The Most Attractive Idea

There are times in my life that I want to write. A million ideas cross my mind, but when I sit to write, I find that the ideas have floated out of my mind.

Generations ago, people searched the world and wondered at creation. The street lights dimmed the night sky and computer screens dimmed the light in man. Is this a fair statement? Was the past so much better than the future that we live in? A year ago humanity reached its height and is now on the decline. And yet, we are still better off than our cave dwelling ancestors, unless the rogues like David Childress are right. If that is the case than our ancestors were better off than us, for they were more advanced. But, where are the fossil records of these great civilizations? Would great floods and ice ages be enough to wipe out an advanced civilization? Or did these great civilizations simply trade their freedom for security like we have done now? Freedom allows a civilization to be more creative.

It is creativity and competition that allow for a civilization to advance and really nothing else. Doesn't competition bring out the worse in people? What about the notions of fair play? Let's perform a thought experiment and say competition in all forms was eliminated. What would that lead to? There would be one company to bake bread, another to fix phones, another to write newspapers (these would be referred to as truth papers in this society), and so on. The bread would be lousy, even though it was the best bread on the market. Without a competitive market there would not be any other bread to compare it to, so it would be the best, even if it tastes like shit. The phones won't work, for the phone company would not have to worry about upping their game. If they did work, the sound quality would be lousy, but at the same time it would be the best sound quality on the market. So without competition there would be no reason for humanity to try to solve problems. The lazy answer would be the right answer, for it would be the only answer. Would the lazy answer really be the way of a noncompetitive society? Of course, it would. The human brain always looks for the easiest and simplest solution. We are hardwired for laziness. Would a horse ever hook himself to a plow? Of course, he wouldn't. It is competition that allows humanity to grow out of its lazy animal nature. Herein lies the dangers to communism and capitalism. In communism the state owns and controls everything, so no one competes against each other. Capitalism is somewhat better until one party gains a monopoly on goods or services. So as long as monopolies are prevented from happening a free market system works the best. There are still those who do not want to work. What of those who do not want to work? Under a pure Marxist system they would be forced to work. Under a free market system, there is the welfare state, which cannot survive in a pure Marxist Utopia. In the great Utopia of Karl Marx, everyone is forced to work. There is no dropping out of the system; not even to join a monastery, as the official religion of Marxism is atheism. Wait is atheism a religion? Of course, it is. The atheist complains and will attack anybody that does not subscribe to their orthodoxy. Like the Catholics before them, they even have holy relics which they call the fossil record. When called out on this, the atheist will cry out that there is more proof for evolution than for God. All they really do is substitute the word creation for evolution.

A religious man would say, "God created man to walk upright."

The atheist would say, "Nature evolved man to walk upright."

From an outsider's point of view, they both say the same thing and both have emotional investments in their religions. Of course, I admit that nearly everyone has an emotional and financial investment in their religion or point of view, if you prefer. Only one man in history claimed that he did not have such an investment in his ideas and that was Charles Fort.

So the question is: Which idea is the correct one?

The one that you believe in, for outside of the human mind nothing can exist. Without the human mind to give the fossil record order, it would not even have an existence. Without our minds we would not even able to study and organize the so-called fossil record. Off topic, but what the fuck does so-called mean? I mean the damn thing is called the fossil record, so why the hell would anyone ever use the useless phrase, so-called? I vow from this day forward to never use it again.

What is truth? That may be the greatest question ever asked and never answered to everyone's satisfaction. In an earlier essay that I wrote, I developed a theory about two realities. The first reality is the physical world in which everyone lives in and the second reality is a private reality that takes place within your own skull. I called the first reality, Reality Prime and the second I called Personal Reality. The joke is that Reality Prime is studied through the filter of the Personal Reality. So can anything ever be established to be truth when everything is ran through a filter. I read a quote by David Wilcock that stated that we were souls having a human experience – a truly Gnostic idea. Of course, we could take this to imply that the personal reality is the greater reality and it is possible everything that exists is an illusion.

If that idea is true then truth is just a matter of personal experience and the opinion of that experience.

The cold-blooded materialist even agrees with that up to a point. The materialist counters the argument that God gave the universe order by stating, "The universe grew out of chaos and there is order to everything, because once one atom set itself in motion, the rest just followed suit.

"Had that first atom bounced in another direction the universe would look quiet differently from what it does today. So what appears to be order is really just a result of a random motion taken by the first atom. Therefore, God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe or its structure. And even the Laws of Nature is a result of the first random act after the Big Bang."

The argument boils down to this: nature is the result of a random act and that this random act set everything in motion and gave everything its structure and its laws.

And if a Creationist tries to poke holes in this theory, the only thing that an atheist has to do is reply, "You don't understand. This theory fits the facts and is not based upon wishful thinking."

Atheists can also use math, even though their equations would always support their ideas, because they are the programmers of such ideas and their numbers would reflect that. In the last ditch effort the atheist could appeal to the innovations of science such as the lightbulb. Of course, this would rank Thomas Edison higher than Richard Dawkins or even Stephen Hawking. On a side note, it is claimed that Edison didn't invent the lightbulb, but the first "light bulbs" were just a set of wires that blew out after thirty seconds or so. It's like saying the guy who dug a hole and crapped down it invented the first toilet.

Of course, this raises the question: is much of science really just philosophy? To really prove something scientifically a theory must be proposed, an experiment conducted, and a finished product that is both useable and observable must be the end result. Otherwise, why should we fund something that gives such an unhappy result as evolution.

What unhappy result is that? If evolution is true in its pure materialistic form then we are not truly alive. We are nothing but a group of chemicals that thinks its alive. In other words, we are just chemicals having a human experience.

Should we fund such an idea or should we let it get its own money through its inventions? This question is not so straight forward, but the answer is probably yes. It is an idea that is offered in the free marketplace, along side Creationism, New Ageism, and any other ism that you can think of. Any idea has value, whether it is true or not. If you disagree with this idea, you can write a book debunking it and possibly make a ton of money doing it. So the ideas of evolution and Creationism need each other like ice cream needs a cone. If you practice New Thought, New Age Paganism, Wicca, etcetera, you can make money too, by presenting yourself as an alternative to the mainstream. Now, you are thinking (it is really I thinking this, but sometimes I refer to myself in the second person) my god if any idea has value then we are equal under the law – under the laws of the free market anyway. My neighbor worships trees and talks to frogs, does he have the right to vote and make decisions for everyone else.? Yes, he does, but the good news is he'll probably just waste his vote on third party candidates, and even if he votes for a mainstream candidate, he still has rights and even value in the free marketplace of ideas.

When ideas are thrown together and able to compete, each idea strengthens the other. Herbert Spencer came up with the idea of the survival of the fittest and, perhaps, the free market will give us the truth from Herbert's principle or it could just give us the idea that we find the most attractive.