My imperceptible bond to a jolly old fat man

I love David Hume for multiple reasons: he was a genius, he was perfectly round (not that I promote obesity and its enormously deleterious effects on our health care system, but it kind of worked for a short, 18th century, ultra-sociable philosopher), he loved backgammon and beer, and he quit philosophy because he was "too old and too rich."  The thing I love most about him, however, is his understanding of cause and effect.  Essentially his thought was cause and effect did not exist (anyone that is a Hume scholar will shit their pants and throw their computer across the room at my bastardization of one of the greatest Scottish minds - a mind only one step behind that of Mark Harris.  To them I say 'shut the hell up, it's my blog.').  Cause and effect is a temporal ordering of a timeless set of events.  It is us manufacturing order and meaning.  We create the "necessary connection."

Consider a billiard ball hitting another.  The second bounces of a in predictable, linear manner.  My daughter has never seen a game of pool.  To her, the white ball hitting the black ball and the black bouncing off is an isolated event.  The single case yields no connection.  It is simply an event.  It is over time, seeing numerous balls hitting other balls (yes I chuckled a little) that one develops a connection.  In other words, we create the connection and then define it.  Potential energy becomes kinetic energy following the repulsion of electromagnetic forces inherent in the balls (I laughed again).  

What are these other than words to define the unknown?  What is energy?  Force?  Power?  What is honor?  Freedom?  Justice?  What is love?  These are varying definitions of the space between cause and effect.  They are our way of placing order on the world, a world that without our order driven consciousness would simply exist.  Not change, not progress, just simply exist.  

We live in that space between cause and effect.  And it is that space that we as a medical field need to look to truly treat our patients.  Smoking causes cancer causes death.  My patient doesn't derive meaning from smoking, cancer, death.  S/he derives it in between.  As a physician I create a cause (surgical excision) to alter what I suspect would otherwise be the effect (cancer elimination instead of growth).  I define that space between smoking, cancer, death through science.  But my patient may define it through art, religion, social bonds, etc.  The point is, it's the same space no matter how we define it.  We can't forget that the meaning is arbitrary and subjective whether by scientific experiment or spiritual intuition.

Why should I give a shit about eternity? Part II: The passion of Buddha

So I shouldn't give a shit about eternity.  But, of course I do.  It makes me wonder if I have been giving religion an unnecessarily bad rap.  Religion's purpose is to provide purpose.  It hides the existential emptiness inherent to self-consciousness under a pillow of soft, warm bullshit.  The bullshit bothers me. It enrages me.  It blinds me to the actual value:  the ritual.  Through ritual, religion provides purpose by eliminating purpose.  The genius of Hemingway, Picasso, Matisse, Neruda was not the actuality of their creations, but the ability to commit to their ritual and give it direction.  One cannot expect everyone to possess this genius.  It may come as shock, but I am not a genius.  I can't commit to my passion.  Hell, I don't even know what my passion is.  Maybe I need a helping hand, someone to provide me with self-effacing ritual.  Maybe if I had a passion for Christ or Mohammed or Buddha, I would have eternity.  Not the 40 virgins in heaven type of eternity, but the eternity I could hold in my hand now like Matisse did his paintbrush.  Maybe religion was meant to give us passion and ritual and not dogma.  Maybe religion was meant to make us all forget about ourselves. 

And maybe we should think about this next time we use religion to create counterfeit pedestals from which to judge the "non-believers" and thus individuate ourselves that much more.

Thank god I'm an atheist II: Why I'm not an atheist.

Long list of "sorry"s to my friends who are atheists.  I can't define myself as an atheist.  Here's why:

(Caveat:  My arguments breakdown if you define gods as the quasi-religious political dogmas used to control the masses.  If this is God, then I am an atheist.)

The first and more simple of the two reasons is that I do not wish to define myself as anything.  I'm not an atheist, a Christian, a taoist, an existentialist, a feminist, or an anesthesiologist (I practice anesthesia).  I wish that I had a true passion about something (the devotion yoga for you Hindu enthusiasts) that would allow me to more or less pin my existence on, but I can't.  My personal identity is extraordinarily elusive as it is.  I can summarize my motives or "projects" as Sartre would have, but I can't summarize me; or at least I don't want to because summarizing sets you up for dismissal.  "Oh, he's an atheist.  I can't get through to him."  I certainly think that the standard definition of atheism carries a lot that appeals to me.  Feminism carries an enormous amount that appeals to me (standard definition is important; consider the definition of Islam or Muslim by a fundamentalist versus that of the other 99%) .  But I have to admit, as much as I like her, Simone de Beauvoir, a highly regarded existential feminist (she'd hate that I called her either), says a lot of weird shit.  Am I a feminist of the weird shit too?  I would even argue that I shouldn't say I'm not something.  I'm not a Christian but there are many non-dogmatic points that appeal to me.  (Isn't the initial concept a response to sin in Judiasm?  Wasn't the idea attributed to Jesus that we should forgive all "sin" and thus essentially eliminate the concept entirely?)  Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam all have appeal to me.  (Did you know that the original texts for Islam were a response to a lack of women's rights?  They urged that women be allowed to have rights to property and inheritance.  Those wild and crazy fundamentalist muslim feminists!)

Definitions are battleground delineations.  They absolutely have their place.  I am not a feminist, but I certainly believe in a large portion of what they symbolize.  When laid out on the line, I would call myself a feminist to show what I believe I'm not and to set my limits on what I can tolerate.  (Goddamn right that my daughter will have the same opportunities that I have/had.)  But, this blog is not a battleground.  Nor is my head.  So I'm not an atheist here or when when I'm alone on the shitter.  When I'm at my Scottish super-atheist friend's house, I barely resemble an atheist; when I'm at my highly religious father-in-law's house, I'm a militant atheist.

The other reason is more difficult to explain.  Most definitions of God invoke an image of a
supreme humanoid being that warrants worship.  By those definitions I am an atheist (the theory or belief that God does not exist).  But others suggest something ill-defined: the supreme or ultimate reality; an idol to be worshipped (to treat with reverence and adoration); the source of moral authority.  Given these definitions, I can't say I don't believe in "god".

Let's pause for a minute, however.  Outside the sphere of human consciousness, I am an absolute nihilist.  There is no morality, knowledge, being, truth.  These things are all human interpretation, perception, and construct.  If there is no one to touch something, there is no substance.  But this is not where we live.  My world is a conscious world so the fake truths it defines are true for me.  I believe there is a common point to reality and morality (see Common Morality; also a blog for another day).  I believe there is an ultimate irreducibility to our world.  And, even if there is not, I believe there is an irreducibility to our capacity for understanding which therefore becomes the de facto ultimate reality.  And I worship: I worship the idol of science.  I perform rituals on a daily basis (consider the known effectiveness of all we do in the OR; we know nothing as fact, we only know probability so we have our quarks and rituals to pretend to have some control over the uncontrollable).  I treat science with a reverence deserving of a deity.  

Thank God I'm an atheist

Could it be that your atheism is so dogmatic it might as well be a religion?

Faith

My wife and I had a discussion yesterday about religion and faith. We live in an area where the dominant religion has an enormous impact on the government (of course, that area of religious dominance is a mere subset of a larger area of religious dominance, i.e. the U.S.). We have our grievances with this particular religion because it's dogma infringes on our lives and beliefs. Unfortunately, our irritation extends beyond the boundaries of this religion's politics into it's philosophies. In other words, because some religious asshole shits on my parade, I hate the religion.

But my system, whatever that may be, is not perfect either. And if I hope to achieve what Tyler Durden would call the "instant of perfection", I need to consider the value of other people's ...well... values.

As I said before, I am burdened by mortality. Not to jump ahead and ruin the ending, but I think it unlikely that I'll ever find an answer to my burden (hopefully just some relief). Because of the weight of this burden, I wish (if i am truly areligious, to whom or what do I wish to? So many contradictions...) I had faith. True faith provides an answer by not giving one. It says it's there but you just can't "see" it. Just trust whoever or whatever it is you have faith in. Pulling it out of the dogmatic, politicalized, business entities that we deem religions, it is quite beautiful. We are perceptually imperfect beings. We can't know everything. If there is something we need desperately (i.e. meaning, order, purpose), maybe it does exist. And if it doesn't and we have to make it up, why not create it in the hands of an extraterrestrial? Who cares where it comes from, as long as it does it's job. I wish to whatever god I believe in (we all believe in gods - the providers of truth - whether they be in the form of a white male, a multi-limbed elephant, or the scientific method), that I had faith. It would give me a reason for my mortality and lessen it's burden.

I think Kierkegaard explained faith beautifully. He dismissed the dogma and piety surrounding his beloved Christianity and boiled religion down to faith: subjective faith that can't be understood by anyone other than the practitioner him/herself. In essence, the god is you. Quite beautiful and empowering.