Sunday, November 29, 2009
Desperate People
It just occurred to me that all these 911 truthers and people who follow Alex Jones around are all just really desperate for a metanarrative. These are people who may well be smart enough to know that the things they believe are fucking crazy, but what would they do with their lives then? The feel like they're doing something really important by handing out fliers to people on the subway and protesting at their tea bagger parties. Without that, they'd have to go back to their depressing, pointless lives.
Our Need for a Metanarrative
In the later part of this lecture, Chuck talks about how we don't have a really powerful story that grabs everyone's attention these days. We have no underlying struggle or aim to our culture nowadays. The Cold War is over, too many people think the war on terror is bullshit to really take that seriously and the environmental movement has yet to gain enough strength to inspire that many people. Things may get more interesting if global warming starts to really have some impact, but until a few more major cities are flooded and there are heat waves in Scandinavia, global warming isn't going to get people out of their chairs.
In all likelihood, things will remain painfully boring unless the Singularity hits.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Mind of the Anti-Semite
People who hold the view that Jews are untrustworthy, or are part of some conspiracy to control the world, etc. seems to be based in one or another of two beliefs about Jews. Anti-Semites do not believe merely that Jewish culture is bad, or that Judaism as a religion is the problem, but rather that Jews, as an ethnic group, are constantly scheming against gentiles. This implies either a) that Jews are all organized against gentiles, and their organization is well constructed that not one single Jew has ever spilled the beans about it to a non-Jew, and no person of Jewish blood has ever avoided involvement, or b) that Jews are genetically predisposed to behavior that advances the interests of their own ethnic group at the expense of the interest of non-Jews. This seems to be the majority view among anti-Semites (Kevin b. McDonald for example).
What must one believe about genetics in order to base one's anti-Semitism on this second view? One must believe that it is possible to have a genetically endowed, innate understanding of ethnicity. Now, you could argue that we may be genetically inclined to favor people who look or act more like us than those who do not, but is every Jew so disconnected from the gentiles amongst whom they live that this would justify such a claim that all Jews are an inherent danger to gentiles? And what if a Jewish person were raised by gentiles and unaware of his ethnicity? Would he or she be somehow able to magically determine that his parents and friends are gentiles against whom he must constantly be plotting? This is what the most committed anti-Semites would have to believe in order to justify their prejudice.
The claim that Jews are all plotting against gentiles also becomes unfalsifiable when one dismisses the fact that individual Jews will hold vastly differing political and economic views, many of which are even contradictory, by saying they are all methods of advancing their power and undermining non-Jews. It's amazing that in much of the most significant anti-Semitic literature of the 20th century, both capitalism and communism are condemned as Jewish inventions. One wonders what kind of economic system the anti-Semite recommends if it must involve neither a centrally planned economy, nor the use of capital to establish businesses. They also accuse Jews of profiting unfairly from the businesses they run and finance, but also, whenever an economy is doing poorly, of gaining political advantage from destroying the economies which they were accused of exploiting.
I challenge any anti-Semite to describe something a Jew could do that would not be evidence of their supposed scheming against gentiles. Until they can do that, they have to realize that their prejudice makes absolutely no fucking sense.
What must one believe about genetics in order to base one's anti-Semitism on this second view? One must believe that it is possible to have a genetically endowed, innate understanding of ethnicity. Now, you could argue that we may be genetically inclined to favor people who look or act more like us than those who do not, but is every Jew so disconnected from the gentiles amongst whom they live that this would justify such a claim that all Jews are an inherent danger to gentiles? And what if a Jewish person were raised by gentiles and unaware of his ethnicity? Would he or she be somehow able to magically determine that his parents and friends are gentiles against whom he must constantly be plotting? This is what the most committed anti-Semites would have to believe in order to justify their prejudice.
The claim that Jews are all plotting against gentiles also becomes unfalsifiable when one dismisses the fact that individual Jews will hold vastly differing political and economic views, many of which are even contradictory, by saying they are all methods of advancing their power and undermining non-Jews. It's amazing that in much of the most significant anti-Semitic literature of the 20th century, both capitalism and communism are condemned as Jewish inventions. One wonders what kind of economic system the anti-Semite recommends if it must involve neither a centrally planned economy, nor the use of capital to establish businesses. They also accuse Jews of profiting unfairly from the businesses they run and finance, but also, whenever an economy is doing poorly, of gaining political advantage from destroying the economies which they were accused of exploiting.
I challenge any anti-Semite to describe something a Jew could do that would not be evidence of their supposed scheming against gentiles. Until they can do that, they have to realize that their prejudice makes absolutely no fucking sense.
Friday, November 27, 2009
What Is Religion and Why Does It Persist?
I'm not convinced of most of the propositions offered by most religions. I haven't been since I was very young. Although, there's little I can say about why this is the case that hasn't been said by so many others over and over again. There is one element that seems to be missing from most of the arguments against religious dogma, though. What's missing is a rigorous understanding of their psychological bases.
Most apologists for atheism of course understand that there are neurological causes behind religious experiences. There was a good article in h+ Magazine not too long ago that mentioned the part of the brain that is being affected when one feels the intuition of "oneness" that is so commonly spoken of by those professing to have had these experiences. Most atheists also understand that religious belief is based not on being convinced of facts in the way one becomes convinced of every day propositions, but rather on a desire for religious propositions to be true.
Few, if any of them, however, seem to understand the psychological utility of religion. Religion brings comfort and a feeling of salvation or liberation not just by giving people a comforting imaginary friends, but because religious experiences have a profound impact on a person's psychology such that it reorients that person's desires in such a way as to significantly ameliorate a problem that most if not all human beings have, that problem being conflict of will.
The liberation or salvation offered by religion is not just from eternal damnation. Those who are religious merely because they are afraid of going to hell are not getting the best out of their beliefs. The horror from which religion can, in fact, deliver a person is guilt, shame and internal conflict. Now, of course, there are religious communities and governments that, rather than saving a person from these things, in fact make them all the more likely. People who practice their religion in this way are easy targets. They are motivated by hate, shame and disgust. Those who get the best benefit of religion are those who had painfully weak or divided wills but were able to overcome it through religious conversion. It is from oneself that religion offers liberation and salvation. And it is those who don't feel they need such a thing that are most likely to do without religion.
Atheists are right to point out the hypocrisy of so many self-proclaimed religious people. Christianity stands out in that it does not offer salvation in return for being good or doing good things. Being good is instead the consequence of salvation. It is once you have truly "accepted Christ into your heart" that you will naturally have the will to do good things. Any part of your mind that was pulling you away from the way of living you feel is best is supposed to be eliminated by the acceptance of Christ. Billy Graham said that if you're still struggling with sinful desires and occasionally giving in to them "you need to rethink whether you're really a Christian or not".
While religion has done more than enough to reinforce the shame and guilt people feel over desires that may not at all be harmful in many instances, a truly effective response to religion has to address the problem of personal conflict of will. Fortunately, this is a psychological problem, and all religions offer psychological solutions, although dressed up in mystical ideas. The reason secular Westerners gravitate more toward Buddhism is that it offers solutions rooted in psychological principles that can be separated from its mysticism more easily than can the methods of other religions. The most vocal atheists resist religion because religious people often try to impose upon everyone solutions to problems that they may not really have. And even if they do have the problems that religion was created to solve, religious people articulate those problems using metaphorical myths that they expect people to take literally. And of course, in taking them literally, the religious themselves very much miss the point and end up exacerbating the guilt and shame from which their religion was designed to liberate everyone.
Religious irrationalism will not be eliminated until there is a secular way of bringing about the religious experiences that can relieve the internal conflicts that so many people have. Scientologists think L Ron Hubbard formulated one, but that's a whole other story altogether.
Most apologists for atheism of course understand that there are neurological causes behind religious experiences. There was a good article in h+ Magazine not too long ago that mentioned the part of the brain that is being affected when one feels the intuition of "oneness" that is so commonly spoken of by those professing to have had these experiences. Most atheists also understand that religious belief is based not on being convinced of facts in the way one becomes convinced of every day propositions, but rather on a desire for religious propositions to be true.
Few, if any of them, however, seem to understand the psychological utility of religion. Religion brings comfort and a feeling of salvation or liberation not just by giving people a comforting imaginary friends, but because religious experiences have a profound impact on a person's psychology such that it reorients that person's desires in such a way as to significantly ameliorate a problem that most if not all human beings have, that problem being conflict of will.
The liberation or salvation offered by religion is not just from eternal damnation. Those who are religious merely because they are afraid of going to hell are not getting the best out of their beliefs. The horror from which religion can, in fact, deliver a person is guilt, shame and internal conflict. Now, of course, there are religious communities and governments that, rather than saving a person from these things, in fact make them all the more likely. People who practice their religion in this way are easy targets. They are motivated by hate, shame and disgust. Those who get the best benefit of religion are those who had painfully weak or divided wills but were able to overcome it through religious conversion. It is from oneself that religion offers liberation and salvation. And it is those who don't feel they need such a thing that are most likely to do without religion.
Atheists are right to point out the hypocrisy of so many self-proclaimed religious people. Christianity stands out in that it does not offer salvation in return for being good or doing good things. Being good is instead the consequence of salvation. It is once you have truly "accepted Christ into your heart" that you will naturally have the will to do good things. Any part of your mind that was pulling you away from the way of living you feel is best is supposed to be eliminated by the acceptance of Christ. Billy Graham said that if you're still struggling with sinful desires and occasionally giving in to them "you need to rethink whether you're really a Christian or not".
While religion has done more than enough to reinforce the shame and guilt people feel over desires that may not at all be harmful in many instances, a truly effective response to religion has to address the problem of personal conflict of will. Fortunately, this is a psychological problem, and all religions offer psychological solutions, although dressed up in mystical ideas. The reason secular Westerners gravitate more toward Buddhism is that it offers solutions rooted in psychological principles that can be separated from its mysticism more easily than can the methods of other religions. The most vocal atheists resist religion because religious people often try to impose upon everyone solutions to problems that they may not really have. And even if they do have the problems that religion was created to solve, religious people articulate those problems using metaphorical myths that they expect people to take literally. And of course, in taking them literally, the religious themselves very much miss the point and end up exacerbating the guilt and shame from which their religion was designed to liberate everyone.
Religious irrationalism will not be eliminated until there is a secular way of bringing about the religious experiences that can relieve the internal conflicts that so many people have. Scientologists think L Ron Hubbard formulated one, but that's a whole other story altogether.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Senate Reconciliation
I didn't realize, until today, that there was a way to prevent a Senate filibuster. Apparently, if you go into reconciliation, you can "limit debate" which I guess overrides the rule that says nobody can vote until everyone has said what they want to say. If you can tell people to sit down and shut up, they can't keep talking to prevent the vote.
But they say Harry Reid won't go for it. He's still trying to get 60 votes despite the fact that, like, four senators refuse to pass the bill with the public option and a few others won't pass it unless it does have the public option.
But they say Harry Reid won't go for it. He's still trying to get 60 votes despite the fact that, like, four senators refuse to pass the bill with the public option and a few others won't pass it unless it does have the public option.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
This Boring Decade
The thing I miss most about the 90s is that kids listened to music that scared the shit out of their parents. Maybe there wasn't much going on that was all that subversive, but at least the squares thought something scary was going on.
Nowadays, what are parents afraid their kids are doing? The biggest squares are the ones afraid of the government, and the scariest thing one of their kids could do is support the establishment. Is this what we've come to? Were's the moral panic? What concerts are being protested by Christians these days? Have they all just become too jaded?
Nowadays, what are parents afraid their kids are doing? The biggest squares are the ones afraid of the government, and the scariest thing one of their kids could do is support the establishment. Is this what we've come to? Were's the moral panic? What concerts are being protested by Christians these days? Have they all just become too jaded?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Why Cities Are Greener
A lot of environmentalists have a very knee jerk objection to cities. They see that they are more distant from nature than rural communities and conclude from this that they must be unnatural and hence unhealthy for people and the environment. That cities keep people separate from nature, however, is precisely why they are good for the natural environment.
Here's a great article about cities and their environmental impact.
These are my favorite quotes:
"To most people, big, densely-populated cities look like ecological nightmares, wastelands of concrete and garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams. But, compared to other inhabited places, cities are models of environmental responsibility. By the most significant measures, the greenest community in the United States is New York City, the only American city that approaches environmental standards set elsewhere in the world."
"Moving people closer together reduces the distances between their daily destinations and limits their opportunities for reckless consumption, as well as forcing the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures in the world: apartment buildings."
"New York’s highly concentrated population and comprehensive public transit system enable the majority of residents to live without owning automobiles, an unthinkable deprivation almost anywhere else in the US. Some 82% of employed Manhattanites travel to work by public transit, bicycle, or on foot. That’s 10 times the rate for Americans in general, eight times the rate for workers in Los Angeles County, and 16 times the rate for residents of metropolitan Atlanta."
If you think it's easy to get around without a car in any other city, keep in mind that even David Suzuki owns a car.
"I spoke with one energy expert, who, when I asked him to explain why per-capita energy consumption was so much lower in Europe than in the US, said, 'It’s not a secret, and it’s not the result of some miraculous technological breakthrough. It’s because Europeans are more likely to live in dense cities and less likely to own cars.'"
"Urban families live more compactly, do less damage to fragile ecosystems, burn less fuel, enjoy stronger social ties to larger numbers of people, and, most significantly, produce fewer children, since large families have less economic utility in densely settled areas than they do in marginal agricultural areas."
Here's a great article about cities and their environmental impact.
These are my favorite quotes:
"To most people, big, densely-populated cities look like ecological nightmares, wastelands of concrete and garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams. But, compared to other inhabited places, cities are models of environmental responsibility. By the most significant measures, the greenest community in the United States is New York City, the only American city that approaches environmental standards set elsewhere in the world."
"Moving people closer together reduces the distances between their daily destinations and limits their opportunities for reckless consumption, as well as forcing the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures in the world: apartment buildings."
"New York’s highly concentrated population and comprehensive public transit system enable the majority of residents to live without owning automobiles, an unthinkable deprivation almost anywhere else in the US. Some 82% of employed Manhattanites travel to work by public transit, bicycle, or on foot. That’s 10 times the rate for Americans in general, eight times the rate for workers in Los Angeles County, and 16 times the rate for residents of metropolitan Atlanta."
If you think it's easy to get around without a car in any other city, keep in mind that even David Suzuki owns a car.
"I spoke with one energy expert, who, when I asked him to explain why per-capita energy consumption was so much lower in Europe than in the US, said, 'It’s not a secret, and it’s not the result of some miraculous technological breakthrough. It’s because Europeans are more likely to live in dense cities and less likely to own cars.'"
"Urban families live more compactly, do less damage to fragile ecosystems, burn less fuel, enjoy stronger social ties to larger numbers of people, and, most significantly, produce fewer children, since large families have less economic utility in densely settled areas than they do in marginal agricultural areas."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)