Who said it X?

Haven't played Who said it? in a while. I totally forget what number I am up to, so I'm calling it Who said it X? As usual, my self-imposed rules are that it has to come from my own library or at least a library book I read. It is, as always, my excuse to just share some "stuff" I read that struck me one way or another. I'm experimenting by putting the answers right below the questions. Try not to cheat until you take a guess.

1. This priggish father was delighted to give his son advice on women in 1941:

"There are many things that a man feels are legitimate even though they cause a fuss. Let him not lie about them to his wife or lover! Cut them out -- or if worth a fight: just insist. Such matters may arise frequently--the glass of beer, the pipe, the non writing of letters, the other friend, etc. etc. If the other side's claims really are unreasonable (as they are at times between the dearest lovers and most loving married folk) they are much better met by above board refusal and 'fuss'  than subterfuge."

*

"How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp the teacher's ideas, see his point--and how (with some exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. It is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male."

*

"I fell in love with your mother at the approximate age of 18. Quite genuinely, as has been shown - though of course defects of character and temperament have caused me often to fall below the ideal with which I started. "

A.  J. R. R. Tolkien  B. Ernest Hemingway  C. FDR  D. Walt Disney

That would be from A., Prof. Tolkien, to his son, Michael. I have read many of his letters and he was as British as they come. Not surprising that he spent a lot of time with other male writers in a group they called The Inklings, of which C. S. Lewis was the other most well known writer.

2.  If you figure out who this is, you might guess what the hell he is talking about:

"If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I might seize the nearest stick and kill it; but if I found that snake in bed with my children, that would be another question. I might hurt the children more than the snake, and it might bite them. Much more, if I found it in bed with my neighbor's children, and I bound myself by a solemn compact not to meddle with his children under any circumstances, it would become men to let that particular mode of getting rid of the gentleman alone. But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the children were to be taken and it was proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with them, I take it no man would say there was any question how I ought to decide!

A. King James I  B. Adam Smith  C. Abraham Lincoln  D. Mussolini

That would be Abraham Lincoln, C.  In this little not too well known speech, his children were the white people, his neighbor's children were the slave states, the solemn compact was the Constitution and the bed newly made up stood for the territories from which he wished to keep slavery. The snakes, obviously, represent slavery. Now read it. It will make a lot more sense.  At least, it seemed to for his audience.

3.  "No man of reason can comprehend the jurisprudence that the jurists have concocted. In the end, today's jurisprudence is nothing other than one great system of shifting the responsibility onto someone else. He would therefore do everything to disparage as much as possible the study of law, that is, the study of this type of interpretation of the law. Because these studies would not form men who were fit for life and suited to guarantee for the state its natural legal order. These studies meant only an education in irresponsibility."

A.  Thomas Jefferson   B. Friedrich Nietzsche  C. Adolph Hitler  D. Antonin Scalia

I usually try and sneak a Hitler one in here somewhere. It should be a gimme. Then again, I do try and sneak a Jefferson quote in their too.

4. I love reading how so many writers from all times in our history seemed to be sure that morality is degrading and the next generation always worse than the one before it. This guy may have figured out why:

"Many proofs may be given that the human race on the whole, and especially in our own as compared with all preceding times, has made considerable advances morally for the better. Temporary checks do not prove anything against this. The cry of the continually increasing degradation in the race arises just from this, that when one stands on a higher step of morality he sees further before him, and his judgment on what men are, as compared with what they ought to be, is more strict."

A.  Socrates  B.  Immanuel Kant  C.  Henry David Thoreau  D. Winston Churchill

Hmmm. That's a poser. But, it's B., Kant, writing one of the few things he wrote that I could actually understand. Whether he was right or not I can't say for sure, but I doubt it. I suspect the assurance that the next generation is morally lax is based on our inherent prejudice that what we are used to is superior.

5.  When I was young I used to go to dance clubs, but I rarely participated. I like music but I never really understood dance. But, others certainly do. Yet, I never once saw anything like this described here. If there was any sexuality with people dancing where I was, it was actual and obvious, not symbolic or eroticized. On the other hand, for the young men reading this for tips (where else would you go?), dancing with a girl may be the quickest way to boudoir. Anyway, if I had seen anything like this below, I would not have cried aloud, as he did:

"About midnight the wildest and maddest of dances began. . . . it was the fandango, which I fondly supposed I had often seen, but which was far beyond my wildest imaginings. . . . In Italy and France the dancers are careful not to make the gestures which render this the most voluptuous of dances. each couple, man and woman, make only three steps, then, keeping time to the music with their castanets, they throw themselves into a variety of lascivious attitudes; the whole of love from its birth to its end, from its first sigh to its last ecstasy, is set forth. In my excitement I cried aloud."

A.  Casanova  B. Benjamin Franklin  C. Sir Richard Francis Burton  D. Mahatma Gandhi

No, not Gandhi, though that would have been cool. Casanova, A., is the answer, exactly who you would expect (but not expect if you thought I was being sneaky). But the other two would not be surprises if it had been them.

6. This next one is topical, with the White House clearly embarrassed at the investigation by the Department of Justice into the phone records of journalists, in order to figure out where a leak (that they did not want) came from. It is not a new topic, but one we haven't figured out. I'm not sure we ever will unless time and technology stand still. Here's someone's take on the subject:

"The more I consider the independence of the press in its principal consequences, the more am I convinced that in the modern world it is the chief and, so to speak, the constitutive element of liberty. A nation that is determined to remain free is therefore right in demanding, at any price, the exercise of this independence. But the unlimited liberty of political association cannot be entirely assimilated to the liberty of the press. The one is at the same time less necessary and more dangerous than the other. A nation may confine it within certain limits without forfeiting any part of its self-directing power; and it may sometimes be obliged to do so in order to maintain its own authority."

A. Thomas Paine   B. Mark Twain  C. de Tocqueville  D. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

All of them seem reasonable choices, but it was written by C., de Tocqueville, in his landmark work on democracy in America. It is another way of saying, if I may expand upon the words of a great writer who I doubt would think he needed further explaining, we can't have a democracy, government by the people, if we don't have a source to get information about that government from someone other than the government itself. We have to take this right very far in order to mean something, because government will twist, threaten and lie to sustain itself. But, onthe other hand, we can't take it so far we cripple that which we are investigating. Of course, this is just abstract theory. Putting the bell on the cat is harder.

7. Every once in a while I rewrite the profile on this blog without knowing if anyone ever reads it (although I think there is a statistic Google makes available there, I'm not sure that all of the hits aren't from me).  But, I might just put the following quote in its place some day:

"I take it for granted, when I am invited to lecture anywhere—for I have had a little experience in that business—that there is a desire to hear what I think on some subject, though I may be the greatest fool in the country, and not that I should say pleasant things merely, or such as the audience will assent to; And I resolve, accordingly, that I will give them a strong dose of myself. They have sent for me, and engaged to pay for me, and I am determined that they shall have me, though I bore them beyond all precedent."

A. Mark Twain  B. Thoreau   C. Winston Churchill  D.  Ronald Reagan

Could be any of them, I guess, though it was famously said by B., Thoreau, in a lecture I love entitled Life without Principle.  Of course, no one is paying me, but I suppose that this is an opportunity a blog provides, if you want to use it for this purpose - a chance to lecture and possibly have someone read it, without anyone ever inviting or paying you to do it. Ironically, the only time I did get paid to lecture, a few years as an adjunct (no way to get rich, I assure you) I was very careful not to let my opinions about the subject matter be known. On the other hand, I'm sure the students got a strong dose of me anyway. It is almost unavoidable if you don't want them sound asleep and impossible if you want to have any fun at all.

8.  "I should like to ask you all if you know of any dispute or controversy existing in the world which is worth the life of your son, or of anyone else's son? Perhaps I am not well informed of the terrifically vital forces underlying all this unrest in the world, but for the life of me I cannot see anything involved which could be remotely considered worth shedding blood for."

A. Leslie Howard   B. Teddy Roosevelt   C. Rudyard Kipling   D. Joseph Kennedy, Sr. 

The answer is definitely not A., Leslie Howard, who himself died in WWII when his plane was shot down. It is D., Kennedy.  Of course, he lost his eldest son, his namesake, in the war to come and almost his next son, Jack, who went on to be the last president to be assassinated, as was his younger brother and Joseph's youngest son, Robert, while he was running for president, all of which Joseph, Sr. lived to see.  TR, was a hawk, and lost his heroic son Quentin in a WWI dogfight.  Kipling, also a hawk, helped his son get into the British Army for WWI, in which he died. 

9. And now for something entirely different:

"In this class we include those who by fraud or intimidation have been thrust into that life of celibacy where they were allowed to fornicate but not to marry; so that if they openly keep a  concubine they are Christian priests, but if they take a wife they are burned. In my opinion parents who intend their children for celibate priesthood would be much kinder to castrate them in infancy, rather than to expose them whole against their will to this temptation to lust."

A. Mark Twain  B. Martin Luther  C. Erasmus  D. Pope John Paul II

It be more fun if it was D, but it is C., Erasmus, sometimes considered the first humanist (I think that is a misinterpretation with which he himself would have problems). I imagine there was a generation of eunuchs who would have loved to have personally thanked him for the advice to their parents.

10. And, at last, an explanation of why it is good to be king:

"Upon their arrival in his presence, he causes a new examination to be made by a different set of inspectors, and from amongst them a further selection takes place, when thirty or forty are retained for his own chamber. . . . These are committed separately to the care of certain elderly ladies of the palace, whose duty it is to observe them attentively, during the course of the night, in order to ascertain that they have not any concealed imperfections, that they sleep tranquilly, do not snore, have sweet breath, and are free from unpleasant scent in any part of the body. Having undergone this rigorous scrutiny, they are divided into parties of five, each taking turn for three days and three nights in his Majesty's interior apartment, where they are to perform every service that is required of them, and he does with them as he likes. When this term is completed, they are relieved by another party, and in this manner successively, until the whole number have taken their turn; when the first five recommence their attendance."

A. Marco Polo regarding Kublai Khan  B. Aleksander Suvorov regarding Peter the Great  C . Vladimir Lenin regarding Grigori Rasputin  D. Ruhollah Khomeini regarding Shah Pahlavi

I guess it's good work if you can get it. The answer is Marco Polo, A.

And that concludes another exciting episode of Who said it?

The Greats

Didn't feel like thinking too hard this week. This is just a fun rundown of some unbelievably talented people with video hightlights. All worth watching. There's no point being made, they are just fun. I tried to find short ones, but two are a little long. Also, I kept the number down as it takes a bit to watch the videos. Sorry some have commercials.

While making this I realized that what I was doing here was what Stan Lee's show Super Humans is all about and some of these guys have been featured there. Then again, for all I know, he gets all of his subjects from the internet.  
------------------

Tom Knapp just died at age 62. I have seen him perform on documentaries and he is the real deal. I could watch him do trick shots for hours. Below is his record setting 10 clay pigeons in 2.2 seconds, which just seems uncanny. What combination of genes and practice allowed this ability to develop? I don't own a gun, but if I was going to buy one, it might be a Benelli shotgun. Good sales job, Tom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajRydkuRPlg

While we are on guns, Howard Darby is a many time world record holder of Fast Draw and who knows, maybe the fastest ever. He is also a "spinner" and fun to watch. For some reason, these shooters usually appear to be really nice guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzv6AK7fFgY&playnext=1&list=PL9C980584FCADCEA8

(You may have seen fast draw Bob Munden on tv. He is even more fun to watch and I don't think anyone has ever proved he is a fraud or not lightning fast himself. But his claims to holding world records and championships is completely fabricated and he is loathed by the real competitors. But, I've seen him on shows where they do slow mo for what he just did that was almost too fast to see, and it is either so or these shows are in it with him. On the other hand, if he is for real, why did he make up all those titles and records? You can look him up yourself if you haven't seen him.)

Okay, so the guys with guns are pretty amazing. This next guy, Byron Ferguson, does it with a bow and arrow. No, not the ones with all the supports and stuff like in the Olympics and makes it really hard to miss once you've learned what to do, but the type of bow and arrow we associate with Robin Hood that you can at least imagine you can make in your backyard. It doesn't even look like he is trying. I wonder if he and Tom Knapp know each other. Also, who is this trusting chick throwing the stuff up in the air. I mean, what if he one bad moment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejiv2E6f1sA&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Now check out the superhuman strength on this Canadian circus performer, Dominic LaCasse. Watch through the end where he does a human flag and makes a 360 degree walk in space that seems impossible.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dominic+lacasse&view=detail&mid=66580A974954C80AAA2166580A974954C80AAA21&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR

This next one is Aaron Evans, who not only can jump, but is either very brave or very stupid. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHixXAobUxQ

The following is a sand painter. I've seen a couple of people do this but still uncanny. Ferenc Cakó is possibly the most famous of them. I don't really know though and can't say I care. I just see his name a lot. Because it takes time to do these drawings, this video is a little longer than the others and you might want to skip around a bit. On the other hand, you might like the music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go7wlUOC5dg

Ok, last one b/c I know that you can't miss with it even if you've seen them ten times:

Is there anyone over, say, 8 or 9, who doesn't know who Michael Jordan is? But, if you are one of the few who needs it, for 15 years in the 80s and 90s those who followed basketball and many others were treated to the Michael Jordan experience. MJ is, as the NBA says, by acclamation the greatest player who ever lived and I can't disagree. Even if there are a handfull whose statistics can compare with his, you just had to watch him once to know that he had a physicality, quickness and perhaps focus that was different than anyone else. The only ones I can think of who I can compare him to who I have seen in my lifetime in terms of inarguable superiority in their sport are Bruce Lee in the martial arts, Sugar Ray Leonard in boxing, Greg Louganis in diving and maybe Alexander Karelin in Graeco-Roman wrestling. I probably saw him play 100-150 times during that professional decade and a half or so, but, I don't think there was a time when I did that he didn't do something in the air that just took my breath away. I'm not sure there is a highlight reel long enough to contain him, but this one is 15 minutes long and doesn't get boring. You have to see the moves in slow motion to appreciate the agility, hang time and explosiveness that made other outstanding players like Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley and Isaiah Thomas look almost ordinary in comparison.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+michael+jordan&mid=1E970CB1E243960B402C1E970CB1E243960B402C&view=detail&FORM=VIRE2
 
 

Atheism

This post is in part motivated by Matt Barber's article, The Fool Says 'There is no God' published on April 23rd, which essentially argues that atheists are fools because we don't realize that the Big Bang and life on earth prove there is a God. Sure.

Sometimes it surprises me that I have written so little on the issue of atheism in this blog. After all, it is not only one of the most controversial issues in history, but in my youth, anyway, it was a leading ideological division between me and other people starting in the second grade, even if of no real practical importance. And though most of my friends and family could care less (especially anymore), some occasionally do, although not to the point where anyone ever stopped being friends.  Still, I can be at least a little reluctant to tackle the issue. The main reason is that even among people I know well, sometimes it upsets them to hear what they believe is reasonable and important is not seen the same way by me.  Some see it as a challenge to their beliefs (I've heard that said). Maybe it shouldn't bother people, but we know it can.

But those are friends or people I know relatively well. In the world at large, people care a lot more and some can be a bit rude about it. Some are even murderous, but that's not what this post is about. At least, when I read online I find an awful lot of columnists, bloggers and commenters who are quite concerned with atheists, Matt Barber's article being a good example. According to many of them, we atheists are not only fools, but have no morals or values either. Of course, I have spoken with religious people, and heard religious leaders speak on the topic who think no such thing.  But, I am also aware that when Pew and Gallup take polls on what ideologies or ethnicity would cause them to rule out voting for someone for president, more would vote for any ethnicity and any religion than for an atheist. Atheists do worse than even homosexuals and sometimes Muslims. The bias is that deep. Go to Pew or Gallups websites or http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm, if you find this hard to believe.

Fortunately, not thinking much of atheists doesn't regularly translate into violence in America, with threats of it only a little more common.  If people do find out I am an atheist, most aren't overtly troubled, but some tell others that they feel sorry  for me or look down on me (and those people obviously tell me) but others try to convert me.

Once in a blue moon I am challenged to informally debate the issue.  I have never had one of these debates go bad, that is, degrade into an argument, though it has frustrated some of those in the conversion mode.  If I do debate it, I usually say to whoever I am debating that I have no interest in changing their opinion -- and I don't -- but will defend my own. But, I do understand that they often very much want to change my opinion. The charitable view is that they are trying to save my soul.  A more cynical view is that they find my lack of faith uncomfortable. It varies person to person. Rarely though, do I find other people who are as curious as I am about what other people believe without having the added motivation of proselytizing to them. What can I say? It's a hobby.

Admittedly, I am careful about the way I say things in a religious debate. I know that people are less sensitive about issues that can be proved in some way or another (Was Mickey Mantle no. 7 or 9? Google it) and much more sensitive about those they can't really prove at all, such as religious matters, politics or who was a better quarterback - Bart Starr or Johnny Unitas?

Following are just some of my thoughts on atheism, shorn of my usual reluctance.  I suppose I could make more detailed arguments, but, for me, atheism is not a difficult question. It's simple.

My basic premise

God is an assertion that a Supreme Being, or at least something like that, exists. It cannot be thought or argued, even if it is accepted on faith, without making that type of assertion. Atheism, to the contrary, does not necessarily require asserting anything, although an atheist can assert the negative position as a matter of belief. But, someone could theoretically grow up and never hear of or consider the issue of the existence of God.  They would be an atheist by default, but not believe in God all the same.  It is no different than that someone who has never heard of the idea of life on other planets does not have to assert that it does not exist in order not to believe in it. Again, to the contrary, to believe in the existence of anything, including God, you have to have a positive or active thought that it exists.

It is axiomatic that no burden can logically be required to prove a negative existence except in a closed system where you can measure sufficiently to rule out existence (I just made that last part up, but it sounds right to me), and I will not try. It would be fruitless. But, I certainly can claim that the proofs of God's existence that I have heard have never been sufficient for me to believe in something of which there is no evidence (and below I will get to some of the claims that there is evidence).

Ontological argument  

This is a logical argument that has been around for about a thousand years.  Some hold that it is the best proof of God. I don't get it at all.  Since, it is a logical argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion should be true. The premises are so far from rational that I do not think one needs to even argue that they aren't true, though they are not in my view. I disagree that it is truly a logical proposition at all. I do not think it follows any of the basic axiomatic logical principles that we generally agree upon (such as - If p then q: p therefore q).

Many philosophers have bought the ontological argument, some tinkering with it a little, but many others disagree. Perhaps Bertrand Russell was right when he said that it was not very persuasive to the modern mind, but it was easier to say that it was wrong than to say how. But I don't think so. It is so filled with flaws as to be almost preposterous. Because there are a number of versions of it, varying in degree of complexity - Gödel's, for example, is just ridiculous - I have to pick one.  So I will go with the original, of which all the others are variations. Anselm held that (I took this from Wikipedia):

"1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.

2. The idea of God exists in the mind.

3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.

4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.

5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.

6. Therefore, God exists."

I think you could argue that each and every one of these propositions is false or at best may be true only because it is a tautology (the premises are the same as the conclusion).  For example, take 1: This is not necessarily everyone's understanding of God in the first place. It is merely one understanding of God. Indeed, there have been arguments within the Christian religion itself whether some aspects of the trilogy are greater than other parts. If that argument is taken as true, it would be harder to argue perfection (though they do anyway).  Second, we can easily conceive of a being greater than God simply by believing that a being created God but itself did not think it necessary to create the universe that it could have. This is actually existing Hindu theology as well - Vishnu creating Brahma who created the world (not generally what you would learn in college or some other texts about them, but one version of their mythology or theology). Or we could conceive of a being who could create a superior universe and have even reigned supreme over God (rendering God a Lucifer), but deemed it superior to allow God to destroy him or simply remained inert as God created the world and heavens.

And so you could argue the falsity with each of his five premises, though I do not want to go on forever here.  But, if you look at the list closely, the logic falls apart anyway, which is my main point. The conclusion (no. 6) is not at all based upon its premises (nos. 1-5) the way this classic example is: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. There is simply no logical imperative that God exists simply because we cannot conceive of something greater than God. Also, it is a tautology because God's existence is already made part of the premises from no. 1 through 5, but especially in 3 - which explicitly states that God is real. It comes almost as a self sustaining conclusion which he could have given after any statements he made, almost a deux ex machina.

I agree with Karl Popper and others that eventually all philosophic arguments can be reduced to common sense or axiomatic grounds which we cannot prove.  And on common sense grounds, the ontological argument falls apart, as shown above.  For instance, Premise no. 4 simply makes no sense whatsoever because a) there is no such thing as an objective definition of reality; b) there is no objective definition of "greater," a concept which only exists in the mind; (c) one cannot conceive of something which does not exist only in the mind and we cannot tell ever whether anything exists outside the mind. I recently made fun of some obtuse writing by A.J. Ayer, a philosopher. In the book I had quoted from, he argued that we can know that things exist outside our minds. But, when you read what he writes closely, you have to recognize that it is simply on - as we lawyer's like say - his own ipso facto.

First cause

This is a far more substantial argument than the ontological one because it cannot be disputed that all of our experience and sense tells us that everything must be created at some point in order to exist. We know of no example for which we can say with any authority that this is not so.  This argument can also be presented in several ways, but simplest is perhaps to ask why there is something rather than nothing? It is an excellent question. Where did all this come from? Must there not be some first cause?

Excellent as the question is, it cannot be answered. And, it is inconceivable, unless there is some way to witness a second creation, that it can ever be answered unless we are all subject to what is usually termed revelation.

Of course, believers propose the answer - God did it. But, I ask then, if that is taken to be the answer, how was it accomplished? Because if we cannot know that, then we cannot know at all that it is so. It is neither evident, nor claimed by a Supreme Being to us, and the circumstantial evidence points only to God if you already believe it based on faith.  I would say that God is an appropriate answer only if the meaning of God is "I don't know."

For as Hume has pointed out, we cannot witness causation. We only can know that one thing regularly follows another. In this case, we cannot even witness the former event - whatever was or occurred preceding creation.  And it presents a paradox.  For, if a deity existed prior to existence, then existence preceded existence, unless we say that God did not exist. If God did not exist, then it could not be first cause. And, as been asked many times by many people, if God created the universe, where did God come from? If the answer is God always existed, then why couldn't the universe have always existed? More, if God and the universe are identical, what special meaning does God have? These are far more logically certain than the ontological argument. Yet, the questions are (must be) dismissed by all those who argue that first cause is proof of God.

Of course, the faithful are usually comfortable with paradox and mystery.  So, they don't mind.

But it's all so complex

Here's the theory. The world, the universe, all of it could not be so complex was there not a designer.

Is it really that complex? It's not even a real question. Complexity is purely a human construct. It does not exist, on this planet anyway, outside of the human impression that something is hard to comprehend because there are more aspects to it that one can easily arrange in one's mind. Unlike a person, a dog or even an ape may not be able to comprehend something or concept, but it doesn't recognize that its inability is due to something intrinsic in the nature of the thing that puts it beyond the comprehension of its mind. Only humans, as far as we know, have this self-awareness.

If humans are, so far as we know, the only creatures in the universe capable of the notion of complexity, were to be wiped out -- certainly not an impossible situation -- would that make the existence of God more or less likely? Of course not.  Therefore, complexity cannot be proof of God. It can't possibly have any effect on the question any more than the existence of humans can have an effect on whether a planet or a fern exists.  It is just a bogus argument that sounds good, but is entirely illogical.

Or, if you want to presume that out of the (likely) billions of solar systems in the universe there are not only other intelligent beings out there, but some which may be much more intelligent than us, it doesn't help the theist argument at all. Because the argument would then again rest on the relative intelligence of two beings -- just as it did with human intelligence and that of a dog or ape. And that really makes no sense at all.

Revelation

Very often God is asserted as a matter of revelation. That is, either the believer relies on personal revelation by God or reliance on his revelation to others. This cannot be easily combated and I don't really try.  It is arguably the opposite of science, which is the most powerful tool we have to discover what is not true and a better approximator of what is true than anything else of which we know. Science is dependent on independent verification or falsification (depending on whether you agree with the Circle of Vienna or Karl Popper, and these days, Popper won), documentation and rigorously controlling variables, among other things. Revelation has no rules other than those imposed on themselves by whoever is the recipient of the revelation.  No documentation needs to be made and certainly no verification or falsification is possible. In what other type of decision would we reasonably allow this to be considered proof?

The same argument of personal experience is made with other things which are not in common experience, such as with UFOs. I have several friends who swear that they have seen flying saucers. In one case I know an entire family that says they saw one together and I don't disbelieve them. In fact, right in front of me another person who grew up in the same town as them claimed that she saw the same phenomena and their stories matched. Since they knew each other it may just be that she had heard the story before and later remembered it as though she experienced it herself (I've seen this many times in life). What I believe in their case is that they experienced something which they interpreted to be a UFO or their belief was aided by priming and imagination.

And I readily acknowledge that I have had my own experiences when I lived in Virginia which seemed like there was a ghost in my house which were very hard for me to dismiss as just my imagination (particularly while they were ongoing). I also had a momentarily terrifying moment in Gettysburg where I felt like my arm was being lifted up in the air as I fell asleep.  But, I do not really believe there was a ghost in either place. I think in the former case there were natural explanations, probably mostly the wind. It was a drafty old house. Though the light switch going off in the ghost's room while I was in there, and just that once - is a little harder to explain. Well, and the doors repeatedly opening as I approached. Oh, and the garbage can swivel top moving. Hmmm. I said it was hard, but I really do not believe it.  Anyway, in Gettysburg I told myself I was dreaming and I fell immediately asleep, or already was, to awake early the next morning, as usual, all in one piece and alone.  Others in turn can (and have) laughed that I refuse to accept as true what they see as a reasonable conclusion of interactions with ghosts. But even were I convinced by my own experiences, I cannot experience what someone else says happened in their head or privately to them.

There are all kinds of revelation. There is that which comes either word for word or as inspiration to a Moses and Mohammed or the authors of the Vedas, etc., which are very detailed. There is that revelation which simply seems to the recipient to say "I am."  And there are other people who simply experience a feeling and believe they understand it as the presence of a deity or the deity.  None of these convinces me because I cannot know they are true. I am assuming they were genuinely experienced just as I know that I experienced something in Virginia and Gettysburg, even if only in my mind.

But, for obvious reasons, personal revelation or reliance on someone else's revelation cannot serve as proof for someone else, however satisfactory it is to a believer.  And a free choice to believe someone else's revelation cannot serve as evidence of truth either.  If it could, then completely opposite things could be true at the same time since one person can believe it and another reject it. Even were technology sufficient to see someone's thoughts as they occurred, would it change anything other than verify that they were telling the truth as to what they are experiencing? If we could not see the source of their "voice," how would we know how to differ it from imagination or even psychosis.

And, not least, how do we deal with contradiction, which is virtually inherent in revelation?  For it is likely enough that every revelation particular is contradicted by another person's revelation experience; even something as simple as feeling a presence - which asserts several things about a deity - it can be felt; it is mobile, at least into a mind; it has a will to be felt; it responds to a person's beliefs/heart/soul or favors an elect group, and so on. Each of these beliefs can be contradicted by another's revelation as to what constitutes God.

None of the above means that revelation, whether first or second hand, isn't good enough for the believer. And, they can argue also that none of it means it is not true. There is no possible logical rejoinder to that.

Verifiable?

I may have made fun of Ayer, who I mentioned above, but he was considered by some the greatest 20th century English philosopher after Russell (not by me though). He argued that the question of God was unverifiable, so it was meaningless. In fact, he considered any religious debate meaningless because it was unverifiable. Therefore, he argued, he was not even an atheist, because it was pointless to discuss it.  Like much he wrote, there is some logic to support him, but in my opinion, he pressed it too far in stating that one could neither argue that God exists nor that God does not exist. Because, if we cannot have arguments about what is unverifiable, at some level, we cannot argue about anything. And absence of certainty is the whole point of arguing. Even a philosopher may step down off his pedestal and have an opinion that cannot be verified.  If we only had opinions, even very strong beliefs about only that we can verify, it would be a very quiet and boring world. Besides, what was unverifiable, might become readily so.

I would call his position intellectual pompous anyway, as eventually he did come to refer to himself as an atheist later in life.  However, supposedly he had a dream before he died where he saw a Supreme Being. I say pish posh, and his own son had doubts it happened that way in any event. http://variousenthusiasms.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/did-atheist-philosopher-see-god-when-he-died-by-william-cash/ (I am laughing at myself now, because I included that website there thinking someone might care enough to read it. But, really, how many people would care enough to read about what some old philosopher claimed to experience when he was probably dreaming?)

And I am sure there are those who would like to point out that we cannot measure or detect gravity either,  but we do not doubt its existence.  From this they continue that just because we cannot detect or verify God does not mean God does not exist. Well, that is certainly true. But, there is a big difference.

There may not, in fact, be a thing called gravity. Perhaps it is an interaction we little or cannot at all understand.  But we certainly can directly experience it by jumping up in the air or even standing and observing and comprehending it in the motion of the planets and stars. When we say we believe in gravity what we are really saying is that we believe in the experience of it.  Whether it is a thing, like a pen or an interaction of the universe in a way that is beyond us may be determined in time, but that it may be a complex being beyond our common state of knowledge and intellect is no more proof of God than anything else.

Is atheism just another faith?

I do not know when this idea was first proposed, though I have heard it offered many times in recent years.  I think it is entirely wrong. Faith implies a belief. In order to have faith, one must have faith in something.

All knowledge relies on some kind of faith if you reduce it far enough because at some point we just can't know things through experience. We have to accept that certain things are what philosophers call a priori, that is, we know them before we experience them (like, arguably, 1 plus 1 = 2).

Why then can it not be said that atheism, like theism, is simply a faith like a religion? The answer is because one - religion or faith in a deity - is an active decision to believe in something (even if not consciously) and the other is simply a recognition that you can't prove something or everything.

There is a great and unalterable difference between believing in something without (sufficient) evidence and not believing in something when there is no (or insufficient) evidence.  But, I have learned over time if people do not or will not see the difference between these two things, there is no point in trying to argue it.

Ad hominem arguments

Arguments against the person are not really arguments but fallacies. Yet, they are more often used by many to try to prove the existence of God than anything else.  I keep an informal list of insults I receive online when I argue politics because it amuses me to do so. The other day I was called a "hit and run troll," which really means, of course, that the writer did not appreciate that I disagreed with what was obvious to him and found it unsettling that I can't stay online all day like many of the regulars on that website. But, it had nothing to do with the difference in opinion we had.

I have heard throughout my life many reasons people assert why they thought I believed or did not believe something. Among them are because I wanted to be different, I liked to shock people, I am a lawyer, I was a psych major, I was a liberal or conservative, a jerk, just wanted everything to be in the middle and so on.

There is no problem with discussing any of those things. We can certainly discuss someone having a  recognizable political or religious philosophy shared by others and then the discussion is about them (or me). Few people like to be labeled, though some do, and we all feel sometimes that we are being labeled unfairly. Me too. But, that's not what really bothers me.   What I find frustrating is when the personal quality is substituted for the argument we are discussing.  There is a difference between arguing about someone's typical mindset and using it to prove a point about something unrelated. But, I really don't think everyone gets that because they argue with me about the difference too. I remember not too long ago a fairly intelligent person looking at me bewildered at the idea that whether someone was a liberal or conservative might be a genuine subject of a debate, but whether they were one or the other could have no bearing on whether health care reform was a good idea. To her, the two were precisely the same questions.

It is, of course, not fun to have someone point out that you are engaging in a logical fallacy and if you do, be prepared to have that person spend time trying to prove that your arguments are fallacious too. Ad hominem arguments are a distraction and in my mind, almost an admission of defeat, but it is also just the way the world is, and I am long used to it.

I heard my favorite ad hominem attack on me when I was 13 and it involved whether there was a God or not. Two friends, neither who I am friends with as an adult, explained to me that the reason I did not believe in God (and did not get bar mitzvah'd) was because I was immoral.  Oh.  It was that time I came upon a tactic that I thought was brilliant but has never seemed to do me any good whatsoever.  I suggested that they presume that I was the worst of all people in the world, and that once we accept that, we should move on to discuss the topic. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. My personal immorality seems to answer the question for them.

Aesthetic argument

"Aesthetics" is what I like to call the dumbest branch of philosophy, dealing with beauty and taste. Come on.  One man's brilliant sunrise is another man's headache producing burning pile of hydrogen and that is all there is to it. Of course, there is such a thing as beauty in itself, but it is merely what appeals to us and there are many reasons for it doing so. Einstein would argue that you could know when a scientific theory was true because it had a beauty to it, and that also was dumb. Smart as he was, Einstein thought and believed dumb things just like everyone else.

Nevertheless, some people urge aesthetic arguments as if they were proof of God. I am far from immune to their appeal. There are many things I love, for example, about the Old and New Testament, particularly the stories and the language. There is a tremendous appeal to the idea of a human soul - something which I am certain will never be measured or scientifically detected (at least, validly such that we can replicate the experiment) because it does not exist. The idea of a soul can be beautiful, but, if you want to view it differently, you could make quite ugly stories about them too and this has been done as well.

When I discuss whether there is a God with people, and particularly with women, I find the question of an afterlife comes up. Don't I want, I am often asked, to believe that there is life after death? My answer is, well, sure, especially if it comes with guilt/consequence-free eating. But, wanting something to be true does not make it true either.

During my whole life myth has had a tremendous appeal to me. It is possible that the reason is nothing more than that one of the first books my mother taught me to read with was Edith Hamilton's Mythology.  Few of my brothers and sisters share this love with me at all. In fact, with the exception of my one deceased brother, the idea of fantasy seems completely unexciting to them. My oldest brother describes watching The Lord of the Rings as one of the most boring things he has ever done in his life and his son joined him in it. I find myth so appealing that I literally feel sadness for those who cannot enjoy it and think that they would if they gave it an opportunity. I am well aware that there are those who feel that way about me and the concept of God, which is not a large step from myth. In fact, it is a tiny, almost imperceptible step. Yet, the aesthetic appeal of myth to me  - even of Jehovah walking in the garden - does not translate into belief at all. If it did, as I explained to my mother when I was very young, I would as soon believe in Athena or Odin as I would Jehovah. But, the gods and goddesses were make-believe she told me, and God real. I didn't buy it then. I don't buy it now.

But, feel free if you like.

Stunning photos of rural Va. found 1000 years later.

Maybe not a thousand years ago. Probably last year. But, a few weeks ago all of a sudden there was this roll of film sitting on top of the bureau and I have no idea where it came from. Anyway, that camera is now deceased, having lived a good 10 years or so, and so these will be my last roll of film developed. Even for a Luddite like myself, the next one will be digital. Turns out it is yet more pictures from my almost five years at home down in the Commonwealth of Virginia, land of more founders than you can shake a stick at, Lee and Jackson and John Paul Jones and Booker Washington and Lewis & Clark and whole lot of others, not to mention a whole lot of scenery, which is what these photos are meant to describe.

This is the terminus of the walk developed at The Natural Bridge about 10 miles or so from my home. I went here dozens of times to walk or just study and met people who had been there many more than that. In the center distance is Lace Waterfall, behind which the stream stretches for somewhere between 100 and 200 miles. This is by no means the best picture I have of it, just the most recent. Below is the miraculous bridge itself, of which no picture I have ever seen by me or anyone else can do justice. You just have to go see it yourself, best in Spring or very early Summer when the river is full.

 

 

You can't tell from the photo, but that cut out is approximately 180 feet high and the same beautiful stream that hurried over Lace Falls still runs right through it and keeps going a few more miles until it runs into the James. It is said that George Washington through a rock or something over the bridge when he was a young man. When you go there, you realize that even were he a titan, he could not have done it no matter what they say.

The above two are my beautiful Mount Purgatory. It runs laterally for about 5 miles. None of my plans to climb it ever materialized, though it was the closest real mountain to me. Go figure. Never got tired of looking at it either. My landlord, who was born in the house I lived in, says he still isn't tired of it. He tells a story of sitting on the porch when he was a little fellow and the neighborhood minister walked by (I think this would have been sometime in the 1930s) and said "What a nice view." My landlord said "Thank you," as if he had something to do with it. I don't have anything to do with it either but I can be heard bragging about my 30 mile deep view into the valley and my beautiful Mt. Purgatory nevertheless. Every day, often every few minutes, it looked different thanks to sunlight, clouds and the seasons.

You can tell me the clouds are the same everywhere, but they are not. I have seen many beautiful cloud and sunset/sunrise formations in my life. But I never have seen so many consistently remarkable ones in any spot than I have here (I mean back there) in my little town of Buchanan, Va.

And, the river which runs right through the heart of the town, the James, is the largest river to run completely through Virginia, from almost the West Virginia border twisting up and down for hundreds of miles until it empties into the ocean. And, for most of that run, it looks something like this.

And the lakes, well, that is just another kind of special. I don't particularly remember if this is Lake Moomaw or Carvin Cove - I think the former - both can take your breath away. And neither were even the prettiest ones I could drive to in a couple of hours.

That's it. All from the same roll. All you need to do is point and click - no talent required.

Ruminations on aging

Damn it. I was writing this post on old age and stopped for a few days to go to the Bear's lair in Baltimore. We watch a Louie C.K. comedy special and he did a bit on old age. And, it was pretty funny. I'm funnier than Mitt Romney (who isn't?), but not Louie C.K.  I had no intention for this to be funny and now I have to follow him.  It's not that everyone who will read this will have seen it. But, for me, it now feels kind of dry in comparison. Too bad. It's like getting old, I guess. Which brings us to my ruminations on it, starting with

. . . one of my favorite myths, which is about Thor, the mighty Norse god of thunder, who, accompanied by the trickster Loki and a very speedy god you likely never heard of, went to the halls of Utgard-Loki, who was one of the giants the Norse gods were always battling. There the gods were humiliated in competition. Thor, who first lost a drinking contest (or so he thought, not realizing he was drinking almost the entire ocean), challenged anyone there to wrestle him. The giant ridiculed him and called upon his nurse, Elli, who proceeded to outwrestle Thor, forcing him onto one knee, when the match was called.

Only after the gods had left did they learn the truth. Elli had not been a simple nurse, but the personification of old age, and, Thor had deeply impressed the giant that she was only able to force him onto one knee. What the point of the myth is, is not  especially clear. Maybe it's that even the gods are subject to old age, or, maybe that Thor was so powerful that even old age could not completely defeat him. Maybe both.  Or, maybe it's just that old age is even more powerful than an immortal (the Asgardian gods by the way, like many other gods, gain their immortality by eating special food).  It's an unusual myth in that it has been found in only one source, The Prose Edda, a collection of myths written by 11th century Icelander Snorri Snurleson. Unlike with his other stories, he cited no sources for this one and so some scholars think he made it up.  I have no idea, nor do I care very much. After all, all myths are made up by someone at some time. If he did make it up, it's still old enough to satisfy my sense of ancientness.

I'm 53 and no Thor.  Not only does that make me more than a half century old, but, I realized not long ago that I was more than 1/4th the age of Abraham Lincoln. Doesn't that blow your mind? Doesn't it seem like he should be ten times my age? 

53 is not very old by many standards. Though I probably feel better than I have in many years, I still feel kind of old. Some of that has to do with a bum leg, but I can see the sagging on my body and feel the loss of strength.  I go to the gym as often as I can stand to, usually between 3 and 5 times a week.  I'm also physically stronger than I was at most times of my adult life and my arms are physically larger than when I was a kid. Nevertheless, I was definitely stronger back then.  The loss of strength, it seems to me, is not so much because of weaker muscles so much as it is the tighter, more brittle ligaments, tendons and less oomph.  Less oomph may just mean I produce less testosterone than I used to.

There's all kinds of people in this world and maybe there are people who actually like getting older, just like some people claim. I have trouble believing it just like I have trouble believing people really like lettuce.  Getting older means decay. You slowly start dying. Thanks to modern medicine, food, safety rules and other benefits of modern life, we live a lot longer than we used to even a half century ago and much more comfortably. But, no one has found the fountain of youth yet.  Though there are those who are marvelously welled preserved, all of us are still aging, and once you get passed a certain point, it's all downhill. Sometimes, if an old person falls or otherwise injures themselves, it is downhill very, very quickly.  

But, I have no doubt that the vast majority of people do not like getting older. Let's face it, whoever said first "I'm not getting older, I'm getting better" was probably 22 years old. If you are a man, your testosterone slowly starts reducing when you are about 30. Less energy, less arousal, pretty much less everything.  If you are a woman, well, don't kill me for this, but your menopause is terrifying to others - both men and women. We understand, we sympathize, but we just hate it. I guess it can't be fun for you either, so - sorry.

Perhaps you want to say that older people have more wisdom, but one's man wisdoms is another man's just plain crazy. As my great, great spiritual grandfather, Henry David Thoreau said - "I think that no experience which I have today comes up to, or is comparable with, the experiences of my boyhood."  He also wrote something much rougher:
 

"Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures, for private reasons, as they must believe; and it may be that they have some faith left which belies that experience, and they are only less young than they were. I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors. They have told me nothing, and probably cannot tell me anything to the purpose. Here is life, an experiment to a great extent untried by me; but it does not avail me that they have tried it. If I have any experience which I think valuable, I am sure to reflect that this my Mentors said nothing about."

I think my beloved Thoreau, who seems to as wise a writer as I've ever read, and possibly the one who has had the biggest impact on my life, stumbled there, taking his point too far. It's not that all old people have good advice; he's right, much of it is terrible and based on their own.failures. What passes for wisdom is often just the voicing of regrets, bad luck, resignation or fear.  And sometimes the perception of wisdom is just acquired material wealth that gives the appearance of it,  as one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite musicals tells it - "When you're rich, they think you really know!" 
 

And sometimes it is just the appearance of venerability that passes for wisdom 

too.  I have to admit, since my hair has gone gray, I get treated with more respect by some strangers and definitely juries. Sure, when you have gray hair you just think you are getting the respect you deserve, but it probably is just the color. And sometimes it is also true that experience, perhaps seeming to bring with it the ability to see future risks, stands in the way of flexibility to meet new challenges. Sometimes.

But, it is petulant to argue as Thoreau did. Sometimes experience really is good, even great. I don't know what we'd do without it. Everything we know with the exception of some instincts and things we can know by reason, are based on experience, no matter what centuries of philosopher's have told us. And let's face it, the young are often idiots. Not because they are literally stupid, but because of lack of experience; they don't know what to expect and think their dreams are reality. It probably is not going to be that way for the great majority of them. Do you know someone even at 30 who doesn't say, or at least think - if only I knew then what I know now. Of course, mostly guys say that with respect to getting over on women, but the principle is the same whatever the goal.

Some few things don't seem to change at all as people age. I still remember my father's strange behavior a few years after my mother's death.  When I asked him why he was acting so strange, he said that when it comes to the opposite sex, nothing changes. He was in his sixties then, but in my 50s I notice that is true of many people I know in their relationships.  Again, it's never everyone, but it sure is a lot of people.

Not only does age make you physically more decrepit, but I have already noticed in the last few years a greater tendency to crankiness and lack of patience, even among friends.  It is particularly true with noisy children, of course.  I can't pretend that I haven't felt this too, more and more as the culture seems to have changed that it is now okay - yes, okay - to have your little kids cry in public places without removing them.  Grrrrr.  But, it's not just with kids. I haven't indulged in it, but I am far more likely to get into a fight now than I ever was as a kid. At least verbally.

And memory - oh my God, has it affected the memory of some of my friends and acquaintances. Sometimes I want my entire life to be recorded so that I don't have to have endless conversations about who said what (always with the same people though).  It's one reason I'm so glad for email. Anything important I have to say to someone, I want it electronically recorded.

And as for weight loss, it's just sad. At my age, gaining weight is like blowing up a balloon. Losing weight is like carving Mount Rushmore with a tooth brush. Even when older people have lost weight, they often discover that their skin has lost its elasticity so that the skin just hangs on them, toneless,  curdled and, you know, all yccchy and stuff. The bags under my eyes seem permanent, far as I can tell.  And that little soft line under my chin is a constant focus of my attention.  Oh, I did the phony-bologna chin stretching exercises for a while with hopeful expectations, but short of a sharp knife or more likely today - ultrasound, nothing is going to change.

Of course, some people do cover up their age with surgery and I have no problem with provided its reasonable (we've all seen the cat lady). Others use steroids, which is a substitute for testosterone. Not just a substitute, but a super duper substitute. I've personally seen its use explode over the course of the last ten years. When I started going to a gym about a decade ago there was one body builder who readily admitted using and another guy there who didn't publicly acknowledge it.  But no one else was all that big. Now, you have to stop and count the steroid users. You can't even call them freaks anymore because there are so many.

One night I counted 20 men and 2 women in my gym that I was certain were using them. You can pretty much just tell. If their muscles look unbelievably cut or huge or both, they probably are. It is especially easy when their heads are small.  Lots of teenagers and some septuagenarians are doing them too. Yeah, 70 something year olds with faces like your accountant but absurdly muscular. To me, it looks creepy and unnatural, but I don't expect they'd care what I thought. 

It is even obvious with the young men who you might expect to be more muscular. I grew up in an era when many kids were constantly on the go playing sports, running about and lifting weights. But, the most muscular kids I knew then did not look like so many young men today, with melons for biceps and shoulders  that would make professional football players from the seventies  jealous.  Are some of these muscles natural?  Rarer and rarer.  There is just no way training has gotten so much better in just a few years that muscles like these are popping out of people. Thankfully, there are far fewer women doing it than men.  The other day I saw a young woman at the gym not only with a body builder physique, but with a predatory look to her walk and glance. I'd say there about 4 women in my gym I regularly see who are into it to one degree or another.  There are a few women there who are just in great natural shape, but, again, you can almost always easily tell the difference.  

If there were no side effects to taking steroids, who'd care, but there are. This isn't a post about that. If someone doesn't know it, they aren't paying attention.

I know, I know. You are not supposed to say any of this stuff (except about the steroids - if you don't do steroids you pretty much know it is crazy). Many people don't want to feel old, look old or acknowledge it at all.  I can hear it now - you are not "positive."  I get that sometimes from people. In my view, they just don't like the truth and substitute fantasy for reality.  I do understand, of course, that my view of what is positive and what is just pretending to be positive, and ultimately negative, is skewed from most people. That's part of the reason I have a blog. Because, apparently, I upset a lot of people when I talk in public. If talking about aging is not positive, then I'm not positive. I think it is.

And, it's not like I invented shaking my fist at aging.  Even in enduring and favorite works of legend and fiction immortality is a predominant theme, sometimes the main one.  The authors of The Old Testament granted long life to the patriarchs - though not immortality! Perhaps that was a result of Adam and Eve's fall. Earlier still Gilgamesh, king of Uruk, desperately sought immortality and failed! In The Iliad and Odyssey constantly reference mortality and the wasting away of the elderly.  In The Lord of the Rings, it's creator could have resolved the problem in his new mythology, but does not. Some characters are described as virtually ageless, and few show much sign of it. The elves, if not destroyed, last thousands of years retaining great beauty. Gandalf and the wizards came to Middle Earth as elderly men, but age little over a great length of time too.  Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the countryside - "Oldest and Fatherless," seems immune to it.  But, eventually, they must leave Middle Earth. Arwen, who remains, is long lived, but eventually diminishes and dies. The dwarves are long lived by our standards. The  span of time given to the favored Numenorian kings, even down to Aragorn (who saw 210 - not bad) was extended, though not immortal. And, of course, the Ents, Treebeard perhaps almost as old as Bombadil, are not human and may have approached it, but only to an extent .  And, of course, long life, but without preserving powers, accompanies the One Ring - but the toll it takes is horrifying.  Tolkien is one long tale of the fight against aging, even after temporary success. It seems almost his primary theme that immortality cannot survive.  "The deeds of Men will outlast us, Gimli," says Legolas, after all is said and done and all the "magical" creatures leave us.

I'd like to have a more conventional ending for you today.  Something like - "But in the end, we . . . " or "There is yet hope. . . "  I could talk about positive thinking and of course, many people turn to religion to help them with the process. Not for me. There may be, for our children, the possibility of greatly lengthened life and greater peace at the end.  Perhaps for our descendants a pleasant longevity beyond our imagination is possible.  But, it must all end the same way until we become something else - part human and part something else, and that I do not think any of us will be around for. Nor am I sure what the trade off might be either. All I can recommend at this time is flossing, as much exercise and moderate eating as we can stand, a certain amount of stoicism and to try - just try to enjoy life and health while you can. As is sung in Fiddler on the Roof "God would like us to be joyful even when our hearts lie panting on the floor/How much more can we be joyful when we really have something to be joyful for."

Wait a second --Thor, Thoreau, The Iliad, Gilgamesh, The Bible, Fiddler on the Roof and The Lord of the Rings. It happened again. This post is just another excuse for me to talk about some of my favorite things.