Reflections On God And Control

I had a thought about the origin of God cross my mind the other day. I texted this thought to a number of people and received a number of interesting reflections.

My thought was that God is just a manifestation of humans' need for control. By control I mean the ability to influence events to achieve a preferred outcome as well as the ability to know the unknown.

Lack of control is a scary thing. There are a number of things that are out of our control including our mortality and the behavior of other people. This lack of control also involves the unknown. When something is unknown to you, in essence you don't have control of it.

The human experience has a vast number of things we cannot control or do not know. As we have evolved, we have learned a good bit and some of the unknown has become known like the microbiology and astronomy and so on. But we still can't control our mortality. As hard as we try to control other people, and in some cases, are able to get people to behave in a preferred manner, in the end it is their brain that dictates what they do.

So we create this deity called God.

This God is represents this control. Through the existence of God, we can feel like we have some sort of control over our mortality. We can do good while alive and enter a place called heaven. Death becomes much less scary inevitable.

Many times I will hear people talk about their lack of control. They will say that they can't control other people or the outcome of certain things. So they will give it to the universe. Or they will try to let it go and avoid wasting time worrying about it. Finally, many say they will turn it over to God. Because, as I said, God can control it and will take care of it.

We can also use God and the idea of heaven and its counterpart, hell, to influence others' actions. Those people out there that may do harmful things to us or the ones we love can be swayed otherwise by the deterrent that if they do, they will suffer eternal damnation. It helps our grieving and pain to feel like someone who does us wrong will pay the consequences for it.

The concept of God goes much, much deeper than this. The various religions have created these intricate frameworks from which to experience God and these frameworks explain away countless other detailed "unknowns" that exist beyond death and ethics.

My text message never got this in depth. But four people who responded did. There were a number of interesting points they made.

The first point from my mom was that God represented a parent-like figure for her. Obviously, not everybody has had the same experience with their parental figures. So what this means for one may mean something different for another. Traditionally speaking though, parents are though of as warm, loving caregivers who offer guidance.

This is a warm, fuzzy way to look at God. But at the same time, it doesn't disprove my points. Of course, I don't think my mom was trying to disprove it in the first place.

God as a parent actually fits my point exactly. As a young child, your parent(s) perfectly represent this idea of offering control and answers to the unknown. You enter the world knowing little more than how to poop, pee, breathe and swallow. You have zero control. You quickly learn you can cry to get fed or cleaned. But this whole time, its the parents that are getting the food to you. So you look to them to provide this control.

As you grow and become more and more independent, you rely on your parents less and less. But throughout your childhood, it is your parents that have this control you are unable to have and provide that safety and security that God does for us as humans in general.

Another point my friend and I got into was the irony that this creation of God makes us more powerful than God who is supposed to be more powerful than us. The point of its creation was to have the power to control something we are powerless to control. From a Christian standpoint, the idea that we are equal to or more powerful than God is blasphemous. It is also contradicting in a way.

This led to some thoughts on faith and how faith is critical to the numerous religions that exist. Without faith, there is little reason to follow a particular religion or any way of thinking for that matter. It is crucial to blindly believe or have faith that there is a all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God out there that is above all of this and able to exist and "control" everything in a manner that is in our best interests.

The thoughts on faith were echoed by another friend who referenced a book he was reading that was related to this subject. Our texts reminded me of observations I have made that many times when I notice people who are blindly following the Bible and proclaiming their faith in it, they are usually of a lower education. At the same time, when I notice people who are atheist or agnostic (assuming I use that term correctly), they are of a higher education.

Obviously, these observations are generalizations. I am NOT trying to say educated people are atheist or atheists are automatically highly educated. Nor am I trying to say that if you have faith, you are not highly educated. I can provide numerous examples of extremely intelligent people who have faith in God. But this observation still exists.

The Bible has been used for centuries to prey on the unknowns of people. It has been a tool of control as it supposedly has offered answers to these unknowns and control for the uncontrollable. It has been used to control human behavior as well. But faith is a requirement. Without it, the church doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Before I begin to follow a tangent taking me away from the point of this post, I'll end it with this:

I enjoy this kind of analyzing. This is not some kind of attack on religion or God. I am continuing to seek out my place in all of this. Reflections like this make me think. While I plan to continue thinking like this, I really do want to find some framework to stick to. But I want it to genuinely from my heart and not just my brain. Christianity is not the answer for me, but it is NOT because I think it is wrong, evil or negative. Any negative overtones I present are usually directed to the people who transmit it or practice it in a way I disagree with not the theology itself.

The End Justifies The Means?

Are you a believer in the old saying, "The end justifies the means?" I think I am. There are limits of course. I believe each situation is unique and needs to be examined on a case by case basis. What about when rule breaking comes into the picture?

On the morning of The Game I should be blogging about this rivalry game between Ohio State and nagihcim. In fact I should have been all week like my buddy did here. But I have had heavier things on my brain of late. Regardless of that team's horrible record this game is still important and big and anyone can win. In fact it would not surprise one bit if that team came down here and beat us due to this very fact and that the whole world isn't giving them a chance. Despite this, I am consumed with other things, so let's continue:

I am curious what people think about this concept of the end justifying the means. I am widely considered a good person. I think that I am. I try to do things that are "right" and "good." My relationship with my daughter's mother is an example of my efforts to "be the better man" and put any and all bitterness behind me. So much of what I do regarding my kid is based in what is right more than what I want even though I admit I haven't held true to this every time. I try to be good not perfect.

I find myself in a position right now where I can do something that is beneficial in my mind for someone I love dearly. The issue here is that it breaks the rules. I am 100% aware that I would break these rules to do this. I know exactly what I am doing and have no hesitation to do it. I feel no guilt whatsoever. Honesty is important, but in this case, I don't mind being dishonest. I am willing to pay the consequences....assuming these consequences are what I think they are. (In the words of former Cardinals' head coach Dennis Green: "They are who we thought they were...AND WE LET THEM OFF THE HOOK!!")

I firmly believe in this case that the end justifies the means. Nobody is technically getting hurt. Nobody is benefiting in a superficial, shallow way. The benefit is life altering for the better (if I could only be more dramatic, geez) without any real harm being done to get it. It is something that is done all the time for nothing more than convenience. In my case, it is not for convenience but something deeper. But of course, anyone who breaks a rule or law has their own justification for it. In their mind, they are right. What is it about mine that is more justified than theirs? Rules and laws are there for a reason, right? Plus, I am not saying that I am not breaking any rules, I admit I am. I'm saying my case trumps those rules. I choose not to get into details publicly, but my logic here is sound. I have thought this through and feel comfortably justified in this logic.

Now, no decision has been made. There are other options. I plan to study every option. My fear is that these other options are not attainable. Therefore, I am setting my sights on this "rule breaking" option. There is still a good bit of time ahead and calls to be made and ideas to be hatched before I make a decision. I also need to let go of my controlling nature and allow other vested interests get their say. But for the sake of discussion, does the end justify the means to you? Do I forfeit my "good guy" badge for intentionally breaking the rules even when I feel there is a greater purpose here? Do I get a mulligan here and allow myself to be dishonest.

I think so.

Above all, my loved ones come first. Even before honesty and rule following.

MMA and Young Children

ESPN's Outside the Lines ran a story this morning (Sunday, July 20) on the growing popularity of Mixed Martial Arts and its effect on young children joining the sport. This prompted a great opportunity to debate the ethics of introducing kids to such a violent sport at an early age.

Mixed Martial Arts is the new boxing. It is gaining mass popularity within the male 18-35 demographic. I admit that even myself, a passive, nonconfrontational guy has found some mild interest in it. I would prefer watching it over boxing for example. There is something appealing about guys beating their brains in although I would never want to do it myself. I also have a little person on my shoulder telling me there is something wrong about it.

The ethical argument regarding MMA in general is one I choose not to blog about here. Instead I'd like to reflect on the ethics of youths' participation in MMA. There are physical and mental/emotional questions to be answered regarding this subject.

For example in terms of the physical aspects of MMA, do we want to allow our children to participate in an activity in which the risk of injury is high? The injuries could also be very serious. The types of stress and movement required are not good for growing, developing bodies. But we promote football which is a physical sport. Also, with obesity among our youth and general population in the U.S. on the rise along with the number of hours we all play video games or watch tv instead of doing physical activity, shouldn't we be looking for more active experiences for our children? Isn't MMA another avenue to pursue? Many kids don't like sports but enjoy this kind of activity. So why disallow it?

Mentally and emotionally, are kids ready to handle the brutality of beating another human being to a pulp and intentionally hurting them or submitting them? Is it a good thing to teach this aggressive way of thinking? Don't we want to avoid that and limit or discourage that behavior in our society? But doesn't violence already exist anyway and the best way to avoid it or handle it is to be prepared to defend or protect yourself? If done right, doesn't this provide a structured way to educate youth how to handle confrontation and build confidence that they can handle a confrontation appropriately no matter how it ends up? See Karate Kid.

Obviously there are two sides to this issue. Quite frankly, the guy representing the pro-MMA side didn't convince me with his argument at all. That could be because there is no substantial evidence or reasoning to prove to me that MMA is good for young kids. So after watching the so called debate on OTL with Bob Ley, I felt the same way I did going in. Once again, I am riding the fence.

I love the idea of providing more excuses for youth to exercise and get involved in an activity. Studies have shown for a long time that getting involved in things is generally positive for kids whether it is swimming, football, drama, band or any other organized group. My wife and I (as well as my daughter's mother), intentionally get my daughter signed up for various things for this reason. Socialization is important. Exposure to different interests is positive. Learning different skills is a bonus. There is that fine line between exposing and pushing too hard that my wife and I are trying to walk with her but we feel we do this by not forcing here into anything and not requiring success. We also have valued variety through soccer, swimming, skill building, speech, library visits, zoo visits, amusement parks, parks in general, bike riding and more as we plan to enroll her in dance, tumbling and other varied activities.

So I like the angle that it gives an physical activity for kids to enjoy. I also like the "idea" of teaching self-defense and using this avenue to teach methods of handling confrontation without violence first. But this is where things get blurry. Many forms of martial arts have already been doing that for years, decades, centuries I would think. MMA is taking those art forms and infusing the violence, not teaching how to avoid it. The proponents can try to work the Martial Arts angle of self-defense all they want, but really...who's buying it? I am not. Granted, I have never set foot in a MMA match or gym so I have no idea what really goes on in there. It could be liked wild, caged dogs trying to kill each other (a la Mike Vick) or it could be instructors teaching the values of self-defense as a last resort. I tend to lean more to the violent approach.

I also worry about the physical harm we are risking with our youth when we have them perform the moves and holds that are part of MMA. The bones are not yet fully grown. The muscles aren't mature. The brain is yet to develop fully. The physical abuse and wear and tear grown adult fighters go through is bad enough. The last fight I saw had one guy bleeding profusely from his head to the point that the mat was soaked in red. It was kinda cool, but brutal. I couldn't imagine a child dealing with that.

I think it is good to teach kids the value of discipline, training, setting goals, dealing with scary situations, working hard, gaining confidence, exercise, keeping a healthy body and handling defeat or victory with honor. These are important things. I think sports in general do this. While I agree that MMA can help promote and teach these, it borders on using the wrong methods to do so unleashing a monster along with these values. Kids may not comprehend what is being taught correctly and become more likely to grow into violent, aggressive, egotistical meatheads that handle everything with physical intimidation, the lowest of intelligence.

Once again, I think things come down to the parenting of the child. I am not going to judge parents who are trying to do what's right. I understand there can be positives taken from this, but it is absolutely critical that the parents are highly involved and making sure the kids are not taking this the wrong way. I worry that won't happen. I worry that most parents allowing their kids to be in MMA at a young age are doing it for the wrong reasons. But that happens in other sports too. Football is glorified while displaying many of the same problems that I am claiming MMA will.

There should be an age requirement for the safety of the children. Or there should be major limits put on what is allowed and not allowed in competition. These are musts in my mind. Coaches or instructors should really teach alternative methods to handling confrontation and promote it and value it legitimately and seriously. Again though, I just worry that the two can't go hand in hand despite what the proponents of MMA say.

MMA is not going to go away. It is growing and hasn't even peaked. But if we are going to allow our kids to get involved, it needs to be regulated in a major way. And our kids who join need to be more mature and grown that we are allowing now.

Moral Framework

In an earlier post I blogged about what makes something wrong. I tried to focus on the role of harm. I posed the question, "Is there anything wrong that doesn't include harm?"

I would like to revisit the idea of morality. What makes things right or wrong? More specifically, how much of a role do specific circumstances play in our personal definition of morality? Are we rigid with our standards or do our moral principles vary widely depending on particular factors? Also, what factors are these principles dependent on? How wide do our principles vary as well?

In Do You Think What You Think You Think? by Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom, four factors are presented including: "Geographical Distance," "Family Relatedness," "Acts and Omissions" and "Scale." I found it interesting to play their "Morality Play" and see which factors I was more rigid within or displayed a wider variance. It was not about being right or wrong, but measuring your framework and consistency.

"Geographical Distance" provided several examples in which proximity would play a role in their choice. Are you more morally obligated to help a homeless man in your town or one in another country? I tend to believe if I am going to help the homeless, I would probably help the one in my hometown only due to ease not to a higher moral responsibility. In my mind the guy in India deserves just as much help from me, I just can't do it as easily. I am more rigid here as I would determine the morality separate from distance. One's closeness to me in proximity terms means very little. Of course, this is with the assumption you would consider yourself morally obligated to help in the first place. Many people may feel you have no particular obligation other than to yourself and your children or partner.

"Family Relatedness" refers to a situation where you would be more morally obligated to help someone in your family over a stranger. They provided numerous examples but basically I find myself feeling like family does matter. This is where I find more variance. I could see myself modifying my moral framework in favor of a family member based on blood loyalty.

"Acts and Omissions" is in regard to the difference between committing an immoral act versus not doing something to avoid the same negative outcome even if you didn't create the outcome yourself and assuming you had the power to avoid it. Baggini and Stangroom use the example of poisoning a drink versus not stopping someone from drinking a poisoned drink when you could have. Are omissions just as bad as the acts? Are you just as much to blame as the one who poisoned it because you did not stop it? And does the severity of the act matter to you? In the case of poison I have to think it is immoral to not say something. But what if it was just somebody getting teased without any fatal or debilitating results?

Finally, "Scale" refers to situation of number. Is it more moral or more immoral if more people are involved? Is 100 lives more important than 10 or 1? Every life is important right? But if you could save 1000 people as a result of sacraficing 1 or 10 or 100, is it moral? Or is it immoral to NOT save those 1000 in order to avoid sacarficing the innocent 1, 10 or 100? That is a tough one isn't it?

Once again, morality is not a black and white discussion. Everybody has their own judgements and reasoning for their framework and principles. As Baggini and Stangroom state in Do You Think What You Think You Think, "On the one hand, we can't just go around making ad hoc adjustments to moral principles to suit ourselves. On the other hand, we cannot fail to take into account the differing circumstances in which moral judgements come into play." (Baggini and Stangroom, 120)

I plan to be more specific in the future with my "morality" blogs using particular topics to discuss these questions such as euthanasia, abortion, homosexuality, killing in war, beating up bullies, etc. Touchy stuff and a slippery slope I may decide to pass on by the time I get there.

Right Vs. Wrong (Old Blog Reposted)

Awhile ago I got into a heated political debate with a conservative, right winged friend of mine. I use the term friend loosely. At one point we ended a round with this:

I said if no harm is done, how is something wrong? I'm not married to this statement, I want to test it. He responded with "there are plenty of things that are wrong that don't involve harming someone, Huey." I challenged him to give me one. I haven't heard one yet.

I thought about this the other day in the car. There HAS to be something we can agree is universally wrong without someone getting harmed right? I think I came up with one but I have since forgotten it.

I need replies to this blog. What are some wrong things that don't involve harming another person? And I would like to examine why they are wrong?

This loosely connects to my thoughts and why people do good. This dives more into the semantics of good and bad I guess. (I hope I used semantics correctly in that sentence)