Category Archives: Philosophy

Richard Feynman

Richard Feynman (May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988)
Scientist, genius, agnostic and freedom-lover.

A very fundamental part of my soul is to doubt and to ask. And when you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe.

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and in many things I don’t know anything about such as whether it means anything to ask, why are we here? And what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit if I can’t figure it out then I go to something else.

But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t have to. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things. By being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.

Possibly.

It doesn’t frighten me.

Attempted murder is a victimless crime

By definition, there are no murder victims.

Suppose you board a bus with a suicide bomber. At the appointed stop, the suicide bomber pulls the cord to detonate the belt of explosives around her waist, hidden under her jacket … and nothing happens. She lives to die another day. No one on the bus, including you, is any the wiser. There are no victims that day. But a crime has been committed. Attempted murder is a serious crime. A victimless crime, but a serious crime, nonetheless.

If you drive home blind drunk at 150 kph, with your children unseatbelted in the back and passenger seats, and you’re fortunate enough that there is no oncoming traffic on the several occasions when you veer into the other lane … and you and your children arrive home safely … it’s a victimless crime. But a crime has been committed. Driving while drunk is a crime. A victimless crime, but a crime, nonetheless.

There are obvious differences between the two cases. The suicide bomber intends to initiate lethal force against others, and the odds of success are relatively high. Whereas the drunk driver does not have murderous intent, and the odds of killing anyone are relatively low.

There are laws against attempted murder and laws against drunk driving. As there should be. But why?

Some libertarians get themselves into a tangle trying to justify a prohibition on drunk driving. At first glance, the non-initiation of force (NIOF) principle seems insufficient to justify a law against drunk driving. The drunk driver who arrives home safely does not, and does not intend to, initiate force against other road users. A common libertarian perspective is one where drunk driving is seen as a breach of contract between the road user and the road owner. In a libertarian utopia, roads are privately owned, and the road owner sets the terms of road use. When it’s in the commercial interests of road owners to offer safe passage to road users (as, almost invariably, it will be), sobriety will be a contractual obligation. Take this perspective, and you get the right answer … but for the wrong reason.

Drunk driving is wrong, not because it is a breach of contract (implicit in the case of our state-operated roads), but because it endangers the lives of others. It’s really quite simple. There ought to be a law against drunk driving because there ought to be a law against endangering the lives of others.

Provisos apply.

Please note carefully. In cases where it is other adults only whose lives are endangered, and those adults have consented to having their lives endangered, no laws should apply.

Roads are dangerous places. When I go for a drive, I’m endangering my own life and that of others, simply by being behind the wheel, sober or otherwise. But there ought to be no law against driving per se, even though such a law would dramatically lower the road toll. But why not?

It’s really quite simple. It’s a matter of degree. The question is, where to draw the line? And the answer is, at 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The above figure is arbitrary, and blood alcohol level is only a proxy for driver impairment, but this approach to endangerment is right in principle. Importantly, we can quantify the risk that a driver who has been drinking poses to other road users. We can multiply the chances of a fatal collision by the number of lives lost in the collision and come up with a number. And we can set a threshold. If the number is over the threshold, you’re too drunk to legally drive. If the number is below the threshold, it’s legal to risk getting behind the wheel.

We can apply the principle of an endangerment threshold to other issues, including the issue of parents endangering the lives of their children: allowing their children to climb trees, be vaccinated, be unvaccinated, ride bikes without helmets, travel to dangerous countries, sail, eat food cooked on an unlicensed Komodo Kamado or have their children live with them in Lyttelton houses in danger of being flattened by falling boulders.

In all cases, the same endangerment threshold should apply. Is the risk of staying with your children in your Lyttelton house more or less than driving them to safety after you’ve had one drink too many?

And one last question. Who gets to decide?

Drug-free January

It’s traditional.

Cocaine. So much cocaine.

Yes, folks, January is my month of self-imposed moral tyranny. But it’s for my own good! And, anyway, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.

Do not suppose that my January regime is any less tyrannical for being self-imposed. No, sir, this ain’t a democracy. The party of my mind is a hoi polloi of hapless homunculi. It’s a rabble. It’s a rabble that needs to be told what to do (or, in this case, told what not to do). A rabble that must be roused or doused. By dictators. By benevolent dictators. With drugs.

The human soul is no more and no less than a suite of software running on wetware known colloquially as “brains”. We’re made of meat, sweetmeat. But wait! Aren’t Christians supposed to believe that the human soul is immaterial, immortal and indivisible? Well, no, not necessarily. This Christian believes that the human soul is material, mortal and modular. It’s a Biblical view of things. Consider the New Testament account of how it all began.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)

The King James Bible translates the Greek word λόγος (‘Logos’) as ‘Word’. Although ‘Word’ is certainly close enough, and an excellent choice, there is no exact translation. These days, I think, we might just as well translate λόγος as ‘Information’, ‘Reason’, ‘Algorithm’, or ‘Code’. In other words, software.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (KJV)

That’s right. It’s axiomatic in orthodox Christianity that Jesus was God incarnate. Incarnation literally means embodied in flesh or taking on flesh. Jesus became meat. Just like us.

Do you ever wonder why the zombies in zombie movies are so intent on getting some “brains”? Well, they don’t want to be the Living Dead. They want to be the Re-Incarnated. They want to be physically Resurrected! But for a non-lurching physical Resurrection you need nice, new resurrection bodies. Most importantly you need “brains”—the wetware—on which to run the software. (You are the software.)

Where were we? The rabble has rambled. Well, never mind… my mind? Where is it? Hahaha! Yes, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking I’ve been taking too many drugs! You’re thinking … drug-free January, Richard?! Good call!! Well, in the words of Malaclypse the Younger

‘Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.

And that’s one thing that drug-taking does teach you. It teaches you that consciousness is chemical. And that the mind is modular.

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe …

The Green Manalishi.

Ever been attacked by an Evil Entity? I have. When I was 17 years old, living in a shed in the middle of Winter I experienced an Entity Attack.
I awoke in the middle of the night to to a feeling of dread. Paralyzed by the terror of an overwhelming Evil presence…I could not even cry out for help. Next It felt like the Being was trying to Possess me by putting its arms inside my arms and its legs inside my legs…putting me on like a suit… then it vanished. I was not a Christian at the time yet the experience bothered me deeply. I didnt talk about it that much. Some people say they had herd that it was a ‘sleep dysfunction’… ie ‘Rational folk’ write off all supernatural experiences as a form of ‘psychosis’.
As a Materialist myself at the time, I most likely chose to accept this non-supernatural interpretation of the event, and quickly forgot about it until Last night Sky TV did a show on the subject. ‘It’ has a name… The Entity Attack Phenomena. And On that show they estimated as many as 30% of all people have experienced it.
Now This interests me because this is a typical example of a real phenomena…possibly a legitimate spiritual experience which is automatically disclaimed by the materialist community as delusional because to admit they are real spiritual events explodes their Materialism to pieces.
Another interesting topic which correlates to this is the Near Death Experience. It has also been experienced by hundreds of people, yet again is written off as delusional by Materialists.

I became a Christian about a year after this experience, I don’t remember it being a factor in my conversion, yet today I do take comfort in the Christian truth that Christ is greater than any demonic Spirit. I still Battle devils in my sleep… as a soldier for Christ.

I am bloging this both to put this freaky experience into the Debating Arena, and fishing for any comments from others whom may have experienced this ‘Entity Attack’, or had a Near Death Experience, or some other Trippy Shit happen to them?
I have a relative whom it was said that he had a ‘Makatu’ hex put on him
Now He is an atheist and struggles to explain what He experienced. He does not talk about it. I asked him… “Do you believe in ghosts? He said ” No!…But Ive seen one…”
He had to get a moari spiritualist to remove it… yet he still maintains his atheism because Spiritualism scares him too much… He must rationalise away his experience via Naturalist sophistry.

Here is a link to an article on this ‘Entity Attack Phenomena”
http://www.mysteriaparanormalevents.co.uk/The-Entity-Attack-Phenomena.html

Here is another one on Incubus and Succubus:
http://www.hellhorror.com/demons/demonology/228/Incubus.html

Update: 23-7-12.
It appears This Satanic Being is murderous!
I just caught the end of a weird TV show ‘A Thousand ways to die’.
I told story about a Hot Chick who suffered regular ‘Nightmares’ in which she would be attacked/ strangled by a An Evil Dwarf-ish being. It Killed her! She died in her Sleep… from a heart attack.
The show said she was just one of hundreds of reported cases of of SUNDS… Sudden unexpected nocturnal death syndrome

Disclaimer: I am not an anti-science Mystic. I am anti-pseudo science. I call for higher standards and greater scientific rigor.
As a Christian, I still endorse the Laws of Physics, and look for natural mechanisms and explanations for phenomena yet also believe not everything in existence, and experience is explainable via materialistic causes and effects… *that is the primary assumption of the atheist Materialist*, which blinds their minds and makes then incapable of conceiving anything is evidence of the supernatural.
They are trapped in their own circular thinking. A prison of their own device.
This is the mindset that writes off everything as delusional which does not fit well with their Godless conception of reality.
Tim Wikiriwhi.

Objectivism is a religion!

Atheism is not a religion. The term ‘religion’ can properly be applied only to belief systems which include a belief in a god or gods. The term ‘religion’ can properly be applied only to belief systems which include a belief in the supernatural.

Objectivism is explicitly atheistic … but wait! Implicitly, Objectivists believe in a supernatural realm! It’s a cornerstone of the Objectivist philosophy! Surprise, surprise! Objectivism is not, after all, a naturalistic worldview.

Rand wrote an essay called The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made. In it, she says

Any natural phenomenon, i.e., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur; any phenomenon involving human action is the man-made, and could have been different.

In other words, phenomena involving human action are not natural phenomena. They’re supernatural phenomena! Why? Because Man is a supernatural being! Why is Man a supernatural being? Because He has a supernatural power! And what is Man’s supernatural power? It is the ability to exercise something called libertarian free will.

Unfortunately, Objectivists are at a complete loss to explain how this works, to explain how it is even possible, or to explain how the notion of free will even makes sense according to the atheistic, materialistic worldview to which they profess to subscribe. Nonetheless, Objectivists are adamant that Man possesses free will.

Libertarian free will is a supernatural capacity. One who exercises it is a supernatural being.

Objectivism is a religion, but Objectivists worship Man, not God.

[Cross-posted to SOLO.]

Atheism in the public square

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!”

Positive Atheism tells us

This was not his reasoned opinion. Although John Adams often felt an urge to advocate atheism as a popular world view (because of the sheer abuses perpetrated by religious charlatans), he was of the firm and reasoned opinion (basically undisputed in his day) that religion is essential to the goal of keeping the masses in line.

Clearly, as Adams used the term, ‘atheism’ means “no religion”.

Jefferson famously said that

religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God

What of those who have no God? They have no religion. Jefferson also said

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It implies non-belief that there is a God. Atheism, as understood by Jefferson, is not a religious belief.

John Lennon wrote a song in which he famously asks us to

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

By religion, Lennon means belief systems which include beliefs in the supernatural—God, Heaven, Hell, etc. His view is that we’d be better off in a world in which there was no God, i.e., one in which atheism was true. In such a world there would be “no religion” and “all the people living life in peace.”

Atheism, as understood by Lennon, is not a religion.

Once every 5 years, New Zealand citizens are required to participate in a census. One of the questions seeks to elicit the respondent’s “religious affiliation”. According to Wikipedia,

In the 2006 Census, 55.6 percent of the population identified themselves as Christians, while another 34.7 percent indicated that they had no religion

That’s right, there is a box to tick labeled ‘No religion’. There are no boxes to tick labeled ‘Atheist’ or ‘Humanist’ or ‘Objectivist’. There’s not even a box labeled ‘Jedi’.

Atheism, as understood by Statistics New Zealand, is not a religion.

Wikipedia’s has an entry titled Irreligion in New Zealand.

Irreligion —the absence of religious belief or affiliation— is an increasing trend in New Zealand. Although New Zealand has no established religion, Christianity has been the majority religious affiliation since European settlement in the 19th century. The trend toward irreligion may indicate increasing secularisation as well as a rise in non-institutional spiritual belief.

Atheism, as understood by (some) Wikipedia authors, is not a religion. It’s an irreligion!

The meaning (or meanings) of a word is determined by the conventions governing its use. What those conventions are is determined by the facts of usage. (See examples above.)

It is not conventional to call atheism a religion.

It is conventional to rebuke those who do. 😉

Lies, damned lies, and ‘religion’

To lie is to bear false witness. It is to make an untruthful statement intended to deceive.

Jesus says, “Do not bear false witness.” (KJV) Lying is wrong. But why? Jesus explains,

Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! (NIV)

Centuries later, the philosopher Immanuel Kant came up with a secular account of why it is wrong to lie which, it seems, Jesus had prefigured. In his essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy, Kant went so far as to claim that it would be wrong to lie to a would-be murderer even to save an innocent life.

Truthfulness in statements that one cannot avoid is a human being’s duty to everyone, however great the disadvantage to him or to another that may result from it… [I]f I falsify… I… do wrong in the most essential part of duty in general by such falsification… that is, I bring it about, as far as I can, that statements (declarations) in general are not believed, and so too that all rights which are based on contracts come to nothing and lose their force; and this is a wrong inflicted upon humanity generally… For [a lie] always harms another, even if not another individual, nevertheless humanity generally, inasmuch as it makes the source of right unusable.

Kant based his moral philosophy on a maxim he called the Categorical Imperative.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

You cannot will that the maxim, “Bear false witness,” become a universal law! If we all lied, all the time, then soon no one would believe a word that anyone said. After a while, no one would even hear what anyone said.

Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

Talk would be ignored, like a background noise tuned out. Ultimately, we’d be struck dumb. No one would bother to say anything at all, even the truth, since no one would believe him.

Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

To lie is not merely to commit a crime against he to whom the lie is told. It is to commit a crime against language itself. St. Augustine said

But every liar says the opposite of what he thinks in his heart, with purpose to deceive. Now it is evident that speech was given to man, not that men might therewith deceive one another, but that one man might make known his thoughts to another. To use speech, then, for the purpose of deception, and not for its appointed end, is a sin. Nor are we to suppose that there is any lie that is not a sin, because it is sometimes possible, by telling a lie, to do service to another.

Which brings me to my final point. Lying is an abuse of language. But it’s not the only one. The Biblical injunction, “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” has its corollary in M. Hare’s maxim, “Say what you mean, and mean what you say.” Words have meanings. To say what you mean, you must find the words that mean what you mean to say, and say them. Mean what you say, and say what you mean. Surreptitious redefinition is a species of pernicious redefinition. It, too, is an abuse of language.

Words and phrases have meanings. For example, Christianity is a belief system, a worldview, a way of life, an institution … and a religion. Secular humanism is a belief system, a worldview, a way of life, an institution … but not a religion. The word ‘religion’ is used to distinguish between creeds whose central doctrines include the reality of a god or gods, and those whose central doctrines do not, or which are explicitly atheistic.

Lie and, ultimately, language ceases to function. Use the term ‘religion’ to encompass secular creeds, customs and ideologies and, ultimately, ‘religion’ ceases to function. Pernicious redefinition is tantamount to lying. Dare I say it’s also akin to theft?! I used to be a “liberal”, until today’s liberals took the term ‘liberal’ unto themselves. Now I’m a libertarian. But for how much longer? How much time do I have before I morph into a traitorous idiot?

Ayn Rand was a libertarian and atheism is not a religion.

Copying is not theft

Copying is not theft and copyright is not a property right.

Here are some other things which aren’t theft.

  • Rape
  • Murder
  • Adultery
  • Perjury

And here are some other rights which aren’t property rights.

  • The right to life
  • The right to liberty
  • The right to the pursuit of happiness
  • The right to a fair trial

Copying is not theft and copyright is not a property right. It baffles me that so many libertarians (Objectivists, especially) don’t seem to get this. Perhaps it’s because anarchists release viral videos like this one which confound two distinct claims, viz., copying isn’t theft and copying is fun.

Copying isn’t theft, but neither is rape. And rape isn’t fun. So perhaps copying isn’t good, clean fun, either, even though it’s not theft.