Evidence of God

I would like to respond to the argument that atheists would not accept any evidence that God exists short of personal revelation.


It is not correct.  There is evidence I would accept, such as an asterism in the form of the Tetragrammaton.  I would probably accept the clear occurrence of a miracle done under controlled conditions, but religionists have an excuse for why this doesn't work similar to the one psychics use -- it goes away when you control the conditions.

Or, perhaps, the Bible were really the spiritual book people say it is, and the history of religions were not so bloody and hypocritical, or if religion really did have an uplifting effect on its adherents.  This would not be as persuasive as an asterism, but it would be good evidence.

If you want to claim something so important and so extraordinary as God, you have to realize with intellectually mature adults the default is going to be skepticism.

I should stipulate -- theistic religions.

I must say, also, that personal revelation is probably the last thing I would accept.  I don't have so much ego as to think such a thing would be real instead of my own mind.

Science is not just experiments: it is also observation and thought.  Astronomers, for example, rely on mathematics and thought experiments and coming up with scenarios to explain observations (one cannot experiment on black holes, but one can study them).  Ideally one's scenario should go further than just explain observations but also predict things that observers can then go look for.

Daydreaming

I day-dream for at least a half hour every morning after I wake up but before I get up.  It is very pleasurable, and there is to my mind nothing wrong with pleasure taken in moderation.

Of course after I am up the world comes at me in force and mind wandering like that is subject to so many interruptions it becomes impossible.

People sometimes kill themselves.

Others are judgmental about it.  Some say if they want to do it they should go ahead and do it and get out of everyone's hair with their self-pity.  Others say it's a sin against God.  Even others say it's caused by demon possession.  Finally, and this is probably most common, there are those who say the suicide had to be insane to do such a thing.

There are many reasons people do this, and a lot depends on the culture.  The Roman aristocrat who fell on his sword rather than be executed in one of the brutal ways Romans tended to execute people was doing the honorable thing.  Many societies see some suicides as honorable.

Most of us can imagine a scenario where we would kill ourselves -- incurable disease combined with unremitting nausea would do it to me (pain I can handle better).  Probably also a disease that promised in the future to render me helpless and a burden.  We all die someday and some things are worse than death.

However, suicides today most often are associated with the set of diseases put together as "depression."  Those who have never experienced it have to remember that this is not "being sad."  It is another thing entirely.  It is a cloud of blackness that pushes you down and doesn't let you think at all clearly but only makes the world hopeless with no escape.

One thing to remember is that depression is not insanity in the usual sense.  It is a mental illness, but not one that involves irrationality (I sometimes think it is a case of being too rational).

Psychiatry has tried all sorts of ideas on how to deal with this, and often can have a temporary effect, at least until the depression passes, but then they lose the patient next time around as the disease figures out the psychiatrists tricks (not unlike the cancer evolving resistance to the treatment).

It is true that how we look at the world is a great part of the problem -- the old "glass half empty or half full" sort of thing, but knowing this does a depressed person little good.  Truth is, one can always think up the negative side of things, as the world is not all that good to people and most young people have their ambitions squashed fairly fast anyway.

It is purposeless to try to find a purpose in life.  The vast majority of us have only one purpose in our existence -- to give life and happiness to our children.  This is something of an evolutionary trick, since usually the children don't turn out as expected and sometimes turn on us, and we have to adapt.

In the end the only real treatment for depression is going to be medical, not psychiatric (psychiatry is seen as a branch of medicine, but its methods and training are different).  The widespread bias against dealing with emotional problems with pills needs to be overcome -- diseases are best treated with pills, although in some cases other forms of intervention can work.

There is no guilt associated with being depressed -- the tendency runs in families and is just part of the baggage we are born with.  It is useless (and in my opinion evil) to tell the depressed to get over it and stop being so self-involved.

Finally, there is no guilt associated with someone who has actually committed suicide.  They should be treated as anyone else who has died of a chronic disease.  The death should be reported as such (not covered over -- society needs to know the reality) but without blame or shame or as a scandal.

Causality as karma

I don't think it's necessary to use the possibility that the universe was once a singularity to say the universe breaks "its own rules."  The rule is that of causality, and we know this rule is constantly broken, that causality may be something of an illusion based on probability and the statistical "law of large numbers" rather than something inherent to existence.

It reminds me a little of the Buddhist and Hindu idea of karma -- what you do has consequences.  We know those consequences are not preordained but just made more likely when you behave certain ways.

Everyone is much nearer death than they imagine.

The life we find on the earth occupies but a vanishingly thin layer near its surface, even when you count deep rock microbes.  It has no effect at all on what goes on through the main mass of the planet.

Distinguish between life (complex molecules with that mechanically reproduce themselves using material from the immediate environment) and sentience (the experience of life and sensory input and emotions and thoughts).  The biosphere is not sentient and is composed mainly of things not sentient.  Anyone who says otherwise needs to prove it.

Russia is getting scary

I did a survey of several Russian newspapers available in English on the internet.  They all take the same line. 

The difference between this and Western reporting, where newspapers are all over the place -- although in the Ukrainian case both leftwing and rightwing papers are similar and the exact opposite of what Russian readers are getting -- is striking.

It is discouraging too.  There is plainly no freedom to publish against the government in Russia -- something that can only be said to be fascist.  That is a strong word and a few have taken me to task for using it to describe Putin, but I think the evidence is strong. 

There is the resurgent militarism and military boasting, the use of nationalism for political purposes, the clamping down on the press and other forms of expression, the use of hoodlums and criminals as enforcers, the close ties with cartels and industrial lords, and of course the anti-gay campaign (pick a disliked minority and persecute them).  It is all too familiar.

Russians in Ukraine

I must say I have a real problem with Russia thinking it has the right to meddle in other countries to "protect" the rights of Russian nationals there.

That was the excuse Hitler used to seize Czechoslovakia, and it was no more valid then than now.  A nation should act as much as possible to protect overseas citizens and nationals, but not nationals of another country, no matter what the cultural links.  The only exception is when human rights are involved, and then it should be without regard to the ethnicity or culture of those being persecuted.

Actually this is nationalism, and the citizens and nationals of any country owe their allegiance to the nation they are part of, not any other country, and so the rebels in Ukraine should be seen as really simply traitors putting ethnicity ahead of nation.  When ethnic groups fail to realize this they bring discrimination and persecution down on their heads, and should not be given foreign assistance.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

Nationalism is exceeded only by ideology and religion in irrational perversity and the people it can kill and the lives it can ruin, and only by a little bit.  Partisanship is only a tad behind.

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.

Wizards and witches sometimes don't know they are magical beings, but the Ministry of Magic does, and watches.