I don't have a good argument for you at the moment. I don't know enough about it, but you have given me some things to think about.
My ideology conflicts with the idea of complex economies. Without the big companies, clearly we wouldn't have made progress in areas where we now excel (with the very complicated goods that you mentioned). I don't deny that. I only see that there is a human cost involved in serving those machines. We lost something that was integral in America. I think our economies and corporations consume us, and we serve them. We are, most of us, mere consumers. I'd like to know why that is, and how to fix it.
Thus, through your assertion that a market free of outside regulations and inteference which results in internal interference is not a free market, then there can't be any such thing as a free market.
Why not? The reason what you say is true is because people allow it to happen. We let it get out of control. It doesn't have to be that way, but we would all need to espouse free market ideology. Small government AND small business.
That's why I favor keeping markets small (i.e. local), because markets don't work in favor of humanity. They don't care for flesh and blood at all. Of course, that's my particular opinion. Americans were independent for the better part of a century before the industrial revolution took over and sucked everyone into the proletariat. It happened in all of the developed countries more or less at the same time, regardless of how much land had been taken up by the population. To this day, there remains plenty of land in America, but our economic programming tends to lead us elsewhere. We clump together in metropolitan areas.
You are welcome to work towards any "American Dream" that you want. However, you can't really be surprised when other people choose a different dream than you do.
I realize that conspiracy talk is heavily discouraged in our society today. Only mal-adjusted people talk like that. Unfortunately, there is too much conspiracy on the public record. The reality is that we are all living Andrew Carnegie's American Dream and Henry Ford's American Dream and Rockefeller's American Dream. History tells us just how we got there, and it wasn't because America suddenly decided to corporatize en masse. We didn't sit down and say, "you know, Carnegie has it right. I'm signing up for the Corporate lottery." Rich men shaped our destiny and shaped our dream, at least the only practical dream today. It's fine to claim that I can live any American Dream I want to; that's just what we all need to believe as we go about oure lives of sameness and dependency.
I'm sure that the study of economics is fascinating and enlightening. If I recall, America wasn't founded on principles of economics.
Because we don't need ten thousand different car brands. Because no human buys 400 million of anything. Because in the end, if everyone tried to set out on their own and current statistics hold, 80% or so will fail in 5 years. Those that fail will end up working for those that didn't, and then they'll start buying each other out, merging, and so on, and we end up back where we are today...
This isn't a problem in a local economy. You buy the local brand, or trade locally for more brands, which are still limited by supply and demand. Supply and demand still works in the free market. There is always local expertise when you need it. If the market is free, they usually compete favorably and one doesn't always kill the other. A free market isn't supposed to be the "survival of the fittest" where at the end of the day, only the best one is left standing. OK, in a technologically advanced economy, maybe there are strong national or regional brands for some kinds of goods that require greater resources to manufacuture, but in local economies, we find that we don't need so many of these kinds of goods anyway...
Under the free market, people everywhere enjoy diversity in their goods. In the free market, the best ideas move quickly and everyone advances as long as few IP encumbrances hinder the market. People aren't "massified" to "any color you want, as long as it's black."
Local economies don't operate under "current statistics" because it's a completely different system. The whole reason why 80% of entrepreneurs fail today is because they compete with the international megacorp. Why pay farmer Joe for my food when I can get it from Walmart's Mexican Fields for a fraction of the price? And on top of that, I have to deal with business licensing, government regulations, etc., etc., (didn't Kings used to grant special licenses for the ability to provide certain services for a fee? That's where America is today). Of course I'm going to fail in this environment.
When everybody understands the value of the free market, they won't allow the consolidation and monopolization that led us to the present debacle. Like with government, they will keep business small. We don't need to serve these machines; they were meant to serve us. When grown too big, they become the Leviathan, as Hobbes so aptly put it.
If you were to read through the papers of the founding fathers you would realize that the system won't be perfect and some people will fall through the cracks. That is why the system allows people to succeed IF they want.
I guess I don't disagree with that. But my idea of success isn't working for somebody else. They had independent livelihoods in colonial times, mostly up through the late nineteenth century, and that made the free market possible.
What we have today is a culture of dependency. If our fossil fuels dried up, we'd all die. It's a huge monoculture. There are no corner markets. There are no local farms to supply food. Few people have knowledge or resources to make things like clothes or shoes; all of our "makers" have gone overseas. We work in management jobs or retail jobs, or useless government sinecures, dealing with human-made problems. We pay mortgages for the privelege of living in our homes, which we claim that we "own." We've made basic human needs (inalienable rights?) into a bustling economy for the priveleged, mostly driven by foriegn labor (where they work in abject poverty, supplying for our comfort the work of their hands). That wasn't the American Dream at all.
Mr. Bush is happy outsourcing more American jobs. Are they management jobs? No. They are primarily jobs that belong to people who actually make something with their own hands.
A completely free market inevitably leads to the concentration of wealth in a few hands, because as people become successful they erect barriers to prevent other people from following in their footsteps. We saw this happen before with the plutocratic oligarchy of the early 20th century.
Right. Rich men decided that a truly free market wouldn't always guarantee them a fortune. So they began to tinker with it by shutting out the smaller entrepreneurs who might have produced competition. They craved a leveled and massified population whom they could count on to keep the capital moving in their direction (because the people work for them!). They've intervened on the free market and made it something else instead. You said an oligarchy. I think you're right. I like that term for it, because it reveals the true nature of business today: Businesses are sovereign nations unto themselves. And they have no borders. We aren't mere Americans (etc.), we are citizens of the companies we work for, and we abide by their policies. If possible, our companies care less for our well-being than our government does; the profit must come first (whereas the government was intended for the people).
But your argument now becomes very interesting:
100% free capitalism cannot sustain itself over the long term, we've seen that before. This is why the government has a role to play in the economy. There is a vast middle ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism, and neither extreme can produce a sustainable economy.
Here I say you are wrong. The problem with our "free market" is that it isn't a free market. It's dominated by monopoly and oligarchy, as you said. To fix the problem, we need to free the market again. Government tinkering doesn't make it any more free. Read the proceedings of the 73rd congress, 1934. You'll get a better idea of why government wants to regulate the economy. As it turns out, it's for the exact same reason that wealthy businessmen have for their own meddling. We want businessmen AND politicians out of the economy. There is no role for either of them. We need a FREE market.
A free market is a largely local market sustained by small business. International trade is performed by local entrepreneurs. The same principles of small government ought to apply equally to the business-state. We have to step back and ask ourselves, why are we working for somebody else? That's the root of the problem, and it won't be fixed easily.
If we had a government that could be relied on for its integrity and honesty, I would agree with you that the government should play a role in the economy. If we could have such a government, we might have a chance at a truly free market.
Mr. Bush has reinforced his belief that government serves not the people, but the economy (he will contend that "government serves the people best through the economy. I say: the people are the economy."). Mr. Bush refuses to protect "some Americans" for the sake of a robust bottom line. This was not the Founder's vision for our Republic, and such is a great crime against the people and a violation of our nation's charter.
While the bill of rights is explained as being based on inherent natural rights, it can also stand on its own as being useful to society, unlike a [modern] law that says [for example] you have to eat fish on friday, or that you can't eat foods that aren't "kosher". Both of these had roots in reality. Granted, these examples are both ecumenical alaw, but if we fail to preserve the separation 'twixt church and state, there won't be any difference between that and code.
You imply that "what is useful to society is good." I don't disagree with it. It's good, sound reason. It's logical.
Now give me a hypothetical scientific test where I can prove that "What is useful to society is good" and therefore make that a scientific fact. I can easily measure benefit to society by surveying growth, health, overall happiness and other factors in a controlled research experiment. Now how do I demonstrate, scientifically, that this is "good?" Or how do I establish the criteria that is used to determine actual benefit versus detriment? I can't. It becomes an axiom of philosophy that seems intuitive and agreeable. Science doesn't help me put the value on it, nor will it ever bother proving it. Science only helps me see the nature of it.
Now, if I go around saying that "what is useful to society is good," and if I start establishing that and building it up, I am being religious about it. It has become part of my religion. I can't prove it. As soon as someone disagrees about what is useful to society, or about what the definition of good is, or that we ought to even have society at all, I am now in a religious discussion due to my belief (without mentioning God at all). Suddenly the whole thing only makes sense in the context of my philosophy, which others might not share.
Perhaps I misspeak when I say it's not reason. It can be reason - but only faulty reason, because reason is "logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence". Religion is not logical or rational. It simply is. At least, as far as the religious individual is concerned. Religion is both logical and rational when viewed as a deliberate system of control.
I guess I'm not satisfied with your treatment of reason that contains value judgements. Part of my thesis is that religion can be considered perfectly rational if we accept that reason can lead to value judgements about things.
All philosophy boils down to some unprovable axiom. For Plato (and Socrates) they were the Forms. For Aristotle, the Golden Mean. For Adam Smith, the idea that nature seems to have bestowed the capacity for sympathy on mankind. For John Locke it was the idea of natural rights. For Augustine, clearly it was the existence of God. At the bottom of it all, the way we resonate with these ideas (few of them Empirical) determines how we will make our value judgements, and thus determine our fashion of reasoning.
Reason can be logical, rational and analytical within the context of God or the context of the Forms or the context of sympathy or the context of karma or of natural rights. The whole point of the philosophy is to establish a basis for rational thought within its system, and whenever you have the possiblity of reason that includes value judgements, there must be an axiom somewhere that can't be proven by the scientific method.
So the statement that "religion is not rational" is only true in the limited context of Objectivist philosophy or some other form of Empiricism. I consider that close-minded. The utimate paradox, to me, is the objectivist who utters maxims and promotes ideology, for he has no basis for value judgements. He values only the objective, and yet dares to assign "right" and "wrong" to all kinds of things, not thinking that there is some unprovable axiom that must qualify his right or wrong.
The objectivist can claim that religion only makes sense in the context of coercion and control. According to objectivist theory, that is the only possible ex
I don't think that nothing that cannot be proven should be believed in. You have the right to believe in anything you want. However, nothing that cannot be proven should be used as a basis for law. I feel that is an entirely reasonable statement. The authors and ratifiers of the first amendment apparently agree, because it states that congress shall make no law respecting any religion or establishment thereof.
Followed by:
Arguably, there are no such things as rights. Rights are those things which cannot be taken away. It is surprisingly easy to deprive someone of their "right" to life.
Which appears contradictory to me. Our founding fathers seemed to have rights in mind when they established the supreme law of the land. If I am to believe your statement that nothing unprovable should be used as a basis for law, then I think we have a problem with the Bill of Rights. Rights seem to exist on an entirely philosophical plane, along with morality. Granted, the Bill of Rights was not at all the focus of Constitutional law, being added with some discussion (and reservation) as an amendment.
My own opinion is that law ought to govern society which, being above animal instinct, necessarily includes that realm of philosophy dealing with virtue and vice. I agree with John Q. Adams that the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people. But that is my opinion. I disagree with the humanist approach that any behavior ought to tolerated, so long as it does not directly encroach upon the rights of another. I believe that the health of the society is as important as the rights of the individual and that humans have many capacities with which they might limit their natural tendencies in order to build a superior society. Well, that's a socially conservative viewpoint which I realize is very controversial.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god - in fact, someone who explicitly states that there is no god - it's not someone who doesn't believe in anything. Ideology can be born of reason, it need not result from unfounded beliefs such as religion.
I might pick nits and point out various mystic religions that do not believe in god, yet no one thinks to call them atheists. In any case, I completely agree with you regarding ideology. I also contend that not all believers base their ideology in "unfounded" beliefs. Some of us believe "because it gives us hope" or "because it helps us magnify the qualities in ourselves that we value most" or that it "gives us a sense of completeness" or "we just feel good." Others might claim experiences of a more cognitive sort. At any rate, these are reasons even if they aren't objective ones. Saying that "religion" is unfounded is simply not true. Such a statement puts forth the objectivist philosophy that only physically measurable entities can be reasoned upon.
It's only called "reason" if reason is involved. For instance, someone who experiences a life-changing event and attributes to a deity is not reasoning. It's an act of belief. Religion and reason do not mix. Again, it's not about science, it's about belief.
I think that is a little bit presumptious. It may be true that such a person is not reasoning. On the other hand, it may not be true at all. Such a statement presumes to know the thought process of the individual in question, based on a preconception of what things might be reasonable.
Reason may be intuitive, and hopefully always it is logical. But reason itself is not always empirical. I think the mistake is when we suppose that only objective facts can be used in reasoning.
Science, for example, tells us the nature of things. I recently read a summary of a number of studies about dairy products, in which it was discovered that milk protein is almost certainly a potent cancer promoter. The study put forth methodolgy, metrics, and concl
What exactly does "freedom from religion" mean anyway? I hear lots of grumpy atheists repeat that very same platitude, but in my opinion those people seem to be the most religious of the bunch.
It seems that belief in God has about nothing to do with religion. Actual "religion" has more to do with belief in things that are fundamentally un-provable. For example, the idea that people have "rights" or that a certain situation has an intrinsic value of rightness or wrongness.
I've seen plenty of atheists moan about how their "rights" are being encroached by the almighty Church. They're indignant because of those individuals who have built a system of society around religious faith. These things can't be proven, and should therefore not be believed in. There's a non-sequitur for you. I have yet to see such atheists empirically prove that rights exist at all or that a set of scientific facts can somehow demonstrate right or wrong. And yet they advocate something, stand for something.
Until I see objective proof of human rights, or until I see someone measure and quantify right and wrong with a physical instrument, I will hold that the only true atheists just don't care. Those who spout platitudes and ideology - which they cannot prove to be correct by any known science - are merely disciples of another kind of faith. And like the rest of us, they also are granted the privilege of believing as their conscience dictates.
If people truly want freedom from "religion," I am afraid that they will have to evolve to a higher life form, such as an ape or a jellyfish. Unfortunately, with the human mind also comes a lot of baggage known collectively as "reason," in which value judgements can be made based on the experience of the creature. These judgements have been demonstrated to dictate behaviors above and beyond the call of instinct. When a man engages himself in the advocacy and promotion of his own reason, or of another's reasoning that he may subscribe to (e.g. "freedom from religion"), he is, ironically, participating in religion itself.
A really excellent point. Philanthropy, really, is a political game. The wealthy people who do it may be better off for it, society may be better off for it, and it may be done in good faith. But for every cause that is championed, how many causes are not? What a great way to mold politics and society. Today, Americans really are more of a product of rich businessmen (seeking utopias) than we are of revolutionary political thinking from the turn of the eighteenth century.
But if stamp collectors had a history of slaughtering those who don't or who collect the "wrong" type of stamp, and then try to force their belief on my children at my school system
Much like the Communist regime of Mao? Remember, the one that endorsed atheism as its state religion? What was the final tally of the dead? 70 million? Yes, that sounds about right. No other people on the earth were so indoctrinated nor brainwashed as the Chinese, and atheism was the official party line.
America's propaganda-du-jour is one of humanism, secularism, and welfare-state socialism. What is the public school system but a psychologized brain-cloning factory where children learn how to be good little citizens in the new managed utopia? Haven't you paid attention to history?
but if you try to insert your religious propoganda not in your own religious schools but into the public school system and then lie about it to call it science
Oh, I agree. Like "tolerance" is science. Like "diversity" is science. Like all the "science" of social machinery, right out of nineteenth century rank-and-file Prussian schools, implanted by yesteryear's ideologues on American soil without even a public review. I have news for you: school is nothing but propaganda, designed to program our children to work happily for somebody else. We go to school so that we can "get a good job." Do you think any public school today could produce another Franklin, Farragut, Edison, or Carnegie? We have ways of dealing with their kind of genius: No Child Left Behind. If public schools had the goal of teaching children to think for themselves, then why does it require a 20+ million-worker bereaucracy to accomplish that?
It doesn't matter what you think. Someone's religion will be taught in public schools. Right now, the preferred religion, as I said, is one of secularism. We've had the religous ideologies of atheism force-fed to us since the 1890's.
Most people start as non-stamp collectors, hence it is much easier to be a disinterested non-collector of stamps. In fact, I'd wager that most people have never even considered stamp collecting.
On the other hand, perhaps a majority of atheists started out as "believers," then "escaped" from "religion." Therefore, it is very difficult to be a disinterested atheist, and conversely, very easy to be religious about atheism. If you believe that you have "escaped" from some irrational system, why then I suppose that implies some sort of ideology right there. You've made a value judgement regarding right and wrong, bad and good.
But, as no one has picked up on how ridiculous it is to compare stamp collectors to atheists, I will explain it. Stamp collecting, it turns out, espouses no philosophy or ideology regarding the proper way to live, the difference between right and wrong, the nature of human rights, the origin of ideas, or the proper organization of enlightened and civilized human society and relationships. It's fine to be a human and not be interested in stamp collecting.
What is exceedingly odd is the condition of being a human so disinterested in those circumstances which have elevated us in intelligence so decidedly above the common animals (who nevertheless, many among even the lesser animals display remarkable qualities of society, loyalty, fidelity, etc.). Surely science can reveal many interesting likelihoods to establish a rational base upon which to consider whether or not humans have rights, or whether or not there is a kind of right and wrong, or whether certain behaviors ought to be accepted while other behaviors are not. But such things as rights, priveleges, honesty, loyalty, chastity, order, fidelity, good, and evil are just as unscientific as Intelligent Design; they will forever remain the domain of religion and philosophy. Whenever an Atheist espouses an opinion regarding any one of those ideas, he has crossed the line from disinterested atheism to religion, having no way to empirically prove his position.
If you say it is reasonable and right to think critically while imprudent and wrong to accept ideas on faith alone (an ideal espoused by many atheists), then you are being religious. You have applied judgements of right and wrong to something, which you cannot prove with the scientific method. If you believe that a human has the right to behave however he sees fit, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another (a humanist or objectivist ideal), then you are being religious. You have supposed that humans have rights, an idea that no science can test or prove.
And so I use the word "religion" to mean any belief, especially when advocated or expressed to someone else, that can bever be proven by empirical scientific means. There are several religions in the world that lack a god figure, but they are no less religions because of it.
The person who originally suggested the comparison between atheism/religion and not collecting stamps/hobby, did not spend enough time in rational thought that day.
Exactly. Which is why it is very difficult to be a disinterested, irreligious atheist. The theists really rankle the atheists, and why is that? Because they don't share the same ideology. They feel provoked, bemused, and annoyed by each other.
A genuine atheist wouldn't care in the least about the ravings and feeble persuations of the Evangelical. He might grumble over the odd interruption (forgive me if I'm skeptical of the "weekly" visits), but he certainly would never take up the issue on a philosophical level. He just wouldn't care.
I get interrupted by frequent (incessant) corporate advertising more than by any Evangelical proselytizing. Advertising is just as ridiculous and irrational as any religious zealotry in the world, far more pervasive, and on the whole, much less complained about. Sure, there are probably a few groups out there whose sole purpose is to tear down marketing in all of its various forms, but you never hear about them, and they make no progress at all. It's because people don't care enough to be religious about it. Now consider the massive humanist, secularist, and atheist movements that are afoot right now. Why is it that we have movements in direct opposition to theistic ideology, while we have nothing like it in opposition to equally silly salesmen? I'll tell you why: Today's Atheism is a religious movement, not a dissinterested condition of people who just don't care. Atheists, by and large, are true believers in their own ideology, which they do possess and do promote. As true believers themselves, Atheists are equally annoying to other types of true believers.
Not all atheists bother to argue the point. Do you then maintain that they are still religious?
No. My point is that religion entails holding or advocating ideology. What else can you call it? Superstition? It's certainly not science. Science embraces no ideology.
Disinterested atheists are like the man who doesn't collect stamps for his hobby because he simply isn't interested in it. He's not being religious about his atheism until he starts spending his time thinking about it, or talking about it, or being otherwise proactive about it. As I said, most atheists who are not religious in the sense of traditional religion, nevertheless maintain some standard of morality (they believe in a "right" and a "wrong"). Where does such ideology come from? Like the Buddhist or the Shinto, he has espoused religion without a god. But it is no less religion, and atheism is at the root of it.
"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
A comparison meant to show how atheism isn't a religion.
Which is an absolutely valid comparison until you consider that the non-collector of stamps has begun advocating non-collection over collection. And then argues with the collectors about it. And also has a list of reasons why he does not collect, plus some talking points that he can refer to. And possibly very specific grievances against particular collectors. And maybe he has even written a book about not collecting, or at least read a book about it. And he has lobbied or sued the government to reduce the influence of stamp collectors in politics. And frequently makes skeptical comments about the collectors in multpile public forums. And belongs to an organized non-collector club. In that case, yes, not collecting stamps is that man's hobby. Just like atheism is the religion of many atheists.
few atheists live lives devoid of ideals. Atheism is merely the axiom upon which they establish their ideology. Eric Hoffer wrote a book called "True Believers," in which he made a statement that I think is very applicable:
"Though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, shaping the world in his own image."
Wherever there is ideology, there is religion. Maybe not formal, organized religion, but nevertheless it is religion.
Many atheists fool themselves into thinking they have shaken free from the manipulations of religion, but this is mere delusion if they hold any ideals at all. There is no science that has ever claimed to have arrived at the final truth of anyhting, nor established standards for good or evil, nor proven that humans have any sort of rights or entitlements.
Atheism is no more organized than, say, Christianity is organized. It's not an establishment, as Christianity is not an establishment, as Islam is not an establishment, as Buddhism is not an establishment.
As with its theistic religious counterparts, atheism covers a number of sects: Humanism, secularism, hedonism, agnosticism, objectivism, etc. And atheism even has its organized groups of activists, analogous to the various denominations and established churches in theistic religion. They have their own missionaries bent on getting the theists to "leave them alone."
Re:The Managed Utopia
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 1
But I'm guessing you'd say they spend a lot of time posting on slashdot
I wouldn't say that. I'm lucky to get one good discussion out of Slashdot in three or four month's time. The rest of the time I read the headlines. I like to know what people in my area of interest think is interesting and important. Sometimes I have comments too.
I even fire up my ps2 for the occasional video game. I have my favorites.
Re:The Managed Utopia
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, they build model ships. Idiot. Some people want to control the story, not have it dictated to them.
At least I have something to leave behind when I die. If I please myself while I'm at it, that's just a bonus.
Want to control the story? That's what real lives are for. Why do great things in a game, when you can do great things in the real world?
I take some time out for games too. I'm not a professional anti-videogames-troll, just a guy with some insight that maybe you hard-core gamers would like to think about without getting too offended.
Re:The Managed Utopia
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 1
The funny thing is, I had in my mind the exact sort of people you mention when I say Intelligent and productive people: Farmers, plumbers, craftsmen, contractors, shoemakers, tailors, grocers, artisans, cooks. People who make things. I'm not talking about intellectuals at all. Everyone should be an intellectual.
The problem, as I see it, is that Americans now work so that they can play. Play is the reward for a hard day's work, because they don't really like what they do. It used to be that we loved our work because we had independent livelihoods. It's the psychology of "positive" and "negative" reinforcement that is needed to sustain a Utopia. Now our focus is recreation; in the past it was self improvement.
An awful forum to express these opinions, as you can see.:) Now I'm a troll because I suggested that grown-up gamers might be wasting their time. I wonder what I'm trolling for...
The Managed Utopia
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 0, Troll
We need the ignorant, the useless, AND the unproductive people for our economy to work properly.
If we had intelligent, productive people, they wouldn't buy things they didn't need. They wouldn't tolerate useless sinecures, bureaucracies, or government jobs. They wouldn't be satisfied working for somebody else, or taking charity from the State. Useful, productive people don't need mass-produced goods made identically by machines, because smart useful people won't work in mindless jobs operating and managing the machines of mass production (whether they be hardware machines or social machines which are comprised of humans, yet lack humanity).
Intelligent, productive people have art and culture in their blood, and they release it by creating things with their own hands by the virtue of their particular genius. Intelligent, productive people are energized by other intelligent productive people, and as individuals and communities, they can take care of themselves.
Intelligent, productive people aren't born, but are made. America was once a land of such people, but now you look at yourselves and see what you have become, and you hate it. That is why you fight.
And you know what? Your manner of fighting is completely useless. It's only a way of hiding from the problem. We treat our symptoms and ignore our problems. But that's what the Managed Utopia is all about: leveling the masses and robbing them of real courage to stand up and make changes.
Do you think if America had stayed faithful to her original Dream that her armies would now span the globe? That her Senate would echo the politics of George III's parliament? That places like Wal-Mart would even be possible? I walk the isles of Wal-Mart and see full-grown men playing games on the demo XBox console. This is what America has become.
Intelligent, useful, productive people don't have time for video games.
I think your argument could be made more seriously against those sects whose theology is based on some form of philosophy. A lot of the early Christian apologists found that they needed to reconcile themselves with the science and philosophy of the day. It was Greek at the time, although we saw another movement during the enlightenment era, as you have alluded to, as part of the protestant reformation. So that kind of thing crops up from time to time and it reshapes theistic religion once a lot of momentum builds up behind it.
Now, you can claim that our Mormon religion grew up in a cultural vacuum. I'm not offended by that, but I would suggest that it was more of an intellectual vacuum than a cultural one. In fact, I believe that Mormonism will readily admit to this without reservation (disclaimer: I don't speak for the Mormon church). One of the things that sets "ludicrous" Mormonism apart from "mainstream" Christianity is this idea that the theology doesn't need to match up with any contemporary science or philosophy. Instead, we profess the belief that our theology was given by God himself, through the vehicle of revelation. We're encouraged to make sense of it, and many of us do as best we can. And so we have no official "position" on the topic of evolution. You'll find Mormons who adopt a "traditional Christian" mistrust of that subject and others who fully accept it into their way of thinking. I understand that one local (Utah) government official wanted to put Intelligent Design in schools, while our Mormon governor said it had no place in the science curriculum. In the meantime, I'm not even sure I know what Intelligent Design is all about.
Of course, we have our own apologists now, but they are of a different breed. They don't seek to define (or refine) church doctrine. At least there is some form of scholarship in place, and my experiece is that it's not too bad at all. In spite of our intellectually modest beginnings, we've always encouraged people to get the best aducation that they can manage, and this is usually understood to be education of a secular nature. In spite of that, I find that the writings of early church leaders (including poor, uneducated Joseph Smith) to be remarkably well-done in terms of prose and style, such that even today, few among our educated members can muster such eloquence as they had in the mid-nineteenth century. I think they had different standards of literacy and education in those days. Anyway, we have a number of our own serious and fine biologists, physicists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers and the like. They manage to do credit to their science and also to their religion. Are there those who become disillusioned with their faith and seek other paths? Certainly, and they are free to do so.
Allow me to wax philisophical.
Consider your comment about new wars of religion. Aren't all wars religious wars? It isn't science that gives rise to labels such as "natural rights" or whatever else is championed by secularism. Indeed, science can reveal to us the nature of reality after a fashion, but if we interpret and assign values and judgments to those empirical revelations, we only do so as our conscience may dictate. When John Locke spoke of Natural Rights, he could only rely on science to determine what was natural - it was a leap of faith to declare such behaviors and liberties arising from that natural condition to be intrinsic rights. Hence America's Founding Fathers dressed John Locke's Natural Rights in religious garb, saying that such were only granted us by a benevolent Maker, or a divine Providence. Indeed, science cannot empirically prove that humans have rights of any kind. Science can only expose our imperfect nature, and if we suppose that our natural state grants us rights to certain behavior, then it is only through religious belief that we can say so. Therefore, I suggest that modern secularism, particularly when embodied in and championed by
When people start "discovering" books with Google's book searches, the very worst thing that would happen would be that people would be briefly exposed to books they otherwise might not have. But for "searchers" who find an interesting book, they won't be ripping the publishers off by printing (stealing) or downloading (stealing) these books, since Google isn't offering that as an option.
I think you nailed it on the head. What would happen if people started thinking about books - even reading parts of them - before they buy them? For that matter, what might happen if people used informed judgment before buying anything? That's why we have laws like the DMCA - so that consumers know as little about the product as possible, and so that what they are told can be carefully crafted by the marketing and PR department of those primarily interested. If people suddenly have the means to examine these products objectively, then what could happen? They might not buy the products. Such a thing poses a threat to our highly managed consumer economy.
It seems like public libraries had to fight some of these same battles. Literate people are dangerous.
I wasn't aware of Card's essay on The Hypocrites of Homosexuality. I agree that the snippet you provide is curiously outspoken for an author who often treats the subject rather openly (if not indirectly) in some of his other work. I'm thinking of Treason, specifically. Such was the surprise of the interviewer if I recall: she thought that Card would have been more "open minded" towards the topic, but it wasn't so. Well, I think that "open-minded" and "in agreement" are two things. Anyway, one man's sociopath is another man's neighbor (I don't live by OSC, btw, but I still only classify him as "outspoken.").:)
Regarding the Superman Essay, no, I didn't know it came out in '87. Ok, my whoops; but at any rate, it's only been in the last year or two that I've seen it used in these OSC arguments.
Now, I don't have a good argument for you on the point about homophobia, in #2. Like I said, I was only aware of a certain interview, in which I thought the content was rather tame. It was around that time that OSC debates starting getting, in my opinon, heated. So I connect those events together. Your quote from the other article (presuming it's in context, which I have no reason to doubt) opens up a whole new can of worms. I tend to agree with you that a "passionate suppression of homosexuality at a legal level" belies homophobia, although I'm not certain that what I know of Card's feelings qualify him for "passionate" on that count. Sometimes people say things that aren't really smart, just so that they can be obnoxious or outspoken. Has anyone every quantified homophobia, and just how many ounces of fear is required before a person becomes a homophobe? I used to think that I had arachniphobia - you know, the nightmares and extreme aversion to those little devils whenever they show up. But I still get up the courage to squish those beasts and remove them from the premises when others around me positively won't do it. By medical standards, I'm no arachniphobe. So what is the threshold for these things, and is it prudent to talk about homophobia when we haven't even had the man under the psychological microscope for more than a few tangential articles and interviews?
You also wanted me to clarify about my little "science has proven" comment. I was actually making a little dig at those people who claim that homosexuality can be somewhat demonstrated in a genetic sense, so therefore it is socially acceptable. So my antecedent was homosexuality, not homophobia (which is more a product of synapse pruning, I think. I'm not a scientist.). Anyway, that little dig of mine got me on some Foe lists out there, but in fact I was merely trying to illustrate, via sarcasm, that scientific facts don't readily translate into social maxims. Science can tell how things are, more or less, but not if they are right or wrong. I was trying to demonstrate a logical fallacy and at the same time, bring into question the philosophy of secular empiricism. It was stupid, and it failed brilliantly!
Have I made any good arguments yet? No, I guess I've lost some ground.
I will argue your point #4. I agree that it isn't unreasonable to change your opinion of something as you age, or as you encounter good arguments and new information. This is natural, and we hope that people can do it. What isn't logical is to assert that those who still hold their old beliefs (e.g., those who still like OSC after all these years), only do so for the sake of tradition in spite of what "facts" may have become available. If I believed that OSC was a raving sociopath, it might be more difficult for me to enjoy his work in light of that. But as I don't hold that opinion at this time, I'm still happy to give his stuff a try. I don't think that I've been turned into a raving sociopath because of it (maybe I was one already).
Alas, my original post was sadly under-researched, but this is, after all, Slashdot. I just don't have that kind of serious interest in OSC, so my observations were mostly intuitive. In spite of the tru
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a good argument for you at the moment. I don't know enough about it, but you have given me some things to think about.
My ideology conflicts with the idea of complex economies. Without the big companies, clearly we wouldn't have made progress in areas where we now excel (with the very complicated goods that you mentioned). I don't deny that. I only see that there is a human cost involved in serving those machines. We lost something that was integral in America. I think our economies and corporations consume us, and we serve them. We are, most of us, mere consumers. I'd like to know why that is, and how to fix it.
Why not? The reason what you say is true is because people allow it to happen. We let it get out of control. It doesn't have to be that way, but we would all need to espouse free market ideology. Small government AND small business.
That's why I favor keeping markets small (i.e. local), because markets don't work in favor of humanity. They don't care for flesh and blood at all. Of course, that's my particular opinion. Americans were independent for the better part of a century before the industrial revolution took over and sucked everyone into the proletariat. It happened in all of the developed countries more or less at the same time, regardless of how much land had been taken up by the population. To this day, there remains plenty of land in America, but our economic programming tends to lead us elsewhere. We clump together in metropolitan areas.
I realize that conspiracy talk is heavily discouraged in our society today. Only mal-adjusted people talk like that. Unfortunately, there is too much conspiracy on the public record. The reality is that we are all living Andrew Carnegie's American Dream and Henry Ford's American Dream and Rockefeller's American Dream. History tells us just how we got there, and it wasn't because America suddenly decided to corporatize en masse. We didn't sit down and say, "you know, Carnegie has it right. I'm signing up for the Corporate lottery." Rich men shaped our destiny and shaped our dream, at least the only practical dream today. It's fine to claim that I can live any American Dream I want to; that's just what we all need to believe as we go about oure lives of sameness and dependency.
I'm sure that the study of economics is fascinating and enlightening. If I recall, America wasn't founded on principles of economics.
This isn't a problem in a local economy. You buy the local brand, or trade locally for more brands, which are still limited by supply and demand. Supply and demand still works in the free market. There is always local expertise when you need it. If the market is free, they usually compete favorably and one doesn't always kill the other. A free market isn't supposed to be the "survival of the fittest" where at the end of the day, only the best one is left standing. OK, in a technologically advanced economy, maybe there are strong national or regional brands for some kinds of goods that require greater resources to manufacuture, but in local economies, we find that we don't need so many of these kinds of goods anyway...
Under the free market, people everywhere enjoy diversity in their goods. In the free market, the best ideas move quickly and everyone advances as long as few IP encumbrances hinder the market. People aren't "massified" to "any color you want, as long as it's black."
Local economies don't operate under "current statistics" because it's a completely different system. The whole reason why 80% of entrepreneurs fail today is because they compete with the international megacorp. Why pay farmer Joe for my food when I can get it from Walmart's Mexican Fields for a fraction of the price? And on top of that, I have to deal with business licensing, government regulations, etc., etc., (didn't Kings used to grant special licenses for the ability to provide certain services for a fee? That's where America is today). Of course I'm going to fail in this environment.
When everybody understands the value of the free market, they won't allow the consolidation and monopolization that led us to the present debacle. Like with government, they will keep business small. We don't need to serve these machines; they were meant to serve us. When grown too big, they become the Leviathan, as Hobbes so aptly put it.
I guess I don't disagree with that. But my idea of success isn't working for somebody else. They had independent livelihoods in colonial times, mostly up through the late nineteenth century, and that made the free market possible.
What we have today is a culture of dependency. If our fossil fuels dried up, we'd all die. It's a huge monoculture. There are no corner markets. There are no local farms to supply food. Few people have knowledge or resources to make things like clothes or shoes; all of our "makers" have gone overseas. We work in management jobs or retail jobs, or useless government sinecures, dealing with human-made problems. We pay mortgages for the privelege of living in our homes, which we claim that we "own." We've made basic human needs (inalienable rights?) into a bustling economy for the priveleged, mostly driven by foriegn labor (where they work in abject poverty, supplying for our comfort the work of their hands). That wasn't the American Dream at all.
Mr. Bush is happy outsourcing more American jobs. Are they management jobs? No. They are primarily jobs that belong to people who actually make something with their own hands.
Right. Rich men decided that a truly free market wouldn't always guarantee them a fortune. So they began to tinker with it by shutting out the smaller entrepreneurs who might have produced competition. They craved a leveled and massified population whom they could count on to keep the capital moving in their direction (because the people work for them!). They've intervened on the free market and made it something else instead. You said an oligarchy. I think you're right. I like that term for it, because it reveals the true nature of business today: Businesses are sovereign nations unto themselves. And they have no borders. We aren't mere Americans (etc.), we are citizens of the companies we work for, and we abide by their policies. If possible, our companies care less for our well-being than our government does; the profit must come first (whereas the government was intended for the people).
But your argument now becomes very interesting:
Here I say you are wrong. The problem with our "free market" is that it isn't a free market. It's dominated by monopoly and oligarchy, as you said. To fix the problem, we need to free the market again. Government tinkering doesn't make it any more free. Read the proceedings of the 73rd congress, 1934. You'll get a better idea of why government wants to regulate the economy. As it turns out, it's for the exact same reason that wealthy businessmen have for their own meddling. We want businessmen AND politicians out of the economy. There is no role for either of them. We need a FREE market.
A free market is a largely local market sustained by small business. International trade is performed by local entrepreneurs. The same principles of small government ought to apply equally to the business-state. We have to step back and ask ourselves, why are we working for somebody else? That's the root of the problem, and it won't be fixed easily.
If we had a government that could be relied on for its integrity and honesty, I would agree with you that the government should play a role in the economy. If we could have such a government, we might have a chance at a truly free market.
Mr. Bush has reinforced his belief that government serves not the people, but the economy (he will contend that "government serves the people best through the economy. I say: the people are the economy."). Mr. Bush refuses to protect "some Americans" for the sake of a robust bottom line. This was not the Founder's vision for our Republic, and such is a great crime against the people and a violation of our nation's charter.
You imply that "what is useful to society is good." I don't disagree with it. It's good, sound reason. It's logical.
Now give me a hypothetical scientific test where I can prove that "What is useful to society is good" and therefore make that a scientific fact. I can easily measure benefit to society by surveying growth, health, overall happiness and other factors in a controlled research experiment. Now how do I demonstrate, scientifically, that this is "good?" Or how do I establish the criteria that is used to determine actual benefit versus detriment? I can't. It becomes an axiom of philosophy that seems intuitive and agreeable. Science doesn't help me put the value on it, nor will it ever bother proving it. Science only helps me see the nature of it.
Now, if I go around saying that "what is useful to society is good," and if I start establishing that and building it up, I am being religious about it. It has become part of my religion. I can't prove it. As soon as someone disagrees about what is useful to society, or about what the definition of good is, or that we ought to even have society at all, I am now in a religious discussion due to my belief (without mentioning God at all). Suddenly the whole thing only makes sense in the context of my philosophy, which others might not share.
I guess I'm not satisfied with your treatment of reason that contains value judgements. Part of my thesis is that religion can be considered perfectly rational if we accept that reason can lead to value judgements about things.
All philosophy boils down to some unprovable axiom. For Plato (and Socrates) they were the Forms. For Aristotle, the Golden Mean. For Adam Smith, the idea that nature seems to have bestowed the capacity for sympathy on mankind. For John Locke it was the idea of natural rights. For Augustine, clearly it was the existence of God. At the bottom of it all, the way we resonate with these ideas (few of them Empirical) determines how we will make our value judgements, and thus determine our fashion of reasoning.
Reason can be logical, rational and analytical within the context of God or the context of the Forms or the context of sympathy or the context of karma or of natural rights. The whole point of the philosophy is to establish a basis for rational thought within its system, and whenever you have the possiblity of reason that includes value judgements, there must be an axiom somewhere that can't be proven by the scientific method.
So the statement that "religion is not rational" is only true in the limited context of Objectivist philosophy or some other form of Empiricism. I consider that close-minded. The utimate paradox, to me, is the objectivist who utters maxims and promotes ideology, for he has no basis for value judgements. He values only the objective, and yet dares to assign "right" and "wrong" to all kinds of things, not thinking that there is some unprovable axiom that must qualify his right or wrong.
The objectivist can claim that religion only makes sense in the context of coercion and control. According to objectivist theory, that is the only possible ex
Followed by:
Which appears contradictory to me. Our founding fathers seemed to have rights in mind when they established the supreme law of the land. If I am to believe your statement that nothing unprovable should be used as a basis for law, then I think we have a problem with the Bill of Rights. Rights seem to exist on an entirely philosophical plane, along with morality. Granted, the Bill of Rights was not at all the focus of Constitutional law, being added with some discussion (and reservation) as an amendment.
My own opinion is that law ought to govern society which, being above animal instinct, necessarily includes that realm of philosophy dealing with virtue and vice. I agree with John Q. Adams that the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people. But that is my opinion. I disagree with the humanist approach that any behavior ought to tolerated, so long as it does not directly encroach upon the rights of another. I believe that the health of the society is as important as the rights of the individual and that humans have many capacities with which they might limit their natural tendencies in order to build a superior society. Well, that's a socially conservative viewpoint which I realize is very controversial.
I might pick nits and point out various mystic religions that do not believe in god, yet no one thinks to call them atheists. In any case, I completely agree with you regarding ideology. I also contend that not all believers base their ideology in "unfounded" beliefs. Some of us believe "because it gives us hope" or "because it helps us magnify the qualities in ourselves that we value most" or that it "gives us a sense of completeness" or "we just feel good." Others might claim experiences of a more cognitive sort. At any rate, these are reasons even if they aren't objective ones. Saying that "religion" is unfounded is simply not true. Such a statement puts forth the objectivist philosophy that only physically measurable entities can be reasoned upon.
I think that is a little bit presumptious. It may be true that such a person is not reasoning. On the other hand, it may not be true at all. Such a statement presumes to know the thought process of the individual in question, based on a preconception of what things might be reasonable.
Reason may be intuitive, and hopefully always it is logical. But reason itself is not always empirical. I think the mistake is when we suppose that only objective facts can be used in reasoning.
Science, for example, tells us the nature of things. I recently read a summary of a number of studies about dairy products, in which it was discovered that milk protein is almost certainly a potent cancer promoter. The study put forth methodolgy, metrics, and concl
What exactly does "freedom from religion" mean anyway? I hear lots of grumpy atheists repeat that very same platitude, but in my opinion those people seem to be the most religious of the bunch.
It seems that belief in God has about nothing to do with religion. Actual "religion" has more to do with belief in things that are fundamentally un-provable. For example, the idea that people have "rights" or that a certain situation has an intrinsic value of rightness or wrongness.
I've seen plenty of atheists moan about how their "rights" are being encroached by the almighty Church. They're indignant because of those individuals who have built a system of society around religious faith. These things can't be proven, and should therefore not be believed in. There's a non-sequitur for you. I have yet to see such atheists empirically prove that rights exist at all or that a set of scientific facts can somehow demonstrate right or wrong. And yet they advocate something, stand for something.
Until I see objective proof of human rights, or until I see someone measure and quantify right and wrong with a physical instrument, I will hold that the only true atheists just don't care. Those who spout platitudes and ideology - which they cannot prove to be correct by any known science - are merely disciples of another kind of faith. And like the rest of us, they also are granted the privilege of believing as their conscience dictates.
If people truly want freedom from "religion," I am afraid that they will have to evolve to a higher life form, such as an ape or a jellyfish. Unfortunately, with the human mind also comes a lot of baggage known collectively as "reason," in which value judgements can be made based on the experience of the creature. These judgements have been demonstrated to dictate behaviors above and beyond the call of instinct. When a man engages himself in the advocacy and promotion of his own reason, or of another's reasoning that he may subscribe to (e.g. "freedom from religion"), he is, ironically, participating in religion itself.
Sorry you got modded down on this. :) I'm a Mormon, and I got a good laugh out of it.
But there are those who take offense...
Same here. Still have mine too: TI-99/4a with speech synthesizer, casette deck, and expansion unit (so that it can run TI-Logo).
A really excellent point. Philanthropy, really, is a political game. The wealthy people who do it may be better off for it, society may be better off for it, and it may be done in good faith. But for every cause that is championed, how many causes are not? What a great way to mold politics and society. Today, Americans really are more of a product of rich businessmen (seeking utopias) than we are of revolutionary political thinking from the turn of the eighteenth century.
"in 2005, the software movement finally gained traction in Corporate America and saw a new influx of VC cash."
It seems like I read very similar claims made in 2004.
But if stamp collectors had a history of slaughtering those who don't or who collect the "wrong" type of stamp, and then try to force their belief on my children at my school system
Much like the Communist regime of Mao? Remember, the one that endorsed atheism as its state religion? What was the final tally of the dead? 70 million? Yes, that sounds about right. No other people on the earth were so indoctrinated nor brainwashed as the Chinese, and atheism was the official party line.
America's propaganda-du-jour is one of humanism, secularism, and welfare-state socialism. What is the public school system but a psychologized brain-cloning factory where children learn how to be good little citizens in the new managed utopia? Haven't you paid attention to history?
but if you try to insert your religious propoganda not in your own religious schools but into the public school system and then lie about it to call it science
Oh, I agree. Like "tolerance" is science. Like "diversity" is science. Like all the "science" of social machinery, right out of nineteenth century rank-and-file Prussian schools, implanted by yesteryear's ideologues on American soil without even a public review. I have news for you: school is nothing but propaganda, designed to program our children to work happily for somebody else. We go to school so that we can "get a good job." Do you think any public school today could produce another Franklin, Farragut, Edison, or Carnegie? We have ways of dealing with their kind of genius: No Child Left Behind. If public schools had the goal of teaching children to think for themselves, then why does it require a 20+ million-worker bereaucracy to accomplish that?
It doesn't matter what you think. Someone's religion will be taught in public schools. Right now, the preferred religion, as I said, is one of secularism. We've had the religous ideologies of atheism force-fed to us since the 1890's.
Most people start as non-stamp collectors, hence it is much easier to be a disinterested non-collector of stamps. In fact, I'd wager that most people have never even considered stamp collecting.
On the other hand, perhaps a majority of atheists started out as "believers," then "escaped" from "religion." Therefore, it is very difficult to be a disinterested atheist, and conversely, very easy to be religious about atheism. If you believe that you have "escaped" from some irrational system, why then I suppose that implies some sort of ideology right there. You've made a value judgement regarding right and wrong, bad and good.
But, as no one has picked up on how ridiculous it is to compare stamp collectors to atheists, I will explain it. Stamp collecting, it turns out, espouses no philosophy or ideology regarding the proper way to live, the difference between right and wrong, the nature of human rights, the origin of ideas, or the proper organization of enlightened and civilized human society and relationships. It's fine to be a human and not be interested in stamp collecting.
What is exceedingly odd is the condition of being a human so disinterested in those circumstances which have elevated us in intelligence so decidedly above the common animals (who nevertheless, many among even the lesser animals display remarkable qualities of society, loyalty, fidelity, etc.). Surely science can reveal many interesting likelihoods to establish a rational base upon which to consider whether or not humans have rights, or whether or not there is a kind of right and wrong, or whether certain behaviors ought to be accepted while other behaviors are not. But such things as rights, priveleges, honesty, loyalty, chastity, order, fidelity, good, and evil are just as unscientific as Intelligent Design; they will forever remain the domain of religion and philosophy. Whenever an Atheist espouses an opinion regarding any one of those ideas, he has crossed the line from disinterested atheism to religion, having no way to empirically prove his position.
If you say it is reasonable and right to think critically while imprudent and wrong to accept ideas on faith alone (an ideal espoused by many atheists), then you are being religious. You have applied judgements of right and wrong to something, which you cannot prove with the scientific method. If you believe that a human has the right to behave however he sees fit, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another (a humanist or objectivist ideal), then you are being religious. You have supposed that humans have rights, an idea that no science can test or prove.
And so I use the word "religion" to mean any belief, especially when advocated or expressed to someone else, that can bever be proven by empirical scientific means. There are several religions in the world that lack a god figure, but they are no less religions because of it.
The person who originally suggested the comparison between atheism/religion and not collecting stamps/hobby, did not spend enough time in rational thought that day.
Exactly. Which is why it is very difficult to be a disinterested, irreligious atheist. The theists really rankle the atheists, and why is that? Because they don't share the same ideology. They feel provoked, bemused, and annoyed by each other.
A genuine atheist wouldn't care in the least about the ravings and feeble persuations of the Evangelical. He might grumble over the odd interruption (forgive me if I'm skeptical of the "weekly" visits), but he certainly would never take up the issue on a philosophical level. He just wouldn't care.
I get interrupted by frequent (incessant) corporate advertising more than by any Evangelical proselytizing. Advertising is just as ridiculous and irrational as any religious zealotry in the world, far more pervasive, and on the whole, much less complained about. Sure, there are probably a few groups out there whose sole purpose is to tear down marketing in all of its various forms, but you never hear about them, and they make no progress at all. It's because people don't care enough to be religious about it. Now consider the massive humanist, secularist, and atheist movements that are afoot right now. Why is it that we have movements in direct opposition to theistic ideology, while we have nothing like it in opposition to equally silly salesmen? I'll tell you why: Today's Atheism is a religious movement, not a dissinterested condition of people who just don't care. Atheists, by and large, are true believers in their own ideology, which they do possess and do promote. As true believers themselves, Atheists are equally annoying to other types of true believers.
Not all atheists bother to argue the point. Do you then maintain that they are still religious?
No. My point is that religion entails holding or advocating ideology. What else can you call it? Superstition? It's certainly not science. Science embraces no ideology.
Disinterested atheists are like the man who doesn't collect stamps for his hobby because he simply isn't interested in it. He's not being religious about his atheism until he starts spending his time thinking about it, or talking about it, or being otherwise proactive about it. As I said, most atheists who are not religious in the sense of traditional religion, nevertheless maintain some standard of morality (they believe in a "right" and a "wrong"). Where does such ideology come from? Like the Buddhist or the Shinto, he has espoused religion without a god. But it is no less religion, and atheism is at the root of it.
"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
A comparison meant to show how atheism isn't a religion.
Which is an absolutely valid comparison until you consider that the non-collector of stamps has begun advocating non-collection over collection. And then argues with the collectors about it. And also has a list of reasons why he does not collect, plus some talking points that he can refer to. And possibly very specific grievances against particular collectors. And maybe he has even written a book about not collecting, or at least read a book about it. And he has lobbied or sued the government to reduce the influence of stamp collectors in politics. And frequently makes skeptical comments about the collectors in multpile public forums. And belongs to an organized non-collector club. In that case, yes, not collecting stamps is that man's hobby. Just like atheism is the religion of many atheists.
few atheists live lives devoid of ideals. Atheism is merely the axiom upon which they establish their ideology. Eric Hoffer wrote a book called "True Believers," in which he made a statement that I think is very applicable:
"Though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, shaping the world in his own image."
Wherever there is ideology, there is religion. Maybe not formal, organized religion, but nevertheless it is religion.
Many atheists fool themselves into thinking they have shaken free from the manipulations of religion, but this is mere delusion if they hold any ideals at all. There is no science that has ever claimed to have arrived at the final truth of anyhting, nor established standards for good or evil, nor proven that humans have any sort of rights or entitlements.
Atheism is no more organized than, say, Christianity is organized. It's not an establishment, as Christianity is not an establishment, as Islam is not an establishment, as Buddhism is not an establishment.
As with its theistic religious counterparts, atheism covers a number of sects: Humanism, secularism, hedonism, agnosticism, objectivism, etc. And atheism even has its organized groups of activists, analogous to the various denominations and established churches in theistic religion. They have their own missionaries bent on getting the theists to "leave them alone."
But I'm guessing you'd say they spend a lot of time posting on slashdot
I wouldn't say that. I'm lucky to get one good discussion out of Slashdot in three or four month's time. The rest of the time I read the headlines. I like to know what people in my area of interest think is interesting and important. Sometimes I have comments too.
I even fire up my ps2 for the occasional video game. I have my favorites.
Yeah, they build model ships. Idiot. Some people want to control the story, not have it dictated to them.
At least I have something to leave behind when I die. If I please myself while I'm at it, that's just a bonus.
Want to control the story? That's what real lives are for. Why do great things in a game, when you can do great things in the real world?
I take some time out for games too. I'm not a professional anti-videogames-troll, just a guy with some insight that maybe you hard-core gamers would like to think about without getting too offended.
The funny thing is, I had in my mind the exact sort of people you mention when I say Intelligent and productive people: Farmers, plumbers, craftsmen, contractors, shoemakers, tailors, grocers, artisans, cooks. People who make things. I'm not talking about intellectuals at all. Everyone should be an intellectual.
:) Now I'm a troll because I suggested that grown-up gamers might be wasting their time. I wonder what I'm trolling for...
The problem, as I see it, is that Americans now work so that they can play. Play is the reward for a hard day's work, because they don't really like what they do. It used to be that we loved our work because we had independent livelihoods. It's the psychology of "positive" and "negative" reinforcement that is needed to sustain a Utopia. Now our focus is recreation; in the past it was self improvement.
An awful forum to express these opinions, as you can see.
We need the ignorant, the useless, AND the unproductive people for our economy to work properly.
If we had intelligent, productive people, they wouldn't buy things they didn't need. They wouldn't tolerate useless sinecures, bureaucracies, or government jobs. They wouldn't be satisfied working for somebody else, or taking charity from the State. Useful, productive people don't need mass-produced goods made identically by machines, because smart useful people won't work in mindless jobs operating and managing the machines of mass production (whether they be hardware machines or social machines which are comprised of humans, yet lack humanity).
Intelligent, productive people have art and culture in their blood, and they release it by creating things with their own hands by the virtue of their particular genius. Intelligent, productive people are energized by other intelligent productive people, and as individuals and communities, they can take care of themselves.
Intelligent, productive people aren't born, but are made. America was once a land of such people, but now you look at yourselves and see what you have become, and you hate it. That is why you fight.
And you know what? Your manner of fighting is completely useless. It's only a way of hiding from the problem. We treat our symptoms and ignore our problems. But that's what the Managed Utopia is all about: leveling the masses and robbing them of real courage to stand up and make changes.
Do you think if America had stayed faithful to her original Dream that her armies would now span the globe? That her Senate would echo the politics of George III's parliament? That places like Wal-Mart would even be possible? I walk the isles of Wal-Mart and see full-grown men playing games on the demo XBox console. This is what America has become.
Intelligent, useful, productive people don't have time for video games.
The prophet's name was "Mormon," not "Moron." :)
I think your argument could be made more seriously against those sects whose theology is based on some form of philosophy. A lot of the early Christian apologists found that they needed to reconcile themselves with the science and philosophy of the day. It was Greek at the time, although we saw another movement during the enlightenment era, as you have alluded to, as part of the protestant reformation. So that kind of thing crops up from time to time and it reshapes theistic religion once a lot of momentum builds up behind it.
Now, you can claim that our Mormon religion grew up in a cultural vacuum. I'm not offended by that, but I would suggest that it was more of an intellectual vacuum than a cultural one. In fact, I believe that Mormonism will readily admit to this without reservation (disclaimer: I don't speak for the Mormon church). One of the things that sets "ludicrous" Mormonism apart from "mainstream" Christianity is this idea that the theology doesn't need to match up with any contemporary science or philosophy. Instead, we profess the belief that our theology was given by God himself, through the vehicle of revelation. We're encouraged to make sense of it, and many of us do as best we can. And so we have no official "position" on the topic of evolution. You'll find Mormons who adopt a "traditional Christian" mistrust of that subject and others who fully accept it into their way of thinking. I understand that one local (Utah) government official wanted to put Intelligent Design in schools, while our Mormon governor said it had no place in the science curriculum. In the meantime, I'm not even sure I know what Intelligent Design is all about.
Of course, we have our own apologists now, but they are of a different breed. They don't seek to define (or refine) church doctrine. At least there is some form of scholarship in place, and my experiece is that it's not too bad at all. In spite of our intellectually modest beginnings, we've always encouraged people to get the best aducation that they can manage, and this is usually understood to be education of a secular nature. In spite of that, I find that the writings of early church leaders (including poor, uneducated Joseph Smith) to be remarkably well-done in terms of prose and style, such that even today, few among our educated members can muster such eloquence as they had in the mid-nineteenth century. I think they had different standards of literacy and education in those days. Anyway, we have a number of our own serious and fine biologists, physicists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers and the like. They manage to do credit to their science and also to their religion. Are there those who become disillusioned with their faith and seek other paths? Certainly, and they are free to do so.
Allow me to wax philisophical.
Consider your comment about new wars of religion. Aren't all wars religious wars? It isn't science that gives rise to labels such as "natural rights" or whatever else is championed by secularism. Indeed, science can reveal to us the nature of reality after a fashion, but if we interpret and assign values and judgments to those empirical revelations, we only do so as our conscience may dictate. When John Locke spoke of Natural Rights, he could only rely on science to determine what was natural - it was a leap of faith to declare such behaviors and liberties arising from that natural condition to be intrinsic rights. Hence America's Founding Fathers dressed John Locke's Natural Rights in religious garb, saying that such were only granted us by a benevolent Maker, or a divine Providence. Indeed, science cannot empirically prove that humans have rights of any kind. Science can only expose our imperfect nature, and if we suppose that our natural state grants us rights to certain behavior, then it is only through religious belief that we can say so. Therefore, I suggest that modern secularism, particularly when embodied in and championed by
When people start "discovering" books with Google's book searches, the very worst thing that would happen would be that people would be briefly exposed to books they otherwise might not have. But for "searchers" who find an interesting book, they won't be ripping the publishers off by printing (stealing) or downloading (stealing) these books, since Google isn't offering that as an option.
I think you nailed it on the head. What would happen if people started thinking about books - even reading parts of them - before they buy them? For that matter, what might happen if people used informed judgment before buying anything? That's why we have laws like the DMCA - so that consumers know as little about the product as possible, and so that what they are told can be carefully crafted by the marketing and PR department of those primarily interested. If people suddenly have the means to examine these products objectively, then what could happen? They might not buy the products. Such a thing poses a threat to our highly managed consumer economy.
It seems like public libraries had to fight some of these same battles. Literate people are dangerous.
I wasn't aware of Card's essay on The Hypocrites of Homosexuality. I agree that the snippet you provide is curiously outspoken for an author who often treats the subject rather openly (if not indirectly) in some of his other work. I'm thinking of Treason, specifically. Such was the surprise of the interviewer if I recall: she thought that Card would have been more "open minded" towards the topic, but it wasn't so. Well, I think that "open-minded" and "in agreement" are two things. Anyway, one man's sociopath is another man's neighbor (I don't live by OSC, btw, but I still only classify him as "outspoken."). :)
Regarding the Superman Essay, no, I didn't know it came out in '87. Ok, my whoops; but at any rate, it's only been in the last year or two that I've seen it used in these OSC arguments.
Now, I don't have a good argument for you on the point about homophobia, in #2. Like I said, I was only aware of a certain interview, in which I thought the content was rather tame. It was around that time that OSC debates starting getting, in my opinon, heated. So I connect those events together. Your quote from the other article (presuming it's in context, which I have no reason to doubt) opens up a whole new can of worms. I tend to agree with you that a "passionate suppression of homosexuality at a legal level" belies homophobia, although I'm not certain that what I know of Card's feelings qualify him for "passionate" on that count. Sometimes people say things that aren't really smart, just so that they can be obnoxious or outspoken. Has anyone every quantified homophobia, and just how many ounces of fear is required before a person becomes a homophobe? I used to think that I had arachniphobia - you know, the nightmares and extreme aversion to those little devils whenever they show up. But I still get up the courage to squish those beasts and remove them from the premises when others around me positively won't do it. By medical standards, I'm no arachniphobe. So what is the threshold for these things, and is it prudent to talk about homophobia when we haven't even had the man under the psychological microscope for more than a few tangential articles and interviews?
You also wanted me to clarify about my little "science has proven" comment. I was actually making a little dig at those people who claim that homosexuality can be somewhat demonstrated in a genetic sense, so therefore it is socially acceptable. So my antecedent was homosexuality, not homophobia (which is more a product of synapse pruning, I think. I'm not a scientist.). Anyway, that little dig of mine got me on some Foe lists out there, but in fact I was merely trying to illustrate, via sarcasm, that scientific facts don't readily translate into social maxims. Science can tell how things are, more or less, but not if they are right or wrong. I was trying to demonstrate a logical fallacy and at the same time, bring into question the philosophy of secular empiricism. It was stupid, and it failed brilliantly!
Have I made any good arguments yet? No, I guess I've lost some ground.
I will argue your point #4. I agree that it isn't unreasonable to change your opinion of something as you age, or as you encounter good arguments and new information. This is natural, and we hope that people can do it. What isn't logical is to assert that those who still hold their old beliefs (e.g., those who still like OSC after all these years), only do so for the sake of tradition in spite of what "facts" may have become available. If I believed that OSC was a raving sociopath, it might be more difficult for me to enjoy his work in light of that. But as I don't hold that opinion at this time, I'm still happy to give his stuff a try. I don't think that I've been turned into a raving sociopath because of it (maybe I was one already).
Alas, my original post was sadly under-researched, but this is, after all, Slashdot. I just don't have that kind of serious interest in OSC, so my observations were mostly intuitive. In spite of the tru