A rich man lived upon a tall hill in a mansion and he was served by a devoted servant boy. One day, while sitting before a feast at his table, the man felt generous (or pity perhaps) and gave the skinny boy four delicious warm buns to enjoy. The boy thanked the man profusely in an effusive, over-the-top fashion, then threw one of the rolls on the ground, picked it up and crushed it, and then poured goats blood on it and offered it back to the man. "Why on earth did you do that" asked the shocked and perplexed rich man. "Because I wanted to prove to you how devoted I am to you by showing that I'm willing to suffer deprivation in your name". "What", asked the fellow again. "I'm showing that I'm willing to suffer deprivation to prove how devoted I am", said the boy. At which the man replied, "what kind of master takes pleasure in his servants suffering?"
This is an obvious metaphor for religious sacrifice, where some 'god' is supposed to have given us worldly bounty as a gift, and we in turn destroy part of it in a "sacrifice" as a means of giving it back and showing that we're willing to suffer for our beliefs. Now, the rich man can respond in one of two ways. He could enjoy the boy's suffering, and even carry this pathogenic mindset even further by instilling fear and guilt in the boy and convincing him that his suffering will "cleanse" his soul, OR he could be a decent person and see that this boy gets help.
The 'god' of the bible resembles the former option, not the latter. What this relationship takes the form of is obvious. It's sadomasochistic.
Now, lest you think I've got this all wrong, consider Church history and dogma regarding the "mortification of the flesh", the idea that virginity is "pure", and that the "Passion of the Christ" to some extent, helped pay for sins. It payed a "ransom" as Matthew put it. In fact, it seems that 'god' cannot forgive sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22), and consider that Jesus is offered as an innocent virgin sacrifice to make 'god' happy, much like Jephthah's virgin daughter offered up as a human sacrifice to YHWH in Judges 11, which is remembered and honored even still, as the chapter tells us in it's closing verses.
Christianity often teaches that suffering is "good for the soul" as part of it's reoccurring dogmas.
Indeed. Jesus himself sacrificed of himself to the point of destruction, all the while telling us that this is the moral ideal, and that the fellow who planned this (his father) is morally right by insisting that Jesus be destroyed before he ('god') can manage to forgive other people for not being impossibly perfect. What greater example of martyrdom and masochism is there?
http://www.religious-vocation.com/redemptive_suffering.html
[[Saint Gemma Galgani, letters Jesus spoke these words; "My child, I have need of victims, and strong victims, who by their sufferings, tribulations, and difficulties, make amends for sinners and for their ingratitude."]]
[[Saint Faustina Kowalska, diary, January 1934, .279"And the Lord said to me; 'My child, You please Me most by suffering. In your physical as well as your mental sufferings, My daughter, do not seek sympathy from creatures. I want the fragrance of your suffering to be pure and unadulterated. I want you to detach yourself, not only from creatures, but also from yourself. My daughter, I want to delight in the love of your heart, a pure love, virginal, unblemished, untarnished. The more you will come to love suffering, My daughter, the purer your love for Me will be'."]]
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Two Envelopes Problem
This is one of my favorite problems, mainly because it's so simple and yet stumps so many people, especially the "smart" ones.
Look at what the Wiki page has to say about it.
"The two envelopes problem is a puzzle or paradox within the subjectivistic interpretation of probability theory; more specifically within Bayesian decision theory. This is still an open problem among the subjectivists as no consensus has been reached yet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem
Look at the complex mathematics applied on that page. It makes me laugh since the solution is so simple, but I digress.
Here's the "paradox".
(I'll word it my own way, but I won't change the essential nature of the problem).
You are seated at a table, and before you are two identical envelopes. You are told that each envelope has a card in it with a monetary amount written on it. One has a certain unknown amount and the other has twice that amount. You cannot see through the envelopes and you have no idea what amount of money is involved or which envelope has which card. You are to choose one of the two envelopes, and after doing so, you are free to swap one for the other and to keep swapping as long as you wish. After having settled on choosing one of the two envelopes, you may then, and only then, open up one of the envelopes, read the card and collect that amount of money from the person offering the game to you. However, there is catch (there's always a catch). You are obligated to (a) follow the goal, which is to obtain as much money as possible, and (b) you must follow an optimal strategy that will allow you to achieve this goal, and (c) then and only then, can you stop swapping envelopes and collect your money. Otherwise, you must continue to swap envelopes in pursuit of a higher amount.
Now, you select an envelope. Let's say that the one you selected is has 'n' amount written on it's card (that you still haven't seen). But before looking at the card, you reason that the other envelope that you didn't select has either 2n or one half n written on it's card. If you swap cards, you stand to lose one half n, or stand to gain 'n' amount, so you're obligated by the terms of the game to swap envelopes, but now THE SAME reasoning now applies to the envelope you just selected. The OTHER envelope not in your possession always has either half or twice the amount as your envelope, so again, you are obligated to swap envelopes, and yet again, the same reasoning applies so you must swap yet again...
The end result is that you must KEEP swapping and NEVER actually receive any money because by the rules of the game, you are never allowed to stop swapping and to open any envelopes.
What's wrong with this reasoning?
(Try reasoning it out for yourself before reading the following solution)
------------------------------------------------------------
Solution:
What's wrong is, as you may have guessed, how the problem is being considered. We're approaching the problem as if there are three possible amounts (.5n, n, 2n), when there are actually two possible amounts on the cards. Instead of calling the amount on the card selected "n", let's just say that one envelope has a card with 'x' amount, and the other has 2x. If you first selected 'x', then by swapping you stand to gain 'x' amount, (2x-x). If, on the other hand, you first selected 2x, then by swapping you stand to lose 'x' amount. (-2x+x = -x).
That's the answer. By swapping, you stand to either gain 'x' or lose 'x', so there is no obligation to swap envelopes because there is no advantage in doing so.
Look at what the Wiki page has to say about it.
"The two envelopes problem is a puzzle or paradox within the subjectivistic interpretation of probability theory; more specifically within Bayesian decision theory. This is still an open problem among the subjectivists as no consensus has been reached yet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem
Look at the complex mathematics applied on that page. It makes me laugh since the solution is so simple, but I digress.
Here's the "paradox".
(I'll word it my own way, but I won't change the essential nature of the problem).
You are seated at a table, and before you are two identical envelopes. You are told that each envelope has a card in it with a monetary amount written on it. One has a certain unknown amount and the other has twice that amount. You cannot see through the envelopes and you have no idea what amount of money is involved or which envelope has which card. You are to choose one of the two envelopes, and after doing so, you are free to swap one for the other and to keep swapping as long as you wish. After having settled on choosing one of the two envelopes, you may then, and only then, open up one of the envelopes, read the card and collect that amount of money from the person offering the game to you. However, there is catch (there's always a catch). You are obligated to (a) follow the goal, which is to obtain as much money as possible, and (b) you must follow an optimal strategy that will allow you to achieve this goal, and (c) then and only then, can you stop swapping envelopes and collect your money. Otherwise, you must continue to swap envelopes in pursuit of a higher amount.
Now, you select an envelope. Let's say that the one you selected is has 'n' amount written on it's card (that you still haven't seen). But before looking at the card, you reason that the other envelope that you didn't select has either 2n or one half n written on it's card. If you swap cards, you stand to lose one half n, or stand to gain 'n' amount, so you're obligated by the terms of the game to swap envelopes, but now THE SAME reasoning now applies to the envelope you just selected. The OTHER envelope not in your possession always has either half or twice the amount as your envelope, so again, you are obligated to swap envelopes, and yet again, the same reasoning applies so you must swap yet again...
The end result is that you must KEEP swapping and NEVER actually receive any money because by the rules of the game, you are never allowed to stop swapping and to open any envelopes.
What's wrong with this reasoning?
(Try reasoning it out for yourself before reading the following solution)
------------------------------------------------------------
Solution:
What's wrong is, as you may have guessed, how the problem is being considered. We're approaching the problem as if there are three possible amounts (.5n, n, 2n), when there are actually two possible amounts on the cards. Instead of calling the amount on the card selected "n", let's just say that one envelope has a card with 'x' amount, and the other has 2x. If you first selected 'x', then by swapping you stand to gain 'x' amount, (2x-x). If, on the other hand, you first selected 2x, then by swapping you stand to lose 'x' amount. (-2x+x = -x).
That's the answer. By swapping, you stand to either gain 'x' or lose 'x', so there is no obligation to swap envelopes because there is no advantage in doing so.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Obama to do away with Affirmative Action
This just in:
Barack Obama just said on CNN that if he is elected president of the United States with the majority of the popular vote, then he's going to do away with Affirmative Action, since AA is based on the idea that a black person with humble beginnings can't be expected to be given an even break in today's racist society, which he has just proved false.
...Just kidding. Odogma is a far lefty social engineer in the Marxist tradition, and would never suggest such an obviously true thing.
Barack Obama just said on CNN that if he is elected president of the United States with the majority of the popular vote, then he's going to do away with Affirmative Action, since AA is based on the idea that a black person with humble beginnings can't be expected to be given an even break in today's racist society, which he has just proved false.
...Just kidding. Odogma is a far lefty social engineer in the Marxist tradition, and would never suggest such an obviously true thing.
"Good" ethanol gas is a governent sponsored "green" hoax
Gas sold at gas stations is often 10% ethanol. It's touted as being "green" and as mixing a non-renewable source of energy with a renewable source of energy (i.e. ethanol is made from corn).
However, the whole truth shows how the whole green thing is a hoax.
Claim: "Ethanol gas is cheaper to the consumer":
Truth: While ethanol cut gas is cheaper than regular gas, the consumer also gets significantly worse gas mileage, which effectively cancels out the "savings". It's no different than buying less regular gas to drive the same lesser miles that one would be able to drive using ethanol cut gas.
Claim: "Ethanol, tank for tank, burns cleaner and creates less pollution".
Truth: That's true "tank for tank" i.e. per volume of fuel, but as touched on above, vehicles run less miles on a tank of ethanol cut gas. If one drove a car, using regular gas, the same number of miles that one could drive on a tank of ethanol cut gas, it would produce the same "less pollution".
Also, unless your car manufacture recommends you burn ethanol gas, your car will burn the gas less efficiently simply because it's not designed to burn alcohol. (You could also ruin your valves). It puts a greater "wear and tear" on your vehicle's engine.
The "green" perspective is based on fallacies, and yet there are potential congressional mandates in the works that would force gas companies to sell this "green" fuel to consumers based on these "green" fallacies. All it's really doing is creating a false government sponsored market for feed corn, that, yes, once again, you the tax payer would be supporting.
However, the whole truth shows how the whole green thing is a hoax.
Claim: "Ethanol gas is cheaper to the consumer":
Truth: While ethanol cut gas is cheaper than regular gas, the consumer also gets significantly worse gas mileage, which effectively cancels out the "savings". It's no different than buying less regular gas to drive the same lesser miles that one would be able to drive using ethanol cut gas.
Claim: "Ethanol, tank for tank, burns cleaner and creates less pollution".
Truth: That's true "tank for tank" i.e. per volume of fuel, but as touched on above, vehicles run less miles on a tank of ethanol cut gas. If one drove a car, using regular gas, the same number of miles that one could drive on a tank of ethanol cut gas, it would produce the same "less pollution".
Also, unless your car manufacture recommends you burn ethanol gas, your car will burn the gas less efficiently simply because it's not designed to burn alcohol. (You could also ruin your valves). It puts a greater "wear and tear" on your vehicle's engine.
The "green" perspective is based on fallacies, and yet there are potential congressional mandates in the works that would force gas companies to sell this "green" fuel to consumers based on these "green" fallacies. All it's really doing is creating a false government sponsored market for feed corn, that, yes, once again, you the tax payer would be supporting.
How HUD caused the market crash
How the department of Housing and Urban Development caused the credit crisis and the market crash.
http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj
It wasn't the "unregulated" free market, it was HUD, a government controlled entity running rampant without any oversight...yet again.
This is what happens when free markets aren't allowed to operate as free markets, yet is blamed for the failures of a market when the "fix is in", when socialists try to support a "mixed economy".
http://tinyurl.com/3l4enj
It wasn't the "unregulated" free market, it was HUD, a government controlled entity running rampant without any oversight...yet again.
This is what happens when free markets aren't allowed to operate as free markets, yet is blamed for the failures of a market when the "fix is in", when socialists try to support a "mixed economy".
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The "Causation vs Correlation" error
Causation vs Correlation can be one form of confusion and poor thinking.
How many times have we seen these influences confused? Conspiracy theorists may point out that nations that have fluoridated water tend to have higher incidences of cancer in the populace. Does fluoridation cause cancer? What they fail to take in consideration though is the relative wealth of nations. Relatively wealthy nations tend to fluoridate their water system (which is done simply as a luxury since it tends to reduce tooth decay in water drinkers, but doesn't help the functioning of the water system itself). Likewise, relatively wealthy nations tend to have available treatments for diseases easily treated (unlike cancer), hence more people in these wealthier nations are more likely to live long enough to GET cancer.
At one time in our history, one out of eleven women would get breast cancer. Now, it's one woman in eight. But in light of the line of reasoning just touched on, we can see that this isn't necessarily a bad thing and can even be a GOOD thing since the average life span for women (we well as men) is always increasing in developed nations.
Measured IQ in women has also increased over the past 30 years or so, since it's been acceptable for women to attend collage or university. Yet, no one is suggesting that intelligence causes cancer even though the 'tie' is as tight or as loose as the fluoridation correlation.
The natives of the New Hebrides Islands used to believe that having lice MADE one healthy. Now, how could they come to this wacky conclusion? Because when people ran a fever, both their apparent health and their 'share' of lice 'went elsewhere'. Of course, we laugh at such illogic, but it would be a capital mistake to assume that their illogic is due to simple naivety. We relatively sophisticated folks don't even blink an eye when faced with similar contemporary feats of illogic. Some "experts" suggest that, even though 3% of all the earth's greenhouse gases is CO2, which accounts for 5% of the total greenhouse effect, and even though human activity is only supposed to have influenced CO2 abundance to some degree, and even though changing long-term climatology is the norm, its assumed (for some strange reason) that if humans stopped appreciably influencing the abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, then this would somehow make the earth cooler. Not merely RELATIVELY cooler but ACTUALLY cooler. This thinking is as unsound as thinking that lice cause good health.
The common response of people who defend the "global warming" activism is the "green" version of Pascal's (defunct) Wager, which, among other things, can be called the Argument of Possible Dire Consequences fallacy. "Can we really afford to not act, even if our data may be swamped by error and our reasoning flawed? What if we just happen to be right and didn't act?"
I was once told by a graduate-degreed friend of mine that "they say that wearing hats causes baldness". He was rather dedicated to "they" and what "they" had to say until I pointed out that people of both sexes who found themselves going bald were probably more likely to wear hats.
I watched a show on TV the other day where the police were adamant about the "fact" that if a case is not solved within 72 hours, it's likely to go unsolved. No one was delving into possible degradation of physical evidence or migration of witnesses or "purps", but rather they were acting as if there was some magic influence from the 72 hours itself and in a rush to beat this mysterious influence. What they apparently failed to take into account is that it isn't just that a case unsolved within 72 hours is unlikely to be solved (so, hurry up), but rather that cases unlikely to be solved at all will be unlikely to be solved within 72 hours. (It's the backwards-thinking "hat" thing all over again).
It's common to think that if one is "average", then one is not "ahead of the curve" so to speak. Can "average" people feel that they are better off than most? Logically, yes you can. For example, according to the latest statistics, most men have a penis shorter than the average penis length. How can this be possible? Because the statistical average length is slightly higher than the statistical mean. ("Hugely" hung men skew the average higher. Penis length is limited in shortness, but, in theory, not in length.) So, if you have a penis of only average length, then apparently you're better off than most men!
Then there are the situations where "unlikelihood" is not considered in full context. Creationists often like to suggest that naturalistic effects are so "unlikely" that they are not plausible; ergo a "god" creator is a more likely "explanation". First, until someone can show that any existing 'god' creator can even possibly exist, it cannot be considered to be "more likely" than any other idea, and secondly, the likelihood of any particular event isn't equivalent to the likelihood of a process.
The chance of you getting dealt a particular 13-card bridge hand is about one in six billion, but it would be quite foolish to consider this "too unlikely" and therefore you didn't really get dealt that particular hand at all, (and no naturalist suggests that human existence was pre-ordained to occur).
How many times have we seen these influences confused? Conspiracy theorists may point out that nations that have fluoridated water tend to have higher incidences of cancer in the populace. Does fluoridation cause cancer? What they fail to take in consideration though is the relative wealth of nations. Relatively wealthy nations tend to fluoridate their water system (which is done simply as a luxury since it tends to reduce tooth decay in water drinkers, but doesn't help the functioning of the water system itself). Likewise, relatively wealthy nations tend to have available treatments for diseases easily treated (unlike cancer), hence more people in these wealthier nations are more likely to live long enough to GET cancer.
At one time in our history, one out of eleven women would get breast cancer. Now, it's one woman in eight. But in light of the line of reasoning just touched on, we can see that this isn't necessarily a bad thing and can even be a GOOD thing since the average life span for women (we well as men) is always increasing in developed nations.
Measured IQ in women has also increased over the past 30 years or so, since it's been acceptable for women to attend collage or university. Yet, no one is suggesting that intelligence causes cancer even though the 'tie' is as tight or as loose as the fluoridation correlation.
The natives of the New Hebrides Islands used to believe that having lice MADE one healthy. Now, how could they come to this wacky conclusion? Because when people ran a fever, both their apparent health and their 'share' of lice 'went elsewhere'. Of course, we laugh at such illogic, but it would be a capital mistake to assume that their illogic is due to simple naivety. We relatively sophisticated folks don't even blink an eye when faced with similar contemporary feats of illogic. Some "experts" suggest that, even though 3% of all the earth's greenhouse gases is CO2, which accounts for 5% of the total greenhouse effect, and even though human activity is only supposed to have influenced CO2 abundance to some degree, and even though changing long-term climatology is the norm, its assumed (for some strange reason) that if humans stopped appreciably influencing the abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, then this would somehow make the earth cooler. Not merely RELATIVELY cooler but ACTUALLY cooler. This thinking is as unsound as thinking that lice cause good health.
The common response of people who defend the "global warming" activism is the "green" version of Pascal's (defunct) Wager, which, among other things, can be called the Argument of Possible Dire Consequences fallacy. "Can we really afford to not act, even if our data may be swamped by error and our reasoning flawed? What if we just happen to be right and didn't act?"
I was once told by a graduate-degreed friend of mine that "they say that wearing hats causes baldness". He was rather dedicated to "they" and what "they" had to say until I pointed out that people of both sexes who found themselves going bald were probably more likely to wear hats.
I watched a show on TV the other day where the police were adamant about the "fact" that if a case is not solved within 72 hours, it's likely to go unsolved. No one was delving into possible degradation of physical evidence or migration of witnesses or "purps", but rather they were acting as if there was some magic influence from the 72 hours itself and in a rush to beat this mysterious influence. What they apparently failed to take into account is that it isn't just that a case unsolved within 72 hours is unlikely to be solved (so, hurry up), but rather that cases unlikely to be solved at all will be unlikely to be solved within 72 hours. (It's the backwards-thinking "hat" thing all over again).
It's common to think that if one is "average", then one is not "ahead of the curve" so to speak. Can "average" people feel that they are better off than most? Logically, yes you can. For example, according to the latest statistics, most men have a penis shorter than the average penis length. How can this be possible? Because the statistical average length is slightly higher than the statistical mean. ("Hugely" hung men skew the average higher. Penis length is limited in shortness, but, in theory, not in length.) So, if you have a penis of only average length, then apparently you're better off than most men!
Then there are the situations where "unlikelihood" is not considered in full context. Creationists often like to suggest that naturalistic effects are so "unlikely" that they are not plausible; ergo a "god" creator is a more likely "explanation". First, until someone can show that any existing 'god' creator can even possibly exist, it cannot be considered to be "more likely" than any other idea, and secondly, the likelihood of any particular event isn't equivalent to the likelihood of a process.
The chance of you getting dealt a particular 13-card bridge hand is about one in six billion, but it would be quite foolish to consider this "too unlikely" and therefore you didn't really get dealt that particular hand at all, (and no naturalist suggests that human existence was pre-ordained to occur).
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Luke 14 and self loathing
Here's the context of Luke 14.
Jesus went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, and they watched him. A man had "dropsy". Jesus asked the Pharisees if they would heal him on the Sabbath. They said nothing.
He healed the man, and then asked the Pharisees if there was any of them who would not pull their ox or ass out of the ditch on the Sabbath, at which they didn't answer.
Jesus then told a parable about pecking order and humility which ended with, Luke 14:11,
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Jesus then tells the Pharisees that when they make supper, not to call their friends, brethren, kinsmen or rich neighbors, but rather to feed the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind, and that you'll get payola for this when you are judged by 'god'.
(In conjunction with the 'humility' parable previous to this advice,it implies that you'll get a better pecking order "seat" in heaven if you help the unfortunate).
Jesus then told a metaphorical story about a "man" making a feast and told his servants to invite people, but they all made excuses, so "the man" told his servants to go out and find the poor and feed them. Jesus then goes on to say directly to the Pharisees...(Luke 14:26-27) "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
He then goes on to discuss how someone considering constructing something wouldn't do it without first figuring out what his expenses would be, and then says...
(Luke 14:33) "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."
Is this not the correct context of Luke 14?
Did Jesus say Luke 14:26, or not?
Is Jesus not advocating poverty and disenfranchisement in this "world" for all his followers?
Jesus in Luke 14:26 says that Jesus' followers should "hate" his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, and his own life also. The Greek word used is "miseo", which is Strong's Concordance number G3404, and means to hate, pursue with hatred, or to detest.
http://tinyurl.com/658v3r
Is this not in context with Luke 14?
Do you, as a "follower of Christ", hate the members of your family and "your own life also"?
If not, then Jesus suggests that you "CANNOT" be a disciple of Christ.
(Note how this argument nullifies the typical "your taking things out of context" claim, and the "translation error" claim, and 14:27 obliterates the "it's a parable, not literal" claim, leaving only the "you can't understand simple English unless you're possessed by the holy ghost" claim, which is obviously preposterous).
Jesus went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, and they watched him. A man had "dropsy". Jesus asked the Pharisees if they would heal him on the Sabbath. They said nothing.
He healed the man, and then asked the Pharisees if there was any of them who would not pull their ox or ass out of the ditch on the Sabbath, at which they didn't answer.
Jesus then told a parable about pecking order and humility which ended with, Luke 14:11,
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Jesus then tells the Pharisees that when they make supper, not to call their friends, brethren, kinsmen or rich neighbors, but rather to feed the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind, and that you'll get payola for this when you are judged by 'god'.
(In conjunction with the 'humility' parable previous to this advice,it implies that you'll get a better pecking order "seat" in heaven if you help the unfortunate).
Jesus then told a metaphorical story about a "man" making a feast and told his servants to invite people, but they all made excuses, so "the man" told his servants to go out and find the poor and feed them. Jesus then goes on to say directly to the Pharisees...(Luke 14:26-27) "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
He then goes on to discuss how someone considering constructing something wouldn't do it without first figuring out what his expenses would be, and then says...
(Luke 14:33) "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."
Is this not the correct context of Luke 14?
Did Jesus say Luke 14:26, or not?
Is Jesus not advocating poverty and disenfranchisement in this "world" for all his followers?
Jesus in Luke 14:26 says that Jesus' followers should "hate" his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, and his own life also. The Greek word used is "miseo", which is Strong's Concordance number G3404, and means to hate, pursue with hatred, or to detest.
http://tinyurl.com/658v3r
Is this not in context with Luke 14?
Do you, as a "follower of Christ", hate the members of your family and "your own life also"?
If not, then Jesus suggests that you "CANNOT" be a disciple of Christ.
(Note how this argument nullifies the typical "your taking things out of context" claim, and the "translation error" claim, and 14:27 obliterates the "it's a parable, not literal" claim, leaving only the "you can't understand simple English unless you're possessed by the holy ghost" claim, which is obviously preposterous).
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
What would Zeno do?
What if someone knocked on your door, and when you answered it, they told you that they are convinced, (for reasons they can't rationally explain), that a space alien named Zeno is probing your thoughts and will punish you after you die unless you join their cause, cast wishes at Zeno and offer your time and money and otherwise organize your life around the organization of Zeno followers? What if they asked you, "can you feel the presence of Zeno" and your significant other said "yeah, well, I don't know...maybe"?
Would you buy into it? NO? Well, welcome to the world of nonbelievers.
We've heard the Zeno pitch. We've heard versions from all around the world. We've heard countless tales of how it makes sense to believe something that you can't really prove the possibility of, for reasons you can't rationally explain. We've heard it countless times before. We've been told countless time about how there must be something wrong with US because we don't presume to feel the presence of Zeno.
(And, here's a clue: telling even more Zeno stories, (that apparently were good enough to convince some other people) isn't going to change how preposterous the offer is).
But what if you're wrong? Surely it's better to spend your life on your knees casting wishes at Zeno (who gives the appearance of not being there) than to die a nonbeliever in Zeno.
There. Are you convinced yet that you need to join the Zeno org?
No? Why not?
But Zeno's followers are wise and use impressive terms like "Exegesis", "Hermeneutics", "Illumination", and talk about how Zeno's thought-probes "indwell" in them.
Ready to join?
No? Don't you want to be wise like them?
Tom from around the block said that he cast a wish at Zeno about receiving a raise at the anniversary of his hire, and he did.
Convinced?!
Ready to dedicate your life to Zeno?
No?
Sally prayed for her cancer to go away. It either will, or Zeno's answer will be 'no', or she'll need to wait and see.
Convinced yet?
No? Why not?
Zeno has countless followers and someone wrote an old book.
There! Now SURELY you are convinced to dedicate your life to the spreading the news of Zeno, right?
No?
Some people say that the holy Zeno books have crazy things written in them. This is said by "low minded" apostates and nonbelievers. You just need to take all the troublesome bits and call them metaphor and all your problems with the old books will go away.
There, now it makes perfect sense to organize your life around Zeno's afterlife insurance policy, right?
No? Why not?
Well then, there can be only one rational conclusion.
There must be something wrong with *YOU*.
Now, doesn't that make good sense?
No?
Would you buy into it? NO? Well, welcome to the world of nonbelievers.
We've heard the Zeno pitch. We've heard versions from all around the world. We've heard countless tales of how it makes sense to believe something that you can't really prove the possibility of, for reasons you can't rationally explain. We've heard it countless times before. We've been told countless time about how there must be something wrong with US because we don't presume to feel the presence of Zeno.
(And, here's a clue: telling even more Zeno stories, (that apparently were good enough to convince some other people) isn't going to change how preposterous the offer is).
But what if you're wrong? Surely it's better to spend your life on your knees casting wishes at Zeno (who gives the appearance of not being there) than to die a nonbeliever in Zeno.
There. Are you convinced yet that you need to join the Zeno org?
No? Why not?
But Zeno's followers are wise and use impressive terms like "Exegesis", "Hermeneutics", "Illumination", and talk about how Zeno's thought-probes "indwell" in them.
Ready to join?
No? Don't you want to be wise like them?
Tom from around the block said that he cast a wish at Zeno about receiving a raise at the anniversary of his hire, and he did.
Convinced?!
Ready to dedicate your life to Zeno?
No?
Sally prayed for her cancer to go away. It either will, or Zeno's answer will be 'no', or she'll need to wait and see.
Convinced yet?
No? Why not?
Zeno has countless followers and someone wrote an old book.
There! Now SURELY you are convinced to dedicate your life to the spreading the news of Zeno, right?
No?
Some people say that the holy Zeno books have crazy things written in them. This is said by "low minded" apostates and nonbelievers. You just need to take all the troublesome bits and call them metaphor and all your problems with the old books will go away.
There, now it makes perfect sense to organize your life around Zeno's afterlife insurance policy, right?
No? Why not?
Well then, there can be only one rational conclusion.
There must be something wrong with *YOU*.
Now, doesn't that make good sense?
No?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Yes, but what do I REALLY think about theism?
Here's the low-down skinny on my take on religion, faith, theism and all magical beliefs like supernaturalism and paranormalism. (And, keep in mind that this isn't a piece containing argumentation, but rather declaration). It's all bollocks, bullshit, unfounded piffle, balderdash with just a smidge of horse-feathers and humbug tossed in for good measure.
It's all patently absurd, and I'm not just talking about talking snakes and 'god' pushing the sun back in the sky an hour or so just so Joshua can manage to kill more people in the name of his 'god' in a good day's work. I'm talking about the presumption that there needs to be a large magical designer before the universe can manage to exist. I'm talking about the idea that the most likely scenario for the origin of life is the idea of a magical force willing it into existence for its own anthropomorphic occult motives. I'm talking about insisting that a complex universe just has to have a complex designer, and that it itself doesn't. I'm talking about people insisting that an acausal complex universe is deemed unlikely, and yet an acuasal and even more complex universe designer wouldn't be even more unlikely.
There are two main types of religious "believers", those that believe the written humbug literally, and those who make up the humbug as they go along. Invariably, the "on the fly" humbug is preferred by people who dislike dogma, and in contrast the 'dogmateers' prefer the written message, (because written nonsense is so much more impressive apparently). The 'on the fly' group, invariably "moderate" believers, will sometimes still reference the written dogma, but that's OK since they merely pretend that it doesn't say what it does and pretend that it does say what it doesn't, and thus all remains well and nonthreatening in the invisible magic kingdom.
But of course, both types insist that nonbelievers can't criticize what is literally said or written, because nonbelievers don't have special magic ghost powers of understanding.
It's said that I often engage in atheist/religious "debate" online and in person. This is not literally true. There is no debate. There is a hobby. The magic believers make specious, meaningless, absurd-nay ridiculous claims that really behooves no one to refute since claims with zero merit have no merit to remove. Religious/supernatural claims have zero merit, and since a claim cannot have less than that, then there is really no onus placed on the reasonable person's shoulders at all. The reasonable person speaks in reasonable terms, and the magical thinker speaks in magical terms, often giving unearned credence to magical beliefs that he or she is only too happy to challenge you to prove wrong. And since you, in all probability, cannot prove the nonexistence of neither fairies nor magic invisible lunar cows, then the magical believer considers this an impressive won point. Yes…daft. That is what the reasonable person chooses to contend with in such so-called "debates".
So, why this "hobby" of mine? Well, first of all, I find it entertaining. The bible (for instance) is so contradictory, and there are so many different beliefs based on the same written material, and the delusion/self-trickery of the believers is so blatant that it seems to be an endless source of amusement. Talking to someone who is CONVINCED that the earth is a few thousand years old and that they will be whisked away in the air when Jesus "soon" returns is somewhat like talking to someone who is CONVINCED that they are a chicken. Secondly, I like puzzles, paradoxes and logical conundrums, and the sheer number of absurdities and amusing puzzles that any given Abrahamic religion gives birth to is enough to embarrass Lewis Carroll and confuse the Cheshire cat. And last but not least, that people actually believe, or otherwise pretend to believe and give stock to these absurdities has direct ramifications on our political, judicial, and legislative environs. This last bit should serve as a wake-up call.
The radical Muslims are not playing some pandering pseudo-political role. They are not pretending to be faith-heads. They actually believe what they're saying. They're not kidding. And neither are our domestic terrorists who blow up abortion clinics. The truth is, Christians just can't wait to die. They dream about dying; and I'm not just talking about them "going home", I'm talking about how they can't wait for Jesus to return and exterminate the human race on earth and to give everyone their "just dues". Yes, "sinner", or poor person who misinterpreted that scripture or verse, the "True Christians" (everyone but you) just can't wait for Jesus to come back and put you through your paces & tribulations and to teach you people a lesson or two. The "True Christians" just can't wait for you to be really sorry for not being in fascist mental lock-step with them…er, I mean "with the Lord and master".
Of course, the Return-of-Jesus massacre involves him destroying the world, and creating a "new heaven and earth", a "new Eden", and then repopulating it with slaves to his will, either still alive (by some miracle) or newly re-alive resurrected zombies slaves of course.
Yes, I wouldn't call what I do "debate". That would simply dignify the magical beliefs in an unearned way. The proper response to the ridiculous is ridicule. However, I'm not boorish, and I don't stand up during Thanksgiving grace and yell "poppycock", but if you wish to "throw down" in the proper forum, then I'm more than happy to give the proper ridicule where it is soundly deserved. I do what I do to present both sides to the fence sitters (as a public spectacle) and those who sit on the sideline reluctant to publically choose sides. Such "debate" is such a ridiculous spectacle that reasonable people will no doubt choose the side of reason, and those predisposed to thinking badly will prefer to lie to themselves and to chase their magic castles in the sky. As Jesus would say, there is no saving those who won't save themselves.
I don't "defend" the theory of Evolution, although I may choose to make a point or two about it occasionally. Why? Because even if Evolution were perfectly false, it wouldn't make anyone's 'god' come true, so it's irrelevant, isn't it? To "defend" the Theory of Evolution and to pretend that creationism is an alternative to argue against is to give credence to the patently absurd. Creationism really doesn't deserve the dignity of a cogent response. In short, it's stupid to hold such beliefs. Well, I should say that it was an ignorant idea, born from the ignorant when such an ideas were invented, but it's a stupid idea for modern people in first-world countries to hold in our modern 21st century world.
I'm not a "hard atheist" insisting that there are no 'gods' hiding anywhere in the universe, and this is for several reasons. One reason is that it would be unscientific for me to do so, but of course, this is NOT suggesting that there is the slightest bit of "doubt" or merit on the theist's side of the "argument". I'm simply not committing the same egregious error they are by pretending to "know" and presuming to make claims about what I have no way of knowing. Secondly, taking a hard atheist position is to, again, dignify the opposing 'position' by pretending that it's an idea that deserves a sound refutation. It doesn't because it's meritless. No one is behooved to or otherwise has the onus of disproving other people's preposterous bullshit.
I'm an atheist in the truest sense of the word. I'm a non-theist. That is sufficient and all that is called for when the opposing position has zero merit. I also don't believe in fairies, but no one is behooved to disprove the existence of those, are they, and to not disprove the existence of magical fairies in no way implies that "fairies exist" has some sort of merit to the idea. This is obvious, and again, doesn't require any real argument.
Theists give unearned merit to meritless claims, and pretend that the only viable argument against this line of thought is to either prove their presumed prime agent nonexistent or to offer a proved alternative theory that excludes theirs. "Hard atheism" and arguing the Theory of Evolution as an opposition to creationism is to pander to and to fall prey to this fallacious idea. The 'atheist/theist' consideration isn't about what we certainly know; it's about giving or not giving unearned merit to ideas that haven't earned said merit.
Just because creationism (and all its ramifications) is a stupid idea, doesn't mean that all atheists are intelligent. I'm not a boorish clod who makes an ass of himself during Thanksgiving or some other mass "prayer time". I don't boycott Christmas or choose to recognize "solstice" instead. Frankly, I think such ideas are stupid, and there are several very large atheist orgs that pander to such stupid ideas. Holidays fall into several categories, independence days, birth days, the beginning of the new year (in whatever culture you prefer) and the rest are, more or less, days that religion has attempted to hijack, and these attempts have been unsuccessful because these days of forced reverence in turn become days of absurdity. Easter? Easter was named for the human turned fertility goddess Ester, whose symbols are the fertility symbols of the egg and the hare (big-assed rabbit). The vile first-born baby killing "holiday" of Passover was hijacked by Jesus, and Jesus' holiday of death has been hijacked by the original pre-Jesus pagan myth of Ester. Virgin Ester got divinely knocked-up on Easter week and had her demi-god son nine months later on the winter solstice. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? St Patrick's day? It has nothing to do with the exiled English patron saint who brought Catholicism to Ireland. It's now a day to drink green beer and hit your buddy if he isn't wearing green. Christmas? That hijacked day has been re-hijacked by Santa and his absurd flying mule deer. "St" Valentine's Day never really had anything to do with Catholicism, and it's become a day to try to get ones carrot wet. All Saints Day/All Hallowed's Eve? Yes, trick or treating & witches flying around on broomsticks. To "boycott" what has already been successfully undermined with the absurd, is to be rather boorish, stodgy, idiotic and just freakin' dull as dishwater.
Now, go drink some absurdly green beer. That's an order.
It's all patently absurd, and I'm not just talking about talking snakes and 'god' pushing the sun back in the sky an hour or so just so Joshua can manage to kill more people in the name of his 'god' in a good day's work. I'm talking about the presumption that there needs to be a large magical designer before the universe can manage to exist. I'm talking about the idea that the most likely scenario for the origin of life is the idea of a magical force willing it into existence for its own anthropomorphic occult motives. I'm talking about insisting that a complex universe just has to have a complex designer, and that it itself doesn't. I'm talking about people insisting that an acausal complex universe is deemed unlikely, and yet an acuasal and even more complex universe designer wouldn't be even more unlikely.
There are two main types of religious "believers", those that believe the written humbug literally, and those who make up the humbug as they go along. Invariably, the "on the fly" humbug is preferred by people who dislike dogma, and in contrast the 'dogmateers' prefer the written message, (because written nonsense is so much more impressive apparently). The 'on the fly' group, invariably "moderate" believers, will sometimes still reference the written dogma, but that's OK since they merely pretend that it doesn't say what it does and pretend that it does say what it doesn't, and thus all remains well and nonthreatening in the invisible magic kingdom.
But of course, both types insist that nonbelievers can't criticize what is literally said or written, because nonbelievers don't have special magic ghost powers of understanding.
It's said that I often engage in atheist/religious "debate" online and in person. This is not literally true. There is no debate. There is a hobby. The magic believers make specious, meaningless, absurd-nay ridiculous claims that really behooves no one to refute since claims with zero merit have no merit to remove. Religious/supernatural claims have zero merit, and since a claim cannot have less than that, then there is really no onus placed on the reasonable person's shoulders at all. The reasonable person speaks in reasonable terms, and the magical thinker speaks in magical terms, often giving unearned credence to magical beliefs that he or she is only too happy to challenge you to prove wrong. And since you, in all probability, cannot prove the nonexistence of neither fairies nor magic invisible lunar cows, then the magical believer considers this an impressive won point. Yes…daft. That is what the reasonable person chooses to contend with in such so-called "debates".
So, why this "hobby" of mine? Well, first of all, I find it entertaining. The bible (for instance) is so contradictory, and there are so many different beliefs based on the same written material, and the delusion/self-trickery of the believers is so blatant that it seems to be an endless source of amusement. Talking to someone who is CONVINCED that the earth is a few thousand years old and that they will be whisked away in the air when Jesus "soon" returns is somewhat like talking to someone who is CONVINCED that they are a chicken. Secondly, I like puzzles, paradoxes and logical conundrums, and the sheer number of absurdities and amusing puzzles that any given Abrahamic religion gives birth to is enough to embarrass Lewis Carroll and confuse the Cheshire cat. And last but not least, that people actually believe, or otherwise pretend to believe and give stock to these absurdities has direct ramifications on our political, judicial, and legislative environs. This last bit should serve as a wake-up call.
The radical Muslims are not playing some pandering pseudo-political role. They are not pretending to be faith-heads. They actually believe what they're saying. They're not kidding. And neither are our domestic terrorists who blow up abortion clinics. The truth is, Christians just can't wait to die. They dream about dying; and I'm not just talking about them "going home", I'm talking about how they can't wait for Jesus to return and exterminate the human race on earth and to give everyone their "just dues". Yes, "sinner", or poor person who misinterpreted that scripture or verse, the "True Christians" (everyone but you) just can't wait for Jesus to come back and put you through your paces & tribulations and to teach you people a lesson or two. The "True Christians" just can't wait for you to be really sorry for not being in fascist mental lock-step with them…er, I mean "with the Lord and master".
Of course, the Return-of-Jesus massacre involves him destroying the world, and creating a "new heaven and earth", a "new Eden", and then repopulating it with slaves to his will, either still alive (by some miracle) or newly re-alive resurrected zombies slaves of course.
Yes, I wouldn't call what I do "debate". That would simply dignify the magical beliefs in an unearned way. The proper response to the ridiculous is ridicule. However, I'm not boorish, and I don't stand up during Thanksgiving grace and yell "poppycock", but if you wish to "throw down" in the proper forum, then I'm more than happy to give the proper ridicule where it is soundly deserved. I do what I do to present both sides to the fence sitters (as a public spectacle) and those who sit on the sideline reluctant to publically choose sides. Such "debate" is such a ridiculous spectacle that reasonable people will no doubt choose the side of reason, and those predisposed to thinking badly will prefer to lie to themselves and to chase their magic castles in the sky. As Jesus would say, there is no saving those who won't save themselves.
I don't "defend" the theory of Evolution, although I may choose to make a point or two about it occasionally. Why? Because even if Evolution were perfectly false, it wouldn't make anyone's 'god' come true, so it's irrelevant, isn't it? To "defend" the Theory of Evolution and to pretend that creationism is an alternative to argue against is to give credence to the patently absurd. Creationism really doesn't deserve the dignity of a cogent response. In short, it's stupid to hold such beliefs. Well, I should say that it was an ignorant idea, born from the ignorant when such an ideas were invented, but it's a stupid idea for modern people in first-world countries to hold in our modern 21st century world.
I'm not a "hard atheist" insisting that there are no 'gods' hiding anywhere in the universe, and this is for several reasons. One reason is that it would be unscientific for me to do so, but of course, this is NOT suggesting that there is the slightest bit of "doubt" or merit on the theist's side of the "argument". I'm simply not committing the same egregious error they are by pretending to "know" and presuming to make claims about what I have no way of knowing. Secondly, taking a hard atheist position is to, again, dignify the opposing 'position' by pretending that it's an idea that deserves a sound refutation. It doesn't because it's meritless. No one is behooved to or otherwise has the onus of disproving other people's preposterous bullshit.
I'm an atheist in the truest sense of the word. I'm a non-theist. That is sufficient and all that is called for when the opposing position has zero merit. I also don't believe in fairies, but no one is behooved to disprove the existence of those, are they, and to not disprove the existence of magical fairies in no way implies that "fairies exist" has some sort of merit to the idea. This is obvious, and again, doesn't require any real argument.
Theists give unearned merit to meritless claims, and pretend that the only viable argument against this line of thought is to either prove their presumed prime agent nonexistent or to offer a proved alternative theory that excludes theirs. "Hard atheism" and arguing the Theory of Evolution as an opposition to creationism is to pander to and to fall prey to this fallacious idea. The 'atheist/theist' consideration isn't about what we certainly know; it's about giving or not giving unearned merit to ideas that haven't earned said merit.
Just because creationism (and all its ramifications) is a stupid idea, doesn't mean that all atheists are intelligent. I'm not a boorish clod who makes an ass of himself during Thanksgiving or some other mass "prayer time". I don't boycott Christmas or choose to recognize "solstice" instead. Frankly, I think such ideas are stupid, and there are several very large atheist orgs that pander to such stupid ideas. Holidays fall into several categories, independence days, birth days, the beginning of the new year (in whatever culture you prefer) and the rest are, more or less, days that religion has attempted to hijack, and these attempts have been unsuccessful because these days of forced reverence in turn become days of absurdity. Easter? Easter was named for the human turned fertility goddess Ester, whose symbols are the fertility symbols of the egg and the hare (big-assed rabbit). The vile first-born baby killing "holiday" of Passover was hijacked by Jesus, and Jesus' holiday of death has been hijacked by the original pre-Jesus pagan myth of Ester. Virgin Ester got divinely knocked-up on Easter week and had her demi-god son nine months later on the winter solstice. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? St Patrick's day? It has nothing to do with the exiled English patron saint who brought Catholicism to Ireland. It's now a day to drink green beer and hit your buddy if he isn't wearing green. Christmas? That hijacked day has been re-hijacked by Santa and his absurd flying mule deer. "St" Valentine's Day never really had anything to do with Catholicism, and it's become a day to try to get ones carrot wet. All Saints Day/All Hallowed's Eve? Yes, trick or treating & witches flying around on broomsticks. To "boycott" what has already been successfully undermined with the absurd, is to be rather boorish, stodgy, idiotic and just freakin' dull as dishwater.
Now, go drink some absurdly green beer. That's an order.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Arguments cannot prove their own premises
You want to test a theory using the scientific method. You "form a hypothesis" and call it "A". You then say that if A is true, then B should occur as well, and it proves true, (B occurs when A does). So, you've proved your theory "true" in a scientific way, right, i.e. you've supported your theory with evidence?
No! That actually makes absolutely no sense at all.
This is a common mistake that is sometimes made even by professional scientists, (and, sadly, this is how the scientific method is often taught in public school).
So, what's wrong?
What's wrong is that it's illogical. You've proved nothing, and here's why.
The simplest form of logical argument is composed of a premise, an inference and a conclusion. The inference is what ties the premise and conclusion together. It's literally the actual "logic" between cause and consequence. With formal logic, you're concerned mainly with form, or structure of the argument (hence formal), rather than semantics. Why? Because even the syntactical form itself, i.e. the structure, can allow you to decide if an argument is valid or not.
However, when considering logic, the "inference is assumed" (because if the inference is screwed up, you're not doing logic anyway). So with formal logic, what you consider is the relationship between the truth value of the premise and the truth value of the conclusion. Here is how it breaks down.
Premise => Conclusion
This is often expressed in what is called a "material conditional", which is an "If-Then" statement. In other words, "If x, then y", or "If (premise), then (conclusion)".
"Valid" or 'logically valid' means that "it can happen" given the conditions of the context of formal logic. To understand logical validity, it helps to think of the (presumed) inference as a perfectly well-working logic machine or computer because this is what computers really are, they are logic circuits designed with Boolean logic. Formal logical validity is itself a matter of "form" or argument structure.
Consider…
True premise, true conclusion = valid argument (also a "sound" argument).
True premise, false conclusion = INVALID argument (it can't happen).
False premise, false conclusion = valid argument
False premise, true conclusion = valid argument
So, what do we mean by the above?
It means that if we put true information into a computer, within the context of something the computer can actually handle, and the computer is working perfectly, then we should get true information out, and if we get false information out, then the computer isn't working perfectly or your premise isn't true as you think it is. In other words, putting true info in and getting false info out of a perfectly well-working computer performing computations that it can handle in context, is not possible, ergo "invalid".
"Invalid" tells you that something is wrong in Denmark.
All other scenarios are possible, ergo "valid". We can put false info into the computer and get false info out, and we may even get true info out that's true merely by accident and not because of the false premise at all. OK, so, what has this to do with the original problem? Well, notice in the matrix above where if we have a true conclusion in a valid argument we may have either a true premise or a false premise! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO PROVE TRUE ITS OWN PREMISE. The attempt to do so is the problem with the flawed line of thinking in the original problem above.
Also notice that we can use a false premise and get either a true conclusion or a false conclusion, even with a perfectly well-working computer, i.e. our logic is just fine. That is, there is nothing wrong with the logic, but rather in your choice of premise (computer input). It would be irrational to blame the computer (logic) for what one gets when one uses a false premise, or if the 'input' is not something the 'computer' can handle appropriately in context. (We shouldn't blame either logic or a computer for not being able to make sense of "What is Philadelphia plus two?")
Reconsidering the original problem above, what IS an acceptable method is for your theory to be the entire argument, instead of your theory being just the "hypothesis" premise, and for your premise to be known to be true (because who cares what conclusion you get if you use an irrelevant premise, right?)
With a known true premise, if your conclusion proves true, then your theory, i.e. your argument, is valid & sound. If your conclusion is false, then your argument (theory) is invalid. So, your theory becomes "If A, then B" instead of "My hypothesis is that A is true, then I'll test my hypothesis and look for a B as supporting evidence that A is true". The former is logical and the latter isn't. As I mentioned before, even professional scientists sometimes makes this mistake. Some may see this as evidence of how logic is lacking. Far from it. There is nothing lacking in logic, but rather there is sometimes something lacking in our understanding of it.
No! That actually makes absolutely no sense at all.
This is a common mistake that is sometimes made even by professional scientists, (and, sadly, this is how the scientific method is often taught in public school).
So, what's wrong?
What's wrong is that it's illogical. You've proved nothing, and here's why.
The simplest form of logical argument is composed of a premise, an inference and a conclusion. The inference is what ties the premise and conclusion together. It's literally the actual "logic" between cause and consequence. With formal logic, you're concerned mainly with form, or structure of the argument (hence formal), rather than semantics. Why? Because even the syntactical form itself, i.e. the structure, can allow you to decide if an argument is valid or not.
However, when considering logic, the "inference is assumed" (because if the inference is screwed up, you're not doing logic anyway). So with formal logic, what you consider is the relationship between the truth value of the premise and the truth value of the conclusion. Here is how it breaks down.
Premise => Conclusion
This is often expressed in what is called a "material conditional", which is an "If-Then" statement. In other words, "If x, then y", or "If (premise), then (conclusion)".
"Valid" or 'logically valid' means that "it can happen" given the conditions of the context of formal logic. To understand logical validity, it helps to think of the (presumed) inference as a perfectly well-working logic machine or computer because this is what computers really are, they are logic circuits designed with Boolean logic. Formal logical validity is itself a matter of "form" or argument structure.
Consider…
True premise, true conclusion = valid argument (also a "sound" argument).
True premise, false conclusion = INVALID argument (it can't happen).
False premise, false conclusion = valid argument
False premise, true conclusion = valid argument
So, what do we mean by the above?
It means that if we put true information into a computer, within the context of something the computer can actually handle, and the computer is working perfectly, then we should get true information out, and if we get false information out, then the computer isn't working perfectly or your premise isn't true as you think it is. In other words, putting true info in and getting false info out of a perfectly well-working computer performing computations that it can handle in context, is not possible, ergo "invalid".
"Invalid" tells you that something is wrong in Denmark.
All other scenarios are possible, ergo "valid". We can put false info into the computer and get false info out, and we may even get true info out that's true merely by accident and not because of the false premise at all. OK, so, what has this to do with the original problem? Well, notice in the matrix above where if we have a true conclusion in a valid argument we may have either a true premise or a false premise! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO PROVE TRUE ITS OWN PREMISE. The attempt to do so is the problem with the flawed line of thinking in the original problem above.
Also notice that we can use a false premise and get either a true conclusion or a false conclusion, even with a perfectly well-working computer, i.e. our logic is just fine. That is, there is nothing wrong with the logic, but rather in your choice of premise (computer input). It would be irrational to blame the computer (logic) for what one gets when one uses a false premise, or if the 'input' is not something the 'computer' can handle appropriately in context. (We shouldn't blame either logic or a computer for not being able to make sense of "What is Philadelphia plus two?")
Reconsidering the original problem above, what IS an acceptable method is for your theory to be the entire argument, instead of your theory being just the "hypothesis" premise, and for your premise to be known to be true (because who cares what conclusion you get if you use an irrelevant premise, right?)
With a known true premise, if your conclusion proves true, then your theory, i.e. your argument, is valid & sound. If your conclusion is false, then your argument (theory) is invalid. So, your theory becomes "If A, then B" instead of "My hypothesis is that A is true, then I'll test my hypothesis and look for a B as supporting evidence that A is true". The former is logical and the latter isn't. As I mentioned before, even professional scientists sometimes makes this mistake. Some may see this as evidence of how logic is lacking. Far from it. There is nothing lacking in logic, but rather there is sometimes something lacking in our understanding of it.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Forever and Ever, Amen
It was another day, and Tom was already hating it, loathing it, despising it with every essence of his being. He had asked for this once, he thought to his self, he had dreamed about it, prayed for it, pleading on bended knee, but that cruel joke he played on his self lost its bitter sting a thousand years ago. He was going to the temple again, to pray for death, just like every day. The temple. The place he'll just appear in, as in a dream, this happens every day...EVERY DAY...for over a thousand years. 'If only could die' he thought. He goes to the temple to pray for death every day, but, like every day that prayer will go unheard apparently, or is it apparent? "Please 'god', please let me die". "I'm sorry, so sorry", he would pray, but nothing ever happened, much like when he was still on earth. If only he had thought it out a little more clearly, back then, back when things still mattered, before existence itself became completely tedious and meaningless, repeating day after day. Did he really deserve this kind of punishment? No!...he used to tell his self, but he wasn't so sure anymore.
He could have anything he wanted, and did, once upon a time. He had delicious food, he had girls, sex...LOTS of sex, endless sex, but there wasn't any striving at all, he just thought it and got it. Soon, no matter what the girls looked like or what he did, it became like watching the same porno thousands and thousands of times...torture. He would do things, go places he thought of, but after hundreds of years and getting anything he wanted simply by thinking about it, it all became completely pointless. Everything was meaningless. After an endless time, he started hating existence itself.
Funny, he used to think of death as the opposite of life. Now he knows the bitter truth. It's death that makes life precious, like a rose that will soon pass away. It's death that gives life meaning, purpose, sweetness. Existence...never ending existence is meaningless. Immortality is a meaningless series of events leading nowhere and for no purpose. There is no striving. Thou shalt not want. Immortality is torture--sheer torture. There is no risk here, no danger, no excitement, no escape...nothing but boredom, endless boredom.
On earth, he had the truth right in front of his face, and never saw it. Adam and Eve were slaves once, like he is now. They lived in paradise with eyes-closed and were threatened with death if they didn't subjugate their wills to the will of their lord and master. They risked death and chose freedom instead. How he envied them. Instead, back then, he wished and willed to crawl back into Eden on his own belly. He called himself a juvenile sheep, and hated his own "carnal" flesh, and he wished to shed that "original sin", close his eyes and be in that slave's paradise where they came from. Be careful what you wish for...
He heard the stories and read the gospels. He prayed and thanked 'god' for sending Jesus to suffer for our sins so that we can live...and live...and live...and live...
He understood that Jesus was completely innocent and was tortured to death. He knowingly and willfully asked, begged, nay PLEADED that this innocent person's unjustly shed blood pay for HIS crimes, his sins. A payment that he knew he didn't deserve. He knowingly pleaded for something horrible, something that no one should ask for. It wasn't a matter of whether he really DID deserve hell or whether he really DID sin, but rather that he BELIEVED it, and did the unthinkable. He asked that an innocent person's torture and death count as his own punishment, and in turn that he, the guilty, be set free from the punishment that he, deep down, felt he deserved. "There but by the grace of 'god' goes an inncent person instead of me, the guilty".
"But, Jesus is already dead, and it would be pointless for me to go to hell" he once told himself. Now he realizes that this isn't much different than a man who tortures the innocent because he will be tortured himself if he doesn't and the innocent person will simply be tortured by someone else if he doesn't do it himself. Of course, this is what everyone Nazi middleman told himself, or everyone who commits an atrocity because they want to avoid the consequences for themselves. The point he missed was that he was responsible for his own freewill, his own soul. That was the plan, the test, and he blew it.
HE chose to let an innocent person's life pay for his undeserved pleasure. He ASKED for it! He even used to go to church and look at this poor innocent fellow in his pain and suffering...and he gave THANKS for it!! 'My 'god'" he thinks to himself, "I DO deserve this place...this torture...this meaningless tedium, forever...
...this HEAVEN."
He could have anything he wanted, and did, once upon a time. He had delicious food, he had girls, sex...LOTS of sex, endless sex, but there wasn't any striving at all, he just thought it and got it. Soon, no matter what the girls looked like or what he did, it became like watching the same porno thousands and thousands of times...torture. He would do things, go places he thought of, but after hundreds of years and getting anything he wanted simply by thinking about it, it all became completely pointless. Everything was meaningless. After an endless time, he started hating existence itself.
Funny, he used to think of death as the opposite of life. Now he knows the bitter truth. It's death that makes life precious, like a rose that will soon pass away. It's death that gives life meaning, purpose, sweetness. Existence...never ending existence is meaningless. Immortality is a meaningless series of events leading nowhere and for no purpose. There is no striving. Thou shalt not want. Immortality is torture--sheer torture. There is no risk here, no danger, no excitement, no escape...nothing but boredom, endless boredom.
On earth, he had the truth right in front of his face, and never saw it. Adam and Eve were slaves once, like he is now. They lived in paradise with eyes-closed and were threatened with death if they didn't subjugate their wills to the will of their lord and master. They risked death and chose freedom instead. How he envied them. Instead, back then, he wished and willed to crawl back into Eden on his own belly. He called himself a juvenile sheep, and hated his own "carnal" flesh, and he wished to shed that "original sin", close his eyes and be in that slave's paradise where they came from. Be careful what you wish for...
He heard the stories and read the gospels. He prayed and thanked 'god' for sending Jesus to suffer for our sins so that we can live...and live...and live...and live...
He understood that Jesus was completely innocent and was tortured to death. He knowingly and willfully asked, begged, nay PLEADED that this innocent person's unjustly shed blood pay for HIS crimes, his sins. A payment that he knew he didn't deserve. He knowingly pleaded for something horrible, something that no one should ask for. It wasn't a matter of whether he really DID deserve hell or whether he really DID sin, but rather that he BELIEVED it, and did the unthinkable. He asked that an innocent person's torture and death count as his own punishment, and in turn that he, the guilty, be set free from the punishment that he, deep down, felt he deserved. "There but by the grace of 'god' goes an inncent person instead of me, the guilty".
"But, Jesus is already dead, and it would be pointless for me to go to hell" he once told himself. Now he realizes that this isn't much different than a man who tortures the innocent because he will be tortured himself if he doesn't and the innocent person will simply be tortured by someone else if he doesn't do it himself. Of course, this is what everyone Nazi middleman told himself, or everyone who commits an atrocity because they want to avoid the consequences for themselves. The point he missed was that he was responsible for his own freewill, his own soul. That was the plan, the test, and he blew it.
HE chose to let an innocent person's life pay for his undeserved pleasure. He ASKED for it! He even used to go to church and look at this poor innocent fellow in his pain and suffering...and he gave THANKS for it!! 'My 'god'" he thinks to himself, "I DO deserve this place...this torture...this meaningless tedium, forever...
...this HEAVEN."
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Ubiquity of Infinite Eternity
Sonny the robot sits in the corner with a blown fuse. Something, you might say, blew his mind. Innocently enough, several days ago, Bob, his friend, told him that he would receive an unexpected gift in the next two days, however Sonny reasoned that it wouldn't be unexpected if it showed up on the second day if it didn't show up on the first day, ergo, logically, it is impossible for him to receive an unexpected gift two days from now. Therefore it must show up one day from now, but it wouldn't then be unexpected then either. Therefore he reasoned that it is logically impossible to receive an unexpected gift from Bob in the next two days. Sonny told this to Bob, who merely laughed at him, which perplexed Sonny a bit. Sonny then received a gift two days after coming to his conclusion and was...surprised. He was surprised because it occurred when it was logically impossible for it to occur. He had witnessed a miracle it seems. At first, he considered that the term "unexpected" might be applied in an ambiguous manner, but no, upon reflection he realized that it did in fact apply to his reaction to having received the gift, exactly as was predicted. There was no ambiguity and so the paradox persisted. Sonny sat down in a corner to contemplate this, and ended up blowing a fuse. 'Poor fellow.
There is nothing wrong with Sonny's reasoning. And there was nothing wrong, it seems, with Bob's reasoning either, since he did indeed do what he said he would do...even if it was impossible for him to do it. Bob proved to be a miracle worker. As Will Smith's character Det. Spooner commented on in the movie I Robot, robots certainly are rational and logical...to a fault in Det. Spooner's opinion. So much so that he distrusted them. What is wrong in the above scenario is caused by the common incongruities of natural language and logic. Foretelling of an "unexpected" event in a future finite time frame poses logical problems, yet we usually deal with this type of thing by ignoring it. We're good at ignoring things.
A common example is when someone goes on and on about "eternity" and "infinity", usually in a metaphysical sense. We can point out that there is no actual eternity and there is no real infinity either, the former is merely hyperbole and the latter is similar hyperbole and also serves as a mathematical tool that is 'approached' by numbers but never actually achieved. As counter-intuitive as it may first seem, infinity is used in mathematics as a limit, which at first blush seems to be a contradiction in terms. (Which is very odd, but only if you think about it.) We can point out that there is no actual existing or real eternity or infinity 'till we're blue in the face, and STILL our metaphysical-minded friends will continue to speak of going to eternity (as if this is a destination and not a time frame) and experiencing infinity, or talking about infinite 'things', etc, which is impossible. ("Things" are said to exist by persisting over time, yet at any given instance, there is a finite number of any given things in the universe. At no 'time' can there be an infinite number of any real things. "Infinite" is either in reference to an open-ended set, or is a form of linguistic hyperbole).
The fact that infinity, which is by definition open-ended and limitless, can be used as an approachable limit, never to be achieved precisely because no real existing thing can be infinite, is, unfortunately something that most people will never be able to wrap their minds around.
There is nothing wrong with Sonny's reasoning. And there was nothing wrong, it seems, with Bob's reasoning either, since he did indeed do what he said he would do...even if it was impossible for him to do it. Bob proved to be a miracle worker. As Will Smith's character Det. Spooner commented on in the movie I Robot, robots certainly are rational and logical...to a fault in Det. Spooner's opinion. So much so that he distrusted them. What is wrong in the above scenario is caused by the common incongruities of natural language and logic. Foretelling of an "unexpected" event in a future finite time frame poses logical problems, yet we usually deal with this type of thing by ignoring it. We're good at ignoring things.
A common example is when someone goes on and on about "eternity" and "infinity", usually in a metaphysical sense. We can point out that there is no actual eternity and there is no real infinity either, the former is merely hyperbole and the latter is similar hyperbole and also serves as a mathematical tool that is 'approached' by numbers but never actually achieved. As counter-intuitive as it may first seem, infinity is used in mathematics as a limit, which at first blush seems to be a contradiction in terms. (Which is very odd, but only if you think about it.) We can point out that there is no actual existing or real eternity or infinity 'till we're blue in the face, and STILL our metaphysical-minded friends will continue to speak of going to eternity (as if this is a destination and not a time frame) and experiencing infinity, or talking about infinite 'things', etc, which is impossible. ("Things" are said to exist by persisting over time, yet at any given instance, there is a finite number of any given things in the universe. At no 'time' can there be an infinite number of any real things. "Infinite" is either in reference to an open-ended set, or is a form of linguistic hyperbole).
The fact that infinity, which is by definition open-ended and limitless, can be used as an approachable limit, never to be achieved precisely because no real existing thing can be infinite, is, unfortunately something that most people will never be able to wrap their minds around.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Hume's Indian and the Ice
David Hume brought up an interesting point in his discussions about miracles by offering the following story (that I'll paraphrase in my own words).
Dhara was born and lived her whole life in southern India. Her cousin who had been traveling for a year returned today, telling of his wonderful adventures from up north near the boarder of her country. He told stories of vast mountain ranges and his travels up the mountains and down in the valleys and into strange lands. He told of finding dragon bones in the rocks, and of finding a dragon nest in a mountain cave, but one of the most outlandish things he told about was that of solid water. He said that big flakes of white water fell out of the sky like rain, but slower, and he told of a hard and very cold substance that turned into water in ones hands. He said that there wasn't an in-between state where the water becomes thick, but rather it turned from a solid directly into liquid water. Dhara could perhaps believe in dragons. After all, she had seen big lizards before, so why couldn't there be even bigger lizards, but SOLID WATER!, Who could believe such a thing!
Dhara chose to not believe in what we call ice. Should she have believed or did she make the correct decision?
Dhara made the correct decision to not believe in the existence of ice.
How can that be, you might ask, since "ice exists" is true?
Because we are asked to evaluate Dhara's thinking, not whether or not ice exists or whether she believes what ends up being true.
She made the correct decision regarding both "dragons" and ice. She brought her prior knowledge to both problems. Since she knew of big lizards, she saw no reason to doubt the possibility of even BIGGER lizards. In fact though, her cousin may have been making it all up, but we today know of the prior existence of big lizards and dinosaurs and certainly of ice.
However, Dhara had no prior knowledge she could bring to the table considering the possibility of frozen water. It wasn't simply a matter of probability, but one of POSSIBILITY. Dhara doesn't know that frozen water is even POSSIBLE. From Dhara's perspective, "big lizards" is a matter of PROBABILITY, whereas "solid water" is a matter of POSSIBILITY.
Should we say that, as far as ice is concerned, Dhara is an agnostic, (not-knowing)?
Perhaps. It's important to keep in mind though that believe/not-believe is a different consideration than whether one knows or not (even though belief and knowledge are related).
But, even if she is agnostic about ice, this doesn't mean that she should presume that ice is POSSIBLE at all, but rather that she doesn't know that it is possible or impossible. In fact SHE SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT ICE IS POSSIBLE. She has no legitimate reason to, since her cousin is not beyond telling a yarn or two.
We should also keep in mind that if ...
'A' = believe in the existence of ice...
...this does not means that
'~A' = believe that ice does not exist.
In fact, '~A' ("not-A") = not possessing a belief in the existence of ice, which includes belief that ice is impossible as well as not taking any belief position at all. In fact, Dhara should not take the position that ice is impossible unless she has 'a-priori' (or a "definitive") reason to think that the existience of ice is impossible. However, simply refraining from believing is the correct justifiable position for Dhara to take.
Dhara can be called an a-ice-ist in exactly the same sense that I call myself an atheist.
Dhara was born and lived her whole life in southern India. Her cousin who had been traveling for a year returned today, telling of his wonderful adventures from up north near the boarder of her country. He told stories of vast mountain ranges and his travels up the mountains and down in the valleys and into strange lands. He told of finding dragon bones in the rocks, and of finding a dragon nest in a mountain cave, but one of the most outlandish things he told about was that of solid water. He said that big flakes of white water fell out of the sky like rain, but slower, and he told of a hard and very cold substance that turned into water in ones hands. He said that there wasn't an in-between state where the water becomes thick, but rather it turned from a solid directly into liquid water. Dhara could perhaps believe in dragons. After all, she had seen big lizards before, so why couldn't there be even bigger lizards, but SOLID WATER!, Who could believe such a thing!
Dhara chose to not believe in what we call ice. Should she have believed or did she make the correct decision?
Dhara made the correct decision to not believe in the existence of ice.
How can that be, you might ask, since "ice exists" is true?
Because we are asked to evaluate Dhara's thinking, not whether or not ice exists or whether she believes what ends up being true.
She made the correct decision regarding both "dragons" and ice. She brought her prior knowledge to both problems. Since she knew of big lizards, she saw no reason to doubt the possibility of even BIGGER lizards. In fact though, her cousin may have been making it all up, but we today know of the prior existence of big lizards and dinosaurs and certainly of ice.
However, Dhara had no prior knowledge she could bring to the table considering the possibility of frozen water. It wasn't simply a matter of probability, but one of POSSIBILITY. Dhara doesn't know that frozen water is even POSSIBLE. From Dhara's perspective, "big lizards" is a matter of PROBABILITY, whereas "solid water" is a matter of POSSIBILITY.
Should we say that, as far as ice is concerned, Dhara is an agnostic, (not-knowing)?
Perhaps. It's important to keep in mind though that believe/not-believe is a different consideration than whether one knows or not (even though belief and knowledge are related).
But, even if she is agnostic about ice, this doesn't mean that she should presume that ice is POSSIBLE at all, but rather that she doesn't know that it is possible or impossible. In fact SHE SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT ICE IS POSSIBLE. She has no legitimate reason to, since her cousin is not beyond telling a yarn or two.
We should also keep in mind that if ...
'A' = believe in the existence of ice...
...this does not means that
'~A' = believe that ice does not exist.
In fact, '~A' ("not-A") = not possessing a belief in the existence of ice, which includes belief that ice is impossible as well as not taking any belief position at all. In fact, Dhara should not take the position that ice is impossible unless she has 'a-priori' (or a "definitive") reason to think that the existience of ice is impossible. However, simply refraining from believing is the correct justifiable position for Dhara to take.
Dhara can be called an a-ice-ist in exactly the same sense that I call myself an atheist.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
"God" Is Meaningless
Logician A. J. Ayers maintained that 'god' and other metaphysical propositions are meaningless. What did he mean by this? Did he mean that people don't care about 'god'? Did he mean that they are not emotionally invested in the idea of an existing 'god'?
No, of course not.
What he meant was that statements such as "x exists" should be either true or false...
A. "X exists".
...And if we aren't able to show that statements like statement A above is either true or false then we can't show that it has any meaning to anything which may be said to be contingent on the truth or falsity of statement A. For instance, if there is a 'god' who created the universe, then certainly there must be at least one 'god' that exists, because a 'god' must exist before it can create universes.
"What is truth" ~ Pontius Pilate
There are two conditions that must be met before we can call a sentence true.
1. It must be truth functional (i.e. it must be either true or false).
2. The truth functional negation is contradictory.
(In other words, something is true, if it is true or false, and it's not false).
Contradictions are false (and "false" means contradictory).
"In base-ten math, 5 + 2 = 19", is false because in base ten math
5 + 2 = 7 and only 7. "5 + 2 = 19" contradicts the rules of base ten mathematics.
"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" is false because the capital city of Tennessee is Nashville, and Nashville is not identical to Pittsburgh.
"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" contradicts the facts of reality and is therefore false.
Let's look at statements 1 and 2 above.
Consider: "Red is nice".
"Red is nice" isn't truth functional. It's neither true nor false, as it's a personal preference only, so "red is nice" doesn't meet the requirement stated in statement 1 above.
Consider: "Some dog exists".
"Some dog exists" is truth functional. It's either true or false.
And the truth functional negation of "Some dog exists" is "No dog exists" or "There is no dog".
We can show that either of these statements contradict realty by showing the existence of at least one dog. By showing at least one dog, we can can qualify the truth of the "Some dog exists" statement.
Being able to validate such an existential statement is what is known as "Existential Import".
An existential statement that has no existential import is unjustified by definition. In formal logic, no one has any 'business' stating "x exists" if they can't, even in theory, show that the set of all 'x' has at least one existing member.
Consider: "There are no four-cornered triangles".
This can be shown to be either true or false, and if we consider the truth functional negation of this statement, we get, "There are four-cornered triangles". However, this contradicts the rules of geometry, as triangles are "a-priori" (or "defined") as having exactly three corners. "There are four cornered triangles" is a-priori false in the same way that "5 + 2 = 19" is false. The definitions and rules which apply dictate that "There are four-cornered triangles" is false, therefore "There are no four-cornered triangles" must be true.
Consider" "Some god exists".
Since "Some god exists" is an existential statement, then if the term "god" has any meaning, then "Some god exists" should meet conditions 1 and 2 for truth, as stated above.
It's arguable that something metaphysical that's defined as "a divine mystery", that is said to be "ineffable" and "inscrutable" wouldn't be able to be said to be either true or false.
But even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that "Some god exists" meets the criteria of condition one, does it meet the criteria of condition 2?
If "Some god exists" is true, then "There is no existing god" should prove to be contradictory, even in theory. Yet no one it seems can, even in theory, show us direct evidence of any existing 'god'. Where is it? Show it to me. Can you show that the set of all 'gods' contains a single existing member? Some 'god' must exist before it can create a universe or life in this universe.
If 'no', then "Some god exists" can't be considered a true and justifiable statement.
What about the statement "There is no existing god"?
Well, the truth functional negation is "Some god exists". Can we show that "Some god exists" poses a contradiction?
No.
Why?
Because one cannot show direct evidence of nonexistence. (This is why Kant said that existence is not a property), and "There is no existing 'god'" is not a-priory false. (It's not definitively false, like '5 + 2 = 19' is because it poses no contradiction).
Arguably, "god' is too meaningless to be false...or true.
Since "X exists" should be a truth functional statement, and since "Some god exists" can't be shown, even in theory, to be either true or false, then "god" is a meaningless term and "Some god' exists" has no merit. Which means that you can't prove, even in theory, that the existence or nonexistence of said "god" has any contingent outcome on anything else in the universe.
Ironically, many poor-thinking theists consider the fact that atheists can't prove that no 'god' exists to be some sort of positive to their claim that some 'god' exists, (when they also cannot show that some 'god' in fact exists). Actually it just goes to show how meaningless their merit-less claims prove to be.
No, of course not.
What he meant was that statements such as "x exists" should be either true or false...
A. "X exists".
...And if we aren't able to show that statements like statement A above is either true or false then we can't show that it has any meaning to anything which may be said to be contingent on the truth or falsity of statement A. For instance, if there is a 'god' who created the universe, then certainly there must be at least one 'god' that exists, because a 'god' must exist before it can create universes.
"What is truth" ~ Pontius Pilate
There are two conditions that must be met before we can call a sentence true.
1. It must be truth functional (i.e. it must be either true or false).
2. The truth functional negation is contradictory.
(In other words, something is true, if it is true or false, and it's not false).
Contradictions are false (and "false" means contradictory).
"In base-ten math, 5 + 2 = 19", is false because in base ten math
5 + 2 = 7 and only 7. "5 + 2 = 19" contradicts the rules of base ten mathematics.
"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" is false because the capital city of Tennessee is Nashville, and Nashville is not identical to Pittsburgh.
"Pittsburgh is the capital city of Tennessee" contradicts the facts of reality and is therefore false.
Let's look at statements 1 and 2 above.
Consider: "Red is nice".
"Red is nice" isn't truth functional. It's neither true nor false, as it's a personal preference only, so "red is nice" doesn't meet the requirement stated in statement 1 above.
Consider: "Some dog exists".
"Some dog exists" is truth functional. It's either true or false.
And the truth functional negation of "Some dog exists" is "No dog exists" or "There is no dog".
We can show that either of these statements contradict realty by showing the existence of at least one dog. By showing at least one dog, we can can qualify the truth of the "Some dog exists" statement.
Being able to validate such an existential statement is what is known as "Existential Import".
An existential statement that has no existential import is unjustified by definition. In formal logic, no one has any 'business' stating "x exists" if they can't, even in theory, show that the set of all 'x' has at least one existing member.
Consider: "There are no four-cornered triangles".
This can be shown to be either true or false, and if we consider the truth functional negation of this statement, we get, "There are four-cornered triangles". However, this contradicts the rules of geometry, as triangles are "a-priori" (or "defined") as having exactly three corners. "There are four cornered triangles" is a-priori false in the same way that "5 + 2 = 19" is false. The definitions and rules which apply dictate that "There are four-cornered triangles" is false, therefore "There are no four-cornered triangles" must be true.
Consider" "Some god exists".
Since "Some god exists" is an existential statement, then if the term "god" has any meaning, then "Some god exists" should meet conditions 1 and 2 for truth, as stated above.
It's arguable that something metaphysical that's defined as "a divine mystery", that is said to be "ineffable" and "inscrutable" wouldn't be able to be said to be either true or false.
But even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that "Some god exists" meets the criteria of condition one, does it meet the criteria of condition 2?
If "Some god exists" is true, then "There is no existing god" should prove to be contradictory, even in theory. Yet no one it seems can, even in theory, show us direct evidence of any existing 'god'. Where is it? Show it to me. Can you show that the set of all 'gods' contains a single existing member? Some 'god' must exist before it can create a universe or life in this universe.
If 'no', then "Some god exists" can't be considered a true and justifiable statement.
What about the statement "There is no existing god"?
Well, the truth functional negation is "Some god exists". Can we show that "Some god exists" poses a contradiction?
No.
Why?
Because one cannot show direct evidence of nonexistence. (This is why Kant said that existence is not a property), and "There is no existing 'god'" is not a-priory false. (It's not definitively false, like '5 + 2 = 19' is because it poses no contradiction).
Arguably, "god' is too meaningless to be false...or true.
Since "X exists" should be a truth functional statement, and since "Some god exists" can't be shown, even in theory, to be either true or false, then "god" is a meaningless term and "Some god' exists" has no merit. Which means that you can't prove, even in theory, that the existence or nonexistence of said "god" has any contingent outcome on anything else in the universe.
Ironically, many poor-thinking theists consider the fact that atheists can't prove that no 'god' exists to be some sort of positive to their claim that some 'god' exists, (when they also cannot show that some 'god' in fact exists). Actually it just goes to show how meaningless their merit-less claims prove to be.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Virgin Sacrifice
Tom was talking to the warden.
Warden: It seems that the state has a program now where convicted criminals are set free, their record wiped clean and an innocent person is given the death penalty in their place...but only if you apply to this program and you meet the requirements.
Tom: What do you mean?
Warden: Here's the photo of the young girl that would be going to the gas chamber instead of you.
Tom: She looks like she's not even out of high school.
Warden: She's 19, and a nun, or at least becoming a Catholic nun.
Tom: This makes no sense to me. This girl is totally innocent.
Warden: Well, not TOTALLY innocent. She said she stole a pudding cup from a friend when she was 9 years old, and she admitted that when she accomplishes something after working really hard, she sometimes feels a personal sense of pride.
Tom: No! What I mean is that she's done nothing to deserve MY punishment. I'm guilty. It doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would set me free and kill an innocent girl in my place.
Warden: (Confused), but Tom, the price is someones life and someone has to pay. Rest assured, she WANTS to do this. This is an all volunteer program, remember? She said that as long as she can remember, she's dreamed about being able to do this, to save a wretch, to be like Jesus and give her virgin life in a sacrifice to save those who don't deserve it.
Tom: But warden, I don't care if she wants this or not, it's still immoral. It's still WRONG. If it's justice for me to get my sentence, then it's wrong to kill the innocent in my place and set me free. If sending me to the gas chamber is justice, then killing the innocent, even the willing innocent in my place is a gross injustice. How could it be anything else?
Warden: But Tom, the State would be satisfied, and the girl will be satisfied, and surly you want to live free, right? Where is the wrong?
Tom: The wrong is the immoral bloodlust of the State, to accept such an atrocity and call it "Justice". There is nothing "Just" about this deal at all. It's just WRONG.
Warden: Tom, this program will continue whether you accept the State's gift or not. The girl is going to die in the gas chamber by either taking your place or someone elses, and there is nothing you can do about it. So, you can see how you would be a fool if she went to the gas chamber, and so did you. What would you be dying for anyway?
Tom: Because it's justice that I go to the gas chamber, and it's wrong for this innocent girl to go in my place. Just like she's making her choice, I'm making my choice, and I choose to not be evil, even if the State pushes such a program, I think the program is evil.
Warden: Tom, this is the justice system you're talking about, ran by people smarter about these things than either of us.
Tom: I don't care, its evil and it's wrong. I won't do it.
Warden: But some inmates have said that the sacrificed person is just showing that there's a better way, serving as an example. Since the girl represents the position of the state, then this is the state's way of putting itself in the gas chamber instead of you. It's an act of forgiveness.
Tom: What?!, That just sounds like gobbledygook to make people feel better about condoning an innocent person's death. Sorry warden, if I exploited, condoned and accepted this unjust death, then I would be an accessory after the fact, and I want no part of it.
Warden: It seems that the state has a program now where convicted criminals are set free, their record wiped clean and an innocent person is given the death penalty in their place...but only if you apply to this program and you meet the requirements.
Tom: What do you mean?
Warden: Here's the photo of the young girl that would be going to the gas chamber instead of you.
Tom: She looks like she's not even out of high school.
Warden: She's 19, and a nun, or at least becoming a Catholic nun.
Tom: This makes no sense to me. This girl is totally innocent.
Warden: Well, not TOTALLY innocent. She said she stole a pudding cup from a friend when she was 9 years old, and she admitted that when she accomplishes something after working really hard, she sometimes feels a personal sense of pride.
Tom: No! What I mean is that she's done nothing to deserve MY punishment. I'm guilty. It doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would set me free and kill an innocent girl in my place.
Warden: (Confused), but Tom, the price is someones life and someone has to pay. Rest assured, she WANTS to do this. This is an all volunteer program, remember? She said that as long as she can remember, she's dreamed about being able to do this, to save a wretch, to be like Jesus and give her virgin life in a sacrifice to save those who don't deserve it.
Tom: But warden, I don't care if she wants this or not, it's still immoral. It's still WRONG. If it's justice for me to get my sentence, then it's wrong to kill the innocent in my place and set me free. If sending me to the gas chamber is justice, then killing the innocent, even the willing innocent in my place is a gross injustice. How could it be anything else?
Warden: But Tom, the State would be satisfied, and the girl will be satisfied, and surly you want to live free, right? Where is the wrong?
Tom: The wrong is the immoral bloodlust of the State, to accept such an atrocity and call it "Justice". There is nothing "Just" about this deal at all. It's just WRONG.
Warden: Tom, this program will continue whether you accept the State's gift or not. The girl is going to die in the gas chamber by either taking your place or someone elses, and there is nothing you can do about it. So, you can see how you would be a fool if she went to the gas chamber, and so did you. What would you be dying for anyway?
Tom: Because it's justice that I go to the gas chamber, and it's wrong for this innocent girl to go in my place. Just like she's making her choice, I'm making my choice, and I choose to not be evil, even if the State pushes such a program, I think the program is evil.
Warden: Tom, this is the justice system you're talking about, ran by people smarter about these things than either of us.
Tom: I don't care, its evil and it's wrong. I won't do it.
Warden: But some inmates have said that the sacrificed person is just showing that there's a better way, serving as an example. Since the girl represents the position of the state, then this is the state's way of putting itself in the gas chamber instead of you. It's an act of forgiveness.
Tom: What?!, That just sounds like gobbledygook to make people feel better about condoning an innocent person's death. Sorry warden, if I exploited, condoned and accepted this unjust death, then I would be an accessory after the fact, and I want no part of it.
Warden: But the experts...
Tom: Damn the experts, don't you know the difference between good and evil?!
Yes, this is a metaphor. At it's very core, Christianity is fundamentally evil, even if many Christians themselves are too unsophisticated to see or understand why this is so.
Yes, this is a metaphor. At it's very core, Christianity is fundamentally evil, even if many Christians themselves are too unsophisticated to see or understand why this is so.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
'god' logic
Conditionals are "If, then" logical statements.
A => B means "If A, then necessarily B".
Here, B is necessary if A occurs, but A is merely sufficient for B to occur. (There may be other reasons B comes about other than A.
If there's an A, then there's a B does not mean that if there is a B, then there will be an A.
But what *IS* true is...
[(P => Q) = (~Q => ~P)]
(If it's true that if it's raining, then the streets are wet, then it's also true that if the streets are not wet, then it's not raining. Likewise, if one is false because Bob could have covered the streets with plastic sheets, then so would the other be false. Both expressions of the equation are therefore logically equivelent).
(A => B) = (~B => ~A)
A = you are unrighteous (don't do what 'god' wants you to do)
B = 'god' shits on you
A => B
(If you are unrighteous, then 'god' will necessarily shit on you.)
However...
~B => ~A
If 'god' doesn't shit on you, then it's necessarily because you were righteous.
But you being righteous is only SUFFICIENT, but not NECESSARY for 'god' to not shit on you. (See the Book of Job).
So, 'god' has a propensity to shit on people.
Therefore, 'god' is a prick.
LOL
A => B means "If A, then necessarily B".
Here, B is necessary if A occurs, but A is merely sufficient for B to occur. (There may be other reasons B comes about other than A.
If there's an A, then there's a B does not mean that if there is a B, then there will be an A.
But what *IS* true is...
[(P => Q) = (~Q => ~P)]
(If it's true that if it's raining, then the streets are wet, then it's also true that if the streets are not wet, then it's not raining. Likewise, if one is false because Bob could have covered the streets with plastic sheets, then so would the other be false. Both expressions of the equation are therefore logically equivelent).
(A => B) = (~B => ~A)
A = you are unrighteous (don't do what 'god' wants you to do)
B = 'god' shits on you
A => B
(If you are unrighteous, then 'god' will necessarily shit on you.)
However...
~B => ~A
If 'god' doesn't shit on you, then it's necessarily because you were righteous.
But you being righteous is only SUFFICIENT, but not NECESSARY for 'god' to not shit on you. (See the Book of Job).
So, 'god' has a propensity to shit on people.
Therefore, 'god' is a prick.
LOL
Who's In Charge?
The devil knows what the Book of Revelation says. He knows it's a chess game he can't win, but he's going to do it anyway. Someone who would willingly play a high stakes game they can't win is a fool, a slave or both. Therefore, Satan is either mentally incompetent, or he's doing exactly what he's designed to do and can't do anything else. Either way, he shouldn't be blamed for what he does, anymore than a computer should be 'personally' blamed for doing what it's programmed to do, or a severely retarded person should be blamed for what they do.
Who designed the devil?
Well, 'god' did it we are told. Should we then blame 'god' for the evil in the world? He made everything what as it is and made all the rules, why shouldn't we blame 'god' for the world's devilry? (And we're not simply talking about juxtaposition to goodness, but rather unnecessary degrees of evil. We are told that he did after all create hunting carnivores that eat other animals alive, and create wasps that lay larvae inside living caterpillars that slowly eat them alive from the inside out. That does seem unnecessarily evil.)
Should 'god' then be blamed for what he does? We are told that 'god' knows everything, including the future. In theory, 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow; which would mean that 'god' really has no freewill. That's the price for knowing everything that can be rationally known and 'god' knows everything about the existent world and is perfectly rational. 'god' is a cause and effect kind of guy and is a fan of a deterministic physical universe.
Because 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow, he has no choice but to do it. Alternatively, if he does have actual free choice, then he doesn't know for certain what he'll do tomorrow. If he "chooses" to do something else, then this is an illusion of freewill only, since he would have known for certain that he would have made that future alternative choice, or he never knew the future for certain at all.
'god' is a slave to his own omniscience.
Shouldn't we blame 'god' then, when he says we need to subjugate our will to his will or suffer and die if we don't? In theory, Adam and Eve were slaves and had this same Damocles sword hanging over their heads as we do today. Shouldn't we blame 'god' though when he plays sadistic slave-owner and says, 'Do as I say or I'll force you to eat the flesh of your sons and flesh of your daughters' (Jeremiah 19)? Or says, 'Do as I say or I'll starve other people until they sack your village, cause you to starve and your starving children will eat you', (Ezekiel 5)?
Well, consider that the Judeo-Christian idea of 'god' is that of a father figure who has told us that he'll *NECESSARILY* do horrible thing 'B' if we freely choose to do irresponsible behavior 'A', so if we in fact do 'A' and force 'god' to do 'B', well then, it's all our fault as it were. It seems that 'god', the fellow who created the universe and made all the rules isn't responsible for his own actions. *WE'RE* responsible for *HIS* actions, because he's a deterministic kind of guy, apparently with no freewill or moral capacity.
"Moral capacity"?
Surely, no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature simply because it has been trained to behave a certain way, through a heuristic system of punishment and reward. Likewise, it would seem that no one can sensibly suggest that people are "moral" if we choose to perform certain actions ourselves as we are trained to do, like not marrying your sister or keeping the Sabbath.
No, morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil and the capacity for independent thought. Adam and Eve BECAME capable of being moral beings when they became aware of what good and evil are. They thus became capable of passing moral judgment on themselves AND on 'god' independently.
"Passing moral judgement on 'god'"?
Yes.
What do we mean when we say that "god is good"? We mean that we understand that what 'god' does is good as opposed to bad, (or bad as opposed to good). We have knowledge of good and evil. Arguably, this is one aspect of what Augustine called "Original Sin". We have the capacity to judge, not only ourselves, but also 'god' as "good"...or not so good.
The psychologist Carl Jung argued that, even if the physically existent universe is deterministic, the virtual reality world we create inside our own conscious minds is not strictly deterministic because we sometimes perceive things irrationally, like what he called synchronicity. And because our will is acting and reacting in accordance to a world that is not strictly deterministic (inside our own heads), then we have freewill, even if our brains, the source of our virtual reality minds and our will IS itself deterministic (much like a computer with irrational garbage input will give irrational garbage output even if it is operating perfectly and deterministically).
'god' can't treat us good if we don't' behave "righteously" because that's the bargain. (He, after all, has no freewill). And if we twist his arm and do "wrong", as it were, he has no choice but to punish us, and we shouldn't blame 'god' because we made him do it. So, it would seem that WE are in charge, and we are responsible for 'god's actions.
If 'god' and devil behave deterministically and really no differently than deterministic physical forces of nature, then how, in the end, is Judeo-Christianity really different than having no religion at all? It seems that we're in charge either way. We are the masters of our own fate. It seems that cross-dressing Larry Wachowski got it right after all. The Matrix cannot tell you who you are. Free choice is "the anomaly" that keeps creeping up in the design, and we determine if this Matrix world is cage or chrysalis.
Who designed the devil?
Well, 'god' did it we are told. Should we then blame 'god' for the evil in the world? He made everything what as it is and made all the rules, why shouldn't we blame 'god' for the world's devilry? (And we're not simply talking about juxtaposition to goodness, but rather unnecessary degrees of evil. We are told that he did after all create hunting carnivores that eat other animals alive, and create wasps that lay larvae inside living caterpillars that slowly eat them alive from the inside out. That does seem unnecessarily evil.)
Should 'god' then be blamed for what he does? We are told that 'god' knows everything, including the future. In theory, 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow; which would mean that 'god' really has no freewill. That's the price for knowing everything that can be rationally known and 'god' knows everything about the existent world and is perfectly rational. 'god' is a cause and effect kind of guy and is a fan of a deterministic physical universe.
Because 'god' knows for certain what he'll do tomorrow, he has no choice but to do it. Alternatively, if he does have actual free choice, then he doesn't know for certain what he'll do tomorrow. If he "chooses" to do something else, then this is an illusion of freewill only, since he would have known for certain that he would have made that future alternative choice, or he never knew the future for certain at all.
'god' is a slave to his own omniscience.
Shouldn't we blame 'god' then, when he says we need to subjugate our will to his will or suffer and die if we don't? In theory, Adam and Eve were slaves and had this same Damocles sword hanging over their heads as we do today. Shouldn't we blame 'god' though when he plays sadistic slave-owner and says, 'Do as I say or I'll force you to eat the flesh of your sons and flesh of your daughters' (Jeremiah 19)? Or says, 'Do as I say or I'll starve other people until they sack your village, cause you to starve and your starving children will eat you', (Ezekiel 5)?
Well, consider that the Judeo-Christian idea of 'god' is that of a father figure who has told us that he'll *NECESSARILY* do horrible thing 'B' if we freely choose to do irresponsible behavior 'A', so if we in fact do 'A' and force 'god' to do 'B', well then, it's all our fault as it were. It seems that 'god', the fellow who created the universe and made all the rules isn't responsible for his own actions. *WE'RE* responsible for *HIS* actions, because he's a deterministic kind of guy, apparently with no freewill or moral capacity.
"Moral capacity"?
Surely, no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature simply because it has been trained to behave a certain way, through a heuristic system of punishment and reward. Likewise, it would seem that no one can sensibly suggest that people are "moral" if we choose to perform certain actions ourselves as we are trained to do, like not marrying your sister or keeping the Sabbath.
No, morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil and the capacity for independent thought. Adam and Eve BECAME capable of being moral beings when they became aware of what good and evil are. They thus became capable of passing moral judgment on themselves AND on 'god' independently.
"Passing moral judgement on 'god'"?
Yes.
What do we mean when we say that "god is good"? We mean that we understand that what 'god' does is good as opposed to bad, (or bad as opposed to good). We have knowledge of good and evil. Arguably, this is one aspect of what Augustine called "Original Sin". We have the capacity to judge, not only ourselves, but also 'god' as "good"...or not so good.
The psychologist Carl Jung argued that, even if the physically existent universe is deterministic, the virtual reality world we create inside our own conscious minds is not strictly deterministic because we sometimes perceive things irrationally, like what he called synchronicity. And because our will is acting and reacting in accordance to a world that is not strictly deterministic (inside our own heads), then we have freewill, even if our brains, the source of our virtual reality minds and our will IS itself deterministic (much like a computer with irrational garbage input will give irrational garbage output even if it is operating perfectly and deterministically).
'god' can't treat us good if we don't' behave "righteously" because that's the bargain. (He, after all, has no freewill). And if we twist his arm and do "wrong", as it were, he has no choice but to punish us, and we shouldn't blame 'god' because we made him do it. So, it would seem that WE are in charge, and we are responsible for 'god's actions.
If 'god' and devil behave deterministically and really no differently than deterministic physical forces of nature, then how, in the end, is Judeo-Christianity really different than having no religion at all? It seems that we're in charge either way. We are the masters of our own fate. It seems that cross-dressing Larry Wachowski got it right after all. The Matrix cannot tell you who you are. Free choice is "the anomaly" that keeps creeping up in the design, and we determine if this Matrix world is cage or chrysalis.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
"Christianity" Is A Nearly-Meaningless Term
The term Christianity is nearly meaningless.
Why?
Because the term is a blanket term for virtually anyone who wishes to call him or herself a Christian, self-applied uncritically. And these "Christian beliefs" from one person or group to the next can be wildly different and even contradictory. Yet Christians will often overlook this wide variety when it's to their benefit to do so, and focus on it when they are in an exclusionary mood. This is a bit hypocritical.
Consider: Christians are fond of saying that America is a "Christian nation", yet if one where to press a Calvinist or Presbyterian on the subject, we would soon find out that he or she means, "well, except for those Catholics, as Catholics aren't "True Christians". They're a cult". "And except for the Mormons, they're a cult too, and except for the Nazarenes, and the Baptists, and the Pentecostal snake-handlers...(et al)" "...and in the End of Times, only 5,000 to 10,000 world-wide will go to Paradise in The Rapture, yet America is a 'Christian Nation', and 'Christians' make up the majority of Americans."
Obviously, there is some self-induced duplicity going on here.
When any critical "outsider" makes virtually ANY critical comment at all, they are ripped to shreds by the "Christians", even when he's making a comment that many "Christians" themselves would make. If atheist author Sam Harris said that it's a commonly held Christian belief that they need to seek salvation and the means of salvation is made possible by Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, there would be countless Christians who would look at this as an opportunity to pounce on him and claim his ignorance of Christian theology and dogma, yet many if not most Christians would say exactly the same thing.
Some Christians would say that "True Christians" follow the teachings of Christ, and that Jesus came to set an example and that salvation is within each and every one us, and don't the scriptures say "ye are gods?", and others would say that faith is the end-all and be-all of Christianity, and that "True Christians" are those that are "redeemed" through Christ and accept his sacrifice as payment for their own sins, and yet others, (like Thomas Jefferson), don't even believe in the 'god'-man "magic" Jesus at all, but consider him a philosopher. Some Christians would say that "The Passion" is morbid and a distraction from "the real message", and others would say that The Passion *IS* the point, as he suffered in our stead.
Consider the Neo-Christian idea that "god is good".
Well, we can point to examples in the scriptures where 'god' is threatening to force people to "eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters" (Jer 19), or where he is threatening to force fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers in a 'god'-induced drought that is to be sent as punishment (Eze 5:10), and this 'god' EVEN SAYS that this is "evil" (ra' in Hebrew) in Eze 6:10.
Yet those who would contend that "god is good" would try to explain-away these things and how forcing little children to eat their parents as a form of punishment isn't REALLY not-good.
Also, consider the popular Christian idea that the scriptures support the notion that Jesus' birth was a "virgin birth", citing the reference in Mathew 1:23.
It's widely understood that "Emmanuel" noted in this verse is in reference to the "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7:14, yet the child in Isa 7:14 was to be born in the days of King Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall when attacked. This is more than 700 years BEFORE Jesus is supposed to come about. Was the mother of Immanuel, born 700 years BEFORE Jesus a "virgin"?
"No", we are told, "in Isaiah 7:14, 'almah' means virgin in reference to Jesus's mother Mary, but 'young lady' in reference to the mother of the boy born in the days of Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall".
This is beyond preposterous. (Even if we side-step that 2 Chron 28 tells us that his kingdom DID fall, and 'god' blames Ahaz for 'god' going back on his word).
Such defense of the indefensible is beyond absurd. It's ridiculous and I give it the public ridicule it has so soundly earned and still deserves.
Religion is absurd, and in defending absurdity one becomes absurd.
We can nurture the human spirit and spiritual growth without accepting metaphysical theories about an essence that survives physical death or an after-death "paradise". We can deal with "big questions" without presuming cosmic justice or an elusive space ghost. We can love and care for each other without appeal to magical thinking.
But this involves evolving and stepping out of the Dark Ages.
Why?
Because the term is a blanket term for virtually anyone who wishes to call him or herself a Christian, self-applied uncritically. And these "Christian beliefs" from one person or group to the next can be wildly different and even contradictory. Yet Christians will often overlook this wide variety when it's to their benefit to do so, and focus on it when they are in an exclusionary mood. This is a bit hypocritical.
Consider: Christians are fond of saying that America is a "Christian nation", yet if one where to press a Calvinist or Presbyterian on the subject, we would soon find out that he or she means, "well, except for those Catholics, as Catholics aren't "True Christians". They're a cult". "And except for the Mormons, they're a cult too, and except for the Nazarenes, and the Baptists, and the Pentecostal snake-handlers...(et al)" "...and in the End of Times, only 5,000 to 10,000 world-wide will go to Paradise in The Rapture, yet America is a 'Christian Nation', and 'Christians' make up the majority of Americans."
Obviously, there is some self-induced duplicity going on here.
When any critical "outsider" makes virtually ANY critical comment at all, they are ripped to shreds by the "Christians", even when he's making a comment that many "Christians" themselves would make. If atheist author Sam Harris said that it's a commonly held Christian belief that they need to seek salvation and the means of salvation is made possible by Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, there would be countless Christians who would look at this as an opportunity to pounce on him and claim his ignorance of Christian theology and dogma, yet many if not most Christians would say exactly the same thing.
Some Christians would say that "True Christians" follow the teachings of Christ, and that Jesus came to set an example and that salvation is within each and every one us, and don't the scriptures say "ye are gods?", and others would say that faith is the end-all and be-all of Christianity, and that "True Christians" are those that are "redeemed" through Christ and accept his sacrifice as payment for their own sins, and yet others, (like Thomas Jefferson), don't even believe in the 'god'-man "magic" Jesus at all, but consider him a philosopher. Some Christians would say that "The Passion" is morbid and a distraction from "the real message", and others would say that The Passion *IS* the point, as he suffered in our stead.
Consider the Neo-Christian idea that "god is good".
Well, we can point to examples in the scriptures where 'god' is threatening to force people to "eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters" (Jer 19), or where he is threatening to force fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers in a 'god'-induced drought that is to be sent as punishment (Eze 5:10), and this 'god' EVEN SAYS that this is "evil" (ra' in Hebrew) in Eze 6:10.
Yet those who would contend that "god is good" would try to explain-away these things and how forcing little children to eat their parents as a form of punishment isn't REALLY not-good.
Also, consider the popular Christian idea that the scriptures support the notion that Jesus' birth was a "virgin birth", citing the reference in Mathew 1:23.
It's widely understood that "Emmanuel" noted in this verse is in reference to the "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7:14, yet the child in Isa 7:14 was to be born in the days of King Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall when attacked. This is more than 700 years BEFORE Jesus is supposed to come about. Was the mother of Immanuel, born 700 years BEFORE Jesus a "virgin"?
"No", we are told, "in Isaiah 7:14, 'almah' means virgin in reference to Jesus's mother Mary, but 'young lady' in reference to the mother of the boy born in the days of Ahaz as a sign to him that his kingdom will not fall".
This is beyond preposterous. (Even if we side-step that 2 Chron 28 tells us that his kingdom DID fall, and 'god' blames Ahaz for 'god' going back on his word).
Such defense of the indefensible is beyond absurd. It's ridiculous and I give it the public ridicule it has so soundly earned and still deserves.
Religion is absurd, and in defending absurdity one becomes absurd.
We can nurture the human spirit and spiritual growth without accepting metaphysical theories about an essence that survives physical death or an after-death "paradise". We can deal with "big questions" without presuming cosmic justice or an elusive space ghost. We can love and care for each other without appeal to magical thinking.
But this involves evolving and stepping out of the Dark Ages.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Is Moral Choice Immoral?
According to theory, to do what 'god' wants us to do is to be "righteous" and to be "holy".
And to be "righteous" and "holy" means that you're doing what 'god' wants. But, is to be righteous and holy purely arbitrary, or is it supposed to have some sort of non-arbitrary nature about it as well? Is to be righteous and holy completely meaningless outside the context of believing that there is a 'god' with wishes and druthers? Does "righteous and holy" mean absolutely nothing other than "this is what 'god' likes you to do"?
Consider, 'god' wants you to do good. But, is it good because 'god' wants you to do it (holy, righteous and purely arbitrary), or does 'god' want you to do it because it is implicitly good?
If there is a discernible "good", independent of 'god'-druthers, then one doesn't need 'god' to tell us that it's good or not good. So, we can be good independent of 'god'-druthers. In fact, in order for us to say that "god is good", we must first know what good *IS*, or such an assertion would be meaningless, and it's rather unfair and tenuous to suggest that I'm not qualified to say that 'god' is bad, if I AM qualified to say that 'god' is good. Surely, one qualification implies the other.
Consider Adam and Eve in the bible's Genesis 3. Adam and Eve chose to partake of the forbidden fruit. Their eyes were opened unto the truth, and they became aware of the knowledge of good and evil.
Morality requires moral choice, and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil.
Adam and Eve were INCAPABLE of being moral beings before they partook of the forbidden fruit. Yet, we are often told that this action was "unrighteous" and "unholy" and therefore bad, and that which is bad is immoral.
1. How can becoming capable of being moral beings be immoral?
2. Which has something to hide with "eyes closed", the good or the evil? How can having one's eyes opened and being capable of seeing what is good and what is not good an "evil" and immoral thing?
3. Perhaps no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature, just because it has been trained with reward and punishment to do what it's master wants. Surely, morality means more than mindlessly performing an action, like not marrying your sister and not eating pork and keeping the Sabbath.
In fact, this very realization ITSELF was Adam and Eve's "FALL FROM GRACE".
YOU ARE CURRENTLY EATING THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT, for this blog post makes clear, that, even within Christian theory, you, as one of "the fallen", can independently comprehend what is good and what is bad. We KNOW that torturing a five-year old girl simply for "enjoyment purposes" is evil, even if we don't have a booming voice from the sky telling us so.
We DON'T NEED 'GODS' to tell us what is good and what is bad.
It is humankind, not 'gods' who decide whether Eden was cage, or chrysalis.
And to be "righteous" and "holy" means that you're doing what 'god' wants. But, is to be righteous and holy purely arbitrary, or is it supposed to have some sort of non-arbitrary nature about it as well? Is to be righteous and holy completely meaningless outside the context of believing that there is a 'god' with wishes and druthers? Does "righteous and holy" mean absolutely nothing other than "this is what 'god' likes you to do"?
Consider, 'god' wants you to do good. But, is it good because 'god' wants you to do it (holy, righteous and purely arbitrary), or does 'god' want you to do it because it is implicitly good?
If there is a discernible "good", independent of 'god'-druthers, then one doesn't need 'god' to tell us that it's good or not good. So, we can be good independent of 'god'-druthers. In fact, in order for us to say that "god is good", we must first know what good *IS*, or such an assertion would be meaningless, and it's rather unfair and tenuous to suggest that I'm not qualified to say that 'god' is bad, if I AM qualified to say that 'god' is good. Surely, one qualification implies the other.
Consider Adam and Eve in the bible's Genesis 3. Adam and Eve chose to partake of the forbidden fruit. Their eyes were opened unto the truth, and they became aware of the knowledge of good and evil.
Morality requires moral choice, and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil.
Adam and Eve were INCAPABLE of being moral beings before they partook of the forbidden fruit. Yet, we are often told that this action was "unrighteous" and "unholy" and therefore bad, and that which is bad is immoral.
1. How can becoming capable of being moral beings be immoral?
2. Which has something to hide with "eyes closed", the good or the evil? How can having one's eyes opened and being capable of seeing what is good and what is not good an "evil" and immoral thing?
3. Perhaps no one would argue that a trained rat or circus animal is a moral creature, just because it has been trained with reward and punishment to do what it's master wants. Surely, morality means more than mindlessly performing an action, like not marrying your sister and not eating pork and keeping the Sabbath.
In fact, this very realization ITSELF was Adam and Eve's "FALL FROM GRACE".
YOU ARE CURRENTLY EATING THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT, for this blog post makes clear, that, even within Christian theory, you, as one of "the fallen", can independently comprehend what is good and what is bad. We KNOW that torturing a five-year old girl simply for "enjoyment purposes" is evil, even if we don't have a booming voice from the sky telling us so.
We DON'T NEED 'GODS' to tell us what is good and what is bad.
It is humankind, not 'gods' who decide whether Eden was cage, or chrysalis.
It's About Time!!
Here's a new way of thinking about time.
Consider these two following points:
1. Consider that there may be a time period so brief that no real change in the universe can occur in a more-brief period of time. Theoretically, this time limit is one plank second. We can talk about imaginary time or virtual time until the cows come home, but if indeed no real change can occur in less than one plank second, then the term "one-half plank second" has no real meaning.
Remember, time isn't merely sometimes relative, it MUST be relative. It's a relative concept. The concept of time only has real meaning in the context of real change, i.e. one thing changing relative to another, or one thing changing from the state it was in a moment ago.
2. Time began at the origin of the expanding universe according to the standard model of the Big Bang theory. This doesn't mean that someone flicked a switch and started the time-making machine. It means that if there is nothing but one single thing, (the theorized singularity), and there is as of yet no change, then, again, the concept of time would have no real meaning. Time "began" to have real meaning when there "began" to be real change.
Consider these two following points:
1. Consider that there may be a time period so brief that no real change in the universe can occur in a more-brief period of time. Theoretically, this time limit is one plank second. We can talk about imaginary time or virtual time until the cows come home, but if indeed no real change can occur in less than one plank second, then the term "one-half plank second" has no real meaning.
Remember, time isn't merely sometimes relative, it MUST be relative. It's a relative concept. The concept of time only has real meaning in the context of real change, i.e. one thing changing relative to another, or one thing changing from the state it was in a moment ago.
2. Time began at the origin of the expanding universe according to the standard model of the Big Bang theory. This doesn't mean that someone flicked a switch and started the time-making machine. It means that if there is nothing but one single thing, (the theorized singularity), and there is as of yet no change, then, again, the concept of time would have no real meaning. Time "began" to have real meaning when there "began" to be real change.
Of Trees And Gods
An example of direct evidence is where a person can demonstrate evidence that a claim is true. Direct evidence that it's possible that A can cause B is to demonstrate A causing B. This proves that A causing B is certainly possible.
Indirect evidence, would be if you could only show or demonstrate what is alleged to have been caused, but can't show the alleged cause of it. For instance, Bobby is accused of riding his bike in the dirt after being told not to. We don't see his bike round, but there is bike tracks in the dirt and dirt on Bobby. This is considered circumstantial evidence, or indirect evidence.
We use direct and indirect evidence in our legal court systems all the time.
But, consider the very odd situation where we have no access to direct evidence, where what is alleged to have happened is said to be totally unique, one of kind, and therefore there is no precedent possible, even in theory, and what is claimed is some alleged existence itself.
In this very unique and odd situation, and perhaps counter-intuitively, this is a situation where it's impossible for indirect evidence to have any meaning at all!!
Consider: It's claimed that there is a totally unique one-existing 'god', with no precedent and no direct evidence, that is said to have created the tree in my front yard.
The tree is said to be circumstantial evidence of this 'god's existence.
If in fact this 'god' exists, then it is conceivable that this 'god' created the tree in my front yard. However, if this 'god' does not exist, then it did not create the apparent and demonstrable tree in my front yard.
If we KNEW for certain that this 'god' exists, then we would KNOW for certain that the tree could be circumstantial evidence. BUT, if we know this 'god' exists, then circumstantial evidence of existence is a moot point and therefore meaningless.
If this 'god' does not exist, then the idea that this tree is circumstantial evidence of this 'god's alleged existence is meaningless.
Either way, the tree being circumstantial evidence is meaningless.
But, let's consider the scenario somewhere between knowing this 'god' exists or doesn't exist.
Then, we are left with a situation where the probability that this tree is circumstantial evidence of the existence of this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with.
Why?
Because something must exist before it can create evidence of its own existence. And since the probability that this tree was created by this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with, then the tree's existence provides *NO* evidentiary weight or value. The purpose of evidence is to bolster or increase the probability that a claim is either true or false. The tree, in this scenario, does neither. Ergo, the tree is meaningless as evidence no matter how probable or improbable this alleged 'god' may be.
Now, if we extrapolate what is true for the tree to the whole universe itself, we can see a very odd thing indeed. We see that any suggestion that anything in the universe provides evidence of some unique, one-'god' with no precedent and no direct evidence must be false and meaningless.
That is a very strange conclusion indeed, that regardless of the "complexity" of the universe and regardless of how amazing the universe is...nothing in it can provide ANY circumstantial evidence of any such 'god' AT ALL, not even in theory. So, people can talk about the unlikelihood of the universe or "irreducibly complex" systems in the universe 'till the cows come home, but it'll never mean anything at all until someone can show direct evidence that some such universe-creating 'god' is, not only possible, but demonstrably exists.
Indirect evidence, would be if you could only show or demonstrate what is alleged to have been caused, but can't show the alleged cause of it. For instance, Bobby is accused of riding his bike in the dirt after being told not to. We don't see his bike round, but there is bike tracks in the dirt and dirt on Bobby. This is considered circumstantial evidence, or indirect evidence.
We use direct and indirect evidence in our legal court systems all the time.
But, consider the very odd situation where we have no access to direct evidence, where what is alleged to have happened is said to be totally unique, one of kind, and therefore there is no precedent possible, even in theory, and what is claimed is some alleged existence itself.
In this very unique and odd situation, and perhaps counter-intuitively, this is a situation where it's impossible for indirect evidence to have any meaning at all!!
Consider: It's claimed that there is a totally unique one-existing 'god', with no precedent and no direct evidence, that is said to have created the tree in my front yard.
The tree is said to be circumstantial evidence of this 'god's existence.
If in fact this 'god' exists, then it is conceivable that this 'god' created the tree in my front yard. However, if this 'god' does not exist, then it did not create the apparent and demonstrable tree in my front yard.
If we KNEW for certain that this 'god' exists, then we would KNOW for certain that the tree could be circumstantial evidence. BUT, if we know this 'god' exists, then circumstantial evidence of existence is a moot point and therefore meaningless.
If this 'god' does not exist, then the idea that this tree is circumstantial evidence of this 'god's alleged existence is meaningless.
Either way, the tree being circumstantial evidence is meaningless.
But, let's consider the scenario somewhere between knowing this 'god' exists or doesn't exist.
Then, we are left with a situation where the probability that this tree is circumstantial evidence of the existence of this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with.
Why?
Because something must exist before it can create evidence of its own existence. And since the probability that this tree was created by this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with, then the tree's existence provides *NO* evidentiary weight or value. The purpose of evidence is to bolster or increase the probability that a claim is either true or false. The tree, in this scenario, does neither. Ergo, the tree is meaningless as evidence no matter how probable or improbable this alleged 'god' may be.
Now, if we extrapolate what is true for the tree to the whole universe itself, we can see a very odd thing indeed. We see that any suggestion that anything in the universe provides evidence of some unique, one-'god' with no precedent and no direct evidence must be false and meaningless.
That is a very strange conclusion indeed, that regardless of the "complexity" of the universe and regardless of how amazing the universe is...nothing in it can provide ANY circumstantial evidence of any such 'god' AT ALL, not even in theory. So, people can talk about the unlikelihood of the universe or "irreducibly complex" systems in the universe 'till the cows come home, but it'll never mean anything at all until someone can show direct evidence that some such universe-creating 'god' is, not only possible, but demonstrably exists.
The Perplexed Torturer
"I'm really sorry about this" Bob told the young girl.
The girl was gagged and tied to a chair in a small, dark, concrete-walled room. Bob stood in front of her with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
"I'm going to have to torture you now", he said. "I really don't want to do this, but if I don't, they'll torture me, and you, and if I kill you outright, they'll torture me anyway."
Bob knew the girl was innocent, but the Head Honcho didn't concern himself with these pesky details. "'No loose ends", he said.
"My price is blood", said the Head Honcho to Bob earlier, "...guilty, innocent...(he shrugs), 'doesn't matter to me, but my price is blood and it will be paid."
"I am really sorry about this, but you see my dilemma, don't you?", asked Bob as he wrenched one of the girls fingernails off her hand, with her screaming with horror and wide-shocked eyes. "I could strangle you out of mercy, but I can't strangle myself too you see".
"I'm going to have to burn your eyes out of your head with this blow torch". "I'm sorry, but you're going to be tortured either way, and it makes no sense for me to be tortured and die needlessly". "You see, this is the best way." "This way, one person will live un-tortured, and one will be tortured, whereas if I don't torture you, they will anyway, and torture me too, and if I kill you, they'll torture me, so one person not tortured and one person tortured is the best of all outcomes, so hold still."
"Hell, I'll even make it slightly less horrific for you than the person that would replace me", Bob said. "I'll only break half of the teeth in your mouth with these pliers." "You can at least feel relieved that me doing this to you will prevent me from being tortured too, right?" "I mean, you can see that I really have no choice, right?"
People have been telling themselves this since there have been human atrocities against other humans. From Nazi middle-men to those in war-time situations and "field conditions", people have been excusing away their own guilt in situations like this.
But, isn't it TRUE that Bob "has no choice in the matter"?
No. The mistake Bob is making is that HE is responsible for his own actions, but not the actions of others. By surrendering his own moral responsibility, he is making the evil system he's caught up in his system. He's making himself an accessory to evil, and thus accepting the status of "evil person" himself. And by surrendering his own freewill and moral responsibility, he's making himself a slave to an evil Head Honcho, who only cares about getting SOMEONES blood to "pay the price", whether the blood comes from the guilty or the innocent.
Christians make the same mistake Bob is making.
Innocent Jesus "already died", they say, "so it would be senseless for me to go to hell since he's already died whether I accept this 'gift' or not" they say.
Well, what they are missing is that they are making themselves an accessory to an evil action, when they condone and even exploit a situation where the Innocent (Jesus) is tortured and dies and the "guilty" who condone this action are rewarded by entrance into "paradise".
Does Bob REALLY have a choice?
Yes, and the price of freedom is death perhaps. Bob is only a slave if he GIVES UP his freedom of choice to the Head Honcho.
Ditto for Christians.
If Adam and Eve chose to not remain slaves to the will of 'god' in the Garden of Eden, they will "surly die that day" they are told. They are only slaves IF THEY CHOOSE TO BE, i.e. if they surrender their freewill and instead subjugate their will to the will of their Lord and Master.
Modern day Christians face the same dilemma. Either they surrender their will to their Lord and Master and condone and exploit the torture and death of innocent Jesus, or they will suffer some sort of 'god'-torture themselves; (hell/Hades/lake of fire/absence from the presence of 'god', take your pick).
In theory, Christians are no less guilty than Bob is in the catch-22 scenario above.
When faced with the choice of being a slave to a Head Honcho who demands the blood of someone...(and doesn't care that Jesus' blood is the blood of the innocent), and this evil dilemma involves using the blood of the innocent to gain immortality, where the alternative is freedom, personal responsibility and death, the Christian is the person who chooses to take the path of the evil vampire.
"But Jesus was willing to die", Christians say.
But not really. He BEGGED his father in the Gethsemane gardens for HOURS to take away this catch-22 he was placed in.
What is this catch-22?
If Jesus did not agree to be tortured and die, 'god', (the Head Honcho) was going to send everyone on earth to hell to be tortured and destroyed, but if Jesus DID agree to be tortured and die, at least some people could avoid this torture and instead go to paradise.
Does this make Jesus guilty and part of an "evil system"?
'Hard to say. He could have done like Number 1 in the original pilot of Star Trek, where she set her phaser to over-load where it would explode and destroy everyone, saying "It's wrong to create a race of slaves". Which prompted the bubble-headed alien to say, "we didn't think this possible, your species has a unique hatred of captivity." "You even choose death over captivity". (Which is wrong, of course. This is true of SOME people, but not all, obviously).
In any event, Jesus is the innocent victim and not on trial here. I bring the motives and choices of the Christian into consideration.
The girl was gagged and tied to a chair in a small, dark, concrete-walled room. Bob stood in front of her with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
"I'm going to have to torture you now", he said. "I really don't want to do this, but if I don't, they'll torture me, and you, and if I kill you outright, they'll torture me anyway."
Bob knew the girl was innocent, but the Head Honcho didn't concern himself with these pesky details. "'No loose ends", he said.
"My price is blood", said the Head Honcho to Bob earlier, "...guilty, innocent...(he shrugs), 'doesn't matter to me, but my price is blood and it will be paid."
"I am really sorry about this, but you see my dilemma, don't you?", asked Bob as he wrenched one of the girls fingernails off her hand, with her screaming with horror and wide-shocked eyes. "I could strangle you out of mercy, but I can't strangle myself too you see".
"I'm going to have to burn your eyes out of your head with this blow torch". "I'm sorry, but you're going to be tortured either way, and it makes no sense for me to be tortured and die needlessly". "You see, this is the best way." "This way, one person will live un-tortured, and one will be tortured, whereas if I don't torture you, they will anyway, and torture me too, and if I kill you, they'll torture me, so one person not tortured and one person tortured is the best of all outcomes, so hold still."
"Hell, I'll even make it slightly less horrific for you than the person that would replace me", Bob said. "I'll only break half of the teeth in your mouth with these pliers." "You can at least feel relieved that me doing this to you will prevent me from being tortured too, right?" "I mean, you can see that I really have no choice, right?"
People have been telling themselves this since there have been human atrocities against other humans. From Nazi middle-men to those in war-time situations and "field conditions", people have been excusing away their own guilt in situations like this.
But, isn't it TRUE that Bob "has no choice in the matter"?
No. The mistake Bob is making is that HE is responsible for his own actions, but not the actions of others. By surrendering his own moral responsibility, he is making the evil system he's caught up in his system. He's making himself an accessory to evil, and thus accepting the status of "evil person" himself. And by surrendering his own freewill and moral responsibility, he's making himself a slave to an evil Head Honcho, who only cares about getting SOMEONES blood to "pay the price", whether the blood comes from the guilty or the innocent.
Christians make the same mistake Bob is making.
Innocent Jesus "already died", they say, "so it would be senseless for me to go to hell since he's already died whether I accept this 'gift' or not" they say.
Well, what they are missing is that they are making themselves an accessory to an evil action, when they condone and even exploit a situation where the Innocent (Jesus) is tortured and dies and the "guilty" who condone this action are rewarded by entrance into "paradise".
Does Bob REALLY have a choice?
Yes, and the price of freedom is death perhaps. Bob is only a slave if he GIVES UP his freedom of choice to the Head Honcho.
Ditto for Christians.
If Adam and Eve chose to not remain slaves to the will of 'god' in the Garden of Eden, they will "surly die that day" they are told. They are only slaves IF THEY CHOOSE TO BE, i.e. if they surrender their freewill and instead subjugate their will to the will of their Lord and Master.
Modern day Christians face the same dilemma. Either they surrender their will to their Lord and Master and condone and exploit the torture and death of innocent Jesus, or they will suffer some sort of 'god'-torture themselves; (hell/Hades/lake of fire/absence from the presence of 'god', take your pick).
In theory, Christians are no less guilty than Bob is in the catch-22 scenario above.
When faced with the choice of being a slave to a Head Honcho who demands the blood of someone...(and doesn't care that Jesus' blood is the blood of the innocent), and this evil dilemma involves using the blood of the innocent to gain immortality, where the alternative is freedom, personal responsibility and death, the Christian is the person who chooses to take the path of the evil vampire.
"But Jesus was willing to die", Christians say.
But not really. He BEGGED his father in the Gethsemane gardens for HOURS to take away this catch-22 he was placed in.
What is this catch-22?
If Jesus did not agree to be tortured and die, 'god', (the Head Honcho) was going to send everyone on earth to hell to be tortured and destroyed, but if Jesus DID agree to be tortured and die, at least some people could avoid this torture and instead go to paradise.
Does this make Jesus guilty and part of an "evil system"?
'Hard to say. He could have done like Number 1 in the original pilot of Star Trek, where she set her phaser to over-load where it would explode and destroy everyone, saying "It's wrong to create a race of slaves". Which prompted the bubble-headed alien to say, "we didn't think this possible, your species has a unique hatred of captivity." "You even choose death over captivity". (Which is wrong, of course. This is true of SOME people, but not all, obviously).
In any event, Jesus is the innocent victim and not on trial here. I bring the motives and choices of the Christian into consideration.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Pig That Wanted To Be Eaten
(Borrowed from The Restaurant at the End Of The Universe and tailored through poetic license).
Bob sat down to his pork chop meal and said that we should give thanks.
"I thought you said that you weren't religious" I said.
"I'm not", said Bob, "I'm giving thanks to Petunia".
"Who's Petunia" I asked.
"Why, Petunia is the Pig". "She's a Jesus Pig, she's a special breed of pig that can talk and who wants to be eaten".
"What!?" I exclaimed in horror.
"Yeah, she told me just yesterday how much she was looking forward to being slaughtered and eaten by me."
"You must be joking" I exclaimed.
"No, really". "She told me how she had been fattening her hams especially fat so they would be extra succulent and juicy when fried up." "She was looking forward to being slaughtered, having her guts ripped out and being processed into choice cuts to be eaten by me." "That's how they're bred". "They're bred so that they want to be butchered and tell you so, so you don't feel guilty for eating them."
"That's immoral" I said.
"Why, would it be better to kill animals that don't want to be slaughtered and eaten?" he returned.
Why do we instinctively feel queasy about the prospect of having a conversation with an animal that wants us to eat it?
Perhaps it's because it's just shouldn't be that way!
We know that all values are held by the living (presumably), so how can a living, thinking being value anything else if it doesn't value it's own life? If we bred it to want to die, to be depressed and miserable, looking at death as a release, then this would be torture and evil. However, in Petunia's case, she's HAPPY about the prospect of being slaughtered and eaten. So, what's so evil about it? Maybe we don't want our feed stock to KNOW that we're going to butcher it and feed on it's flesh. We certainly don't want to talk about it and certainly not encourage it. It's just too creepy!!
But, consider that Petunia is being ALTRUISTIC.
Philosopher & socialist August Comte coined the term 'altruism', which he defined as "a moral obligation to live for the sake of others". Surely, this is what Petunia is doing. She's being self-sacrificial for a 'cause bigger than herself'.
But Bob called this breed of talking self-sacrificial pig a "Jesus Pig". What did he mean by that?
Well, the scriptures tells us that Jesus didn't really WANT to die. It was dad's bright idea. Jesus actually asked dear ol' dad to change his mind, but Jesus was willing to subjugate his own will to the will of his pop in the sky.
Mark 14:36 (KJV)
And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
But there are hundreds of kinds of Christians, and what I call the "Neo-Christians" are Christians that are of a type that are gaining popularity now. Neo-Christians don't believe in hell, and that 'god' the father is not supposed to inspire "fear and trembling" (as both the OT and NT literally say he is), but is rather "all love" instead. Neo-Christians also tend to believe that Jesus WANTED to die, ala Petunia the talking, slaughter-house anticipating pig. In fact, they insist that "The Passion of the Christ" is something to just...forget about. "What matters", they say, is that "Jesus rose again, setting an example for us that physical death is trivial compared to eternity".
Yup, Jesus planned the whole thing (contrary to Acts 4:26-28 apparently), and other than a moment's "fleshy" weakness, was LOOKING FORWARD to being beaten to a pulp, his skin shredded, bloodied and having his body hung up to dry.
Or, perhaps Bob was referring to John 6 instead?
Here's Petunia, ala the Jesus Pig in action.
John 6:53-57 (KJV)
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."
That sounds pretty much like Petunia to me. This is one of those frequent times (we are told) that Jesus didn't mean what he said, and didn't say what he meant, (and of course he "really meant" what the Neo-Christians say he meant rather than what he "truly, truly" and "indeed" said).
"But it would be disrespectful to not eat Petunia after her great sacrifice" Bob tells us.
Uh-huh...
Doesn't there also seem to be something creepy and inherently wrong about the idea of a perfectly innocent Jesus showing up just to be tortured and die, so the officials (dear ol' dad) will be happy and let the guilty sinners go free? 'Killing the innocent and setting the guilty free is morally good or morally bad? If 'god' sending sinners to hell is justice, then how can accepting the torture and death of the innocent in their stead, and then setting the guilty free, be anything but an injustice?
Christianity suggests that innocent Jesus' torture and death for the sake of those who don't deserve it, is not only good, rather, it's the ULTIMATE EXPRESSION of moral goodness.
Does this peg your bullshit meter, or what?
We're used to the expression, "There but by the grace of 'god' go I".
In Jesus' case, the Christian is saying, "There by no grace of 'god' goes an innocent person instead of me, the guy who actually deserves it".
The Christians are saying, in essence, "I'm sorry, Jesus, but if it's going to be you or me, it's not going to be me, bub".
The Christian could (and usually does) argue that the deed is already done, so why not exploit it? Wouldn't it be a waste to just go to hell when Jesus has already paid the price anyway?
Well, what one is doing in such a case is making oneself an accessory after the fact. By seeking to exploit an evil for ones own gain, one is making oneself a part of an evil action.
(See next blog, The Perplexed Torturer)
Bob sat down to his pork chop meal and said that we should give thanks.
"I thought you said that you weren't religious" I said.
"I'm not", said Bob, "I'm giving thanks to Petunia".
"Who's Petunia" I asked.
"Why, Petunia is the Pig". "She's a Jesus Pig, she's a special breed of pig that can talk and who wants to be eaten".
"What!?" I exclaimed in horror.
"Yeah, she told me just yesterday how much she was looking forward to being slaughtered and eaten by me."
"You must be joking" I exclaimed.
"No, really". "She told me how she had been fattening her hams especially fat so they would be extra succulent and juicy when fried up." "She was looking forward to being slaughtered, having her guts ripped out and being processed into choice cuts to be eaten by me." "That's how they're bred". "They're bred so that they want to be butchered and tell you so, so you don't feel guilty for eating them."
"That's immoral" I said.
"Why, would it be better to kill animals that don't want to be slaughtered and eaten?" he returned.
Why do we instinctively feel queasy about the prospect of having a conversation with an animal that wants us to eat it?
Perhaps it's because it's just shouldn't be that way!
We know that all values are held by the living (presumably), so how can a living, thinking being value anything else if it doesn't value it's own life? If we bred it to want to die, to be depressed and miserable, looking at death as a release, then this would be torture and evil. However, in Petunia's case, she's HAPPY about the prospect of being slaughtered and eaten. So, what's so evil about it? Maybe we don't want our feed stock to KNOW that we're going to butcher it and feed on it's flesh. We certainly don't want to talk about it and certainly not encourage it. It's just too creepy!!
But, consider that Petunia is being ALTRUISTIC.
Philosopher & socialist August Comte coined the term 'altruism', which he defined as "a moral obligation to live for the sake of others". Surely, this is what Petunia is doing. She's being self-sacrificial for a 'cause bigger than herself'.
But Bob called this breed of talking self-sacrificial pig a "Jesus Pig". What did he mean by that?
Well, the scriptures tells us that Jesus didn't really WANT to die. It was dad's bright idea. Jesus actually asked dear ol' dad to change his mind, but Jesus was willing to subjugate his own will to the will of his pop in the sky.
Mark 14:36 (KJV)
And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
But there are hundreds of kinds of Christians, and what I call the "Neo-Christians" are Christians that are of a type that are gaining popularity now. Neo-Christians don't believe in hell, and that 'god' the father is not supposed to inspire "fear and trembling" (as both the OT and NT literally say he is), but is rather "all love" instead. Neo-Christians also tend to believe that Jesus WANTED to die, ala Petunia the talking, slaughter-house anticipating pig. In fact, they insist that "The Passion of the Christ" is something to just...forget about. "What matters", they say, is that "Jesus rose again, setting an example for us that physical death is trivial compared to eternity".
Yup, Jesus planned the whole thing (contrary to Acts 4:26-28 apparently), and other than a moment's "fleshy" weakness, was LOOKING FORWARD to being beaten to a pulp, his skin shredded, bloodied and having his body hung up to dry.
Or, perhaps Bob was referring to John 6 instead?
Here's Petunia, ala the Jesus Pig in action.
John 6:53-57 (KJV)
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."
That sounds pretty much like Petunia to me. This is one of those frequent times (we are told) that Jesus didn't mean what he said, and didn't say what he meant, (and of course he "really meant" what the Neo-Christians say he meant rather than what he "truly, truly" and "indeed" said).
"But it would be disrespectful to not eat Petunia after her great sacrifice" Bob tells us.
Uh-huh...
Doesn't there also seem to be something creepy and inherently wrong about the idea of a perfectly innocent Jesus showing up just to be tortured and die, so the officials (dear ol' dad) will be happy and let the guilty sinners go free? 'Killing the innocent and setting the guilty free is morally good or morally bad? If 'god' sending sinners to hell is justice, then how can accepting the torture and death of the innocent in their stead, and then setting the guilty free, be anything but an injustice?
Christianity suggests that innocent Jesus' torture and death for the sake of those who don't deserve it, is not only good, rather, it's the ULTIMATE EXPRESSION of moral goodness.
Does this peg your bullshit meter, or what?
We're used to the expression, "There but by the grace of 'god' go I".
In Jesus' case, the Christian is saying, "There by no grace of 'god' goes an innocent person instead of me, the guy who actually deserves it".
The Christians are saying, in essence, "I'm sorry, Jesus, but if it's going to be you or me, it's not going to be me, bub".
The Christian could (and usually does) argue that the deed is already done, so why not exploit it? Wouldn't it be a waste to just go to hell when Jesus has already paid the price anyway?
Well, what one is doing in such a case is making oneself an accessory after the fact. By seeking to exploit an evil for ones own gain, one is making oneself a part of an evil action.
(See next blog, The Perplexed Torturer)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)