EPIDEMIC Of CHRONIC PAIN

FROM:            Timothy A, Kiehl

TO:                  Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, et al.

I have a Chemistry degree and worked in the Arkansas State Crime Lab as a toxicologist. I do not drink or smoke and have NEVER abused recreational drugs or misused prescription drugs. I understand the mode of action and metabolism of drugs, especially of the class I and II categories. As I also suffer from chronic pain and, until recently, had been taking very low doses of periods, intelligently varying my daily dosage as the pain waxed and waned, regularly for the past 15 years. I NEVER took more than 40-60mg even on the worst days. My opioid usage was so low and controlled that it was not unusual me to find my typical 30-day prescription prescriptions lasted over three months. However, recently I have been denied opioid pain medications, even after breaking three ribs and injuring my shoulder after an auto accident, having been mysteriously labeled as a “drug seeker”. I have repeatedly requested that, if I am indeed diagnosed as drug seeking or having a problem with drugs, I be seen and evaluated by a specialist and have been refused time and again. So now I’m stuck here in a limbo of pain, misdiagnosis and fearmongering with nowhere to turn.

I wish ask your organization, Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing and others involved in this “crusade”; what you are doing to ensure that doctors and hospitals do not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” impacting the community of people who suffer chronic pain and no longer have means to manage their condition because of all the extra, needless and unnecessary debilitating pain and suffering. Why do people like I, who have no problem regulating my medication use and have little or no chance of becoming addicted and would never even dream of substance abuse of any kind at any time have their lives overturned and to suffer like this? Indeed, I have actually been driven closer and deeper into suicidal ideation. But not from merely due to suicidal depression. Instead, thinking of self-death as more of a euthanasia to end my suffering than actual suicide because of depression (although the pain and depression are synergistic).

It is my belief that an overzealous politically motivated CDC has initiated an impetuous, drastic and extreme over reaction to an epidemic that has already started to subside and which most research indicates is not being caused by over-prescribing opioid pain medication AT THE PRESENT TIME. Yes, ten years ago opioids where passed out like popcorn and that irresponsible over-prescribing definitely did initiate a spasm of new addictions cases that lead to the opioid crisis. But that time has passed and I think we all need to step back and be sure we are not continuing to spiral in an out of control overreaction and hurting people needlessly.

I hope this will shed some light on a problem that I feel has so far not only been overlooked but exacerbated by these radical and far-reaching guides and the policies they have inspired. Please respond with your thoughts and suggestions and become part of a solution to this part of the problem.

We all need to work together to end this unnecessary and devastatingly real EPIDEMIC OF CHRONIC PAIN before the unintended consequence of higher suicide rates overwhelm the already dwindling number of deaths by opioid overdose (many of which were probably NOT addiction related but rather SUICIDES CAUSED by this DRACONIAN drug policy).

Timothy A. Kiehl Glendale, AZ June 2018

It’s minimum wage that spurs the economy

There is NO connection between OMB Director Mick Mulvaney’s newfangled “central theory” (which is just rewarmed trickle down, and similarly has the color and smell of urine) and increased prosperity for the country as a whole

It’s minimum wage that spurs the economy and makes growth real and widespread. Give a rich man or a corporation a tax refund and they build another factory oversea or raise stockholder dividends, all generating NO TAX REVENUE. But give every working man a raise and EVERY PENNY of that new money in the system will be spent at the bottom in the local economy, and will generate ten times as much in real sales tax revenue, which pays for firefighters and fills potholes. They products they buy will DIRECTLY result in higher profits for companies making them AND (if they were here in the US) that would result in even more jobs and on and on! That’s the TRUE SECRET of the American Dream that was stolen from us by the plutocrats and their minions.

In the early 70’s a car cost $3,000, a house cost $30,000 and minimum wage was $1.70, so a family could get by with a single wage earner.

Now a car cost $30,000, a house costs $300,000 but minimum wage lags FAR BEHIND at less than $10 (instead of a comparable $17) and our children barely scrap by with both spouses working, often burdened by crippling student loan payments and dependent on credit card debt at usurious interest rates (that were ILLEGAL in the 70’s) to keep afloat.

“We coulda’ hada’ Bernie!” (Damn you Hillary!)

Right wing “New Atheism”? NOT ME!

Right wing “New Atheism”? NOT ME!

In regards to a recent article in “The Skeptics Society & Skeptic” magazine on Taunton’s BS book, “The Faith of Christopher Hitchens” I feel the need to make a few points, some of the most controversial of which may digress from the direct subject of the book itself and more as commentary regarding a disturbing trend toward extremism I’ve noticed more and more prevalent on atheist blogs and webpages. As to the assertions made in the book, I would like to point out that I’ve been an atheist since I was 17, and at 62 I’m even more atheistic, actually more correctly, an anti-theist …BUT I’VE SUNG XMAS CAROLS FOR CHARITY the past 10 years. I love Handel’s Messiah and Bach’s Christmas oratorio. I appreciate the grandeur of Cathedrals and sophisticated religious art. I’m NOT a confused person or a duplicitous one using “two books” and “hiding” religiosity. One may appreciate the beauty that inspired people of faith to create magnificent works of art, and acknowledge that religion has contributed to the sophistication of our culture, but without an acceptance of the vast evil and harm it has also wrought we have a badly distorted history. It’s a complicated world and in many cases it takes an intelligent and complicated “soul” LOL to unify these concepts, a task beyond most religious believers who have such single minded and unsophisticated world views. While I respect Hitchens for his eloquence in defense of atheism I abhor his regression into the fear based mentality that became so prevalent after 9/11. This sea change to a militaristic world view, which he furthered with his newly hateful rhetoric, helped promote and allow politicians to stoke that fear and then use it to propagandize the populace into supporting NeoCon policy agendas that turn the world into a morass of conflict. I don’t understand why Hitchens and now Harris changed their generalized anti-religious rhetoric into an anti-Islam rant. As two of the “four horsemen” they have a large part of the atheist bully pulpit and their later rhetoric turned many people against “New Atheism” as being Islamaphobic and pro-conflict, associating the atheistic movement with NeoCon politics in many people’s minds. As I consider myself one of the “Nth Horsemen” proselytizing free thought and atheism, I find this an unwelcome distortion of the HUMANIST message I try to promote. I once attempted to discuss this with Sam Harris several years ago after he became the new prophet of  the popularization of Hitchens’ inexplicable and astounding right wing conversion after 9/11. I feel this disturbing new slant on atheism is detrimental to the humanistic philosophy of atheism and, as this trend worsens have come to the point that I must condemn their ideology. These viewpoints have helped stimulate the insurgence of intolerance and even racism into a once freethinking dialog about religion that is not characteristic of the atheist movement I have been a part of my entire life. The hatemongering becoming a part of the atheist zeitgeist is now often the main feature of many new websites and blogs that claim atheistic inspiration but are merely the bigotry hiding under the mantle of atheism. They smear an entire religion with the bloody stain of actions by a minority of Saudi Arabian inspired and supported Wahhabi extremists that have hijacked their religion for political purposes, much like the Popes did to Christianity in their secular struggles that almost destroyed Europe. This negative stereotype being promulgated under the name of atheism is poor publicity for our humanistic atheistic movement and undermines the real message of humanism and tolerance that most “real” free thinking atheism espouse and opens the humanistic atheistic movement to unnecessary criticism and even ridicule. I think the blame for this disturbing trend can be directly placed on the original rhetoric of Hitchens that is now being promulgated by Harris.

emergeART ^{™                                                                T.A.Kiehl©2016}                                                                                                                   

 

Ignorance is definitely not bliss

Ignorance is definitely not bliss

 

Ignorance is definitely not bliss, at least for those who suffer to put up with it. I’ll call anyone to task regarding ostensible “paranormal” experiences, and there I will leave them deliberately and in disgust, standing in the dust of their ignorance. I agree with Penn Gillette that supernatural and paranormal are oxymoronic terms. If something happens, it’s “natural” and “normal”, if didn’t happen in a demonstrably repeatable way that can be recorded, then it DIDN’T happen and, well, that’s that. End of story, and don’t bother me with your delusions. Too many gullible people with no idea of how to rationally observe the world are convinced of the most idiotic things. One of my best friends, a brilliant attorney with an intellect I mostly admire, is so WOOWOO that I’m driven to incredulous tears …often laughter. It’s SO easy to have just enough knowledge about science to be dangerous, a sad state typified by viewers of that terrible pseudo-documentary, “What the Beep Do We Know”. Obviously the producers of that crap knew exactly the precise amount to be led dreadfully astray and into serious illusion and fantasy. As a educated experienced scientist I’m always amazed by the ridiculous misinterpretations rampant in a population so misinformed and mal-educated by television and now by Youtube. I love Neal Tyson, Laurence Krauss (I’ve actually met them both) and all those who honor the legacy of science popularization left by Sagan. However too many people think that the shallow comprehension they achieve listening to their wonderful documentaries is even partially equivalent to a comprehensive education in science. WRONGO BUCKAROO BONZAI!

 

And if one righteously ignores all the silly fallacious interpretations so prevalent in the media and decide to fall back on your own personal subjective evidence as an argument I’ll give you the respect that deserves and also tell you to get lost. Not only is subjective experience inherently and almost totally unreliable and dependent on interpenetration, which most us are woefully inadequate in credible knowledge to provide. of but if you are aware of the psychology and functioning of the brain it is extremely clear t understanding. Any such experience based on the limited human senses combined with the frailty of faulty mentality prone to illusion and replete with built in distortions of reality almost guarantee failure. Now, you’ll tell me I’ suffer from a narrow or even closed mind. My response is Carl Sagan’s brilliant and innocent plagiarization of an unnamed NASA engineer, “It’s important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”

 

If I sound harsh and unyielding, well, I’m 62 years old and I’ve seen and already heard enough ignorance to last another 62 years. In fact so much, too much of willful ignorance to the point that I’ve been driven to real tears of both exasperation and shame at my fellow human’s condition of irrationality. Mostly by moronic believers of such drivel as “The Secret”. So I’ll express my exasperation with a closing poem I once penned, ON HE “SECRET”

 

THE “SECRET”

If the secret is out,

and the public’s still smitten.

Why do author’s now shout,

“A sequel is written.”

From a box comes the cat,

Misused Schrodinger allusion.

But there’s no science in that,

Just mistake and illusion.

What else can they offer

with gullibility’s reign,

While true knowledge does suffer,

the smear of greed’s stain

  T.A.Kiehl©2016

Response to the claim that atheists often treat their atheism like a religion

Response to the claim that atheists often treat their atheism like a religion

PLEASE, expand on your demonstration relating atheism to rational thought leading to logical conclusions and that similar science is NOT A BELIEF or a belief system. I had to argue this with an ATHEIST (who tends toward agnosticism, and you know what I think about them, Agnostics? Agnostics? We don’ need no stinkin’ agnostics!) When he insisted that atheism meant an unreasonable 100% rejection of the god hypothesis and was therefore an item taken on “faith” 😉 ( also not true – an atheistic is just a realistic agnostic LOL), I asked him if he was “agnostic” about Santa Claus, or did he not have enough evidence to come to a final conclusion on that similar judgment. He went on to quote a philosopher as “proof”. I tried to demonstrate the error of this idea with the comparison of an atheist’s lack of faith and belief in god just as a scientist would the physical world (as you mention) Like an atheist, a scientist doesn’t embrace a belief system he acknowledges the efficacy of a system of rational process. An evolutionary biologist like Sean Carroll does not “believe” in evolution or have “faith” in the scientific method. To anyone who has a real understand of those words that is clear. For those like this atheist-agnostic mutation (who ran as an atheist in a local election, hell I don’t want his speaking for ME, a REAL atheist) and as you so eloquently alluded to, I had to remind them that there is no faith of belief involved in science, just the long term demonstration of the efficacy of this approach to describe the natural world. I then used the old saw, atheism id like religion as baldness is to hair styling. I had a similar “discussion” with some fellows representing Mensa when I volunteered at the local Science Bowl. Their gross oversimplifications and outright misunderstandings were so great and their reasoning so seriously flawed that I finally had to ask them, “Are you SURE you’re in Mensa?”

I consider myself an anti-theist as well but don’t use it unless I think the crowd will get it LOL. And an anti-theist is merely an atheist who goes one step further and insists that religion is a harmful meme that retards the advance of civilization and should be eliminated. Here’s a link to a paper I wrote 45 years ago you might enjoy;

 onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=4DCF4F5252D46E7C!4636&authkey=!ANG4LNDJryHI0IA&ithint=file%2cpdf

 I can smugly add that, unlike Brian (or most of my fellow atheists who “converted” from a childhood religious indoctrination) I “achieved atheism” at a young age LOL I used to tell everyone I was an agnostic, declaring, again with smugness, that no one can :”really” know these things. One day my wife impatiently said, “Tim, why don’t you quit being a jerk and just admit you’re an atheist.” Agnostics who can’t commit to atheism are often held back by a lack of understanding of the logical precepts of scientific method. No intelligent atheist declares with 100% certainty that it is a known fact that gods do not exist. But if one accurately analyzes the pros and cons, actual data, it’s conceivable to have, as Richard Dawkins declares, “99.9999%” conviction with statistical confidence. Yes, that’s SO CLOSE to 100% that many atheists, myself included, feel it is a done deal and we just don’t feel the necessity to explain our analysis to ignorant argumentative assholes. Just because a person doesn’t feel the need to belabor the point doesn’t mean they, unlike their antagonists, are not aware of the distinctions of epistemology.

This is where many people make the erroneous assumption that so many atheists arrogantly insist with 100% conviction there is no god. Do you use the same logic when determining the existence of Santa Claus? No, you intelligently observe the facts, like scientific plausibility of the physics combined with an investigation of the historical origins of the myth you can be, I dare may say, ONE HUNDRED PER CENT CERTAIN that there is no Santa Claus. And using that same logic I feel that I can say, as an atheist AND anti-theist with 100% certainty, that the complete pantheon of gods mankind invented to worship DO NOT EXIST! PERIOD! End of discussion! I can and will say with certainty the same regarding about ANY godlike entity defined by man. As I mentioned in a previous reply to “Trigger” I don’t think I’ve ever met a single atheist who claims100% conviction that any god, defined as an unknowable intelligence that may coexist in our reality definitely cannot and does not exist, Hell, this universe is for all practical purposes infinite. But 99.9999%, come on guys and gals, let’s not pick hairs. Yes, often you have to actually engage the person you are conversing with (ARE you actually having a conversation?) to find that this is in fact their contention (I hesitate to use the word “belief” as it has so many connotation *see below) This does take a two way exchange of ideas and not a prejudicial judgment. Anyone who argues the fact that the existence of a nebulous concept as “god” is an unknowable concept has neglected to remember that it is also a MEANINGLESS one.

The irrational conceit regarding the importance of acknowledging the existence of an undetectable creature that has no influence on our reality is so literally meaningless that it’s not worth an intelligent argument. I have found, in fact, that most self-declared agnostics are more than a little pretentiously (as my wife found me to be earlier) hung up on these, again literally meaningless, distinctions. So much like a theologian or an apologist. Finally, most people are not extremely circumspect with their syntax and use the word “believe” rather recklessly and meant interchangeably with comprehend, recognize, “to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists”, or “have confidence in the knowledge”. But only an ignoramus (a jerk with an agenda) would hold people to such a high standard of communication or bother to split these hairs. As I said time and time again, “Agnostics? Agnostics? We don’ need no stinkin’ agnostics!” LOL Yes, I’m a long winded fellow. 😉 Maybe I should have made a video? Just kidding, Brian, I’m not in your league!

    T.A.Kiehl©2016

Great Britain’s Evangelical Legacy

Great Britain’s Evangelical Legacy

Great Britain is, in fact, still a religious country in so much as it defines itself. The Church of England is a state sponsored and supported entity, the official state church as endowed by the constitution of the English state. Yes, this may be an historical relic, but one that has been universally rejected elsewhere and is almost unheard of in other modern democracies. In so much it is not a beacon of enlightened religious values, and can never be such until it sheds itself of this past.

 It is this country, founded on religious freedom forbidding state sponsorship of any religion that SHOULD be our beacon of enlightenment. The dreadful wave of evangelical zeal that now imprisons the American zeitgeist is a relic of Victorian England’s zealous Zionism. Just listen to the hymns of the official state church. The lyrics are scary. When the English, like a feisty bulldog, found the sermons of these roving evangelical Zionist preachers were becoming a little too radical for the staid Church of England they rejected and rid themselves of the creatures they spawned. Where do you think they immigrated? You’ll find that at the turn of the century and especially with WW1 this religious zealotry died out in Britain only to rear its ugly head here, to our shame and detriment.

An egregious example of this insane rhetoric is “My Utmost For His Highest” by Oswald Chambers which was read daily by George H. Bush as well as many modern evangelicals. It sounds like communist dialectic with the “party” replaced with “god”. It’s a collection of sermons he gave while an isolated vicar of a Scottish Presbyterian boy’s school. Then he was exposed to the real world of WW1 in which he died from peritonitis after refusing to be treated before wounded soldiers. What the publishers don’t tell you is that during his time in the gritty realities of war he found true enlightenment and wrote many letters vigorously repudiated these sermons. After his death in an Egyptian military hospital his wife cashed in by having them published knowing his final wish was to see them destroyed. So very typically christian of her.

          T.A.Kiehl©2016

Resolution of Willful Resolve

Resolution of Willful Resolve

Persevere to remain stubbornly stand fast with an irresistibly unstoppable paradoxical unmovable immobility of purpose as Thor’s unbroken unyielding Viking testament of will relentlessly hammering upon the grave funereal loci of cinereal silvered oystered stone unturned, bedrock tenacious, overburdened and reeking with the night soiled fetor of dreadful purpose until the crystal cathedrals of our dreams becoming embrittled with age, cataract cloudy, then to crumble into dust as the weight of the damp rotted weeping ages drag once lustrous adamantine promethean chains now worn down into the fragility of depraved depths, drawn relentlessly by the granular gravitas of gravity to the grave. In the fullness of failed unreasoned intent forced to vomit up their wretched woeful prisoners of will who themselves then wither and evaporate, tarnished stained luster faded to dim dullness, quivering direct arrow of time quaking in frantic trembling expiration of apprehensive threat, shriveled, shrinking shrived of censure absolved afore the terrible frowning Gorgon aspect, continence captive and contained, imprisoned by persistent terrors of old, new, renewed liberties of freedoms lost, found and lost once again, twice, thrice discarded in careless carefree abandon, an abiding continuity reflective in the image of relentless grievous deprivation, of value less endless withdrawal from demonic derived deadly determination, failed sufferance of intent so willfully wavering irresolute to eye with resolve final infinities blown into trails of rusty corroded time .

emergeART ™ T.A.Kiehl©2016

APOLOGISTS AND GENOCIDE

My emails refuting apologist’s crazy justification of biblical genocide in Numbers 31;

Kyle,

Thank you for your time and effort. You seem to be an intelligent and reasonable person, and I suppose if we were discussing an issue without the weight of your faith and religiosity blinding you to another possible worldview, one of enlightenment and rationality, we’d agree on quite a few things. That is the only reason I continue this correspondence.  Unfortunately, like most apologists, you run the spectrum of attempting the use of logical argument when it supports an individual assumption regarding an issue of your faith, then ignoring, refuting (or subverting) the use of logic if it fails. Augustine was a pro at this LOL Pascal’s wager is a great example of the use of sloppy reasoning that seems to support faith while in actuality, destroys it (i.e. god can’t delineate between a real commitment and a insincere one? (“Be either hot or cold in your love for me, for if you are lukewarm I will vomit you out of my mouth”)

A brief aside, as a short biography, I was raised Catholic and in my teenage years one of my best friends was a priest (and no. it was the secular school teacher who molested me 😦 not him). Once he jokingly called me “his bellwether” as, during his sermons he would watch me and use my wandering attention as his guide to how long he could sermonize before losing the congregation 😉 My attitude was, that if god existed, then my only choice was to be a priest, as his existence would overwhelm the importance of earthy things. But if there was not enough evidence, then I should stop wasting time being silly and superstitious. To give you an indication of the seriousness of my commitment to understand this issue, I’ve attached a link to a paper I wrote;

“A Brief Paper on Religion and the Development of Man“  http://1drv.ms/1qYRVZB

Now, to the meat of the matter. MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENT had nothing to do with the

“culpability” of your god as to the “responsibility” for “evil” and so I do not see the relevance of your argument. My question was more down to earth and related to the concepts of justice, equity and mercy. My statements were directed at the reprehensible actions of your god in his desire to perform genocide and of the detailed and horrific instructions he gave his people. And even more notable, your refusal to even admit that the actions of your god showed a clear lack of justice, equity and mercy much less compassion. I’ll refer you to this little known study (little known because it was swept under the rug).

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/08/1963-survey-majority-of-israeli-jewish-youth-couldsupport-genocide-against-arabs/

while more related to modern Israeli/Palestine conflict, it does demonstrate the double standard I have been trying to expose your thinking to. If you didn’t check it out, it is an attempt to demonstrate the double standard of religious people like you. You seem to have a blind eye

to genocidal outrages when your god perpetrates them, while harshly condemning the “atrocities”  when accomplished by people for non-biblical reasons, (i.e. without your god’s benediction) Did you ever take the time to view the video I sent you? It exemplifies this same tendency in the pious to use ethical double standards. This is what I asked you to revue, the actual ACTS committed in the name of that god and his DETAILED instructions on the exact manner on how the genocide should dispassionately be performed, detailing the execution thousands of human beings, including innocent swaddling babes in wanton excess. Sounds disturbingly like a NAZI holocaust, doesn’t it? How the genocide that was so ruthlessly and methodically committed on the Canaanites any different? But then THEY were all “just following orders”, weren’t they?)

Even the genesis story you have recapitulated here demonstrates, to the secular mind, the inequity and unmerciful nature of the god of the old testament. One who creates beings in his image, condemned to live among (and like) the animals, but you give them self-awareness and a powerful mind with innate curiosity beyond the capability of the other animals. Then you require them to live simply with the animals, to forswear using their higher intellectual capacity, holding forever forbidden …KNOWLEDGE. With this knowledge, as far as the story goes, there is contained the comprehension of good and evil, but forget that qualification, because your god had a militant and violent “angel” throw them out of paradise. NOT for “evil” acts or intents, but merely FOR THE ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE of the world around them! Think about that, he PUNISHED his creations and all their descendants FOREVER (to an eternal damnation full of suffering) for utilizing the intelligence HE GAVE THEM and that put them above and apart from the animals. Let me ask you, was this biblical paradise worth staying as two ignorant savages that never used their brains, that never questioned the world about them, who never STROVE to better themselves, and lived “like animals”? That is usually a derogatory statement, “THOSE GUYS LIVE LIKE ANIMALS”, as god intended?  I have debated with theologians the quality of mercy from a god who proclaims, “Do not offer me sacrifices, I am a god of mercy”. Who then requires a HUMAN SACRIFICE to atone for actions that are arguable NOT evil but rather “natural” for the beings he created. This sacrifice must be made before he will “mercifully” forgive this “original sin” that any rational human being (or supernatural being) would be strained to define as a wrong action. Remember, your god did not become angry because his creations “sinned” or did evil things, but merely for fulfilling the nature of their being, the nature he installed into them, for acquiring “knowledge” and attempting to understand the nature of this “creation”.

Actually, I have developed my own little parable about this era. My theory is that Lucifer, the Light bringer, was appalled at unfair and inequitable nature of god’s treatment of and attitude towards his creations. I postulate that this honorable lieutenant, the right hand of the creator, objected on grounds of fairness that these poor creatures should not be misused in this way. So then it follows that it was Lucifer who stood up for righteousness, in conflict with a hard and merciless god.

Actually, the bible hints at this role of Lucifer, in that it claims he stood up for basic human nature and values (values later considered by the pious as “sinful”) against a cruel and merciless god. But you know who writes the histories? Yes, the victor LOL

Well, I hope I have entertained you, maybe brought a smile, but more, I hope I might have broken the cycle of religiosity that may contaminate your thought process, just as it did in those Israeli students from that lost study. I do encourage you to revisit that Mr. Deity video (I hope you actually took the time to watch it).                        http://youtu.be/3lmi4YJo1tU

I encourage you to take the time to check out his entire series, Brian is TERRIBLY funny. Some of his fan letters actually come from theologians and preachers who request the rights to play certain videos to their congregation. (I think the one about the sacrifice of Jesus was used at many Easter services)

Of course, if you didn’t even take the time to watch this one video, then I obviously have wasted a lot of time on a person who is so unquestioning in his world view that his closed mind rusted shut by blind unquestioning faith. I actually wonder if you’ve even read anything I’ve written with a conscientious, intellectually honest and open attitude, with an attempt to understand the viewpoint espoused. It seems you only saw your reply.

Recently, I’ve had christians repeatedly disrespect my worldview by telling me that eventually  “Jesus will light up my heart and I will accept him”. Until then I would never have considered the same attitude and tell a christian, “maybe one day the light of reason and rationality will light up your brain and you’ll abandon iron age superstition”

Take care and enjoy life, this is the only one you get and you should be grateful for that “miracle” (of science)

 

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:09:22 -0500

Subject: Re: I read your section on numbers 31

From: kyle@YYYYYYYpress.org

Hello Tim,

Thanks for writing back. I think a point by point rebuttal is unproductive at this junction, since it seems there is very little that you and I actually agree on. I will proceed to address only one point, and then we can move to the next when we are through with it. You asked me to provide a logical argument not a “philosophical straw man.” I would certainly contend that I have done that, while I understand you disagree, I’ll give it one more shot.

Premise 1: An all-powerful, super natural God could create a being that is inherently good, but still possesses the ability to create evil (sin), and not be culpable for the evil that the created being brought into the creation.

Premise 2: Adam and Eve, and subsequently every human being, were and has been created good, yet possessed the ability to create evil.

Premise 3: All evil that has come into the world has been brought into the world by beings that were created inherently good, but with the ability to create evil (sin).

Logical Conclusion: If all evil has been brought into the world by beings that were created inherently good with the ability to sin, then God is not culpable for the evil (sin) that has been brought into the world.

This is a logical argument. It is not philosophical, per se. Neither is it a straw man. It directly addresses at least one of your points. Therefore, please show me, in as little verbiage as possible, the problem with any of the premises or the conclusion. Thanks. Sincerely,  Kyle Butt

 

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Tim Kiehl wrote:

Unlike you, my points were not made in judgment of the people blamed for “choosing with free will” to displease your god (ie do ” evil”) and so be condemned by god to outrageous horrendous punishment NOR do I call as an original decision to perform evil  those acts of his minions driven to perform evil by enacting  their gods horrendously evil punishment, but rather pointedly circles around your supposedly merciful god’s actions such a as demanding innocent children to be killed or enslaved because their parents “displeased” him. THE original EVIL sits in the hand of your god!  These crimes then committed in his name by his creations now also made evil only in following his hateful demands  Your comments loaded all responsibility for terrible crimes of genocide and child murder and enslavement again on his creations and not on the originator of these heinous murderous orders. You made no comment on anything to do with any responsibility of performing with mercy and just action a reasonable and merciful punishment on your god’s part, again merely blaming his imperfect creations. These excess cruelties where your gods PLEASURE? I think most of the hateful, and may I even say evil acts ORIGINATED WITH THE DEITY, not decisions of the creations. You keep blind to these facts. No HUMAN would be called anything but a monster if he ordered his minions to perform such horrendous CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. What human parent would deem ANY acts of their children to be worthy of such demonic vengeance taken even to second generation of innocent grand children?

You keep focusing on the ORIGINAL “sinners” with the freedom to choose, who at every instance have the ability to choose rightly and remain perfect, but to choose to do evil and mar his own perfection? Where is the creator’s responsibility? Even if THEY are guilty of evil is you god’s response commensurate with his supposed values of justice and mercy? Then consider the people he orders to commit the genocide.  Has he NOW sullied them with the evil of their actions? Are THEY responsible for these acts and held accountable, or is the ultimate responsibility for these horrendously evil acts rest on your god?

In your repeatedly circular arguments you not only refuse to address the real questions I make on a point by point basis and instead repeatedly and unsuccessfully put forth the “STRAW MAN ARGUMENT” that your god has no responsibility for his actions or for the outcome of decisions he makes while each and every evil is the result of man’s frailty only, the straw man he created.

Has your blind faith blinded you from your own humanity? Is your god blinded to those same humanitarian values he “sometimes” preaches (when he’s not supporting genocide, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, stonings, torture, pillory etc. IN HIS OWN BIBLE?)

PROVE YOU READ AND COMPREHEND MY STATEMENTS WITH A SUITABLY LOGICAL POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL,  Not a meaningless philosophical apologetic Straw Man argument.

 

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:33:18 -0500

Subject: Re: I read your section on numbers 31

From: kyle@YYYYYYYpress.org

Hello Tim,

Thanks for writing. I can see that this conversation is apparently not going to get us anywhere. In your response to me you wrote: Does your god not have to accept responsibility for his actions in creating such faulty and frail creatures?

I responded by saying:

Now, let’s ask this question. Is it possible for a being to be created perfect, and you did not answer the question. I tried to specifically deal with exactly what you said (at least part of it, taking it a little at a time for the sake of a productive discussion). I’m not sure what you are using the term “logic” to mean, but the question that I posed is a very logical one and has an actually, logically correct answer to it.  Sincerely, Kyle Butt

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Tim Kiehl wrote:

Kyle, you bandy about in the same old silly philosophical concepts such as perfection and evil and choice while ignoring the down to earth practical points I tried to make clear to you. Try actually reading what I wrote and attempt to understand the logic of my statements before you fog your mind with preconceived notions, then to blindly and repetitively spout out the same old dreary YYYYYYY without taking the mental effort to understand in earnest the logic and point of thought I so eloquently made. You will never “see” real logic as long as you are blinded by preconceived notions that crowd out actual new thoughts. Did you even READ my statement? Your reply is so innocent of thought as to indicate that you did not. You entirely miss the point and speak as if a child responded.

 

Tue, 2 Sep 2014 20:35:42 -0500

Subject: Re: I read your section on numbers 31

From: kyle@YYYYYYYpress.org

Hey Tim,

Good to hear back from you. As you may can imagine, I still did not see any examples of our convoluted logic and nonsense. But I think I see where we may can make some progress. You stated:

Does your god not have to accept responsibility for his actions in creating such faulty and frail creatures?

Now, let’s ask this question. Is it possible for a being to be created perfect, with the freedom to choose, and at every instance have the ability to choose rightly and remain perfect, but to choose to do evil and mar his own perfection?  Kyle Butt

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tim Kiehl wrote:

Dear Kyle,

I appreciate your response but stand by my statements. Your logic is circular and convoluted, making no real sense, literally nonsense.

You claim that these Canaanites were of such an evil nature (even though they were made in the image of your god?) that they were such an abomination in the eyes of their creator that they had to be exterminated down to the last child, who supposedly were so tarnished by the exposure to this evil that they were beyond redemption. Do you actually believe in your heart that a child can be so evil or be so certain of it’s POTENTIAL of evil that he is beyond redemption in the eyes of your god? Everyone has a potential for evil, just as they do for goodness. In most Abrahamic faiths children are not even considered to be capable of adult decisions regarding faith (i.e. Catholic Confirmation, Jewish Bar Mitzvah) much less the ability to distinguish between good and evil.  Isn’t forgiveness and redemption the main thrust of your religion and the basis of your faith? Yet you worship a god that that is repeatedly shown to have so little capacity for mercy and compassion that he demands the horrible massacre of these innocent children. Children he created in his image and given free will but not deserving a chance to grow up and mature and possibly become a good, possibly even saintly, person?

In modern times we have been exposed to such frighteningly evil people such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. Any REASONABLE PERSON would claim that each and every one of these creatures were examples of the epitome of evil. Did god do ANYTHING about this evil? Did he reach down and flick off Hitler’s head? Did he make a plague infest the Kremlin? Were these Canaanites, even their immature children, as evil as these modern monsters? Every one of them, including the children? Yet he demanded their extermination, while allowing these other evils to persist and flourish.

You speak of your god’s actions as if it equates to the “tough love” of a devoted parent. I pose to you that if a modern “human” parent used such harsh, even terrible, discipline on a child to “teach” moral behavior that, most assuredly, ANY child protection agency would promptly and permanently remove the children from that custody for their own protection. This is a distorted view of love, morality and responsibility. Does your god not have to accept responsibility for his actions in creating such faulty and frail creatures? Is it merciful or compassionate, even JUST, to put the onus on them for these frailties and faults when he was the one that originated them/ If he is omnipowerful why didn’t he do a better job of creation?  Many christians send their small children to camps where they are bombarded with fearsome images of a terrible damnation and indoctrinated to a life of fear. If faith in your god is so rewarding and so fulfilling to you as an adult, why do you feel it necessary to terrify children at a young age attempting to frighten them into the need for worship. Do you have so little faith that you are afraid of allowing them to mature and make an adult consenting decision, as you did, regarding their faith?

Why fear a “god of mercy”? Maybe because he’s not that merciful? That, in fact, he was a god (parent?) that was so unwilling to forgive his own imperfect creations (children?) for decisions they made with the brains he provided them and the benefit (or burden?) of free will? A god that was so lacking in mercy, so unforgiving, so judgmental, that the only way he would find it in his heart and being to allow redemption and salvation was to require, no demand, a HUMAN SACRIFICE? One that you ritually cannibalize in your weekly worship, drinking of his blood and eating of his flesh? Yet, that is the god described in your bronze age testament!

Do yourself a favor and watch this video. Maybe it will stimulate you to review your conclusions regarding the actions you find the need to so heartily apologize for. Brian Dalton makes my point with much more eloquence and a touch of humor,

http://youtu.be/3lmi4YJo1tU?list=UUOrE5EE4JH3CGwDQTsA2t_A

 

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:38:44 -0500

Subject: Re: I read your section on numbers 31

From: kyle@YYYYYYYpress.org

Hello Tim,

Thanks for writing. We appreciate all feedback, although you can imagine we would respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Can you provide me with a specific example of the “convoluted logic” that you believe you see in the article? Thanks.  Kyle Butt

 

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Tim wrote:

Are you people insane? Your convoluted logic reminded me of a serial killer explaining the righteousness of his actions. REALLY???

T.A.Kiehl©2016

 

 

They shoot horses don’t they?

by Tim Kiehl

In contrary to the lesser compassion this culture seldom displays toward our own fellow human beings who are exposed to and suffering the unendurable, decent men would it find it abhorrent and unacceptable to allow an animal to suffer thus; ‘They shoot horses don’t they?’

As we navigate our journey along the path which determines the timeline of our lives and which ultimately leads us to our individual doom, the mind as well as the body may and will often misstep, tripping us into an inevitable fall. Either by our own inattention or by external stimulus, an innocent interaction, and an uncaring and careless nudge or as the result of malicious and malign intent to harm are we vulnerable. Whatever causation, however violent or vague, purposeful or probabilistic, in all populations there exist in life a pitiful and pitiable few which are already precariously unbalanced and unstable, overburdened and overwhelmed by the weighty cargo of existing mental illness. In this select subset of vulnerability, that same carelessly applied impetus unerringly flings victims from that safely blazed path. On all our journeys we tread along that same trail, whether level and easy, or strewn with obstacles, amongst the trials and tribulations of life, a trail lovingly and painstaking forged by those prehistoric pathfinders. The immensity of existence in time humankind has collectively traversed has resulted in the evolution of the characteristics of a modern sapiens’ brain, mind and psyche, as a functional part and piece, of the important survival tools utilized by this one member species in the natural order of all life. Our ancestor’s trailblazing fortitude was seminally instrumental in forging the internal paths that lead to the stability and sanity of all of us today.

This natural constitution of mind and mental process derived out of this experience of countless preceding generations of such like minds as ours, evolved with a burgeoning ability that culminated in a brilliantly capable tool almost seemingly designed in perfection to perceive, recognize and avoid the dangers inherent in weaving a precarious path through an uncaring existence in a natural and thus uncaring world. However, the perception of perfection in design is an illusion of evolution which masks underpinnings of errors, incompatibilities and incapacities that may not have been exposed by pervious environments and thus unaffected by natural selection. These are found in the culmination of myriad and novel stressors only prevalent in modern civilization. Constant over-stimulations of an ancient fight of flight response unknown; faced not and thus feared not in that long past and pastoral savannah environment so familiar to our hunter-gatherer forerunners. These newly neoteric negativities have become revealed at our later time as seriously detrimental or contraindicated in what would otherwise to be thought as generating desirous characteristic responses from a brain, which in this virginal environment is seemingly so inadequately evolved, that is the underpinnings of a mind too often naively attributed to be intelligently designed. A machine, if you will, conceived and designed with true intelligent intent and foresight and with regard for complexity of function, including an understanding acknowledgement of dangers and inherent unintended consequences borne from ignorance or negligence on the part of said ultimate engineer that might limit or impair full functionality. Across the vagaries of various venues and experience with exposure to a multitudinous array of the inevitably innumerable stressors inherent to existence it might be said that a ‘monkey wrench” or SABOT, with intent or accidental and free of maliciousness, has been a hidden, hideous hindrance inherent in our indispensable primitive core. One that will ultimately emerge as if demon spawned to devastate and destroy, undetected, unheeded and thus unrepairable. An invisible malevolent despoiler, silently, uncontested,  as if by sabotage, precipitates activities that destructively grate and grind the gears of mindfulness and mentality into dreadful deadly dysfunction that ultimately and all too soon is accompanied by a caterwaul screech, a screaming halt resulting in a monumental “mechanicomental” failure. The machine of mind left nonfunctional, often irreparably so.

With this insight, we may observe with sense and sensibility; circumstance. In such, some events falls are gentle and unremarkable in outcome. We pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and start all over again. But to the vulnerable, those overburdened with unbalanced masses far from the center of metal instability, it brings about a more dangerous result, if you will, a fearful fall fret full of oft fearsome fate. Just as the denouement in an innocent interaction with the harsh reality of a floor may develop into a hospitalization by breaking the osteoporosis riddled weakened hipbones of a geriatric, others are otherwise vulnerable to damage in a multitudinous array of ill consequences, both externally and internally generated. Imagine if you dare that terrified trembling, timid rabbit of self, stumbling, careening irrevocably and uncontrollably down, down, yet inexorably further down an unseen and unexpected pit. Deep, deeper into a terror filled frighteningly malevolent nightmare of continuous bone snapping acceleration, permeated with the sweat stench agony of anxiety. Again deep, deeper and deepest, fated to a frantic fall, faster and faster, down into the uncharted depths of a harrowingly dark, dismal tunnel, blind and afraid, unwilling, toward horrendous unknowns. Such a bottomless oubliette, heretofore unperceived and unknown, however with an eerie sense of certainty known, has been revealed by fate as your doom, almost by predestination. A hellish pit brimmed with boiling pitch burns your very soul with an endlessness of despairing dejection and insalubrious suffering.

Such intensity of discomfort that inspires in us a desperate unwillingness, if not outright inability, to comprehend such an inequitable reprehensible condemnation. The mere hint of endurance or surcease, the lost wisp of a last forlorn hope, is the relative luxury that can be purchased, bought and paid for in full by the value of understanding and the ability to adjust and adapt, Previously stashed away, your meager coping skills, as tiny savings in your brain bank for ‘that rainy day’.  A bank normally deposited with a host of capabilities learned, earned, and nurtured saved over a normal lifetime. Premier of which are said coping skills. To cope, i.e. to deal effectively with something difficult. Synonyms: manage, survive, subsist, look after oneself, fend for oneself, carry on, get by/through, bear up, hold one’s own, keep one’s end up, keep one’s head above water; informal; make it, hack it. From Middle English, cope ‘to meet in battle, come to blows’: from Old French colp, cop ‘a blow,’ via Latin from Greek kolaphos ‘blow with the fist.’ A word, an amulet for protection, derived from violence. Violent harm to the body morphs, like the words themselves, into violence harmful to the mind, the psyche, the very soul. To cope.

So ransacked and rubbed by cruel fate and now bankrupt of the coin and coinage, that precious gold freshly mint from the foundry that is our coping skills, your fearsomely looted forlorn vault is irrevocably emptied of savings, riches most likely unearned,  as bereft from normal gains as one may be, of normal human exposures to experience, nature and nurture. So Purloined of pearls of wisdom and by this loss, of any compensating value the inhabiting personality, psyche and soul, in conscience and consciously, ultimately determines it impossible to conceive of allowing an extension of the this so eloquently exquisite pain. A darnation brought about by a failed coexistence with an unwieldy reality, possibly lasting for years, contained in which each second counts as an internal eternity of torment. And this determination can only be furled in, gathered, by a stubborn adherence to life, no matter how substandard the quality, as with any thoughts of an alternative existence comes oh so silently, whisperings of nearly mute voice regarding a similarly muted doom. Ever more fleetingly elusive is the failed fairyland dream of a life worth living, once nurtured by false memories of hope from an unreal existence prior to this terrible fate accompli. Facing now, the finality of a fated doom in the deepness of your unlighted soul, alone, unseen and unheard. Forever.

This headfirst downward plunge into the depths of human despair is being sped rapidly faster into a heavy deadly spiral by the mass and gravity of triggering circumstance. A formidable force that fatally attracts when in combination with the additional preexistent mysteriously weighty dark matter, the dark energies of mental illness itself. That Dark Energy, Dark massive troughs of undetectable invisible matter, the weights of insanity, its eternal unrelenting force made only visibly observable by the detection of its negatively biased contribution in this deadly, inexorable doom it universally condemns on the vulnerable with such brutality by the very detrimental direction of its downwardly spiraling whirlwind. A doom made inherent by its demon determinations and the unrelenting power of the immensity of its stupendous gravitas to sweep the victims restrained by its domination of nature to the deepest doom of oblivion, for many the last and least of ever diminishing and disappearing options of existence.

It is not unusual, on the contrary, rather common, to find a tendency of victims suffering from severe mental instability and illness to seem to others as well as themselves to be weak and obsessively self-absorbed. It is the tragic result of the constant and overwhelming desire, nay, need, to comprehend the outside world as they have come to believe that others, “outsiders” unhindered nor handicapped are not blind to. Desperate unfortunates caged, imprisoned unwillingly, sentenced by fate unkind to their condition, little opportunity to see a concrete reality, a tried and true externality, with an acute experienced vision, learned in worldliness. Their condemnation is a view hindered by woefully poor, cataract ridden, and myopic lenses, cracked, distorted and filmed with the dripping condensations accumulating out of a miasma of mental fog, binders at their temples forbidding any peripheral view. Limited to this vastly inferior feedback, unaware of the hazards precedent in their fateful march, doomed to wave hysterical arms about to perceive  threat they proceed forward though the darkness and neglect. They bravely, acceptingly, knowing as the must know, that inevitably there is no other choice attempt, in a blind stumble to navigate misperceived, poorly resolved, unnoticed obstacles strewn as if stones and rubble before and beneath their very feet, an already hesitant and unsteady gait slowed almost to immobility.

Even more sadly, to be unwillingly and with a dreadful realization and full  comprehension of circumstance in most part, condemned to a lifelong sentence of forced isolation and ignorance, unable to achieve resolution of simple detail much less an all-encompassing and necessary basic understanding the world around them. Even less attainable is the height from which one may attain a proper and complete compendious view of reality which allows the most base among the general population an even shake to perform to the extent of their naturally gifted capacity. Handicapped by sorely limited view with restrictive blinding blinkers adding even more (or less in this circumstance) to their already doomed and futile attempt to actually perceive reality unrestricted and proved the information needed to navigate unhindered through the circumnabulous  meanderings as they the thread of their life progresses inextricably forward until it ultimately departs the stage of life. The snaking timeline snipped from the reality of space-time.

The recurrent tragedy occurs when, in the throes and struggles resultant from the stressfulness of attempting to comprehend an externality relative reality and yet unreal as experienced world outside only reinforces a symptom of their illness, the self-absorption resulting from internalization of reality. Their reality that is in actually a false representation and unreal world constructed, as by a child with toy tools as a playhouse mockery, designed out of their impressions of a real world they are forbidden by circumstance of their inability to rationally comprehend. Not a novel skill, but a skill most possess, those that can by most standards of measure be found within the breadth and depth and height of accepted dimension deemed safely within the confines of sanity. Hero, villain or fool the parts these outsiders, the constituents of  relative sanity, or at least a type of sanity most prevalent in the wide variability of conditions of human psychiatric deviations as measured from their norm exist content. This world of normality, sanity, that, through no effort of their own, most thrive happily, well within the blessed blissful bulk of humanity safely ensconced, generally located in the normative curve representing the variety and variability of the range of emotional experience. Sufferers of less disability and dysfunction may well perform the play of life as if a stage troupe of seasoned thespians, lines memories, scenes blocked comfortable in the complacency of their knowledge that they fit into and have a valued status as a contributing part of a whole. Identified as a member of the cast, a team of like minds cooperating in unity and concert towards a final and understood goal upon the brief stage of life the actors might play while remaining blissfully unaware.

Exterior to the raised dais, backstage among the dusty ignored store of lost props gathered by time, remain the unskilled at mouthing platitudes and accepting a role they will never comprehend, a role they will never fit, uncast and cast away by the cruel directorial dictatorial rule of life. The onstage gambling interactions, competent and failed, performances, revealed roles real as if rolled from clay are morphed in incomprehensible inanities of insanity to those few constrained in worldly view infected by the parasites of mind and mentality, psyche and soul, in a misguided misinformation of distortion. Confused into consternation and stressed into paranoid immobility, these victims are frozen in a heel of timeless time, condemned to contend with what ultimately results in an unwieldy tangle in the gently spun space-time thread of existence, spaghetti-like strand, the fragile frangible pasta of life.

Outsiders, blissfully meandering exterior of those brittle binding bonds of mental illness, those chains which by their very immensity of their heaviness and weight warp and make mean existence have little comprehension much less compassion and sympathy for the undeniable devastate throng  among us that they either cannot or will not perceive. The negative truth speak that allows most to skirt issues of disability by a comfortable lead, just as easily as they navigate the path ahead with the clarity of clear and present vision allowing them to follow the thread of their timeline with relative ease. Avoidance of the discomfit facts about disabilities might generate but that humanizes these unfortunates, even, the universities that are meant to educate and expand the minds of youngling Homo sapiens join this conspiracy of silence regarding victims of mental illness by ingoing or glossing over concepts related to disability. Psychology classes are among the most popular courses on college campuses today, but new research shows that many of them lack important information about the largest single minority group in the U.S. — people with disabilities. Merely by collectively  shutting our eyes and ears and not speaking out just as that proverbial trio of apes can they bolster their blissful lack of awareness of the gnat-like flight of plight quietly buzzing just past the ears, yet infinitely far away in a drought from pity.

Is human nature so base, so meanly evolved from harsh reality of cruel natural order in an uncaring universe that we cannot rise above it? Can we of compassionate intellect find the will to overcome natural instinct, that aversion to disability and understand these underdogs and so removing institutionalized stigma, finally to humanize and enfold them into our head? Only in the vanity of their sanity and immunity to fellowship can we turn a blind eye to this suffering. In moral failure we fall from path of the good Samaritans onto a sinister trail leading to a realm of harsh ignorance, a land harm and hate filled. Even increasing our pace in gleeful anticipation. Travelling so distant from morality to embrace a judgment of condemnation, damning the weak as useless.

Do we indeed shoot horses out of compassion for suffering, or rather as a calculated cull of the herd to remove a useless animal? Better a victim of a swift eugenics cleansing that of the gentle uplift into the light of day by a generous helping hand.                              22 Feb, 2016

Fin

emergeART ^™                                                                                             ~                                                                                              T.A.Kiehl©2016

A Brief Paper on Religion and the Development of Man

Tim Kiehl (10/27/70)

The Beginnings

All men have a basic insecurity about life; everyone is mortal. But a man also has other feelings that are deep within, inspired by his struggle to live in which he must be successful – his pride and aggression. If ancient men had lived long enough to start reasoning about his existence, his battle for life would have instilled a pride of being. This pride linked with fear has built what we call religion. When a man died, it was finis, the end, his accomplishments worth nothing. He was gone forever except in the memory of a few friends. This is frightening when you really think of it. To have no more consciousness, to miss love, hate, and happiness; you become null …void.  Fear of this nothingness became stronger, bolstering the existent vanity, or amour-propre. Men wanted to be recognized by their fellows, to be known as a part of history; not as an insignificant scribe, or farmer, or hunter who, after a short and uneventful life filled with suffering, died. Once that life was over, he was gone and forgotten, again, a nothing. His pride would not suffer this. It could not end like this, it could not! The evolution of religion was not a fast process, and as these prides and fears accumulated, and linked with awe and misinterpretation of natural phenomena, a god was born. Many different people and cultures went into the production, which took many, m any ages, a slow evolution. Groups of men found answers to their problems through various prophets and disciples. Now they could be happy.  A burden of fear was lifted and replaced by blind faith and religion. An afterlife and other favors were convenient, and seemed inviting, but who received something for nothing?  What self-respecting god would bestow upon mortals eternal salvation and prosperity on earth without exacting price? So Man gave sacrifice. Throwing a sacrifice into a fire, or feeding it to the sacred alligator, or whatever, using only the best fruits or lambs, gained men favors.  Angry gods were not good allies! Not only would your crops wilt and house be struck by lightning, you may be condemned for eternity. Gods could be villainous. With the formation of separate ancient creeds, there would arise religious laws. The prophets (if there were individuals), made certain rules everyone would be required to follow to please the god (or gods) and earn salvation. To receive a god’s pleasure one had to live his life a certain way.  Modern religion was born!

 

Hope for the Hopeless

Religion gained its foothold on humanity through the poor and desperate. When the Pharaohs reigned in Egypt, or during any time when only a select few lived well, the standard of living was of course, rock bottom, plague and starvation were frequent. Individuals had very little, and suffered much, without a luxuriance of hope. In believing in a deity they had some reason for going on, sooner or later if they lead the right kind of life and sacrificed generously, they would be lifted from their earthly suffering and rewarded.  Throughout the Middle Ages religion intensified its grip on men. In feudalism the serfs were not very prosperous and suffered greatly. Life under the domineering rule of a lord who taxed everything one owned, which was not much, could be very exacting on a man’s spirit. In this time religion flourished. With the advent of better communications religion was able to spread and bind the frightened populous so tightly to its doctrine that it was able to form an elite hierarchy and govern people’s lives. It happened in Asia hundreds if not thousands of years earlier than in Europe, but it follows the same trend.

 

Technological and Philosophical Cultures

Religion among the intelligent and philosophers of these eras, the Hellenistic Age, Renaissance, and modern society, is played down. Logic and Reason, the scientific approach to life was prevalent at these times. Many Greeks of the Hellenistic Age could not take their gods seriously, just as modern men do not. Their gods were created centuries before when the Greeks were more barbaric, the time of the Achaeans, but they were still commonly used. When men began to reason intelligently and objectively gods became more remote and unreal. Socrates could not believe in the Greek gods, but did not discredit the attempts at explanation of divine beings, he had an open mind. Before his death he stated that he had no fear, for if there was no god, upon death he would start on an eternal and peaceful, dreamless sleep, or he would live on and be able to meet and digress with the most intelligent of humans who lived before and after him. Because he had no fears, he needed no gods. In today’s technology, emphasis is placed on materialism and Man as an ideal. Each individual can find a cause to fight for and freedom of expression stills his wounded pride.  Fear is still prevalent, but less is unknown. Reason and science began to rule and have started to replace religion and god.

 

Stepping Stone in Development

The phases where religion becomes all important usually precedent to periods of advancement, cultural and scientific, that are beneficial to mankind, such as the Dark Ages in the years before the Renaissance. The Renaissance rechanneled much of mankind’s energies, usually spent in agriculture and wars, into architectural and artistic creativity. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries men were inspired by their religious feelings to create beauty and works of homage, such as great Cathedrals and religious art. In the years before the Renaissance, religion was a stimulus to artists, and the demands made by the building of temples and churches made it important to raise the technological and cultural levels. This period was the pregnancy in the rebirth of reasoning in Europe; the sperm, religion and the ova, Mankind. The spur of religion made people start thinking of better ways to praise their god.  Then they began to experiment and develop new technology, in god’s name, they found this knowledge itself “good” and went on into other fields. Monks and other religions men became research scientists; opening doors every man did not have available because they did not have the time or education. Gregor Mendel and Francis Bacon were both Monks, to name just a few.

This spirit lead up to the renaissance but when men really began to reason and philosophize in the humanistic manner with this new-found knowledge, religion became deemphasized as dissatisfaction showed up. Even before the true Renaissance, reformers tried to change religion, showing its basic flaw.  Luther and Calvin were two who tried to “renovate old religion to newer” philosophies based on individualism. I think the trend, of de-emphasis is occurring again at the present, and this time religion will not return, finally dying out. The more Man researches his own existence and the closer he comes to exposing his primitive fears, the less religion will mean. There will always be religious people for thousands of years, but they will seem more fanatical as the millennia pass. They will become the exception, not the rule.

As long as our technological level rises and with it our standard of living, religion will fade,. Only if present detrimental conditions continue and plunge mankind into another age of ignorance and poverty, and maybe even close to extinction, will religion survive. I do not state that Man of the future will not believe in any motivating force or absolute being (or beings) but I doubt it. However if he does, it will not be from ignorance and fear but rather with awe as well as pride of his growing understanding. This new vision will encourage Man to strive ever closer and closer to his ideal and maybe even commune with this ultimate. Maybe this is the destiny of Man.

 

Prometheus Unbound

Religion may he just only stage in the natural development oat humanity or any intelligent reasoning, species all over the universe, just as children go through different psychological phases to adulthood. It may come about “naturally” because of his mental makeup, or be part of the force feeding of humanity by some higher but non-supernatural being, or advanced civilized culture. Could there be a God, only in a different sense than our present concept, which may be warped with an ignorant earthling’s biased interpretation? I hope so fervently, because then maybe it is Man’s destiny to go on and, in the end, raise its collective eyes to knowledge of all physical and mental laws with their help. But if we are alone, maybe we will, on our own and as a species, become “one” with whatever the universe is made of, to be the Brahma Atman of Buddhism and Hinduism, or the all energy intellect of science fiction tales. Maybe Mankind will become a collection of individual Zarathustras and raise itself up to its highest goals? If religion has helped the human race mature, then it is well, and I believe that this was its function. It is possibly a crutch through which Man was enabled to struggle through difficult periods of adolescence, or better yet, a rung in the ladder toward a later glorious end full of knowledge of the universe. If so then this would have been merely one of the tools that allowed us to progress to the point that we could finally, whether naturally or forced, open to adulthood the mind of a frightened and ignorant child, the human race.

 

Written by Tim Kiehl for an 11^th grade Humanities assignment on the date of his 17^th birthday and turned in two days later on October 29, 1970 . The teacher who wrote this note requested that it be read to the entire class.  A bible belt Baptist in Arkansas, the teacher also privately confided that the paper had such an affect as to cause reflection about the relevance of his own faith before the next visit to church the following Sunday. Here is his original notation.