Funerals

I've commented before on the nature of small town funerals, but the subject bears a closer look.  First off, people should not die during the hottest weeks of summer, especially when the church lacks air conditioning. If it is so equipped, then setting off for the after-life during the hot days would be a blessing for the community. But the local church doesn't have it and let's face it, situated as it is, in Northern Ontario, air conditioning is not something worth separating parishioners from their money for. 


Secondly, pastors should definitely base the length of their services not on the number of high points in the deseased life, but rather on the significance of the presence or absence of said device.

That asside, it was a normal small town funeral. People greeting friends and relatives that they haven't seen since the last funeral, or wedding. People getting reaquainted, catching up on news, recalling past glories, etc. People checking out the goody table, searching for Mrs. whats-her-name's peanut butter parsteries, etc. In short, as a social event, it was a hit.

Which brings me to the point I wanted to make. And that is that in the end,when you have done your thing and thrown it all asside for something better, the significance of that life, those years of toil and sweat, of struggle and pain, of greed and generosity, in short, your own hard fought contribution to the world in general, the very significance of your life, may actually be little more than a one or two hour social event.

Are Physicists losing their grip on reality?

I'm sure that physicists are gradually loosing their grip on reality. What's really loosened the grip is this dimension thing. In the past I could go along with the idea that there may be many additional dimensions that we just can't see because they bend in upon themselves in a space somewhere around the Plank length (smaller than very, very small).  Various numbers of these diminutive dimensions have been bandied about. People like Lisa Randall, apparently a leading US physicist in the dimension game talk of various numbers of these , from a dozen or so to "many".

Giving grudging acceptance to these enigmatic dimensions was easy, however, when no one was ever likely to prove or disprove them, and if they did, it wouldn't have an impact on my Saturday afternoon beer, or anything else for that matter.

Now, however they're going too far. Now they're saying that the early universe actually had FEWER dimensions, and that at higher energy levels  (like maybe in the heart of the Large Hadron Collider) there also may be fewer, ( there really are only 3 aren't there?, 4 if you count time). This characterizes a universe in which the most fundamental characteristic (including my most fundamental characteristic) may be a bit footloose. Evanescent, if you prefer. How, in a 2 dimensional universe, could you ever get beer into a can? Or, assuming the beer was already in there, how would you get it out?  And furthermore, if time were to be the unfortunate dimension to be booted into the void, what would keep everything from happening all at once? Or having happened all at once? ("Once" and "happened" being  rather nebulous concepts in that event).

Nevertheless, if you want the physicists' spin on it, check out this article:   http://focus.aps.org/story/v27/st10

 

My comment on the news

I just have to comment on some things that have been in the Canadian news lately:

HOCKEY:
Far be it from me to cast doubt on the mental capacity of Gary Bettman and other hockey movers and shakers, but doesn't it seem that their defence of  Zdeno Chara's hit on Max Pacioretty last Tuesday as "just part of the game" is a serious indictment of the game?  If broken heads are "normal & expected", then what does that say about the game?  After all Max didn't even have the puck, so what was the justification for hitting him? Maybe the average hockey player just isn't smart enough to play the game any other way, and maybe the average fan isn't sophisticated enough to prefer watching skill over brutality.  But then, I'm not a fan of the game, so I probably don't understand..

LYBIA:
Now, I'm no fan of American foreign policy.  To start with they are far more concerned with their own economic health than with any one else's well being.  In fact I firmly think they are socially and emotionally unfit to pretend to be the world's "policeman".  I certainly wouldn't want a mentally challenged, immature teenager, policing my community. However, for various reasons, the US seems to have accepted that role, and, surprisingly, the rest of the world has been content to sit back and let them do it. Which, in the case of Lybia is the real problem.

The US is faced with a dilemma. After propping up dictators throughout the world, (and in fact putting a lot of them into power), they now feel unable to intervene when they actually feel a moral obligation to do so.    So... where is the rest of the world?  Isn't there anyone else willing to take some initiative?  Doesn't any one else have an army?

FIGHTER PLANES:
It's interesting to hear Harper say that he doesn't want to get into an argument over numbers. But what big numbers they are.  The over-run for the new fighter planes will apparently be something like 12 billion dollars. When you say 12 billion fast, it really doesn't sound like much. After all it's only 12 of them. But say it as it really is: TWELVE THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS, it has a little more impact. Or you could say that it is $400 for EVERY PERSON in Canada.  Actually, the total bill, THIRTY THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS, is $1000 for every person.  Don't get me wrong, these may be the right planes to buy, and we may really need them, and if so, then tell us what the justification is and stop treating the critics as nit-pickers.

A bump in the Night

There was excitement at the community hall last night.

A goodly number of the town worthies had gathered at the Town Hall for the annual pancake supper, hosted by the local church in honour of Sh rove Tuesday.  Suddenly, midst all the babble and munching, there was a very loud thump and everyone felt the floor move.. Most people stopped talking (notable in itself) and looked around wondering who had fallen off their chair. Speculation was rife, and fruitless.

Ultimately, two intrepid young chaps ventured into the catacombs under the hall to investigate. They discovered that one of the teleposts holding up a floor beam had disintegrated under the increased load of all those pancakes.  Apparently it had been weakened by years of dampness, and broke apart, letting the beam, and consequently the floor, drop a couple of inches.

The town fix-it man was called, much joking ensued, and all was well.

--
http://leepaulson42.blogspot.com/

Interesting ruling on Monday in a case in England:

"There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong. "

The complete article is at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

It does seem to be a bit of a reach to tell people that they can't be foster parents because they think homosexuality is wrong.  I wonder if it makes any difference whether you are opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds or just on a mistaken understanding of human sexuality??

Not that I'm opposed to this ruling.... although they don't mention this angle in the article, I think that if you don't want Muslim beliefs to influence our lawmaking, you must also ensure that Christian beliefs don't either (although in this case they probably both believe the same thing).

The real problem is that you really cannot separate Church and State.  The Muslims understand this, and want to go all the way in using their faith to regulate their lives. Christians seem to want it both ways.

I think that it is a real test of your religion, in a way.  If it can't be used it to run every facet of life, then there is either something wrong with the religion or the lifestyle.  To say that separation of church and state is a workable arrangement is bunk.  Either change your religion, or change your state, one or the other....it is untenable to attempt to live by two sets of contrary rules.

Of course that's a bit simplistic... it assumes that everyone believes the same thing.... which they don't....You can't therefore, make everyone happy, so the only solution is to make everyone unhappy, which is exactly what most governments manage to do, and do very well.

I have trouble with labels

I have a lot of trouble with labels.  Personal labels that is. Oh, I know, they are important to our way of life, and there are some that I like to hang around my neck. It’s nice, for example, to be labeled a senior and get discounts at restaurants. Or to be labeled a grandfather, a retiree, or a fireman.  Lots of labels are nice to be able to wear.  Those are the ones that describe only one aspect of yourself, or maybe a condition that is only temporary.  However, labels that become more all-encompassing and attempt to pin down the basic you or what goes on in your head really give me trouble..

Labels dealing with faith or the lack of it are the most difficult. Even political labels are not so bad. I wouldn’t mind being called a liberal, for example.  But call me a Christian and I’m liable to get angry; or call me an atheist and I’m liable to say “now hold on a moment….”  The problem is, well, really there are two problems. First, many labels, especially those dealing with “faith” are too restrictive.  When you try to wear them, they begin to pinch like new shoes that are a size too small. They may describe a part of you, or a part of what they mean may fit you but not the rest, or other people may have a different understanding of what the label means.  The result is that the label does little to describe the real you and may, in fact be quite misleading.

Labels tend to be absolute, brokering no wiggle room.  As such they come in two opposite types: affirmative labels, like Christian, and denial labels like Atheist.  Denial labels do little to explain what you are, only what you are not. Affirmative labels have denial aspects too, since claiming to be a Christian, denies belief in many other things.

The problem really asserts itself when ideas are turned into labels. I applaud the concept of agnosticism, for example, but would balk at my spiritual understanding to be limited by such a label for I am also an ignostic (or a theological noncognitivist, if you prefer) because I believe that before you even approach the problem of proving that He exists, you first have to define the word “God”, and ignostics believe that is impossible.

While I can claim acceptance of any of these ideas, I cannot accept them as defining labels. In that respect, I think that denial labels are probably worse than affirmative labels since they  end to be more confining that affirmative labels and do very little to explain who or what you really are.

But even the affirmative labels have their limitations. In the past I have considered myself a Gnostic; have greatly admired Buddhists, and even considered myself a Christian at one time. I later leaned toward Pantheism and, finally, the Humanist way of thinking. 

The problem remains, however, that none of these labels really fit properly, although some come very close. Pantheists, Humanists and Buddhists, for example, deny the existence of God, in that respect they are all Atheistic and probably Agnostic and Ignostic as well. Buddhists however, accept the concept of consciousness surviving the death of the body, while Pantheists and Humanists tend to deny all spiritual concepts.  It really becomes impossible to find a label that perfect;y fits my personal view of reality. And therein lies the problem. Any label broad enough in scope to accommodate ones beliefs would be so fuzzy as to be useless.

The concept of god may be at the root of the problem, since most faith labels are referenced to God in some way, as if that were the basis of all religious thought. I disagree. While the idea of God is important to any discussion of religion, and will be tossed around for millennium to come, He is not the prime concept behind 99 out of 100 religions. The idea that consciousness can survive the death of the material body is death is, for if you don’t believe that your consciousness will still exist after your body returns to the earth, then all other religious discussion is meaningless. Nothing else matters and even God becomes impotent.  Perhaps, then, more “faith” labels should focus on that concept rather than on the existence or non-existence of God.

So… in the end, what label could I pin on myself? I don’t know. I guess I’ll have to make one up. But then, what use is that. Labels are meant to convey a description of yourself to others. If I pin a label on myself that only I know the definition of, what use can it be? I guess I’ll just have to be content with Humanist for the time being, after all, it does come closer than anything else.

The pope.... with a small p

So the pope has decided that its ok for male prostitutes to use condoms. Tell me; why in the name of all that is right, decent, sane and logical, does this ridiculous announcement rate national news.  Considering all the lives that have been lost and degraded by this man, I wonder how he is able to sleep nights. However, the blame is not totally his. A great deal of the blame has to be shouldered by those who believe it necessary to follow the vaticans' ridiculous edicts. Isn't it time the human race grew up and put this nonsense behind us??