Isn’t it is fair and reasonable to reject ideas that don’t make sense to me? That seems like it ought to be at the core of all honest mental operations and yet there is a problem. Just because something doesn’t make sense at the moment doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t make sense if I pursue the background information and reasoning that leads to the idea. I remember in high school being confronted with the Pythagorean theorem that in a right triangle the sum of the square of the sides equaled the square of the hypotenuse. It was presented to us after we had worked through some other more elementary problems and I wasn’t comfortable with the details of some of those ideas. However, when I worked out the problem in physical drawings moving from the extremes at either end of the angular setups and compared them with the obvious 3 x 4 and 5 setups I then felt more comfortable with the intervening angles that were more difficult to compute.

I am wondering if this same process might not get me through many other ideas, perhaps non-mathematical ones. A big one for example: is it necessary for there to be an intelligence to create and maintain the processes of the Universe? When I think on the mechanical processes of the environment it appears that they obey the principles of mechanical laws. The processes of biology are much more complicated, but when looked at they too seem to obey their natural proclivities. Even mental processes which are more obscure in the details of their operations seem to obey the laws of nature and of their particular natures. Even complex human social activities are based on human mental operations, and those on animal proclivities, and those on natural mechanical processes. Those social things are based in beings that are impossible to dissect without destroying their functioning and so are difficult to make any form of absolute sense out of. But just because it is difficult to the point of impossibility to lay out their natural development to where we can totally understand its processes doesn’t mean or imply that those natural processes are not there. We don’t need to resort to fantastic and usually simplistic explanations to satisfy our minds.

Taking some social event as complex as say World War II and saying that it was God’s will makes it too easy to say that America’s response to North Korea’s provocative firing of potentially atomic bomb-tipped missiles toward us is also controlled by God’s will. Terrible events might be triggered by minuscule irrational miscalculations made by humans that might be easily avoided by a moment of rational thought and caution. But, if there are people involved in the decisions who make their decisions based on flimsy evidence and fall back on blind faith, then catastrophe is much more likely. Eventually, the attitude to risk that lets the dice fall as they may will be much to the detriment of the people involved. When the situation becomes too complex to think through all the possibilities, the best rational solution is probably to…

Choose to move toward everything that will bring health and happiness.