No Need for God

To quote my 12th grade English teacher - why does everything in life have to be discombobulated for the pursuit of comprehension? Isn't there satisfaction to be found in being slightly oblivious to the inner workings of one's surroundings? Of course, there is no way to fully dissect things that are profound (or else they would not be profound), but to run from the idea of investigation for fear of uncovering something non-whimsical is silly and useless. Not only do moments of incredulity stem from moments of deep thought, but it is deep thought that plugs itself into these moments as a gift of life support (it is by the "guidance" of incredulity that people commonly come to a spiritual faith). To claim that chucking a mechanism of discerning thought to the wolves is a definitive practice of spirituality is ludicrous - at least to the spirituality that doesn't lead to verbal idiocy or physical confrontation.

The people in my immediate life that have subscribed to some type of organized religion or at least identify themselves as a certain type of spiritual person have come to reside in their predicaments as the victims of unresolved feelings. They see a lot of inexplicable beauty in the world, at least at first - they then provide the explanation that the beauty that they see is the masterpiece of a divine artist, with a human enough mind to know what a human would find beautiful (to hell with the rest of the animal kingdom!). There are a number of problems with this. From a personal standpoint, I find things of beauty in nature much less overwhelming when are the product of design. I find more beauty in natural occurrence; the blind watchmaker's engineering, if you will. I respect things for developing on their own. This is not to say that I don't respect a magnificent piece of art, like Guernica, but pieces of beauty derived from an intelligence should always be treated differently than pieces of natural beauty - and it is in natural beauty that spiritual people find their reinforcement. Sounds counter-intuitive, now, doesn't it?

If that isn't enough, the mathematics of it all enter to roll some marbles onto the dance floor. What are the chances that we simply occurred? What created life, the earth, the sun, and the universe? We've come to a world of numbers and unthinkable size. This is a territory that extends far beyond the range of our discourse, so it's a common misconception that both atheists and spirituals get as far as there is to go, then take a leap into the fog beyond, and make of it what they will. This activity is true of theists, but NOT of atheists. To be an atheist is to refrain from making any hasty movement one way or the other - and this is NOT a form of agnosticism. Agnosticism is stagnant despite incoming data; atheism runs its pace next to tangible truth. If provable truth stops to rest, so does the knowledge of atheists. Thus, it's arguable that the only leaps of faith are being taken by agnostics and theists. And faith produces nothing but superstition - and superstition is NEVER constructive. God is useless.

I'll stop it here to keep from rambling.