Really Pascal?

Did you think I was gonna buy that tripe? I mean, the sheer selfishness of it, deluding yourself into something you don't really believe for the sake of an eternal salvation that has only a slight possibility of actually existing. It seems almost lunatic, to force yourself to go along with an idea you find completely unreasonable on the off-chance it might actually be true. If that's a good idea, should we also all wear aluminum hats on the mere chance that the aliens really can take over our minds without them. By Pascal's reasoning, this would be a terrific idea. The aluminum hats don't hurt anyone (besides making you look really silly), and if the aliens really will take over you'd be screwed without one, right. Why take that chance?
Even accepting that going against all reason and common sense to believe in God is a great thing, which God do we choose? Pascal says the Christians have the right idea, but who's to say Allah or Buddha or even Zeus isn't the better choice. I haven't yet heard a decent argument for Christianity over the other billions of religions.
And besides, as Blackburn says, who's to say God really does reward belief in himself? I have a little trouble accepting that a completely perfect God would be vain enough to require that people go against their own common sense (which He apparently gave them) and attend mass once a week. Or spiteful enough to send them to Hell if they don't. Aren't vanity and spite considered flaws, even in religion? And God is supposed to be perfect and flawless right? So, then, why would he exhibit purely human traits.
I think a perfect God would be more likely to send people who were decent, tried to do the right thing, and followed their gut instinct to heaven, than people who lied about their faith in the hopes of getting rewarded. Doesn't seem like a very noble or good thing to me, even if you eventually delude yourself into true blind faith.

Swinburne?

Does anyone else think Richard Swinburne's philosophies on the problem of evil are a little... um... sketchy? He says that the existence of evil doesn't disallow the existence of god for most of the normal reasons (free-will and all that much debated b.s.) but he mentions that suffering at the hands of another is a good thing, because it means you are of use to the universe. Excuse me, but what? I don't think that my painful and torturous death (or anyone else's) at the hands of a sadistic monster can be considered a good thing, even if it is allowing human beings a choice between good and evil. And I will never be comforted by the thought that "at least I didn't die in vain." He's wanting me to be happy that some jackass gets to decide to kill me? Seriously, I'm a pretty selfless person (I think) but this is ridiculous. And besides, who's to say people want to be useful anyway. Apparently, Swinburne does.
He mentions that a study of unemployed showed that most people who are out of work claimed they most disliked feeling useless in society (as opposed to the lack of money). I say that's crap. I've known a lot of people who lost their jobs, and they didn't feel 'useless to society'. They just felt pissed off that they'd been fired, or maybe sad that they couldn't provide for their families. Society doesn't factor into it.
Am I the only one who thinks this line of reasoning sounds a little communistic? (Is that a word?) As does his statement that dieing for your country is a wonderful thing, even if you were conscripted and fighting for a cause you don't believe in. I wouldn't want to die for the 'War on Terrorism', even if it was 'for the good of my country. It sounds like the position of a privileged white male who's never seen any real hardship to me.
And what about this crap about having 'the right to cause your child to suffer for his own good'? By this reasoning, couldn't you make the claim that child-abuse is a good thing? The parent could say it's his right and it's for the child's own good and Swinburne would apparently agree with that. I'm sure you could take this reasoning even further and do a whole lot of really awful shit that was justified by "free-will" and "the greater good". I think Dostoevsky had it right, I don't think the ends justify the means. The cost is too high.

Anyway, on a more artistic note, what's with all the commercials lately trying to be 'artsy'? That black-and-white Papa John's commercial with bits of color thrown in that looks like a low-budget Spielberg film? It irks me (that's right, I used the word irk, what're you gonna do about it?). And what do castles have to do with pizza anyway? Blah, it's not even particularly creative. That style of cinematography is getting a wee bit overused. Black-and-white for the sake of looking 'high-end' and 'artistic' is used way too much lately.

Self-Song

'Tell me
about yourself', he said,
as though I could possibly explain
who and what and when
and how I am
in any terms that HE would understand.
Should I tell him I'm an artist,
a writer, a painter, a poet
full of images pulled
from out the darkest recesses
of my mind
of his mind.
Shall I explain to him
my troubled past
those sweet invisible scars
which trace the lines of my veins
deep beneath the surface
where only I can see them
in the night
behind my eyes
where the days that have past before
and will come again
fly by in hideous circles
plaguing me with their evil intentions.
The days and the daze,
ever haunting me with the truth
of what I was
of what I am
of what I've done
to myself
and to so many others.
How can I tell him,
how can I explain the pills
and the songs
and the nights with no sleep
but plenty of rest
lying in my lover's arms
talking of existence
and the chance to mean something,
anything,
to someone.
He will never know
my desperation,
desperation to be loved
and needed
and seen as more than just
the stereotypical
artistic chick with a dorky side
full of angst and secret passions,
for I am so much more,
more than just myself
or him, or you, even.
I am a conglomeration,
a mixture of all
those who have come before
and will come after,
a puzzle built up
of a myriad small parts,
each day, each choice,
each failure or success,
and he will never know,
HE will never know,
he will never KNOW.
'Tell me about yourself.'
'I'm no one special.'

Philosophizing

So I had my first college class today. Philosophy 100. I'm already really enjoying it, the professor is fairly young and really sweet and very laid-back. The subject matter is challenging, but fascinating.
Right now we're reading about the ontological argument for the existence of God, which was put forth by St Anselm in the 11th century and later argued by various other philosophers, my favorite of which is Rowe. Anselm says that the existence of God is proven by his (or her) very definition. He defines God as "that than which no greater can be thought of", which is to say that God is a perfect being, that he is the most perfect thing possible. Anselm states that when you hear this phrase, "that than which no greater can be thought of", you understand it, and since you understand it it therefore exists in your mind. Since existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone, God by definition must exist. If he existed in the mind alone, then something greater (a thing existing in reality) would be possible. Since God is by definition the greatest possible thing, he must exist in reality. His definition proves his existence.
I don't know that I agree with this theorem. To begin with, I don't think that God is a perfect being, greater than anything else (if there even is a God, which I don't concede). But even if I accept Anselm's premise on faith alone, I can't accept that hearing the phrase "that than which no greater can be thought" automatically causes me to understand it. I understand the words, and the abstract idea, but that doesn't give me true understanding of God. God is supposedly perfect and infinite, and that puts him/her/it beyond human comprehension. It's like describing red to a person who has been blind all his life. He understands the word, and that apples and stoplights are red, and you can even tell him the color looks 'angry' or 'hungry' or 'bloody'. But this will do the blind man no good, he will still have no concept of red, because he has nothing to base his idea on. He has no knowledge of color. Thus do humans have no comprehension of a perfect being. We understand the concept, but not the truth. So how can God be said to exist in our minds?
But let's go one step further and agree that God is perfect and that he exists in our minds. The existence of a perfect God is a possible thing in reality, and he cannot, by his definition, be a non-existent thing. Anselm (as Rowe said) puts existence into the definition of God, he lists existence as a property of God by saying that existence is greater than non-existence and that god is the greatest thing. Therefore, his entire argument is flawed, because the premise that God is possible grants too much.
It's a tough argument because we can't say with any certainty that a perfect being is or is not possible in reality, and Anselm makes a good argument, but I just don't buy it. I have a harder time disagreeing with the Cosmological argument, but I'll go into that tomorrow.

Driving me Crazy

So I passed my driver's test (amazing, I know) and suddenly I am the go-to girl for all kinds of errands. I wouldn't mind so much, but I can't stand the other driver's in this freaking city. I mean, really, how hard is it to figure out what lane you want to be in?
In other news, I broke out some watercolors today. This was an unbelievable amount of fun. I tried to echo the style of Monet. This was a complete and utter failure, but then, my watercolor skills are sadly lacking. I always have issues getting the finer details because the paint runs. Oils are definitely more my forte. I may give acrylics a shot soon though. Might be fun.
I'm going to take my sketch pad to the park tomorrow and do some quick sketches of the people walking around, trying to get more movement in my drawings and make it look less staged. I also want to try drawing the trees and play with the texture and shadows in the leaves.
I did a drawing of my son from a photo. At first I didn't really like it, but now it's growing on me. I think I might finish it. Tell me what you think.
The photo:

My sketch:

Not perfect, I know, but I rather like it.