A Common Error

David Gordon, as usual, has written a brilliantly perceptive, neutral, un-emotional review of Brian Leiter's book Why Tolerate Religion?.

While I won't rehash any of Gordon's points here, I will take a brief look at one of the premises Leiter suggests in his book:
"Ancient testimonial evidence in favor of events that are inconsistent with all other scientific knowledge about how the world works is nowhere thought to constitute evidence for belief in a particular proposition, and that is exactly the status of the putative evidence in support of the resurrection of Christ."
Mr. Leiter's assertion here is most certainly not unique to him, and some variation of it is widely held by self-proclaimed skeptics of many stripes. As we will see, there are a variety of problems with it.

To start with, we have a straw-man fallacy. Specifically, that Leiter is putting "Ancient testimonial evidence" in the same context as "scientific knowledge". The proper context would be to put "historical knowledge" with "ancient testimonial evidence". (I'll take a look at his argument about proper scientific context in a bit.)

When we look at an event purported to take place in the past, we are using historical knowledge. Think about it: when scholars were ascertaining the probability of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, they did not appeal to science, but to the historical arts. In a high school text book recounting that JFK was assassinated by a rifleman while riding in a car, supporting evidence in the article will likely be pictures, articles from newspapers at the time, and interviews with people who witnessed the event. What will not be included are articles on how rifles work, the metallurgy of bullet slugs, how fast motor vehicles are able to travel, etc.

In the interest of brevity, I won't rehash here the enormous volume of work that has already been done by those far more qualified than either myself or Leiter, with regard to verifying the veracity of the life of Jesus Christ. Take a look here, here, and here for example.

But what if we look at the story of Christ's resurrection within the context of science? If he would permit me the liberty, I certainly think that Leiter would conclude that the resurrection of someone who is fully dead* is scientifically impossible. And, I agree one-hundred percent. In this case it appears the argument under consideration proceeds something like this:
1. It is scientifically impossible for people to rise from the dead.
2. It is claimed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
3. Therefore, that claim (2.) must be false.
Did you catch what went wrong? Historians and theologians hold that Christ rising from the dead was never claimed to be a result of natural (i.e. scientific) processes, but was... wait for it... a super-natural (i.e. miraculous) process. So now we have four options:
1o. Super-natural processes may not occur.
2o. Super-natural processes may or may not occur.
3o. Super-natural processes may occur.
4o. Super-natural processes must occur.
Option 4o may be pretty tough to defend, since its acceptance would bring with it a whole host of other questions that must first be answered before moving on, and is as such beyond the scope of this article.

Which leaves us with three corresponding potential assertions when considering the ressurection of Christ:
1o-1. Super-natural processes may not occur.
1o-2. It is claimed that Christ rose from the dead by a super-natural process.
1o-3. Therefore, the claim (1o-2.) is false.

or

2o-1. Super-natural processes may or may not occur.
2o-2. It is claimed that Christ rose from the dead by a super-natural process.
2o-3. Therefore, the claim (2o-2.) may be true or false.

or

3o-1. Super-natural processes may occur.
3o-2. It is claimed that Christ rose from the dead by a super-natural process.
3o-3. Therefore, the claim (3o-2.) may be true.

Clearly, the result hinges not upon whether or not Christ's resurrection is scientifically possible, but whether it is possible for super-natural events to take place.

(It is worth noting that 2o-3 and 3o-3 contain "may be true" rather than "is true". This is because the mere possibility of something having happening does not mean that it has happened. In this case, we would then move on to the historical knowledge context to try to determine the probability of something actually being true.)

So it is possible to start with a premise that prohibits super-natural processes. But that proposition will necessarily be one that is arrived at, either correctly or incorrectly, a-priori. This is necessary because by definition, super-natural processes (at least those in consideration in the context of Christ's resurrection) cannot be considered experientially on demand (if you know of something otherwise, i'm all ears). In other words, if you want to decide that the supernatural doesn't exist, and then use that as a foundation to dismiss everything that purports to be supernatural, you are starting with a premise that is not known to be true, and as such may or may not result in a true conclusion.

Interestingly, of the two options remaining, you still may not conclude that Christ did rise from the dead. This is because starting with a proposition that includes supernatural processes maybe being possible, you will not conclude that they did take place at every single opportunity. Using Occam's razor or whatever other process of epistemological ratiocination, one will decide, on a case-by-case basis, reality is best known when a purported event is best believed or dis-believed.

So, if you start with the premise that the supernatural is impossible, then you have already reached a pre-determined conclusion before you even pretend to make a logical consideration. If you do not start with that premise, then you rely on other information as to the probability of whether or not any given event occurred.

*By fully dead, I mean not only not mostly dead but also not unconscious  not in a "swoon", etc. By "fully dead" I mean to rule out circumstances similar to those of stories of people returning to life after having medically died (most of which take place w/in a few hours of being pronounced dead), such as this, this, or this.

It Doesn't Need To Be This Complicated

"Legal Pot Complicates Drug-Free Workplace Policies" trumpets an AP headline.
Seriously?
Has no one ever heard of alcohol?

"Businesses in Washington state, where the drug is legal, and Colorado, where it will be by January, are trying to figure out how to deal with employees who use it on their own time and then fail a drug test."

I'm gonna take a wild stab at this by saying that they could deal with it the same way they dealt with finding someone drunk on the job. The only reason this is confusing to some is that many people say that we have private property here in America, precious few understand what true private property entails.

If an employer actually exhibited full private property rights over their workplace, they could make any (voluntary) requirements of their workers. No alcohol, no drugs, heck, even no yellow rubber duckies if they wanted to. It would be the employers prerogative as to what they allowed and didn't, and a potential employee's decision as to whether or not the pay was worth it.

My employer does not and will not perform drug-tests, either random, conditional, or periodic. Did this cause me to run out and do drugs? No. Does this in any way make me want to do drugs or cause drugs to appear any more appealing? No. Does this reduce the negative connotations I associate with drug use? No.

"Police departments are especially worried. Officers take oaths to protect all laws, state and federal. (...) "Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, so officers would not under any scenario be allowed to use marijuana," "

Hmmmm. Non-sequitur much? This is only a problem if the premise started with is that the government ("of the people and for the people") is more important than the people it was supposed to serve.

Where would this leave patients of legitimate medical marijuana usage who fail employer required drug screenings? In the same place that patients of legitimate hydrocodone usage who fail employer required drug screenings are.

This is only a crisis to those who start with the presumption that because the federal government decrees something that those it is supposed to serve disagree with, because to them it is not readily apparent that 'those it is supposed to serve' are more important than our currently devolving mob rule.

Here to help?

The oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon spill was awful. 
Apparently, the EPA requires the use of an oil dispersant known as Corexit. Recent studies by Georgia Institute of Technology and Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes (Mexico) found that the oil plus dispersant was found to be about 52 times more toxic than oil alone. 

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-gulf-mexico-clean-up-times-toxic.html 

Because no private property or profit-and-loss mechanism is involved, the government is fundamentally unable to avoid these blunders. 

But rather than hold the corporation fully liable and responsible for its actions, the EPA will just as likely be given increased funding and/or oversight. Because increased funding and/or oversight do not resolve the fundamental lack of central planning to calculate, it will not prevent the EPA from making these same mistakes in the future. 

Intel Is Not The Whole Universe

If Broadwell, Intel's years-away new chip architecture, goes BGA will it be the end of swap-able CPUs?

Hardly.

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-intel-broadwell-cpu-swap-outs.html 

Two things this article embarrassingly left out: 
1) They forgot about AMD, Intel's major competitor. What a great way for AMD to capture the enthusiast market: Intel totally offends it. (Assuming AMD won't do the same thing and move to BGA.) 
2) They also don't mention that by the time the Broadwell architecture makes its debut, the PC maybe in single-digits of computing market share. Mobile devices, both phones and tablets, have no reason to stop their meteoric rise, especially as they become more powerful and functional for work tasks. Laptops have been capable desktop-replacements (in all but a very few scenarios) for years. It won't be long until tablets and even smart-phones become laptop-desktop replacements. 

Also, they declined to mention that Intel does know how to make awesome enthusiast motherboards - BGA may not necessarily result in the beigeification of Intel product. 

Too Yummy To Fail - Called It

NYTimes:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/interest-in-hostess-brands-coming-in-fast-and-furious-adviser-says/?partner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness

EPJ:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/when-bailout-kings-are-not-around.html

From the NYTimes article:

Advisers to Hostess are in active talks with about 110 suitors, including regional bakeries and national supermarket chains, an investment banker for the company said in court on Thursday.

“To be honest, it’s been so fast and furious that we haven’t had time to make all the outbound calls we’ve wanted to,” the banker, Joshua Scherer of Perella Weinberg Partners, testified.

At least a half-dozen potential buyers have retained what Mr. Scherer described as “large bank advisers,” a promising sign that they are preparing to spend “substantial sums” of money.

Among those that have expressed interest are 25 regional bakeries, five national supermarket chains and at least two overseas companies interested in securing distribution rights to Hostess products in India and other countries, he added.

Called it here: http://alt0134.blogspot.com/2012/11/too-yummy-to-fail.html

Solomon, King of Israel

Solomon - author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.

Pre-reign

Solomon was the 2nd son of David & Bathsheba - born to them after the death of their first son.

2 Samuel 12:24b-25: "[Bathsheba] gave birth to a son and they named him Solomon. The LORD loved him; and because the LORD loved him, he sent word through Nathan his prophet to name him Jedidiah.          

Jedidiah means 'beloved of the LORD'.

1 Chronicles 22:9-10 [The LORD speaking to David]: "But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.

Beginning of his reign & request for wisdom

Solomon was installed as king of Israel, at 20 years of age, in an emergency response to one of David's other sons (Adonijah) trying to take the throne from David in his old age.

The first recorded things Solomon did were to clean house of those who had tried to take his father's throne. However, he did not seek out vengeance on them, but waited until they made yet another political move to acquire more power.  In this way, he gave them a chance to change their ways, and when they didn't, his response could be clearly seen as a result of their additional attempts at subverting him, rather than as simply retribution for an old grudge.

The first matter of foreign policy that is recorded was Solomon's alliance with Pharaoh and marriage to one of his daughters. This set the tone for his reign as king, that he would be a peace maker who trusted in God rather than in his armies, as his father had done (2 Samuel 24:1-4).

1 Kings 3:7-14 “Now, Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties.  Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number.  So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?”
The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice,  I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be.  Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both wealth and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings.  And if you walk in obedience to me and keep my decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.”

God offered Solomon anything, and he asked for wisdom - this shows both maturity and no small amount of pre-existing wisdom. If I were offered anything by God, would I ask for wisdom?

1 Kings 4:29-34:  ^"God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore.  Solomon’s wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the people of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt.  He was wiser than anyone else, including Ethan the Ezrahite—wiser than Heman, Kalkol and Darda, the sons of Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations.  He spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five.  He spoke about plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also spoke about animals and birds, reptiles and fish.  From all nations people came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.

Nelson's Compact Bible Dictionary notes that Solomon came to power during a time of relative weakness of the surrounding countries. But instead of striking militarily at them, he established trade with them instead - using his military to protect trade routes rather than agitate against his neighbors.

Solomon's Building Projects

Solomon began work on the temple, possibly 13 years after the beginning of his reign. Total construction took 7 years. The temple was not notable for its size, but for the detailed craftsmanship that could be found on nearly every surface of the entire building. All stone was chiseled to finished size at the quarry and brought to Jerusalem - there was no sound of rock work in the city. The temple was constructed primarily of these rock pieces. Much of the inside was lined with imported wood. Solomon hired a famous bronze metal worker from Tyre, who was half Jewish. He worked with cast (molten metal poured into a mold) bronze (any of a family of copper base alloys). Notable metal working for the temple included:

           > Two absolutely gigantic pillars

> The Sea - an enormous bowl for holding water that was used as the laver in the tabernacle. The priests used this to wash their hands and feet before entering the holy place. Interestingly, Gill's Bible Exposition notes that from the measurements given for the sea, the mathematical constant of Pi can be loosely derived.

Next, Solomon began work on his palace. This took 13 years - nearly twice as long as the temple. It contained 3 notable features:

                > The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon

                > The Hall of Pillars

                > Hall of Justice

These were in addition to his own living quarters. He also built a separate living quarters for Pharaoh's daughter.

Solomon's unhappy ending

As is mentioned above, Solomon was known nearly world-wide for his wisdom. However, even his own wisdom did not prevent sin from ruining the end of his reign.

Mentioned earlier in his reign, in 1 Kings 3:3: "Solomon showed his love for the Lord by walking according to the instructions given him by his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places." In context, this passage appears to be referring to his practices before the Jerusalem Temple was built - it is not saying here that he was offering sacrifices to other gods. The practice of offering sacrifices and building idols and altars on geographically high places was started by Jewish patriarchs, but was widely practiced by pagan nations, and the practice began to be adopted also by the nation of Israel[1].  

(Christ the Redeemer Statue, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

The sin that Solomon is best (worst?) known for is being led astray by his many wives & concubines.

At the dedication of the Temple, God warned Solomon: “But if you or your descendants turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples." (1 Kings 9:6-7)

But as we see in 1 Kings 11:1-12: "King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.  As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.

 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.
The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice.  Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord’s command.  So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.  Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. "

It is interesting that, in reading through the in Solomon's recording of his wisdom (which he had received from God), he is well aware (or should have been well aware) of what he was getting himself in to. Proverbs 2:16-19: "Wisdom will save you also from the adulterous woman, from the wayward woman with her seductive words, who has left the partner of her youth and ignored the covenant she made before God. Surely her house leads down to death and her paths to the spirits of the dead. None who go to her return or attain the paths of life."

Solomon was purported to be the wisest man of his time. And his wisdom wasn't only human wisdom, but it was a gift from God. In a sense, he represents the best case scenario for leading a wise life - and yet he still sinned much more (that we know about) than his father David, who was not as wise.

Solomon's own words, "Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you." (Proverbs 4:6) Did Solomon, wisest of all, forsake wisdom? Or was something else going on? Is Solomon an example of trusting in our own understanding and ability to keep us from sin?

---

[1] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/1_kings/3.htm (Nov-2012)

Too Yummy To Fail?

Hostess is bankrupt. Bye bye to Twinkies, bye bye to HoHos.

The fault at this point seems to be with the union employees who, while showcasing their public school-imparted understanding of economics, insisted that it would only be fair if the company would pay them more than they were able to. Shockingly, this didn't work.

To be fair, as the line between government and private enterprise becomes ever more blurred, they may have expected Hostess to be declared "Too Yummy To Fail" and bailed out.

Even now, it is only a matter of time until a well intention-ed MSM pundit decries the bankruptcy of Hostess as yet another failing of America's greedy free-market capitalism, and a ringing endorsement of the need for government to put a check on unscrupulous business practices that take advantage of America's most beloved sugary snack foods.

Nonsense.

Let me propose two solutions.

1)

A bureaucracy.  let's call it the Patriotic Board of Patriotism, that decides when, something is just Too Important to the American cultural or commercial landscape to be allowed to perish. The PBP would take control of the factories from Hostess and operate them with the full resources of the federal reserve printing press the US Government, at an efficiency to rival Amtrak or maybe even the USPS, until such time as a suitable private sector investor can be found (i.e. never).

2)

Hostess will sell off buildings and equipment to the highest bidder, including naming rights to their products. Hostess' market share is now up for grabs. Everyone knows this. Existing or new manufacturers will need to increase their production to make up for this. They either currently have capital (buildings, equipment, etc.) capable of making up this production increase or they can purchase it.

Taking in to account the state of their current capital (depreciation, maintenance costs, etc.) they can calculate at what price it would make sense for them to purchase Hostess' used capital. If it is cost effective, it will be bought. If it is not cost effective, it will go to the next best use, which may well be selling it as scrap.

So what we will end up with is new or current manufacturers, who have their financial house in order (as demonstrated by their solvency), using either their own excess production capacity or capacity made up of formerly Hostess capital, making some of the exact same products*, **, ***.

So, with solution 1, we have a taxpayer (involuntarily-) funded
product with all of the management efficiency we've come to know and love from the government, or 2, in most cases an equivalent product at an equivalent price from manufacturers with healthier financial histories.

It comes down to choosing an inefficient and involuntary solution just to satisfy the emotional urge to do something visible, or choosing a voluntary solution with the most**** efficient outcome.


* Products which were not profitable for Hostess have a lower probability of being profitable for the new owner of the naming rights.There is therefore a lower probability of these products surviving the bankruptcy.

** For those who feel that all of the formerly Hostess products should be made regardless of profitability  you must be willing to either pay a premium, or deal with it, because (other than in the context of using an unprofitable product as a //loss leader//) it uses more resources to make an unprofitable product than is received in exchange for it.

*** For those who worry that a company will buy naming rights and then produce an inferior product, simply vote with your wallet. Either the producer will step up their game, or a competitor will step in to meet consumer demand.


**** Most efficient is not the same as perfectly efficient. It is simply more efficient than any other plausible option.

My family watched Madagascar 3 last night. I guess I've driven enough auto racing simulators/games seeing as how my wife recognized the tunnel in Monaco as part of the Monaco GP circuit.

Every time I hear that a politician wants to take the country in a New Direction, I think of something like this:

} Why is it that I have to vote? 
> Well if you don't vote, then you can't complain. 
} Oh. So my ability to exercise ownership of my own mouth is rescinded if I don't vote? 
> No, what I meant was that if you don't vote, then you shouldn't complain. 
} Why shouldn't I complain? Will there be nothing to complain about? 
> Well, it's clearly obvious that you shouldn't complain about the state of things because you didn't try to make them better. 
} But none of the options on the ballot would have made the state of things better. 
> Oh that's so cynical. 
} And in addition to being cynical it is also true. 
> But what about the candidate for party X? He would have made things better. 
} Statistically, about 50% of your countrymen believe just the opposite. Why should I believe you and not them? 
> Because they do not understand the true nature of things as well as myself. 
} Would the candidate of party X enable or cause them to better understand the true nature of things? 
> Probably not, most all of them are beyond help. 
} Do you think that most of your countryman belonging to party Y would have the same assessment of you? 
> Undoubtedly. 
} Well then there are 4 possibilities. (1) Neither adherents of party X or party Y understand the true nature of things, (2) Party X adherents understand the true nature of things, (3) Party Y adherents understand the true nature of things, (4) Adherents of both party X and party Y understand the true nature of things. 
} Now (4) is mutually exclusive, so it's possibility of being true is 0.0. Based on your argument, (2) and (3) can only be true for about half the population at a time, so both have a possibility probability of 0.5. If (1) were true it would account for both your position and the position of an adherent of party Y equally well, so its possibility is 1.0. So, the most probable scenario is that neither adherents of party X or party Y understand the true nature of things. 
> You're hopelessly unpatriotic. You must secretly support the candidate of party Y. 


Post mortem: There is no such metric as possibility of being true, or possibility probability. So it is not necessary that proposition (1) is more likely to be true vs. proposition (2) or (3) (although it is necessary that proposition (4) is false).  In fact, the whole scenario is pretty facetious since any conclusion about a heterogenous aggregate may well have a low probability of being accurate about any individual unit of the group. However, all is not lost since any argument that the candidate for party X, when X is Republican or Democrat, would be quickly lost so long as logic is employed. Which leaves, of course, only proposition (1) as a viable conclusion.

Finally

Finally, the election is over.

Here's my prediction for the next 4 years:
Budgets & deficit: increase
Personal freedom: decrease
Personal responsibility: decrease
Troops lost overseas: more than necessary to secure our national defense.
Military spending: increase
How often the president/media will say free market solutions* have been tried but need a little help from government: increase

How long did I have to think about it to come up with these predictions? Um, about 30 seconds, since they would have been the same whether I woke up to Our Dear Leader President Obama or Our Dear Leader President Romney.

*For some context on "free market solutions that have been tried", see this.

Pretty self explanatory

From the world famous EPJ:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/if-you-think-republican-in-office-means.html

Gathering the Body Together

A Christian's relationship with God is deeply personal. But to say that it is only personal is also to leave some truth on the table. It is also corporate. Not corporate in the sense that it is a big business, but in the sense that it is a body made up of many disparate members. See Romans 12:3-5 (ESV):

³ For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. ⁴ For as in one body we have many members,^[a] and the members do not all have the same function, ⁵ so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

 And also 1 Corinthians 12:18-20 (NIV):

So, because my family has not been attending Sunday morning services* during the summer, we are definitely feeling the drain of not spending time with other Christians to talk about our experiences and what God is doing in our lives.

The author of Hebrews talks about this here:

²³ Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. ²⁴ And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, ²⁵ not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

There have definitely been pros and cons associated with not meeting with other Christians.
The cons are, as Hebrews says, missing out on the encouragement that comes from hearing what others are doing in their relationship with God, learning what God is doing through them, and sharing struggles and victories.
The pros are finding out exactly where you are with God. Not going to a Sunday morning service removes that clearly defined minimum threshold that so many Christians feel they must meet, and that often serves as an enabling excuse for the balance of their relationship with God being poor. Not going to a Sunday morning service removes the ability to say "well, I didn't get to read my Bible at all this week or spend any time alone with God in prayer, but at least I made it to church!". 
Not going to a Sunday morning really shows where your relationship with God is at. If no one will ask you, how much would you read the Bible? If no one will be curious, how often will you spend time with God in prayer?

This was slightly terrifying at first, but after getting a little bit more real with God than I had been previously, it was immensely uplifting in a way that only words cannot describe.

In considering the experience in whole, I want to offer up the following Psalm (91):

¹ Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High
    will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.^[a]
2 I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress,
    my God, in whom I trust.”

³ Surely he will save you
    from the fowler’s snare
    and from the deadly pestilence.
⁴ He will cover you with his feathers,
    and under his wings you will find refuge;
    his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
⁵ You will not fear the terror of night,
    nor the arrow that flies by day,
⁶ nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
    nor the plague that destroys at midday.
⁷ A thousand may fall at your side,
    ten thousand at your right hand,
    but it will not come near you.
⁸ You will only observe with your eyes
    and see the punishment of the wicked.

⁹ If you say, “The Lord is my refuge,”
    and you make the Most High your dwelling,
¹⁰ no harm will overtake you,
    no disaster will come near your tent.
¹¹ For he will command his angels concerning you
    to guard you in all your ways;
¹² they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
¹³ You will tread on the lion and the cobra;
    you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

¹⁴ “Because he^[b] loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him;
    I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
¹⁵ He will call on me, and I will answer him;
    I will be with him in trouble,
    I will deliver him and honor him.
¹⁶ With long life I will satisfy him
    and show him my salvation.”

*To clarify, most Christians will say that the individual people, corporately, make up the body (church) of God. However, they will also often unflinchingly say that if you don't go to a Sunday morning service, than you don't "go to church".

As You Were...

Read Acts 9. In verse 17, Ananias is talking to Paul about what has happened and what Ananias has been instructed to do. While he is talking to Paul, he says "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.".

One of the great things about God is that he does not wait for us or require us to be perfect before accepting us. He deals with us we are.

What was Paul doing 'as he was' coming to where Ananias was? Quite frankly he was on his way to kill Christians. But God knew what Paul would do if he got a clearer view of reality.

God will also refuse to leave us alone. 'Were' is past tense. He accepts us the way we used to be, if you will. It is not that we must change before being accepted, but that he will change us in fundamental ways that we cannot do ourselves.