I have long pondered the possibilities of the very notion of life. Can life consist of non-biological substances? Can a life form exist in a form of a gas? These questions are endless and deal with an equally astounding number of problems regarding the very definition of what we call life. How we define life will naturally change as we continue to strive towards the unknown. Just as our understanding of the universe expanded with increasingly complex experiments in quantum mechanics, so too will our understanding of consciousness and even the universe itself begin to change as scientists continue to tinker in the lab.

The article linked above points out the dilemma we face with respect to these troublesome questions. It does so by alluding to the role of science fiction as a means for men and women to consider their beliefs about the issue and to gain perspective on where those beliefs can perhaps, one day, lead us. The use of aliens as a point of contrast to life on Earth is an easy way to explore the possibilities of life without being restricted to the limitations we have come to expect from life on our planet.

One aspect I would like to add to the topic is one I explored in my earlier post, The Largest Tribe, in which I discussed the role of technology as a means for man the evolutionary fate of life on Earth. Part of man’s endeavor I link to the supernatural which heavily influences the way in which we define human nature. I posited that man strives to be like god by becoming an engineer of life. He yearns to be the creator, the origin of the natural which would then place him above the natural.

Leibniz, on the other hand, was very much concerned with particles. In his thesis entitled The Monadology, the philosopher described how he believed the world to be: a static and finite set of matter. How does Leibniz account for differences between the world as he defines it and for the appearance of change within it? Leibniz describes the monads as a quasi-particles that maintain a connection to a higher power. These monads strive to be like god which causes them to shift in observable appearance. To Leibniz, the world is a definable set of matter with no change in the orientation of the matter that composes the objects we see. However, it appears to be the very opposite (of having change and an infinite possibility).

This is similar to those toys that have many rows of small metal rods in a rectangular shape that you can use to create impressions of physical objects. You press you hand against the metal rods, pushing an impression of your hand into the device. Much in the same way, Leibniz’s universe is like the toy which takes upon itself the impression of god. The monads strive to take a form similar to god, which causes our static world to contain room for some sort of change. (The particles do not move around but, rather, change in this unique characteristic.)

I am, admittedly , a creationist – I believe that man create god. By creating an idea of something so far above and beyond the realm of possibility and devoting oneself to this impossible fiction, we give our own creation immense power. We surrender our will and the responsibility of our actions to a being we might as well have crudely drawn on a sheet of paper. (A fictional character in the ether of the universe is after-all  just as real and all-knowing as one I drew with squiggly lines.)

Because we are afraid of being ourselves and of having to take responsibility for our actions, we create something that cannot be wrong. Mankind created god in order to have someone to blame for both the great and the dammed; because an infallible being will lead the way for all people to behave a certain way without the need to justify itself; and because human beings are aware of their puniness and minuteness but are too scared to admit it. Man is a sad, scared, stupid, unreasonable, and needing for something to make him feel better about himself and that is where a god steps in.

By examining the many cultures of the past and present, we can clearly notice that the religious and mythological beliefs represented the morals and values of the respective peoples. Tales of god-like beings spread across continents and survived centuries for functional reasons. Religion was used as a way to influence the behavior of other people according to what the culture required. For instance, the worship of a river was a direct acknowledgment of the dependence on the water the river brings. It was, and remains to be, a form of control despite the lack of necessity for such a belief system in today’s time.

This form of control is a method used by cowards who are too feeble or too misguided to defend their reasoning with pure reason alone. They turn to the majestic as a means to skip over the need for an argument entirely. Why engage in debate about whether abortion is right or wrong if you can simply cite a holy book that you claim is without fault. Voodoo, astrology, and healing crystals have as much say in reality as “god” does.

Cowardice is the fuel that keeps religion burning. Fear of the unknown, of the absurd, of death, of the other all cause anxiety for man. With god as the explanation  for all things, there is no accountability and, in turn, no longer a fear of doing what could be considered wrong.  We naturally create moral guidelines for others in everyday life when we make our own decisions but religion today has gone out of control. The tall walls that maintained society in years past have turned into jail cells that keep people from exploring new ideas and developing the ideals to accompany the developing world.

Entering a new era requires a new system of ethics, a new set of answers to the questions people will encounter throughout their lives. Religion has only answers for generations that are long lost and serves no purpose for us today.

One could point out how evolution resembles a function – a telos of the very nature of organic life. One could then postulate that this necessity comes from a religious origin; that this was “implanted” into organisms or that it was designed by a divinity. Clearly, evolution is not a manufactured product of thought but, rather, a fundamentally organic process.

Moreover, to say that evolution is a function of life is not the same as saying the purpose of, for example, a mouth is to chew. The mouth is the result of evolution – a byproduct of the process of natural selection whereby organisms with a feature similar to that of a mouth passed on their genes to a greater extent that those that did not. This physical attribute allowed for far greater reproductive success but does not have a purpose. Nor was the mouth “designed” to do anything in particular. We could, after all, inject all nutrients directly into our stomach or, even, our blood bypassing the need for a mouth.

However, there is no way to bypass evolution. The need to survive comes out from the dynamic disposition of the universe (insert yin-yang joke here). Even modern-day man, with all his unprecedented capacity for cooperation and his unparalleled intelligence, is at risk of death and, therefore, is still subject to the dictatorship of evolutionary need to procreate and further dilute the genetic pool.

Humans are, to a great extent, – but not entirely – different from all other biological life because we utilize external agents as tools in our survival. Unlike the flower or the bee, man has begun to absolve the ever-present dread of death through the manipulation of the organic and inorganic world. The Earth’s ecosystems have become our playground. Man has unknowingly sent entire species to mass extinction and actively prevented others from the very same fate – a fate that results from the evolutionary domain that all life rests within. We choose to will evolution as we please – as it benefits us.

This unabated control of the external world is by virtue of man’s creativity. He creates marvelous, intricate, and stupendous objects from basic materials and has propelled himself into a setting of biological incongruity. Man’s relationship to the external world has become far more intimate and multi-faceted than we have seen in any other organism before.

It is my belief that mankind has surrendered its evolutionary objectives to technological advancements which are then controlled by the collective will of men. The human species will continue to participate in natural selection but both selectively and unwillingly. We can literally look into a microscope to see how we are evolving and decide, based on the facts, whether the end result is, based on opinion, either good or bad. We can also force ourselves to evolve much in the same fashion. We have entered the realm of artificial selection – a biased approach to selectively intruding on the evolution of ourselves and of all living things.

Being away from the densely populated boroughs at the times gave some perspective on the matter – New York state is comprised of many right-leaning Jesus freaks. As Politico points out, the glee with which this bill was accepted in New York City is not present in more rural towns across the state. Even those who’s job it is to accept same-sex marriage will cling to their bible and seemingly nonsensical sense of repulsion to the act of same-sex relations.

A woman who works as a town clerk refuses to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs and, what she apparently believes is, her freedom to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If a police officer chooses to not help a person based on their race or if a school does not allow a student to enter because of his or her gender it would be very clear it would be because of ignorance and bigotry and such action would be met with fervent rebuke.

However, religion is like a drug that retards the user from being able to act with logic and reason. This woman and many like her see themselves as being above the law that they were hired to uphold. While discrimination of race and gender of course still exists but those who commit these acts are rarely as self-inflated as proclaiming that they are just in their decision to do so.

Obviously, the majority of New York state is at least tolerant of homosexuality if not entirely in support of equal rights. (Does anyone else feel that the discussion of whether some people should be granted the same rights as every one else based of some arbitrary characteristic is depressing?) And, I am not suggesting that those who do not live near New York City are bigots. What I am suggesting is that religion allows communities to feel justified in openly expressing revulsion towards homosexuality.

I suggest that those who feel that they cannot do their job as a result of a conflict with the legal rights of others and their own religious views should quit. The state does not make room for religious intolerance. If you want to exercise power to exclude others then perhaps a move to a different state is in order.

Let’s begin at what appears to be the immediate problem. The American government recognizes marriage as something more than just an expensive and boring dinner with bad speeches. In fact, marriage has a heavy impact on a couple’s financial status, and it imparts numerous rights to the couple with regard to each other and their family as a whole. These rights usually consist of child custody, joint finances (which, in some cases, leads to a significant decrease in the amount a couple pays in taxes), monetary assistance in the incident of death or injury of a partner, rights to make medical decisions in the case of an emergency, full inheritance when no will had been prepared, etc. What many people feel is wrong with this policy is that not everyone has the capability of gaining such rights and benefits- namely, those the church doesn’t care to see married. Certain gay rights activists argue that this is a violation of the “separation of church and state” principal and that everyone should be allowed to have these rights.

I agree that everyone should be allowed to gain these rights and benefits, I also agree there is a serious problem with separation of church and state but not in the same way as the person who is happy to see the California ban lifted. In fact, I believe that the government should play no roll in who is allowed to go through the holy act of matrimony because it is a part of religious institutions. By forcing the church to recognize a homosexual’s right to marriage is itself a violation of the principal of separation of church and state. Who is allowed to get married should be decided by the church which conducts the marriages! If those in the administrative hierarchy of the church do not believe that their religion should support homosexuality through marriage, it is unconstitutional for the California supreme court to have any power over their ability to implement these beliefs.

What we must petition to change in the American system of government is the legal status of marriage. There is absolutely no purpose for a religious practice to have any consequence on legal matters. Those who currently oppose same-sex marriage insist that homosexuals take the other route to partnership and get a civil union. The problem is that a civil union is not a federally recognized partnership and it does not benefit the couple in the way a marriage would even in the state where the union was done. A civil union is a half-ass version of marriage that has little to offer to couples when compared to marriage.

Therefore, I propose that several steps are in order for the american people and their government: First, marriage is to be entirely stripped of all legal influences on a person’s life and property. Second, the government must cease and remove any alterations to the mandates of a religious organization. Obviously, no crime committed can be excused with a religious affiliation but a religion is entitled to their desire to commit such crimes. Third, civil unions will become federally acknowledged to provide the very same rights and benefits as marriage does (as we know it to be today). Lastly, there should be no restrictions on a person’s freedom to become part of a civil union whereby these limitations are the result of characteristics with no significance to the civil union process.

Gay rights activists have to stop empowering religious ideology and practices in politics. If you want equality, you must first eliminate the entity that is responsible for placing bigotry into our laws. Once you remove religion from our laws, then you can work without ignorant and hateful resistance to your cause.

It seems to me that religion is sort of like the living dead, but with stupid rules and the strange tendency to pray. Religion has opposed most scientific discoveries and has been consistently trying to get us to stop using common sense. Religious people are usually found in groups, and almost always saying the same thing as everyone else around them. This is the reason I have little hope in resolving this discord: zombies are fucking hard to get rid of. They go around killing real people. And, apparently, an infestation of the mindless can go on for thousands of years with no end in sight. This is serious because they target the only tool we have against them – our brain. I like my brain, I try to use it often and I advise that you do the same. Maybe, one day we’ll figure out a way to save humanity from this virus.