Prova provada

Há coisas que não vale a pena discutir. É evidente que nunca poderemos viajar no tempo, ou já teríamos voltado cá para contar (já estou a imaginar as perguntas dos jornalistas: "E o que vai almoçar hoje?", "E com quem?", "E a quem vai telefonar?", "E a sobremesa?".

Talvez agora possamos dedicar a nossa ciência a investigar coisas mais produtivas.

Eu gostava de viajar no amarelo.Alguém tem uns milhões para investir neste projecto? Chaves do euromihões por aí perdidas? Metam na caixa dos comentários ou mandem por email.

Em conclusão, Deus não existe. E agora?

É verdade que a afirmação do título não está (ou pode ser) provada. Apenas me tenho dedicado a explicar porque é que não tendo Deus um trenó, uma fábrica cheia de ajudantes duentes, e principalmente, não estando presente no Colombo (o maior Centro Comercial cá da rua e arredores), tantas pessoas sentem uma verdadeira fé. Remetendo o senhor de vermelho para as ilusões infantis, e a dúvida do Senhor para esoterismos filosóficos - tantas vezes tabus raivosos. A bem da verdade, o dito Centro até tem uma capela...

Vista a fé como uma utilidade para a sobrevivência nada de prova se adianta ou se retrai. Aliás, como foi já repetido, cada um com sua fé, não se pretende aqui provar ou desprimorar. Mas podemos concluir. E se Deus não existe. Resolvem-se os problemas do Mundo? Ou caímos nos infernos abismais.

De facto, em nome Deus muita maldade se fez e continua a fazer. E em rigor, Deus trás felicidade a muita gente. Entre santa inquisição, bombistas suicidas, censura, falsa modéstia e vil ostentação romana... E santa solidariedade, amor ao próximo, missões, redenção, contemplação... Elencar e mensurar lado a lado, positivos e negativos seria aqui tedioso. No fim de contas, o resultado será tantas vezes, a opção entre a felicidade e a verdade. Porque Deus nos faz felizes.

Divinais dores de dentes, prazeres machista e a imortalidade

Na eterna disputa entre criação e evolução, um dos argumentos que me impressiona é o da funcionalidade. Existem grandes diferenças entre planear um homem (e também uma mulher) e simplesmente deixar que eles aconteçam e evoluam. Uma dessas diferenças está nos dentes. Se eu tivesse inventado os dentes humanos, eles seriam como os dos cães que não ganham cáries. Ou como os dos tubarões, que nunca acabam. Já os meus são tipicamente amarelos e com uma manutenção dispendiosa em tempo e consultas a senhores sadicamente simpáticos de batas inumanamente esbranquiçadas.

Se porém imaginarmos que os dentes tinham como função mastigar por 20 ou 30 anos (esperança média de vida do “humano natural”, sem medicações, higiene ou hidratos de carbono refinados), os pedacitos de cálcio com flúor nas pontas até têm algum sentido. Até parecem bastante adequados à função.

Mais difícil de explicar, embora ainda dentro do geneticamente razoável, está o facto de ser muito mais fácil para os homens terem prazer no coito. E mais difícil para as mulheres. Assim como o facto de nenhum dos dois durar mais de um cento de anos. Imaginem que o Einstein ou o Churchil tinham durado meio milénio. Onde estariam?... Claro que aquilo que à partida não faz muito sentido, visto sobre uma perspectiva evolucionista, tem outras cores. Perdemos os telómeros dos genes e envelhecemos porque não há evolução durante a vida, só na reprodução. A questão do prazer parece ainda mal resolvida.

E será que isto prova que Deus não existe? Claro que não… apenas nos diz que a evolução tem uma explicação bastante razoável para coisas aparentemente muito estranhas.

A matter of faith

It seems some scientists have found that faith can help ease the pain (or, at the very least, some tabloids seem to think so…). This is not entirely new, nor entirely true… or at least, one’s “faith” in this kind of discovery should be filtered by prior studies in this matter. Namely one, also reported by the media, where it was found that praying for someone would help sick people heel faster. Meanwhile, more recent evidences found no such relation – in fact it was noted that, although without statistic meaning, more heart patients who prayed had died, than those who did not… But, as always, how can one be sure their prayers were not, in fact, listen to?... I must begin by stating clearly that today’s theory has nothing to do with God or His existence. It is limited to the faith itself. Faith is, for me, an evolutionary advantage. That does not mean it is a false believe. It just explains how it could be false, and nevertheless be felt as true. In other words, how could so many, believe in something so strange… other than, because it is true? Well, this is how. Faith is a true and measurable evolutionary advantage. Even if one discusses the effects of faith in pain (and I am sure there will be many willing to engage in that discussion)

there is no doubt that those who believe have an easier life. Thinking God works in mysterious (and not to be understand) ways, is certainly easier to deal with than just realizing one’s impotence against all bad things that happen every day. Any idea of after-life is certainly more helpful to one’s sanity that the concept of a few years of conscience… and then nothing. The explanation is tied to some ancient times, when a so-called Darwin Law was still biding among us humans. At that time there existed several different types of humans: the ones with eyebrows, and the one without; the ones with faith, and the ones without. The ones with eyebrows would eat more, because when they were out hunting, running and climbing, their sweat would follow the eyebrow, dropping by the side of the face; the ones without eyebrow, on the other hand, would have their vision blurred all the time, since the sweat would fall directly into the eyes. The same way, those with faith would be more immune to emotional trauma. They would have social activities to celebrate their faith, they would return to their normal activities faster after a death, and they would be more motivated, since they believed someone “up there” would take care of them. As you might already have guessed it, we are the great-great...great-sons of those with eyebrows and faith.

Love

A long time ago I devised a test to prove love. As so many other things, it was inspired by a simple and everyday life event: from my window I saw a couple walking by, holding hands. «Oh, how sweet is love!»... And I wondered, how could I know that I was watching real love?...

The test began as something small and scientific: a couple would be placed in a white room, with a chair and a table. All they had to do was prove to someone else that they felt real love. I rapidly concluded that words and sex would not be enough, and so I gave up on science. The couple could do whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted. No need for a controlled environment.

The first important find was that if someone took his own life to save the other, it would probably mean they loved that person. Although not necessarily, since some people would give their life for a worthy cause... Nevertheless, this could not be my final answer. If one would have to die to prove one's love, the Earth would be filled with graving loved ones...

The needed help came from where I least expected. In law people study the nature of things. Things are divided in two groups: things that can be felt by our five senses, and the others. Well, love cannot be sense by any sense, except by the one that feels it. So, love cannot be proved, since it cannot be felt by anyone else.

At the end, my test is a failure, and love is all about trusting. In fact, today I think love is only about trust.

Tristan's complex

Sooner or later, there is a Tristan in every men's life. A long haired, don't fallow the rules, always do what I want guy. Who gets the girl. Faster... Or even slower. Over the rainbow. On a horse. Dumb as the door. Doesn't say please, doesn't care, doesn't stay and help. He just gets the girl.

As one ends up playing the (older) dog.

I always prefer playing Tristan, when the part is available!





Hint for the title:Legends of the fall, 1994

The meaning of life

This topic is a working progress. Nevertheless, there are some progresses to account for.

There is no simple, unanimous (good for everybody) and unique (in time and space) meaning for all human life. If there was a sole meaning, i.e., if there was a master plan, then everybody should be able to at least have a shoot at the trophy. For the sake of argument, let's assume the meaning of life was to love and to be loved. In order to make sense of it all (in other words, to have a meaning) everyone should have the possibility to be in love. And not everybody has (I mean objectively, medically). Nor does every human has the possibility to achieve any other “meaningful” achievement I can think of as a potential meaning for life.

So it can't be objective and universal. If it exists, it must be complex, mutable, and maybe even subjective...

Happiness is a good answer. Because is a formal concept. No core. Happiness is subjective and mutable. A different toy when we are five. A love at eighteen. Security and a family at thirty. Grandchildren. Health...

But it solves not the problem... for if everyone must find his or her meaning, the problem subsists: do all individual meanings join up to a greater sense?... In the end, if there are only egoistic purposes for one's life, there is not, in truth, a real meaning...

Truth vs Happiness?

Some day in the future, believing in God will be a choice between happiness... and truth. Faith is a genetic advantage which makes life a lot easier. Truth on the other hand... is something completely different. We believe in order to have an easier life, a happier one. The truth however, to His existence, is a completely different mater. One which I think my opinion is clear since line one.

I heard the proof of genetic predisposition to faith is around the corner.