You'll get the title in a second...
Check out Karen Armstrong's piece in the Guardian, "Bush's fondness for fundamentalism is courting disaster at home and abroad". It may contain a spurious quote.
I also wanted to share a resource that clears up the misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang in layman's terms and with adequate detail, via Angry Astronomer.
Finally, check out these two hilarious Youtube movies to start out your week:
1) Daily Show Report (in the "Constitution Schmonstitution" series): The Faith Based Faith of Stephen With a 'ph'
2) Kids in the Hall present: The Dr. Seuss Bible
________________
Technorati tags: Humor
Monday, July 31, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
The Myth of the Hero
In talking about the existential dilemma the other day, I found myself willing to go read The Myth of Sisyphus, by Camus, when it was suggested by a friend that I see what I can take away from it.
The theists have argued with me that a finite purpose, or a temporal life, is the same thing as nothing. But what they do is equivocate something with nothing. They are confused.
If this life is but a mere shadow, and the rest of eternity a bright light, then finding purpose in this present darkness is futile and absurd. Christians (and other theists) admit as much -- they call themselves "pilgrims" and "aliens" in the world in which they live, and call their "home" and their "citizenship" heaven. What they do is ignore the rock at their feet, and the power they have to move it upward, and stare towards the top of the summit. But the summit is obscured with clouds -- the zenith cannot be seen from the foot of the mountain. It is in the struggle that one can see further, though perhaps never to the top, because it is not a given that the mountain upon which we labor has a finite end.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Sisyphus
When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy rises in man's heart: this is the rock's victory, this is the rock itself. The boundless grief is too heavy to bear. These are our nights of Gethsemane. But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged. Thus, Oedipus at the outset obeys fate without knowing it. But from the moment he knows, his tragedy begins.Do we, at the moment of admitting that deterministic physical laws control our universe, willingly embrace tragedy? That is one of the crux issues of the modern existential dilemma.
Yet at the same time, blind and desperate, he realizes that the only bond linking him to the world is the cool hand of a girl. Then a tremendous remark rings out: "Despite so many ordeals, my advanced age and the nobility of my soul make me conclude that all is well." Sophocles' Oedipus, like Dostoevsky's Kirilov, thus gives the recipe for the absurd victory. Ancient wisdom confirms modern heroism.Let us say that our consciousness is but a subjective experience of physical realities over which we have no real control. But let us say that we do have some capacity to turn our conscious minds towards values, purposes, and goals. Can we be virtuous? Is that enough? The nobility of Oedipus' soul was enough for him. And that is my view of the heroic -- one who encumbers the burden of virtue for virtue's sake alone: to say, "this is my life, and I can use it to cultivate goodness or evil in myself and others, and with all the absurdity and futility of life, I will still cultivate goodness." Not just "despite" the absurdity of the world, but because of it.
There is but one world, however. Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd discovery. It happens as well that the feeling of the absurd springs from happiness. "I conclude that all is well," says Oedipus, and that remark is sacred.Some might argue that happiness is a mental state to which some peoples' chemistry will not allow access. I don't deny this possibility. For those of us who can access this state of mind (and being), though, ought we not? Is it not all that we can do? What if the other finds his rock too heavy to roll? What can I do for him? Nothing, save rolling my own.
It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile sufferings. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men.And this is what renders the human a potential hero -- in the way that she may settle with her own fate, in how she deals with it.
All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is his thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols.Sisyphus chooses to see the same beauty and scope of being in his newfound purpose -- in rolling the rock for eternity, that he found when he was allowed to return from the underworld and experience life again. I am reminded of how the beauty of the universe I saw as a theist at first was crushed when I no longer believed. Now that beauty is returned to me, because it is contained within me. That beauty is no longer some inaccessible external Entity from which it cannot be extricated or internalized. That beauty is now the self, the human, and the potential hero (and the potential madman).
In the universe suddenly restored to silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. there is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his effort will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable.What I did as a theist was define "the highest destiny" to be that which had been given to me by God. What I did not do is recognize that no gift is greater than something earned and learned. It is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, to say that I can exist happily and freely, and yet have been put inside of an inescapable and unyielding cosmic plan, in which I was yet a cog, and towards which we traversed I knew not. The highest absurdity.
For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that silent pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which becomes his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.I hope I never lose the eagerness to see, and I hope that the night has an end. I hope I have the courage to continue with that eagerness even should daybreak never give me the merest glimpse. Should the universe in which I live be blind and careless until I die, it is still within my power to see, and to live. I do not have to close my eyes and lay down before my rock has been rolled as far as I can take it.
I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again.My own burden at the moment is in maintaining rationalism -- a commitment to reason, and optimism -- a commitment not to only see things as better, but to be better and in so doing, this purpose makes "all well".
But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.The stone is something. It is not nothing. Rolling the stone is doing something. Finding purpose in the struggle. Something that is not only not added to when we add "plus God" to the equation, but is in fact completely negated of all purpose.
The theists have argued with me that a finite purpose, or a temporal life, is the same thing as nothing. But what they do is equivocate something with nothing. They are confused.
If this life is but a mere shadow, and the rest of eternity a bright light, then finding purpose in this present darkness is futile and absurd. Christians (and other theists) admit as much -- they call themselves "pilgrims" and "aliens" in the world in which they live, and call their "home" and their "citizenship" heaven. What they do is ignore the rock at their feet, and the power they have to move it upward, and stare towards the top of the summit. But the summit is obscured with clouds -- the zenith cannot be seen from the foot of the mountain. It is in the struggle that one can see further, though perhaps never to the top, because it is not a given that the mountain upon which we labor has a finite end.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Sisyphus
Thursday, July 27, 2006
R.E.M. Knew It
It's the end of the world as we know it...and R.E.M. knew it long ago.
Lots of bloggers have been commenting on CNN's choice to interview rapture nuts and eschatological enthusiasts in light of the events in Israel as of late. Media Matters and PZ, along with assorted small fish, have lambasted the network for giving airwaves to the whackos.
What I find more telling than the decision of CNN to air these sorts of sensational and infotaining clips is the way that Paula Zahn's coverage was so biased. Note that her interview with the one reasonable Christian (eg the one who isn't kooky and uneducated enough to buy into the Jerry Jenkins BS), the Rev. Kevin Bean, of St. Bartholomew's, was short and sandwiched between multiple interviews with the wingnut "value voters" currently steamrolling reason and science as they ecstatically plunge into (what they believe is) the end of days.
This makes no sense -- Catholics comprise, worldwide, over half of all Christians. They do not buy into the polyester leisure suit-theology of Tim LaHaye, and most of them are intelligent (and honest) enough to know and admit that the Revelation dealt with the events of Rome. Why do they not show the great disparity between this much more reasoned and evidenced view of the Revelation of John against the kooks? It doesn't sell as well, of course. But it also smacks a little of the bias in America towards Protestant (and general "common man") theology.
Rev. Bean's interview begins at around 3:40 in, and he only gets a few sentences in, and then gets sandwiched against some lady and her idea that the signs are all pointing to the end of the world. Now, compare his coverage to the full 5:11, in which 90% is devoted to the Rapture/End of Days ideas.
Rev. Bean:
I couldn't have said it better myself, and I second the feeling of R.E.M.'s last line, in considering this crock of horse manure:
Technorati tags: Eschatology, Rapture
Lots of bloggers have been commenting on CNN's choice to interview rapture nuts and eschatological enthusiasts in light of the events in Israel as of late. Media Matters and PZ, along with assorted small fish, have lambasted the network for giving airwaves to the whackos.
What I find more telling than the decision of CNN to air these sorts of sensational and infotaining clips is the way that Paula Zahn's coverage was so biased. Note that her interview with the one reasonable Christian (eg the one who isn't kooky and uneducated enough to buy into the Jerry Jenkins BS), the Rev. Kevin Bean, of St. Bartholomew's, was short and sandwiched between multiple interviews with the wingnut "value voters" currently steamrolling reason and science as they ecstatically plunge into (what they believe is) the end of days.
This makes no sense -- Catholics comprise, worldwide, over half of all Christians. They do not buy into the polyester leisure suit-theology of Tim LaHaye, and most of them are intelligent (and honest) enough to know and admit that the Revelation dealt with the events of Rome. Why do they not show the great disparity between this much more reasoned and evidenced view of the Revelation of John against the kooks? It doesn't sell as well, of course. But it also smacks a little of the bias in America towards Protestant (and general "common man") theology.
Rev. Bean's interview begins at around 3:40 in, and he only gets a few sentences in, and then gets sandwiched against some lady and her idea that the signs are all pointing to the end of the world. Now, compare his coverage to the full 5:11, in which 90% is devoted to the Rapture/End of Days ideas.
Rev. Bean:
There's a fiction being created here, like a Stephen King horror movie...we don't read it [the Revelation] the way that a lot of people do, which is to make that false correlation with present day events. That is a crock. [emphasis mine]
I couldn't have said it better myself, and I second the feeling of R.E.M.'s last line, in considering this crock of horse manure:
It's the end of the world as we know it.________________
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...fine...
(It's time I had some time alone)
Technorati tags: Eschatology, Rapture
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Medieval Irish Bible Found
(CNN) :
During construction, a very rare medieval Irish edition of the Bible (or part of it) was dug up recently. Interestingly, it was opened to Psalms 83, hardly what I would call a good example of the ethos that modern Christians want to develop, which they borrow from the secular humanism of the Enlightenment. Let's read it:
Psalm 83 (NIV)
________________
Technorati tags: Theology
During construction, a very rare medieval Irish edition of the Bible (or part of it) was dug up recently. Interestingly, it was opened to Psalms 83, hardly what I would call a good example of the ethos that modern Christians want to develop, which they borrow from the secular humanism of the Enlightenment. Let's read it:
Psalm 83 (NIV)
A song. A psalm of Asaph.Now I don't know about you, but that sure makes me feel Jesus. Kill those bastard enemies of mine, O God...screw that turn the cheek BS! ;) (HT: New Humanist)
1 O God, do not keep silent;
be not quiet, O God, be not still.
2 See how your enemies are astir,
how your foes rear their heads.
3 With cunning they conspire against your people;
they plot against those you cherish.
4 "Come," they say, "let us destroy them as a nation,
that the name of Israel be remembered no more."
5 With one mind they plot together;
they form an alliance against you-
6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
of Moab and the Hagrites,
7 Gebal, [a] Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia, with the people of Tyre.
8 Even Assyria has joined them
to lend strength to the descendants of Lot.
Selah
9 Do to them as you did to Midian,
as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon,
10 who perished at Endor
and became like refuse on the ground.
11 Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb,
all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,
12 who said, "Let us take possession
of the pasturelands of God."
13 Make them like tumbleweed, O my God,
like chaff before the wind.
14 As fire consumes the forest
or a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
15 so pursue them with your tempest
and terrify them with your storm.
16 Cover their faces with shame
so that men will seek your name, O LORD.
17 May they ever be ashamed and dismayed;
may they perish in disgrace.
18 Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD—
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.
Footnotes:
1. Psalm 83:7[a] -- That is, Byblos
________________
Technorati tags: Theology
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Lurching Along
Boy, do I feel Jeebus now. Over at the Christian CADRE site, I got the following godly love from Lurchling:
Dan Barker has already invented the wheel, so why should I reinvent it? From his article, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" we see the parallel passages from the gospels (and Acts) laid out so as to show us the impossible task of harmonization of the resurrection stories.
________________
Technorati tags: Apologetics, Christianity
There is a difference between being critical with Christianity, which I support, and being hatefully paranoid about it (cough cough).As a former youth pastor at two churches, who once faithfully followed after [what he thought as] Jesus, I am hardly hateful or paranoid about Christianity. If I were so, I would hardly be spending so much time conversing with theists as I do.
Either way, I've read it seems like too much on the cultural milieu of the NT, textual criticism, source-crit, alternative theories, authorship, etc. etc. etc.Good for you. Um, so, why do you stand by what modern scholars reject concerning the authorship of many of the epistles?
Soooo, that is how I know when you deny everything in the NT when it comes to authorship besides I'm guessing 7 of Paul's epistles, ignorantly stand by that Paul knew almost nothing about Jesus, and that these Jews believed in a spiritual resurrection (oxymoron), you are driven by something more than a sincere search for the truth. And you, nsfl boy, should watch the insults and tone.Insults and tone are being watched, scrutinized, even. I'm also glad that you maintain your lovely tone in the midst of your psychic powers. I would probably get cocky if I could read minds.
By the way, I'm responding to you out of tact, but I know pseudo-sceptics who are willing to take any issue overboard like yourself won't listen for anything I have to say, just try to find something wrong with it.You are indeed quite so tactful. I'm just a lowly "pseudo-sceptic" trying to get by. I'm so glad that you really listened to what I had to say.
If there was no suffering, no hardship, then what the hell is the purpose of Christianity's heavenly afterlife?This is like watching a poor trapped animal struggle in a clamp. You are presupposing that there is a heavenly afterlife in order to explain the hardships of this life (and deal with them).
Why must he do this? And all-good does not equal cuddly cushy creator of some candy land where everything is always sunny. Like I said, we could never know, but evil and suffering could have it's purpose, and that purpose in itself could be for the better.Um, if God exists, and is all-good, then God makes the best of all possible worlds. It's called a logical necessity, by definition of "all-good".
Once again, we all gotta die sometime, why is it evil how each of us goes?So your God is not omnipotent, then? We "gotta" die? So you don't think it's evil to be raped and buried alive (as Jessica Lunsford was), compared to dying in your sleep next to your wife at 100 years old? So God is "off the hook" for sitting on Its heavenly thumb while she screamed in pain and tried to crawl out of the grave, slowly suffocating?
I know this will be hard for you, but read carefully through my examples.Hooked on phonics worked for me!
Just to let you know, you are so arrogant and mocking that people might not notice your questionable claims of Jesus. They will hopefully be turned off by your ignorant mentality.I bet you would hate that, wouldn't you? I'm sure they wouldn't notice if you were arrogant and mocking, or disregard your writing because of it, now would they?
I don't need lessons from someone subpar like you on textual criticism and manuscript evidence.Um, well you did ask me to substantiate the claim that it is reasonable to argue that early Christians didn't accept a bodily resurrection. You asked, and received. ;) Sorry it was "subpar".
Your rude comments about the Christian worldview and its perspective are proving nothing. All they prove is that you are an arrogant ignorant pompous atheist claiming to have all the answers but really just being clueless. I am allowed to make that sweeping statement about you because of your sweeping view on the claims of the Bible and we Christian and Jews cartoonish existence.Ah, so "tit for tat"? I thought it was "turn the other cheek"? Maybe you aren't as familiar with your great Jesus as I am. Besides, I'm sure the readers of the thread would find my "insults and tone" a bit different in quality and character than yours.
I stand by my opinion that you are intellectually dishonest and you have a hateful attitude.Well, they do say that opinions are like assholes. You happen to possess one of each, it appears, but only be one of the two.
You will respond to this I'm sure. I am going to try very hard to let you make all the claims you want, but I do not want to debate with someone who is so unyielding from questionable positions. I will try very hard not to waste any more of my life on this.Well, keep fighting the good fight. Try very hard. Pray.
Harmonization is a common historical tool, use it for the resurrection accounts you biggot.First, it's "bigot" you silly moron. Second, be careful what you wish for, silly wabbit...
Dan Barker has already invented the wheel, so why should I reinvent it? From his article, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" we see the parallel passages from the gospels (and Acts) laid out so as to show us the impossible task of harmonization of the resurrection stories.
What time did the women visit the tomb?Tag, you're it, Lurchling.
* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
* Mark: No (16:13[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at that first appearance?
* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
* Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
________________
Technorati tags: Apologetics, Christianity
Feeling Rand-y Today
...No, not that kind of randy. I'm talking about Ayn Rand. No, I'm not an Objectivist. After having an interesting conversation with my colleagues over "The Guiltless Man" yesterday, mostly concerning the inability of religion to control such a person, I was thinking about it again this morning.
Thinking is a beautiful thing. From Ayn Rand's address to the 1974 West Point class:
Some may frame a question about what motive an atheist has in arguing with theists. I do not believe; they do. I think they are wrong, but I think there is no real consequence for their wrongness (in the sense that their faith won't "hurt" them or me). Why do I continue, then, to spend so much time reading, debating, and trying to understand philosophies to which I do not subscribe, and hold to be irrational? Primarily, because their faith affects me. The politics and policies of our current administration have been clearly infused with religion and its lobbying power and money. Secondarily, I do so in defense of my mind, my values, my desire for truth. I skeptically analyze arguments for and against God, and I continue to consider them for their validity and strengths.
There are many things over which I find myself disagreeing with Ayn Rand, but on this, we agree -- philosophy is more than necessary, it is inevitable: the only choice you have is whether you will swallow someone else's premises like a jagged little pill, or whether you will question them, and yourself, and everything.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ayn Rand, Reason, Logic
Thinking is a beautiful thing. From Ayn Rand's address to the 1974 West Point class:
You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction--or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.Of course, it is not truly necessary for persons to integrate all of this into a coherent, rational philosophy. Some people appear to have taken pieces of rational worldviews and mishmashed them in with superstition and folklore, and others (postmodernists) abandon rationalism altogether.
But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.Most people do not develop a philosophy in the vein of Descartes -- carefully and from the bottom up. Most people adopt from others what feels right and true, and modern Sophists are able to persuade masses of persons into adopting incomprehensible premises as their foundational "truths".
You might say, as many people do, that it is not easy always to act on abstract principles. No, it is not easy. But how much harder is it, to have to act on them without knowing what they are?Rand seems willing to grant to people something which I cannot -- that they act while thinking, or think before acting. I find no strong evidence that humans behave as rational animals even a fraction of the time.
Your subconscious is like a computer...Who programs it? Your conscious mind...one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions--which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values. If you programmed your computer by conscious thinking, you know the nature of your values and emotions. If you didn't, you don't.John Loftus has written an interesting article on "control beliefs" as it relates to the interpretation of religion and religious evidence by believers versus unbelievers; or what we could call our presuppositions, in which he challenges the notion that we have the ability to free ourselves of biases and see past our weaknesses in order to objectively "program" our conscious minds. The major point he makes is that the fewer presuppositions, or "control beliefs," that we hold, the less likely we are to be wrong about any given one of them.
Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions...The joke is on him--and on them: man's values and emotions are determined by his fundamental view of life. The ultimate programmer of his subconscious is philosophy--the science which, according to the emotionalists, is impotent to affect or penetrate the murky mysteries of their feelings...You have probably heard the computer operators' eloquent term "gigo"--which means: "Garbage in, garbage out." The same formula applies to the relationship between a man's thinking and his emotions.Here we have to get into what Rand means by "his fundamental view of life" -- is this not particularly circular? If I value faith, do I become a believer (thus subscribing to some theistic worldview), or if I am a believer, do I value faith? Where do we begin? How many people even try to figure out what their assumptions are, much the less challenge and question them?
A man who is run by emotions is like a man who is run by a computer whose print-outs he cannot read. He does not know whether its programming is true or false, right or wrong, whether it's set to lead him to success or destruction, whether it serves his goals or those of some evil, unknowable power. He is blind on two fronts: blind to the world around him and to his own inner world, unable to grasp reality or his own motives, and he is in chronic terror of both. Emotions are not tools of cognition. The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power.But what Rand ignores is that philosophy can be used as a tool to prop up what men want to believe. Nietzsche showed us that. It is a choice as to how far one develops a philosophy -- it can go so far as to render us nearly nihilistic. If we seriously probe the premises of every position, say for instance in meta-ethics, we will find ourselves much more epistemically skeptical than some people can handle. Therefore, most persons only develop (or adopt from others) enough philosophy to convince themselves that they are rational and "committed to the truth". But how many of us are? How many of us are willing to follow evidence and reason, should it lead us to no hopeful conclusion? What if reason does cannibalize itself, as Nietzsche and others implied?
The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them--from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the philosophers. Others follow their lead, either by conviction or by default. For some two hundred years, under the influence of Immanuel Kant, the dominant trend of philosophy has been directed to a single goal: the destruction of man's mind, of his confidence in the power of reason. Today, we are seeing the climax of that trend.And today, we might say that we are in the "post-postmodern" movement -- many philosophers have strongly argued against the premises of postmodernism (pomo), and have had the time to carefully deconstruct existentialism, Heidegger (probably on of the figures in philosophy with whom Rand identified this sort of negative trend), and some of the previously nebulous arguments of pomo's that science is but "another mythic narrative", aka the Counter-Enlightenment. I would say that the tides have turned, in large part thanks to a commitment to Rationalism, to flesh out the claims of nihilism and pomo over the past decades. Basically, if we cannot sustain rationalism, then pomo itself is self-refuted -- how can a coherent proposition be made: there is no rationalism? It is self-refuting and self-defeating, just like, "there are no truths." (if that description of reality is itself true, then the statement itself must be false, if the statement is false, then it tells us nothing of truth)
When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror. The spread of drug addiction among young people brought up on today's intellectual fashions, demonstrates the unbearable inner state of men who are deprived of their means of cognition and who seek escape from reality--from the terror of their impotence to deal with existence. Observe these young people's dread of independence and their frantic desire to "belong," to attach themselves to some group, clique or gang. Most of them have never heard of philosophy, but they sense that they need some fundamental answers to questions they dare not ask--and they hope that the tribe will tell them how to live. They are ready to be taken over by any witch doctor, guru, or dictator. One of the most dangerous things a man can do is to surrender his moral autonomy to others: like the astronaut in my story, he does not know whether they are human, even though they walk on two feet.Rand almost seems comically naive. Every generation has viewed their youth as on a destructive path, whether towards immorality or irrationality or both. I would say that in today's culture, one of the few unique things we have today is access to so much knowledge and information that some persons are paralyzed by it [one of the other things that sets apart our current era from others is the explosion of scientific understanding of our universe]. Knowing what to believe, and who to believe, adrift in a sea of arguments and voices can be overwhelming. But that does not mean that we must not believe, else we be wrong, only that we must focus our energies on narrow slices of the big philosophy pie. Few persons that I know go to original sources in philosophy, preferring summaries and reviews of topics and questions in philosophy. There is just too much to read and absorb, and too few days to do it.
Now you may ask: If philosophy can be that evil, why should one study it? Particularly, why should one study the philosophical theories which are blatantly false, make no sense, and bear no relation to real life?And it is for those reasons that I continue to study the Bible, theology, and think about God. I do not claim, as Paul wrote in Phil. 3, "to have apprehended...". I have not arrived at some "self-enlightenment". I somewhat doubt that such a final state can exist, for that would mean it would be nearly impossible to self-doubt or critically analyze the experience. My view of personal enlightenment is more a process and progress in which we analyze and skeptically critique everything. But unlike the pomo, I find no reason to abandon rationalism, as I know nowhere else to be, no other way to live, and no other way to think. I choose to value reason, and build my worldview upon it, and I have seen the efficacy of this played out as personal success and happiness, not despair and hopelessness. In that sense, you might say I pragmatically cling to rationalism.
My answer is: In self-protection--and in defense of truth, justice, freedom, and any value you ever held or may ever hold.
Some may frame a question about what motive an atheist has in arguing with theists. I do not believe; they do. I think they are wrong, but I think there is no real consequence for their wrongness (in the sense that their faith won't "hurt" them or me). Why do I continue, then, to spend so much time reading, debating, and trying to understand philosophies to which I do not subscribe, and hold to be irrational? Primarily, because their faith affects me. The politics and policies of our current administration have been clearly infused with religion and its lobbying power and money. Secondarily, I do so in defense of my mind, my values, my desire for truth. I skeptically analyze arguments for and against God, and I continue to consider them for their validity and strengths.
There are many things over which I find myself disagreeing with Ayn Rand, but on this, we agree -- philosophy is more than necessary, it is inevitable: the only choice you have is whether you will swallow someone else's premises like a jagged little pill, or whether you will question them, and yourself, and everything.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ayn Rand, Reason, Logic
The Existential Dilemma
After dicussing how death and our view of the afterlife impacts our meaning and perceived value as human beings at the Triablogue, I found the topic resurface yesterday. A short story by Hemingway frames the existential dilemma well:
It was a nothing that he knew too well. It was all a nothing and a man was nothing too. It was only that and light was all it needed and a certain cleanness and order. Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it was already nada y pues nada y pues nada. Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee. He smiled and stood before a bar with a shining steam pressure coffee machine. (A Clean, Well-Lighted Place)
Is man devoid of meaning? If he is not created by some entity with its own external purpose, does man have no purpose? Does the existence of God determine a man's purpose, or does man himself? Is it possible for some external entity to give you meaning and purpose? Listening to Paul Kurtz on Point of Inquiry radio, he spoke about the existential dilemma. From the Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia,
Paul points out that being a part of such a worldview, in which every behavior is outlined -- "do this, don't do that, be this, don't be that" is the very antithesis of freedom and individuality. Secular humanism presents an ethical alternative to religions, and allows one to maintain individual identity (rather than collective identity) and to pursue ones goals and hopes freely.
Insofar as views of the afterlife go, does death render life beautiful, or meaningless? Certainly, the value of every day increases exponentially if they are your only days to live. Clearly, the value of 70 years of life is pitiful if a hundred million trillion years of life follow. Just because life is thus made "precious" in value does not mean that death confers "meaning". We all must assign meaning to our own lives. We all must decide what will make our lives "worthwhile". Believers decide that faith is the penultimate goal, and that pleasing God is their summa bonum.
What this seems to boil down to is an argument on the part of theists that if we assign our own purposes and meanings to life, that those values and meanings are functionally deficient. A counterargument to them would run along the lines that they choose to assign meaning to themselves through their faith, and so in that sense, they can't escape the idea of "man-centered meaning/values/purpose". They choose to value God, religion, faith, etc. Their own faith is itself temporal, just as my values and purposes and meanings and goals are. Does that render faith pointless and functionally deficient? Or is faith not just another avenue by which humans assign themselves value?
How do I personally look at life, death, and despair? I'm a sort of Stoic. I'm a determinist who wants to live a good and virtuous life, and tries to deal with the things that I can know and control, and learn to accept the things which I cannot know or control.
I have written a little on quasi-Stoicism before, in the context of Stephen King's novella, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.
The quick and easy way to become a Stoic? Simply know the things that are within your power, and the things that are not. Recognize how small you really are in the scheme of things, and do not despair or fret when circumstances do not unfold as you had planned or hoped. Be courageous enough to control those things which you can for good, and courageous enough to accept those things which fate/life/chance hand you unexpectedly. It does not mean you must become emotionless or apathetic, as is commonly misconceived. It means that you allow your mind, via reason, to rule your passions, and recognize the dangers posed by the passions to the execution of our values and goals.
One of the beautiful things about Stoics was the way that they derived value and meaning from the pursuit of virtue, and ataraxia, or inner peace. That is why Seneca, Marcus Aurellius and Epictetus, all at very different stations in life, held a similar outlook upon life's value and meaning. I don't want to get into the distinction between classical Stoicism and its difficulties with reconciling fatalism and freedom, but this should give you a picture of how I view the existential dilemma from a broad perspective.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Stoicism, Existential Dilemma
Another term for the groundlessness of the world of meaning is "nothingness." Heidegger introduced this term to indicate the kind of self- and world-understanding that emerges in anxiety: because my practical identity is constituted by the practices I engage in, when these collapse I "am" not anything. In a manner of speaking I am thus brought face-to-face with my own finitude, my "death" as the possibility in which I am no longer able to be anything. This experience of my own death, or "nothingness," in anxiety can act as a spur to authenticity: I come to see that I "am" not anything but must "make myself be" through my choice. In commiting myself in the face of death — that is, aware of the nothingness of my identity if not supported by me right up to the end — the roles that I have hitherto thoughtlessly engaged in as one does now become something that I myself own up to, become responsible for.Most of what Paul speaks about in his interview is "the courage to become" -- the courage to become who and what you want. Paul doesn't prescribe some step-by-step, self-help manual-type philosophy for us. What he does do is point out that religions all require the same thing, that you, as the believer/follower, abdicate yourself of your own freedom, and enter into the homogeneous fold. Without uniformity, believers are unable to easily identify themselves and "the others", and so maintaining a strong sense of community and identity almost requires these shared rituals, customs, and peculiar behaviors which are particular to each denomination of each religion. And thus the religion, or, as they would insist, the God of the religion, becomes the believer's purpose [although arguably God is subsumed into the religion and its customs, interpretations, Scriptures, etc.]. But what the believer has done is lose their own personal identity and purpose into this form of collectivism.
Paul points out that being a part of such a worldview, in which every behavior is outlined -- "do this, don't do that, be this, don't be that" is the very antithesis of freedom and individuality. Secular humanism presents an ethical alternative to religions, and allows one to maintain individual identity (rather than collective identity) and to pursue ones goals and hopes freely.
Insofar as views of the afterlife go, does death render life beautiful, or meaningless? Certainly, the value of every day increases exponentially if they are your only days to live. Clearly, the value of 70 years of life is pitiful if a hundred million trillion years of life follow. Just because life is thus made "precious" in value does not mean that death confers "meaning". We all must assign meaning to our own lives. We all must decide what will make our lives "worthwhile". Believers decide that faith is the penultimate goal, and that pleasing God is their summa bonum.
What this seems to boil down to is an argument on the part of theists that if we assign our own purposes and meanings to life, that those values and meanings are functionally deficient. A counterargument to them would run along the lines that they choose to assign meaning to themselves through their faith, and so in that sense, they can't escape the idea of "man-centered meaning/values/purpose". They choose to value God, religion, faith, etc. Their own faith is itself temporal, just as my values and purposes and meanings and goals are. Does that render faith pointless and functionally deficient? Or is faith not just another avenue by which humans assign themselves value?
How do I personally look at life, death, and despair? I'm a sort of Stoic. I'm a determinist who wants to live a good and virtuous life, and tries to deal with the things that I can know and control, and learn to accept the things which I cannot know or control.
I have written a little on quasi-Stoicism before, in the context of Stephen King's novella, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.
The quick and easy way to become a Stoic? Simply know the things that are within your power, and the things that are not. Recognize how small you really are in the scheme of things, and do not despair or fret when circumstances do not unfold as you had planned or hoped. Be courageous enough to control those things which you can for good, and courageous enough to accept those things which fate/life/chance hand you unexpectedly. It does not mean you must become emotionless or apathetic, as is commonly misconceived. It means that you allow your mind, via reason, to rule your passions, and recognize the dangers posed by the passions to the execution of our values and goals.
One of the beautiful things about Stoics was the way that they derived value and meaning from the pursuit of virtue, and ataraxia, or inner peace. That is why Seneca, Marcus Aurellius and Epictetus, all at very different stations in life, held a similar outlook upon life's value and meaning. I don't want to get into the distinction between classical Stoicism and its difficulties with reconciling fatalism and freedom, but this should give you a picture of how I view the existential dilemma from a broad perspective.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Stoicism, Existential Dilemma
Monday, July 24, 2006
Cretinist Extraordinaire
Favorite Dr. Dino quote:
Democracy is evil and contrary to God's law.**UPDATE** Dr. Dino, world-famous liar and fraud, speaks out! (HT: ooblick)**
Apparently, his method of avoiding taxes by refusing to register his church, not recognizing his employees, and claiming to be above the law is not a solo act, but a growing trend of lawlessness. Most ironic to me is that Hovind claims not to be a citizen (he's done this before with his bankruptcy case back in the 80's), but he sure doesn't mind using the attorney that the state is providing for him (as a citizen).
Hovind is now running a blog as well, CSEBlogs, to document some of his personal issues. Interestingly, nothing has appeared there since the arrest. Probably a little too busy with court appearances, and pleading to be given special treatment to go to Africa during his legal troubles.
I also found it very interesting to read about "Richard", who runs a support website for Hovind's legal issues. It appears that "Richard" may either be Hovind or one of his employees, using Hovind's computer. Hilarious.
You couldn't invent a character so colorful if you tried. See here and here for more on his credentials. Below is a picture of his "university":
________________
Technorati tags: Hovind, Fraud, Liar
Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world's problems on a Jewish conspiracy. Environmentalism and income taxes, Hovind says, are designed to destroy the United States and "bring it under Communism."(From the same article.)
Hovind is now running a blog as well, CSEBlogs, to document some of his personal issues. Interestingly, nothing has appeared there since the arrest. Probably a little too busy with court appearances, and pleading to be given special treatment to go to Africa during his legal troubles.
I also found it very interesting to read about "Richard", who runs a support website for Hovind's legal issues. It appears that "Richard" may either be Hovind or one of his employees, using Hovind's computer. Hilarious.
You couldn't invent a character so colorful if you tried. See here and here for more on his credentials. Below is a picture of his "university":
Technorati tags: Hovind, Fraud, Liar
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Bush is a F&%*ing Moron, Proof #20,193
Harsh title? Yes.
Tim Russert just got to the crux of the issue on stem cells. Josh Bolton stammered and stuttered around, but the completely absurd illogic is clear: destroy the embryos, don't use them. Bolton tried to duck and dodge, shuck and jive, but Russert nailed him [more, his stupid boss] to the wall. If Bush doesn't oppose the process of IVF, which creates hundreds of thousands of excess embryos, yet calls the use of these embryos in research "murder" [via Tony Snow], then there is a clear disconnect in the Prez's already-fuzzy little brain.
Bolton was also asked whether he agreed with Karl Rove's statement that adult stem cells contained "far more promise" than embryonic stem cells, a statement which Russert pointed out had zero scientific support. Bolton once again stuttered and stammered, saying, "I'm no scientist," to which Tim quickly replied, "neither is Rove".
Bolton goes on to point out that adult stem cells have already shown promise...without seeming to be able to comprehend that an unfunded area of research will never be able to prove its promise. Universities, where the most crucial fundamental research is carried out, receive very very little private funding. If federal funds are not made available, and NIH and NSF grants are not devised for stem cell therapy research, then millions of people will continue to suffer and die, needlessly. Why? Because of our prez's "moral fiber". The same sort of fiber that I saw in a toilet once -- pure shit. "Blastocyst-Americans" apparently garner more votes for our prez than those dying of ALS and diabetes.
Bolton also fell back onto the "snowflake children" that Bush used as a prop in his PR event on the veto. Isn't that heartmoving, to see those kids, and think, "yeah, we can't kill them!"...? Problem here is that there was absolutely no potential of that happening.
Considering the fact that one of the two bills that passed outlaw "fetal farming" (what a joke) and ensured that no embryo which would otherwise be adopted would be used, there is absolutely no logical ground for this dolt to stand on:
According to sub-section 2 here, the only potential embryos to be used are explicitly not those which may be "adopted" and implanted -- thus no "snowflake babies" will be murdered.
What he has done is prevent millions of people from receiving life-saving research, and send hundreds of thousands of embryos to a trash can, because he is a stupid ass with no moral principles at all. What moral principles guide a moron into sending potentially life-saving research into the trash can? Yes, I'm as mad as hell.
Bush just walked into a burning hospital, and there was one Alzheimer's patient on one side, and a million fertilized embryos on the other side, and he only had time to save one...what did he do?
...the f&%*ing idiot just turned his back on both, and walked out, whistling to himself and patting his own "morally-princpled" back, leaving both to die, based on his "ethics".
________________
Technorati tags: Bush, Stem Cells, Veto, Bush is a F&*%ing Moron
Tim Russert just got to the crux of the issue on stem cells. Josh Bolton stammered and stuttered around, but the completely absurd illogic is clear: destroy the embryos, don't use them. Bolton tried to duck and dodge, shuck and jive, but Russert nailed him [more, his stupid boss] to the wall. If Bush doesn't oppose the process of IVF, which creates hundreds of thousands of excess embryos, yet calls the use of these embryos in research "murder" [via Tony Snow], then there is a clear disconnect in the Prez's already-fuzzy little brain.
Bolton was also asked whether he agreed with Karl Rove's statement that adult stem cells contained "far more promise" than embryonic stem cells, a statement which Russert pointed out had zero scientific support. Bolton once again stuttered and stammered, saying, "I'm no scientist," to which Tim quickly replied, "neither is Rove".
Bolton goes on to point out that adult stem cells have already shown promise...without seeming to be able to comprehend that an unfunded area of research will never be able to prove its promise. Universities, where the most crucial fundamental research is carried out, receive very very little private funding. If federal funds are not made available, and NIH and NSF grants are not devised for stem cell therapy research, then millions of people will continue to suffer and die, needlessly. Why? Because of our prez's "moral fiber". The same sort of fiber that I saw in a toilet once -- pure shit. "Blastocyst-Americans" apparently garner more votes for our prez than those dying of ALS and diabetes.
Bolton also fell back onto the "snowflake children" that Bush used as a prop in his PR event on the veto. Isn't that heartmoving, to see those kids, and think, "yeah, we can't kill them!"...? Problem here is that there was absolutely no potential of that happening.
Considering the fact that one of the two bills that passed outlaw "fetal farming" (what a joke) and ensured that no embryo which would otherwise be adopted would be used, there is absolutely no logical ground for this dolt to stand on:
SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.
Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 2005.
According to sub-section 2 here, the only potential embryos to be used are explicitly not those which may be "adopted" and implanted -- thus no "snowflake babies" will be murdered.
What he has done is prevent millions of people from receiving life-saving research, and send hundreds of thousands of embryos to a trash can, because he is a stupid ass with no moral principles at all. What moral principles guide a moron into sending potentially life-saving research into the trash can? Yes, I'm as mad as hell.
Bush just walked into a burning hospital, and there was one Alzheimer's patient on one side, and a million fertilized embryos on the other side, and he only had time to save one...what did he do?
...the f&%*ing idiot just turned his back on both, and walked out, whistling to himself and patting his own "morally-princpled" back, leaving both to die, based on his "ethics".
________________
Technorati tags: Bush, Stem Cells, Veto, Bush is a F&*%ing Moron
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Spock is My Hero, Too
I was just reading over an article in Skepchick entitled, "Logic vs. Emotion," and had some thoughts. The writer tells us her childhood hero was Mr. Spock, the paragon of Stoicism, and she discusses the commonly-held misconception that atheists/skeptics are emotionless creatures, by choice or by necessity.
Human beings are animals. As animals, we have biological and physiological functions over which we have very little control. Our emotions are the result of biochemical responses to stimuli, responses that are shared qualitatively by many other primates. The selective advantages to these responses are fairly clear: emotional bonding to our mates occurs as a function of oxytocin and other chemicals, functioning as a "glue" which confers beneficence to reproductive fitness.
As some of us are obviously predisposed towards more emotional displays than others, it doesn't reflect upon any notion of free will (laughable as that is). We really don't have a lot of control over our levels of sentimentality or propensity towards weeping. And it may be the case that the more control we have (genetically speaking), the more proclivity we have for rational thinking, rather than wishful thinking. But no matter how rational we are, we cannot deny the animal part of us that feels.
I think the problem isn't that we some of us lack control over our emotions, and make decisions emotively. I think the problem is that the nature of some decisions is that there is no logical argument that can be constructed from known true premises.
As Donna Druchunas writes:
Spock is my hero because he uses reason as far as he can, and then admits when there is uncertainty involved in a decision. Humans must live with and make decisions from uncertainty and doubt. That doesn't mean we can't rely on logic and reason, jettisoning them in favor of how we feel, as most analyses can include at least some logic. It's just part of the human condition not to know everything about anything.
Human beings are animals. As animals, we have biological and physiological functions over which we have very little control. Our emotions are the result of biochemical responses to stimuli, responses that are shared qualitatively by many other primates. The selective advantages to these responses are fairly clear: emotional bonding to our mates occurs as a function of oxytocin and other chemicals, functioning as a "glue" which confers beneficence to reproductive fitness.
As some of us are obviously predisposed towards more emotional displays than others, it doesn't reflect upon any notion of free will (laughable as that is). We really don't have a lot of control over our levels of sentimentality or propensity towards weeping. And it may be the case that the more control we have (genetically speaking), the more proclivity we have for rational thinking, rather than wishful thinking. But no matter how rational we are, we cannot deny the animal part of us that feels.
I think the problem isn't that we some of us lack control over our emotions, and make decisions emotively. I think the problem is that the nature of some decisions is that there is no logical argument that can be constructed from known true premises.
As Donna Druchunas writes:
What I have outgrown is my naive belief that logic trumps personal experience and emotions in every situation.Examples here would include how to handle forgiveness in a relationship, whether or not to change careers...&c. Even if we can throw a few true premises in, like, "Well, she's never cheated before," or, "I'll make more money as a patent attorney than a teacher," there are always lacking threads to join these premises together to reach a conclusion. For example, you just don't know if she will have the capability or opportunity in the future to cheat, or whether or not the job market will be in the future where it is today. Thus you can't rely on these premises to take you to a straightforward conclusion.
Spock is my hero because he uses reason as far as he can, and then admits when there is uncertainty involved in a decision. Humans must live with and make decisions from uncertainty and doubt. That doesn't mean we can't rely on logic and reason, jettisoning them in favor of how we feel, as most analyses can include at least some logic. It's just part of the human condition not to know everything about anything.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
NOT "answering a fool according to his folly"
Over at the Triablogue, I made a comment which seems to have triggered an irrational response from Steve Hays. Read it for yourself, and tell me if you disagree. My original comment, summarized?
It's just funny that as a bunch of "godless heathens" up here in Buffalo, we aren't talking about "answering the fools according to their folly" with respect to theists.The crux of Steve's response?
The question at issue is not what kind of people my readers are, but what kind of people you and nsfl are.
I realize that you don't like it when people like me hold people like you to your own words.
nsfl made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference
My original comment was in response to his contention that Christians were justified in "answering a fool according to his folly", and esp. that this justified them using sarcasm, deprecation, and insults to respond to those unbelievers and skeptics of us who (had the apparent audacity to) ask questions and challenge his beliefs.
Now, in response to his justification of this behavior, I pointed to the great irony of my situation that very day. I had been discussing the topic of civility and respect for our "cultural competitors" (those who promote values in opposition to secular humanist values) at a conference with other skeptics and freethinkers. As it just so happened, we had all pointed to the desperate need for dialogue in an increasingly polarized and hardened culture. We all agreed that insults were not only meritless, considering the great intellect and valid arguments of theists such as Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne, but that they immediately shut down dialogue as it requires mutual respect.
Steve went digging through the public forums of the CFI, where anyone (not just a CFI member, and not just a humanist, and not just an atheist) can start a thread on anything, and found some threads which had insults to Christians. The CFI did not write these threads, anonymous persons did. The CFI does not value censorship. There is nothing on the CFI website, or anywhere in the CFI literature, which in any way deprecates or insults theists, or anyone of any sort. They sponsor a public forum where free speech is exercised by anyone who cares to participate...and this means...what, again?
Besides all of these facts, it really didn't address the fact that I had indeed just that day been in unanimous agreement with the 70 other students and the conference organizers that we needly to strongly encourage mutual respect and enjoy the dialogue with theists such as Steve.
The irony is obvious: whilst the moral "high ground" is often claimed by our cultural competitors, and while they are often dubbed "value voters", (as if we atheists, skeptics, and humanists do not have values, and/or do not vote in support of them) we often hold to standards of conduct which apparently are not agreed with by our theist friends. Not only do they disagree with the "tit for tat" strategy of mutual respect and fairness, they deliver to us these insults wrapped in phrases such as, "The question at issue is ... what kind of people you and nsfl are."
Interestingly, Steve does not go on to clarify exactly "what kind" this is, or why John and I are lumped together. After all, the only shared component of our worldviews, so far as I know, is that of our lack of faith in a god. I am not sure of John's daily ethical principles or practices, and I'm quite sure that Steve isn't aware of them either, or how they compare to mine.
Steve goes on to declaim, "nsfl made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference."
Of course, the problem with this is that Steve made a "self-serving claim" in trying to present information which would somehow "falsify" that I was, indeed, that very day, discussing with other atheists and skeptics and humanists the need for respect and civility in our dealings and debates and dialogues with theists. How was that fact belied by your "fact" that someone, somewhere, for whatever reason, in opposition to the values that I hold, joined a public forum and insulted Christians?
What kind of person am I, Steve? I'd love to know. What kind of person is John? Or, do you care to lump all atheists into one definition of baramin?
"Maybe he didn't know any better at the time he said it, but now he does," Steve concludes.
Indeed, I know better than to attempt to continue engaging in dialogue with you, because it appears that you do not value mutual respect and civility in your dealings with those who disagree with you.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, CFI, Values
Now, in response to his justification of this behavior, I pointed to the great irony of my situation that very day. I had been discussing the topic of civility and respect for our "cultural competitors" (those who promote values in opposition to secular humanist values) at a conference with other skeptics and freethinkers. As it just so happened, we had all pointed to the desperate need for dialogue in an increasingly polarized and hardened culture. We all agreed that insults were not only meritless, considering the great intellect and valid arguments of theists such as Plantinga, Craig, and Swinburne, but that they immediately shut down dialogue as it requires mutual respect.
Steve went digging through the public forums of the CFI, where anyone (not just a CFI member, and not just a humanist, and not just an atheist) can start a thread on anything, and found some threads which had insults to Christians. The CFI did not write these threads, anonymous persons did. The CFI does not value censorship. There is nothing on the CFI website, or anywhere in the CFI literature, which in any way deprecates or insults theists, or anyone of any sort. They sponsor a public forum where free speech is exercised by anyone who cares to participate...and this means...what, again?
Besides all of these facts, it really didn't address the fact that I had indeed just that day been in unanimous agreement with the 70 other students and the conference organizers that we needly to strongly encourage mutual respect and enjoy the dialogue with theists such as Steve.
The irony is obvious: whilst the moral "high ground" is often claimed by our cultural competitors, and while they are often dubbed "value voters", (as if we atheists, skeptics, and humanists do not have values, and/or do not vote in support of them) we often hold to standards of conduct which apparently are not agreed with by our theist friends. Not only do they disagree with the "tit for tat" strategy of mutual respect and fairness, they deliver to us these insults wrapped in phrases such as, "The question at issue is ... what kind of people you and nsfl are."
Interestingly, Steve does not go on to clarify exactly "what kind" this is, or why John and I are lumped together. After all, the only shared component of our worldviews, so far as I know, is that of our lack of faith in a god. I am not sure of John's daily ethical principles or practices, and I'm quite sure that Steve isn't aware of them either, or how they compare to mine.
Steve goes on to declaim, "nsfl made a self-serving claim and drew an invidious contrast that is belied by the facts--from his own chosen frame of reference."
Of course, the problem with this is that Steve made a "self-serving claim" in trying to present information which would somehow "falsify" that I was, indeed, that very day, discussing with other atheists and skeptics and humanists the need for respect and civility in our dealings and debates and dialogues with theists. How was that fact belied by your "fact" that someone, somewhere, for whatever reason, in opposition to the values that I hold, joined a public forum and insulted Christians?
What kind of person am I, Steve? I'd love to know. What kind of person is John? Or, do you care to lump all atheists into one definition of baramin?
"Maybe he didn't know any better at the time he said it, but now he does," Steve concludes.
Indeed, I know better than to attempt to continue engaging in dialogue with you, because it appears that you do not value mutual respect and civility in your dealings with those who disagree with you.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, CFI, Values
The Antithesis of Our Values
A few days ago, while still at the CFI Student Leadership Conference in Buffalo, NY (which the CFI graciously provided the travel funding for), I read a thread by a theist I often dialogue with about how to respond to atheists. The title alone, "Answer a Fool According to His Folly", should be enough to stop me there from responding, due to its clear disrespect. However, idealist that I am, I left a comment on the post. Of course, the response of Steve to that comment is the subject of the next post, but I wanted to replicate the comment I left below for consideration.
Can't we all just get along...
Oh, wait, if we believe in a "god-ordained" antithesis, then I guess not.
I'm up here in Buffalo NY at the CFI Student Leadership Conference on secular humanism. It's kind of funny in how I felt in reading over this thread, and the comments, and having gone to meetings today where we discussed the need to be polite and respectful and even try to connect with those who disagree with us (esp Campus Crusade), to get the issues out before people.
We want more people to hear dissenting and alternative explanations to the worldview of traditional Western theism. Calling them names, and belittling their intellect, is not the best way to get them to seriously dialogue. It's just funny that as a bunch of "godless heathens" up here in Buffalo, we aren't talking about "answering the fools according to their folly" with respect to theists.
I actually don't want to "make" you atheists, or necessarily even convince you that your worldview's presuppositions, esp of taking the dusty old parchments as a sacred oracle, are in error. What I want is to keep the voice of dissent loud, clear, and coherent. You can have your faith, I can't take it from you if I wanted to.
I value science, reason, and humanistically-based ethics.
Your values include faith, divine commands, etc., (not to say you don't value what I do as well). So long as you put faith and what you believe God has told you to do before the practical and scientific realities that we all face together, as humans, it doesn't appear that we will ever make headway with one another. Your values and our values are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but prioritized in an inverse fashion to one another's. And perhaps we both realize this.
And perhaps that's why we both get frustrated at times.
So long as you value the possibility that a man raised from the dead 2000 years ago, and that your book is accurate historically, and that your doctrine of ensoulment is correct, more than you value the possibility that using a glob of amino acids and sugars, which could become a [Christian] person one day, will lead to the alleviation of clear and present pain, suffering, and evils...
We will never move in the same direction. My values point me towards what I can know and experience and those I care about. Your values are quite different. I don't value faith. I value science, evidence, and reason. I tentatively hold to "big" concepts, and prefer to live in the practical and real world according to the best of my abilities, intellectually and ethically.
So far, as an atheist, I am far better as a person, as a whole, than I ever was as a Christian.
I wouldn't say that this is ALWAYS the case, or even that Christianity doesn't help some people to be better, ie drug addicts. Religions may indeed stabilize societies within certain contexts, and give people hope and optimism and comfort. What they also do is lead people to what is happening in Lebanon and Israel right now...
...by faith. People who won't sit down and dialogue, as we try to do, but instead choose to kill one another for their opposing values.
And that is a tragedy. A travesty.
And you believe that your God leaves all of us down here like this, aloof and cold, to care more about It and what It thinks than to prevent things like this. To spend our time arguing over what It supposedly wants us to know from dusty old parchments of completely ambiguous origins which have undergone unknown revisions to give us the extant oldest copies we have. To spend eternity in hell or heaven. What in the hell was life for? Why not just be expedient and cut to the chase and assign us all there now? What is Jesus waiting for?
Values. Priorities. Perhaps we'll always frustrate one another.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Values
Oh, wait, if we believe in a "god-ordained" antithesis, then I guess not.
I'm up here in Buffalo NY at the CFI Student Leadership Conference on secular humanism. It's kind of funny in how I felt in reading over this thread, and the comments, and having gone to meetings today where we discussed the need to be polite and respectful and even try to connect with those who disagree with us (esp Campus Crusade), to get the issues out before people.
We want more people to hear dissenting and alternative explanations to the worldview of traditional Western theism. Calling them names, and belittling their intellect, is not the best way to get them to seriously dialogue. It's just funny that as a bunch of "godless heathens" up here in Buffalo, we aren't talking about "answering the fools according to their folly" with respect to theists.
I actually don't want to "make" you atheists, or necessarily even convince you that your worldview's presuppositions, esp of taking the dusty old parchments as a sacred oracle, are in error. What I want is to keep the voice of dissent loud, clear, and coherent. You can have your faith, I can't take it from you if I wanted to.
I value science, reason, and humanistically-based ethics.
Your values include faith, divine commands, etc., (not to say you don't value what I do as well). So long as you put faith and what you believe God has told you to do before the practical and scientific realities that we all face together, as humans, it doesn't appear that we will ever make headway with one another. Your values and our values are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but prioritized in an inverse fashion to one another's. And perhaps we both realize this.
And perhaps that's why we both get frustrated at times.
So long as you value the possibility that a man raised from the dead 2000 years ago, and that your book is accurate historically, and that your doctrine of ensoulment is correct, more than you value the possibility that using a glob of amino acids and sugars, which could become a [Christian] person one day, will lead to the alleviation of clear and present pain, suffering, and evils...
We will never move in the same direction. My values point me towards what I can know and experience and those I care about. Your values are quite different. I don't value faith. I value science, evidence, and reason. I tentatively hold to "big" concepts, and prefer to live in the practical and real world according to the best of my abilities, intellectually and ethically.
So far, as an atheist, I am far better as a person, as a whole, than I ever was as a Christian.
I wouldn't say that this is ALWAYS the case, or even that Christianity doesn't help some people to be better, ie drug addicts. Religions may indeed stabilize societies within certain contexts, and give people hope and optimism and comfort. What they also do is lead people to what is happening in Lebanon and Israel right now...
...by faith. People who won't sit down and dialogue, as we try to do, but instead choose to kill one another for their opposing values.
And that is a tragedy. A travesty.
And you believe that your God leaves all of us down here like this, aloof and cold, to care more about It and what It thinks than to prevent things like this. To spend our time arguing over what It supposedly wants us to know from dusty old parchments of completely ambiguous origins which have undergone unknown revisions to give us the extant oldest copies we have. To spend eternity in hell or heaven. What in the hell was life for? Why not just be expedient and cut to the chase and assign us all there now? What is Jesus waiting for?
Values. Priorities. Perhaps we'll always frustrate one another.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Values
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Hovind is Dead, Long Live Hovind!
Hovind got arrested. Hallelujah!
**UPDATE** See the newest and next-newest articles with details.
________________
Technorati tags: Hovind
**UPDATE** See the newest and next-newest articles with details.
________________
Technorati tags: Hovind
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Inconvenient Stuff
Creationists love to wrestle quotes out of context to support their contention that evolution is debunked. They take a scientist, someone competent to assess evolutionary biology, and try to "argue" by putting quote marks around something he/she's said which looks devastatingly affirmative that somehow, someway, these creationists are correct. Time for "tit for tat". A good quote for these dishonest creationists, and some good writing for both them and anti-scientific persons of all sorts, whether climate change deniers or stem cell research critics:
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
Abraham Lincoln, chiding the editor of a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, quoted from Antony Flew, How to Think Straight, p. 17
Along those same lines, I was reading a review of Al Gore's new movie, (HT: PZ) and also a post which sets the historical record straight about George Washington's lack of Christian faith, (HT: Ed Brayton) contrary to what D. James Kennedy wants you to think, and says from behind his pulpit. I found some of the Whiskey Bar's comments particularly relevant to all of these topics in dealing with people who want to have irrational notions reinforced:
________________
Technorati tags: anti-intellectualism, Enlightenment, Creationism, historical revision, D. James Kennedy
...there is something tragic, even a little pathetic, about Gore's stubborn faith in the ability of facts and reasoned argument to save the world...These aren't my darker moments. These are my more common moments. Is America being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Age of Reason? I'm afraid to answer in the affirmative, no matter how hopeful I am that it's true.
...to me it only highlighted the long odds against what Gore is trying to do, which is to speak the language of reason to an increasingly irrational, post-Enlightenment world...
...There’s always been a powerful current of anti-intellectualism in American politics, just as there is in American life. It’s the dark side of democracy: The pressure to accept what the majority, or the most vocal minority, thinks is true as truth – even when the evidence is entirely on the other side. When Henry Ford said history was bunk, he wasn’t taking about the past but about the present, and his ire wasn’t directed at historians per se but at the revisionist historians of the Progressive Era, who were telling him and his fellow know nothings inconvenient facts they didn’t want to hear. Pump Henry full of Hillbilly Heroin and put him on the radio, and you’ve got Rush Limbaugh, still making the same point.
The difference between Ford’s time and Limbaugh’s is that the political presumption against rationality is now shared, or at least pandered to, even at the top of the political and cultural pyramid. It’s curious that people who are paid to think and write for a living, and who, like Gore, attended the “best” schools, are now nearly as susceptible to the politics of ignorance as your average conservative talk show host, but then the elite media ain’t what it used to be. Like academia, it’s fighting a losing rear-guard action against the spirit of the times and the angry, irrational prejudices that go with it...
...In my darker moments, it sometimes seems as if the entire world is in the middle of a fierce backlash against the Age of Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution and the ideological challenges they posed to the old belief systems. The forces of fundamentalism and obscurantism appear to be on the march everywhere – even as the moral and technological challenges posed by a global industrial civilization grow steadily more complex.
________________
Technorati tags: anti-intellectualism, Enlightenment, Creationism, historical revision, D. James Kennedy
Monday, July 10, 2006
COTG 44
The 44th Carnival of the Godless is up at Daylight Atheism, hosted by Ebonmuse.
________________
Technorati tags: COTG
Technorati tags: COTG
Thursday, July 6, 2006
Black Crowes Tickets
I came by two tickets to see the Black Crowes in Tampa at the Ford Ampitheatre tomorrow night, Friday, July 7th, at 7 PM. My wife is sick and I won't be able to go, so I will sell them at face value, perhaps far under, given the late notice. If you are interested, please email me at lucretius.dererumnatura@gmail.com AT ufl DOT edu. See the band's Myspace for more.
________________
Technorati tags: Black Crowes
________________
Technorati tags: Black Crowes
Wednesday, July 5, 2006
On Hume, Skepticism, and Intelligent Design Creationism
In thinking about epistemological skepticism, I had a further thought (or two). Cornelius Hunter, over at idthefuture, as he makes the typical whine against evolution and godlessness in talking about intelligent design creationism (IDC):
Hunter also complains about the appearance of poor design and the implicit evil in designing parasites and things like malaria.
In addition, please hone in on exactly what is "religious" about the smackdown you received in court in Dover?
Speaking of religious, Hunter goes on to say that:
Also, the idea that we should have a sort of expectation of, or at least make room for, miracles in science is almost prima facie evidence of a misunderstanding of the nature of science and of miracles. It isn't just that the scientific method demands skepticism of miracles, it demands evidence to substantiate any claim, inversely proportional to how well-established a claim or observation is:
While a naturalist may not claim that design (natural in appearance or otherwise) is a priori impossible, the absolute lack of explanatory value or mechanism on the part of IDC advocates is a sign that there is simply a lack of evidence in favor of their position. He can argue bias in interpretation all day long, but the dearth of evidence subject to interpretation speaks for itself.
Cornelius, show me your room, with your (apparently) metaphysically-neutral premises. I would love to see it. Please. Ironically, the sort of intelligent designer implied by IDC is far from metaphysically-netural, as it is implicitly supernatural: IDC claims that our place in the cosmos is "privileged" -- the anthropic principle -- this would require the "designer" to have tuned the very physical constants that any naturalistic designer would be controlled by, ergo, being supernatural or the next best thing to it.Miller's misrepresentation of evolution was serious because his testimony influenced the judge, and was cited in the opinion. Evolutionist's arguments entail metaphysical premises, and this is how they can claim their theory is a fact. Without their religious arguments they would be left merely with empirical evidence which fails to support evolution as a fact because there is substantial negative evidence.
Evolution's use of metaphysical premises is well documented. And Miller relies on these heavily in his own writings. But so long as legal testimony represents evolution as just science, courts will continue to miss the elephant in the room.
Hunter also complains about the appearance of poor design and the implicit evil in designing parasites and things like malaria.
In addition, please hone in on exactly what is "religious" about the smackdown you received in court in Dover?
Speaking of religious, Hunter goes on to say that:
Obviously Darwin needed a naturalistic explanation for the species—his religious beliefs ruled out design.There are a few problems with this:
- At the time of his journey on the Voyage of the Beagle, he was certainly not a naturalist [link]
- Darwin only lost faith in the existence of God much later in life, after his daughter's death, and only then became an agnostic [link]
- Even he said that there was no incompatibility between theism and evolution, saying it was, "absurd to doubt that a man can be an ardent Theist and an Evolutionist" [link]
...today scientists will admit that no one knows enough about 'natural law' to say that any event is necessarily a violation of it. They agree that an individual's non-statistical sample of time and space is hardly sufficient ground on which to base immutable generalizations concerning the nature of the entire universe. Today what we commonly term 'natural law' is in fact only our inductive and statistical descriptions of natural phenomena. (James R. Moore, Christianity for the Tough Minded, 1973, p.79)In considering what Moore, and others, attempt to do here, a few points should be made about "today's science" as it is supposed to be qualitatively different than "yesterday's". In particular, theists often seize upon the overturning of Newton's mechanical universe by relativity and quantum physics as some sort of "evidence" that miracles are more likely to occur. This premise is very poorly thought out. The sorts of evidence that were uncovered with paradigm shifts like quantum theory and general relativity did not conflict with the observations made prior to their time; they dovetailed with and explained all the data! OTOH, Hunter's view of IDC would render much of the observed evidence for random mutation and natural selection as the driving forces of evolution from genetics and biology false.
Also, the idea that we should have a sort of expectation of, or at least make room for, miracles in science is almost prima facie evidence of a misunderstanding of the nature of science and of miracles. It isn't just that the scientific method demands skepticism of miracles, it demands evidence to substantiate any claim, inversely proportional to how well-established a claim or observation is:
1. A miracle is by definition a rare occuranceGeisler then goes on to present Hume's "Problem of Induction" (PoI):
2. Natural law is by definition a description of regular occurance
3. The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.
4. Wise individuals always base belief on the greater evidence.
5. Therefore, wise individuals should never believe in miracles.
(Norman Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind, 1992, p.27-28)
Hume speaks of "uniform" experience in his argument against miracles, but this either begs the question or else is special pleading. It begs the question if Hume presumes to know the experience is uniform in advance of looking at the evidence. For how can we know that all possible experience will confirm naturalism, unless we have access to all possible experiences, including those in the future? If, on the other hand, Hume simply means by "uniform" experience the select experiences of some persons (who have not encountered a miracle), then this is special pleading. (ibid, p.28)So at best, Hunter can say that our metaphysical bias must be that we demand an absolute uniformity of nature that is not warranted by induction. Granted. The question is -- does he have evidence of these breaks in uniformity? No.
While a naturalist may not claim that design (natural in appearance or otherwise) is a priori impossible, the absolute lack of explanatory value or mechanism on the part of IDC advocates is a sign that there is simply a lack of evidence in favor of their position. He can argue bias in interpretation all day long, but the dearth of evidence subject to interpretation speaks for itself.
Ashamed of Their Ancestry
A while back, I was reading the idthefuture site, where I was referred to an article at an apologetics site on materialism. Joe Carter, in the article, "The Mystical Monkey Mind: Four Common Errors of Naturalistic Epistemology," presented a quote from Darwin which I saw pop up again the other day:
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
It appears, at first glance, a serious problem: if our minds are "just" monkey brains, why do we trust them? But, as is attributed to Solomon as being said, "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes along to examine him." (Prov 18:17, NIV) Let us examine the argument posed by Joe, Paul Manata, and others.
First, should Darwin's opinion on the matter, without presenting any particular argument for support, hold any weight? Not really. After all, this seems quite self-refuting -- if the man who pieced together the case that we descended from great apes then concluded our minds untrustworthy for that reason, then his "case" is obviously imperiled. In fact, we might make a simple conclusion from this statement: it is self-refuting. Just like making the statement, "I always lie," there is no way to escape the circular destruction of this logic. If your mind's convictions are not trustworthy, how do you even convince yourself of, or trust in, the validity of that conviction?
Also, this argument to reject the soundness of the human mind may be a variant of the genetic fallacy -- based on a categorical rejection of an argument or idea simply based on where it originated, rather than on sound reasoning. What intrinsic feature of monkeys, (apes, actually) or any other higher mammal makes their minds innately untrustworthy? In fact, we can take this a step further, given that Darwin's conclusion about the origins of man are correct, and claim that this actually substantiates the trustworthiness of our minds!
Consider, for a moment, that this argument is rooted in a rejection of the conclusion that men are descendants of apes, but additionally, an inferred premise that men are just that, rather than that and with some sort of God-imbued soul or spirit. The reason we infer this is that those who hold to souls and spirits and such nearly universally consider those intangiable, immaterial aspects of man as somehow giving his mind credibility. Of course, supporting this premise, or opposing it, is not germane at the moment. So, let us cast the question aside of whether or not man has a soul or spirit, and whether those aid in the function and trustworthiness of man's mind, or would detract from it.
What we do know from observing nature is that animals are not "stupid". Animals find clever ways of procuring food and resources. I have seen apes use sticks to poke down into rotten logs and pull out bugs, a simple tool with a necessary function -- eating. The pack behavior displayed by wolves in encircling a weakened or small animal away from the herd requires precise and coordinated movements. Tracking a scent requires a well-developed olfactory function of the brain, as well as a catalogue of "memory scents" which correlate the present smell to one of the categories "food, water, etc." I doubt sincerely that those promoting Darwin's quote above would disagree that animals are quite adept at surviving.
What can we say from that fact alone? Given that animals have an amazing variety of talents at survival, and that the diversity of nature has produced a cooperative evolution (in response to other creatures which evolve), is a kernel of truth present? Yes. We can conclude that animals are capable of learning, and learning requires a degree of understanding that the natural world is, itself, trustworthy. Without the degree of lawlike behavior nature provides, learning some new behavior would be required every second -- no "tools or tricks" would work more than once. But, animals prove to us that nature, though "red in tooth and claw", is not flippant, and the universe is not a giant cartoon with ever-changing properties.
Admittedly, many animals lack the cognitive awareness to recognize the nature of change that they must respond to, and we can call it "just instinct". Great apes are not in this category. The sophistication of the social structure and communication between apes is rather extraordinary. Most people are aware that apes have been taught sign language, even if of limited vocabulary and with toddler-like awkwardness in this form of speech.
Furthermore, when what would become modern man last shared a common ancestor with what is now the chimpanzee, approximately 6 Mya, the one characteristic feature of hominids as they progressed was their tool-making and socialization. Hominids learned not only a few "tricks and tools", they learned many. Their minds were capable of recognizing patterns in nature, and the dependability of natural laws gave them a firm foundation from which their learned and passed-down behaviors and tool-making abilities proved highly successful in the long term. Should they have not had the ability to trust in tried-and-proven methods for procuring food and shelter, we either wouldn't be here to consider it, or at the least, you wouldn't be reading these words on a pixelated screen.
I would argue that there are good reasons to trust ape minds -- they have survived the perils of nature for millions of years, and along the way, learned that they could trust the natural world around them to provide constancy. Those minds that were the brightest, that developed innovative methods for catching fish or making spears, were most likely to exist in a social structure in which this knowledge could be shared and propogate throughout their progeny.
Admittedly, understanding the natural world, as we can conclude that our ancestors (and other animals) did (and still do), is not to be equivocated as all "convictions of the mind." So let's say for a moment that we agree with Darwin that we cannot outright trust our convictions. So what? What we know we can do, because this is how we arrived where we are, is to test our convictions via actions and experiment, keep those things that provide us with a tangiable benefit, and relegate to the bin of skepticism those things that are forever beyond our proving. When the only concern on our hominid ancestors' minds was survival, it is quite unlikely that they had the time to sit around and ask, "what is the nature of consciousness?" or "what is the nature of the cosmos?" Since they were so successful in employing their minds in the pursuit of survival, we can trust our minds in at least that sense -- at providing us with a sound means of furthering our species.
Now that we stand on the shoulders of their accomplishments, the success they proved in surviving has given us a novel ability -- to sit around and use these minds to ask questions which do not, arguably, impinge directly upon our survival. In so doing, we develop certain convictions about the universe, and our place in it. If Darwin's quote can be taken at face value, all it really tells us is that these convictions of the mind are not as dependable as the laws of nature which provided these minds.
Darwin pointed out, and rightly so, that we are but a part of nature. Being a part of some system X, or outside of some black box Y, carries with it limitations in objectively observing X, or being able to get inside of and know Y. Because human beings are part of the natural universe, and are products of that universe, they will always be limited in their perspective on certain features of the universe. That warrants skepticism. It does not, however, warrant throwing out those things we have learned from nature, secrets that we have wrested away from the blind, mute, and uncaring universe. Why should we abandon trust in the regularity and uniformity of nature, when it has brought us this far? Why should we relegate the method of testing and applying knowledge tentatively, until it proves itself (via the scientific method, or in pragmatic real life experience) enough for us to "trust" it, to the trash can? That method is what led to tools, and to skyscrapers. Its success is as apparent as our own existence, and with tangiable results that "trust" alone has never given us.
Why trust a monkey mind? If we want to survive, we must trust our minds. If we do not want to be self-refuting, we must trust our minds. That said, need we trust its convictions as if they are representative of the permanance and inviolate laws of nature? Of course not. Don't trust it absolutely. Test its convictions against the sounding board of Nature. Even when it provides tangiable and practical results, there is no need to consider its convictions immutable. That is the heart of skepticism, and it seems we have from the evolution-deniers not an argument to reject the best conclusions based on the evidence we can make, but instead an argument to reject any position except epistemological skepticism. And that's fine with me.
I would flip the table on our special creationist friends and ask, if instead of the uniformity of nature, and the laws of physics, our minds were the products of some divine fiat or "poof" mechanism, why should we trust that? While we can know our universe to at least a limited extent, and recognize that its symmetry, its uniformity, and its material properties give rise to minds which are at least semi-quantifiable and semi-understandable, we know nothing of "spirit" and "soul". We know nothing of what those substances are, how they contribute to mind, and what properties they would confer to mind.
It seems that our anti-evolutionists are ashamed of their ancestry, that our friends feel probably unlike the other animals, and not nearly so mundane, but elevated in stature above nature. That is a conviction I couldn't trust, whether with a "spirit" or "soul" or just my material mind. I know myself too well to deny the claws on the ends of my fingers, the sparse fur that covers my body, the instinctive dilation of my pupils and adrenaline rush at the sign of danger. I know myself too well to deny that I am still an animal. An animal that trusts its mind and instincts, but not absolutely. I am not ashamed of it, and would ask them why they are...
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Darwin, Evolution, Epistemology, monkey mind
First, should Darwin's opinion on the matter, without presenting any particular argument for support, hold any weight? Not really. After all, this seems quite self-refuting -- if the man who pieced together the case that we descended from great apes then concluded our minds untrustworthy for that reason, then his "case" is obviously imperiled. In fact, we might make a simple conclusion from this statement: it is self-refuting. Just like making the statement, "I always lie," there is no way to escape the circular destruction of this logic. If your mind's convictions are not trustworthy, how do you even convince yourself of, or trust in, the validity of that conviction?
Also, this argument to reject the soundness of the human mind may be a variant of the genetic fallacy -- based on a categorical rejection of an argument or idea simply based on where it originated, rather than on sound reasoning. What intrinsic feature of monkeys, (apes, actually) or any other higher mammal makes their minds innately untrustworthy? In fact, we can take this a step further, given that Darwin's conclusion about the origins of man are correct, and claim that this actually substantiates the trustworthiness of our minds!
Consider, for a moment, that this argument is rooted in a rejection of the conclusion that men are descendants of apes, but additionally, an inferred premise that men are just that, rather than that and with some sort of God-imbued soul or spirit. The reason we infer this is that those who hold to souls and spirits and such nearly universally consider those intangiable, immaterial aspects of man as somehow giving his mind credibility. Of course, supporting this premise, or opposing it, is not germane at the moment. So, let us cast the question aside of whether or not man has a soul or spirit, and whether those aid in the function and trustworthiness of man's mind, or would detract from it.
What we do know from observing nature is that animals are not "stupid". Animals find clever ways of procuring food and resources. I have seen apes use sticks to poke down into rotten logs and pull out bugs, a simple tool with a necessary function -- eating. The pack behavior displayed by wolves in encircling a weakened or small animal away from the herd requires precise and coordinated movements. Tracking a scent requires a well-developed olfactory function of the brain, as well as a catalogue of "memory scents" which correlate the present smell to one of the categories "food, water, etc." I doubt sincerely that those promoting Darwin's quote above would disagree that animals are quite adept at surviving.
What can we say from that fact alone? Given that animals have an amazing variety of talents at survival, and that the diversity of nature has produced a cooperative evolution (in response to other creatures which evolve), is a kernel of truth present? Yes. We can conclude that animals are capable of learning, and learning requires a degree of understanding that the natural world is, itself, trustworthy. Without the degree of lawlike behavior nature provides, learning some new behavior would be required every second -- no "tools or tricks" would work more than once. But, animals prove to us that nature, though "red in tooth and claw", is not flippant, and the universe is not a giant cartoon with ever-changing properties.
Admittedly, many animals lack the cognitive awareness to recognize the nature of change that they must respond to, and we can call it "just instinct". Great apes are not in this category. The sophistication of the social structure and communication between apes is rather extraordinary. Most people are aware that apes have been taught sign language, even if of limited vocabulary and with toddler-like awkwardness in this form of speech.
Furthermore, when what would become modern man last shared a common ancestor with what is now the chimpanzee, approximately 6 Mya, the one characteristic feature of hominids as they progressed was their tool-making and socialization. Hominids learned not only a few "tricks and tools", they learned many. Their minds were capable of recognizing patterns in nature, and the dependability of natural laws gave them a firm foundation from which their learned and passed-down behaviors and tool-making abilities proved highly successful in the long term. Should they have not had the ability to trust in tried-and-proven methods for procuring food and shelter, we either wouldn't be here to consider it, or at the least, you wouldn't be reading these words on a pixelated screen.
I would argue that there are good reasons to trust ape minds -- they have survived the perils of nature for millions of years, and along the way, learned that they could trust the natural world around them to provide constancy. Those minds that were the brightest, that developed innovative methods for catching fish or making spears, were most likely to exist in a social structure in which this knowledge could be shared and propogate throughout their progeny.
Admittedly, understanding the natural world, as we can conclude that our ancestors (and other animals) did (and still do), is not to be equivocated as all "convictions of the mind." So let's say for a moment that we agree with Darwin that we cannot outright trust our convictions. So what? What we know we can do, because this is how we arrived where we are, is to test our convictions via actions and experiment, keep those things that provide us with a tangiable benefit, and relegate to the bin of skepticism those things that are forever beyond our proving. When the only concern on our hominid ancestors' minds was survival, it is quite unlikely that they had the time to sit around and ask, "what is the nature of consciousness?" or "what is the nature of the cosmos?" Since they were so successful in employing their minds in the pursuit of survival, we can trust our minds in at least that sense -- at providing us with a sound means of furthering our species.
Now that we stand on the shoulders of their accomplishments, the success they proved in surviving has given us a novel ability -- to sit around and use these minds to ask questions which do not, arguably, impinge directly upon our survival. In so doing, we develop certain convictions about the universe, and our place in it. If Darwin's quote can be taken at face value, all it really tells us is that these convictions of the mind are not as dependable as the laws of nature which provided these minds.
Darwin pointed out, and rightly so, that we are but a part of nature. Being a part of some system X, or outside of some black box Y, carries with it limitations in objectively observing X, or being able to get inside of and know Y. Because human beings are part of the natural universe, and are products of that universe, they will always be limited in their perspective on certain features of the universe. That warrants skepticism. It does not, however, warrant throwing out those things we have learned from nature, secrets that we have wrested away from the blind, mute, and uncaring universe. Why should we abandon trust in the regularity and uniformity of nature, when it has brought us this far? Why should we relegate the method of testing and applying knowledge tentatively, until it proves itself (via the scientific method, or in pragmatic real life experience) enough for us to "trust" it, to the trash can? That method is what led to tools, and to skyscrapers. Its success is as apparent as our own existence, and with tangiable results that "trust" alone has never given us.
Why trust a monkey mind? If we want to survive, we must trust our minds. If we do not want to be self-refuting, we must trust our minds. That said, need we trust its convictions as if they are representative of the permanance and inviolate laws of nature? Of course not. Don't trust it absolutely. Test its convictions against the sounding board of Nature. Even when it provides tangiable and practical results, there is no need to consider its convictions immutable. That is the heart of skepticism, and it seems we have from the evolution-deniers not an argument to reject the best conclusions based on the evidence we can make, but instead an argument to reject any position except epistemological skepticism. And that's fine with me.
I would flip the table on our special creationist friends and ask, if instead of the uniformity of nature, and the laws of physics, our minds were the products of some divine fiat or "poof" mechanism, why should we trust that? While we can know our universe to at least a limited extent, and recognize that its symmetry, its uniformity, and its material properties give rise to minds which are at least semi-quantifiable and semi-understandable, we know nothing of "spirit" and "soul". We know nothing of what those substances are, how they contribute to mind, and what properties they would confer to mind.
It seems that our anti-evolutionists are ashamed of their ancestry, that our friends feel probably unlike the other animals, and not nearly so mundane, but elevated in stature above nature. That is a conviction I couldn't trust, whether with a "spirit" or "soul" or just my material mind. I know myself too well to deny the claws on the ends of my fingers, the sparse fur that covers my body, the instinctive dilation of my pupils and adrenaline rush at the sign of danger. I know myself too well to deny that I am still an animal. An animal that trusts its mind and instincts, but not absolutely. I am not ashamed of it, and would ask them why they are...
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Darwin, Evolution, Epistemology, monkey mind
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)