Travelin' Man

So this year is turning out to be the Year of Travel for me. I guess that fits, since I kicked it off with NYC for New Years. Shortly after that was St. Louis. Next will be Denver in a couple of weeks to hit the slopes with Kim. Then, to Vegas to, well, drink, wander around and watch Stomp! with Shirin. Sometime after that, I have tentative plans to hit Ohio to go to Cedar Point with Brian, Bethany and whoever else wants to go (if you're reading this, you can pretty much consider yourself invited if you got the means to get there and the date that gets set works for you). I also obviously have to make it home at some point to visit friends and family; I also want to make it out to SC to see my bro and my niece and nephews sometime soon; and finally, I really want to be able to take advantage of the benefit of flying 'space available' with the Air Force to South Korea to visit a couple of my friends that are stationed there now. Hell, for that matter, I might as well try to fit in a trip to Europe at some point before my enlistment is up. I don't have anyone to visit, but it would be cool. One of my big reasons for enlisting in the AF was to travel, so I guess I'm justified in all of this.

The only real problem arrising from all of this is my budget. I'm not hurting financially at this point (Thank God), but I still have to be careful, since I want to make sure that I have a sizeable sum saved up for when I get out of the AF. I'd like to either have a good amount of money to put down on a place, or to finance one of my years at law school. If all goes to plan, my GI Bill will cover one full year at NYU, or any other comparable school. Yeah, it's freakin' expensive. So if the GI Bill covers one year, and I pay for another with cash, I'll only have to finance or seek grants for one year's tuition, which would be awesome. That's the best case senario, of course. I also have to consider my car. I mean, let's face it--she's getting on in years. Never had a serious problem yet, knock on wood, but she ain't gonna last forever.

So that's just what I got going on these days. Still waiting for the decision on my admission to University of Illinois. Hope all is well with everyone else.

Oh--I just finished Zelda on the Wii. Awesome game, though I had to start over after almost reaching the end due to a game glitch. That sucked. Other than that, it was awesome. I'm going to start playing Ultimate Alliance soon. Also, saw 300 last week, too. Very good.

Playing: Marvel Ultimate Alliance on the Wii

PLEASE PROOF-READ THIS FOR ME!

Alright, so tomorrow I turn in my statement of purpose and writing sample for my application to University of Illinois at Springfield's online philosophy program. I've never written a statement of purpose before, and it's been years since I've written a philosophical essay, so I need y'all to help me make sure the paper is at least semi-well-written. Please let me know any spelling/punctuation errors you find asap, and also let me know if the paper 'flows' well.

The statement of purpose has a 100-200 word limit and asked for a brief description as to why I want to study philosophy, as well as a description of my experience with computers (it's an online degree). Here it is:

To begin with, my interest in a philosophy major stems from my experiences in two introductory philosophy classes I had taken nearly ten years ago, coupled with my gradual transformation from religious faith to agnosticism. Since taking those classes, I have continued to read the philosophical works of various authors, mainly those pertaining to religion and ethics, since they interest me the most. Additionally, I love to discuss and debate these subjects with others, though it can be difficult to find willing participants due to the sensitive nature of such topics. After completing my degree, I hope to continue on to law school at NYU or Columbia University.

Also, I own my own laptop with Internet access, and I am thoroughly comfortable with navigating the Net. I use it daily for email, news, shopping, MySpace, and sites like Wikipedia as reference tools for information. I have also taken several courses online in the past, including English, Philosophy, Biology, and French, and have been successful in all of them.

Finally, I hope I have presented a strong case for my potential as an online undergraduate philosophy student at the University of Illinois at Springfield. I sincerely appreciate your consideration.

Now for the writing sample. It had a 800-1200 word limit, and asked me to explore a philosophical question I was interested in (surprise surprise, I chose religion), and I was to use 3-5 sources. Here it is:

Perhaps the most consuming philosophical question for me is that of the significance of religion in our world. I have myself made my own forays into a religion or two and have experienced the sense of security and community they have to offer. Unfortunately, during those times in my life, I also became aware of the division and controversy they tend to inspire between people, not only between those of different faiths but, more often than I believe is acknowledged by most, those attending the same place of worship. With that being the case, it's no surprise that the cultural and spiritual rifts rapidly expanding through our planet continue to do so. I'm sure that I'm not the first to point out the fact that this is in marked contrast to the aims of what most believers desire to be the fruits of their faith, nor that it contradicts the more endearing passages of many a religious scripture. However, my own personal realization of this dilemma lead me to re-examine my own beliefs and ask myself the question: What right do we have to profess a belief in anything beyond what can be proven? If God's existence, let alone His personality traits and moral standards, cannot be factually verified, how will religion of any kind succeed at solving more problems than it creates and, in effect, actually save the world, as it so often claims to be able to do?

After having begun to pursue answers to these questions, I hadn't journeyed far before realizing that in reality, the issue has little to do with proof, facts or sound reasoning, and everything to do with emotion and tradition. As stated by William James in in his profound study, The Varieties of Religious Experience, "The truth is that in the metaphysical and religious sphere, articulate reasons are cogent for us only when our inarticulate feelings of reality have already been impressed in favor of the same conclusion….Instinct leads, intelligence does but follow." (James 75). My personal experience validates this fact, having studied western astrology in depth during my teen years, followed by a conversion to Christianity when I was 18. During both of these chapters in my life, I experienced intense emotional religious experiences that, I felt at the time, justified my beliefs, and thus solidified my convictions. My willingness to believe served, in a way, as a proof. Actually, it served as the chief proof, and it is my belief that my case is typical of many people who currently identify themselves as, in some way or other, religious.

If my belief is correct, we have discovered the root of the problem. The majority of today's world religions are exclusive in nature and aggressively seek to convert unbelievers. "The true religion with God is Islam," states the Koran (Koran 3:17). "For the LORD is great and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are idols," says the Bible (Psalms 96:4-5). There is nothing unclear in either of these mutually exclusive claims: the god of the believer is the true God, all others are false and the false gods' believers would be wise to convert. Conversion requires communication and reason between people of incompatible beliefs, which rarely occurs and is, therefore, a rare event indeed. If James' statement about the prevalence of feeling over thought in matters of religious belief, communication between opposing believers is over before it starts, conflict among individual people and entire cultures is inevitable, all hope of finding truth is lost, and any plea to the benefit of religious influence in our society is exposed as an illusion. A castle can't be built on sand, after all.

However, I fear that reversing the role of importance from feeling over thought to thought over feeling is only the beginning in solving this problem. Actually, it's probably more of a preamble to a beginning, because it requires objective fact as a starting point. This reveals the distinct disadvantage that this more logical approach has against the 'feelings first' approach: objective fact is so much less pliable in our minds than the subjective ideas generated by our feelings, desires and insecurities and passed off as fact. As Sam Harris puts it in his book, The End of Faith, "Believing strongly, without evidence, (religious believers) have kicked themselves loose of this world." (Harris 45). They have, in effect, severed all ties of communication with others.

Personally, I wonder about the morality of adhering to a religious belief system that one cannot demonstrate a logical belief in, supported by evidence. Most religions in our society claim to be subject to a deity that is the defining authority on truth and morality, not to mention the creator of time, space, matter and all life. Yet it is my experience that the average believer of any faith is absent of a working knowledge of the scriptures they base their faith on, their actual contents, how old they are, where they come from, and whether there exists additional outside evidence to corroborate the claims made in the scriptures. Yet, if many of these believers had their way, they would require the rest of the world to do what they themselves would never be able to: examine their own beliefs and declare them to be false, reject them and adopt the teachings and principles of a new religion. I see such expectations on the part of a believer to be nothing less than the ultimate act of hypocrisy.

Still, I have an empathy with the religious believers of the world and the struggle to objectify something so personally sacred as religious faith. I have fond memories of feeling loved by God, and knowing that I had a structure after which to mold my life. I have also had the pleasure of knowing some exemplary individuals who managed to live as though they were the human embodiment of all the virtues of their respective religions. Religious belief's power to inspire cannot be easily denied. Nor its endearing appeal to hope: "(Hope) means that a continual looking forward to the eternal world is not a form of escapism or wishful thinking, but one of the things a Christian is meant to do." (Lewis 119).

Even so, the political influence of religious believers and the turmoil that too often accompanies it has, in my opinion, made it a necessity that religious belief be held accountable to fact and reason. How else can it be? As far I see the matter, knowledge of God and spiritual truth are either subject to the same principles of reason as anything else we can know, or they are altogether unknowable. And if they are unknowable, I can't see that religion has any value in our society. If however it is forced through the scrutiny of proper reasoning, and survives, it may just save the world.

Alright, so please help a brotha out and proofread these for me if you can, and let me know of any corrections asap. Remember, I gotta send it out tomorrow. And also remember, I haven't written at the collegiate level in, like, 6 or 7 years so don't expect anything spectacular as far as content. Be critical, but please be nice. Thanks guys!