I've never been a particularly gullible man. I've always tried to examine the world with a critical eye and look at all sides of an equation. I've even been called cynical from time to time. So when I hold firm to a belief, you must trust me when I say there's evidence to back up my claim.
With this in mind, let me tell you about an eye-opening experience I've had. In fact, it changed my entire world view. Go ahead, laugh at my sentimentality, but once you understand what I've come to accept as truth, you'll be standing right beside me on this issue.
Specifically, let me tell you about Ralucric. Ralucric is a planet in the galaxy of Gninosaer, many lightyears away from us, in a section of the galaxy still undiscovered by our technologies. You may question how I know of this place, and in time I will impart this knoweldge. What you must first know, before all else, is that Ralucric is a wonderful place. It has a topography not unlike our own, and its inhabitants are not dissimilar in appearance. By all initial accounts, one might believe that Earth and Ralucric were one in the same. But upon closer investigation, it becomes apparent that the Ralucric people live a much happier, more perfect, life. Suffering and dishonesty are absent from this world; death is not feared so much as embraced, though not morbidly so; there is no competition beyond that of friendly sport; education and progress reign supreme. I could continue with the goings on of this place, but I believe you already understand just how superior Ralucric is.
If this seems doubtful to you, as it once did to me, grant me one more incredulous detail before I prove my claims. Although this planet is unimaginably far from our own (I reiterate: it is empirically unknown to our best astronomers), it is not wholly absent from our lives. In fact, it is my understanding that nearly a third of our population visits this place on a daily basis. Our worlds are so closely connected in spirit (if I may use such an abstract term), that we are able to project ourselves there as we sleep. In short, a pleasant dream is likely the result of one's consciousness landing on the planet of Ralucric, and experiencing the pleasantries therein. It is, after all, a very similar planet to our own.
But enough of my fawning. I'm sure, at this point, you are simply itching for how I've come to know this place and my proof of its existence. In the interest of brevity, I will grant you just that.
Everything I've come to understand of Ralucric is explained in great detail within a book. This book was penned over many years by a collection of people who witnessed (in their sleep, of course) the interactions between humans and the Ralucric people. While I certainly cannot recount everything in this book, I will gladly cite its text as necessary to underscore my points. Before you object, please allow me to address the questions I also had at first, and frequently hear from skeptics:
How can you trust a book without knowing its authors?
How do we trust any book, or any source for that matter, without personal affiliation? When the evidence is sensible enough, we must trust that the author is not making blind claims. This book is one of the oldest texts in our history, and as such, must be treated as a historical document. It is not written as a novel or piece of fiction, and in the absence of any contradictory texts of similar origin, we are left to trust this book.
What actual proof is there of Ralucric?
It's impossible to physically prove something that is physically unobservable. But your body does not require proof. It is your consciousness that seeks "proof," and it is our consciousness that visits this place. If you needs to climb aboard a space vessel and step foot on Ralucric before accepting its existence, there are many celestial bodies you should start discounting.
Besides, the book answers our doubts in chapter 4, sentence 17: Believe in Ralucric, for it is written by those who know it best - those who have no doubts of their own.
So I should believe in Ralucric because the book says so, and I should believe the book because the book says so?
No. You should believe in Ralucric because the book explains it very clearly, and the book was written by people who understood Ralucric very well.
And what happens if I still don't believe?
You go on living your life as you have been: in the dark. But if you reject the book and the idea of Ralucric, you probably won't get to visit it at night. Therefore, you'll have nightmares as long as you live. The book explains this pretty obviously in chapter 6, sentence 225: If you do not believe in such a place as Ralucric, it shall be further from your heart and harder to visit in slumber. On the other hand, if you accept this place, you'll be able to go more often and have wonderful dreams.
So you only have good dreams, and now I will only have bad ones?
Not necessarily. It's a fact that humans have many more dreams than they remember each night. I will have more good dreams than bad, and vice versa for a nonbeliever, but what I remember may not accurately reflect this.
I guess that doesn't leave me much of an option. I should start believing in Ralucric.
Wonderful to have you aboard. If you'd like to join our nightly collective slumber, it's only a suggested donation of $20 per night.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
on options
Let's play a game.
I will give an overview of a religious icon--life events, associations, consequences--and you can try and guess whom I'm referring to. I'll try and give details that may sound familiar to you. Ready?
Icon A:
This bearded religious figure is often associated with being a shepherd. Although loved and revered after his death, many of his contemporaries were jealous and conspired against him. As a result, he was mutilated, tortured, and killed. Thankfully, by the grace of divinity, he was resurrected. After resurrection, he joined the heavens and remained as a symbol of divinity. He is assumed to pass judgment over his people and allow them entry into heaven, reject them and send them to eternal torture, or an in-between place where they must atone before entering heaven. It is also worth noting that there is a woman in this story who was supernaturally impregnated with the son of a god, and was thus viewed as a symbol of maternity, nurturing, and love.
Icon B:
Like Icon A, this figure is bearded and robed, but is from a different culture. He was born of a virgin mortal woman who was made pregnant by the mightiest of gods. After dying, he was reincarnated by his father, the god. He is often associated with miracles and wine, notably when he turned water into wine for his followers. After claiming to be a god (or, at least, the son of one), he was put on trial before the state, as led by the state's ruler (a certain someone beginning with the letter "P"). After his death, he gained a devout following that introduced a sort of monotheism to a previously polytheistic culture.
Icon C:
This figure was born quite unnaturally, without any human conception, through the intervention of a god. He was born out in the wild, and his birth was attended by shepherds. His birthday is celebrated on December 25th. He became known as a symbol of redemption, able to absolve humanity of sins. The practice of baptism became associated with him, as a way of cleansing one's soul and being reborn. After taking part in a symbolic death, he ascended to heaven. Prior his ascent, he had a divine meal with his closest peers, composed of bread, meat, water, and wine - this scene is the most common artistic depiction of him.
Unsurprisingly, many scholars claim that these religious icons influenced the Christian mythos. After all, there are certainly some common threads between these figures and Jesus Christ. I will freely admit there are discrepancies and, besides, some themes are simply commonplace among all religions. However, my intent is not to claim that Christianity is a "knock off" religion or that it is completely unoriginal.
Instead, I simply want to note that there are religions with strikingly similar ideals, symbols, figures, and practices. With this in mind, I'd like to posit a question:
Why Christianity? Why Judaism? Why Islam? Why Hinduism?
Why are any of these religions more credible and believable in today's world than, say, Zeus and his Olympian contemporaries? Why has Egypt abandoned Ra? Why has the prehistoric practice of animal worship not caught on? At least animals can be seen and undisputed. We've gone from worshiping real creatures, to worshiping gods that represent real things and walk among us, to worshiping an abstract god who relies entirely upon our faith of him. It seems that the most popular and convincing religions are the ones that require the greatest suspension of disbelief.
So again, I ask: What makes one religion more believable than another? If aliens visited our planet and studied all of our religions from the dawn of man, what could they possibly see in one that another does not offer? Similarly, if a devout Christian of today were born into a religious family in third century India, would s/he not be just as devout toward Vishnu? No religion has more intrinsic credence than any other. This includes the Church of Latter Day Saints and Scientology, by the way.
I would encourage any religious folk to ask themselves why they believe in their god or gods. Do they believe because they've made an honest and thorough investigation of all religions, and find theirs to be the most believable? Or is it simply how they were raised?
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
on chance
What are the odds that Earth could sustain life?
You must have at least heard this question asked, if not asked it yourself. "What are the odds...? What are the chances...?" It's one of those questions that creationists tend to ask, especially since it's a bit of a loaded question. It makes Earth, as we know it, sound so improbable that it could not have happened without a conscious effort. Well, since we're asking the question, we might as well answer it:
One. Or, as a ratio,1:1. As a percent, 100%. In a word, "Yes."
That is to say, Earth was destined to become what it is today, and life as we know it could only have occurred as we know it. Given that Earth contained all the preconditions for carbon-based life, it's silly to call Earth's biosphere anything less than probable. All it took was our ozone layer (which only requires oxygen in the atmosphere [check] and solar radiation [check]) to shield us, and the rest is practically a matter of time. All the chemical components and atmospheric conditions were present. There really is nothing that stood in Earth's way from creating life.
The above link summarizes the Miller-Urey Experiment, wherein abiogenesis (that is, life forming from non-life) was essentially proven. It's really not a miracle. It's basic chemical compounds from primordial Earth--water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen--an electrical charge, and time. As observed in the write-up:
At the end of one week ... as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells...The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first.
So there you have it. Given our planet's proximity to the sun, its inherent elements and compounds, and enough time, it shouldn't come as a surprise that life sprouted. If the universe were a casino, Earth would be the table to bet on.
But maybe that, itself, is the question. Perhaps when people ask "What are the odds...?" they mean to say, "What are the odds that our planet, amidst countless others in the universe, is one with life?" This question seems like a better argument for creationism, as the odds seem outrageously low. After all, what ARE the odds that any random planet will be satisfactorily close to a star, contain the right combination of chemicals, and undergo the proper atmospheric changes to create life? Unfortunately, there's no objective and accurate equation for such odds, but we can safely say that the percentage of planets capable of creating and sustaining life is extremely low. By many accounts, it is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
However, the question is illogical. We are not actually asking "What are the odds of life on any one planet?" because Earth is not any one planet. Earth is Earth. If we were not Earth, we would not be here to ask the question. The question only exists because we exist, and therefore what we are really asking is, "What are the odds that I exist?" Do you see the circular logic at work, here? It's difficult to explain just how silly this question is, but I'll try to sum it up in a couple of sentences:
We cannot objectively question the odds of our own existence, for we already exist and can only question in retrospect. For every person who questions the odds, consider the theoretically infinite number of creatures who do not exist and therefore do not question. The only reason we wonder about our odds of existing is because we do, in fact, exist.
And that brings us back to the original answer:
The odds of us existing as we are today are a certainty, just as they would be for any other species questioning its existence. And the odds of Mars having no life, along with innumerable other lifeless planets, is a certainty. There are many more planets which are lifeless, to be sure, but by that very definition, there is no consciousness on those planets to question in the first place.
So before you cite Earth's intricate and seemingly miraculous biosphere as proof of a god, consider this: if every other planet had equally impressive and complex life, our odds of life wouldn't have changed at all. We'd still be us, and we'd still have formed life the same way. The only reason people view Earth as a miracle is because we compare ourselves to planets that are incomparable. Earth's (thus far) unique biosphere isn't evidence for creationism any more than a uniquely shaped rock is evidence for a rock-maker. Every planet and rock in the universe is different in its own way - our way just happens to be lively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)