Manufacturing Change was the most moving for me. The Affordable Health Care Law or the Common Good would make good ads. Approach them with it. I will leave a review.
Computers/machines will become only more sophisticated and affordable. People will need to learn to work with them. You can't get a job digging ditches if you can't work the necessary machines. This is why I'm becoming a Computer Scientist.
I also donated to Cain....But if we couldn't get Cain, I'm hoping for either Ben Carson or Allan West. BOTH would be ever better: one as president, the other as Vice=President. Huzza!!
Allen West could easily have been governor down here in Florida and missed a golden opportunity to primary a RINO in Rick Scott. I guess he was holding out for higher office?
Rand Paul as Secretary of State would be very interesting. It would be like telling the world that we are going to deal with our own problems first. If you want to interact with us, you will come here on our terms.
certainly Cain should have been elected president, so much for wishful thinking. as for those who when on strike they are completely oblivious to the fact that all of the fast food restaurants are lowering their prices because so many who used them for meals aren't so the fast food joint lowers prices to get them back.
I was really surprised when Cain dropped out. I didn't think they had any real dirt on him, but if it caused friction between him and his wife, I totally get it.
David Axelrod was just as influential in using rumor and innuendo against Herman Cain as he was during senator Obama's election for the U.H. Senate against republican Jack Ryan, The Obama campaign managed to breach the sealed divorce records of Jack Ryan and then with cooperation of the liberal Chicago media made all the wife's accusations against Jack Ryan public. I don't know whether Jack Ryan was in fact guilty of any or all of the accusations against him, but few divorces tend to reveal the truth and nothing but the truth. The bottom line is that the during all of Obama's campaigns lies and rumors were used against all opponents in order to have a positive outcome for Obama during those elections.
I knew about Axelrod and Cain, but didn't know about Jack Ryan. I thought Jack Ryan was only a character in Tom Clancy novels. Thanks for the education.
If you want to find out more about the Ryan-Obama race at that point, just google Jack Ryan, Illinois and you can read numerous versions of what took place at the time, including the corrupt judge that released the sealed files. Fred
I did know that Obama did that to an opponent in his senatorial campaign. I didn't know that it was Jack Ryan. I remember the crook George Ryan. He was governor while I was there. Maybe I shouldn't use the descriptor "crook" before Illinois politicians; it doesn't help narrow things sufficiently.
In some respects, he was not paranoid. The Republican party planned on sabotaging Perot's daughters' wedding, and Perot found out about it. It was never clear whether they were going to go through with the sabotage, but his crumbling under the personal pressure was enough to end his chances.
Yes, there were such rumors about Perot's daughters wedding, but there was no proof of such plans by anyone. It has been widely accepted that Perot's paranoia was the only basis for any such claims.
While I and many others certainly accept Perot's business acumen, not to mention his personal bravery and loyalty to his employees as evidenced by his persona travel and involvement in the rescue of some of his employees in Iran around the hostage crisis days, we must also remember that he made much of his money by tapping into the government Social Security contract business. I'm not saying that he didn't deliver services, only that he did not hesitate to use influence to retain those contracts.
I will admit though that Perot as president would have been an interesting but scary time.
Perot spoke publicly about a rumor that one of the tabloids was supposedly going to run in a story, accusing his daughter of having lesbian relations with Madonna. That was the turning point, I think, of when politicians became fodder for all forms of liable media abuse. Perot couldn’t see that this wasn’t a one-time hit piece, but the beginning of culture norm. He wasn’t paranoid, he was blind-sighted. The days of treating people running for office with a certain level of respect were over. That’s just the way I remember it. After the election, SNL did a skit where an actor playing Clinton is trying to flirt with the real Madonna but she winks at the make-beleive Chelsea.
I wonder if those so-called elite boys over at the Fed. where I do a lot of business have even contemplated this? Probably as long it does not affect themselves.
This may seem way out to some, but a certain group of scientists, seeking not merely the meaning of life, but the meaning of the universe have come to an interesting conclusion. The coincidences needed to create life are so great that it makes it virtually impossible for it to happen. The very creation of carbon itself are odds-against to a ridiculous degree. They go on to cite dozens of other unlikely occurrences . So this is their conclusion. The life of the universe is finite. Rather than allow intelligent life to disappear, a new universe has to be devised that will eventually put the components of intelligent life into play. That intelligent life will eventually create computers. Eventually the computers will overtake the life forms. The machines will be able to replicate and repair and exist long after the life forms disappear, so they will become the entities that start the new big bang. This is actually being posited by respected scientists . Really.
I wonder how much these scientist would benfit from attending a church service and perhaps going so far as reading the Bible just so that they could consider some other alternatives to those long odds of accidental circumstances. Perhaps the concept of intelligent design is a possibility after all. Who knows perhaps the scientists concept of an open mind might reach that far. Do these people really have so little faith in human beings being able to adapt and that they were designed with adaption in mind?
You gotta be kidding, right? Actually, I know that you're not. The idea that scientists who put forth the theories as illustrated above going to a church in order to compliment their theories does seem ludicrous. Observing a universe composed of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars, so vast that light traveling at 186,000 miles per second takes years to reach us being created by a god looking like one of us wearing flowing white robes and a flowing white beard is beyond the pale. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not a militant atheist. If religion gives you comfort and a moral compass, so long as it doesn't impede my forward progress, is OK with me. But to think that a trip to a local church will guide scientists in their pursuit of the truth is not something I, or most likely they, could get on board with. I am not denying, however, that there is a possible overall intelligence in the universe. I don't know, and I don't think that anyone else does either. If there is, It seems strange that it would be concerned with the well-being of each individual of the 7 billion people on earth, or perhaps in a few other places.
Why wouldn't an all expansive, all knowing, eternal God be concerned with the well-being of each of 7 billion individuals? What's your proof? Or at least what's your theory as to why? You seem to make absolute statements about something that you state is fictitious and I'm curious your rationale.
You are asking me to prove a negative. I can't do that and neither can anyone else. It's like I tell you that there are Coca-Cola factories on Venus, you say there aren't and I say prove it. This is in the realm of what you (and I) choose to believe. To me, the king of a universe which I described as being almost unimaginably vast, being concerned with each and every of earth's inhabitants seems beyond the pale, not to mention all of the possible sentient creatures that may exists elsewhere in the universe. I suspect, however, that where it really counts, you and I are in agreement when it comes to our dealings with our fellow man and the way in which that should be implemented. At least I hope so.
I have no theory on that. With all due respect, it's like asking me why we love Mickey Mouse, a mouse bigger than the biggest rat. To me, they're both fictional.
Ah, but you made a statement of an hypothesis as to why a supreme being that created some 7 billion humans wouldn't want to care about each and every one of them. Certainly you have some theory. If you believe it is all fiction, why the comment? Certainly if something doesn't exist, I don't then go about theorizing about what could or couldn't be regarding that thing that doesn't exist. You made a statement for some reason, I'm merely curious as to what it was.
You are still left with the same questions: Where did existence come from? where was the kernel that made the universe? Where did the first link in the chain of life stem from?
If a being made the computers and the computers made our universe who made the being?
Basically all this theory did was reset the questions to times even more remote than what was already being argued.
5,000 years ago it was the Church of Ra; 4,000 years ago it was the Church of Jahovah; 3,000 years ago it was the Church of Zeus; 2,000 years ago it was the Church of Jupiter; will several no less important Churches in Asia throughout that period, as well as today; 1,000 +/- years ago it was the Church of Jesus; 700 years ago it was the Church of Allah; pick a Church today from the menu and tomorrow from God X. So, which church do you suggest as the infallible explanation of Life?
Your assumption is that one of those is infallible and the rest are false (or, my guess is, you think that all are false). But, what if all are "right"? Just different slices of "right."
Maybe. I don't profess to know the "truth." But I do profess to being able to fairly well recognize when someone's approach or method has an unrealistic chance of finding the truth. Such methods are often tied to a dogma, which precludes any analysis based on information available. Faith and dogma expect, demand, that the "truth" be accepted because "it is." I find it curious that people of scientific persuation, educated in scientific fields, require analysis and proof in all aspects of life except in what life is in the first place. Life, as we know it, may very well have been created by an intelligent being (or beings); I have nothing against that concept; I do have something against believing it simply because it was said and written down (eventually) by semi-prehistoric people. Should we just as well believe in their other beliefs?
Not at all. The fact that you profess that you don't know "the truth," puts you on a much higher plain than those who insist that they know "the truth" and that does not allow for a deity.
If you accept that there can be a deity that created humankind with free will to choose how to live their lives, but that those choices have consequences, then you can find your own "truth." While a Catholic myself, it is my conclusion that the differences among all religions is one of human failing. Basically in being so arrogant as to try to understand God and his plan and trying to craft rules based on that human interpretation.
I believe that JC was a real person and a human manifestation of God. His teachings are simple and basically boil down to "love one another as you would love yourself," or perhaps a less squishy form being "do unto others as you would have done unto you." While that doesn't present the "why" argument that Objectivists seem to need to identify, it leads to the exact same set of principals and morality, thus I cannot see why so many of them are so anti-religious.
As for science - my conclusion is that God gave us a brain in order to use it. He also created the laws of nature, so discerning them is part of the glorification of God.
As I said, perhaps all religions are some slice through "truth." Kind of like having some convoluted 3D item. Each one slices through on a plane, exposing some different cross section of the same entity. None are the whole "truth" but all are some part of the "truth." Add to that a human "lens" that distorts the "truth" to varying degrees.
You must know that the Catholic Church would consider you a heretic! I, however, appreciate your view. As to all or most religions having much in common is traceable to at least Ra. Jesus, or, more precisely, the vision of Jesus as portrayed by Christianity, vs. the historical Jesus, has a great many features that have been borrowed from the Ancient Egyptians. Even the concepts of the Saints has been paralleled with Ancient Egypt. And, of course, from the Hebrew Jehovah. As for Islam, since the creation of that religion happened in relatively recent times, we know the details of it being imagined, how and why. I consider myself and Objectivist and perhaps I can answer why Objectivists are not friends with religions. More precisely, not friends with churches - that is the institutions of religions. A great example of that was actually expressed by a rabbi (can't recall his name), when he was asked to explain the difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality, he said, is when Pocahontas goes into the woods, sits by a stream and contemplates her surroundings, the earth, the water, the sky, the meaning of life… Religion is when her local synagogue asks for 10%. Now, it is quite possible that an Intelligence created Life and, perhaps the Universe, or that part of it of which we are aware. Is highly unlikely that this Creation happened in six earth days, as described in the Genesis. More likely, a natural world, with its physical laws, came into existence. Thus, we are all subject to those laws, which may have been created by God. What I find curious is that people pray to the God in order to grant them their wishes (even if most noble), which would necessitate the breaking of those natural physical laws created by that same God. And only in order to satisfy the wish of that person. Amazing!
You might find this funny. Every Archdiocese does a yearly fundraiser. I mailed mine back with two pennies taped to the card so that they knew who it was from with a note to see if they could recoup my contribution from the various archbishops that I enclosed news clippings from - one in Atlanta who built himself a 6000 sqft house, and another one in PA who added on to an already 4000 sqft house to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. They actually sent me a thank you for the donation (which cost more to mail than the 2 cents).
I like the structure of Catholicism it's how I was raised, but I have no illusions that the humans that make up the church are any more holy than I or have a more direct communication to God than do I.
Unless and until something comes along that shows how inert matter could spontaneously become living matter, and how humans developed a capacity to think, then I'll keep my belief that it happened as a consequence of an all powerful deity. It's as logical and rational as not. And from a practical perspective, I've never found the argument that we all must respect one another and that's why we shouldn't use force against one another as a logical, rational, nor practical philosophy, particularly since it isn't borne out by history. No, I prefer the theory that there is a vengeful God who will smite those who behave in ways against his will (love one another) as that seems a more credible mechanism to ensure good behavior.
Yes, I'm still holding my breath and waiting for the new Pope to have a clearance sale (give away?) at the Vatican... He's all for re-distribution (of other people's money). Back to intelligent design - neither theory can possibly be proven with the tools and the knowlege that humans have at the moment. I am not advocating either one. However, devoting much resources to the belief in God and, especially, the Church, is a tremendous anchor on human progress and well being. You mention the palaces that the bishops have built for themselves; drive through the poorer areas in the South and be amazed at the no-expense-spared churches towering over the trailer parks. It doesn't take a genius to see that there's something wrong with this picture.
As for the church buildings, I guess that depends on when they were built. As for church hierarchy, I don't pay much never-mind to it. Like I've said here (or perhaps elsewhere), I don't think that wearing vestments means one has the ear of God any more than the rest of us schlubs.
Interesting, but a God (I speak in Christian terms) who could create everything has created the physics of the universe He created, no? On that basis, God would be able to manipulate physics and reality as needed to suit His needs, no? Time. Who can say if the 7 days He spoke of in the Bible means seven rotations of the Earth or seven cycles around the Sun?
I believe in God. I also believe we have only a fraction of an idea of who He really is and what His objectives are. This is my major sticking point with blind obedience to any faith (and I don't like having to say thank you 10,000 times a week). (I also think using He, could be moot since a strictly spiritual being would have no sex as we know it).
Even if we accept the premise that God created the Universe and the Laws of Physics which govern it (and yes, then God is able to change them), isn't it a bit preposterous for a mortal human to ask God to change those laws in order to appease the human? Isn't that the purpose of a prayer?
The purpose of prayer is giving thanks for what you've been given already. The asking for things (though I don't think changing physics is something many pray for) is an act of reliance. Pray to get picked for a better job, that your kid comes out of surgery, that your son gets on base at a ball game, or that you meet your bills are probably far more common than asking for physics to be changed.
If my mother had cancer due to certain physical aspects of her surroundings and her physiology, my prayer to God asking him to cure her would be the same as asking for his Laws of Physics being changed. I meant my question in that regard; not the "thanks" version. BTW - I downloaded your book and enjoying it.
Cancer is nothing more than a mutation of natural cells into something damaging/lethal to the human body. To me, It really doesn't align itself with changing physics (go back in time, slow the spin of the earth, make me fly, etc..), to God it would be more like an alignment. :)
Thanks for taking a chance on my book. I'm pleased to know you are enjoying it. Which one did you pick up?
Just curious, when your done, please tell me if the story about gun control that I added a few months back is included. I'm trying to add stories every so often and amazon seems to have issue with substantial updated content, so I need confirmation.
Excellent! Very moving (perhaps because I can well relate to the stories). It would be interesting to use some of them for a series of short movies or even Tea Party ads. The gun control story is there.
Glad you enjoyed then. If you could, I can always use an amazon review. Glad to hear that the gun control story was there, Amazon has been kind of hit and miss with the updates. I'd be ecstatic if teh Tea Party ran with those as ads - but I won't hold my breath.
perhaps the one that has spawned more good than evil in the world? Science is deconstructing what already is to make sense of it and perhaps replicate it. This does not make science the creator of anything - even the components of man-made elements already existed without science. I'm far from religious but the disdain most here, and in other places I frequent, have toward faith causes me to inject a bit of balance.
Unfortunately, voting for the "truth" based on our perception of good or evil does not uncover the truth. And I, for one, do not profess to know the "truth." But finding it based on faith and dogma (which, by definition, disallow any critical analysis) is getting no closer to it than the followers of all the previous gods that I have listed.
I wouldn't be so sure. The measure of Christianity's impact on the world is immense. Yes, there was brief brutal times within the Christian path but there was so much more that propelled mankind forward toward a more peaceful co-existence its hard to draw any parallel with any other religion. While it wasn't always the case throughout the world, tolerance is a cornerstone of Christianity along with a litany of other noble ethos that have made this country as great has it has been. As far as faith disallowing critical analysis, I beg to differ. There are those, like me, who look at faith as a rational solution to questions that only have wildly outlandish scientific answers. In that way the probability of a creator is much more feasible (and rational) than winning infinite lotteries for every process of the evolutionary origin chain. But, that's just me.
I was not making any comment or reference to the benefits of Christianity. What I was and am saying is that even if Christianity is the greatest and best religion ever, that in itself does not prove that the Christian God (or any other) is real. I would like to understand, though, your premise that faith is a rational solution. Please explain.
Long discussion topic - in short, existence, to me, is not random. Someone or something has created space (space is not infinite), someone or something has created humans simply because the improbability of the long string of reactions that have to precisely occur for any single step leading up the "supposed " primordial soup" that created life.
If these things aren't random then someone or something is or was at work. That's rational.
Religions: no one can be sure who is right and who is wrong. But, history and 3 world religions tell us that Jesus did exist (but cannot confirm his resurrection). Jesus's teachings have done immeasurable good for the world and perhaps fostered a maturity in mankind unrivaled by other religions. Good reason to lean toward Christianity as truth.
Rationally the fact that we exist is enough to ask why and how, no?
So far, I follow and agree with your statements. Although you seem to be talking about two separate subjects - the benefits of Chistianity and the origins of Life. The benefits is a separate subjects, so I'm leaving it alone. As to the origins, your approach is quite acceptable to me, as it is based on a rational approach. Thus, any of your premises may change based on newly uncovered or understood information, which may lead to a different conclusion. That is a normal analysis; I don't see any faith in it. Unless we understand the terms differently, I take it that faith means "believe bacause a source of authority has said so" and one is not allowed to analyze the premises and, ultimately, a different outcome is not allowed.
The link between the two is that Christianity states the origin of life. In that way faith ties into the rational argument. As for creation there is no way to know how it came about. At this point, unless Life can be duplicated in an controlled environment, the only thing you have if you want to look at this issue is faith.
I write sci-fi and there are dozens of ways that I can see life developing. Happenstance isn't one of them. In fact my new book (due in August or September 2014, hopefully) will touch on this issue most profoundly (and piss off everyone, including my wife).
Herman Cain took over Neal Boortz's radio show. Cain's 999 plan would have been an effective transition to Boortz's "fair tax" plan. Cain actually won a straw poll amongst Republican party activists here in Florida in January of the year Cain ran for president. I thought he would have a serious chance until Charlie Crist (then so-called Republican governor of FL) endorsed John McLame. It is no shock to any of us here in FL that now Crist is running for FL governor on the democrat side.
Cain was an effective CEO for Godfather's Pizza back when it was my daughter's favorite restaurant. They had a pizza buffet in her hometown in South Carolina.
My only significant problem with Cain was his stint with the Federal Reserve.
Agreed on the Fed, even so he came of sincere enough for me to volunteer my time to help his campaign. Unfortunately, his campaign collapsed before he set anything up I could be part of here in Phoenix.
get Cain, I'm hoping for either Ben Carson
or Allan West. BOTH would be ever better:
one as president, the other as Vice=President.
Huzza!!
GOD's ears!!
David Axelrod was just as influential in using rumor and innuendo against Herman Cain as he was during senator Obama's election for the U.H. Senate against republican Jack Ryan, The Obama campaign managed to breach the sealed divorce records of Jack Ryan and then with cooperation of the liberal Chicago media made all the wife's accusations against Jack Ryan public. I don't know whether Jack Ryan was in fact guilty of any or all of the accusations against him, but few divorces tend to reveal the truth and nothing but the truth. The bottom line is that the during all of Obama's campaigns lies and rumors were used against all opponents in order to have a positive outcome for Obama during those elections.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
If you want to find out more about the Ryan-Obama race at that point, just google Jack Ryan, Illinois and you can read numerous versions of what took place at the time, including the corrupt judge that released the sealed files.
Fred
It is much more efficient.
Yes, there were such rumors about Perot's daughters wedding, but there was no proof of such plans by anyone. It has been widely accepted that Perot's paranoia was the only basis for any such claims.
While I and many others certainly accept Perot's business acumen, not to mention his personal bravery and loyalty to his employees as evidenced by his persona travel and involvement in the rescue of some of his employees in Iran around the hostage crisis days, we must also remember that he made much of his money by tapping into the government Social Security contract business. I'm not saying that he didn't deliver services, only that he did not hesitate to use influence to retain those contracts.
I will admit though that Perot as president would have been an interesting but scary time.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
The life of the universe is finite. Rather than allow intelligent life to disappear, a new universe has to be devised that will eventually put the components of intelligent life into play. That intelligent life will eventually create computers. Eventually the computers will overtake the life forms. The machines will be able to replicate and repair and exist long after the life forms disappear, so they will become the entities that start the new big bang.
This is actually being posited by respected scientists . Really.
I wonder how much these scientist would benfit from attending a church service and perhaps going so far as reading the Bible just so that they could consider some other alternatives to those long odds of accidental circumstances. Perhaps the concept of intelligent design is a possibility after all. Who knows perhaps the scientists concept of an open mind might reach that far. Do these people really have so little faith in human beings being able to adapt and that they were designed with adaption in mind?
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Actually, I know that you're not. The idea that scientists who put forth the theories as illustrated above going to a church in order to compliment their theories does seem ludicrous. Observing a universe composed of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars, so vast that light traveling at 186,000 miles per second takes years to reach us being created by a god looking like one of us wearing flowing white robes and a flowing white beard is beyond the pale. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not a militant atheist. If religion gives you comfort and a moral compass, so long as it doesn't impede my forward progress, is OK with me. But to think that a trip to a local church will guide scientists in their pursuit of the truth is not something I, or most likely they, could get on board with. I am not denying, however, that there is a possible overall intelligence in the universe. I don't know, and I don't think that anyone else does either. If there is, It seems strange that it would be concerned with the well-being of each individual of the 7 billion people on earth, or perhaps in a few other places.
Why, why?
I'm sure that the above is quite lucid, and self explanatory.
If a being made the computers and the computers made our universe who made the being?
Basically all this theory did was reset the questions to times even more remote than what was already being argued.
Life, as we know it, may very well have been created by an intelligent being (or beings); I have nothing against that concept; I do have something against believing it simply because it was said and written down (eventually) by semi-prehistoric people. Should we just as well believe in their other beliefs?
If you accept that there can be a deity that created humankind with free will to choose how to live their lives, but that those choices have consequences, then you can find your own "truth." While a Catholic myself, it is my conclusion that the differences among all religions is one of human failing. Basically in being so arrogant as to try to understand God and his plan and trying to craft rules based on that human interpretation.
I believe that JC was a real person and a human manifestation of God. His teachings are simple and basically boil down to "love one another as you would love yourself," or perhaps a less squishy form being "do unto others as you would have done unto you." While that doesn't present the "why" argument that Objectivists seem to need to identify, it leads to the exact same set of principals and morality, thus I cannot see why so many of them are so anti-religious.
As for science - my conclusion is that God gave us a brain in order to use it. He also created the laws of nature, so discerning them is part of the glorification of God.
As I said, perhaps all religions are some slice through "truth." Kind of like having some convoluted 3D item. Each one slices through on a plane, exposing some different cross section of the same entity. None are the whole "truth" but all are some part of the "truth." Add to that a human "lens" that distorts the "truth" to varying degrees.
I consider myself and Objectivist and perhaps I can answer why Objectivists are not friends with religions. More precisely, not friends with churches - that is the institutions of religions. A great example of that was actually expressed by a rabbi (can't recall his name), when he was asked to explain the difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality, he said, is when Pocahontas goes into the woods, sits by a stream and contemplates her surroundings, the earth, the water, the sky, the meaning of life… Religion is when her local synagogue asks for 10%.
Now, it is quite possible that an Intelligence created Life and, perhaps the Universe, or that part of it of which we are aware. Is highly unlikely that this Creation happened in six earth days, as described in the Genesis. More likely, a natural world, with its physical laws, came into existence. Thus, we are all subject to those laws, which may have been created by God. What I find curious is that people pray to the God in order to grant them their wishes (even if most noble), which would necessitate the breaking of those natural physical laws created by that same God. And only in order to satisfy the wish of that person. Amazing!
You might find this funny. Every Archdiocese does a yearly fundraiser. I mailed mine back with two pennies taped to the card so that they knew who it was from with a note to see if they could recoup my contribution from the various archbishops that I enclosed news clippings from - one in Atlanta who built himself a 6000 sqft house, and another one in PA who added on to an already 4000 sqft house to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. They actually sent me a thank you for the donation (which cost more to mail than the 2 cents).
I like the structure of Catholicism it's how I was raised, but I have no illusions that the humans that make up the church are any more holy than I or have a more direct communication to God than do I.
Unless and until something comes along that shows how inert matter could spontaneously become living matter, and how humans developed a capacity to think, then I'll keep my belief that it happened as a consequence of an all powerful deity. It's as logical and rational as not. And from a practical perspective, I've never found the argument that we all must respect one another and that's why we shouldn't use force against one another as a logical, rational, nor practical philosophy, particularly since it isn't borne out by history. No, I prefer the theory that there is a vengeful God who will smite those who behave in ways against his will (love one another) as that seems a more credible mechanism to ensure good behavior.
Back to intelligent design - neither theory can possibly be proven with the tools and the knowlege that humans have at the moment. I am not advocating either one. However, devoting much resources to the belief in God and, especially, the Church, is a tremendous anchor on human progress and well being. You mention the palaces that the bishops have built for themselves; drive through the poorer areas in the South and be amazed at the no-expense-spared churches towering over the trailer parks. It doesn't take a genius to see that there's something wrong with this picture.
I believe in God. I also believe we have only a fraction of an idea of who He really is and what His objectives are. This is my major sticking point with blind obedience to any faith (and I don't like having to say thank you 10,000 times a week). (I also think using He, could be moot since a strictly spiritual being would have no sex as we know it).
The purpose of prayer is giving thanks for what you've been given already. The asking for things (though I don't think changing physics is something many pray for) is an act of reliance. Pray to get picked for a better job, that your kid comes out of surgery, that your son gets on base at a ball game, or that you meet your bills are probably far more common than asking for physics to be changed.
BTW - I downloaded your book and enjoying it.
Thanks for taking a chance on my book. I'm pleased to know you are enjoying it. Which one did you pick up?
If these things aren't random then someone or something is or was at work. That's rational.
Religions: no one can be sure who is right and who is wrong. But, history and 3 world religions tell us that Jesus did exist (but cannot confirm his resurrection). Jesus's teachings have done immeasurable good for the world and perhaps fostered a maturity in mankind unrivaled by other religions. Good reason to lean toward Christianity as truth.
Rationally the fact that we exist is enough to ask why and how, no?
I write sci-fi and there are dozens of ways that I can see life developing. Happenstance isn't one of them. In fact my new book (due in August or September 2014, hopefully) will touch on this issue most profoundly (and piss off everyone, including my wife).
Cain was an effective CEO for Godfather's Pizza back when it was my daughter's favorite restaurant. They had a pizza buffet in her hometown in South Carolina.
My only significant problem with Cain was his stint with the Federal Reserve.