Jehovah

Aramaic was the lingua franka of the Levant and Mesopotamia, just as Greek was of much of the East and Latin of the West.

This is one of the problems with the New Testament.  It was written in Greek, some parts better Greek than others, and when it quoted the OT it used the Greek LXX, not the Hebrew original that real Jews were raised on.  That is why the writers of the NT seem to have no hint that the Tetragrammaton even existed.  (A real Hebrew of the time and period would have known about it and would not dare use the LXX substitution "Adonai." )  So the NT was written by Greeks, who do seem to know about the existence of Aramaic but not much, and seem to see Jesus speaking Greek.  Indeed, when an Aramaic expression is introduced, it is prefaced by things like "as is said.""

Jehovah's Witnesses, in their version of the New Testament, put in "Jehovah" in the quotes from the OT where it belongs, but this is their invention, and is not found in any of the old MSS of the NT.  This at least is better than most Christians, who try to forget the "name" ever existed -- it is a bit of an embarrassment that even Jesus appears in the NT as ignorant of the Name of God used thousands of times in the original OT.  He never even addresses the superstition of the time and of Jews today that the name should not be pronounced out loud (a bit like Valdemort).  As anti-superstitious as Jesus is supposed to have been, this is indeed strange (unless of course one realizes there was no Jesus and the movement was a Greek invention patterned after their other mystery cults).

Are Lesbians gay?

Homosexuals are both men and women attracted to the same sex. Gay is an unoffensive word one can use to refer to homosexuals in more casual contexts.

The word "lesbian" is fine for female homosexuals. We seem to have no equivalent for male homosexuals.

I have a suspicion that the female homosexual population has women in it who do not want to be associated with male homosexuals. The behaviors are very different, as is the society. Still, when the two groups join hands and admit they are all in the same boat, they do so much better.

I remember a "lesbian" party my partner and I were invited to by our lesbian neighbor, and we were the only men there, but we were well treated and accepted.(It was remarked to me afterward that one particularly "anti-male" woman who was there commented later that we weren't typical gay men at all. Maybe not, I guess.

Converting Christians

You should know by now that I am an atheist of a general Buddhist philosophy (but without the rebirth and Nirvana and all that). Most Buddhists, by Christian standards, would be considered atheists since even those who think there are gods are using a word that shouldn't be translated "god" but only "tremendously good people who have attained exalted state temporarily".

I appreciate Christians when they are good Christians and find them disgusting when they use their religion for prejudice and discrimination and so on. I think as a group they are indoctrinated, and therefore can't often see through the rank absurdity of what their religion teaches. Hence I try to be gentle. There is no need to convert them -- if they die Christian they are no better or worse off than the rest of us.

Politics and global warming

That carbon dioxide is good for plants is well known --- at least they grow faster -- up to a point, but with unknown consequences, that vary from species to species. This is not at all relevant and that it keeps getting repeated just shows how absent of real evidence the deniers have. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

The earth will eventually warm enough that what it radiates is back in line with incoming energy -- at a higher temperature. Our society will have to adjust, if it can, because of the stupidity of people giving stupid politicians political cover from what the scientific community knows.

I see an attack on the "scientific consensus." To a large extent the specialists in any given field have been trained by the previous generation's specialists, as well as carrying out years of their own research (known as the graduate student and then the "publish or perish" route to tenure or a fellowship. There are generally, then, in any given specialty, maybe a hundred or so people specializing and experts in a given field. It ain't an easy thing to get into. 

Nowadays, to succeed in this, one must not let ideological (religious or political or whatever) preconceptions in the door -- one finds one soon exist it if one does. One must be interested only in demonstrable truth. It is okay, and in fact great, to propose wild-ass notions, even when they contradict known truths, but it's kinda subtle on how hard one pushes them, hard enough to stimulate approximate tests, but not so hard as to be a wild card.

Take for example the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, which no one predicted or expected in the least, yet it was universally accepted almost immediately after the evidence had been produced. So mental flexibility is needed. Again, there is continental drift, which had been percolating a generation, but not able to gain acceptance because of the obvious facts that whole continents, no matter how slowly, do not have any way or mechanism to move around. That is until one was found (sea bottom spreading). All at once things that had been problematic to the geologists and paleontologists because clear, and the consensus shifted within months.

When it comes to global warming, the theory and mechanism are in place and well demonstrated, the data is going largely as expected (a big volcano could put it off), global average temperatures are increasing, the ocean is expanding, the glaciers are in many places in trouble. Unfortunately the weather is a chaotic system so sometimes counter-events happen. One must watch overall trends, and they ain't good.

Political philosophy part one

OK, time for number one on my earlier political philosophy list, "How should politicians and office holders behave."

Well, of course, they should behave honorably, which Shakespeare made clear is not what we saw in Caesar's assassins, in spite of their talking about honor almost nonstop.

Honor would it seem excludes assassination.  Really?  Was Caesar a danger to the Roman state because he was "ambitious?" Well, yes he was, but his ambition was to stop the centuries-old power of an ingrained aristocracy called the Senate.  His plan was to extract its teeth, and that is the real reason they did him in.  The Roman constitution as it was had evolved via compromises for centuries, was way out of line with the fact of Empire, and would soon have fallen had Augustus not come along.  While there were things he did that make me wince, he at least set affairs in pretty good order.

So that is one thing a politician (henceforth this includes office holders) should never do and that is trust enemies, nor thrust themselves into public places.  There is no need for it nowadays, with TV and the Internet and so on.  Which should the politician be -- brave or stupid?  The handshaking and so on is just to get on TV anyway, and these things, while traditional, have no effect, except maybe on the person who gets their hand shaken, which can never add up to winning an election.  It is a waste of the politician's energy and hard on their hands (unless they give sloppy, weak, handshakes that are understandable but not impressive).  People important to a society are too important to put themselves at risk.

I think the honestly conducted press conference or just a policy statement delivered on TV (or whatever should become its equivalent in future).  By the way, a comment on journalist ethics, something that we often see ignored in the pursuit of fame -- questions at a press conference should be real questions, not traps or just statements of the opponent's position.  Otherwise the politician should be direct and put the journalist down in public with a response to the effect that you are looking for real questions.

A more important aspect of honorable behavior, though is lack of corruption, which goes way, way beyond accepting valuable bribes and favors.  It includes not exchanging political favors, not voting pork.  One of the most corrupt persons I can think of was a long term Senator from West Virginia who seemed to live for this.  I don't mention his name out of respect for the dead.

As things go today, then, it is obvious the U.S, is beset with corruption, and the consequences can be seen with bridges that go nowhere, military forts that aren't needed, and all kinds of wasted money.  I will deal with ways to construct institutions to manage these things later, but at least you would think the politician would have the honor and decency to not boast about these things and how they "bring home the bacon."

Alongside honor that the Romans were so hypocritical about, there is another thing we can call dignity.  Humor is desirable, but needs careful vetting.  Details like posture and grooming and speaking and so on are important in leadership.  More important though is the use of insults and other propaganda techniques to get elected (like patriotic music in the political commercial, or a flag, or testimonials, or patriotic symbols, or much ado about family and heritage, or anything else inclined to appeal to emotion rather than reason.  You would think the politician is selling soft drinks loaded with sugar.  The opponent needs to be criticized for what bad things they have done, and mistakes they have made, and it needs to be the truth (the whole truth), but the person of the opponent should be out of bounds.

This is of course the biggest problem with democracy -- people are influenced by this behavior.  We wouldn't see negative political advertisements if they didn't work, even though people profess to not like them.  Even if people don't believe the ad, it plants doubts.  No wonder election turnout is the States is so low.

I need to get a dig in here about lawyers.  As my blog probably makes pretty clear, I have a bad opinion of them as a class, as being the only profession for smart people to enter that has no particular reason to get into except money.  That they dominate the political class and as a result make laws where the interest of the political class remains well protected and it become almost impossible to do anything without hiring one tells me they should be banned from holding office.  They have already demonstrated their lack of honor and primary pecuniary interests, so they should not be allowed anywhere the laws they will be carrying out.  I'm sure there are a few honorable lawyers, and when one meeds one personally, they seem caring and interested, until one wants to compromise or one gets the bill and even worse if one contests it.

The sin of faith

Religion is often dumb, but people are not, even religious ones. 

I like to make a distinction between belief, which is things you accept on faith and it doesn't even occur to you to doubt and which you got via indoctrination, usually as a child -- and opinion, which is an intellectual view based on evidence and mindful consideration, which you doubt all the time (the more wild it is).

Religious people generally don't like to doubt -- they want the world and its answers handed to them, ad the religious memes encourage this by making faith a virtue and doubt a source of guilt and fear, when the reality is that doubt should be the virtue and faith should be disregarded entirely.

A side issue here is that faith in general, as is obvious in the news, does a great deal of harm. It is like people don't like Congress, but they like their particular Representative, so bad government goes on and on.

Besides, there are good things religions do, not that these good things wouldn't be done anyway, but I see no harm in cooperating with local religions when they are demonstrably doing good things.

I would define myself as skeptical, which leads to atheism, but there is no need for cynicism.

Assessing Obama

I have long thought it is pretty obvious there is no perfect candidate for office, and, being that they are politicians and generally were lawyers, this is not hard to understand. So why nit-pick every stumble and thing that goes wrong, and every lie they necessarily have to commit? It is better to ignore all that as noise and look at what the cliché calls the "big picture." As such Obama has done fine, especially when he has had to deal with Republicans in congress who have to respond to idiots like the Tea Party or lose closed primary elections. The economy is OK, as is the stock market. Inflation is nil and so are interest rates (which do hurt fixed income people but encourage investment and help the young starters-out. The country is essentially at peace, if such a think in the modern world is possible, with only a couple of inherited contests being wound down, although in some cases I think they will never end, I see no particular way to end them so it's hare to judge Obama for not doing so.

A beginning to political theory

What falls under the scope of "political philosophy"?

1.  How polilticians and officeholders should behave.

2.  What is the fairest way to select officeholders?

3.  What method of selecting officeholders is most likely to produce the best?

4.  Who should get the franchise, or whether there even should be a franchise?

5.  Are hereditary positions better or worse, under what conditions?

6.  How does a system prevent its being taken over by brutal leaders and turned into a dictatorship?

7  What forms of corruption (not just bribes but also political dealing and "bacon" voting can be allowed and how does a system prevent it?

8.  What constitutes a special insterest and how can their influence be controlled or eliminated?

9.  What to do about political parties and other forms of political alliance?

10.  Do people actually have certain "inalianable" rights and if so what are they and how does one spell out exceptions when these are needed?

11.  Is freedom a desirable thing in itself or just a useful theory or should it be igored?

12.  Much the same with justice or fairness in how governments function.

13.  Is democracy a good thing or a mistake or something in between?

I'm sure I've missed a few issues, but these are the ones I think important and I intend to address them in subsequent blogs from time to time.

Hate can be good

Hate is a perfectly natural emotion. When you experience it you may give yourself a little lecture to the effect that hate hurts only the hater -- the standard Buddhist reaction.

I don't buy it, even though everyone around me now is Buddhist. I think there are things properly worth hating, and that the emotion has good as well as bad effects, as with all emotions.

I'm glad you don't believe in the Devil. People who really do must live unfortunate lives, but when I said "the Devil" I used it as a symbol for people like Hitler or Napoleon or Attila or Stalin or Pol Pot or any of several really brutal autocrats in power today. These are all worthy of hate, and I don't think the hate has any bad effects on me, but indeed allows me to deal with the anguish their acts generate in me.

Religious emotion

Most religions, not just Christians, and, for that matter, a lot of non-religious ideologies, depend on strong emotions to maintain their meme in a person. These include hate, of course, as it unifies and blocks thinking, but also fear (of divine displeasure or of the loneliness of not having a community), guilt (of thinking "wrong" things -- we all have a natural desire to do what is right) and, believe it or not, love (look at the adoration of Mary and how Christians are supposed to love Jesus up there on the Cross sacrificing his life (temporarily) "for our sins"(although I have never been able to figure out just how that works).

Jesus and sex

Thinking about it a little bit, I can see where Christians have a sexual problem with Jesus. They can't have him having sex with fourteen year old girls, like Mohamed, he just wasn't that sort of guy -- he didn't live off brigandage and kill anyone in his way.

Still, they have to admit (as it is part of the Trinity) that he was man -- he became human -- otherwise the sacrifice magic to lift the curse doesn't work. So he had a penis and one has to assume he was sexual (otherwise he wasn't fully a man).

Nowadays a guy who knows few women and hangs around with a bunch of other guys, and even goes so far as to refer to one of them as "beloved" is just assumed to be gay, but of course Christians have to deny that (why, exactly?-- well I guess just part of the prejudices of the time). So he was non-sexual -- celibate -- and priests and nuns follow that lead, although he never made any utterance commanding it.

Did he fantasize, or masturbate, or maybe even have secret sex with local prostitutes, which would explain his tolerance in spite of the spirit of the times. Of course he was tolerant in general. Too bad about the subsequent history of his movement.

Making plagiarism a crime

It occurs to me that I don't know why religion and the press get special protection. A good Bill of Rights would guarantee freedom of opinion and the right to express yourself, and would spell out that this doesn't permit malicious slander, disturbance of the peace, spread of hate, revealing state secrets that are properly state secrets, invasion of privacy except when there is an overriding public need, copyright infringement so long as the copyright holder makes the material available to the public at reasonable cost, and plagiarism (except when appropriate credit is provided).

Religious ministers and press reporters should get no special rights or access.

Bigotry

I don't understand bigotry. I figure it is an inherited genetic trait and the bigot has no choice but be a bigot. Education doesn't seem to help; they just rationalize and go to web sites produced by other bigots for reinforcement.

Skepticism about God

Skepticism (non-belief without evidence) of anything important is the default.  It is the burden of those who assert God to prove there is one.  Otherwise non-belief is the only rational way to go.

I don't think there is a God because of the massive amount of suffering in the world, and because assertions about him lead to self-referential contradictions (if you don't know what I''m talking about here then your belief is indeed shallow and based on sand).

However, as I said, is someone asserts something important, they have the burden of proof.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

By the way, I would not demand proof of God, just good evidence and an explanation of the problems with his existence I mentioned above.

Evil atheists

That Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were Communists we know, and therefore they were atheists. I'm sorry if it is so that not all atheists are moral saints.

It is true that they were also politicians, and did allow a certain amount of religious freedom (in fact a good deal more than Western propaganda likes to say) but this was all for pragmatic reasons. They were and repeatedly said they were atheists.

I am an atheist too -- in the "hard" sense that not only do I not believe in any gods, but that I am as convinced as it is possible to be that there is none. Okay? Do I lose my credentials just because I tell the truth about atheism? Were the whole world atheist, the world would be no better than it is. There would be other frauds and superstitions and so on. In fact we see more and more of this as religion fades out in countries like the States.

Moral or ethical standards (goodness versus evil) are not related in any way I can see to belief about God. Just as it is stupid for theists to claim that their belief makes them more moral, it is also stupid for atheists to say that their non-belief does.

Why Mars is small

Yes the Martian atmosphere was stripped by the solar wind, which was a consequence of the planet not being large enough to keep its interior from cooling off, which caused it to not have a magnetic field, which allowed the solar wind to hit the planet directly. I'm sure you know all this: I just clarify for general benefit.

The theory seems to be that Jupiter and Saturn did a little dance early on, preventing Mars from reaching proper size and preventing the formation of a planet where the asteroids are. Bode's Law is largely thought now to be just coincidence, but I suspect the scientists have jumped the gun a bit, since the idea that the planets would space themselves, all else being equal (which in most cases it probably is not) makes sense.

The universe's purpose

 I don't think the universe has a purpose. It just is as a result of natural processes; we just are for the same reason.

I look at all the "wasted" space in the universe -- not just the vast distances in space, but the immense void that is the typical atom, and another that is the typical nucleus (if the nucleus were the size of the solar system, the "particles" in it would be no bigger than a few asteroids, if even that (they may be dimensionless points). Why does the universe waste all that space? It doesn't need a "reason" for what it does, it just does what it does.

If we need purpose in our lives, we have to provide it. This I think we can do without going too deep (go too deep and you defeat yourself).

Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process

There was a time when the President nominated and the Senate restricted its review to the nominee's qualifications and judicial experience.  Now it is how they will vote on issues.  Of course a nominee cannot answer such a question, but they still try to find out.  America is going downhill into a political morass.

I think provided the nominee is qualified and excellent, the nomination should go through without a political storm.  I suspect the American people may punish a Senate and a party that is seen to do otherwise.  I would hope they would.

A possible reason "they" may not be out there

I think the most common event to happen to life is for it to be wiped out within a few million years of its beginning. We have the moon stabilizing our orbit, we have our magnetic field. protecting our atmosphere (which is probably why any life on Mars met its doom). we have been lucky to not have volcanic episodes like the one that resurfaced Venus a quarter billion years ago, and have been lucky that colliding objects have been not quite big enough to sterilize the earth (although a few have been almost there).

There also seem to be several specific events in evolution where the probabilities are extremely small. Now that it happened is plain, so we know it is possible, but I think that is all we can safely say. Actually I rather like the idea of our being essentially alone -- it will make for a safer universe and one we can do what we want with.

Some political philosophy

I've seen at first hand how one party systems work, and they aren't too bad and are getting better (cleaning up the nepotism and corruption that they started out with). In these systems nowadays pretty much anyone who is willing to put in the time and who graduates college or does military duty successfully (and of course has a clean nose) can become a member of the party. The members are in a hierarchy, each selecting from among themselves who is to represent them higher up, and so on. They periodically purge certain types, mostly the corrupt. It seems to work and avoids the ugliness of campaigns and parades of idiotic voters.

On the other hand, there is an obvious potential for dictatorship. The system needs, I think, balances on police and other enforcement agencies that it doesn't now have. I personally experienced this.

So now I'm living under a long-term dictator, of a most benign sort, in a liberal society where there is very considerable tolerance, and economic progress every bit as good as in China or Vietnam -- Cambodia -- without censorship and prudery (except children) and a more easy going economy (you can actually use American dollars). So I conclude that so long as the dictator is popular and rational and not brutal, it can be a better government too. I do hope he has made arrangements for a peaceful transition when he passes. It is also a monarchy, and the king does have some influence -- not legally, but ethically -- he can speak out against things he doesn't like -- the British monarch wouldn't dare.

The biggest problem with the American electorate, besides their stupidity, is their venality. They don't vote for the person best for the country, they vote their pocket book, and see nothing immoral about that. The politicians even encourage it, by bragging how much "pork" they can get for their district (or how they will get them special tax breaks). This is utterly corrupt -- worse in my mind than the cop demanding a bribe.

Monarchs who stay out of politics and keep a dignity and stature the people can be proud of can have great influence and help the country a lot. They can also be the focus for resolving a constitutional crisis, which otherwise can lead to violence. The States have the Supreme Court for that purpose, but they are slow to act and have become politicized since Bork.

All told, it depends on the quality of the person. Hence systems where choices are made by people who already have long connections with each other seems to me the best route.

Elections are a farce and legitimacy an illusion

Something is needed to give the government an illusion of legitimacy, since we no longer think the first-born son is the only legitimate ruler. It is an illusion. Your vote can be and far more often than people imagine is stolen. I have seen close elections and inevitably they end up with the guy from the party that controls the election bureaucracy winning. I remember in particular a whole ballot box of Democratic votes in a close Gubernatorial election in Seattle showing up where the local judge force them to be included even though it meant more people had voted than had been listed as voting.

Now of course this is only possible in close elections, but they can be extremely significant -- look how Bush won in Florida and thereby got the Presidency, or how Kennedy won in Illinois with the same result.

The biggest problem though is the electorate itself. They vote based on impressions they get from a debate, with little if any knowledge of the candidate's voting record, and no sense at all of what the person is like. At least in things like Congressional leadership contests, the candidates are personally known to the voters, and so more sensible people usually win.

I can't think of how many times one or another candidate has won an election simply because he or she came out with a particularly effective campaign add. Why do you think so much of political advertising is so negative -- when everyone says they don't like them? It's because if you can tarnish your opponent with something, even though untrue or not the whole story, you win. 

I repeat -- elections are a farce and the ensuing legitimacy an illusion. If I could think of something better I would be all for it. As it is, the process needs radical reformation.

About lawyers

I have a few things to say about lawyers. First. they are intelligent. You don't get into law school, let alone get the degree, without smarts. However, think about all the smart kids in their last years of undergraduate work. Some will become academics or scholars of some sort, some will become teachers, others will become engineers or work on computers or architects or doctors. Then some will go to law school. Why do they go to law school? Being a lawyer is a prestige although not very well liked profession, and it is extremely remunerative. If you are even reasonably good at it you can make hundreds of thousands, and lots of them make millions. Also, since the legal system is designed and enacted by politicians who are mostly lawyers, the system is tilted in your favor in all sorts of little ways. Now, then, the other professions also usually make good money (except scholars and teachers -- the two society needs most). They all contribute to society except lawyers, and generally those who enter the other fields have altruistic and idealistic reasons. The only reason a young person enters law school is with the aim of making money. I suppose there are a few exceptions, but I never met one. The US is particularly infested. Most countries still prohibit legal advertising and ambulance chasing, and under Code Napoleon there are no juries easy to fool and confuse, and the lawyer has a greatly diminished role even in criminal cases and particularly in civil cases. In America, as we have seen, if you have enough money and can get really good lawyers, it is not that hard to get away with murder.  That is the main reason things like health care, education, municipal governance, and even law enforcement are so much more expensive in the States, with only average and sometimes below average outcomes.

A problem I often run into is that some people just assume their "common sense" concepts are right and anything else is nuts.

I must admit having "common sense" problems (or at least I use to -- I don't now) with the idea that matter has the effect of "warping" the space-time around it, so that the earth orbits the sun because of geometry, not force.(Of course there is the alternative quantum particle exchange view, but I only mention this so as to keep someone from "correcting" me).

The common sense view is of a force -- an invisible hand that reaches out from the sun and holds the earth in place. I can see why Newton was criticized -- what is this hand that does its thing through the vast emptiness of space?

Something people won't admit is that the universe was not designed, and if it was designed, it was not for our benefit in understanding it. That we can't understand something -- even if it seems outrageous and we can't see how it could possibly be -- is not grounds for dismissal. It may be grounds for demanding extraordinary evidence, but even here we need to have the humility to accept the verdict of the experts.

Gay, queer, and the dictionary

When writing, the author does not dare use the word "gay" or the word "queer"in any context except reference to homosexuality. To say, "We had a gay time at the party," or, "That house gives me the creeps -- it makes me feel queer all over," just cannot be done without the reader being distracted from what you want to say onto the idea of homosexuals being around.

In short, the old meanings have been destroyed by the new ones, even though we still find the old ones listed first in the dictionary.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and no country on the planet has it. They all have institutions that temper the will ("tyranny?") of the majority. Hence elected representatives rather than direct votes on all issues, hence courts who can overturn things, hence a Constitution, and so on.

The problem with government is choosing who governs, and obviously inherited aristocracies and strong monarchies are really bad ideas. So Churchill didn't like democracy because he saw how foolish it was and ended up letting Hitler get much further than he felt should have been allowed. Still, he realized he could not suggest a better solution.

There is a tradition in political philosophy begun with Plato that says only a small and carefully selected few should govern. The problem is who decides who is to be in that small few and who does the selecting, and how do you prevent the choices from becoming corrupt or inherited. Still, my inclinations are toward that sort of system, seeing the stupidity with which most people cast ballots.

I think lawyers and politicians are by definition unqualified to make political decisions, yet we find in most countries that they are the ones in power. You have to have known a few of them personally to realize that they are (at least the politicians -- there are lots of good lawyers). Most of us like power and have opinions, but we don't have the drive to power that motivates politicians -- indeed, we don't even understand it -- it is a form of sexual drive that most of us either lack or only have a bit of.

The problem with faith

The problem with belief (faith) is that doubt is inevitable. This causes the thing psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" and it is not pleasant. It leads to guilt and fear. 

I try to maintain a distinction between opinion and belief, although I know the language is against me a lot of the time, still the distinction is a real thing. I find that by meditating on something I very much want to believe but have problems with, I can flip a switch in my mind and bring about real belief, so that I no longer think the thing is probably true but am sure it must be true -- I believe it.

Then there arises the unpleasantness of doubt, as some thought or maybe some event shows me that my belief might not actually be right.

The way to avoid all this is to take the attitude of the Buddhists, that nothing is certain, that belief is foolish, that the best we have are opinions, supported by good reasons, that we can hold with varying degrees of confidence, but never absolute confidence. 

All memes (systems of thought typified by religions) have ways and tricks whereby they protect themselves, and faith is one of the worst of these. They make it a sin to doubt and a virtue to forget one's doubts and return to the fold, which is then followed by the brain giving one a flood of chemicals that we experience as joy and peace and misinterpret as God's spirit. This is one of the ways religions keep going in spite of their absurdity in the modern world.(Of course they also use propaganda (emotional appeals), indoctrination (especially of children), peer pressure, and violence here and there.

AIDS and gay men

A large portion of men would be womanizers, going from woman to woman to woman, if the women would permit it.(Nowadays this is somewhat the case in colleges, but still women have a different agenda).

Now put such a man in an environment where the women have his agenda, and assume he is young and good looking. He will be like a kid let go in a candy shop.

This is a characteristic of maleness, not gayness. Female gays are not promiscuous, but a lot if not most male gays are, and they are in an environment where everyone around them has much the same agenda.

Now come a virus that dies instantly when exposed to air, so the only way it can spread is through sex (and a few other ways where no exposure to air happens). Give the virus a good long gestation period so people can have it and spread it a lot before they know they have it.

Put together typical young male in the gay environment and the evolution of such a virus, and you have a recipe for the disaster that happened. There are a lot of diseases that young gay men get out of proportion to the rest of the population. They are young and eager and full of hormones and really quite uninformed.

Skepticism versus cynicism versus faith

Skepticism should, to any intelligent, thinking person, be the default. Unless you have good reason to think something is true, then it probably isn't. The burden should always be on the person claiming the truth of something -- the doubter has the right and intellectual duty to doubt.

Distinguish skepticism from cynicism. The former is the healthy, correct attitude, the latter goes too far and won't accept truth even when there is good evidence for it.

This is the problem with the concept of "faith," which the religions make a virtue of but which is really a vice -- a way people have of excusing their believing what they want to believe and avoiding the intellectual responsibility of questioning and always doubting.

Freedom from religion

It seems to me a claim to freedom of religion doesn't mean much if there isn't also freedom from religion, by which I mean the ability to not have a religion and suffer no political or legal consequences. Protecting this liberty seems to me one of the most important functions a court can have.

The idea that public property be used to celebrate religious events, such as posting the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall or celebration of Christmas in a public school, are violations of the First Amendment, regardless of whether atheists exist or not, as there are other religions that this sort of thing also offends. Private property should be used for such things, and government should not pay for it.

I have to remark on an aspect of this -- the Buddhists and the Roman Catholics have a running competition in Vietnam as to who can erect the most grandiose and remarkable statues (icons) all over Vietnam. The government doesn't allow proselytizing, but somehow the erection of these statues is not seen as proselytizing, so they do it everywhere. I must say the happy fat Buddha (Maitreya) and the beautiful, peaceful Quanyin on her lotus blossom are more pleasant to the eye than all the bloody Jesus statues and all the Mary's with bleeding hearts. Catholics seem to be a religion of blood.

Still, they both distract from the scenery and despoil a lot of beautiful views.

Christian sacrifice and curses

We have not just mankind but the whole world under a curse of suffering and death -- because Adam disobeyed. Even if you take the Adam and Eve story as allegory, it still is just not credible. Curse? That is something of primitive magic. Why? What has the gazell brought down by the lion anything to do with sin or disobedience? What has the death of millions of men, women, animals and forests killed in a volcanic eruption have to do with it all? It just didn't hold even a drop of water.

And then we have the idea that this is lifted (although strangely the suffering is still around) by the human sacrifice of a god or of God (depending on your view of the Trinity) dying in order to somehow, I can only think magically, lift this.

Of course the idea of sacrifice, even human sacrifice, to mollify and bribe the gods was common enough -- humans when faced with things out of their control invent ways to at least think they are doing something -- but isn't Christianity supposed to be above and superior to such primitive things?

Is giving God a name idolatrous?

One distinction to keep in mind. "God" is a title, not a name, like "President" or "Buddha." "Allah is a name -- "There is no God but Allah." That in and of itself is problematic -- that the one and only omnipotent God should have a proper name. There is a good deal of confusion on that subject in the OT, and the Jews ended up with a couple of names for their God, but they clearly didn't like it and made the names, rather superstitiously, taboo to speak out loud.

It seems to me that naming God is a form of idolatry -- a picturing of him of sorts.

Dumbing down

There is an element of anti-intellectualism in the American culture. Smart people are "eggheads" and so on. Obama is one of the smartest, most academically successful, men in modern politics, but he goes way out of his way to conceal it. If I were interviewing candidates for a job, this is what I would look for, but not if you are a candidate for the Presidency.

Electoral reforms

Oh no doubt about it; a large part of the Republican base is composed of racists, religious bigots, homophobes, jingoists, and the like. This has always been a problem for me since when one of those wins the primaries and is the candidate I necessarily have to vote for the Democrat. 

I think both parties are beholden to Corporate interest -- if you look at the fact that most Corporations write big checks to both parties one can see this.

This illustrates two problems with the American system. The Bill of Rights needs amending to allow regulation -- strict regulation -- of all campaign contributions and of the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns (as it is now such regulation is difficult to get around the free speech guarantee). All this money really is just bribery in a different form.

The other problem is partisan elections. A better system would be for all the candidates to be listed in a single ballot with each person having one vote, then any candidates getting less than a given percent removed and a second election, continuing the cycle until someone gets a majority. In other words, no parties, no primaries where the extremists dominate, forcing candidates to the center.

Infinite God and my atheism

I think it likely there exist in the universe alien civilizations with technology far beyond us, who would seem like deities were they to come here, but that doesn't mean they are deities.  I would put Zeus and all similar beings, if they were real, in the same category.  They are powerful and if they demand worship one would be wise to give it, but I would remain at heart an atheist.

How would God differ?  He would not just be a superman with great power.  Now, would he qualify as "God" if he were infinite?  Even then, no.  I can in theory have a stack of books that stretches (assuming space is Euclidean) up infinitely far, and contains an infinite amount of knowledge in them.  But is that all knowledge possible.  No, because I could also have a second pile next to it that contains even more knowledge, again infinite.  The same could apply to a being that knows an infinite amount of stuff -- it would have no way of being sure it knew everything there was to be known -- there could be infinite amounts of knowledge completely outside its ken.

No -- to really be God and cause me to stop being an atheist, this God would have to be all-knowing -- but I just showed that such a state would be impossible.  Even with infinite knowledge one could never be sure there didn't exists realms or even whole universes outside this God's knowledge and impossible for it to reach. 

This is just one of the problems with the idea of a real God.  Of course Christians, when presented with these problems, redefine their God into something more limited, but then all he is is a superman or advanced technology alien.  Not God and I remain an atheist.  Just a little intelligence is needed to see all this and stop the silliness, although in all probability any response I get to this will reflect inability to think about infinity with any clarity.

Global warming

Pure carbon dioxide is lethal in the sense that you suffocate. Carbon monoxide is lethal for complicated reasons (it substitutes itself for oxygen on the hemoglobin molecule).

I think the lesson is that carbon dioxide is necessary. What that means is some carbon dioxide is good, too much is bad. 

The same applies in the atmosphere. Water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, but it cycles in a period of weeks, so no matter how much water we put in the atmosphere we just get it back. The cycle time for carbon dioxide is thousands of years is not more, so when we put it in the atmosphere it stays there and accumulates. Although the amounts we put in are small compared to the amounts already present, the increase has immediate effects in causing the earth to hold more heat and warm up, again by just a small amount (a few degrees). Add to that the warming effect of methane produced by domestic animals and we are putting ourselves in danger.

The risks can and are sometimes overstated and exaggerated for political purposes (Al Gore is one of the worst here and his behavior in discrediting genuine concerns with his exaggeration of it for his personal purposes disgusts me).

But he is not the only one playing political games with the fate of mankind. While I don't expect extinction of humanity, if what is happening goes on we are likely to have a severe century or longer setback in human progress, just to cover the costs rising sea levels will cause.

I am hopeful technology will save us. Fusion, better fission reactors, solar, wind, carbon dioxide capture technologies, greater efficiencies in energy use, and other things may or may not arrive in time. In the meantime measures like taxing gasoline more, removing the oil depletion allowance (a hidden subsidy for the oil industry), maybe a carbon tax, taking a more reasonable approach to nuclear plants, and scores of other measures that could be taken would all improve the eventual outcome.

How to be a famous philosopher

One conclusion I drew reading almost all the famous philosophers is that you have got to be arrogant out your ears, not tolerating any objections (the ethicists are usually an exception). 

You also have to be inventive and very assertive if you want to get famous as a philosopher, even if you know you are wrong, don't admit it. Thereby you get famous as others quote you in order to refute you.

Creating universes from nothing

I think I will discourse a little on conservation of matter/energy. This is a principle that was only discovered in the nineteenth century, and it was discovered empirically, using induction, not by deduction. Maybe that is why God didn't include it in the Ten Commandments.

Now, it is for sure that when someone looks at the output of a particle collision, and finds the output doesn't total the input, then there is assumed something wrong. Matter/energy is so almost always conserved that the assumption is always that that is the case. This was in fact how neutrinos were predicted, and later found.

However, quantum uncertainty makes it a certainty (now I like that -- uncertainty makes a certainty [grin]) that so-called "virtual" particles pop into and out of existence all the time. This is a misnomer -- while they exist they are real and have demonstrable effects. It is in fact this creation of particles at the event horizon of a black hole that caused the scientific community to realize they eventually evaporate.

What you do, when you want to make a universe, is you make it from nothing. The universe is "the greatest possible free lunch." There is good reason from observation, and excellent reason from theory, to say that all the conserved quantities (mass/energy -- gravitational charge --, electric charge, momentum and angular momentum) when taken for the universe as a whole total nothing. Positive gravitational energy is balanced by negative ("mostly dark") energy, electrons balance locally (positive and negative charge), motion is essentially in all directions, and the cosmos is not observed to rotate. 

However, to get a universe you need do nothing but wait. Quantum uncertainty will see to it that it will happen now and then.

I have posted my understanding of this as best I can: those with knowledge of the area are welcome to nitpick at any mistakes.

Causation is not always so

Something came from nothing. Being an atheist isn't hard when you realize that all creationism depends on are intuitive ideas we picked up as children, such as everything has a prior cause. There is no logical reason for this. It seems to be the case, most of the time, and that really is all that can be said. It also seems the case that anything that goes up must come down, but it isn't always the case.

Something people need to learn is that just because one cannot see how something could be doesn't mean it can't be. It may be just your ego rejecting things not understood because your pride won't allow it.

Guns, guns, guns

I have to comment on the morality of having a gun.

It turns family disputes into murders.
It turns depression into suicide.
It turns child curiosity into dead children.
It turns home "defenders" into either manslaughter prisoners or dead from their own gun.
It turns accidental or confused Alzheimer's or intoxicated people into corpses.
It turns criminals who have done nothing worthy of execution into corpses.
It make mass murderers and the insane much more efficient.

People like to brag about how they are responsible gun owners.  There ain't no such thing -- the very ownership of a gun proves that.

Having a gun around, people, is an invitation to disaster and therefor an evil act.  Please no ""tu quoque" on me here -- two wrongs don't make a right.

Mormons and coffee and tea

When I went through the sessions as a teenager with a couple of Mormon "Elders" (young men on their two-year missionary assignment) I was told that tobacco, alcohol, tea and coffee were prohibited. 

When I asked why, health reasons were cited. I'm pretty sure there is a passage somewhere in the Bible predicting that false profits would come telling people to not eat certain foods.

Well we know that (except in excess) coffee contains all sorts of good things for us, and unfermented tea is wonderful for our health (fermented tea seems to be good too, although not as good). This makes the idea that the ban came from God ridiculous on its face.

At the time I learned of all this, I was a typical teenager given to an occasional beer, and could see no harm except alcoholism, so I thought it should be allowed for anyone without that problem. Of course we now know that even a drink a week is linked to some increase in cancer, so I abstain. This is probably excessive on my part.

I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of ourselves, using reason and moderation, and I do not think it is the business of any church to dictate to anyone on these matters, only to give advice and good example.

The American immigration issue

America needs immigrants, and if you people would get over your prejudices and fears you would see that.  The population is aging and there is not going to be enough workers to pay to give the elderly even a decent life.

Yes it would be really smart to be selective in who comes -- as far as skills and English and health and so on, as countries like Australia do.  Anyone who meets standards along those lines should be encouraged and even subsidized to immigrate. 

Still, it is not possible to keep out people with the initiative and determination to get in.  Hasn't the country by now learned the futility of trying to enforce laws where there are millions who break them?  Be realistic even if you are inhumane and bigoted.

It is just simply not sane to think America could deport all the illegals there now -- twenty million is it? -- That would require a Fascist type of regime and would destroy the US economy and result in all sorts of civil disturbances and be totally inhumane, making the country be seen worldwide as a pariah.

Testability as a scientific standard

The fact is that science is what scientists do, and to be a scientist one must be objective, smart, trained in a scientific discipline, and not rely on supernatural or magical concepts. Science has produced a lot and made our world, while most people go through life ignorant and even disparaging it.

The requirement that scientific ideas must be testable to be scientific is often used, I think wrongly. Obviously tests and the ability to make predictions improve the likelihood that an idea will be incorporated into the body of scientific theory, but testability is not by itself grounds for rejection, maybe just grounds for putting it on the shelf to wait until tests become available.