Saturday, January 30, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Mormon rules
Mormons prohibit coffee and tea, both of which are known to be good for you, but don't prohibit colas and other soft drinks, which are bad. As for gambling, I think it is foolish, and don't do it except in social situations where a game doesn't have much fun to it unless at least some money (with limits) is involved. These rules religions place are another example of silly human ideas put into God's mouth by silly humans.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
We are alone
Be careful to not wax too poetic about our wonderful words and ability to communicate. It is only partly true and even though you think what I am saying, you don't get the half of it. You can't, since you can't know the subtleties of meaning of each word I use, derived from my experience and not yours.
We are all alone in the cosmos. We are the proverbial ships passing in the night with nothing but beacon lights to use to communicate. The vast, overwhelming majority, of our thoughts and feelings and experiences are ours alone, almost impossible to share.
I remember standing at the edge of a precipice, seeing a beautiful valley down below, and enjoying the panorama, which included a quaint winding dirt road and a couple of old sheds barely visible. When I remarked to my partner what a view it was, he responded that it was beautiful, but too bad mankind had spoiled it by building the road and the sheds.
Obviously we were seeing the same picture but not seeing the same thing.
We are all alone in the cosmos. We are the proverbial ships passing in the night with nothing but beacon lights to use to communicate. The vast, overwhelming majority, of our thoughts and feelings and experiences are ours alone, almost impossible to share.
I remember standing at the edge of a precipice, seeing a beautiful valley down below, and enjoying the panorama, which included a quaint winding dirt road and a couple of old sheds barely visible. When I remarked to my partner what a view it was, he responded that it was beautiful, but too bad mankind had spoiled it by building the road and the sheds.
Obviously we were seeing the same picture but not seeing the same thing.
Aborting children
I am reminded that an aborted baby may be a child. It may be a child. Killing is not itself a fundamental prohibition of my ethics. I kill flies and mosquitoes, kill a chicken when it is ready to eat, am willing to go to war and kill others for my country, even if I disagree with much of what it stands for, believe in the right of people to end their own lives, and even in limited situations endorse the execution of vile criminals.
In short no ethical rule is absolute. It must be judged in the broader context. There are a couple of factors when there is a pregnant woman not wanting the child. Which does the most harm -- forcing the birth anyway and having an unwanted child grow up miserable, ill treated and ending up a criminal, or allowing the abortion? What if the reason is that the pregnancy was from a rape? Again, the mother does not want and will detest the child.
Adoption is not a good solution, as study after study has shown, for such children. The genetic nature of the parents will tell out, regardless of how loving the adoptive parents may be, and these children rarely actually get adopted by good families.
In short, it is never simple. Compassion and asking yourself what is for the best has to be looked at, and government is not capable of such flexibility. As far as I can tell only the mother is best placed, hopefully with loving and not inflexible, ideological, counsel, to make such a decision.
None of this should be distorted to assert that in general I favor murder. Only specific and very limited situations that I don't think most people would define as murder. Certainly the harm that happens to a person when they did vastly exceeds any harm that might happen were they to go on living.
In short no ethical rule is absolute. It must be judged in the broader context. There are a couple of factors when there is a pregnant woman not wanting the child. Which does the most harm -- forcing the birth anyway and having an unwanted child grow up miserable, ill treated and ending up a criminal, or allowing the abortion? What if the reason is that the pregnancy was from a rape? Again, the mother does not want and will detest the child.
Adoption is not a good solution, as study after study has shown, for such children. The genetic nature of the parents will tell out, regardless of how loving the adoptive parents may be, and these children rarely actually get adopted by good families.
In short, it is never simple. Compassion and asking yourself what is for the best has to be looked at, and government is not capable of such flexibility. As far as I can tell only the mother is best placed, hopefully with loving and not inflexible, ideological, counsel, to make such a decision.
None of this should be distorted to assert that in general I favor murder. Only specific and very limited situations that I don't think most people would define as murder. Certainly the harm that happens to a person when they did vastly exceeds any harm that might happen were they to go on living.
Jesus is a myth
I think one would be hard pressed to produce credible evidence Jesus ever actually existed, something much easier to do with most historical figures of the time.
In short, I think they are myths.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.htm...
In short, I think they are myths.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.htm...
Gay compassion
My approach, as a gay man who has experienced prejudice and meanness and often even being beaten up, is that heterosexuality is statistically normal, but not a sign of moral goodness. I think maybe my experiences made me more aware of real right and wrong and of the importance of compassion.
Internet truth and lies
The internet is not hard. If I agree with it, it's the truth: if I don't it's a lie.
We have to think for ourselves and not blindly accept authority. That said, if it comes from a University source and is about scientific studies that are fully described, then I tend to accept their conclusions, even though I probably don't understand much of it. In other words, accepting authority is what we have to do, just be sure the authority is credible.
One good test is whether or not they make claims to truth. If so, they are lying (maybe not consciously because they believe it, but still there is no such thing as truth). There are just close approximations to truth, or, put another way, the truth as far as we can, in good conscience, determine, based on the evidence.
As far as right and wrong go, this has to be deduced, not taken from authority (although one doesn't go far wrong following Kant). I think conscience is often wrong. It amazes me how much it is that people go through life hurting others, being stingy, voting their personal interest, violating traffic laws and so on, without giving the ethical aspect a second thought. It is that conscience is culturally set, and therefore only mostly right. We have to consider the benefits and harms, the compassion or its lack, the freedom we allow others, and so on, in a rational balance without taking absolutist positions.
We have to think for ourselves and not blindly accept authority. That said, if it comes from a University source and is about scientific studies that are fully described, then I tend to accept their conclusions, even though I probably don't understand much of it. In other words, accepting authority is what we have to do, just be sure the authority is credible.
One good test is whether or not they make claims to truth. If so, they are lying (maybe not consciously because they believe it, but still there is no such thing as truth). There are just close approximations to truth, or, put another way, the truth as far as we can, in good conscience, determine, based on the evidence.
As far as right and wrong go, this has to be deduced, not taken from authority (although one doesn't go far wrong following Kant). I think conscience is often wrong. It amazes me how much it is that people go through life hurting others, being stingy, voting their personal interest, violating traffic laws and so on, without giving the ethical aspect a second thought. It is that conscience is culturally set, and therefore only mostly right. We have to consider the benefits and harms, the compassion or its lack, the freedom we allow others, and so on, in a rational balance without taking absolutist positions.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
The reality of qualia
When I say neuronal activity I may be less than exactly correct. There are probably other brain things involved beyond just neurons. That this sort of activity can be said to be real is on the same order as the movement of a flock of birds or a wave on the water can be said to be real. It is process, and process is a sort of reality.
What is "out there" in the world is not what we think, but it correlates with what we think. We learn of it through our senses, and our senses are processed in our brain in all sorts of ways to help us handle the influx of data. Sometimes it even lies, as attested by optical illusions.
Consider, for example, the color something is. You look at a banana tree (as I'm doing right now outside my window) and you see mostly green. Is that tree green? Actually quite the opposite -- what you see are the colors (wavelengths) the leaf rejects. Those it absorbs are the other wavelengths, so it doesn't look white.
The real mystery (often by neurologists and others referred to as the "deep problem") is how these things the brain produces become our experiences. They use the word "qualia" to describe the specific different experiences we experience. Note the word "experience." The word should convey something more than just things that are there, but things that we incorporate.
Maybe this will help: there are two closely related meaning to the word "color." One is the experience or qualia of the color, the other is the electromagnetic photons with the specific energy of the color. One is psychological, the other physical.
What is "out there" in the world is not what we think, but it correlates with what we think. We learn of it through our senses, and our senses are processed in our brain in all sorts of ways to help us handle the influx of data. Sometimes it even lies, as attested by optical illusions.
Consider, for example, the color something is. You look at a banana tree (as I'm doing right now outside my window) and you see mostly green. Is that tree green? Actually quite the opposite -- what you see are the colors (wavelengths) the leaf rejects. Those it absorbs are the other wavelengths, so it doesn't look white.
The real mystery (often by neurologists and others referred to as the "deep problem") is how these things the brain produces become our experiences. They use the word "qualia" to describe the specific different experiences we experience. Note the word "experience." The word should convey something more than just things that are there, but things that we incorporate.
Maybe this will help: there are two closely related meaning to the word "color." One is the experience or qualia of the color, the other is the electromagnetic photons with the specific energy of the color. One is psychological, the other physical.
Truthfulness
Well, yes, of course, truth is the best policy (and it doesn't require quite as good a memory). When caught lying for some selfish or otherwise unethical reason, trust is lost. I have no problem with that, and did not say or imply that people are never truthful. All I said is that truth is not a fundamental principle of my ethical system.
When it comes to lying by advocates of religions and ideologies, it is rampant. These systems are at foundation irrational, so to hold them the advocates have to lie, both to themselves, to deal with cognitive dissonance, and hence to others to be consistent and not make the dissonance worse.
Take a look at Christianity. The idea is that Jesus died on the cross "for our sins." How did that work? How does his death have anything to do with our sins? It is a magical death sacrifice to take away a curse. Put that way, its absurdity and primitive nature should be obvious, but people refuse to see it with real rationality. They are indoctrinated, probably as children, and hence "believe" rather than hold it as an opinion. We have instincts of group cohesion that can be linked with this tenacity of belief in spite of good sense.
When it comes to lying by advocates of religions and ideologies, it is rampant. These systems are at foundation irrational, so to hold them the advocates have to lie, both to themselves, to deal with cognitive dissonance, and hence to others to be consistent and not make the dissonance worse.
Take a look at Christianity. The idea is that Jesus died on the cross "for our sins." How did that work? How does his death have anything to do with our sins? It is a magical death sacrifice to take away a curse. Put that way, its absurdity and primitive nature should be obvious, but people refuse to see it with real rationality. They are indoctrinated, probably as children, and hence "believe" rather than hold it as an opinion. We have instincts of group cohesion that can be linked with this tenacity of belief in spite of good sense.
Why we lie
People lie all the time, and only sometimes is it to conceal misbehavior. I lie when telling the truth will do no good and may harm or hurt someone, and I lie when it is to my benefit to lie in situations where the asker has no right to the truth but my refusing to answer will be taken badly.
People also lie to "one-up" someone -- the bigger fish business. On message boards it is often just to get attention.
Indeed, your "not wanting to tell your experience" strikes me as of that species.
There is also a huge phenomenon not much recognized of pious fraud. This is where convincing another of what you believe is more important than honesty.
I practice a tripartite ethics -- mindful compassion, helpfulness, and not using people as a means to an end. This is different from our cultural ethics we call conscience, which says all lies are wrong. What I say is we have to balance compassion with being helpful with never using someone for our own ends. Sometimes the balance is difficult to see, and sometimes we make mistakes, but that applies to all ethical systems. We have to be rational about it.
People also lie to "one-up" someone -- the bigger fish business. On message boards it is often just to get attention.
Indeed, your "not wanting to tell your experience" strikes me as of that species.
There is also a huge phenomenon not much recognized of pious fraud. This is where convincing another of what you believe is more important than honesty.
I practice a tripartite ethics -- mindful compassion, helpfulness, and not using people as a means to an end. This is different from our cultural ethics we call conscience, which says all lies are wrong. What I say is we have to balance compassion with being helpful with never using someone for our own ends. Sometimes the balance is difficult to see, and sometimes we make mistakes, but that applies to all ethical systems. We have to be rational about it.
Founding Fathers were Deists
You and most Americans have an abysmal ignorance of history. The Founding Fathers were Deists, almost to a man, and some of them hated Christianity (Adams and Paine immediately come to mind). You probably don't even know what Deism was and why it died out.
Washington did go regularly to church, probably for political reasons, but never took communion. Most of the rest used "God" in their vocabulary now and then, but this refers to the "Nature's God" of Deism -- something people read in those documents utterly without noticing or understanding.
This is because the Founding Fathers were an educated elite, and most of the educated elite back then were Deists. The rest of the population were of an assortment of religious views, ranging to the tolerant Quakers (whom Franklin admired and contributed to but never joined) to the intolerant Puritans and Catholics.
The unfortunate thing is the Founding Fathers were influenced by the Roman Republic, and designed their system a lot like it, with checks and balances and general elections and so on. As a result, after the founding generation passed, the religious types took over, and the US has not had a really great president since (except of course Lincoln, who seems to have been an atheist, but kept his mouth shut).
Washington did go regularly to church, probably for political reasons, but never took communion. Most of the rest used "God" in their vocabulary now and then, but this refers to the "Nature's God" of Deism -- something people read in those documents utterly without noticing or understanding.
This is because the Founding Fathers were an educated elite, and most of the educated elite back then were Deists. The rest of the population were of an assortment of religious views, ranging to the tolerant Quakers (whom Franklin admired and contributed to but never joined) to the intolerant Puritans and Catholics.
The unfortunate thing is the Founding Fathers were influenced by the Roman Republic, and designed their system a lot like it, with checks and balances and general elections and so on. As a result, after the founding generation passed, the religious types took over, and the US has not had a really great president since (except of course Lincoln, who seems to have been an atheist, but kept his mouth shut).
Praying for sex
Sharing miracles with non-believers is indeed a waste of time. There are good reasons for this. You could be lying, delusional, or, more likely, making too much of coincidence. People recover all the time from diseases, prayer or not. I remember once praying for sex and I got it: the experience worried me so I never did that again.
The problem with all testimonial evidence (which is all a lot of churches seem to rely on, considering the testimonials you constantly get -- which seems to be mostly lost sheep finding joy when they come back because of some sign they got) is that it useless. Anything to be evidential has to be repeatable by skeptical people.
Using personal experiences as a basis for personal faith is to constantly lie to oneself and delude oneself.
The problem with all testimonial evidence (which is all a lot of churches seem to rely on, considering the testimonials you constantly get -- which seems to be mostly lost sheep finding joy when they come back because of some sign they got) is that it useless. Anything to be evidential has to be repeatable by skeptical people.
Using personal experiences as a basis for personal faith is to constantly lie to oneself and delude oneself.
Reality of dreams
You experience dreams, and they are something different from waking experience. They are, you think, entirely in your head, which they are. What you don't realize is that waking experience is entirely in your head too.
The difference may be (this is my opinion) that dreams happen because of neuronal activity while you are asleep that the part of your brain that turns things that happen around you into conscious experience tries to do the same with your sleeping neuronal activity.
Either way, conscious experience comes from neuronal activity, and in both cases the neuronal activity is real.
The difference may be (this is my opinion) that dreams happen because of neuronal activity while you are asleep that the part of your brain that turns things that happen around you into conscious experience tries to do the same with your sleeping neuronal activity.
Either way, conscious experience comes from neuronal activity, and in both cases the neuronal activity is real.
Dejavu and rebirth (reincarnation)
I have to comment about pre-existence. I don't claim to have any memories, so that's said. What I'm going to recount shows why I do not accept the Mormon idea of celestial pre-existence and instead am far more inclined to the Asian idea of a rebirth cycle.
I moved to Vietnam when I was about 55, soon after my retirement (I was always careful with my money and had a well paying job and so was able to do so comfortably, and I always had an attraction to Vietnam, a sort of curiosity, although I did not serve in the war).
The attraction fulfilled itself and I fell in love with the place. As you know it is a dictatorship, and although they want foreigner's money they don't want foreigner's making friends and therefore contaminating the population with Western ideas. But I digress.
One day I went with a bunch of Vietnamese friends to visit DaLat. The experience was unbelievable. Talk about deja vu!!! I knew the place and could predict what was around the corner and so on. Of course much was new and not in my "memory," but much was -- the older buildings. I was at the time quite certain and still am pretty convinced that I had once lived and died there.
Now this is just a personal experience and I don't expect anyone else to think it as evidence of rebirth or anything similar. Now when I revisit the place the original experience doesn't recur -- I think it can only happen once and then more recent memories replace it.
I moved to Vietnam when I was about 55, soon after my retirement (I was always careful with my money and had a well paying job and so was able to do so comfortably, and I always had an attraction to Vietnam, a sort of curiosity, although I did not serve in the war).
The attraction fulfilled itself and I fell in love with the place. As you know it is a dictatorship, and although they want foreigner's money they don't want foreigner's making friends and therefore contaminating the population with Western ideas. But I digress.
One day I went with a bunch of Vietnamese friends to visit DaLat. The experience was unbelievable. Talk about deja vu!!! I knew the place and could predict what was around the corner and so on. Of course much was new and not in my "memory," but much was -- the older buildings. I was at the time quite certain and still am pretty convinced that I had once lived and died there.
Now this is just a personal experience and I don't expect anyone else to think it as evidence of rebirth or anything similar. Now when I revisit the place the original experience doesn't recur -- I think it can only happen once and then more recent memories replace it.
Is homosexual behavior in animals just dominance?
This "dominance" issue is irrelevant. We may not like to admit it but dominance/submission is a large part of human sex.
This begins to look like all those other facts out there that religionists just simply deny in spite of evidence. Homosexual behavior is widespread in the animal world, and so is homosexuality. I remember a neighbor farmer who referred all the time (with great amusement) to his "queer duck." He saw and understood, but if he had been taught homosexuality was "unnatural" he would have said "submissive" or something -- or probably just ignored what his eyes told him.
It is true homosexuals are rare, the purely homosexual population is probably about one percent of the population. It is a spectrum, and more than likely the purely heterosexual population is not much larger. Still it is not a Bell curve, but largely slanted toward the heterosexual side.
One final comment -- all this does not imply better or worse. The human intelligence scale has a shape not much different from the human sexuality scale -- and being a genius is, at least usually, a benefit to humanity.
This begins to look like all those other facts out there that religionists just simply deny in spite of evidence. Homosexual behavior is widespread in the animal world, and so is homosexuality. I remember a neighbor farmer who referred all the time (with great amusement) to his "queer duck." He saw and understood, but if he had been taught homosexuality was "unnatural" he would have said "submissive" or something -- or probably just ignored what his eyes told him.
It is true homosexuals are rare, the purely homosexual population is probably about one percent of the population. It is a spectrum, and more than likely the purely heterosexual population is not much larger. Still it is not a Bell curve, but largely slanted toward the heterosexual side.
One final comment -- all this does not imply better or worse. The human intelligence scale has a shape not much different from the human sexuality scale -- and being a genius is, at least usually, a benefit to humanity.
What is worship?
People often take words for granted (I think because they only know one language) and don't realize the word has no or at least not much meaning. Right now I have the word "worship" in mind. What is "worship?"
People go to Buddhist temple and there sits a huge statue of the Buddha in all his glory, and people get on their knees and bow to it. You ask these people what they are doing and you get an answer that is easy to translate "worship." But it isn't worship. Of course a Westerner translates it with that word, and thereby instantly doesn't understand what the Buddhist is do one iota.
The Buddha is in Nirvana. That means he is "at peace" or "in bliss" or in a kind of heaven where everyone meditates all the time, or dead (extinct)-- it largely depends on the Buddhist sect you ask -- but most Buddhists don't give it much thought (they leave such questions to monks) and perceive it as a blend of these states. As such the Buddha has no knowledge or even interest in the people honoring him in the Temple. "Honor" is probably the best translation.
Does the Christian god demand worship? There are certainly enough Biblical passages that refer to giving him glory. That, I suppose, is worship. Why? Our glory that we give him is not going to add even the tiniest bit to his infinite glory. You cannot add anything to infinity. These concepts are less than unsophisticated -- they are downright stupid and primitive.
OK, we "worship" God by loving him and doing his will and serving him here on the Earth. God commands us to do these things, not for his benefit but for ours. Think about that. Wouldn't it be better if we did these things on our own accord and not out of some indirect and less-than-honest left-handed motive? How about we love God because we love him? How about we do his will because his will is what is good and we do what is good on our own volition? As far as the last one goes, "serving God," this is not just absurd (what can we do compared to his infinite power?) but pretentious and arrogant on our part, for the same reason.'
When someone says "I'm doing God's work," I immediately recognize the person as arrogant and self-righteous and puffed up with themselves. I think this is one of the reasons people often mock Christians -- it is a statement worthy of mockery.
People go to Buddhist temple and there sits a huge statue of the Buddha in all his glory, and people get on their knees and bow to it. You ask these people what they are doing and you get an answer that is easy to translate "worship." But it isn't worship. Of course a Westerner translates it with that word, and thereby instantly doesn't understand what the Buddhist is do one iota.
The Buddha is in Nirvana. That means he is "at peace" or "in bliss" or in a kind of heaven where everyone meditates all the time, or dead (extinct)-- it largely depends on the Buddhist sect you ask -- but most Buddhists don't give it much thought (they leave such questions to monks) and perceive it as a blend of these states. As such the Buddha has no knowledge or even interest in the people honoring him in the Temple. "Honor" is probably the best translation.
Does the Christian god demand worship? There are certainly enough Biblical passages that refer to giving him glory. That, I suppose, is worship. Why? Our glory that we give him is not going to add even the tiniest bit to his infinite glory. You cannot add anything to infinity. These concepts are less than unsophisticated -- they are downright stupid and primitive.
OK, we "worship" God by loving him and doing his will and serving him here on the Earth. God commands us to do these things, not for his benefit but for ours. Think about that. Wouldn't it be better if we did these things on our own accord and not out of some indirect and less-than-honest left-handed motive? How about we love God because we love him? How about we do his will because his will is what is good and we do what is good on our own volition? As far as the last one goes, "serving God," this is not just absurd (what can we do compared to his infinite power?) but pretentious and arrogant on our part, for the same reason.'
When someone says "I'm doing God's work," I immediately recognize the person as arrogant and self-righteous and puffed up with themselves. I think this is one of the reasons people often mock Christians -- it is a statement worthy of mockery.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Corporations are bad
I think maybe that is just sometimes true. Corporations everywhere are much the same, and, the way they are structured, to get to the top and deal with competitors, you have to have a certain set of ethical lacks. Hence making money prevails over employees, customers, and nature. Some are worse about that than others.
Corporations, though, serve a necessary function, even in socialist states. You need to organize a business along autocratic lines (benevolent but still autocratic if you want to hold employees and still get things done).
The good thing about capitalism is that risky ventures can be undertaken by private interests, rather than the government, in return for most of any profits. The most efficient way for private interests to do this on large ventures is the limited liability corporation.
The bad thing is that they will do whatever is necessary to maximize profit, including gouging the public, putting out unhealthy products, destroying competitors, exploiting resources and employees, false and misleading propagandistic advertising, bribing government officials (such as corporate donations to political campaigns) and so on. Government and law is needed to curb this, in hopes of getting the good from corporate organization and mitigating the bad.
Corporations, though, serve a necessary function, even in socialist states. You need to organize a business along autocratic lines (benevolent but still autocratic if you want to hold employees and still get things done).
The good thing about capitalism is that risky ventures can be undertaken by private interests, rather than the government, in return for most of any profits. The most efficient way for private interests to do this on large ventures is the limited liability corporation.
The bad thing is that they will do whatever is necessary to maximize profit, including gouging the public, putting out unhealthy products, destroying competitors, exploiting resources and employees, false and misleading propagandistic advertising, bribing government officials (such as corporate donations to political campaigns) and so on. Government and law is needed to curb this, in hopes of getting the good from corporate organization and mitigating the bad.
God given rights
I don't think there is such a thing as a "God given" right, nor a natural right as the Founding Fathers saw it.
We have rights, to be sure, but they are never absolute. I have the right to smoke, but not if my smoke disturbs others. I have the right to publish my opinions, but not to commit slander or copyright infringement or instructions on making atomic bombs. I have every right in the world to flap my arms and fly about, but somehow nature prevents it.
Our main rights are safety, health care, justice, freedom, comfort, housing, material possessons, entertainment, education, family, friendships, happiness, and of course life itself. All of them are provisional, temporary, and limited.
We have rights, to be sure, but they are never absolute. I have the right to smoke, but not if my smoke disturbs others. I have the right to publish my opinions, but not to commit slander or copyright infringement or instructions on making atomic bombs. I have every right in the world to flap my arms and fly about, but somehow nature prevents it.
Our main rights are safety, health care, justice, freedom, comfort, housing, material possessons, entertainment, education, family, friendships, happiness, and of course life itself. All of them are provisional, temporary, and limited.
Religions indoctrinate through churches and governments and broadcasts and books, but mainly through parents.
Parents are the worst.
To indoctrinate a child is one of the most vile forms of child abuse. It limits that child from having as full a life as might be.
Religions, of course, aren't the only things that work to indoctrinate us. I would add businesses, both as sales organizations to sell something and as employers, and of course political parties and the adherents of no end of quasi-religions ideas and ideological movements.
.
Propaganda is I think the main tool of indoctrination. Stir up the person's emotions -- people love children and puppies, so put pictures of little children on your soup can or a puppy on the cover of your book. People hate, so put pictures of atrocities, both real and invented, in your film. People are patriotic, so wear a flag pin and have flags in the background and patriotic music accompanying your commercial. People want to be accepted, so imply that those who think otherwise are outsiders.
Finally, we all want to live forever, so teach a wonderful afterlife. This also can be used for people's desire for revenge.
Logic and reasoning can also be propaganda when it is in the form of false evidence or pious fraud or cherry picking the evidence.
Parents are the worst.
To indoctrinate a child is one of the most vile forms of child abuse. It limits that child from having as full a life as might be.
Religions, of course, aren't the only things that work to indoctrinate us. I would add businesses, both as sales organizations to sell something and as employers, and of course political parties and the adherents of no end of quasi-religions ideas and ideological movements.
.
Propaganda is I think the main tool of indoctrination. Stir up the person's emotions -- people love children and puppies, so put pictures of little children on your soup can or a puppy on the cover of your book. People hate, so put pictures of atrocities, both real and invented, in your film. People are patriotic, so wear a flag pin and have flags in the background and patriotic music accompanying your commercial. People want to be accepted, so imply that those who think otherwise are outsiders.
Finally, we all want to live forever, so teach a wonderful afterlife. This also can be used for people's desire for revenge.
Logic and reasoning can also be propaganda when it is in the form of false evidence or pious fraud or cherry picking the evidence.
Finding truth
There is no "truth" accessible to finite minds. We can only try to get as close to it as possible, and the only way we can learn (approach truth) is through our fallible senses. We learn as we live, and of course in the modern world a lot of that comes through organized education.
Religion is generally anti-truth. You no doubt see this in Islam, but are blind to it in Christianity, but it is the same thing. People don't learn religion, they are indoctrinated with it -- it becomes belief or ideology based on emotions and propaganda and , not opinion based on evidence.
I have taken classes or similar studies in Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. None of them use rationality except pious frauds (the idea that saving a soul is more important than being honest) and half-truths (telling the part they like and leaving out the rest). Prayer and community and promises of happiness and afterlife (none of us want to die) and tradition and authority and beautiful buildings and music, and, of course, police power where it is still permitted, and on and on. This is all, when used to persuade, invalid propaganda.
That is how science (opinion) and religion (belief) differ. Religions make a virtue of faith, and a vice of doubt, while science sees faith as a sin and rejoices over doubt, which is what stimulates the progress of science.
Religion is generally anti-truth. You no doubt see this in Islam, but are blind to it in Christianity, but it is the same thing. People don't learn religion, they are indoctrinated with it -- it becomes belief or ideology based on emotions and propaganda and , not opinion based on evidence.
I have taken classes or similar studies in Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. None of them use rationality except pious frauds (the idea that saving a soul is more important than being honest) and half-truths (telling the part they like and leaving out the rest). Prayer and community and promises of happiness and afterlife (none of us want to die) and tradition and authority and beautiful buildings and music, and, of course, police power where it is still permitted, and on and on. This is all, when used to persuade, invalid propaganda.
That is how science (opinion) and religion (belief) differ. Religions make a virtue of faith, and a vice of doubt, while science sees faith as a sin and rejoices over doubt, which is what stimulates the progress of science.
Monday, January 25, 2016
A little more on American education
I tried to say too much earlier. My point is that American schools lack discipline (mainly because of lawyers and the teacher's union) and as a result most Americans wandering through life are basically without knowledge, either to get on well or to fully experience life. They just watch professional wrestling or mindless sitcoms (where the humor is people making fools of themselves) and eat junk.
However, this has its other side -- the few who are really smart get a good, if not superior, education, as they are taught to think independently and creatively. They still get a lot of misinformation in high school that they have to unlearn either in college or in life, but at least they are equipped.
The problem with no discipline for this elite is that they lack memorization skill, something that is squired only with a lot of doing. It amazed me how little Shakespeare or Dickens or even Mark Twain any American can recite -- and believe me this is a joy later in life. Of course the ability to memorize is also a huge leg up in any work requiring any responsibility, and here America is on the decline. That most of the population is still subject to superstitions and religions and crazy conspiracy schemes and the forming of opinions of politicians based on appearance or on what someone else says, and so on, also reads badly for the future of American government, and we all know those days are already on us.
However, this has its other side -- the few who are really smart get a good, if not superior, education, as they are taught to think independently and creatively. They still get a lot of misinformation in high school that they have to unlearn either in college or in life, but at least they are equipped.
The problem with no discipline for this elite is that they lack memorization skill, something that is squired only with a lot of doing. It amazed me how little Shakespeare or Dickens or even Mark Twain any American can recite -- and believe me this is a joy later in life. Of course the ability to memorize is also a huge leg up in any work requiring any responsibility, and here America is on the decline. That most of the population is still subject to superstitions and religions and crazy conspiracy schemes and the forming of opinions of politicians based on appearance or on what someone else says, and so on, also reads badly for the future of American government, and we all know those days are already on us.
Delusion and religion
Any "belief" is a form of delusion. Scientists and similar un-deluded (at least about science) folk don't entertain belief but only opinions based on the best possible evidence, which can change on a dime if new evidence calls for it.
Almost everything we take as religion is really indoctrinated belief, and hence delusion. I would say all religion is that, except I leave it open that there might be some un-deluded religion out there I don't know about.
Almost everything we take as religion is really indoctrinated belief, and hence delusion. I would say all religion is that, except I leave it open that there might be some un-deluded religion out there I don't know about.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Summarizing morality
We don't need religion to tell us right from wrong. We just need to be mindful and think about what we are doing and whether is it compassionate, helpful, and not a means to an end.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Past and future seen as places
The concept that the past is a place implies that one could travel there and thereby change the present, an idea of course filled with paradoxes that serve to prove otherwise.
The concept of the future as a place where one might travel (other than the way we normally get there) implies determinism, something we now know from physics is not the case.
The concept of the future as a place where one might travel (other than the way we normally get there) implies determinism, something we now know from physics is not the case.
Dalai Lama and the moon
In Tibetan mythology, as in most places around the world, the moon is an important figure and the light of the moon is seen as a great treasure.
One day the Dalai Lama had explained to him how the moon shines by reflected light, not on its own. His remark was to thank the explainer and remark on how the Buddha had taught to accept and follow the wisest of men, not tradition and cultural belief, and here he had been shown how true that was
One day the Dalai Lama had explained to him how the moon shines by reflected light, not on its own. His remark was to thank the explainer and remark on how the Buddha had taught to accept and follow the wisest of men, not tradition and cultural belief, and here he had been shown how true that was
Martin Luther King and homosexuality
King was a Christian, and I would say for the most part a good Christian. His issue was race bigotry and segregation, and he wanted to stick to that theme. Raising the issue of homosexuality at the time would have been distractive and hurt his objectives. Perhaps less than perfect here, but understandable.
It is a testament against religion in general that the religious aspect of marriage is denied by so many religions. It is also just another nail in religion's coffin, as it helps gays and lots of others see the hypocrisy of their preaching love.
It is a testament against religion in general that the religious aspect of marriage is denied by so many religions. It is also just another nail in religion's coffin, as it helps gays and lots of others see the hypocrisy of their preaching love.
Jpnah and Nineveh and monotheism
A bit about the Bible story of Jonah.
I think what the author wanted to convey was, first, that Jehovah was the only god and was universal, against the general and earlier view that he was just a particular god of the Hebrews who had picked them out and was jealous they might go to others of the various gods about.
Second, he wanted to convey that you can't escape Jehovah's observation and power.
Then he wanted to convey that Jehovah can change his mind and can be merciful, although the author avoids -- is probably not even aware of -- the theological problems that raises in the context of omniscience and perfection. It may be that the author still saw Jehovah in anthropomorphic terms, and not as infinite.
This then represents an intermediate step in the evolution of Jewish monotheism.
There is of course a huge historical problem in placing the events in Nineveh. If Jehovah had been willing to destroy the city earlier, why didn't he actually do so when they became so verifiability evil later on?
I think what the author wanted to convey was, first, that Jehovah was the only god and was universal, against the general and earlier view that he was just a particular god of the Hebrews who had picked them out and was jealous they might go to others of the various gods about.
Second, he wanted to convey that you can't escape Jehovah's observation and power.
Then he wanted to convey that Jehovah can change his mind and can be merciful, although the author avoids -- is probably not even aware of -- the theological problems that raises in the context of omniscience and perfection. It may be that the author still saw Jehovah in anthropomorphic terms, and not as infinite.
This then represents an intermediate step in the evolution of Jewish monotheism.
There is of course a huge historical problem in placing the events in Nineveh. If Jehovah had been willing to destroy the city earlier, why didn't he actually do so when they became so verifiability evil later on?
American schools and education
The American educational system is excellent in producing scientists and engineers and doctors and even lawyers, but completely falls on its face with the majority.
My guess on this is that it comes from two things -- the lack of discipline (indeed its prohibition) and the fact that the emphasis is not on memorizing but on creativity. There is also a tendency to avoid controversial subjects because of politics (elected boards of education are a horror). The fact that publication of school texts is a profit-oriented business also doesn't help.
Because less creative people (but often with other abiliities) are made to feel inadequate and more disruptive people are tolerated and often allowed to slow everyone's progress -- they are just passed on but ignored and exit schools effectively illiterate and prey to preachers and cults and criminals. Then the bright ones get attention from good teachers and go on to great lives.
The one thing all Americans lack is the ability to memorize, and, of course, notoriously, the ability to learn languages. More balance here would be advisable.
My guess on this is that it comes from two things -- the lack of discipline (indeed its prohibition) and the fact that the emphasis is not on memorizing but on creativity. There is also a tendency to avoid controversial subjects because of politics (elected boards of education are a horror). The fact that publication of school texts is a profit-oriented business also doesn't help.
Because less creative people (but often with other abiliities) are made to feel inadequate and more disruptive people are tolerated and often allowed to slow everyone's progress -- they are just passed on but ignored and exit schools effectively illiterate and prey to preachers and cults and criminals. Then the bright ones get attention from good teachers and go on to great lives.
The one thing all Americans lack is the ability to memorize, and, of course, notoriously, the ability to learn languages. More balance here would be advisable.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Idolatry
So is it against the Bible to erect a statue of Abraham Lincoln.
That is one of the more idiotic concepts of the Hebrew derived religions, the concept of "idolatry," or the worship of images.
Sheesh, no one thinks the idol or the picture or the icon is the god or the saint or the prophet or whatever. It is all a case of condemning something that doesn't exist. Muslims really go overboard on this, greatly stunting the artistic development of their culture. Mosques can be impressive and maybe beautiful, but once you've seen one you've seen them all.
Some people, I'm told, use icons as an aid to worship or a focus of concentration in prayer, but they do not imagine they are praying to the icon. Personally I just see them as an excuse for art with a religious awe aspect attached.
That is one of the more idiotic concepts of the Hebrew derived religions, the concept of "idolatry," or the worship of images.
Sheesh, no one thinks the idol or the picture or the icon is the god or the saint or the prophet or whatever. It is all a case of condemning something that doesn't exist. Muslims really go overboard on this, greatly stunting the artistic development of their culture. Mosques can be impressive and maybe beautiful, but once you've seen one you've seen them all.
Some people, I'm told, use icons as an aid to worship or a focus of concentration in prayer, but they do not imagine they are praying to the icon. Personally I just see them as an excuse for art with a religious awe aspect attached.
About saying science is stupid
Anyone who says science is stupid is stupid. I would have died in my thirties except for the luck that at the point I was most desperate science came up with a cure for my particular infection.
You can't be selective and accept the good things science gives you while denying the rest of it based on religion or prejudice or ideology (as in Lysenkoism).
You can't be selective and accept the good things science gives you while denying the rest of it based on religion or prejudice or ideology (as in Lysenkoism).
Should caterers and similar businesses be allowed to discriminte against gay functions?
This is a tough call. I think if you are going to conduct a public business, you have no basis for discrimination, and those you discriminate against should have the right to take you to law.
At the same time, I think a restaurant, for example, should have the right to refuse entry to someone barefoot, as such a person, if they step on some glass on the floor, is likely to hold the restaurant responsible (although of course such a suit would be quickly dismissed).
So the ban on discrimination has subtleties and exceptions. As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the one discriminating has a burden to show that the discrimination has valid purpose behind it and is not just reflective of prejudice or whim. This sort of complication makes lots of work for lawyers.
I can see anyone, not just African-Americans, legitimately declining to associate in any way with the KKK, and I can see lawyers coming up with dozens of valid reasons, depending on the details of the case, for this discrimination.
Discrimination against gays is perhaps a little more difficult to justify.
At the same time, I think a restaurant, for example, should have the right to refuse entry to someone barefoot, as such a person, if they step on some glass on the floor, is likely to hold the restaurant responsible (although of course such a suit would be quickly dismissed).
So the ban on discrimination has subtleties and exceptions. As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the one discriminating has a burden to show that the discrimination has valid purpose behind it and is not just reflective of prejudice or whim. This sort of complication makes lots of work for lawyers.
I can see anyone, not just African-Americans, legitimately declining to associate in any way with the KKK, and I can see lawyers coming up with dozens of valid reasons, depending on the details of the case, for this discrimination.
Discrimination against gays is perhaps a little more difficult to justify.
Democrats and Republicans and military spending
Good defense doesn't mean spending and spending and spending. The generals have their pet projects, as to the universities and health institutes and tax collectors, and the central government has to make hard choices.
Cutting expenses in any of these and others does not necessarily go with reduced effectiveness. In fact when dealilng with government types (including generals) it usually is better a sign of increased effectiveness. Waste is being reduced and technology is being introduced that is less expensive and the big showy ego-trips of the generals are being passed over, or at least scrutinized more carefully.
There is also the fact that the US does not have the external threats of the old Communist empire.
Democrats tend to keep us out of war, Republicans the opposite. There are exceptions, as the external world does not always cooperate, but this is a noticeable fact. The reason I think is that Democrats prefer quiet compromise whenever possible, the Republicans tend to be obnoxious, uncompromising, and eager to show how tough they are.
Cutting expenses in any of these and others does not necessarily go with reduced effectiveness. In fact when dealilng with government types (including generals) it usually is better a sign of increased effectiveness. Waste is being reduced and technology is being introduced that is less expensive and the big showy ego-trips of the generals are being passed over, or at least scrutinized more carefully.
There is also the fact that the US does not have the external threats of the old Communist empire.
Democrats tend to keep us out of war, Republicans the opposite. There are exceptions, as the external world does not always cooperate, but this is a noticeable fact. The reason I think is that Democrats prefer quiet compromise whenever possible, the Republicans tend to be obnoxious, uncompromising, and eager to show how tough they are.
Neurology's hard problem, sentience and qualia and intelligence and mind
I would suggest making a distinction between sentience and intelligence or "thinking."
Sentience has to do with senses, and by extension also with emotions. The "sound" of one hand clapping is what we sometimes call frustration -- an unfulfilled expectation -- there should be a sound but there is not. This hoary old koan teaches how emotions and sensations are essentially the same sort of thing -- things we "feel" or experience, but are entirely in our mind.
Yes what we see and hear and so on is entirely in our mind. It is an illusion (not a delusion -- there is something outside our mind generating it). The brain or something of that sort processes incoming information and feeds it to us as sensations ("qualia"). "Green" has no physical reality -- what we see as green is invented in the brain or mind -- what it is based on are certain wavelengths of light (usually but not always) fed to our consciousness as the color.
It is easy to demonstrate (showing Descartes had it all wrong) that a lot of animals are sentient. Descartes said that what they do looks like sentience, but is really just reflex. Of course there are things we do that are reflex, but we recognize them as such because they happen before we are consciously aware. That animals suffer too, though, shows me when they are in pain there is more than reflex going on, and one has to wonder what Descartes could have been thinking.
Sentience is a huge advance in survival. It can, for example, be associated with pleasure and displeasure centers in the brain, enabling the body to motivate the animal much more strongly and much more flexibly. So we perceive pain not just as a sensation but as something very unpleasant and bad -- and the animal does not have to wait for mutations that tell it not to do certain things.
Intelligence comes later, and probably needs the presence of sentience to evolve, and is associated with logic processing and association and categorization of things and stuff like that. A lot of animals can do those things too, but apparently it takes a lot more brainpower to do it well, hence our brains use four times as many calories ongoing as does a chimpanzee brain. Languages obviously fit into this as allowing these activities even more efficiently, and that is where I would also put mathematics.
Does the mind ever stop experiencing and thinking? I guess that depends on what "mind" is. If it is just an illusion generated by brain, then of course it stops thinking when we sleep without dream, when we are comatose, and when we die. Maybe that is the case even if mind is something more.
What sentience is and what it is when we experience qualia (including self awareness) is the "deep problem" of neurology, and, I would say, also of philosophy and psychology and maybe even physics. Because neither I nor anyone else has an answer (no one can pretend to even have an idea how to approach it scientifically) is not an excuse to jump to the god of the gaps, nor to jump to the woo of the gaps, but it is an excuse to seriously doubt traditional philosophical materialism (or its modern descendant now known as physicalism).
Sentience has to do with senses, and by extension also with emotions. The "sound" of one hand clapping is what we sometimes call frustration -- an unfulfilled expectation -- there should be a sound but there is not. This hoary old koan teaches how emotions and sensations are essentially the same sort of thing -- things we "feel" or experience, but are entirely in our mind.
Yes what we see and hear and so on is entirely in our mind. It is an illusion (not a delusion -- there is something outside our mind generating it). The brain or something of that sort processes incoming information and feeds it to us as sensations ("qualia"). "Green" has no physical reality -- what we see as green is invented in the brain or mind -- what it is based on are certain wavelengths of light (usually but not always) fed to our consciousness as the color.
It is easy to demonstrate (showing Descartes had it all wrong) that a lot of animals are sentient. Descartes said that what they do looks like sentience, but is really just reflex. Of course there are things we do that are reflex, but we recognize them as such because they happen before we are consciously aware. That animals suffer too, though, shows me when they are in pain there is more than reflex going on, and one has to wonder what Descartes could have been thinking.
Sentience is a huge advance in survival. It can, for example, be associated with pleasure and displeasure centers in the brain, enabling the body to motivate the animal much more strongly and much more flexibly. So we perceive pain not just as a sensation but as something very unpleasant and bad -- and the animal does not have to wait for mutations that tell it not to do certain things.
Intelligence comes later, and probably needs the presence of sentience to evolve, and is associated with logic processing and association and categorization of things and stuff like that. A lot of animals can do those things too, but apparently it takes a lot more brainpower to do it well, hence our brains use four times as many calories ongoing as does a chimpanzee brain. Languages obviously fit into this as allowing these activities even more efficiently, and that is where I would also put mathematics.
Does the mind ever stop experiencing and thinking? I guess that depends on what "mind" is. If it is just an illusion generated by brain, then of course it stops thinking when we sleep without dream, when we are comatose, and when we die. Maybe that is the case even if mind is something more.
What sentience is and what it is when we experience qualia (including self awareness) is the "deep problem" of neurology, and, I would say, also of philosophy and psychology and maybe even physics. Because neither I nor anyone else has an answer (no one can pretend to even have an idea how to approach it scientifically) is not an excuse to jump to the god of the gaps, nor to jump to the woo of the gaps, but it is an excuse to seriously doubt traditional philosophical materialism (or its modern descendant now known as physicalism).
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
What causes homosexuality?
One might ask for what just is it that determines our "sexual orientation?" Most of the details of how to have sex and who we think beautiful are learned, as are fetishes, and all that comes through life. It is probably true that almost all men (gay and straight) are born with an inherent desire for youthful partners who are of optimal breeding age, and it is probably true that most women have a different, more "will they be loyal and help me with my baby?" set of priorities. Otherwise the details get fixed by experiences of what is pleasurable and what isn't.
The sexual orientation also has to be kept separate in one's mind from one's sexual identity. I'm gay but I know and like the fact that I'm a man and have no desire to be a woman, either physically or in bed. That is a separate set of issues.
Now what is it that makes for orientation? I think it is "turn on" buttons, and there are two sets of these. One is an attraction to smooth skin, broad hips, breasts, female genitals. The other is an attraction to rougher skin, narrow hips and broad shoulders, male genitals. Except for bisexuals, who appear to be heterogeneous here (if it's genetic), we get one or the other and it is in place from the beginning, although of course it doesn't really present itself until the puberty hormones set in.
There does seem to be pretty strong twin evidence of an inherited component (identical twins are more likely the same orientation that fraternal twins), but there could be a uterine component too (there is a slight prevalence of same orientation in fraternal twins). Brothers raised together and brothers raised separately show no particular concurrence, so we conclude it is not overbearing mothers and weak fathers.
What one inherits seems to be a genetic "turn on" pattern, in humans mainly visually oriented.
Of course one could ask what is the survival value of having the patterns inverted occasionally. I don't think there needs to be one (although theories abound). It could be just something that evolution has never had any reason to evolve prevention mechanisms for. In most societies when a boy is gay, the brother steps in on the sly, and the family name goes on. There is not that much of a selective disadvantage, and it can be offset by the additional help raising the babies. Besides, among hunter-gatherers, it could be useful to have members of the tribe who the hunters know will not cuckold them remain behind with the women to provide better security.
The sexual orientation also has to be kept separate in one's mind from one's sexual identity. I'm gay but I know and like the fact that I'm a man and have no desire to be a woman, either physically or in bed. That is a separate set of issues.
Now what is it that makes for orientation? I think it is "turn on" buttons, and there are two sets of these. One is an attraction to smooth skin, broad hips, breasts, female genitals. The other is an attraction to rougher skin, narrow hips and broad shoulders, male genitals. Except for bisexuals, who appear to be heterogeneous here (if it's genetic), we get one or the other and it is in place from the beginning, although of course it doesn't really present itself until the puberty hormones set in.
There does seem to be pretty strong twin evidence of an inherited component (identical twins are more likely the same orientation that fraternal twins), but there could be a uterine component too (there is a slight prevalence of same orientation in fraternal twins). Brothers raised together and brothers raised separately show no particular concurrence, so we conclude it is not overbearing mothers and weak fathers.
What one inherits seems to be a genetic "turn on" pattern, in humans mainly visually oriented.
Of course one could ask what is the survival value of having the patterns inverted occasionally. I don't think there needs to be one (although theories abound). It could be just something that evolution has never had any reason to evolve prevention mechanisms for. In most societies when a boy is gay, the brother steps in on the sly, and the family name goes on. There is not that much of a selective disadvantage, and it can be offset by the additional help raising the babies. Besides, among hunter-gatherers, it could be useful to have members of the tribe who the hunters know will not cuckold them remain behind with the women to provide better security.
Catholics and the Bible and Apostolic Succession
Catholics never denied the Bible, although their Bible is not the same as the Protestant Bible, it shares a common corpus. What they did deny is that people reading it have the ability to decide the Church's views are not Biblical. Frankly I think they have the better of the argument, even though of course their claim of Apostolic Succession is based on some pretty thin evidence.
The reason they get the better of the argument is that I see most Protestants picking and choosing which verses they like, even though they claim they don't, and even lifting passages out of context to "prove" their point.
It's kind of like making a study designed to prove some point one already believes. If they approached the Bible to see what it really says, they would not be so glib, but then of course they would eventually have to abandon the Bible altogether for all purposes but literary fiction.
The reason they get the better of the argument is that I see most Protestants picking and choosing which verses they like, even though they claim they don't, and even lifting passages out of context to "prove" their point.
It's kind of like making a study designed to prove some point one already believes. If they approached the Bible to see what it really says, they would not be so glib, but then of course they would eventually have to abandon the Bible altogether for all purposes but literary fiction.
God punishing his children
Have you heard that God punishes us to prevent our being bad or doing stupid things and getting hurt. In this he shows his love for us.
Psychologists know that if one tries to use punishment to teach a kid right and wrong, what you really do is teach the kid to lie and cause resentment and, depending on the severity, even hate. There are much better ways to raise kids.
Also, delayed consequences don't teach either. "Just wait until your father gets home," teaches the kid nothing about right and wrong and only that the father is someone to be feared.
There are ways, using real love and real compassion, to raise good children and never engage in any sort of punishment, neither physical nor verbal nor via denials. There are many books on the subject so I won't try to demonstrate this here.
Yet isn't the method known to be wrong the way the churches tell us God behaves?
Psychologists know that if one tries to use punishment to teach a kid right and wrong, what you really do is teach the kid to lie and cause resentment and, depending on the severity, even hate. There are much better ways to raise kids.
Also, delayed consequences don't teach either. "Just wait until your father gets home," teaches the kid nothing about right and wrong and only that the father is someone to be feared.
There are ways, using real love and real compassion, to raise good children and never engage in any sort of punishment, neither physical nor verbal nor via denials. There are many books on the subject so I won't try to demonstrate this here.
Yet isn't the method known to be wrong the way the churches tell us God behaves?
Pious fraud
One should never forget the phenomenon of pious fraud. This is the idea that lying and other forms of dishonesty (telling just part of the truth, for example) in the pursuit of saving souls is justified. The early Christians were open about doing this, and I think (tongue in cheek here) it may be part of the Jesuit manual.
Sexual ethics
As I tend to say over and over, ethics comes not from how we feel about things but from the basic principles of compassion, utility, and equality.
Now any sex act where one of the people involved either does not understand or does not want it is violation of equality, and is of course rape.
Even when both parties are willing, if it does harm, such as spread disease or hurt one or the other emotionally, then it violates utility and is again wrong. Infidelity too is wrong if it hurts one's spouse emotionally or otherwise, no matter how consenting the partners are.
It seems to me highly likely that adults having sex with minors is highly prone to hurt the minor emotionally, and to adversely affect their normal maturation. That being the case it should be avoided. I personally, as I have said before, have no attraction to teenagers. In fact my partner is my age -- we are both old codgers. However, it is too easy to condemn things we have no inclination toward -- this is hypocritical and lacks compassion and is also wrong.
Morality is not easy, and has to be settle not with rules but with reasoning derived from rational principles. There is no rule that stands up under all circumstances -- I would be perfectly capable of killing Pol Pot given the chance.
Now any sex act where one of the people involved either does not understand or does not want it is violation of equality, and is of course rape.
Even when both parties are willing, if it does harm, such as spread disease or hurt one or the other emotionally, then it violates utility and is again wrong. Infidelity too is wrong if it hurts one's spouse emotionally or otherwise, no matter how consenting the partners are.
It seems to me highly likely that adults having sex with minors is highly prone to hurt the minor emotionally, and to adversely affect their normal maturation. That being the case it should be avoided. I personally, as I have said before, have no attraction to teenagers. In fact my partner is my age -- we are both old codgers. However, it is too easy to condemn things we have no inclination toward -- this is hypocritical and lacks compassion and is also wrong.
Morality is not easy, and has to be settle not with rules but with reasoning derived from rational principles. There is no rule that stands up under all circumstances -- I would be perfectly capable of killing Pol Pot given the chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Further, the atheist has gotten that way through thought about the nature of the universe we are in, rather than by being indoctrinated as a child or accepting some authority blindly.