If this is your first time to the blog, please look to the right side of your screen and select the post entitled "Temet nosce" under the September link. There you will find an introduction to the collection of essays, which are displayed in a (more or less) deliberate order, top to bottom.
Have a fine Navy day.
Friday, October 25, 2013
On the Meaning of Life
I have saved this question for last because it is really the most introspective of any question. How someone views the meaning of life and their purpose in it will drive who they are and how they determine their actions. I do not subscribe to a belief system that tells me why we are here, so I must define this for myself. People like to lump together all atheists in regard to this topic, but the term atheist is purely a negative: it only tells you that we do not subscribe to the handful of theistic belief systems that have originated over the years. It does not tell you that we may follow any of the limitless naturalistic belief systems that exist now or that we are still forming. Religious zealots will say that we do not believe in anything, but this is completely untrue. We believe in many things, but most of us like to have a bit of evidence to rationalize these beliefs. I, personally, believe in the power of the human spirit (e.g. drive, determination, will to win) to accomplish anything, in the scientific method as our best hope of finding truth, and (most importantly) in myself to do what I have set out to do. I believe in my own resolve as way to hold true to the identity I would like to cultivate. In order to determine that identity, I must have a well-defined purpose for my life. I do not ask anyone to follow this purpose, but I do hope to influence someone to think as critically about their world view. Let the exploration begin:
Our mere existence in the universe is the result of millions of fortunate (and unfortunate) events: the death of stars in which cooked the atoms now present in our bodies, the orbit of the Earth at the right distance from a long-living star, the abundance of life-giving elements on Earth, and preserving actions of our ancestors that led to the eventual creation of us. But this series of events hasn't stopped there; it led us to become who we are today, and it won't stop as we become a little older, a little wiser, and a little different tomorrow. Dr. Albert Einstein argued that everything is fixed in time (of course the other Doctor would disagree) because it has necessarily been determined by the events that preceded it. An infinity of events happened at the right time in the right place to put you where you are now. Your parents, and their parents, and their parents (and so on, ad infinitum) acted in such a manner that resulted in your life. They acted in such a way as to ensure their own survival (or just got lucky enough to get there) and that of their progeny. With all of this life, there must be some meaning to it all, right? Of course. Those who have gone before you have lived so that you can live. They respected their lives enough to preserve it. Consciously or not, the one thing they all shared is that they lived, and their lives gave rise to this great community of life we see today. With that in mind, it would seem that the only purpose to life is just that, to live. Life is, in and of itself, the means to its own end.
If that is the case, then we must redefine the question: what does it mean to live?
Here I must offer a personal opinion for context: my greatest fear is doing the same thing for the rest of my life. When I think of an old man in a small town, who has lived there his entire life working at a single profession since boyhood, I can't help thinking that all those years were wasted. Thinking of all the amazing things this world has to offer makes me tremble in awe. For me, stagnation is death. A great anxiety wells up in me unless I am constantly growing with, learning from, and experiencing the world around me. For me to cherish and respect my life, I need not only to protect it, but to nurture it and help it grow. As I mentioned in my essay On Fatherhood, so much of who we are comes from our experiences. To avoid those opportunities to grow is to miss out on a piece of life. The genetics that determine part of who I am are already set, so missing formative experiences is missing everything that defines my life. There is so much happening in this world at every moment that we can never run out of moments to experience, but we will also never experience even the slightest fraction of everything there is. With that in mind, I am always pushing to see, feel, hear, and know as much of the world as I can. Ayn Rand may have had delusional views of a selfish utopia, but she got a lot right, especially that of the respect for life. If nothing else, the one thing to cherish in life is life itself. Nothing is possible without it, but it is so short and fragile that it requires the utmost attention and care. For me, to live fully is to seek out and capture every breath of every moment because every moment I live defines me. We the living are those who take command of our lives in complete respect, resplendence, and awe.
If that is the case, then we must redefine the question: what does it mean to live?
Here I must offer a personal opinion for context: my greatest fear is doing the same thing for the rest of my life. When I think of an old man in a small town, who has lived there his entire life working at a single profession since boyhood, I can't help thinking that all those years were wasted. Thinking of all the amazing things this world has to offer makes me tremble in awe. For me, stagnation is death. A great anxiety wells up in me unless I am constantly growing with, learning from, and experiencing the world around me. For me to cherish and respect my life, I need not only to protect it, but to nurture it and help it grow. As I mentioned in my essay On Fatherhood, so much of who we are comes from our experiences. To avoid those opportunities to grow is to miss out on a piece of life. The genetics that determine part of who I am are already set, so missing formative experiences is missing everything that defines my life. There is so much happening in this world at every moment that we can never run out of moments to experience, but we will also never experience even the slightest fraction of everything there is. With that in mind, I am always pushing to see, feel, hear, and know as much of the world as I can. Ayn Rand may have had delusional views of a selfish utopia, but she got a lot right, especially that of the respect for life. If nothing else, the one thing to cherish in life is life itself. Nothing is possible without it, but it is so short and fragile that it requires the utmost attention and care. For me, to live fully is to seek out and capture every breath of every moment because every moment I live defines me. We the living are those who take command of our lives in complete respect, resplendence, and awe.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
On Fatherhood
Being a father is more than providing genes to foster offspring. Children depend heavily on the interactions with their adult caretakers during their formative years. Even when a child reaches "adulthood" after 18 years, they are still far from being set in their identity. I am not a father, and I plan not to be for a good many years, but I think it is essential for every man to decide what he thinks a father should be. In my opinion, every father has the responsibility to be a positive role model for their children, teach his children everything he knows, and act as a protector for his family in every case within his power.
For most children, their father will be their most prominent adult male figure. In everything from cleaning up toys to coaching athletics and changing to diapers to giving firm handshakes at graduation, dads are in every part of our lives growing up. I was fortunate enough to have a father who made it a point to talk with me every day while I lived at home. Most of what I know about being a man (among a myriad of other things) I learned from him. Hopefully, this was the case with your dad as well. If it is, I commend him for providing the guiding light his child needs. With all of this interaction, kids are bound to learn a great deal from their fathers regardless of whether or not he wants to teach or they want to learn. It should then behoove him to be on his best behavior because he ought to know that his children will scrutinize his every word and every action. He ought to define what kind of man he wants to be (as I am trying to do here) and live to that definition every day because that is what kind of man his son will be or what kind of woman his daughter will be (or vice versa; gender is a choice). It makes me horribly frustrated to hear of fathers who spend their paycheck on alcohol and only return home to abuse their unruly children. I suppose he has never asked himself why his children are so poorly behaved since he, himself, cannot behave. I will not tell men how they should conduct themselves, but I would encourage them to take the time to think about who they want to be. If they are only considering this after having children, they have probably missed many opportunities to be who they want to. Although, I do not look favorably upon parents who psychotically live vicariously through their children's athletic and musical careers, if he cares for his children at all, he will probably want them to grow up to assume some of the traits he admires. In order for him to have the best chance as encouraging this, he should be his children's most prominent male figure.
Most of being a father is just showing up, but I think he should also actively educate his children in everything he knows. To withhold information from a child is to handicap them. A wise man once told me that knowledge is power (a very wise man also coined the term; and it is also in the seal of my alma mater: "ex scientia tridens"). Armed with knowledge, a person can do anything. Children's brains are like sponges: they want to soak up every bit of information they find. Possibly the most defining quality of humanity is our ability to pass on what we have learned. The best knowledge is gained through experience, but that takes a great deal of time. If a person is to surpass his predecessors, he must be able to use their knowledge earlier in his life, so that he may advance his knowledge and set the arena for even greater gains. I want my children to succeed in whatever it is that drives them. Gaining knowledge only opens doors and provides them with more tools that they can use to achieve their goals.
I tend to be very progressive in my opinions on society, but the classical understanding of the male as protector in the family is more than just tradition, it is genetics. Throughout the animal kingdom, the male most often is the physically stronger of the sexes, and takes the responsibility of protecting his community. To me, there is no nobler cause for a man to do anything than the defense of a his family. Children deserve to live without fear. There will be plenty of time for that later. A father should stand behind his promise to his dying breath that he will place himself before any danger for the sake of his family. As the smallest community unit, the family often assumes a male figurehead for leadership. As a figurehead, he has responsibility to protect this small community (see On Government). Whether it be providing food (not saying that women can't be breadwinners, but he should be integral in coordinating who puts food on the table) or defending the home from an intruder, a father ensures happiness and a sense of security by showing that he is dedicated to his family's safety. Given that, there is no excuse for a father who would to any harm to any member of his family for any reason. All men should take lessons from Liam Neeson: if you touch my daughter, I will find you, and I will kill you.
I do not intend this to be a blueprint for fatherhood, but I do intend to stand upon these values when we finally decide to have children. Part of me fears having kids, not because I will not know what to do (that's a given), but because I know that my mistakes when I fail to be the person I want to be no longer only affect me: it will have a negative impact on my child who has an entire lifetime of potential waiting to be unleashed, but still so fragile.
For most children, their father will be their most prominent adult male figure. In everything from cleaning up toys to coaching athletics and changing to diapers to giving firm handshakes at graduation, dads are in every part of our lives growing up. I was fortunate enough to have a father who made it a point to talk with me every day while I lived at home. Most of what I know about being a man (among a myriad of other things) I learned from him. Hopefully, this was the case with your dad as well. If it is, I commend him for providing the guiding light his child needs. With all of this interaction, kids are bound to learn a great deal from their fathers regardless of whether or not he wants to teach or they want to learn. It should then behoove him to be on his best behavior because he ought to know that his children will scrutinize his every word and every action. He ought to define what kind of man he wants to be (as I am trying to do here) and live to that definition every day because that is what kind of man his son will be or what kind of woman his daughter will be (or vice versa; gender is a choice). It makes me horribly frustrated to hear of fathers who spend their paycheck on alcohol and only return home to abuse their unruly children. I suppose he has never asked himself why his children are so poorly behaved since he, himself, cannot behave. I will not tell men how they should conduct themselves, but I would encourage them to take the time to think about who they want to be. If they are only considering this after having children, they have probably missed many opportunities to be who they want to. Although, I do not look favorably upon parents who psychotically live vicariously through their children's athletic and musical careers, if he cares for his children at all, he will probably want them to grow up to assume some of the traits he admires. In order for him to have the best chance as encouraging this, he should be his children's most prominent male figure.
Most of being a father is just showing up, but I think he should also actively educate his children in everything he knows. To withhold information from a child is to handicap them. A wise man once told me that knowledge is power (a very wise man also coined the term; and it is also in the seal of my alma mater: "ex scientia tridens"). Armed with knowledge, a person can do anything. Children's brains are like sponges: they want to soak up every bit of information they find. Possibly the most defining quality of humanity is our ability to pass on what we have learned. The best knowledge is gained through experience, but that takes a great deal of time. If a person is to surpass his predecessors, he must be able to use their knowledge earlier in his life, so that he may advance his knowledge and set the arena for even greater gains. I want my children to succeed in whatever it is that drives them. Gaining knowledge only opens doors and provides them with more tools that they can use to achieve their goals.
I tend to be very progressive in my opinions on society, but the classical understanding of the male as protector in the family is more than just tradition, it is genetics. Throughout the animal kingdom, the male most often is the physically stronger of the sexes, and takes the responsibility of protecting his community. To me, there is no nobler cause for a man to do anything than the defense of a his family. Children deserve to live without fear. There will be plenty of time for that later. A father should stand behind his promise to his dying breath that he will place himself before any danger for the sake of his family. As the smallest community unit, the family often assumes a male figurehead for leadership. As a figurehead, he has responsibility to protect this small community (see On Government). Whether it be providing food (not saying that women can't be breadwinners, but he should be integral in coordinating who puts food on the table) or defending the home from an intruder, a father ensures happiness and a sense of security by showing that he is dedicated to his family's safety. Given that, there is no excuse for a father who would to any harm to any member of his family for any reason. All men should take lessons from Liam Neeson: if you touch my daughter, I will find you, and I will kill you.
I do not intend this to be a blueprint for fatherhood, but I do intend to stand upon these values when we finally decide to have children. Part of me fears having kids, not because I will not know what to do (that's a given), but because I know that my mistakes when I fail to be the person I want to be no longer only affect me: it will have a negative impact on my child who has an entire lifetime of potential waiting to be unleashed, but still so fragile.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
On Sexuality
It may be a crude teenage comedy, but I think the message of Eurotrip is a valid one: Puritan ideals of sexuality in America have created a prude culture that overlooks the beauty of sex and the human body. This is not a research essay, so I'm not going to try to find the roots of our Puritanical culture, but from personal experience, I have seen the obsession with abstinence and the vilification of sex. Meanwhile, the glorification of crime and violence infiltrates our daily lives. Here, I think America has gone down the wrong path. Instead of writing a critique of American culture (I'll do plenty of that later), I would like to simply define what I think of human sexuality.
Sex, being the physical act of stimulating the sexual organs for the purpose of pleasure or reproduction between two or more people, is one of the most natural things in all the natural world. After all, this was the event that started the process of creating all of us. When we were born, our bodies were literally all that we had. In the physical sense, our bodies are the one thing that no one can take from us (well, I suppose they could take parts of it without killing you, but we'll overlook Theon Greyjoy-like torture). With this undeniable truth, it should follow that we have a right to control what we do with our own bodies (as long as it does not harm others). Because our bodies are our own, how and with whom we use them should be the concern of only the parties involved, and in no way should our bodies be a source of shame.
I feel like I need to make a developed argument here, but there's nothing to develop. The concept is self-explanatory. Our bodies are our own possessions, and they should be our most prized possessions. Being completely natural in themselves, indulgences of the body should be no source of shame. To harm or care for one's body is their own decision. We can all agree on the pleasurability of sex, and no person should be ashamed for desiring it. Like any other pleasure in the world, done responsibly and in moderation, it's only effect is to increase the quality of life of a person. Like indulging in a well-earned vacation or sugary dessert, there is no shame in one's sexual exploits. We have the right to define how public or private the information of our sexuality is. In terms of morality, exercising our free choice in a responsible manner is morally neutral. Sexual infidelity becomes an issue because it requires the breaking of trust (see On Being a Husband) in a relationship, but any act that jeopardizes the trust within a relationship is of the same moral turpitude. For individuals not bound by an agreement (or in an open relationship), their sexuality should remain completely under their control, and no one has the right to judge that aspect of their lives.
This could easily turn into a rant against the overreaching policies of both church and state, but I'm going to leave it at this: the human body is a beautiful and wonderful thing. It can bring great pain and great pleasure to a person, and avoiding that pleasure is only fighting our nature.
Sex, being the physical act of stimulating the sexual organs for the purpose of pleasure or reproduction between two or more people, is one of the most natural things in all the natural world. After all, this was the event that started the process of creating all of us. When we were born, our bodies were literally all that we had. In the physical sense, our bodies are the one thing that no one can take from us (well, I suppose they could take parts of it without killing you, but we'll overlook Theon Greyjoy-like torture). With this undeniable truth, it should follow that we have a right to control what we do with our own bodies (as long as it does not harm others). Because our bodies are our own, how and with whom we use them should be the concern of only the parties involved, and in no way should our bodies be a source of shame.
I feel like I need to make a developed argument here, but there's nothing to develop. The concept is self-explanatory. Our bodies are our own possessions, and they should be our most prized possessions. Being completely natural in themselves, indulgences of the body should be no source of shame. To harm or care for one's body is their own decision. We can all agree on the pleasurability of sex, and no person should be ashamed for desiring it. Like any other pleasure in the world, done responsibly and in moderation, it's only effect is to increase the quality of life of a person. Like indulging in a well-earned vacation or sugary dessert, there is no shame in one's sexual exploits. We have the right to define how public or private the information of our sexuality is. In terms of morality, exercising our free choice in a responsible manner is morally neutral. Sexual infidelity becomes an issue because it requires the breaking of trust (see On Being a Husband) in a relationship, but any act that jeopardizes the trust within a relationship is of the same moral turpitude. For individuals not bound by an agreement (or in an open relationship), their sexuality should remain completely under their control, and no one has the right to judge that aspect of their lives.
This could easily turn into a rant against the overreaching policies of both church and state, but I'm going to leave it at this: the human body is a beautiful and wonderful thing. It can bring great pain and great pleasure to a person, and avoiding that pleasure is only fighting our nature.
Monday, October 21, 2013
On Being a Husband
I feel that making an organized argument for how men should perform their duties as husbands is a counterproductive task. Therefore, this will appear much more like a stream of consciousness.
Marriage, in its modern sense, has been mostly defined by the traditions of Christian society. As you may know, my view of "Christian society" is somewhat less than favorable. However, the institution of marriage seems to me much more natural than religious doctrine may prescribe. I am completely in favor of monogamous relationships, and I think it is still appropriate to call the lifelong commitment of a relationship "marriage."
As I identify with the male gender, I will be happy to assume the title "husband" on that fateful day when I promise to my wife that I will love her, care for her, and support her through thick and thin, in sickness and in health, for better or worse, until death. ("do us part" did not fit grammatically in that sentence.) If I am to actually go through with this (we'll get to it someday), I should make an effort to fully understand exactly what I am vowing to do. Fortunately, I don't have a religious doctrine to tie me down in these commitments, so I get to define my own vows.
First and foremost, the vows of marriage are vows of trust. From that point forward, we are to act as one entity. There should be no secrets between two parts of one whole. Not only is it about sharing information, it is about ensuring the trust that each of us will support the other in their time of need. An ailing body does not simply ignore a part of it that is injured. Sometimes it must make demands of other parts of the body in times of great struggle, but the goal should always be the optimal health for the whole body, as it should be with two people in marriage.
Secondly, I am vowing to remain faithful to my wife so long as we both shall live. Not that I have had issues with this in the past, but it is an important understanding. There is a piece of marriage that evokes feelings of propriety. It is fair to expect that both of us will share our love and our bodies with each other only. No longer are we merely individuals seeking pleasure and enjoyment wherever it may be, we are a unit that must act always with the desires of both parties in mind. To illustrate the point, Luisa would (likely) have no interest in sleeping with another woman. Therefore, I shall have no interest in it. (just making a point).
As it pertains specifically to the husband, we are both convinced of the belief that chivalry is not dead. We will fight to the death for political equality of the sexes, but at home, she is my lady, and I am her gentleman; we shall act like it. She always deserves my utmost respect and subservience (except in bed). It is my duty to protect her in all cases possible, even if I know she can handle herself. I already take great pleasure and pride in making her happy, and I find it of the noblest character to be able to put her needs before mine. Only when she is indifferent (or I think her to be endangering us) I should have my way. As a gentleman, I exist to serve her, provide for her, and protect her.
As it pertains to us personally, we have a sort of a agreement based on our mutual talents. Luisa happens to be completely directionally challenged and susceptible to panic when faced with unfamiliar situations. I, on the other hand, am completely socially inept and haven't the slightest idea how to read the emotions or intentions of others. Fortunately for us, each of these weaknesses happens to be the other's strength. As a unit, we complement each other to be able to face any situation. However, the challenge that comes with it is the understanding that when faced with unfamiliar situations and locations, I am the sole guide for finding our way despite her frustration, and I will need to be the source of strength and calm to get us out of a bad situation. On the opposite side, I must accept that my social learning curve is a shallow one; my wife's corrections are for my own benefit and are not to be taken as personal attacks. If I can do these things, I see no reason we should ever let stress get between us.
In summary, to be the husband I want to be, I shall hold true to the values of marriage that we have defined. I have defined here what I think to be the preferred arrangement for both us. Marriage is indeed a contract. It is an agreement between two people to support and love each other for the rest of their lives. Although divorce is always an unfortunate option, it must remain the last one. As long as I can remain trustworthy, faithful, and a respectable gentleman for my wife, I see no reason for this marriage to result in anything but spectacular success.
Friday, October 18, 2013
On Religion: The Negative Argument
O, boy. Anyone who knows me will know this is a loaded topic. This also comes right in the beginning of my endeavor to read the Bible cover to cover, intensively. Because I have already given so much thought to the topic, I will make here two cases: one for and one against the practice of religion.
First off, let's define what we mean by religion. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (by the third of three definitions) will tell you that religion does not require belief in a god, only that the belief be important to the individual. In that case, my worldview, although wholly natural, could be considered a religion. I will not be addressing this definition. I will, instead, refer to the first two dictionary definitions which are the belief and/or worship of a god or gods.
Resolved: Religion is a net positive for people.
The negative argument
Intro: Religion no longer has all the answers
C1: Human knowledge is constantly growing and refining itself & human advance requires people to challenge current beliefs
C2: Religion dissuades creative and contrarian thinking
C3: People separate on ideological grounds
C4: People turn to violence to protect deeply-held ideology
C5: Religion enforces unchallengable ideology
Con: Religion hurts human cohesion and advancement
For thousands of years, humanity has lived in nearly the same condition. People in rural areas farmed or hunted for subsistence to feed their family and possibly a small community. Urban centers were nothing like today's industrial centers. People lived close together to increase their market for entrepreneurial endeavors, but much of the day remained dedicated to the gathering and preparation of food, even if food was found at a local market. Although this life may have been spiritually fulfilling, there was little time for specialization for all but the highest classes. After the industrial revolution, which allowed more people to spend more time working on things other than feeding themselves and maintaining their dwelling (this of course came after the regulation of work hours and big business tyranny), people had time to work on other things for the majority of their day. The advent of time-saving gadgets perpetuated itself in saving more time and allowing people to answer some of the biggest questions of humanity. People were able to answer with astounding certainty questions of medicine, geology, astronomy, meteorology, psychology, and physics. Until then, answers to these questions had come by "revelation" from a deity. Although many questions remain for the religious teachers to answer as they will, the modern world has given us a way to live without depending upon the speculations of spiritual leaders.
To be fair, science has not always been correct. Science told us that sucking blood with leeches would cure disease, that no object could move through air faster than sound, and that there were nine planets in our solar system. We now know these things to be demonstrably false (sorry Pluto). It of course begs the question of what we know to be true today that will be proven wrong in our future. Although the process is imperfect, it is the best way we know to stumble our way into truth. Theories are contrived, refined, refuted, and refined again. It may take an infinite amount of iterations to reach truth, but stopping at the first claim does not offer this ability to inch closer to a useful explanation. Edison may have found hundreds of ways not to make a light bulb, but it was his willingness to challenge what he thought to be true to eventually produce the first of a gadget that would help the world in its insomniac-like work. Einstein's theory of the photon challenged widely-held beliefs about light, and now the technology that depends on his theories offer a clean alternative energy in a time when dependence on petrofuels needs to decrease. If people were afraid to challenge what we know to be true, we would still be bartering for food in wooden markets (nothing against farmers markets, but supermarkets have enabled and industrial society).
Religion has almost uniformly opposed this system of challenge and refinement. Most religions are founded on the idea of revealed knowledge of the origin of the world or the purpose of human life. To challenge this knowledge is to challenge the deity that passed the word to the "enlightened." If we were to rely on the Catholic church to provide our scientific advances, by the end of the 20th century we would have gotten as far as recognizing that the Earth revolves around the Sun. At the end of the 15th century, Baghdad, which had been the knowledge center of the globe at the time, receded into the stone age when a new ruler declared mathematics heretical. By design, religion opposes change. Religion has become the value center of many communities. It keeps people grounded. It gives them something that remains familiar. At the current rate of technological advancement and knowledge propagation, the modernized world is in nearly absolute flux. Religion continues to challenge the advances of science despite its vast contributions to the quality of life of the religious. Religion has done nothing but slow the pace of advancement.
In our part of the world, the Christian church has been the biggest culprit of the retardation of science, but they are not the only ones calling for a slowdown. Of the hundreds of religions around the world, all of them teach different answers to the same questions. This disagreement causes major divides in society. People tend to surround themselves with people with whom they agree and shun those with whom they disagree. Conservative people tend to find others who watch Fox News and read the Examiner. Liberal people tend to watch MSNBC and read Huffington Post. People naturally struggle with conflict. To refute another's ideas requires critical thinking, which requires effort, and people do not want to expend effort when they are trying to relax with friends. Admittedly, there are many counterexamples (myself, being one of them), but overwhelmingly, people do not like to be told they are wrong. Strict ideologies divide people on such a fundamental level that civil debate is all but impossible, and swaying the other side with logical argument is completely futile. On it's face, this division is bad enough, but history has taught us that these divisions are the beginning of the worst atrocities.
When disagreements enter the realm of life-choices, dislike can turn to hate. Throughout history, violent factions of political groups have sprung up to defend their beliefs. Nazi storm troopers forced Berlin into submission with their brown-shirted terror, the Bolshevik revolution painted Russia red with the blood of their comrades, and the KKK continues to defend the glory of the Old (racist) South to this day. I have written before on the correlation of fear and hate. There is strong evidence to support the theory that hatred (which often spawns violence) is a direct result of the fear that comes with the lack of knowledge of other people. When ideologies clash, willful ignorance stands to block this understanding. Anecdotal evidence has consistently shown that when rival groups begin to understand each other, the walls of rivalry crumble. When people work together, almost anything is possible. WWII and the Cold War brought the United States together in such a way that things that seemed fanciful only a couple decades before were becoming real. The cooperation required to develop nuclear technology, put men on the moon, and push massive civil rights reform may not even be possible in today's divisive political atmosphere. We can only imagine what the human race could do if people united across borders.
As noted in contention 3, religion teaches and unchanging ideology. Revealed knowledge requires another revelation to change the doctrine. Even in Islam with its multiple prophets, this only happens once every few hundred years. With the myriad of separate teachings, all as sacred as the next, people become divided along the most fundamental lines. Religion may bring small communities together, but as long as the cornucopia of religions exists, uniting the human race will be impossible.
It may be indirectly, but religion causes hatred, division, and regression within the human race. Without religion, humanity may have the chance to cooperate across boundaries in a way never seen before and achieve scientific and technological advances that make life comfortable and enjoyable for all of humanity.
First off, let's define what we mean by religion. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (by the third of three definitions) will tell you that religion does not require belief in a god, only that the belief be important to the individual. In that case, my worldview, although wholly natural, could be considered a religion. I will not be addressing this definition. I will, instead, refer to the first two dictionary definitions which are the belief and/or worship of a god or gods.
Resolved: Religion is a net positive for people.
The negative argument
Intro: Religion no longer has all the answers
C1: Human knowledge is constantly growing and refining itself & human advance requires people to challenge current beliefs
C2: Religion dissuades creative and contrarian thinking
C3: People separate on ideological grounds
C4: People turn to violence to protect deeply-held ideology
C5: Religion enforces unchallengable ideology
Con: Religion hurts human cohesion and advancement
For thousands of years, humanity has lived in nearly the same condition. People in rural areas farmed or hunted for subsistence to feed their family and possibly a small community. Urban centers were nothing like today's industrial centers. People lived close together to increase their market for entrepreneurial endeavors, but much of the day remained dedicated to the gathering and preparation of food, even if food was found at a local market. Although this life may have been spiritually fulfilling, there was little time for specialization for all but the highest classes. After the industrial revolution, which allowed more people to spend more time working on things other than feeding themselves and maintaining their dwelling (this of course came after the regulation of work hours and big business tyranny), people had time to work on other things for the majority of their day. The advent of time-saving gadgets perpetuated itself in saving more time and allowing people to answer some of the biggest questions of humanity. People were able to answer with astounding certainty questions of medicine, geology, astronomy, meteorology, psychology, and physics. Until then, answers to these questions had come by "revelation" from a deity. Although many questions remain for the religious teachers to answer as they will, the modern world has given us a way to live without depending upon the speculations of spiritual leaders.
To be fair, science has not always been correct. Science told us that sucking blood with leeches would cure disease, that no object could move through air faster than sound, and that there were nine planets in our solar system. We now know these things to be demonstrably false (sorry Pluto). It of course begs the question of what we know to be true today that will be proven wrong in our future. Although the process is imperfect, it is the best way we know to stumble our way into truth. Theories are contrived, refined, refuted, and refined again. It may take an infinite amount of iterations to reach truth, but stopping at the first claim does not offer this ability to inch closer to a useful explanation. Edison may have found hundreds of ways not to make a light bulb, but it was his willingness to challenge what he thought to be true to eventually produce the first of a gadget that would help the world in its insomniac-like work. Einstein's theory of the photon challenged widely-held beliefs about light, and now the technology that depends on his theories offer a clean alternative energy in a time when dependence on petrofuels needs to decrease. If people were afraid to challenge what we know to be true, we would still be bartering for food in wooden markets (nothing against farmers markets, but supermarkets have enabled and industrial society).
Religion has almost uniformly opposed this system of challenge and refinement. Most religions are founded on the idea of revealed knowledge of the origin of the world or the purpose of human life. To challenge this knowledge is to challenge the deity that passed the word to the "enlightened." If we were to rely on the Catholic church to provide our scientific advances, by the end of the 20th century we would have gotten as far as recognizing that the Earth revolves around the Sun. At the end of the 15th century, Baghdad, which had been the knowledge center of the globe at the time, receded into the stone age when a new ruler declared mathematics heretical. By design, religion opposes change. Religion has become the value center of many communities. It keeps people grounded. It gives them something that remains familiar. At the current rate of technological advancement and knowledge propagation, the modernized world is in nearly absolute flux. Religion continues to challenge the advances of science despite its vast contributions to the quality of life of the religious. Religion has done nothing but slow the pace of advancement.
In our part of the world, the Christian church has been the biggest culprit of the retardation of science, but they are not the only ones calling for a slowdown. Of the hundreds of religions around the world, all of them teach different answers to the same questions. This disagreement causes major divides in society. People tend to surround themselves with people with whom they agree and shun those with whom they disagree. Conservative people tend to find others who watch Fox News and read the Examiner. Liberal people tend to watch MSNBC and read Huffington Post. People naturally struggle with conflict. To refute another's ideas requires critical thinking, which requires effort, and people do not want to expend effort when they are trying to relax with friends. Admittedly, there are many counterexamples (myself, being one of them), but overwhelmingly, people do not like to be told they are wrong. Strict ideologies divide people on such a fundamental level that civil debate is all but impossible, and swaying the other side with logical argument is completely futile. On it's face, this division is bad enough, but history has taught us that these divisions are the beginning of the worst atrocities.
When disagreements enter the realm of life-choices, dislike can turn to hate. Throughout history, violent factions of political groups have sprung up to defend their beliefs. Nazi storm troopers forced Berlin into submission with their brown-shirted terror, the Bolshevik revolution painted Russia red with the blood of their comrades, and the KKK continues to defend the glory of the Old (racist) South to this day. I have written before on the correlation of fear and hate. There is strong evidence to support the theory that hatred (which often spawns violence) is a direct result of the fear that comes with the lack of knowledge of other people. When ideologies clash, willful ignorance stands to block this understanding. Anecdotal evidence has consistently shown that when rival groups begin to understand each other, the walls of rivalry crumble. When people work together, almost anything is possible. WWII and the Cold War brought the United States together in such a way that things that seemed fanciful only a couple decades before were becoming real. The cooperation required to develop nuclear technology, put men on the moon, and push massive civil rights reform may not even be possible in today's divisive political atmosphere. We can only imagine what the human race could do if people united across borders.
As noted in contention 3, religion teaches and unchanging ideology. Revealed knowledge requires another revelation to change the doctrine. Even in Islam with its multiple prophets, this only happens once every few hundred years. With the myriad of separate teachings, all as sacred as the next, people become divided along the most fundamental lines. Religion may bring small communities together, but as long as the cornucopia of religions exists, uniting the human race will be impossible.
It may be indirectly, but religion causes hatred, division, and regression within the human race. Without religion, humanity may have the chance to cooperate across boundaries in a way never seen before and achieve scientific and technological advances that make life comfortable and enjoyable for all of humanity.
On Religion: The Affirmative Argument
O, boy. Anyone who knows me will know this is a loaded topic. This also comes right in the beginning of my endeavor to read the Bible cover to cover, intensively. Because I have already given so much thought to the topic, I will make here two cases: one for and one against the practice of religion.
First off, let's define what we mean by religion. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (by the third of three definitions) will tell you that religion does not require belief in a god, only that the belief be important to the individual. In that case, my worldview, although wholly natural, could be considered a religion. I will not be addressing this definition. I will, instead, refer to the first two dictionary definitions which are the belief and/or worship of a god or gods.
Resolved: Religion is a net positive for people.
The affirmative
Intro: Society and religion have always been intertwined
C1: Humans are social creatures and benefit from coming together
C2: Religion unites people in a common cause
C3: Humans need to have hope of increased happiness to strive
C4: Religion offers hope to even the most destitute
Conc: Religion gives people what they need
In nearly all of the ancient societies archeologists have found, there is prolific evidence of widely-spread religion. The ancient Greeks and Romans prayed to a myriad of gods that controlled everything from the sea and sky to social life and home life. The ancient Mayans prayed to the sun god, the moon god, and other gods of nature. The ancient Chinese prayed to a complex system of spirits and gods that controlled their entire lives. Due to this ubiquity of religion across the globe, it is easy to believe that people believed in supernatural beings since the dawn of man. With so many questions about the world that surrounded them, it is only natural that people looked to the supernatural for answers to the motives of natural phenomena that dwarfs the human race. I will show here that regardless of the validity of these supernatural hypotheses, religion has a positive impact on human society.
Studies on the effect of solitary confinement on prisoners has shown irrefutably that lack of interpersonal contact causes severe psychological damage. Although the amount of social contact required by each person varies widely, it is a fact that people need social interaction. Studies have shown the improvement of mood when people are shown affection and are received positively by others. Beyond the scientific, it is intuitive that happy people surround themselves with other people (hopefully ones whom they like). Children in school desire the feeling of being surrounded by their peers, married people live a happier life than those who remain single, and the sheer number of people who live in densely populated cities shows the tendency of human beings to favor sociability of isolation (there are, of course, prevailing economic factors, but psychological factors exist).
Religion offers people a common denominator that brings them together. Especially in the Judeo-Christian religions, the practice requires the interaction of the practitioners. Whether it be attending a common service for the sabbath or going on missions, the religions require people to meet and interact with others. Not only does this requirement open the opportunity for the positive social interaction that humans crave, but it increases the effect of coming together by providing them with common values. Modern religions not only answer the ethereal questions of humanity, but they teach a system of values by which its followers are to live. This creates droves of like-minded people being brought together on regular intervals, which tends to make people happy. Even people like me who yearn for debate enjoy when our views are reinforced by our friends.
This argument will not be based on fact, but will be intuitive. When we think of those who work the hardest or achieve the most, the thing that motivates them is the idea that when they have achieved their goal they will be happier. Regardless of whether or not it actually happens when they get there, the hope of increased happiness keeps them striving. Those that hold onto this belief the tightest tend to work the hardest and push through the most adversity. As the great Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, "Don't listen to the naysayers." When one keeps focused on the goal, they can more easily tune out the people who say that they cannot do it or that it is not worth it. From athletes to politicians and musicians to inventors, those that became known for their greatness put forth their best effort when all seemed lost because they believed that they could achieve their goal and, more importantly, that achieving it would make them happier.
Religion gives people hope. Some profess of eternal happiness in the afterlife. Other teach that Nirvana can be reached within this life. No matter what the goal is, it often guarantees much greater happiness than what its followers currently have. Belief in these end states allow people to look past the tough times and continue working toward something they want. In turn, they begin to take pride in this work. They feel as if something has been accomplished, and it gives them satisfaction. In the end, whether or not anyone ever goes to heaven, it is the act of reaching for it that makes people happy. Without religion, people must define their own goals and try to find and end state that will make them happier. These goals tend to be harder to hold on to. Especially those with a bleak outlook on life, religion can give them the hope they need to keep from giving up entirely.
Religion offers people the things they desire. It gives them the answers to the most important questions surrounding their origin and their direction in life. It also gives them the promise of a better life in the future and an opportunity to connect with other like-minded people. All of these things increase people's happiness.
First off, let's define what we mean by religion. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (by the third of three definitions) will tell you that religion does not require belief in a god, only that the belief be important to the individual. In that case, my worldview, although wholly natural, could be considered a religion. I will not be addressing this definition. I will, instead, refer to the first two dictionary definitions which are the belief and/or worship of a god or gods.
Resolved: Religion is a net positive for people.
The affirmative
Intro: Society and religion have always been intertwined
C1: Humans are social creatures and benefit from coming together
C2: Religion unites people in a common cause
C3: Humans need to have hope of increased happiness to strive
C4: Religion offers hope to even the most destitute
Conc: Religion gives people what they need
In nearly all of the ancient societies archeologists have found, there is prolific evidence of widely-spread religion. The ancient Greeks and Romans prayed to a myriad of gods that controlled everything from the sea and sky to social life and home life. The ancient Mayans prayed to the sun god, the moon god, and other gods of nature. The ancient Chinese prayed to a complex system of spirits and gods that controlled their entire lives. Due to this ubiquity of religion across the globe, it is easy to believe that people believed in supernatural beings since the dawn of man. With so many questions about the world that surrounded them, it is only natural that people looked to the supernatural for answers to the motives of natural phenomena that dwarfs the human race. I will show here that regardless of the validity of these supernatural hypotheses, religion has a positive impact on human society.
Studies on the effect of solitary confinement on prisoners has shown irrefutably that lack of interpersonal contact causes severe psychological damage. Although the amount of social contact required by each person varies widely, it is a fact that people need social interaction. Studies have shown the improvement of mood when people are shown affection and are received positively by others. Beyond the scientific, it is intuitive that happy people surround themselves with other people (hopefully ones whom they like). Children in school desire the feeling of being surrounded by their peers, married people live a happier life than those who remain single, and the sheer number of people who live in densely populated cities shows the tendency of human beings to favor sociability of isolation (there are, of course, prevailing economic factors, but psychological factors exist).
Religion offers people a common denominator that brings them together. Especially in the Judeo-Christian religions, the practice requires the interaction of the practitioners. Whether it be attending a common service for the sabbath or going on missions, the religions require people to meet and interact with others. Not only does this requirement open the opportunity for the positive social interaction that humans crave, but it increases the effect of coming together by providing them with common values. Modern religions not only answer the ethereal questions of humanity, but they teach a system of values by which its followers are to live. This creates droves of like-minded people being brought together on regular intervals, which tends to make people happy. Even people like me who yearn for debate enjoy when our views are reinforced by our friends.
This argument will not be based on fact, but will be intuitive. When we think of those who work the hardest or achieve the most, the thing that motivates them is the idea that when they have achieved their goal they will be happier. Regardless of whether or not it actually happens when they get there, the hope of increased happiness keeps them striving. Those that hold onto this belief the tightest tend to work the hardest and push through the most adversity. As the great Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, "Don't listen to the naysayers." When one keeps focused on the goal, they can more easily tune out the people who say that they cannot do it or that it is not worth it. From athletes to politicians and musicians to inventors, those that became known for their greatness put forth their best effort when all seemed lost because they believed that they could achieve their goal and, more importantly, that achieving it would make them happier.
Religion gives people hope. Some profess of eternal happiness in the afterlife. Other teach that Nirvana can be reached within this life. No matter what the goal is, it often guarantees much greater happiness than what its followers currently have. Belief in these end states allow people to look past the tough times and continue working toward something they want. In turn, they begin to take pride in this work. They feel as if something has been accomplished, and it gives them satisfaction. In the end, whether or not anyone ever goes to heaven, it is the act of reaching for it that makes people happy. Without religion, people must define their own goals and try to find and end state that will make them happier. These goals tend to be harder to hold on to. Especially those with a bleak outlook on life, religion can give them the hope they need to keep from giving up entirely.
Religion offers people the things they desire. It gives them the answers to the most important questions surrounding their origin and their direction in life. It also gives them the promise of a better life in the future and an opportunity to connect with other like-minded people. All of these things increase people's happiness.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
On Human Rights
My first reaction to this topic was that I would have very little to write because it seems so self-evident. If you're a human, you should have basic rights like not being murdered, raped, robbed, tortured, etc. However, taking a brief tour though of human history, I quickly realize that I am of a minority in this belief.
I'm not sure how to put this into an argument, so I will simply work through the development on my values pertaining to human rights. In the process, other moments of self-clarity will arise, and this blog is, after all, about self discovery.
For kindergarten through sixth grade, I attended Tavelli Elementary. Those were probably some of the best years of my life. I had just about everything taken care of for me. School was easy, homework was a breeze, and I had an abundance of free time and friends that went well together. Although I spent much of my day at school, I thought little of the daily routines that would form the foundation of my personal value system. Of the many daily routines at school including saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, ensuring we have done our work before recess, and sharing what we had learned with our classmates (yes, we were working on public speaking at 12 years old), probably the most important was the constant reminder of our school motto: "Do your best. Do what's right. Treat others how you want to be treated." These three principles would lay the groundwork for who I would become.
Teachers and administrators at Tavelli always rewarded effort. Success and failure was never the most important measure in competition or challenges. The most important thing what that the kids worked hard and never gave in. To give up was to give less than your best, and that was unacceptable. It was a long time ago, but from what I can remember, every award or commendation I received, I felt that I had earned because I did my best. To this day, I cannot complete a task that is not done to the best of my ability. Leaving something unfinished creates an anxiety in me that would probably get me diagnosed for OCD. It makes things difficult and drives my loved-ones crazy sometimes because I can't stop in the middle of something, but it has also helped me stand out as as dependable coworker who people can trust to put in the necessary effort (something of which I am very proud).
Without a values system to build on, doing what is "right" has little meaning, but alongside our school motto, we learned progressive values. All people were to be treated fairly and as equals. I had a classmate who struggled with a bone disease that kept him in a motorized wheelchair his entire life. (I'm not sure he is still alive. The average lifespan for people with that disease was in the early teens, but I know he made it well into high school.) I struggled to understand why we had to have him involved in everything even though he could hardly do anything. He had to have an assistant get his notebooks, and he couldn't even use the restroom by himself. Selfishly, I always found his participation annoying. However, I had little choice but to play along, as did the rest of my classmates. It was my first real exposure to debilitating illness, and it would take me several years to really start to understand how to interact with people who must live with these hinderances.
The centerpiece of our value system was the Golden Rule: treat others how you want to be treated. Even though I could not see through the eyes of my handicapped classmate, I was forced to acknowledge that he is a person just like me, and deserves the same respect that I enjoy. In fact, everyone does. No physical or mental handicap, no character flaw, and no difference of another person justified treating them with anything but respect. In order to fully understand this idea, I would have to be exposed to more enlightened moral arguments and expand my field of view.
Although my dad had always told me that I need to look at each situation from all sides and try to see things from another persons perspective, I just never found myself able to get inside other people's heads. I still struggle with understanding people (which I why I find psychology so fascinating), but when I came across Rawls' idea of the "Veil of Ignorance," I was able to see things from the other side much more clearly. I didn't need to see things as others saw them, I just needed to see them as I would if I were standing in their position. That may sounds like two ways to say the same thing, but it's not. The first iteration requires the knowledge of another person's experiences, desires, emotions, and senses. The second requires only the knowledge of their position. The veil of ignorance is an argument that requires that the thinker base his decision on a world in which we do not know our situation until after the decision is made. For example: I might say that the system of unchecked capitalism is great if I have become wealthy on immoral business practices at the expense of others. However, I might think differently if I were removed from the world and placed back into another position at random. I would have a much greater chance of ending up in the shoes of a poor wage-worker than back in the lap of luxury. With this take on the world, it is much easier to decide how I should treat someone imagining that I could be swapped into their position and have to live with the short end of my decision.
That may have been easier for me to understand, but many may not agree. Regardless, my value system requires only that I imagine how I would feel in another's situation. Personally, I would like to be treated with dignity and respect in all cases. I appreciate acts of kindness, but I mostly want to be recognized for my achievements. I like to be treated fairly and for people to communicate with me truthfully. I abhor those who judge my character before knowing me personally, and I welcome criticism as long as it is constructive.
With these requests, I see no reason for me to treat anyone poorly based on their color, creed, nationality, or customs; I cannot justify uttering falsities that would benefit myself as the expense of another; I feel obligated to act kindly with all and show appreciation for those who have earned it; and most importantly, I must deal with all people as though they are my equals. Because they are.
On Citizenship
In the last post, I discussed the responsibilities of government. The underlying theme was that government has the responsibility to protect its people. In return, the people have a responsibility to support the government in its efforts to achieve that end. In a social contract (that I am loosely borrowing from Locke) citizens relinquish some of the freedom they would have in the state of nature (living outside of society) in return for the protection that society provides. People enjoy the protections offered them by society, but for government to fulfill its responsibilities, it must provide protection for all its citizens. Therefore, the citizen has a responsibility to perform such duties that aid in the protection of their fellow citizen.
Although there are some mountain men who enjoy the solitude without society, overwhelmingly people flock to places of population. Living in society allows many of the benefits we take for granted. First off, society allows for specialization. Without farmers to provide our food, engineers to build our infrastructure, and IT specialists to maintain our vast network of electronic communications, we would spend the great majority of our days finding food, transporting ourselves on foot, and dealing only with those in our immediate vicinity. However, the modern world is far beyond that. People can afford to spend their every waking minute working toward goals that are completely unrelated to their physical maintenance (sometimes even counterproductive to it) because fast food meals take only minutes out of their day and communication with vast resources is instantaneous. Without the social concept of specialization, none of this would be possible. For most of us in the post-industrial world, threats have been negated. We can go about our lives without the fear of invading clans killing our families, robbers stealing our resources, or pandemic viruses destroying our bodies. Government-provided military and law enforcement in combination with modern medicine makes all of this possible.
To all people who entrust themselves to society, its government has the responsibility to offer protection. To neglect even one person of this society would be to fail in this responsibility. The military protects its countrymen without regard to who they are, law enforcement (should) do their best to prevent or recompense crime, and hospitals take all measures to cure those who are ill and repair those who have been injured. To withhold any of these protections to any citizen would be to refuse that citizen entry to the society. Any citizen who has made the decision to relinquish the freedoms of the state of nature is entitled the protection of the society to which he/she has submitted.
It follows naturally, then, that the just course of action would be to aid in the protection of a fellow citizen. Where government is unable or unwilling, any citizen can make right the injustice of refusing protection to a citizen of the society. If all citizens, who are able, do what is necessary to ensure the most basic protections of every other citizen, I think we will find that the concessions will be much less than many people think possible.
This was beginning to sound a bit like a Marxist rant ending in "from all according to his ability, to all according to his need." But, the idea of government providing protection does not require equality in all aspects. My arguments assert only that government has the responsibility to protect its people. Whatever quality of life they may attain above mere survival is of their own accord. To provide food to those who are starving, to provide shelter to those who are homeless, and to provide medical care to those who are sick do not require massive redistribution of wealth or anywhere near an equality of opportunity or results. Government that strives to do more (controlling infrastructure, communications, or production) has overstepped its bounds. All I ask is that people of our society are given a chance to live. What they do with that life is their choice. It is on all of us, though, to help each other in that goal.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
On Government
Given the current political climate, this post is exceedingly relevant. I will lay a foundation for the most basic of government responsibilities. This exploration deals purely in the most generic of societies.
Necessary for a government to exist, there must exist a society for it to govern. The most basic unit of a society is the family: two or more generations of the same genealogy living together. In the beginning of human history, a family would have shared their meals, their beds, and their homes. Each member of the family would have one or more responsibilities that contributed to the survival of the family unit as a whole. We can reasonably expect that the mother or father of the oldest generation of the family would have served as the leader in making family decisions and as arbiter in the case of dispute. It should be intuitive that any interaction between multiple individuals will result in conflict because not all people hold the same desires and expectations. As families combined and grew, these conflicts would grow as well. With a large enough network of families, the patriarch/matriarch would require assistant in enforcing their leadership and resolving dispute. We will call this amalgamation of families "society" and its leaders "government." Regardless of the size or advancement of the society, the government made their decisions (hopefully) with the aim of furthering the success of the family, which, by definition, requires the protection of the family. The government must ensure protection from external threats (e.g. rival clans), internal threats (e.g. violent conflict within the society), and natural threats (e.g. weather, scarcity, disease).With these most basic definitions, I assert that the basest responsibility of government is the protection of society.
Raising a military
The most obvious threat for an early society would be external. Sources of water and food bring many societies in close proximity to each other. As individual societies grow, these sources become scarcer. They are forced to either find more elsewhere or remove others who are taking from available supply. In order to defend themselves, they would need protectors of the group, most likely the strong males. More defenders (or warriors) gives them more strength, thus providing the impetus for a growing society.
Legislative and judicial duties
As the society grows, the internal threats grow. The number of conflicts increase, and the number of people who are predisposed to violence grows. Also, at a certain point, anonymity encourages people to act less favorably toward those within the society they do not personally know. All these factors cause a need for the government to provide a set of rules by which the people in society will interact with each other. With time, the rulebook must grow to cover the increasingly creative ways people harm others within the society. When rules are broken or harm is done, those responsible are expected to face punishment. Within a family, the parents most likely act as arbiters of the infraction and decide on compensation. With a society too large for one person to monitor, the government must enlist the help of citizens to help observe and protect (e.g. police) as well as determine compensation when police cannot stop an infraction (e.g. judges & jury). Regardless of the consent of the people, government must provide these things for the protection of society from itself.
Medical responsibilities
In the days before the knowledge of microscopic organisms, medicinal care was generally ineffective. However, the disease and injury still threatened society as whole, taking individuals out of the social structure that required their support. Most importantly in smaller societies that depend heavily upon the work of each individual, a government that desires the survival of its society will enlist the help of medical specialists to help care for the sick and injured in order to return them to a productive state of health quickly. Although it is often an overlooked threat to society, it troubles large and small societies alike.
What does this mean for modern government? It means that all governments should provide at least these three protections: a military to protect against external threats, judicial and law enforcement organizations to protect against internal threats, and a medical organization to respond to environmental threats. I will rant later about the current debate on health care reform, but this lays the groundwork for what a government should do for the society that it leads.
Necessary for a government to exist, there must exist a society for it to govern. The most basic unit of a society is the family: two or more generations of the same genealogy living together. In the beginning of human history, a family would have shared their meals, their beds, and their homes. Each member of the family would have one or more responsibilities that contributed to the survival of the family unit as a whole. We can reasonably expect that the mother or father of the oldest generation of the family would have served as the leader in making family decisions and as arbiter in the case of dispute. It should be intuitive that any interaction between multiple individuals will result in conflict because not all people hold the same desires and expectations. As families combined and grew, these conflicts would grow as well. With a large enough network of families, the patriarch/matriarch would require assistant in enforcing their leadership and resolving dispute. We will call this amalgamation of families "society" and its leaders "government." Regardless of the size or advancement of the society, the government made their decisions (hopefully) with the aim of furthering the success of the family, which, by definition, requires the protection of the family. The government must ensure protection from external threats (e.g. rival clans), internal threats (e.g. violent conflict within the society), and natural threats (e.g. weather, scarcity, disease).With these most basic definitions, I assert that the basest responsibility of government is the protection of society.
Raising a military
The most obvious threat for an early society would be external. Sources of water and food bring many societies in close proximity to each other. As individual societies grow, these sources become scarcer. They are forced to either find more elsewhere or remove others who are taking from available supply. In order to defend themselves, they would need protectors of the group, most likely the strong males. More defenders (or warriors) gives them more strength, thus providing the impetus for a growing society.
Legislative and judicial duties
As the society grows, the internal threats grow. The number of conflicts increase, and the number of people who are predisposed to violence grows. Also, at a certain point, anonymity encourages people to act less favorably toward those within the society they do not personally know. All these factors cause a need for the government to provide a set of rules by which the people in society will interact with each other. With time, the rulebook must grow to cover the increasingly creative ways people harm others within the society. When rules are broken or harm is done, those responsible are expected to face punishment. Within a family, the parents most likely act as arbiters of the infraction and decide on compensation. With a society too large for one person to monitor, the government must enlist the help of citizens to help observe and protect (e.g. police) as well as determine compensation when police cannot stop an infraction (e.g. judges & jury). Regardless of the consent of the people, government must provide these things for the protection of society from itself.
Medical responsibilities
In the days before the knowledge of microscopic organisms, medicinal care was generally ineffective. However, the disease and injury still threatened society as whole, taking individuals out of the social structure that required their support. Most importantly in smaller societies that depend heavily upon the work of each individual, a government that desires the survival of its society will enlist the help of medical specialists to help care for the sick and injured in order to return them to a productive state of health quickly. Although it is often an overlooked threat to society, it troubles large and small societies alike.
What does this mean for modern government? It means that all governments should provide at least these three protections: a military to protect against external threats, judicial and law enforcement organizations to protect against internal threats, and a medical organization to respond to environmental threats. I will rant later about the current debate on health care reform, but this lays the groundwork for what a government should do for the society that it leads.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
On The Origin of Man
Outline:
Intro: The importance of heritage
C1: Defining the beginning of man
C2: The usefulness of the current theories
C3: Evolution and its implications for society
Conc: The irrelevance of heritage
I am always surprised at the types of forms I complete that ask for my race/ethnicity. Maybe it was my being raised in a city that was almost completely middle-class caucasian, but I have never really felt the importance of race. However, getting out into the world, I have seen how much it means for some people to identify with their heritage. We have all experienced the feeling of being part of a larger whole. It is rewarding to be able to identify with a certain group. For many young adults (especially males), it feels good to define "us" versus "them" in a way that justifies the hormone-induced want of conflict. Whatever the reasons, all people like to be part of the group, and defining a heritage is an easy way to do that. No one has to do anything to earn heritage or strike a claim to it. It is a birthright. Either by your birthplace, or that of your ancestors, you need to do nothing more than exist to claim a heritage. For people who do not have another group to claim (e.g. a sports team, a film cult, or a branch of the military), claiming heritage can be the only way to feel a part of anything. If people care so much about where they came from, it follows naturally that they would want to know where their family started.
Unless a family has taken detailed records of their ancestry for millennia, a person of contemporary times would not have the slightest idea from where their first ancestors originated. It is even more difficult to locate the origin of humanity itself. It is commonly assumed that humans originated in one location. Many religious doctrines tell of a single pair of humans that appeared on Earth to rule over all animals. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this location was in the Fertile Crescent in a region that would be modern-day Iraq. Evolutionary theory, though, places the earliest humans in grasslands of Africa, and would not have included one male and one female to perpetuate the race. These proto-humans would have included a family of advanced primates that would eventually lead to a new species.
Archeological evidence suggests that the earliest bipedal hominids appeared nearly 4 million years ago, but recognizable Homo sapiens would have only been found approximately 150,000 years ago. Although other hominids had left Africa a million years earlier, the oldest fossil records for Humans have been found in Africa. Although dating techniques are highly inaccurate (off by over 10,000 years at times), the evidence that modern humans evolved from one group of hominids that lived on the African plains over 100 millennia ago is compelling. All of this evidence supports the idea that humans evolved from other primates that have gone extinct.
Many people find this theory contradictory to their deeply-held beliefs about the origin of humanity. I feel that I was fortunate in that I was never told an unquestionable creation story. I stumbled upon these myths as I grew up and approached them with equal skepticism. I am more inclined, though, to listen to those who develop theories based on evidence rather than rationalizing evidence to fit a preconceived theory.
More importantly, this theory of evolution says something very important about our heritage: we all share the same ancestors. Though people may claim to be of Irish or German or Chinese descent, we are all related to the same group of ancestors who began walking out of the grasslands of Africa over 100,000 years ago. Therefore, the question of heritage is really the most irrelevant one. People want to be part of something, and they are: they are part of a family that touches every part of the globe (and a few distant cousins orbiting above it). To feel part of a larger family, you need only to realize that you are part of the human family.
Intro: The importance of heritage
C1: Defining the beginning of man
C2: The usefulness of the current theories
C3: Evolution and its implications for society
Conc: The irrelevance of heritage
I am always surprised at the types of forms I complete that ask for my race/ethnicity. Maybe it was my being raised in a city that was almost completely middle-class caucasian, but I have never really felt the importance of race. However, getting out into the world, I have seen how much it means for some people to identify with their heritage. We have all experienced the feeling of being part of a larger whole. It is rewarding to be able to identify with a certain group. For many young adults (especially males), it feels good to define "us" versus "them" in a way that justifies the hormone-induced want of conflict. Whatever the reasons, all people like to be part of the group, and defining a heritage is an easy way to do that. No one has to do anything to earn heritage or strike a claim to it. It is a birthright. Either by your birthplace, or that of your ancestors, you need to do nothing more than exist to claim a heritage. For people who do not have another group to claim (e.g. a sports team, a film cult, or a branch of the military), claiming heritage can be the only way to feel a part of anything. If people care so much about where they came from, it follows naturally that they would want to know where their family started.
Unless a family has taken detailed records of their ancestry for millennia, a person of contemporary times would not have the slightest idea from where their first ancestors originated. It is even more difficult to locate the origin of humanity itself. It is commonly assumed that humans originated in one location. Many religious doctrines tell of a single pair of humans that appeared on Earth to rule over all animals. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this location was in the Fertile Crescent in a region that would be modern-day Iraq. Evolutionary theory, though, places the earliest humans in grasslands of Africa, and would not have included one male and one female to perpetuate the race. These proto-humans would have included a family of advanced primates that would eventually lead to a new species.
Archeological evidence suggests that the earliest bipedal hominids appeared nearly 4 million years ago, but recognizable Homo sapiens would have only been found approximately 150,000 years ago. Although other hominids had left Africa a million years earlier, the oldest fossil records for Humans have been found in Africa. Although dating techniques are highly inaccurate (off by over 10,000 years at times), the evidence that modern humans evolved from one group of hominids that lived on the African plains over 100 millennia ago is compelling. All of this evidence supports the idea that humans evolved from other primates that have gone extinct.
Many people find this theory contradictory to their deeply-held beliefs about the origin of humanity. I feel that I was fortunate in that I was never told an unquestionable creation story. I stumbled upon these myths as I grew up and approached them with equal skepticism. I am more inclined, though, to listen to those who develop theories based on evidence rather than rationalizing evidence to fit a preconceived theory.
More importantly, this theory of evolution says something very important about our heritage: we all share the same ancestors. Though people may claim to be of Irish or German or Chinese descent, we are all related to the same group of ancestors who began walking out of the grasslands of Africa over 100,000 years ago. Therefore, the question of heritage is really the most irrelevant one. People want to be part of something, and they are: they are part of a family that touches every part of the globe (and a few distant cousins orbiting above it). To feel part of a larger family, you need only to realize that you are part of the human family.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
On the Origin of the Universe
Layout:
Intro - Why is this such an important question
C1 - The innate sense of a creator
C2 - The challenge of finding a creator
C3 - The possibility of creation without a creator
Conc - Living together in mutual ignorance
On the plains of the African Savannah approximately one million years ago, families of advanced primates sat near a fire, grooming each other and sharing the stories of their lives in their ever-increasing oral language. Surely, even these early humans had a philosophical concept of time, the ever-marching beat of life pressing irrevocably into the future. Humans and creatures filled space in a world that seemed infinite, but mattered only on the smallest scale. Inferring from experiences with the lives of organisms, certainly the world must have a beginning and an end, but when was the beginning, and how did it happen? This questions persists into the modern day, and there is no reason to doubt that it will persist until the end of the species. Knowing that the world must have had a beginning creates a void because we do not know how, where, or when that beginning was. If we could discover the details of the Universe's inception, we might learn more about the reasons for our existence and how we should best use our lives. Unfortunately, no one was there to see it, so all theories are merely speculation, some supported by mathematical reasoning, but all equally inconclusive. The human mind instinctively searches for a creator of any creation, as all things on Earth have had a creator, but we have so far been unsuccessful in finding any evidence for this creator, and there is even growing reason to believe that the creator was not even necessary.
The unfathomable expanse of life on Earth, the inextricable complexity of its ecosystems, and the awe-inspiring natural phenomena that occur every day all indicate to the simple human mind that some intelligent being must have put it all together. A common claim of the religious is the "watchmaker" analogy. Suppose you find a watch in the sand. You take it apart and see the intricate workings of the cogs and wheels that make it keep time. The pieces of the watch certainly did not just fall into place that way out of pure chance. There must have been a watchmaker that built that watch. Looking at the workings of life and its intricately placed pieces, it reasonably follows that at the beginning, there was a designer.
Not only must there be a creator, but it is human nature to want a creator to exist. It has been shown that people are happiest when they feel useful. They feel as though they have a defined purpose and that they are fulfilling some piece of an larger objective. For most, this sense of usefulness arises from the commands of a superior. Whether it be an employer, a parent, or a public leader, the people want to play their part in helping the whole succeed. (going hypothetical here) In early human development, those that were useful to the tribe or town would have been the most respected. Respect means mating rights, so those that had the predisposition for contribution would have passed these traits most often. In the modern era, this trend continues even in disestablishmentarian ideals, there exists a gratifying sense of unity that comes from one's participation in the success of a common goal. In everyday life, there is often no overseer or leader to define an objective, and for most people, it is very difficult to define their own satisfying life goal. However, a supernatural creator can fill that void. Religious teachings define a god who created the world, and this creator often defines guidance for its followers' lives. Hence, people not only instinctively believe there should be a creator, but they would feel uncomfortable challenging that belief.
The great issue with the belief in a creator is the ubiquitous inability to verify the existence of this creator. Many religions refer to a supernatural being that created the Universe and may or may not continue to dabble in its affairs. However, there are hundreds of such belief systems, and dividing them is the nature of the aforementioned supernatural being(s). This arises from the fact that no empirical evidence has been recorded to show that any one of them really exists. The knowledge of such things relies on the so-called "enlightened" minds of prophets and spiritual leaders, who most often come to learn of the supernatural world while in an altered state of mind. Even in those religions with holy scriptures that recount the events that transpired while the spiritual leader was enlightened or in the times when this deity showed itself to its people, no conclusive physical evidence beyond the writings remains. While it is wholly possible that the supernatural world the spiritual leaders have accessed is as of yet inaccessible to modern scientific measuring devices, the more reasonable explanation for the persistent elusiveness of these deities is that they were merely creations of the imaginations of the prophets, teachers, and spiritual leaders.
If this is the case, though, we must find an alternative explanation for the beginning of the Universe. It is undeniably clear that the Universe exists and that it contains things - namely, us. Assuming that the Universe exists in a finite span of time, these things must have had a beginning. Current scientific theory, colloquially referred to as the "Big Bang" theory, predicts that the Universe has been expanding since its beginning from a singularity in which all things that exist today occupied the same point in space and time (that's not strictly-speaking true; time and space were all in this little bundle). Understanding the law of causality (every action has a preceding cause), without a supernatural being, there is seemingly nothing to cause this singularity (or nothingness) to burst into the rapid expansion that brought it to the state it is in today. However, theoretical scientists like Dr. Lawrence Krauss have shown that what was once understood as empty space contains far more than just nothing. Particles and anti-particles are spontaneously appearing and annihilating every instant. These spontaneous appearances may have interacted in such away to create the massive chain reaction now known as the Big Bang. As Professor Stephen Hawking describes it, at the instant of the Big Bang, all of space and time was compressed into one point. The question of what preceded the Big Bang is a logical fallacy in itself. The law of causality fails at this instant when time did not have a direction. Based on these theories, there is no need for a creator at all.
Of the seven billion people on this Earth, there are probably ten times that many theories of the creation of the world. Many are demonstrably false, but none are undoubtably true. The only thing that is for sure, is that until a deity shows itself to humanity (and someone gets it on tape) the world will never agree. The most terrifying part is that people are willing to fight to the death over these speculations. The question we need to ask is, "Does it matter?" Does it really matter who or what made the Earth? Does it matter whose book is more or less right in directing our way of living? We are rational beings, and we have the capacity to choose for ourselves what stories we believe, if we believe any of them. There are enough problems in the world the way it is without worrying about the beginning of time. Although this question is an interesting one, there are people devoting their lives to concocting theories of how it all happened. For the rest of us (particularly the ones making a living doing something else), we should focus on solving the problems that face us now. Our expanding population is devouring the resources of the planet and disrupting its natural balance; people in our own country, city, and neighborhood face persecution, hunger, and homelessness; and relentless warfare continues to tear apart the lives of the innocent. Even a fraction of the world's population could make considerable gains toward solving these or any of the myriad of other issues facing the human race with minimal effort if that effort worked in unison with others.
Personally, I believe that the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago along with the rest of the solar system in a period of stellar development nearly 9 billion years after a singularity of spacetime burst in to the Universe we see in our skies. However, my belief of that theory does nothing to better the lives of any of the 7 billion people currently living upon this planet. It may be the first question, but there are many others that deserve answers first.
Intro - Why is this such an important question
C1 - The innate sense of a creator
C2 - The challenge of finding a creator
C3 - The possibility of creation without a creator
Conc - Living together in mutual ignorance
On the plains of the African Savannah approximately one million years ago, families of advanced primates sat near a fire, grooming each other and sharing the stories of their lives in their ever-increasing oral language. Surely, even these early humans had a philosophical concept of time, the ever-marching beat of life pressing irrevocably into the future. Humans and creatures filled space in a world that seemed infinite, but mattered only on the smallest scale. Inferring from experiences with the lives of organisms, certainly the world must have a beginning and an end, but when was the beginning, and how did it happen? This questions persists into the modern day, and there is no reason to doubt that it will persist until the end of the species. Knowing that the world must have had a beginning creates a void because we do not know how, where, or when that beginning was. If we could discover the details of the Universe's inception, we might learn more about the reasons for our existence and how we should best use our lives. Unfortunately, no one was there to see it, so all theories are merely speculation, some supported by mathematical reasoning, but all equally inconclusive. The human mind instinctively searches for a creator of any creation, as all things on Earth have had a creator, but we have so far been unsuccessful in finding any evidence for this creator, and there is even growing reason to believe that the creator was not even necessary.
The unfathomable expanse of life on Earth, the inextricable complexity of its ecosystems, and the awe-inspiring natural phenomena that occur every day all indicate to the simple human mind that some intelligent being must have put it all together. A common claim of the religious is the "watchmaker" analogy. Suppose you find a watch in the sand. You take it apart and see the intricate workings of the cogs and wheels that make it keep time. The pieces of the watch certainly did not just fall into place that way out of pure chance. There must have been a watchmaker that built that watch. Looking at the workings of life and its intricately placed pieces, it reasonably follows that at the beginning, there was a designer.
Not only must there be a creator, but it is human nature to want a creator to exist. It has been shown that people are happiest when they feel useful. They feel as though they have a defined purpose and that they are fulfilling some piece of an larger objective. For most, this sense of usefulness arises from the commands of a superior. Whether it be an employer, a parent, or a public leader, the people want to play their part in helping the whole succeed. (going hypothetical here) In early human development, those that were useful to the tribe or town would have been the most respected. Respect means mating rights, so those that had the predisposition for contribution would have passed these traits most often. In the modern era, this trend continues even in disestablishmentarian ideals, there exists a gratifying sense of unity that comes from one's participation in the success of a common goal. In everyday life, there is often no overseer or leader to define an objective, and for most people, it is very difficult to define their own satisfying life goal. However, a supernatural creator can fill that void. Religious teachings define a god who created the world, and this creator often defines guidance for its followers' lives. Hence, people not only instinctively believe there should be a creator, but they would feel uncomfortable challenging that belief.
The great issue with the belief in a creator is the ubiquitous inability to verify the existence of this creator. Many religions refer to a supernatural being that created the Universe and may or may not continue to dabble in its affairs. However, there are hundreds of such belief systems, and dividing them is the nature of the aforementioned supernatural being(s). This arises from the fact that no empirical evidence has been recorded to show that any one of them really exists. The knowledge of such things relies on the so-called "enlightened" minds of prophets and spiritual leaders, who most often come to learn of the supernatural world while in an altered state of mind. Even in those religions with holy scriptures that recount the events that transpired while the spiritual leader was enlightened or in the times when this deity showed itself to its people, no conclusive physical evidence beyond the writings remains. While it is wholly possible that the supernatural world the spiritual leaders have accessed is as of yet inaccessible to modern scientific measuring devices, the more reasonable explanation for the persistent elusiveness of these deities is that they were merely creations of the imaginations of the prophets, teachers, and spiritual leaders.
If this is the case, though, we must find an alternative explanation for the beginning of the Universe. It is undeniably clear that the Universe exists and that it contains things - namely, us. Assuming that the Universe exists in a finite span of time, these things must have had a beginning. Current scientific theory, colloquially referred to as the "Big Bang" theory, predicts that the Universe has been expanding since its beginning from a singularity in which all things that exist today occupied the same point in space and time (that's not strictly-speaking true; time and space were all in this little bundle). Understanding the law of causality (every action has a preceding cause), without a supernatural being, there is seemingly nothing to cause this singularity (or nothingness) to burst into the rapid expansion that brought it to the state it is in today. However, theoretical scientists like Dr. Lawrence Krauss have shown that what was once understood as empty space contains far more than just nothing. Particles and anti-particles are spontaneously appearing and annihilating every instant. These spontaneous appearances may have interacted in such away to create the massive chain reaction now known as the Big Bang. As Professor Stephen Hawking describes it, at the instant of the Big Bang, all of space and time was compressed into one point. The question of what preceded the Big Bang is a logical fallacy in itself. The law of causality fails at this instant when time did not have a direction. Based on these theories, there is no need for a creator at all.
Of the seven billion people on this Earth, there are probably ten times that many theories of the creation of the world. Many are demonstrably false, but none are undoubtably true. The only thing that is for sure, is that until a deity shows itself to humanity (and someone gets it on tape) the world will never agree. The most terrifying part is that people are willing to fight to the death over these speculations. The question we need to ask is, "Does it matter?" Does it really matter who or what made the Earth? Does it matter whose book is more or less right in directing our way of living? We are rational beings, and we have the capacity to choose for ourselves what stories we believe, if we believe any of them. There are enough problems in the world the way it is without worrying about the beginning of time. Although this question is an interesting one, there are people devoting their lives to concocting theories of how it all happened. For the rest of us (particularly the ones making a living doing something else), we should focus on solving the problems that face us now. Our expanding population is devouring the resources of the planet and disrupting its natural balance; people in our own country, city, and neighborhood face persecution, hunger, and homelessness; and relentless warfare continues to tear apart the lives of the innocent. Even a fraction of the world's population could make considerable gains toward solving these or any of the myriad of other issues facing the human race with minimal effort if that effort worked in unison with others.
Personally, I believe that the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago along with the rest of the solar system in a period of stellar development nearly 9 billion years after a singularity of spacetime burst in to the Universe we see in our skies. However, my belief of that theory does nothing to better the lives of any of the 7 billion people currently living upon this planet. It may be the first question, but there are many others that deserve answers first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)