I really want to write about something, but I have nothing to write about. 

The difference between this line and the last was 5 minutes.  Still nothing. 

...

I have a friend from America that will visit me today.  I'm quite excited. 

My hypothesis on why so many conservatives are religious.

Couple years ago, I read a newspaper article about a study on brain differences between self-identified democrats and republicans.  Democrats, it turned out, tended to have larger anterior cingulate cortex, which processes empathy, decision making, etc., while republicans had larger amygdala, a region that recognizes threats. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/political-views-tied-brain-structure/story?id=13317961

To me, this makes a lot of sense.  Think about all the liberal agenda and positions: immigration reforms, universal health care, social security, etc.  All these are basically politics of empathy.  Now if you take the republican agenda and positions: national security, lower debt, less immigration, etc., all this is basically politics of fear.  And I might add, characteristics of people with developed anterior cingulate cortex is that they're more comfortable with uncertainty.  

There's another group of people who are driven by fear.  More precisely, fear of death.  Care to guess?

Why do people believe in religion?  Well, there can be many reasons, but you can't argue against the fact that a significant number of people believe in it because of the idea of afterlife.  Some people may deny this because it makes them seem cowardly or uncool, but can you separate Christianity, for example, from afterlife?  You really can't, can you?  The main idea of Christianity is that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself and took your sins away, but if there is no afterlife, who would give a damn? 

Think about it.  You have this original sin.  You never really felt guilty about the sin - after all, you didn't even know the existence of it until some missionary or pastor told you.  Not only that, but someone you've never seen or met, died for you, everyone preceding you, and everyone that will be born from here on after.  And now you can live the rest of your vindicated life... until you die... and that is that.  This scenario really doesn't work well, because even if you weren't vindicated from the sin (that you never committed), the result is identical. 

This whole "Jesus-sacrificed-himself-on-the-cross-for-you," idea works best if there is an afterlife.  You were supposed to burn in hell for eternity because of your sins, but Jesus Christ, the son of God, saved you by sacrificing himself.  If this were the case, Jesus's death now makes a significant difference.  The idea makes sense and is quite effective.  I don't think it's a coincidence that hell is only mentioned after Jesus in the bible.

People may be Christians for other reasons, but you can't argue against the fact that afterlife is deeply embedded into Christian doctrine, and that many people directly or indirectly are drawn to Christianity and other religions because of afterlife. 

And such fascination with afterlife can be a mere curiosity, but it's also a fear of uncertainty.  Nothing in this world is more uncertain than what happens after death.  Religion attempts to appease the fear of death through promise of an afterlife. 

Of course, I'm not saying that everyone believes in religion because they fear death, but it plays a significant role.  How many significant religious doctrines and themes fall apart if you take the factor of afterlife away?  Quite a few.  It is my opinion that afterlife is deeply embedded with super majority of all religion, and underneath all that is human's innate fear of death and uncertainty. 

What would be really interesting is if scientists did a study on whether religious people have larger amygdala or not.  My hypothesis is that they do. 

So perhaps, it makes complete sense why there aren't many liberal Christians in America.  There are few, but not many.  As a slight liberal myself, I always knew my views were different from so many pastors and other religious figures.  Now I have a hypothesis that explains the difference. 

I've said this a gazillion times, but people often make decisions based on emotions (fear) and then rationalize the decision, not the other way around. 

Why I strive to be a minimalist

"Why do I talk about the benefits of failure?  Simply because failure meant a stripping away of the inessential.  I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me."

J.K. Rowling



If you you "strip away the inessential," what you have left is either nothing or perfection.

It's God's will

People might find this to be surprising, but the above phrase annoys me.  It's beyond an annoyance really.  If you suggest that I do something because they feel like it's God's will, then I immediately perceive their IQ to be about 20 points lower.  Why?  There are two reasons.  One is because I find that statement to be extremely condescending, rude, and arrogant, unless the statement is about some broad idea that everyone knows about (i.e. You should help those in need because it's God's will).  Two is because this statement leaves no room for argument and compromise.

For the life of me, I can't see how people aren't offended (sorry for the double negative).  Here are the premises:

1.  I know what the almighty supernatural being (God) wants
2.  You do not know what God wants
3.  Therefore you should do as I (he) say(s)

Let's take this statement for an example: "I was praying yesterday, and God spoke to me saying that you should come back to California"  (I made up this silly example). 

The first premise is obviously true.  The second premise is implied.  If we both knew what the almighty wanted, then the person wouldn't have to tell me anything.  If someone is trying to change my behavior by telling me what God had said, it necessarily implies that I do not know what God wants.  I emphasize change because that means we are at a disagreement, and if I'm at a disagreement with a person who knows exactly what God wants, then I must obviously do not know what God wants.  I'm always tempted to say, "well, I prayed too and God told me the exact opposite thing." 

To be even more honest, and blasphemous, whenever people told me to listen to God, I had no idea what they were talking about.  I can honestly tell you that I tried so hard, but I only ended up talking to myself and listening to my conscious, which all humans innately have. 

Premise three is also quite obviously true.  I know that many people don't mean it to be this way, but the phrase "it's God's will," or anything close to it, is really an attempt to subjugate another human being by using a higher authority as an excuse.  I'm not okay with that. 

www.fredpaik.com

oh and on a second note, I re-posted my website.  It used to be called www.topaintwithlight.com, but now it's www.fredpaik.com.  I guess I grew more narcissistic over the years.

Unfortunately, it does not work with iOS, and it only works on certain android phones.  Oh well. 

up with which I will not put

I always try to memorize this phrase to zap some over zealous grammar police, but to no avail.  Hopefully I will be able to memorize it for good this time. 




If you don't know what I'm talking about, here is the myth (which is probably not true).  One of Winston Churchill's aid corrected his speech, saying that he should not end a sentence with a preposition.  So Churchill wrote back a memo, saying, "this is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put."

Isn't it one of the best ripostes ever?  take the clause 'which I will not put up with,' and move the two prepositions (though up is not necessarily a preposition) like a traditional grammarian would suggest, and you get the whacked out sentence: "up with which I will not put!"

to not be a bitch

Before I start, I'm annoying myself by splitting infinitives these days.  But then "not to be a bitch" sounds different for some reason, closer to "not to be rude but," sort of statement.  May be I should've just said to be not a bitch.  

I had this epiphany as I was traveling across South East Asia, because I was a little sissy and a pushover to people in uniform.  This first occurred when I was in an airport in Laos, at a Thai airline counter.  The lady insisted that I check my bag, which turned out to be double the allotted weight (my bag was 14kg).  I insisted that I didn't want to check it, and whether my bag is in cargo or on the overhead bin makes no difference to the airline.  She was stubborn, and after about 30 seconds of quibble, I lost. 

Now, what would a strong minded person, who refuses to take no for an answer, have done?  He would've politely asked, if there were any rules about the article of clothing a passenger can wear, (the answer is no), and proceed to wear every single piece of clothing he possibly could.  I didn't do that. 

Second instance was also in an airport.  In Bangkok, I was going through the security, when they asked to see the contents of my unchecked bag.  Now, keep in mind that I went through 9 airports and border crossings during this trip, and this was my last stop.  The problem was my shampoo and sun block, which were in a 125ml container.  Now I didn't care about the shampoo but I had bought the sun block for nearly 10 dollars, so naturally, I was pissed.  I decided to stand my ground, but after about a minute, when security guards inched closer, I threw away both of them, because I didn't want to check my bag. 

If you haven't noticed already, I absolutely hate checking bags. 

But my preferences aside, what would a strong minded person have done?  He would've said, "okay, I'll check my bag," and would've proceed to a different airport security.  I think there were about four different security checks in the BKK airport, and if I was able to go through 8 airports and border crossings, I think at least one of them would've let me keep my sun block. 

Okay, so here are my resolutions.  To be not a bitch, and to not split infinitives.  damn.