There's something a lot of us like to do when we tell people we're atheist. We add a qualifier. We say "I'm an atheist, but..." and then follow it with some statement of tolerance like "I respect people of faith." Why do we do this? We do we subconsciously give in to the stereotype that all atheists are fucking assholes? Do you ever see a Christian say "I'm a Christian, but I'm not into burning witches?" No. You fucking don't, because believing that every Christian wants to go out and burn witches is stupid (well, unless you live in Africa). Still, as prevalent as witch-hunting in rural Africa is, in most places you don't judge a Christian--or anybody for that matter--to be an asshole based on no other information than their beliefs.
Stop apologizing for your atheism. You've done nothing wrong. Just say you're an atheist if the subject comes up. There's no need to tell people you're not an asshole. When you add a qualifier to that statement, when you say but, you're essentially saying "I think that you accept the common conception that most if not all atheists are intolerant assholes, and I agree with that conception, but I am the exception to the rule." Don't apologize for being an asshole when you haven't been an asshole.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
7 Counter-proofs of the Resurrection
While browsing Reddit I came across this site on about.com: 7 Proofs of the Resurrection
Somehow I don't think the person who wrote this article really grasps the meaning of the word "proof." Proof, or evidence, is something that can be verified by outside, unbiased sources. I can prove that gravity exists because I can drop something off the edge of a roof and it will fall. Other people can do the same thing and see for themselves. I can document it, take a video, take a picture, but documents can be forged, videos and pictures doctored. The only way to truly prove a claim about reality is to present something that can be objectively verified by others.
Right off the bat, the author makes glaringly inaccurate statements:
Also, the book of Acts does not cover the life of Jesus at all. It was written by Paul, someone who never knew Jesus (provided he existed). The only interaction is a miraculous claim of a vision. Acts never makes the claim to cover Jesus' life or death in the first place. It makes me wonder if this author has even read the New Testament.
The author then goes on to cite the works of Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, and the Jewish Sanhedrin, of Jesus' actual existence. The problem is, none of these people (with exception of the Sanhedrin of course), were actually alive during Jesus' supposed lifetime. Josephus was born in 37, Tacitus in 56, and Lucian in 125. By the time all of these men were of age to write history, Christianity as a movement had already been firmly established. Their writings confirm the existence of Christians, not of Christ. But besides that, even if their records do confirm the existence of an actual man named Jesus, does that prove everything in the gospels to be true? Does the fact that David Crockett was an actual person who died defending the Alamo prove that he "killed him a bar [bear, sic] when he was only three," as the Walt Disney Corporation claimed? Does the fact that New York City is a real place prove that Spiderman really did fight the Green Goblin? Can we agree that even if we can prove a given person actually existed, it doesn't make everything ever written about that person true by fiat? If so, keep reading. If not, enjoy your comic books.
There is also a subtle thread of question-begging, here. Zavada is asking us to accept the conclusion he's trying to prove in order to make his proofs work. To someone who already believes the Bible, this will bolster faith, but does little to convince someone who does not accept the Bible's divine authorship to begin with. He hasn't presented any real evidence that the Biblical account is true or should be taken seriously; he merely made a feeble attempt to match the story with a real historical figure, the success of that attempt being meaningless anyway.
Proofs #3-#6 stem from the same fallacy as the first two. The Apostles' new-found courage, the changed lives of James and others, the large crowd of eyewitnesses, and the conversion of Paul are all unsubstantiated claims drawing their entire basis of evidence from a biased source text that amounts to little more than hearsay. Since the fact that you're reading this indicates that you agree a person's existence is not proof of everything written about him or her, I see no need to delve into these individually. They are not proofs, they are claims, put forth without evidence, requiring no evidence to dismiss them.
If this article was written to convince atheists to become believers, it does a very poor job of it, which is why I suspect it was written instead to bolster the faith of those who already accept the conclusion. This work is reinforcement, not a foundation.
Somehow I don't think the person who wrote this article really grasps the meaning of the word "proof." Proof, or evidence, is something that can be verified by outside, unbiased sources. I can prove that gravity exists because I can drop something off the edge of a roof and it will fall. Other people can do the same thing and see for themselves. I can document it, take a video, take a picture, but documents can be forged, videos and pictures doctored. The only way to truly prove a claim about reality is to present something that can be objectively verified by others.
Right off the bat, the author makes glaringly inaccurate statements:
We tend to forget that the Gospels and book of Acts are eyewitness accounts of the life and death of Jesus.The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. It has been known for some time that they were written decades after the events passed, and are even admittedly not first-hand accounts. Only someone wholly ignorant of the field of Biblical and Theological study would believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Large swaths of Matthew and Luke are word-for-word copies of Mark, not something indicative of three independent authors, more so of one author and two embellishers. No copies of any gospel exists from the time of Jesus, so to assert they were eyewitness accounts is baseless.
Also, the book of Acts does not cover the life of Jesus at all. It was written by Paul, someone who never knew Jesus (provided he existed). The only interaction is a miraculous claim of a vision. Acts never makes the claim to cover Jesus' life or death in the first place. It makes me wonder if this author has even read the New Testament.
The author then goes on to cite the works of Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, and the Jewish Sanhedrin, of Jesus' actual existence. The problem is, none of these people (with exception of the Sanhedrin of course), were actually alive during Jesus' supposed lifetime. Josephus was born in 37, Tacitus in 56, and Lucian in 125. By the time all of these men were of age to write history, Christianity as a movement had already been firmly established. Their writings confirm the existence of Christians, not of Christ. But besides that, even if their records do confirm the existence of an actual man named Jesus, does that prove everything in the gospels to be true? Does the fact that David Crockett was an actual person who died defending the Alamo prove that he "killed him a bar [bear, sic] when he was only three," as the Walt Disney Corporation claimed? Does the fact that New York City is a real place prove that Spiderman really did fight the Green Goblin? Can we agree that even if we can prove a given person actually existed, it doesn't make everything ever written about that person true by fiat? If so, keep reading. If not, enjoy your comic books.
If this is the strongest proof, I'm not sure I need to go any further. The author has completely skipped over the question of whether or not the empty tomb story is true. Again, even if Jesus was an actual person, that's no proof he was placed in a tomb that was later found empty. The idea that someone stole Jesus' body or the disciples went to the wrong tomb isn't really held by modern "nonbelievers," but by the Jews and Roman unbelievers at the time, and again, all this is according to a single book written years after the fact with an admitted agenda to push a belief in the resurrection.
The Resurrection Proof #1: The Empty Tomb of Jesus
The empty tomb may be the strongest proof Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Two major theories have been advanced by unbelievers: someone stole Jesus' body or the women and disciples went to the wrong tomb. The Jews and Romans had no motive to steal the body. Christ's apostles were too cowardly and would have had to overcome the Roman guards. The women who found the tomb empty had earlier watched Jesus being laid away; they knew where the correct tomb was. Even if they had gone to the wrong tomb, the Sanhedrin could have produced the body from the right tomb to stop the resurrection stories. Jesus' burial cloths were left neatly folded inside, hardly the act of hurrying grave robbers. Angels said Jesus had risen from the dead.
Glad to see this author admits women were treated poorly during biblical times, but honestly the hubris here is awe-inspiring. As if this person would know the motivations and beliefs of the author of the gospels, to the point where he'd know precisely what the gospel writers would and wouldn't write. Perhaps the authors felt if they had Jesus appear to a woman, it'd make the story more believable, for precisely the reasons this author mentioned. My hypothesis has exactly the same amount of evidence to back it up as Mr. Zavada's.The Resurrection Proof #2: The Holy Women Eyewitnesses
The holy women eyewitnesses are further proof that the Gospels are accurate historical records. If the accounts had been made up, no ancient author would have used women for witnesses to Christ's resurrection. Women were second class citizens in Bible times; their testimony was not even allowed in court. Yet the Bible says the risen Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene and other holy women. Even the apostles did not believe Mary when she told them the tomb was empty. Jesus, who always had special respect for these women, honored them as the first eyewitnesses to his resurrection. The male Gospel writers had no choice but to report this embarrassing act of God's favor, because that was how it happened.
There is also a subtle thread of question-begging, here. Zavada is asking us to accept the conclusion he's trying to prove in order to make his proofs work. To someone who already believes the Bible, this will bolster faith, but does little to convince someone who does not accept the Bible's divine authorship to begin with. He hasn't presented any real evidence that the Biblical account is true or should be taken seriously; he merely made a feeble attempt to match the story with a real historical figure, the success of that attempt being meaningless anyway.
Proofs #3-#6 stem from the same fallacy as the first two. The Apostles' new-found courage, the changed lives of James and others, the large crowd of eyewitnesses, and the conversion of Paul are all unsubstantiated claims drawing their entire basis of evidence from a biased source text that amounts to little more than hearsay. Since the fact that you're reading this indicates that you agree a person's existence is not proof of everything written about him or her, I see no need to delve into these individually. They are not proofs, they are claims, put forth without evidence, requiring no evidence to dismiss them.
The same can be said of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians, hardly 'isolated groups' as Zavada dismisses them. Does the fact that young Muslim men indoctrinated in their Madrassas are willing to blow themselves up prove that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed in a cave and gave him the Qu'ran? Does it prove Mohammed ascended to heaven at the site now covered by the Dome of the Rock? I also love the fact that Zavada cites "tradition" as his proof that ten of the original apostles died as martyrs. I guess that also means Paul Bunyan really was forty feet tall and had a blue ox. Tradition says so!
The Resurrection Proof #7: They Died for Jesus
Countless people have died for Jesus, absolutely certain that the resurrection of Christ is an historical fact. Tradition says ten of the original apostles died as martyrs for Christ, as did the Apostle Paul. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of early Christians died in the Roman arena and in prisons for their faith. Down through the centuries, thousands more have died for Jesus because they believed the resurrection is true. Even today, people suffer persecution because they have faith that Christ rose from the dead. An isolated group may give up their lives for a cult leader, but Christian martyrs have died in many lands, for nearly 2,000 years, believing Jesus conquered death to give them eternal life.
If this article was written to convince atheists to become believers, it does a very poor job of it, which is why I suspect it was written instead to bolster the faith of those who already accept the conclusion. This work is reinforcement, not a foundation.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
King Snyder
I know I'm a little bit late on the subject, but as a Michigander I feel I need to speak out. Recently Rachel Maddow and others have brought the nations attention from Madison, across the lake to Lansing, Michigan, where our new GOP governor Rick Snyder is passing some of his own legislation. Before I go on, here are some of the facts involved:
But should we really be surprised? After all, Snyder was extremely tight-lipped about his plans when he was campaigning. All he fed us was vague marketing speak about "bringing Michigan back" and "investing in the future." He only participated in one debate, and wouldn't even debate members of his own party. The facts were clear from the very beginning--this man is not interested in discussion. He does not tolerate being told "no." He's going to carry out his plan no matter what anyone does or says. Remind you of anyone?
Rick Snyder is a businessman. The organization he's used to running operates with a single goal in mind: make as much money as humanly possible by any means necessary. In a corporation, the CEO is the boss. The only thing he is legally obligated to do is make money, but any legal means necessary (although the "legal" part doesn't stop a lot of them). If that means throwing people out on the street or drowning them in crippling debt, so be it. In a corporation, the CEO's word is law. There are no legislatures and there are no voters. The public has no control and no recourse over who runs a given corporation.
So is it really any surprise that when Rick Snyder, Mister "I'm going to run government like a business," starts running government like a business, where the CEO's word is unquestionable law and money must be made by any means necessary? Is it really a surprise that a man with absolutely no experience managing a government seems to have no idea how governments are actually supposed to work and how the needs of the people, not the pocketbooks of the state, should be the ultimate goal? Is it really a surprise that a man who outsourced tens of thousands of jobs to China is trying to undermine organized labor?
It's not a surprise, not at all. Rick Snyder is doing precisely what he said he would do: run the state like a business. Instead of a state a local government where we can control who's in charge by our vote, we now have bosses and managers, and we must do as they say or they'll cut us off from the democratic process completely at home. Is it a surprise that a businessman is actually creating a deficit by giving away $1.8 billion a year to big businesses while simultaneously raising taxes for tens of thousands of small businesses and seniors to pay for it? It's not a surprise.
Snyder is a businessman. He ran as a businessman, and it should not be surprising to see that as a businessman he despises the democratic process. It should not be surprising to see that as a businessman he despises any institution in which the poor pool their resources in order to provide a counter to the will of the wealthy elite, whether it be labor unions or local governments.
Millions upon millions of dollars went into Snyder's campaign, the bulk of his TV commercials paid for by the Republican Governor's Association (the same Koch-funded front group that aided Scott Walker in his race). Virg Bernero only used the limited public election fund to run, and the results are clear: Rick Snyder and his corporate backers bought the Michigan gubernatorial election. They put Snyder's message on every TV and radio station. Bernero, someone not nearly as wealthy as Snyder and who had no corporate backing, didn't stand a chance.
But the Koch brothers and Snyder's personal fortune aren't totally to blame. Ultimately, the election was won by a singular principle: one person, one vote. The people who voted for Snyder came out in force. The people who preferred Bernero stayed home. If the people who preferred Bernero trudged out to the polls on election day, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We have a sickness in this country. We're being told a false story and it's killing us.
The GOP has a singular goal: destroy any institution that facilitates the pooling of resources by the masses in order to counter the will of the wealthy elite. They did it with ACORN, they're doing it with the unions and NPR, but their ultimate goal is the government and democracy itself. The federal, state, and local governments are the people's last recourse against the wealthy few--the top 400 who control more wealth than half the country's adults put together--and what they want to do. They are the last institutions in which we the people have a modicum of control, and they hate that. They hate that a poor, black mother on welfare has just as much bearing on an election's result as a billionaire. They're letting it show, too. In the south, one official has suggested restricting the right to vote to property owners (but stopped short of "black people and women," but the founding fathers didn't want them to vote, either). What these bills in Michigan and Wisconsin are really about is cutting the major sources of funding for the Democratic party--the Unions--to their knees. This is purely a political tactic in order to gain power. It has nothing to do with budget shortfalls. Nothing. That's why they hated ACORN. ACORN helped the urban poor to register to vote, and the urban poor overwhelmingly vote Democrat, because they don't buy into the lie that their manager at Wal-Mart has their best interests at heart. This isn't about freedom or budgets, it's about attacking and silencing the Democrats. From ACORN to Citizen's United to NPR, it is abundantly clear what the GOP is doing.
And they're convincing people by spreading two of the biggest lies of the last few decades. The first lie is that government is inherently inefficient, it's services and programs can never be improved, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to fix it. The second lie is that Democrats and Republicans are the same. The first lie is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy made by Reagan and his ilk in the 80's: government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. If Reagan really believed that, I can't help but wonder why in the hell he would seek the very top position in the entity he said was causing the problem in the first place? If government is broken and cannot be fixed, why do all these Republicans want to be in government? The reason for this is stated in their tactic knows as "starving the beast."
To starve the beast (in this case the beast being government) one must claim that government is too fat and inefficient, and that only be electing you can it be made to run more efficiently. Once elected, slash funding for programs that benefit the poor and raise their taxes in order to (just barely, but not quite) cover the massive deficits you caused by drastically reducing taxes on the rich. Then, when due to lack of funding government programs begin to fail, point out how inefficient they are and use it as justification to either slash further or completely eliminate their funding. The only reason our government is inefficient and bloated is because for the last few decades we've been electing politicians who are either dedicated to or passively accept the idea that government is the problem and never a solution for anything. Why would a Republican want to fix government when his very ideology and justification for his job depends on it being broken and not running efficiently? It's like someone who shoots you in the foot and calls you lame.
The second lie is that Democrats and Republicans are the same. No two politicians are the same, let alone two entire parties of them. There are factions within the Democrats and Republicans, and I doubt there is a single issue that both agree on completely. But one only needs to look at the track record in recent years to see the difference: Democrats routinely balance the budget, Republicans routinely cause massive deficits. Democrats support the rights of workers to unionize, Republicans seek to remove those rights. Democrats generally support the rights of homosexuals and believe that they should be given the same civil rights as everyone else (including the right to have a marriage recognized by the state), Republicans routinely fight against these rights, citing their religion as the only justification or making feeble attempts at a secular argument. Do the Democrats have faults? Tons of them. But they are different faults and not nearly as alarming or scary as that of the Republican party in general. One party is clearly less harmful than the other. That is undeniable, demonstrable truth.
Protesters are gathering this weekend in Lansing, and they're still in Madison, but I can't help but reiterate the reason they are there in the first place. The protesters are standing up for our freedoms because the majority of Democrats let the Republican Governor's Association convince them that their votes don't matter. So the majority of Democrats stayed home on election day. Quite frankly, in the face of Snyder and Walker's corporate elitism, protests are going to do nil. They are a waste of time. The far better course of action would have been to vote, to not give up on Democracy. It would have been far better if more people wouldn't have seen voting as a waste of time if they didn't think their guy was going to win. It's not about picking who you think is going to win. It's about picking who you believe will have your interests at heart. If we as Democrats and Progressives had done that in 2010, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Let's not make that same mistake next time.
- The Emergency Financial Manager proposed under the law will be either a person or firm appointed by the governor to aid Michigan cities that are deemed in financial crisis. This position is unelected.
- The position existed before this new law, but could only be sent to cities in bankruptcy.
- Under the new law, the triggers for possible EFM action are extremely broadened, and include:
- Having a BBB credit rating
- Having only a single department run a deficit of any amount, even if it could be covered by other sources of income.
- The rest of the new state budget includes deep cuts in state aid to cities, including those for schools, virtually guaranteeing almost every city in the state of Michigan to qualify for an EFM, since the cuts will force a deficit.
- The EFM has the power to:
- Unilaterally nullify any and all labor contracts between the city and its workers.
- Unilaterally dissolve the city council and/or fire the mayor.
- Unilaterally disincorporate the city
- Essentially, the EFM becomes the boss (a.k.a. King, or Lord if you prefer) of the city. The voters and residents of the city have no recourse against abuse of the position (remember, he or she will be unelected, appointed by the governor), and their taxes must pay for any consultants this unelected official decides to hire. No discussion. No debate.
- There is no limit to how long the EFM can remain in control of a city, nor any framework for removing him, her or them from power after a certain set of goals are met.
- A Democrat amendment to limit the EFM's salary to that of the governor ($177,000 a year) was rejected by GOP legistlators. There is no limit to how much the EFM is paid in the recently-signed bill.
But should we really be surprised? After all, Snyder was extremely tight-lipped about his plans when he was campaigning. All he fed us was vague marketing speak about "bringing Michigan back" and "investing in the future." He only participated in one debate, and wouldn't even debate members of his own party. The facts were clear from the very beginning--this man is not interested in discussion. He does not tolerate being told "no." He's going to carry out his plan no matter what anyone does or says. Remind you of anyone?
So is it really any surprise that when Rick Snyder, Mister "I'm going to run government like a business," starts running government like a business, where the CEO's word is unquestionable law and money must be made by any means necessary? Is it really a surprise that a man with absolutely no experience managing a government seems to have no idea how governments are actually supposed to work and how the needs of the people, not the pocketbooks of the state, should be the ultimate goal? Is it really a surprise that a man who outsourced tens of thousands of jobs to China is trying to undermine organized labor?
It's not a surprise, not at all. Rick Snyder is doing precisely what he said he would do: run the state like a business. Instead of a state a local government where we can control who's in charge by our vote, we now have bosses and managers, and we must do as they say or they'll cut us off from the democratic process completely at home. Is it a surprise that a businessman is actually creating a deficit by giving away $1.8 billion a year to big businesses while simultaneously raising taxes for tens of thousands of small businesses and seniors to pay for it? It's not a surprise.
Snyder is a businessman. He ran as a businessman, and it should not be surprising to see that as a businessman he despises the democratic process. It should not be surprising to see that as a businessman he despises any institution in which the poor pool their resources in order to provide a counter to the will of the wealthy elite, whether it be labor unions or local governments.
Millions upon millions of dollars went into Snyder's campaign, the bulk of his TV commercials paid for by the Republican Governor's Association (the same Koch-funded front group that aided Scott Walker in his race). Virg Bernero only used the limited public election fund to run, and the results are clear: Rick Snyder and his corporate backers bought the Michigan gubernatorial election. They put Snyder's message on every TV and radio station. Bernero, someone not nearly as wealthy as Snyder and who had no corporate backing, didn't stand a chance.
But the Koch brothers and Snyder's personal fortune aren't totally to blame. Ultimately, the election was won by a singular principle: one person, one vote. The people who voted for Snyder came out in force. The people who preferred Bernero stayed home. If the people who preferred Bernero trudged out to the polls on election day, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We have a sickness in this country. We're being told a false story and it's killing us.
The GOP has a singular goal: destroy any institution that facilitates the pooling of resources by the masses in order to counter the will of the wealthy elite. They did it with ACORN, they're doing it with the unions and NPR, but their ultimate goal is the government and democracy itself. The federal, state, and local governments are the people's last recourse against the wealthy few--the top 400 who control more wealth than half the country's adults put together--and what they want to do. They are the last institutions in which we the people have a modicum of control, and they hate that. They hate that a poor, black mother on welfare has just as much bearing on an election's result as a billionaire. They're letting it show, too. In the south, one official has suggested restricting the right to vote to property owners (but stopped short of "black people and women," but the founding fathers didn't want them to vote, either). What these bills in Michigan and Wisconsin are really about is cutting the major sources of funding for the Democratic party--the Unions--to their knees. This is purely a political tactic in order to gain power. It has nothing to do with budget shortfalls. Nothing. That's why they hated ACORN. ACORN helped the urban poor to register to vote, and the urban poor overwhelmingly vote Democrat, because they don't buy into the lie that their manager at Wal-Mart has their best interests at heart. This isn't about freedom or budgets, it's about attacking and silencing the Democrats. From ACORN to Citizen's United to NPR, it is abundantly clear what the GOP is doing.
And they're convincing people by spreading two of the biggest lies of the last few decades. The first lie is that government is inherently inefficient, it's services and programs can never be improved, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to fix it. The second lie is that Democrats and Republicans are the same. The first lie is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy made by Reagan and his ilk in the 80's: government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. If Reagan really believed that, I can't help but wonder why in the hell he would seek the very top position in the entity he said was causing the problem in the first place? If government is broken and cannot be fixed, why do all these Republicans want to be in government? The reason for this is stated in their tactic knows as "starving the beast."
To starve the beast (in this case the beast being government) one must claim that government is too fat and inefficient, and that only be electing you can it be made to run more efficiently. Once elected, slash funding for programs that benefit the poor and raise their taxes in order to (just barely, but not quite) cover the massive deficits you caused by drastically reducing taxes on the rich. Then, when due to lack of funding government programs begin to fail, point out how inefficient they are and use it as justification to either slash further or completely eliminate their funding. The only reason our government is inefficient and bloated is because for the last few decades we've been electing politicians who are either dedicated to or passively accept the idea that government is the problem and never a solution for anything. Why would a Republican want to fix government when his very ideology and justification for his job depends on it being broken and not running efficiently? It's like someone who shoots you in the foot and calls you lame.
The second lie is that Democrats and Republicans are the same. No two politicians are the same, let alone two entire parties of them. There are factions within the Democrats and Republicans, and I doubt there is a single issue that both agree on completely. But one only needs to look at the track record in recent years to see the difference: Democrats routinely balance the budget, Republicans routinely cause massive deficits. Democrats support the rights of workers to unionize, Republicans seek to remove those rights. Democrats generally support the rights of homosexuals and believe that they should be given the same civil rights as everyone else (including the right to have a marriage recognized by the state), Republicans routinely fight against these rights, citing their religion as the only justification or making feeble attempts at a secular argument. Do the Democrats have faults? Tons of them. But they are different faults and not nearly as alarming or scary as that of the Republican party in general. One party is clearly less harmful than the other. That is undeniable, demonstrable truth.
Protesters are gathering this weekend in Lansing, and they're still in Madison, but I can't help but reiterate the reason they are there in the first place. The protesters are standing up for our freedoms because the majority of Democrats let the Republican Governor's Association convince them that their votes don't matter. So the majority of Democrats stayed home on election day. Quite frankly, in the face of Snyder and Walker's corporate elitism, protests are going to do nil. They are a waste of time. The far better course of action would have been to vote, to not give up on Democracy. It would have been far better if more people wouldn't have seen voting as a waste of time if they didn't think their guy was going to win. It's not about picking who you think is going to win. It's about picking who you believe will have your interests at heart. If we as Democrats and Progressives had done that in 2010, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Let's not make that same mistake next time.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
My Answer to the Argument from Occam's Razor
On Reddit, a practicing Jehovah's Witness posted an AMA (Ask Me Anything) thread, so one user posted the following statement:
Your points are the weaker forms of Atheism. The ideal reason for being an Atheist, in my opinion, is that it is merely the default. It is the absence of any theory that isn't backed by evidence and Occams Razor would have you default to it.The Jehovah's Witness' reponse was this:
You see this a lot with theists. It's almost as if because their explanation is much shorter than the scientific one ('God' has fewer letters than 'the Big Bang'), it is therefore simpler. Here is my response:Uh oh. You mentioned Occam's Razor so I have to ask: which is the simpler explanation for our existence, that we were created directly by God or that some sort of progressive accident occurred that we cannot replicate and resulted in humans as an ultracomplex being.
In my opinion, if you apply Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation IS that we were created, as "unscientific" as that is.
Sorry, couldn't help myself having fun with this one.
God is not even close to a simple explanation. First, God is, by your own admission, a supremely complex and powerful being, much more complex than human beings or even the universe. Thus you are answering a mystery (why does complexity exist?) with an even greater mystery. This does not conform to Occam's Razor at all, because by adding God and magic (and let's face it, your explanation for the origin of the universe is essentially "magic man done it") you are making the answer even more complex, not simpler.
Second, the naturalistic explanation (naturalistic meaning it does not require a god or anything supernatural) for the formation of the universe does not say it happened by accident or chance. Admittedly, there are gaps in our knowledge. We don't know the whole story, and there's a distinct possibility that we never will. But that does not mean it is intellectually sound to fill in the gaps with supernatural explanations out of a desire to have more answers.
Let's say you took a test in school. You and another student start and end the semester by taking the same test. At the beginning, you both know all the exact same things, no more and no less than one another. The other student leaves all of the questions he doesn't know blank, but you fill in "C" for all the ones you don't know. Are you smarter because you filled in all the gaps, because you were incredulous enough to present yourself as having all the answers? Do you mock the other student for leaving the questions he didn't know blank, because after all, there must be an answer, and why not make that answer C?
At the end of the semester, you both take the test again. The other student had studied and learned, and can answer far more questions now. You, on the other hand, haven't studied at all, because you already have all the answers, so why bother trying to figure out what you've already answered? The test finishes, and the other student still has some answers blank. You've filled out all of the answers almost exactly the same way again, answering what you did know and filling in C for what you didn't. Who do you think is going to get the better grade?
The difference between you and the other student in this situation is that the other student admitted what he didn't know and used it as an opportunity to research, study, experiment, etc. You, on the other hand, believed you already had all the answers and thus didn't see the need to look into it further.
This is the difference between science and religion. Science is the admission of ignorance, the drive to know more about the physical universe. Religion is the drive to have answers, any answers, just so long as all questions have them. Religion believes it is superior to science because it has more answers than science does. Science cares about the quality and accuracy of its answers rather than having a larger quantity of them. That is why in religious societies, the increase of knowledge happens extremely slowly, because every step of the way those who are seeking a naturalistic explanation have a deeply-entrenched supernatural explanation already in place and supported by a powerful authority blocking the path. It took centuries for the Catholic Church to finally admit the earth wasn't the center of the universe. It took only a few years for the scientific community to accept Einstein's theory of Relativity, despite mocking it as crazy-talk in the beginning (and they didn't even threaten to execute him over it!). But eventually, empiricism, observation, and experimentation that confirmed his theories won the day.
In ideological terms, science is democracy, and religion is dictatorship. Science is not under the control of any one person or entity. Ideas can be shared, tossed around, discarded, or accepted by the process of peer-review. Religion does not submit its ideas for questioning. It does not have a peer-review process. You accept what your religion teaches or big brother in the sky will punish you, whether it be through eternal torture or eternal destruction.
Second, the naturalistic explanation (naturalistic meaning it does not require a god or anything supernatural) for the formation of the universe does not say it happened by accident or chance. Admittedly, there are gaps in our knowledge. We don't know the whole story, and there's a distinct possibility that we never will. But that does not mean it is intellectually sound to fill in the gaps with supernatural explanations out of a desire to have more answers.
Let's say you took a test in school. You and another student start and end the semester by taking the same test. At the beginning, you both know all the exact same things, no more and no less than one another. The other student leaves all of the questions he doesn't know blank, but you fill in "C" for all the ones you don't know. Are you smarter because you filled in all the gaps, because you were incredulous enough to present yourself as having all the answers? Do you mock the other student for leaving the questions he didn't know blank, because after all, there must be an answer, and why not make that answer C?
At the end of the semester, you both take the test again. The other student had studied and learned, and can answer far more questions now. You, on the other hand, haven't studied at all, because you already have all the answers, so why bother trying to figure out what you've already answered? The test finishes, and the other student still has some answers blank. You've filled out all of the answers almost exactly the same way again, answering what you did know and filling in C for what you didn't. Who do you think is going to get the better grade?
The difference between you and the other student in this situation is that the other student admitted what he didn't know and used it as an opportunity to research, study, experiment, etc. You, on the other hand, believed you already had all the answers and thus didn't see the need to look into it further.
This is the difference between science and religion. Science is the admission of ignorance, the drive to know more about the physical universe. Religion is the drive to have answers, any answers, just so long as all questions have them. Religion believes it is superior to science because it has more answers than science does. Science cares about the quality and accuracy of its answers rather than having a larger quantity of them. That is why in religious societies, the increase of knowledge happens extremely slowly, because every step of the way those who are seeking a naturalistic explanation have a deeply-entrenched supernatural explanation already in place and supported by a powerful authority blocking the path. It took centuries for the Catholic Church to finally admit the earth wasn't the center of the universe. It took only a few years for the scientific community to accept Einstein's theory of Relativity, despite mocking it as crazy-talk in the beginning (and they didn't even threaten to execute him over it!). But eventually, empiricism, observation, and experimentation that confirmed his theories won the day.
In ideological terms, science is democracy, and religion is dictatorship. Science is not under the control of any one person or entity. Ideas can be shared, tossed around, discarded, or accepted by the process of peer-review. Religion does not submit its ideas for questioning. It does not have a peer-review process. You accept what your religion teaches or big brother in the sky will punish you, whether it be through eternal torture or eternal destruction.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Support Gay Rights? Thank the Phelps Family!
As a sideline supporter of the LGBT community, I think there is a group that needs to be recognized for all they've done in support of the gay, lesbian, transgendered, and those among us who aren't a strict "0" on the Kinsey scale. That group is the Westboro Baptist Church.
Surprised? It's understandable. It seems like the Phelps family does everything in their power to spread hatred of gay people. But, like a bad sitcom about reverse psychology, I think they've actually done the opposite of what they intend. How?
Guilt by Association
Remember when you discovered a band or a book you really liked, only to find out that someone you really hated liked the same one, and you liked it a little bit less after that? That's precisely what the Phelps' are doing to homoclastia. Back when almost everybody was a homoclast, people didn't talk about it as much. It was just an attitude that everybody seemed to have. Then, the gay rights movement got started, and now being an outspoken homoclast draws a fair amount of criticism. So much so that they only people left speaking out about it are people like the Phelps family, who also happen to be raving fucking lunatics. The WBC is effectively making anybody who speaks openly against homosexuality just as fucking crazy as they are in the minds of the public.
Don't believe me? What do you think of when you think of American racism? Businessmen and leaders of the community planning lynchings and church burnings in a cigar-smoke-filled room over a game of poker? Nazis? Fuck no, the first thing that comes to your mind are insane, gun-toting, poorly-educated rednecks wearing silly white robes and sheets on their heads! Thanks to the KKK, any racist--even those not associated with them--is a fucking crazy KKK member in the eyes of most people, a ticket to guaranteed social pariah-dom.
So thank you Fred Phelps and thank you Westboro Baptist Church for showing us all what gay-hate is really about. Thank you for not censoring it behind politeness and "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit. You've done more for gay rights than 1,000 marches by unmasking the true face of bigotry to the public. You're a showcase of what most fundamentalist Christians are thinking but are afraid to say outright, and you're shaming them by showing them and everyone else the true ridiculousness of their hatred.
Surprised? It's understandable. It seems like the Phelps family does everything in their power to spread hatred of gay people. But, like a bad sitcom about reverse psychology, I think they've actually done the opposite of what they intend. How?
Guilt by Association
Remember when you discovered a band or a book you really liked, only to find out that someone you really hated liked the same one, and you liked it a little bit less after that? That's precisely what the Phelps' are doing to homoclastia. Back when almost everybody was a homoclast, people didn't talk about it as much. It was just an attitude that everybody seemed to have. Then, the gay rights movement got started, and now being an outspoken homoclast draws a fair amount of criticism. So much so that they only people left speaking out about it are people like the Phelps family, who also happen to be raving fucking lunatics. The WBC is effectively making anybody who speaks openly against homosexuality just as fucking crazy as they are in the minds of the public.
Don't believe me? What do you think of when you think of American racism? Businessmen and leaders of the community planning lynchings and church burnings in a cigar-smoke-filled room over a game of poker? Nazis? Fuck no, the first thing that comes to your mind are insane, gun-toting, poorly-educated rednecks wearing silly white robes and sheets on their heads! Thanks to the KKK, any racist--even those not associated with them--is a fucking crazy KKK member in the eyes of most people, a ticket to guaranteed social pariah-dom.
So thank you Fred Phelps and thank you Westboro Baptist Church for showing us all what gay-hate is really about. Thank you for not censoring it behind politeness and "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit. You've done more for gay rights than 1,000 marches by unmasking the true face of bigotry to the public. You're a showcase of what most fundamentalist Christians are thinking but are afraid to say outright, and you're shaming them by showing them and everyone else the true ridiculousness of their hatred.
Jordan vs. Goodkind
In a world that is not earth, (Rand Al'Thor/Richard Cypher) discovers that he is the foretold (Dragon Reborn/War Wizard) of prophecy, able to wield powers not seen for thousands of years. For his quest to defeat (Ba'alzamon/The Keeper), (Moiraine Damodred/Zeddicus Z'ul Zorander), a powerful (Aes Sedai/Wizard) provide support and guidance as the (Black Ajah/Sisters of the Dark) and other forces of (Ba'alzamon/The Keeper) attempt to stand in his way, hoping to release their imprisoned master from (Shayol Ghul/The Underworld) so that he may bring eternal death and blight onto the world.
They Are Not the Same
How many times have you heard the phrase "both the Democrats and Republicans are the same!"? It's usually used when a political discussion comes to an impasse, or when someone wants to push their favorite third party.
But this "both parties are the same" idea is bullshit. Don't get me wrong, no party is perfect. Every party in power in corrupt to some degree, but one party has caused more harm than the other by far.
One party is populist, the other is corporatist.
One party fights for the rich, one fights for the poor.
One party has fallen off the intellectual deep end, tying a religious message to their political platform, and one party still has some semblance of rational thought in it's ranks.
Only one party has denigrated the value of truth itself, believing that a lie that promotes the agenda is better than a truth that works against it.
Only one party has, on multiple occasions, stated that they would rather see more Americans lose their jobs and our economy completely crash than have their ideas proven wrong.
Only one party is responsible for the vast majority of our current deficit, and then turns around and uses the result of their mis-management as proof that their "small government" ideals need to be implemented even more.
Only one party has launched vicious attacks on any organization that promotes regular people pooling their resources for the common good, whether it be in the form of public television, social welfare programs, or labor unions.
Only one party invented and implemented a racist "southern strategy" in order to use white southerners' fear of voting african-americans to increase it's power.
Only one party is home to the borderline racist, reality-challenged tea party.
Only one party fights tooth-and-nail against a woman's right to choose whether or not to have her rapist's baby.
Only one party fights tooth-and-nail to deny a significant portion of the population the right to get married, solely because that kind of sex is against some peoples' religion.
Only one party pushes for pseudo-science like creationism to be taught in schools.
Only one party openly attempts to re-write American history, painting our founders as a group of fundamentalist Christian theocratists instead of enlightenment-influenced Deists.
Only one party finds one of its members suggesting that the poor shouldn't vote completely acceptable.
Make no mistake. One party is most definitely worse than the other. Believing otherwise keeps those who are sick of the insanity that is American politics away from the polls: one of the few, dwindling places where we the people can still make a difference. Staying away from the polls due to a belief that you're just voting for the "lesser of two evils" is what keeps the greater of two evils in power.
But this "both parties are the same" idea is bullshit. Don't get me wrong, no party is perfect. Every party in power in corrupt to some degree, but one party has caused more harm than the other by far.
One party is populist, the other is corporatist.
One party fights for the rich, one fights for the poor.
One party has fallen off the intellectual deep end, tying a religious message to their political platform, and one party still has some semblance of rational thought in it's ranks.
Only one party has denigrated the value of truth itself, believing that a lie that promotes the agenda is better than a truth that works against it.
Only one party has, on multiple occasions, stated that they would rather see more Americans lose their jobs and our economy completely crash than have their ideas proven wrong.
Only one party is responsible for the vast majority of our current deficit, and then turns around and uses the result of their mis-management as proof that their "small government" ideals need to be implemented even more.
Only one party has launched vicious attacks on any organization that promotes regular people pooling their resources for the common good, whether it be in the form of public television, social welfare programs, or labor unions.
Only one party invented and implemented a racist "southern strategy" in order to use white southerners' fear of voting african-americans to increase it's power.
Only one party is home to the borderline racist, reality-challenged tea party.
Only one party fights tooth-and-nail against a woman's right to choose whether or not to have her rapist's baby.
Only one party fights tooth-and-nail to deny a significant portion of the population the right to get married, solely because that kind of sex is against some peoples' religion.
Only one party pushes for pseudo-science like creationism to be taught in schools.
Only one party openly attempts to re-write American history, painting our founders as a group of fundamentalist Christian theocratists instead of enlightenment-influenced Deists.
Only one party finds one of its members suggesting that the poor shouldn't vote completely acceptable.
Make no mistake. One party is most definitely worse than the other. Believing otherwise keeps those who are sick of the insanity that is American politics away from the polls: one of the few, dwindling places where we the people can still make a difference. Staying away from the polls due to a belief that you're just voting for the "lesser of two evils" is what keeps the greater of two evils in power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)