Freedom: The Forgotten Virtue

How often we forget that we are all free.

We forget that the essence of humanism is to allow and appreciate the freedom of others, while expecting the same in return. It is an exciting aspect of naturalism, provided in the constraints of certain moral theories, to be able to allow our inventive, creative, wonderful nature its full blossoming.

It is easy to be willing, out of fear for scorn, whether personal or (more despicably) politically, to put a cage around our minds and hearts in the name of some standard of conduct, or out of some respect for an invisible punisher. We do this by disguising our emotions – our brilliance, our love, our passion, especially our most human trait, sexuality – under acceptable clothing, mannerisms: How you doing and thank you very much.

Do we walk in within these boundaries because it is good to do so? Or is it true that we walk in line because someone has told us, “Behave, or else.”

We look upon ideals of conduct as valuable maps for our lives – schematics for robotic behavior that ensures we will be accepted by the bigger machine. But why? Given you are not causing any suffering, are there not untold riches to be found when you have elbow room to express yourself naturally? I believe this healthy rebellion and freedom is what gives us all the humanities – what reveals that we truly are fascinating, talented creatures rather than quiet, efficient automatons.

We are a suppressed creature, and naturalism can give us the key to health by establishing a moral standard like this:

The human being is only rightfully constrained by ability and material nature, and that there is no such thing as a victimless crime – there is no act, which when it has caused no suffering nor loss, that can be reasonably described as wrong.

This freedom is in contrast to the whims of the omnipotent and supernatural beings, who would have us appreciate a poisoned freedom from within their regulations – Gods who would make themselves exceptions to the Golden Rule so often preached by their devout by placing others within a caged and non-free system while they remain at large.

Any restraints against the freedom of victimless human expression, experimentation, cognition, opinion, art or activity go against the values of the humanist.

But some would have us believe that you can be religious and also stand up against these wrongs – but I don’t believe that’s true.

They would have us actually consider the freedom of those who crouch under an otherworldly dictator (whose government is conditional love), those who are seeking warmth in a supernatural source of validation and acceptance of their miserable state, seeking to be owned as a form of currency or loved conditionally or within a system or rebirth in which our future is deliberated – can these people, who so desire to be controlled and systematized  that they imagine supernatural beings to do it, say anything at all about what it means to be free?

The essence of freedom can not be had by any organization that says “As long as it is within our guidelines, or else.” So when religious organizations tell us that our actions are to be judged in the afterlife, or as some do, that life itself is empty and meaningless (to be transcended through magical thinking by extended meditation, prayer or other practices), we have the essence of immorality: a breach of the golden rule, performed not by men and women but by our supernatural beings.

We are to honor the world as a place conceptualized by these otherworldly spirits such as God, Vishnu or (as religious Buddists would have it) the reincarnated ghosts of the Wheel of Suffering. They tell us these magical processes do indeed exist, have a supernatural origin, and do have magical properties outside space and time – but they don’t stop there.

A supernatural hierarchy with men as vassals, slaves, serfs, sufferers and potentials is, for some, the ultimate guide and anchor to morality. This is not only not right – it can not possibly be right, given the golden rule has anything to do with morality.

Yet, if we are to agree that the golden rule is a basic aspect of morality, these creatures of our imaginations must be immoral. A worldview that perceives reality as a deliberated supernatural hierarchy is morally inferior to one that allows for true human freedom. Within a system of all-powerful spirits and their cosmic destiny for the Universe (a cosmology which has been designed or has some intrinsic mind-made purpose) it easily follows that no one could possibly be free by any definition of the word – we are playing by rules which have been made by other beings for us, far and above our material ability, trivializing the golden rule.

And so the gods who have made this decision to create rules for you, to set boundaries for you, and indeed to create you at all, while they remain omnipotent and free, break the Rule themselves.

Do not do unto others what you would not have them do to you.

So often is the golden rule preached, strangely enough, even by religions whose standards are dictated by a Punisher on High who has little concern for whether eternal punishment would ever be reflected back upon Him.

So we find the golden rule to be a core seed in moral religion, though by no means should it be considered to bloom only out of supernatural water. Take some of these (often hypocritical) passages to heart – these passages make up the room in the house of religion which is not decorated with bloody wallpaper and echoes of magical thinking.

Christianity – All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2

Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah

JudaismWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism - Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

Zoroastrianism -That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.

Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

 

  • Do you agree with the golden rule?
  • If so, is the true freedom to make the choice to behave by the golden rule even possible if there is any sort of a God who has designed this Universe with you in mind?
  • What about an Eastern (Buddhist, Hindu) Universe that is understood to be itself an illusion?

Word on the Street

The cockroach crunching under your sneaker goes skittering down a stormy sewer drain. Faceless steel buildings tower up, blacking out the orange haze of polluted streetlight-tinged clouds. From some dark alleyway comes the sound of a sad moan. Under a pile of rainy blankets a wretched homeless hand reaches out to you, clawing the asphalt. A voice cackles, “Got any sugar? Gimme summa that shuga…”

Far off in the distance, the wail of a siren and the pop pop pop of a gun. Another hit and run? Another dimestore robbery?

The smoke from your cigarette makes curls around acidic raindrops. You sigh, drawing yourself into the shadows of the City that Doesn’t Sleep In On Sundays.

You think to yourself – Just another night in Logan.

It’s a rough town. You grew up on the East Side, where Johnny Nametag and the 3rd Ward kept things calm for a while after Hootie strung up that kid for using the Lord’s name in vain – but it wasn’t long before Big Ezra and the Relief Squad came up hard from across the tracks. They were packing sugar cookies (real sugar cookies!) and everybody in town wanted a taste. They called those the Bake Days, and you don’t want to remember them. Thinking back hurts too bad.

Logan’s a sugar town. Everybody wants a taste of the sugar. There’s always a drug war going on somewhere – whether it’s the 8th Ward with their Oatmeal Squirts or Don Ephraim importing ice cream from Hyrum (it keeps the Aggie Ice Cream crew up at night). The stakes are high, and don’t be surprised if you run across some poor kid with a bullet wound headed for outer darkness. Just walk on by – just walk on by.

The cops are nowhere to be found – they gave up or sold out a long time ago. The town’s too rough, and the State has given up on Logan (I hear the politicians are calling it “The Jungle” up here) and we only have one, maybe two cops left. Sometimes I think about leaving this place, but there’s nothing for me out there. Once you leave Logan, where can you go?

Seriously, though – Logan is a rough town for a non-believer. Every Sunday, a black and white stream pours out of the churches by the thousands, and the empty dystopian city appears to have been eaten by zombies. A massive majority of people are LDS – these are the people you work with, the ones you date, the ones you order your Baconator from, the people signing your checks and teaching your classes.

What brought you to Logan? Did you grow up here? What experiences have you had with the pressures of living within a very closed community with rigorous (ridiculous) divine moral standards, from which not even our gas fumes can escape?

Logan has a veritable army of churchgoing police officers with their eyes out for anyone in a black T-shirt. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would you prefer to live in a secular city with a higher crime rate? What about the influence the church has on gender roles, dating and relationships?

How has such an environment shaped you and your experiences?

 

I’m Not Religious, But I Am…

“He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.” Friedrich Nietzsche

I recently heard a student in a Religious Studies class declare that Atheism was, “A pretty bleak way of looking at things – kind of a sad life to live.”

The only interesting thing about this sentence is who’s talking.

I’m willing to play along, though. Atheism has some kind of cultural tinge of being angry and nihilistic (in fact, to try to fit the horrifying ideal of Atheism I am currently crying tears of pain while reading Nietzche in a shower of razor blades and black vinyl while listening to the Cure and hating my parents). We have no reason to give any value to anything, because it is all atomic machinery whose deterministic status renders human life’s value describable in one meaningless word: Poopsack.

So, let’s be open-minded and pretend we’re religious for a moment. Let’s give a good ear to the Buddhas, the Prophets, the Gurus and the Imams and the Priests (and their wive(s), slaves, concubines, boys and other unmentionables) telling us to look beyond this life for answers.

So life is just absolutely stinking skidmark filthy – life is a wretched damned march toward hellfire, life is an illusion filled with suffering, life is a challenge to be met, life is a punishment. Life is a critique of our behavior, life is a period of failed awakening, life is a stretch toward re-incarnation, life is a scapegoat, life is a discarded empty atomic corpse from which blooms the beautiful fiery deadly flower of faith.

In appreciation of our upcoming event (SHAFT presents “Celebrate Your Mind”) your feedback is absolutely crucial:

What is positive about your secular humanist, atheist or free-thinking attitude toward life?

 

 

 

Good Without Sun Gods?

After ripping this computer away from an elderly woman in an elevator, I want to talk about secular morality.

Between Aristotle laying the foundations for proper angry-looking-statue-faces and Burger King picking up the highly overpriced veggie patty, for years questions about what’s right and wrong have pestered some bored professionals such as yourself who have the leisure time to worry about such things.

Universally, we’ve got a severe problem with finding out what, exactly, is actually “Good.” Even though, unlike the Greeks, we don’t have slaves to bother with menial tasks while we talk, like refilling the wine and getting slapped (and speaking of which, what good did the Romans ever do us, anyway?) we still find time to ponder establishing some kind of moral theory. At this time of crisis (I can say that because there’s never really not been a time of crisis) we should really figure it out once and for all, right here on the SHAFT blog.

We have different ideas among each of us about what it means to be a so-called Goodie Two Shoes. “Well,” you might say. “Being good is to live a virtuous, compassionate, healthy, flourishing, righteous, happy, socially-concerned, knowledgeable, altruistic, rational lifestyle and obviously have a nice riding lawn mower and a set of porcelain figurines in the kitchen and frequently scowl at smokers outside of K-Mart.”

A policeman next to you might remind you, “Wrong. All that matters is what you actually cause to happen by doing things. It’s not who you are – it’s the consequences of your actions that count. I’m watching you.” (If you’re defenseless and part of an American protest, you may then receive a complimentary dose of bear mace.)

In addition, should the setting of this commentary be at the zoo, you may have an additional mind-exploding Daniel Dennett-esque moment when you realize that gorillas seem to have generalized standards of give-and-take or simple group moral theory as well – “AHA!” you proclaim through a cloud of pepper spray, jabbing an opposable thumb in the air. “Evolution is the place where we must go to seek an ethical foundation for all these good things!”

Shady, smelly little figures might slither out of postmodern art galleries and scowl at you. “Fool!” they hiss, “All ethics are Relative to our culture and Subjective to our personal lives!” Thereafter they would insist on pulling their pants down and shitting all over the conversation.

All of these ideas are nice, but I feel that there is something missing. Whether defining Good as a sort of lifestyle, consequences of our actions, some kind of evolutionary behavior (or even as some kind of indescribably annoying relativism) it’s all very nice, but I want something truly concrete.

What, really, is Good – and what are we going to do about it?

Well, let’s get down to business. First, what are we? This tiny planet in a far-off corner of a Universe filled with trillions of stars has exploded with life, thanks to the arrival of DNA. DNA showed up on the scene some time before it was wearing bell-bottoms, supposedly from an asteroid or underwater time machines or something.

(The actual origin of DNA is something I don’t care about in this conversation. It’s a point of scientific contention, but I don’t think that matters when we talk about values of right and wrong. For fun, let’s say DNA exists because our planet is obliterated by a giant meteor in 2029, and the only thing left is a Queen album that gets sucked by a black hole back through time and lands in the primordial sludge. Voila!)

Anyway, what we know is that DNA has a basic function of replication, and that its vessels function through competitive natural selection – and that’s all it takes to establish a universal idea of what is good. Why so easy? Because we now know what all life has in common: humans, chimps, fish, coconuts, bacteria and even John McCain are all competitive over one thing. One thing causes all the problems over which we struggle in order to do what life does (flourish and replicate).

Energy. All life needs energy fueled by the Sun to flourish and replicate – and we only worry about Ethics because there’s not enough energy to go around, so such is a world where predators seek prey, rapists seek victims and Bukowski goes bar-fighting for fun. Thanks to the bee-line traced by agriculture, iron, bronze, steel, steam, coal, oil, nuclear and solar power – things just keep getting better for all of humanity (a solid argument for this is in Matt Ridley’s “The Rational Optimist”.)

Imagine a world in which we have a pulsating purple gem that is a source of infinite energy. Everyone can have as much as they want, and there’s absolutely no limit. Perhaps the real universal Good is in seeking out better sources of energy, so all of life can experience more flourishing, more replication, and with these better conditions no one will have much need to steal computers from elderly women.

Of course, someone might say, “Well, with loads of free energy, someone would still be inclined to blow everything up with a giant space-bomb.”

But what we’re trying to establish is a reality-based, scientific definition of what is Good, so also we can say that blowing people up is, in fact, a bad thing to do. No matter who or what you happen to be, you can agree: Yes, energy is what is good for me, and preventing the process of survival and replication (for no energetic reason) is bad.

Someone might say, “What about fat people? Don’t they have too much energy?” Well, yes. So here we have a STANDARD by which we can objectively say – yes! Fat is bad! Goodness is based on energy input/output. So if you choose to blow people up, or become fat and unhealthy, you are disregarding the basic survival needs of DNA. You’re hindering replication and survival for no reason (assuming there’s enough energy for everyone) – you’re doing Bad things.

So here’s what I want you to tell me. When humanity comes up with more and more ways to provide energy for the biological needs of all creatures’ flourishing and reproduction, are we not doing the highest objectively Good thing we secularists could do? How do you think biology influences good and evil?

Springtime of the Soul

Please join us as we work through the book “In Defense of the Soul: What it Means to Be Human” by Ric Machuga, with help from Professor of Philosophy Harrison Kleiner.

:arrow: Join us Tuesdays, beginning January 17 from 4:00-4:50, in EDUC 336.

What are you doing tomorrow?

Actually, I really don’t care. But I’d like to change the subject to how fascinated I am with you for being able to answer whatsoever. No other species has a concept of what the word “tomorrow” actually refers to.

Do you feel special?

And that’s not all you know, smarty-pants. What makes a triangle a triangle? “Well, my good man!” you say, “It’s three straight lines indubitably connecting. Indubitably!” and you chuckle with a mustachioed yawn through a scotch napkin. (For flavor I’m giving you the voice of a rich city snob from 1875).

But while you might think knowing what a triangle is befits any fourth-grader gibbering through a mouthload of Snack Packs – you must not ignore the importance of human rationality. We are the only species which apparently has the ability to conceptualize things such as perfect triangles. Who cares? Well, YOU should, if you’re a Materialist.

How do we explain the existence of rationalism in a material world? What does it mean to be a thoughtful creature, who can perceive of things such as “tomorrow?”

If your response was, “Well, that’s what it means to be human!” then you’re indubitably right.

Please join SHAFT this Spring as we explore materialism through the lens of the intensely cerebral ancient and medieval philosophers, peeking into the fascinating metaphysics of some of the greatest thinkers in history – Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who propose we have “souls” that exist outside of space and time.

To acquaint us with these intriguing ideas and further our understanding, SHAFT is very honored to have the help of Professor Harrison Kleiner this Spring. Those interested in understanding how contemporary thinkers are talking about Atheism, Materialism and the Soul should join the discussion for some valuable insight.

Ric Machuga, who visited USU years ago, argues for the existence of the human soul and a higher meaning for human life than the materialist allows. These indefatigable and contemporary perspectives based on ancient philosophy are problematic for those of us who see ourselves as a function of senseless atomic machinery.

Please join us!

Your response should be, “Indubitably. I’ll keep a bespectacled eye on my pocket-watch, my good man.”

 

Dirty Earth Baby, Part 3

Part Three: Clammy Cleavage

The marketplace of the soul in America has always been silky and smooth, especially if you buy stocks in the magical underwear business. These days, according to Pew Forum polls, a whopping 70-80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians who believe the Bible to be the word of the Creator of the Universe. When you hear it said that America is a “Christian Nation,” it’s not some vague statistic. No, it’s referring to whose blood your Grandma is actually drinking this weekend.

But the number is falling like the value of Enron stocks. Those who are unaffiliated with any religion are on an explosive rise. In the last twenty years, the number of American unbelievers has tripled to become a noticeable chunk of change. In 2007 over 15% of the nation, when asked what their religion was, kicked up their feet and responded “Nothing in particular,” and presumably went back to their slow, pointless, immoral march toward hellfire.

Those who declared “Atheist,” while impaling a wide-eyed kitten with a fireplace poker, included only about 1.6% of the population (which as a side note was similar to the number of Mormons in the country). Regardless, the body of non-participants seems to be growing fast, and not just due to the obesity epidemic.

Given nobody has done his divine duty and flown a plane into a building lately, we have access to incredible global communication and easy world travel. So some important questions rise: Why are young people dropping like flies from God’s windowsill? What effect does non-religion have upon the development of 21st century humanity?

Atheist voices are still an echoing chirp from the bottom of the birdcage. At this point, Americans would still rather stand around patting each other on the back just for having religions, since it’s in the gut of every patriot to embrace freedom to choose – as long as you choose one. If you have faith in something you’re okay. It doesn’t matter what you say, even if it has to do with an omnipresent space gerbil named Steve. The important thing is that, by God, you’re expressing your freedom of religion.

I’m this, or I’m that. I’m with these guys, I’m with those guys. I’m a Jew, I’m a Mormon, I’m a Jehovah’s Witness, I’m a Space Gerbil – check out my pointy hat and my glowy space frock. The knob on the respect-o-meter seems to jump just by being a member. When someone informs you that they belong to a religion, here is a list of what you need to do:

1. Stand up straight
2. Salute them
3. Shed your pants to reveal an unstoppable raging arousal
4. Sob patriotically
5. Sign a check
6. Give thanks to the ghost of Thomas Jefferson, who is moaning appreciatively under his space wig

It’s a different story for people who don’t have any particular supernatural beliefs; those who, like good kids being offered drugs, just say, “No.” When someone announces things like, “Er, we don’t claim to have perfect answers, but we are working on figuring them out,” he should just as well wrap his legs around his head and roll himself down an elevator shaft. Jefferson’s ghost, of course, will float beside him on the way down and beat him with his space wig.

“You don’t know? What are you talking about, you don’t know! Everybody knows how the universe began, and where you go after you die! Where’s your space frock!”

An atheist or agnostic must be a hater, a cynic, intolerant, rude, arrogant, crass, belligerent, ignorant, evil, egotistical, uncaring, heartless, mean and all-around Bad Guy. I have pulled these adjectives from a 40,000-page weekly academic newsletter put out by apologists, full of strong and valid arguments consisting of capitalized adjectives describing atheists and agnostics, such as Poop-Face and Stinky-Pants. The pages are extra sharp, to slice atheists in hand-to-hand combat if they come too close.

When someone declares that he or she doesn’t really have supernatural beliefs or special cosmic knowledge, that their Burning Bosom could be more aptly described as Clammy Cleavage, the first inclination among moderate America is to feel that this person just has a bad attitude and needs to get with the program. People give you frog eyes, cock their shotgun, tell Grandma to go back inside, and say you ought best to go back the way you came.

If it comes up, don’t say the word ‘Atheist’ because it’s laced with poison to most people. Atheists hate God, religions, their parents, Ronald Reagan and/or McDonald. Atheists are absolutely despised by patriotic God-fearing Christian Americans, even more than the shifty-eyed Muslims (and by those very same Muslims even more than that). Unbelievers have the spiritual hygiene of a trucker-motel shower plug on Valentine’s Day.

But respect people’s beliefs. This is an absolutely iron-hewn social grace. Of course, if it’s just one disease-rampant shopping-cart-dwelling bum, wearing a Mickey Mouse hat and a Christmas sweater in June while shooting streams of friendly spittle upon passersby and waving a Crayola-drawing of time-warping psilocybin-eating monkeys who fell from comets during the Ice Age – then it’s okay to point and laugh.

One man says some pretty crazy things but won’t get away with it. A large group of them, on the other hand, can say the same thing – but they move in numbers. It becomes more difficult to disagree with an idea as the numbers of adherents go up (and the federal taxes go down). If the aforementioned bum managed to establish a religion, suddenly we would all have to learn to make appreciative sounds like “Ahhh” and “Mmm” while admiring the bum’s Crayola drawing and tapping our chins thoughtfully. More importantly, children who are tricked into believing this religion should now be intellectually exempt from contents of reality which involve history or biology (which are just theories – how dare you).

“Well if the Smiths and the Johnsons are performing crotch-chafing midnight dances and howling at the moon around a bonfire, we better take the kids and appreciate it. It’s what the founding fathers would have done (especially that Randy Jackson – he’s my favorite).”

We tend to weigh our trust in ideas by how many other people approve of them; numbers of people in that organization give it more value and merit, and every participator is an advertisement of safety and respectability. I was driving down the road the other day and I saw a sign, which opened up my eyes.

“McDonalds: Now Serving 5 Billion.”

A warm, comforting glow enveloped the car and made me so interested that I steered off of the road and directly into building. Aside from the charges of manslaughter and driving while under the influence (having chosen the wrong time for a peyote-induced cosmic voyage, which is a perfectly normal tenant of my new faith, Zoromonkeyasteroidanism), I did eventually receive a glorious McGriddle.

My point is clear: The level of social reinforcement of an idea is a natural incentive to believe it’s a good one. If the yammering street bum in San Francisco pulled the exact same McGriddle out of his slimy kangaroo-like leather fanny pack and said, “Trust me – It’s fucking delicious,” I probably wouldn’t eat it.

There was a time in history when numbers meant everything. It wasn’t about ideas, it was about sheer power. Take for example the Zorro-like ways of the Spanish Inquisition. They were veritable experts at cutting things up, like people. There wasn’t really time for aboriginal heathens to say, “Hey, man. Look, you guys. Hold the phone. I know you’re pretty convinced that an invisible god wants you to ream my intestines out into this bowl, but there’s quite a few of us who don’t completely agree. And, well. Maybe we should sit down at Applebee’s and talk things over first.”

No. The Inquisitors would frequently reply that there wasn’t an Applebee’s for miles, and it was easier just to get down to the reaming. But things have changed since then; luckily we live in an age when, in most of the world, we can have this discussion on neutral grounds, without anyone getting bent over the bowl.


The top 15 SHAFT posts of 2011

This year has regrettably been my least prolific. I’ve been busy with work, guitar, and family and friends. Though worthwhile expenditures of my time, they’ve come at the expense of my writing—as you have doubtless noticed (and hopefully lamented ha ha). But I’ll endeavor in the coming year to strike a more harmonious balance among my interests such that I can find time to blog again.

My recent inactivity here notwithstanding, I am still proud of what I and others managed to write for SHAFT this year. Below are the top 15 SHAFT posts of 2011; I think this list compares favorably to last year’s.

Trends in General Conference talks: 1851-2010

The development of LDS temple worship

Gay marriage: A slippery slope to polygamy?

The loneliness of atheism

Jane Manning James: Latter-day Saint and Servant

A gay Mormon’s experience at BYU

Why I like (most) LDS temples

A new focus in the gay rights debate

Two displays of crazy at Sundance

Why it’s probable we live in a simulated reality

Did the Gold Plates exist?

In defense of religious brainwashing

Am I anti-Mormon?

My testimony: A response to Bruce D. Porter

An adult discussion about pornography

Dirty Earth Baby, Part 2

Part Two: A Flying Fat Man with Three Ho’s

An unreceptive attitude toward religion continues for a long time in childhood, because kids have more productive things to do than talk about God, such as involuntary urination. My young life had no need for a heightened understanding of the Ultimate Reality. For what purpose did I need God? I had a real father who not only would occasionally take me fishing but also never said Thou and hardly ever demanded a goat sacrifice.

I had little time for guilt, repentance, and tips on life-direction from adults who claimed to be in connection with the supernatural. The most important part of the day was spent in deep academic study, researching synonyms of lesser-tanned body parts, learning how to combine them with the last names of teachers or hurling dirt clods at moving objects and perfecting audio re-enactments of major gastrointestinal malfunctions. Such was life.

Generally in childhood, life is as it is. Kids are curious and investigative. At that age, we see mystery all around in nature (admittedly, because we’re stupid), but more importantly we still have a sense of wonder without having much need for any kind of emotional salvation. Those italicized qualities of mind seem to be what Einstein was going on about when someone asked him if he believed in God years ago (later in life he reportedly grumbled something to his wife at breakfast about how he never should have brought it up dammit, and pass the toast).

Continue reading