What if that were true? What if the supernatural - meaning above the natural laws we can *currently* perceive and measure scientifically - was a reality? For instance, long ago we used willow bark to cure headaches, and were probably grateful to the spirit of the tree for soothing us, and I sure wonder a) WHY the willow bark has that chemical in it and b) HOW we found out that it works in the first place? Did someone boil water in willow basket and have their headache "miraculously" cured? Now we know it's a chemical; we isolate, synthesize, manufacture, package, distribute, advertise... But - isn't that ability so fantastically improbable as to be almost a miracle? Where does science end and miracle begin? Where does that leave the admirable work of people like Richard Dawkins, Penn & Teller, and other debunkers of the paranormal?
Well... I don't think they're fools, or if they are, they're wise fools. Humanity has an enormous capacity for self-deception, and certainly many religions, myths, and charlatans have cause much more damage than good. I think their work is really important, because they skewer the wishful thinking and intellectual laziness that makes not only for bad science, but bad religion.
That being said, disparaging belief and believers actually sets the atheists back in their message; nobody responds well to rudeness, and that rudeness is based on emotion, not logic. People shrink when they are shamed. Their minds expand when their curiosity is encouraged. I understand the atheists' frustration with smart people who go only so far with logic then seemingly turn it off when they get into the realm of faith. I wonder if they would learn something if, instead of insisting they were right, were to look into the physiological and emotional function of faith in human health and effectiveness. Truth is, most of the smartest and most effective people I know (and I know plenty of them) have spiritual sides. And some of the most messed-up are the skeptics.
I'd rather hang out with Thich Nhat Hanh than Penn Gilette, who wears on me after about 20 minutes. I'd rather hang out with the Dalai Lama than Richard Dawkins anyday. But the atheists are doing something wonderful, and important: causing people to really examine WHY they believe, and what they believe, and perhaps turn them to positive action rather than the passivity of sitting there waiting for their prayers to fix their lives. Faith without works really IS dead. I read online somewhere that "prayer is a way of feeling like you're being helpful without actually having to DO anything". Ooh, that one STINGS.
I know that, in terms of philosophy, of numbers, of science, there is an objective truth. One is one and all are all and evermore shall be-oh. And then there's zero, which is only an idea, because even the concept of zero is more than nothing. I also look at fractals, with their twisting permutations of the same motifs, and I see that the truth may be something between the supernatural and the super-mundane. Our search for the truth will necessarily be limited by our perceptions and our ability to process them, our language for what we experience, and our ability to measure. For instance, one man's "evil spirit in the cave" is another man's uranium mine. We barely know how to measure ANYTHING. We only figured out how big an atom is 75+- years ago. What if we are evolving our ability to perceive and measure, that so that the universe can experience itself?
It seems to me that the fact life DOES evolve, and that curiosity has been a part of our evolution, may be a teeny-fractal expression of universal desire to know itself. It is also possible that true faith is an expression of curiosity about the next phase of our development as a species; our brains doing a slow cellular-level nudge toward abilities that transcend our current limitations. It could be that, since our skulls are getting too big to pass through the birth canal, the combination of medical birth assistance and bionic tools such as memory chips and sensory-enhancing implants will actually allow us to manufacture our evolution to a higher level, rather than relying on genetics to do it for us. The trick is to avoid a class system where only the rich access the tools. Another question: when we rely too much on a given technology, we atrophy the area that the technology assists - which is why I have the memory and attention span of a goldfish, and I can't sit on the floor without my hip seizing up.
I can't honestly claim that I've ever accessed a universal mind. But when I diligently try to, my life seems to just work better. I get out of my own way, am happier, more prosperous, more effective. I'm not sitting around expounding on how stupid people are to believe in things.
So the hell with skepticism. I'm going to to a scientific experiment: I'm going to look for wonderfulness in the world, and I'll bet you that the more I look for the more I will find. I'll believe in something. Believe in peace, believe in g/d/s, believe in evolution's power to weed out the ineffective, believe in myself. And in those moments when things look like doom and I just can't, I'm going to make every effort to believe that I can make something better just by acting on faith.
I think skepticism IS healthy... if you're also skeptical about your own skepticism. What if you're wrong? "What if..." has to be the greatest agent of change in the history of humanity. What if you let yourself believe in a power greater than yourself - would it change what you focus on, how you behave, how you feel about others, the trajectory of your life's progress? If you don't believe you are an agent of the miraculous... what can you do to make it so?
15 July, 2009
28 June, 2009
Happy Birthday, Aisling!
I don't know where you are, but I love you and miss you. I hope you are well, happy and safe.
Google me, I'm easy to email through my other web site.
Love
Alana
Google me, I'm easy to email through my other web site.
Love
Alana
12 May, 2009
Those things down there, those people over there...
(continued from OtisPTA post 5/16/09)
I had a friend whose mother found out she was gay, beat her with a hairbrush, and threw her out of the house. My mom took her in and she stayed with us for months at a time. I think my dad guessed - he went on a regular dinner-table rant about those awful homosexuals he saw downtown in SF when he was at work, and she would just sit there, quiet as a mouse, trying to disappear. I didn't know she was gay - only her succession of "roommates" did. When she finally told me, I didn't really understand what it meant; I didn't have the means to really support her; I wish now that I'd said "I love you and I'm proud of who you are and I'm glad your my friend" instead of "oh! That explains a lot" without having a clue what it explained. She went through a series of disastrous relationships trying to fit in. She bounced in and out of the military, mental hospitals, a bad marriage to a straight man, prescription drug abuse, and severe depression; eventually we fell out of contact. I wonder what her life would have been like if her mother had understood she was born that way and had a right to happiness. Several of my other friends have married people who came out of the closet after years of marriage based on a lie. Love might have been there, but it wasn't enough; and everyone suffered. Is it necessary to raise more generations of people who must lie to fit in, or even survive?
It's very important this curriculum is about relationships, not about the mechanics of sex. Thinking back to my own prurient (or at least precocious) little self, I was looking up the f-word in the dictionary at age 8 or 9. Unfortunately it was missing out of the Webster's New School Abridged 1962 edition in our school library. If my parents had just explained the basic plumbing and functions, it actually would have put the whole question to rest. It's sad they were able to explain how my nose worked, but taught me to mistrust and fear my own - um, things down there. So instead, I learned about "doing it" from another kid. Who had learned it from a friend at age 6... and his definition and vocabulary were not only lurid but inaccurate. This led to all sorts of confusion, embarrassment, and misapprehension.
This curriculum hardly touches on sex and doesn't need to go much further than in discussion about a conventional nuclear family; something along the lines of "when two people love each other very much, they choose to create a family." And when you go into the biomechanics of it - whether you approve of it or not, it's basically science and kids will only absorb what they are ready for. "Doctors combine genetic material to make a complete baby, which then grows safely in a mommy's uterus until it's ready to be born. "
As I told the City Council - I don't approve of the British Royal Family's doings. I don't believe in the Divine Right of Kings. I hate the idea of arranged and loveless marriages. I think the Prince of Wales dresses funny. But I acknowledge that they exist and are a cultural force to be aware of, and they are different but have their own quirky charm, funny hats and all. They may be one weird family, but they have a right to be themselves, and on a Social Studies level, my daughter needs to know about them.
She has been acquainted with, and been curious about, several gay couples and families; I remind her that love is a gift, and that people should be allowed to decide for themselves whom they will love, and whether they will start a family. She has occasionally noticed men in dresses or women in suits, and had friends who liked to dress a little differently; and I remind her how she'd feel if she were only allowed to wear dresses, or only pants, or only green, or never pink. Her world is a bigger, richer, and more interesting place with no harm done. God save the queens!
I had a friend whose mother found out she was gay, beat her with a hairbrush, and threw her out of the house. My mom took her in and she stayed with us for months at a time. I think my dad guessed - he went on a regular dinner-table rant about those awful homosexuals he saw downtown in SF when he was at work, and she would just sit there, quiet as a mouse, trying to disappear. I didn't know she was gay - only her succession of "roommates" did. When she finally told me, I didn't really understand what it meant; I didn't have the means to really support her; I wish now that I'd said "I love you and I'm proud of who you are and I'm glad your my friend" instead of "oh! That explains a lot" without having a clue what it explained. She went through a series of disastrous relationships trying to fit in. She bounced in and out of the military, mental hospitals, a bad marriage to a straight man, prescription drug abuse, and severe depression; eventually we fell out of contact. I wonder what her life would have been like if her mother had understood she was born that way and had a right to happiness. Several of my other friends have married people who came out of the closet after years of marriage based on a lie. Love might have been there, but it wasn't enough; and everyone suffered. Is it necessary to raise more generations of people who must lie to fit in, or even survive?
It's very important this curriculum is about relationships, not about the mechanics of sex. Thinking back to my own prurient (or at least precocious) little self, I was looking up the f-word in the dictionary at age 8 or 9. Unfortunately it was missing out of the Webster's New School Abridged 1962 edition in our school library. If my parents had just explained the basic plumbing and functions, it actually would have put the whole question to rest. It's sad they were able to explain how my nose worked, but taught me to mistrust and fear my own - um, things down there. So instead, I learned about "doing it" from another kid. Who had learned it from a friend at age 6... and his definition and vocabulary were not only lurid but inaccurate. This led to all sorts of confusion, embarrassment, and misapprehension.
This curriculum hardly touches on sex and doesn't need to go much further than in discussion about a conventional nuclear family; something along the lines of "when two people love each other very much, they choose to create a family." And when you go into the biomechanics of it - whether you approve of it or not, it's basically science and kids will only absorb what they are ready for. "Doctors combine genetic material to make a complete baby, which then grows safely in a mommy's uterus until it's ready to be born. "
As I told the City Council - I don't approve of the British Royal Family's doings. I don't believe in the Divine Right of Kings. I hate the idea of arranged and loveless marriages. I think the Prince of Wales dresses funny. But I acknowledge that they exist and are a cultural force to be aware of, and they are different but have their own quirky charm, funny hats and all. They may be one weird family, but they have a right to be themselves, and on a Social Studies level, my daughter needs to know about them.
She has been acquainted with, and been curious about, several gay couples and families; I remind her that love is a gift, and that people should be allowed to decide for themselves whom they will love, and whether they will start a family. She has occasionally noticed men in dresses or women in suits, and had friends who liked to dress a little differently; and I remind her how she'd feel if she were only allowed to wear dresses, or only pants, or only green, or never pink. Her world is a bigger, richer, and more interesting place with no harm done. God save the queens!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)