Religion is an Outdated Necessity

In the past, religion served two functions: to explain life and to provide order. Our species has evolved enough to execute these functions with rational means. We can explain the development of our complicated world without simple answers. We have a system of statutes and social expectations that provide peaceful boundaries. Our empirical understanding of the universe has progressed to a level that no longer requires a Creator that must be followed by penalty of damnation.

When considering religion, the dichotomy of doubt and faith emerges. Faith provides useful theoretical benefit. In practice, it offers more meaning in afterlife than in life, which contradicts the instinct to survive. If we exclude the impossibility of an afterlife - especially one as magnificent as Heaven - we become unafraid of death; without this, life becomes devalued. We lose purpose, except to faith itself. Further, when one has an ability to repent their sins, immoral actions become inconsequential. These two factors combined create an environment that can justify war on the basis of faith, especially when faith is twisted from its intention and taken to extremes. In a world where multiple faiths all exist in disharmony, faith allows itself this possibility.

Faith allowed the Romans to conquer Europe. Faith allowed Europeans to commit mass genocide against Native Americans. Faith currently allows the Israeli army to keep Palestine under brutal occupation and faith currently allows the United States to spread its ongoing and unwanted global influence through force. And then faith excuses itself.

In a world where there is so much still unknown, faith remains stationary. It is stubborn to new ideas and savagely enforces old ones. It does not form opinions, its opinions are already formed, and even when conditions change it will already have determined its position. Doubt does the opposite; it says that it does not yet understand, and more importantly, doubt allows for further explanation. Faith is an unproven back-up plan whereas doubt points out the consequences of its failure. And doubt adapts.

Religion is unnatural and must be taught. This is no different than science, except that most science can be proven through repeatable experimentation. (The Big Bang Theory, for example, is a particularly difficult experiment to repeat; however, it is still easier to recreate this than the first few pages of Genesis.) Science is based on empirical data, which is compounded knowledge over thousands of years of observation. Religion, however, is not empirical. It has no evidence, no observation. When presented with this, religious people tend to fall back to it being a matter of faith. But faith cannot survive.

There is an enormous difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality is a method for living one's life in balance with self, others, and with nature. It is a basis for being good for the sake of goodness, not for fear of eternal punishment. Religion is faith in the certainty of something that is absolutely uncertain. It is a true or false answer to an essay question. I live my life spiritually and believe in what I can see and feel. I do so with the understanding that there is more to this world than I am aware of, more than I could ever perceive. But I do not pretend that I have an answer.

Corporations Are Not Greedy

I've been reading and writing odds and ends and tids and bits about the seven sins, and I've come to the conclusion that - contrary to popular belief - corporations are not greedy.

And now you're thinking to yourself, "but Michael! This goes against everything you've written! Have you lost your mind? Has the machine gotten to you?!" Trust me, good friend, the machine has not gotten to me, and I've as much mind as I've ever had.

Corporations are just simply not greedy. They are gluttonous, which is something far worse.

Greed and gluttony are nearly indistinguishable in definition, as they are both a desire for personal gain. The difference is that gluttony takes it to excess.

For example. Someone who is greedy will eat more cookies than anyone else; someone who is gluttonous will eat all of the cookies on the table, then all the cookies in the cupboards, then all of the cookies in the store, and will not stop until they've eaten every cookie possible.

A corporation that is greedy will demand greater profits than its competitors; a corporation that is gluttonous will do whatever it takes to make those profits, including layoffs and dubious production tactics.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even totally sure where I stand on this whole capitalism issue. While there is logic behind competition creating better products, in a hypothetical communist and technology-driven society, couldn't products be made better for the simple goal of creating better products? Why does capitalism only function on the premise that some people must lose? And greed and gluttony and inflation aside, how can corporations consider only a marginal profit a loss? This mentality is most certainly not for the benefit of society, it can only be a manufacturer's defect.

In conclusion, because I'm not feeling particularly wordy today: up yours, corporate thugs.

As Dug Up from an Old Pile of Ignorance

A few years ago, I received an e-mail. It was forwarded to me probably with the intention of humour, although I seriously question the mental state of someone who would actually think it were funny. Strictly for context purposes, this is a condensation of what it read:

"Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. Let's see now; no Jesus, no Christmas, no television, no cheerleaders, no hot dogs, no beer, no tailgate parties, no Wal-Mart, rags for clothes, towels for hats, your wives can't shave, you can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung, and women wear baggy dresses and veils and smell like your donkey. Then they tell you that when you die it all gets better! Is there a mystery here?"

I replied immediately, not only to the ignorant twit who sent it to me, but also to everyone else addressed. I was livid; as I imagined any sensible person would be. This is what I wrote:

"The message that was sent to you is a slanderous e-mail containing more outright racism than humour. Please do not propogate hatred by forwarding it. The very first criteria listed is the best example of the ignorance lining the entire body; not only do Muslims believe in Jesus, he is the most quoted prophet in the Qur'an, their holy book. The blunt truth is that the only mystery to be found is the intolerance one would require in order to type this all up in the first place. It insinuates that our questionable values are the base for the only legitimate culture; that a feudalistic capitalist society is the ideal utopian template! As if television, beer, and Wal-Mart are actually great accomplishments in history! Further, its direct xenophobic/isolationist language is a catalyst for all international hatred that seems endemic in North America. Please. Please. Please. Do not help spread this disease."