Reason is Bliss

Sorry

2010-05-28T11:31:00.000-04:00

Hey all.
Sorry i havent been around in a while. Ill get back to this soon. Been very busy, but ill attach some work up here. I am very active in posting good material on Facebook. You can find me there.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/Ericpaoletti

The Truth Will Set You Free.

2009-12-27T17:53:00.001-05:00

Life can be a mess. You can be told a million things that are false and yet never even

realize it. Some of us are able to free our minds and not settle for the common ideologies of our

culture. So here I will explain how my life’s philosophy had evolved and what I believe. In-order

to properly describe my beliefs, I must first address my take on the word “belief”. There

are two kinds of beliefs. The first are beliefs that are held by faith, which may include

religious beliefs, superstitious and uninformed opinion. All of these options have a potential to

be false. The second type of belief is based on what is ‘known’ not necessarily just ‘believed’.

These beliefs are assertions based upon reason and facts that shape our world view.

My childhood took place in the 80’s and the 90’s. I grew up in a wonderful family that is

deeply religious. My early philosophy of life was completely shaped by a childhood

indoctrination based on Christian fundamentalism. We did the family routine of going to Church

every Sunday and did our part to be “good Christians”. When I was in my teens, I was sent to a

private Christian high school. This school was run right out of a Baptist church. At this school

our world views were shaped by the church. They told us what kind of music to listen to, what

we should be watching on TV and even how to dress. Our school books were all titled “from the

Christian perspective”. This meant that all information in our text books were made to have a

Christian agenda. In these years I had little opportunity to search for a life philosophy of any

other kind. I knew nothing else other than to believe in and worship god and accept all of the

teachings of the bible. No matter what other information we may come across. Among their

teachings were creationism and divinely instituted moral codes. These are two topics I will

touch later on to help describe my position.

After I had graduated from the Christian Academy, I was headed to a Bible College to

become a Christian psychologist. Then things began to change. I had made the decision that I

didn’t want to go to a Bible College after I had had a family fight. This fight dealt with certain

moral issues that I’m not going to go into detail about. Let’s just say some things just didn’t

make sense to me anymore. I read the bible all the way through for the first time at around age

twenty three. I had already read the bible through once, though I read it as if it had been

written by god himself. I studied its contents heavily in my bible class during high school. In

most cases the bible is largely “cherry-picked” by its followers. People will read the bible and

pick out the good stuff and leave out the bad. So for the first time I read the bible as if it was

written by man and not by a divine being. I left nothing out this time. This revealed a lot about

who I was worshiping. As I read through the Old Testament I generated a deep disgust for the

atrocities committed by Yahweh. As I learned more and more about the actual religion and it

history, I felt betrayed and lied to. It had distorted my reality and the way I viewed life.

This new information I had learned changed my view on reality completely. During my

search for knowledge on the subject of religion I stumbled upon a book by Sam Harris called

“The End of Faith”. In his book, he explained how it has always been taboo to question

religiosity and the existence of god in this world (especially in America and Middle East). This is

something that had to change in our human discourse. We needed a new direction in order to

help people use a “reasonable”, “critical” and “secular” worldview. This is the only way to truly

understand reality. If people started to reject old ideas and superstitions it would solve a lot of

cultural and ethical problems. So, I left faith behind me. After-all the blind leading the blind

never gets anywhere productive and I wanted off the “narrow path” philosophy.

I may be making this all sound like it was an easy task. Honestly, after a lifetime of

brain-washing it took almost ten years to really comprehend and undo all of it. I did a lot of

searching and consulting from many different people from diverse walks of life. I studied the

many ‘–isms’ of the world, spiritualism, theism, deism, pantheism etc. I even dabbled in the

world of crazy conspiracy theorists. This is where I learned that there is a point at which

skepticism can show an ugly side as well. One of the best ways to truly understand these

ideologies was to know their roots and their histories. Once they were exposed you could

understand them completely and why people follow such things. In the early days of man they

had limited understanding and knowledge of the natural world. When they made rough

attempts at explaining their perceived reality, this sparked the stories that led to religious

belief. The stars were gods and the trees were also. Many even worshiped time itself in the

embodiment of the Sun. This wonder and imagination enabled man to make up just about

anything to explain the natural world. Out of all this, the artful idea making process spawned

the advent of something greater that led to man’s progress. This began raising human

consciousness and understanding. This enabled humans to use the world around us to improve

our lives using both imagination and wonder to achieve our goals. This became evident in the

form of tools, weapons, artistry and later on writing. But, unfortunately the superstitions stayed

with us and prevailed throughout time. This was due largely to the inheritance of teachings

from our ancestors that went on from generation to generation up to the present day. Even the

religions themselves evolved, which is ironic to me.

One other area I would like to touch on is what I used to believe and now believe about

the origins of Earth and the Universe. As a young Christian the “Genesis” story was drilled into

me at a young age. I was taught that the universe was created in six days and that this occurred

between ten and six thousand years ago. I was also taught that the first man was Adam and

that Eve (women) came out of man. This story revealed a sexist theme that was a running

concept throughout the Bible. Many of the stories in the Old Testament were filled with magic

and unanswered questions. None-the-less, I just accepted All of it because that’s what

everyone else around me believed. I began to read extensively works from authors and

professors such as Richard Dawkins, a popular evolutionary biologist as well as Neil Degrasse

Tyson, a world renowned astrophysicist. In my reading I came to understand certain scientific

studies such as abiogenesis, cosmology and evolution. These are the scientific studies

pertaining to the origins of cellular structures, the cosmos and life on earth. I used to think the

earth was six thousand years old! What was I thinking? Now the facts had arisen that the

universe was fifteen billion years old and man hadn’t walk along side dinosaurs. Makes you

think . . . “Flintstones”? This was all mind-blowing! The idea of the world being brought into

existence through godly incantation within a six day period became a very childish concept to

me.

Some had told me that if I gave up my faith in god I would have no more

purpose in life. People would also tell me that I would no longer posses any sense of moral

direction. As if to say, I wouldn’t be capable of achieving any moral stance without direction by

an absolute objective morality. In other words, I would become a heartless animal. Given the

Christian stance on evolution this makes sense to assume this judgment. This is because they

hate the idea of humans be categorized alongside primates. I had a new understanding of

human ethics. These ethics were built upon by years and years of progress adapting to a

continually changing world and culture. This is the non-absolute subjective morality that has

evolved into today’s modern ethics. I know nothing is ever perfect in our cultures but I

like to think we’ve done pretty well. Animals, land and sea alike, have also been observed

displaying certain moral codes which they have adapted into their own species. They

sometimes show the same characteristics as human conduct. Learning this I came to the

conclusion that there is no “Moral Dictator”.

Having gained a new understanding and knowledge I was regularly approached by

family and friends. They would say that all this new “knowledge” is a satanic fabrication meant

to drive a wedge between god and I. I guess “knowledge” is evil…right? I would counter this by

simply telling people that the purpose of life is to “live life” and to acquire this knowledge and

find the truth in all things. Live life to the fullest since this is the only chance you get. Without

belief in an afterlife, this is truly your only chance. Not having an afterlife scares the hell out of

people, literally. It all ties into the fear of the unknown and thus stories are created out of fear

in order to make it all go away. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and

call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a

God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of

blindfolded fear”.

So in all this, I had also found a new joy and respect for my planet and the magnificent

universe. It’s not just a magical ant farm for a power hungry and jealous god. It became a world

that I wanted to understand and study. My newfound atheism brought me joy and an exciting

want for knowledge that has raised my consciousness to a new level of awareness. This is a far

better feeling than that of fear and guilt that was produced by an invisible means of emotional

support. Sadly though, some of these philosophies have come with a small price tag. I was

alienated in certain ways by friends and family and also ridiculed at times. The treatment of

non-believers in American society is very bad, the funny thing is that atheists, agnostics and

non-believers make up about 13% of the U.S. population. That is a huge voting bloc completely

shunned in politics. Once President Bush Sr. said, “No, I don’t know that atheists should be

considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under god”.

Our current President, Barack Obama is actually the first president that

I know of to date that recognized non-believing citizens in his inaugural address. One of the sad

things is a lot of the religious community just doesn’t understand or purely doesn’t want to

acknowledge our point of view for obvious reasons. As a Christian it was common to block out a

lot of things that we weren’t supposed think to hard about, ‘sow’ a seed of doubt wouldn’t

creep in” (pun intended).

My early life philosophy was submerged in a theistic belief system. Through the telling

of my story I hoped to show the reasoning behind my changing mindset into a larger more

realistic worldview. All of this allowed my philosophy of life to develop into something more

rational. A life philosophy is built upon by a collection of many beliefs either true or false.

The truth should be sought in all things in life even if it makes you uncomfortable. Life is meant

to be lived and lived to its fullest. I can die in peace knowing the truth and the truth has set me

free.

Advancement of artifical means to further Life.

2009-12-27T17:09:00.001-05:00

On this “pale blue dot” our species is riddled with many different obstacles. Humanity is plagued with evolving diseases, cancers and degenerative abnormalities. Millions of men, women and children die to problems they either have no control over, or fail to control due to their shortcomings. Contributing to these torments are war and poverty spawned from physical and intellectual in-equality. In the end humanity is bound for one thing . . . extinction! This is known because 99.9% of all living organisms that have ever existed are now wiped from the face of the earth. Some believe it is humanities destiny to be doomed and others simply choose to be apathetic. This could only lead to the detriment of our progress. This paper will explore the option of artificial means to enhance the lives and survivability of the human condition.

Since the dawn of consciousness humans have been engineering ways to adapt to their ever changing environment. Their ancestors have been through planetary change and environmental shifts that would currently devastate present day societies. Early humans persevered due to their early and fast paced advancement. This allowed for the species to thrive on a planet that seems at times determined to kill them off. Humans are truly susceptible to many different forms of attacks. They come from many directions spawning from the same primordial soup that gave rise to all things. War and the hunt are the two activities that were major challenges early on that had the potential to kill people off. This would have left them at the bottom (if not the middle) of the food chain. Early homo-sapiens created tools to solve these problems. Tools were crafted by making use of the materials in their environment through artistry and a pinch of logic. These newly forged items could kill both animal and enemy as well as gather other various resources. This advancement solved both hunger and territorial problems, which, in the light of ‘survival of the fittest’ spurred about their greater evolution. The gathering of material was necessary for surviving the changing climate over millions of years. To fight the intense heat and cold humans manipulated their environment and made clothing and shelter. In other words they surrounded themselves with the products of their tools and advanced their outer bodies with forms of armor.

Today people are living in a completely new era. Millions of years have given way to change causing biological and mental advancement. Because of these changes humans are now currently in need of new tools in order to survive the inevitable. For instance, scientists are in the process of manipulating technology in order to create cellular tissue. This will be utilized in the making of organs. They are in the early stages of this process but it is moving at an adequate rate. This will be necessary as it will allow people to finally overcome organ failure as well as slow down physical degradation. Creating artificial organs and new forms of regenerative medicine will both make people healthier and increase their life expectancy substantially. There is another field of study that relates to this called ‘cellular nano-technology’. This new study allows scientists the ability to create cell sized machines that commit to certain tasks acting like human cells. This will have the potential to keep biological systems in check at all times with the potential to regenerate lost limbs and other body tissues. This technology derives many of its advances from the controversial topic of stem cell research. This is the study of using base cellular tissue to build new tissue for repair. This coupled with nano-bots would work at a faster and error free pace. Both studies are extremely promising in the art of regenerative medicine and a must for future progress. When debated whether or not to perform medicine in this way, both fields will prevail far over the alternative. They should not be approached timidly or superstitiously but embraced.

Next, this paper will approach the issue on the topic of intellectual advancement. There is a long standing argument on how to achieve a higher state of mind while limiting human error. People ask questions such as...”Do we advance the machine and let them loose to do our work for us?” or “Do we keep working with machines while keeping them at bay?” When thinking of these two questions there emerges another idea of greater potential . . .the merging of mind and machine! When one thinks of artificial intelligence many imaginative ideas stir up. The most notorious are the fears of a “machine takeover”, which, is a reasonable fear. Since, this could have the potential to annihilate our species if it were unbridled. Our most glorious creation could also become our worst nightmare. So sympathizing with this leads to a better alternative to eliminate these fears. There needs to be more focus on merging man and machine which will allow for more adequate control over the entire system. Obviously, it would take a lot of work. The technology would have to be perfected well before it is implemented into modern medicine and it will be. This concept ties the two entities together on the biological level. By making our bodies half machine through bio-tech advancement there will be a substantial increase in overall potential. Scientists will be able to utilize cybernetics to make people run faster, see farther, increase strength and last but not least expand the mental capacity. Intellectual capacity could be greatly augmented if it was equipped with better memory storage and the ability to ‘download’ knowledge into the mind. Think of the great things that could be accomplished with such a large capacity of understanding and logic. Political challenges would be solved rationally and climate change could be an easily fixed problem. Even if the inevitable couldn't be changed, people would surely be more able to survive and find the best possible alternatives to bad situations. The brain is the primary engine and computation device and it needs an upgrade. Like any computer you have to go from 2.0 to 3.0 at some point. Scientists are currently engineering machines that have the ability to formulate dreams as if they are mimicking human thought processes. So, why not advance the brain to mimic the better qualities of the machine? It would surely be a major benefit to everyone.

In closing, this paper will address the fact that there is current opposition to these ground breaking studies. The opposing views to this form of advancement are stumbling blocks that need to be thrown into the pile of unproductive thought. Many are scarred by these innovative ideas fearing that scientists are “playing god” and are being “unethical”. But what could be more unethical than to let a multi-million year old super advanced species fade away into nothing due to apathetic pride and fear of the unknown.

Church of the Non-Belivers? You can keep your Church.

2009-12-27T17:02:00.000-05:00

There is a new breed of atheism in the world and as Gary Wolf wonders, “are they winning converts, or are they merely preaching to the choir?” Wolf's, Nov, 2006 article titled, The Church of the Non-Believers, takes on this argument. Gary Isaac Wolf is a contributing editor for WIRED magazine. Wolf is also a book writer and columnist with titles such as Supermemo and Quantified Self , (co-authored by Kevin Kelley). These writings delve mostly in mathematical science, in conjunction with statistics and weather patterns.

WIRED magazine is a science and technology periodical and on-line distribution relating their subject matter to current events. It utilizes various fields of science within the "tech" sectors to promote material to a core audience of "tech junkies" , "geeks" and "political enthusiasts". Not all of its audience is young and crazed with technology addiction. They also cater to an audience of mature and philosophically motivated people that enjoy reading about current events and world development. The core purpose of this particular article in WIRED is a hard one to digest. There isn't much technology talk at all. So it will not only attract the intuitive “techy” but will also be an appealing article to it's secondary audience. Both argumentative and informative.

In the exchange of human discourse there is a massive philosophical conflict between theism and atheism, this has been going on for quite a long time. Today, this topic is evolving and shifting as the world progresses to be more knowledgeable and informed. In the discussion of the “New” Atheism there is currently a translucent rift as of late. Much of this is argument based on etiquette and feelings. Gary Wolf set out on a journey to help him understand the real reasons behind the now very prevalent and growing movement of atheism in America today. Wolf is admirably able to grab the attention of a few of the worlds current leading and well known atheists in order to perform his obejective. These men are: Sam Harris, Dan Dennet and Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is a Oxford University professor , writer and lecturer. He is known world wide by many titles given to him by friends, colleagues and foes. One example would be, “Darwin's Rottweiler”. This comes from his background as a superb Biologist and profound defender of Darwinian evolution and has written many best selling books on the subject. While discussing atheism with Dawkins, Wolf seeks to understand Richard's hard-lined point of view on religion as a morally bankrupt intellectual crime that needs to be eradicated.

In their conversation, key points to Dawkin's agenda relies upon the evangelism of the atheistic movement and scientific awareness. He stresses that in order to spread the correct information, religion has to be met with equal pressure and intolerance of its myth. He also expresses his disagreement with the ability of parents to force misguided ideas and myths upon their children. This is talked about in more detail while discussing the concept of the “meme.” This idea of Dawkins talks about how, thoughts, ideas, beliefs and mental attributes passed down through the generations are like genes in the human body. This explains how religion has been around for so long and remained prevalent throughout the ages, all the while evolving in its own way. These myths are then bent to suit current history and political agendas.

Gary Wolf takes Dawkins with a teaspoon of salt and seems a bit argumentative. He says that he may be causing more harm to his movement than good by being so obvious in his disdain. “If the solution to the spread of wrong ideas and contagious superstitions is a totalitarian commissariat that would silence believers, then the cure is worse than the disease.” - Wolf. This is the point at which Gary is not showing good signs of deep and reasoned thinking. The cure is far worse than the disease? Since when is it wrong to have people understand actual truths rather than wild superstitions? If Galileo never attempted to shut down early religious “scientists” in the church, we'd still be walking on a flat earth. If Charles Darwin hadn't swallowed his own attraction to old world thinking, the achievements in understanding biology would never have occurred. This would have destroyed any semblance of modern medicine today and how we understand our ecosystems. What would be the point of teaching at all if we were only to adhere to fossilized thoughts? The Disease in this instance has been silencing “non-believers” and “heretics” for thousands of years. Only scientific and political perseverance has the strength of the illness been met with a suitable medication and is curing the laryngitis of reason and truth.

The next discussion takes place with the writer and freethinker Sam Harris. Harris has written a few books called, The End of Faith and A Letter to a Christian Nation. He talks about the future of religion and the ending of faith based approaches to politics and foreign policy. He isn't so much bent on the material proofs of atheism but more concentrated on the harm that religion has, can and will inflict upon the whole of humanity. One of the prime reasons for Sam to start writing so much on the subject came after 9/11, which we all know was committed by religious extremists. Harris sees what could happen if religions are given a fairway to their ideologies, though he is not all 'doom and gloom.' Sam has optimism for the future. He attributes his optimism to the recent rise in freethinking and atheism in the world. Sam believes that a new system or order should arise, not through the churches, but through science and understanding. This would allow people to work towards more humanist and realistic goals. “There would be a religion of reason” and “ We would have realized the rational means to maximize human happiness.” - says Harris. Now, most atheists would cringe at this sort of statement and I think Wolf takes it out of context as well. I believe the statement was meant to be taken jokingly. Though Wolf runs with it, trying to paint atheism as another religion and working under the same pretenses as any other supernatural belief. Wolf makes up an atheist prayer, where he is obviously trying to throw atheism into the same box asreligion again. “Here is the atheist prayer: that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.” Although I feel he is mocking us, I must say that I agree with the context.

Gary then makes his way to an evangelical/charismatic church called Angelus Temple in Echo Park, LA. There he met with its leader, Pastor Matt. The underlining idea before the talk reads, “While the New Atheists are arming themselves against faith, faith itself renews its arms”. Gary explains the atmosphere in this church as being lively and full of enjoyment to many. He does mention that he sees some odd things he isn't used to seeing in other churches. For instance, the obvious attraction to having people “give” and “donate” to the lord . . . a lot. As well as some major differences in its scriptural approaches than from other church counterparts. What catches his senses the most is the message. It is open to a wide range of Christian beliefs and is not itself set in stone on many issues. The message purely concentrates on the holy spirit and the human connection to the love of God. It is not so much worried intellectual disputes and scriptural talk. Gary notices that the message is much different and geared to the emotions of the young and old, speaking to their everyday experiences and hardships. Pastor Matt props up his flock spiritually by helping them to cope with life's hardships, calling them, “Kings anointed by God.” This gives them purpose and a path. Gary sums up this visit with this line. “...We practiced reasoners and sincere pilgrims on the path of non-belief, may find something in it that makes sense. Not withstanding the banality of the doctrine, its canned anecdotes, and its questionable fund raising, Pastor Matthew offers a gift to his flock. They sow their seeds, and he blesses them. Its a direct exchange.”

Too me this sounds more like the capitalism of the emotions. Pay up, and I'll make you feel good with false hopes. Here again, I witness Mr. Wolf's compassion for the church and its direction. I feel he is still missing the mark. Its not about ones feelings its about truth and reason and the stability it brings. Feelings are getting the best of Gary. I'm sorry, as a “practiced reasoner”, I don't see it “making sense.”

The final individual in Gary's trek leads him to conversation with Dan Dennet, a world leading philosopher and professor. Dan is a humble and respectful man. In his evaluation he sees that Dan, although 'evangelical' like Dawkins and Harris, comes with his own brand of reasoning. More thoughtful and reasoned, an experimentor of ideas. Like most philosophers, he is open to all ideas being put to scrutiny. Though unlike some atheists he believes that all religions should be taught in schools with accurate historical teaching. This, would keep religion in its place and would be more understood by the masses. Technically, this should be widely excepted, although it seems to go against Thomas Jefferson's wall. (separation of church and state) “Keep the bricks coming, Mr. Jefferson!”, I say. I do understand where Dan is coming from, though I don't see it happening without a few broken bones and teeth along the way, especially in America. Dennet has a wonderful line that mustn't go unmentioned; “ if you have to hoodwink – or blindfold – your children to ensure that they confirm their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct.” In Gary's observation of Dennet, he finds that Dennet is a different sort of atheist. Dan sees that not all ideas can be truly relied upon based on reason alone and that faith, not necessarily a virtue, does have a use and wont go away. We should not forget our “default settings”, meaning those things that drive our internal ethical compass. “No rational creature would be able to do without unexamined , sacred tings” says Dennet. These things are a human protective mechanism. One could be the most rational person in the world but they still hold onto something. Gary then asks Dennet, if by this line of thinking, he is admitting that religion is found in everyone and everything. “This would make our “defaults” a religion, unimpeachable and implacable gods” Dennet replies that “exceptions can be made.” I'm guessing he means as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

In the end Gary comes to his finale. “ Myself, Ive decided to refuse the call. The irony of the New Atheism – the prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism – is too much for me”. He goes on to talk about how he thinks it is all just hypocrisy in the end. Well...as I am sure you have figured by now, I don't agree. Gary seemed to be completely open-minded throughout his essay, I did get the sense that he had already made up his mind long ago. He did play the part of a good fence sitter and I give him credit for the act. He was able to talk to some of the smartest and most intelligent men on the scene today and still he failed to understand the core principles of atheism. I don't know whether it was emotional or just a willingness to stay neutral out of fear of ridicule. I see it as more of an apathetic approach and an unwillingness to see passed the “movement” of atheism rather than what it actually is. Atheism is not a religion and does not have a requirement of faith. In his cherry picking of ideas and out of context approach , Gary misses the direct definitions required to make a correct conclusion. Atheism means, “without a belief in a god” ...period. Atheism is not out to release someones emotional baggage, it is out to release the mind. The movement comes from a sickening sense that something is terribly wrong with the world. Ninety-five percent of the worlds inhabitants are religious, and something isn't working. In the world, most of the progress for curing disease and educating the masses is taking place in the science labs and in Ivy league universities, not churches and temples. Behind the scenes there is a marginalized group of people in the world who no longer adhere to religious dogma and superstition. They rely of the perseverance of human ingenuity and want for happiness. This is not a religion but a necessity, to bring about a long and prosperous survival for mankind. Mr. Wolf, sadly, has stubbornly let this one fly over his head and let his feeling get in the way of better judgment and understanding.

Wolf, Gary Isaac. “The Church of the Non-Believers.” WIRED Magazine. Time November 2006: Issue 14.11. Web. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html