![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
- There weren't ads insisting it were really possible and could happen
- The plot weren't an annoying apocalyptic myth going around for years already
- And if astronomers and others weren't having to reassure terrified people that the end of the world is not imminent, thanks partly to the film's advertising
Here we have something new (albeit less so than when I came across the news).
In short, the Victoria State Government has indicated an intention to approve a curriculum of secular humanist lessons for primary school students. These would run as an alternative to the existing religious education in schools. When I was in primary school, we were to choose a scripture class to attend or else go to non-scripture where we would sit quietly and perhaps draw until it was over. I think this is a good thing - a few years ago I actually considered doing something similar until I realised the school would probably not approve of an untrained, unaccredited person attempting to teach stuff to the non-scripture students. It would be a vast improvement to have people who actually know what they are doing and who have a coherent education plan offering education in humanist principles.
There seem to be two separate bodies in Victoria responsible for accrediting volunteer religious teachers. Access Ministries, which handles the Christian educators, and another handling everything else, World Conference of Religions for Peace. Access Ministries appears to be objecting to this move while World Conference of Religions for Peace appears to be in favour. Not especially pleased there was seen a need to defend humanism as a legitimate perspective to hold but ah well.
What has been interesting me is the claim from Access Ministries that this course should be denied approval because humanism is not a religion. I have seen numerous times religious persons insisting that any atheistic position or philosophy is a religion regardless of what its proponents say (with the apparent meaning religion is a bad thing). In this case both Access Ministries and the Victorian Humanist Society agree humanism is not a religion. I am inclined to say the course should be approved even so. Even if not actually a religion, humanism tends to fill the same sort of space in people's minds - a broad worldview informing and / or offering perspectives, principles and morals which can be used as a basis for individuals and / or communities to function.
Am also, by the way, pleased Muslim volunteers will be approved to teach their religion too, and surprised they were not already approved. Perhaps my faint memory of their being such classes available in primary school was not real, although this is in a different state.
Now, a chunk from the article:
The course appears to cover or at least brush against material I have been saying for a while now should be incorporated as foundational in primary education - although my stated focus would be on information literacy, skepticism & critical thinking, propaganda / persuasion techniques and recognition of same as well as a secular education in principles of ethics, morality and reasoning. I tend to think these should be considered as fundamental in education as things like literacy and mathematics since they concern the ability to find and evaluate information.
If Ms Paddison is right about the relevant legislation then I think it should be changed so as not to be restricted to "faith-based religion" - if the only reason to teach children a Buddhist perspective on the world but not a humanist one is that the law makes no provision for the latter, well, I do not not see what distinguishes them so sufficiently that such a distinction should be made.
I would also like to draw attention to something which confused me the first few times I read this article and which seems excessively unclear. That being, the Ms Stokes quoted at the end is not so far as I am aware affiliated with Access Ministries. Rather, she is quoted speaking on behalf of an organisation called Salt Shakers, a socially conservative theocratic organisation whose primary concerns seem to be denying sexual, reproductive and religious freedom and making from the state an official instrument of Christianity.
There was another quote from them earlier in the article which I also at first misinterpreted to be from Access Ministries:
I've yet to find out anything about witchcraft (is this refering to Wicca or some other religion? I would not be surprised if there were a lot of conflation going on here) or Satanism that would make me think they are any less suitable to be taught to children than Christianity. Possibly more suitable.
What's going on is that witchcraft and Satanism are being held up as emblems of evil and depravity even though this does not reflect their nature, then comparing humanism with them to cast it in a similar light, much like when people hold up the spectre of polyamoury as an argument for denying the right to same-gender marriage. Hopefully as more classes like this take hold fewer people will give such rubbish credence.
As for the claim of Australia being a Christian nation, I just went and nervously checked our constitution. It has not the word 'Christ' or 'Christian' anywhere in it. What I did find was this:
It seems Australia is not a Christian nation after all; merely one composed of a largely Christian population.
In short, the Victoria State Government has indicated an intention to approve a curriculum of secular humanist lessons for primary school students. These would run as an alternative to the existing religious education in schools. When I was in primary school, we were to choose a scripture class to attend or else go to non-scripture where we would sit quietly and perhaps draw until it was over. I think this is a good thing - a few years ago I actually considered doing something similar until I realised the school would probably not approve of an untrained, unaccredited person attempting to teach stuff to the non-scripture students. It would be a vast improvement to have people who actually know what they are doing and who have a coherent education plan offering education in humanist principles.
There seem to be two separate bodies in Victoria responsible for accrediting volunteer religious teachers. Access Ministries, which handles the Christian educators, and another handling everything else, World Conference of Religions for Peace. Access Ministries appears to be objecting to this move while World Conference of Religions for Peace appears to be in favour. Not especially pleased there was seen a need to defend humanism as a legitimate perspective to hold but ah well.
What has been interesting me is the claim from Access Ministries that this course should be denied approval because humanism is not a religion. I have seen numerous times religious persons insisting that any atheistic position or philosophy is a religion regardless of what its proponents say (with the apparent meaning religion is a bad thing). In this case both Access Ministries and the Victorian Humanist Society agree humanism is not a religion. I am inclined to say the course should be approved even so. Even if not actually a religion, humanism tends to fill the same sort of space in people's minds - a broad worldview informing and / or offering perspectives, principles and morals which can be used as a basis for individuals and / or communities to function.
Am also, by the way, pleased Muslim volunteers will be approved to teach their religion too, and surprised they were not already approved. Perhaps my faint memory of their being such classes available in primary school was not real, although this is in a different state.
Now, a chunk from the article:
Humanist Society education director Harry Gardner said he had designed a course to be taught from prep to year 6 called "Applied Ethical Education — Humanism for Schools". It covers subjects such as the art of living, the environment, philosophy, science and world citizenship. The curriculum is likely to be submitted for approval next year.
Dr Gardner, a former CSIRO research scientist, said his course adopted the "honesty ethic of science (that is, not fudging results)" with the intention that children would be inspired to think for themselves.
"If accredited for use in schools, the Humanist Society of Victoria envisages that the volunteer teachers would develop a comradely relationship to the regular religious instructors in adjacent rooms," he said.
But Access Ministries chief executive Evonne Paddison said while it was not her decision as to who should or should not have access to state schools, she did not think humanism fell under "the relevant legislation to be classified as a faith-based religion in religious instruction in the way that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism" did.
Ms Stokes said humanists could not expect to have it both ways. "It doesn't make sense because they proclaim themselves not to be a religion," she said.
Religious instruction in state schools should be Christian because "basically we are a Christian nation", she said.
The course appears to cover or at least brush against material I have been saying for a while now should be incorporated as foundational in primary education - although my stated focus would be on information literacy, skepticism & critical thinking, propaganda / persuasion techniques and recognition of same as well as a secular education in principles of ethics, morality and reasoning. I tend to think these should be considered as fundamental in education as things like literacy and mathematics since they concern the ability to find and evaluate information.
If Ms Paddison is right about the relevant legislation then I think it should be changed so as not to be restricted to "faith-based religion" - if the only reason to teach children a Buddhist perspective on the world but not a humanist one is that the law makes no provision for the latter, well, I do not not see what distinguishes them so sufficiently that such a distinction should be made.
I would also like to draw attention to something which confused me the first few times I read this article and which seems excessively unclear. That being, the Ms Stokes quoted at the end is not so far as I am aware affiliated with Access Ministries. Rather, she is quoted speaking on behalf of an organisation called Salt Shakers, a socially conservative theocratic organisation whose primary concerns seem to be denying sexual, reproductive and religious freedom and making from the state an official instrument of Christianity.
There was another quote from them earlier in the article which I also at first misinterpreted to be from Access Ministries:
Research director Jenny Stokes said: "If you go there, where do you stop? What about witchcraft or Satanism?
"If you accredit humanism, then those things would have an equal claim to be taught in schools."
I've yet to find out anything about witchcraft (is this refering to Wicca or some other religion? I would not be surprised if there were a lot of conflation going on here) or Satanism that would make me think they are any less suitable to be taught to children than Christianity. Possibly more suitable.
What's going on is that witchcraft and Satanism are being held up as emblems of evil and depravity even though this does not reflect their nature, then comparing humanism with them to cast it in a similar light, much like when people hold up the spectre of polyamoury as an argument for denying the right to same-gender marriage. Hopefully as more classes like this take hold fewer people will give such rubbish credence.
As for the claim of Australia being a Christian nation, I just went and nervously checked our constitution. It has not the word 'Christ' or 'Christian' anywhere in it. What I did find was this:
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.
It seems Australia is not a Christian nation after all; merely one composed of a largely Christian population.
Frustration
2008-12-02 22:20New show advertised recently, Eli Stone. Seemed like fun, a main character having extravagant, perhaps prophetic visions. I thought I would give this sort of show another try after snarling at Medium.
I don't like it. After a few minutes, I realised this was the show I heard about some months ago, in which the opening episode establishes in court that vaccinations using thimerosol (faintly disguised as 'mercurisol' in the show) as a preservative cause autism, and that the company producing the vaccine was aware of this.
I don't like seeing such a charged falsehood presented on television as fact, considering it has been established firmly in multiple studies that there is no such link, and yet there are still numerous parents trying to sue companies which produce vaccines for 'making their child autistic'.
That, and the scene toward the end in which, after the main character is told that his visions are caused by an inoperable brain aneurysm, another character tells him they can have another explanation and perhaps he is a prophet, apparently in a Christian framework (Moses is referenced as an example 'I'm not' 'but God told Moses he would send a prophet to every generation'). The main character says he does not believe in God and gets told "Do you believe in right and wrong? Do you believe in justice? Do you believe in love? Then you believe in God." This sort of declaration that being a moral person is identical with belief in the Christian God annoys me a lot.
Plus, I would have preferred if he decided to attribute significance to his visions on his own.
Perhaps it would have been better viewed as some sort of alternate reality story or fantasy, but I think I would rather not watch a show which seems to have as its primary message that evidence-free belief and decision-making is better than the other kind.
I don't like it. After a few minutes, I realised this was the show I heard about some months ago, in which the opening episode establishes in court that vaccinations using thimerosol (faintly disguised as 'mercurisol' in the show) as a preservative cause autism, and that the company producing the vaccine was aware of this.
I don't like seeing such a charged falsehood presented on television as fact, considering it has been established firmly in multiple studies that there is no such link, and yet there are still numerous parents trying to sue companies which produce vaccines for 'making their child autistic'.
That, and the scene toward the end in which, after the main character is told that his visions are caused by an inoperable brain aneurysm, another character tells him they can have another explanation and perhaps he is a prophet, apparently in a Christian framework (Moses is referenced as an example 'I'm not' 'but God told Moses he would send a prophet to every generation'). The main character says he does not believe in God and gets told "Do you believe in right and wrong? Do you believe in justice? Do you believe in love? Then you believe in God." This sort of declaration that being a moral person is identical with belief in the Christian God annoys me a lot.
Plus, I would have preferred if he decided to attribute significance to his visions on his own.
Perhaps it would have been better viewed as some sort of alternate reality story or fantasy, but I think I would rather not watch a show which seems to have as its primary message that evidence-free belief and decision-making is better than the other kind.
(no subject)
2008-09-15 23:49Google Reader Shared Items
Scienceblogs
- Thank You Thursdays: Your (Notice I Didn't Say Female) Brain [via
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gentle_gamer. Comments to the post made me warier of this video. Did she have that brain cut in half to illustrate her point? Am pretty sure most brains I have seen are in a single piece unless cut. Much of her described experience of having a stroke is not unfamiliar to me, if to a greater degree. Not, I stress, identical, but apparently similar to something which can be accessible to me. If I were to release certain brakes, if I could remember how. I have a lot of hostility to the frame in which she presents her thesis, despite finding much recognition or even agreement in the details.
I dislike the way people jumped on ropty's comment ("Non-gendered? Dividing the world into two parts, one is linear, unemotional, calculating and the other about feeling, emotions, timeless oneness. Gee, that sounds rather gendered to me.") because this is a thing which is done, this is a way in which brain functioning is presented and those traits are very gendered in this society. Also that my readings of other writings on neurobiology suggest this is a highly oversimplified perspective on human brain hemisphere functioning, though as this was a talk for a lay audience that may have been deliberate. And it still seems to me her described experiences are very 'on point' even if I am not so fond of her presentation of them.
I wonder if making such experience accessible at will would have the effect on the world Dr Taylor describes.] - Video: Blaser tournament unwisely fits Japanese robots with lasers -- PEW PEW [via soltice. If we intercut this with some footage of people we could make a movie of it.]
- New Hubble Images Reveal Plethora of Interacting Galaxies [via soltice. Pretty!]
- Young feminists just want to "go wild and pole dance" [via gentle_gamer.]
- How To Sing Like A Planet [via gentle_gamer. Wherever there be medium and motion, music. The article makes me angry, with it's talk of 'merely' as if scientific explanation of such magnificent happenings cannot be also magnificent, wondrous or beautiful themselves. I lost a lot of esteem for the writer's prior musings when I read that part.]
- Atheism is a condom for your mind [via soltice. The part I disagree with is the phrasing suggestive that removing religious belief is a part and precursor to mental hygiene and health -- I would place taking care of the mind first, and if that leads to the removal of religion then so be it. Someone eventually said so too.]
- Equality Through Intimidation? The Houston HRC Dinner Protest [via gentle_gamer.]
- Comical Surroundings [via soltice. This is interesting but I think I would not like my furniture to be displaying always the same images and words. After so many repetitions reading, wearying.]
- Modular, shape-shifting robots get right back up to creep you out [via soltice. Shiny! Still a ways to go before they are as capable as the version seen in Terminator 2 though.]
- Australia to Remove Antigay Discrimination From 100 Laws [via soltice. An improvement, but not enough.]
- Maintaining Moore's law with new memristor circuits [via soltice. Fascinating (a thing said when {in this case} interested but uneducated in a subject).]
Scienceblogs
- Vaccination doesn't cause autism volume what-are-we-up-to-now? [And yet we see how well the continued lack of evidence substantiating a connection is received. *sigh*]
Tags:
Connexions 20080824
2008-08-24 23:58I wonder very much about continuing these. If I did not, then I would say nothing of most of what I read, and give it less thought than if I attempted to find words for each. If I did not, I would read more, and quicker. I cannot quite shake the feeling that posting these is a pointless mechanical activity, a task continued because it was once set.
These links do not form an entirely honest record. There are items I have read and not noted because I did not wish to give the tacit approval of a link and did not know how to express or form criticism of the content in question.
The reason the majority of these are from shared items is, of course, that I have resolved to first become current with those before reading material of my own subscription.
About.com: Agnosticism / Atheism
Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Google Reader shared items
These links do not form an entirely honest record. There are items I have read and not noted because I did not wish to give the tacit approval of a link and did not know how to express or form criticism of the content in question.
The reason the majority of these are from shared items is, of course, that I have resolved to first become current with those before reading material of my own subscription.
About.com: Agnosticism / Atheism
- Bias and Vested Interest: Interpreting Facts Unreasonably [Well, yes. I strive to avoid this but on good days do not pretend I achieve it.]
Dispatches from the Culture Wars
- Even More Political Chutzpah [I suspect most people do not investigate such claims - I know I tend not to, and rely on information provided by those who do.]
Google Reader shared items
- Mysterious White Rock Fingers on Mars [via gentle_gamer. Mars may not be my favourite planet (which is? none, really, the overexposure of Mars or any other location seen as a prospect for life grates on me) but areology is fascinating!]
- Because I can't help but make a LIAR out of myself [via soltice. I agree with this post. That photo is far too pretty for me to quite believe. Really, flower-filled meadows? Wild grass is brown, not green, and never contains flowers. This sort of scene is about as fantastical to me as the elves and snow I read of in stories.]
- Inflation Theory Takes a Little Kick in the Pants [via soltice. The people commenting (at least at first) do not seem have understood what they read - the main claim is that a previously thought clear test for inflation has been found to produced by other sources too, and thus detection of this gravitational radiation cannot easily be taken as confirmation of the theory.]
- Industry execs sound IPv6 alarm - is the sky really falling? [via soltice. Mm. I tend to be wary of people saying we have plenty of time to deal with a foreseen problem. Often, it seems solving it takes longer than projected.]
- HP Mini-Note gets unboxed, causes extreme jealousy [via soltice. Presumably this computer is a big deal.]
- Let's all pack up and move to Great Britain [via soltice. Odd seeing posts from feeds I have subscribed to shared by other people, and not reading them more directly. this comment sort of seems on the nose to me:
"Us Brits aren't precisely an areligious lot - most of us have some sort of faith, but it's so vague and noncommittal that it passes for atheism.
You know the kind of thing - "I believe there's something comforting out there but I don't know what it is and whatever it is I'm not going to let it affect my life. It's just nice to believe sometimes."
So, when Brits say they're afraid of "religion", what they're really afraid of is passionate religion. And seeing as Anglicanism is by definition almost never passionate, they're afraid of other religions being passionate. And in practice that means...Islam.
When my countryfolk talk about the evils of religion, they're talking about mosques, the Quran and ramadan. But what they're thinking about is bombs.
So you see we're not so elightened after all."]
Pam's House Blend
theinferior4+1
Tags:
Here is an article at the Guardian about the closeness of the Australian election. Suggested correction: Howard is the Prime Minister, not the Premier. Premiers run states.
Are the Guardian not known as the Grauniad for their frequent errors?
Here is a video found at Pharyngula in which Roy Zimmerman makes light of Jerry Falwell's God. The video apparently was snagged from God is for Suckers, which site I discovered today still mocks Ann Coulter by calling her transsexual even though I asked them to knock it off back in June.
On the lighter side of things, this delightful post by Rebecca at Skepchicks. Make sure you watch the video; I was laughing pretty hard by the end of it. The cold reading bingo card Skeptico (the first blog I started following) made is pretty great too.
Aaand all the way back at Pharyngula, this post about a poll asking how Baylor University ought to approach Intelligent Design. I am torn on this. Would it be better to pursue fruitless research in order to allow it to demonstrate its hollowness, or give it up now for the philosophical vapour it is?
Lastly I leave you with Memories from Larvatus Prodeo (in exile), in which interesting things are said about one John Howard, Prime Minister.
Are the Guardian not known as the Grauniad for their frequent errors?
Here is a video found at Pharyngula in which Roy Zimmerman makes light of Jerry Falwell's God. The video apparently was snagged from God is for Suckers, which site I discovered today still mocks Ann Coulter by calling her transsexual even though I asked them to knock it off back in June.
On the lighter side of things, this delightful post by Rebecca at Skepchicks. Make sure you watch the video; I was laughing pretty hard by the end of it. The cold reading bingo card Skeptico (the first blog I started following) made is pretty great too.
Aaand all the way back at Pharyngula, this post about a poll asking how Baylor University ought to approach Intelligent Design. I am torn on this. Would it be better to pursue fruitless research in order to allow it to demonstrate its hollowness, or give it up now for the philosophical vapour it is?
Lastly I leave you with Memories from Larvatus Prodeo (in exile), in which interesting things are said about one John Howard, Prime Minister.
Skepchickal Wizards
2007-08-24 20:34 I was saddened to hear of Don Herbert's (Mr Wizard) death a couple of months ago, even though I knew of him only by reputation. Memoirs of a Skepchick ran a Youtube video competition in his honour and the winners were announced at the end of last month (there is not enough time in the day for me to read every feed I subscribed to, unfortunately). My favourite was this one, but all of them were great.
More videos available on the finalists' page.
More videos available on the finalists' page.
Religious belief in Australia is falling, sadly more from apathy than anything else, I think. Our local media seemed not so excited about it but PZ Myers is positively emerald. ^_^
Steinn Sigurðsson|Dynamics of Cats has been to a conference and oh how I envy him. I mean, he has to endure terrible hardships, but just look at the conference highlights he has posted so far here (+!), here (amongst other things, Barnard's Star appears not to have any candidates so far so no Barnardian eels, alas, while Proxima Centauri may with further inspection) and here.
I won't say much because, really, all I have to go on are the quick bullet points he has posted so far, but I have not been so hungry since the last time I was in a really good bookshop. A lot of this is amazing and fascinating and the more information we get on the population of planets out there the more wonders we know.
If I were to go into academia this is what I would study, but alas I lack the skills and the dedication, so I will just sit here on the sidelines. :-P
And now it is off to sleep for me. Keep well, people.
Love,
Tricia Fakename
Steinn Sigurðsson|Dynamics of Cats has been to a conference and oh how I envy him. I mean, he has to endure terrible hardships, but just look at the conference highlights he has posted so far here (+!), here (amongst other things, Barnard's Star appears not to have any candidates so far so no Barnardian eels, alas, while Proxima Centauri may with further inspection) and here.
I won't say much because, really, all I have to go on are the quick bullet points he has posted so far, but I have not been so hungry since the last time I was in a really good bookshop. A lot of this is amazing and fascinating and the more information we get on the population of planets out there the more wonders we know.
If I were to go into academia this is what I would study, but alas I lack the skills and the dedication, so I will just sit here on the sidelines. :-P
And now it is off to sleep for me. Keep well, people.
Love,
Tricia Fakename
Responding to one of my posts just below, stacis_leak mentioned the blasphemy challenge. I was going to say that one of the purposes of the challenge was to raise awareness of disbelief and let people know it is okay to question their church but now I have checked the site itself and see no mention of any purpose but the winning of free DVDs so I suppose that was a post hoc justification.
I do think that, as a tool for persuading others to investigate it may not be so effective (no evidence either way for me, right now) since one of the main responses from Christians seems to be horror that people could risk themselves so carelessly and utterly (that and attempting to define away the blasphemy), not the thought that 'these people are so confident of their stance, I wonder if there is anything to it'.
So, I wanted to consider what might be a counter-challenge, something to mirror it from the other side. What I came up with was people demonstrating their belief in an afterlife by arranging for the posting of a video of their suicide. That would certainly produce horror in those who do not believe there is an afterlife and it would certainly not make me wonder if there was something to their beliefs; without some evidence apart from mere conviction I would simply think them deluded to the point of self destruction.
Well, it does not make a perfect analogy. So far as I know most religions prohibit suicide (which I suppose is necessary for a religion promising paradise to be successful).
stacis_leak mentioned the blasphemy challenge. I was going to say that one of the purposes of the challenge was to raise awareness of disbelief and let people know it is okay to question their church but now I have checked the site itself and see no mention of any purpose but the winning of free DVDs so I suppose that was a post hoc justification.I do think that, as a tool for persuading others to investigate it may not be so effective (no evidence either way for me, right now) since one of the main responses from Christians seems to be horror that people could risk themselves so carelessly and utterly (that and attempting to define away the blasphemy), not the thought that 'these people are so confident of their stance, I wonder if there is anything to it'.
So, I wanted to consider what might be a counter-challenge, something to mirror it from the other side. What I came up with was people demonstrating their belief in an afterlife by arranging for the posting of a video of their suicide. That would certainly produce horror in those who do not believe there is an afterlife and it would certainly not make me wonder if there was something to their beliefs; without some evidence apart from mere conviction I would simply think them deluded to the point of self destruction.
Well, it does not make a perfect analogy. So far as I know most religions prohibit suicide (which I suppose is necessary for a religion promising paradise to be successful).
Yes, I was intending to go to sleep after that last post; my head hurts and all. However, I found myself turning over one of shelleybear 's late posts in my mind, trying to understand how it could have happened.
The thought that keeps returning to my mind is that the jury has been dishonest in reaching their conclusion. At least, I am assuming events occurred as described in the linked article. Even though I was not there and have no access to any of the evidence I have no reason to believe otherwise (I try to be aware of the provisionality of my knowledge in all cases, usually not explicitly and with the optimistic thought that people realise this. This time I could be bothered.) so for now I think any dishonesty must lie in the verdict.
Have I rambled into a thicket? I think I have. I say dishonesty because how else can they, with video footage of the assault and the admission of the assaulter, still find these people* guilty?
( * )
There is a disconnect in me. I keep trying and failing to guess at the thought path that would lead people to conclude it is okay to reach the verdict they did. Is there something I am missing? A detail of the trial or law perhaps, if not in the minds of those involved? Perhaps the answer is as simple as 'the jurors were unethical and took advantage of an opportunity to have the legal system punish people they disliked'.
My mind wandered all the way into how people make decisions about right and wrong and the relatively easy target of Divine Command theory, rubbish idea that it is. The connection is forgotten for now, alas, but I did have a hypothetical debate with a hypothetical proponent of the theory (there are still real ones about) who maintained for the purposes of this train of thought that the killing of human beings is wrong because God says it is wrong.
Ve attempted to refuse my doubly hypothetical yet based in reality question 'what if God declared it a good act to kill humans of class X (where X is not a category of people who have committed a crime [although if you were to maintain that disobedience toward God were itself a capital crime I suppose they still would be {unless we stipulate also that they have not actually committed any disobedience and merely fall into an identifiable category <parentheticals, whee!>}])?' by claiming 'God would not do that'.
Of course, I pressed on the matter of, if God's will/decree is what defines right and wrong there is no reason why such a decree should not be made**. Ve claimed, then, that God is eternal, unchanging and necessarily as Ve is or else there could not be existence, therefore such hypothetical questions are invalid because there is no possibility in any reality - it is not a sensible question.
I consider this to be a concession of the argument since I think it requires some set of principles prior to God which dictate Vis nature and, by extension, what is moral. The original purpose of writing this entire post was to ask if that were a valid objection to my hypothetical question but since in the writing I have concluded it is not I am now asking if I am in fact mistaken. I am sure I have made some unjustified/unjustifiable leap somewhere.
And of course, one of the dangers of conducting arguments where one takes both sides is a tendency to use weaker arguments for the side not favoured but since there is only one question at stake in this case I have hopefully not been too bad.
**Well, if a previous decree were that right and wrong could not be changed in future there would be, actually. I did not realise this at the time.
shelleybear 's late posts in my mind, trying to understand how it could have happened.The thought that keeps returning to my mind is that the jury has been dishonest in reaching their conclusion. At least, I am assuming events occurred as described in the linked article. Even though I was not there and have no access to any of the evidence I have no reason to believe otherwise (I try to be aware of the provisionality of my knowledge in all cases, usually not explicitly and with the optimistic thought that people realise this. This time I could be bothered.) so for now I think any dishonesty must lie in the verdict.
Have I rambled into a thicket? I think I have. I say dishonesty because how else can they, with video footage of the assault and the admission of the assaulter, still find these people* guilty?
( * )
There is a disconnect in me. I keep trying and failing to guess at the thought path that would lead people to conclude it is okay to reach the verdict they did. Is there something I am missing? A detail of the trial or law perhaps, if not in the minds of those involved? Perhaps the answer is as simple as 'the jurors were unethical and took advantage of an opportunity to have the legal system punish people they disliked'.
My mind wandered all the way into how people make decisions about right and wrong and the relatively easy target of Divine Command theory, rubbish idea that it is. The connection is forgotten for now, alas, but I did have a hypothetical debate with a hypothetical proponent of the theory (there are still real ones about) who maintained for the purposes of this train of thought that the killing of human beings is wrong because God says it is wrong.
Ve attempted to refuse my doubly hypothetical yet based in reality question 'what if God declared it a good act to kill humans of class X (where X is not a category of people who have committed a crime [although if you were to maintain that disobedience toward God were itself a capital crime I suppose they still would be {unless we stipulate also that they have not actually committed any disobedience and merely fall into an identifiable category <parentheticals, whee!>}])?' by claiming 'God would not do that'.
Of course, I pressed on the matter of, if God's will/decree is what defines right and wrong there is no reason why such a decree should not be made**. Ve claimed, then, that God is eternal, unchanging and necessarily as Ve is or else there could not be existence, therefore such hypothetical questions are invalid because there is no possibility in any reality - it is not a sensible question.
I consider this to be a concession of the argument since I think it requires some set of principles prior to God which dictate Vis nature and, by extension, what is moral. The original purpose of writing this entire post was to ask if that were a valid objection to my hypothetical question but since in the writing I have concluded it is not I am now asking if I am in fact mistaken. I am sure I have made some unjustified/unjustifiable leap somewhere.
And of course, one of the dangers of conducting arguments where one takes both sides is a tendency to use weaker arguments for the side not favoured but since there is only one question at stake in this case I have hopefully not been too bad.
**Well, if a previous decree were that right and wrong could not be changed in future there would be, actually. I did not realise this at the time.
On the other hand
2007-06-22 19:51Bronze Dog is still made of awesome.
Also, now I know how bad the latest government plan is. Can't vote Liberal, maybe not Labor either.
Also, now I know how bad the latest government plan is. Can't vote Liberal, maybe not Labor either.
I Have SEEN The Light!
2007-03-19 20:27 Reading through the 56th Skeptic's Circle I had an epiphany near the beginning of Tara C. Smith|Aetiology's entry Skiff: long on rhetoric, short on light. When she wrote:
This sort of story is not going to have much effect on anyone who knows what's what except to annoy them but I believe it can be powerful for swaying the uninformed. If a person pretends they were once a whole-hearted supporter of something but later changed their mind after learning more about it, well, it sets them up as someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, someone honest about their position, someone open-minded enough to give things a chance before rejecting them, an independent thinker. People love following independent thinkers.
"Presenting a typical creationist background ("I was raised to be aI had not realised until I saw them both mixed in together but the conversion stories that make up the standard presentation are very similar: "I was once a sinner" vs. "I was once a Darwinist [whatever that is]". I suppose that goes along with the equally standard and also silly claim that evolution is a religion, which apparently is a bad thing when that religion is not Christianity.
'Darwinist'"), Skiff began by documenting his early educational
history, where he claimed he was "trained to see religion as an
obstacle to knowledge" and then became a Christian after reading the
Bible in college."
This sort of story is not going to have much effect on anyone who knows what's what except to annoy them but I believe it can be powerful for swaying the uninformed. If a person pretends they were once a whole-hearted supporter of something but later changed their mind after learning more about it, well, it sets them up as someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, someone honest about their position, someone open-minded enough to give things a chance before rejecting them, an independent thinker. People love following independent thinkers.
The world was fresh and new and damp today. I felt recharged. Nothing of particular note happened here though, so instead I offer some links.
First, the science: Clifford|Asymptotia explains Light Cones. The super short version is, since no signal can travel faster than light, the region of the universe you can affect or be affected by is limited by where light could have reached you from a signal emitted in the past, or where a signal you emit could reach in the future. Nothing happening on Eris in the past hour, for example, could possibly have affected us yet, not until there has been time for light to arrive. Now go read the actual entry if you haven't already. Even if you know all about it Clifford's style is delightful.
Cool enough to get a separate mention, Neil of What You're Doing Is Rather Desperate mentioned in a comment a site which allows people to set up an RSS feed showing when their light cone (from the moment of their birth) passes celestial objects. I'm setting one up now.
On the recent anniversary of the rather important U.S. case Roe v. Wade was held Blog for Choice day, in which people were invited to write about why they support the right of women to control their own bodies. I don't have much particular to say for myself so here are some links to a few prominent feminist bloggers instead.
First the succinct: Roxanne|Rox Populi asks 'Why am I Pro-Choice?'
Amanda Marcotte|Pandagon writes in Blogging for choice and beyond choice why expanding talk about women's rights will actually recruit more people to the cause, not fewer.
Jill|Feministe writes the very thorough Why I'm Pro-Choice and the disturbing Antichoicers bring the Crazy. And the misogyny. And the racism. In the comments of the latter post ako says of antichoice people: "Maybe they think rape just pops out of the sky like lightning. It’s no good trying to blame lightning for existing. The only thing to do is avoid attracting it."
[Edit: More from Shakespeare's Sister on why it is important not to be complacent, plus links to others]
And in other areas of enlightenment, Frank the Financially Savvy Atheist hosts the 52nd Skeptic's Circle while over at Abe Linkum can be found the latest Carnival of the Godless.
Now would also be a good time to start reading Order of the Stick and/or Erfworld for those who aren't already. Rich Burlew has just added an RSS feed to the site and it goes right back to the beginning of the comics. Handy for just scrolling through them.
First, the science: Clifford|Asymptotia explains Light Cones. The super short version is, since no signal can travel faster than light, the region of the universe you can affect or be affected by is limited by where light could have reached you from a signal emitted in the past, or where a signal you emit could reach in the future. Nothing happening on Eris in the past hour, for example, could possibly have affected us yet, not until there has been time for light to arrive. Now go read the actual entry if you haven't already. Even if you know all about it Clifford's style is delightful.
Cool enough to get a separate mention, Neil of What You're Doing Is Rather Desperate mentioned in a comment a site which allows people to set up an RSS feed showing when their light cone (from the moment of their birth) passes celestial objects. I'm setting one up now.
On the recent anniversary of the rather important U.S. case Roe v. Wade was held Blog for Choice day, in which people were invited to write about why they support the right of women to control their own bodies. I don't have much particular to say for myself so here are some links to a few prominent feminist bloggers instead.
First the succinct: Roxanne|Rox Populi asks 'Why am I Pro-Choice?'
Amanda Marcotte|Pandagon writes in Blogging for choice and beyond choice why expanding talk about women's rights will actually recruit more people to the cause, not fewer.
Jill|Feministe writes the very thorough Why I'm Pro-Choice and the disturbing Antichoicers bring the Crazy. And the misogyny. And the racism. In the comments of the latter post ako says of antichoice people: "Maybe they think rape just pops out of the sky like lightning. It’s no good trying to blame lightning for existing. The only thing to do is avoid attracting it."
[Edit: More from Shakespeare's Sister on why it is important not to be complacent, plus links to others]
And in other areas of enlightenment, Frank the Financially Savvy Atheist hosts the 52nd Skeptic's Circle while over at Abe Linkum can be found the latest Carnival of the Godless.
Now would also be a good time to start reading Order of the Stick and/or Erfworld for those who aren't already. Rich Burlew has just added an RSS feed to the site and it goes right back to the beginning of the comics. Handy for just scrolling through them.
Something I submitted has been given the Orac treatment. Although it is a shame, things just don't work that way. At least we can all have a good giggle when someone tries to trick us. That, or righteous outrage.
They did come to the door this morning, then were chased off again before I had much chance to chat with them (I grow only slowly bored with the religious so long as the exchange is courteous - as all mine have been to date). I did manage to snag their literature before the door was closed on them, though (Watchtower and Awake!, both for January 2007). Should keep me amused for a while. I mean to post my thoughts on those piece by bloody piece until they are done. ^_^
Jehovah's Emissaries started with a biblical quote supposedly prophecying the end of sickness, then showed a page from their issue of Awake! illustrating some illnesses not yet cured by Science! [when argued against by the antiscientific (creationists, homeopaths, The Postmodernist and other mythical beasts which frolic freely in the Fields of Fancy) it must always be referred to as Science! and pronounced, just so], apparently in an attempt to undermine Science! by pointing out past failures and prepping me for accepting an unevidenced conclusion. This would have been a good time to mention smallpox and polio but at this point I was expecting to have them for play for a while yet. Plus honesty compels me to admit my doubt that science (not when it is part of my argument, oh no you don't) will eliminate sickness. I try not to underestimate the power of evolution. Sickness will end in the future, mind, I just do not think it will be Science! that does it. So instead I asked why I should take that seriously.
They said it was a good question. Flattering tactic, praise the other person, make them feel good about themself, think you respect them and their points are sophisticated and they will be more likely to listen to you. That's folk psychology btw, show it is untrue and I will try to drop that belief.
But I was saying. They asked if I was interested in the Bible and believed in God. My answer was yes and no, respectively, which took him a little thought to process. Oh yes, far's I can remember the woman (there was one of each [N.B. if I said 'the cat' and 'the dog' and there was one of each it would not mean there are no other animals to potentially choose from] did not speak. I don't like that, may mean nothing though.
Next question I think he was probing for some angle to get to grips with me on and asked why I don't think there is any such thing as a 'God' - was it perhaps because of all the suffering in the world? Of course not. God may after all be evil, and I said as much. I did not laugh in their faces (nor do I recall being tempted to do so, but the absurdity of this conversation as recounted does suggest I might have), instead adding that in fact I never had any good reason to think so. He started asking about my upbringing then, I suppose he might have thought perhaps I had been raised antitheist or some such thing but there the conversation and this post end.
Hypothetical Indexation of Romps Through JW Literature Here
P.S. Speaking of puzzling beliefs, yesterday in the city I came across Deepak Chopra's name a couple of times. I think the universe wants me to have an aneurysm.
P.P.S. Lyricafication for Appropriatude:
A glorious hallelujah
The distant flutter of angels
They're all too far, too far to reach for you
In my sweet serenity
Hoping you will ever find me in any place
I will call it solitude when all my songs fade in vain
In
my voice, far away to eternity
Jehovah's Emissaries started with a biblical quote supposedly prophecying the end of sickness, then showed a page from their issue of Awake! illustrating some illnesses not yet cured by Science! [when argued against by the antiscientific (creationists, homeopaths, The Postmodernist and other mythical beasts which frolic freely in the Fields of Fancy) it must always be referred to as Science! and pronounced, just so], apparently in an attempt to undermine Science! by pointing out past failures and prepping me for accepting an unevidenced conclusion. This would have been a good time to mention smallpox and polio but at this point I was expecting to have them for play for a while yet. Plus honesty compels me to admit my doubt that science (not when it is part of my argument, oh no you don't) will eliminate sickness. I try not to underestimate the power of evolution. Sickness will end in the future, mind, I just do not think it will be Science! that does it. So instead I asked why I should take that seriously.
They said it was a good question. Flattering tactic, praise the other person, make them feel good about themself, think you respect them and their points are sophisticated and they will be more likely to listen to you. That's folk psychology btw, show it is untrue and I will try to drop that belief.
But I was saying. They asked if I was interested in the Bible and believed in God. My answer was yes and no, respectively, which took him a little thought to process. Oh yes, far's I can remember the woman (there was one of each [N.B. if I said 'the cat' and 'the dog' and there was one of each it would not mean there are no other animals to potentially choose from] did not speak. I don't like that, may mean nothing though.
Next question I think he was probing for some angle to get to grips with me on and asked why I don't think there is any such thing as a 'God' - was it perhaps because of all the suffering in the world? Of course not. God may after all be evil, and I said as much. I did not laugh in their faces (nor do I recall being tempted to do so, but the absurdity of this conversation as recounted does suggest I might have), instead adding that in fact I never had any good reason to think so. He started asking about my upbringing then, I suppose he might have thought perhaps I had been raised antitheist or some such thing but there the conversation and this post end.
Hypothetical Indexation of Romps Through JW Literature Here
P.S. Speaking of puzzling beliefs, yesterday in the city I came across Deepak Chopra's name a couple of times. I think the universe wants me to have an aneurysm.
P.P.S. Lyricafication for Appropriatude:
You are here alone again
In your sweet insanity
All too calm, you hide yourself from reality
Do you call it solitude? Do you call it liberty?
When all the world turns away to leave you lonely
The fields are filled with desires
All voices crying for freedom
But all in vain they will fade away
There's only you to answer you, forever
A glorious hallelujah
The distant flutter of angels
They're all too far, too far to reach for you
In my sweet serenity
Hoping you will ever find me in any place
I will call it solitude when all my songs fade in vain
In
my voice, far away to eternity
The Xmas Eve Edition of the Carnival of the Godless is up at God is for Suckers. Dedicated to Sean, who arranged to host this one but died before he could see it done. I would have submitted my previous post but took too long writing it (procrastinating me). Anyway, go, read, enjoy. It has a delicious Christmas filling.
What's All This To Me?
2006-12-24 22:14I am not a religious person. Never have been, never observed any religious holy day , so what is this time of year to me?
Well, I am sure you will know all about this solstice, dear reader. It is the shortest night of the year. In the northern hemisphere, where western civilisation was cultured, it is the longest. A long, dark, cold time when it may have seemed as if the sun and life were never going to return. No wonder there is such a long tradition of merrymaking associated with the (northern) winter solstice, older by far than the tradition which claims it today.
It is a very simple thing to describe. Revelry, gift-giving, decorations. Sure we can have all this without needing some special occasion but it does help to have a reminder now and again. Or an excuse, if certain people need one to have fun.
For me, the tree is the heart of the festivities. Seeing it shining, decorated and glowing through the night from deep inside with all the colours of the rainbow always warms my heart. A very fitting centrepiece for what is traditionally a very dark time of the year. Even here where we have plenty of light it still holds powerful associations - of light, fresh air, green and growing things, gifts for loved ones and enough shiny to make a magpie blush. I suppose that is much the same as elsewhere.
I love the solstice because it has accumulated such an intensely human holiday. Food. Drink. Dance. Song. Love. Sex. Compassion. Hope. Stories. Is it not a wonderful thing to share the night with close friends and tell tales of all the things we hold in our hearts? Tales of all times and places, of gods and heroes and monsters and all our other creations, the great and terrible deeds that live in our imaginations. It is a celebration of the best parts of what we call 'humanity'.
That's what this is to me.
[For an example just listen here [Windows Media Player|Real Player (Part 1), Windows Media Player|Real Player (Part 2)]] for an explanation of how Berlioz - a heathen, a Deist apparently - nonetheless managed to produce a beautifully composed version of the Jesus myth, from ABC Classic FM's Keys to Music program]
