The Acolyte takes place in the dystopian city of New Bethlehem, a city much like modern-day New York or Chicago except that the governing body is controlled by a religious totalitarian regime that has made any deviation from Christian ethics a criminal offense. In order to combat crimes against the faith, they have created an enforcement agency with authority above all others. Jonah Murtag is one of these agents and he is 'The Acolyte' we follow throughout this terrifying tale of tyranny, treachery, and intrigue.
Murtag is a devout follower of the faith and even turned his mother in for her sins when he was a child. She was sent to a center where part of her brain was removed rendering her with the intellect of a child. Murtag and his fellow acolytes spend their days cracking the skulls of those who dare to break the rules set forth by the ancient text of the Bible. Gays are sent to reconditioning centers or they are otherwise eliminated. Atheists are arrested, taken to prison, or beaten to death in the process. Muslims and Jews are allowed to live in ghettos to continue having a large workforce but their children are forced to adopt Christian ways and no one is allowed to practice or hold onto any non-Christian religious traditions, symbols, or relics. Also, science is essentially gone as it provides a source of doubt and an alternative explanation to the word of God.
One night Murtag is tasked with being the bodyguard of the daughter of the most important man in the city, The Prophet. The Prophet runs the city and his family is the shining light of all that is holy until one night, when a terrorist self explodes, killing The Prophet's daughter and almost killing Murtag and his fellow Acolyte Doe. Murtag's sins begin with his lust for Doe, the first female acolyte, who turns out to be much more than just another follower. As the investigation into the bombing begins more bombs start to go off around the city and as Murtag gets closer to the truth he gets farther from his faith. As his faith devolves his humanity starts to blossom as he indulges in acts of compassion as well as sins of the flesh. He acts as a microcosm of the impending destruction that engulfs the city around him. As the city is torn apart so is his mind and by the end, he becomes what the powerful fear the most; a committed believer.
Nick Cutter writes in a very straightforward fashion with little in the way of colorful metaphors or long-winded internal diatribes. The chapters are short and continuous. The story is a relentless trek through a dark and dangerous realm full of the worst of what humans are capable of. It provides a stark example of how horrendous acts can be made justifiable with a strong enough belief in one's own righteousness. When power meets conviction anything is possible. This story is a huge allegory for the problems that come from religious dogma, totalitarian governments, and the inevitability of violent reactions to subjugation and tyranny.
This is a good book if you can stomach some very gruesome depictions and macabre situations. There were a few moments where I was genuinely disturbed and a little put off. It is very pulpy and like a certain type of horror, it paints pictures in blood to a degree that may not be for some. I would recommend it to anyone interested in a quick read that packs a big irreverent punch.
I am not in control of others. I am barely in control of myself.
The only way to control others is through force, everything else is a negotiation.
When I listen to certain people prognosticate about what we all are doing or should be doing I can't help but become curious about what they mean by "we". "We" is a collective noun that takes on different forms depending on the context it is used in. A Christian can address a group of Christians and say the word "we" and it is to whom they are referring. Namely, Christians. But if that same Christian was in a room full of atheists and used the word "we" he might be referring to his fellow Christians or he might be appealing to a more general "we" as in "we are all humans," or "we are all Americans".
The term "we" requires an assumption on the part of both the speaker and listener which offers two opportunities to misinterpret the meaning of the word. The speaker assumes that the listener knows which group they are referring to and the listener assumes they know what group the speaker is referring to. Both parties may be wrong in their assumptions. This is just another reason why clarification is important and why using vague, abstract or lazy terms is problematic.
Another issue with using the word "we" is that if the group being referred to is large enough it loses any generalizability or coherency. Saying, "We should all do this or that", referring to all people or all Americans, for example, is either so generically obvious it doesn't need to be stated such as in the statement, "We should strive to make the world a better place" or it becomes so vague as in the statement, "We, the people of the United States of America..." that it holds no specificity and therefore does not offer to reveal any real identity.
Another example is in the following sentence, "what we did in Vietnam," and we assume that what they mean is America if they are American, which is exceptionally vague because the "we" in this statement attempts to hold a large number of people responsible for something they had nothing to do with. Not that no one in America still living had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam. Even if the speaker is referring to the historical fact that America did something in Vietnam the meaning is still not clear as the definition relies on the ever-changing definition of the peoples of America, for the word "we", when spoken by a person, typically includes humans and certainly does in the above statement.
The definition of "America" in 1969 would not only include all the individuals that lived during that time but would also describe their actions. Obviously, this is an impossible thing to do accurately, hence the simplifying use of the word "we". The actions of the government would be the most representative of the US to anyone outside of the United States so one must include the actions of the government as well, which means that you have to separate out the individuals that made up the government and weigh their actions heavier than the civilian population. Then you might want to include the most financially affluent as they probably funded many of the politicians that ended up in the government and for their contribution to American culture. The words "America" and "Americans" only represent an abstract concept and it's actual definition evolves constantly.
Can a nation be considered a continuous entity? What is the statute of limitations of a nation's crimes?
Considering that I have asserted that a "nation" is nothing more than a concept referring to individual people, then holding a "nation" accountable could be dealt with in a similar fashion as holding individuals accountable. One can not sit a "nation" down and demand recompense, as the true definition of a "nation" should include the sum total of its inhabitants at a given time. That does not mean that one can't identify those that made decisions that directly lead to the guilty act. This is typically the responsibility of the governing body of the nation but might also include the wealthy and otherwise influential.
When you hold all the weapons you are only accountable to yourself.
If a speaker is using a form of "we" that is devoid of persons or includes non-humans then it should be clear within the context of the statement. Maybe in a world full of sentient aliens and humans, the use of the word "we" would grow to include non-humans as a norm. Also, if the word "we" refers to all biological entities then it refers to non-humans as well but when was the last time someone said the word "we" to refer to all biological forms?
I suppose that part of the reason that I have a problem with anyone using the word "we" in a way that ascribes responsibility is that groups of people don't do anything. Individuals do things and make decisions. When they work together it is easy to group them up and consider their efforts as a whole. It makes it easier to talk about what happened and what you think should have happened.
To be accurate one should name everyone involved but it is hard to say all the names of the people involved when groups become larger than a few people. When there are too many people to state their names one can take shortcuts. The problem with linguistic shortcuts is that when they are repeated without consideration their original meaning can get lost and one stops using our critical faculties. This is one of the reasons that abstract language leads to misunderstandings. Another abstract concept is represented by the word "group". This is another vague term that relies on context and shared knowledge. The word "group" is the more objective version of "we" just and the word "they" is an externalized version of "we".
The pyramids were not built by groups of people. One might say that it was built by Jews, a recognized group of people, but one should not say that it was built by "the Jews". Many Jews had nothing to do with it and considering that it was so long ago the accuracy of any statement about the history of the pyramids should be suspect. Even the word "Jew" as an identifier of individual characteristics is not well defined. In using the word "group" in this fashion one is forgoing every bit of information related to the actual physical reality and representing it in an alternative way. They are redefining the event and abstracting its contents. This is a necessary aspect of communication via language as efficiency is important. People do not have the time to name and address every human and activity related to an event. All of history is told using abstractions, metaphors, and vagueries.
The story of the pyramids is what lingers. Not of the actual entities that were involved.
The pyramids were built by lots and lots of individuals that used their bodies to accomplish work. While one can create endless categories in an effort to describe similarities or differences among individuals the fact still remains that it is individuals that act. They may use justifications that appeal to communal concepts but they still act of their own accord even if not totally of their own volition. They are responsible even if they are not completely in control. Environmental pressures and the drive for survival have a great influence on behavior but even in the face of death, some have had the will to fight their instincts and act of their own will.
So, then in what circumstances is one permitted to use the word "we", you might ask. I actually think it is perfectly fine for people to use the word "we" whenever they want but one should be aware that it may lead to miscommunication and misattribution. One should strive to be accurate in their speech and not succumb to the laziness of using vague words and idioms. If one is referring to all humans then they certainly can use the word "we" but in most other cases one should be careful and deliberate with their use of the word.
Maybe one of the reasons that the word "we" is used so wantonly is that it promotes communalism. By using the word "we" one can hold many people responsible for something without having to find and name all the individuals. Humans are a highly social species and do not thrive in isolation. In fact, I would venture to guess that group identities were formulated well before individual identities in humanity's linguistic past. The identification of outsiders was and is a survival instinct that has roots that go deeper than our Homosapien speciation. Therefore, the notion of a "We" is hardwired into we humans. A small person might be called a wee human.
One of the problems with using the word "we" in a lazy fashion is that one will likely end up holding someone responsible for something they had nothing to do with. This makes it easy to identify large groups of people, some of which might actually be immediately responsible, but some might have just been on the outskirts of the group and knew nothing of the occurrence. Groups are rarely in full unison and while many may act as if they always agree with their group's decisions in public many will debate its merits in private. Groups of humans are not mental monoliths or cyborg hiveminds.
The question might then arise, "are a state's citizens responsible for the actions made using their tax dollars but without their direct permission or involvement. Governments make many decisions that are never put in front of the citizenry so can a citizen be held morally responsible because they did not withdraw their financial support? Can a citizen be expected to risk their life and their family's life to disobey a government that acts against their value system?
While a citizen might not be expected to withdraw financial support to a corrupt government by not paying taxes, they can still use other means such as voting, petitioning, speaking out, or whatever else is not deemed illegal by the sitting government. What is important to understand here is that the government is another group that is incapable of taking action. It is simply a concept. A narrower but still vague "we" that is actually made up of individuals who make decisions and take action. Individuals are responsible for what the government does but it is easy to spread the responsibility thin in a culture the masks responsibility under the guise of communal togetherness.
On Consciousness and Free Will:
Maybe if the universe is deterministic then it doesn't matter if we hold the wrong person responsible for things. Maybe we are all on a rollercoaster that never ends and our momentum leads us down the only path available. Maybe that means that there is no "we" as there is no "you"? If the self is an illusion then so is the concept of we. What is a group of illusions called? Are we only an illusion to ourself or is it that our concept of ourselves is an illusion? Is the entirety of our internal conception of ourselves an illusion or are some aspects real? If the external world is real then are others not real? If others are real then I am real to others? If they are real to me but not to themselves then there is a contradiction.
Either, we are all real or we are all an illusion.
The definition of the self becomes important here. I would use the following to begin to define the self:
1. The self is a minimally reducible entity that still maintains the other attributes.
2. The self is composed of a person's physical body, regardless of deformity or loss of organic material.
3. The self is alive. (Unless one believes that the self is separate from the body or denies biology in general.)
Here is a short list of things I attribute to my personal concept of my self:
4. I am conscious.
5. My consciousness relies on my biology and is born of it.
6. I am responsible for my actions.
7. I am only partly in control of my actions.
8. I can discipline my will power and grow its effectiveness.
Free will is an acceptance of your participation in the actions of your body. Free will is taking responsibility because someone has to. Free will is holding people accountable for not trying. While free will is not always activated it is always available unless the person is broken somehow. That is why we do not imprison people we deem mentally incapable of exercising their will power.
Is it not just an expression of our total narcissism as a species that we might think that we are important or in charge of the world.
The whole concept that there is something bigger out there is based on the collective value system and the vastness of the external world and the hierarchy of the pack.
I think many times when people say "we" they mean "I" such as in the sentence, "How do we feel..." If the speaker had used the word "I" instead, it would have no inaccuracies and cause no confusion about who is being referred to. But when they use the word "we" they create a disconnect from the subject of the statement. They broaden their scope and add something when something more is not needed and may not exist. They are obscuring the meaning of the statement and creating an unnecessary abstraction.
If one draws a picture of people standing around then there are only individuals. If one then draws a circle around them and then calls the group "they" or "we" then one is still referring to individuals but pulling back on the detail which leaves room for entropy and a lack of clarification. One is sacrificing the truth for convenience and efficiency, which is not all bad, and utilizing an abstract concept that only exists within the brain as opposed to referring to actual physical bodies, ie: the individuals.
There are things that exist outside of the body and there are things that only exist within the neural network that exists in the body. Consciousness seems to be an emergent phenomenon that exists due to neural networks. Until recently the only notable network was within the human body but now there are networks outside the human that may contain the same emergent properties such as on the internet. Maybe this is not a meaningful distinction or category of existence.
On AI:
When Sam Harris or Elon Musk talks about the future of AI and say things like, "we" have to consider this or that or that "we" need to be careful, who the fuck are they talking about? Maybe they are just talking to those who are responsible for creating and developing AI and robotics or those that are funding research but because the word can apply to everyone in this context it is hard not to be confused about what they are asking of me. If the "we" here means every human then I am not sure what I can do to stop AI, especially considering it is already here and that I have no idea how it works.
Now, humans have created catastrophically bad technologies but again I ask, who is to blame? It seems like it would be the individuals that acted to create these terrible technologies or who chose to use them. The same human drive that created the atom bomb created the polio vaccine. It seems that with the explosion of creativity and scientific understanding we get a combination of both terrific and terrifying technologies. Thus the universe stays in balance. A balance between chaos and order. Entropy and cohesion. Humans are constantly encountering the sublime and the horrific.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.2 Timothy 3:16-17
Breathed out by God is Channing Cornwall's sixth novel and the second in a series following the book Hell Came With Her, whose characters show up in this entry but are not the main characters here. This new entry into the series shows a different side of the author. A side that is conflicted yet organized, and maybe, just a little preachy.
The story is centered around Isaac Teller, an ex-preacher whose soul was shattered by a violent act, leaving his belief system naked and torn. In an effort to find God he embarks on a journey of self-discovery, all the while encountering increasingly difficult moral conundrums amid a cutthroat frontier Oregon landscape. Cora Reid is a reformed whore who hopes that Isaac might be the shepherd she needs to stay off her back and accompanies Isaac into the wild. They form an unlikely bond that borders on the romantic with Cora's playful banter creating a tension that tests Isaac's more puritanical ideals.
Channing's uncompromising portrayal of a barbaric 19th century can be shocking at times as he does not shy away from taboo words and language. This just adds to the significance of the story as the author takes you into a world many would step on eggshells to navigate but he seems to find solid ground easily enough. The tale is so full of thoughtful moral challenges that heavy topics seem to be the order of the day and Channing rides waves of uncertainty deftly. Moral juxtapositions shift up and down on a see-saw of Western-style travel adventures consistently creating suspense, intrigue, and momentum. Where Hell Came With Her is about the unwavering drive for revenge, Breathed out by God is what happens when you slow down and start to question the world around you.
Breathed out by God delivers a moral rollercoaster with stints of steadfast resolve that offer a brief reprieve and I really enjoyed the ride. There is a bigger point to this book than that of a simple western with its duels and violence. Beliefs have the power to cripple the mind and bolster the heart. But no matter how hard you try we learn that change is inevitable.
Channing is a friend of mine and I am very fond of his work. I can't wait for the next one.
I have a complicated relationship with "The Church".
There are two types of churches that I attended growing up. One was the mainstream small-town Christian Church. It had youth groups, Sunday school, basketball hoops, and a few hundred people would show up each Sunday. I was in a youth group that was a religious version of the Boy Scouts called Awanas. We memorized Bible verses, had sack-races and I'm sure there was some kind of music involved. It was not an unpleasant experience and I was pretty good at memorizing lines from the Bible. Later I would despise the idea of rote memorization and to this day do not put much effort into memorizing things. The idea of memorizing information that someone else thinks is important is offensive.
Also, I remember finding no joy in the words from the Bible. They were just sentences in a book that adults expected me to know. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son," was just a line from a book and if I could recite it to an adult they would praise me. I don't remember anyone ever asking me if I believed in God. It was assumed, even by myself. Until one day I started to ask questions and found that none of it made any sense.
The second kind of church I attended was called the "Home Church", as it was not affiliated with any known group. Just a bunch of adults getting together to worship God. It was held at the homes' of its adherents and its leader was a permanent bachelor named Jim. The man had never been married or at least that is what I remember of him. He manufactured toilet paper holders with his huge CNC machines and lived alone. I remember visiting his house a few times. He lived in an upstairs apartment attached to his factory. I remember finding it generally unkempt but he had cool stuff like an airplane simulator on his PC and a massive sniper rifle. I suspect that no woman had ever made their way to his apartment long enough to have any input into its design or its inhabitant.
My father lived with Jim for some amount of time after my parents were separated. I always despised my father's lack of ambition and willingness to take from others. It seemed that he was more than happy to take the kindness of strangers until he outstayed his welcome. This is merely an impression I had/have of him but I don't have a lot of great evidence. Maybe it is an exaggerated notion born of my own resentment and ignorance.
"Home Church" was a nightmare. The sermons were dry and dark. I don't remember almost any of the actual content of the sermons but I remember some stuff about not being "worldly" and how to not go to hell. I think there were about 10-15 families at the most and its members changed throughout the years. It also expanded itself to other places a few times a year when we would go on camping trips. Those were a lot of fun and even though I still had to go to Chruch I would get to hang out with my best friend Caleb.
Honestly, Caleb was the best thing to come out of those early days going to Churches. Caleb and I would not stop talking. Even during sermons, we would exchange notes. I remember making fun of everything with him and getting into a little trouble for not paying attention and giggling a few too many times. We were mild scamps, whereas the older boys were the real trouble. They would call them "The Boys", like some kind of gang. "The Boys are going swimming," or "The Boys are going riding", they would say and I always wanted to be in that group. Caleb and I were still too young to go off and do things with "The Boys", so we did our own things. We had imaginations back then and had a lot of fun inventing situations and examining our lives.
As I was writing this I stopped and had a thought:
I should try to seek out good conversations and good conversationalists and not take them for granted. A good conversation is an invigorating thing.
Other than the good times with Caleb, the "Home Church" was generally boring and uneventful, other than the time when someone was expected to give a formal apology, in front of everyone, for separating from their husband and I think she still wasn't allowed to attend certain functions. I could be making that last part up. Or maybe the entire thing. Also, I remember how much pressure the church put on my brother when he got his girlfriend pregnant. They were very young and it was very stupid but the church and my father insisted that the two should get married. My brother, with the strong urging of my mother, decided not to marry her. This turned out to be an amazingly good decision.
Mostly I hate the idea of a "Church" as they represent a kind of propagandized inculcation that reminds me of my childhood and adolescence where I was convinced I was going to hell for most of the things I did and thought. There were so many ways to get there after all. I don't remember the last time I prayed to God but I do remember feeling very stupid for doing it that last time.
I do remember soothing myself by singing "Amazing Grace" while walking around Coos Bay at night because I was so nervous I would get into trouble for the raging High School party occurring at my mom's house, where I lived. My mom was in some high-level position at the same High School that most of the underage partiers went to during the week and she lived there too. She was out of town that weekend and my sister decided to invite a shit ton of underage people to the house to drink.
I might have been 21 at the time and as a resident, I probably would have been in trouble if the cops showed up. My sister was a junior or a senior at the time and had invited just about everyone from the school to come party at her house. I nearly had a panic attack when I realized how many young people were there so I decided to walk around the town in the dark singing to myself the words to "Amazing Grace" until I calmed down enough to go back to the house and deal with it. Nothing much happened, other than a teenage boy broke his leg while skateboarding in the basement. No cops showed up and no parents freaked out. I'm pretty sure my mom found a condom wrapper in one of the rooms. We hadn't cleaned up well enough.
The church represented a place to feel a part of a group that didn't seem to know or care much about me. Other than my friend Caleb I didn't feel connected to almost anyone else at church. It was a place of incoherent judgment and mundane philosophies.
One of my all-time favorite songs is "Hallelujah" by pretty much anyone who sings it. It is a masterful song. I recently started to learn how to play the violin and, more recently, the ukulele. Learning to play music (not that what I do should be considered "music") has completely changed my outlook and appreciation of music. It is simultaneously cognitive and imaginative. It requires a confluence of body and attention, all with the goal of making things better, easier and then automatic.
I am not ashamed or annoyed that I enjoy certain old fashioned religious music. It is one of the only things that I am glad for during my years of involuntary recruitment into "The Church".
Why are we not satisfied with the prosecution of a mass shooter or terrorist?
Maybe it is due to the mysterious nature of these crimes that we crave additional action. They come out of nowhere and strike the innocent with violence that shocks and infuriates. These acts remind us that we are not in total control over the environment and that the barbarism of our past has not been lost to modernity. While violence in the world is going down we still find ourselves subject to nature's wrath but when it is by human hands we seek explanation and prevention.
But how can you prevent psychopathy, sadism and violent ideology? Many want to take away the tools of such violence but this does not seem to satisfy the masses. Maybe it is because deep down we know that no matter the restrictions people are clever enough to circumvent them. Maybe, deep down we know that no matter what we do we won't be able to stop these kinds of acts of violence. We distract ourselves with ideas of prevention because we don't want to admit the terrible truth that what creates these kinds of people is a combination of biological predispositions and environmentally mediated influences. To regulate is reactionary and by the time the terrorist kills or the active shooter shoots it is too late. We have to go deeper, to the life of these people, not just their last acts.
All the mechanisms that could prevent these acts are in the communities, families and cultural values that the people that commit them have experienced. Why do we not blame those that encouraged the violence? Why don't we blame the family that ignored their child or abused their child, creating in them a resentment and hatred of others? Why don't we blame the religious leaders and apologists for not disavowing all that would commit these acts?
We do not do this because we don't want to admit that we are the problem and that the problem is amazingly difficult to solve. There is no one solution to solving these issues. Things can only change when we are brave enough to stand up to violent ideologies, hold parents accountable and understand biological predispositions.
We must also realize that no matter what we do to regulate, teach and influence others the universe is cruel and we all die. As long as we care about each other we will experience sorrow and anger and it is in those times that we need to look at our own roles in the destruction of civilization. What we do in our day to day lives has an effect on the world around us and it is in the daily decisions that we define our values.
Maybe the next time we encounter the aftermath of a mass shooter or terrorist bombing we will understand that it is the society that we have created, the decisions of individuals and the cruelty of nature that we see in those acts and begin to take responsibility for the world around us.
Some causes are worth fighting and dying for, but some causes are merely justifications for assholes to group together to enact their hatred on others. They resent humanity, life and their own lack of worth so they project their insecurities and malice outward to those their cause deems evil. And in the name of slaying the "evil" they become evil. Their misguided morality leads them to cause chaos and harm to the innocent and guilty alike. They're not guided by reasonable moral principles but instead they lash out at their enemies whom they have labeled their enemy based on superficial reasons. They hate those that do not share their race, gender, political affiliation, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation and boil all of ethics into an use vs them race to the grave.
As the violence escalates and ideologies clash it is up to individuals to decide whether or not they will be an asshole today. What's an asshole you ask?
Assholes wear masks because they do not want to be responsible for their actions. Assholes go to pick a fight when the other person clearly doesn't want one. Assholes blow up civilians because they know that if they were to enact their irrational war on their true enemy they would lose in a second. Assholes shoot drive cars into crowds hoping to hurt and kill people with signs. Assholes go around hating on people instead of building them up or ignoring them. Assholes don't negotiate. Assholes sign away lives in wars for selfish and psychotic reasons. Assholes sign laws into place for the sake of votes alone, neglecting philosophical principles and decency.
Assholes steal your stereo face plate but leave the stereo. You stupid mother fuckers!
Ideologies that include justifications for violence based on superficial features are problematic for anyone interested in peace.
What if all the sentences for criminals were voted on by large numbers of people online? After a trial takes place and someone is found guilty, the public is given a set of choices for sentencing and the outcome is determined by a mix of public vote and judge consensus. Certified judges would get paid to listen in on the trials and determine whether or not the public came to an acceptable decision. If the public were to write-in a sentence that was outrageous then the judges would reject the decision and it would go up again or be put to a smaller judgement pool of deciders. I think the American public would eat this idea up in a second.
That last paragraph aside I wonder how I would instill my value system in others if I could. How would I justify my moral presuppositions? How would I convince someone that they are wrong when they believe so passionately that what they are doing is right. So much so that they are willing to kill and/or die to prove it? I do know that it is impossible to have the kinds of conversations that lead humans toward more peace when you are being bombed, poisoned, bashed, stabbed, gassed or otherwise threatened by someone else's ideological battle ax.
Maybe I just haven't seen enough strife or misery in my life to feel the need for the hopeful embrace of ideological warfare but I think that part of what has lead to more and more people living lives free from violence comes from sticking to universal moral principles such as respect for property rights which includes bodily rights. It's not that you punish someone for breaking laws but that you protect those worth protecting from those that would take their property, life or general freedom.
Among the rubble of the fallen building one hand could be seen reaching toward the sky. Noticing the hand, a rescue worker rushed over and started digging shards of metal and concrete out from around the hand, that now lay limp. After an minutes of relentless work the body of a middle aged man emerged covered in dust and blood. By the time the rescue worker had started CPR more medical personnel had arrived to prep the ambulance ride should the man be brought back to life. The man's eyes opened suddenly and a gasp of air signaled a successful resuscitation. He was lifted onto a stretcher and placed into an ambulance.
Later that night the news would report that the building had been the victim of a terrorist bombing intended to disrupt the sale of religious texts and send a message to those that propagated Christian ideologies. No group had come forward yet to take credit for the bombing that caused the death of at least one shop worker and one customer and had sent one man to the hospital in critical condition. This had been the first terror attack in the small town of Medford, Oregon and the public wanted answers. "The religious community will not be intimidated or deterred," the woman on the news would explain.
Bruce's eyes opened slowly to find that he was all alone in a quiet and brightly lit hospital room with an IV in his arm, bandages on his face chest and legs, and a pounding headache. A moment later a nurse walked in the room.
"How are you feeling today, mister..." she said hoping he would finish the sentence.
"Lenny," the man said cheerfully. "Lenny Bruce." He tried to lift his hand but stopped mid way up and laid it back down.
"That's alright, Lenny. Just relax and try to move. You've sustained a major concussion and some cuts and bruises but I think you're going to be just fine," the nurse said confidently. "Do you have anyone that we can call," she asked.
"No, it's fine. Don't want to worry anyone and I don't have family in town so..." Bruce said cordially.
"OK, well if you change your mind just let us know. How do you feel," the friendly, young nurse asked as she checked his charts and monitors.
"I have terrible headache," he said squinting and rubbing his head.
"OK, I will talk to the doctor about what we can do for that," she responded as she started for the door. "I'll be back in a few minutes. Your lucky to be alive," she said turning to him and then walked out of the room. An hour later the kind nurse entered the room where Bruce had been to find an empty bed and and opened window.
Bruce glared at the screen of his computer that displayed the latest news on the bombing. Articles speculated that the recent attack was a response to the series of gruesome murders of seven prominent atheists in the past year. Or it could be a random act of violence perpetrated by Islamic radicals, one article explained. The next website on screen was a notice that Seth Harris would be in Medford to speak at the local community college on his Nationwide college tour debating the negative aspects of religious ideologies. This latest news interested Bruce very much.
A few days later Seth Harris was walking out of a gas station bathroom, just outside of Medford, when he felt the world slowly start to fade to black. He had passed out due to a build up of fumes that had been pumped into the bathroom from the outside. His limp body was picked up and placed into the back of blue Ford SUV and soon he was being brought back to consciousness by the feeling of freezing ice and water hitting his face. His eyes opened to see a sideways man standing in the shadows holding a bucket.
"What the fuck is this," Seth said, groggily. Looking around the cold concrete room he saw gardening tools and lawnmower but to the far right there was only a cloth covered bench, on which laid a golden dagger, a large hammer, a bag of four inch metal spikes and a plain old hacksaw. At seeing this he whined,"oh fuck," and started squirming around but the ropes around his ankles were connected to the ropes around his wrists which were connect behind his back and he wasn't going anywhere soon.
The man in the shadow came forward into the light, turned the bucket over and sat on it contemplating his new victim. Bruce stared at the man laying in the corner and patiently waited for the man to stop pleading, questioning and bargaining and when the man finally stopped Bruce stood up. He began kicking Seth in the chest and stomach and face all the while chanting over and over, "And have mercy on those who doubt. And have mercy on those who doubt. And have mercy on those who doubt." He continued chanting and kicking until the heathen fell unconscious and he was out of breath.
Minutes later Seth woke up in a pool of blood, his teeth falling apart in his mouth. He whimpered and moaned with no one to sympathize as Bruce sat in the light sat staring at him on his white bucket. Then, Bruce stood up and as he walked toward the tool bench he recited,"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
"No, No, No," Seth stammered and spit.
Bruce, holding a dagger with a golden handle, walked to the man, knelt down, opened the man's neck and said, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."
The next morning was cold and dreary, with fog covering most of the well kept grounds of the Medford Methodist Church when the groundskeeper walked down the stairs to the church's basement to fetch weed killer. He opened the door like he'd been doing for the past 15 years but this time he was greeted by the horrifying scene of dismembered bloody body parts in the shape of a cross, each piece nailed to the wall.
Bruce was eating pie in a quaint San Franciscan diner when everyone around him turned their heads toward a TV set attached to a wall behind the counter. A young female reporter was saying, "Yesterday, Oregon state troopers arrested a man they believe is responsible for the terrorist bombing of a small Christian book shop in Medford last week." The picture of famed atheist Darren Richmond showed on screen next to a photo of Seth Harris. The reporter continued, "The divide between the faithful and the faithless is ever growing as in the same town the body of renowned 'New Atheist' Seth Harris was found brutally murdered and nailed to a church basement wall."
Bruce looked back down at his plate and began eating again.
One problem I have in accepting determinism is the word determinism. Determinism implies a determiner which assumes some sort of agency. This makes sense due to the roots of determinism being either religious or scientific. From the religious perspective all actions are pre-determined by a deity agent and from the scientific perspective knowledge is gained from observation from human agents. Determinism from the scientific point of view is based on cause and effect and the lacking of true human agency in the equation. Humans are simply subject to prior causes and the effects cascade toward more cause and effect chains. This would be better described as "Causalism", not determinism.
Because determinism rests of the concept of knowable causal forces it is simpler and more objection to call it causalism. If causality can be mapped with perfection then the future would, presumably, be predicted but not determined. Determination seems like inevitability based on an agent's word instead of an objective assessment of what physical forces should do. The future doesn't exist and I believed that no matter how precise we can observe reality there would likely be missing data, error, or other mysterious forces such as underlying quantum chaos that would make perfect knowledge and predictability impossible. We might get to 99.9% but it still wouldn't be determined, just very accurately predicted.
Are all physical forces consistent, constant and reliable? I am not sure. While logic has taught us to rely on physics due to it's reliable predictive power it doesn't mean that there is some room for variation and change. The universe is mysterious and science is a fairly new discipline. We should not be so vein to think that we understand what is immutable. For example, if the speed of light is not fixed then many calculations would be wrong. We should be skeptical about our assumptions. This is an interesting TedTalk about the potential misconceptions in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE
This doesn't mean we should discount science. The scientific method is certainly the best way to test truth claims about reality but I think there is room for philosophy as well.
Ruminations on Free Will:
Why can't a mind be a direct cause of an effect? If so why can't the agent, who owns the mind, be in control (choice) of that cause? Free will may lie somewhere in the chaos of the mind or somewhere in the conscious effort to change the future. The mind is just as physical as genetics and environment so why can't it have a discreet effect on reality and the future?
If all causes are products of prior effects and causes then can there be a first cause? This seems to lead toward a deity outside of time and space. The "turtles all the way down" argument doesn't lead anywhere.
If causes and effects can occur spontaneously or arise from complexity then the mind seems like a prime candidate for a machine capable of creating new chains of causation.
I do admit that I want Free Will to exist. I think it allows for more personal responsibility and change and I feel that I am free to make certain decisions. I do not believe in complete freedom and I admit that most actions are a product of prior or current physical forces acting inside and outside of myself that I can not control. But in those few moments where choice comes into play, and I can slow down and see the potential outcomes of an action I believe that "I" am free to choose. This may be rare and training myself to recognize them may be a lifelong discipline but it seems to increase my well being.
I am a poor Buddhist because I fear the quietness in my mind.
I am a poor Christian because I do not believe in old stories.
I am a horrible Muslim because I do not believe in old stories.
I am a horrible Mormon because I don’t trust white leaders.
I will never be a catholic because gold is gaudy and ridiculous.
I am not an atheist even though I do not believe in god. I actually have a problem with the word god. I don’t think it means anything and I think it can mean anything so it is useless. When someone thinks that they do not believe in god they are saying they do not believe in a word that has no real meaning. When you acknowledge that the word is blindingly ambiguous you can acquire better knowledge of what you are talking about.
Before there was a word god there was a concept of god. And that concept had a clear meaning the people using that word. But when they said it they did not say god. They said the word for god in their language and it was understood before anyone had to write it down. If you have a religion you think that you know what the word god means. You go to church and read books about your god but you do not know what that word means.
The concept of god came at a time when people had very few words and the word god was powerful and deep. In each culture a new concept would emerge that described important and powerful things and soon the concept turned into worship and adoration. Some people built statues and monuments to celebrate their gods; their concepts. To some, gods had to be named and organized and for some god is one thing and for others god means everything or is it nothing and to some it means the earth and yet to some others it means the sun or moon or money or sex or fame or anything. Seriously it is a useless word.
So when someone asks if I believe in god what do I say? Do I say I do not believe in god when I do not know what that word means? I have concepts of things and names for things and I can be content to not know things and name things that I do not know things I do not know. I do not desire to do anything more than to try to know what others mean when they say the words god or gods and try to understand why it matters. I think that there are more precise and creative ways to explain things than to continue to use this word GOD.
I am a poor agnostic because I am unsure that there is an answer to be unsure of. Maybe even the placing of a yes or no designation to the existence of something is the first mistake. Seeking is not the mistake but maybe inferior words and thinking lead to useless things.
