Alive & Schticking!

Reality Check

2012-02-02T12:20:00.000-08:00

"The genuinerealist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability todisbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as anirrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the fact.Even if he admits it, he admits it as a fact of nature till then unrecognizedby him." ~ ‘TheBrothers Karamazov’ by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

John Shook is theauthor "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: Framing the Debate" a recentblog post at the Center for Inquiry.

The Center forInquiry’s mission is to, “Foster a secular society based on science, reason,freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.” However, in this note I will attempt toshow that Shook’s arguments in his blog post fail a basic logical test and heneglects scientific evidence of the supernatural.

To begin, despiteclaims of humanist values, Shook’s Ad Hominem attacks like, "Sciencemarches on, moving faster than the parasites following its trail."undermine even the best rational arguments. With that said, let's 'turn theother cheek' and move past this issue and refute his real arguments.

Shook first assertsthat, "Naturalism -- the scientific worldview -- takes reality to be whatverifiable observation and scientific method discovers. Much has been explainedby science, and much more will be." So, in other words, Shook asserts a“Naturalism Principle” that holds reality is only proven to be true by usingverifiable observation and the scientific method. Using his own logic, this “Naturalism Principle” itself cannot be proven to be true using verifiableobservation or the scientific method; therefore it is not a reality. This is not a wordgame. It is a successful refute of the author's premise using The Law ofNoncontradiction; which is one of the first principles of logic. Basically, anystatement that is not affirmable (because it contradicts itself) must be false.

Despite this simpleerror in logic, Shook goes on to suggest that he believes (dare I say, 'hasfaith') that the Scientific World View has the ability, given enough time andeffort, to discover all the truths of the universe. For example he writes...

"Theology wasonce the mighty explainer of all things in heaven and on earth, but by now itcan only take comfort in whateverscience has not yet explained."

"Naturalism willnever be in a position to “prove itself true,” for that would require science to explain all curiosities,something for only the far future to bring, if ever."

"So long as afew tough questions appear beyond science’spresent-day competency, supernaturalism can keep feeling immunefrom refutation."

Unfortunately I don'thave his faith in this matter. Once again his argument fails, because there area number of truths that we are all rational to accept that can NEVER bediscovered or proven using empirically verifiable evidence or the scientificmethod; for example, mathematics, laws of logic, and the order found in the universe. Science can’t prove any of them becausescience blindly presumes them as given facts.

To his credit, Shookfinally concedes that the “Naturalism Principle” is insufficient to disprovesupernaturalism and believes he is moving on to a philosophical argument todispel supernaturalism. I'd like to point out here that arguing that the“Naturalism Principle” can or cannot prove that supernaturalism is implausible,is still a philosophical argument that uses the philosophy of science. So, I'mnot sure why he thinks he is 'moving' to a philosophical argument at thispoint, given he’s already been making one.

Keep in mind,"Science doesn't say anything. Scientists do." ~ Frank Turek

Shook argues,"Why is philosophy so useful? First, the logical methods needed forrendering supernaturalism quite implausible do not rely on the correctness ofnaturalism. Common sense rationality and logic, the core of philosophy aroundthe world, is sufficient to do the job." Shook is a Research Associate inPhilosophy at the University at Buffalo, since 2006. He has authored and editedmore than a dozen books, is a co-editor of three philosophy journals, andtravels for lectures and debates across the United States and around the world.Yet here in his first main point, he conspicuously fails to provide even one example of theseso-called numerous logical arguments that prove supernaturalism is implausible.I've asked him for one (see my comments under his blog), and he has yet torespond.

Shook goes on to saythat, "Neither logic nor scientific methods are the products of anyindividual brain, first of all – methods of reasoning arise from largeaggregates of brains harnessed together over many generations, passing downmore refined techniques over time." I agree with the first part, thatlogic is not a product of an individual brain. However, it is also not theproduct of large aggregates of brains, either. In fact, it's not a product of ahuman brain at all.

If it were true thatlogic was merely a product of an intelligent brain, then prior to the existenceof humans, the principles of logic did not exist. However, methods of reasoningare based on the Laws of Logic, such as The Law of Noncontradiction and The Lawof the Excluded Middle. They have to be in place in order for the universe toeven exist regardless of our human existence or subsequent awareness of them.We didn't invent and collectively refine logic and mathematics, and thus theability to use them to reason. Can you imagine a universe operating withoutthem, just waiting for us to invent and refine them over time? They've existedsince at least the beginning of the universe, and we merely became aware ofthem by observing their effects; which is the very same method we use to becomeaware of and can prove the existence of the supernatural.

Contrary to Shook’sarguments, the supernatural is indeed a fact that is believable beyond areasonable doubt, because it has been proven with logic, empirically verifiableevidence, and the scientific method. Naturalism contends that there is no suchthing as supernatural forces. Yet, Einstein's theory of‘General Relativity’,which has been verified to five decimal places, demands an absolute beginningfor time, space, and matter. In other words, 'The Big Bang'. It also shows thattime, space, and matter are co-relative. That is, they are interdependent—youcan’t have one without the others. How does Naturalism explain the suddencoexistence of time, space, and matter being caused by natural forces; whennatural forces did not exist until the big bang? Given the Law of Causation(everything that has a beginning has a cause), since these natural laws did notexist prior to the big bang, something BEYOND natural laws had to cause it.What do we call things that are beyond natural laws again?

su·per·nat·u·ralAdjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyondscientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Since the “NaturalismPrinciple” has been proven false and the supernatural proven real, the rest ofShook’s arguments concerning alleged theological alliances with philosophy areinconsequential. Ironically, philosophy and science - not theology, were theonly things necessary to refute Shook’s main claims.

These ideas are notmine. I recently acquired this knowledge from one wonderfully simple book. It'scalled, "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be Atheist" by Frank Turek andNorman L. Geisler. So, if a schmuck comedian like me can read this book andsuccessfully refute a highly educated and experienced university ResearchAssociate in Philosophy, then anybody can learn to defend their Christianfaith!

Gouge Your Filthy Eyeballs Out!

2012-01-27T08:43:00.000-08:00

It's not so much about content as it is about intent when it comes to communication. I watched this video clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart today. It's pretty funny. First, watch it (WARNING: NOT FOR CHILDREN OR ADULTS WHO ARE OFFENEDED BY TALK OF SEX & VIOLENCE) and then I'll try to summarize the point Jon Stewart is trying to make.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I think Jon Stewart, is trying to show that it's hypocritical of anyone who wants to keep the sexual images of nude people off primetime network television, when there are already so many other sexual acts described and images of violent murder already on primetime network television. He's basically saying that the nude images aren't any worse (maybe even not as bad) than the sexual language and violence already displayed. He's got a point. But, I think both the Supreme Court, Jon Stewart, and many Christians are slightly off the mark when they soley focus on the content of these shows.

For example, here's explicit sexual content from a popular Christian book:

"³⁰Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. ³¹ One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. ³² Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.” ³³ That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. ³⁴ The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” ³⁵ So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. ³⁶ So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father." ~ Genesis 19:30-36

I pretty sure that comes close to some of the plot lines of Law and Order: SVU. So what's the difference? Intent.

When you communicate with sexual images in order to incite feelings of sexual lust, then it's wrong. When you communicate with graphically violent images to incite feelings of lust for violence, then it's wrong.

Sex and violence are very real things, and they happen a lot. We need to communicate about them. If our intent is to be descriptive of truth and to communicate a moral point to adults who can understand the message without being traumatized and confused, then it is appropriate. An example of appropriate graphic violence would be the movie, Saving Private Ryan with Tom Hanks. An example of appropriate sexual content would be the rape scene in the movie The Accused with Jodi Foster.

If you only focus on the external characteristics, you don't get to the heart of the matter. You only end of creating a whole bunch of superficial "moral" rules that eventually seem to contradict themselves as they are applied hypocritically. Jesus spoke about this...

"For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” ~ Mark 7:20-23

So, images that incite these things inside us are wrong to create, communicate and tune into.

However, appropriately used in the right context, images of sex and violence are very powerful communication methods that can be effectively used by God to reveal His truth and glory.

2012-01-24T06:58:00.000-08:00

Calling Christianity Evil

An atheist friend of mine recently told me that the entire concept of sin, from a religious standpoint, is "barbaric!" He also said that Christianity is an evil philosophy. Let me be clear; atheists are as morally upstanding as anyone else. My friend is a very good person and in a lot of ways more morally upstanding than many Christians I know. He has even helped hold me accountable to God's moral standards from time to time, when I have strayed from them. However, he obviously thinks that his moral viewpoint is absolutely correct and mine is not when it comes to following Christianity. But, what he doesn't understand is where his objective moral standard comes from in the first place. Furthermore, he failed to realize that his claims of evil give proof of the existence of God. Not exactly a great position for an atheist to argue from...

Let me explain. As C.S. Lewis writes in 'Mere Christianity', "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others."

If atheistic naturalism were true, then no objective moral law would exist, and there would be no real moral difference in the practices of say, freedom versus slavery. It would be just your opinion.

But, since it obviously does exist, I wonder what objective moral standard my atheist friend is appealing to when he says Christianity is an evil philosophy'? Furthermore, where did he get this objective moral standard?

We are unable to prove the existence of an objective moral law using the scientific method. However, some say moral standards have come about through Darwinian evolution's process of natural selection. Through thousands of generations the moral instincts evolved in us to promote cooperation for the survival of our species. Unfortunately, morality cannot simply be an instinct for two main reasons. First, we have competing instincts. Secondly, something often urges us to ignore the stronger instinct and do the weaker, more noble instinct. For example, if you see a stranger being violently attacked, your survival instinct might tell you to run away. But, another weaker instinct tells you to help that person. In numerous cases people have ignored the stronger survival instinct and followed the weaker one to help, even to the point of their own deaths. Again, as C.S. Lewis puts it...

"But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."

So it is rational to accept that an objective moral law exists. Some might still want to argue about it, but I think this quote from the book, 'I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist' says it best...

"Moral Law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us. It does not describe how we actually behave, but rather it prescribes how we ought to behave."

In conclusion, I argue that every law has a lawgiver. Since an objective moral law exists; the objective moral law has a lawgiver too. This lawgiver also has a mind and is personal since it cares about how we treat one another. Given that naturalistic explanations are insufficient to explain the existence of the objective moral law, it follows that the lawgiver is supernatural; in other words, God.

Imagine All Religion's True

2012-01-14T13:25:00.000-08:00

On New Year's Eve, Cee Lo Green made a small change in the lyrics to John Lennon's song, 'Imagine'. Instead of singing, "Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too" he sang, "Nothing to kill or die for, and all religion's true." The Hollywood Gossip

As a fan of John Lennon and a creative writer myself, this sort of thing bugs me. However, as a religious person, the lyrics, "and all religion's true" leads me to ask this question: Are the similarities between religions more important than the differences? As Gregory Koukl writes in his book, "Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions"...

"Are aspirin and arsenic basically the same because they both come in tablet form? For some things, the differences are critical. Religion is one... of them."

The Bible and the Qur’an, for example, contradict one another. The Bible says that Jesus died on the cross and rose three days later (1 Cor. 15:1-8), while the Qur’an says he existed but didn’t die on the cross (Sura 4:157). Is this a significant or critical difference in their claims? Can both be true?

Lennon's lyrics might seem hopeful to some or for others it's just the fantasy of misguided idealism. However, I'm definately going to need to imagine really hard to conceive a reality where Cee Lo Green's idea could be true.

2011-09-12T10:02:00.000-07:00

Resistance Is Futile

Abruptly ending a very successful run of improv shows in order to pursue stand up and sketch comedy writing was not an easy decision. The two worst parts were the fear I might fail at my next comedy endeavor and the sadness of letting down my fellow performers and friends.

I'm writing this post, in particular, so that maybe some of my friends will see just why I had to quit improv right now. Prior to just recently discovering the book, "The War Of Art: Winning the Inner Creative Battle" by Steven Pressfield, I had a hard time putting words to how I felt and why I must take this course of action. I quote this book a lot in this post, because I feel he says it the best.

Most of us have two lives. The life we live, and the unlived life within us. Between the two stands Resistance. ~ The War Of Art: Winning the Inner Creative Battle by Steven Pressfield

The unlived life within me is that of comedy writer. However, in that respect I am merely an amateur. I've avoided committing myself to really doing it. I was overcome by resistance. Instead, I've taken the much easier path of instant gratification in improv comedy.

Improv is great. It's fun, sometimes spiritual, and very liberating. It's a great tool for writing comedy collaboratively. The people at The Second City know this better than anyone on the planet. Unfortunately, some people make it more than it really is. The IO Theater in Chicago has elevated it to some sort of religious cult. Some corporate trainers hock it like snake oil salesmen, touting its power to fix everything wrong with your business. However wonderful improv is, it is only truly great for a few specific things. Those are primarily creativity, teamwork, and spontaneous laughter. But, it's ultimately disposable.

For example, in The Second City Almanac of Improvisation, they refer to an "improv laugh". In the book, Chris Earle, a Second City director, says, "But when you're improvising as a means to write... the inexperienced performer can have trouble distinguishing between a laugh that comes from premise and thus advances the scene and an "improv laugh", where the audience laughs at what the performer is trying to accomplish, instead of something the character has done. An open improv can sometimes succeed without a complete premise, the finished scene will not."

"Improv laughs" as compared to written premise based jokes are not sustainable or repeatable. I've seen some pretty unfunny and untalented people get these types of laughs doing improv on stage. These laughs are accidents. They don't have longevity. It's not really art. It's creativity, but not art. Writing is an art.

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.

Art is knowing which ones to keep. ~ Scott Adams

You can see that I place writing on a pedestal above merely improvising. It's because at my core, I am a writer. All the people close to me can attest that I've wanted to be a writer since I was a kid; long before I ever discovered improv. I must stop screwing around and do the work that is meaningful to me. Yet, I keep meeting that huge wall of resistance that stops me in my tracks.

According to Steven Pressman, "We experience resistance as an energy field radiating from a work-in-potential. It's a repelling force. It's negative. Its aim is to shove us away, distract us, prevent us from doing our work." We often think resistance comes from things outside ourselves like friends, jobs, bosses, kids, etc. However, resistance is self-generated and self-perpetuated. Pressman calls it, "the enemy within" and says, "resistance is always lying and always full of shit".

You know, Hitler wanted to be an artist. At eighteen he took his inheritance, seven hundred kronen, and moved to Vienna to live and study. He applied to the Academy of Fine Arts and later to the School of Architecture. Ever see one of his paintings (see below)? Neither have I. Resistance beat him. Call it overstatement but I'll say it anyway: it was easier for Hitler to start World War II than it was for him to face a blank square of canvas. ~ The War Of Art: Winning the Inner Creative Battle by Steven Pressfield

Giving in to resistance and failing to follow your life's true purpose can be disastrous to you and to the world. So I just had to stop wasting time with improv right now and do my work. My work is to write. Write like a professional. But, I am still afraid to leave the safety of my improv troupe...

Again, according to Pressman, my fear is yet another manifestation of resistance.

Sometimes we balk at embarking on an enterprise because we're afraid of being alone. We feel comfortable with the tribe around us. The awakening artist must be ruthless, not only with herself but with others. Once you make your break, you can't turn around for your buddy who catches his trouser leg on the barbed wire. The best thing you can do for that friend (and he'd tell you this himself, if he really is your friend) is to get over the wall and keep moving. The best and the only things that one artist can do for another is to serve as an example and an inspiration. ~ The War Of Art: Winning the Inner Creative Battle by Steven Pressfield

I won't let resistance defeat me. Will you?

2011-08-30T10:49:00.000-07:00

Whack Em & Stack Em!

Sport hunting. Is it a sin? Most animal rights activists take the position that it is immoral. Depok Chopra says, "It's the kind of identity that has caused all the problems in the world that we see right now." He also says, "I think anybody that is doing that should be ashamed of themselves."

I get it and respect that some people are very sensitive to the killing of other living creatures. But, that doesn't make it wrong. It just means if you feel that way, then don't hunt or work on a farm or get anywhere within 1,000 miles of Ted Nugent.

What I rarely see is hunters facing the animal rights argument head on. They say it's immoral to hunt, and hunters respond to that with numerous true facts about the benefits of hunting on the environment. Good stuff, but it still doesn't answer the question if hunting is wrong or not. According to Judeo-Christian beliefs, killing (even killing humans) is not necessarily a sin. It all depends on the context of the actions taken. Killing is not a sin when it is in self defense of one's own life, for example. However, killing someone to collect their life insurance benefits is a sin.

(Unless they're really old, extremely rich, and pretty much useless, because that doesn't actually hurt anybody).

Animal rights activist often assert that animals have (or should have) the same right to life as humans. Human lives are no better or more valuable than that of animals, so to speak. Therefore it is immoral to kill them for pleasure or personal gain. So, if you are against sport hunting on a moral or "rights" basis and yet eat any kind of meat or animal product, wear or use any animal products, and/or keep an animal as a slave (pet) then you need to shut up and stop reading this right now and get off your hypocritical high horse and let it run free!

Now I will continue with you vegan members of PETA. You obviously have the moral high ground when it comes to animal rights activism. However, to what lengths are you actually willing to go to in order to prevent animal deaths arising from activities that are merely designed to benefit and/or merely bring pleasure to humans? For example, building a house. Are you actively intervening to relocate ALL the insect species that will be killed and/or displaced from THEIR homes on that land? Or how about when a playground is built for children's pleasure? Or a sports arena is built for reasons of purely human pleasure? What are you doing for those insects, worms, grubs and bacteria that live in the soil?

If you are not at least giving lip-service to advocate for these creatures based on their equality with humans, then you tacitly admit that killing is acceptable for our pleasure when it comes to SOME animals. Therefore it is no longer accurate to say that ALL animal killing for our pleasure is morally wrong. Otherwise I'd expect to see a group of you on your hands and knees at some construction site picking maggots off of rabbit droppings and placing them in UPS boxes to be shipped to a preserve somewhere in northern California.

It looks like we are now just left with the decision as to where to draw the live-and-let-die line. Despite the fact that trees cry when you cut them down, let's assume this line is somewhere between ugly bugs and cute fuzzy creatures. Human fetuses don't count, am I right, you hippie pinkos? ("am I right" - pun intended!) Can someone please tell me why it is immoral or unethical to kill cute fuzzy creatures for pleasure versus ugly bugs? I didn't think so. Either ALL animals have the right to life, or none of them do. Since we've already established that not all animals have the right to life, by the fact that all of us actively participate in the slaughter of millions of creepy-crawlies for our pleasure, it goes that no animals have that right. You simply can't have it both ways. Unless you're Lady Gaga and don a meat dress. Then you apparently can do whatever the heck you want?

Going back to my earlier point, what makes killing wrong is the context in which it takes place and how you do it. I believe we must be good stewards of our environment and wildlife. Why? Because we are smart enough to develop ways of completely destroying the environment and causing the extinction of entire species of animals, but just dumb enough to actually do such things. It's basically like killing the goose who lays the golden eggs. She's the last of her species and we need to conserve her for everyone's long term benefit. So if you're a responsible sport hunter who obeys the law, contributes to habitat conservation and restoration, practices scientific game management techniques to maintain the health and well being of the animals in the environment, and eats the meat taken; then it is not immoral to hunt, kill and enjoy it.

The wild life of today is not ours to do with as we please. The original stock was given to us in trust for the benefit both of the present and the future. We must render an accounting of this trust to those who come after us. In a civilized and cultivated country, wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen.

~ Theodore Roosevelt

2011-08-10T07:50:00.000-07:00

Don't Take Yourself Too Seriously, I Don't

Once I was told that I did not get a promotion at work, because the guy thought I was a, "smart ass". He came to this conclusion after witnessing a training session I conducted, where I frequently played with the participants by teasing them about their faulty assumptions and wrong answers to my questions. It should be noted, however, that I get VERY high ratings from participants in my workshops (I type this as I break my free arm, vigorously patting myself on the back). Unfortunately, occasionally there is someone who has a boat-load of pride and can't laugh at themselves. The guy who turned me down for the job may have been in this category. Sadly, he killed himself several years later. No joke.

I'd probably have killed myself by now (see last blog post on my battle with depression) if it were not for my ability to laugh at myself.

A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs; jolted by every pebble in the road. ~ Henry Ward Beecher

Fortunately, I've also been gifted with the ability to laugh at you too. I see this teasing as a mental tennis game. Ironically, it seems some people prefer not to score and call it "love".

I tried to explain it one time to a friend of mine, by telling her that teasing one another in my family IS a way of showing love. Mistakenly, some see teasing humor as another form of bullying. She told me that her father prohibited any and all teasing in their family as she was growing up. He considered it cruel and it would not be tolerated. Sadly, several years later, he never killed himself. Joke.

Scientific study consistently shows that teasing can be very positive for relationships. Just like in mine, teasing is a form of play in many families, where parents and their children can tease each other to enjoy their company. At work, teasing strengthens relationship bonds between employees. It helps couples express affection in romantic relationships and it improves your likeability in groups. According to an article from the National Communication Association entitled, "The Ups And Downs Of Teasing"...

Teasing is a fascinating communication skill. Unlike bullying, which is a demonstration of aggression and intent to harm, teasing allows people to present a challenge to another person in a playful way. Like playing on a seesaw, teasing requires an understanding of balance, and it takes two willing participants to be done well. Teasing is a balancing act between a challenge to the needs and wants of another person, with the sense or message that the teaser is playing around. If the target of the tease does not understand the play, the tease is perceived in hurtful ways. If the target does perceive the tease as playful, then the game can continue.

I get it that teasing can go too far. It's an occupational hazard for comedians. We are just wired to be more callous than normal people. Tina Fey summed it up nicely when she said, "If you want to make an audience laugh, you dress a man up like an old lady and push her down the stairs. If you want to make comedy writers laugh, you push an actual old lady down the stairs."

So, I HATE IT when my teasing hurts someone's feelings. When I'm teasing someone I want them to like me, think I'm clever & funny, and to play along with the game. Sadly, I don't want them to kill themselves... several years later. Bad joke.

In case you still just can't imagine teasing being a good thing, keep in mind, that even Jesus used teasing to make a great point. Consider this story...

22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. ~ Matthew 15:22-28

Taking Jesus' comment literally, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." makes him sound extremely cruel. He basically called her a dog, and said she was not worthy of His help for her daughter. However, her playful and witty reply leads us to understand the context of the conversation and the fact He was only teasing her to make a point. And that point is, she is worthy... we are all worthy through Jesus.

Yet, so many of us go to great lengths to hide our faults and take offense where there is none to be taken. I suggest we all stop acting like victims and lighten up a bit. Especially Peggy Horan; that humorless prig.

It's the ability to take a joke, not make one, that proves you have a sense of humor.

~ Max Eastman

2011-08-03T07:00:00.000-07:00

What Doesn't Kill You...
Might Still Require A Crutch

Whoever said, "What doesn't kill you, just makes you stronger." may not have suffered from depression or an anxiety disorder. Being depressed has a way of keeping you down and making you more depressed. At times, it seems like it's almost impossible to not stay depressed when so many people around you are treating you like you're a freak, a jerk, and a wimp due to your depression symptoms. Especially if you're on medication. Having even remnants of a sense of humor about it seems to be a saving grace. During these times, I find my humor helps to prop me up and keep me hobbling along this rough path of life.

Humor is more than mere silliness. It is an advanced intellectual means of developing new perspectives and coping with extreme circumstances.

~ Nichole Force "The Hidden Power of Humor"

For example, a "friend" of mine once asked me, "Don't you think antidepressants are just a crutch?" I wanted to reply, "I don't know? Is Advil a crutch for your headaches? A sensation that can only be proved to exist with only YOUR subjective report of its intensity. Yet you pop these and all kinds of other pills everyday. You know, you don't really NEED the Advil. You could skip the medication and simply lay down with a cold towel across your sloping Neanderthal forehead."

Getting professional help is often hilarious, too. At least some doctors understand your need for medication, despite the humiliation they inadvertently put you through to get it. In my case it's a physician assistant. Before she can just refill the doctor's prescription and hand over the drugs, she insists on doing a full physical exam to rule out any possible physical illness causing the depression. Being fifteen years younger than me, I began to get suspicious she might be new at doing this with male patients.

Picture me standing in that stupid backwards gown thing and wearing just my sagging black socks. She proceeds to give me the turn-and-cough procedure. Instead of having me lift the gown to give her easy access, she awkwardly decides to bend WAY OVER right in front of me, and somehow got herself into a position any contortionist would admire. Getting a sideways, yet clear view of the landscape (this is just a euphemism and not intended to imply any special grooming) she slightly raised my gown to sneak-a-peak. Suddenly I begin to realize how a woman feels to have someone look up her skirt.

During this close encounter of the absurd kind, for some reason she decides this is a good time to ask me about how the antidepressants are working for me. I let her know that I am still feeling A LOT of anxiety and low self esteem, but maybe I'll feel better... once I put on my pants.

This is my depressed stance. When you're depressed, it makes a lot of difference how you stand. The worst thing you can do is straighten up and hold your head high because then you'll start to feel better. If you're going to get any joy out of being depressed, you've got to stand like this. ~ Charlie Brown

Ultimately, rather than being an oasis of support, these conversations with friends and doctors just serve to wear me down even more. Which, isn't a surprise because another classic symptom of depression is severe and prolonged fatigue. But, WAIT! Isn't rest just another crutch used by the emotionally weak, and a great reason to treat me like I'm just a lazy piece of crap? Yes, apparently it is. That's precisely why I have to be constantly vigilant, and on the look out for any Nap-Nazies.

Nap-Nazies particularly loathe the crutch of rejuvenating rest. In their minds there is something abhorrent and immoral about sleeping during daylight hours on the weekend. In case I wasn't psychologically beating myself up enough, these Nazies come along to "shoot the should" with me while I'm trying to take a nap. They sarcastically remind me that I should be spending time with my kids, I should help my wife with everything SHE does around the house, I should remodel the kitchen, I should fix the car, I should bore extra holes in my head to let the evil spirits free! I'd like to play reverse psychiatry with these people. That's where I say the opposite of what I mean and force them to take my meds.

I could go on and on with depression symptoms and how they make me look even more like a jerk and a wimpy loser. For example, irritability... as you can tell from this post, is one of my more endearing symptoms. However, the content of this post probably just served to confirm in your mind what a wimpy whiner I really am. Unless you've personally suffered from this debilitating illness, you won't really understand what it's like to be in this pit. If you can't bring yourself to throw down a rope, please just stop dropping stones.

In the meantime, I intend to keep on laughing at me, you and anything else that gets in my way...

Clowns work as well as aspirin, but twice as fast. ~ Groucho Marx

2011-07-27T07:07:00.000-07:00

I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For

Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.

~ Howard Thurman

I love that quote. I've been following it's advice for seven years now. It has helped lead me to recognize my passion for comedy and to pursue mastering it as a craft. Yet, it still feels like something is missing. I've been afraid of doing what it takes to come fully alive. In that zone where you are fully alive is a dangerous place. You're playing the edge. Often playing slightly beyond your current level of ability. For a while now, I've been playing it safe.

I've been secretly hiding in the safety of my improv troupe. It makes me feel a little like the Anne Frank of improv comedy. I can imagine Anne as an improvisor asking her family, "Can I get a suggestion of a location that you would hide a Jew?" Or she asks for an occupation, and they all simultaneously whisper, "The Netherlands!" Sorry, that was just silly. Seriously, I keep feeling I've got to get beyond these confines and face the world head on, or my spirit might die just sitting here waiting for something to rescue me.

I've been told that there are times in your life when you must leave everything that is familiar. While I will never leave improv, I must venture beyond it into more challenging comedy territory. However, before I just go wandering off aimlessly, I decided to make sure the direction I head is connected with my true passion. I use this as my North Star. So, I listed those accomplishments in my life that had the most personal meaning for me:

Performing my first open mic stand up comedy experience. It was "Gong Show" style, and I didn't get the gong! I got to perform all 5 minutes of my very own original material. The other comics were surprised to find out it was my first time.
Giving a keynote speech on the topic of teamwork at the University of Michigan. I received my first standing ovation! Someone actually came up afterwards to get their picture taken with me and my autograph.
Playing the "Improv Dating Game" as a character with Tourette's Syndrome. I never once used any foul language (just well timed ticks), I played the character with dignity; without disparaging them due to their illness, and I made people laugh so hard they were crying!

Notice how these moments weren't typical milestones, like getting my degree, a promotion at work, a bowling trophy, etc. These were moments when I was in a state of Flow. Flow is a state of mind where you are so enthralled in what you are doing you seem to be in a trance. Time passes quickly and self-consciousness disolves. Your goal is clear, and feedback immediate. Most importantly, the relationship between what you have to do and what you can do is in perfect sync; not too easy and not too hard. You are so utterly in control and living in the moment.

It dawned on me what was so different between these Flow experiences and the improv I've been doing. It was my sole artistic vision. It was my writing. It was my butt on the line. Ricky Gervais was asked in an April 2011 Harvard Business Review interview if he "insisted on complete creative control". He replied:

Yes, I’m a complete fascist & you should be in art. I don’t think I’m the best producer or director or actor in the world, but I know how I want it done. I don’t try to please anyone except myself. If people like what I do, fantastic. If they don’t, that’s good, too. If you start trying to water it down or second-guess, you end up with something so safe and homogenized that a lot of people will like it, but they won’t love it.

I completely agree, and I guess that's why I've been accused of being a control freak, and why I freely admit it. But, isn't it better to be a control freak, than an out-of-control freak? Regardless, improv doesn't allow me this level of control.

The problem is also that the last time I was in one of these spectacular moments of Flow and in complete artistic control, was more than 3 years ago. The reason for this lapse of time is simple. Fear.

I've always wanted to write and perform my own comedy material. For me, this means getting back into writing and performing more stand up comedy. Stand up has to be the most frightening types of comedy. Words comics use to describe it are, "Die", "Bomb", "Kill". When I am onstage dying, it is one of the worst experiences ever. But, when I am killing the audience, I am on top of the world.

In order to realize your purpose and potential, you must not just find those few moments of Flow. You must make it an ethic for living in order to achieve mastery of any craft.

Ironically, the direction I am heading to go beyond improv and master stand up comedy comes from the guru of improvisation, Del Close. Del is famous for saying to his students, "Follow the fear."

Following my fear is where I am going... Where are you going?
.

2011-07-24T18:04:00.000-07:00

Innuendon't

I did it again. I offended someone with my attempt at humor. I've been trying to pay attention to the frequency of these types of issues, and I average about one a month. It's more often now because of Facebook. A lot more people are exposed to my snarky comments and playful teasing. I wonder if anyone believes me when I say that offending others is never my intent. I just want to make people laugh and be liked. When I happen to accidentally offend someone, I am often very sad about it. And by sad, I mean sarcastic. And by sarcastic, I mean sadistic. (I’m just kidding!)

It actually does bother me a lot to discover I’ve hurt someone I was merely trying to make laugh. I guess Steve Martin said it best, "Comedy is not pretty." For example, my Sunday night improv shows are rated PG13, because they contain adult themes and some sexual innuendo. There isn't any foul language, depictions of lewd acts, graphic violence, or witchcraft. Yet some people have taken offense to our comedy. It's often tricky trying to stay “clean” while taking suggestions from a live audience.

Nothing needs reforming as other people's habits. ~ Mark Twain

Despite our attempts to keep things clean, invariably when we ask for a suggestion of a common household item, someone almost always yells out "CENSORED!" We don't like to use this particular suggestion, not because we are offended, but because we're not sure where it's been. Basically, all we actually do is just a little of "That's-what-she-said.", if you know what I mean? *wink*.

For example, we once played the "Slide Show" improv game where we ask the audience for a suggestion of a strange vacation destination. I took the suggestion of a “condom convention”. Needless to say, as we improvised, we didn't hesitate to point out how popular this convention was going to be. I’m sure you can clearly imagine (because of your dirty little minds), it was very challenging to keep the audience safe* from improv innuendo at such a convention.

Getting back to my original point; I truly don't want to offend or hurt anyone. Everyone at our shows is chronologically an adult. I DO NOT think we should be vulgar or profane. However, sex and the humor that often surrounds it, are a part of the lives of most lucky adults at some point. That includes Christians, like me. That's right... my wife and I are gettin some monogamous wed-locked lovin! It's ok, sex is natural, and it's even healthy to snicker at the awkward and vulnerable nature of sexual topics.

Here's a great example of a Christian comedian, Michael Jr., talking about breast feeding in a very funny, yet completely appropriate way for an adult audience:

My extremely brittle-boned mother might think that bit was inappropriate. I'm sure he doesn't do that joke at churches with kids in the audience. But to me its good clean fun, and most importantly... honest.

However, I have to admit; there are times when my comedy material isn't all that honest. I’ve gone over-the-top with some sexual jokes that were done for the cheap laugh. I'm not proud of it.

For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. ~ Romans 7:19

So, while I won’t stop laughing and making jokes about sex, I will keep trying to refrain from pushing it too far and crossing the line into vulgarity.

I hope that you all come down to the improv shows at CityFlats Hotel to see how I'm doing at keeping it clean. Whichever audience member that is without sin, gets to cast the first rotten tomato!

*My sister, Julie, claims she once got an improv suggestion from a toilet seat, but that's just a myth.