Barry Schwartz: Our loss of wisdom .

Moral will, skills and actions should be celebrated and actualised.

Moral people are made (with practical wisdom via experience) and not born.

Any occupation that requires human interaction requires moral skills and actions.

Excessive reliance on incentives causes the professional activity to lose morality.

Professionals get 'addicted' to incentives and stop asking: 'Is it right?'

Heads of organisations should set up environments that nurture Moral will, skills and actions.

Respect oneself. Respect each other. Respect learning.

Do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons.

Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution! .

Time to disenthrall ourselves

1) from linearity- our outdated markers of talent and ability

2) from conformity- human flourishing is organic not mechanistic

Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice

Reading "The Social contract" again

"When someone is brought up to command others, everything conspires to rob him of justice and reason. Great pains are taken, we are told, to teach young princes the art of ruling; but it does not appear that this eudcation does them any good. It would be better to begin by teaching them the art of obeying."

"But if, according to Plato, a born king is a very rare being- how often do Nature and Fortune combine to enthrone such a man? And if a royal education necessarily corrupts those who receive it, what must be expected of a succession of men brought up to rule?"

"...to assume in his own favour the tacit consent of those whose mouth are closed by fear and to punish those who dare to speak. It was thus that the decemvirs. having been first elected for one year, and then continued for another, tried to retain thier power in perpetuity, by no longer allowing the comitia to assemble."

"In proportion as the enlargement of the state means offering the holders of public authority more temptations and more opportunities to abuse thier power, it follows that the more power the government needs to control the people, the more power the sovereign needs, in its turn, to control the government."

RESPECT

This is another installment of reality from your friendly neighborhood critical thinker. Nathaniel was asking me about RESPECT and I realized that this is a topic that I have always wanted to write about as a humanist. Time to get started….
As with many things in life, most of us would have trouble defining respect poignantly. And yet we use it quite commonly. One of the most common confusions lies in mixing up ‘respect’ with ‘being impressed’. We often do this is our daily lives. ‘Wah…he run 2.4km so fast…respect sia.’ This cheapens the meaning of respect. You are merely impressed with his speed. You can however respect the work that he puts in to achieve that speed. The work which he would have put in to achieve that speed is worthy of respect because it speaks of nobility in action, namely discipline and mental fortitude.
When I deconstruct the concept of respect, I find that it comes in two main forms of which I will discuss below- inter-personal respect and humanist respect.

Inter-personal respect is not a given nor can it be forced. Anybody who demands respect from you and/or uses a position of authority to make you conform to respecting them often are motivated by vanity, egotism and insecurity. Respect should only be earned through noble actions in particular fields and/or character and this happens through social intercourse. Thus inter-personal respect is subjective and not all-encompassing of an individual. The reality is that an individual may be worthy of respect in one field of life but not others.

The above however does not reduce in any way humanist rights [which are universally given and an increasingly institutionalized form/s of respect] that we accord to each other as fellow equal members of the human family. We should also accord this respect to animals as humanists given that we are equal living creatures with no biological or moral superiority.
Institutionalized ‘respect’ is another facet of ‘respect’ that is a reality in everyday life. It is put in place by institutions and enforced with sanctions. Therefore it is not genuine respect. It is merely a façade and an act of submission/subjugation of one’s will in the presence and knowledge of an unequal power nexus. Therefore I did not place institutionalized respect in my conceptual understanding of ‘respect’.
In summary, we accord humanist respect to all because we acknowledge our equality. Interpersonal respect however is earned through demonstrating nobility in action and/or character. And everyday heroes who are indeed worthy of our respect are everywhere if only we carefully looked.

Critical analysis of Hamza Andrea Tzortis' lecture- Islam or Atheism. Which one makes more sense

I apologise. My shift keys are busted. Therefore I could not key in question marks in the title.

This is not a post on Islam. Hamza asks “Islam or atheism: which makes more sense?” Therefore this is a post on fallacies in critical thought. I am a proponent of critical thought and will be intellectually honest. I am not an atheist. I am a proponent of critical thought, a humanist and a naturalist. Please do not take the position of a creed against me. I have written multiple posts on multiple subjects of illogical and uncritical thought. Read my critical analysis of his talk and judge for yourself if I have wronged him by identifying the fallacies in critical thought below that he had committed. (Question everything and everyone and that includes me.)

Hamza does not understand philosophy as he so claims. Since he clearly states that he is using rationality and philosophy to prove his case, he deserves to be judged on that basis.
He states that his position is one of a rationalist. Then he should know that an asserted casual chain with no proven premise (“God exists” is an unfalsifiable claim) only shows the effect. We cannot affirm the consequent from the effect.

His argument that he is of a rationalist stand and that atheists are of an empirical stand are in ‘opposite camps’ is a terrible crime of ‘false dichotomy’. Rationalism and empiricism are mutually supportive tools of critical thought. And by delineating that empiricism is not ‘rational’ in nature is pure intellectual dishonesty.
He then attacks Dawkins personally- ad hominem- thereby emotionally getting the audience on his side before attacking Dawkin’s argument. Dawkins has done this to others before too. We should do well to always remember to avoid this human failing.

He then goes on to try to argue for immateriality of the cause which is unfalsifiable and thereby inconclusive. Once he has taken this step, he can insert any answer that he wants without any proof.

He tries to prove the logic of asking for the regression of cause to be illogical.“ The very question denies the existence of the universe.” Thereby should we not ask the question? Did this line of rational thought not give us many answers to questions in life?

'The cause must have a will.' Yet again, this is unfalsifiable and also not consistent with reality. Not all causes have wills.

"This is so in line with the Quran’s answer.' What he does not educate his audience on is that many other religions also hold this view. Therefore he is engaging in a fallacy of critical thought that is “cherry picking”.
Then he goes on to defend miracles. He states that natural laws are inductive generalisations of patterns in the universe. This is equivocation. Contrary to what he says, Natural laws are overwhelmingly consistent inductive observations of patterns in the universe.

He states that consciousness is immaterial and therefore does not have its roots in matter. This is yet again unfalsifiable. Consciousness is a complex cognitive state that we are still discovering about. Should we not be intellectually cautious and hold our judgments first before we set a cast-in-stone explanation? He says that ‘Dawkins says that he does not know.’ This is a perfectly acceptable position for a critical thinker to admit that you do not know all yet. Why does he fault Dawkins for this?

He then goes on to talk about the Quran as a linguistic miracle. But he fails to educate his audience about other religious text such as the Rig Vedas which are linguistic miracles as claimed by their believers as well. Yet again, this is ‘cherry picking’.

And his argument about the massive following of his faith thereby proving its validity is one of ad populum.

He then goes on an “Atheists have no moral basis” attack. This is the fallacy in critical thought known as “mudslinging”. He reduces the atheistic goal in life to “procreation of DNA” and commits the “straw man” fallacy in critical thought.

In conclusion, Hamza's whole premise for his argument is based on a generalisation that the position of atheists is that of empiricism thereby reducing the two camps into a falsely dichotomous state and his oppon...ent to a 'straw man' [another fallacy in critical thought] which he then proceeds to knock down. In the process, he commits many other fallacies in critical thought. Therefore his entire argument is not sound nor maximally reasonable.

Tom Harpur- Horus and Jesus

Horus preceded Jesus as a historic record by roughly 2000 years. There were 180 exact parallels between these two man-Gods. Below are some of these similarities.

Both

- were conceived by virgins
- were fathered by Gods.
- foster fathers were of royal descent.
- their births were heralded by a star, announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds.
- survived death threats when they were young.
- had missing life histories from age 12-30 and were later baptized at 30.
- their baptizers were beheaded.
- were tempted in the desert by their rivals and resisted.
- walked on water, healed the sick, revived the dead and restored sight to the blind
- were executed and resurrected.

What Jonestown can teach us

The truly honest will never shy from questions.


The truly rich (in character) will rarely speak of money.

The truly helpful will never speak of the help they give to others.

The truly powerful (in character) will have no need nor desire to ask for your loyalty.

The truly loving will never ask for your love.

I will list out below the strategies with which Rev. Jones manipulated and eventually murdered his followers. Maintain a rational level of skepticism and apply critical thought to every facet of your life.

Jim Jones started with promising beginnings and was the champion of multiculturalism in a racist era.

Upon his church’s growing popularity, he targeted the recruitment of the dispossessed, the young and impressionable, the old and the needy.

Followers gave their earnings to the church and began working for the church to support the many functions of the church. With no financial independence of their own, they became locked into the church.

He carried out psychic healing scams to earn the trust of his followers.

He transferred the moral authority/ focus of faith upon himself soon after.

Next, he put forth tests of loyalty in order to hone their confidence in their faith (in him) and weed out possible dissenters.

The church held entire families in and familial bonds prevented followers from leaving.

He isolated them geographically. Mentally, he engineered the removal of external influences and achieved monopoly of influence by bombarding them with his narrative (which his followers had to accept without question).

He had a team of loyal lieutenants who had a hidden cache of weapons. These people then went on to murder congressman Leo Ryan and forced the followers to ingest poison.

Be responsible in the public sphere as a critical thinker

 When in doubt, critically examine.

This is an external process which should be open to criticism from rational counter-agruments and draws in more sources of information for you to make a more rational decision thereafter.

I highly advocate against praying to alleviate or doubt which is internal and therefore devoid of other rational counter-arguments which would serve as test of validity for one's stand. It also does not draw upon any new sources of information. Thus these two limitations would hinder the progression towards making a more rational decision.

 

And I was quite appalled by this. You can call me an intellectual prune if you want but my logic is that since his 'personal' view which now is the public sphere, it should be presented without at least some degree of evidential support. Al...most all the claims that he makes are entirely unsupported and therefore presenting it in a schematically logical pattern gives it the false image of critical thought. And if his personal views are shared in the public sphere and if he is highly aware of the fact that he has a 'following' and an ability to influence, then it is his academic responsibility as a critical thinker to provide at least some degree of evidential support as to why he reached his personal view. So that anyone who may be influenced by his personal view has the equal academic responsibility as a critical thinker to examine the logic which culminated in his view and decide whether or not to be influenced. This will reduce the probability that anyone take his public 'private' view to inform their own position without first critically examining it.

Warm and fuzzy but Oxymoronic

Though the logic on this quote is warm and fuzzy on a first read, it fails in critical logic and theological grounding on subsequent readings. The God in question is the Christian God and it is omnibenevolent. It wants the best for mankind. It is also omnipotent. All that happens to anyone is within its control. An omnibenevolent being would never visit any physical or psychological pain on us (his creation out of love) for the sake of us knowing it as a healer, comforter and ultimately just as proof of its existence. Why does it need us to know its existence if it is omipotent? Why inflict pain upon us if it ultimate wish for us is love? Being omnibenevolent, it should possess selfless love and want what is best for us regardless of its own being. So the above line of logic is oxymoronic.

Secondly, if we interpreted the pain, sadness and imperfection in life as a test, then it makes more sense. But still,the logic fails given that an omnibenevolent being would never cause any pain....test or not. 

 

So the applicable logic then stands is that the God in question may be omnipotent and may be using the sadness, pain and imperfection in life as a test for us to hone our physical, emotional and mental strength by applying a utilitarian system of benevolence.

Adam Deen......morality without God.....

Full article here: http://www.adamdeen.com/updates/whats-new/270-are-morals-real-without-god


In summary, a non-theistic moral realism is false by virtue of the fact that moral facts cannot be successfully established and that irrealist view cannot maintain a genuine notion of morality. What logically follows is therefore moral nihilism. Given that nihilism is true, it implies that morality does not exist and that our use of the vocabulary and structures of cognitive enquiry are a mere mask. This reality hides the fact that moral judgments are nothing other than the expression of personal preference or socially imposed rules without God as the locus and paradigm of morality.






In summary, a non-theistic moral realism is false by virtue of the fact that moral facts cannot be successfully established and that irrealist view cannot maintain a genuine notion of morality. ->

Firstly, the non-theistic moral realism view that moral facts can be established is increasingly supported by evolutionary psychology and animal behavioralist studies of our highly social cousins in the animal kingdom. Therefore, he cannot argue that it is false unless he debunks the accumulative research and findings in the above field.

Secondly in a more serious mistake in critical thought, by equating non-theistic moral realism with the irrealist view is to commit an error in equivocation with regard to concepts thereby rendering his entire argument unsound because of its untrue premises.



What logically follows is therefore moral nihilism. ->

Logically follows? Moral nihilism is the opposite of moral realism! Has there been overwhelming evidence that non-theistic morally realist societies will degenerate into morally nihilistic societies with high probability? This bridging process is unproven by any tests of logic or evidence in reality. So this bridging process should contain an ‘If’. But it does not and instead tries to pass off as a modus ponens which it cannot be without any test of validity.



Given that nihilism is true, it implies that morality does not exist and that our use of the vocabulary and structures of cognitive enquiry are a mere mask. ->

Without establishing the validity of his previous statement, he goes on to state another two “truths”.



This reality hides the fact that moral judgments are nothing other than the expression of personal preference or socially imposed rules without God as the locus and paradigm of morality. ->

This predicate is only ‘true’ if the premise of the subject started out true and that is highly debatable. The validity of the alternative that he puts forth is not explained here but in the statement below.



Traditionally morality was grounded in God. God was the transcendental grounding for objective morality. God provided the transcendental vantage point in order to escape the subjective, partial personal preference based views concerning morality. ->

Firstly, he commits an error of ad verecundiam. Tradition does not automatically pass for rational authority until it has been examined. Tradition can give us clues to tested modes of operation but we still have to critically examine its basis. Just because “God was the transcendental grounding for objective morality.” does not mean that it still “must be”.

Secondly if he pushes for an argument that since God was (a factual statement), therefore God should “still be”, then he is committing an “is-ought” fallacy and is deriving a positive value (prescriptive statement) for God still being from a fact.

Should we fully trust scientific "authority" and accept their findings and/or statements?

Should we fully trust scientific "authority" and accept their findings and/or statements?
NO! We should never trust anyone or organisation without first examining its argument.

Science has permeated almost every facet of our modern life. Our daily processes and activities are dominated by scientific apllications and theories. We cannot escape it even if we tried. And as science pushes its frontiers more and more beyond the testing abilities of our technology, we find ourselves confronted with theories that challenge our previously held thinking or even our systems of wishful thinking. So how can we trust what scientists at the cutting edges of scientific pursuit put forth?

1) The first issue is one of ad verecundiam. Is the scientist qualified to comment in that particular field? This is fairly straightforward.

2) The seond issue are the "high barriers to entry" in scientific pursuits: these barriers to entry are HIGH indeed. Why? How many of us even understand how a fan works? This is because our modern understandings of scientific applications and theories have greatly advanced and are far beyond the understandings of the general public. This then leaves us with the fear and problem of not being able to analyse the validity of their findings and leaves the scientists to engage in putting out unchecked theories.

Read and study beyond your needs. Try to keep up with scientific developments. Do so in a progressive manner. There are many great communicators of scientific theories who go to all lengths to package complex theories in palatable explanations.

Ask questions and examine scientific journals whereby scientists cross-examine and conduct each oher's experiments. This is the process of falsification.

3) Beware of scientists who make “is-ought” statements. Scientific findings focus on facts. These are “is” statements. When scientists make conclusive value (ought) judgments from facts, they commit the “is-ought” fallacy. Facts can inform value judgments but cannot conclusively decide value-driven judgments or actions. We should not allow ourselves to accept conclusive value judgments from scientists because of factual findings. I provide an example: “Abortions are unnatural in nature, no animal except humans perform abortions. Therefore abortions are wrong and we should not perform abortions.”

4) Every human being has a slant. And this slant may inform their findings. However, we cannot entirely discount a scientist's findings because of their background. This would be committing an error of ad hominem. We should examine the soundness of the argument first. If it is sound, the hypothesis still stands despite the scientist’s background. If it is unsound for various reasons, we may have clues from their background on why particular “errors” or suppression of evidence was committed.

Deconstructing the religious argument using cosmological constants

Abel: Our cosmological constants show signs of the universe being fine-tuned for life.

Cain: And so?

Abel: God is responsible for this fine-tuning.

Cain: How do you know?

Abel: Because our holy book says that God created the universe so he set the cosmological constants to allow for life to occur.

Cain: Even if your holy book says so, how do you know that it is God?

Abel: It has to be God. Who else has the ability to do so?

Cain: Ok maybe it is God but who’s God?

Abel: Of course, it is our God. Only our telling of God is correct.
Fallacies in critical thought

1) Is our universe really fine-tuned for life? (As much as the universe seems fine-tuned for life, it also seems fine-tuned to deny life. By assuming that our universe is fine-tuned for life, this fallacy is “Begging the question”.)

2) Are cosmological constants really fine-tuned? (This commits the problem of Ad Ignoratium. We do not know for certain if cosmological constants are fine-tuned. For now, we can ony say that cosmological constants seems fine-tuned for life.)

3) God is responsible for this fine-tuning. (This is an unfalsifiable statement: the existence of God and its hand in the setting of the cosmological constants cannot be falsified.)

4) Because our holy book says that God created the universe so he set the cosmological constants to allow for life to occur. (this is circular reasoning)

5) Cain: Ok maybe it is God but who’s God? (this is a good question to prevent equivocation. There are many conceptions of God.)


6) Abel: Of course, it is our God.
    Abel: Only our telling of God is correct. (this is unfalsifiable. No religion has proven its concept of God to be truer than others.)



Ultimately, the entire argument is not sound because it lacks (1) validity and (2) a true premise and commits many other fallacies in reasoning as shown above.

I shall examine my stand

I shall examine my stand (I am a naturalist and function morally as a humanist) as according to the 12 virtues of rationality,

Curiosity (you really need to know) -> Yes! I do!


relinquishment (give it up if it is false) -> I will be more than happy to. On the issue of morality, if  God/s convincedly spoke to us about its existence, it would be great for me to know that there is an afterlife and rewards for morality and then we would also have an objective morality with which to operate from. This may hopefully unite more of us too. This would also reduce a lot of the heartache and philosophical disputes that we have. Then again in the darker conceptions of such a happening, I can imagine that some groups would be convinced that the God/s were truly God/s and not acknowledge them and even seek to destroy them (given that they do not wish to live under their fixed system of morality and absolute authority).

lightness (you must have no fixed position before deciding on an issue. if not, you are a 'lawyer' and not a 'judge') -> my position has changed quite a bit along this journey as I have been more informed. I have not had a fixed position and am still in the process of ultimately deciding. I was once a believer in the supernatural due to a lack of scientific knowledge and family background. Later, I studied religions more in depth and seeked to find commonalities in morality. Then I realised that some religions clashed with each other for the truth of God. I was still convinced that we had souls and that there was something uniquely special about humans. I then went through an existentialist patch and came out better with the understanding that although nothing definite was currently dictating a meaning for my life, I could dictate one for myself. Then I had to decide what that was. Through grief and disappointments, I realised something. That on a cosmic scale, I was not all that special and thus it was arrogant for me to consider myself too much. I should then be concerned more about others rather than myself. But I still held the conviction that mankind was special. So I wanted to study all I could about mankind's origins and nature. From anatomy, anthroplogy, sociology, psychology, neuroscience, biochemistry, astrophysics, biology and philosophy, I realised the beauty of it all. We were special! This was because we were connected with every other living creature and we are fortunate to be alive and part of this biological experience. And that this meant that my humanist morality should seek to uphold this special experience with our fellow humans (even though others may not think as I do with regard to the conclusions of the hard sciences as they may believe in other systems to inform their conclusions because this was secondary to their biological experience: life)

evenness (you must not argue for one side.... you are the judge and not a hypothesis) -> I must seek to be more even. I think that as of late, I have become more of  "lawyer" for naturalism as I find their arguments more compelling and with evidential backing. I have found the arguments for supernaturalism often tainted with greed, hypocrisy and inter-faith bickering. I need to think more about this virtue and decide how best to be more even.

argument (you do not have to end with a balanced judgment. let reality be the test) -> thus far, reality is swinging in favor of naturalism. and given that reality does not yet accord a supernatural realm, then humanism is the most moderate and tenable position of morality to me.

empiricism (observe and predict. Do not ask which beliefs to profess, but which experiences to anticipate) -> I totally agree. I am a reality-based individual both in fight, moral and cognitive philosophy. Facts are testable in which experiences can be anticipated and observable with accuate prediction and therefore explanation.

simplicity (When you profess a huge belief with many details, each additional detail is another chance for the belief to be wrong. Each specification adds to your burden) -> Occam's razor. Just like in many facets of life, I go with the dictum "less is more", "smooth is fast" and "K.I.S.S"

humility (Who are most humble? Those who most skillfully prepare for the deepest and most catastrophic errors in their own beliefs and plans) -> I do not confess to be correct. Nor do I confess to be the only one who is correct. I will guard against the possibility of the folly of my own ways by equally granting others the freedom to expression and thought. Moreover, no one system is privileged and all are open to critical analysis.

perfectionism (The more errors you correct in yourself, the more you notice) -> I must strive more in this area.

precision (the evidence which is more useful is the one which has exposed itself to a stricter test) -> science and human experiences has proven thus far that most supernatural claims are not useful with experiments and tests (even challenges by skeptics such as Randi) which can be replicated for confirmation.

scholarship (study for as long and as much as you need) -> reading and learning more each day and loving it!

the void. (to embrace and live a life of rationality in which all qualities should be striven for in equal importance with one another to achieve the utmost rationality) -> I must truly understand this. I admit to currently not understanding/ being able to imagine the full meaning of this virtue and in the future, I will aim for this. :)

More interesting information on morality (from moral psychology and neuroscience)

Kohlberg and rationalist moral psychology argue that moral judgment and behavior are driven by conscious reasoning.

The competing humean school counterpois...es that moral judgments result from unconscious and automatic response and moral reasoning amounts to post-hoc rationalizations. Haidt brings forth the example of “moral dumbfounding” where people exhibit strong moral convictions they find difficult to justify. Our divided self is like a rider on the back of an elephant and we give far too much importance to the rider.

Greene seeks to synthesize rationalist and humean perspectives. Moral thinking combines emotional responses and rational constructions and reconstructions as shaped by biological and cultural forces. Most of us feel a strict obligation to save a nearby drowning child but no comparable obligation to save faraway sick and starving children through charitable donations and we care far more about identifiable victims than statistical deaths. We respond emotionally to ‘what is up close and personal” and such responses can conflict with what we conclude when we reason impersonally.



Neuroscience studies with the data from brain-imaging show that cognitive psychological processes can compete with emotional responses to drive people to approve of personally harmful moral violations, primarily when there is a strong consequentialist rationale for doing so.



Secondly, brain imaging studies have also shown that we often make decisions neurologically before consciously being aware of our decisions thus validating the above claims that emotive triggers



This is a reminder that issues of morality
1) are culturally subjective and we must be conscious of our own methodological biasedness.
2) originate from issues of emotion and thus when we deal in moral judgment, we must best "check our emotions at the door" to avoid irrationality in judgment.
3) must rightfully suspect our own "rationality" as it could be mere justifications. We must thus allow for debate and consensus from multiple perspectives to decide on issues of grave moral consequences.

Humanism is not moral relativism

Humanism is NOT moral relativism! Our goals (to promote and uphold human flourishing for as many of our fellow men) and methods (discussion, negotiation and teamwork) will not be compromised.




Why wait for or posit an external source for an objective origin of morality when we can decide one together for ourselves as a species? We are ACCOUNTABLE to each other and our future generations thus we need to be the ones to work together to forge an objective origin of morality. Can we be objective? Yes! We CAN and MUST be impartial to acts of immorality which threaten the well-being of members of our species, our species in general, our humanity and our greater environment.



Why thwart our moral progression as a species with the concept of “objectivity” when we should be more concerned with “universally held” moral values? Nothing and no one can be truly objective. (All are subjective as influenced directly or indirectly through their historical, cultural, political and economic legacies and environment.) We can better achieve ‘objectivity’ by attempting to minimize subjectivity through discovering, upholding and promoting universally held values which aim at inclusiveness and agreement.

The TROLLEY problem

The repeated conduct of Thomson's "Trolley problem" (in its various versions) experiment has shown that an overwhelming majority of people (regardless of political, cultural or religious background) operate ethically based on in-group and out-group considerations and cost-benefit analysis.

Verdict: we are more alike in our moral understandings than we think and we have it in us to operate morally as a species away from our petty constructed differences. This findings also show us that no one group of people are more morally superior to another

David Williams: Conceiving God

Here are some good stuff which I will highlight.


First off, I must say that I love the fact that there is quite a bit of neuroscience!

Preachers of today emphasize the uniqueness of Christianity. There is, however, little in it that was new. Christianity absorbed the 'best in the religions of the time: it was an amalgam. Virgin births, descendants of Gods, rising from the dead were not unique. I argue that Islam is the same and it bridged on the rising tide of the Abrahamic faith and added progressions in ethics (though this was still provincial in its considerations and not perfect as how a truly malevolent and omnipotent God would/could want it to be) and the much touted falsification tests in order to add to its validity.

Williams argues that religion originated independently of the functions that it is frequently said to perform. The functions developed after or as religion came into being for other reasons. These functions that people commonly think religions perform include: fostering group unity, providing peace of mind and explaining puzzling aspects of life.

He goes on to state that religions' unity is divisive of mankind. Any religious entity is created vis-a-vis "others" who exist outside the fold that makes a religious social entity meaningful. if there were no 'others', there could be no recognisable religious group. When people argue that religion holds society together, they mean that it holds their section of society together and then only in specific circumstances. Wide social unity is intrinsically impossible because religion is founded on supposedly revealed knowledge of supernatural realms and beings not on empirically verifiable observations. Thus (and I agree strongly) unity brought by religion is not inclusive in nature and indeed counterproductive to the unity of mankind in general.

Williams has three objections against the 'comfort' that religions accord to its believers in which one I will go into detail here. He denies the positive nature of this 'comfort' that religion can bring is that it can and has been used to shore up oppressive regimes.

Then he puts forth interesting questions: why did God not reveal the absolutely fundamental virtue of compassion, even towards enemies, right at the beginning? Can later ‘revelations’ be said to 'supersede’ earlier ones when they flatly contradict them? In any event, why was progressive revelation necessary?

Now comes the sexy neuroscience bits when Williams goes into explaining religious experiences. Unknown to most of us, human consciousness is constantly shifting and consists of a normal, daily trajectory and an intensified trajectory that leads to overwhelming hallucinations. In medieval times, some methods were intentionally combined to trigger hallucinatory episodes. Such episodes were moulded and accepted by sufferers and religious authorities as messages from God. 6 frequently repeated entoptic forms can be identified (even found in San rock paintings) and are related to altered states of consciousness and such ubiquity among many religious believers of various faith suggests that they are not culturally determined but are wired into our neurology. Believers of all times and faiths have also found ‘proof’ from their dreams, experience vortexes (striate cortex) and flight.

AC Grayling: Against all Gods

Short and concise. Just the way I like it.

Grayling believes in the right of religion but only in the private sphere and that all religions should be equally open to criticism just as any system of thought is. He strongly condemns proselytising young intellectually defenceless children in faith-based education systems.

He then argues that religions have changed so much in their stances and tenets that a practitioner of before would not recognise the same religion today. This apologetic movement is one which I too observe, which religious people hate to admit and which I ultimately agree with (since they seek to get their values in line with modernity and in turn progress. Though their reason for doing so may be more survivalist than moral in motivation, the outcome is still positive).

I highly agree with his point that atheists should deny the label, "atheists" since they are conforming with the theists' definition of them within their own concocted systems of belief and in turn giving such systems special positions. Why are we not also a-fairists, a-unicornists and agnomists? All Gods and such creatures are equally supernatural. Instead, we are naturalists and theists are supernaturalists.

He also asserts that apparent Islamic and Christian resurgence is actually the very common and often bloody death spasm of religion. This is something which I need to consider more.

Misunderstandings about Humanism

From my readings of Epstein, "Good without God"

Humanism: Our goal is to empower and protect as many humans as possible with the progression of time through rationalization, discussion and concerted action.

Who are humanists? Many if not most of us are humanists. If you are a deist and you strive to do good for other human beings, then you too are a humanist. If you are religious and strive to do good not to reap afterlife rewards, then you too are a humanist. Even the religiously adamant (those who take that their God’s word is objective morality) who have to utilize their rationality in order to interpret and apply God’s word to best serve the issues of the day are humanists in action.

Humanism admits to not having all the answers. Some questions of morality are tricky and will remain so. And we feel that anyone who takes an absolute stand on tricky moral issues may be prone to hasty generalisations. Secondly, we seek to overcome such tricky issues with discussion and concerted actions with the overall goal of human flourishing. We may make mistakes along the way but we will always strive to get better.

This leads us to a related charge that humanism is relativistic. We indeed are not. Our end goal and methods will not be compromised. We also acknowledge that there are fundamental tenets of human flourishing that will not change with time and are in common among systems of morality throughout human experience.

Is humanism species-specific? No. We cannot be truly morally and indeed even biologically flourishing humans if we abuse and neglect our environmental and other biological (who like us feel pain and have the need and desire to flourish).

Humanism is not antagonistic with religion. We are not anti-religious. We are simply a-religious. Our stand is that religious systems have no more an objective morality than one that humans can decide jointly and uphold together. (To assert that God’s laws of morality are objectively superior to a system that we can create on our own, we need to prove the existence of God. The second problem then arises, which God?) Ultimately, we care about humans. God in the concept of good is to us secondary. (Plato’s Euthypro answers this: if that which the God/s love is because it is good, then it is good on its own without it being influenced by God/s loving it) Ultimately, we do not wish to waste/spend time arguing on who is more right in doing good, we seek to work with religious people who wish to promote human flourishing.

We do not believe in forms of the “noble lie” or advocate its use to influence people to involuntarily do good or do good for religious rewards. We seek to produce moral individuals through experiential education.

A superior moral compass from religion & Origins of Rights

More from my reading of Epstein’s “Good without God”, Foot and Thomson’s “Trolley problem” experiments have shown that humans regardless of religious persuasion have responded similarly to the problem. This shows that we can agree on certain things that we don’t want to see happen: we all want to reduce needless human suffering. And above all, this shows that religion does not necessarily provide its people with a superior moral compass.

Rights must exist in order to empower and protect humans. But rights do not come from God, because God does not speak to human beings in a single voice and rights should exist even if there is no God. Then where should rights come from?

Rights do not come from nature, because nature is value-neutral. Rights can however come from biological understandings of pain and suffering.


Rights should not come solely from logic, because there is little consensus about the a priori premises from which rights may be deduced.


Rights do not come from law alone.


Rights come from human experience: we can learn from past mistakes. Rights come from wrongs.

Anthropic principle = God?

I love the idea of cosmological constants (fine-tuning of the universe) as proposed by the anthropic principle. There are two explanations which arise from this idea that involve leaps of faith, both of which I do not support thus far:

1) the concept of a multiverse means the probrability will allow for the existence of 'fine-tuned' universe. I do not accept this yet as we have yet to find proof o...f this concept. (many ongoing studies are being done to study this: for example, astro-physicists are examining concentric concentric rings in the cosmic background radiation. They think that it indicates collisions with other universes.)

2) that the 'fine-tuned' universe is created by a God. Even if there is a creator, we cannot yet verify the identity of this creator. How then we jump to the conclusion that the creator is God?

We do not know yet! That is precisely the thing. We should keep trying to find out and not just plug something into the gaps.

And the cosmological constants should not only be restricted to the workings of the anthropic principle. We must be equally aware that the same cosmological constants do not only support life, these constants also will ultimately destroy life (and yes, this includes us).

1) collision with Andromeda

2) our sun dying out

3) most places in the universe kill life instantly- radiation, heat, cold

4) dark energy will pull out universe till all possible life is left stranded and utterly alone to a temperature of absolute zero

How to choose the ONE CORRECT religion part 2: a simple objective study

Errors Quran 2670 videos

Errors Christainity 1950 videos

False Judaism 2900 videos

False Hinduism 2180 videos

False Buddhism 2190 videos



This is not an exhaustive list of all religions. This was just the search yields over youtube (as of 15 May 2012) with the above search fields. Now let's go about the simple process (one online source) of choosing the ONE CORRECT religion by virtue of the truth it claims and holds ok? This will be simple. Trust me.



Not all videos are reliable critiques. But aren’t all claims worth viewing first and then dismissing based on certain characteristics? But before that, you need to understand the background story: you would have to study up on and understand the motivations based on social, economic and political history from antiquity to date so as to set up a comprehensive list of characteristics to which you would use to help you identify which videos are “not worth investigating”.



Then step two is to view all videos and classify them into “worth investigating” or “not worth investigating” based on your criteria from above.



Then next, all non-dubious claims must be investigated which means you must study up intensively on all religions, literature, semantics, languages, history, anthropology and science of all such claims in question.



All non-dubious claims which are valid must then be sufficiently matched up with defending arguments from the ‘religion under attack’. With which you must examine each counter-argument for its validity and dismiss counter-arguments which are invalid.



Repeat process till you reach an end-point for each religion’s attack on another religion until all attacks in the above videos have been dealt with.



Weigh all evidence based on a scale of reliability and accuracy of each religion based on commonalities of rationalism that you can find among all religions.



Easy?

Proof for evolution (lecture from Jerry Coyne)

Direct predictions

Adaptation is the engine for speciation and gives the “look” of design. Speciation in lineages shown by transitional forms

Timing in fossil record is accurate to theory of evolution.




Retrodiction also support evolution.

Commonalities exist in embryology (even dolphin embryos first develop with four limb buds)

Lanugo on human embryo similar to our other primates. This hair is later shed.

Vestigal features can be found in many animals which are common to all in their lineage.

Bio-geology support the distribution and speciation of living things.

Bad design exists in all living things and testifies to evolution because the process cannot be taken back to the drawing board and can only be added on (e.g human prostrate gland).

Natural selection is very slow and does not happen in all species. But over 300 cases have been found in the wild. (e.g the finch)

DNA similarities exist across all living things and coincide with predictions of speciation.

Complexity in our design is an indication of evolution for design could have achieved the same effect with much less complexity.

"Falsification tests"

DNA structures would have been different.

Biogeology would show species that should not belong.

Altruistic behaviour would exist between non-relatives.

Fossils would be found in the wrong geological strata.

Why should I choose solve the ONE CORRECT religion

Why does it matter if I declare my faith in the ONE CORRECT religion? If it is all about doing the CORRECT good actions, then that doesn’t make much sense as will be explained in the last paragraph (for which we need to cover some other fundamental aspects of this conundrum first). So for now, we will move on.

I should declare my faith in the ONE CORRECT religion because this is the way for my soul (if such a thing exists) to be saved. Is this endeavor then not for purely personal benefit such as a luxurious afterlife? No one else gets to benefit from me enjoying myself in the hereafter.

If the reason why I need to declare my faith in the correct religion is so that I can spread the ‘good word’ and in turn save others, then this doesn’t hold up too. This is not counting in the fact that many of them would already have their own faiths which many times argue for the sole validity of their system thereby leading to a formidable barrier to my ‘crusade’. And when you struggle with this endeavor, don’t you just sometimes wish that your God would do a miracle right in front of them and make them believe too, but that would be nothing short of a miracle (if they do occur in the first place ;p)

And even if I am successful in getting others to believe in my correct religion, what would happen to them if I am WRONG? Then would I not have condemned some who were already saved (given that they used to believe in the ONE CORRECT religion)? And the chances of me choosing the incorrect religion is very high indeed when you consider the many religions of past and present throughout human history. Should I not then err on caution and not lead anyone astray with what I believe to be correct?

So the safest bet for the fearful is to throw your lot in with one religion with the highest probability of being correct. Do your homework about all religions (and I mean all!) before you decide. But if you really did this, you would then come to the conclusion that all are equally valid in their own assertions about their own systems and most are valid in their criticisms of other systems. This objective process may take you a lifetime by which you are dead and will not be “saved” by virtue of you having not chosen the correct religion which makes the endeavor counter-productive. Another dead-end.

So how do you choose? You can’t and you won’t. You will realize that your lifetime is short. And even if you ‘fry for eternity’, that is just you and you should not be so selfish to just focus on yourself. Why not use your short lifetime to do the best as you can for all people of all religions? If there were a God, would it not be proud of this selfless decision? Or would it really go, “Hey, you! You did not believe in me. You may have done good but I will still fry you!”

A last question remains, if you do not believe in any religion, how can you do the CORRECT GOOD for others? Well, use your mental faculties: some GOODS are universal! Study up on all religions and you will find commonalities which ironically any rational person could and can come up with even without religion. So if a CORRECT set of GOOD exists, then you have to play safe again and just do those GOODs so that you do not step on the toes of the ONE CORRECT God/s. And that is it, do those GOODs. Help others flourish and hope that God (if any) cares more about what really matters than whether or not you believe in it.

Pascal's wager: Does God exist?

An adjustment to Pascal's wager: Does God exist?


His original probrability was 50-50. And he went with the pro-God side because he felt that the consequences of him going with the 'wrong side' are 'too terrible to imagine.'

1) Now the first problem that I have with this probrability is that one should never believe in something because of fear.

2) I agree with his 50-50 probrability since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. However, the 50% (for God's existence) then needs to be further divided up by all religions existing and of past which argue for the sole validity of their God/s. Now a lot of people contend with me the division of that 50% is unnecessary and unfairly dilutes the probrability. Sad but true, this means that they consider some or only their own concept of God/s to be valid and others to be not. This can only arise and be acceptable from a position of 'privileged confidence'. I however need to be fair and take all claims to God as equally valid and invalid since I cannot prove or disprove them.

1. Neuroscience and the 'computational brain'

I am back again on this topic but this time, science (more specifically, neuroscience) has brought in fresh winds of insight.

In my first entry, I will be writing on how the brain is much more flexible and yet flawed as a computational toolkit.

The brain is a toolkit. As predicted by the toolkit analogy, larger neo-cortexes can be seen in animals in more complex social environments and larger hippocampus can be seen in animals with a need for more complex spatial memory. Some animals can literally ‘grow’ larger brains in seasons when they need more complex problem-solving tools and then ‘shed’ it later when it is not needed. Why? This is because brain maintenance is costly! Our huge brain takes up 25% of our daily calorie intake.

Learning is an important feature of a toolkit. Without this ability, the organism may not be as valid as changes occur. But learning is often only thought of in a linear fashion. Some behaviors are so important that learning is and should not be an issue as they are hard-wired into our brains. This then reduces the chances of us making costly mistakes that would jeopardise our and our specie’s well-being. Learning is not always productive and its costs may outweigh its benefits. In situations where the target of learning is not constant, then costs and benefits set in and learning is not important because probrability will win over learned (conditioned responses). Learning can also occur in creatures without brains. Slime mould without brains show complex problem-solving behavior that we often ascribe to a mind.

The brain has the ability to compute on an abstract level. Neurons in our brains fire upon recognition of concepts. The word ‘bird’ or sounds/pictures of ‘birds’ will cause the same neurons to fire.

Like processor units, brains continously compute an analysis of the outside world so that the body can react accordingly. But this computation process is not perfect. This is due to the limited abilities of any organism's sensory tools and so brains often take in semi-complete signs (as suggestions) from the environment and has to fill in the gaps (computes what is expected).

Janism

So many similarities. Mahavira and Siddharta one and the same?

Ahimsa


Jains believe that the only way to save one's own soul is to protect every other soul, and so the most central Jain teaching, and the heart of Jain ethics, is that of ahimsa (non-violence).

Lay Jains try to follow the doctrine in every part of their life, but not so strictly - since full ahimsa is not compatible with everyday life. Some harm is inevitably done, for instance, in the following activities:
•preparing food

•cleaning buildings

•walking

•driving

•self-defence against attack


There is no God who demands worship


The perfect beings that Jains worship have no interest in human beings.Any being that desired anything would not be perfect and thus not a god. This makes so much sense. Just as on the small level, I do not make my students greet me because it is a necessity. Can't a God get over itself and not care so much about my insignificant worship?

Some religions preach that an individual can be saved by devotion to God, the saviour, or to God's incarnations and intermediaries. Jainism teaches that we can attain true peace and happiness only through behaving and thinking rightly.
Acharya Kundakunda





 

Is Science and Religion antagonistic?

(full write-up soon. for now, these are my points and themes)

Both sides can and have led to evil actions.
sci->social darwinism->Nazi racial policies
relg->only one God and it is my God!->crusades, transnational terrorism

Both sides can be flawed in thier approach.
sci->high barriers to entry (unavoidable but also may fall prey to "group think")->little or no transparency/accountability of objectiveness to public
relg->aliterative texts->interpretative explanations on hindsight Both can be supportive for humanity's benefit.

Science has brought us very far and religion often fuelled the mental drive.

Why is then that Religion looks more like the 'baddy" to some?
Relg ->our first attempt at explaning our world ->science came along and threatened the establishment-> Relg institutions and powerful individuals had position and privileges to protect->thus they naturally suppressed science (would it have been the same if it was the only way round? highly likely but we will never know)

Why is there then a re-emergence of faith and belief?
Sci has reached a 'brink of the edge' ->many fundamental understandings of the past now contradicted/untenable + theories have outstripped technological means to prove them + information revolution (means of acquisition and production/re-production of knowledge is much more accessible -> more voices in the debate)-> re-emergence of faith and belief to fill in the gaps of understanding (never really went away in the first place)

Which is more appropriate?

To argue for a stand which accords no privileged position to any one group over another.
To argue for humility and admit that we are working our way towards the truth.
To argue for equal and maximum rights for all individuals.
To argue for doubt which is the engine of objective inquiry processes for the betterment of us as a species.

OR

To argue for one's own right truth and in turn directly or indirectly deny other's of truth unless they follow suit.
To argue for arrogance of which one knows the proper reading of how everything is already known and has been foretold.
To argue for rights for individual which only one's own religion deems as suitable and in turn will be limited. To argue for certainty of which nothing needs to be tested and cross-checked and which will indirectly hamper reconcilation as a species?

BUDDHISM IS NOT A RELIGION

BUDDHISM IS NOT A RELIGION. It is meant to be self-actualisation through education and aims at humility. Webster's Dictionary, the definition of religion is as follows, "An organized system of beliefs, rites, and celebrations centered on a supernatural being power; belief pursued with devotion."

First, Buddha never preached of himself as a 'supernatural being' with special powers. The Buddha is simply a person who has reached Complete Understanding of the reality of life and the universe. Life refers to ourselves, and universe refers to our living environment. The Buddha taught that all beings possess the same ability within to reach Complete Understanding of themselves and their environment, and free themselves from all sufferings to attain utmost happiness. All beings can become Buddhas, and all beings and the Buddha are equal by nature. The Buddha is not a God, but a teacher, who teaches us the way to restore Wisdom and Understanding by conquering the greed, hatred, and ignorance which blind us at the present moment. The word 'Buddha' is a Sanskrit word, when translated it means, "Wisdom, Awareness/Understanding". Buddhism is His education to us, it is His teaching which shines the way to Buddhahood. 　　

Second, Buddhism is not a religion because 'belief' in the Buddha's teachings is not via blind faith. He constantly taught his followers not to blindly believe what he said, he wanted his followers to try the teachings and prove them for themselves. 　　

Third, Buddhism is not a religion because all the accompanying 'rites and celebrations' that you witness after his death are not necessary. The myths of the miracles that he performed are by laws of physics untenable and unprovable so we need not take any basis in it. The good thing is without these miracles, nothing is compromised since nothing was divine about Buddha and his actions in the first place.

Ghosts which haunt the living are bullies

My rational and legal reasons not to be afraid of Ghosts (if such things do exist) You have a right not to be hassled by anything, living or non-living! Do not allow anything to bully you! The living have rights and these rights should be protected over the rights of ghosts because we are perishable, unlike ghosts.

The dead should not infringe upon our rights given that they are in a privileged position of being less encumbered in many issues such as physical fragility, legal and societal obligations. For example we bought a house, we paid for it in REAL CASH (which means a decision in opportunity cost)! The ghost may haunt it because he/she bought it previously but they have died and thus that legally nullifies their ownership of said property. Why then do they have the cheek or right to bully you out of the enjoyment of your rightfully acquired property?

Many would say that Ghosts are other-worldly and they can hurt you but you can't hurt them. Well, think about this logically. They may be able to take your life but look that bully in the eyes and say this, "I will make you PAY!" Because once you are dead, you are on an equal footing as them. Then you can take your sweet revenge on them or better still, the things/ones that they love without any legal consequences. Set a precedence and let all of their kind know that the living will not take things lying down anymore! A

nd if they do haunt the living for psycho-social reasons like being 'lost', then they should get over themselves and sort out their issues. Even the frail living are expected to do so, these spirits should be accorded no special privileges to behave like assholes and take their problems out on others

The evils of religious apologists

Religious apologists consistently look towards the newest scientific discoveries and try to align their aliterative interpretations with such discoveries. When the leading experts thought that the earth was flat, religion gladly supported it with their intepretations. Intellectuals who said otherwise were killed. Then when science proved otherwise, religious apologists rushed to re-interpret their phrases and show that it STILL MADE PERFECT SENSE.

The problem with trying to use science as a factor to prove God's authorship on a book is that if Science changes or discovers that a certain theory is wrong then this would prove that this book can't be from God.

But Science has no problems with being wrong, a wrong theory is just one more door shut in the face of untruth and is in fact beneficial for Science. The biggest issue that I have with religious apologists is that they do what they do in order to convince non-believers that their faith is indeed the correct one. They mislead others and I have a serious problem with that.

Next, this also clearly shows that they are silently convinced that they are correct and others are on the other hand wrong. This silent confidence in their privileged position divides us as a species.

"I'll change the system from the inside."

"I'll change the system from the inside." I have always found this phrase to be a bag of hot air.

Why does this seemingly optimistic phrase often grace the lips of many the but often dod not come into fruition?

1) they tie your interests with theirs (fringe benefits, promotions and bonuses etc)
2) they make you conform with organisational identity (social pressure and rules that dictate the way you dress, walk and talk and before you know it, you are just one of the many)
3) you get tired (they hold you in positions when you have the most energy. And then they release the pressure on you when you have no more to offer and at this late stage when you are left with no more/little options, you stay like a domesticated animal which has lost its wild instincts and is now little adapted to the ways of the jungle)
4) the reality of organisations is that very few actually have the power to change anything. the rest claw at each other for shreds thrown down from the top, get bogged down by the day to day work and hardly get consulted in any genuine way to change anything.

So the next time you hear someone say that, shake your head, smile and pat them on their backs to send them on their crusade.

Big Bang in the Koran?

Here I am, totally objective and neutral and just trying to find out whether the Big Bang was adequately elaborated upon in a particular religious text for intellectual purposes.

And what do I find? Like many times in the past, I find it to be a matter of translation and both sides generating their own interpretations to fuel their own arguments and the right of their own text over the other. Yo...u would think that if the stakes were sooo high (the soul of his children), that the Big Guy would actually give a CLEAR sign to settle any issue and not leave it to his pickering children and an issue of faith (which is a suspension of logic and doesn't help the pursuit of truth in any way).

Verdict? Don't trust institutionalised religion. Throw in your lot with one side and the other accords you with punishment in the hereafter. Follow-up action? Cut past their petty squabbles and just be a good person as best I can without any of their rules from the big guy up there.

Still, it would have been nice if an issue would not be distorted by either side for once.....just once.

My overlord's dream

A concerned citizen should apply the majority of his learning and actions directly to his immediate community and that should be how we value them: not be in a socio-cultural context where many eyes bear down on their grades since a young age and give them the wrong impression that grades count for most if not all they are worth. And that grades are more important than being concerned.

A truly self-directed learner will one day learn to and should be able to question fully and articulate his doubts fully in an intellectual and civil manner without any authoritative repurcussion lest he intrudes upon the freedom of others to do whatever they so please with their person and/or property. We should all agree to disagree and defend each other's rights to do so with our lives.

An active contributer should be nurtured to work in teams from young and not engage in academically-based competitions to outdo each other so as to acquire the best sources of income-generation for the comfort of they and their loves ones. They should be taught and shown that win-win situations can exist and there need not necessarily always be losers in life.

A confident person should not be bred in an elitist culture lest he mistakes status for worth and the right to be arrogant. Confidence is and should always remain as self-sufficiency not arrogance.

In the above 4 paragraphs, I have outlined the fundamental mismatches between what my overlord wishes to accomplish and our drive for excellence. Excellence is of course not a crime. But our current socio-cultural and educational environment gives students the impression that personal excellence is vital, namely academic excellence. Purpose should always remain our focus and excellence,be it technological/medical/economical, are merely our tools in order to reach purpose. what is the purpose of education? EDUCATION is the purpose of education. It is an intellectual expansion of the mind to the human condition. And with such knowledge comes the moral responsibility to take moral action. Education is not a system to produce and recognise individuals who achieve personal excellence.