One theme in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest is letting go of control of the self. The characters in AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and NA (Narcotics Anonymous) learn that control of the self is what got them into trouble with alcohol and drugs. Don Gately calls it his Spider. By squishing his Spider, by handing over his brain to be washed, by letting go, Don Gately learns to live without alcohol and drugs. He is set free of the cage of control. He doesn't even understand why it works and understanding why it works ruins the loss of control. He is told to Fake It Until He Makes It (DFW's all caps). The AA/NA nightly meetings are full of trite expressions like One Day At a Time. Rejecting these obvious truths is to regain control and end up back in the death spiral of alcohol and drugs.
In DFW's list of things you might learn at AA/NA is the claim that God does not care whether you believe in God or not. Don Gately prays every day for sobriety even though he doesn't believe in God. He doesn't know why his prayers for sobriety work, and he knows that knowing why they work will probably ruin it.
At the elite tennis academy bright Hal obsesses over over-analyzing his tennis game because self-awareness ruins the zone that top athletes strive to achieve. The zone is the Zen like lack of self-awareness that can be achieved when one has hit a tennis ball a few million times by age seventeen.
A prominent bar in Infinite Jest is The Unexamined Life. According to Socrates, the unexamined life is not worth living. Infinite Jest may suggest otherwise.
Hooray USA!
God bless the USA for electing Barrack Obama. Let's hope he can live up to half the hype. He will already have enough enemies in the world for a variety of reasons. He does not need more enemies. He needs our help in making this a better country.
mental mutts and contagious memes
Steven Jay Gould argues for punctuated equilibrium. This is against the common view of evolution as a steady upward climb to humans. Instead, Gould argues that mass extinctions open new niches that are quickly exploited by the survivors.
After a mass extinction, there are fewer predators and fewer competitors. Survivors can be isolated from each other for a long time. A greater variety in each species can survive resulting in a greater diversity of each individuals. More species, greater variety, experimentation, an explosion of activity -- this is the "punctuated" part.
But eventually the environment is crowded, there are more predators, and the variety is paired down to the most viable. This is the "equilibrium" part -- and it could last for millions of years, as it did several times for the dinosaurs. But there is always the next mass extinction event.
Where are we? I think that we are in the "equilibrium" part. No one knows how long this one will last. And we seem to be engineering our own mass extinction event. But there is plenty already written about that.
Instead, consider the "punctuated" part of our past. The earliest big brained humanoids found a hitherto unexploited niche -- the mental world. No other animal can come close to the mental world created by humans -- and the first big brained humanoids were the prehistoric pioneers in this world.
There is every reason to think that there was an explosion of experimentation in early big brained humanoids (just as Gould's theory would suggest). We know the Neanderthal were a different kind of big brained humanoid. Perhaps there were a dozen different kinds of big brained humanoids who first pioneered the mental world. Humans are probably mental mutts.
Early big brained humanoids bred memes and passed them like contagion. Some memes kept the humanoids alive better (creating fire, making a flint spear head, where to find good red berries, etc.). But no meme survives without being contagious. If I have an idea, and I never tell anyone about my idea, that idea dies with me. My idea will only survive if I can show others how to create fire, how to make a flint spear head, and where to find those good red berries.
But the contagiousness of a meme is not necessarily connected to its ability to keep the host brain alive. The contagiousness of a meme requires the host to be alive long enough to pass it on, and for that the more excited the host wishes to pass on the meme the more likely the meme will survive. Thus the evangelical meme.
After a mass extinction, there are fewer predators and fewer competitors. Survivors can be isolated from each other for a long time. A greater variety in each species can survive resulting in a greater diversity of each individuals. More species, greater variety, experimentation, an explosion of activity -- this is the "punctuated" part.
But eventually the environment is crowded, there are more predators, and the variety is paired down to the most viable. This is the "equilibrium" part -- and it could last for millions of years, as it did several times for the dinosaurs. But there is always the next mass extinction event.
Where are we? I think that we are in the "equilibrium" part. No one knows how long this one will last. And we seem to be engineering our own mass extinction event. But there is plenty already written about that.
Instead, consider the "punctuated" part of our past. The earliest big brained humanoids found a hitherto unexploited niche -- the mental world. No other animal can come close to the mental world created by humans -- and the first big brained humanoids were the prehistoric pioneers in this world.
There is every reason to think that there was an explosion of experimentation in early big brained humanoids (just as Gould's theory would suggest). We know the Neanderthal were a different kind of big brained humanoid. Perhaps there were a dozen different kinds of big brained humanoids who first pioneered the mental world. Humans are probably mental mutts.
Early big brained humanoids bred memes and passed them like contagion. Some memes kept the humanoids alive better (creating fire, making a flint spear head, where to find good red berries, etc.). But no meme survives without being contagious. If I have an idea, and I never tell anyone about my idea, that idea dies with me. My idea will only survive if I can show others how to create fire, how to make a flint spear head, and where to find those good red berries.
But the contagiousness of a meme is not necessarily connected to its ability to keep the host brain alive. The contagiousness of a meme requires the host to be alive long enough to pass it on, and for that the more excited the host wishes to pass on the meme the more likely the meme will survive. Thus the evangelical meme.
Liberalism is not Relativism
Relativism is the belief that there is no One Truth. Instead, every group (or perhaps everyone!) has their own truth. My truth is different from your truth. Our truth is different from their truth.
But this is nonsense. You believe something because you think that it is true -- you believe that it accurately describes the world. It sounds trivial but you believe that your beliefs are true, otherwise you'd change your beliefs!
It is easy to prove that we live in the same world because we can interact with each other without traveling to another world.
We all believe different things and each of us may be wrong about our beliefs. In fact, it is logically impossible for all of us to be right since we believe different things about fundamental issues. It is logically impossible for all metaphysical systems to be true since they are contradictory. It is possible that all of them are false. It is possible that one of them is true.
But it is most likely that we will never truly know the answers to life's biggest questions.
I believe in atheism, materialism, environmentalism, liberalism, a mix of socialism and capitalism, some modified form of utilitarianism, and a laughing Stoicism. I believe these because I think they are true.
Liberalism is not Relativism. Relativists reject Truth and embrace multiple truths as the One Truth. Liberals acknowledge that everyone believes their beliefs to be true and they realize the lesson in humility there.
But this is nonsense. You believe something because you think that it is true -- you believe that it accurately describes the world. It sounds trivial but you believe that your beliefs are true, otherwise you'd change your beliefs!
It is easy to prove that we live in the same world because we can interact with each other without traveling to another world.
We all believe different things and each of us may be wrong about our beliefs. In fact, it is logically impossible for all of us to be right since we believe different things about fundamental issues. It is logically impossible for all metaphysical systems to be true since they are contradictory. It is possible that all of them are false. It is possible that one of them is true.
But it is most likely that we will never truly know the answers to life's biggest questions.
I believe in atheism, materialism, environmentalism, liberalism, a mix of socialism and capitalism, some modified form of utilitarianism, and a laughing Stoicism. I believe these because I think they are true.
Liberalism is not Relativism. Relativists reject Truth and embrace multiple truths as the One Truth. Liberals acknowledge that everyone believes their beliefs to be true and they realize the lesson in humility there.
Everyone has stories
Everything exists in four dimensions, and we bring our stories with us wherever we go. I have chosen not to tell my stories in this blog. Interactions change once stories are told. You feel an obligation to agree. You have shared suffering -- literally, compassion -- and this leads to over identifying with their beliefs. You become easily persuaded.
Do not be easily persuaded here. Please disagree. My beliefs do not require your agreement.
Being a liberal means accepting that other people have the right to be wrong.
Do not be easily persuaded here. Please disagree. My beliefs do not require your agreement.
Being a liberal means accepting that other people have the right to be wrong.
Happy Imperialism
The cowboy puts a happy face on imperialism. He works the land, breaks horses, drives cattle to slaughter, drinks to violence, kills homosexuals, and oppresses women. He helped con the Indian. He hates blacks. He votes Republican.
But he is only one story in America.
But he is only one story in America.
Conservatives in Short Skirts
The Sexy Puritans prove just how easy it is to manipulate men. Ann Coulter wears tight leather -- as does Cindy McCain. Sarah Palin jokes about lipstick and hair. All of them wear very high heels.
Don't think about a pink elephant.
You thought about a pink elephant even though the sentence said otherwise. Now consider that Ann Coulter has written a lot about Bill Clinton's blow jobs. Even though she is strongly condemning his blow jobs, everyone reading long blond hair and short red leather mini skirt Ann Coulter is now thinking about blow jobs. It sells a lot of books.
Don't think about a pink elephant.
You thought about a pink elephant even though the sentence said otherwise. Now consider that Ann Coulter has written a lot about Bill Clinton's blow jobs. Even though she is strongly condemning his blow jobs, everyone reading long blond hair and short red leather mini skirt Ann Coulter is now thinking about blow jobs. It sells a lot of books.
Infinite Zeros
The Existential Problem: if death takes us all in the end, then life is meaningless and worthless.
The Religious Solution: the hope of eternal life gives this life meaning and value.
But if life itself is worthless, then adding more of it does not make it valuable. An infinity of zeros is still zero.
Instead, consider that life is valuable. There is no need to long for a next life.
The Religious Solution: the hope of eternal life gives this life meaning and value.
But if life itself is worthless, then adding more of it does not make it valuable. An infinity of zeros is still zero.
Instead, consider that life is valuable. There is no need to long for a next life.
Ong on Steroids
Walter J. Ong and Marshal McLuhan argue that the invention of the printing press enabled the Protestant Revolution by encouraging Christians to sit by themselves and read the Bible without the help of Priests. Earlier reformers had tried to do this, but without plentiful cheap copies of Scripture this was impossible.
Today we have plentiful cheap copies of everything. While some utopian dreamers think that this might bring us all closer together, the opposite seems to be the case. What the internet enables us to do is to break into even smaller communities of like minded individuals. Instead of unifying us, it Balkanizes us.
I won't read your blog unless I already agree.
Today we have plentiful cheap copies of everything. While some utopian dreamers think that this might bring us all closer together, the opposite seems to be the case. What the internet enables us to do is to break into even smaller communities of like minded individuals. Instead of unifying us, it Balkanizes us.
I won't read your blog unless I already agree.
Christian Humulity
Christian humility means believing that the entire cosmos was created just for you.
Morality Doesn't Need Religion
We all know that religion can be used for both good and evil purposes. We all know that a religious person could be either good or evil. This proves that morality is not grounded in religion.
Atheism scares some people because they think that morality requires religion -- take away religion and anything goes. But if that were true then it would be impossible to be an immoral religious person or to be a moral non-religious person. Since both options are possible it follows that morality does not need religion.
If you honestly believe that being watched by God is the only thing keeping you from doing evil things, then please believe.
Atheism scares some people because they think that morality requires religion -- take away religion and anything goes. But if that were true then it would be impossible to be an immoral religious person or to be a moral non-religious person. Since both options are possible it follows that morality does not need religion.
If you honestly believe that being watched by God is the only thing keeping you from doing evil things, then please believe.
Feyerabend's Real and Imagined Motives
Paul Feyerabend wants to isolate science in order to save cultures and politics. In an autobiographical chapter of Against Method, he explains his discomfort at teaching Western Imperialistic Science to diverse and multi-ethnic students. He laments the destruction of so many ways of thinking in the search for The One Big Truth. He writes that science has its ways of thinking and that other believe systems have theirs. That's his imagined motive.
Unfortunately, what he really does is try to undermine science completely. The real motive is nothing more than the familiar one among humanists: "Science Bad, Art Good." Undermining science is not a way of showing that science has its own ways of thinking; rather it is the way of supporting superstitions and ignorance.
Unfortunately, what he really does is try to undermine science completely. The real motive is nothing more than the familiar one among humanists: "Science Bad, Art Good." Undermining science is not a way of showing that science has its own ways of thinking; rather it is the way of supporting superstitions and ignorance.
End of American Democracy
The United States is ripe for a military takeover. The approval rating for Congress has been in the toilet for decades while the military enjoys perhaps the highest approval rating of any public institution. Criticizing the military is now considered unpatriotic heresy while criticizing any level of government is considered healthy. The military is often seen as the only government agency capable of getting anything done but they are constrained by civilian leadership more concerned about reelection that winning. Most potential voters don't bother and haven't for generations.
The Roman Emperors were not kings -- they were military leaders who temporarily took power in a time of crisis. The Senate still met but was ignored. That temporary period lasted a thousand years.
A charismatic general who claims to talk to Jesus could "temporarily" seize power during a crisis and the world's oldest experiment in self-government would return to the world's oldest form of government -- violent theocracy.
The Roman Emperors were not kings -- they were military leaders who temporarily took power in a time of crisis. The Senate still met but was ignored. That temporary period lasted a thousand years.
A charismatic general who claims to talk to Jesus could "temporarily" seize power during a crisis and the world's oldest experiment in self-government would return to the world's oldest form of government -- violent theocracy.
The Axis of Literacy
The German historian Karl Jaspers grouped Socrates, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Gottama Buddha and other contemporary ancient thinkers into "The Axial Age" because it seems as though history turns on an axis and moves in a different direction afterwards. How did this happen? Why are these great thinkers roughly contemporary?
Not all ancient societies experienced this Great Awakening -- only those with established literacy. The Ancient Greeks, Indians, and Chinese had a written language that was easier and more widely used than older systems such as the Egyptian. This cannot be a coincidence. Established literacy enabled philosophy.
The "Magic Book" approach is really a supernatural version of this insight.
Not all ancient societies experienced this Great Awakening -- only those with established literacy. The Ancient Greeks, Indians, and Chinese had a written language that was easier and more widely used than older systems such as the Egyptian. This cannot be a coincidence. Established literacy enabled philosophy.
The "Magic Book" approach is really a supernatural version of this insight.
Elvish Irony
J.R.R. Tolkien explicitly stated that he wanted to create a new mythology for the English because their native mythology was so incomplete. He failed to realize that his beloved Christianity was the primary cause of the destruction of native English mythology.
Early evangelists destroyed sacred trees to prove the impotence of the pagan gods. They deliberately built churches on top of ancient temples. They turned the sylvan elves into demons and devils.
Christians succeeded in demythologizing the world and we have the environmental scars to prove it.
Early evangelists destroyed sacred trees to prove the impotence of the pagan gods. They deliberately built churches on top of ancient temples. They turned the sylvan elves into demons and devils.
Christians succeeded in demythologizing the world and we have the environmental scars to prove it.
Scapegoat Logic
Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins. They believe that when the Romans publicly tortured and executed him, his innocent blood washed away the stain of sin. Paul states that sin came into the world by one man (Adam) and left through another one man (Jesus).
This is the logic of a scapegoat. A group of evil people will atone for their evilness by putting all of their evilness into an innocent creature and then publicly torturing and killing it. In scapegoat logic, performing an evil act is not evil.
Heraclitus wrote 2,500 years ago: "They vainly purify themselves with blood when defiled with it, as if a man who had stepped into mud were to wash it off with mud. He would be thought mad if anyone noticed him acting thus." (Richard D. McKirahan, translator)
Consider an analogy. Suppose that a violent street gang wanted to clean up. Instead of, say, giving themselves up to the police and accepting their punishment, let us suppose that they followed scapegoat logic. This street gang would publicly torture and kill an innocent person and claim to be cleaned of their wicked ways.
I will never understand scapegoat logic. I will never understand why otherwise intelligent people proudly carry the symbol of the public torture and death of an innocent man.
This is the logic of a scapegoat. A group of evil people will atone for their evilness by putting all of their evilness into an innocent creature and then publicly torturing and killing it. In scapegoat logic, performing an evil act is not evil.
Heraclitus wrote 2,500 years ago: "They vainly purify themselves with blood when defiled with it, as if a man who had stepped into mud were to wash it off with mud. He would be thought mad if anyone noticed him acting thus." (Richard D. McKirahan, translator)
Consider an analogy. Suppose that a violent street gang wanted to clean up. Instead of, say, giving themselves up to the police and accepting their punishment, let us suppose that they followed scapegoat logic. This street gang would publicly torture and kill an innocent person and claim to be cleaned of their wicked ways.
I will never understand scapegoat logic. I will never understand why otherwise intelligent people proudly carry the symbol of the public torture and death of an innocent man.
Rorty and his critics
Rorty recognizes particular contingencies and enjoys writing that our traditions did not have to be this particular way. He loves individual idiosyncrasies.
His critics generally argue that Rorty is missing the role of general necessities. Rorty often implies that since things could have been otherwise, then everything goes. He fails to see that we can't have just anything go since not everything will go. There are general constraints on what memes we use.
His critics generally argue that Rorty is missing the role of general necessities. Rorty often implies that since things could have been otherwise, then everything goes. He fails to see that we can't have just anything go since not everything will go. There are general constraints on what memes we use.
General Necessities and Particular Contingencies
The Joy of Cooking is now over 75 years old. It was originally written by a widow in her 50's who was reacting to the lack of a pragmatic cookbook on the market. It grew into a large enterprise with historical eccentricities that helped make it unique. This history inspires loyalty.
But if it had never been, there would have been something else that filled its place with different idiosyncrasies. As long as this other possible cookbook was useful, the uniqueness of it would have inspired loyalty.
There are general necessities that could have been filled by any cookbook. The Joy of Cooking happened to be the one to fill that general meme niche with its particular contingencies; but it easily could have been another cookbook to satisfy this general necessity with different particular contingencies.
Holy Books are the same way. There is a general necessity, a meme niche, that is filled by magic books. The particular contingencies, the unique idiosyncrasies, of these books could have been otherwise.
Another example: there is a general need for measuring time, but the particularly weird method we use didn't have to be this way -- we could easily be using a base 10 numbering system for time rather than base 60. We need to measure time (general necessity or meme niche) but we don't have to measure time in this way (particular contingencies).
It is wrong to think that our method of measuring time must be this way. It is wrong to think that a cookbook must have been written this way. It is wrong to think that the Bible must have been written this way. Something else with different particular contingencies could have filled that general necessity just as easily.
But if it had never been, there would have been something else that filled its place with different idiosyncrasies. As long as this other possible cookbook was useful, the uniqueness of it would have inspired loyalty.
There are general necessities that could have been filled by any cookbook. The Joy of Cooking happened to be the one to fill that general meme niche with its particular contingencies; but it easily could have been another cookbook to satisfy this general necessity with different particular contingencies.
Holy Books are the same way. There is a general necessity, a meme niche, that is filled by magic books. The particular contingencies, the unique idiosyncrasies, of these books could have been otherwise.
Another example: there is a general need for measuring time, but the particularly weird method we use didn't have to be this way -- we could easily be using a base 10 numbering system for time rather than base 60. We need to measure time (general necessity or meme niche) but we don't have to measure time in this way (particular contingencies).
It is wrong to think that our method of measuring time must be this way. It is wrong to think that a cookbook must have been written this way. It is wrong to think that the Bible must have been written this way. Something else with different particular contingencies could have filled that general necessity just as easily.
Progress and Old Truth
Conservatives believe that they have the truth -- why else would they be conservatives? They want to hold onto their correct way of thinking and they oppose changing their way of thinking.
George Washington was a great soldier, statesman, and president. But he didn't know that washing your hands killed deadly germs. Doctors at the time killed Washington using leeches to suck out disease. Washington didn't even have aspirin. There are many many important things that George Washington didn't know.
It is just foolish to believe that any past figure had the truth and that the best thing we should do is hold onto it. It is incredible to consider that some people will reject the latest scientific research simply because a story was written down thousands of years ago by desert nomads who claimed to hear God's voice
George Washington was a great soldier, statesman, and president. But he didn't know that washing your hands killed deadly germs. Doctors at the time killed Washington using leeches to suck out disease. Washington didn't even have aspirin. There are many many important things that George Washington didn't know.
It is just foolish to believe that any past figure had the truth and that the best thing we should do is hold onto it. It is incredible to consider that some people will reject the latest scientific research simply because a story was written down thousands of years ago by desert nomads who claimed to hear God's voice
Immoderate Moderates
Claiming to be a "moderate" is a sly way to call your opponent a radical.
"I am a moderate" means "I speak the truth and you are a raving lunatic."
"I am a moderate" means "I speak the truth and you are a raving lunatic."
A Foma gives confidence
Vonnegut says that a "foma" is a harmless untruth that sooths simple souls.
Dennett uses the image of Dumbo believing that the magic crow feather makes him fly.
Believing that the Creator of the Universe is really on your side in your struggles to make it in the world gives you a lot of confidence. Confidence is a necessary ingredient to success in practically anything worthwhile. The belief gives confidence which breeds success which reinforces the belief.
I would leave them to their beliefs if only they would change their ways about sex, pleasure, and the planet.
Dennett uses the image of Dumbo believing that the magic crow feather makes him fly.
Believing that the Creator of the Universe is really on your side in your struggles to make it in the world gives you a lot of confidence. Confidence is a necessary ingredient to success in practically anything worthwhile. The belief gives confidence which breeds success which reinforces the belief.
I would leave them to their beliefs if only they would change their ways about sex, pleasure, and the planet.
The Evangelizing Meme
Imagine two groups of people. One group's way of life is directed by a set of beliefs that are very relaxed... very live and let live. The other group is directed by a set of jealous beliefs so that these people insist that other people believe and behave in the same way. Obviously the more aggressive evangelizing meme will thrive. There is no connection to truth here anymore than dandelions are more true than grass. The meme for aggressively converting as many other minds as possible must have been selected early in the development of cultural evolution.
Magic Books
Recently a Mormon tried to convince me of the pedigree of their magic book. I was supposed to believe that a 17 year old man found in the wilderness of upstate New York a set of golden tablets written in "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" and translated by means of magic translating stones. The solid proof was that others living in that hotbed of religious revivalism and experimentation (historians call it "the burnt over district") claim to have witnessed the event.
Lots of people have magic books and claim excellent pedigrees. Muslims tell great stories about the veracity of theirs. Jews can attest to the veracity of Torah. Protestants and Catholics each tell stories of their versions of the Bible -- often blaming the other for hiding the true version. Hindus have many books they discuss. Buddhists have magic books. Even Confucians. Ba'hai do too.
While we're at it, Scientologists have the magic books of L. Ron Hubbard. Christian Scientists have their own. As did Shakers.
A thousand other groups have magic books and they all tell stories of veracity. Each one believes that the other thousand groups have it wrong, or at least not quite right. Besides, it is logically impossible for them all to be right since they disagree on fundamental issues. Odds are that they are all wrong and the tendency to tell stories about magic books tell us something about being human.
Somewhere Nietzsche writes that perhaps God has a speech impediment, for He is certainly having difficulty getting His Word across.
Lots of people have magic books and claim excellent pedigrees. Muslims tell great stories about the veracity of theirs. Jews can attest to the veracity of Torah. Protestants and Catholics each tell stories of their versions of the Bible -- often blaming the other for hiding the true version. Hindus have many books they discuss. Buddhists have magic books. Even Confucians. Ba'hai do too.
While we're at it, Scientologists have the magic books of L. Ron Hubbard. Christian Scientists have their own. As did Shakers.
A thousand other groups have magic books and they all tell stories of veracity. Each one believes that the other thousand groups have it wrong, or at least not quite right. Besides, it is logically impossible for them all to be right since they disagree on fundamental issues. Odds are that they are all wrong and the tendency to tell stories about magic books tell us something about being human.
Somewhere Nietzsche writes that perhaps God has a speech impediment, for He is certainly having difficulty getting His Word across.
Science of Ben Stein's Nazis
Ben Stein points out correctly that the Nazis used evolutionary theory in part of their justification for their final solution. Stein infers that such a connection is further evidence that evolution is false and dangerous.
But the Nazis only used evolutionary theory in rhetoric. They didn't build a better bomb using evolutionary theory.
By contrast, they did build better weaponry using Newtonian mechanics. If we are to follow Stein's inference, then Newtonian mechanics should be considered false and dangerous due to this Nazi connection. Reductio ad absurdum.
But the Nazis only used evolutionary theory in rhetoric. They didn't build a better bomb using evolutionary theory.
By contrast, they did build better weaponry using Newtonian mechanics. If we are to follow Stein's inference, then Newtonian mechanics should be considered false and dangerous due to this Nazi connection. Reductio ad absurdum.
Were any dinosaurs Mormon?
If the purpose of the planet is to create as many Mormons as possible, then why did God take so long to make any Mormons? He wasted millions of years on the dinosaurs and not one of them became a Mormon. So, if it is so important that there are as many Mormons as possible, why are there millions of years without any Mormons?
Your guess and our fate
There must be a distinction between knowledge and a guess. The traditional answer, dating back to at least Plato, is that knowledge requires some justification whereas a guess does not. Without a good justification for your religious beliefs, your faith is really just a guess.
Under normal circumstances, I would applaud that someone made a guess that I would not. There is no harm to me. I might learn from their mistakes or successes.
But many religious guesses come with other consequences -- most notably the commandment to go forth and multiply while you subdue the land. This will lead to environmental destruction and over population.
Unlike other creatures, we can choose to curb our own growth. Or Nature will check it with famine, disease, etc.
Under normal circumstances, I would applaud that someone made a guess that I would not. There is no harm to me. I might learn from their mistakes or successes.
But many religious guesses come with other consequences -- most notably the commandment to go forth and multiply while you subdue the land. This will lead to environmental destruction and over population.
Unlike other creatures, we can choose to curb our own growth. Or Nature will check it with famine, disease, etc.
Who Created God?
Religious people think that it is a smart question to ask what came before the Big Bang. They cannot imagine a causal chain coming to an end with just another event without a prior cause. This, they think reveals that there must be a God who created the Big Bang.
They fail to realize that this same line of thinking can be applied to God. If God is your explanation for how the world is, then what created God?
They fail to realize that this same line of thinking can be applied to God. If God is your explanation for how the world is, then what created God?
Sophists and the law
The ancient Sophists argued that human law is all made up and often in conflict with natural law. They argued that the only real reason for following these made up human laws is the fear of getting caught and punished. So, they reasoned, if no one is watching, then go ahead and break those arbitrary laws.
This is similar to contemporary debates about the law. Liberals claim that our laws about marriage are just made up, and so we can make them up differently to allow same sex marriages. Conservatives claim that these are natural laws and to change them would radically alter the fabric of reality. Which is it?
As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Human laws are arbitrary, but it is not arbitrary that we have laws. Consider driving. It is completely arbitrary that we drive on the right side of the road. But it is necessary that we all drive on the same side.
This is similar to contemporary debates about the law. Liberals claim that our laws about marriage are just made up, and so we can make them up differently to allow same sex marriages. Conservatives claim that these are natural laws and to change them would radically alter the fabric of reality. Which is it?
As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Human laws are arbitrary, but it is not arbitrary that we have laws. Consider driving. It is completely arbitrary that we drive on the right side of the road. But it is necessary that we all drive on the same side.
Why "Intelligent Design" is not Science
"Intelligent Design" (ID) writers try to use Thomas Kuhn's theories to justify their approach, but they focus exclusively on the most rare of scientific happenings: the paradigm shift that occurs during revolutionary science. During a revolutionary period of science, two scientists operating from differing paradigms can literally look at the same evidence and see it differently -- both finding the evidence that supports their own paradigm. Ken Ham in his "Answers in Genesis" website uses the analogy of taking off the evolutionary sunglasses and putting on the ID sunglasses. You can literally look at the same evidence in two ways.
However, ID writers fail to include the other 99% of science. During normal science, there are research projects to pursue. Kuhn calls normal science "puzzle solving." The only reason why one paradigm can overtake another is that it offers better solutions to puzzles -- it offers research projects -- it gives scientists something to do.
ID does not give scientists anything to do. The basic idea in "Intelligent Design" is that things are so complicated that we just cannot understand how they work -- it must be the product of a superior intelligence! What does an ID scientist do? I guess he goes outside, notices how terribly complicated everything is, and says, "Gee, God must have done it! Well, now I'm done." There are no research projects. There are no puzzles to solve. There is nothing to do. That is the opposite of science.
However, ID writers fail to include the other 99% of science. During normal science, there are research projects to pursue. Kuhn calls normal science "puzzle solving." The only reason why one paradigm can overtake another is that it offers better solutions to puzzles -- it offers research projects -- it gives scientists something to do.
ID does not give scientists anything to do. The basic idea in "Intelligent Design" is that things are so complicated that we just cannot understand how they work -- it must be the product of a superior intelligence! What does an ID scientist do? I guess he goes outside, notices how terribly complicated everything is, and says, "Gee, God must have done it! Well, now I'm done." There are no research projects. There are no puzzles to solve. There is nothing to do. That is the opposite of science.
Jane Austen and Male Self-Control
Jane Austen describes a world that is strangely parallel to modern conservative Islamic societies: if a young woman has sex prior to marriage or even marries the wrong man, she brings shame upon not just herself but the entire family -- and that will ruin their chances to make it in society.
There are obvious differences, of course, including the costumes. Austen's women wear beautiful dresses that flaunt their cleavage. Conservative Muslim women hide their entire bodies, sometimes leaving only a slit to peer through from their burqas. Austen's Christians put their faith in male self-control, even if those men have been drinking. Muslims assume that men have no self-control, and so they ban alcohol and hide the women.
We in the west have inherited this tradition. Thousands of generations of men in the west have been told that they can mold their own character, and that doing so is important to yourself and to others. By contrast, Muslim men have been taught that they cannot control themselves. Furthermore, that someone else is to blame for their errors.
There are obvious differences, of course, including the costumes. Austen's women wear beautiful dresses that flaunt their cleavage. Conservative Muslim women hide their entire bodies, sometimes leaving only a slit to peer through from their burqas. Austen's Christians put their faith in male self-control, even if those men have been drinking. Muslims assume that men have no self-control, and so they ban alcohol and hide the women.
We in the west have inherited this tradition. Thousands of generations of men in the west have been told that they can mold their own character, and that doing so is important to yourself and to others. By contrast, Muslim men have been taught that they cannot control themselves. Furthermore, that someone else is to blame for their errors.
Between Epigrams and Essays
I think of an aphorism as between an epigram and an essay. In this, I am influenced by Nietzsche. As an angry young man, I devoured his books.
While I enjoy his attacks upon Christianity, I rejected Nietzsche when I realized that in his utopia, I would not be educated in philosophy. In the 19th century, Americans democritized public education through high school. In the 20th century, Americans democritized college education, even through the Ph.D. In Nietzsche's utopia, only the elite would be educated -- he rejects anything that elevates common people (Christianity, socialism, labor unions, democracy, etc.). My family would have had to remain farmers.
So, I rejected Nietzsche from self-defense. You may dismiss this rejection as "mere" self-defense, but isn't self-defense a rational thing to do?
While I enjoy his attacks upon Christianity, I rejected Nietzsche when I realized that in his utopia, I would not be educated in philosophy. In the 19th century, Americans democritized public education through high school. In the 20th century, Americans democritized college education, even through the Ph.D. In Nietzsche's utopia, only the elite would be educated -- he rejects anything that elevates common people (Christianity, socialism, labor unions, democracy, etc.). My family would have had to remain farmers.
So, I rejected Nietzsche from self-defense. You may dismiss this rejection as "mere" self-defense, but isn't self-defense a rational thing to do?
The Circle of Life
We have a nice symbiotic relationship with plants -- a cycle of energy that keeps us both alive. People who believe that they are not of this world basically deny this relationship. This denial allows for widescale destruction of plant habitat.
I don't know how this relationship got started, I only acknowledge that its continuation is the continuation of human life. Why are we collectively expanding our own numbers and destroying what makes those numbers possible?
I don't know how this relationship got started, I only acknowledge that its continuation is the continuation of human life. Why are we collectively expanding our own numbers and destroying what makes those numbers possible?
Make Love Not War
Biologists are beginning to demonstrate that certain parts of the human body are just poorly designed -- such as a knee joint that doesn't support our weight very well. (Compare how long a horse can stand.) We are this way as a result of our evolutionary history -- what Dawkins calls "The Blind Watchmaker."
Our memes can be poorly designed, too. They can be relics of a time when they were more useful. For example, a hatred of homosexuality is often manifested as a hatred of sex for pleasure. They believe that sex is for procreation, not recreation. (No abortions, no birth control, no homosexuality, no masturbation, etc.) This meme may have been useful when the human population was very low. But with over 6 billion people on the planet, things are different.
Let us jettison the sexual meme "sex is for procreation, not recreation." Today we need more happiness and fewer babies. Unlike our knee joints, we can chose to change our beliefs.
Our memes can be poorly designed, too. They can be relics of a time when they were more useful. For example, a hatred of homosexuality is often manifested as a hatred of sex for pleasure. They believe that sex is for procreation, not recreation. (No abortions, no birth control, no homosexuality, no masturbation, etc.) This meme may have been useful when the human population was very low. But with over 6 billion people on the planet, things are different.
Let us jettison the sexual meme "sex is for procreation, not recreation." Today we need more happiness and fewer babies. Unlike our knee joints, we can chose to change our beliefs.
Metaphyics and Confidence
At some point you should realize that you disagree with most people in the world on the major metaphysical issues -- such as the existence and nature of God. Even if you belong to the largest church in the world -- the Roman Catholic -- still the majority of the people in the world are not Roman Catholic.
I am an atheist, which means that I believe that the vast majority of people who have ever lived on this planet are wrong on this fundamental question. What does that mean?
William James did not want to be arrogant, and so his metaphysical pluralism is a way of claiming finally to get the truth but really the truth is that everyone really has the truth. It is the metaphysical version of that old cliche -- having your cake and eating it too.
Why not rather have the confidence to embrace your own metaphysics? Yes, I believe that most people are wrong. But, my beliefs do not require having other people agree. And many people seem do derive good things from their wrong beliefs. So, who am I to complain? Perhaps it is an example of Vonnegut's "foma."
I am an atheist, which means that I believe that the vast majority of people who have ever lived on this planet are wrong on this fundamental question. What does that mean?
William James did not want to be arrogant, and so his metaphysical pluralism is a way of claiming finally to get the truth but really the truth is that everyone really has the truth. It is the metaphysical version of that old cliche -- having your cake and eating it too.
Why not rather have the confidence to embrace your own metaphysics? Yes, I believe that most people are wrong. But, my beliefs do not require having other people agree. And many people seem do derive good things from their wrong beliefs. So, who am I to complain? Perhaps it is an example of Vonnegut's "foma."
A Diet of Irony
Many Americans strive to live long miserable lives. They diet so that they can live as long as possible, and yet they are miserable as they diet. It is as if they wanted the root canal to last just a little longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
