|
|
Fatah? Hamas?
InFRAKKINsane.
Oh, and once again, people are dying over the flavors of magic. And, hey, with luck, this insanity will spread next door so everyone can, for the umptiumpth time, play "My Invisible Sky God is Better Than Your Invisible Sky God."
You can smell the burning flesh from here.
Posted by Jody at 06:50 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Mags, you really needed to figure out you didn't want to be a mother before you had two kids and adopted a third.
Posted by Jody at 07:47 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
In the recent upgrade to MT 3.5, about 12 months of entries between 2004-2005 were corrupted. The back-up files still exist. It's just going to take me a while to enter them again. Until then, there are quite a few "gaps" on these archive pages.
Posted by Jody at 10:45 PM
| Comments (0)
Andy mentioned the Raelians, and their cloning wackiness. I haven't had much of a chance to speak about them, so let me rectify that right now, okay?
I know there are a lot of other people posting funny things about the Raelians religious beliefs -- and a lot of those posters run religious blogs.
To me, that's like one group of schizophrenics arguing with another group of schizophrenics over the veracity of their particular hallucination. ("No! The blue haired yak is singing to me!") Or, as I like to say, "My Invisible Sky God can beat up Your Invisible Sky God."
But I didn't come here to slam religion. (Well, at least not today. It's a new year, after all and I'm quite certain scads of opportunities will present themselves soon.)
The other argument I've seen, the real argument, is concern over Human Beings playing "God." We just shouldn't do it, we're not up to the task and we really need to stop. Given that I don't believe in gods, I find that characterization of the argument specious at best. We've been "playing God" with the Human race for thousands of years, ever since some freethinker had an epiphany and decided to set a broken bone instead of waiting for the Invisibles to do it for him. The vast majority of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't for our miracle medicine and the lives it's managed to save.
If the Raelians did what they said -- and I doubt they did -- there's no real ethical concern. Reproduction through somatic nuclei transfer makes you a twin, not a "clone" in the popular, Sci-Fi sense. There's no immortality involved, unless I missed something and identical twins are immortal. ( I wouldn't mind these guys being imported into my bed, but then I digress.)
If the Raelians did not do what they said -- which is more likely -- then tomorrow hasn't arrived. Yet. But Tomorrow is still coming. It'll probably arrive on CNN, interrupt yet another season of Friends and be discussed endlessly in Blogdom. It will happen though. We will clone someone. We will harness stem cells. We will engineer DNA. We will actually become "Gods." (We can already throw the whole lighting bolt thing....)
The cold reality is that our "ascension" to "Godhood" has been going on ever since that first bone setting and will continue long after we've taken apart our solar system and reconstructed it as a impossibly large walkup with central heating and really panoramic views.
What we have to concern ourselves with isn't the "God" argument. The Gods never did that great a job anyway, bastards of the Id all. We, from time to time, actually have. We change, we grow, we adapt and we learn. They don't. Our society refflects this. Theirs never do. Besides, as Uncle Nietzsche said, they're dead and it's best that way. (He got a little silly after that. Beer, you see.)
We have to wrestle, we have to argue, we have to debate and we have to understand. There's so much promise that lays ahead in this feild -- and so much peril. Hiroshima gave us nuclear medicine and we are the better for it. Genies don't go back into bottles and, quite frankly, I'm not certain they should.
I am concerned about the long term health effects of whatever child is brought into the world through cloning. As so much of who we are -- our inquisitiveness, our compassion, our anger, our religiosity, our sexuality, our "humanness" -- is a product of our genes, I'm also very concerned about what, in the future, we're going to be selecting for, modifying from or engineering towards. What are we going to cure? What are we going to cause? What are we going to breed out of us? What are we going to breed into us? Those are the questions we're going to be wrestling with from here on out.
As the world today is unrecognizable (generally...) from the way it was 2,000 years ago, wonders and magic do tumble all around, our world will be radically different 100 years hence. If you think I jest, ask your grandmother about what she's seen in her 80 years and what your mother has in her 50.
We're always living in our Tomorrows. We scarcely notice until they become Yesterday. The discussion we need now isn't should we or shouldn't we -- it's far, far too late for that -- but what should we, what shouldn't we and why?
The God bit -- red herring. The real bit is choice and responsibility, hard actions both. Yet, in the end, that's really what the future is made from.
Posted by Jody at 01:49 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
"If abuses are destroyed, man must destroy them. If slaves are freed, man must free them. If new truths are discovered, man must discover them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the defenseless are protected and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of man. The grand victories of the future must be won by man, and by man alone." ---Robert Ingersoll
Posted by Jody at 01:45 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
The Two Towers?
Awesome little film. It had some problems, in that it was mostly "filling time" between the Setup in FOTR and the Final Battle in ROTK, but overall, it was a great ride. The only thing that really sucked was that it's cold here in Los Angeles and I actually had to stand outside in the 50-degree weather, with a stiff ocean breeze zipping through the Marina., before I got to go in and see the movie. I know you feel my pain.
As a writer, I'm also enthralled at the depth and artistry involved in the forging of the myths that are the heart of the story: fighting the good fight, the on-going struggle of Good vs. Evil as illustrated through grand battles, personal bravery, human sacrifice and that all pervasive touch of melancholy. The romanticism at the heart of LOTR is very stirring. It reaches deep into the soul, touching the imagination and building out from there something truly magical. Peter Jackson skillfully builds on that foundation, erecting a marvelous and vivid series of images that show him to be every bit the master of his realm as Tolkien was of his own.
You do have to wonder though about the deeper themes that resonate while watching the film. There are those telling bits of dialogue, of descriptions, of the way the...
Good Guys are portrayed and the design and motivation given to the Bad ones. You do have stop and look to Tolkien's intent, to what he was trying to say or was alluding to in his story. Some argue that LOTR perfectly illustrates Humanity's "fallen state" or that the scope and detail of the story is an excellent example of Catholic doctrine? Others that the overall, ever present notion of the pastoral, perfect, golden age that must be fought for vainly or not, so as to be preserved.
Well, you can't escape the Catholic influence on JRRT's work -- hell he talks about it religiously. (Pun? Nahhh. Not from me.) Fallen man, angelic elves (depends on the story) the corruption of the Perfect, and the return (or the promise of) Eden -- all are elements pretty strongly woven through out. Oh, and don't forget to mention the passionate celebration of the rural ethic and the condemnation of the modern world. Such strong and romantic notions, all.
But there are other interpretations of LOTR, romanticism, even fantasy in general, that can also be derived from the text and the movies. These views are, in my view, much more insightful and pertinent to our existence than any starry-eyed love for the Unchanging. The sci-fi writer David Brin's excellent essay does a masterful job of outlining what's also in these tales, debunking the "Golden Perfect" Tolkien (and to a lesser extent Lewis and even George Lucas) long for.
The realities of human history, of kings, democracies, reading, writing, and knowledge are things very often forgotten when LOTR or fantasy is used to describe an older, better time that once existed and never should have died. Brin, in his article, point out that as much as there are Christian themes in LOTR, there's also a lot of equally strong reflections on the (then occurring) retreat of The British Empire, the class-based dislocations caused by the fading of empire, and the on-going turbulence that science and industrialization were bringing on the old, established order. Brin also raises the issue of he horror JRRT felt in watching the Nazis playing to the masses with the exact same romantic, pastoral and perfect themes he himself used to such great effect.
There is a great section in his essay where LOTR is evaluated from Sauron's (or his follower's) point of view, saying that's it's just a little too pat to suggest that all the armies were marching to war for "evil" means or for "more power." People, "bad guys" most especially, usually see themselves as fighting for something "good." It's in the section, the fictional reassessment aside, that the essay really shines, for Brin points out that, in the real world, what our heroes also are fighting to uphold is feudalism, classism, Divine Right of Kings and the support of the status quo. LOTR, and much of fantasy, as fun and exciting as it is, frequently is backward oriented, dreaming of the perfect time, long ago. That this was the official positions of all cultures, civilizations and nations up until very recently is not lost in the discussion.
The only real revolution, the only real golden age that has existed in 10,000 years of Human history and 10 times that in Human existence is the age we live in now, the outgrowth of the sweeping changes brought by the Enlightenment to Western Civilization more or less 500 years ago. . Religion, feudalism and magic, in its various flavors and forms over the past 10 millennia, with all of their respective appeals to the imagination, and through all of its claims as to the nature of mankind and reality never created anything approaching the level of achievement, benefit, health and standard of living that the 5 centuries of Enlightenment and Scientific Rationalism have. There's just no comparison between 2002 CE and 1202 CE -- or 500 BCE for that matter.
Brin writes: ....enlightenment, science, democracy and equal opportunity are still the true rebels, reigning for just a few generations (and still imperfectly!) in one or two corners of the Earth, after elite chiefs, romantic bards and magicians dominated our ancestors for maybe half a million years.
Don't you think a little pride in that rebellion might be called for? A radical revolution-in-progress, still fresh and incomplete.
A rebellion that (among many other things) taught serfs like you to read so you can enjoy epic books and picture things different than they are.
One that makes vivid movies that cater to your taste for adventure.
One that, for all its imperfections, gave you a better chance than in some peasant village of old.
One that has a long way to go, but has at least turned our eyes around to face the future.
It's with these words that I smiled, one even deeper than the appreciation or the heart pounding excitement rendered by the majesty of LOTR. Our grandest adventure, our deepest story, our most endearing tale, is the real one, the one that grows out of our collective struggle to make tomorrow just a bit better than today. That better never gets you "perfect," but then it never could in the first place -- perfection being a realm of the imagination. There are so many I've met, read and argued with who yearn, a little or a lot, for that return to that oft mentioned Golden Age, thinking that all we've accomplished now is weak, immaterial, vaporous or misguided. The harshest critics of our our modern world, it strikes me, are are little different than people who, having gorged themselves on the bounty of a buffet, turn around and sue the provider of that buffet for letting them eat from it in the first place. Self-critical almost to a fault, this culture may not be as romantic as those old kingdoms... but isn't it better? You are heirs of the world's first true civilization, arising out of the first true revolution. Take some pride in it...Let's keep enjoying kings and wizards. But also remember to keep them where they belong.
�
Where they can do little harm.
�
Where they entertain us.
�
In fantasies.
I love LOTR, Star Wars, Taken and all the other grand and epic stories our imaginations create. But I love this world, this real story, more than all of the above put together. For the imagination needed to bring us here, the effort necessary that created this better (but still so uneven) foundation we have on which to build is simply incredible, stunning and so utterly awe inspiring. Then there is the story yet to be told, the story of tomorrow, the story of the future. It's one of courage, of heart, of will to persevere, to dream, to take the best of today and to shape into something epic, reflecting all of the tenacity, the hope, and promise that we as a people contain.
That story, my friends, is the best one of all.
Posted by Jody at 02:04 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Better Humans has a rather strident article on ending Biblical Brainwashing: Imagine that you're a psychiatrist. A new patient comes to see you and says that he regularly talks to an invisible being who never responds, that he reads excerpts from one ancient book and that he believes wholeheartedly that its contents must be accepted implicitly, if not taken literally.
The patient goes on to say that that the world is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs never existed. He brazenly rejects modern science's observations and conclusions, and subscribes to the notion that after death he will live in eternal bliss in some alternate dimension. And throughout your meeting, he keeps handing you his book and urging you to join him, lest you end up after death in a far less desirable alternate dimension than him.
Is this a mentally healthy person? If you were a responsible psychiatrist, how could you answer yes? These symptoms border on delusional schizophrenia, which the American Psychological Association's DSM-IV describes as involving a profound disruption in cognition and emotion, assigning unusual significance or meaning to normal events and holding fixed false personal beliefs.
So, should you insist on follow-up appointments along with some strong medication? Well, quite obviously, the patient is a religious fundamentalist. So he would most likely not be diagnosed with a psychological problem. In fact, such a diagnosis could land you in hot water; the patient's religious beliefs are constitutionally protected.
Yet, perhaps it's time this changed, and that we made religious fundamentalism a mental and cultural health issue. People should be able to believe what they like, but only so long as their convictions don't harm others or, arguably, themselves. Fundamentalism, however, breeds fanaticism and often leads to terrible violence, injustice and inequality. If society can force drug addicts into rehabilitation because they're a danger to themselves and the public, then we should be able to compel religious fundamentalists to undergo treatment as well. This is one of those times where one can agree with the premise --fundamentalism is dangerous -- and reject the conclusion -- ban 'em all. Look, personally, the day religion has as much power, influence and respect as The Flat Earth Foundation does will be a great milestone in the history of Humanity. When we stop looking for cover under the context of the Invisible to solve our problems, justify our excesses or excuse our abominations, we will be much better for it. But, to me, there isn't much difference between "fundamentalism" and "mainstreamism." Both are
equally silly, with the problems of the former being ones of degree but not so much of kind when approached by the later.
Constitutional issues aside (and that's moving a lot of good things off the table), you don't get rid of an idea by banning it. That's exactly the same thing as screaming "DON'T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS" and expecting to be obeyed. No, you counter bad ideas with better ones, with the encouragement of reason, of discussion, of critical thinking and rationality. It one of the proven ways to bring people out of the post hoc fallacies of religious experience and foster a more real world orientation.
I will give Dvorsky points for recommending the teaching of critical thinking skills and the raising of standards of living as excellent prophylactic measures against the "destructive meme" of fundamentalism from finding ground. Hastening it's journey through an immunized mind, out and into the intellectual crapper where it can be easily flushed away is a great thing. Let's hope it takes along the other idea of mandating psychotherapy for fundamentalism.
However, voluntary sessions are always recommended. Email me for a referral to mental health provider near you....
Posted by Jody at 01:19 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Posted by Jody at 12:11 AM
| Comments (0)
TRIP points out that, from what he read, reason actually scored a win in Ohio, with their Board of Education adopting a strong evolution program. He was justifiably concerned about the link I posted from American's United calling the vote a defeat.
After checking out Ohio Citizens for Science, and article by AP, the National Center for Science Education and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, I think I understand why there is so much concern.
The Plain Dealer article was the most enlightening. It pointed out that while the State Board of Education did adopt a provision that "requires] students to examine criticisms of biological evolution," it also passed a disclaimer stating that "their action should not be construed as support for the controversial concept of intelligent design."
So what it seems to be is a political move on their part to placate both sides of the debate. Science can claim victory because evolution is being taught. Magic can claim a victory because of the "examine criticisms" line included in the act, and politicians can claim victory for creating the compromise.
AU is concerned that it wasn't a clean win, that because of the wiggle room in the motion, IDers still have some ground on which to press their claims. Fair enough. I too would have liked a striking rebuke to the Invisible set.
Yet what occurred is a political compromise, one where each side gives up a little, or a lot, in furtherance of agreement. Truth be told, I think the IDers gave up more than science ever did. While they can claim victory, given that young people are still going to learn the facts of life -- evolution -- and that magic isn't being endorsed and, given the lack of time to teach anything, let alone the regular curriculum, the ID'ers came out on the defacto loosing end of this vote.
I'm going to therefore change my hrrrumpppth against Ohio. While I'd have liked a legislative "Get Stuffed" to those in the ID camp, the vote the school board passed is close enough.
Posted by Jody at 03:49 PM
| Comments (0)
The archbishop and the atheist clash: WITH God on his side, in the red corner, is Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow and one of Scotland's leading Roman Catholic clergymen.
In the blue corner is Richard Dawkins, faithful atheist and professor of the public understanding of science.
The battle arena is the letters page of The Herald, where they are coming to blows over the issue of separate Catholic schools and sectarianism.
Today, the archbishop responds to a letter by Richard Dawkins, in yesterday's Herald, that took issue with the archbishop's assertion that Catholic schools seek to promote harmony and understanding between "communities".
After Professor Dawkins described such a "claim" as "flagrantly dishonest", the archbishop responded with a letter in today's paper which reads: "I am amazed that an Oxford don with responsibility for promoting an understanding of science can so blatantly forget that judgments ought to be based upon facts and rooted in evidence....
I'd go Dawkins in the fifth round based on his performance against the Dalai Lama last year, but Conti came from behind and K.O'd Jonas Salk in little televised match last week, so that could really confuse things.
Posted by Jody at 11:54 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Josh got mad regarding my characterization of the RCC in light of the recent revelations. He comments: {That's} A cheap shot, as the whole church never claims to be infallible Well, I'm not feeling particularly charitable today, so I can't agree in the slightest. The hubris on display by the RCC, the arrogance, the deception, is directly linked to the belief of the Divinity of the organization.
Once you put forth the idea that you are Infallible, especially when you keep that notion vague, applying it to "faith and morals" on some occasions and Magesterium pronouncements on others, you've entered into company that, in the modern era, includes dictators and CEO's: I'm right, because I'm Chosen. I hear the reality, so the argument goes, I'm in tune. Trust me.
What is occurring now, with the treatment of all of these children and the response by the RCC, is par for the historical course. The RCC has acted this way historically. Whenever its been called to account, its weaseled it way out, rationalized and justified its case in true, political fashion. It's done this regarding the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, Slavery, homosexuality and now this. Nope. Not our fault. Not us. Somebody else. Mistakes were made.
So no, Josh. It's not a cheap shot. The "spirit" of the RCC is little better than any other Kingdom that's gone before it. Its behaved in no better a manner nor has it "fessed" up with any more honesty than Castro. Yes, it clothes and feeds and cares, but the Soviets did this and North Koreans still do.
A kingdom, a dictatorship, be it "spiritual", temporal or both, is still a kingdom. If we've learned anything in 10,000 years of Human History, it's that kingdoms, this side of fairy tales, suck royally.
Posted by Jody at 12:55 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
At 16, I was so eager to get a car. Heavenstobetsy, I scrimped and saved money from my job at a movie theater so that I could "afford" to drive the cast off auto that was destined to come my way. When it did finally arrive, that beat up Brown Dodge Omni Hatchback, I really did think I was the Man, able to now tool down the highway, waving out from the earthy brown interior of Detroit's Finest. I would finally be free. I could do whatever I wanted. Yadah, yadah. You know the drill. Got car. Got responsibilities. Had to pay for insurance, gas, tickets. Had to drive sister around. Still couldn't stay out past midnight on a Friday. Typical teen response: "So freakin what? I'm still bloody 16!!! I can't do anything! Argh." I'm sure most of you either said it, or, if you are currently inflicted with that ever lingering STD called "Teenager," you hear it constantly.
I also remember getting this super, totally awesome computer system in my early 20's. All the the bells and whistles. All the the doo-dads and gigamajagitcs. Great machine. Thought it would allow me to turn out the most beautiful and literate masterpieces of fiction this side of Tolkein. Nope. Didn't happen. While I had fun learning on it, it didn't solve my problems, didn't do the work I needed to do to get better at putting phrases together, nor for that matter make me a master typist overnight.
I thought once upon a time getting kissed by a girl would suddenly have my life make sense. I wouldn't be gay anymore... of course, I wasn't gay then, I was just in love with River Phoenix, big difference... but after Alexandria gave me a peck on the lips because I was just "so sensitive," all I could think of was "So what? That's a big nothing."
Same thing happened the first time I kissed a guy too. All my problems didn't vanish. I was still me, I had a lot of growing up to do. Of course, I did get that tingle in my toes, and that rolling thunder that bounded from my heart through my ribcage and back out my throat that told me I was finally on the right track, but all other things equal, life still went on.
Can I say that getting my Master's degree, buying a house, getting a promotion, going a vacation for the first time by myself, getting a checking account and whole host of other, momumental, I-saw-this-in-a-coming-of-age-movie-and-it-was-really-powerful events that, I thought were supposed to answer all those Biq Questions, roll-up the "So Whats" of existence and drop them forever in the Existential Landfill outside of Hackensack, New Jersey? (Exit 23) actually occured? Nope. At the end of the day, they provided no more meaning for my life than wearing the right clothes, shopping in the right stories or buying the right detergent does.
So when I come across a passage like this: I had placed a personal. A man responded to it. We hit it off and ended up at his apartment, where we had some of the best sex I have ever had. It was everything I had always wanted in a sexual encounter, but had seldom experienced. But afterwards, I was hit like a ton of bricks with a question I could not answer. "So what?" Can you imagine? I have just had the best sex of my life, and all I could think was, "So what?" That phrase kept echoing in my head, and I did not have an answer to it. It just seemed so pointless. And then, to top it all off, he never called me again, and, apart from some slight damage to my pride, I didn't care. The level of my indifference really shocked me. I had spent twenty years fantasizing about an evening like that. I left the church for the sake of it, but once it happened, it just evaporated into thin air. I suddenly realized, this is no way to live. And the next thing I knew, I was going to confession...."
I had to laugh quite loudly. Because what this man said is that he had a profound existential crisis after getting his dick sucked....
I've had good sex in my life, but please.
Far be it from me to come between a man and his deep and profound Inner Awaking To the Cosmic All, but as crises go, while I'm sure his was a rather messy affair, I can't help but think a warm washcloth would have cleared the after-effects away much more thoroughly than a chest beating, "woe is me" look into the very depths of being.
Hey, buddy, you found good sex. That's no small thing in this whacky world of ours. But if you actually thought that good sex leads to good love, well you're right back there in the whole "I'll just buy a car and everything in my life will be great" neighborhood. Finding love through the classifieds, or a bar or any other one night pick up situation, occurs about as often as purchasing a wining lottery ticket on a whim does-- just enough to seem promising but rare enough to know that your efforts would be better spent in something with a proven track record for getting the return you want. Stocks or real estate for the money, time spent volunteering or recreating in a league sport or hobby for meeting people with the shared interests so necessary for love to take hold.
But because the Catholic Church teaches being gay is bad -- and I've heard the rationalizations and convoluted logic that tries to prove this isn't so, but much like a used car salesman and his wares, I just don't buy it -- what are otherwise regular old lessons of life become some big case of "See, it's because you're gay and not because -- as with everything else -- you are Human and have to learn things the hard way."
Life doesn't come off as advertised at the movies. It rarely meets our expectations, especially when we cling to them, deeming to surpass them only when we are no longer looking. (This is right up Scott's Zen-Alley.) Meaning and value? Those things are never found, only created. They come through the effort, through motion, through the attempt. They are earned, not granted. We learn this lesson early on with that first candy bar (or car) that the held the promise of a thousand dreams but that vanished with the waking that comes with possessing. When it hits us again, while in pursuit of those more adult things, we don't beat our chests and go "So What?" but slap our heads and go "Of course!"
After awhile you learn the subtle difference
Between holding a hand and chaining a soul,
And you learn that love doesn't mean leaning
And company doesn't mean security,
And you learn that kisses aren't contracts
And presents aren't promises,
And you begin to accept your defeats
With your head up and your eyes open,
With the grace of an adult, not the grief of a child,
And learn to build your roads
On today because tomorrow's ground
Is too uncertain for plans, and futures have
A way of falling down in midflight.
After awhile you learn that even sunshine
Burns if you get too much.
So you plant your own garden and decorate
Your own soul, instead of waiting
For someone to bring you flowers.
And you learn that you really can endure...
That you really are strong
And you really do have worth.
And you learn and learn...
With every goodbye you learn.
--- Mary T. Flores.
Posted by Jody at 12:35 AM
| Comments (0)
Some words about�Victims by my favorite psychiatrist, Sheldon Kopp's "The End of Innocence:" The victim is far more dangerous than the powerful, responsibility-burdened caretaker. Beware the helplessness gambit of the chronic victim! Some people typically get out from under their own responsibilities (in which they would otherwise have to take care of themselves) by acting helpless and weak in order to invite others to do it for them.
If the other person does not respond, then he is accused of being cruel and unfeeling. But should he arrogantly take on the role of caretaker, then the helpless one will soon hold him in contempt as being a weak fool, and what he offers will be returned as somehow not good enough. In the long run the helper is made to feel helpless. Finally the victim is in the power position (though he has won nothing but the degrading imposition of his will by playing through weakness) or failing that, he settles for the spiteful sense of having been able to keep the other from having his way.
Posted by Jody at 01:58 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Reality
December 03, 2002
Evan, in my comments section, is upset that I'm not making any distinctions between the various religions of the world, lumping them as I do, all together in one grand, orthodox block, and taring them all with the same brush.Do you make no distinction between Presbyterians and Muslims, Catholics and Jews, Jews and Eastern Orthodox, Muslims and Mennonites, and so on? It's all the same thing to you, right, and you want no part of it. Sounds to me like the fallacy of false hypostatis, a refusal to make distinctions. Why not support good religion against bad? The real religious war is fought not with tanks or bombs, but with the Spirit of God and the sword of His Word. Our cause is one that's certainly worth dying for, but never worth killing for.
I don't make a much of distinction between the faiths because their isn't one to really be made. At the end of the day they all embrace the Invisibles and the belief that their respective Invisible is the right one, all others be damned. Some say it nicely, some say it boldly. At the end of it though, they still say it. "I'm right and you are wrong, because."
The plea is always made that all of the bad things that religion has done isn't really religion. Real religion is a Really Great Thing (TM), that just gets a bad wrap. If I made that argument about intoxication, heroin addiction, or Marxism, I get laughed off the planet. Yet no one ever seems to do the same when the issue is raised regarding religion. Well, maybe we in the atheistic minority get a chuckle out of it, but when everyone else on the planet is laughing at you, with all that noise, who can really tell, right?
[Regarding religion]Find the ones whose profession is matched by practice, whose confession of Christ has renewed their character, and you will have found the Church in which there is salvation for the world It doesn't take a great deal of detective work to see that there are loads of people who constantly claim that religion saved their life. Many truly believe it too, and who am I, with my batch of statistics pointing out that the excesses of youth fade with age and that our inbred genetic sense of community and social structures does wonders for tempering malignant behaviors, to argue differently? I'll gladly accede your point that religion changes lives. So too does karate, coaching, psychology, and regular sex. Life is about change. Sooner or later you'll be "hit" by something and find your life moving off in an unforeseen direction.
In regards to religion, Christ does it for some. For others its Allah. Still others find Joseph Smiths second Bible more to their liking. Still others find Swami Whatever their cup of tea. Many of them toe the line with a "profession matched by practice," becoming markedly new people, with said religion having "renewed their character." To be perfectly fair, sometimes its much for the better, with soup kitchens and AIDS hospices being the result.
That renewed character though is just as often likely to go the other way too. Osama, Oliver Cromwell, Jim Jones and even Uncle Adolph were all touched by the relampago and shared their gifts and insights with us whether we wanted them too or not. Like that damn Christmas fruitcake that you didn't want, can't stomach and just can't friggin get rid of...
Where's the danger in it, you ask? You simply can't say that our religion has to breed violence...But we have renounced all that! That is the miracle of grace - that we are allowed to change, that God does not abandon His Church, no matter what atrocities they commit in His Name. Why do you continue to judge us solely by our past? Religion breeds violence in as much as men (and women) breed violence. It's in our nature. It's part of us. It can be channeled and directed, but denying it, thinking it as something other is a nice delusion as delusions go, but its still...and I know you see this coming 'cause it ain't hard...a delusion.
I'm glad you've renounced all the bad things you've done. Yipee, yipee. Am I encouraged? No. No more so than I have been when every alcoholic, drug abuser or child beater has renounced their particular bad habit once and for all. Renouncing is easy. I've renounced a second piece of chocolate cake enough times to build a small apartment complex (yeah, okay, that's a funky image, but damn, it's late.) In psychology, we have a little guide that goes "past performance predicts future behavior." Religion constantly renounces all the evil its done, swearing it'll never do it again. Yet, surprise, there it goes again. Those regenerated people, swell folks all, do some pretty nasty things, quite unintentionally mind you, for all the best of reasons.
Much like the alcoholic, or the drug abuser, or the child beater I mentioned, they do it because they don't change the environment they're in nor the behaviors that grow from that environment. Divine revelation, with its refusal to deal in facts, data, observation and understanding, is a carwreck just waiting to happen (again...) If I say that we are, by nature, by observation, by genetic matching, sociological comparison and through analysis of comparable the same behaviors in our simian relatives, aggressive, warlike and cruel, easily excusing the the worst behaviors to the best of motives, so we need to be on constant guard against the darkest parts of ourselves and vigilant against our easy efforts to rationalize it all away with convenient whitewashing, and you say "I believe the passages in Psalms have an appropriate reference to Israel's struggles against idolatry, but since the NT nation of Israel is the Church in Christ, we are bound by Christ's message of nonviolence in the Sermon on the Mount - until He comes to judge the world in the Last Day. In that war, there will be no mercy and no neutrality, but until then, there is mercy available for all..." then my response is is going to reference delusions, medication and long list of aggrieved (and exterminated) parties who wound up on the wrong side of Israel's poetic license.
Violence, like sex, anger, rage and like love, kindness, and compassion, are actually part of our condition. It's part of everything that we do, see, feel and achieve. The anomie that you charge our society with has been there with all the Godly societies created too... be they those of Israel, England or Saudi Arabia. (Anomie, unrest, is also part of who we are.) And if you are going to point out that none of those were really Godly societies, that the real godly society wouldn't have any of problems, then I'll play that silly game too and say that real Marxism/Nazism/Islam/Democracy is just as perfect. Hell, I'd say that Zordism, which no one has, as yet, created perfectly on this planet, is even better -- but I'd still be talking outta my ass....
My point to Evan, to anyone who's upset that reality sucks, that nothing's perfect, that our wonderful stories about ourselves don't bear up under honesty scrutiny, is that this is the case for all of us. All the time. Has always been and most likely will always be. We are better off though, seeing the man behind the curtain than the Great and Powerful Oz with his lighting, booming voice and vaporic promises.
When you realize that life does suck, that its unfair, that it can be miserable, you're free at the same time to see that it doesn't always suck, that it isn't always unfair and that it doesn't just have to be miserable.
The knowledge of who we are -- really --, the information about what works and what doesn't, what we have guard against and embrace, is a pretty friggin wonderful happenstance. It allows us to see. No revelation required, no Invisible necessary, no delusion brokered.
It's a Real foundation on which to build Real things for a Real world.
Posted by Jody at 03:20 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
"The few took advantage of the ignorant many. They pretended to have received messages from the Unknown. They stood between the helpless multitude and the gods. They were the carriers of flags of truce. At the court of heaven they presented the cause of man, and upon the labor of the deceived they lived."
"We find now that the prosperity of nations has depended, not upon their religion, not upon the goodness or providence of some god, but on soil and climate and commerce, upon the ingenuity, industry, and courage of the people, upon the development of the mind, on the spread of education, on the liberty of thought and action; and that in this mighty panorama of national life, reason has built and superstition has destroyed."
"I believe in the religion of reason -- the gospel of this world; in the development of the mind, in the accumulation of intellectual wealth, to the end that man may free himself from superstitious fear, to the end that he may take advantage of the forces of nature to feed and clothe the world."
Robert Ingersoll (1889)
Posted by Jody at 12:05 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Apparently, July to November 2002 are missing from my import and update.
For the moment, they can be found here until I can figure out how to get them in here individually.
Posted by Jody at 01:10 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Interesting article atSpiked Online: All cultures are not equal The fury that drove the planes into Twin Towers was nurtured as much by the nihilism and fatalism that now grips much of Western society as by the struggle in Palestine or anywhere else in the . There was nothing remotely anti-imperialist or progressive about the attack; nor is there about the visceral anti-Americanism that today animates Islamic fundamentalists and Western radicals alike.
There is much to deplore about American society and American foreign policy. But little of it is embodied in the anti-Americanism either of Islamic fundamentalism or of contemporary Western radicalism.
Rather, they are both the products of the failure of anti-imperialism, and of a disaffection with the modern world. The irony of such estrangement from modernism is that it is as rooted in the 'Western tradition' as modernism itself - but only in its more reactionary and backward-looking strands.
Posted by Jody at 03:48 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Scott, Elton and Vaara all remind me that there are other rational and Humanistic bloggers traveling the same roads. Go visit these guys.
But, I want more damn it!
Posted by Jody at 09:54 AM
| Comments (2)
| TrackBack
In my limited and rather unscientific sampling, I'm about the only secular humanist, atheistic, skeptical bloggin fool out here. Well, there are people who are some bits of the above, but usually I've only found out about it through personal correspondence.
In the interest of creating more links and trying to spread the word, I'm wondering who out there in blogland has a site that is devoted, even in some small way, to skepticism, rationalism and Humanism? (The appreciation of cute lifeguards, while awesome, isn't necessary.)
So how about it? Anyone else out there?
Posted by Jody at 12:02 PM
| Comments (4)
| TrackBack
Jason Steffens writes
Orrin Judd cited this article yesterday, which notes a Harvard study that suggests Uganda is on its way to largely wiping out its HIV problem through a concerted effort to promote abstinence and faithfulness....
Jody of nakedwriting.com tends to question my adherence to abstinence-only education in our public schools. He thinks that view is dangerous because it doesn't teach kids how to protect themselves, given that they're likely to have sex anyway. I'd be interested to know what he thinks of this study...
I'd say that you both got snookered by the spin of religious opportunists that would whiz into the wind and claim they weren't getting wet if they thought it would advance their cause.
While it is true that Uganda has stressed marriage and abstinence they have also stressed condom usage,  something conveniently missed in all of Focus on the Family's chatterings. According to John Hopkins University, condom usage among men aged 15 to 19 has increased by 60% from 1989 to 1995.
President Yoweri Museveni's administration established The Ugandan National Task Force on AIDS in 1990. One year later a multi-sectored program began, which involved condom distribution and promotion through popular songs, drama groups, counseling, and support services. In 1995, a nationwide promotion campaign initiated more approaches to promote safe sex, abstinence, fewer sex partners, and condom use among young people.
President Yoweri Museveni stated, "We encouraged community based initiatives and our campaign has produced a lot of mass networks. We encouraged condom use and in ten years have seen it go up from seven percent to forty-two percent." (SEICUS, 2002)
James Whitworth, who led the study, said it attributed a multi-level approach to the change: "However, our findings strengthen evidence from earlier studies of declines in HIV prevalence and increases in risk-lowering sexual behavior, and give hope that AIDS control programs can control the AIDS epidemic with messages about changes in behavior"
This was reflected by England's Independent in March, writing: Once referred to by its euphemism "slim", Aids has become a topic of easy conversation in shops and on street corners all over Uganda. Roads winding into the lakeside capital, Kampala, are sometimes covered with condom posters. Popular FM radio stations frequently discuss the disease, as do clergymen, parliamentarians and even military men, some of whom have gone public with their own HIV status.
Curiously, and in a glaring irony in light of much of the Religious Right's past comments, "There's been a great change from our starting point," says Dr Nathan Nshakira, who is leading ActionAid's Africa campaign. "Those who are infected are not condemned for 'immoral' behavior, while those who aren't [infected] no longer believe 'it couldn't happen to me'."
Furthermore, while the AIDS fight in Uganda may be a success, it isn't quite the success that many would believe. Justin O Parkhurst, writing in the July 5th edition of The Lancet pointed out: A second identified misinterpretation of data relates to the premature assertion that incidence rates of HIV-1 in Uganda have fallen..... Successful HIV-1 prevention cannot be claimed until a decrease in the number of new infections each year (measured as incidence) occurs. Put simply, prevalence can decline while overall incidence remains stable or even increases. Such a dynamic would arise if mortality of the HIV-1 infected population were to increase above the incidence rate. Although many use the term HIV rates ambiguously, others have specifically made claims of declines in HIV incidence9 when, at the time, there was no evidence to this effect. Indeed, the first significant data on declining incidence rates in Uganda was not presented until 2000, at the Durban International AIDS Conference. meaning that, while it is likely that there are less people with HIV, it hasn't been shown yet what the level of new infection is.
While Parkurst does indicate that he feels the efforts of the government are helping, and that a reduction in new infections may indeed be borne out with future research, the success can't all be given to any one policy implemented by the government, but rather a combination of factors including the openness of the government to working with a broad coalition of agencies, religious organizations and institutions, the increase in awareness of the disease, the end to the civil war with the following governmental emphasis on the problem and the simple mathematics of viral infection.
Parkhurst closes by saying: But, the misuse of Ugandan HIV/AIDS data has become commonplace in the international discourse on HIV prevention, not just in national circles. The international community might also feel under pressure to present successful examples of HIV-1 prevention, especially in view of the high-profile nature of the problem and growing media attention on the profound effect of AIDS in Africa. Such pressures can lead to the proliferation, and quiet acceptance, of statements of Ugandan success that are not, in fact, based on any conclusive evidence, but which could be more accurate and justifiable were a more detailed and contextualised approach taken to the supportive evidence. The standard of proof for policy recommendations seems to have been lowered to provide the international community with the African success story it wants, or even needs.,
The fact remains that, to date, there is no definitive evidence that abstinence-only programs do much of anything except delay by 18 months sexual relationships among a narrow cohort of adolescents under very exact circumstances. Even then, those adolescents from that cohort who happen to break their promise and engage in sexual relations are much more likely to do so in an unprotected manner than those who received safer sex education. That's not even a wash on results, in my opinion.
No AIDS educator that I've ever met has said "Go out and have sex, you rascally rabbits!" (Well, maybe one. But his bald head and speech impediment might have contributed to his comments.) The message has always been that the best way to protect yourself from HIV/AIDS/STD is to not engage in those activities that can spread the disease, to have sexual relations with only one person in a monogamous, life time coupling, or to use condoms. Attempts to characterize the education around these matters as anything else isn't just a difference of political or religious opinion, but a delusion that gets people killed.
UPDATE: Bro Judd Responds:
Bottom line : if you have monogamous heterosexual sex and don't use IV drugs, you aren't going to get AIDs. Period.
To which, I say: Bottom Line: If you choose to have sex outside of a relationship in which you know you and your partner are both monogamous and aren't abusing drugs, then the best way to protect yourself is through the use of condoms, which have been repeatedly and unambiguously shown to prevent infection from HIV & STDs when used properly and consistently. Claims by groups to the contrary are at best uniformed and at worst obdurate.
Posted by Jody at 11:55 PM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
Jason posted a valid critique to much of what I've put forth on these pages.
He writes: Well, Jody, that's a unique blend of existential cliches and Christian principles. Unfortunately, you should eventually discover that you have no real basis for your egalitarianism in light of your atheism. Were I to see the world as you believe "that it is," I would simply cease to engage you in conversation because the rewards of debate would not outweigh your offensiveness nor be worth the aggravation of disagreement in general.
However, it strikes me as odd that, as forcefully as you battle for your ideology, you think, when it suites you, that you can claim to NOT be struggling for "a particular Truth's dominion." Beyond which, you still haven't addressed how your deliberately offensive language (I mean, scatological/eschatological... did you make that up yourself or did some college professor pass on the gem?) is supposed to yield a "better tomorrow" for anybody, least of all yourself.
But you err most dramatically in your assertion that somehow Christians believe that they are instantly absolved of culpability for their lives. Quite the opposite is true.
You may disagree with the way in which some, maybe many, religious people apply their understanding of the universe as it is (i.e., a divine creation), as do I, but your alternative is hollow. You cannot simply declare a wish for "better existence" when nothing in either your other opinions or the way in which you present them supports the claim that you believe in the wish.
You contradict yourself in such ways that I believe that you haven't formed a unified understanding about these issues, and I hope for your sake that when/if you discover that you have no foundation, that your ideology hovers above an abyss, that you have not so ravaged the bridge of faith that you cannot escape your belief system's collapsing in upon you.
With sincerity and hope, Justin Katz
It's a pretty honest question, one that I've heard directed my way many times before.
Heaven knows there is alot more ellucidation on the themes of responsibility, of value and of meaning in a world without sky gods, that I've posted here over the last few months. In any event, here was the small response that I posted back: Jason, what the homilies and the stories only intimate at is that the long dark night of the soul doesn't occur just once, that Gesthemene is passed through more times than you can count, and the bridge over the abyss shatters, breaks and casts us into its depths a great, great many times. There is no one victory, save that which occurs each time we pick ourselves up after the latest in a thousand defeats and start again. Cliched, perhaps, but then much of life is.
There is no dominion in truth with a small "t". No complete and supreme authority over some kind of transcendental or spiritual reality. Prevalence or present understanding, but not dominance. Dispelling the myth that a world without sky gods and cave demons isn't a world of abandon, but rather one where good and evil is our responsibility because there is no one else to blame or appeal to, is about the best I can do.
And no, the eschatological/scatological joke wasn't something a college professor made up. It's humor that arose out of my adolescent confusion over the terms and what they meant. It was also one of the first moments where I learned that things aren't as simple and complete as CCD or Sunday School would make out -- that the world is a much more interesting, fascinating, tragic, scary yet still sublimely wonderful place than any of the good books ever proffered.
The universe is a tough place to live in. It can be daunting, intimidating even scary. There is an Inuit saying though Sila ersinarsinivdluge which means "be not afraid of the universe." I've actually always found that to be a pretty good word of advice, all things considered.
Posted by Jody at 12:09 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Seems as though I've ticked Mark Shea once again. No, no. I'm not out to get him.... it just so easy to get him riled up. (Something about needing to be the biggest ass in this collective herd off asses to which we all belong, but that's just a guess.)
Anyway, he responds here and here first thinking that I'm a closet fundamentalist and second that I'm just a fool for trying to point out that ideas don't really do anything, but that people do.
Note: There seems to be a problem with Mark's archives. Those links are only turning up blank pages. Try this link and scroll down for the comments. And yes, I know there is a joke in there somewhere about those blank pages....
As to the first charge, I'll easily grant that the Love of Mark's Invisible Sky God can be very nuanced in Catholic faith. It can also be pretty cold and harsh, in Catholic and Protestant faith, depending on whom you read, when it was written and for what reasons. Generally though, Jesus' admonishment that lust in your heart is the same thing as actually having done it, is fairly unambiguous and pops out every time someone thinks a thought they regard as being "bad."
It's an absurd idea in any event, stemming from ancient superstition and magic, that just plays right into people's insecurities and doubts about their own moral worth. No matter how nuanced you want to get, the best that such an admonishment has done is to endlessly fill bank accounts, be they those of The (insert flavor here) Church or of psychotherapists.
As for the second bit, I wouldn't really have minded so much if he'd either quoted me fully or provided a FRELLING LINK so that others could have read the comments and joined the discussion. I suppose though when you are a proud possessor of The Truth, you have no real need or desire to let anyone think for themselves, to read, argue, debate and grow. That's something only we Godless Atheistic Secular Humanists (tm) believe in. By definition then, it's suspect...
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
Susan Brownell Anthony (1820-1906) American feminist leader and suffragette 1896, addressing the National American Woman Suffrage Association meeting
Posted by Jody at 11:52 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
Here is an interesting debate that came up in the course of another discussion I've been thinking about this a lot over the last few days and, rather than bat it about on my own, I thought I'd open it up to everyone else out there.
Basically, someone said that ideas were responsible for a great many things, to which I disagreed. I wrote:
Ideas, in and of themselves, have no consequences. They have influence, they have a figurative might and in many cases a mythological truth. Actions -- speaking, writing, working, fighting -- those have consequences. Those have a real, tangible effect on this world and the inhabitants in it.
Tom replied back:
the idea that ideas have no consequences but that actions do is absurd, since actions are usually always undergirded and motivated by ideas. This process might not be explicit.... When actions are not undergirded and motivated by ideas, they are called reflexes. The actions that Jody writes about [equality of gay people], though, which presumably have to do with activism, especially something like the search for equality, are never reflexive and always undergirded and motivated by ideas.
Nice, but I still disagreed: Tom, ideas don't fire bullets, fly space-ships or march Jews off to gas chambers -- people do. While ideas are used as inspiration, guidance or justification for many, many things, they aren't culpable for our misdeeds or honored for our victories. All the kudos or condemnation is ours and ours alone.
Another writer chimed in with There's a gray area in which one INCITES with expressed ideas and is much more culpable. However, whether or not the person who speaks them is criminally culpable, ideas do have consequences because 1) one must suggest building a rocket before it can be built or launched, and 2) ideas influence our perception of reality and thereby influence all of our actions.
And I responded in kind with: I allowed ample room in my comments for the fact that ideas inspire, incite and influence. You can critique ideas, fear them, hate them or love them precisely because of their ability to inspire and all the rest. But ideas never do anything. They don't act. We act based on our ideas, based on contradictory ideas and even as Tom suggested, reflexes. Yet an idea itself? It has no literal power within the world. Figurative and metaphorical? Yes, of course. But we take our ideas and put them into practice, they don't slip out at night, steal the car, get drunk and wreck it on their own.
So that is where I'm at right now. I can see the other point, that it is the idea of Freedom that is responsible for all of the liberties that we currently enjoy. But the idea of Freedom never acted to create or maintain those liberties. We did. We did the hard work to write laws, establish precedents and achieved, for good or for bad, everything "free." Responsibility, to me then, entails the accountability for a choice made between one or more possibilities.
Websters defines responsibility as "1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent (2) : being the cause or explanation c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties....2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong 3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability ..."
So at least as I read it, there has to be something physical in existence in order for accountability to be made. That's my take. Anyone else?
Posted by Jody at 01:37 AM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
I'll post a bit more, later, after Amy has had a chance to add her comments to her discussion. In the mean time, here is an excerpt from "10 Myth's About Secular Humanism..." by Matt Cherry & Molleen Matsumura. It's a fairly simple response to the old bugbear that, without a Sky God, there can be nothing good in the affairs of we lowly, sinful Humans... ....If you believe the myth that you cannot have morality without religion and God, then you are forced to one of two conclusions. Either you can say humanists have no morals, or you can concede that they have a moral code but insist they must have gotten it from religion. We'll deal with these positions in turn. Let's start by explaining humanist ethics.
Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world.
Humanist and religious morality share many basic principles because in fact both are underpinned by the fundamental human moral sense summarized in the Golden Rule: treat others with the same consideration as you would have them treat you. Humanists recognize that the common moral decencies - for example, people should not lie, steal, or kill; and they should be honest, generous, and cooperative - really are conducive to human welfare.
However, there are differences between humanist and religious moralities. Humanists realize that individuals alone cannot solve all our problems, but instead of turning to the supernatural, we believe that problems are solved by people working together, relying on understanding and creativity. That is why humanists are committed to promoting human values, human understanding, and human development. Humanists also emphasize the importance of self-determination - the right of individuals to control their own lives, so long as they do not harm others. Secular humanists, therefore, often promote causes where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice regarding sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia.
Secular humanists disagree that, without God, life can have no meaning or purpose. We believe that people create their own meaning and purpose in life. The value and significance of life comes from how we live life, not from some supposed transcendent realm. Humanists believe the meaning of life is to live a life of meaning.
The moral differences between secular humanism and religion do not justify the allegation that secular humanist have no morals. This claim is not an argument, just an insult. It merely represents the human tendency to see one's opponents as amoral....
Nonreligious, humanistic moral systems existed before Christianity and independently of any monotheistic traditions. For example, consider India's materialist philosophers of 3,000 years ago (the Lokayata), the Confucians in ancient China, and the Epicureans, Skeptics, and Stoics of classical Greece and Rome.
Furthermore, the common moral decencies are found throughout the cultures of the world. Similar moral codes have evolved irrespective of religious belief or nonbelief, and Judeo-Christian morality is not unique. Scholars have found little if any original moral thinking in the Bible - the Ten Commandments were laid down by Hammurabi before Moses, just as Confucius stated the Golden Rule more than 500 years before it was attributed to Jesus.
On the other hand, liberal Christianity has been deeply influenced by humanism. The most important moral and political concepts of the modern era have developed out of humanistic thinking. You will search the Bible in vain for opposition to slavery or support for democracy and equality of the sexes...
Posted by Jody at 10:41 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
I'm a freakin' geek.
That fact became terribly evident to me as I was sitting in the middle of the Fourth World Skeptics Conference in scenic downtown Burbank. Looking around, it was really neat to meet several hundred of like-mind free thinkers and skeptics, all of us engaged at some level in the struggle against the magical and pseudo-scientific thinking that is highly prevalent in popular culture.
Looking around it was also clearly evident that everyone there was a dweeb. Some of us hid it better than others. Some of us, in addition to being intellectual, also had social skills, dressed in matching patterns and could debate more than just the finer points of the fourth verses fifth seasons of Babylon 5. Yet the mere fact that we all of us knew that there was a difference between seasons was the telling proof of our intrinsic and geekiness.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, it wasn't some giant Star Trek convention (though Harlan Ellison did speak) or Macintosh mutual masturbation society (though the majority of presenters did launch Power Point presentations off of PowerBooks and TiBooks.) But the people who were there -- doctors, lawyers, magicians, teachers, students, reporters, scientists, jocks, preps, grunge, dads, moms and children - all share an understanding that, as Carl Sagan wrote: "...skeptical thinking... is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument..."
That we were all, either obviously or secretly, geeks and dweebs was just icing on the cake.
Harlan Ellision gave a special address during the Saturday luncheon, outlining his take on 9/11 and how, for the first time in his life, he really didn't have anything to say. That was until Jerry Falwell spewed voluminous bile of vileness blaming gays, atheists, feminists and others for the tragedy that befell us all. Always interesting, terribly profane, and incredibly enlightening, Ellision was a real treat to hear.
Jan Brunvand, David & Barbara Mikkelson and Timothy Tangerherlini gave a great presentation on urban legends, their origins and how they impact today's culture. There was a good deal of coverage given to the crap that appeared across the net after 9/11 regarding the "fake" Pentagon attack and the "hidden messages" on US currency that predicted the attacks.
Marvin Minsky, the big guru of AI and all things computers, gave a horrible, rambling, and insanely boring speech on... nothing. Not anything at all. He touched on evolution, Intelligent Design, theism and computer development, but a cohesive and ordered presentation leading to a point it was not. Of course, following many in the crowd, I left about half way through and joined a much more interesting discussion about magic and illusion in the lobby.
On the reassuring front, Amanda Chesworth led a great panel on efforts to promote skeptical thinking among children and young people. Diane Swanson, author of Nibbling on Einstein's Brain, talked of her book that helps this effort by getting kids at very young ages to begin to discriminate good reporting from bad and valid inferences verses poorly drawn studies. (Amazing what can be accomplished with crazy hats when you think about it.) And Vicki Hyde spoke on raising skeptical kids in a demon haunted world.
Or course, the most interesting debate, and on some levels the scariest, was on Evolution and Intelligent Design. Kenneth Miller and Wesley Elsberry gave a wonderful, reasoned, and insightful refutation of the bunk put forth by the ID set. William Dembski, one of the main apologists for the ID set, gave an insightful and scary argument of his own on why ID will have great success. He basically argued that ID allowed people to eat their cake and have it too - they could get the benefits of science and still hold on to the magical, god of the gaps thinking that ID proposes. Rather than demonstrating or arguing the merits of his own critique of evolution and his own theory of irreducible complexity, he indicated that as science removes explains more and more, thus removing the "Just So" basis for long cherished magical and theistic beliefs, people will want to believe, more and more, in the pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design theory, because, like all such stories, their special place in the universe is ensured.
The logical conclusion of Natural Philosophy, and the discoveries unfolding as a result of it, is that the Heavens are empty, the vampires are gone and magic must be found in the human heart and not in incantations, spell books or blood soaked sacrifices, is the metaphorical equivalent of no longer being able to take your laundry to your mom's house to get it washed for free -- something more than many people are willing to face.
Overall, it was great to spend a few days with people who, like me, are trying to foster a bit more rationalism and skeptical thought in the world. Whether we succeed is beside the point. It's the attempt to light a candle in the darkness that offers the chance for light and warmth to spread. To do nothing is to ensure the cold night to endure unchallenged.
Posted by Jody at 02:17 PM
| Comments (0)
My friends, each of you is a single cell in the great body of the State. And today, that great body has purged itself or parasites. We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts. The Thugs and wreckers have been cast out. And the poisonous weeds of disinformation have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let each and every cell rejoice! For today we celebrate the first, glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directive! We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thought is a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on Earth! We are one people. with one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death. And we will bury them with their own confusion!
Posted by Jody at 02:59 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
From the May 24th edition of Lary King Live with guest Bill Maher
MAHER: I was very special. You know, I'm just -- I'm shocked that people are finding out that priests are no altar boys, you know. It's the institution that really needs fixing, and of course you really can't fix an institution when it is religion. Because when you say religion, immediately you can get away with anything. I mean, look at what the Muslims did with women around the world. If you did that to anybody else, if it wasn't under the guise of religion, you could never get away with stuff like that. So...
KING: You see no good in religion?
MAHER: Not very much, no. I don't. I mean, as long as there are people who think that this is the only way, you're going to have wars and killing and death. I don't think the hate that comes from the Muslim world comes from religion. The hate comes from some place deeper. But the religion gives it a noble framework to put it in. So, that's why it's extremely dangerous.
KING: So this act I'm doing is a noble thing, I'm doing it for a higher power.
MAHER: For a higher power, exactly. And as long as one religion says, "I am the way and the truth and the light and the only way to the Father is through me," and the other one says, "Mohammed is the only prophet and Allah is the only God," and people believe that to the death, I mean, they're going to...
KING: Why hasn't the church, Bill, come down harder on the priests who have done this?
MAHER: Because they didn't have to. Because again, it's religion. It's the thin black line I call it. You know, it's like the cops protect each other, so do the priests. And it's just amazingly hypocritical that they have zero tolerance for just about everything else. I mean, you know, I remember when I was a kid being deathly afraid when I got to be 12 or 13 of what they called "a nocturnal emission." Do you know what that is in the Catholic Church? Sounds like something from NASA. But it means, you know, if you should have a...
KING: A release.
MAHER: ... a release in your sleep -- I couldn't stop it when I was awake, but you know -- in your sleep. That's when I said, you know, I'm never going to satisfy these people, these are -- but I mean, that was a sin. But when you screw around with a kid -- you know, say three hail Marys, and you know, we'll send you to another diocese.
Posted by Jody at 01:20 PM
| Comments (1)
| TrackBack
Andrew Sullivan has a bit from playwright Tony Kushner's Vassar College Commencement Speech. While he only quotes from, and subtly dismisses, those sections that are directed at him, he misses parts of the rest of the speech that, in having nothing to do with him, apply to the rest of us. ...The answers you provide for yourself to the question WHY ME will be of great consequence to the way you answer WHAT AM I DOING HERE...
.....one of the answers to the WHAT question ought to be: I am here to organize. I am here to be political. I am here to be a citizen in a pluralist democracy. I am here to be effective, to have agency, to make a claim on power, to spread it around, to rearrange it, to democratize it, to legislate it into justice. Why you?
Because the world will end if you don't act.
You are the citizen of a flawed but actual democracy. Citizens are not actually capable of not acting, it is not given to a citizen that she doesn't act, this is the price you pay for being a citizen of a democracy, your life is married to the political beyond the possibility of divorcement. You are always an agent. When you don't act, you act. When you don't vote, you vote. When you accept the loony logic of some of the left that there is no political value in supporting the lesser of two evils, you open the door to the greater evil.
That's what happens when you despair, you open the door to evil, and evil is always happy to enter, sit down, abolish the Clean Air Act and the Kyoto accords and refuse to participate in the World Court or the ban on landmines, evil is happy refusing funds to American clinics overseas that counsel abortion and evil is happy drilling for oil in Alaska, evil is happy pinching pennies while 40 million people worldwide suffer and perish from AIDS; and evil will sit there, carefully chewing pretzels and fondly flipping through the scrapbook reminiscing about the 131 people he executed when he was governor, while his wife reads Dostoevsky in the corner, evil has a brother in Florida and a whole bunch of relatives, evil settles in and it's the devil of a time getting him to vacate. Look at The White House. Look at France, look at Italy, Austria, the Netherlands. Look at Israel. See what despair and inaction on the part of citizens produces. Act! Organize. It's boring but do it, the world ends if you don't....
..[H]ope isn't a choice, it's a moral obligation, it's a human obligation, it's an obligation to the cells in your body, hope is a function of those cells, it's a bodily function the same as breathing and eating and sleeping; hope is not naive, hope grapples endlessly with despair, real vivid powerful thunderclap hope, like the soul, is at home in darkness, is divided; but lose your hope and you lose your soul, and you don't want to do that, trust me, even if you haven't got a soul, and who knows, you shouldn't be careless about it.
Will the world end if you act? Who can say? Will you lose your soul, your democratic citizen soul, if you don't act, if you don't organize? I guarantee it..."
Be you on the Left, on the Right or firmly ensconced in the Middle, those are important words to consider. Read, ponder, debate, but most of all act.
The future depends on it.
Posted by Jody at 12:40 PM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
This is just not good. Yahoo! News - Report: Ashcroft, FBI Didn't Brief Bush on 9-11 Memo
So, much like his father, W was "out of the loop?"
Heads are going to roll...
Posted by Jody at 07:08 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack
So I�m a total geek as I saw Spider Man twice over the weekend, thus adding my $20.00 to its $100 million plus take. I have to say that the film is probably the best of the genre, easily and handedly sending Batman, Super Man and the X-Men in search of better writers. There is a lot of heart in this movie, showcasing a really great story that weaves through exciting action sequences and then tying those into the humanity, angst and pathos that has always been present in the Spider Man comics. It�s a modern, pop parallel to the Odyssey -- a fantastic story writ large by the juxtaposition of simple of human moments against an epic back drop of good vs. evil and enacted through champions deeply flawed, struggling and refreshingly imperfect.
As a card-carrying geek, I�ve spent a lot of time pondering Uncle Ben�s wise words to soon-to-be-hero Peter Parker: �With great power comes great responsibility.� That phrase informs much of the plot. The truth of those words prompts Peter to put aside much of his selfish concerns and become the hero he was destined to be. For us geek-fans, those words are much loved and used. It turns up, often slyly, in other comic books, movies, articles and television as a gift for those �in the know.� (And with a mere 602,000 references to that line in Yahoo alone, there are a lot of people �in the know.�)
It is a pretty simple line when you think about it. With the more stuff that you can do, with the more influence you have or the more events that you can make happen, the greater the burden you carry to make certain that you do those things responsibly, ethically and justly. They are words said, within the story, with great import to a struggling teenager from a learned adult. Outside the story, they are words that, as evidenced by the number of references, make a definite impression. I remember how at 12 I took that dictum seriously, at 22 I disregarded it as quaint and childish and at 32 wished again that people would take it as seriously as I did as a teen.
The young adult-hood dismissal of the adage stems from the problems encountered in trying to put into practice such a broad and easily agreed on homily. Without a grand writer plotting us towards a mostly happy ending, most of us are stuck with the ever-present problem of imperfect actions executed with unintended consequences for an uncertain world. Even in light of that, and much like Odysseus, we challenge the world and the gods anyway, trying to make manifest our personal answer to Uncle Ben�s great moral charge.
At least if you are a geek, you think that way.
I tend to idealize the answer to that charge by wanting our society to take responsibility to mitigate the grossest of inequalities in our land. I believe that with enough thought and effort we can figure out ways to solve most of our social challenges in real and meaningful ways, without having to appeal to politically motivated �faith based initiatives� or guiltily enacted, inefficient run and poorly designed welfare systems that do very, very little. There must be ways of improving medical services, broadening the accesability of higher education and ensuring enough resources are in place to meet the challenges of childhood development and safety, that are fiscally wise, ethically appropriate and morally just.
Those are my own progressiveness dreams, steeped I�d like to think in compassion and a sense of responsibility for the lot of others. I think the power is there to solve such things. Not perfectly � it�s an imperfect world � but better than has been done to date. I am though faced with the reality that mostly we are keenly aware of our power and terribly forgetful as to the responsibility it entails. Just because you can do something, doesn�t mean you should, another caution from Uncle Ben, is a lesson we often forget.
An example is the current U.N. Special Session on Children , where instead of taking an active, leadership role among our peers, we are resorting to obstructionist policies because of partisan ship. It�s pretty narrow partisanship at that, led by a reactionary group in our government that doesn�t like the idea that global family planning and contraceptive services are advocated, that same-sex families might be valued or that capital punishment isn�t such a great thing to do to a 12 year old.
In our own hemisphere, instead of leading both before and after the Venezuelan Coup attempt , we stood in the corner, whistling and twiddling our fingers with a smile on our face as people subverted their own constitution with our own the tacit approval. Hugo Chavez is a dweeb and has been responsible for some gh |
