Godheval

Several days ago, a woman in Papua New Guinea was burned alive. On suspicions of witchcraft, no less. As an American, my gut instinct is to revile the people responsible, perhaps even the entire culture that allows for such brutality. As a former student of anthropology, I am forced to make an attempt to look at the situation objectively and without judgment. I am not one to call other cultures “primitive”, because I recognize that the word carries a negative connotation in describing non-Western cultures who have developed in a different direction. Instead of recognizing those differences as mere facts, it creates a qualitative distinction between those cultures and the “West”, implying that the other cultures are somehow backwards or inferior.

As a student of religion, I try (with varying degrees of success) to be empathetic to the beliefs of others that differ from my own. It is one of the goals of my personal philosophy to reconcile the disparate views of the many human religions towards a perennial “truth” of sorts and establish a common ground. Still, I often find myself very critical of certain practices, not just because they are alien to me, but because they fly in the face of greater principles which I see reflected in all of the worlds cultures and religions.

Although I claim not to believe in anything, maintaining my position as a skeptic in all matters, there are things that I feel must, or at least should by virtue of some universal ethic, be true. These things I argue for vehemently, even at times contradicting my claims of open-mindedness and absolute skepticism. But as I sit here today, I am considering the possibility that all the ideas I hold dear, all principles I consider consistent with any sort of divine or cosmic justice, are completely false. And so I am also forced to accept the possibility that the universe – and by proxy this world – is unequivocally hostile. The only reason that I am able to engage in any ideological fight for my ideals is due to some quasi-belief that there is some benevolent undercurrent to the universe and its processes.

I am not so quick to call this undercurrent “God” or anything of the sort, but it seems it would require a willful and intelligent intervention to countermand the natural cruelty of the universe. And in the absence of a belief in such a being (but also the absence of a disbelief), I have to consider that perhaps all things will not “work out in the end”. If, for example, the ideologies that facilitate (even if only indirectly) racism, subjugation, genocide, slavery, socioeconomic disparity, world poverty, and other such global ills, are more representative of reality than the counter-arguments for a better world, then what else can I think but that there truly is no cosmic justice or benevolent undercurrent, and that the universe is hostile to my interests and in opposition to my ideals?

And how am I to stomach this, or to reconcile the idea with any hope for the future? Religious ideologues placate this sort of anxiety with a belief in the afterlife, going as far as to accept the evil of the material world as inconsequential. But what are the rest of us to do?

I was watching the Democratic debate in New Hampshire which took place on June 3rd, hoping to see how Kucinich weighed in against the other candidates. But I didn’t get to see too much of him, and that brought something critical to my attention. Kucinich, more than any other candidate was marginalized throughout the debate. Not even a third as many questions were addressed or even fielded to him as were to the other candidates. The debate was dominated by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, who – not so coincidentally I imagine – were positioned at the center of the stage, while Kucinich and Gravel, the two most liberal candidates, were placed on the far left and right sides.

As much planning as goes into these things, there is no doubt in my mind that these logistics were intentional. So why would Kucinich be marginalized? Perhaps because the debate was regulated by CNN, a mass media network, and Kucinich espouses two things which run contrary to their interests – open debates (meaning not media controlled) and media reform – addressing things such as breaking up the monopolies of the big conglomerates and diminishing the power of their lobby. The interplay of politics and the media creates an interesting spectacle…

On a completely unrelated note, I have another interesting discovery for today. Apparently, the relationships between the distances between sun and earth, moon and earth, and the sizes of the sun and moon make it so that from earth the sun and moon appear virtually the exact same size. To put it more clearly, the ratio of sun distance to sun size and the ratio of moon distance to moon size are the SAME. This is why full eclipses are even possible.

Now considering the mythic significance of the sun and moon in cultures throughout the world, and that the Earth is the only planet where such a relationship exists, doesn’t this seem to be an uncanny coincidence? While I’m not saying that it necessitates divine design, it definitely makes one wonder. We may say – and it may even be true – that natural selection, either gradually or by punctuated equilibrum, can account for all of the complex life forms on the planet and all of the complex relationships between them. But once you leave earth, Darwin’s idea cannot count for apparent instances of design. This really is no small thing. But coincidence or divinely intended, it is certainly remarkable.

It is said that we learn something new everyday. And of course, technically, it’s true. We discover all sorts of trivial things like “Aunt so and so can’t cook” or “Some people wear Obscure Band X” T-shirts. But who cares about any of that? Do we learn things everyday that are actually of any interest or real consequence? I would like to. It doesn’t have to be major – I won’t finish a book everyday or do a research paper, but it’d be nice to take away some little worthwhile nugget of information at the end of each day. At the very least, I should have something to talk about here everyday – if I remember to do so.

So today’s interesting tidbit is that there seems to be a fundamental flaw with modern (especially Western) astrology – beyond the obvious criticisms of its general authenticity. The different signs correspond to the “ecliptic” – which is the path of the sun as perceived by us here on Earth – as it aligns with the different constellations. The first problem is that in the Western system, the dates for each sign do not at all align with the constellations. For example, the sun is in Virgo well into October, but the dates for Virgos are August 23 – September 22nd.

More interesting than that, however, is that there are actually 13 constellations along the ecliptic – not 12 – and that thirteenth constellation, for whatever reason, is ignored in most astrological practices. It is called Ophiuchus or Serpentarius and the sun enters it from November 30th to December 17th. So if astrology is based on the position of the sun, there is an entire 30 degree arc that is ignored. One would think that such a discrepancy would cause all kinds of inaccuracies with regards to “readings”. I don’t place much stock in astrology at all, but at the same time, I’m not willing to summarily dismiss it as nonsense. Still, this indicates to me that what we call astrology today – and even historically – is subject to scrutiny, for yet another reason. So all of you Scorpios and Sagittarii born from November 30th to December 17th, you’re actually Serpents! And you don’t even get a sign. Sucks for you.

As much as I respect the minds of men such as Richard Dawkins – whose theory of memetics and applications of Darwin course throughout my personal philosophy – I am forced to separate his ideas from his dogma. His fanatical crusade against religion puts me an ideological odds with him insofar as he is completely unwilling to accept alternative viewpoints. Dawkins clearly demonstrates what I call the Atheists’ Dogma. Atheists – and here I am referring to the strong variety – have identified religion as the stuff of Jews and Christians and Muslims, of Hindus and Shintoists and probably to a lesser extent Buddhists.

These people are to the Atheists “irrational”, because their beliefs have no rational, i.e. scientific “proof” to support them. Atheists would criticize faith as being belief without proof, but what they are unable to grasp is that the kind of proof derived from the Western scientific method is not the only kind of proof there is in the world. I may or may not come back to that point, but for now I’ll let it simmer. What is more important is that Atheists, for all of their soapboxing, are just as faithful and “religious” as the people they criticize.

Dawkins, for example, has applied the idea of natural selection to purport that the entire universe in all of its seeming complexity could have come about by way of miniscule changes to existent phenomena over billions of years. These changes are so trivial as to not require any intelligence, but over the course of a long period of time, the accumulation of these changes can give the impression of infinite complexity which on its own suggests an intelligent designer. There are two words that must be recognized – “could” and “have”. For all of Dawkins’ brilliance in devising an alternative to the intelligent design argument, he did not at all disprove the existence of that designer. It is exactly the same on the other side. Citing natural selection and evolution as theory does not in any way discount their possible roles in creation, nor that Dawkins may be right in that they are the only explanation.

Both Dawkins and the ID advocates are guilty of the same type of dogmatic practice. They argue their theories as far as human knowledge and reason will take them – and when those reach their limits they traverse the remaining gap between known and unknown by means of a leap of faith. That’s right. FAITH. Every single Atheist is a person of faith, because they believe in something one hundred percent without one hundred percent certainty. And since there is, and probably never will be, any such thing as 100% certainty – every single person, whether an atheist or a Christian or an Australian Aborigine – in some way relies upon faith. The moment you fail to acknowledge this is the moment that you become dogmatic.

If you’re reading this and you even know who Richard Dawkins is, then perhaps you’ve seen a video or at least some footage where he embarasses a young woman who dares to question him. As he goes on his usual lengthy diatribe about how religion is inherently flawed, how there is no god, how all belief in such is based on a delusion, etc. etc. – she asks him a very simple question.

“What if you’re wrong?”

Dawkins does not answer this question, but instead falls back on the same rhetoric that has made him famous as “Darwin’s bulldog”. Instead of answering the question he attacks the validity of the question itself. The girl’s question probably did come from some place of belief, or perhaps a simple hope that Dawkins is wrong about the universe. Even if she was the most dogmatic, devout, and radical Christian conservative, it would not change the validity of the question. You cannot answer the question of “What if you’re wrong?” with “Well, what if you’re wrong, too?”, and this is basically the neener-neener rubber-and-glue argument that Dawkins makes to a storm of applause, leaving the girl’s question unanswered, and most likely humiliating the girl herself.

This is one of the products of the Atheists’ dogma. In my view, Atheists are people who are completely dissatisfied with the world – at least in terms of coming to any real physical or metaphysical conclusion about all of the hows and whys of its existence. They are people for whom religion has failed – and for all sorts of reasons – but for whom science does not offer a completely satisfying alternative. Yet at the other end of the perceived ideological spectrum are who they deem the “religious” folk, many of whom do not appear to have the great dissatisfaction or existential angst that consumes the atheists. Since the atheists are unable to attain this satisfaction – delusional or misguided as it may or may not be – they seek instead to destroy the satisfaction of others.

Damned if those “religious folk” are going to be happy and satisfied with what is clearly a delusion, clearly the product of underdeveloped and uninquisitive minds, clearly WRONG! How dare they be happy in their ignorance while we suffer in all of our infinite wisdom and rationality! We won’t stand for it!

This is the mantra of the Atheists. This is their driving force. Once they have reached the limit to what modern science can explain, and once they’ve exhausted all of their ideas for how the universe may or may not function, they completely stop contributing to the greater ideosphere of humanity. Unable to contribute or create once they’ve reached the self-constructed walls of Western rationality, they can only destroy. Where else do we witness this kind of radical and destructive ideology? Amongst the “religious fanatics” that atheists use as the primary subjects of their ire. How ironic it is that the two form a counter-extremist dichotomy, two corresponding points on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. As they launch their assaults against one another, most of their dogmatic banter flies over the heads of the majority of people, who are a mix of the scientific and religious, and who are humble enough to at least consider other points of view.

So what if you’re wrong, Dawkins? Atheists? The answer is just as simple as the question. If they’re wrong, they’re wrong. And the world goes on. If that turns out to be the case, then all that means is that it becomes time to re-evaluate the universe and to come up with new ideas. This ability to accept falsifiability, to acknowledge that one’s ideas – no matter how much “evidence” appears to support them – is vital to humanity’s continued social, cultural, and intellectual development, and in the pursuit of that ever-evasive ideal called “truth”.

In their dogmatic ideological stances, Dawkins and the atheists actually betray the tradition on which they so depend. Just like all other religious people, they question and examine the universe only as far as they care to – or are able to – and the rest is conjecture. They gather as much “evidence” as they need to support within their own minds a preconceived thesis – that there is no god – just as Christians or Muslims stake their opposing thesis on the “evidence” they gather from scripture or mystical experience. The two share a near identical epistemology.

So until the atheists open their minds to the possibility of their own error, it is as pointless to discuss religion with them as it is to discuss it with the fanatical Bible-thumping Christian. Observe them as they fail to contribute anything new to the age-old discussion – never acting, only reacting – as they point the finger at everyone else. They cannot field any questions because they do not have any answers, other than to say that no one else has the answers either.

The difference is…that the rest of us (i.e. the non-fanatics) are okay with that, whether we attribute it to the mystery of God or our own inadequacy as mere human beings. But the more forward-thinking amongst us continue to try and work towards those answers using whatever methods are at our disposal – be it “religion” or “science” or any combination of the two.

And the journey – the inquiry, the pondering, the meditation, the study – is the real fun of it all.