While I am at it (I just finished writing the previous post), I have a complaint about Wal*Mart.
The other day (a few weeks back), my wife and I went shopping at Wal*Mart (in Wasilla, Alaska). After picking up the few items we needed (around 10 to 12 items), we headed to the front to check out. Most of the lines had two to three people in them, but one of the express checkouts only had a single customer (express checkouts at this store are 20 items or less). After standing for a few minutes, I moved to look around a support column that was right in the way and saw that the woman checking out had a very full cart. I was bored, so I started counting. I lost count around 60 (note again that this was a 20-items-or-less checkout). In addition, she was putting the items onto about 6 different orders.
After nearly 25 minutes we had four more customers in line behind us and the checker finally finished the last order for this woman. As she left, she said, apologetically, "That's what happens when you go shopping for six people." I wanted to reply, "No, that's what happens when you take 60 items to a 20-items-or-less express checkout," but I was to polite to actually do it (in hind sight, I really wish I had said it). When I got to the checker, I asked if they were allowed to do anything about that, and he said they were not (I have worked retail before, so I already knew the answer). Then I asked him to let his manager know I had complained.
Now that the story is over, it is time for the ripping. Assuming the checker was telling the truth (I am certain he was), this entire incident is Wal*Mart's fault. I am sure the reason they do not allow checkers to tell customers like this to find a normal register is to avoid loosing customers. The idea with this sort of retail policy is that you make a rule to add convenience for customers with small orders, but you don't actually enforce it, because you don't want to tick off customers that have too many items. Now, I would not mind this if it was limited to customers with only a few extra items, but when a customer has three, four, or even five times the limit, its going a bit too far. (I said I lost count at 60. That is how many items I could see from the back of the cart. I am sure there were at least 80, if not more than 100 items in the cart.)
Now, here is what that policy to avoid ticking off a customer actually accomplished. A single inconsiderate customer saved five minutes or less by going to an express register where she took nearly a half an hour to check out. (Saving 17% of her time.) At the same time, my wife and I lost 25 minutes, before taking 5 minutes to check out (loosing 500% of our time), and four customers behind us ended up waiting an extra 10 to 20 minutes to spend 5 minutes checking out (not going to do the math, but still loosing several hundred percent of their time each). A single customer did not get ticked off at Wal*Mart, because they did not send her to a more appropriate register, while five customers did get ticked off because what should have been a quick stop was turned into a long trip by a poorly managed company.
Tell me what is better customer service: sending a single customer to another line, where she should have gone in the first place (kindly and apologetically, of course), so you can take care of the other five in a timely manner, or taking care of the customer that either was not paying attention, or was blatantly disregarding the rules, and making the other five wait, when they are paying attention and following the rules?
Anyhow, we have started shopping at Fred Meyers more frequently since then, even though we are closer to Wal*Mart. If this happens again, I am leaving my cart in line, letting the checker know that I am leaving because of Wal*Mart's poor customer service policies and heading over to Freddys.
I hope someone from Wal*Mart corporate (who actually has power) reads this, so they can see that this poor treatment of customers really does loose them business (we just bought a months worth of water, Gatorade, Propel, Sobe, and a few other beverages at Fred Meyers today; if it were not for this incident, we probably would have bought it at Wal*Mart, since it is closer).
Lord Rybec
28 May 2010
28 December 2009
Creationism
I think I understand the real issue between science and intelligent design/creationism. All the scientists see are a bunch of people who are trying to deride science by saying that it could not have happened on its own. All the creationist see are a bunch of people trying to disprove their religion and devalue their gods.
After the recent thing with global warming and suppressing unpopular theories and research, I really do not know the motives of those who are arguing against creationism, except that unproven theories should not be taught in schools as fact. The creationists however may have a valid point in their argument. Their argument is based on the fact that we really do not know how things came into existence. All science is is math. We cannot directly observe the creation of the universe. Even looking at microwave background noise cannot prove that the data obtained actually represents what happened at the beginning of time. The only part of science that is truly science is the math. Most scientific theories could easily be exchanged for a different theory that results in the same math. Maybe atoms do not actually exist, but when you look at them through a microscope, the math that we use to say they do exist results in images that appear to be atoms (I am not saying I believe this, just that it could be true). So, the creationists see scientific theories as just as valid as intelligent design, because there is no evidence that is absolute that science is right.
The real difference between science and intelligent design/creationism is this: Creationism can easily explain how we got here, but cannot understand the mechanics behind it. Science still cannot explain how we got here, but it is possible to understand the mechanics behind it (difficult, but possible). Beyond that, there are few real differences. Generally creationists do not care about the mechanics and scientists do, but that is the people, not the theories. There is not any evidence that creationism cannot be proven, but no one wants to prove it.
If you are still skeptical of my argument, try this theory. First I have to offer a disclaimer. I do not believe this theory. It is not intended as a serious scientific theory, only as an example to show that any science beyond the mathematics of science is on equal standing with less scientific theories that cannot be disproved. Last but not least, I really hope no idiot tries to make a religion out of this. Here it is.
Scientifically, what is the probability that some intelligent race will evolve in any given universe? Well, assuming the theory of evolution is true, we know that there must be some probability, however small. By increasing the chances, we can increase the probability the something will happen at least once. So, what is the probability that intelligent life will evolve in at least one out of one billion universes? It should be one billion times higher than the chance in only one universe. As we increase the number of universes the probability increases. As the number of universes approaches infinity, the probability approaches 100%. If there are an infinite number of universes, and an infinite amount of time is given, then the number of times this event occurs is necessarily infinite also.
So, since science says that there are infinite universes and infinite time, we can establish that infinite intelligent races have evolved. Now, what is the probability that at least one of these races has survived long enough to develop technology sufficiently powerful to control matter and energy on a large scale? Well, if there is any probability of this happening, and there are infinite chances, then it must happen an infinite number of times. So now we have established that if it is possible, then there exist an infinite number of civilizations with technology powerful enough to control matter on a large scale. So now, is it possible to create technology that can be used to travel between universes? If it is, what is the probability that one of these civilizations has discovered this technology? Even if the technology cannot be created, what is the probability that there are natural rifts between universes, which could be safely traversed with the proper technology?
So now we have intelligent civilizations that can travel between universes, and control matter. If they can control matter, they can probably extend their life spans indefinitely. Now, what if they have found a way of storing and transferring consciousness? Also, we must assume that this civilization is good and ethical, otherwise they would have destroyed themselves with their powerful technology, while fighting for power.
So now, would it not be reasonable to assume that this race would be very careful about who is allowed to use their technology? Probably even with their own children. Maybe they would want to find a way to test their children, to make sure each one who is given access to this powerful technology will use it ethically and morally, because the consequences could be the destruction of their civilization. Of course, the best way to do this might be to allow them to grow up with no knowledge of the civilization, on some remote, but habitable world. They would watch their children and those who were unethical or immoral would not be given access to the technology and those who were would be. They would let them live their entire lives, watching them, and when they died, they would quickly upload their consciousness into whatever is used to store it, then they would judge each of their children and give them access only to that technology which they would not abuse.
If you want to go one step further, what if they told their children that they were God, and that they would be given a great reward if they were obedient (access to the technology). Then they would judge them based on what they did with that knowledge. They would not show themselves to most of their children, because that would taint the test. Some of those who would use the technology for evil might pretend to be good, then abuse their power once they were given it.
Anyhow, you should get the idea by now. Basically, I can use science to show that it is very probable that there is some supreme being/beings watching us and judging us. As a matter of fact, the probability of this depends entirely upon the probability of life evolving on its own. If that probability is low, then it is more likely that we are the offspring of some civilization that is testing us. If the probability of life evolving on its own is high, then it is more probable that we got here without outside interference.
Science can tell us what it sees, but it cannot tell us definitively what the data means. Science may be able to call data evidence for something, but it cannot call it proof. Even seeing something with your own eyes, or hearing it with your ears does not make it real. Not only can we hallucinate, but we also know that light and sound can be manipulated. Anything we see, hear, feel, smell, or taste could be invented by our own minds, or could be the result of the tinkering of others. The validity of science goes only as far as we can trust our own senses. The validity of religion ignores the senses and focuses on what we believe. It should be understood that neither senses nor belief is infallible. Thus, when creationists say that they think intelligent design should be taught along side scientific theory, they have a point. That does not mean I agree with them, but they do have a point.
My solution is much better. I think religion should be taught in schools. I do not think it should be taught like math or science, but it should be taught. Religion should be taught in classes specifically for religion. It should not focus on any single religion, but should teach about all major religions and some more important minor ones. One point that should be taught is what each religion believes in relation to where the world and humans came from. It should be impressed that this is not fact that is based on math or science, but things that people choose to believe. The students and teacher should never be allowed to debate over religion in this class, it should be limited entirely to teaching and learning, not discussing religion or accuracy of religious beliefs. Not only will this help students have a better understanding of why some people act differently, it will also help them get along with others who have different beliefs. Lastly, parents should be involved in the decision for a student to take the class. This will allow those who are afraid of their children learning intelligent design or other religious things to opt out of the class.
This solution should satisfy both parties, although I am sure they will both find some reason to argue about it.
After the recent thing with global warming and suppressing unpopular theories and research, I really do not know the motives of those who are arguing against creationism, except that unproven theories should not be taught in schools as fact. The creationists however may have a valid point in their argument. Their argument is based on the fact that we really do not know how things came into existence. All science is is math. We cannot directly observe the creation of the universe. Even looking at microwave background noise cannot prove that the data obtained actually represents what happened at the beginning of time. The only part of science that is truly science is the math. Most scientific theories could easily be exchanged for a different theory that results in the same math. Maybe atoms do not actually exist, but when you look at them through a microscope, the math that we use to say they do exist results in images that appear to be atoms (I am not saying I believe this, just that it could be true). So, the creationists see scientific theories as just as valid as intelligent design, because there is no evidence that is absolute that science is right.
The real difference between science and intelligent design/creationism is this: Creationism can easily explain how we got here, but cannot understand the mechanics behind it. Science still cannot explain how we got here, but it is possible to understand the mechanics behind it (difficult, but possible). Beyond that, there are few real differences. Generally creationists do not care about the mechanics and scientists do, but that is the people, not the theories. There is not any evidence that creationism cannot be proven, but no one wants to prove it.
If you are still skeptical of my argument, try this theory. First I have to offer a disclaimer. I do not believe this theory. It is not intended as a serious scientific theory, only as an example to show that any science beyond the mathematics of science is on equal standing with less scientific theories that cannot be disproved. Last but not least, I really hope no idiot tries to make a religion out of this. Here it is.
Scientifically, what is the probability that some intelligent race will evolve in any given universe? Well, assuming the theory of evolution is true, we know that there must be some probability, however small. By increasing the chances, we can increase the probability the something will happen at least once. So, what is the probability that intelligent life will evolve in at least one out of one billion universes? It should be one billion times higher than the chance in only one universe. As we increase the number of universes the probability increases. As the number of universes approaches infinity, the probability approaches 100%. If there are an infinite number of universes, and an infinite amount of time is given, then the number of times this event occurs is necessarily infinite also.
So, since science says that there are infinite universes and infinite time, we can establish that infinite intelligent races have evolved. Now, what is the probability that at least one of these races has survived long enough to develop technology sufficiently powerful to control matter and energy on a large scale? Well, if there is any probability of this happening, and there are infinite chances, then it must happen an infinite number of times. So now we have established that if it is possible, then there exist an infinite number of civilizations with technology powerful enough to control matter on a large scale. So now, is it possible to create technology that can be used to travel between universes? If it is, what is the probability that one of these civilizations has discovered this technology? Even if the technology cannot be created, what is the probability that there are natural rifts between universes, which could be safely traversed with the proper technology?
So now we have intelligent civilizations that can travel between universes, and control matter. If they can control matter, they can probably extend their life spans indefinitely. Now, what if they have found a way of storing and transferring consciousness? Also, we must assume that this civilization is good and ethical, otherwise they would have destroyed themselves with their powerful technology, while fighting for power.
So now, would it not be reasonable to assume that this race would be very careful about who is allowed to use their technology? Probably even with their own children. Maybe they would want to find a way to test their children, to make sure each one who is given access to this powerful technology will use it ethically and morally, because the consequences could be the destruction of their civilization. Of course, the best way to do this might be to allow them to grow up with no knowledge of the civilization, on some remote, but habitable world. They would watch their children and those who were unethical or immoral would not be given access to the technology and those who were would be. They would let them live their entire lives, watching them, and when they died, they would quickly upload their consciousness into whatever is used to store it, then they would judge each of their children and give them access only to that technology which they would not abuse.
If you want to go one step further, what if they told their children that they were God, and that they would be given a great reward if they were obedient (access to the technology). Then they would judge them based on what they did with that knowledge. They would not show themselves to most of their children, because that would taint the test. Some of those who would use the technology for evil might pretend to be good, then abuse their power once they were given it.
Anyhow, you should get the idea by now. Basically, I can use science to show that it is very probable that there is some supreme being/beings watching us and judging us. As a matter of fact, the probability of this depends entirely upon the probability of life evolving on its own. If that probability is low, then it is more likely that we are the offspring of some civilization that is testing us. If the probability of life evolving on its own is high, then it is more probable that we got here without outside interference.
Science can tell us what it sees, but it cannot tell us definitively what the data means. Science may be able to call data evidence for something, but it cannot call it proof. Even seeing something with your own eyes, or hearing it with your ears does not make it real. Not only can we hallucinate, but we also know that light and sound can be manipulated. Anything we see, hear, feel, smell, or taste could be invented by our own minds, or could be the result of the tinkering of others. The validity of science goes only as far as we can trust our own senses. The validity of religion ignores the senses and focuses on what we believe. It should be understood that neither senses nor belief is infallible. Thus, when creationists say that they think intelligent design should be taught along side scientific theory, they have a point. That does not mean I agree with them, but they do have a point.
My solution is much better. I think religion should be taught in schools. I do not think it should be taught like math or science, but it should be taught. Religion should be taught in classes specifically for religion. It should not focus on any single religion, but should teach about all major religions and some more important minor ones. One point that should be taught is what each religion believes in relation to where the world and humans came from. It should be impressed that this is not fact that is based on math or science, but things that people choose to believe. The students and teacher should never be allowed to debate over religion in this class, it should be limited entirely to teaching and learning, not discussing religion or accuracy of religious beliefs. Not only will this help students have a better understanding of why some people act differently, it will also help them get along with others who have different beliefs. Lastly, parents should be involved in the decision for a student to take the class. This will allow those who are afraid of their children learning intelligent design or other religious things to opt out of the class.
This solution should satisfy both parties, although I am sure they will both find some reason to argue about it.
Loyalty
Loyalty is one of the most misplaced things in our society. It seems to me that it has been for some time. I am not saying that loyalty is bad. What I am saying is that loyalty should not be given to organizations. Loyalty should only be given to individuals.
Being loyal to friends, family, and even to your deity can be a good, useful thing. Loyalty involves bonds which help us to defend our social group and our way of life. Loyalty to good individuals and to good values encourages us to be good people. Without loyalties we would just be a bunch of animals fighting to be on top (actually, even most animals have some amount of loyalty). Loyalty to friends and family should be a given. Loyalty to those who live around you, even though you may not know them well enough to call them friends, can help to keep a community stable and alive. In general, loyalty is the core of civilization.
Unfortunately, misplaced loyalty is the enemy of civilization. Even loyalty to an unseen deity is good, if the values associated with that deity encourage you to get along with those around you. Loyalty to organizations is a bad thing. Organizations do not have solid values and can easily be changed. To give your loyalty to an organization is to give your loyalty to whomever leads the organization, regardless of that person's ethics. Giving your loyalty to a good and wise king may be a good thing, but giving your loyalty to the government lead by that king is a poor choice, since the king may die or be driven out and your loyalty may end up in the hands of an evil usurper. Giving loyalty to a corporation which employs you may seem like a good thing, but where will your loyalty get you if someone in that corporation tells you to do something unethical?
In short, you should not give your loyalty to something which cannot return that loyalty. Corporations are required by law to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. This means that they are only likely to be loyal to their employees if they think it is in the best interest of their shareholders. Organizations cannot be loyal to individuals. They may be able to do things which appear to show loyalty, but in reality, an organization must do what is required to preserve itself. (This is evident in the recent economical problems that have caused many businesses to default on their pension plans.)
Consider the situation if you have two friends which you are loyal to. Let's say they get in a fight and both expect you to show your loyalty by siding with them. You can choose either to be loyal to one but not the other, or you can stay out of it and be loyal to neither. Organizations have many 'friends' which may expect loyalty. Consider if the 500 people that the organization is 'friend' to get in a fight. Even if the fight is 50% on each side, the organization can be loyal to only 250 of them. If the odds are not even, the organization must be loyal to the larger part, otherwise it looses a majority of its support. This is true, even if the majority is in the wrong. This sort of thing happens frequently, when a customer of a business gets his way, even though he is wrong, because the organization cannot afford to loose the business of every customer that argues with them, even if they are wrong. If the business cannot even be loyal to itself, why would you think it could be loyal to a single employee?
Organizations are not stable. Individuals are not stable either, but they are far more stable than organizations. You can generally expect your friends' personalities to change only slowly, while even a small change in local leadership can dramatically effect how an organization operates and acts.
You may think that this only applies to organizations that are business oriented. You are wrong. Loyalty to a business is not the worst misplacement of loyalty. Loyalty to government is the most misplaced loyalty. Businesses have only limited power within their area of business. Governments have nearly unlimited power within their jurisdiction. This power is only limited by the willingness of the people to support that government. Giving unconditional loyalty to your government is a license for that government to do whatever they want, regardless of the will or needs of the people. Tyrannical governments persist because of the loyalty of their subjects and their military. Without this misplaced loyalty, no unjust government can exist.
So where should you put your loyalty? Your loyalty should be to the people of your country, if they are worthy of it (if they are not, you should get out, fast). This way, you are loyal to your government only inasmuch as it does what is in the best interest of the people. (I would like to note that "what is in the best interest of the people" does not mean what the government thinks is in their best interest. Since no person on Earth has any business deciding what is in the best interest of the rest of the people, the best way of determining this is by doing what a majority of people think is in their best interest. At least this way, if they are wrong, they are responsible for their own suffering.) Also, this way, if the government is not doing what is in the best interest of the people, you do not bear the responsibility for supporting the wrong actions.
Also, avoid giving your loyalty to individuals whom you do not know personally. Giving your loyalty to the people of your nation is one thing, but giving your loyalty to a leader whom you have never met is a poor choice. Remember that this leader may have some amount of control over the media of the country and that your knowledge of the leader's reputation is based entirely on information from sources whom you do not know the ethics of. This does not mean that every leader is probably a bad person who has been misrepresented by the media, but each leader could be a bad person who has been misrepresented by the media and you are better off keeping your loyalty than giving it to a person whom you know little of.
Give your loyalty to your god first (if you have one, and if he/she encourages good, civilized behavior), your family second, and your friends third. Fourth, you should give your loyalty to your people, not your country or its leader, unless the leader is a friend, whom you know to be worthy of your loyalty. Do not give your loyalty to some business or corporation which could change on a whim, except inasmuch as it helps you remain loyal to your god, family, friends, and people. This will help you to distinguish between things which are ethical and those which are unethical, but which may seem ambiguous at first glance.
Another note: I forgot to mention loyalty to self. If you are not loyal to yourself, you cannot be loyal to anyone else. This does not mean that you should not place others above yourself, but you should not place people or things to which you are not loyal above those to which you are loyal, including yourself. For instance, allowing a business to exploit you is not being loyal to yourself.
Also note that sometimes you must rescind your loyalty to someone, to maintain your loyalty for others. A good example is the commonly seen situation where a family member or a friend tries to protect someone who has committed a crime and is a danger to others. Generally, if an individual does something which requires you to be loyal to them, or loyal to everyone else, it is better to be loyal to the larger group. Being loyal to a criminal may endanger everyone else you think you are loyal to. Also, being loyal to a criminal will endanger you, so giving up your loyalty to everyone else, to keep your loyalty to a criminal, is also giving up your loyalty to yourself. The best measure in these situations is whether or not you can maintain loyalty to yourself. Being loyal to the group, when you know it is wrong is not being loyal to yourself. Being loyal to the individual, when that person represents a danger to you and others is also not being loyal to yourself.
Loyalty should never be given lightly, without much thought. Loyalty to the right people is what keeps civilization strong, loyalty to the wrong people destroys civilization, and loyalty to things which have arbitrary or changing ethics will destroy you.
When placing loyalties, you should first think about those whom you are already loyal to, and second you should think about how it will affect your loyalty to yourself. Sometimes being loyal will place your life in danger. Just remember that many people have given their lives to keep civilization strong. If you must give your life to be loyal to those who deserve your loyalty, at least you can know that your loyalty is well placed and you are not dying for some worthless cause. Sometimes you must do things which result in harm to you, to be loyal to yourself, your family, your friends, and your people.
Being loyal to friends, family, and even to your deity can be a good, useful thing. Loyalty involves bonds which help us to defend our social group and our way of life. Loyalty to good individuals and to good values encourages us to be good people. Without loyalties we would just be a bunch of animals fighting to be on top (actually, even most animals have some amount of loyalty). Loyalty to friends and family should be a given. Loyalty to those who live around you, even though you may not know them well enough to call them friends, can help to keep a community stable and alive. In general, loyalty is the core of civilization.
Unfortunately, misplaced loyalty is the enemy of civilization. Even loyalty to an unseen deity is good, if the values associated with that deity encourage you to get along with those around you. Loyalty to organizations is a bad thing. Organizations do not have solid values and can easily be changed. To give your loyalty to an organization is to give your loyalty to whomever leads the organization, regardless of that person's ethics. Giving your loyalty to a good and wise king may be a good thing, but giving your loyalty to the government lead by that king is a poor choice, since the king may die or be driven out and your loyalty may end up in the hands of an evil usurper. Giving loyalty to a corporation which employs you may seem like a good thing, but where will your loyalty get you if someone in that corporation tells you to do something unethical?
In short, you should not give your loyalty to something which cannot return that loyalty. Corporations are required by law to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. This means that they are only likely to be loyal to their employees if they think it is in the best interest of their shareholders. Organizations cannot be loyal to individuals. They may be able to do things which appear to show loyalty, but in reality, an organization must do what is required to preserve itself. (This is evident in the recent economical problems that have caused many businesses to default on their pension plans.)
Consider the situation if you have two friends which you are loyal to. Let's say they get in a fight and both expect you to show your loyalty by siding with them. You can choose either to be loyal to one but not the other, or you can stay out of it and be loyal to neither. Organizations have many 'friends' which may expect loyalty. Consider if the 500 people that the organization is 'friend' to get in a fight. Even if the fight is 50% on each side, the organization can be loyal to only 250 of them. If the odds are not even, the organization must be loyal to the larger part, otherwise it looses a majority of its support. This is true, even if the majority is in the wrong. This sort of thing happens frequently, when a customer of a business gets his way, even though he is wrong, because the organization cannot afford to loose the business of every customer that argues with them, even if they are wrong. If the business cannot even be loyal to itself, why would you think it could be loyal to a single employee?
Organizations are not stable. Individuals are not stable either, but they are far more stable than organizations. You can generally expect your friends' personalities to change only slowly, while even a small change in local leadership can dramatically effect how an organization operates and acts.
You may think that this only applies to organizations that are business oriented. You are wrong. Loyalty to a business is not the worst misplacement of loyalty. Loyalty to government is the most misplaced loyalty. Businesses have only limited power within their area of business. Governments have nearly unlimited power within their jurisdiction. This power is only limited by the willingness of the people to support that government. Giving unconditional loyalty to your government is a license for that government to do whatever they want, regardless of the will or needs of the people. Tyrannical governments persist because of the loyalty of their subjects and their military. Without this misplaced loyalty, no unjust government can exist.
So where should you put your loyalty? Your loyalty should be to the people of your country, if they are worthy of it (if they are not, you should get out, fast). This way, you are loyal to your government only inasmuch as it does what is in the best interest of the people. (I would like to note that "what is in the best interest of the people" does not mean what the government thinks is in their best interest. Since no person on Earth has any business deciding what is in the best interest of the rest of the people, the best way of determining this is by doing what a majority of people think is in their best interest. At least this way, if they are wrong, they are responsible for their own suffering.) Also, this way, if the government is not doing what is in the best interest of the people, you do not bear the responsibility for supporting the wrong actions.
Also, avoid giving your loyalty to individuals whom you do not know personally. Giving your loyalty to the people of your nation is one thing, but giving your loyalty to a leader whom you have never met is a poor choice. Remember that this leader may have some amount of control over the media of the country and that your knowledge of the leader's reputation is based entirely on information from sources whom you do not know the ethics of. This does not mean that every leader is probably a bad person who has been misrepresented by the media, but each leader could be a bad person who has been misrepresented by the media and you are better off keeping your loyalty than giving it to a person whom you know little of.
Give your loyalty to your god first (if you have one, and if he/she encourages good, civilized behavior), your family second, and your friends third. Fourth, you should give your loyalty to your people, not your country or its leader, unless the leader is a friend, whom you know to be worthy of your loyalty. Do not give your loyalty to some business or corporation which could change on a whim, except inasmuch as it helps you remain loyal to your god, family, friends, and people. This will help you to distinguish between things which are ethical and those which are unethical, but which may seem ambiguous at first glance.
Another note: I forgot to mention loyalty to self. If you are not loyal to yourself, you cannot be loyal to anyone else. This does not mean that you should not place others above yourself, but you should not place people or things to which you are not loyal above those to which you are loyal, including yourself. For instance, allowing a business to exploit you is not being loyal to yourself.
Also note that sometimes you must rescind your loyalty to someone, to maintain your loyalty for others. A good example is the commonly seen situation where a family member or a friend tries to protect someone who has committed a crime and is a danger to others. Generally, if an individual does something which requires you to be loyal to them, or loyal to everyone else, it is better to be loyal to the larger group. Being loyal to a criminal may endanger everyone else you think you are loyal to. Also, being loyal to a criminal will endanger you, so giving up your loyalty to everyone else, to keep your loyalty to a criminal, is also giving up your loyalty to yourself. The best measure in these situations is whether or not you can maintain loyalty to yourself. Being loyal to the group, when you know it is wrong is not being loyal to yourself. Being loyal to the individual, when that person represents a danger to you and others is also not being loyal to yourself.
Loyalty should never be given lightly, without much thought. Loyalty to the right people is what keeps civilization strong, loyalty to the wrong people destroys civilization, and loyalty to things which have arbitrary or changing ethics will destroy you.
When placing loyalties, you should first think about those whom you are already loyal to, and second you should think about how it will affect your loyalty to yourself. Sometimes being loyal will place your life in danger. Just remember that many people have given their lives to keep civilization strong. If you must give your life to be loyal to those who deserve your loyalty, at least you can know that your loyalty is well placed and you are not dying for some worthless cause. Sometimes you must do things which result in harm to you, to be loyal to yourself, your family, your friends, and your people.
14 November 2009
Social Tolerance
Social tolerance is destroying our country and the world. Our country has embraced social tolerance from the beginning. Social tolerance is a very good thing, in moderation. We should tolerate differences of race, religion, political ideals, and many other things. Without these tolerances, we would decay back toward disorder and become less civilized. On the other hand, tolerance of unethical behavior, rudeness, and self destructive behavior do the same thing as intolerance of race, religion, etc... Social tolerance has two sides. One side is things that are barbaric not to tolerate, the other is things that make us barbaric if we do tolerate them.
The importance of social tolerance is often understated. We understand the importance of tolerating things like race and religion so well that this tolerance has been required by law. The true importance of social tolerance is not so much what is tolerated as the fact that social tolerance is more powerful than law in encouraging people to behave themselves. It is against the law to exceed the speed limit on public roads, yet at least 90% of people do it many times a day. On the other hand, it is entirely legal to stare, but at least 90% of people avoid doing it (in other countries staring is not socially wrong and plenty of people do it, but in the US staring is a social taboo). Social intolerance of unethical behavior is much stronger than laws designating it such. If people ridiculed and disdained speeders, far fewer people would speed. Instead, most people overlook it, or tolerate it, so nearly everyone feels it is permissible.
Another thing about social tolerance that we all seem to miss is that it does not require us to agree with what we are tolerating. We might tolerate other religions without agreeing with what they teach, or we may be friends with people who have different political ideals without agreeing with those ideals. We could even dislike people of a particular race, without treating them poorly. We are entitled to our own opinions, but that does not mean that we cannot tolerate things that we do not agree with.
Just as important as social tolerance is social intolerance. This term is seen as evil in our society, because the only context it is ever used in is cases of discrimination, where intolerance is bad. In reality, a society that tolerates anything and everything is no better than anarchy. In this sort of society, the only thing that keeps people moral is fear of the law. In this sort of society, the moral law is "it is only wrong if you get caught". This is where the US, and most of the world, is headed. We should be able to expect people to be polite to us, we should be able to expect them to clean up after themselves (except in places like restaurants, where they are paying someone else to do it), we should be able to expect them to be truthful, we should be able to expect them to be punctual. In short, we should be able to expect people to be kind, polite, and honest. If someone exhibits bad behavior and we blow it off, they will feel entitled to continue the bad behavior. If we want people to treat us how we would like to be treated, first we should treat them that way and second we should not tolerate being treated otherwise.
You may wonder how to be intolerant of bad behavior. This is important, because we cannot act rudely to people if we want them to be polite. Often the most powerful message we can send someone displaying bad behavior is disappointment. It not only tells them they have done something we disapprove of, but it also tells them we expected them to act better. Disappointment tells people that we care about them enough to expect good behavior from them.
Another very strong way of being intolerant of bad behavior is to look and act like you are uncomfortable. If someone does something unethical or impolite, you can look and act uncomfortable with the situation. While this is not as strong as disappointment, it will usually get the point across. If someone suggests something unethical and the entire room goes silent and everyone else looks uncomfortable with the suggestion, not only will it kill the suggestion, but it will discourage similar suggestions in the future.
If these do not work, you might consider talking to the offending person in private. Tell them that their behavior (the specific one or ones) offends you, or makes you uncomfortable. If they admit that the behavior is wrong, offer to help them correct it. In this case, they may continue the behavior, but as long as they are trying to fix it and are making progress, you should help them. Note that this generally does not work as well as the above two. Many people will become defensive when approached about how they act. This needs to be done carefully. In cases like this, you should take care to be polite and non-confrontational. It also helps to make sure they know you are their friend and are willing to help them with this.
Lastly, if none of these things are working, you should think about ending the relationship with the person (assuming one exists). If a person is continuing harmful behavior (physically, emotionally, or mentally harmful) and has expressed that they have no intention of stopping, ending any relationship with that person will send a clear message. The best way to do this is to let the person know that you would like to continue to be friends with them, but that their behavior is such that you do not feel comfortable being around it. A less effective route is to just stop your communications with the person. In this case, be ready to explain why you are no longer friendly with them, because they will probably ask.
If you cut off a friendship without giving a reason, then your attempt at social intolerance of bad behavior has failed. With any of these techniques, the person must be aware of the reason, otherwise they are unlikely to change their behavior.
There is one more technique that can be used. If you take the responsibility for the behavior, it will generally make the person doing it feel bad about it. If you have a friend with a swearing problem, you might apologize for them when you are around other people who do not swear. If a person leaves a cart in the middle of a parking lot on a windy day (when the cart may cause damage when the wind blows it into someone else's car), you could take the cart and place it in the receptacle. Things like this can have a very strong effect on others, when they see you take responsibility for the consequences of their bad behavior, and may also affect others who see it.
We are all socially responsible for each other's behavior to some degree. If we tolerate unethical or immoral behavior, we are responsible when the behavior continues.
Lord Rybec
The importance of social tolerance is often understated. We understand the importance of tolerating things like race and religion so well that this tolerance has been required by law. The true importance of social tolerance is not so much what is tolerated as the fact that social tolerance is more powerful than law in encouraging people to behave themselves. It is against the law to exceed the speed limit on public roads, yet at least 90% of people do it many times a day. On the other hand, it is entirely legal to stare, but at least 90% of people avoid doing it (in other countries staring is not socially wrong and plenty of people do it, but in the US staring is a social taboo). Social intolerance of unethical behavior is much stronger than laws designating it such. If people ridiculed and disdained speeders, far fewer people would speed. Instead, most people overlook it, or tolerate it, so nearly everyone feels it is permissible.
Another thing about social tolerance that we all seem to miss is that it does not require us to agree with what we are tolerating. We might tolerate other religions without agreeing with what they teach, or we may be friends with people who have different political ideals without agreeing with those ideals. We could even dislike people of a particular race, without treating them poorly. We are entitled to our own opinions, but that does not mean that we cannot tolerate things that we do not agree with.
Just as important as social tolerance is social intolerance. This term is seen as evil in our society, because the only context it is ever used in is cases of discrimination, where intolerance is bad. In reality, a society that tolerates anything and everything is no better than anarchy. In this sort of society, the only thing that keeps people moral is fear of the law. In this sort of society, the moral law is "it is only wrong if you get caught". This is where the US, and most of the world, is headed. We should be able to expect people to be polite to us, we should be able to expect them to clean up after themselves (except in places like restaurants, where they are paying someone else to do it), we should be able to expect them to be truthful, we should be able to expect them to be punctual. In short, we should be able to expect people to be kind, polite, and honest. If someone exhibits bad behavior and we blow it off, they will feel entitled to continue the bad behavior. If we want people to treat us how we would like to be treated, first we should treat them that way and second we should not tolerate being treated otherwise.
You may wonder how to be intolerant of bad behavior. This is important, because we cannot act rudely to people if we want them to be polite. Often the most powerful message we can send someone displaying bad behavior is disappointment. It not only tells them they have done something we disapprove of, but it also tells them we expected them to act better. Disappointment tells people that we care about them enough to expect good behavior from them.
Another very strong way of being intolerant of bad behavior is to look and act like you are uncomfortable. If someone does something unethical or impolite, you can look and act uncomfortable with the situation. While this is not as strong as disappointment, it will usually get the point across. If someone suggests something unethical and the entire room goes silent and everyone else looks uncomfortable with the suggestion, not only will it kill the suggestion, but it will discourage similar suggestions in the future.
If these do not work, you might consider talking to the offending person in private. Tell them that their behavior (the specific one or ones) offends you, or makes you uncomfortable. If they admit that the behavior is wrong, offer to help them correct it. In this case, they may continue the behavior, but as long as they are trying to fix it and are making progress, you should help them. Note that this generally does not work as well as the above two. Many people will become defensive when approached about how they act. This needs to be done carefully. In cases like this, you should take care to be polite and non-confrontational. It also helps to make sure they know you are their friend and are willing to help them with this.
Lastly, if none of these things are working, you should think about ending the relationship with the person (assuming one exists). If a person is continuing harmful behavior (physically, emotionally, or mentally harmful) and has expressed that they have no intention of stopping, ending any relationship with that person will send a clear message. The best way to do this is to let the person know that you would like to continue to be friends with them, but that their behavior is such that you do not feel comfortable being around it. A less effective route is to just stop your communications with the person. In this case, be ready to explain why you are no longer friendly with them, because they will probably ask.
If you cut off a friendship without giving a reason, then your attempt at social intolerance of bad behavior has failed. With any of these techniques, the person must be aware of the reason, otherwise they are unlikely to change their behavior.
There is one more technique that can be used. If you take the responsibility for the behavior, it will generally make the person doing it feel bad about it. If you have a friend with a swearing problem, you might apologize for them when you are around other people who do not swear. If a person leaves a cart in the middle of a parking lot on a windy day (when the cart may cause damage when the wind blows it into someone else's car), you could take the cart and place it in the receptacle. Things like this can have a very strong effect on others, when they see you take responsibility for the consequences of their bad behavior, and may also affect others who see it.
We are all socially responsible for each other's behavior to some degree. If we tolerate unethical or immoral behavior, we are responsible when the behavior continues.
Lord Rybec
16 October 2009
Viability of Wikipedia
Ok, so I am sick and tired of all this disrespect of Wikipedia based on the reliability of its data. I would like to make a few things very clear to those people who keep telling everyone that Wikipedia is not a good reference material because anyone can edit the data.
First, it is true that anyone can create a Wikipedia account and put false information into whatever article that they want. This means that some of the information on Wikipedia may not be entirely accurate. Have you ever noticed that Wikipedia requires that references be sited for information posted there? Those references are there to validate the data. If some of the data presented in an article does not have a reference, there is usually a note on that line stating that no reference was posted with the data. If you doubt that Wikipedia information is valid, you can look at the reference to validate it. If there is no reference, then you are justified in doubting the validity of the data. So, while anyone can post information on Wikipedia, there are rules that require some amount of validation, otherwise the information will eventually be removed.
Second, do you know how the internet works? The internet is not a government owned network where all of the information, except Wikipedia, is validated by officials to make sure it is accurate. The internet is, on the whole, owned by private entities. What I am saying is that it is almost as easy to make your own web page with false information as it is to post false information onto Wikipedia. So, if you distrust the data contained on Wikipedia, you should also distrust all of the data contained on every web page on the entire internet! Basically, the data posted on Wikipedia is no less accurate than information that you will find anywhere else on the internet. The major difference is that if I post incorrect data on my own web page, no one else can change it. If I post incorrect data on Wikipedia, it will probably get fixed pretty quickly.
Third, the internet aside, even the information that is published in books is not always accurate. Some people write books with incorrect data, but since the publisher is not an engineer, it gets published anyway, because the publisher assumes the engineer who wrote the book knows what they are talking about. A good example is a book I bought at a library discard sale. I forget the name of the book, but it was a guide on graphics programing under some version of Windows. In the first chapter of the book, I came across a section about fonts. It distinguished some common font types, specifically serif and sans serif. It defined a serif font as one where the horizontal and diagonal lines are thinner than the vertical lines and a sans serif font as one where all the lines are of similar thickness. It did not even mention serifs. In case you do not know, pretend like you are going to leave me a comment. Type some random letters into the comment box (try things like a capital "I", and a capital "T" for prime examples). Take a look at the letters. Notice how most of the sharp points have a little line capping them? These lines are serifs. Strictly speaking, the only factor that differentiates serif from sans serif are those lines. Sans means without, in this context. Also notice that all of the serif letters you just typed have similar line thickness throughout? Wait, wasn't that defined at sans serif in the book? Anyhow, case in point, even printed books are not always accurate. Again, the main difference between the books and Wikipedia: If inaccurate information is posted on Wikipedia, anyone can correct it.
Besides all of this, information changes regularly. Remember in your high school science class how you learned that airplanes fly because the shape of the top of the wing produces a low pressure area that lifts the airplane off the ground? You may also remember that complex chart they made you memorize about what parts of the tongue taste which flavors? Try looking up the most recent research on these two subjects. It may surprise you to know that both of these have been proven wrong. While the tongue may be more sensitive to certain flavors in some areas, the difference is not significant. In other words, generally speaking, each area of the tongue can taste different flavors approximately equally. The reason airplanes fly is because the air deflecting off the bottom of the wings increases in pressure enough to push the airplane up. The low pressure on top helps, but cannot produce more than 14lbs per square inch of lift and airplanes weigh way more than that. If you have any children or teens in school currently, take a look that their science and health text books and see if you can find these subjects. Chances are that they still teach the old beliefs, even though the airplane one was refuted nearly 8 years ago and the tongue one between 3 and 5 years ago. I am taking a physics class in college and my text book has that diagram of the airplane wing, with subtext telling how the primary lift is coming from the low pressure on top of the wing, with only very minor help from the pressure underneath. In this case, it is not stupidity or maliciousness that caused the error, but rather a increase in our understanding of a subject.
This quote from Wikipedia shows that Wikipedia's data may often be more accurate than text books: "Contrary to the popular myth and generations of schoolbooks, there are no distinct regions for tasting different tastes." (This is from the "tongue" page of Wikipedia.)
I hope this helps you understand that Wikipedia as a reference material is no less accurate than any other source. While it is true that Wikipedia may occasionally contain inaccurate information, it is constantly being updated and reviewed by an enormous number of people, many of whom are willing to take the time to correct errors. The real difference between Wikipedia and other reference materials is that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone and that means that anyone can correct inaccurate information posted there. Either way, it is probably still wise to check the references listed at the bottom of the page to validate the information. In any type of research it is wise to obtain information from multiple sources. The more sources make a claim, the more likely it is to be accurate.
First, it is true that anyone can create a Wikipedia account and put false information into whatever article that they want. This means that some of the information on Wikipedia may not be entirely accurate. Have you ever noticed that Wikipedia requires that references be sited for information posted there? Those references are there to validate the data. If some of the data presented in an article does not have a reference, there is usually a note on that line stating that no reference was posted with the data. If you doubt that Wikipedia information is valid, you can look at the reference to validate it. If there is no reference, then you are justified in doubting the validity of the data. So, while anyone can post information on Wikipedia, there are rules that require some amount of validation, otherwise the information will eventually be removed.
Second, do you know how the internet works? The internet is not a government owned network where all of the information, except Wikipedia, is validated by officials to make sure it is accurate. The internet is, on the whole, owned by private entities. What I am saying is that it is almost as easy to make your own web page with false information as it is to post false information onto Wikipedia. So, if you distrust the data contained on Wikipedia, you should also distrust all of the data contained on every web page on the entire internet! Basically, the data posted on Wikipedia is no less accurate than information that you will find anywhere else on the internet. The major difference is that if I post incorrect data on my own web page, no one else can change it. If I post incorrect data on Wikipedia, it will probably get fixed pretty quickly.
Third, the internet aside, even the information that is published in books is not always accurate. Some people write books with incorrect data, but since the publisher is not an engineer, it gets published anyway, because the publisher assumes the engineer who wrote the book knows what they are talking about. A good example is a book I bought at a library discard sale. I forget the name of the book, but it was a guide on graphics programing under some version of Windows. In the first chapter of the book, I came across a section about fonts. It distinguished some common font types, specifically serif and sans serif. It defined a serif font as one where the horizontal and diagonal lines are thinner than the vertical lines and a sans serif font as one where all the lines are of similar thickness. It did not even mention serifs. In case you do not know, pretend like you are going to leave me a comment. Type some random letters into the comment box (try things like a capital "I", and a capital "T" for prime examples). Take a look at the letters. Notice how most of the sharp points have a little line capping them? These lines are serifs. Strictly speaking, the only factor that differentiates serif from sans serif are those lines. Sans means without, in this context. Also notice that all of the serif letters you just typed have similar line thickness throughout? Wait, wasn't that defined at sans serif in the book? Anyhow, case in point, even printed books are not always accurate. Again, the main difference between the books and Wikipedia: If inaccurate information is posted on Wikipedia, anyone can correct it.
Besides all of this, information changes regularly. Remember in your high school science class how you learned that airplanes fly because the shape of the top of the wing produces a low pressure area that lifts the airplane off the ground? You may also remember that complex chart they made you memorize about what parts of the tongue taste which flavors? Try looking up the most recent research on these two subjects. It may surprise you to know that both of these have been proven wrong. While the tongue may be more sensitive to certain flavors in some areas, the difference is not significant. In other words, generally speaking, each area of the tongue can taste different flavors approximately equally. The reason airplanes fly is because the air deflecting off the bottom of the wings increases in pressure enough to push the airplane up. The low pressure on top helps, but cannot produce more than 14lbs per square inch of lift and airplanes weigh way more than that. If you have any children or teens in school currently, take a look that their science and health text books and see if you can find these subjects. Chances are that they still teach the old beliefs, even though the airplane one was refuted nearly 8 years ago and the tongue one between 3 and 5 years ago. I am taking a physics class in college and my text book has that diagram of the airplane wing, with subtext telling how the primary lift is coming from the low pressure on top of the wing, with only very minor help from the pressure underneath. In this case, it is not stupidity or maliciousness that caused the error, but rather a increase in our understanding of a subject.
This quote from Wikipedia shows that Wikipedia's data may often be more accurate than text books: "Contrary to the popular myth and generations of schoolbooks, there are no distinct regions for tasting different tastes." (This is from the "tongue" page of Wikipedia.)
I hope this helps you understand that Wikipedia as a reference material is no less accurate than any other source. While it is true that Wikipedia may occasionally contain inaccurate information, it is constantly being updated and reviewed by an enormous number of people, many of whom are willing to take the time to correct errors. The real difference between Wikipedia and other reference materials is that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone and that means that anyone can correct inaccurate information posted there. Either way, it is probably still wise to check the references listed at the bottom of the page to validate the information. In any type of research it is wise to obtain information from multiple sources. The more sources make a claim, the more likely it is to be accurate.
11 June 2009
The Value of Religion
Many atheists claim that without religion our society could be perfect. They claim that religion stifles creativity, science, and government. Ironically, they are right in some degree. Religious belief prohibits certain types of art, certain classes of experimentation, and some government practices. Some of the idea is that without religion people will be more united in belief (or disbelief, in this case) and that is probably true in some degree also. So, besides hope, what does religion really give us?
First, religion gives us freedom. Without religion, the concept of 'human rights' is subject to interpretation. Without religion good and evil are concepts that can change at a whim and depend entirely on whom you are speaking to and who is in power. Without religion murder can easily be justified as 'survival of the fittest', dangerous experiments on unwilling human subjects become 'trying to improve the race', and moral convictions become 'fanatical beliefs'. Ultimately, without religion, the only law is 'survival of the fittest' and 'might makes right'. Without religion human rights do not even exist. Without religion the only true goal is reproduction.
Religion gives us rights. If a right is not given by God, or some other supreme being, it is given by man and is subject to the whims of men. A right that is given by man can be taken away by man, but a right given by a supreme being is eternal and can only be taken away by that same being. This means that without religion, the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' can be taken away by the same government that granted it, without so much as a seconds notice. With religion we have the right to rebel against a government that becomes oppressive, even if we have sworn loyalty to it, because loyalty to our deity and our family trump our loyalty to government. Without religion, not only do we not have a deity to be loyal to, we have no moral reason to be loyal to our family besides making sure our own genetics are carried on.
Religion is not a crutch to give people hope; even if it is not true, religion is what gives people rights. Religion is what makes all men equal. Without it the claim that 'all men are created equal' is invalid. This means, that without religion, slavery is only bad because we think it is bad. Without religion slavery would be a philosophical issue, rather than an issue of rights. In reality, without religion, slavery is entirely justifiable. Without slaves the Greeks would never have had the time to develop the advanced mathematics that allow us to have the technology that I am using to write this and you are using to read it (their time would have been spent working to grow their food). The lasting effects of slavery in Greece are very positive. Without religion to proclaim that all men should be treated equally it is simple to show that slavery is actually good and results in only positive consequences. Of course, we know that this is not true, but if religion is bad, then it must be true and can easily be justified as true.
I am not going to condemn people that choose not to believe in religion; it is their right to choose how to believe. Even most religions agree that each person has the right to choose their beliefs. I am condemning those who condemn religion. Religion protects us from tyranny and gives us human rights. Without it we are subject to whomever has the most power and we have no rights besides those that are given to us or that we take by force. Without religion The Constitution is meaningless and powerless. A document cannot give rights and it cannot record rights unless they are inherent rights, and without religion there are no inherent rights. Without religion The Constitution is a document recording the rights a group of men believed everyone should have, not a document recording the rights that should be had by all men by divine edict.
The right for each person to believe as they choose is granted by most religions. There have in the past been religions that believed that people should be forced to believe what that religion taught. Notice that these religions either no longer exist, or have changed so materially that this belief no longer exists within the religion (with the exception of small groups of terrorists that occasionally try to resurrect those beliefs). This belief has been condemned by nearly all modern religions as infringing on the inherent rights granted by deity. So why do many atheists preach that religion should be extinguished, by force if necessary? If it is permissible that any set of beliefs should be enforced, why should it not be a more ancient religion that believed in enforced religion long before atheism ever thought of it?
Ultimately, it is inherently wrong to enforce any set of beliefs on people, whether it be Paganism, Islam, Christianity, or Atheism. This is why theft, vandalism, assault, rape, and murder are wrong. This is why democratic forms of government are better than others. Religion is the foundation of civilization. Whether it is right or wrong, religion is what keeps civilization civilized. Without it we are just animals that should be aggressively fighting each other for survival in an effort to continue to evolve to the next level.
Lack of religion gives us an entirely different set of moral guidelines and principals. For instance, the medical profession is entirely at odds with atheism, because without religion we should be letting the weak die in an effort to strengthen the species. Besides that we should also kill (or sterilize) everyone who is a descendant of someone with an especially bad genetic disease. Highly intelligent people should be breading like crazy, in an effort to out reproduce stupid people (interesting that those who believe themselves to be intelligent often choose not to reproduce). There should be experiments in evolution that involve the use of animal husbandry techniques upon humans, in an effort to improve the species. Dangerous experimentation upon humans should not only be legal, but should be funded by the government, again in an effort to improve the species. Slavery should be re-instituted to help fund this and to give smart people the time to make new inventions and discoveries that might help to ensure the continued survival of the species. (Slaves should be composed entirely of people with lower IQs, since the smart people are needed for inventing things or doing research. Race should not be a factor. A smart black guy, a smart Asian guy, and a smart white guy are equally as likely to come up with something that will benefit the species and as such all three should be given equal opportunity to do so.) Stupid people or people with serious genetic problems should be sterilized as soon as the problem is evident, again in an effort to improve the species.
Anyway, it should be obvious that all of these things bring up severe human rights issues. Without religion, the most important goal should be the continued survival and evolutionary improvement of the species. The only moral question should be 'will this improve the race as a whole?'. If the answer is 'yes', then anything is justifiable. Religion is our shield against this. Religion is what says that slavery is immoral. Religion is what says that it is wrong to experiment on human test subjects, unless the risk is extremely low. Religion is what says we should be kind to animals and to our planet. Even if we do not believe in religion, we should continue to fight for our right to believe as we choose. Without this right, we do not have any rights.
Lord Rybec
First, religion gives us freedom. Without religion, the concept of 'human rights' is subject to interpretation. Without religion good and evil are concepts that can change at a whim and depend entirely on whom you are speaking to and who is in power. Without religion murder can easily be justified as 'survival of the fittest', dangerous experiments on unwilling human subjects become 'trying to improve the race', and moral convictions become 'fanatical beliefs'. Ultimately, without religion, the only law is 'survival of the fittest' and 'might makes right'. Without religion human rights do not even exist. Without religion the only true goal is reproduction.
Religion gives us rights. If a right is not given by God, or some other supreme being, it is given by man and is subject to the whims of men. A right that is given by man can be taken away by man, but a right given by a supreme being is eternal and can only be taken away by that same being. This means that without religion, the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' can be taken away by the same government that granted it, without so much as a seconds notice. With religion we have the right to rebel against a government that becomes oppressive, even if we have sworn loyalty to it, because loyalty to our deity and our family trump our loyalty to government. Without religion, not only do we not have a deity to be loyal to, we have no moral reason to be loyal to our family besides making sure our own genetics are carried on.
Religion is not a crutch to give people hope; even if it is not true, religion is what gives people rights. Religion is what makes all men equal. Without it the claim that 'all men are created equal' is invalid. This means, that without religion, slavery is only bad because we think it is bad. Without religion slavery would be a philosophical issue, rather than an issue of rights. In reality, without religion, slavery is entirely justifiable. Without slaves the Greeks would never have had the time to develop the advanced mathematics that allow us to have the technology that I am using to write this and you are using to read it (their time would have been spent working to grow their food). The lasting effects of slavery in Greece are very positive. Without religion to proclaim that all men should be treated equally it is simple to show that slavery is actually good and results in only positive consequences. Of course, we know that this is not true, but if religion is bad, then it must be true and can easily be justified as true.
I am not going to condemn people that choose not to believe in religion; it is their right to choose how to believe. Even most religions agree that each person has the right to choose their beliefs. I am condemning those who condemn religion. Religion protects us from tyranny and gives us human rights. Without it we are subject to whomever has the most power and we have no rights besides those that are given to us or that we take by force. Without religion The Constitution is meaningless and powerless. A document cannot give rights and it cannot record rights unless they are inherent rights, and without religion there are no inherent rights. Without religion The Constitution is a document recording the rights a group of men believed everyone should have, not a document recording the rights that should be had by all men by divine edict.
The right for each person to believe as they choose is granted by most religions. There have in the past been religions that believed that people should be forced to believe what that religion taught. Notice that these religions either no longer exist, or have changed so materially that this belief no longer exists within the religion (with the exception of small groups of terrorists that occasionally try to resurrect those beliefs). This belief has been condemned by nearly all modern religions as infringing on the inherent rights granted by deity. So why do many atheists preach that religion should be extinguished, by force if necessary? If it is permissible that any set of beliefs should be enforced, why should it not be a more ancient religion that believed in enforced religion long before atheism ever thought of it?
Ultimately, it is inherently wrong to enforce any set of beliefs on people, whether it be Paganism, Islam, Christianity, or Atheism. This is why theft, vandalism, assault, rape, and murder are wrong. This is why democratic forms of government are better than others. Religion is the foundation of civilization. Whether it is right or wrong, religion is what keeps civilization civilized. Without it we are just animals that should be aggressively fighting each other for survival in an effort to continue to evolve to the next level.
Lack of religion gives us an entirely different set of moral guidelines and principals. For instance, the medical profession is entirely at odds with atheism, because without religion we should be letting the weak die in an effort to strengthen the species. Besides that we should also kill (or sterilize) everyone who is a descendant of someone with an especially bad genetic disease. Highly intelligent people should be breading like crazy, in an effort to out reproduce stupid people (interesting that those who believe themselves to be intelligent often choose not to reproduce). There should be experiments in evolution that involve the use of animal husbandry techniques upon humans, in an effort to improve the species. Dangerous experimentation upon humans should not only be legal, but should be funded by the government, again in an effort to improve the species. Slavery should be re-instituted to help fund this and to give smart people the time to make new inventions and discoveries that might help to ensure the continued survival of the species. (Slaves should be composed entirely of people with lower IQs, since the smart people are needed for inventing things or doing research. Race should not be a factor. A smart black guy, a smart Asian guy, and a smart white guy are equally as likely to come up with something that will benefit the species and as such all three should be given equal opportunity to do so.) Stupid people or people with serious genetic problems should be sterilized as soon as the problem is evident, again in an effort to improve the species.
Anyway, it should be obvious that all of these things bring up severe human rights issues. Without religion, the most important goal should be the continued survival and evolutionary improvement of the species. The only moral question should be 'will this improve the race as a whole?'. If the answer is 'yes', then anything is justifiable. Religion is our shield against this. Religion is what says that slavery is immoral. Religion is what says that it is wrong to experiment on human test subjects, unless the risk is extremely low. Religion is what says we should be kind to animals and to our planet. Even if we do not believe in religion, we should continue to fight for our right to believe as we choose. Without this right, we do not have any rights.
Lord Rybec
02 June 2009
Questionable Science?
First I have to tell you that I am a scientist of sorts. I have always been interested in physics, electronics, genetics, and many other scientific subjects. I enjoy reading about new discoveries and various theories. I have even come up with a few of my own theories. So do not take this article as an anti-science pro-religion article. The intent of this article is to show that science and religion are two distinctly separate disciplines.
First, let's define a few words. We will start with the word 'fact'. I define a fact as something which has been shown to be true in at least one instance and has never been shown to be false. This definition makes sense, especially in its use within the realm of science. Usually in science, for something to be recognized as a fact, it must be show to be true by multiple independent researchers, but in many cases facts are accepted after one researcher shows it to be true, then other independent research is conducted to verify the original research. Note, however, that on occasion a 'fact' is discovered to be false in at least one instance and thus ceases to be a fact (look into what areas of the tongue taste what flavors for an example).
The second word is 'truth'. This is a religious word. Truth is something that is absolutely and irrevocably true. Truth transcends science and facts. The problem with truth is that it cannot be empirically proven. A person may know that something is absolutely true, but cannot convince others because they have no proof, or even no evidence, of what they claim to be true. Truth is absolute, but cannot be proven by any means available to man or science.
These words are exclusive to their specific disciplines. Truth has no place in science and facts have no place in religion. The reason is that religion and science have no overlapping ground. This does not mean that only one of the two can be valid. Rather it means that neither can infringe upon the realm of the other. In other words, science is not sufficiently equipped to argue with religion and religion is not equipped to argue with science. This is why arguments between the two most often end in stalemates. The two cover entirely different realms. Neither realm is suitable for the other to exist within.
Let's define science. Science consists of observations and predictions. Experiments can be devised and executed to observe reactions under controlled conditions, but it is still only observation. Science collects data, compiles and organizes it, and then looks for patterns. That is where science ends. Science may use the discovered patterns to make predictions, but may not interpret the data. This means that it is acceptable for a scientist to say that it is likely that a certain effect is going to happen given certain circumstances, but it is not acceptable for the scientist to claim that he absolutely knows that a certain effect will happen. Absolute knowledge does not belong to the realm of science. If a scientist makes such a claim, he is preaching his faith and belief that the effect will happen, not making a prediction based on observation. It has been shown that an observation may be taken any number of times with the same results, but then the next observation may yield results entirely at odds with all of the previous observations. Quantum physics actually predicts this. Science itself predicts that even an infinite number of observations may not yield every possible result.
Religion is nearly opposite to science in definition. Religion often is not based on any known observations. Empirical studies cannot prove religious truths. Even the appearance of deity can easily be attributed to hallucination or other forms of illusion. It is known that the senses can be fooled into seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching things that are not real and do not actually exist. On the other hand a person may claim that they have had a feeling that has given them absolute knowledge of truth, and science can do nothing to prove or disprove that claim or that truth. Many who have claimed to be scientists have tried to prove or disprove various religious claims and all have failed, except in the few cases where the claims have infringed upon the realm of science. Still, while no effort of science has ever been able to disprove religion, neither have any effort of science been able to verify religion.
This war between religion and science is not even real. Neither can cross the boundaries of the other. For a scientist to fight against religious principles he must create his own religious ideals that oppose those principles he is fighting against. Likewise, for a religious person to fight against a theory of science, he must create his own scientific theories that oppose those theories he wishes to fight against. This does not mean that religions cannot have scientific theories within them, but those religions must understand that the theories are subject to the rules of science, if they are to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are not theories, but rather religious beliefs.
Unlike science, religion is subject to interpretation. To interpret scientific data is to create a religious belief or principle based upon that data (this is where pagan nature worship originated). Science may not go beyond prediction and still be considered science. Religion on the other hand cannot make predictions. For religion to make predictions is to invite ruin. When religion crosses the boundaries into the realm of science, it must play by the rules of science. This means that if a religion makes a prediction, science may make a direct attack on that religion by disproving the prediction. Of course, if a scientist crosses the boundaries into religion, that scientist puts every theory and claim he has ever made in question. This does not mean that a single person may not make religious claims and scientific theories, but that person must be sure not to make a scientific theory based on belief, nor a religious claim that infringes on science; he must make sure his claims fall distinctly into the correct category. The two are not enemies, but they do not tolerate territorial disputes.
That said, there is one case where science and religion can get along. This is the case where the interpretations of religion and the predictions of science run parallel. For this to happen two things must be true. First, all of the claims made by the religion must be true, ie. they must be the correct interpretation. Second, science must recognize that everything may not be as it seems. No amount of evidence will reveal the absolute truth. Sometimes the evidence may actually be entirely at odds with the truth. If science refuses to admit this, it has failed. Equally, if religion refuses to admit that their interpretation may not be entirely accurate, it too has failed. Religion and science can only play together on the narrow strip of ground where they meet. Somewhere that ground does exist, but as it has not yet been found and indeed may never be found, science and religion should be treated as two distinctly separate, but valid realms of understanding. A scientist who claims that science makes religion invalid is a false prophet and a preacher who claims that religion supercedes science is a purgored scientist. Science cannot offer truth and religion cannot offer facts. Those on both sides need to realize this and get on with their lives. There are much more useful things they could be doing with their lives than participating in a war that cannot be won.
Lord Rybec
First, let's define a few words. We will start with the word 'fact'. I define a fact as something which has been shown to be true in at least one instance and has never been shown to be false. This definition makes sense, especially in its use within the realm of science. Usually in science, for something to be recognized as a fact, it must be show to be true by multiple independent researchers, but in many cases facts are accepted after one researcher shows it to be true, then other independent research is conducted to verify the original research. Note, however, that on occasion a 'fact' is discovered to be false in at least one instance and thus ceases to be a fact (look into what areas of the tongue taste what flavors for an example).
The second word is 'truth'. This is a religious word. Truth is something that is absolutely and irrevocably true. Truth transcends science and facts. The problem with truth is that it cannot be empirically proven. A person may know that something is absolutely true, but cannot convince others because they have no proof, or even no evidence, of what they claim to be true. Truth is absolute, but cannot be proven by any means available to man or science.
These words are exclusive to their specific disciplines. Truth has no place in science and facts have no place in religion. The reason is that religion and science have no overlapping ground. This does not mean that only one of the two can be valid. Rather it means that neither can infringe upon the realm of the other. In other words, science is not sufficiently equipped to argue with religion and religion is not equipped to argue with science. This is why arguments between the two most often end in stalemates. The two cover entirely different realms. Neither realm is suitable for the other to exist within.
Let's define science. Science consists of observations and predictions. Experiments can be devised and executed to observe reactions under controlled conditions, but it is still only observation. Science collects data, compiles and organizes it, and then looks for patterns. That is where science ends. Science may use the discovered patterns to make predictions, but may not interpret the data. This means that it is acceptable for a scientist to say that it is likely that a certain effect is going to happen given certain circumstances, but it is not acceptable for the scientist to claim that he absolutely knows that a certain effect will happen. Absolute knowledge does not belong to the realm of science. If a scientist makes such a claim, he is preaching his faith and belief that the effect will happen, not making a prediction based on observation. It has been shown that an observation may be taken any number of times with the same results, but then the next observation may yield results entirely at odds with all of the previous observations. Quantum physics actually predicts this. Science itself predicts that even an infinite number of observations may not yield every possible result.
Religion is nearly opposite to science in definition. Religion often is not based on any known observations. Empirical studies cannot prove religious truths. Even the appearance of deity can easily be attributed to hallucination or other forms of illusion. It is known that the senses can be fooled into seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching things that are not real and do not actually exist. On the other hand a person may claim that they have had a feeling that has given them absolute knowledge of truth, and science can do nothing to prove or disprove that claim or that truth. Many who have claimed to be scientists have tried to prove or disprove various religious claims and all have failed, except in the few cases where the claims have infringed upon the realm of science. Still, while no effort of science has ever been able to disprove religion, neither have any effort of science been able to verify religion.
This war between religion and science is not even real. Neither can cross the boundaries of the other. For a scientist to fight against religious principles he must create his own religious ideals that oppose those principles he is fighting against. Likewise, for a religious person to fight against a theory of science, he must create his own scientific theories that oppose those theories he wishes to fight against. This does not mean that religions cannot have scientific theories within them, but those religions must understand that the theories are subject to the rules of science, if they are to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are not theories, but rather religious beliefs.
Unlike science, religion is subject to interpretation. To interpret scientific data is to create a religious belief or principle based upon that data (this is where pagan nature worship originated). Science may not go beyond prediction and still be considered science. Religion on the other hand cannot make predictions. For religion to make predictions is to invite ruin. When religion crosses the boundaries into the realm of science, it must play by the rules of science. This means that if a religion makes a prediction, science may make a direct attack on that religion by disproving the prediction. Of course, if a scientist crosses the boundaries into religion, that scientist puts every theory and claim he has ever made in question. This does not mean that a single person may not make religious claims and scientific theories, but that person must be sure not to make a scientific theory based on belief, nor a religious claim that infringes on science; he must make sure his claims fall distinctly into the correct category. The two are not enemies, but they do not tolerate territorial disputes.
That said, there is one case where science and religion can get along. This is the case where the interpretations of religion and the predictions of science run parallel. For this to happen two things must be true. First, all of the claims made by the religion must be true, ie. they must be the correct interpretation. Second, science must recognize that everything may not be as it seems. No amount of evidence will reveal the absolute truth. Sometimes the evidence may actually be entirely at odds with the truth. If science refuses to admit this, it has failed. Equally, if religion refuses to admit that their interpretation may not be entirely accurate, it too has failed. Religion and science can only play together on the narrow strip of ground where they meet. Somewhere that ground does exist, but as it has not yet been found and indeed may never be found, science and religion should be treated as two distinctly separate, but valid realms of understanding. A scientist who claims that science makes religion invalid is a false prophet and a preacher who claims that religion supercedes science is a purgored scientist. Science cannot offer truth and religion cannot offer facts. Those on both sides need to realize this and get on with their lives. There are much more useful things they could be doing with their lives than participating in a war that cannot be won.
Lord Rybec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)