tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77200087361489544942024-03-13T07:31:32.645-07:00Steelman's MusingsSteelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-86187653442203825502010-01-01T18:07:00.000-08:002010-01-01T19:07:25.100-08:00New Years Resolution for 2010: Make a Habit of Giving<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102911762462&s=446&e=00196cCGbUXgeLvh5wzetBQ1aiIGUWxIo_ruhfX-tKJuSpJWefHXicHadKaaWAa69eLTOkMGYeDTbGPwXkOQQqZgfWknTPAAECLM5QVwuQQ46p0ySk-8k4QWHj1jtEkhk5V_bLRkqOnTeDZfaairHgyDA=="><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 216px; height: 240px;" src="http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102911762462&s=446&e=00196cCGbUXgeLvh5wzetBQ1aiIGUWxIo_ruhfX-tKJuSpJWefHXicHadKaaWAa69eLTOkMGYeDTbGPwXkOQQqZgfWknTPAAECLM5QVwuQQ46p0ySk-8k4QWHj1jtEkhk5V_bLRkqOnTeDZfaairHgyDA==" alt="" border="0" /></a>I have a lot to be thankful for: I still have a job despite the poor economy, a loving family, living conditions that would seem luxurious to many in the world, and the ability to give something back to others less fortunate than myself.<br />
<br />
Although I've contributed to a number of charitable causes over the years, it's been in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Getting organized is a popular New Year's resolution, and <a href="http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/about/"></a><a href="http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/about/">Dale McGowan's</a> <a href="http://foundationbeyondbelief.org/">Foundation Beyond Belief</a> provides a great way to do just that when it comes to charitable giving.<br />
<br />
<object height="295" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-8uhWVgJVqs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-8uhWVgJVqs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="295" width="420"></embed></object><br />
<br />
My wife and I will be setting up our monthly donation amount, and choosing how it will be distributed among the various organizations chosen by the foundation every quarter. We're looking forward to helping others in the new year and beyond, and we hope many others will join us.Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-58469079392856275302009-09-30T12:31:00.000-07:002009-09-30T12:54:56.777-07:00Enculturation ad AbsurdumIn an effort to bridge the generation gap before that chasm of parent/child disconnection can yawn, I've conspired with those two repositories of human wisdom, the public library's DVD section and Netflix, to indoctrinate my own children with the videographic influences of my youth.<br /><br />We'll achieve true familial bonding through a mutual understanding of all my oft uttered witty and profound pop culture references, from Gilligan to Godzilla (and be able to name the respective islands they inhabit, in true geek trivia fashion).<br /><br />However, it has now come to my attention that that dirty David Malki ! (he even considers his own name an expletive, apparently), has channeled his Malkilevolent super powers through the intertubes to seize upon my most cherished beliefs, and <a href="http://wondermark.com/490/">mock them...thoroughly</a>.<br /><br />[glares up into the ethernets, with Colbertesque fist shaking]<br /> Curse you, David Malki !! Why must you destroy my dreams with such awesome wit?<br /><br />Strangely, I <a href="http://topatoco.com/wondermark">purchased</a> a signed print of one of his illustrated jocularities as a Christmas gift to my dear wife. It would seem he not only has the ability to read minds, but control them as well...Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-62842604273636632982009-06-26T12:28:00.000-07:002009-06-26T12:30:04.670-07:00He Moves in Mysterious WaysIf, as Isaiah 55:8-9 indicates, God's behavior and thoughts are far different from our own, then He presents a great mystery to human beings; all of which, believer and unbeliever alike, hobbled by their mere humanity, are equally unqualified to discuss the true nature of God.Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-66416926140065806292009-05-28T12:26:00.000-07:002009-05-28T13:34:50.058-07:00Proposition 8: The HypocrisyWith the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8, the fight for same-sex marriage continues. Some are <a href="http://cbs5.com/local/gay.marriage.proposition.2.1020986.html">now litigating the question</a> of conflict between the California Constitution and the US Constitution in regard to equal rights. Others feel that this move is premature, and could worsen the situation for equal marriage rights should the US Supreme Court decide against them. Of course, the US Constitution has been interpreted over the years by the US Supreme Court to support "separate but equal" education for those of African descent, and then later to abolish that same institution as unconstitutional. What is or isn't legally permissible depends on the social and political climate of the time, and the views of the justices.<br /><br />I'm going to have to restrain myself from shouting, "piss off, bigots!" and slamming the door the next time a pair of Mormon missionaries arrive on my doorstep. My irony meter goes off whenever I think of all the money the LDS church poured into Proposition 8, when they're the ones who refused to give up their own idea of proper (plural) marriage, even after being invaded by the US Army! Although, they later sacrificed their religious convictions in exchange for Utah's statehood (their prophet got a message from God that one of the core tenets of their faith was no longer necessary - a bit financially expedient, their god!).<br /><br />It is difficult for me to understand the level of hypocrisy required for a minority group that prided itself on standing up to the US government for the sake of their own marriage rights, to actively participate in, and now gloat over, another minority group having theirs taken away by that same authority. And here I thought they'd learned some sort of lesson by finally admitting black men into <a href="http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cfm/mormonisms_black_priesthood_ban">the priesthood</a> in the late 1970's. I think this had as much to do with the church being behind the times in regard to the US civil rights movement as it did with their desire to spread their religion into countries with dark-skinned inhabitants, to share their own brand of the "good news" and, of course, acquire more converts who tithe!<br /><br />Having been baptized into the LDS church at a young age, during my parents' brief experiment with the Mormon religion, I am officially still a member. It's a rather <a href="http://www.mormonresignation.com/">involved</a> and <a href="http://www.mormonnomore.com/">annoying</a> process to have oneself removed from their rolls, which is one of the reasons I never bothered. I'm now bothered enough to bother; I cannot allow my name to continue to be associated with an institution that actively works to abrogate the civil rights of others who are perpetrating no genuine harm on that institution's members by exercising those rights.Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-65435029225321428642009-05-21T13:38:00.000-07:002009-05-21T15:50:33.391-07:00Soulless it SeemsIn regard to human consciousness, I consider myself a philosophical materialist: brains generate minds; minds are what brains <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span>, with no other substance, concept, or mechanism needed to explain human thought processes. I think the evidence from neuroscience favors this view.<br /><br />But what about dualism, the idea that there is more than the physical, the notion that the <span style="font-style: italic;">real </span>you is your soul, and that your consciousness continues to exist even after your death? I think a computer CPU, with integrated RAM and a firmware operating system, is a good analogy for the human brain.*<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">* For those who aren't acquainted with the innards of computers: I'm talking about all the parts of a computer (the memory, information storage, and information processing</span>)<span style="font-size:85%;"> being completely fused together on one integrated, self-contained computer chip.<br /><br /></span>In the materialist view, the entire "self" is exclusively contained on that one chip. If a part of that chip fails, say, part of the RAM becomes corrupted, it's like suffering from Alzheimer's. That part of the self can never be restored; it is forever lost.<br /><br />In the dualist view, the chip is a transceiver and physical projector of the non-material self (soul), which is transmitted over the ether(eal)net to the body. If part of the chip fails, the transmission and reception of information between the hardware body and the self becomes garbled, but the "true self" is still intact on a server somewhere.<br /><br />Problems: we've never been able to find a method of transmission between the body and the soul, and no one has ever been able to provide good evidence for the existence of the heavenly <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/server%20farm">server farm</a>.Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-70771333712068518122009-04-29T16:47:00.001-07:002009-04-29T16:49:34.046-07:00Moral AbsolutesMoral absolutes exist in a room with a Catholic, an Arminian, and a Calvinist each holding their bibles, all secure in the notion that the absolute truth contained in that book imparts to each of them the absolute certainty of the absolute morality of the fact that the other two are headed straight to hell.Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-67747116052645466552009-04-27T16:20:00.001-07:002009-04-27T16:22:09.461-07:00The Power(lessness) of PrayerIf God is omniscient and omnipotent, His plans are the only ones that matter, and so the prayers of mere human beings should not, and indeed can not, change the course of His divine and perfect will.<br /><br />Prayers are for God the way funerals are for the deceased: they have no effect on the object of veneration.Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-5934540988236301082009-04-16T14:05:00.000-07:002009-04-16T15:26:15.729-07:00Pull'em up, pull'em waaay up.George Will, in an effort to prove you don't have to believe in god to pompously pontificate on the "moral hazard" of harmless social behavior, decries the moral breakdown of modern society inherent in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html">wearing of denim</a>.<br /><br />Why denim? I mean, in the age of 24/7 worldwide coverage there's no such thing as a slow news day.<br /><br />In my view, public places have largely become informal settings. T-shirts and denim are comfortable, often inexpensive, and wear well. Young sons almost always want to be just like dad, so dressing alike is a bonding experience for them. And where are all the stores that offer children's sizes exclusively in silk, polyester, and gabardine? I'm sure George and his considerably more well-heeled than the masses friends know.<br /><br />Worn out t-shirts can be used for cleaning cloths, jeans with holes in the knees can be cut and hemmed for shorts, and old running shoes can be given a second life as casual footwear, before being ground up for that springy padding found beneath modern play structures at the local park or school.<br /><br />The whole t-shirt, denim, running shoe combination is part and parcel of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra of responsible consumerism. I know George doesn't hate consumerism, so it must be the responsibility that raises his dogmatic ire. Come to think of it, the reuse of materials seems rather, well, <span style="font-style: italic;">conservative</span>. It should be right up his alley, rather than stuck in his craw (not that I spend much time thinking about other people's craws...).<br /><br />And another thing, (since I, like Mr. Will, obviously have nothing better to do than complain about nothing) he uses Astaire as the trouser taste exemplar? Now, I truly love Fred's old movies; he was one of the best hoofers in history. However, the fashion sense of the time had him tapping about with his waistband barely south of his nipples. At least it's better than the "buckle the belt beneath the butt" style: a gangsta has to keep one mitt in his pocket to hold up his britches, while the man in the gunny slacks has them both free to throw some jazz hands.<br /><br />(h/t to <a href="http://jamesfelliott.blogspot.com/2009/04/ladies-and-gentlemen-george-will.html">James F. Elliott</a>)Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-46645917396787768312009-01-25T14:30:00.000-08:002009-01-25T15:25:11.890-08:00Beware the WienerInspired by James F. Elliott's <a href="http://jamesfelliott.blogspot.com/2009/01/youre-king-of-your-castle-only-so-long.html">recent post</a> regarding home defense, I'm revealing one of the formerly super secret lines of defense that stand between my family and would-be intruders.<br /><div><div><div><div><div></div><br /><div>Behold the canine...</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMtGRF1gK8fiZclTgLhkKL4Hfvnsf78fp6GdVPu6Z9KQqnryhR3LVK-5kJlsf98ykEzDX5dkceT07yDK5uYir-PM3or2UeRObtv_7tZG9LfsOfByZ3nwaYNMm6rlqN93gZDMDjdpUh26Pe/s1600-h/Sundog.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5295366432024443026" style="WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 268px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMtGRF1gK8fiZclTgLhkKL4Hfvnsf78fp6GdVPu6Z9KQqnryhR3LVK-5kJlsf98ykEzDX5dkceT07yDK5uYir-PM3or2UeRObtv_7tZG9LfsOfByZ3nwaYNMm6rlqN93gZDMDjdpUh26Pe/s400/Sundog.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><div>...and that's not just any kind of mutt; it's a vicious half-wiener dog. </div><br /><div>It may appear docile as it gathers its strength, deep in martial arts meditation in accordance with the ancient Sanskrit scripture of the Sundog sutra, but don't let it's peaceful repose fool you. It's a ticking time bomb of pure puppy power.</div><div></div><br /><div>The photograph below was taken with a long, telephoto lens, from the safety of an observation bunker at our proving grounds.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1771h1dOuTEEjZz9xaAEwgi1xEI2NK6zDUDlgj946pMHtLBACgMUbiA7NHlnYzCpMIdtDYUR13SdWxUPGxNy__99Mu-0pKGmujw-fZP30AhjPKZ3lr0dKOinUbZWGKmksnZtUCGCTEX6c/s1600-h/Intruder+alert.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5295369121348071154" style="WIDTH: 361px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1771h1dOuTEEjZz9xaAEwgi1xEI2NK6zDUDlgj946pMHtLBACgMUbiA7NHlnYzCpMIdtDYUR13SdWxUPGxNy__99Mu-0pKGmujw-fZP30AhjPKZ3lr0dKOinUbZWGKmksnZtUCGCTEX6c/s400/Intruder+alert.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><div>If you're looking into these eyes at close range, it's the last thing you'll ever see.</div><br /><div></div><div></div><div>Finally, a rare action shot of the weapon deployed in battle, exhibiting one of its many attack modes. This is what operators in the field refer to as "full flap."</div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfRraSUki7TV_xK5uezNVxY-QFM_sPkNS9oGlc3EbCp66kL-H2ymbpTA6ugJWiuTN4wvtzCDRW4_C2vn3hMavsFLZh0-JS6383pawfNPpe2b1k1A8ZHQaiML4a9fgo43TbtSO-u7s18ykU/s1600-h/Full+Flap.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5295371221118574786" style="WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 271px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfRraSUki7TV_xK5uezNVxY-QFM_sPkNS9oGlc3EbCp66kL-H2ymbpTA6ugJWiuTN4wvtzCDRW4_C2vn3hMavsFLZh0-JS6383pawfNPpe2b1k1A8ZHQaiML4a9fgo43TbtSO-u7s18ykU/s400/Full+Flap.JPG" border="0" /></a></div><div>The frames that followed would exceed Blogger's terms of service, and therefore remain classified. Suffice it to say, what came next, gentle readers, was unsuitable for this refined venue.</div></div></div></div></div>Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-60212588421532516602008-10-21T10:13:00.000-07:002009-05-28T12:27:05.627-07:00No On Prop 8James F. Elliott has blogged an <a href="http://jamesfelliott.blogspot.com/2008/10/life-liberty-and-pursuit-of-happiness.html">eloquent exposition</a> on the reasons for voting "no" on California's Proposition 8 (an amendment to the state constitution that would ban - currently legal - gay marriage). My comments below.<br /><br />I've witnessed a real coming together in my suburban neighborhood these past few weeks. Men who may have not so much as waved to one another in passing, now cross the street to lean on pickup truck tailgates and engage each other in conversation, prompted by the sight of identical signs piercing the soil in their respective front yards.<br /><br />The brotherly bonding of Bigot Buddies has come to my very own street. A street that only yesterday received its first No On 8 sign, which was pulled back in front of the cars in my neighbor's driveway last evening, where it seemed to cower under the gaze of the many menacing Yes On 8 yard displays that stand proudly, fearlessly in their original positions, day or night.<br /><br />Beyond clapping a hand over one's mouth, as I do when out jogging or driving to work, does anyone know of an effective treatment for a sudden, severe case of yard sign triggered Tourettes?Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-61114500894059856162008-10-17T13:34:00.000-07:002008-10-23T11:31:33.197-07:00Mark Rowlands Hates HumanistsPhilosopher <a href="http://blog.secularphilosophy.com/static.php?page=rowlands">Mark Rowlands</a> answers Massimo Pigliucci's <a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-i-am-humanist.html">rejoinder</a> to <a href="http://blog.secularphilosophy.com/index.php?entry=entry080529-093915">three</a> <a href="http://blog.secularphilosophy.com/index.php?entry=entry080604-071230">different</a> <a href="http://blog.secularphilosophy.com/index.php?entry=entry080714-140844">posts</a> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>he made regarding the reasons he's not a humanist, <a href="http://blog.secularphilosophy.com/index.php?entry=entry081016-151640">here</a>. I posted a response to that latest post, in the comments at <a href="http://secularphilosophy.com/index.php">Secular Philosohpy</a> (reprinted below).<br /><br />Hello, Mark. I'm a bit puzzled by some of the logic you're using here.<br /><br />You seem to be saying that if an organization's manifesto does not include a reference to something you hold valuable, it is safe to assume they are actually <span style="font-style: italic;">against</span> that particular concern? Wouldn't such an assumption be similar to reading the aims and goals of the local astronomers club, and then declaring that, "When push comes to shove, they've all got their eyes on the stars, and so care nothing for the concerns of the very planet they inhabit! Their club charter doesn't mention a thing about saving the whales; they're obviously anti-cetaceanists! And to the extent that astronomers care about anything else, they then are not astronomers, are they?"<br /><br />That's quite a stretch, I think. It's also incorrect when it comes to humanist concerns. You say humanists care little or nothing for the environment, yet if you look at the <a href="http://humaniststudies.org/hm3.html">Humanist Manifesto III</a>, that's plainly not the case (emphasis mine):<br />"Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and <span style="font-weight: bold;">extended to the global ecosystem and beyond</span>."<br /><br />If the astronomers lived in an astrology dominated world, their manifesto would probably be centered around describing what sets them apart from astrologers. Likewise, the Humanist Manifesto III looks to have been written with the main thrust of describing humanist values vis-a-vis a religiously dominated world. You seem to be perceiving stated humanist values as being written vis-a-vis an environmentalist worldview. That's clearly not the case.<br /><br />Even if most humanists were self-centered proponents of speciesism, one would think they'd still be rational enough to accept a non-humanist's argument that taking action to save the planet, and all other species on and in it, was in the best interests of humanists and, indeed, was the only way to further the goals of humanism itself.<br /><br />It appears you're making that very argument in your last paragraph. Yet, in your concluding sentences you negate its force. Basically, you're saying that humanists need to realize that it's in their best interests to save the planet, but they won't do it because you've decided that's not what humanism entails. Have I got that right?<br /><br />You said: "OK, we can bleat on about how much we care about the planet, or other animals, but in general (though not always) these are just crocodile tears."<br /><br />So, humanists cannot be active environmentalists, and vice versa? Why not? Because you've decided that the humanist movement largely consists of hypocrites, and those that actually do take action for environmental causes don't realize they're behaving in a logically impossible fashion (or, at the very least, that they're no longer "true" humanists - whatever that means)?<br /><br />Even if you feel that I am completely in error here, is it your intention to rally people to your cause, which I assume is saving the planet and other species, or are you more concerned with everyone signing on to your definition of humanism and admitting that they're just a bunch of loathsome, deluded hypocrites? A similar question would be: Can Christians and non-believers work together on environmental issues, or must the Christians first admit that their religion is nonsense before non-believers will consider them truly and sincerely on-board?Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-81272245848051659112007-09-19T15:58:00.000-07:002007-09-19T16:20:33.278-07:00Zombies need killin'A recent post by James F. Elliot, on his blog <a href="http://jamesfelliott.blogspot.com/">Often Right, Rarely Correct</a>, prompted readers to list their preferred zombie slaying weapons. I offer some of my favored implements of undead destruction below.<br /><br />Remington 1100 auto-loading 12ga with 10 round extended magazine. A non-reflective Parkerized finish or camo cover (Mossy Oak Breakup is the new basic black) is preferred; zombies are attracted to shiny objects as well as movement. Great close range knock down power using buckshot, with long range capability when using slug ammunition. Clip fed weapons can provide more rounds at once, until you've emptied all your magazines, and then they're awkward and time consuming to reload under pressure. The shotgun can be back in action more quickly, and reloaded on the run. Also, 12ga ammo is one of the most widely available rounds at your local post-apocalyptic sporting goods department.<br /><br />Battle-axe, if you've got the strength to wield it properly. Better than what you'd find at the hardware store; the rounded blade is less likely than that of the standard axe or hatchet to get wedged (and you <em>will</em> get it wedged) in zombie flesh when you fail to completely lop off that head or leg.<br /><br />Dagger. The Gerber MkII with titanium nitride finish is a good choice. A quick poke in the medulla can completely incapacitate the biggest of the lumbering undead. Best used from behind, but still effective in the "hug position" if you end up dancing cheek to cheek with a flesh eating fiend.<br /><br />Telephone patch cord. Doesn't everybody have at least six of these things lying around the house from all the computers, modems, and phones they've bought over the years? They make great trip wires when strung across doorways and stapled to the frame. Having that first one go down, and the others fall on top, can give you a few precious seconds to grab your weapon or jump out a window before the whole horde piles in on you.<br /><br />Aerosol hairspray. It stings zombie eyes too. Yeah, they can still smell you out, but at that point you've already burst out of your hiding place and gone on the offensive. Also, a little V05 extra hold combined with a Bic lighter can really get those staggering buggers fired up, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />4WD truck. Ford, Chevy, Toyota, brand really doesn't matter. Just run over'em; windows up, air conditioning on, death metal cranked. Hell, drink a beer if you want (but just one; gotta stay sharp). Oh, and wear your seatbelt. Safety first, you know?Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-18302688047612970552007-07-27T15:09:00.000-07:002007-09-19T16:22:03.238-07:00Religious TruthIs there such a thing? If so, what epistemic metric can we use to know we've actually discovered it? This question is explored by Simen on the <a href="http://de-conversion.com/2007/07/24/the-astronomical-cheesologist/">de-conversion</a> blog. The conversation was about whether or not religious truths should be subject to empirical scientific investigation. Following is an only slightly modified version of my comments on the issue.<br /><br />Heather (and perhaps others) have touched on the Argument From Disagreement, which says: Because theological claims conflict, at least some of them must be false, and all of them could be false. Now, I'd like to take that argument in a different than usual direction.<br /><br />There are two ideas in the comments that I've been thinking about. Agkyra started things off at the top by asserting that theological questions are outside the domain of empirical science, and I believe it was Kramii who mentioned a toolkit for investigating reality.<br /><br />If what Agkyra says is true, and the resolution of theological questions is ultimately outside the purview of empirical science, is there an alternative method for discovering religious truth? Considering that various strongly held, yet diametrically opposed, religious beliefs continue to cause warfare and other forms of human suffering, wouldn't it be a worthwhile endeavor to resolve such conflicts? I'm not talking about ecumenism, although I find that worthwhile as well. I mean the actual methodical determination of which theological claims are in fact true.<br /><br />Doing this would certainly make the world a more peaceful place. And for those who believe in a loving God, I think he'd certainly be pleased if everyone were on the same doctrinal page rather than fighting over scriptural interpretations or which church or religion was the "right" one. And just think of all the deconverted who could now reconvert with confidence that they're on the right metaphysical track.<br /><br />If any believers have an idea how to do this I'd be interested to hear it. Such a project would sure beat pastimes like the Sunni vs. Shiite "games" in Iraq. Sure, there would still be different denominations of the certified One True Religion, just to accommodate different tastes in worship services, but people wouldn't have to waste precious time accusing each other of practicing a religion that's "of the devil", or wondering whether or not God really cares if they use condoms.<br /><br />Does what I'm saying sound facetious? It could be taken that way. It could also be taken as a serious challenge for believers to find a way to revolutionize metaphysical inquiry, and put the Argument From Disagreement forever to rest.<br /><br />Another thought: maybe I'm making a different category mistake than Agkyra claims is being made by those who attempt to assess theological truths using empiricism. Perhaps theology is more analogous to aesthetics than any type of methodological investigation like science.<br />Poetry, paintings, and music may contain references to facts, but they're not about empirical truth, although they're definitely not without meaning for those who appreciate them. They may speak to us about the human condition, point out flaws in our societies, cause us to examine our darkest selves, or strike deep emotional chords that inspire us to do great things. There isn't one "true" religion any more than there is one "true" form of artistic expression. Now I'm getting ecumenical, and universalist here...<br /><br />If religious beliefs and experiences are a close analogue to artistic expression and appreciation, then they can have great power for those individuals whose lives they touch. They also, like art, may inspire individuals but never dictate to the masses. A novel may inspire individuals to change from its lament on the failings of society, but has no right to impose its narrative on that society. And a painting may depict the law, but never legislate. Because religion and art are both "in the eye of the beholder" they can have no authority over those who do not choose to appreciate them.Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7720008736148954494.post-74401941626519043602007-03-05T08:03:00.000-08:002007-09-19T16:22:37.842-07:00Response to Mark VernonPhilosopher Stephen Law began a series of posts on <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/">his blog</a> regarding whether or not atheism was a "faith position." The discussion spread over to <a href="http://www.markvernon.com/">Mark Vernon's</a> blog when he responded to Stephen Law's posts. I responded to Mr. Vernon's post entitled "Common Mistakes of Atheists," and he responded to some of my comments (and the comments of others) in his second post, "Common Mistakes of Atheists II." His response included a couple of questions to me, but, for whatever reason, my comments in reply did not appear on his blog. I now post them here.<br /><br />MV: "My point is that all images of God must be done away with. So, no: you can't agree on what a true God is."<br /><br />With no image, no properties; with no properties, no discussion, no? Honestly, I'm not sure what would possibly be left to talk about.<br /><br />MV: "Again, the great theologians say this: God is always wholly other. You might approximate. But then you have to do away with your approximations too. God is beyond human comprehension else not God."<br /><br />If these are Christian theologians, wouldn't they by ignoring the Bible's statement about human beings being made in His image? Human beings and human understanding would, following the "in His image" line of reasoning, be the approximations that allow some point of reference when discussing God. If we do away with even mere approximations of God, and say God is beyond human comprehension, then how can any theologian say <em>anything</em> about what God is or is not, what God desires or does not desire, or how human beings can in any way relate to such an entity? It seems they'd all be out of business.<br /><br />MV:"So you notice I say 'Whatever omnipotence might be...' not this is what omnipotence is (which is what in effect Stephen Law implies by insisting that an all-powerful, all-good God must be able to do away with so much evil.)"<br /><br />Didn't you also insist on what God must or must not be able to do when you said: "Whatever omnipotence might be it is not simply the ability to act whenever."? I think Stephen Law was simply following the dictionary's definition of that word. You were, it seems, agreeing (in the original post) with theologians who appear to prefer not only their own definitions of God, but of words as well.<br /><br />MV: "I don't understanding your point about Occam's razor. Natural explanations can be enormously complicated. And anyway, Occam's razor is very out of fashion in science these days: think of the speculations about the multiverse or of evolutionary psychology."<br /><br />The reason for the razor is that you said: "Another reason why I think God will always be an open question is that any perception of God someone claimed to have would always be indistinguishable from some natural experience." And I thought: what's the difference between an undetectable God ("...indistinguishable from some natural experience"), and no God at all? The proposition of God (or any other supernatural entity) causing the "perception" would be superfluous in that case.<br /><br />As for scientific speculations, they're hypotheses and require evidence to be incorporated into theories. Evolutionary psychology is what I'd call a (very) "young science." The Multiverse hypothesis, from what little I understand of it, seems to be metaphysics so far.<br /><br />MV:"Do you really think that people's belief in supernatural agencies are falling away?"<br /><br />In regard to them being the cause of "nearly all phenomena," as I stated, yes I do. For instance, there are some groups living in modern society who still think evil spirits or curses cause disease, but most don't. They go to the doctor for a prescription to cure their malady, not the witch doctor. People living in third world countries, and some groups of Christian fundamentalists in the U.S., excepted, of course. We consult the Weather Channel these days, rather than implore Zeus or Thor, before planning a lightening bolt-free picnic. That's not to say that believers don't think God created lightening bolts, it's just that most don't imagine Him lobbing each one by hand at some sinner, thereby providing an object lesson to the masses.<br /><br />MV: "As to theology being 'made up': well, all human discourse is made up in that sense; we make it! Which is not to say it is not enormously valuable - even bearing some relation to the way things actually are in themselves from time to time - just never absolutely certain."<br />We cannot be even <em>remotely</em> certain how theology relates to "the way things actually are in themselves from time to time" with this concept-free God you've proposed. As for theology being like the rest of human discourse, in that they're both "made up": That's like saying a college level world history textbook is the same as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, since they both use words to tell us about past events.Steelmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com1