Concession
I really hate to admit when I am wrong, especially about ideas that I have cherished or lines of reasoning that I have ardently defended. Perhaps it just feels like such a waste of mental effort and time to intellectually retrace my steps, yet I find this to be a necessary move as I am hopelessly entangled in convoluted thinking. In particular, my mind has been coddled by a romantic notion of epistemology as I touted an ethereal stance of agnosticism. Now, I face recanting all of my arguments as I possibly abandon this shiny little mirage.
I can imagine the irritated groans and envision the rolling eyes as I launch this airy agnostic label aloft to float upon the subjective breezes of rumination. But this time I am armed with logic, and I am ready to do some target shooting. Squinting one eye along the cold barrel of a rational gun, I finally fire unrelenting bullets of reason at my beloved agnosticism. I can only wonder if I will strike enough holes to send the entire concept crashing to the ground, never to rise again.
Previously, the primary tenets of my worldview concerning the supernatural had been:
The Death Penalty: A Case for Abolition
The death penalty is a brutal hangover from primitive legal systems and has no place in modern society. The United States stands alone among the world’s democracies in its use of capital punishment. This form of punishment has no place in a nation founded upon reason, justice, and liberty. Reason dictates that the death penalty can only further incite violence in this culture as legal authority condones retributive killing. Justice sees nothing valuable in a punishment that clearly discriminates against the impoverished lower classes of society. Liberty finds its greatest violation in a government that is allowed to kill its citizens.
Beyond the intrinsically noxious nature of capital punishment, arguments for the measure are completely undemonstrated. The biggest argument in support of capital punishment, deterrence, lacks any supporting evidence. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that capital punishment actually encourages violence by incorporating state-sanctioned murder into society. Furthermore, most murders are crimes of passion, drunkenness, or both. The argument for deterrence rests solely upon the criminal’s capacity for sound reasoning to prevent a killing. Both inebriation and extreme emotion override the mind’s ability to logically examine a situation.
An even worse defense of capital punishment is the purported necessity of retribution. This puerile argument panders to the primitive mind and raw emotion. What place does this vulgar appeal have in a society based on rational empathy and social advancement? “An eye for an eye” is a Bronze Age intellectual concept that deserves to be left in the past along with slavery, infanticide, and numerous other social institutions which we no longer accept.
Philosophy class assignment, 02 February 2010
Relatively Absolute
The Beauty of Reason
There are problems inherent in both moral relativism and moral absolutism. Absolutists have a tendency to claim that there is an immaterial moral law which transcends the natural, physical world. This is problematic because, by definition, the transcendent cannot be experienced directly. Because nothing supernatural can ever be directly experienced or proven, knowledge of this transcendent, immaterial moral law is relegated to revelation. Revelation is a horrible basis for governing social conduct, as faith-based arguments are virtually impervious to conflict resolution.
However, moral relativism is not without fault. If everything is completely relative and there is absolutely no objective, fixed point against which to measure, then the entire concept of a static moral law is nonsensical. How can we ever truly identify a moral precept to govern behavior if there is not a specific framework against which the law may always be measured? Edicts must necessarily exist within a fixed system; if there is absolutely no system, then there can be no edicts.
“Water is Magical!”
Oh wow, this is two days in a row that my inbox has had a treat waiting for me! Mike Adams, author of yesterday’s comedic gem from the webzine Natural News, has just penned a biting retort to the resultant fury of those pesky skeptics.
As to my criticism yesterday regarding Adams’ utter disregard for providing hyperlinks to support his statements, he seems to have amended this journalistic oversight as this new article is positively riddled with corroborating links! (I did not bother copying all the hyperlinks here; there is a link to the article at the bottom of the page.) But there is still one minor problem: all of these hyperlinks take the reader to another Natural News article; there is still a complete lack of any external sources or references.
But hey, he did get thousands of new subscriptions; this totally validates him! Those subs couldn’t all just be people like me who like to laugh at the crazy, right? Seriously, though, this guy needs to stop; I am running out of skeptical lolcats and may be forced to create my own!
‘Skeptics’ article stirs up condemnation from skeptics, praise from holistic thinkers
Monday, January 25, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
The article I posted yesterday that exposed the true beliefs of “skeptics” made some major waves across the ‘net. Entitled, What “skeptics” really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe, the article turned the tables on the skeptics and detailed their bizarre beliefs for the whole world to see.
Skeptical Irony
I am on the mailing list of many, err, “interesting” websites; the crazier the site, the more likely that I am to sign up for email updates. How could anyone turn down a daily dose of hilarity delivered right to their inbox? This morning, I discovered a comedic gem lurking in my unread mail.
Why do I find today’s offering to be particularly funny? Because it is an article lambasting the supposed views of some ambiguous group of skeptics with no citations, references, or sources. Irony? I think so.
What ’skeptics’ really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe
Sunday, January 24, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
In the world of medicine, “skeptics” claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist. Briefly stated, “skeptics” are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.
Read the rest of this entry »
No Cognac and Roses for E. A. Poe?
The mysterious half-bottle of cognac and three roses left in previous years
Two hundred and one years ago, Edgar Poe was born in Boston, Massachusetts on January 19, 1809. After a brief but brilliant life, he died in 1849 and was buried in Baltimore, Maryland. Since 1949, a mysterious visitor nicknamed the “toaster” has left cognac and roses at Poe’s original gravesite to commemorate the poet’s birthday. However, this year no flowers or spirits were to be found.
(Unfortunately, embedding has been disabled for the following news clip from Baltimore, but the video may be watched directly on YouTube.)
Non-Believers Giving Aid
Non-Believers Giving Aid: A Religion-Free Way to Help Disaster Victims
(from RichardDawkins.net)
Spurred by the horrific suffering in Haiti, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) has joined forces with 13 other freethought groups or associates, to collect donations to non-religious relief organizations. Those participating are Atheist Alliance International, Atheists Helping the Homeless, Atheists United, The British Humanist Association, James Randi Educational Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, New Humanist magazine, Pharyngula, Rationalist Association, Reasonable New York, The Reason Project, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, The Skeptics Society and Unreasonable Faith.
We have set up a new dedicated bank account and PayPal facility in the new name of Non-Believers Giving Aid. All of the money donated will be distributed to disaster relief.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Ideological Threat of “Avatar?”
If your religion is threatened by a Hollywood movie based on the fictional world of tall blue alien creatures, perhaps your religion is on rather shaky ground to begin with.
Ana makes an excellent point that there are already numerous films depicting the Judeo-Christian point of view. I cannot seem to recall any outraged pantheists, but perhaps they do not leave the forest long enough to visit the local movie theater.
Beck and Palin
- Three percent of people are afraid to talk about God? What statistic is that? If this is some weird reference to atheists, the percentage of nonbelievers in the country is actually fourteen percent.
- Also, if these people are afraid to talk about God, then why doesn’t this fear prevent them from “mocking” Palin? Plus, it is wholly illogical to suggest that someone is afraid of something that they do not even think exists. If you are afraid of something, then you necessarily assume that it exists.
- This is just a ridiculous claim of victimization due to being Christian. Palin is criticized because of her utter lack of any substantial knowledge on policy matters, and her repeated gaffs to even the most softball-questions in interviews.
I proudly take my place among the “loud mockers.”
What is Ethics?
The vintner's wisdom
.
Ethics is the collection of moral judgments by which we label an action as right or wrong. It is the existent code that we use to approve or disapprove of a certain course of action. As the specific tenets of ethics vary across the temporal and cultural landscape, it is very difficult—if not impossible—to definitively identify any specific, universal moral laws. Therefore, ethics can only truly be discussed in the broadest of terms as a generalized system of intangible values which the human mind applies to otherwise neutral events.
