Religion and the Earth (and Delicious Tales of Perfection)

So, my current employer and his family all seem to be of the same religious persuasion. This has largely had no affect on me as I work- there's been too much happening (that's been negative) to be praising Jesus every fifteen minutes. However, every once in a while some of the discussion of religion slips through the cracks. In most cases, it's innocuous enough- a reference to God here, a blessing there. On Friday, however, my boss's wife was showing me pictures from a mildly famous local photographer she was going on a trip with. These were gorgeous prints of nature in the thick of it. My viewing pleasure was interrupted with a challenge that my mind didn't want to back down from:
"And this all started with the big bang." I wasn't sure if it was sardonic or not until it was followed immediately with, "No sir, it's just too perfect. It had to have been created by God."

I opted not to get into this discussion in person for fear of alienating someone partially responsible for my income. However, I have thoughts on the subject of perfection that I need an outlet on, so here we go.

Perfection, an entirely too subjective term, is being used here from an emotional perspective. Nature is aesthetically perfect in this case. This, of course, ignores all elements of nature that are not aesthetically pleasing, like perhaps some of the uglier plants that grow here, or some of our hideous creatures. With that in mind, it's not likely that the earth was created with the express intention of being aesthetically pleasing. Rather, that seems to be a pleasant side effect (it's at this point that we could even get into a long discussion about how humans' brains may have developed to find common elements of nature aesthetically pleasing, rather than nature growing to become aesthetically pleasing). So, if nature's not flawless in its beauty, what about its function?

That seems doomed to failure as well. Perfect functionality would mean a completely self-sustaining model that would likely use as few differing elements as possible in order to maintain homogeneity and, therefore, predictability. The more different species you have, the harder it is to predict the course of nature. Moreover, the more everything hates everything else. Take a look at humans- we couldn't last with a few different skin colors without trying to kill each other. Ants that share most characteristics have their loyalties in their colony- some will out and out murder other colonies/species for getting in their way.
Further, the existence of massive ice ages seems to suggest that nature is not interested in maintaining a strict balance at all times. Perfect functionality doesn't appear likely.

Of course, all this talk is on terms I would not choose in an ideal setting. We've been assuming that the earth was indeed created as it is- an idea I do not find particularly believable. Considering that we can prove the existence of evolution through simple observation and testing (introducing a colony of flies to a single colored food source and their children start to turn that color over time, for example), evolution would appear to be a virtual certitude. With that in mind, plant and animal variation is completely explained.

More to my point though, I think this is exactly why it's so beautiful. Plants and animals evolved in the specific directions they did purely by happenstance that worked well. We have the enormous plethora of plants and animals that we do because we got lucky. This variation allows for constant exploration and discovery, as well as the promise for continually new species to come into existence- it's so much more interesting than a self-sufficient model of consistency. I find it so much more perfect and enjoyable because it just sort of happened, rather than being created.

We would get bored if the world wasn't constantly changing.
But, consistency gives comfort. Change brings conflict and fear. Belief in a consistent, unchanging, perfect world gives people the belief that they don't have a responsibility to protect and savor what we have.
This shouldn't win out over intrigue and wonder- it really shouldn't, but the reaction is understandable...




Additionally, before I wrap up, there's a local Lexington church/business (I really don't know which) that has a fantastically catchy phrase in bold letters on their car and place of businship (business worship?)
"What if it's True?"

This is a misused attempt at Paschal's wager, which is a philosophical attempt at proving why believing in God is smart, regardless of your faith. If there's no God and you do believe, nothing happens. If there is a God and you do believe, you win. If there's no God and you don't believe, nothing happens. If there's a God and you don't believe, you "lose."

Seems airtight on the outside. Believing in God is, at worst, not bad, and at best, gets you into heaven.

However, both of these approaches ignore a few incredibly critical details about religion (and in particular, Christianity).
1. Believing in God because it's a statistically wise investment is the exact opposite of "faith." Meaning you've chosen God for selfish reasons and you may not actually have faith, an element often required (depending on your denomination) in order to ascend.
2. The existence of the possibility for something to be true isn't evidence or a good reason to actually believe in that thing. What if it's the case that all water in America is laced with mind control drugs? Are you going to suddenly stop drinking water just because the possibility exists?
3. (And this one's the big one) Other religions are completely ignored in this argument. So what if Christianity's true? It seems to have an equal or lesser chance of being true as compared to every older religion on the planet- and there are a lot of them. Many times, these religions suggest that you spend life in eternal torment for believing in the wrong God. This makes Paschal's wager completely useless, since it adds a strict third element that's very bad to the equation. Because non-religious people aren't holding any foreign Gods above the "real" God, it's actually possible that being non-religious is the statistically smarter choice here.

(This whole rant wasn't related, I really just wanted to be angry after seeing that company/church car)

Serenity

There’s a serene moment in your pathology when you decide (for a third time) that you do not want to be alive. Not necessarily that you want to cause yourself harm. For many of us, that is not an easy task- I’m talking about that feeling where, at best, you want simply to not exist. At worst, you want something to unexpectedly end your life for you.

This moment is a catalyst. It’s the moment where everything in your life loses vibrancy. Where everything becomes its most hopeless.

This experience is made undeniably more powerful and destructive when your pathology has convinced you not to seek help from others. You’ve been convinced that you’ll be seen as “whining.” You’ve done this one too many times, so you’re sure everyone’s sick of it and you. But some small part of you obviously wants to keep going. Some part of you wants help and wants to get those feelings out there, because here you are, describing your turmoil in a blog post that you don’t intend to show anyone- but you know a few people will see anyway. On some level, you want someone to rescue you, but you don’t know who or how.

You’ve convinced yourself that no one cares anymore- not even you. So, you have all these friends. You have a therapist, a loving family. And somewhere along the lines, all of that has lost its meaning because you’ve convinced yourself that you’re broken. Damaged goods. When it happens once, it might just be a one-off problem. Twice is a cause for concern, but three times signifies a problem that is consistent and not going away. At that point, the inefficacy of prior methods starts to weigh on you. The crushing reality that this may last forever settles in. And you decide you just don’t have it in you to fight against it for the rest of your life. So, you want out.

There’s a serene moment in your pathology when every single facet of your life seems completely bogged with stress. Where even the best aspects of your life are fraught with troubles. Where all these stressors coalesce into a single atomic stress bomb that shatters what hope you have left- shatters your zest for life. Where everything looks significantly more mauve than it once did.

The irony with this statement is that the phenomenon doesn’t feel like a bomb- in fact, it feels like a dud. A spark that just fizzles. An immense event was supposed to happen, but instead, the electric air just stagnates before sinking back into the earth. Everything just appears to simply stop. Something was supposed to happen. Your entire world was building up and building up. You spent twenty years training and preparing for this thing called “life.” When you get there, there’s this huge heavy feeling in the air- like a deep breath you’ve been holding for just the right amount of time. But then… nothing. It was a sham. A trick- a charade- a con. You weren’t being prepared for your life, you were being prepared for a life someone else wanted you to have. And not someone who has your interests in mind.

You hold onto the breath for a few more seconds. Just a little too long. Hoping that something… happens. Still nothing. Holding out is beginning to hurt, so you let go. Still nothing. You’re light-headed and faced with the cruel reality that life is nothing more than a joke without a punch-line. Everyone around you drifts to settle in to their life that appears so mediocre to you. You wonder, “How can they possibly be content?” Is there a secret? Are there simple pleasures that you’re incapable of enjoying? Or are they using an escape, hiding from their own feelings?

There’s a serene moment in your pathology when you realize that you’re going through the motions in the blind and desperate hope that some meaning comes to you so that you can prove your life hasn’t been a waste. But it doesn’t come. You keep going and your despair rises. Every time a friend leaves you. Every time your job looks like it might not hold out. Every fight you have with your girlfriend. Every time someone legitimately thinks you’re a bad person.

There’s a serene moment in your pathology when you, a pacifist, are actively considering the purchase of a firearm. Not for any reason other than to keep it under your pillow at night for the day that you finally give up. For the time where you decide that you have the courage to make a meaningful stand for yourself, since nothing else seems to be working to those ends. For when you’re tired and you want to go to sleep without having to worry about what happens when you wake up.

There’s a serene moment in your pathology…

Feminism and Hypocrisy

I don't intend for this to be directed at feminism as a lesson to be learned, but recent experiences in this matter have largely been within the realm of feminism. As such, it is through that lens that I will approach this topic.

To break it down from a general perspective- I find that there's something philosophically wrong with an ideological movement of any kind that does not adhere to its own teachings. It's inconsistent and suggests that the movement has ulterior motives- playing both sides of the fence. Unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices that their ideology demands.
Sometimes, this is for a pragmatic purpose, which is understandable (for obviously practical reasons), but still unacceptable from a strictly theoretical perspective.

To touch this issue down into reality, we'll start with the ideological disagreement between deontology and utilitarianism.
Deontology suggests that there are absolutes- things that one must always or never do.
Utilitarianism suggests that there are not absolutes- that there are gray areas between each extreme. Every act can be justified given the appropriate circumstances in which a greater good can come from a "bad" act.


My problem would be something like this-
If a utilitarian argued for moral gray areas except ones that were a detriment to them personally. For example, an asthmatic utilitarian  "You're never allowed to smoke. It always does more harm than good." As a statement, it obviously cannot be proven, but it neglects a basic tenet of utilitarianism- that there's always a theoretical situation in which it is better to do the otherwise obviously "bad" thing.

It is intellectually dishonest to hold others to a standard that you refuse to hold yourself to. It lends a total lack of credibility to the message you're trying to send.

My philosophy example is not solid, and I'm actually not particularly satisfied with it, but I came up with it on the fly, so it'll have to do...

To get to the real meat of what I'm saying- tying this to feminism- I've had a lot of discussions lately with self-described feminists (of which I still consider myself one) who, push comes to shove, argue that sexism is acceptable against men if it serves the purpose of protecting women from harm. This results from a very real danger that women face, often every day, of active disrespect from strangers. People who treat them as property, only out for their pleasure. People who leer, threaten, gesture, and touch- inappropriately and without consent.
It is an... understandable, if unfortunate, conclusion one can reach being surrounded by this environment, that all men are dangerous assholes.

This generalizing conclusion, however, creates a very Us-Vs.-Them nature of the gender "binary." The result of that is increased sexism. To be sure, it is practical. If you treat every male as a threat, you're far less likely to be harmed by a male in your life. It has a use.

If I treat every flower as one with thorns, I will never be stabbed by them.
If I treat every potential as the worst outcome, I will be significantly more prepared against those worst outcomes. But this is also a particularly fearful approach to life- one that generalizes all things outside my knowledge as "bad."
It is absolutely my (and anyone else's) prerogative to live like this.

However, it is not my prerogative to live like this while espousing a philosophy in which generalizations are the heart of a societal problem which is above me, personally.
If sexism and the gender binary are the root cause of so many of society's problems- problems which are far more than me or you or anyone else- then I cannot in good conscience do anything the enforces sexism and the gender binary just because it furthers my agenda.

To clarify- this is active sexism. Active generalizations that we're talking about. Being simply cautious is not an active judgment of people. Refusing to put up with the active disrespect of individuals is not generalizing.

We do not have to choose between safety and consistency. But we do have to choose between consistency and taking the cognitive easy way out. Generalizations are our way of categorizing an entire group based on a limited data set such that we can (hopefully) more easily predict behaviors and outcomes without experiencing them first. While these may be practical, they're intellectually problematic and the antithesis to critical thinking and the perception that all people should be safe from preconceived judgments.

If you cannot hold yourself to the standards by which you wish to hold others, then you do not deserve to hold anyone to those standards.