Happy Accidents

    I’ve heard countless times how ignorant and dangerous religion is. How it suppresses logical and progressive thought. It causes unnecessary conflict. I’m reminded constantly, by current events and the role I play in them as a member of the Armed Forces, of the part religion plays in wars, now and throughout history. But let me tell you what is wrong with this atheistic, “scientific” war on religion. Specifically Christianity, but all religion has been attacked by this idea that it is archaic, prehistoric, ignorant, and harmful. An atheist must admit that the universe came into existence by chance. In fact, many of them now will tell you that based on recent research on the Higgs Boson at King’s College London, the universe shouldn’t exist. Some explain it by stating that we exist because we exist. This is the supposed logic that religion suppresses, by the way. However they choose to explain away how the universe came to be, they can not deny that by definition, if they are indeed correct, the universe came about by accident. And many will gladly admit to this. But they somehow fail to see the disturbing ramifications of this admission. If the universe happened by accident, then there is no reason for the universe to exist. Or they’ll sincerely believe that the explanation “the universe exists because it exists” is clever and intellectual. But if the universe exists by accident, then humanity exists by accident. If you are a “happy accident”, you have no purpose. You are an unintended consequence of chance. After all, there was nothing presiding over your coming into existence capable of showing intent, right? If you are an accident, you have no reason to live. There was no purpose or design in your existence. You exist because you exist, and at some point you will cease to exist. If something has no purpose, it has no value. What use is something that has no reason to exist? What happens when you teach generations of children that humanity is a collection of genetic mistakes that has no reason for existence other than that base animal survival instinct that is our genetic disposition? What happens when you take the worth away from a human being? If you have no reason to exist, why should I hesitate to bring about the cessation of your existence? What are my morals based on? Some majority rule that killing is bad based solely on self preservation? If you remove the purpose, the reason, the intent, the value, you remove the soul. You have intentionally or not created a society that believes that it is ok to destroy life in the sanctity of a mothers womb, or in the classroom, or in the mall, or a movie theater, or a cafeteria, or in gas chambers, or in trenches dug along the side of a road. If you have no reason in your existence, by what right do you exist? Rights are born of reason and reason is born of intelligence. And intelligence only comes from intelligence. You go on and live your happy accident. I’m here for a reason.   

Falling Trees and Forests

     The question has been asked for years, "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?".  In my experience, the most common answer to the question is "of course it does!". I usually answer without hesitation to the contrary. Now before we get into this, I feel compelled to warn you that the question, as innocent as it may seem, is quite loaded. Maybe that is common knowledge, and maybe that is the point. Either way, let's examine the scenario.
     First, to correctly answer the question, we must define "sound". So what is sound? My answer is crudely simplistic, but to the point. Sound is moving air. But for the sake of validation, shall we say, lets see what Miriam Webster says.

a :  a particular auditory impression :  tone

b :  the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing

c :  mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

We have two possible definitions here. We have the physical energy, and we have the auditory perception of that energy. 
     The reason I answer "no" to the question in question is because sound is not sound until it is perceived. The tree that falls in the forest most certainly moves air. There is definitely a transmission of mechanical energy radiated outward in the form of longitudinal pressure waves in a fluid medium. But this moving air is not the objective cause of hearing if there is nothing within it's vicinity capable of auditory perception. Until they are perceived, they are merely "sound waves"--moving air.
     So if the question were "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it produce sound waves?", the answer would be yes. But  pressure waves transmitted at various uniform frequencies through a fluid medium are simply that. Moving air. Until that pressure wave is perceived by auditory processors and translated by the Broca's Area of the Cerebral Cortex of a brain into audible sound, it is simply nothing more than a breeze--a light, gentle, natural movement of air of any velocity. 
     At this point you may have made the frustrating discovery that this entire case hinges on how the question is asked. Semantics. For instance, how much of a difference does that indefinite article "a" make in the question (...make a sound...)? But you see, dear reader, I covered this base in a warning in my first paragraph. 
      While I feel that I have thoroughly answered this age old question, I feel that its being an age old question means that it will never be answered. Hopefully this article (if it did not enlighten you) at least entertained you.