Instead of asking what an idea does for a person, ask what that person does for the idea.
In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins introduces the meme as a mental equivalent to the physical gene. Some ideas survive and reproduce while others die out in a struggle for existence.
Gnostics and Shakers believed that birth is trapping a pure soul in a corrupt body, so they avoided sex. They also believed that their shining pure example would inspire others, so they did not evangelize. As a result no one is a Gnostic or a Shaker anymore. The memes are dead -- they failed to survive and reproduce.
Mormons and Catholics believe in marrying early and having as many children as possible. Both groups also have a strong emphasis on evangelizing. As a result, there are lots of Mormons and Catholics in the world. The memes are thriving -- they succeeded in surving and reproducing in the minds of new believers.
Imagine two groups of people. One group doesn't really care what people believe. The other group has a strong commitment to make other people believe the same thing. Certainly within a few generations the stronger meme will outnumber the weaker meme.
This doesn't mean that Mormons and Catholics are right and that Gnostics and Shakers are wrong anymore than dandilions are right and grass is wrong. Instead, it means that one set of memes spreads more aggressively than the other.
Avoiding the Tolerance Paradox
Tolerance is a virtue. But the common view of tolerance requires allowing everyone to do whatever they want. That raises the problem of being tolerant to obviously intolerable actions such as rape and genocide. To generalize, the common view of tolerance entails the paradox of being tolerant to those who are intolerant.
For example, conservative Christians sometimes argue that tolerance requires allowing them to oppress homosexuals. To argue that Christians should accept homosexuals, they argue, is to stifle Christian freedom. Tolerance, they argue, requires allowing Christians to oppress homosexuals.
The common view of tolerance is flawed. Tolerance is allowing individuals to have their own private life of their own choosing while we also behave according to fair rules in public / social / legal spheres. The sanctitiy of a private life of one's own choosing is paramount. While it is difficult to draw a clear line between the private and the public, it is evident that there is a difference.
Tolerance requires tolerance only to those who respect the sanctity of the private life -- by implication tolerance is consistent with stopping those who are trying to interfere with other individuals' private lives. Rape and genocide are clear violations of this sanctity.
The conservative Christian believes that they have a God given right to interfere with the private lives of others. This cannot be tolerated.
For example, conservative Christians sometimes argue that tolerance requires allowing them to oppress homosexuals. To argue that Christians should accept homosexuals, they argue, is to stifle Christian freedom. Tolerance, they argue, requires allowing Christians to oppress homosexuals.
The common view of tolerance is flawed. Tolerance is allowing individuals to have their own private life of their own choosing while we also behave according to fair rules in public / social / legal spheres. The sanctitiy of a private life of one's own choosing is paramount. While it is difficult to draw a clear line between the private and the public, it is evident that there is a difference.
Tolerance requires tolerance only to those who respect the sanctity of the private life -- by implication tolerance is consistent with stopping those who are trying to interfere with other individuals' private lives. Rape and genocide are clear violations of this sanctity.
The conservative Christian believes that they have a God given right to interfere with the private lives of others. This cannot be tolerated.
The Meaning of Pavement
Pavement means that we want nothing green to grow here ever again. If something manages to sneak through a crack and grow, we will pour hot tar on it. We want nothing green here.
Consider how much more pavement there is in the world now than just one hundred years ago. Consider how much more pavement there will be in just one hundred years. More pavement means less green.
Consider how much more pavement there is in the world now than just one hundred years ago. Consider how much more pavement there will be in just one hundred years. More pavement means less green.
The War between the Conservatives
Here in the U.S., there are conservatives who are eager for more warfare in the Middle East and there are liberals who want to pull our troops out of there. In Middle Eastern countries, there are conservatives who are eager for more warfare with “The Great Satan,” and there are liberals who embrace Western culture and want an end to the violence.
“The War on Terror” is the wrong name for this conflict. It should be called “The War between the Conservatives.”
“The War on Terror” is the wrong name for this conflict. It should be called “The War between the Conservatives.”
Obviously Arbitrary Authorities
Heard this morning on a Christian radio station: “The Koran states that God is not a father, has no children, and that you’ll burn in Hell for believing that He is a father who has a son. But John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son so that those who believe will have eternal life.”
Two religious texts, both claiming to be the only true word of the only true god, contain completely opposite statements about this basic theological question. How can this be? Here are some possible explanations:
Perhaps God changed His story later and denied ever impregnating a married woman. (Or was she a young virgin? I’m so confused…)
Perhaps both texts are correct – perhaps God transcends our mortal notions of binary Logic (true / false, father / son) and religious texts are like kaleidoscopes that illuminate fragments of the stained glass window that is THE TRUTH.
Or perhaps these are just books written by men with agendas, charisma, issues, problems, and undiagnosed psychological traumas that make them hear voices. Perhaps it is time to realize that none of these books are really what they claim to be.
Two religious texts, both claiming to be the only true word of the only true god, contain completely opposite statements about this basic theological question. How can this be? Here are some possible explanations:
Perhaps God changed His story later and denied ever impregnating a married woman. (Or was she a young virgin? I’m so confused…)
Perhaps both texts are correct – perhaps God transcends our mortal notions of binary Logic (true / false, father / son) and religious texts are like kaleidoscopes that illuminate fragments of the stained glass window that is THE TRUTH.
Or perhaps these are just books written by men with agendas, charisma, issues, problems, and undiagnosed psychological traumas that make them hear voices. Perhaps it is time to realize that none of these books are really what they claim to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
