It has been a long… long… LONG time since I last blogged.  The break from blogging can be attributed to both a lack of inspiration and a lack of free time.  However, a question has come to mind for which I honestly don’t think I have a great answer.  I’m turning to the public for ideas, which is a win-win situation for me.  I’ll hear a lot of bad ideas and grow confident in my own direction, or I’ll adopt a new approach to the situation.


Recently I’ve been thinking about proper ways of raising kids.  I don’t think that anything can be as terrifying and exciting as being in charge of a life, much less several lives.  The awesome responsibility of parenting seems to change people, usually for the better.  I believe the thought of being the ultimate role model for someone will cause me to take inventory of my constructive and destructive habits.  Priorities will shift heavily away from my own desires in favor of the best interests of my offspring (at least, that seems to be the popular result).  Many of the ideas a parent should impart to a child are obvious, but some aren’t so transparent.  In keeping with one of my major writing themes, I’m talking about religious perspective.

For a long time I’ve been thankful for how I was raised in regards to beliefs.  No force-fed doctrine, no mandatory visits to a confessional booth, no guilting into believing unprovable statements.  Given my propensity to please, I most certainly would have stuck to whichever system was thrown my way; however, this was not the case.  Not until my latter years of high school did I face a persuasive argument for any particular belief system.  It definitely changed me, but that’s a life chapter for another day.

Now I stand as a person who is closer to being a parent than a child (in terms of age, not in terms of actually having kids: don’t want to mislead anyone).  I can’t help but think that it’s best to protect a child from premature inoculation to ideas that aren’t rooted in ultimate truth, which I loosely define as that which is verifiable.  I posit that this will strengthen a child’s ability to distinguish fact from belief.  In addition, this strategy could allow for a more imaginative, child-like belief about the unknowable than a clearly defined myth could ever produce.

I understand that, once a kid enters school, he will inevitably hear about church and God from teachers and other students.  So, I cannot say with confidence that parents should completely shield their children from ideas of the religious nature.  It’s likely to be better for children to hear about these concepts from their parents.  However, I think it’s important to emphasize that these are beliefs and not facts.  Once a child is old enough to make an educated decision on what to believe, all bets are off.  I believe it’s critical to wait until a child knows that there are many different belief systems available before subjecting him to a powerful persuasive argument for any one in particular.

Of course, there’s always the chance that a kid will be consumed by curiosity and will jump aboard his parents’ religious flagship.  If the kid has a genuine interest and isn’t forced into anything, I have no problems with it.  I think the avenue that a person takes towards a spiritual destination makes all the difference.

So, what say you? I realize the difficulty in implementing this idea, but is it flawed at its heart?

This post was inspired by comments on my previous blog, but I have too much to say about it to post as another comment.  In fact, I may write 2  blogs to sufficiently cover my thoughts.  I suppose it’s a good problem to have during this time of unusually frequent inspiration I’ve been going through.

 Over the past 10 years or so, I’ve undergone a series of mentality shifts in regards to how I believe the universe works.  I don’t find it to be abnormal, considering they’ve been my years of primary development into the person that I will eventually be.  When I was 17, there were certain beliefs that made sense to me that I no longer find reasonable.  Even my beliefs from 5 years ago aren’t exactly what I believe now.  I assume that most people with a spiritual bend endure similar growing pains.  Life experience and knowledge accumulate and force you to reconsider the veracity of particular beliefs.  In this age of extremely fast information transmission, we have a larger pool of data than anyone at any other time in history.  Our understanding of science has grown at an exponential rate as well.  It wasn’t until the 16th century before a fully-armed heliocentric theory was presented to combat the widely-held geocentric theory.  Five-hundred years later, we’re modeling and disputing theories on galaxy formation.  The fact that we even try to model the formation of a galaxy is astounding to me.  We have such a great system.  Science allows itself to take new data and compare it to expected values based upon current models.  When a model or idea is shown to be errant, it is discarded.  Everybody wins because everyone increases understanding.   We can rewrite textbooks to include new information, with the understanding that the books represent our current grasp on a  particular subject.

What about other subjects?  Our history books are edited to include the latest information about our world.  Our Constitution allows amendments.  What about religion?  It would seem that most holy texts are expected to be taken at face value by the general public without any variance.  Now, I’m not saying that most people follow any one sacred text to the letter, but there is a general feeling that, even if you don’t follow a particular ideal presented, you must not say it’s wrong since it’s in the Koran or the Bible or whichever book is in question.

I must make a quick point at this juncture.  I desperately want to avoid indoctrinating any discussion with too much of a particular flavor.  For example, I lose interest when  someone tries to turn the ‘God vs. No God’ discussion to the ‘Christian God vs. No-God’ discussion.   It skips all the hard questions en route to the CGvNG discussion.  Nation, let’s keep it straight.  This is about ALL sacred texts, not any one in particular.  The argument against a specific sacred text is for another discussion, so please…PLEASE don’t try to take it down that road.  Now, that being said, I personally know more about about the Bible than any other sacred text, so I’ll use it as an example.

It seems apparent that many of the rules of society, for each society, have changed over time.  Even our 233-year-old Constitution has been changed to accomodate our advancements in civil rights.  In fact, the authors knew that it would be changed, that it was insufficient as originally written.  So, for a document as old as the Constitution, which didn’t initially capture everything needed  for our society to grow, should we expect much, much older documents to encapsulate all the rules for living today?

I’m not advocating a rewrite of any sacred text.  However, when you see biblical laws that command the stoning of adulterers (Lev. 20:10) and the murder of homosexuals (Lev 20:13), you can’t help but wonder where the place is for those laws in modern society.  I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure neither of those acts (well, when consensual among those of proper age) will land you the death sentence in the United States at the time of this blog’s publication.  These may have been perfectly normal rules when written, but humans have come a long way over the past few thousand years in terms of a more humane treatment of people.  As mentioned earlier, we’ve also come a long way in terms of our scientific understanding of the universe.  I’m reminded of a quote from one of the greatest doctors in history:

“Dialysis???  What is this, the dark ages???” – Dr. Leonard McCoy, from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

If you’re not familiar, a brief run down:  Dr. McCoy was transported backwards through time into present day Earth as a part of a mission.  In this scene, Dr. McCoy was commenting on how barbaric and inhumane present day medicine is compared to what it will be in the future.  I think it’s not unlike how we tend to view the past.  It looks horrible in retrospect, but at the time it was normal.  Fortunately, science has the privilege of being able to update itself as improvements are made.  Sacred texts cannot be rewritten; they can only reflect the culture at the time they were written.  However, this raises a few questions… so, a quick digression before moving on…

Should a sacred text be read as a list of rules, a code of general morality,  a story, or some crazy combination of the three?  The way a person reads any text carries incredible influence on how it will affect that person, as the importance of any text lies in its application.  If the Bible is read strictly as a list of rules, a person will be inclined to stone adulterers, kill homosexuals, avoid bloody meat, and refrain from lifting a finger on every 7th day.  If read as a code of morality, then a person may become confused with such teachings as “an eye for an eye” when it’s followed by “turn the other cheek”.  If read as a story, one would simply see the symbolic and/or literal action of God in the universe over the centuries (and all of the mistakes that humans made).  I’m sure there are other methods of interpretation of which I’m not aware, but these are a few obvious ways. 

Is there any one right way of interpreting the Bible?  I have no idea, nor do I believe that any one person has it exactly right.  However, it seems fair to say that any of the aforementioned methods, when used independently of the rest, hold little value.  Therefore, I’ll propose a way of looking at it that I think could be helpful… a story-filled starting point for the evolution of our own story (this idea sprang from Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd) .  Not to be taken literally at each word, not to be used as a rule book, and not to be used as the final word on morality, but a starting point.  I think this method puts it back into a history/science/current events scene.  It allows it to evolve, which is only fair since one document cannot bear the unrealistic expectation of providing all of the regulations and answers to moral quandaries that will be encountered for the rest of humanity’s time on this planet.  Just as science and culture evolve, so must everything else.  The goal of many religions sound good on paper (e.g., love God and love people), and many of the teachings provide sound ways of going about it (e.g., feed the poor, take care of the fatherless), but it’s easy to get caught up in the petty details.  Wrestling with the antiquated rules that may have had value many centuries ago seems less attractive than focusing on how my life can add value to the world around me.

I’m not proposing that all old rules are worthless.  I’m thinking that old rules must be inspected, within context, for what benefit they may have brought to the group of people at the time the law was passed.  Carrying a Christian label shouldn’t result in keeping the adulterer stoning law.  I think all reasonably bright people know this, right?  In like fashion, being a scientist shouldn’t require a belief in the geocentric theory anymore.  The act of writing a text doesn’t end the story on a subject.  A book is only a representation of a story at the time the book was completed.

Alright, so… I’m done for now.  I could go on, but I don’t want this to get so long that you all quit reading halfway through… the dessert always comes at the end!  I put a lot of junk out there.  If nothing else, hopefully I gave you a nugget to chew on for a little while.  All honest opinions on the subject are welcome, but remember that they are just opinions.

A couple years ago, I purchased a book called The Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions.  I had the idea that I would go through each belief system in order to gain a wider breadth of knowledge on the subject of religion.  Did I ever read it?  Nah.  I opened it up to read about one or two different foreign religions, but the book has been largely unread.  It seems like quite the daunting task to read about everything there is to know about each major religion.   So, intimidated by the quantity of words and bored by what little content I’d read, I gave up on my quest.  I may refer to the book when I want to dig a little deeper than reading Wikipedia, but I suspect I’ll never read this book cover to cover.

One lesson I took from this failed experiment was that I have a hard time reading something and then “deciding” to believe it.  I think that true belief means a little more than answering some questions in a way that will align with the doctrine that was created by a group of people.  I think it requires both a mind and heart agreement.  When I say ‘heart’, I’m speaking of the part of the mind that doesn’t necessarily respond to cold logic… the portion that throws numbers away, which certainly plays a role in the way people follow a belief system.

I don’t intend to get into a semantic argument about what ‘belief’ is (believing that 2+2=4 vs. believing in miracles), but I have to provide something resembling a definition here before moving on.  So, I’ll loosely define ‘belief’ to be having a composite mind and heart agreement that something is more likely to be true than any of its individual alternatives.

I came across a very interesting little quiz the other day on http://www.beliefnet.com/ called the Belief-O-Matic.  It consists of 20 questions that are designed to get at your core beliefs about the universe.    It’s fairly obvious that no one’s set of beliefs can be captured in just 20 questions, but the site claims that your answers will give it enough information to formulate a list of 27 possible matches with varying degrees of compatibility (similar to eHarmony, I guess).  If nothing else, it was a fun exercise in which I learned about some more belief systems.

My feedback was all over the place.  Nearly all of my results appeared to be completely different from the rest.  After reading my Top Ten, would you not agree?

1.  Neo-Pagan

2.  Unitarian Universalism

3.  Liberal Quakers

4.  New Age

5.  Liberal Christian Protestant

6. Secular Humanism

7.  Reform Judaism

8.  Taoism

9.  Scientology

10.  Mahayana Buddhism

Surprisingly, I found the descriptions of each religion to be remarkably similar.  My curiosity got the best of me … I had to find out where the web site received its information.  So, I emailed the public relations manager of Beliefnet only to find that they had used a quiz from another site, SelectSmart.com.  I emailed the contacts for SelectSmart.com only to find that they were using third party information as well.  The description for each belief system was based upon official web sites for each religion and supplemented by a few books from Amazon.  So, this quiz didn’t take its information straight from a sacred text, but rather from resources composed by modern followers of each particular system.  A significant plot twist?  I think so.  With information being presented by modern followers, the results are more likely to indicate the present interpretation of any particular belief system.  The core doctrine may remain the same (although, in some cases, it isn’t), but other aspects of the faith may be articulated in a less archaic fashion.  The result?  With the same words being used to describe each system, the systems begin to take on the attributes of other systems.  It’s like a clique of early high school kids.  While individually different, their collective dress apparel grows increasingly similar until you can no longer tell one from the other. 

The discrepancy between liberal Protestantism and Unitarian Universalism is nearly undetectable according to this guide (the former believes in the Trinity, the latter welcomes all deities… otherwise, they’re almost identical).  If you’ll read through, you’ll discover other similarities between seemingly incompatible systems.  What does this say about our views on religion?  It appears that people tend to believe whatever they want to believe as long as their beliefs don’t sound too incongruent with the popular opinion of the region.  As long as people retain the right label and claim two or three basic tenets, they may morph into the body of believers without notice.

So, Nation, what do you think?  Do these quiz results point to an increasingly blurred line between religious groups?  An increasingly blurred line between moderates?  Do the belief system descriptions reek of falsehood?

I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking about humanity itself recently.  I think you see the world differently when you stop and realize that each person you talk to is just another human being, just like you.  Sometimes I get so wrapped up in life that I forget that I’m just a human … and I feel like there are times when I’m implicitly asked to be less human, or more than human. 

I think that working a desk job has made me feel much less than human at times.  I’m not saying I dislike my job, because I’m very happy with it, but there are moments in which I feel more like a robot than a person.  These moments occur when I’m performing a job function that requires little or no creativity, and a robot would be better suited for it.  I think every desk job I’ve ever had has made me feel that way at least once.  The worst was during an internship when I was asked to copy a database into Excel.  Didn’t sound too bad until I realized that there was no way of copying and pasting the data.  That’s right.  Ole Jared had to manually copy each cell, which took 4 work days of nonstop typing, with no internet breaks or any other way of stepping away from the task.  Talk about mind-numbing…

 Another scenario in which I feel sapped of my humanity is when I’m trying to be a little too good.  Do you know what I’m talking about?  I think I was more susceptible to this in my younger years, but I remember feeling an intense fear of disappointment or failure.  I believe this was just the way I was wired, independent of my upbringing or any experiences.  I simply didn’t want anyone to think I was less than perfect, insofar as I had control of it.  I realize that I understood the benefit of the rewards system (if I’m good, I am more likely to get what I want) at an early age, but this knowledge wasn’t the prime mover.  I believe I was attempting to be a little more than human in these instances.

As I’ve grown, I think I’ve largely conquered my fears of disappointment and failure.  I’m more prone to take risks, and I know that I can’t please everyone, nor should I want to do so.  These developments are expected in a person’s growth, so I know I’m not alone here.  However, I still vividly remember the times in my life when these qualities weren’t in place, and I feel that I was acting less than human.  I didn’t permit myself to experience all of life (both good and bad), which stunted my growth as a human being.  Being human is a wonderful gift, and living like a robot only wastes humanity.  I think that making mistakes and learning from them is the greatest way of sculpting yourself into a less robotic and more interesting human being.

All this to say, I love humanity.  I remember a great description from an alien in the movie Contact:

“You’re an interesting species.  An interesting mix.  You’re capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares.  You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you’re not.  See, in all our searching, the only thing we’ve found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other.”

I like being capable of both greatness and horribleness.  I like that there have been times when I’ve felt completely alone, and like a complete failure.  Everything feels so much more real during those moments, when I’m not deluding myself with one-liners to make myself feel better.  I think those are the times when strength is derived.  On the other side of the coin, I think that humans are uniquely qualified to appreciate our own good fortune, which results from understanding our special status on this earth.  We have the ability to desire the good of someone else above our own good, which is, strangely, a great feeling when it’s pure and untouched by obligation.   Our humanity balances itself out nicely. 

I suppose, at this point, I should make it abundantly clear (if I haven’t done so already) that I don’t condone premeditated or hurtful wrongdoing.  As I inferred, I think our special qualities include compassion and integrity.  However, I can’t help but feel that I’m not built to sequester my humanity.  There are times when I have to say ‘yes’ to the riskier move, if only to satisfy my curiosity.  Even from my limited life experience, regret doesn’t seem to follow as closely when I try something new and (occasionally) ill-advised.  As long as I’m growing and learning from all that I attempt, I feel that I’m becoming a richer person. 

 So, now that I’ve got all that out there… what say you?  Am I wrong to embrace my humanity?  What pitfalls am I destined to fall through?  I know that there are many idealogies out there regarding how we should approach our human nature.  Do you know of a better way that life should be lived?  Inquiring minds (read: me) want to know… 

I suppose it’s about time that I stir something up.  Here goes…

I’ve become a fan of reading posts of various forums.  I find the thoughts of everyday folk to be fascinating.  We all have our own largely uninformed opinions on life’s great questions, and some of us choose to make those opinions public.  Yes, I’m admitting that I fall within this group of bumbling idiots.  There’s something about putting your thoughts in black and white that allows you to track your intellectual progression (or, in some cases, regression).  Making your thoughts public allows for other largely uninformed people to agree/disagree with you, contribute to your ideas, or completely berate you in front of the online public.

I really enjoy reading reviews of books online, mostly because the audience is composed of people who are speaking from a similar position of authority and information.  They each speak from a different perspective, but they share at least one common point of knowledge.  If you go anywhere else, you tend to find colossal gaps in both perspective and education on a subject.  This is where people tend to get angry, especially on the topic of belief systems.

I don’t recall reading from a single forum in which an intense disdain for the other side didn’t surface.  It’s easy for me to give directions to “respect the opinions of others” and such, but it honestly never happens.  Why is that?  Is it due to stubbornness?  An unwillingness to look at the other side’s perspective?  A superiority complex? There are probably as many reasons as there are people.  I’d like to share my thoughts on the debate itself, not necessarily my view on the debate.  I plan to hurl out several little blogs like this in the future, so don’t think that this little guy encompasses all my thoughts on the Great Debate.

I recently read an article posted about a Richard Dawkins speech that will be given at the University of Oklahoma.  Dawkins is a famous evolutionary biologist who has done much to strengthen the arguments first theorized by Charles Darwin.  The title of the speech is “Purpose of Purpose”, and I can’t help but think that he will challenge the students with his thoughts on the validity of evolution and maybe even the possibility that God does not exist.   I won’t be able to attend, so perhaps someone else can fill me in on the details.

An article was written in the Tulsa Beacon that completely blasts Dawkins, evolutionists, and basically all non-creationists.  This article found its way onto Dawkins’ website, where many an evolutionist took stabs at dismantling the poorly written article.  This seems to epitomize the entire debate, although it could have just as easily gone in reverse.  Here’s how I see what happened:

Step 1) A speaker from one side of the debate was given an opportunity to speak, and in a part of the country where his position isn’t widely held

Step 2) A fanatical journalist with views that oppose those of the speaker wrote an article saturated with mockery and hatred towards the ideas of the speaker

Step 3) The article was turned into a dartboard for those who share the opinions of the speaker, and some  of them retaliated by firing equally hateful statements back.  Not all responses were mean-spirited, but the vast majority were.

I think it should come as no surprise that there will be unintelligent fanatics on either side of the coin.  Some people jump on Christianity and mock the “hell-bound” atheists and their moral depravity, and some jump into atheism because membership comes with an “I’m smarter than you, and I don’t need your rules” bumper sticker.  Arrogance is an easy trait to acquire in both cases, and I’ve personally encountered idiocy from both sides of the fence.  However, it begs the question… how many people have emancipated themselves from one side because they don’t want to be associated with its fanatics?  How can you dissociate yourself from the crazies who happen to promote the same world view?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHKtLC3xa8U

Just watch it. I defy you to watch this without laughing at least once. This guy may be the second coming of Napoleon Dynamite.

One of my favorite activities is listening to good, new music.  Since acquiring an ipod, I’ve discovered a great tool (one that has actually been around for awhile).  I open up Pandora, plug my ipod into my home theater, and listen away.  It’s a very convenient way of discovering new artists that fall within your preferred genre.  Last night I found one that I really, really like.  I searched online, found some more of his music, and really had a great time.  In the process, I had a moment of realization: my taste in music has become extremely lame.  When I say lame, I mean that some of it is not what I would normally consider manly; this is the reason I’ve yet to reveal the name of the recently-discovered artist.  If you are a close friend of mine, you’ll likely experience my pressuring of you to listen to him.  This revelation fed another revelation…

I know that it’s perfectly normal for one’s musical tastes to change over time, but exactly how much of a change is normal?  I have vivid memories of aimless bicycle rides through my neighborhood streets while utilizing my Walkman to groove to the oh-so-smooth soft tones of Metallica’s Black Album.  I suppose I was around the age of 9 or 10.  In high school, I recall secretly letting myself become engrossed by the hauntingly beautiful lyrics of Snoop Doggy Dogg’s Doggystyle album (Sorry, Mom.  I know you heard it a few times… come on, I was like 16).  As you can see, I’ve held interests in some of what most would consider “hard” music.  It’s the kind of music you crank up to 11 when you’re driving to and from school, but you make sure you have the volume turned down just a *bit* when you’re rolling into church.  I won’t lie about listening to some country songs in high school, but otherwise I was all about the high-octane music.

So, I’ve found myself taking a shine to artists such as Cary Brothers, Matt Nathanson, Jason Reeves, and other folk musicians.  27-year-old Jared realizes that 17-year-old Jared would try to kick his ass.  Thankfully, 27-year-old Jared has about 30 lbs. on the younger Jared.  I would destroy my high school self.

Back to the subject at hand… it’s not a secret that our musical tastes change over time.  Genres fade in and out of popularity, we meet new people who have differing tastes that we adopt (we adopt the tastes, not the new people), and so on.  However, I can’t help but feel that there may be more to it.  Does our own maturation have any influence upon our musical tastes?  I hate to say that because it would require a correlation of maturity levels with each genre, but I cannot rule it out.  Do our preferences reflect the preferences of those who are most influential to us?  Is it completely random?

It seems that everyone undergoes a musical shift or two during a lifetime.  How have your musical tastes been altered over the years?  Have they changed for any particular reason?

Whaaat???

In some of my recent reading, I’ve discovered that I have grown accustomed to viewing the world in a manner contrary to what may be most rational. Some of my reading suggests that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis, which must be proven by demonstration and empirical evidence. The clarity of definitions of terms such as “proven” and “evidence” are crucial in this discourse.

How do you define “proof”? If a proven statement is a one that’s incapable of being shown to lack a reason for believing it, then I doubt there will ever be proof of the existence for God. As far as I know, there are no God-meters that gauge spiritual activity or chemistry labs that are equipped to recreate the transformation of water directly into wine (but I’m no chemist). At the same time, I’m fairly certain that mankind has yet to develop an experiment that proves there is nothing outside of the natural realm. This is a simplified description of my understanding of how strong rationalists view proof. Wait… perhaps I should define a few terms before moving on:

Strong rationalism:  the position that in order for a religious belief-system to be properly and rationally accepted, it must be possible to prove that the belief-system is true

Critical rationalism:  the position that scientific theories, and any other claims to knowledge, can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may refute them.

Dogmatism:  the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

Dogmatism does not make for a very interesting subject here, so I won’t go into great detail. As is obvious from the definition, it doesn’t lend itself to discussion. If you are a dogmatist, you cover your eyes as you pass through the dinosaur exhibit at the museum. I doubt many who will read this hold such beliefs.

Strong rationalism appears to cater to those who thirst for a purely objective standpoint… a very scientific point of view.  As previously stated, you must carefully define “proof” in strong rationalism.  Here, to keep the language simple, I’ll define it to be an argument strong enough to convince any rational mind.  A strong rationalist might say that there is no reason to suppose a supernatural being. Natural selection and evolution certainly do a fine job of explaining the development of the world’s innumerable species. Also, there’s not necessarily a reason to assume an all-powerful entity just because some aspects of our world remain a mystery. Mankind has leapt quite the great distance over the last few centuries, so who is to say that we won’t uncover the final pieces of the puzzle during future centuries?

Another method of looking at the situation is via critical rationalism. Critical rationalism, as does every form of belief-system reasoning, carries assumptions. It assumes that there exist several arguments that most rational people find to be convincing but not without reasons for disbelief. Essentially, critical rationalism is the realist among its idealistic siblings. It doesn’t ask for a copy of God’s dental records (strong rationalism), but it criticizes all beliefs insofar as they merit criticism (unlike dogmatism). A critical rationalist must review his/her thoughts with fellow rational individuals with the goal of eliminating impossible or extremely improbable ideas.  A critical rationalist entertains all ideas and systems, and the system with the best overall fit to the universe emerges victorious. When new evidence or new ideas are presented, the discussion may resume. An important aspect of critical rationalism is that it concedes that all systems are rationally avoidable when you consider all of their implications.

Alright… so I touched on several subjects without necessarily discussing them in excruciating detail. My question is this… which type of thinking is the most reasonable to employ in the discussion of belief systems?  Also, how should we define “proof”?  Why?

*entries containing the following words (or variants of these words) will not be approved: ignorant, idiot, moron, retard, stupid-head

**I’ll probably let “stupid-head” slide.

Greetings and salutations, my friends!

If you are reading this, then you are one of the few who are both privy to and interested in my blog. I’m flattered.

My motivation for starting this site is simple. I’d like to document my self-assigned “life tasks”. However, I’ve realized over time that simply reading books and reasoning things out on my own are hardly sufficient to answer the deep questions of life. Despite my confidence in my critical thinking abilities, I find no benefit to ignoring the counsel of others. So, this site will also provide an avenue for friends to volunteer their words of wisdom or helpful life experiences. Sounds reasonable, right?

In the words of the immortal Captain Jimmy Wilder, played by Harry Connick, Jr. in the 1996 summer blockbuster Independence Day: “Let’s kick the tires and light the fires, big daddy.”