Humans: center of the universe?

Many (most?) Christians would say that humans are the pinnacle of creation according to the Bible. God made Man the ruler of the beasts, gave him dominion over them, and generally has a pretty close and human-centric relationship with mankind. Perhaps there is a squirrel version of the creation story and a squirrel Bible and a squirrel Adam and a squirrel Christ and I am just being anthropocentric, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the power of thought, memory, imagination and abstract thinking make us humans pretty unique.

Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael, a book I highly recommend for its thought-provokingness even if I don't agree with it all, says humans just happen to be the pinnacle of creation now. At one time, jellyfish ruled creation. They looked around and said, "Hey, I'm the most advanced creature in all creation. I rule!" Only to be supplanted by humans. You can easily see why he says that someday there will be other creatures more advanced than humans, and we'll be in the jellyfish category looking up the chain of evolution at more advanced beings. I can only guess that Richard Dawkins would agree, but when I read his book again I'll keep an eye out for that thought.

If evolution were the motive power in the universe, I guess that would be a reasonable conclusion. The problem I have with it is that it removes all intention from the universe, the idea that there might be a creator with a purpose, but then I'm one of those God-believing guys.

My understanding is that Daniel Quinn, and probably Richard Dawkins, and other non-God-believing folks, consider it egotistical to think that humans are the center of the universe, the pinnacle of creation, the ruler of all we see.

Believing we are the ruler of all the earth is problematic when we take it to an extreme and feel that all the resources are here to serve us, so we can cut down the rainforest and hunt to extinction and other silly notions. To quote Spider-man's uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." As the firstborn son, and having wrestled the topic of primogeniture, I can attest to that philosophical principle as very important. But I digress...

My reason for posting today is the perceived conflict I saw when I was thinking about humanists. The definition of humanism, as I understand it, is the ability of humans, without supernatural intervention, to be able to determine truth and morality by human means and human interest. No need to refer to a external referee called God, we could just get a rational bunch of people together to determine the best course for humanity.

I have several reactions and questions. How is that working for us? How is that working for the squirrels and dodo birds and spotted owls? Is there such a thing as squirrelism, or are humans responsible for all squirrelkind, too? And most importantly, doesn't that make us the center of the universe, too?

The Baha'i Faith had this to say in 1929:

Humanity, whether viewed in the light of man’s individual conduct or in the existing relationships between organized communities and nations, has, alas, strayed too far and suffered too great a decline to be redeemed through the unaided efforts of the best among its recognized rulers and statesmen—however disinterested their motives, however concerted their action, however unsparing in their zeal and devotion to its cause. No scheme which the calculations of the highest statesmanship may yet devise; no doctrine which the most distinguished exponents of economic theory may hope to advance; no principle which the most ardent of moralists may strive to inculcate, can provide, in the last resort, adequate foundations upon which the future of a distracted world can be built. No appeal for mutual tolerance which the worldly-wise might raise, however compelling and insistent, can calm its passions or help restore its vigor. Nor would any general scheme of mere organized international cooperation, in whatever sphere of human activity, however ingenious in conception, or extensive in scope, succeed in removing the root cause of the evil that has so rudely upset the equilibrium of present-day society. Not even, I venture to assert, would the very act of devising the machinery required for the political and economic unification of the world—a principle that has been increasingly advocated in recent times—provide in itself the antidote against the poison that is steadily undermining the vigor of organized peoples and nations.

I think it is much more egotistical to claim a spot at the center of the universe than to acquiesce to the determination of the director of the play of life. Isn't there a difference between a president elected by a majority of the people and representing the people's will and not (just) his own and a dictator who seizes power?

No matter who puts us at the center of the universe, we humans have a great responsibility regardless of whether we will be supplanted by some more greatly evolved being. They wouldn't be very happy if there is no place for them to go swimming because all the water is polluted. (Those more advanced beings are actually our children, who will do a much greater job than we are.)

I wrote this will listening to Roine Stolts song Humanizzimo. Highly recommended if you like 20 minute songs!

And so it begins...again...and elsewhere too

Here is hoping (and planning) for a new start. One with more focus and dedication. And regularity. A healthy dose of blogging fiber should do the trick.

The move is complete, sort of. Still in boxes, still arranging and rearranging and buying those necessary things that you need when you move from a small apartment with a roomy bathroom to a large apartment with a cozy bathroom. We have room, glorious room! I can frolic and cavort and not have to go outside to do so.

Of course, as most moves usually do, this one did not go as smoothly as planned. I am leeching internet access from someone's unrestricted wireless network (Thanks to you for making my life sooooo much easier!) and working from my cell phone since Time Warner and I had a little misunderstanding about what Tuesday means. Do I really need to babysit every interaction I have with deliveries and appointments? (Don't answer that. I know. Who is John Galt?)

So now I'll start looking in earnest for my very own copy of The God Delusion so I can share some thoughts about Richard Dawkins' thoughts.

I'll also start writing in earnest on the new blog which you can find here. It is called Eyes on Genocide. I plan to bring attention to what Ward Churchill calls "A Little Matter of Genocide" which unfortunately has been a recurring theme throughout human history. Well, since I truly believe that mankind is on the brink of maturity (an understanding which comes from my beliefs as a Baha'i) then it is time that genocide becomes a thing of the past. It is a topic that is controversial and passionate, but one we cannot ignore.

I guess that I would say I have developed two metathemes for these two blogs. Rodin's Muse is focusing on the harmony of science and religion while Eyes on Genocide focuses on the oneness of humanity. I guess I shouldn't find it surprising. Those are the two main reasons I became a Baha'i and they form the foundation of my belief system.

So what do you say. Let's have at it. We'll meet regularly for our virtual discussions and try to make the world a better place. Agreed?

The long time off is ending

Phew. What a whirlwind. A 12-day trip, 2010 miles, dozens of meetings, missed turns, crowded rest areas, traffic jams and construction, and I finally get home Sunday night just to start packing for a move this weekend. My resolution is to make a schedule (and stick to it) in the new apartment that puts blogging front and center. Then I'll pick up some momentum, some regular readership, and start working on this book idea.

As if that wasn't enough, I was moved to start another blog, too. I know, I hear ya. If you can't spend the time writing on one blog, why write two? I'll fill you in later on the new blog.

We'll see if my resolution works for the new place.

He died for our sins

Today, July 9th, the Baha'i world commemorates the Martyrdom of the Bab.

The founder of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, teaches us that miracles are not to be used as proofs, mostly because they do not work. Do you know anyone who became a Christian because they were told that Christ walked on water, or a Jew because they were told that Moses parted the Red Sea? Miracles only convince the already convinced. They don't even convince eyewitnesses because the Bible is rife with doubters who saw Christ perform miracles.

I don't expect anyone to read the story of the Martyrdom of the Bab and then become a Baha'i. I simply want to share that to me it is one of the most compelling and moving stories of martyrdom I have ever heard.

It is easy to read it and say "Yeah, right, that story was concocted by Baha'is to add miraculous proof in order to gain converts." Well, that would go against the provision against using miracles as proofs, so if we know they don't work then why use them?

What is interesting is that this happened in 1850. As the link above points out, it was reported in newspapers around the world. There were roughly 10,000 witnesses gathered, some of whom recorded their observations. A bit of investigation can reveal non-Baha'i sources. This wasn't something that happened 2,000 years ago. This was something that happened just before the U.S. Civil War, as Harriet Tubman was leading the Underground Railroad. There were 30 States in the U.S. This was after Samuel F.B. Morse sent the words "What Hath God Wrought" across the telegraph lines from Washington D.C. to Baltimore. (If you want some other Baha'i synchronicity, look at what else happened the day before on May 23, 1844.)

So this story isn't irretrievably clouded in antiquity. It is just amazing. And it is about a pure-hearted youth who had a dangerous mission - to bring God's Word to humanity and prepare the way for one who was to come after him. He died for that in a most horrendous way: shot by a firing squad of 750 militia men.

And He died for our sins.

May my spirit be a sacrifice for the wrongs He suffered.

Read more here.

Them's fighting words!

Alright, I'm a little worked up this morning.

As I said a couple of posts ago I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I am reading it because I have friends who question God's existence and I wanted to see what a popular and respected (these are my assumptions) scientist would say. I expected something along the lines of rational arguments about whether God exists. A large part of the book is basically an attack on religion of any kind and those who profess faith. Today was the last straw.

I have been keeping notes as I read it, both of things I disagree with and things I agree with. I have just finished his eighth chapter on What's Wrong With Religion? and his misguided attacks are going to provide the topics for an upcoming series of posts.

A few things have to happen first. I'm going to be moving soon, so between travel for work and packing I will be very busy in July. Look for my rebuttal starting in August. I also have to acquire the book since I am reading a library copy and it will take more than two weeks to say all I have to say. If Mr. Dawkins is reading, send me a copy. Otherwise I'll buy one. Although I don't agree and don't want to support your efforts with one more book sale, I'll gladly chalk it up to supporting dissenting voices because I believe we should engage in dialog and that we shouldn't feel threatened by opposing views.

I'm sure Mr. Dawkins is probably shaking in his boots at the thought of my response. (Actually I'm sure he'd be shaking from uncontrollable laughter.) Stay tuned as I take on Goliath... (Oh those useful religious allusions.)

On a strangely related note, I just got done also watching a video entitled The Islamic Connection which is a lecture by Walter Veith. To ruin the punchline, Islam was created and controlled by Catholicism to wage war against "true Christians" and to protect access to Jerusalem. This is "proven" through reference to various secret societies and use of symbols and testimony from secret Masonic texts. Sigh.

Needless to say I find both extremes, Mr. Dawkins anti-religiousness and Mr. Veith's anti-everything except his religion, to be equally misguided and lacking in spiritual insight. Of course by definition Mr. Dawkins would probably say there is no such thing as spiritual insight, but we shall explore that.

No Water Birds

So I get up this morning, still half asleep. I am making a copy of the lease we just signed on a new apartment and my sleepy eyes catch one of the sections and read "No Water Birds" which just didn't make sense.

I blinked a couple of times and looked more closely. Ah. No Water Beds.

As I started chuckling, I could just imagine the damage that could be done by flamingos.

Or storks.

Herons.

Pelicans.

Ducks.

Eww... Canadian Geese.

I know it isn't much, but I'm heading out of town this weekend to lovely Vermont on Saturday and lovely Maine on Sunday for work, so that is all you get until next week.

Rodin's Snooze

Man, time is crazy! I can't believe how many days can go by in the blink of an eye. There is some reference to time-dilation or faster-than-light travel just waiting to happen, but instead I'll rely on other witticisms like playing with the name Rodin's Muse to find something appropriate to the recent dearth of posts.

Rodin's snooze.

Rodin's cruise.

Rodin's lose(r).

If we can't be self-effacing, we need a different line of hobby, eh?

So this blog is increasingly turning in to an exploration of science and religion. There are many ramifications to that. The reconciliation of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, logic and emotion, art and science, yin and yang, etcetera etcetera. It may not be a permanent thing, but it is certainly worthy of exploration. Here are some thoughts coming at you, stream-of-consciousness like.

I was watching a show I taped from EWTN, a Catholic broadcasting station. (DVR Rocks!) It was called "Has Science Discovered God?" I was pretty impressed with the premise and arguments despite the horrible quality of the video. It seems to be based on evidence described in the book "The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God" by Roy Abraham Varghese who briefly shows up in the video. I'll share more of the specifics later. I found it very thought-provoking. Just look up "cambrian explosion" to get an idea of what they are talking about.

In order not to too loudly proclaim the death of atheism I thought I'd give "The God Delusion" a whirl to see what Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist, has to say. I'm only part way through it, but I have to say that the condescension, over-generalization and smarmy nature of the book are off-putting to say the least. It is similar to my complaint about the "debate" between Kirk Cameron and "anything-but-rational response squad." If you can't debate and postulate without trying to humiliate, if you can't engage in dialogue with respect, how can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously? Dawkins makes many good points, but they are lost amongst his strident disrespect which stems, ironically, from his feeling of being disrespected as an atheist. Come on. What happened to the golden rule? Or is that too religious to be of value?

I apologize for the lack of substance in this post. I thought with five days off of work I'd be able to post before this, so this is the best my tired brain can do tonight because I just couldn't tolerate another day without offering my two cents to the universe.

Ah, Rodin, forgive me.

Coming soon to a Rodin's Muse near you

Sorry again for the long delay. I have some posts stewing in my mind. I just need to clear my schedule to make time. This is a priority, so soon my patient friends...

A logic-antilogic explosion

A friend sent some links to some articles "proving" the existence of God. (I put the word in quotes not because I doubt it, but because others will.)

One story was about Frank Tipler, a mathematics professor at Tulane University who uses Einstein's theories of general relativity and theories of quantum mechanics to come to the conclusion that God must exist.

The other is a debate between Kirk Cameron (yes, that Kirk Cameron) and another evangelical friend who use three arguments to "prove" God exists and the rebuttal from two atheists who come across as equally fanatical in their arguments.

For the record, I think it is a travesty when people refuse to use their ability to critically think about something and instead trot out trite, emotional, vapid arguments either for or against. There were several good points from both sides, and several arguments that just made me cringe with their silliness.

Here is a suggestion. If you are going to use logic, then use it correctly.

Several of the points atheists often use to refute the existence of God were used in all their "originality." Please pardon my smarminess as I share them with you so you can revel in their illogic.

1. Horrible things have been done in the name of religion, so God does not exist

2. Different religions cannot agree on what God is, so God does not exist

3. People have believed in gods such as Poseidon who we know does not exist, so God does not exist

4. The Bible tells you that you can do anything and be loved by God, so God does not exist.

5. God wouldn't invent cancer or evil, so there must not be a God.

6. Every journey of 1,000 miles begins with the a single step. Micro-evolution exists, so therefore macro-evolution must exist.

This last is my favorite. We learned in logic class on day one that

(If A Then B) does not infer that (If B then A)
(If it is a car then it has wheels) does not infer (If it has wheels it must be a car)

Every journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, but not every step leads to a journey of a thousand miles.

I would not have any problem if instead they said "Because horrible things have happened in the name of God I choose not to follow or worship that God" because that is logical. I believe in God and subscribe to that statement. To say that God doesn't exist because I choose not to follow Him is not logical. (Isn't the English language fun!)

I also love seeing people in opposite corners engaging in silly accusations and definitive statements.

We can't trust science because science has been wrong (flat earth, sun revolves around the earth).

We can't trust the Bible because it contradicts itself and advocates slavery, stoning, polygamy (therefore God doesn't exist).

Scientist: We cannot prove God with science because science is about the natural, not the supernatural. To even ask the question is absurd.

Priest: God cannot be proven by math. He can only be proven by faith.

Me: We learned in Biology class that you can prove that spontaneous generation never has occurred, but not that it can never occur.

Here is an interchange between evangelists and atheists with some of my comments interjected.

Believer:
I see a painting, I know there was a painter.
I see a house, I know there was a builder.
I see a universe, I know there was a creator.

Atheist:
You know there was a painter because you can call him.
You know there was a builder because you know he had to get building permits.
You can't call God to verify He exists.

Me: If you found a painting, but there was no historical record of the painter, wouldn't you still believe there was a painter? Have you called the builders of Stonehenge, the heads on Easter Island, the Nazca lines, or the sphinx?

Believer:
Micro-evolution is one thing. We know each species evolves. That doesn't mean species evolve into other species (macro-evolution).
There is no fossil record of these missing links. Darwin himself said if we didn't find evidence within 100 years the theory would be suspect.

Atheist:
We don't need to see no stinking fossil records to believe in evolution.

Me: We don't need no stinking painter, either. You can't have it both ways, dude!

I fully admit I have had several days to ponder on the arguments made by both sides. I have picked more on the atheists only because they were so darn condescending and self-righteous and because we have pretty much heard all the evangelical arguments before. I would have made mistakes in the debate format because I am a ponderer, not a rapid thinker. I have to cogitate.

The point I am trying to make is that they would have had much more effect in uncovering the truth by engaging in a dialog rather than a competition. By critically thinking we can uncover the truth. In order to do so we must be detached from the outcome, be committed to finding the truth, and expect to find clues in the most unusual places. No question is absurd. To find the truth is to ask questions.

I got a little worked up about this one. I find that exploring truth works with just about anyone, and it is usually those with the least amount of faith who feel most threatened, whether they believe in God or not. I'd love to hear what you think.

Man, I'm busy

I apologize for the lack of recent posts. It has been a busy time. I won't bore you with all the ways I spend my time. I am going through an evaluation of where I spend my valuable time, so I expect writing time will be increased.

Well, maybe I will bore you with some details. Let see, in no particular order:

A weird computer semi-crash, botched backup, and reinstall
A weekend out of town in the hinterlands of Maine with no Internet access (my cell doesn't even get reception there)
Newly elected to the Local Spiritual Assembly with requisite duties
Two business trips, one overnight
Too many Bible studies
Two dinners at friends' houses (can't pass up Persian and Greek food)
Neighborhood cleanup

Some things have go to go!

Stay tuned...

A word from our sponsor

I would like to take this opportunity to digress from the current train of thought, or stream of blogginess if you will, to offer a couple of interpositions. One is inspired by a recent blog comment, the other is a "credit where credit is due" tiradette. (I think I just invented a word.)

I want to make it clear that in my exploration of circumstantial proofs of the existence of God that I am not trying to convert or convince anyone. I am sharing the thought process I, as a lifelong advocate of "intelligence is enough for me" and adherent of the religion of self-sufficiency, went through in allowing myself, perish the thought, to accept the existence of a Supreme Being and even more to accept my inferior and supplicative relationship to said being. I would look pretty foolish abdicating intellectual responsibility for my own set of rules for conducting my life if I was only accepting the rules of a non-existent being whose moral code was made up by a bunch of men thousands of years ago. This was a HUGE paradigm shift and I was not going to tread lightly. We are talking about overcoming the crashing gulf of cognitive dissonance that I had maintained all my life, not to mention 25 years of socialization as a man where I learned that you are to be self-sufficient and to surrender to any man (or God) is anathema to your being as a man. (I think that is one reason women find spirituality easier to embrace than men. Just look at participation in most churches.)

Perhaps I am beating a dead horse by exploring all these topics meticulously. Perhaps there is some amount of "easy topics for the next few blog posts in order to not stop writing while I think up the next thing to write about" syndrome. Perhaps I should just get on with the spiritual quest that led me to today and not partake of this primrose path. I'll consider it over the next few days. Stay tuned...

Now, for a rant about the topic of the extremes of wealth and poverty.

I picked up a book today. The title is Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls and I am looking forward to reading it. I also have books like The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men which is a fantastic, eye-opening book. You can also look at the Portland Press Herald's special report here.

I am somewhat of a passionate scholar of the issue of the equality of women and men. I firmly believe that establishing the equality of men and women isn't a matter of women attaining what men have. It isn't about just treating everyone the same. It is about eliminating everything that hinders people from exploring and reaching their full potential. It is about stopping the definition of things by gender when they don't need to be. Anyway, I digress in my digression.

I am not railing against Myra and David Sadker, the authors of the book I picked up today. I laud them for their efforts. I laud the efforts of anyone that points out how people are getting short-changed, particularly when it is how our children are getting short-changed by our education system. The problem is not that our education system favors boys over girls or girls over boys. THE PROBLEM IS THAT OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS GROSSLY UNDERFUNDED! Schools should never have to wonder where funding is going to come from, or how many children they can fit into a classroom, or which programs are going to get cut, or which teachers are going to be let go. Schools are not mills where you feed children in at age five and retrieve them at age eighteen just to send them off to jobs or higher education or whatever. They are vital elements of society. Baha'u'llah says: "“Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom.”

Here is a thought. If class sizes were smaller and educators were plentiful enough to actually tailor education to the needs of children and to develop relationships with their students, perhaps we wouldn't have children who are so under-served and ostracized they feel the need to shoot people. (I'm not justifying these horrendous acts by blaming it on schools. These are individuals who make the decisions to act in heinous ways.)

How higher education is messed up, how municipalities get put in the position of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" when it comes to funding education, the racial impact of public schools, and where the money that should go in to education actually goes are topics for another day. Suffice it to say that children, regardless of gender, in most of our public school systems are paying a price that our society can ill afford. It is short-sighted in the same way chopping down rainforests is. Those who have money can bypass the issue by choosing private schools or tutors or whatever.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Tick Talk

Can you flip a coin so it will land heads up one hundred times in a row? I can. I'll tell you how at the end.

But first the watchmaker argument for the existence of God. I'm sure you have heard this argument. You are walking through the desert one day and you see a watch lying on a rock. You would have to assume it was created by a watchmaker. You would never assume, in fact couldn't assume, that it just happened to be created randomly from particles and elements just zooming around that happened to join together in the form of a watch. Perhaps if you lived in another universe you could, but in this universe where you are constantly observing the physical laws in action, where they are the very fiber of your understanding of how the world works, you wouldn't.

Another example has you walking through the woods one day and seeing a pile of bricks. You walk by the next day and the bricks have gone from being a pile to being a nice little house. Is it possible that all of this order could have randomly arisen without some sentient design or organizing principle behind it? The law of entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, says no. Those who argue this as proof of "intelligent design" say no.

If you open a bottle of perfume in a room it will dissipate to fill the room. This maximizes the entropy and leads to maximum disorder. Would you ever expect it to "randomly" collect in the open bottle? My desk becomes more and more cluttered until I spend a large amount of time and energy re-ordering it. Perhaps if I worked for millions of years it could randomly be ordered, but I'm not holding my breath.

Everywhere I look I can see examples of the universe tending towards disorder. Everywhere. That is why they call it the second LAW of thermodynamics. Not the second it usually happens this way of thermodynamics. I have never once seen anything that I would describe as defying this law. Even incredible odds of things can happen randomly, but they don't happen in consistent manner over long periods of time to defy the law of entropy.

Suppose you have a thousand pennies in a jar on a day you are really bored. Using your thumb, you flip the first one in the air and it lands on the ground heads up. You flip another and are amazed that it landed heads up on top of the other penny. Suppose you did this every hour every day for a million years. Would you ever expect that random chance would ever lead to the possibility of landing even 100 of those pennies on top of each other?

My experience of the world around me leads me to believe in the watchmaker argument. I think there must be something intelligent behind the design of the universe. Too many random things had to happen over too long a period of time in a definite direction (towards order, not disorder) for me to believe otherwise. This is just another circumstance that I chalk up in the God column.

God 2, No God 0

Now, how to flip a coin heads up one hundred times in a row. All you need is a big box and a large number of coins.

If you put 50 coins in a box and flipped them, you would expect 25 of them to be heads. Put those into the box and flip them again, getting ~12 coins. Flip them again, getting about six. Flip again getting about three. Flip again you'll probably get one. That is a coin that has landed on heads five times in a row. To get a coin to land heads up 100 times you just need 2^100 coins. I'd throw in a few more because random means not every flip will be exactly evenly divided. Put those coins in a BIG box and start flipping. (Thanks to Mr. Twitchell, my high school physics teacher.)

Next: How many constants would a constant maker make if a constant maker constantly made constants?

The Spirit of Consultation

They say two heads are better than one. What about five and a half billion?

Let's look at Britannica's chart of world-wide adherents to different religious categories. I have always liked it for its concise overview and because it lists the Baha'i Faith.

According to this list there are roughly five and a half billion people who follow some sort of religion as of the middle of 2006. Here is a rough breakdown:

Atheist - 155 million
Non-religious - 785 million
Total population - 6,540 million

Subtracting non-religious and atheist, which leaves all the other categories of religions, from the world population that they list, we get the following:

Religious - 5,600 million

I am loosely translating "follow some sort of religion" as "believing in some sort of higher power" even though they may disagree as to the definition of that higher power. So there are 155 million atheists and thirty six times more theists or deists or whatever you want to call them. Even when you subtract those that have abstained by not choosing a religion, there are six believers for every one non-believer. Even if you subtract religions who you would argue don't profess belief in a higher power it would be at least two to one.

I personally find this significant because of the principle of group intelligence. My thinking at the time went something like this:

I don't know one way or the other if there is a God.
I have had this experience that makes me think so.
There are millions of people who believe in God and millions who don't.
There are more that believe in God than don't.
Many of those people have had some clue or experience one way or the other that led them to their decision, a clue or experience that I don't have. (I know many are religious because their parents are, or because they grew up in a religious society, but I am assuming equal proportions of those who have chosen their belief.)
There are people both more and less intelligent than me in each group.
The odds are that there are equal ratios of more intelligent people in each group. (I'm not ready to say that intelligence is inversely proportional to belief in God, though I think many would say that. I am saying that at the time I valued the opinions of highly intelligent people more.)
According to the calculations above (which I never did numerically until today) there are somewhere between 6 to 36 times more intelligent people who believe in a God than who don't.
If I was to have access to all the knowledge of all these people, I would be more likely to believe in God than not assuming those that are more intelligent than me would make decisions as least as good as I would make.

I'm not saying this is proof of the existence of God. I'm saying that in my rational analysis of the world around me, this is one tick-mark in the God column. I would also be open to arguments about the faulty reasoning and the bias towards intelligence over spirituality. That is exactly where I was at the time - biased towards intelligence. Like any argument, opposing views are valid.

This exercise reminds me of one of the things I enjoy most about the Baha'i Faith - consultation. You can search the web to find out about it, I won't try to describe it here. I will just say that it is a form of group decision-making and I look at the world as having been engaged in an ongoing asynchronous consultation about the existence of God. God is winning in the marketplace of ideas, if you will.

Not being one to leave my salvation in the hands of others I would certainly need more proof. Especially now that my salvation is of vital importance to me.

Next stop - belief by Bulova, rationale by Rolex.

Circumstantial Proofs of the Existence of God

So there I was, on my couch, having what I felt was a spiritual experience. I prayed for the ability to accept my wife leaving me, for the courage to face it, and for the strength to deal with it.

My prayer was answered.

It was as if the crushing mountain of oppression that was threatening to annihilate me was instantly gone. Now you see it, now you don't. I'm talking soul-crushing, mind-numbing, paralysis suddently lifted and replaced by serene confidence that I could survive. I cannot stress that enough. This was not just a minor change in attitude. This was salvation. This was a deliverance of something impossible, a FedEx overnight delivery of the impossible and unimagined dream. Anyway, I think you get the point.

So now I had to wrestle with a lifetime of dismissing God as irrelevant. I had never seriously doubted that He existed, but I certainly had my share of atheist friends and wouldn't have dismissed the possibility. Mine was no firmly held believe until this experience. Over the years since then I have compiled a few different arguments that fit together to provide even more pieces to my certitude. Let's just say that I have yet to find something whose conclusion makes me think there might not be a God.

Today, I will just list them. Over the next few posts I'll outline them in more detail and share some of the pondering I did. I'm not trying to convince anyone, each person has to decide for themselves. I'm just sharing some of the ways my scientific, logical, rational, inquisitive mind has explored the ultimate question and always had the same answer. Some are arguments for the existence of God, some are arguments for acting as if there is even if there isn't.

* The overwhelming number of believers over time
* The Watchmaker argument
* The Universal constants argument
* Personal experience
* Media undertones
* Ability of prophets to start a religion despite severe opposition
* Scientific proof
* Euphemisms people use
* Altruism versus survival of the fittest
* Occam's Razor

* It is better to believe if there isn't than not believe if there is
* Look at the good it has done regardless of whether there is a God
* Hypocrisy in adherents doesn't disprove God
* Spiritual influence on world events

Some of these I'm sure you are familiar with, some are all mine. I'm a thinker. It's what I do. I could not have accepted God had I needed to turn my brain off and accept everything on Faith. I assume He gave me a brain for a reason. I admit that each and every one of them is subject to my individual biases and observations. I am, after all, fallible and finite.

Next time - two billion heads are better than one.

Interlude - Three Cemetary Peaces +

Before embarking on a circumstantial proof of the existence of God, I wanted to share some spiritual places I have experienced, listed somewhat in chronological order of my visits.

Ryefield Bridge cemetery - This is where I'd like to spend my eternity. I grew up less than a mile from this cemetery in Harrison, Maine. I mowed it as a youngster, and find that its peaceful location above a river with a constant wind in the pines ambient sound makes it a very fond place for me. My nephew is also buried there, so I'd be in good company.

Valley of the Temples - On the island of Oahu, my first experience with a Buddhist Temple, and the peaceful atmosphere impresses me to this day. Part of what impressed me was also the fact that many religions were there side by side.

Normandy American Cemetery - I'm not the most enthusiastic flag-waving patriot you'll ever meet. I save my patriotism for Maine and for the New England Patriots. But a visit to this cemetery in Normandy with row after row of white headstone was moving. I'm sure Arlington would be as moving as well. All those people who gave their lives. I hope one day we'll stop having that need.

USS Arizona Memorial from the back of a US submarine - Again, I'm no patriot, but sailing past the Arizona Memorial on a submarine looking in awe at the memorial and paying respects while those inside look in awe at the submarine passing by makes for a special moment.

Grand Canyon at dawn - I went expecting a big postcard and a big ho-hum. I did have the foresight to get there before dawn and was well rewarded. The magic isn't the size of the hole, but the constantly changing colors as the sun moves through the sky. Much greater than I expected.

Japanese Friendship Garden in San Diego - Kudos to the Koi Club of San Diego for maintaining the most amazingly striking Koi Pond I have ever seen. The garden is lovely, and next time I am in San Diego I plan to spend hours there.

The Ocean any time - I used to laugh at the whole idea of "they that go down to the sea in ships" until I joined the Navy and spent lots of time near the ocean. Now I live within walking distance of it and intend to spend many hours there this summer. Aren't you jealous?

I'm sure I'll think of more to share. I haven't even mentioned Haifa Israel and the Baha'i Shrines and Gardens. Maybe later...

It could have ended, but instead it began

"I'm not sure you'll want to go in there."

Hearing those words, my world as I knew it ended. It was 1987. Hard to believe it has been twenty years.

I was in the Navy serving on submarines. My wife had just picked me up at the pier upon my return from three months at sea. As we got to the front door of the condo we were renting, she spoke those understated, euphemistic words. As I write this I can still feel a sense of trepidation and nervousness as I place myself at that moment. Wow. I can hardly believe the unsettled feelings I am having now just thinking about it, and I am on the verge of tears.

That period of my life is a bit of a blur, but its impact is monumental, so please bear with me.

I learned what she meant as soon as I entered the condo. She had moved out all of her stuff and she said she herself would be moving out at the end of the week. Shazam!

I still don't know why she did things the way she did. I had heard many horror stories of sailors coming home to all sorts of unimaginable situations. Locks changed, lovers moved in, houses and bank accounts cleaned out and no trace of the wife and kids, those sorts of things. Thank God she didn't do that. She stayed the week and she picked me up at the pier. It could not have been easy for her. God bless her for that much.

To say I was blind-sided would have been a gross understatement. Yes, in retrospect I can say that there were warning signs, but signs only do any good if they are in a language you understand. The idea of her leaving was as foreign as the idea of, well, something I cannot even imagine right now. Perhaps sprouting a diesel engine out of my left ear and living the rest of my life in a U-Haul truck.

It was probably the most desperate time in my life, certainly one of the two most painful emotionally and three or four most momentous. But for the grace of God, I wouldn't be here now.

I spent the next week begging, pleading, sighing, crying, trying to understand. I probably shouted and raved, I don't know. By turns I felt like imploding or exploding. I could barely function. I don't know how I got to work or performed my duties. Part of that work involved standing watch on the submarine for a few days until the other crew took over and eventually left port. I remember a night in particular that still haunts me.

That week I stood watch in the missile compartment of the submarine on an overnight watch. It was a very quiet place at night, and I stood watch armed with a pistol. In a very detached way I remember thinking to myself that it would be easy to end it all. I had the opportunity and the means. I started imagining what the other watch would think when he came by and found me. I started imagining what the newspapers would say. There had been two accounts of members of the military in the last year or so who had committed suicide in the area. I kept handling the gun, feeling it, looking at it, thinking about it. We kept them unloaded, the clips on our belts. I don't remember ever loading the pistol. I don't know what stayed my hand, though I like to give credit to God. It was a very close thing.

My life was such pain, desperation, hopelessness, and lack of control. I felt that life had ended for all intents and purposes. There was nothing to hang on to, no light at the end of this tunnel. The person who felt that any problem was solvable, who had ultimate faith in the power of intellect, could not solve this one. It involved another human, and that person had free will. Nothing I could do could make her stay. No appeal to logic or intellect or promises to change or pleas for time could change the fact that my wife was going to leave. In desperation a few nights later I turned to God.

I spent many sleepless hours on the couch, pleading for God to make her stay, trying to bargain. I'd do anything He wanted. Go to church, read the Bible, whatever He wanted. Just make her stay. Needless to say, it didn't work, and I felt just as miserable.

I am realizing now that the remarkable thing was that I could have said "well, obviously God doesn't care, and this proves that He is of no use to me." Instead, I took the road less traveled by, and it has made all the difference.

I reasoned that I could not control my wife, nor did I really feel it would have been a good thing even if I could. To compel her love me would have been meaningless. Why would I expect God to do differently? If he compelled her to love me in order to grant my prayer, it would be the same thing. I couldn't control her through my own devices or through God's help, and if I could it wouldn't be fair to her. I could only control myself. So I had to accept that she would leave. Score one for logic. Now how do I accept the unacceptable? I changed my prayer strategy and asked God to give me the strength and courage I would need to deal with her leaving.

Click! Prayer granted.

Almost overnight, I felt I could breathe. I wasn't going to collapse in on myself. I could live if she left. The Navy therapist I was seeing wondered what my secret was and said I should bottle it for others.

Some skeptics might think that I just grew emotionally enough to deal with it out of necessity, survival mode kicking into gear, and that God was not the means by which I was able to deal with things. All I can say is you are giving me way too much credit for that time in my life. To attribute any degree of emotional maturity to me at that stage in my life is to give credit where credit is not due. I am barely capable of emotional maturity now.

So I said to myself "Wow, maybe there is something to this God thing after all." And that leads to the next question: Does God really exist, and is He relevant to me?

Stay tuned.

A thinking man's spiritual quest - prologue

Since religion is near and dear to my heart, and since I fancy myself a thinking man, I thought I'd spend a bit of time exploring how I reconcile the two mighty combatants of science and religion.

Before I embark on this mini-memoir/process I feel it is important to disclose my background.

I would say I was not raised as a religious person. My family doesn't espouse a particular religion, I didn't grow up going to church or saying grace or even having any kind of religious connection to holidays. Easter was about candy and bunnies and Christmas about Santa and gifts. I think I was the only person at my high school baccalaureate who didn't know the Lord's Prayer. (I remember feeling ashamed at that.) Does anyone even have baccalaureate any more?

For some reason I am not clear on, while I was in junior high (I think) my two brothers went to Sunday school for a while. I'm not sure why I didn't, but I might guess that it was because at the time my best friend was a Jehovah's Witness so I would go to Kingdom Hall with him and considered myself a Jehovah's Witness for about a year. I think my JW time and my brothers' Sunday school probably coincided, but I am not sure. I do remember that one of my brothers' "homework" exercises was to memorize the names of the first five books of the Bible, a task I took on and was very proud of at the time.

I would sometimes go to church with friends from school if I happened to stay overnight at a friend's house where church on Sunday was the norm. I didn't "get it" enough to even know that different churches had different beliefs and practices. This may have happened at most a dozen times.

I remember in 7th grade social studies that I learned about Muhammad and Islam and how they called God Allah and it just naturally occurred to me that it was just a different name for the same God. (So at this time I was developing my belief that regardless of whether you called God Jehovah, Allah, or Great Spirit in the Sky, it was probably the same thing.)

I remember a time in 3rd grade where we were lining up in the hall for something (lunch maybe) and they would line up girls on one side and boys on the other. I was first in the boys line, and the person behind me was trying to talk me out of my prized position and said "Don't you want to trade with me? You don't want to be across from that Jewish girl." I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard and wondered why her being Jewish would be any reason to think negatively of her. (So even at that age I think I was developing a tolerance for other religions, maybe because I felt I did not have enough knowledge to know which one was "better" than another rather than through some explicit lessons of religious tolerance.)

I never really grew up knowing anyone who was not a Christian unless you include people who didn't practice any religion in which case my world was filled with them. My first roommate in college was Jewish, my first exposure to something different, although having grown up in rural Maine just going to college in New Jersey was exposure to thousands of things I had never seen. Drugs, prostitution, cities, people with money. I had known about four people who were African American, one of whom sat with me every day on the bus going to school. (I often wonder where he is now.)

While all this religious non-indoctrination was going on, I was well acquainted with science. Being a boy I was pretty well socialized towards math and science. Being someone who did well in school, I ended up in the advanced classes and enjoyed them. (I think I got most of my self-esteem from doing well in school and the praise I got for my academic accomplishments, so it was something I reveled in.) I was very logical and grew up in a family where feelings were not expressed well. In fact were pretty much discouraged. (This is my current understanding in looking back after years of analysis and may not be the experience or understanding of everyone in the family.) I grew to rely heavily on logic, thinking, and intelligence to solve problems, approach life, and engage in relationships. My pendulum had swung heavily away from emotions and intuition. They were for girls and not to be relied on. (More silly socialization.)

I used to believe in evolution and creation because they had been completely compartmentalized in my mind and never thought of together. One day that cocoon was burst and I realized that I had to choose between them. (More on that in a later post.) It was a quick decision based on my proclivity for science and logic. It was then I really started to question religion, and even grew eventually to consider that while I had nothing against it or people who practiced it, it really was only applicable to those who were weaker or less intelligent and couldn't make their own decisions about life. They needed rules within which to live. I officially labeled myself agnostic, though would freely associate with anyone of any religion. I had no prejudice against people I started to meet who were Wiccan or Pagan, though my provincial upbringing did preclude me from being comfortable with the idea of actually attending Wiccan religious observances. I had no qualms about going to church with friends, though I would often feel a little bit of guilt about not getting it or for not living according to the espoused message during a sermon thinking that if there was a God and it was really important, that He would certainly judge me among those who were wanting. Sometimes the guilt was just about being bored and not "feeling" anything during prayer and wishing I was somewhere else more fun.

I had two huge influences growing up and one later in life. My big lesson from my mother was to do what was right even if it wasn't popular. Don't be afraid to take an unpopular stand. My grandmother was the epitome of unconditional acceptance. She would accept and welcome anyone who appeared at her door. Later in life my provincial outlook, lack of worldly experience, and homophobia were all challenged, changed, and discarded through my association with my best friend.

I think that pretty much describes my background and the environment within which my spiritual quest would take place. Next time, "Look out for the first step! It's a doozy!"

Peace.

Extreme Ungame and other variants

Before I begin, my apologies to the wonderful woman who created the game and I offer my undying appreciation for her original impetus to create the Ungame. Please buy it.

I started playing the Ungame with friends around 1985. I was newly married and living on the West Coast, surrounded by a constellation of friends, acquaintances, and fellow Navy personnel. The group of us played many games, mostly of the strategy genre, from Dungeons and Dragons to Axis and Allies to Fortress America and Risk. The Ungame became a sort of break from strategy, a light-hearted diversion. It was during this period of time that I met my best friend who to this day remains for all intents and purposes my true brother.

For those that haven't heard of it or played it, the Ungame basically consists of a board around which you move your playing piece, two decks of cards with questions, and a six-sided die. You land on one of three types of spaces - Tell It Like It Is (take a card to answer a question), Do Your Own Thing (ask a question of someone, make a comment, or draw a card) or a Hang-Up space which sends you to another space on the board.

Many months later I got divorced (which I don't blame on the Ungame) and I emerged from that experience to participate socially with an ever-evolving group of friends. It became a time of experimenting with the limits of brutal honesty, vulnerability, trust, intimacy, and mutuality. The game which originated with questions like "Say something about America" or "When was the last time you felt afraid?" became a white-knuckle version of truth or dare where the dare was to tell the truth. This was the seed of "Extreme Ungame" which is a name I conferred only recently in retrospect.

Extreme Ungame

Do Your Own Thing - you can ask group questions where everyone but the questioner answers
People must use subsequent turns to find out the questioner's answer if they want to know
No topic is off-limits
The truth must be told, and you must agree to this to play

Modifying the Do Your Own Thing rule so that you could ask a group question where everyone but the questioner had to answer created a very tension-filled game. If someone wanted to find out what the questioner's answer was, they needed to use their next Do Your Own Thing. When you kept landing on Tell It Like It Is, it became rather entertaining.

It was a brutal, anxious, and educational experience. I don't play that way anymore, nor would I recommend it to anyone. My goal now isn't testing limits. It is getting to know people in an environment of love and respect, but I'll describe that in the Extreme Ungame II rules.

Our group didn't spend all our time playing games. We would also do what we affectionately dubbed "24-hour restaurant hopping" which involved visiting Denny's and other 24-hour restaurants all night for conversation and other diversions. It made sense to create a travel version of the Ungame because Trivial Pursuit isn't as fun for everyone and you can only play so much Cosmic Wimpout.

Ungame - Travel Version

Leave the board home, take only the cards and the die.
Each person rolls the die for their turn.
An even roll was Do Your Own Thing (an even number of words)
An odd roll was Tell It Like It Is (an odd number of words)
Hang-Ups were ditched with the board.

Not being a fan of the Hang-Ups spaces, we used the travel version even when we weren't traveling and we used it that way for years. We started giving everyone pencil and paper to write down their thoughts so they wouldn't feel the need to interrupt and wouldn't lose their inspirations between turns.

Two things have influenced the way we play the Ungame today. Maturity and religion. I don't feel the need to test those limits anymore, and now I am a Baha'i, so the last thing I would want to do is make someone uncomfortable or anxious or embarrassed. Since I often play the game with people who don't know each other well or who have a different level of tolerance for self-disclosure, we have amended the game as follows:

Extreme Ungame II

Do Your Own Thing - you can ask group questions, the questioner can choose whether to answer or the group can decide at the beginning of the game whether questioner must answer too
Topics are off-limits to the extent that anyone can refuse to answer a question (without shame)
The truth must be told, but as stated you can refuse to answer
The board is not used, so people can be sprawled around the living room
Every turn is Do Your Own Thing, you can always opt to take a card
One person reads the questions so the decks of cards can be in one place with the reader
Paper and pencil are supplied
Talk is kept to a minimum between turns, but this is flexible depending on who is playing. Those uncomfortable with self-disclosure often need some nervous chatter to stay engaged.

I have experimented with other cards, either home-made or from other games. Loaded Questions can work well. We experimented with Gender Bender and Scruples cards, but found them to be unsuitable or uninteresting. The home made versions I have made are the Baha'i version (which I am still working on) and a Spiritual Version based on the book The Little Book of Big Questions by Jonathan Robinson. I plan to expand the Baha'i version to be an Interfaith version (thanks for the idea, Jeannie). We now have what we call the Bag O' Questions which we can take with us at any time. It contains pencils, paper, and several sets of question cards.

Whenever my best friend and I get together (he is a West-Coaster and I am an East-Coaster) we often spend at least one night playing the Ungame with whoever will join us, and it will often dwindle into the wee hours as people peter out, and us hard-core Ungamers will savor the intimacy, respect, honesty and love that the game has come to represent.

In this post I have left out much of the emotional impact of my experiences playing the Ungame and concentrated on the nuts and bolts. I hope others get enjoyment out of the "house rules" we use. Perhaps some other time I'll share some of the experiences - I can think of two questions in particular that made for memorable nights. In the meantime, I think I'm going to embark on a bit of a memoir, and share a spiritual quest.

I'll leave you with one of my favorite questions. If you could hang a slogan in every house in the world, what would it be?

Think about it.

The Naming of a Blog

I promised I would write about the naming of this blog, and that I'll do.

Did you know if you search Amazon.com for the term "baby names" you'll get 9703 results? Even typing in "naming your baby" returns 126 results.

Naming your blog: 4 results
Blog names: 103 results
Neither of these sets of results deal specifically with naming your blog.

With baby names you can find books with lists of 50,000 to 100,000 names. You can find the "best" or the "very best" or the "complete" or the "perfect" or the "everything" or the "ultimate" baby naming book. You can find the "town and country" baby name book or the "wizard" that will walk you through the process.

You can find the latest trends in baby naming, such as antique names, foreign names, surnames, meaning names, or make-it-up names.

No such help with blogs.

Blog names could really use some help, too. I won't name names, but there are some real stinkers and very few creative, inspirational, or even cute blog names. Being the slightly compulsive perfectionist that I am, I needed the very best perfect ultimate everything blog name for my blog. Not too specific or limiting, not too obvious or obtuse, memorable, worthy of me.

I wanted it to reflect the idea that it is about critically thinking about life around us and peeling away layers of spin for the inner kernel of truth. I considered "Counterspin" but it is too popular and obvious.

I considered something grandiose or explicit, like "Critical Thinker's Corner" or "Critically Yours" or something else that ultimately felt too critical.

My original idea was to include an image of Rodin's "The Thinker" to signify the inspiration for my blog, namely thinking. I immediately thought of the name "Rodin's Muse." I figured something inspired Rodin to create this famous piece of art. Why not give a nod to some temporal paradox of some kind and assume it could be my blog? When I searched the web for the phrase, I was surprised to find out that he actually had a muse whose name was Camille Claudel, so I threw that name out too.

Then came the birth day of my blog. I tried a few things, but they were taken. I don't even remember what I was thinking that day, but I think I tried things based on "Thinker" and "The Thinker" but whatever I tried that day was taken already.

Update from the future - I found the scribblings where I was exploring other names. Counterspin, Reality Check, Critical Think, and Why? were some of the others.

The more I tried to avoid Rodin's Muse, the less progress I made. I didn't want to go down the road of just picking something off the cuff. So I fell back to Rodin's Muse which I pretty much wanted anyway. It does serve several purposes for me.

It pays homage to my personal inspiration from and respect for The Thinker.
It pays homage to Camille Claudel.
It includes a double meaning for the word muse, and I always love the clever use of words.
It even includes a double meaning through the pronunciation of Rodin, since it is pronounced the same as Godzilla's compatriot Rodan and had I thought longer I might have chosen "Rodan's Muse" instead.

So, it works for me. I hope to have less trouble when I end up naming my children. I'll certainly have more help. I'd love to hear blog names you think are particularly clever or memorable.

Next time, the unveiling of rules for Extreme Ungame.

Quiet times

So it looks like another lame blogger has jumped online with no intention of regular updates for his large and devoted following. :-)

I implore just a little bit more patience, dear readers. As I mentioned in the previous post, Ayyam-i-Ha is followed by the Baha'i Fast which is followed by the New Year celebration of Naw-Ruz. I kind of glossed over the whole Fast part, so let me add a few quick tidbits (if you'll pardon the pun).

During the 19 days of the Fast Baha'is forego eating and drinking from sunrise until sunset.

[Allow times for gasps of horror.]

It really isn't that bad, and only those who are able to do so are allowed to fast, but that is just the physical aspect of the Fast. The physical part is simply the outward symbol of the inward or spiritual aspect of it. It is a time of reflection, contemplation, prayer, meditation, and personal assessment. It is a time to reflect on where your life is going and what changes you can make to more closely align your will with your understanding of God's will.

Anyway, this is all part of my justification for not writing regularly in this hallowed blog. For me the fast creates its own sort of insular routine that revolves around the pillars of food, sleep, and prayer with doses of socializing, low energy, and watching the clock. After March 21st and Naw-Ruz I plan to write more regularly.

Besides, I've got a lot to say.

Ayyam-i-Ha mubarak!

Lest you think, dear readers, that I have forgotten you, I have not. It is just a very busy time of year for party-going Baha'is.

Baha'is observe Ayyam-i-Ha from February 26 to March 1, the few days before they start their Nineteen Day Fast. You can see more about Ayyam-i-Ha here and more about the Fast here. Basically it is four days (five during leap years) of festivity, charity, socializing, and gift-giving before 19 days of fasting where we forego eating and drinking from sunrise to sunset. It is a time of spiritual reconsecration and focus. It all ends with a celebration of Naw-Ruz on the first day of Spring. It has become a favorite time of year for me, especially since I became a Baha'i 18 years ago today.

So Ayyam-i-Ha mubarak, everyone! (Happy Ayyam-i-Ha!)

My next post will be about the process of naming a blog and which is more difficult, naming a blog or naming a baby.

Why did I call this Rodin's Muse?

Think about it.

Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack...

Sung to the tune of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" (with my humble apologies).

In a seat that is narrow,
In a seat that is tight.
You give me some peanuts to advertise,
You really hope that I never get wise,
Let me munch, munch, munch all three peanuts,
If I'm not full it's a shame.
For it's one, two, three nuts, you're out,
At the old buy game.

You can call me dense, but I have finally come to understand airline peanuts. I'm pretty diligent at spotting advertising. Rabid, you might say. My senses are battered when I walk in to the grocery store by the densely packed visual assault. I find a trip to Wal-Mart to be an Orwellian experience that I avoid as much as possible.

There are two trends that I particularly loathe. Companies that advertise to children and movie theaters that assault you before the previews even run.

One of the worst offenders was Pizza Hut where my nieces were given activity books filled with Price Chopper references, and there aren't even any Price Choppers in Maine where I live. I don't frequent Pizza Hut anymore.

I also go out of my way to avoid Cinemark Theaters whose egregious practice of Entertainment Tonight-style "behind the scenes" previews of previews, followed by pre-previews, followed by previews, all interspersed with advertisements, prompted me to send them an email letting them know how offensive I found it and that I would never watch another movie there again. Of course now even DVD's flood you with previews before you get to the menu, but at least I have figured out how to skip most of those. Don't get me started on DVR's and efforts to prohibit people from fast-forwarding through or skipping commercials. But I digress.

Back to the peanut.

I'd always wondered about those little bags with the insultingly small three quarters of an ounce of legumious nutrition. They are a rare treat these days. Most airlines I've flown have opted to be peanut-free, but I much prefer peanuts to pretzels. Delta seems to be either rebelling or behind the times, but I got peanuts on a recent flight. I had chalked it up to cost-cutting, knowing that airline "meals" were more expensive. I have no qualms about cost-cutting measures. But why even offer micro-snacks? Why not offer larger snacks for sale for people who really want something and who didn't have the foresight to bring something along? I always stop at the grocery store before the flight a pick up some snack food. These snacks are so small, why bother?

But there it was, right in front of my face. The answer to all my peanut pondering.

Save 25¢. (See Back Panel For Details)

These micro-bags of micro-snacks are nothing but advertisements. Duh! It had slipped under my radar for so many years. This bag, which was so small they couldn't print the nutritional information on it had room for a coupon to buy more. They could have put the nutritional information on it, but then they'd have to admit you were getting less than an ounce of peanuts in exchange for the suggestion that you need to buy more. Especially when the coupon is for items of 5 ounces or more. How colossal that would seem in comparison to our micro-buddy?

Want to see proof? Look here. You can get airline-style peanut bags with anything you want on them.

Here is my suggestion. Always ask for a couple more bags. If we all ask for more bags, we could triple their cost of advertising and stop them from insulting us. Rebel against the insult. Take back our peanuts and dignity!

What will they think of next? Advertisements on the tray tables? Oops. That's been done. Though I haven't yet seen advertisements that show when the tray table is in its upright and locked position. Hmmm... Maybe I'm on to something.

Think about it.

Back in the writer's seat

So here goes my second foray into the blogosphere.

Some things I learned about myself and blogging from the first attempt:

1. At least one or two people other than friends might be interested in what I write. That's a good thing.
2. I do my best writing when I liberally revise. I didn't apply that to my previous blog, so personally I was not satisfied with the quality of my posts. Therefore, I'll compose offline where I can edit to my heart's content.
3. Writing about a limited milieu like a spiritual man's approach to gender issues is, well, limiting. This time anything is fair game.
4. I really love writing!

More later. About me, the blog, the world, and airline peanuts. (That's right. It all starts with an epiphany about airline peanuts.) I will be inviting you to read, comment, agree, disagree, lampoon, harpoon, smack me with a soup spoon, anything you want as long as you...

Think about it.