Bob Kowalski

reason knows of its difficulties when irony fails

2011-09-29T12:42:00.004-06:00

If my reason remained untouched in the times of acute despair, it would be no small comfort. Unfortunately, it is not so. In my post of May 27th, I alluded to how cognition can be compromised. That irony had no place in the events of this spring was particularly painful. Irony depends on making a thought, a feeling, a remark, or something else in an object considered from another perspective. It is the mark of a healthy intellect that it can consider its remarks and events from multiple perspectives each with its own tendencies and preferences.

In my case, dysfunction in my cognitive abilities shows itself in a propensity to compulsive, monomaniacal obsession with a point of view. I can't get outside of myself.

When I am in one of these moments of despair, I am not cognizant of any other possible way of regarding my present situation, except as what most forcibly presents itself. In the case, of the despair, it won't go away and I can't shift my point of view to subject the despair to analysis to gain a different and possibly deeper understanding. The psychic pain is acute and no more amenable to analysis than a broken leg.

It sometimes happens that I am aware that my thought processes are aberrant, but more often than not, I am not. With awareness of compromised mental faculties, there is at least the possibility of going for a walk, or calling a friend, or something else that will get me out of myself.

It's been a while and lots has happened

2011-09-26T16:36:00.009-06:00

As the tag line says, it's been a while and a lot has happened since I updated my blog. Some five months ago my mother passed away after a year-long struggle with ovarian cancer and in the same week, while she was on her deathbed, my wife informed me that she was now a lesbian. She told me that she had been chasing this woman at her job for the previous five months. My wife's announcement was completely unexpected. We'd had an active sex life up to the day before her announcement. We had not argued or fought. This came completely out of the blue.

It has been and remains overwhelming to say the least. I have always been prone to depression, but the changes wrought in the last five months make past bouts of depression trivial in comparison. It struck me yesterday that no one has asked me what this has been like for me. Most of the time my moods are placid and even stable, only occasionally punctuated by episodes of despair.

In times of acute psychic anguish, any possibility of escape can sometimes be an overwhelming temptation. The despair suffocates with its oppressiveness and inevitability. It can last a few moments, or it can last hours. Describing this despair as a rampaging monster misleads. The metaphor of a monster implies that the despair has reason and purpose. Monsters are sometimes angry: anger, while not pleasant, can be understood. Or if the monster is the devouring kind, it is hungry. Again, hunger is something that can be understood and even placated sometimes. If something can be understood, its limits and goals can be found. With knowledge of the monster's limits and goals its comings and goings can be predicted, and if predictable, then can be planned for.

The despair comes when it comes. It can be brought on by seemingly trivial events. There are only bad accidents, never good ones.

The despair is a result of an imbalance in my brain. There is certainly reason enough in my life to despair. These moods when they happen seem to be more akin to a sudden shift in chemical states. They have all the "reason" of a physical event, something indifferent and unrespecting of the psychic niceties of self-respect.

I chose the word "despair" because it captures the specific loss of looking toward the future. Hope in its most abstract and general sense implies that there is a place for one's desires and plans in the way of the world. Friends assure me that "it won't always be this way." Eventually, they tell me, I'll have something once more to look forward to.

Coming soon ...

2011-05-27T05:49:00.004-06:00

I've been more than a little busy with non-blogging activities, as if I was good about keeping this up to date.

So, coming soon:

What Alcohol Detoxification taught me about Nietzsche's Perspectivism, Thinking, and Neurosis

and

Nietzsche's Perspectivism and Banality of Evil

That and much, much more coming soon.

Nietzsche's Perspectivism Cont'd

2011-04-25T20:07:00.006-06:00

There is another way of looking at Nietzsche's perspectivism. This way can make for seasickness for weak stomachs. Perspectives, which should be understood as ways of thinking and habits of thoughts often found together, can themselves be objects of other perspectives. Part of Christianity, for example, is a certain kink in viewing of paganism. That is why the views of the pagans hold such fascination for a certain type of atheist and about-to-be atheist.

If perspectivism means both looking-at and being-looked-at. There is both an active element but always a passive one as well.

A concept of power is implied. The power shows itself by denying certain perspectives. Perspectives have their own internal logic, an aesthetic in its preferred arrangements of what is seen. This means nothing is really destroyed and obliterated. For example, when Christianity replacing paganism, it became ever less important to record what the pagans may have thought of Christianity, unless it was to provide lessons on refuting those errors. Christianity for all of its hatred of paganism in its refutations still preserved a great deal. Even in our most heinous totalitarianisms there are still secret archives.

Perspectives are always limited. This limitation comes from the metaphor of sight upon which the concept is based. To speak within this metaphor: we cannot see the back of our own heads. Every way of thinking elides objections with delinquency. For example, the Transportation Safety Administration considers that assertion of one's freedom of speech indicates subversive activity.

Habitual ways of thinking and seeing are not refuted. Instead their limitations are found. The confrontation of impossible facts throws those limits in sharp relief. Chalk dust blown over a trail of water drops. The experience of those limits? Insanity? Here there be dragons? What lies beyond? There's only one way to find out.

A Brief Diversion: A Comment on Nietzsche's Perspectivism

2011-03-28T08:15:00.002-06:00

Nietzsche's perspectivism. Almost any contemporary account of Nietzsche's philosophy begins with an overview of his claim that all knowing is contingent and completely rooted in context and history. What does that mean? In a nutshell? It depends...

From an all-knowing God's perspective, any claim with pretensions to eternal validity that a human being might make would tempt the comment, "Of course, you would say that, with your history, and your experiences and the history of the universe behind you pushing and pulling you to say just that. History and causality are sufficient to explain just why you would say that."

Ok, so strict determinism. Big whoop. Consider this: if the conditions, the soil as it were, from which this view of something arises were constituted a little differently, wouldn't the perspective, one's view and belief on the matter at hand be different? All perspectives are equally contingent, equally haphazard. This includes Nietzsche's perspectivism as well.

Naively considered, Nietzsche's perspectivism is self-refuting. But let's look at perspectivism a little more closely. An analogy from algebra and arithmetic. In order to solve an equation it is necessary to manipulate the form of the equation in order to put it into a form whose solution is relatively straightforward. Simplification is achieved by adding, subtracting, and multiplying quantities in a way that respects the equal sign of the equation. Analogously, the concepts of perspective and perspectivism are an equation to be simplified so that solutions and observations are straightforward.

Nietzsche's perspectivism looks like it makes an assertion with identifiable content and truth about ideas and human cognitive processes. If, however, the content is an assertion of a lack and of limitations of perspectives, namely that there are other perspectives which are mutually irreconcilable, It asserts a negative. It tells us something about human cognitive processes in the same way that denials of the existence of unicorns tells us something about the taxonomy of animals. If, however, there are bureaucracies and institutions that have made the existence of unicorns central to their continued existence, then denials of unicorns become a direct challenge to the existence of those unicorn-centric bureaucracies and institutions by calling attention to the limits of unicorn-centrism.

At this point perspectivism becomes indistinguishable from popular conceptions of relativism and what Nietzsche called nihilism. All perspectives become equally valid. There are no standards by which ideas, perspectives, and views may be ranked and organized. This is true in that value is not a quality of things. I would like to point out that as disconcerting as this may be, that there is a way out. Even if all views and ideas have the same relative value considered without regard to persons holding those views and ideas: namely zero, these ideas and perspectives do not all have the same value for me. Preference for one perspective over another is rooted in flesh and blood. This includes truth as well.

Perspectivism challenges traditional metaphysical claims to transcendent and knowledge of eternity and the like. An unlikely philosopher and later contemporary provides a surprisingly useful view on this whole matter: the early Wittgenstein, specifically his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Consider the following: That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which I understand) mean the limits of my world.

. It's not the quote that I remembered. Oh well. What I remembered is the following: Our life is endless in the way that our visual field is without limit.

See what I wrote here. Just do a search in the google search box to the left of the phrase "last moment of innocence". "The last moment of innocence" is a specific instance of a the more general insight that the boundaries of perspectives are only reluctantly acknowledged in the vast majority of cases.

first impressions

2011-03-27T07:57:00.002-06:00

First observation: There is God and then there are His representatives, publicists, and spokespeople. Considered thusly, God is not a political actor. God does not appear in politics. Only his representatives and publicists can engage in politics. A philosophical-skeptical evaluation of the content of their opinions, values, positions, and what not is beside the point. The question is rather one of whether the fact of the engagement of God's Publicists is consistent and supportive of American political life.

Diversity of confession and denomination characterize US religious history. In most of US history God's would-be publicists who found themselves thoroughly without reserve convinced of their special closeness of to God or Jesus would be perceived immediately as a threat by all the other denominations. To paraphrase one summation of Federalist Number 10: the cure for the domination of religion over public life is to have more religion. More sects result in more opportunities for avoiding the domination of any one sect. The cure for faction is more faction, religious or otherwise.

The absence of religion in American Public Life much decried by religious types is not the result of a secular conspiracy. In an time when members of a church or synagogue took the differences between the various denominations far more seriously than is hardly conceivable today, religion couldn't be established by political bodies, nor could it be legislated against by political bodies. Considered in this way, the Establishment & Free Exercise Clauses largely amount to the same thing. If one denomination were given the imprimatur of Congress, then it would be an attack on the Free Exercise of religious practice by all those other denominations that were excluded.

In this context, the homogenization of American religious life that Evangelical Christianity represents threatens freedom and liberty. American Evangelical Christianity is primarily a political ideology not unlike Bolshevism in so far as its primary concern is effecting change in this life, in this world.

An apology of sorts for an unexpected absence

2011-03-26T19:52:00.004-06:00

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. It's not that I've changed my mind. There have been some developments in my life. Changes to schedules, changes, and some more changes. Probably the most important is that my mother is terminally ill with ovarian cancer. She will most likely pass away in the next few weeks. That has been alternately depressing and invigorating. Depressing is clear enough, nobody is really ever ready for their mommy to pass away. The child within is never reconciled to loss and separation. But invigorating? I'm 50, really almost 51, and I'm hardly ready to grow fat, sedentary, and old.

I've found myself reading up on Nietzsche (again). Whenever this happens, it inevitably leads to a surge in intellectual and spiritual activity. It hardly matters whether this return to Nietzsche is inadvertent or by choice. Or maybe I'm skeptical that I have that much good sense: do I need to be repeatedly convinced because of a forgetfulness? It strikes me as indecent to like someone just because we agree in some matter. Maybe it's self-indecent to be in agreement with myself? Have my self-destructive tendencies become so sublimated that ego is an affront to itself in need of shattering? Fragmentation seems like it would be possible to find the pieces in shapes that fit back together. Is ego Humpty Dumpty? Is my ego "mine" because nobody else will lay claim to it?

A New Project

2010-10-06T10:05:00.003-06:00

I've left some loose ends in some blog postings. But there is one longish project that I'm toying with. Conservative Christians in the USA take as gospel claims that the Founding Fathers were (Protestant) Christian; and that The Founding Fathers intended the shiny, new republic to be and to remain a Christian Republic. These claims are backed up by cherry-picking quotes from the various Founding Fathers. From what I've seen atheists and others opposing this haven't done much better.

My contention is simple: there is a fundamental conflict between how the Founding Fathers constructed the Constitution and Conservative Evangelical Christianity. I would use The Federalist Papers which is the closest thing to an official commentary on the American Constitution that we will ever have.

Christianity, Cancer, & "Comfort"

2010-10-05T09:43:00.004-06:00

I've been in a funk the last several weeks. I would like to say that is why I haven't been posting as much as I probably should. There's been a bit going on. My mother was diagnosed with Stage 4 Cancer of Unknown Origin in May. After several rounds of chemotherapy, an MRI indicated that the tumors had their point of origin in one of her ovaries.

May was unpleasant. The diagnosis came shortly after my 50th birthday.June was also without much hope. My wife and I decided that instead of staying close to home for our vacation in August that we would visit her and family, because at the time we didn't know if we would be able to see her again before she passed away. Suffice it to say, she was in much, much better spirits and her state of physical well-being was far better than I had expected.

During the most stressful period I remembered how Christianity is supposed to be The Religion of Comfort. Being the sort that I am, I asked myself, "Was there anything there for me?" I can safely say, "No. No there was not. No in the least."

It took me some time to think of a metaphor to describe the revulsion, disgust, and contempt that a hypothetical return provoked. It took some time, but I found it.

I used to smoke. I stopped smoking on a regular basis about 12 years ago. I have had a few off & on over the years. The last one was in August 2009. It was an American Spirit. Not even one of the Camels or Gauloises of which I was so fond once upon a time. The smell, the taste, the stink on my fingers were awful. I realized that I wanted the way that I remembered feeling after a Gauloises or two. But as I much as I wanted it, I didn't have that feeling of well-being or calmness at all. I was too busy hacking up phlegm that wouldn't budge.

Consideration of a return to Christianity, provoked those same feelings: disgust, revulsion, and contempt. Further, any nostalgia was purely for remembrances of experiences that in retrospect I only imagined.

Accommodationism: Intentionally Stupid or Just Clueless?

2010-07-25T11:47:00.004-06:00

I am with PZ Meyers on reconciling religion and science. It's a doomed enterprise. For any believer, whether the most asinine creationist or the most well-meaning liberal, belief in the local deity is of the utmost importance. Between an atheist, a creationist, and well-meaning liberal Christian, the differences between the atheist and well-intentioned liberal Christian will be more significant and so much more profound than the differences between the most clueless liberal and most asinine creationist.

To the extent that the belief in the local deity matters, meaningful reconciliation between science and religion recedes into the distance. There will always be some sect or another that teaches that some element of science and medicine is wrong. Whether it's evangelicals and creationism, or Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Or some other foolishness in the name of an eternal fount of goodness, wisdom, and justice.

Considered in this way, it's hardly surprising that liberal Christians shush atheists and complain about those mean old atheists. Again, it's hardly surprising in this god awful triangle that the atheist is the odd man out.

For clarity's sake, an atheist is someone who doesn't know when to stop asking questions, and a believer is someone who says "this far, and no further!" about when to stop asking questions.

The above means that atheists are for Christians, and other believers, the quintessential Other. They expect us to conform to their strictures, their sense of propriety. If, as I have argued elsewhere in this blog, reason, rationality, and questioning are the sine qua non of an individual's autonomy and self-determination, then when to cease questioning is also a matter of individual discretion, that is to say an essential part of adulthood.

This leads to a paradox: the atheist who would makes believers uncomfortable with ceaseless inquiries would seem to violate the autonomy of believers, just as believers who berate atheists for their ceaseless inquiries seemingly violate the self-determination of atheists.

If this were a matter of opinion without consequences set against opinion without consequence, then the paradox would become an impasse. Superficially considered, the situation might seem dire. Believers themselves, provide an exit. Believers are always insistent upon the truth of their superstitions and the supreme value of their "truths." To the extent that an ever deeper understanding is sought, the more likely cherished beliefs will be made uncertain. The search for deeper understanding of received truths always grows out of hitherto dormant ambiguities and conundrums.

Christians and other believers betray themselves when inquiries are expected to jibe with already known "truths." Failure to produce the expected and pre-arranged results results in violence: sometimes physical, and sometimes less so but no less traumatic -- loss of employment, ostracism, and the like. In other words, Christians and other believers value conformity above all else.

Conformity nurtures violence. Violence nurtures conformity. Fear, anxiety, and dread are the one true trinity. The passion with which an opinion and a belief is a tepid justification for violence and supression of dissent. But I digress...

Are our opinions consequence-free? If so, then whether I believe X or I believe Y is a matter of personal preference, akin to preferring the color blue to mauve, or French cuisine to Italian. De gustibus non est disputandum.

If, on the other hand, beliefs and opinions are quantifications and compressions of experience (some first-hand, some not), then any belief, no matter how cherished, will be incomplete, and because of its incompleteness it will also contain error. By error, I mean simply that reliance upon a belief will sometimes result in unexpected and even unpleasant results. Expectations of what will happen mean that opinions and believes are not simply matters of taste and are fraught with consequences. Further, every person harbors error in his heart of hearts. So much for the arrogance of atheists.

* * * From the atheists point of view, the atheist is perhaps closer to the most asinine creationist than the most well-intentioned liberal Christian. The atheist and the asinine creationist agree that beliefs and opinions matter, albeit for very different reasons and in very different ways.

Power, Reality & Narcissism

2010-07-11T17:34:00.006-06:00

Definitions are a good place to start. First, "reality." It's less a matter of the specific content or "what reality is" or what is "real" & what is "true." Let's begin with what Freud meant by the "reality principle." It's those things over which one has no control. The experience of reality refers to the Unexpected. The unexpected, unforeseen, and unguessed events in life lead to the inference and eventual discovery that some things are independent and even at odds with my wants, needs, and desires. Unexpectedness importantly provides an escape from the family and all-too-regular sequence of events that make up everyday life. Long ruminations on unexpected and unfamiliar events leads to the suspicion that familiar circumstances are happy accidents, and not the blessing of a benevolent deity, or of right living, or even of a positive attitude. More understanding, fewer surprises.

Second, "power." Power: capacity and ability to make things happen by rearranging and changing circumstances; ideally so as to lead satisfaction of needs, wants, and desires. The experience of reality leads initially to feeling of a want of power. Hence impotence, feelings of weakness, and more impotence. A modicum of power presents tempts to an arrangement of circumstances so as to avoid experiencing the limits of one's capacity to arrange circumstances. The "love of power for power's sake" misleads. The so-called love of power loves fruits of power consequent with mistrust and squabbling over a too meager harvest. Genuine love of power wants more power. The increase in power is pleasure and happiness itself. A power-mad person would live at the limits of their power: joy and suffering becoming indistinguishable.

Third, narcissism. Originally love of self. See the myth of Narcissus. Popular culture construes it to mean what used to be called egoism and selfishness. A lack of consideration of others feelings, desires, and needs. Thusly considered the embodiment of instrumental reason. Considered as a power problem the narcissist is in love with the fruits of power, fearing loss, impotence, and death. But only to the extent that the narcissist strives for equilibrium and a status quo. Could a narcissist strive for equilibrium only upend it so as to strive for an even more profound balance, even if only momentarily?

Redundancy

2010-07-11T14:47:00.004-06:00

From the Department of Unnecessary Redundancies Department:

Can Religion Be Explained as a Meta-Cognitive Deficit? Or, the Kowalski Conjecture

2010-03-29T10:01:00.003-06:00

What is meta-cognition? My acquaintance with this concept comes by way of Big Mischief's precocity: it was in some literature about gifted & talented children. The long & short of it is that meta-cognition means thinking about thinking. Thinking about thinking certainly bears on the conundrums that religion presents to the sceptically minded. The religious-minded are notorious for their gullibility, shoddy reasoning,empirical evidence, and even disdain of all rationality. Meanwhile, skeptics, even ancient skeptics are concerned with the reliability of knowledge and thinking. The religious-minded of all varieties, but especially Christians, tend toward either a binary opposition of either X is true, or X is false; either one complete certainty, or sinful doubt. The unreflected quality of this style of thinking wants to present the truth or falsity of a belief to be a property of that belief. How one thinks is of no consequence, rather it is what one thinks that of supreme importance. This latter style of thinking if allowed free reign would completely ignore the person holding beliefs and doing the thinking. To borrow a mathematical term: the subject would cancel out, leaving only the propositions and belief in question. Contemporary skeptics complain incessantly of shoddy reasoning coupled with disdain for empirical evidence that mark the religious-minded. The demand for absolute certainty that Evangelical Christianity demands forbids consideration of the nuances of doubt, certainty, and full range of possible conclusions that may be drawn from a piece of evidence. Metaphorically speaking, apologists for Young Earth Creationism can be likened to a freight train speeding along to its final destination: there is no possibility of reconsideration of conclusions. There can be no reflection and consideration of the question, "Could I have made a mistake?" Sceptically-minded blogs such as Pharyngula, The Bad Astronomer, or Respectful Insolence, are all marked by a careful consideration of pro's and con's. Evidence is carefully weighed so as to extract the maximum possible certainty and no more. Implicit in all the posts for those blogs is the recognition that how one arrives at a conclusion is infinitely more important than the conclusion arrived at. In these representative blogs, it is a given that thinking is not something to be taken for granted. It is characteristic of the genuinely religious to be perplexed at this attention to nuances of certainty and doubt. That doubt and certainty come in shades of gray probably makes as much sense "those with their eyes on the prize of heaven" as speaking of colors to the blind, or of quantum field theory to a four year-old. There is a deficit of understanding that be filled with mere words devoid of understanding and meaning. * * * Update. Just to be clear the differences between the religiously-minded, conspiratorially-minded, and the ideologically-driven lie less in the specific content of the religion, conspiracy, ideology, than in the ways that specific contents of a given religion, conspiracy, and ideology are used to avoid recognition and assimilation of evidence and its attendant continuum of certainties and doubts.

An anti-anti-vax Action

2009-10-22T17:54:00.004-06:00

Well, today I joined the ranks of my countrymen and fulfilled a cultural obligation: I requested that my local library pull a book from the shelves. It was one of Jenny McCarthy's books: twaddle about autism and vaccines. When it comes time to give a reason? How about "clueless self-serving Hollywood narcissism"?

The Last Temptation Before Unbelief

2009-09-26T22:32:00.003-06:00

It wasn't until I had an ex-wife that I understood the temptation of believing in the Last Judgment. The attraction of the doctrine was in the possibility that someway somehow she would have to own up to all of her self-serving evasions, deceptions of herself and of others, and acknowledge against all of her upbringing and deepest character traits that her best intentions brought grief, pain, and despair to me. Even if I couldn't pin her down and force her to gaze at her unacknowledged self-loathing, her Jesus would -- she was brought up Polish Catholic. The doctrine promised the comfort of imagining her luxuriating in the foulness of her good intentions.
The seduction failed. Or rather perhaps I wasn't Christian enough to live in fear of just such an absolute examination of me, not that I'm narcissistic enough to believe that I am without fault. The desire for revenge seemed at once both not Christian enough, and too Christian.

Unforgiveable Sin: A Hypothetical

2009-09-24T15:28:00.003-06:00

Pscho-serial-killer-baby-eater-atheist Bob kidnaps Joe Christian. Bob ties Joe to a chair in his basement in a house far, far off in the country with no neighbors and no paved roads for miles and miles. Bob begins to torture Joe. Bob's goal is to torture Joe into blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Bob's methods vary from the trivially annoying to the diabolical. Eventually Bob succeeds. Joe curses God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus on the Cross, and all things Holy. He asks Satan to come into his heart. You get the idea. Bob tortures Joe into committing the unforgivable sin. Following Joe's offer of submission to Satan, Bob asks Jesus into his heart and so that he might be saved. Just then, the FBI find Bob's hideout and accidentally destroy the house in a large explosion, killing everyone inside. So, Joe goes to Hell? Bob goes to heaven?

Part II, Traditional Society, a short definition

2009-07-24T18:56:00.005-06:00

The following passage from John Reader's Africa: Biography of a Continent set me to thinking:

The generally hostile and unpredictable environment of sub-Saharan Africa inspired a highly conservative approach to the business of making a living. Sustaining existing levels of population was difficult enough, and the communities which endured were those that directed available energies primarily towards minimizing the risk of failure, not maximizing returns. For them, innovation and change were unacceptable risks. (p. 263) [emphasis added]

That makes this passage particularly relevant is the blunt recognition that error whether through carelessness or otherwise would likely lead to disaster. The conservatism as described in this passage means like frogs doing those things that have already been show not to lead to bad ends. Looking at the Christian myths of Heaven, Hell, and the Last Judgment through this prism shows the essential conservatism in Christianity: it is a matter of eternal torment and torture to make the wrong choice. But I run ahead of myself. Watching my younger daughter at times emphatically imitate her older sister strongly suggested to me that there is a genetic predisposition to this kind of conservatism in the human genome. The rationale is straightforward enough: those that have come before are still here, therefore they are doing things mostly right. Following those that have come before is a viable survival strategy. As I teased yesterday about frogs, instinctual, meaning genetically predisposed behavior will be conservative in the same sense as in the above passage from John Reader. But this inborn predisposition to conservatism is hardly sufficient to explain religion. The strong objection is simply the fact of innovation in human history. If there were also not a capacity to innovate human beings would still be using stone tools. As a thought experiment, if there is the twin necessities of conservatism AND innovation, then how is the innovation to be accommodated in a strictly conservative and traditional society?

A Theory of Religion: Part I of Several

2009-07-23T08:40:00.006-06:00

I haven't completely abandoned this blog. I think about it almost everyday. Trying to come up with a good post topic. I realized that I want to end this blog, but I also don't feel like I'm quite done with the topic of religion either.
I had thought that explaining the originating impusle of religion as a propensity to obedience was sufficient. I no longer believe that. While religion and obedience are certainly connected, the latter is hardly sufficient to explain the former. Obedience is a significant clue as to the nature of religion. An understanding of religion that would allow me to let this blog languish in peace would also have to provide evidence for a naturalistic explanation of religion without getting bogged down in the absurdities of faith, consciousness, morality, and other mostly Christian foolishnesses.
Three observations troubled me. First, the historical and geographical extent of religion strongly implied that religion could not be reduced to obedience. Or a need for obedience. Second, religion is overwhelmingly tied to community and organizing social life of human beings. These two observations are strong evidence that while obedience might be necessary for the continued existence of religious institutions, they could not explain the appeal and development of religion as it has existed in the past and continues to exist. The third observation does not appear to be specifically about religion, but it's relevance will hopefully become clear: homo sapiens for the vast bulk of its history has existed in traditional societies. Further, the vast majority of the members of homo sapiens exist in traditional societies even today.
Two questions at this point present themselves: what are "traditional societies"? and Even in the Educated & Progressive West is religion a vestige (or maybe more than a vestige of traditional society)?
Tomorrow I'll explain what I mean by "traditional society". But now I would like to suggest that religion rather being an expression of the highest and best of human beings reaches back to the oldest and most primitive elements of human society and personality.
My hunch, no doubt highly offensive to the religious every: religion unites us with the animal kingdom. Religion, to speak theologically, is an expression of our animal nature and in no way is it an indication of possible divinity. Given the intrinsic connection between religion, fanaticism, and violence on show for all the world to see, this hunch is almost prima facie reasonable.
Oh, and just to be a tease consider that a given frog exists because other frogs have behaved in the have done what the frog under consideration already behaves. The best proof that frog-behavior works is that frogs exist.
Anyone care to unravel this last bit?

Something I Heard

2008-12-11T14:33:00.004-06:00

Maybe it was my imagination. I was listening to someone explain how it was impossible for atheists to have any meaningful conception of morality and ethincs. As the speaker was going on and on, I heard the following tucked away in one of his proofs for the necessity of a theistic solution to the conundrums that he put forth.

They are strangers. They do not know our ways. The ways of their women, their ways of cutting meat, they are not our ways.

These strangers' gods are not our gods. Different gods command different sacrifices. The rituals of these strangers may blaspheme our gods. We must take care lest, anger be visited upon us.

These are a danger to us and our kind. We do not know what sacrifices strange gods will demand. These strangers bring only fear to us, the favorites of our gods.

It was probably just my imagination.

Science and Faith Are Irreconciliable

2008-10-10T21:19:00.005-06:00

This is a topic that seems to have been done to death, but I feel I have a contribution to make that I haven't seen elsewhere.

I do not believe the essential difference between Science and Faith are to be found in their respective professed aims: truth or The Truth. The essential difference between Science or The Life of Inquiry, and Religion as Obedience to Revealed Truth. is ethical. However compelling the belief that the similarity between Science and Religion can be expressed in propositions, this compulsion only misleads.

Science emphasizes scrupulous adherence to procedure regardless of the outcome of those procedures. Of course, in individual instances, one finds fraud and willful blindness, but if science were merely fraud and willful blindness, it would not be able to exist as human institutions. The quintessence of fraud is the systematic hiding of some fact or insight that would unmask the deception. Epistemic fraud, more commonly known as "lying," means that some things may not be discussed lest unhappy consequences ensue. Language becomes a means to obscure and hide truth rather than means to its discovery. It is part of the myths of science -- eg, the story of Galileo is as good an archetype as any -- that there are many truths right under our noses waiting to be uncovered.

It is intrinsic to this myth of uncovering and discovering that authority has every reason to lie, and few, if any to be truthful. Consequently, it is part of the ethos of science that one must weigh for oneself what counts as truth. Considered religiously, this means that all authority is only provisional as far as it accords with one's understanding of the world.

When science is considered as an ethical and value-laden enterprise, individual autonomy is held in very high esteem.

Religion, especially a religion of revelation such as Christianity, has obedience as its highest value. Obedience to God's Will, obedience to the church hierarchy, obedience to the word of scripture, etc. The greatest sin is always that a person might think for themselves.

When Science and Religion are considered as ethical enterprises, it is clear enough that they are irreconcilable.

The Church of the Fightin' Jesus

2008-10-10T14:07:00.007-06:00

For some reason I had to shrink the picture otherwise only the left two thirds would display. Click on the picture to see it in all its glory.

Power & Narcissism: Cursory Remarks

2008-10-03T20:51:00.000-06:00

The principal characteristic of narcissism, whether one wishes to use a Freudian understanding or one drawn from popular psychology, is that of a disconnect between one's emotional life as well as one's intellectual and spiritual life. Or to use one of Nietzsche's telling phrases, it is a "denial of reality." Narcissism considered as a problem requires consideration of "reality." In essence, narcissism leads to the creation of an alternate reality: one in which one's dreams, desires, hopes and plans, which would otherwise go unfulfilled, may find fulfillment.

Consequently, the reality principle, to use Freud's phrase, is simply that fulfillment of those dearest dreams, hopes, and plans have no guaranteed fulfillment. Further, reality always means the Unexpected. The dream of guaranteed fulfillment motivates the creation of narcissistic reality. Reality has sharp, rough edges. Metaphorically, and not so metaphorically speaking, reality is the sharp table corner a small child happily at play suddenly discovers by running into it while at play.

Power considered in this context means the capacity to overcome the shocks to which the flesh is heir. A given quantum of power allows unexpected events of a certain intensity to go unnoticed. Power makes the sharp, rough edges of reality smooth. In fact, some of those unexpected corners come to be perceived as smoothness itself. Consequently, it is intrinsic to power that it obscures perception and makes denial of reality into something more than a simple recipe for disaster.

If this last paragraph should seem especially opaque, consider the example of any true believer and his ideology. A Christian, for example. It is enough to contemplate sitting in judgment of angels, for the effects, causes, and consequences in this life to become of little consequence. The fantasy of being at some future date on the winning side is enough to incite feelings of power and consequently, of the capacity to ignore the trials and tribulations of this life, even though there is no guarantee of no other.

The underpinning of the lust for power is fear of frustration and hurt in this life. Hence the need for the Christian God to be both all powerful and all good.

Take 2 on My Last Post, Or Bob's Counter to Pascal's Wager

2008-08-10T19:52:00.007-06:00

I reread what I wrote and I don't think it was very clear. I will try another approach.

Evidence is insufficient to determine conclusively the truth or falsity of Belief A. The decision to give assent or to with hold one's assent to Belief A is therefore based on factors other than considerations of the Truth or Falsity of Belief A.

Of course, person's giving their assent to Belief A, especially when it is emotionally rich as is the belief in God for some people, will oftentimes vehemently assert the unequivocal truth of their pet beliefs. The greater the vehemence, the less the likelihood that their assertion of truth is rooted in careful and ongoing consideration of alternatives. This only means that believers present themselves as psychological case-studies.

This means that the counter to Pascal's wager is not a reckoning of probabilities of God's (non-)existence. It is not enough as Dawkins argues that it is almost a certainty that the Christian God does not exist. An eternity of hideous, horrific punishment, if at all avoidable, is to be avoided. Crossing streets without looking first, will most of the time not end badly. However, the one time when it would have been good to look both ways before crossing easily outweighs all the times of not looking.

In the gap between what we know to be true and what we wish to be true our character shows itself. Given the same evidence, why does one person find that evidence compelling, and another with comparable training, intelligence, and background dismisses that same evidence as proving nothing?

Do beliefs possess powers of attraction? It seems that truths, beliefs, propositions, and the like have aesthetic qualities independent of their truthfulness.

If this is so, why would anyone hope for the possibility of eternal punishment? Why would Tertullian or Aquinas consider the sight of the tortures of the damned to be one of the major benefits of heaven? Why all the fear and desire to punish? If Evangelical Christians are taken at face value, they can imagine no greater pleasure and exertion of power than punishing.
Bob's counter to Pascal's Wager? Why would anyone want Christianity to be true?

The Lyricism of Belief: An Observation on the Grounds of Belief and Faith

2008-08-08T16:49:00.007-06:00

It is a bit of a truism among Christians that the existence of God cannot be conclusively proven with absolute certainty.

Since God cannot be proved or disproved, so the thinking goes, it is possible to be an "honest Christian"(!). Probably the best known variation is Pascal's wager. Rather than argue that there is evidence to believe or not believe, I propose another approach to the uncertainties intrinsic to belief in the supernatural.

If faith in God, Jesus, and all the mechanics of redemption cannot be grounded in reason, then assent to belief or disbelief is not a consequence of the truth or falsity of those beliefs. Less confusingly phrased, assent is not given because of the truth or falsity of the beliefs in question, but for human, all too human motivations.

This means that the accounts given for belief, and equivalently for disbelief, are amenable to a meaningful analysis similar to what one might expect in literary analysis. The phrase, lyricism of belief, comes to mind.

Even though keen insight is not a prerequisite to grasp that quite often it is not love, either of truth or human beings, that motivate faith in God. One name suffices to illustrate the point: Fred Phelps. Or if that is not enough, consider the homophobic teachings of Evangelical Christianity.

Psychologically considered, justification of one's assent to doctrines and teachings by appeals to "truth" are an impediment to truth. "Truth" especially when mouthed by Christians and other ideologues is a license to avoid unpleasant and unsavory truths about oneself and about life, the universe, and everything. Truth that can not be examined, questioned, and even abandoned means in practice, "There be dragons."

Truth is a curtain behind which passions run free and wild accountable neither to God nor man. This means that character and ethics are prior to belief and truth.

What is the "Human Condition" and Is It Broken?

2008-07-20T10:35:00.004-06:00

Most broadly phrased, "the human condition" encompasses our most general and abstract attitudes, beliefs, and judgments about being human. Just because the phrase is very general and very abstract does not mean that it is useless and meaningless. The phrase can be used to capture beliefs and judgments that oftentimes go unexamined and unquestioned.

An example. Christianity teaches that there is something fundamentally amiss with being human. The how and why is explained by Original Sin. The theological hocus-pocus that would find reasons for why and how things are out of alignment are less important than the originating sense that something, somehow is simply not right with the way people, the world, and even with the natural world, according to some theologians.

Less abstractly and more concretely, what does this Original Sin mean? In the end, it can only mean one thing: suffering, pain, misery, and despair are intrinsic and inherent to life in this world. To borrow Buddhism's First Noble Truth: Existence is suffering. Of course, the critical difference is that Buddhism is a prescription for dealing with this truth, while Christianity in essence amounts to wishful thinking about God fixing human nature. The complement to Christianity's Teaching of the Brokenness of Humanity is of course The Redemption: Despair not! However badly broken everything might seem, it can be fixed.

The question concerning The Human Condition can be phrased thusly: What is suffering and is it inescapably human?

Pain and suffering doesn't just include the myriad ways our bodies conspire to betray us as we age. Most importantly, though, does the course of events of the world have a place for our human desires, wishes, plans, hopes, and dreams? This is what Kant meant with the last of his three great questions: "What can we know?" "What ought we to do?" and "For what may we hope?"

Traditionally, it seems that philosophers answer the first two questions as a prelude to the last. But what if the answer to the last question is simple, blunt, and final: "Nothing."?

If there is nothing to hope for, then that also means that humanity is irredeemably broken. Or does it?

I thought I was back before...

2008-07-19T08:11:00.003-06:00

Let's see if it takes this time. A lot has happened in the last 3 months. We moved from Central Arkansas back to the Northeast earlier this month. We drove up, the Mischiefs were really. really well-behaved throughout the 4 day drive. We took our time, we probably could have made the trip in 3 days, but we wanted to stop off and see Niagara Falls. I thought the Mischiefs would be more impressed than they were. Little Mischief found all the noise from the Falls unsettling. Oh, well.

Anyway, I'm thinking I may increase the scope of this blog from religion-related thoughts to include political and philosophical reflections. I've been asking myself whether the "human condition" is broken. Or less grandiosely phrased, "Is the so-called 'problem of pain' from theology more fruitfully (re)phrased as 'the problem of redemption'?

I want to finish the post(s) on the limits of subjectivity and start some mischief about The Singularity at Raymond Kurzweil's expense. Futurists all seem to be such true believers in their quasi-Utopian visions of the future that I find myself reaching back to the 19th Century to Marx, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky to wonder if there's nothing quite so foolish as repetitiously foolish Improvers of Mankind [or should that be so 'foolishly repetitious'?]

I've also been trying [off and on] to track down a comment made by Heidegger linking either Modern Technology or Science or both to Auschwitz. I strongly suspect that that remark was the seed out of which Expelled: No Intelligence Allowedgrew. Or maybe I'm misremembering it. My own false memory: remembering the text saying what I want & need it to say, rather than remembering the actual words of the text. I was brought up fundamentalist Christian, after all.

I'd Forgotten about Jacob Bronowski

2008-04-28T10:07:00.002-06:00

Monique Davis Reloaded, Or an Idea to Perpetrate Textual Mayhem on Christians

2008-04-24T07:55:00.005-06:00

If you're reading this blog, you probably know who Monique Davis is, if not see this [Chicago Tribune].

I'd like to find a juicy excerpt of her tirade against Rob Sherman and atheism. A few quick edits to change occurrences of atheism and atheists to Jews and Judaism, or maybe to developmental disabled or some such.

The point of the exercise would be to show that the language of hate is largely the same regardless of the specific target. The implication is that once have becomes acceptable as a publicly-given rationale for actions and policies, whether of individuals, groups or governments, it is a relatively simple matter to change the persons toward which that hate is directed.

Historically, it has been shown more than once that hate-filled public discourse is notoriously easy to manipulate. Examples: Nazism, Stalinism, The Inquisition, McCarthyism. The infamous "Revolution devours its own children", and so on. And yet, once a little Christian feels even a wisp of pleasure at the thought of the destruction of her enemies, it must be God's Supreme Will that these enemies die, die, die and then rot in Hell. Of course, the Good Little Christian doesn't say she wants her enemies to die, die, die. She says "Thy Will be done."

It's obvious enough to everyone but the Little Christian that God is a self-manipulation to avoid ownership of her hatred, bile, and ill-will. It is God's Will that her enemies die, die, die, not her will. God for the little Christian becomes a tool to avoid self-examination and responsibility. Hate-filled discourse is one thing, the apparent object of that hatred is something else. A little Christian would have us all believe that hatred per se is no problematic, only the object to which the hate is for the moment directed.

Of course, empirical counter-evidence to the above, would be that minor edits to the words of Monique Davis or any other believer substituting "Jew," "puppies and kittens," "little babies," "American," etc. for "gay," "atheist," "liberal," "feminazi," and the like would produce be unintelligible. If, however, the slightly edited version bore a strong resemblance to manifestos of conventional hate-groups like Nazis, the Aryan Nation, the KKK, etc., then Nietzsche's seemingly paradoxical assertion that Christian Love is sublimated hatred is if not proven, strongly persuasive.

Perpetrate Textual Mayhem on Christians? Take some representative text of a Christian Leader perform some minor edits, say substituting "puppies and kittens" for "homosexuals" with adjustments to grammar as necessary. If Little Christians like Monique Davis are strongly motivated by hatred and vent their hatred toward what they see as safe groups, like atheists, then simple manipulations of the text ought to make the implied hatred transparent enough that even many Christians would be able to see it.

ExpelledExposed.com

2008-04-14T18:15:00.003-06:00

PZ Meyers asked people who think Expelled is so much creationist propagandistic twaddle to link to this:

Expelled

A Brief Comment on the Texas Polygamists

2008-04-12T22:21:00.003-06:00

There is a type of man -- not person or woman -- who would find appealing and persuasive a religion that commanded in the name of their God that a man should take not one but several 14 and 15 year old girls as wives. It strikes me as primitive in a strongly pejorative sense and as a piece of self-stupefication.

The Most Unchristian Thought

2008-04-07T21:05:00.006-06:00

What is the most unchristian thought that I can come up with? I was minorly obsessed witht his question for a little while. Then I came up with an answer.

"Error is the royal road to knowledge." Or, as I used to taunt realist acquaintances: "Get rid of truth to make room for knowledge."

What do these paradoxical formulations mean? One thing they mean among many others: once faith is lost in the duality of reality and appearance, or deception and truth. Alternatively the unreflected metaphor that all of reality can be divided into two parts: gold and dross, comes to be reflected upon, no matter how hesitantly at first.

The negative aspect, as it were, the nihilistic question leading to these apparent conundrums? The discovery that Truth and truth make a career without exception in the world of human beings. Human beings find themselves invested in formulas and formulations of "unchanging" realities. Just like financial investments, when emotional and spiritual investments come into danger, strong measures are taken to defend those investments. The neurotic poses of believers lead easily enough to speculation that the fervor of their defense is less indicative of the rightness and correctness of beliefs than as a defense against fear, doubt, and uncertainty.

These doubts of the health and value of faith are not addressed but only exacerbated by appeals to sincerity or to the sanctity of obedient surrender.

Christianity, for example, presumes that the world and the people in it are not as they should be. The world and history took a wrong turn somewhere. In these matters, Christians speak of a fall from grace, and a consequent need for redemption. BUT in order for there to be redemption of this fallen world in which we live, there has to be another alternative, "better" world that exists in the mind of God, if nowhere else. Anything that would impede and obscure this "Truth" of the world must be evil, sinful, etc. etc.

Once the naive moralizing faith that the world should be different is given up? What then? What of hope? What of a better tomorrow? What of the despair of the present? And I can only respond with, "what of courage?"

Once truth and its implied duality of reality/not-reality is given up, questions about the uses of truth are no longer moot.Once the admission of the usefulness of Truth is made, the suspicion arises as to whether it matters at all whether there is any content to any supposed Great Truths? or whether the real issue is and always has been who gets to use Truth to exclude, silence, and subdue whom. Unexamined faith in the importance of Truth even if its specific content is open to perennial dispute.

What is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the fact of the perennial dispute at the core of the belief in Truth? Strife is intrinsic to the whole enterprise. And not that one party or another party to the strife is "right."

Knowledge becomes possible once the naivety of ever knowing the content of "Truth" is given up. Knowledge becomes description of the parties to the strife at the heart of Truth's career in the world. Knowedge is made up of perspectives that are intrinsically limited and partial, arbitrary even. It always needs others who see things differently. * * *

ADDENDUM

A necessary corollary to the above reflections: mere possession of "Truth" conveys no benefits in this world or in any other. Truth or truths do not set us free. Truth and truths are indifferent to the humanity. That believing otherwise should have narcotic-like symptoms hardly proves surprising.

Are Vegetarians Evil? A Visual Courtesy of The Bastard Fairies

2008-03-17T12:13:00.006-06:00

If it should turn out that The Bastard Fairies object. I'll remove the link.

Also they just released a music video of some interest to the faith-challenged:

Paraeidolia on Steroids

2008-02-17T22:46:00.009-06:00

I've been perusing on again, off again the Presocratic Philosophers. Thales, Anaxagoras, Anaximander and the like. I originally wanted to reread the available fragments of a poem by Parmenides. But as I was working my way through The Philosophers of Greece by Robert S. Brumbaugh, I found myself waylaid by Anaximander.

One of the nice things about reading the philosophers prior to Plato, is that all of the extent fragments and testimonials by ancient authors can be thoroughly read in a couple of hours. This means that understanding these fragments can take decades, and even then one is never sure of one's interpretations. Because of their incompleteness, the fragments require guessing at how to make up the missing material.

Brumbaugh's book does not present the texts of the available extent fragments. This is not as big of a problem as it might seem. For many of these ancient philosophers there are only a few words, fragments of a thought, the doctrines of some are only known indirectly. Brumbaugh praises Anaximander for extending "the concept of law from human society to the physical world -- a clean break with the older view of a capricious, anarchic nature;" and for inventing "models to make complex natural phenomena easier to understand." [p.18]

Maybe I've grown overly skeptical in my old age, Brumbaugh presents Anaximander's contribution to human thought without the least suspicion or self-consciousness. As if the imputation of human-created institutions and practices to the natural world outside the polis represented an advancement of human knowledge. Civilization, culture, knowledge, order, and humanity were to be found primarily in the institutions and associations formed with other Greeks of one's tribe and locale. The etymology of "barbarian" illustrates how most Greeks felt about the non-Greek, non-human world.

The use of human-created law as a model for understanding the natural world outside the polis strikes me as nothing less than astonishing. It should be remembered that this move this use of human-created Law as metaphor and regulating principle of the Natural World most commonly has been interpreted as an advance over mythological thinking. And, what typically characterizes "mythological thinking"?

Mythological thinking is the personifying the forces and events of the natural world. Personifying means analogizing natural phenomena to human personalities. When a pagan says the Wind is blowing angrily, he does not mean that the wind is merely blowing with great, destructive force, he means the Wind is angry in the same way that he or any other person can be angry.

This all leads naturally enough to the real question here: is regularity in Nature a product of human understanding or is that regularity there independently of human understanding? Following Brumbaugh's hint that Anaximander discovered the use of models, it would seem that our understanding(s) of the world around us (and by extension ourselves) are only approximations. A model by definition is not a 1-to-1 copy of what is being modeled. The presumption is that some elements of what is be modeled may be safely excluded from the model. The purpose to which the model is put determines which elements are included and which are excluded.

From this, folows the realization that every account of natural phenomena will have a left over residue. Properly speaking it cannot be said that Nature follows some lawful order, nor that Nature is unlawful. Where the human mind is not, Nature is chaotic in the mythological sense of Chaos: lacking order and regularity until the coming of the Gods.

One of the odder thoughts that came to me while I was working this through concerns the existence of the so-called external world. A distinction can be made between the constitution of individual and specific objects in human perception, on the one hand, and the recurrent experience of the unexpectedness of events and phenomena, on the other. To the extent that sense perception is an activity of the brain, the existence of a given object as perceived independent of any perceiver ought to strike one as nonsensical.

What is "Paraeidolia on Steroids"? Mythological thinking, however primitive it may seem, finds/creates order in the Natural World by imputing personality and personal traits to natural phenomena, either singly or in aggregate. The ur-experience of regularity for human beings is found in human social interactions. First comes social interactions, then comes the "discovery" of order. Order, regularity and dependability are all descriptive of social interactions. Consequently, the "discovery" of order in the Natural World is seeing patterns in natural phenomena that can neither be said to be there nor not to be there.That is "Paraeidolia on Steroids".

Are Vegetarians Evil? Or, Are Meat-Eaters? Pt. II

2008-02-08T09:03:00.001-06:00

I'll explain my hiatus in my next post.

* * * The main points to remember from my last post from almost 2 months ago. Morality implies a residue common to all human beings once non-essential elements are set aside. These non-essential elements include pleasures enjoyed by the immoral. The example I used was a morality often generated by vegetarianism: namely, that the pleasure offered by meat-eaters as a rationale for the consumption of the flesh of other creatures is not a "real" and "essential" pleasure.

To this I would like to add an immoral thought. Given that the human brain development is the progressive integration of its disparate elements into a whole, and that fundamentally the brain "works"by the development of neural connections, it would strongly appear that there are no inessential elements to the makeup and functioning of human brains, because changing one part changes the whole. Elimination of those parts of the brain whose functioning results in various pleasurable sensations -- such as consumption of the flesh of other creatures -- would mean changing the personality and person -- and far more likely than not this would be a diminution of emotional responses and investiture in one's surroundings -- i.e., other people, ideals of intellect and ethics, etc.

Consider this as well. Brains develop. As brains mature experiences and knowledge are stored for later use. What does this mean? Brain development encodes and reflects the vicissitudes of the environment in which that brain finds itself. Brain development is one way. Brains cannot be run in reverse.

On Being MIA

2008-02-06T09:25:00.001-06:00

It sucks. Once I start writing I love it. It's an immensely pleasurable activity. However, I do dearly hate writing when my mind is less than clear. In August, I decided it was time to get a handle on my sleep disorder. "Sleep disorder" sounds so much more serious than insomnia or irregular sleeping patterns.

The one thing that I figured out is that my blood pressure medication interacted poorly with the antidepressants. At one point, I would sleep over 12 hours a day whenever possible. That drove my poor wife to distraction. I stopped the blood pressure medication. I wanted to see if my mood and overall energy level would improve if I stopped. They have. I also had developed a hypothesis that the blood pressure medication was resulting in increased pain in my feet which in turn was interfering with sleeping well.

I don't intend to leave my hypertension uncontrolled. But golly gee whiz, I sure don't want to try to reduce my blood pressure through medication, or at least the ones that I have tried. My dr reassures me that there are a large number of medications to reduce blood pressure. I will have to impress upon him that any medication that has increases the risk of depression, no matter how slight the statistical risk to general population, will in my case almost assuredly result in depression.

Towards the end of monitoring and reducing my blood pressure, I'd like to procure a device to measure blood pressure, and I'd to try drinking a half liter of beet juice every day. Some studies indicate that it has a dramatic effect on high blood pressure. An overall higher libido means burning more calories. More activity. Leading to greater weight loss.

I would like to note that wellbutrin seems to be working. The first thing I noticed was wild & vivid dreams. Crazy dreams like riding cross-country on motorcycles with Tony Soprano. Others that I can't remember clearly like a car-jacking, or one about witches and magic in which the magic only worked if you believed in it. All in all they've been surprisingly enjoyable.

Are Vegetarians Evil? Or, Are Meat-Eaters? A Taunt

2007-12-18T12:29:00.001-06:00

Are vegetarians evil? Or are they simply misguided? As I think of the vegetarians that I've known over the years, I really don't think I've ever met a single one that didn't also exude moral superiority, whether of the quiet and hardly noticeable sort, of the loud and obnoxious sort, or somewhere in between.

When I think of the responses that meat-eaters make to vegetarians, overwhelmingly the justification offered is some variation of "Eating meat gives me pleasure." Just to be clear: I also put justifications for eating meat for reasons of health under this rubric. Part of health is the absence of nutritional deficiencies and as well as the absence of mental and spiritual maladies.

From the vegetarian's perspective the meat eating is somebody else's pleasure. Vegetarianism is one instance of a broader conundrum: the problem of other people's pleasure(s). Another instance of this: sexual mores. Consider the hullabaloo that Evangelicals make about homosexuality. The conflict about homosexuality mirrors oddly enough the conflict around vegetarianism: Christian Morality condemns certain desires and behaviors. Or if delicate ears prefer: Christian Morality would limit desires and behaviors to their life-affirming and positive forms: procreation, monogamy, love, etc. But in so doing, sex as a vehicle of self-discovery and enhancement of one's autonomy and individuality is quietly and delicately hushed up. Self-discover in whatever venue is fraught with error, mistakes, poor judgment, and above all learning from experience, which is to say from bad experience.

It would then seem that the sometimes not so subtle air of moral superiority that vegetarians sometimes exude is rooted in the pleasure of denying oneself a pleasure of little value to the vegetarian. The vegetarian denies himself the pleasure of eating meat because she cares little for it. And because the vegetarian can make this little self-denial in the name of justice, fairness, kindness, avoiding cruelty, or what have you, it must of course follow that any person who is unwilling to make the same self-denial is necessarily immoral.

Morality is in large part then dependent on the belief that some pleasures are inessential, unreal, immoral, and only apparent pleasures. The pleasure that one can deny oneself will almost assuredly be intimately bound up another person's autonomy. For such a person, there is nothing "apparent" and "merely" about it.

For most meat eaters giving up meat, the possible reason to give up meat is because vegetarians are unhappy with the consumption of flesh by non-vegetarians. Just like Evangelicals find other people's pleasures to be a powerful political rallying point. So, I ask anyone stumbling upon these pages: an analogy worth pursuing? Is an argument? Or enough of a taunt to disarm the not-so-clever and the all too unwary?

I'm back (again)

2007-12-12T09:19:00.001-06:00

I dropped the blog for a while because of school, mood, and a peevishness of character. It's hard for me to fall in with a (more or less) like-minded group for long. I have always found the agreement of others with my beliefs and opinions highly disagreeable. One of the implications of atheism in pretty much any variety is that one's beliefs are cosmically and eternally insignificant. Generally speaking, atheists don't believe that anyone is going to suffer eternal torment for having the wrong beliefs.

One of the reasons that I started this blog was to keep myself in a writing frame of mind so that I would be able to work on my papers.

Nonbelieving Literati #1a

2007-12-12T08:41:00.001-06:00

I liked The Exterminator's post about Julian, It can be found here.

Can a “liberal” political leader who professes faith — even one who picks and chooses practices from various different religions — be truly tolerant? Or is there something inherent in every system of supernatural belief that causes its adherents to be enemies of those with differing worldviews?

As might be expected, The Exterminator answers in the negative. And further, he makes clear that he doesn't think the character of Julian as Vidal presents him is the man for the job, so to speak, of implementing policies of tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

The pre-Christian Ancient World generally regarded apparently similar deities as equivalent. Jupiter of the Romans was the same deity as Zeus for the Greeks, for example. For the Greeks, "Jupiter" was simply what the Romans called Zeus, and if the Roman rites were different? That was between the Romans and the Deity in question. Further, there have been religions and social systems in the past that were unabashedly eclectic.

There is a phrase that gets bandied about from time to time: the prejudice against prejudice. The rhetorical thrust of this phrase goes to the heart of the matter: Is the preference and bias for policies of tolerance and diversity over policies of intolerance and hatred just another irrational prejudice? That in following policies of tolerance and diversity fewer people would get hurt would seem to be not insignificant. But tolerance and diversity can also be the arguments of the delicate and the cowardly who are afraid of getting hurt physically or otherwise.

There is a way out of that paradox: a commitment to values, ideals, and institutions of tolerance and diversity. This would require, of course, the recognition that conflict, misunderstanding, and strife are inherent to human social life. No doubt such thoughts strike many as immoral. This recognition can be less controversially phrased: instead of beginning with the belief that it is possible in principle to remove completely from public life egoism, strife, oppression, and the like, or in the worst case to hide these all too human qualities in private life. humanity's less than presentable rather than being removable are the mud and clay from which a body politic is to be sculpted. If this thought strike readers as bizarre or proto-fascist, I cannot recommend The Federalist Papers strongly enough.

However, in exacting a commitment to values and institutions, there is a corresponding loss of transcendental justifications for one's institutions. The commitment to the values and principles embodied in one's institutions does not flow from (a) God's commandment, but rather from love in the same way that parents of a severely handcapped child loves their child: because it is one's own. Love of the fatherland is like any other human passion: it can be phenomenally stupid, blind, ignorant, intolerant, and the like. And it can also be love of the principles embodied in a way of life.

If sectarians do not themselves profess a similar love, then that is the limit of tolerance.

Nonbelieving Literati #1

2007-09-19T10:35:00.001-06:00

I was supposed to have this posted on Saturday, September 15. I procured a new laptop on Labor Day weekend. And of course, me being me, I had to install Kubuntu Linux on it. Everything went fairly well. I got to the wireless to work and all the various bits of hardware. Then wireless stopped working. I spent a week trying to figure it out. In the end I had to take it back to the store. Yes, the wireless went out after one session. I took my refund and ordered a Toshiba Satellite P205-S6267. I spent almost a day getting a version of Kubuntu Linux set up on it. Then I found out that with the version of Kubuntu Linux due out in October, only one command is needed to setup wireless. Suffice it to say, I'm in Linux heaven: wireless works, sound works, video is lovely. Since I don't use a webcam, I'll wait on setting it up.

* * *

So, this month's reading assignment was Julian by Gore Vidal. It's a historical novel set in the time of the Roman Empire. I haven't had time to read the whole thing. I've only had time to thumb through the novel. I'm not big on fiction, historical or otherwise. I've always pretty much preferred philosophy and social science.

Thumbing through Julian, I was forcibly struck by Christianity's emphatic reliance on historical claims. It really is absolutely essential for the "faith" of the vast majority of Christians that there really lived and breathed a man who bore the name Jesus at a particular time in history.

If this belief in the historicity of Jesus were shown to be undeniably false and untruthful, what would Christianity lose? Or less awkwardly phrased what does belief in the historical elements of Christianity make possible? If, for example, the historicity of Jesus was shown to be part of a hoax perpetrated by the Romans to prop up the empire, what would Christianity lose?

I find this a really, really hard question. My inclination is to think that Jesus' historicity makes a number of things possible, or at least much, much easier. Rather than dwelling on the historicity or ahistoricity of Jesus' life and works, I suggest asking why insist on a historical savior and messiah?

Any answer that presumes an intrinsic value to truth begs the question. Why value truth? Why is truth better than error or falsehood? It's not at all clear that truth is always to be preferred to error and lies. Young children, for example, need praise for their efforts all out of proportion to the efficacy and competency of those efforts. Further, there is the expression "to tell a white lie." The point of these examples is to show that Truth does not possess absolute value and is always to be preferred to error, deception, and outright lies. Or if a more dramatic example is needed, consider the figure of Odysseus.

Of course, the Christian response to this is to interpret the necessity of deception for human life as prima facie evidence of Original Sin and of Adam's Fall from Grace. The hatred of deception can also interpreted as prima facie evidence of a systematic hatred of humanity, life, and of an unrelenting compulsion to self-condemnation.

It's a sign of how far removed I've become from my Pentacostal roots that I'm simply not interested in fairy-tales about Jesus or any other figure from the Bible. Those stories don't strike me as particularly relevant. The stories would be about as relevant as stories written by a Hindu several centuries ago about an incarnation of Vishnu.

* * *

I've been reading The Promise of Politics by Hannah Arendt. She talks a lot about the significance of the founding of Roman to the Roman Republic and to the Roman Empire. The founding was the source of authority for the Republic. The importance of Jesus giving the keys to Peter captures something of this. The historicity of Christianity's core beliefs is the foundation of authority of the Popes and of the Roman Catholic Church. The priests, the bishops, and other officials of the church all trace their way back -- according to the Official Story-- to the original disclosure of divinity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

If that disclosure were shown to be either a mistake or a fraud, then the Roman Catholic Church has no special mission other than to perpetuate itself. And Protestants? With Protestants claims of historicity have a repressive effect: they exclude argumentation. After Kierkegaard the tendency is to treat the Incarnation and historicity of Jesus as an empirical phenomenon: it can't be proved nor disproved. Faith proves itself. Or as I would put it: the neurotic insistence on the historicity of Jesus is another rationalization for not thinking and avoiding reality.

The Fermi Non-Paradox, Or Questions, Questions, Questions

2007-09-10T18:03:00.001-06:00

This post is a holiday from religious topics. I decided to indulge one of my other interests, or rather peeves.

***

So, where are they? Enrico Fermi asked of the little green men. Ever since then very some very clever people have tried to explain why the night time sky isn't like busy, busy like their favorite scifi show. Think Farscape or Star Trek.

The first fact that all speculation about extraterrestial civilizations encounters is that the speed of light in a vacuum is a fixed constant. For extraterrestial speculations, closely related is the immensity of the distances between stars and galaxies coupled with the mind-boggling enormity of the multitude of galaxies and stars in the universe.

This superabundance of stars and galaxies like Spinoza's God the universe will bring into existence whatever may possibly exist. Therefore, the line of thought goes, if it is at all possible for an interstellar civilization to exist, one must exist, or have existed somewhere in the cosmos. Given the recent discoveries of extra-solar planets, it would appear that conditions favorable for life are common thoughout the observable universe.

As more becomes known, the Fermi Paradox becomes even more, well, paradoxical. Over at Sentient Developments there is a sense that all is not well with hopes for super-advanced alien civilizations. As human technology and science becomes ever more sensitive and capable of detailed investigations of stars and planets that are light years away from us, it becomes more unlikely that we are unable to find traces or at least ambiguous evidence of advanced extraterrestial civilizations. And as we know more about the rest of the universe, it appears ever more unlikely that we are alone.

Given the ever increasing sharpness of the paradox, the question presents itself? Is the search for extraterrestial civilizations wrongly conceived? There are some questions that don't seem to be posed in these discussions: assuming for sake of argument feasibility of the energy projects described Kardashev scale, what would a civilization need with the energy of a single star, let alone of a whole galaxy? This strikes me very much as example of a particular culturally- and temporally-bound way of thinking: what can be done must be done.

What would a civilization need all that energy for? It would seem to imply a crass understanding of Darwinian fitness: the most fit species is the species that is numerically greatest. Unlimited population growth would seem to be problematic at best: reproduction for reproductions sake? This is the same imperative followed by the most primitive viruses. A transcendental purpose that we ape-brains could not hope to comprehend? Excuse me, but this sounds much too similar to a common rationalization sometimes offered by Christians for the problem of evil: His ways are not our ways. In other words, here tucked away in a purported obeisance to science, rationality, reason, and intelligence qua intelligence hides a filthy wallowing in the impotence of one's own intelligence and reason: profundity is measured by the extent of one's ignorance.

It should not be forgotten that Kardashev formulated his scale in the Soviet Union. Under Stalin the Soviet Union from the 1930's up to the time of its eventual collapse favored big industry: big dams, big factories, big collective farms, big manufacturing. Considered historically, the Kardashev Scale strongly suggests a projection of narrow historical and social conceptions.

Considered this way, is the standard of Super Big Industry implied by the Kardashev Scale the only meaningful measure of technological progress?

Another element to these discussions that I find particularly annoying is the assumption that a sufficient level of intelligence will (somehow) provide an escape from biological imperatives, especially of reproduction and sexual desire. The real subtext of discussions of super-advanced and hyper-intelligent extraterrestial civilizations betrays a hope and wish for complete control of human fertility. A better characterization of how intelligence is often conceived: a tool to escape Malthusian constraints of unfettered population growth and limited resources to support that growth.

Phrased in less grandiosely, this is consumerist dream run amok. It is the faith and justification of the French Revolution: the elimination of scarcity so as to create dignity and freedom. This is the historically unjustified faith of Star Trek: The Next Generation. But as River said in Serenity, people don't like to be meddled with.

So, can technophiles be divided into 2 groups? Those who believe that the Star Trek: Next Generation techno-wow is just around the corner & those that find themselves living in the Firefly Future. The former believe *all* social problems are fundamentally fixable because *all* social problems are fundamentally problems of scarcity: a technological solution can be found so that people can have enough, and then there would no war, crime, bad childhoods, etc. The latter types find the problem with social relations to be people don't like to be meddled with (River's line in Serenity). In other words, social problems are fundamentally unfixable: because people are the problem. Looked at this way, "Serenity" is a polemic against the belief that social problems are amenable to a technological fix. The movie shows what Roddenberry's utopian future of the Next Generation must bring.

Ultimately, in order to have that future without war, crime, poverty, etc. human beings will have to be fixed. Hence, the Miranda experiment in Serenity. The administrators who ordered the "fixing" of Miranda's population were not themselves given the treatment, nor were they ever likely to be given it -- assuming that it would work as intended.

Incidentally, in the Firefly future, people still use old tech. Just like in the real world. We all know people who are satisfied with 486's, pentium classics,VCR's, b&w tv's, etc.

Possession of sufficiently developed technology leads to the belief that all things are possible, even the reegineering of humankind. And so far, that has never ended well. And further, that experience in no way indicates that future attempts to fix human nature will end any better. * * *

It is an unquestioned belief in many of discussions of the Fermi Paradox that evolution at least in the case of homo sapiens has produced an intelligent species. While all lip service is given to evolution, it is assumed apparently without question that once a species reaches a sufficient level of intelligence, that species is no longer subject to biological necessities and imperatives. Sometimes this is presented as creation of artificial environments or of an economy in which the resources necessary for survival have become so plentiful that competition for resources is no longer even possible.

There is also implied in the descriptions of super-advanced hyper-intelligent civilizations the faith that a sufficient level of intelligence can foresee all possible consequences of actions that that civilization might take. Super-advanced hyper-intelligent civilizations do not make mistakes and never have to say that they are sorry.

Not being an economist, I can only ask if there are economies of scale that would prevent the realization of Kardashev civilizations? Are there diminishing returns on the development of "advanced technology"?

Consider this. As personal computers have become more capable, more and more users find themselves with machines possessing computing power sufficient to their computing needs. More and more users find themselves satisfied with older models of personal computers because of a lack of a compelling reason to upgrade. Is it possible that a level of technological progress could be reached on which it is no longer economically feasible to develop further?

I will give the participants in these discussions of the Fermi Paradox one thing: they get the intimate association of intelligence with technology right. However, misunderstandings of intelligence and technology are rife in these discussions. What is technology?

* * *

Technology broadly conceived is the means to removal of obstacles to the fulfillment of desire.

The above definition of technology suggests that living organisms tend towards homeostasis. However, if desires are too readily satisfied, boredom sets in. Worse than the mischief and folly that such boredom would produce is the belief that danger and ground for fear had been eliminated. If all external and physical impediments to the realization of desire had been eradicated, if dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and suffering remained, the only possible explanation would be a flaw in the genome of the intelligent creature itself. Reegineering, "fixing," as it were, the creature itself is implied in the dream of plenty.

Intelligence evolved not to discover truth, not to implement justice, fairness, equity, and the like. Intelligence evolved to aid in the survival and reproductive success of particular species. Consequently, any attempt by an intelligent species to reegineer itself will fail. There will be bias, there will be short-sightedness. Further, the whole enterprise of self-reegineering implies an objective and unarguable ideal of what that intelligent species should be. In other words, a loss of variability within the species. And with the loss of variability comes specialization and a greater risk of extinction.

A technological society such as Western Society is self-limiting through biological/genetic and economic factors. So-called advanced technological societies are little more than pipe dreams and unwitting projections of current social and political realities filtered through a narrow lens of wishful thinking and frustrated religiosity.

I can't believe it's been over a month...

2007-09-06T07:41:00.001-06:00

It's been over a month since my last posting. I feel a minor obligation to explain. The lack of postings was fallout from trying to get my disturbed sleeping pattern under control. My doctor prescribed something that made restful sleep impossible for about a week. I would sleep 4 or 5 hours but not a deep tthis reaction. I stuck it out for a week. Luckily, I didn't have to drive much and wasn't in school. It was hellish week. Needless to say, I stopped blogging for the time being. Afterwards, I was just out of habit.

I've got some catching up to do. Over at Sentient Developments there's some posts on which I dearly want to comment: Meat eaters are bad people and The Fermi Paradox: Possible solutions and next steps.

Another Letter to Phil (if he exists)

2007-08-06T00:56:00.001-06:00

Phil,

I have never been one to let things lie. One of the advantages of a blog is that I can always indulge that part of me that thinks of clever things to say after the fact. Mainly I find myself to be a slow thinker. I have random thoughts and insights after I read something, and sometimes while I'm reading something. I don't think I've ever finished thinking about something on one reading or in one fit of cogitation.

It's 2am and I can't sleep. I thought thinking about your letter to God would send me off to sleep. It didn't. I ended up complaining to myself about this, that, and the other thing.

I found the last two paragraphs of your letter to God particularly thought-provoking. Probably not in a way that you intended:

It is your[God's] responsibility as the parent of humanity to ensure our well being. At least until we are well grown up and we are able to take care of ourselves, otherwise what type of parent would you be?

If you do not, faith in you could be damned. Humanity could be damned too.

I included the first paragraph for context and to clarify a little the second paragraph in the quoted section. Incidentally, these are the last two paragraphs of your letter.

Some of these expressions that you come up with challenge the stylistics and syntax of modern English. I don't know how "faith in God could be damned." It's always been my understanding that in Christianity to damn means to curse and more specifically to eternal punishment in hell. If by some chance you mean that "faith in God could be immoral and therefore worthy of damnation," I can only agree with you.

Faith in God can be immoral and judging from what I've seen of contemporary Christendom, I should say that it is almost always immoral, if not now then later. An explanation of possible exceptions can be found here. There so much familiarity, so much rubbing elbows with God and Jesus, as if the three days on the Cross was like a really bad day at the mall. The immorality of Christendom is acquiescence in banality, conformity, fear, and laziness, as if three days on the Cross was just so that little Jane and Johnny could avoid the hard spiritual work of doubt, ostracism, and persecution. One of the things I never, ever understood about Christians is how they could believe God would see to their needs, when He crucified his own firstborn. Why should a "Christian" think that he will be treated any better?

Once the possibility is admitted that one's faith is immoral, it's not such a big step to rejection of faith as immoral. Really, it's not so much a matter of rejection, as it is admitting that the old formulas, arguments, and Bible verses are no longer persuasive. Nietzsche seemed to have arrived at his atheism by a similar route. "Christian morality overcoming itself" or something similar. I prefer to phrase it as realizing that one is too honest to remain a Christian.

The last paragraph, though, sounds nihilistic: God be damned, and this world too! Without God, there's nothing to live for. Consequently, nothing matters. There are no standards, no basis for morality, etc. etc. It's all very melodramatic and more appropriate for adolescents than for adults.

* * *

One of my principal objections to Christianity is the lack of humility. It offends my sense of modesty that I am supposed to attach such a great significance to my own thoughts, moods, feelings, and desires. Somehow feelings of guilt, pride, envy, lust, etc. are supposed to have metaphysical importance? My feelings of guilt over are tied up with the most important event in human history? The comings and goings of my feelings and desires affect my fate after my death??? My fate post mortem is directly linked to the opinions and beliefs that I espouse before I die? It's all so fantastic. I have great difficulty attaching so much significance to my opinions. I'm just not egotistical enough and so craven in my desire for the admiration, respect, and fear of my fellow human beings.

bob

PS. Phil--it's not nice to post a link to your site in the comments section and then not have a section for comments on your site. It just doesn't seem fair somehow. What if God decides to reply to your letter? Cf. The Grand Inquisitor.

An Open Letter to Phil (if he exists)

2007-08-05T15:24:00.002-06:00

Phil,

You posted a comment to What would it take for me to stop being an atheist?. The full text of your comment:

Proof of God is anything that can withstand indefinite scientific scrutiny for all of time.

Phil
Read more here:
http://www.philforhumanity.com/A_Letter_to_God.html

Here is a fixed hyperlink to your Letter to God (if he exists) for the one-click convenience of my readers.

Putting aside idle speculation that English may not be your first language, what does your sentence mean? Proof of God is anything that can withstand indefinite scientific scrutiny for all of time.

In your mind there seems to be a strong association of God with proof. Equally important to you is science and scientific scrutiny. From the juxtaposition of God and science in your sentence, I can only infer either that you subscribe to a crude materialism: God is a physical entity subject to scientific scrutiny. Or, scientists will one day somehow in the future realize that there is a gap in their equations and knowledge and this gap can only filled by God.

The latter is a variation of the way of thinking that lets religion teach values based on the spiritual world and lets science study the physical world. This coexistence has broken down. The creationists and their Conservative Christian Brethren in this country are no doubt in denial that their failed incursions into public schools and public life have provoked a backlash from a rather vocal and articulate minority.

For all the hullabaloo about values and nihilistic atheists, the fact remains, and it is a fact, that science does not need religion. Creationists for all their pitiable caricatures of science admit that science is the real authority. If their doctrines can't be twisted and contorted to conform to consistency with scientific explanations, then those doctrines must be false(!). Admittedly, I'm using the word "consistency" in a rather loose & unscientific sense. If you take a step back, so-called creationist science is in large measure an attempt to provide an explanation of how the mainstream sciences of geology, biology, physics, etc., "got it all wrong." In the most generous interpretation of creationist science that I can imagine: creationist science is to mainstream science as a Einstein's theory of relativity is to Newtonian physics. In short, creationists want some of the luster of the authority that mainstream science enjoys to rub off on them.

For all their hatred of modern science, Creationists implicitly acknowledge Modern Science as their standard by which to understand and interpret their Holy Scriptures. If Modern Science cannot be brought into harmony with their Scriptures, then their Scriptures would have to be wrong. For creationists, religion and science speak the same kind of Truth. And we know which has a proven track record in healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and even bringing back the dead to a limited extent.

Unfortunately for fundamentalists and the rest of us, as well, fundamentalists are by and large unproductive, even parasitic. They are too fearful and hate-filled towards everything that is outside their purview. If fundamentalists cannot shoe-horn a cultural artifact, scientific doctrine, fact of nature, or social phenomenon into their Holy Scriptures, then that thing must be destroyed, either by them "acting on God's orders," or by God Himself on Judgment Day.

* * *

I digress. I've been meaning to write something about Creationists needing Modern Science for some time. I read your Letter to God. I do not have kind words for it. Especially since there is a link on the page to the Desiring God 2007 National Conference.

There's a part of me that finds the shenanigans of Christians and other believers funny. So much excitement, anxiety, dread, pathos, and bathos over nothing. It reminds me of nothing so much as my 3 year old trying to explain why she's afraid to watch Underdog. She's afraid of feeling afraid and of the phantasms of her imagination. It's really not so dissimilar to the agonies religious people put themselves through.

Just to be 100% clear: religion is most definitely not one of the greater accomplishments of humankind. Fundamentally, religion represents one possible survival strategy: we do what we are told. If a set of beliefs and practices, no matter how foolish and absurd, has allowed a tribe to persist in their existence, the fact of their continued existence is an argument for following those beliefs and practices, no matter how irrational, absurd, and anti-empirical they might appear to a disinterested observer.

Religion as a survival strategy: my 3-year old imitates her 5-year old sister in all kinds of ways. Considered in terms of evolution, since the older sibling has survived successfully for so long then she must be doing something right, therefore imitation of the older sibling's behaviors will likely result in the continued survival of the younger sibling.

To sum up: religion is institutionalized stupidity. But, it should to be acknowledged in the next breath that more often than most of us would like to admit, stupidity is oftentimes successful as a survival strategy. This is why religion hasn't died out, as was promised in the Enlightenment.

* * *

Sorry. Another digression. In the end, Phil, God is no longer believable. What's He good for? What gap does He fill in human knowledge? The most generous and sarcastic answer is that "God" means "I don't know." Then why not just say, "I don't know" and be done with it?

Or is it that you like the big words of Humanity, Right, Morality, and The Meaning of Life, The Universe, and Everything? The denial of morality, God, and The Meaning of Life, The Universe, and Everything means that you would be left to tend your own miserable, pathetic existence with no claim to monkey with the lives of other people.

Take note: I've never seen a definition of humanity that didn't imply that at least some specimens of homo sapiens did not partake of that humanity. In other words, "humanity" however defined always excludes somebody with a name, a biography, and a beating heart.

bob

PS. One of the things that creationists and religious types get wrong inevitably is that there really are events and consequences of human actions that are belief-independent. I drop a rock on my foot. It hurts. Or, even more significant: the recurring phenomenon of being wrong: the recurring experience of unexpectedness. Unexpected events set a limit on what may be safely attributed to "faith" and "the power of conviction." There is an escape from the seemingly unlimited subjectivity of modern religion and postmodernism.

Making Sense of Religion Pt. II -- Redux

2007-08-02T13:31:00.001-06:00

Atheist Hussy doesn't quite get what I was after in Pt. II of this series. Her comment to Making Sense of Religion Pt. II missed the point of my post. Her comment in full:

I'd say "I agree!" but that's obvious. :P Religion is so immoral!

I'll readily admit that I wasn't as clear as I might have been. Let me try again.

Religion has played an important role to the development of human society from before the beginnings of recorded history. Religion continues to be important to the development of culture and human psychology. For all of the absurdity, brutality, and irrationality religion encourages in its practitioners, it is almost certainly also essential to what has enabled homo sapiens has to persist for as long as it has.

If "the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine," as J. B. S. Haldane once remarked, then what does this mean for reason, empirical-mindedness and rationality as survival strategies? Further, considered in that kind of context, then doesn't the irrationality, brutality, and absurdity of religion are acknowledged, then don't the antics of our fundamentalists look a good deal less irrational and absurd? And who knows? Maybe the brutality that religion often begets is a kindness in the grand scheme of things.

A fundamentalist is a walking, talking refution made flesh of the assertion that reason, rationality, and empirical-mindedness necessarily confer some kind of innate advantage over those infected with religion.

Sometimes listening to atheists complain about religion -- see especially Scientia Natura -- reminds me of nothing so much as someone complaining about how poorly they have been treated by their significant other for so many years. The questions arise, naturally enough: why did you stay in this abusive relationship for so long? What were you getting out of it? If you weren't getting anything, you would have left a long time ago.

As ought to be plain, condemnations of religion while spiritually uplifting and even an effective tonic against mild depression don't interest me. The psychology of religion, however, gets me going. It is a minor amusement that many atheists, for all of their self-professed rationality and empirical-mindedness don't see how accusations of irrationality and anti-empiricism are hardly effective against a foe who prides himself on his irrationality and anti-empiricism.

The fact that fundamentalists survive, and even prosper, calls into question the value of Truth and truthfulness. They don't appear to need either.

That is the perplexity I was trying to suss out in my other post.

* * *

The criticism of religion as irrational will only be effective IF the irrationality that religion exhibits is harmful or morally reprehensible in some way.

My big point above is that fundamentalists for all their irrationality and cognitive dissonances don't appear to be obviously worse off. And even if they are, the irrationality and cognitive dissonances intrinsic to religion have been a part of humanity since before recorded history. Religion (in some form) may be the oldest human social institution.

What do the irrationality and cognitive dissonances intrinsic to religion have to tell us about reason, rationality, and empirical-mindedness?

A Pearl of Wisdom from Big Mischief

2007-07-29T19:46:00.001-06:00

--What does heaven mean? Is it like jail?

I kid you not.

Happiness, Joy, and the Meaning of Life, Pt. I

2007-07-29T16:37:00.001-06:00

Nietzsche rather consistently presented the Christ on the Cross as a crime against life, as a pointer to seek redemption elsewhere. His beloved Dionysus in being torn apart was a symbol of desire for life and not just any life: this life. Not some life that might be found only in heaven. The Crucified was a curse on human life as we know it. The Crucifixion means that life is cursed and thus in need of redemption. Dionysus being torn apart was a blessing and benediction.

Even if Nietzsche's Dionysus is found to be less than compelling, his central questions remain: what is the meaning of suffering? What is suffering?

Christianity has a limited conception of happiness and joy. Even after allowing for "all of the joys of this world" that the most generous interpretation of Christianity might find, there still remains a lingering, inconsolable dissatisfied unhappiness. A poem by William Butler Yeats captures this gnawing unhappiness:

What Then?
by William Butler Yeats

HIS chosen comrades thought at school
He must grow a famous man;
He thought the same and lived by rule,
All his twenties crammed with toil;
"What then?" sang Plato's ghost. "What then?"

Everything he wrote was read,
After certain years he won
Sufficient money for his need,
Friends that have been friends indeed;
"What then?" sang Plato's ghost. "What then?"

All his happier dreams came true --
A small old house, wife, daughter, son,
Grounds where plum and cabbage grew,
poets and Wits about him drew;
"What then?" sang Plato's ghost. "What then?"
"The work is done," grown old he thought,
"According to my boyish plan;
Let the fools rage, I swerved in naught,
Something to perfection brought';
But louder sang that ghost, "What then?"

However great the joys of this world, alas, something is amiss. Something is lacking. Some something that makes everything significant, beautiful, and satisfying is not to be found amid the joys of worldly success, friendships, love fulfilled, or children grown to successful adulthood.

The question that came to me when I was studying Nietzsche and struggling with religious doubts and questions: could this gnawing dissatisfaction, could suffering itself, even, be an enhancement and even incentive to living this life?

Another poem. This time one of mine:

Just Once?

Just once, only once, dear Christ,
To hang from a tree and mock Death?

Just once, only once, dear Christ,
To suffer and suffer and find final relief?

Just once, only once, dear Christ,
To rise in joy, clothed in light?

Just once, only once, dear Christ,
And not over and over and over, and yet once more,

Until life herself shouts in ecstasy,
Oh, just once more, only once more, dear Christ?

Making Sense of Religion Pt. II

2007-07-26T15:55:00.001-06:00

Atheist Hussy's latest post is about why religion matters and should matter to atheists. I agree with her that Christianity, and religion generally, has been a disaster for humankind. Religion matters because it is a plague upon human beings. Intellectually and spiritually it is the equivalent of tuberculosis or the Black Death for emotional and intellectual health.

However deserving of our hatred and disgust religion may be, the fact remains that religion was (and remains still) important to the social, intellectual, and emotional life of the vast majority of human beings throughout all of human history. Complaining about religion bears an uncanny resemblance to complaining about a close blood relative who is simply a manipulative prick. The suspicion that you related by more than blood is unshakable and unprovable.

I haven't worked out all the details but it seems very likely that the criticism that religion is a curse because it is false, irrational, immoral, harmful, etc. is grounded in morality. "Grounded in morality" means that not all beliefs, actions, thoughts, intentions, behaviors, etc. have the same worth. And further that this difference in worth is not to be found in the natural world.

Lurking further back, intuitively speaking, is a faith in the rationality of the natural world. This faith is simple enough: the natural world is amenable to complete description and understanding through unaided human reason. Generally speaking, the order and arrangements of thoughts in the human mind can sometimes reflect the order and arrangements of things in the world.

Once God is banished from explanations, a question arises: how and why does the order and arrangement of events and objects in the phenomenal world (sometimes) correlate with the arrangement and order of the cognitive processes of the human brain? With God, of course, it's easy: God made the world. God made human beings like him. Humans can know the world because humans partake of Divinity: humans are made in His Image. I don't have a solution to that problem.

That is one conundrum that I wanted to point out. Another conundrum and more relevant to Atheist Hussy's post is that the sheer irrationality of religion calls into question the necessity, wisdom, and rationality of elevating reason and rationality at the expense of religion. The typical resistance of fundamentalist Christians to reason, empirical evidence, and rationality in general means that those things are not essential to human life.

Fundamentalists are themselves a walking, talking attempt at a refutation of reason and inquiry. Hurling down upon all the curses which reason may invent does not touch upon the taunt to reasonableness that is their life. They live as if to say that reason is shallow, inconsequential, and irrelevant to most of human existence.

The immunity of our fundamentalist Christians to the charms and beauties of reason and rationality strongly suggests that we do not understand our own love of reason and rationality as well as we like to think we do.

What If ...?

2007-07-24T20:26:00.001-06:00

Modern medicine, and biology generally, are unthinkable without Darwinian evolution. According to the poll numbers Americans have their doubts to about the central tenets of evolution, to put it mildly. The practical result of these doubts will be the neutering of American medicine and biology generally.

At some point, the destructive effects of "creationist science" on biology and medicine will become apparent. Almost certainly this will be when advanced biology and medicine will be developed somewhere other than the US.

I picture maybe the Chinese or the Koreans developing some wonderful and powerful application of biology. This hypothetical application would be the biological equivalent of Sputnik. Perhaps it will be something from stem cells, perhaps it will be something that would be difficult to imagine today. But thoroughly as if from science fiction.

I've started reading Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism, Amazon link. It is a collection of essays by various scientists and philosophers. I've only read the introduction and the first essay, but as a matter of first impression, this is the one book to have handy if you are likely to find yourself participating in discussions/disputes about Intelligent Design and Creationism.

I'll post more about it as I read more, even though I generally dislike discussing items with which I find myself in substantial agreement. A tension necessary for thought is lacking.

A Stab at An Answer to My Challenge to Atheists

2007-07-22T16:18:00.001-06:00

How might some common doctrines and beliefs bandied about by Christians be evidence of crypto-atheism?

One example. One of the clichés many believers toss merrily about is that evolution is how God created. Science can only study the mechanisms by which God acts and not the hand of God itself in the material world.

First, implied in this answer is that there is no evidence, or at least no unambiguous evidence, for God acting in the world. Appeals to evidence indicates an empirically-minded approach to the problem of God in the world. God is not a scientific hypothesis. Consequently, God is superfluous to science.

If God is superfluous to empirically-minded investigations of the world around us, of what use is God, if He does not help us understand the physical world? God, one might say, is not in phenomena. Assertions of God's existence do not indicate any new truth or further understanding of what an empirically-minded person might investigate, rather such assertions are rooted in the needs, desires, and fears of the person making the assertions. Consequently, God is a psychological phenomena.

I suspect that people who believe that God acts in history believe that God acts in the same way that I do when I move my hand. God acting in the physical world is an assertion of will. It would be consistent to believe that so-called physical laws are a figment of human thinking: positing hard and fast relations where there are in fact none. Moment to moment all of Creation continues to exist at His behest. The physical world would not exist independently of His Will.

In order for God not to be eventually made superfluous to an explanation of the world, God must absolutely and without reserve provide for the continued existence of all physicality.

Of course this means that the religious-minded would be absolutely indispensable. The religious-minded would have no need of knowledge of illusory physical entities. The religious-minded would know of things far, far more important than the illusions of mere matter. Their ignorance of physicality would be an asset.

Maybe It's All in the Definition of Atheist? Atheist Fanaticism revisited for the last time -- God, I hope so.

2007-07-22T07:01:00.001-06:00

I had a passing thought last night. What if most, if not all, of the disagreement between nonbelievers and Christians boils down to how "atheism" is defined?

Consider:

1) Atheism is the disbelief in any God, not just the Christian God.

2) Atheism is the lack of belief in any God, not just the Christian God.

The difference is that the first implies a proposition on which [so-called] atheists can focus their (dis)belief. Disbelief is the assertion of a negative belief: that such and such is not the case. In the case of atheism, this would be that God does not exist.

In the latter, the lack of a belief does not imply anything about what atheists believe (or do not believe) other than not believing in God. Nothing is implied about spiritual states or attitudes towards beliefs in the lack of a belief.

The realization that many atheists really don't spend a lot time asserting the non-existence of God, Christian or otherwise, might be offensive and upsetting to Christians. If it is any comfort to those offended and upset Christians, any denials of the existence of God mostly take place in conversation with believers of one sort or another.

Atheists of the second sort bear an uncanny resemblance to Schrodinger's Cat: they neither deny the existence of God nor do they assert the non-existence of God until a Christian observes them when the question is posed to them: the quantum possibilities collapse into an actuality.

Some Christians need atheists to be thinking about God's non-existence all the time. I can only imagine this would make sense as a shield against doubt. God is primarily an issue for believers. In seeking to portray atheists as pale imitations of Christians, believers betray their own seeds of fanaticism: hatred of anyone who lives as if God failed to exist and is none the worse for their lack of a need for God..

A Challenge for Atheists and Other Nonbelievers

2007-07-19T21:52:00.001-06:00

It's well known that theists, especially Christians, are fond of stating categorically that there are no real atheists. Or telling atheists and other nonbelievers that they are too moral, nice, ethical, etc. not to believe in God. Atheists just don't know that they believe in God.

Here's the challenge:

Is it possible to rephrase and rework some of the presentations of Christian conviction(s) to imply that believers are "really" atheists or better yet "quasi-atheist"?

My thinking is to present an attack and series of arguments that would put apologists for Christianity on the defensive.

I freely admit that this is more likely to be a rhetorical/debater's trick than an honest and down-to-earth criticism.

A Challenge for Adherents of Intelligent Design

2007-07-19T21:35:00.002-06:00

There have been some good arguments made against ID. And after the legal debacle in Dover, Pennsylvania, I feel more like I'm on the tail-end of yesterday's hot fashion: debunking ID.

Here's the challenge:

Does ID in any form generate scientific hypotheses that either challenge current theories of cosmology, biology, etc., or hypotheses that lead to experiments and tests which can be performed, at least in principle, given the current state of scientific knowledge.

If ID does not lead to new scientific hypotheses, then the arguments generally in support of design to the physical world rests on statements such as Phenomena X is too complicated to have arisen by chance. Or rephrased, the so-called irreducible complexity of Phenomena X is directly proportionate to human ignorance about Phenomena X.

If ID does not lead to specific hypotheses that are testable at least in principle, then ID is pseudo-science. Philosophy, or even religion, masquerading none too well as science.

In case anyone read "What Is Wrong with Intelligent Design" by Elliott Sober, appearing in the March 2007 issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology, the above is derived from it. Read it. It's only 8 pages and it's well written. I'd say that it would be appropriate for a school board member of average intelligence.

Biblical Action Figures (Again)

2007-07-18T09:55:00.001-06:00

One of the rationales given for Biblical Action Figures is that many parents would prefer that their children not play with Spiderman figures.

Given that Christians are not particularly prone to critical self-reflection, this desire for toys of their own indicates an odd sense of inferiority vis a vis popular culture and a resentment that they should be in that inferior position.

Witold Gombrowicz, a Polish emigre writer of the 1940's through the 1960's, satirized a similar attitude widespread among Poles. A prevalent theme in Polish Culture and Letters was to show how the Poles belonged to Western Europe. The highlights of Poles to the West were lauded and praised. Poles seemed absolutely determined to show that they were at least as good as West Europeans. Theories were developed to argue that Poland "protected" the West from The (evil) East (= Russia) throughout history. Etc.

Gombrowicz satirized this attitude of institutionalized inferiority in plays, novels, stories, and in his diaries. He is often credited with being the father of contemporary Polish identity, a curious mixture of irony, seriousness, megalomania, inferiority, and honor.

It's just that once I got "it." It became easy to see this parasitic, sterile, vacuous attitude when it presented itself. This desire to be as good as some dominant group is always doomed to failure: the inferiority, in this case, the Evangelical Christians is never addressed. The spirituality that generated Biblical Action Figures would rather see the destruction of popular culture than create something of its own.

What this means is that Christians, Evangelicals in particular, need to see themselves as already oppressed so that they can act against their oppressors. Revenge drives much of their thinking, feeling, and social interactions. It's not that they wish for our destruction, they merely wish that we would be different than what we are: non-Christian.

An Afterthought (Added 2:40pm CST)

Creationist "science" can also be construed according to this model: it is "our science," meaning science by Christians, for Christians. A science which does not make Christians self-conscious, feel awkward and defensive about their beliefs. In other words, "science" that is not as good as the real thing but no less deserving of preeminence of place.

It is hardly any wonder that Christians find no evidence of this resentment and impotent hatred in their spiritual lives. Their beliefs strongly discourage a careful reckoning of motivations, let alone any sort of unbiased self-critique that does not end with finding inspiration by the Holy Ghost. Over on Atheist Revolution there's nice example of exactly what I'm talking about: Darwin Fish Exposes Christian Privilege.

Godmen don't eat quiche (revised 10:50pm)

2007-07-17T10:14:00.001-06:00

I'm sure it's very, very bad to revise blog posts after publishing to the web. I don't see why foolish mistakes should be sacrosanct, especially my own.

* * *

Blame this post on Atheist in a Mini-van." And more specifically, Jesus Toys.

An exchange of suggestions for witty mottoes for the various Biblical action figures developed in the comments to this post. Thinking of slogans, mottoes, epigrams is like catnip for me. Once I start, it's difficult to stop until I find just the right clever, compact, and witty embodiment of irony and sarcasm, preferably in 10 words or less. My best so far, of course a Fightin' Jesus action figure, and his motto: "He's back and it's time to do unto others."
Just in case you didn't know, take a look at this. And an article in the mainstream press is available here.

It all strikes me as profoundly weird and perverse. Perverse because it strikes me as quasi-atheist. What is most notable about this sort of thing is the loss of the belief that it is what happens in the world to come that matters. The value of life in this world on this earth is at best a proving ground for one's faith. Traditionally, the value of action, pleasure and goods in this world pales in comparison to eternal life in the next.

If events of this world indicate what is to come in the next, then the theological statements appear to be subject to empirical investigation. Obviously I don't mean tests but rather using believers as a window and mirror into the world to come. Believers would then be the manifestation of God and and of His kingdom. Believers would be God's representatives in this world. What believers say about themselves and their God becomes the prima facie evidence of who and what God is. For the scripturally-way: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Given the general contempt Evangelicals show for any attempts at rationality and fairness in doctrinal matters, what can be the basis for appeals for conversion? Not appeals to the whore of reason, and not balanced argumentation, either. Ultimately, it's fear and appetites. Fear of hell, and well, maybe just fear. Fear of death, fear of hell, fear of despair, fear of uncertainty (=fear of deciding for oneself), and so on ad nauseum.

[The question for Evangelicals is which comes first: the fear or faith? Is faith in Jesus just a means of escaping from fear? Just whistling in the dark? Fear without an identifiable object and cause? And then the "discovery" that this object-less fear is really the fear induced by sin and caused by ignorance of God's saving grace. But then if the fear is first, isn't it possible that one's "faith" is really about using God? about subjecting God the whims of your own egotistical creature needs?]

Anyway... I digress. The Godmen. Manly Christians. Biblical Action Figures. A Jesus who kicks serious butt. Given the general lack of self-reflection for which Christians are well-known, slogans like "GodMen, When Faith Gets Dangerous" will almost certainly result in the creation of fear in non-Godmen being taken as proof positive of a Godman's faith and closeness to God and Jesus. Given America's long history of anti-intellectualism, Godmen won't have time for any pansy talk about the meaning of life, or debating whether Scripture is true. "These Christians are Real Men! And Real Men, I mean Godmen don't eat quiche."

To sum up. Godmen won't end well. If us non-Godmen are lucky, it will fizzle out with homosexual outings, scandals, and all sorts of gender-bending gymnastics. Men being men, if something is presented as beautiful, a not insignificant percentage will want to have sex with it.

If that last paragraph seems a little unfair, consider this: what sort of person will almost certainly be drawn to such a movement? A happy well-adjusted family man with a healthy social life? Or, someone who is unsure of just how masculine he really is because of troubling feelings, and is looking to resolve doubts about himself? I'd put my money on the latter.

Relativists for Christ

2007-07-16T18:43:00.000-06:00

The strongest objection to interpreting Kierkegaard's leap of faith as a manifestation of relativism comes from the simple fact that Christians express very strong preferences and articulate a powerful basis for those preferences.

Relativism can be many things, but I think for many Evangelicals it comes down to "everything is just as good (or as bad) as anything else." There is no justification external to an individual for preferring one thing, one set of beliefs, one religion, etc., over another.

One way of dealing with this perceived lack of values and bases for preferences is to latch on to one and hang on to it for dear life. The relativist, as I describe him, believes there is no basis to preferring one set of values over another. Consequently, for him, the choice is completely arbitrary.

I think the reason Evangelical Christianity has such a following is simply that it preaches that without God there is no alternative. Once one has achieved belief, then the demon of despair and of uncertainty is exorcised.

To make matters worse there is a perverse logic at work: the perceived lack of foundations without God becomes proof of the necessity of some kind of belief. The alternative to belief as taught by Evangelicals is nothingness, despair, and a plethora of choices.

For all the apparent absurdity and rape of reason that Evangelical theology appears to be, there is a clumsy sign language of experiences to be interpreted.

Addendum, or Relativists for Christ

2007-07-15T23:01:00.000-06:00

As I was getting ready for bed, it hit me. What kept bugging me about Kierkegaard and his leap of faith.

It's relativism, I tell you. Spurning reason(s) and rationality. Believing because you can. Believing and having "faith" because it makes you feel better. Not because of any shared experiences with other human beings, or because of how and what other people are, say, or do.

And if you believe because you want to. The only arbiter left to resolve conflict and differences between people is force. God is on the side of poll numbers.

I'll have to think this one through. But "relativists for Christ" captures something for me. Of course, a plausible definition of relativism would be helpful.

Kierkegaard or I've been rambling too much lately

2007-07-15T10:42:00.000-06:00

Every now and then, a Christian will say something that reveals far more than they could imagine. Over on Julia Sweeney's forum in a discussion generated by a believer sharing her conversion experience, she produces this gem to support her belief in the inerrancy of Scripture:

Ok, so you are choosing to believe these men, I choose another group of men, that I believe were divinely inspired.

The context for this can be found here.

I'll readily admit that if "Caira" were to be asked about this remark, she would qualify it, and maybe she would even take it back. Be that as it may, lightning has struck.

But what does this have to do with Kierkegaard?

Kierkegaard's provides our contemporary Evangelicals with a means of side-stepping rational argumentation about faith. His doctrine of "the leap of faith" provides a means of transforming mere "belief" of the Truth of Christianity into "faith" in God, in His Mercy, and the rest.

Because of this transformation, "faith" is something special for Kierkegaard and for Evangelicals, even if they never heard of him. Kierkegaard presented his "leap of faith" in "Fear and Trembling." He told and retold over and over the story of the Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. In the retellings, Kierkegaard tries to understand Abraham's attitudes, beliefs, and thinking.

Kierkegaard builds a wonderful edifice. Suffice it to say, he argues for a conception of faith that is more of a way of life, than it is a set of beliefs and convictions. Faith for Kierkegaard is more a way of seeing and apprehending the world, it is a way of being in the world.

His wonderful edifice is built on a foundation of sand. Never once. Not even as an irresponsible flight of fancy, does he consider the possibility that his beloved Abraham may very well never have existed. There is an even more troubling fact: of human experience: it is possible to imagine far more than what is real. That I can thinksomething in no way guarantees its reality. Or more cynically phrased, that I want something to be true, no matter how fervently and sincerely, in no way guarantees the fulfillment of my desire.

It is a bit of trickery on Kierkegaard's part to make the leap of faith primarily and even exclusively experiential. Faith is no longer subject to logic, rationality, or even of commonsense. Faith cannot be refuted as can mere belief and conviction. The faithful can stop up their ears because they experience "faith" daily. The feeling of superiority which cretins imagine to be integral to possession of truth abides.

I will give Kierkegaard one thing: his faith is not a conviction or belief in any creed. It is an amplification of the New Testament theme of "what must I do to be saved?" It is first and foremost individual and egotistical in the extreme. It is Protestant. I'd be surprised if Kierkegaard had much of a following in Roman Catholic theological circles. There's really no place in his theology for the Church to be God's emissary on earth.

Further, even more egotistical in Kierkegaard's theology, is that faith is its own end and justification. It is unclear to me whether faith is a means to God, or God is a means to faith, meaning a particular frame of mind of a particular individual.

Because faith is so important, and even if there is some super-special kind of faith that is beyond most so-called Christians, the question remains is faith the end and justification of theology and religion? One believes in God, Jesus, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Allah, et al. not for their sake, but for the sake of the believing. Faith is its own reward?

* * *

I got a little side-tracked. The weak foundation of Kierkegaard's leap of faith? He avoids questions. Maybe it's an anachronism to suppose, "But maybe Abraham didn't exist at all." Not believing that Abraham ever existed as portrayed in Genesis makes Fear and Trembling a very, very difficult book. If I acknowledge that he was writing theology and that the specific brand of theology that he was writing presupposed a real Abraham and the factual accuracy of the Bible, then a certain parochialism presents itself in his writings.

He avoids questions. The leap of faith looks too much like a desperate attempt to avoid a plague of doubts, questions and uncertainties. There maybe psychological insights in his writings, but when he discusses God, religion, Christianity, Abraham, and company, there is no psychology. He takes those concepts and ideas at face value. They are transparent.

For Kierkegaard when a person talks about Christianity, there is no psychology and no question of motivation. Consideration of such questions would lead to never ending uncertainty. On the other hand, his leap of faith certainly looks like an attempt to divine the motivations of a true Christian, but without considering whether such a creature is possible, let alone desirable.

It may very well be that living over a century and half after Kierkegaard, we are a bit wiser than in his day. Despair may be "the sickness unto death" but it only feels that way for a while. The horror of conceiving of a life without God and Jesus lies in the imagination. It's good for the soul, as it were, to live through a little period of nihilism and existential despair. It can be gotten over. And if not, then the problem is not theological, philosophical or existential.

* * *

Faith means never having to produce evidence. As long as one has faith, there is no need for mere evidence. Evidence is for the godless skeptics. Faith is the absence of evidence. Faith with evidence is not faith. Ergo, the less evidence the greater the faith. Just look at creationists.

It is Kierkegaard who is responsible for the Evangelical hocus-pocus of "faith" being more than mere belief and simple conviction. * * *

God exists only as long as we have no reason to doubt him. Playing make-believe that one has no doubts is not the same as having no reason to doubt.

Why do I say such things? I would like to believe that once upon a time it was possible to believe in God with self-deception, without hatred of those who think differently. Or using one's belief in God as a tool to self-induce feelings of superiority.

* * *

To go back to Caira's remark. She has her experts that she chooses to believe. Kierkegaard may not have intended his leap of faith to be a justification for a crass relativism: each person believing as they wish. Further, without reason's giving of justifications for belief, discussions of faith become assertions of power, control, and manipulation of one's listeners. Or rather, discussion ceases.

It also occurred to me just now that Kierkegaard may very well be the origin of this nonsense that ex-Christians were never "true Christians." It's very difficult to see how one of his knights of infinite resignation would decide one day to stop being a Christian. Presumably once one finds the way to authentic existence, it is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to give it up. The authentic life seems to be something about which one may not change one's mind.

A Thought Experiment Without A Conclusion

2007-07-14T04:34:00.000-06:00

Derrick Bell in Faces at the Bottom of The Well opened with a short story about aliens from space taking away all of the African-Americans. He was pessimistic about the reaction of white America, to say the least.

Analogously, let us ask ourselves, what would the Christians do, if all the abortionists, homosexuals, atheists, and all manner of publicly denounced sinners were to be spirited away. Imagine it as an inverse Rapture: only the Christians would be left to build their City of God.

How do you think they would get on?

A Christian Nation?

2007-07-14T04:10:00.000-06:00

I'll give the Conservative Christians their pet mantra: The United States of American was founded according to Christian principles as one nation under God.

However, it should also be admitted there were a variety of competing denominations, each mistrustful of what the others would do should they become the Official state-approved Christianity.

In the USA secularism results from Christian denominations competing with one another. They all want(ed) to be the Official Church, but the reality was that none of them could achieve supremacy.

When I covered the Federalist Papers and The Constitution in the US History class that I taught once upon at time, I summed up Federalist #10 this way: the cure for faction is more faction. Just for the record, when reading No. 10, substitute "special interest" and "lobbyists" for "faction."

I bring up No. 10 because in it Madison shows how plurality is the guarantee of freedom and constitutional stability. Any of the Protestant denominations unchecked by the others would give Calvin's Geneva a run for it's money. BUT sometimes they make common cause to achieve something some or even all value.

A less charitable rephrasing: separation of Church and State protects Christians from themselves. Once the machinery for maintenance of doctrinal purity is set in motion, it is very, very difficult to be gotten rid of. New heresies and new sinners can always be found. And besides, what would all those out work bureaucrats do? Payroll size and budgets are very much the measure of administrative ego and power.

More Childrearing Ramble, This Time About Music

2007-07-14T03:09:00.000-06:00

Music. I look for music that all of us can enjoy. I highly recommend all of the following:

1. John Lithgow, Singin' in the Bathtub

2. Maria Muldaur, Swingin' in the Rain

3. Sandra Boynton, Philadelphia Chickens

4. Sandra Boynton, Dog Train

5. Laurie Berkner.

John Lithgow was a particular surprise. He has started a second (or third?) career making children's music. Singin' in the Bathtub is a collection of covers and adaptations of songs from the 30's and 40's mostly. He sounds so classy. Big Mischief's favorite is The Codfish Ball and I like the Hippopotamus Song with its refrain of "Mud, mud, glorious mud/Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood/So follow me, follow/Down to the hollow/And there let us wallow in glorious mud." The inset for this CD says that these songs are meant for family sing-alongs.

Maria Muldaur is best known for Midnight at the Oasis. She has a couple CD's of music for children. Mostly she sings jazz or blue. Big Mischief particularly likes Three Little Fishes and If I Knew You Were Comin' I'd've Baked a Cake.

John Lithgow's site is here. The Sandra Boynton's CD's are done as faux musicals. Philadelphia Chickens is arranged as if it were the soundtrack to a major Broadway musical. Dog Train is styled like a rock musical. To my ear the songs on these CD's scream middle school talent show material. Sandra Boynton is adept at creating and producing music that celebrates childhood without at the same time being saccharine, insipid, or condescending. Her website is here.

Laurie Berkner shows up on one of the Nickelodeon channels on Cable. She seems to be better known for this reason. She also likes making intelligent and witty children's music.

That is hardly the extent of the Mischiefs' exposure to music. We listen to different things in the car. Paul Simon, Republica, REM, blues, old blues especially. My hope is that by exposure to variety and encouraging them to develop their own taste and preferences they won't have the patience to listen to a lot of the mindless twaddle that passes for music: it will be too boring.

I fully admit that I am deficient with respect to classical music. I don't know much about it. I don't dislike most of it. But there's so much that I like so much more. I recently came into something called Beethoven's Wig. I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet.

Big Mischief figures more prominently in a discussion of music because she is articulate enough to make her preferences known. Little Mischief seems willing enough to listen and dance to whatever is playing.

Childrearing -- One Unbeliever's Ramble

2007-07-13T08:51:00.000-06:00

About the time Big Mischief was born, I formulated three principles of childrearing:

1. I should teach my child how to take care of herself. This means I am more of a guide and coach. At best, I am merely a steward of her independence and her sexuality. She is dependent on me, but there is no reason to rub her face in that fact or to use it in attempts to control her.

2. I want her to want to spend time with her parents when she doesn't have to.

3. I want her to be someone that her mother and I will want to spend time with, when we don't have to.

Arguably these are more criteria than principles. Criteria are useful for decision. But they do provide a perspective and a reminder of how to deal with those two little half-civilized monkeys.

But, alas, as all things planned and foreseen, my three principles provide little guidance in specific situations. Bottle or breast? When should they begin the transition to real food? When should they find out where babies come from?

In in the end, it always comes back to the same things: Mom, childrearing books [note plural], and commonsense. My wife & I both like the "What to expect..." series. What sold us was a comment on Amazon: the authors explained everything in detail, both the good and the bad. The commentor complained that she worried because now she knew all of the bad things that could happen. My wife and I both prefer to know about the unlikely things that could happen. If one of the Mischiefs is running a high fever, I get out the books and read about fevers -- just in case there was something that I overlooked or forgot about. If in doubt we're off to the dr or the emergency room.

Dealing with a seriously ill child is probably the most nerve-wracking part of being a parent. There are no certainties at 2am. It's a more extreme case of everyday life. A person can only make decisions based on the information available to them. The hard thing to remember is that any decision can be second-guessed after the fact. Paralysis by doubt is always possible, "faith" or no "faith." One needs to engage one's doubts in conversation as it were. Doubt must produce its reasons, and if reasons are not forthcoming, then it is to be resisted until it produces its reasons. Or until it becomes apparent what is motivating the doubt: fear, anger, but usually it's fear of something.

* * *

Big Mischief and I made a deal once upon a time: "Try one bite, and I'll leave you alone about it." The result is that today she'll try just about anything. She's not afraid of new foods. Of course, there is a responsibility on my part to offer her things to try that I'm pretty sure that she'll like. No jalapeños, no hot sauce, and the like. Little Mischief is more resistant to trying new things. I'll have to check whether she tries something new only after her sister tries it. Does Little Mischief use her older sister as a food taster and poison detector?

As far as her reading goes. I think we've bought less than 10 books new for the Mischiefs. However, at yard sales and thrift stores, I always peruse the children's books looking for something new or unusual. The result is that now they have dozens and dozens of books of different stories, different illustration styles, and even some science for kids books.

The reason I have prattled on about this is to illustrate a strategy for nonbelievers of how to deal with religion in the Bible Belt. It is my hope that if the Mischiefs have the recurring experience of a discovering and encountering a variety of perspectives and new experiences, it will inoculate them against the original sin of religiosity: placing a high value on the opinions of people who agree with them.

My hope is that even if they go through a religious phase, it will get too boring PDQ. From what I've seen of Evangelicals, they are not the most health conscious in their diet and life-style choices. Did I mention that I can bribe her with brussel sprouts and broccoli? If her food preferences are any indication of what's to come, she'll avoid gatherings of Evangelicals just because of the food.

Being a nonbeliever, the question of childrearing is how can parents significantly increase the likelihood of healthy skepticism in their children? Part of the answer has to be variety: variety in diet, variety in reading, and exposure to variety. With exposure to variety, the child has to be encouraged to make its own mind about its preferences. I am no partisan of relativism, meaning that stupidity of refusing to acknowledge one's own preferences.

The last more or less random thought about childrearing is that children present a caricature of their parents. Children are not as sophisticated or experienced as their parents. Consequently, they are not very good at imitation, and they don't know which behaviors and traits they should copy from their parents. To the extent that parents value reason, rationality, kindness, and things of the spirits (as my German friends might say), the greater the likelihood that their children will also.

Thinking of The Children

2007-07-10T09:11:00.000-06:00

Or rather my children: Big Mischief and Little Mischief. Big Mischief is almost 5 and Little Mischief just had her 3rd birthday.

Big Mischief learned to read several months ago. Now she's occasionally has a go at books for 3rd graders [that's 8 or 9 years old for my European readers]. Big Mischief is also well on her way to learning addition and subtraction and has a hazy idea of multiplication. She also has dance lessons once a week. Big Mischief likes to do her "homework" now that my wife and I are enrolled in degree programs. She also has a sense of responsibility and likes to help around the house. I fear her greatest danger in school will be boredom. Oh and I almost forgot: Big Mischief is learning to add, subtract the same way I did: keeping her own score at rummy.

Little Mischief is also known as Big Mischief in a Little Package. She occasionally torments and terrorizes her older sister who is almost twice her weight. And she'll do it with a sweet, sweet smile on her face. Little Mischief also likes her books. She's learned a few of her letters and numbers. For the longest time, my wife & I were mildly concerned that Little Mischief seemed to have no appreciable sense of fear. That girl was completely unafraid of dogs, insects, strangers, getting hurt, or of just about anything else. Then one day when she was about 2-1/2 there was a thunderstorm and the thunder frightened her terribly.

Little Mischief has shown great courage in the swimming pool: she'll float around and splash around in the big pool with just a kiddie flotation ring. She was terrified because her feet couldn't touch bottom. It only took a little doing and after a couple of times in the big pool, she would cry when it was time to get out. Little Mischief has also started dance lessons this summer. But she's flightier and much more impulsive than her sister. However, when something catches her attention she's all over it and for as long as it takes. I've seen her sit playing Pretend with her dolls for what seemed like all day. Little Mischief also likes to go around saying, "I'm a hungry tiger, rooooaaaar," or "I'm a frog, ribbit, ribbitt, ribbitt," and the like.

Momma Mischief is from the Former Soviet Bloc. But as I tried to explain to her before we moved back closer to home, she's far more Western than most people around here. She works as an administrator at a local college. I think she's more hardcore atheist than I am. She reads more literature than I do. And I generally read more social science than she does. Last Spring we had to send the Mischiefs to preschool for two days a week. Apparently, they taught the kids various songs or maybe they prayed before lunch. One day Little Mischief started singing/reciting, "God is good, God is Great" over and over and over. Momma Mischief ended up in tears over it. I persuaded her to let it go. We compromised. She told her sister that it's a big secret that God is pretend, but not everybody knows this. And the attitude and occasional discussions/arguments(?) between Little Mischief and Big Mischief led to the gradual disappearance of Little Mischief's God talk.

So does this mean an end to weighty philosophical posts? Hardly. Partly it was Possum Momma aka Atheist in a van but mostly the problems, joys, etc. of being a nonbeliever in the Bible Belt raising two precocious children. How best to raise them and how to deal with religion are problems my wife & I frequently discuss. It's also one of those things that I think a lot about. In order to expand my range of topics, introductions seemed to be in order.

Addendum to "A response to patrickimo's comment"

2007-07-09T08:27:00.000-06:00

It occurred to me that quite possibly a great deal of Christianity's supposedly 'great profundity' may simply arise out of its spurning of reason and rationality. Christianity teaches that reason, thought,and intellect are not enough to come to terms with one's existence. Freud, incidentally, had a wonderfully: applicable metaphor: merely telling someone the answers, e.g., giving a patient his diagnosis without psycho-analysis, is like giving a starving man a menu. Reason and intellect are one thing, the experience of transformation and redemption are something else.

Accordingly, Kierkegaard was right to insist rather loudly on the experiential core of Christianity. However, that hardly means that Christianity is the only possible way of experiencing transformation and redemption. Or even that Christianity is integral to the discovery of one's own subjectivity -- to speak bad Kierkegaardian.

As would seem from the examples Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, present, that Christianity's transformation and redemption can be easily twisted into an impediment to redemption and transformation. In spite of all the counter-examples from doctrine and history that can be produced, Christianity's primal emphasis on belief and conviction remains. Believing Christians are told first to believe then to understand. And since very few if any understand, they all look to each other to see what they should do. Nietzsche called it the "herd instinct" and today it is popularly called "conformity."

Principled conformity, also known as Christian conviction and Christian "faith," means that it is Verboten to think and reckon for oneself according to one's own lights and knowledge. Christians have enough historical experience to realize that once one begins evaluating and interpreting Scripture according to what one knows, it is only a matter of time before such a "believer" realizes that Christianity refutes itself.

A response to patrickimo's comment

2007-07-07T16:29:00.000-06:00

Patrickimo left a comment to an old post, Acknowledging the Absurdity of Religion. His comment in full:

From my reading of Dawkins, it would seem that he agrees with your statement that only ridicule can effectively deal with something as nonsensical as religion. I'm not sure that I agree with such a strategy. If we were all rational, and we all understood the rational arguments against religion, then it seems to me that religion would be quickly relegated to the outer fringes of society. Yet, it thrives. I'm thinking that perhaps we're not putting as much stock in rationality as we should be, and that's a big part of the problem. Would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

It was a pleasant surprise to receive such a thoughtful and on point comment to a post. I perused and skimmed some of his blog. I don't really have anything to report as of yet. I'll go back and read some more over the next few days.

The contingency of reason and rationality is a fact that most of us living in the 21st Century live with. What do I mean by the "contingency of reason and rationality"? The results produced by reason and rationality are dependent on presuppositions, unspoken feelings and beliefs inherited from one's parents, and are most generally dependent upon a person's place and history in the world. The practical upshot for someone who values reason and rationality [incidentally, I am one of these, since I fancy myself clever and all.] is that reason itself cannot guarantee the truth or falsity of any starting point to rational deliberation.

The truth or falsity of starting points for reason and rationality can only be found out through empirical investigation. Empirical here is taken in a broad sense of verifiable. Or alternatively, there are questions that you answer by going out into the world. Then there are questions which cannot be answered by any kind of empirical investigation: how much does a soul weigh?

How much does a soul weigh? Have you stopped beating your wife, yet? It's easy enough to come up with other examples. There are a large class of propositions and ideas which are neither true nor false because they are nonsensical. Souls are not physical entities and since weight is a property of physical entities, it is nonsensical to ask for the weight of a soul. This doesn't mean that souls don't exist. Songs aren't usually thought of as having weight either, and no one makes bones about their existence.

I digressed slightly. Christians try to evade the problem of the (non)verifiability of starting points by claiming revelation. God gave them the right answers. Revelation is not a rational process or experience. Consequently, any believer will attribute blindness to overly rational reason-loving atheists who use rational argumentation against their flavor of Christianity.

The fall back position of all Christians is God's self-disclosure to Humanity. It is important to understand that this self-disclosure is non-rational and completely experiential for human beings. The Christians who claim to be able to prove God's existence or the truth of Scripture aren't persuading anybody except themselves and their wives/mistresses/girlfriends. Firmness of conviction of the Truth of Jesus' Resurrection does not come through strength of reason, but through the strength of habit.

Consequently, even the strictest and most rigorous evisceration of Christian Conviction by and through reason and rationality will only make an impression to the extent that The Religious Conviction is made to look irrational, wacky, insane, primitive, and the like.

As a social matter, it is well-known that many otherwise reasonable people strongly associate regular church attendance with respectability. If being a Christian were to take on connotations of silliness, church attendance would begin to decline.

In line with that thought, consider an aphorism from Nietzsche: "Every so often someone comes along who is convinced his reason is strong enough to refute once and for all the doctrine of the immortality of the soul." [from memory and I think it is from The Gay Science. The point being that Christianity and its web of lies, deceptions, half-truths, and craven absurdities has been refuted, debunked, and shown to be false in all essential particulars many times over. The hypocrisy intrinsic to Christianity and organized religion can be found in Chaucer and later writers.

That some people -- Christians for example -- insist on playing their game of make-believe in spite of all truth and reason strongly suggests that neither truth nor reason are essential to human survival. Further, the existence of Christians is strong empirical evidence that human beings have no innate drive for truth, logic, reason, or even mental health. Stupidity is immune to correction by appeals to experience and to reason.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness. 1 Corinthians 1:23 . And who are the Greeks? Lovers of reason, rationality, and generally anyone who thinks the world around them is worthy of investigation and is amenable to human understanding. In other words, Evangelicals in particular are proud of their hatred of reason. One does not reason one's way into Heaven.

Anyway, short of extermination -- which would be bad idea for lots of reasons, all that is left is to make fun at the expense of the fools. I recall reading once that seriousness and an inability/unwillingness to laugh is symptomatic of some forms of mental illness. Or considered socially and politically: If laughter at something is forbidden, rational inquiry "uninformed" by revelation is also forbidden. So, by all means never let up with reason and rationality, but don't expect them to be particularly effective in most cases. After all, we don't understand some things the "right" way. But laughter, laughter almost always hits a nerve.

Why don't believers talk about these kinds of religious experiences?

2007-07-07T12:22:00.000-06:00

This IRC transcript was too good not to share. It was copied & pasted from here.

#779288 +(1018)- [X]

[TRG] so, my mom was putting in her CD with church pics but it wouldn't work on her computer
[TRG] so she put it in mine
[TRG] now, the last thing I watched on windows media player was hardcore lesbian porn
[TRG] that got into the action right away
[TRG] so my mom puts in the cd into my computer
[TRG] opens up windows media players
[TRG] and the porn starts playing
[TRG] and when I realized what was happening I was like "oh fuck"
[TRG] but then...
[TRG] she goes berserk
[TRG] she was screaming "THIS CD HAS BEEN POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL!!"
[TRG] and she took out a HAMMER
[TRG] and smashed the fucking CD
[TRG] it was the best thing ever
[TRG] not only was I completely off the hook
[TRG] you have to love the awesome displays of religious apeshit
[TRG] I think if god existed, he put people like my mom on this earth to entertain us

* * *

When Christians talk about their experiences of the divine, what's the devil doing? Why aren't there more religious experiences of evil, meaning of SATAN???? Christians claim to directly experience the personhood of God, but Satan has to work through hints and misdirection? It just doesn't seem fair somehow.

A Parable for Creationists

2007-07-05T08:37:00.000-06:00

In the land of Nod, there is a religion called Oddism. One of the principal tenets of Oddism is that there is a multiple of 2 that is odd and this multiple of two is in fact not perfectly & evenly divisible by 2. Arithmeticians are known for their lack of belief in Oddism. In fact, Arithmeticians impute to Oddists a fanatical and irrational hatred of arithmetical reasoning. The Oddists in turn impute fanaticism and irrational belief to the Arithmeticians because of the Arithmeticians' consistent refusal to consider Oddist Arithmetic to be as equally arithmetic as the Arithmetic of the Arithmeticians.

In case you're wondering, Oddists argue that since the set of whole numbers is unbounded (= not finite = infinite), no one can examine all possible numbers. Since there will always be numbers unexamined, the possibility always remains that one of these unexamined numbers is a multiple of two that is odd and thus not divisible by 2 without remainder. The consistent refusal of Arithmeticians to admit to the possibility of an odd, whole number multiple of 2 that is also divisible without remainder by 2 is PROOF POSITIVE of how close-minded Arithmeticians really are in spite of all protestations to the contrary.

Making Sense of Religion

2007-07-02T20:51:00.000-06:00

The question atheists and nonbelievers should ask of religion is not is religion false (or true) or irrational or a crime against humanity. Rather questions should be posed that seek to understand religion in spite of its obvious irrationality, stupidity, and hatred of individual autonomy.

What is religion good for, even if it is not good for anyone who values the ability to make their own decisions without heavy-handed guidance? What needs to be true about the world in order for religion to be good for human beings? That strikes me as a far more useful inquiry. That the answers are something no religious person would look kindly upon is something else entirely.

What morality does religion most generally inculcate by example? The answer is obedience. This also explains why religions hate reason and fear the use of unfettered reason. Unfettered reason is, of course, reason "unenlightened" by the teachings of the local religion. Hence the absurdity of religious doctrine. Obedience and sacrifice: the more absurd and even bizarre a Christian's belief, the greater the proof of his proficiency in obedience. This is why Christians are so heavy-handed in their interpretations of Scripture.

The lack of good sense, restraint, rationality, and lack of any credible evidence is hardly an objection to a good Christian. In the bizarro world of Christian fundamentalists obedience is all. A Good Christian need only obey the Idea and The Desire for Christianity to be True.

The God of the Christians is not The God of Love, but the God of Obedience. Christians worship obedience.

Oh, and for the oft criticized God of the Old Testament who was full of anger and vengeance? If as a thought experiment, the (ethnic) group to which a person belongs is completely determinative of what a person is morally, religiously, and spiritually, then the Old Testament makes perfect sense. One member of the tribe sins against God, then the whole tribe sins against God. If one human being disobeys God, then all human beings disobey God. Once any concept of individuality that we today might recognize is treated as aberrant and marginal at best, then the Old Testament God and the various seemingly irrational doctrines of Christianity don't appear so irrational or insanely cruel.

To sum up:

Religion = obedience as highest virtue + elevation of group membership over individual identity. With this formula, the absurdities of religion are no longer absurd, just abhorrent.

An Evolution-Related Challenge

2007-07-01T09:59:00.000-06:00

Many Young Earth creationists believe that methods used to date fossils and rock strata that rely on the decay of radioactive isotopes do not give reliable results.

In my limited understanding creationist thought, this would seem to pose some very serious problems for modern technology. If the physics on which the use of radio-isotopes to date fossils and geological strata is "wrong," to use common parlance, then how do the myriads of devices that rely on this erroneous theory work?

The challenge to Young Earth Creationists: if radio-isotope dating is based on erroneous physics, THEN how are MRI's, smoke detectors, lasers, quantum computing, and the like to be explained?

For any of my readers who are familiar with the relevant physics, what would have to be different about the world for the results from radio-isotope dating to be not only wrong but more or less consistent with a 10,000(+/-) year old earth? Think of it as speculative fiction.

As for the Creationists who believe that God created the earth with dinosaur bones in place, do you really want to portray your God as a Deceiver and first runner-up for the title of Prince of Lies?

Addendum to Tuesday's Post, or Scrutinizing Certain Creationist Objections to Evolution

2007-06-29T22:06:00.000-06:00

If being a Christian is without worldly significance and "the world knew him not" (John 1:10), then what are Christians doing and not what do they say that they are doing?

Many young earth creationists object to evolution because evolution destroys the distinction between human and animal. And because the distinction between the higher and the lower, the more godlike and the less godlike is obscured, if not obliterated in evolution, evolution therefore demeans and insults humanity. Evolution is an insult. [See South Park, Season 10, episode #12, Go God Go, in particular Ms. Garrison's rant against Dawkins. Or for a "serious" example see: Tool-Using Animals on the Creation Moments website. ]

What is the necessary but unexamined premise? Christianity teaches that value is relative: humanity's value rests on it being "better" than something else. A Christian can only imagine the assertion of his self worth as requiring the denigration of some "other." In the case of humanity, this means humanity does not have value in itself, contrary to all protestations of Christians. Humanity's value derives from the fact that something else lacks value, in this case that means the so-called animal world.

Is it possible that this is an anomaly of creationism and evolution? Could I have overstated my conclusions in my other postings? There is another case to consider.

It is one of the peculiarities of Evangelical Christianity that it needs homosexuals, abortionists, and all manner of immoral persons. In making homosexuality, in particular, and opposition to same-sex unions essential to Evangelical Christianity, the question arises: perhaps "being a Christian" means in large measure not-gay.

If there is a challenge that atheists, agnostics, and sundry nonbelievers should pose to Christians it is this: is being a Christian anything other than the negation and opposition to something else? Does Christianity lack actual positive ethical content? If as I have suggested on numerous occasions, Christianity and religion in general is first and foremost a vehicle for inculcating obedience, then Christianity hardly requires any positive non-negating elements.

To return to the question that I posed. Nietzsche had a word for the spiritual framework that I described above: ressentiment. He also came to the conclusion that Christianity is the most subtle flowering of this need for an "evil other" to experience oneself as good.

I was tagged

2007-06-28T09:28:00.000-06:00

I was tagged by Mojoey with the latest meme to make the rounds. Mojoey apologized in advance for tagging, but it appears that it may be some sort of initiation ritual for getting the atheist blog roll. Ok, I'll play.

First I'm supposed to post the rules: I lifted this formulation of the rules from Atheist Perspective. - We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.

- Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.

- People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.

- At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.

- Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

Here are my 8 random facts about myself:

1. I instinctively mistrust anyone, any doctrine, any teaching, and really anything that does not recognize the ubiquity of irony in human life. And this goes for this meme silliness. Sure there can a meme about X, but there is nothing about memes or X, that precludes any given use of that meme. An example, in the 1960's it would have been unthinkable for Corporate American to use protest songs to sell their goods and services. Human beings use language for their own nefarious purposes, consequently, a meme is at best a symbol. And like any symbol it has a history of meanings. During that history it can be used to express purposes and meanings that are at odd with its original purposes.

Memes strike me as just more ahistorical philosophical tomfoolery. Linguistic voodoo. Astrology for linguists.

2. Anyone who has struggled their way through Nietzsche will feel right at home in my blog. Nietzsche played a critical role in my "loss of faith" or alternatively phrased, "discovery of autonomy." I am not an atheist because Christianity is irrational, dogmatic, self-contradictory, etc. Ask my wife, I too am often irrational, self-contradictory, and dogmatic. We all have personality flaws. BUT I am an atheist because of the ethics of blind obedience justified by systematizing and reading irrationality, dogmatism, and self-contradiction into the fabric of existence. Humor and the possibilities of humor need to be taken far more seriously by nonbelievers and believers alike.

3. I am a prolix writer.

4. I have some sort of arthritis in my feet. It's rather painful to walk very far. The pain is chronic and at times rather severe. The dr's and I are working on figuring it out. It may be from micro-fractures from when I was doing karate.

5. I've worked out a deal with my older daughter (almost 5) and I'm trying to get my younger daughter (3 yrs old) to buy into it. When trying a new food, I say to my girls, "Try one bite and I'll leave you alone." Of course, the obligation on me is to mostly offer them things that they will probably like and resist the malicious temptation of jalapeños. The result is that my daughters will try anything at least once and has been pleasantly surprised more than once.

6. I speak fluent Polish and passable German. I used to speak both much, much better. But here in Arkansas there's little opportunity to practice either.

7. I am a firm believer of "never memorize what you can look up." Why? If it's important, you should look it up. Memory can play tricks. If it's not important, then you probably don't need to waste time memorizing something trivial. And more likely than not, you won't know beforehand what will be important and what won't. If you find yourself looking something up over and over, then you'll remember it from the repetition. I learned two foreign languages well this way and part of a third (Russian).

8. Using a pseudonym is fun.

Eight Blogs. Hmmmm. How perverse. There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules against tagging a blogger who's already been tagged. This nicely illustrates that something unspoken remains with a meme as it it had a tail. Can a meme already encode how it's supposed to be used?

Eight Blogs:

1. Mojoey [note to Mojoey: No need for an apology-- ;) ]

2. Neil Cowburn

3. Jeff Pulver

4. David Airey

5. Atheist Hussy

6. Mom to the Left

7. Blessed with Olive Plants

8. Wholly Devoted

Addendum to Yesterday's Post, or Why Religion-Based Politics must end as a Politics of Exclusion and Hate

2007-06-26T14:25:00.000-06:00

When I'm thinking through a new thought as I write it, I do not proceed in a straight line. I wander about, I backtrack, I repeat myself. I never know what new thought might mean until I've worried it almost to death.

Thinking further about yesterday's post, I feel drawn to make the following argument: if A (=true Christian) is indistinguishable from B (=false prophet/Christian), then there is no difference. In order to be different there must be at least one quality or property which A and B do not share. If the difference in their qualities and properties is because what distinguishes A from B is a spiritual quality, or event that is not of this world, but of another, then for all of the purposes and laws of this world, the physical world, A and B are indistinguishable.

Any differences between A and B are without effect in this world. Considered in this light, the belief of some sects in the reality of miracles becomes understandable, even a necessity. Because without miracles, the world to come, the world in which Heaven, Hell, and the Last Judgment are to be found, have no effect on anything in this world. Spiritual matters would be about what would come after death. Religious and spiritual matters would then be subject to the laws, powers, and forces of this world.

The reason that there is no difference between a false Christian and a true Christian for matters concerning this world, is that the difference between the false Christian and the true Christian is located in the other world which is non-physical meaning without physical effect either in action, belief, or language. The difference between a true Christian and a false Christian is otherworldly. This means that there is no basis for using Christianity as a basis for politics. What Christians would have in common in this world, is simply that they call themselves Christian. Because their putative common ground is a name, anyone who does not share that name is excluded. This means that all attempts to use Christianity for political organizing will end in a politics of exclusion: they need non-Christians.

Why do else Evangelicals make such a fuss about about homosexuality and sexual issues, generally? If they did not have homosexuals to use to remind themselves to maintain a semblance of discipline and identity for themselves, they would disappear. Consequently, even if all the homosexuals disappeared tomorrow, these Christian-political groups would be forced to select another group for exclusion, just to maintain group cohesion. That group could be agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, sufferers of gingervitus (see South Park, Season 9, episode 11), or Methodists. The machinery of hatred will always require new targets for its venom.

Further, in case it is not clear, all politics of exclusion, are politics of hatred. This is true no matter how much talk there may be of a God of Love or of "loving the sinner and hating the sin." This is particularly true when the sinner is loathe to stop sinning, and the believer's knowledge of sin is largely based on knowledge of sin from another world.

To state what should be somewhat obvious: Religious groups organized for Politics are hate groups. A Likely Objection: The Incarnation.

The Incarnation in most flavors of Christianity is the doctrine of God becoming human. And more specifically, it refers to the doctrine that Jesus was the 2nd person of the Trinity and most importantly for my purposes that he was both fully human and fully God. The significance of the Incarnation then becomes that the other world, the spiritual world, entered into this world. Jesus performed miracles. And conferred on his followers the power to perform miracles.

My argument is not about the truth or falsity of religious doctrine. It is drawn out reflections on the impossibility of distinguishing True Christians from False Christians. If spiritual matters are as important as many Evangelicals teach, then this too is at least as important and serious.

I'm starting another blog

2007-06-25T06:26:00.000-06:00

It's called Christian Follies. At the moment I haven't posted anything just yet other than a paragraph for "About this blog," explaining the scope and purpose of the blog.

The blog is to be a collection of news stories about the misdeeds of Christians: financial, sexual, and fraud. Those seem to be the three most common categories.

The purpose of the blog as I state over there is to provide empirical proof that belief in God and declarations of one's special relationship to Jesus in no way provide any guarantee of moral behavior or of any kind of transformational or redemptive experience.

A first thought: granting for sake of argument that 1) that Christianity is true [can be any flavor that preaches the transformational and redemptive power of encounters with the Risen Christ] and 2) that True Christians are out there in the world. How is anyone, Christian or heathen, to know whether any given individual is a True Christian?

And lest anyone think false Christians are creatures of overheated atheist brains:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:29-30

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. I Peter 2:1-2

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24 These were only the passages that came to mind. There is also the theological conundrum of faith and works. A sinner may be redeemed, but even from the beginning in the Apostle Paul there is an explicit recognition that being a Christian is no guarantee of sanctity or of moral, ethical, or upstanding behavior. Even after redemption, Christians will still sin, sometimes grievously.

I'm sure there are other relevant passages and controversies. The question remains: how is anyone, Christian or otherwise to spot one of these false prophets and wolves among the faithful before their mayhem is found out. Quoting Matthew 7:16 is of little help. Ye shall know them by their fruits? I doubt that anyone needs a Holy Scripture to figure out something is wrong after the fact. How does one tell the difference between a false prophet and True Christian who has slipped up? Given the Apostle Paul's thorn in the flesh, if were to judge by their fruits, could anybody be saved?

For any religious-minded readers, consider whether you would let your children have contact with a child molester who had found Jesus and otherwise gave good evidence in his life that he had undergone a profound redemptive and transformational experience. The short answer is probably not. And it's perfectly understandable, even to this godless atheist. But why?

Even if Christianity is true, and True Christians are purchased from sin, and all will be well with the True Christians in the life to come, professions of faith or of a special relationship with Jesus as one's Lord and Master, provides no guidance with evaluating and judging the morality and suitability of behavior in this life in this world.

The question I seem to be stumbling towards is what significance for ethical and moral behavior does a profession of submission to Jesus as one's Lord, Savior, and Master have for life in this world? This is not a question of being sure of one's own salvation, but of whether professions of other people of their submission to Jesus as one's Lord, Savior, and Master is any kind of guarantee or indicator of moral, ethical, or upstanding behavior. Whether one is a Christian in the narrowest and strictest sense imaginable, or a godless atheist, the answer to this question has to be the same.

This is not to say that Christianity and Christian organizations, such as churches, do not create special opportunities and even special varieties of immoral acts such as fraud, deception, or my own favorite: simony.

What this means as a practical matter is that one's Redemption is a spiritual event. As a spiritual event it is without effect in the physical world, in this world. The spiritual events of Christianity are without effect in this world. Christian leaders are no more honest, moral, or ethical than anyone else. Consequently, "Christian Politics" is a misnomer.

To claim that belief in God or faith in one's relationship with Jesus the Christ as one's Lord, Savior, and Master results in moral, ethical, or upstanding behavior is to lie. The spiritual claims of Christians, then, provide no guidance in political behavior.

Further, because those claims are lies, this makes membership in any organization that espouses such claims immoral and in Christian-speak, sinful.

Blog Rating -- Updated

2007-06-23T06:51:00.000-06:00

Mingle² - Online Dating

That is some better. But now, the R-rating just seems so artificial and contrived. Puerile even.

Blog Rating

2007-06-23T06:33:00.000-06:00

Mingle² - Online Dating

Well, that's disappointing. I guess it's because I don't use words and phrases like fuck, shit, stupid fucking twat, or my personal favorites: "I don't give a flying fuck what you think" and "Jesus fucking Christ." I bet my rating goes up now.

A Theory of Consciousness in Rough Form

2007-06-22T09:03:00.000-06:00

I'd like to take a stab at a non-supernatural theory of consciousness. Consciousness is a simulation. And more exactly the simulation is of social relations, i.e., interactions and possible interactions with other human beings. In other words, consciousness is first a social phenomenon, and second about the physical world.

If nothing else, such an understanding of consciousness explains perceptual illusions. It also explains something Dawkins pointed out as the basis of religion: the tendency of human beings to impute agency to non-social physical events. Why? Consciousness was originally to enable ever closer, more effective social cooperation and organization. As prey species, hominids without the specialized advantages of other animals would need to be able to use the very important resource of other members of the troop.

Accordingly, the connections between consciousness and the physical world, i.e., tools and nature, while important, is secondary.

I suggest also that consciousness as simulation explains why there is the counter-factual subjunctive in language.

There is also a philosophical nicety about it: it sidesteps the metaphysical entrapments of posing the duality of a physical world and of a spiritual/psychic world.

[My three-year old had suddenly decided that she has been ignored long enough and I can't finish now.]

The Death of God (Pt. IV), or Atheists, Believers, and Truth

2007-06-20T12:30:00.000-06:00

This post has been motivated and inspired by a thread on Julia Sweeney's Forum, Fresh Fish Bait. It's a discussion of some blog postings by Stanley Fish over at the NY Times. I'd link to it but it's subscription only. I have my own reading of what Fish is up to, again, you can my posts in that thread easily enough.

That thread and another one, Really good stuff (trust me) from P Z Myers, got me to thinking about the arguments that some, but not all, atheists make against religion.

I'll declare my biases up front: I think scrupulousness in matters of truth and religion leads pretty quickly to some form of disbelief: atheism, agnosticism, or something similar. I have hunch that former Christians, in particular, place a great deal of value on Truth and truthfulness. I say hunch because I haven't done or read any studies of why former Christians are no longer Christians. I generalize from my case and from what I've read in various discussion groups, especially over at exchristian.net.

There is a difference between how many atheists, agnostics, and exchristians treat the Truth and how believers of all kinds treat the Truth. For believers Truth is a means to an end. A Christian values Truth for what he believes the Truth will bring him: eternal life, Escape from Hell, etc. Truth has an instrumental value. Eternal Life, Escape From Hell, feelings of blessedness, or feeling the indwelling presence of The Holy Ghost, all these are benefits of seeking and finding the Truth.

The greater the benefits of having the Truth, the greater the value of Truth. However, if Truth in all of its manifestations is a means to God, Eternal Happiness, then one needs to take care that what is declared "Truth" really is Truth. Error leads to damnation and separation from God and Eternal Light.

But with Truth having an instrumental value, consideration of the possibility that there will be occasions when Truth conflict with its putative end of Eternal Happiness. In an age with a robust faith and a more meager experience of philosophy and logic, it is possible to believe honestly and with integrity that honest and rational inquiry will lead to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Or at least at a bare minimum indicate clearly the need for such a deity.

But once it is no longer possible to honor Truth and honor God in the same breath for the same reasons by the same means, God is dead. Or rather, one faces a terrible dilemma: either God, or Truth.

As I said to someone once, "Nietzsche's critique of Christianity is straightforward: he was too honest to be a Christian."

A Quotation for the "Death of God" Posts

2007-06-18T07:52:00.000-06:00

I've been working my way through A History of Political Theory, Third Edition, by George H. Sabine.

The value of this book is in its breadth, its overview of the history Western Political Theory, and the pointers to further reading. I freely admit that it is often a tertiary source, but it was a mild surprise to read the following:

It was the essence of Thomas's philosophy that it essayed a universal synthesis, an all-embracing system., the keynote of which was harmony and consilience. God and nature are large enough and opulent enough to afford a niche for all the endless diversity that makes up finite existence. The whole of human knowledge forms a single piece. Broadest in extent but least highly are the particular sciences each of which its special subject-matter; above these is philosophy, a rational discipline which seeks to formulate the universal principles of all the sciences; above reason and depending upon divine revelation is Christian theology, the consummation of the whole system. But though revelation is above reason, it is in no way contrary reason; theology completes the system of which science and philosophy form the beginning, but never destroys its continuity. Faith is the fulfillment of reason. Together they build the temple of knowledge but nowhere do they conflict or work at cross purposes.

The picture which Thomas drew of nature conformed exactly to his plan of knowledge. The universe forms a hierarchy reaching from God at the its summit down to the lowest being. Every being acts under the internal urge of its own nature, seeking the good or form of perfection natural to its kind, and finding its place in the ascending order according to its degree of perfection. The higher in all cases rules over and makes use of the lower, as God rules over the world or the sou over the body. No matter how lowly it may be no being is wholly lacking in value, for it has its station, its duties and its rights, which it contributes to the perfection of the whole. The essence of the scheme is purpose, subordination to an end. In such a structure human nature has a unique place among created beings, since man possesses not only a bodily nature, but also a rational and spiritual soul by virtue of which he is akin to God. He alone of all beings is at once body and soul, and on this fundamental facts rest the institutions and the laws by which his life is directed. (emphasis added) [George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Third Edition, pp. 248-49].

An Addendum to "The Death of God, Pt. II"

2007-06-16T19:53:00.000-06:00

I would like first to make a minor addendum to Part II of "The Death of God" posts.

I rather doubt that there was ever any Christian who ever embodied one or the other of the idealized strains of Christianity that I discussed in that blog entry.

It is essential to note that the particular conception of God which would reconcile those two strains of religious feeling is neither believable nor workable.

It was once believed that once one began asking questions, the answers one found would lead to a knowledge of God and at least of the need for salvation. Once theologians began posing ever more difficult objections to theological doctrines, it was only a matter of time before some clever fellow posed objections to theological doctrine that could not be overcome by unaided human reason.

Consequently, these two strains of Christianity are no longer reconcilable. The strain of Christianity that worshiped God as Reason and Rationality gave up on its Creator-God. As perverse as it might sound to some ears, a good deal of atheism has its roots in religion. One, and by no means the only, example is what I have termed not without irony elsewhere in this blog an "honest Christian." An honest Christian quickly finds that he is too honest to remain a Christian. However, his faith in the value of honesty, reason, and rationality, remain largely unshaken.

Such a one still values truth more highly than error and deception. In that regard someone who is too honest to remain a Christian shares a great deal of common ground with his Christian nemeses: they both place a great value on truth and both claim to despise self-deception. The significant difference between the two lies in differences of belief as to the content of that Truth and as to what constitutes self-deception.

A hard question for atheists, myself included: why should questions of truth and self-deception be so very important? Why does honesty matter? These questions by no means lead automatically to the conclusion: "Therefore, I should lie."

A Slight Improvement in my Evil/Good rating

2007-06-13T21:35:00.000-06:00

Compare this with my previous rating: Why isn't my blog more evil? from March 20th of this year.

what kind of accent do I have?

2007-06-13T15:57:00.001-06:00

A little time out from the existential wackiness that is this blog.

What American accent do you have? (Best version so far)

Midland

("Midland" is not necessarily the same thing as "Midwest") The default, lowest-common-denominator American accent that newscasters try to imitate. Since it's a neutral accent, just because you have a Midland accent doesn't mean you're from the Midland.

Click Here to Take This Quiz
Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.

A Comment to a Comment

2007-06-13T08:22:00.000-06:00

Yesterday someone posted anonymously a link to Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God" Forum . There was no explanatory text. Just a link to her "Letting Go of God" Forum. Since the captcha feature for posting comments is enabled, this post was not an accident.

At first, I thought it might have been a link to a specific posting someone made about this blog on her forum, but once I followed the link, it was not to be. The link was only to the highest level of the "Letting God of God" forum discussion.

Before my bout of walking pneumonia, I posted regularly to her forum. I've also indicated as much in this blog. I've even (re-)posted some of my more clever remarks there in this blog.

If this anonymous posted wished to inform me of the existence of Julia Sweeney's Forum, then "thanks." If this poster meant something else, an explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Since the comment had no meaningful content other than a link to a site with which the readers of this blog (all ten or twelve of them) would already be familiar, I didn't "clear" it for publication.

A Subtle Temptation

2007-06-08T22:11:00.001-06:00

Christianity as a religion that extols suffering provides a subtle trap for its former adherents. In treating the Crucifixion as the most significant event in the history of humankind, an unspoken but nonetheless seductive temptation to unthinkingly treat ugliness, and pain as being intrinsically more profound than any joy, beauty, or pleasure could ever possibly be.

Which is more indicative of the overall character of existence: beauty or ugliness? Christianity teaches that pain, humiliation, and ignoble death are characteristic of this world and any pleasures and beauty that may be experienced in this world is fleeting and inconsequential, given the awful infinity of eternity. Redemption, beauty, and joy come afterward. They are obtainable only because of pain, ugliness, and humiliation. One of the vestiges of this christianized way of thinking and judging is to feel (intuitively, of course) that (somehow) discussions of unhappiness, ugliness, and feelings of displeasure come closer to the truth of life and existence.

One of the practical implications of this judgment that ugliness and pain are deeper and more profound; and it borders on the obvious that ugliness and pain are more interesting, more significant, and more important than any account of pleasure, beauty, joy, and happiness.

In a formula: unhappiness is more profound that happiness could ever be.

But really, with The Crucifixion a myth, and God a cautionary tale for rebellious children, is there any reason to suppose that profundity is always on the side of misery and ugliness? Are humiliation and displeasure the only reliable guarantors of certainty?

Love and Knowledge

2007-06-03T08:41:00.000-06:00

Does love come with an obligation to know one's beloved? It is easier to show that the negative is unsatisfactory. If knowledge of the beloved is unnecessary, then whatever I do on behalf of the beloved cannot result from consideration of his needs, wishes, or wants. There is no guarantee that what I do will in any way ameliorate his condition. Consequently, what I do for his sake will arise out of my needs, my wishes, and my wants. Without knowledge of the beloved, the comforts I offer will ease my conscience but will be indifferent to his needs, wants, or wishes.

Love without knowledge and concern for the beloved as a particular individual means exploitation of the beloved for the needs, desires, and enhancement of the one who would love. Love becomes a subtle but brutal power relation. The oppressed feed the consciences of the faithful.

The God of Love stands unmasked as a vampire.

The Death of God (Pt. II), or Notes for a "Tale of Two Christianities"

2007-06-02T19:16:00.000-06:00

With the Death of God, the supernatural world withers away. If the spirit world should against reason and Humanity exist, events in that world do not effect the denizens of this one. Supposed events of that world are reflections of events in this world. One may treat this pessimistically: the spiritual life of humanity is less than a dream with the concurrent "enlightenment" that at last the deception ends. It betrays a hatred of humanity to conclude that the values, dreams, and illusions engendered by that grand deception are also part of the swindle.

The epistemological shenanigans of our "Christian" contemporaries look like nothing so much as magical attempts to conjure up apparitions from the past. As long as those beliefs in God and the world of spirit was in its roots an honest belief, then those beliefs created strength, courage, and desire. But when "faith" is rooted in cowardice in the face of reality? When God is praised as a Comforter-God? What then?

The belief in God as a Creator-God gave birth to modern science. The passionate belief and faith in God found in the scientists of the early modern period is not a historical accident. These men believed that in understanding the world around them, they were learning to think the thoughts of God before Creation. One finds a fearlessness in their desire to know and understand.

Today's "Christians," especially the Evangelicals show a fearfulness and a close-mindedness when confronted with the works of their Creator-God. The world around them is deceptive: the truth of history, cosmology, physics, and the other sciences are only to be found in a "correct" reading of their holy books.

I can only explain this apparent contradiction between the Christians of today and the robust Christians of earlier epochs by drawing upon a previous post, The Last Moment of Innocence. Looking back at these earlier Christians, we of today can only describe them as naive, but not consciously or purposefully so. Their naivety is something that can only grasped in hindsight. Their naivety being their belief that world was so constituted so as to be understood by men, and that God wanted them to understand His Works as He Himself understood His Works. But instead of being a blushing bride, Reason turned out to be a whore, just as Luther said.

Consequently, the naive Christian believes because of a faith in the truth of doctrine and he is too honest to remain a Christian: either he believes because Christianity is "true" or he believes because he is told to believe it by his church, his family, his political party, or out of some other personal need.

The end result is if one remains a "Christian," belief becomes a shield, a protection, and a prophylaxis against uncertainty, fear, confusion, rebellion, and God only knows what else. Belief and faith are no longer means to seeing the world as it is.

* * *

NOTE: I would to point out that not all Christians prior to the advent of Modern Science were such heroes of conscience and honesty as I portray them. It is my belief that that prior to the Late 19th and Early 20th Century that there were two competing visions of Christianity. "God" and His various attributes was the guarantor of a vision that the faithful could have it both ways: be excruciatingly honest and truthful AND belief firmly and without reserve in the existence and goodness of the Christian God. Once faith in this unifying vision was lost, these two strains in Western Christianity largely went their separate ways: Modern Science with its empirical-mindedness to the right, and Modern Christianity with its faith in faith to the left.

It is a perversion of modern religious historiography that seeks to tell the story of Christianity as a unity and unified story. Umberto Eco's The Name of The Rose provides a good contrast of these two strains of Christianity.

Instead of quietly agreeing

2007-06-01T22:12:00.000-06:00

Instead of quietly agreeing that unswerving, unquestioning belief in one's chosen doctrine(s), numerous questions will arise for anyone who presumes that his Doctrine(s) are better and special because of their truth value.

1. Is truth something that once found, the quest comes to an end? Once the quest is accomplished, one returns home with no further need of arduous labors and difficult journeys. But what if questing is found to be an enjoyable and even pleasurable activity? A famous passage from Lessing captures this ethos perfectly:

If God held all truth in his right hand, and in his left the persistent striving for the truth, and while warning me against eternal error, should say: Choose! I should humbly bow before his left hand, and say, "Father, give thy gift; the pure truth is for thee alone." [Lessing, Werke, Vol. 2, p. 53.]

2. Is it possible that irony comes into play? For instance, with Christianity could the means of presentation of the Message of Christianity be in conflict with the content of the Message?

Consider the possibility of the Sermon on the Mount being used as a justification for unchristian activities? Even the content and experience of revelation of truth has a history. As the story of the revelation is shared, told, and retold it accretes its own history. I find the image of a snowball rolling down a hill, growing larger and larger, most apt. Is the content of the original revelation recoverable and separable from the meanings, additions, and interpretations that have become attached to the original revelation over time and history?

3. How can human beings be certain that firmness of belief and conviction are any guarantee of truth? Sincerity proves nothing. Evidence is lacking to suppose that believers and followers of other convictions and religions are any less sincere than Christians, Evangelical or otherwise.

A Personal Note of Sorts

2007-05-26T19:51:00.000-06:00

I've had a rather nasty cough for almost two weeks. Yesterday, Friday, I went to the doctor. He diagnosed walking pneumonia, prescribed some drugs, and told me to come back in 7 days if I'm not better.

This means that I may not be up to a new post for a few days.

The Death of God (Pt. I)

2007-05-22T21:26:00.000-06:00

That was Nietzsche's declaration. Even if earlier both Heine and Hegel used the phrase. I'm not familiar enough with Hegel to speculate about what he might have meant by the phrase. Heine mentioned it once in The History of Philosophy in Germany.

Living in the 21st Century, though, "God is Dead" belongs to Nietzsche. Any precedents of usage are a curiosity at best: hints of some elusive profundity but conclusive of nothing.

It's an odd thing to declare something that is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, unlimited and a host of other perfect attributes has given up the ghost, passed on, expired, is pushing up daisies, or has bought the farm. Most Christians are justifiably perplexed that someone could say such a thing of their Infinite Creator God of Life.

There are at least two possibilities here: 1)either Nietzsche was nuts, or 2) maybe he meant something else, something not easily divined from the words of the phrase. Obviously, I am a partisan of the second option. Otherwise, there would be little for me to explain. And, unsurprisingly for those who know me, I am rather fond of Nietzsche's habits of thought, even when he's wrong, out of his depth, or dissembling.

What did Nietzsche mean by the "Death of God"? I've gone full circle on the importance of the "Death of God" in Nietzsche. When I first struggled with Nietzsche, I still considered myself to be an evangelical Christian, so naturally enough I thought "The Death of God" was the most important element in his thought and writings. Later, after disabusing myself of a few theological inanities, it was all too apparent that "The Death of God" was important but hardly central to his over all thought. Now, I'm inclined to think that if someone understands the place of "The Death of God" in the corpus of his writings, life, and thought, then everything else is straightforward and even easy.

Even if some philosophical prodigy were to show Nietzsche was wrong in all particulars and all generalities of his philosophy, he would still represent a major move in the history of metaphysics and philosophy. The style and method of most writing philosophy and of metaphysics prior to Nietzsche in particular is best described as terminological. Terminological means divesting words and concepts of meaning until only one unambiguous meaning and usage remains. That is the promise of terminology: one word, one concept, one meaning, one usage, one referent.

As I said, Nietzsche breaks with this way of writing philosophy. This led many of his early commentators to describe him as a philosopher-poet. The poetic devices of irony, symbolism, sarcasm, personification, and the like are prominent devices for not only expressing his philosophy but for its formulation. Consequently, the major, and many of the minor points and elements of Nietzsche's philosophy have a richness and abundance of meanings and significances, befuddling to anyone who associates conceptual precision with singularity of meaning and usage.

In other philosophers, however abstract and difficult a phrase or concept may be to grasp, once a concept is made one's own, usage is straightforward. Whatever Kant may have meant by the Categorical Imperative, one knows that its meaning was arrived at by a process of eliminating ambiguity. Whatever The Categorical Imperative might be, one can be sure that concept is unambiguous, unless Kant made a mistake, in which ambiguity is evidence of error and imprecise thinking.

Applying this line of thought to "God," in hindsight that God should die becomes inevitable. Nietzsche's only explanation of the meaning of "The Death of God" makes it easy enough to dismiss by overlooking the possibilities and implications of the phrase. "The Death of God" means that God is no longer believable. Nietzsche is different, especially in his later works beginning with The Gay Science. Arguments are made using imagery, metaphor, irony, and other "poetic" devices. Consequently, his writings must be unpacked, watered down, and decompressed.

The Death of God is a shorthand. The phrase appears maybe six or seven times in Nietzsche's published writings. But considered as a shorthand not only that God is no longer believable, but the whole conception of another world and another reality at best becomes a pale shadow of this world, of this world that was denigrated and maligned for the sake of some other, better reality beyond this vale of tears.

It was while I was reading Supplementary Article No. 4, The Odes of Solomon,in his The Jesus Puzzle that I understood simply and clearly that the Death of God meant the end of otherworldly mysticism. I was struck by the strangeness of the belief in the superiority of that other world. What is strangest to me is how I doubt the author(s) of The Odes of Solomon or almost anyone else of that time would have described their knowledge of this other world as grounded in faith. The existence of this other world would be commonsense itself, and to doubt its existence would be madness, and possibly a sign of demonic possession.

The Death of God means that any doctrine, teaching, or exhortation that derives its truth and authority from God and, more importantly, from another world and order of existence, has failed. Such doctrines and moral teachings are no longer believable. The questions of why? To what end? and How come? all lack answers.

Nor is this a private, individual matter. How are institutions to be grounded, organized, and justified? What about moral and legal accountability? With our increasing knowledge of human physiology, it becomes increasingly clear that supernatural "explanations" of human behavior are superfluous [for one example see: Do Fruit Flies Have Free Will?]. Or consider the increasing sophistication of brain imaging in showing a purely physiological basis for moral reasoning, or that other primates exhibit moral behavior. Our institutions, our sense of morality, our justifications to ourselves for what we do no longer provide guidance for the world in which we live. This is not the fault of science, or of reason, or of human sinfulness. There is a mismatch between our moral and spiritual inheritance and the world in which we live.

We no longer understand ourselves, nor do we know how to find happiness, or even whether happiness is something that may be sought after. Considered most broadly, it is hardly any wonder that there would be doubt, uncertainty, and fear about what is human and what is not.

As a political and historical matter, this translates into ethnic cleansing, death camps, and apartheid. Further it would appear that any definition of humanity is framed so as exclude some types and not others. Even partisans of the broadest definitions of humanity have their doubts as to whether Eichmann, Milosovic, or Hitler are human. Definitions of humanity presume that some moral, non-biological component of humanity is essential and highly privileged. That humanity would have an essential moral/ethical component means that not every biological specimen of homo sapiens shares in this humanity to the same degree.

However human nature may be defined, human nature presumes the existence of some other nonhuman other from whom human embodiments of morality and virtue may be distinguished. Previously, this non-human other was God, now it is Albanians for Serbs, Jews for Nazis, Kurds for Turks, Shiias for Sunnis, and so on. One conclusion that may be drawn from our brief, albeit brutal, history of ethnic cleansing and genocide is straightforward enough: identity presumes some other, a "not-me" and a "not-us." Without God, humanity is indefinable. Perhaps this unarticulated need for God lurks behind the belief in space aliens whether among us, or out among the stars?

Traditional faith in God obscured a basic fact of being human: homo sapiens is a social animal. The Christian God with His Day of Judgment meant that each individual as an individual would be judged for his acts, sins, and words, and his alone. The chasm between individual human and individual human was taken to be absolute.

Being a social animal means, as foolish as it may sound in the 21st Century, that the place of human beings in the world is with other human beings. That no one seems to have understood this before, I can only attribute to theological tomfoolery. Human beings are only with the rarest exceptions found among other human beings. Those rarest exceptions, feral children illustrate the truth of this observation: they demonstrate no inborn goodness, no genius uncorrupted by civil society, or any other desirable qualities.

The Death of God then means a loss and a gain. The loss of a basic and fundamental sense of the moral agency as intrinsic to being human. Because our ethical, moral, and legal categories presume moral agency as inherent to our humanity, we no longer understand ourselves very well, either as individuals or collectively. Confusion reigns, and many desire most fervently a way back to how things used to be. The gain is liberation: we don't know, for good or evil, what we are. The horror and wonder of it all is how strange we have become to ourselves. [For my discussion of The Jesus Puzzle see here.]

Another Take on the Last Moment of Innocence, or Two Different Conceptions of Self

2007-05-18T11:57:00.000-06:00

I propose two conceptions of self. One essentially static, and one essentially dynamic. Morality as a set of commandments which one obeys or not. Moral Law as Christians argue for it is unchanging and eternal. Accompanying this is an unchanging residue that lies beyond the vicissitudes of a person's emotional life.

This thought in the last paragraph should be clarified. It's more an attempt to give an outline to a thought project: what conception of self accompanies and is implied by conceptions of moral law? For instance, if The Moral Law is conceived as eternal and unchanging, doesn't this strongly imply that change, development, and even growth as a person is immoral and consequently forbidden?

In the Age of Oprah and the omnipresent and naive belief that the truth will of itself prove liberating, it is not immediately obvious that growth as a person could be immoral. There is a phrase that I like, "going through a phase." If we allow that an individual can grow as a person, there will be situations in which transcending one's limits means moving beyond the limits set forth by whatever morality holds local sway. What is morality but setting limits: THOU SHALT NOT... And if the internal logic of a person's passions, desires, and drives require going one step further?

I guess one could appeal to some version Leibniz's monads with their eternally preexisting harmony to exclude the possibility of any real conflict, so as to rule out any possibility that human good might conflict with Morality? But wouldn't the requirement of a necessary harmony between what is good for human beings and moral law in the end mean the same old conflict: If there is conflict between the logic of a person's passions and the demands of Moral Law, then it is always the individual who is in the wrong and must make sacrifices. Or as I wrote earlier: personal growth is immoral.

The irrelevance of Moral Law shows itself for me in the hatred shown it towards ambiguity, Vieldeutigkeit, irony, and playfulness.

I spoke of two conceptions of self in first paragraph. What is the second conception? It is old hat to speak of development and personal growth. The flip-side of development and personal growth is autonomy. The Greek roots of autonomy mean literally self-law. Autonomy means integration, ordering, assigning degrees importance, and maintaining harmony. Just to be clear, harmony doesn't mean a lack of discord. Musically speaking, the more profound the harmony the more profound the discord contained within.

A day comes when a person who is incidentally a Christian makes the painful discovery that that phase of his life has drawn to a close. It is now time to put away childish things.

Another post from Julia Sweeney's Forum

2007-05-14T09:42:00.000-06:00

[I posted the following on Julia Sweeney's forum. I have made some minor edits for readability.] Arrogance and atheism. Why do Atheists seem to many Christians so unforgivably arrogant?

I remember way back when I was an Evangelical -- it was about 27 or 28 years ago. I remember being struck by the audacity, the wanton recklessness of the atheists, nonbelievers, and assorted non-Christians that I encountered. It struck me as nothing short of hubristic arrogance to even dare to have one's own thoughts and opinions about life, the universe, and everything.

It was only later that I came to see the arrogance of those non-Christians differently. To someone who is systematically taught to devalue his own thoughts and opinions for the sake of some orthodoxy or another, a modicum of self-confidence in one's own abilities will appear to be nothing other than arrogance.

"Arrogance of atheists" is the flip-side of something often asserted of Christians and of all believers: believers are reluctant to form their own beliefs and opinions without first checking with the authorities. Christianity consists of interlocking beliefs and doctrines all of which work to devalue (and even slander) without any explicit acknowledgment that forming one's own beliefs and opinions is dangerous.

And before someone tries to explain that God guarantees Christian self-confidence, let me say that that is nonsense. The greater the glory attributed to God, the less that remains for human beings, until all good flows from the Deity, and all that is reprehensible flows from human beings. That is what the doctrine of The Fall of Man teaches.

If evidence for these assertions is needed, consider the near panic Christians fall into when atheism is seriously discussed: Man without God must mean a celebration of all that is horrid, immoral, and reprehensible in Human Beings, and the denial of God can only mean the denial and destruction of all that is good, noble, and admirable in Human Beings.

In a nutshell: typically "atheist arrogance" is another way of saying "Christians lack self-confidence and don't like thinking for themselves about important things."

Some Updates

2007-05-13T21:31:00.000-06:00

I changed the layout. Mainly because I got bored. I rewrote my profile, and I changed the template and layout. I also removed the tags from the posts that had them. Since I hadn't been consistent in my use of tags, I didn't feel they would be helpful. And, I'm at a loss as to which tags to use.

I also uploaded a picture. The figure is laughing and saying, "Satan is an anagram of Santa." It's my own trivial way of making fun of all those Christians who justify their hostility towards Santa Claus with "Santa is an anagram of Satan." The implication being, of course, that it is Santa who is the malevolent Lord of this world. I will use this picture as an avatar on forums. So, if you see it, you know it's me. If anyone has any suggestions for any other changes, I'll take them under advisement.

epigrams and one-liners

2007-05-12T00:10:00.000-06:00

1. The Christian God is a personal god because he takes shit personal.

2. Interpreting the Bible for Christians: explaining that Jesus really meant something else.

3. There are two types of Christians: those that follow Jesus and those that follow the ex-Pharisee Paul. But only one gets crucified.

4. If according to Christian teaching, we nonbelievers will suffer eternal torment in the afterlife, then is not the Evangel, The Good News, precisely that there is no afterlife?

5. If laughter at something is forbidden, rational inquiry "uninformed" by revelation is also forbidden.

6. Optimists never refer to themselves as realists.

7. He was the kind of pessimist that wanted a medal for getting out of bed in the morning.

8. Is understanding your problem simply marking it on your psychic map as terra incognita? Profundity does not mean wallowing in the impotence of one's understanding—unless one is a Christian.

9. Church politics is particularly nasty. Christians close their eyes to unchecked egoism and ambition in their pews: God's chosen representative on earth can brook no opposition.

10. There is no right to ignorance, even though evangelicals teach otherwise.

11. He argued himself into his faith, then argued himself out of it.

12. If this life is a test from God, it's good that He loves us. Imagine what life with its diseases, natural disasters, birth defects, genocides, child abuse, and violence would be like if He didn't?

Addendum

2007-05-11T16:23:00.000-06:00

Christians, or anyone else with "firm convictions," when they speak of integrity, rational, and open-ended inquiry remind me of nothing so much as of a 8 or 9 year old boy delivering a speech on the evils of marriage. He's heard the adults around him talk about marriage and women. He's no doubt intelligent, even insightful on occasion; however, can anyone but another child not burst out laughing at his little speech? It's the lack of firsthand experience, and even a matter of ability and preparation.

Christians with their fear of putting their beliefs and themselves at risk make themselves laughable. That the Gospel would appear as "foolishness to the Greeks" is probably the only honest part of the New Testament. And in valuing inquiry, rationality, thinking for thinking's sake, does this not make a person Greek?

It is hardly persuasive that Christians have conjured up self-serving rationalizations about letting the little children lead, or that unless one become as a child. Being the father of a 3 and 5 year old, being as a child means asking questions, endless spontaneity, and even more an astonishing lack of any fear of consequences. Qualities, incidentally, Christians typically lack.

But I digress. A religion that prides itself on comfort cannot but end with conformity, laziness, and timidity as virtues.

No doubt there are some small minority of Christians who also find the timidity and addiction to comfort of "their brothers and sisters in Christ" contemptible. I can imagine some of these renouncing the comforts and amenities of civilized Christian life. The analogizing Christians to used-car salesmen would not hold for these.

And just to be clear: I recognize that comparing Christians to used-car salesmen is an ad hominem argument. However, the comparison depends on numerous similarities between Christians and used-car salesmen to make a point: the integrity of Christians is highly suspect.

A Christian would no doubt make the counter-argument that atheists are equally vulnerable on this same point. However, there are no atheist ministers, no atheist Sunday Schools, no weekly Wednesday night atheist meetings, and the list goes on and on. There may be humanist organizations that meet on a regular basis; however, I serious doubt whether any of these place a great emphasis on doctrinal purity or would cease social intercourse with a member who had decided to leave the organization.

There is only one argument that I can see to justify and pull the fangs of the argument of integrity. There is a happy congruence between the needs of the human heart and the truth. The universe has just the right form and arrangement so as to gratify the deepest human needs. What this just so arrangement also requires in order to overcome the argument from lack of integrity that this congruence even extend to regular church attendance.

In the end the assertion of congruence is the flip-side, or rather denial, of the argument of Evil: the fact of evil and suffering at best makes the idea a Good and All-powerful Deity shamelessly escapist. Consequently, congruence between the way and character of existence and human needs and desires is no less escapist.

* * *
A passing thought that I had today about the integrity argument. It seems perversely fitting that a religion that oftentimes prides itself on having prostitutes and tax-collectors as its earliest adherents would have difficulties with the integrity and truth. Prostitutes and tax-collectors belief in a quid pro quo: payment for services rendered. It's not surprising that Christians expect their rewards either for good behavior in some varieties; or in more fundamentalist forms of Christianity great rewards are promised for bowing down & licking the dust of their Lord & Master.

"Atheist Fanaticism" Revisited

2007-05-11T09:47:00.000-06:00

My exchanges with Christians illustrate well enough that Christians aren't serious when discussing questions of faith. Why do I say such a thing? Christians certainly feel themselves to be serious, more serious than any mere unbeliever could ever imagine because they, and they alone, know what is truly at stake. Yada yada yada about eternal torment, Judgment Day, etc.

A Christian is not serious when discussing his faith, because (s)he is a Christian first and a seeker of truth and wholeness of mind second. A Christian expects his listeners to put themselves at risk of changing their beliefs while not putting their own beliefs at risk as well.

Consequently, for anyone valuing inquiry that is not adverse to the risks and dangers of actually discovering something unexpected, discourse with a Christian is mostly a waste of time. I say "mostly" only because there is some value to investigating the intellectual and spiritual acrobatics to which Christians subject themselves. That is if one has a taste for dramedy [drama + comedy].

Incidentally, I make an exception for my more mischievous moods. I have been known to play with Christians in proselytizing mode. They're not going to change their minds, so why should I bother to make-believe that they might? Or treat anything that they might say as being on a higher level than anything a used-car salesman might say?

Just to be clear, I will on occasion use Christian proselytizers to remind myself of how clever I can sometimes be. And more than once I, atheist that I am, had to help Christians bear witness to Christ and help them explain the Gospel and point them to Bible passages that fit better than the ones they were using. I felt really good about myself afterwards. If that isn't a good deed, then what is?

This attitude might strike some as "fanatical," well it's not. But these are usually the same people who aren't used thinking very hard about anything. A Christian has much (or little) integrity of opinion and intellect as a used car salesman. They're both trying to sell something and neither can be trusted for that reason. They'll do and say just about anything to close the deal.

Both have a strong personal interests in persuading their listeners. A Christian's opinions form the basis of his social life and often livelihood. And those of us who have suffered the loss of friends and so-called "brothers and sisters in Christ," not too mention love, respect, and even contact with family, because of unwisely voiced doubts know exactly what I mean.

Ostracism is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of faith. It may well be the most powerful.

Canary in a Coal Mine, or Why Gay Rights Matter

2007-05-09T13:17:00.000-06:00

Why would a straight white male give two hoots about whether or not homosexuals are treated fairly? I can only answer the question for my own case. I am white. I am straight. I also do not fit common notions of American male masculinity. I don't like watching sports. I never liked hunting and guns, not that my Father didn't try. I don't feel a need for large vehicles. I don't recall ever feeling empowered through the wielding of phallic-shaped objects or phallic substitutes. I am a stay at home dad. I like to cook. I am happily raising two lovely daughters. Left to my own devices I tend towards becoming a homebody.

Even if I am a heterosexual male, my sense of gender identity is hardly mainstream. And there's the problem. Homophobia and homophobic practices and beliefs serve primarily to extend uniformity and conformity. Their effectiveness rests on fear mongering: they propagate the fear that standing out and being different from locally held standard is unforgivable, disastrous, and morally reprehensible.

As a thought experiment, what would happen to me, a non-standard American male, if homophobic beliefs and practices were to succeed in eradicating homosexuality? They guardians and champions of conformity and mediocrity would need new outsiders, new exemplars of moral reprehensibility to condemn and persecute. And I fear that I would become one of their new outsiders and exemplars of moral reprehensibility.

So, why do I think that fair treatment of homosexuals is a good idea? I want that line of conformist persecution to be as far away from me as possible. If homosexuals are treated fairly, then the likelihood that I or persons who have non-standard gender identities will become the object the new outsiders undeserving of fair treatment becomes negligible.

The further away from me that line of unacceptable beliefs and practices is drawn, the better. The line drawn farther away means it is that much more unlikely that I will either suffer discrimination or even be forced out of simple prudence to concern myself with these things. Hence, the metaphor in the title of this entry: Canary in A Coal Mine.

I find it ironic that many of the same persons who decry homosexuality in the name of family values are the most concerned about the peer pressures that their children must suffer. The example these family-value types set for their children? Peer pressure and social conformity are perfectly acceptable IF dressed up in morality and concern for "the children."

An Aside about Kierkegaard

2007-05-08T22:26:00.001-06:00

This evening I read Kierkegaard for Beginners. I think it was the first time that I ever read anything about SK of which I felt I understood something. And that's not to say that I liked what I understood. This might also be why I've always been both drawn to & repelled by Kierkegaard. Maybe I have a sympathetic antipathy & an antipathetic sympathy to him. Kierkegaard is one of those very few thinkers that I find myself coming back to every few years. I can't quite make my peace with him: either to let him be, or to figure out what it is that bugs the shit out of me about him, to use a colloquial expression.

On reading through Kierkegaard for Beginners, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I have read at one time or another and at how much of it I remember.

It was an odd feeling, remembering when I was going through my religious crisis. Looking back today, I would say that I dodged a bullet. On reading it, I feel so very lucky that I didn't understand any more when I was deciding whether to throw myself into Nietzsche's writings or into Kierkegaard's.

The morbidity and guilt that fume about much of his writings could easily have had a seductive effect at times in my life. Suffering and pain, psychic pain in particular, promise profundity: knowing things to which the less afflicted are oblivious. De omnibus dubitandum est. Maybe if he had been a bit more suspicious of his mistrust of pleasure and an unacknowledged faith that painful experiences simply the most profound experiences possible. In which case, it looks too much like "I, Soren, suffer. I must suffer. Since I cannot choose not to suffer, I choose to suffer even more. Thus, I am free. The true manifestation of my freedom is my suffering more than I would otherwise." He reminds me of nothing so much as one of Nietzsche's ascetic priests in The Genealogy of Morals in the passage of how N explains how the ascetic priest saves the will.

Having become a political philosopher more than anything else, I'm mistrustful of an emphasis on an overly inward turn. The putative recipient of faith [for him that is "GOD"] can easily be substituted for something else, oh, say Orwell's Big Brother. I don't think it is a historical accident that existentialism was most widespread at the same time as totalitarianism.

Kiekegaard and totalitarianism? Of course, Kierkegaard wouldn't have meant such a thing. The good morals of the human being who is also a thinker & theorist. But, there is an experience and experiences behind his leap of faith. And for us atheists, the emphasis again falls on the subject. The object to which the faith & the leap are directed may vary. (Re)read the end of 1984 in this light, with the main character's discovery of the "right inward relationship" to Big Brother.

I think the parallel, while blasphemous to K scholars, is also undeniable. It doesn't explain anything, but it does relate K to some of the important events and movements of the 19th Century. In addition, K stands in the fideist tradition of Christian theology: faith & revelation are more important that reason. Second, fideist theologies have a special place for authority & submission to authority. When the faith is merely a matter of the appropriate inwardness of the parson & parishioner so that they can feel themselves to have faith, life can go on pretty much as before, but now with a clear conscience. In essence, the reliance on faith means that not everyone is equal in faith, and therefore, trust in submission to the authority of those with greater faith is required. Of course, K probably didn't want that, but in a broader sociological view of things figures like K are integral & necessary to organized institutional religion. Considered posthumously, K is very much one of Weber's charismatic leaders.

I would expect that in a largely Lutheran country, a good deal of popular Nazi writing would have been about being in the right (inward) relationship with the Fuehrer. But that's just speculation.

Speaking for Eichmann, Or The Banality of Good Intentions

2007-05-03T16:01:00.000-06:00

Hannah Arendt used Eichmann as a lens by which to understand better the conditions that made totalitarianism possible. She attended his trial in Israel. She was forcefully struck by his use of banalities and clichés to explain and justify his actions and policies in the Nazi government.

Specifically, Adolf Eichmann was for her a perfect example of an otherwise intelligent human being who did not think. He calculated, he reckoned, but he gave no indication that he was capable of reflection, critical or otherwise, upon his own actions and words. For the textually curious, she gave the most extended treatment of Eichmann in Eichmann in Jerusalem, but the best explanation of why Eichmann matters is to be found in her introduction to The Life of the Mind.

For all of her insight and eloquence, Arendt never once provides an account of how someone might have become thoughtless like Eichmann. This should strike anyone as a troubling paradox: how can a putative absence, in this case, of thought and reflection, be the result of the exercise of reason and thought?

Two value judgments suffice to explain Eichmann's thoughtlessness. The first is that the absence of any specific intent to do wrong, evil, or hurt is desirable. The exact term is unimportant. The consequence of this high valuation of an absence of bad intent is the temptation to conclude that because one is unable to form an intent to bad things one is therefore "good." Why? Because one has done nothing wrong and cannot even conceive of doing something morally wrong.

Speaking ironically, this can be attributed to an over valuation of having a clear conscience. One gets in the habit of not thinking about one's bad and socially unacceptable impulses. This all ends with an inability to consider that someone else might think differently about one's actions, words, and justifications.

The second is more difficult to phrase so succinctly or maybe it's a consequence of the first judgment. This second is an absence. More specifically, it is an absence of courage. Or an absence of confidence in oneself. Or an unwillingness to recognize risk in human affairs as inevitable. Or its a lack of love: there's nothing in this world that merits defense and protection at the cost of one's own safety. But there is a great deal to be fearful of losing.

Taken together, these two judgments result in a faith in necessity: one must do what one must do in order to survive, get ahead, or some other self-serving euphemism. BUT one's are judged and evaluated not how it affects other people, but according to what one intended.

These reflections lead to an unexpected insight: living with and around other people implies an obligation and expectation of considering and taking into account other people: what they will likely think and the effects they will probably suffer.

This is consideration of others is not determinative of what one should or should not do. This consideration of others requires the recognition that how one would like one's own actions to be judged is just one possible way of judging among others.

I suspect part of the belief in the Last Judgment was a recognition that the those intentions accompanying one's life and deeds were to be judged as well and were by no means decisive. One's words, deeds, life, and intentions would be judged by another.

The above can perhaps be summed up in that Eichmann and the little Eichmann's that surround us wish for their actions to be judged not by how their acts, deeds, and words affect the people around them, but they believe that they should be judged and evaluate their own acts, deeds, and words by the ends to which they seek to achieve.

The Myth of "Atheist Fanaticism"

2007-04-30T09:26:00.000-06:00

Christians often impute a fanatical belief in some doctrine -- evolution, the non-existence of God, and such -- to atheists. This strategy presents atheists as hypocritical for condemning religious fanaticism but are themselves guilty of the very fanaticism that they themselves condemn when atheists deny the existence of God, assert the truth and viability of evolution, and so on.

The phantasm of "atheist fanaticism" can be easily explained. Christians assert beliefs x,y, and z in a firm and unquestioning manner. Considered from the point of view of the Christian, if someone does not share in those beliefs, then that someone when he continues to not share in those belief so passionately held by the Christian, appears to be as fanatical of his or her beliefs as the Christian. In other words, the so-called "atheist fanaticism" is a self-misunderstanding on the part of Christians.

I'm sure there are unhappy misguided individuals out in the world, who have unplugged "the existence of God" from their beliefs and inserted "the non-existence of God" without any softening of a previously learned hard-edged fanaticism.

An inability to accept one's own failures generates the phantasm of "atheist fanaticism." Since it is impossible for a good Christian to admit that his reasons for belief are less than perfectly persuasive to other people, a lack of persuasion in his hearers can only be explained by a hardness of heart, and willful disbelief. The Christian explains his failure, in this case, to persuade his hearers to accept Jesus as their Lord & Savior, or in a Young Earth, or whatever, by blaming somebody else for his failures and unhappiness. That his foolish demeanor might explain his failure to persuade his hearers never could never occur to a Christian. Or to speak New Testament: The Christian himself is the millstone impeding belief.

For what it's worth, based on the above, that the proper response to charges of "atheist fanaticism" is something like this: "Black is black. White is white. And gobbledygook is still gobbledygook. That you don't make a very good case is hardly my fault."

Catholics, Catholicism, and Belief

2007-04-27T18:18:00.000-06:00

I've never met a Catholic or heard tell of a Catholic that actually believed Official Catholic Doctrine. Too many Catholics identify themselves as Catholic but then explain that they don't accept this or that belief. During three years in Poland, I met Catholics who did not believe in God, but believed in the Virgin Mary. Or Catholics who would have no truck with the resurrection. And from what I've seen of American Catholics there is a love-hate relationship with the Catholic Church: they hate & disagree with various parts of Official Church Doctrine, but insist on sacraments, masses, etc.

My hunch is that the bottom-line in Roman Catholicism is the individual Catholics relationship to the Church: as long as tithes, baptisms, first communions, and all are faithfully carried out, and the proper respect shown to the Church and its institutions, a great deal of latitude will be granted. From what I understand, it is rather difficult to be excommunicated.

What this means is that Roman Catholics are much freer, at least in principle, with respect to belief. I think the ties to ancient paganism are easier to see in Roman Catholicism: as long as the proper rituals are observed and no deities are blasphemed, it is possible to remain a Roman Catholic. There isn't the same emphasis on uniformity of belief as in most protestant sects, especially in American Evangelical Christianity.

I know that it was the Roman Catholics who invented the Inquisition and have all sorts of wacky Doctrines. My big point is that it is possible to be a Roman Catholic in all good conscience and still hold to beliefs that have substantial differences from Standard Roman Catholic Teachings. This is because the point of emphasis in Roman Catholicism is the Roman Catholic Church, and not direct access to Truth of Doctrine as in Protestantism.

Another forum post: when asked why I believed way back when...

2007-04-26T13:55:00.002-06:00

It's always easier to judge in hindsight. I could give biographical, philosophical, social (my fellow believers), and emotional reasons for why I believed & for why I stopped believing. When I look back now, I find so many reasons when asked to discount faith that I now think that my lack of faith is overdetermined.

There are no "incorrect motives." Taken at face value that is a recipe for misery and neurotic repressive self-deception.

As far as "Christian motives" mostly I infer from the behavior of Christians. If someone acts fearful, uncertain of themselves, or seem to believe they are so awful and their God is so wonderful & great, then certain things can be inferred. Especially, when a Christian tries to discount any discussion of motives & mental health, by asserting however forcefully that the Truth of their Beliefs make discussion of mental health, motives, etc. moot.

Seldom do Christians realize that arguments for conversion based on Hell, God's Omnipotence, and the like, have a disturbing analogy: Following Hitler so as not to go to Auschwitz.

How can any Christian be certain that they love God for His beauty, His Goodness, etc. and not because of fear of damnation? My own suspicion is that God's power makes love impossible. And don't give me any nonsense about the Cross. Jesus is still 1/3 God. He still has 1/3 of omnipotence. And if Judgment Day is to be taken seriously, how can anyone love their judge? Inequality of power precludes love. Love is between equals.

Where there is inequality power then one should talk of pity.

The motivations of Christians, until shown otherwise are fear, self-disgust, and anger. That most Christians experience their motivations as "love" is at best evidence of the uncanny power of self-deception and wishful thinking. But that's what happens when Christ-talk is translated into everyday language.

Oh, last bit of ramble. It was George Orwell who gave me to understand that language can either reveal or it can conceal. When it conceals, it is a tool of tyranny, repression, and oppression. Language used primarily to hide truth diminishes human beings. There is an omnipresent fear of saying the secrets everybody knows, but nobody will say.

Something I posted on Julia Sweeney's Forum

2007-04-25T13:33:00.000-06:00

If a Christian thinks long and hard, and has a modicum of honesty, eventually a point is reached at which there are religious words and feelings and there is everyday life. Religious words and feelings belong in the sphere of religion and relative normalcy everywhere else. As long as the religious sphere is felt to be real but separate, there is no confusion between this world and the world to come.

Modern Christians, Evangelicals in particular, expect the religious sphere to influence, guide, and manifest itself in the everyday world. The justification for belief in another world is to be found in this one. Hence Creationism, miracles, The Rapture, The Second Coming, Evangelicals for Israel, and all sorts of tomfoolery.

Traditionally, the world to come was felt to be more real, more important, it was there that all the injustices of this world would be reckoned and judged, rewarded and paid for if need be.

Sometime in the 19th Century or maybe Early 20th Century, large numbers of people began to question the reality of this other world. Some not so clever folks realized that they could make believe that if they didn't doubt the reality of the world to come, then they could go on like they and their ancestors had before.

But it wasn't so easy. Doubt remained. Unacknowledged doubt wants assurances, signs, and miracles. However much these New Christians protested to the contrary, the locus and center of reality had shifted from the other world to this world. Consequently, if their Faith really was true, then there would be unmistakable correspondences, incontrovertible evidence, and signs enough for the blind in this world. Unfortunately for the New Christians, their thread in the Minotaur's labyrinth that is this world had broken. There was no way back. And no way forward. Their eyes are closed. These New Christians flail about blindly, bumping into walls, each other, and other people in the labyrinth. And since they were taught from before birth to associate truth with comfort, and error with discomfort, pain, suffering, and doubt, the New Christians demand respect for their principled cowardice. Courage with open eyes being the one thing of which they deem themselves incapable. But the New Christians do share with their ancestors the courage of a sacrificial animal: the feelings of helplessness, the resignation to inevitability, and an unwillingness to be anything else but a lamb led to slaughter.