I've been kind of thinking about this recently, especially as I continue to think about religion generally, and the hypothetical conversation I might have with the Jehovah's Witnesses who occasionally come to our house (with whom I kind of enjoy speaking), and I have concluded that no, there is absolutely no way I could ever be religious again. This is not another attack on religion; all of these are personal and are not intended to discourage others' beliefs.
1) I simply do not have the capacity for blind obedience to an enigmatic authority. I'm one of those annoying belligerent people who ask "why?" all the time. Remember Imago from the song I examined a month or two ago? I'm basically him and Ivan Karamazov.
-------------------------------------------
Imago:
I can never submit to all the things you've said God
If you want me dead, I'm right here God
But fear is a funny thing God
In that it gives you the strength to resist just about anything God
And friend turns to enemy
So easily
When you defend your legacy with guilt
And talk of blasphemy
God
You know
You created a golden cage for you sheep
A stage too wide and deep for us to even see the play
But hey
You know what they say about catching the bird
But you can't make it sing?
You lose the bird the second it loses its wings
Just like I reckon you will lose your herd
To choirs of "I am, I am, I am"
And mountains and mountains of money and things! -- Pain of Salvation, Diffidentia
----------------------------------------------
2) The reward - I can see no reward, at least one that 1) doesn't exist here on Earth or 2) would not be considered a vice and therefore an unsuitable reward for supposedly good works. Imagine that Allah really did give his true faithful 72 virgins--after a life of chastity! Doesn't really make sense, as we could simply have that on Earth. Why would a being who encourages chastity and platonic love reward those with their opposite? Do we really all need to be good until Judgment Day, and then immediately afterward we can all be hedonists without consequence? What kind of system is this?
What about other things that I enjoy (aside from sex and heavy metal), like literature and philosophy, and even politics? In a static utopia, it would be absolutely impossible for politics to exist, but what about literature? I'm quite sure that in either of the two monotheistic metaphysical systems, Jesus/Allah would have eliminated any and all philosophers and writers who did not honor them. That means no Socrates, Plato, Camus, Aristotle, Sartre, Russell (definitely not Russell), or Heidegger. Geez, what fun is that?
I'm not even sure the popular idea of Heaven is how it's even described in the Bible, it is merely an amalgamation of what we project as our greatest desires (seeing family members again, lots of sex, and lots of lesbians). But on the family members part, no one can even decide if we even look the same as we did on Earth, and if that's the case, then how are we supposed to find each other in the first place? It also doesn't help that our deepest desires run entirely contrary not only to God's Will, but the entire Christian dynamic, and as I said before about Allah, it makes absolutely no sense for our reward to be what we want during our time on Earth.
There is one major problem with the Judgment Day cut-off, too: Shouldn't we always be good? Dostoevsky, speaking as Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov, feared that without God, anything goes. But even with God, anything goes, albeit after Judgment Day. The goal should be to get us all to want to be good, even after Judgment Day. And are there other ways to be "good" outside of the religious system? Am *I* (me/the author) good?
3) It is the characteristic of the Judeo-Christian God and of what little I've heard about Allah that one must--in order to qualify for the "reward", you must first believe in them (either one). So I'm basically screwed every which way, even through both ears and my nose, because while someone could cry "Pascal's Wager!", what if one believes (as I do) that all religious systems rely on the same arguments and claims to their existence and are therefore of absolutely equal chance of being true across the board, making it impossible to choose?
I tried this thought experiment on my dad and it worked: Imagine that you have no prior knowledge, except that you could read. Imagine placed in front of you were a Bible, a Koran, and the Hindu Vedas (I could include more but this is headache enough). How could you choose between them?
In my own opinion, it's simply a blind crapshoot. I could pick one, and then get screwed by Zeus. Or Ra, or Damballah, or Quetzalcoatl. Pascal's Wager was no help to me!
4) This is an extension of 1: The nature of the revealed God. As you read especially the Bible, it becomes apparent that there are some people God just doesn't like. And this list of people God doesn't like eventually becomes rather long. And it becomes evident that God maybe likes only a few thousand people, perhaps even less as we narrow down how many people are actually good, let alone who believes in the 'correct' religion. This is a problem because there are now over 7 billion people on this planet, and we've become rather interconnected, which makes it much more difficult to justify prejudice. It becomes more and more impossible for God to sustain his prejudices, especially when the world becomes more rationalistic and respectful towards others. If at least some of us can learn to become tolerant, why can't God?
There is one reason why God can be intolerant after a millennia: The simplest answer is that he can afford to be because he is alone. But in my view, this answer is not true, as I will show. However, I think this answer is also quite intriguing.
God is off in some non-space observing the Earth--or, at least that's how people normally envision him. Despite how the world has changed in the last 500 years, God still believes that we are dependent upon him, yet he is not dependent on us. Therefore, as some Christians like to imply, God has no morality, and everything he does has absolute justification in his own mind regardless of the consequences to us; our "temporary" suffering is irrelevant in view of his "Master Plan." This means that God can still hate entire groups of people, and annihilate them without batting an eye, as we are mere ants under his magnifying glass.
I find this to be terrifying, and this God is one I don't believe anyone should worship even if it did exist. Such a God should be hated by us in turn, even if we are destroyed (we would probably be destroyed anyway, so we might as well go down with a fight). This further proves what I said on Facebook about the essential difference between believing in (a) (G)od(s) and worshipping said (G)od(s), as some gods are not to be obeyed for the good of humankind.
What gives me the right to place humanity above God? We are humanity! We have rational faculties, we are capable of similar (albeit significantly lesser) acts, we can love and hate! Aren't our ideas of gods and goddesses reflective of our own experiences--interpreted and mythologized (see Fandango by Pain of Salvation)?
God is therefore not alone. We created God (could be any (G)od(s)) to create us. We devised stories and legends detailing our origin and purpose involving entities far powerful than even we (for we are indeed powerful beings).
As long as we believe in God, God will exist, at least within us. As long as we exist, God will exist. And therefore God needs us as much, if not more than he needs us. And in truth, because God exists within our minds, we can change God.
You read that correctly. Did Christianity not change God from a tyrannical warlord who flooded the entire planet save a single family, commanded a man to murder his firstborn, and grant the death penalty for a multitude of bizarre offenses into a more forgiving (albeit equally sexist) entity? Did not Islam further transform God, and Mormonism even further than that (whether or not one respects Mormonism)? And what about--here comes another headache--all of the schisms within those monolithic traditions; each split off and defined God differently still. And what about the very first monotheistic religion, upon which Judaism and Christianity were based--Zoroastrianism?
Then who is to say that it would be impossible to further purge God of personality traits unbecoming of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being?
Just for fun, I'm going to lay out a few criteria I think any god or god-like being should meet in order for me to be inclined to follow him/her/it. I'm starting from scratch.
1) The god must be sexless, and therefore would be inclined to treat both sexes fairly in all regards. Even Socrates in the Republic agreed that the difference of anatomy between the sexes did not determine a difference of treatment generally. If Socrates can do it, so can God.
2) The god must not have been responsible for the creation of our world. This is pretty big for me, because as beautiful as our world is (or once was), there are particularly nasty things in it that I don't think quite fit the "benevolent" quality. I'm talking about things like earthquakes, Brazillian Wandering Spiders, and ebola, as well as certain parasites found in the Amazon river.
3) The god must understand rational discourse and the value of skepticism. It must appreciate the possibility of someone not believing in it, and respond not by murder but by presenting evidence, which would be as easy as a five-minute conversation. And the Christian god had to get all angry over it! How much violence could have been avoided if he just talked to some people? He must have had horrible PR...
4) The god must not favor any human faction over another; it must have equal respect for the well-being of all humans UNIVERSALLY. It must not advocate the annihilation of any group of people ever.
5) The god must be willing to offer advice to those who seek it.
6) The god must not care about the private lives of humans insofar as they are not hurting one another. The god must not say absolutely anything about sex. Unless it says that it's good for you. Hey! You know what? Let's turn Kurt Vonnegut into a god. That would be fun. Second thought, he probably wouldn't like that.
7) The god itself must not desire absolute totalitarian control, or feed upon those who worship it; it must not be avaricious and arrogant. This is the fatal flaw of all human-devised gods.
What's interesting is that the god I've devised doesn't seem to be much interested in being worshiped, especially taking into consideration the final clause. It is also hard to imagine any such being interfering with human affairs in the first place, unless it was avaricious or simply desired something in return. However, it would be strange to see a god in need of anything, unless that he was simply bored (like the aliens in the final Ayreon album).
Why else would any immeasurably powerful being care for us in the first place, if not out of the existential boredom that comes naturally with immortality? And wouldn't that being eventually get bored of us?
I've come back around to the reward again... If we were truly to get what we expressly desire--eternal life, albeit in an ethereal realm--would we not get bored? Our parents and grandparents would tell the same damned jokes and stories they told back on Earth, and finding new material would be impossible in a static world. In fact, even the most desirable reward would eventually become the most unbearable torment.
Heaven is Hell, and our temporality is the real blessing in disguise.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
A Mosque!? In My NYC?
I don't see what the big deal is about the Islamic Cultural Center that is to be built next to...Burlington Coat Factory. We didn't make Ground Zero a national landmark (which we should have), and so it's fair game, despite the ridiculous and xenophobic protests by most Americans.
According to Bloomberg News, "[Sarah] Palin, in a July 22 Facebook entry, described the proposed mosque as 'a stab in the heart' of the attack victims’ families. She also said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, suggested that U.S. policies in the Middle East helped create attitudes that led to 'the crime that happened.'"1 Well, the truth is that Rauf is correct on that point. Our policies in the Middle East fueled the fires of fundamentalism, with the installation of the Shah of Iran (who was, ironically, much better than his replacement), and in Afghanistan, where we baited the USSR into their own Vietnam, only to create a power vacuum when they finally left. That power vacuum was filled by the mujaheddin who fought against Soviet Union and formed the Taliban. And let's not forget about oil, which I've covered multiple times and should now be considered self-evident. On her second claim regarding Rauf, I don't immediately trust her judgment, which is why I did not address it. Palin has proven herself on occasions sufficient enough in number to be hopelessly ignorant of absolutely everything she talks about, and so I am willing to give Rauf the benefit of the doubt until what she says is confirmed by someone far more informed.
But we expect this from Sarah Palin, so it comes as no surprise that Anyone Who Speaks the Truth is Inherently Anti-American. But there's also something about this issue that has nothing to do with American foreign policy, and it's written quite explicitly in our Constitution: The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This should settle the issue quite satisfactorily, but it is the underlying cause of this xenophobia that has me so enraged.
When I was intolerant of religions and the religious, was it OK for me to say that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and the Catholic Church were representative of all of Christianity? Absolutely not. Therefore, what makes it OK for we as a nation to say that Osama bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, RevolutionMuslim, and Hezbollah are representative of all of Islam?
In the words of Rudy Gulianni during his presidential campaign, "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11! 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11!" ad infinitum. But this is no excuse! It's been 9 years since 9/11, and we've merely allowed this wound to fester and gangrene our politics.
And on CNN during the RevolutionMuslim fiasco, conservative commentator David Frum, whom I otherwise respect, was hard-pressed to admit that Christianity could be responsible for the same egregious offenses as contemporary Islam. Must I again recount at least a few of the atrocities and injustices committed by and in the name of Christendom?
1) The subjugation and genocide against the Native Americans prior to the founding of the United States
2) The countless wars of medieval Europe between Catholics and Protestants.
3) The Spanish Inquisition
4) The Catholic genocide against the Gnostic sect
5) The excommunication of Galileo Galilee (noted for the same kind of anti-intellectualism)
6) Christianity is guilty also of the same subjugation of women, however, psychological harm is more often employed in lieu of physical abuse.
6a) In relationships, however, Christian fundamentalism is positively related to higher instances of domestic violence2.
7) Homophobia is also something these two religions have in common.
8) Theocratic governance is something both religions aspire to, and both have more or less achieved it at different points in history.
The two religions are, for all intent and purpose, entirely equal in their capacity for violence, and therefore it follows that if we can see beauty in one despite the violence, we could--and should--seek out beauty in the other.
I just don't understand Islam in the same way as I understand Christianity, and I think my situation is reflective of America generally, and we've seen that we cannot hope that any mass of people would stand up for the greater good, even when it is written right into our founding document (which they probably have not read anyway). I have ordered an English translation of the Koran. Unfortunately, as I said before, I don't know any Muslims, so getting a good history of it, understanding the references to Christian and Jewish theology (I know plenty of Jews, but I don't think many of them are religious), as well as differentiating between metaphor and literal text may prove somewhat difficult. However, I have the Internet, a functioning brain, and there's a mosque in the next town over.
You know, it's funny. In an ironic turn, leave it to the kid who doesn't believe in any (G)od(s) at all to stand up for those that do.
1) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/ground-zero-mosque-plans-move-forward-after-new-york-landmarks-panel-vote.html
2) http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/Research/Koch%20Ramirez%20Religion%20and%20Partner%20Violence%20Final%20Feb%2009.pdf
According to Bloomberg News, "[Sarah] Palin, in a July 22 Facebook entry, described the proposed mosque as 'a stab in the heart' of the attack victims’ families. She also said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, suggested that U.S. policies in the Middle East helped create attitudes that led to 'the crime that happened.'"1 Well, the truth is that Rauf is correct on that point. Our policies in the Middle East fueled the fires of fundamentalism, with the installation of the Shah of Iran (who was, ironically, much better than his replacement), and in Afghanistan, where we baited the USSR into their own Vietnam, only to create a power vacuum when they finally left. That power vacuum was filled by the mujaheddin who fought against Soviet Union and formed the Taliban. And let's not forget about oil, which I've covered multiple times and should now be considered self-evident. On her second claim regarding Rauf, I don't immediately trust her judgment, which is why I did not address it. Palin has proven herself on occasions sufficient enough in number to be hopelessly ignorant of absolutely everything she talks about, and so I am willing to give Rauf the benefit of the doubt until what she says is confirmed by someone far more informed.
But we expect this from Sarah Palin, so it comes as no surprise that Anyone Who Speaks the Truth is Inherently Anti-American. But there's also something about this issue that has nothing to do with American foreign policy, and it's written quite explicitly in our Constitution: The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This should settle the issue quite satisfactorily, but it is the underlying cause of this xenophobia that has me so enraged.
When I was intolerant of religions and the religious, was it OK for me to say that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and the Catholic Church were representative of all of Christianity? Absolutely not. Therefore, what makes it OK for we as a nation to say that Osama bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, RevolutionMuslim, and Hezbollah are representative of all of Islam?
In the words of Rudy Gulianni during his presidential campaign, "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11! 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11!" ad infinitum. But this is no excuse! It's been 9 years since 9/11, and we've merely allowed this wound to fester and gangrene our politics.
And on CNN during the RevolutionMuslim fiasco, conservative commentator David Frum, whom I otherwise respect, was hard-pressed to admit that Christianity could be responsible for the same egregious offenses as contemporary Islam. Must I again recount at least a few of the atrocities and injustices committed by and in the name of Christendom?
1) The subjugation and genocide against the Native Americans prior to the founding of the United States
2) The countless wars of medieval Europe between Catholics and Protestants.
3) The Spanish Inquisition
4) The Catholic genocide against the Gnostic sect
5) The excommunication of Galileo Galilee (noted for the same kind of anti-intellectualism)
6) Christianity is guilty also of the same subjugation of women, however, psychological harm is more often employed in lieu of physical abuse.
6a) In relationships, however, Christian fundamentalism is positively related to higher instances of domestic violence2.
7) Homophobia is also something these two religions have in common.
8) Theocratic governance is something both religions aspire to, and both have more or less achieved it at different points in history.
The two religions are, for all intent and purpose, entirely equal in their capacity for violence, and therefore it follows that if we can see beauty in one despite the violence, we could--and should--seek out beauty in the other.
I just don't understand Islam in the same way as I understand Christianity, and I think my situation is reflective of America generally, and we've seen that we cannot hope that any mass of people would stand up for the greater good, even when it is written right into our founding document (which they probably have not read anyway). I have ordered an English translation of the Koran. Unfortunately, as I said before, I don't know any Muslims, so getting a good history of it, understanding the references to Christian and Jewish theology (I know plenty of Jews, but I don't think many of them are religious), as well as differentiating between metaphor and literal text may prove somewhat difficult. However, I have the Internet, a functioning brain, and there's a mosque in the next town over.
You know, it's funny. In an ironic turn, leave it to the kid who doesn't believe in any (G)od(s) at all to stand up for those that do.
1) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/ground-zero-mosque-plans-move-forward-after-new-york-landmarks-panel-vote.html
2) http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/Research/Koch%20Ramirez%20Religion%20and%20Partner%20Violence%20Final%20Feb%2009.pdf
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Xenogears - Full Review
I actually finished Xenogears over a month ago, and it took a while to digest it. As I said in my previous review of the first 20 hours (of about 60), the game is extremely linear--there are almost NO SIDEQUESTS. And the game only gets even more linear in a bizarre and unprecedented narrative shift, where the actual plot is told to the player in an incredible bombardament of text. The popular internet connotation "TL;DR" [Too long; Didn't Read] is surprisingly accurate. The shift in delivery is a major turn-off when it first hits the player, but ultimately I have come to believe that it was necessary in order to cram all of the things that Xenogears wants to say into the game.
I do not want to spoil the game for those of you who may want to play it, and this may be what some consider blasphemous, but Xenogears is even better than Final Fantasy 9 (my favorite Final Fantasy). The plot, characters, and themes are that strong, and they greatly resonate with who I am as a person and what I believe. The game was almost not going to be published in the United States because of what it dealt with.
I spent $30 on this PS1 game, and I think it is worth far more than that. I was actually sad when I had finished it, because I had enjoyed it so much.
I realize this review is incredibly short, but there isn't much else to say about it if I'm not going to mention the plot. If I did, your jaw may hit the floor, but still the plot would be spoiled. I'm actually of the opinion that Xenogears is at once the most ambitious and the most beautiful game Square-Enix/Squaresoft has ever produced. Surely, though the graphics have not aged well unless you use texture smoothing, the depth of the plot, the meaning of the plot, and the character development is something I cannot at present describe.
The only major drawbacks to the game are if the enormous walls of text would bore you (it shouldn't if you care about the plot and characters), and the intensely frustrating Babel Tower--the jumping mechanics in the game are extremely flawed. Also, navigating the final dungeon (which seems much more labyrinthine than it actually is) the first time is frustrating. Learning characters' deathblows is also a chore, as I have yet to figure out exactly how characters learn new deathblows. Of course, you only need to know Fei's, Citan's, and Elyham's deathblows. And their Gear deathblows are learned automatically as you progress in the game. Lastly, spend the time to level F, C, & E to 80, though grinding is tedious and boring, because you will need the cash. I ended up with 3-4 million Gold, and I still needed more for Gear parts.
Xenogears receives an A+: If you can wade through the frustrating segments, you will be rewarded handsomely.
I do not want to spoil the game for those of you who may want to play it, and this may be what some consider blasphemous, but Xenogears is even better than Final Fantasy 9 (my favorite Final Fantasy). The plot, characters, and themes are that strong, and they greatly resonate with who I am as a person and what I believe. The game was almost not going to be published in the United States because of what it dealt with.
I spent $30 on this PS1 game, and I think it is worth far more than that. I was actually sad when I had finished it, because I had enjoyed it so much.
I realize this review is incredibly short, but there isn't much else to say about it if I'm not going to mention the plot. If I did, your jaw may hit the floor, but still the plot would be spoiled. I'm actually of the opinion that Xenogears is at once the most ambitious and the most beautiful game Square-Enix/Squaresoft has ever produced. Surely, though the graphics have not aged well unless you use texture smoothing, the depth of the plot, the meaning of the plot, and the character development is something I cannot at present describe.
The only major drawbacks to the game are if the enormous walls of text would bore you (it shouldn't if you care about the plot and characters), and the intensely frustrating Babel Tower--the jumping mechanics in the game are extremely flawed. Also, navigating the final dungeon (which seems much more labyrinthine than it actually is) the first time is frustrating. Learning characters' deathblows is also a chore, as I have yet to figure out exactly how characters learn new deathblows. Of course, you only need to know Fei's, Citan's, and Elyham's deathblows. And their Gear deathblows are learned automatically as you progress in the game. Lastly, spend the time to level F, C, & E to 80, though grinding is tedious and boring, because you will need the cash. I ended up with 3-4 million Gold, and I still needed more for Gear parts.
Xenogears receives an A+: If you can wade through the frustrating segments, you will be rewarded handsomely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)