No War

I have been thinking about war a lot lately.

Today, in November 2009, the United States is at war. I have written before about how we won World War II. I have always had an interest in seeing, reading and hearing all I could about the World wars. Maybe it just seemed such a fearsome prospect that I wanted to be sure I understood how it came about and came to an end if only to feel it could be avoided or to feel some sense that the world was a safe enough place for me to live in.

I'd love to hate war. I'd love to work to end it and prevent it in all circumstances. I have run the theoretical models in my head over and over again. Repressive regime or dictator wants to control and enslave all mankind, I do not wish to be controlled or enslaved along with millions of others so I must stand up and fight. War is thus made.

Sometimes I think the most reasonable end to war is overwhelming force. Back in the day we used incendiary and even nuclear weapons to make the point that Empires and Reichs were not going to dominate free people. To make the point stick required unhindered recourse.

How can I hate war but call for overwhelming violence? If there must be war shouldn't it be decided as swiftly as possible?

I really don't enjoy considering the plausibility of the theories that profiteers arrange for wars to be able to buy up wealth when prices are low or panicked and thereby own more of the world after the prices recover. What a cold rationality.

Then again, we have had a population crises before and I think a philosopher like Nietzsche would applaud convenient solutions such as global conflict to reduce the exponential growth.

My very religious mother likes to say "God has plagues, wars, famines and thirst to handle population growth, don't worry about it". That sounds like the least-managed outcome I can envision.

Dr. Norman Borlaug died this year. He helped forestall what might have been a major 20th century disaster by encouraging the use of new high yield crops and by lobbying for policy changes in areas of high growth in population such as India and Pakistan. He warned that while the grain production might now be ahead of the population growth, the limit would be reached again as the population grows beyond the ability of science to produce higher yields while at the same time arable land shrinks because so many more people need to live and be housed.

Many religious cultures would try to out grow their counterparts by overbreeding to the point of senselessness watching infrastructure fail to keep up. Attitudes like that are deeply detrimental to the future of life on earth. If the capacity of the planet is greater than the current population, we should grow cautiously and sensibly. Now it seems there is a war to flood the world with ones own culture and ethnicity.

In a contest such as this, those who limit their reproductive rate risk being overwhelmed by the others. It reverses the logic of cautious growth. This push to maintain relevance in exponentiating throngs will bring conflict over finite land and water resources.

I think the irrationality of religious belief often becomes the core cause of war. It is often religious people who aspire to have as many children as possible. This is also usually much more than just a personal hope, it is thought to be a moral duty to God.

An American Physicist and Nobel Laureate said:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Steven Weinberg

What is the solution to be? Is the prescription really war, famine, flood and pestilence?

Perhaps the earth can sustain more people that I might think. Maybe a sentient culture needs many people to survive at all. Still, where ever the limit, there is one and I think the problem is not being addressed. Violent evil dictators have tried their solutions. I think there is something better.

Can we live without war? I would like to think so, though my common sense sees a different picture.

-sumwun

Not an Atheist

This is a little commentary on why I do not wish to be called an Atheist.

I have some religious friends. These are people I like with whom I occasionally have philosophical discussions that usually end in agreeing to disagree.

One of my friends likes to casually refer to me as an Atheist. I understand that when religious people come up with a 5 point test of what makes an Atheist I may qualify on all five of them, however, I do not define myself in terms of other people's perspectives.

Atheist sounds like "Anti-something". I believe there probably isn't a God, especially that meets any of mankind's popular definitions. If we are not alone in the vast universe, there may be powerful beings we would find godlike out there, only because they are more advanced...or maybe we would realize that the difference was simply growth, know how and experience.

I think there probably isn't a God (and I capitalize it just so christians know who I am saying probably doesn't exist). I cannot prove a negative. I can't demonstrate to you that there is no God just by showing you silent moments or unanswered prayer. In the same way faith is required to believe in God because the proof is not there.

I am certainly not anti-"something I don't even believe in".

It's like the when I filled out the e-Harmony forms. Yes, they let me in somehow! On their form they have ethnicity choices. The closest one for me, as a caucasian, was "White (Non-hispanic)". Well pardon me, but I am not used to defining myself by how "hispanic" I am or am not. No insult to hispanics of course. It's just not a notion I am associated with. Calling me "non-hispanic" puts way too much focus on hispanics. I don't even wish to make a statement about anyone else's ethnicity or how it differs from mine when simply describing myself to someone.

It's like considering how "Un-Australian" I am. I am not defined by what I am not. That's illogical and really awkward to me actually.

Likewise I will never wish to be labelled by what I do not believe in.

Imagine this unlikely introduction: "Ladies and gentlemen, the non-car thief, Mr. So and So"... With me saying, "I have never even thought about car theft much less do I want the phrase in my title!"

Or "Mr. So and So, the Non-Santa Clause believer"...what do I say to that, "um...yah..I gave that up when I was a kid, my non-santa clause belief status is really not even a part of who I am anymore."

In the same way I am not an Ex-believer or an Atheist. I am simply me. I am a rational thinker, a skeptic, a doubter and someone who loves knowledge, science and evidence.

I am finally a grown up human being who wants to see his place in the Universe as it really can be known with the best knowledge available. I don't want fantasy stories or religious dogmas anymore. I find no comfort in the quaint and violent scripture myths.

I think 1000 years from now some whacky sect will believe in "Captain Picard" as their God and will even have "real" pictures of the man (unlike the Christian faith). They will not admit to their basic misunderstanding that this was a character in a performance. While there may have been a moral to the story, it was always a story. I see the Bible in the same way. They were myths meant to inspire, socially control and politically manipulate people or challenge rulers.

I thought the other day of the meaning of "Rational Belief" to which I lay claim. Rational is a word about a ratio. A ratio of claims to supporting evidence. If claims exceed a 1:1 ratio with evidence, you'll find me skeptical. I did not say I would automatically reject all such notions with confident authority, that's what an Atheist tries to do, also without evidence. I am far more curious and am willing to try ideas and listen to reason. The experiments, evaluation of data and conclusions are all part of the scientific method. Being skeptically curious leads to new experiments and new knowledge.

I am not against the ideas of justice and reconciliation taught by some belief systems, nor am I anti-God. I am just me and I think religion has done incredible amounts of damage to the world.

I just saw "Religulous", the Bill Maher documentary about religion. It was a great film that really reflected how I feel about how problematic belief can be.

He said one great thing near the end:

Religion tries to make a virtue out of not thinking. -Bill Maher

I agree with that and will continue to use my mind, grow my understanding and increase my knowledge while refusing to end all thought and consideration by quickly resorting to a label.

=sw