When a person suffers some sort of total and permanent brain damage, a la Terri Schiavo, people divide up into familiar pro-life/pro-choice groups.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Notionally, religious people claim to be committed to the views of soul-independence and soul-having-ness. That is to say, that the soul is independent of the body, and that humans have souls while they're alive. It also appears that religious folks think the soul is connected to the experiences of the body (i.e. you get to see your loved ones in heaven) in a way that requires the soul to be aware of bodily experiences, even if the mind isn't directly aware of the soul.
So if you believe all that, isn't keeping a vegetative person alive for decades a kind of torture to the soul? The usual sort of Natural Law arguments that are used to justify this bizarre beliefset don't seem to make any sort of sense here, because a vegetative person is undoubtedly being kept alive through the magic of modern science — god's will is clearly to let the person die. Alternatively, if the soul leaves the body when the mind does, then all this energy is being spent to keep unresponsive meat "alive", and that doesn't seem to make sense either.
Other sorts of "No You They Really Think This" theories are well-established, such as the notion that many pro-life activists are really anti-sex or anti-woman activists, or that the most virulent anti-gay bigots are closet cases. Clutching on to a dead person's body after it's clear that their mind is gone, seems to just be a sort of naive unwillingness to deal with reality. This mentality doesn't seem to spring forth from any sort of religious thinking, but it may be the same sort of instinct that also compels religious thinking.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Is being gay a choice?
This question seems to matter to a lot of people, but I can't really see why it does.
That's not true. I know why it matters to some people.
This seems like a clear example of the Deontological/Consequentialist divide in ethics, in a popular ethical discussion.
My position is, obviously, that I don't care why. If being gay is a choice, then choosing to be gay is making someone happy, so they should go for it. Laws should arrange themselves around persons for the maximum amount of happiness possible.
But some people really seem to care if it's a choice.
Of course, I really don't believe in "choices" at all. So there's that.
That's not true. I know why it matters to some people.
This seems like a clear example of the Deontological/Consequentialist divide in ethics, in a popular ethical discussion.
My position is, obviously, that I don't care why. If being gay is a choice, then choosing to be gay is making someone happy, so they should go for it. Laws should arrange themselves around persons for the maximum amount of happiness possible.
But some people really seem to care if it's a choice.
Of course, I really don't believe in "choices" at all. So there's that.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Religion and Racism
These results:
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Humans are social creatures, and it's nice to have a place to gather once a week with your neighbors. It's nice to know that you've got a place to get married, someone who will be with you when you die, and a place to be buried once you're gone. I suspect many closeted atheists remain that way because the positive benefits of community are so obvious and tangible.
But because so much of the appeal of religion is wrapped up in the in-group/out-group distinction, we shouldn't be surprised that this drive's uglier aspects, like racism, are found in higher proportion as well.
The authors failed to find that racial tolerance arises from humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members. Only religious agnostics were racially tolerant.Should only surprise people who've never met Christians, or never met racists, or both. The primary function of religion in society is to serve as a social community. Morality is at best a fourth-order level of concern, behind social community, metaphysics, and aesthetic appreciation.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Humans are social creatures, and it's nice to have a place to gather once a week with your neighbors. It's nice to know that you've got a place to get married, someone who will be with you when you die, and a place to be buried once you're gone. I suspect many closeted atheists remain that way because the positive benefits of community are so obvious and tangible.
But because so much of the appeal of religion is wrapped up in the in-group/out-group distinction, we shouldn't be surprised that this drive's uglier aspects, like racism, are found in higher proportion as well.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Friday, April 24, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Godless America
This graph, and others like it, warm the cockles of my atheist heart.
The religion of "None" is up to 12%. And it's nice to see that Christianity has fallen to 77%. But now that "other" is at 7%, don't you think it's about time they started including Islam as an option? Gallup says that they estimate it to be less than 1%, but I've heard Muslim groups estimate it as high as 4 or 5%. They ask about Judaism, after all, and that number is steady at 2%.
The religion of "None" is up to 12%. And it's nice to see that Christianity has fallen to 77%. But now that "other" is at 7%, don't you think it's about time they started including Islam as an option? Gallup says that they estimate it to be less than 1%, but I've heard Muslim groups estimate it as high as 4 or 5%. They ask about Judaism, after all, and that number is steady at 2%.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Michael Steele
Seeing Michael Steele out everywhere, vying to be the face of the Republican Party is just plain weird. Before Howard Dean, how many national chairs can people name?
The prominence of the national party chair for the party without the Presidency now looks to be a permanent feature of the American Electoral system, and is a consequence of the nationalization of the two parties. Only a system where the parties are ideologically cohesive could lead to a situation where the national chair mattered. In previous decades regional and ideological differences within the parties prevented this sort of thing from happening.
I also don't think it's an accident that Steele was an elected official before this. It seems likely that party chairs in the future will be minor celebrities who've run for office themselves, as opposed to the party functionaries who held the posts in the past.
The prominence of the national party chair for the party without the Presidency now looks to be a permanent feature of the American Electoral system, and is a consequence of the nationalization of the two parties. Only a system where the parties are ideologically cohesive could lead to a situation where the national chair mattered. In previous decades regional and ideological differences within the parties prevented this sort of thing from happening.
I also don't think it's an accident that Steele was an elected official before this. It seems likely that party chairs in the future will be minor celebrities who've run for office themselves, as opposed to the party functionaries who held the posts in the past.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Liar, Liar, Proust's on Fire
Via Kottke comes this list of books people lie about having read:
Interestingly, I often lie about having read 1984. I've lied about it to multiple girlfriends! It's an awful book. I never plan to read it. But I plan to continue to lie about it.
I think I might occasionally lie about 2 & 3 as well, but only in circles where I'm pretty sure other people are lying about having read them as well.
I've only read parts of A Brief History of Time, but I've read enough to lie convincingly about having read it all. And right now "The Bomber" is realizing that entire conversations that we've had (that lasted hours!) were based on my ability to lie about having read Hawking.
I've read 80-90% of The Bible over the years and I can definitively state that 24% is way too low a number. Everyone lies about reading the Bible! It's a bad book. You'd have to be some kind of sick masochist to even get through Deuteronomy. And Christians are the biggest liars in the world, so when they say that they've read it, they almost certainly haven't. I know this, because I've read a lot of it, and it's easy to tell that they haven't. But Christians hate admitting that they lie almost as much as they like lying! So we'll never know how many people lie about having read the Bible, but it's got to be over 50%. Or, rather, everyone who says they've read the whole Bible is lying.
I have actually read Dreams From My Father (when Obama was just a Senate candidate in my humble state, no less), and there's no reason it should be on this list. It's an entertaining read written in easy language. So go read the book!
And number 10, The Selfish Gene, is possibly one of my favorite books that I've ever read. I read it all the way through, and I've read parts of it again for various projects that I've worked on, so I've probably read the whole thing twice. It's phenomenal! It offers a solution to almost every metaphysical problem in Ethics! Everyone should read it! Twice!
Or at least you should learn to be able to lie about having read it. That's almost as good!
1. 1984 by George Orwell (42%)
2. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (31%)
3. Ulysses by James Joyce (25%)
4. The Bible (24%)
5. Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert (16%)
6. A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking (15%)
7. Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie (14%)
8. In Remembrance of Things Past by Marcel Proust (9%)
9. Dreams from My Father by Barack Obama (6%)
10. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (6%)
Interestingly, I often lie about having read 1984. I've lied about it to multiple girlfriends! It's an awful book. I never plan to read it. But I plan to continue to lie about it.
I think I might occasionally lie about 2 & 3 as well, but only in circles where I'm pretty sure other people are lying about having read them as well.
I've only read parts of A Brief History of Time, but I've read enough to lie convincingly about having read it all. And right now "The Bomber" is realizing that entire conversations that we've had (that lasted hours!) were based on my ability to lie about having read Hawking.
I've read 80-90% of The Bible over the years and I can definitively state that 24% is way too low a number. Everyone lies about reading the Bible! It's a bad book. You'd have to be some kind of sick masochist to even get through Deuteronomy. And Christians are the biggest liars in the world, so when they say that they've read it, they almost certainly haven't. I know this, because I've read a lot of it, and it's easy to tell that they haven't. But Christians hate admitting that they lie almost as much as they like lying! So we'll never know how many people lie about having read the Bible, but it's got to be over 50%. Or, rather, everyone who says they've read the whole Bible is lying.
I have actually read Dreams From My Father (when Obama was just a Senate candidate in my humble state, no less), and there's no reason it should be on this list. It's an entertaining read written in easy language. So go read the book!
And number 10, The Selfish Gene, is possibly one of my favorite books that I've ever read. I read it all the way through, and I've read parts of it again for various projects that I've worked on, so I've probably read the whole thing twice. It's phenomenal! It offers a solution to almost every metaphysical problem in Ethics! Everyone should read it! Twice!
Or at least you should learn to be able to lie about having read it. That's almost as good!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Claire McCaskill continues to suck
From her twitter feed:
I guess that explains why Bi-State is broke.
I am one of less than a dozen Senators that don't participate in the earmark process.
I guess that explains why Bi-State is broke.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Post unSOTU Thoughts
1. I just finished reading Watchmen tonight, in preparation for the movie. It is as good as everyone says it is, although I'm kind of cheesed off at how much Heroes steals from the book.
2. I grabbed some carrot sticks for a snack before realizing that we're out of Ranch dressing. So, for the first time in my life, I ate Thousand Island. In case you're still living in the same ignorance that I was up until an hour ago, Thousand Island Dressing is, in fact, the Big Mac's "Special Sauce".
3. Buying fuel efficient vehicles for the feds, high-speed rail, and disaster preparation all seem like pretty fucking good ideas, if you ask me.
2. I grabbed some carrot sticks for a snack before realizing that we're out of Ranch dressing. So, for the first time in my life, I ate Thousand Island. In case you're still living in the same ignorance that I was up until an hour ago, Thousand Island Dressing is, in fact, the Big Mac's "Special Sauce".
3. Buying fuel efficient vehicles for the feds, high-speed rail, and disaster preparation all seem like pretty fucking good ideas, if you ask me.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Who's Year Is It?
Not even nominated, Beyoncé managed to steal the show last night at the Oscar's.
And yes, Cadillac Records was a much better movie than any of the Best Picture nominees last night, let alone the contrived "poverty porn" Slumdog Millionaire.
I loved Sean Penn's acceptance speech, though.
And yes, Cadillac Records was a much better movie than any of the Best Picture nominees last night, let alone the contrived "poverty porn" Slumdog Millionaire.
I loved Sean Penn's acceptance speech, though.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Presidential Rankings
This bit of silliness, C-Span's 2009 Presidential Rankings, is making the rounds. Not only is the concept stupid, but they are wrong. FDR belongs at the top of the list. Everyone knows that.
C-Span and all the media reports that I've read have attached some mystical significance to the fact that they asked "Historians", as if someone who specializes in Ancient Rome or Medieval China has any clue who the Presidents were, or what they did. Even if these guys are specialists in American History, they all have their biases.
Two seemingly unanswerable questions keep popping up in the media reports: Why did Grant go up ten spaces, and why did Hayes fall seven? These questions are easily answered if you regard the historians as mere mortals.
Grants reputation has been almost single-handedly rescued by this 2006 blog post by Nathan Newman. It flew across the liberal blogosphere after he posted it. It certainly affected my thinking of Grant, and I've been selling Newman's insights as my own for two and a half years now. Those mystical "Historians" are plugged into this stuff as well, and their opinions are malleable enough to raise Grant's standing by quite a lot.
And Hayes? RutherFRAUD B. Hayes stole the 1876 election. After eight years of Bush, who stole the 2000 election, that facts looks a lot more salient.
C-Span and all the media reports that I've read have attached some mystical significance to the fact that they asked "Historians", as if someone who specializes in Ancient Rome or Medieval China has any clue who the Presidents were, or what they did. Even if these guys are specialists in American History, they all have their biases.
Two seemingly unanswerable questions keep popping up in the media reports: Why did Grant go up ten spaces, and why did Hayes fall seven? These questions are easily answered if you regard the historians as mere mortals.
Grants reputation has been almost single-handedly rescued by this 2006 blog post by Nathan Newman. It flew across the liberal blogosphere after he posted it. It certainly affected my thinking of Grant, and I've been selling Newman's insights as my own for two and a half years now. Those mystical "Historians" are plugged into this stuff as well, and their opinions are malleable enough to raise Grant's standing by quite a lot.
And Hayes? RutherFRAUD B. Hayes stole the 1876 election. After eight years of Bush, who stole the 2000 election, that facts looks a lot more salient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
