http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_weapons_bible_passages
Wow. Vikings used to carve runes and such into their weapons to give it extra power. Look how far we’ve gone as a people. We now have much more hi-tech weapons to carve spiritual sayings in.
僕がもうビジネスの学士学位を持ってて、もうコンピュータープログラマーです。もう生物学を勉強しています。学位が要らなそうで、夜の授業には忙しそうから友達がよく「なんで生物工学を学んでる？」と聞きます。このポーストで答えます。理由は以下です。
僕は大きい子供です。趣味が物を作ることです。プログラミングを習う理由はテレビゲームを作りたかったからです。仕事がプログラマーなのにまだプログラムを作るのが楽しいです。だから、発明家になりたいです。色んな能力を集めたら、いい有名な発明家になれると思います。実はプログラミング力と生物工学が合うと思います。特にメディカルデバイスには特に便利です。虫よりもちっちゃいロボットを人間の体に通って何か直すロボットなどを作りたいです。
暗い未来を防ぎたい理由もあります。だんだん地球の人口が増えています。それで、餓死が増えています。森とかが経ています。それが悪いことは悪いけど、科学技術の新法によって防げます。料理オタクだから、よく貧乏のアフリカの村を何か発明した生物工学で救済するイメージを見ます。人間が必要なビタミン１００％のトウモロコシを作りたいです。などなどなど。
最後に生物が確かに好きです。僕には水草が気持ち悪くないです。１週間に３回ぐらい、朝に森の中にジョッギングします。太っているアメリカ人にならないためだけじゃなくて、自然に親しむためです。僕は宗教的じゃないです。逆に無神論だけど、自然の経験がよく僕には宗教的です。教会より大きい杉、天使より多い鳥、神様よりずっと理解すれば理解するほど理解できない宇宙。
Here is a simpler argument for a notion I have I call “Naturalistic Animism,” which is a nod to Spinoza‘s “Naturalistic Pantheism.” My earlier post was here. It’s also referred to in Bron Taylor’s writings on “Dark Green Religion,” meaning the idea itself isn’t my invention, though at one point I thought it might be.
There is no supernatural spark, no dual nature to make a thing have life rather than not. There also isn’t a specific definition of life that is universally accepted in the scientific community, though there are characteristics we can observe – many orders of magnitude more complex and organized than non-life, being able to maintain homeostasis and being able to reproduce and evolve. There are other, more specific chemical characteristics, but they may not be universal to all life, though they may be for all terrestrial life. In any event, what we have isn’t a strict definition, but some general characteristics that some non-life could be said to have, but just to a lesser degree. We know of entities such as prions and viruses, though their origins are with what we generally recognize to be life (bacterium or rogue DNA sequences that become parasitic). However, if we go back to the beginning of life (where things get more speculative, of course), there would have been non-life becoming more and more like life and then life becoming less and less like non-life.
Life and non-life, then, are of the same substance and type, differing only in degree. This is an important realization as it may turn out, for example, that universes are subject to a crude form of evolution, with more stable universes such as ours becoming more common in time (this notion is known as the hard anthropic principle). Certainly, entities that are inherently more stable persist and those that don’t, don’t. Who knows what whacky particles were there at the big bang for just a few gazillionths of a second? This is so obvious, it’s hardly worth mentioning except for the fact that this basic property of matter is the first step it always must take towards becoming life. The universe weeds out the unstable. Evolvability evolves and when it reaches a certain threshold, what we all agree to be life then begins. This is when an entity can create copies of itself with unprecedented accuracy, though it only gets better at doing this as time goes on.
Now, we like to think there is something special about life and that, all other considerations being equal, it should deserve consideration. It seems we live in a world like what Zoroaster described, except we know that in the end it is instead the wicked Ahriman who prevails – our universe is doomed to a thermodynamic death where no life is possible. The fact that I just depressed you with that analogy means that you, too, see value in life! Even if we humans become extinct, we hope that life on our planet or somewhere else can at least give birth to some other beings that can contemplate the universe and be depressed by it.
The problem we run into is that the laws of physics tell us that life isn’t anything special (well, it kind of is, but only in the sense that humans are special – we’re simply more intelligent, more social – the “spark” is a difference in degree!). This basic notion is what is called hylozoism (everything is alive or life and non-life are indistinguishable – this term is a doozy and it’s really only defined in a few writings, most of which seem to be attacking the notion). Reality is however the fuck it wants to be, but how we describe reality is up to us, so long as we’re not misleading or lying to ourselves (like religion tends to, almost without exception). Whether we say that life is nothing or whether we elevate the non-life to the status of living – animism – is a spiritual, not scientific question and I make the claim that it is not deception to say that the universe is alive or that it is at least filled with proto-life and pseudo-life everywhere. I would almost go as far to say that it is an enlightening idea that will let us see intuitively what will one day be known concretely about the universe.
Spirituality through nature. It’s not just for dirty hippies, weirdoes and head hunters.
Strange! Humans Glow in Visible Light – Yahoo! News
Looking at the last few paragraphs – isn’t it so Japanese to look for problems by looking at the light coming from bodies? We Westerners, informed by perverted notions such as Luther’s that the soul and the body are seperate entities, the latter just happening to contain the former, always want to look at the individual parts.
Nature Vs. Culture
The solid green is magic(k), the solid blue is taboo. Society sometimes derives oughts from ises, so the blue shape approximates the green shape [poorly]. Man copies and is inspired by nature, but we refer to breaking a norm and doing something impossible both as “breaking laws” though they are quite, quite different concepts.
Thesis: animism
Antithesis: atheism
Synthesis: naturalistic animism
Here is an idea that I’ve been swirling around in my head for awhile. I feel that it isn’t quite cooked up yet, but has great potential. But let me know what you think! And be brutal, but don’t be dumb (unless you are dumb, in which case you can’t help it and I’ll allow it).
Spinoza layed outa quasi-religious, yet non-supernatural (one could say, Atheistic) system called naturalistic pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism approaches spirituality through nature from a Judeo-Christian starting point (the way I see it; his audience was Christian). Spinoza begins with the all-powerful God of the Hebrews and ends with an all-powerful, consisting of all things, logical, unthinking “God” (you can just call “him” the universe if you want).
Spinoza’s views have been very influential. Albert Einstein, Arne Næss (founder of the deep ecology movement), Steven Hawkings and countless philosophers have been influenced by Spinoza’s naturalistic pantheism. It has been used as a way to understand human behavior and the universe. Our brains aren’t general-purpose calculators, so there is power in phrases such as “I want to read God’s thoughts.”
I propose a biocentric spirituality that is to animism what Spinoza’s views are to pantheism and deism.
The way is to look at the nature of life itself, which leads us to realize that more things are living than those that have DNA, are carbon-based or eat and shit. I do not speak of extraterrestrials (though I do hope I can meet an alien, even if it’s single-celled, in my lifetime, so long as it’s not murderous), but to a wall that astrobiologists constantly run into.
How do we define life? When going to other planets in search for life (what life chauvanists we are), all we know to look for is something carbon-based (since carbon bonds with, like, everything) and that’s based on water (high specific heat capacity, low freezing point, high melting point, our understanding of pH is based on it, hydrogen stops oxygenation, etc…). However, the truly fascinating thing about astrobiology is that distant lifeforms can be stranger than we ever imagined. That leads us to propose more generic ideas of what life is, but depeding on how we word it, we can exclude things like virii and prions or include things like entire ecosystems or social movements (in extremely broad cases).
I would say something is living if it has an ability to maintain homeostasis in a chaotic environment and adapt (even if the individual can’t, if it can reproduce, then that counts as adapting since even simple asexual reproduction allows a slow sort of evolution). But just as a multicellular organism is made up not only of countless cells, but also a symbiosis of bacterium in the case of animals (you’ve probably heard this before, but bacterial cells outnumber human cells in your body 10 to 1 – that’s probably the main way you keep bad guys out most of the time), an ecosystem containing individual species can itself be a lifeform (please see Lovelock’s work.. this idea isn’t as crazy as it sounds). When we get broad like this, it might seem silly, but it’s just because of what you’ve been taught.
I would accept a broad definition of life, but then lay down an important dividing line – if the lifeform exists within a specific substance and has a clear boundary, within which only it maintains homeostatis, then I say it is a true lifeform (examples: ladybugs, whales, acetobacter). If it exists throughout time and place and has no definite boundary, then it is a spirit (examples: the Earth’s ecosphere, various ecosystems, religious movements).
What Hegel calls a gheist, what Smith calls the invisible hand, what Lovelock calls Gaia, what Jung calls an archetype, these are all spirits. ‘Wait’, you might say, ‘these are radically different concepts, you nit-wit!’ Ah, but cyanobacteria is a very different concept from a flying snake. So there. I know there are holes in this idea and maybe something essential is missing that would improve it greatly. So, have at it, folks!
because I slow down when I know an empty cop car is coming up
I humbly propose this doctrine for everyone, religious or not, to follow:
No physical misdeed can have a metaphysical justification
First, the argument:
The certitude of a premise is of course logically significant. Therefore, the unknowability of a divine source of morality is ethically significant. This is fairly obvious, yet too many individuals and organizations do not act upon it. MostMany religious systems involve morality and a basis for that morality that is unknowable. Now, this doctrine I have here is insufficient because in reality these myths are invented post ex-facto and therefore the true origins of the morals must be sufficiently researched. However, this snappy phrase is a good starting point to suggest a wide range of ideas… Also, it may be used if one is to give religious systems the benefit of the doubt that the supernatural they invoke is the source of the morality, if it is a fact.
Anyway, this has always been one of my primary arguments against missionaries. They are doing something that would be beneficial if their dogma was correct, but neutral (best case scenario) to terrible if their premise is wrong. Many religious organizations might have come to this realization themselves… See this interfaith conference on the issue. It would just be awesome if those Mormon missionaries in Japan stopped preaching Mormonism and started preaching the gospel of “eat brown rice! it’ll cure your constipation.”
This is the end of “God and Morality Week”, a straight-jacket premise that I got bored with the second day. Tomorrow’s post will be another idea I have that just so happens to be a good argument against missionaries. How is that for a segue?
…at least if a Christian makes them:
Dinesh D’Souza (and many others before him) makes a very clever argument for the existence of a God – that out of all the possible universes that could have existed, one must have been created that is suitable for life. He doesn’t shoot himself in the foot like bible literalists by suggesting that science is a vast conspiracy, but rather admits the validity of, e.g., the big bang theory, continental drift, biological evolution, etc. He then points out (correctly, last I heard) that if certain universal constants were only slightly off, the universe would be unsuitable for life, the first sparks would have never occurred and evolution simply would have been rendered impossible. Clever, but flawed as a defense of Christianity.
Dinesh is known for saying “God could have made an arbitrary universe or he could have made an ordered universe” (paraphrasing), and goes on to attack the silly notion of each happening being the direct will of God. We can falsify the idea of an arbitrary universe quite easily. The fact that we can predict things using mathematics and theorems shows that the universe acts based on certain principals. It shows that if there is a creator God (s)he adamantly refuses to violate his/her own rules. The problem is Christianity is a belief in an arbitrary universe, since a miracle is by definition a violation of the laws of nature, as is immaculate conception, resurrection, etc.
One could respond to this by suggesting that the universe is mostly ordered and sometimes God intervenes. Certainly, if I were God, I’d put the universe on autopilot and intervene when things go wrong (like I do with my pond, my garden, etc.), but that’s because I’m not perfect and I could have made big mistakes in making the world. However, an even partially arbitrary universe is an arbitrary universe. Where we see apparent violations of the laws of nature, it is always where our understanding is incomplete and never correlates with prayer nor piety. Never has there been a verifiable instance of a prayer resulting in something that violates the laws of physics. To use an argument Shermer likes to use, people may pray to recover from cancer (something that might happen anyway), but people don’t pray to grow a leg when their leg gets blown away. Heh, clever.
So, in conclusion, I suppose your faith in God might increase from the ordered universe argument if you are a deist or a naturalistic pantheist – in other words, your God is 100% non-interventionist; that is really a separate and weird argument that I won’t bother getting into right now (it doesn’t deal with morality). But if you are a Christian, it should severely challenge your idea of Jesus as an avatar of God (or something like that), rather than merely a philosopher and primary founder of Christianity.
With this post, I begin “God & Morality Week” at Thomas J. Webb’s Ecology Blog! From today until next Monday, we will be exploring the nature of morality with respect to the unknowable supernatural. Though the vocabulary I use may lead one to believe I am picking on Christianity, please remember that when I say “God” I simply mean any benevolent, in-power (possibly all-powerful) benevolent force(s), be it monotheistic, polytheistic or animistic that is supposed to be the source of mankind’s, or at least a people’s morality. These series of arguments are not meant to be an attack on any one religion or on religiosity in general, but instead are meant to attack what are some really silly moral positions that astonishingly still haven’t gone extinct, particularly the absurd notion that one cannot have morality without God.
Wait, this is supposed to be an environmentalism blog or something, right? Well, I just have some ideas that have been swimming in my head since starting to read “Political & Theological Treatise” by Spinoza and watching a few biographies on prominent existentialists. Also, I’m building up to something that does deal with ecosophy.
Okay, so now for today’s:
In a debate about morality, one side (side A) may resort to theological justification. The argument goes something like God says it is good, therefore it is good. The implication is that morals come from God, since God lay them out along with physical laws, for humans to obey. If a book is involved, then one possible interpretation of the book is used to justify the moral position. If the opponent (side B) points out that the book in question could be interpreted differently in such a way that an immoral act is not only justified, but mandated, then side A has a shocking rebuttal – “that couldn’t be, because God is good.”
Think about the meaning of this reply for a second. Isn’t good, good simply because God deemed it so? To suggest otherwise is to admit that morality may come from a different place (making morality without God perfectly possible), perhaps from self-evident facts? If one has faith that God is good and yet can determine right from wrong within the non-scriptural frameworks we use, then isn’t the best way to find out what God wants of humanity to continue to seek under that framework? In other words, when these two people are arguing a moral point, isn’t the one who is right automatically the one who is more pious to God, regardless of what any book says? If the scripture mandates the incomprehensible, then sooner deem the scripture wrong (or misunderstood) than God bad, correct?
Looking at this, we are left with two alternatives – either what we think is right in our society is wrong (so, slavery is okay, for example) or that we can determine what is right by reason alone, without involving the even more impossible task (if such exists) of reading God’s mind.
So, in conclusion, you cannot justify a morality on theological grounds UNLESS you are to believe simultaneously that humans do not have the intellectual expertise to discover what is good and evil AND that those same faulty humans are miraculously able to read God’s mind and flawlessly translate and transliterate holy texts when a false prophet and a true prophet are impossible to distinguish (since anyone can do magic tricks).
“Religion” is a flag
fuck the flag, says the wise old hag
Religion is a form of art
embrace art, or you’ll be as depressing as Sartre
Oh, the days I do miss he’d make a bully crawl, or a girl kiss
It cost only a call to wish, to will, to watch the teacher fall
But one meal was not sweet not cabbage, nor beans, but a loathsome beet
I wished as I might call but none unsweet, not even beets, would fall
Only a fool could think! a llama greets me from the kitchen sink!
For far and forgot be for him as near as cider and glass be
Yes, my llama friend be though nary a place you can hope to see
This morning, the dishwasher pissed me off. For the quadrillionth time, a spoon’s handle fell through one of the .5cm2 squares put in the silverware basket so water (and dirt) could move freely about. Generally, dirt is smaller and dishes are larger, but the mesh couldn’t eliminate the possibility of utensil handles falling through without also trapping larger chunks, “cleaning” utensils in a sort of sanitized crap-pool.
The mind thinks in categories, or discreet entities. The world exists as no such thing, and we make technology to sort out the difference – to find a physical existence of our social categories. We don’t want the unclean on our silverware. Unclean is generally small pieces. We don’t want mosquitoes in our ponds – critters that need still water with no oil slick on the surface. Oh, but dragonflies are so nifty. Turnips are edible and easy to grow – keep ‘em. Dandelions are edible and easy to grow – kill it! (seriously, why?) Only a robot with my brain can truly know what I want growing in my garden.
Here is one problem of the modern world – children grow up believing categories have a physical existence that do not because technology is advanced enough to sort it out most of the time. Only when children are exposed to wild nature, if just for short spans of time (like camping), can their minds truly grow.
there to nullify the need for pettier (smaller) types of superstition.