I’ve been meaning to write this for a while, but as I’ve previously mentioned, procrastination takes its toll. However, a recent post on Mind Hacks has spurred me to make my contribution to the zeitgeist.

For quite some time I’ve thought about the question “is there a god?” Except it is not god’s existence I’ve been pondering, but why we ask the question the first place, particularly in light of the rather scant evidence for the presence of the divine.

Those who believe in god would object to the previous statement, and claim the evidence of god’s work is all around us, that our own existence points to the existence of a creator, that life is so complex that its presence suggests conscious action. And while I disagree with that notion (It shows a poor understanding of the time-scale involved with evolutionary development, and with evolutionary theory as a whole.), I can empathize in light of our own psychology (I’ll delve into this a bit later.). However, even taken at face value, the complexity = intelligence argument in no way has to suggest the presence of god. One could just as easily believe human life was formed at the hands of an alien race (As, I’ll add, some do.) conducting a planetary experiment. So why then do so many people attribute our creation to the divine, and why do religions so permeate humanity’s history?

From an evolutionary perspective, for a trait or characteristic to be so wide-spread, so pervasive, it must convey some benefit. And there’s substantial evidence that people who are religious are happier, and possibly as a consequence, live longer. I suspect, given the correlation between mood/outlook and health, that such people are also healthier as well. (Sucks for me.) And thus, we have a benefit.

Why religion provides this advantage isn’t all that salient to the argument, but I believe it has a lot to do with providing a feeling of control. There’s a book I read in my youth called The Lucifer Principle, by Howard Bloom, in which he recounted some very interesting experiments involving feelings of helplessness and their deleterious effect on functioning. Religion often provides a way of explaining the inexplicable, and of tying random events to purpose and cause, often directly related to the actions of the believer. I.e., pray for rain, and cause it to rain. If it doesn’t rain, one didn’t pray hard enough, or believe enough. Conspiracy theories hold to the same principal. Rather than an event being the result of the interaction of thousands of triggers, something which is largely beyond human ability to comprehend, said event was caused by a cabal, the controlling elite, etc. It reduces complexity, and brings things under conscious direction. Which is, as you might note, exactly the argument put forth by those who espouse intelligent design.

I would hope that this knowledge would serve to lessen the amount of faith, as it were, that we put in religious belief, that we could use our brains to overcome themselves. But I also know how incredibly difficult that is, and it is just that difficulty that explains why otherwise entirely rational, brilliant people can maintain beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. At least they’re happy.

Me? I’ll just be miserable about it and die sooner.

I often do things just a bit differently than most people. Usually this is a result of questioning the norm, and asking if there’s another, better way than tradition. For instance, I shower at night, and have done so for a very long time. It just makes more sense. Before I crawl (or jump) into bed, I prefer to rid myself of the dirt and oil that accumulates during the day. Of course, some of this has to do with the fact that should my forehead one day secede from my body, it would qualify for OPEC membership, but it has other side benefits too, such as keeping one’s sheets clean, and not tracking crap into bed.

Eventually, the rest of the world tends to catch up to my ideas. Memes propagate, and a few month/years/centuries later, others figure things out. Which is why I was both heartened and somewhat saddened to see a Dove take up the Yahoo front page for two days for this.

Soon everyone will be showering at night, and I’ll no longer be an iconoclast. Wait. No. I still will; just not about this.

When I first heard the liability arguments against the cigarette companies, (Arguments which, as an aside, I find mostly fallacious. The health costs are more than offset by the reduced lifetime entitlement expenditure due to earlier death. But god forbid anyone should mention this.) it struck me that the same arguments could be applied to the soda industry, but on a much more compelling level. (And I am intentionally separating soda and fast food. The argument for the liability of the latter is again less persuasive. The food is crap, but they’re not selling Cracky McCrack Burgers.)

Both industries manufacture an addictive product with highly deleterious health-consequences, but unlike the tobacco companies, which may or may not have been tangentially targeting children, the soda industry goes after kids directly, putting their product in schools, playgrounds, and anywhere else youth congregate. Some might suggest that soda isn’t as addictive, but caffeine is a highly potent CNS stimulant, which is just as addictive as nicotine. (Starbucks knows this well. It’s no accident that their coffee contains almost twice as much caffeine as Dunkin Donuts‘.) But unlike coffee, or nicotine for that matter, caffeine is only a naturally occurring in the kola nut. Caffeine in all other soda is added; it has almost no effect on taste.

Given that, and particularly given that it costs money to do so, one has to ask why it’s being added. The simple answer is that people want it, and I believe that, but I also believe that it has a profit increasing side-effect of getting people hooked on the beverage, particularly when those hooked are too young to know *why* they get a headache when they stop drinking soda, but know that they *do*, and so constantly are drawn to imbibe. And the health effects? Those aren’t hard to see.

Am I pro suing the soda companies? Not really. I think it’s borderline acceptable to market to kids, though I do feel it’s egregious that schools are allowed to sign provisioning contracts. However, I don’t write our case law, and if the same standards that are applied to the tobacco companies are applied the soda industry, they’re in a lot of trouble.

A few nights ago on my way home I heard an ad on the radio for a place called centerfolds2000. As one might assume, this is a “gentlemen’s club”, but this wasn’t what caught my attention. Nor was it the attachment of 2000 to their name, which we all know still makes a place seem futuristic; experience tomorrow, today!

No, what really drew me in was they would be hosting the world’s smallest dancers. “Smallest?” I thought, “What do they mean smallest? Like 4′10″, or are they really talking about midgets?” Being me, I had to look this up. (I swear, I’m not midget obsessed. It just seemed so apropos. I brought it up as an example of fringe, people! But no! Apparently midget sex is so popular they’re advertising it on the radio now.) And so I did, and lo and behold, not just midgets, midget sisters!

Super-small stripping sisters.

America! Fuck yeah!