WHAT DO I BELIEVE?

This is a work in progress that I will add to regularly as I get my thoughts organized. As you can imagine, this might take a while.


1. To me the Big Bang Theory does not explain the beginning of our universe or the "source" of human existence. [Neither do our organized religions for that matter.]

Specifically, the Big Bang does not explain how the initial matter, which it describes as "expanding" into our now known universe, came into existence. What created such matter? Was it a "God?" If not a God, then is it possible that there was some "matter" that always existed, that always was; and was not the result of something else?

[See PBS for an interesting, but brief discussion regarding "before" the Big Bang.][Note, I use the term “God” very loosely. So loosely that a Star Wars fan could interpret it to mean the “force.”][“Science” refers to today’s science, and not our future or potential sciences.]

Such questions (and in fact both popular theories of our existence, namely the Big Bang and God) suggest that there must have been something that always "was" and is the real source of our existence.

True, if I think about the "God" alternative, it is difficult for me to fully grasp that there was no "beginning to" or creation of God. But for some reason it is easier for me to imagine something such as this, which can't be fully explained with science and requires some faith, than for me to comprehend what event (or science) happened before the Big Bang (and what event happened before that event, and so on). More importantly, within the context of science, it is very difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which there was some source matter, which always existed and was not the result of anything or any God, that eventually expanded into our universe through the Big Bang or otherwise like some great science experiment.

I don't fully understand why I feel this way. In the end, I guess I feel that the creation of the universe (whether it started billions of years ago or 6000 years ago) is beyond my full comprehension and cannot fully be explained at this time through the writings of the bible, science, or otherwise. I also believe that the creation of the universe is beyond the complete comprehension of any human being at this time. It is simply beyond our "physical" limits.

Here is an example of what I mean. After Einstein had made his theories of General and Special Relativity famous, he spent a good portion of his adult years attempting to demonstrate that Quantum Theory did not represent reality (or his envisioned One Unified Theory), as he was convinced that God “does not play dice.” Basically that things were not "random."

To me, as I attempted to comprehend what inspired a man such as Einstein, a man who thought of people traveling on light waives, and not aging, it struck me as odd that he could not move beyond the randomness of Quantum Theory. For some reason, not withstanding his immense genius and ability to dream up the unimaginable, he got stuck on a very simple principle that he should be able to explain and more importantly “predict” the happenings of the universe.

To me, it seems much more plausible that there is a sphere, a "place" that is unpredictable; an area that humans cannot fully comprehend. In fact, if this were not the case, then I feel that our ability to accept "God" would be prejudiced, as our existance would become too tangible and require less "faith" to understand. Sounds like I am leaning towards the God side?

Plainly stated, for there to have been a something that always "was," it seems incomprehensible that today's physics, chemistry, or mathematics, can sufficiently bridge the gap of what we now know as our universe to this other sphere (or "place") where cause and effect, life and death, and E=MC^2 have no practical meaning. I believe this to be true under both alternatives; it is just harder for me to imagine under the "Big Bang" alternative.

Theories and equations have starting and ending points. If “this,” then “that.” To explain our existence, it seems that we must work to imagine a place that has no starting place and has no end.

2. Being gay is not a sin. To the extent any "bible" suggests so; it is not the word of any God. Some day, same-sex marriage will be protected under the Constitution.

First, as I consider one's sexual orientation to be primarily a genetic issue, I do not think that any decent God would consider it a sin to be "born" gay.

However, another argument might go like this:

God exists in a place where life and death do not exist. A place where there was no beginning and there will be no end. A place where the physical act of giving birth should carrying no greater character than the other cool events throughout our universe. After all, God had no beginning and will have no end. God will never die; and therefore, God does not "live." God's meaning is beyond our concept of life and death; and therefore, is beyond our concept of birth.

What does all this mean? First, it means that humans could not have been created in the image of God. [This was just another way of an aristocrat to say that he is God.] Second, I believe it means that the "physical" act of a man sleeping with a woman (and having a baby) or a man sleeping with another man (and not having a baby) are morally indistinguishable, insignificant from God’s perspective.

[This last point seems to beg certain questions. Why did God create us? Why did God create anything? Was it to experience something that God couldn't, but wanted to experience?]

Let me put it another way. I am suppose to believe that God created something that is so vast and so complicated, and requires such balance to all fit together, that it is basically beyond the comprehension of our smartest individuals. But in the end, when God was all done putting our universe together, God took a second and said, “Oh yah, a man shouldn’t stick his you know what in another man’s you know what. That is just gross.” This seems very silly to me. This seems very human to me.

Off topic rant:

See Indians crack down on gender abortions.

Why is being gay considered a sin? It is a “sin” to powerful men who demand a male heir to continue their legacy. These men need, demand a potent heir; and therefore, having a "girl" is a disappointment.

To these men, having a male son that will not produce future sons is also a disappointment. Therefore, it is a sin to them and is to be avoided, as it provides them with no advantage, no legacy. These are the type of men that have no problem with changing the words of the bible, or changing popular culture to fits their own needs, to ensure their legacy.

[I watched a TV show a few days back in which a family (in India) had three girls, and the husband desperately wanted a boy -- so he and his wife tried one more time. As fate would have it, the fourth child was a girl. In the delivery room, it was obvious that this was disappointing to the mother. It was especially so when she asked the reporter if he wanted the baby girl.]

We live in a world where having a boy has become the end, and justifies our means. Even in the United States, when a man has a daughter it is somehow seen as not as special as having a son. [I cannot tell you how many times I have been asked if I was okay with not having a son.]

We live in a world where Chinese baby girls are killed in order to control the population. We live in a world where men in the Middle East think it is okay to ("honor") kill their female children to avoid “possible” future embarrassment (of daughters expressing their sexuality). And unfortunately, we live in a world where being a gay man is in many respects treated the same; where it is not the elixir of eternal life that fathers look for in their sons.

Questions: If God has no beginning and therefore has no end (and cannot die), does God feel? How does God derive meaning? Is it hard for God to enjoy itself? It does seem that without an end, the middle stuff seems to have less meaning. Is life an experience that God can never fully comprehend? Is this a gift unique to humans? Is this our gift?

3. Women should have the right to chose to have an abortion until the fetus becomes viable outside of the whomb (or can be "born" and cared for at the State's expense). I guess as technology changes, this time becomes sooner and sooner in the pregnancy?

The next logical question is, "Is there a point of overlap (in the future) where women should still be able to decide that they don’t want an "heir," even if the care of such is not their responsibility?" For example, if a fetus could survive outside the womb after week 3 (in the distant future), should a woman still be able to have an abortion in week 4. I suppose the answer should be no, but I am still thinking about this issue. [Note that men do not have this right -- the right to control having "heirs" -- unless they control women. The control of women is a very interesting theme that repeats throughout this blog. Remember that women didn't even have the right to vote in this country until 1920; and this was only the result of courageous woman of the suffrage movement such as Paul. Note that Paul is an alumni of Swarthmore -- a school attended by my in-laws. I knew I liked this school for some reason!]

4. A baby should ideally have two parents that spoil him or her with love and attention. Loving attention is the key, and is the foundation for future success. Single parent households do not provide an "ideal" environment for a child to develop a healthy ego or sense of self. The first few chapters of "The Road Less Traveled" provides a good summary of why this is the case. I found this book very helpful in expanding on my knowledge of the mind, and a nice change from reading Freud, Jung, etc.

5. The government does not prevent drugs from entering the country through the border because our politicians are influenced by too many special interests (i.e., businesses). This is further demonstrated by the fact our politicians do not consider it wrong to be provided "gifts" by lobbyist that clearly have an agenda. In legal terms, it is called an "appearance of impropriety."

6. Justice Kennedy is a great judge. Justice Scalia is a boob. Justice Thomas is a super boob.

7. The Constitution protects numerous rights that are not specifically spelled out in its text.

8. Senator Kennedy is a super duper boob.

9. Illegal immigration is wrong. It creates unnecessary resentment and prejudice while heavily weighing on the resources of our poorest citizens. Businesses are the primary beneficiaries of illegal immigration and exert enough influence on our politicians to keep any meaningful changes from happening.

10. Our government should stop preaching to us.

11. There could be a God and "not" an afterlife. To suggest otherwise seems to eliminate the value of our experiences on earth. To suggest that the gift of life is not enough, seems to be an insult. Moreover, it seems to suggest a lack of appreciation for what one has.

12. There is no hell. Hell, or the concept of hell, is a creation of a person that didn't fully imagine what it must be like to exist without physical boundaries. How can one feel torture, feel pain, or the “fires” of hell when one lacks a body, when one is dead? For example, when you stick a needle in your finger you feel pain. But why? Is it because humans are vulnerable; and therefore, must have “warning” systems in order to sufficiently avoid dangerous situations, or to avoid the unknown. If you knew you could not die, or suffer any physical damage, would sticking a pin into finger cause you to feel pain? How about after the one-millionth time? I imagine there would be a time in which the brain just stop feeling such a sensation as it became meaningless.

Now imagine that you have died and are in hell, and the devil is sticking you with a dagger over and over. Or imagine he has set you on fire. My question is, so what? Even if you initially thought that you felt the pain that a living being would feel, over time these acts would have no effect. They would be meaningless and we would just laugh at the attacks. [Just kidding devil!]

I imagine that "hell" is just another construct used to control people. To control the masses, so the rich get richer, and the poor help them get richer. It is a tool to placate people, just as are the numerous restrictions associated with obtaining salvation, or entrance into heaven. Why do people, whom have suffered for years, talk about something being the “will” of God? Why do pro athletes who come from very meager beginnings talk about their success as resulting from the will of God? Does this in some ways make their prior existence make more sense?

Is there a heaven? Is there a place outside of heaven? I really don't know what I believe at this time. My guess is that if there is an afterlife it cannot be comprehended or described by a word.