Re: *******Does God Exist?*************

Acme Posting wrote:
> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> "Acme Posting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> (...continued from 1st part just posted in same thread)

<snip>

> I'd say she is now a ritual object for brain programming purposes.
> Same as Barnum in a salesperson's award ceremony. Pictures, plaques,
> uniforms, decorum, music, formal processions in a pecking order, etc.,
> etc. Same for some political gatherings, I suppose, though I've never
> been involved that much. Military of course. Damn, it's everywhere.
> Even a lot of ritual words, pictures, etc., now on TV.

Yes, it's everywhere. This is a vitally important observation, how much
social constructs are basically alike and how they all originate with
organized religions (at some point in history). It affirms that mankind is
still, fundamentally, in religious bondage and subject to existential fears
which compel him to seek refuge in calming psychoterapeutic mumbo-jumbo and
ritual and in a wishful illusion that some higher power looks out for him
and his wellbeing. Thus humans tend to invent closed social structures
(warlike, defensive, obsessive, other-directed) which somehow exist in
contravention of nature and natural forces which are supposed to be
"subjected" and "mastered" and "improved" and "made safe" by human
technology thereby attempting to cut humans off from nature, a quite insane
undertaking bound to fail. This fallacy cannot remain hidden from the
concious mind forever, thus humans also strongly want to compensate for
their isolation from nature (which is a form of alienation that in its turn
promotes very detrimental and dangerous effects, too) by inventing
supernatural forces which "order" nature in such a way that human endeavours
remain harmless and inconsequential. Another insanity and a very bad spiral
to be caought up in.

I do not know what the "cure" is. But getting rid of the belief in "god"
seems like a good place to start. It will be a really difficult undertaking,
but I actually believe that humanity cannot carry on in this (ancient)
manner much longer without disastrous global consequences. It's either get
well or die out, simple as that, for mankind is presently painting himself
into a corner. Man needs PROPER psychotherapy and education in order to free
himself.

> Is this additional attention and acknowledgement of Mother Theresa a
> bad thing on balance? Won't that many more people have her for an
> example? Won't some of those seek out the facts later, or naturally
> separate out the mumbo-jumbo? And even if not, isn't the world better
> off with more Mother Theresas regardless of motivation? It's really
> hard to argue against nuns! (except for what is taken away from
> themselves).

Well, those are some of the usual ways in which religious movements and
institutions defend themselves against accusations like mine. What is really
behind the defense is the notion or idea that if religions didn't exists
society would become ungovernable and social chaos (even madness) would
become the norm. This IS a valid argument in the short run, for it is well
known in psychology that an attempt to cure a patient of a certain
pathological obsession or madness often leads to the patient "escaping" into
another obsession. It's the old joke about the shrink and the patient who
thought he was a tortoise. The shrink cured him, but now he thinks he's a
mole.

Yet, the defense of religions that they help make society governable (which
is certainly true, religion is a tool of statecraft) is NOT valid in the
long run, because it offers the patient no cure, no future. Instead, the
patient remains stuck in his obsession while the religious socialization
that he continually undergoes keeps him calm and disassociated. This is the
same way closed psychiatric wards treat their patients, handing them
disassociative, emotion repressing, calming psychopharmaca in order to keep
them quiet and malleable. This could go on forever, of course. But isn't it
the duty of doctors (of everybody) get the patients well and off their
medication?

> You have to ask, what was in the outermost loop in the
> reformer's mind when he cooked up this dogma and implementation? And
> look at the result. Is the result good or bad on balance? If it wasn't
> for Christ, we'd still be worhipping emperors and frogs (Hmmmm, as I
> look out over the ornaments on my lawn, maybe I shouldn't have said
> that!).

By noting down this fine inherent contradiction - between the good
intentions of reformers and the psychological barriers to success that have
so far always dogged them (throughout known human history) - you have
defined what the main obstacle to human progress is, IMHO. This is really
the central reason why I want to promote the idea that the belief in "god"
or "gods" is bad (psychologically unhealthy) and that the only option
humanity has for the future is to liberate himself from these ancient forms
of self-imposed mind control. If that does not happen, then the future will
become what past history has mainly always been, repetitions of a few basic
themes which have kept humanity in self-imposed bondage. It'll be just like
it always has been, " Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

> Well, what I meant was how Christ (as philosopher) did move western
> thought towards the equality principle. Biggest nudge of all IMO. One
> could think of religion as his noble tool.

Religion is probably a "noble tool" in the minds of many (if not all)
religious people. But even though I do accept that religion has some short
term, momentary benefits, one should never forget that religions are
basically always reactionary in their social outlook. They tend to promote
the ideology of the dominant social outlook or ruling class (of any society
in history) to the detriment of reformers and in contravention of the REAL
interests of their followers. Thus religion is primarily a tool of
statecraft, serving purposes of social regimentation and lending a seeming
legitimacy to the prevailing social order. In the few historical cases where
religious movents have served as a basis for mass movents for social reform
(or revolution), like early Christianity did in the ancient Roman Empire,
this is to be viewed more as an abberation or an exception that proves the
norm than anything else. Only peoples living under extreme social conditions
of oppression or exploitation really regard religion as their "saviour".
They shouldn't but they do - and who can reasonably blame people in fear of
drowning for grasping anything that might keep them afloat? Again, I can't
really find it in myself to do that.

<snip>

> Up to here I think you could substitute "salesperson award ceremony"
> (and lots of other things) for "religion." I know just barely enough
> about Buddhism (and maybe Confucianism?) to understand and agree. But
> wasn't the success of those ethical systems dependent on the culture?
> Would such work in all cultures? Aren't there cultures where religion
> is indicated to acheive social order and other necessary goals in
> reasonable time? How about the affects of changing technology and
> cultural things like music videos?

Of course, you're right that the cultural background and history of a people
strongly influence the formation of new religions. They always build on the
old an familiar tradition however much they try to break with certain
specific practices or beliefs. This is also true of Buddhism and
Confucianism. The historic successes of those two belief systems are
striking both in their similarities and in their differences. Confucious
believed that if only governments would act ethically - which in his mind
basically meant performing certain ancient rituals and ceremonies - then
beneficial government could become a reality (by "magic", I suppose). This
Confucianism was a reaction against the (as Confucious perceived it)
unethical government of the times (which had led to the fracture of China
into competing kingdoms, all fighting for supremacy) and an attempt to
return to a "god"-inspired reality, which he believed had existed at some
mythical prehistoric epoch in the Middle Kingdom. Confucianism became the
official  Chinese state-legitimizing philosophy (applying only to the state
employed aristocracy) of every successive Chinese government (until Sun Yat
Sen), yet nobody ever really tried to put Confucious' reforms into practise.
The most they ever did was influence Chinese governments, kings, emperors to
keep China isolationistic - but there are whole priods of Chinese history
where China's foreign policy was as imperial and expansionist as that of any
other great power in history.

Buddhism was also originally a reaction against the behaviour of elite
rulers and aristocracy that Buddha grew up with intimate knowledge of, he
being a son of a local Indian king. He deplored the elites' self-indulgent
lifestyles and their abuses of power and came to the conclusion that only
through a self-imposed regimentation to master his vile human desires could
Man ever hope to escape the Wheel of Creation or ruses of Maya. In this view
he radically broke with Hinduism and, oh, irony of history, his religious
philosophy quickly became the state-carrying religion for much of nothern
India. How did that happen? Well, the Buddha had preached abstinence and
disinterst in the physical aspects of human life. He had strongly impressed
on his followers the idiocy of imagining that a better life on Earth might
ever come about as a result of human striving. What better religion for
rulers to promote than one which tells its followers that their lives are
not to be "wasted" striving for temporal happiness?

(All this [above] is ultra-short, naturally, only inclusive of the basic
point I want to make. The true complexity of both religions is at least a
magnitude of ten greater. Much too involved to do justice here.)

> If not, then what is the alternative to organized religion, other than
> a police state? Isn't it better to have religion by free choice so
> that the rest of us can have freedom? Isn't that a fair social
> contract between us and them? (I know that in many places it is not a
> free choice.)

That is the burning question, of course, "what is the alternative"? I can't
claim I have any easy solutions. But surely, the mind which can program
itself to believe in a "god" can also de-program itself and in the process
explore what this means in terms of individual and collective
socio-psychological consequences. Human beings don't REALLY need to regiment
themselves with imagined "gods" and immaterial "religion" in order to manage
life, IMHO, and the idea that they do seems a bit insane to me. As you know
by now, my main thesis is that this is exactly what keeps humanity in
bondage and forces it to go through the same detrimental experiences again
and again, like war, social upheaval, environmental destruction etc. in an
obsessive-compulsive manner. This self-punishing way of acting keeps Man
from correcting his own mistakes and makes him hurt himself, over and over,
like a poor dog in Pavlov's famous laboratory biting his own paw because of
the "paradoxical" programming it has received.

>> The
>> question of belief should be viewed as seperate from organized
> religion. It
>> should be regarded as a psychological and socio-psychological
> phenomenon.
>
> Agree with that. "Belief" means "human," i.e. subjective by my
> definition. That's all psychological to me, from brain physiology,
> what we know from PET scans, etc., evolutionary needs, Freud,
> programming, etc.
>
>> The hinge which holds religion and belief together consists of
> theology and
>> ceremony. Thus the choices facing the person wanting to become a
> "member" of
>> a religion is rarely confronted with the real meaning of his choices,
> either
>> in psychological or in philosophical terms.
>
> That seems right. New distinction for me. Good brain food.

Thanks!

<snip>

>> ...I really wanted to express with the "material reality" is how
> extreme a step
>> is for a human psyche to suppose the existence of an "invisible",
>> monoteistic, all-powerful god. How much energy has to go into
> maintaining
>> this illusion? What outrageous interpretations of real events must be
>> fabricated? What doubts have to be denied and suppressed? For it is
> clear
>> that (many) deists believe fervently that "god" is intervening in
> reality on
>> their behalf. Such a stressful, obsessive life!
>
> Basically agree. I have had these same thoughts with the same
> intensity in reaction to some (arguably) ruined lives or at least
> damaged lives I've seen. Yet some of those people are quite
> accomplished in their fields and seem quite happy. Moreover, they cost
> us less tax money for prisons and welfare, no? Social message of
> american Christianity to me: Work hard, stay out of trouble, don't
> have fun, don't ask for anything. If someone freely chooses that, why
> complain? But if that is "imposed" on someone, like children, then IMO
> it has to be bad. Every human being has a basic right to free will and
> intellectual freedom in my view. But I still respect it for social
> engineering in moderation. As an american parent, what are my choices?
> Home schooling, religion, or the public sex/drug emporium? If I don't
> have time for home schooling, I think I would take religion, at least
> during the most susceptible years. And as a parent I could ameliorate
> the programming or contradict it selectively to keep the open mind.

The choices of life. Of course, the reality of human life which confronts
the individual in the here and now has to be faced. My vision of a future
without "god" is a utopian one, and one which may never come about - though
I do have some reasoned hope that it might. One can't practically base one's
life on what will (hopefully) happen in the future but, for simple reasons
of survival and getting on with life, have to accept the challenges and
difficulties of the present. Thus I think it is more than fair to say that
those who make considered and reasoned choices based on their own views are
doing the best that can be done, and that no-one should ever be blamed for
"giving in" to present social realities. The way to do it is to avoid the
self-destructive bits of contemporary culture and social constructs (as much
as is possible) and seek to maintain individual mental cohesion (which means
finding ways of communicating with likeminded or sympathetic people). This
is difficult and never more difficult than when as a parent one is forced to
make choices on behalf of one's own children.

The "...social message of american Christianity to me: Work hard, stay out
of trouble, don't  have fun, don't ask for anything." is a nice summary of
what religion is really about, in the social sense. This is indeed the
message of a state-carrying religion intent on serving the interests of a
social elite. Looked at in this way, the reason becomes clear why it isn't
in the interests of ordinary people "...to freely choose that", neither for
themselves nor when somebody else does. By joining religions people really
sign away much of their ability to organize themselves and to develop social
solidarity based on the realities of life that actually confront them
(contrary to religion which tries to get people to occupy themselves with
some immaterial "god").

>>> himself. One of the paradoxes is to keep asking "...and what came
>>> before that?" Other examples: "What is further away or outside of
>>
>> Again, you are absolutely right. Such classic paradoxes are
> entertaining,
>> but they don't prove anything. But it's not so much a question of
> what a
>> hypothetical "god" might be capable of doing as what the imagination
> and
>> understanding of the human psyche is able to sustain.
>
> "It's not so much a question" - That depends on what you prefer to
> discuss, an objective God (i.e. universe with no earth for the sake of
> argument), or human god? It makes no difference to me. Both topics are
> interesting. So let's talk about the human god then.
>
> <sarcasm>
> I am way over-qualified in psychology. I'm a behaviorist actually. I
> started studying and predicting human behavior at about the age of
> one, and have done that as an expert scientific observer and in
> applied statistics continuously since my 20's. I've had great success
> by objective measurements (i.e. not what most colleges use to test
> their psychology theories). So that would be equal to, let's see, not
> to pin down my age that much, about 5 Phds. Exactly the same with the
> English language, except I probably only started with that by age 2.
> I'm guessing you are similarly way overqualified in these two areas
> too. And if a psychologist with, say, only one or two Phds in
> psychology were to join in, we could both help him or her along as
> required to keep up with our discussion.

Not as much sarcasm as humour, I think. I'm smiling!

> Some of these psychologists with one of those Phds from a college are
> problematic in the sense that they make up their own words for very
> elementary things we already know by other words. And sometimes they
> lack very much practical behaviorism experience in the field. Like
> (and this is very hard for overqualified people like us to believe)
> they actually argue with each other about things like whether a cat is
> born with a natural curiosity. Really! I could link you to a post! And
> I've heard them say ridiculous things like that dogs don't love us,
> it's just a pack instinct. Harvard Phd! And some don't even know how
> many digits of accuracy you need per independent variable (just
> because it's not in any statistics textbook). And some of them don't
> even know what "statistically and scientifically valid real-time test"
> means. Imagine! And they think they can do statistics, and even
> *apply* it, and even apply it to *humans!* I know how incredible that
> sounds. But it's true! But you and I could help them along with our
> examples from real life, and our accomplishments by objective tests,
> like we do with our own children.

Oh, yes, I can't but agree. I'm really worried about the way modern science
is devoloping, too. Everybody is an expert, nobody is a generalist. The
result is expert ignorance. This is not so much sarcasm as actually true, in
a general sense! But I don't just blame higher education. It's also the way
society works, always rewarding the specialist "problem solver" or
"inventor".

> They also sometimes have a habit of quoting books written by other
> comparative amateurs when they can't think of any ideas on their own.
> We could just be polite and overlook that, not smirking too obviously.
> Well, of course Freud, Jung et al are very helpful as these are the
> giants and the innovators, the ones who first put names to the obvious
> things. But some of these college types quote later people like this
> idiot named Davidson who obsesses over the simplest things for anyone
> with a reasonable amount of analytical ability.

Since you mention Freud and Jung, it's strange to compare those to the
"greats" of their field, today. Freud and Jung, like all pioneering geniuses
were actually generalists. If they hadn't had extensive knowledge outside
their chosen field or research they'd NEVER have been able to formulate
their comprehensive theses. Wonder if the general public today can name even
one famous contemporary psychologist. Somehow, I doubt it.

> Well, if even you and I get hung up on some psychology issue in spite
> of our gross overqualifications, which I just can't imagine, but just
> in case, I could always ask my scientifically trained grandmother to
> join in. With 8 children and 35 grandchildren, and I forget how many
> great-grandchildren, she has equal to about 15 Phds in psychology. But
> I'm sure we won't need such ridiculous overqualification as that.
> </sarcasm>

Again, I don't think you're being too sarcastic. Parents have to know basic
psychology. They learn from their children, who potentially teach their
parents as much as the parents themselves teach their childern. Children are
what keep the minds of adults open and ready to accept new impressions and
new knowledge throughout life. Without children, society would fall apart
and human minds suffer from rot and stagnation.

> (If you turn out to be a psychologist I'm in big trouble! <g> But you
> really don't sound like one, or at least one of the persnickety ones.

No, I'm not a psychologist. I'm a teacher - that's my preferred profession.
You are not in trouble. :-)

> I always give a shot across the bow before arguing with psychologists.
> Usually a lot shorter than this, but they have been ignored lately.
> Thus this bigger shot, just in case. Please tell me if it went to far
> so I won't make the same mistake, and apologize if so.)

You certainly didn't go too far, and you don't need to apologize. Rather, I
think you were quite moderate in your sarcasm.

>> There are limits,
>> right? Those limits can be discerned by studying the mind, as
> scientists
>> since before Freud's time to the present day have done with great
> success.
>> Now, if "god" has the same limits on "his" alleged existence and
> powers as
>> those which are "natural" to the human mind, then that is as close to
> a
>> proof as I think is possible that "god" is a simple psycho-social
> figment of
>> the collective human imagination.
>
> I agree. I used to argue a lot with religious people. I must have come
> up with about 200 gadzillion logical contradictions. Not one ever had
> the least affect on any of them. So, you know what they say about
> doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
> Anyway, of course there are ontradictions, and no religious dogma I've
> ever heard of could be true just on that account, never mind
> falsifiability and the rest. So where do we go from there?

The burning question, again. I see no way around this obstacle than to
tackle it head on. The central illusion which keeps humanity in thrall is
the belief in "god" or "gods". This has to be remedied, somehow, but I don't
really have any concise ideas (but lots of vague ones) about how to proceed,
for something like this has never been attemped in human history, at least
to my knowledge. Mankind has no choice but to give up his
obsessive-compulsive behaviour and become self-directed, sane, rational,
properly socialized (in order to respect himself, his fellow man, and the
natural World). This can only be done by liberating Man from his slavish
belief in "god". Mankind has to undergo collective psychotherapy, perhaps.

<snip>

> You know, I think that is a useful distinction. Especially when it
> looks like you are analyzing religion in more-or-less separate cases
> wrt both individuals and cultures. In the arguments where I have
> replaced "religion" with "faith" it was all about individuals only, so
> had that context in mind. But for all I know, I've been jumping back
> and forth not realizing your distinction. I'll watch for it, and
> thanks.

You're welcome. In my humble view, religion is a much more rewarding object
for debate since even the most religious people have opinions for and
against views expressed by religion. "Faith" is very hard to debate as it is
mainly something personal and primarily consequential to the individual, but
not to much else - as you correctly surmise. Psychologically, faith is
uncertain conviction, attacks against which the mind usually responds with
(unreasoned) fear and anger. This subjective fear and anger marks the
question of personal faith as a matter of survival to many obsessed people,
who wrongly believe their life would empty of meaning were they to be
deprived of it. Thus (random) attacks probably serve only to impress on the
individual believer how vitally important it is to "defend the faith". This
self-repairing, self-sustaining socio-psychological barrier is what will
confront anyone who tries to "kill god" or "replace him with a graven
image".

<snip>

>> Well, I think you've done a good job of listing as many as you have.
> I can
>> only think of two points to add. They are:
>>
>> 1) Try to come up with a thesis that is falsifiable (this is useless
> advice
>> when arguing about "god").
>
> Great! Why didn't I think of that?
>
>> 2) Express happiness for the opportunity to learn whenever you are
> proved
>> wrong.
>
> Great again! I forgot it. But it's very important to me. In my
> standard invitation to argument, I usually say, "Maybe I'll win (i.e.
> be wrong and learn something), or maybe I'll lose (i.e. correct you
> about something and learn nothing).

Yes, agreed. I think the best reward that any debate might provide is the
opportunity to learn.

<snip>

> Yes I think it is, but I thought I saw you doing it. Besides wanting
> to examine just your side of it, there are related issues of interest.
> Even in a cosmological sense, I personally am not going to discover
> any unified field theories. I'm doing well just to get the box of
> Cheese-its open without spraying them all over the kitchen. But with
> someone who is not a true believer like yourself, it's fun to argue
> about and good practice. It's a good way to get an idea of a person's
> philosophy to provide context for other arguments. I also have a
> curiosity about related subjects after reading much speculative
> science and spec fiction, and some amateur work with telescopes (until
> the neighbors learned to pull their shades down <g>).

You've made me chuckle, again. Yes, I agree with all that. Life and the
reality of existence have their own ways of making us pay attention to the
present. There is a lesson in that, I'm sure. Curiosity is my main
motivator, too. It's certainly a privilige to be able to feed that appetite.

<snip>

>> Very penetrating. Indeed, it is quite possible the a forced abolition
> of
>> religions would make large numbers of people crazy. There had been a
> lot of
>> speculation along those lines by ethnologists and other social
> scientists.
>>
> Well, brain-programming aside, there are some very strong basic
> psychological needs as I'm sure I don't need to tell you. A
> personality needs to hold together in face of extreme challenge. I
> think we both probably know a few people with personalities that would
> collapse if we said certain things to them, and that's not giving us a
> lot of credit. Everybody could probably say that. I don't know what
> it's called in psychology (in spite of my 5 Phds <g>).

Yes, the human mind is fragile. That's just another way of saying that it's
impressionable, or curious, or inventive, or creative etc. When the mind
breaks down or suffers trauma, the diagnosis very much depends on what the
individual psychologist thinks has happened or what his own preferred
beliefs as to the (mysterious) inner workings of the mind are. There is no
real scientific agreement on that despite the new insights into the
functioning of nervous ganglia and cells and the visual aid from magnetic
resonance scanning of working brains. The brain largely remains a "black
box". Thus, psychotherapy is strictly an imperical science, in that (very
ill) patients are tested with various psychopharmaca and those which seem to
have the best effect are then selected for a "cure". But there is really no
cure, at least for the very ill, and those who are not so badly off probably
would repair themselves given time and sufficient rest, but they are still
mostly kept sedated in closed mental hospitals and specialist institutions.
Not a very good review of current psychotherapy, I'm afraid, but mainly
corect, nevertheless.

> I call it a
> "framework." A person needs a framework allowing them to deal with
> reality compounded by our intelligence and rapidily changing
> technology and social parameters like mobility. Obviously religion can
> provide it. Others like you and I can invent our own framework out of
> a patchwork of philosophy, science, upbringing, experience, etc.,
> etc., and sometimes that works and I think sometimes it doesn't, and
> tomorrow might be the day when I find out mine can't handle something
> and that I would have been better off with religion! I'm just rambling
> here, so don't pay too much attention.

No, you're not rambling, this is a very good question, "the framework?" Why
would people need a "framework"? Why can't they do like you suggest and face
reality and then base their views on what they experience and live through?
When we previously debated the objective, logical, scientific aspect of this
question, we agree that no material evidence would ever present itself to
either support or deny the existense of a hypothetical "god". How then did
"god" enter into the human "framework"? Surely, this is a valid question
that might make give even the most religious person pause. His answer will
invariably be that "god" created the "framework" - but that is a very
strange view (quite redundant, for if the "framework" had objective
existence, it would not be possible for Man to hold this particular
"framework" in his mind because the "framework" would then be a Law of
Nature) because without the "framework" no "god" would be able to exist.
This is very close to the point I made in my last message about the hen and
the egg.

>>> probably for good reason. Also, I've imagined that I'm a visitor
> from
>>> earth, learning that the inhabitants actually need to *kill*
> things,
>>> burn them, and put the *dead flesh* into these these fanged
> sphinter
>>> holes in their heads filled with acid, making disgusting knashing
>>> noises.
>>
>> This made me chuckle. Humour appreciated.
>
> Thanks. I put it in an (unpublished) book one time, took about a page.
> Got good reviews. (From my mom.) I could post the whole page.
>>
>> Well, it's evening again. So a pleasant evening to you, too.
>>
> Thanks Nes. You know what attracted me to this thread was your
> terminology. I noticed it as I was just skimming through posts. It
> indicated to me that you had invested quite a bit in these issues,
> where most people go through stages of more and more precise
> terminology, terminology that will avoid unnecessary argument. Most
> people don't come up with "organized religion" as an important
> distinction on the first try, or "objective reality" (though of course
> I know many do.) Actually notice about 10-15 terms like this, quite
> unusual. So thusly impressed, I googled on your nic. It seemed that
> you are 1) not a net kook (!!) and 2) You are well-informed on the
> subject of terrorism. I have a particular interest in one aspect of
> that, which I had planned to ask you about at some point. After we
> solve this question of the existence of God (whatever def.) or
> good/bad religion to your satisfaction of course!

Thanks a lot. I have really enjoyed this debate. Yes, I have (for various
reasons) invested a lot in such issues as those which we have debated. I
regard it as a life task to become even half way knowledgable in these (and
other) subjects which I all enjoy exploring as much as my time allows. The
day I have nothing to learn, I tell my family, is the day they ought to bury
me for then I'll have stopped living or caring. As a teacher I have the
opportunity to avail myself of knowledge from many disperate fields of
study, and I believe I have been very fortunate in my choice of profession.
Dealing with people in a learning/teaching environment is in itself an
accomplished art form, which you can also invest an entire working life in
mastering.

Yes, I am very interested in current events and participate in debates along
these lines both on Usenet and in other fora. It's not just terrorism, but
politics in general which often draws my attention and participation.
Debating current events is probably the best way to keep yourself informed,
currently, considering the fact that so many news media have succumbed to
the economic pressures which make them produce so much sterile, misleading
info-tainment.

Nes