About Me

Name: Jack Fisher
Email: slickboy44@fastmail.fm Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Objective Religions Studies
Reason Resources
Debunking Creationisms

Fear and Understanding

Posted by Jack Fisher on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:46:04 PM
The old saying "ignorance is bliss" seems to be universial in its affect on societies and governments over the ages. In the old totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union and pre-modern Europe, people were kept in the dark. They didn't know much about the world beyond their own homes. Hence, they didn't understand any more than their limited capacity to acquire information allowed them to. There was a time when the Catholic Church considered it blasphemous for anybody to read the bible in any other language other than it's native Latin or Greek. For a while it was even considered criminal for people to read the bible on their own without a priest and come up with their own interpretations. In the old Soviet Union and modern day North Korea, information regarding the advances or superiority of liberty and capitalism is highly censored. In fact, just talking about it could earn someone a death sentance for 'spreading propoganda.'
 
Throughout the ages religion and government have gone to great lengths to use fear to push their own agenda. History has shown that it is only through a free society where information is exchanged and uncensored that understanding and knowledge can propogate. The 21st century has completely changed that dynamic because now anybody anywhere can have access to a wealth of information on countless arrays of issues. It is now possible for people to connect with others they may otherwise have never met and converse with them even though they may not agree with their worldview. In many ways it has made humanity better by being able to spread knowledge and understanding to promote enlightenment and progress. But for some, it only brings out the worst in people.
 
With the freedom and sophistication of the modern age, people not only have the opportunity to access a wealth of information they have the opportunity to customize the kind of information they want to see. They can tailor their information only to their liking so that if someone wants a conservative viewpoint they can do so and those who want a liberal viewpoint could do so as well. It seems all well and good, personalizing how they get their information. But there is a considerable drawback.
 
If people only view information that is specifically selected to agree with their pre-concieved viewpoint then that information will only reinforce their position. It won't get them to think critically or analyze other viewpoints. It will leave them more certain and in some cases downright dogmatic. The information for other positions is there. They just don't bother looking into it.
 
One issue where this is most glaring is global warming. Many environmentalists have conditioned themselves to completely filter out any comments that their ridged beliefs on the matter may not be correct. If some scientist or researcher comes along and says that mankind may not actually be responsible for global warming, they brush it off and consider the scientists lackies for the oil companies or something. Their data could be right and valid by all measures, but the environementalist has been so conditioned to tune criticism out that they are bascially drones to their beliefs.
 
Another issue where this is prevalent is among conservative religious crowds. They too have conditioned themselves to believe that their god and their narrow interpretation of their religion is the only right way and everybody else is wrong. So when someone comes along that doesn't believe as they do, they either look down on them or completely write them off as flawed or wicked. This can lead to even more egregeous behavior like bigotry, prejudice, and in some cases violence. And at no point will they even consider the notion that they may be wrong in doing so.
 
From pundits to popes, viewpoints and worldviews are more skewwed than ever. When people become so reinforced in their beliefs, they get to a point where they cannot even begin to understand another possible way of thinking. And as the old saying goes, people always fear what they don't understand. So in a ways, the fear and ignroance used by religion and government in pre-modern times persists. Only now it isn't because of force or authority. It is because the masses have become willingly ignorant and will not take the time to truly investigate something and look at it from a different point of view. Even with all the information that's out there, they don't even try. Such dogmatic individuals are without excuse. It is lazy in the most pathetic of ways. But worst of all, it is cowardly. It takes a lot of strength and bravery to challenge one's self in their beliefs and understanding (or lack thereof). Unfortunately, such bravery is lacking in this day and age. It can only lead to more fear, more ignorance, and more cowardice in the long run.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Republic vs. Democracy

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, April 24, 2009 2:33:08 PM
On February 9th 2009 at a press conference, Barack Obama was quoted as saying "The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose." This is all well and good, but Obama made one critical mistake in his choice of words.
 
That lively debate and freedom of expression is not a definitive product of a democracy. It is a product of a republic. It says something about a country when it's elected leader is touting his country as a democracy when it was actually founded as a constitutional republic. Most people don't know the difference, but it is an important issue to consider.
 
First off, the word "democracy" has it's origins in Ancient Greece. It roughly translates into "people rule." That is to say it is rule by the people. Ancient Athens is the best example of this. Citizens routinely voted on matters of the day, ensuring that no one person had too much power. This all sounds well and good and some of these principles were mentioned by the founding fathers. But the reality is, democracy has one major pitfall. It is subject to majority rule. So if a majority of people want to take away one person or a group of peoples' property, family, or money they can do so. And if enough people are convinced to hand over their voting power to a dictator, then nothing is stopping them. That is why many of the founding fathers looked at democracy with such contempt. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." He and the other founders understood that if they allowed democracy in America, the end result would be tyranny.
 
As for the word "republic," it also has origins in Ancient Greece. It rougly translates into "public thing." That is to say it is rule by a set body of laws not subject to majority opinion. It was first recommended by the Greek philosopher Solon, but it wasn't implemented until the time of the Ancient Romans. As a republic, Rome became wealthy and prosperous. Much of the opulance that it would later be known for  during it's imperial reign (which was not a republic) was made possible by having a government that limited power to it's proper role and left the people alone to live and prosper. This is what the founding fathers went with. They understood if they were to have a government that would grant the people the most freedom and liberty, a republic was the way to go. Democratic principles went only into electing represenatives to uphold the constitution, not to rule as rulers. But that notion has since been forgotten.
 
Throughout the 20th century, gaining particular momentum in the New Deal, government has been expanded beyond it's limited role largely as a result of the people demanding more. America has since taken on more features of a democracy where people want to be able to exert power to serve their own agenda. People representing the poor lobby for the government to help the poor. People representing oil companies lobby for the government to help oil companies. And people representing dogmatic religious agendas like the Religious Right lobby for the government to help impose their standards on the populous. All of this flies in the face of the constitutional republic that the founders established. Nowhere in the constitution does it specify that the government was to support groups of people over individuals. The focus was and always has been on protecting each individual citizen, granting them under the law the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Government's role is to protect life, ensure individual liberty, and protect one's property. No one individual is to be favored or given special privlidges over any other regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. It's only when democracy is allowed to grant special privlidges to certain groups that these rights are lost under the guise of 'serving the people.'
 
The founding fathers understood that whenever democracy reigns, tyranny will eventually follow as the majority imposes their will on the minority. Yet nobody today debates the laurels of whether or not the merits of democracy are contending with the true intent of our government. There are already examples of tyranny creeping in. The passage of proposition 8 in California which banned gay marriage was a perfect example of a majority imposing their will to strip an equal right from a minority. And if more ballot issues emerge, more tyranny can be expected.
 
The fact remains. America is losing it's way. It's heading down the same path Ancient Rome went down when the people allowed the republic to degrade and ended up an oligarchy ruled by greedy and decadent emporers. Democracy is a fine idea on paper and so is socialism. But in practice it leads only to tyranny. It is only through upholding the republic on which America was founded on that true liberty and prosperity can be enjoyed by all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Debate Over a Christian Notion

Posted by Jack Fisher on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:19:06 AM
Much has been made since President Barack Obama made the statement that "America is not a Christian nation." Various opinion writers and columnists have expressed their criticism and at times outrage. This issue comes on the heels of a recent article in Newsweek ominously entitled "The Decline and Fall of Christian America." Many have had plenty to say on this issue as well including Town Hall's own Brent Bozell, Star Parker, Terry Paulson, and the ever rediculous Doug Giles.
 
 
Terry Paulson: Put Your Bet On God Over Newsweek
 
 
There is a lot to be said over this issue. Ideologues and zealots cling to the notion of a Christian nation the same way they cling to their invisibile deity. It's no secret that the Christian Right has been a major political force. They have worked tirelessly to try and impose their values and worldview on the rest of the nation, completely disregarding the unavoidable fact that such a goal completely conflicts with every notion of a free society. And they'll use any excuse to justify their tyranny, including twisting the facts of history.
 
The issue of America being a Christian nation should have been dispelled in 1797 when the 5th congress unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli. In this historic document it says outright in article 11:
 
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
 
And this is a time when many founding fathers were still alive. Now some would debate this is bogus because many of the founding fathers were still devout Christians. This is true, but they still saw the need to dispell any notion that America is a Christian nation just as many nations of Europe were considered Christian nations at the time. It goes along with the constitution which says in the first amendment that no official religion will be established and none will be endorsed over the other, even if it is practiced by the majority of the population.
 
But many ignore this and will go to great lengths quote mining the founding fathers, espousing their religious convictions. But as with all quote mining, it proves nothing. The personal views of the founding fathers were irrelevant to the concept of America being a Christian nation. At no point did they thrust their views into the constitution. To say this nation is Christian just because the founding fathers were Christians is a misnomer. All the founding fathers were also white and had English roots. But nobody says America is an English nation even though it was based largely on English legal traditions. Nobody says it's a white nation either (although some racist groups still do). Just because the population was Christian doesn't make America a Christian nation.
 
It's also worth noting that the government of the United States was not founded on any Christian traditions. America was founded as a constitutional republic and the very idea of a republic was first espoused by the Ancient Greek philosopher, Solon. And the first real republic was set up by the Ancient Romans and many of the ideas they built upon found their way into the constitution. But nobody says this is a Roman or Greek nation.
 
Others will say the concept of natural rights that include life, liberty, and property are somehow inspired by divine laws. But this is inaccurate as well. The ideas of natural rights came from philosophers like Voltaire and John Locke, who were products of the enlightenment. And one of the key facets of the enlightenment was moving away from religious dogma and favoring more secular views to govern society. Many of these thinkers were also Christians, but their faith was secondary to their ideas. Their faith was personal, not something to be subsidized and imposed by state forces.
 
The notion of America being a Christian nation is as absurd now as it was back in 1797. But the Christian Right will continue to contend this in order to maintain whatever credibility they can so they can further their agenda. They easily forget that no matter what America was founded upon or what the beliefs were of the founders, the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remain true for every citizen. It is the right of every man, woman, and child in this country and no one group deserves to take credit for it. For Christians like Brent Bozell, Star Parker, Terry Paulson, and Doug Giles to maintain that is not only wrong, it's hopelessly arrogant.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Managing Life With a Sense of Humor

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, April 10, 2009 4:10:19 PM
This week, Brent Bozell dedicated a whole column to condemning ABC for it's friendly portrayal of Seth MacFarlane, creator of the hit show "Family Guy."

Fox's "Comedic Genius"

It was by no means an indictment. Bozell spent the whole column giving his opinion on how he thought MacFarlane and Family Guy were pure smut and that having them on the airwaves is somehow an afront to god, America, and everything good in the world. Needless to say, he goes a little overboard just as other anti-MacFarlane camps have done such as the Parents Television Council, a strongly Christian Conservative group. But through all this outrage they all miss one simple component and that's humor.

Family Guy is not meant to be serious. It is a slap-stick, over-the-top, outrageous show that makes no secret of it's primary goal, which is to get laughs. And for it to be on the air for over 100 episodes and 2 cancellations, it's a safe assumption that it succeeds. As a fan of the show myself, even I get offended by some of the jokes they do. But by and large few shows make me laugh louder and more fully than Family Guy. Anybody can hate Seth MacFarlane for his profane sense of humor, but the man does have talent in being able to craft a show like this. Plus, he does multiple voices including Setwie, Peter, and Brian. You don't have to like him, but for the fans he has he's doing something right.

This is what critics never realize. Humor by definition is NOT meant to be taken seriously. It is not an agenda. It is not afront. It is what it is and that's a joke. So when a show comes along that makes a joke about God or Jesus that offends Christians, that isn't meant to insult them. It's just meant to stir laughs. It's been done in comedy for years. George Carlin was the master of it and lasted 40 years in showbuisness, offending a lot of people along the way especially religious people. And in a free society, people have a right to make these jokes. It's a part of free speech. But people DON'T have a right not to be offended. MacFarlane said it himself in the interview. Nobody is putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to watch it. People have the power to change the channel or not listen. But that doesn't satisfy some people like Brent Bozell. It can't just be ignored, it has to be condemned. Not only is this wrong in a free society, it shows no sense of humor.

Comedian Lewis Black said it best when he describe radical islamists as people having no sense of humor. In Islamic countries, making a joke about religion can get you killed. There is no room for humor in a society like that. But this isn't the Middle East. This is the United States of America. Freedom of speech is in the constitution. People like Bozell have a right to speak out against what they don't like, but to actively seek the censorship and obliteration of something as menial as a TV show is not only insulting to American principles it's downright idiotic, much more so than anything Family Guy has ever done.

Family Guy is a lot of things, but it's essance is humor. Look no further than the following clip for all you need to know:

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Freedom and Decadence

Posted by Jack Fisher on Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:19:24 AM
Liberals and social conservatives alike have long lamented on western society being awash in decadence. They see things like sexual promiscuity, rampant consumerism, and popular culture as signs of a decaying society. They often place them (or confuse them) in the same category as deviance. But there is a significant difference between the two. One is a product of a free society and one is the enemy of a free society. But they are not mutually exclusive.
 
Deviance is defined as the violation of set rules and standards of a society. This involves breaking real laws and violating the rights of others. It includes stealing, cheating, violence, and murder. Deviance is more universial because societies throughout history often label the same acts as deviant. Theft in the time of the Ancient Egyptians was just as wrong as theft in modern times. The difference is how society handles it.
 
Decadence, on the other hand, is not nearly as concrete. Decadence is defined as appealing to one's personal self-indulgences. Being decadent involves enjoying something that gives one pleasure, fulfillment, or excitement. Riding on a roller coaster can be a form of decadance and so could eating bar of chocolate or dancing wildly in a club. These acts are not illegal or in violation of any major laws in a free society. Some may be personally destructive like over-eating, doing drugs, and being promiscuous. But they do not infringe on anybody's rights and do not harm society at large.
 
Decadance also depends heavily on societal and cultural influences. Some cultures in the Middle East find a woman not wearing a veil to be decadant and they will punish them for not doing so. In the 1950s it was considered decadant in America to have long hair. The key difference is that America was founded in the spirit of the free society. And in a free society, the state cannot punish decadence or the people cease to be free. It is a part of one's natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The line is only crossed when one person's decadent behavior affects the rights of another.
 
But people in religion and government often fail to understand this. They will preach decadance is the same as deviance and it should be punished as such. Some in religion seek to punish homosexuals for their behavior by robbing them of their rights. Some in governments seek to punish the rich for their behavior by taking their money and forcing them to adhere to 'regulations' which is really just force. But in both instances, it is an afront to freedom and liberty.
 
In any free society, decadence is a natural byproduct. When people have the freedom to pursue whatever it is that makes them happy, they will find ways of pursuing it. Some people's notion of happiness differs from others. There may even be those who have extreme pursuits that most would classify as alternative lifestyles, but they as individuals have a right to pursue their passion without anyone else from the government or society at large to stand in their way. Sometimes people fail in their endeavors, but that's okay because that's another byproduct of freedom. People are free to be decadant just as they are free to fail. That is the essance of liberty.
 
Decadance and deviance are a part of every society. It is how society deals with them that reflect the values of freedom. And when religion and government seek to impose their standards on society at large, they cease to become champions of freedom and become an agent of tyranny.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Liberty Becomes a Terrorist Act

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, March 27, 2009 12:30:16 PM
Recently, Fox News talkshow host, Glenn Beck, did a segment on a report issued by the justice department. This report focused on domestic terrorism, that is the threat that certain citizens of this country may carry out acts of violence against it. 
 
 
In any sense it is a valid issue to study. But the report reveals a disturbing undertone in listing potential terrorists as supporters of third party politicians like Bob Barr and unorthadox leaders of Republican Ron Paul. Their reasoning is that extreme political views are a precursor to terrorism. But that's a pretty big leap considering the measure of 'extremism' such ideas espouse. For parties like the communist party and the national socialist party, violence is part of their ideology. They both directly call for overthrowing the current order. But these views are the antithesis of that of Bob Barr and Ron Paul. To label their followers as potential terrorists is to paint a dangerous picture of where the mindset of the country is heading.
 
Anybody who remembers Ron Paul in the debates knows his message. He is a republican at heart, but his views are consistant with libertarian philosophy. Many say he is the only true republican because his views are closer to that of the founding fathers than anyone else in the party. And yet he gets marginalized just as libertarian candidates like Bob Barr do because their views do not reflect the current power structure. In fact, they are a threat to the current power structure. People like Ron Paul don't call for the government gaining more power, they call for it to be limited. No politician who values their career will ever say it overtly, but the last thing anyone in power wants to do is give it up.
 
This marks a dangerous trend for anyone with a true conservative view on government. If limiting government makes someone a potential terrorist, then how will their ideas ever be taken seriously? The truth is they won't because terrorist is such a dirty term. People put terrorists in the same category as murderers, rapists, and child molesters. But people in both the Democrat and Republican party want that because it means nobody can effectively challenge their dominance. Anybody who wants to serve in power needs ot go along with their agenda. It is a form of tyranny even though both parties claim they espouse freedom. But when anyone puts the principles of the two parties in the context of the founding fathers, the constitution, and the philosophy of a free society on which this country was founded on, they both fail the test.
 
The ultimate irony is that the views of Ron Paul and Bob Barr are more consistant with the philosophy of liberty than any republican or democrat. And Ron Paul has pointed that out time and again. But nobody listens because he is so marginialized that he can never further these deeply American principles. And if his followers are labeled as potential terrorists, what hope does he have?
 
It is sad that it's gotten to the point where politics has drifted so far from where the founding fathers intended that the idea of returning to their philosophies is deemed radical and undesirable. This does nothing to serve the people. It only benefits the parties currently in power, who do not want to see their dominance slip away even if it means forsaking the values of freedom they are supposed to protect. An important step to tyranny is crushing dissent. It doesn't have to be done directly. It only has to be done in a way that equates undesired ideas with undesired labels. And right now values of liberty are being equated with that of terrorism. With such a devious label, what kind of future can lovers of liberty hope for?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Making Excuses

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, March 20, 2009 8:02:46 AM
There was a funny article reported by the Associated Press today. It reported that a woman in Arlington, Washington, stole $73,000 from a church where she was an administrative assistant. But that's not the funny part. The funny part is she blamed the devil for it.
 
 
Now it was later revealed she stole the money because she was on the verge of losing her house. And she couldn't bear the thought. So what does she do? She shifts the blame from herself to some unseen supernatural force that cannot be rationalized or prosecuted. That kind of excuse may have worked in the Middle Ages and it may still work for some people, but in this day and age blaming the devil for doing the wrong thing is not only laughable it's downright despicable. Religion or not, people are responsible for their own actions. Blaming supernatural forces for all that is bad is nothing short of cowardice and ignorant.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religion vs. Belief in God

Posted by Jack Fisher on Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:06:08 PM
It was recently reported that more and more Americans are shedding their religious affiliation:
 
According to a survey done by researchers at Trinity College, the percentage of people who call themselves Christians is down 10 percent since 1990 and the percentage of people claiming no religious affiliation is up nearly 7 percent (totalling nearly 34 million when compared to the population at large). It reveals a telling trend. People are becoming disillusioned with organized religion. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are becoming atheists. It just means they're not identifying themselves with a particular brand of religion anymore.
 
It marks a significant difference between the notion of believing in god and being identified with a religion. Belief in god is an entirely personal matter. It may be heavily influenced by one's surrounding or peers, but in essance it boils down to what the individual believes. It's a simple statement of faith. Someone can easily believe in a god or gods just as easily as they can not believe. But with religion it becomes more complicated.
 
Religion by definition is more broad. It encompasses not just one belief, but a set of beliefs about supernatural forces and how they function among and between god or gods. It involves more philosophy, laying out how this supernatural order people believe works and what they can do to influence or be a part of it. There are many individual elements, but religion also drives a great deal of influence from community. Religious rituals are dependant on creating solidarity and unity among a set of believers. This solidarity comes from rituals involving unique beliefs, practices, or customs. And in the religious landscape of America these rituals have evolved over the years and taken on new meanings.
 
What has arguably been the most influencial force on organized religion is the mixing with politics. The rise of groups like the religious right and the role religion has played in the development of social conservatism has twisted Christianity into more than just a set of beliefs. It has turned it into a political ideology that pushes an agenda. That agenda often includes special treatment for the Christian faith and pursuing social policies such as anti-abortion, abstinence only education, and banning gay marriage. It is very much contrary to the notions of a free society and it has created a messy political discourse that has led Christianity down a complicated path. So it is little wonder why some become disillusioned from it.
 
The study hypothosized many reasons why this movement away from religion is occuring. It could be a result of increasing education among the population. Many studies have shown that the more educated people are, the less religious they are. Others say the September 11th attacks have made it more socially difficult to claim firm religiosity. There may be many other factors, but there is no denying that religion has gotten a bad rap for it's many publicized exploits. From terrorism to a social agenda that espouses prejudice for homosexuals, the ideals of the free society that America represents is clashing with that of individuals.
 
It is unlikely that religion will decline to a point where it is trivial. Religion in many ways is driven by group dynamics and those ingrained instincts will never change. But if religion is to keep its adherents, it is going to have to adapt to a changing population. History has shown repeatedly that when religion gets mixed with political discourse, it becomes corrupt and loses its influence. And this study shows that the population is catching up to religion. The belief in god may persist, but the agenda has to change if it is to stay true to the faith.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Teaching Ignorance in the Face of Knowledge

Posted by Jack Fisher on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:40:01 PM
Recently the Washington Post did a report on David DeWitt, a teacher from Liberty University, a school with a rich tradition of zealous religious teachings that was founded by a zealous religious man named Jerry Fawell. DeWitt teaches 'biology' at this school and took his students on a trip to the Smithsonian Institute, where his faith base psudo-science came head-to-head with real science.
 
 
The purpose of this visit, according to DeWitt, is to strengthen his students' belief in the strict biblical view of history. Translation: he wants to ridicule certain aspects of science deemed 'threatening' by his fellow religious ideologues and replace knowledge with dogma and irrational beliefs. It is a great example of a real paradox. A man parading around as a proponent of science is pushing his irrational beliefs on students in a place that champions ration and debases superstitious dogma. There is no less appropriate place for a committed creationist.
 
"There's nothing balanced here. It's completely, 100 percent evolution-based," said DeWitt.
 
Well of course it is! That's because evolution is science and creationism is nonsenical, incoherent, irrational belief that has been debunked, disproved, and flat out rejected by decades of scientific and academic inquiry. Nobody will ever find in a science museum displays of theories so irrational they claim a magical sky god poofed the entire world into being by magic and gave no trace of his presence and no means of understanding the mechanisms by which it was done. That sort of thing belongs in magic shows, myths, movies, and churches. Just ridiculing something because it doesn't adhere to a certain set of Bronze Age beliefs is not only arrogant, it is unscientific and irrational.
 
DeWitt went onto say ""We come every year, because I don't hold anything back from the students." Well he's doing worse than holding back. He's spitting in the face of science and everyone who has ever worked to further the knowledge of mankind. He's teaching his students to reject reason in favor of irrational belief. He's teaching his students scoff at anything that isn't written in the bible even if it has done more to improve their quality of life than religion could ever hope to match. These young impressionable minds will only have their already bias minds further reinforced with irrational beliefs that not only go against the very foundations of science, but pervert their own religious beliefs.
 
The article went onto describe how other fundementalist groups are planning other trips. They will be guilty of the same irrational nonsense as DeWitt, insulting the concept of knowledge in exchange for dogma. But to the credit of the Smithsonian and other museums of the sort, they do not reject these anti-science zealots. They welcome them with open arms, which is more than Farwell's igornance spewing school can say. Try entering Liberty as a muslim, an hindu, a homosexual, or heaven forbid an atheist. What are the chances they will be anywhere near as welcoming?
 
The article aslo referenced a Pew poll that revealed around 42 percent of Americans believe in DeWitt's Bronze Age mythological nonsense. That shows just how deep ignorance runs in this country. These ongoing practices of insulting the champions of science are NOT helping. Creationism has been shown time and again to be no more scientific than stories surrounding unicorns, fairies, and mermaids. It's failed every major test of scientific scrutiny and propogating it as a valid alternative is insulting to the very idea of reason.
 
People are free to believe whatever they want. But people who try to poison the well of knowledge, stifle human creativity, and push their dogma on others are enemies of a free and rational society.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stem Cells and Science

Posted by Jack Fisher on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:17:46 PM
As an atheist, many assume I am for Obama's recent lift on bans surrounding stem cell research. It seems every major media outlet is cheering the lift proclaiming it a victory for science. But I don't believe that. Because lifting the stem cell research ban is a victory for bureaucrats and politicians, not the scientists and doctors who actually deal with this issue. You can throw out all the religious and moral arguments you want on stem cells, but the issue comes down to one fundemental question. Does the government have a right to use taxpayer money to fund science research on its own accord? On paper it sounds like a good idea, but like so many big government advocates they miss the point.
 
Whenever government money is thrown into anything it fundementally changes how it functions. Unlike the private sector, there's no incentive to be thrifty or pragmatic with the money. Because it's coming from the government as a handout. Why should they care? That means they'll negate focusing on certain aspects of research that would lead to real commercial products like drugs and treatments that people could actually benefit from. Because when it's not their money, why should they care if anything pragmatic comes out of it? The truth is they don't have to.
 
If history has shown us anything it's that capitalism and free markets are the best means for which research and scientific advancement lead to real and practical applications for people. When the government gets involved, reserach loses focus and advances that may have come about through further experiments never come to pass. And the media never reports an experiment that never happens.
 
Real constitutionally sound politicians draw a simple line. Taxpayer money should not go to things which are not laid out in the constitution. The money the government is gushing out at the seems would be much better spent by the private sector. In regards to stem cells, for now it's just a political tool for politicians to use to show that they champion science and technology. They never stop and think that maybe they're doing more harm than good.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dealing With Uncertainty

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, March 06, 2009 10:18:13 AM
In this kind of political and economic climate, uncertainty is everywhere. People, conservatives and liberals alike, are scared about where the country and the world at large is heading. This uncertainty has led them to react with emotional and sometimes irrational behaviors, like spending over $750 billion on a 1,000 page bailout plan that nobody read. And the ironic thing is even though nobody is sure whether or not it will work, people are going along with it because it just doesn't feel right to do nothing. Because doing nothing just leaves more uncertainty.
 
It's no great mystery. Uncertainty causes distress and fear in people. It always has. Communication researchers call it cognative dissonance, a state of mind where an individual is uncertain, fearful, and uncomfortable. And the natural inclination of someone in that state of mind is to gravitate towards anything that may ease this feeling, even if it is irrational. This is how people get roped into surrendering their liberties and rights. To them it seems like a fair price to pay in order to avoid such uncertainty. But in the long run they don't get what they want and they end up with even more uncertainty, forcing them to gravitate towards more extreme measures. And forces like government and tyranny are all too willing to oblige because they deal with uncertainty too and need all the power they can get to mitigate it.
 
But it isn't just government that preys off uncertainty. Religion has for many centuries done the same. It has a lot to work with. In ancient times it was especially prominent. People of the past had little understanding about how the world worked and why things were the way they were. They couldn't wrap their head around what the sun and stars were, how they came to be, or why bad things happen to good people. So much uncertainty persisted and people naturally wanted to fill it with something. But with little understanding about the natural world, they turned to myths, folklore, and fables. These gave them explanations, albeit irrational explanations, that filled the void and allowed them to divert more mental energy to other matters. It's very much a product of evolution because in the hunter/gatherer settings, uncertainty about predators or the environment could hinder survival. So individuals and groups that investigated and understood were favored. But as human thought evolved, other matters outside of survival began to unnerve them. And religion helped fill that void.
 
And as with people giving up their rights, uncertainty about the spiritual and metaphysical prompted developments of ever more elaborate and complex belief systems. These beliefs permeated society and were kept in place because there really wasn't much else to go on until the scientific revolution helped to better explain the world. Now the age old creation myths and stories that had angels and gods directing the forces of the universe and the minds of mankind have fallen to the wayside, yet many still cling to them because of the certainty that it still gives.
 
One uncertainty that will always seem to dominate is uncertainty over death. Nobody knows what happens when people die. Nobody knows if there is anything else beyond it. It is something even science cannot explain because it is difficult to measure and nobody has ever died completely and come back to life. Death is a difficult thing to contemplate and in many ways it is the one uncertainty above all others that drives religion. But what's always most comforting isn't always what's true. And the truth is nobody knows for sure. Most people don't want to accept that so they naturally turn towarsd beliefs more appealing to them. It's natural, but not rational.
 
One of the most difficult things for any human being to do is admit they don't know. People crave certainty and the stress of not knowing is too much to bear. Those that believe the most ardently are usually the ones with the most uncertainty. Because it is only through absolutes that they can make sense of the world. But the only ultimate truth is the presence of the unknown. It's impossible to know everything about everything. It's impossible to know everything about anything. Accepting isn't easy, but it helps avoid the consequences of dogmatic belief.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Believers and Deniers

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, February 27, 2009 4:17:54 PM
Bishop Richard Williamson found himself in a lot of trouble recently when he made the bold claim that no Jews were gassed during the holocaust in a television interview. His words enraged so many that even Pope Benedict XVI condemned him and had him excommunicated. But even though Williamson apologized repeatedly for his offensive words, at no point has he ever admitted that his claim was wrong and he has given no indication that he no longer believes it. 
 
This in many ways epitomizes the self-styled arrogance some religious zealouts espouse despite common knowledge working against them. Even with all the mountains of undeniable proof of the horrors of the holocaust, including survivors who are still able to tell their story, there are those whose beliefs in certain dogmas are so strong that no amount of evidence could ever convince them otherwise. They also use their twisted logic to propogate more nonsense that has no basis in fact whether it involves denying evolution, denying human rights to homosexuals, and persecuting non-believers. But society at large is still willing to lump holocaust deniers in a different category, separate from the mainstream believers who make similar extreme claims in the name of their diety.
 
Why is it that people are so willing to condemn Williamson, but people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson get a free pass? What they do is the same, but instead of the holocaust they push a different agenda of intolerance. It just isn't acceptable to go after Jews anymore so they'll attack women, homosexuals, muslims, and non-believers. Williamson gets excommunicated while these men get their own syndicated radio show and multi-million dollar book deals. The only difference is they still attack groups that are still popular to attack. Homosexuals and non-believers are easy targets, just as Jews once were. But they don't see the parallels. If they can't attack one group, how else are they going to push their agenda?
 
It's a sad irony that all zelous extremists aren't treated with the same outrage as Bishop Williamson. There may come a day when the persecuted groups of today become the victims of tomorrow. By then men like Dobson and Robertson won't be remembered as popular religious figures. They'll be remembered for the bigots they are.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Musings on Genesis

Posted by Jack Fisher on Friday, February 20, 2009 10:42:41 AM
A week ago there was an hour long documentary by the History Channel titles Mysteries of the Garden of Eden. I came across the show by accident, but it caught my intigue and revealed to me an interesting new perspective on the famous story. When I was still a believer, I never questioned the stories in Genesis. The existance of the Garden of Eden was just as viable to me as the existance of any lost land in the ancient world. But as I've come of age and moved away from my beliefs, I came to see it as just another story in the long mythos of Christian mythology. But this documentary painted a new picture.
 
As it turns out, the Garden of Eden was sought out with nearly the same fervor as the holy grail. There were tails throughout the middle ages of fanciful kingdoms located not far from the garden. There are even accounts of Christopher Columbus making the bold claim that he found the garden in what is now South America on one of his famous voyages. He was later proven wrong by subsequent explorers, but the tales persisted. It was only during the enlightment and the scientific revolution did the nature of these quests change. Once the world was better understood, the Garden of Eden became less a real place and more a spiritual place.
 
But as it turns out there may have been such a place, just not quite as the bible depicts it. The documentary later goes on to describe other ancient myths with an uncanny similarity to Genesis. The oldest and most famous is the Bablylonian myth laid out on the famous Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in southern Iraq. It is dated around 2000 BCE and describes how the Bablylonian god known as Ea ordered a great flood upon the human race which were judged to be obnoxious and wicked. This flood would wipe out a fertile, lush area where humans had settled and prospered. It is a different way of 'banishing' humans from paradise, but the idea is the same as it is in Genesis.
 
 
While this was revealed to be the earliest recorded description of such an event, it is likely there were much older stories passed on through oral traditions. And since so many cultures shared the same story it is likely it stemmed from an actual event. This is where the documentary put a new spin on the garden.
 
Around 6000 BCE, the last ice age was just beginning to end. Sea level was still lower than it is today and certain areas were very different. One of those areas was the Persian Gulf near where the Tigris and Euphrates empty. Satellite photos and geoloical discoveries also revealed that there were two other rivers feeding into the gulf, just as the bible describes Eden as having four rivers converging. This would have created a lush area near what is now the Straits of Hormuz that would have been a perfect settlement for humans, who were just entering the age of agriculture. When sea level rose, this lush area was flooded and people were forced to flee. A similar event happened around the shores of the Black Sea where evidence of human settlements have been found dating back to ancient times and could have provided details for other flood myths that spread across Asia.
 
It is likely that such an event would leave a significant mark on society so stories of it would be passed down. And as always, later generations will place their own spin on the story. So how does this affect Genesis? Well when it came upon the writers of the Old Testament, which has been traced back to 900 BCE and 500 BCE, it took on a stronger morality perspective than the tale told by the Bablylonians. The idea of the 'fall' was similar to how the Bablylonian god Ea disliked the current state of man. And more telling, in Genesis the deciever that tempts Eve to eating the forbidden fruit is a snake. As it just so happens, the Bablylonian depicitions of their chief god was a snake. It follows in the traditions of dominant religions like Christianity and Judaism using gods from older or rival cultures as evil figures in their stories. Other gods like Ba'al later became demons in Christian mythology, further establishing the dominance of the faith.
 
In the end the documentary shows that not all mythical stories are based on an overactive imagination. Some do have a basis in real events. But often those real events are mythologized, filled in with supernatural beings and stories. And if some of it is based on actual events that helps with the credibility. It makes sense in many ways and shows why so many people are willing to believe it. But in the context of reason, these stories are based on natural events such as flooding and the end of the ice age. But to the forebearers of religion, these events were really driven by divine forces.
 
Unlike some radical atheists who believe all religion is a fabrication meant to control ignorant masses, this shows that many of these stories don't come out of nowhere. The magic and supernatural forces may not be present, but the people who passed these traditions down believed in them ardently. Even as a non-believer myself, I can appreciate such a story. I may not appreciate the same way as a believer, but I do take from it similar messages. It is in human nature to tell stories about things they don't understand. Some of those stories are so big they become myths that guide a culture. And some of those myths still prosper today.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Celebrating Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday

Posted by Jack Fisher on Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:27:57 PM
On February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born and the scientific world would never be the same. 200 years later, his impact cannot be understated not just in his contributions to science, but also in his profound effect on religion, culture, and philosophy. It is ironic as well because Charles Darwin never saw himself as anything more than a man of science. It would be future generations that would take his simple theory and extrapolate so much more from it.
 
For better or worse, Charles Darwin is a figure constantly referenced in the culture wars. His theory flew in the face of many old traditions, most notably that of creationism. Like Pasteur before him along with Newton and Galileo, most people had only age-old stories to explain forces they didn't understand. Darwin's idea was revolutionary in its reasoning. For the first time a mechanism of change within living things was identified and the principle of evolving, adapting, dynamic systems of life made sense. And it did this without evoking supernatural forces. This upset many ardent believers and still does to this day. But some people take it further.
 
Religous coservatives and even radical political groups like the Nazi's condemned evolution. Ironically it was those who despised it that gave it the ideologicial connotations that are frequently used in the culture wars today. Darwin never mentioned anything about philosophy, politics, or morality in his work. Yet there are those who see evolution as a philosophy of sorts that those opposed to traditional spiritual beliefs support. This is completely ignoring the essance of what evolution is and it ignores the very tenants of science, but the conflict persists as evolution is an easy target because it's so vast and explains something so grand that some people can't accept that there were no divine forces involved.
 
This uncertainty and ignorance about evolution is why many don't believe it, particularly in the religous landscape of America. A recent gallap poll revealed that only 39 percent of American's believe in evolution. Many do so on religious grounds without understanding what evolution truly is or what Darwin truly laid out. In most other industrialized countries the vast majority of the population accepts evolution. Even the late Pope John Paul conceded that evolution was a well founded theory that should be taken seriously and shouldn't be rejected on the grounds of faith. In the academic circle, it's even more widely accepted. Over 95 percent of all scientists agree with evolution and it remains the foundation for modern biology.
 
But regardless of how many people believe it, evolution has proven the test of time. Darwin was very bold for his time to make such a hypothesis when there was no knowledge of DNA, cells, or advanced biochemistry. There were even fewer fossils to be referenced yet he predicted that over time science would uncover a fossil record that would illustrate the common descent of species over the ages. And he was correct. Fossils along with many other advances on biology and chemistry have proven Darwin's theory with a wealth of information even he couldn't have dreamed.
 
Evolution has shined light on our understanding of life and while still entrenched in the culture war, has left an undeniable impact on the world. And it all began 200 years ago with the birth of a man with humble beginnings. Charles Darwin's contribution to the world is arguably one of the most important in the annals of science. It continues to draw controversy from those who do not understand it, but it is still a feat worthy of celebration two centuries later. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's Intuitive Isn't Always True

Posted by Jack Fisher on Monday, February 09, 2009 2:51:12 PM
Human intuition is an amazing yet complex phenomena. Many everyday decisions are made on intuition. Sometimes it's as simple as deciding what to eat and other times it's as complex as formulating an economic policy. Intuition is like instinct in that it feels intrinsically right so people don't question it or think too much about it. It's a good thing too because it saves on mental energy. But there are times when intuition may be false.
 
Take the current prevailing intuition among politicians and the average joe regarding the economy. They rationalize that since the economy has slowed, government spending will stimulate it by pumping money into it. It's an age-old tactic championed by the likes of FDR and Barack Obama. It sounds good on paper. It makes intuitive sense that pumping money into the economy will stimulate it. But anybody who has a more intimate knowledge of economics understands that it doesn't work that way. Government spending does not create any new wealth. It just takes the wealth from one area and tries to redistribute it into another, often hindering those who would create new wealth. It's the reason why the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and why these huge economic bubbles keep popping and creating great upheavals. John Stossel explained it a great deal in his article appropriately titled "We can't spend our way to prosparity" 
 
Take another less complicated example. In the 70s, the drinking age laws across the country were changed from 18 to 21. The intuitive reasoning was that if the law said that youths couldn't drink until a later age it would cut down on alcohol related deviance. This makes sense on the surface, but research and statistics do not fully support this. The law will not stop youths from drinking. It is not a behavior that involves intruding upon the natural rights of others. It is an entirely self-regulated behavior that affects only the user and how it affects that user will differ from how it affects others. So while many may drink responsibily, there will be those who abuse it. But that applies to any substance or behavior including other drugs and activities like driving. In fact, some researchers claim that those who drink underage do so in more risky ways. Because its legality is taboo, it becomes a sourse of rebellion among users and that can be a reinforcing factor. Another article by John Stossel helps explain this matter further.
 
Take this notion of intuition other domains such as religion and faith. Many reason that if life looks like it's been created then maybe there's a creator. Others reason that because they intuitively feel the presence of the divine, there must be a divine force. These notions seem entirely reasonable, but they have no objective basis in reality. They are entirely subjective assumptions bound by human error. Intuition by its own nature is someone's way of coming to a conclusion when they do not have all the facts. And the irony is that nobody has all the facts and probably never will. So at the expense of torturing themselves over so much uncertainty, intuition provides what seems a safe and reasonable assumption that fills an otherwise uncomfortable void.
 
From humans to insects, intuition has its uses and shortcomings. What seems to make sense doesn't always hold true in a larger scheme. That is why it is important to use inductive reasoning, following the evidence to a conclusion before making a large assumption. And for that which is unknown or unknowable, one must become comfortable with the notion of uncertainty. It's difficult to say sometimes, but the best answer is often "I don't know." But uncertainty is not easy to deal with. Many would rather be certain than be right. That can provide comfort, but it can also cloud judgment. And in a society as complex as ours, poor judgment can lead to major consequences.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »