"Creation" Responds to "Artificial Christmas Tree" vs. "Real Christmas Tree"

Artificial Christmas trees vs Real Christmas Trees
A simple list of why Artificial Christmas Trees are better than real Christmas trees. Artificial Christmas trees last longer than real trees. Artificial Christmas trees are safer than real trees because they are not a fire hazard. Studies show that plastic artificial Christmas trees are thrown out after ten years. There is no hassle in buying artificial Christmas trees because they are found in many shops around Christmas. Artificial Christmas trees can be decorated with tinsel or foliage colored tinsel. Artificial Christmas trees are generally inexpensive; because they are made out of cheap inexpensive materials whereas many cheaper live trees are of poor quality, as well as they deteriorate quickly. Shop around to find a tree that you like within your price limit! Artificial Christmas trees don't litter the floor with pine needles like real trees do. Artificial Christmas trees don't bother you if you don't like the smell of pine or have allergies. If you happen to like the smell of pine you can buy a special pine spray for your artificial Christmas trees. Artificial Christmas trees can't rot like real trees can. Artificial Christmas trees are easy to assemble and easy to store away. Artificial Christmas trees don't weigh much.
Submitted by Chris


Reply to Artificial
Thank you for your response to my article, Artificial. At first I assumed you had simply tacked on an advertisement to all the blogs at PBA, so I searched. I only scanned the most obvious, of course. There are far too many to scan all, but I found this reply on none I looked at. I am, therefore, going to assume that it is a genuine reply and that you did indeed read my article and took it seriously enough to reply.

At the risk of appearing foolish and of making too much of too little, I must say it is the most insightful response I’ve had to any of my articles. The title alone is a devastating thrust at the very heart my assumptions; I paraphrase: “What Is Pretend vs What Is Real” or perhaps “Whatever God Has Done, We Can Do Better.” This is irony at its best.

Your first point seems to be that fantasy insulates us against the harsh realities of our life. We can think pleasant thoughts as we are consumed. This has long been the argument of those who advocate rational thought over irrational (intuitive) responses to stimuli. The point is well taken. We can and should be rational enough to protect ourselves against what we cannot control, and if we can we should attempt to control what is at the moment beyond our control in order to protect ourselves in the future. I would argue further that we are driven to control what we cannot at the moment control by our determination to dominate. However, it is tempting to revere rational thought to our detriment by treating our irrational nature with contempt. Fantasy is an important part of our life. It is, I believe, the foundation of our humanity.

Your second point seems to be that fantasy is forever, whereas the world around us changes and we change also. There is, therefore, the hazard of falling into fantasy, of having it overshadow reality to the extent that we function ineffectively in society and even against our own wellbeing. We remain a child in an adult world, unable to care for ourselves and perhaps putting those around us at risk. I would argue that the opposite is also true; that we can become lost in our rationality to the extent that we act ultimately to our own disadvantage though at the moment we seem only to be sacrificing those around us to our benefit.

Your third point seems to be that fantasy is easy and costs us very little or nothing at all, but reality comes at a cost. It demands attention and it demands sacrifice. In the real world, you must be aware of what is around you or you do not survive. In the real world, you must do something to get something. At the very least, you must sacrifice time to gain sustenance. You must exercise to remain healthy. You must sacrifice some of your independence to become and remain part of a group. I would argue that in a rational society that treats the irrational (intuition) with contempt fantasy can be costly indeed.

Your fourth point seems to be that reality is messy and can cause you pain, but fantasy is well ordered and painless. This is not necessarily true. Fantasy can too easily get out of control; it can become malevolent. Ghosts and goblins are fantasy, but when we become lost in our fantasy they can cause us great harm. They can even control our behavior; looking under our bed at night, leaving on a night light so we can sleep more secure, pulling the covers over our head, whistling in the dark. The list is endless and I have not even mentioned the Satan many religious people give so much power. I would, however, argue that reality without fantasy could be much messier and more painful than it seems to be in our perception of it. I would point out that hope is not a scientific principle. For the purely rational, hope is an expression of ignorance.

Your last point seems to be similar to your second. Fantasy does not die, we do. A particular fantasy may fade away, but is quickly replaced by another. We create the fantasy and even the fantasy that is us, but the reality of us is terminal. Our primal purpose, in the view of the evolutionist (which I am) is to stay alive. All our instincts, including our rational ability, work towards that end. If that were the extent of our determination, should we attain the ability to live for several centuries, millennia, forever, our lives would become meaningless. However, this instinctive need to stay alive, when no longer needed every moment of our lives becomes a determination to dominate. There will always be that which cannot be controlled, so there will always be meaning to our lives; but what about now? We do not live long and all indications are that when we die, we cease to be. That is reality. Our very essence, our primal purpose to stay alive, rebels at such a thought and projects rightly or wrongly the fantasy that there is life beyond death; we will not cease to be.

In a sense, Artificial, you have used mythological language to more effectively state your position. There are only two ways to talk honestly about God. One is to talk about yourself, since God is a relationship not a rational discovery. The other is through mythological language, that which is not true, but contains truth. Your reply was true until it was attached to my article. At that point, since it had no point in relationship to my article, it became not true (nonsense) unless read mythologically as containing truth. Thank you for your intuitive understanding of my article. If I have misunderstood or misrepresented you in any way, I look forward to your response.