The Facile Eclectic

 Just ran across a cool blog for those interested in religion and how it's reported in the media. It's run by a number of professional religion journalists and has lots of interesting articles. One looked at a recent article saying that Fred Thompson was endorsed by 40 million US conservative Methodists. 40 million? Lets see the US population is roughly 300 million, 1/3 of whom(100 million) are conservative Christians, of whom roughly 1/2 are evangelical(50 million). Wow the Methodists are kicking the Babtists butts! In fact there are about 14 million Methodists in the US and that includes the liberal ones. It's an informative site and the commenters are usually intelligent and not prone to the normal ranting and raving. I recomend it to thinking relgious folks(of all stripes, Wiccans too!) and non-beleivers alike.

GetReligion.org

Posted by Ben Wortham at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Being the musing sort that I am I tend to think a lot. Sometimes I even think about thinking. Lately I've been musing about the difference between rational systems or logic and the more limbic mode of thought people often refer to as "thinking from the gut". People, especially here in the states, place a very high trust in their instincts. Americans a very good at responding to their emotions and very poor at using reason to make decisions. A good example is the abstinence only sex education policy promoted by our current, frontal lobe challenged, president and widely accepted by the public. The argument for "abstinence only" is based on an ethical belief about sex and an assumption that children will do as they are taught. Both of these are what's called an a priori argument and therefore logically flawed. A priori is a term used in philosophy and has a number of meanings but in this case I'm using it to refer to an argument or assumption that is not supported by evidence from the real world. "Abstinence only" relies on the assumption that sex is a behavior that exists within an ethical framework. For a behavior to be ethical(or unethical) it shouldn't occur outside of a system of ethics. Charity would be a good example of such a behavior. Animals* aren't normally charitable but most human cultures value charity as an ethical act and it always exists within an ethical framework. Sex on the other hand occurs all over the natural world in the total absence of any ethics. In humans, other than the prohibition against pedophilia(pre pubescent children), sexual morays have varied widely over time and culture and aren't ethically systematized. Therefore sex is technically not an ethical(or unethical) act. The second assumption of "abstinence only" is that teenagers can be taught not to have sex. There is no evidence from the real world that this is possible. While it is possible to modify some behaviors in animals and people, certain behaviors are wired so deeply into our brains that they're practically impossible to subvert. These are the basic drives such the need for food, shelter and of course the drive to reproduce. A human being may choose to starve himself but it's pretty hard to teach him that food is something he can do without and to ignore his hunger as his body slowly dies. One can deduce from this that some teenagers are going to have sex. In fact a recent survey showed about half of teenagers reported having had sex. The same numbers reported before "abstinence only". So in fact a lot of teenagers have sex. Some numbers have changed however. Now that kids don't have easy access birth control as they once did the rates of pregnancy and STD's have risen sharply among teens. So how do we end up with such foolish policies? Whenever policy is guided by faith or any other a priori assumptions about the world we will be doomed to bad governance. The founding fathers were very aware of this fact and designed our system to promote reason and reign in governance based on "passion". But the system only works when leaders are motivated and capable of exercising reason. Thomas Jefferson also knew that education was critical. But his notion of education was very different from the schools we now have. He included philosophy, especially epistemology, ethics, and logic, as a cornerstone to any good education. He was right. It's time we started teaching children how to think for a change instead of teaching them what to think.



* Of course higher primates and dolphins seem to display charitable behavior but one can also argue that they posses a primitive ethical culture similar to human beings.

 

Posted by Ben Wortham at 01:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When my wife left her job due to health reasons two years ago we made some major changes to our lifestyle. First we moved to the country on to a piece of land that my Father gave to me for the price of paying off the note, about a fifth of it's value. We cashed in our savings and payed off our mortgages and moved into a small cabin. We now live off a modest income from renting our old home and the small amounts my part time efforts bring in. We live on a fourth of what we used to. Our time these days is spent raising sheep, growing vegetables and working on our ongoing improvements to the property. We don't use credit cards, we don't go out to eat like we used to, we don't hire service folks much as I take care of most of the repairs, and we don't shop for things we don't need. We prepare and raise our own food. We get lots of exercise and full nights of sleep. We read more books. We get entertainment value watching new born animals play and watch a lot less TV. We're both thinner, healthier, and happier and we don't own an Ipod. In short we're gradually unplugging ourselves from the consumer culture. And the funny thing is, I don't miss it.

I notice the change in myself most at this time of year. When I go to the big box stores what used to be "must haves" look like superfluous junk and clutter. All the new electronics don't have any pull at all, I'll get a new TV when the old one dies, and I certainly don't need two. Why rush for that christmas DVD release and plunk down twenty dollars when next year I'll get it at a garage sale for $1. I can wait. I've become immune to the urgency that mass marketing instills in people. I've become immune to the advertisers siren song telling me I'm a failure as a human being if I don't have a new SUV like my neighbor.  The value of a vehicle drops by half in the first year, buying a new car is insane. I buy used trucks without power widows and gadgets(just more stuff to break down) and drive them into the ground. A car is something that performs a function but it shouldn't be part of your identity. But that is the only identity most people have. They have nothing in their lives that identifies them as a unique human being other than their spending profile stored in a merchants computer database. The counter argument of course is consumerism keeps the economy growing and keeps people employed. Well at the rate that automation is progressing those jobs won't be around for long. In the near future machines will take care of most material production and soon most information jobs as well. These days most telemarketing calls and customer service are automated. Online shopping is largely automated and soon the shipping warehouse will be too. Eventually we'll be giving people unnecessary jobs just to keep them busy and keep the system going( I would argue that to some extent this is already true). In addition our current system wastes huge amounts of energy, material, and time(rush hour comes to mind) and it is rapidly degrading our environment. It can't go on forever. It's instructive to remember that money and economies are a human invention, and an ancient one at that. How many 6000 year old techniques for civilization do we still use? Clay tablets? no. Hamurabbis code? no. God incarnated rulers? no. Slaves? no. God forbid if we still used ships with oars. It's time to start moving to new more mature idea of civilization or risk the collapse of the one we have. It's time put consumerism in the dust bin of history. We'll all live a lot longer.

Posted by Ben Wortham at 03:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If your plugged in to the realms of super nerd-dom  like I am then you might of heard of Ray Kurzweils singularity. Mr. Kurzweils contention is that the accelerated rate of technological progress is leading to a boundary point, or singularity, that will mark a fundamental change in human history. Sometime around 2050, by his reckoning, things will progress to the point where biological aging can be reversed and  technological enhancements to our minds will enable us to evolve to a new level of human consciousness. I might go into how likely I think this scenario is in the future but suffice it to say that since Ray started making these predictions in the early eighties his track record has been quite prescient and his anticipation of trends in technology have made him a wealthy man. The proof is always in the pudding. My main interest is in one aspect of his prediction, the control of aging. I think most folks in their 70's or older would definitely opt for a younger more functional body but what about 18 year olds? Would they opt to never experience the process of aging? I think this would be a mistake for a number of reasons. At the heart of the problem I think is the mind body connection. Increasingly AI folks and philosophers who study consciousness  have begun to realize that having a body is necessary for having a mind. We have all seen bodies without a mind, say a dead human being or a rock, but have you ever seen a mind without a body? The sensory experiences we have are fundamental in forming the patterns of our mind. I would argue that the wisdom that comes with time is not simply the acquisition of experience in general. It also must include the biological aspects of the aging process. For example when a man passes from young adult hood to middle age testosterone levels fall and physical strength diminishes slightly. This leads to a cooling off of the sex drive and the aggression of youth and opens one up to new possibilities in relationships with women, new possibilities of contemplative thought, etc. As one passes into old age and the loss of physical vitality one can attain a deeper appreciation of ones life, the lives of others, and a deeper empathy for the vulnerability of ones fellow beings. This is of course from a male perspective but there are correlaries for female aging. I think these types of experiences are necessary  to form a fully mature human mind. I think a world populated by eternal 18 year olds that never experienced the physical slings and arrows of time might be a pretty scary place. In that not too distant possible future I think reaching a ripe old age should be a prerequisite for receiving the boon of eternal youth.

Posted by Ben Wortham at 05:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)