Interests:classic movies & musicals, country western dancing, counted cross stitch, videography, photography, fanfiction writing, blog writing Expertise:armchair theology, philosophy, and history--cornball humor Occupation:surgical perioperative technic
According to legend, Archimedes was contemplating how to calculate the volume and density of an irregular-shaped object, the principles of buoyancy, and displacement of water, when he suddenly cried out, “Eureka!” and ran unclad through the streets of Syracuse.
Johannes Kepler became convinced of the heliocentric universe of Copernicus instead of the terracentric universe of Ptolemy. Upon observing the orbits of the planets, he further concluded they were elliptic instead of circular. He wrote: "I was merely thinking God's thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
Buddha was sitting under the pipal tree for forty-nine days when he finally realized that attachment was the cause of suffering and detachment was the path to nirvana.
St. Paul was stunned to realize that the one he considered a deceiver, whose followers he was persecuting, was indeed the Messiah, Whom he awaited, when he saw that One in a vision.
A scientific insight, by definition, is one that is verifiable by experimentation and empirical observation. A religious insight, by definition, is one that has been bequeathed by supernatural impartation. What the two have in common is that moment--that instant--of realization. The light goes on, like the picture of the incandescent bulb over the person’s head. The pieces fall into place.
What intrigues me is if the biology of the two processes is the same; do the same areas of the brain function? Are the same neurotransmitters released? Imagine Christopher Hitchens and Francis of Assisi sharing the same thought processes. It’s enough to make a freethinker repeat the old aphorism, “God must have a sense of humor.”
What do all these have in common; the liquid ocean under the ice of Jupiter’s moon Europa, subterranean light-deprived ecosystems complete with microbes and insects, the challenge of maintain a pristine environment, and a gigantic body of water that predates the 15 million-year-old Antarctic ice sheet? Watch this fascinating BBC documentary. I really dug it.
Christopher Hitchens was irreconcilably opposed to the very concept of God; not merely the personal God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, but the impersonal God of Deism. He found the formative processes of nature, if I may call it that, so much more, to use his word, “Elegant.” He took it personally, this ire against the concept of God. He saw it as the source of all the ills of our species. It fostered superstition and pessimism. He declared war against the concept and vowed himself to its eradication.
My feelings? Good luck with that. He didn’t live to see it. No one will. It is the way of Humankind to personalize things; like Love; and Death; and the Climate; and even one’s mode of transport.
So unless the Future Consortium of World Potentates is prepared to lobotomize the entire human race, or organize the biggest Thought Police Dept. in history (which they well might) we’re sort of stuck with that nagging notion of a Prime Cause.
Modern dialogue over issues has degenerated. Politeness is a quaint old notion; a relic of a kinder, gentler time. It’s all about confrontation, whether the issue is same-gender marriage, reproductive rights, climate change, or public display of religious faith or lack thereof. Reasoned discourse isn’t quite dead, but it’s on the ropes. A respectful silence is a sign of weakness. Concession is a sign of weakness. Moderate opinions are a sign of weakness. And a Machiavellian response to signs of weakness is to go for the jugular.
In social and familial settings, belittling is referred to as shaming. And it’s wrong. It drives people to suicide, or even murder.
Do you know what a polemicist is? It’s someone with the politics of Rosie O’Donnell, the savage wit of Christopher Hitchens, the quick razor wit of Bill Maher, and the confrontational personality of Fred Phelps. And I hate polemics. I hate it with a passion.
But you know the damnable paradox? I can’t even bring myself to hate the polemicist; because doubtless someone in their background belittled them, and enabled their radicalization.
Richard Dawkins talks about “memes”, thought patterns and philosophies that somehow mimic biological viri and mutate over the generations as they are passed down in verbal and written form. He considers them harmful, like genetic defects. He hypothesizes that religious faith is one such “meme”. Let him apply himself to assigning a name to the “meme” I just described.
