I've only heard about this in the last couple of days, but the renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens is dying from esophageal cancer. This is getting a lot of attention because of his prominence as an atheist and his nearly certain demise.
Some interviews:
Anderson Cooper:
Jeffrey Goldberg:
There is a mixed reaction of prayer among the believers. Many are praying that he find Jesus. Many are praying that he survives. Very few are praying for his demise.
I've read a couple of things where atheists are finding this prayer to be condescending. I disagree completely. Who has been a bigger foe to Christians in the public discourse? Hitchens seems to be the most terse and smug of the New Atheists that I've been following recently.
I celebrate Christians that pray for Hitchens because that's what they do when they care and certainly what their religion teaches them.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Fight Club and modern man
I recently watched Fight Club for the first time. I'd have to say that I liked it, but it's very strange. The reason I'm blogging about it is because it hit a nerve - the place and plight of men in the 21st century.
The landscape for men has changed very drastically over the last century. Rolling into the turn of the 20th century, a man was a man. He was generally some sort of laborer, relying on his superior physical strength to define his station in life. Over the past 100 years, the need for physical strength has continued to diminish to the point of near obsolescence. Mental ability is supplanting physical strength in a way that has removed man's corner on the job market.
Women are continually changing what it is they expect from themselves, their relationships, and their work. This is definitely a good thing for them. They're a little confused about this new world and their gender role, but it's trending the right direction. Men, however, are finding themselves behind the times. They're more than a little confused about this world and their role. They're playing in it, but aren't comfortable and don't quite know why.
Fight Club tackles this dilemma with its main character (Ed Norton) and his alter ego (Brad Pitt). What does a man do with millions of years of evolution bottled up inside him? Everything about his life is not the way it should be. Sitting at a desk, doing some paper-pushing sort of job, and living in a condo with furniture from IKEA is an evolutionary contradiction.
I think most men can really identify with what is going on for this character, as crazy and exaggerated as it may be. Who doesn't occasionally identify with the song Synchronicity II by The Police?
Recently, The Atlantic did an article entitled The End of Men. My wife and I both read it and have discussed it regularly. I think that it's a little much to say that men are going to become obsolete, but men do need to get with the times because the times they are a changin'.
The interesting thing to me is that this world that we struggle against is one that we created. Most of the advances in technology, productivity, work conditions, etc. were brought about by men and for men. The unintended side effects were that our prior advantages in the gender realm have been neutralized and it has taken us away from the activities that took evolution thousands to millions of years to perfect.
There's a little to a lot of Fight Club in all of us. We just need to figure out how to sufficiently balance that in the modern world.
The landscape for men has changed very drastically over the last century. Rolling into the turn of the 20th century, a man was a man. He was generally some sort of laborer, relying on his superior physical strength to define his station in life. Over the past 100 years, the need for physical strength has continued to diminish to the point of near obsolescence. Mental ability is supplanting physical strength in a way that has removed man's corner on the job market.
Women are continually changing what it is they expect from themselves, their relationships, and their work. This is definitely a good thing for them. They're a little confused about this new world and their gender role, but it's trending the right direction. Men, however, are finding themselves behind the times. They're more than a little confused about this world and their role. They're playing in it, but aren't comfortable and don't quite know why.
Fight Club tackles this dilemma with its main character (Ed Norton) and his alter ego (Brad Pitt). What does a man do with millions of years of evolution bottled up inside him? Everything about his life is not the way it should be. Sitting at a desk, doing some paper-pushing sort of job, and living in a condo with furniture from IKEA is an evolutionary contradiction.
I think most men can really identify with what is going on for this character, as crazy and exaggerated as it may be. Who doesn't occasionally identify with the song Synchronicity II by The Police?
Recently, The Atlantic did an article entitled The End of Men. My wife and I both read it and have discussed it regularly. I think that it's a little much to say that men are going to become obsolete, but men do need to get with the times because the times they are a changin'.
The interesting thing to me is that this world that we struggle against is one that we created. Most of the advances in technology, productivity, work conditions, etc. were brought about by men and for men. The unintended side effects were that our prior advantages in the gender realm have been neutralized and it has taken us away from the activities that took evolution thousands to millions of years to perfect.
There's a little to a lot of Fight Club in all of us. We just need to figure out how to sufficiently balance that in the modern world.
Motivations for conflict
So I've been on a kick recently - listening to some of the "New Atheists" on podcasts during my commutes. One of the things that they all seem to "preach" is about the effect of religion with regard to violence and war. While I believe that religion can undeniably have an impact, it seems to me that nationalism, racism, etc. play equal or often greater roles.
I assert that the tribal nature of humans breeds violent conflicts. Religion is often used as a tool of manipulation, but I think it's more of a tribal attribute than a spiritual one.
Many of the theists that I've heard will raise this point and I think it's very fair to do so. This is another example of humans abusing religion and not necessarily a problem with religion itself. The fact that religion can be made so pliable seems to be the real source of the problem in this context.
I assert that the tribal nature of humans breeds violent conflicts. Religion is often used as a tool of manipulation, but I think it's more of a tribal attribute than a spiritual one.
Many of the theists that I've heard will raise this point and I think it's very fair to do so. This is another example of humans abusing religion and not necessarily a problem with religion itself. The fact that religion can be made so pliable seems to be the real source of the problem in this context.
The sting of death
I was listening to a Sam Harris lecture podcast this morning. He mentioned the notion of "the sting of death" as a contrasting point on how people spend their time here on Earth. Religion puts an interesting twist with the introduction of the afterlife. If you truly believe in the afterlife then where is the pain in dying? What importance does that put to your life here on Earth?
It brought to mind stories told by American soldiers in the WWII Pacific Theater. Several American accounts discussed the attitude about life and death for the soldiers on both sides. The claims were that the Americans were mainly pushing forward with dominating thoughts of survival. They contrasted this with the often suicidal tendencies of the Japanese soldiers. For the Japanese, there was ultimate honor in death. There was ultimate dishonor in surrender. There were eternal rewards to them and their family for faithfully serving their emperor. The American soldiers considered these different attitudes as a key element to victory. Personally, I would say that our geographic isolation and massive industrial might (not to mention the two atomic bombs) were probably the biggest keys to success. However, it's hard to discount the attitude of the soldiers fighting the war on the ground.
These American soldiers, as mostly Christians, no doubt believed in an afterlife as well. Apparently, either the common dogma of Christianity or the American political importance of the individual didn't promote fanaticism to the point of intentionally suicidal acts. However, even the Christian view of an afterlife must have some sort of diminishing importance to life on Earth. Our time here seems relatively inconsequential to the the eternity of the afterlife.
For an atheist, there is no solace in an afterlife. Life on earth is EVERYTHING. It is the beginning and ending of your personal existence. I'm reminded of a scene from Dead Poets' Society:
Christians often tell me that without God, there's no reason to adhere to morals (that, in fact, there are none without Him). I'll make a similarly sweeping statement in return. If Heaven is eternal and tantamount, what's the point of life here on Earth? Are we here to simply feed God's ego by worshiping Him and giving thanks to Him for our entire existence here? If there is the promise of a wondrous afterlife, how easily could you be manipulated into being a kamikaze pilot ... or a suicide bomber ... or any sort of martyr for your God? I assert that the lack of an afterlife makes our time here infinitely more precious.
It brought to mind stories told by American soldiers in the WWII Pacific Theater. Several American accounts discussed the attitude about life and death for the soldiers on both sides. The claims were that the Americans were mainly pushing forward with dominating thoughts of survival. They contrasted this with the often suicidal tendencies of the Japanese soldiers. For the Japanese, there was ultimate honor in death. There was ultimate dishonor in surrender. There were eternal rewards to them and their family for faithfully serving their emperor. The American soldiers considered these different attitudes as a key element to victory. Personally, I would say that our geographic isolation and massive industrial might (not to mention the two atomic bombs) were probably the biggest keys to success. However, it's hard to discount the attitude of the soldiers fighting the war on the ground.
These American soldiers, as mostly Christians, no doubt believed in an afterlife as well. Apparently, either the common dogma of Christianity or the American political importance of the individual didn't promote fanaticism to the point of intentionally suicidal acts. However, even the Christian view of an afterlife must have some sort of diminishing importance to life on Earth. Our time here seems relatively inconsequential to the the eternity of the afterlife.
For an atheist, there is no solace in an afterlife. Life on earth is EVERYTHING. It is the beginning and ending of your personal existence. I'm reminded of a scene from Dead Poets' Society:
Christians often tell me that without God, there's no reason to adhere to morals (that, in fact, there are none without Him). I'll make a similarly sweeping statement in return. If Heaven is eternal and tantamount, what's the point of life here on Earth? Are we here to simply feed God's ego by worshiping Him and giving thanks to Him for our entire existence here? If there is the promise of a wondrous afterlife, how easily could you be manipulated into being a kamikaze pilot ... or a suicide bomber ... or any sort of martyr for your God? I assert that the lack of an afterlife makes our time here infinitely more precious.
Joined The Atheist Blogroll!
Tangent Talk has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist Blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Evolution is not "just a theory"
Evolution is considered as much a fact as the theory of gravity. Do not confuse the common language definition of theory with the scientific one. In common language, the use of the word “theory” is synonymous with “hypothesis”. When science declares something to be a theory, it is considered an independently confirmed fact. Despite this, all science is open for critique with evidence. If contrary evidence arises, then the theory must be revised or dropped. The fact that life evolved on this planet is not in question in the scientific community.
"But this can't just be some cosmic accident - it's too complex and perfect"
I will concede that the complexity of the universe is a somewhat compelling reason to believe in some sort of intelligence. I believe that we are slowly discovering our universe. I don’t think that our current lack of understanding is any sort of proof of our ancient myticisms. However, the question of things being too improbable to happen by chance is a fair point.
If you listen to/read some of Richard Dawkins with regard to evolution, you will find that evolution isn’t random chance. The only parts that are random are the genetic mutations themselves. These mutations are mostly failures, but occasionally they are for the better. These successful mutations survive to the next generation. This process has repeated for millions and millions of years, leading us to where we are now.
In his latest book (which I have not read, but have heard podcasts about it), Dawkins paints a compelling picture with a discussion of leopards and gazelles. If you look at leopards, they look like the perfect gazelle killing machine in every way. If you look at gazelles, they look like the perfect leopard avoidance machine in every way. It appears that leopards and gazelles are magnificently designed.
This perfection is not by mistake or chance though. Thousands of years of natural selection has bred them to be exactly where they are now. If you can’t hunt properly, you die and provide no offspring. If you can’t avoid being hunted, you die and provide no offspring. The fact that evolution within a species occurs this way is undeniable and not random.
"Ok, but how does a new species form?"
Once some sort of geographic separation occurs, species may evolve to the extent that they can no longer interbreed with their long lost relatives. This is the scientific distinction of a species. This evolution, over a large amount of time, can create massive differences in species with a common ancestor.
"But this still has no explanation of how it started and who started it"
Many atheists fall back to the Big Bang as the how and who. I'm not so sure. I accept the Big Bang, but I'm very much in the "I don't know" camp with regard to the beginning of life and whether some intelligence was involved. My gut tells me no, but this is really just a guess. What I'm more confident about is that it isn't supernatural in a deity sort of way, based on my life's observations and "faith" in what scientists know to this point. I am not 100% sure, but that's because it's impossible to know at this point.
"But this can't just be some cosmic accident - it's too complex and perfect"
I will concede that the complexity of the universe is a somewhat compelling reason to believe in some sort of intelligence. I believe that we are slowly discovering our universe. I don’t think that our current lack of understanding is any sort of proof of our ancient myticisms. However, the question of things being too improbable to happen by chance is a fair point.
If you listen to/read some of Richard Dawkins with regard to evolution, you will find that evolution isn’t random chance. The only parts that are random are the genetic mutations themselves. These mutations are mostly failures, but occasionally they are for the better. These successful mutations survive to the next generation. This process has repeated for millions and millions of years, leading us to where we are now.
In his latest book (which I have not read, but have heard podcasts about it), Dawkins paints a compelling picture with a discussion of leopards and gazelles. If you look at leopards, they look like the perfect gazelle killing machine in every way. If you look at gazelles, they look like the perfect leopard avoidance machine in every way. It appears that leopards and gazelles are magnificently designed.
This perfection is not by mistake or chance though. Thousands of years of natural selection has bred them to be exactly where they are now. If you can’t hunt properly, you die and provide no offspring. If you can’t avoid being hunted, you die and provide no offspring. The fact that evolution within a species occurs this way is undeniable and not random.
"Ok, but how does a new species form?"
Once some sort of geographic separation occurs, species may evolve to the extent that they can no longer interbreed with their long lost relatives. This is the scientific distinction of a species. This evolution, over a large amount of time, can create massive differences in species with a common ancestor.
"But this still has no explanation of how it started and who started it"
Many atheists fall back to the Big Bang as the how and who. I'm not so sure. I accept the Big Bang, but I'm very much in the "I don't know" camp with regard to the beginning of life and whether some intelligence was involved. My gut tells me no, but this is really just a guess. What I'm more confident about is that it isn't supernatural in a deity sort of way, based on my life's observations and "faith" in what scientists know to this point. I am not 100% sure, but that's because it's impossible to know at this point.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Political parties and Rep. Paul Ryan's Roadmap
I have not been as plugged into politics as I used to be. I used to read a lot on the Internet, listen to talk radio, and listen to the talking heads on TV. Over time, I've become sickened by the divisiveness to the point where it makes it hard to stomach. As a result, I rarely listen to talk radio or watch TV talk shows anymore. I do try to stay up-to-date on current events, so I'm hardly unplugged. Most of this information is via Google News however.
I was reading today about Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) and his Roadmap. I am very much a capitalist and a fiscal conservative. I'm not sure if his direction is one that I would support, but appreciate the effort and am intrigued. His point is spot on - we cannot sustain our current government. Something must be done. A plan must be in place. I have not heard a plan to deal directly with this problem other than people saying we need to have one. So, from this standpoint, I applaud Rep. Ryan for having one.
The current direction is more government programs, more spending, and more taxation, I've heard this quote attributed to old Maggie Thatcher, but I believe it's really a paraphrase:
"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
I empathize with the left and their agenda. I really do. Government can, and often is, an institution that can do really good things. An economics professor of mine once posed this question to a student however:
Professor: "Are you for cleaner air?"
Student: "Ummm ... yes, I suppose so." (knowing they were being set up somehow, but...)
Professor: "So you are are FOR less education for children?"
Student: "What? I ... err ... what do you mean?"
Professor: "Well, there is a limited amount of money. So, if you're going to clean the air more, that means there will be less funds for other things - like educating children."
It's not that I'm against various social safety nets, etc. The problem is reality. We must work within the constraints of reality and resources. When the government creates programs and spends money, they are doing this with the resources of the free market. That doesn't make it inherently evil or inappropriate, but there are consequences. The left doesn't seem to acknowledge this or even understand it. As a result, I've often voted for Republicans in the past. Starting in 2004, I've voted for Libertarian candidates when possible. As a fallback, I vote for Republicans. I rarely vote for a Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton for President twice. That's the only time I can recall voting for a Democrat.
The main problem with Republican politics for me is religion. If it weren't for its seemingly complete deference to the religious right, I would probably be one. When I hear a Republican talk about fiscal and governmental issues, I often find myself nodding my head. Then, they turn to the other side and start ranting about abortion, gay marriage, and other such issues. I'm immediately turned off.
In contrast to the head nodding, another large problem I have with Republicans is rampant fiscal hypocrisy. So many are massive tax and spend socialists in practice, but just over different programs (or in a different way). They may talk the talk, but its about liberal programs and not their own.
Regardless of this ramble, good luck to you, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis). If you can at least get the ball in the right court, you will have been successful.
I was reading today about Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) and his Roadmap. I am very much a capitalist and a fiscal conservative. I'm not sure if his direction is one that I would support, but appreciate the effort and am intrigued. His point is spot on - we cannot sustain our current government. Something must be done. A plan must be in place. I have not heard a plan to deal directly with this problem other than people saying we need to have one. So, from this standpoint, I applaud Rep. Ryan for having one.
The current direction is more government programs, more spending, and more taxation, I've heard this quote attributed to old Maggie Thatcher, but I believe it's really a paraphrase:
"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
I empathize with the left and their agenda. I really do. Government can, and often is, an institution that can do really good things. An economics professor of mine once posed this question to a student however:
Professor: "Are you for cleaner air?"
Student: "Ummm ... yes, I suppose so." (knowing they were being set up somehow, but...)
Professor: "So you are are FOR less education for children?"
Student: "What? I ... err ... what do you mean?"
Professor: "Well, there is a limited amount of money. So, if you're going to clean the air more, that means there will be less funds for other things - like educating children."
It's not that I'm against various social safety nets, etc. The problem is reality. We must work within the constraints of reality and resources. When the government creates programs and spends money, they are doing this with the resources of the free market. That doesn't make it inherently evil or inappropriate, but there are consequences. The left doesn't seem to acknowledge this or even understand it. As a result, I've often voted for Republicans in the past. Starting in 2004, I've voted for Libertarian candidates when possible. As a fallback, I vote for Republicans. I rarely vote for a Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton for President twice. That's the only time I can recall voting for a Democrat.
The main problem with Republican politics for me is religion. If it weren't for its seemingly complete deference to the religious right, I would probably be one. When I hear a Republican talk about fiscal and governmental issues, I often find myself nodding my head. Then, they turn to the other side and start ranting about abortion, gay marriage, and other such issues. I'm immediately turned off.
In contrast to the head nodding, another large problem I have with Republicans is rampant fiscal hypocrisy. So many are massive tax and spend socialists in practice, but just over different programs (or in a different way). They may talk the talk, but its about liberal programs and not their own.
Regardless of this ramble, good luck to you, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis). If you can at least get the ball in the right court, you will have been successful.
Why label myself an atheist?
I was reading a blog post about the term "atheist" and thought my comment to it warranted its own here.
One of the comments noted that calling oneself an atheist is "like if someone asked me my hobby, and I said 'Well, I don’t collect stamps'." This is a good point. I am an atheist within the realm of religion, but really the only reason I care to label myself is because of the theists. If it weren’t for religion, I probably wouldn’t care.
My political philopsophy is libertarian, but that doesn’t label my beliefs either. It just states that you can live your life as you wish provided it doesn’t stop someone else from living their life as they wish.
In my own personal life, I am much more of a traditionalist with regard to family and behavior. Most people assume that I am a Christian and a conservative, because that’s what they mostly are here in the Bible Belt. I look and act the part, so therefore I must be one.
Just because I live that way, does not mean I judge how you live though. I have friends that march to all sorts of different drums. My only judgement is that they are rational and generally intelligent.
I may have to ponder a bit on my own personal label. For now, I'll stick with atheist libertarian. This is because within the discussion of politics and religion, this sums it up.
One of the comments noted that calling oneself an atheist is "like if someone asked me my hobby, and I said 'Well, I don’t collect stamps'." This is a good point. I am an atheist within the realm of religion, but really the only reason I care to label myself is because of the theists. If it weren’t for religion, I probably wouldn’t care.
My political philopsophy is libertarian, but that doesn’t label my beliefs either. It just states that you can live your life as you wish provided it doesn’t stop someone else from living their life as they wish.
In my own personal life, I am much more of a traditionalist with regard to family and behavior. Most people assume that I am a Christian and a conservative, because that’s what they mostly are here in the Bible Belt. I look and act the part, so therefore I must be one.
Just because I live that way, does not mean I judge how you live though. I have friends that march to all sorts of different drums. My only judgement is that they are rational and generally intelligent.
I may have to ponder a bit on my own personal label. For now, I'll stick with atheist libertarian. This is because within the discussion of politics and religion, this sums it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)