Tuesday, November 29, 2005

 

A skeptic's view of God

Is God is nothing more than an attempt to explain order and good fortune by those who do not understand the mathematics of chance, the principles of self-organizing systems, or the psychology of the human mind? For as long as pollsters have been asking the question, roughly 90% of Americans have been claiming to believe in God, and a sizable majority believes that God takes a personal interest in their lives and intervenes to help them. When President Bush said, "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did," most Americans were not alarmed to learn that their leader was receiving orders that no one else could hear. America is an unusually religious nation, but even in the world's least religious nations the majority of people claim to believe in God.

Read more:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gilbert05/gilbert05_index.html

Comments:
God is everything we do not know.

People know different things.

We can compare people's belief in God to their capacity for discernment or sensitivity.

Imagine that our range of perceptions could be bundled up and called a microspcope. Its only natural that people who got their microsopes in a hobby kit are going to have different conceptualizations of God than those with electron tunnelling microscopes.

Personally, I think all Bush has are weak reading glasses . . .
 
I've been thinking about 'moral high ground'.
Let me find some avatars.

Mother Teresa, of course.
(deceased, unfortunately)
Dalai Lama(?)
Not Kofi Annan
El Baradei(?)
The German pope(?)
(who is he anyhow?)
Not Schroeder (retired)
Not Chirac
No figure in the entire middle east.
No figure in Europe.
No figure in Africa.
Hugo Chavez(?)...no
No figure in South America.
Bono(?)
Good grief...Bill Gates(???)
It's ludicrous. Gates pilfered 90% of the software
he's grown wealthy on!
Barbara Boxer (?)
John Kerry (?)
Hillary (?)
Robert F Kennedy jr.(?)
Al Franken (?)
Ariana Huffington (?)

There would seem to be an ethics overabundance,
in those currently out of national office,
and a corresponding ethical dearth,
in all those wielding national power across the globe.

Strange!

Is it that attaining high office is inevitably corrupting,
or is it the converse,
that being powerless while desiring such office
purifies the inner vision, evoking 'superior perspectives'
by wishing to seem better than the guy who got in?

Is the concept of ethics, including the sub-notion of
"the moral high ground" simply an expedient modern day
smear tactic, spinning wannabes 'up',
and incumbents 'down'?

As Bill Clinton stood in the oval office cloakroom,
gazing down at a 19 year old idiot on her knees before him,
did he have any inkling of where high ground might lie?
Oh, but he didn't kill anyone,.... right.
Only 3000+ victims of 9/11, paying in blood for his
3 year inattention to the duties of office.
(And what about Vince Foster?)

Are we in the midst of a huge cooperative making of myth?
Is morality, humanity, and intelligence now rated overall
by how deeply we participate in a demonization feeding frenzy,
aimed at , basically, ourselves?

Are thousands of elitist wannabe's talking down the only effective
people, the only effective strategies we possess?
Did Iraq not accept the Bush plan?
Was the Iraq election a PR fake?
(like the mock Apollo moon landings?)

Does John Maher really believe his thinking prowess,
and his moral creed are anywhere near those of
Condoleeza Rice?

Does the discredited raper-of-endowments-slated-for-the-poor
Al Franken think 20 years of coke sniffing at SNL has given him
sufficient stature to diss all incumbents?

Does the so-called "Progressive Movement" deify itself,
bestowing all good upon themselves,
placing all evil on a delicious scapegoat,
who will roast up nicely, after the sacrifice?


392 words
 
True sceptics & true believers have one thing very much in common & that is their minds are about as open as a clam.

The sceptic is going to consentrate solely on debunking regardless of the unexplained or any kind of phenomena.

The believer is going to insist totally on their faith based belief system regardless of common sense or science.

I don't care to converse with either of them because a fruitful or thoughtful conversation is out of the question.

Talking with either of them seems to always lead to an argument which is rarely fruitful or thoughtful.
 
May I add President Bush should be careful as to actually naming the advisors he enjoys direct contact with.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

eXTReMe Tracker