The 2007 debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alistair McGrath had, as most well structured debates do, a few smart questions. I cannot and will never be able to do better than the great late Hitch, but there was a question which sparked my thoughts while also not being full satisfied with Hitchens's response.
McGrath makes a point where the human sacrifice of Jesus as a means of absolving all of their sins, past, present, and future, is an invitation for us to accept. That is is not imposed upon us.
This here is the height of sophistry. It almost falls into the realm of Poe's Law. It is so extreme in its dogma that it would be impossible to tell if it is the unvarnished truth of a true believer or a complete satire. Not imposed upon us? That's rich. These are words which can only be spoken by a man who will lie about knowing what god thinks and then humble himself by saying, "We're all only interpreters."
The Christian reasons is as follows: Jesus died for your sins. These are sins which you were born with. You have no say in the matter of whether or not you have sin. It has already been decided that you have and there's no protesting it. Lucky for you, God has given you the free will to choose: support his sacrificed son and be washed clean of your sins or reject the heavenly and divine offer and suffer an eternity of torment. Again, you cannot argue with the sins you were born with. You have them and now you must choose: the light or hell?
It is a sickening game to play with the weak minded adults in our communities. The low standing of any human who plays this game with children, though, is something almost incomprehensible. Of course, we can now comprehend this, as we have seen priests who preach this fear while also sexually abusing children. That's right, as these men know of their sin and have accepted Jesus, purifying them of all their wrong actions.
Freedom of choice is something that can only exist when there is no act of coercion taking place. Philosophers have recognized this for centuries. To have an expression of free will, we must have no burdens on our choices beyond our own assessments of the outcomes. There is no free will when you threaten violence! "It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again." It's not a free choice to put the lotion into the basket as the consequence for not doing so is influencing the decision. The same applies to the question of free will to accept or reject Jesus as a savior. The threat of eternal, everlasting anguish is a coercive measure to ensure people will comply. But not only comply, but follow with the intent on getting others around them to do it too. Why? It's fine if you avoid the punishment, but do you want to see your spouse? Your parents? Your children? Absolutely not.
After all, you cannot argue about your original sin. You cannot avoid it. You can only deal with it by accepting a human sacrifice or suffering forever. It may not be imposed on us, but it surely does have the odds stacked in one direction. Mind you, most of this was not an issue until Jesus came along. Before Jesus, when you sinned, God was quick to punish you in the only life you had. It took Jesus to bring about the afterlife and the threat of a "second death". It wasn't until Jesus that we had everlasting Hell to send those who disagreed with the many contradictory statements made. Even with Jesus, where you can be forgiven of all your sins and errors and mistakes, there was still one thing you could never be forgiven for: unbelief. If you rejected the whole lot you were again sentenced to an afterlife of mutilation and pain. What kind of just being would impose that on its creation?
Sorry, was that "impose"? I mean, force its creation to choose. No, I will not have it for myself. I reject the very premise that comes from. I am not born into sin because of the acts of some long past man or woman. I do not even inherit the sins of my parents. No one does and we would do better to remember that when filthy faith comes knocking.
This is a weak game which is rigged from the start; failure to adhere to the rules is not a no-contest, but an automatic loss. Call it out for what it is: another tactic used to trick and trap the credulous into a system of belief that will never fully satisfy them. That is, not unless everyone else also believes it.
This has been a unedited rant. @nrokchi
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Post 35 -- Social Justice Has Achieved Its Own Negation
With Hillary Clinton running for the Democratic nomination for the 2016 Presidential Election, I went ahead and picked up Christopher Hitchens's No One Left To Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton. The original purpose of this was to discover any actions of Mrs. Clinton which may be pertinent to her running for President--and bringing Mr. Clinton back into the White House in the process. The term triangulation refers to the promise of one action and following up with a second action which purposely fails to achieve the original promise.
Then I come across Arthur Miller's piece in the New York Times from October 15, 1998. In his Op-Ed, Miller compares the Salem witch trails of mythological witch hunting of Satan-tempted towns folk with the impeachment process of Mr. Clinton. Miller writes, and perhaps my second favourite part of this article:
As not to be out-done by over soaking the already soggy cloth of the Salem witch hunts metaphor, Miller brings up a quote by Toni Morrison. He writes as follows:
The era of political correctness has since grown to becomes the mutli-headed hydra of "social justice", the Orwellian term which speaks of grand improvements but has utterly failed after being co-opted by narcissists. Do we have the Arthur Miller moment in social justice to claim it has negated itself? Of course we have.
Social justice is an amorphous idea which aims to bring greater equality. This does not necessarily mean the tide which raises all boats. While some might believe that to be the case, we must recognize that, for example, the pursuit of economic equality will come at a cost to some. Economist and American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks believes social justice is ultimately about income redistribution. This has some validity, but is tangential to this conversation. The social justice ideology, however, is vastly different in practice than in theory. After all, who can be against something as noble as social justice? We all want justice for ourselves and our communities. In practice we see a different result.
Bahar Mustafa, Diversity Office at Goldsmiths University in the United Kingdom, describes herself as an "ethnic minority woman". Following this statement, she defiantly proclaims she cannot be sexist or racist against white men as women of colour cannot benefit from being racist or sexist against white men. Here we have a social justice push to bring up the voices and lived experiences of all people--unless you are a white man, then you do not need that platform. No, no; it's not because you do not have valid lived experiences with the immense social pressure to succeed (which drives men to vastly higher rates of suicide), but because you are white and are male. Any understanding of racism or sexism would make Ms. Mustafa's statement vapid and longing for oxygen; to judge a person's place in society or experiences solely on the basis of their gender or race is by definition sexist and racist.
The United Kingdom is not done representing the downward spiral of logic: This is what a feminist looks like t-shirt debacle is one of the top contenders in a rich field of competition for both irony and hypocrisy. The simple of aim of throwing a piece of cloth of your body was to show that anyone could be a feminist, akin to throwing a cross around your neck to show you're a Christian (of unknown denomination). This self-righteous rag of the faith was sold--or, perhaps, 'tithed'--to interested parties for £45 ($71.98 USD; now on sale internationally for about $20 USD). The textile company Compagnie Mauricienne de Textile in collaboration with Elle magazine put on the stunt.
Surely a shirt with a strong political message in regards to the fight for equality would be produced in equitable conditions? Sorely mistaken, dear reader. The small island nation and former French colony of Mauritius is the home of the production facility owned by Compagnie Mauricienne de Textile. The women working in the facility earned the equivalent of 62p (or $0.99) an hour. The idea of bringing up the oppressed with economic equality does not extend to the natural beauty of Mauritius, it seems.
The abyss is not done staring back: "race relations". The Young Turks, a YouTube avant garde news channel, brought the discussion to a new place when 'reporting' on a New York private school. Fieldston Lower School, beginning at grade three, separates children into "racial affinity groups" during classes so the children can discuss their experiences with their race--eight year old children will talk frankly about their experiences? It would seem to me that focusing on the race as being the defining factor of one's lived experiences only magnifies the impact of race, a great loss to the richness of individuality. This in of it self would be an auto-negation of social justice, as the universal principles of equality transcend race. Nonetheless, the ravenous darkness creeps forward.
Both guests support the idea of segregating children. Becca Frucht and Ana Kasparian give a glowing example of Wilkinson's Law, whereby forcing dogmatic belief in these young children in regards to race is the best approach to beating out other dogmatic views from taking hold; "I think it's definitely important to reach children when their ideology is still malleable." The demagoguery of the far left is self consuming: advocate for progressive equality, but do so by targeting children with messages of societal constructed differences between races and genders and loudly claim a managerial role because the parents are racists. In case the horse was not high enough, the recommendation is made to include parents into this (re-) education program.
The drive for equality peaked prior to the ubiquity of the internet. Communication has brought in more voices and more spaces for those voices, but has resulted in a lower quality product. Rights are universal and are not contingent upon one's race, gender, wealth, or nationality. Forcing the conversation to be about race or gender elevates the role those play in how others view larger, complex issues. In the process, the emphasis on a dermatological subdivision or whether or not you have a Y chromosome justifies the elimination of the non-preferred group. Ms. Mustafa, The Young Turks, and over priced t-shirts are only a few examples of the current trend: social justice has achieved its own negation.
Then I come across Arthur Miller's piece in the New York Times from October 15, 1998. In his Op-Ed, Miller compares the Salem witch trails of mythological witch hunting of Satan-tempted towns folk with the impeachment process of Mr. Clinton. Miller writes, and perhaps my second favourite part of this article:
"It was a volcanic explosion of repressed steam that gave people license to speak openly in court of what formerly would have been shamefully caged in their hearts -- for example, the woman who testified that her neighbor flew in through her window one balmy night and lay upon her and had his way. Suddenly this was godly testimony, and the work of heaven was to kill the neighbor."On its own it illustrates the insanity of the process of doling out God's justice on credulous people--as if individual mortals had the power to adjudicate the lives in totality of the people who were believed to have contact with a never seen, only spoken of, dual-phallused demon. Miller, however, uses this quip to undercut--a spectacular stroke which took more turf than ball--the "fiercely exact" Starr report. What's missed, and perhaps this speaks to his age, was the difference between the doomsday mythology and circumstantial accusations and that of non-circumstantial DNA evidence.
As not to be out-done by over soaking the already soggy cloth of the Salem witch hunts metaphor, Miller brings up a quote by Toni Morrison. He writes as follows:
"Then there is the color element. Mr. Clinton, according to Toni Morrison, the Nobel Prize-winning novelist, is our first black President, the first to come from the broken home, the alcoholic mother, the under-the-bridge shadows of our ranking systems. He is also the most relaxed and unaffected with black people, whose company and culture he clearly enjoys."I hunted down the original quote. Ms. Morrison published the piece in The New Yorker October 5, 1998. She wrote:
"Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."I am unsure how you can mince this up to claim Ms. Morrison was not attempting to claim Mr. Clinton as black. Even when writing with a passive voice, "murmurs" from the next table style, it was laid out clear. This is our first black President. Let us quickly compare what was said by Ms. Morrison to that of Mr. Miller. Rather than a "single-parent home" (Morrison), we have an "alcoholic mother" and "broken home" (Miller); "McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving" (Morrison) becomes the malicious shadowy "under-the-bridge" motif. What Ms. Morrison describes as tropes, leaving it open for whatever post-modernist lens you wish to apply, Mr. Miller instead makes stereotypical character claims. This leaves Hitchens to conclude, "political correctness has achieved its own negation."
The era of political correctness has since grown to becomes the mutli-headed hydra of "social justice", the Orwellian term which speaks of grand improvements but has utterly failed after being co-opted by narcissists. Do we have the Arthur Miller moment in social justice to claim it has negated itself? Of course we have.
Social justice is an amorphous idea which aims to bring greater equality. This does not necessarily mean the tide which raises all boats. While some might believe that to be the case, we must recognize that, for example, the pursuit of economic equality will come at a cost to some. Economist and American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks believes social justice is ultimately about income redistribution. This has some validity, but is tangential to this conversation. The social justice ideology, however, is vastly different in practice than in theory. After all, who can be against something as noble as social justice? We all want justice for ourselves and our communities. In practice we see a different result.
Bahar Mustafa, Diversity Office at Goldsmiths University in the United Kingdom, describes herself as an "ethnic minority woman". Following this statement, she defiantly proclaims she cannot be sexist or racist against white men as women of colour cannot benefit from being racist or sexist against white men. Here we have a social justice push to bring up the voices and lived experiences of all people--unless you are a white man, then you do not need that platform. No, no; it's not because you do not have valid lived experiences with the immense social pressure to succeed (which drives men to vastly higher rates of suicide), but because you are white and are male. Any understanding of racism or sexism would make Ms. Mustafa's statement vapid and longing for oxygen; to judge a person's place in society or experiences solely on the basis of their gender or race is by definition sexist and racist.
The United Kingdom is not done representing the downward spiral of logic: This is what a feminist looks like t-shirt debacle is one of the top contenders in a rich field of competition for both irony and hypocrisy. The simple of aim of throwing a piece of cloth of your body was to show that anyone could be a feminist, akin to throwing a cross around your neck to show you're a Christian (of unknown denomination). This self-righteous rag of the faith was sold--or, perhaps, 'tithed'--to interested parties for £45 ($71.98 USD; now on sale internationally for about $20 USD). The textile company Compagnie Mauricienne de Textile in collaboration with Elle magazine put on the stunt.
Surely a shirt with a strong political message in regards to the fight for equality would be produced in equitable conditions? Sorely mistaken, dear reader. The small island nation and former French colony of Mauritius is the home of the production facility owned by Compagnie Mauricienne de Textile. The women working in the facility earned the equivalent of 62p (or $0.99) an hour. The idea of bringing up the oppressed with economic equality does not extend to the natural beauty of Mauritius, it seems.
The abyss is not done staring back: "race relations". The Young Turks, a YouTube avant garde news channel, brought the discussion to a new place when 'reporting' on a New York private school. Fieldston Lower School, beginning at grade three, separates children into "racial affinity groups" during classes so the children can discuss their experiences with their race--eight year old children will talk frankly about their experiences? It would seem to me that focusing on the race as being the defining factor of one's lived experiences only magnifies the impact of race, a great loss to the richness of individuality. This in of it self would be an auto-negation of social justice, as the universal principles of equality transcend race. Nonetheless, the ravenous darkness creeps forward.
Both guests support the idea of segregating children. Becca Frucht and Ana Kasparian give a glowing example of Wilkinson's Law, whereby forcing dogmatic belief in these young children in regards to race is the best approach to beating out other dogmatic views from taking hold; "I think it's definitely important to reach children when their ideology is still malleable." The demagoguery of the far left is self consuming: advocate for progressive equality, but do so by targeting children with messages of societal constructed differences between races and genders and loudly claim a managerial role because the parents are racists. In case the horse was not high enough, the recommendation is made to include parents into this (re-) education program.
The drive for equality peaked prior to the ubiquity of the internet. Communication has brought in more voices and more spaces for those voices, but has resulted in a lower quality product. Rights are universal and are not contingent upon one's race, gender, wealth, or nationality. Forcing the conversation to be about race or gender elevates the role those play in how others view larger, complex issues. In the process, the emphasis on a dermatological subdivision or whether or not you have a Y chromosome justifies the elimination of the non-preferred group. Ms. Mustafa, The Young Turks, and over priced t-shirts are only a few examples of the current trend: social justice has achieved its own negation.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Post 34 -- Gashing remarks
Let us begin by looking at a pointed statement by my close friend:
There's much more to this conversation that isn't going to be shared, but I will help the context along by noting it does not come from a place of malice. He's astute, witty, and uncompromising when it comes to the things that matter to him. I'm lucky to be one of those things.
It did get me thinking. My first response was to write out a sizable reply on how it isn't all that bad. I rationalized away the points I responded to and flat out ignored the other points. Yes, I am originally from Canada and have moved to the United States. I love the United States and am proud to call it home. Perhaps one day I may even be able to say, "My fellow Americans." I moved from the greatest state in the union--that's Oregon, by the way--to one of the most notorious for its political corruption, environmental degradation, and pious take on personal affairs: North Carolina. There's no rationalization to make here. My wife was accepted to the best school in the nation for her Masters program. It is exploration and adventure for me as I move about the United States, visiting historic towns, like Willmington, NC, Nag's Head, NC, and Savannah, GA. We have plans to see Washington, DC this summer. Living on this side of the country isn't my first choice, but while here I will enjoy it by exploring it.
I am not going to discuss my degree at this time. There's nothing to gain from it here. I will say that I have decided to pursue another degree which will bring me a great deal of career satisfaction.
The toughest point made was the house elf comment. Like most humans, I have hobbies. Hobbies are vital to happiness. Take away those hobbies and life is less enjoyable. I have had to sacrifice my hobby time to work on chores and errands. With my wife's schooling, I am left to do the housework, the shopping, the purchases, the driving, the laundry, the money management, and the cooking. This is the balance of power in the house currently and is by no means a permanent situation. At least, I will not be, even if it is a unilateral decision by me.
The burden of managing a home while working consumes most of my free time. Living 3 hours ahead of my left coast friends makes it difficult to plan for activities. This is where my happiness is conquered by frustration. The frustration which spirals downwards as I work on the house cleaning to find additional--yet, entirely avoidable--work. There is an inherent lack of fairness when one gives up their free time to help another. Made worse by a lack of appreciation for it.
Let me be clear here: my wife appreciates that I have unloaded the housework off of her, freeing her up to study. My qualms were always push aside by a stoic drive. I had no desire to complain about the work I had to do. Now, however, I think there are things that must be changed. The work is not appreciated when careless acts result in additional work. The work is not appreciated when there are eye rolls, comments, and exasperations over the inconvenience caused during the cleaning. The work is not appreciated when there is little effort repaid to allow for a making up of lost time from hobbies.
My frustration comes from here. When I start my intensive study, my wife will have to assume the roll I currently have, that of working and managing the house. Once I am done with my schooling, the balance will be restored. The remarks made by Dave brought about the realization that I should do more to set the expectations around this house when it comes to assisting with housework. I should not have to do it all; it doesn't matter if there is class five days a week or three days a week. Minor efforts matter. Failing to assist is a lack of appreciation of the work I do around here. It is on me to make that clear, something I have not yet done.
Stoicism is good for managing your disposition. When it fails, though, the person behind it is often an emotional fool. That was me today. It did not help that my cat decided to dance with me while I was putting away some dishes and ended up severely denting a saucepan. It's just stuff and it is still usable. Addressing issues while being stoic can be difficult, as such a mind will not look upon problems negatively. When we see there are issues around the situation contributing to the worsen of a problem then that is the time to be aware and to speak up. Something I need to do.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
You also had no luck in finding rewarding work in your field after 7+ years of school. You were just forced to move countries to be with your wife, and then across said country to remain with her. In your new home there is fuckall for good work and you're stuck being a box jockey with a wonky back. On top of all that you're a gd house elf for a good part of your day.
There's much more to this conversation that isn't going to be shared, but I will help the context along by noting it does not come from a place of malice. He's astute, witty, and uncompromising when it comes to the things that matter to him. I'm lucky to be one of those things.
It did get me thinking. My first response was to write out a sizable reply on how it isn't all that bad. I rationalized away the points I responded to and flat out ignored the other points. Yes, I am originally from Canada and have moved to the United States. I love the United States and am proud to call it home. Perhaps one day I may even be able to say, "My fellow Americans." I moved from the greatest state in the union--that's Oregon, by the way--to one of the most notorious for its political corruption, environmental degradation, and pious take on personal affairs: North Carolina. There's no rationalization to make here. My wife was accepted to the best school in the nation for her Masters program. It is exploration and adventure for me as I move about the United States, visiting historic towns, like Willmington, NC, Nag's Head, NC, and Savannah, GA. We have plans to see Washington, DC this summer. Living on this side of the country isn't my first choice, but while here I will enjoy it by exploring it.
I am not going to discuss my degree at this time. There's nothing to gain from it here. I will say that I have decided to pursue another degree which will bring me a great deal of career satisfaction.
The toughest point made was the house elf comment. Like most humans, I have hobbies. Hobbies are vital to happiness. Take away those hobbies and life is less enjoyable. I have had to sacrifice my hobby time to work on chores and errands. With my wife's schooling, I am left to do the housework, the shopping, the purchases, the driving, the laundry, the money management, and the cooking. This is the balance of power in the house currently and is by no means a permanent situation. At least, I will not be, even if it is a unilateral decision by me.
The burden of managing a home while working consumes most of my free time. Living 3 hours ahead of my left coast friends makes it difficult to plan for activities. This is where my happiness is conquered by frustration. The frustration which spirals downwards as I work on the house cleaning to find additional--yet, entirely avoidable--work. There is an inherent lack of fairness when one gives up their free time to help another. Made worse by a lack of appreciation for it.
Let me be clear here: my wife appreciates that I have unloaded the housework off of her, freeing her up to study. My qualms were always push aside by a stoic drive. I had no desire to complain about the work I had to do. Now, however, I think there are things that must be changed. The work is not appreciated when careless acts result in additional work. The work is not appreciated when there are eye rolls, comments, and exasperations over the inconvenience caused during the cleaning. The work is not appreciated when there is little effort repaid to allow for a making up of lost time from hobbies.
My frustration comes from here. When I start my intensive study, my wife will have to assume the roll I currently have, that of working and managing the house. Once I am done with my schooling, the balance will be restored. The remarks made by Dave brought about the realization that I should do more to set the expectations around this house when it comes to assisting with housework. I should not have to do it all; it doesn't matter if there is class five days a week or three days a week. Minor efforts matter. Failing to assist is a lack of appreciation of the work I do around here. It is on me to make that clear, something I have not yet done.
Stoicism is good for managing your disposition. When it fails, though, the person behind it is often an emotional fool. That was me today. It did not help that my cat decided to dance with me while I was putting away some dishes and ended up severely denting a saucepan. It's just stuff and it is still usable. Addressing issues while being stoic can be difficult, as such a mind will not look upon problems negatively. When we see there are issues around the situation contributing to the worsen of a problem then that is the time to be aware and to speak up. Something I need to do.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Post 33 -- Morality's place in secularism
I am not one who spends his working time listening to music. This is a habit that I lost when I was much younger. There was something enjoyable about listening to talk radio, sports radio, or podcasts in that it filled the dead space around with human conversation on matters of interest to me. It struck me when I was probably 16 when I was with my peers in a high school social studies class. My classmates had little interest in the world around them and possessed either indifference or fervent opinions on current events. How could they have such opinions while openly admitting they had little knowledge on the subject? The best way to remedy this was to dive into the opinions of others, listen carefully, hear objections, and place a reasonable assessment on the whole matter to distill one's own opinion on the issue. Talk radio and podcasts did well for me in this arena.
These practices remain today. Rather than listening to the next hot band or the overproduced music on large commercial radio (a dying beast), I utilize YouTube to listen to past debates, current news/satire shows, and individual content creators to hear opinions and facts which are used to support them. Today I was listening to another Hitchens debate, this time with Mark Roberts on the Hugh Hewitt show. Hitch is exceptional when it comes to this particular arena spectacle, but there are times I find he may have been better served being more explicit. Early into the conversation, there was two pressing points on human morality: how and why. Just prior to this debate I was listening to Dennis Prager, an annoying man whose lack of mental flexibility shows his the rigidity and frailty of his archaic beliefs. Prager, just as Hewitt, attempted to get Hitchens to explain why we have morality. It left me wanting to put my own thoughts down.
How is it humans have morality?
It certainly is not because of a god creating us with it, to start. It seems to me that proposition is, as it is in almost in case regarding the role or place of god, superfluous. Starting at the most basic assumptions about humans, we must first look to our origin. Humans have evolved over many millions of years, from lowly origins far down to the trunk of the tree of life. We are mammals, all of us. As such, we share a set of behaviours with other mammals which, far from making us unique, contribute to our shared place on this planet. An example of this is group cohesion. Without the protection of the group for many mammalian species, individuals would be exposed to grave threats. The protection provided by a group will directly aid in the viability and rate of propagation of that species. It follows then that certain social characteristics would develop concurrently to facilitate groups cooperation. This is seen in lower primates. Empathy, something many theists believe is not innate in humans, exists and can be fostered, especially in those who have the needs of survival already met.
The success of the group will continue as long as there are supportive behaviours to those ends. When individuals disrupt that order, there are often immediate consequences for their actions. Looking at spider monkeys, if a low ranking male assaults a preferred or high ranking female, that low ranking male will be ostracized from the group. This leaves him open to predation, limits his access to high yield foraging areas, leaves him exposed to the elements, and loses the much needed bonding and hygiene activity of grooming. This is not a permanent state, however, as the empathy of over like monkeys will eventually come around to aiding the pariah.
These behaviours displayed from monkeys also exist in humans and is explained by an evolutionary process. Without empathy, humans would have never been able to coordinate their efforts to hunt, to band together to build shelters, or to defend themselves from other groups of humans. Family or kin protection reigns supreme here, as we are quick to defend our families more so than we are to defend community members. An interesting quirk, as we then can act in a callous manner our of a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to protecting individuals not part of our family. If a god were to have given humans morality, why is this morality not always present? Why does it care more about our own kin over the innocent children of our enemies?
Why do humans have morality?
A similar but distinct question. I eluded to it above, though: we have morality, such as not killing, thieving, or assaulting individuals within our communities as such acts would erode community cooperation and cohesion. The conclusion to continual attacks on the community would destroy the community and likely all the individuals within it. Why we have morality is truly not some cosmic-level question, but one that is almost entirely answered when we answer how we, as a species, came about. The simple fact is that we would not be here if it were not for innate morality--a morality that can be explained without mention of a creator god. If we did not have morality we would not be here in the form we currently take.
The problem is a top-down vs. bottom-up, a common theme in my writing. Top-down suggest a creator who imbued humans with morality in order for humans to get along. Bottom-up, on the other hand, would suggest moral behaivour set the ground work for the success of our species. Occam's Razor employed here leaves us with the latter of statements; there is a near-infinite number of questions which would come from the top-down proposition, such as the nature of the creator, its interventative conditions, and who created the creator. Conversely, the bottom-up axiom presented has fewer additional questions, but questions which can be currently confidently answered, save the ultimate question of abiogenesis.
It would seem to me, then, that humans have morality and rational capacity to evaluate moral precepts. Religion or belief in a god intervene in these matters, often undermining the rational evaluation of morality and imposing strange or barbaric notions of human conduct. We have seen in our time on this rock we call home period of great adversity to scientific inquiry. When the church was challenged about the place of the Earth in relation to the rest of existence, the church decided it was best to burn people! Years later, we now know we are not the center of the universe or even our own solar system. This human effort in undoing revelation was not enough to shake belief in the supernatural to the ground.
The move now is to impose creation as the cornerstone example of human exceptionalism in a creator's universe. The argument is as follows: the Earth is placed in such a position away from the Sun, with the correct axis, the precise magnetic power, with just enough water, and the mix of oxygen to nitrogen in the air, all the mix of food to support ourselves, a day-night-cycle which is not too long or too short, seasons which are rarely unlivable, and the perceptive skills to survive that there must have been a creator to have life in such a delicate balance.
This is utter nonsense. It comes from the wrong position. If the Earth were closer to the Sun, it would be more like Venus; further, more like Mars. Life exists on this planet because of the conditions which are possible on it. We have seen conditions change on this globe which has driven evolution: at one time, when large trees existed but there was no biological means of decomposition in the form of fungi and bacteria, the Earth has widespread carbon sequestration, driving up the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere. Such a change facilitated, in a nightmarish manner, exceedingly large insects. Now, with the decomposition of trees and the burning of fossil fuels, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has decreased, along with the size of almost every land animal, insects included.
Morality and human understanding of goodness is not an attribute bestowed upon us. Humans have, through evolutionary forces, developed innate morality. Our reason has since fostered our morality to encompass a larger diversity of humans. Without innate morality, humans, as a species, would not exist, nor would any primate leading up to humans. To make the claim humans were created in a matter to possess empathy and morality requires that individuals to prove an endless list of assumptions: who is god, where is this god, why did this god wait, why didn't this god do a better job? So, no Mr. Prager or Mr. Hewitt, human morality is innate because without it there would be no humans. Just as should be expected in a universe which is wholly indifferent to each and every one of us.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
These practices remain today. Rather than listening to the next hot band or the overproduced music on large commercial radio (a dying beast), I utilize YouTube to listen to past debates, current news/satire shows, and individual content creators to hear opinions and facts which are used to support them. Today I was listening to another Hitchens debate, this time with Mark Roberts on the Hugh Hewitt show. Hitch is exceptional when it comes to this particular arena spectacle, but there are times I find he may have been better served being more explicit. Early into the conversation, there was two pressing points on human morality: how and why. Just prior to this debate I was listening to Dennis Prager, an annoying man whose lack of mental flexibility shows his the rigidity and frailty of his archaic beliefs. Prager, just as Hewitt, attempted to get Hitchens to explain why we have morality. It left me wanting to put my own thoughts down.
How is it humans have morality?
It certainly is not because of a god creating us with it, to start. It seems to me that proposition is, as it is in almost in case regarding the role or place of god, superfluous. Starting at the most basic assumptions about humans, we must first look to our origin. Humans have evolved over many millions of years, from lowly origins far down to the trunk of the tree of life. We are mammals, all of us. As such, we share a set of behaviours with other mammals which, far from making us unique, contribute to our shared place on this planet. An example of this is group cohesion. Without the protection of the group for many mammalian species, individuals would be exposed to grave threats. The protection provided by a group will directly aid in the viability and rate of propagation of that species. It follows then that certain social characteristics would develop concurrently to facilitate groups cooperation. This is seen in lower primates. Empathy, something many theists believe is not innate in humans, exists and can be fostered, especially in those who have the needs of survival already met.
The success of the group will continue as long as there are supportive behaviours to those ends. When individuals disrupt that order, there are often immediate consequences for their actions. Looking at spider monkeys, if a low ranking male assaults a preferred or high ranking female, that low ranking male will be ostracized from the group. This leaves him open to predation, limits his access to high yield foraging areas, leaves him exposed to the elements, and loses the much needed bonding and hygiene activity of grooming. This is not a permanent state, however, as the empathy of over like monkeys will eventually come around to aiding the pariah.
These behaviours displayed from monkeys also exist in humans and is explained by an evolutionary process. Without empathy, humans would have never been able to coordinate their efforts to hunt, to band together to build shelters, or to defend themselves from other groups of humans. Family or kin protection reigns supreme here, as we are quick to defend our families more so than we are to defend community members. An interesting quirk, as we then can act in a callous manner our of a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to protecting individuals not part of our family. If a god were to have given humans morality, why is this morality not always present? Why does it care more about our own kin over the innocent children of our enemies?
Why do humans have morality?
A similar but distinct question. I eluded to it above, though: we have morality, such as not killing, thieving, or assaulting individuals within our communities as such acts would erode community cooperation and cohesion. The conclusion to continual attacks on the community would destroy the community and likely all the individuals within it. Why we have morality is truly not some cosmic-level question, but one that is almost entirely answered when we answer how we, as a species, came about. The simple fact is that we would not be here if it were not for innate morality--a morality that can be explained without mention of a creator god. If we did not have morality we would not be here in the form we currently take.
The problem is a top-down vs. bottom-up, a common theme in my writing. Top-down suggest a creator who imbued humans with morality in order for humans to get along. Bottom-up, on the other hand, would suggest moral behaivour set the ground work for the success of our species. Occam's Razor employed here leaves us with the latter of statements; there is a near-infinite number of questions which would come from the top-down proposition, such as the nature of the creator, its interventative conditions, and who created the creator. Conversely, the bottom-up axiom presented has fewer additional questions, but questions which can be currently confidently answered, save the ultimate question of abiogenesis.
It would seem to me, then, that humans have morality and rational capacity to evaluate moral precepts. Religion or belief in a god intervene in these matters, often undermining the rational evaluation of morality and imposing strange or barbaric notions of human conduct. We have seen in our time on this rock we call home period of great adversity to scientific inquiry. When the church was challenged about the place of the Earth in relation to the rest of existence, the church decided it was best to burn people! Years later, we now know we are not the center of the universe or even our own solar system. This human effort in undoing revelation was not enough to shake belief in the supernatural to the ground.
The move now is to impose creation as the cornerstone example of human exceptionalism in a creator's universe. The argument is as follows: the Earth is placed in such a position away from the Sun, with the correct axis, the precise magnetic power, with just enough water, and the mix of oxygen to nitrogen in the air, all the mix of food to support ourselves, a day-night-cycle which is not too long or too short, seasons which are rarely unlivable, and the perceptive skills to survive that there must have been a creator to have life in such a delicate balance.
This is utter nonsense. It comes from the wrong position. If the Earth were closer to the Sun, it would be more like Venus; further, more like Mars. Life exists on this planet because of the conditions which are possible on it. We have seen conditions change on this globe which has driven evolution: at one time, when large trees existed but there was no biological means of decomposition in the form of fungi and bacteria, the Earth has widespread carbon sequestration, driving up the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere. Such a change facilitated, in a nightmarish manner, exceedingly large insects. Now, with the decomposition of trees and the burning of fossil fuels, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has decreased, along with the size of almost every land animal, insects included.
Morality and human understanding of goodness is not an attribute bestowed upon us. Humans have, through evolutionary forces, developed innate morality. Our reason has since fostered our morality to encompass a larger diversity of humans. Without innate morality, humans, as a species, would not exist, nor would any primate leading up to humans. To make the claim humans were created in a matter to possess empathy and morality requires that individuals to prove an endless list of assumptions: who is god, where is this god, why did this god wait, why didn't this god do a better job? So, no Mr. Prager or Mr. Hewitt, human morality is innate because without it there would be no humans. Just as should be expected in a universe which is wholly indifferent to each and every one of us.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Friday, May 8, 2015
Post 32 -- Laws of the Internet: Wilkinson's Law
Maybe it is because I am of the generation whose parents decided the emotional nurturing of their children was the most important aspect of child rearing. Maybe it's because I'm an atheist and want some element of myself to live on.
I've looked at radical feminism, social justice, and atheism for the last couple of years. Back in university, while studying forensic psychology, I wrote a paper on sexual assault rates in Canada and the United States. I looked at dozens of sources and attempted to wade through the large number of disparate claims regarding the rates of victimization, the likelihood of victimization through one's life, reporting rates, and so forth. It was not an easy task. Now, at the time, I was also openly debating individuals who were willing on the topic of theism. It is vital to note that theism is a mix of cultural practices mixed with dogmatism towards the reason behind those practices, all tied to a deity or deities. I was uncouth at that age and was rather rude on occasion in my attempts to dispel belief in a god and the dogmatism that goes along with such a belief.
The reason I tie these two together is to emphasize the role of dogmatism. Dogmatism is a central theme in the failure of reason. It is believing what you could reason out to be not true. It stands blindly in the face of facts, logic, and truths in order to preserve an idea or belief. This is not limited to theistic beliefs: any idea or belief can be challenged and the obstinate refusal to listen or allow yourself to reason on the objections made is dogmatic belief. Social justice is included in this: the wage gap, the rape hysteria, the subjugation of women in western culture, and the patriarchy are all examples of ideas which have been challenged but ignored by those whose who hold dearly to the belief in those ideas and systems.
No one is a perfect reasoning machine. We all have some failure of understanding either because of ignorance or stubbornness. Some of us hold onto a dogmatic belief. For me, it's that the Canucks will eventually win the Stanley Cup. Both unfortunately and fortunately we do not hold our beliefs to ourselves. Sharing ideas improves us by the assessments, additions, confirmations, and rejections by others. This works well for those who have developed the reasoning skills to discuss the matters around complex topics, such as social norms. Children do not possess these skills, but it is still important to expose them to ideas. It has been said, in regards to religion, that exposure to one is indoctrination but exposure to many is inoculation. The same can be said about any other meta-set of ideas. Feminism, for example, can be spoken about along with conservatism, Islamic expectations of women in society, and humanist tenants.
This brings me to the whole purpose of this post. Children are especially exposed to new ideas. Most young (i.e., ages 4 through 7) children can understand simple ideas but lack the reasoning skills to understand complex ideas or how to evaluate ideas for their merits. This is known to our society and is the impetus behind why we see many religious organizations with daycare programs, baptisms, and education programs. Social justice also wants to get their ideas in early, too.
So I introduce:
Wilkinson's Law: as an ideology reaches dogmatic adherence, the likelihood of the ideology to target children approaches 1.
This applies not only to fundamental religious beliefs but to internet social justice, political parties, and even capitalistic marketing. As far as I have seen, there was no law coined in this manner. If there is, I will scrap this and give credit to the individual who created the articulated law. Go forth and use this, calling attention to those who look not to spread knowledge and understanding, but to those who want to spread poisonous ideologies to children.
@nrokchi
I've looked at radical feminism, social justice, and atheism for the last couple of years. Back in university, while studying forensic psychology, I wrote a paper on sexual assault rates in Canada and the United States. I looked at dozens of sources and attempted to wade through the large number of disparate claims regarding the rates of victimization, the likelihood of victimization through one's life, reporting rates, and so forth. It was not an easy task. Now, at the time, I was also openly debating individuals who were willing on the topic of theism. It is vital to note that theism is a mix of cultural practices mixed with dogmatism towards the reason behind those practices, all tied to a deity or deities. I was uncouth at that age and was rather rude on occasion in my attempts to dispel belief in a god and the dogmatism that goes along with such a belief.
The reason I tie these two together is to emphasize the role of dogmatism. Dogmatism is a central theme in the failure of reason. It is believing what you could reason out to be not true. It stands blindly in the face of facts, logic, and truths in order to preserve an idea or belief. This is not limited to theistic beliefs: any idea or belief can be challenged and the obstinate refusal to listen or allow yourself to reason on the objections made is dogmatic belief. Social justice is included in this: the wage gap, the rape hysteria, the subjugation of women in western culture, and the patriarchy are all examples of ideas which have been challenged but ignored by those whose who hold dearly to the belief in those ideas and systems.
No one is a perfect reasoning machine. We all have some failure of understanding either because of ignorance or stubbornness. Some of us hold onto a dogmatic belief. For me, it's that the Canucks will eventually win the Stanley Cup. Both unfortunately and fortunately we do not hold our beliefs to ourselves. Sharing ideas improves us by the assessments, additions, confirmations, and rejections by others. This works well for those who have developed the reasoning skills to discuss the matters around complex topics, such as social norms. Children do not possess these skills, but it is still important to expose them to ideas. It has been said, in regards to religion, that exposure to one is indoctrination but exposure to many is inoculation. The same can be said about any other meta-set of ideas. Feminism, for example, can be spoken about along with conservatism, Islamic expectations of women in society, and humanist tenants.
This brings me to the whole purpose of this post. Children are especially exposed to new ideas. Most young (i.e., ages 4 through 7) children can understand simple ideas but lack the reasoning skills to understand complex ideas or how to evaluate ideas for their merits. This is known to our society and is the impetus behind why we see many religious organizations with daycare programs, baptisms, and education programs. Social justice also wants to get their ideas in early, too.
So I introduce:
Wilkinson's Law: as an ideology reaches dogmatic adherence, the likelihood of the ideology to target children approaches 1.
This applies not only to fundamental religious beliefs but to internet social justice, political parties, and even capitalistic marketing. As far as I have seen, there was no law coined in this manner. If there is, I will scrap this and give credit to the individual who created the articulated law. Go forth and use this, calling attention to those who look not to spread knowledge and understanding, but to those who want to spread poisonous ideologies to children.
@nrokchi
Friday, May 1, 2015
Post 31 -- Pointless talk, part one of probably too many
So, I've been thinking about starting up a YouTube channel where I read Reddit's /r/TheRedPill. Not because I'm an adherent, but because of how TRP views the world. It'd be an interesting read.
Post 30 -- Rapid thoughts after the Sargon of Akkad interview with David Pakman
The interview between Sargon of Akkad, otherwise known as Carl Benjamin, and David Pakman can be found here.
First, I want to say a honest thank you to David Pakman for continuing to follow the #GamerGate story, giving it a platform where the stronger voices from the community can speak. I do not think he wanted to bring Sargon on to chide him about this clickbait tweet, but that was a... well, odd part of the conversation.
Second, a hearty cheer for Sargon for being himself and not letting Pakman mischaracterize Sargon's videos, statements, or positions. Rather than play the victim, Sargon stood up for what he believes, and did so in a fair, reasoned, and calm manner.
Off to my take away: Sargon did miss an opportunity to better characterize what #GamerGate has been about. He maintains the reflexive defensive response that #GamerGate is about ethics and corruption in games journalism, only to follow up with rigid focus on those subjects. Honest assessment, even from Sargon in other places, strongly indicates #GamerGate, as Pakman was attempting to talk about, is about two different topic which have been conflated.
#GamerGate is primarily focused on ethics in games journalism. There is no doubt there. Ethics, cronyism, corruption, and nepotism comprise 80%+ of #GamerGate's focus. That is a simple and rather focused list with clear and direct actionable steps to correct issues surrounding them. The other 20%-ish of #GamerGate is about dogmatic social justice attempting to shape gaming. This topic is so much more broad, with many more facets, elements, and variables, that it gives the impression of superiority. Ask anyone in #GamerGate what the purpose is and you will hear about ethics. Read Twitter feeds, watch YouTube videos, and browse blog posts and you'll see much more discussion around dogmatic ideology and how it is attempting to dictate how games ought to be made, played, and sold.
Pakman see this trend and asked Sargon about it. Unfortunately, Sargon remained driven to hammer home the point of ethics. Good on him for that, but the rigidity of that move leaves outsiders curious as to why the obvious concurrent discussion about feminism is not being talked about. An important point was made, however, when Sargon emphasized people can compartmentalize their world views as so they do not overlap into other political arenas. This does not describe or help us to understand why there is a vast amount of discussion around feminism and social justice in regards to games and gaming culture.
Dogmatism is a problem in all walks of life. It has infected gaming in a few ways, most notably are the anti-violence people and now the anti-"sexism" people. It is vital to identify dogmatism where it occurs so it may be weeded out appropriately. Not by vile or aggressive tactics, but by clear demonstration of the ill effects of dogmatic believe and action, leaving the final conclusions to be found by the people who are curious. I openly accept you cannot win everyone over to your side of an argument, either because of lived experience, deep indoctrination, fear of appearance, or indifference. It isn't my job to tell people what to think, but I do take it upon myself to reason out problems, lay out my facts, state my conclusions, and let the final impression be accepted or rejected by onlookers.
One more major point before I wrap up here: what is this fucking spineless shit, Sargon? "Saying it in a video is different from saying it to someone's face." Sargon, if you cannot say it to their face, then you have no grounds on saying it in a video, either earnestly or mockingly. You laid out in a brilliant and humorous manner how Matt Binder is a fucking idiot. Randomly I will hear his voice in my head screaming "Chattel!" because of that video. You demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Binder earned that criticism. Don't back off of it because you're playing polite. Says something coming from a Canadian, too.
Last points: I wonder if Sargon is about to take the big leap into a professional role? I have been following Sargon now for about 16 months after one of his videos popped up in the suggested section after I watched a video by Thunderf00t. There was a Google Hangout one time where his name did come up as Carl, but I had never heard his name or saw his face otherwise. It's curious with the timing of his son, Daniel, and suddenly he's willing to show his face? Also, why the hell hasn't he been showing his face? I think too many Al Borland references.
I don't think so, Jim. #GamerGate
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
First, I want to say a honest thank you to David Pakman for continuing to follow the #GamerGate story, giving it a platform where the stronger voices from the community can speak. I do not think he wanted to bring Sargon on to chide him about this clickbait tweet, but that was a... well, odd part of the conversation.
Second, a hearty cheer for Sargon for being himself and not letting Pakman mischaracterize Sargon's videos, statements, or positions. Rather than play the victim, Sargon stood up for what he believes, and did so in a fair, reasoned, and calm manner.
Off to my take away: Sargon did miss an opportunity to better characterize what #GamerGate has been about. He maintains the reflexive defensive response that #GamerGate is about ethics and corruption in games journalism, only to follow up with rigid focus on those subjects. Honest assessment, even from Sargon in other places, strongly indicates #GamerGate, as Pakman was attempting to talk about, is about two different topic which have been conflated.
#GamerGate is primarily focused on ethics in games journalism. There is no doubt there. Ethics, cronyism, corruption, and nepotism comprise 80%+ of #GamerGate's focus. That is a simple and rather focused list with clear and direct actionable steps to correct issues surrounding them. The other 20%-ish of #GamerGate is about dogmatic social justice attempting to shape gaming. This topic is so much more broad, with many more facets, elements, and variables, that it gives the impression of superiority. Ask anyone in #GamerGate what the purpose is and you will hear about ethics. Read Twitter feeds, watch YouTube videos, and browse blog posts and you'll see much more discussion around dogmatic ideology and how it is attempting to dictate how games ought to be made, played, and sold.
Pakman see this trend and asked Sargon about it. Unfortunately, Sargon remained driven to hammer home the point of ethics. Good on him for that, but the rigidity of that move leaves outsiders curious as to why the obvious concurrent discussion about feminism is not being talked about. An important point was made, however, when Sargon emphasized people can compartmentalize their world views as so they do not overlap into other political arenas. This does not describe or help us to understand why there is a vast amount of discussion around feminism and social justice in regards to games and gaming culture.
Dogmatism is a problem in all walks of life. It has infected gaming in a few ways, most notably are the anti-violence people and now the anti-"sexism" people. It is vital to identify dogmatism where it occurs so it may be weeded out appropriately. Not by vile or aggressive tactics, but by clear demonstration of the ill effects of dogmatic believe and action, leaving the final conclusions to be found by the people who are curious. I openly accept you cannot win everyone over to your side of an argument, either because of lived experience, deep indoctrination, fear of appearance, or indifference. It isn't my job to tell people what to think, but I do take it upon myself to reason out problems, lay out my facts, state my conclusions, and let the final impression be accepted or rejected by onlookers.
One more major point before I wrap up here: what is this fucking spineless shit, Sargon? "Saying it in a video is different from saying it to someone's face." Sargon, if you cannot say it to their face, then you have no grounds on saying it in a video, either earnestly or mockingly. You laid out in a brilliant and humorous manner how Matt Binder is a fucking idiot. Randomly I will hear his voice in my head screaming "Chattel!" because of that video. You demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Binder earned that criticism. Don't back off of it because you're playing polite. Says something coming from a Canadian, too.
Last points: I wonder if Sargon is about to take the big leap into a professional role? I have been following Sargon now for about 16 months after one of his videos popped up in the suggested section after I watched a video by Thunderf00t. There was a Google Hangout one time where his name did come up as Carl, but I had never heard his name or saw his face otherwise. It's curious with the timing of his son, Daniel, and suddenly he's willing to show his face? Also, why the hell hasn't he been showing his face? I think too many Al Borland references.
I don't think so, Jim. #GamerGate
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)