I began this draft in March, during a brief philosophical sparring match, between John, Matt and myself on Matt's blog, ColonelLuftwaffe. It was Matt's inaugural blog, actually, describing himself and his views on religion. It quickly evolved/devolved into a pretty fierce and productive debate on the Prime Mover, though. The debate covered a lot of ground over a week or so, but ended in stalemate (as most discussions on religion do).
The point I was trying to make at the time was to discount the premise that an infinite sequence of causes, stretching backwards in time for infinity isn't necessarily an unacceptable solution. Discounting that possibility is the starting point for the debate on cosmology, which ends, of course in necessitating a Prime Mover, or First Cause (a cause which, itself, has no cause). I argued that has no experience, or understanding of either an infinite regression or an uncaused cause, so what makes one solution superior to another?
The idea has been rattling around in my head ever since, and it seems timely - considering the solstice and impending new year - to revisit.
Why can we not understand beginnings and ends?
Well... because we've never experienced them. What we've experienced are translations from one form to another. We've witnessed links in the chain of causality - that is how we think of beginnings and endings. The end of a movie leads to gathering outside to discuss, which ends by way of splitting up to our separate cars, which follows in a lovely dinner. The goat leads to a baby goat, which leads to an adult goat, which leads to my kebab, which leads to, etc etc. In our minds, it cannot be "turtles all the way down", but we also cannot conceive of a first turtle, floating just above nothingness.
So what? It's an interesting paradox, a stimulating academic discussion. No, it's more than that. Because at some point we're each going to stare it in the face, not in an academic setting, but in our lives, in the form of our own death. Someday, I'll witness my own end. The end of Me, and the end of Me-ness. I don't know if I will experience an afterlife, but every bit of scientific knowledge tells me that my Self is housed in my brain. And I know that my brain is going to fall apart. All of those little bits of memory, held together in networked synapses to make Me - will be worm food. That is very... final. It's a difficult notion to come to terms with.
My flesh is another link in the chain of causality. But the abstract notion of my Self will end, absolutely. What will a state of nothingness feel like? Well, there's nothing to feel, and nothing to be felt. I will be remembered, for a while, but those remembrances will be a shadow, an aspect reflected from other people's selves.
Where am I going with this? What am I doing? It's ironic that for a blog about beginnings and endings, I cannot think of an ending. Well, what better way to close the 2011 chapter of Dungy-blog than by quoting Dune:
"Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife — chopping off what’s incomplete and saying: 'Now it’s complete because it’s ended here.'"
DONE
Postscript: I'm ending my "Hiatus", and I plan on blogging more frequently starting next month. Sometime in January I plan to do a "State of the Blog" blog, describing a vision for the next year, and I invite John and Matt to do the same. Naturally, coverage of the Primary will resume in earnest for the Iowa Caucus and onward. I hope I'm not alone in believing this has been a very good year. We've covered a lot of ground, and even though we have little viewership, and we're making no grandiose contribution to solving the world's woes, I still feel that we've hit a vein of good conversation. Something like that is both common yet rare - and definately uniquely good. Cheers to all, here's to an excellent 2012.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Blog Event: God Comes Back And Doles Out The Harshness
This'll be a short one. The topic is: If God asked you to choose they way he returns to the scene, in a big, dramatic, apocalyptic way, what would you do?
"Very cute! It's whatever we think of! If we think of J. Edgar Hoover, J. Edgar Hoover will appear and destroy us. Empty your heads, don't think of anything!"
"I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never, ever possibly destroy us: Mr. Stay Puff't."
Serious Scenario - The Quickening
I would ask God to cause every person on Earth to experience their own death. Not just a spontaneous, drop dead thing. But to experience their own, unique death. Whatever that would eventually be for each person. Some would experience a death bed thing, surrounded by family. Some would have get shot in the face. Some would get hit by a bus. However you're fated to die, you spontaneously skip to that moment. And after death, you get the experience your judgement by God. You'll be scrutinized by the man upstairs, and given the objective, unadulterated truth.
Then, everyone snaps back to their life. We get to keep the memory of the experience, and would hopefully walk away with a new perspective and a better attitude. And, we'd know that God exists into the bargain. Win-win.
Not Serious Scenario - Hobo Awakening
I'd ask God to give every homeless person in the world super mutant powers. X-men style, where it's totally random. Some would be mega sweet (telekinesis is the best - fact), some would be super lame (ability to grow finger nails at an accelerated rate ala Family Guy). But the overall affect is that we, the sane and employed normals would be forced to submit to our new crazed hobo overlords. They would probably force us into service as still operators, cranking out the bathtub hooch that they require to keep their energy levels high, and minds limber.
The stench would be... incalculable.
"Very cute! It's whatever we think of! If we think of J. Edgar Hoover, J. Edgar Hoover will appear and destroy us. Empty your heads, don't think of anything!"
"I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never, ever possibly destroy us: Mr. Stay Puff't."
Serious Scenario - The Quickening
I would ask God to cause every person on Earth to experience their own death. Not just a spontaneous, drop dead thing. But to experience their own, unique death. Whatever that would eventually be for each person. Some would experience a death bed thing, surrounded by family. Some would have get shot in the face. Some would get hit by a bus. However you're fated to die, you spontaneously skip to that moment. And after death, you get the experience your judgement by God. You'll be scrutinized by the man upstairs, and given the objective, unadulterated truth.
Then, everyone snaps back to their life. We get to keep the memory of the experience, and would hopefully walk away with a new perspective and a better attitude. And, we'd know that God exists into the bargain. Win-win.
Not Serious Scenario - Hobo Awakening
I'd ask God to give every homeless person in the world super mutant powers. X-men style, where it's totally random. Some would be mega sweet (telekinesis is the best - fact), some would be super lame (ability to grow finger nails at an accelerated rate ala Family Guy). But the overall affect is that we, the sane and employed normals would be forced to submit to our new crazed hobo overlords. They would probably force us into service as still operators, cranking out the bathtub hooch that they require to keep their energy levels high, and minds limber.
The stench would be... incalculable.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Primary Update
This is still premature, but my compliments to friend-of-the-blog John Stegeman on the quality of his bet in this years primary wager. He's the only man with more than one horse still in the race. John's $1 bet on Ron Paul may end up winning the whole thing. If it goes to Romney, John and I tie. If Gingrich, then God help us all.
I still consider Paul to be a "speculative" candidate, but he's been polling pretty consistently in the top three since Cain dropped out. Those who are crushed by apathy toward Romney, and revolted by everything that is Gingrich seem to be wising up that Paul is a true-blue libertarian who has a faint hope of changing the game in a general election. That's all a little pie-in-the-sky, but it might be true that those right-leaners who realize they're probably going to lose, would rather lose big on someone they actually like, and care about.
For all of the races for an "unconventional", third party type of candidate, this is it. I decree: If Paul doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire, it seals the fate of any similar candidates in future races. Might as well hang it up, because this is the time. This is the perfect storm. The only competition is a robot and a sociopath. The Lord of Abraham has parted the Red Sea, and cleared a path of safety. If Ron Paul lacks the muscle to push through the crossing, then this was a lost cause to start with.
I don't want to make any predictions, because Iowa is so decidedly unpredictable. It in the hands of Almighty Fate, now. A blowup or burnout from the front runners is possible, but we're at T-Minus 19 days and counting. Best to hold off judgement, and see what comes out the other side of Iowa. After that we can survey the landscape again.
I do hope that Paul wins. I would not and will not vote for him, not just because of the candidate himself, but because of the state of the party as a whole. It's not ready for power yet. It needs defeat. But in Paul I see someone who is both representative of the Tea Party as well as sincere and decent. He deserves to run for President. Not to mention, the debates between Obama and Paul would be interesting. A Gingrich run would be fun to watch, in a way; but morally corrupting. The man infects everything he touches like a putrid fever. Anyway, he doesn't deserve the prize. No, I'm putting my hopes in a Paul victory, followed by a Paul defeat. So let it be written. So let it be done.
I still consider Paul to be a "speculative" candidate, but he's been polling pretty consistently in the top three since Cain dropped out. Those who are crushed by apathy toward Romney, and revolted by everything that is Gingrich seem to be wising up that Paul is a true-blue libertarian who has a faint hope of changing the game in a general election. That's all a little pie-in-the-sky, but it might be true that those right-leaners who realize they're probably going to lose, would rather lose big on someone they actually like, and care about.
For all of the races for an "unconventional", third party type of candidate, this is it. I decree: If Paul doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire, it seals the fate of any similar candidates in future races. Might as well hang it up, because this is the time. This is the perfect storm. The only competition is a robot and a sociopath. The Lord of Abraham has parted the Red Sea, and cleared a path of safety. If Ron Paul lacks the muscle to push through the crossing, then this was a lost cause to start with.
I don't want to make any predictions, because Iowa is so decidedly unpredictable. It in the hands of Almighty Fate, now. A blowup or burnout from the front runners is possible, but we're at T-Minus 19 days and counting. Best to hold off judgement, and see what comes out the other side of Iowa. After that we can survey the landscape again.
I do hope that Paul wins. I would not and will not vote for him, not just because of the candidate himself, but because of the state of the party as a whole. It's not ready for power yet. It needs defeat. But in Paul I see someone who is both representative of the Tea Party as well as sincere and decent. He deserves to run for President. Not to mention, the debates between Obama and Paul would be interesting. A Gingrich run would be fun to watch, in a way; but morally corrupting. The man infects everything he touches like a putrid fever. Anyway, he doesn't deserve the prize. No, I'm putting my hopes in a Paul victory, followed by a Paul defeat. So let it be written. So let it be done.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Random Thought
Most of our lives are spent thinking - either consciously or not - about what we want, and how to go about getting it. It's an endless cycle of wanting and getting, or wanting and not getting and wanting some more. Acquire and advance. Move from one desire to another: objects, status, recognition, feelings, control, perspective, knowledge. Wanting, wanting, wanting. The key moment is when something gives us pause, and we can see this happening, just for a moment, in a detached, objective way.
And we feel... Disgust? Maybe boredom? I'm not sure, but we see how silly and generally pointless this is. And, if we're lucky, we put a little thought into finding a better way to think, just any other way to look at the world than through the filter of desire and need. That small moment of enlightened perspective may be the beginning of real morality, spinning out from thought to action. A human being is an engine; but an engine of what? The purpose depends on the program, and pervasive crimethink keeps us from acheiving moral ends. Perspective is our weapon, applying self-analysis to root out thought crime and replace it with something else.
And we feel... Disgust? Maybe boredom? I'm not sure, but we see how silly and generally pointless this is. And, if we're lucky, we put a little thought into finding a better way to think, just any other way to look at the world than through the filter of desire and need. That small moment of enlightened perspective may be the beginning of real morality, spinning out from thought to action. A human being is an engine; but an engine of what? The purpose depends on the program, and pervasive crimethink keeps us from acheiving moral ends. Perspective is our weapon, applying self-analysis to root out thought crime and replace it with something else.
Monday, December 5, 2011
To Mr. Joel Griffith
You are a propagandist.
If you are aware of that, you are acting in bad faith.
If not, you are deluding yourself.
The former makes you a villain.
The latter makes you an animal.
Sincerely,
Me
If you are aware of that, you are acting in bad faith.
If not, you are deluding yourself.
The former makes you a villain.
The latter makes you an animal.
Sincerely,
Me
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Follow up on Blog Event
I apologize to Matt (but not John, as he was too consumed with novel writing) for abruptly terminating my word exchange. Work and holiday junk brought the figurative hammer down on me, hard. I've been wanting to write, but my brain has been in a state of disarray and I've temporarily (I hope) lost the capacity for rational thought.
Reflecting on this, I'm feeling more like deciding NOT to vote in this primary is probably the Right Thing To Do. However, I'm still far from absolute, metaphysical certitude on the issue.
What I've realized is that by voting for a Tea Party candidate who might not get the nomination without my help, I'm - by definition - propping up a loser. I'm taking a fringe, or borderline fringe, candidate and artifically inflating them into the mainstream. If the Tea Party ethos was representative of the GOP majority, it wouldn't need my help in the first place, no? If, however, GOP voters (due to indecision or lack of principles or whatever) lean towards the more electable plastic conservativism, then that's the ideology and policy (not just the man) that they are endorsing, whether they realize it or not.
I want to see a defeat dealt to what I see as "false conservativism", rather than some beige, vaguely Right-wing, populist pap. That's not a bad thing to want. It's well intentioned, sure. But I liken it to convincing a small time criminal to attempt a bigger, more violent crime - all for the hope of getting him greater prison time when he's eventually caught. That's not an unjust intention, sure. But there are more straightforward ways of confronting injustice than such a convoluted - and frankly, dirty - plan. What if I talk him into a murder and he's never caught? Or he get's off on a technicality, like the arresting officer forgot to read him Miranda? I would bear responsibility for whatever crime he commited. Same thing.
In a VERY extreme circumstance, such methods might be OK. If all other avenues to justice are closed, and the stakes are high enough, then such a convoluted plan might be the only way. But that's not the case here.
At any rate, this all feels less dire now. Romney seems to be slowly losing the "electability" appeal as all other candidates, ANY other candidate is having some time in the spotlight (now it's Gingrich, God help us). Who knows, maybe Huntsman will even have 15 minutes to shine.
Reflecting on this, I'm feeling more like deciding NOT to vote in this primary is probably the Right Thing To Do. However, I'm still far from absolute, metaphysical certitude on the issue.
What I've realized is that by voting for a Tea Party candidate who might not get the nomination without my help, I'm - by definition - propping up a loser. I'm taking a fringe, or borderline fringe, candidate and artifically inflating them into the mainstream. If the Tea Party ethos was representative of the GOP majority, it wouldn't need my help in the first place, no? If, however, GOP voters (due to indecision or lack of principles or whatever) lean towards the more electable plastic conservativism, then that's the ideology and policy (not just the man) that they are endorsing, whether they realize it or not.
I want to see a defeat dealt to what I see as "false conservativism", rather than some beige, vaguely Right-wing, populist pap. That's not a bad thing to want. It's well intentioned, sure. But I liken it to convincing a small time criminal to attempt a bigger, more violent crime - all for the hope of getting him greater prison time when he's eventually caught. That's not an unjust intention, sure. But there are more straightforward ways of confronting injustice than such a convoluted - and frankly, dirty - plan. What if I talk him into a murder and he's never caught? Or he get's off on a technicality, like the arresting officer forgot to read him Miranda? I would bear responsibility for whatever crime he commited. Same thing.
In a VERY extreme circumstance, such methods might be OK. If all other avenues to justice are closed, and the stakes are high enough, then such a convoluted plan might be the only way. But that's not the case here.
At any rate, this all feels less dire now. Romney seems to be slowly losing the "electability" appeal as all other candidates, ANY other candidate is having some time in the spotlight (now it's Gingrich, God help us). Who knows, maybe Huntsman will even have 15 minutes to shine.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Blog Event: The Ethics of Voting
"What are the ethics of voting? Are they different in a primary rather than a general election? Must a person always be sincere in casting his vote? Or should the process just be seen as a way of getting a point across? Is it ever permissible to vote against something, by way of voting for it's opponent?"
I've honestly been struggling to figure this out. Not that I'm overwhelmed with concern, I'll probably just do what I feel like doing, regardless of the ethics, but it would be nice to know what the "proper" course of action would be. Also, it's fun to try to figure out a puzzle, and this is certainly puzzling (to me, anyway).
My problem is this. I feel an overwhelming need to use any means at my disposal (and I have limited means, being an ordinary guy) to punish the conservative movement, and the Tea Party in particular. I think their ideology is dangerous to our system of government, in that it's both radical, uncompromising, and intolerant of nuance or complexity in our problems. I also think it's very seductive to many disgruntled citizens, who happen to lean right. It's not just about punishment for bad behavior, though. I want to teach them a lesson by showing that while many in the "independent" middle may sympathize with the attitude, they won't support the extreme ideology.
The only way to do that is to give them a crushing defeat. It must be decisive enough to hurt. It must be enough to shake any remaining credibility and send them back into the fringe. If Mitt Romney gets the nomination, that is impossible. Once in a general election campaign, Mr. Romney will reorient himself to the center, and a loss of any kind will be interpreted as a defeat of centrism, not conservatism.
So in a nutshell, when the primaries roll through Ohio, I want to vote for whoever is both nutty-right and has a chance of beating Romney. I must try to nominate someone I hate, to run for the office of President.
HOWEVER
In 2008, I rejected and condemned that motivation. When a mutual acquaintence tried to convince John that "anything less than a vote for McCain/Palin is equal to a vote for Obama", I argued against it. I said that "You cannot support someone that you don't truly wish to see as president, it's dishonest and wrong". And I convinced him. I still believe that sentiment now.
It's the urgency of what's going on now that drives me. I feel like I need to hasten the fall of the Tea Partiers. I feel like the only way to "fix" the conservative movement, which I do sincerely identify with, is to get them into the wilderness so they can do their time, and reevaluate their values. The longer they remain enfranchised, the longer they'll be crazy and irresponsible.
I could try to argue that the ethics of a primary differ from the ethics of a general election, but that's a relatively weak justification, and I don't really believe it anyway. In a primary, the object is to nominate someone that you perceive to be a strong candidate.
On the other hand, when holding a conversation, one might say something that they don't actually mean as an attempt to illustrate a greater point. That's not seen a lying, just rhetoric. Right?
On the other hand, voting isn't holding a conversation. It doesn't have the complexity and subtlety of rhetoric. It's just a yes/no matter. If I vote for Bachman, and through some miracle she ends up as president, I will be accountable to that. People will count those votes as a simple "Yes", nothing else.
It's a pity that we don't live in Ancient Athens where we could hold a negative, "ostracise" vote, to kick someone out of politics. Our system is singularly geared towards a positive vote for a either of two parties. Any attempt to manipulate against a party is working against the intended nature of that system.
So, what to do? For lack of a better reason, I'm forced to conclude that it's probably not right to prop up a nutty-right straw man. I don't like it. In fact, watching Romney win by default is going to be difficult to stomach. So, I'm really hoping that my friends find some persuasive new perspectives on their own blogs. Believe me, I'm ready to be convinced.
I've honestly been struggling to figure this out. Not that I'm overwhelmed with concern, I'll probably just do what I feel like doing, regardless of the ethics, but it would be nice to know what the "proper" course of action would be. Also, it's fun to try to figure out a puzzle, and this is certainly puzzling (to me, anyway).
My problem is this. I feel an overwhelming need to use any means at my disposal (and I have limited means, being an ordinary guy) to punish the conservative movement, and the Tea Party in particular. I think their ideology is dangerous to our system of government, in that it's both radical, uncompromising, and intolerant of nuance or complexity in our problems. I also think it's very seductive to many disgruntled citizens, who happen to lean right. It's not just about punishment for bad behavior, though. I want to teach them a lesson by showing that while many in the "independent" middle may sympathize with the attitude, they won't support the extreme ideology.
The only way to do that is to give them a crushing defeat. It must be decisive enough to hurt. It must be enough to shake any remaining credibility and send them back into the fringe. If Mitt Romney gets the nomination, that is impossible. Once in a general election campaign, Mr. Romney will reorient himself to the center, and a loss of any kind will be interpreted as a defeat of centrism, not conservatism.
So in a nutshell, when the primaries roll through Ohio, I want to vote for whoever is both nutty-right and has a chance of beating Romney. I must try to nominate someone I hate, to run for the office of President.
HOWEVER
In 2008, I rejected and condemned that motivation. When a mutual acquaintence tried to convince John that "anything less than a vote for McCain/Palin is equal to a vote for Obama", I argued against it. I said that "You cannot support someone that you don't truly wish to see as president, it's dishonest and wrong". And I convinced him. I still believe that sentiment now.
It's the urgency of what's going on now that drives me. I feel like I need to hasten the fall of the Tea Partiers. I feel like the only way to "fix" the conservative movement, which I do sincerely identify with, is to get them into the wilderness so they can do their time, and reevaluate their values. The longer they remain enfranchised, the longer they'll be crazy and irresponsible.
I could try to argue that the ethics of a primary differ from the ethics of a general election, but that's a relatively weak justification, and I don't really believe it anyway. In a primary, the object is to nominate someone that you perceive to be a strong candidate.
On the other hand, when holding a conversation, one might say something that they don't actually mean as an attempt to illustrate a greater point. That's not seen a lying, just rhetoric. Right?
On the other hand, voting isn't holding a conversation. It doesn't have the complexity and subtlety of rhetoric. It's just a yes/no matter. If I vote for Bachman, and through some miracle she ends up as president, I will be accountable to that. People will count those votes as a simple "Yes", nothing else.
It's a pity that we don't live in Ancient Athens where we could hold a negative, "ostracise" vote, to kick someone out of politics. Our system is singularly geared towards a positive vote for a either of two parties. Any attempt to manipulate against a party is working against the intended nature of that system.
So, what to do? For lack of a better reason, I'm forced to conclude that it's probably not right to prop up a nutty-right straw man. I don't like it. In fact, watching Romney win by default is going to be difficult to stomach. So, I'm really hoping that my friends find some persuasive new perspectives on their own blogs. Believe me, I'm ready to be convinced.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Quick Thoughts on the Penn State Controversy
It's been interesting to follow the story out of Penn State regarding assistant coach Jerry Sandusky's child molestation charges and the fallout from all that. Considering the cross blog focus on All Things Catholic between us, it's interesting to have a secular parallel to hold up for comparison. A couple of quick thoughts:
1. The line occasionally used by Catholics - that while it's a serious problem within the Church, the media goes out of it's way to blow up the controversy for the sake of discrediting Her - is shown to be false. The situation here is virtually identical to a Priest molestation case, just lacking the elements of faith, church and clergy. It's every bit as sensational news, and the blowback has got to be at least equal, pound-for-pound, as each individual Priest molestation case.
2. The parallels regarding how this guy positioned himself in such a way as to have access to kids, and also access to the vast resources of a large organization are also startling. He had his own charity that directly involved kids from 4th grade to high school, and he basically had free run of campus resources for years. It really goes to show how people like this are very adept at covering themselves with a cloak of virtue and kindness, expressly for the purpose of gratifying themselves. So adept that they can act so boldly and yet escape justice for years.
3. What's most important, what is most relevant, is the coverup. That's one thing in the Church controversy that Catholics don't always get. It's not so much about the criminals or the crimes, it's the coverup by the authorities within the organization. The lack of a will to take the matter to police, really rankles. When this happens within the Church, it especially offends secularists because the Catholic Church has in the past, maintained it's own clerical law and attempted to protect it's clergy from civil authorities. The existence of the Vatican State allows this to continue (Cardinal Law) sometimes.
But, to be fair, here we have a completely secular case and the exact same thing happened. Why? I can only guess that officials didn't want to disgrace the organization with a scandal. Any rational outsider can see how short-sighted (the eventual scandal was magnified at least 10 fold), and just plain wrong this was. They had to have been aware that children were in real danger, for over 10 years, yet they did nothing besides bar him from taking children onto the main campus. One could argue that Joe Paterno technically did the right thing (in a bare minimum sense) by reporting a known incident to the athletic director immediately. Yet he'll be ending his long and illustrious (I'm told) career under a cloud of disgrace because he did not do everything that he could to see the crime was reported to the police.
Rather than repeat the too-often quoted trope "power corrupts", I'd say that this is evidence that power messes with ones priorities. It changes your perception of right and wrong. Every one who is under scrutiny at Penn State had a chance to do the right thing, but put the image of the school ahead of the safety of innocents. Much the same as the Catholic Church, in past and present. The major difference between the two is that public scrutiny following criminal charges has been much quicker and more efficient in holding those individuals responsible, than the focus on the Vatican over the past several years. Penn state is reacting immediately to popular condemnation. The Vatican continues to obfuscate investigates, and issues nothing but double-talk statements, apologising but offering no real accountability.
1. The line occasionally used by Catholics - that while it's a serious problem within the Church, the media goes out of it's way to blow up the controversy for the sake of discrediting Her - is shown to be false. The situation here is virtually identical to a Priest molestation case, just lacking the elements of faith, church and clergy. It's every bit as sensational news, and the blowback has got to be at least equal, pound-for-pound, as each individual Priest molestation case.
2. The parallels regarding how this guy positioned himself in such a way as to have access to kids, and also access to the vast resources of a large organization are also startling. He had his own charity that directly involved kids from 4th grade to high school, and he basically had free run of campus resources for years. It really goes to show how people like this are very adept at covering themselves with a cloak of virtue and kindness, expressly for the purpose of gratifying themselves. So adept that they can act so boldly and yet escape justice for years.
3. What's most important, what is most relevant, is the coverup. That's one thing in the Church controversy that Catholics don't always get. It's not so much about the criminals or the crimes, it's the coverup by the authorities within the organization. The lack of a will to take the matter to police, really rankles. When this happens within the Church, it especially offends secularists because the Catholic Church has in the past, maintained it's own clerical law and attempted to protect it's clergy from civil authorities. The existence of the Vatican State allows this to continue (Cardinal Law) sometimes.
But, to be fair, here we have a completely secular case and the exact same thing happened. Why? I can only guess that officials didn't want to disgrace the organization with a scandal. Any rational outsider can see how short-sighted (the eventual scandal was magnified at least 10 fold), and just plain wrong this was. They had to have been aware that children were in real danger, for over 10 years, yet they did nothing besides bar him from taking children onto the main campus. One could argue that Joe Paterno technically did the right thing (in a bare minimum sense) by reporting a known incident to the athletic director immediately. Yet he'll be ending his long and illustrious (I'm told) career under a cloud of disgrace because he did not do everything that he could to see the crime was reported to the police.
Rather than repeat the too-often quoted trope "power corrupts", I'd say that this is evidence that power messes with ones priorities. It changes your perception of right and wrong. Every one who is under scrutiny at Penn State had a chance to do the right thing, but put the image of the school ahead of the safety of innocents. Much the same as the Catholic Church, in past and present. The major difference between the two is that public scrutiny following criminal charges has been much quicker and more efficient in holding those individuals responsible, than the focus on the Vatican over the past several years. Penn state is reacting immediately to popular condemnation. The Vatican continues to obfuscate investigates, and issues nothing but double-talk statements, apologising but offering no real accountability.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Idea for Blog Event
I've got a topic - a sort of dilemma - that I want to throw out. I've been wondering about the ethics of voting in a primary. I've been thinking about this for a while, since the GOP campaign started.
My dilemma is this. One would think that the ethical way to vote is to vote for best candidate for the office in question. Right? But I keep finding myself rooting for someone like Herman Cain, or Michelle Bachman. I want to support a candidate for the GOP nomination, who is not only bad, but is well loved by the Tea Party. I want this person to go on to the general election and lose a brutally one-sided race to Obama. I don't want to see some plastic, generalist candidate like Romney get nominated. If he were to lose, the Tea Party (and establishment) would simply conclude that he wasn't sufficiently conservative, and they'd go on with the current insane course of action.
I want a ridiculous Tea Party cartoon candidate to get brutally raped by the American People in a landslide loss. I see it as the only way of killing the political movement that's grinding the system to a halt.
But is it ethical to do that? If I did that with Palin (were she running), and she ended up winning because of an unfortunately timed double-dip depression, wouldn't I be guilty?
My topic is this. What are the ethics of voting? Are they different in a primary rather than a general election? Must a person always be sincere in casting his vote? Or should the process just be seen as a way of getting a point across? Is it ever permissible to vote against something, by way of voting for it's opponent?
Let me know if you think you'd want to write on this. If we're all in agreement, I'll set a date (maybe a week out).
My dilemma is this. One would think that the ethical way to vote is to vote for best candidate for the office in question. Right? But I keep finding myself rooting for someone like Herman Cain, or Michelle Bachman. I want to support a candidate for the GOP nomination, who is not only bad, but is well loved by the Tea Party. I want this person to go on to the general election and lose a brutally one-sided race to Obama. I don't want to see some plastic, generalist candidate like Romney get nominated. If he were to lose, the Tea Party (and establishment) would simply conclude that he wasn't sufficiently conservative, and they'd go on with the current insane course of action.
I want a ridiculous Tea Party cartoon candidate to get brutally raped by the American People in a landslide loss. I see it as the only way of killing the political movement that's grinding the system to a halt.
But is it ethical to do that? If I did that with Palin (were she running), and she ended up winning because of an unfortunately timed double-dip depression, wouldn't I be guilty?
My topic is this. What are the ethics of voting? Are they different in a primary rather than a general election? Must a person always be sincere in casting his vote? Or should the process just be seen as a way of getting a point across? Is it ever permissible to vote against something, by way of voting for it's opponent?
Let me know if you think you'd want to write on this. If we're all in agreement, I'll set a date (maybe a week out).
Monday, October 31, 2011
On The Role of Civil Authorities In Marriage
Before diving headfirst into this shallow pool of political controversy, I want to clarify something. The terms of this discussion (per our cross-blog effort) limit this to a civil context. So what, after all, is marriage in the civil context? When you remove the personal meaning, you lose the commitment and love between two individuals. When you next remove the religious meaning, you lose the status as a "blessed union", and the role of a religious group in performing a wedding. After all that, you are left with an agreement between two individuals to cohabitate and share resources. In the eyes of the government, that's all it is at the core: two people living together and looking after one another.
The question is, does the government have the right to sanction (or not sanction) such unions? Yes and no. The government has the "right" to do what we want it to do, to perform what roles we deem appropriate. It's role, at least in an ideal world, is to service us, the citizenry. If we see it valuable to have the government act as a 3rd party which authorizes a special legal status, then by that rationale, it does have the right.
Naturally, the government does not have the right to deny people from interacting, or having sex, or cohabitation, as long as it's within the bounds of what is currently considered legal behavior. Obviously, convicted pedophiles are forbidden to associate with children. And in times past, homosexual behavior was forbidden in some places. All of that is constantly changing, based on what society deems to be criminal behavior. And that's neither here nor there.
If two men, living in a state which does not allow same sex unions, wish to live together, commit to one another, and have a ceremony in a participating church, the government (to my knowledge) would have nothing to say about such an arrangement. However, those men would not enjoy the privileges of a legally recognized union. Those privileges - such as enjoying a special tax status, and being able to visit one another in emergency medical situations, and make legal decisions for their partner - are no small thing. So, if we're viewing this as a strictly civil matter, I see no reason to deny any couple from seeking the recognition. Or alternatively, remove the legal status altogether and make every individual of equal status, leaving unions strictly in the realm of the personal and religious. Either would be fine.
I can see the slippery-slope objection as being: "if any couple can get a civil union, why not three people, or four? Or a man and a dog?". Well, I can't really think of a good reason to object to 3 people being married. The nature of the relationship is somewhat different, but any argument based on "well, it's so psychologically different and special when it's one-on-one" is pretty weak and highly subjective. So, share the flesh baby, and bring on 3-way marriages. To take it a step further, I see no reason why two 50 year old bachelors who have only a platonic love between them could not get a union. If they wish to commit to constant support and cohabitation, why shouldn't they be allowed special privileges in a hospital, or special status in a census? A human to animal union is another story, I think. Animals have no legal status. They also cannot give consent. It would be the same as a man wishing to marry a baby, or a person with critical mental disabilities (i.e. a vegetable).
So, that's all pretty loosey goosie. But that's the nature of civil authority. It bends and changes. However, looking at this with the eyes of an engineer, I firmly believe that it would be best to drop the civil recognition of unions all together. The reason marriages were recognized by the government in the first place was to designate a household, or a family. Since Women's Suffrage, we view legal status as something belonging to citizens who are above the age of consent. It wasn't always that way, though.
Voting was seen as something done on the basis of a household, and the authority of that household was granted to the man of the house. Society was arranged in that manner. Men approaching adulthood found a wife and started their own household. In Greece and Rome, citizenship was exclusively held by the male heads of households. As an interesting aside, plebeian men had no legal standing (to write contracts or take people to court) on their own, they needed a patrician patron to act as their intercessor. The tradition of organizing society by household in civil matters extended onto Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and eventually to the USA. Marriage was the legal device which made that arrangement work.
That's fine, but it doesn't really work that way anymore. We're no longer a society of men and their subservient families, we're a society of individuals. Our values are such that we can live with whoever we choose, in whatever arrangement we see fit. So, looking at it as a matter of design principles, why constantly scramble to update the law to culture? It would be cleaner, simpler, more consistent and more elegant - not to mention philosophically correct - to focus on the status as a free individual, and leave social arrangements in the realm of the personal.
The question is, does the government have the right to sanction (or not sanction) such unions? Yes and no. The government has the "right" to do what we want it to do, to perform what roles we deem appropriate. It's role, at least in an ideal world, is to service us, the citizenry. If we see it valuable to have the government act as a 3rd party which authorizes a special legal status, then by that rationale, it does have the right.
Naturally, the government does not have the right to deny people from interacting, or having sex, or cohabitation, as long as it's within the bounds of what is currently considered legal behavior. Obviously, convicted pedophiles are forbidden to associate with children. And in times past, homosexual behavior was forbidden in some places. All of that is constantly changing, based on what society deems to be criminal behavior. And that's neither here nor there.
If two men, living in a state which does not allow same sex unions, wish to live together, commit to one another, and have a ceremony in a participating church, the government (to my knowledge) would have nothing to say about such an arrangement. However, those men would not enjoy the privileges of a legally recognized union. Those privileges - such as enjoying a special tax status, and being able to visit one another in emergency medical situations, and make legal decisions for their partner - are no small thing. So, if we're viewing this as a strictly civil matter, I see no reason to deny any couple from seeking the recognition. Or alternatively, remove the legal status altogether and make every individual of equal status, leaving unions strictly in the realm of the personal and religious. Either would be fine.
I can see the slippery-slope objection as being: "if any couple can get a civil union, why not three people, or four? Or a man and a dog?". Well, I can't really think of a good reason to object to 3 people being married. The nature of the relationship is somewhat different, but any argument based on "well, it's so psychologically different and special when it's one-on-one" is pretty weak and highly subjective. So, share the flesh baby, and bring on 3-way marriages. To take it a step further, I see no reason why two 50 year old bachelors who have only a platonic love between them could not get a union. If they wish to commit to constant support and cohabitation, why shouldn't they be allowed special privileges in a hospital, or special status in a census? A human to animal union is another story, I think. Animals have no legal status. They also cannot give consent. It would be the same as a man wishing to marry a baby, or a person with critical mental disabilities (i.e. a vegetable).
So, that's all pretty loosey goosie. But that's the nature of civil authority. It bends and changes. However, looking at this with the eyes of an engineer, I firmly believe that it would be best to drop the civil recognition of unions all together. The reason marriages were recognized by the government in the first place was to designate a household, or a family. Since Women's Suffrage, we view legal status as something belonging to citizens who are above the age of consent. It wasn't always that way, though.
Voting was seen as something done on the basis of a household, and the authority of that household was granted to the man of the house. Society was arranged in that manner. Men approaching adulthood found a wife and started their own household. In Greece and Rome, citizenship was exclusively held by the male heads of households. As an interesting aside, plebeian men had no legal standing (to write contracts or take people to court) on their own, they needed a patrician patron to act as their intercessor. The tradition of organizing society by household in civil matters extended onto Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and eventually to the USA. Marriage was the legal device which made that arrangement work.
That's fine, but it doesn't really work that way anymore. We're no longer a society of men and their subservient families, we're a society of individuals. Our values are such that we can live with whoever we choose, in whatever arrangement we see fit. So, looking at it as a matter of design principles, why constantly scramble to update the law to culture? It would be cleaner, simpler, more consistent and more elegant - not to mention philosophically correct - to focus on the status as a free individual, and leave social arrangements in the realm of the personal.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Against Garry Marshall
You probably don't know who Garry Marshall is. He was a comedian and writer for TV shows in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Now, he makes movies. Terrible movies. Well, no. That's a bit harsh. Not terrible, just thoroughly mediocre. So mediocre, through and through, that it's depressing even to learn of their existence.
You see, when a movie is bad, truly bad, there is something to be gained from it. A lesson, perhaps. Or a laugh. I'm not sure. The point is, a bad movie is a joke. We all like jokes, don't we? Yes, of course we do.
However, a movie that is designed and built expressly for the purpose of being mediocre is, well, a horse of a different color. There's nothing to be gained there. It's got no character, good or bad. It's not art. It's just... a thing. A blank entity. A hole in space and time. Last night I mortgaged my future by watching Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday. It was really bad. Among other crimes, it failed to live up to it's explicit promise of showing Jason Going To Hell. But I enjoyed myself nonetheless, because it was trash. Wholesome, stupid, doo-daa garbage. It was bad. It was funny. And it kept me company before night-night.
Today, I've learned that Garry Marshall has been paid - yet again - to assemble bankable actors into a romantic comedy that will be forgotten in less than a fortnight. He has been paid to give young couples a trifle to build a date around, before retiring to an unsatisfying night of dry-humping, or dejected masturbation. Now that I know, the knowing has made me sad. I do not yet have the means to make Garry Marshall sad in return. But I do have a blog with a readership of two. I have a voice. I have a means to shake my angry rooker in the air with impotent fury and condemn. And I do condemn. I condemn Garry Marshall to living death, and eternal hunger for living blood.
You see, when a movie is bad, truly bad, there is something to be gained from it. A lesson, perhaps. Or a laugh. I'm not sure. The point is, a bad movie is a joke. We all like jokes, don't we? Yes, of course we do.However, a movie that is designed and built expressly for the purpose of being mediocre is, well, a horse of a different color. There's nothing to be gained there. It's got no character, good or bad. It's not art. It's just... a thing. A blank entity. A hole in space and time. Last night I mortgaged my future by watching Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday. It was really bad. Among other crimes, it failed to live up to it's explicit promise of showing Jason Going To Hell. But I enjoyed myself nonetheless, because it was trash. Wholesome, stupid, doo-daa garbage. It was bad. It was funny. And it kept me company before night-night.
Today, I've learned that Garry Marshall has been paid - yet again - to assemble bankable actors into a romantic comedy that will be forgotten in less than a fortnight. He has been paid to give young couples a trifle to build a date around, before retiring to an unsatisfying night of dry-humping, or dejected masturbation. Now that I know, the knowing has made me sad. I do not yet have the means to make Garry Marshall sad in return. But I do have a blog with a readership of two. I have a voice. I have a means to shake my angry rooker in the air with impotent fury and condemn. And I do condemn. I condemn Garry Marshall to living death, and eternal hunger for living blood.
Friday, October 21, 2011
TRIUMPH!
After at least 3 years of trying, one of my emailed comments to Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish got quoted in a blog post. I'm the last one quoted in the blog.
I realize it may seem that I'm blowing this out of proportion. But you just don't understand, man. Like, hundreds of thousands of people follow this blog daily. And of those, a probably-not-insignificant percentage write in. There's a ton of indirect conversation going back and forth between the readers, the staffers and Sullivan himself. Kind of a little micro-culture in itself.
This has been a good week. The law of averages has asserted itself, in the form of proving that not all dictators can escape to switzerland or saudi arabia. I got to see the original Ghostbusters in the theatre. And I got to use the phrase "Herman Cain's stink-pizza" on a popular blog. God be praised.
I realize it may seem that I'm blowing this out of proportion. But you just don't understand, man. Like, hundreds of thousands of people follow this blog daily. And of those, a probably-not-insignificant percentage write in. There's a ton of indirect conversation going back and forth between the readers, the staffers and Sullivan himself. Kind of a little micro-culture in itself.
This has been a good week. The law of averages has asserted itself, in the form of proving that not all dictators can escape to switzerland or saudi arabia. I got to see the original Ghostbusters in the theatre. And I got to use the phrase "Herman Cain's stink-pizza" on a popular blog. God be praised.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Hiatus of sorts
Hey fellas. I've been writing pretty regularly for the past few months so I think I'm going to take a break for a while. I've had a steady output, but I've been writing a little quicker and more slapdash than before, and I'm not really focusing on quality.
So it's not a permanent thing, more of a kind of crop rotation. I'm gonna let the fields fallow for a while and come back fresh in winter. Winter's a good season for writing because there's not much else to do but sit around and fume about the state of the world. If I were smart I would have intentionally taken off the summer and come back now, but I didn't think that far ahead.
I'm still gonna comment on your blogs (of course). I've got a couple of blogs that I wrote before that I've been polishing, so I might release some of those off and on. But I'm hoping to restrain myself until the Iowa caucus.
Cheers!
-D
P.S. Thanks again for the eels. They were very scrummy and unmistakably regal. Sorry to mensh, but if you've finished with the lawn edger could you pop it in the post?
So it's not a permanent thing, more of a kind of crop rotation. I'm gonna let the fields fallow for a while and come back fresh in winter. Winter's a good season for writing because there's not much else to do but sit around and fume about the state of the world. If I were smart I would have intentionally taken off the summer and come back now, but I didn't think that far ahead.
I'm still gonna comment on your blogs (of course). I've got a couple of blogs that I wrote before that I've been polishing, so I might release some of those off and on. But I'm hoping to restrain myself until the Iowa caucus.
Cheers!
-D
P.S. Thanks again for the eels. They were very scrummy and unmistakably regal. Sorry to mensh, but if you've finished with the lawn edger could you pop it in the post?
Monday, October 10, 2011
On Libertarianism
Against my own better judgement, I'm becoming more and more convinced that libertarianism as a political ethos is not the best way to secure liberty, and is in fact, self-defeating.
Let me start by posing a question. I would describe libertarianism as the mentality that places liberty as the highest civil good, above other concerns like security or prosperity. Agreed? The question is this: is it the highest good because it is practical (i.e. because as an ideal, it works best to make a society work well), or is it simply intrinsically good (i.e. good in itself, regardless of how it "works" in society).
I believe that answer that I'd get from most true believers is: both. It does work best as a guiding principle in a free, capitalistic society. It's also good in itself, as a matter of principle. An even more sensible answer might be, that when it comes to economic concerns, free markets are best for practical reasons. And when it comes to personal liberties, that's more a matter of principle. Others have described this better than I have, but I'm just trying to say that this is the description of libertarian ideals that I subscribe to.
I'm coming to believe that on both counts, libertarianism fails to live up to it's goals.
"Free markets and limited regulation produce the best economic results for society as a whole."
It's all about jobs, jobs, jobs. If there's anything that every single election cycle has taught us, it's that. A "good" economy, in the eyes of the majority, is one where unemployment is low and wages are not just good, but gaining ground. Despite the "socialist" machinations of our Imperial President Obama I, we're coming off of a decade of record low regulation and taxes for the upper class "job creators". According supply-side economics, this should be trickling down in the form of more job opportunities and general economic vitality. Not so. Besides the fact that we're currently in a pretty deep recession, wages really haven't made much progress at all, despite the fact the worker productivity is at an all time high.
https://www.google.com/search?q=productivity+up+wages+down&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=
People are working harder, doing more with less, contributing to overall profitability, yet this boon isn't making it back down in the form of new jobs. The money is traveling up, but not back down. Where is the money going? Well, the money's going to shareholders. Which, from the perspective of a CEO, is entirely correct. The purpose of a corporation is not to employee people; its purpose is to give money back to its shareholders.
It's certainly true that money is being generated, but is that enough to qualify as an improvment to the economy. This has been covered by many liberal politicians, but look at the wealth inequality that's present in the US today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
"The scope of federal government must be limited, because individual liberty is the highest ideal"
I'm not going to mount a long, futile argument regarding which ideal is the highest or most critical. What I will say is this, the federal government is not the only party capable of limiting individual freedom. The bill of rights only guarantees your rights as far as they relate to the government. The feds certainly have supremacy when it comes to the power to coerce with force, but there are other means of coercion. Those of us who are lucky to be employed right now, probably see ourselves as dependent on that job. There are a number of policies that one must abide by at work, and those aren't necessarily limited to what you do at work.
Consider also the point of wealth inequality, as it relates to personal liberty. The possibility (possibly the reality) is that with a small group of people controlling a large portion of the wealth of our nation, they'll wield an unhealthy amount of influence over the democratic process. The forms of a democratic republic aren't in danger, but without restraint of the upper class we run the risk of a de facto oligarchy.
OK, so what's my point? What am I proposing? That libertarianism is a bad idea? No, it's excellent to keep the focus on liberty. But the modern libertarian movement is too preoccupied with the Feds. Refocus on this: "In the interest of liberty, and the good of society as a whole, power and wealth should be carefully limited among private and public entities. Any large concentration of wealth and coercive power should be broken up into smaller pieces." This isn't a new idea. Around the turn of the century (1900's), the issue of corporate "trusts" was given a lot of attention. Many polititicans took a stand on this, and spoke of the need to break them up. A more recent example is the breakup of the AT&T Bell System in several smaller, more competative companies. It's worth pointing out that since the breakup, many of the "Baby Bells" have reformed themselves into powerhouses, through mergers and acquisitions that were not adequately restrained by the government (AT&T and Verizon being the two biggest examples).
I have no doubt that many would dismiss this out of hand, since it involves government intervention into the private sector. Too bad. If you think that you've got a better ally in wealthy stockholders than you do in your local congressman, you're gravely mistaken.
Let me start by posing a question. I would describe libertarianism as the mentality that places liberty as the highest civil good, above other concerns like security or prosperity. Agreed? The question is this: is it the highest good because it is practical (i.e. because as an ideal, it works best to make a society work well), or is it simply intrinsically good (i.e. good in itself, regardless of how it "works" in society).
I believe that answer that I'd get from most true believers is: both. It does work best as a guiding principle in a free, capitalistic society. It's also good in itself, as a matter of principle. An even more sensible answer might be, that when it comes to economic concerns, free markets are best for practical reasons. And when it comes to personal liberties, that's more a matter of principle. Others have described this better than I have, but I'm just trying to say that this is the description of libertarian ideals that I subscribe to.
I'm coming to believe that on both counts, libertarianism fails to live up to it's goals.
"Free markets and limited regulation produce the best economic results for society as a whole."
It's all about jobs, jobs, jobs. If there's anything that every single election cycle has taught us, it's that. A "good" economy, in the eyes of the majority, is one where unemployment is low and wages are not just good, but gaining ground. Despite the "socialist" machinations of our Imperial President Obama I, we're coming off of a decade of record low regulation and taxes for the upper class "job creators". According supply-side economics, this should be trickling down in the form of more job opportunities and general economic vitality. Not so. Besides the fact that we're currently in a pretty deep recession, wages really haven't made much progress at all, despite the fact the worker productivity is at an all time high.
https://www.google.com/search?q=productivity+up+wages+down&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=
People are working harder, doing more with less, contributing to overall profitability, yet this boon isn't making it back down in the form of new jobs. The money is traveling up, but not back down. Where is the money going? Well, the money's going to shareholders. Which, from the perspective of a CEO, is entirely correct. The purpose of a corporation is not to employee people; its purpose is to give money back to its shareholders.
It's certainly true that money is being generated, but is that enough to qualify as an improvment to the economy. This has been covered by many liberal politicians, but look at the wealth inequality that's present in the US today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
"The scope of federal government must be limited, because individual liberty is the highest ideal"
I'm not going to mount a long, futile argument regarding which ideal is the highest or most critical. What I will say is this, the federal government is not the only party capable of limiting individual freedom. The bill of rights only guarantees your rights as far as they relate to the government. The feds certainly have supremacy when it comes to the power to coerce with force, but there are other means of coercion. Those of us who are lucky to be employed right now, probably see ourselves as dependent on that job. There are a number of policies that one must abide by at work, and those aren't necessarily limited to what you do at work.
Consider also the point of wealth inequality, as it relates to personal liberty. The possibility (possibly the reality) is that with a small group of people controlling a large portion of the wealth of our nation, they'll wield an unhealthy amount of influence over the democratic process. The forms of a democratic republic aren't in danger, but without restraint of the upper class we run the risk of a de facto oligarchy.
OK, so what's my point? What am I proposing? That libertarianism is a bad idea? No, it's excellent to keep the focus on liberty. But the modern libertarian movement is too preoccupied with the Feds. Refocus on this: "In the interest of liberty, and the good of society as a whole, power and wealth should be carefully limited among private and public entities. Any large concentration of wealth and coercive power should be broken up into smaller pieces." This isn't a new idea. Around the turn of the century (1900's), the issue of corporate "trusts" was given a lot of attention. Many polititicans took a stand on this, and spoke of the need to break them up. A more recent example is the breakup of the AT&T Bell System in several smaller, more competative companies. It's worth pointing out that since the breakup, many of the "Baby Bells" have reformed themselves into powerhouses, through mergers and acquisitions that were not adequately restrained by the government (AT&T and Verizon being the two biggest examples).
I have no doubt that many would dismiss this out of hand, since it involves government intervention into the private sector. Too bad. If you think that you've got a better ally in wealthy stockholders than you do in your local congressman, you're gravely mistaken.
Friday, September 30, 2011
On Gamera
As it stands, blogspot will not allow me to post a comment on my own blog because: "'goog' is undefined". If I had access to source, I could use my super programming powers to fix. However, I don't, so I can't. Rather than attempt to resolve political problems and reach sublime levels of ivory-tower enlightenment, enjoy this:
Gamera! Gamera!
Gamera is really neat!
Gamera is filled with meat!
We've been eating Gamera!
Shells! Teeth! Eyes! Flames! Claws! Breath! Scales! FUN!
Gamera is super sweet!
He is filled with turtle meat!
We believe in Gamera!
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
On Christian Victimology
John recently quoted a statistic regarding opinions on same sex unions, which stated that those in favor accounted for 52%, those opposed, 48%. This statistic is important, not just because those in favor represent a majority, but because this figure is so close to 50/50. It might be true that the equal strength of these two opposite opinions might account for the heated rhetoric when it comes to subject. Something to ponder.
Now, the trend over time is toward toleration of homosexuality and gay unions. That's not just practical or political, but philosophical too. People are feeling more and more that there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and that it's not harmful to society to allow gays to settle down. Conversely, some are feeling more and more that there's something wrong with those who do not accept homosexuality. It seems logical at this point to assume the trend is going to continue in that direction.
There's a fine line between acceptance and tolerance, and I do believe that there's plenty of room for religious dissent and freedom of opinion, but that's something of a side point. Mainly, I'd like to answer to the opinion of some Christians that they are being victimized because of their beliefs.
In as much as a man can criticize any person or idea in this country, he himself is not free from criticism. It is not a question of which opinion has merit. It is not a question of whether homosexuality is actually wrong. It is not a question of whether it's fair to call Catholics or Southern Baptists bigots simply for their code of morality. Right or wrong, in this country we are free to believe any ridiculous, stupid, even hateful thing that we wish.
The media is within their rights to act on bias by giving liberal or conservative voices disproportionate focus. An individual is within his rights to protest... anything. Our society as a whole is within its rights to turn their opinion against one group or another. It may feel horrible to be a minority which is unfairly hounded, but too bad.
I am not oppressed when Wanda Sykes appears on my TV to tell me to "knock it off" when it comes to using "gay" as a coloquialism to mean "dumb"; although I am annoyed by it. When one party says, "You aren't allowed to do this", "You aren't allowed to think this", and their words have the weight of law and civil authority behind them - that is a question of oppression. That is legitimately a a matter of victimization.
Make no mistake, there is nothing necessarily wrong with authorities making victims of people. It is, by design, one intended purpose of society. We victimize those convicted of crimes by placing them in prison, or executing them. We victimize the rich by forcing them to pay a higher marginal tax rate (which they, in turn, avoid with loophole, but nonetheless...). Whenever the force of law is executed, a victim is created.
The question is, is the benefit to society as a whole (the greater good) worth the collateral damage? If it's a question of outlawing anti-gay speech, I would say that it is certainly not worth the damage to individual rights. Luckily, I know of no such bill currently under consideration. Why did I just waste my time illustrating such an outlandish notion? I'm not sure. Where was I going with this again? Oh yeah: Stay outta my booze.
No! OK, back on track. A more feasible possibility is a business owner being sued for denying service to a homosexual. Which has a greater value (the greater good) to our society, preventing victimization of the store owner, or store patron? I think the homosexual patron would have the stronger case, but I guess it's open for debate. My point is this: this case, and others like it, are not simply a matter of Christians being run roughshod over because of their beliefs. There is not one victim here, but two. Not one aggressor, but two. Two competing worldviews are duking it out in field of public opinion. This is one battle in a greater culture war. Lawmakers do their best to balance the interests of various parties to find a balance (the greater good - SHUT IT) that serves the public interest. In the past, they might have been more inclined to side with a shopkeep against a minority that people don't care for, or are indifferent to. Now, it's more likely to side with a minority who wants a sandwich from the shop that everyone else is eating at.
Does that mean Christianity is being oppressed? No, I don't think so. I don't think that's a fair characterization. We are not forcing any particular church to perform a gay ceremony. We are not forcing churches to change their theology. And we're certainly not forming an Outback Nazi Law Enforcement Agency to hunt down and exterminate the intolerant. Nor are there any plans to do so. So yeah, I think such characterizations are overblown, and dishonest.
Now, the trend over time is toward toleration of homosexuality and gay unions. That's not just practical or political, but philosophical too. People are feeling more and more that there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and that it's not harmful to society to allow gays to settle down. Conversely, some are feeling more and more that there's something wrong with those who do not accept homosexuality. It seems logical at this point to assume the trend is going to continue in that direction.
There's a fine line between acceptance and tolerance, and I do believe that there's plenty of room for religious dissent and freedom of opinion, but that's something of a side point. Mainly, I'd like to answer to the opinion of some Christians that they are being victimized because of their beliefs.
In as much as a man can criticize any person or idea in this country, he himself is not free from criticism. It is not a question of which opinion has merit. It is not a question of whether homosexuality is actually wrong. It is not a question of whether it's fair to call Catholics or Southern Baptists bigots simply for their code of morality. Right or wrong, in this country we are free to believe any ridiculous, stupid, even hateful thing that we wish.
The media is within their rights to act on bias by giving liberal or conservative voices disproportionate focus. An individual is within his rights to protest... anything. Our society as a whole is within its rights to turn their opinion against one group or another. It may feel horrible to be a minority which is unfairly hounded, but too bad.
I am not oppressed when Wanda Sykes appears on my TV to tell me to "knock it off" when it comes to using "gay" as a coloquialism to mean "dumb"; although I am annoyed by it. When one party says, "You aren't allowed to do this", "You aren't allowed to think this", and their words have the weight of law and civil authority behind them - that is a question of oppression. That is legitimately a a matter of victimization.
Make no mistake, there is nothing necessarily wrong with authorities making victims of people. It is, by design, one intended purpose of society. We victimize those convicted of crimes by placing them in prison, or executing them. We victimize the rich by forcing them to pay a higher marginal tax rate (which they, in turn, avoid with loophole, but nonetheless...). Whenever the force of law is executed, a victim is created.
The question is, is the benefit to society as a whole (the greater good) worth the collateral damage? If it's a question of outlawing anti-gay speech, I would say that it is certainly not worth the damage to individual rights. Luckily, I know of no such bill currently under consideration. Why did I just waste my time illustrating such an outlandish notion? I'm not sure. Where was I going with this again? Oh yeah: Stay outta my booze.
No! OK, back on track. A more feasible possibility is a business owner being sued for denying service to a homosexual. Which has a greater value (the greater good) to our society, preventing victimization of the store owner, or store patron? I think the homosexual patron would have the stronger case, but I guess it's open for debate. My point is this: this case, and others like it, are not simply a matter of Christians being run roughshod over because of their beliefs. There is not one victim here, but two. Not one aggressor, but two. Two competing worldviews are duking it out in field of public opinion. This is one battle in a greater culture war. Lawmakers do their best to balance the interests of various parties to find a balance (the greater good - SHUT IT) that serves the public interest. In the past, they might have been more inclined to side with a shopkeep against a minority that people don't care for, or are indifferent to. Now, it's more likely to side with a minority who wants a sandwich from the shop that everyone else is eating at.
Does that mean Christianity is being oppressed? No, I don't think so. I don't think that's a fair characterization. We are not forcing any particular church to perform a gay ceremony. We are not forcing churches to change their theology. And we're certainly not forming an Outback Nazi Law Enforcement Agency to hunt down and exterminate the intolerant. Nor are there any plans to do so. So yeah, I think such characterizations are overblown, and dishonest.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Primary Update
There is some buzz over Governor Christie possibly entering the race. I'm thinking if someone new (Christie or otherwise) officially announces candidacy, I'll open the books so folks can adjust their bets. You can make any change you want. A new candidate potentially changes the whole dynamic, so it only seems fair. The books will stay open for 7 days, so take your time.
Also, if all things stay equal, John and I will tie if Romney wins nomination. How about a tiebreaker? Maybe on running mate? Or number of states carried in the general election? I'm open to suggestions, whaddayathink?
Also, if all things stay equal, John and I will tie if Romney wins nomination. How about a tiebreaker? Maybe on running mate? Or number of states carried in the general election? I'm open to suggestions, whaddayathink?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Against the GOP
I've attempted many times to write something about the state of the Republican party, and the current conservative movement. Something in the nature of the nuts taking over the nuthouse, religious fringe hijacking the party, or angry dumb mobs (read: Tea Party) shouting down what little is left of reasonable discourse in politics.
I simply can't find the words. I'm too emotionally involved in this. I'm too outraged and upset to be playful with words. It's probably true that this will come and go. Like all events that seem too great to get over, too apocalyptic, it will eventually pass. I can accept that likelyhood.
However, it's not just that it's a bad thing for the country. It's not just that it's bad for governance during a recession. It's not just - incorrect or imprudent. It's vile. Truly vile. What these people are is simply repulsive. Everytime I think about casting my thoughts into words on the subject, I can only shake in impotent rage over these wretches. These subhumans. These pathetic excuses for human beings that make up the conservative "base", that apparently has the ear of leadership.
Here's a clip from the last debate, where viewers booed a gay service member who submitted a video question to Rick Santorum.
You don't boo a service member. Period. At least not if you're a person who claims to "support the troops".
Santorum proceeds to answer the question by lying and saying that the repeal of DADT is an endorsement of homosexual misbehavior on duty. The lies are stacking up so fast among these people that it's impossible to stay above it. It's a triumph of untruth. The lesson being learned is that if you tell as many audacious lies as possible, and never apologize, you can create an alternate reality for at least a quarter of the population. And you'll make an additional 50% of the population at least give pause to seriously consider your lies.
If I could I would punish these people. Obviously I can't do that. What I can do is refuse to give this group, or anyone who chooses to associate under the same banner (Romney and Huntsman included), the time of day. I want them out of politics. I want them off of TV. I frankly want them out of my country, but I'd settle for being exiled from decent society...
KNOW HATE
I simply can't find the words. I'm too emotionally involved in this. I'm too outraged and upset to be playful with words. It's probably true that this will come and go. Like all events that seem too great to get over, too apocalyptic, it will eventually pass. I can accept that likelyhood.
However, it's not just that it's a bad thing for the country. It's not just that it's bad for governance during a recession. It's not just - incorrect or imprudent. It's vile. Truly vile. What these people are is simply repulsive. Everytime I think about casting my thoughts into words on the subject, I can only shake in impotent rage over these wretches. These subhumans. These pathetic excuses for human beings that make up the conservative "base", that apparently has the ear of leadership.
Here's a clip from the last debate, where viewers booed a gay service member who submitted a video question to Rick Santorum.
You don't boo a service member. Period. At least not if you're a person who claims to "support the troops".
Santorum proceeds to answer the question by lying and saying that the repeal of DADT is an endorsement of homosexual misbehavior on duty. The lies are stacking up so fast among these people that it's impossible to stay above it. It's a triumph of untruth. The lesson being learned is that if you tell as many audacious lies as possible, and never apologize, you can create an alternate reality for at least a quarter of the population. And you'll make an additional 50% of the population at least give pause to seriously consider your lies.
If I could I would punish these people. Obviously I can't do that. What I can do is refuse to give this group, or anyone who chooses to associate under the same banner (Romney and Huntsman included), the time of day. I want them out of politics. I want them off of TV. I frankly want them out of my country, but I'd settle for being exiled from decent society...
KNOW HATE
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Absence Of Evidence...
...Is not the evidence of absence!
In the wake of John's hiatus, I began frequenting a blog run by a fundamentalist Christan to sate my rhetorical blood lust. Regarding the media's attitude towards homosexuality, Sola quoted this passage from Paul:
I figure that Paul is criticising the Hellenistic/Roman culture that was seeping into his own at this point in history. Paul was a devout Jew, and later a devout Christian, and the values of the decadent Romanized world didn't jive with traditional Jewish values. Now, when it comes to homosexuality I can understand Paul's point. We've all heard a hundred times about the Greek and Roman penchant for buggery. While I think that's a little overplayed, it's still valid to say that Romans might have given "hearty approval" to the act while within an earshot of Paul.
But murder, strife, deceit, arrogance, boastfulness? Untrustworthy behavior?
It's hard to imagine a functioning society where such vices aren't just tolerated but are applauded. Such a society couldn't be sustained for a year, let alone 400+. What is Paul referring to? A few bad eggs casting a bad impression on the whole bunch? Maybe. What I think is more likely is that Paul is criticising the lack of open condemnation, and legal action against these evil ones. Proto-western culture, while not wholely wicked did not necessarily move to attack immoral behavior in it's citizens. The status quo was not to attempt legal supression of moral nastiness, unless it reached an extent of interfering with civic business. Upstanding citizens might view liars and braggarts negatively, but there wasn't a mandate to chop their hands off either. Your average citizen certainly wouldn't say "YAY" to theft or murder (exception: criminals in the arena).
The traditions of the middle east, however, were just the opposite. Law was derived from a class of Priest-Kings who's sole interest was making God happy by punishing immorality, with little to no concept of rights or consenting adults yada yada.
This culture shock is still being carried on today. The middle eastern model of morality-based lawmaking has a modern representative, in those very same words from Paul, and those that use them as a guide for civil and private morality.
The mainstream media certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality. Likewise the media does indeed portray Paul's heirs as intolerant and cruel. However, the media does not give "hearty approval" to homosexual behavior. No. The media does not give the thumbs up to anal sex. It does not celebrate a penis going into a butt. Ditto to fellatio, rimjobs and scissoring.
Featuring homosexuals prominently, without criticising the behavior is not equivalent to approval. Failure to condemn is not approval. Failure to assert is not the same as denial. This is not nitpicking, it's an distinction that is essential to a functioning democracy. It is criticial to western civilization to be able to look at something and basically say "meh", without it being interpreted as support.
In the wake of John's hiatus, I began frequenting a blog run by a fundamentalist Christan to sate my rhetorical blood lust. Regarding the media's attitude towards homosexuality, Sola quoted this passage from Paul:
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:28-32).At first I glanced at this, later I really read through and pondered it. Looking at this passage critically, as a student of history, I can't accept this at face value.
I figure that Paul is criticising the Hellenistic/Roman culture that was seeping into his own at this point in history. Paul was a devout Jew, and later a devout Christian, and the values of the decadent Romanized world didn't jive with traditional Jewish values. Now, when it comes to homosexuality I can understand Paul's point. We've all heard a hundred times about the Greek and Roman penchant for buggery. While I think that's a little overplayed, it's still valid to say that Romans might have given "hearty approval" to the act while within an earshot of Paul.
But murder, strife, deceit, arrogance, boastfulness? Untrustworthy behavior?
It's hard to imagine a functioning society where such vices aren't just tolerated but are applauded. Such a society couldn't be sustained for a year, let alone 400+. What is Paul referring to? A few bad eggs casting a bad impression on the whole bunch? Maybe. What I think is more likely is that Paul is criticising the lack of open condemnation, and legal action against these evil ones. Proto-western culture, while not wholely wicked did not necessarily move to attack immoral behavior in it's citizens. The status quo was not to attempt legal supression of moral nastiness, unless it reached an extent of interfering with civic business. Upstanding citizens might view liars and braggarts negatively, but there wasn't a mandate to chop their hands off either. Your average citizen certainly wouldn't say "YAY" to theft or murder (exception: criminals in the arena).
The traditions of the middle east, however, were just the opposite. Law was derived from a class of Priest-Kings who's sole interest was making God happy by punishing immorality, with little to no concept of rights or consenting adults yada yada.
This culture shock is still being carried on today. The middle eastern model of morality-based lawmaking has a modern representative, in those very same words from Paul, and those that use them as a guide for civil and private morality.
The mainstream media certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality. Likewise the media does indeed portray Paul's heirs as intolerant and cruel. However, the media does not give "hearty approval" to homosexual behavior. No. The media does not give the thumbs up to anal sex. It does not celebrate a penis going into a butt. Ditto to fellatio, rimjobs and scissoring.
Featuring homosexuals prominently, without criticising the behavior is not equivalent to approval. Failure to condemn is not approval. Failure to assert is not the same as denial. This is not nitpicking, it's an distinction that is essential to a functioning democracy. It is criticial to western civilization to be able to look at something and basically say "meh", without it being interpreted as support.
Monday, September 12, 2011
On 9/11
This is going to be short. The question is, does 9/11 matter anymore?
I'm not trying to be taboo for the sake of shock value, but the thought suddenly occurs. The #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was Contagion, a movie about a massive worldwide epidemic that reaches an apocalyptic level. So, Americans coped with the 10 year anniversary of what might have been the worst tragedy on American soil by seeing a movie about the worst tragedy on American soil? More importantly, studio bigwigs apparently calculated that no one would make the connection, or care enough to let that stop them from seeing the movie, with surety enough not to change the release date. And they were right.
I'm not saying that 9/11 isn't considered significant anymore. We're still feeling the affects in the way we conduct politics and in the two wars that are still ongoing. I'm just saying that I believe most people have moved on, emotionally, and this date has become just another anniversary to be acknowledged every year. Aside from a touching story I heard on NPR last week about Mychal Judge, a Franciscan friar who died at ground zero, this date has had no emotional impact for me. Besides the NPR thing, the only emotion I've felt is a slight irritation over the past weeks that I would soon be forced to recognize an arbitrary date and round number, and that current affairs will be suspended for this forced memorial. It's not that I don't care anymore, I do think of that day reflectively and with sobriety now and then, but the national remembrance has begun to feel forced and out of proportion.
Maybe I can only care so much for so long. It was a horrible thing, but it's been over for a while. The scale of this event was huge, but not unlimited. Even events as monumental as this cannot mean everything to everyone forever. Eventually we move on. It may take quite a long time, but all tragedies can eventually be sorted out and tucked away.
I'm not trying to be taboo for the sake of shock value, but the thought suddenly occurs. The #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was Contagion, a movie about a massive worldwide epidemic that reaches an apocalyptic level. So, Americans coped with the 10 year anniversary of what might have been the worst tragedy on American soil by seeing a movie about the worst tragedy on American soil? More importantly, studio bigwigs apparently calculated that no one would make the connection, or care enough to let that stop them from seeing the movie, with surety enough not to change the release date. And they were right.
I'm not saying that 9/11 isn't considered significant anymore. We're still feeling the affects in the way we conduct politics and in the two wars that are still ongoing. I'm just saying that I believe most people have moved on, emotionally, and this date has become just another anniversary to be acknowledged every year. Aside from a touching story I heard on NPR last week about Mychal Judge, a Franciscan friar who died at ground zero, this date has had no emotional impact for me. Besides the NPR thing, the only emotion I've felt is a slight irritation over the past weeks that I would soon be forced to recognize an arbitrary date and round number, and that current affairs will be suspended for this forced memorial. It's not that I don't care anymore, I do think of that day reflectively and with sobriety now and then, but the national remembrance has begun to feel forced and out of proportion.
Maybe I can only care so much for so long. It was a horrible thing, but it's been over for a while. The scale of this event was huge, but not unlimited. Even events as monumental as this cannot mean everything to everyone forever. Eventually we move on. It may take quite a long time, but all tragedies can eventually be sorted out and tucked away.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Prize
We need a more tangible prize for our 2012 Primary wager, rather than some abstract notion like "glory" or "honor". Can you spread honor onto a kaiser roll? I think not. So, that in mind, I unveil the 2012 Republican Primary Race GRAND PRIZE:
The "Mustard of Glory"
This bottle of generic-brand mustard has sat on my desk since early February. I don't recommend you eat it directly, or as an accompaniment to food. However, it had only one previous owner: James Bond. Some folks say that the famous MI6 agent used this mustard on a turkey sandwich, which he consumed just prior to intercourse with a beautiful live girl. You might be wondering how I obtained a jar of mustard that was owned by a fictional spy, or why it's a relevant prize anyway. Well, I don't have an answer to that. However, my scientist, Dr. Cody, spends his days in a tin shed, deep inside a small canyon outside of San Bernadino...
There you have it folks, the die is cast. Pick a winner, acquire the mustard. Perhaps you too can enjoy intercourse with a beautiful live girl.
The "Mustard of Glory"
This bottle of generic-brand mustard has sat on my desk since early February. I don't recommend you eat it directly, or as an accompaniment to food. However, it had only one previous owner: James Bond. Some folks say that the famous MI6 agent used this mustard on a turkey sandwich, which he consumed just prior to intercourse with a beautiful live girl. You might be wondering how I obtained a jar of mustard that was owned by a fictional spy, or why it's a relevant prize anyway. Well, I don't have an answer to that. However, my scientist, Dr. Cody, spends his days in a tin shed, deep inside a small canyon outside of San Bernadino...
There you have it folks, the die is cast. Pick a winner, acquire the mustard. Perhaps you too can enjoy intercourse with a beautiful live girl.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Against George Lucas
OK, this is a very old and very played out criticism, but I don't care. George Lucas is at it again.
Hey, remember this tub of crap?
When Lucas took what should have been the most badass moment of the whole series and turned it into some sort of bizarre parody of Frankenstein (sans irony) with a shot from the ceiling of Darth Vader saying "NOOOO!" that defies all reason and taste as an attempt at legitimate drama ("MENDOZAAAA!!!!!")?
Well, Lucas has now decided to ramp up his campaign of terror against his own fans by taking this campy moment and extending it into the original trilogy, with the upcoming bluray release of the whole series. Take a look.
I could scarcely believe this wasn't a hoax until Lucasfilm confirmed that this change, along with several others (such as replacing puppet Yoda with CGI yoda in Phantom Menace and giving Ewoks blinking, moving eyes in Jedi) will indeed be a part of the bluray release.
I could spend hours trying to describe the depths of depravity that I think compel George Lucas to constantly make creative changes to works long established and cherished in the public psyche. Suffice to say we're all aware that he is deranged. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that Lucas owns the films, and he's going to do whatever he wants with them. And there's nothing we can do about it.
I feel that Justice demands that those rights be stripped away from him, the original films be restored, and that he should suffer in some unimaginably painful way for his crimes against taste. However, we live in a society of laws where, unfortunately, Daddy Justice cannot always be served to the extent that he should.
I do have a modest suggestion, for how we can serve justice without violating property rights and inflicting arcane torture. It's quite simple, really. To quote Jay Sherman, "If you stop watching bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies". Make a vow to yourself that you will give no more of your hard earned dollars to fund George Lucas's madness and tyranny. Do not purchase any new products produced by Lucasfilms. Do not patronize any films produced or endorsed by Lucasfilms. Do not, for an instant, turn to a television station that is showing any of the Star Wars films. To do so is to give royalty money to Lucas by proxy, through ratings and advertising funds on the channel in question. Cut him off completely and utterly.
We have been lax these past decades. And Lucas has interpreted our laxity and lack of moral fiber as an endorsement of his actions. No more. Cut him off. If he ever gets the picture, and re releases the original versions of the films, give him a hearty "yes" vote by going out and purchasing at least one copy of each.
This is the best that we, the little people, can do. We don't have the power to "push a button" on a creative effort of which we disapprove. But we can refuse to play ball until we get what we want.
What say you, Calculon?
Jake?
Hey, remember this tub of crap?
When Lucas took what should have been the most badass moment of the whole series and turned it into some sort of bizarre parody of Frankenstein (sans irony) with a shot from the ceiling of Darth Vader saying "NOOOO!" that defies all reason and taste as an attempt at legitimate drama ("MENDOZAAAA!!!!!")?
Well, Lucas has now decided to ramp up his campaign of terror against his own fans by taking this campy moment and extending it into the original trilogy, with the upcoming bluray release of the whole series. Take a look.
I could scarcely believe this wasn't a hoax until Lucasfilm confirmed that this change, along with several others (such as replacing puppet Yoda with CGI yoda in Phantom Menace and giving Ewoks blinking, moving eyes in Jedi) will indeed be a part of the bluray release.
I could spend hours trying to describe the depths of depravity that I think compel George Lucas to constantly make creative changes to works long established and cherished in the public psyche. Suffice to say we're all aware that he is deranged. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that Lucas owns the films, and he's going to do whatever he wants with them. And there's nothing we can do about it.
I feel that Justice demands that those rights be stripped away from him, the original films be restored, and that he should suffer in some unimaginably painful way for his crimes against taste. However, we live in a society of laws where, unfortunately, Daddy Justice cannot always be served to the extent that he should.
I do have a modest suggestion, for how we can serve justice without violating property rights and inflicting arcane torture. It's quite simple, really. To quote Jay Sherman, "If you stop watching bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies". Make a vow to yourself that you will give no more of your hard earned dollars to fund George Lucas's madness and tyranny. Do not purchase any new products produced by Lucasfilms. Do not patronize any films produced or endorsed by Lucasfilms. Do not, for an instant, turn to a television station that is showing any of the Star Wars films. To do so is to give royalty money to Lucas by proxy, through ratings and advertising funds on the channel in question. Cut him off completely and utterly.
We have been lax these past decades. And Lucas has interpreted our laxity and lack of moral fiber as an endorsement of his actions. No more. Cut him off. If he ever gets the picture, and re releases the original versions of the films, give him a hearty "yes" vote by going out and purchasing at least one copy of each.
This is the best that we, the little people, can do. We don't have the power to "push a button" on a creative effort of which we disapprove. But we can refuse to play ball until we get what we want.
What say you, Calculon?
Jake?
Friday, August 26, 2011
2012 GOP Primaries: Let the betting commence
These primaries have been incredibly dull for me. In my opinion, when following the candidates, we're not so much measuring the merits of the candidates, or their likeliness to win, but rather we're grading them by how much political baggage they carry, and the various points of concern for each. It's, in essence, a collection of losers, and it'll be a bloody war of attrition to decide who will earn the right to look ridiculous in a general election.
Let's spice this up a bit by making a game of it. Each of us is given 10 imaginary dollars to bet on whichever candidates we want, in whatever proportion that we want. I'll offer the house odds on each standing candidate, and we'll place our bets in the comments section. When the race is over, we'll tally up a winner, who'll receive the glory.
Note: This is just a bet on who the winner of the GOP primary will be. The outcome of the general election doesn't figure as a part of this in any way.
On to the candidates...
Rating: Secure
Mitt Romney 3 to 2
Rick Perry 2 to 1
Rating: Growth
Jon Huntsman 5 to 1
Michelle Bachman 4 to 1
Paul Ryan (should he run) 5 to 1
Rating: Speculative
Newt Gingrich 15 to 1
Herman Cain 20 to 1
Sarah Palin 20 to 1
Ron Paul 20 to 1
Rick Santorum 15 to 1
Gary Johnson 30 to 1
Rating: Junk
Jonathon Sharkey 100 to 1
Buddy Roemer 100 to 1
Andy Martin 100 to 1
Fred Karger 100 to 1
Thaddeus McCotter 100 to 1
Jimmy McMillan 1000 to 1
Let's spice this up a bit by making a game of it. Each of us is given 10 imaginary dollars to bet on whichever candidates we want, in whatever proportion that we want. I'll offer the house odds on each standing candidate, and we'll place our bets in the comments section. When the race is over, we'll tally up a winner, who'll receive the glory.
Note: This is just a bet on who the winner of the GOP primary will be. The outcome of the general election doesn't figure as a part of this in any way.
On to the candidates...
Rating: Secure
Mitt Romney 3 to 2
Rick Perry 2 to 1
Rating: Growth
Jon Huntsman 5 to 1
Michelle Bachman 4 to 1
Paul Ryan (should he run) 5 to 1
Rating: Speculative
Newt Gingrich 15 to 1
Herman Cain 20 to 1
Sarah Palin 20 to 1
Ron Paul 20 to 1
Rick Santorum 15 to 1
Gary Johnson 30 to 1
Rating: Junk
Jonathon Sharkey 100 to 1
Buddy Roemer 100 to 1
Andy Martin 100 to 1
Fred Karger 100 to 1
Thaddeus McCotter 100 to 1
Jimmy McMillan 1000 to 1
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Evangelism, New Atheism and the "Book Of Mormon"
Matt and Trey's Broadway musical, "The Book Of Mormon" has won a lot of praise. It's well deserved (judging by the cast recording). It's not just funny, like the South Park episode, "All about the Mormons", it's also quite touching. However, one criticism that I haven't quite heard enough to my satisfaction is this. Isn't the moral of this story kind of cynical?
To explain, let me sum up the plot. Two 19 year old Mormon Elders are sent on a 2 year missionary trip to Uganda. The conditions there are terrible, women are mutilated, human life carries little to no value, and 80% of the villagers have AIDS. After the more "capable" of the two fails to persuade any villagers to convert, his chunky sidekick has better luck by tweaking the content of the Book of Mormon to include morals about dealing with AIDS, not cutting off clitorises (clitorii?), and not raping babies (not to mention inserting Boba Fett, Sauron and the fiery pits of Mordor). This persuades the entire village to convert and reform. Mormon bigwigs don't like the liberal attitude toward the scriptures and throw the two (along with the villagers) out of the church. They all decide to continue with their own scriptures and their own church.
The moral of the story is that it's OK to tweak the facts, or to put only 50% belief into those "facts" as long as, at the end of the day, you're helping people live a better way.
This seems like a popular viewpoint. The viewpoint of lukewarm believers and non-believers alike, that what's true or real is not as important as taking the stories and proverbs and rolling with them. What's true is not as important as avoiding being a dick. Like by being a stickler about truth and falsehood.
Yeah, I kinda take exception to that. What is real and what is true does matter. I enjoy a rest from reality as much as the next guy. Taking a break to read some fantasy or sci-fi is fun. But to live your life according things which you figure are probably false, but ignore because your quality of life is better. That's just bogus and wrong. Or the flip side, to believe that you do indeed possess some understanding of the truth, but refusing to engage others for fear of looking like a dick.
It just surprises me that this isn't more amity, or at least grudging respect between devoted evangelists and "new atheists" like Dawkins and Hitchens. They both share the quality of belief in hard truths which should be promoted, and conversely, blatant falsehoods which should be publicly refuted and given the boot.
To explain, let me sum up the plot. Two 19 year old Mormon Elders are sent on a 2 year missionary trip to Uganda. The conditions there are terrible, women are mutilated, human life carries little to no value, and 80% of the villagers have AIDS. After the more "capable" of the two fails to persuade any villagers to convert, his chunky sidekick has better luck by tweaking the content of the Book of Mormon to include morals about dealing with AIDS, not cutting off clitorises (clitorii?), and not raping babies (not to mention inserting Boba Fett, Sauron and the fiery pits of Mordor). This persuades the entire village to convert and reform. Mormon bigwigs don't like the liberal attitude toward the scriptures and throw the two (along with the villagers) out of the church. They all decide to continue with their own scriptures and their own church.
The moral of the story is that it's OK to tweak the facts, or to put only 50% belief into those "facts" as long as, at the end of the day, you're helping people live a better way.
This seems like a popular viewpoint. The viewpoint of lukewarm believers and non-believers alike, that what's true or real is not as important as taking the stories and proverbs and rolling with them. What's true is not as important as avoiding being a dick. Like by being a stickler about truth and falsehood.
Yeah, I kinda take exception to that. What is real and what is true does matter. I enjoy a rest from reality as much as the next guy. Taking a break to read some fantasy or sci-fi is fun. But to live your life according things which you figure are probably false, but ignore because your quality of life is better. That's just bogus and wrong. Or the flip side, to believe that you do indeed possess some understanding of the truth, but refusing to engage others for fear of looking like a dick.
It just surprises me that this isn't more amity, or at least grudging respect between devoted evangelists and "new atheists" like Dawkins and Hitchens. They both share the quality of belief in hard truths which should be promoted, and conversely, blatant falsehoods which should be publicly refuted and given the boot.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
On Cognitive Dissonance And Crimethink
Ever since I came across the wikipedia entry on cognitive dissonance (I'd heard of the phrase a long time ago, but didn't investigate until about a year ago), I keep coming back to it every few months. It's an interesting topic regarding psychology and sociology. Here's a bit about the most famous example of cognitive dissonance:
Neat. Anyway, where am I going with this?
Well, I've had a notion for quite a while that I haven't really been able to define, having to do with the proper, human way of thinking. Shortly before I started college, I had something of a brief, accidental out-of-body experience, while trying to get to sleep. For just a moment, I could see myself as if from the ceiling looking down. And I was free to judge myself, both physically and mentally, with all my emotional baggage, insecurities and teenage defensiveness. And it didn't bother me to do so, I felt no dissonance - again, just for a moment. I had a split second of total objective observation of myself.
It wasn't anything grandiose or spiritual, but it was useful and I believe that it had something to do with how I developed afterward. After that, especially during college, I became a lot more honest with myself about what I wanted, and why. It didn't feel self-deprecating at all, because these things that I criticised about myself (even my baser tendencies) weren't really at the core of my identity anymore. My mind had shifted in some way, and I wasn't exclusively centered in the part of me that held desire or judgements. Part of me was now centered in the part of me that objectively analyzes, and that allowed me to analyze myself from inside and out. I didn't need to justify or prove personal values or appetities, they simply were what they were. I could judge them, and reorient myself if I wanted to, but either way it didn't threaten my sense of identity.
In some way, I think this ties into the theory of cognitive dissonance. This is a weapon for fighting crimethink. What I want is to fully understand it so I can spread this special kind of perspective that I found. I don't think it has to do with eliminating dissonance completely. And I'm aware that the experience that I had may have just been the late onset of some child-to-adult development that everyone goes through. But I can think of at least a handful (more like dozens) of individuals I've run across that have their identity riding on things in their external life (I'm thinking of the line in Fight Club about "That wasn't just a bunch of stuff in my apartment, that was me" and "You're not the car you drive, you're not your job, you're not your fucking khakis"). This seems like a useful area of inquiry. What do you guys think?
A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it. - Wikipedia, Cognitive DissonanceWhat's really interesting to me is regarding the role that self-concept plays in dissonance. Meaning one's sense of identity, or one's ego. We all see ourselves as basically good, obviously. We see ourselves as smart, capable and morally decent. These prejudices about our own inherently good nature are occasionally tested by reality. We find ourselves in situations where we freely make bad decisions, or find ourselves incapable of achieving goals that we presuppose are attainable. Reality creeps in and challenges our most basic assumptions about ourselves. In a such a conflict, something has to bend. Either we bend ourselves to accommodate new facts, or we bend the facts to accommodate our ego.
Neat. Anyway, where am I going with this?
Well, I've had a notion for quite a while that I haven't really been able to define, having to do with the proper, human way of thinking. Shortly before I started college, I had something of a brief, accidental out-of-body experience, while trying to get to sleep. For just a moment, I could see myself as if from the ceiling looking down. And I was free to judge myself, both physically and mentally, with all my emotional baggage, insecurities and teenage defensiveness. And it didn't bother me to do so, I felt no dissonance - again, just for a moment. I had a split second of total objective observation of myself.
It wasn't anything grandiose or spiritual, but it was useful and I believe that it had something to do with how I developed afterward. After that, especially during college, I became a lot more honest with myself about what I wanted, and why. It didn't feel self-deprecating at all, because these things that I criticised about myself (even my baser tendencies) weren't really at the core of my identity anymore. My mind had shifted in some way, and I wasn't exclusively centered in the part of me that held desire or judgements. Part of me was now centered in the part of me that objectively analyzes, and that allowed me to analyze myself from inside and out. I didn't need to justify or prove personal values or appetities, they simply were what they were. I could judge them, and reorient myself if I wanted to, but either way it didn't threaten my sense of identity.
In some way, I think this ties into the theory of cognitive dissonance. This is a weapon for fighting crimethink. What I want is to fully understand it so I can spread this special kind of perspective that I found. I don't think it has to do with eliminating dissonance completely. And I'm aware that the experience that I had may have just been the late onset of some child-to-adult development that everyone goes through. But I can think of at least a handful (more like dozens) of individuals I've run across that have their identity riding on things in their external life (I'm thinking of the line in Fight Club about "That wasn't just a bunch of stuff in my apartment, that was me" and "You're not the car you drive, you're not your job, you're not your fucking khakis"). This seems like a useful area of inquiry. What do you guys think?
Monday, July 18, 2011
On Skepticism
At a recent BBQ, a couple of guests described in length their experiences ghost hunting at nearby haunted buildings. Myself and another skeptic attempted to poke some holes in their airtight logic (e.g. "You just.. had to be there.. You could just FEEL it, you know?"). They seemed surprised and disappointed that we wouldn't simply take their word for it, and insisted that we couldn't offer an opinion until we spend an entire night stumbling in the dark of a moldy condemned building with no electricity or functioning indoor plumbing (I refuse to do so, so I must either be too scared or too proud to admit I'm wrong).
Among some of the points Team Skeptic brought up:
1. If ghosts really do exist, why can't they haunted a functional, contemporary household in good repair? After all, people have also died in such houses. Why is a spooky atmosphere a prerequisite to having a ghost encounter?
2. Unbelief in ghosts is not simply about "only believing what you can see around you". I can see no dinosaurs around me, but I know that they once existed because I can go to a museum and be surrounded by physical evidence. There are no museums full of ghosts.
3. Out of the infinite possibilities (both known and unknown) to explain the feeling of being lightly touched in a pitch black room, or hearing noise that sounds like a voice, etc, why must it be a ghost? A person goes looking for evidence to confirm an already-held unjustified conclusion (ghosts exist), and then conveniently uses any sensory perception that fits that prejudice, without giving the evidence it's due diligence exploration and research.
I've been dwelling on that third argument. Skepticism is not just about avoiding silly beliefs. It's also about avoiding prejudice, and I think that is frequently overlooked (especially by die hard believers). Belief (in something, anything) is often revered, or at least respected in our culture. Taking a skeptical stance, while seen as sensible, is also looked at as being a killjoy or fuddy-duddy.
Skeptics do not deny the evidence (even if it's personal and subjective), but they do question the conclusion if it is not supported by sufficient evidence. It has nothing to do with what they want to believe, it is the recognition that what they want is irrelevant, and prejudice and selectivity about a conclusion has no place in honest inquiry. The evidence (say, for ghosts) may actually indicate something. It may be centuries, or even never that we understand what it really is. But jumping to belief in the supernatural, for the sake of spicing up life is doing a disservice to the truth, and putting ones own needs before self honesty. To recognize that is not a weakness. It is, indeed, a virtue. And one that requires deliberate effort and discipline.
Among some of the points Team Skeptic brought up:
1. If ghosts really do exist, why can't they haunted a functional, contemporary household in good repair? After all, people have also died in such houses. Why is a spooky atmosphere a prerequisite to having a ghost encounter?
2. Unbelief in ghosts is not simply about "only believing what you can see around you". I can see no dinosaurs around me, but I know that they once existed because I can go to a museum and be surrounded by physical evidence. There are no museums full of ghosts.
3. Out of the infinite possibilities (both known and unknown) to explain the feeling of being lightly touched in a pitch black room, or hearing noise that sounds like a voice, etc, why must it be a ghost? A person goes looking for evidence to confirm an already-held unjustified conclusion (ghosts exist), and then conveniently uses any sensory perception that fits that prejudice, without giving the evidence it's due diligence exploration and research.
I've been dwelling on that third argument. Skepticism is not just about avoiding silly beliefs. It's also about avoiding prejudice, and I think that is frequently overlooked (especially by die hard believers). Belief (in something, anything) is often revered, or at least respected in our culture. Taking a skeptical stance, while seen as sensible, is also looked at as being a killjoy or fuddy-duddy.
Skeptics do not deny the evidence (even if it's personal and subjective), but they do question the conclusion if it is not supported by sufficient evidence. It has nothing to do with what they want to believe, it is the recognition that what they want is irrelevant, and prejudice and selectivity about a conclusion has no place in honest inquiry. The evidence (say, for ghosts) may actually indicate something. It may be centuries, or even never that we understand what it really is. But jumping to belief in the supernatural, for the sake of spicing up life is doing a disservice to the truth, and putting ones own needs before self honesty. To recognize that is not a weakness. It is, indeed, a virtue. And one that requires deliberate effort and discipline.
Friday, June 17, 2011
More On Early Christianity
On a somewhat related line of thought, I'd like to start with a letter from dear Pliny to the emperor Trajan:
I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent...
[In] the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome...
[Those] who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged.
And Trajan's reply:
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
Now, these words are probably the most frequently quoted in modern times for either Trajan or Pliny. Moreover, they're generally looked on as being a wonderful example of tolerance for Christians by the Roman authorities. Trajan was especially seen by early and medieval Christians as a friend of the faith. Pope Gregory I liked him so much he wanted to resurrect him so he could be baptized and go to heaven. Why? Simply because he didn't go to great effort to seek out Christians to punish?
I suspect that many misunderstand the context of the times, and believe that the Roman norm was Nero, crucifying Christians and using them as people-torches at night. From every source I've read thus far, Trajan's attitude was the norm. The vast majority of the time, Romans were clearly annoyed by Christians, but made little sustained, concerted effort to eradicate them. This kind of "tolerance" was very infrequently punctuated by an effort by authorities to push back against Christian growth in the cities. Such efforts had limited success and didn't last very long (persecution was a difficult, messy and decidedly unprofitable venture). Probably the most successful was Diocletian, who intimidated many into converting back to pagan worship. But Diocletian also quit while he was ahead, and failed to finish what he started.
So if Trajan is our model of tolerance in the context of that time, and Diocletian is the model of intolerance, than what of the later Christian persecution of pagans in the 4th and 5th centuries? Constantine started by heavily taxing pagan temples and giving the money to the church - OK, not so bad so far. He and his sons made efforts to stop the practice of animal sacrifice - still pretty tame. Augustine incited an anti-pagan mob in Carthage with these words:
"...[For] that all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!"
That mob left sixty non-Christians dead. Getting worse. Martin of Tours starts sacking pagan holy sites in Gaul and destroying pagan alters. After the sack of temples in Egypt and the destruction of the library of Alexandria, the leader of the Egyptian monks responsible for the act replied thusly to the victims who demanded back their sacred icons: "I peacefully removed your gods...there is no such thing as robbery for those who truly possess Christ".
Under the reigns of Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius, paganism is now made illegal. Not only were the temples shut, but private practices of lighting incense, hanging wreaths in honor of the gods, or burning candles were strictly forbidden. Bishops brought desert monks into the cities to assist in the destruction of temples. Christian mobs would taunt remaining non-Christians in the hope of causing a riot. A mob of Christians kidnap Hypatia of Alexandria (a well respected pagan philosopher) and brutally murder her, hacking her to little bits. It's strongly suspected that Cyril, the Patriarch of that city was responsible for directing the mob. Pagan practices of divination of any kind are made illegal under pain of death. Not only that but Theodosius made non-enforcement of that law by local authorities a crime in itself. Laws are created by regional authorities as kind of hunting licenses for Christian Bishops and Monks, to pillage and loot known pagans and pagan properties.
These are just the highlights, the bits that I know of that happen to stand out in my memory. I'm really not even doing this topic justice with the brevity. Also, note that all of these events occurred within the span of a century.
Pagan persecution of Christianity was like a man occasionally swatting at flies, while usually trying in vain to ignore them. Trajan and Diocletian form the two extremes (I leave Nero out since it was a kind of bizarre fluke by a bizarre emperor, tied to questions of guilt over the Great Fire of Rome). Christian persecution of pagans, on the other hand, was swift, brutal and effective, with little or no thought expended over the "rights" of individuals. Paganism was gone from view almost everywhere (although it lived on underground in small, rural communities for centuries further before gradually fading away) within a century. Those who would not willingly convert were coerced, those who would not be coerced were killed.
Why then is the general opinion on this matter so deranged? Why are pagan authorities seen as vicious butchers while ancient Christians are seen as the meek, quietly waiting to be delivered and inherit the Earth?
I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent...
[In] the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome...
[Those] who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged.
And Trajan's reply:
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
Now, these words are probably the most frequently quoted in modern times for either Trajan or Pliny. Moreover, they're generally looked on as being a wonderful example of tolerance for Christians by the Roman authorities. Trajan was especially seen by early and medieval Christians as a friend of the faith. Pope Gregory I liked him so much he wanted to resurrect him so he could be baptized and go to heaven. Why? Simply because he didn't go to great effort to seek out Christians to punish?
I suspect that many misunderstand the context of the times, and believe that the Roman norm was Nero, crucifying Christians and using them as people-torches at night. From every source I've read thus far, Trajan's attitude was the norm. The vast majority of the time, Romans were clearly annoyed by Christians, but made little sustained, concerted effort to eradicate them. This kind of "tolerance" was very infrequently punctuated by an effort by authorities to push back against Christian growth in the cities. Such efforts had limited success and didn't last very long (persecution was a difficult, messy and decidedly unprofitable venture). Probably the most successful was Diocletian, who intimidated many into converting back to pagan worship. But Diocletian also quit while he was ahead, and failed to finish what he started.
So if Trajan is our model of tolerance in the context of that time, and Diocletian is the model of intolerance, than what of the later Christian persecution of pagans in the 4th and 5th centuries? Constantine started by heavily taxing pagan temples and giving the money to the church - OK, not so bad so far. He and his sons made efforts to stop the practice of animal sacrifice - still pretty tame. Augustine incited an anti-pagan mob in Carthage with these words:
"...[For] that all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!"
That mob left sixty non-Christians dead. Getting worse. Martin of Tours starts sacking pagan holy sites in Gaul and destroying pagan alters. After the sack of temples in Egypt and the destruction of the library of Alexandria, the leader of the Egyptian monks responsible for the act replied thusly to the victims who demanded back their sacred icons: "I peacefully removed your gods...there is no such thing as robbery for those who truly possess Christ".
Under the reigns of Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius, paganism is now made illegal. Not only were the temples shut, but private practices of lighting incense, hanging wreaths in honor of the gods, or burning candles were strictly forbidden. Bishops brought desert monks into the cities to assist in the destruction of temples. Christian mobs would taunt remaining non-Christians in the hope of causing a riot. A mob of Christians kidnap Hypatia of Alexandria (a well respected pagan philosopher) and brutally murder her, hacking her to little bits. It's strongly suspected that Cyril, the Patriarch of that city was responsible for directing the mob. Pagan practices of divination of any kind are made illegal under pain of death. Not only that but Theodosius made non-enforcement of that law by local authorities a crime in itself. Laws are created by regional authorities as kind of hunting licenses for Christian Bishops and Monks, to pillage and loot known pagans and pagan properties.
These are just the highlights, the bits that I know of that happen to stand out in my memory. I'm really not even doing this topic justice with the brevity. Also, note that all of these events occurred within the span of a century.
Pagan persecution of Christianity was like a man occasionally swatting at flies, while usually trying in vain to ignore them. Trajan and Diocletian form the two extremes (I leave Nero out since it was a kind of bizarre fluke by a bizarre emperor, tied to questions of guilt over the Great Fire of Rome). Christian persecution of pagans, on the other hand, was swift, brutal and effective, with little or no thought expended over the "rights" of individuals. Paganism was gone from view almost everywhere (although it lived on underground in small, rural communities for centuries further before gradually fading away) within a century. Those who would not willingly convert were coerced, those who would not be coerced were killed.
Why then is the general opinion on this matter so deranged? Why are pagan authorities seen as vicious butchers while ancient Christians are seen as the meek, quietly waiting to be delivered and inherit the Earth?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The Spread of Early Christianity
I've been reading The Christianization Of The Roman Empire by Ramsey McMullen, which is a pretty well researched work. Although I've been going at a pretty slow pace, I think I've got a better handle on the subject, enough to summarize - poor though my skills may be - how the early Christian movement spread so quickly.
I'm not sure exactly where to begin, but I want to make something clear from the start. I'm going to try to cover the period from Christ's death, up until the point where Constantine takes the throne (306). It's an important distinction, because during and after the reign of Constantine, the Christians had a powerful patron in the Imperial house - except for the brief reign of Julian the Apostate, who attempted to revive the Greco-Roman pagan traditions - and as such, the incentives for an individual to convert were very persuasive.
When Constantine became Emperor, Christians amounted to about 1/10th of the population of the Roman world. By the end of the 4th century, they amounted to at least 1/2 of the population. By that point, the Church basically controlled the state and set about converting or killing the remaining pagans, and destroying every pagan temple still in existance. But that's not really what we're concerned with, is it? We want to know about the start, and how it took root in urban centers around the Mediterranean.
Miracles
Matt and I were debating about the role of moral examples in the spread of Christianity, but I've come to find that the moral question is largely irrelevant. What is relevant to the apostolic era and beyond were the demonstrations of miracles to crowds of onlookers. Christian evangelists would frequently exorcise demons from people, force pagan alters to break or disappear through the power of prayer, and even (at least in one case) cause an earthquake to shake a hostile pagan city.
Of course, I don't believe in miracles. But whether one believes or not isn't important from a historical perspective, anyway. People of the time, before and after Christ, believed in miracles, and indeed saw them fairly often. It would be outside the norm for someone of the time not to believe in miracles. Before John gloats, I should point out however that other cults, like Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus also demonstrated similar miracles, and it was a well known way of gaining converts.
Exclusivity
The most important thing to understand about the pagan world is how inclusive it was. Polytheism in the western world was very inclusive, and indeed tolerant of other forms of faith. Romans and Greeks interpreted the Gods of outsiders by their own names, and allowed their worship to continue. Romans only asked that an alter to Rome (or the current emperor) be built in whatever foreign city they were occupying, and that while the natives continued to kill oxes for Odin, they might occasionally burn a little incense for Rome, and pray for the health of the Emperor.
Naturally that was turned on it's head by Christianity. Christianity was exclusive, absolute and unambiguous. It wasn't enough to simply add Christ to the list of deities being worshipped. Conversion meant rejection of all other forms of divinity. A convert would not necessarily reject the existence of other Gods, but they would consider pagan Gods to be daemones, or minor demons, capable of miracles, but inherently corrupt and not worthy of worship.
This naturally had the effect of irritating the rest of the pagan world, who as a result saw Christians as anti-social and subversive to society. It also made the work of evangelizing Christ that much more dangerous. But most importantly, it gave a greater weight to the demonstration of miracles. In the mind of one who has just witnessed a miracle, not only was the Christian God real and powerful, but he demands obedience and exclusive worship. To ignore that was to invite damnation, and hellfire and brimstone were indeed thoroughly preached at the time. So, this added a sense of urgency and finality to the question.
Support/Incentives
Though the movement was very small, isolated (to urban areas), and limited in methods of outreach and advertisement, there were some incentives to being a part of a Christian community. Christians were typically of the lower, uneducated rungs of society (Pagan writer Celsus describes, in very unflattering words, the common practice of Christians recruiting Children and ignorant housewives in secretive conversations while adult males weren't looking) and often these were craftsmen or workers of a common trade. Often they would meet for common prayer and to receive the Eucharist in the backroom of a common workshop or place of business.
Although small, they would attempt to support each other when there was a need, and when possible would even open charitable endeavors for the general public. These would take the form of providing medical care for those in need, or food for the poor. There is a missionary aspect to these efforts, of course. It's not really all that different from what Churches to today to help the poor. Being a part of a "safety net" community like this was probably a draw for some. I doubt it alone was enough of a draw to make someone leave Paganism for Christianity, another reason in addition would be necessary (pressure from converted family members, perhaps, or some of the other motivations listed above).
I've written a lot, but definately not enough to do the topic justice. If you are still interested, I recommend reading the book.
I'm not sure exactly where to begin, but I want to make something clear from the start. I'm going to try to cover the period from Christ's death, up until the point where Constantine takes the throne (306). It's an important distinction, because during and after the reign of Constantine, the Christians had a powerful patron in the Imperial house - except for the brief reign of Julian the Apostate, who attempted to revive the Greco-Roman pagan traditions - and as such, the incentives for an individual to convert were very persuasive.
When Constantine became Emperor, Christians amounted to about 1/10th of the population of the Roman world. By the end of the 4th century, they amounted to at least 1/2 of the population. By that point, the Church basically controlled the state and set about converting or killing the remaining pagans, and destroying every pagan temple still in existance. But that's not really what we're concerned with, is it? We want to know about the start, and how it took root in urban centers around the Mediterranean.
Miracles
Matt and I were debating about the role of moral examples in the spread of Christianity, but I've come to find that the moral question is largely irrelevant. What is relevant to the apostolic era and beyond were the demonstrations of miracles to crowds of onlookers. Christian evangelists would frequently exorcise demons from people, force pagan alters to break or disappear through the power of prayer, and even (at least in one case) cause an earthquake to shake a hostile pagan city.
Of course, I don't believe in miracles. But whether one believes or not isn't important from a historical perspective, anyway. People of the time, before and after Christ, believed in miracles, and indeed saw them fairly often. It would be outside the norm for someone of the time not to believe in miracles. Before John gloats, I should point out however that other cults, like Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus also demonstrated similar miracles, and it was a well known way of gaining converts.
Exclusivity
The most important thing to understand about the pagan world is how inclusive it was. Polytheism in the western world was very inclusive, and indeed tolerant of other forms of faith. Romans and Greeks interpreted the Gods of outsiders by their own names, and allowed their worship to continue. Romans only asked that an alter to Rome (or the current emperor) be built in whatever foreign city they were occupying, and that while the natives continued to kill oxes for Odin, they might occasionally burn a little incense for Rome, and pray for the health of the Emperor.
Naturally that was turned on it's head by Christianity. Christianity was exclusive, absolute and unambiguous. It wasn't enough to simply add Christ to the list of deities being worshipped. Conversion meant rejection of all other forms of divinity. A convert would not necessarily reject the existence of other Gods, but they would consider pagan Gods to be daemones, or minor demons, capable of miracles, but inherently corrupt and not worthy of worship.
This naturally had the effect of irritating the rest of the pagan world, who as a result saw Christians as anti-social and subversive to society. It also made the work of evangelizing Christ that much more dangerous. But most importantly, it gave a greater weight to the demonstration of miracles. In the mind of one who has just witnessed a miracle, not only was the Christian God real and powerful, but he demands obedience and exclusive worship. To ignore that was to invite damnation, and hellfire and brimstone were indeed thoroughly preached at the time. So, this added a sense of urgency and finality to the question.
Support/Incentives
Though the movement was very small, isolated (to urban areas), and limited in methods of outreach and advertisement, there were some incentives to being a part of a Christian community. Christians were typically of the lower, uneducated rungs of society (Pagan writer Celsus describes, in very unflattering words, the common practice of Christians recruiting Children and ignorant housewives in secretive conversations while adult males weren't looking) and often these were craftsmen or workers of a common trade. Often they would meet for common prayer and to receive the Eucharist in the backroom of a common workshop or place of business.
Although small, they would attempt to support each other when there was a need, and when possible would even open charitable endeavors for the general public. These would take the form of providing medical care for those in need, or food for the poor. There is a missionary aspect to these efforts, of course. It's not really all that different from what Churches to today to help the poor. Being a part of a "safety net" community like this was probably a draw for some. I doubt it alone was enough of a draw to make someone leave Paganism for Christianity, another reason in addition would be necessary (pressure from converted family members, perhaps, or some of the other motivations listed above).
I've written a lot, but definately not enough to do the topic justice. If you are still interested, I recommend reading the book.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
2012 - Let's Fail!
"I never play the opening rounds. Inconsequential." - Some douchebag negotiator from Star Trek
I love election season. It's what I obsess over in place of sports. I also love making predictions. But that joy is tempered by the knowledge that political pundits are almost guaranteed to be wrong in their predictions. I read a study once which estimated that such predictions had a higher average chance of success if the pundits simply threw a dart at the possibilities, rather than giving an honest opinion. Since I'm not a professional, I'd say my odds of failure are pretty significantly multiplied. Oh well, bite me, it's fun!
Reviewing the field of GOP contenders, it's hard to imagine any of them actually beating Obama. Some are appealing in some kind of hypothetical, academic sense. And it's not that our President is overwhelmingly popular, either. It's just that I can't see any of them holding both the necessary knowledge of policy, or the personal gravitas to come off as "presidential" enough to be a viable candidate.
Let's take a look.
Rick Santorum - Everything that I know about this man suggests that he may be the Anti-Christ. The fact that the man is a devoted Catholic does not assuage my fears. A noted enemy of The Gays, Santorum has spoken against the culture of "'private' moral matters" that allow the spread of homosexuality. Even GOP base as crazy as they are, I find this guy too much of a social conservative to penetrate. PRACTICALLY NIL
Ron Paul - I love Ron Paul almost as much as I love taffy. However, I don't love him enough to cast my vote for him as President Of These United States. His blunt honesty about matters of the deficit and foreign intervention bring me great joy. However, he also wants to wants to destroy the Fed and return us to the gold standard, which seems, well... Crazy. Ron's great at winning straw polls, but not great at winning elections. He may, however, end up being remembered as the "John the Baptist" for his son's future presidential run. That aside, UNELECTABLE
Newt Gingrich - Name one nice thing about Newt. Not about his policies or his career, but about the man personally. Exactly. UNELECTABLE.
Tim Pawlenty - I want to make a prediction that Tim Pawlenty's penis will, at some point in the future, be caught in someplace it's not supposed to be. Why? I can't say. He just looks like the kind of goofball who's probably into the bathroom scene. Or the hooker scene or something. Every time I see his ridiculous countenance, I picture him locked in orgasm-face, with the look of creamy satisfaction as his budding relationship with his 17 year old male intern finally reaches it's culmination. But, other than that I haven't got a whole lot against him. Too goofy looking to place high, though. PROBABLE FAILURE
Herman Cain - Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. I'm unfamiliar with the man, but very familiar with the pizza. If the art is representative of the artist, I predict he will show himself to be thick, cheesy with a soft, butter crust. 18" WIDE; A POUND OF CHEESE
Mike Huckabee - I'm selling my stock in Mike Huckabee, if anyone cares and is still buying. I considered Mike the frontrunner since 2008. He was affable, well spoken, and capable of delivering a speech. His policy record was mixed, which can sometimes be an asset in general elections. He had some social conservative credentials, but he also seemed relatable to the general public. Now he's seems to be steadily accelerating toward wierdness. He says strange things and he's recently produced some bizzare cartoon propaganda for children. I'm not even certain if he can make it to the primaries at all. PROBABLE FAILURE.
Donald Trump - Please don't be mistaken. Mr. Trump is not running for President. He's just a clown, hired by Sarah Palin to warm up the audience for the next few months before the Iowa Caucus gets underway. Then it gets real. N/A.
Mitt Romney - Mitt might have a chance of making a good showing in the general election. But he's been living in hypothetical land too long, and I have a feeling that he's not tough enough to survive the opening round melee. He'll be evicerated over his record as Governor of Massachusetts, and even if he does survive long enough to drag his sorry carcass in to the ring, he'll shatter into a thousand pieces in the general election. PROBABLE FAILURE
Mitch Daniels - Nobody's really heard of this guy. I'd like to see him be a dark horse candidate that really ends up giving a good show, but it's still too early to tell. He's what I would call a "serious" conservative, in that he doesn't believe in fairy tales and his policies are based in reality, geared towards actually getting results. From what I know, I like the man. However, what matters is not what he is, but what he becomes. He'll have to pivot if he makes it deep into the primaries, and pivot again if he makes it to the general election. That is, in the end, what will matter. I'll be watching this one.. UNDECIDED...
Sarah Palin - The less said, the better. We all know what she is, and what she represents, I think (nothing, except for naked ambition). She may cause some sort of singularity, or black hole because of two opposing possiblities of equal weight and likelyhood. Either she's so much of a maniac that she's totally unelectable, or she's so much of a maniac that she must be elected president so that the gateway to hell may be opened on earth. It's still possible that some combination of catastrophic events, in the right sequence cause Sarah Palin to be elected President. Someone of her character has no business in the PTA, let alone public matters. This possiblity is already too close to occuring. For my comfort anyway. Still. POSSIBLE ARMAGEDDON
I love election season. It's what I obsess over in place of sports. I also love making predictions. But that joy is tempered by the knowledge that political pundits are almost guaranteed to be wrong in their predictions. I read a study once which estimated that such predictions had a higher average chance of success if the pundits simply threw a dart at the possibilities, rather than giving an honest opinion. Since I'm not a professional, I'd say my odds of failure are pretty significantly multiplied. Oh well, bite me, it's fun!
Reviewing the field of GOP contenders, it's hard to imagine any of them actually beating Obama. Some are appealing in some kind of hypothetical, academic sense. And it's not that our President is overwhelmingly popular, either. It's just that I can't see any of them holding both the necessary knowledge of policy, or the personal gravitas to come off as "presidential" enough to be a viable candidate.
Let's take a look.
Rick Santorum - Everything that I know about this man suggests that he may be the Anti-Christ. The fact that the man is a devoted Catholic does not assuage my fears. A noted enemy of The Gays, Santorum has spoken against the culture of "'private' moral matters" that allow the spread of homosexuality. Even GOP base as crazy as they are, I find this guy too much of a social conservative to penetrate. PRACTICALLY NIL
Ron Paul - I love Ron Paul almost as much as I love taffy. However, I don't love him enough to cast my vote for him as President Of These United States. His blunt honesty about matters of the deficit and foreign intervention bring me great joy. However, he also wants to wants to destroy the Fed and return us to the gold standard, which seems, well... Crazy. Ron's great at winning straw polls, but not great at winning elections. He may, however, end up being remembered as the "John the Baptist" for his son's future presidential run. That aside, UNELECTABLE
Newt Gingrich - Name one nice thing about Newt. Not about his policies or his career, but about the man personally. Exactly. UNELECTABLE.
Tim Pawlenty - I want to make a prediction that Tim Pawlenty's penis will, at some point in the future, be caught in someplace it's not supposed to be. Why? I can't say. He just looks like the kind of goofball who's probably into the bathroom scene. Or the hooker scene or something. Every time I see his ridiculous countenance, I picture him locked in orgasm-face, with the look of creamy satisfaction as his budding relationship with his 17 year old male intern finally reaches it's culmination. But, other than that I haven't got a whole lot against him. Too goofy looking to place high, though. PROBABLE FAILURE
Herman Cain - Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. I'm unfamiliar with the man, but very familiar with the pizza. If the art is representative of the artist, I predict he will show himself to be thick, cheesy with a soft, butter crust. 18" WIDE; A POUND OF CHEESE
Mike Huckabee - I'm selling my stock in Mike Huckabee, if anyone cares and is still buying. I considered Mike the frontrunner since 2008. He was affable, well spoken, and capable of delivering a speech. His policy record was mixed, which can sometimes be an asset in general elections. He had some social conservative credentials, but he also seemed relatable to the general public. Now he's seems to be steadily accelerating toward wierdness. He says strange things and he's recently produced some bizzare cartoon propaganda for children. I'm not even certain if he can make it to the primaries at all. PROBABLE FAILURE.
Donald Trump - Please don't be mistaken. Mr. Trump is not running for President. He's just a clown, hired by Sarah Palin to warm up the audience for the next few months before the Iowa Caucus gets underway. Then it gets real. N/A.
Mitt Romney - Mitt might have a chance of making a good showing in the general election. But he's been living in hypothetical land too long, and I have a feeling that he's not tough enough to survive the opening round melee. He'll be evicerated over his record as Governor of Massachusetts, and even if he does survive long enough to drag his sorry carcass in to the ring, he'll shatter into a thousand pieces in the general election. PROBABLE FAILURE
Mitch Daniels - Nobody's really heard of this guy. I'd like to see him be a dark horse candidate that really ends up giving a good show, but it's still too early to tell. He's what I would call a "serious" conservative, in that he doesn't believe in fairy tales and his policies are based in reality, geared towards actually getting results. From what I know, I like the man. However, what matters is not what he is, but what he becomes. He'll have to pivot if he makes it deep into the primaries, and pivot again if he makes it to the general election. That is, in the end, what will matter. I'll be watching this one.. UNDECIDED...
Sarah Palin - The less said, the better. We all know what she is, and what she represents, I think (nothing, except for naked ambition). She may cause some sort of singularity, or black hole because of two opposing possiblities of equal weight and likelyhood. Either she's so much of a maniac that she's totally unelectable, or she's so much of a maniac that she must be elected president so that the gateway to hell may be opened on earth. It's still possible that some combination of catastrophic events, in the right sequence cause Sarah Palin to be elected President. Someone of her character has no business in the PTA, let alone public matters. This possiblity is already too close to occuring. For my comfort anyway. Still. POSSIBLE ARMAGEDDON
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
On Morality
Part I: Morality Without God?
Introduction
The notion that belief in a Supreme Being is necessary for the existence of morality has sometimes been been mentioned in passing, in this blog and others within the "Triumvirate." I've felt that this required a response in kind, but the scope is certainly big enough to require a separate blog, at least, to do the topic justice. I do not intend to give evidence that morality is possible without God. I intend to give evidence that morality - that is, the familiar sort of personal governance which we all use in day-to-day life - is not possible, or at least not compatible at face value, with the notion of a Judeo-Christian law-giving God.
Note: For the record, I state the obvious, which is that this blog is a "response" to a non-existent statement. My good friend John Stegeman, has not (I think) stated that he holds all of the positions that I will counter. This is, after all, a monologue, not a dialog. So, I'm using arguments from a theistic point of view which are my best approximation (in good faith, I'm honestly not trying to make a straw man) of the Christian perspective.
"God's Law"
Christian morality revolves around two tightly coupled ideas.
1. God defines morally correct action.
2. Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate.
Morality without a perfect author is seen as ludicrous by the Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, for that matter), simply because it's seen as a matter of truth. If morality cannot be known absolutely, then it becomes a matter of relativism. Who is to say that my actions are any less proper than yours? It's your word over mine, might makes right, etc, etc. This is the nature of the argument which I challenge.
Facts and Values
Before I go any further, I want to talk about the distinction between facts and values. A fact is simply a verifiable statement describing something about the world. A value is describing what "ought to be". In other words, describing an end or state of being as desirable or "good".
Wikipedia has an excellent article about David Hume's "is-ought" problem, which describes the extreme difficulty of translating a fact or an "is" statement, into a value or an "ought" statement. For example, if a person wishes to win a race, then they ought to train themselves to run quickly. That "if" is the critical word, there, since there's no absolute rule that says a person ought to want to win a race in the first place. That "if" is a marker for an implied value. But if you take it another step further and say, a person ought to win a race if they want to be a well respected athlete. Again, the value is implied an pushed out, forming an infinite chain where the value has no clear logical origin.
What has this got to do with our topic? Well, Christianity has a convenient work-around for this problem. Christian morals are not defined as facts or values. Christian morals are defined as facts and values. God's law is both a verifiable truth (well, verifiable through faith, I guess) and a value describing what "ought to be". Christianity does not say "A person ought to love their neighbor if they want to get along, and be a working member of society." Christianity says "A person ought to love their neighbor" - period. Why? Because. Because it's God's law, and God is perfect, therefore his law is absolute, therefore it is not subject to context, or your feelings, or your culture, etc, etc.
Well and good. Good for Christianity. My challenge is this - why should a person be motivated to act on that law? Is the statement of fact enough to actually motivate a person to act? Not without help. What help, you ask? Read again #2 under God's Law: "Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate." This little stipulation, frequently swept under the rug by conscientious Christians when speaking about righteousness and love, is the missing piece of Christianity's fact-value equation. To update our example, "A person ought to love their neighbor, if they wish to be be in accordance with God's law and thus avoid eternal damnation." Now, please, be honest. Isn't that a much more compelling reason to act morally? And doesn't that statement resonate much more than it's "do it just because" predecessor?
My Catholic counterpart John might answer this by saying "Hell is actually irrelevant to the matter. Christians obey because it's the right thing to do, period, not because of the promise of paradise or damnation." [John - if I'm wrong on this, sorry for putting words in your mouth]
Ok. If so, I find that hard to believe. Have you ever tried taking heaven/hell completely out of your moral equation? Just to see what morality would taste like without it? It's got to be difficult to do, but here's a possible example:
YHWH: "John, I'm installing a moral button in your bedroom."
John: "What's that?"
YHWH: "It's a button. The important thing is that you not push it."
John: "Ok. Fair enough."
YHWH: "Right. Bye then."
John: "Wait"
YHWH: "Yes?"
John: "Hypothetically, what would happen to me if I push it?"
YHWH: "Nothing."
John: "Nothing?"
YHWH: "Right."
John: "I won't go to hell?"
YHWH: "No, you're guaranteed to go to heaven no matter what you do. Eternal bliss, etc"
John: "You won't be mad?"
YHWH: "Nope"
John: "But you'll secretly love me a little less, right?"
YHWH: "No, of course not. I'll love you just as much."
John: "Ok, why does it matter whether I push the button or not?"
YHWH: "Because! It's morality. That little button encapsulates everything I've defined as good and evil in this universe. All that is significant, important, crucial is within that button. It is really all that matters."
John: "Will it change anything here on earth?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "Will it change anything at all?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "I see. Well, I have no problem avoiding a button. I'll just throw some dirty clothes over it and forget about it. No problem."
YHWH: "Excellent! Oh, wait"
John: "Yes, Lord?"
YHWH: "I nearly forgot, the button does do one thing when pressed."
John: "Ah, I figured there was something!"
YHWH: "Yes. It dispenses orgasms"
John: "Uh, what?"
YHWH: "Yes, it dispenses orgasms. When you hit the button an orgasm comes out and floats around until it hits you, then you experience an 10 second orgasm"
John: "I see..."
YHWH: "Yes. Also, if you hold it down it goes into rapid fire mode, shooting orgasms in all directions"
John: "I see... Well, guess you'd better be heading out..."
YHWH: "You're not going to hit the button, right?"
John: "Right. Absolutely. You bet. I'll be seeing you, Lord..."
Now, tell me truly: Is there any compelling reason for John not to push and hold down that button for the rest of his natural life? I would submit that, no, there is not. An even more pressing question is, why the hell did God create such a button? What makes that button significant at all (apart from the orgasms, of course) if it doesn't change anything, or entail anything? Isn't an effect of some kind required for it to be in any way significant? Can it, in itself, mean anything without something else being entailed? I would submit that, no, it cannot.
Morality Without God
Concepts of "right" and "wrong" have been with us a very long time. Values like "kindness" and "charity" have probably been with us at least as long as we've been settled in cities. Values like "courage" and "prudence" have probably been with us at least since we've been hunting animals for food.
Good and evil are easy concepts to grasp, but difficult to master. It's hard to say, in clear unambiguous language, why a person should act properly apart from the selfish motivations (social incentives, wealth, safety, etc). Personally, I tend to liken good morals to good taste. Aesthetics, in other words. However, this is just as arbitrary and relative as any other answer that has been floated thus far. These are very trying, and indeed disturbing, moral dilemmas. If we dig deep enough down our chain of shared values, we may find no solid foundation except for our inherited material needs, or - an even more terrifying prospect - we may find no foundation at all but our race floating alone though infinity. That thought gives me no comfort.
I can offer no apology for this, and no obvious solution. This is the state of things, as they are, when it comes to morality. This is what we have inherited, through tradition and shared experience from our ancestors. It is not perfect, absolute or universal. It is unavoidably human, and subject to the human flaws of being arbitrary, limited, relative, and difficult to prove.
My point, however, is that Christianity - for all the claims of absoluteness - is not a viable alternative. If the afterlife is taken into consideration, the law becomes a simple matter of self-preservation, or self-interest. I do this for the sake of my immortal soul, and that's it. If the afterlife is not considered, then the law is absolute and immaterial, yet shallow and empty. The "meaning", the purpose of this law becomes so abstract as to be completely unapproachable, and unpersuasive in human terms.
The question is not whether morality is possible without God. The only morality we've ever known is, in fact, a godless morality. The question is, "How do we come to terms with that?"
Introduction
The notion that belief in a Supreme Being is necessary for the existence of morality has sometimes been been mentioned in passing, in this blog and others within the "Triumvirate." I've felt that this required a response in kind, but the scope is certainly big enough to require a separate blog, at least, to do the topic justice. I do not intend to give evidence that morality is possible without God. I intend to give evidence that morality - that is, the familiar sort of personal governance which we all use in day-to-day life - is not possible, or at least not compatible at face value, with the notion of a Judeo-Christian law-giving God.
Note: For the record, I state the obvious, which is that this blog is a "response" to a non-existent statement. My good friend John Stegeman, has not (I think) stated that he holds all of the positions that I will counter. This is, after all, a monologue, not a dialog. So, I'm using arguments from a theistic point of view which are my best approximation (in good faith, I'm honestly not trying to make a straw man) of the Christian perspective.
"God's Law"
Christian morality revolves around two tightly coupled ideas.
1. God defines morally correct action.
2. Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate.
Morality without a perfect author is seen as ludicrous by the Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, for that matter), simply because it's seen as a matter of truth. If morality cannot be known absolutely, then it becomes a matter of relativism. Who is to say that my actions are any less proper than yours? It's your word over mine, might makes right, etc, etc. This is the nature of the argument which I challenge.
Facts and Values
Before I go any further, I want to talk about the distinction between facts and values. A fact is simply a verifiable statement describing something about the world. A value is describing what "ought to be". In other words, describing an end or state of being as desirable or "good".
Wikipedia has an excellent article about David Hume's "is-ought" problem, which describes the extreme difficulty of translating a fact or an "is" statement, into a value or an "ought" statement. For example, if a person wishes to win a race, then they ought to train themselves to run quickly. That "if" is the critical word, there, since there's no absolute rule that says a person ought to want to win a race in the first place. That "if" is a marker for an implied value. But if you take it another step further and say, a person ought to win a race if they want to be a well respected athlete. Again, the value is implied an pushed out, forming an infinite chain where the value has no clear logical origin.
What has this got to do with our topic? Well, Christianity has a convenient work-around for this problem. Christian morals are not defined as facts or values. Christian morals are defined as facts and values. God's law is both a verifiable truth (well, verifiable through faith, I guess) and a value describing what "ought to be". Christianity does not say "A person ought to love their neighbor if they want to get along, and be a working member of society." Christianity says "A person ought to love their neighbor" - period. Why? Because. Because it's God's law, and God is perfect, therefore his law is absolute, therefore it is not subject to context, or your feelings, or your culture, etc, etc.
Well and good. Good for Christianity. My challenge is this - why should a person be motivated to act on that law? Is the statement of fact enough to actually motivate a person to act? Not without help. What help, you ask? Read again #2 under God's Law: "Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate." This little stipulation, frequently swept under the rug by conscientious Christians when speaking about righteousness and love, is the missing piece of Christianity's fact-value equation. To update our example, "A person ought to love their neighbor, if they wish to be be in accordance with God's law and thus avoid eternal damnation." Now, please, be honest. Isn't that a much more compelling reason to act morally? And doesn't that statement resonate much more than it's "do it just because" predecessor?
My Catholic counterpart John might answer this by saying "Hell is actually irrelevant to the matter. Christians obey because it's the right thing to do, period, not because of the promise of paradise or damnation." [John - if I'm wrong on this, sorry for putting words in your mouth]
Ok. If so, I find that hard to believe. Have you ever tried taking heaven/hell completely out of your moral equation? Just to see what morality would taste like without it? It's got to be difficult to do, but here's a possible example:
YHWH: "John, I'm installing a moral button in your bedroom."
John: "What's that?"
YHWH: "It's a button. The important thing is that you not push it."
John: "Ok. Fair enough."
YHWH: "Right. Bye then."
John: "Wait"
YHWH: "Yes?"
John: "Hypothetically, what would happen to me if I push it?"
YHWH: "Nothing."
John: "Nothing?"
YHWH: "Right."
John: "I won't go to hell?"
YHWH: "No, you're guaranteed to go to heaven no matter what you do. Eternal bliss, etc"
John: "You won't be mad?"
YHWH: "Nope"
John: "But you'll secretly love me a little less, right?"
YHWH: "No, of course not. I'll love you just as much."
John: "Ok, why does it matter whether I push the button or not?"
YHWH: "Because! It's morality. That little button encapsulates everything I've defined as good and evil in this universe. All that is significant, important, crucial is within that button. It is really all that matters."
John: "Will it change anything here on earth?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "Will it change anything at all?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "I see. Well, I have no problem avoiding a button. I'll just throw some dirty clothes over it and forget about it. No problem."
YHWH: "Excellent! Oh, wait"
John: "Yes, Lord?"
YHWH: "I nearly forgot, the button does do one thing when pressed."
John: "Ah, I figured there was something!"
YHWH: "Yes. It dispenses orgasms"
John: "Uh, what?"
YHWH: "Yes, it dispenses orgasms. When you hit the button an orgasm comes out and floats around until it hits you, then you experience an 10 second orgasm"
John: "I see..."
YHWH: "Yes. Also, if you hold it down it goes into rapid fire mode, shooting orgasms in all directions"
John: "I see... Well, guess you'd better be heading out..."
YHWH: "You're not going to hit the button, right?"
John: "Right. Absolutely. You bet. I'll be seeing you, Lord..."
Now, tell me truly: Is there any compelling reason for John not to push and hold down that button for the rest of his natural life? I would submit that, no, there is not. An even more pressing question is, why the hell did God create such a button? What makes that button significant at all (apart from the orgasms, of course) if it doesn't change anything, or entail anything? Isn't an effect of some kind required for it to be in any way significant? Can it, in itself, mean anything without something else being entailed? I would submit that, no, it cannot.
Morality Without God
Concepts of "right" and "wrong" have been with us a very long time. Values like "kindness" and "charity" have probably been with us at least as long as we've been settled in cities. Values like "courage" and "prudence" have probably been with us at least since we've been hunting animals for food.
Good and evil are easy concepts to grasp, but difficult to master. It's hard to say, in clear unambiguous language, why a person should act properly apart from the selfish motivations (social incentives, wealth, safety, etc). Personally, I tend to liken good morals to good taste. Aesthetics, in other words. However, this is just as arbitrary and relative as any other answer that has been floated thus far. These are very trying, and indeed disturbing, moral dilemmas. If we dig deep enough down our chain of shared values, we may find no solid foundation except for our inherited material needs, or - an even more terrifying prospect - we may find no foundation at all but our race floating alone though infinity. That thought gives me no comfort.
I can offer no apology for this, and no obvious solution. This is the state of things, as they are, when it comes to morality. This is what we have inherited, through tradition and shared experience from our ancestors. It is not perfect, absolute or universal. It is unavoidably human, and subject to the human flaws of being arbitrary, limited, relative, and difficult to prove.
My point, however, is that Christianity - for all the claims of absoluteness - is not a viable alternative. If the afterlife is taken into consideration, the law becomes a simple matter of self-preservation, or self-interest. I do this for the sake of my immortal soul, and that's it. If the afterlife is not considered, then the law is absolute and immaterial, yet shallow and empty. The "meaning", the purpose of this law becomes so abstract as to be completely unapproachable, and unpersuasive in human terms.
The question is not whether morality is possible without God. The only morality we've ever known is, in fact, a godless morality. The question is, "How do we come to terms with that?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)