Why I believe.

My dear friend Zach,

I have read and carefully considered the letter you sent me. This is a very difficult subject. I love and treasure the capacity of the human mind to see something, to study it, and then to make conclusions about it that can be repeated to be proven true or false. The world we live in is understandable; it is hopeful, in that sense. And yet, I have a different hope in God that seems to challenge the hopefulness of human understanding.

Dawkins (I will refer to him so informally, because I could not glean from the information online the degree of his education) begins his letter essentially asking his daughter why she believes the things she's been told. The things he directs this skepticism at originally are matters of the natural world. " How do we know, for instance, that the stars, which look like tiny pinpricks in the sky, are really huge balls of fire like the sun and are very far away? And how do we know that Earth is a smaller ball whirling round one of those stars, the sun?" He precedes to explain the scientific method. He says that there are bad reasons for believing, lists those reasons, and then makes the faulty jump in logic: He goes from explaining why one should believe in science to assuming that same method should be used on religion.

Science is the tool of the natural world. It is taking the tools of man (his mind, his senses, and his ability to create) and finding a way to understand the world around us. It's a wonderful way to bolster the security of our species. We know why we get sick, so we can avoid it. We know why storms come, so we can prepare for them. We know the movement of the earth, to we plant our crops accordingly.

But how does one weigh the spirit? How do you measure God? What device can prove or disprove the existence of another realm? Science is for the natural world and it is just that: for the natural world. I strongly disagree with people who wish to teach intelligent design in biology text books. Why? Because I do not believe it is the position of scientists to make judgments about something "supernatural." It should always be their position to seek to find problems and answers that exist on a physical level. In the same way, I do not believe it is the position of scientists to try to use tools of the physical world to try to explain the spiritual one.

This creates a difficult problem: how do we know, then, what to believe or not believe about the spiritual world? ::sighs:: I don't know.

Okay, okay, I won't be that cheap, but it's not an easy question. Here's a process:

1) Know the world you live in.
2) Create values based on that knowledge.
3) Decide if religion is in congruence with that knowledge.
4) For the most part, never allow your decision in #3 change #1 or #2.

I've studied the world I live in. I've met atheists and Muslims. I've argued with republicans and democrats. I've been lied to and I've lied to others. I've seen science experiments and magic tricks. I have done everything in my power to base my belief in things on evidence.

From this evidence, I've concluded a lot of things. I believe the world is understandable and predictable in many ways. Where it is understandable and predictable, I live my life accordingly. Humans have found an optimal means of living. If you share with your neighbors, you get to benefit from multiple fruits of labor. If you stay committed to your friends when they are in need, you find support when you are in need. If you help those in need, they can be stronger and contribute to society as a whole. Not everyone follows the rules, so we have problems, but the point is that there is a way to live that is beneficial. This is a vastly oversimplified version of all the values I've created with my knowledge of the world, but it gives you a taste of it.

From this knowledge, there are two choices: 1) Believe that all of this is simply the way the universe shook out. Or 2) Believe that all of this is the result of design. Both are beliefs. We would have to be able to operate in a spiritual world in order to disprove 2, but we can't. I have chosen to believe 2. Why? Because I want to.

That's right. It is no more complicated than that. I want to believe that there is a God. I want to believe that this world, that I take comfort in its ability to be understood, was designed so that I can understand it. The Creator of this world made a place for my existence where I could learn how to be happy. And, hopefully, there is a way for me to meet Him. Tradition, authority, and revelation are simply means that the idea of God was communicated to me. I chose the Christian God simply because I believe the teachings are that God are the most harmonious to my observation of the natural world. (I believe it has to be harmonious, because any God who creates a world in contradiction to his nature is malicious. Any god that would design a world for me to live in where I had to be destructive of the only tool that allows me to believe [my conscious mind] to follow him is not the sort of god I want to follow.)

Point #4 is the most controversial. In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of people in my same religion would disagree with me. I can hear their snickering, "Does she seriously expect me to question the will of God?" Well, guys, what is the will of God? Can you corroborate it? I can give you a list of times that men have used "the will of God" to gain personal power. Wars have started this way. Innocence has been lost because of it. Untold numbers of lives have been wasted to false prophets. And there is no way I can tell any of you apart. Don't tell me to lean on the Bible for understanding, because even the word of God can be taken out of context to make any argument you want. Morality should not be a figment of our imagination. Religion shouldn't be dogma set forth in a cute collection of platitudes. When we act in faith, we should do so with some amount of that faith being based in reality. Don't tell me to throw out my mind for God, because it was my mind that lead me to believe in him in the first place.

So, in a way, I agree with Dawkins, or at least my personal interpretation of his last two sentences:

"And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."

The Journey to Cold.

It occured to me on my trip to the bus the other day that I love how the trees make a mess of sidewalks during autumn.

Autumn first came when I ordered my first Pumpkin Latté of the season. The flavor of Pumkin spice on my tongue signals my my that fall has come, even if the colors, the cold, and the season itself isn't present. Businesses know when fall will come, and they sell their product accordingly.

Then the trees begin to change. It's no different than any other fall, only I realized this year how rarely it comes. In my life, I have only lived through fall 21 times. I have only seen the trees become red, gold, and orange a few times. Suddenly, it is more precious to me now than ever before.

Do you know the sound of acorns falling to concrete? I's a quick "click" that follows the wind. But they do not break, but lays on the ground waiting for my shoe in causal stride to crush it. So, as I walk, the silence is interupted with the cracking of acorns oand the rustling of fallen leaves.

And there is uncertainty when I awake. Will today be warm or cold. After getting dressed, I step out on the porch to discover if today I will need a jacket or not. Either way I am happy, because there is no fear of it being hot or cold, rather warm or cool.

Finally, do you know the smell of turning the heater on for the first time. Throughout the winter, you can smell it, but you don't notice it because it is like that for months. However, when you turn it on for the first time of the season, you remember: this is the smell of Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.

I like it.

Why I am concerned...

I just left an OU College Republican meeting, and I am concerned. Rep. Ernest Istook is running from Governor, Lt. Governor Mary Fallin is running for that Congress seat, and State Senator Scott Pruitt is running for Lt. Governor. (Who will be running for his seat will be interesting, because Republicans are trying to take the Senate in Oklahoma.) I've heard Rep. Istook and Lt. Gov. Fallin speak, read polls about Bush's declining approval ratings, watched Miers failure to get nominated, and general unrest about the war in Iraq. All of this spells bad news for the Republicans.

But, perhaps I'm suffering from liberal school syndrome.

Istook - I'm very nervous about how Rep. Istook is using lottery rhetoric. Oklahomans voted, and voted relatively soundly, for a state lottery. I personnaly thought it was a stupid idea, but if I was running for office, now is not the time to be taking an anti-lottery stance. You don't even have to say you don't want a lottery, you can simply take a negative attitude about it, and I think people are going to think, "Hey, this dude got us a lottery. Why should I take him out of office for this other dude that is talkin' down to our choice?"

Fallin - This is the meeting I just walked out of tonight. I'm torn between believing she has the exact personality that Oklahomans love, or if most people are going to see her like I did: grossly uninformed about the state of the nation. Granted, I know that she just entered the race, but I'm stunned at the oversimplicity. She talked about overspending, and then talked about bottles of Saline that were purchased at $8 a bottle rather than $1. Bottles of Saline are not going to solve our spending problems. Especially when she's simultaneously talking about cutting taxes.

And I cringe now that the most marking statement she made about foreing policy is that we need to fight terrorists over there, not here. Then she went on to state that the situation in France is a perfect example of why to need to fight harder. France is a perfect example of why we shouldn't treat our immigrants like shit. There is an element of Islamic radicalism, but this isn't motivated by, "Hey, these people won't fight back; let's kill them." I am just terrified that the people that we are nominating to national office, based on there state and local government experience, are not prepared or properly informed about the international situation ( *coughs* Bush *coughs* .... Okay, okay, I'm not saying Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, I am merely stating that I don't think he was elected based on his foreign policy and I think we are suffering on some level for it.)

So, what about Iraq? ::sighs:: Bush, I love you, sir, but seriously.... There is a seriously lack of communication about what's going on in Iraq. I've not given up on the issue. I really think there is a defensible position that this administration can take. I am concerned why Republicans are not taking this position. You wouldn't lose anything by saying, "Everyone believed there were WMDs, there was merely disagreement about the quantity and whether to attack based on that quantity. We were proved wrong only when we invaded; there was no other way to know. Saddam Hussein was doing everything in his power to prevent inspectors from proving he held up his end of the agreement. By his actions alone, we have reason to believe he is hiding something, or hiding nothing long enough until the opportunity to hide something comes along. Saddam Hussein has a history with the U.S. and with using chemical weapons on his own people. Beyond that, what happens when this weak leader dies or is removed from power and a newer, younger, strong tyrant takes over? No, there were not significant connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but Iraq has been connected with other forms of terrorism. Besides all of that, we have taken a supressed people and given them freedom. We have a wonderful opportunity to encourage a more democratic form of government in the middle east. We have not held our end of the bargin with Iraqis in the past, and now is certainly not the time to let them down." This is not happening. Why is this administration afraid of saying this?

I'm a Republican. My list of similar stances is narrowing, but I am still a Republican. I will vote Republican. I will probably help Istook and Fallin campaign, and do so with the upmost respect for their positions. However, I think Republicans need to be very cautious in taking comfort in thier position of power and not seriously address the grievous concerns. We claim to be for small government: What's with all the spending? Where's the explaination about Iraq? I don't think the CIA leak scandal would be half as big a deal if we would be forecoming about Iraq. People feel talked down to and deceived. And it is gunna hurt a frikkin' lot in 2006 if we don't deal with this now.

But, like I said, maybe I'm just suffering from the liberalness of my surroundings.

Sometimes...

Okay, so I've had a couple of responses to my last post, and now I'm passionately interested in writing a more lengthy opinion of the situation. But, I will not. Why? Because I have a midterm tomorrow over varying paces of time in differing cultures, a test over "Death of a Salesman," and a page long response about music in Afghanistan. I have a mass of thoughts moving around in my head, but I can't make any sense of them because I do not have time to write them down. Sometimes I think that my classes are getting in the way of my thinking. Or maybe that is the talent of the modern man: To make a sane thought without having the time to think about it.

What!?!

Does anyone know what the hell is going on in France?

The Most Important Wars in U.S. History.

We were talking about U.S. wars today in my History class and I had a slight disagreement with my professor. I would like to see what you all think:

If you were to name 4 U.S. wars that were the most influential on U.S. history what would they be? (Influenctial politically, socially, etc. Think in the long term, what will be important 50 years from now, not just today. The Cold War is excluded, as it was not an actual war.) Explain why, and rank them if you can.

And, if you'd like, if you were to name the 3 most important things (can be a movement, a person, a policy, etc) in U.S. history from 1945 to 1992, what would they be? Explain why, and rank them if you can.