Shaving with Razors:A Philosopher's Guide to Simplifying Life

Friday, October 28, 2011

Manifest Destiny: Destined to Repeat?

Regrettably, it is a common tendency for people to forget events in the past. It is also a habit of our modern civilization to disregard or ignore concepts and events due to their antiquity. Maybe this is because we think of ourselves as have “risen above” a disagreeable history and conquered an old vice from those “times of yore”. And, as a result, we no longer need to pay attention to those certain ideas or events. The danger of this proclivity is that we might let history repeat itself and therefore allow those undesirable actions to manifest in a modern context. To make this point clear, we can study the concept in our American history that was the driving force behind westward expansion in the late 19^th century. That inspiration was called our country’s “Manifest Destiny” and its application in our nation’s history dramatically and directly shaped the America we know today. We can learn from studying the countless letters, discourses, and newspapers from the time, that this concept caused wars, included ideas about racial pre-eminence, and had deep religious ties. It became a creed to those individuals of the 1800’s that supported it, and it has become a preferably avoided topic in today’s conversations.

Wikipedia, the modern-day source for information[1], defines “Manifest Destiny” as “the 19th century American belief that the United States was destined to expand across the continent[2]”. Although that statement is true, the concept of Manifest Destiny included much more than that initial, basic observation. For example, in the book, Give Me Liberty: An American History, which is a more extensive source of historical facts, author Eric Foner writes that Manifest Destiny included “the nation’s mission to extend the area of freedom” (Foner, 290). That is to say, expansion in the name of freedom, a virtue America fought for in the Revolutionary War of 1776. In addition, Foner gives examples of periods when Americans were willing to take up arms, not only in the defense of liberty, but also in its forcible advancement. “Those who stood in the way of expansion…were by definition obstacles to freedom” (Foner, 290). The immediate need for expansion was very real to citizens of the older states. “With population rising and the price of land rising dramatically” the idea of a vast expanse of prime, inexpensive farm land gave hope to those struggling in the cities (Foner, 291). Manifest Destiny gave them a driving force that would support them with armies and foreign polices to ensure their hold on the new land. We can readily access sources from the period that openly discuss the reasoning behind Manifest Destiny.

One such source is the man who, according to some, coined the phrase “manifest destiny” in his newsletter, The United States Democratic Review. John O’Sullivan used his influential writings to support the annexation of Texas and acquirement of Oregon in the latter part of the 19^th century. His works are emotional and full of national pride, confident in the belief that God ordained and saw to the creation of this new country. His 1839 article, The Great Nation of Futurity, incurs a strong sense of patriotism and pride in the idea that America’s “annals describe no scenes of horrid carnage” (O’Sullivan, 427). Therefore, with a “clear conscience unsullied by the past” and with the “truths of God on our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts”, American could go forth and complete its mission: “to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man” (O’Sullivan, 427). Readers of O’Sullivan could rest in the knowledge that our mission to expand the area of freedom and become “a city on a hill” was our purpose from the very beginning. Sadly, the zeal and fervor that drove the supporters of Manifest Destiny proved to be disastrous for the thousands of people living in the West who were deemed unfit for American citizenry. (Foner 406, 407)

A modern historian who has written about the religious aspect of Manifest Destiny is Professor Donald M. Scott. In his paper, The Religious Origins of Manifest Destiny, Professor Scott is able to view the history since 1839 and use that context to frame the idea of Manifest Destiny in such a way that the reader can easily identify elements of the idea cropping up in our modern times. The purpose of his article is to make clear that “Manifest Destiny was not simply a cloak for American Imperialism and justification of America’s territorial ambitions” (Scott, 1). Instead, he traces the long history of a “special and unique American Destiny” from the European explorers on their “divinely appointed mission to spread Christianity [in] the New World” to the “sense of American uniqueness and mission” in John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech[3] (Scott, 1). He shows that religion and “Divine Will” played a key part in motivating early colonists, westward settlers and modern-day leaders. This is interesting because, instead of Manifest Destiny “falling into disuse after the mid-19th century”[4], Scott shows that the idea has continued to shape foreign policy well in the 21^st century.

Can an idea as old as Manifest Destiny, with such strong ties to religion and a belief in divinely appointed destiny, still be driving actions of our leaders today? Could a history of blind ambition and actions, without a thought to consequences, be repeating itself? In 2003, President Bush, in his State of the Union Address said this; “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.”[5] This is a statement John O’Sullivan would have supported. O’Sullivan might have also written in the Democratic Review to support the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and invasion of Iraq in 2003, all in the name of our divinely appointed mission to extend freedom and of America’s “responsibility to history […] to rid the world of evil.” [6] President Bush’s personal beliefs strongly influenced America’s direction just as Manifest Destiny directly influenced America’s growth and legacy in the 19^th century.

John O’Sullivan’s article, The Great Nation of Futurity, states that we Americans “have no interest in the scenes of antiquity, only as lessons of avoidance of nearly all their examples” (O’Sullivan, 427). This is quite an accurate statement, but only up to a certain point. Our interest should most certainly be in the study of history and the causes of certain events, not only for use as “lessons of avoidance” but as a way to right our wrongs and create new, justly admirable, policies that future generations could truly respect. We must not neglect the study and modern application of history (in this case, the cause and effect of Manifest Destiny) otherwise we are doomed to repeat the darker parts of our past. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in his eulogy given at John F. Kennedy’s funeral, said this; “The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn. But surely we can learn if we have the will to do so.”[7] That “will” he mentioned, can come from a desire to move our country toward a future that history will value and respect.

[1] This phrase is meant to be “tongue-in-cheek”, a phrase that was also coined in the 19^th century by Richard Harris Barham in his 1842 story, The Black Mousquetaire: A Legend of France

[2] Merk, Frederick. "Manifest Destiny." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .

[3] Rather interestingly, Scott points out that it was during the height of the Cold War that America added “Under God” to the pledge of Allegiance (Scott,1). Possibly to affirm that our cause was the righteous one and America had “Divine Will” to back it up.

[4] Merk, Frederick. "Manifest Destiny." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .

[5] "GPO Access Online Resources: A-Z Resource List." INDEX. U.S. Government Printing Office, 28 Jan. 2003. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. .

[6] "The Avalon Project : President's Remarks at National Day of Prayer and Remembrance 1:00 P.M. EDT; September 14, 2001." Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. Lillian Goldman Law Library, 14 Sept. 2001. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. .

[7] "Eulogies to the Late President Kennedy” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. .

Friday, October 7, 2011

Was the American Revolution Actually Revolutionary?

Could our American Revolution still be called “radical” if blood had not been shed or houses burned? And if that had been the reality, could the years of 1775-76 still be called a “revolution”? The answers to these questions can come from looking at the context of the war, the events leading up to it, and at what “type” of radicalism the Revolution embodied. Over the years, a great number of articles, books, and essays have been written about the degree of radicalism apparent during those events of the late 18^th century. All of these ideas were made possible by the careful study of the hundreds of letters, essays, and records made during those tumultuous times in America’s history and it is only through careful study that we can determine if the Revolution was a revolution at all.

Two articles in particular, published 30 years apart, conclude with a radical view of the war for independence and both end in marked favor of using “revolutionary” to describe the American war for independence. Peter Marshall cleverly ends his 54 page article, Radicals, Conservatives and the American Revolution, by saying, “It is my guess that, after the work is done, we shall still have an American Revolution on our hands” (Marshal, 54). The work he is describing is the need to study and understand the “changes that occurred in the previous thirty years” leading up to the war in 1775 (Marshall, 54). Marshall’s excellent essay pits historians against historians and orthodoxy against new ideas by detailing many different notions about the Revolution. He cites many well-known, and rarely debated, figure heads of Revolutionary antiquity and invites the reader to join “the stimulating debate on the causes and nature of the Revolution” (Marshal, 1). By identifying the apparent causes of the revolution (economic, political, social, etc.), a better understanding of the revolution and its radicalism can be reached. His paper identifies a plethora of arguments surrounding a conservative, liberal and/or radical view of the revolution, all which have come from analyzing these changes. One of the theories he distinguishes is a purely political interpretation, in which, “no major economic or social tensions are admitted to exist” (Marshall, 46). This theory stands in opposition to the account of the events in the history book, Give Me Liberty!: An American History, written by Eric Foner. Foner’s chapter on the Revolution describes the “violent social turmoil” (Foner, 156) in the colonies that began long before 1775. This turmoil included riots (149,150,159), boycotts (155, 158), and a unified public outcry (162). Marshall realizes that the “Revolution was limited, according to its recent interpreters, not only in its consequences, but also in its immediate scope” (Marshall, 46). This observation, which is something Eric Foner could approve of, is that the events studied could be precieved as much more violent and radical then previously supposed. This type of conclusion would lead to a very radical view of the Revolution. Marshall then points out an economically based theory (a facet of the revolution I suspect he agrees with) that states; “The destruction of the seaports, the continual process of inflation that marked Continental finance, provide additional factors of economic disorder” (Marshall, 49). He sums up this description by saying, “…it seem[s] certain that that conditions favored, even compelled, extensive social and economic change”(Marshall, 49). It appears that Marshall wants to point out that the radicalism of the revolution is measured by the amount of change brought, not just by the amount of property destroyed or lives lost.[1]

This is a statement that Gordon Wood could accept. Wood, a renowned historian, argues that America did indeed experience a dramatic social transformation in his article, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. He writes that the intense transformation meets the prerequisites of a “revolution”. He talks about the need for context when determining the radicalism of the Revolution. Many of the theories that compare the American Revolution to other revolutions in history conclude, due to a lack of “social misery or economic deprivation suffered, or by the number of people killed or number of manor houses burned” (Wood, 2), that our Revolution was anything but radical. This conservative view of the Revolution tends to drive the reader towards a separate line of conclusions. For example, Wood points out that a strictly conservative, politically based view makes us “…think of the American revolution as having no social character [and] as having virtually nothing to do with the society.” He then points out the modern significance of this by adding that if the Revolution had nothing to do with society then it would have “…no social causes and no social consequences” (Wood, 1). Throughout his essay, he calls on the reader to fight the modern inclination of Americans to think of our earlier revolutionaries, like Washington, Jerfferson and Adams, as “too stuffy, too solemn, too cautious, [or] too much the gentleman” (Wood, 1) to be involved in a “revolution”, and a radical one at that. Wood concludes that, as hinted at by the title of his article, the American Revolution was indeed radical.

In his 1818 letter to Baltimore publisher Hezekiah Niles, John Adams makes very clear statements concerning the Revolution and about the American war for independence. He begins his letter by pointing out a difference between the war and the revolution. “The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations”.[2] This sentiment declares that the American Revolution did not start with the first shots being fired in 1775, but that it was a steady transformation in the hearts and minds of the people in the colonies. He goes on to add, “This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and

[1] Marshall protects his use of the term “radical” by quoting scholar Miss Cecelia Kenyon. Kenyon “suggests the term ‘radical’ and ‘conservative’ have caused much confusion and should be used with great care…” (qtd. in Marshall, 56). In the end, she too concludes that the Revolution “…was still a revolution and it was radical”, while also pointing out that it was “…a limited revolution and it was primarily a political movement [with] social and economic repercussions…” (qtd. In Marshal,56)

[2] Adams, John. Letter to Hezekiah Nile. 13 Feb. 1818. TeachingAmericanHistory.org -- Free Seminars and Summer Institutes for Social Studies Teachers. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University. Web. 07 Oct. 2011.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Historical Interpretation

I've deviated from simplifying life to now complicating it. Why doesn't ever historian agree about simple facts like did Pocahontas save john smith's life or was there a world wide flood in our past? I digress...

History is an interpretative science and hermeneutics plays a key part in that interpretation. The surviving documents, letters, testimonies, and written accounts are the only voices left to lend us insight into what happened and what caused those events to transpire. Many historians can agree on the day-to-day chronology of a certain event but differ in the explanations and reasons for those occurrences. A good example of an event which motivations and causes are still being debated today are the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. This 17^th century event, which shook the budding New World, has implications for today and therefore its understanding is important to modern life and how we view our society. Sociologist Isaac Reed, author of Why Salem Made Sense: Culture, Gender, and the Puritan Persecution of Witchcraft, makes the case for a gender-based explanation of the trials. His aim is to “…bring gender into not only the study of witchcraft but also its explanation” (Reed, 217). Right away, Reed acknowledges that this approach is not the “mainstream” causation of the witchcraft trials (Reed, 217). In fact, Historian Mary Beth Norton (whom Reed cites in his article) makes no allusions to a gender-related explanation in her article The Years of Magical Thinking: Explaining the Salem Witchcraft Crisis. Both authors pull their information from the same sources, transcripts, letters and eye-witness accounts, but they arrive at either a simpler or more complex conclusion.

Both authors start their discussions by mentioning a modern cultural artifact: Arthur Miller’s 1952 play entitled The Crucible. Since Mary Beth Norton is addressing her essay to those who have received their account of history from sources like the play, she continues use the play as an outline to correct misconceptions about the events of 1692. Reed, on the other hand, leaves this cultural reference behind and addresses his essay to fellow sociologists who more than likely agree to the same account of the trials in Salem (Reed, 230).

Norton’s explanations for the trials include “…a devastating war in northern New England, rampant gossip, and Pre-enlightenment magical thinking” (Norton, 3). Although she doesn’t specify her sources, she tells a narrative that adds frame to the events and then pulls her interpretation from that frame of events. She points out that, for hundreds of years, the English settlers believed to be living in a “world of wonders”, and that there was no distinction between the visible, physical realm of humans, and the invisible, spiritual world of demons and evil powers. The settlers, particularly the Puritan inhabitants of Salem, understood the Natives to be devil worshipers and tools of Satan (Norton, 3). Therefore the war with the natives was actually a war with the “un-seen” world and the witches that were thought to be in their midst was an extension of this war between the worlds. Norton points out that Tituba, A Native American, was the first to be accused of witchcraft. She also states that, “…that first large wave of accusations came in mid-April, immediately after one confessing witch revealed that the devil had recruited her into his ranks four years earlier while she was living on the Maine frontier”(Norton, 3). To Norton, this points to the people of Salem linking the two greatest difficulties of their time together and therefore imagining witches everywhere.

Isaac Reed, uses his article to bring gender as a cause over from the strictly ”Feminist” account of the Salem Witch Trials, to the “Mainstream” side of the cause of mass hysteria in 1692. Unlike Norton, Reed cites and quotes numerous books, papers, and firsthand accounts to bolster and support his claim that gender was the reason a whole town could hang 19 of their own people. Reed makes clear that, from his interpretation of the documents, “At stake was the nature and legitimacy of male authority” (Reed, 229) He states that even the accusation of “witch” was in itself, geared toward women (Reed, 226). Reed addresses the “oft-repeated observation that some of the witches were male” (qtd. In Whitney, 78). He states that “78 percent of accused witches were women, men accused of witchcraft tended to have family or sexual relations to the accused witches” (Reed, 216). Reed recognizes the theories that Norton points out in her article; he even mentions the same idea of a visible versus an invisible world (Reed, 220). But he believes that the driving force behind the trials was an effort by the male patriarchal leaders to realign their social order into what they deemed appropriate. Witchcraft was a tool that made sense to the Puritans because of the socially accepted view that women were more susceptible to the Devil than men (Reed, 225). Possibly to get a reaction from his readers, Reed again makes the observation, “Who knew murdering women could be so useful” (Reed, 217)

Neither author concludes his essay with an attempt to apply his or her conclusions to present day culture. Reed states specifically that he wishes to resist “the transport of 20^th and 21^st century subjectivities into 17^th century Massachusetts” (Reed, 210). I believe he does this to keep interpretation pure to the context of the time, but by the end of the essay he has not brought anything from 17^th century Salem back to the present. Reed’s purpose, as well as Norton, is to give the reader another, possibly more accurate, explanation of the events of the Salem Witch Hunts.

Norton points out that modern misconceptions about the events in history will more than likely stem from fictional accounts such as movies, plays and books. Even though these are “historical fiction” and based on real events, they should not be used as a sole source for information. But Reed also points out that we shouldn’t always take the actual historical documents “at their word” when they give their own explanations for why they did what they did. Reed writes, “We should not allow their interpretations of themselves to limit ours” (Reed, 218). Eric Foner in his textbook, Give me Liberty! An American History, he makes it clear that history is not static. “Rather than a fixed collection of facts, or a group of interpretations that cannot be challenged, our understanding of history is constantly changing” (Foner, xxvi). Foner goes on to add that this is “precisely because each generation asks different questions about the past, each generation formulates different answers” (Foner, xxvi). Later on, he weighs in on the topic of the Salem Witch Trials by pointing out that all the aforementioned theories hold historical weight and contain truth. It is therefore the questions our current generations asks that turns out an explanation specific to our time. Foner agrees with Reed that, “the witches alleged power challenged God’s will and the standing of men as heads of the family and rulers of society” (Foner, 105). He also supports Norton’s ideas about “magical beliefs” (Foner, 105) the threat from natives interpreted by the puritans as threat of “slavery and temptation” (Foner, 73).

In conclusion, we see that the most difficult aspect of historical interpretation is the fact that it requires diligence. Our culture and generation is so used to being “spoon-fed” the answers. Answers like who to vote for, what is good for the environment and what happened in history. Because of this “snap-acceptance”, we are in danger of missing those lessons from history that could pertain directly to our lives. Foner, Reed, and Norton all make the un-written point that the interpretation is up to the reader. We as a society cannot continue to get answers to our problems from pre-packaged, fictional history lesson such as The Crucible. It is a necessity that we research, explore and find out the truths for ourselves. Only then with the explanations work as answers to those questions we ask of history, in the first place.

Basically; The reasons why historians disagree are many and varied, but the following represent some of them:

Questions of the selection and relevance of evidence

The method and the techniques of history

Ideology and political predisposition

The purpose for which history is studied in the first place

More recently, arguments about the validity of historical method

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Article Two: The First Stroke with a Disposable Razor

The first razor in our arsenal of simplification is, without a doubt, the most notorious. The term “Occam’s razor” can be found in pop culture, music lyrics, band names, and online blogs. It is notorious because the colloquial understanding of the phrase is very different than the original Occam’s Razor (or “principle of parsimony”) In everyday vernacular, the term is used as a way for people to pick the simplest solution to a dilemma they are faced with. If the problem involves changing the oil in the family van, and the choices are take it to the garage and do it yourself on a Saturday afternoon”…Occam’s Razor must mean I take it to the garage since that is the easier, simpler solution”(excerpt taken from a March 2005 blog called “Two Down”). Or when choosing between two explanations, the street version of Occam’s razor allows me to choose the one that involves the least amount of faith or brain power (whichever one is more uncomfortable).

Occam didn't say to never add complications. Or that the simpler idea is always better or correct. He said not to add unnecessary complications, and that you should go with the simpler idea if and only if all other methods of distinguishing between the two ideas fail. In other words, it's only for choosing between theories or hypotheses that explain the evidence equally well. Simpler theories that do not explain the evidence equally well are discounted. When the evidence is not equal, there is no Razor; you just go with the explanation that explains the facts better. Occam was only talking about plan B: what to do when you can't do what you'd prefer to do, which is a decision based on evidence.

Another key point about Occam’s Razor is it’s disposable; even in a case in which you were using it before, you throw it away when new evidence comes along which is better explained by one idea than the other. (Even if you then still end up favoring the same conclusion as before, it's not for the same reason.)Like we discussed last week, “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”, was not a new idea even in William of Ockham’s 14th century England. The idea of being forced to choose the simpler (I’m using this term lightly) of a set of theories dated back into 4th century Greece. (“The more perfect a nature is, the fewer means it requires for its operation "- Aristotle) It’s a concept that is true to our human nature. We keep things simple as far Homo sapiens go. For example, we design computers with the human brain in mind. Instead of coming up with something completely new we stick to what we know.

So how do we apply Occam’s disposable razor to our stressful lives? Just like shaving, we can only do so where it is appropriate and needed. If there is more supporting evidence to one side of an issue then we should start to lean toward. The difficulty is interrupting the evidence; we will touch on that in a later post when we pull out Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword.

Continental drift offers an interesting example of a theory that was utterly rejected by Occam’s razor (and scientists) only to be vindicated years later. It was recognized centuries ago by mariners and mapmakers that South America and Africa had complementary coastlines. Their respective west and east coasts seemed like they once fit together like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Other more tantalizing geological and fossil evidence also suggested that continents moved like flotsam over the surface of the earth. Meteorologist Alfred Wegener codified this thinking in his 1915 book On the Origin of Continents and Oceans. He proposed that all continents were, in the distant past, merged into one mega-continent he called Pangaea (Greek for “all the land”). The theory that landmasses migrated over the earth was, however, almost unanimously derided by American scientists. The geological and fossil evidence was also perceived to be not compelling since they could be explained equally well by other theories. The primary downfall of Wegener’s theory, however, was his assumption of the existence of the gargantuan forces required to move continents. His attempts to account for this were unpersuasive to the scientific community and even to Wegener himself. One example invoked gravity as the force responsible for continental drift. Physicists ridiculed this possibility by showing mathematically that gravitational forces were far too feeble to power such continental wanderings. Many years passed until a plausible mechanism was proposed, this time by Scottish geologist Arthur Holmes. He theorized that earth’s crust was composed of a mosaic of rigid and fractured plates. In addition, he claimed that convection currents in the earth’s mantle, powered by radioactive decay, moved these plates in different directions about the surface of the earth. These and other propositions eventually evolved into Holmes’ paradigm-shattering theory called plate tectonics, which now underpins our modern understanding of geology and the evolution of the earth itself. Full acceptance still took many years but when the evidence for plate tectonics became incontrovertible, continental drift finally had a plausible mechanism for its assumption that delayed acceptance for decades.

Another issue that Occam’s razor is often applied to is the existence (or non-existence) of a Divine Being. As Jodi Foster’s character stated in the 1997 Warner Bros. film Contact “…what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?” This idea is used by atheists to give weight to the idea of the non-existence of a god. For example, atheists often apply Occam's razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We should be able to explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being. On the other side of the debate, some “creationists” have argued that Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism. William of Occam himself used the principle to argue against Christian Platonism. Christian Platonism was a theory during the middle ages which believed that God modeled the creation of the world after the Platonic Forms in his mind. Thus the creatures of the world were degraded imitations of these perfect forms. Occam argued that these were excess assumptions. He then used this argument to paint of picture of creation in which God did whatever-the-hell he wanted to. This was a bit disturbing to Christian theologians, because this completely free creation meant that God could've made hating him pious and evil deeds virtuous. These present-day battles could be considered manifestations of the battles between scholastic and scientific thought:

In religion, the word is a given. The stories, explanations, concepts and formulations provided by the Holy Scripture are unquestionable: we can annotate them and interpret them, but to consider whether they could be replaced with different, more accurate words, immediately takes us out of the realm of (the Christian) religion.

In science, on the other hand, the word is just a working tool. Darwin makes an honest attempt to explain how evolution works based on what he observed, but his words may be replaced with better explanations, should they come along, since what really matters is not the words, but the actual world and how it works.

This explains why the creationism debate is so thoroughly unproductive; the collision is not about matters of fact or explanations of facts, it is a collision between the scholastic and scientific intellectual attitudes. From a scholastic viewpoint, Occam's razor, or for instance, the notion of a scientific theory held in science, is utterly nonsensical. God-given concepts on the other hand - starting with God - are seemingly impossible to understand from a scientist's point of view. On the other hand, scientific evidence can be used to back of claims by creationists. So far the creationist’s have been able to come up with just as much scientific, repeatable evidence for their claims of an intelligent designer (if not more) than the evolutionists have for their ideas concerning the progression of man-kind.

Who or what made us is a stressful concept because it concerns everything we are and who we are supposed or should be. Using Occam’s razor we can shave a few sides off of each side but the debate remains. Using the razor for things like the geo-centric theory, plate tectonics and deciding on the best way to take out the trash can take us through difficult territory. Keeping things simple and not coming up with complicated explanations for things when a simpler answer is available is a good place to start in de-stressing your life.

Well, that’s another graveyard shift post. Hope it all makes sense, I’ll re-read it tomorrow when I get some sleep. I did include some inconsistencies in there on purpose, let’s see if you can use Occam’s handy razor to cut through my complicated blog.