I apologize in advance if the argument that will be outlined within this letter comes across as unprompted or undeserved but after attending your Psych 121 lecture on gender, I feel incensed to the point where I must express a profound disagreement. Of the various topics put forward in the lectures such as Gender identity, domestic violence towards women and the disadvantages of woman before and after the second wave of Feminism, not a single one left me not in disagreement or at least feeling that the whole story had not been told. It is for this reason that I am sending you this e-mail as I feel university lectures shouldn't amount to bias, brainwashing in favour of one subjective perspective. (In the second lecture, I felt that the other side was addressed more but still in a somewhat biased manner).
(Note that the section on Reimer and gender identity was written before the second lecture, in which Reimer was mentioned. I will add however, that if gender identities outside of male and female do exist, then this is sheer proof that gender is not merely socially constructed as these minorities often choose to defy the constructions given and behave in a manner more related to their own nature, I.e. as biological exceptions to the norm. I have also made some additions in response to the second lecture in your thoughts on the Reimer case and in regards to gender reassignment .)
Although throughout the entire lecture you seemed to stop just short of directly saying that gender was merely socially constructed, every example or opinion you put forward implied as much. A more objective presentation of the issue might have mentioned the case of David Reimer, whom you are probably familiar with. Regardless, to strengthen my argument for its own sake and for anyone else who sees this letter, I will briefly describe his life. Born a male, Reimer's genitals were destroyed at birth by accident. As a result, he was raised as a girl by the name of Brenda (Or Joan?, he's been referred to as both Joan and Brenda) unaware of the origins of his gender. As you will see in the link underneath this paragraph, “At age 2, Brenda angrily tore off her dresses. She refused to play with dolls and would beat up her brother and seize his toy cars and guns.” Brenda/David also repeatedly told his parents that he felt like a boy and by age 14 began to revert back to his original sex after his parents finally told him the truth. David later said of the revelation that "Suddenly it all made sense why I felt the way I did. I wasn't some sort of weirdo. I wasn't crazy." This case is proof in of itself, that gender cannot merely be treated as a social construct.
http://www.slate.com/id/2101678/
I will add here that Reimer's reassignment was the first to be attempted on a developmentally normal child. It is also important to mention that Money also ensured that Reimer received regular doses of estrogen. Needless to say he was obviously insecure in his own theory and that even if the case had been a success it would not have been proof of gender being a social construction, Whatever the result might be for hermaphrodites and in the Dominican case that you also mentioned, I do not find these to be credible examples for assessing whether gender is socially constructed for all humans or not, as these examples involve people who were not developmentally regular or in the case of willing transgenders, already inclined to an exception rather than a norm. For that reason, I think that applying Androgyny or attempting to stamp out common gender identity traits will result in a society of miserable David Reimers and the possible death of heterosexual attraction. In short, I would not want androgyny to be applied to heterosexual's because I'm not gay or bisexual for that matter.
Even if those cited in the Dominican case manage to achieve some quality of life living as the opposite sex, it does not mean they think or perceive the world exactly as the opposite sex would. Whilst there are many similarities in the male and female brain, science suggests that there are some essential and minor differences and it is believed that these a biological rather than cultural. One important difference according to Simon Baron-Cohen is that whilst men tend to analyse and construct, women tend to emphasize. Also, find me another species in which gender roles and differences can both be reduced to merely social constructs. In my opinion, its an insult to both men and women to reduce our differences to merely being products of a superstructure. Gender and sex may be two different things but one is very much dependent on the other rather than the two existing on separate plains altogether.
http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/shownews.php?nid=342
Of course, as you said in the lecture, some people identify with a certain gender regardless of what genitals they are born with but these people are truly a minority, not the majority. Furthermore, I not only believe that biological foundations for gender exist but that they are entirely necessary for the survival of mankind. Without separate characteristics to define males and females, how could heterosexual attraction persist? This also touches on an important element of Feminist hypocrisy, dismissing gender as nothing more than a social construct but vehemently defending homosexuals because “They were born that way.” It is probably true that some characteristics deemed attractive are the product of media, trends and social conditioning for example, straightened hair on females (Or males for that matter!) but heterosexual attraction persisted well before this type of social conditioning so not all characteristics needed for not just sex but mere attraction can be the result of a social construction. Hence, it is arguable that gender identities have at least some solid foundation in biology and that it is sheer folly to try and understand the issue from a merely social perspective.
In one of the links posted below this paragraph you will see the results of a study that examines the effect that dominant behaviour has on heterosexual attraction. Although one study found that gender had no role in how successful the dominant behaviour was, the general conclusion was that males who behaved dominantly were more attractive to females. One of the studies even reported that females found a male who behaved in a dominant way more attractive but not more likeable which suggests that this kind of attraction has its roots in biology rather than just a social plane. The second link is to an article that describe both physical traits and also occupations that males and females find attractive in each other. It is also worth mentioning that the cross-cultural elements of this study found that men all across the world look for similar traits in women, suggesting again that gender traits are more than just a mere stereotype.
Incidentally, Barnaby Dixon's human evolution and sexuality class at Vic did a similar study in regards to whether females found socially dominant males more attractive, which concluded with similar results.
http://land-of-angels.com/py1/sadalla-etal-1987.pdf
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1722
Note that everything I have raised above, has been done with the purpose of giving counter argument to what I saw as an incredibly one sided point of view on your behalf. I will not dwell much longer on this particular topic as I feel I have said what is necessary and want to shift the focus to other parts of your lecture but I will make a couple more points that I believe deserve some thought:
1.In regards to the baby experiment videoed in the lecture, this kind of colour coding clearly has its origins in common sense as much as anything else. Since most newborn babies tend to look pretty similar to each other, it makes perfect sense to associate the two genders with different colours so that they can be identified easily. A social and cultural construction though this might be, it has its root in common sense and anyone who isn't willing to adhere to it should be prepared to face the “Is it a boy or a girl?” question a lot more than those who are!
2. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong or demeaning about the role of a housewife. It is every bit as essential in a family as the role of a breadwinner. Should you trust someone you viewed as stupid, mentally unstable or with drug/alcohol addictions to raise the next generation? We have licenses for driving cars, surely some devotion and proper rearing is required when it comes to raising our children? There is a common delusion present in todays society that high earners are making inherent contributions to everyone elses lives, maybe that is the cause of feminist contempt towards the female homemaker?
3. I have noticed that this campus has a women's right officer, as do most in one form or another. Surely this should be replaced by a gender equality officer or something of the sort? I already know of one American campus, in which the women's rights officer can be connected to misandric views via a facebook page, surely this is a role that should address the needs and problems of men and women?
4.During the lecture I recall that you seemed to view today's world as being more “progressive” than that of the past. You are entitled to your opinion on this and I won't try and change it, nor will I write some big rant on the failures of progress but I will try and point out the vanity of this idea in the context of gender roles with two short questions:
A. Would you really expect that in a society like Ancient Egypt or feudal France for that matter, in which the economy is almost (if not entirely) devoted to the primary sector, that women would be just as expected to work? Of course not, men are far more biologically suited to this sort of work than women for reasons that should be obvious to a five year old.
B. How many women nowadays have the choice to be stay at home mums if they wanted to? If Feminism has won freedom and not duel wage slavery for most women then how come so many families cannot afford to have one parent stay at home?
C. In relation to point B, second wave Feminism was hugely intertwined with Marxism, take Simone De Beauvoir as a prime example. Now remember that in the Soviet Union, females were often encouraged to breed children that could be raised by the state for the good of the state. Given that those under the dictatorship of the proletariat were more or less expected to live for the state, it makes sense that the dissolution of normal family structure occur, especially given that Marx and Engels both viewed family as a Bourgeoisie institution. Hence, we can see a underlying motive in a seemingly noble movement that really has nothing to do with equality for women but is more about advancing a collective political agenda.
5. You were careful to acknowledge that a distinction between sex and gender exists and rightfully so. Your defitnition of what constitutes one or the other however, seems flawed and you often seem unaware of the interrelation between the two. For example, I recall you exclaiming that you'd like to more androgny in a future society, you then preceded to give the example of a bearded woman. Surely you are aware that excessive amounts of facial hair in woman qualifies as a disease known as hirsutism because it generally signifies abnormal hormone variation. This qualifies facial hair (at least in vast quantities) as generally being a clear sex difference rather than the result of a social construction.
I will now move on to the second part of my argument. At one point during the lecture you brought up a statistic which claimed that 90% of domestic violence was directed at women. I am unsure as to where you obtained this figure because it seems to totally conflict with what I have found. Even if this statistic is correct, it does not tell the whole story. A study in Britain found that in 2008/9 men were around twice as likely to be the victims of violent crime than women were. Research from the USA suggests that in violent heterosexual relationships, the woman was the perpetrator in around 70% of cases. I also wonder how much the trivialization of female violence against males results in statistics like this being distorted seeing that a woman can nowadays legitimately end an argument with a man by slapping him or pouring a drink over him.
Source 1:Walker A., Flatley J., Kershaw C., Moon D. (2009) Crime in England and Wales 2008/09. Volume 1: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime.
Source 2:Whitaker D.J., Haileyesus T., Swahn M., Saltzman L.S. (2007) Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health 97(5): 941-94
Contrary to what you have said or implied about woman still being in a disadvantaged state to man, Misandry is rife in today's society which I will now prove with both links and argument. The first link below is to a young teenage girls group in regards to how they think a boy should treat his girlfriend and vice versa. I will now copy across the statements I think are most relevant to proving just what an accepted norm the Misandrist mindset has become: “2. Be aware of all your girlfriends guy friends, brothers, fathers, or anything. They are protective. Every single male friend we have will kick your ass if you end up hurting her. . . 4. If she slapped you hard, you probably deserved it. . . . 8. If a guy is bothering your girlfriend, its your right to beat the sh!t out of him. . . 10. Never ever slap her, even if it's just in a joking way. Even if she swats you first, and says, "Oh, you're so dumb" or something, never make any gestures back."
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4034500&id=514766405#!/pages/102-Things-A-Guy-Should-Know-About-Girlss/211241098463?v=info&ref=t
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2464384
The women mentioned in the story above managed to avoid jail. Could you really see the same thing happening if the genders had been reversed?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/21/california.betty.broderick.parole/index.html
If a man was to shoot his ex wife and her new younger partner in bed would the court watchers split into two groups of “supporters” and “bashers?” Of course not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7429007/Sex-with-drunken-women-could-be-rape-review-to-signal.html
If this isn't Misandry being applied to law then I don't know what is...
In the study about dominance and heterosexuality that I referenced, a conclusion was reached by those involved that it made more sense for males to seek out as many willing sexual partners whilst females were better off to have less partners as to not end up with more offspring than they can take care of. This might explain your perceived double standard in terms of women and men being viewed differently in terms of promiscuity with solid biological foundations. In my opinion there is nothing demeaning whatsoever about the role of a housewife unless the dependence of a housewife's family on her for survival is viewed as demeaning.
If you want to talk about real double standards, then you could have mentioned the American Constitution in regards to the male only military draft which is still in place within the U.S and within some countries in Europe. In fact, in course of of history haven't men generally had things worse than women? Chinese foot binding may not be a pleasant thing to endure but surely staying at home and banging the milkman is a far less an oppressed state then going off to war to be blown up by shrapnel. Although it is true that a small handful of feminist groups have taken issue with this, most have not. You don't think that the reason that this double standard goes for the most part unnoticed has anything to with the fact that almost everyone is subconciously okay with this because its plain as can be that men are more suited to military requirements? Sometimes a reliance on common sense rather than psuedo-intellectual feminist/marxist frameworks can go a long way.
Women are also much more likely to gain custody of children regardless of their worth as parents (resulting in a fair few tragedies in of itself) and as proven in some of the links above, generally less likely to be the victims of violent crime. Also, who do you think is generally looked upon as worse, a female adult who has a consensual relationship with an under age boy or vice versa? Men may earn a disproportionate amount of money compared to women but women SPEND far more of what is earned on themselves and mostly on wants whilst men tend to stick to needs.
I apologize for the length of this argument although I could have gone on longer and felt the need to give a relatively detailed counter argument to what was said in the gender lectures.
Regards.
Will Braddell.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
The secular origins and nature of the U.S.
The view of America as constituting a legitimately spiritual nation could only come from a total misunderstanding, more likely than not born of a superficial or face value analysis and a limited historical scope. It is my intention here to show that the seeds of secularism had been sowed in Europe long before the emergence of the U.S nation and that the birth of the state in question is in reality, the manifestation of the ideals present in 17th century Liberalism. As this is not an academic essay intended for university evaluation I will not dwell on an introduction any further but devote the extra space to the task I have set.
That the French Revolution and overthrow of King Louis XVI occurred only two years after the formation of the U.S. Constitution is of paramount importance to understanding the sign of the times. One would scour the U.S Bill of Rights in vain for anything concerning religion and the only mentions of it in the constitution pertains to the prohibition of congress from establishing a religion or from breaching the freedom of the individual in religious practice. What is undeniably present in both the articles cited is the heavy influence of the secular, enlightenment ideas that eventually spread throughout Europe in the 18th century, manifesting itself in the emphasis placed on individual freedom, democratic mob rule (arguably being the first real Democracy in fact) as well as private property and inalienable civic rights. This influence further shows itself in the American Dream placing individualism and private property as of the utmost importance whilst again making no reference to religion or even spirituality.
The founding fathers were a curious mix of religious views, including Deism and Freemansonry. As a result, the view that America is a Christian nation is simply unhistorical, at least as far as the structure of the state itself is concerned. That Calvinism has perhaps been the most widespread form of Christianity in the U.S. is significant in itself. In his book, Revolt Against The Modern World, Evola explains that this along with all Protestant doctrine is an essential reduction of Christianity to simple moralism. A Siegfried described Calvinism as "the view according to which the true cell of the social organism is not the individual but the community in which wealth is regarded , in ones mind as well as others', as a sign of divine election." This almost plutocratic intepretation of Christianity has nothing in common with the general acknowledgement by the Catholic Church of the kings divine right and presents the removal of any qualitive hierachy, something incompatable with most traditions, let alone Christianity. Democracy is for this reason, more or less inherently hand in hand with secularism. The notion of Divine authority being maintained through anything other than Aristocracy would simply have been absurd in Medieval Europe, any credible historian would acknowledge this.
The emergence of Creationism in America could have only emerged amid a secular backdrop. Historically, this can be placed alongside the entry of Newtowian physics as a "scientific" (or perhaps pseduo-scientific in the case of I.D, regardless of anyones view on Evolution) attempt to justify God, the essential opposite of religion. This argument is further boosted by the fact that Newton's work occured in a build up to the Age of Enlightment, a time of immense secularization in Europe. THe meaning of this should escape no one.
To show the advent of secularism in Europe, I will construct a brief timeline depicting its outbreak.
*1215: Signing of the Magna Carta in England, the weakening and arguably the rationalizing of the King's sovereignty.
*1642: Civil war breaks out in England, ending in the defeat of Royalist forces in 1651 and the execution of Charles I followed by Cromwell establishing the English Commonwealth. This eventually fails and England ends up with a merely consitutional monarchy.
*1648 Peace of Westphalia. A series of treaties with a result ultimately unfavourable to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III and a denial of his Absolute authority. As a result, Catholicism lost power and states involved won the right to determine whether to adopt Catholicism or Lutherism/Protestantism. This could be seen as the beginning of the decline of Christianity in Europe.
(These examples have mostly focused on the secularization or rationalization of divine authority).
*1651 Proto-Liberal Thomas Hobbes writes Leviathan which amongst other things, establishes the philosophical view known as Materialism which puts forth the view that all that exists is matter, eliminating the possiblity of metaphysical entities including the Christian God.
*1762 Rousseau writes The Social Contract. This book puts forth the idea that society is formed due to an individuals need to compromise some degree of freedom in order to advance their own self interest, as opposed to any leader having divine authority.
(This could be seen as an important step in the developmemt of Liberalism).
*1776 American congress declares that "All men are equal and endowed with inalienable rights."
(Emergence of secular Liberal, humanitarian ideology in America's creation).
*1789 George Washington takes office and establishes a Bill of Rights based on Liberal ideology.
*1789 French Revolution, execution of the monarchy, Reign of Terror in which thousands are killed, establishment of a republic.
*1788 Secular American constitution ratified.
*1791 American Bill of Rights is published with no mention of religion.
When seen relative to the unfurling of European history, America can only be seen as a secular nation with a residual layer of Christian moralism (having briefly explained the role of Protestantism in reducing Christianity).
That the French Revolution and overthrow of King Louis XVI occurred only two years after the formation of the U.S. Constitution is of paramount importance to understanding the sign of the times. One would scour the U.S Bill of Rights in vain for anything concerning religion and the only mentions of it in the constitution pertains to the prohibition of congress from establishing a religion or from breaching the freedom of the individual in religious practice. What is undeniably present in both the articles cited is the heavy influence of the secular, enlightenment ideas that eventually spread throughout Europe in the 18th century, manifesting itself in the emphasis placed on individual freedom, democratic mob rule (arguably being the first real Democracy in fact) as well as private property and inalienable civic rights. This influence further shows itself in the American Dream placing individualism and private property as of the utmost importance whilst again making no reference to religion or even spirituality.
The founding fathers were a curious mix of religious views, including Deism and Freemansonry. As a result, the view that America is a Christian nation is simply unhistorical, at least as far as the structure of the state itself is concerned. That Calvinism has perhaps been the most widespread form of Christianity in the U.S. is significant in itself. In his book, Revolt Against The Modern World, Evola explains that this along with all Protestant doctrine is an essential reduction of Christianity to simple moralism. A Siegfried described Calvinism as "the view according to which the true cell of the social organism is not the individual but the community in which wealth is regarded , in ones mind as well as others', as a sign of divine election." This almost plutocratic intepretation of Christianity has nothing in common with the general acknowledgement by the Catholic Church of the kings divine right and presents the removal of any qualitive hierachy, something incompatable with most traditions, let alone Christianity. Democracy is for this reason, more or less inherently hand in hand with secularism. The notion of Divine authority being maintained through anything other than Aristocracy would simply have been absurd in Medieval Europe, any credible historian would acknowledge this.
The emergence of Creationism in America could have only emerged amid a secular backdrop. Historically, this can be placed alongside the entry of Newtowian physics as a "scientific" (or perhaps pseduo-scientific in the case of I.D, regardless of anyones view on Evolution) attempt to justify God, the essential opposite of religion. This argument is further boosted by the fact that Newton's work occured in a build up to the Age of Enlightment, a time of immense secularization in Europe. THe meaning of this should escape no one.
To show the advent of secularism in Europe, I will construct a brief timeline depicting its outbreak.
*1215: Signing of the Magna Carta in England, the weakening and arguably the rationalizing of the King's sovereignty.
*1642: Civil war breaks out in England, ending in the defeat of Royalist forces in 1651 and the execution of Charles I followed by Cromwell establishing the English Commonwealth. This eventually fails and England ends up with a merely consitutional monarchy.
*1648 Peace of Westphalia. A series of treaties with a result ultimately unfavourable to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III and a denial of his Absolute authority. As a result, Catholicism lost power and states involved won the right to determine whether to adopt Catholicism or Lutherism/Protestantism. This could be seen as the beginning of the decline of Christianity in Europe.
(These examples have mostly focused on the secularization or rationalization of divine authority).
*1651 Proto-Liberal Thomas Hobbes writes Leviathan which amongst other things, establishes the philosophical view known as Materialism which puts forth the view that all that exists is matter, eliminating the possiblity of metaphysical entities including the Christian God.
*1762 Rousseau writes The Social Contract. This book puts forth the idea that society is formed due to an individuals need to compromise some degree of freedom in order to advance their own self interest, as opposed to any leader having divine authority.
(This could be seen as an important step in the developmemt of Liberalism).
*1776 American congress declares that "All men are equal and endowed with inalienable rights."
(Emergence of secular Liberal, humanitarian ideology in America's creation).
*1789 George Washington takes office and establishes a Bill of Rights based on Liberal ideology.
*1789 French Revolution, execution of the monarchy, Reign of Terror in which thousands are killed, establishment of a republic.
*1788 Secular American constitution ratified.
*1791 American Bill of Rights is published with no mention of religion.
When seen relative to the unfurling of European history, America can only be seen as a secular nation with a residual layer of Christian moralism (having briefly explained the role of Protestantism in reducing Christianity).
Sunday, August 8, 2010
POL 112 essay on Hobbes
No analysis of the development of Western philosophy would be complete without the mention of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes is seen as the father of the materialist philosophy, a theory which maintains that all that exists is matter. This theory is in stark contrast to that of idealism and opposes any form of spirituality. He was also the writer of the acclaimed Leviathan, written with the intent of defending authority against anarchy which he described in his magnum opus as inevitably leading to “...a war of every man against every man.”1 Hobbes' disposition has been partially formed through witnessing the Royalist defeat in the English Civil War and the execution of King Charles I2. It is ironic that many of his views expressed within Leviathan and other works would fuel the rise of Liberalism. This powerful ideology would ultimately result in the French Revolution in the late 18th century3 and the subsequent fall of monarchical regimes in Europe. This essay will highlight the elements of Hobbes philosophical and ideological contributions that paved the way for Liberalism and to a lesser extent Marxism. It will also define what elements of Hobbesian philosophy deserve to remain distinct from that of Liberalism.
Modern debate as to whether Hobbes was Atheist has proven to be inconclusive, though the materialist philosophy espoused from Leviathan maintained that everything which existed was made of matter. This effectively ruled out the possibility of metaphysical entities, including the Christian god. This position would later inspire the likes of Karl Marx, as well as numerous Enlightenment Age thinkers. Materialist philosophy, in denying the existence of metaphysical entities, found itself in opposition to the Divine Right of Kings. Hobbes soon found himself to be falling out with both the Catholic Church and the Exiled Royalists from the English Civil War along with the House of Commons who published a bill specifically targeted at Hobbes, against Atheism and Profaneness4. The implications of Hobbes materialist philosophy will be examined at length, later.
Hobbes denial of the Divine Right represents a significant emergence in the structure of western philosophy that was both progressive and subversive by its very nature. Leviathan is regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of Social Contract Theory. This theory maintains that humans, driven by fear of their fellow man, sacrifice their freedom for the formation of a society in order to protect their lives. A king is elected from the body in recognition of the need of a hegemon, not appointed by a metaphysical entity or entities. In finding himself in this position, Hobbes was succeeding in damaging and alienating himself from the very cause his writing sought to aid. Hobbes' ideas would go on to play an integral part in both the Renaissance and liberal revolution in France. Thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau would be inspired by his work, with the latter being famous for declaring that “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.”5
The defence of sovereignty outlined in Leviathan is done so from a purely rationalistic point of view, it did not limit itself to a mere defence of Monarchy but all forms of sovereignty against anarchy or violent instability. Similar to the work of his predecessor in thought, Machiavelli, Hobbes' magnum opus presents itself as a guideline for how sovereigns ought to conduct themselves rather than simply advocating Absolute Monarchy. Machiavelli's preference of Republicanism to Absolutism6 along with Hobbes unspecified defence of sovereignty in Leviathan could be seen as the initial intellectual manifestation of a secular current within European history.7
It would culminate in the form of the French Revolution and the spread of Liberalism throughout Europe. If we can entertain the idea of Hobbes' Leviathan as a rationalistic view of sovereignty can be accepted, then this would lead us to the conclusion he was a Proto-Liberal thinker.
Philosophical Materialism, the brain-child of Hobbes, was his response to Cartesian Dualism. This theory, proposed by the philosopher Descartes, held that the body and mind were of two different substances. The implication of Cartesian Dualism was that it maintained the idea of the soul existing transcendentally. Cartesian Dualism was a popular theory at the time. Hobbes' opposition to it put him at great odds with the Aristocracy, who regarded the King as possessing a spiritual dignity that granted him his power over others. Hobbes would further distinguish his thought from that of Christian Theologians in addition to Descartes, with the claim that all that existed was made of matter - even God. Whilst this view is not necessary secular in and of itself, it was at best heretical. Its rejection of Dualism and the rationalised view of God's existence as a material being was at odds with the established religion of the time. Materialism laid the framework for a scientific, empirical view of existence as opposed to a metaphysical one. Empiricism and scientific progress would become hugely significant as a result of the weltanschauung developed during the Renaissance, giving strong credentials to Hobbes' status as a Proto-Liberal.
It is necessary to remember that Materialism was not the only philosophy to emerge from this time period. Some of the most important thinkers of the Enlightenment age were followers of German Idealism, in which the external world exists in the perception of the subject's mind and the Transcendent can exist. German Idealism is indebted to its forefather Immanuel Kant. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel influenced the movement with his idea of the development of the human spirit during the course of history8. Later, Arthur Schopenhauer's would influence it further with his idea of Transcendent Idealism and concept of the Will.9 Given the influence that Materialism would later have on Karl Marx, it is possible to argue that Hobbes is much more than a Proto Liberal and is perhaps more of a Proto-Marxist. A neo-Hegelian of sorts, Marx agreed with Hegel's progressive view of history. Yet he rejected the Transcendent element in favour of progress along economic lines with his own conception of history known nowadays as Historical Materialism. Given Marx's view of religion as “The opiate of the masses”10, it is unsurprising that he would adopt Materialism as his own standpoint. Despite this, Marx's rejection of the Hobbesian Barbarian Man in favour of a more malleable human nature, makes Hobbes philosophy Proto-Marxist, at most. Still, it is necessary to acknowledge the existing link between the two thinkers and that Hobbesian influence perhaps extends beyond that of being within the Proto-Liberal paradigm.
Despite what has been said regarding Hobbes' role in Proto-Liberalism and Proto-Marxism, his view of human nature that is expressed in Leviathan is compatible with neither of the two philosophies mentioned above. His belief that as a natural law, all human beings desired to increase their individual power and would inherently compete with each other for self gain11 is antithetical to the Liberal view that human nature is shaped by social circumstances and that humans are inherently rational12 It is important to express that Hobbes thought people were inherently bad and would seek to destroy one another when it suited them. It is for this reason, and not out of mere organizational necessity, that he felt a sovereign, even of artificial status, was needed to keep the common man from destroying all those around him. One might argue that the emphasis on the individual's desire for power has more in common with the Classical Realism that is found in International Relations than Liberalism or Marxism for that matter. Certainly Hobbes' predecessor Machiavelli with his magnum opus, The Prince,has had success in this area. Although Hobbes did not value power in and of itself, he valued the illusion of having attained it out of necessity for survival.
Whilst it might not appear so obvious at first, many aspects of Hobbesian philosophy do appear to have some striking resemblance to Liberalism to the point where it is a fair assertion to declare Hobbes a Proto-Liberal thinker. Although his concept of the Barbarian Man may have very little in common ground with Liberalism on the subject of human nature, his Materialist philosophy, rejection of Cartesian Dualism and rationalised defence of sovereignty could be seen to provide the necessary blueprints for the intellectual develops that would allow Liberalism to emerge as it did historically. If so, Hobbes is in an indirect sense, arguably the father of the Liberal Democracies that characterize Western modernity to this very day.
Modern debate as to whether Hobbes was Atheist has proven to be inconclusive, though the materialist philosophy espoused from Leviathan maintained that everything which existed was made of matter. This effectively ruled out the possibility of metaphysical entities, including the Christian god. This position would later inspire the likes of Karl Marx, as well as numerous Enlightenment Age thinkers. Materialist philosophy, in denying the existence of metaphysical entities, found itself in opposition to the Divine Right of Kings. Hobbes soon found himself to be falling out with both the Catholic Church and the Exiled Royalists from the English Civil War along with the House of Commons who published a bill specifically targeted at Hobbes, against Atheism and Profaneness4. The implications of Hobbes materialist philosophy will be examined at length, later.
Hobbes denial of the Divine Right represents a significant emergence in the structure of western philosophy that was both progressive and subversive by its very nature. Leviathan is regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of Social Contract Theory. This theory maintains that humans, driven by fear of their fellow man, sacrifice their freedom for the formation of a society in order to protect their lives. A king is elected from the body in recognition of the need of a hegemon, not appointed by a metaphysical entity or entities. In finding himself in this position, Hobbes was succeeding in damaging and alienating himself from the very cause his writing sought to aid. Hobbes' ideas would go on to play an integral part in both the Renaissance and liberal revolution in France. Thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau would be inspired by his work, with the latter being famous for declaring that “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.”5
The defence of sovereignty outlined in Leviathan is done so from a purely rationalistic point of view, it did not limit itself to a mere defence of Monarchy but all forms of sovereignty against anarchy or violent instability. Similar to the work of his predecessor in thought, Machiavelli, Hobbes' magnum opus presents itself as a guideline for how sovereigns ought to conduct themselves rather than simply advocating Absolute Monarchy. Machiavelli's preference of Republicanism to Absolutism6 along with Hobbes unspecified defence of sovereignty in Leviathan could be seen as the initial intellectual manifestation of a secular current within European history.7
It would culminate in the form of the French Revolution and the spread of Liberalism throughout Europe. If we can entertain the idea of Hobbes' Leviathan as a rationalistic view of sovereignty can be accepted, then this would lead us to the conclusion he was a Proto-Liberal thinker.
Philosophical Materialism, the brain-child of Hobbes, was his response to Cartesian Dualism. This theory, proposed by the philosopher Descartes, held that the body and mind were of two different substances. The implication of Cartesian Dualism was that it maintained the idea of the soul existing transcendentally. Cartesian Dualism was a popular theory at the time. Hobbes' opposition to it put him at great odds with the Aristocracy, who regarded the King as possessing a spiritual dignity that granted him his power over others. Hobbes would further distinguish his thought from that of Christian Theologians in addition to Descartes, with the claim that all that existed was made of matter - even God. Whilst this view is not necessary secular in and of itself, it was at best heretical. Its rejection of Dualism and the rationalised view of God's existence as a material being was at odds with the established religion of the time. Materialism laid the framework for a scientific, empirical view of existence as opposed to a metaphysical one. Empiricism and scientific progress would become hugely significant as a result of the weltanschauung developed during the Renaissance, giving strong credentials to Hobbes' status as a Proto-Liberal.
It is necessary to remember that Materialism was not the only philosophy to emerge from this time period. Some of the most important thinkers of the Enlightenment age were followers of German Idealism, in which the external world exists in the perception of the subject's mind and the Transcendent can exist. German Idealism is indebted to its forefather Immanuel Kant. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel influenced the movement with his idea of the development of the human spirit during the course of history8. Later, Arthur Schopenhauer's would influence it further with his idea of Transcendent Idealism and concept of the Will.9 Given the influence that Materialism would later have on Karl Marx, it is possible to argue that Hobbes is much more than a Proto Liberal and is perhaps more of a Proto-Marxist. A neo-Hegelian of sorts, Marx agreed with Hegel's progressive view of history. Yet he rejected the Transcendent element in favour of progress along economic lines with his own conception of history known nowadays as Historical Materialism. Given Marx's view of religion as “The opiate of the masses”10, it is unsurprising that he would adopt Materialism as his own standpoint. Despite this, Marx's rejection of the Hobbesian Barbarian Man in favour of a more malleable human nature, makes Hobbes philosophy Proto-Marxist, at most. Still, it is necessary to acknowledge the existing link between the two thinkers and that Hobbesian influence perhaps extends beyond that of being within the Proto-Liberal paradigm.
Despite what has been said regarding Hobbes' role in Proto-Liberalism and Proto-Marxism, his view of human nature that is expressed in Leviathan is compatible with neither of the two philosophies mentioned above. His belief that as a natural law, all human beings desired to increase their individual power and would inherently compete with each other for self gain11 is antithetical to the Liberal view that human nature is shaped by social circumstances and that humans are inherently rational12 It is important to express that Hobbes thought people were inherently bad and would seek to destroy one another when it suited them. It is for this reason, and not out of mere organizational necessity, that he felt a sovereign, even of artificial status, was needed to keep the common man from destroying all those around him. One might argue that the emphasis on the individual's desire for power has more in common with the Classical Realism that is found in International Relations than Liberalism or Marxism for that matter. Certainly Hobbes' predecessor Machiavelli with his magnum opus, The Prince,has had success in this area. Although Hobbes did not value power in and of itself, he valued the illusion of having attained it out of necessity for survival.
Whilst it might not appear so obvious at first, many aspects of Hobbesian philosophy do appear to have some striking resemblance to Liberalism to the point where it is a fair assertion to declare Hobbes a Proto-Liberal thinker. Although his concept of the Barbarian Man may have very little in common ground with Liberalism on the subject of human nature, his Materialist philosophy, rejection of Cartesian Dualism and rationalised defence of sovereignty could be seen to provide the necessary blueprints for the intellectual develops that would allow Liberalism to emerge as it did historically. If so, Hobbes is in an indirect sense, arguably the father of the Liberal Democracies that characterize Western modernity to this very day.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Small excursus on my reasons for Vegetarianism
Since I become a vegetarian about a year ago, I've received a fair amount of flack (and the occasional nod of approval) from friends, relatives and others. Whilst many with the same diet are often stereotyped (fairly or unfairly) as being evangelical about the matter, I've found myself in the opposite mindset, often unwilling to even discuss the matter, even when pressed on it by others. I have decided that here, I might as well list some of the reasons if it concerns anyone since by now, I've had ample time to think about my reasons. Here goes:
*Self-sufficiency: This one is a more recent reason that was at most, a mere intuition when I first changed my diet. Over the last year or so, I've become increasingly aware of how dependent on, among other things, modern man is on mass-produced and distributed food. Wanting to distance myself from this kind of dependency, I decided that some changes needed to made to how I was living life. Whilst vegetarianism has been for me, far from a totally self-sufficient lifestyle (My food is still prepackaged and almost entirely purchased from supermarkets), it certainly has been a neccessary step on the journey towards the ideal state, given the collective nature of meat production, nowadays. Whether I choose to move any further towards self-sufficiency in the future is a consideration that holds a fair bit of sway in my mind but for the moment I am quite content with going as far as I have.
*Enviroment/Concern for non-pet animals: I will not fill this section with statistical data in regards to the effects of meat on the enviroment in general as I have none to offer, and even if I was prepared to, am unsure who to trust for a objective analysis anyway. It stands in line with common sense however, that any form of mass, industrialized production is likely to have a negative effect on local and probably global enviroment. Here, anyone who were to read this and point out that regardless of my actions, that the same meat will still be produced would be fully correct in saying so, however in the least, I have not supported these companies with my money which is a start, which is crucial motivation for acting on the issue, with or without sentiment. In regards to pet animals, I will not deny that I have always been an animal lover and that this plays a role in my position here. Although I am perhaps not in a position to pass judgement, I cannot help but see hypocrisy in those who claim to love pet animals yet consume meat. No matter how well intentioned, it is at the end of the day another way of viewing other species as having been created for human purposes (whether sentimental or economic) which is something that I cannot concur with. The average naturalist might here point out that humans are not the only carnivorous species. This point becomes null however, when it is brought into consideration that other species do not produce meat in the fashion that humans have and do, thus is it moot to compare animal dietry practices to that of modern man. Savitri Devi has pointed out that while the consumption of meat might well be considered universal amongst humanity, a small elite have always refrained from doing so.
*Health: As the case was for my enviromental motivations, I am no expert on the consequences of meat consumption on human health. It again stands in line with common sense that consuming something full of fat, growth hormones and god-knows-what-else can hardly make for a healthy diet. In any case, I've never felt healthier since I became a vegetarian and won't be making the transition back to my old diet, any time soon.
Hopefully the reasons I have listed here will mean that any thoughts on why I chose this lifestyle can be put to rest and that at least one person might think differently as a result of it. It cannot be stressed enough that I am not trying to come across as evangelical but merely briefly addressing the subject out of interest to whoever it might concern.
*Self-sufficiency: This one is a more recent reason that was at most, a mere intuition when I first changed my diet. Over the last year or so, I've become increasingly aware of how dependent on, among other things, modern man is on mass-produced and distributed food. Wanting to distance myself from this kind of dependency, I decided that some changes needed to made to how I was living life. Whilst vegetarianism has been for me, far from a totally self-sufficient lifestyle (My food is still prepackaged and almost entirely purchased from supermarkets), it certainly has been a neccessary step on the journey towards the ideal state, given the collective nature of meat production, nowadays. Whether I choose to move any further towards self-sufficiency in the future is a consideration that holds a fair bit of sway in my mind but for the moment I am quite content with going as far as I have.
*Enviroment/Concern for non-pet animals: I will not fill this section with statistical data in regards to the effects of meat on the enviroment in general as I have none to offer, and even if I was prepared to, am unsure who to trust for a objective analysis anyway. It stands in line with common sense however, that any form of mass, industrialized production is likely to have a negative effect on local and probably global enviroment. Here, anyone who were to read this and point out that regardless of my actions, that the same meat will still be produced would be fully correct in saying so, however in the least, I have not supported these companies with my money which is a start, which is crucial motivation for acting on the issue, with or without sentiment. In regards to pet animals, I will not deny that I have always been an animal lover and that this plays a role in my position here. Although I am perhaps not in a position to pass judgement, I cannot help but see hypocrisy in those who claim to love pet animals yet consume meat. No matter how well intentioned, it is at the end of the day another way of viewing other species as having been created for human purposes (whether sentimental or economic) which is something that I cannot concur with. The average naturalist might here point out that humans are not the only carnivorous species. This point becomes null however, when it is brought into consideration that other species do not produce meat in the fashion that humans have and do, thus is it moot to compare animal dietry practices to that of modern man. Savitri Devi has pointed out that while the consumption of meat might well be considered universal amongst humanity, a small elite have always refrained from doing so.
*Health: As the case was for my enviromental motivations, I am no expert on the consequences of meat consumption on human health. It again stands in line with common sense that consuming something full of fat, growth hormones and god-knows-what-else can hardly make for a healthy diet. In any case, I've never felt healthier since I became a vegetarian and won't be making the transition back to my old diet, any time soon.
Hopefully the reasons I have listed here will mean that any thoughts on why I chose this lifestyle can be put to rest and that at least one person might think differently as a result of it. It cannot be stressed enough that I am not trying to come across as evangelical but merely briefly addressing the subject out of interest to whoever it might concern.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Conversation/Debate over Atheism and History with Gareth on FB
William James Hastings Braddell Can't understand why so many Athiests feel the need to be so arrogant about something they've yet to prove whatsoever.
Yesterday at 12:03am Friends Only · Comment · LikeUnlike · View Feedback (22)Hide Feedback (22)
James Mc Burney likes this.
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
They have nothing to believe in except their own eyes, so they take solace by parading their rationality to fill the void.
Yesterday at 12:09am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
For the most part, it's not arrogance, it's more general irritation at the constant unsolicited rhetoric we get from religious fundamentalists. I can't count the number of times I've found pamphlets from various religious groups slipped under the door on my way out to uni just this year alone. Hell, even when I myself was a christian, that kind of ... See Moreobnoxious behavior annoyed the shit out of me. Spiritual belief of any kind should be a private thing, not something you attempt to foist on other people at every opportunity.
Yesterday at 12:14am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
Also, @Alex, the claim that atheists have nothing to believe in is absurd. Most atheists believe in plenty of things, it's more that said things usually fit in with the individual's definition of rationality, and never revolve around the existence of any kind of deity.
Yesterday at 12:21am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Have a listen.
Yesterday at 12:25am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
I would argue that if you pay attention to his opening statements what he is saying largely supports what I said. I don't always agree with Dawkins but he is a pretty intelligent guy, and his viewpoints are always interesting to look at even when I don't agree with them.
Yesterday at 12:33am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
Fair enough but not relevant as I was actually referring to this as an ontological question, rather than being concerned with any actual faith, i.e. as to whether anyone has the answer to the absolute question, at least in the form of rational debate, for which I've yet to hear any Atheist or Theist or Agnostic (of whom I presently consider to be ... See Moremy ilk), give an irrefutable answer to.
Hence I can't understand for example, that William Adama guy saying that theology was useless (as I believe I read something along the lines of). People like that clearly haven't done their research into the influence that the Vedas had on mathematics or western philosophy. Also he might as well dismiss paper as being useless because Islam played a huge role in its development. Its that kind of ignorance and arrogance (whether in the form of religiosity or secularity) that I can't stand, particularly over something that is likely to remain unanswered for good. Also Gnosticism has already presented a possible valid counteraction to the whole sob story "if god exists, why is there suffering in the world?" argument which are quite common amongst Atheists.
As for the fundamentalist Christian groups, I've found in recent years that the best thing to do is to be above them by showing it clam indifference as being bothered by it only gives it sway over you and your life. I'd also argue that the militantly secular feminist/marxist propaganda (which in my experience holds far more sway at Victoria University) are equally bad if not far worse, given the failures of secular society in more recent centuries in the form of the French Revolution and Communism later on.
I read an interesting article on Prince Charles the other day in which he blamed Galieo and the natural sciences for pushing human interest towards quantity/greed and ultimately being responsible for overpopulation (Which poverty has had a huge role in) and the decline of the west. This raised my opinion of him slightly as this view has in part, been laid down by two of the philosophers I am most interested in, Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. Although I do not have the answer to the absolute question, I think anyone who places faith in secular/progressive society is utterly delusional.
Yesterday at 12:41am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
Oh overpopulation, is there anything you can't do?
Yesterday at 12:42am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
What I have said here is not waffle, its well known that overpopulation has only become a problem with industrialization, a result of the natural sciences.
Yesterday at 12:44am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
I would like to think industrialisation doesn't necessarily lead to overpopulation, but that may be wishful thinking.
Yesterday at 12:47am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
In my opinion it has because it enabled a small rich minority, the Bourgeois, to produce more rapidly and get rich very quickly and pay the general populace poorly and as its well known, the poorer people are , the more children they breed.
Yesterday at 12:50am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
Of course nobody has an answer to the "absolute question" as you put it because the very nature of the question has been tailored such that it is unanswerable during life, and becomes somewhat irrelevant after death. The basic response from a perspective of logic is the only response which can really be made, and it is of course limited, as one ... See Morewould expect in an area which bends over backwards to cover it's own ass against any rational enquiry.
The main issue I have with it is exactly that, it's designed to be impossibly to subject to rational enquiry, and yet people often try to pass it off as a "science", which it quite blatantly is not. It could not possibly be any further from being a science.
I don't personally think that theology is entirely useless, because it can potentially serve as a kind of naysmith and that is ALWAYS useless, but it's often one of those things that refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of being wrong, which really defeats the purpose of being a naysmith.
If people want to believe in a deity or deities, all well and good I say. However I also say that if those same people want to try and push their own beliefs on the rest of us, they really need to be prepared to subject their beliefs to enquiry and analysis from a perspective that is not their own, and to be willing to acknowledge the flaws of their beliefs, which horrific numbers of theists are quite unwilling to do.
I don't hold any particular faith in secular society myself, however I would maintain that a secular society would at least be -less- flawed than a society that revolved around religion. It would still be flawed because all human society is inherently flawed on account of people themselves being inherently flawed. But as a general rule, important areas of scientific research such as evolution, space programs, etc tend to be neglected more as a society becomes less secular, which to me is abhorrent.
Sorry, I went a bit off-topic there, I was meaning to progress to the point that holding absolute faith in anything whatsoever is utterly delusional, whether it's God, or secular society, or anything else you could name. Absolute faith in and of itself is irrational by it's very definition.
As to the question of "if God exists why is there suffering?" I have my own answer to that, an answer which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever actually read the Bible: If God exists, then God is an absolute fucking asshole who is completely unworthy of human worship.
No argument on the overpopulation issues though, overpopulation is a very blatant issue in the modern world.
Yesterday at 12:51am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
Does anyone else here enjoy people who believe outright in the cultural rorschach test that is the bible?
Yesterday at 12:55am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
I enjoy referring to such people as irrational and delusional psychopaths, does that count?
Yesterday at 1:03am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
"I don't hold any particular faith in secular society myself, however I would maintain that a secular society would at least be -less- flawed than a society that revolved around religion."
I cannot agree. In a manner of a few short centuries, Secularity has resulted in a worship of natural science which as I argued, leads to overpopulation through... See More making a few people very rich and the majority far worse off then they ever were as farmers in say, Feudal France. We also have natural science to thank for nuclear weapons that can destroy the earth countless times over and bio/eco warfare, of which the possiblities are really quite terrifying. Health is perhaps the only field in which science has been of real benefit and perhaps in some instances, communication but I say that in a reserved tone due to the global social conditioning it has made possible.
"But as a general rule, important areas of scientific research such as evolution, space programs, etc tend to be neglected more as a society becomes less secular, which to me is abhorrent."
I personally cannot say I am as bothered by this, as these are all things that humans and the planet did fine without for thousands of years and in any case, I don't think they are worth the drawbacks I have mentioned on the subject.
"have my own answer to that, an answer which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever actually read the Bible: If God exists, then God is an absolute fucking asshole who is completely unworthy of human worship."
When I mentioned Gnosticism in response to this issue earlier, it was perhaps a tad arrogant of me not to provide the actual argument attached. Gnosticism is an ancient school of theology dating back to Persian times (I think) that puts forth the idea of an imperfect god rather than one who is not omni-benelovent as you have stated above. Incidently, due to its syncretic nature, it is also a movement within Christianity and happens to be an idea that I am quite fond of at present.
Yesterday at 1:05am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
I myself am quite interested in some aspects of Christianity without actually ascribing a belief in God himself. Greek Orthodoxy is something I'm slowly starting to become sort of fond of, although I'll admit that religiosity isn't where my main interest lies.
Yesterday at 1:07am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
"However I also say that if those same people want to try and push their own beliefs on the rest of us, they really need to be prepared to subject their beliefs to enquiry and analysis from a perspective that is not their own, and to be willing to acknowledge the flaws of their beliefs, which horrific numbers of theists are quite unwilling to do... See More."
The same fault can to some degree also be leveled at Dawkins (who has stated that even the idea of being open minded to the existence of a personal god is delusional) and his followers. Also, secular society is forced on people everyday through media and commercialism. Mcdonalds, Gangsterism, Globalization, MTV, Democracy and more or less all that defines the modern world that the media exposes us to, are the product of secular society and the same values behind this would not have held sway in pre enlightenment age Europe with its simple, agricultural economy.
Yesterday at 1:17am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
"I cannot agree. In a manner of a few short centuries, Secularity has resulted in a worship of natural science which as I argued, leads to overpopulation through making a few people very rich and the majority far worse off then they ever were as farmers in say, Feudal France."
Can't agree that that's purely due to secularism. In fact I'd argue a ... See Morelot of current overpopulation issues are due to religious people forcing educational systems to promote abstinence and not teach about protection at all, when clearly abstinence is not going to happen. Given that atheists are far more likely to be sensible about such things, and are also as a general rule far more likely to support abortion and such, religious groups tend to more than just frown upon both contraception and abortion.
"We also have natural science to thank for nuclear weapons that can destroy the earth countless times over and bio/eco warfare, of which the possiblities are really quite terrifying."
Natural science does not equal atheism. Nuclear weapons were first developed in the USA, which is one of the least secular nations in the entire world, and was even less secualar six and a half decades ago when said technology was developed. I'm not saying that it's the fault of religion that such things exist, more that religion and secularism are pretty much entirely irrelevant to the case. It reminds me of those people who claim atheism is inherently evil because Stalin was an atheist and caused a hell of a lot of death. Yes he was and yes he did, but the two facts are pretty much unrelated.
"I personally cannot say I am as bothered by this, as these are all things that humans and the planet did fine without for thousands of years"
The planet may have, but humans have done ourselves less than proud in our ignorance. I can't help but be disgusted when I look at human history.
That aside, the space program is a potential solution to the issue of overpopulation, and indeed given that nobody is likely to begin a culling of the human population, may actually be the only viable solution, thus I'd actually expect you to support it given your apparent concerns about overpopulation.
Gnosticism might be worth looking into, although while it may be interesting I doubt I will be persuaded of much by it, as it still revolves around belief in a deity of sorts, and deities are inherently illogical concepts in my experience.
"Health is perhaps the only field in which science has been of real benefit and perhaps in some instances, communication but I say that in a reserved tone due to the global social conditioning it has made possible."
I'd also add mathematics to that list, along with debunking of unbelievably idiotic concepts like astrology, not to mention long-term storage of information and thousands of other areas where science is applicable. Life in today's world would be a hell of a lot less easy without science. For example, electricity comes directly from science, and that has undeniably made many, many things in life more efficient.
Yeah, like I said, I don't always agree with Dawkins. But quite frankly as long as religious folk keep pushing their dogma down our throats, I see no reason why we can't spit it out and respond by challenging their beliefs publically.
"Mcdonalds, Gangsterism, Globalization, MTV, Democracy and more or less all that defines the modern world that the media exposes us to, are the product of secular society"
Can't agree that secularism is to blame. While some of the people responsible for the things in question may have been secular themselves, I feel quite safe saying that the majority were not, as much like the nuclear weapon issue, McDonalds, Gangsterism to a large extent, MTV and the popular view on so-called Democracy come largely from the USA, which as previously mentioned is one of the world's least secular nations. And again I would argue that that the secularism or lack thereof is largely irrelevant, as these things have emerged more due to the state of western economics than anything else, and given that atheism makes up less than 7% of the world's population and in the past has consisted of much smaller numbers I think it a bit absurd to try and attribute the state of world/western economics purely to so-called secular society.
Yesterday at 1:28am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
“Can't agree that that's purely due to secularism. In fact I'd argue a ... See Morelot of current overpopulation issues are due to religious people forcing educational systems to promote abstinence and not teach about protection at all, when clearly abstinence is not going to happen. “
Whilst Imperialism in the form of Catholicism in places such ... See Moreas Africa certainly has not helped the problem, it cannot be considered the root of the disaster. Traditional family structure and religion along with a lack of birth control and abortion was the standard worldwide for thousands of years yet it is only in recent times that overpopulation has boomed and become an issue, in fact correlating perfectly with the industrial revolution making my theory seem much more likely, that mass poverty caused by the secular Bourgeois revolution in France and subsequent industrial revolution.
“Natural science does not equal atheism. Nuclear weapons were first developed in the USA, which is one of the least secular nations in the entire world, and was even less secualar six and a half decades ago when said technology was developed. I'm not saying that it's the fault of religion that such things exist, more that religion and secularism are pretty much entirely irrelevant to the case.”
Ah but natural science rose to power during the Renaissance/Enlightenment Age which was totally secular and humanist in its outlook. Also the Jacobins (who were atheist or anti state religion in the least) toppled the French Feudal monarchy and came to power in this time period, forming probably the first secular government in Europe which was quickly followed by the industrial revolution. It is important to note, that the victorious bourgeois had everything to gain from encouraging the worship of natural science which equated with technological progress and in the form of the industrial revolution, benefited them above all others by making them incredibly rich (as the controllers of the means of production) and making everyone else poor, thus fitting well with the theory I have presented of the rise of quantity.
In regards to the U.S.A being one of the least secular nations in the world, I can only say that if you were to stop taking this at face value you would quickly see otherwise for a small number of reasons:
*The U.S.A is democratic and democracy is, excluding Athenian democracy (which is a different matter altogether), essentially secular, having re-emerged in Europe at the French revolution as would be necessary to confirm my theory of the rise of quantity in this time period.
*Being Democratic, the U.S.A does not recognize any divine right of kings, which in itself is an ideal that only emerged with secular thinkers like Locke and Roseau. The church itself generally supported the divine right of Kings at least up until the Magna Carta (which I believe to be an initial sign of secular decay) and even then, maintained respect for authority.
*America (Or the rest of the global western civilization does not have any kind of symbol of any higher order, I.e a Cross for Christianity or a Swastika for Hinduism which thinkers like Guenon, Spengler Evola have already identified as being part of most, if not all traditional, non-secular societies.
*Capitalism, the American way of life, which of course places emphasis on quantity (wealth) and nothing else, did not emerge until (you guessed it) the Bourgeois revolution and is totally unlike the Feudal economy of pre enlightenment Europe which as I have said was simple and agricultural. This emphasis on quantity economically, emerged at the same time as the rise of natural science and democracy, which cannot be viewed as unrelated. When viewed this way, it is not hard to see America as a more secular beast.
*Nationalism, which also was a result of the French revolution, is highly important to most Americans, you won't need to look far to see this is populist in its structure and due to its origins, is of a secular nature for all intents and purposes. If the argument laid out by Julius Evola in Men Among The Ruins holds any credibility, then you would not have found the presence of nationalism anywhere in any of the Christian monarchies in Europe but instead of adherence to border you would have found an adherence to an idea, in this case Christianity.
“That aside, the space program is a potential solution to the issue of overpopulation, and indeed given that nobody is likely to begin a culling of the human population, may actually be the only viable solution, thus I'd actually expect you to support it given your apparent concerns about overpopulation.”
A potential solution to a problem caused by the origins of the solution hardly appears to be worthy of support. Besides this seems like a hypothesis at most so far, as I've yet to see science create an entirely self sufficient space station and even if it could, is this any real way of life? Economic socialism, conservatism in terms of values and if necessary, mass sterilisation or what you have suggested seem like the only real solutions. Although I do not see them happening for the most part, this does to some degree fit into my Cycladic view of the civilization so I am left unchanged on the matter.
“it still revolves around belief in a deity of sorts, and deities are inherently illogical concepts in my experience.”
Its funny how different people react differently to this. To me, the idea of a being that can transcend human rationality and other abstract concepts such as time, seems far more likely than the universe being spawned by a primordial object.
“I'd also add mathematics to that list, along with debunking of unbelievably idiotic concepts like astrology, not to mention long-term storage of information and thousands of other areas where science is applicable.”
India played a huge role in mathematics which was a result of guess what: Hinduism.
“For example, electricity comes directly from science, and that has undeniably made many, many things in life more efficient. “
Its also made people more dependent. You saw how confused people were in the recent blackout, how many westerners do you think could survive today in a primitive hunter-gatherer formation without huge food sources such as supermarkets? Given that this type of society might be ahead in the future due to some of the problems we have discussed, I think this argument warrants some thought.
“the USA, which as previously mentioned is one of the world's least secular nations. And again I would argue that that the secularism or lack thereof is largely irrelevant, as these things have emerged more due to the state of western economics than anything else “
And what is the U.S.A's system of barter? Capitalism, which of course emerged with the Secular French revolution and with its veins full of gold and produce, is totally based around a secular worship of quantity. It of course makes sense for the Bourgeois to encourage a secular form of life for without some higher goal, what do most people turn to other than greed and technological progress? Hence it makes sense, that Mcdonalds and all the others I have listed emerged with the goal of achieving quantity (at whatever cost to everything else) in the age of globalization (which Mcdonalds and America are undeniably playing a huge role in and did not emerge in Feudal France.
Yesterday at 2:32am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
Expanding a little further on what was said about Capitalism in the above comment, unlike the Aristocratic/Feudal systems before hand, it places no importance on any form of spiritual elite "i.e, a Divine Right, only a Plutocratic one, making it quite secular in function. Its of no concidence that Mcdonalds rose to power in the age of this... See ... See MoreMore ... See Morekind of social conditioning along with the technological progress that eventually enabled corperations like this to invade the average households living room in the form of the t.v.
It is true that most Americans and New Zealanders for that matter would list themselves as Christian but this is really a Residual matter rather than anything else, just everyday people preserving a long dead tradition only in name and theory for the most part.
Yesterday at 12:03am Friends Only · Comment · LikeUnlike · View Feedback (22)Hide Feedback (22)
James Mc Burney likes this.
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
They have nothing to believe in except their own eyes, so they take solace by parading their rationality to fill the void.
Yesterday at 12:09am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
For the most part, it's not arrogance, it's more general irritation at the constant unsolicited rhetoric we get from religious fundamentalists. I can't count the number of times I've found pamphlets from various religious groups slipped under the door on my way out to uni just this year alone. Hell, even when I myself was a christian, that kind of ... See Moreobnoxious behavior annoyed the shit out of me. Spiritual belief of any kind should be a private thing, not something you attempt to foist on other people at every opportunity.
Yesterday at 12:14am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
Also, @Alex, the claim that atheists have nothing to believe in is absurd. Most atheists believe in plenty of things, it's more that said things usually fit in with the individual's definition of rationality, and never revolve around the existence of any kind of deity.
Yesterday at 12:21am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Have a listen.
Yesterday at 12:25am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
I would argue that if you pay attention to his opening statements what he is saying largely supports what I said. I don't always agree with Dawkins but he is a pretty intelligent guy, and his viewpoints are always interesting to look at even when I don't agree with them.
Yesterday at 12:33am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
Fair enough but not relevant as I was actually referring to this as an ontological question, rather than being concerned with any actual faith, i.e. as to whether anyone has the answer to the absolute question, at least in the form of rational debate, for which I've yet to hear any Atheist or Theist or Agnostic (of whom I presently consider to be ... See Moremy ilk), give an irrefutable answer to.
Hence I can't understand for example, that William Adama guy saying that theology was useless (as I believe I read something along the lines of). People like that clearly haven't done their research into the influence that the Vedas had on mathematics or western philosophy. Also he might as well dismiss paper as being useless because Islam played a huge role in its development. Its that kind of ignorance and arrogance (whether in the form of religiosity or secularity) that I can't stand, particularly over something that is likely to remain unanswered for good. Also Gnosticism has already presented a possible valid counteraction to the whole sob story "if god exists, why is there suffering in the world?" argument which are quite common amongst Atheists.
As for the fundamentalist Christian groups, I've found in recent years that the best thing to do is to be above them by showing it clam indifference as being bothered by it only gives it sway over you and your life. I'd also argue that the militantly secular feminist/marxist propaganda (which in my experience holds far more sway at Victoria University) are equally bad if not far worse, given the failures of secular society in more recent centuries in the form of the French Revolution and Communism later on.
I read an interesting article on Prince Charles the other day in which he blamed Galieo and the natural sciences for pushing human interest towards quantity/greed and ultimately being responsible for overpopulation (Which poverty has had a huge role in) and the decline of the west. This raised my opinion of him slightly as this view has in part, been laid down by two of the philosophers I am most interested in, Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. Although I do not have the answer to the absolute question, I think anyone who places faith in secular/progressive society is utterly delusional.
Yesterday at 12:41am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
Oh overpopulation, is there anything you can't do?
Yesterday at 12:42am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
What I have said here is not waffle, its well known that overpopulation has only become a problem with industrialization, a result of the natural sciences.
Yesterday at 12:44am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
I would like to think industrialisation doesn't necessarily lead to overpopulation, but that may be wishful thinking.
Yesterday at 12:47am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
In my opinion it has because it enabled a small rich minority, the Bourgeois, to produce more rapidly and get rich very quickly and pay the general populace poorly and as its well known, the poorer people are , the more children they breed.
Yesterday at 12:50am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
Of course nobody has an answer to the "absolute question" as you put it because the very nature of the question has been tailored such that it is unanswerable during life, and becomes somewhat irrelevant after death. The basic response from a perspective of logic is the only response which can really be made, and it is of course limited, as one ... See Morewould expect in an area which bends over backwards to cover it's own ass against any rational enquiry.
The main issue I have with it is exactly that, it's designed to be impossibly to subject to rational enquiry, and yet people often try to pass it off as a "science", which it quite blatantly is not. It could not possibly be any further from being a science.
I don't personally think that theology is entirely useless, because it can potentially serve as a kind of naysmith and that is ALWAYS useless, but it's often one of those things that refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of being wrong, which really defeats the purpose of being a naysmith.
If people want to believe in a deity or deities, all well and good I say. However I also say that if those same people want to try and push their own beliefs on the rest of us, they really need to be prepared to subject their beliefs to enquiry and analysis from a perspective that is not their own, and to be willing to acknowledge the flaws of their beliefs, which horrific numbers of theists are quite unwilling to do.
I don't hold any particular faith in secular society myself, however I would maintain that a secular society would at least be -less- flawed than a society that revolved around religion. It would still be flawed because all human society is inherently flawed on account of people themselves being inherently flawed. But as a general rule, important areas of scientific research such as evolution, space programs, etc tend to be neglected more as a society becomes less secular, which to me is abhorrent.
Sorry, I went a bit off-topic there, I was meaning to progress to the point that holding absolute faith in anything whatsoever is utterly delusional, whether it's God, or secular society, or anything else you could name. Absolute faith in and of itself is irrational by it's very definition.
As to the question of "if God exists why is there suffering?" I have my own answer to that, an answer which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever actually read the Bible: If God exists, then God is an absolute fucking asshole who is completely unworthy of human worship.
No argument on the overpopulation issues though, overpopulation is a very blatant issue in the modern world.
Yesterday at 12:51am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
Does anyone else here enjoy people who believe outright in the cultural rorschach test that is the bible?
Yesterday at 12:55am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
I enjoy referring to such people as irrational and delusional psychopaths, does that count?
Yesterday at 1:03am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
"I don't hold any particular faith in secular society myself, however I would maintain that a secular society would at least be -less- flawed than a society that revolved around religion."
I cannot agree. In a manner of a few short centuries, Secularity has resulted in a worship of natural science which as I argued, leads to overpopulation through... See More making a few people very rich and the majority far worse off then they ever were as farmers in say, Feudal France. We also have natural science to thank for nuclear weapons that can destroy the earth countless times over and bio/eco warfare, of which the possiblities are really quite terrifying. Health is perhaps the only field in which science has been of real benefit and perhaps in some instances, communication but I say that in a reserved tone due to the global social conditioning it has made possible.
"But as a general rule, important areas of scientific research such as evolution, space programs, etc tend to be neglected more as a society becomes less secular, which to me is abhorrent."
I personally cannot say I am as bothered by this, as these are all things that humans and the planet did fine without for thousands of years and in any case, I don't think they are worth the drawbacks I have mentioned on the subject.
"have my own answer to that, an answer which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever actually read the Bible: If God exists, then God is an absolute fucking asshole who is completely unworthy of human worship."
When I mentioned Gnosticism in response to this issue earlier, it was perhaps a tad arrogant of me not to provide the actual argument attached. Gnosticism is an ancient school of theology dating back to Persian times (I think) that puts forth the idea of an imperfect god rather than one who is not omni-benelovent as you have stated above. Incidently, due to its syncretic nature, it is also a movement within Christianity and happens to be an idea that I am quite fond of at present.
Yesterday at 1:05am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
I myself am quite interested in some aspects of Christianity without actually ascribing a belief in God himself. Greek Orthodoxy is something I'm slowly starting to become sort of fond of, although I'll admit that religiosity isn't where my main interest lies.
Yesterday at 1:07am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
"However I also say that if those same people want to try and push their own beliefs on the rest of us, they really need to be prepared to subject their beliefs to enquiry and analysis from a perspective that is not their own, and to be willing to acknowledge the flaws of their beliefs, which horrific numbers of theists are quite unwilling to do... See More."
The same fault can to some degree also be leveled at Dawkins (who has stated that even the idea of being open minded to the existence of a personal god is delusional) and his followers. Also, secular society is forced on people everyday through media and commercialism. Mcdonalds, Gangsterism, Globalization, MTV, Democracy and more or less all that defines the modern world that the media exposes us to, are the product of secular society and the same values behind this would not have held sway in pre enlightenment age Europe with its simple, agricultural economy.
Yesterday at 1:17am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
"I cannot agree. In a manner of a few short centuries, Secularity has resulted in a worship of natural science which as I argued, leads to overpopulation through making a few people very rich and the majority far worse off then they ever were as farmers in say, Feudal France."
Can't agree that that's purely due to secularism. In fact I'd argue a ... See Morelot of current overpopulation issues are due to religious people forcing educational systems to promote abstinence and not teach about protection at all, when clearly abstinence is not going to happen. Given that atheists are far more likely to be sensible about such things, and are also as a general rule far more likely to support abortion and such, religious groups tend to more than just frown upon both contraception and abortion.
"We also have natural science to thank for nuclear weapons that can destroy the earth countless times over and bio/eco warfare, of which the possiblities are really quite terrifying."
Natural science does not equal atheism. Nuclear weapons were first developed in the USA, which is one of the least secular nations in the entire world, and was even less secualar six and a half decades ago when said technology was developed. I'm not saying that it's the fault of religion that such things exist, more that religion and secularism are pretty much entirely irrelevant to the case. It reminds me of those people who claim atheism is inherently evil because Stalin was an atheist and caused a hell of a lot of death. Yes he was and yes he did, but the two facts are pretty much unrelated.
"I personally cannot say I am as bothered by this, as these are all things that humans and the planet did fine without for thousands of years"
The planet may have, but humans have done ourselves less than proud in our ignorance. I can't help but be disgusted when I look at human history.
That aside, the space program is a potential solution to the issue of overpopulation, and indeed given that nobody is likely to begin a culling of the human population, may actually be the only viable solution, thus I'd actually expect you to support it given your apparent concerns about overpopulation.
Gnosticism might be worth looking into, although while it may be interesting I doubt I will be persuaded of much by it, as it still revolves around belief in a deity of sorts, and deities are inherently illogical concepts in my experience.
"Health is perhaps the only field in which science has been of real benefit and perhaps in some instances, communication but I say that in a reserved tone due to the global social conditioning it has made possible."
I'd also add mathematics to that list, along with debunking of unbelievably idiotic concepts like astrology, not to mention long-term storage of information and thousands of other areas where science is applicable. Life in today's world would be a hell of a lot less easy without science. For example, electricity comes directly from science, and that has undeniably made many, many things in life more efficient.
Yeah, like I said, I don't always agree with Dawkins. But quite frankly as long as religious folk keep pushing their dogma down our throats, I see no reason why we can't spit it out and respond by challenging their beliefs publically.
"Mcdonalds, Gangsterism, Globalization, MTV, Democracy and more or less all that defines the modern world that the media exposes us to, are the product of secular society"
Can't agree that secularism is to blame. While some of the people responsible for the things in question may have been secular themselves, I feel quite safe saying that the majority were not, as much like the nuclear weapon issue, McDonalds, Gangsterism to a large extent, MTV and the popular view on so-called Democracy come largely from the USA, which as previously mentioned is one of the world's least secular nations. And again I would argue that that the secularism or lack thereof is largely irrelevant, as these things have emerged more due to the state of western economics than anything else, and given that atheism makes up less than 7% of the world's population and in the past has consisted of much smaller numbers I think it a bit absurd to try and attribute the state of world/western economics purely to so-called secular society.
Yesterday at 1:28am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
“Can't agree that that's purely due to secularism. In fact I'd argue a ... See Morelot of current overpopulation issues are due to religious people forcing educational systems to promote abstinence and not teach about protection at all, when clearly abstinence is not going to happen. “
Whilst Imperialism in the form of Catholicism in places such ... See Moreas Africa certainly has not helped the problem, it cannot be considered the root of the disaster. Traditional family structure and religion along with a lack of birth control and abortion was the standard worldwide for thousands of years yet it is only in recent times that overpopulation has boomed and become an issue, in fact correlating perfectly with the industrial revolution making my theory seem much more likely, that mass poverty caused by the secular Bourgeois revolution in France and subsequent industrial revolution.
“Natural science does not equal atheism. Nuclear weapons were first developed in the USA, which is one of the least secular nations in the entire world, and was even less secualar six and a half decades ago when said technology was developed. I'm not saying that it's the fault of religion that such things exist, more that religion and secularism are pretty much entirely irrelevant to the case.”
Ah but natural science rose to power during the Renaissance/Enlightenment Age which was totally secular and humanist in its outlook. Also the Jacobins (who were atheist or anti state religion in the least) toppled the French Feudal monarchy and came to power in this time period, forming probably the first secular government in Europe which was quickly followed by the industrial revolution. It is important to note, that the victorious bourgeois had everything to gain from encouraging the worship of natural science which equated with technological progress and in the form of the industrial revolution, benefited them above all others by making them incredibly rich (as the controllers of the means of production) and making everyone else poor, thus fitting well with the theory I have presented of the rise of quantity.
In regards to the U.S.A being one of the least secular nations in the world, I can only say that if you were to stop taking this at face value you would quickly see otherwise for a small number of reasons:
*The U.S.A is democratic and democracy is, excluding Athenian democracy (which is a different matter altogether), essentially secular, having re-emerged in Europe at the French revolution as would be necessary to confirm my theory of the rise of quantity in this time period.
*Being Democratic, the U.S.A does not recognize any divine right of kings, which in itself is an ideal that only emerged with secular thinkers like Locke and Roseau. The church itself generally supported the divine right of Kings at least up until the Magna Carta (which I believe to be an initial sign of secular decay) and even then, maintained respect for authority.
*America (Or the rest of the global western civilization does not have any kind of symbol of any higher order, I.e a Cross for Christianity or a Swastika for Hinduism which thinkers like Guenon, Spengler Evola have already identified as being part of most, if not all traditional, non-secular societies.
*Capitalism, the American way of life, which of course places emphasis on quantity (wealth) and nothing else, did not emerge until (you guessed it) the Bourgeois revolution and is totally unlike the Feudal economy of pre enlightenment Europe which as I have said was simple and agricultural. This emphasis on quantity economically, emerged at the same time as the rise of natural science and democracy, which cannot be viewed as unrelated. When viewed this way, it is not hard to see America as a more secular beast.
*Nationalism, which also was a result of the French revolution, is highly important to most Americans, you won't need to look far to see this is populist in its structure and due to its origins, is of a secular nature for all intents and purposes. If the argument laid out by Julius Evola in Men Among The Ruins holds any credibility, then you would not have found the presence of nationalism anywhere in any of the Christian monarchies in Europe but instead of adherence to border you would have found an adherence to an idea, in this case Christianity.
“That aside, the space program is a potential solution to the issue of overpopulation, and indeed given that nobody is likely to begin a culling of the human population, may actually be the only viable solution, thus I'd actually expect you to support it given your apparent concerns about overpopulation.”
A potential solution to a problem caused by the origins of the solution hardly appears to be worthy of support. Besides this seems like a hypothesis at most so far, as I've yet to see science create an entirely self sufficient space station and even if it could, is this any real way of life? Economic socialism, conservatism in terms of values and if necessary, mass sterilisation or what you have suggested seem like the only real solutions. Although I do not see them happening for the most part, this does to some degree fit into my Cycladic view of the civilization so I am left unchanged on the matter.
“it still revolves around belief in a deity of sorts, and deities are inherently illogical concepts in my experience.”
Its funny how different people react differently to this. To me, the idea of a being that can transcend human rationality and other abstract concepts such as time, seems far more likely than the universe being spawned by a primordial object.
“I'd also add mathematics to that list, along with debunking of unbelievably idiotic concepts like astrology, not to mention long-term storage of information and thousands of other areas where science is applicable.”
India played a huge role in mathematics which was a result of guess what: Hinduism.
“For example, electricity comes directly from science, and that has undeniably made many, many things in life more efficient. “
Its also made people more dependent. You saw how confused people were in the recent blackout, how many westerners do you think could survive today in a primitive hunter-gatherer formation without huge food sources such as supermarkets? Given that this type of society might be ahead in the future due to some of the problems we have discussed, I think this argument warrants some thought.
“the USA, which as previously mentioned is one of the world's least secular nations. And again I would argue that that the secularism or lack thereof is largely irrelevant, as these things have emerged more due to the state of western economics than anything else “
And what is the U.S.A's system of barter? Capitalism, which of course emerged with the Secular French revolution and with its veins full of gold and produce, is totally based around a secular worship of quantity. It of course makes sense for the Bourgeois to encourage a secular form of life for without some higher goal, what do most people turn to other than greed and technological progress? Hence it makes sense, that Mcdonalds and all the others I have listed emerged with the goal of achieving quantity (at whatever cost to everything else) in the age of globalization (which Mcdonalds and America are undeniably playing a huge role in and did not emerge in Feudal France.
Yesterday at 2:32am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
Expanding a little further on what was said about Capitalism in the above comment, unlike the Aristocratic/Feudal systems before hand, it places no importance on any form of spiritual elite "i.e, a Divine Right, only a Plutocratic one, making it quite secular in function. Its of no concidence that Mcdonalds rose to power in the age of this... See ... See MoreMore ... See Morekind of social conditioning along with the technological progress that eventually enabled corperations like this to invade the average households living room in the form of the t.v.
It is true that most Americans and New Zealanders for that matter would list themselves as Christian but this is really a Residual matter rather than anything else, just everyday people preserving a long dead tradition only in name and theory for the most part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)