Matter, Ian M. Banks and God - an open discussion

On page 340 of Ian Banks' newest novel Matter (which is really very, very good by the way) he makes a statement that caused me to realize that he is using this wonderful story to further his declaration of being an "evangelical atheist." The fact is that I have no argument with his doing so - as it is absolutely his right... However I would simply like to point out that I find his logic to be somewhat flawed...

What follows is not a verbatim quote because I recognize his right to his own copyrighted material, however I do encourage anyone reading this note to check to see what exactly he says so that everyone can be clear that I am not slanting the information for my own purposes: a link to the Amazon book search page is here.

So, Mr. Banks asks the following questions: what god would create a universe that would have his creations suffer or to cause the suffering of others? What sort of creator would impose such conditions? He then goes on to call such an activity: infinitely sadistic, cruel deliberate premeditated barbarism on a horrific scale...

My purpose in writing this note is simply to respond to the idea that the creator of the universe must be involved in such activities, is an anthropomorphic conceit, and of course there's no particular reason why the point must be either black or white... Inherent in the statements above is that the creator of the universe must be that one claimed by Judaic/Christian theology. Why is this? What if god had nothing to do with any of the myth? I would suggest at least being open to other possibilities, even if one considers them to be improbable... One must consider at least, that a creator of a universe might just have no more use for human qualities than a rabbit has for clothing... Further, it must be noted that taking this stand against god, asking such questions or attempting to answer them is really not all that original. There are plenty of these arguments and more that have been used many times by many famous people.

Nevertheless Mr. Banks I must ask if you have ever had an experience that you could not explain away with logic? Surely in your "rock’n’roll days" there were often events of the senses that would not fit into any tidy little logical boxes... It's worth a thought or two, for I would suggest that nothing in this world is exactly as it seems. I would ask this as well: what if god where inside you (and everyone) at this very moment experiencing the world through your senses - as a connected observer, yet not as a direct participant? What if said god simply gave each individual the full capability of making their own decisions, thinking their own thoughts, writing anything they wanted including their own lack of belief or even hatred for such a creator? What if, Mr. Banks, such a god wanted nothing more than for you to have whatever experience you have?

Please know that I am not in any way writing this in defense of God or against atheism, for neither has need of my input. Rather I write this in an effort to open a wider dialogue than can be offered within the confines of your book in which you make the statements (above) with what can easily be described as a religious fervor. I would not be any better pleased to have you make statements within your science fiction stories about how one must properly pray.

Mr. Banks' I can see by your statements that, for whatever reasons, you presuppose that the word creator implies guardianship... which it does not necessarily do: If a group of people were to be given a beautiful ceramic vase created by an artisan of the highest caliber, and that vase was later to be broken or marred in some way - who could blame the potter? On considering the previous line - I do suppose it might be possible to return to the potter and request a repair, (and one might consider that the entire group making such a petition might carry more weight), but it would be inappropriate to ask for repairs as though they were implied as a matter of the artisan's responsibility in having made the vase in the first place.

The way I see it Mr. Banks (and I think that you will agree) is that we live in a world for which we must each take personal responsibility - if, that is, we wish for a better life for all. Whether or not God is involved - this is still an essential truth. But think for a moment, what would that responsibility look like if it just happened that God was within us... perhaps motivated by a united thought? What then would we be collectively if everyone on the planet worked toward a single purpose?

Peace on Earth

Beyond Twitter...

Although there is safety in the confinement of 140 characters I've made the decision to step beyond that barrier, into the realm of expanded expression, only to find that on this particular day of new beginnings, that I've reached the absolute end of what needs to be said on the subject...

Okay, okay there is one other thing: I've found that there's another blogger who uses the name iambook (Who would ever considered that there might be two of us?) Anyway, I wish to state for the ongoing record that his is a reference (and assumed reverence) to all things Spiritual and Meditative, and that this blog is one of irreverence and all things that I find interesting, literary, bookish, sci-fi, fabulous (as it pertains to Tom Robbins), and any other damned thing that comes into my mind. It is not that I would ever mock what he is addressing, but rather that I am more of a mind - to not discuss the matter. It is mearly a personal taste or possibly a desision on my part (that, of course, is for me to know - and I choose not to share it). So, I am not in dissagreement with him I simply wish him well, and make note of the fact that I will very likely never again visit his blog...

Bottle Deposit

When I was a child my family would often go to spend a few days by the water in Malibu. My dad would hitch up the 16 foot camping trailer to our Ford station wagon. (yes, the same one that I once released the parking brake on and consequently rolled across the street up onto the neighbors lawn. All my dad said was, "don't do that again." I was seven. I guess the lesson stayed with me because I've not done it since). Anyway, we go off into the sunset on a Friday evening and wake up on the beach for the weekend or sometimes for a couple of weeks when it was vacation time. I would get up really early with the sun and wanted to be off doing stuff when every one else wanted to sleep, so my dad suggested that I go along the shore and retrieve the bottles scattered from the day before by the idiots of that time and cash them in. I took to this idea with a vengeance and when I made ten bucks the very first day I was hooked. My summer mornings were filled with the clank of all sorts of bottles each of which had a deposit on them between a nickel and twenty cents. I was happy because I was making money. At the same time I was performing a service by keeping the beach clear of bottles. It was a good deal all around with perhaps the exception of one person - the old wino who lost out to me each day because I was up a hell of a lot earlier than him. I'm sure that for the times I spent on the beaches of Malibu his times of sobriety were of equal measure. It looks like New Jersey is about to take a step toward a cleaner world. Good times...

City LiTTERfe

This is the experimental film I just completed and posted on youtube.

A Ridiculous Proposal - Right?

I need to begin with this: I found this image on a government site for the state of Missouri and frankly I'd like to see these sorts of signs around NYC. More than that I'd like to see actual enforcement. I want to see those people who consciously or unconsciously drop papers, plastics, or whatever happens to be in their hands at any given moment - end up with tickets in their hands. Even if they don't end up paying a fine I think that spending a day or so trying to cut through the red tape might make them think twice the next time they have something to throw away.

But on with the proposal: It's very simple really. I would like to see any company that provides logo bearing materials to along with it's products (IE: shoe boxes, fast food wrappers, cups, cigarettes, condoms, gums, candies, bottled waters, soft drink containers, hard drink bottles, computer packaging and on and on...) being held responsible to offer cash back for the return of such items or to contribute to centralized collections centers which would then pay cash for such pieces of detritus. These companies wouldn't need to spend a lot (pennies per item), and their contribution to our environment would be great. Then they could blah, blah, blah all over the place about how they're working to clean up the planet. As things are now, the way I see it is that each and every MacDonald's bag or cup or wrapper that's left to rot before our eyes is an illegal advertising placement. If each one of those items were replaced by a sign on a stick advertising those products - MacDonald's would be fined and the signs would be removed. But they're not signs - they're just trash left over from someone' gross-out meal. Nevertheless MickyDs has it's name plastered everywhere we look and they've washed their hands of the whole thing. Their defense (as they might present it): "hey we just sold the stuff. The customer owns it now. What they do with it is up to them and we truly believe they should place such things in the proper containers."

Give me a break. Yes, please, I would like a break today - a break from advertising tyranny and corporate irresponsibility, a break from litter that often works its way into our overburdened oceans. A break from an littered environment

We all deserve a break today. Don't you agree, Ronald Mac Donald - icon to children everywhere?

Everything's Connected

I came across this little item and cannot help but see the relationship between what we do each and every day and the planet's dilemma. From my way of thinking (and I know that everyone does not share this view) all of life emanates from each individual person and coalesces into what we know and agree upon as reality. Therefore if we want things to change globally it is up to each of us to transform ourselves personally.

Each instance of litter is an example, a reminder if you will, of something that needs to be paid attention to. Picking it up and encouraging that practice on the level of community is needed action. Litter then, is the signifier of larger issues that can be addressed by individual action.

Breathe deeply.

Trash Stash Evolution

As small as this blurb is it actually contains some very good news for the environment and for the issue of what to do with those recycling items. The article points to the idea that we will soon be moving to using a single container system for all disposables and it will all get sorted on the other end. No more special containers no more sorting for the consumer! Yes.

Further, even though the MTA has made no announcement of any kind to let people know they are already using this system on all platforms and throughout the system. If you look carefully at the bottom of the photo of the sticker that has been afixed to all of the containers you will see a line that states, "Subway litter is recycled after collection." Amazing! One would think with all the negative press they get for all of the truly stupid decisions they make having to do with the use of funds, they they would welcome something to crow about. Ah well. Anyway, I'm personally happy to know that I no longer need to haul that newspaper, or recyclable bottle home in order to assure that it will be recycled properly - I can just place it any one of the hundreds of receptacles in the subway system and know that it will be taken care of. Yippie!