Our Modern Dilemma and Why a Cat Naps

What responsibility, one's own happiness! We're so used to it being given to us. So often happiness comes from an external source. People go to a theater to be entertained, or attend a church service to hear the reassuring words of a minister. In a sick way, this always relying on others for momentary happiness makes us subhuman, robotic, or animalistic. (Not that those words aren't accurate assessments of human existence in many ways, but I digress...)

Taking one's happiness as one's sole responsibility is yet another way-a big, big way-to break free from the chains that bind, to be truly free. It is a step towards realizing the dream of true individuality replete with all the glory the idea deserves.

The Art of Happiness is complicated by the possibility that wanting and enjoyment of the type we are used to might not be natural. Pardon me if the following analogy is offensive to some, especially dog people, but.... If you feed a cat, pet a cat, let the cat run around the yard stalking song birds, and allow the cat to "get it on" with other cats, what then will the it do? There is no doubt-the cat will sleep. After all of its needs are met and its instinctual impulses are satisfied, the cat will be done and the cat will sleep. The concept of choosing to do anything else is probably alien to an animal largely programmed to do exactly what it does.

Gifted with an unusually large cerebrum, the human animal is constantly inundated with information-information that gets in the way of our instinctual, cat-like pursuit of that which we crave. Sometimes it can even stand in the way of us getting what we need. Of course, that which gets in the way (our big ol' cerebrum) is just another tool designed to help us get what we want more quickly and effectively. Over time, we've become so good at using our best tool that we've created a lot of extra time for ourselves (the conveniences of the modern life). In a sense, we more often exist in a void where no need or instinctual urge pulls us in any one direction. If we're not careful, we fill this void with fluff or obsession. For the cat, the emergence of the void means its time to take a nap, while for us we might choose to view it as the time we "really start living". (see a few blogs ago) It's the time we can choose to do what we really, really want to do. We're sure that we can achieve greater satisfaction, pleasure, happiness, enlightenment, what have you. I hope we're not wrong about that.

So here I am at the start of a day that is completely mine. I have no plans or obligations. I have no prearranged plan to meet anybody. My girlfriend will be in Sun Valley the entire day. And I'm completely clueless. I just don't know what I really, really want to do today. This blog is an attempt to understand that lack of wanting.

Now, when you feel the same, you won't need to get too down on yourself. A completely rational explanation for your difficulty in making a decision exists. You are very welcome.

How Fear Affects My Actions, and What I Like and Don't Like About My Job

Ok, ok, so what exactly do I do that is a reaction to fear? Having just written an impassioned essay on the need to rid ourselves of irrational fear, one would think I could produce a long list of fear-induced activities of my own. Well, I'm having a hard time thinking of any. Yes, when I think of losing things I love then I am afraid. And that fear can be especially debilitating, as well as inhibiting. And sure, sometimes my actions towards those things can be seen as actions based on fear. I am aware (while purposely keeping the discussion vague) that acting out of fear in this regard is more harmful than useful, and I strive every day to allow passion free reign while letting going of fear.

Also, I suppose I work because I fear loosing the security of a steady income. And no, I definately wouldn't do the work I do if it weren't for the bi-weekly checks. I'd rather spend my time writing, researching, riding my bike, painting, drawing, reading, loving, exploring, etc, etc. While I can enjoy my work and find some fulfillment in it, I'm constantly mildly annoyed by my lack of freedom in the confines of a workplace.

Taking up the subject of my job. What do I enjoy about it? It would benefit me to increase those things, wouldn't it? Let's see, I like talking to people and having them experience something new and exciting. I enjoy watching customer's respond favorably to the information and enthusiasm I share with them. I can get excited when I think of how taking up cycling could change a person's life. I can share a customer's hope and anticipation of the fun experiences they will have on a bike I sell them. Also, I love bikes; I simply like being around new and beautiful creations. I'm excited about the idea of possibly stearing the evolution of the sport in a small way. My knowledge and assessment of the bikes available will result in the sale of a larger number of what I'd consider sensible, superior bikes, while stifling the sales of poor performing designs.

What I don't like about work is running out of things, dropping the ball, not being able to help people out because I'm too busy and we're understaffed, and not having time to creatively improve the showroom's appearance.

Avoiding a Wasteful Life by Nullifying Fear

Recently I've been thinking about futility and have felt compelled to share some thoughts and explore the topic further.

What is a futile effort? By definition, a futile effort is one which will never achieve its aims. I imagine a monk living a celibate life high up in a mountain monestary, far removed from myriad luxuries and pleasures, studying and chanting the years away. I think, "what a wasted life". It's unfortunate that piety is thought to be a virtue when the pious miss out on so much joy.

I suppose there's a distinction I need to make. That between a "wastful effort" and a "futile effort". A futile effort is made so strictly based upon whether a goal is not achievable. A wasted effort is determined as such by someone and that someone's set of values. It's largely a subjective determination. It's this wasted effort that I'd rather focus on. It's the notions of wasted time and energy that compels me to write today.

Let's take the concern over aesthetic perfection. Is it a waste to spend hour upon hour manicuring one's lawn? Clearly it is an enjoyable activity for many. But is it not also an obsession? If their yard was less than perfect, would they worry over it? Could one say that things which are satisfying because they are the avoidance of a negative feeling are bad things? If someone spends the whole of their life fearing that their lawn might look bad if they don't take tend to it 3 hours a day, or if they spend their whole life fearing eternal damnation if they don't confess and pay a tithe every Sunday, then might it be said that her life is a waste?

How is my life a waste? I mean, what activities do I participate in that are more a reaction to fear than a response to love or passion?

I'm not sure, but let's take my concern over the way I look. And let's take my interest in fashion as an extension of that. Upon initial reflection, I must say that I fear looking unattractive. I think that this fear does exist. I wear a hat not because I like the feeling of a hat and not because I think everyone looks better in a hat, but because I think I look better in a hat given that I have very little hair on the top of my head. More to the point, I fear being disliked because of the way I look when I'm not wearing a hat. I want others to be delighted when they see me, not distracted or repulsed by any physical imperfection. Perhaps more than the average person, I want others to be attracted to me. This might be able to be construed as a positive thing. I could be doing what I do because I want as many people to be attracted to me as possible. Or, in a negative sense, you might think that there is very little attraction between people in general, and I am afraid that that will extend to me. I am fighting it by making myself more attractive, you may choose to believe.

In many ways, this wanting the attraction and approval of others is very human, very normal. For me, it is more the wanting the attraction to me-my body, mind, and personality that I seek. Other's interest in the approval of others might have more to do with, say, their lawn or their righteousness.

It appears that one's desire for approval/attraction is based largely upon one's values. I value health, strength, beauty, and sexuality whereas someone else places the emphasis upon order, discipline, and nurturing. The man with an immaculate lawn would like others to see him as a man possessing these latter traits because he feels that they are the best traits of all.

Also, one may observe that the "lawn man" finds pleasure in the values he ranks highly, just as I find pleasure in physical beauty and health. Perhaps it is because I am young and virile that I care so much about appearances. Hrm, might as well put a positive spin on things, right?

So, the lawn man and I aren't all that different really. We both act out of fear to some degree.

"Act out of fear". What does that mean? Is it simply a cliche? No, it is very real. Fear and desire are the original, instinctual impetus for acting. It requires little thought to act out of fear, which is very good when danger is real and immediate but is terrible if danger does not exist.

The danger of not being loved or liked because one is unattractive is not a fabricated fear. It happens-or doesn't happen-all of the time. And yes, sometimes a great degree of approval is gained or lost based upon the condition of one's house and yard. Still, these fears are somewhat unjustified in that they are not fears of death or injury.

Upon deeper reflection I find the previous statement not entirely true. If one does not attract a mate, one will not continue to live through the survival of his seed. This conception of survival is only slightly less valid than the instinctual response to threats to one's "being life". (I call it "being life" to differentiate it from another valid conception of life. Life can also refer to the life continuing from parent to child, from generation to generation. Because each generation shares the same genes, and because the conception of a child does not involve a death but a merger and regeneration of two living cells, one would not be blamed for thinking that a "life" usually extends for thousands, if not millions of years.) Furthermore, I am sure that at many many points in human history, social/neighborly acceptance was critical for one's survival. Integration into a clan insured that a person would not be left to fend for himself and his family in a cold, dangerous wilderness or among enemies who wished to terminate people of his kind.

So, human behavior, even actions that seem to be a wasted effort (and often are), can always be linked in some way to the survival instinct.

Our challenge is identifying and shedding fear that is superfluous and irrational. Then our actions will more likely originate from positive desire.

The waste I've spoken of in this blog refers primarily to time. If making myself or my lawn attractive took little effort and time, it would hardly be a waste. Its rather obvious-the more time spent on something that is not necessary for your survival and that doesn't grant you greater joy or contentment, the more wasteful that activity. A general prescription then would be to work on being rid of all completely irrational fear, and to spend less time on those things which justify a little fear. When fear is somewhat justified, time spent on the activity should be kept to a minimum by doing the activity faster and more effeciently...

How do we spend our time, reacting to irrational fear or obsessing over fear embossed on our genes? Fear will always inform our choices to some degree. Our goal is to recognize that some things we do might be excessive responses to largely made-up or expired threats.

Living Finally Begins After One's Basic Needs and Desires Are Met

(originally 8/15)

This is my second sit-down of the day. I find it rather conducive to my happiness to not only not be working, but to not be thinking about buying anything. Of course, not thinking about buying something is partially dependent upon not needing anything, which, thankfully, I don't. Also, I've been thinking about how not needing to clean my home makes me much more content. So, absent these concerns, I've really enjoyed the first half of my day off.

To phrase things in a more philisophical way, when one's most basic needs and desires are met, true living can finally begin. Today I've been walking around town checking out art and architecture. I've been stimulating myself intellectually by reading, thinking, and writing. I even watched a little tv. I caught some of The Colbert Report and Mad TV. TV isn't good for much-it wastes a lot of time-but laughing is never a waste of time. In fact, its of extraordinary value. I am very pro-TV for this reason. Anyway, I've got 3+ more hours of quality alone time to draw, read, and write, so I'd better get to it.

Dissecting Books to Find the Logic of Faith

(originally written 8/8/06)

Hey. I just sat down at the M. I'm ready to do a little research into the justification or defense of faith. With me are three books: An Essay on Morals, by Phylip Wylie; The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel; and The Reconstruction of Belief, by Charles Gore-the inspiration for the title of this blog. I intend to flip randomly through some pages in the hope of coming upon some content which will reveal the logic that justifies faith, or supports the proposition that God exists. I'll list it as I find it:

1) The universe cannot be viewed and understood without admitting to the presence of a great mind.
2) The mind, belonging to the creator, is manifest in the universe.
3) The highest form of mind we know of directly is our own, thus it is reasonable to believe that the creator is like us, with a distinct personality.
4) It is more likely than not that the creator chose to reveal himself to his creation throught the prophets and scripture.

I know my mission here was to simply list the logic/argument behind the thinking of believers, but I just have to interrupt and state for the record that I have so many problems with the preceeding statements. Each one asserts its truth, yet each one is far from that-all are neither well-supported nor self-evident. Ok, back to the job at hand...

5) The new testament's historical accuracy provides important corroboration, establishing reliability
6) "There are plenty of reasons to believe that the gospels are reliable"
**" Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaological discoveries (Strobel 45)" (interesting quote)
7) The whole universe has a rational order
8) "..see a purpose of beauty in the world prior in time to man's appearance (Gore, 147)"
9) "...see a purpose of fellowship and love becoming dominant in the animal world before man (Gore, 147" Thus, "...his conscious purpose is behind all"

[8/15, another day, another coffee shop]

Again, I'm seeking assertions, propositions, the basic assumptions of those who believe in God and and an after life.

The author of Faith Security and Risk, The Dynamics of Spiritual Growth, Richard W. Kropf, says:

"It is this something that is greater than ourselves which alone can fully call forth our capacity to become fully what we are capable of (16)" {Here, the author refers to Frankl's explanation of our purpose or motive for living and finding fulfillment. Kropf, in this section of the book is comparing/contrasting Frankl's meaning to fulfillment to Freud's pleasure motive and Adler's power/prestige motive.}

The statement comes after a slow, methodical approach to the issue of God's existence, but in actuality, it is an amazing leap forward in its assumption. I include this quote because it represents the genesis of a grand assumption. In it, we find the author beginning to speak of a belief in something... The quote assumes the existence of a higher power; it assumes this higher power's connection to us, it assumes it has a specific purpose for us, and it accepts our position of dependence upon it alone for that which we seek. Each assumption in and of itself is a grand one. Together they demonstrate that the author is a really, really big ass. That's right, I said it! Each assumption should have been explained and justified; however, in one sentence, the author seems to accept that there is nothing unusual, and little more to be said, about the foundation of his entire book. Like all religions, the author has a straw man carry the weight of the world. Moving on...

According to Frankl, it is the pneuma, or "spirit", which makes us fully human.
"St Paul tells us that it is our pneuma, the human spirit, that reaches out to God's pneuma, the Holy Spirit, and which alone can bring us to our full destiny as 'children of God' (see Rom 8:16")"

The author, Kropf, goes on to explain Frankl's decidedly Christian definition of being. There are 3 dimensions of human existence; physical, mental, and spiritual. We are only partially complete on the spiritual level, still growing. The reality in which we live exists primarily as a result of our efforts/actions to evolve spiritually. The author seems to believe that one's lack of satisfaction/happiness in life is due to our need to connect with God and evolve spiritually.

And so we're sucked into a study of one man's ideas regarding the nature of being, having skipped over any evidence or support for notion that God exists. The author comes as close as he ever does to addressing the specific issue of God's existence-he recognizes that we want to know the meaning of our lives, that we hope for fulfillment; yet he immediately surrenders his reason to Frankl's mere observation that faith is a "trust in ultimate meaning" when he seems to confuse this definition of faith with THE ANSWER, or the proof, while it remains clear to me that it is a definition and not an answer-especially not an answer supported by reason. Frankl reads that faith is "a trust in ultimate meaning" and hears "God exists". Yeah, its as strange as it sounds. Alas, another author jumps the gun.

Its crazy. Kropf devotes most of the book to defining and differentiating types of faith in order to get to the heart of it. He defines it in so many positive ways, using words and phrases like "confidence", "grace", "charisma", "a loving trust", "confident security of faith", "trust in ultimate meaning", "faith hope and love", "conviction", "committment", "proof", "allegiance", "fidelity"... The author doesn't seem to think twice about a missing element in his definition of faith, without which the word would loose its true meaning. Perhaps its because "a lack of evidence" or "blind trust" are a somewhat negative phrases, and the author has an undeniable bias in favor of faith--not suprisingly, of course.

Faith Security and Risk is a very Catholic book, written by a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America. His passing treatment of the reasonable justification of faith is irresponsible. The tactics he uses to quickly introduce the Grand Assumptions and then mire the reader in intellectual minutia regarding the definition and nuances of faith are nothing short of deception and trickery. I'm not sure if I'm justified in feeling this way (maybe its the coffee), but these facts are making my blood boil.

Moving on to another book. I think I'll continue reading The Reconstruction of Disbelief as I'm committed to finishing that monster. Thanks to it, I'm beginning to have some understanding of the Catholic Church.

Where I'm at Now in the Deconstruction of Belief

(still copying handwritten thoughts to this blog)
So, at this moment, my energy should be spent investigating near death experiences and deconstructing scholars' arguments in favor of religious belief. Also, I'd like to attend some religious services and speak to various church leaders. My motives are a passion for truth, logic, and freedom; and for contributing to the finalization or reconciliation OR merger of the big questions regarding God, Mortality, Morality with a "science of happiness"....

Why We Believe

Psychology has granted us relatively new insight into why people will believe things absent proof or a reasonable argument.

1) we believe what we want to believe
2) we believe things that ease our fear of death
3) we are swayed by emotional appeal
4) we believe after being presented with partial or circumstantieal evidence
5) questioning traditional religious belief is taboo
6) we do not want to dissapoint our parents, family, and friends
7) we believe in response to peer pressure
8) some things in life are easier when we're a part of a religious community
9) religion assists some in finding a mate
10) we are lazy, and it takes work to find good enough reason to change our minds
11) we are scared into belief (hell and damnation)

What would it take for Josh Travis to believe?

Lets entertain the idea that a god could exist, that there may be life after death.

If its unreasonable to believe something that can never be demonstrated or experienced by the living, how could one believe in God or life after death?

I can think of a couple of responses. First, if life after death and God are things that can indeed be demonstrated or experienced. And yes, there have been many claims that "life" was experienced in some manner after a person "died". These claims are well worth investigating. The broad questions one should ask in such an investigation are 1) is the claim a lie/fabrication? 2) could the experience have been something other than what it seemed, like a dream?

One may also prove, with a logical argument, that God exists. If prophecy comes from God, and prophecy is fulfilled, then God exists. This is a troublesome way of proving the existence of God because one would first have to establish that fact that a certain prophecy really came from God and that the prophecy really was fulfilled. The latter fact would be difficult to establish, and the first nearly impossible. Psychic phenomena, well informed guessing, time machines, and so on are more reasonable explanations for fulfilled prophecy than the existence of God.

However, the mention of God in a prophecy that later came about would lend support to, but not prove, the reality of that prophecy. One could "prophecy" that God is going cause a landslide along Highway 21 north of Idaho City on January 1st, 2007. On that date, the "prophet" could blow up a cliffside with dynamite; and with the act, convince a large number of people that the prophecy was true, that he was a prophet, and that, say, God told him to take 20 young brides. However, its clear that God had nothing to do with the occurance or claims.

Prophecy is also a tricky subject because, as we are all aware, self-fullfilling prophecy is a real phenomenon. More likely, in my opinion, is the fulfillment of prophecy due to random, natural occurances. In my life I've seen many blood-red suns. Over the centuries, there have been thousands of instances in which the sun, or nature in general, takes on an unusual appearance. Every such instance is an opportunity for an ancient prophecy which refers to a blood-red sun to be "proven". If there is a conjunction of enough random factors, believers will undoubtedly point them out as evidence of the impending apocalypse, or whatever prophecy conveniently fits.

Finally, when a person speaks in an extraordinary manner of events yet to come, it is much more likely that he or she is schizophrenic or is being fooled by someone hiding behind a bush, than it is the person is a prophet of God.

Note that "Prophet of God" is a concept which is implies that a god exists; which, as I've claimed, is something that cannot be demonstrated and has yet to be proven by logical argument. However, "prophet of God" is a common phrase, thanks to tradition. Tradition is filled with phrases such as this. An entire book called the Bible, could be conceived as one large phrase like "prophet of God" implying but not proving the existence of God. Countless ideas and common knowledge is derived from the Bible, yet all this phraseology amounts to as much real proof of the existence of god as a three word phrase.

For centuries, religion has continued to exist in spite of much more scientific, reasonable explanations for its outrageous claims. A strategy that has served religious people well is burying the argument of God's existence in irrelevant scripture and emotionally appealing stories. The massive quantity of text which religion has built around itself, as foundation and bulwark, has granted it great authority and apparent authenticity. The proper, formal language (ie King James version of the Bible) and scripture's characterization of God as a forceful, willful, powerwielding diety also serve to grant religion an undeserved credibility. When it comes to convincing others of a claim; being loud, confident, pompous, forceful, and intimidating (as God is in the Old Testament and as religion tends to be) is perhaps the best of all methods available.

With all this said, with these problems recognized, I still maintain that belief in an afterlife and God could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if:

1) near-death experiences were validated,
2) an argument sound and extensive enough was constructed, or
3) I experienced these things directly

Staying Open Minded

Still, I won't dismiss the challenges to my negative perception of religious belief so quickly. Like nearly all claims, I will continue to entertain their possible existence and remain open to reasonable argument for as long as evidence or a reasonable argument can be produced. Its an approach that I like to think of as the pennacle-or the basic point of-free will and free speech. Its the antithesis of complete conviction. Some call it being open-minded. There is always a chance I could be wrong, I gladly admit. Uncertainty is a virtue. Its lies at the core of humility, peace, and understanding.

So, I can imagine a believer responding to previous posts, "Isn't this very limiting? Will you not entertain the discussion, the idea, of life after death and a god? Does not philosophy, which you seem so passionate about, deal specifically with ideas that are above the material-that are extra-real, even minutia? And though you may claim that philosophy is a great hobby that rarely informs your daily actions, don't you hold onto the hope that it will transform your life...and hasn't it already...?"

More on that later

Conversion as Proof of God's Existence

In response to my assertion that anything worthy of belief is something that should atleast be shown or testable, I can imagine someone saying, "But look at the change belief has made in the hearts and minds of countless people. Josh, is this result, or demonstration, not sufficient for you to believe in God's existence?"

In the case of a heart patient, there is little doubt that he would die without a transplant, as there's little doubt that if an operation was performed successfully, he would continue living for some time. However, while a person's life may dramatically change and improve after becoming Christian, there is nothing about the personal changes which demonstrate that a God is waiting for him after he dies. The logic inherent in the argument "His life sucked before becoming Christian. His life became better after becoming Christian. Therefore, Christianity made his life better." is strong as long as nothing else in the person's life changed other than the adoption of a whole new belief system and lifestyle (Christianity). But the argument "His life sucked before becoming Christian. His life became better after joining the churh. Therefore, a God exists and all the claims of the church are true." is so obviously devoid of logic, I need not go on. Again, if a claim is not demonstratable, then a belief in it is a matter of faith. To billions of people, a thing being a "matter of faith" is perfectly fine, if not making that thing somehow better than those things which are proven fact-things which we can act confidently in response to to better our lives, yet things which billions of people choose to ignore in favor of emotionally appealing figments of our ancestors imagination.