in gods." Rather, the community that has developed around atheism has become more of a pro-truth, pro-science, pro-reason, pro-logic group. Though the word "atheist" within the dictionary implies none of that, from a logical standpoint, the congregation of people simply based off of their lack of belief seems kind of silly outside the context of a support group. Do I seem like the kind of person who needs support? Obviously, from an outsider's perspective, we are none of those things. We are simply against. We are here to rain on parades. Though it is not true, we consent to the definition when we apply the label to ourselves.
So here comes the realization that we need better PR. Atheism may be the logical conclusion to the application of our principles, but there is a journey that must take place before we reach our destination. We have always been advocates of using reason to solve problems and answer questions, but fighting under the banner of reason is quite different. There are not many groups out there who would outright deny reason as the best course of action. In fact, we might find ourselves with unlikely allies when we apply the idea of reason instead of atheism. Moderately religious or spiritual people would more easily fight along side a movement for reason than they would a movement for atheism. Additionally, the decidedly positive spin on the issue would earn more sympathy than the "grumpy atheist" personification does. When we fight for reason, we put ourselves on the right side of any argument.
With this, I would like to rededicate my blog to a few simple principles. The first of which is reason. I am on a mission to destroy arguments that fail the test of reality. I hope to find myself on the correct side, obviously, but I have a different way of determining I am correct. Some people think they are right because they meet some condition (eg. they are important for some reason), however the more reasonable way to determine correctness is to observe the benefits and detriments of the policies you uphold. In other words, you can't be correct before you know the answer. The next principle to which I dedicate my blog is evidence. This is the basis of all reason, the existence of fact, the only path to truth. Though evidence can lead one astray at times, it is not the evidence's fault for doing so - only our overeager minds in their drive to make sense of the world. Evidence is all that we have and it must not be ignored. Finally, I dedicate my blog to liberty. There is no question in my mind that freedom is the single most important aspect of human society. Though there are many questions that could cast doubt on the importance of freedom (One that comes to mind is that of finding a solution to overpopulation), I am dedicated to the search of solutions with freedom in mind before a single obstruction is ever considered.
The battle continues, but for me, it has a new name. We've always been fighting for reason; from getting the government to enforce the first amendment by removing references to god, to the defeat of crazy ideas like Intelligent Design. But it's always been too easy for people to dismiss us because they see us as flighty snipers of their freedoms. Now we have a retort. "So, you're saying you don't agree with a reasonable proposition?" Preposterous.
12 May 2010
Atheism and Human Rights
"Historically, the most terrible things - war, genocide, and slavery - have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience." - Howard Zinn
First, a final word in response to the idea that there have been atheist government leaders that have advocated serious crimes to humanity. This is true, but the fact that they are atheist does not actually matter. Sam Harris has pointed this out, but I feel like I can make the point more succinct: Nobody is arguing that atheists cannot be responsible for bad things. The argument is simply that atheism has never been the motivation for any atrocity. This claim holds true in the case of Joseph Stalin, the glowing example, whose motivation took its roots in ill-prepared communism, nationalism and eugenics. Let's lay that argument to rest.
My friends have asked me why I feel the need to go after religion so fervently with, seemingly, every piece I write. Because it is necessary, I respond, to protect my way of life from a collective majority. And what of those whose faith hurts nobody? They are the most important people to convince! They are a part of the majority whether they know it or not. They are the statistics that are used to make points and win elections. Anyone who has not bothered to question their own ideas remains a silent supporter of the default. To live, we must stand up for what we believe. Freedom is not a spectator sport.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson
Communication is a funny thing. I feel that words are more often used to shape perceptions than they are to convey information. Information, to the common ear, stings. It is a bullshit proposition that you'll catch more flies with honey when it comes to personal spiritual beliefs. That won't stop people from insisting that I tune it down, sweeten it up, and come off my high horse. They know full well that it won't change a thing, but they know it's coming and they'd rather it not smart so much. Sorry, there will be no softness in my message. You can plug your ears, but I will not dull my voice.
I urge anyone who may be hurt by my words to take solace, at least, in the following reassurance: science is not easily understood. Science is only now (within the last 70 years or so) starting to really get it. There are two points I want to make that the reasonable among you will agree with: that the scientific method is the most reliable way we have to learn the truth about our world, and that we must find explanations that fit our observations, instead of the other way around. It will take another couple decades before science is relied upon more than faith, but it is coming. We have to make sure that there are no hurdles to jump. If that means being intellectually ruthless about it, so be it.
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
How can I equate atheism with freedom? I suppose if you've never stepped outside of your belief, you'd not understand. It isn't until you start questioning things that you find the bounds of your constraints. Stretch out your arms and your mind, find the farthest point that they are allowed to go. With religion, and I'm talking philosophically as well as communally, there is not much space to roam. I'm sure I will be told that I have no idea what I am talking about, that religion is actually what sets others free. The fundamental difference in the two arguments is that atheism requires one to let go of dogmas while faith requires one to adopt them. Understanding this, it is clear that some people may not realize what freedom really is. You really must test every standard to acquire this knowledge.
I trust that the more knowledge and intellectual honesty someone has, the more likely they are to happen upon the conclusion of atheism. I say this because it clearly identifies knowledge as an enemy of faith, which may ring some bells inside the heads of anyone who has ever heard of the struggle between the religious community and school districts to teach children various materials. From altering text books to treating intelligent design as a scientific theory, the assault on knowledge is probably faith's most important battle. With more and more members of the newest generation lacking in faith, political pressures by the oldest generation are in place to plug up this leak. As a future parent, I want to know that my child will be taught about the real world, not the imaginary one. As a tax payer, I want to know that I am funding the progression of my society, not the discard of preciously important scientific accomplishments.
"No one is free, until everyone is free." - Dr. Martin Luther King
There are two vital assessments I think every religious person must make. The first would be to evaluate how obedient they would be to a genuine idol. The second would be to estimate their ability to call out a fraud, in the case that all of their peers could not. Indeed, religion is seen as a very convenient tool by the upper and ruling classes. As such, it has been infiltrated by countless frauds (some admitted, some not), but the outing of these frauds was not done by their followers, but by outside observers and by the actors themselves. We, as skeptics, are not here to rain on a humble believer's parade. We are here to make sure they get their fair shake. So far, nobody has passed the test.
First, a final word in response to the idea that there have been atheist government leaders that have advocated serious crimes to humanity. This is true, but the fact that they are atheist does not actually matter. Sam Harris has pointed this out, but I feel like I can make the point more succinct: Nobody is arguing that atheists cannot be responsible for bad things. The argument is simply that atheism has never been the motivation for any atrocity. This claim holds true in the case of Joseph Stalin, the glowing example, whose motivation took its roots in ill-prepared communism, nationalism and eugenics. Let's lay that argument to rest.
My friends have asked me why I feel the need to go after religion so fervently with, seemingly, every piece I write. Because it is necessary, I respond, to protect my way of life from a collective majority. And what of those whose faith hurts nobody? They are the most important people to convince! They are a part of the majority whether they know it or not. They are the statistics that are used to make points and win elections. Anyone who has not bothered to question their own ideas remains a silent supporter of the default. To live, we must stand up for what we believe. Freedom is not a spectator sport.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson
Communication is a funny thing. I feel that words are more often used to shape perceptions than they are to convey information. Information, to the common ear, stings. It is a bullshit proposition that you'll catch more flies with honey when it comes to personal spiritual beliefs. That won't stop people from insisting that I tune it down, sweeten it up, and come off my high horse. They know full well that it won't change a thing, but they know it's coming and they'd rather it not smart so much. Sorry, there will be no softness in my message. You can plug your ears, but I will not dull my voice.
I urge anyone who may be hurt by my words to take solace, at least, in the following reassurance: science is not easily understood. Science is only now (within the last 70 years or so) starting to really get it. There are two points I want to make that the reasonable among you will agree with: that the scientific method is the most reliable way we have to learn the truth about our world, and that we must find explanations that fit our observations, instead of the other way around. It will take another couple decades before science is relied upon more than faith, but it is coming. We have to make sure that there are no hurdles to jump. If that means being intellectually ruthless about it, so be it.
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
How can I equate atheism with freedom? I suppose if you've never stepped outside of your belief, you'd not understand. It isn't until you start questioning things that you find the bounds of your constraints. Stretch out your arms and your mind, find the farthest point that they are allowed to go. With religion, and I'm talking philosophically as well as communally, there is not much space to roam. I'm sure I will be told that I have no idea what I am talking about, that religion is actually what sets others free. The fundamental difference in the two arguments is that atheism requires one to let go of dogmas while faith requires one to adopt them. Understanding this, it is clear that some people may not realize what freedom really is. You really must test every standard to acquire this knowledge.
I trust that the more knowledge and intellectual honesty someone has, the more likely they are to happen upon the conclusion of atheism. I say this because it clearly identifies knowledge as an enemy of faith, which may ring some bells inside the heads of anyone who has ever heard of the struggle between the religious community and school districts to teach children various materials. From altering text books to treating intelligent design as a scientific theory, the assault on knowledge is probably faith's most important battle. With more and more members of the newest generation lacking in faith, political pressures by the oldest generation are in place to plug up this leak. As a future parent, I want to know that my child will be taught about the real world, not the imaginary one. As a tax payer, I want to know that I am funding the progression of my society, not the discard of preciously important scientific accomplishments.
"No one is free, until everyone is free." - Dr. Martin Luther King
There are two vital assessments I think every religious person must make. The first would be to evaluate how obedient they would be to a genuine idol. The second would be to estimate their ability to call out a fraud, in the case that all of their peers could not. Indeed, religion is seen as a very convenient tool by the upper and ruling classes. As such, it has been infiltrated by countless frauds (some admitted, some not), but the outing of these frauds was not done by their followers, but by outside observers and by the actors themselves. We, as skeptics, are not here to rain on a humble believer's parade. We are here to make sure they get their fair shake. So far, nobody has passed the test.
Labels:
Atheism
05 May 2010
I'm Not Afraid of the Dark
When I was a kid, I lived in a large two-story house with a staircase that led down from the upper floor into a large, open living room. Slipping out of my bedroom for a glass of milk in the middle of the night was a feat of bravery. I stared into the vacuous darkness of the foyer, having only the banister and the carpeted steps to guide me as I descended. Even with my eyes opened wide, there was little light to adjust to and the silhouettes of the couches, end tables, wall art and fake plants moved like blobs in my shaky vision. The entoptic phenomena within my eyes created a light show that filled the shadows and the world I crept into writhed with ghosts pressing at the seams of reality. I would try to remain poised, telling myself that none of it was real, but the first tiny little noise to reach my ears from any corner would shock me and all deliberate movement would give way to a skittering rush, my toes and fingers digging into the carpet, carrying me as fast as I would go back up the stairs and into the sanctuary of my bed.
Today, it is a much different story. Having shed the consideration of anything remotely supernatural, there is now nothing to fear. I know there are no ghosts, just as I know there is no god. I have embraced an evidence-based world view, thus I step into the world without fear of the things that cannot really hurt me and cannot be proved. As I look back on all of the crazy stories I've heard while growing up, I feel sorry for all of my fellow adults who still believe in similar ideas. Nudity is a grown-up's Bloody Mary. Psychics are just the same as wishing wells. God is your Permanent Record. As we've grown up, we've slowly learned that those things don't really work, so why do we replace them with more superstitions? There is nothing lurking in the dark.
Fear is control and the supernatural is a construction of nothing but fear. We are afraid of the unknown: fate, death, purpose, uncertainty, ignorance. The supernatural seeks to provide answers for the things we are frightened about. To let go of our fear, we must first be comfortable with the unknown and the unknowable. To realize that there are questions we may never be able to answer, that this lack of knowledge will never really matter, is true peace of mind. By moving beyond our fears, by accepting our nihilistic lack of purpose, we obtain freedom of thought. When there is no reason to worry, there is no reason to hold back. And any man, by comparison, who says you must serve to be free is surely mad.
So what of those who claim to have actually seen a ghost? My ex was one of those people. Growing up in a superstitious Chinese community, she told me stories of dark magic and haunted school buildings. When I stabbed my chopsticks into my rice to rest them, she rushed to pull them out and set them across the top of my bowl. "That is how you offer food to the dead," she explained. "You'll attract their attention if you do that." I asked her to explain why all of her supernatural experiences seemed to end when she left Asia and, naturally, grew up. She could not explain, but she maintained the fear of ghosts. Then, strangely, the experiences returned when she was most alone and vulnerable. She slept in our old, furniture-less apartment after I moved out and she surrounded herself with bowls of water to protect her from the aggressive female spirit that she sensed. I don't think I'll ever be able to convince her otherwise. She's felt the chill and is convinced. It is sad, though, that she'll continue to fear that which has no merit, and the rituals she performs will be but placebos to a phantom threat. It is even more sad that her supernatural beliefs provide nothing but fear and worry.
Then, there is religion. Its trick is to make people grateful for their fears, and then to provide an escape. Wouldn't it be nice to learn that there never was any reason to worry in the first place? There is no original sin. Likewise, there is no reward for acting out in anyone's name, or for casting aside your Earthly desires. I believe learning that there is nothing inherent in this life and realizing the fleeting reality of it all will make life better for everyone. Once you've realized that this is all we've got, it's a lot like getting out of debt. I believe the dark is lovely because it represents opportunity and adventure. There is no need to flood it with false idols who claim to be the light of the world, no. Leave it dark and let us illuminate only the parts we can make sense of. Step boldly down the stairs.
Today, it is a much different story. Having shed the consideration of anything remotely supernatural, there is now nothing to fear. I know there are no ghosts, just as I know there is no god. I have embraced an evidence-based world view, thus I step into the world without fear of the things that cannot really hurt me and cannot be proved. As I look back on all of the crazy stories I've heard while growing up, I feel sorry for all of my fellow adults who still believe in similar ideas. Nudity is a grown-up's Bloody Mary. Psychics are just the same as wishing wells. God is your Permanent Record. As we've grown up, we've slowly learned that those things don't really work, so why do we replace them with more superstitions? There is nothing lurking in the dark.
Fear is control and the supernatural is a construction of nothing but fear. We are afraid of the unknown: fate, death, purpose, uncertainty, ignorance. The supernatural seeks to provide answers for the things we are frightened about. To let go of our fear, we must first be comfortable with the unknown and the unknowable. To realize that there are questions we may never be able to answer, that this lack of knowledge will never really matter, is true peace of mind. By moving beyond our fears, by accepting our nihilistic lack of purpose, we obtain freedom of thought. When there is no reason to worry, there is no reason to hold back. And any man, by comparison, who says you must serve to be free is surely mad.
So what of those who claim to have actually seen a ghost? My ex was one of those people. Growing up in a superstitious Chinese community, she told me stories of dark magic and haunted school buildings. When I stabbed my chopsticks into my rice to rest them, she rushed to pull them out and set them across the top of my bowl. "That is how you offer food to the dead," she explained. "You'll attract their attention if you do that." I asked her to explain why all of her supernatural experiences seemed to end when she left Asia and, naturally, grew up. She could not explain, but she maintained the fear of ghosts. Then, strangely, the experiences returned when she was most alone and vulnerable. She slept in our old, furniture-less apartment after I moved out and she surrounded herself with bowls of water to protect her from the aggressive female spirit that she sensed. I don't think I'll ever be able to convince her otherwise. She's felt the chill and is convinced. It is sad, though, that she'll continue to fear that which has no merit, and the rituals she performs will be but placebos to a phantom threat. It is even more sad that her supernatural beliefs provide nothing but fear and worry.
Then, there is religion. Its trick is to make people grateful for their fears, and then to provide an escape. Wouldn't it be nice to learn that there never was any reason to worry in the first place? There is no original sin. Likewise, there is no reward for acting out in anyone's name, or for casting aside your Earthly desires. I believe learning that there is nothing inherent in this life and realizing the fleeting reality of it all will make life better for everyone. Once you've realized that this is all we've got, it's a lot like getting out of debt. I believe the dark is lovely because it represents opportunity and adventure. There is no need to flood it with false idols who claim to be the light of the world, no. Leave it dark and let us illuminate only the parts we can make sense of. Step boldly down the stairs.
04 May 2010
Learning How To Love
I remember looking into my ex's big, round eyes, swollen and bloodshot from crying, and hearing her tell me how I should be treating her. I was stuck. I dug deep into my heart, but I could not find the will or desire to give her those things. They wrenched my ego to even consider. Yet, I told her that I loved her, and I believed I did. In the end, it would be my lack of cooperation that contributed to the relationship's demise. My whole romantic history is littered with cases of me refusing to compromise or give and now that I find myself in a relationship where everything I've always refused to do now seems reasonable, I'm wondering what happened. Who could have imagined me, Andrew, buying flowers and giving her the window seat? Words have always come easy for me, so it was simple to tell them I loved them, but I could never find the resolve to put aside my own desires for them. Suddenly, I'm turning into the guy I've always thought was a defeated, pussy-whipped chump. Strangely, I've never felt better about it.
These things come in baby steps, though. I've never believed in chivalry. Blame my middle sister and her brand of feminism (ironic that she's now born-again). There's never been a pussy on my pedestal. My previous girlfriends have all tasted my refusal to compromise and my rejection of romance. If they want to see a chick flick, I'd say, they can see it with other chicks. It wasn't that I didn't want to go to the movies with them, but more an effort to streamline my life. Why bother paying to see a movie with bad reviews just because it has some sappy romance in it? I didn't see the underlying importance of compromise. While I would have just as quickly agreed to see a movie of the same caliber of "Love, Actually," this was lost on my partners, who just wanted to do something with me that was their choice for once. How many times must one fail this test of love before they learn?
I did my marriage all wrong. Nearly every turn was an embarrassing disaster, sparked by my inexperience, magnified by my selfishness. Marriage itself was not something I cared much for. Why go through some elaborate and stressful ceremony just to profess the love you already have? It was perfectly acceptable to live as a couple without getting married. More streamlining. I eventually relented to the notion, but everything I did to placate it was half-assed. The rings, the ceremony, the life; all rushed, cheap and thoughtless. I reacted silently as she pleaded to me for more, but I felt that the ideas she had in her head of marriage and weddings were fairy tales made for suckers. Any man who would agree to them, thus, was a sap. I thought she was the one who should get real.
It is funny to me, now, that all those compromises I refused to make are things that I look forward to in my current relationship. I wouldn't mind getting her something nice and sparkly. I would proudly stand with her before our families and make those promises. I'll even agree to watch a terrible rom-com if I'm drunk enough. I'm not sure how I got here. I want to say that I've learned from my mistakes, but the mistakes I'm talking about are not the obvious ones. The truth is that, as long as you're thinking for yourself, you will never want to see a stupid movie if it has nothing for you. Likewise, you can't learn to like the idea of a full-on wedding ceremony if that's not who you are. I think what I've learned instead is how to know what I really like to see in someone. What I've learned is when to really use the word "love." I can say now that I want these things, not because they please me, but because of how they make my partner feel. It isn't that I've learned to play the game, but that I've found someone who makes the game fun and worth playing.
Dorkys, I love you.
These things come in baby steps, though. I've never believed in chivalry. Blame my middle sister and her brand of feminism (ironic that she's now born-again). There's never been a pussy on my pedestal. My previous girlfriends have all tasted my refusal to compromise and my rejection of romance. If they want to see a chick flick, I'd say, they can see it with other chicks. It wasn't that I didn't want to go to the movies with them, but more an effort to streamline my life. Why bother paying to see a movie with bad reviews just because it has some sappy romance in it? I didn't see the underlying importance of compromise. While I would have just as quickly agreed to see a movie of the same caliber of "Love, Actually," this was lost on my partners, who just wanted to do something with me that was their choice for once. How many times must one fail this test of love before they learn?
I did my marriage all wrong. Nearly every turn was an embarrassing disaster, sparked by my inexperience, magnified by my selfishness. Marriage itself was not something I cared much for. Why go through some elaborate and stressful ceremony just to profess the love you already have? It was perfectly acceptable to live as a couple without getting married. More streamlining. I eventually relented to the notion, but everything I did to placate it was half-assed. The rings, the ceremony, the life; all rushed, cheap and thoughtless. I reacted silently as she pleaded to me for more, but I felt that the ideas she had in her head of marriage and weddings were fairy tales made for suckers. Any man who would agree to them, thus, was a sap. I thought she was the one who should get real.
It is funny to me, now, that all those compromises I refused to make are things that I look forward to in my current relationship. I wouldn't mind getting her something nice and sparkly. I would proudly stand with her before our families and make those promises. I'll even agree to watch a terrible rom-com if I'm drunk enough. I'm not sure how I got here. I want to say that I've learned from my mistakes, but the mistakes I'm talking about are not the obvious ones. The truth is that, as long as you're thinking for yourself, you will never want to see a stupid movie if it has nothing for you. Likewise, you can't learn to like the idea of a full-on wedding ceremony if that's not who you are. I think what I've learned instead is how to know what I really like to see in someone. What I've learned is when to really use the word "love." I can say now that I want these things, not because they please me, but because of how they make my partner feel. It isn't that I've learned to play the game, but that I've found someone who makes the game fun and worth playing.
Dorkys, I love you.
Labels:
Personal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)