When Thinking My Own Thoughts Makes Me Sick?!

The gospel according to Sinclair Lewis:

“It is, I think, an error to believe that there is any need of religion to make life seem worth living.”

Some have chosen to keep their heads in the clouds—or in the sand for that matter—rather than think to the logical extent of their own philosophical underpinnings, others have realized the “NAUSEA” of lives lived within a purely secular construct. Its too gritty.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote with a sense of discomfort to the purely material life.

It was Repulsive.
It was Nauseous.
It was without a grander picture of life, leaving one with a sick sort of feeling in the stomach. The assault of the physical world upon the person—who is more than just bits of matter—results in a sort of existential angst.

There seems to be more.

Though Mr. Sinclair had a decided disadvantage in this respect, Sartre wrote this book about 9 years after his death. Certainly such ideas weren’t invented by the author but merely brought to light in a fresh way. Much of the angst that was experienced by people who believed that religion had died with the Medieval Era was the consequence of reducing life to bits and pieces of existence.

Perhaps Mr. Sinclair is right on the mark.

“It is, I think, an error to believe that there is any need of religion to make life SEEM worth living.”

So it seems that his careful wording offers of way of pursuing the life of worth while not determining what it means to have worth. Perhaps the question ought to be worded with this in mind.

What makes life worth living?
What makes life seem worth living?

Arguably, the first question speaks of a certainty that one often finds within the walls of a church. But let us not forget that church walls are built on belief. This is truth in advertising. Admittedly, the second question has an appearance of the first without any of the certainty. Let us take note when those of a certain creed not found in church documents begin to speak with greater certainty than their foundation can muster. There is some underhanded business going on.

Along with this certainty come a nausea that sickens the soul of man.

This thought can make a man sick.

Making Bigots Inside and Outside the Church?!

The gospel according to Edward Abbey:

“Whatever we cannot easily understand we call God; this saves much wear and tear on the brain tissues.”

Indeed, this is true for many.

But the same could be said of many who embrace Mr. Abbey’s worldview, presumably. There are some who save wear and tear on their minds by chalking up the intricacies of the universe to vast amounts of time, minute possibilities, mechanisms of chance and the god-like function of survival of the fittest. They do so, not because they are experts in the field or have even studied much of evolution, but because of what they have been told and taught.

In this sense, School and Sunday School mirror each other in methodology whether they are preaching or teaching.

The method: Teach the basics until they are able to wrestle with the specifics.

Many evolutionists would say that the textbooks teach the system in a simplified form that doesn’t reflect the complexity of its shape. But it has to be taught in a way that can be grasped. This is the way that the brain develops. Teach complex ideas in simple ways until the mind is able to compute the nature of complexity that is woven into the system of thought. The hope is that there will come a time when the student will be able to wrestle with the nature of the specifics that aren’t as nicely packaged as one would like. But this doesn’t happen for everyone.

Many theists would say the same.

Then there are some in both schools of thought would say otherwise. They are free to think what they wish, though it seems a bit wishful and doesn’t seem to reflect the true diversity of aptitudes in the world.

With respect to degrees of aptitude, I would contend that there are brains that can handle the wear and tear of complex issues and there are brains that would rather focus on things more practical [as they might argue]. There are theorectical minds, practical minds, thoughtful minds, simple minds, and others not mentioned.

So many types of minds ON BOTH SIDES of the fence.

To say otherwise would be to articulate a form of bigotry and save much wear and tear on the brain tissues. Certainly, it would be easier to preach or teach. I would say that a person that doesn’t bother with such matters is not necessarily a bigot, but one who makes the kinds of statements that Mr. Abbey made is.

A bigot.
Or a big idiot.

Self-caused Yo Mama Joke?!

The gospel according to G. W. Foote:

“Atheists are often charged with blasphemy, but it is a crime they cannot commit…. When the Atheist examines, denounces, and satirizes the gods, he is not dealing with persons but with ideas. He is incapable of insulting God, for he does not admit the existence of any such being.”

Apart from the logic of cause and effect which seems to be ignored by most atheists, if I were to suggest that Mr. Foote’s great-great-great-great-grandmother didn’t exist, then examine “her” as an idea, denounce, and then satirize her…. Am I incapable of insulting her?

Would an Ancestral-Yo-Mama Joke insult her and her descendants?

Though she was not known by Mr. Foote, would not the insult be quite real? Though it might even be true that her body as decomposed to nothing and her existence but a assumed memory, would not the slander be offensive?

But it is more than insults and slander.

The matter of blasphemy as a crime—believed or not—is an issue not easily resolved by not believing the one that is being blasphemed. Are hate crimes any less hateful if the person is a bigot? a racist? an atheist? a theist?

There are some who hate for they are evil.
There are some who hate for they are easily deluded.
There are some who hate for they are in denial.

Yo Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grand-Mama Jokes are hateful?

Even if her existence was based more on cause and effect than experiential documentation. Common sense would argue that Mr. Foote had to have had a such a person or animal in his family tree.

But there is another option that explains the existence of Mr. Foote.

Self-caused.

The Confections of Words and Wants?!

The gospel according to John Stuart Mill:

“God is a word to express, not our ideas, but the want of them.”

Let me tell you something of a story.

There was a time that I was ignorant of chocolate. I had never tasted of its delightful sweetness or enjoyed its creamy goodness. I had no idea what I was missing. I did not want it because I did not know of it.

Then they told me about it. They told me that it was divine. They used words to tell of is delightful sweetness, but it was hard to imagine. They used other words to describe its creamy goodness, but I struggled with all that that meant. I had yet to taste of this thing that they were talking about.

I had never tasted but I was beginning to want this thing that they called chocoloate. I longed for the experience that other spoke of so highly. If only I could have a piece or a bar or a bag. Just let me try it.

They said. I heard. It was. I longed. I anticipated. I waited. Then I ate some

I didn’t like it. I don’t want it.

I don’t blame the poeple. I blame the chocolate.

“Chocolate is just a word to express, not our ideas, but our want of them.”

Stacking the quotes in favor of fairness?!

The gospel found on the back of the book:

“‘All thinking men are atheist,’ Ernest Hemingway famously wrote. True? Here are quips, quotes, and questions from a distinguished assortment of geniuses and jokers, giving readers a chance to decide for themselves…”

Presumably this thought was typed by the author…err…”conceiver” of this book. Perhaps not. It doesn’t matter. Regarding Hemingway’s quote, its boldness will be discussed at another time. But what I find intriguing about this statement is that it alludes to this book providing a bunch of thoughts that are admittedly one-sided and then characterizes this book as “giving readers a chance to decide for themselves.”

This is brilliant.

Brilliant, if you have already decided for yourself before you in fact opened the book and considered the thoughts that were recorded within. Brilliant, if you could get some one to actually believe that good decisions can be made on one-sided bits propaganda. Brilliant, if you want the decision to be about what kind of atheist a person may decide themselves to be. Brilliant, if you really don’t know what exactly they are going to decide on, but as long as its not about the existence of God, then its all good.

This may sound brilliant if you are “bright.”

Is this the kind of “chance” that Atheism gives Theism in the public square?
What kind of “chance” is this?

Illusion?
Delusion?

Thankfully, the measure of thoughtfulness is raised in most of the quotes find within the pages of this book. Though some seem to be purposed for comedic relief but it obvious that humor is being used to conceal the void of rationality and reason. All of which will be discussed in due time.