Monthly Archives: March 2011

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between Science and the Supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism … for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”–Richard Lewontin, Geneticist

Why are we asking scientists to acknowledge some paltry  claim that, even if admitted, shouldn’t change the process of Science? For a scientist, any indication of divine intervention wouldn’t alter their intent of investigation.  An honest scientist, upon the development of new evidence, will alter his or her process as is necessary. I couldn’t care less whether a scientist acknowledge, or be open to the possibility of, some form of divinity while searching for the answers to larger questions regarding our existence.

In relation to Christianity, which is made unique due to the personal relationship with Jesus one nurtures through the holy spirit, science is inconsequent. Even if a scientist did “expose” God, that God would most likely take the form of a universal God which would be assigned to all of existence in a way that requires nothing…that God would still, as divinity is now, take the form of whomever decided to believe or follow this new deity.  The two major religions of the world, Christianity and Islam, want nothing to do with a universal deity. Jesus Christ and Mohammed exist in opposition to the world and their morality is not characterized by a universal, or easily understood, ethic.

A universal God will bear no consequence if such a force were proven to exist, or, I would think that it would yield rather unfavorable results. The same thing goes with Christianity– A benevolent result can only be attained through a non-coerced personal approach which becomes evident in the behavior of that singular person.

The marriage of science and religion would work wonders for the politician, it would work wonders for manipulation (hell, the vacuum of Christ already does), but remain meaningless for one who is truly devoted to God through faith.


the cowards apology–

the coward. the intellectual. the artist who thrives on inspiration. there are always reasons why and reasons why not, there is always a difference of location, position, upbringing, there is always the heavy burden of God, bearing the cross of creative integrity that comes before true responsibility. true to the abstract! loyal to the process! Hiding behind the rational, the flaws of humanity he is always infected with.

the artist is a coward. he apologizes for who he is, not for what he does.

the artist is never at fault for the simple sin of selfish ego, it is always pawned off on the pathetic notion of an abstract cause. there is always a buffer invented under the umbrella of a psychology that preys on the sensitive types. the artist is the “victim” who preys on, and exploits, inspiration.

the artist is ironic. he connects with those who are strangers and he abandons his loved ones. He is a willing, or perhaps a well meaning, and naive slave. It takes an alligator of an angel to love and support an artist.

we’re all a dime a dozen.

I hide behind the poetry that always forgives me of sin so pathetically elementary. I dress it up and become a martyr to my own cruel behavior. It’s theatrical and political–the evasion with an elegance that a stranger will buy, but those who know me will see right through me.

although I will never confess, the difference that saves the artist from being a liar is that the artist believes his or her own bullshit. a true testament to the power of art!

the artists. the philosopher. the intellectual. the romantic.

the artist isn’t tapped in, the artists is merely talented.