I Choose to Believe or Faith is a Matter of Choice

Central to my and many others belief systems is the idea that we have free agency. Free agency means that while we may be influenced one way or the other we are free to choose our path. Most often people refer to this in context of visible life choices: what to wear, where to go, what to do. And this is true, they are choices we can make. Within our domains, we are surrounded by choices daily. The vast majority are insignificant: apple or orange, this or that. Some are more profound: take the job or refuse, say yes or no. Then comes the conundrums: moral or not, right or wrong.

Still these are the obvious choices. These are the ones we think about; the ones that consume our lives. But there are other choices to be made, the invisible ones. I say they are invisible because we really don't think about them as a choice. Most often we think they just are. It could be we are naturally inclined to make some choices and so act on them. Sometimes the choices we make are justified by existence, other times not.

Take, for example, the Speed of Light. Science tells us that it is about 300,000 kilometers per second. It's a fact. There is seemingly no disputing this. So we believe it. For one microsecond, one split moment of infinity, we had to choose whether we believed it or not. We chose to believe it because people we respect tell us it is so, the math shows it, we can observe it; in short evidence abounds.

But what if I told you that the Speed of Light is in flux and not constant? What if I showed you that it was infinitely faster the closer we were to the Big Bang or Big Crunch? What if I said that the closer light was to a Super Dense Cosmic String the faster it would be? Would you reconsider your choice? Probably not. You chose. You chose what you observed and those you trusted.

Another example and one dearer to many people is that of religious belief. I speak not only of which religion we follow, but of the very idea of an external system or force directing the universe. At some point we choose to look at the universe and see a guiding hand or a series of coincidences governed by a few physical laws. That choice will support the following choices. If we choose the coincidence, your choices become more worldly. If we choose the guiding hand, we must choose if we will follow it or not. We must choose where we think it is. We must choose how we think it should be followed. We must choose. And keep choosing. In either we will see evidences to support our thoughts, we will have choices to support our choices.

A famous quote from the Book of Joshua talks a little about this choice:

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15)

The Jews had an actual choice. They could choose to follow other gods. They would not be forced to follow the God of Abraham. Joshua recognized this and chose.

Psychology tells us that we can learn to trust by choosing to trust. We can choose to share, to confide, to open ourselves up to others. It also says that we can learn to love and increase the love we feel by choosing to love. The same is true for faith. We can choose to trust God. Choose to love Him. Choose to follow and love Him. This choice will be shored up by the evidences we then see and the following choices we make.

I myself made this choice. I chose to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I chose to trust Him. I chose to believe what I learned of Him and follow those teachings. As such I have seen evidences in my life. These support my choice, and help me to continue to choose as I have. I believe it is our choice as to what we believe, as to how we act, and how we live. As such I hope we all choose wisely.

Logic

Every so often I have a problem with logic[1]. My problem is people citing logic, without understanding logic. It has become like a mantra: “Be logical,” “Logic tells us,” et cetera.  Sadly, the people who do so say logic when they mean “I think”, not necessarily acknowledging the other side except to dismiss it out of hand.

So what then is logic? Logic is nothing more than a tool. It is an aid to assist in finding the best solution for a given problem. The simplest form of this is a basic if-then statement. If your PIN is correct, then the ATM will grant access to your accounts. In some cases this can be an oversimplification, but I’m ignoring that. I’m great that way.

Before I go further, I will say I am not fully versed in Logic. I don’t know all its listed pitfalls (called[2] fallacies) save a few: Reductio ad Hitlerum (reduced to Hitler) and Reductio ad absurdum (reduced to absurdity). I don’t know its myriad of types and forms. In fact you could probably fill a thimble with what I do know about it. There, I’ve said it. Now accept me as an authority[3] on the matter and lets keep going. Okay?

An example I once heard of a logic problem presented to a computer. (I haven’t researched to see if this story is true in any way, so take it with a grain of salt.) The computer was asked to determine which was the better choice: a watch five minutes off, or a “broken”[4] watch.  The computer returned that the broken watch was the correct choice as it was correct twice a day, whereas the other was never correct. For me at least, this was the wrong answer. Strictly speaking both watches are right all the time, just not necessarily where you’re standing on the globe. I know that’s a quippy response, and I’m keeping it, but it’s still true. So there has to be restrictions, or assumptions and givens[5], to guide the decision and the course of logic. In this case it would be assumed that the watches would be analog, as a broken digital watch would render the argument moot. Assumed that we would only consider time related to one locale.  It would be given that there are two watches. This is getting verbose, and annoying. So moving on.

Anyway, the goal is to get the argument as close to a black-and-white question, an either-or answer. Right or wrong. On or off.  In the watch question the computer went for the best choice, which it (or the programmers) took to mean the most correct. What happens, however, when the best choice is taken to mean the one that serves the user most adequately. Then the answer would be reversed; the right choice would be the watch that is five minutes off as it would be consistent and the user would be able to tell the approximate time all day. The broken watch, while still right twice a day, cannot tell the user when it is right. So then which is the right choice, consistent or correct? I would say consistent based off of usefulness alone.

So what does this rambling monologue have to do with my problem with logic?[6] Basically, uh… huh, I guess it’s not with logic, but the people claiming to use it and demanding that you do too, all without themselves knowing how to use it.  So come on people, be logical, learn to use logic.[7]

---

[1] I can hear the snarky remarks from here, thank you.

[2] One in the same really, but reductio ad hitlerum is a specific vein of reductio ad absurdum. It boils down to, “if Hitler did it, it is evil.” i.e. – “Hitler liked abstract art, therefore abstract art is Nazi art.”

[3] This is probably an example of the fallacy of false authority or something.

[4] I put broken in quotes, well, because we’re talking logic here and I wanted to cover my bases as some people can be real sticklers for detail and wordplay. So here we define broken as “non-functioning, but whole and intact; a drained battery”.

[5] An “assumption” is something that is not necessarily true, but will be treated as such for the argument. A “given” is something that is true.

[6] Again with the snarky comments! What’s WRONG with you? ;-)

[7] See what I did there? I did something that ticks me off when other people do it. Aren’t I delightfully hypocritical?

Obamacare... is a tax?

With the 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court, Obamacare is now in full swing and ready to slap the nation silly come 2014 and continue it's escalation of abuse until 2016 when it becomes an annual event. And though I see the contrivance of Obamacare as little more than a social atrocity, the decision of the Supreme Court is more so. Why?

This is because by declaring Obamacare to be valid under the taxation clause of the Constitution the Supreme Court has granted unto the Legislative Branch a new and far reaching power. This power is the power to tax the public into a behavior, or rather tax the public for not doing something. For the nonce, from 2014 forward, we will be taxed for not having health insurance. Silence the arguments about the "social necessity" for a moment and listen, please. This new taxation realm now allows the government to socially engineer the country.

Suppose, a future administration is in favor of green technology. A new tax is passed and suddenly any vehicle that isn't a hybrid or electric is taxed. Houses are taxed for not being solar. Home owners are taxed for not gardening. Or suppose they decide to tax you for not buying some technology, for not going to the doctor, for not going fishing, for not saving money, or even for not spending money. The list of things the government can now tax the public for NOT doing is nigh on endless.

Worse yet, not only has this new idea been introduced to the world, but if the U.S. government begins to utilize this taxation ability without it being struck down by the people then other countries will follow suit. Even without the U.S. government acting on it, the idea is out there now and some government will try to run with it.

This outcome, to my mind, is not hyperbole nor simply excessive negativity, but rather a certain surety that the government, as it currently exists, is a money grubbing organism. And with this new found power will find ways to justify the power's use, but always for the "greater good".

The government must be corrected, and it is the voice of the people that must do it.

Short Story Contest

Wednesday, June 27, 2012, a writer's site, Writer's On The Loose, is having their Semi-Annual short story contest. It is open to everyone and the public are the judges. The stories are posted anonymously on the host's column. The story that accumulates the most votes wins.

I've entered it before, and even hosted it on occasion. It's a nice way to showcase your skill and allows people to improve their writing. Plus it exposes people to new ideas and stories. I encourage anyone interested to check it out.

Copyrights are retained by the original author.

What service workers WISH they could do (1)

At some point everyone in the service industries (be it retail, food, or what-have-you) gets fed up with the sense of superiority and condescension they face from their customers. And so at times they would love to have a pre-printed note that they could hand to the customer and simply walk away...

"Dear Sir or Madam,
We 'regretfully' request that you immediately cease frequenting our establishment. This request is being made, as our sales associates have found you to be an obnoxious detriment to humanity.
We thank you for no longer allowing us to serve you. And we hope to never see you again.
Sincerely yours,
Management"

Come to think of it, I think that might be a pretty clever gimmick for a store. People would be trying to get associates to give them one of those cards. :-)