In the wake of the re-election of Barack Obama to a second term in the Presidency, we've learned that hundreds of thousands of people in all 50 states have signed petitions to secede from the union. Evidently, the lunatic right-wing supporters of "tea party" politics are willing to destroy the very fabric of our union for the simple reason that their side didn't win the Presidency. Incredible!
Obviously, this echoes the circumstances that tore the nation apart at the end of 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln (ironically, a Republican) to the Presidency. At issue then was the institution of slavery, which was deeply embedded in the South as an economic necessity for the way that wealthy landowners chose to operate. Lincoln scared the South because he was perceived to be an abolitionist. Although there were other differences between Northern and Southern states that exacerbated the antagonisms, the clear driving motivation was the issue of slavery. Lincoln's election was the "last straw" for the slave states in the South. In the end, more than 600, 000 Americans died on both sides in a bloody civil war that went on for more than four years - the South was defeated on the battlefields eventually and the union was preserved. But not necessarily for all time, it seems.
In the same way that common Southerners (even those without slaves!) were induced to fight and die for the institution of slavery, it seems that common Americans today are being duped to support policies that favor the rich and are harmful to those very same common people who are some of the most ardent supporters of tea party politics. The liberal Republican party of Abraham Lincoln that supported the rights of all Americans, including slaves, has become the party of racism, exclusion, and corporate greed. In fact, they moved so far to the right, in response to pressure from the teabaggers, they lost the election!
Today, the right-wing politics driving this talk of secession are not focused on a single overriding issue, but there's a strong undercurrent of racism in the profound hatred the teabaggers feel for Barack Obama. They've masqueraded that racism in a host of smokescreens, but it seems pretty clear to me that the morons signing petitions for secession are likely united only in their racist contempt for the current administration, if they could face that truth about themselves.
When GWB and Crime, Inc. came to power in 2000 and won a second term in 2004, many liberals felt a sense of utter despair and helplessness in the face of those defeats. I know I did - GWB represented a viewpoint that was about as far as possible from my own. A few said they would leave the country - perhaps a very small number did so, but it was mostly just empty threats in the face of what seemed like an endless repudiation of everything they stood for in terms of a secular union providing freedom and liberty for all. I won't rehash all of that - instead, I want to point out that there was never a hint of any liberal movement for secession, regardless of the frustration level. We survived 8 years of GWB and elected Barack Obama in 2008.
What we are seeing now is bunch of cry-babies whining over having their hopes of getting that black man out of office utterly smashed. They're going to have to endure 8 years of Barack Obama, just as liberals had to survive 8 years of GWB! All this teeth-gnashing and stupid talk of secession is nothing more (or less) than an indicator of the hypocrisy of the radical right wing politics. One minute they're waving the US flag and claiming to be patriots. The next minute, they're talking about destroying the fabric of the nation that flag represents. These people aren't patriots; they're simply morons and losers of the worst sort. If they don't get their way, they want to take their tiny bag of marbles and run away, without any thought about the consequences for themselves, to say nothing of the effects on others.
Too many Americans have fought in too many conflicts, sending young men and women home in body bags, to preserve that union for us to have to put up with this childish whining and idiotic talk of secession. The very same concerns that convinced Abraham Lincoln to defend the integrity of the union are present today. A real secession movement might well trigger events that, once set in motion, will lead us to civil war.
Yes, we're deeply divided politically in this nation. But let's consider actually thinking things over rationally before we start talking about breaking up the United States of America! Even a few moments of rational thought should suffice to cause any talk of secession to be rejected as absurd and perhaps even potentially treasonous. Is anyone willing to entertain the possibility of another blood-soaked civil war just because the election didn't turn out the way some people wanted? Really?? If we're so deeply conflicted that civil war is becoming an option to consider, then perhaps we as a nation will deserve such a horror!
Friday, November 16, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The day has come ... for some ...
During the night, the storm known as "Sandy" has slammed its core onto the New Jersey coast. It's not yet known the extent of the damage and casualties. Likely the damage toll will be enormous. Hopefully, evacuations have limited the casualities.
For meteorologists, and selected others, we've known that a storm like this was coming. Not just days in advance, but years! Be it a "tropical cyclone" or a "nor'easter" or a hybrid cyclone, like Sandy has been becoming, it doesn't matter what we call it. Strong winds and low pressure produce a "storm surge" that spreads death and destruction over wide areas. The winds topple trees, shred low-quality housing, and fan fires that can start from downed electrical lines. Such storms put at risk any one and any property close to the coast, regardless of the names we give them.
For decades, now, the humming machine of "development" has been busy, putting lives and property at risk by building in zones that would be at peril from such a storm. Some people have warned against this very occurrence, but because they couldn't say precisely where or when it would happen, those warnings have gone unheeded. Various amendments to infrastructure that could minimize the damage and casualties have been given low priorities by politicians and the general public - "Oh, we can't afford those improvements, now! Maybe later!"
Well, the time for such has come and gone. The ticking clock has wound down and the alarm has already gone off. We will see over the next several days just what has happened as a result of Sandy. Those who argued against development along the eastern coasts have been vindicated, and the disbelievers have learned that the forecasts of gloom and doom were not paranoid delusions but solid predictions based on a knowledge of the past and the inevitability of the future.
The same nay-sayers who acted as if this day would never come, now will start searching for someone to blame for their misfortunes resulting from the storm. In reality, they mostly have themselves to blame - they were too ignorant to learn about the very real hazards they confronted, too short-sighted to imagine they would ever become victims. What resources they saved by making storm preparations low priority will be swamped by the bill for the storm damage. As the old advert saying went, "Pay me now - or pay me much more, later!" Yes, preparations can be costly, but the damage will be even more so. It's your choice ...
For many, the storm known as Sandy will be seared into their memories, some even suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder for decades. But the memory will eventually pass, likely before the next big storm hits over the same areas affected by Sandy. The terror and tragedy will be mostly forgotten within one generation, and nearly gone within two. In sixty years, the collective memory of this night will have passed into the vague recesses of the past.
Most areas along the east coast of the USA will not have experienced this sort of devastation. How many will grasp the significance of Sandy for themselves? Likely far too few. Their complacency will be reinforced - "I was right - bad things always happen to someone else! For me, such an experience is not possible, so I need do nothing to examine my situation and prepare for such an event." For them, the clock is still ticking, but the inexorable passage of time will make disaster inevitable for many of them. Will they be ready? Will they heed the warning to abandon developments that put lives and property at risk? Probably not.
NOTE added: As bad as Sandy has been, it is far from the worst sort of event that is possible. It's good to hear that evacuations saved many lives, unlike the Hurricane Katrina disaster. But Sandy is well short of the worst possible storm making landfall on the east coast. The media make Sandy seem to be of epic proportions, but nature has more powerful punches it can throw at us. And the threat goes into states on the Gulf Coast as well as the Atlantic Coast, so people should be thankful they were spared, and more willing than ever to begin preparations ... now!
For meteorologists, and selected others, we've known that a storm like this was coming. Not just days in advance, but years! Be it a "tropical cyclone" or a "nor'easter" or a hybrid cyclone, like Sandy has been becoming, it doesn't matter what we call it. Strong winds and low pressure produce a "storm surge" that spreads death and destruction over wide areas. The winds topple trees, shred low-quality housing, and fan fires that can start from downed electrical lines. Such storms put at risk any one and any property close to the coast, regardless of the names we give them.
For decades, now, the humming machine of "development" has been busy, putting lives and property at risk by building in zones that would be at peril from such a storm. Some people have warned against this very occurrence, but because they couldn't say precisely where or when it would happen, those warnings have gone unheeded. Various amendments to infrastructure that could minimize the damage and casualties have been given low priorities by politicians and the general public - "Oh, we can't afford those improvements, now! Maybe later!"
Well, the time for such has come and gone. The ticking clock has wound down and the alarm has already gone off. We will see over the next several days just what has happened as a result of Sandy. Those who argued against development along the eastern coasts have been vindicated, and the disbelievers have learned that the forecasts of gloom and doom were not paranoid delusions but solid predictions based on a knowledge of the past and the inevitability of the future.
The same nay-sayers who acted as if this day would never come, now will start searching for someone to blame for their misfortunes resulting from the storm. In reality, they mostly have themselves to blame - they were too ignorant to learn about the very real hazards they confronted, too short-sighted to imagine they would ever become victims. What resources they saved by making storm preparations low priority will be swamped by the bill for the storm damage. As the old advert saying went, "Pay me now - or pay me much more, later!" Yes, preparations can be costly, but the damage will be even more so. It's your choice ...
For many, the storm known as Sandy will be seared into their memories, some even suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder for decades. But the memory will eventually pass, likely before the next big storm hits over the same areas affected by Sandy. The terror and tragedy will be mostly forgotten within one generation, and nearly gone within two. In sixty years, the collective memory of this night will have passed into the vague recesses of the past.
Most areas along the east coast of the USA will not have experienced this sort of devastation. How many will grasp the significance of Sandy for themselves? Likely far too few. Their complacency will be reinforced - "I was right - bad things always happen to someone else! For me, such an experience is not possible, so I need do nothing to examine my situation and prepare for such an event." For them, the clock is still ticking, but the inexorable passage of time will make disaster inevitable for many of them. Will they be ready? Will they heed the warning to abandon developments that put lives and property at risk? Probably not.
NOTE added: As bad as Sandy has been, it is far from the worst sort of event that is possible. It's good to hear that evacuations saved many lives, unlike the Hurricane Katrina disaster. But Sandy is well short of the worst possible storm making landfall on the east coast. The media make Sandy seem to be of epic proportions, but nature has more powerful punches it can throw at us. And the threat goes into states on the Gulf Coast as well as the Atlantic Coast, so people should be thankful they were spared, and more willing than ever to begin preparations ... now!
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Creeping Theocracy Via Sexual “Morality”
I’m often told by my believer friends that my concerns about the USA becoming a theocracy are baseless and paranoid. Such thoughts, I’m assured, are simply imaginary and have little chance of realization. Nevertheless, I believe my concerns aren't delusional, but have a firm basis in the reality of legislation in the USA even as I write this. In particular, I've been reading lately of the blatant imposition of religious morality onto the laws of our secular nation. The conservative christian fundamentalists (aka the 'religious reich') already have managed to push their will regarding sexual morality into many aspects of American life. Banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays has been with us for a long time, but it represents just one of many examples where religious morality has become the law of our land already.
For instance, there are widespread limitations on the availability of sexually-oriented material of all sorts. Censorship on television is rampant, including the censorship of words commonly-used in everyday speech. Religious morality has become the "community standard" by which material is judged to be subject to censorship. Why must the religious impose their standards on everyone? Why should my right to access to material I enjoy be limited by those who are absolutely free to choose not to access that material? I'm not forcing them to watch sexually-oriented television, or buy such pornographic magazines, or read literature containing words they find offensive, so why are they preventing me from having access to it?
The religious who support these "standards" typically respond that they're worried about children being influenced negatively by hearing "bad" (according to whom?) words and seeing "indecent" (again, according to whom?) things. There's no evidence to support such an excuse for censorship, and I can think of no good reason why children need to be sheltered from sexual content until their honeymoon night. It's absolutely absurd, for instance, that the many children who saw Janet Jackson's nipple during the Superbowl XXXVIII halftime show were somehow permanently damaged by such a sight. All people, including children, have nipples, for Pete's sake! The furor was far in excess of the significance of the event. A rationale based on "protecting" children from the reality around them has no basis in fact, so it's nothing more than the religious right lying to get their morality imposed on us all.
Need I describe at length the existing laws regarding abortion and contraception in the USA? If you wish to have a more thorough documentation of these, I recommend the excellent book "America's War on Sex" by Marty Klein. Although the bible is silent regarding abortion and contraception (among many other topics since the technology for these didn’t exist in biblical times), America's conservative christians (aka the religious reich) have successfully implemented many barriers and limitations on both of these technologies. The argument is made that these methods of reducing the consequences of sexual "misconduct" (i.e., any sexual activity not authorized by the interpreters of biblical content) will encourage promiscuity. What's so bad about promiscuity, anyway? Who has the right to decide how much sexual activity is enough? The religious reich believes they do!!
The religious reich believes that any sex outside of marriage between a man and woman for the sole purpose of reproduction is forbidden. Fine. If they want to limit themselves in this way, let them do so in the privacy of their own domiciles. Why do they need to push their version of morality on everyone else? Why should they care what goes on in the private lives of someone who isn’t a believer in their particular form of "morality"? Why should they have the right to dictate to women how to express their sexuality? Why should they have the right to tell women how to operate their reproductive system? Why should they have the right to make same-sex relationships exempt from equal rights under the law? Why should they have the right to make anal and oral sex illegal for everyone? The simple answer is, of course, they shouldn’t have that right. But they're doing so anyway.
In another compelling book "Sex and God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality" by Darrel Ray, we read that the goal of the fundamentalist religious authorities is to gain power over people’s lives. When religions can control the sex lives of their followers, they are well on their way to controlling the rest of their activities. They have convinced most people that sex is "dirty", the human body is "obscene", and sexual behaviors outside of penis-vagina intercourse for the purpose of making babies within the "sacred" institution of marriage are "evil" and cause all sorts of harm (the evidence for which is nonexistent). The real harm, of course, is the scarred psyches of our children who can wind up despising their bodies, fearful of sex, ashamed of their sexuality and feeling guilty over doing the very things they are told are wrong – because the urge to do those things is nearly irresistible. The guilt leads people back to religion, of course, where the message of the "original sin" and the worthlessness of humans is reinforced. This is simply a way to maintain religious control over people's lives. The fear and guilt aren't working to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs - children are engaging in sex at the same frequency everywhere, no matter what indoctrination is imposed on them by sanctimonious religious believers.
So irresistible are those urges, in fact, that many members of the religious reich participate in those very verboten acts, on a regular basis, as is frequently revealed in the media. The monumental hypocrisy of these characters illustrates their complete lack of credibility in inflicting their personal morality on the rest of us in the form of laws criminalize the same acts in which they themselves engage! We don’t want or need their "authorization" for what we choose to do - we reject categorically their morality, which purports to have sacrosanct ideals but which in the reality of their lives just mirrors their hypocrisy. They have no Constitutional right to impose their morality on us all, so we should oppose all such efforts.
Their answer to everything – abstinence from any sexual activity not "authorized" by these hypocrites – has been shown repeatedly not to be at all effective, whereas modern technology (condoms, contraceptives, etc.) has been given rigorous scientific testing and shown to be effective at reducing unwanted consequences of sexual activity. The details are expressed at length in "America’s War on Sex" where it is shown that the religious reich goes to extreme lengths, including outright lies and falsehoods, to discredit these technologies and prevent their use. Abstinence, they claim, is the only acceptable answer, despite the reality that abstinence has been shown to be ineffective at reducing the spread of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and so on.
We have the illogical spectacle of opposition to abortion at the same time they oppose the use of contraception! The biggest contribution to a reduction of unwanted pregnancies would be the use of contraceptives (in their many forms, including "the morning after" pill). It's clear that using these contraceptive technologies would not support the pure abstinence program of the religious reich, so their response is to use their political power to impose all sorts of obstacles to the use and sale of contraceptives at the same time abortion is being heavily restricted (with a growing movement to outlaw it in all circumstances - no exceptions!).
In terms of sexual morality, the religious reich has been very effective in infusing their version of "morality" into the laws of our secular nation. An explanation for their effectiveness is the classic case of the tyranny of the majority. wo Many people (even those who partake of "unauthorized" sex in their private lives) are willing to stand behind the forceful imposition of religious morality on all people of the nation. Unfortunately, many "moderate" believers are among those who choose not to vote at all, or to accept the religious version of "morality" and so are unwilling to oppose efforts to force it down everyone's throat.
One need look no farther to see the clear and present danger of creeping theocracy. We must resist this unconstitutional imposition of religious sexual "morality" on the nation. Let them try to live up to their own ideals (at which they often are unsuccessful!) in their private lives, but deny them the right to impose those rules on the rest of us!
For instance, there are widespread limitations on the availability of sexually-oriented material of all sorts. Censorship on television is rampant, including the censorship of words commonly-used in everyday speech. Religious morality has become the "community standard" by which material is judged to be subject to censorship. Why must the religious impose their standards on everyone? Why should my right to access to material I enjoy be limited by those who are absolutely free to choose not to access that material? I'm not forcing them to watch sexually-oriented television, or buy such pornographic magazines, or read literature containing words they find offensive, so why are they preventing me from having access to it?
The religious who support these "standards" typically respond that they're worried about children being influenced negatively by hearing "bad" (according to whom?) words and seeing "indecent" (again, according to whom?) things. There's no evidence to support such an excuse for censorship, and I can think of no good reason why children need to be sheltered from sexual content until their honeymoon night. It's absolutely absurd, for instance, that the many children who saw Janet Jackson's nipple during the Superbowl XXXVIII halftime show were somehow permanently damaged by such a sight. All people, including children, have nipples, for Pete's sake! The furor was far in excess of the significance of the event. A rationale based on "protecting" children from the reality around them has no basis in fact, so it's nothing more than the religious right lying to get their morality imposed on us all.
Need I describe at length the existing laws regarding abortion and contraception in the USA? If you wish to have a more thorough documentation of these, I recommend the excellent book "America's War on Sex" by Marty Klein. Although the bible is silent regarding abortion and contraception (among many other topics since the technology for these didn’t exist in biblical times), America's conservative christians (aka the religious reich) have successfully implemented many barriers and limitations on both of these technologies. The argument is made that these methods of reducing the consequences of sexual "misconduct" (i.e., any sexual activity not authorized by the interpreters of biblical content) will encourage promiscuity. What's so bad about promiscuity, anyway? Who has the right to decide how much sexual activity is enough? The religious reich believes they do!!
The religious reich believes that any sex outside of marriage between a man and woman for the sole purpose of reproduction is forbidden. Fine. If they want to limit themselves in this way, let them do so in the privacy of their own domiciles. Why do they need to push their version of morality on everyone else? Why should they care what goes on in the private lives of someone who isn’t a believer in their particular form of "morality"? Why should they have the right to dictate to women how to express their sexuality? Why should they have the right to tell women how to operate their reproductive system? Why should they have the right to make same-sex relationships exempt from equal rights under the law? Why should they have the right to make anal and oral sex illegal for everyone? The simple answer is, of course, they shouldn’t have that right. But they're doing so anyway.
In another compelling book "Sex and God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality" by Darrel Ray, we read that the goal of the fundamentalist religious authorities is to gain power over people’s lives. When religions can control the sex lives of their followers, they are well on their way to controlling the rest of their activities. They have convinced most people that sex is "dirty", the human body is "obscene", and sexual behaviors outside of penis-vagina intercourse for the purpose of making babies within the "sacred" institution of marriage are "evil" and cause all sorts of harm (the evidence for which is nonexistent). The real harm, of course, is the scarred psyches of our children who can wind up despising their bodies, fearful of sex, ashamed of their sexuality and feeling guilty over doing the very things they are told are wrong – because the urge to do those things is nearly irresistible. The guilt leads people back to religion, of course, where the message of the "original sin" and the worthlessness of humans is reinforced. This is simply a way to maintain religious control over people's lives. The fear and guilt aren't working to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs - children are engaging in sex at the same frequency everywhere, no matter what indoctrination is imposed on them by sanctimonious religious believers.
So irresistible are those urges, in fact, that many members of the religious reich participate in those very verboten acts, on a regular basis, as is frequently revealed in the media. The monumental hypocrisy of these characters illustrates their complete lack of credibility in inflicting their personal morality on the rest of us in the form of laws criminalize the same acts in which they themselves engage! We don’t want or need their "authorization" for what we choose to do - we reject categorically their morality, which purports to have sacrosanct ideals but which in the reality of their lives just mirrors their hypocrisy. They have no Constitutional right to impose their morality on us all, so we should oppose all such efforts.
Their answer to everything – abstinence from any sexual activity not "authorized" by these hypocrites – has been shown repeatedly not to be at all effective, whereas modern technology (condoms, contraceptives, etc.) has been given rigorous scientific testing and shown to be effective at reducing unwanted consequences of sexual activity. The details are expressed at length in "America’s War on Sex" where it is shown that the religious reich goes to extreme lengths, including outright lies and falsehoods, to discredit these technologies and prevent their use. Abstinence, they claim, is the only acceptable answer, despite the reality that abstinence has been shown to be ineffective at reducing the spread of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and so on.
We have the illogical spectacle of opposition to abortion at the same time they oppose the use of contraception! The biggest contribution to a reduction of unwanted pregnancies would be the use of contraceptives (in their many forms, including "the morning after" pill). It's clear that using these contraceptive technologies would not support the pure abstinence program of the religious reich, so their response is to use their political power to impose all sorts of obstacles to the use and sale of contraceptives at the same time abortion is being heavily restricted (with a growing movement to outlaw it in all circumstances - no exceptions!).
In terms of sexual morality, the religious reich has been very effective in infusing their version of "morality" into the laws of our secular nation. An explanation for their effectiveness is the classic case of the tyranny of the majority. wo Many people (even those who partake of "unauthorized" sex in their private lives) are willing to stand behind the forceful imposition of religious morality on all people of the nation. Unfortunately, many "moderate" believers are among those who choose not to vote at all, or to accept the religious version of "morality" and so are unwilling to oppose efforts to force it down everyone's throat.
One need look no farther to see the clear and present danger of creeping theocracy. We must resist this unconstitutional imposition of religious sexual "morality" on the nation. Let them try to live up to their own ideals (at which they often are unsuccessful!) in their private lives, but deny them the right to impose those rules on the rest of us!
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Naming Winter Storms? Oh, Really?
The Weather Channel, a self-proclaimed "world class" weather organization, has decided they want to name winter storms. They explain this here. Of course, this explanation is hogwash. What it boils down to is this: the Weather Channel gets their largest market share during hurricanes. The TV marketing consultants that advise the Weather Channel about policy know that it's during hurricanes approaching the US coast when the largest number of people put their eyeballs in front of that nearly endless stream of Weather Channel advertisements. Although ostensibly about the weather, what the Weather Channel has evolved into is primarily entertainment. It's pretty evident to me this recent change is just a marketing ploy to increase their market share in the non-hurricane season. Nothing more. Their pious rationalizations about communicating important weather information to the public strike me as a pretty thin argument. The Weather Channel is mostly about TV entertainment, not the weather. Advertising revenue provides the fuel for that entertainment. Named storms are sexier than boring old meteorology so they attract more viewers, who are thereby subjected to brainwashing to convince them to buy an advertiser's products and/or services. So ... naming winter storms is seen as the path to bigger profits and more advertising revenue. Plain and simple - easy-peasey.
Weather geeks no longer turn to Weather Channel programming, with its seemingly endless adverts and "weather magazine" programs, to obtain the weather information they crave. The Internet serves those actually interested in the weather most every day just fine, without the Weather Channel's pointless banter by stereotypically attractive on-camera "talent", annoying technical errors, and horribly trite "explanations" that ultimately fail to provide substantive, accurate information to the public. There was a time in the past when the Weather Channel had very few commercials and they actually had some people behind the scenes who more or less knew what they were doing and tried to help the on-camera "talent" convey an accurate and meaningful weather "briefing" - remember when their weather maps actually had isobars on them?
Those days are long gone. Years ago, the consultants advised Weather Channel management to water down the meteorology in favor of more entertainment. That technical jargon just doesn't capture the interest of the great unwashed masses. Hence, much of the prime-time content is filled with "weather magazine"-type programming: pseudo documentaries and other light "entertainment" rather than a steady focus on the ongoing weather. It was at that point that I stopped watching.
That same source - the Internet - serves the general public as well, these days. Most people aren't interested in the weather unless it affects them directly and significantly. One can go many places on the Web to find weather information, including directly from the National Weather Service. Obviously the Weather Channel hopes you'll consult their website on those relatively infrequent times when the public wants a forecast, or whatever. I would guess that a lot of that market share is being soaked up by local weather broadcasters during the morning and evening news, which many people watch anyway. They "know" and trust their local broadcasters, even if they sometimes make fun of them. I've not done a study of how the public gets their weather information, but in my experience, waiting for up to 30 min for the specific information that interests you can be pretty annoying. Why wait when you can go right to what you want, without having to put up with all the yelling advertisers and babble that doesn't matter to you?
Without knowing for sure, I'd guess the Weather Channel's market share has been declining. Introducing this marketing ploy of naming winter storms because they want to "do their part" to communicate weather information to an information-starved public strikes me as pretty transparent. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Nor am I watching it. You're not going to convince me that naming winter storms is some sort of communications breakthrough!
Weather geeks no longer turn to Weather Channel programming, with its seemingly endless adverts and "weather magazine" programs, to obtain the weather information they crave. The Internet serves those actually interested in the weather most every day just fine, without the Weather Channel's pointless banter by stereotypically attractive on-camera "talent", annoying technical errors, and horribly trite "explanations" that ultimately fail to provide substantive, accurate information to the public. There was a time in the past when the Weather Channel had very few commercials and they actually had some people behind the scenes who more or less knew what they were doing and tried to help the on-camera "talent" convey an accurate and meaningful weather "briefing" - remember when their weather maps actually had isobars on them?
Those days are long gone. Years ago, the consultants advised Weather Channel management to water down the meteorology in favor of more entertainment. That technical jargon just doesn't capture the interest of the great unwashed masses. Hence, much of the prime-time content is filled with "weather magazine"-type programming: pseudo documentaries and other light "entertainment" rather than a steady focus on the ongoing weather. It was at that point that I stopped watching.
That same source - the Internet - serves the general public as well, these days. Most people aren't interested in the weather unless it affects them directly and significantly. One can go many places on the Web to find weather information, including directly from the National Weather Service. Obviously the Weather Channel hopes you'll consult their website on those relatively infrequent times when the public wants a forecast, or whatever. I would guess that a lot of that market share is being soaked up by local weather broadcasters during the morning and evening news, which many people watch anyway. They "know" and trust their local broadcasters, even if they sometimes make fun of them. I've not done a study of how the public gets their weather information, but in my experience, waiting for up to 30 min for the specific information that interests you can be pretty annoying. Why wait when you can go right to what you want, without having to put up with all the yelling advertisers and babble that doesn't matter to you?
Without knowing for sure, I'd guess the Weather Channel's market share has been declining. Introducing this marketing ploy of naming winter storms because they want to "do their part" to communicate weather information to an information-starved public strikes me as pretty transparent. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Nor am I watching it. You're not going to convince me that naming winter storms is some sort of communications breakthrough!
A Challenge to Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage
In the relatively recent history of the controversy about same-sex marriage, it's been asserted by many that they must oppose same-sex marriage in order to "protect the sanctity of marriage" or words of that sort. For the life of me, I just can't see how the marriage of two people who happen to be of the same sex alters heterosexual marriage in any negative way.
Much of the opposition to same-sex marriage springs from religion, of course. Religion poisons much of whatever it touches, and in this case, there seems to be some sort of religious homophobic reaction to the very idea of same-sex marriages. As it stands, the only "sanctity" I can tie to the religious opposition to same-sex marriage is the outrageous sanctimoniousness of the religion-based opposition. I don't want to go down this path in this discussion, however.
My personal heterosexual marriage has lasted for more than 37 years. In that time, my wife and I have come to realize that many of our good friends are gay or lesbian. We feel no particular threat from that knowledge There may be even more than we realize, of course - some may have chosen to remain "in the closet" for reasons of their own. [Most of the reasons homosexuals keep that knowledge about themselves a secret have a real basis in a rational fear of the consequences "coming out" can have on their lives.] In our 37+ years of marriage, our friendships with gays and lesbians have enriched our lives in many quite positive ways and we have no shame or hesitation in openly declaring our support for our homosexual friends. They should have the same right as heterosexuals to the "institution" of marriage. In no way has our marriage ever been threatened by our friendship with homosexuals, married or not.
I haven't seen a single instance where meaningful evidence has been offered in any of the arguments on this topic to suggest that same-sex marriage alters heterosexual marriages in any noticeable, negative way. Some fraction of heterosexual marriages involve one (or both) partners who are bisexual. So what? In an adult consensual relationship, such things are only a problem when done without the partner's knowledge and approval. That's nothing different from existing hereosexual infidelity in a marriage.
Some small fraction of heterosexual marriages involve one partner who is secretly a homosexual. Therefore, it's at least logically possible that legalizing same-sex marriage might affect those people within that fraction of all existing marriages. In cases where one partner is "living a lie" by being a homosexual within a heterosexual marriage, this might motivate some to come out and admit to their secret and thereby alter their marriage to an opposite-sex partner. Such things are happening now, so the legalization of same-sex marriage is unlikely to cause much of a change - perhaps only hastening the demise of such flawed marriages. I see no reason to believe legalizing same-sex marriage would alter these existing situations in any significant way.
Bisexuality and homosexuality have been with us throughout the history of the human race. They're not going to disappear because some people feel threatened by them (for no good reason). It is in fact a very natural thing that some fraction of the population is homosexual or bisexual, as science has revealed. We're far from the only animal species with homosexuality and bisexuality!
Insofar as I can tell, virtually all the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on homophobia - reinforced by religion-based condemnation of homosexuality. The argument that recognizing the legality of same-sex marriage somehow alters the institution of heterosexual marriage in a destructive way is completely specious. Permitting legal same-sex marriage is nothing more than granting equal rights to gays and lesbians, which they should already have here in the USA!
My challenge to all those who oppose same-sex marriage involves two things:
1. Provide me with a logical reason for the assertion that legalizing same sex marriage alters heterosexual marriage in any negative way (that's not already happening as discussed above), and
2. Show me the compelling empirical evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage would destroy heterosexual marriage.
Much of the opposition to same-sex marriage springs from religion, of course. Religion poisons much of whatever it touches, and in this case, there seems to be some sort of religious homophobic reaction to the very idea of same-sex marriages. As it stands, the only "sanctity" I can tie to the religious opposition to same-sex marriage is the outrageous sanctimoniousness of the religion-based opposition. I don't want to go down this path in this discussion, however.
My personal heterosexual marriage has lasted for more than 37 years. In that time, my wife and I have come to realize that many of our good friends are gay or lesbian. We feel no particular threat from that knowledge There may be even more than we realize, of course - some may have chosen to remain "in the closet" for reasons of their own. [Most of the reasons homosexuals keep that knowledge about themselves a secret have a real basis in a rational fear of the consequences "coming out" can have on their lives.] In our 37+ years of marriage, our friendships with gays and lesbians have enriched our lives in many quite positive ways and we have no shame or hesitation in openly declaring our support for our homosexual friends. They should have the same right as heterosexuals to the "institution" of marriage. In no way has our marriage ever been threatened by our friendship with homosexuals, married or not.
I haven't seen a single instance where meaningful evidence has been offered in any of the arguments on this topic to suggest that same-sex marriage alters heterosexual marriages in any noticeable, negative way. Some fraction of heterosexual marriages involve one (or both) partners who are bisexual. So what? In an adult consensual relationship, such things are only a problem when done without the partner's knowledge and approval. That's nothing different from existing hereosexual infidelity in a marriage.
Some small fraction of heterosexual marriages involve one partner who is secretly a homosexual. Therefore, it's at least logically possible that legalizing same-sex marriage might affect those people within that fraction of all existing marriages. In cases where one partner is "living a lie" by being a homosexual within a heterosexual marriage, this might motivate some to come out and admit to their secret and thereby alter their marriage to an opposite-sex partner. Such things are happening now, so the legalization of same-sex marriage is unlikely to cause much of a change - perhaps only hastening the demise of such flawed marriages. I see no reason to believe legalizing same-sex marriage would alter these existing situations in any significant way.
Bisexuality and homosexuality have been with us throughout the history of the human race. They're not going to disappear because some people feel threatened by them (for no good reason). It is in fact a very natural thing that some fraction of the population is homosexual or bisexual, as science has revealed. We're far from the only animal species with homosexuality and bisexuality!
Insofar as I can tell, virtually all the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on homophobia - reinforced by religion-based condemnation of homosexuality. The argument that recognizing the legality of same-sex marriage somehow alters the institution of heterosexual marriage in a destructive way is completely specious. Permitting legal same-sex marriage is nothing more than granting equal rights to gays and lesbians, which they should already have here in the USA!
My challenge to all those who oppose same-sex marriage involves two things:
1. Provide me with a logical reason for the assertion that legalizing same sex marriage alters heterosexual marriage in any negative way (that's not already happening as discussed above), and
2. Show me the compelling empirical evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage would destroy heterosexual marriage.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Numerical Models and Research
Note: This topic is very much focused on science, and may be challenging to nonscientist readers. I have tried to provide some background, but within the confines of a blog, this is necessarily heavily abbreviated.
Several years ago, I wrote an extended essay about the use of numerical models in weather forecasting and research. In this blog, I want to emphasize something I think is pretty important to consider when using numerical models in a research mode. Numerical models of the atmosphere are approximations to the mathematical models used to create the numerical model - they are a model (i.e., an approximation) of a model. The mathematical model in turn is a model of reality - this is an interesting aspect of mathematics - that is, mathematics can be used to describe phenomena in the real world - but I digress ...
The mathematical formulae approximated in the numerical model are drawn from physical laws (e.g., conservation of mass, energy, and momentum) that are assumed to apply to any physical system. Atmospheric models typically do not include relativistic effects or quantum physics, for instance, which are assumed to be unimportant to the atmosphere. In a model of the atmosphere, the equations describing those physical laws are written in a form suitable to apply to the fluid that is the atmosphere. Depending on the model, certain physical effects are assumed to be important while others are ignored. No practical model of anything can incorporate everything!
It's implicitly assumed that the aforementioned physical laws govern the temporal behavior of air "parcels" - an air parcel isn't defined in quantitative terms in any absolute sense, but is, rather, of indefinite size. The properties of the air (temperature, humidity, pressure, wind velocity) within the parcel include the possibility of spatial variations within the parcel - parcel properties need not be constant within that indefinite volume. If the model is started at some instant with whatever knowledge we have of the distribution of atmospheric properties over a volume containing a large number of parcels (up to and including the entire, global atmosphere) at that given instant, then the model can be used to predict the evolution of that distribution over time. This is the basis for using numerical models to predict the weather days in advance. Numerical forecast models have been quite successful in advancing the art and science of weather forecasting!
Nevertheless, a huge problem in atmospheric science is that physical processes can affect the weather over an enormous range of time and space scales, from the microscopic at least to the size of the Earth (if not the whole solar system)! If we consider the volume within which the model operates and the model operates on something less than a global scale, there may be relevant physical processes that are too large to be included in the model. Anything less than global scale introduces spatial domain boundaries that represent another complication.
On the other hand, the number of parcels we choose to include within the domain over which the model operates determines its resolution, where by "resolution" we mean its ability to represent physical processes properly. Any practical model cannot have infinite resolution, so in addition to processes that are too large to be included in the model, there are also processes operating on scales that are too small to be represented. They 'fall through the cracks' as it were. If it's deemed that processes not describable within the model by specifying parcel properties are nevertheless important, they must be represented within the model is some other way, such that the model can incorporate them in its mathematical framework - this is called parameterization. It's a way to include physical processes felt to be important but not resolvable within the model. There's considerable art associated with developing such schemes, but they inevitably misrepresent the processes they've been developed to represent.
Anything contained within the model by whatever means (either by direct representation or by parameterization) defines the physical processes allowed by that model. Thus, any model is necessarily an approximation to the real atmosphere, that resolves certain processes, represents other process that can't be resolved in some relatively crude way, and finally, ignores many processes.
The main point of this very abbreviated tutorial is to provide some basis for what I'm about to say. Research scientists use models to try to understand the physics of the atmosphere. They can develop and study modeling results to explore the quantitative implications of the physical processes represented within the model. What researchers may sometimes fail to keep in mind is that once the model has been developed, it can only represent those physical processes allowed by the assumptions the model developers have made about what is and is not important within that model. The model is utterly and totally blind to any process that can't be represented by its numerical formulae. The assumptions made in building the model inevitably restrict the possibilities for what the model can show, right from the outset. The atmosphere contained within the model is only a "toy atmosphere" - an idealization. If an error was made anywhere in the development of the model (from the assumptions to the mathematical formulations, to the numerical approximations, and finally to the computer code used to run the model), then the challenge to using that model is to know how to recognize that error and track down its source.
New physical insight can be developed from numerical simulation models, but such insight has to be firmly vetted via empirical evidence. New understanding doesn't spring automatically from running and analyzing the results of numerical simulation models.
Numerical models can be seductive in their appearance of great precision and apparent quantitative insight. But the old computational law applies to them: garbage in, garbage out. The key to using such models is that they must remain grounded in the principle of observational confirmation. A pure modeling effort not validated against empirical evidence is nothing more than speculation!
Several years ago, I wrote an extended essay about the use of numerical models in weather forecasting and research. In this blog, I want to emphasize something I think is pretty important to consider when using numerical models in a research mode. Numerical models of the atmosphere are approximations to the mathematical models used to create the numerical model - they are a model (i.e., an approximation) of a model. The mathematical model in turn is a model of reality - this is an interesting aspect of mathematics - that is, mathematics can be used to describe phenomena in the real world - but I digress ...
The mathematical formulae approximated in the numerical model are drawn from physical laws (e.g., conservation of mass, energy, and momentum) that are assumed to apply to any physical system. Atmospheric models typically do not include relativistic effects or quantum physics, for instance, which are assumed to be unimportant to the atmosphere. In a model of the atmosphere, the equations describing those physical laws are written in a form suitable to apply to the fluid that is the atmosphere. Depending on the model, certain physical effects are assumed to be important while others are ignored. No practical model of anything can incorporate everything!
It's implicitly assumed that the aforementioned physical laws govern the temporal behavior of air "parcels" - an air parcel isn't defined in quantitative terms in any absolute sense, but is, rather, of indefinite size. The properties of the air (temperature, humidity, pressure, wind velocity) within the parcel include the possibility of spatial variations within the parcel - parcel properties need not be constant within that indefinite volume. If the model is started at some instant with whatever knowledge we have of the distribution of atmospheric properties over a volume containing a large number of parcels (up to and including the entire, global atmosphere) at that given instant, then the model can be used to predict the evolution of that distribution over time. This is the basis for using numerical models to predict the weather days in advance. Numerical forecast models have been quite successful in advancing the art and science of weather forecasting!
Nevertheless, a huge problem in atmospheric science is that physical processes can affect the weather over an enormous range of time and space scales, from the microscopic at least to the size of the Earth (if not the whole solar system)! If we consider the volume within which the model operates and the model operates on something less than a global scale, there may be relevant physical processes that are too large to be included in the model. Anything less than global scale introduces spatial domain boundaries that represent another complication.
On the other hand, the number of parcels we choose to include within the domain over which the model operates determines its resolution, where by "resolution" we mean its ability to represent physical processes properly. Any practical model cannot have infinite resolution, so in addition to processes that are too large to be included in the model, there are also processes operating on scales that are too small to be represented. They 'fall through the cracks' as it were. If it's deemed that processes not describable within the model by specifying parcel properties are nevertheless important, they must be represented within the model is some other way, such that the model can incorporate them in its mathematical framework - this is called parameterization. It's a way to include physical processes felt to be important but not resolvable within the model. There's considerable art associated with developing such schemes, but they inevitably misrepresent the processes they've been developed to represent.
Anything contained within the model by whatever means (either by direct representation or by parameterization) defines the physical processes allowed by that model. Thus, any model is necessarily an approximation to the real atmosphere, that resolves certain processes, represents other process that can't be resolved in some relatively crude way, and finally, ignores many processes.
The main point of this very abbreviated tutorial is to provide some basis for what I'm about to say. Research scientists use models to try to understand the physics of the atmosphere. They can develop and study modeling results to explore the quantitative implications of the physical processes represented within the model. What researchers may sometimes fail to keep in mind is that once the model has been developed, it can only represent those physical processes allowed by the assumptions the model developers have made about what is and is not important within that model. The model is utterly and totally blind to any process that can't be represented by its numerical formulae. The assumptions made in building the model inevitably restrict the possibilities for what the model can show, right from the outset. The atmosphere contained within the model is only a "toy atmosphere" - an idealization. If an error was made anywhere in the development of the model (from the assumptions to the mathematical formulations, to the numerical approximations, and finally to the computer code used to run the model), then the challenge to using that model is to know how to recognize that error and track down its source.
New physical insight can be developed from numerical simulation models, but such insight has to be firmly vetted via empirical evidence. New understanding doesn't spring automatically from running and analyzing the results of numerical simulation models.
Numerical models can be seductive in their appearance of great precision and apparent quantitative insight. But the old computational law applies to them: garbage in, garbage out. The key to using such models is that they must remain grounded in the principle of observational confirmation. A pure modeling effort not validated against empirical evidence is nothing more than speculation!
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Personal Character of Religious Belief
In discussions with believers, I've come to the conclusion that although most believers claim affiliation with a particular version of religious belief (and there are tens of thousands of diverse versions of religious belief), those who are not "fundamentalists" (i.e., who accept the literal truth of all the words of their chosen deity as documented in scriptures) have a tendency to have their own more or less unique, personal set of beliefs. Why is this the case?
The primary reason is the nature of the "holy" scriptures upon which most believers assume these religions are based. If one actually reads these documents, they're full of contradictions, nebulous parables, outright historical and scientific errors. etc. To me, the most logical explanation for these problems is that the scriptures are essentially mythical (fictional) accounts written by multiple authors, transcribed into new languages over the time they've endured since they first were written - on the order of 2,000+ years ago.
If one assume that a reasonable position is not to accept the literal truth of all the scriptures, thereby neatly avoiding all the contradictions and errors, then one is left with an inescapable conclusion: any meaning we assign to the scriptures is necessarily the result of fallible human interpretations. Since sane people presently seem unable to consult the putative deity who wrote (or inspired the writing of) the scriptures for guidance regarding his intended meanings within the challenging biblical narratives, we have no way to be absolutely sure of the deity's intended meanings. What we have is our personal interpretation, and the interpretations of others - unavoidably human. If we decline to accept a fundamentalist's literal acceptance of scriptural words, we must conclude that our personal interpretation of the words upon which our faith rests is not divine, but very much a human (even individual) perspective.
Curiously, even fundamentalist sects disagree about their seemingly literal interpretations of the scriptures! But fundamentalists must somehow accommodate logical contradictions within the scriptures they claim to be word-for-word truth, so they seem to have no problem with one more logical contradiction!
The clergy generally claim to possess the correct interpretation of scriptures, of course. Their sole qualification for such a claim is their ordination as clergy, a rite of dubious divinity that depends on their having been indoctrinated with the dogma of their particular brand of belief, typically via religious schooling. From where does their docrine come? Presumably, such dogma has been passed down from the human founders of that sect, with the possibility of changes having occurred in that doctrine over the centuries. The catholics no longer feel upset with Galileo and Copernicus, for instance. Hence, it seems that religious doctrine is not unchangeable and absolutely valid for all time, after all. If it came directly from an eternal, all-everything deity, why would it ever have to change? Inescapably, this means sectarian doctrine is undeniably a human invention (for all but fundamentalists). The human founders of the sect had some set of doctrinal beliefs they agreed upon and passed on, but those have evolved with time, as generations of sectarian clergy have been forced to put new interpretations into that doctrine by the changing world around them. Would not an all-everything deity have been able to shape an unchangeable doctrine? But I digress ...
Consider the interpretation of indisputably human writings, as opposed to writings attributed to a deity. For many human writings, the intended meaning of the author is pretty easy to deduce. Manuals and textbooks certainly have such tightly constrained meanings, that it's nigh unto impossible to misinterpret them. They may be poorly written or so challenging to understand that we need help from someone to make out what they're saying, but we can test our interpretations of their contents. If we use the instruction manual for our computers, the test is to see if we can make it work properly. If we try to solve problems using the principles written in a textbook, the test is to see if we obtain the correct solution. We don't need to talk to the author to know for sure we got it right. Confirming religious document interpretations is much more problematic, unless you're willing to accept the logically unacceptable circular argument of using scripture to confirm your interpretation of the scriptures.
Other human writings can be much more challenging to interpret than textbooks or manuals, of course, especially fiction. Most all of us have read Moby Dick at some point in our academic lives, and it's fairly obvious that the characters and actions in that book are allegorical. It's not just a pointless story about some guys and a whale - its people and events in their lives symbolize other things. This book may have been the first time we, as students, began to understand metaphor and its uses in literature. Can we be absolutely certain we understand what Herman Melville intended when we finish the book? Most of us probably received some guidance about that from our teachers, who in turn got it from their teachers, and so on. Perhaps the first teacher who used Moby Dick in a class could have asked Melville in person, but now that time has passed. We either have to trust the interpretations suggested to us by our teachers, or we have to derive our own interpretation. In either case, the meanings assigned to the characters and events in the story might be different from Melville actually intended! If you think what was taught to you about Moby Dick is a load of crap, you're free to invent your own interpretation, up to and including the conclusion it's just a made-up pointless yarn about some guys and a whale!
When I read the non-fiction book PairyErth by William Least Heat-Moon, I speculated on why he chose to present the people and events of Chase County, Kansas (a place to which my storm chasing causes me to return occasionally). A few years ago, I was listening to an interview with him on National Public Radio, and he said he picked Chase County, Kansas, because he though it might superficially be considered the most boring and uninteresting county in the US! The book proceeds to show precisely the opposite, of course. That was the point of the book, and I had suspected that to be the case, but it was good to have my interpretation confirmed! It was the fact that he was still alive and able to answer that question that allowed me to confirm my reading of the book.
When a book is claimed to have divine origins (or at least inspiration), then believers can use it to justify genocide, racism, misogyny, murder, etc. Establishing the intended meaning of the author(s) seems to be fairly important in this regard. Obviously, not everyone puts such an interpretation on scriptures - what many non-fundamentalist believers say is that those who commit such terrible injustices in the name of their deity are not "true" believers. Such a response is, of course, clearly associated with a high degree of confidence that the responder is a true believer.
Such confidence may not logically be warranted, given the tens of thousands of different belief systems out there. Just how can one be absolutely certain that your doctrine is the right one among the many? The inevitable answer is ... faith (belief without evidence), of course. In my viewpoint, faith is a shaky foundation on which to build a belief in a supernatural deity who is supposed to rule our lives. Can we put our complete trust in the clergy, or even in our own personal ability to interpret what supposedly sacred scripture tells us? At present, in the USA, you can make your own choices, of course. Thanks to faith, in many places around the world, you don't have that freedom!!
The primary reason is the nature of the "holy" scriptures upon which most believers assume these religions are based. If one actually reads these documents, they're full of contradictions, nebulous parables, outright historical and scientific errors. etc. To me, the most logical explanation for these problems is that the scriptures are essentially mythical (fictional) accounts written by multiple authors, transcribed into new languages over the time they've endured since they first were written - on the order of 2,000+ years ago.
If one assume that a reasonable position is not to accept the literal truth of all the scriptures, thereby neatly avoiding all the contradictions and errors, then one is left with an inescapable conclusion: any meaning we assign to the scriptures is necessarily the result of fallible human interpretations. Since sane people presently seem unable to consult the putative deity who wrote (or inspired the writing of) the scriptures for guidance regarding his intended meanings within the challenging biblical narratives, we have no way to be absolutely sure of the deity's intended meanings. What we have is our personal interpretation, and the interpretations of others - unavoidably human. If we decline to accept a fundamentalist's literal acceptance of scriptural words, we must conclude that our personal interpretation of the words upon which our faith rests is not divine, but very much a human (even individual) perspective.
Curiously, even fundamentalist sects disagree about their seemingly literal interpretations of the scriptures! But fundamentalists must somehow accommodate logical contradictions within the scriptures they claim to be word-for-word truth, so they seem to have no problem with one more logical contradiction!
The clergy generally claim to possess the correct interpretation of scriptures, of course. Their sole qualification for such a claim is their ordination as clergy, a rite of dubious divinity that depends on their having been indoctrinated with the dogma of their particular brand of belief, typically via religious schooling. From where does their docrine come? Presumably, such dogma has been passed down from the human founders of that sect, with the possibility of changes having occurred in that doctrine over the centuries. The catholics no longer feel upset with Galileo and Copernicus, for instance. Hence, it seems that religious doctrine is not unchangeable and absolutely valid for all time, after all. If it came directly from an eternal, all-everything deity, why would it ever have to change? Inescapably, this means sectarian doctrine is undeniably a human invention (for all but fundamentalists). The human founders of the sect had some set of doctrinal beliefs they agreed upon and passed on, but those have evolved with time, as generations of sectarian clergy have been forced to put new interpretations into that doctrine by the changing world around them. Would not an all-everything deity have been able to shape an unchangeable doctrine? But I digress ...
Consider the interpretation of indisputably human writings, as opposed to writings attributed to a deity. For many human writings, the intended meaning of the author is pretty easy to deduce. Manuals and textbooks certainly have such tightly constrained meanings, that it's nigh unto impossible to misinterpret them. They may be poorly written or so challenging to understand that we need help from someone to make out what they're saying, but we can test our interpretations of their contents. If we use the instruction manual for our computers, the test is to see if we can make it work properly. If we try to solve problems using the principles written in a textbook, the test is to see if we obtain the correct solution. We don't need to talk to the author to know for sure we got it right. Confirming religious document interpretations is much more problematic, unless you're willing to accept the logically unacceptable circular argument of using scripture to confirm your interpretation of the scriptures.
Other human writings can be much more challenging to interpret than textbooks or manuals, of course, especially fiction. Most all of us have read Moby Dick at some point in our academic lives, and it's fairly obvious that the characters and actions in that book are allegorical. It's not just a pointless story about some guys and a whale - its people and events in their lives symbolize other things. This book may have been the first time we, as students, began to understand metaphor and its uses in literature. Can we be absolutely certain we understand what Herman Melville intended when we finish the book? Most of us probably received some guidance about that from our teachers, who in turn got it from their teachers, and so on. Perhaps the first teacher who used Moby Dick in a class could have asked Melville in person, but now that time has passed. We either have to trust the interpretations suggested to us by our teachers, or we have to derive our own interpretation. In either case, the meanings assigned to the characters and events in the story might be different from Melville actually intended! If you think what was taught to you about Moby Dick is a load of crap, you're free to invent your own interpretation, up to and including the conclusion it's just a made-up pointless yarn about some guys and a whale!
When I read the non-fiction book PairyErth by William Least Heat-Moon, I speculated on why he chose to present the people and events of Chase County, Kansas (a place to which my storm chasing causes me to return occasionally). A few years ago, I was listening to an interview with him on National Public Radio, and he said he picked Chase County, Kansas, because he though it might superficially be considered the most boring and uninteresting county in the US! The book proceeds to show precisely the opposite, of course. That was the point of the book, and I had suspected that to be the case, but it was good to have my interpretation confirmed! It was the fact that he was still alive and able to answer that question that allowed me to confirm my reading of the book.
When a book is claimed to have divine origins (or at least inspiration), then believers can use it to justify genocide, racism, misogyny, murder, etc. Establishing the intended meaning of the author(s) seems to be fairly important in this regard. Obviously, not everyone puts such an interpretation on scriptures - what many non-fundamentalist believers say is that those who commit such terrible injustices in the name of their deity are not "true" believers. Such a response is, of course, clearly associated with a high degree of confidence that the responder is a true believer.
Such confidence may not logically be warranted, given the tens of thousands of different belief systems out there. Just how can one be absolutely certain that your doctrine is the right one among the many? The inevitable answer is ... faith (belief without evidence), of course. In my viewpoint, faith is a shaky foundation on which to build a belief in a supernatural deity who is supposed to rule our lives. Can we put our complete trust in the clergy, or even in our own personal ability to interpret what supposedly sacred scripture tells us? At present, in the USA, you can make your own choices, of course. Thanks to faith, in many places around the world, you don't have that freedom!!
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Public Education Under Attack
My insightful friend Ronald Bruce Myer (aka the pseudonym "John Mill") recently posted an outstanding essay about teachers under fire in today's America (also posted at American Heathen). I really can't add a lot to his essay. Teachers are not deserving of the criticisms currently being leveled at them as a result of political issues that have no roots in education, per se. To teach in public schools today is to be forced to accept pitifully low wages in return for an enormous workload if the teacher truly is committed to being an educator. I absolutely endorse Ron's statement:
Teachers deserve respect, not derision. If they are protected from being fired for reasons unconnected with job performance (tenure), that is a good thing. If they make good money, that’s another measure of respect. Teachers are not the problem. They don’t teach because they make a lot of money, they teach because they make a lot of difference.
My contribution to this topic begins, like Ron's, with some personal observations. My family raised me to have a great deal of respect for public education. Although I have some issues with the public education system (see discussions here, here, and here), time has reinforced the message I first heard at home. I'm going to resist extending this discussion into the challenges with fixing the real problems of the public education system, though. That topic may be the subject of a future post.
Education is an essential component of creating a truly informed electorate, an important component of a nation deeply dependent on technology, and an important component in the pursuit of individual, personal goals. Without public education, the government is free to dominate a nation of predominantly ignorant citizens. Ignorant people have no bullshit filter, are unaware of the lessons of history, the nuances of where modern science interacts with public policy, the validity of what they see in the media, etc. They don't have a deep understanding of the issues in political elections and so have no guidance about for whom to vote, save the evil of "party loyalty". Such "sheeple" are far more easily led down the paths leading to tyranny and oppression than an educated, knowledgeable electorate. The commitment made in the USA to public education has been a commitment, ultimately, to freedom and liberty for all of us.
When the education system is not just being criticized (and some aspects of the system certainly deserve criticism), but is under open confrontational attack, all of us should understand that our future as citizens in a free nation is being threatened. As a schoolboy, I was aware that teachers were respected for what they were attempting to do: to make a positive difference in the lives and futures of the young people they were charged with teaching. Teachers deserve respect because they're doing their jobs at considerable personal cost - many of them could have taken better-paying jobs elsewhere that would have required far less effort. But they chose to teach, many of them owing to a personal commitment to being an educator. In effect, teaching in public schools is charity work for the benefit of all!
The problem public school teachers faced when I was a boy has remained a problem to this very day. Public education is paid for with taxes, and many taxpayers actually question the value of the public education system - evidently they have little or no real understanding of public education's role in maintaining the high status of the USA. As our commitment nationally to public education has declined, so has our stature around the world declined, by any of a large number and variety of measures. Public education has been a shining star historically in the USA, but its status and funding (which have been and remain very low) have never been remotely comparable to its real value in the American form of democracy (which is very high).
Public schools are being micromanaged by incompetent local school boards packed with people who have few or no qualifications to manage the educational system but often with a political agenda (and even a religious agenda!). The schools themselves have become supersaturated with parasitic bureaucrats who claim high salaries but do no teaching and who bring no useful skills to the system. These bloodsuckers presume to "manage" education in ways that simply impede the education process, and siphon off much needed resources that teachers require to do their jobs at the appropriate level.
Now we add to that niggardly attitude about paying for the value of public education a declining respect for the teachers themselves. They're being targeted by the so-called Tea Party conservatives, apparently as representatives of a whole class of imaginary parasites pulling down big salaries at taxpayer cost, when the reality is far from that false image. We're actually experiencing the lowest tax rates in recent USA history! The whole campaign against teachers (here is an example) is simply a cog in the wheel of the right-wing religious extremist agenda.
We need to repudiate this attempt to belittle and downgrade the public education system, and return to a high level of respect for teachers, as well as to reverse the long-standing trend to spend the least possible on public education. If our young people are our future, should we not be willing to invest heavily in that future? I've never understood how anyone could believe otherwise!!
Teachers deserve respect, not derision. If they are protected from being fired for reasons unconnected with job performance (tenure), that is a good thing. If they make good money, that’s another measure of respect. Teachers are not the problem. They don’t teach because they make a lot of money, they teach because they make a lot of difference.
My contribution to this topic begins, like Ron's, with some personal observations. My family raised me to have a great deal of respect for public education. Although I have some issues with the public education system (see discussions here, here, and here), time has reinforced the message I first heard at home. I'm going to resist extending this discussion into the challenges with fixing the real problems of the public education system, though. That topic may be the subject of a future post.
Education is an essential component of creating a truly informed electorate, an important component of a nation deeply dependent on technology, and an important component in the pursuit of individual, personal goals. Without public education, the government is free to dominate a nation of predominantly ignorant citizens. Ignorant people have no bullshit filter, are unaware of the lessons of history, the nuances of where modern science interacts with public policy, the validity of what they see in the media, etc. They don't have a deep understanding of the issues in political elections and so have no guidance about for whom to vote, save the evil of "party loyalty". Such "sheeple" are far more easily led down the paths leading to tyranny and oppression than an educated, knowledgeable electorate. The commitment made in the USA to public education has been a commitment, ultimately, to freedom and liberty for all of us.
When the education system is not just being criticized (and some aspects of the system certainly deserve criticism), but is under open confrontational attack, all of us should understand that our future as citizens in a free nation is being threatened. As a schoolboy, I was aware that teachers were respected for what they were attempting to do: to make a positive difference in the lives and futures of the young people they were charged with teaching. Teachers deserve respect because they're doing their jobs at considerable personal cost - many of them could have taken better-paying jobs elsewhere that would have required far less effort. But they chose to teach, many of them owing to a personal commitment to being an educator. In effect, teaching in public schools is charity work for the benefit of all!
The problem public school teachers faced when I was a boy has remained a problem to this very day. Public education is paid for with taxes, and many taxpayers actually question the value of the public education system - evidently they have little or no real understanding of public education's role in maintaining the high status of the USA. As our commitment nationally to public education has declined, so has our stature around the world declined, by any of a large number and variety of measures. Public education has been a shining star historically in the USA, but its status and funding (which have been and remain very low) have never been remotely comparable to its real value in the American form of democracy (which is very high).
Public schools are being micromanaged by incompetent local school boards packed with people who have few or no qualifications to manage the educational system but often with a political agenda (and even a religious agenda!). The schools themselves have become supersaturated with parasitic bureaucrats who claim high salaries but do no teaching and who bring no useful skills to the system. These bloodsuckers presume to "manage" education in ways that simply impede the education process, and siphon off much needed resources that teachers require to do their jobs at the appropriate level.
Now we add to that niggardly attitude about paying for the value of public education a declining respect for the teachers themselves. They're being targeted by the so-called Tea Party conservatives, apparently as representatives of a whole class of imaginary parasites pulling down big salaries at taxpayer cost, when the reality is far from that false image. We're actually experiencing the lowest tax rates in recent USA history! The whole campaign against teachers (here is an example) is simply a cog in the wheel of the right-wing religious extremist agenda.
We need to repudiate this attempt to belittle and downgrade the public education system, and return to a high level of respect for teachers, as well as to reverse the long-standing trend to spend the least possible on public education. If our young people are our future, should we not be willing to invest heavily in that future? I've never understood how anyone could believe otherwise!!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
The Cruelty of Alzheimer's
In one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, Ellis (Red) Redding (played by one of my favorite actors, Morgan Freeman) is re-united with his friend, Andy Dufresne (played by Tim Robbins), after Red is finally paroled from Shawshank Prison, having served for 40 years. At the time Red first was imprisoned, he'd been a "stupid kid" who'd committed murder during a robbery - after 40 years, he was an old man, deeply regretful of his terrible crime. One message of the movie is that hope is a good thing, and good things never die. In the movie, Andy and Red had 20 years together in prison and the movie ends with them being re-united ...
A bit more than 40 years ago, I first met someone who has been my friend ever since. Those who know me may well know of whom I speak, but I'll not mention his name here. What's happened is my friend is a victim of early onset Alzheimer's Disease. His symptoms appeared before he was 60 years old! As it has progressed, it first took away his ability to work - he was forced to retire because he could no longer do his life's work at the high level that he had established. For my friend, this was a cruel blow, as he has been one of the best in the world at his job and loved his work, as I have.
It also took away something he was looking forward to at the end of his professional career - he had a hobby he cared for almost as much as his work, and anticipated being able to give it the time that his professional life didn't allow. That, too, has been taken from him. Those adventures he planned have never come to pass.
As time has passed, he has become less and less capable of doing things for himself. He can no longer drive - he forgets where he was going, forgets how to get there, and forgets even how to find his way home. He doesn't know how to work a seat belt. He struggles taking the top off a water bottle or putting money away in his wallet.
Yesterday, he looked me in the eyes and asked, "Do I know you?" Yes, I said, "We've been friends for 40 years." He stared at me in amazement. He couldn't remember my name, or much about what we had done that day. For all intents and purposes, the confident, supremely competent, generously helpful man that has been my friend for 40 years ... is gone. He still has moments when the person we've known and loved peeks out from behind the fog of Alzheimer's Disease, but those moments don't last long and they only serve to remind him that he's losing his memories and his life. That may be the cruelest part of all about this terrible disease: he's known what inevitably was going to happen but could only watch as it has slowly and remorselessly taken things away. His body continues to function reasonably well, but the person I've known for 4 decades is virtually gone - all that defined his personality and character are now just memories. Memories, of course, are precisely what he no longer has. It's as if those things never happened for him, now.
Words cannot describe how painful it's been to watch this decline. Today, my friend is gone, for all intents and purposes. I knew this would happen. I knew this day would come. I knew that a 40-year friendship would come to be a lost memory for him. Now that it's arrived, I'm somewhat depressed, but I still have my memories of that time and the adventures and experiences he shared with me over the years. That's what keeps me from being really shaken by all of this. My memories may not be as sharp as they were, but most of them are still with me. I miss my friend, but he's given us a very meaningful legacy, a host of treasured memories shared - not just mine, but those of the many people whose lives he touched in a positive way. I can endure this, but it hurts.
Alzheimer's is a cruel disease, and there are other degenerative diseases that can have similar results. I know, because another long-time friend of mine is being victimized by a different disease - but with similar results: faculties once razor-sharp now dulled into non-existence. Another once-capable friend is slipping away from me, bit by bit, even as I type this.
If you have a chance to contribute to seeking cures for these intensely cruel degenerative diseases, please don't hesitate to do so. And if you know victims, you should do as much as possible to interact with them while they still can enjoy it. Your time with your friends (and family) is precious in any case. You never know when it might be lost forever.
Hope may never die, but friends (and family) do. The very worst part of growing older is losing your friends and family ...
A bit more than 40 years ago, I first met someone who has been my friend ever since. Those who know me may well know of whom I speak, but I'll not mention his name here. What's happened is my friend is a victim of early onset Alzheimer's Disease. His symptoms appeared before he was 60 years old! As it has progressed, it first took away his ability to work - he was forced to retire because he could no longer do his life's work at the high level that he had established. For my friend, this was a cruel blow, as he has been one of the best in the world at his job and loved his work, as I have.
It also took away something he was looking forward to at the end of his professional career - he had a hobby he cared for almost as much as his work, and anticipated being able to give it the time that his professional life didn't allow. That, too, has been taken from him. Those adventures he planned have never come to pass.
As time has passed, he has become less and less capable of doing things for himself. He can no longer drive - he forgets where he was going, forgets how to get there, and forgets even how to find his way home. He doesn't know how to work a seat belt. He struggles taking the top off a water bottle or putting money away in his wallet.
Yesterday, he looked me in the eyes and asked, "Do I know you?" Yes, I said, "We've been friends for 40 years." He stared at me in amazement. He couldn't remember my name, or much about what we had done that day. For all intents and purposes, the confident, supremely competent, generously helpful man that has been my friend for 40 years ... is gone. He still has moments when the person we've known and loved peeks out from behind the fog of Alzheimer's Disease, but those moments don't last long and they only serve to remind him that he's losing his memories and his life. That may be the cruelest part of all about this terrible disease: he's known what inevitably was going to happen but could only watch as it has slowly and remorselessly taken things away. His body continues to function reasonably well, but the person I've known for 4 decades is virtually gone - all that defined his personality and character are now just memories. Memories, of course, are precisely what he no longer has. It's as if those things never happened for him, now.
Words cannot describe how painful it's been to watch this decline. Today, my friend is gone, for all intents and purposes. I knew this would happen. I knew this day would come. I knew that a 40-year friendship would come to be a lost memory for him. Now that it's arrived, I'm somewhat depressed, but I still have my memories of that time and the adventures and experiences he shared with me over the years. That's what keeps me from being really shaken by all of this. My memories may not be as sharp as they were, but most of them are still with me. I miss my friend, but he's given us a very meaningful legacy, a host of treasured memories shared - not just mine, but those of the many people whose lives he touched in a positive way. I can endure this, but it hurts.
Alzheimer's is a cruel disease, and there are other degenerative diseases that can have similar results. I know, because another long-time friend of mine is being victimized by a different disease - but with similar results: faculties once razor-sharp now dulled into non-existence. Another once-capable friend is slipping away from me, bit by bit, even as I type this.
If you have a chance to contribute to seeking cures for these intensely cruel degenerative diseases, please don't hesitate to do so. And if you know victims, you should do as much as possible to interact with them while they still can enjoy it. Your time with your friends (and family) is precious in any case. You never know when it might be lost forever.
Hope may never die, but friends (and family) do. The very worst part of growing older is losing your friends and family ...
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
What Does Freedom of Speech Mean To You? Part 3
My friend, David Matthews II, host of the ShockNet Radio program "Brutally Honest" posted (on 17 September) a fascinating analysis of how the by-now infamous "movie trailer" containing insults to islam (that triggered riots leading to deaths) relates to the topic of free speech.
He concludes with:
This video was done under a cloud of deception and misdirection. Their intentions are in doubt. They knew what kind of audience they were focusing on. If they wanted to show just how ugly and ill-tempered and ultimately fatalistic the Muslims can be, well, congratulations, they succeeded. And just as a bonus, they will get the very groups they otherwise denigrate – the ones that defend the un-defendable – to support their right to show that video.
In other words, despicable things are going to be defended by staunch defenders of free speech - after all, the point is that free speech only has real meaning when it is granted to those with whom you disagree. Going along with free speech is easy (and meaningless) when the words (and intentions) are congruent with your own.
David talks about the intentions of the film makers - although he concedes that he can't be certain what they were. Nevertheless, it seems reasonably likely that their intentions could have been to provoke the sort of reaction from radical muslims that actually occurred. Let me assume for the moment that this is truly the case - their intention was to provoke a violent reaction from the muslims.
David also talks about the limits to free speech, using the familiar example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Obviously, if the intent is to cause panic (which could well result in casualties) in a case where there actually is no such fire, then it's widely accepted that this oversteps the bounds of free speech. There's a judicial test of speech that seeks to draw a line regarding inflammatory speech, called the "incitement test" - in reference to words "inciting" violence. As found at this site, the test is simply
... the government may prosecute words that are "triggers to action" but not words that are "keys of persuasion."
Note that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no such fire is present uses no words that are explicit calls for action, but it can be argued that this single word "Fire!" is implicitly a trigger to action. A fine line, here. But drawing such a line is important, no?
How does the infamous YouTube video situation fare using this incitement test? David argues that events in recent history make it clear what muslims are likely to do when something comes out in the media that is perceived as disrespectful to islam. Hence, any such blatant insults to islam, like those contained in this "trailer" (Does a full-length film actually exist? I doubt it.), are virtually certain to incite violence.
But wait ... the "trailer" had a relatively long, quiescient history on the Internet, having first been posted some time ago. It was only when someone posted about it on an Arabic-language blog did anyone in the islamic world even know about the existence of this video. From there, it seems it "went viral" amongst muslims, triggering the riots. The reactions to the video depended on getting the attention of the target audience. Famous people are more likely to incite international reactions than nobodies. Insults on a movie screen in a theater are more visible than those spoken in a tavern.
I've long held that words have no intentions associated with them - they're just words. Some of them may be offensive to some people (who must choose to be offended by such words) and so could be considered provocative. But not all uses of a particular word have clearly-associated intentions. Compare the intentions of the word 'nigger' when used between two African-Americans, versus when used by a Ku Klux Klan member using it to describe an African-American. Same word - two different intentions.
Hence, we can't look to the objective reality of words to evaluate intent. My friend David has evaluated intent and leans toward proposing that this violence-provoking YouTube video was intended to incite violence. But the video contains no explicit calls to violent actions in its words. We all know how muslims react to insults to islam ... but this video might fail the standard incitement test described above, unless the video implicitly is a "trigger to action". Another fine line to draw.
Some friends and I are engaged in provocative presentations at American Heathen - the host (RJ Evans) has been the target of death threats, as has co-host Al Stefanelli. None of us have made any secret of the fact that we have the same absence of respect for islam as we have for christianity. Of course, at the moment, we're babbling away in relative obscurity. What might happen if our program becomes well known nationally and internationally?
Given this, here's what I worry about. I have no problem if I start receiving death threats directed at me. I'm willing to die for the cause of Freedom and Liberty for All that we espouse on American Heathen. But what if our program gets popular enough to draw the attention of the fanatics (christian and muslim fanatics are hard to tell apart!) and in protest they blow up a building and innocent people become casualties. I would not at all feel good about such an outcome.
However, the issue comes down to this: if I believe in Freedom and Liberty for All, am I willing to silence myself voluntarily owing to the actions/reactions of fanatics about my words? Do I muzzle myself even in the face of a possibility of a violent reaction? No matter how awful it would be for people to become victims through a reaction to my words, my commitment to this cause is no less deep than the commitment of the fanatics to theirs. Does that make me a fanatic? I think not. Although I'm willing to die for my beliefs, I'm not willing to kill or injure anyone (except in self-defense) for any cause. No cause, however otherwise noble, is worth supporting if it advocates or condones the use of violence on innocents to further its goals. If anyone is so offended by what I say that they're moved to violence, they should have to courage to attack me directly, not visit their vengeance on innocent people. If they do so, however, it will not silence me!
If we surrender our freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, in order to avoid "offending" fanatic muslims (or fanatic christians) who then express themselves via violence, then we're simply allowing ourselves to be intimidated by weaklings, who have no other means of achieving their ends but by terror visited on innocents. They are consummate cowards! I spit on them and their causes!! We will not give up our freedoms willingly in the face of terrorism. The terrorists will have succeeded if we do so!!
For your convenience, here are links to Part 2 and Part 1
He concludes with:
This video was done under a cloud of deception and misdirection. Their intentions are in doubt. They knew what kind of audience they were focusing on. If they wanted to show just how ugly and ill-tempered and ultimately fatalistic the Muslims can be, well, congratulations, they succeeded. And just as a bonus, they will get the very groups they otherwise denigrate – the ones that defend the un-defendable – to support their right to show that video.
In other words, despicable things are going to be defended by staunch defenders of free speech - after all, the point is that free speech only has real meaning when it is granted to those with whom you disagree. Going along with free speech is easy (and meaningless) when the words (and intentions) are congruent with your own.
David talks about the intentions of the film makers - although he concedes that he can't be certain what they were. Nevertheless, it seems reasonably likely that their intentions could have been to provoke the sort of reaction from radical muslims that actually occurred. Let me assume for the moment that this is truly the case - their intention was to provoke a violent reaction from the muslims.
David also talks about the limits to free speech, using the familiar example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Obviously, if the intent is to cause panic (which could well result in casualties) in a case where there actually is no such fire, then it's widely accepted that this oversteps the bounds of free speech. There's a judicial test of speech that seeks to draw a line regarding inflammatory speech, called the "incitement test" - in reference to words "inciting" violence. As found at this site, the test is simply
... the government may prosecute words that are "triggers to action" but not words that are "keys of persuasion."
Note that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no such fire is present uses no words that are explicit calls for action, but it can be argued that this single word "Fire!" is implicitly a trigger to action. A fine line, here. But drawing such a line is important, no?
How does the infamous YouTube video situation fare using this incitement test? David argues that events in recent history make it clear what muslims are likely to do when something comes out in the media that is perceived as disrespectful to islam. Hence, any such blatant insults to islam, like those contained in this "trailer" (Does a full-length film actually exist? I doubt it.), are virtually certain to incite violence.
But wait ... the "trailer" had a relatively long, quiescient history on the Internet, having first been posted some time ago. It was only when someone posted about it on an Arabic-language blog did anyone in the islamic world even know about the existence of this video. From there, it seems it "went viral" amongst muslims, triggering the riots. The reactions to the video depended on getting the attention of the target audience. Famous people are more likely to incite international reactions than nobodies. Insults on a movie screen in a theater are more visible than those spoken in a tavern.
I've long held that words have no intentions associated with them - they're just words. Some of them may be offensive to some people (who must choose to be offended by such words) and so could be considered provocative. But not all uses of a particular word have clearly-associated intentions. Compare the intentions of the word 'nigger' when used between two African-Americans, versus when used by a Ku Klux Klan member using it to describe an African-American. Same word - two different intentions.
Hence, we can't look to the objective reality of words to evaluate intent. My friend David has evaluated intent and leans toward proposing that this violence-provoking YouTube video was intended to incite violence. But the video contains no explicit calls to violent actions in its words. We all know how muslims react to insults to islam ... but this video might fail the standard incitement test described above, unless the video implicitly is a "trigger to action". Another fine line to draw.
Some friends and I are engaged in provocative presentations at American Heathen - the host (RJ Evans) has been the target of death threats, as has co-host Al Stefanelli. None of us have made any secret of the fact that we have the same absence of respect for islam as we have for christianity. Of course, at the moment, we're babbling away in relative obscurity. What might happen if our program becomes well known nationally and internationally?
Given this, here's what I worry about. I have no problem if I start receiving death threats directed at me. I'm willing to die for the cause of Freedom and Liberty for All that we espouse on American Heathen. But what if our program gets popular enough to draw the attention of the fanatics (christian and muslim fanatics are hard to tell apart!) and in protest they blow up a building and innocent people become casualties. I would not at all feel good about such an outcome.
However, the issue comes down to this: if I believe in Freedom and Liberty for All, am I willing to silence myself voluntarily owing to the actions/reactions of fanatics about my words? Do I muzzle myself even in the face of a possibility of a violent reaction? No matter how awful it would be for people to become victims through a reaction to my words, my commitment to this cause is no less deep than the commitment of the fanatics to theirs. Does that make me a fanatic? I think not. Although I'm willing to die for my beliefs, I'm not willing to kill or injure anyone (except in self-defense) for any cause. No cause, however otherwise noble, is worth supporting if it advocates or condones the use of violence on innocents to further its goals. If anyone is so offended by what I say that they're moved to violence, they should have to courage to attack me directly, not visit their vengeance on innocent people. If they do so, however, it will not silence me!
If we surrender our freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, in order to avoid "offending" fanatic muslims (or fanatic christians) who then express themselves via violence, then we're simply allowing ourselves to be intimidated by weaklings, who have no other means of achieving their ends but by terror visited on innocents. They are consummate cowards! I spit on them and their causes!! We will not give up our freedoms willingly in the face of terrorism. The terrorists will have succeeded if we do so!!
For your convenience, here are links to Part 2 and Part 1
Monday, September 17, 2012
Believers Arguing on Behalf of Their Beliefs
After years of struggling with something, it's nice to be able to come to a new understanding. I suppose some of my readers may dispute the validity of my new thoughts. If so, I hope they will offer comments here.
For a long time, I've wondered, 'What's the point of trying to rationalize religious beliefs?' My understanding of christianity (i.e., that resulting from my upbringing) is that one should accept the existence and divinity of Jesus purely on faith - in his words from Mark 10:16 - "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." This classic case of biblical ambiguity leaves open the definition of receiving something "like a child". Just what exactly does that phrase mean? Various interpretations exist, but the obvious one is that it means to accept something entirely without evidence, trusting in and accepting the "gift" without any questions as to its validity. A child-like trust in the teachings of leaders is one that accepts things as given. Questions are impertinent and out of place.
If this is a valid interpretation, then it follows that believers are supposed to accept Jesus as their "Lord and Savior" without question and without evidence. If that's what someone chooses to do, then I'm fine with that. It's their choice and their life.
Where I have a problem is when christians attempt to use logic and, yes, even evidence to validate their faith. This has always seemed pointless to me - if you accept it on faith, why seek to make something irrational seem to be rational? I observe that all humans in my experience have both rational and irrational aspects, including yours truly. It's not an insult to label a belief as irrational - it simply says that logic and evidence have little or nothing to do with it. If a christian has faith, then s/he has faith and that's that - end of discussion. There's no need for, or point to, trying to create some sort of house of cards to justify that faith to someone else, if you truly have that child-like faith.
Such faith has no need for explanation. In fact, explanations are antithetical to religious faith. Of course, it's well known that the blind obedience associated with religious faith leads people to commit monstrous acts on behalf of their chosen belief system. But perhaps most importantly in the context of this blog, it represents a source of cognitive dissonance in the mind of any reasonably rational person. Religious faith inevitably clashes with logic and the rule of evidence. In most aspects of a believer's life, they accept the rule of logic and the use of evidence. Is such an acceptance based on faith, just like religious belief? No, not all all. It's a faith that's based entirely on evidence and empirical observations. Hence, the word "faith" has two diametrically opposed meanings - I talked about that here.
It now seems clear to me that attempts at rationalizing religious faith (e.g., those of C.S. Lewis) are simply a manifestation of cognitive dissonance. Despite claims of childlike faith, believers may seek to convince others of (i.e., to try to justify) the rationality of believing in a divine lord. They sense that an unbeliever isn't likely to be convinced by an irrational argument. They implicitly understand the weakness of their position in a logical discussion.
Just whom is it they're really trying to convince? Most such attempts I've seen are pretty transparently flawed in their logic and completely devoid of any credible evidence. Such rationalizations are not the province of true fundamentalists, who've accepted such things as the creation myth, the age of the Earth as less than 10 thousand years, the evil of homosexuality, the subservience of women, and so on. No, the ones who seek to rationalize their irrational faith are those otherwise rational people who accept the validity of science and logic, but seek to put some sort of handwaving "spin" on the biblical passages that clearly are not consistent with our modern understanding of the world based on rationality. Perhaps they seek to interpret biblical myths as reflecting the late Bronze Age absence of science-based understanding. Perhaps they choose to see unsettling biblical passages as metaphors, or representing the concepts of a time 2000+ years ago that are no longer relevant.
If someone grasps the irrationality of religious faith, why not let it go with that? Seeking to rationalize religious faith seems to be the direct consequence of - dare I say it? - doubts lurking in the minds of such believers (likely at an unconscious level). It generates a clash between the rational and the irrational in their brains, and their rationalizations may be at least as much directed at themselves as they are to others around them.
Keep trying, and perhaps you can convince yourself - but it doesn't convince me. I think I now understand why you hope to construct a logical argument for your religious belief. The very effort to do so undermines your credibility as a believer - it seems faith isn't enough for you, after all!
For a long time, I've wondered, 'What's the point of trying to rationalize religious beliefs?' My understanding of christianity (i.e., that resulting from my upbringing) is that one should accept the existence and divinity of Jesus purely on faith - in his words from Mark 10:16 - "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." This classic case of biblical ambiguity leaves open the definition of receiving something "like a child". Just what exactly does that phrase mean? Various interpretations exist, but the obvious one is that it means to accept something entirely without evidence, trusting in and accepting the "gift" without any questions as to its validity. A child-like trust in the teachings of leaders is one that accepts things as given. Questions are impertinent and out of place.
If this is a valid interpretation, then it follows that believers are supposed to accept Jesus as their "Lord and Savior" without question and without evidence. If that's what someone chooses to do, then I'm fine with that. It's their choice and their life.
Where I have a problem is when christians attempt to use logic and, yes, even evidence to validate their faith. This has always seemed pointless to me - if you accept it on faith, why seek to make something irrational seem to be rational? I observe that all humans in my experience have both rational and irrational aspects, including yours truly. It's not an insult to label a belief as irrational - it simply says that logic and evidence have little or nothing to do with it. If a christian has faith, then s/he has faith and that's that - end of discussion. There's no need for, or point to, trying to create some sort of house of cards to justify that faith to someone else, if you truly have that child-like faith.
Such faith has no need for explanation. In fact, explanations are antithetical to religious faith. Of course, it's well known that the blind obedience associated with religious faith leads people to commit monstrous acts on behalf of their chosen belief system. But perhaps most importantly in the context of this blog, it represents a source of cognitive dissonance in the mind of any reasonably rational person. Religious faith inevitably clashes with logic and the rule of evidence. In most aspects of a believer's life, they accept the rule of logic and the use of evidence. Is such an acceptance based on faith, just like religious belief? No, not all all. It's a faith that's based entirely on evidence and empirical observations. Hence, the word "faith" has two diametrically opposed meanings - I talked about that here.
It now seems clear to me that attempts at rationalizing religious faith (e.g., those of C.S. Lewis) are simply a manifestation of cognitive dissonance. Despite claims of childlike faith, believers may seek to convince others of (i.e., to try to justify) the rationality of believing in a divine lord. They sense that an unbeliever isn't likely to be convinced by an irrational argument. They implicitly understand the weakness of their position in a logical discussion.
Just whom is it they're really trying to convince? Most such attempts I've seen are pretty transparently flawed in their logic and completely devoid of any credible evidence. Such rationalizations are not the province of true fundamentalists, who've accepted such things as the creation myth, the age of the Earth as less than 10 thousand years, the evil of homosexuality, the subservience of women, and so on. No, the ones who seek to rationalize their irrational faith are those otherwise rational people who accept the validity of science and logic, but seek to put some sort of handwaving "spin" on the biblical passages that clearly are not consistent with our modern understanding of the world based on rationality. Perhaps they seek to interpret biblical myths as reflecting the late Bronze Age absence of science-based understanding. Perhaps they choose to see unsettling biblical passages as metaphors, or representing the concepts of a time 2000+ years ago that are no longer relevant.
If someone grasps the irrationality of religious faith, why not let it go with that? Seeking to rationalize religious faith seems to be the direct consequence of - dare I say it? - doubts lurking in the minds of such believers (likely at an unconscious level). It generates a clash between the rational and the irrational in their brains, and their rationalizations may be at least as much directed at themselves as they are to others around them.
Keep trying, and perhaps you can convince yourself - but it doesn't convince me. I think I now understand why you hope to construct a logical argument for your religious belief. The very effort to do so undermines your credibility as a believer - it seems faith isn't enough for you, after all!
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Hopefully, for the last time ... but likely not!
Recent e-discussions have brought this issue to a head for me. Hopefully, I can pump this out and will only have to refer to it in the future, when it happens again, as it surely will. As time passes, I get more and more tired of people responding to my comments with ... "You're assuming all of XX believe in YY!!" Just for the record: I'm not making any such assumption, and never have!!
I've listened to many, many conservatives, both within the circle of my acquaintances and via public media. The number of times in the past year or so I've heard the aforementioned complaint from individual conservatives who apparently are upset by my criticisms of "conservatives" has grown commensurately with the stridency of the current political campaign. Again, let me be perfectly clear: I'm more than casually aware that conservatives (or "right-wingers," or republicans, or christians, or whatever) don't all believe in the same things. If you choose voluntarily to call yourself a conservative (or whatever), you're implicitly endorsing other conservatives, whether you intend to do so or not. If you disagree with another conservative about something, then you need to make that difference known explicitly. You need to distance yourself from that viewpoint. More importantly, if you believe that you don't fit in a particular shoe, I'm not really making you wear it. If the shoe don't fit, I must acquit!! Must I say that every time I say something about conservatives?
Many people label me a liberal, but I don't wear that label voluntarily and so I feel quite free to disagree with something endorsed by someone willingly wearing the liberal label. I don't like wearing labels precisely because I want that freedom. Although my opinions on things are often driven by viewpoints that many would call liberal, I still refuse to accept your labeling of me. If I feel that way, then perhaps those giving vent to this particular complaint should understand with complete clarity that I'm perfectly willing to afford you the same privilege. But if you wear some label willingly, then you may be endorsing implicitly viewpoints with which you disagree, so be careful! By the way, the one label I voluntarily wear (apart from my professional life) is atheist - the good part about that it that it says absolutely nothing about my beliefs - it only refers to my disbelief in a diety. Anything else said by some other atheist is not necessarily something I endorse, implicitly or explicitly.
Anyone who knows me and has bothered to listen to me and/or read what I've written should know with absolute certainty that I'm more than willing to say that specific individuals may not fit a certain generalization. Why do so many people immediately assume that I intend my comments to apply to everyone who willingly wears label XX? I have no clue, but I suspect it's related to the implicit nature of their endorsement of certain viewpoints common in their XX crowd. Perhaps my question should be about why they choose to accept that label if they're cherry-picking within the set of common XX beliefs. If you're XX but you disavow any support for their viewpoints V27, V46, and V115, then do you really want to identify with the XX crowd? How important to you are these differences? If they're not important to you, then for all intents and purposes, you're mostly an XX "fundamentalist" and I can lump you in with the rest. If you feel strongly enough about your differences with the XXers about your differences with them, you might want to consider avoiding the problem by not accepting the XX label, leaving you free (like me) to express yourself without the added "baggage" of the XX label. If you don't accept the label, then you automatically are excluded from any generalizations I might make about XXers. You have no reason to be offended, because I'm obviously not talking about you!
Another related concept is the default assumption. When you wear label XX, you will find yourself being confronted with the whole panoply of common XX beliefs. If I'm critical of President O'Bama, then I must be in favor of Mitt Romney! If I'm in favor of welfare for the poor, I must be a socialist! If I'm in favor of gun control, then I must want the government to seize everyone's guns! This is the classic mindset that says "If you don't agree with me, then you must be directly opposed to me!" You might refer to this as bipolar thinking - in this mindset, there are only two possible positions on anything, so any disagreement signals a total confrontational opposition. No doubt this one will continue to crop up in response to my e-postings and comments. Those incapable of thinking beyond polar opposites has little or no skill at critical thinking.
I've listened to many, many conservatives, both within the circle of my acquaintances and via public media. The number of times in the past year or so I've heard the aforementioned complaint from individual conservatives who apparently are upset by my criticisms of "conservatives" has grown commensurately with the stridency of the current political campaign. Again, let me be perfectly clear: I'm more than casually aware that conservatives (or "right-wingers," or republicans, or christians, or whatever) don't all believe in the same things. If you choose voluntarily to call yourself a conservative (or whatever), you're implicitly endorsing other conservatives, whether you intend to do so or not. If you disagree with another conservative about something, then you need to make that difference known explicitly. You need to distance yourself from that viewpoint. More importantly, if you believe that you don't fit in a particular shoe, I'm not really making you wear it. If the shoe don't fit, I must acquit!! Must I say that every time I say something about conservatives?
Many people label me a liberal, but I don't wear that label voluntarily and so I feel quite free to disagree with something endorsed by someone willingly wearing the liberal label. I don't like wearing labels precisely because I want that freedom. Although my opinions on things are often driven by viewpoints that many would call liberal, I still refuse to accept your labeling of me. If I feel that way, then perhaps those giving vent to this particular complaint should understand with complete clarity that I'm perfectly willing to afford you the same privilege. But if you wear some label willingly, then you may be endorsing implicitly viewpoints with which you disagree, so be careful! By the way, the one label I voluntarily wear (apart from my professional life) is atheist - the good part about that it that it says absolutely nothing about my beliefs - it only refers to my disbelief in a diety. Anything else said by some other atheist is not necessarily something I endorse, implicitly or explicitly.
Anyone who knows me and has bothered to listen to me and/or read what I've written should know with absolute certainty that I'm more than willing to say that specific individuals may not fit a certain generalization. Why do so many people immediately assume that I intend my comments to apply to everyone who willingly wears label XX? I have no clue, but I suspect it's related to the implicit nature of their endorsement of certain viewpoints common in their XX crowd. Perhaps my question should be about why they choose to accept that label if they're cherry-picking within the set of common XX beliefs. If you're XX but you disavow any support for their viewpoints V27, V46, and V115, then do you really want to identify with the XX crowd? How important to you are these differences? If they're not important to you, then for all intents and purposes, you're mostly an XX "fundamentalist" and I can lump you in with the rest. If you feel strongly enough about your differences with the XXers about your differences with them, you might want to consider avoiding the problem by not accepting the XX label, leaving you free (like me) to express yourself without the added "baggage" of the XX label. If you don't accept the label, then you automatically are excluded from any generalizations I might make about XXers. You have no reason to be offended, because I'm obviously not talking about you!
Another related concept is the default assumption. When you wear label XX, you will find yourself being confronted with the whole panoply of common XX beliefs. If I'm critical of President O'Bama, then I must be in favor of Mitt Romney! If I'm in favor of welfare for the poor, I must be a socialist! If I'm in favor of gun control, then I must want the government to seize everyone's guns! This is the classic mindset that says "If you don't agree with me, then you must be directly opposed to me!" You might refer to this as bipolar thinking - in this mindset, there are only two possible positions on anything, so any disagreement signals a total confrontational opposition. No doubt this one will continue to crop up in response to my e-postings and comments. Those incapable of thinking beyond polar opposites has little or no skill at critical thinking.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Infinite Capabilities vs. Free Will
Free will has been the topic of many conversations with believers and nonbelievers I've had in the past. For the purposes of this blog, I'm going to ignore the secular questions regarding the very existence of free will raised by Sam Harris in his book on the topic. Rather, I want to concentrate here on the notions of free will in a religious context. In some earlier writings on the topic, I said:
If the presumed all-knowing (omniscient) being created me, then s/he knows what my choices will be throughout my life, from beginning to end. Thus, it's logically inescapable that s/he created me specifically to make those choices -- and to suffer the consequences for them. Where's free will in that? Sorry, but free will is out of the logical window of plausibility when the creator is omniscient and omnipotent.
I've had believers who have tried to "explain" free will to me in the following way: They say that their infinitely capable deity wants me to accept him of my own free will, rather than having created me to believe in him from the very moment of conception. This deity doesn't want to be worshiped by programmed robots, they say.
Unfortunately, this sort of reasoning fails to explain why a being capable of creating an entire universe from nothing even needs to be worshiped. That's a crucial issue, isn't it? Do we demand that amoebae sing songs of praise to us? Should the ants be building churches to glorify us? If we made robots in our own image, would we program them to kneel in our presence? We love our pets because they give us an unqualified form of affection, but I don't believe that affection would fit the definition of "worship" in a religious sense - their interactions with other creatures (including humans) are the result of evolutionary programming for survival. What sort of colossal vanity is required for an infinite being to require the worship of his puny finite creations? Sounds more like a "cult of personality" dictator (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.) to me!
I suppose, superficially, this argument does seem to offer a "sort of" escape hatch rationalization for why we're required to make our own personal choices to accept the deity. It fails completely to explain the inescapable logic quoted above, nevertheless. But allow me to try again, coming at this from the reverse direction. Suppose for the moment that this hypothetical deity does indeed want me to make my own choice to accept him (or not). I can only speculate on why this supreme being has forced this choice on me. Perhaps it's indeed because he understands that the worship of someone forced to worship means absolutely nothing. I know that most sane humans (excluding "cult of personality" dictators, for instance) understand that forced praise means no praise at all. This seems to be a very human understanding, not something necessarily divine.
If the deity knows what my choice is going to be (he's supposed to be omniscient, of course), then since he created me, he knew from the very instant he chose to create me that I would choose not to believe in him, dooming me to eternal torment (or whatever). Is it infinitely benevolent to make me suffer for what amounts to a flaw in his creation (i.e., me and my choice to be an atheist)? If he doesn't know what my choice will be, then he can't be omniscient. If he wants me to choose to believe in him but he can't make me do it (for whatever reason), then he can't be omnipotent.
The religious notion of free will is logically incompatible with a deity's infinite capabilities. You can either believe the deity has infinite capabilities, in which case free will has to be abandoned - or you can have free will, in which case the capabilities of the deity are necessarily finite.
As I mentioned in my earlier writings, a belief in infinite anything creates all sorts of logical issues for believers. Infinity might mean one thing to ignorant barbarians in the late Bronze Age, but our modern understanding of the concept of infinity (as in mathematics) makes us realize that an infinitely capable being is surely nothing more than an abstraction - a myth created by humans to serve our own purposes. If we want to hang on to the notion of free will, the assumed infinite capabilities of the being supposedly responsible for "creating" us must be discarded in favor of merely finite capabilities.
If the presumed all-knowing (omniscient) being created me, then s/he knows what my choices will be throughout my life, from beginning to end. Thus, it's logically inescapable that s/he created me specifically to make those choices -- and to suffer the consequences for them. Where's free will in that? Sorry, but free will is out of the logical window of plausibility when the creator is omniscient and omnipotent.
I've had believers who have tried to "explain" free will to me in the following way: They say that their infinitely capable deity wants me to accept him of my own free will, rather than having created me to believe in him from the very moment of conception. This deity doesn't want to be worshiped by programmed robots, they say.
Unfortunately, this sort of reasoning fails to explain why a being capable of creating an entire universe from nothing even needs to be worshiped. That's a crucial issue, isn't it? Do we demand that amoebae sing songs of praise to us? Should the ants be building churches to glorify us? If we made robots in our own image, would we program them to kneel in our presence? We love our pets because they give us an unqualified form of affection, but I don't believe that affection would fit the definition of "worship" in a religious sense - their interactions with other creatures (including humans) are the result of evolutionary programming for survival. What sort of colossal vanity is required for an infinite being to require the worship of his puny finite creations? Sounds more like a "cult of personality" dictator (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.) to me!
I suppose, superficially, this argument does seem to offer a "sort of" escape hatch rationalization for why we're required to make our own personal choices to accept the deity. It fails completely to explain the inescapable logic quoted above, nevertheless. But allow me to try again, coming at this from the reverse direction. Suppose for the moment that this hypothetical deity does indeed want me to make my own choice to accept him (or not). I can only speculate on why this supreme being has forced this choice on me. Perhaps it's indeed because he understands that the worship of someone forced to worship means absolutely nothing. I know that most sane humans (excluding "cult of personality" dictators, for instance) understand that forced praise means no praise at all. This seems to be a very human understanding, not something necessarily divine.
If the deity knows what my choice is going to be (he's supposed to be omniscient, of course), then since he created me, he knew from the very instant he chose to create me that I would choose not to believe in him, dooming me to eternal torment (or whatever). Is it infinitely benevolent to make me suffer for what amounts to a flaw in his creation (i.e., me and my choice to be an atheist)? If he doesn't know what my choice will be, then he can't be omniscient. If he wants me to choose to believe in him but he can't make me do it (for whatever reason), then he can't be omnipotent.
The religious notion of free will is logically incompatible with a deity's infinite capabilities. You can either believe the deity has infinite capabilities, in which case free will has to be abandoned - or you can have free will, in which case the capabilities of the deity are necessarily finite.
As I mentioned in my earlier writings, a belief in infinite anything creates all sorts of logical issues for believers. Infinity might mean one thing to ignorant barbarians in the late Bronze Age, but our modern understanding of the concept of infinity (as in mathematics) makes us realize that an infinitely capable being is surely nothing more than an abstraction - a myth created by humans to serve our own purposes. If we want to hang on to the notion of free will, the assumed infinite capabilities of the being supposedly responsible for "creating" us must be discarded in favor of merely finite capabilities.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Nominating Conventions as Propaganda
Anyone who could endure watching the now-completed Republican National Convention must now realize that these conventions (yes, I'm including the soon-to-begin Democratic National Convention) are nothing more than exercises in propaganda. Whatever vestiges might have remained in terms of political drama at such conventions in the past have now been eradicated by the rise in significance of the primaries. By the time of the conventions, the nomination of the party's candidate for the Presidency has been sewn up, and this is now a huge, pointless "celebration" to reward the political party faithful and to reinforce whatever ideas the political party wishes to emphasize down the home stretch of a campaign that by now has been going on for many long months.
For those who support that political party above all else, this is a time to reinforce their reasons for supporting that party. Presumably, no matter what stand a political party takes on some issue, that stand will upset some members of that party. But anyone upset about one issue or another will be asked to put their "petty issues" aside and vote for that party with which they're affiliated. "You might get a candidate next time who will be more of your liking, but this time, we have to go forward with the one selected during the primaries." If someone finds themselves upset about supporting their party's candidate, they can vote for the other party's candidate, of course. But most won't. Many will vote a straight party ticket - party loyalists, if you will. "My party, right or wrong!"
From where I sit, such a position is clearly that of someone who chooses not to think for her/himself. In the 45+ years I've been eligible to vote in national elections, I can't think of a single time when I was in complete agreement with every element of either party's platform. [By the way, the platforms presented by the parties often clash with what the politicians actually do after they're elected!] So is the national convention a time when I look forward to being convinced that the Republican or Democrat candidate is the one for whom I should cast my vote? Am I swept away with emotional enthusiasm as the inspirational music plays and the red, white, and blue balloons fall about the party's nominee? Are all my doubts and concerns erased when the party's nominee is introduced as "the next President of the United States!" (which will only be true for one of them, of course) to the wild cheers of the party faithful? Nope. Not at all.
The whole process is a charade, a propaganda trick, an expensive stage drama managed by the party's national committee. I find it insulting that anyone would use such a transparent process to capture my vote for the hack they've nominated. The national conventions are not at all about using reason and empirical evidence to choose among competing ideas. They don't allow any discussion of diverse viewpoints about the various issues the parties choose to emphasize, while simultaneously doing their best to ignore other issues that might prove troublesome to that party's chances for election victory. The goals include castigation of the opposing party's candidate - right up to the point of demonizing him/her. They also include discrediting the opposing party as a whole - right up to the point of demonizing that party - thereby demonizing the people who vote for that party. To say this is divisive would be a huge understatement. Using various forms of falsehoods is entirely acceptable in propaganda, so anything goes, including outright lies, distortions, labeling, and pure fabrications. This process occurs on both Democrat and Republican sides, although it's pretty evident that the Republican party mastered these tactics much sooner and they continue to employ them more effectively than do the Democrats.
It's well-known that logic and evidence (i.e., rational arguments) are completely ineffective in changing anyone's stance on some issue if their stance is emotional (i.e., irrational) to the point of "My party, right or wrong!" Rational debate is pointless when dealing with an irrational viewpoint - and the national conventions clearly are aimed at the emotions, not the rational mind. Unfortunately, my brain struggles with trying to figure out what irrational argument I might find acceptable to change someone's irrational views. I can't find any acceptable ones.
All's fair in the propaganda wars, so I decline to waste my time even listening to the hogwash spewed out at the national nominating conventions. I prefer critical thinking and arriving at firm conclusions only after a thorough consideration of all the evidence I can find. Yes, I prefer one party to the other - I believe you can guess which - but I detest both parties and refuse to support anyone who would stoop to such tactics to win an election.
For those who support that political party above all else, this is a time to reinforce their reasons for supporting that party. Presumably, no matter what stand a political party takes on some issue, that stand will upset some members of that party. But anyone upset about one issue or another will be asked to put their "petty issues" aside and vote for that party with which they're affiliated. "You might get a candidate next time who will be more of your liking, but this time, we have to go forward with the one selected during the primaries." If someone finds themselves upset about supporting their party's candidate, they can vote for the other party's candidate, of course. But most won't. Many will vote a straight party ticket - party loyalists, if you will. "My party, right or wrong!"
From where I sit, such a position is clearly that of someone who chooses not to think for her/himself. In the 45+ years I've been eligible to vote in national elections, I can't think of a single time when I was in complete agreement with every element of either party's platform. [By the way, the platforms presented by the parties often clash with what the politicians actually do after they're elected!] So is the national convention a time when I look forward to being convinced that the Republican or Democrat candidate is the one for whom I should cast my vote? Am I swept away with emotional enthusiasm as the inspirational music plays and the red, white, and blue balloons fall about the party's nominee? Are all my doubts and concerns erased when the party's nominee is introduced as "the next President of the United States!" (which will only be true for one of them, of course) to the wild cheers of the party faithful? Nope. Not at all.
The whole process is a charade, a propaganda trick, an expensive stage drama managed by the party's national committee. I find it insulting that anyone would use such a transparent process to capture my vote for the hack they've nominated. The national conventions are not at all about using reason and empirical evidence to choose among competing ideas. They don't allow any discussion of diverse viewpoints about the various issues the parties choose to emphasize, while simultaneously doing their best to ignore other issues that might prove troublesome to that party's chances for election victory. The goals include castigation of the opposing party's candidate - right up to the point of demonizing him/her. They also include discrediting the opposing party as a whole - right up to the point of demonizing that party - thereby demonizing the people who vote for that party. To say this is divisive would be a huge understatement. Using various forms of falsehoods is entirely acceptable in propaganda, so anything goes, including outright lies, distortions, labeling, and pure fabrications. This process occurs on both Democrat and Republican sides, although it's pretty evident that the Republican party mastered these tactics much sooner and they continue to employ them more effectively than do the Democrats.
It's well-known that logic and evidence (i.e., rational arguments) are completely ineffective in changing anyone's stance on some issue if their stance is emotional (i.e., irrational) to the point of "My party, right or wrong!" Rational debate is pointless when dealing with an irrational viewpoint - and the national conventions clearly are aimed at the emotions, not the rational mind. Unfortunately, my brain struggles with trying to figure out what irrational argument I might find acceptable to change someone's irrational views. I can't find any acceptable ones.
All's fair in the propaganda wars, so I decline to waste my time even listening to the hogwash spewed out at the national nominating conventions. I prefer critical thinking and arriving at firm conclusions only after a thorough consideration of all the evidence I can find. Yes, I prefer one party to the other - I believe you can guess which - but I detest both parties and refuse to support anyone who would stoop to such tactics to win an election.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Rush Limbaugh Sinks to a New Low
Just today, Rush Limbaugh's blog has sunk to a new low! In this blog, he insinuates (without saying it in so many words, of course) that the forecasts of the tropical storm, Isaac, were manipulated by the National Hurricane Center (NHC, a part of the National Weather Service - NWS) to cause problems for the Republican nominating convention about to take place in Tampa, FL. He keeps insisting that he's not claiming it was a conspiracy - so often does he make this denial, it begins to appear that he "doth protest too much!" Nudge-nudge. Wink-wink.
What is fascinating about this is that on the whole, the NWS is a predominantly conservative bunch of folks. The very notion that they would deliberately mislead the public in order to cause problems to the Republicans is so preposterous that it doesn't deserve any serious attention! Except ... if no one with any real credibility as a hurricane forecaster steps up and challenges these ludicrous implications, the default assumption is that the NHC meteorologists can't challenge them!
What follows is entirely my personal opinion ...
Rush Limbaugh is an ignorant political hack. He knows nothing about meteorology, about science, about critical thinking. The only thing he does, besides oxycontin and hydrocodone, is write inflammatory bullshit that has little or no substance to it. He has delusions of being a pundit, but he's built his empire by playing up to the conservative masses, spouting ideas they want to hear in various public media. He feeds the conservative paranoia, maintaining their fear of external threats so they don't dwell on how they are voting against their own self-interests. In the process, he's become wealthy and even gotten awards (!!). But he keeps making really stupid statements - after doing so recently, he was forced out of his TV show after one gaffe in early 2012 that caused all his advertisers to flee, which in turn resulted in his firing.
Of course, his rabid, slack-jawed supporters hang on his every word and excuse every bit of nonsense and vituperative junk he utters. In fact, his most rabid supporters are the very folks toward whom Rush seeks to aim his invective and innuendos. This is the lowest common denominator amongst the conservative crowd, who see communist conspiracies everywhere, as well as cheer Rush when he makes unprovoked attacks on black Americans, gays, atheists, and women.
This time, Rush has insulted an organization of folks who daily do their best to provide us with useful weather information. He's implied they've conspired with our President to cause harm to the Republican cause. If there had been even a hint of that whispered in the halls of the NWS, there would have been a storm, all right: a storm of angry protest from NWS employees at the very idea of such a conspiracy. It's one thing for Rush to aim his popguns at politicians - no one really likes politicians anymore. But it's quite a different thing for Rush to impugn the integrity of the staff of the NHC. No one knows better than the NWS forecasters that it's a major challenge to get the forecasts as accurate as possible. Rush wants to sweep all that integrity, all that science, all that hard work into the trash, because he sees a conspiracy against the conservatives!
It makes me wonder what Rush's supporters within the NWS think about him, now - are they making excuses for his attack on their integrity? Or are they rethinking that support in light of this insult aimed at them?
Rush doesn't know anything about how computer model forecasts can shift. Can he honestly say he's been tracking those computer model forecasts since 1997? Does he even have a clue about the volatility of computer model forecasts? Of course not! Rush Limbaugh is an overinflated, narcissistic, pathetic poltroon! Anyone who would listen to this miserable pretender to punditry deserves precisely what they get ... a pile of crap.
What is fascinating about this is that on the whole, the NWS is a predominantly conservative bunch of folks. The very notion that they would deliberately mislead the public in order to cause problems to the Republicans is so preposterous that it doesn't deserve any serious attention! Except ... if no one with any real credibility as a hurricane forecaster steps up and challenges these ludicrous implications, the default assumption is that the NHC meteorologists can't challenge them!
What follows is entirely my personal opinion ...
Rush Limbaugh is an ignorant political hack. He knows nothing about meteorology, about science, about critical thinking. The only thing he does, besides oxycontin and hydrocodone, is write inflammatory bullshit that has little or no substance to it. He has delusions of being a pundit, but he's built his empire by playing up to the conservative masses, spouting ideas they want to hear in various public media. He feeds the conservative paranoia, maintaining their fear of external threats so they don't dwell on how they are voting against their own self-interests. In the process, he's become wealthy and even gotten awards (!!). But he keeps making really stupid statements - after doing so recently, he was forced out of his TV show after one gaffe in early 2012 that caused all his advertisers to flee, which in turn resulted in his firing.
Of course, his rabid, slack-jawed supporters hang on his every word and excuse every bit of nonsense and vituperative junk he utters. In fact, his most rabid supporters are the very folks toward whom Rush seeks to aim his invective and innuendos. This is the lowest common denominator amongst the conservative crowd, who see communist conspiracies everywhere, as well as cheer Rush when he makes unprovoked attacks on black Americans, gays, atheists, and women.
This time, Rush has insulted an organization of folks who daily do their best to provide us with useful weather information. He's implied they've conspired with our President to cause harm to the Republican cause. If there had been even a hint of that whispered in the halls of the NWS, there would have been a storm, all right: a storm of angry protest from NWS employees at the very idea of such a conspiracy. It's one thing for Rush to aim his popguns at politicians - no one really likes politicians anymore. But it's quite a different thing for Rush to impugn the integrity of the staff of the NHC. No one knows better than the NWS forecasters that it's a major challenge to get the forecasts as accurate as possible. Rush wants to sweep all that integrity, all that science, all that hard work into the trash, because he sees a conspiracy against the conservatives!
It makes me wonder what Rush's supporters within the NWS think about him, now - are they making excuses for his attack on their integrity? Or are they rethinking that support in light of this insult aimed at them?
Rush doesn't know anything about how computer model forecasts can shift. Can he honestly say he's been tracking those computer model forecasts since 1997? Does he even have a clue about the volatility of computer model forecasts? Of course not! Rush Limbaugh is an overinflated, narcissistic, pathetic poltroon! Anyone who would listen to this miserable pretender to punditry deserves precisely what they get ... a pile of crap.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The True Nature of the Anti-Abortion Campaign
I've been struggling with the issue of abortion for a long time. I don't believe it to be the simple, black-and-white issue that many seem to believe it is. For a long time, I've been bothered by the idea of snuffing out a living being for the sake of the 'convenience' of the mother. I understand that part - I really do! I don't care for the idea of abortion as a relatively simple escape hatch for being careless about contraception. In this day and age, there are many simple and effective ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and responsible men and women should be allowed to use those effective means to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
But - at the same time - I understand that careless people are out there, and some of the careless women get pregnant and are unwilling or unable to accept the responsibility for the potential child in their womb. They'll seek abortions by whatever means, safe or unsafe. And of course, thousands of women die every year as a result of unsafe abortions. Does being 'pro-life' exclude any concern for the lives of those women? Is their unborn potential child more important? How does that arithmetic work to be a life-positive outcome? Isn't the evident lack of concern for these women really a thinly-veiled moral judgment of their participation in sex, perhaps outside of marriage?
With time, I'm finally coming to see the real source of all the 'pro-life' groups' power and pervasiveness: religion. You don't have to be religious to be against abortion, but I'm pretty confident that a substantial majority of the folks opposed to the right of women to control their own reproductive system are religious and that's driving their support of the anti-abortion movement.
What evidence is there to support this notion? The arguments being offered by the anti-abortion movement have the strong stench of black-and-white religious morality. They also include scientifically-absurd notions like the recent comments by Rep. Todd Akins (which are not exclusively his!) about "legitimate rape" never resulting in pregnancy - such nonsensical and manifestly untrue beliefs are the hallmarks of a religious movement. Several different tactics involving the re-branding of rape have been used to try to limit the opportunities for raped women to abort pregnancies resulting from rape. In fact, there are efforts underway to outlaw all abortions, including those pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, those resulting from rape, and those resulting from incest. The effort to make in vitro fertilization and other fertility enhancements virtually impossible under proposed new laws is based on the same irrational arguments made on behalf of anti-abortion laws: the protection of fertilized eggs at all costs! The blocking of federal support for stem cell research that could save many lives and heal many ailments has been similarly based on anti-abortion-related arguments.
Extremist christians have embarked on a crusade in the USA to identify 'personhood' as beginning at the moment of conception. Any rational person must see that a fertilized egg only becomes a person when it has the capacity to survive outside of its mother's body. Prior to that, the fertilized egg is only a potential person, and many don't survive owing to failures to implant in the uterus, spontaneous abortions, etc. Is the mother a murderer (or guilty of involuntary manslaughter) because she has a miscarriage? This crusade to transform fertilized eggs into sacrosanct living persons is obviously a religion-motivated campaign. They shrewdly call themselves 'pro-life' but they seem not to give a damn about that same fertilized egg once it's born! Many of them oppose welfare for single parents or poor families struggling to support those children, once they're born. Many of them oppose support for education of those same fertilized eggs - education that might convert children from disadvantaged single parents into productive members of society. Many favor the death penalty when those same fertilized eggs reach adulthood and lash out in violent acts. Heaven forbid that fertilized egg turns into an LGBT person, at which point some 'pro-lifers' feel that they deserve to die!
They're not so pro-life as they want to claim, and they're obviously motivated by the sort of religious misogyny that characterizes islamic fundamentalists like the Taliban. Women should stay at home and bear children, not be paid equally for their work, not be promoted to the highest professional levels, not be encouraged to pursue math and science. If they're raped, it's because they were asking for it! Some would even seek to have the right to vote taken from women! These extremists want to roll back the clock and do away with all the progress in women's rights over the past 200 years.
From where I now sit, the anti-abortion movement is basically an effort to legislate religious morality - an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into our secular government. At the same time as this anti-abortion crusade is underway, the religious extremists behind this movement also want to ban virtually all forms of contraception! The irrationality of that can only be embraced by people already accustomed to accommodation of contractions: religious extremists!
Behind it all is the poisonous influence religion has on perfectly natural human sexuality. The demonization of sexuality in all its forms is simply a means of controlling people. But that's another subject, perhaps to be considered here in the future.
But - at the same time - I understand that careless people are out there, and some of the careless women get pregnant and are unwilling or unable to accept the responsibility for the potential child in their womb. They'll seek abortions by whatever means, safe or unsafe. And of course, thousands of women die every year as a result of unsafe abortions. Does being 'pro-life' exclude any concern for the lives of those women? Is their unborn potential child more important? How does that arithmetic work to be a life-positive outcome? Isn't the evident lack of concern for these women really a thinly-veiled moral judgment of their participation in sex, perhaps outside of marriage?
With time, I'm finally coming to see the real source of all the 'pro-life' groups' power and pervasiveness: religion. You don't have to be religious to be against abortion, but I'm pretty confident that a substantial majority of the folks opposed to the right of women to control their own reproductive system are religious and that's driving their support of the anti-abortion movement.
What evidence is there to support this notion? The arguments being offered by the anti-abortion movement have the strong stench of black-and-white religious morality. They also include scientifically-absurd notions like the recent comments by Rep. Todd Akins (which are not exclusively his!) about "legitimate rape" never resulting in pregnancy - such nonsensical and manifestly untrue beliefs are the hallmarks of a religious movement. Several different tactics involving the re-branding of rape have been used to try to limit the opportunities for raped women to abort pregnancies resulting from rape. In fact, there are efforts underway to outlaw all abortions, including those pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, those resulting from rape, and those resulting from incest. The effort to make in vitro fertilization and other fertility enhancements virtually impossible under proposed new laws is based on the same irrational arguments made on behalf of anti-abortion laws: the protection of fertilized eggs at all costs! The blocking of federal support for stem cell research that could save many lives and heal many ailments has been similarly based on anti-abortion-related arguments.
Extremist christians have embarked on a crusade in the USA to identify 'personhood' as beginning at the moment of conception. Any rational person must see that a fertilized egg only becomes a person when it has the capacity to survive outside of its mother's body. Prior to that, the fertilized egg is only a potential person, and many don't survive owing to failures to implant in the uterus, spontaneous abortions, etc. Is the mother a murderer (or guilty of involuntary manslaughter) because she has a miscarriage? This crusade to transform fertilized eggs into sacrosanct living persons is obviously a religion-motivated campaign. They shrewdly call themselves 'pro-life' but they seem not to give a damn about that same fertilized egg once it's born! Many of them oppose welfare for single parents or poor families struggling to support those children, once they're born. Many of them oppose support for education of those same fertilized eggs - education that might convert children from disadvantaged single parents into productive members of society. Many favor the death penalty when those same fertilized eggs reach adulthood and lash out in violent acts. Heaven forbid that fertilized egg turns into an LGBT person, at which point some 'pro-lifers' feel that they deserve to die!
They're not so pro-life as they want to claim, and they're obviously motivated by the sort of religious misogyny that characterizes islamic fundamentalists like the Taliban. Women should stay at home and bear children, not be paid equally for their work, not be promoted to the highest professional levels, not be encouraged to pursue math and science. If they're raped, it's because they were asking for it! Some would even seek to have the right to vote taken from women! These extremists want to roll back the clock and do away with all the progress in women's rights over the past 200 years.
From where I now sit, the anti-abortion movement is basically an effort to legislate religious morality - an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into our secular government. At the same time as this anti-abortion crusade is underway, the religious extremists behind this movement also want to ban virtually all forms of contraception! The irrationality of that can only be embraced by people already accustomed to accommodation of contractions: religious extremists!
Behind it all is the poisonous influence religion has on perfectly natural human sexuality. The demonization of sexuality in all its forms is simply a means of controlling people. But that's another subject, perhaps to be considered here in the future.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The Atheist 'Community'?
It's only in the last few years that I've found a bunch of atheist groups on the Web, complete with Facebook pages and so on. I guess I just wasn't looking for them. My first reaction to this discovery was a sense of curiosity, because I'd been pretty much content with maintaining a relatively low profile regarding my own lack of belief in a deity. I wasn't hiding my lack of belief, but I wasn't advertising it, either. I became interested to learn what others who shared my atheism thought about various things. Looking back, I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised about what I discovered about the atheist 'community' - atheists are about as far from being a community as it's possible to be!
To have arrived at atheism, it seems pretty evident that you have to be (or become) a freethinker - someone unwilling to put doctrinaire boundaries around where your thoughts lead you. Thinking for yourself has to be a habit for you to be an atheist. The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is their shared lack of belief in a deity. When you look at the group of atheists as a whole, the things we do believe in are all over the political, social, and personal spectrum. To convince yourself of this, spend some time lurking in an atheist discussion forum. The minute anyone puts out some sort of statement of belief (as opposed to a statement of unbelief), it's almost inevitable that someone is going to pop up and dispute that statement in some way or another. The arguments are incessant, with some people lining up on one side of the discussion, even as others are vociferous proponents of the other side. And there may be many who choose to advocate a position in between the polar opposites of the argument.
Although I find most of these bickerings to be boring and concerned with trivia or things I consider to be outright nonsense, I've come to cherish this aspect of being an atheist. Atheism has no sacred authorities (although many atheists have high regard for this or that prominent atheist - like Richard Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens), it has no sacred scriptures (although there are books out there that many atheists find inspirational - like Al Stefanelli's Free Thoughts), it has no doctrine, no listings of core beliefs to be recited, no churches, no tax exemption, no pilgrimages, no ordained priesthood, no seminaries, no hymns or chants, no liturgy, no dogma, no ... well, you get the idea. Atheism allows you to come to your own conclusions about anything, by whatever process you choose. There's no ultimate authority in atheism to decide the issue in a clash of ideas.
Nevertheless, there are certain characteristics that seem to be fairly widespread amongst atheists: we usually prefer the kind of freedom of thought and expression exemplified so well by the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, we mostly hold discrimination against any group of people in contempt, we tend to respect the sciences as the apex of successful rational thinking, and so on. Politically, we often are labeled "liberals" without regard to our actual political beliefs. Socially, we often are outcasts, despised by many believers, which may include friends and even family members who have forsaken us when we declared our atheism openly. But none of these characteristics are universal in the atheist 'community'. There may be an "average atheist set of beliefs" but most atheists would disavow one or more elements within this average set of beliefs. It's a movement without constraints on your opinion about anything!
It's natural to suppose we would seek the company of other atheists as a shelter from the believer-dominated society all around us. But whenever we come together (physically or electronically), it seems that our shared lack of belief is not enough to unite us for long! When we learn what other atheists believe, it's our habit to challenge those beliefs that we don't share. And those arguments frequently turn into invective and insults - we're humans, after all, with human failings. Of late, there has been a big argument within our atheist 'community' wherein some women feel that the atheists around them are behaving like bullies or worse toward them, simply because they're women. I can't say the extent to which those perceptions are accurate, but it's logically possible that the set of all atheists would include some people who are insensitive to things that women might find to be offensive. Further, it's not possible for me to dispute a perception - it necessarily is whatever it is - but if the perception has a factual basis, it likely isn't entirely representative of all atheists, or even all the atheists in a particular group. This apparent 'schism' in our 'community' is taking some atheists down a path that incorporates adding a set of core 'beliefs' to atheism, referring to the 'new atheism' as Atheism+ ... that is, atheism plus a set of shared beliefs (with the added implication that this is a positive thing to do). I refer to this as an apparent schism because our community is not (and never has been) at all unified about virtually anything - one more crack in an already thoroughly fractured group isn't particularly meaningful!
I suspect this effort to graft beliefs onto atheism will end in failure, because once you have a set of beliefs, you've added dogma to a community of people very much prone to arguing and bickering about damned near everything. The new movement will fractionate just as religions inevitably shatter into multiple denominations because of clashes about doctrine/dogma. We atheists struggle as a 'movement' because of our seemingly incessant need for disagreement among ourselves. This penchant for disagreement saddens me somewhat, because it turns friends into enemies and cripples our ability to take action to further causes in which we believe. Ultimately, I have to accept that freethinkers are very much prone to being argumentative loners.
In my life, I've tried to avoid being a 'joiner' - for the most part, I prefer not to identify myself with this group or that because virtually all of them contain elements with which I disagree. I don't like to be bound by doctrine I didn't create myself and I prefer to feel free to say what I think, which often includes critical comments. I'm not particularly worried about hurting someone's feelings with my criticism if they're adults and capable of independent thought - I'm no fan of being PC! I'm an atheist, and I'm not generally willing to let counter-arguments offend me, although at some point I might get bored with them.
To have arrived at atheism, it seems pretty evident that you have to be (or become) a freethinker - someone unwilling to put doctrinaire boundaries around where your thoughts lead you. Thinking for yourself has to be a habit for you to be an atheist. The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is their shared lack of belief in a deity. When you look at the group of atheists as a whole, the things we do believe in are all over the political, social, and personal spectrum. To convince yourself of this, spend some time lurking in an atheist discussion forum. The minute anyone puts out some sort of statement of belief (as opposed to a statement of unbelief), it's almost inevitable that someone is going to pop up and dispute that statement in some way or another. The arguments are incessant, with some people lining up on one side of the discussion, even as others are vociferous proponents of the other side. And there may be many who choose to advocate a position in between the polar opposites of the argument.
Although I find most of these bickerings to be boring and concerned with trivia or things I consider to be outright nonsense, I've come to cherish this aspect of being an atheist. Atheism has no sacred authorities (although many atheists have high regard for this or that prominent atheist - like Richard Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens), it has no sacred scriptures (although there are books out there that many atheists find inspirational - like Al Stefanelli's Free Thoughts), it has no doctrine, no listings of core beliefs to be recited, no churches, no tax exemption, no pilgrimages, no ordained priesthood, no seminaries, no hymns or chants, no liturgy, no dogma, no ... well, you get the idea. Atheism allows you to come to your own conclusions about anything, by whatever process you choose. There's no ultimate authority in atheism to decide the issue in a clash of ideas.
Nevertheless, there are certain characteristics that seem to be fairly widespread amongst atheists: we usually prefer the kind of freedom of thought and expression exemplified so well by the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, we mostly hold discrimination against any group of people in contempt, we tend to respect the sciences as the apex of successful rational thinking, and so on. Politically, we often are labeled "liberals" without regard to our actual political beliefs. Socially, we often are outcasts, despised by many believers, which may include friends and even family members who have forsaken us when we declared our atheism openly. But none of these characteristics are universal in the atheist 'community'. There may be an "average atheist set of beliefs" but most atheists would disavow one or more elements within this average set of beliefs. It's a movement without constraints on your opinion about anything!
It's natural to suppose we would seek the company of other atheists as a shelter from the believer-dominated society all around us. But whenever we come together (physically or electronically), it seems that our shared lack of belief is not enough to unite us for long! When we learn what other atheists believe, it's our habit to challenge those beliefs that we don't share. And those arguments frequently turn into invective and insults - we're humans, after all, with human failings. Of late, there has been a big argument within our atheist 'community' wherein some women feel that the atheists around them are behaving like bullies or worse toward them, simply because they're women. I can't say the extent to which those perceptions are accurate, but it's logically possible that the set of all atheists would include some people who are insensitive to things that women might find to be offensive. Further, it's not possible for me to dispute a perception - it necessarily is whatever it is - but if the perception has a factual basis, it likely isn't entirely representative of all atheists, or even all the atheists in a particular group. This apparent 'schism' in our 'community' is taking some atheists down a path that incorporates adding a set of core 'beliefs' to atheism, referring to the 'new atheism' as Atheism+ ... that is, atheism plus a set of shared beliefs (with the added implication that this is a positive thing to do). I refer to this as an apparent schism because our community is not (and never has been) at all unified about virtually anything - one more crack in an already thoroughly fractured group isn't particularly meaningful!
I suspect this effort to graft beliefs onto atheism will end in failure, because once you have a set of beliefs, you've added dogma to a community of people very much prone to arguing and bickering about damned near everything. The new movement will fractionate just as religions inevitably shatter into multiple denominations because of clashes about doctrine/dogma. We atheists struggle as a 'movement' because of our seemingly incessant need for disagreement among ourselves. This penchant for disagreement saddens me somewhat, because it turns friends into enemies and cripples our ability to take action to further causes in which we believe. Ultimately, I have to accept that freethinkers are very much prone to being argumentative loners.
In my life, I've tried to avoid being a 'joiner' - for the most part, I prefer not to identify myself with this group or that because virtually all of them contain elements with which I disagree. I don't like to be bound by doctrine I didn't create myself and I prefer to feel free to say what I think, which often includes critical comments. I'm not particularly worried about hurting someone's feelings with my criticism if they're adults and capable of independent thought - I'm no fan of being PC! I'm an atheist, and I'm not generally willing to let counter-arguments offend me, although at some point I might get bored with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
