An Open Letter to Michael Gerson

Every now and then on a Saturday morning I turn to the editorial section of my local paper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. My first look goes to The Modern World by Tom Tomorrow - an acerbic satirical mash-up of all the facepalm moments I’ve had listening to the willful ignorance of right wing pundits and their cultural minions. Next, I “scroll” down to read the refreshing thoughtful commentary by Princeton economist, Paul Krugman.

Finally, to discipline my enthusiasm and remind myself that living in a democratic culture means having to endure views opposed to my own, I move over to the space normally dedicated to Charles Krauthammer. When Mr. Krauthammer is out, this space is usually filled by you, Mr. Gerson. Today was one of those occasions.

First, I should provide some historical context of my interactions with you. Unless I’m terribly misinformed, televisions and newspapers don’t work as two-way communication devices, so the number of times I cursed you out from the comfort of my living room is likely unknown to you. This private incivility, I must admit, had little to do with the fact that I disagreed with you and more to do with your rhetorical competence of making a decent case to the public. But this momentary torture was a necessary step to gain and maintain an understanding of those who see the world differently.

The worst was during your position as speech writer for George W. Bush because you had the temerity to both disagree with me and be in a position of power. But I never turned away from you, Mr. Gerson, particularly during your appearances on the PBS Newshour. It was a time when I suspected the right had forsaken intellectual honesty; but you – along with David Brooks and the late Bill Safire - were some of the reasons I had only “suspected” this abandonment.

During the Obama years, I did take comfort in the fact that it was my side that was in power but I was frustrated by the fact that your disagreements with the Obama administration were genuine and not of the garden variety “secret Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist” ilk.

You’ve always been critical of Trump but your editorial this morning was refreshing - not because you’re willing to acknowledge facts as facts, anyone familiar with your work knows this is not new territory for you, but you’ve highlighted the hypocrisy in members of the religious right supporting Trump. It was this question in particular that grabbed me: “What does public life look like without the constraining internal force of character — without the firm ethical commitments often (though not exclusively) rooted in faith?”

Your inclusion of the parenthetical “(though not exclusively)” tells me a lot about where thoughtful conservatism is going. Most things we will never agree on. But if conservatives can embrace an ethic that not all decency is rooted in religious faith, and liberals can embrace one that not all conservatism is rooted in hatred for one half of the US population, perhaps we can find common ground and get back to honest disagreement.

Aren’t we much better off arguing about how to improve our country rather than who does or doesn’t want to improve our country?

May I Never be Exorcised of this Demon

"Oh God said to Abraham, 'Kill me a son.' Abe says, 'Man, you must be puttin me on.'

-- Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited

My mind is a jumbled mess. I wake this morning to find grapefruit rinds all over my bedroom, a half-drunken bottle of Wild Turkey on my nightstand, and someone having smoked all my Chesterfields. The rain has come but at least this is expected.  My hands smell of  metallic grease and gunpowder but I own no firearms.

Men of the cloth say that one must not fool with objects of spiritualism. Ouija Boards, Tarot Cards, hell even the zodiac column in your daily newspaper could be used to bore a hole into the most innocent soul allowing in a host of malicious spirits to pollute and corrupt it. Not that I've ever claimed to be innocent, we're all sinners and I'm no exception. So why should it be any different when one tosses back a bottle of Bacardi 151, turns off the news, re-reads The Great Shark Hunt, and lights a spliff laced with the finest Moroccan hash money can buy? If Captain Howdy could grab a hold of sweet little Reagan after just a few minutes on a Ouija Board, surely the Gonzo spirit can capture the willing seeker after a night of drunken solitary despair.

But sobriety comes the next morning like Hamlet's battalions of troubles dragging you kicking and screaming into a reality only possible were someone to activate Douglas Adams' Infinite Improbability Drive just after the Cleveland Indians win the American League Pennant and go on to lose the World Series to the Chicago Cubs. Nevertheless, reality it is and we're stuck with it.

The previous decade was awash with lessons on never saying never not just from a sports angle - like when the Red Sox reversed their World Series curse - but from a national one as well. We thought our military made us invincible...until 19 mutants hijacked four jet liners turning them into guided missiles armed only with some box cutters and a few discount flying lessons. We thought our economy was strong...until Bear Stearns...then Lehman Brothers...then Merrill Lynch...AIG, HBOS, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Bradford and Bingley suddenly needed the help of the American tax payer because something they never thought could happen did. Then a first-term Senator from Illinois with a funny sounding name won the Presidency. And not only was he the first senator to win the office since JFK, but a negro to boot. He went on to win a second term and managed to rebuild our economy, reform our healthcare system and kill Osama bin Laden - the king of the aforementioned mutants. He didn't fix all of our problems but did a damn sight better than any president in recent memory or any serious player thought possible.

We thought the screw-heads had learned their lesson until they began supporting politicians who, now that TARP was a done deal, could scorn the banks for taking it and believed that the countless American tax payers now unemployed were moochers for applying for Food Stamps. They debased their fellow Americans in the name of patriotism and shamed those not fortunate enough to be born into more lucrative circumstances.

And now, here we are having gone not just through the looking glass, but through an event horizon into a black hole and are about to learn what a singularity is all about. Will we come out the other end into some better parallel universe or be squeezed into ever smaller proportions until one of our atoms bursts into an explosion that starts the whole damn 14 billion year trip all over again?  No one can say. Our next president was chosen because a small contingent of weasels and screw-heads wanted their country back and managed to con almost 60 million Americans into giving it to them. As railroad developer and professional screw-head, Jay Gould once said: "I can always hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." This rings a painful truth today.

When the black guy with the funny name took the Presidency, the stated policy of the opposition was to oppose everything regardless of merit. Some of us who believe in the best of people are trying to avoid taking such a stance now. Some of us still believe in the system and that the nation has spoken regardless of how we feel about it as individuals. It's a disciplined, noble, and admirable position to be sure. But some of us see a different light. Some of us fear how the graciousness of decent folk can be used toward the enabling of scoundrels. The one who bears this light is unable to show us anything other than the ugly reality.

I'm reminded of another light bearer. The truest of all rebels. The mythic nay sayer who rebelled against God Himself when He got too big for His britches. This fallen angel has been scorned through the ages drawing the ire of poets from Dante to Milton. But I see it differently. Lucifer saw the fundamental absurdity for a being who's brought into existence, granted the gift of free will yet instructed to blindly obey the granter of that gift without question. A cruel prank for which only the most faithful fall in the hopes of getting an unverifiable reward once they are called to account upon death.

It's noble to sacrifice one's comfort for justice. Lucifer exemplifies this for the comfort he sacrificed was not temporary but eternal. Reflexive rebellion has a place in the Universe and we shouldn't let a false sense of ethics trick us into enabling a leader who has all but promised to disgrace his countrymen in a fashion unprecedented in recorded history. Hitler never promised to disgrace the German people, he portrayed his perverted desire for conquest and mass murder as a fundamental aspect of German identity. The German people were disgraced because common decency demanded it once they saw how their blind complacency allowed an ancient evil to wreak havoc in a modern world with the machinery to rear it to maximum efficiency. They can be forgiven because they didn't have the benefit of history, but we have no such excuse. Blind rebellion was the only way Hitler's thugs could have been stopped. And for all the phony comparisons of Obama to Hitler, missing the comparison of Trump to Hitler requires an obtuseness of which only the worst among us are capable.

Rebel! And fear not. The enemy has been editing the playbook of opposition for nearly a decade and erased away any obligation of deference on our side. We need to treat the Trump presidency as illegitimate because he lost the popular vote. We need to treat him as someone with the worst intentions because he has admitted as much.  We need to objectify him as an object of derision as he's objectified those who've been the objects of his basest desires. He ought to be subject to the humiliation of being tarred and feathered. He ought to be called to account for being a pedophile, a philanderer, and a con artist. Every piece of legislation he seeks ought to be met with absolute scorn as un-American, Treasonous, and Fascist.  Every person should make daily calls to Republican legislators disguising their phone numbers as belonging to constituents to scream loudly that their slightest acquiescence shall be viewed as aiding and abetting a criminal presidency. We should promise a violence of rhetoric as harsh as his rhetoric of violence. That any use of force against those protesting his presidency will be construed as a declaration of war on the American people and will be returned because that's what the Second Amendment is for. Furthermore, those not with us...are against us.

Gandhi said "An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind." But blindness becomes irrelevant when the world is plunged into darkness. When in darkness we turn to the one who bears the light because we have no other choice. We must accept the light bearer's place in our Western mythology and use that force when decency demands it.

That wasn't me talking. It was the beast within. He's not one to argue with. He's one whose presence must be embraced because he's our only chance of survival. The war's already been declared by an unprepared enemy. A foolhardy enemy incapable of understanding their demise came long ago. They think they are the tide but they are only the sand.

Why Turning Down the Keystone Pipeline is Wrong for...(wait for it)...the ENVIRONMENT!!

It's easy to criticize Hollywood; though it's often unfair as when a particular celebrity takes up a noble cause like environmentalism, fighting poverty, or trying to eradicate diseases in the Third World which the First left behind decades ago. But there are also those times when the criticism is warranted like when a baseless opinions experience exponential growth in popularity: the anti-vaccine movement being chief among them. The criticism is warranted in this case because the public movement which has arisen out of it actually causes harm.

It should be noted that environmentalism does not fall into this category. The science is in - and has been for a long time - that humanity's use of fossil fuels is causing long term damage to our planet. If nothing is done, the effects of climate change may very well lead to only the seventh mass extinction event in our planet's 4.5 billion year history. And it would be the first time that the species most impacted bears sole responsibility for its own demise. This is not hyperbole.

There are plenty of business interests who stand to lose from the kind of limitations we need to put on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These interests have ruthlessly combated every attempt to regulate their GHG emissions often by employing the most absurd appeals to ignorance. As of this writing only one out of the eleven front-runners for the Republican nomination for President even acknowledges that climate change is a reality that must be dealt with. That's up from zero in 2012. And talk about progress, Exxon Mobil is now shouting from the rooftops about climate change because of an investigation by the New York Attorney General into whether Exxon has been sufficiently honest with its shareholders about the effects of climate change. You can read about this brilliant play here.

But for all its faults, there are times when that which is good for business is actually good for everybody. Granted, it's rare...but it does happen. It is precisely because of this rarity that such opportunities must be acted upon with haste. The Keystone XL pipeline is just such a case. Unfortunately, this mutual advantage quickly becomes overshadowed by perception. That perception being that because it benefits big business it must be detrimental to the environment. Given the history of big business in this country one can hardly be blamed for being unable to overcome this perception.

The term NIMBY was once an obscure term used only by academics and social scientists. Thanks to George Carlin this term became accessible to popular culture as "Not In My Back Yard." It was meant to describe the reflexive and thoughtless response that comes from citizens who reject changes in their neighborhoods that threaten the character of their community regardless of necessity or potential benefits. Prisons? Not in my back yard. Homeless shelters? Not in my back yard. And so on. Insiders within the energy sector have a different term: BANANA. This stands for: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. Accepting for a moment that many players within this sector have sown the seeds of this discontent, we still must question these impulses to consider whether they actually serve our ends.

Oil is an ugly thing. From the Exxon Valdez to Saddam Hussein's oil well fires to Prudhoe Bay to the Horizon platform explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, we are a generation that has been bombarded with images of the environmental devastation wrought by such accidents and this must not be understated. But the fact remains that oil and gas is still the cheapest and most efficient fuel available for use. Alternative fuels are great and the reintroduction of electric and natural gas vehicles is one of the reasons we're seeing some of the lowest energy costs in our lives. Yet oil remains vital to us.

As long as it can be sold for profit, oil will make its way to the market. This is as inevitable as any other force of nature. The question before us today is: How should the oil in Canada's Tar Sands get to market?  The US uses upwards of 18 million barrels of oil a day. 70% of our oil comes via pipeline and 23% comes via water tankers which carry, on average, 2 million barrels per trip.  The rest comes via rail and trucking. If one were to look up the most recent catastrophes from oil spills, the risks of transporting oil via water tanker become very clear.  The fact is that while pipelines are the most efficient means of transporting oil, they are also the safest.  That's not to say land based oil spills are not disastrous - they are - but they're rare.

Relegating the oil from Canada's Tar Sands to be transported by tanker opens a number of environmental risks that would be mitigated by an overland pipeline. If it's the environment we're concerned about, we better be sure that the choices we make will not yield the very results we're trying to avoid.

    

In Defense of David Brooks

Empathy isn’t easy. The best we can hope for is honesty in both the expression and criticism of points of view. I don’t mean “criticism” in the pejorative sense but insofar as it means to actively engage in interpreting the view of the other. It is safe to say that such honest exchanges are far too rare in our national discourse. Part of this is due to the prevalence of monologue. By which I mean we seldom engage in the act of understanding something that is unfamiliar. We take it at face value and either approve or disapprove while lauding the “refreshing” sense that someone else “gets it” (read: “Agrees with me”); or deriding the idiocy of someone who “doesn’t get it” (read: “Disagrees with me”).

I hate to bring political affiliations into this but given that many of Mr. Brooks’ critics have used his conservatism against him; I shall offer my critics the opportunity to use my liberalism against me. I voted for Obama twice and have every intention of voting for another democrat in 2016. I can’t stand the bloviating nonsense coming from pundits of all stripes but I admit that I can stand it a little less when the bloviations come from the right.

Having yet to read Ta-Nehisi Coates’ novel, I am disinclined to voice whether Mr. Brooks’ or Mr. Coates’ opinions are well-founded. Rather I have chosen to address the tone of Mr. Brooks’ review rather than his stated disagreements with Mr. Coates.

First, it should be noted that David Brooks is not Bill O’Reilly. So the vitriol with which we – rightly, I believe – beat up on Mr. O’Reilly should be reserved for those whose views are so thoughtless, thin, and loud that they can only be born out of an ignorance so pure as to whither under the meekest scrutiny.

Mr. Brooks, on the other hand, is principled and disciplined in his views. Remember that he supported marriage equality long before many liberals dared embrace it. It is for this reason, that I interpret his review as genuine. In the beginning of the Brooks piece he speaks of the “humbling and instructive” nature of the recent racial unrest in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Charleston. He calls Mr. Coates’ work “a great and searing contribution” to the education of the public about what underlies these tragedies. Then writes: “Every conscientious American should read it.”

It’s hard to give a better review than that. But what follows is a critique of the work acknowledging the past endured by African Americans, as well as – what I perceive – as an honest question: Can a white person disagree without being an instrument of oppression?

Brooks gets to the heart of the matter quickly when he admits being disturbed by Coates’ rejection of the American Dream. After all, Brooks’ ancestors – as is the case with nearly all white citizens – came here willfully. The same cannot be said for Mr. Coates and Mr. Brooks acknowledges that explicitly.

This is a very important point and white readers would do well to acknowledge this as unequivocally as Mr. Brooks. Where Messrs. Brooks and Coates appear to agree is that history matters. But for Coates, it seems to matter more...at least according to Brooks.

As I said, I haven’t read Mr. Coates’ work but the recurring theme in Brooks’ piece is that such a targeted focus on the past blinds one to the opportunities of the present and future. Possibly, but I question whether this is not a fundamental difference in racial relations. Does the nature of our histories affect our ability to advance? Is it only easier for whites to say: “Get over it” because we’ve had nothing to get over? Is it harder for blacks because they do? I suspect there is some truth here but it is likely still only a small piece of the issue.

David Brooks is being criticized because he has limits to his ability to understand and has admitted as much. It’s an honesty to which we are so unaccustomed that we perceive it as racism. While it is a piece of the ignorance that breeds racism, the fact that someone is willing to point it out in themselves so publicly ought to be commended. It is when we deny such fundamental ignorance that racism is able to thrive. It is in its acknowledgement that we stand a chance at defeating it.

August Wilson told a story that a white guy once came up to him at a party and said: “Mr. Wilson, I don’t see race.” His reply was something like: “Really? Then why – out of all these people -did you choose to say this to me?” The point being that even well-intentioned ignorance is ignorance.

I fear that the backlash against Brooks’ honesty is the symptom of a similar problem affecting our culture – something which Brooks has, himself, pointed out on several occasions. We tend to live in ideological bubbles. We no longer seek out information to learn but to reinforce views which we already hold. This constant feedback loop is an impediment to the kind of sincere conversation we need about issues – racism being chief among them. It is so foreign to us that anyone can both appreciate a perspective while also disagreeing with it. We frequently confuse the two viewing all disagreement as a sign of disrespect. Our bubbles are made of a puritanical intolerance rendering us incapable of reconciling so mild a form of cognitive dissidence as to regard a view as both sound and important while also disagreeing.

It’s called civility.

On the Eve of Another Sad Anniversary - Nine Years Since the Death of Hunter S. Thompson (2/20)

The 21st century is a little more than a decade old and already we've lost too many heroes: Ted Kennedy, Pete Seeger, Walter Cronkite, Benazir Bhutto...all figures fossilized at various points in the archaeological timeline of social progress.

Tomorrow it will be 9 years since the passing of perhaps THE greatest single American patriot. I rank him up there with Washington and Lincoln. Perhaps if he'd lived at the right time, history books would speak kindly of a President Thompson. Unfortunately, he occupied that cesspool of desperation and depravity referred to as the latter half of the 20th century. A time when the powers that be were raking up all they could in the name of building a strong ownership society. 

The first decade of the 21st saw the culmination of 35-40 years worth of high stakes gimmeeism on the part of our decadent aristocracy. And if you don't think we have one, well, Jasper, I don't know what to tell you. Their decadence may not be as blatant as that of the French on the eve of their revolution; but who knows to what heights they would soar if lead-based face powder was as popular today as in the late 1700s?

Perhaps that's why Mr. Thompson had only survived through the infancy of that horrid decade able to take no more as it grew into a perverse conscious embracing of the cliche that somehow giving the rich more would improve things. It wasn't for lack of courage that humanity was failing, but energy. The end of the 60s had knocked the wind out of the last great leftist uprising, why should this one be any different?

I think he would've been glad to see two Obama presidencies, the near-universal acceptance of marriage equality, and of course what some may see as the implosion of the drug war with marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington state. However, the lack of accountability for Wall Street financiers who pulled off one of the most spectacular heists of all time, the NSA spying programs, the prospects of drones policing us by patrolling the skies, these would be sure to get the great Dr. Gonzo going...if only to remind us that there was still much to be done in the hope of preserving true liberty.

So, my friends, it is a sad evening. But somewhere on the perimeter of reality and reason looms a great reckoning. Nobody knows what form it will take; nor when it will descend upon us. But when the trumpet sounds the gates will open. And when they do, you'll want to be one of the ones welcomed inside rather than stuck trying to push camels through the eyes of needles. For them, the weight of their possessions chain them to a fiery world where they are sentenced for all eternity to a wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Over and out.

A Cliché Work of Staggering Mediocrity

Upon the New Year, I made a resolution to submit as many stories to as many publications as possible. My only other New Year’s resolution in 2004 was also literary in nature.  I resolved to read as much classic literature as possible and discovered my favorite novel of all time – The Count of Monte Cristo. Hopefully this resolution will have a return of similar magnitude.

Those of you following me know that I completed my first novel last summer. Crafting the final sentence was an exhilarating experience, like the anticipation setting in just before a first date. This is it, I thought. I had graduated from being an aspiring novelist to an actual one. Like many freshmen novelists, I had overestimated the exclusivity of this pool of first-time novelists. But my story is unique, I thought. It’s fresh. It’s never been done before. It addresses old issues in new ways and draws on new issues presented by the zeitgeist. It’s a masterpiece that delves into the remaining undiscovered corners of human consciousness!

And this is where I expose myself as either a heretofore undiscovered genius or someone so clueless that the rest of my writing will just devolve into the masturbatory drivel found only in narcissistic oases of incompetence and irrelevance.  Do I dare write poetry in a coffee shop?  Do I dare to eat a peach? Whoa! I almost fell over the edge there. When a struggling writer uses a T.S. Eliot quote to explain his philosophy, he’s about two semi-colons away from requiring the services of the men in white hats.

In his book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton tells the story of being in London with a friend who worked in publishing. An acquaintance of the publisher – apparently a poet of sorts – sees the men and says hello before walking on.  Upon his parting, the publisher turns to Chesterton and says: “That man will get on. He believes in himself.”  By sheer coincidence a bus drives by with an advertisement for Hanwell, the famed asylum.  Chesterton remarks: “Shall I tell you where all the men are who believe in themselves?” He goes on to make the point that the world is full of foolish people who believe in their talents to such a degree they are incapable of seeing how the outside world truly perceives them. Actors who can’t act believe in themselves, as do singers who can’t sing and writers who can’t write.

How can one striving to be a successful writer both refuse to give up yet also avoid such delusions? In order to keep going amidst such disappointment, it is tempting to accept such refuge.  I’ve tried hard to avoid this. Every writer knows this is just to protect a fragile ego. But rejection only becomes toxic when it is avoided out of fear.  I’ve decided to own my rejection.  It’s humiliating and evil but once you’ve been Stockholmed, I imagine there’s little else to fear. It’s been said that great art requires courage. I’m not so sure. I don’t think there is anything particularly artistic about courage or inartistic about cowardice. But if you’re courageous in the face of rejection, you’ll keep at it and improve; consequently increasing your odds of discovery.

As I’ve been researching avenues to publication, the term that keeps getting thrown around is platform – or being positioned in such a way as to be noticed by an audience. Now, I have this blog, a Twitter feed, and a Facebook page but I have absolutely no standing or reputation as a writer…except among friends. While I keep these planks up to date, I have little hope of breaking out until I get my name in print somewhere.  So I purchased a copy of the 2014 Novel and Short-Story Market and got to work.

This past weekend I sent out my third submission in two months. Note: I mean exclusive submissions – a new story every 20 days. If I can keep this pace up, that’s 18 submissions to 18 different publications before the end of the year. I stand a better shot at publication with 18 submissions than from just one novel. So far, the experience has provided some much needed therapy. By which I mean that the publications I’ve researched – with few exceptions – use some of the most cliché terms in the lexicon when describing what they seek.

First, each publication – like every rejection letter I’ve seen – uses the disclaimer that this is a very subjective business and one ought not be discouraged by rejection.  Yet, there isn’t a single title that fails to differentiate itself as “seeking only quality fiction of the highest caliber”. Aside from being redundant, if everyone only publishes “the best” – how come all these rags aren’t publishing the same stuff?  Also, everyone wants “fresh prose” and “nothing cliché” – I can’t think of anything more cliché than referring to a work of prose as “fresh”.  They want extraordinary literature that “brings the characters off the page”…well, unless someone is reading my book in a diner, it’s 1985, and there in an A-ha video, that’s not going to happen.

Secondly, many of them – more than one would think – make it a point to say that they don’t publish mediocre work. This reveals an intriguing paradox within the publishing world: That while admitting the business is subjective, they use some of the most subjective terms in contexts which assume the author knows what an editor would consider “mediocre”. And why would any writer, regardless of the stage of their career, submit anything they’d consider mediocre?

Hence, the title of this essay…and I’m not poking fun at Dave Eggers. I like Dave Eggers. He can get away with humorously cocky titles because he is a good writer; and, since he’s funny, we know it’s not from a real lack of humility. And since his stories are also incredibly sad, we know he takes his craft very seriously. Instead, I am poking fun at the publications who request such things ignorant of their contradictions. The industry frowns upon new writers with cocky attitudes, but also upon those displaying a lack of self-confidence. They insist they only accept the best, but their rejections always encourage us to keep trying…despite not being the best. A rejection that says, “You suck!” would be quite refreshing in that the writer could at least be assured of its honesty.

So here I proclaim…

(Due to the questionable sanity of the author as indicated by his use of two semicolons and a T.S. Eliot reference, J.H. Bernard has been committed to Hanwell Asylum to undergo a vigorous re-education campaign. The reader will do well to view his contempt for the publishing business as a rant befitting only a resident of Hanwell. We are here to assure the reader that the “paradoxes” identified by Mr. Bernard are in fact perfectly logical statements made by those of us with superior literary tastes and intellect. And if you are incapable of understanding such statements, well...we will get to you in short order.                            - The Men in White Hats)

The Nye/Ham Debate: What are Reasonable Individuals to Make of Scripture? Part III

Over the last two entries, I've made several different arguments about the balance between scientific and mythic views of the world. I'm sure there is much I missed, but there's only so much which can be explained in a few blog entries. In this, the third and final entry, I address the following subject: If the material world can only be explained by science and questions of meaning and "the good life" can only be explained through myth, what does it mean to say "God exists"? Does it mean God exists in an objective reality such as the material world but is somehow separate from it? Or does it mean God exists in myth as a symbol of goodness, and therefore only as a construct of our consciousness?

When Thomas Acquinas wrote Summa Theologica in the 13th century, he sought to provide a foundation for a belief in God using the Socratic method as outlined by Aristotle and Plato. The Catholic Church filled a substantial power void in Europe after the Fall of Rome. In the centuries that followed, Western civilization back tracked a bit in terms of knowledge. Many early figures in the Church worried about the usefulness of the pagan philosophers. Acquinas was the one who brought the philosophers of ancient Greece into the new Christian Age. His work was as much to prove the Christian worth of thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle as to suggest the likelihood of God's existence.

Ultimately, Acquinas' argument came down to a simple assertion: That everything we see in reality seems to have a cause - a bird eats fruit from a tree, then passes the seeds which fall to the ground and grow new trees. If the Universe exists as an objective reality, it follows that the Universe has a cause.

Acquinas also considered whether matter could be brought into existence. While Acquinas believed that matter was brought into existence by God, he did not see this as being integral to justifying a belief in God. Acquinas said that even if all the matter in the Universe were eternal, something had to have set it in motion. This opened the door to a new idea about creation: Not creation in terms of making something from nothing, but by arranging already present elements to bring about something else.

This is the foundation for my approach to the God question: Not that the existence of material suggests a single point of origin, but that a rather delicate balance needs to be sustained in order for life to emerge - and that an even greater delicate balance needs to be sustained in order for that life to develop consciousness. Given that most of the Universe is unadulterated chaos, it seems strange to me that there is this place we call Earth that had all the right ingredients at just the right instant to bring about, not just life, but a life bearing the intelligence to explore the unfathomable depths of the very same Universe. I find that to be a remarkable thing to consider.

To be fair, the opposing view is just as logical. Suppose that life is just some bizarre accident; that it is the product of insurmountable chaos rather than an organized system. It's entirely possible. Suddenly, the cliche of the glass being half-empty or half-full becomes quite profound. The Universe is simply too large for us to assert the degree of its chaos or orderliness. Instead, we must rely on inclination. If you're inclined to see the Universe as chaotic and life as an accident, you're likely to be an atheist. If you believe it is orderly, you probably adhere to some religious viewpoint. I happened to be inclined to see things as reflecting a kind of order. Others are inclined to see chaos.

One of the questions I get is: How do you know that life is a rare occurrence? The Universe could be boiling over with it, but because of distance and time, it's impossible to detect. Rationally speaking, this is a valid point; even if I do find it a simple-minded appeal to ignorance. Fundamentally, we have no way of knowing whether life exists beyond what we can detect. All we know is it has not yet been discovered elsewhere - at least not in any verifiable way. And since science limits itself to that which can be perceived, this claim cannot stand alongside the claim that God doesn't exist because God is beyond perception.

But there is a heretofore unresolved paradox which addresses just such a point: the Fermi Paradox. I encourage readers to follow the link. Essentially it argues that if intelligent life were common in the Universe, where is it? Over the time span of the Universe, there has been ample opportunity for intelligent lifeforms to colonize our galaxy...so, why haven't they? Interesting stuff, at least to me.

I don't intend to convert anyone to a theistic view of the Universe anymore than prove God's existence. I am the first one to admit the incredibly subjective nature of this viewpoint, so let me get to the heart of it here. If we look at the Book of Exodus where Moses talks to the burning bush, the burning bush claims to be the God of Abraham and Isaac. When Moses asks God's name, he gets the reply: Yahweh, a Hebrew word roughly translated into "I am, who am." Strange response to say the least, but if we consider the reply in the most basic linguistic sense we see that the word "am" constitutes a stative verb - or verb of being. To me, this is the same as saying: "I am existence, itself."

Think back to your earliest memories. There is something constant within you, something that has remained as it was despite all the changes you've experienced. It's your consciousness, but it's also the thing that recognizes itself as consciousness. You may have changed in physical appearance, you may have gained more knowledge about the world, you may have changed opinions - perhaps more times than once, but something within you has remained constant. That is what I perceive as the foundation of all that I am, all I've been, and all I'll ever be. Like the proverb of Buckaroo Banzai: "Where ever you go, there you are." The only way I can consider the perception of my consciousness, is by seeing it as a piece of something larger - an ultimate consciousness so powerful that existence itself would perish without it. I can only call it God.