Running Thoughts

This is one I started writing two weeks ago, so it's a bit anachronistic.

I've taken this time of having two hernias as an opportunity to slow down a bit and start working up my barefoot chops.  I'll be referencing the book given to me buy my brother and sister-in-law on the subject more frequently.  I did a barefoot 5k on Wednesday and this little four-miler today:

View 16/03/2012 17:22 in a larger map

I mostly kept to the sidewalks on Wednesday, but today's excursion around the football stadium on asphalt wasn't as easy on the soles.

One of the reasons I like running is because it gives me time to think.  If I'm stressed or need to work something out in my brain, I find a run usually helps.


Today I didn't need to think about anything, in fact I was thinking about how uncomfortable the asphalt was, when another thought popped into my head.  At this point, if I were blog savvy enough, I'd put a dancing, singing, light-up marquee around the following disclaimer:

WARNING: Frank (callous?) diatribe about God, abortions, and miscarriages. Proceed at your own risk. Are you still reading this? Weeeeeee!

I'll even put a fun picture here so you don't have to read any of it.




All disinterested parties gone?


Okay.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume there's a God concerned with our lives who reveals Himself to us through, say, the Bible.  While running, it occurred to me that God is not pro-life in the contemporary debate's sense of the phrase.

God allows--through direct intervention, impotence, error, or indifference--abortions to happen.  I hope this is not a false tetralemma, and if anyone has another option please let me know.  Let's explore these four options, shall we?

 

Impotence.  God is unable to intervene.  Perhaps this is the result of being a deistic deity.  This does not appear to be the God of the Bible, so I shan't concern myself much with it.  It would seem bizarre that He's able to give birth to Himself to take on the sins of the world without being able to affect other goings on in other wombs.

 

Error.  God makes mistakes but is quick enough on the turnaround with some fetuses to abort them before birth.  This might account for why some children are stillborn or born afflicted with birth defects.  Perhaps this is plausible...my Sunday School teachers taught us that the reason God sent the great deluge was to fix an error, and that the rainbow afterwards was an apology/covenant not to kill everyone a second time.  Granted, that may have been an incorrect interpretation or a dumbed down version of the Bible (irony notwithstanding) in order to make it more palatable to us poor seven-year-olds.  But, if God makes errors and doesn't always catch them, wouldn't it be okay for us to correct mistakes for Him?  Humans do plenty of other stuff in His name.  War comes to mind.  However, most Biblical apologists will tell you that God is perfect, omnipotent, and inerrant, so this again seems an inadequate answer.

 

Indifference.  This is like the watchmaker theory of impotence, only that He's able to intervene and chooses not to.  He just can't be bothered with it.  Yet again, if God is concerned with our lives and amenable to prayer, this simply cannot be the case.  If it were the case, why would he be indifferent to his own natural abortions but dead-set against artificial miscarriages?  Is it because we're "playing God" and he finds that an affront to His grand designs?  This would be selective indifference, which would be indistinguishable from our last option...

Direct intervention.  God causes miscarraiges to happen for some ineffable reason, usually passed off as someone learning a valuable lesson at the expense of some poor fetus/and or its parents.  And apparently, due to the same ineffable reasons, only He is able to pick which miscarriages will have the desired affect and abortions cannot have this affect.

 

This is the only possible option in the Biblical sense (irony notwithstanding).  Therefore, God is the biggest abortionist of all time.

 

The point is, if miscarriages just happen there's no need to invoke the inexplicable.  They just happen.  If they happen because God willed it, then apologists have to suspend all the functions of higher reasoning God was nice enough to give them to ignore in order to keep him from being one of the pro-choice monsters they deplore.

 

"God has a reason for causing miscarriages.  It's really good, too.  Much better than your reason to get an abortion.  It's so good you can't even possible conceive it.  That's how I know it's better."

The Problem With Atheists

My running has been stymied by injury and illness, but at least that's given me time to put down in writing some of the thoughts I think while running.


Before anyone gets excited, the problem I refer to is not a negative observation about atheists.


The problem has to do with this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country 

Atheists, for the most part, have to overcome indoctrination to become such.  Richard Dawkins likes to say that there is no such thing as christian child or a muslim child...well, by unfortunate happenstance, most children are what he likes to call them instead: the children of religious parents.


What kind of traits can make one overcome indoctrination?  Intelligence?  Reason?  Of course, I like to think so, but there's another trait: skepticism.  Distrust of authority from title or tradition.  A near synonymous term for an atheist or agnostic is a skeptic.


The problem, then, is that our skepticism keeps us from banding together under one banner.  The aforementioned Richard Dawkins comes close to doing just that.  Dude was a rock star at the Reason Rally on March 24th.  This diminutive, slightly pot-bellied, tenor-voiced, silver-haired scientist could have had his pick of any of the atheist tail out there, and their husbands/boyfriends/fathers would've been okay with it.  But even he has problems getting atheists together.  The Reason Rally pulled about 20,000 people to the National Mall; statistically there could have been five times that amont from the D.C. area alone.


Personally, I think the problem is that we don't want to wind up a new religion.  This is brought up by rabbi Brad Hirschfield:

Another bright spot to be found in Saturday's rally, is that it will force a measure of clarity and honesty upon a movement which has held itself out, until now, as being above the fray. 

No more.  

Now, they too will be down in the muck with those who invoke God and scripture to invoke wrath upon those with whom they disagree.  

We can look forward to the same kind of rallies, the same kind of triumphalist slogans, the same kind of seething disregard for those who are outside their “church.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/24/why-reason-rally-is-unreasonable/#ixzz1qSjVR2CX

This is the only thing he says in his editorial that makes a lick of sense.  We are afraid, and rightfully so, that binding ourselves to a cause requires sacrifice of some of our personal beliefs.  We will have to tow a party line for the greater good, which is something we inherently despise.

So what to do, then?  Well, I have an idea.  The irony, of course, is that I think it's a tremendous idea and my brethren will be completely skeptical of it, and skeptical of my rhetorical device of pointing out that they will be skeptical of it.  But the nature of my idea is, I hope, an inclusive one, and one open to brainstorming.


I suggest that rather than another foundation or political party, we establish a loose affiliation.  Articles of Confederation may have been too weak for the United States, but I think it might be just what atheists need.  A central set of tenets they can reach back to while still maintaining their own individuality.  So, I give you:

The Atheist Articles

or

Things Everyone Can Get Behind

Article One:
Follow the Golden Rule.

Article Two:
Don't indoctrinate the vulnerable.


Article Three:
Follow the scientific process.


For a more in-depth analysis of the tenets, we go to myself below.

Article One:


Follow the Golden Rule.


Treat others as you would like to be treated.  It's simple.  It works.  It's the easiest response to the challenge, "Without god, how can you be good?"


As Eddie Izzard pointed out at the Reason Rally, his second rule is "What goes around comes around," which is really just the Golden Rule stated another way.  I think we can take that a bit further into the realm of 'tit for tat.'


For example, a lot of people wear their religions on their sleeves.  If someone introduces themselves, "Hi, I'm Mike, I'm a christian," I will calmly reply back, "Hi, I'm Emerson, I'm atheist," not, "Hi, I'm Emerson, why do you have an imaginary friend at the age of thirty?"




Article Two:

Don't indoctrinate the vulnerable.


Like 'what goes around comes around,' this seems like a natural outgrowth of article one, but I can conceive of some sickos out there who would be thankful for their indoctrination into a cult under any circumstances once they reach a place where they're able to question it.


Thankfully, the factory setting for a child is not christianity, it is not islam, it is not judaism nor buddhism nor hinduism.  This might seem rather a convenience to atheist detractors.  I say to them, if your beliefs require indoctrination, you're doing it wrong.


Not only that, but why would you want the vulnerable?  The helpless?  The weak-minded?  If you want to help them, by all means, help.  But when they're at their lowest and most susceptible, that is not the time to win adherents.  I don't want them; neither should you.



Article Three:

Follow the scientific process.


I don't care what specific version you choose, as long as it involves observing, hypothesizing, predicting, and experimenting, all the while opening itself to review and new information that may run counter to prior experience.


This also means applying it to every aspect of your life.  Are your pro-choice?  Why?  Can you back up your preconceived notions with research?  Logic?  Are you consistent on your stance until presented with new information?  When presented with new information are you receptive?

If you agree with the third article, you have to throw out any beliefs you have founded on faith.  I'll be the first to admit that people in a group all thinking the same thing and doing the same thing can have a profound psychological effect on the individuals.  I'll even admit that individuals can have private moving experiences.  I'll further admit that I like having these experiences.  But if you chalk this up to anything but a mix of hormones and willing suspension of disbelief, you're quite literally fooling yourself.


After enough time passes and the initial high of a new spiritual experience wears off or the mundaneness of religiosity since birth begs further introspection, you may think you have come to some sort of logical proof of god's existence upon somber reflection of the intricacy of life and the way 'he' works all around you.  Tell me, is this the intricacy of life that is so elegantly explained without a god by natural selection and physics?  Or maybe these are the mysterious ways that not only allow you to be the last car through a traffic light before it turns red and allow your great-aunt to pull through her bypass surgery, but also allow Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, and a wall of tornadoes to make some sort of twisted sense in the 'grand plan' of god's sick universe?

Take Your Canvas Bags to the National Mall!

My friend Stephen Emborski introduced me to the musician/comedian Tim Minchin a little while back.  I was so impressed that I looked to see if he had any American gigs lined up.  The closest he's coming to me is Washington, D.C. for the Reason Rally.  As luck would have it, Richard Dawkins, Adam Savage, Lawrence Krauss, and many other very cool others will also be there, so my friend Joe Galm and I decided to go.

What's with the title, then?  Ah.  Watch.  There's one f-bomb at 2:54 if you're worried about such things.

Since I figured I would need some sort of bag to hold food and especially water for the rally, I thought it would be appropriate to take a canvas bag.  A trip to Hobby Lobby and $30 later, I had some distressed letters and a bag.

Definitely not virtually monastic!

Oh yes.  I thought about putting the letters down lower so they wouldn't get scrunched when I do up the top, but I liked them up there.  Also, I would've had to maneuver around the outside pocket. 

I'm so crafty.

By the way, I haven't run since Monday, which is just about a week.  I gave myself two hernias recently, oops.  I plan on going out for a short easy run later this week to see how it goes...annoying.  At least it doesn't screw with my original rally plans to run the five miles from my brother and sister-in-law's place to downtown D.C. and back.  Since Joe's coming I wasn't planning on that.

On Things Not Related to Running

When I disagree with you, I become offensive.


I can't tell you why, I just make people upset.  If I were slightly more arrogant, I'd call it the 'Risk Effect.'  People who know how to play Risk know what I'm talking about.  When you know what you're doing, people get very angry with you and gang up on you.  But it's not that.


Part of it is because I sound arrogant, which, whether I think I'm arrogant or not, makes me appear that way.  I actually don't like that about how I write online, but I'm too self-indulgent to change it quickly.  You probably won't believe it, but I've been working on holding back recently and coming off as a generally nicer, more subdued person.  I have my reasons.


Why do I sound arrogant?  I have some theories. Maybe it's because I try to use mostly proper English, though my grammar isn't always well.  Good.  Case in point, I also like to play dumb word games.  I'm generally trying to be clever about 80% of the time, which means if you think I've succeeded about 1% of the time (still optimistic) there's a 79% deficit.  This means that things I say often have a double meaning or back story, but 79% of the time I'm the only one that thinks it's funny or gets the joke--not because everyone else isn't smart enough to get it, but because I try too hard in some ways and not hard enough in others.  I think this roughly translates to coming off as aloof or intentionally obtuse.


I might also sound arrogant because I take the time to write essays about myself.  Just a thought.


I also think that because I'm hard to offend, I assume everyone else is as well.  "But Emerson," you might say, "I've seen your tirades.  You get offended."  True.  I get emotional, I do find some ideas offensive, but for the most part I brush it off after a few hours.  That's why I'm friends with some people with some of the most diametrically opposed viewpoints to mine (or seemingly opposed; most halfway-intelligent Americans aren't as far apart on the spectrum as the television would have us believe).  People say things that I find offensive,  and it may make me angry or upset for a few minutes, but I still generally like the people that say them at the end of the day.  Ask Christopher Glasscock.  We shared a cubicle.  He put a Bible verse on his desktop so I put a Satanic-ish symbol up on mine.  I love the guy.  He tolerates me, as far as I know, and admirably at that for some of the things I say about his religion.  Actually, it's probably more than toleration; he understands me and grudgingly accepts it, though he would prefer I take the Lord's name in vain less often, for example, among other things.


I guess along with the arrogance and being hard to offend is I can be crude.  Sorry if that offends you, but coarse language doesn't really phase me, and sometimes I think it's appropriate.


Another bit that offends people is that I like to argue.  I like logic and picking at people's arguments, even ones I agree with, though I admit I tend to do it less often to the ones I agree with.  This makes me what is known as argumentative.  Argumentative, if I remember my wordplay correctly, has a negative connotation.


Part of the problem with being argumentative is it never really lets people know what my true colors are, thus acting as a barrier to mutual understanding.  Allow me to illuminate some things about my socio/econo/politico/religio standings:


I don't care about the economy.  I mean, I do, I hope it does well, but it's all largely a bunch of idiocy.  Gas prices aren't based on what the price of oil is, but on what people think the price of oil will be.  Positive consumer confidence is measured by the purchase of unnecessary things, which contributes to unpaid bills, which contributes to defaults, which contributes to a poor economy, which contributes to negative consumer confidence.  And unlike science where there's an overwhelming consensus, economics is split on party lines:

See?  Economists can't agree on what's happening.  Yes, a quick survey of the two charts tells us they're looking at different things.  However, one of the charts is percentage of Americans in the Labor Force and one is Jobs Lost.  This mean that, forgive me, the derivative of the first chart should roughly be the second chart, but maybe for technical reasons about how you define 'jobs lost' or 'labor force' it doesn't work out that way.  The Republicans use the first chart showing jobs still on the fall and the Obama administration uses the second one showing jobs on the up.


You know what else?  Even if they agree on what's happening, they can't agree on what caused it.  Depending on who you ask, with just the last three presidents in mind, Clinton's policies set Bush up for failure or Bush's policies set Obama up for success or Obama's policies set Obama up for success or Bush's policies set Bush up for failure.


So economics is more-or-less meaningless to me.  If the people who study it for decades can't agree, I can't hope to get it right as someone who studies it recreationally.  This makes me think that sometimes conservative economic policies are the right move, and sometimes liberal economic policies are the right move.

All my political opinions and decisions, then, stem from foreign, religious, and social policies.  What are my opinions on those?  I'll cover a few big-ticket items:


I don't like killing.  Sometimes it's necessary, I realize this, but I tend to always err on the side of not killing, which admittedly makes me argue against actions that are probably necessary.  I don't agree with occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, just for example.  I would have been more in favor of more surgical special operations insertions, though; I think actions in Afghanistan were necessary but not executed properly. The no-fly zone over Libya seems to have been a good idea.  Helping out protesters in Syria might also help.  I don't think Iran or North Korea are threats in that they're established enough governments to be self-preservationist enough to not antagonize the west to the point of actual military conflict.  Those are just some examples.  Hopefully that helps--I'm pacifistic and argue that point more than the realistic side that I also grudgingly accept.


I generally don't like religion.  If you want to draw on it for your personal morality, great, go for it.   I mean, I believe a lot of things other people don't believe: Rush is the greatest band of all time, Jessica Alba is rancid, running ten miles through the snow is great fun (Hey!  I worked some running into this post in a blog about running!).  Some religions are better than others, notably the ones that don't profess to be the 'one true path' or hold some secret to eternal salvation that is only available to club members.  Even more notably, the religions that don't look down at you or try to evangelize you if you're not part of the club even if they believe they are the one true way.


I don't think religion has any place in government.  Government covers contemporary issues that people, say, 2,000-3000ish years ago couldn't possibly have dreamed of.  Public policy shouldn't come from an ancient, ill-written book of nonsense (you heard me;  I said ILL-WRITTEN, SIR!).  I mean, I know it's working great in Israel and Palestine, but they've had 2000-3000ish years to work things out, so we can't possibly hope to do as well as them.


Ditto for medical issues.  If you disagree, don't fill that amoxicillin prescription for your young child's ear infection and see where that gets you.  Now, if it's your personal choice not to do something to your own body deemed to be okay by the modern medical establishment, you don't have to.  Opt out of surgery if it goes against your religious beliefs, fine.  But don't try to set policy that keeps people who want blood transfusions, antibiotics, or contraceptives from getting them.


Also ditto for what happens behind closed doors.  It's none of your business what happens between two men, two women, a man and a woman, married, unmarried, broomsticks and wine bottles, oils and candles, or all of the above all at once (giggity!).


That's not to say religion never has anything useful or pertinent to say, and I even like some passages from the Bible (gasp!).  My favorite is, "So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."  I love talking about religion on many occasions, especially on subjects I don't understand.  For example, our Mormon friends explained a lot of their beliefs and practices with us in many long, mutually respectful conversations.  And you know what?  They're what you might call Good Christians.  They take what I consider to be an ill-written book of nonsense and turn it into a coherent philosophy that I think is truly Good.  I've tried to borrow a few of their attitudes on things.  Now, that's not to say I want those same friends setting policy based on their religion that will affect me and others, but I'm happy to let them do their own thing.  The horribly ironic part is that most other Christians consider them to belong to a cult.


So, I covered a few of my beliefs and a few things that I think make me offensive:  I'm arrogant and/or sound that way, I project my thick skin on others, I'm crude, and I'm argumentative.  There's more.  Just for starters I chew rather loudly and I'm opinionated about music.  My Vibram FiveFingers smell really bad (another running tie-in, yes!).  I leave my things lying around.  I know I'm not perfect, which is something people accuse me of thinking all the time.  When I screw up, and I do, I feel bad, and I apologize.


Maybe this is one of those times.  If I've offended you, I apologize.  I want you to understand that though I might say mean things about people you support or things you hold sacred, I'm not attacking you (unless I am attacking you, in which case I'll let you know), and I don't think less of you.  I know I come across that way.  I disagree with you, yes, and I wish you would see things from my point of view, but so do you me.  So do us all.