She came into my cubicle with some "Explanation of Sacred Geometry" article that I had to read. It would change my life. Of course, anything would change my life. Any way, without looking at the article I said that "sacred" is an interpretation, an adjective applied by the author. There is nothing sacred in and of itself, and certainly not when applied to geometry. And off we went...

I find what's difficult to get across to people is the difference between a fact and an interpretation, between a given and a hypothesis. For example, this article talked about inertia and how if our universe is moving, something must have moved it and that is God (therefore God exists). The fact, the given is that our universe is moving; the interpretations, the hypotheses are that the movement is caused by God, and that there is a God to cause the movement. I countered that (1) the hypotheses are unsupported hence the conclusion maybe invalid and (2) there are other possibilities for our movement. I mentioned the classic example of circular reasoning: "Only a God could create a world such as ours. Our world exists, therefore God exists."

This is the thought process for too many people: Science can't explain every little nit-picky thing about, well, everything so that which is unexplained (and even explained) must be due to God (or some such nonsense). And with this begins the building of an unstable philosophical house of cards. Too many people are willing to accept some unsupported hypothesis without question. Worse, their belief in the hypothesis becomes unshakable. And with these hypotheses (plural) they end up with conclusions that may or may not border on ridiculous. Or, they use a conclusion that may be valid to justify the arguments supporting the conclusion - the ends justify the means. That mode of thought doesn't work well in reality (*cough* invasion of Iraq), in Ethics, or Philosophy.

I guess this is the crux of Faith - to have a fervent belief in something without a shred of evidence to support that belief. Personally, I find that very scary and those folks who constantly implore us to strengthen our Faith are even scarier for they are telling us - begging us - to bypass our intelligence, to short-circuit our sense of curiosity and for what? To become as narrow-minded as them, to throw away Science and all of its Achievements for Religion and an old, highly misinterpreted book.

No thanks. As Joe Friday regularly said "Just the facts, ma'am!"

Checking On The Lakers
While Miami (with Shaq) have become the first team to qualify for the Playoffs and are vying for the best record in basketball, the Lakers are borderline for even making the Playoffs. And now the talk is about getting Yao Ming in a few years. Sure, we can wait because Kobe's not going to get us anywhere in the mean time. Said ti before, Kobe's a great plaer - no argument - but he's interchangeable with a half-dozen other great players. Shaq is, was, irreplaceable and needed a Kobe-type player to help his team get to the Playoffs. Shaq got the kid Wade and look where they are going. Kobe got the Lakers and look where they are - around 50% in wins. Big whoop!

Hey Shaq, come back...

Max Stirner
You may have heard of Ayn Rand but doubtful you've heard of Max Stirner (1806-1856) and here. He was arguably the ultimate Egoist Philosopher and not too kindly liked by Karl Marx because of it. His classic book The Ego And Its Own is dense, bewildering, and extremely powerful. My interpretation and summary of it is simple: Any -ism that places its needs above the individual is dangerous for then any act can be justified by claiming it's for the good of the group. Sound familiar? America must be safe so we're going to take away some of your liberties for security reasons. That is, America (the Entity, the Government) is more important than Americans and yet America is supposedly about Freedom, Liberty, Justice for all. How are we to enjoy Life as individuals if we're constantly implored to join the crowd?

Assignment: Find more examples in religion and politics of where individuals are subsumed for the Greater Good of the Group. This will not be graded.

And no wise ass comments about how if everyone assumed the Stirner philosophy then we'd be alike in our individuality, making Individuality more important than the individuals.