Tonight Samantha asked me about what I believed, along with a few Catholicism details. This topic has been coming up a lot recently, so here goes: When I was in 10th grade biology, I gave an introductory presentation on chaos theory. Specifically, the infinite complexity of natural borders, such as shore lines. (Did you know that the distance around a lake is dependent on the resolution of your measurements? If you took infinitely fine measurements, the lake would have an infinite circumference.) I also talked about the unpredictable nature of the series y' = a*y*(1-y), when a approaches 4. Well, after I was done giving the talk (and was quite proud of myself), my friend Matt, a highly religious type, said "That's plain dogma." I didn't know what dogma was, so he explained: It's something that you are just told and have to believe. There is no basis in fact. Ever since then, I always gave the word dogma a bad connotation. This semester, I'm taking Religion 105: Introduction to World Religions. My teacher, who happens to be the head of the religious studies department at Iowa State (and also works at the VRAC!) often uses terms like Christian dogma or Christian mythology. (Replace Christian with Judaic or Islamic, if you wish.) Hearing Christian paired with dogma or mythology set me on edge a little. It just didn't sound right. So far, we've learned about Hinduism and Buddhism. Buddhism is very cool. (DISCLAIMER: I'm a newbie when it comes to Buddhism. Take the following with a grain of salt. Or a tablespoon.) One aspect that I am quite fond of is that the Buddha was very much about self-discovery. He did not say that X and Y and Z facts are true, and expect his followers to believe him. He would rather that his followers discover the truth on their own, through their own meditation. Now back to dogma. I get the impression that the most basic form of Buddhism is much less dependent on dogma than Christianity is. That appeals to me. I would rather discover things on my own than have the state of affairs be dictated to me. And that's pretty much how my religious philosophy has evolved over time. I don't necessarily believe that Jesus is/was the incarnation of God. Nor do I necessarily believe that Hindu gods have an unmediated tie to our Earth. But all of these religions have common threads: they promote economic stability, societal stability, peace, and compassion (sometimes). Having a belief in some external force or higher power also reduces fear and unease. My preferred higher power could be named "physics", "mathematics", or simply, "system". This isn't arbitrary: many great philosophers were also mathematicians and physicists. In fact, at one point, philosophy contained the subfields of physics, mathematics, and biology. Douglas Hofstadter, author of Godel, Escher, Bach, could easily be considered a modern philosopher, and he's a physicist, a mathematician, and a computer scientist. His views of the nature of existence are just as compelling as any other religious ideology. That I've heard of, at least. Now, I'm not strictly Christian, and I often disagree with priests or preachers. But if you look beyond superficial disagreements, I still see value in church. It's a great place to meditate, relax, and grok. And so is the shower. (This spiel is primarily the result of a 45-minute shower. Time flies when you're thinking!) To each our own. My beliefs are mine, but they happily coexist with Christianity. I feel I could get along with anyone's beliefs, and not desire to convert others. Closing note: These ideas have been evolving in my head at least since I was 13. I expect them to change even more as I get older. But that's okay. Questions and comments are welcome from all...