In the Mind of a Fish

I think that at this time, I am going to attempt to list things that I think are a wonder. It may seem random, but each in the list is really a part of the set of wondrous things. I am going to start with natural things. I will go on the assumption that what the Bible says about the relationship between God and nature is truth.

The result of that assumption is that where there is wonder on our part, it points to the one who understands it completely.

Often times, while riding my motorcycle home from the Oregon City way, when I reach the top of the hill just before the decline into Mulino, the sun will be setting. The display of light beams and colors of all sorts of hues of red, blue, green, orange and yellow are breathtaking. The wonder for me is that I have the capacity to appreciate it and almost loose my breath over the radiant display that is ever changing.

One day I see it and it is mostly orange and the clouds are gone so I can see the tops of the coastal mountains. Another day beams of yellow light fill the darkening and grey sky as the sun is lowered just below the clouds that cover us, but is still high enough to be seen over the mountains to the east. Another day, the lightly clouded sky is turned to strips of fire as the sun shines below the clouds to give me just a little bit more light for the day. The exhibit of light is so glorious that it seems to have a sound of trumpets signalling it's arrival.

I am riding on my motorcycle through the growing darkness of the trees that cover the path to that point from the city and my eyes see the glory and my ears hear the trumpet fanfare. That is amazing. I can see it because of my eyes, my location and the time that I have arrived there. Some may think that is accidental because other explanations might seem incredible. But, there are just too many variables throughout my life in relation to where I've been, who I've known, what I am doing now, my education or lack of it and the fact that I can ride a motorcycle all culminating in this one magnificent display of beauty at the end of the day as I am heading home from the labor of the day.

Sometimes, people don't want to think of God in that way. They don't want to think that God is that much in control of things and that he would make decisions that would be life critical for animals or people. But, those who wrote about God in the Bible don't seem to have been that concerned with defending God's honor by making his actions line up with what we think is appropriate for a loving God.

In the old Testament, we see that the author of the Psalm thinks that God provides life giving situations to the animals and also death giving situations Some may think that this may be that the author in question simply didn't understand the truth as we do because we have Jesus and his revelation. Some may think that the author was ignorant about things we know about because we have science and research on our side. The idea is that, even though this has been accepted as the truth about God for centuries, now we know better about what really happens, so we know that the author was simply stating his opinion and that his opinion was wrong.

But, in the new Testament, we find Jesus saying the same thing. We think that we are being instructed that we should believe that God will take care of us. And, indeed,  we are. Jesus is telling us that God feeds the sparrows and God will certainly provide for us as well. However, Jesus also said that the food the birds get depends on God giving it to them - just like the psalmist said. It appears that Jesus agrees that God controls the environment which results in some dying and some living. Even though Jesus believes that our life and, subsequently, our death depends on God, he indicates that this power God has over the birds and us is a reason to trust him. This is a difficult thing and it talks about the wonders and mysteries of nature, the wonders of God in nature, and the wonder of trusting someone who holds your life in his hand.

These articles are speaking about wonder and aren't speaking of learning, technology or knowledge. But, somewhere it is written that we should not lean on our own understanding, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. This isn't the basis of these articles, but it does state what I've wrote about in "The Wonder V".

We can see that God is at work when we see nature at work. Even in this day when there was a perfect storm off of the east coast of the US, We read that God uses the winds as his chariot and the winds are his messengers. My intent isn't to interpret current events or the Bible. I am not wanting to explain what God meant by what he said or if God meant something in the storms on the east coast. But, I do want to acknowledge that God uses the winds as his chariot and his messengers. The winds go everywhere, so he does too and listens to the reports from his messengers, the wind.

We read that God gives rain to the grass to provide food for the animals in the wild. If he doesn't supply the rain, they perish. They die of thirst and they die of hunger when God doesn't provide the rain and they thrive when he does. We not only think that the wind and rain are random, but we also think that we are the ones who are responsible for the weather and what it does. We would rather think it was our doing or the doing of luck than to think that it is God who is doing it.

These are just a couple of examples of things that we feel we must explain. Somehow, it is up to us to explain why God either does or doesn't save someone's life, does or doesn't bring a storm or send rain for the wheat or provide the sun for our pick nick.

I think that, by this point, if anyone is reading this, they may be asking, "Does this guy think we should not learn things?"

That isn't at all the point. As we all know, you can't talk about everything all at once. So, when we are talking or writing about one thing, other things are left in the drawer to be brought out later.

This series isn't really about learning. It's about wonder. Not the verb. The noun.

Someone may be able to explain the physiological process for oxygen to enter into the blood stream through the lungs. But, for me, it is a wonder. Not only is it a wonder, but I also believe it happens. Not only do I believe it happens, but I am not embarrassed that I don't know how it happens. I don't even feel like I would breath easier if I knew. I don't feel like my intelligence or credibility is in question if I don't know how it happens.

Now, if I claimed that I could create some process or supplement that that can improve the process and didn't know how it actually worked, then I would be questioned. The thing is that since it was God who made it work and put the process into place and the general process doesn't need improvement, it is sufficient for me to know that he knows. I also don't improve my ability to breath by knowing any more about it than I do.

If I had a disease that kept my blood from from getting oxygen, I would certainly want to have a medical person who is knowledgeable in the process diagnosing and treating me. But, if there were no one who knew how to fix it, I wouldn't really be able to hold anyone to task about it. It would simply be beyond our knowledge and skill. It would simply be a wonder.

LaFonda's explanation of what I am really talking about is that our understanding of things moves our faith from trusting God to trusting the understanding. We trust in our understanding instead of God. Then, when something happens that is beyond our understanding, our faith is challenged and often shattered. Not only does our faith in our understanding fail us, but we have lost the practice of faith in God. We can't lean on him because we no longer know how and we can't lean on our understanding because it has failed us.

Another thing we do is that we flip light switches on and off to produce light or darkness at our will. And we do this without the slightest understanding or concern of how that switch makes the light come on. Some have an idea that it is electricity and that without paying the electric bill, the switch no longer works. Some know the theories behind how it all works. Others even know the infrastructure that must be in place in order to make that switch work correctly.

But even if we only consider the electricity itself, no one really knows what it is and how it works. We have lots of theories and even though some of those theories contradict each other, they all prove true in the work of electricity. This is not logical, yet we all still use it and talk about it as if we know what it is and what it does.

Even though we don't feel intimidated by people who know we use electricity we still use it without being able to explain it accurately. But, we feel we have to have grand explanations that show we don't do things without knowing what we are doing when it comes to the things of the Bible.

We read that Moses was placed in a little boat on the water of the Nile. This definitely needs an explanation especially when we consider that his parents were exemplified as being full of faith because they hid Moses from the king as long as they did. The act of putting them on the water must have been a continuation of that faith. Well that kind of logical deduction is for the purpose of not appearing ignorant to the question of, "If they had such great faith, why did they put him in the river?" My question is, "Why can't we just believe that they defied the king as long as they could, then put him in the river?" We are lead to believe by what is written that they didn't have any idea what would happen because his sister stayed at a distance to watch and see what would happen.

The argument of chapter four was that we don't discredit other things we don't understand even though there is no value attached to believing them, but when it comes to God and beliefs such as the trinity of God, we have to explain it, ignore it, or debunk it.

We see a leaf fall to the ground and we think that it is because it is fall that it has happened. But, in reality, we are accepting with no wonder in it at all the fact that all the trees know to drop their leaves at the same time and that they lose their green before they fall and create that colored carpet on our lawns, forests and fields. We don't think of the fact that it falls and that, when it falls, it doesn't fall like a rock to the ground. It falls leisurely to land softly on the top of the grasses. We not only don't know why or how this whole processes happens, but we don't even care. We just accept it like that is what it is supposed to be.

If we are asked by someone, "Do you believe that leaves fall to the ground during the fall season?", we would answer that they do. If we were asked if we know how that it can possibly happen, we just point to the ground and say, "There it is." We aren't concerned with debates and we aren't concerned that someone may think little of us if we can't explain it. There really isn't anyone who can explain it even if they think they can.

Science is the answer to all our questions. But, it seems that it is only true for those who are not scientists. Scientists know that for one item that they are able to prove as a discovery, they create many more questions to be answered in that discovery. To answer why a leaf falls to the ground, I can think of several things that a person would need extensive knowledge in.

I would have to be able to explain how the anatomy and chemistry of a tree works, how and why the tilt of the earth affects the tree, how and why the earth is considered to be tilted, how gravity works and how friction affects falling objects. Even if I had intimate knowledge of those things, I would still be at quite a loss when the question of why is put into place. So, we know we can't know and we know it happens, so we just accept it without the understanding of how and why.

We read chapter four of the book that we are reading on Thursdays with our friends. I wasn't planning on enjoying any of the book because the author is as dry as an author can be. I may be as dry as he is, but I wouldn't know since I don't read what I write.

Chapter four was the surprise chapter. It pretended to be about the trinity. But, I saw right through it as time went on through the night. This chapter was about faith the war between faith and knowing. Of course, we don't feel like they should be mutually exclusive of each other, but the idea of that was presented and that is what began my interest in the whole thought process.

I believe that the author wrote that, if we need to prove through some test or logic the validity of the thing we have faith in, we are demonstrating that we don't really have faith in it. And he said that, if we actually do validate our faith by these proofs, then our faith has been minimized. I would go so far as to say we don't need our faith any longer in this case because we have empirical, theoretical or logical proofs.

I then realized that this is where I am going and want to go. This is my passion (if we can only have one and it can't be family).

I couldn't sleep that night thinking of all the things that I don't really know anything about and how they are all wondrous, or mysterious, or require me to have faith with regard to them.

The author's point was simply that we use science without understanding it, and we accept the activities in nature without knowing their cause or process, but when it comes to the things of faith, we feel that we have to have a complete understanding of the thing in order for it to be valid.

Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
    Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
    Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is the name of his son?
    Surely you know!

Since we have read the Bible, we know that this was answered in Jesus. Jesus is both the Son and the one who has gone to heaven and come down as well as having established the ends of the earth. What's more - he is the son.

The mystery of this passage of the Bible is, first of all, to know the one who gathers the wind and holds the waters and, then, to know that he has a son and we know him.

We don't know where the winds come from and we think we know that something other than God creates them. Our preference is that we know how and why the winds exist and we no longer believe that it is God who gathers up the winds. He makes the winds his messengers and flames of fire his servants.

In all of this writing, I know that I haven't actually begun to say what I want and, yet, I feel as if I have already made it insignificant in the light of what I feel that it actually is.

I suppose it comes down to the discussion of what "church" is and isn't. I believe that the religion that is presented to the world is not the church.

I realize that this is not a safe thing to say because the culture of the world over the past 1700 years says differently. I realize that people who were associated with that religion have accomplished good things. But, I think the religion inhibits the church from living.

It is like a Start Trek episode. Of course, you knew I was going to refer to a movie or a song - right?

In the story, people lived on this planet and they were perfectly happy. They lived the way they wanted to live - even if they wanted to do bad things to people. When someone became damaged or dead from the things they wanted, the owners of the planet would put them back together. Everyone was happy with the situation. But, Kirk discovered that these people who lived on this planet were really in a cage and were there for the entertainment of the owners of the planet. They people had the illusion of freedom because they did what they wanted. But, in reality they were restricted to living in an illusion instead of reality. Even though they lived happy lives, Kirk opposed them because their true potential that is there when they are truly free was not there. They were allowed to do things that they were permitted to think they did, but in reality, nothing was actually done.

So, even though we can list lots of people who have done really good things for God, it is my belief that they were permitted to do what they did only within the restrictions of the religion and weren't accomplishing their true potential. This was permitted in order to support the illusion that they were doing what the church should be doing.

When missionaries went to other countries to show them the way of salvation, the result was that the religion was established in that area, and just like the rest of the world, some of the people who joined it were actually part of the church and others joined the religion. But, both are duped and both are being constrained by the religion - even if the physical head had changed (Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc...). The real owner of the religion is keeping his guard on it to only allow enough activity for those who are in the church to believe that they are free and those who are only in the religion to believe they are in the church.

As I continue to ramble on about faith I realize that it's probably because I haven't said enough about it to make it so that I feel I have completely covered what I want to cover. So - on I go...

The problem of faith doesn't rest on what faith is, or even who the faith is attributed to or who or what I have faith in as much as it is what I think about it.

If I have faith that a cow can produce milk for me or even that I can go to the store and purchase milk with the money I have in my pocket, that faith will probably prove true. It is faith that makes my hope real enough that I act on it and head off to the store with money in my pocket. I am resting my faith in the cow and I attribute the faith I have in my experience that milk comes from a cow, so, I have faith in the cow.

Faith is faith is faith is faith. No matter what you are putting your faith in and no matter what the goal of your faith is. So that isn't a problem.

It's hard to explain the problem, but I think that it is a serious one. In the center of a faith without this problem, swirls hope, honor, love and humility. The problem arises when faith is considered to be a status symbol or an indication of rank or accomplishment. This seems to happen very easily in the Christian religion.

The whole of faith rests in grace and grace is started and finished in love, honor and humility. And it is really grace that I want to talk about because if grace is our badge of honor, then faith turns from a badge to a beam of light that displays the glory of the one in whom I hope. It is faith, hope and love that animate grace.

Often we say, "I hope this works!" What would be more accurate in some situations would be to say, "I wish this will work!" The reason that is more accurate is that we don't really have faith that the car will start. We don't believe it will start, but we are going to put the key in and turn it anyway because we were told to try that. I believe that at that point, we have faith in the process and not faith in the car or we have no faith and are being forced to perform an action we don't really believe will result in the car starting. We are really wishing the car will start because we don't believe it will happen.

So, faith is future when we have hope that the source of our faith will come through for whatever it is we are hoping for. When we have hope for something, that means that we really have faith that that thing will come about. Faith is the expression of our future hope. All hope is future. If you already have what you are hoping for, you are not really hoping for it - it is already yours.

If we hope the car will start, then we express our hope by our exercise of faith in the car and the whole process that got the car where it is by moving from this moment in time, to the time we turn the key in the ignition.

It is natural and even spiritual, that, if we have no hope, we have no faith to express towards the thing we are wishing for. But, if we have hope, we express it by the actions that result from our faith.

Before I took the car in to the mechanic. I tried to start it, wishing it would start. I didn't believe it would, but I didn't want to take it to the mechanic. I just wanted it to start.

After I took the car to the mechanic, I tried to start it, hoping that it would start. I believed it would start because I believed the mechanic knows more about the car than I do.

There is a kind of faith that faces the past and a kind that faces the future.  There isn't a faith for right now.
When we believe something that we want to happen will happen, we have hope.
When we don't believe something that we want to happen will happen, we are wishing.

The past facing faith is really a belief in something you can't prove but you believe it anyway. The faith in the past looks at what has happened and believes that it happened because of a certain reason. When I look back at the glass of milk that I drank just now, I attribute that glass of milk to the whole process that brought it to the store I bought the milk in. I have learned once more that I can trust that process, so I say I have faith in the process. Saying that I have faith in that process to provide milk is really saying that I have faith that I can repeat the process in the future and get the same result.

The faith that points towards the past is really an acknowledgement of a faith that once pointed towards the future. When I get into the car, and I know that cars are meant to start by design when I turn the key in the ignition, that knowledge turns into faith for the future action of turning the key. I also know that I have turned the key in the past and it has always started. That knowledge further supports the faith I have that results in my future action of turning the key.

At the time I get into the car, the turning of the key is still in the future. At that point, I have hope that the car will start. If I doubt that the car will start, I would not have hope and I would probably not turn the key. If I doubt that the car would start and I put the key in and turn it anyway, then I would be acting on a wish out of desperation unless...

If I take my car that won't start to a mechanic, who then works on it, he may tell me to turn the ignition. If I do it, I would be expressing my hope of the car starting because of the work the mechanic has done. I would be trusting the mechanic to fulfill my hope. If I didn't believe that the mechanic fixed it, I would have no hope in it starting and I would probably not turn the key except for the social pressure of the mechanic telling me to. At that point, I would be completely surprised that my wish came true.

I am still talking about faith, but not in the way that I have been. I have been talking about why and what people put their faith in. Some put their faith in science and some in religion. Others put their faith in themselves and, still others in God.

Each of those objects of faith has its own value to the person who is putting his faith in it. In other words, when I approach a cow for milk, I am demonstrating my confidence in the cow's ability to provide that milk. I think that the cow is the sort the produces milk and I think the cow actually has milk in her. I may see that the cow's utters are full and may have even seen other people or a calf retrieving milk to help bolster my faith in her milk producing ability. By demonstrating that I am trusting the cow to provide milk, I am proclaiming that cow's trustworthiness to provide milk.

if I put my faith in a worm to produce milk, I will be sorely (Sorely: To a very high degree or level of intensity especially of an unwelcome or unpleasant state or emotion) disappointed. But, if I put my faith in a cow to produce milk, I may be pleased with the result if all things are in place as they should be in order for a cow to produce milk.

A cow can produce milk, but not for those who attempt to extort the milk from the cow. We have to approach the cow in the proper manner to extract the milk. Threatening, or pleading with the cow will not result in even a glass of milk. Even if we approach the cow in a correct manner and the cow has no milk at this time, we will fail to gain the result we expect. But applying the hands to the utter that is full of milk, will give us plenty. Even though the faith in the cow to provide milk is legitimate, if our manner of extraction is not the correct one or it isn't time for the cow to produce milk, we will fail.

When we fail to get what we are expecting from the source of our faith, we may find that we become afraid to put our faith in that source. The legitimate source of our faith is still there and is still legitimate, but we have failed to approach  the cow in a manner that will produce the expected result of our faith.

When I fail to gain any milk from a cow that otherwise provides milk for others, I won't necessarily notice that it is my own approach that is at fault. Instead, I may blame the cow or say that the milk is only for some, but not for me. When I fail in my approach and then blame the source of the faith for my failure, I tell the story of a cow that doesn't produce milk. The result is to dishonor the cow's gift and reputation.

Whenever we talk about faith, it is a sure thing that the Bible will be referred to and this isn't any different.

There are different examples of faith exhibited in the Bible.

There was a man who had leprosy. This man was not a believer in God. Rather, he was a believer in many gods. One day, someone whom he had captured in a war with Israel told him about a man in Israel who knew the God who is all powerful and could heal him of his disease. The man's faith in this God was not based on a promise from some authority whether written or learned. It was based on his knowledge that this God was the one who created all. The one who created all would be able to heal one of those He created.

The man who needed healing did not believe in or trust this God. He thought his gods were superior to this one because the people who trusted this God were conquered by him and his gods. The only thing that he had going for him was that he knew his disease was incurable and that he would die with it and that this one person claimed that this God could heal him. So he went.

One day, while Jesus was walking with a crowd, a woman who had an issue of blood for several years argued with herself that if she could but touch the hem of his coat, she would be healed. This belief didn't come from anyone in authority who told her this. Nor did it come from something she had read about Jesus. It appears that she just believed it. Jesus told her that her faith had made her whole. There was apparently some understanding of Jesus that made this woman have faith in his ability to take care of this situation. And - she had no other hope available to her.

Another time a Centurion came to Jesus to tell him that his servant was paralyzed and suffering. After Jesus offered to heal the servant, the Centurion told Jesus to just say the word and it will be done. There is no indication that the Centurion was anything other than a Roman officer who worshiped and served many Gods, one of whom was Caesar. So, now that this man has heard of a healer close by, he came to him. The man believes in Jesus' authority, but not necessarily that Jesus is his savior.  There was no solution to the suffering of his servant unless this man could heal him. So, he went to Jesus and Jesus proclaimed this man as having more faith than all in Israel.

My observation of faith is that is is usually available when we have no other choice except to rely on it. This is not a bad thing because some might believe in something simply because it is the convenient thing to do. No. That motivation for faith doesn't make the faith or the act of trusting right or wrong.

Putting trust in something or someone is essentially what faith is. The result of that trust is some sort of action which comes from decisions based on the faith.

If I believe that the steps are not reliable, then I may attempt to avoid using them. Or, if I do use them, I will step gingerly. However, if I trust the integrity of the steps, I will not hesitate to step with all my weight on each stair going up or going down.

Another funny thing about faith is that we attempt to have faith in the things that we really don't have faith in. If we have faith in it, then we live accordingly. Here, in the Willamette valley, we have very little faith in the weather predictions. They are very nearly always wrong. It's probably the same in other places, but I live here and I know it is true about here.

I want to ride my bike today, so I am looking at the weather report to see if it is a good idea. If there is going to be a snow storm, I should avoid riding. I see that the weather prediction is for light rain. That is reasonable weather to ride a motorcycle around here, so I am planning on doing that instead of driving my car.

My decision to ride the bike is supposedly based on my faith in the weather report even though I just said that it can't be trusted. What I am doing is choosing to trust the weather report because, what I really want, is to ride my motorcycle. If the report is wrong and we have a major storm while I am out riding, I will have still ridden the bike and I can just complain about how unreliable the weather predictions are when I am done.

Believing in Santa Clause was not a difficult thing to do. As far as I know, he existed in my memory for my whole life until the day I lost faith in him. I can't really say what day that was, or even what year. I just know that I didn't believe in him when I was in school and I wasn't surprised that he didn't exist and that everyone who proclaimed his existence while I was younger were now all of the same opinion that I was.

I wasn't happy about the lack of faith in this person because the results were not as pleasant as when I believed in him. I no longer received gifts from him. Instead, I was now to take part in the giving of gifts myself. It was a natural conversion just like moving from the time before thought into that time I thought about things. I never realized that time was coming or that it had passed, but it did. One day I had a difficult time communicating with people and some time later, there was no problem doing so. These changes were just a movement from one room to another in ease and that is what it was like moving from faith in SC to knowing that he doesn't and probably never did exist.

I don't remember a time when I started trusting my parents or my teachers or my friends. I think that is because trust is not a difficult thing to have. To not have faith requires work while having faith is just a natural process of living. When I drive my car, I don't refuse to get in to it because I think it will blow up or it will break down. I just get in it and start the engine and drive it. I have faith in that machine. When it doesn't run right, I am surprised.

But, if the car never ran when I tried to start it even after getting it repaired, I would begin to doubt its claim that it can be reliable and start looking elsewhere for a form of transportation I can rely on or have faith in.

When we sit down to a table to eat, we don't test each item chemically to determine if the food is spoiled or poisoned. This is even true when we eat at McDonalds or Taco Bell. We just trust that the food is good to eat and are surprised and even angry when the food wasn't as we expected because our trust was violated and we can even feel vulnerable. We need faith in order to live our lives. It's when we are always afraid that we aren't able to live.

We all believe things that we have neither seen, heard, or touched and our level to the commitment of those things is determined by a at least a couple of possible factors. Remember that this is what is in my mind, so I could just be skipping over things that my mind decided was not important. Sometimes, it does that all on its own without even asking my permission and, sometimes, I get to be very involved in the discussion and decision. I am not sure which is best.

One factor in determining our level of commitment to a belief we have is the perceived effect this belief has on our lives. Most people probably wouldn't die for the cause of thinking fish just because the result of that belief has no benefit to anyone who believes it. I imagine that it has some benefit to people who want everyone to believe that animals are just like humans. So, those people will defend the notion of thinking fish if they have related the two concepts and feel like the human-like animal idea is important enough that it warrants defending the thinking-fish belief.

My belief in Santa Clause comes by very authoritative sources indicating that he exists and, does indeed fly through the whole earth in one long night distributing rewards and punishments. To consider no longer believing in this fellow, I consider whether the belief has benefited me in some way or will in the future. I may determine that belief in this guy would bring me pain and misery in the future. I may realize that it wasn't he who gave me the gifts I received every Christmas Eve. Instead, it was someone else who took it upon themselves to attempt to bring some joy into my life while we celebrated this special day each year.

The authorities I speak of are my teachers, parents, grandparents and - even more important than these - my older friends and relatives who would be considered my peers. Trust in these people helped me have trust that SC will come every year and bring me gifts if I behaved myself in a worthy manner. Later, I realized that it was even the governments of the world and the churches who helped solidify this belief in my mind. I never saw him. I didn't talk to him or touch him, but I believed in his existence and his mission.

Now that I've told the whole store about my thoughts of faith in the speaker, I don't know if I am not going to lose some steam on this subject. But, I will give it a try anyhoo.

The speaker seems to have some sort of authority or special knowledge about fishes that we humans don't have. Those things give the speaker an aura of authority that gives the listener an out when it comes to accepting or rejecting things it says. After all, why would it say things that need to be rejected? Does it really matter if the speaker thinks the fish think? Or does it really matter that we think the speaker thinks?

This believing something that is unbelievable under normal circumstances, is a kind of faith. It is a trust in the speaker because we assume the speaker is just reporting the truth as it was created to do and that truth is scientifically verifiable and can be trusted as well. This is the kind of faith that relies entirely on the source of the information we are trusting. The source of the information isn't really the speaker. The speaker was just saying what it was told. The real source of the information given to use are the people who study and get paid to research these animals. We trust that these people aren't going to mislead us because they are trained scientific professionals and we all kind of put stock in those three words here in the US of A.

This, of course, is the same faith that people have when they believe that the sky is falling because we feed our cows to much grass, or that the earth has never ever been as warm as it is now and that's because we live in houses. Even though these things are really nothing more than superstition, people are adamant about them. Even people we would think should know better because they have had very expensive educations.

But, when it comes to this kind of faith, there is no amount of expensive education that will keep us from believing.

The voice in the speaker at the aquarium that December a few years ago told me something very interesting about fish that I had never really thought was more than something contrived by story tellers to make movies more interesting. The speaker said that the fish did some things after they considered other things and, basically, deduced that this action was the best of several they could take.

The speaker said that the fish thought about what it should do and made a decision based on that thought. The rest of the visit that day had me trapped in thought about all the different things that these fish were actually thinking. It was quite funny. I know because I was reporting the fish thoughts to people and then I would laugh at the fish for thinking those things.

That is why one of my daughters suggested that I name my blog "In the Mind of a Fish". Or, it is why I thought of naming it that if they hadn't actually suggested it as I imagine they did. In any case, the name has to do with faith.

I imagine that some people who go to the aquarium believe the speaker when it tells them that the fish have thoughts like we have thoughts and that is curious. Some people, I suppose, already think that fish are really people and they have thoughts because they read about that in stories and saw it on TV. But, some probably just take the words of the speaker as if the words were actually accurate in describing how the fish came to the point of doing one thing instead of another. (I personally think that the fish do what they do because they don't know that they can do something else.)

What is happening in this situation is that the speaker (the actual electronic speaker mounted in the wall) seems to have some kind of superior knowledge about fish that us humans couldn't possibly have attained while eating our dinners, going to work and raising our families. I don't know if it is because the speaker doesn't have a body, or if the speaker speaks with such confidence. But, for some reason, no one at the aquarium that day seemed to feel that the statements might actually be inaccurate when reporting the thoughts of the fish.