I am considering not answering comments from anyone who can't identify himself with a false moniker. There are current threads with a number of "anonymous" writers, and I have answered their issues. But it confuses things greatly when a number of people choose the same name - "anonymous" - I presume out of laziness, because you could just as easily type in a fake handle to identify your comments from other's comments.
Please pick a name!
Thanks
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Never Waste a Crisis (Why a Crisis Produces Instant Moral Outrage From the Left)
The Progressive narrative, and the drumbeat of the war that supports the narrative, is never so obvious as in a time of crisis. Crisis is when Moral Outrage can win a battle that was not being overtly fought. Crisis provides a temporary change, a lever that can be forced against the ideological opposition. It works like this:
The Progressive narrative is moral, because we, the intelligent, the ethically immaculate, the evolved and superior elite, are moral by definition; it is our narrative, and it is our ethical definition. Never forget the moral superiority of the narrative.
The Progressive narrative demands change because the world is not built to our standards.
Change is moral; opposition to the change which we righteously declare as moral is obviously immoral. There must be a constant battle against the immoral in order to implement righteous change.
Opposition is evil. It must be stopped. We, the righteous, will do whatever is necessary (and possible) to stop those evil enough to oppose righteous Progressive change.
When a crisis occurs it is because the unrighteous, the evil, the demons, have impeded our progress toward a world that is perfect. Therefore, the unrighteous have full responsibility for the crisis. In a perfect world, that which we would create, there would have been no crisis. Thus, those who challenge Progress toward that perfect world, those demons, those evil, immoral impediments, those monsters are fully responsible for all the evil that the imperfect world continues to produce.
It is our moral obligation to gush with moral outrage when a crisis occurs, regardless of the facts of the crisis; the immoral opposing monsters are responsible for all crises that occur in this world, a world that needs us to control it, to provide equal outcomes and social justice under strict supervision and control from our Progressive governing wisdom.
Our moral outrage is not merely justified; it is required because it could advance the narrative or at least protect it.
Instructions from Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals":
The Progressive narrative is moral, because we, the intelligent, the ethically immaculate, the evolved and superior elite, are moral by definition; it is our narrative, and it is our ethical definition. Never forget the moral superiority of the narrative.
The Progressive narrative demands change because the world is not built to our standards.
Change is moral; opposition to the change which we righteously declare as moral is obviously immoral. There must be a constant battle against the immoral in order to implement righteous change.
Opposition is evil. It must be stopped. We, the righteous, will do whatever is necessary (and possible) to stop those evil enough to oppose righteous Progressive change.
When a crisis occurs it is because the unrighteous, the evil, the demons, have impeded our progress toward a world that is perfect. Therefore, the unrighteous have full responsibility for the crisis. In a perfect world, that which we would create, there would have been no crisis. Thus, those who challenge Progress toward that perfect world, those demons, those evil, immoral impediments, those monsters are fully responsible for all the evil that the imperfect world continues to produce.
It is our moral obligation to gush with moral outrage when a crisis occurs, regardless of the facts of the crisis; the immoral opposing monsters are responsible for all crises that occur in this world, a world that needs us to control it, to provide equal outcomes and social justice under strict supervision and control from our Progressive governing wisdom.
Our moral outrage is not merely justified; it is required because it could advance the narrative or at least protect it.
Instructions from Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals":
"Moral rationalization is indispensible at all times of action..." p 43
"All effective actions require the passport of morality." p 44
"...that is, in one word, your function - to agitate to the point of conflict." p 117
"The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments." p 36
"Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times." p 30
"The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means". p 28
Sunday, January 9, 2011
When Irrationality Dominates Your Worldview...
...this is what you get.
The Arizona shooter has been identified, and we know a little bit about him, specifically that he was irrational. But that's not surprising.
Here's what PZ Meyers had to say, before he knew any facts:
And from the Corruption of Christianity side of the coin, the Westboro Church celebrates the massacre:
The Arizona shooter has been identified, and we know a little bit about him, specifically that he was irrational. But that's not surprising.
Here's what PZ Meyers had to say, before he knew any facts:
I'll take a wild guess here. The scumbag who committed this crime has been caught; I'll bet he'll turn out to be a Teabagger who listens to a lot of AM talk radio. Holy crap. This was Sarah Palin's idea of a clever campaign earlier this year: she had select Democrats, including Gabrielle Giffords, targeted with a gunsight symbol.This is false; the campaign target was on the state, not Giffords. It is also false that Palin had any influence on the shooter. This jump to vile Ad Hominem is not indicative of a thoughtful, rational demeanor. It is Atheo-Leftist hatred and venom let loose before any facts were known.
What a vile creature. Perhaps she ought to consider not inciting the deranged assholes who follow her.
And from the Corruption of Christianity side of the coin, the Westboro Church celebrates the massacre:
The Westboro Church is a single famiy of deranged and dangerous and corrupt people who hide behind a false view of Christianity to further their psychotic beliefs. Their views are as false as PZ's, from the opposite end of the political spectrum where vicious irrationality hangs out... at both ends."The Westboro Baptist Church has declared that Jared Lee Laughner, who shot 18 persons, killing 6 on Saturday, was doing God's will.
In announcing that its church members will picket the funerals of those slain, the Phelps clan gave thanks to God for the violence and proclaimed that is is praying "for your destruction, more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner — all."
Friday, January 7, 2011
Is It Wise to Advertise Your Ignorance?
The Atheist billboard in Huntsville has drawn comments from even the elites over at Massimo’s blog. The American Atheist billboard states, ”You KNOW they’re All SCAMS”. It then shows religious symbols.
I wasn’t going to comment on it because it seems to be such a juvenile provocation rather than an argument worthy of refutation. But as a long-time reader says in an email to me, how do they know with such certainty that the truth statements of ALL religions are false? Since they cannot possibly know that, much less the truth value of their own smug religious position, then their self-satisfying smirk at the bottom of the billboard, “Telling the Truth Since [whenever]” is demonstrably false. If that claim, their main one, is false then what are we to make of any other claims that they choose to promote?
The interview with the local American Atheists leader shows the deception being practiced: if the purpose is to attract Atheists, why not just invite Atheists to the Convention. That is not what the billboard does, though. The billboard is a thumb in the eye of non-Atheists, and it is obvious that that is the specific intent. Given that the statement of the local leader is as obviously false as the content of the billboard itself, Atheists have stumbled badly in their adjunct claim of rationality and distribution of "truth".
I wasn’t going to comment on it because it seems to be such a juvenile provocation rather than an argument worthy of refutation. But as a long-time reader says in an email to me, how do they know with such certainty that the truth statements of ALL religions are false? Since they cannot possibly know that, much less the truth value of their own smug religious position, then their self-satisfying smirk at the bottom of the billboard, “Telling the Truth Since [whenever]” is demonstrably false. If that claim, their main one, is false then what are we to make of any other claims that they choose to promote?
The interview with the local American Atheists leader shows the deception being practiced: if the purpose is to attract Atheists, why not just invite Atheists to the Convention. That is not what the billboard does, though. The billboard is a thumb in the eye of non-Atheists, and it is obvious that that is the specific intent. Given that the statement of the local leader is as obviously false as the content of the billboard itself, Atheists have stumbled badly in their adjunct claim of rationality and distribution of "truth".
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Would Anyone Be Interested....
In an on-line class in logic? Or Critical Thinking?
I am considering presenting a series of classes here on informal logic (non-symbolic, little mathematics), and logic as applied to propositions and worldviews. This would be taken from my collection of logic books and completely annotated so that any opinions of mine would be either filtered out, or at least seen to be what they are, opinions.
I would be available to address questions, of course, and I would be willing to research things that I do not currently know.
As for you, you get nothing out of this except for a chance to see a complete informal logic regimen and to work with it in an on-line setting. You get no course credit, no certificate, nothing of a material nature.
Any interest?
I am considering presenting a series of classes here on informal logic (non-symbolic, little mathematics), and logic as applied to propositions and worldviews. This would be taken from my collection of logic books and completely annotated so that any opinions of mine would be either filtered out, or at least seen to be what they are, opinions.
I would be available to address questions, of course, and I would be willing to research things that I do not currently know.
As for you, you get nothing out of this except for a chance to see a complete informal logic regimen and to work with it in an on-line setting. You get no course credit, no certificate, nothing of a material nature.
Any interest?
An Atheist Drops By
Anonymous says,
Atheism is not non-belief in religion, it is a specific belief that there is no deity. Non-belief in religion would be an-ecclesiasticism, and is usually expressed in hostile terms rendering it to be Anti-ecclesiasticism. And in fact, to a high degree, I fall into those categories myself.
I think what anonymous meant to claim is that Atheism is non-belief in a deity. That is the usual Atheist claim, and that claim is false also.
The analysis of that claim goes like this:
If a person has not heard of the possibility of a deity (or first cause of the universe), then that person likely has non-belief in a deity.
If a person has heard the assertion that there exists a deity, there are three possible reactions:
a) belief that the assertion is true;
b) belief that the assertion is false;
c) belief that the assertion cannot be known to be either true or false.
It is not possible that the person who has heard the assertion that there is a deity has no theory on the subject at all, unless he is short of memory and walks off without remembering the assertion at all.
Asserting “non-belief” in a deity is superficial; it indicates that an answer which is convenient to the Atheist has been chosen without thought, or possibly it has been chosen to cover for the Atheist inability to prove his belief, which is that there is no deity. But the cover story is false, and the Atheist, who fails this cover is forced to see that his belief is an unprovable statement of faith, not a rational, empirical, scientific finding.
UPDATE
This post has undergone a critical analysis at Barefoot Bum, an analysis which I print here in its entirety:
“What a load of bollocks. Atheism is simply the non-belief in religion, not a page full of crap.”While this has the markings of a drive-by superficiality, I will address it. It is a common assertion amongst those Atheists in need of sound bites to support their belief system in lieu of concentrated thought.
Atheism is not non-belief in religion, it is a specific belief that there is no deity. Non-belief in religion would be an-ecclesiasticism, and is usually expressed in hostile terms rendering it to be Anti-ecclesiasticism. And in fact, to a high degree, I fall into those categories myself.
I think what anonymous meant to claim is that Atheism is non-belief in a deity. That is the usual Atheist claim, and that claim is false also.
The analysis of that claim goes like this:
If a person has not heard of the possibility of a deity (or first cause of the universe), then that person likely has non-belief in a deity.
If a person has heard the assertion that there exists a deity, there are three possible reactions:
a) belief that the assertion is true;
b) belief that the assertion is false;
c) belief that the assertion cannot be known to be either true or false.
It is not possible that the person who has heard the assertion that there is a deity has no theory on the subject at all, unless he is short of memory and walks off without remembering the assertion at all.
Asserting “non-belief” in a deity is superficial; it indicates that an answer which is convenient to the Atheist has been chosen without thought, or possibly it has been chosen to cover for the Atheist inability to prove his belief, which is that there is no deity. But the cover story is false, and the Atheist, who fails this cover is forced to see that his belief is an unprovable statement of faith, not a rational, empirical, scientific finding.
UPDATE
This post has undergone a critical analysis at Barefoot Bum, an analysis which I print here in its entirety:
"After this, I'll be retiring Stan to the same category as Ray Comfort: too consistently stupid to merit continued mention in this series."This incisive critique from B'Bum should provide much meat for debating the issue. And I have to thank B'Bum for highlighting the typing error, which I have corrected.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Fred on Details of The First Principles.
I apologize to Fred for the delay in answering his question concrning the Details of the First Principles; it is a timely question, so I will answer it in a post:
The emergence of life is the first anentropic (non-entropic) event, and that has been followed by generations of further anentropic events, all constrained to living systems. The universal law of Cause and Effect fails to account for the increasing order that is found in living systems. So there is some attempt to claim that things like sentience and thought “emerge” from complex systems somehow, yet there is no explanation for why complex systems exist in an entropic universe in the first place.
Cause and Effect as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics are universal and undeniably applicable to every and all physical systems… except living systems. But for Philosophical Materialism to be valid, everything that exists must exist physically and obey the laws of physics. This means that, given the conclusion first and trying to fit premises to it, all life must not be exceptional, all life must also fit into the rules of the physical universe, including Cause and Effect and Entropy.
Now if entropy dictates the degradation of effects within a long chain of causes, how might we account for sentience, thought and rationality? It has to be argued that a) these things are physical, and b) they are not exceptional, so that c) if they seem to be exceptional, that is an illusion or delusion. Even the self and consciousness as well as intentionality and agency are declared illusory or delusory. (If we believe an illusion it becomes a delusion).
Brain activity is given as definitive evidence of this delusion; moreover, damage to the brain shows that no mental activity can be correctly performed without a proper brain, with all segments hooked up and working together as shown under MRI. That physical hardware is exercising software of unknown origin escapes this description, which requires that a hardware brain be hardwired with physical connections, and that these connections fire just right somehow to perform a thought, the results of which are then transferred to the conscious mind – which is a delusion.
So it is the firing of the synapses that create the thought, and the thought is a transient state, existing only in time.
We are deluded into thinking that we somehow control these transient states, even creating sequences of them as would be required for critical thinking. There is no agency in the physical universe according to Philosophical Materialism. There is only response to stimulus (effect from a cause) and the response is lossy at that. So we are locked into our delusions.
I am not making this up, as ridiculously absurd as it appears. It is the necessity of a physical-only, material-only dogmatic philosophy that forces such absurd conclusions. Those who think that these positions are not absurd should pledge to abstain from using the results of intentional, conscious agency, including clothing, buildings of all types, transportation of all types, toilets, water and power utilities, and communications devices; these are concrete products of intentional agency. Denial of agency is dumfoundingly absurd. And so are the claims that we all live in a shared delusion.
The existence of the mind, rationality, agency and self requires a completely separate understanding of our existence within a physical universe. Our existence defies the natural laws, and requires a separate and extended view of reality beyond the Materialist viewpoint. The Materialist viewpoint is not sustainable even using its own standards of empirical knowledge: it cannot prove the limits it self-imposes on reality. But even more damaging is the boatload of absurdities that become necessary to believe, if Materialism is to be preserved.
Again sorry for the delay in answering your question.
Fred:For Cause and Effect to be completely in control of every aspect of human thinking, every thought (which must be material itself) must have a direct physical cause and that cause must be an effect of a prior cause, clear back to the big bang. Now Cause and Effect is ruled by entropy, which means that every effect must be less than its cause, with at least a portion of the cause resulting in disorder such as heat. A relentless trek toward disorder is the fate of the physical universe, and this is a rule that allows no exceptions: there can exist no reversible machines in our physical universe.
”Stan, Thank you for the answers and clarifications. I appreciate your time. In the third-to-last paragraph of your answer (Materialists do in fact claim...) you state Materialists' adherence to Cause and Effect doesn't allow for any human agency which in turn doesn't allow for any "original" - uncaused - thought, since this requires agency. You then say that because of this, reason,... also cannot exist under naturalism. How do you draw this conclusion? Would not a Materialist say that reason does not have to be uncaused (original) for it to exist? Would not a materialist also state that even granting for the non-material transcendent nature of thought one cannot deny the chemical and cellular processes occurring in the material brain in tandem with these thoughts as evidenced by countless scientific experiments; many of which have demonstrated that human behavior (and therefore thoughts) can be altered as a result of material changes through various means to the brain?”
The emergence of life is the first anentropic (non-entropic) event, and that has been followed by generations of further anentropic events, all constrained to living systems. The universal law of Cause and Effect fails to account for the increasing order that is found in living systems. So there is some attempt to claim that things like sentience and thought “emerge” from complex systems somehow, yet there is no explanation for why complex systems exist in an entropic universe in the first place.
Cause and Effect as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics are universal and undeniably applicable to every and all physical systems… except living systems. But for Philosophical Materialism to be valid, everything that exists must exist physically and obey the laws of physics. This means that, given the conclusion first and trying to fit premises to it, all life must not be exceptional, all life must also fit into the rules of the physical universe, including Cause and Effect and Entropy.
Now if entropy dictates the degradation of effects within a long chain of causes, how might we account for sentience, thought and rationality? It has to be argued that a) these things are physical, and b) they are not exceptional, so that c) if they seem to be exceptional, that is an illusion or delusion. Even the self and consciousness as well as intentionality and agency are declared illusory or delusory. (If we believe an illusion it becomes a delusion).
Brain activity is given as definitive evidence of this delusion; moreover, damage to the brain shows that no mental activity can be correctly performed without a proper brain, with all segments hooked up and working together as shown under MRI. That physical hardware is exercising software of unknown origin escapes this description, which requires that a hardware brain be hardwired with physical connections, and that these connections fire just right somehow to perform a thought, the results of which are then transferred to the conscious mind – which is a delusion.
So it is the firing of the synapses that create the thought, and the thought is a transient state, existing only in time.
We are deluded into thinking that we somehow control these transient states, even creating sequences of them as would be required for critical thinking. There is no agency in the physical universe according to Philosophical Materialism. There is only response to stimulus (effect from a cause) and the response is lossy at that. So we are locked into our delusions.
I am not making this up, as ridiculously absurd as it appears. It is the necessity of a physical-only, material-only dogmatic philosophy that forces such absurd conclusions. Those who think that these positions are not absurd should pledge to abstain from using the results of intentional, conscious agency, including clothing, buildings of all types, transportation of all types, toilets, water and power utilities, and communications devices; these are concrete products of intentional agency. Denial of agency is dumfoundingly absurd. And so are the claims that we all live in a shared delusion.
The existence of the mind, rationality, agency and self requires a completely separate understanding of our existence within a physical universe. Our existence defies the natural laws, and requires a separate and extended view of reality beyond the Materialist viewpoint. The Materialist viewpoint is not sustainable even using its own standards of empirical knowledge: it cannot prove the limits it self-imposes on reality. But even more damaging is the boatload of absurdities that become necessary to believe, if Materialism is to be preserved.
“I suppose the question then is whether it is these material processes in the brain which are the material precursors to non-material thought, or vice versa? Or is it that the two are in a circular relationship where one causes the other and back and forth, back and forth, etc. Of course, a Materialist would give the "first/original" cause of all this as being purely material, the big bang. And a theist would give first cause as the "thought" or original act of creation of God. Is this not then an endless argument which can never be resolved since neither claim can be proven?”The Atheist / Materialist claim can be proven false, due to the non-rational absurdities required for all humans to be living in a shared delusion. Theism is an understanding of a non-physical, non-material reality that presumes that, for one thing, a sentient being is required to create sentience in other objects such as humans. This cannot be proven empirically because it is not an empirical hypothesis, but it is not non-coherent nor is it paradoxical nor does it depend on mass or individual delusion.
"Of course, you rightly point out that because of this inability to prove their claims atheists cannot claim to be any more rational than deists. Is this the main, and only, point of your blog: to deny atheists the claim of rationality? Do you go on to make any arguments in favor of the claims of theists? (I suppose I could answer the last question myself by reading your posts further!) Best wishes.”Please do feel free to read the posts, they are categorized by subject for your reading convenience. I do not indulge in theodicies because they are not proof of anything to the materialist mind. There are a great many theological sources but very few logical assaults on the Atheist worldview such as is done here. So that is the focus of this blog. However, I provide an insight into the study and use of real logic, and that can be used to find a coherent theology; that is a particular journey that I feel every seeker must make for himself, not one that I try to influence.
Again sorry for the delay in answering your question.
Response to the Challenge: How Am I Different After Leaving Atheism?
During my lengthy stay under Atheism, I did that which I think most Atheists do: I co-opted Judeo-Christian ethics and standards without even thinking about it, much less giving credit to the source of those standards. This theft of standards is easier to accomplish than is the more honest approach, which is to live as an Atheist would live under no objective standards whatsoever, or under temporary personal standards generated on a daily basis or for every situation.
The real difference that I see is my sense of personal value. Under Atheism, the individual is an accident. There is no more value to an individual human than to a head of lettuce. Value is derived not from mere existence, but from accomplishment, ability to contribute to society, or association with elitist dogma.
It is under this system of values that Humanism emerges, valuing not individuals, but groups, with this valuation being performed as an accomplishment of superiors. The superiors who place value on groups and devalue individuals position themselves as ultimate arbiters of moral truth.
My problem as a youth was that I had no self-value when I was an emerging adult, in a slow recovery from a rebellious adolescence. I had to acquire value somehow. My first steps to acquiring value included pursuing an education that only elites could acquire (electrical engineering) and by taking the easiest of steps toward elitism: rejecting God. This allowed me to acquire a semblance of differential value by mere association: the implied association with elite intellectuals which was acquired by joining their religion of rebellion.
But mere association provides little to no satisfaction, it turned out. So accomplishment was needed in my life to provide me with a sense of self-value. I will give only a couple of examples of this pursuit of accomplishment. I wanted to excel in something outside of the daily engineering tasks, and I wanted to be a musician. I failed at that due to an inability to play really fast, a result I think of an inherent mismatch between slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers. At another time I wanted to be an accomplished competitive distance runner. And I failed at that, probably due to the same deficiency in muscle fiber twitches as well as my size disadvantage at 6’ 3”, and my age of 40+.
In the cases where I did succeed, the success did not produce the desired effect in a permanent fashion. After a mediocre first third of my career in engineering, I finally did produce tangible accomplishments in the final two thirds, significant enough to produce a self-assurance of my significant value… as an engineer. But not necessarily as a whole human. When I left engineering, that value was eliminated.
The point is that I valued myself by what I could achieve, and in many of the pursuits that I chose in an attempt to define myself, there were many other individuals who were far better than I could ever be. When I did produce significant accomplishments, those did not seem to apply to me as a complete human. This didn’t help my self-valuation, and it raised a serious paradox in my life: I was certainly selfish enough to feel that I had value, yet I could not produce hard evidence to support that feeling, to turn it from a feeling into a conclusion.
I think that this contributes to the reasons behind the shrill assertions of “reason” and “rationality” that seem to define today’s Atheists. They need to acquire value from their rebellion. Attempting to equate rebellion with reason is an attempt to produce self-value within a valueless pursuit. But it leads to two ancillary positions, the need for eliteness, and the misunderstanding that individuals have no value (outside of eliteness).
My egress from Atheism was not accomplished in an instant, with a flash of enlightenment and a slap to the forehead. It started with the observation that much of what is said by Atheists is demonstrably erroneous. Why should that be, I wondered, if Atheists are as unrelentingly rational as they unrelentingly claim? When I retired onto a cattle farm I began to have enough time to pursue this question. It was not a spiritual journey so much as an intellectual program, a concentrated study of issues that were ignored in my formal education. I undertook to complete my education, a task that will likely never be completed regardless of the intensity with which I pursue it.
How has this changed me? The knowledge that material evidence does not cover all possible existence led me to understand that Atheism cannot be valid and that agnosticism is pusillanimous. My persistent feeling of value has origins in a reality that cannot be assailed by materialist empiricism. I don’t need physical evidence to prove my value as a distinct, sentient, non-entropic, acausal and intentional being which defies the four forces of the universe, and produces causes rather than merely consuming them.
My value as a person is not questionable. People are born with the ability to understand that, outside the restricted knowledge provided by empiricism with its mechanical limitations. The feeling of valuelessness is not innate, it is acquired.
The ability to comprehend is not predictable from raw elements nor from complex molecular constructions; the ability to comprehend is outside the Atheist / Philosophical Materialist purview. Speculative radical reductionism by Atheo-materialists does not serve to supply real explanations for the issue of the source of sentience in a material universe; sentience lies outside and beyond. Nor does negative reductionism, claiming that damaging the neural brain stops sentience, when it is just as likely that damaging the neural brain interrupts the connection. (It is just as rational to argue that ripping out the heart stops sentience, so the heart is the source of sentience). Nor does evolution supply real explanations, it responds to every question with one response: mutation, selection, deep time – three gods which answer for everything without explaining anything.
Atheist necessary absurdities abound. The universe arose as a material effect without a material cause. Life arose as a nonentropic chemical accident. Life is not exceptional, nor does it have an essence. Life has no value except as it contributes to the perpetuation of the species. Human life has no value, except as it contributes to society; hence an embryo has no value, the elderly have no value, and the non-productive have no value. Yet society as a whole has so much value that it is to be pitied that there are inequalities in outcomes. These values are determined by the highly valued intellectual elites, those whose self-derived morals are superior to all other morals. Traditional values for personal character development are denied, in favor of egalitarianism and social justice.
I am different now because I question these things, and I do so with a background in logic acquired both in my career and in my subsequent study. I am different now in the understanding that the entire foundation of my self-view was wrong under Atheism. I am different now because I realize that that applies not just to me, but also to every individual: each individual has an inherent value that is not determined by other people or by relative accomplishments. My entire worldview was wrong.
By understanding the concept of the inherent value of individuals, all individuals, I now understand that the source of Rights is outside the hegemony of governments or elites, but that those Rights can easily be violated by just those groups; hence those groups are dangerous. A person born with a mind has an implied Right to use that mind to self-direct his life. Obviously, that Right can be violated. So there is also an implied Responsibility to protect that Right, the Right to use one’s natural sentience, from those who would violate that Right with their own self-derived ethics and power. I only partially understood that concept before.
I could ramble endlessly; but I will stop here.
The real difference that I see is my sense of personal value. Under Atheism, the individual is an accident. There is no more value to an individual human than to a head of lettuce. Value is derived not from mere existence, but from accomplishment, ability to contribute to society, or association with elitist dogma.
It is under this system of values that Humanism emerges, valuing not individuals, but groups, with this valuation being performed as an accomplishment of superiors. The superiors who place value on groups and devalue individuals position themselves as ultimate arbiters of moral truth.
My problem as a youth was that I had no self-value when I was an emerging adult, in a slow recovery from a rebellious adolescence. I had to acquire value somehow. My first steps to acquiring value included pursuing an education that only elites could acquire (electrical engineering) and by taking the easiest of steps toward elitism: rejecting God. This allowed me to acquire a semblance of differential value by mere association: the implied association with elite intellectuals which was acquired by joining their religion of rebellion.
But mere association provides little to no satisfaction, it turned out. So accomplishment was needed in my life to provide me with a sense of self-value. I will give only a couple of examples of this pursuit of accomplishment. I wanted to excel in something outside of the daily engineering tasks, and I wanted to be a musician. I failed at that due to an inability to play really fast, a result I think of an inherent mismatch between slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers. At another time I wanted to be an accomplished competitive distance runner. And I failed at that, probably due to the same deficiency in muscle fiber twitches as well as my size disadvantage at 6’ 3”, and my age of 40+.
In the cases where I did succeed, the success did not produce the desired effect in a permanent fashion. After a mediocre first third of my career in engineering, I finally did produce tangible accomplishments in the final two thirds, significant enough to produce a self-assurance of my significant value… as an engineer. But not necessarily as a whole human. When I left engineering, that value was eliminated.
The point is that I valued myself by what I could achieve, and in many of the pursuits that I chose in an attempt to define myself, there were many other individuals who were far better than I could ever be. When I did produce significant accomplishments, those did not seem to apply to me as a complete human. This didn’t help my self-valuation, and it raised a serious paradox in my life: I was certainly selfish enough to feel that I had value, yet I could not produce hard evidence to support that feeling, to turn it from a feeling into a conclusion.
I think that this contributes to the reasons behind the shrill assertions of “reason” and “rationality” that seem to define today’s Atheists. They need to acquire value from their rebellion. Attempting to equate rebellion with reason is an attempt to produce self-value within a valueless pursuit. But it leads to two ancillary positions, the need for eliteness, and the misunderstanding that individuals have no value (outside of eliteness).
My egress from Atheism was not accomplished in an instant, with a flash of enlightenment and a slap to the forehead. It started with the observation that much of what is said by Atheists is demonstrably erroneous. Why should that be, I wondered, if Atheists are as unrelentingly rational as they unrelentingly claim? When I retired onto a cattle farm I began to have enough time to pursue this question. It was not a spiritual journey so much as an intellectual program, a concentrated study of issues that were ignored in my formal education. I undertook to complete my education, a task that will likely never be completed regardless of the intensity with which I pursue it.
How has this changed me? The knowledge that material evidence does not cover all possible existence led me to understand that Atheism cannot be valid and that agnosticism is pusillanimous. My persistent feeling of value has origins in a reality that cannot be assailed by materialist empiricism. I don’t need physical evidence to prove my value as a distinct, sentient, non-entropic, acausal and intentional being which defies the four forces of the universe, and produces causes rather than merely consuming them.
My value as a person is not questionable. People are born with the ability to understand that, outside the restricted knowledge provided by empiricism with its mechanical limitations. The feeling of valuelessness is not innate, it is acquired.
The ability to comprehend is not predictable from raw elements nor from complex molecular constructions; the ability to comprehend is outside the Atheist / Philosophical Materialist purview. Speculative radical reductionism by Atheo-materialists does not serve to supply real explanations for the issue of the source of sentience in a material universe; sentience lies outside and beyond. Nor does negative reductionism, claiming that damaging the neural brain stops sentience, when it is just as likely that damaging the neural brain interrupts the connection. (It is just as rational to argue that ripping out the heart stops sentience, so the heart is the source of sentience). Nor does evolution supply real explanations, it responds to every question with one response: mutation, selection, deep time – three gods which answer for everything without explaining anything.
Atheist necessary absurdities abound. The universe arose as a material effect without a material cause. Life arose as a nonentropic chemical accident. Life is not exceptional, nor does it have an essence. Life has no value except as it contributes to the perpetuation of the species. Human life has no value, except as it contributes to society; hence an embryo has no value, the elderly have no value, and the non-productive have no value. Yet society as a whole has so much value that it is to be pitied that there are inequalities in outcomes. These values are determined by the highly valued intellectual elites, those whose self-derived morals are superior to all other morals. Traditional values for personal character development are denied, in favor of egalitarianism and social justice.
I am different now because I question these things, and I do so with a background in logic acquired both in my career and in my subsequent study. I am different now in the understanding that the entire foundation of my self-view was wrong under Atheism. I am different now because I realize that that applies not just to me, but also to every individual: each individual has an inherent value that is not determined by other people or by relative accomplishments. My entire worldview was wrong.
By understanding the concept of the inherent value of individuals, all individuals, I now understand that the source of Rights is outside the hegemony of governments or elites, but that those Rights can easily be violated by just those groups; hence those groups are dangerous. A person born with a mind has an implied Right to use that mind to self-direct his life. Obviously, that Right can be violated. So there is also an implied Responsibility to protect that Right, the Right to use one’s natural sentience, from those who would violate that Right with their own self-derived ethics and power. I only partially understood that concept before.
I could ramble endlessly; but I will stop here.
Monday, December 27, 2010
A Challenge to Me
A new visitor has given me an interesting challenge. Here is the full message:
Pachomius, thank you for your viewpoint and challenge, and welcome to this blog. I accept the challenge, and I will present my reaction here[*]. If there are additional reactions after I have further ruminated on this issue, I will post them later.
[*] My first reactions were not acceptable in terms of "being and living" as stated in the challenge, so I will have to think more about differences that are not rational worldview related (if there are any) and more about changes in my way of life.
"pacho said...
Stan, upon examining atheism you have come to the realization that you are not an atheist or you cannot continue claiming to be an atheist.
I notice that you examine atheism to come to that realization which is more correctly a self-knowledge, that you are not an atheist or you cannot continue with the heart and mind of an atheist, according to the loud proclamations of vocal atheists on what atheism is all about.
Okay, let me tell you what I think of your investigation, and you tell me if I don't get it correctly, and I have some recommendations for you.
You are working on concepts and words and coming to conclusions, suppose you work on a very careful examination of your heart and mind, on what you are feeling, doing, talking about, in your shall we call it self-role on being and living as an atheist, to see whether in all honesty are you or had you been fulfilled as a human person?
In other words, don't examine by investigating concepts and words, atheism.
Examine yourself very honestly and very intimately, your whole person, to determine what you have been enjoying or missing to enjoy all these 40 years of existing, living, and operating as an atheist.
And tell us about it.
Perhaps you might come to the thought that it could be more satisfying to live with the idea that God the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning exists and is interested in us, and then you establish your own ways and means of relating to God according to your own best and honest intentions of relating to God as the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.
I am so glad that I came upon your blog; I was looking for web writings on anthropologists studying no not atheism but atheists, that's how I landed on your blog.
A very good landing, and I hope you will really do the self-examination of yourself, instead of manipulating concepts and words totally divorced from the most inner heart and mind of yourself as a human being.
Pachomius "
Pachomius, thank you for your viewpoint and challenge, and welcome to this blog. I accept the challenge, and I will present my reaction here[*]. If there are additional reactions after I have further ruminated on this issue, I will post them later.
[*] My first reactions were not acceptable in terms of "being and living" as stated in the challenge, so I will have to think more about differences that are not rational worldview related (if there are any) and more about changes in my way of life.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
I'm Back...
...from a trip into the internet-free zone (relatives). But I'll only be back for two days and then off again for another few. So posting will be sparse until the holiday trips are over. But I will be back.
Feliz Navidad!
Feliz Navidad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)