Archive

Posts Tagged ‘philosophy’

No More -isms

February 10, 2018 Leave a comment

I am often challenged about why I reject various beliefs, such as liberalism, theism, libertarianism, or feminism. My thoughts on this are, that if you identify with a particular doctrine with is described with a word ending in -ism then you are probably being needlessly dogmatic. But then I remembered that I often identify with two (and maybe more) of those myself: atheism and skepticism.

So why would I ridicule one person’s belief (like the belief in libertarianism or feminism) while I give myself a free pass to pursue beliefs of my own? Well, maybe I’m just a hypocrite – that’s certainly possible – but I would like to use a slightly more generous interpretation of the situation and say that my beliefs are more a lack of a commitment to a particular idea than a close allegiance to one.

So atheism isn’t really a dogma of any kind, in fact it’s the antithesis of that, because it specifically precludes acceptance of any dogmatic, religious belief. I do agree that skepticism is in a slightly more debatable category. It could be seen as a belief system in some ways – in fact one meaning of the word refers to a specific philosophical system. But that’s not the meaning I’m using here. In this context skepticism refers to the preference for treating new truth claims with a level of suspicion until good, objective evidence for them is demonstrated.

So I think I can defend my -isms fairly well, but what objection to I have to the others? Well, the main one is that they are just unnecessary. Not only do they provide no positive benefit, but undue adherence to them is potentially dangerous. People who take their beliefs too seriously might follow the belief’s dictates instead of looking at the facts of specific incidents in the real world.

For example, there might be a need to decide whether a new industry – let’s choose self-driving cars as an example – should be regulated to ensure safety standards. A libertarian (that is, someone who follows libertarianism) might be tempted to say that more regulation is always bad and that the market should decide.

But not only do we see numerous examples of market failures (in fact the phrase “market failure” has become a common one in these sorts of discussions) but it can be shown through pure logic that markets often don’t work.

That’s not to say that markets don’t work quite well in some situations, but they certainly cannot be relied on in every possible place they might be used. But a true follower of libertarianism will think they do work everywhere, or at least will think they work in a far wider range of situations than a careful examination of the facts would support.

So there’s really no need for libertarianism at all, because anyone looking at the facts and at the outcomes required in a particular situation could just use common sense, and logic, and examination of the consequences in the real world to see whether a market or a regulation is a better choice.

So let’s look at another -ism now, let’s really jump out of the frying pan and into the fire and look at feminism. Is feminism necessary? Well, as you could probably guess from the general tone of this post, I don’t think so.

I know many people claim feminism is just wanting equality for women, but of course that is often not true, just like libertarianism isn’t usually simply about the fair and appropriate use of markets. Feminism in many cases goes far beyond that and demands special privileges for women, equality where it already exists, and is generally biased towards a female-centric worldview.

I’m not saying that there have been no good outcomes from feminism, but I am saying that the usual realisation of it can easily produce many bad outcomes too. There are many situations where females are now enjoying benefits because the bias is now in the opposite direction to what many feminists imagine. For example girls seem to be getting more benefit from our education system, women enrol in universities at a greater rate than men, women live longer lives, and they get less punishment under the law, etc. Hell, maybe I should be a masculinist!

And the issues where feminism might be useful – such as equal pay, equal participation in society, etc – don’t require feminism, they just require fairness. And most people have an inherent sense of fairness. I want women to have equal rights, but I am certainly not a feminist!

I see the down-side of -isms all the time. I see people react to an event which is actually quite nuanced in simple-minded, thoughtless ways, simply because of a knee-jerk reaction they have caused by their favourite -ism.

Note that I have picked on that particular suffix because it is catchy, but other worldviews which end in a different suffix, like Christianity, should also be included in my argument for completeness.

I know they are not doing this deliberately – and that’s what makes the whole phenomenon even more scary and dangerous – but the sort of thought that is going on is like this: there’s an event I want to comment on; I am a (insert your favourite -ism here) so I should think this; I will write some tedious, biased crap on the appropriate discussion forum.

And when a more nuanced person, like myself (well OK, sometimes I take a hard line to make a particular point, but I do make an effort to see both sides of most stories) comes along and points out any deficiencies in these arguments there is rarely a reasoned rebuttal to those points, because the person makes that comment just because that’s the way things are always portrayed according to their -ism.

If I suggest we need a new regulation to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change the libertarians will usually disagree, saying government regulation never works and we need less government involvement, not more. But they could admit that the market is the cause of climate change, not the solution, while still maintaining that markets are a useful tool in society overall. But if you follow libertarianism you really cannot say that.

And if I dare to suggest that females are already doing well in our education system and they really don’t need any further assistance, then the feminists will attack me with allegations of sexism and mansplaining. If they just admitted that there are situations where women are given an unfair advantage as well as other situations where the opposite is true, then they would be easier to take more seriously. But if you follow feminism almost everything looks like an attack on women and sensible discussion is difficult.

So I say abandon your -isms. That doesn’t mean to switch to another, even worse, belief system which just doesn’t happen to end in -ism, of course. So those who libertarianism shouldn’t switch to anarchy, and if you currently follow feminism, please don’t become a feminazi!

Advertisements

Evil Jesus

February 7, 2018 Leave a comment

I have heard many atheists arguments diminished by an admission that the teachings of Jesus are inherently good and that, even if he never existed in any form recognisable from the New Testament, at least the thoughts attributed to him are beyond reproach.

Well, here is my deeply meaningful, intellectual, theological response to this idea: bullshit!

Sure, there is stuff in the NT which can be seen as being really positive, but I think the overall tone and message is quite negative, although I fully agree that the tone can be interpreted in more than one way, and this can easily lead to totally contrary conclusions.

This is very much the problem with theology and some philosophy too. If we just look at the thoughts of an individual person, whether it be Jesus or Wittgenstein – especially when they are presented in metaphors and imprecise language – it is very easy to take whatever meaning you want from them.

But I also think there are parts of these people’s thoughts which cannot be honestly misconstrued, and I think in Jesus’ case this is both unmistakable and deeply flawed.

The fact that many modern Christians are quite moral people and exhibit quite decent behaviour overall is more to do with changing ethical standards, mostly separate from theology, than anything which is specifically part of a religion. They know what is right and look for a message in the NT supporting that view. When slavery was considered OK that idea was found to be supported by Jesus, but once social norms changed and slavery became unacceptable, a different message was found to support that.

My point is (and this is one I have made before) that religious texts are like Rorschach Inkblot Tests: the pattern is in the viewer’s mind, not on the object being viewed (whether it is an inkblot or the Bible).

But some inkblots, along with some texts, do have an obvious meaning which requires some effort to get past and be ignored, and the New Testament, contrary to common claims, can easily be seen as an exhortation towards hate rather than love.

So what are the negative messages portrayed by the character of Jesus in the NT? Well there are three I want to concentrate on here: the idea that people must accept Jesus as their saviour or face eternal torment in Hell, that this life is unimportant compared to what you will get in Heaven after death, and the eschatological message which warns of signs of end-times eventually resulting in the return of Jesus and eternal happiness for the select few.

I know some people will debate whether these messages are genuine, and others will say they are real but should be seen as positive rather than bad, while others will say something like “sure that is true, and they may seem bad, but those are God’s rules and we have to live by them”.

In this post I want to concentrate on why these things are bad, rather than try to justify them in the context of the Bible, so let’s just say these are either the only fair interpretation, or at least one very viable interpretation of the Bible, especially the NT.

In previous posts I have discussed why I think the Christian dogma of salvation through Jesus is evil. Basically my argument is that God gives us free will, yet punishes us when we use it. It’s sort of like walking up to a voting machine (where they have them, like the US) and pulling the lever for the “wrong” party resulting in a safe falling on your head and killing you.

And it’s like there’s a sign in the voting booth saying “you can vote for either party, but if you choose the wrong one you will die in a horrible accident”. Not only that, but both parties claim they are the one you should vote for to avoid the horrible punishment. And people who don’t vote are treated even worse than those who do!

And just as the final icing on the cake, we are supposed to praise and thank this god for the system he has created, because of the claim that he has offered an escape from an evil rule he created. Gee, thanks God, you’re so thoughtful, but why not just make it 100% clear which is really the right party, or give us real free will and forget about the punishment for using it!

The idea that this life is unimportant compared with what might come later is also very harmful. All the evidence indicates we only have one life, so any dogma discouraging people from not making the best use of it has got to be seen as really negative.

I suppose you could make a case to say that people are more likely to be accepting of their place in life, and experience a lot less stress as a result of believing in a better life after death. But this is also very harmful because it stops people from striving for something better. And the temptation for a political elite to use this superstition to keep the “lesser ranks” under control is a very insidious problem.

Finally there is the “end times” problem. If people think the world will soon end, and their current lives will be replaced with a far better one in heaven, then they are unlikely to get involved in any long term projects to make the world better. For example, why try to reduce climate change when the main effects won’t be obvious for 50 years and the Rapture will have already happened by then making the whole problem irrelevant? This is a genuine issue because there are politicians who have made this exact point.

But it gets far worse than that, because many people not only expect Armageddon at any time, but they would like to try to speed up the process. They have been waiting for the final battle between good and evil for 2000 years and they can’t wait much longer for that final destruction. Anyone with this belief isn’t going to hesitate to use the nuclear option, or to start wars in politically sensitive areas of the world.

It is clear that these criticisms don’t just apply to Christianity, of course, because it is obvious that Judaism and Islam (and probably other religions I know less about) are possibly even worse on some of these points.

But I have picked on Christianity for two reasons: first, it is often seen as the most forgiving and peaceful religion, where a case could easily be made for the opposite; and second, it is the most dominant religion in the world today, especially in the most dominant country. Whether Donald Trump really believes all the Christian BS he seems to espouse is highly doubtful, but the fact that he has to pretend to be a believer is telling in itself.

The Doomsday Clock is currently set closer to midnight than for any time since the Cold War. I’m not saying we can blame this completely on religion, and especially not on any particular religion, but those irrational and evil ideas can’t be helping. Thanks a lot, evil Jesus!

Trust Experts

January 8, 2018 5 comments

I recently listened to a podcast which discussed the trust (or lack of trust) we have in experts, and how that might have become a more significant issue in recent years. Many people interpret the election of Trump as a rejection of the “elite experts” in society, for example. Trump represents the average person – he was not a politician – but Clinton represented an experienced politician who had spent most of her life as part of the “political machine”, and she was rejected.

Experts which are usually trusted include doctors, scientists, and (dare I mention) computer professionals. In most cases people will trust what these people say. For example, the majority of people go to a doctor and trust the treatment they are recommended. But there are a significant number who don’t have such a high level of trust and prefer to be diagnosed by “Doctor Google” or be treated by a local practitioner of some form of alternative medicine which often has limited credibility (homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, etc).

In general it is best to trust the opinion of experts, and in most cases people do. But everyone has their weaknesses and there might be times when anyone would reject expert opinion or advice. So I started wondering which experts I might have trouble accepting and I think I have thought of a couple.

In fact, anyone who reads this blog should already know the areas of expertise I have the most problems with. The first is management, and the second is economics.

So am I just as bad as the person who ignores the facts presented by experts about global warming? Or am I just like the creationist who ignores the conclusions of experts in biology and evolution? Or am I just another conspiracy theorist who ignores the opinion of experts and thinks the WTC could not have been destroyed by an aircraft collision?

In some ways, yes, but there is one critical difference. Look at the example I gave in paragraph two where some people prefer to trust a homeopath instead of a conventional doctor. Is that person really rejecting expert opinion? Maybe not. Maybe they are accepting the opinion of one expert (the homeopath is presumably an expert in homeopathy) and rejecting that of a different expert (the doctor).

So this isn’t so much a rejection of expertise per se, it is more choosing which expert to accept as better.

And this gets to my three main points regarding trust in experts: first, not all experts are equal; second, not all fields of expertise are equal; and third, even the greatest expert in the most credible field can make mistakes and everyone should be treated with a certain degree of skepticism.

So accepting the expert homeopath’s opinion should be rejected based on point 2, above. That is, while it is true that homeopathy is a field of expertise, it is not one which can be taken seriously because homeopathy has been shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be ineffective.

The other points might also have occasions when they are important. For example, there is a geologist (who is presumably an expert) who thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old even though he knows all the evidence shows it isn’t. His opinion is clearly warped by religious faith so, even though he is an expert, he does not have the same status as experts with no bias. And there have been many occasions where the greatest experts failed to assimilate new evidence and rejected new theories which later turned out to be true, so no expert is infallible.

But the main point of this post is to discuss point 2, the fact that some areas of expertise have less validity than others making rejecting opinions of experts in that area more reasonable.

The big problem is trying to establish which areas are trustworthy and which aren’t How would we know? Should we ask an expert? That sort of just gets back to the same problem we had at the start!

I think there are various, fairly unbiased, ways we can evaluate different areas of expertise. These include their philosophical framework (are they based on empiricism, logic, faith, etc), has scientific research on the subject shown it to be viable, and a general evaluation of its practical contribution to society.

So with homeopathy I would say its background is highly questionable. There has been little positive empirical research, there is almost no logic in it, and the whole proposed mechanism for its action is nonsense. And research on homeopathy shows almost no positive results above placebo level which is exactly what we would expect if it was fake. Finally, using homeopathy has some significant negative consequences, including people wasting their money on remedies which don’t work, and using homeopathic remedies instead of real ones which leads to worse health outcomes.

Because of this, I think it is clear that a homeopath, no matter how expert he or she is on the subject, should not be taken seriously because the subject itself lacks any credibility.

But how does this apply to my two areas of skepticism: management and economics?

Well, I would say neither of those are totally based on a firm philosophical basis. I do have to say that some forms of economics, especially behavioural economics which uses a lot of psychology, do have a quite high degree of credibility, but economics in general not so much. And I’m fairly sure there has been a certain amount of empirical research applied to management practices but in general they seem to be uniformly corrupt, both morally and intellectually.

So I think I have some rationale in being doubtful about the opinions of many economists and managers. Sure, they are experts in their respective fields but those fields have limited credibility. Of course, that doesn’t mean they are always wrong and can safely be ignored, but it does mean that the default position should be neutral or even negative rather than being positive as it would be with other experts.

If a doctor recommends a certain treatment I would normally accept that unless I have good reason not to. I might have already tried it without success, or I might think it is bogus in some way for example (some doctors recommend alternative medicine which has poor scientific support).

But it a manager recommends a particular action I would be very doubtful from the beginning. In fact, I would begin with the assumption that it is a bad idea. Of course, I should also try to look at the idea fairly and accept it if it turns out to be the exception to the rule.

In an ideal world we would all have enough time and expertise to research all the knowledge we needed for ourselves, but that is totally impractical, so we do need to trust experts to some extent. And that trust should be moderated by some doubt. And that doubt should be apportioned according to the validity of the field of knowledge under consideration.

Everyone’s estimation of this validity will vary but there should be certain areas which are always out in front and some lagging far behind. Here’s an example of some fields of knowledge rated from highest to lowest: maths, physics, chemistry, biology, climate science, medicine, psychology, general social science, philosophy, economics, business, management, politics, marketing, alternative medicine, mysticism, religion.

Note that I’m not saying the stuff near the end of my list is less valuable or less interesting, just that it is less trustworthy.

In summary: you can trust experts, but trust some a lot more than others!

Introduction to the Elements

December 29, 2017 Leave a comment

The Greek philosophers were incredibly smart people, but they didn’t necessarily know much. By this I mean that they were thinking about the right things in very intelligent and perceptive ways, but some of the conclusions they reached weren’t necessarily true, simply because they didn’t have the best tools to investigate reality.

Today we know a lot more, and even the most basic school science course will impart far more real knowledge to the average school student than what even the greatest philosophers, like Aristotle, could have known.

I have often thought about what it would be like to talk to one of the ancient Greeks about what they thought about the universe and what we have found out since, including how we know what we know. Coincidentally, this might also serve as a good overview of our current knowledge to any interested non-experts today.

Of course, modern technology would be like total magic to any ancient civilisation. In fact, it would seem that way to a person from just 100 years ago. But in this post I want to get to more fundamental concepts than just technology, mostly the ancient and modern ideas about the elements, so let’s go…

The Greeks, as well as several other ancient cultures, had arrived at the concept of there being elements, which were fundamental substances which everything else was made from. The classic 4 elements were fire, air, water, and earth. In addition, a fifth element, aether, was added to account for the non-material and heavenly realm.

This sort of made sense because you might imagine that those components resulted when something changed form. So burning wood releases fire and air (smoke) and some earth (ash) which seemed to indicate that they were original parts of the wood. And sure, smoke isn’t really like air but maybe that’s because it was made mainly from air, with a little bit of earth in it too, or something similar.

So I would say to a philosopher visiting from over 2000 years ago that they were on the right track – especially the atomists – but things aren’t quite the way they thought.

Sure, there are elements, but none of the original 4 are elements by the modern definition. In fact, those elements aren’t even the same type of thing. Fire is a chemical reaction, air is a mixture of gases, water is a molecule, and earth is a mixture of fine solids. The ancient elements correspond more to modern states of matter, maybe matching quite well with plasma, gas, liquid and solid.

The modern concept of elements is a bit more complicated. There are 92 of them occurring naturally, and they are the basic components of all of the common materials we see, although not everything in the universe as a whole is made of elements. The elements can occur by themselves or, much more commonly, combine with other elements to make molecules.

The elements are all atoms, but despite the name, these are not the smallest indivisible particles, because atoms are in turn made from electrons, protons, and neutrons, and then the protons and neutrons are made of quarks. As far as we know, these cannot be divided any further. But to complicate matters a bit more there are many other indivisible particles. The most well known of these from every day life is the photon, which makes up light.

Different atoms all have the same structure: classically thought of as a nucleus containing a certain number of protons and neutrons surrounded by a cloud of electrons. There are the same number of protons (which have a positive charge) and electrons (which have a negative charge) in all neutral atoms. It is the number of protons which determines which atom (or element) is which. So one proton means hydrogen, 2 helium, etc, up to uranium with 92. That number is called the “atomic number”.

The number of neutrons (which have no charge) varies, and the same element can have different forms because they have a different number of neutrons. When this happens the different forms are called isotopes.

Protons and neutrons are big and heavy and electrons are light, so the mass of an atom is made up almost entirely of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The electrons are low mass and “orbit” the nucleus at a great distance compared with the size of the nucleus itself, so a hydrogen atom (for example, but this applies to all atoms and therefore everything made of atoms, which is basically everything) is 99.9999999999996% empty space!

When I say protons are big and heavy I mean this only relatively, because there are 50 million trillion atoms in a single grain of sand (which means a lot more protons because silicon and oxygen, the two main elements in sand, both have multiple protons per atom).

When atoms combine we describe it using chemistry. This involves the electrons near the edge of an atom (the electrons form distinct “shells” around the nucleus) combining with another atom’s outer electrons. How atoms react is determined by the number of electrons in the outer shell. Atoms “try” to fill this shell and when they do they are most stable. The easiest way to fill a shell is to borrow and share electrons with other atoms.

Atoms with one electron in the outer shell or with just one missing are very close to being stable and are very reactive (examples: sodium, potassium, fluorine, chlorine). Atoms with that shell full don’t react much at all (examples: helium, neon).

There are far more energetic reactions which atoms can also participate in, when the nucleus splits or combines instead of the electrons. We call these nuclear reactions and they are much harder to start or maintain but generate huge amounts of energy. There are to types: fusion where small atoms combine to make bigger ones, and fission where big atoms break apart. The Sun is powered by fusion, and current nuclear power plants by fission.

After the splitting or combining the resulting atom(s) has less mass/energy (they are the same thing, but that’s another story) than the original atom(s) and that extra energy is released according to a formula E=mc^2 discovered by Einstein. This means you can calculate how much energy (E) comes from a certain amount of mass (m) by multiplying by the speed of light squared (90 thousand trillion). This number is very high which means that a small amount of mass creates a huge amount of energy.

Most reactions involve a bit of initial energy to start it, then they will release energy as the reaction proceeds. That’s why lighting a match next to some fuel starts a reaction which makes a lot more energy.

So water is a molecule made from one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. But gold is an element all by itself and doesn’t bond well with others. And when two elements bind and form a molecule they are totally different from a simple mixture of the two elements. Take some hydrogen and oxygen and mix them and you don’t get water. But light a match and you get a spectacular result, because the hydrogen burns in the oxygen forming water in the process. The energy content of water is lower than the two constituent gases which explains all that extra energy escaping as fire. But the fire wasn’t an elementary part of the original gases and neither was the water. You can see how the Greeks might have reached that conclusion though.

Basic classical physics and chemistry like this make a certain amount of intuitive sense, and the visting philosopher would probably understand how it works fairly quickly. But then I would need to reveal that it is all really just an approximation to what reality is really like.

There would be a couple of experiments I could mention which would be very puzzling and almost impossible to explain based on the classical models. One would be the Michelson–Morley experiment, and the other would be the infamous double-slit experiment. These lead to the inevitable conclusion that the universe is far stranger than we imagined, and new theories – in this case relativity and quantum theory – must be used.

Whether our philosopher friend could ever gain the maths skills necessary to fully understand these would be difficult to know. Consider that the Greeks didn’t really accept the idea of zero and you can see that they would have a long way to go before they could use algebra and calculus with any competence.

But maybe ideas like time and space being dynamic, gravity being a phenomenon caused by warped space-time, particles behaving like waves and waves behaving like particles depending on the experiment being performed on them, single particles being in multiple places at the same time, and particles becoming entangled, might be comprehensible without the math. After all, I have a basic understanding of all these things and I only use maths like algebra and calculus at a simple level.

It would be fun to list some of the great results of the last couple of hundred years of experimental science and ask for an explanation. For example, the observations made by Edwin Hubble showing the red-shifts of galaxies would be interesting to interpret. Knowing what galaxies actually are, what spectra represent, and how galactic distances can be estimated, would seem to lead to only one reasonable conclusion, but it would be interesting to see what an intelligent person with no pre-conceived ideas might think.

As I wrote this post I realised just how much background knowledge is necessary as a prerequisite to understanding our current knowledge of the universe. I think it would be cool to discuss it all with a Greek philosopher, like Aristotle, or my favourite Eratosthenes. And it would be nice to point out where they were almost right, like Eratosthenes’ remarkable attempt at calculating the size of the Earth, but it would also be interesting to see their reaction to where they got things badly wrong!

Racist Misogynist Xenophobe

December 13, 2017 Leave a comment

Apparently, according to some people, I am a racist and/or a misogynist and/or a xenophobe, plus there might be a few other vague insults I can’t recall right now. The people making these opinions known don’t really know me at all, and the opinions are generally based on single comments I have made on discussion forums, so I don’t take them too seriously.

I know I have discussed this issue before, that is, the ease with which these generic (and I would say ultimately meaningless) insults are used today, but I think it is one of the defining issues of the modern era, so I want to say some more about it here.

So first, what are some of the comments I have made to incur the wrath of these critics?

Well, one example might be recently where I said I didn’t like the religion Islam. Apparently, according to some people at least, that is racist, even though Islam is a religious and political idea rather than a race.

I also said I had no real interest in learning the Maori language simply because I have other things which I personally think are more valuable for me to spend my time on. And that is also racist, according to some, even though I’m not trying to stop anyone else learning Maori if they want to.

Plus there have been occasions when I said I was not impressed with the performance of certain female public figures, and (as you might be able to predict by now) that was labelled sexist, even though I make similar criticism of male figures without receiving any opprobrium at all.

Finally, if I mention various ways I disagree with some forms of overseas investment and excessive migration to New Zealand then I am also xenophobic, even when it is only when that criticism involves certain countries and when equally critical points are made about others it is considered OK.

It’s really quite disturbing what a terrible person I must be. I really had no idea!

But here are a few points which I really must make in defence of my comments, which I believe reveal a deeper understanding of my perspective…

First, I criticise ideas, not people. I have never said that I don’t like Muslims, for example. It’s Islam that I don’t like, and I know and like some Muslims, despite the fact that I don’t agree with their religion.

And I have nothing against the Race Relations Commissioner of New Zealand. I don’t criticise some of her statements because of who she is, or because she is a woman, it’s because I disagree with both her apparent underlying philosophy and many of her specific pronouncements.

And I don’t criticise some Chinese investments in New Zealand because of their country of origin. It’s because I think they are exploitative and not good for the country overall, and I also criticise many similar investments from the US and Australia.

Second, I don’t judge people based on one aspect of their personality. Sure, if a person is seriously religious (especially Muslim) it will make it harder for me to like them, but there are many parts which make up a person’s overall values, and everyone has positives and negatives. In fact, I welcome differences in opinion because that gives me an interesting basis for meaningful debate.

Third, I try to be consistent. So I think Islam is responsible for most of the terrorism in the world today and I condemn it on that basis. But I equally condemn Christianity for some of the atrocities it has been responsible for in the past. And the same applies to non-religious ideas such as Stalinism.

Fourth, I try to avoid trendy catch-phrases and ideas based on what is currently fashionable. So I try to avoid the unthinking condemnation of Donald Trump, even though I disagree with a lot of what he does. And I don’t use silly words like “mansplaining” or “white privilege”. These are often used in the wrong context and as a way to reject a person’s opinion without having to come up with any genuine objection.

Fifth, I try to offer some balance in a discussion I think is too one sided. So if I see a discussion where Islam is being excused of any blame for terrorism I will point out that it must accept some degree of responsibility because of the way its written material can be quite reasonably interpreted as being a call for violence. But I will also defend Islam if I think it is being excessively blamed, because there are equally parts of that material which are moderately tolerant and peaceful.

There’s a fine line between this and just being a troll, and it is easy to just cause trouble rather than offering a genuine alternative opinion, but it’s just something I do.

Sixth, I try to offer a nuanced view which avoids one extreme or the other. Nothing is totally good or bad so it is sensible to argue based on that perspective. For example, I might say that immigration is causing a lot of social problems here, but I don’t think it is totally bad and I don’t think we should shut it down completely.

Or I might disagree with many of the economic principles of libertarianism while agreeing with its emphasis on maximum individual freedom. The world is complicated and it’s too easy to over-simplify it.

Seventh, I enjoy debating for its own sake, and I enjoy being in the minority and being controversial. Sometimes this leads me to taking a side I am not totally committed to and sometimes this means my arguments are shown to be deficient. And this leads to my final point…

Finally, I do try to admit when I’m wrong, and when other people make good arguments, and when an issue is ultimately a matter of opinion. This does happen occasionally and I try to look at it as if I don’t correct my view on some issues then I am not really improving my overall philosophical perspective. If I still believed exactly the same things today as I did a few years ago then it would be disappointing in many ways, so being wrong about some things should be welcomed – as long as it doesn’t happen too often!

And sometimes a debate just has to end with a comment like: “well that’s your opinion, which I can appreciate, but I think mine is more reasonable. However, since we are both really just offering opinions on a matter which cannot be resolved through logic or facts I think we need to agree to differ on this issue and leave it there.”

If, after all of this, someone still wants to use an ad hominem against me then in many ways I welcome that. It’s almost like an admission on their part that they are wrong and are out of ideas. If they want to call me racist then fine, I embrace that label if it means I am being more honest and realistic.

I’m sure that is anyone examines my record of debating on Facebook, on YouTube, and in this blog, amongst others, they will find times when I have failed to live up to the high standards I presented here. But I do make the effort at least, and I do think that I am at least aware of these as being worthy of aspiring to.

If other people would just think about these (especially number 4) before they write a comment I think the general standard of debate would be higher. Then we would have less debates with meaningless words like “racist”, “mansplaining”, “white privilege”, “xenophobe”, and all that other stuff which is so over-used that it has lost any value it might have had.

So hopefully I will never again be accused of being a privileged, chauvinistic, close-minded, misogynistic, deluded, elitist, imperialistic, ethno-centric, fat-shaming, hate-mongering, heteronormative, hyper-masculine, Islamophobic, mansplaining, middle-class, straight, narrow-minded, nationalistic, heterosexual, nativist, Eurocentric, alt-right, oppressive, patriarchal, hateful, racist, transphobic, woman-hating traditionalist! (thanks to the SJW insult generator for this list of meaningless insults)

Genesis Version 2.0

November 27, 2017 Leave a comment

Prologue

Yahweh needed a purpose. He was the most powerful entity in the metaverse, yet what had he ever achieved? It was time to do something great, and the only thing which would be worthy of his abilities was to create a universe. In fact it seemed like this was his entire reason for existing. Yahweh performed the calculations and determined what would be needed.

And he started creating…

First, he created a planet where he could experiment. It was covered with water because that was the basis for the chemistry he had decided to use. Despite the water, he called it Earth.

Then he created light, because, obviously his new universe would need to be visible to everyone, including the various conscious entities he might create.

But he realised the light might hide most of the magnificence of the universe he was creating, because the stars and galaxies – which he would soon create – could only be appreciated in darkness. So he decided to stop the light regularly and made darkness.

Then he built a realm where his creations could be brought to so they could interact with him. While he wanted to remain mostly seperate, some intervention might also be needed. This was hidden from everyone except him, and he called it Heaven.

And he needed some dry land so that there would be another habitat for the various species he would bring into existence. So he caused the waters to recede and uncover the solid earth.

And Yahweh was happy so far with what he had done. He thought it was good.

With the basics out of the way, it was now time to start on the interesting stuff. He needed some organisms capable of using the light to make energy for themselves, and ultimately all living things. These would be plants and he devised a clever trick he called photosynthesis to allow them to do this.

Again, Yahweh saw that things were going according to plan. This was good.

But at this point he realised he had made a small mistake. The light had no obvious source and he didn’t want his part in making this universe to be too obvious. So he created the Sun to be the main light source, and just for some added interest, a Moon as well. Of course, not being content with a single solar system, Yahweh created a few trillion galaxies of hundreds of billions of suns, for no real reason except to show just how powerful he really was!

After that he considered the universe so far wasn’t yet great, but it was good.

Now was the time to create animals to populate his world. He made many species to live in the seas and fly in the sky, then he made animals to live on the solid ground. And here he used his most subtle and clever idea: the animals had a fixed life-span, but could reproduce with minor variations in the next generation. He figured this should create many interesting new forms in the future.

So yes, Yahweh also thought this was good.

Finally it was necessary to carry out the final step: to create an intelligent species modelled, somehow, on himself.

And that was it. His universe was completed. Yahweh congratulated himself, pronouncing it “very good”…

A Lesson in Theology

Dan looked up from his control console, turned to his colleague, Jerry, and said “any idea what’s gone wrong?” only to receive an exasperated shrug in return.

The power use had been far over what they expected for some time now, and no one seemed to be able to figure out why. The initial testing should have been carried out at a low level of computation, and that would have meant low power use too – at least as low as a computer with a quadrillion bytes of storage could be expected to use.

If things didn’t get better soon they would need to call the old man himself. He designed this contraption so maybe he could get it to respond to basic instructions. But Dan didn’t want to do that yet because he was treated like a modern prophet by his colleagues, and his reputation was on the line. They would work on regaining control and bringing the power down for a bit longer before calling for help.

He said “Do you know anything about the old man? He created this thing but I’ve never seen him around here. He seems to live in his office upstairs but we never see him – it’s almost like he’s invisible. And he really is an odd one – I heard he still believes that old religion that was popular 50 years ago. Do you know anything about that?”

Jerry knew he was being baited about his “useless” qualifications but replied, “You know I did a theology degree, don’t you. That’s why I work in IT. But yes, you’re right, he still believes in a religion called Christianity, which was very big a few decades ago. It was an odd mixture of traditional superstition, sacrifice, and strange rituals, and had some quite interesting ideas about pacifism and tolerance, too.”

“Well it’s all crazy as far as I can tell,” observed Dan, “what use could it be in solving problems like what we have here now?”

Jerry saw his opportunity to tease his friend a little bit, and said “Why do you think he gave the computer the name he did? Does the name mean anything to you?”

Dan looked indignant, but said “Well, he called it YAHWEH, which stands for yottabyte analytical hypothesiser with extended heuristics. I’ve never heard the name before in another context, but it seems to make a lot of sense to me, after all that’s what it does. What exactly are you trying to suggest?”

Laughing, Jerry said, “Did that name ever seem a bit contrived to you? I mean, sure it has a yottabyte of memory and heuristics are an important part of its super-intelligence, but the rest seems more made up to fit the name, rather than the other way around. I know there is an old tradition in IT of doing this, but why would he choose the name of the old Christian God?”

Dan wasn’t convinced so he replied, “Well you could be right, but so what? Even if he named his computer after the god from his old fairy story, that doesn’t prove anything, except that he is even crazier than we previously thought.”

Jerry decided to take a different tack. “You know he is also interested in the ideas of the philosopher Nick Bostrom, don’t you. He specifically warned us against super-intelligent computers, but here’s another thing he is well known for that might interest you: he also had an argument, which he didn’t necessarily believe himself, that our universe is a simulation running in a super-intelligent computer in another, presumably real universe. It was called the simulation argument.”

By now Dan was starting to look a lot more uncertain, and said “You don’t think that’s what the old man is up to, do you? I mean, is this computer running a simulation of another universe? Does it really have the capacity to do that? Has it just created its own universe, with living conscious people like us? With a name like that, maybe it really does think it’s a god.”

Jerry looked thoughtful and said, “If it had created a universe with conscious simulated life do we have the right to terminate it? After all, if Bostrom is right, we could be part of a simulation too. How would you like if it the computer our universe is being simulated in was reset?”

But Dan wasn’t accepting any of this. He argued, “That’s the problem with theology, you can make a story full of intersting details but without a scrap of evidence to support it. Surely you don’t think we will ever need to make that decision, do you?”

Jerry glanced down at his console and suddenly went pale, he whispered “I don’t know, but I just found the name of the program it’s running. It’s called Genesis…”

Good or Bad

November 18, 2017 Leave a comment

While I’m in the middle of a phase of religion bashing I thought it might be a good time to resurrect (an ironic choice of word) the old subject of religion in schools. This has appeared as an issue in the media here a few weeks back, so the subject is topical.

In the past, I have sort of shrugged off the issue saying something like, the young people nowadays are too smart to be taken in by some blatantly transparent myths and are likely to consign religion to the same category of fiction as the Lord of the Rings, or Game of Thrones.

This is no doubt true in most cases. Because, there is certainly reason to think that our civilisation’s childhood, where it relied on ancient traditional stories as a basis for cultural identity, is now starting to reach a conclusion, and we are growing up and abandoning the imaginary invisible man in the sky.

Here in New Zealand the “no religion” group is about to reach 50% of the population. Additionally, as I have said in the past, most people who indicate Christian as their religion on the census don’t really have any commitment to that belief and never attend church, read the Bible, or even really know much about it.

But it’s when previously powerful belief systems are threatened that they can become most dangerous. It’s a bit like a wild animal’s attack reflex when it’s cornered. So we should be especially careful now that churches don’t make a last ditch stand before they are consigned to the rubbish heap of bad ideas like all their predecessors. And maybe even more worryingly, we need to be careful that even worse religions, like Islam, don’t fill the void left by Christianity.

As I said above, most kids will not be taken in by the silly stuff they are taught in Bible in schools. But it is not the well-balanced, sensible, practical majority we need to worry about. It is the out of touch, emotionally and intellectually immature minority which are most at risk.

As I write this I realise that perhaps I have “shot myself in the foot” to a certain extent, because you might make a case to say that it is those who are not coping well who might have most to gain from joining a church and getting extra support and friendship.

I’m sure that there are some people who actually are better off joining a religion, and I have never argued for complete eradication of religion – at least I can’t recall an occasion, although I might have done during one of my more extreme rants! On the other hand, there might be more appropriate groups than a church those people could gain even more from, without the need to resort to superstition.

At this stage it is apparent that I am still conflicted on this subject. Don’t misunderstand, I am totally committed to the idea that religions are fake and have little purpose beyond that which can be provided far better by other knowledge systems (science for facts, philosophy for values), but fake stuff can still have value for certain people.

In the final analysis, this subject is just like every other: it is not a matter of black and white, or good and bad, just like I have so often said in past blog posts. I think that if kids were taught positive philosophical beliefs or given instruction in comparative religion in schools that would be of far more value than simple indoctrination in the dominant religion of the time, but maybe traditional Christian instruction – as along as it is controlled and doesn’t turn into aggressive proselytising – is OK.

Unfortunately the temptation to regress to aggressive conversion – with the threats of torture in Hell for unbelievers, etc – is just too likely according to many reports in the media. So maybe it would be be best just to expel religions from schools because of current bad behaviour.

Well, this blog post has certainly turned out to be one of my most indecisive ever! So, in summary, religion in schools. Good or bad? Well, yes… yes, definitely good or bad.