Think I posted this before.. but didn't want to lose it.

A while ago I was asked to differentiate my personal views on religion from the two opposite ends of the spectrum. I am in fact a die hard agnostic. I believe in a higher form beyond physics, but refuse to give it a name such as "God". Even though I was raised to be a good "God fearing" protestant.

At first it was because I didn't believe that any particular creed had enough merit on its own to justify being held as a supreme truth. Eventually I began to realize that this was merely a rejection of the forms that belief had taken. A distrust in the organized religions of the world which have done as much to harm us as to help us, as a people, to rise above the situations of our birth. ie naked, helpless and covered in fluids we would rather not think about.

I believe that it is safe to say that religions have helped people as individuals get through their lives. Either through social work, food pantries, or other charitable acts. Nor will I ever deny the personal importance the idea of "God" has had on many of my historical heroes. Without their faith; King, Ghandi, and X would just be footnotes in the greater struggles of their times. it was their faith in something more powerful than themselves which allowed them the strength to continue the fight even when things seemed lost to them.

This does not mean that I believe they were right. In fact I believe they were wrong in the object of their faith, although Ghandi (in my mind) was the closest to the truth. Not because of anything, he did, but because the Hindu/ Buddhist traditions are less of a black and white philosophy.

I also have to consider the less lauded, but equally important physicists who maintain that everything is the result of cause and effect, and nothing can escape the ideas of Sir Isaac Newton. Who I believe are equally wrong in some respects.

First, let us consider the science aspect. Ultimately it holds that if you know the starting point, and know the value of the constants, all that is left is to do the math.

So for example, the "big bang" had a finite amount of matter condensed through gravity, magnetism etc. into an extremely small space. Perhaps the size of a single proton. Then all of that matter reached a critical point where it could be held together no longer, and exploded into the galaxies that we know today. If we had the ability to trace all of that matter back into that one mass, and determine where each piece headed, we would be able to (with enough math) determine not only the manner in which everything had moved, but how everything would in fact move from that point on.

Clearly we do not have that math. Since we are still discovering all of the little pieces that flew out from that one single point. But if we did we would see one glaring issue. If everything that has happened can be charted, graphed, and fit into an equation (Admittedly an extremely complex one), and everything that is happening, and will happen can also be determined from that equation. There is in fact no such thing as free will, choice, or even life. We are then powerless in the figurative hands of physics.

When we look at an omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing "God", then we find the one being who can make sense of that equation, and in fact is its author. Physics being the mechanism through which that being operates.

However, once again, if a being is all knowing, all present and all powerful, nothing can happen that they do not control. We can state that "god" gave us free will, but if that entity knows everything that will happen, everything that is happening, and everything that has happened... there is no practical difference between calling that entity "Yewah", or calling it "physics".

In other words. If the scientific explanation is completely correct, we have no free will. Nor do we have free will if what we call "God" is all powerful.

In order to have free will as living organisms, there has to be something beyond physics, but limited. All knowing, but not all powerful, or all powerful, but with a limited knowledge base.

In order for any of my thoughts to have validity, in order for my life to have any meaning whatsoever... I cannot accept either the scientific, or the religious explanations as 100% accurate.

That is the one thing that I do believe in. That life exists, that our thoughts, emotions and actions are not predetermined. In order for anything to be random, one has to be agnostic. If you choose to call that spark of life, of thought, of meaning a "soul", or "God". That is your choice. But realize that in having the ability to choose you are denying both the scientists and the religious perspectives their preeminence. In other words, if you believe that: your life has any meaning, that you are in fact special in any way, that anything has any value.. You are an agnostic.

Thought on gun laws

The media portrayal has nothing to do with violence. If anything the number of violent crimes per capita has gone down in my lifetime. It increased until I was in high school and then dropped: back down to levels not seen since "the summer of love". Did movies become less violent? Not at all. Did popular music? Nope. What about Video games? Nope. News Coverage? Nope. (Although we have more 24 hour news outlets now so it seems like it has).

What did increase? The assault weapons ban (eventually overturned), reporting of violent crimes, gun buy back programs, the availability of social programs in poor communities, gentrification, increased awareness about and punishment for hate crimes, legalization of certain controlled substances...

Your odds of being involved in a violent crime as a victim is about 1:200. That's all violent crimes. From rape, domestic abuse, murder, to bar fights. Drop that to 1:2000 for homicide. Drop that even further if you don't live in a high crime area or a "stand your ground" state. The states and cities with the strictest gun laws have the least homicide rates from firearms overall. So maybe the laws are working...

The reason we think there is a rise in gun violence is that the horror of each new attack is no longer a geographically local issue. What we consider "our" community has broadened. It's no longer our block, our town, or our city. I'm in contact every day with people from NY to Australia and I'm no longer an exception.

The 20,000 gun laws is kind of misleading, even if accurate (which is doubtful as nobody that quotes it has ever been able to tell me where it came from.) Divide that number by the number of governments we have in the country. It ends up being about 2 laws per city. We probably have that many laws on the books about pets.

Yes, having a gun might protect you during an armed robbery. But if and only if you can get off your shot before the assailant even sees that you have a weapon. Fighting back is the single fastest way to make the assailant panic and pull their trigger. Plus, in your panic you are less likely to hit your target. In general: give them what they want, call the police with a good description and turn in your insurance claim. Your odds of survival just skyrocketed.

Increased sentencing? If you're desperate enough prison sounds pretty good. Work to eliminate the desperate nature of poverty and increase economic mobility and suddenly jail is actually a threat.

So yeah. keep the guns for hunting and sportsmanship. But for personal defense? You're kidding yourself if you think it will help. Chances are you don't have the training, can't handle the stress, and won't have the opportunity. It sounds good. It makes you feel good, but realistically you or a loved one are now more likely to use the gun as a criminal than to successfully defend yourself.

Criminals might not care about gun laws: But pretty much every gun used by a criminal was purchased legally at some point. Some are "lost" some are stolen, but they entered the society legally. Guns are used in crimes because they are easily concealed, and are extremely lethal even in unskilled hands. Of course other weapons are used as well, but with much lower mortality rates.