- Amy Wallace
How Panicked parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All.'
Wired Magazine
11/09
10.28.2009
Rationality in History
"Looking back over history, rationality has been the anomaly. Being rational takes work, education, and a sober determination to avoid making hasty references, even when they appear to make perfect sense."
10.24.2009
Poor enemy of the supreme essence
François-Marie Arouet was a brilliant man. The very essence of the French Enlightenment, he was a well-regarded philosopher and oft-quoted writer, although you've likely never heard that name.
Arouet, was quite complex in his beliefs. Born in Paris, November 21, 1764, he was a man of irrepressible wit, he was virulently anti-slavery, and a staunch supporter of civil liberties and free-trade. Yet, he was distrustful of democracy as he believed the average man was too stupid to rule himself. In fact he viewed democracy as "propagating the idiocy of the masses." He also was scornful of the Jews, saying among other things that they were "an ignorant and barbarous people."
The man was, by no means an atheist - quite the opposite . . . He was a devout believer in a supreme being and dismissed atheists as stupid and dangerous. Contrarily, he was an outspoken opponent of Religion and often faced the ire of the Catholic church:
Criticize the servant, but respect the master.
God should not suffer for the stupidity of the priest:
Let us recognize this God, although he is poorly served.
Let us recognize this God, although he is poorly served.
The excerpt above is taken from a brief work entitled "Epistle to the author of the book The Three Impostors", written in 1768, and directed at the anonymous author of the work of that name.
According to Mr. Arouet, The Three Impostors was a horrendously misguided and harmful text that denied the existence of a supreme divinity. He declared it a "very dangerous work, full of coarse atheism, without wit and devoid of philosophy."
This was apparently a "dangerous work" because it dared to question the notion of a supreme being.
Arouet espoused a strong belief that a supreme being was a necessity for society because those who might chance punishment on earth in committal of a crime, might, on further review - decide against the commission of that very crime were an eternity of punishment to face the transgressor.
Thus, in his response Arouet expounds the idea that the existence of God necessarily helps to establish and enforce a natural social order. To that point, in the most famous line of Mr. Arouet's work, the following oft-quoted, but apparently misunderstood line appears:
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
You may recognize that as a quote not by Arouet, but instead by Voltaire . . . and you would be correct - François-Marie Arouet and Voltaire are one and the same.
What Voltaire was clearly trying to say here is that even if there were no God, man would invent the concept of a supreme being - because man is a weak-willed animal and needs an invisible father-figure to mete out reward and punishment for bad behaviour.
Voltaire truly believed that without the threat of eternal punishment or promise of eternal reward, man was simply incapable of moral decisions based on what is right. To Voltaire, a supreme being and eternity were an absolute necessity for the concept of the "Social Contract" to work correctly.
This otherwise brilliant philosopher who, despite his dismissal of the dogma of organized religion, accepted, unquestionably, it's most basic tenets.
The irony is of course, that since there is no god, man DID in fact, invent a supreme being.
So despite his strong deist views, Voltaire is a favourite of the Atheist - and admittedy, I myself have been known to quote Voltaire liberally. To wit:
Atheists love this particularly quote and gleefully use it as an example of the religious establishment's attempts to use faith in a higher power (absurdity) to elicit such religiously-based atrocities as, for example, the Crusades.
And indeed as stated earlier, while a "believer," Voltaire was certainly no proponent of organized religion - so it is obvious that Voltaire meant this is in a broader definition . . . that ANYONE who can get you to believe something - religiously; politically; socially, economically, philosophically - and can get you to blindly accept it without question - can further manipulate you for their own ends based simply on your misguided acceptance of the belief in question.
A brief digression: Voltaire is also credited with the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This declaration is often embraced by self-proclaimed proponents of the First Amendment.
This particular piece of wisdom is, in practice, easier to regurgitate than to support - and is often dismissed when defense is required for politically incorrect actions or words.
So I find it even more strange that Voltaire - the enlightened man's model of rational thought; who so easily dismissed organized religion; and propounded to choose death over censorship - accepted the existence of a single all-powerful entity and chose to reprimand a specific work as "dangerous".
I often give some latitude to great thinkers and prefer to examine them, their thoughts and their beliefs, in the context of the time in which there were living. But those of us whose only religion is that of rational thought tend to idolize Voltaire. And as such I hold him to a higher standard.
Life in't fair.
10.19.2009
Artistic Merit
Far too many creative endeavours are lionized based not on the comparative artistic merit of the piece itself, but instead on the subject matter.
Were one to appear unmoved by a movie such as Schindler's List they face derision (at best) as "a heartless bastard" or face the more harmful epithet (at worst) of being called an "anti-semite".
Can one still feel sympathy for the Jews and still dismiss Schindler's List as melo-drama? Indeed.
Were one to dismiss say, The Passion of the Christ, the ad hominem attack on the reviewer would be that they simply did not understand the plight of poor JC (at best) or (more likely) be labeled a godless heathen.
Should not one be able to dismiss Mel Gibson's magnum opus as a self-indulgent religiously-cloaked snuff-film? Rightfully so.
Sadly, this is not the case in our overly politically correct world.
Might I boldly suggest that just because a movie or book tells a sympathetic tale, it is not by definition of topic matter a crowning achievement?
Reviewers: It is best to steer clear of any negative review of material of a sensitive nature. One is better served to laud it as a masterwork.
Artistes: Seeking pulitzers, emmys or academy awards? Tackle "challenging" subjects focusing on the disabled or otherwise down-trodden. Do not worry about quality, but instead focus on subject matter with an aim towards making women cry and making men feel selfish for not volunteering at homeless shelters.
Plot: Ensure that the poor, young, elderly or mentally handicapped (or any other class of underdog) are the unlikely, yet plucky heroes - and that success in any form is villianous. Despite success being the American Dream, Hollywood loves to demonize the capitalist pig, doesn't it? And do not audiences respond? They do.
Furthermore, require that the antagonist has no perceivable reason for behaving the way he does - his success and desire for material gain must be the sole cause of his evil.
Thus does one have the recipe for an award winning product.
10.12.2009
Faith
I shall never cease to be amazed at the lengths that people will go to to prove what they believe to be true; or to dismiss that which they do not believe to be true.
Such approval or dismissal rarely includes, or requires, knowledge that is rationally based; is pragmatic; or is simply authentic.
One of the biggest failures in the history of human non-rational thought is the reliance on faith.
Faith, by definition and unto itself is not a bad thing. I have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow - very likely before I get out of bed. My faith in the rising of the Sun is based on science, personal observation and the historical experience of a thousand generations.
The word "faith" has been appropriated and imbued with false meaning - it has irrevocably been tied to belief without proof - most often in connection with objects and persons of supernatural origin.
I renounce this aberration of the word.
Belief in ANYTHING without evidence of its actual existence is ridiculous.
My faith in the sun's probable rising is not a reliance on any gut feel that I may personally have; on an oft-recited fairy tale; or on any ecumenical definition of the word "faith".
My faith is NOT solely based on science and on provable evidence - but also on rationality. Yet, in turn, my personal rational thought system is based on that which is perceivable and measurable and provable.
As such my belief in all things is based on my own sense of individuality.
I believe what I know to be true. I cannot believe in what I do not know. This is, of course, the very essence of ignorance. Yet my ignorance (and my self-awareness of my ignorance) can easily be rectified by acquiring new knowledge.
I realize that the ability and desire to learn should not end while a man still draws breath.
Yet there are those that believe in that which is not provable. There are those who will not believe that which is provable or has been proved. And both of these represent ignorance of a very different and far more insidious nature.
Should the sun NOT rise tomorrow, I will then have evidence that the rising of the sun is not such a reliable occurrence, as I had previously believed. I will no longer have faith that the sun's rising is an absolute.
And I will adapt.
10.06.2009
Restoring the Pledge of Allegiance
Kevin: The Pledge in use today, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, was modified by the U.S. congress in 1954 by adding the words “under God” and in effect turning it into an unconstitutional public prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
