Reviewing the blogs I've posted, it seems there is a theme - what is right and what is wrong - ethics. I haven't delved much into the formal ethics taught in college of Socrates and Kant and others, although I think it is good that people study these thinkers. I've just kind-of applied a mix of Western philosophy and Buddhist ethical thought, in a personal way coming down to where I think one should be and then explaining and defending that.
There are and will of course be blogs on other topics, but in the end I notice that they seem to almost always come down to our doing what is right. I think life is mostly about that, and for sure happiness is. (Oh, following traditional rules, even though they are presented as ethical rules, often causes unhappiness, but this is because (at least in the given situation) they are wrong and in our hearts if we are sensitive we know it).
So I'm going to change the title of this blog to something more specific and point out the general thrust.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Contradicting myself
It has been brought to my attention that I appear to contradict myself (horrors!). In one blog I state the maxim that one should eat whatever one is served when one is a guest. In the other I say that I usually carefully pick out the curdled blood when it is in my noodles or soup or whatever.
Well, in the latter case I had in mind in a restaurant. When one is paying for the meal one is not a guest. That said it is not good to make an issue of such things anywhere.
But really the criticism of this contradiction misses the point that I think is a thread throughout this blog -- that rules or laws or maxims of an ethical nature are guides, but we must always be willing to abandon them if it leads to our doing something wrong.
This takes judgment and compassion, and for the most part the feelings of our host are paramount. When it comes to something clearly unhealthy (as opposed to meat which is plainly not unhealthy as so many thrive with it in their diets), one would still not say anything and try to be surreptitious. At least that is where I come down on this. I must say that I would rather eat the blood than hurt my host, and I think this is where I come down, although of course others may think otherwise.
It is OK to avoid things for no reason other than that you find them repulsive. One often should try to get over and control one's revulsions, but if something makes one unhappy, then by all means avoid it. It's just that in the end we are better off not having to avoid things.
My main point though is that if one is a vegetarian one need to not let this be known. It is praying in public and people don't like it and are often offended.
Well, in the latter case I had in mind in a restaurant. When one is paying for the meal one is not a guest. That said it is not good to make an issue of such things anywhere.
But really the criticism of this contradiction misses the point that I think is a thread throughout this blog -- that rules or laws or maxims of an ethical nature are guides, but we must always be willing to abandon them if it leads to our doing something wrong.
This takes judgment and compassion, and for the most part the feelings of our host are paramount. When it comes to something clearly unhealthy (as opposed to meat which is plainly not unhealthy as so many thrive with it in their diets), one would still not say anything and try to be surreptitious. At least that is where I come down on this. I must say that I would rather eat the blood than hurt my host, and I think this is where I come down, although of course others may think otherwise.
It is OK to avoid things for no reason other than that you find them repulsive. One often should try to get over and control one's revulsions, but if something makes one unhappy, then by all means avoid it. It's just that in the end we are better off not having to avoid things.
My main point though is that if one is a vegetarian one need to not let this be known. It is praying in public and people don't like it and are often offended.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Eating blood -- if one eats meat, why not? As a westerner I have a cultural problem and can't bring myself to do anything but carefully pick out the bits of blood in my noodles or whatever and set them aside, although of course I say nothing.
One should not eat blood for the same reason one should avoid organ meats -- the iron and metallic load is too great (and other reasons -- this is not a medical blog so research it yourself).
However many religions prohibit blood consumption on its own for superstitious reasons -- it seems the precursors of modern Jews thought the soul was in the blood, or some such thing, and this got passed to Christians and Muslims, so that in most countries there are special laws regarding the draining of blood from slaughtered animals. The Muslims appear to have taken this way to far and demand slaughter methods that are barbaric and cruel.
Of course common sense tells us that even after draining the blood there will remain a lot of it in the meat. I don't know how the religions who make a big deal of this rationalize this simple fact.
I read in the Bible's Book of Acts that the apostles lifted most of the Jewish dietary laws from Christians (to ease the conversion of Gentiles) but did leave the "abstain from blood" in there.
So now we have at least one Christian group, Jehovah's Witnesses, who expel members who have a transfusion or allow one for their children to save the child's life, and insist the child be allowed to die.
Even if there were an ethical reason for not eating blood, and I can see no rational justification -- just authority and superstition -- this reflects a horrible and tragic and, indeed, evil, application of ethics. When presented with a choice of two wrongs, one must choose the lesser -- and a child dying versus a blood transfusion -- sheesh! -- obviously breaks that fundamental rule.
One should not eat blood for the same reason one should avoid organ meats -- the iron and metallic load is too great (and other reasons -- this is not a medical blog so research it yourself).
However many religions prohibit blood consumption on its own for superstitious reasons -- it seems the precursors of modern Jews thought the soul was in the blood, or some such thing, and this got passed to Christians and Muslims, so that in most countries there are special laws regarding the draining of blood from slaughtered animals. The Muslims appear to have taken this way to far and demand slaughter methods that are barbaric and cruel.
Of course common sense tells us that even after draining the blood there will remain a lot of it in the meat. I don't know how the religions who make a big deal of this rationalize this simple fact.
I read in the Bible's Book of Acts that the apostles lifted most of the Jewish dietary laws from Christians (to ease the conversion of Gentiles) but did leave the "abstain from blood" in there.
So now we have at least one Christian group, Jehovah's Witnesses, who expel members who have a transfusion or allow one for their children to save the child's life, and insist the child be allowed to die.
Even if there were an ethical reason for not eating blood, and I can see no rational justification -- just authority and superstition -- this reflects a horrible and tragic and, indeed, evil, application of ethics. When presented with a choice of two wrongs, one must choose the lesser -- and a child dying versus a blood transfusion -- sheesh! -- obviously breaks that fundamental rule.
Eating meat
Something I've wanted to post about for awhile is the need for mankind to get off meat, or at least drastically reduce what we eat.
Of course there are ethical reasons -- meat is from sentient animals and although a case can be made that such animals might actually have better lives (and a good deal better karma if one sees this as valid -- and of course at a loss of karma for humans involved), the reality is probably that they lead lives of suffering, considering how many of those who raise animals for slaughter treat them.
But there are three other reasons. There is the environment, our health, and cost. The burden on the environment of ever-increasing animal husbandry offsets much that the world does to slow climate change, and those who make personal sacrifices for the environment but continue to demand meat are being hugely inconsistent. Also of course red meat is well known to contribute to modern diseases and suffering. Finally, leave the meat out and the food budget gets much lower, leaving money for other pleasures or charity.
I don't think it would be a good thing to completely eliminate meat, since it does add certain nutrients difficult to get otherwise, and it is very pleasurable. The pleasure however can be gotten by keeping its use down as a sort-of condiment rather than a main dish and experimenting with meat substitutes.
If one does decide to leave meat out of one's diet, one should remember the maxim that, when a guest, eat what is served, and not fuss or cause one's host to even be aware. The amount of rudeness and arrogance sometimes seen in vegetarians is unfortunate and counterproductive.
Of course there are ethical reasons -- meat is from sentient animals and although a case can be made that such animals might actually have better lives (and a good deal better karma if one sees this as valid -- and of course at a loss of karma for humans involved), the reality is probably that they lead lives of suffering, considering how many of those who raise animals for slaughter treat them.
But there are three other reasons. There is the environment, our health, and cost. The burden on the environment of ever-increasing animal husbandry offsets much that the world does to slow climate change, and those who make personal sacrifices for the environment but continue to demand meat are being hugely inconsistent. Also of course red meat is well known to contribute to modern diseases and suffering. Finally, leave the meat out and the food budget gets much lower, leaving money for other pleasures or charity.
I don't think it would be a good thing to completely eliminate meat, since it does add certain nutrients difficult to get otherwise, and it is very pleasurable. The pleasure however can be gotten by keeping its use down as a sort-of condiment rather than a main dish and experimenting with meat substitutes.
If one does decide to leave meat out of one's diet, one should remember the maxim that, when a guest, eat what is served, and not fuss or cause one's host to even be aware. The amount of rudeness and arrogance sometimes seen in vegetarians is unfortunate and counterproductive.
Putin says he could take Kiev in two weeks. Probably true but arrogant and, of course, taking it would be only the beginning. The Ukrainians will not just fold with the fall of a city.
We seem to have a fascist on our hands. The world, and especially Europe, would do well to pay close attention. After what Russia has been through, this isn't too surprising, and nationalism is an easy enough way of thinking for those who are so inclined. I doubt most Russians would buy what is going on if the actually knew the details.
We seem to have a fascist on our hands. The world, and especially Europe, would do well to pay close attention. After what Russia has been through, this isn't too surprising, and nationalism is an easy enough way of thinking for those who are so inclined. I doubt most Russians would buy what is going on if the actually knew the details.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Wolves at the door
Democracies (countries run by popularly elected politicians) tend to not pay much attention to wolves until they are at the door. There is instead a constant cry that the democracy causes the presence of wolves and that military spending in particular is (always, no matter how small) excessive.
The reason is mainly because wolves often self-destruct, and besides it interferes with re-election. The public does not like to make sacrifices to protect itself.
I read a nice piece in Huffington yesterday about the history of Wahhabism in Saudi. It seems terror and brutality have been a core part of not just that part of Islam but part of Islam in general through its existence -- that killing and raping the non-believer is not only acceptable behavior but is commanded. (I add that Islam is not unique in this respect).
As a tactic, up to maybe the end of the nineteenth century, it usually was successful. People will and generally should submit to preserve themselves and their families. Alexander the Great was generous to cities that surrendered without a fight and engaged in general slaughter and rape and enslavement and looting when there was resistance. It worked and he was able to take Asia Minor with only a few real sieges.
I don't think it works at all in today's world. What it does is alert democratic politicians and the public to the presence of a wolf. The wolf needs to wait until its power is too great for the democracy to resist, and, until then, play ball, for the most part -- as the Chinese seem to be doing.
Politicians like Obama and the Clintons love to save money by weakening the country's military, so they can buy votes with social programs. (I don't know that it is as crass as that -- maybe they think they are doing the right thing -- hard to understand though.)
Of course if one spends really excessive amounts on the military, one can weaken the domestic economy, and this ain't good either -- and ends up reducing the amount available. In the States, though, the weak economy is from other causes.
The Muslim terrorist and extremist groups think the old brutality and fear tactic still works. That was behind 9-11, which only served to give Bush the chance to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, although what he achieved has now been frittered away. At least for a couple of years the public understood the danger, but they don't like sacrifices and want them to stop. A couple of years is about all a determined leader has before the clamor forces compromise with evil.
Now ISIS, or whatever it will be called, is doing as much, telling the world the wolf is at the door. If they had pulled their uprising and then been civilized about it, instead of going on a murder spree, the world would have seen it and not liked it, but have done nothing. As it is Obama is being dragged into doing something (it seems as little as possible) by his own public.
In other words, terrorism today is stupid. It achieves very little if anything except alert the world to your evil.
The reason is mainly because wolves often self-destruct, and besides it interferes with re-election. The public does not like to make sacrifices to protect itself.
I read a nice piece in Huffington yesterday about the history of Wahhabism in Saudi. It seems terror and brutality have been a core part of not just that part of Islam but part of Islam in general through its existence -- that killing and raping the non-believer is not only acceptable behavior but is commanded. (I add that Islam is not unique in this respect).
As a tactic, up to maybe the end of the nineteenth century, it usually was successful. People will and generally should submit to preserve themselves and their families. Alexander the Great was generous to cities that surrendered without a fight and engaged in general slaughter and rape and enslavement and looting when there was resistance. It worked and he was able to take Asia Minor with only a few real sieges.
I don't think it works at all in today's world. What it does is alert democratic politicians and the public to the presence of a wolf. The wolf needs to wait until its power is too great for the democracy to resist, and, until then, play ball, for the most part -- as the Chinese seem to be doing.
Politicians like Obama and the Clintons love to save money by weakening the country's military, so they can buy votes with social programs. (I don't know that it is as crass as that -- maybe they think they are doing the right thing -- hard to understand though.)
Of course if one spends really excessive amounts on the military, one can weaken the domestic economy, and this ain't good either -- and ends up reducing the amount available. In the States, though, the weak economy is from other causes.
The Muslim terrorist and extremist groups think the old brutality and fear tactic still works. That was behind 9-11, which only served to give Bush the chance to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, although what he achieved has now been frittered away. At least for a couple of years the public understood the danger, but they don't like sacrifices and want them to stop. A couple of years is about all a determined leader has before the clamor forces compromise with evil.
Now ISIS, or whatever it will be called, is doing as much, telling the world the wolf is at the door. If they had pulled their uprising and then been civilized about it, instead of going on a murder spree, the world would have seen it and not liked it, but have done nothing. As it is Obama is being dragged into doing something (it seems as little as possible) by his own public.
In other words, terrorism today is stupid. It achieves very little if anything except alert the world to your evil.
Russian feet in the door
I appreciate the email last night the explained how Russia had promised to honor Ukraine's sovereignty in return for Ukraine handing over its nuclear weapons.
It would seem once the Russians got that danger out of the way they had no intention of keeping their side of it. They just needed to wait a decent interval and for something to take place that gave them an excuse. (I also note an unsettling tendency of Russian authorities here and there casually mentioning that Russia still has nuclear weapons -- lots of them).
Russia seems to be in the business of setting up small enclaves out of parts of former USSR republics. It has done it in Moldova and Georgia and now apparently will in Ukraine. They find an area where, because of Stalin's brutality, Russian ethnics predominate, and force the creation there of a separate political entity, controlled, however, by Russia. These are basically criminal regimes run by criminals with no legitimacy or international legality.
There is a temptation to think the locals should be allowed to make the decision, but this cannot be allowed unless the sovereign country agrees to it (as with Czechoslovakia). Otherwise the world will end up with no end of ethnic groups and sub-groups, majority or not, clamoring for independence. One can imagine the Navajo setting up their own state in the U.S. Southwest. A state, once legally constituted, can decide for itself whether it wants to divide itself up or not, but this cannot be imposed from outside and inhabitants who try to do this on their own can and should be suppressed. (Of course here in the case of Ukraine they were being suppressed -- we have instead a foreign invasion -- come to think of it, that is what happened in Georgia too).
When one either moves or otherwise comes to be a citizen of another country, it is incumbent on that person to give up their loyalty to the mother country and be patriotic, loyal citizens of the new country. That doesn't require giving up one's culture, at least right away (it usually happens naturally after a few generations). People who do not do this but stick to loyalty to a foreign state set themselves up to become traitors.
Still, these enclaves present to Russia an excellent foot in the door for eventually gaining back its empire, although of course now it won't be Communist but more Fascist in nature.
It would seem once the Russians got that danger out of the way they had no intention of keeping their side of it. They just needed to wait a decent interval and for something to take place that gave them an excuse. (I also note an unsettling tendency of Russian authorities here and there casually mentioning that Russia still has nuclear weapons -- lots of them).
Russia seems to be in the business of setting up small enclaves out of parts of former USSR republics. It has done it in Moldova and Georgia and now apparently will in Ukraine. They find an area where, because of Stalin's brutality, Russian ethnics predominate, and force the creation there of a separate political entity, controlled, however, by Russia. These are basically criminal regimes run by criminals with no legitimacy or international legality.
There is a temptation to think the locals should be allowed to make the decision, but this cannot be allowed unless the sovereign country agrees to it (as with Czechoslovakia). Otherwise the world will end up with no end of ethnic groups and sub-groups, majority or not, clamoring for independence. One can imagine the Navajo setting up their own state in the U.S. Southwest. A state, once legally constituted, can decide for itself whether it wants to divide itself up or not, but this cannot be imposed from outside and inhabitants who try to do this on their own can and should be suppressed. (Of course here in the case of Ukraine they were being suppressed -- we have instead a foreign invasion -- come to think of it, that is what happened in Georgia too).
When one either moves or otherwise comes to be a citizen of another country, it is incumbent on that person to give up their loyalty to the mother country and be patriotic, loyal citizens of the new country. That doesn't require giving up one's culture, at least right away (it usually happens naturally after a few generations). People who do not do this but stick to loyalty to a foreign state set themselves up to become traitors.
Still, these enclaves present to Russia an excellent foot in the door for eventually gaining back its empire, although of course now it won't be Communist but more Fascist in nature.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Pious fraud
One of the things one has to be attuned to as a skeptic (a person from Missouri) is the phenomenon of "pious fraud."
In its classic form it consists of creating evidence or distorting evidence or lying in order to win converts to a religion. The idea is that saving the soul is more important than little details like honesty.
I remember seeing a brochure from a fundamentalist group listing all the prophesies of the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Jesus. Thing is it is all a pious fraud. None of the points exactly point to Jesus and most of them were not even prophesies, and the details of the Jesus story was manipulated to fit.
This doesn't just apply to religion. People who have a conspiracy theory are notorious for this. So are people who support one of the countless pseudo-sciences or bizarre phenomena we hear tell of.
I think in fact this is the main reason personal testimony is not credible, on its own. Supporting evidence may be credible, but even then the personal testimony counts for nothing (it is possible to commit pious fraud in favor of something that is in fact true).
So when someone tells me this or that based on testimony or their own experience, I may be polite and not say what I think, but I'm thinking, "It's more likely that you lie."
In its classic form it consists of creating evidence or distorting evidence or lying in order to win converts to a religion. The idea is that saving the soul is more important than little details like honesty.
I remember seeing a brochure from a fundamentalist group listing all the prophesies of the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Jesus. Thing is it is all a pious fraud. None of the points exactly point to Jesus and most of them were not even prophesies, and the details of the Jesus story was manipulated to fit.
This doesn't just apply to religion. People who have a conspiracy theory are notorious for this. So are people who support one of the countless pseudo-sciences or bizarre phenomena we hear tell of.
I think in fact this is the main reason personal testimony is not credible, on its own. Supporting evidence may be credible, but even then the personal testimony counts for nothing (it is possible to commit pious fraud in favor of something that is in fact true).
So when someone tells me this or that based on testimony or their own experience, I may be polite and not say what I think, but I'm thinking, "It's more likely that you lie."
East Ukraine
I begin to think Russia will first set up an East Ukraine rather than emulating Hitler and using nationalism to occupy the whole country. That is good, but of course it means a hostile Ukraine (much more hostile now) will remain on its western border, so we will see.
Still, this East Ukraine, populated mostly by ethnic Russians, will be subservient, and probably quickly invite the presence of full-time Russian soldiers.
That would mean being, legally at least, an independent country, which has the small benefit of giving Russia another vote everywhere, but otherwise means nothing and can be undone any time with a simple annexation vote. There is a dollop of hypocrisy here -- Putin can pull back and say he didn't invade and didn't annex, while in fact of course he effectively did.
It is, however, now probably the best possible solution, considering the rabid Russian nationalism we are seeing. It is interesting that similar attitudes in Serbia gained them nothing -- I guess Russia is a bigger country.
Ukraine should have been left to work out its problems on its own, but Putin saw personal political advantage domestically, and went on to prove that he is without scruple or honor.
Still, this East Ukraine, populated mostly by ethnic Russians, will be subservient, and probably quickly invite the presence of full-time Russian soldiers.
That would mean being, legally at least, an independent country, which has the small benefit of giving Russia another vote everywhere, but otherwise means nothing and can be undone any time with a simple annexation vote. There is a dollop of hypocrisy here -- Putin can pull back and say he didn't invade and didn't annex, while in fact of course he effectively did.
It is, however, now probably the best possible solution, considering the rabid Russian nationalism we are seeing. It is interesting that similar attitudes in Serbia gained them nothing -- I guess Russia is a bigger country.
Ukraine should have been left to work out its problems on its own, but Putin saw personal political advantage domestically, and went on to prove that he is without scruple or honor.
MSNBC and FOX
I'm surprised MSNBC is apparently so weak. I live overseas and frankly
was shocked during a visit this summer to the States to see how
blatantly partisan they, and FOX on the other side of things, really
are. I guess the objective is to appeal to a niche of the audience by
giving them political dog-meat.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
What is it about music?
I sit here right now with a Gottschalk piano piece playing. He is new to me, and a delightful find, with a unique voice, as is the case with most good composers.
(I must say I had heard the name before but had not associated it with anything in particular).
His music is uplifting, enthusiastic, obviously very difficult, and I am delighted. I will listen to it until it gets boring and then go out and find more. That is a problem with me -- if I like something I tend to overdo it.
What is it? How is it this noise lifts my spirits so much? How is it other great music relaxes me or even better puts me into a quietude and spiritual mood, such that I don't want it to ever end?
Some of it is no doubt cultural -- we like what we know and are use to -- I have difficulty with the music of non-Western cultures, and mostly think it trite or repulsive. I have a similar view with most popular Western music, mainly because of its crassness and triteness and lack of any effort at subtlety or more than superficial beauty.
(Not all of it -- as with most matters of taste there are a lot of exceptions).
Still, as a kid I liked certain compositions the first I heard them, and remember going to the library and putting on the earphones to hear them over and over. So I have to think there is something inherent.
The thing is we don't hear music, we experience it (if we are really listening). It has effects on us that go beyond anything physical or brainy. It is entirely of the mind; the brain gives the sound qualia to the mind and the mind is moved by it and enjoys it and is hooked on it. It has to be seen as part of the great mystery of sentience.
The same thing of course applies to all those things we call art.
(I must say I had heard the name before but had not associated it with anything in particular).
His music is uplifting, enthusiastic, obviously very difficult, and I am delighted. I will listen to it until it gets boring and then go out and find more. That is a problem with me -- if I like something I tend to overdo it.
What is it? How is it this noise lifts my spirits so much? How is it other great music relaxes me or even better puts me into a quietude and spiritual mood, such that I don't want it to ever end?
Some of it is no doubt cultural -- we like what we know and are use to -- I have difficulty with the music of non-Western cultures, and mostly think it trite or repulsive. I have a similar view with most popular Western music, mainly because of its crassness and triteness and lack of any effort at subtlety or more than superficial beauty.
(Not all of it -- as with most matters of taste there are a lot of exceptions).
Still, as a kid I liked certain compositions the first I heard them, and remember going to the library and putting on the earphones to hear them over and over. So I have to think there is something inherent.
The thing is we don't hear music, we experience it (if we are really listening). It has effects on us that go beyond anything physical or brainy. It is entirely of the mind; the brain gives the sound qualia to the mind and the mind is moved by it and enjoys it and is hooked on it. It has to be seen as part of the great mystery of sentience.
The same thing of course applies to all those things we call art.
Atheism
There are several kinds of definition of what an atheist is, used by different groups to give them a debating advantage.
Probably the worst is that atheism is a religion of no God. That is as far as I can tell absurd. Religion, except for a couple of them originating in India, is all about gods, and these two (that I know of that don't have gods or at least don't assert them) are religions on their own -- not a "religion" of atheism.
No. Atheism is not even a belief to most people, but just an opinion, albeit usually a strongly held opinion. The way I would put it is that I am as sure that there is no God as I can be sure of anything, the world being such that one is never absolutely sure about anything.
Of course those who are truly on the fence, who doubt there is a God but have strong doubts about that doubt, who are usually called agnostics. There is an important distinction here. The agnostic is on the fence; the atheist may admit a remote possibility but is pretty damn sure. The atheist only sees the fence but is nowhere near it.
There is a sense in which agnostics could be classed as a type of atheist, if one defines atheism as "no God" since the usual off-the-cuff definition is one who does not believe in God, and the agnostic does not believe -- he or she is just more unsure than the more typical atheist.
Back to the really bad definition of atheism as a religion. The reason religionists like that definition is then they can say it is just a belief, like other beliefs, and one is not more valid than another -- we just choose. The thing is these people believe because they want to believe, and maybe even cannot imagine not believing, generally because they were taught to believe in childhood and hence are fully indoctrinated (religions like to get the children before the children are mature enough to think for themselves and with full rationality).
The atheist on the other hand takes the view that although one cannot prove a negative, if one wants to assert something important one must have proof, or at least lots and lots of evidence. It then becomes a matter of looking at the evidence present that God exists and coming to the conclusion that it is all wishful thinking and doesn't hold any water at all and that there is really no persuasive or even slightly convincing evidence. The heavens do not declare the glory of God, nor does nature. There are no asterisms spelling out the Tetragrammaton.
Absence of evidence in favor of an important assertion logically requires a negative conclusion. An honest person does not accept things because one likes them or because one wants to or because one wants to go to Heaven or because one's parents and culture believes it. The only honest way to think something is true is because one is persuaded by an honest investigation of the arguments (not just reading theist stuff).
Would you believe it, so far I have not tried to define "God," usually the first question in this sort of discussion. There is God and there are gods. To me the former has to be, to be God, omni- various things, such as omnipotent and omniscient. Omnipresent or omnibenificient would count but aren't necessary. Even a transcendent, spiritual being would be something like an angel or superman, not God.
This leads to the self-referential contradictions we have known about since the Middle Ages, having to do with whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't move it or whether or not we can really have free will, and not just an illusion, if God knows all the future (these are two different issues and theists have differing approaches, but I want to keep this fairly simple).
The way the theist tends to deal with this sort of thing is simply by saying that God can do anything except something impossible for God to do. Think about that for a minute. That has got to be one of the great cop-outs of all time. Besides, I can do anything except something impossible for me to do, so am I God? No.
What the theists do to get around their logical contradictions is to make God into a god. Zeus can do a lot of things too, but not those things he can't do.
Probably the worst is that atheism is a religion of no God. That is as far as I can tell absurd. Religion, except for a couple of them originating in India, is all about gods, and these two (that I know of that don't have gods or at least don't assert them) are religions on their own -- not a "religion" of atheism.
No. Atheism is not even a belief to most people, but just an opinion, albeit usually a strongly held opinion. The way I would put it is that I am as sure that there is no God as I can be sure of anything, the world being such that one is never absolutely sure about anything.
Of course those who are truly on the fence, who doubt there is a God but have strong doubts about that doubt, who are usually called agnostics. There is an important distinction here. The agnostic is on the fence; the atheist may admit a remote possibility but is pretty damn sure. The atheist only sees the fence but is nowhere near it.
There is a sense in which agnostics could be classed as a type of atheist, if one defines atheism as "no God" since the usual off-the-cuff definition is one who does not believe in God, and the agnostic does not believe -- he or she is just more unsure than the more typical atheist.
Back to the really bad definition of atheism as a religion. The reason religionists like that definition is then they can say it is just a belief, like other beliefs, and one is not more valid than another -- we just choose. The thing is these people believe because they want to believe, and maybe even cannot imagine not believing, generally because they were taught to believe in childhood and hence are fully indoctrinated (religions like to get the children before the children are mature enough to think for themselves and with full rationality).
The atheist on the other hand takes the view that although one cannot prove a negative, if one wants to assert something important one must have proof, or at least lots and lots of evidence. It then becomes a matter of looking at the evidence present that God exists and coming to the conclusion that it is all wishful thinking and doesn't hold any water at all and that there is really no persuasive or even slightly convincing evidence. The heavens do not declare the glory of God, nor does nature. There are no asterisms spelling out the Tetragrammaton.
Absence of evidence in favor of an important assertion logically requires a negative conclusion. An honest person does not accept things because one likes them or because one wants to or because one wants to go to Heaven or because one's parents and culture believes it. The only honest way to think something is true is because one is persuaded by an honest investigation of the arguments (not just reading theist stuff).
Would you believe it, so far I have not tried to define "God," usually the first question in this sort of discussion. There is God and there are gods. To me the former has to be, to be God, omni- various things, such as omnipotent and omniscient. Omnipresent or omnibenificient would count but aren't necessary. Even a transcendent, spiritual being would be something like an angel or superman, not God.
This leads to the self-referential contradictions we have known about since the Middle Ages, having to do with whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't move it or whether or not we can really have free will, and not just an illusion, if God knows all the future (these are two different issues and theists have differing approaches, but I want to keep this fairly simple).
The way the theist tends to deal with this sort of thing is simply by saying that God can do anything except something impossible for God to do. Think about that for a minute. That has got to be one of the great cop-outs of all time. Besides, I can do anything except something impossible for me to do, so am I God? No.
What the theists do to get around their logical contradictions is to make God into a god. Zeus can do a lot of things too, but not those things he can't do.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Why I don't like the legal profession
Lawyers are neither more nor less likeable, I suppose on average, than anyone else. This is not personal.
When I was in high school, being outspoken, loquacious, and opinionated, I was many times told I should be a lawyer or even that I might make a good lawyer. At the time I would shudder and stay silent -- I had already formed my opinion of the profession.
If someone is smart and goes to college, one is presented with a number of possible career choices. One can become a teacher if one is idealistic and likes children and is not too much worried about making a lot of money. Or one can become a doctor if, again, one is idealistic and perhaps fascinated by blood and gore, but at the same time wants to be affluent. Or one can become an architect or artist or musician if one is into beauty and would like to be well off but is more interested in appreciation and even fame. Of course if one is nerdy or likes mathematics, one can go into computers or engineering or science.
There are, then, many choices. The ones who go into law are a little different. They too are smart, but not idealistic and very much interested in money. The other group who also fit this are of course those who go into business schools.
The similarities between the two groups are considerable. The thing I want to bring out though is they both have a certain tendency to rationalize unethical behavior, so long as there is a good chance they will get away with it. Of course I am sure there are exceptions to this, but the exceptions are not typical.
People self-select and lawyers are people with this personality trait. Their training makes it even worse. Under the rationalization that even the worst criminal is entitled to good legal representation at trial, they confuse juries and distort evidence and in the end the most competent of them help celebrities get away with murder.
So also, and even worse, is the tort bar, where the lawyer creates and seeks out litigation, slowing the economy and increasing costs for everyone not winning the tort lottery. The rationalization is fair compensation to those injured, but that lawyers and litigation can be done without is demonstrated by worker's compensation systems and other similar experiments -- but the lawyers in the legislature prevent such arrangements from being put into place for most litigation.
The end result, especially in the United States, is a country bursting at the seams with lawyers making comfortable and in some cases outrageous amounts of money off litigation and the threat of litigation, generating in my view a general decline of the country (it would be more noticeable except lawyers elsewhere do similar things) and a lower standard of living for the population, and, in many cases, especially medical care, a level of expense that makes not having insurance an insane proposition, as insurance premiums go higher and higher.
When I was in high school, being outspoken, loquacious, and opinionated, I was many times told I should be a lawyer or even that I might make a good lawyer. At the time I would shudder and stay silent -- I had already formed my opinion of the profession.
If someone is smart and goes to college, one is presented with a number of possible career choices. One can become a teacher if one is idealistic and likes children and is not too much worried about making a lot of money. Or one can become a doctor if, again, one is idealistic and perhaps fascinated by blood and gore, but at the same time wants to be affluent. Or one can become an architect or artist or musician if one is into beauty and would like to be well off but is more interested in appreciation and even fame. Of course if one is nerdy or likes mathematics, one can go into computers or engineering or science.
There are, then, many choices. The ones who go into law are a little different. They too are smart, but not idealistic and very much interested in money. The other group who also fit this are of course those who go into business schools.
The similarities between the two groups are considerable. The thing I want to bring out though is they both have a certain tendency to rationalize unethical behavior, so long as there is a good chance they will get away with it. Of course I am sure there are exceptions to this, but the exceptions are not typical.
People self-select and lawyers are people with this personality trait. Their training makes it even worse. Under the rationalization that even the worst criminal is entitled to good legal representation at trial, they confuse juries and distort evidence and in the end the most competent of them help celebrities get away with murder.
So also, and even worse, is the tort bar, where the lawyer creates and seeks out litigation, slowing the economy and increasing costs for everyone not winning the tort lottery. The rationalization is fair compensation to those injured, but that lawyers and litigation can be done without is demonstrated by worker's compensation systems and other similar experiments -- but the lawyers in the legislature prevent such arrangements from being put into place for most litigation.
The end result, especially in the United States, is a country bursting at the seams with lawyers making comfortable and in some cases outrageous amounts of money off litigation and the threat of litigation, generating in my view a general decline of the country (it would be more noticeable except lawyers elsewhere do similar things) and a lower standard of living for the population, and, in many cases, especially medical care, a level of expense that makes not having insurance an insane proposition, as insurance premiums go higher and higher.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Science or hermeneutics?
Science is doing things to see what you find, sometimes guided by
observations and ideas, but never opinions or beliefs. When one is
instead doing experiments with the intent of proving something you
already believe, you are engaging in a form of hermeneutics. It
becomes religion not science, which is of course why these chaps tend to
always find what they are looking for, but others don't.
What hermeneutics does is also known as "cherry picking." One researches everything -- mainly the pertinent literature but often does one's own observing and experimenting -- and then picks out those things that support one's view and either ignores or rationalizes (when it is not possible to ignore it as it is either common knowledge or publicly pointed out) those things one can't ignore.
What hermeneutics does is also known as "cherry picking." One researches everything -- mainly the pertinent literature but often does one's own observing and experimenting -- and then picks out those things that support one's view and either ignores or rationalizes (when it is not possible to ignore it as it is either common knowledge or publicly pointed out) those things one can't ignore.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Space elevators -- future speculation
As I understand it there are two problems with the idea of having space stations in geosynchronous orbit tethered to the earth with a real physical line, to which can be attached an elevator, or that itself serves as one.
The first problem is a cable material of sufficient strength to do this. This is a pretty obvious problem and may not be doable, in which case the subject is closed. I think probably it is doable in the near future.
The other problem is the radiation exposure people riding such an elevator would suffer. In a rocket the exposure is a few seconds; on such an elevator it might be hours. (The earth is surrounded by radiation belts of deadly stuff -- out in geosynchronous orbit the radiation problem is manageable, but closer in it could be a killer).
Of course shielding would be needed, without adding too much weight, I suppose.
Now imagine what might be possible out there with almost unlimited room for anything. Huge multi-billion-people cities, self-sustaining for the most part, utilizing solar energy and providing each inhabitant lots of living space. Gravity would be from rotating the cities, one living near the rim, but with trips to the hub for zero-gravity activities available. Kinda like a huge luxury liner in the end, but with enough people to make a rich and varied culture work.
I can see problems getting the raw materials necessary -- we have already exploited earth quite a bit, although much remains -- but probably other objects would be mined.
I think in spite of my perception of the present world as fundamentally corrupt, it will progress to a much better, even glorious, future, in spite of this. I guess I'm an optimist.
The first problem is a cable material of sufficient strength to do this. This is a pretty obvious problem and may not be doable, in which case the subject is closed. I think probably it is doable in the near future.
The other problem is the radiation exposure people riding such an elevator would suffer. In a rocket the exposure is a few seconds; on such an elevator it might be hours. (The earth is surrounded by radiation belts of deadly stuff -- out in geosynchronous orbit the radiation problem is manageable, but closer in it could be a killer).
Of course shielding would be needed, without adding too much weight, I suppose.
Now imagine what might be possible out there with almost unlimited room for anything. Huge multi-billion-people cities, self-sustaining for the most part, utilizing solar energy and providing each inhabitant lots of living space. Gravity would be from rotating the cities, one living near the rim, but with trips to the hub for zero-gravity activities available. Kinda like a huge luxury liner in the end, but with enough people to make a rich and varied culture work.
I can see problems getting the raw materials necessary -- we have already exploited earth quite a bit, although much remains -- but probably other objects would be mined.
I think in spite of my perception of the present world as fundamentally corrupt, it will progress to a much better, even glorious, future, in spite of this. I guess I'm an optimist.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)