What is Christian nationalism?
I began the book that would become "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism," shortly before the 2004 election. It was born out of my sense that large swaths of right-wing America were living in what seemed like an all-encompassing alternate reality, and that that reality was slowly, subtlety but inexorably crowding out truth and empirical fact in our national life. As a reporter for Salon, I'd written about the way religious fundamentalists who reject the very notion of secular science were given authority over things like international population policy and domestic sex education. I'd looked into the prevalent end-times beliefs that undergird Christian Zionism and lead some American evangelicals to support the most irredentist Israeli settlers. At conservative conferences where Republican leaders gathered, I would hear the most paranoid John Birch-style conspiracy theories passed off as conventional wisdom. Increasingly, the central cultural divide in America seemed not just political or religious but epistemological .
Often I had a hard time convincing friends and colleagues that people in positions of authority really took their seemingly extreme religious convictions seriously, and that those convictions were actually dictating public policy. Instead, they tended to assume that leaders who mouthed religious rhetoric were just cynically nurturing the false consciousness of their foot soldiers. There's actually something comforting about this view, because it makes ideological extremism comprehensible to outsiders. But I think it's too simple. Hannah Arendt wrote of how observers have often had a hard time taking totalitarian rhetoric seriously, because they assume it must be masking some other material motive. "Since virtually all of European history through many centuries had taught people to judge each political action by its cui bono and all political events by their particular underlying interests, they were suddenly confronted with an element of unprecedented unpredictability," she wrote in "The Origins of Totalitarianism." "Because of its demagogic qualities, totalitarian propaganda, which long before the seizure of power clearly indicated how little the masses were driven by the famous instinct of self-preservation, was not taken seriously."
To write "Kingdom Coming," I traveled all over America, going to megachurches and ministries, attending rallies and conferences, and visiting some of the government-funded faith-based initiatives that, under Bush, have slowly begun to replace secular social services. I immersed myself in the literature of the movement and even took to listening to Christian radio. I began to realize that what I was encountering was as much a totalistic political movement as a religious one. What I describe as Christian nationalism is not synonymous with evangelical Christianity or even Christian fundamentalism. It is, rather, a movement that purports to have extrapolated a complete governing program from the bible, and that claims divine sanction for its campaign of national renewal. It promotes a revisionist history in which the founders were conservative Christians who never meant to separate church and state, and in which America's true Christian character has been subverted by several generations of God-hating leftists. It explicitly condemns the Enlightenment and denies that Enlightenment values had anything to do with our nation's original ideals. The movement's literature is so vast, its alternative skein of pseudo-facts so intricate, that it often seemed totally impervious to outside argument.
And yet increasingly, as members of the movement assume positions of power, government decisions -- whether on stem cells, the role of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV, government funding of religious organizations, proselytizing in the military, and a host of other issues -- are made according to Christian nationalist dogmas. You don't just see it in the federal government -- if anything, it's even more pronounced on the state and local level, where I've often heard officials cite fake facts from Christian nationalist books at contentious school board meetings and the like. Indeed, the teaching of Christian nationalist history may turn out to be the next big educational battle after intelligent design -- a curriculum developed by several leaders in the movement has already been introduced in school districts nationwide.
Over and over again, I kept returning to Arendt, whose work helped explain so much of what I was encountering. "Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself," she wrote.
By citing Arendt, I am certainly not suggesting that theocratic dictatorship is imminent in America. Rather, I'm saying that the Christian nationalist movement has a proto-totalitarian ideology and structure, and that, while it only represents a minority of Americas, it has amassed more influence than those who cherish secularism and pluralism should be comfortable with. What I try to describe in "Kingdom Coming" is a subtle but powerful change in the way our country works -- the slow encroachment of conservative religious doctrines into government policy, the increasing sectarianism pervading politics and public institutions, the shift in the very way our society apprehends truth. As I write in the book, "As Christian nationalism gains influence, it is changing our country in troubling ways, and its leaders say they've only just begun. It is up to all Americans to decide how far they can go."
Michelle
Welcome to TPMCafe. I have been reading your pieces in Salon for years. I assue you are familiar with Augustine's Confessions but as you lay out the issues above and as I understand it we seem to be experiencing a neo-Platonist Augustinian revival. The truth is knowable and man was corrupted by Adam and only the holy elite can now the truth.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 22, 2006 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that people who are seeking to wield civil power to dictate to others in matters of conscience are projecting a very weak deity.
A book that I have read again and again, Cosmos and History:The Myth of The Eternal Return by Mircea Eliade provided some insights as I found my way out of the alternate reality that Michelle Goldberg described so well.
It is disheartening to contemplate humanity walking through these ridiculous and self-inflicted fiery crusades yet again.
Perhaps we learn something every time we repeat this part of our human history.
May 22, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
You always have something interesting to say, but you lost me this time. I have an informal interest in Zen Buddhism and the Jewish origins of Christianity, but I am not up on the neo-Platonists or Augustine.
I once knew someone who was interested in neo-Platonism, but she was very intellectual, very liberal, and active
with the World Council of Churches - not what Michelle is talking about.
Wasn't C.S. Lewis a neo-Platonist? I forced myself to read all of the Chronicles of Narnia, but I never really enjoyed them -- too didactic. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any Christian conservatives today who are anywhere near the intellectual caliber of Lewis.
I am frankly surprised by the popularity of the recent Lewis movie with the religious Right. I think they are grasping at straws more than they are finding any real similarity between themselves and Lewis, but that is just my opinion. I understand Lewis to have been a seeker, or at least to have started out that way. Fundamentalism seems to me to be almost the opposite of Lewis in that respect.
I honestly don't understand the thinking behind the religious Right today, but my impression is that it has more to do with the influence of high-pressure preaching than anything more theoretical.
I would be genuinely interested in further comments from you on this subject.
May 22, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theocracies don't run efficient governments. The current poster child for what happens is Iran. After a generation of theocratic leadership they have a 30% unemployment rate, a society where social rights have slipped back a century and a total lack of an economic power (except for their oil sales).
We can see the beginnings of this effect in the US. When religion is used to determine funding for, say, stem cell research, the research doesn't stop, it just moves elsewhere. So China or the UK or some other place not constrained by such policies will be the leader in innovation, not us.
What this means is that we will not be able to compete in the international market place. For example, suppose China finds a vaccine for cancer. By giving it to their population they can lower their health costs and thus be more efficient. And they can refuse to share the technology with us, just as we currently do with certain computer technology.
So what is at stake is not just the loss of civil rights within the US, but the long term economic viablility of the nation. I think an argument along these lines can be used to alert people to the dangers. We have many examples from the invention of the compact disc forward to use as case studies.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
May 22, 2006 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Augustine believed that man was corrupt by the sin of Adam. Our will was forever corrupt. That government, even the tyrannical Roman emperors, was in the punishment for that sin though the ultimate punishment for man was death.
The Platonism of Augustine, and I believe Protestants, including the people Michelle is writing about, reject the senses as a means of the knowledge of Truth. Truth can only be known by an internal search of the soul or mind.
For some Platonists such as Socrates, Descartes and Henri Bergson(early 20th Cent.) This looking for the Truth is very anti-institutional and individualist. However, for those who believe they know the Truth and they can convey it to the collective it tends to have very totalitarian implications.
Not only Christianity but Judaism and Islam all have been influenced by Platoism either directly or more often through Plotinus. I would never suggest that a movement with potent political implications is simply an intellectual exercize. Howver, events and ideas need to be put in a context. The Platonism as Christinized by Augustine seems to be deeply embedded in the beliefs of those Michelle is discussing.
You are correct, I believe, that though they are lumped together there is really a big religious difference between fundamentalists and evangelicalists. Lewis was a devout Anglican and while wishing to bring the Christian message through the allegory of many of his books he was neither a Fundamanetalist nor an Evangelical.
Thank you for your kind words. I hope this was responsive.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 22, 2006 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the John Birch Society figures heavily in both Republican party conventions and conservative Christian political views. Very many of the Christian Coalition leaders either are members of the JBS or attend their meetings. When Pat Robertson ran for President and proclaimed that Cuba had nuclear weapons, that report came from the New American magazine, a publication of the John Birch Society.
There are also very many Republican convention goers who are John Birchers. When they go to the convention, they often hold committee chairmanships and help steer the party's platform. They will tell everyone that they are "very conservative."
How do I know this? I used to be a Republican, grew up as a Christian fundamentalist, and was active in Republican party politics. I actually knew the people from the inside.
Find the Truth. Do Justice.
May 22, 2006 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
To put this argument in a proper perspective, comparisons of Bible Belt communities and God-hating leftist secular communities such as Venice, California are not particularly helpful in underlining the problem.
The rub, of course, is defining what exactly "progress" means at a national level. The United States is a nation which has always had different races, religions, political agendas, etc. Why is this any different? Confederate General Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson was once asked why he never appeared nervous during the heat of battle. He calmly replied that his life is in God's hands and that if the Almighty deemed it his time to go, then so be it.
I'm not a religious person and certainly have problems with parts of the Religious Right's views on the social agenda. For instance, deliberate refutation of scientific fact is a problem that should be given serious creedence. But who truly cares if religious fanatics hold conferences or townhall meetings in which crazy, unproven theories are widely accepted as fact? This is simply a case of a few opinion leaders "preaching to the choir."
Let us focus on things such as race relations, poverty, and healthcare before we worry about things such as religious encroachment. The Baby Boom Generation does certainly appear to have a plethora of religious fanatics, but Generation X, who is waiting in the wings for their chance to run society, are born out of a different set of tools: cocaine and contraception.
May 22, 2006 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much power do you want these big, bad, bunkshooters to have? Cui Bono? Are you joking? In all this intellectual onanism, has anyone noticed just how rich the rich are getting?
The putrid policies and the relentless exploitation of a twisted, fanatical minority are tools of their trade. Every century or so they get dragged out from the mud and and spit-shined up to fool another generation.
What ever happened to Billy Sunday, anyway?
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
May 22, 2006 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The John Birch Society still exists?? I thought they died out when the most monstrously conceived and diabolical Communist plot suceeded in polluting our precious bodily fluids.
I am talking about fluoridation.
May 22, 2006 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me see Socrates was a Platonist? is that what you are saying?
May 22, 2006 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg, I think the point Michelle is making is that this is not about powerless religious fanatics holding a conference.
The link she gave goes to bibleinschools.net
This is a list of the people in US or state Govt that are on their advisory board:
This is what they say about the Founding Fathers:
I know that teaching the bible in public schools was passed by the GA state legislature and signed by the governor this last session.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
May 22, 2006 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Confederate General Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson was once asked why he never appeared nervous during the heat of battle. He calmly replied that his life is in God's hands and that if the Almighty deemed it his time to go, then so be it.
Shot dead by his own men proving God has a sense of humor -- ironic though it may be.
May 22, 2006 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle is arguing that this is precisely not a case of "a few opinion leaders", but a case of an alternative ideological/epistemological culture whose factual universe and conventional wisdoms differ sharply from ours, and which is building and cultivating that universe constantly by manufacturing bogus information which reinforces its propagandistic worldview. She's arguing that it closely resembles totalitarian mass movements. It sounds like the key is the recurring nature of the fake information which turns up spontaneously in all these different gatherings, which all seem to be reading the same bizarro-world propaganda. I find this a very persuasive argument. One major question is how one cracks open these sorts of closed epistemological crankcases. It was, after all, impossible to argue with Nazis; ultimately, we had to shoot them. One hopes it will not come to such a pass in the US, particularly as they seem to have all the guns, and we may be the ones who get shot.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 22, 2006 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One major question is how one cracks open these sorts of closed epistemological crankcases.
1. Maintain a current file of their "truth" claims.
2. Identify every politician who associates with or seeks support from these Xianists.
3. Demand that the MSM challenge these politicians to accept or deny, expressly, the claims of their supporters.
4. Bang the heads of any media that quote or report on the doings of these politicians without mentioning their relationship to Xianists and how that relationship biases their responses to current issues.
May 22, 2006 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bronto1:
http://www.jbs.org/
apparently they don't go away that easily...
-Dave Adams-
May 22, 2006 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very right. But I find "Xianist" insufficiently negative in connotation. What about National-Christianists, or Naxis for short? Nah, probably just provoke a backlash.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 22, 2006 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. The question I keep on coming back to is how exactly do you explain the tremendous support the religious have exerted over the past twelve years among the general populace?
And, more exactly, the continuing failure of secular proponents to sway voters? Even now, the only success on the horizon is due to the failure of aspects of the religious agenda, not the attractiveness of alternative secular propositions.
It is all fine and good to keep telling each other that those you disagree with are evil totalitarians and must ultimately be shot (as one writer suggested), but it will hardly return your ideas to the mainstream of American political thought.
Rather than harassment and death threats (traditionally the hallmark of totalitarianism) , is there any positive agenda proposed here?
May 22, 2006 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be curious to read the book. I'm fairly sure many of you here would happily throw me into the same social soup that this work is the warning call for. Not that I wish it. I'm a member of the LDS Church (Mormon Church as it's informaly known by many), I'm a conservative, and I in several cases side with those in the primary group that's the focus of the book.
Both in connection to this article, and like themed discourse made by those in the collective 'progresive' dialog, one of the prevading points is the concept of seemingly insurmountable barriers. Barriers that reach an extent to warrent the calling out of the 'big gun', that is epistemological.
Mighty big word for but a simple theologicaly based dogma led follower such as myself. The funniest thing is that this is the very same claim made by the most intellectual of the evangelical/Christian traditions that still refuse to ever consider my particular faith to deserve the title "Christian." The observation is made because I find so many paralelles. In both cases BOTH sides are certain that they are more privy to vital knowledge touching good and evil than the other is. In the view of one theological tradition doing such to another it's easier to see the obviousness of such a statement. Yet those who claim 'progresive' values, to give heedence to first and formost ration and logic, how can such people be accused of suffering the same egotism as their equivilant parts in a strictly theological match up? That, my friends, is something I've had difficulty in getting many on the progresive end to see. But I'll try again, and hope you'll stay with me and stay patient and open. That is, afterall, the way to truly progress. To be forever searching in our openmindedness. Always second guessing our previous suppositions.
If one is ever striving for ration and logic to dictate their perceptions and doings then why wouldn't they be the best to teach and govern the masses? That's the premise on which Ms. Goldberg and others state their alarm at so many dismissers of the common consent of the rational world deciding policy on items as profound as the education of the properties of procreation or the policies of united nations with regards to their demographic management policies. All that seems aparent to those of such alarm is the obvious danger a frequenter of old horror films could discern upon watching a new, but stereotypical, protagonist stumble into the most horrific of scenarios. They liken their cries of the obvious to those on the right as being as futile as speaking a warning voice to that stereotypical character while he remains in the two-dimensional confines of the fictional media. The plea seemingly can never be headed for the divide is too great. The conservatives are living in a 'fantasy world' akin to that of the horror film stars. Yet so many progresives can rarely see themselves, personaly, as so dense. They see the proverbial writting on the wall. The irony on our side (in our perception), on the side of the religious 'extreemists' (I don't consider myself such, but I can see how current progresive deffinitions would easily be applied to render me such in the eyes of a great many) is that this is almost as if old Belshazzar (from the first reported incident of actual "writting on the wall" being a spectacularly momentous and fortelling event) after witnessing the hand appear in the air and seemingly magicaly inscribe something on the wall, was told by a brazen 'scientist' from 'mongst the soothesayers (one need not believe in magic to speak soothing things) that he had not infact likely seen an actual hand from heaven. Such a scientific advisor to the king may rather approach the king and mention that there could be alternate explanations for the occurance and that he could likely decode the mysterious writtings, of course "assuming" they were a legitimate inscription and not just some random scriblings, if he were granted sufficient grants from the Babylonian departments in charge of funding such research. My point is that it's all well and seemingly rational to posit a scientific solution and seek the backing up of societies goods to propel such, as it, in the eyes of many, is the only 'sure' way of getting a 'sure' knowledge.
The main problem with all this, however, is the fact that science, as they came to admit long ago, either can't come to any real lasting answers on any scale significantly large to get humans understanding more than just the HOW of things. At least up to this point science, ration and logic almost explicitly avoid the realms of protology and eschatology. They know full well that the further you pull back on the view of the 'everything' the more and more assumptions have to sneak in. And while these assumptions are occasionaly revised many on my side have a hard time seeing these things as being any more legitimate, when applied to macroscopic views, as any theological dogma. So while these assumptions, with the help of science's determined endless second guessing, are never technicaly 'dogma' they have the peculiar similarity to such in that they are so many and so deeply tied to any fathoming and attempted comprehension of any system fathomed by the human mind that they are essentialy as solid a foundation as many a theologicaly based paradigm.
But that's a scary thought isn't it? I mean the whole scariness of the so
-called 'fundies' is their dogmatic allegiance to uncertaintly based claims.
So here's where I hope to bring it full circle. If you've a view of two systems that, though distinct in many key areas, both share the aspect of fundamentaly being based on either best guesses taken from human intellect being applied to empirical, measurable, data or the best guesses being taken, at some point in history, by the human intellect being applied to subjective human experiences as yet untouchable by ration and logic I'd hope you can see why there's very little difference in the potential failings of either. Thus, as is the case for me, the choice goes to what one which feels, from life experience and (we cannot deny this on either side of the debate---for none of us is free from the clasp of human bias, whether spoken to by God or enlightened whilst in the lab or university) from personal inclinations and desires, conscious or sub-conscious.
So bring this back to the whole public policy points. If I look at the communities of science and ration, while I see a great many good advances, I certainly don't see utopia springing from the head of such, fully grown, any time in either the near or distant future. Technology and advanced thinking brings blunders and catastrophies to match the size and scope of it's advances and successes. The problem with this is that with bigger steps the whole "one step forward, two steps back" is made far more punative with the scope made available by the advances in finite ration and logic. Thus we have all the terrible things amplified. Our dreams expand in grandure whilst our nightmares tend to pushing us forever beyond sanity. And when sanity is utterly gone, of what worth are dreams of grandure?
But one would answer that if it weren't for the religious, if it weren't for those so stuck on their rational suspending ideologies, such things would not happen for all would come close enough in their rationalizing and logical computations to approach utopia. But then one can point out the fact that Communism, and similar movements, lauded and claimed science and rational as their basis. You may respond that those are simply fanatical notions inherited from a legacy of irrational thought. The Eugenics centered genocide of Nazi germany one could easily say was certainly an aberation of real science and enlightened thought. And if you say that that's very well and fine EXCEPT for the fact that it gives your side the convenience of forever being able to disown the substantive mistakes of the past purpotrated in your name. A similar item that many secularists and progresives refuse to accept from many a religious ideology as they too try to relegate those who do horrible things in their name to the convenient realm of imposter or false impersonator.
So that's my point. I think this claim of it being an issue of epistemological differences has some merit to a degree, even a profound one, but I don't think the differences are insurmountable. Perhaps nigh insurmountable. But I'd like to exercise a little more faith in our capacity to see and understand each other, In spite of our vastly different foundational paradigms. Call me an idealist but I think that truth cleaves to truth, and I think various aspects of all sides of this complex (for it is a complex that's far beyond an exhastive treatment using only two poles or some simple surmizing of the properties and state of any one collective group) contain, at points, profound truths. There are many, in my view, in both main camps, and in many side ones, etc., that are dense, hard to comprehend crazies. But I think we all need to be carefull of labeling anyone on any side as inherently being without ration or outside a rational that we could, if we looked hard enough, accept in our own paradigm of ration and logic.
We need to remember that between those who are a little too loose with dismissing facts and empirical data, and those who claim to live by it, that we all have the terrible deficiency of being finite and NEVER having available to us, as mere humans, an exauhstive enough a knowledge to ensure us an end far distant from that of old Oedipus Rex. For all our advancement logicaly and rationaly, or in terms of the spiritual, we all need to remeber King David's fall and Einstein's 'blunder' to help us to realize how foolish we all are by ourselves. And how terribly thankfull we should all be that we've been miraculously granted continuance despite our periods of logical rejections or over application/misproportioning/misapropriating of otherwise logical conclusions. Really the quesiton of good and bad comes down to the fact that no one on either side of the aisle can really comprehensively know, do or acheive such without something beyond ourselves.
May 23, 2006 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"One hopes it will not come to such a pass in the US, particularly as they seem to have all the guns, and we may be the ones who get shot."
Well, you Democrats want to disarm everybody - but then they'll control the military, and all you "progressives" will be disarmed.
Of course, since you "progressives" don't think a civilian resistance can defeat the US military anyway, I suppose you think my argument isn't relevant.
Well, you're right - it isn't relevant - because we Transhumans will deal with the issue more directly.
Have a nice day.
May 23, 2006 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re your number 4:
Uhm, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon owns WHAT national paper, Ellen?
"2. Identify every politician who associates with or seeks support from these Xianists.
3. Demand that the MSM challenge these politicians to accept or deny, expressly, the claims of their supporters."
Forget it - not going to happen. You can't even get the MSM to challenge politicians on where they stand on specific ISSUES - let alone where they stand on, say, AIPAC funding them. You think any politician is going to own up to, "Oh, yeah, I believe the End Times are coming right after we invade Iran and start Armageddon in the Middle East - after all, the Iranians will nuke Israel, so that solves that part of the prophecy!"
I don't think so.
May 23, 2006 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about the total lack of an educational system that never bothers to discuss exactly how one reasons prior to, say, senior year in college - by which time it's too late.
In other words, my "moron" theory...
I remind everyone that the book "The Bell Curve" - heavily criticized by "progressives" because it supposedly supported the notion that minorities were less intelligent than whites (and for the record, I have no information supporting that thesis - before the usual idiots proclaim me as supporting it) - had as its primary point the simple fact that half the population of any demographic is dumber than the other half - and that this has policy implications.
Well, welcome your new "policy implications"...your problem now is that they are making the policy...
May 23, 2006 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm fairly sure many of you here would happily throw me into the same social soup that this work is the warning call for."
You're right.
"The main problem with all this, however, is the fact that science, as they came to admit long ago, either can't come to any real lasting answers on any scale significantly large to get humans understanding more than just the HOW of things."
How did I guess you were going to end up there, denouncing rationaity and science - after revealing yourself to be an LDS nutcase?
By the way, the Transhumanism philosophy denies your allegation vis=a=vis science. In fact, I'd say many, if not most scientists, deny it. Not to say that there aren't a lot of "idiot scientists" who keep their religious beliefs and scientific training mixed up enough - or separated enough, in some cases - to make statements along your lines.
"I certainly don't see utopia springing from the head of such, fully grown, any time in either the near or distant future."
That's because you're clueless about nanotech - which also does not surprise me.
"we all have the terrible deficiency of being finite and NEVER having available to us, as mere humans, an exauhstive enough a knowledge to ensure us an end far distant from that of old Oedipus Rex."
Which is why Transhumans will transcend human limitations - the only solution to that problem of "being finite" in terms of life as well as being limited by chimpanzee neurochemistry from acquiring sufficient knowledge and rationality to derive an awareness of reality and purpose.
The rest of your post is...drivel.
May 23, 2006 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the problem with terminology is basic to the issue.
If you accept ANYTHING about Christianity, you are IMMEDIATELY on the "slippery slope" to be unable to argue against ANYTHING about it - including the most radical fundamentalist crap.
After all, most of that "crap" is inherited from past ages of nutcases such as Luther, going all the way back to the bozo who started Christianity - Paul - who himself was a Roman double agent. The fact that some of these nutcases today have invented some more crap to ladle on top of the original crap is really not relevant.
If people want to talk about a "clash of civilizations", it isn't between Christianity and Islam - it's between religion and reason.
Fortunately, religion is doomed to lose that battle in this century - which isn't to say that a lot of rationalists and "innocent bystanders" (there are no such when it comes to this dichotomy) won't get killed in the process.
In the end, however, the Christian "Rapture" will prove to be more like the SubGenius concept of "The Rupture"...
(For those unfamiliar with the hilarious pseudo-cult-cum-comedy-routine called the Church of the SubGenius, go here. - trust me, you'll regret it!)
May 23, 2006 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Along the lines of your idea that politicians identify their connections to Xtian groups:
Before this conversation gets underway, we might set a ground rule that everybody participating needs to identify his or her religious background and general demographic in this regard, much as HiveRadical has by helpfully identifying himself as an LDS nutcase.
This way we'll avoid misinterpreting where people are coming from when they start trying to weasel around the issues without identifying their particular bias.
Everybody knows where I'm coming from (well, maybe not - unless you have some notion of Transhumanism, and then some further notion of what I call "radical Transhumanism" - but close enough - just assume "militant atheist" - very militant atheist.)
May 23, 2006 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It could be worse than you know.
If the US loses the lead in nanotechnology research - and this is quite possible, as there are a number of Bush nutcases in the scientific community who consider Transhumanism to be so threatening to their belief system that they have publicly denounced it - and one or more other nations take the lead in that area, the end result would definitely be "bad" for the US, economically if in no other ways.
BUT, in fact, it could be "fatal" if those other countries end up on the opposing side of a fundamentalist state in this country (or vice versa). Those other countries could quite LITERALLY eliminate the entire US population almost overnight.
Read K. Eric Drexler's first book, "Engines of Creation", wherein he warns that a state with the powers of nanotech could eliminate everybody and still function. The risk could be serious if either the US developed such abilities under a theocratic government - or for that matter, just the criminal government we HAVE - or the US attempted to stop the development of such technology by other states - or non-state actors.
I tend not to overemphasize such risks as I suspect that social, economic, geopolitical, and other factors will even out the risk over the time it will take to develop such capabilities. Nonetheless, the rise of a theocratic fascist state in the United States - even if it retains only a portion of its current wealth and military power, including nuclear and biological weapons - could throw a serious monkeywrench into technological progress - which in turn could throw a serious monkeywrench into the survival of, well, monkeys.
Fortunately, we Transhumanists are aware of the risk - and most of the Transhumanist movement organizations are already disposed to work toward putting mechanisms into place to reduce the risk. Whether they will succeed in overcoming the "march to unreason" represented by the Christian Nationalists is a matter I have some doubts about, however.
Too bad - or perhaps fortunately - they overlooked the "radical Transhumans", but that's another story I won't go into here.
May 23, 2006 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's the thing, Transhumanism IS terrifying on the face of it, because we will not be what we now are and in fact will be alien to what we now are. It's the death of humanity as we understand it and it's easy to see that as frightening. Hell, it's terrifying to me, and I believe it's inevitable that we will in essence join with the machines or go under.
That said I still don't think transhumanism is threatening to the belief system, at least not mine (Protestant Christian). At least, not in the foreseable future.
Also, I would think that any future attack on traditional human America would spare those who don't support the threatening government, avoiding collateral damage simply because they'd have the tecnology to target the threat and mostly the threat.
May 23, 2006 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me - Transhumanism WILL mean the total and complete collapse of any and all religious belief systems. They are utterly and totally incompatible.
Your last point may be correct, however.
I view the "End Times" (as it were) of the "Singularity" as having four - and only four - possible outcomes:
1) Everybody gets transmogrified into Transhumans whether they want to or not - no one will complain once they are, that's for sure.
2) Humans attack Transhumans and get exterminated. (The idea from the "Matrix" or "Terminator" movies or "Star Trek" that the humans will win is so laughable as to not be worth discussing.)
3) Humans don't have the capacity to attack Transhumans - or simply don't - and the Transhumans ignore them and go about their business elsewhere.
And the most likely scenario:
4) All of the above - some people get transmogrified, some people get exterminated, some people get ignored.
I'd just about guarantee that, depending on how long and what is actually involved in the "Singularity" - which we can't know at this point - that option 4 is the most likely.
Mathematician and SF writer Vernor VInge talks about a "hard launch" vs a "slow launch" - if there's time for people to comprehend what's coming down, options 2 or 3 become a real possibility. If it's a "hard launch" - where the Singularity almost "explodes" in human history at a speed faster than humans can react to - then option 1 or option 3 is more likely.
Option 3 is the best outcome from the viewpoint of conventional humans. Everybody makes their own decision, nobody is coerced, nobody gets hurt.
Option 1 is the best outcome from the Transhuman perspective - nobody gets left behind, nobody gets hurt - and in fact, nobody is even "coerced" in the "harmed" meaning of the term.
Option 3 is the worst outcome from both perspectives - a "pointless" - from a Transhuman perspective - operation has to be done, and the humans involved of course end up dead. I would expect strenous efforts on the Transhuman side to avoid this outcome.
But the safest guess is option 4.
Also, keep in mind that my scenario in my other post was concerned with the possibility that sometime BEFORE the Singularity a state might develope extensive nanotech and then be attacked by the US - or vice versa. In that situation, without the benefit of actual Transhumans, it is likely that less than optimal deployment of nanotech might be done, either because the nanotech is not fully developed, or the people deploying it are not of Transhuman caliber in their ability to target their enemies.
Even Transhumans might have trouble, depending on how and when the Singularity occurs. It might be that insufficient capability to determine who is and who is not a threat based on their known attitudes might cause an attack to be more general than is desired.
Under normal circumstances, I oppose the notion of "collateral damage" - except in the most accidental of circumstances.
In a fight between high-tech states and Transhumans, that luxury might not be able to be applied - at least, not if it isn't planned for early on.
That's the problem with the recent attack on the Taliban - the US killed civilians IN THEIR HOMES because the Taliban ran INTO the civilians homes.
What kind of logic is that? If your enemy runs into a civilian house, STOP ATTACKING HIM! Wait until he has to come out again!
We have morons running the US military. We hope we won't have morons deploying nanotech in combat situations in the future.
May 23, 2006 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The usual arguments show up here. A few defend religion as a belief system with similarities to science. They or other religion apologists will point out that science specializes in HOW instead of WHY. While the latter is true, it misses a crucial point.
The only WHY that science has to leave alone is "Why is there anything?" Everything else is open to scrutiny. Which means pretty much the whole world and all of history.
It is perfectly fair to to expect of person in a position of responsibility to be fully aware and wholly sane. If (s)he was known to see hallucinations we would be unwwilling to assign any responsibility to that person.
If we imagine a person evangelizing about a belief in some kind of supernatural force we would discount it, but since a lot of people say the same thing, we are forced to tread carefully and act respectful of delusions.
When decisions with the gravity of life and death may be made by someone who believes in unprovables and justifies decisions on that belief, we are right to be worried.
May 23, 2006 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Goldberg,
With all due respect all partisans who gun for the power seat with the belief that with them in it, all the difference shall be made, tend to "proto-totalitarian" passion.
It matters not which wing you fly with the most, if you fight the other one, you spiral, flutter and fall.
Checks and balances are the best thing our Constitution gave us, born of bitter experience and a window of idealism tainted with some status quo ethics and morality lapses in slavery and hypocrisy at the inception of the Republic. We can improve on anything we do, on any of our endeavors.
Partisan labeling and "isms" I find less helpful because they are like an arms race -- each "side" says a volley of polemic artillery without engaging the merits of the arguments on the other side. We are too often not in the realm of philosophical inquiry to learn, but of adversarial juridicial selectiveness of argument these days.
That's how it seems to me.
May 23, 2006 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am fascinated with this issue and am looking forward to reading the book...even though I am not a big fan of reading things that scare me.
I don't know if the Dominionists and Rapturists can be classified as one in the same or if one is a sub group within the other but Rapturists are one scary group of people. They are 100% convinced that the world will be ending imminently (decades at the most) and we must prepare for the End Times. It is their view that it will happen because it is in the bible and the bible is a book filled with emperical facts that they can discern. Think about it one of these people gets in office and feels he/she is just serving God by destroying mankind. You might say "Libertine you are as crazy as they are. There are checks and balances in place" but as Ms. Goldberg and Mr. Blackton (in another story) have pointed out these Dominionists are already in place in our government.
But I do want to address the point of how they are implementing this theocracy in America. And their strategy is pure genius. It is a mix of grass roots populism, stealth and revisionist history. They invoke images of freedom, protecting children and religious tolerence as their message. When in reality they want to institute some of the most intolerent and un-democratic policies to establish their own "Christian Nation" in America.
And they already have people in the upper reaches of our government who are trying to further their theocratic ambitions. Senators Brownback, Inhofe, Demint, Coburn and Santorum jump to mind. So while it is more firmly entrenched in local and state governemnts they are slowly moving up the ladder and trying to take over the federal government.
Ms. Goldberg ends her story here asking a question "how far can they go?" before Americans put a stop to them. I am not sure it can be stopped because they are in every branch of government including the federal judiciary and if their people on the courts say what they are doing is constitutional under their "strict interpretation" of the Constitution then it might already be too late...
May 23, 2006 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the heck is a "transhuman?" I don't know a thing about it. Do I want to? I'm a little scared, so go easy on me with your explanation. Thanks.
Jan Knaus
May 23, 2006 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bronto: They just kicked out all the dentists, who were the ones against making teeth stronger. (lol)
Jan Knaus
May 23, 2006 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Hive, I want to thank you for posting here. I know it must seem a daunting task to step up to this plate, and I appreciate your contribution. I disagree with lots of what you said, but I just want to note these few points:
"So here's where I hope to bring it full circle. If you've a view of two systems that, though distinct in many key areas..."
If I understand you correctly you are saying that religion and science are two comparable systems of governance.
Religion is a set of personal beliefs, passed on from generation to generation, and may include strictures on behavior, diet, dress, rituals, etc. The key word here is PERSONAL. It is our government that protects (in theory) peoples' personal choice to worship in any way they choose as long as it does not interfere with the human rights of others. This protection has nothing to do with the reality that religion is not proven, testable, or even true. It is simply everyone's right to believe something, right or wrong.
Science is also not a system of governance. It consists of a body of knowledge, testable, reproducible, and provable. It has given us antibiotics, rockets to the moon, and invitro fertilization, among other "miracles." So when you say:
"So while these assumptions, with the help of science's determined endless second guessing,"
...are you talking about hypotheses? A hypothesis IS a guess, based on former knowledge. A scientist then TESTS that hypothesis under controlled conditions, and if his/her hypothesis was correct (by repeated experiments) it becomes a part of the body of scientific knowledge. If it was wrong, THAT ALSO IS A PART OF WHAT IS THEN KNOWN AND REFERRED TO in future attempts at knowledge. (Yes, there are unethical scientists, but that is not the subject here)
So, neither is a system of governance, but which one should be depended on to make policy? If one person's religion says that the Earth will come to a firey end in 10 years, why should we worry about the environment? About eradication of species? About genocide as long as it is not our own families who are being murdered? In fact, why worry about anything?
But someone else's religion may say that we should respect all living things, and only eat vegetables. Another that we should sacrifice animals on the equinox. That we should preserve every 8-celled embryo ever created in a lab and call them "human."
They conflict with each other. They conflict with the way non-believers in god live their lives. These things have no place in governance.
Science is impartial and offers a rule-based system of learning truth. It is not a form of government, however a government's policies should depend on truths rather than "gut feelings" and "beliefs."
I've gone on too long, and I'll leave it here. Thanks for your attention.
Jan Knaus
May 23, 2006 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
That is very interesting and informative, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. I will save your response for further reflection.
I take your point that subjectivity in discerning the truth can be problematic, although as a Buddhist it would be in character for me to say that, of course, the opposite is also true.
Leaving that aside, I share your concern about the Right.
I have only read Lewis casually. This may be a trick of my memory, or a result of selective reading, but my impression is that Lewis was mainly concerned about first principles rather than specifically Christian beliefs. When he does address specifically Christian beliefs, such as divorce or radical forgiveness, he can be a bit doctrinaire in a way that is not illuminating, but when he is addressing first principles his thinking can be very fine-grained. I can see that the militarism of the Aslan story might appeal to the religious Right, but Lewis has so universalized the themes of sacrifice and forgiveness that the story tends to undercut the idea that salvation is through Christ alone. That is not a problem for me, but it might be a problem for the Right. The story also contains a good bit of simple, unspiritualized magic. If it were not for Lewis's reputation, the Right might have rejected the story on the same grounds that they have rejected the Harry Potter stories.
This is very puzzling.
May 23, 2006 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're slipping into unsupportable "ism" relativism.
A philosophy that encourages free thought and scientific inquiry cannot be equated with a close-minded religious fundamentalism. The one invites its own modification; the other defends vigorously against any modification.
The one that can be modified and theoretically improved is inherently superior to the the rigid belief, if we assume no system is perfect. Of course, the fundamentalists make no such assumption because they are already perfect. I, however, do not assume we have all the answers so I cannot accept any system that excludes improvement.
May 23, 2006 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, Agree. But how do we accomplish #3 and #4? I have personally sent Chris Mtthews at least 100 emails before I gave up on him entirely. I regularly email CNN and CNBC based on stuff from Media Matters.
I think we have to figure out a financial incentive for telling the truth and challenging lies, but (not being personally rich) what do we do?
I'm from Virginia, so my presidential vote doesn't even count. Senator Warner used to get regular emails from me but I gave up after reading the 20th "auto-response" email coming back.
Jan Knaus
May 23, 2006 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg, Where do you get this?
"God-hating leftist secular communities..."
One cannot HATE something that one does not believe exists.
It is the people who hate those who do NOT believe in god who promote this fiction of "god-haters." It is ironic that believers in an all-powerful, vengeful, but "loving" god feel the need to denigrate and punish non-beleivers here on Earth (why don't they just set such a good example that they might win over some souls, or even wait for god to do the punishing?)
Kinda like the constant refrain, "Why do liberals hate the US...? The troops...? god...? etcetera
Who is doing the most damage to our country? Those who believe in the common good, or those who believe that excluding all who are not "like them" is the way to go?
Jan Knaus
May 23, 2006 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might be time for an expanded C.S. Lewis discussion. He got some space after the "Lion" movie.
I pretty much lost any religious feeling in my teen years, but greatly enjoyed Lewis I read after that, including his three-part Sci-fi tale (Out of the Silent Planet, etc.) and his prose such as "Surprised by Joy".
There is something important in the power of story; we think in story and probably first learned to remember through story. I view religion as another story, and the best stories have internal contradictions exhibited by their characters or in the setting. The conflicts are creative, move the story forward.
Lewis' stories say things about the feeling of life while not falling into dogmatic cant, and are not simply proseletyzing. They are art, and communicate a feeling, not a philosphy.
May 23, 2006 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Socrates was the original Platonist. There is a lot of debate about what thoughts in Plato's dialogues are Socrates and which are Plato's own. Plato's works are often divided in to three different groupings. The Socratic dialogues, the mixed dialogues and those that represent Plato's own thinking.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 23, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Transhuman is just some basement nerd fantasizing about the nanotech penis the Future will bestow on him. Ignore.
May 23, 2006 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a former Fundy and a current philosophy instructor, I just finished giving a course on Arendt. I really enjoyed the Salon.com article and plan to check out the book.
May 23, 2006 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! What a sentence! I just have to repeat it for fun!
"Transhuman is just some basement nerd fantasizing about the nanotech penis the Future will bestow on him."
Squeaky, as usual, you made my day. Thanks!
Jan Knaus
May 23, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle
As you looked at the contempory Christian movement did you compare it to the two prior Great Awakenings? Should we see today as a third Great Awakening and if we should what in the past might help illuminate the current movement?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 23, 2006 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen
I get your point but being the Civil War buff that I am I have to clear the record on Jackson. He was shot by his own men in the woods after he pressed a rare night attack. The wound from the shooting, however, was not mortal. After being carried to a field hospital his personal doctor (Dr. Maguire) successfully amputated his left arm. While recovering from the amputation Jackson developed pneumonia which ultimately killed him.
I enjoyed the irony in your post though.
May 23, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brooksfoe
It is a cause for concern but like I said earlier, starting with Generation X and proceeding to Gen. Y, religion is not exactly a priority. Contributions to the Catholic Church in the U.S. are at an all-time low, there is a gigantic priest shortage (so severe, in fact, that the Church is continually having to look at allowing married men to join the priesthood). I'm not particuarly worried about some sort of totalitarian metamorphosis. The Bible Belt aside, if a an unusually religious Congress attempted funding for questionable religious resources, voters in most areas would likely take exception to that. Bush's spot funding for religious initiatives has not been nearly as encroaching as many would have us believe. As I've said, I am not religious at all but I do acknowledge that when used properly, religion CAN have a positive effect on society as a whole.
May 23, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan
My reference to the "God-hating leftist communities" was in response to the same phrase used in Michelle's post. I did take the liberty of using Venice, CA as an example of such a community. I can say that because I love Venice and spend a lot of days there.
May 23, 2006 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Jackson's statement -- and he's certainly not alone in making it -- humble or boastful -- even, hubristic?
What makes Jackson think that he (everyone? -- don't bet that's his thinking) is so special that God has not only noticed him but determined the means, manner, and timing of his death?*
* I suppose that if he's a "predestinationist" he could argue that God knows and must know these last things, but somehow, the tone of the assertion doesn't seem to be that abstract.
May 23, 2006 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take it you meant option 2 was the worst outcome from both perspectives.
Anyhow, does transhumanism (and I suppose post-humanism) inherently rely on a purely materialist/physicalist interpretation of reality?
I've read Vinge's thesis through a few times (heh, took me a while to fully grasp the concepts) but I'd need to see better arguments and evidence for Strong AI before I'm going to buy into its inevitability (uh, as long as society doesn't collapse because of Global Warming or Peak Oil).
But yes, I do hope we don't have morons deploying nanotech in the future. We've managed to keep from blowing ourselves up with nukes (so far, 60 years is indeed a short time) so I suppose it's possible for sensible thinking to prevail. Going to take some work for us to be sure of that though.
May 23, 2006 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
You were too polite to point it out, but the issue of subjectivism in religion pertains to our fundamental concept of
what the Christian religion really is.
Even liberal Christians have it drummed into them that Jesus debated with the Pharisees about the relative merits of
the spirit versus the law. This may be an example of the subjectivism to which you refer.
I have recently read The Jesus Dynasty, by James D. Tabor, which tells about the Jewish origins of Christianity and the
diversity found within first-century Judaism. He makes the point that there are two distinct religions in the New
Testament, one Jewish and the other gentile.
I gather from my reading, in that book and elsewhere, that the debate about the spirit versus the law may never have taken place, or even if it did, that it may have occurred within the bounds set by the debate between the famous Jewish
leaders, Hillel the Elder and Shammai. The disagreement was exaggerated to appeal to gentiles, and it is part of a
general tendency in the New Testment to diminish the importance of the Jewish roots of Christianity.
May 23, 2006 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the general perfectly. Several times in my life, I have had to face some pretty bad folks, neonazis, drug pushers, etc.
You have to make a decision when that happens. Are you values more important than your life? After the first time, I decided to make that decision beforehand.
What most people don't understand about faith is that it is the wrong word to describe itself. The proper word is trust.
As I have said before, if you aren't willing to sacrifice your life for your values, first your values, and then your life, becomes worthless.
I would rather die than live in trepidation of the future, the way many of the Denizens here do. There is always the possiblity of harm, of losing,
How impoverished a life can you be leading if the mere thought of it being spied upon sends you off on jeremiads of anguished screams?
If something you love is in immediate danger, you may fight, or not. That's your decision. But to destroy it yourself, in the process of protecting it from future danger, is just foolish.
I have won and lost more in my life than anyone else here. I just always do what I think is right, and trust myself, my values, and whatever you call that unknowable force that is existance.
Thats really what the general meant.
May 23, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really shouldn't mock other peoples beliefs.
Personally, I think Transhumanism appears to be updated Nazism (which I dislike, intensely), but as long as there is no actual danger of physical violence, he has a right to be treated with respect and dignity.
May 23, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The catholic church may be declining in power, but religion in general, seems to be doing much better than ever.
Do you have some statistics on the decline of religion as a motivator in life?
May 23, 2006 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Knowing that it is certain that shit will hit the fan in various areas (energy, climate, finance, national security) it is not unreasonable to work hard to prevent those events.
I doubt any of us care at all if someone listens to our stupid conversations. If you think that's the worry you missed the point completely.
All of us trust in certain things; we differ in what processes we trust. I trust rational inquiry, applied with humane concern for the least among us.
May 23, 2006 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree to your conclusion.
What I read on transhumanism bears no resemblance to Nazism. It is merely secular humanism that embraces technological potential.
TH has a little too much hope for nanotech which is going to be a long, hard slog.
May 23, 2006 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should have used quotes to set off the reference, as you did now.
May 23, 2006 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The religious agenda has succeeded because they cheated, from our point of view. The arguments were very lopsided, with people like Al Gore trying to make somewhat complicated arguments and people like Bush saying simplistic things like "It's your money" or "Abortion is murder."
Given that we value the rational argument we handicap ourselves by not using psychology and buzzwords. If it weren't that some stuff going on now will hurt all of us I would be content to let the current program crash and burn.
Due diligence requires us to seek justice, though.
May 23, 2006 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
randyjg2, What do you mean by this?
"You really shouldn't mock other peoples beliefs."
If you look higher up, I asked what Transhumanism was. I thought it was an off-shoot of some technical science--not a BELIEF. "Transhuman" himself is who I asked the question to and he didn't answer. I thought Squeaky Rat's answer was an amazingly funny sentence.
So, if Transhumanism is a belief, pray tell, what is it that they believe?
Jan Knaus
May 23, 2006 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was amazingly funny. I just don't approve of mockery by anyone.
As for transhumanism, you would have to ask one of their believers, I haven't either the knowledge nor the right to explain their dogma, or to qualify them as a science or not.
What I do know is that THEY believe it, as least from their postings, and that entitles them to the right to express them howsoever they wish, as long as it does not involve physical harm to anyone.
It is a tough world out there, I wish everyone whatever happiness they can mine out of it, so long as the public good is maintained.
May 23, 2006 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the "thanks."
First issue seems to be the "system of governance" line. I appologize if I misconstrued myself. I was using the term to designate that these things (religion, science, logic, etc.) govern our actions in as much as we heed the perceptions of what they proscribe to be the best course of action. I was not trying to say that they are actual governing entities. , rather that our heed to our perceptions of such govern the very manner in which we live and act in nigh every particular.
Secondly on the issue of assumption. No I'm not talking about hypothesis. I'm talking about science over all.
If you've ever had a simply physics mechanics course perhaps you'll recall the disclaimer that came before problems in things like tests. "Assume the following system..." These assumptions, since we were dealing with simple Newtonian mechanics, were in part designed to keep things simple. Yet ALL science that goes beyond simple and highly controlable laboratory expiriments runs into the need to make assumptions about the universe. It has to momentarily assume certain uncertainties are not uncertain. If they didn't they'd never be able to come up with anything close to the results they have gotten. This is something that occurs in degrees. The more complex and profound the subject(s) of observation the bigger and more skewing these assumptions inherently tend towards. So while science is excellent for helping us determine the best way to treat some specific biological/physiological malfunction in some creature it's vastly more incompetent when you reach a scale of discerning the best means of governing an entire race of sentient beings.
Take for example these two demonstrations from 'real life'--
For ages a seeming majority have warned of 'over population.' Recently, for that and possibly other reasons, much, if not all, of Europe has succomb to the petition to drasticaly reduce their output of offspring. The likes of Japan, Korea, Hong Kong are also deep into this. The problem, which those who allowed these scientific cries to govern them and their actions have, is that they all seem to have massively 'overcorrected' (that assumes--a point which I cannot conceed for a lack of scientific verification--that being that the intial urging for 'zero population' goals was a correct exhortation) So now we have arguably (though not really that much so) most secular/humanist cultures on the planet heading, head on, into a demographic implosion. Those who, from what I've seen, see themselves as among, if not the most, enlightened societies and individuals on the planet are doomed to either usurpation or vast diminuation in influence, both in their home lands and abroad, simply because they have not even enough a population to replace themselves, let alone spread their 'enlightenment' to those 'needy' places throughout the world.
So there's case in point number one. Contries (Germany for example will have to change it's ethnic makeup to an Islamic majority in less than fifty years to avoid economic and societal destabilization from a demographic implosion) are being forced to seriously undermine both their intellectual and societal heritages because their intellects got the better of their genes. Like the Roman's of ancient day their legacy and genetic influence will nigh disapear as those from more populace places genticaly and culturaly over run their once grand countries and legacies. It's great for those in less developed countries that can figure out how to take advantage of a naturaly retreating population of an industrialized nation. But it rather puts the dampers on the very progress those intellectuals claimed to be seeking.
Case two, DDT. Silent Spring portended several things in the name of science. Some things it certainly got right. But science, by just going along with the flow, has allowed a virtual genocide to start and continue. If DDT didn't have it's de facto world ban then the two plus million that are dying annualy likely would not die. In the roughly thrity years since the demonizing of the chemical started over 30 million (largely children from poor areas of Africa and Asia) have died of Malaria. Now those claiming scientific governance (again this meaning that they allow first and formost for scientific claims to govern their actions) are generaly so far from pragmatism that they cannot even think to encourage reimplimentation of judicious DDT application. The substance at one time brought total world wide infection levels down to 17 in a whole year, that's nothing compared to the 200,000,000 - 300,000,000 infections occuring annualy right now.
Now you've mentioned things like fanatical genocide. I'd like a distinction between what is worse and why in the case of a darfuresque scenario and the refusal to actively fight and push for limited reimplimentation of a chemical that in all honesty was made to look like the devil incarnate when it was really, in judicious applications, one of the best things to ever happen to man in history.
(On a side note I've personaly gone through many research papers from many DDT expiriments and really cannot see any truly damning evidence, in cases where there was serious harmfull effect the contaminents always had the likes of serious lead or mercury levels to go with the DDT or other conditions all demonstrably proven to produce the malefects found--and regarding it's cummulation in beings I saw no obviously apparent and conclusive bad effects, the apes in one expiriment all got cancer, but they all got it at the same age in their lives that would be their normal life expectancy in the wild)
So there are two of the more prominent cases in my view as to why this illusion that basing things primarily in the dictates of 'common scientific consensus' yields a better, or even as good, a result as many a policy decision based on tradition founded morals connected to some scripture or dogma.
I think we should let democracy speak. Just scientific consensus and/or determinations of what would be the most logical decision as determined in finite human parameters is as likely to screw up as most theocratic dominating traditions are. And then there's even conflict now between empiricaly provable 'science' and logic in it's most fundamental layout, mathematics. If you want to see why go to the pbs site and look up the program "Elegant Universe" (free streaming online or free transcript) and you'll see how they've come up with a promising prospect for a genuine unified theory, except that it may never be provable or disprovable on an empirical level. In other words they may have a theoretical physics that can only be termed philosophy, and not science. Democracy, while not perfect, has gotten us this far. I don't want to see it compromized by either fanatical religious zealots NOR by fanatical, even if well meaning and intelligent, scientific zealots.
One of your last phrase I find interesting--
Science, if it could be applied perfectly, and if it could be applied at all levels and fathomable scopes without depending on humans chosing and making substantive assumptions THEN it would be impartial and offer an utterly comprehensive rule-based system of learning truth. Currently science, to remain truly accurate, usefull, and dependable, must only demonstrate it's certainty in relation to the scope and expanse of it's underlying assumptions and their impact after passing through finite computational systems we set up.
In as much as we call something 'science' and formulate governmental policies around such we are governed by 'it.' And one need not look far back to see that science, on major issues, has been revising in grand ways, over and over, it's working formulations on what is and isn't "truth." While this works wonderful for discovering ways to transport electricity without any resistance or it permits us to communicate in ways previously unimagined by most or all, it still does not give us anything demonstrably better, in the big things, in many areas of governmental and societal policy, than what human kind's 'gut feelings' and other such subective impetus' have been providing us since the dawn of our time.
Essentialy I'm saying that many of your "truths" upon which you are basing your view of what should be the policy of governement on the "beliefs" and "gut feelings" that underly the assumptions made in the various scientific endeavors and 'conclusions' (I use the term loosly for a purist in the scientific path wouldn't feign to have reached certain conclusions--if they do then they are not, in purity, advocating science). So what is the difference if the flaw of "gut feelings" or "beliefs" is centered in myself or in someone I "believe" has been both "scientific" and "objective"???
The truth is that there is, at the core and in the final rendering, no real difference if all subjective determining is doomed to failure.
I appreciate the spirit and extent of your response. You are considerate and intellegent and I appreciate your time and response.
May 23, 2006 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transhuman,
First off thanks for your confirmation of so many of my points.
On nano tech. I'm curious as to what you see as being so revolutionary as to enable us to come to utopia via nanotechnology. Can you point out what expected stroke of genious/breakthrough in the nanotech field will enable us to enter Utopia?
I do hope you are carefull about those people who constantly try to sell 'nanotech' stock. I pray that's not why you feel so superior to me in your priviness to the marvelous 'holy grail' that you seem to see in nano technology.
Do you think that nano technology will enable us to live indefinently or vastly longer than we do now?
If you believe that then do you believe living indefinently or for several centuries or millenia will ever bridge the gap from finite to infinite?
I'm curious as to how you see our capacity to comprehend ever making the leap from finite to infinite via nanotechnology. That's alot of faith to place into little engineered specs.
Which brings us again to the concern for your financial welfare as it could be in peril with such an alegience to nanotechnology.
May 23, 2006 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then comes the obvious question. Of what use are questions and answers to everything else if we never get any workable answer on the why? Even though I disagree with your seemingly unending confidence in the competence of the reach of the scientific scope with regard to protology issues (what happened back when--I mean you eventualy hit some point where you just can't go back any farther, not that nothings further back, it's just not discernable) I find it hard to see what it would all be worth if we never found out the why. You may be completely comfortable running around in a system that has no real purpose other than what you want to pretend it to be but that, to me, doesn't seem like a rational or sane approach. I mean who, of any genuinely rational being, by definition, would willingly exist, and ever want to continue or ensure existance of some kind, if they could see no fundamental 'why.' If you want to talk about insanity or a disturbed or frenzied mind then find me a being who's willing to forever do something with the understanding that it never expects to EVER know why it is doing it, or why it's peers are doing it. Honestly. Is that sane? I mean if we want to talk sanity let's talk sanity. But let's get a definition first, and then a reason for such definition. I hope you see where your view is going.
What if the person is just determined to forever do something with no purpose in doing it? Is that as horrible as one who hallucinates?
This brings out to my mind a bit of ol' Cervantes (I can see it now, they'll all label me as Quixotic and unfit to govern, even myself, "they're coming to take me away!")
"These were men who saw life as it is, yet they died despairing. No glory, no brave last words, only their eyes, filled with confusion, questioning "Why?" When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Too much sanity may be madness. To surrender dreams - -this may be madness; to seek treasure where there is only trash. And maddest of all - -to see life as it is and not as it should be."
I'll take my chances with the innovative, even if 'clinicaly insane'. like Christ or even perchance the fallable "Patch" Adams of the world. Damn the arrogancy of man with his facts and figures, ever computing but never able to come to a knowledge of the meaningful truth. If I'm going to die someday anyway then why not at the hand of someone who believes in something they can't empiricaly prove? I think those "not yet scientists" in the field of Super String Theoretical Physics may be on to something. Give me liberty from the inanity of staying alive without purpose or give me death. If my idea of their existing a purpose was an illusion then I wont really have to worry about an eternity of regret, cause I won't exist, not in any empiricaly provable way, anyway.
May 23, 2006 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point.
From my limited reading, I've been under the impression that Jesus was by all accounts a strict - not to say fanatical - follower of the Jewish Law of the times.
I would expect, based on that, that it would indeed be part of the "evolution" of the Bible as a Christian document to downplay the exact nature of Jesus own belief system - especially since they were blaming the Jews for killing him.
Not to mention that there is considerable discussion as to just how much the Christian religion relies on Paul's - and the subsequent Church father's such as Origen - interpretations of Jesus doctrine even to the detriment - and even on occasion, repudiation - of Jesus actual beliefs.
As an example, during the time of Constantine, one of the senior Roman Church officials was writing that Constantine - and Constantine ALONE - was "the Savior" of the Christian Church - over and above Jesus himself. Obviously this was done for political expediency and once Constantine was gone, they reverted back to emphasizing Jesus.
Another example is the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus organization was considered militant and dangerous, not peaceful and spiritual in demeanor. The evident goal of the organization was not a new religion, but the overthrow of the Roman occupation and Jesus ascendancy to the Jewish Throne. The original early Bible texts emphasize that a considerable body of Roman troops was sent to arrest him - a full Roman cohort in fact, around 600 men. This was like sending a battalion of US Army troops to arrest David Koresh. The later translations reduced the actual level of response to the equivalent of "a few cops" - although they left in the part about a priest's ear being cut off by one of the "peaceful" followers.
May 23, 2006 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right - option 2 (oops...)
Yes, Transhumanism relies on a purely physical (and remember how complicated THAT might get given modern physics!) interpretation of reality.
However, that does NOT preclude the issue of what I refer to as "spirituality" - or perhaps the more mundane word, "attitude" might be used.
I listen carefully to expositions of things like Taoism, Zen, martial arts philosophy, even ancient Gnostic and occult philosophy, because they do treat issues such as how to best organize our minds to deal with reality in effective ways. I don't necessarily buy their every explanation of the meaning of existence, but in their practical application there is much to recommend these systems - far more so than the Western monotheistic religions (although even there, one can find persons with "right attitudes" - it's just harder to find them.)
While we will eventually know precisely how our minds work (assuming no intractable complexity or "knowability" issues arise - which is possible), until then it is obviously valuable to learn how to govern ourselves mentally and psychologically to our best advantage. This, I refer to as spirituality or Attitude.
When it comes to social issues, I find rational theories of economics, human behavior, cultural anthropology, evolutionary psychology and other examinations of how humans actually behave and the actual consequences of that behavior to be more useful in determining how to order society than "moral laws" or "natural rights" or broad political theories like "democracy" and the like.
May 23, 2006 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As I have said before, if you aren't willing to sacrifice your life for your values, first your values, and then your life, becomes worthless."
I, on the other hand, am utterly unwilling to "sacrifice" my life for anything. Risk it, perhaps, but not "sacrifice" it.
The one thing Ayn Rand had right - but never understood herself - was that values stem from life.
You have no values when you're dead.
And you have no VALUE when you're dead.
Survival - existence - is the ultimate measure of all value.
Reminds me of the original Star Trek episode where Roc, the android, grabs Kirk, and says, "Yes! THAT was the equation! Existence - survival - must overcome programming!"
Obviously hasn't in your case...
"I have won and lost more in my life than anyone else here."
Oh, fucking please...
Stuff this bullshit where the sun don't shine.
May 23, 2006 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, many - I don't know about most - Transhumanists view it as an extension of Humanism. I don't happen to. I believe it's emotional basis lies in the Gnostic doctrines from two thousand years ago where the Gnostics believed it was better to BE God than to worship God - and tried to find ways to achieve that. There is an Eastern comparison in the Taoist alchemists and certain other Eastern doctrines.
Comparing it to Nazism is simply what a lot of extremely ignorant people do with ANY variant or derivative of libertarianism or even anarchism (comparing anarchists to Hitler, how smart is that?!)
I mean, how many times have I said I'm an anarchist here, and some idiot still identifies Transhumanism with Nazism. Probably the same idiot who would declare Bush a "lover of democracy".
Anybody reading about the "Zen man" who is above all law and social restraint - while still observing most of them - would probably compare that to Nazism. The same idiots don't realize that Nietzsche despised the state and the statist Germans as well, despite all the Nazis who trumpeted him.
Nanotech IS going to be a long, hard slog, I agree.
But things are moving very rapidly - and would move quicker if we weren't pissing away a trillion dollars in Iraq, and planning to piss away several trillion more in Iran.
May 23, 2006 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedia is your friend.
This does not imply endorsement of everything in that entry, but it seems to be a reasonable overview of the concept as understood by many Transhumanists.
I personally reserve the right to object to almost anything.
May 24, 2006 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say your own pocketbook is more in danger given the proclivities of your cult...
May 24, 2006 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree about the power of story.
One can even learn some philosophy from stories as there is usually some philosophical point to be made - or at least gleaned. And then there are stories like "Atlas Shrugged" which are ALL "philosophical points"...
T. H. White wrote "The Once and Future King" and "The Book of Merlyn" - the latter was virtually an anarchist treatise...
I find movies and even comics to be powerful at times.
The scene in "V for Vendetta" where Evey learns to drop her fear of death is the most powerful scene I've witnessed in any movie for years - and it is the central point of the movie.
Whatever Alan Moore thinks about the movie, it was worth making it for that one scene alone.
May 24, 2006 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dubya's sister is married into the Koch family. Their history with the Birch society and spin-offs is not a classified secret...yet.
May 24, 2006 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This epistemology began for my generation in the late 6os and early 70s when Campus Crusade was peddling Hal Lindsey's, "The Late Great Planet Earth" on campuses.
We were facing a never-ending war in Vietnam after being raised with the nuclear threat, which was reinforced throughout our childhood with those bogus civil defense drills -- you know, hide under your desk drill.
We were ripe for this sort of programming. And, no, I am not denigrating religious beliefs here. This end-of-the-world scenario being peddled dovetailed beautifully with the Vietnam quagmire and our FEAR that eventually a nuclear war was unavoidable.
With no end to the futile Vietnam "military action" in sight, hope in this life, in the here and now, was vanquished.
Many of us could see no end to a military action that was being portrayed as a possible trigger for nuclear war with the USSR.
Keep in mind that our economy was -- I think they called it "stagflation." All our roads seemed to lead to dead ends.
May 24, 2006 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"All our roads seemed to lead to dead ends."
They still do - they just extended them as part of the reconstruction project...
May 24, 2006 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...that entitles them to the right to express them howsoever they wish, as long as it does not involve physical harm to anyone."
randy, You seem like a nice person. Look above at how Transhuman refers to others who either don't understand (like me) or don't agree with his ideas: they're all "idiots." That kind of talk leaves a person open to mockery (which, by the way does not involve physical harm, either).
Check out my response to "Hive..." I disagree with almost every point of his/her long post, but responded respectfully, and got a respectful (and very interesting and enlightened response). I would have appreciated SOME kind of response from Transhuman. All I asked for was information from him.
Jan Knaus
May 24, 2006 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not necessary to imagine a purpose to existence. One already exists--to justify existence. If existence is pure luck, like winning a lottery for which no ticket was even bought, then the obvious next step is to validate the prize by putting it to use. That is, simply living off the winnings is not morally impressive, but investing it is laudable, and investing it in activity that helps all is a worthy path to follow.
Since we can't know the mind of God and His purpose, we have to invent that anyway. We can justify existence by learning about it. The fact of life, especially life that can remember, means that our actions will reverberate into the unknowable future. Eternity already exists in the expectation that future humans will study our decisions and judge them.
Stories from the past all have kernels of truth, such as Noah's story reflecting the opening of the Bosporus, allowing in Mediterranean waters and filling in, catastrophically if gradually, the Black Sea. But the legend is not the truth.
The truth awaits discovery. It has not been revealed. It must be earned. There was only one lottery, at the beginning. We're on our own and must prove our worth in existing. Simply asserting our worth carries no weight.
May 24, 2006 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liked your points about sacrifice. All value derives from life.
My recent blog post "Meaning of Human" was intended to draw you out on philosphical questions of morality. I think we agree on the whole thing, pretty much, and I might be a de facto TH.
May 24, 2006 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The disagreement was exaggerated to appeal to gentiles, and it is part of a
general tendency in the New Testment to diminish the importance of the Jewish roots of Christianity.
Not just the gentiles. Living outside Palestine were many thousands of Jews who had become partly or wholly assimilated to Greco-Roman culture and had largely departed from a strict observance of the Law; in effect, they were the ancient equivalent of today’s Reform Jews. It was these people who welcomed gentile “god-fearers” into their synagogues and sought to find a synthesis between the basics of the Jewish religion and the dominant Platonic metaphysics. Christianity appealed strongly to these people too and they were among Paul’s more eager converts
May 24, 2006 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"One already exists--to justify existence."
"Since we can't know the mind of God and His purpose"
Can you not see that the foundation of the above two statements is every bit as much a dogma as any belief held by any other person on this planet? You cannot verify the above any more than I can verify my dogmatic beliefs to others. We are in the same position. We are both adhering to dogma.
May 24, 2006 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny assertion when one considers the fact that stern adherents to my faith on average end up living nigh a decade longer than their peers, earning, on average, a higher income, exercising more political clout. I mean from all the above corrolaries I'd say one would have a tough time saying that tithing paying was, in a net analysis of one's whole economic position, a bad thing. I know of nothing else that nets such a high return over all.
May 24, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insults are like wine, they only affect you if accepted.
So TH refers to other people with pejoratives. It doesn't MEAN anything. Considering his claims to be a felon and an anarchist, it is hardly likely his opinion of you would be high unless you were also an anarchist or a felon. Consider his insults as an affirmation of your value as a good person.
Ever hear the reasoning behind the biblical story of "turning the other cheek"? It is not, as everyone seems to believe, a statement of meekness. Instead it is a statement of defiance, that the blow did not affect you in any way and another blow would not, either.
The important point is not to let outside forces control the decisions as to how you behave. I think the years since 9/11 have shown the folly of that approach to life.
I suspect most people are like me, they just ignore that aspect of his behaviour and try to extract whatever value they can from his posts.
May 24, 2006 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
Nanotechnology is not the way to the perfection of God. Though it's interesting to see similar strands in two so disparate ideologies as LDS theology and militant transhumanism. We just seek the fullness of the stature of Christ THROUGH Christ rather than trying to circumvent him via 'nanotechnology' or other such babel-esque endeavors.
May 24, 2006 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things that ws happening in 1st century BCE Judaism was a struggle about the Helleninzing influences on traditional Judaism.. Under the pressure of the Roman presence there were many movements within Judasism.
Remember all four Gospel writers were Jewish with Luke apparently being a convert. They also all wrote after the Roman's had destroyed the Temple in 70CE and probably all had many conflicts with their fellow Jews over the issue of how to perceive Jesus.
You might be interested in Bickerman's
"From Ezra to the Maccabees" and Elaine Pagels "Adam and Eve and the Serpent" The former deals with Judaism before the Romans and the latter above all with how Augustine would change the interpretation of Gensis and freedom for the next 1600 years.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 24, 2006 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen
From what I can recall, General Jackson was not a defined predestinationist yet firmly believed that "God" was on the side of the South. Make of that what you will but the man himself believed that "God" would take him when "He" felt the time was right. Perhaps a bit presumptuous, yet Jackson was a very spiritual man and likely felt that the destinies of all people (not just himself) would be determined when "the Lord" felt it was time.
May 24, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no comparison between the two - unless you are suggesting that LDS has a "Gnostic basis". That wouldn't surprise me that much, as "Gnostic" elements surface in many religious schisms.
Overall, however, LDS remains a cult with no rational basis, whereas Transhumanism is ALL about rationality.
May 24, 2006 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I responded to your request for information about Transhumanisn below.
Although I spend a lot of time on this site, I DO have other things to do, so requiring a response within a narrow time frame is not appropriate.
I don't call anyone an idiot unless they demonstrate it by their own actions or words. Anyone who is highly religious is by definition an idiot.
May 24, 2006 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was humorously referring to the cost of supporting multiple wives...
Yes, I am aware that the LDS doesn't support this aspect anymore - except for the more fanatical fringe elements.
I'm also aware the Howard Hughe's bodyguards used to be all Mormon, since they were considered "incorruptible" (presumably as long as you paid them...)
So what? Your original point - and current attitude - was to be smarmy about your cult.
How's this for a response? Fuck you and your cult.
You're little more than a religious troll.
May 24, 2006 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ayn Rand answered the "purpose" of existence long ago: "Existence exists".
It's an axiom. There are no "reasons" or "purposes" to axioms. They are irreducible primaries.
The universe exists. How it came to exist - and how it might eventually run down via entropy and cease to exist - or start over again - will be interesting to learn, but irrelevant to present day life. It will be relevant only to sentient entities seeking to continue to exist at the time the issue becomes relevant to them.
The purpose of human life is to continue to exist. It's that simple. But that fact has corollaries that represent a profound shift in thinking and behavior when they are understood. This is the essence of Transhumanism.
Religion is an attempt to deflect responsibility for one's own existence out of fear and ignorance. The religious person cannot comprehend how life works, or how he can sustain his own life, so he surrenders to panic and imagines his own reasons for things.
It's self-brainwashing, nothing more.
As William Burroughs once said, "Survival must be considered in immortal terms. Beware a fool's survival."
May 24, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the Wikipedia entry on it. You can follow it up from there and Google.
As usual, nobody in the movement agrees with everything or everybody in it. I have some profound disagreements with certain other Transhumanists and groups.
But you might find a lot to like about it. It's certainly one of the more POSITIVE philosophies one can find - which has led some critics to complain (incorrectly, I believe) it's more religion than philosophy, ironically.
May 24, 2006 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course my assertion carries no weight, either, but it is not dogma, rather a choice. I choose to justify my life by adding to the world's knowledge and experience. I point out that a purpose is available. I do not accept the assertions that some Guy has a plan for me.
For my modest contribution to knowledge, see www.digitalskyllc.com.
For my attempts to enhance happiness, see www.twtunes.com.
May 24, 2006 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The glory of God is intelligence."
--Doctrine and Covenants 93:36
Of course the glory of "transhumanism" as here presented by our old boy "Transhuman" seems to consist of a blind faith in the end results of nanotech and a desire to simply brush off individual's arguments simply due to a 'cleaver' attempt to launch some meaningless mud in his 'transhuman' fits of 'logic' and 'ration.' Few are as 'adept' at 'using' 'logic' and 'ration' to truly 'expose' people for 'what they are'.
May 24, 2006 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so hard on yourself. I mean with an empiricaly unverifiable and dogmatic statement like--
"Anyone who is highly religious is by definition an idiot."
it certainly gives you an appearance of nigh religious devotion to such affirmations as to the certainty of your view as to what reality is and is not.
May 24, 2006 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generaly humor has enough connections to the real world so as to be something immediately available to the audience.
While being a husband in such a relationship would be more intense it would not necesarily be more costly as many early LDS polygamous relationships had a built in "daycare" system that permited Utah to gain the distinguishment of having more educated and accredited female doctors and physicians at the time, per capita, than any other place in the western world and still have a family. They pulled off the feminist dream to a higher degree than most any other feminist of their era, or even of ours.
Smarminess huh? And your presentation and eternal worshiping of transhumanist ideals has none of that acursed smarminess in it. Face it man, if I'm a troll for including so much of my ideology in my participation then you can't avoid such a label either.
May 24, 2006 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off I need to say, due to thoughts I had while trying to think of an apropriate response, that the following is not intended to demean you or belittle you. I'm stating them in the hope to contribute something meaningful, but as I'm incompetent in discerning whether or not this particular effort will do such I wish to minimize any potential fall out from such unrefined questioning.
"Of course my assertion carries no weight, either, but it is not dogma, rather a choice.
How can one be certain it is a choice made by you? How can you be certain you are adding to the world's knowledge and experience either at all or even just in a way that exceeds that which would be done by what ever being or beings that would likely have filled the vacancy that would be if you were to cease consuming and utilizing, or to never have consumed or utilized, those things you are consuming and using?
The point being that nothing but a subjective feeling can give one any thought of even completing or choosing anything. Without that subjective hunch we are as capable as some one celled organism at demonstrating the basis for our judgements and discernments on what our tasks are, and what they are truly accomplishing.
So certainly we can all pretend we know for certain, or with enough certainty, that we have no dogma, that we're choosing something, and that that thing we are chosing is a justification, or can justify anything. It's all as real as a group of three and five year olds playing house. They chose to set up a home and so a home is set up. But is that really more sane than the claims of any of the religious traditions or theological assertations?
Again, please do not take this the wrong way.
May 24, 2006 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then there's no functional difference between core dogmas and axioms. Your adherence to the inherent validity of any statement brings you to the realm of dogma.
It's interesting though. You hold the continuation of existance to be the purpose of life. Yet I believe that life, of all kinds, has always existed, and will always exist, in some form or another. Thus the conservation of energy is taken and drawn out to a degree in which intellegence, and it's tie to energy, is preserved also. Thusly rendering your view of preservation more of a damning act than a salvific one. Like the larval creature who has only ever seen empty cocoons seeks forever to avoid becoming one. Yet if Mr. Caterpillar could pull it off and forever remain in his larval state he'd never see himself advance to the next stage which he was intended to reach, thusly condemning (aka 'damning') himself to forever resisting all dimensions of evolution and progression.
What real comfort is it to be a 'transhuman' if you've an entire history of cases in which the only reported instances of existance being elongated beyond the bounds of observable natural phenomena are cases inherently linked to the very religious traditions you scorn? If the purpose of existance is to continue to exist, and no one that you've seen has done such physiologicaly for any extraordinary amount of time, and no one has ensured that they will certainly be remembered in the long scheme of things, thusly 'living' forever by virtue of an unerasable universal memory, then where's the promise in transhumanism? What good is it to feign to forever fight off the inevitable? That's like those who abstain from generating a posterity expecting to some day dominate the globe, it defies the laws of physics and will thusly be broken by said laws for such defiance.
May 24, 2006 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Props.
Good question.
I'd be interested in an answer also.
May 24, 2006 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Religion- def. #4
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
--taken from www.m-w.com
emphasis added
May 24, 2006 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent points.
May 24, 2006 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Survival - existence - is the ultimate measure of all value."
That is a dogma based on another dogma/assumption that sentience is inherently connected to the empiricaly discernable constituent parts of current sentient beings. A point not provable or unprovable.
"And you have no VALUE when you're dead."
And who's come back from the dead to inform the veracity of the above statement?
That's what makes your view funny. You can't prove your assertions. Why not take it like Asimov did when he affirmed the irrationality and utter humanity in his unverifiable assertion that God did not exist? At least that man had some honesty in conceeding the dogmatic and human nature in his choice of belief. At least he had the gumption to admit that on at least one point he was abandoning reason and logic to simply go with his human desire to assert.
May 24, 2006 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A point not provable or unprovable."
Incorrect.
First, in science, you look for facts which ARE "provable".
Whether you actually know a fact or not at any given point is not important. What is important is that you deal in facts which CAN be determined to be correct or incorrect.
Religious dogma by definition cannot be proven or unproven.
As to your second point, who's come back from the dead EVER? (I do not include people who have been resuscitated after long immersions in cold water since the science is that they never actually died.)
Nobody. Therefore the rational conclusion is that no one goes anywhere when they're dead.
Not to mention that there is absolute NO evidence anywhere indicating that sentience is located anywhere outside the human body-brain complex.
Which means you have no value system once you're dead.
(As an aside, I do have a speculation about a "biological Internet" which would explain virtually all of the so=called "paranormal" phenomena which is usually adduced to provide evidence for the external action of consciousness. Unfortunately, not being a physicial or biophysicist, I don't have a precise mechanism to refer to in this theory.)
More importantly, ALL of the belief systems that postulate any form of "life after death" have been analyzed "to death" historically and psychologically. We KNOW their origins both in history and in psychology. There is absolutely NO evidence of ANY other origin of these belief systems.
Therefore the onus is on those who believe them to produce such evidence.
They never have. Instead they produce arguments about why they don't NEED evidence - as you do.
May 25, 2006 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
How one can have "blind faith" in nanotech is not obvious to anyone except this LDS nutcase. Nanotech is a legitimate technology with extrapolatable consequences based on what nature itself does with molecules.
LDS isn't. It's pure crap thought up by a fanatic, imposed on other fanatics, and babbled here by still other fanatics.
May 25, 2006 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your continuous efforts to equate logical conclusions with "religious devotion" are pathetic and easily seen through.
Nobody cares, troll.
May 25, 2006 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Generaly humor has enough connections to the real world so as to be something immediately available to the audience."
I think most people here will understand what I was referring to.
Look, troll, get the picture. I know it's hard, but try.
I don't give a rat's ass what you think about me. I don't give a rat's ass about your cult or its ideology. I don't give a rat's ass about you.
Here's the bottom line: you're a cultist on a par with Tom Cruise.
The issue this week is exactly about cultists and their fanaticism. All you're doing is demonstrating what the problem is for everyone else. But we already know that.
So buzz right off.
May 25, 2006 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not wasting any more time on your pointless and irrational rants.
As I said above, buzz right off.
May 25, 2006 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stuff it where the sun don't shine, troll.
May 25, 2006 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t accept the late dating for the Synoptics (John obviously was written later as the book references Peter’s martyrdom). None of the three Synoptics (nor Acts which continues Luke) contain any knowledge of the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, nor of the Great Fire in Rome nor the Neronian Persecution. Acts even speaks of Nero (“Caesar”) with a distant respect which is impossible if the author knew what happened after the Fire. The most likely dating for the Synoptics would be in the early 60s AD.
Re: Augustine would change the interpretation of Gensis and freedom for the next 1600 years.
Be careful about considering Augustine as any sort of universal Christian authority. He was not well received in Eastern Christendom and in some quarters there his conclusions are even considered heretical. Indeed, any theorizing about the early Church needs to take the Eastern Christian world into account, above all those churches in places like Ethiopia, Armenia and India that were never under Roman control. Elements that are found in common among these bodies and in European Christianity should probably be considered original and authentic and not later Roman innovations.
May 25, 2006 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Nobody. Therefore the rational conclusion is that no one goes anywhere when they're dead.
Um, no. You are making the classic error of “Absence of evidence = evidence of absence”. The only rational conclusion in such cases is that we cannot come to a rational conclusion.
Re: More importantly, ALL of the belief systems that postulate any form of "life after death" have been analyzed "to death" historically and psychologically.
Which tells nothing about their truth value, any more than an in-depth psychological and historical analysis of quantum physics and the scientists who devised the system could tell us anything about whether quantum physics is valid or not. There are in fact some epistemological radicals who have tried to deconstruct (and falsify) scientific thought in this manner, which of course is closely akin to the ad hominem argument/error in logic.
Re: Not to mention that there is absolute NO evidence anywhere indicating that sentience is located anywhere outside the human body-brain complex.
Problematic here are words like “inside” and ”outside”. When dealing with the very poorly understood physical reality of consciousness we may well be dealing with a phenomenon in which our everyday intuitions are time are not adequate and may mislead, and as such we may not have the propositions and tense structures in human language to describe such things (hardly a unique situation as there are whole areas of physics and the higher level geometries they involve where this is the case.)
May 25, 2006 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are in correct about the dates for the Synoptic Gospels, see Fr. Lawrence Brown's "The Death of the Messiah." Augustine might have been accepted in the East, his views ran counter to John Crysostom's for example nonetheless he dominate the thinking of the West even in places today.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 25, 2006 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
While many of your points have already been ripped apart I felt to point out that I was simply refuting your assertations. You are the one being the fool by asserting as certainties things that can neither be proven nor disproven.
May 25, 2006 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never questioned the legitimacy of nanotechnology. I'm questioning your prophesies about it will accomplish and the problems it will solve. Even with your concesions on the time line most likely required you are terribly simplistic in assuming that it will inherently result in more good than bad. I'm not against nanotechnology. I'm not saying it wont likely do many incredible things. I'm certainly willing to hope that some advance may prolong mine, or someone I know's life at some point. But I'm not going on a foolish presuposition that nanotechnology, or even any technological advances at all, can or will solve humanities problems, or even necesarily change the balance of good and bad. You on the other hand seem to think that this will eventualy lead those of your 'faith' to a kind of transhuman millenial paradise.
May 25, 2006 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your constant misportrayal of what I am doing is what is easily seen through. I've focused on demonstrating that what you veiw as a "logical conclusion" often isn't such.
They, you more than just about anyone else, keep responding. If nobody cares, are you "nobody"? 'Cause you seem to care enough to keep responding, insulting, and resorting to profanity laden tantrums.
May 25, 2006 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So 'confident', yet you keep responding.
May 25, 2006 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, it's been a while, and hope you are well.
On your usage above, "religious agenda," I dissent. To equate the politics of worldly power with a religious agenda is like labeling the sniper who shot you in the woods as a proponent of the "green leaves agenda" and smearing the irrational yet wildly beautiful plants and their colors for the joy-killing intent of the assassin, who, given his objectives was acting rationally in using the woods to conceal himself when he shot you.
And yet we blame the innocent one, the baby, swearing to ourselves that all there is to bathwater is babies, rather than recognizing bathwater and dirt for what they are, and babies for what they are.
May 25, 2006 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said before on this forum. I'll respond as long and as often as I am permited to and feel to. You keep acting as though I'm irrelevant yet you keep on responding to me.
May 25, 2006 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The great 'king' of 'rationality' continues to respond to someone he's already commited to not respond to on the basis of that person being 'irrational.' Keep it up man, it's only helping my assertions about your lack of rational thought.
May 25, 2006 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a world of deeply spiritual people with no political agenda, but we're talking about a certain sector that does have one.
I should have used the Dominionist term.
The government happens to worry that some Green types are terrorists, and might express their forest-love through violence. It's imaginable, I guess.
Sorry, that stretched your metaphor unfairly.
(I'm fine, thanks.)
Have you noticed how much action there is with posts on religion? Normally not brought up in polite conversation, but neither is politics, and we ain't polite, here.
May 25, 2006 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of the three Synoptics (nor Acts which continues Luke) contain any knowledge of the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, nor of the Great Fire in Rome nor the Neronian Persecution.
Why would they?
There is no credible evidence that Christians had anything to do with the "Great Fire in Rome" or that there were any Christians in Rome at the time of the fire or that Nero persecuted or executed any Christians. Why would Gospel writers (or the author of Acts) mention events that had nothing to do with Christians.
And inasmuch as the Gospels are ahistorical midrash on Torah and other ancient Jewish writings and inasmuch as the Jewish War is not mentioned in the Torah and other ancient Jewish writings, there is no reason to expect the Jewish War to be mentioned in the Gospels.*
* Indeed, there are virtually no "facts" mentioned in any Gospel for which there is corroboration other than other Gospels which, when not contradicting themselves, turn out to all be relying on Mark and other early stories.
May 25, 2006 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You are making the classic error of “Absence of evidence = evidence of absence”"
No, I'm not. The absence of evidence in MANY cases IS evidence of absence - especially when the historical and pyschological basis for these beliefs is known.
It has been suggested that just because I can't prove that a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" rules the universe that therefore it is a legitimate theory which cannot be disproven by absence of evidence.
This is not how logic works. If we know where the theory of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" came from, we can show that it therefore did not come from anyplace else.
None of this applies to quantum physics, either, as it is based on empirical science. I personally am not sure about whether quantum THEORIES are necessarily correct, but there seems to be no doubt about the existence of quantum EFFECTS.
As for consciousness, the issue remains that there is absolutely NO evidence of consciousness operating from outside the body-brain complex. Notice I did NOT say that perception or other mechanisms might be enabled externally to the body-brain complex. I have hupothesized a form of "biologial Internet" based on some level of biophysics which we have not adequately detected yet. This is perfectly feasible based on the gaps in our knowledge of brain and cell structure and the complexity of the human body-brain complex.
But CONSCIOUSNESS necessarily operates within the body-brain complex, either as a separate phenomena or (more likely) an emergent phenomena.
There is tons of evidence for this in the known neurosciences, even if every detail of the brain is not known.
Your babble about inability to express these matters is just that.
Sorry - you lose.
May 26, 2006 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Why would they?
Because they were seminal events in the early history of Christianity. Look at it this way: if a work which treated of the Vietnam War broke off in 1973 with nary a hint of the fall of Saigon or the Khmer Rouge coming to power in Cambodia would it be more reasonable to conclude it was written before or after those events?
Re: There is no credible evidence that Christians had anything to do with the "Great Fire in Rome" or that there were any Christians in Rome at the time of the fire
Of th