Mid-May Book Promotion

Another FYI – the promo for my philosophical dialogue, A Thinker’s Guide to Truth, starts Monday, May 13^th and goes to Friday, May 17^th. It is available for free during that time. And it is available almost everywhere … except (ironically) Amazon. Additionally, the Smashwords promotion for my three discounted fantasy books on the Smashwords site (only) is also still going, until Friday, May 17^th. The coupons are listed on each Smashwords book page.

Drasmyr: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/131156  (Free)

The Children of Lubrochius: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/415779 ($0.99) 

Prism: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/693400 (Free)

Hope you enjoy the reads.

A Few Brief Thoughts on Politics and Stuff

Not sure what to say about the escalating tensions in the world.  As I generally suck at politics, maybe I shouldn’t even bother commenting on the current situation(s). But I feel that maybe I should. I kind of think that most people, not involved in governments of any kind, (most, but possibly not all) would be far happier if tensions eased, war was averted, and peace prevailed. I think that would be great. Not sure it’s actually going to happen. But I send out at least one prayer to God every night in hopes that it does.

Take the Israeli-Gaza situation in the Middle East, for example. I think the long-term answer has to be peace in some form or the other, but I just don’t see how to get from point A to point B. I think the Israelis would be glad if peace could be assured. I’m not sure the same is true of the Palestinians. And now Iran is getting into the mix. Lovely.

It is my understanding that the Biden administration has given aid to both Israel and the Gaza Strip and the Iranians, too. Although I think I support the idea of trying to befriend an enemy with the use of aid, I think you have to be a little shrewd and careful about it. If you want to give money to an ally or even weapons and armaments to an ally, I think that’s fine (although I do wish weapons weren’t necessary). Doing the same to an enemy, though, I think is a bad idea. I know a psychiatrist who thought we should try to win them over by building hospitals. However, as they (Hamas) tend to hide hostages and innocents in hospitals, I don’t think that’s a good idea. And, ultimately, I’m not convinced any act of kindness will be enough to diffuse their hate. The choice between hate and forgiveness is just that: a choice. And we can’t make our enemy’s choice for them. At best, we can make a gesture that hopefully won’t be used against us (or even better, can’t be used against us), but whether or not our (or Israel’s) enemies accept that gesture is beyond our control.

But again, I tend to lean toward absolute pacifism, however, that’s something I don’t think a politician should ever do (thanks to Neville Chamberlain). Which is another reason why I think I suck at politics and probably should never get involved beyond the voting booth. And you probably shouldn’t listen to me either, particularly when it comes to politics.

Anyway … just felt inclined to babble.

Freedom is more Valuable than Money

I wrote this post several years ago. My father was alive at the time, and, I think, I was more under the influence of my antichrist issues at the time, too. Anyway, I think it is still worth reading although I’m not sure I agree with everything in it – well, I think I do, just maybe not as strongly. Anyway, read on…

This post is about the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate. Back when I was in college, one of my roommates was a Democratic Socialist (DS). He was a nice guy, who sincerely believed in the cause. I wasn’t really into politics or economic systems at the time (still am not) but we were good friends through college and he left me with a positive outlook on DS. The older I get, though, the more alarmed I get by DS. Count me in the Capitalist camp (CC).

Why?

Because Freedom is far, far more valuable than money. DS strives to redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness.” But suppose one man wants (or even needs) a boat, and another wants (or needs) a car. The best way to fulfill these wants and needs is to let the two respective men make their own choices and buy their own boat or car. The government should not be in the business of picking and choosing goods for its people. Okay, so maybe the government should just supply each man with the money he needs and let him make whatever choice he wants. Okay, but why can’t one man have two boats, if he wants, and leave the other with but one car? Because that would mean they would have disparate wealth. But if the first man was willing to put in twelve hours a day, instead of eight, or find a more efficient way to make money, or maybe even build his own boat … why can’t he keep it? He should be allowed to pursue the acquisition of whatever goods he desires to whatever extent he wants. The second man might not be too into material things. He might be perfectly content with his one car. Maybe that permits him to get by on a thirty-hour work week, half of what the first man works. He finds time to be more valuable than any boat. Why can’t we just let each pursue their own goods without interference from the government? I certainly feel that I am more capable of determining what my material needs are than the government. Forcing someone to purchase a product against their will (cough, Obamacare) is anti-freedom. As for just giving money to this person and that person, that gives the government undue control over each person, because sooner or later, the government will cut off the spigot for whomever displeases it. Then, where are you? Someone must divide the money. Are you suggesting that the division be perfectly equal? Then the guy who wants to work 12 hours a day to get a boat is treated the same as the guy who just wants to work 6. I’m not judging either man, I’m just pointing out that wealth distribution is not something readily amenable to simplistic rules.

Generally speaking, massive centralized governments are a bad idea. They are clumsy, inflexible, and unwieldy. They are also weighed down with inertia. It is true in the private economy that it is the small new businesses that can most readily adapt to and respond effectively to new developments in the market. I see no reason why government wouldn’t follow the same pattern.

For those that want to use government to care for the poor via socialist policies, that too is a bad idea. Dollar for dollar private charities are far more effective. The last time I checked, for every dollar given to government to help the poor, about $0.35 actually reaches the poor person. The rest of the money is consumed by the bureaucracy. That number is likely to get worse as the bureaucracy grows. As I recall, charities average around $0.70 for every dollar. The really good ones get $0.90 or $0.95. Still, I’m kind of up in the air about whether or not government should have any social welfare programs at all (I benefit from two, personally – actually, three, now). Sometimes having a great size has advantages. But I just see the danger of them becoming huge money-sinks that will consume wealth with a rapacious appetite. With that in mind, I think, if we are going to have them, they should rely on voluntary contributions.

Speaking of bureaucracy, the more dealings I have with the U.S. Government, the more I dislike it. Just one example to consider, I recently got medication for my elderly father. Obtaining the medication was delayed because the hospital ER failed to provide a Diagnosis Code. I mean, really? I’m not going to blame the ER for a trivial paperwork error when God-knows how much paperwork they have to deal with. No, this problem came straight from Medicare. You don’t delay medication so you can cross a “t” properly. That’s just stupid.

Speaking of paperwork, let’s talk about its source: the multiplication of Laws. We have more Laws, thanks to the bloated bureaucracy, than we know what to do with. I mean, the Tax Code, is tens-of-thousands of pages long. And Obamacare was like 4000 pages or something stupid like that. I’m a pretty smart guy but I know I can’t keep track of that many laws with my poor mortal brain. When are we going to learn to give the people closest to a situation some leeway based on their own best judgement? I say we get rid of most of the legal code, except the really critical Laws like those against murder, rape, and child molestation. Yes, the antichrist is against excessive laws. Wasn’t I referred to by St. Paul as the Lawless One?

In considering Capitalism and Socialism, my instincts tell me this (like I say my “instincts,” I’m not sure how these would fare under scientific analysis) that Capitalism will “lift all boats”, but perhaps some at different rates. Socialism might lift all boats but far, far more slowly although I am more inclined to think it will sink them in the long run. Last I heard, the United States, the beacon of Capitalism, is responsible for something like 50% of the innovation on the planet. And yet, it has only 5% of the population. From my own experience, in 2009 I traveled to another small city to get access to an MRI machine. About 8 years later, I had three MRI machines as options in my own city. The technology had become more common and more readily accessible, thanks to, I think, Capitalism. I’m inclined to think that in Capitalism, the cutting edge technology is first available to the rich, who, in some ways offer themselves up as guinea pigs to use it. Then, 5 years out, the middle class get access to it. Then, 10 years out, even the poor get access to it. In a socialist system, the cutting edge technology likely advances more slowly and more often than not, is accessible only to those in power. That means, 10 years out only the rich can access the latest technology from 10 years prior; 20 years out, the same. 50 years out, maybe it will reach the poor, but I doubt it. And if this is the situation, which I am inclined to think it roughly is, count me with the Capitalists.

Also, a problem with socialized medicine is that it makes my lifestyle everyone’s business. Can I eat Doritos? Sane people would say it is up to me. But with socialized medicine, everyone else is paying my medical bills and they have a vested interest in keeping me from eating junk food like Doritos. Bite me. I want my friggin’ Doritos when I want them. If they kill me, fine. Blame it on  me.

For my final warning (and Christians won’t like this) against centralized government I will point to Jesus. He was offered control of the planet by Satan, and He turned it down, because He knew it would destroy Him. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

To Save an Adulteress

(I wrote this some time ago. It’s worth reading, but I think it may have a few flawed notions within)

A poor woman surrounded by an outraged crowd armed with rocks and prepared to exact Biblical justice. Her crime: adultery. Her sentence: death by stoning. Justice? Or excessive cruelty? Challenged by the Pharisees and confronting the mob, Jesus spoke words destined to be remembered until the end of time. “Let he who has no sin cast the first stone …” he said.

The result … one by one the crowd walked away starting first with the elders. In the end, only Jesus and the woman remained.

Did Jesus throw his stone? No. He let her go with the simple exhortation to “Go and sin no more.” Jesus saved her life showing mercy where Biblical Law had insisted on bloodshed.

The Crime of Adultery (Mercy vs. Justice)

With 2000 years of history to look back on, from today’s perspective, it is starkly obvious that Jesus was in the right. The woman may have committed adultery, but that hardly warrants death as a punishment. Did Jesus let her go without punishment? I’m not sure about that. It might be more accurate to say that Jesus let her go without further punishment. She was punished to a certain extent. She was humiliated and terrified by the crowd. Does that constitute punishment?

If it was, Jesus appears to have regarded it as sufficient. He let her go and told her to sin no more. Perhaps, Jesus thought that her sin really warranted no punishment but, short of turning back time, there was no way to erase the punishment she had already endured.

So, He demonstrated mercy and cut her punishment short. Where Biblical Law demanded death, Jesus let her off with a simple exhortation to sin no more.

This leads me to an important question. To what extent does mercy annul justice, if at all?

Consequence

Here in the U.S. this is not an insignificant question. In fact, it seems to be one way of distinguishing between the Right and the Left in politics. This may be something of a generalization, but the Right seems to support justice whereas the Left seems to side with mercy.

Justice demands a consequence for criminal acts. But the Left, perhaps with Jesus’ example in mind (or perhaps not) wants to pardon and forgive crimes. Who is correct?

I think some clarification is in order.

Crime and The Broken Windows Theory

I hear about this on conservative talk radio on a regular basis. In the 1990’s (I think), New York City was a haven for criminality. Then Rudy Giuliani became mayor and started enforcing what he called “The Broken Windows Theory.” The idea was … well, hardcore justice. No mercy. No exceptions. Any crime – even something as simple as breaking a window or jumping a turn style – was punished according to the dictates of the Law.

The result: New York City cleaned up its act and once again began to prosper with far lower levels of crime. Rudy Giuliani’s plan worked. At least, that’s the way the conservative podcasts present it.

In contrast, the conservative podcasts claim, everywhere that the Lefties are in control chaos and crime become more prevalent. A case in point: San Francisco. San Francisco was once a beautiful city, now, thanks to the Lefties (or so the Right says) the city is overrun with crime, homeless people, and human feces – Yuck!

Basically, the crux of the issue can be summed up in one word: consequences. The Right believes there should be consequences for crimes. The Left, I think, believe that in the name of compassion or understanding, crimes should bring little or even no real consequences (unless the criminal is a Republican – or so the Right says).

I kind of think that the Left’s thinking, in a way, can be traced back to Jesus. Jesus forgave sinners. Shouldn’t we try to emulate Jesus and do likewise? Should we, as good Christians, forgive the criminals?

And What Is the Virtue in That!

I think it was the “Sermon on the Mount” where Jesus summed up a moral framework that was almost obsessive with its treatment of love, mercy, and forgiveness. He says something along the lines of “If you love those who love you, what is the virtue in that?” I’ve always understood this as being, basically, an exhortation to be loving, forgiving, and merciful to the nth degree. You may love your friends and family, but, wow, so what? Love this guy who did this horrible thing. That’s a challenge. That’s where virtue lies.

And I think it may be that kind of thinking that the Left believes it is embracing. And I guess, in a certain sense, they really are.

But should we? The concepts of mercy and forgiveness combined with the exhortation: “What is the virtue in that!” – seem to imply that there should be no punishments for crimes. Did Jesus believe that? He did talk about hell on occasion, and hell seems to be the ultimate punishment/s. I (and many other people) think there is an issue with the existence of hell when God is described as being ultimately a loving Father (although I have a unique solution to that problem). But do Jesus (and, consequently, God the Father) think that one should be so prepared to forgive others that no punishment should ever be meted out?

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged Yourself

Similarly, nearly everyone has heard Jesus’ maxim, “Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.” That, too, can be taken to be an exhortation against punishing people for their wrongs. At least, superficially – I mean, you can’t punish somebody without first determining that they are guilty of some wrongdoing. Does not that determination of wrongdoing necessarily imply some type of judgment?

And, so, if we aren’t supposed to judge, then, it seems at least plausibly arguable that we aren’t supposed to punish either. Is that what Jesus wanted?

Let’s examine the notion of non-punishment a little more closely.

In the case above of the adulteress, Jesus prevented an admittedly excessive punishment from being meted out. But, as I asked above, does that mean, he didn’t think she should be punished at all? (I used to think so) Or, did he think that the punishment she had already endured (humiliation and fear of death) was sufficient (or simply done and over and not undoable)?

How about the next famous case: the repentant thief on the cross. The thief was being crucified for his crimes next to Jesus who, in turn, was being crucified. The thief sincerely asked to be remembered in heaven and Jesus promised that the thief would be with him in heaven. The other man mocked Jesus. Presumably, the other man went to hell after death – although that’s probably not a certainty. Anyway, the repentant thief was punished for his crime. He was crucified. Again, from a modern viewpoint, that is probably excessive for the crime of theft, but Jesus did not reverse it (assuming He could – if He was truly God, which is a whole other argument).

So, we have an adulteress who was punished less than the Law demanded and a thief who was given consolation and comfort (and possibly a ticket to heaven) at the time of his death. So, the question remains: Did Jesus support any kind of punishment or was he against all forms of punishment?

Looking at these examples in conjunction with the notion of hell seems to imply that He was okay with some level punishment.

For a long time, I was kind of in the liberal camp on this issue. Because of that single phrase, “And what is the virtue of that!” If forgiving someone for insulting you is good, how much better is it to forgive someone for murdering you! Of course, Jesus did, pretty much, do that last.

How about … is a Christian obligated to forgive someone who murders his/her spouse? Turn the other cheek? Someone is trying to murder your spouse … as a Christian, are you forbidden from using violence to stop them?

As I am not Jesus, I don’t know what He says to these questions. But here’s my 2 cents.

Good and evil are not simply binary qualities. The best analogy for the nature of good and evil is, unfortunately (for race reasons), a color scale where total blackness is the ultimate evil and total whiteness is the ultimate good (again, I’m not trying to say ANYTHING about race). As Socrates said, a few hundred years before Christ, we all fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Basically, all of us can be described as being certain shades of grey.

With that in mind …. Often (though not always) saying a certain action is good/evil in a binary sense is misleading or incomplete. Point yourself to the pure good (pure white – again, this is NOT about race) and strive in that direction.

If you happen to be crucified for a crime you either didn’t commit or which doesn’t warrant crucifixion (which, I think, is every crime in the book) and you forgive your executioners … I would say that your act of forgiving your executioners is very bright on the color scale.

Adultery is somewhere in the darker grey. Forgiving adultery is a few shades whiter. Theft … pretty much the same. Murder … yeah, that’s really kind of black. And so on.

Absolute Forgiveness

So … should a murderer be forgiven? Should he have his slate wiped utterly clean? If a murderer is “forgiven” and he suffers no consequences for his actions, will not he (and others) be less deterred from committing murder again?

Can murder be forgiven? According to most Christians, the answer is yes. I agree. Yes, murder can be forgiven. However, I think the point of contention is who has the Right to forgive a wrongdoer. And I think it is precisely here where the Left goes astray.

If my friend Sam is robbed by Paul, it isn’t up to me to forgive Paul. The person with the Right to forgive Paul is Sam. Not me. Not you. How about God? Clearly, I think God can forgive Paul, but I don’t think even God has the Right to forgive Paul on Sam’s behalf. When God forgives, He forgives on behalf of Himself. But God can’t/won’t override Sam’s choice of whether or not to forgive Paul. Is it morally better for Sam to forgive Paul? Once upon a time, I would have just said yes. Now, I’m not so sure.

The degree of evil in the sin committed here should be considered. It’s one thing to forgive someone for a minor offense to you, it’s quite another to forgive someone of something truly awful like murder or rape. In the latter cases, if the perpetrator is guilty and refuses to repent, just forgiving them and letting them go about their way, is actually dangerous. The perpetrator will learn there are no consequences and be even less deterred from repeating the crime. So, if you are brutally assaulted and you forgive the unrepentant criminal, that may just lead to a string of similar crimes that could have been prevented.

But … what is the virtue in that? The unrepentant man is the most difficult to forgive. But it is precisely that reason why we should strive to forgive them. But perhaps, forgiveness does not mean there is no punishment.

Hmmm. Not sure.

War and a Thinker’s Guide to Truth

I was having a conversation with my brother a week or so ago about my recently published book, “A Thinker’s Guide To Truth” – that I have mentioned on this blog elsewhere. Anyway, part of that conversation kind of triggered the thought in my head that I’m not sure I was clear about the distinction between killing and murder.

For those that don’t know, murder refers to ending someone’s life to serve your own ends, whereas killing refers to ending someone’s life in the service of your country – at least I read that somewhere along the way (I think it was in a Dennis Prager book, actually).

Anyway, I just want to say that I’m pretty sure that murder is always wrong and I think I made that point in the dialogue. As for killing… I’m honestly not sure. If given the choice, I would always try to not choose war, and thereby eliminate the need for killing. But this is an imperfect world. War sometimes happens – we even have two (involving allies of ours) going on as we speak. In light of that, I might characterize killing as a dark grey act as opposed to an act of pure unadulterated evil. Not as bad as murder, but still not desirable. Of course, there are a plethora of factors that can influence such.

Of course, this in turn impacts the “absoluteness” of the Right to Life and could lead to a long, complex discussion – a discussion I did not have in my Dialogue, or at least, this Dialogue. I touched on it only briefly in order to say that I think murder is always wrong/evil/whatever – so that there is a certain “absolute” character to murder, but, possibly not killing. And, if not killing, then not the Right to Life either.

Anyway, I will probably address the issue in more detail in some future dialogue on war, perhaps. Maybe. We’ll see how these first few dialogues on truth work out. And go from there. Oh, yeah, one more thing, once again my post about the adulteress is being postponed a week or so.

Promotion for “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth”

I was going to post something about the adulteress Jesus saved from stoning in the Bible, but it’s a post I wrote a few years back and I feel I have to re-edit it a bit, and I don’t have time today. So, I’m just going to post this notice that I am running a promotion for my first philosophical dialogue, “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth.” From now until Easter (March 31st, 2024) the book will be available at no charge. If you are interested in the concept of truth, it may be worth a read. It’s 18k-ish words and takes about 2 hours to read. You can find it here: Universal Book Link: https://books2read.com/athinkersguidetotruth . Happy Lent everyone!

On Transgenderism – One More Time

Transgenderism (Again)

I have dealt with this subject a few times in the past. The latest one was on this post here: Another Post on Transgenderism.

However, I had a thought the other day when I saw a commercial about some movie that dealt with the Transgenderism issue. Anyway, it triggered a thought and then another and I feel I can make a few more points.

First, I am NOT a parent (unless you count my fur-babies 🙂 ). So maybe I should just stay out of the debate …. but I’m not going to.

First, most parents love their children. Parents who support Transgenderism love their children. Parents who don’t support Transgenderism also love their children. No one wants their children to die over a dispute like this.

One line from the movie I mentioned above was something a psychologist said like “Would you rather have a dead son or a living daughter?” Basically, it pointed out that preventing a transgender youth from transitioning may lead to that child’s suicide and death, so you’ll be better off letting the transition happen and supporting that choice. Your son will become your daughter, and she’ll live. If you try to prevent that, you may end up with a dead child.

Okay, that makes sense. Given the choice between a son who commits suicide versus a son who transitions to a daughter and lives, the latter is the better choice. Obviously. However, that second option does not come without a cost.

Yeah, I want my child to live more than anything. But, if possible, I also want my child to be able to handle reality and live in the real world.  That means that I might permit the transition as a parent, but only as a last resort. I still think transgenderism is a mental illness and the optimum solution is resolving the delusion or psychosis or what-have-you so that my child learns to accept himself/herself as he/she is, instead of running off to get irreversible medical treatments. If it’s a choice between becoming a transgender and death – yeah, let them transition. But again, the OPTIMUM solution entails resolving the psychological problem NOT catering to it.

Plus, I was a teenager once, too. I remember the pressure to fit in and that tendency to try to get some kind of …. street cred or dash of “cool” originality and individualism, that desire to wrap yourself in a cloak of mystique, drama, and significance. Here I am! I am me! I am so unique and daring, I am a member of such an elite and oppressed clique and so on, and so on.

How much of one’s transgender “issue” is really the result of teenage posturing – for lack of a better word? I’m sure not all of them are, but I kind of think a real portion is. And, again, the treatments are irreversible … they shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.

Of course, as I said above, I am not a parent. I think parents on both sides love their children. Is there some way each side can be satisfied? I don’t know.

My inclination is that it is a mental illness. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, I have no training in psychology or psychiatry.

Also, I think I’m the antichrist. So, maybe I’m a 50+ year old whose fallen victim to his own kind of posturing. I don’t know.

Thoughts On Truth – Again

Ruminations on Truth

I’ve written numerous times on this blog a number of arguments against claims of relativism as well as claims that “There is no absolute truth” or, even more horrific, “There is no truth.” Nowadays, my first rebuttal is no longer “So, you’re saying ‘It’s true there is no truth’ or ‘It’s absolutely true there is no absolute truth.’” Both are obvious contradictions. But that only impresses logicians. Nowadays, I say, “I am absolutely 100% certain that I am NOT omniscient.” Refute that.

Anyway, with respect to the claim “There is no absolute truth” I want to list a few possible “Translations.” Because I think that the non-absolutist may be saying something, but he/she is just using the wrong words (Yeah, that’s a bit arrogant of me, but, hey, I’m the antichrist. I’m supposed to be arrogant).

Translation #1: There is no “One true religion.” Comment: I might actually agree with that, depending upon my mood. Supporters of this translation would probably say all religions are equally valid. That I disagree with. Plato’s/Socrates’ criticism of ancient Greek religion is spot on. An actual divinity would not punish a mortal by sleeping with his wife. Just saying.

Translation #2: Morality is NOT a strictly axiomatic exercise. Comment: Basically, this means that morality isn’t like mathematics. It doesn’t permit systematic rigorous deductions in a way analogous to Euclidean geometry. I actually agree with that translation, too.

Translation #3: Nothing is true or can be known to be true. Comment: Disagree. See my above statement about NOT being omniscient. And, so as to prevent being accused of circular reasoning, I know, at least, what I think my name is.

Translation #4: There is no one political ideology suitable for all members of any society of suitable size. Comment: This would be another statement I would agree with. Basically, it means that given any one political ideology (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, Capitalism, Socialism, whatever), you will never get the entire population (assuming they number above like 3) to agree. I’m not sure Capitalism and Socialism are political … maybe it’s economic … regardless, the same principle holds, I think. So, the problem becomes, “How can you get ideologies as opposed as Capitalism and Socialism are, to coexist? Well, I don’t know. I’m only interested in truth and absolute truth in this post. The point of this statement is that politics is messy and there should be room for considerable disagreement. Probably not unlimited disagreement – as that would end in chaos and probably destruction – but learning to “agree to disagree” is a virtue. Most of the time (I would make exceptions for human sacrifice, cannibalism, and a few other things).

Translation #5: Science is never finished.  Comment: I can’t claim to know this with certainty, but I find it highly probable. The scientific process has been advancing since the scientific method was first established. Although it is possible that tomorrow (or the next day, or whatever) the final Grand Unified Theory of Everything (Assuming you don’t accept the notion that Satan is the yin and yang and he is, in fact, the Theory of Everything you’re looking for – although that is, unfortunately, totally non-mathematical in nature), I don’t expect that to happen. The history of science is that it is a continuous process of disproving earlier theories. Well, perhaps, “disproving” is a bit misleading. Maybe more like “continually refining” with occasional upheavals here and there.        

So, do I have a point in all this? After all, I probably agree with four out of the five statements? Why not just say, “There is no absolute truth most of the time?” Well, I really do want to be a stickler for details. And I would much rather my adversary make a clear statement instead of using words in a way that does not express what those words actually mean.

This is a nuclear age. Notions of truth are usually associated with moral claims. Trying to build a society that doesn’t believe in any kind of moral truth when we have nukes, biological weapons, and chemical weapons – all of which can kill everyone on the planet – sounds like a terrible idea to me.

Further, it is logically possible that (Translation #1) there is one true religion. I find it unlikely, but it’s possible. It is also possible, and I think quite likely, that even though there are many different political ideologies (Translation #4) that (like religions) not all of them are equal or, at the very least, none of them contain falsehoods. And it is our responsibility to try to deal with those falsehoods. Additionally, I commented that it is logically possible that science will, one day, become complete.   

Misinformation: I just want to say (I don’t have room in this post tonight to explain why) that I don’t support laws against “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or other infringements on freedom of speech. Also, the above list is, probably, not exhaustive.                                   

More Strange Thoughts

Just a little more food for thought for anyone taking me serious which is probably, maybe even hopefully, no one.

Satan and Relativism Weaponized

Somewhere in the Acts of the Apostles (I think), there is a scene where the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit from Heaven in the form of tongues of fire (a.k.a. receiving the Paraclete on Pentecost Sunday). There was a rushing wind. The Apostles began “speaking in tongues.” That is, there were people from different nations and places. These people spoke a variety of tongues amongst themselves: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc…

And regardless of what language each person on the scene spoke, that person heard the Apostles’ words in his own tongue. That is, if he was Greek, he heard the Apostles speaking Greek. If he was Jewish, he heard the Apostles speaking Hebrew. And so on. And so on.

A baffling miracle. Unless you look at it as a form of relativism. In this case, a kind of physical relativism. The physical reality and its corresponding words differed relativistically from person to person. Christians typically attribute this event to the intervention of God.

Of course, me being the antichrist, I’m actually convinced it was the result of the intervention of Satan. Of course, that leads to a lot of questions like: Why would Satan do that? And a host of others. I’m going to ignore those questions in this and just get to my point.

The Pentecost miracles, in my view, can be understood as a kind of relativistic phenomena (in terms of (physical/metaphysical) relativism, NOT special/general relativity from physics). Relativism, in Christian circles, is usually attributed to Satan. Satan is a relativist.

So, could he be responsible for a Pentecost-like miracle (Ignore Pentecost itself, for now. Maybe it was the Holy Spirit, maybe it wasn’t, I don’t know)? Imagine that Satan has a relativistic ability like that portrayed in Pentecost. What could he do?

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

Basically, an evil force with Pentecost-like relativistic abilities (i.e. Satan), could really screw over the workings of any country, society, or collection thereof. It would be easy for Satan to confuse people and increase tensions across any society.

He just has to make subtle alterations to communications. One person says, “How are you, my friend?”, but the person he is speaking to hears, “How are you, jerkface?” And so, Satan stokes the potential for confrontation. Similarly, data  and “facts” become suspect.

A conservative does some Internet research and finds a source on-line that the U.S. achieved energy independence in 2020. A liberal looks at the same page on the same site and learns that the U.S. was NOT energy independent in 2020. Other than the obvious disagreement between the two people, what is the result?

The conservative is convinced the liberal is lying. The liberal is convinced the conservative is lying. Satan has successfully turned the liberal and conservative against each other to the extent that they both think the other is lying. Trust diminishes. Anger and hatred increases.

How long using this “weaponized relativism” will it take for Satan to foment actual violence in the U.S.? What about across the globe?

So, to reiterate this point: here in the U.S., are the Democrats all lying to the Republicans? Or are all the Republicans lying to the Democrats? Or, is Satan interfering with the honest communication of each party and its members to the other?

 I think it is the last of these, although I’m sure there is a certain level of actual lying and deception going on in politics. I just don’t think it is as extensive as it seems to be coming across. I think Satan is stoking disagreement and argument.

Is there a remedy? I honestly don’t know. Try to be patient with your political adversaries. And double check and triple check everything everyone says particularly when you think they are lying. It may be the case that, thanks to Satan, you are not really hearing the words they are really saying.

Should You Listen To Me?

If Jesus is not backing me up on anything I say, stay away. Ignore me. Burn everything I write. None of this stuff is inspired by divine vision or what have you. It’s mostly the result of “reasoning”, if you can call it that, based on my experience of “hell” and such.

Anyway, my best wishes to all.

Reflections On Knowledge (Part II)

More Epistemology, Science, and Covid

As before, I am discussing Epistemology, its relationship to science, and its relationship to the Covid epidemic. I left off saying that science produces “well-justified rational belief” not “knowledge.” I further indicated that I really don’t think either “knowledge” or “well-justified rational belief” permits a scientist to force his decisions upon another person. But “well-justified belief” even less so than “knowledge.”

Degrees of Certainty

Let me go further and suggest that not all forms of “well-justified belief” are equal. They come in varying degrees of certainty. At least, this is my sense of the situation – I certainly don’t think I have the final word here.

My inclination is that some fields of science are more certain than others. Once, for my own amusement, I wrote a brief paper where I ranked several different fields of science in degrees of certainty. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being absolutely certain, I ranked math as 10, physics as 9, and the social sciences as 7.

I put math as 10 because it has the certainty of pure deductive logic. I put physics as 9 because, as a science, it requires some logical induction, but its subject matter seems reasonably basic. Quantum Mechanics aside, I tend to expect all atoms and matter to behave pretty much in the same way.

Social sciences, however, involve people. People may or may not have free will. And science just can’t handle free will. Regardless, no two people are perfectly identical (whereas the constituent parts of matter are usually believed to be so – according to my high school education of 30 years ago).

Anyway, that’s how I ranked a few sciences a number of years ago. Take it for what you will.

Anyway, for the rest of this discussion I will use “knowledge” (with quotes) instead of well-justified rational belief for simpicity’s sake and to save space.

Progressive Approximation

Now, looking at things from a different angle, it’s worth considering how scientific “knowledge” advances. In that regard, I’d say it advances by way of progressive approximation. That is, there is the true nature of reality and science’s description of it. The scientific description isn’t perfect or complete but is merely an approximation of the way reality truly is.

As science advances, that approximation becomes a more and more accurate description of reality. Always falling short to some degree, but always improving. Well, I suppose it’s possible it finishes the job and produces a complete and perfect description of reality, but (ignoring my antichrist issues) that may be somewhat problematic.

As a philosophy professor of mine pointed out many years ago, measuring your advance from your beginning is easy. Determining how far you have left to go is far more difficult. And that question of “how far more there is left to go” has implications for how valid a claim to true knowledge science can make.

If science has completed only 1% of the journey to a perfect description of reality, 99% of the journey remains. In such a case, I think a scientist’s claim he/she has the right to compel others to obey them is weak.

On the other hand, if science has completed 99% of the journey only 1% of the journey remains and the scientist’s claim is much stronger. But even then, it is compulsion we are talking about, not persuasion. Regardless, there is no way for us to measure the journey ahead of us before we’ve completed it. So, we have no idea whether we’ve completed 1% or 99% of the journey.

So, honestly, when it comes to compulsion, I don’t think “because the scientists say so” is a foolproof justification. In fact, I’m inclined to say that it is insufficient. But, of course, there is more to say. And I’ll leave that to the next post.