傻冒儿 Stupid Hat aka ShaMao'er

God, the Alien

Ok, back to my second favorite topic; Religion.

I was just washing my dishes and happened to start thinking about what would happen if I died and happened to meet God.  I was thinking if there really was some sort of trial and I was presented with all the evidence of my disbelief if I would recant or not and beg forgiveness.   I would have to say no.  If God created us with the ability to reason and come to logical conclusion whereby He cannot exist, then we cannot be held accountable for our use of that reason.  I do often think of an old friend who is a real intellectual and also an ardent Roman Catholic.  He once said that he is perfectly capable of logical analysis and thus conclusion that there is no God, but that that is the whole point.  God would reward those who have faith despite the preponderance of evidence of His nonexistence.  That bothered me at the time, and still bothers me to this day despite the fact that it is a lot of horse shit.    What would be the point of a God that acts like that?

Anyway, as I'm washing the dishes and thinking these things(of course the thinking itself took probably 10 seconds, while writing it down has taken a few minutes...),  I thought well if I meet God after I die than that would mean that God is real.  If God is real in a corporeal sense, not a figment of mankind's imagination, then It has to be made of something.  It would also have had to come from somewhere, a beginning.  In this case, God is nothing but an alien.  What do you call a sentient entity that is not a human and not from Earth?  You call it an alien.    None of this has anything to do with the various theories of aliens visiting earth and starting religions.  It was more the basic revelation that came to me as I washed the forks that if God exists, It is an alien.  I thought that was kind of cool. 

The wisdom of the plains

What I think about evolution    published in today's NY Times by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Hmm, where to start?   Clearly the Senator is a well-educated and articulate man, and yet he spouts such drivel. 

"But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason."

A very well written but ultimately nonsensical sentence.   When I read that line I think of the kind of quiz that children sometimes take where they are shown 3 pictures (say a cow, a pig, and a car) and asked to choose which one doesn't belong.   

It could be interpreted that he does not actually believe these things but is simply pandering to his Christian-right Kansas base.  But the fact that he chose to write such a detailed piece (when creationist type sound-bytes probably would suffice for that base) and publish it in the NY Times leads me to believe that it is likely he believes these things.

"It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science."

There is nothing "beyond the realm of empirical science".  There is or will be scientific explanation for every  phenomenon existing in nature; for the origin of that phenomenon; and for every biologically /genetically driven emotion, action, or belief of human beings. 

The question is moot anyways.  I dont know why I keep bringing it up.  It's just so frustrating to people like me who just can't understand how anyone can believe in such ridiculousness.  I know its not their fault, they are genetically predisposed to this condition.   I've said it before and I'll say it again, I just cant wait until they invent a cure.