The pain in my ass.....
Why do I talk to these dense
Libertarians?
Seriously. I know it's good to get out and encounter different views- in some cases so as to refine your own views, in some cases in the interest of "know thine enemy", in some cases just for the sake of getting out for human contact. But, really, now. I have to wonder why I do this to myself, this trying to engage in reasoned argument or debate with some people is truly futile. Possibly they work for the aspirin company and are paid a hefty wage as Headache Farmers.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Brief History of Disbelief (2004)
I watched the three-part series by Jonathan Miller recently. Most of it was enjoyable, all of it made me realise I still have a lot of reading to do. (Hobbes, many of the Greek philosophers, etc.)Excitement built as he neared the atheism of the Russian Revolution, only to be deflated as all of three minutes (if that) was spent in (again, as usual) perpetuating the lie that Stalinism equated with communism (which is, of course, taken as an equation with socialism). I do not suppose I should have expected much, but given the intelligence and diligence of the rest of the programme, I did. This was, though a rather large letdown, the only one.
Setting that aside, the series was quite good, including brief interviews with such people as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, and many others- philosophers, scientists, and lay people. Jonathan Miller traced atheistic thought back to the afore-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers (Epicure among them), and did a good job of parelleling the history of disbelief with that of belief, as well as the story of his own atheism. It seems that throughout the ages, philosophers of various bents have recognised religion for what it is- (wait for it) the opium of the masses.
Speaking of which, the actor (Bernard Hill) they had voicing the quotes of such luminaries as Homer, Freud, and Thomas Paine, did an excellent reading of the entire paragraph wherein "the opium of the masses" first appeared.
This is a flawed piece, but it is a good start on the subject.
Setting that aside, the series was quite good, including brief interviews with such people as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, and many others- philosophers, scientists, and lay people. Jonathan Miller traced atheistic thought back to the afore-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers (Epicure among them), and did a good job of parelleling the history of disbelief with that of belief, as well as the story of his own atheism. It seems that throughout the ages, philosophers of various bents have recognised religion for what it is- (wait for it) the opium of the masses.
Speaking of which, the actor (Bernard Hill) they had voicing the quotes of such luminaries as Homer, Freud, and Thomas Paine, did an excellent reading of the entire paragraph wherein "the opium of the masses" first appeared.
This is a flawed piece, but it is a good start on the subject.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
How things sneek into books and some other stuff
I was delighted a few years back to be reading one of the Series of Unfortunate Events books by Lemony Snicket and coming across a section wherein the pre-verbal Baudelaire child, Sunny, is heard to exclaim "Bushcheney", which is interpreted as "a person who is very bad and intentionally so" (to paraphrase, as the book is packed away). Last night I finished Peter Corris' The Coast Road, in which private investigator Cliff Hardy muses on the war in Iraq and the lies which brought it about (while being shot at, clubbed a few times, and otherwise endangered. He's a man's man, you know, but also a thinking man's man).
Evidence of thinking is very encouraging sometimes.
Speaking of thinking- I was nominated by Edie of Annotated Life for a Thinking Blog Award. Thanks, eh?!
So- here are the rules,
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to *****5 blogs***** that make you think,
2. Link to The Thinking Blog explanation so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.
I have to say that I don't read a lot of blogs, still being new, and all, but the ones I do are:
Lloyd of DaddyLloyd . This is his "serious" blog. His other blog, which I also like, is not as serious, and downright funny. This one, though, is very personal. He's a Canadian stay at home dad, and has been amusing me for years in other places around the web (Canadian World Domination, rest in peace!). Admirable, stand-up fellow (who also does stand-up).
I am going to have to send this one back in Edie's direction- to Annotated Life. She's the one who got me into this whole blogging thing. Why? Because I could see that intelligent thought existed, and was wonderfully articulated. Thanks for the encouragement, thanks for the shedding of the light on Socialist Subjects.
Let us call her "Itty". She makes me think. Returning to art school post-baby-bearing, and showing excellent progress. A frustrated artist reloaded. We seldom agree on anything, but darn it, the woman can draw.
So....The next is a repeat from Edie's list, really, as I am travelling in similar circles.... Which may or may not remove me from the actual awarding, but hey, it was an honour to be nominated.
Pictures, Analysis, and Art, by Scott. He knows when to caption, how much, and when not to. Not an easy line, but he's always on the best side of it. I was very happy to finally find his spot.
TEXT And here we have a blank space...I will claim my award when I actually have read enough of a fifth blog to qualify. I mean no disrespect, I just need to stay in more with the computer, right?
------
I watched the first part of A Brief History of Disbelief today. It reminds me that I have to read a lot more books. But it was also comforting. Eventualy I'll write out my own story of coming to atheism. The word, "atheism", is one about which I agree with the presenter of the show in that it is an inadequate word for the state of disbelief or godlessness. It defines in a negative, when I feel quite complete without believing in god, and felt weird while trying to believe. We need a new word here.
The most comforting parts of it were the snippetts of "man on the street" interviews with people who said (presumably in answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?") "No." I paraphrase, of course and again- the variety of reasons given were straightforward, though. I am thinking that the reason this was the most comforting part is that, no matter how many Wise Men and Women of History share your view, it's always nice to know that you are not alone in the general populace right now.
Being an atheist and non-famous is a bit more difficult than being a famous atheist- you have no fame to fall back on when people suddenly do not love you because of your Heathen Ways. You are not insulated from the effects of real life coming down on you because you lose your job or have been beaten up for your "lack" of faith. Your voice does not carry the Authority of Fame- "What do you know? What have *you* ever done?" I suppose, in more extreme times and places, your disappearance would not be as noticed as, say, John Lennon's, or Richard Dawkins'. It can be lonely and a bit frightening- should I tell *this* person? What about *them*? It's ridiculous to have to weigh such things so seriously, yet here we are.
So, anonymous atheists on the street of all ages, we are not alone. Of *that* much we have proof. More than (ahem) some people can say.
Evidence of thinking is very encouraging sometimes.
Speaking of thinking- I was nominated by Edie of Annotated Life for a Thinking Blog Award. Thanks, eh?!
So- here are the rules,
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to *****5 blogs***** that make you think,
2. Link to The Thinking Blog explanation so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.
I have to say that I don't read a lot of blogs, still being new, and all, but the ones I do are:
Lloyd of DaddyLloyd . This is his "serious" blog. His other blog, which I also like, is not as serious, and downright funny. This one, though, is very personal. He's a Canadian stay at home dad, and has been amusing me for years in other places around the web (Canadian World Domination, rest in peace!). Admirable, stand-up fellow (who also does stand-up).
I am going to have to send this one back in Edie's direction- to Annotated Life. She's the one who got me into this whole blogging thing. Why? Because I could see that intelligent thought existed, and was wonderfully articulated. Thanks for the encouragement, thanks for the shedding of the light on Socialist Subjects.
Let us call her "Itty". She makes me think. Returning to art school post-baby-bearing, and showing excellent progress. A frustrated artist reloaded. We seldom agree on anything, but darn it, the woman can draw.
So....The next is a repeat from Edie's list, really, as I am travelling in similar circles.... Which may or may not remove me from the actual awarding, but hey, it was an honour to be nominated.
Pictures, Analysis, and Art, by Scott. He knows when to caption, how much, and when not to. Not an easy line, but he's always on the best side of it. I was very happy to finally find his spot.
TEXT And here we have a blank space...I will claim my award when I actually have read enough of a fifth blog to qualify. I mean no disrespect, I just need to stay in more with the computer, right?
------
I watched the first part of A Brief History of Disbelief today. It reminds me that I have to read a lot more books. But it was also comforting. Eventualy I'll write out my own story of coming to atheism. The word, "atheism", is one about which I agree with the presenter of the show in that it is an inadequate word for the state of disbelief or godlessness. It defines in a negative, when I feel quite complete without believing in god, and felt weird while trying to believe. We need a new word here.
The most comforting parts of it were the snippetts of "man on the street" interviews with people who said (presumably in answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?") "No." I paraphrase, of course and again- the variety of reasons given were straightforward, though. I am thinking that the reason this was the most comforting part is that, no matter how many Wise Men and Women of History share your view, it's always nice to know that you are not alone in the general populace right now.
Being an atheist and non-famous is a bit more difficult than being a famous atheist- you have no fame to fall back on when people suddenly do not love you because of your Heathen Ways. You are not insulated from the effects of real life coming down on you because you lose your job or have been beaten up for your "lack" of faith. Your voice does not carry the Authority of Fame- "What do you know? What have *you* ever done?" I suppose, in more extreme times and places, your disappearance would not be as noticed as, say, John Lennon's, or Richard Dawkins'. It can be lonely and a bit frightening- should I tell *this* person? What about *them*? It's ridiculous to have to weigh such things so seriously, yet here we are.
So, anonymous atheists on the street of all ages, we are not alone. Of *that* much we have proof. More than (ahem) some people can say.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Prayer Surge Part Two
I do not only blog, o, no, I also take part in a variety of forums (by variety, I mean three). I posted the article about the Prayer Surge at two of them, and the replies were largely positive. To the idea of praying, that is. Well, a lot of people pray, we all know that, but I wondered for a couple of days if I was just a weirdo for being annoyed/angered by the very idea. I held off of posting about it on one particular forum for a while, but finally could not stand it any more and so....
I am trying to decide what bothers me most about this so as to compose a coherent reply to the majority (overwhelming) saying that "It couldn't hurt" and "Well, obviously humans are doing a *great* job solving the problem". I think that the very idea is just absurd, of course, but I should be used to the absurd, so why am I so angry about it this time? I mean, really, roll-my-eyes-and-gnash-my-teeth angry.
Maybe it has to do with people dying and the obscenity of praying for the safety of the very people these Praying Soldiers are there to bomb, shoot, and make disappear. Maybe it's the over 3,000 dead US soldiers and how young the vast majority of them were (most younger than me, most young enough to have been a child of mine) and how they were trained (badly) to shoot people before themselves being blown up or shot or however they died too young and for a lie.
Maybe it's the prayer itself and the blindness of people not seeing that when they say "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets," they could well be taliking about the wicked who lied and got us into this mess, them into this mess, that *they* are now the destructive forces at work in the city, and that further threats and lies are forthcoming every time I open the paper.
A combination? Is this just a straw too heavy on top of so many other bales?
------
So, that's what I wrote, and still there is the feeling that I am sort of alone on this one. Well, at least one person objected, let history show.
I am trying to decide what bothers me most about this so as to compose a coherent reply to the majority (overwhelming) saying that "It couldn't hurt" and "Well, obviously humans are doing a *great* job solving the problem". I think that the very idea is just absurd, of course, but I should be used to the absurd, so why am I so angry about it this time? I mean, really, roll-my-eyes-and-gnash-my-teeth angry.
Maybe it has to do with people dying and the obscenity of praying for the safety of the very people these Praying Soldiers are there to bomb, shoot, and make disappear. Maybe it's the over 3,000 dead US soldiers and how young the vast majority of them were (most younger than me, most young enough to have been a child of mine) and how they were trained (badly) to shoot people before themselves being blown up or shot or however they died too young and for a lie.
Maybe it's the prayer itself and the blindness of people not seeing that when they say "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets," they could well be taliking about the wicked who lied and got us into this mess, them into this mess, that *they* are now the destructive forces at work in the city, and that further threats and lies are forthcoming every time I open the paper.
A combination? Is this just a straw too heavy on top of so many other bales?
------
So, that's what I wrote, and still there is the feeling that I am sort of alone on this one. Well, at least one person objected, let history show.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Prayer Surge- Some remarks
Oregonian 4/27/07
'Prayer patrol' for Baghdad pastor enlists others in a "prayer surge" to entreat God for peace in Iraq's troubled capital
Friday, April 27, 2007
NANCY HAUGHT
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace."
Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences.
Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.
"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va.
"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed."
Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said.
Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets."
The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace."
There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too.
"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
-------
This was in yesterday's "Technology" section- presumably because they have a website.
There's a lot wrong with this, so pardon if I go a bit rambly in spots. Wait- better idea- allow me to parenthesize:
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace." (A better idea, on behalf of Baghdad, would be to resist orders and not bring the violence to the people there. Earthly action for Earthly problems.)
Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences. (Or maybe that minute would be better spent writing to the Congressmen or the UN.)
Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.
(Body armor is a particular need. As would be PTSD treatment, and a return home for the soldiers. The people would probably appreciate electricity and running water in what's left of their homes. A real miracle would be nice- say, the return to life of some 700,000 people. These have not made the list.)
"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va. ("whatever.")
"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed." (We have a man-made conflict for which we are passing off responsibility to a non-existant being sonce it has become clear that the Powers that be on Earth are going to do nothing to make it stop. In other words, we are traumatised and will hide our heads in fairy tales out of desperation.)
Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said. (The gift of proper medical and mental health care would be better for the returning troops- come to that, a *return* would be better for the troops. Not having to worry about your family being blown to bits would be great for the fathers of Iraq.)
Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets." (The "wicked" are already confused. It is the destructive forces of their lies which got you into this situation in the first place.)
The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace." (So, God, send the troops home so they will stop killing people?)
There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too. (I disagree- the cost of self-delusion is pretty high. In thinking that you are *doing something* by praying, you are subtracting energy you could have given to actually doing something. You are also mentally absolving yourself from actually working toward a solution "It's in God's hands" is the biggest, worst cop-out we have going for us.)
"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
------
What Iraq needs is to not be subjected to bombings and the proposed usurping of their natural resources as a "benchmark". They need to be safe from no-knock raids, rapes, and shootings. They need to not be walled into their neighbourhoods, to be able to go outside in safety, to have their lives secure. They need to not be occupied by military forces representing the same government which installed their "evil dictator whom they should be glad we got rid of for them".
Finally, a word from Trotsky: Those who believe in another world are not capable of concentrating on changing this one.
'Prayer patrol' for Baghdad pastor enlists others in a "prayer surge" to entreat God for peace in Iraq's troubled capital
Friday, April 27, 2007
NANCY HAUGHT
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace."
Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences.
Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.
"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va.
"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed."
Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said.
Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets."
The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace."
There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too.
"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
-------
This was in yesterday's "Technology" section- presumably because they have a website.
There's a lot wrong with this, so pardon if I go a bit rambly in spots. Wait- better idea- allow me to parenthesize:
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace." (A better idea, on behalf of Baghdad, would be to resist orders and not bring the violence to the people there. Earthly action for Earthly problems.)
Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences. (Or maybe that minute would be better spent writing to the Congressmen or the UN.)
Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.
(Body armor is a particular need. As would be PTSD treatment, and a return home for the soldiers. The people would probably appreciate electricity and running water in what's left of their homes. A real miracle would be nice- say, the return to life of some 700,000 people. These have not made the list.)
"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va. ("whatever.")
"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed." (We have a man-made conflict for which we are passing off responsibility to a non-existant being sonce it has become clear that the Powers that be on Earth are going to do nothing to make it stop. In other words, we are traumatised and will hide our heads in fairy tales out of desperation.)
Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said. (The gift of proper medical and mental health care would be better for the returning troops- come to that, a *return* would be better for the troops. Not having to worry about your family being blown to bits would be great for the fathers of Iraq.)
Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets." (The "wicked" are already confused. It is the destructive forces of their lies which got you into this situation in the first place.)
The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace." (So, God, send the troops home so they will stop killing people?)
There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too. (I disagree- the cost of self-delusion is pretty high. In thinking that you are *doing something* by praying, you are subtracting energy you could have given to actually doing something. You are also mentally absolving yourself from actually working toward a solution "It's in God's hands" is the biggest, worst cop-out we have going for us.)
"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
------
What Iraq needs is to not be subjected to bombings and the proposed usurping of their natural resources as a "benchmark". They need to be safe from no-knock raids, rapes, and shootings. They need to not be walled into their neighbourhoods, to be able to go outside in safety, to have their lives secure. They need to not be occupied by military forces representing the same government which installed their "evil dictator whom they should be glad we got rid of for them".
Finally, a word from Trotsky: Those who believe in another world are not capable of concentrating on changing this one.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Blackwater- a chapter and some thoughts
I picked up Blackwater, by Jeremy Scahill (Nation Books, Hardcover, $26.95) yesterday at a new book store. Though I plan to read the whole thing, I skipped ahead to almost the last chapter, which deals with New Orleans and the use of mercenary military personel in that area.
The use of this, and other guns-for-hire companies, in New Orleans is certainly cause for alarm. These people are heavily armed, and not subject to the same regulations (such as knowledge of Constitutional law) as regular law enforcement. This is in itself a sign of trouble- that they are hired by private individuals as well as by the US government adds to the concern. Their guns will be pointed in whatever direction benefits the person paying them. And they do not hesitate to pull the triggers.
An aspect not touched on in this is the future of their recruiting patterns. Though made up primarily of former military veterans from many places, not just the US, they will have a growing pool of potential employees as people come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and attempt to re-enter an economy which is in decline. Given the increasing number of "moral waivers", and exeptions for psychiatric troubles now used by US military recruiters, questions of the stability of these future guards for hire need to be asked.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Associations, bad and good- more a ramble than a post
Not book related.
Since becoming involved with a party, I have lost a couple of friends. One in particular is tender and sad to think about.
My Lost Friend was a very good friend (typing "was" in terms of of talking about her is painful). She's involved with a group which requires a security clearance. Our last talk included this:
She:"I don't know what talking to you is doing for my security clearance." Sorta laugh.
Me:"Well, I don't know what talking to you is doing for my Socialist Street Cred." Sorta laugh.
Nothing since. My only hope, really, is that she's alive.
I kind of thought, maybe, that this sort of dis-association only happened in the movies. Naive, perhaps.
Since becoming involved with a party, I have lost a couple of friends. One in particular is tender and sad to think about.
My Lost Friend was a very good friend (typing "was" in terms of of talking about her is painful). She's involved with a group which requires a security clearance. Our last talk included this:
She:"I don't know what talking to you is doing for my security clearance." Sorta laugh.
Me:"Well, I don't know what talking to you is doing for my Socialist Street Cred." Sorta laugh.
Nothing since. My only hope, really, is that she's alive.
I kind of thought, maybe, that this sort of dis-association only happened in the movies. Naive, perhaps.
Friday, April 20, 2007
On the subject of Critical Thinking
I bought a book today for my boy- The Emperor's New Clothes, as retold by Marcus Sedgewick with illustrations by Alison Jay. It's a good story, well-known to most, but not yet to him. I remember it being a favourite when I was a child.
What I liked best then and like best now about the story are the lessons- first, Speak Up, and second, Emperors are not infallible. Now I sort of view it as a primary lesson in questioning authority and not believing everything you hear- trust your eyes and the evidence you gather. I am surprised the story is not banned more often, quite frankly.
It is my hope that this will be a sort of introduction to Critical Thinking skills.
This particular edition is charming- the tailors are weasles (not subtle, sure, but funny), the Emperor a lion, and the illustrations are lovely. The story os told in rhyme, which is generaly a dicey proposition, though this edition is lacking the forced feel that often comes from that form.
MY review of it is positive. We will find out tonight what HE thinks of it- which is the important part.
What I liked best then and like best now about the story are the lessons- first, Speak Up, and second, Emperors are not infallible. Now I sort of view it as a primary lesson in questioning authority and not believing everything you hear- trust your eyes and the evidence you gather. I am surprised the story is not banned more often, quite frankly.
It is my hope that this will be a sort of introduction to Critical Thinking skills.
This particular edition is charming- the tailors are weasles (not subtle, sure, but funny), the Emperor a lion, and the illustrations are lovely. The story os told in rhyme, which is generaly a dicey proposition, though this edition is lacking the forced feel that often comes from that form.
MY review of it is positive. We will find out tonight what HE thinks of it- which is the important part.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
So far...
Parenting Beyond Belief is made up of a wide variety of views. The common thread is parenthood, with a mostly-common thread being atheism. So far my favourite essay is by Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame) about her daughter and their discussions on faith as it relates to Big Things like death. Her honesty with her daughter, and her frank writing style are warm and engaging. It is interesting to see not only what she says to her daughter ("what happens when we die?" "Frankly, darling, we decompose.") but how she follows this up in regular life. As she notes, some people look aghast at the idea of telling a child such a truth. ("Horrible truth" is the actual phrase used).
I wonder, though, about the horror voiced by people about telling kids the truth. While I agree that the truth should be put into terms the child can understand, I also think that many times the intelligence of children is underestimated. I am not saying "my child is a genius and so all children are", or anything of the sort. I do say, though, that they understand a lot more than we think. Their capabilities are often given short shrift.
Also given short shrift is the effect of "white lies" meant to comfort. Santa Claus, Heaven, and the Easter Bunny all spring to mind. Most of us have come to terms with the non-existance of Santa Claus. Many people remember the disappointment in finding out that no, indeed, there is no such person. I don't think anyone has totally lost faith in their parents on finding this out, but some sense of betrayal might well be there. We do get over it.
But what is the point in the first place? Why do we choose Santa Claus and Heaven to put forth as truth, and not, say, Sleeping Beauty?
The thing about Sweeney's presentation of the truth is not just the words she uses, it is also the attitude with which she speaks those words and the way she lives her life which will teach. A bird dies in their back yard, and they watch it for days, every day a little bit less of it remains. They talk about the breakdown of the material, what happens to the material. It is done without fear. It is presented as fact (and it is), but not as a warning, nor as a means of keeping the child in line.
Sweeney's father, who had been very close with the child, dies. Sweeney illustrates to her daughter how he lives on in their memory- in things they do either consciously remembering him, or as a result of his influence on their lives.
It is very clear in her writing, that Julia Sweeney loves her child, has an open and honest relationship with her, and thinks deeply about her welfare. It is her clarity which convinces.
Her atheism is presented without condemnation of religion (her family is religious, Catholic) or excoriation thereof. It is what it is. Clearly, she is at peace with letting go of god. This peace is transmitted to her child.
I wonder, though, about the horror voiced by people about telling kids the truth. While I agree that the truth should be put into terms the child can understand, I also think that many times the intelligence of children is underestimated. I am not saying "my child is a genius and so all children are", or anything of the sort. I do say, though, that they understand a lot more than we think. Their capabilities are often given short shrift.
Also given short shrift is the effect of "white lies" meant to comfort. Santa Claus, Heaven, and the Easter Bunny all spring to mind. Most of us have come to terms with the non-existance of Santa Claus. Many people remember the disappointment in finding out that no, indeed, there is no such person. I don't think anyone has totally lost faith in their parents on finding this out, but some sense of betrayal might well be there. We do get over it.
But what is the point in the first place? Why do we choose Santa Claus and Heaven to put forth as truth, and not, say, Sleeping Beauty?
The thing about Sweeney's presentation of the truth is not just the words she uses, it is also the attitude with which she speaks those words and the way she lives her life which will teach. A bird dies in their back yard, and they watch it for days, every day a little bit less of it remains. They talk about the breakdown of the material, what happens to the material. It is done without fear. It is presented as fact (and it is), but not as a warning, nor as a means of keeping the child in line.
Sweeney's father, who had been very close with the child, dies. Sweeney illustrates to her daughter how he lives on in their memory- in things they do either consciously remembering him, or as a result of his influence on their lives.
It is very clear in her writing, that Julia Sweeney loves her child, has an open and honest relationship with her, and thinks deeply about her welfare. It is her clarity which convinces.
Her atheism is presented without condemnation of religion (her family is religious, Catholic) or excoriation thereof. It is what it is. Clearly, she is at peace with letting go of god. This peace is transmitted to her child.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Here's hoping...
I have a new book- Parenting Beyond Belief- On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, edited by Dale McGowan (American Management Association, paperback, $17.95)
I ordered this book as soon as I heard it was to be released. Odd publisher, but I should not be too surprised that a smaller pub is more willing to put it out than, say, Random House. Contributors include Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame), Penn Jillette, and Richard Dawkins. Forward by Michael Shermer (hmm...that one should be interesting).
Like many parents of little to no faith, I have been a bit disappointed with the lack of non-god-based books on child-rearing vis a vis ethics. We read a lot in my house, and there are a lot of fantasy books in our collections (kid and grown-up), but anything on Why To Be Nice has seemed very Jesusy/Mosesy/Buddha-y. The books aimed at parents specifically have been quite Christian, going by the shelves at Powell's (where there is a huge section of Christian Parenting books). Supply and demand, I know, but my wee demand was left supply-less until this one. (I hope, anyway.)
This is this week's reading.
I ordered this book as soon as I heard it was to be released. Odd publisher, but I should not be too surprised that a smaller pub is more willing to put it out than, say, Random House. Contributors include Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame), Penn Jillette, and Richard Dawkins. Forward by Michael Shermer (hmm...that one should be interesting).
Like many parents of little to no faith, I have been a bit disappointed with the lack of non-god-based books on child-rearing vis a vis ethics. We read a lot in my house, and there are a lot of fantasy books in our collections (kid and grown-up), but anything on Why To Be Nice has seemed very Jesusy/Mosesy/Buddha-y. The books aimed at parents specifically have been quite Christian, going by the shelves at Powell's (where there is a huge section of Christian Parenting books). Supply and demand, I know, but my wee demand was left supply-less until this one. (I hope, anyway.)
This is this week's reading.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Detroit
I have, unfortunately, no pictures on this one.
We toured Detroit today (April 2). The level of poverty we saw almost defies despcription. Not two blocks from Grosse Pointe Farms, accross Alter street lay block after block of damaged, burned, and collapsing buildings. Many built between 1870 and the 1940’s, closely placed and run down, they lack paint, they lack electricity, and there was evidence of at least one which lacked indoor plumbing.
People were sparse, though a group of four or five young children played in front of one of the houses. Very thin, they looked at our vehicle (a large RAV4) with half-hearted wonder as we drove past. Many blocks had swaths of overgrown and garbage-strewn lots which had been bulldozed. The only businesses in view were churches. At least one house of worship could be seen for every two blocks. Also, run down, they offer only the false hope of a nonexistant god. A billboard which almost made me scream declared that “You can be saved by Jesus”.
The answer to the poverty brought into what had once been a working class neighbourhood does not lie in this direction. The decades-long decline- closings of factories and the ripple effects of local businesses shuttering as workers leave or run out of money will not be reversed by prayer, no matter how earnest.
Very near to downtown Detroit is a neighbourhood which in 1993 saw the deaths of seven children in a housefire which has become known as the Mack Avenue Fire. With officials originaly scapegoating the parents, it became clear due to a citizens’ commission that the children (the youngest one just 7months) were victims not of parental neglect, but of poverty and systemic neglect.
Their water had been turned off- unknown to the parents, as the utility company sent no word of the shut off- for non-payement of the bill. ($225 at that point). The father, who held an accounting degree, but who had most recently been employed in the peripheral construction business, went into the basement under the impression that the pipes had frozen. This was February, so it was not irrational to think so. His attempt to heat the pipe with a small flame of course did not bring water through to his family. It did, however, set the unpainted beams of the house smoldering. The fire broke out later that afternoon, when the parents were out scavenging metal to sell for scrap- their only source of income.
The tragedy was compounded by the lack of up-to-date equipment for the fire department- including equipment to remove window bars- a common fixture of the houses in the area.
In the course of the citizens’ inquiry, it beame clear that, far from unusual, this family’s story was too too common. The closings of the factories starting in the 1970’s removed the sources of income and hope for gaining other employment for broad layers of the working families in the area. Even a four-year degree did not help this father find a place to earn a wage.
Many people owned their houses, so leaving the area for work was difficult on the family members who would be left behind, and there was scant hope of selling a working class house in a time of economic decline.
Interestingly, the wealthy areas of Grosse Pointe and Grosse Pointe Farms, built during the same era, suffered not a whit. The houses there- a great number of them mansions, including one of Henry Ford’s houses, are as well-kept as ever. There are plenty of well-stocked stores, and a distinct lack of offers to Buy Your House Any Condition written on crude posters and plastered on poles and walls in the area. The yacht club remains undisturbed by the effects of mass unemployment.
Here is an article from December of 2000 about yet another house fire in the area which has some information on the Mack Fire, as well as on the cuts for firefighting in the area. I wish the article was no longer germaine. Sadly, the conditions not only persist, but have deepened in the area.
We toured Detroit today (April 2). The level of poverty we saw almost defies despcription. Not two blocks from Grosse Pointe Farms, accross Alter street lay block after block of damaged, burned, and collapsing buildings. Many built between 1870 and the 1940’s, closely placed and run down, they lack paint, they lack electricity, and there was evidence of at least one which lacked indoor plumbing.
People were sparse, though a group of four or five young children played in front of one of the houses. Very thin, they looked at our vehicle (a large RAV4) with half-hearted wonder as we drove past. Many blocks had swaths of overgrown and garbage-strewn lots which had been bulldozed. The only businesses in view were churches. At least one house of worship could be seen for every two blocks. Also, run down, they offer only the false hope of a nonexistant god. A billboard which almost made me scream declared that “You can be saved by Jesus”.
The answer to the poverty brought into what had once been a working class neighbourhood does not lie in this direction. The decades-long decline- closings of factories and the ripple effects of local businesses shuttering as workers leave or run out of money will not be reversed by prayer, no matter how earnest.
Very near to downtown Detroit is a neighbourhood which in 1993 saw the deaths of seven children in a housefire which has become known as the Mack Avenue Fire. With officials originaly scapegoating the parents, it became clear due to a citizens’ commission that the children (the youngest one just 7months) were victims not of parental neglect, but of poverty and systemic neglect.
Their water had been turned off- unknown to the parents, as the utility company sent no word of the shut off- for non-payement of the bill. ($225 at that point). The father, who held an accounting degree, but who had most recently been employed in the peripheral construction business, went into the basement under the impression that the pipes had frozen. This was February, so it was not irrational to think so. His attempt to heat the pipe with a small flame of course did not bring water through to his family. It did, however, set the unpainted beams of the house smoldering. The fire broke out later that afternoon, when the parents were out scavenging metal to sell for scrap- their only source of income.
The tragedy was compounded by the lack of up-to-date equipment for the fire department- including equipment to remove window bars- a common fixture of the houses in the area.
In the course of the citizens’ inquiry, it beame clear that, far from unusual, this family’s story was too too common. The closings of the factories starting in the 1970’s removed the sources of income and hope for gaining other employment for broad layers of the working families in the area. Even a four-year degree did not help this father find a place to earn a wage.
Many people owned their houses, so leaving the area for work was difficult on the family members who would be left behind, and there was scant hope of selling a working class house in a time of economic decline.
Interestingly, the wealthy areas of Grosse Pointe and Grosse Pointe Farms, built during the same era, suffered not a whit. The houses there- a great number of them mansions, including one of Henry Ford’s houses, are as well-kept as ever. There are plenty of well-stocked stores, and a distinct lack of offers to Buy Your House Any Condition written on crude posters and plastered on poles and walls in the area. The yacht club remains undisturbed by the effects of mass unemployment.
Here is an article from December of 2000 about yet another house fire in the area which has some information on the Mack Fire, as well as on the cuts for firefighting in the area. I wish the article was no longer germaine. Sadly, the conditions not only persist, but have deepened in the area.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
This is the last time I'm going to talk about Harris- unless he continues to write stuff down
A recent review on the wsws.org of Dawkins' new book- ( http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/dawk-m15.shtml ) prompted a deeper look into Harris, with whom Dawkins has been hanging about. The company you keep, and all that. It's unfortunate thet Dawkins has become such a champion of Harris, and, indeed, I have for some time wondered if they are not just so fast because Harris is, it seems, seen as the Voice Of American Atheism.
Rationalizing Neo Colonialism-
The End of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris (ww norton, paperback 2004)
Sam Harris has gained much attention with the publication of his books, The End of Faith, and Letters to a Christian Nation, as well as a number of op-ed pieces in various mainstream publications. He has been hailed within many atheist and generally secular communities as something of a Rationalists’ Savior. On the surface, his arguments against the current violent trends in fundamentalist religions seem something with which most people would agree. Digging deeper, though, one cannot help but see a disturbing lack of reason in Harris’ own thinking.
It is important to remember, when reading The End Of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (ww norton, paperback), that the book was started on September 12, 2001. As such, the entirety is coloured by what could be described as a sort of philosophical trauma endured by the author. Despite its title, this is not so much a call for reason as a justification for the current policies of aggressive war and neo-colonialist expansionism.
Certainly, the grip which religions have maintained on the minds of so many people needs to be called into question. Indeed, there is much which religions have to answer for- from the suicide bombings perpetrated by many sects from Buddhist Kamikaze pilots, Palestinian Christians, and Islamic Jihadist to the suppression of scientific development and exploration, and unscientific anti-Darwinism. Much damage has been done, physical as well as psychological and social by religion’s call for ignoring the realities of the world in favour of attributing the unknown to the Unknowable. This perpetuation of ignorance has had a terrible effect on humankind. Too many politicians have used the Appeal to the Ultimate Authority to justify the most horrific deeds- often with the complicity of the Earthly religious institutions.
There is no denying that religion has its uses, most famously as “the opiate of the masses”, and there is no doubt that in these time we are seeing a re-administration of this most potent and deadly drug.
Certainly, we do need a call to Reason. This call, though, must itself be reasonable. This is where Harris fails.
Harris' first book is rife with cherry-picked Koran passages and blatant misrepresentations of Islam in particular. The book starts off with an imagined bus ride in which a young man blows himself and others to smithereens. Though much of what we do not know about this person is pointed out, it is only to ask, "Why is it so easy...to guess the young man's religion?"
"Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book- that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs- is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things- or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf- because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God's sake." (109)
Here we have the crux of Harris' argument; that in trying to find the root cause of the problems we now face and in determining our future course, we must ignore history and objective social forces in favour of the simple explanation that Islam is the sole source for all anti-western sentiment.
Throughout the book, he conflates Islam and "The Muslim World" with terror. While it is understandable as an immediate emotional reaction to the falling of the WTC, it has no place in a plea for rationality.
Misleading statements abound. One in particular, on page 123 Harris cites the following quote:
"Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential thinkers in the Islamic world, and the father of modern Islamism among the Sunni, wrote, "The Koran points to another contemptible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter at what price and regardless of quality, honor, and dignity." He comments, " This statement is really a miracle of concision. While it may seem nothing more than a casual fillip against the Jews, it is actually a powerful distillation of the Muslim world view."
This sounds pretty serious. But is it accurate? Even a little outside reading proves it not to be.
First, let us identify Sayyid Qutb. Born in 1906 in Egypt, he moved to Cairo as a teenager to further his education. Not particularly religious, he was known to not even observe the friday evening prayers. His two-year visit to the US in the late 1940’s exposed him to the rampant consumerism and comparatively "loose" behaviour of the post-war boom years. He returned to Egypt disgusted with what he saw and joined the Muslim Brotherhood- hardly a mainstream organization even then. He was jailed for activities with the MB when they openly opposed the government of Jamal Abdul Nasser.
His shaky knowledge of Islamic law, combined with his harsh prison experience gave birth to a radicalized splinter religion wherein traditional interpretation relying on looking at both other passages of the Koran and the Haadeeths gave way to Qutb’s proclamations.
Though his views and methods gained popularity in certain politically disillusioned circles, it is hardly representative of Wahabi or Sunni Islam, nor even of the majority of sects within. It is certainly not the predominant view of "the Muslim world." To claim otherwise is a serious distortion. One must ask why the distortion is there.
In addition to this kind of “mistake”, he adds deliberately provocative turns of phrase- for example, referring to the "twin terrors of Koranic literalism" (p. 34), an obvious reference to the World Trade Center. Another passage: "Yes, the Koran seems to say something that can be construed as a prohibition against suicide- 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:29)- but it leaves many loopholes large enough to fly a 767 through..." (pg. 33, emphasis mine.)
There is also a 5-page (118-122) stretch of selected Koranic exhortations to do violence onto unbelievers of various sorts. While it makes for chilling reading, one could as easily cherry pick a comparable selection from the Bible (Old and New Testament) or just about any other holy book. That the Koran is over-represented in Harris' book there can be no argument. It could well be asked why the Bible is not so represented here. It is an easy game, to pick out atrocities from these holy books, but what is it meant to accomplish?
One has to question Harris's facile identification of “acts of terrorism” with the Arab masses. Those Islamic fundamentalists who pursue a reactionary policy of individual terrorism (mostly against innocents) and the justified struggle against the occupiers are not politically equal. Second, the “poor, uneducated, and exploited Muslims” did not commit “acts of terrorism” until recently. One then must wonder why the Arab/Muslims, whose countries have been occupied or dominated by one or another imperialist power for close to a century, chose this period to engage in such actions. Which then raises the question of the fragmenting of (and sometimes just plain exterminating of, as in Iraq in the 1970's) the socialist/progressive opposition within the Arab countries. Finally, “Collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships” surely begs the question: where did both the Shah of Iran and Saddam originate from other than the machinations of the CIA? Whose military placed the Saud dynasty in power? For that matter, who funded bin Laden in Afghanistan?
Aside from the pervasive anti-Islamic-in-particular bent, some of what Harris writes is quite reasonable. Take for example, the following, found on page 35:
"We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words- "Jesus", "Allah", "Ram"- can mean the difference between eternal torment and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here, it is not surprising that many of us occasionally find it necessary to murder other human beings for using the wrong magic words, or the right ones for the wrong reasons. How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works? Because it says so in our holy books. How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world."
At one point (page 180) we find:
"I believe that [cultural] relativism and pragmatism have already done much to muddle our thinking on a variety of subjects, many of which have more than a passing relevance to the survival of civilisation.
"In philosophical terms, pragmatism can be directly opposed to realism. For the realist, our statements about the world will be "true" or false" not merely in virtue of how they function amid the welter of our other beliefs, or with reference to any culture-bound criteria, but because reality simply is a certain way, independent of our thoughts. Realists believe that there are truths about the world that may exceed our capacity to know them; *there are facts of the matter whether or not we can bring such facts into view.*"
By "realism" Harris it can be assumed to mean philosophical materialism. But why doesn't he use the world materialism? Harris is not a dialectical materialist but a vulgar materialist. As Engels showed in his pamphlet on Fuerbach, vulgar materialism inevitably leads back to idealism because it is unable to deal with the question of social man, real man living in class society. Society is not simply an amalgam of individual egos, but an organism with its own historical laws of development determining social consciousness.
Perhaps due to the trauma of 9/11/01, there seems, a *lack of willingness* on Harris' part to bring some facts into view.
Moving through a selective history of Christianity and Judaism (particularly the Inquisition and the Holocaust), Harris paints a bleak picture of the misuses of faith to suppress and subdue the general population. Along the way, however, a major assumption takes form- that religion itself is to blame for the woes wrought by those wielding it. There is no discussion on the forces outside of religion which bear on the beliefs or the people holding them. There is a distinct lack of historical perspective- only faith - in the form of religion- is to blame. While it can generally be agreed that religion has a lot to answer for, to view it as the be all and end all of motivating factors is to view history with a rather large blind spot.
He briefly decries the "political religions" represented by Stalinism and Maoism. Though it is certain that blind faith in any entity, real or imagined, is a danger it is interesting that he does not tackle more current personages. It is also interesting that these two, figures of the supposed left, are highlighted. Why, it must be asked, are not past fascists’, nor the present Bush Administrations uses of religion brought into question? Where is the examination of the neo-cons’ mobilization of the religious right to gain and keep power? An examination of the use of religion as driver of fear in the current climate would be very useful, indeed. This is, however, not Harris’ thesis, as we see.
While it is true that religion has been a method for the oppression of and promotion of backwardness within the masses within class society, the whys are herein largely ignored in favour of a surface examination of the what. Who benefits from the ignorance and obedience of the people in question? This question is not asked. It is also not answered beyond a brief mention that some of the property seized during the Inquisition made it into the hands of the Church and that rewards for turning in "witches" were sometimes offered to an impoverished peasantry. Not mentioned are the similar rewards offered for turning in “enemy combatants” in Afghanistan. The political motivations of the Holocaust are unexamined, though they are very briefly acknowledged ("Nazism evolved out of a variety of economic and political factors, of course, but it was held together by a belief in the racial purity and superiority of the German people" pg. 101).
While, on page 140, Harris states, "We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly we will do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as a defense of of state practices which are manifestly abhorrent.", he makes no bones about the real source of evil in the world. Ultimately, it is religious faith alone which must be held accountable. It is only the reaction of Islamic Extremists which should be called into question, not the political and economic forces which have shaped the lives of so many in the Middle East and Africa. In Harris' view, the recent uptick in violent incidents can have nothing to do with being subject for so many years to the economic interests and military incursions by the Occidental powers.
His starting point is meant to frighten the Western Mind. The Man on the Bus is both alarming and unrepresentative. While religion has been used through the ages to justify the most atrocious acts, to dismiss out of hand the forces surrounding and shaping the beliefs in question is grossly irresponsible and only serves to incite fear. For what purpose?
Ignored also is the increasingly mid and upper-class makeup of the terrorist leadership in question. Osama himself (a follower of Qutb, no less) comes from the moneyed class and essentially bought his way to the top. How ignoring the facts of history can be called "reasonable" is beyond understanding. Confusing the uses of religion with religion itself will not lead to reasonable thought and action.
Religious tolerance is also given a smack by Harris- he states, partially correctly, that those who preach tolerance and soften the harsher aspects of their religions to better function on modern society do not do anyone any favours, as they serve to perpetuate religion itself and show too much leniency for the excesses of fundamentalism. Harris' views are all or nothing- either be a fundamentalist or get rid of your faith entirely. If you're a fundamentalist (particularly Islamic), get ready to die.
The End Of Faith paints a gloomy picture of reason's future. For Harris, the methods of dealing with extremism called for are the very same for which he decries the extremists. He states (on pages 52/3 of the paperback edition), "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."
While it is true, as he avers early on, that "there is no talking to some people", his answer to the problem is still more reactionary killing. His methods of applying reason are as faulty, selective, dogmatic, and blind as he claims faith to be. This is not entirely surprising, as twisting history to suit one’s needs is a common occurrence when dealing with the ruling classes. It is alarming, however, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist (Harris, according to his bio, is currently working on a doctorate in neuroscience “studying the neurological basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.”), as it flagrantly disregards any observance of the scientific method.
A call for reason is indeed needed at this time- perhaps more than ever before- but this book is not that call. Rather, it serves to justify yet more oppression, less understanding, and further war in the name of defeating a religion which is grossly misrepresented both in practice and in population within these pages. It turns the use of religion as a means of oppression on its head in its call for the use of a Fear Of Religion as the new weapon.
In this Straussian bit of myth-making worthy of any neo-con, Harris helps to created an Enemy Worth Fighting for our age. His insistence that faith alone (ie religion) is to blame for the world's troubles is narrow and misleading. His focus on Islam as the Worst of the Worst is both facile and useful to the ruling classes in their current conflicts. While, as Engels points out, "we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains", Harris falls into the trap of assigning one and only one possible course of action to the Islamic faiths. He also displays willingness to believe that everything follows from religious faith without regard for forces political, social, or historical. To exclude from the analysis the economic and political elements involved begs the question of what master Mr. Harris is serving. Reason is betrayed by such obscurantism.
As socialists, we realize the long history of oppression wrought in the names of various religions. We absolutely reject the continuance of superstitious and backward thinking represented by religious faith. Just as strenuously, though, do we reject the reactionary calls to war- new crusades- supposedly in the defense of "reason" or “civilization”, which only serve to once again pit worker against worker, human against human, for the ultimate gain of the moneyed classes.
It is in the vital interest of the working class to shake off the controlling hand of religion- to be able to view the world rationally, reasonably, and clearly without appeal to “higher powers”. Such appeals serve only to keep ignorance and oppression well-fed.
It is likewise vital to recognize that the absence of religion does not always equal the presence of reason. Though those such as Harris would have you think otherwise, religion is not the only driver of actions.
Rationalizing Neo Colonialism-
The End of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris (ww norton, paperback 2004)
Sam Harris has gained much attention with the publication of his books, The End of Faith, and Letters to a Christian Nation, as well as a number of op-ed pieces in various mainstream publications. He has been hailed within many atheist and generally secular communities as something of a Rationalists’ Savior. On the surface, his arguments against the current violent trends in fundamentalist religions seem something with which most people would agree. Digging deeper, though, one cannot help but see a disturbing lack of reason in Harris’ own thinking.
It is important to remember, when reading The End Of Faith:Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (ww norton, paperback), that the book was started on September 12, 2001. As such, the entirety is coloured by what could be described as a sort of philosophical trauma endured by the author. Despite its title, this is not so much a call for reason as a justification for the current policies of aggressive war and neo-colonialist expansionism.
Certainly, the grip which religions have maintained on the minds of so many people needs to be called into question. Indeed, there is much which religions have to answer for- from the suicide bombings perpetrated by many sects from Buddhist Kamikaze pilots, Palestinian Christians, and Islamic Jihadist to the suppression of scientific development and exploration, and unscientific anti-Darwinism. Much damage has been done, physical as well as psychological and social by religion’s call for ignoring the realities of the world in favour of attributing the unknown to the Unknowable. This perpetuation of ignorance has had a terrible effect on humankind. Too many politicians have used the Appeal to the Ultimate Authority to justify the most horrific deeds- often with the complicity of the Earthly religious institutions.
There is no denying that religion has its uses, most famously as “the opiate of the masses”, and there is no doubt that in these time we are seeing a re-administration of this most potent and deadly drug.
Certainly, we do need a call to Reason. This call, though, must itself be reasonable. This is where Harris fails.
Harris' first book is rife with cherry-picked Koran passages and blatant misrepresentations of Islam in particular. The book starts off with an imagined bus ride in which a young man blows himself and others to smithereens. Though much of what we do not know about this person is pointed out, it is only to ask, "Why is it so easy...to guess the young man's religion?"
"Given the vicissitudes of Muslim history, however, I suspect that the starting point I have chosen for this book- that of a single suicide bomber following the consequences of his religious beliefs- is bound to exasperate many readers, since it ignores the painful history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It ignores the collusion of the Western powers with corrupt dictatorships. It ignores the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. But I will argue that we can ignore all of these things- or treat them only to put them safely on the shelf- because the world is filled with poor, uneducated, and exploited people who do not commit acts of terrorism, indeed who would never commit acts acts of the sort which has become commonplace among Muslims; and the Muslim world has no shortage of educated and prosperous men and women, suffering little more than their infatuation with Koranic eschatology, who are eager to murder infidels for God's sake." (109)
Here we have the crux of Harris' argument; that in trying to find the root cause of the problems we now face and in determining our future course, we must ignore history and objective social forces in favour of the simple explanation that Islam is the sole source for all anti-western sentiment.
Throughout the book, he conflates Islam and "The Muslim World" with terror. While it is understandable as an immediate emotional reaction to the falling of the WTC, it has no place in a plea for rationality.
Misleading statements abound. One in particular, on page 123 Harris cites the following quote:
"Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential thinkers in the Islamic world, and the father of modern Islamism among the Sunni, wrote, "The Koran points to another contemptible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter at what price and regardless of quality, honor, and dignity." He comments, " This statement is really a miracle of concision. While it may seem nothing more than a casual fillip against the Jews, it is actually a powerful distillation of the Muslim world view."
This sounds pretty serious. But is it accurate? Even a little outside reading proves it not to be.
First, let us identify Sayyid Qutb. Born in 1906 in Egypt, he moved to Cairo as a teenager to further his education. Not particularly religious, he was known to not even observe the friday evening prayers. His two-year visit to the US in the late 1940’s exposed him to the rampant consumerism and comparatively "loose" behaviour of the post-war boom years. He returned to Egypt disgusted with what he saw and joined the Muslim Brotherhood- hardly a mainstream organization even then. He was jailed for activities with the MB when they openly opposed the government of Jamal Abdul Nasser.
His shaky knowledge of Islamic law, combined with his harsh prison experience gave birth to a radicalized splinter religion wherein traditional interpretation relying on looking at both other passages of the Koran and the Haadeeths gave way to Qutb’s proclamations.
Though his views and methods gained popularity in certain politically disillusioned circles, it is hardly representative of Wahabi or Sunni Islam, nor even of the majority of sects within. It is certainly not the predominant view of "the Muslim world." To claim otherwise is a serious distortion. One must ask why the distortion is there.
In addition to this kind of “mistake”, he adds deliberately provocative turns of phrase- for example, referring to the "twin terrors of Koranic literalism" (p. 34), an obvious reference to the World Trade Center. Another passage: "Yes, the Koran seems to say something that can be construed as a prohibition against suicide- 'Do not destroy yourselves' (4:29)- but it leaves many loopholes large enough to fly a 767 through..." (pg. 33, emphasis mine.)
There is also a 5-page (118-122) stretch of selected Koranic exhortations to do violence onto unbelievers of various sorts. While it makes for chilling reading, one could as easily cherry pick a comparable selection from the Bible (Old and New Testament) or just about any other holy book. That the Koran is over-represented in Harris' book there can be no argument. It could well be asked why the Bible is not so represented here. It is an easy game, to pick out atrocities from these holy books, but what is it meant to accomplish?
One has to question Harris's facile identification of “acts of terrorism” with the Arab masses. Those Islamic fundamentalists who pursue a reactionary policy of individual terrorism (mostly against innocents) and the justified struggle against the occupiers are not politically equal. Second, the “poor, uneducated, and exploited Muslims” did not commit “acts of terrorism” until recently. One then must wonder why the Arab/Muslims, whose countries have been occupied or dominated by one or another imperialist power for close to a century, chose this period to engage in such actions. Which then raises the question of the fragmenting of (and sometimes just plain exterminating of, as in Iraq in the 1970's) the socialist/progressive opposition within the Arab countries. Finally, “Collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships” surely begs the question: where did both the Shah of Iran and Saddam originate from other than the machinations of the CIA? Whose military placed the Saud dynasty in power? For that matter, who funded bin Laden in Afghanistan?
Aside from the pervasive anti-Islamic-in-particular bent, some of what Harris writes is quite reasonable. Take for example, the following, found on page 35:
"We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words- "Jesus", "Allah", "Ram"- can mean the difference between eternal torment and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here, it is not surprising that many of us occasionally find it necessary to murder other human beings for using the wrong magic words, or the right ones for the wrong reasons. How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works? Because it says so in our holy books. How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world."
At one point (page 180) we find:
"I believe that [cultural] relativism and pragmatism have already done much to muddle our thinking on a variety of subjects, many of which have more than a passing relevance to the survival of civilisation.
"In philosophical terms, pragmatism can be directly opposed to realism. For the realist, our statements about the world will be "true" or false" not merely in virtue of how they function amid the welter of our other beliefs, or with reference to any culture-bound criteria, but because reality simply is a certain way, independent of our thoughts. Realists believe that there are truths about the world that may exceed our capacity to know them; *there are facts of the matter whether or not we can bring such facts into view.*"
By "realism" Harris it can be assumed to mean philosophical materialism. But why doesn't he use the world materialism? Harris is not a dialectical materialist but a vulgar materialist. As Engels showed in his pamphlet on Fuerbach, vulgar materialism inevitably leads back to idealism because it is unable to deal with the question of social man, real man living in class society. Society is not simply an amalgam of individual egos, but an organism with its own historical laws of development determining social consciousness.
Perhaps due to the trauma of 9/11/01, there seems, a *lack of willingness* on Harris' part to bring some facts into view.
Moving through a selective history of Christianity and Judaism (particularly the Inquisition and the Holocaust), Harris paints a bleak picture of the misuses of faith to suppress and subdue the general population. Along the way, however, a major assumption takes form- that religion itself is to blame for the woes wrought by those wielding it. There is no discussion on the forces outside of religion which bear on the beliefs or the people holding them. There is a distinct lack of historical perspective- only faith - in the form of religion- is to blame. While it can generally be agreed that religion has a lot to answer for, to view it as the be all and end all of motivating factors is to view history with a rather large blind spot.
He briefly decries the "political religions" represented by Stalinism and Maoism. Though it is certain that blind faith in any entity, real or imagined, is a danger it is interesting that he does not tackle more current personages. It is also interesting that these two, figures of the supposed left, are highlighted. Why, it must be asked, are not past fascists’, nor the present Bush Administrations uses of religion brought into question? Where is the examination of the neo-cons’ mobilization of the religious right to gain and keep power? An examination of the use of religion as driver of fear in the current climate would be very useful, indeed. This is, however, not Harris’ thesis, as we see.
While it is true that religion has been a method for the oppression of and promotion of backwardness within the masses within class society, the whys are herein largely ignored in favour of a surface examination of the what. Who benefits from the ignorance and obedience of the people in question? This question is not asked. It is also not answered beyond a brief mention that some of the property seized during the Inquisition made it into the hands of the Church and that rewards for turning in "witches" were sometimes offered to an impoverished peasantry. Not mentioned are the similar rewards offered for turning in “enemy combatants” in Afghanistan. The political motivations of the Holocaust are unexamined, though they are very briefly acknowledged ("Nazism evolved out of a variety of economic and political factors, of course, but it was held together by a belief in the racial purity and superiority of the German people" pg. 101).
While, on page 140, Harris states, "We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly we will do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as a defense of of state practices which are manifestly abhorrent.", he makes no bones about the real source of evil in the world. Ultimately, it is religious faith alone which must be held accountable. It is only the reaction of Islamic Extremists which should be called into question, not the political and economic forces which have shaped the lives of so many in the Middle East and Africa. In Harris' view, the recent uptick in violent incidents can have nothing to do with being subject for so many years to the economic interests and military incursions by the Occidental powers.
His starting point is meant to frighten the Western Mind. The Man on the Bus is both alarming and unrepresentative. While religion has been used through the ages to justify the most atrocious acts, to dismiss out of hand the forces surrounding and shaping the beliefs in question is grossly irresponsible and only serves to incite fear. For what purpose?
Ignored also is the increasingly mid and upper-class makeup of the terrorist leadership in question. Osama himself (a follower of Qutb, no less) comes from the moneyed class and essentially bought his way to the top. How ignoring the facts of history can be called "reasonable" is beyond understanding. Confusing the uses of religion with religion itself will not lead to reasonable thought and action.
Religious tolerance is also given a smack by Harris- he states, partially correctly, that those who preach tolerance and soften the harsher aspects of their religions to better function on modern society do not do anyone any favours, as they serve to perpetuate religion itself and show too much leniency for the excesses of fundamentalism. Harris' views are all or nothing- either be a fundamentalist or get rid of your faith entirely. If you're a fundamentalist (particularly Islamic), get ready to die.
The End Of Faith paints a gloomy picture of reason's future. For Harris, the methods of dealing with extremism called for are the very same for which he decries the extremists. He states (on pages 52/3 of the paperback edition), "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."
While it is true, as he avers early on, that "there is no talking to some people", his answer to the problem is still more reactionary killing. His methods of applying reason are as faulty, selective, dogmatic, and blind as he claims faith to be. This is not entirely surprising, as twisting history to suit one’s needs is a common occurrence when dealing with the ruling classes. It is alarming, however, coming from someone claiming to be a scientist (Harris, according to his bio, is currently working on a doctorate in neuroscience “studying the neurological basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.”), as it flagrantly disregards any observance of the scientific method.
A call for reason is indeed needed at this time- perhaps more than ever before- but this book is not that call. Rather, it serves to justify yet more oppression, less understanding, and further war in the name of defeating a religion which is grossly misrepresented both in practice and in population within these pages. It turns the use of religion as a means of oppression on its head in its call for the use of a Fear Of Religion as the new weapon.
In this Straussian bit of myth-making worthy of any neo-con, Harris helps to created an Enemy Worth Fighting for our age. His insistence that faith alone (ie religion) is to blame for the world's troubles is narrow and misleading. His focus on Islam as the Worst of the Worst is both facile and useful to the ruling classes in their current conflicts. While, as Engels points out, "we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains", Harris falls into the trap of assigning one and only one possible course of action to the Islamic faiths. He also displays willingness to believe that everything follows from religious faith without regard for forces political, social, or historical. To exclude from the analysis the economic and political elements involved begs the question of what master Mr. Harris is serving. Reason is betrayed by such obscurantism.
As socialists, we realize the long history of oppression wrought in the names of various religions. We absolutely reject the continuance of superstitious and backward thinking represented by religious faith. Just as strenuously, though, do we reject the reactionary calls to war- new crusades- supposedly in the defense of "reason" or “civilization”, which only serve to once again pit worker against worker, human against human, for the ultimate gain of the moneyed classes.
It is in the vital interest of the working class to shake off the controlling hand of religion- to be able to view the world rationally, reasonably, and clearly without appeal to “higher powers”. Such appeals serve only to keep ignorance and oppression well-fed.
It is likewise vital to recognize that the absence of religion does not always equal the presence of reason. Though those such as Harris would have you think otherwise, religion is not the only driver of actions.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Why Darwin Matters might not be the book for me
I'm still working on it, but there have been a couple of disturbing developments. The biggest one is the chapter "Why Christians and Conservatives Shouls Accept Evolution". In this chapter is a sub-chapter titled "Evolution and the Conservative Theory of Free Market Economics". In this sub-chapter is a comparison between Darwin's theory of natural selection and Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand-
"Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is precicely parallel to Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand. Darwin focused on showing how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of individual competition among people. The natural economy mirrors the artificial economy. Conservatives embrace free market capitalism, and they are against excessive top-down governmental regulation of the economy; they understand that the most efficient economy emerges from the complex, bottom-up behaviours of individuals pursuing their own self-interest without awareness of the larger consequences of their actions."
Let's pause for a moment here.
Though conservatives may embrace this idea- is it true? Do the best systems evolve (if you will) in an arena of unencumbered self-interest? Further, the question must be asked- "Best for whom?" Society at large? Doubtful, if history is any example.
Anyhoo- still reading it....Well, more truthfully, still trying to find where the kid put it....
"Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is precicely parallel to Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand. Darwin focused on showing how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of individual competition among people. The natural economy mirrors the artificial economy. Conservatives embrace free market capitalism, and they are against excessive top-down governmental regulation of the economy; they understand that the most efficient economy emerges from the complex, bottom-up behaviours of individuals pursuing their own self-interest without awareness of the larger consequences of their actions."
Let's pause for a moment here.
Though conservatives may embrace this idea- is it true? Do the best systems evolve (if you will) in an arena of unencumbered self-interest? Further, the question must be asked- "Best for whom?" Society at large? Doubtful, if history is any example.
Anyhoo- still reading it....Well, more truthfully, still trying to find where the kid put it....
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Salt Lake City Shootings and such
There was, when I was there in the mid-1990's, a growing Bosnian and Russian population. Most of the Bosnians (and some Sebs) were fleeing violence. Salt Lake being what it is- insular, homogenous, and isolated in spite of having an international airport- these populations kept pretty much to themselves. Most were not LDS, and this put them out of the mainstream. Muslims were "not even Christian", and so even further out of the main.
This past week saw a horrific shooting by a young man who was of the Bosinan community in Salt Lake.
Since this person had been a toddler, he had been subject to huge amounts of violence- direct threats to his existance which go far beyond the school tauntings often associated with these sudden outbursts of violence. He likely never got any kind of counseling for it, and living in Salt Lake, where there is a large, likewise scarred, Bosnian population served to both isolate and re-traumatise what was already a pretty shaky foundation. Being muslim in Salt Lake is no picnic, and being Muslim in Salt Lake with massive trauma and post 9/11 suspicion of Muslims is something I don't even like to think about.
Does any of this excuse what happened? No. Absolutely not. But it did not happen in a vacuum and maybe understanding what happened and why can prevent things like this from happening again.
The long-term effects of war are something we'd better learn to deal with, given both the number of returning war veterans and war survivors this world is going to have.
Given that we send people in to commit what was done to this young man, and that no re-conditioning is de rigure for returning combat vererans- given that seeking help of the psychological kind ias something which can endanger a military career, and given the number of people who are fleeing war, and often ending up here or in otherwise alien cultures, the isolation and trauma will only serve to create more situations such as the one in Salt Lake.
This past week saw a horrific shooting by a young man who was of the Bosinan community in Salt Lake.
Since this person had been a toddler, he had been subject to huge amounts of violence- direct threats to his existance which go far beyond the school tauntings often associated with these sudden outbursts of violence. He likely never got any kind of counseling for it, and living in Salt Lake, where there is a large, likewise scarred, Bosnian population served to both isolate and re-traumatise what was already a pretty shaky foundation. Being muslim in Salt Lake is no picnic, and being Muslim in Salt Lake with massive trauma and post 9/11 suspicion of Muslims is something I don't even like to think about.
Does any of this excuse what happened? No. Absolutely not. But it did not happen in a vacuum and maybe understanding what happened and why can prevent things like this from happening again.
The long-term effects of war are something we'd better learn to deal with, given both the number of returning war veterans and war survivors this world is going to have.
Given that we send people in to commit what was done to this young man, and that no re-conditioning is de rigure for returning combat vererans- given that seeking help of the psychological kind ias something which can endanger a military career, and given the number of people who are fleeing war, and often ending up here or in otherwise alien cultures, the isolation and trauma will only serve to create more situations such as the one in Salt Lake.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Why Darwin Matters and some other stuff
Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer, Times Books- hardback, $22.00 (eek!)
(Subtitle- The Case Against Intelligent Design)
I've just started this book, and have got through the prologue, and the first two chapters. The prologue makes a nice little dismissal of the continuing relavence of Marx, but I'm going to let that slide for now. It also goes into some interesting information about the author himself- he was at one time an evangelical, dinosaur-denying Christian. Education put a stop to that. He's now a regular columnist for Scientific American magazine as well as publisher of Skeptic magazine.
The first chapter is a darned good briefing on what evolution is- dispelling many of the myths used by the ID arguers, and giving a concise timeline and explanation of Darwin's discoveries and the implications thereof.
Chapter two- which I am going to re-read for further writing- is entitled "Why People Do Not Accept Evolution". In this chapter, Shermer brings up an interesting point when he says
"There is, however, a greater threat to the theory of evolution today: not from those who resist evolution, but from those who misunderstand it. Most people know very little about evolution, and this makes it easier for the people who do not accept evolution to encourage others to question the theory, even to the point of denial."
This is, I think, a very important point. For many, evolution is often accepted, sort of. Not understood, but taken for granted as what happened. One could argue that at least they acept it. I don't think that's enough, though. I will certainly admit that my own knowledge in this area is lacking, but, hopefully, growing.
Evolution is especiallly tricky, though, as so many other elements of scientific investigation and knowledge rest on this theory. Geology, biology, chemistry. It is also important to know what evolution is *not*. From defining the words involved (particularly "theory"), to the process of events, the lack of knowledge has given the proponents of anti-scientific modes of thought much leeway.
"If we decended from apes, why are there still apes?" "How come there are no transitional fossils?" Just two of the questions born of, and preying on, the lack of knowledge and understanding involved.
End of part one.
Charming picture pre-hairbrush:
Oh, yes, this reminds me- did you know that goosebumps are an evolutionary remnant of our "monkey days"? Indeed, just as other furry animals have the ability to puff up in anger or for size-maximizing appearance, goosebumps would, had we kept our hair, do the same for us. There, vesitges of our ancestors.
(Subtitle- The Case Against Intelligent Design)
I've just started this book, and have got through the prologue, and the first two chapters. The prologue makes a nice little dismissal of the continuing relavence of Marx, but I'm going to let that slide for now. It also goes into some interesting information about the author himself- he was at one time an evangelical, dinosaur-denying Christian. Education put a stop to that. He's now a regular columnist for Scientific American magazine as well as publisher of Skeptic magazine.
The first chapter is a darned good briefing on what evolution is- dispelling many of the myths used by the ID arguers, and giving a concise timeline and explanation of Darwin's discoveries and the implications thereof.
Chapter two- which I am going to re-read for further writing- is entitled "Why People Do Not Accept Evolution". In this chapter, Shermer brings up an interesting point when he says
"There is, however, a greater threat to the theory of evolution today: not from those who resist evolution, but from those who misunderstand it. Most people know very little about evolution, and this makes it easier for the people who do not accept evolution to encourage others to question the theory, even to the point of denial."
This is, I think, a very important point. For many, evolution is often accepted, sort of. Not understood, but taken for granted as what happened. One could argue that at least they acept it. I don't think that's enough, though. I will certainly admit that my own knowledge in this area is lacking, but, hopefully, growing.
Evolution is especiallly tricky, though, as so many other elements of scientific investigation and knowledge rest on this theory. Geology, biology, chemistry. It is also important to know what evolution is *not*. From defining the words involved (particularly "theory"), to the process of events, the lack of knowledge has given the proponents of anti-scientific modes of thought much leeway.
"If we decended from apes, why are there still apes?" "How come there are no transitional fossils?" Just two of the questions born of, and preying on, the lack of knowledge and understanding involved.
End of part one.
Charming picture pre-hairbrush:
Oh, yes, this reminds me- did you know that goosebumps are an evolutionary remnant of our "monkey days"? Indeed, just as other furry animals have the ability to puff up in anger or for size-maximizing appearance, goosebumps would, had we kept our hair, do the same for us. There, vesitges of our ancestors.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Problems revisited
There's a lot in Problems Of Everyday Life (Trotsky) to consider. One of the essays involved rudeness- and the rudness of the revolutionary comes into question. About that section, I wrote:
If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.
I would like to clarify this somewhat, in light of a recent event.
While I still think people should be polite whenever possible, I do also very firmly believe that counter-revolutionary ideas should not be nurtured, and should indeed be cut off at the first sign of appearance (once a mistake, twice a tendency). In *political* discourse, it is of the utmost importance to seperate the personal from the political. If, then, a worker advocated something which would undermine the revolution, to call that worker's dedication into question would be justified. If, after explaining why their idea was not within the interests of the revolution, they persisted, it would be wise to not associate with that person.
This is not to say that a revolutionary leader can go around making personal remarks about workers (or others) and get a free pass- but on the subject of revolution, the personal is immaterial. To take having an idea shot down (for whatever reason, really, but *with reason*) as personal is a mistake.
If, after the revolution, leaders are seen as condescending, the problem of counter-revolutionary actions will grow. The workers who will fight for the revolution will as soon give it up if they see their concerns brushed aside by the future leaders of revolution in the same dismissive manner as that of the elites of today.
I would like to clarify this somewhat, in light of a recent event.
While I still think people should be polite whenever possible, I do also very firmly believe that counter-revolutionary ideas should not be nurtured, and should indeed be cut off at the first sign of appearance (once a mistake, twice a tendency). In *political* discourse, it is of the utmost importance to seperate the personal from the political. If, then, a worker advocated something which would undermine the revolution, to call that worker's dedication into question would be justified. If, after explaining why their idea was not within the interests of the revolution, they persisted, it would be wise to not associate with that person.
This is not to say that a revolutionary leader can go around making personal remarks about workers (or others) and get a free pass- but on the subject of revolution, the personal is immaterial. To take having an idea shot down (for whatever reason, really, but *with reason*) as personal is a mistake.
Friday, January 05, 2007
List
I am sorta reading:
Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett
Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Chandrasekaran
And Scientific American Magazine.
I seem to be taking a few months' break. Time management has been kind of a bear.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett
Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Chandrasekaran
And Scientific American Magazine.
I seem to be taking a few months' break. Time management has been kind of a bear.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Working and Reading
It's hard. Boo and hoo, of course, but it is. I actually have a chance to read something today and am going to start with the Sam Harris book.
I told my friend about this book, and she said, "Letters to a Christian Nation? There's a problem right there." It is interesting to note that he has titled what is meant to be a book in argument (or continuation of argument) for secularization so. I am hoping it will prove to be a tongue in cheek excersize on his part, though, after The End Of Faith, which purported to be a plea for rational thought, my hopes are slim. We'll see.
This brings up some thoughts, though- how open a mind should a person keep, in the face of the obvious? Carl Sagan said that keeping an open mind is good, but not so open that your brains fall out.
---more later.
Later:
I told my friend about this book, and she said, "Letters to a Christian Nation? There's a problem right there." It is interesting to note that he has titled what is meant to be a book in argument (or continuation of argument) for secularization so. I am hoping it will prove to be a tongue in cheek excersize on his part, though, after The End Of Faith, which purported to be a plea for rational thought, my hopes are slim. We'll see.
This brings up some thoughts, though- how open a mind should a person keep, in the face of the obvious? Carl Sagan said that keeping an open mind is good, but not so open that your brains fall out.
---more later.
Later:
Friday, October 13, 2006
New Books
My new list of books I'll be reading soon-
The End- Lemony Snicket
Letter to a Christian Nation- Sam Harris
I will also be re-reading The Walter Mosley book, too.
The End- Lemony Snicket
Letter to a Christian Nation- Sam Harris
I will also be re-reading The Walter Mosley book, too.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Holy Crap- New posts coming soon.
So, as is my way, I got very busy, forgot my password and did not post for a long time, BUT- I have been....reading. "What?" you may ask- and you may. A lot, I will answer. Tune in possibly tomorrow for more.....
Well, maybe not tomorrow, as the new Lemony Snicket is coming out and I have all 12 previous books in first editions and...yes, I am like that. Soooory- here's a cute cop to mollify you:
Well, maybe not tomorrow, as the new Lemony Snicket is coming out and I have all 12 previous books in first editions and...yes, I am like that. Soooory- here's a cute cop to mollify you:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
