seanWow, it’s been a while since any of us jokers posted anything.  I have a valid excuse: job hunting.  I’m not sure what’s wrong with Gerry…  perhaps he finally collapsed under the crippling realization that no one visits this site but the people that post here?  Surely not, but if so, does that make THIS post anything more productive than masturbation?  Should that be the case, then you’re not even reading this right now, so fuck it. How’s THAT for recursive philosophical reasoning?!?

ANYways, I do have a bit of a side project which is consuming signifigantly more of my free time now than it used to do… probably something to do with me no longer having an occupation where I spend all day watching four news channels simultaneously and taking notes. Literally. I AM PAID FROM YOUR TAX DOLLARS. How does THAT taste? Taste good? Like a greasy guy with a cheap suit and more teeth than a shark has his hand in your pocket RIGHT NOW? Seriously, I’m salaried… so you personally are, technically, paying ME to type this.  I may also be consuming alcohol, who knows?

I DO.  MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Seriously, you actually clicked on “Read the rest of this entry…” ?  How bored are YOU?

So, yeah.  Side project.  It’s a book of epistemological and religious philosophy under the working title of “The God Indictment: Irrational Arguments for Irrational Beliefs”.  In brief: the palpable, fundamental difference between people who are religious and those who are not is one of first principles.  People who make decisions based upon reason begin their lines of thinking within the sphere of the known, within the accumulated knowledge and experience available to them at that time.  People who make decisions based upon faith, however, begin from a different foundation: that the word of their religion is truth.  Therefore, anything arising from reality that contradicts their personal truth must be in error.  This is one of the key defining characteristics of irrationality: that evidence cannot influence one’s thinking.

Having worked in the military for a little while, I have met a (probably) disproportionate number of hardcore right-wing religious types.  What I have discovered is that these are NOT bad people; there is a bit of a disconnect between the objective mentality required to be a successful (or at least still alive) defender of one’s country and the deep and abiding hope that all homosexuals would contract a particularly specialized version of the Ebola virus… but they’re not bad people.  In the interests of diplomacy and being able to get any work done, I have developed a means by which to coexist intellectually with this particular demographic.  It involves doing away ENTIRELY with any line of rational discourse.  Yes, this is a huge fucking integrity compromise for me, but if doing so will purchase harmony with only myself paying the costs, then I choose to believe my actions are in the service of Good.

The key to reasoning IRrationally is to employ some good ol’ 1984 doublethink:  start with the postulate that God (etc.) literally exists and the Bible (etc.) is literally true, then find commonalities between the derivative lessons (or dogma, as needed) of the Bible and actual, real-world rationality.  Restraining your conversations to these topics enables a harmonious workplace at the cost of some mental self-flagellation on your part.  For the faithful, discussions of this type are the only way to effectively connect with (or alter) their thinking in a real-world direction: by definition, reason does not affect people who do not make decisions based upon reason.  Practically, since your argument does not agree with the truth of the Bible, your argument is faulted from beginning postulates on up, and can be discarded out of hand.  By beginning a line of reasoning from the same truth and adjusting course towards the Realm of Reason, one can display the utility of reason even within a religious context.

The book will be an examination of this type of interface, but with the diplomacy removed.  Reasoning in this way, accepting the other person’s terms and still managing to produce a conclusion that is practical, viable, moral and useful in the real world, is sure to make either a dedicated enemy or a lifelong friend, depending upon the person’s own intelligence.  Over the past two years or so of employing this sort of methodology on a consistent basis, I have reached an interesting series of conclusions.  One (or more) of the following conclusions, following logically from the truth established by the Bible, seems to be necessarily true:  1) God is either arbitrary or unnecessary;  2) God lacks either omnipotence, omnicognizance, omnibenevolence or omniscience;  3) God is either dead or absent; or 4) the Bible was actually written/inspired by Satan.

Someone is going to murder me over this book.  I’m not joking in the slightest, particularly given the implications of the fourth conclusion.  Most disturbing to my current way of thinking is that the fourth conclusion, assuming that God exists, is actually the most likely to be true; the other three conclusions would render the Bible inconsistent with itself.  However, given what is known of the universe in general and the nature of man in particular, treating the Bible as a piece of disinformation propaganda would enable the most good in the world.  Keeping the basic message of altruism that Christianity (and Islam, and Judaism, and Voodoo, quite frankly) claims is the meaning of their religion and discarding the literal truth of the Bible as being a naughty trick played by the Devil would, I believe, help a great many currently religious people make a more comprehensively positive contribution to the world and ease pretty much all of the doublethink cognitive dissonance required of them by religion.

So that’ll be the book, really.  I have the outline down pretty much as I want it, all that remains is to spew heresies and find a publisher headquartered in a fireproof building with really thick doors.  Think your typical Frankensteinian mob, but with modern, NRA-sponsored weaponry.  In all likelihood, I’ll be using this space to organize my thoughts for this book, so IF there’s anyone other than myself and Gerry reading this blog, then feel free to cut me some feedback as you see fit.  Much better than cutting me in a more literal sense.

Comma bitches.