An essay by Pecier Carpena Decierdo

Words, words

Sometimes – actually oftentimes – we can get pretty sloppy and careless in our use of words.

Take the use of the words “proof” and “evidence”. Proof and evidence, like speed and velocity, or theory and guess, have colloquial definitions that often lead to confusion. In order to smooth the progress of communication and avoid misunderstanding, these words have been given technical definitions in science and philosophy. For example, speed is defined as the magnitude of velocity; the latter is a vector, the former is the scalar magnitude of that vector. Also, a scientific theory is not simply a guess; rather, it is a system of ideas constructed from a verified set of generalizations and observations.  In the same way, scientists and philosophers use the words proof and evidence to designate two very different things. For example, we prove a mathematical theorem instead of “finding evidences” for its truth, while we accumulate the evidence for a particular scientific theory but we never “prove” a theory.

What’s the difference? The distinction is best illustrated by examples.

The calculus of pebbles: a rocky example

The fist example illustrates the nature of scientific evidence. Suppose you are walking on a beach when you decide to pick up exactly two pebbles and put them in your pocket. You then walk a few paces forward before picking up three more pebbles and putting them in the same pocket you put the first two pebbles. Again, you walk several paces forward before you decide to sit on a boulder by the shore. You fish for the pebbles in your pocket and count how many there are, and you find that there are five pebbles all in all. Since you remember that there were initially no pebbles inside your pocket before you picked up the first two, you are led to the hypothesis that two pebbles plus three pebbles will give you five pebbles. You throw the five pebbles and go home. The next day you decide to perform the same experiment: you walk along the same shore as the day before; you pick up two pebbles and put them in your initially empty pocket; you walk a little bit; you pick up three pebbles and put them in your pocket; you then walk a little bit, sit down on the boulder and finally count how many pebbles you end up with. Again, you find that you end up with five pebbles. You do this thing every day for a whole week, even a month, and each time you performed the same damned experiment, the result always confirms your hypothesis that two pebbles plus three pebbles equals five pebbles. You then decide to make the following scientific generalization based on your findings: “Two pebbles plus three pebbles always equals five pebbles.”

This generalization was inspired by the evidence for its truth. But note the ‘always’ that appears in the generalization. This ‘always’ is what makes the generalization risky, and as a consequence interesting and useful. It is interesting because it tells something about the workings of the universe (about the way pebbles add in our universe, for example). And it is useful because whenever an observation seems to contradict this generalization, an interesting problem arises, problems such as: “Why did I end up with one less pebble? Perhaps there’s a hole in my pocket.” You check your pocket and lo and behold, you find the hole that explains the missing pebble.

Notice that the more confirmations of the generalization you get, the more evidence you have of its truth. Notice also that the convincingness of the evidence is increased when it is obtained by someone else other than you and when the beach from which the evidence is obtained is a very different kind of beach from the beach that first inspired the generalization. Using these much more convincing evidence one can then formulate the broader generalization: “Two pebbles plus three pebbles always and everywhere gives five pebbles.” This last generalization is obviously riskier, but is also more interesting and more useful than the former.

Now, after perhaps a thousand such experiments, you get sick and tired of repeating the same wretched experiment that gives the same results over and over again that you say to yourself, “Well, since my generalization seems to be valid always and everywhere, let me give it a more imposing name, say ‘The Law of Pebble Addition’, and let me leave it at that. I have more important things to do with my life than counting pebbles.”

A very wise decision; I would recommend this course of action to anyone. However, the following questions can be asked with justice: How certain are you of the truth of your Law of Pebble Addition? How can you be absolutely sure of its validity, generality and universality? Does it apply today in the Andromeda Galaxy, or in the farthest part of the universe where pebbles are found? Did it apply back in the Precambrian Period, or will it apply five billion years into the future?

If you are honest and careful enough, your answer would be something like this: “No, I am not certain of its truth, because although I have a lot of evidence of it being true, the body evidence is nonetheless finite. I have never been to the Andromeda Galaxy, let alone the farthest part of the universe where pebbles are found. Also, I was not alive during the Precambrian, and I will not be alive five billion years into the future. Consequently, I cannot be certain about the generality and universality of the Law of Pebble Addition.” Of course you should add, “But I have a mountain of evidence that I can marshal to support my Law. And if you want, you can test it in places where I haven’t, perhaps using procedures I haven’t used. That way, you can convince yourself that the Law holds good always and everywhere, although I don’t recommend it to you, since I’ve already done the experiments and I think it’s a waste of your time if you repeat it. But that’s your call.”

We see from the example given above that evidences are observations that support a particular hypothesis. An empirical generalization or hypothesis, such as the Law of Pebble Addition, is inferred from the given body of evidence using the process of induction. Induction or inductive reasoning works in such a way that the more evidence you can gather to support a particular hypothesis, the greater becomes the probability of that hypothesis being true, which means the more you can bet on it. Some empirical generalizations, such as the conservation of energy, the conservation of angular momentum and the principle of invariance, are probable to the degree that they are often times called “Laws of Nature” (take note of the grave capital letters). Calling them Laws of Nature simply means that they are very, very, very probable. They are so probable, in fact, that we literally bet our lives on them on a daily basis, although perhaps unknowingly. Still, they are never certain, because as the case will always be, the set of evidences supporting them is finite, is obtained from a limited portion of the universe and is gleaned over a limited period of time. In other words, any claim held up by evidence is always merely provisional. For example, before the formulation of the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory, Classical Newtonian Mechanics was considered true. However, its truth was merely provisional, and when evidence arose that new theories were needed, and most especially when the required theories were discovered, Newtonian Mechanics had to go. In other words, when we say that the truth of a claim is provisional, what we mean is that the claim is true only as far as the present body of observation is concerned. Since the present body of observation is a finite set – and a finite set it will always be – certainty can never be had in science, hence the scientist’s skepticism and humility.

Full proof: an odd example

Let us now go to the nature of proof. As with evidence, an example would best explain the concept. Take the proposition “No odd number is divisible by two,” taking note that we are saying it in the context of standard arithmetic. For the sake of convenience, let us call the said proposition p. How do we know p is true? Well, 3 is an odd number and it is not divisible by two. In fact, 3 is a prime number and so it is divisible only by itself and unity. 5 and 7 are similarly odd and prime, so they’re not divisible by 2 as well. How about 9? Nope, 9 is similarly not divisible by 2, although it is divisible by 3. The same goes for 11, 13 and 15 – these bummers are not divisible by 2 either. But how about 17? Or 323,941? Or -5? There are an infinite number of odd integers, and there’s no point testing each of them if they are or are not divisible by 2. After all, proposition p claims that all of the infinitely many odd numbers are not divisible by 2. One could say that it is in the very definition of odd numbers that they are not divisible by 2, but that’s either begging the question or rigging it. A better solution to the problem could be achieved by way of a proof.

To proceed with the proof, we first note that odd numbers are integers of the form 1+2n, where n is any integer. In other words, odd numbers are what you get when you add twice an integer to the number one – odd numbers are every other integer with respect to the number one. 1+2=3 is an odd number, and so is 1-8 =-7. We now proceed with the proof:

1. When an integer a is divisible by an integer b, then a÷b is an integer;
2. Let x=1+2n, where n is any integer;
3. All odd numbers are of the form x=1+2n;
4. If x is divisible by 2, then x÷2 is an integer;
5. From (2) and (4), it follows that x÷2=(1+2n)÷2;
6. Using the distributive property of division over addition, it follows that (1+2n)÷2 = (1÷2) + (2n÷2);
7. Using the rule of cancellation, we know that 2n÷2=n;
8. Using the definition of fractions, we know that 1÷2=½;
9. In view of (7) and (8), it follows that (1+2n)÷2=½ + n;

10.  In view of (5), we therefore have x÷2 = ½ + n;

11.  Given (2) and (3), it follows that x is an odd number;

12.  Since n is any integer, and the sum of an integer and a proper fraction is never an integer, it follows that x÷2 is not an integer;

Therefore: Whenever a number is odd, then it is not divisible by 2.

Given the above example, the following things can be said about a proof. First, a proof is a system of logically linked propositions that show that a conclusion follows necessarily from a given set of premises. In the example given, we have shown by proof that proposition p is necessarily true given that we are working within the context of standard arithmetic – you cannot believe in arithmetic and not believe the truth of p. Second, a million “evidences” for p will not be enough to establish its truth – a million odd numbers indivisible by 2 is not enough to show that p is true. However, a single valid proof, such as the one given above, is enough and is exactly what is needed. Third, not only is the truth of p necessary if we accept arithmetic, the proof above, if it is valid, establishes the truth of p as being absolute, certain and final – the truth of The Law of Pebble Addition can never acquire such attributes. Many philosophers would describe p as being true “in every conceivable universe”. If imaginary universes are not your type, think of the proof above as establishing the truth of p a priori, meaning, without reference to experience. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, proofs are only meaningful within the context of a formal system. A formal system (call it an axiomatic system if you want to impress your audience) is a system of propositions (theorems, lemmas, corollaries) that are logically deduced from the set of axioms and definitions of the system. Arithmetic is an example of a formal system, and the proposition p is an example of a theorem in arithmetic. Among other things, the formal system of arithmetic contains the definition of integers and odd numbers, the definition of addition, the distributive property of division over addition and the many axioms of addition. The proof given above will be meaningless if not taken within the context of arithmetic.

Catching for one’s breath: a brief recap

Once again, the evidences for a claim increase the probability of its truth while the proof of a claim shows that the claim follows necessarily from the premises. Additionally, the proof of a particular claim makes its truth final while the evidences supporting a claim lend the claim a provisional status. The type of reasoning used in making a formal proof is called deduction, while the type of reasoning used in inferring a conclusion from a body of evidences is called induction. Also, one important thing to remember about proofs is that they are meaningful only within the context of a specified formal system. Examples of formals systems are arithmetic, Euclidian geometry, analytical mechanics, calculus, Boolean logic, Java (the programming language, not the coffee) and chess. In the example we used above, the proof that p is true was made within the formal system of standard arithmetic (that is, using the axioms, definitions, properties and proven theorems of arithmetic). When the formal system is different, the proof of p presented above will no longer be valid or even meaningful.

Full proof 2: association is the key

To be able to compare and contrast proof and evidence much better, consider the following statement in arithmetic: “2+3=5”. Let us call this equation q. How do we know that q is true? As with the previous example, a proof is what we need.

1. 2=1+1;
2. 3=1+1+1;
3. 5=1+1+1+1+1;
4. In view of (1) and (2), we write 2+3=(1+1)+(1+1+1);
5. However, addition is associative, so (1+1)+(1+1+1) = 1+1+1+1+1;
6. In view of (4), we conclude that 2+3=1+1+1+1+1;
7. In view of (3) and (6), we conclude that 5=2+3;

Therefore: Using the symmetric property of equality, we finally conclude that 2+3=5.

We have therefore proven q to be true within the context of arithmetic. And because we have used a proof to show q as true, we can then say that q is true certainly, absolutely, eternally and a priori.

Now, compare equation q (“2+3=5”) with the Law of Pebble Addition (“2 pebbles plus 3 pebbles always and everywhere equals 5 pebbles”). Although they look akin to each other, the difference between them is very great. Recall that the Law of Pebble Addition (LPA) is a generalization that is inductively inferred, is merely probable and is provisional. On the other hand, equation q is logically deduced, is absolutely certain and is eternally true. Also, the LPA is supported by empirical evidence (that is, by repeated experience) while equation q is held up by a proof that is valid a priori (that is, without reference to experience).

However – and this is a very important however – the LPA is a very good generalization. Also, the generalization can be extended to include not only pebbles but many other things as well – we can formulate a Law of Peanut Addition (provided no one eats the peanuts), or a Law of Fundie Addition (provided the fundies don’t burn each other up on account of heresy) or other addition laws for material objects. We can also expand the generalization so that it will read “x objects plus y objects always and everywhere equals z objects”, granted x+y=z. We can do this because we have evidence to support the supposition that arithmetic addition can be used to model many kinds of material addition. In short, we have very strong reason to believe that pebbles (among many other things) add like integers. This belief, however, is merely provisional. That is, when a day comes when pebbles do not add like integers any more, it does not mean that there is something wrong with arithmetic or with the universe, it just means that pebbles simply do not add like integers any more.

As a matter of fact, many kinds of material addition cannot be modeled by arithmetic addition even today. The addition of moles of a substance is a splendid example. We know from high school chemistry that 1 mole of chloride (Cl^-) and 1 mole of sodium ions (Na⁺) do not add to give 2 moles of table salt (NaCl). Rather, 1 mole of chloride and 1 mole of sodium ions give only 1 mole of NaCl. But is not 1+1=2? Well, yes, 1+1=2 in arithmetic. However, it appears that moles of a substance, unlike pebbles or apples, do not add like integers, so we cannot use arithmetic addition to model the physical operation of addition moles of a substance.

Also, take note that no observation can affect the truth of “1+1=2” or of equation q – these statements are true for all eternity (within the context of arithmetic, of course). Even if, and this is a big if, pebbles do not add like integers (for example, if 2 pebbles plus 3 pebbles gives 6 pebbles instead of 5), equation q (2+3=5) will still be true, and certainly and eternally so. Symmetrically, no empirical generalization can ever inherit the certain and eternal verity of arithmetic; even if “2+3=5” is certainly and eternally true, it does not follow that the LPA (“2 pebbles plus 3 pebbles equals 5 pebbles”) is eternally true. The LPA will always be provisional and merely probable (albeit very, very probable) because it will always be held up by a finite and limited body of evidences.

We must count ourselves fortunate that pebbles, apples and oranges add like integers. It really could have been otherwise, since the relationship between material addition and arithmetic addition is not one of necessity.

Truth and consequence

In colloquial language, we often use ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ interchangeably, as in the conversation below.

A: I believe that the world is more than six thousand years old.

B: You’ve got proof?

A: I’ve got lots of proof. There’s radioactive dating, for one. And there are all sorts of archeological and paleontological proofs, too.

Also consider the statement, “I know God is real, and I have direct proof: I have a personal relationship with him.” And we often hear people speaking about the “proof of evolution” or “the proofs for the existence of God” or “the proofs that my boyfriend/girlfriend loves me”.

Colloquially, all of these uses are acceptable. However, many problems and controversies in philosophy and science, such as the existence of God, can discussed intelligently only using a more carefully structured language. Such a language must be sensitive to the fact that the truth of claims can be established either inductively or deductively. That is, a truth claim can either be supported by evidence or, if it is part of a formal system, it can be proved within the context of that formal system. Much is lost if we lose the distinction between proving a proposition and providing evidence for it. Since the goal of argument and philosophizing is truth – we do not argue or philosophize simply to stroke our ego, to masturbate intellectually – it would behoove us all to adopt a more structured vocabulary.

Now, if we are careful with our use of the words ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’, we find that calling St. Thomas’ Cosmological “Proofs” for the existence of God as proofs is to speak nonsense. The same goes for the Argument from Design, its kin the Fine-Tuned Universe Argument, the Argument from Miracles and the Argument from Religious Experiences– none of these are proofs for the existence of God since none of them are within the context of a specified formal system, and none of them use deductive reasoning. The Cosmological Arguments (the so-called “Five Proofs” of St. Thomas Aquinas), and all the rest, are all bodies of evidences which supposedly support the claim that God exists. This means that if they hold up to scrutiny, then they merely establish God’s existence in a provisional manner. Additionally, the conclusions of these arguments can never be certain because if they are successful, they merely establish the high probability of the existence of God. This means treating the existence of God as a scientific and empirical problem is already the death of religion; simply seeking for evidence that God exists already implies that you can never be certain of the existence of God.

Only two classes of arguments for the existence of God come near to being proofs, and these are the Ontological Proofs and the Transcendental Proofs for the existence of God. The Ontological Proofs and the Transcendental Proofs are arguments that purport to show that God necessarily exists using deductive reasoning and a priori premises. If any of them are valid, then they supposedly show that one cannot be rational and at the same time deny the existence of God. One fatal problem with these arguments is that the formal systems within which they are to be understood are not specified. This means that all their manipulations of ideas and symbols can be easily assailed. Notice that many steps in the proof for p and q cannot be understood if they are not taken in the context of arithmetic. Since arithmetic is a formal system, all symbolic operations, such as addition and its many properties, are well defined. The symbols themselves are rigidly defined and there is no room for ambiguity. The same cannot be said of the operations, symbols and symbolic manipulations of the Ontological and Transcendental Proofs, which is why I said that any step in these arguments can easily be assailed.

Another important consequence of the distinction between proofs and evidence is that science never proves anything; proofs are reserved for mathematicians, logicians and philosophers. I heard theologians were once part of the proving gang, but apparently they’ve been debarred since the Enlightenment. Now, this follows that all the conclusions of science are merely probable, provisional and pragmatically true. We accept the law of conservation of energy, for example, not because we have proven it and are thus certain of it, but because we have enormous evidence for it, and because we go a long way by believing that it is true. The same must be said of the theory of evolution, quantum theory, general relativity, or the theory that your lover is the best lover in the whole universe.

What’s in a name?

“What’s in a name?

That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet”

-Juliet, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet

Along the same lines, one might ask, “But what’s the point of bothering with these trivial differences? Indeed, what’s in a name? Will not a proof by any other name be as rigorous? And a body of evidence by any other name be as supportive?”

Well, first of all, the difference isn’t trivial. It can be subtle sometimes. The examples I gave above are the simple ones. And second, it’s actually important. It’s not mere word game, and it certainly isn’t mere sophistry or pedantry. Many discourses we enter in our daily lives involve the assessment of a proof or the judgment of a body of evidences. Knowing which is which, and applying this knowledge to your daily life, is certainly not a waste of time.

As I have said before, much is lost if we lose sight of the distinction between proof and evidence. So much, in fact, that a lot of debate and discourse regarding the existence of God or the truth of a particular scientific theory will be fruitless, if not nonsense, if we fail to take note of the important distinction.

A rose by any other name would indeed smell as sweet. But call the rose the uwakuka if that sounds fine to you. However, don’t expect people to understand you whenever you proclaim the beauty of the sweet uwakuka. We have the right to invent our very own private language, but it would be to our benefit to use the languages that exist around us, and to use them correctly. After all, what’s at stake is nothing less than the truth.

* * *

It is my strong belief that philosophical truth can be attained only through a discourse between intelligent but independent minds. Since such discourse will be at peril if we will not be uncompromising in our linguistic standards, I would argue that the careful use of language is one of the essential ingredients in a fruitful dialogue.

Let the fruitful dialogue continue.

References:

[1] Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy; An Introduction and Survey, Pimlico, 2004.

[2] Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, Wadsworth, 1984.

[3] Arthur Danto and Sidney Morgensberger (editors), Philosophy of Science, Meridian, 1964.

[4] Morton White (editor), The Age of Analysis, Mentor, 1955.

There’s enough hate and WTF news going around for this week, so let’s start things off on a more positive note. Among the news items for last week include the case of Minnie Aveline Posadas Juan, a young lady who managed graduated with a degree in Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education with a 96.32 percent GPA.

While that’s impressive, this story is made truly awesome when you consider Minnie’s handicap – she’s been blind since she was three. While she does mention God as a source of inspiration in her grad speech (and you guys know how I feel about such things), that does not deny the well of inner strength and courage Minnie found in herself to achieve hergoals, despite such overwhelming odds.

Lady, you have guts. Don’t ever let anybody tell you otherwise.

In the meantime, make sure that you send in any news bits you find interesting over at the forums’ News Thread.

*UPDATE Overlord Dawkins has recently clarified that he has not said he will personally arrest the Pope. Dawkins clarifies that he had stated that he was behind the initiative by “Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope’s proposed visit to Britain.”

More details at Dawkins’ official site

Creds go to reader Carl for informing me of the update. Thanks again dude!

=========================

Introducing the Atheist Barbie! (via Blag Hag) Link

US politician likens LGBT families to “Raising Puppies,” and not in a good way (via Pam’s House Blend) Link

Papa Ratzi’s John Hancock found on letter requesting California Bishop not to defrock sex abuse priest (via Telegraph UK) Link

Your group is a special kind of evil when even the Klu Klux Klan thinks you’re batsh*t insane (via New Humanist) Link

Holy Haymakers, Batman: Catholic Priest enters fisticuffs with Jehovah’s Witness (via Kens5.com) Link

Pro-lifer threatens to kill people at family planning clinic. Yeah, that’s logical (via Google News) Link

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI (via Times Online) Link

24,000 bunnies dead following Easter Celebration – Elmer Fudd last seen cackling after reading this (via NZ Herald News) Link

Triumph of the human spirit: Blind student is first summa cum laude graduate of school (via The Philippine Star) Link

Missing link between man and apes found (via Telegraph UK) Link

I was reading through Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae on the Regulation of Birth when I saw the following passage:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

At first glance that may look like it actually makes sense, but let us try to break it down and tear it apart.

1. “Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.”

The key issue here is the term ‘moral law’, which unfortunately does not have a very definite definition:

Moral law is a system of guidelines for behavior. These guidelines may or may not be part of a religion, codified in written form, or legally enforceable. For some people moral law is synonymous with the commands of a divine being. For others, moral law is a set of universal rules that should apply to everyone.

Obviously the Church focuses on the “moral law is synonymous with the commands of a divine being” part, insisting not only that they are the sole recipient and interpreter of divine ‘revelation’, but that they actually hold the patent for morality. But what gives them the right to do so? Their claims are all hearsay and circular. And look at how their own ranks fared in terms of morality. Once the light of reason shines on the perceived moral authority of the Church, the things they so strongly denounce – contraceptives and free sex – become a matter of personal choice for the individual. Some may make less responsible choices than others, but the basis for what will be deemed ‘responsible’ is the careful collective reflection of an evolving society and not the absolute word of self-proclaimed leaders.

2. “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman…”

Does wearing a condom mean that one has forgotten the reverence due to a woman? On the contrary, it shows the respect and care to the woman’s health and preferred reproductive status – even at the cost of reduced pleasure.

3. “…and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires…”

I think the women are more equipped to answer this. Does the Church really think that women are robots without their own sexual desires? Just like men, they too need to satisfy these desires every now and then to maintain emotional equilibrium. That’s what they mean when they tell someone acting bitchy that she needs to get laid.

4. “…no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

Is the mutual act of constantly satisfying each other’s sexual needs not a manifestation of care and affection between partners? And how can you surround her with care and affection if you need to avoid getting horny during the woman’s fertile period? When the wife is cooking his favorite dish, the husband will now hesitate to give her an affectionate hug from behind as an expression of gratefulness for the meal, because certain body parts might brush against each other and lead them to conceive another child – or break ‘moral law’ by using contraception.

In a diverse and evolving society, an absolute standard of morality simply doesn’t work. First, no matter how the Church claims that their laws were ‘revealed’ by God, this is actually hearsay and might as well be concocted by fallible men for their own agenda. Second, implementation is impossible to large populations, as even the leaders themselves bungle up.

Interestingly, we can observe another organizational approach from nature. Here is a passage from Michael Crichton’s novel Prey that explains how large numbers of the lower animals effectively achieve order and harmony without leaders telling them what to do:

Human beings expected to find a central command in any organization. States had governments. Corporations had CEOs. Schools had principals. Armies had generals. Human beings tended to believe that without central command, chaos would overwhelm the organization and nothing significant could be accomplished. From this standpoint, it was difficult to believe that extremely stupid creatures with brains smaller than pinheads were capable of construction projects more complicated than any human project. But in fact, they were.

African termites were a classic example. These insects made earthen castlelike mounds a hundred feet in diameter and thrusting spires twenty feet into the air. To appreciate their accomplishment, you had to imagine that if termites were the size of people, these mounds would be skyscrapers one mile high and five miles in diameter. And like a skyscraper, the termite mound had an intricate internal architecture to provide fresh air, remove excess CO2 and heat, and so on. Inside the structure were gardens to grow food, residences for royalty, and living space for as many as two million termites. No two mounds were exactly the same; each was individually constructed to suit the requirements and advantages of a particular site. All this was accomplished with no architect, no foreman, no central authority. Nor was a blueprint for construction encoded in the termite genes. Instead these huge creations were the result of relatively simple rules that the individual termites followed in relation to one another. (Rules like, “If you smell that another termite has been here, put a dirt pellet on this spot.”) Yet the outcome was arguably more complex than any human creation.

Most people watching a flock of birds or a school of fish assumed there was a leader, and that all the other animals followed the leader. That was because human beings, like most social mammals, had group leaders. But birds and fish had no leaders. Their groups weren’t organized that way. Careful study of flocking behavior—frame-by-frame video analysis—showed that, in fact, there was no leader. Birds and fish responded to a few simple stimuli among themselves, and the result was coordinated behavior. But nobody was controlling it. Nobody was leading it. Nobody was directing it. Nor were individual birds genetically programmed for flocking behavior. Flocking was not hard-wired. There was nothing in the bird brain that said, “When thus-and-such happens, start flocking.” On the contrary, flocking simply emerged within the group as a result of much simpler, low-level rules. Rules like, “Stay close to the birds nearest you, but don’t bump into them.” From those rules, the entire group flocked in smooth coordination.

A flock of birds with a population of thousands will move as if it were a single organism, with virtually no collision between birds. Now imagine if there was a single leader, a dozen generals, and a few hundred lieutenants all chirping out orders on how fast to fly and what direction to take. Even if these birds were equipped with GPS and radios to track and communicate with the individual members, such attempts at centralized command will only result in a fatal breakup of the formation.

As for morality, look at where the attempts at establishing an absolute moral standard have brought us. Overpopulation and poverty are an inescapable reality, and so is the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. All because of a letter deemed absolute and infallible, written by a pope more than four decades ago. And I guess this leads us to ask: Should there be an absolute moral standard, and should moral authority be centralized?

I, Freethinker or I, Troll?

Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. – Rosa Luxembourg

I’m often asked why I decided to get involved with the Filipino Freethinkers. Often in FF discussions, some people would find it weird that someone attacks Enlightenment assumptions in a fierce manner and not coming from the realm of faith. For some who worship Reason like a god, that would be anathema. For some, it can be just dismissed that I am a perpetual deviant.

To briefly introduce myself (a giveaway), apatheism by choice would be the best way to describe my irreligious convictions (I believe this should have been placed in forum introductions but I did it here nonetheless). I’m an apatheist because I don’t see any relevance whatsoever of belief or non-belief in deity/ies in general. I am more interested in discussing other issues that are of more relevance, like politics, economics, and others. “By choice” is because even if I don’t see its relevance, I can match anyone in FF in discussing philosophy of religion or participate actively in those endless “reason versus faith” or “existence of god” discussions (which are so very prominent in FF). I just don’t have the time and the passion for it.

Having said that, people would again ask, “what are you still doing here?”

The Problem of Evil, or Post-Evil, or Post-Problem

The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole message is: “What appears is good; what is good appears.” The passive acceptance it demands is already effectively imposed by its monopoly of appearances, its manner of appearing without allowing any reply. – Guy Debord

The answer is simple, but first I will state these undeniable facts about Philippine society:

1. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC), represented by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), as well as its allies is one if not THE most dangerous and dominant power center in Philippine society because the social agenda it promotes prevents the people from achieving the level of thinking for themselves, and acquiring the ability to understand freedom and autonomy;

2. The Philippine State, with pragmatic opportunist politicians and bureaucrats running it (with notable few exceptions of course), maintains its power through a “scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” relationship with the main organized religions. The Philippine State is operating as a theocracy, albeit an unofficial and less violent one; and

3. Religion, specifically Christianity has been so deeply ingrained in Philippine culture that it has become reality that can never be questioned. Its monopoly of images has obliterated other ideas, either in the form of marginalizing them as heretic and untrue, or assimilating them, thereby appropriating its symbols for its own.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand this, though in this case I don’t think rocket scientists would understand this (no offense to the rocket scientists). For the answer to the million dollar question, my apatheism as well as its peaceful coexistence with other faiths and un-faiths can only come forth in a secular society; and with the emergence of freethinkers as a recognized demographic in Philippine society, we would be able to do away (or start the path to that) with the three facts I have outlined above.

However, secularism won’t come as a gift or magically sprout overnight. It is like any human achievement – we MUST work to get it.

A Force to Reckon With

“Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea…and ideas are bulletproof.” – Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

The idea that humans can think freely without the influence of tradition or dogma is very dangerous for those in power. And that is what the Filipino Freethinkers are doing – sowing the seeds of skepticism and inquiry. FF members are not anarchists (well, not all of them), but they surely are a threat to the status quo, which is built on the hegemony of a dominant religion.

I work with FF on the basis of the promotion of secularism. I believe that FF is the current hatchery of our new breed of secular activists. From the newbie Mutalisks, I would see secular Guardians and freethinking Devourers in the future.

However, I also think that ideas are not enough.

Direct Action Gets the Goods

“Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.” – Edward Abbey
Or for those without souls:
“Sentiment without action is a fake orgasm” – Ram Fernando

I often hear freethinkers say that the underlying problem is the stupidity and ignorance of the masses. It is true to a certain point. The masses are ignorant and stupid because they were made so (disclaimer: not created from clay, but two large bamboo trees cracked). To paraphrase Chomsky’s idea, the consent that they give to a dominant line of thinking is manufactured. Using this idea, the hegemony of religious thought is not inherent. The institutions that promote and maintain this hegemony are under their control. My question for you as a freethinker and secularist is what are you going to do about it?

A dangerous display of elitism actually manifests among some of us. Responses like “they won’t understand” or “it’s better to talk to like-minded people” or “harump” aren’t so uncommon.

In this light, I would invoke Chomsky’s concept of the “responsibility of intellectuals”. He argues that intellectuals should make themselves responsible for searching for the truth and exposition of lies. This isn’t hard to grasp. This is what you desire actually. What would you freethinkers jerk-off more than the exposition of the lies of organized religions and its divine imperative to dominate civil society?

With this, I would ask that you go beyond your comfort zones and start doing something. Go to the people that you wouldn’t normally talk to if needed. Build alliances with not so like-minded individuals and interest groups who you feel have common goals. Start your revolution at home by coming out and being proud about it. Know more by reading and continuously engaging anyone possible about what you have learned. Be an activist.

This will not solve our problems overnight, but it’s a start. A secularist’s work is never done.

Poe’s law may have been originally coined for fundamentalism, but it actually works on any crackpot theory (like the whole shebang of conservative and right-wing ideology, as well as totalitarian leftism and any world-view with personality cults). This can be seen as well on the modus operandi of “Culture Jammers” like the Yes Men and Billionaires for Wealthcare.

Enjoy watching this while thinking of the Randroids.

How can you make people enjoy learning when Intellectual Elitists like to point out what others don’t know and rub their noses in it?

I define intellectual elitism by judging people by what they know instead, particularly against the standards of personal biases. I find it deeply rooted in an overwhelming desire for validation and praise, even at the expense of others. I see it as a problem because, such a predisposition leads to dismissing ideas as they are being formed and communicated. That snap judgment, based on incomplete information and with such absolute certainty, is inconsistent with aspects balanced and impartial intellectual pursuit. A key symptom and clue of an intellectual elitist is that, they have early on stopped listening and they never criticize their own understanding.

Spotting such people is not that difficult, face to face I find them when it is difficult for me to express my ideas and how they interrupt me in the middle of explanation with an oversimplified assumption of what I was leading to. This is not to be confused with people who try to help others with the best words to contain their ideas. In a conversation, the other speaker chooses not to relate ideas in a middle ground by listening and empathizing in order to use the optimal verbal method for the other person. Not all key names and individuals count as name dropping, it becomes clearly so when they rattle off a long list of names for the sake of supporting their ideas instead of expressing the underlying logic of their argument in a moderate length.

Although I disdain them, I should empathize with them. It takes one to know one, and I am guilty of Intellectual Elitism at times. Such desire to dictate and lecture is a vanity developed when I worked hard to acquire knowledge and I am accustomed to the positive reinforcement of authority and the praise of others. This desire becomes stronger especially when it is not to my strengths and the effort was a challenge.

How I can change to be less of a hog for attention, is about looking at myself with an outside perspective and using the same critical manner I would use to tear down an opponent’s argument at my own pettiness. It’s kind of hard to do, and having good friends who tear you a “new one” and teach you not to take yourself too seriously helps immensely. Self deprecation or Humility has a practical use in learning, it allows me to criticize myself and remember I still have so much more to learn. Such a virtue should be carried over to how I treat others and their views… I try and do it often enough but I’m human after all.

Of course, having such empathy and disgust to Intellectual Elitists in myself does carry over when I see it in others. If I’m disgusted enough at something, sometimes I can’t help but draw attention to it and make an example. Unfortunately this is not the best way, criticism without trust or credibility is just outright verbal attacks. I may not know some people, but I pretty sure they don’t know me either. When broad judgments are made by them regarding what I know, instead of what was said, especially when I barely had anything to say, the proper response is verbal retaliation. Same thing goes with how I should address others, I should avoid making sweeping statements when I really don’t know the person if I don’t want it to be interpreted as an attack.

The old rule parents would teach, “when you have nothing worth saying, don’t say anything” applies more specifically when dealing with such people. Sure they ate up my time, but there is no point in trying to win the value of that sunk cost. Leaving for greener pastures is the best possible course of action, although there is no rule of thumb on how rudely or politely I’ll leave. After all, I wouldn’t know much benefit of the doubt I would have wasted dealing with such people and how I will ever feel at the point of being fed up.

The proper atmosphere, to my point of view, is one that makes everyone feel okay to ask questions that they would otherwise feel stupid to ask. Such nice people to talk and exchange ideas with tend to present themselves with some humor and would at default assume the best of people. They also pay attention and ask good questions about the ideas discussed, stopping to test each other’s understanding, like someone who makes sure he is walking at the same comfortable pace and the other person. They often ask what you mean by your terms, they are not quick to let their own assumptions about the other’s use of language.

In such an atmosphere and around such people, learning becomes easier. Such a circumstance allows me to see the different strengths and potential of others, and thus learn to value and respect them more.

Whenever believers try to defend their faith in an intervening God using reason (or more precisely, pseudo-reason), the critical thinker cannot help but point out the fallacies. There is this email being circulated that tries to explain the problem of evil and why God allows pain and suffering:

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: ”I don’t believe that God exists.”

“Why do you say that?” asked the customer. “Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.

Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: ”You know what? Barbers do not exist.” ”How can you say that?” asked the surprised barber. ”I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!” ”No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.”

“Ah, but barbers DO exist! That’s what happens when people do not come to me.” ”Exactly!” affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist! That’s what happens when people do not go to Him and don’t look to Him for help. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.” * * *

Let us try to dissect the logic here:

Barber - does not believe a loving and all-powerful God exists because of the presence of suffering and pain as manifested by sick people and abandoned children

Customer – does not believe barbers exist because of the presence of people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards

Barber – explains that these people are unkempt because they do not come to him for a haircut and shave

Customer - explains that people experience so much pain and suffering because they do not come to God for help

I cannot even begin to pinpoint the logical fallacies in there because they seem to jump out all at once.  It is faulty to compare barbers to God because whenever you go to the former,  you’ll surely get your hair cut (if that’s what you want); when you seek help from the latter, your prayers are not always answered. Now if the faithful even dare to say that the barber is not there all the time to give you a haircut anytime you want – maybe he’s sick or attending some important event – it must be noted that unlike God, barbers are not omnipotent or omnipresent. And what exactly does it mean to “come to God for help”? If God is omniscient, he knows what we need (and deserve) long before we pray for it – even before we can think of praying for it. And if he is a loving God, he will grant these needs without waiting for our prayers, not to mention there are children dying a slow and painful death due to starvation and disease who are too young to understand the concept of God, much less to pray. But I guess the most significant difference between a haircut and an “answered prayer” is that you can be sure that your hair had not just gotten shorter because of pure coincidence and no external deliberate force.

I must say that while I often criticize religion, I deeply respect the faithful, as many of the people in my innermost circle are themselves believers.  As I often tell them, I respect your right to your beliefs. If you say that you believe in God because of personal faith, I respect that. Even if you say that you believe in God because the Bible (or any other holy book) tells you so, I would still respect that. But once you try to assert the validity of the Bible’s claims by spewing fallacy passed as reason, your beliefs become fair game.

The problem of evil had been an eternal bug up the theistic ass, and countless theodicies (attempts at reconciling belief in God with the perceived existence of evil) have been written, their answers ranging from almost-but-not-quite satisfactory to totally absurd. Among those I’ve read, I think the only one that gives the slightest hope to the faithful and prevents those in No. 6 in Dawkins’ spectrum from ‘falling’ into No. 7 is that God has a purpose too grand to be comprehended by our finite minds. Perhaps I can respect that, but only because I cannot scientifically disprove it. Just make sure you don’t get too cocky as to proclaim that you can actually prove it.

Before you hold an official FF Meetup ™, you must follow a few guidelines.

First, request the necessary application forms from the Filipino Freethinkers secretariat. After filling up the necessary documents, have them notarized and sent to our official headquarters. Your meetup proposal will go through an approval process, which may take 1-2 months.

But seriously.

There are no official steps or prerequisites.

But there is one guideline — during the meetup, you must use Reason™ at all times. This means that anyone who promotes the RH bill or any other socialist propaganda is an irrational, illogical, unscientific mystic pirate promoting a culture of death. Farting is strictly prohibited.

OK, OK, now I’m serious. Just had to let that out of my system (freely).
Actually, there’s nothing special about meetups.

All you need is a venue and at least one other person. If you’re blessed enough to have more than two guests, you may want to set an agenda and assign a facilitator. We’ll get into these details in future posts, but if it’s your first meetup, just wing it. Introductions and the discussions that develop from them will take up most of your time anyway.

Now go to the forum and post a call for freethinkers in your area. Once you have enough participants who have agreed on a venue and schedule, let us know. We’ll post meetup announcements on all of our online channels.
And don’t forget to take pictures (especially a group picture toward the end). Ending a meetup without a photo op is bad luck.

I have no energy for outrage anymore as there is just so much going on in the world today.  That school in Mississippi who canceled the “gay” prom? They fake-organized another prom with just a few of the outcast students and kept a secret “real” prom for the rest of the class.  There is so much sex scandal news that they’re all sounding the same.   Aquino is winning! Earthquakes for everyone!!

Submit yo links via News Thread.

==========

Kotaku is doing a series of articles on religion in games.  Here, and here.

Giant lizards are among us. (via Inquirer) link

Middle-class Muslims fuel the Halal food boom in France.  (via The Guardian) link

No more fur for ceremonial robes in Israel – fur ban is being opposed by Orthodox Jews (via The Guardian) link

Art exhibit in the Netherlands attempts to examine the relationship between Christianity and sexuality. It’s a pity that there are no pictures in the article.  This is the only picture I found. (via the NY Times) link

Learn about the Jews in China here. (via the NY Times) link

Will having more women in the Catholic Church hierarchy help prevent future sex scandals? (via Newsweek) link

An atheist charity formed by atheists, for the needy around the world. (via the NY Times) link

Scientists are studying atheist brains to see if they’re sort of different. (via Globe and Mail) link

Parents in Malaysia are in a custody battle after the husband secretly converted their children to Islam (they were formerly Hindu).  Who gets the final say on a child’s faith? (via NY Times) link

In Andrew Lloyd Webber’s rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, Judas sings Heaven On Their Minds, expressing his concern about how Jesus’ influence was getting dangerously out of hand. With a hindsight of 2000 years, let us look at how Judas’ forewarning fared over the centuries.

Some of these news items may be a bit oddball for those among use who have gotten used to news updates normally related to matters of religion and politics.

However, I do believe that being a freethinker is more than simply being against organized religion or quack beliefs. I believe that to be a freethinker means that one has to be more receptive to ideas that evoke critical thinking, and perspectives that aren’t normally presented by mainstream news.

We don’t have to agree with said perspectives, but I do believe that at least getting a glimpse of these ideas leaves us with plenty of food for thought, and helps nurture a better sense of just how diverse the world is.

To paraphrase Hannibal Lecter, “It is always good to try new things.”

…Okay, so maybe quoting a guy who eats human brains sauteed in butter and garlic isn’t the best way to put it, but you get my drift.

That said, enjoy sinking your teeth into this Sunday’s FF news updates, and be sure to send over any news you find interesting over to the News Thread!

=================================

Priest Likens Criticism Over Abuse to Anti-Semitism (via New York Times) Link

Peter the rock, literally (via San Antonio News) Link

Man to be beheaded in Saudi on charges of sorcery. Unclear if Stupefy was cast on authorities. (via CNN) Link

Hentai artist Nogami Takeshi disses CNN for their sensationalistic coverage of Japan H-culture (via tsurupeta.info) Link

Aussie bishop blames atheism for Nazism, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Forgets to mention baby-eating, weed, and sexual orgies (via Philippine Daily Inquirer) Link

Gunn High School Sings Away Hate Group (via Youtube) Link

Molesticon, #RapeFail, Eyelog, and other colorful euphemisms for Church sex abuse case (via Killing the Buddha) Link

Jesus gets ripped for his second coming (via The Onion) Link

An insightful reflection piece on the matter of hate, bigotry, and fighting for individualism (via Daylight Atheism) Link

Cardinal Sean Brady, one of those involved in the silencing of sex abuse victims in Ireland, receives standing ovation from pulpit (via Irish Times) Link

“And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” — 1 Corinthians 15:14

The Christian religion, at least for the sects that claim that Jesus is God, hinges upon the resurrection, which is what is being celebrated today amidst egg hunts and two hour long Masses. The resurrection represents Christ’s triumph over death and is the proof of his divine nature and the truthfulness of life after death. It appears, however, that even the people at the time of the Bible weren’t very interested in the raising of the dead.

Two people were raised from the dead by Jesus — his friend Lazarus (John 11:1–44) and the daughter of Jairus (Matthew 9:18–26, Mark 5:21–43, and Luke 8:40–56). Nowhere in the accounts regarding these miracles were they even asked what it was like to have come back to life. Saints Peter and Paul were both allegedly able to raise people from the dead (Acts 9:36–42 and Acts 20 9:12, respectively). Again, in these two cases, no one seemed intrigued by people surviving death, beyond the initial shock.

Jesus was crucified after the Passover meal at nine in the morning, according to Mark, but it was before the Passover meal at twelve noon, according to John. And, when Jesus had expired on the cross, Matthew relays that, “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split…” (Matthew 27:51).

You may remember that scene in The Passion of the Christ. What may have been left on the cutting room floor, however, was the sequence for the following verses, “…the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matthew 27:52–53)

I would think that these ‘saints’ might have included Moses, Abraham, Elijah, and other great leaders of the Jewish people, but Matthew doesn’t say who they were. I wonder, when they came to the city, did they go back to their old homes? Did the headless John the Baptist resurrect and start preaching again? Why didn’t the resurrected saints play a role in the Christian Church (and this should, at least, be evident in Church records)? Wouldn’t the apostles give special positions to the patriarchs of the Jewish faith? Having Abraham on your side would have been definitive proof to convert all the Jews to the Christian faith. Unfortunately, Matthew is alone in his assertions, as the other evangelists didn’t even write about an earthquake.

Did the resurrected people die again? What did the Romans think of these events? Surely something as extraordinary as a dead person coming back to life is deserving of inquiry by the Roman scientists and philosophers. What more for a legion of people breaking out of their graves? The lack of curiosity or further commentary on these astonishing incidents belies Christianity’s claims to authenticity. With regards to the greatest miracle possible, all Biblical characters appear decidedly indifferent.

To further reveal that the evangelists were either lying or didn’t care enough to pay attention during the resurrection, they wrote contradicting reports as to what had happened after Jesus rose from the dead. Matthew says that it was dawn when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to visit Jesus’ tomb. Mark says it was sunrise, while John says it was dark and it was only Mary Magdalene. Luke, however, says that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James, along with other women were there.  How can we come to believe these writers when they couldn’t even get the facts of their religion’s most important story right? Even the most pathological of liars try to have a modicum of consistency.

Matthew tells us that an angel said to the two Marys, “…behold, he goeth before you into Galilee.” So, they told the disciples who went to a mountain in Galilee “which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.”

Now, John tells us that Jesus showed himself to the disciples when they had assembled in a house, not at the mountain in Galilee. The disciples weren’t looking for Jesus because they were hiding from the Jews. So, which version is right?

These are historical accounts and only one timeline of events can be true. The only refuge left for apologists to take, when factual inconsistencies are so glaring as these, is the dishonest safe harbor of metaphor. At this point, all rational discussions end, with the details of the reports twisted with hermeneutical nonsense.

It is too much to ask for people to give these mutually opposed narrations the benefit of the doubt. If this were a court case and these were the kinds of testimonies given by the accused, they would be imprisoned, after adding perjury to their crimes. For questions pertaining to whether there is a God, and if he is the Christian God, we must have a standard for evidence befitting such an important and life-altering proposition. If even the evangelists couldn’t take this savage doctrine of human sacrifice seriously enough to write congruously, why should we give them a moment’s notice?

Photojourn wannabe here so every now and then, I prowl the streets to look for subjects to take pictures of.  In this case, it is not that I was looking for an argument with this old timer, it’s just that I wanted to know his side of the story.

I noticed him walking just ahead of me down the street. He was showing everyone the sign to warn them of impending doom. No loud voice, no in-your-face tactics, just gestures and the waving sign. I introduced myself and we had a discussion about our differing religious beliefs among other things. “Before I had religion, now I have Jesus”, said he. Here is Brother Dayal:

Opened my eyes.
I am floating in a seemingly endless lake.
(tricked myself to believe that this surrounding of water is surrounded by land)
I long to stand on my feet…and touch solid ground.
***
Dull.
There is no wind.
The water is as still as the air.
Need to wade my arms, trash my feet
in order to see waves in this otherwise clear still flat waterscape.
***
Think.
Must I swim?
To where?
Blankly I stare, flat horizon everywhere.
Or should I wait?
For what?
Something, anything that’d rescue me from this tranquil waters for a hell.
***
Should I drown in order to end this peaceful monotony for a life?
Sink or swim?
Neither.
I will float.
***
Strange.
I feel no hunger for food nor thirst for water.
I am still alive.
Here I am,
dying to satisfy the hunger, quench the thirst-
the question:
Why am I still alive?
***
Opened my eyes.
Surprised to see a wooden box floating nearby.
I smiled.
Finally, my coffin.
I swam towards the box… it is locked.
***
Where is the key?
Is there a key?
Perhaps there is…lying somewhere at the bottom which I couldn’t see.
***
I dived, dived really deep
to find the hopefully existing key.
I dived, dived really deep
the pressure kept on pounding at my chest,
still determined to find the key that’d open that mysterious wooden chest.
***
I am running out of air.
Need to surface…
to breathe.
***
Opened my eyes.
Frowning, I brood at the thought of me drowning
without finding out what’s inside that wooden box.
***
The closed wooden box still laughs, mocks me with its lock.
***
I punched the lock over and over with my right hand
-in a desperate attempt to break it-
instead it broke my right hand, my fingers.
Most specially, my middle finger.
Great.
Now I am deprived of my only source of twisted satisfaction-
the art of clenching my right hand into a fist,
extending my middle finger
-proudly
confidently straight-
pointing it at the sky that has no clouds, sun, moon nor stars.
All stolen.
All I have is an insane blue ceiling for a heaven.

Then I laughed.
I laughed at my stupidity.
Why am I lamenting over my right hand?
I still have my left left.
***
Opened my eyes.
Delighted to see a scarlet bird
-a cardinal-
defy the azure sky.
The bird circled
then perched on my disfigured, outstretched right hand.
Talons tightened their grip
my expressionless face is ripped by a painful smile.
Once again
hot-living blood flowed out of my hand,
trickled down on my arms to desecrate the sea.
Gently
I lowered my right hand to better see the cardinal’s beauty.
I noticed- something is in its beak.
Slowly
I placed my left palm under the cardinal’s proud head.
I begged.

The cardinal dropped what it was holding in its beak
and I was not surprised to see
that it is a key…
it must be that key.
***
The cardinal flew away.
I shed tears as I witness the most depressing scene-
a moving scarlet dot vanishing in the still blue horizon line.
***
Opened my chest.
Found only blank sheets of white paper.
Paper.
HA!!!
Broke my right hand just for paper!!!
I grabbed, crumpled and threw the nearest sheet.
***
So surreal ( as if my problem of existence is not surreal enough)
the sheet which I grabbed, crumpled and threw
flew back to its pack.
***
***
***
So, I am to write.
-But I have no pen.
A scarlet feather floats nearby.
-But I have no ink.
Water is all that I could see.

But I have blood.
***
Counted the blank sheets of white paper,
the treasure I found in my chest.
Forty-four.
Forty-four sheets where I could squeeze my thoughts.

Thoughts…
About what?

I looked around
my tranquil water hell
mocking blue heaven
broken right hand
broken fingers
broken middle finger.

I smiled.
Serenely.
I know what to write.

Defiance.

First, I must learn how to use my left hand
so that I may begin writing my silent crusade of screaming thoughts
of defiance…

…thoughts.
All that is left of me.
Thoughts that are, I strongly believe, right.

.
.

.

-Jonathan Maines Ramirez, circa 2003

left the playeronbacktobackrepeat,songsOrestesAndRosebyAPerfectCircle.

woke up with the idea for a poem in mind…finished in an hour.