Still reading

I finally finished The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and have moved on to The Mind & The Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D., and Sharon Begley. Schwartz is a neuropsychiatrist who studied philosophy premed and has a special interest in Buddhism. I bought the book primarily to gain a better understanding of the inner workings and deliberate changeability of the mind and brain (precisely what the title suggests). Little did I know when I grabbed it rather whimsically off the shelves at Books-A-Million that the authors would also be delving into philosophical and spiritual matters such as free will and Buddhist mindfulness, attempting to explain them within a neuroscientific context. How uncannily appropriate is this reading considering recent discussions in this blog?

I haven’t been writing as much because I’d prefer to continue my self-education a bit further before relaying or debating ideas. Though I’ve noticed there’s plenty of conversation going on here without me! (154 views today: another record high!)

Truth is relative

Earlier today I was perusing refutations to atheistic claims and discovered the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry’s website. Their article, Why believe in Christianity over all other religions?, professes an epistemological notion that appears to be a common misunderstanding among many religious apologetics: “If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be self defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative.”

Knowledge vs. utility

Gary Wolf’s article describing the New Atheism movement and Khalid Mir’s post on the value of intuition have prompted me to consider the difference between a belief system’s validity and usefulness.

One such ‘use’ is morality. Is morality superior to knowledge? To make an extreme case: I’d rather live among friendly and fun imbeciles than I would mean and murderous intellectuals. Or as Trey Parker explained it in Reason Magazine’s article, South Park Libertarians:

If a religion’s going to take over the world, and the one that really believes “just be super nice to everyone” takes over, that’s all right with me. Even if it’s all bullshit, that’s OK.

Parker is forgetting all the other things that come attached to religion. Though some beliefs in themselves might be useful or even true, the beliefs in the remainder of a belief system might not be.

[to be continued]

I’m an atheist

I’ve read the books and articles. I’ve watched the lectures and documentaries. I’ve done the thinking and discussing. I’ve been teetering on the edge of agnosticism for a while now. Then I read this exchange between Sam Harris and Dennis Prager. That settled it for me. I’m convinced.

Questions to ponder

Before I advance my current philosophical ideas any further, I think it’s best to cover some underlying territory.

Existentialism as science?

This post is a result of considering the comments from my previous post.

Richard Dawkins in Lynchburg

Being able to imagine something doesn’t make it plausible.

Resistance to diversity is resistance to freedom

Inspired by Brad Richert’s recent post.

The American people need to learn the difference between choosing for themselves and choosing for others. When voting, the options are mutually exclusive, so we must empower the former by treating the latter liberally.

Freedom is having the right to do whatever it is you want to do as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s freedom. Laws are made precisely to enforce that principle. But what I see when I watch other Americans decide how they’re going to vote on an issue is a narrow-minded considering of their own personal beliefs. Voting on what you believe is right for yourself and your preferred way of life is not a vote for freedom.

Same-sex marriage again serves as an appropriate example. Allowing gay couples to marry in no way affects the marriages of heterosexual couples. No one’s rights are being infringed.

People can disagree. They can voice their opinions, criticize, complain, or march down the streets in opposition. But the moment they vote to deny gay couples to marry, they are impeding freedom by selfishly forcing their opinions on others.

[to be continued]

The O’Reilly Factor for Kids?

Someone please tell me this is a joke.

I wonder if it includes advice on objectivity:

Hide your bias by stating that you’re unbiased. Those who agree with you won’t notice, as they’ll be feeling emboldened since their opinions are being described as facts. And those who disagree will appear to be the ones who are biased. Then you don’t need to provide evidence to disprove them. You’ll only have to say that since you’re right, and they disagree with you, they must therefore be wrong.

And he probably has a few words on dealing with conflict:

If someone disagrees with you and the above tactics fail, insult them and tell them repeatedly to shut up. As long as your voice is louder than theirs, you’ll be the one who gets heard. In the right setting, there may also be the option to simply shut off their microphone.

It could be worse. Imagine if Ann Coulter wrote a children’s book. Actually, don’t imagine that. Her adult books are hellish enough.

Fellow liberals, don’t vote Green party

Voting Green party divides the liberals and empowers the conservatives.

I admit if I were to vote purely on principle, I’d probably go green. But the fact is that this country isn’t ready for such an idealistic leap. A gradual transition is necessary. So the only realistic step forward is a Democratic vote.