The impact of meat on global warming

Time magazine has a great article on how meat makes global warming worse:

In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions.

I've written a few things on my experiment with complete meatlessness, and how one of my motivations is the environmental impact of raising cattle. As of a few months ago, I started eating white meat again. I never plan to eat pork or beef again regularly, although there will probably be times when I'm trapped somewhere and all they offer is BBQ or something. On the ethics, I suppose I just don't think that birds have the same sort of conscious awareness as mammals like pigs and cows do.

Focus on the Family poon video #2

The last time we saw this poon Stuart Shepard, he was against helping the poor (like Jesus, I guess). This time, he's asking God to smite the Democratic convention with rain. Olbermann had him as the "Worst Person in the World" last night:


You can see the YouTube video of his imprecation below the fold:

I mean, sure, people are starving to death and dying of disease all over the place, but why waste your time asking God to do something about that?

Update on Grassley & ministers investigation

I was reading about additional craziness from John Hagee, and it reminded me of something that I'd written about a while back but forgotten about. First, the article on Hagee divulged much of what I already knew -- that he and his ilk want war with Iran, like, yesterday. Why is it that tying this guy and Parsley around McCain's neck isn't a toxic political millstone? The double standard applied to Rev. Wright and Obama is obvious here.

As I read about Hagee's lavish lifestyle and million-dollar salary, it reminded me of Sen. Grassley's investigation into financial impropriety in "prosperity" churches. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been leading an investigation by the Senate Finance Committee into the finances of six ministries commonly affiliated with "prosperity preaching" with the aim of updating the tax code to appropriately deal with this malfeasance. I admitted a little skepticism at the utility and motives of this investigation when I first read about it. At the time, I said:

I read this the other day and I'm still scratching my head. I mean, I dislike Benny "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" Hinn as much as anyone, and I think the whole lot of those six are probably as corrupt and unethical as it gets. However, I just don't understand the legal power that a Congressperson has to audit the finances of these people.

The IRS? Sure! But Congress...!?!? We'll wait and see if this goes anywhere.

It turns out that three of the six ministries are cooperating, and have until March 31st, according to this press release:

Baucus and Grassley lead the committee with exclusive Senate jurisdiction over tax policy; the ministry inquiry that Grassley launched last November is meant to gauge the effectiveness of certain tax-exempt policies.

“This ought to clear up any misunderstanding about our interest and the committee’s role,” Grassley said. “We have an obligation to oversee how the tax laws are working for both tax-exempt organizations and taxpayers. Just like with reviews of other tax-exempt organizations in recent years, I look forward to the cooperation of these ministries in the weeks and months ahead.”

Grassley wrote to six ministries on Nov. 5, 2007, asking a series of questions on the nonprofit organizations’ expenses, treatment of donations and business practices. The questions were based on presentations of material from watchdog groups and whistleblowers and on investigative reports in local media outlets. One of the six ministries – Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo. – has cooperated substantially with his request and provided the requested information. Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas, has indicated a willingness to cooperate and provided answers to
five of the 28 questions so far.

Representatives for Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church/Paula White Ministries, Tampa, Fla., verbally have indicated to Finance Committee staff that they will cooperate. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to thank them for the verbal commitment and to reiterate the committee’s role.

The remaining three ministries have not cooperated, citing privacy protections or questioning the committee’s standing to request the information. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to describe the committee’s jurisdiction and role in determining the effectiveness of tax policy developed by the committee, distinct from the Internal Revenue Service’s role, which is to enforce existing law. The three ministries are: Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Newark, Texas; Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International / Creflo Dollar Ministries College Park, Ga.; and Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church/Eddie L. Long Ministries, Lithonia, Ga.

The committee’s jurisdiction includes the federal tax policy governing the billions of dollars donated to and controlled by the nation’s tax-exempt groups. The federal government forgoes the collection of billions of dollars to tax-exempt organizations every year.

It doesn't surprise me much about the Copelands or the Dollars. I don't know anything about Long, but I am quite familiar with Copeland and his reputation. I was pleasantly surprised about Hinn -- I figured him for one of those likeliest to resist, rather than cooperate. Randy and Paula White have faced enough personal problems recently with the divorce, so facing additional (scandalous) financial ones was probably a smart decision they made.

While you can read the pseudo-justifications for refusing to cooperate proffered by Creflo and Ken at their own sites, Eddie offers no such attempt at saving face. A little digging finds that some of these jokers are getting paid over $1M salaries. Fuc*ing absurd. Long's church has a gym inside ("Samson's Gym") that offers memberships and massages (all for a large fee, of course) -- the divisions between business and church blurred for these individuals long ago.

More animal outrage

I just read the CNN article about the largest beef recall in American history, and watching the accompanying video made me want to cry and punch the slaughterhouse workers at the same time. They take these poor sick diseased animals that are unable to stand and jab them with electric prods, stab them with forklifts, drag them by ropes attached to one foot...

The animals literally scream in pain. It's horrible. If you can't see the ethical implications, you're not capable of rational thought.

If you want to see more animal abuse TV, see here. If you need rational arguments for becoming a vegetarian, or at least cutting meat down to a rare item in your diet, see here. As I said a few months ago, some people just don't understand the environmental impacts of the meat industry -- how much of our fresh water supplies are polluted and how much forest is burned simply to raise cattle. The toll is significant. It really can't be overstated. For those interested in sustainability and the relationship between oil and agriculture, the data is out there.

"Meet your Meat" (12:28), narrated by Alec Baldwin, follows below:

HRC and tax returns, education gap

Yeah. Remember that little thing I mentioned a month ago, and a long while back in May, about the difference in Obama's efforts towards transparency and HRC's? It's come back up:

Mr. Obama, speaking to reporters, zeroed in on Mrs. Clinton’s loan and said that her decision not to disclose her income tax returns raised questions about the loan.

“I’ll just say that I’ve released my tax returns,” he said, responding to a question about tax returns. “That’s been a policy I’ve maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from.”

Mr. Obama stopped short of issuing a call for Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton to release their returns.

“I’m not going to get into the intricacies of their finances,” Mr. Obama told reporters as he flew to a rally in Nebraska. “That’s something that you’ll have to ask them.”

Nebraska holds nominating caucuses on Saturday.

Clinton campaign officials said she would release her returns if she won the nomination. The officials said there was enough information in her public Senate financial disclosures to assess her personal finances.

Her Senate forms do not list exact deductible expenses like interest or medical costs. The tax returns would show exact interest and dividends from investments, not just the ranges on the disclosure forms.

Mrs. Clinton has been an advocate for transparency in campaign finance, as has Mr. Obama.

For all the confidence expressed by the Clinton campaign, the onus remains on Mrs. Clinton to show fund-raising muscle, in view of her raising less and relying on the loan as well as a $10 million transfer last year from her Senate campaign account to her presidential account.

Advisers said the loan was made on Jan. 28 from Mrs. Clinton’s share of her personal funds that she has with Mr. Clinton. They said it was not a bank loan, nor was collateral needed to secure it. The advisers said no investments were liquidated to make the loan.

The loan was not disclosed widely until after the vote on Tuesday night, Clinton advisers said, for fear that the news might make Mrs. Clinton look like a fading candidate. Several donors said Wednesday that they were concerned that the campaign was essentially running on fumes, especially when they learned that some aides were working without pay. Shortly after midnight Wednesday, however, the Clinton team issued an e-mail message saying that it had raised $3 million in 24 hours. By daylight on Thursday, the advisers said the campaign was so successful that all aides would be paid and that Mrs. Clinton’s war chest seemed to be stabilizing.

The advisers used the conference call in part to focus attention on the Ohio and Texas primaries. The aides say Mrs. Clinton believes she has a better chance in those states than in many of the contests this month like Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia and Washington State.

“I think we’ll have some bumps in the road, some difficult states in the next week or two,” Mark Penn, the senior strategist of the campaign, told the donors.

He and Mr. McAuliffe emphasized the importance of the Ohio and Texas primaries.

Want to know why they're looking ahead to Ohio and Texas, instead of today's primaries? David Brooks tells us why -- the education gap between HRC voters and Barack supporters:

Hillary Clinton is a classic commodity provider. She caters to the less-educated, less-pretentious consumer. As Ron Brownstein of The National Journal pointed out on Wednesday, she won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts and 54 points in Arkansas. She offers voters no frills, just commodities: tax credits, federal subsidies and scholarships. She’s got good programs at good prices.

Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they’re not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning.

Obama offers to defeat cynicism with hope. Apparently he’s going to turn politics into a form of sharing. Have you noticed that he’s actually carried into his rallies by a flock of cherubs while the heavens open up with the Hallelujah Chorus? I wonder how he does that...

Observe the marketplace. The next states on the primary calendar have tons of college-educated Obamaphile voters. Maryland is 5th among the 50 states, Virginia is 6th. But later on, we get the Hillary-friendly states. Ohio is 40th in college education. Pennsylvania is 32nd.

But it’ll still be tied after all that. The superdelegates will pick the nominee — the party honchos, the deal-makers, the donors, the machine. Swinging those people takes a level of cynicism even Dr. Retail can’t pretend to understand. That’s Tammany Hall. That’s the court at Versailles under Louis XIV.

And that's what kills me.

If you stop thinking about it, it stops hurting

Or, at least, it stops hurting so much if you don't think about how many billions of our own taxpayer dollars wasted in war. Either the money is lining the pockets of criminals here at home, or is actually being rerouted to militias and terrorists abroad, against whom we are fighting; all the while, we can't afford to give health care coverage to our own children or ensure a quality education for all our own students.

It makes me physically sick, sometimes, to picture it in my head.

So I just try not to.

Purity Ball

More on the "purity balls" of the RR.

Scary, and our tax dollars pay for this shit.

Whether it's the creepy pseudo-incestuous dad, the mom remarking that women were "created to feel accepted by men," the girls offering themselves "as a priceless gift" in the purity pledge, or the headless bride and suit of armor behind Leslee Unruh--the message is clear. Girls' worth and value as people is determined by their sexuality.

So proud to be an American

A new Red Cross report details the extent of torture at our CIA's secret prisons in Europe.

For those who think that it is necessary to have secret prisons and torture to win the "war on terror", I have abandoned the hope of prospect of using rational argument or moral appeals to win them over.

How will history judge this period in America? Its darkest ever?

Fighting poverty is liberal and thus anti-Christian

Only in the bizzaro world of the Religious Right can one find such tortured convolutions of logic as evidenced in the video below, in which Focus on the Family Action attempts to argue that helping the poor is a liberal cause that should be opposed and the only way to help poor people is to get rid of those goddamned queers and fornicators...while maintaining their staunch Christian credentials throughout, of course:

Quoting Jesus (Matt 25:31-46 NIV):

The Sheep and the Goats

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

How would you spend $175 billion?

Roughly $100 billion was flushed down the toilet of religion last year. A large chunk of that goes to fuel anti-scientific lobbying, elect theocratic politicians and further America's national epidemics of ignorance and superstition.

$12 billion every single month goes to further Bush's war, deteriorate our military's readiness and home grow terrorists everywhere.

You want to know how I would spend that $172 billion each year? Technology. Technology that will allow us to get food and fresh water to the entire globe, eradicate epidemics, completely move away from oil and carbon-based energy...

In short, I'd use it to solve our problems, rather than further them.

Stem cell op-ed 'toons

They say picture = 1000 words. Since I've already put in the latter...

________________
Technorati tags: Politics

New Eddy by Paul Kurtz on "Evangelical Atheists"

People like Paul Kurtz are a boon to the freethought community and a bane to theists. The man is brilliant, visionary enough to have founded the CFI and recognized the serious need to organize our ranks, a moral objectivist, an articulate philosopher and a cool head when the waters of discourse are often turbid with emotive ranting. His new editorial, "Are ‘Evangelical Atheists’ Too Outspoken?" is much-needed food for thought for those of us who are turned off, at times, by Dawkins-esque antics:

What is often overlooked by the critics of “evangelical atheism” is that skepticism about the existence of God does not by itself define who and what we are. For there is a commitment to the realization of human freedom and happiness in this life here and now and to a life of excellence, creativity, and fulfillment. Life is meaningful without the illusion of immortality.

A good point to ponder -- if we don't have something positive to offer, are we "evangelizing for atheism"? What positive thing could compel us to vehemently "evangelize" towards nonbelief? Sure, we could be motivated against fundamentalist religion and miltant religiosity...but even to rail against liberal believers, and Deistic types?

If we have no message to promote and spread, other than a critique of theism, then are we "evangelizing" at all? No. It wouldn't be the proper term. Secular fideism doesn't sit well with those who want to have a foundation of reason and morality to build upon to move away from religious superstitions and myths.

Are ‘Evangelical Atheists’ Too Outspoken?
by Paul Kurtz

The recent publication of four books—The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins; The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both by Sam Harris; and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett—has provoked great controversy and consternation.* The fact that books by Dawkins and Harris have made it to The New York Times best-seller list has apparently sent chills down the spines of many commentators; not only conservative religionists but also some otherwise liberal secularists are worried about this unexpected development. We note that the people now being attacked are affiliated with FREE INQUIRY and the Center for Inquiry. The editors of FREE INQUIRY, of course, are gratified that the views espoused in these pages have received a wider forum. What disturbs us is the preposterous outcry that atheists are “evangelical” and that they have gone too far in their criticism of religion.

Really? The public has been bombarded by pro-religious propaganda from time immemorial—today it comes from pulpits across the land, TV ministries, political hucksters, and best-selling books. Indeed, at the present moment, the apocalyptic Left Behind series, coauthored by evangelist Tim LaHaye, is an all-time blockbuster. Other best-sellers include The Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren and a slew of books attacking liberal secularists and humanists by religious conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly.

Let’s be fair: Until now, it has been virtually impossible to get a fair hearing for critical comment upon uncontested religious claims. It was considered impolite, in bad taste, and it threatened to raise doubts about God’s existence or hegemony. I have often said that it is as if an “iron curtain” had descended within America, for skeptics have discovered that the critical examination of religion has been virtually verboten. We have experienced firsthand how journalists and producers have killed stories about secular humanism for fear of offending the little old ladies and gentlemen in the suburbs, conservative advertisers, the Catholic hierarchy, or right-wing fundamentalists. It is difficult to find any politicians who are not intimidated and will admit that they are disbelievers or agnostics, let alone atheists. Today, there are very few, if any, clearly identified atheist personalities in the media—Bill Maher is a notable exception. The war against secularism by the Religious Right is unremitting. Even New York Times columnists are running scared. We note the column by Nicolas Kristof (December 3, 2006) calling for a “truce on religion.” He deplores the “often obnoxious atheist offensive” of “secular fundamentalism.”

Science columnist William J. Broad, in a piece published earlier this year in the Times (February 28, 2006), criticized both Daniel C. Dennett and Edward O. Wilson (another Center for Inquiry stalwart). Dennett, complains Broad, “likens spiritual belief to a disease” and looks to science “to explain its grip on humanity.” Broad faults E.O. Wilson for writing in an earlier book (Consilience [Knopf, 1998]) that “the insights of neuroscience and evolution . . . increasingly can illuminate even morality and ethics, with the scientific findings potentially leading ‘more directly and safely to stable moral codes’ than do the dictates of God’s will or the findings of transcendentalism.” Broad remonstrates against such views, maintaining that they exhibit “a kind of arrogance,” and he likewise recommends that scientists declare a truce in their critiques of religion. To which I reply that it is important that we apply scientific inquiry as best we can to all areas of human behavior, including religion and ethics. I fail to see why it is “arrogant” to attempt to do so.

Another Times op-ed piece by Bernard A. Shweder of the University of Chicago (“Atheists Agonistes,” [Novem¬ber 27, 2006]), denigrates the Enlighten¬ment and reminds us that John Locke, author of “Letter Concern¬ing Toleration,” de¬fended tolerance in democratic societies for everyone but atheists. We note that the National Review and the Jewish Forward are also worried by “militant secularists” who question established religions—they were ob¬jecting to an advertisement the Center for Inquiry/Transnational ran on the op-ed page of The New York Times (Novem¬ber 15, 2006), headlined “In Defense of Science and Secularism.” We think it appropriate to defend the integrity of science and the importance of secularism at a time when both are under heavy attack.

We should point out that, over the years, Prometheus Books, a company I founded, has consistently published books examining the claims of religion. Now, the fact that mainline publishers, largely owned as they are by conglomerates, have published books by scientists critical of belief in God—because they see that they can make a buck by doing it—has shocked the guardians of the entrenched faiths. But why should the nonreligious, nonaffiliated, secular minority in the country remain silent? We dissenters now comprise some 14 to 16 percent of the population. Why should religion be held immune from criticism, and why should the admission that one is a disbeliever be considered so disturbing? The Bush administration has supported faith-based charities—though their efficacy has not been adequately tested; it has prohibited federal funding for stem cell research; it has denied global warming; and it has imposed abstinence programs instead of promoting condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS. Much of this mischief is religiously inspired. How can we remain mute while Islam and the West are poised for a possible protracted world conflagration in the name of God?

Given all these facts, why should the criticism of religion provoke such an outcry?

THEOLOGICAL VERSUS HUMANIST ETHICS

One charge often hurled at disbelievers is that we have nothing positive to offer. On the contrary, we at Free Inquiry have always maintained that it is possible for an individual to lead a good life and be morally concerned about others without belief in God. We have pointed out that the traditional creeds often condoned heinous crimes: censorship, repression, slavery, war, torture, genocide, the domination of women, the denial of human freedom, and opposition to new frontiers of scientific research. We surely cannot condemn all religions, and we recognize that some religions have performed good works: providing charity to the poor and consoling the sick and weak at times of suffering or tragedy. Religions are among the oldest human institutions on the planet. They developed in agricultural and nomadic societies. “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” expresses the metaphors of premodern and prescientific cultures. Many of them would later oppose modern secular trends and fight against democratic reforms. Indeed, the achievements of human progress in the past have often been in spite of opposition from devout religious believers. Today is another day, and religious liberals now support many of the ideals and values of modern secularism and humanism; they may support science and even not be unsympathetic to biblical criticism. Yet in spite of this, they often cling to earlier mythological creeds spun out in the infancy of the race.

What is often overlooked by the critics of “evangelical atheism” is that skepticism about the existence of God does not by itself define who and what we are. For there is a commitment to the realization of human freedom and happiness in this life here and now and to a life of excellence, creativity, and fulfillment. Life is meaningful without the illusion of immortality. There is also the recognition that the cultivation of the common moral decencies—caring, em¬pathy, and altruism—is an essential part of our relating to other human beings in our communities of interaction. Humanists have always been concerned with achieving justice in society. Many of the heroes and heroines in human history were freethinkers who contributed significantly to democratic progress and a defense of human rights. Indeed, the agenda of secular humanism is twofold: first is the quest for truth, a critical examination of the assumptions of supernatural religion in the light of science; second is the development of affirmative ethical alternatives for the individual, the society in which he or she lives, and also the planetary community at large. To label us “evangelical atheists” without recognizing our affirmative commitment to secular humanist morality is an egregious error.

Sunni versus Shiite Muslims

Of special horror today is the carnage inflicted by the Sunnis and Shiites, the two major branches of Islam, upon each other in Iraq. We’re told that the conflict is “sectarian,” as though we should leave it at that. We beg to differ. This is a religious conflict, driven by clashes over theology and history. That fact, which the blander word sectarian underemphasizes, should not be overlooked.

The horrendous slaughter between two factions of Islam, claiming thousands not only killed but tortured each month in Iraq, proceeds from doctrinal differences about the origins of Islam and the proper successors of Muham¬mad. The Shiites (concentrated mostly in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) comprise about 15 percent of the world’s Muslims; the Sunni most of the remainder.

The Shia Muslims believe that the rightful successor of Muhammad after his death should have been Ali, the second person to accept Islam (after Muhammad’s wife Khadija). Ali was the male head of “the people of the prophet’s house” (Ahlul Bayt). Shiites believe that Ali was appointed by direct order of Muhammad himself. The branch supporting Ali is also known as the “Party of Ali.” Upon the death of Muhammad, however, the majority of Muslims favored Abu Bakr as the first caliph. He was succeeded by the second and third caliphs, Umar and Uthman; the fourth was Ali. The Sunnis recognize the heirs of the four Caliphs (including Ali) as the only legitimate Islamic leaders, the Shia recognize only those of Ali. There are also important doctrinal differences in the interpretation of the Hadith, allegedly based on the testimony of the Prophet’s original companions.

One can only imagine why, thirteen centuries later, men and women are so concerned about these differences that they will destroy each others’ mosques and slaughter one another over them. This, of course, is reminiscent of the battles between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Europe, such as the Hundred Years War in the early modern period, when there were disputes about the hegemony and authority of the Bishop of Rome. The alleged statement of Jesus to Peter in the New Testament, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” has led to vast bloodshed and violence when Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox rejected the authority of the pope. But this happened centuries ago, and Christians by and large have learned to tame their animosities and have abandoned the Inquisition and Holy Crusades. Appar¬ently, the disputes in the Muslim world are as great as ever, and the world watches in horror as violent jihad is unleashed. The key lesson to learn is that it’s not so much the existence of God (or Allah) that is in dispute, for both factions claim to believe in the deity, but the authenticity and legitimacy of divine Revelation, delivered, in this case, to Muhammad, who transmitted it to humanity. The key issue is whether these ancient revelations (those of Muham¬mad, Jesus, Paul, Moses, Abraham, etc.) have been corroborated by reliable eyewitnesses or rather have been corrupted by an oral tradition and insufficient eyewitnesses. But that is another matter.

“Enough already,” we say in disgust. Surely, there must be other sources of morality besides religion. From the fatherhood of God, one can deduce all sorts of contrary moral prescriptions, as one can justify bloodshed, torture, punishment, and death in the name of Allah. This is an old story in human history that has been repeated time and time again. When religion becomes dogmatic, when it becomes thoroughly entrenched in human civilization and institutions, the only way to overcome differences of creed seems to be violence. The best antidote for such devastating nonsense, in my judgment, is the cultivation of critical thinking and the administration of a dose of scientific skepticism to unmask the claims of faith.

The Iraqi Bloodbath

The war in Iraq has degenerated into a bloody religious war between two factions of Islam on the one hand, yet, on the other, it is also a brutal confrontation with Western interests and values.

The editors of FREE INQUIRY opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. We argued that a preemptive strike against Iraq without the support of the United Nations had no legal or moral justification, unlike Afghanistan. The fear that Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction was mistaken. Weapons of mass destruction could not be found. There did not seem to be any direct connection between Al Qaeda-supported terrorism and the Iraqi government. While we were well aware of the dangerous ideological views of radical Islamists across the region, we were concerned that the invasion of Iraq could make matters worse by exacerbating the situation (as it has).

We submit that the plausible motive for the preemptive strike against Iraq was to secure a base in order to protect the future export of oil and gas deposits in the region. The claim that we wished to establish democracy and human rights in Iraq (a noble, if perhaps impractical, goal) might be viewed as a rationalization after the fact.

One aspect of the Iraq war that has been unfortunately minimized by the media is the vast numbers of casualties among the Iraqi people. The lands surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers—the “cradle of civilization”—have undergone absolute devastation, an enormous human tragedy for the Iraqi people. The destruction of cultural artifacts and treasures in Iraq’s museums illustrates the insensitivity to priceless historic values. The number of Iraqi refuges who have fled the country is enormous. The malnutrition suffered by Iraqi children during the years of sanctions as well as during the war is another concern. We are especially disturbed, however, by the excessive loss of life in the civilian population—let alone the dead and wounded American soldiers.

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D–Ohio) convened a special House hearing on December 12, 2006, devoted to an examination of the extent of “collateral damage,” as it is euphemistically called. This was broadcast over C-SPAN. The key participants were Les Roberts (Columbia and Johns Hopkins) and Gilbert Burnham (Johns Hopkins), who had conducted a survey to ascertain the number of civilian deaths caused by violence over and beyond normal death rates. Their work was published in the British medical journal The Lancet, one of the leading publications of its kind in the world. Roberts and Burnham used the “cluster method” of tabulation, in which a randomized selection process in certain areas throughout Iraq was used as the basis for the survey. The Lancet article estimated that 650,000 to 900,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American and British invasion in 2003. The mass media has basically ignored or underreported the number of casualties. The Bush administration insisted that the number was much lower, but Roberts and Burnham maintain that there were actually at least 650,000 deaths among people who are in essence noncombatants. Some defenders of the administration question the cluster methodology for estimating deaths, but Roberts and Burn¬ham insist it is reliable. (It was reliable enough to be used by the American military in Bosnia, the Congo, and elsewhere.)

The basic issue concerns innocent civilians, not Iraqi soldiers nor the combatants of the various tribes that wander the streets and kill people. On the basis of these tragic casualties, a good case can be made that the “gang of four” (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice) have made enormous blunders and that Pres¬ident Bush may have committed impeachable offenses.

• The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)
• The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both by Sam Harris (W.W. Norton and Company, 2004, and Knopf, 2006, respectively)
• Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett (Viking Adult, 2006).
  

Paul Kurtz is Editor in Chief of Free Inquiry, a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University at Buffalo, and Chairman of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational.

Although it digresses a bit into politics unnecessarily, the points are well established.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Politics, Philosophy

Darwin on Eugenics

It is oft-repeated amongst creationists that evolution = evil, because evolution = eugenics. When Tom Short came to UF and regurgitated this faulty line of reasoning, applying it to the effect that evolution = Hitler = genocide, I called him on it. I also called D. James Kennedy, a creationist pastor whose fraudulent claims are only exceeded by his hubris in delivering them, to the carpet for lying about Darwin and eugenics, all the while ignoring the clear link between Nazi Germany and the Lutheran and Catholic anti-Semitic philosophies.

I examined the non sequiturs in jumping from a description of the way that the natural world operates to a moral 'ought' about how we should or will operate in society. Simple parallels exist to show the fallacy of the logic:

1. Science describes gravity
   
2. Gravity causes things to fall down
3. Therefore, we ought to cause things to fall down

Is not substantially different from:

1. Science describes natural selection
2. Natural selection causes organisms to survive which are more 'fit' and weaker ones to go extinct
   
3. Therefore, we ought to cause organisms/humans to go extinct whom we deem are weaker [even though we have now started artificially selecting since our criteria for 'fitness' are not natural]

See the non sequitur? It is an accurate description of the world to say that all living things share common ancestors. It is not a logical conclusion to draw, a priori, that we ought thus do anything about it or to change it. End of story. To try to draw moral prescriptions from scientific descriptions is a failed leap in logic and is unsupported by the descriptions themselves.

Yet, since so many people love to do what is easy -- namely, to "defeat" evolution by throwing morally outrageous claims against it, it is useful to look at Darwin's own published thoughts on eugenics in The Descent of Man. Let's see what he said about it, although we must all always remember that just as the laws of motion are not equivalent to Newton, so evolution is not solely Charles Darwin, nor general relativity Einstein. These men founded the ideas, did the foundational work, and then died. The science of those things was not the person behind them, and the ideas have expanded and changed and developed throughout time. Nonetheless, let's see what the man thought, keeping in mind that just because the man thought it, doesn't mean evolution requires it.

In Chapter 5, he writes about the problem with vaccinations and how they allow people without natural resistances to survive to reproduce and pass on this lack of resistance:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

It sounds pretty evil, doesn't it? But at the same time, it sounds like he's not yet passing a conclusive ought in here, only saying that it seems that our actions to preserve the lineages of people with serious heredity flaws is "highly injurious to the race of man." So far, he hasn't prescribed any actions, only attempted to describe our humanistic efforts to preserve life. So...what does Darwin think of these actions? Well, the sentences directly after clarify it for us:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil [emphasis added].

Well, you won't hear that from the mouths of the creationists. Darwin here tells us that if we try to preserve our genetic lineage without corruption, it will only be for a contingent benefit at the cost of an overwhelming present evil, and that we will deteriorate the noblest part of our nature.

His only "solution" to the "problem", then, is a very passive one, indeed:

We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.

He observes that some of the feeble/retarded/sick are unable to be married and have kids as easily as the mentally competent/healthy, and that there is thus already a natural check in place. He then says that we can just hope for this check to work, notice he says nothing here of enforcing a no-marriage policy.

Darwin's words on eugenics are not those of Hitler, not those of Stalin, not those of creationists. All three of the latter twisted science to serve their own goals and ends in an attempt to justify their immoral beliefs. All three of the latter distort science to preserve falsehoods. The immorality of creationism is its denial of truth, its fight to eradicate scientific fact from our culture, and their refusal to live in reality.
________________
Technorati tags: Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

Quote of the Day Being

From Sandalstraps:

To declare something immoral is not to claim that it should be regulated by the government. For instance, despite my pro-choice stance concerning abortion, I think that most actual abortions are morally impermissible. That said, they should remain legal for nuanced reasons that have been hashed out elsewhere. As such, my coming out against this museum, my declaring it to be an outrageous idea that should never have been able to raise the funds that it has raised to celebrate a ridiculous belief that flies in the face of good history, good science, good theology, and especially good exegesis, is not intolerant. My belief in the freedom of speech dictates that these people can say whatever they want. My belief in the liberty of conscience tells me that they are free to believe whatever they want. But my belief in both those principles also dictates that I have the freedom to call a bad idea exactly what it is, a bad idea that should not happen even as it should not be forcefully stopped.

Tolerance is not some liberal Kool Aid that we all mindlessly drink to suppress disagreement. Tolerance is an acknowledgement that there are real disagreements in the world, and that we should discuss those disagreements, and that those disagreements should be mediated peacefully rather than with force. And I am free to be tolerant insofar as I don't infringe on the freedom of others to hold beliefs and to express those beliefs, which not only not holding those beliefs myself, but also expressing my well grounded belief that certain beliefs - while people are free to hold them - are not only wrong, but even ridiculous.

I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but it is not intolerance.

Amen and amen.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics, Philosophy,Creationism

Faking Moral Philosophy

I am grateful to Steve Hays for making me carefully think about my ethical framework. We have had a positive and (at least for me) enlightening discussion about the age-old question, "if not God, why/how be moral?" Not being a moral philosopher (or any sort of one), I have been faking my way through (wink-wink). It has occupied the following threads (newest first):
1) Christian Altruism
2) Who Goes Down with the Ship?
3) Regarding Steve's Post to Danny on the Value of Values
4) The Value of Values
(there are some other threads regarding epistemology, but I'll write on those later)

I have tried to argue along utilitarian lines, specifically survival consequentialism, using as referents both social contracts and egoism, to justify my values and explain how my behavior is not irrational. Steve has referred a lot to "evolutionary ethics", but I fail to see how the method by which human beings are generated immediately necessitates a certain ethos. Read below, or on this thread, for the current discussion.

I have numbered the points to facilitate commentary. Steve's words are italicized.

1) Your argument was predicated on noble values/virtues. What you did was to posit noble values/virtues as second-order values, then argue since these second-order values could not exist absent the first-order value of survival, that the second-order values validated the first-order value.

But one problem with this line of argument is that you failed to validate the operating premise: are there second-order values?
I did misunderstand what you were asking before.

Do we agree that as humans we have many basic needs and desires? This seems self-evident. I would argue that because we cannot fulfill all of our needs and desires simultaneously, or equally, that we must arrange our needs and desires into priorities, or order them, according to our values. It seems an unavoidable part of being human to have "first-order, second-order, etc., etc.," values.

In the same way that the Christian says that her own first-order value is serving God, and then in serving the needs of the state (eg a conscientious objector), I am simply saying that if you want to flip virtue/character/goodness around from being a first principle to being an extension of survival (which seems quite unassailable in its logic, when one lives within a society), thus survival becomes an inextricable part of virtue/character/goodness -- you do what is good in order to survive. You don't rape, pillage, and steal because you recognize that you are less likely to be successful, and to pass on your genes, if you live in such a chaotic society, or if you are ostracized from it, or punished within it.

I'm not very articulate here, but I hope this makes sense of my position.

2) What is your secular argument for the existence of these higher virtues?
Are you asking me how I define them? In the same way Marcus Aurelius did, and many others before and after him.

Are you asking me why they exist? They exist as a part of the spectrum of human behavior. Humans can act in many ways, and acting virtuously is one way humans are capable of acting.

Are you asking me why I should act virtuously?
Because we are in a prisoner's dilemma situation -- we all must work together in a societal structure, or we may as well have a "free-for-all" morally and otherwise. Assuming we will work together (which history has shown works 95% of the time), then exercising virtuous character contributes to the stability of society, and society, just like virtues, becomes a means to an end -- success in health, wealth, and reproduction.

3) SH: Okay, but to play along with your parallel, a Christian apologist would need to establish the value of Sabbath-keeping for the end to justify the means.
If we do not care to survive, then ethics are futile. Why do we care what is "good" for us, if we don't care if we live or die? If we don't use our own life, and if we don't value our own life, and the lives of others, in determining what we ought to do generally, then I would argue that ethics are absurd. We have to start with some primary value around which we frame our ethics. Yours is "what [you think] God said/does/wants".

4) No, the survival of the present generation doesn’t depend on the existence of a future generation. But the survival of the species does depend on reproduction.
Yes, but consider that overpopulation leads to starvation. Consider that there are "premium times" to harvest, and the same applies to having babies -- certain environmental and societal conditions that are more conducive to raising children, and thus we are considering our survival as a species in choosing when and how to have children -- so that they will be most healthy and likely to survive.

5) Yet the force of that argument assumes an obligation to reproduce in order to have agents that exemplify these second-order values.
It is indeed necessary to reproduce, but not necessary to reproduce at all times, since giving birth does not always guarantee the collective survival of the species, and at times may endanger it (overpopulation). Thus, we can choose when and how, in order that the second generation is able to exemplify those values as well (maximally so).

6) But in what sense do we have an obligation to nonentities? Given the existence of moral agents, said moral agents enjoy mutual obligations, including the exemplification of second-order values.
Right.

7) But absent their existence, nonexistent agents have no obligations, and we, as existing agents, have no obligation to nonexistent agents.
One of our obligations is to ensure the survival of our collective species, another to the survival of our society (which is a means to the first), and that the virtues and values we hold dear don't die with us (which we hold, again, virtue to be a means to survival, and survival as our primary value).

8) Your second-order values are not free-floating obligations which compel the existence of property-bearers. Rather, they only kick in given the existence of a suitable property-bearer.
I don't disagree. I am not sure what the real issue here is, to be honest, Steve. Of course it is somewhat tautological, but not all tautologies are invalid. Consider "it is good that humans survive, and ethical behavior is a means to further that survival" and "goodness is itself defined by virtues, when we discover, through learning, what the virtues are, and we extol them, we ought to do what is good; then survival is necessary to extol the virtues and practice them, and pass them on to the next generation".

It is absurd to assume that either survival or virtues or society (the two latter as means to the former) are not already forgone conclusions. We exist. Our species exists. Our species is capable of both virtuous and unvirtuous behavior. We have learned what these mean, within the context of how they promote the welfare of the species, and seen them both played out in history many times over in civilizations.

The question is not whether property-bearers exist, for they already do, but how these property-bearers should act, what they should value. If they do not value their own survival, then ethics is itself undermined -- how can we determine the goodness or rightness of an action if we do not care whether it brings about life or death?

I am not sure what the categorical difference here is, or why you think it invalid to use our survival as a primary value, and ethics as a means to further it. Do we disagree that ethical behavior in society leads to the most healthy and successful society, which in turn gives rise to the most healthy and successful progeny?

9) SH: And what’s your secular justification for social contractualism?
Humans either go it alone or form societies. If they go it alone, they are much less likely to survive, or to live healthy, than if they form societies. Social contracts are one valid way to establish societies in which everyone agrees (a sort of prisoner's dilemma) to hold to ethical precepts to ensure the success of the society, and by proxy, the individual.

10) SM: That doesn’t harmonize self-interest over altruism.
It does. Consider two things:
i) you are more likely to be on the receiving end and receive benefits from living in a society that agrees to put the "many" above the "few" at any given time, by virtue of statistics. Thus, it certainly is in your self-interest to pledge in to such a society, and pledging to it is necessary to maintain its function, that if you should need to sacrifice yourself for the good of the many, you will.
ii) We have to look at self-interest from the perspective of every individual in the society. If you are X, and the question is how many X's must die, then you certainly view as "self-interest" what appears to Y as "altruism". Obviously, we consider it "unselfish" to sacrifice our lives for many other lives, should such a dilemma arise, but from the perspective of the utilitarian, it is acting in the interest of our own society/species/kin, which retains selfish motive -- we want to further their survival because they are us: our children, cousins, whatever. Even other animals show kin altruism (which makes it significantly less altruistic).

What is interesting is how humans show "clan altruism" and, historically, are very selfish when it comes to "non-clan" humans. This is esp true of the Hebraic peoples, but no more so than any other race or tribe.

11) The trolley care [sic] problem doesn’t pose a choice between my survival and the survival of the many.
In the formulations I have seen, it wouldn't alter the problem's significance to put you aboard the trolley, and the switch aboard the trolley as well.

12) The question I’m posing for secular ethics is different. Let’s say I’m an atheist. Let’s say I’m put in a position where I must choose between either saving my own life, or sacrificing my life to spare many others from destruction.
How should a secularist choose?
I just went through that a bit above with kin altruism, but this could also be formulated within the context of viewing your action's morality by its consequences: consider that if you do NOT do X, you are, effectively, killing many people, while if you DO X, you are killing only one. Part of our morality is to minimize the loss of life, so the ethical choice here is clear.

Consider a social contract as well -- that while a priori the society cannot take a life (unnecessarily -- considering the trolley problem and other sorts of dilemmas), an inbuilt clause and understanding is that the success and stability of the survival promotes the greater good -- as it promotes the survival of the many -- and thus if one can choose to take their own life in order to contribute to this society's stability, they ought to do so. Obviously, this ethical onus would be followed only by those persons acting responsibly for the greater good. There is no guarantee that our inbuilt survival instinct could be overcome by all persons at all times, but the ethical choice remains clear.

13) There is only one of me, and while I’m expendable in the great scheme of things, I’m not expendable to myself.
Am I, as an atheist, under some obligation to forfeit my life for the common good?
With arguably more "obligation" than you're under as a Christian -- if I command an ant to obey me and it doesn't, does it render me any harm? In the same way, if your God is not obeyed by humans, is it weakened or lessened by it? No. Conversely, if we do not choose to put the greater good (maximum survival) above our own, when the time calls for it, we are clearly and obviously hurting/harming others. Now, whether or not that matters to you is another question.

As with Christianity, ethics are a choice you make, whether to be selfish and thus cause harm (or death) to many, which is immoral, or to act unselfishly and thus alleviate harm and promote survival to many, which is moral.

14) Why can’t I just be a selfish SOB? It’s not as if a godless universe is going to reward me for my altruism.
You can be selfish. You will get no reward for not being so. However, your fellow kin, society, and the species in general will. That is what makes it an "ought" situation.

Ah, but you see, this is where the atheist's ethics are so much different than the Christian's -- we choose to do the right thing only because it is the right thing, not expecting a cosmic reward or fearing a cosmic punishment. If you choose not to cause the death of many by allowing your own life to be extinguished, and the atheist knows that this is all they have (no afterlife), how much greater a sacrifice is this than dying for only three measly days (and knowing this beforehand), before being raised to life eternal? Who couldn't take that kind of "fall" for others

15) SH: No, you don’t have to reinvent utilitarianism. But your challenge is twofold:
i) How do you derive utilitarian ethics from evolutionary ethics?
This is a point that needs clarification. Why is it that the process by which humans arose determines how they ought to act? Why is it that "evolutionary ethics" even relevant, if someone starts with survival as a primary value, without saying "evolution dictates that we must survive"? Imagine, if you must, that this person is a theist, but not a Christian, and says, "God dictates that we must survive" if you can't get past something undermining the primacy of survival.

16) ii) How do you derive egalitarianism from utilitarianism?
It is not a derived function, it is taken as an a priori commitment -- to the survival of our species, irrespective of race, IQ, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, etc. Since we are using human life as a primary value, there is no way to logically or rationally devalue some lives and add value to others. [and no, embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not elevated in value to the status of human beings -- they are potential human beings, but let's lay aside the issue of abortion as to not chase after red herrings]

17) SH: At this stage of the argument, I don’t see that we need to get specific. Is there any case in which, from a secular standpoint, I should put altruism ahead of self-interest? Collective survival above (my) personal survival?
In the outline above, self-interest demands that you agree to utilitarianism, because more often than not, your own life is furthered by the collective good, and thus statistically speaking, you agree to the potential need for self-sacrifice, as in the trolley car dilemma, ironically out of self-interest. Consider that statistically speaking, it is much more likely for you to be a part of the "many" the the "one/few" when it comes to dilemmas in which there is no way to avoid casualties. You sign in to the agreement/contract out of self-interest, and agree that just as you will more likely receive benefit from it the majority of the time, there is a potentiality for altruism.

18) Is there ever such an obligation in secular ethics? If so, why?
Hopefully I've made it clear by now.

19) On a side note, readers should observe, in the recent exchanges with Danny, that it’s quite possible for a believer and an unbeliever to have a civil exchange of views.
And I hope to see it continue. Both ways.
_**END QUOTE**_

I am certainly (and obviously) no moral philosopher, but I am trying to defend what I see to be a very basic observation: that humans can either choose to behave in such ways as to foster survival and a higher standard/quality of life, or choose to act otherwise. Morality seems to simply be the question of how best to do this former thing. Christians believe it is to follow the commands of God, while as an atheist, I see humans as quite capable of developing secular humanistic ethics that are far superior and more rational (consistent) than the theists' ethical framework.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ethics

Feeling Rand-y Today

...No, not that kind of randy. I'm talking about Ayn Rand. No, I'm not an Objectivist. After having an interesting conversation with my colleagues over "The Guiltless Man" yesterday, mostly concerning the inability of religion to control such a person, I was thinking about it again this morning.

Thinking is a beautiful thing. From Ayn Rand's address to the 1974 West Point class:

You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction--or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

Of course, it is not truly necessary for persons to integrate all of this into a coherent, rational philosophy. Some people appear to have taken pieces of rational worldviews and mishmashed them in with superstition and folklore, and others (postmodernists) abandon rationalism altogether.

But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

Most people do not develop a philosophy in the vein of Descartes -- carefully and from the bottom up. Most people adopt from others what feels right and true, and modern Sophists are able to persuade masses of persons into adopting incomprehensible premises as their foundational "truths".

You might say, as many people do, that it is not easy always to act on abstract principles. No, it is not easy. But how much harder is it, to have to act on them without knowing what they are?

Rand seems willing to grant to people something which I cannot -- that they act while thinking, or think before acting. I find no strong evidence that humans behave as rational animals even a fraction of the time.

Your subconscious is like a computer...Who programs it? Your conscious mind...one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions--which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values. If you programmed your computer by conscious thinking, you know the nature of your values and emotions. If you didn't, you don't.

John Loftus has written an interesting article on "control beliefs" as it relates to the interpretation of religion and religious evidence by believers versus unbelievers; or what we could call our presuppositions, in which he challenges the notion that we have the ability to free ourselves of biases and see past our weaknesses in order to objectively "program" our conscious minds. The major point he makes is that the fewer presuppositions, or "control beliefs," that we hold, the less likely we are to be wrong about any given one of them.

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions...The joke is on him--and on them: man's values and emotions are determined by his fundamental view of life. The ultimate programmer of his subconscious is philosophy--the science which, according to the emotionalists, is impotent to affect or penetrate the murky mysteries of their feelings...You have probably heard the computer operators' eloquent term "gigo"--which means: "Garbage in, garbage out." The same formula applies to the relationship between a man's thinking and his emotions.

Here we have to get into what Rand means by "his fundamental view of life" -- is this not particularly circular? If I value faith, do I become a believer (thus subscribing to some theistic worldview), or if I am a believer, do I value faith? Where do we begin? How many people even try to figure out what their assumptions are, much the less challenge and question them?

A man who is run by emotions is like a man who is run by a computer whose print-outs he cannot read. He does not know whether its programming is true or false, right or wrong, whether it's set to lead him to success or destruction, whether it serves his goals or those of some evil, unknowable power. He is blind on two fronts: blind to the world around him and to his own inner world, unable to grasp reality or his own motives, and he is in chronic terror of both. Emotions are not tools of cognition. The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power.

But what Rand ignores is that philosophy can be used as a tool to prop up what men want to believe. Nietzsche showed us that. It is a choice as to how far one develops a philosophy -- it can go so far as to render us nearly nihilistic. If we seriously probe the premises of every position, say for instance in meta-ethics, we will find ourselves much more epistemically skeptical than some people can handle. Therefore, most persons only develop (or adopt from others) enough philosophy to convince themselves that they are rational and "committed to the truth". But how many of us are? How many of us are willing to follow evidence and reason, should it lead us to no hopeful conclusion? What if reason does cannibalize itself, as Nietzsche and others implied?

The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them--from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the philosophers. Others follow their lead, either by conviction or by default. For some two hundred years, under the influence of Immanuel Kant, the dominant trend of philosophy has been directed to a single goal: the destruction of man's mind, of his confidence in the power of reason. Today, we are seeing the climax of that trend.

And today, we might say that we are in the "post-postmodern" movement -- many philosophers have strongly argued against the premises of postmodernism (pomo), and have had the time to carefully deconstruct existentialism, Heidegger (probably on of the figures in philosophy with whom Rand identified this sort of negative trend), and some of the previously nebulous arguments of pomo's that science is but "another mythic narrative", aka the Counter-Enlightenment. I would say that the tides have turned, in large part thanks to a commitment to Rationalism, to flesh out the claims of nihilism and pomo over the past decades. Basically, if we cannot sustain rationalism, then pomo itself is self-refuted -- how can a coherent proposition be made: there is no rationalism? It is self-refuting and self-defeating, just like, "there are no truths." (if that description of reality is itself true, then the statement itself must be false, if the statement is false, then it tells us nothing of truth)

When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror. The spread of drug addiction among young people brought up on today's intellectual fashions, demonstrates the unbearable inner state of men who are deprived of their means of cognition and who seek escape from reality--from the terror of their impotence to deal with existence. Observe these young people's dread of independence and their frantic desire to "belong," to attach themselves to some group, clique or gang. Most of them have never heard of philosophy, but they sense that they need some fundamental answers to questions they dare not ask--and they hope that the tribe will tell them how to live. They are ready to be taken over by any witch doctor, guru, or dictator. One of the most dangerous things a man can do is to surrender his moral autonomy to others: like the astronaut in my story, he does not know whether they are human, even though they walk on two feet.

Rand almost seems comically naive. Every generation has viewed their youth as on a destructive path, whether towards immorality or irrationality or both. I would say that in today's culture, one of the few unique things we have today is access to so much knowledge and information that some persons are paralyzed by it [one of the other things that sets apart our current era from others is the explosion of scientific understanding of our universe]. Knowing what to believe, and who to believe, adrift in a sea of arguments and voices can be overwhelming. But that does not mean that we must not believe, else we be wrong, only that we must focus our energies on narrow slices of the big philosophy pie. Few persons that I know go to original sources in philosophy, preferring summaries and reviews of topics and questions in philosophy. There is just too much to read and absorb, and too few days to do it.

Now you may ask: If philosophy can be that evil, why should one study it? Particularly, why should one study the philosophical theories which are blatantly false, make no sense, and bear no relation to real life?

My answer is: In self-protection--and in defense of truth, justice, freedom, and any value you ever held or may ever hold.

And it is for those reasons that I continue to study the Bible, theology, and think about God. I do not claim, as Paul wrote in Phil. 3, "to have apprehended...". I have not arrived at some "self-enlightenment". I somewhat doubt that such a final state can exist, for that would mean it would be nearly impossible to self-doubt or critically analyze the experience. My view of personal enlightenment is more a process and progress in which we analyze and skeptically critique everything. But unlike the pomo, I find no reason to abandon rationalism, as I know nowhere else to be, no other way to live, and no other way to think. I choose to value reason, and build my worldview upon it, and I have seen the efficacy of this played out as personal success and happiness, not despair and hopelessness. In that sense, you might say I pragmatically cling to rationalism.

Some ask me what motive I have in arguing with theists. I do not believe, they do, I think they are wrong, but I think there is no real consequence for their wrongness (in the sense that their faith won't "hurt" them or me). Why do I continue, then, to spend so much time reading, debating, and trying to understand philosophies to which I do not subscribe, and hold to be irrational? Primarily, because their faith affects me. The politics and policies of our current administration have been clearly infused with religion and its lobbying power and money. Secondarily, I do so in defense of my mind, my values, my desire for truth. I skeptically analyze arguments for and against God, and I continue to consider them for their validity and strengths.

There are many things over which I find myself disagreeing with Ayn Rand, but on this, we agree -- philosophy is more than necessary, it is inevitable: the only choice you have is whether you will swallow someone else's premises like a jagged little pill, or whether you will question them, and yourself, and everything.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ayn Rand, Reason, Logic