Prologue

Life is absurd. It has no meaning. It has only a beginning and an end. In the case of a housefly or mosquito, the time between the beginning and the end is measured in hours. Some trees live for over 4000 years. Humans get maybe 80 years or a few more to live. There is no reason for the existence of the housefly, mosquito, tree, or human beyond the happenstance of their natural birth.

To all things there is a beginning and an end. The universe had its beginnings in a flash of energy about 14 billion years ago. It will quite possibly end in another grand cataclysm some time in the future. The intervening period is what we think of as time. In the grand scheme of the universe, The earth’s time is merely an unimportant interlude. Human life spans are not even the blink of an eye to the universe. These life spans, being very finite, are what trouble the human mind. To even try to imagine that life will come to an end is unthinkable. Thus was born religion.

Some day religion will be extinct. Only then will science get serious about the problems of aging and disease. Only then will nations decide to get along regardless of national creed or tradition.

1.6 million children have died in wars since 1990. 20-25,000 children die each day from war, privation, starvation and disease. “God” (according to his believers) is all powerful and all knowing. He is said to be able to predict the future. He knows children are dying at an alarming rate. Either “God” does not exist, or he is one cruel bastard. He is at least complicit in every death, legally liable as an accessory before the fact. Every time I mention this fact to someone, they bring up the “free will” argument. They say that “God” gave men “free will” to do as they please. Now let’s consider this for a minute. The all knowing and all powerful “God” lets men do as they wish and doesn’t interfere in mass murder or other forms of suffering. If this is true, what do we need “God” for?

What is “God” anyway? Where did “he” come from? The logical and reasoned approach to this age old question is actually fairly simple. Early Homo Sapiens had sophisticated brains; capable of tool production and a certain amount of abstract thought. Those brains allowed them to contemplate the whys and wherefores of their situation. They needed certain things; such as fire, water, animals and plants. They didn’t know enough to be able to reason that they were simply a part of an evolved world; that they got the things they needed because they had evolved on this planet of plenty.

Right from the beginning of abstract thought, after the development of language and other forms of communication, they ascribed their good fortune to an ethereal “spirit” contained in the sun that provided light and made their crops grow, in the rocks from which they made their weapons and tools, and in the plants and animals they needed for sustenance.

When those items became scarce, they figured it was because the “spirits” contained in them were somehow angry. They devised elaborate schemes to appease these “spirits”, and built rational structure around these attempts. Manifestations of this structure early on ranged from simple offerings of food and precious things to human sacrifice. Shamans and idols became commonplace as symbols of these “spirits”.

As civilization flourished (beginning probably about 15,000 years ago), These structures became more organized, until something which could be called religion emerged. Right from the beginning, these civilizations were built around their deities, which were simply the “spirits” with more definition.

The early Greeks and Egyptians, as well as their predecessors in the middle east, built huge monuments and temples in which could dwell their chosen deities. The ritual of this early worship of deities became the doctrine of modern religious thought.

It is interesting to note that no truly new religion has ever been invented. The monotheism of the Hebrew tribes in the middle east was simply an outgrowth of earlier deity worship, with the simple change of all deities being combined into one. Christianity, Islam, Ba’Hai, Buddhism, and all other major religious divisions owe their existence to the concept of deism invented 100,000 years ago or so.

Throughout history, religions have gone to great lengths to safeguard their preeminence. Wars have been fought, unbelievers have been killed in horrible ways, and nations have been formed solely for the reason of maintaining the hegemony of the majority religion. Kings and religious leaders were often the same, and usually worked in tandem when the weren‘t..

So what is the appeal of these religions? Why have they maintained huge followings even after science has brought into question the foundations of their beliefs? Again, the answer is fairly simple. Most religions offer something to the believer. In most cases, it is the promise of an after life.

Given that life is very tenuous, the thought of having been born into this world with no apparent rhyme or reason is a very scary thought. To contemplate, even for a second, that when we die there is nothing else, is unacceptable. Thus, we want to believe that, somehow, we will have more life when this one is over.

All a religion has to do is offer the promise of everlasting life, and make it simple to attain in order to fill it’s churches. Many Christians are told, for example, that all they have to do is believe, and they will “go to heaven” upon dying, or at some time in the future.

This profound reliance on belief (or, put another way; faith) is the driving force in the modern religious pantheon. This faith is paramount to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, among others. For this reason, religious leaders have been zealous in trying to stamp out any questioning of the core beliefs.

.

How can otherwise intelligent men be taken in by their dogma? Read the following letter from Galileo to his friend Kepler:

"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"

It’s important to remember that the Christian “authority” is the collection of writings called the “Bible”. This Bible is full of contradictions and errors. Taken at face value, the Bible lacks any credibility as history. It is said to have been written by men who were guided by “God” in what they wrote. Why would “God” have promulgated such erroneous writing? If “he” is all-knowing, why does he let men state that, for example, the stars and sun revolve around the earth?

The many questions and conundrums which occur to intelligent readers of the Bible have to be explained in some way. It is these machinations and specious reasoning which Baruch Spinoza wrote and spoke against in the 17^th century. He stated that theologians were willing to go to any length to make their version of biblical doctrine seem reasonable.

In fact, “God” is defined and described in such a way as to fit the facts that are evident in nature. The fact that he doesn’t answer our prayers as he promised to do in the Bible is explained away as “God’s will”, as if God knows more than we do what‘s good for us, and withholds his “favors” for reasons known only to him. How convenient. This fits perfectly with the fact that no known miracles have ever been proven.

Any explanation for various troubling thoughts about “God” can just as easily (and much more convincingly) be explained by simply stating “He does not exist”.

I began this book with the idea of writing a memoir of my combat experiences during the Vietnam war. As I researched and planned my book, I began to realize how profoundly I had been changed by the war and how far my journey had brought me. I decided that I would explore the depths and breadths of my philosophical education. In other words, why do I believe the way I do about things?

Lastly, about the organization of this book. More precisely, about the lack of organization. The chapters have no real order. I wrote them at various times and jammed them together willy-nilly. The clarity of the writing comes from the truth of the telling, not from chronological order. Think of it as an unfolding conversation with a new found friend.