Thursday, December 30, 2004
anti-American?
It would appear that the US is fast turning into an international pariah and I wonder where I stand on all this.
To be sure, the US has done good things, bad things, well-intentioned but botched things, and so on. Some criticism leveled against the US was warranted, others was not. Sometimes the answer may lie in the eye of the beholder.
If one believes the surveys I stumbled over in the international press, the opinion of the US has nosedived abroad and anti-Americanism is running rampant. The most worrying aspect of these surveys is that citizens abroad used to make a distinction between the US government and Americans as such, but this appears to be no longer the case.
Now, where do I stand? Have I turned anti-American? I suppose it depends on how one defines anti-American, but it is more accurate to say that I have turned pro-European rather than anti-American. In general, I like Americans and I enjoy living in the US. Not without reservation, but every country has its share of asshats. Nor is the place I’d most like to return to located in the US. However, I strongly dislike the current administration, their policies, their ideology, and the persons. Given that they appear to equate criticism with anti-American, I am probably anti-American in their eyes.
So there you have it - Old European and proud of it.
He’s dead,scot
Just had a wonderful evening with deadscot, who came toodling up from San Antone and ended up stealing Pookie’s heart. (We wanted to ship the rest of her back with him too, but no luck.)
He was explaining to her how he got a scar on his hand, thanks to a glass table, and she said in bafflement:
“What were you?”
“Tall,” he responded after a moment’s thought.
I think that illustrates deadscot’s personality, right there. That, and the fact that he could lift Pookie off the ground just using one quirked eyebrow.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Surreal moments.
Arguing with my five-year-old about the lyrics to David Bowie’s “Changes” (she wouldn’t believe me until I Googled them and showed her).
Monday, December 27, 2004
homosexual marriage
I offered to present my views on this topic in another forum. As it turns out, I was too optimistic about my ability to present it in a concise and coherent manner. In order to make amends, I decided to start an even more ambitious project and try to document the case for and against in the form of a collaborative book.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
a meta-comment
Some theists cannot readily reconcile their religious beliefs with atheists possibly having morals of their own. In general, they presume that morals are grounded in god, therefore somebody who at least lacks belief in that god has no basis for morals. When challenged, they retreat towards a fallback argument that god works in atheists, whether they are aware of it or not.
It seems to me that this is a rather self-defeating position. If there is a god and works through all people, then it is absurd to discuss atheists morals - after all, the question is already answered and the pursuit of this argument seems rooted in either ignorance or a base motive, like goading.
It is reasonable to phrase the question in terms of "what do atheists themselves believe their sense of morals being grounded in?", but if the actual phrasing does not make it explicit that theists and atheists are peers in terms of morality, there is no point for atheists to engage in a discussion until the theists justify to the atheists satisfaction that a sense of moral superiority is justified. Which is a losing proposition in my mind - if somebody claims to be a better person than somebody else, then it is acceptable to summarily dismiss the claim and the person making the claim.
This rant doesn’t really have a purpose beyond pointing out that it is either futile or unnecessary to discuss moral superiority.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
season’s kvetchings…
I’ll admit that I have an almost morbid curiosity about a select few religious forums; while I’m interested to hear what the other side thinks, it would be more appropriate that reading these sites more closely resembles watching a slow-motion train wreck.
Even though I should know better by now, once in a while something is said that prompts me to present an opposing view. What I should do is to speak my mind and walk away, because anything else is a waste of time and bandwidth. I think I’m finally figuring out the root cause of the failure to communicate.
Here’s a caricature of the way these discussions unfold:
Theist: I believe X, and therefore Y is wrong.
Atheist: Fair enough, but if you start out believing Z and not X, one can justifiably hold Y to be true.
Theist: But Y is wrong, because I believe X.
Or, simply put, different belief systems yield different answers that are justifiable within that belief system. In order to convince somebody that a belief is held without justification, it is futile to argue from a different belief system. My experience is that the overwhelming majority of believers is incapable or unwilling to consider the validity of a proposition from a point of view other than their own.
There is a similar problem in the opposite direction. Most atheists are perfectly capable to examine problems from the theist point of view, but instead you tend to have the following caricature:
Theist: I believe X, and therefore Y is wrong.
Atheist: That’s a valid argument, but X is based on premises that I reject.
It seems to me that as far as the actual contended topics are concerned, religion is just a smokescreen or even a casualty or hostage itself. These question often home in on the relationship between the (theistic) majority and (atheistic) minority. Atheists experience theists as an oppresive majority; if a minority doesn’t like what the majority wants, they better suck it up and keep quiet. Theists seems to experience atheists as a tyrannical minority that stands in the way of doing god’s will. It’s not really a surprise that these discussions and debates turn into bitter exchanges…
As far as my understanding goes, religious faith tends to require the believer to reconcile an all-powerful or overwhelmingly powerful deity and religious ideals with a very imperfect world. I think I can see how religious belief thus involves an irrationally held (from the atheist point of view) set of beliefs and almost as if by design, the hotly contested topics often seem targeted at these irrational beliefs. Small wonder again that it is very difficult to have a civil and meaningful discussion between atheists and theists.
Theists often complain about atheists being too proud of an alleged intellectual superiority. I don’t believe either side has a monopoly on intellectual prowess, but I notice a small voice in the back of my mind: "Is it possible that those individuals engaging in public debate are really not all that smart or are they too lazy to try?" I hate to admit that it is getting harder and harder to ignore that voice.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Most relevant commandment for Christians ...
A recent Ekklesia story reports that
‘You shall not kill’ is the commandment that most people in the UK feel is relevant to their lives, according to a new survey ...
If the most relevant moral precept that we use in our day-to-day contacts with each other becomes “Gee, I guess I shouldn’t kill this person”, that doesn’t bode well ...
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
faith-based missile defense
As poster surfk9 quipped on dailykos.
Test of U.S. missile defence shield fails
An attempt to launch an interceptor missile as part of the U.S.
missile defence shield failed early Wednesday in the first test of the
system in nearly two years.
The Missile Defense Agency said the ground-based interceptor
automatically shutdown "due to an unknown anomaly" shortly before it
was to be launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean.
A target missile carrying a mock warhead successfully launched from Kodiak, Alaska, at 12:45 a.m. ET.
Officials said they would now review the pre-launch data to determine the cause of the shutdown.
The missile defence shield was meant to be in operation by the end of 2004.
Looks like somebody needs a bit of rocket surgery to make it work. Or perhaps prayer will do the trick.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
I didn’t know whether to put this one in the philosophy section or the religion section.
I was on my way to talk to somebody today ... someone who occasionally teaches metaphysics at the local seminary.
I stopped for a coffee on the way and was flipping through the paper when I came across an article on Anthony Flew.
The name may be familiar to people who follow philosophical debates on the existence of God.
Flew is a highly respected atheist philosopher. Er, he used to be. He’s had one of those switches in world views that sometimes sneaks up on a person. He now believes in God. Not a personal God, but more of a deist perspective.
I mentioned this in my conversation that I had later on ... and found out that the teacher of metaphysics always thought that Flew had some of the most elegant arguments against the existence of God, and actually used some of his writings in his classes. He disagreed with Flew’s pre-suppositions, but admired the man as a thinker.
There’s no sense of ‘triumph’ or anything when I read stories like that of Anthony Flew. There are probably just as many people who have recently decided not to believe in God as have switched the other way.
Mostly I wonder how he ‘feels’ in terms of dealing with a change world view.
Well, that’s it for my rambling thoughts ....
Sunday, December 12, 2004
The Groningen Protocol
The Dutch Groningen Protocol, which allows for euthanasia of newborns that suffer from terminal and painful illnesses received a lot of negative coverage in the US. Rather unsurprisingly, the gist of the messages is that Dutch are now killing their babies. A more matter-of-factly news report is here.
A Dutch blogger disagrees: The Dutch are not killing their babies and supplies a translation of the related press release.
Euthanasia poses a moral conundrum and not the least owing to the abuses of the Nazi regime, something that has received an even worse reputation. In general, however, one would talk about a person either currently mentally capable to express a desire to die or a person that was previously mentally competent to express such a wish in the event of becoming incapacitated. Either way, there are scenarios where I would consider these wishes as absolutely binding and others where things are not as clear-cut.
When talking about newborns, the stakes are raised considerably. Most posters in the US equate newborn euthanasia with post-term abortion, obviously without spending the time to research exactly what they are talking about. In extremely rare cases, children are born with severe, incurable, and painful conditions and results in the same question as for adults - is it a case of prolonging life (or at least some semblance of it) or of prolonging suffering?
I have said elsewhere that the hardest experience for a parent is to see your child in pain - and the less facility a child has to understand what is happening to him or her, the worse it is. To make a long story short, I believe that there are - sadly - cases where it is a mercy not to prolong agonies, there are cases where hope remains, and a few in between. In other words, every case is unique and must be evaluated on its own; blanket condemnations are inappropriate.
Atom
RSS 2.0
