The God Delusion Illusion

IN the last few years there has been a small uproar in the religious and scientific communities, and the suburbs, throughout America over the publication of many books about whether or not a “God” exists. It is a very old, though newly dusted off and refreshed for the modern masses version 2.0 argument brought about by books such as “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins and “The Language of God” by Francis S. Collins. Consider these the umpteenth remakes of old Hollywood Classic arguments. Some of these authors attempt to disprove the existence of a God. And some of them try to prove it. Neither successfully.

I find the whole trend as fascinating as I do annoying. I can’t get my head around why anyone in their right mind would dedicate the necessary time required to read a few hundred pages written by a man they don't know about why he doesn’t believe in “the God concept.” If a girl down the block wrote a book about why she doesn’t believe in big foot, would we care? We have been talking and writing about why we do or don't believe in the God concept for thousands of years. We have also invented thousands of names for this God, whether real or imagined. And through the millennia we have invented hundreds of religions and religious and ceremonial practices around these various Gods. None of which have ever helped us in our pursuit to prove or disprove these Gods’ existence.

We can no more debate with any degree of success the existence or non-existence of a “God” than we can the equally evasive concepts of “the ego” or “the id” or “the sub-conscious” or “the afterlife” or “the soul.” They are all intriguing concepts but neither provable nor disprovable. Ideas such as reincarnation, human beings having “souls,” astral projection, near death experiences, a spirit world, the list goes on and on. The minds of human beings are filled with ideas and concepts that remain no more than that: ideas. Ideas are not necessarily bad things. But they certainly are not real except in the fact that we may or may not be able to one day measure their existence with brain scans or more advanced technology. Even when we are able to prove the existence of ideas themselves, which we inevitably will at some point in the future, that does not imply that we will be able to do much more with them other than to know that so and so has one. It certainly will not mean that we or he or she will be able to prove their idea has any merit or truth to it.

It always annoys me a tad when someone tells me that they are feeling a little unbalanced and are thinking that they “might need to get their chakras aligned.” A good friend told me a few months ago that a psychic told her that if she worked really hard and mediated everyday she could have her “fifth chakra” balanced and empowered within five years. I was aghast. She made the comment so casually, with such certainty and conviction, as if chakras were as well-researched and proven a commodity as bread or milk or cheese.

Of course there are also vampires, ghosts, werewolves, and angels too. Brilliant ideas. Interesting ideas. But hard to prove or disprove. So most simply don't go there. Though some do. Vampires have been all the rage for hundreds of years. And angels for thousands of years. Though no one has yet to capture one with their cell phone and post it to YouTube. That will certainly be the day for us all. Talk about “millions of views.” Think of the instant celebrity for that lucky bastard.

The idea of a Loch Ness Monster captivated my attention for at least a day or two when I was a youngster, but I certainly wouldn’t read a book by someone now trying to prove or disprove the existence of a Loch Ness Monster. Now if someone manages to yank one up out of the deep one day, I'll be the first to forward that news link to friends and family the world over, but until that fateful day, I just have no interest in listening to someone pontificate about it.

By the end of my sophomore year in college as a budding young philosophy major I resolutely decided I was done being a philosopher. Or better put, I would be a philosopher for life, but I was done majoring in the art of debating the improvable. Much to my professors’ disappointment. They thought I would make a fine philosopher. But I switched majors to World Literature which I felt offered me a little more in the “real” department ironically enough. In those first two years we were introduced to many fine concepts. “Freewill versus determinism, the understanding of fallacies, the proper use of a killer syllogism. It was valuable learning. But I still did not think the study of things improvable was a worthy pursuit for a life well lived. At least not my own.

One of the assignments I remember that really nailed the coffin shut for me was when we were studying the philosophical dilemma of trying to prove whether or not WE existed or not. This is in academic circles a very real and seriously taken philosophical dilemma and one that hundreds of thousands of books and papers have been written about; both trying to prove and disprove the theory. Descartes attempted to prove this ancient dilemma by proclaiming “Cogito, ergo sum,” “I think, therefore I am.” One of the most famous philosophical utterances of all time. And one that many a man has used to prove to himself that he does indeed exist. (Which is of course inherently a joke in and of itself. If you are trying to prove anything to yourself, chances are YOU probably fucking exist. So leave it alone already.)

If I had stayed a philosophy major I would have proven my own existence to my professor by simply walking up to him and slapping him in the face a few times and asking him in the process if I existed or not. We can safely assume that eventually he would have had to give in, proclaim my existence to get me to stop slapping him, and given me an A in the process.

When people ask me, both religious and non-religious alike, how I can feel this way and still claim to be “spiritual,” have faith in a God, and regularly practice a religious faith tradition – currently a Christian-Buddhist fusion – I respond by saying “How can you practice being an honest, moral, good decent person without knowing or being able to prove with certainty that it’s necessary to be this way? You ARE an honest, decent, good, moral person aren't you?” Many attempt to live this way. One would wish that more did... But still, many do, and for what reasons specifically other than that it simply feels like the right thing to do? What more can they say? We have no proof that there is any real need to be honest or moral or kind or decent or ethical. Nor can anyone for that matter give a real proof regarding why they might be spiritual, religious, or attempt in their daily lives to connect with a higher power in the universe.

Of course I also tell them that I love, cherish, and have a very close and special connection and relationship with a God. Or at least I BELIEVE I do. And therefore I believe in the “God concept.” But that connection and the inherent belief in it that follows is very hard to even fully fathom, let alone put into words. And it is certainly not something I can prove to anyone other than to relay certain stories or anecdotes from throughout my life that have seemed to be slightly peculiar or coincidental, serendipitous, transcendent, synchronistic, providential or Divine in some way.

One day a few years ago a pastor that I admire and look up to very much commented that “One does not find God. God finds us.” He asked us to stop and think of the ramifications of this idea in our own lives for a moment. Besides the fact that I nearly idolize this man, for his insight, his brilliant mind, his passion for the Divine in all things, his tender open heart, and his example as a human being, I still found his statement and question very apropos to my own personal experience of “God finding me.” It was, in essence, exactly what happened to me. Something I have already spoken about in the past. It wasn't that I was not seeking, it was just rather unexpected and sublimely more impactful and transcendent an experience than I expected it to be when “God found me.” Something I will never forget. And quite probably something that will keep me a believer in the God concept for the rest of my life. And also keep me attempting to connect more deeply with He/She/It as much as I can as well.

When friends in my business ask me how I can possibly believe in a God – for there is no more secular nor liberal place in the world today than in the arts and entertainment business – I always respond that I completely understand and relate to the atheist and agnostic identity. I wore it for years. I dig it. It’s a very cool, practical, logical, and intelligent place to live. But for better or worse it is not a luxury I am able to afford now. God simply wouldn’t allow it. He found me alright. Yanked me up by my hair and dragged my ass into being “a believer.” The Divine showed itself to me in a way that I simply could no longer deny. There wasn’t really a lot of choice in the matter at first for me. Eventually I came around and deliberately decided it wasn't such a bad idea to take it on. (Still doesn’t mean I can prove this “Divinity’s” existence though.)

Some have asked me over the years if I don't feel a moral imperative to share my belief in a God with others – much like Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Collins have done -- so that others might be “saved” or live better lives. But I tend to shy away from such actions unless specifically requested by someone to tell a story or two or to relate to them why I have found a relationship with a God beneficial to me. I don't necessarily believe that all humans need to be “saved,” and even if some do, I certainly don't believe that there is only one way to save them.

I must admit I get a little hot and bothered under the collar by some of my peers’ insistence that we need to “save” the “souls” of people for the sake of their existence in the “afterlife.” Since we haven't as of yet been able to prove the concept of this “saving,” nor the “soul” idea, and neither the “afterlife” concept, why go there at all? I prefer to save people here now who need actual saving here now. If someone loses a home and all of their belongings I do feel some unexplainable need to help save them the hardship by lending a hand to rebuild their home for them. Or in times of good money I like sponsoring kids in dire need when a mere $30 a month feeds them that entire month and that amount is far less than I spend on Frapucinos anyway. If we can afford Starbucks, Jamba Juice, or Netflix, or even cable or satellite TV, then certainly we can afford to keep at least one other human being eating enough food to stay alive month to month. That’s “saving” to me. We’ll leave the “afterlife” to those IN the afterlife. They’ll let us know if they need saving. So far they haven't spoken up.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind sharing. In fact I enjoy doing it; in those situations when asked to do so. It is after all an amazing experience to live life with a sort of conscious and unconscious understanding, knowing, and feeling that we have a direct line with something awe-inspiring and powerful that is forgiving, all-good, and deeply understanding of our fate in life. I find the belief to be a healthy one. But just because that applies to me, I would never presume to believe that would apply to everyone else who shares the planet or solar system with us. I know plenty of people who have no such belief system in their conscious mind or thought processes and who lead admirably moral and exemplary lives. More so than myself, some of them. So...

That is another aspect to this ongoing debate that is irksome. Humankind’s relationship with a Divine power is a very personal thing. Something only each and every individual themselves can relate to or understand. And that includes those who choose to NOT have a relationship with any Divine power as well. For surely that is as much of a relationship as one who prays everyday to something. An atheist is still a theist. Not intelligent enough to be agnostic. Not wise enough to shut the hell up; very similar to evangelicals or extremists who give more thought-out Christians or Muslims a bad name by their blind ambition to convert those who do not agree with them.

We could go on and on of course, which is the nature of philosophy, and theology. A never ending dialogue about things guessed and conjectured but essentially, by their very essence, and inherently man-made and improvable. Fun and intellectually enticing and titillating, but rather wasteful of precious human energy if indulged in too much – especially if we are going to eventually get down to the real tasks at hand like using the best of what we have to make the world a better place in the short time we are here together.

It is not that “The God Delusion” is an illusion per se. It is simply an idea that has been around for tens of thousands of years. Nor is the pursuit of “The Language of God.” Both concepts and pursuits are as real as the inventors of the ideas, the authors of the books, and their respective readers care to make them in their personal lives. Sort of like “life after death.” Not a bad idea at all. In fact, I would submit that it is quite the comforting thought. But certainly not something one can prove or disprove, and certainly not something to spend a lot of time writing or reading about as if from some secret knowledge or impassioned faith. Better to get on with the living of the “life before death” and leave life after death in its proper place – AFTER death.

If it ever is to occur that one of the millions of us who die each year should ever find a way to communicate with those of us still “living” certainly they will be so kind as to let us know that “life after death” does indeed exist. While they're at it, they can also confirm or deny for us the idea of the soul, reincarnation, chakras, free-will versus determinism, the astral plane, the spirit world, and even vampires, angels, and big foots.

In the meantime, current statistics tell us that every 3.9 seconds of every single day someone who is living among us dies from either starvation or thirst on our small planet. For those who have a God, by all means PRAY. But let us also not forget to roll up our sleeves and take action. Mother Theresa, a celibate, dedicated, penniless, female-priest of the Catholic faith tradition taught us that valuable lesson. For all the prayers to a God in the world that we can muster, we still need real-world action if we are to make real progress as the fledgling Gods that we are ourselves in THIS world. But a little prayer here and there certainly won't hurt either.

Bombs blasted London England today while we were sleeping here in the US. I have many friends, family, and loved ones there, including Sir Richard, and my little cuzzie Rosie. From what I know, they are o.k. But almost one-hundred people have been reported killed so far.

The western media has already begun its barrage of half truths and propaganda. They will spend the next few weeks telling the people of “the free world,” anyone who will listen, and most will, that these are “terrorist attacks” and that “they were unwarranted, cowardly, and intolerable” and that “the perpetrators will be brought to justice.”

This western media will not print or report or mention to the people that England invaded the country of Iraq two years ago, that they have along with a few other large countries been responsible for the deaths of over one-hundred thousand Iraqis, is still bombing and occupying this country, and in fact is at war with this tiny country. they will not print or report that the attacks on England are retaliatory in any way. they will not print or report anything signaling that England is at war and all is fair in love and war etc, and that if they attack a country they might get attacked back in the process. That is what war is. and what it is all about. the media will pretend that they don't know what war is. and will act surprised and horrified and befuddled as to why London was bombed.

In the meantime we in the western world are still relatively free as long as we continue to take in and believe this rather unique form of one sided journalism. In fact, as good citizens of the free world, we are to believe that England along with the United States were justified in their invasion of Iraq, that they are not terrorists themselves, but perhaps “world police,” or “friendly liberators” or “friendly and temporary occupiers or invaders.” We are to believe if we are good citizens that the one hundred thousand or more Iraqi deaths are justified and necessary and warranted and good. and that the 100 people killed in England are not justified, not warranted, and not good. we are told to believe that the English and the US are not terrorists when they kill a hundred thousand Iraqis, but that the bombers of the UK today are terrorists.

If you are indeed a free and thinking person you are very confused by this point and find it hard to know what to believe no matter where you live in the free world. if you are a person living somewhere in the middle east or a Muslim you probably are equally confused, sad, and yet you probably know exactly what to believe. It is probably very far from that which is being reported by the western media.


[the below is something I just received from a musician friend who is a super talented mofo in the Miami music scene and an all around great cat. But he has a totally different take on it than I do or most other musicians and entertainers. I reprint it here just to show that you never can really be sure about these things... everyone has their opinion... see below for commentary from the ambassador...

Jul 08 - London Bombings
“It goes without saying that our hearts go out to our comrades in England. Once again, I have to ask: When are we gonna stop jerking around with Koran abuse investigations and start killing these Al Queda pricks? They are uncivilized Nazis; if you don''t lose sleep over what we did to the Nazis during and after WW2, I don''t know why you''re upset with anything we do to these scumbags, whether it''s in Guantanimo Bay or on the battlefield. Before you think I''m going insane by saying this, here''s a little history lesson: When the allies discovered the concentration camps in WW2, they lined up all the German guards - sometimes hundreds at a time - and machine-gunned them into ditches. No trial. No Geneva convention protections. They just rounded them up, shot them dead and threw dirt on them. Do you think they should have been tried for war crimes? Now we throw our guys in jail for putting underwear on people's heads and, as that treasonous dick Dick Durbin says, "torturing captives with loud rap music." Loud rap music? Jesus - by those standards, I'm tortured every day, since I live and drive in Miami!”]

you see? Someone can be a GREAT musician and still think this way. fucking crazy really. But people do think this way. normal everyday folk that we hang with and chill with and jam with can think this way. and that's the confusing part. This guy is a cool guy, but he is clueless. I asked him, are our American military men over in Iraq bad guys? are they evil fuckheads?’ his answer of course was no. so what makes their guys who just bombed London bad guys? don't you see that we are in a war? That the rules now are that both sides get to kill each other and as many of each other as they can till they decide to make peace? That's the only rule. We honor our service men just as they honor their servicemen. In the heart of every Iraqi, probably in the heart of every Muslim, is the same kind of admiration and hope for their soldiers to defeat us, as we have for our own soldiers. so we choose drop millions of tons of bombs and kill thousands of people at one time, and they choose to suicide bomb and throw little grenades and kill tens of people at one time because they can’t afford the ammunition that we have. that makes them terrorists? That makes them right and us wrong? don't believe the hype my brother.

he goes on to remind me of earlier attacks on the world trade towers or on the USS Cole. I go on to remind him of Vietnam, that America has been dishonest and unfair for as long people can remember since world war two... perhaps earlier... that the French were imperialists and were trying to maintain their control over Vietnam and Vietnam was trying to fight for its independence from them, just as we were from doing the same thing with England during the revolutionary war. That they even marched through the streets shouting out their own declaration of independence that they copied many lines from ours, the American declaration of independence. This is true. but instead of helping Vietnam become a democracy and excape from the colonial powers of the French dictatorship, we secerty were funneling billions of dollars in aid to the French. obviously they had cut a deal with us to cut us in on whatever natural resources they were stealing from the Vietnamese or whatever it was they were getting from them. big countries don't occupy small countries unless they have something to gain from it. that is why America Germany France Italy Spain and England are not occupying the smaller countries of Africa and why we have let them all die and starve to death by the millions over the years. because there is nothing there for us to gain. So we leave them alone. We do not occupy them. we do not colonialiize them. we do not liberate them. we do not help them. because it is not our business because we have nothing to gain from them. but Vietnam was different. Even in the face of the entire world seeing Vietnam fifght for its independence as a free democracy aginast the tyranny of France domination, the United States stood up for France and tried to defeat the Vietnamese so they would continue to be ruled and dominated by France. Finally when it appeared that France was going to lose, we told the world that the Vietnamese were communists and that communism was a scary thing. so that was our excuse. We flew half way around the world with half a million men and invaded this country that was willing to fight till the very last man to earn its independence as a free democracy. We killed over 1.3 million of them. we bombed their neighboring countries Cambodia and in the process causes so much upheaveal that we destroyed their entire governmental system and over a million people were killed in the ensuing disruptive chaos that came about there. we then bombed their other neighbor, laos, and killed hundreds of thousands of them as well. and we continued to kill millions of Vietnamese. And they continued to tell us that they were going to fight us till every man was dead because they wanted to becasoe a free country like we were. Our governemnet killed fifty thousand United States boys and men in this war and we were never threatened. We were never attacked. The people were asleep and the people let this happen. and if you study your history you will see that the United States government has bene doing this continually all over th world ever since world war two. I know its been said before but if you count it all up, the United States government has killed over 8 million people since world war two in terrorist attacks agasint other countries.

so when people say that there was no reason why some guys bombed the trade centers the first time or the uss Cole, it just means that they don't know what they are talking about. they believe everything they hear on the news. its not that we are bad people. we’re not. we’re great people. its just that we have yet to learn what our forefathers taught us in all of their books and articles and famous documents... that we the people are the important part of the equation here. not our government. When our governments gets too far out of hand, as it did with Vietnam, as it is doing now in Iraq, we need to stop them or ask them to leave. They work for us. how much death are we willing to allow? How many of our own men are we willing to lose while we sit around and watch TV and try to pretend that this isn't happening because its happening in Iraq instead of in America?

London bombings... well of course there are London bombings. And there are bound to be American bombings as well. our country has just attacked another country.



Last screening: fog of war: eleven lessons from Robert mcnamara. Talk about irony in light of current events. This movie is A MUST SEE. It is fantastic. Rent it.

Eleven lessons
Importantly, these eleven lessons that lend structure to The Fog of War were created by Errol Morris; they are not explicitly McNamara's (at the aforementioned UC Berkeley event, McNamara contended that he did not agree with Morris's interpretations in all respects). McNamara eventually went public with his own list of lessons, which can be found below.
When pushed to apply his "lessons" to the US invasion of Iraq, McNamara refused, arguing that former Secretaries of Defense should not comment on the policy of the current Secretary of Defense. McNamara suggested that other people were welcome to apply his lessons to Iraq if they wanted to, but that he would not explicitly do it, and noted that his lessons were more general than any particular military conflict (he had indeed written them some time before the Iraq war).

Robert McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam
• We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
• We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
• We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
• Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
• We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…
• We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
• We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
• After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
• We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
• We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
• We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
• Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
Source: Globe and Mail, Jan. 24, 2004



Current spin: muse, origin of symmetry. And mouse on mars, brilliant stuff here. makes me want to put down the pop-rock axe and just make art music. but of course then I'll be totally broke and won't make any money from music... hey hold on, that's where I'm at now. hhhmmm....