I got robbed tonight.
OK, well I didn't get robbed, but the hotel where I work as a night auditor got robbed (although they did take all of my money too).
The details are insignificant. I am very angry right now, but that too is not important.
So why am I writing this? I don't want sympathy, and it's not a very good catharsis. But what do I write about, and how is this related?
My coworker is from Somalia, and, as one could probably easily guess, he is a Muslim. Actually, as the robbers approached us, my coworker and I were discussing religion - why he has so much faith and why I have none. After the ordeal, after the police and manager had left, and Aziz and I were once again alone and left to discuss our experience, he brought up his god. Allah had saved us. Do I now have faith? Do I now believe in this benevelent god who so graciously spared my life?
My answer is simple: I look at this in a completely different way...
...a god who loves me wouldn't have allowed this to happen.
My jaw might be broken. Hell, my nose may be broken. My reason however, is stronger than ever.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2005
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
On Paul Manata and Aversive Racism...
WARNING: This post contains language some may deem inappropriate and, as so, viewable by only a mature audience. Maturity being a highly subjective term and arguable state, you make the call.
As a disclaimer, I am not calling Paul Manata an outright racist. I am illustrating a potential example of aversive racism. That it involves Paul, is merely coincidental, though I will openly admit that his involvement is conveniently beneficial for me, as his notoriety may attract more people to the message. Indeed, in order to argue a case for aversive racism, it is essential that the subject NOT be overtly racist.
That it involves Paul adds yet another layer: providing example of aversive racism truly is the ultimate point of my post, though I will also use it as a means of addressing allegations brought against and attacks attempted on me. Honestly, I had every intention of letting these go unchallenged. I was going to eat it. Brush it off. Not sweat it. I’m not stuttin’ him (there’s more “gangsta” talk for ya, Paul *wink*).
In a comment over at Goosing the Antithesis, regarding my post involving Paul, I had this to say to Paul:
A response is expected and appreciated. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Maybe you can provide clarification. But I highly suggest you avoid popping shit about me. If that is all you're capable of, then please, by all means, keep my name out'cha mouth unless I autograph my dick. Thank you. [emphasis added]
I fully admit my choice of language and approach unnecessary. Improper? Arguable. Those familiar with Mr. Manata’s diatribes should be aware that, in this context, my approach is not at all out of line. This is not exemplar of a purely academic environment. I simply wished to cut to the point and fully convey my total lack of interest in personal attacks in an arena of debate. I intentionally eschewed formality, general social niceties, and etiquette, to stress this. This is not quite as hypocritical as it may first initially appear: Paul incorporates argumentum ad hominem to the point of excess. I have not attacked Paul personally – I have made judgments on his arguments (“borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel”). A charge of appeal to ridicule may be brought against me, but in my defense, I posit that, through my analysis and critique of his work, I have established just cause for such assertions.
As a Christian, perhaps Paul is offended by such language (I still can’t find Biblical damnation of “bad words”), particularly my sexual, and thus potentially homosexual, allusion to fellatio. I could have substituted “make my name taste like shit in ya mouth,” but that would have changed nothing.
Pauls response:
"'dumb',
Thanks for the above ammunitian [sic] as I use it to show your hypocrisy. You pick on me for being mean and rude to the poor atheists, but then use words like you did above about me? It looks like the gangsta can give but can't take.
[…]
Peace out my brotha from anotha motha" [emphasis mine]
First, as we can see, he has given me a nickname of sorts. In a moment of apparent brilliance, and unparallel wittiness, he has ingeniously, through the mere insertion of the single letter “m”, dubbed (this is a pun) me “dumb.” Total lack of originality aside, this is name calling, and as so a direct assault on me and my character.
Second, my statement has only become ammunition for a new “argument”, as he has been thoroughly disarmed and rendered weaponless on the battlefield of intellectual ballistics and logical logistics in the previous “war” of words to which he is alluding in his charge of “hypocrisy”.
Third: “being mean and rude to the poor atheists”. Note how this is just dripping in sarcasm. Also notice the addition of poor, an obvious appeal to emotion.
Fourth, and finally, here’s where the racism comes in…
My use of such colorful language (seriously - this is not a pun) may illustrate my flair for humor (crass or not). My delivery may even be arrogant. But how is my behavior in any way indicative of violent and criminal-like conduct to a degree warranting the label “gangster”?
But notice, I’m not just a “gangster,” I’m a ”gangsta”. This is an obvious play on what is widely held as a form of black vernacular. I fail to see how it could be anything else, and my point is proven with his addition of “brotha of anotha motha.”
How and why did Paul take it to this level? Even a precursory look at my site may explain. And one need not even read any of my many posts regarding race: a simple look at my sidebar will suffice. He cannot claim to have never been to my site, because elsewhere, previous to this particular remark, he had directly quoted and commented on one of my posts.
But for arguments sake, let us assume he used this particular choice of words as a direct result of what I had said. His decision to include the term “gangsta” is quite telling. He didn’t have to comment on how I said what I said at all, but once choosing to do so, he could have just come right out and made some ridiculous claim of my “talking black” – which I believe he was getting at in his sarcasm, and which in itself carries racist tones.
But he said “gangsta”. Which I think very clearly illustrates a line of thinking that closely, near synonymously, identifies black people - especially young black men - with criminals and thugs.
I can easily draw this conclusion from years of personal experience. Upon hearing language that is perceived to be typical of that used by some black people, or even just as a parody of black people in general (or any aspect of their culture, such as rap music), I have seen far too many white people immediately assume a certain posture, use exaggerated body movements and accent in mimicry, and strew forth some embarrassingly inaccurate string of words no actual black person would ever truly say: Something along the lines of, “Shiiiit, homey/gangsta! I don’t be playin’ that shit. I’mma get me a gat and pop a cap in yo’ ass!” If bold enough, or in what they assume is safe company, they’ll throw in an occasional “nigga” or two.
Most of you, I’m positive, just had a visual.
Risking exposing a bias of my own, I also find it easy to apply a label of racism because of Paul’s very status as a fundamental Protestant Christian, whom I think are merely the housemates, if not bedmates, of white supremacists. I know this assertion in particular will draw heavy criticism, but I firmly stand by it. Later, perhaps in a future post, when time and space permit, I will expound on this thought, as well as the entire topic of aversive racism itself.
My intent here was simply to provide an example.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Don't Presuppose My Supposition...
In a post entitled Atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God made on Sunday, September 25, 2005 at Atheism Presupposes Theism (I could not find a direct link), Christian Theist attempts to even the playing field, so to speak, and show that both teams – atheists and theists – are equally biased.
That our respective positions, in the arena of debate, are intellectually, though I’m sure still not morally, essentially equal.
He gets to the heart of atheistic logic, demonstrates it as inherently and fatally flawed, and then quickly reminds us that this is all entirely inconsequential, because, not only is he right, he is so right that there is an “impossibility of the contrary.” How is this so? Because “without [his] God, you could not prove anything.”
It may appear that he is taking a great liberty here by making a momentous assumption and allowing it to be taken for granted, but remember, he is a Van Tillian presuppositionalist. Also remember that is precisely his point. He asserts this as so for both sides, but I can’t help envisioning him as putting his thumbs to his ears, revealing his palms, shaking them, and singing, “nanny-nanny boo-boo” while doing so.
He begins with a categorical syllogism purportedly demonstrating, well, atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God:
followed by the rhetorical inquiry:
It’s all moot, as no valid argument would be built on such a syllogism: Any interlocutor who is not masochistic or mentally Schiavo’d would never grant such a premise by the proposer, as it would be tantamount to conceding the point.
Nevertheless, I will address it.
The real issue is ascertaining Premise #1, no matter if presented in the positive or negative.
Of course, we could grant that both sides, by definition, presuppose #1 (+/-) and therefore, no arguments could even be brought about without it. This, though, isn't exactly an honest representation of the situation, which I'll examine momentarily.
As CT plainly illustrates when saying: “But of course, God does exist and His revelation about Himself in the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary”, presuppositionalism (in a generic sense, not just in Christian Apologetics) nullifies any need to even argue, as it creates a no-lose situation.
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
The syllogism he’s created here, and taken upon himself to put in our laps, is nothing more than a modification of one we've presented from day one (or at least since about 150 CE when the closest thing to a Christian canon was recognized – only to later be declared heretical. Protestant Christians like CT would have to wait until about 1647 CE when the Bible – as it is canonized, closed, and presented today – was essentially voted into existence. But I digress.)
The syllogism is as follows:
Syllogism C (“C” for Christian)
Premise #1: God exists
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God exists, the Bible is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is true and God does exist
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
But what if we reduce it one level further, and substitute “D” (deity) for “God” and “R” (revelation) for “Bible”:
Syllogism T (“T” for Theist)
Premise #1: D exists
Premise #2: The R claims to be inspired of D and therefore true
Premise #3: Since D exists, the R is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The R claims D exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The R is true and D does exist
Deity and Revelation replaced with God and Bible, Christians have no trouble with this.
But experiment replacing D and R with any OTHER belief system-appropriate substitutes (e.g. Allah/al Qu'ran, Ahura-Mazda/Vesta, Zeus/Illiad, Devi/Devi Mahatmyam, Necronomicon/Cthulhu, The Book of the Dead/Thoth, YHWH/Tanakh, et al.*) and Christian approval won't be so forthcoming.
This is another reason why, from anything other than a presuppositional perspective, this is a flawed syllogism. It relies on far too many conditions.
Alas, I present, as an objection to CT’s Syllogism A:
Atheism does not claim God does not exist - not explicitly. Atheists lack a belief in god. There is a difference, and it is pertinent enough to eradicate his syllogism.
I should also emphasize that atheists rarely attempt to disprove god “by an appeal to the Bible”, nor does one necessarily have and “axe to grind” with either the Bible or its god. The former is usually thrust upon us when the Christian introduces the Bible as defense in our argument against the existence of adequate evidence for a god, and the latter is an unfortunately common and equally false misconception, which is only perpetuated as an appeal to emotion.
The entire concept of an atheist appealing to the Bible is rather absurd. The Bible is completely irrelevant to our position until made so by parties outside our ranks (remember here that athiests existed before the Bible, and it can be argued that all humans are born atheist). Even once the Bible has been injected into the argument, an atheist's “appeal” to it is usually no more than a simple prompt for one to read it sans bias and compare its content to its adherents assigned properties of its god.
One of my personal peeves regarding Christians centers on, as I see it, an incongruence with their (modern popular) beliefs and what the Bible in fact contains. I, as an individual, may then use the Bible to argue the qualities or characteristics ascribed to their god as a preliminary to attempting to provide a case for there being no sound reason to belief in any god. But I am in no way the representative embodiment of all atheists.
I will not address CT’s vaulting of the Christian worldview's “account for universal, invariant laws of logic and morality, and the uniformity of nature” above all others. This is far too broad a statement, far too arrogant, and far too unsupported in and by world history.
Finally, I will address an issue I realize with his proclamation:
"My position is that Christian Theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. If Christian Theism were not true, you could not prove anything."
His status as a Presuppositionalist explains the “impossibility” part, but he MUST insert some prepositional phrase before that period (aside from "at all").
“Impossibility” and “anything” are absolutes to the superfluous, and this is just an unfinished statement.
CT begins presenting an argument for God, but in this statement extends that with a presupposition that Jesus existed in the most full-blown, glorified sense – complete with deification. I realize that to CT, Yoshua ben Yosef IS God, but what of every theism that existed before, parallel with, and since - completely independent of - Christianity?
If it is impossible to be false, then nothing else can be true (am I assuming here, or is everyother theistic belief also true?). So, before some people got together and decided what they were going to believe as Christians, depending on which writings they were going to accept, nothing was true?
What about Judaism before Christianity? Christians can’t just claim to be an extension or continuance of Judaism, because the bulk of their fundamental dogma completely conflicts with Judaic belief (thus non-Christian Jews remain). It’s comparable to Jews being considered Babylonians by faith. Some could argue that Islam has an equal or greater claim as such an extension.
Predestination aside, CT would be declaring the religion his is (loosely) based on – the very religion his supposed messiah would have practiced – false.
(So, God knew that everything he was “inspiring” these “prophets” to write was temporary, and could later be completely contradicted? Why not? He “knew” that Eve would fuck up and He would have to kill everybody but Noah and eventually have to kill even himself.)
The only way to fix this is with predestination, and thus CT is adding yet one more piece to his puzzle. It appears his original assumption is quite a bit more specific than “God exists”: “An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Protestant Christian God exists” seems more along the line, and such a precise supposition is QUITE different than one as broad as “god doesn’t exist.”
His field is hardly level.
*I’ll grant I took a liberty with some of these as “revelation,” but my point stands.
That our respective positions, in the arena of debate, are intellectually, though I’m sure still not morally, essentially equal.
He gets to the heart of atheistic logic, demonstrates it as inherently and fatally flawed, and then quickly reminds us that this is all entirely inconsequential, because, not only is he right, he is so right that there is an “impossibility of the contrary.” How is this so? Because “without [his] God, you could not prove anything.”
It may appear that he is taking a great liberty here by making a momentous assumption and allowing it to be taken for granted, but remember, he is a Van Tillian presuppositionalist. Also remember that is precisely his point. He asserts this as so for both sides, but I can’t help envisioning him as putting his thumbs to his ears, revealing his palms, shaking them, and singing, “nanny-nanny boo-boo” while doing so.
He begins with a categorical syllogism purportedly demonstrating, well, atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God:
Syllogism A (“A” for Atheistic)
Premise #1: God doesn't exist
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God doesn't exist, the Bible isn't inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is not true and God does not exist
followed by the rhetorical inquiry:
Can anyone say “circular”? No? Can you say, “begging the question”?
It’s all moot, as no valid argument would be built on such a syllogism: Any interlocutor who is not masochistic or mentally Schiavo’d would never grant such a premise by the proposer, as it would be tantamount to conceding the point.
Nevertheless, I will address it.
The real issue is ascertaining Premise #1, no matter if presented in the positive or negative.
Of course, we could grant that both sides, by definition, presuppose #1 (+/-) and therefore, no arguments could even be brought about without it. This, though, isn't exactly an honest representation of the situation, which I'll examine momentarily.
As CT plainly illustrates when saying: “But of course, God does exist and His revelation about Himself in the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary”, presuppositionalism (in a generic sense, not just in Christian Apologetics) nullifies any need to even argue, as it creates a no-lose situation.
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
The syllogism he’s created here, and taken upon himself to put in our laps, is nothing more than a modification of one we've presented from day one (or at least since about 150 CE when the closest thing to a Christian canon was recognized – only to later be declared heretical. Protestant Christians like CT would have to wait until about 1647 CE when the Bible – as it is canonized, closed, and presented today – was essentially voted into existence. But I digress.)
The syllogism is as follows:
Syllogism C (“C” for Christian)
Premise #1: God exists
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God exists, the Bible is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is true and God does exist
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
But what if we reduce it one level further, and substitute “D” (deity) for “God” and “R” (revelation) for “Bible”:
Syllogism T (“T” for Theist)
Premise #1: D exists
Premise #2: The R claims to be inspired of D and therefore true
Premise #3: Since D exists, the R is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The R claims D exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The R is true and D does exist
Deity and Revelation replaced with God and Bible, Christians have no trouble with this.
But experiment replacing D and R with any OTHER belief system-appropriate substitutes (e.g. Allah/al Qu'ran, Ahura-Mazda/Vesta, Zeus/Illiad, Devi/Devi Mahatmyam, Necronomicon/Cthulhu, The Book of the Dead/Thoth, YHWH/Tanakh, et al.*) and Christian approval won't be so forthcoming.
This is another reason why, from anything other than a presuppositional perspective, this is a flawed syllogism. It relies on far too many conditions.
Alas, I present, as an objection to CT’s Syllogism A:
Atheism does not claim God does not exist - not explicitly. Atheists lack a belief in god. There is a difference, and it is pertinent enough to eradicate his syllogism.
I should also emphasize that atheists rarely attempt to disprove god “by an appeal to the Bible”, nor does one necessarily have and “axe to grind” with either the Bible or its god. The former is usually thrust upon us when the Christian introduces the Bible as defense in our argument against the existence of adequate evidence for a god, and the latter is an unfortunately common and equally false misconception, which is only perpetuated as an appeal to emotion.
The entire concept of an atheist appealing to the Bible is rather absurd. The Bible is completely irrelevant to our position until made so by parties outside our ranks (remember here that athiests existed before the Bible, and it can be argued that all humans are born atheist). Even once the Bible has been injected into the argument, an atheist's “appeal” to it is usually no more than a simple prompt for one to read it sans bias and compare its content to its adherents assigned properties of its god.
One of my personal peeves regarding Christians centers on, as I see it, an incongruence with their (modern popular) beliefs and what the Bible in fact contains. I, as an individual, may then use the Bible to argue the qualities or characteristics ascribed to their god as a preliminary to attempting to provide a case for there being no sound reason to belief in any god. But I am in no way the representative embodiment of all atheists.
I will not address CT’s vaulting of the Christian worldview's “account for universal, invariant laws of logic and morality, and the uniformity of nature” above all others. This is far too broad a statement, far too arrogant, and far too unsupported in and by world history.
Finally, I will address an issue I realize with his proclamation:
"My position is that Christian Theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. If Christian Theism were not true, you could not prove anything."
His status as a Presuppositionalist explains the “impossibility” part, but he MUST insert some prepositional phrase before that period (aside from "at all").
“Impossibility” and “anything” are absolutes to the superfluous, and this is just an unfinished statement.
CT begins presenting an argument for God, but in this statement extends that with a presupposition that Jesus existed in the most full-blown, glorified sense – complete with deification. I realize that to CT, Yoshua ben Yosef IS God, but what of every theism that existed before, parallel with, and since - completely independent of - Christianity?
If it is impossible to be false, then nothing else can be true (am I assuming here, or is everyother theistic belief also true?). So, before some people got together and decided what they were going to believe as Christians, depending on which writings they were going to accept, nothing was true?
What about Judaism before Christianity? Christians can’t just claim to be an extension or continuance of Judaism, because the bulk of their fundamental dogma completely conflicts with Judaic belief (thus non-Christian Jews remain). It’s comparable to Jews being considered Babylonians by faith. Some could argue that Islam has an equal or greater claim as such an extension.
Predestination aside, CT would be declaring the religion his is (loosely) based on – the very religion his supposed messiah would have practiced – false.
(So, God knew that everything he was “inspiring” these “prophets” to write was temporary, and could later be completely contradicted? Why not? He “knew” that Eve would fuck up and He would have to kill everybody but Noah and eventually have to kill even himself.)
The only way to fix this is with predestination, and thus CT is adding yet one more piece to his puzzle. It appears his original assumption is quite a bit more specific than “God exists”: “An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Protestant Christian God exists” seems more along the line, and such a precise supposition is QUITE different than one as broad as “god doesn’t exist.”
His field is hardly level.
*I’ll grant I took a liberty with some of these as “revelation,” but my point stands.
A Compromise...
Over at The Evangelical Atheist, ~I AM~ has created yet another post that will easily collect near 100 comments. And rightfully so.
I, predicatably, got swept up in the commenting, and, lacking any discernable proclivity for terseness, penned a novella of sorts in response:
Both CT (Christian Theist) and Chad get right to the crux of the real issue (quite eloquently so, I must add). Bottom line, this is head butting, and the subsequent butting of heads on the wall is what works us into frenzy. These may just be irreconcilable differences. Our very view on existence is so vastly different we are nearly polar opposites.
But we recognize we aren't polar opposites. Our very nature of being human dictates this, but this rift lies at a level so essential to our actions - which define our existence - that it seemingly can not be ignored.
We (atheists) do indeed value reason, rationality, and logic so completely that they form a virtual trinity. I'm not saying that theists don't value reason, just that, in my opinion, they value not needing a reason even more so.
WE, on the other hand, need that reason. At times I think we fiend for it.
So We argue protocol. I would like to think us all naturally averse (or at least indifferent) to discord, and where there is a disagreement, there is a chance of solution. WE focus so completely on things of PROOF, or at least testing (i.e. science, math, logic), that we insist on it in everything. Of course We do, and I'm not at all saying that We're wrong in this, but We must acknowledge, and concede, that nobody else HAS to. Conversely, I'd hope theists can see why this prospect can be horrifying to an atheist.
In a society depending on human interaction, laws, based on value and enforced through judgment, are a necessity, and proper evaluation is paramount. Regardless of the nature of morality's origin, can we rely on morals alone to settle claims fairly? A central tenet of Christian belief is the fallibility of man, and without developments of the human mind - of our cognitive process through reason - our moral codes would not have a vessel for delivery. We apply logic to decide IF morals should be applied or not. We utilize advancements in science to investigate (forensics) and prove (DNA evidence) guilt or innocence - beyond merely questioning it. THEN we can apply morality in judgment.
Our prosperity too cannot be increased without stringent protocol. Theists acknowledge this when they go to a doctor, drive to church, turn on a television to watch evangelism, and log onto the internet to wage war with We infidels (j/k). The scientific method made all of that possible.
When a difference of opinion is recognized, and the next step - to investigate and consequently attempt to resolve it - is taken, the participants enter this realm of protocol, logic, and reason. Theists must then understand: you're on Our home court now. This is why We insist so strongly on concepts such as burden of proof. An established process is in place, and this dictates the rules of the game.
This brings about a conflict in the atheist's mind: As bewildering and infuriating as it is for Us to deal with people who won't play by the rules, We are still moved – compelled - to engage. Our system dictates that we MUST, but, at the same time, We feel if you won't, or are incapable of, abiding by these rules, then don't bother getting involved. Just don't assert your position. Add to this a previous observation of theists abiding by the very same principles, in the larger sphere of things, that they eschew in the arena (such as going to the doctor when ill) and we are beset with a maddening sense of hypocrisy.
What you must not forget is the very real implications this has on our lives. This is unavoidable. We all do live together, and that will not change - nor do I really feel we wish it truly would.
In our world theists preach personal salvation, a personal relationship with their god, a personal Faith.
Then keep it personal. Pardon my directness, but don't push your personal belief on our public sphere.
Here, again, morality is sure to rear its multi-faced head, but please, just bear with me…
Our system of protocol is established. Its practice is widespread and its merit apparent - personal value given, or faith taken in it may vary, but we cannot, and more importantly do not deny it.
When we and the ones we love are ill, we take them to get a diagnosis. If that diagnosis is threatening, we act and look to treatment. If a crime is committed against us, we urge a systematic, deductive, forensic investigation (and subsequent procedure of debate) in hopes justice can be served, and retribution paid.
Some of us also appeal to and enlist other help, and employ additional methods. And this is their personal choice and right, as much as it is mine to not.
I, personally, am definitely not 100% satisfied with the mechanics of the system we have in place (here along the lines of the social system, not scientific system), and I’d be a fool to suggest anybody is. But, overall, we ALL reap the benefits.
Don’t remind me that you believe in a god every time I look at money. Don’t have me fear that a prejudice against me due to my belief system will affect me negatively. Don’t decide my personal decisions. Do not impose your will on me. Let us have a system that centers on the personal FREE WILL your religion emphasizes. Let us have a system that allows ALL personal choice. Vote officials to a position of power that will affect ALL of us based on their track record pertaining to the task at hand, and their personal merit, not their personal belief.
We have enough prejudice and discrimination based on how people look. That is exterior and can’t be avoided. Let’s not extend it internally, and base it on belief or opinion - remember, neither HAS to be expressed: that is a choice.
This is in no way an urge to deny or hide WHO you are, but in a system that is blind to personal beliefs, no one’s personal beliefs can be infringed upon.
{For instance, when testifying in court, by not swearing on a Bible, I may deem myself untrustworthy to Christian jurors, but if this were not an option, such potential prejudice is completely circumvented. A serious theist who subscribes to a system of belief that emphasizes sound moral action – e.g. honesty – should not be compelled by the simple omission of a Bible to go against such standards.}
When I decide I don’t want my child acknowledging a god I have no belief in as a condition to her proclamation and affirmation of her citizenship of this nation, it has no ill effect on those who do – nor does their silent approbation.
This in no way prohibits your personal faith or beliefs. If I run up on you, snatch off your symbol (cross, WWJD bracelet, Jesus fish), and lock up your church, THAT is prohibition. That is a violation of your rights.
Uncertainty about equality and fairness are certain. But theists here, especially Christians, have a bonus. Your God loves you. Your God favors you. Your religion is full of examples and promises of this. You have your own system to guarantee it – the same system I’m requesting you not push on me. Afterall, this world is temporary. YOU have a greater goal. But my world is finite. This is it for me, and prosperity in this life is my goal.
The very Faith you rely on so thoroughly to support the positions We attempt to argue with you, should not only pertain to the reason why you believe, it should dictate how you live.
Your God should protect you. This is what you preach! Have faith in it and live by it. Hold that Faith that you will not be ill-effected in our system. I don’t mean to sound at all insensitive, but heck, even if Our proposed system does affect you adversely, it’s only temporal. If you swear by a religion that promises not only eternal happiness, but earthly struggle beforehand, why are you so scared at and averse to the prospect of the fulfillment of that promise? Christianity, in its Gospels, champions the underdog so thoroughly, but most Christians fail to embody this. Rather than submit to their Heavenly Authority, they’d rather BE the authority.
I am not at all proposing a system that will discriminate against those of Faith – ANY faith - or disproportionately benefit the faithless. Nor will I allow such a system, and if one arose, I would martyr myself to the cause of liberty and equality alongside those martyring themselves to a god in which I don’t believe. In all actuality, I’m suggesting a system that a revolutionary group of men put forth in the late eighteenth century.
This is not (expressly) a political forum, and pardon my venture into this realm.
If two men (or women) desire to get married, or to merely be attracted to one another and act on that affinity, it does not reflect on you personally. If these two individuals carry through with their desires, you are not personally hurt. If we prevent them from doing so, it is not going to set in motion the eventual extinction of homosexuality. If we outlaw abortion, abortion won’t stop, nor will miscarriages or even death itself. You may view it as murder and be terrified, but as long as it isn’t mandated, it is a murder that can be guaranteed to never be perpetrated against you or those you love. If we outlaw stem cell research, the abundance of human embryos that already exist due to fertilization efforts will not simply cease to be.
I am not homosexual. It is physically impossible for me to get an abortion. I am not personally presently afflicted with a terminal disease (other than life itself).
But I desire that we not legislate or dictate activity between our fellow grown, mutually consenting, competent humans, which does not directly assault us physically or prohibit our prosperity personally – unless for the greater good of humanity.
(Remember – your God looked out for Noah and Lot.)
In the arena of debate, we can argue all we want, regardless of who does and doesn’t decide to follow the rules. But in the arena of public life we need to practice what we preach.
Just have faith.
I, predicatably, got swept up in the commenting, and, lacking any discernable proclivity for terseness, penned a novella of sorts in response:
Both CT (Christian Theist) and Chad get right to the crux of the real issue (quite eloquently so, I must add). Bottom line, this is head butting, and the subsequent butting of heads on the wall is what works us into frenzy. These may just be irreconcilable differences. Our very view on existence is so vastly different we are nearly polar opposites.
But we recognize we aren't polar opposites. Our very nature of being human dictates this, but this rift lies at a level so essential to our actions - which define our existence - that it seemingly can not be ignored.
We (atheists) do indeed value reason, rationality, and logic so completely that they form a virtual trinity. I'm not saying that theists don't value reason, just that, in my opinion, they value not needing a reason even more so.
WE, on the other hand, need that reason. At times I think we fiend for it.
So We argue protocol. I would like to think us all naturally averse (or at least indifferent) to discord, and where there is a disagreement, there is a chance of solution. WE focus so completely on things of PROOF, or at least testing (i.e. science, math, logic), that we insist on it in everything. Of course We do, and I'm not at all saying that We're wrong in this, but We must acknowledge, and concede, that nobody else HAS to. Conversely, I'd hope theists can see why this prospect can be horrifying to an atheist.
In a society depending on human interaction, laws, based on value and enforced through judgment, are a necessity, and proper evaluation is paramount. Regardless of the nature of morality's origin, can we rely on morals alone to settle claims fairly? A central tenet of Christian belief is the fallibility of man, and without developments of the human mind - of our cognitive process through reason - our moral codes would not have a vessel for delivery. We apply logic to decide IF morals should be applied or not. We utilize advancements in science to investigate (forensics) and prove (DNA evidence) guilt or innocence - beyond merely questioning it. THEN we can apply morality in judgment.
Our prosperity too cannot be increased without stringent protocol. Theists acknowledge this when they go to a doctor, drive to church, turn on a television to watch evangelism, and log onto the internet to wage war with We infidels (j/k). The scientific method made all of that possible.
When a difference of opinion is recognized, and the next step - to investigate and consequently attempt to resolve it - is taken, the participants enter this realm of protocol, logic, and reason. Theists must then understand: you're on Our home court now. This is why We insist so strongly on concepts such as burden of proof. An established process is in place, and this dictates the rules of the game.
This brings about a conflict in the atheist's mind: As bewildering and infuriating as it is for Us to deal with people who won't play by the rules, We are still moved – compelled - to engage. Our system dictates that we MUST, but, at the same time, We feel if you won't, or are incapable of, abiding by these rules, then don't bother getting involved. Just don't assert your position. Add to this a previous observation of theists abiding by the very same principles, in the larger sphere of things, that they eschew in the arena (such as going to the doctor when ill) and we are beset with a maddening sense of hypocrisy.
What you must not forget is the very real implications this has on our lives. This is unavoidable. We all do live together, and that will not change - nor do I really feel we wish it truly would.
In our world theists preach personal salvation, a personal relationship with their god, a personal Faith.
Then keep it personal. Pardon my directness, but don't push your personal belief on our public sphere.
Here, again, morality is sure to rear its multi-faced head, but please, just bear with me…
Our system of protocol is established. Its practice is widespread and its merit apparent - personal value given, or faith taken in it may vary, but we cannot, and more importantly do not deny it.
When we and the ones we love are ill, we take them to get a diagnosis. If that diagnosis is threatening, we act and look to treatment. If a crime is committed against us, we urge a systematic, deductive, forensic investigation (and subsequent procedure of debate) in hopes justice can be served, and retribution paid.
Some of us also appeal to and enlist other help, and employ additional methods. And this is their personal choice and right, as much as it is mine to not.
I, personally, am definitely not 100% satisfied with the mechanics of the system we have in place (here along the lines of the social system, not scientific system), and I’d be a fool to suggest anybody is. But, overall, we ALL reap the benefits.
Don’t remind me that you believe in a god every time I look at money. Don’t have me fear that a prejudice against me due to my belief system will affect me negatively. Don’t decide my personal decisions. Do not impose your will on me. Let us have a system that centers on the personal FREE WILL your religion emphasizes. Let us have a system that allows ALL personal choice. Vote officials to a position of power that will affect ALL of us based on their track record pertaining to the task at hand, and their personal merit, not their personal belief.
We have enough prejudice and discrimination based on how people look. That is exterior and can’t be avoided. Let’s not extend it internally, and base it on belief or opinion - remember, neither HAS to be expressed: that is a choice.
This is in no way an urge to deny or hide WHO you are, but in a system that is blind to personal beliefs, no one’s personal beliefs can be infringed upon.
{For instance, when testifying in court, by not swearing on a Bible, I may deem myself untrustworthy to Christian jurors, but if this were not an option, such potential prejudice is completely circumvented. A serious theist who subscribes to a system of belief that emphasizes sound moral action – e.g. honesty – should not be compelled by the simple omission of a Bible to go against such standards.}
When I decide I don’t want my child acknowledging a god I have no belief in as a condition to her proclamation and affirmation of her citizenship of this nation, it has no ill effect on those who do – nor does their silent approbation.
This in no way prohibits your personal faith or beliefs. If I run up on you, snatch off your symbol (cross, WWJD bracelet, Jesus fish), and lock up your church, THAT is prohibition. That is a violation of your rights.
Uncertainty about equality and fairness are certain. But theists here, especially Christians, have a bonus. Your God loves you. Your God favors you. Your religion is full of examples and promises of this. You have your own system to guarantee it – the same system I’m requesting you not push on me. Afterall, this world is temporary. YOU have a greater goal. But my world is finite. This is it for me, and prosperity in this life is my goal.
The very Faith you rely on so thoroughly to support the positions We attempt to argue with you, should not only pertain to the reason why you believe, it should dictate how you live.
Your God should protect you. This is what you preach! Have faith in it and live by it. Hold that Faith that you will not be ill-effected in our system. I don’t mean to sound at all insensitive, but heck, even if Our proposed system does affect you adversely, it’s only temporal. If you swear by a religion that promises not only eternal happiness, but earthly struggle beforehand, why are you so scared at and averse to the prospect of the fulfillment of that promise? Christianity, in its Gospels, champions the underdog so thoroughly, but most Christians fail to embody this. Rather than submit to their Heavenly Authority, they’d rather BE the authority.
I am not at all proposing a system that will discriminate against those of Faith – ANY faith - or disproportionately benefit the faithless. Nor will I allow such a system, and if one arose, I would martyr myself to the cause of liberty and equality alongside those martyring themselves to a god in which I don’t believe. In all actuality, I’m suggesting a system that a revolutionary group of men put forth in the late eighteenth century.
This is not (expressly) a political forum, and pardon my venture into this realm.
If two men (or women) desire to get married, or to merely be attracted to one another and act on that affinity, it does not reflect on you personally. If these two individuals carry through with their desires, you are not personally hurt. If we prevent them from doing so, it is not going to set in motion the eventual extinction of homosexuality. If we outlaw abortion, abortion won’t stop, nor will miscarriages or even death itself. You may view it as murder and be terrified, but as long as it isn’t mandated, it is a murder that can be guaranteed to never be perpetrated against you or those you love. If we outlaw stem cell research, the abundance of human embryos that already exist due to fertilization efforts will not simply cease to be.
I am not homosexual. It is physically impossible for me to get an abortion. I am not personally presently afflicted with a terminal disease (other than life itself).
But I desire that we not legislate or dictate activity between our fellow grown, mutually consenting, competent humans, which does not directly assault us physically or prohibit our prosperity personally – unless for the greater good of humanity.
(Remember – your God looked out for Noah and Lot.)
In the arena of debate, we can argue all we want, regardless of who does and doesn’t decide to follow the rules. But in the arena of public life we need to practice what we preach.
Just have faith.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Hip Hop and America...
In response to my race and religion post, Shinsyotta directed me to a post he wrote entitled “Hip Hop’s Influence on Black Culture.” Utilizing an admitted fascination with memes (which I share), he draws a comparison between Hip Hop and religion. I too see the obvious correlations, and agree that musical genres and faith systems both play large roles in the development of an individual’s behaviors and personal preferences, and even influence political and social convictions. What I also note is that both are more specified (child) cultures within a larger, more general (parent) culture – in this case American culture. Influence traverses a two-way street in this system and, predictably, parental sway is more pronounced.
To this point, I believe I see the crux of what Shin is trying to convey, and am in general agreement. I can’t, though, allow Hip Hop to be a considered a cultural substitute for religion amongst blacks. They are two distinct forces with their own ramifications for each group. Religion does its damage and controlling for people of any race, ethnicity, color, etc. As I’ll demonstrate later, Hip Hop is just as powerful a force in white culture now as black. Overall, both have financially benefited whites more, and kept blacks in certain positions.
Hip Hop provides quite an interesting scenario, and I posit that its interrelation with the American system is cyclical and has come full circle. Its genesis lies in black experience; its impetus is American culture. With time, Hip Hop inevitably switched the tables and affected popular culture in America. This momentum was reversed, and the American way of life then took hold of the reigns. More simply stated – Hip Hop is a culture which arose in the black segment of America’s population in response to the conditions of America’s control on that segment, eventually grew to the point that it influenced popular culture in America, and, upon reaching that status, Hip Hop became an instrument to further those conditions of American control on that segment.
It’s all one big clusterfuck where America’s influence on black culture influenced Hip Hop which influenced America which influenced Hip Hop to influence black culture.
Still with me? Good.
First I want to point out that Hip Hop is not synonymous with black culture, and assuming so would be as ignorant as suggesting all white people wear John Deer hats, watch ‘rasslin’ and NASCAR, and have mullets. In Shin’s original he clearly states this with a disclaimer of generalization. Now, onto a quick clarification.
Rapping is something you do; Hip Hop is something you live. Hip Hop is much more than music. Those in the know state there are four elements of Hip Hop (with beatboxing occasionally thrown in as a fifth): DJing, MCing (rapping), B-Boying (breakdancing), and writing (graffiti art). These are merely forms of expression for Hip Hop as a full blown cultural phenomenon, and today we see that this definition of a system of parts seriously understates the complexity of the whole.
But music is the main channel through which a culture is expressed and spread (some may argue this prominence of music above literature and art, but I propose music is literature artistically presented – this, admittedly, is simplification to expedite my premise), and in our particular case, the music is undoubtedly the most visual aspect of this culture, so I will give focus to Hip Hop music as a generic for the culture.
Shin starts by stating that musicians, as pop culture icons, are in fact role models. I am in full agreement. As not only a Hip Hop head, but also an MC, I used to hate the idea of people allowing music to influence them. If true, my conscience would attempt to censor my artistic expression. I vehemently preached that the idea was utter bullshit. I was young, hopeful, and ignorant.
I live in a rather small city (pop. 40k) and witnessed a change in its black youth when BET and MTV finally arrived on our cable. Soon after, I was no longer the only white guy at the black parties and lunch tables.
Hip Hop definitely holds influence.
Jump ahead to 2005, and Hip Hop is now pop music and popular culture (as proud as I am, I am equally jealous and disappointed). The “mainstream” form we’re inundated with is that of common thuggery, misogyny, materialism, and general low class mentality.
And it is on purpose.
Music is a cultural phenomenon, and as such, it is a commodity. Music defines one’s choice of social grouping. Music is the litmus test of consumer interest and is intricately tied to demographics. Beyond being commercial, music and videos have become forms of commercials.
Historically, white America has created a certain image to be associated with black folk, and this is further pushed through the music.
I’m not saying that the record execs sit around plotting ways to keep blacks in a certain position, but that they shamelessly utilize pre-existing conditions to keep money in their pockets. Why change the ways of the world if they lead the way to your bank?
Notice that the music which is presented glorifies the assigned criminality and hedonism of blackness, which we (white people) find safe to emulate in our own skin (I don’t have room here to postulate why we find black folk so inherently “cool” and “hip.”), and the commercial use is still manifest shuckin’-n-jivin’ and skinnin’-n-grinnin’. Entertainment is a type of service, and whites have never had a problem with what blacks can do for us – it’s what they can do to us that terrifies (and motivates) us.
White teenage boys would not be (and weren't) rushing to the stores en masse to buy Paris, X Clan, or Public Enemy or Talib Kweli and Immortal Technique. That voice doesn’t portray the image of blackness they’re familiar with, and therefore isn’t “genuine” enough to be marketable. Educated and socially conscious? Please! The news doesn’t show black graduates and entrepreneurs, it shows composite police sketches of suspects. Blacks graduate from the streets (school of hard knocks) and black entrepreneurs are drug dealers and hustlers (and now record execs). Likewise, little teenybopper white girls want to dance, be the desired sexual objects portrayed in the music, and see Ja Rule and 50 with their shirts off.
A sad result is a proportion of the black youth running around with bandanas hanging out of their pockets (thanks to Snoop, at least they're on the correct sides, but this only provides further emphasis – a profound example indeed) and belittling one another for not wearing as much (African slave) jewelry and being equal victims of capitalist oppression and materialist superficiality. There’s an influx of individuals who don’t own property but have four-figure-dollar rims on their cars; buying hundred-dollar sneakers instead of paying tuition.
It may be argued that Hip Hop has drastically improved race relations in America. Today’s white youth are much more likely to associate with black youth and be aware of some of the issues that face these fellow Americans. Interracial relationships are much more prevalent. White kids idolize black men, something unheard of in their parents’ generation. As legendary MC KRS One puts it, “what go around come around I figure: Now we got white kids callin' themselves ‘niggas’.”
But look a little deeper. Most white guys who are “down” don’t emulate KRS. Their mold isn’t Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Tavis Smiley, or even John H. Johnson or Martin Luther King, Jr. – eloquent, conscious, educated bothers. They idolize 50 Cent and Young Jeezy. They put on their “blackcent” and emphasize how “hard” they are. They perpetuate images of poverty, ignorance, violence, and criminality. Liekwise, white girls don’t aspire to be Oprah, Shirley Ann Jackson, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou or myriad other positive, strong sisters. It’s Lil’ Kim’s lofty status they aspire to, and they continue myth’s of promiscuity and animal-like sexual drive and prowess (while carnal excellence and gifted endowment may possibly perceived as positive for black men, a look into these myths’ origins quickly present an ugly truth).
And more and more black kids are doing the same.
Shin touches on this by presenting the underachievement speculation:
This is a frequently voiced situation, which I’ll admit does have some value, though it is hardly exclusive. It is human nature to need belonging and to define what merits it accordingly. “Misery loves company” is a truism. Nearly all lower class and economically challenged people exhibit apparent underachieving qualities and engage in ostensibly self-sabotaging activities in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. It provides comfort, and can be seen as choice instead of submission or defeat. It is perceived as a reclamation of sorts to take what is perpetuated against you and use it to define yourself.
Shin also believes that black society’s exclusive “blackness” is ultimately negative for an inclusive society to flourish. This is a more tricky issue.
I disagree that a “separate ‘black culture’ is detrimental to human society.” I hold it is the complete opposite – variety is the spice of life. The only alternative is assimilation, which has historically proven disastrous. Conformity of cultures translates to a loss of identity. A separate black population is detrimental (perhaps this is what he meant). It is not the separation of black culture but its place in overall American [read: white] culture that impedes human society.
His statement, that as a result, “they therefore…don't contribute to human society as a whole” is quite dangerous territory. I think I see where he’s coming from and what he’s getting at, and I offer that individual and categorical differences define, not defeat, human society.
All in all, for lack of better term, everything's not black and white. Hip Hop, its roots planted in black culture, has become American and, increasingly, world culture. This has had definite positive impact, but its long-term effects aren’t proving to be completely constructive, or even benign. What we see manifested is a conditioned, socially engineered, self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Hip Hop presents an increasingly complex paradox and reflection of the fires that provided the spark of its creation. Sadly, it has defeated itself through its own success.
To this point, I believe I see the crux of what Shin is trying to convey, and am in general agreement. I can’t, though, allow Hip Hop to be a considered a cultural substitute for religion amongst blacks. They are two distinct forces with their own ramifications for each group. Religion does its damage and controlling for people of any race, ethnicity, color, etc. As I’ll demonstrate later, Hip Hop is just as powerful a force in white culture now as black. Overall, both have financially benefited whites more, and kept blacks in certain positions.
Hip Hop provides quite an interesting scenario, and I posit that its interrelation with the American system is cyclical and has come full circle. Its genesis lies in black experience; its impetus is American culture. With time, Hip Hop inevitably switched the tables and affected popular culture in America. This momentum was reversed, and the American way of life then took hold of the reigns. More simply stated – Hip Hop is a culture which arose in the black segment of America’s population in response to the conditions of America’s control on that segment, eventually grew to the point that it influenced popular culture in America, and, upon reaching that status, Hip Hop became an instrument to further those conditions of American control on that segment.
It’s all one big clusterfuck where America’s influence on black culture influenced Hip Hop which influenced America which influenced Hip Hop to influence black culture.
Still with me? Good.
First I want to point out that Hip Hop is not synonymous with black culture, and assuming so would be as ignorant as suggesting all white people wear John Deer hats, watch ‘rasslin’ and NASCAR, and have mullets. In Shin’s original he clearly states this with a disclaimer of generalization. Now, onto a quick clarification.
Rapping is something you do; Hip Hop is something you live. Hip Hop is much more than music. Those in the know state there are four elements of Hip Hop (with beatboxing occasionally thrown in as a fifth): DJing, MCing (rapping), B-Boying (breakdancing), and writing (graffiti art). These are merely forms of expression for Hip Hop as a full blown cultural phenomenon, and today we see that this definition of a system of parts seriously understates the complexity of the whole.
But music is the main channel through which a culture is expressed and spread (some may argue this prominence of music above literature and art, but I propose music is literature artistically presented – this, admittedly, is simplification to expedite my premise), and in our particular case, the music is undoubtedly the most visual aspect of this culture, so I will give focus to Hip Hop music as a generic for the culture.
Shin starts by stating that musicians, as pop culture icons, are in fact role models. I am in full agreement. As not only a Hip Hop head, but also an MC, I used to hate the idea of people allowing music to influence them. If true, my conscience would attempt to censor my artistic expression. I vehemently preached that the idea was utter bullshit. I was young, hopeful, and ignorant.
I live in a rather small city (pop. 40k) and witnessed a change in its black youth when BET and MTV finally arrived on our cable. Soon after, I was no longer the only white guy at the black parties and lunch tables.
Hip Hop definitely holds influence.
Jump ahead to 2005, and Hip Hop is now pop music and popular culture (as proud as I am, I am equally jealous and disappointed). The “mainstream” form we’re inundated with is that of common thuggery, misogyny, materialism, and general low class mentality.
And it is on purpose.
Music is a cultural phenomenon, and as such, it is a commodity. Music defines one’s choice of social grouping. Music is the litmus test of consumer interest and is intricately tied to demographics. Beyond being commercial, music and videos have become forms of commercials.
Historically, white America has created a certain image to be associated with black folk, and this is further pushed through the music.
I’m not saying that the record execs sit around plotting ways to keep blacks in a certain position, but that they shamelessly utilize pre-existing conditions to keep money in their pockets. Why change the ways of the world if they lead the way to your bank?
Notice that the music which is presented glorifies the assigned criminality and hedonism of blackness, which we (white people) find safe to emulate in our own skin (I don’t have room here to postulate why we find black folk so inherently “cool” and “hip.”), and the commercial use is still manifest shuckin’-n-jivin’ and skinnin’-n-grinnin’. Entertainment is a type of service, and whites have never had a problem with what blacks can do for us – it’s what they can do to us that terrifies (and motivates) us.
White teenage boys would not be (and weren't) rushing to the stores en masse to buy Paris, X Clan, or Public Enemy or Talib Kweli and Immortal Technique. That voice doesn’t portray the image of blackness they’re familiar with, and therefore isn’t “genuine” enough to be marketable. Educated and socially conscious? Please! The news doesn’t show black graduates and entrepreneurs, it shows composite police sketches of suspects. Blacks graduate from the streets (school of hard knocks) and black entrepreneurs are drug dealers and hustlers (and now record execs). Likewise, little teenybopper white girls want to dance, be the desired sexual objects portrayed in the music, and see Ja Rule and 50 with their shirts off.
A sad result is a proportion of the black youth running around with bandanas hanging out of their pockets (thanks to Snoop, at least they're on the correct sides, but this only provides further emphasis – a profound example indeed) and belittling one another for not wearing as much (African slave) jewelry and being equal victims of capitalist oppression and materialist superficiality. There’s an influx of individuals who don’t own property but have four-figure-dollar rims on their cars; buying hundred-dollar sneakers instead of paying tuition.
It may be argued that Hip Hop has drastically improved race relations in America. Today’s white youth are much more likely to associate with black youth and be aware of some of the issues that face these fellow Americans. Interracial relationships are much more prevalent. White kids idolize black men, something unheard of in their parents’ generation. As legendary MC KRS One puts it, “what go around come around I figure: Now we got white kids callin' themselves ‘niggas’.”
But look a little deeper. Most white guys who are “down” don’t emulate KRS. Their mold isn’t Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Tavis Smiley, or even John H. Johnson or Martin Luther King, Jr. – eloquent, conscious, educated bothers. They idolize 50 Cent and Young Jeezy. They put on their “blackcent” and emphasize how “hard” they are. They perpetuate images of poverty, ignorance, violence, and criminality. Liekwise, white girls don’t aspire to be Oprah, Shirley Ann Jackson, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou or myriad other positive, strong sisters. It’s Lil’ Kim’s lofty status they aspire to, and they continue myth’s of promiscuity and animal-like sexual drive and prowess (while carnal excellence and gifted endowment may possibly perceived as positive for black men, a look into these myths’ origins quickly present an ugly truth).
And more and more black kids are doing the same.
Shin touches on this by presenting the underachievement speculation:
“Anyone who succeeds and grows as a person is seen to be abandoning the culture and as somehow less ‘black’.”
This is a frequently voiced situation, which I’ll admit does have some value, though it is hardly exclusive. It is human nature to need belonging and to define what merits it accordingly. “Misery loves company” is a truism. Nearly all lower class and economically challenged people exhibit apparent underachieving qualities and engage in ostensibly self-sabotaging activities in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. It provides comfort, and can be seen as choice instead of submission or defeat. It is perceived as a reclamation of sorts to take what is perpetuated against you and use it to define yourself.
Shin also believes that black society’s exclusive “blackness” is ultimately negative for an inclusive society to flourish. This is a more tricky issue.
I disagree that a “separate ‘black culture’ is detrimental to human society.” I hold it is the complete opposite – variety is the spice of life. The only alternative is assimilation, which has historically proven disastrous. Conformity of cultures translates to a loss of identity. A separate black population is detrimental (perhaps this is what he meant). It is not the separation of black culture but its place in overall American [read: white] culture that impedes human society.
His statement, that as a result, “they therefore…don't contribute to human society as a whole” is quite dangerous territory. I think I see where he’s coming from and what he’s getting at, and I offer that individual and categorical differences define, not defeat, human society.
All in all, for lack of better term, everything's not black and white. Hip Hop, its roots planted in black culture, has become American and, increasingly, world culture. This has had definite positive impact, but its long-term effects aren’t proving to be completely constructive, or even benign. What we see manifested is a conditioned, socially engineered, self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Hip Hop presents an increasingly complex paradox and reflection of the fires that provided the spark of its creation. Sadly, it has defeated itself through its own success.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
A Veneer of Defense...
I posted a link to my "investigation" on the Issue of the Antitheses. Paul Manata responded:
My impression of this statement (aside from being arrant prattle), is that he is attempting to invalidate my major premise - that he falsely states evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, as opposed to a scientific theory - in effect nullifying my entire argument and conclusion. Ah, but this ejaculation is quite premature.
In his (self-proclaimed) "refutation" of Aaron's critique of his original post, Paul quotes himself (repeatedly) to the effect of "evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, not a scientific theory." This is quite simple and I fail to see how it can be anything other than exactly what it is.
As a matter of fact, the first declaration made in the main body of his original post reads:
It seems to me that he presents the foundation of his entire thought in that initial proclamation.
I then provide definitions of philosophy, religion, and theory (including as it relates to science), and, through the intrinsic meaning of the very words he chose to use, demonstrate that his assumption is incorrect. Never mind that his futile attempt at proof - essentially that the existence of evolution-like ideas predating the modern concept of evolutionary biology negates its status as a theory, confining it to philosophy/religion - borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel.
But it would appear Paul has thrown a verbal wrench in the works, as he "claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy...". Oh, but wait. Hold on one second before you disgorge that wrench.
Let's look at the definition for veneer:
In the thesaurus we find reference to only that connotation:
So, Paul would have us believe I present a completely unfounded challenge based on a weak, possible ambivalence of connotation, all while being in complete denial of his own words.
This is all inconsequential actually, because to refute the premise that Paul clearly alleges evolutionism's non-existence as a scientific theory, he would have to proclaim evolutionism IS a scientific theory. Looking at both his original post and diatribes against Aaron Kinney, it is conspicuously obvious that this is most assuredly NOT the case.
It would appear the only "heads up" is the one in his ass, or to be less offensive, the head is down, in the sand. May I suggest that Paul be more meticulous about slinging the label "sloppy" around.
But what more should be expected from a man who spews flapdoodle, relies heavily on appeal to ridicule, and veneers his "refutations" with ad hominem attacks, ad nauseam ? I, for one, was neither surprised, nor disappointed.
"Thanks for the heads up, dub. I won't compalin [sic] about getting back.
In case you want to edit you may read my original piece where I claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy of process and becomming [sic]. This directly contradicts one of your criticisms, but if you want to be sloppy like Aaron then be my guest."
My impression of this statement (aside from being arrant prattle), is that he is attempting to invalidate my major premise - that he falsely states evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, as opposed to a scientific theory - in effect nullifying my entire argument and conclusion. Ah, but this ejaculation is quite premature.
In his (self-proclaimed) "refutation" of Aaron's critique of his original post, Paul quotes himself (repeatedly) to the effect of "evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, not a scientific theory." This is quite simple and I fail to see how it can be anything other than exactly what it is.
As a matter of fact, the first declaration made in the main body of his original post reads:
"First and foremost, it must be remembered that evolution is not a scientific theory."
It seems to me that he presents the foundation of his entire thought in that initial proclamation.
I then provide definitions of philosophy, religion, and theory (including as it relates to science), and, through the intrinsic meaning of the very words he chose to use, demonstrate that his assumption is incorrect. Never mind that his futile attempt at proof - essentially that the existence of evolution-like ideas predating the modern concept of evolutionary biology negates its status as a theory, confining it to philosophy/religion - borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel.
But it would appear Paul has thrown a verbal wrench in the works, as he "claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy...". Oh, but wait. Hold on one second before you disgorge that wrench.
Let's look at the definition for veneer:
- A thin surface layer, as of finely grained wood, glued to a base of inferior material.
- Any of the thin layers glued together to make plywood.
- A decorative facing, as of brick.
- A deceptive, superficial show; a façade
In the thesaurus we find reference to only that connotation:
"A deceptive outward appearance"
So, Paul would have us believe I present a completely unfounded challenge based on a weak, possible ambivalence of connotation, all while being in complete denial of his own words.
This is all inconsequential actually, because to refute the premise that Paul clearly alleges evolutionism's non-existence as a scientific theory, he would have to proclaim evolutionism IS a scientific theory. Looking at both his original post and diatribes against Aaron Kinney, it is conspicuously obvious that this is most assuredly NOT the case.
It would appear the only "heads up" is the one in his ass, or to be less offensive, the head is down, in the sand. May I suggest that Paul be more meticulous about slinging the label "sloppy" around.
But what more should be expected from a man who spews flapdoodle, relies heavily on appeal to ridicule, and veneers his "refutations" with ad hominem attacks, ad nauseam ? I, for one, was neither surprised, nor disappointed.
Pressing the Antithesis' Goose (Part 2)...
(Continued from part one)
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
Paul Manata must not (can’t possibly) comprehend the difference between religion and philosophy, as he proclaims evolution to be both simultaneously, at different times:
Then:
Now he has introduced two separate and different postulations, to which the burden of proof is on him, the presenter. He goes on to attack Aaron, crack jokes, and relish in his own deluded sense of superiority, but does he present any evidence verifying his position?
Well, he provides a string of quotes dated near thirty years ago (’74, ’67, ’67, ’63, ’76). I feel I must inform Paul that many scientific advances have been made since the mid ‘70s, providing us with a much more precise grasp on the subject matter at hand, and more firmly asserting, not refuting, the evolutionary theory.
I insist it is paramount to note that there is indeed a philosophy of evolution. But Paul is, most assuredly, referring to evolution in terms of biology, which is undisputedly a science. I will expound on this shortly.
The terms “evolve”, “evolution”, and “evolutionism” have been in use since before what we currently refer to as the Theory of Evolution came into existence, and have held more than one connotation.
We should note that what we currently accept as the Theory of Evolution is not a carbon copy of what Darwin was proposing in Origin of Species. This reflects the intrinsic nature of a theory.
Paul is both alleging that modern evolutionists purport that the very idea of evolution was unheard of before Darwin, and perpetuating the misconception that evolutionary biology remains exactly as it was when presented by Darwin. Both are drastically unfounded and completely out of line.
He continues to present brilliant deductions like:
His argument is based solely on parallels. It is nothing more than a similarity. He presents basic ideas of thought held in days of yore that resemble the premise of a modern scientific theory. Paul surely isn’t – can’t possibly be - suggesting that these Greek philosophers expressed an identical theory. Most notably, the mechanics are quite different. If this isn’t what he’s suggesting, then well, what the hell is his point?
His argument that evolution is not scientific theory, based simply on observations that comparable ideas have existed over time, though with varying application, is not only blatantly fallacious and invalid, it is analogous to me saying that Islam is Christianity because they both mention Abraham, Israel, Moses, Jesus, etc..
The existence of ideas in antiquity that bear a resemblance to the popular conception of the basis of the present Theory of Evolution does not at all imply that the theory we refer to in modern biological evolution derives directly from them, much less that they are one in the same.
Virgin-born sacrificial redeemer figures are commonplace in the lore of ancient people. Does this mean those legends were Jesus? There are examples of ideology remarkably similar to Christian theology in more ancient belief systems, but that does not at all imply that those religions were, in fact, Christianity. I’ll take this a step further and propose that the faith system that evolved into modern Christianity (no pun intended) was not practiced by its original adherents in the same form as it is by the masses today. The accepted scripture, particular dogma (i.e. the trinity), and even essential beliefs (i.e. Jesus’ incarnation as a man) have not remained constant (thus schisms). Surely, Paul’s massive library, with its volumes on philosophy, evolution, and apologetics also includes works of theology. His fervor for attaining knowledge of the history of evolution (something I’ll assume he doesn’t subscribe to) must also manifest applied to the history of his religion (something I’ll assume carries critical consequence to him).
He quotes Michael Ruse as saying "Darwinian evolutionary biology continues to function as a kind of secular religion” [emphasis mine].
Through his choice of language (emphasized), we can deduce here that Ruse is quite clearly equating evolution(ary biology) to, but not defining it as religion. There is a difference.
Likewise, the quotes of Richard C. Vitzthum, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and UC Berkley prove absolutely nothing in his favor, as they just rehash his coincidence of similarity argument, and provide no pronouncement whatsoever that evolutionism is in fact not a scientific theory.
For instance, he states that “Sagan provided back-up, proving that these ideas of process and becoming have been around for thousands of years” and asserts that this supposed backup and proof relates to Paul’s assumption that “evolutionism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory.” How's that? If this is true, I certainly wouldn’t want Carl to have my back.
Again, what exactly is Paul’s point? Oh, it must be that Aaron is an immature, effeminate, neurotic, imbecile, because he takes plenty of cheap shots, such as implying Aaron wears panties, takes meds (presumably psychotropic or antipsychotic), and mindlessly plays Gameboy “rather than” engaging in true scholarly pursuits (it's Paul that certainly knows quite a bit about Zelda). His personal attacks on Kinney are truly not suprising at all. In the spirit of fairness, I must acknowledge that Aaron and his evil "ilk" [read: coven of atheist minions] are also guilty of ridiculing Paul, and not just his position (one of a “rear naked choke hold” – dammit, now I’ve been reduced to such juvenile tactics).
There is, though, a difference between insults and outright lies. Paul makes the following accusation:
Utilizing an admittedly quick and simple search, I only found one instance that would fit what he’s described.
In this post and the subsequent comments, Aaron never claims to have “refuted” Goodman – he challenges Goodman with an “assertion that the PoI relies on a violation of causality.” Aaron also doesn’t “admit” to never reading the article (an anonymous commenter – hmm, wonder who? – asks "who has read Goodmans paper?”, to which Kinney replies, “I dont know. Maybe anonymous did?”
Misquotes are an underhanded tactic and sure sign of foul play. They’re also closely related to a device that is extremely pertinent to this specific discourse.
Aaron does accuse Paul of quote mining (a concept Paul is obviously ignorant of), and as the accuser, the burden of proof rests on Aaron. Of course, to do this, Aaron would have to read each work Paul quoted from, which would certainly take more time than Paul allowed before declaring Aaron defeated.
But what's this? It appears that the time required is not near as lengthy as one may have initially supposed, as I have uncovered evidence supporting the claim of quote mining.
Paul’s quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a fine example. Interesting that he chose the very first paragraph of the article, because, if one reads further, it is declared that:
This is pivotal. Remember here, the inclusion of fact is what separates philosophy from science. It’s all mere speculation until evidence arrives to test it against. There is a procedure to this testing, and it is called the scientific method.
Interestingly, the very same article proclaims:
Evolution is then demonstrated as included in the beliefs of the likes of: early Christian church father (and saint) Augustine, theologian Erigena, prelate Nicholas of Cusa, and Giordano Bruno, who, although burned at the stake for heresy by the Inquisition, was still a theist. (For those who aren’t aware, “St. Augustine's influence on Christianity is thought by many to be second only to that of St. Paul”, and he is a crucial figure in the institution of ideas such as the Trinity, original sin and the fall of humanity as dogma for the Christian church.)
Now, I can't imagine why he left that part out.
In fact, soon after the segment Paul quoted, the article places this ancient evolutionary philosophy in the teleology vs. mechanism debate, which also shows that creationism and ID have earlier precursors than their modern manifestations. Does this somehow refute a theist’s view of creation as put forth in the Bible? Of course not.
Paul continues to load his “arguments” full of personal attacks, attempting to appeal to his base, as he really has nothing else to stand on.
He quotes Aaron as saying,“some kind of popularity or authority argument” and then offers the huffy reply that “Numbers may determine popularity but not authority arguments. So, get your ‘games’ right.” Did Paul not notice the inclusion of “or”, a comparative conjunction which is, by definition, “used to indicate an alternative”?
Paul also typically attempts to belittle his opponent’s intellect by pointing out typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
(He forgot the [sic] after “its”.)
As a Christian, I would really have expected Paul to be more familiar with Matthew 7:1-5. Paul has many planks in his eye:
Paul also resorts to semantics (imagine that), and berates Aaron for wishy-washiness with the absolutism of the word “all”. I find this particularly humorous, as he’s already demonstrated his mastery over the precise meaning of language. I’m sure Paul has been guilty of absolutism with words. He’s definitely good at being bad with usage.
For instance, “myriad amounts of quotes” is both redundant and hyperbole.
Speaking of redundancy, there is no further need to continue. The basic point here is that Paul made a statement (evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy) which Aaron challenged, and Paul presented no evidence to support his claims. A philosophy predating a theory based on empirical, objective evidence used to investigate the thoughts brought to light by that philosophy, does not invalidate the theory, much less its nature of being a theory.
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
Paul Manata must not (can’t possibly) comprehend the difference between religion and philosophy, as he proclaims evolution to be both simultaneously, at different times:
“My point was that evolutionism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory”
Then:
“Evolutionism is a religion”
Now he has introduced two separate and different postulations, to which the burden of proof is on him, the presenter. He goes on to attack Aaron, crack jokes, and relish in his own deluded sense of superiority, but does he present any evidence verifying his position?
Well, he provides a string of quotes dated near thirty years ago (’74, ’67, ’67, ’63, ’76). I feel I must inform Paul that many scientific advances have been made since the mid ‘70s, providing us with a much more precise grasp on the subject matter at hand, and more firmly asserting, not refuting, the evolutionary theory.
I insist it is paramount to note that there is indeed a philosophy of evolution. But Paul is, most assuredly, referring to evolution in terms of biology, which is undisputedly a science. I will expound on this shortly.
The terms “evolve”, “evolution”, and “evolutionism” have been in use since before what we currently refer to as the Theory of Evolution came into existence, and have held more than one connotation.
We should note that what we currently accept as the Theory of Evolution is not a carbon copy of what Darwin was proposing in Origin of Species. This reflects the intrinsic nature of a theory.
Paul is both alleging that modern evolutionists purport that the very idea of evolution was unheard of before Darwin, and perpetuating the misconception that evolutionary biology remains exactly as it was when presented by Darwin. Both are drastically unfounded and completely out of line.
He continues to present brilliant deductions like:
“Doesn't the idea that all the flora, fauna, fish and fowl came from one (or just a few) basic stuff sound familiar? Of course it does, it's evolutionism.”
“Note: does the view that says, "From one basic type of thing many types of things came" sound familiar? Sound like evolutionism?”
“The view that from one basic "stuff" came the diversity of "stuff" (common ancestry to the diversity called life) is evolutionism. Evolutionism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.”
His argument is based solely on parallels. It is nothing more than a similarity. He presents basic ideas of thought held in days of yore that resemble the premise of a modern scientific theory. Paul surely isn’t – can’t possibly be - suggesting that these Greek philosophers expressed an identical theory. Most notably, the mechanics are quite different. If this isn’t what he’s suggesting, then well, what the hell is his point?
His argument that evolution is not scientific theory, based simply on observations that comparable ideas have existed over time, though with varying application, is not only blatantly fallacious and invalid, it is analogous to me saying that Islam is Christianity because they both mention Abraham, Israel, Moses, Jesus, etc..
The existence of ideas in antiquity that bear a resemblance to the popular conception of the basis of the present Theory of Evolution does not at all imply that the theory we refer to in modern biological evolution derives directly from them, much less that they are one in the same.
Virgin-born sacrificial redeemer figures are commonplace in the lore of ancient people. Does this mean those legends were Jesus? There are examples of ideology remarkably similar to Christian theology in more ancient belief systems, but that does not at all imply that those religions were, in fact, Christianity. I’ll take this a step further and propose that the faith system that evolved into modern Christianity (no pun intended) was not practiced by its original adherents in the same form as it is by the masses today. The accepted scripture, particular dogma (i.e. the trinity), and even essential beliefs (i.e. Jesus’ incarnation as a man) have not remained constant (thus schisms). Surely, Paul’s massive library, with its volumes on philosophy, evolution, and apologetics also includes works of theology. His fervor for attaining knowledge of the history of evolution (something I’ll assume he doesn’t subscribe to) must also manifest applied to the history of his religion (something I’ll assume carries critical consequence to him).
He quotes Michael Ruse as saying "Darwinian evolutionary biology continues to function as a kind of secular religion” [emphasis mine].
Through his choice of language (emphasized), we can deduce here that Ruse is quite clearly equating evolution(ary biology) to, but not defining it as religion. There is a difference.
Likewise, the quotes of Richard C. Vitzthum, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and UC Berkley prove absolutely nothing in his favor, as they just rehash his coincidence of similarity argument, and provide no pronouncement whatsoever that evolutionism is in fact not a scientific theory.
For instance, he states that “Sagan provided back-up, proving that these ideas of process and becoming have been around for thousands of years” and asserts that this supposed backup and proof relates to Paul’s assumption that “evolutionism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory.” How's that? If this is true, I certainly wouldn’t want Carl to have my back.
Again, what exactly is Paul’s point? Oh, it must be that Aaron is an immature, effeminate, neurotic, imbecile, because he takes plenty of cheap shots, such as implying Aaron wears panties, takes meds (presumably psychotropic or antipsychotic), and mindlessly plays Gameboy “rather than” engaging in true scholarly pursuits (it's Paul that certainly knows quite a bit about Zelda). His personal attacks on Kinney are truly not suprising at all. In the spirit of fairness, I must acknowledge that Aaron and his evil "ilk" [read: coven of atheist minions] are also guilty of ridiculing Paul, and not just his position (one of a “rear naked choke hold” – dammit, now I’ve been reduced to such juvenile tactics).
There is, though, a difference between insults and outright lies. Paul makes the following accusation:
“Kinney once ‘refuted’ Nelson Goodman's article ‘The New Riddle of Induction’ admitting that he never actually read the article!”
Utilizing an admittedly quick and simple search, I only found one instance that would fit what he’s described.
In this post and the subsequent comments, Aaron never claims to have “refuted” Goodman – he challenges Goodman with an “assertion that the PoI relies on a violation of causality.” Aaron also doesn’t “admit” to never reading the article (an anonymous commenter – hmm, wonder who? – asks "who has read Goodmans paper?”, to which Kinney replies, “I dont know. Maybe anonymous did?”
Misquotes are an underhanded tactic and sure sign of foul play. They’re also closely related to a device that is extremely pertinent to this specific discourse.
Aaron does accuse Paul of quote mining (a concept Paul is obviously ignorant of), and as the accuser, the burden of proof rests on Aaron. Of course, to do this, Aaron would have to read each work Paul quoted from, which would certainly take more time than Paul allowed before declaring Aaron defeated.
But what's this? It appears that the time required is not near as lengthy as one may have initially supposed, as I have uncovered evidence supporting the claim of quote mining.
Paul’s quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a fine example. Interesting that he chose the very first paragraph of the article, because, if one reads further, it is declared that:
"Darwin's epoch-making doctrine rested upon a vast mass of ascertained facts” [emphasis mine]
This is pivotal. Remember here, the inclusion of fact is what separates philosophy from science. It’s all mere speculation until evidence arrives to test it against. There is a procedure to this testing, and it is called the scientific method.
Interestingly, the very same article proclaims:
"The idea of evolution was not particularly dominant in patristic and scholastic theology and philosophy…on account of the generally accepted Christian theory of creation. However, evolution is not generally denied” [emphasis mine]
Evolution is then demonstrated as included in the beliefs of the likes of: early Christian church father (and saint) Augustine, theologian Erigena, prelate Nicholas of Cusa, and Giordano Bruno, who, although burned at the stake for heresy by the Inquisition, was still a theist. (For those who aren’t aware, “St. Augustine's influence on Christianity is thought by many to be second only to that of St. Paul”, and he is a crucial figure in the institution of ideas such as the Trinity, original sin and the fall of humanity as dogma for the Christian church.)
Now, I can't imagine why he left that part out.
In fact, soon after the segment Paul quoted, the article places this ancient evolutionary philosophy in the teleology vs. mechanism debate, which also shows that creationism and ID have earlier precursors than their modern manifestations. Does this somehow refute a theist’s view of creation as put forth in the Bible? Of course not.
Paul continues to load his “arguments” full of personal attacks, attempting to appeal to his base, as he really has nothing else to stand on.
He quotes Aaron as saying,“some kind of popularity or authority argument” and then offers the huffy reply that “Numbers may determine popularity but not authority arguments. So, get your ‘games’ right.” Did Paul not notice the inclusion of “or”, a comparative conjunction which is, by definition, “used to indicate an alternative”?
Paul also typically attempts to belittle his opponent’s intellect by pointing out typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
"Kinney: Wow, manata [sic] really has been pushing his 'dont[sic] play with adults' article all over the place. I must say, its an excellent study in quote mining."
(He forgot the [sic] after “its”.)
As a Christian, I would really have expected Paul to be more familiar with Matthew 7:1-5. Paul has many planks in his eye:
“Kiney [sic] is not a human.”
“leaving Kinney all ugly and disfugured [sic]”
“Kinney his inserted foot in mouth” (dyslexics of the world UNTIE!).
“What he doesn't know is that the sword he waves is paeper [sic]”
Paul also resorts to semantics (imagine that), and berates Aaron for wishy-washiness with the absolutism of the word “all”. I find this particularly humorous, as he’s already demonstrated his mastery over the precise meaning of language. I’m sure Paul has been guilty of absolutism with words. He’s definitely good at being bad with usage.
For instance, “myriad amounts of quotes” is both redundant and hyperbole.
Speaking of redundancy, there is no further need to continue. The basic point here is that Paul made a statement (evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy) which Aaron challenged, and Paul presented no evidence to support his claims. A philosophy predating a theory based on empirical, objective evidence used to investigate the thoughts brought to light by that philosophy, does not invalidate the theory, much less its nature of being a theory.
Pressing the Antithesis' Goose (Part 1)...
(Once again, for simplicity of reading and commenting, I’m separating one post into multiple parts)
A dispute has been brewing between Paul Manata and Aaron Kinney. Paul has written three posts and Aaron has written two (plus two on Paul’s censorship by not allowing comments). I would mind my business, but that’s just not me, nor is it a valid option. I would mind protocol and deposit my 2¢ in its proper place, but Paul doesn’t allow commenting.
Basically, Paul suggests that evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy (more on this ambiguity later).
First, some clarification (if pressed for time, one may wish to skip ahead to the direct critique of Paul’s effort).
I feel this is, in essence, a question of semantics. We are dealing with dynamic, fluid concepts: Language changes. Theories change.
Therefore, we must define religion, philosophy, and (scientific) theory. In terms of religion and theory, I believe the atheist side requires and administers a more literal (prescriptive) definition as opposed to a looser lexical (descriptive) definition; the theists are proposing a persuasive definition. Clearly, we must ascertain a precising definition for the discussion to continue any further.
Definitions of religion consistently contain reference to the supernatural. Notably, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition describes religion as:
I believe this is more along the lines of what most theists are thinking when they claim that science/evolution is a religion to atheists. In its simplest form, this correlation to a religion may be an expressive use of language and not intended as informative use, even if it is declarative in nature; unfortunately, such flimsy adherence to meaning not accurate.
Philosophy is, perhaps appropriately, a little harder to pin down:
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition affirms that philosophy is distinguished from both religion and science:
Wikipedia tells us:
The essential difference between philosophy and science lies in fact. There is also an issue of the broadness of the questions asked, but once facts come into play, science takes over.
So, what is fact?
Fact: “Knowledge or information based on real occurrences”; “Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed”; “Something believed to be true or real”; “Something that has actual existence; A matter of objective reality” [emphasis mine]
I will also note that a distinguishment has been made between true facts and real facts, but this seriously muddles the situation.
So, what is truth?
Truth: “Conformity to fact or actuality”
Also, truth is an evaluation, not a state of being.
These are often debated terms and concepts, so while we’re at it, let’s look at the notion of proof…
Prove: “To test the truth, validity, or genuineness of “; “To establish as true or genuine” [emphasis mine]
Proof: “The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true”; “The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules” [emphasis mine]
Most say that absolute proof is impossible, outside of mathematics.
A noticeable trend is the room for future development. Those of us who prescribe to positivism, “support realism, materialism, philosophical naturalism, and empiricism, and favor the scientific method”, don’t really feel the need for absolutes. We’re open-minded that way. The comedy in this of course, is that theists insist we provide absolutes, and base their own belief on the complete absence of such (e.g. faith) – this is a topic for another time. I personally find it rather ironic that we, the more structured of the two, are more flexible.
A demonstration of our relative resilience is shown is our acceptance of theory for what it actually is:
Wikipedia tells us:
It then goes on to state:
Once it has distinguished a theory from an hypothesis, it offers forth this interesting nugget:
Rather than setting up straw men, attacking misconceptions, and attempting to “prove” false notions of “facts”, “proof”, and “theory”, perhaps theists should tend to the much more pertinent task of proving that their beliefs are anything more than mere conjecture.
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
(continue to part two)
A dispute has been brewing between Paul Manata and Aaron Kinney. Paul has written three posts and Aaron has written two (plus two on Paul’s censorship by not allowing comments). I would mind my business, but that’s just not me, nor is it a valid option. I would mind protocol and deposit my 2¢ in its proper place, but Paul doesn’t allow commenting.
Basically, Paul suggests that evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy (more on this ambiguity later).
First, some clarification (if pressed for time, one may wish to skip ahead to the direct critique of Paul’s effort).
I feel this is, in essence, a question of semantics. We are dealing with dynamic, fluid concepts: Language changes. Theories change.
Therefore, we must define religion, philosophy, and (scientific) theory. In terms of religion and theory, I believe the atheist side requires and administers a more literal (prescriptive) definition as opposed to a looser lexical (descriptive) definition; the theists are proposing a persuasive definition. Clearly, we must ascertain a precising definition for the discussion to continue any further.
Definitions of religion consistently contain reference to the supernatural. Notably, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition describes religion as:
“a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe.”
I believe this is more along the lines of what most theists are thinking when they claim that science/evolution is a religion to atheists. In its simplest form, this correlation to a religion may be an expressive use of language and not intended as informative use, even if it is declarative in nature; unfortunately, such flimsy adherence to meaning not accurate.
Philosophy is, perhaps appropriately, a little harder to pin down:
“The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs” [emphasis mine]; “study of the ultimate reality, causes, and principles underlying being and thinking”
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition affirms that philosophy is distinguished from both religion and science:
"This search for truth began, in the Western world, when the Greeks first established (c.600 B.C.) inquiry independent of theological creeds. Philosophy is distinguished from theology in that philosophy rejects dogma and deals with speculation rather than faith. Philosophy differs from science in that both the natural and the social sciences base their theories wholly on established fact, whereas philosophy also covers areas of inquiry where no facts as such are available. Originally, science as such did not exist and philosophy covered the entire field, but as facts became available and tentative certainties emerged, the sciences broke away from metaphysical speculation to pursue their different aims." [emphasis mine]
Wikipedia tells us:
"Historically most philosophy has either centered on religious beliefs, or science. Philosophers may ask critical questions about the nature of these concepts--questions typically outside the scope of science." [emphasis mine]
The essential difference between philosophy and science lies in fact. There is also an issue of the broadness of the questions asked, but once facts come into play, science takes over.
So, what is fact?
Fact: “Knowledge or information based on real occurrences”; “Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed”; “Something believed to be true or real”; “Something that has actual existence; A matter of objective reality” [emphasis mine]
I will also note that a distinguishment has been made between true facts and real facts, but this seriously muddles the situation.
So, what is truth?
Truth: “Conformity to fact or actuality”
Also, truth is an evaluation, not a state of being.
These are often debated terms and concepts, so while we’re at it, let’s look at the notion of proof…
Prove: “To test the truth, validity, or genuineness of “; “To establish as true or genuine” [emphasis mine]
Proof: “The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true”; “The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules” [emphasis mine]
Most say that absolute proof is impossible, outside of mathematics.
A noticeable trend is the room for future development. Those of us who prescribe to positivism, “support realism, materialism, philosophical naturalism, and empiricism, and favor the scientific method”, don’t really feel the need for absolutes. We’re open-minded that way. The comedy in this of course, is that theists insist we provide absolutes, and base their own belief on the complete absence of such (e.g. faith) – this is a topic for another time. I personally find it rather ironic that we, the more structured of the two, are more flexible.
A demonstration of our relative resilience is shown is our acceptance of theory for what it actually is:
“a well-substantiated explanation”; “organized system of accepted knowledge”; “a tentative theory… that is not yet verified”
Wikipedia tells us:
"In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method." [emphasis mine]
It then goes on to state:
"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data." [emphasis mine]
Once it has distinguished a theory from an hypothesis, it offers forth this interesting nugget:
"A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data and often simply a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism."
Rather than setting up straw men, attacking misconceptions, and attempting to “prove” false notions of “facts”, “proof”, and “theory”, perhaps theists should tend to the much more pertinent task of proving that their beliefs are anything more than mere conjecture.
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
(continue to part two)
Friday, September 23, 2005
The American Culture of Race and Religion...
In response to my post(s) on race and religion, Aaron Kinney (for whom I have a high amount of respect) commented:
As he clearly states, this is his personal opinion – to which he is completely entitled, and along with which I very frequently find myself in total agreement (still undecided as to objective vs relative morality). Quite obviously, this is one of those rare times I disagree. While a simple conflict of opinion is very minor indeed, I feel this particular statement deserves further consideration.
For clarification, "cultural" needs to be defined before this point can be considered (all emphasis mine):
This is a very broad, sweeping definition, and includes religion as a mere piece of a larger puzzle.
This, I feel, is more along the lines of what AK meant, but it would apply more to the African American culture as a whole, which is multi-faceted, and of which religion is only a part, no matter how big a part.
This would narrow it down to what the topic is: religious culture amongst Americans, and its differences amongst blacks and whites in particular.
I think this is more along the lines of 1.2 above.
If AK intended "cultural" along the lines of 2 (and 4), it just isn't particular enough.
I personally feel that some people use words like "culture" to dampen the effect when they mean "race." In fact, when it all boils down, the modern, Western concept of race is a purely social construct with no scientific validity. It can be argued (valiantly and biologically) that there is only one race - human, or Homo sapien sapiens - with an overwhelming body of supporting evidence from geneticists. From there we see that what we refer to as races are in fact just separate cultures - or, more specifically, population groupings - within that one race, essentially based on geographic separations. But we have to be real here: those different categorical groupings would be divided along pretty much the exact same lines we currently use to popularly define race. Obviously, there are distinct cultural differences between, and amongst, the races - which, by the way, allow for some flexibility (me for example) - but the similarities, although emphasized far less, outweigh the differences.
Besides, that's not what I was getting at in my post.
Due to the way history has played out we find ourselves in the current predicament: We live in a country that's overwhelmingly Christian, and divided along color lines. This is and has been a fact since non-indigenous (read: European) people first arrived, complete with cargoholds for stolen goods, resources, and lives, aspirations of colonialization and imperialism, a capacity for mass genocide and land theft, and a Bible full of atrocities to back it all up.
In my post, I feel I focused on issues that were blatantly based on, and particular to, race (in its most widely understood connotation). The curse of Canaan is based on a perceived literal translation of Noah's sons' names, specifically that Ham actually meant "black" (a priori or not). It has been accepted for years that Noah's sons we're the precursors of today's racial divisions. Canaan (Ham's son)'s curse to be a servant amongst servants (the word "servant" is used in translation throughout the Bible where the intent is no less than "slave") to the other two for all time was a major defense used by white people for enslavement of Africans.
The history of Europe's people cannot be told without tales of conquest, colonizing, and empire building or with the exclusion of Christianity. Through the first, the second was spread (whilst the second was used as the excuse for the first). Another consequence of conquest was the subsequent subjugation of the conquered by the conquerors (how's that for alliteration).
{My current personal theory is that Europe's relatively small size and lack of resources made expansion a must, and conquest a necessary evil. Both Africa and the Americas' sheer size and natural abundance provide explanation for the relative absence of these actions on each respective continent. I cannot accept that blacks and Native Americans were too ignorant or unambitious to engage in near constant war and colonization of other people's land, nor that Europeans have an innate bloodlust and greed (although for the latter it does seem to be a cultural norm). Geography of course played a major role, but I am digressing from the point at hand.}
I need not hear that white slavery was a reality or that freed blacks also held slaves, as it is essentially meaningless. It cannot be argued that the black experience in America has been anything other than one of oppression – property for over 300 years, then merely three-fifths of a (hu)man, and nothing less than a second-class citizen since. This is not debatable. The Civil Rights era was only 40 years ago. White Americans as a whole have held a position of (absolute, crushing) power from the very arrival of Europeans in 1492 (here I need not be informed that the Irish and other European immigrants were mistreated - or that pre-Columbus explorers reached the continent).
I illustrated that this relationship of subjugator and subjugated formed distinctly different views on, needs for, and practices of religion in America.
Here, culture is irrelevant. An elderly black man in Mississippi and a teenaged black girl in the Bronx (or Beverly Hills for that matter) can be, and probably are, as different as possible culturally, yet share the same legacy and most likely the same religious views. The mere fact that Christianity can be found on six continents, in nearly every nation, and amongst people of completely different backgrounds – one-third of the earth’s population – demonstrates that it is a culture all to itself which transcends and further distinguishes other cultures completely.
I fail to see how the psychological damage of a slave mentality, or the perceived and realized privilege of a master mentality, as they apply to religion, and as religion applies to them, are cultural issues.
Although, as I acknowledged, there are certain similarities on socio-economic (class) levels, there is still a major difference. A difference that gets to the heart of matters of race in America, and which is the only discernable, distinguishing characteristic of a "white culture" in America...
No matter how poor or socially excluded a white person is, they can always say, "at least I’m not black."
Atheists in an increasingly Christian dominated society should – albeit to a very, very small degree – be able to relate, or at least sympathize.
"I think it’s cultural rather than racial, personally."
As he clearly states, this is his personal opinion – to which he is completely entitled, and along with which I very frequently find myself in total agreement (still undecided as to objective vs relative morality). Quite obviously, this is one of those rare times I disagree. While a simple conflict of opinion is very minor indeed, I feel this particular statement deserves further consideration.
For clarification, "cultural" needs to be defined before this point can be considered (all emphasis mine):
"cul·ture (kŭl'chər)
n.
1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought."
This is a very broad, sweeping definition, and includes religion as a mere piece of a larger puzzle.
"2. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty."
This, I feel, is more along the lines of what AK meant, but it would apply more to the African American culture as a whole, which is multi-faceted, and of which religion is only a part, no matter how big a part.
"3. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture."
This would narrow it down to what the topic is: religious culture amongst Americans, and its differences amongst blacks and whites in particular.
"4. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization."
I think this is more along the lines of 1.2 above.
If AK intended "cultural" along the lines of 2 (and 4), it just isn't particular enough.
I personally feel that some people use words like "culture" to dampen the effect when they mean "race." In fact, when it all boils down, the modern, Western concept of race is a purely social construct with no scientific validity. It can be argued (valiantly and biologically) that there is only one race - human, or Homo sapien sapiens - with an overwhelming body of supporting evidence from geneticists. From there we see that what we refer to as races are in fact just separate cultures - or, more specifically, population groupings - within that one race, essentially based on geographic separations. But we have to be real here: those different categorical groupings would be divided along pretty much the exact same lines we currently use to popularly define race. Obviously, there are distinct cultural differences between, and amongst, the races - which, by the way, allow for some flexibility (me for example) - but the similarities, although emphasized far less, outweigh the differences.
Besides, that's not what I was getting at in my post.
Due to the way history has played out we find ourselves in the current predicament: We live in a country that's overwhelmingly Christian, and divided along color lines. This is and has been a fact since non-indigenous (read: European) people first arrived, complete with cargoholds for stolen goods, resources, and lives, aspirations of colonialization and imperialism, a capacity for mass genocide and land theft, and a Bible full of atrocities to back it all up.
In my post, I feel I focused on issues that were blatantly based on, and particular to, race (in its most widely understood connotation). The curse of Canaan is based on a perceived literal translation of Noah's sons' names, specifically that Ham actually meant "black" (a priori or not). It has been accepted for years that Noah's sons we're the precursors of today's racial divisions. Canaan (Ham's son)'s curse to be a servant amongst servants (the word "servant" is used in translation throughout the Bible where the intent is no less than "slave") to the other two for all time was a major defense used by white people for enslavement of Africans.
The history of Europe's people cannot be told without tales of conquest, colonizing, and empire building or with the exclusion of Christianity. Through the first, the second was spread (whilst the second was used as the excuse for the first). Another consequence of conquest was the subsequent subjugation of the conquered by the conquerors (how's that for alliteration).
{My current personal theory is that Europe's relatively small size and lack of resources made expansion a must, and conquest a necessary evil. Both Africa and the Americas' sheer size and natural abundance provide explanation for the relative absence of these actions on each respective continent. I cannot accept that blacks and Native Americans were too ignorant or unambitious to engage in near constant war and colonization of other people's land, nor that Europeans have an innate bloodlust and greed (although for the latter it does seem to be a cultural norm). Geography of course played a major role, but I am digressing from the point at hand.}
I need not hear that white slavery was a reality or that freed blacks also held slaves, as it is essentially meaningless. It cannot be argued that the black experience in America has been anything other than one of oppression – property for over 300 years, then merely three-fifths of a (hu)man, and nothing less than a second-class citizen since. This is not debatable. The Civil Rights era was only 40 years ago. White Americans as a whole have held a position of (absolute, crushing) power from the very arrival of Europeans in 1492 (here I need not be informed that the Irish and other European immigrants were mistreated - or that pre-Columbus explorers reached the continent).
I illustrated that this relationship of subjugator and subjugated formed distinctly different views on, needs for, and practices of religion in America.
Here, culture is irrelevant. An elderly black man in Mississippi and a teenaged black girl in the Bronx (or Beverly Hills for that matter) can be, and probably are, as different as possible culturally, yet share the same legacy and most likely the same religious views. The mere fact that Christianity can be found on six continents, in nearly every nation, and amongst people of completely different backgrounds – one-third of the earth’s population – demonstrates that it is a culture all to itself which transcends and further distinguishes other cultures completely.
I fail to see how the psychological damage of a slave mentality, or the perceived and realized privilege of a master mentality, as they apply to religion, and as religion applies to them, are cultural issues.
Although, as I acknowledged, there are certain similarities on socio-economic (class) levels, there is still a major difference. A difference that gets to the heart of matters of race in America, and which is the only discernable, distinguishing characteristic of a "white culture" in America...
No matter how poor or socially excluded a white person is, they can always say, "at least I’m not black."
Atheists in an increasingly Christian dominated society should – albeit to a very, very small degree – be able to relate, or at least sympathize.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Shooting Myself In the Foot...
I pen an entry that, although I won't say is an absolute must read, is deserving of consideration, and it goes unnoticed. Well, at the least, unremarked. I really, truly thought this particular piece would be my most read to date, and would inspire serious commenting.
I then, in the mood to focus on something much more lighthearted and inconsequential, post a movie critic-styled entry that drips of self-indulgence, focusing on a couple of compliments I received recently. This gets comments.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
It doesn't require a perusal of my entire blog to see that I have an affinity for discussing two topics in particular: race and religion. Those near and dear to me are all too aware of this (and I fear a bit annoyed). I pretty much only discuss items considered controversial by the lethargically apathetic masses. Why waste time opining the already well established? Well, I fucked around and wrote one post focusing on the two combined, and it may have bit me in the ass.
I am fully aware that the heavy emphasis on both endangers readership. Why? Well, we know I wouldn't bite my tongue in a seizure, so I'll call it like I see it.
I suppose it safe to assume the individuals who will gravitate toward one subject matter over the other most likely have a vested interest in the particular issue they choose. This seems rather obvious. I'll wager that those choosing race are either a representative of a minority, an individual who comes in frequent contact with such or, conversely, a racist of sorts. Likewise, those partaking of the religious commentary are most likely either atheist, the "undecided" in search of answers, or theists actively looking for debate.
Basically, I’m suggesting black folk are peeping my race posts and atheists are here for the god-bashing.
At the risk of perpetuating a form of stereotyping (imagine that) I have to note that, from my own observations, African Americans are less likely to be agnostic or atheist, and therefore don't share my views on religion (I would love to see actual data on this). On the other hand, I suspect most of the faithless visitors are white, and, although overwhelmingly liberal-minded freethinkers, have natural aversions (future topic) to my posts on racism.
Boy that was a lot of stereotyping.
The bottom line? I fear the people who would frequent more often to read my essays on discrimination may be turned off by my overtly anti-Christian themed posts, and vice versa.
What's noteworthy is that both groups are in the minority nationally, discriminated against by the same common enemy, and outspoken (bravely so) about issues of major importance, yet choose their comfort zones according to what most affects them on an individual basis. Maybe this is closed-minded. Maybe it just makes sense and is efficient. Maybe I just want someone to read my dammit post and tell me what they think.
I’ll note here that the issues of race and secularism are two of the most important we face, and the two most debated during the founding years of this country. See how far we’ve come in 230 odd years?
I then, in the mood to focus on something much more lighthearted and inconsequential, post a movie critic-styled entry that drips of self-indulgence, focusing on a couple of compliments I received recently. This gets comments.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
It doesn't require a perusal of my entire blog to see that I have an affinity for discussing two topics in particular: race and religion. Those near and dear to me are all too aware of this (and I fear a bit annoyed). I pretty much only discuss items considered controversial by the lethargically apathetic masses. Why waste time opining the already well established? Well, I fucked around and wrote one post focusing on the two combined, and it may have bit me in the ass.
I am fully aware that the heavy emphasis on both endangers readership. Why? Well, we know I wouldn't bite my tongue in a seizure, so I'll call it like I see it.
I suppose it safe to assume the individuals who will gravitate toward one subject matter over the other most likely have a vested interest in the particular issue they choose. This seems rather obvious. I'll wager that those choosing race are either a representative of a minority, an individual who comes in frequent contact with such or, conversely, a racist of sorts. Likewise, those partaking of the religious commentary are most likely either atheist, the "undecided" in search of answers, or theists actively looking for debate.
Basically, I’m suggesting black folk are peeping my race posts and atheists are here for the god-bashing.
At the risk of perpetuating a form of stereotyping (imagine that) I have to note that, from my own observations, African Americans are less likely to be agnostic or atheist, and therefore don't share my views on religion (I would love to see actual data on this). On the other hand, I suspect most of the faithless visitors are white, and, although overwhelmingly liberal-minded freethinkers, have natural aversions (future topic) to my posts on racism.
Boy that was a lot of stereotyping.
The bottom line? I fear the people who would frequent more often to read my essays on discrimination may be turned off by my overtly anti-Christian themed posts, and vice versa.
What's noteworthy is that both groups are in the minority nationally, discriminated against by the same common enemy, and outspoken (bravely so) about issues of major importance, yet choose their comfort zones according to what most affects them on an individual basis. Maybe this is closed-minded. Maybe it just makes sense and is efficient. Maybe I just want someone to read my dammit post and tell me what they think.
I’ll note here that the issues of race and secularism are two of the most important we face, and the two most debated during the founding years of this country. See how far we’ve come in 230 odd years?
Saturday, September 17, 2005
The Race to God (Part 3)...
*This is part three of a three part post. The three parts are meant to be continuous, as opposed to being a related series, and should be read as such. The post was broken down into separate parts for ease of presentation and commenting.*
The OT is ripe with tales of evil-doing, untrustworthy outsiders and the strict precautions and violent measures that have to be taken with respect to such. I need not outline Israel’s gruesome, barbaric conquest and eradication of outside nations, committed in the name of their god’s jealousy, insecurity, and general malevolence.
More particularly, the tales of Cain (Gen. 4:15) and Ham/Canaan’s (Gen. 9:20-27) curses have serious repercussions for black people. Some may argue that the popularly held beliefs about these verses are misconceptions, but this is a moot point, as these connotations are just that – popular, specifically so during the era’s in which we saw their implications materialized on a grand, heinous scale.
Aside from the above quoted verses, the Bible has many passages which promote homogeneity, push heritage and blood-lines, and support genocide and slavery. A precursory investigation into the history of slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation in America, and especially the justification thereof, is awash with religion. It should also be noted that most racist groups in the US identify themselves as Christian (KKK, WCOTC, Christian Identity, et al.). These bigots often quote the Bible as divine justification for their ideology (eg. Genesis 1:24-25; Numbers 25:7,8; Ezra 10:3; Acts 17:26-27).
Add Biblical support for slavery, orders against “mixing,” and a curse that doomed black people to be the ultimate “servants” to the already established notion of original sin (read: inherent worthlessness) and Jesus’ “turn-the-cheek” policy of acquiescence, and the apple pie-and-baseball-American tradition of racism isn’t exactly a bewildering situation.
Christianity is also completely devoid of any sensible concept of justice. In fact, two of its major premises completely contradict and counteract each other:
The concept of original sin states, in essence, that punishment for crimes committed by one can be imposed on others.
Jesus’ death tells us that the punishment of one person can be used as retribution for all other’s crimes.
For those who believe in salvation by faith (as opposed to works), a child-molesting murderer who accepts Jesus has more right in Heaven than an altruistic philanthropist who doesn’t. The Christian emphasis on forgiveness further demonstrates that someone can do pretty much anything and ultimately get away with it.
The picture painted is that god favors one group of people over another, doesn’t want people mixing it up too much (to the point of ordered, justified, and assisted genocide), doomed black folk to a position of inferiority and servitude, decides culpability and retribution are essentially capricious, enforces complaisant obedience, and rewards pretty much anyone, no matter how they lived, a one-way ticket to paradise – as long as they believe it without question, regardless of evidence.
This is why the oppressed can seek comeuppance through the exact same faith that the oppressors use to avoid their own. The very same god avenges and recompenses the downtrodden and advocates and exonerates the despot.
And on Sunday, a black preacher will deliver a sermon that the gods created man in their image, and orders "thou shalt not judge", and "love thy neighbor" to a congregation of black faces, while across the street a white pastor preaches the same to pews full of white faces.
The OT is ripe with tales of evil-doing, untrustworthy outsiders and the strict precautions and violent measures that have to be taken with respect to such. I need not outline Israel’s gruesome, barbaric conquest and eradication of outside nations, committed in the name of their god’s jealousy, insecurity, and general malevolence.
More particularly, the tales of Cain (Gen. 4:15) and Ham/Canaan’s (Gen. 9:20-27) curses have serious repercussions for black people. Some may argue that the popularly held beliefs about these verses are misconceptions, but this is a moot point, as these connotations are just that – popular, specifically so during the era’s in which we saw their implications materialized on a grand, heinous scale.
Aside from the above quoted verses, the Bible has many passages which promote homogeneity, push heritage and blood-lines, and support genocide and slavery. A precursory investigation into the history of slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation in America, and especially the justification thereof, is awash with religion. It should also be noted that most racist groups in the US identify themselves as Christian (KKK, WCOTC, Christian Identity, et al.). These bigots often quote the Bible as divine justification for their ideology (eg. Genesis 1:24-25; Numbers 25:7,8; Ezra 10:3; Acts 17:26-27).
Add Biblical support for slavery, orders against “mixing,” and a curse that doomed black people to be the ultimate “servants” to the already established notion of original sin (read: inherent worthlessness) and Jesus’ “turn-the-cheek” policy of acquiescence, and the apple pie-and-baseball-American tradition of racism isn’t exactly a bewildering situation.
Christianity is also completely devoid of any sensible concept of justice. In fact, two of its major premises completely contradict and counteract each other:
The concept of original sin states, in essence, that punishment for crimes committed by one can be imposed on others.
Jesus’ death tells us that the punishment of one person can be used as retribution for all other’s crimes.
For those who believe in salvation by faith (as opposed to works), a child-molesting murderer who accepts Jesus has more right in Heaven than an altruistic philanthropist who doesn’t. The Christian emphasis on forgiveness further demonstrates that someone can do pretty much anything and ultimately get away with it.
The picture painted is that god favors one group of people over another, doesn’t want people mixing it up too much (to the point of ordered, justified, and assisted genocide), doomed black folk to a position of inferiority and servitude, decides culpability and retribution are essentially capricious, enforces complaisant obedience, and rewards pretty much anyone, no matter how they lived, a one-way ticket to paradise – as long as they believe it without question, regardless of evidence.
This is why the oppressed can seek comeuppance through the exact same faith that the oppressors use to avoid their own. The very same god avenges and recompenses the downtrodden and advocates and exonerates the despot.
And on Sunday, a black preacher will deliver a sermon that the gods created man in their image, and orders "thou shalt not judge", and "love thy neighbor" to a congregation of black faces, while across the street a white pastor preaches the same to pews full of white faces.
The Race to God (Part 2)...
*This is part two of a three part post. The three parts are meant to be continuous, as opposed to being a related series, and should be read as such. The post was broken down into separate parts for ease of presentation and commenting.*
It’s not hard to imagine a victim of a system of discrimination and subjugation having thoughts such as: Why the oppression? What evil has been committed to excuse this? What have I done to deserve this?
Well, easy...
For one, man is completely depraved and born in original sin. You are inherently broken, and barely worthy of creation and life without an intermediary to sacrifice on your behalf. A SUPREME proxy at that, so what makes your mere mortal form worthy of pardon? If God’s beloved son – HIMSELF even! – must endure such an unspeakable and unjust hardship for YOU, then how dare you complain!! So little is asked of you in return, and such great and magnificent promise awaits those appreciative and righteous enough to accept – and be thankful for – it.
Add in virtuous portrayals of humility, suffering, and pacifism, a divine example of forgiveness to aspire to, and the New Testament’s thick sense of rooting for the underdog.
All told, you’re informed of your innate worthlessness, instructed to take whatever’s handed out, and promised a final, absolute compensation. Mix in liberal amounts of fear, and you have the ultimate recipe for pacification.
This isn’t specific to racial minorities – we see evidence of this in the inverse relationship between religious convictions and social status – but it is especially pertinent: a pertinence that is compounded when the Old Testament is brought into play.
Part Three »
It’s not hard to imagine a victim of a system of discrimination and subjugation having thoughts such as: Why the oppression? What evil has been committed to excuse this? What have I done to deserve this?
Well, easy...
For one, man is completely depraved and born in original sin. You are inherently broken, and barely worthy of creation and life without an intermediary to sacrifice on your behalf. A SUPREME proxy at that, so what makes your mere mortal form worthy of pardon? If God’s beloved son – HIMSELF even! – must endure such an unspeakable and unjust hardship for YOU, then how dare you complain!! So little is asked of you in return, and such great and magnificent promise awaits those appreciative and righteous enough to accept – and be thankful for – it.
Add in virtuous portrayals of humility, suffering, and pacifism, a divine example of forgiveness to aspire to, and the New Testament’s thick sense of rooting for the underdog.
All told, you’re informed of your innate worthlessness, instructed to take whatever’s handed out, and promised a final, absolute compensation. Mix in liberal amounts of fear, and you have the ultimate recipe for pacification.
This isn’t specific to racial minorities – we see evidence of this in the inverse relationship between religious convictions and social status – but it is especially pertinent: a pertinence that is compounded when the Old Testament is brought into play.
Part Three »
The Race to God (Part 1)...
*This series of posts represents the melding of what may be the two most prevalent topics of conversation in my day to day life – two topics that are also deemed mutually inappropriate to speak about. Oddly, this is possibly the first time I’ve focused solely on this combination unto itself, and as such I do not expect the thoughts put forth here to be conclusive or exhaustive. As an American citizen, I’ll mainly address Christianity. As an American citizen, I’ll mainly address race in black and white. As neither black nor Christian, this may even be conjecture and speculation, but beyond being merely opinion, it is my perspective – one that might not be quite as “on the outside looking in” as it may seem on the surface.*
There is no denying the connection between race and religion. The most basic observation is that each “revealed” religion was geographically specific to a particular ethnic group or “nation.” The fact that the revelation was bestowed upon this select group usually implied some sort of divine appointment. As for claims of superiority, what more needs to be said if the creator(s) entrust(s) you alone with the rules to the game?
While this may not necessarily apply to race (or its popular connotation) in particular, it does apply to an exclusive group, which starts the ball rolling.
One must also take into account the chronological context of these belief systems’ conceptions. This is a time in which the concept of societies– large groups of humans living together –interacting with other societies and building a global society is a burgeoning experiment (a condition that may still be valid). This is a time in which “others” are out to get what you’ve claimed (ditto). This is a time to stick to your own – a time of extreme xenophobia.
But what happens as religions spread outside and beyond their original boundaries? What implications do they carry with them for people who are the very outsiders that, by the religion itself, those who were “chosen” were originally separated from? I first seriously pondered this when discussing the Christian treatment of death, which is quite appropriate, because few conditions of humanity are so closely tied to religion as death.
Many of the funerals I've been to were for young black men. These funerals achieve more in the aim of rejoicing the departed’s “crossing over” than mourning his life. Here's where I'll mix politics with religion. In a social context which suffers a disproportionate amount of tragedy, the religion's message of hope is much more, well, hopeful. Raised on the religion given to their ancestors (slaves) so they'd behave, faith's power to pacify is second nature. Living a legacy of injustices, the message of later redemption is particularly strong.
Of course, once brought into perspective, this makes adherence to the faith that much more contradictory and maddening, but it can also provide some explanations.
People who live a life of privilege merely see an eternal afterlife as an extension of sorts, minus some annoying nuisances.
People caught in a struggle see it as a release – a final end to misery and actual reward. Just the very thought of the possibility of such an existence is a respite in itself.
The latter is remarkably similar to the Jews who formed the religion. The former is reminiscent of the Romans (and later Church) using it to control power.
Let's just think of some of the things that come to mind when we think of wide-scale white Christian-based events: Crusades, Inquisitions, Dark ages, witch hunts, genocides, etc. For those who may want to pick, I'll limit it to American history: witch hunts, genocides, slavery, misogyny, segregation, discrimination...
Compare that with the only (to my recollection) Christian-based event led by American blacks on a massive scale - the Civil Rights era protests.
From this we see how multi-faceted the religion is, and how it can be contorted to conform to the needs of the "believer," and the way the religion is viewed and used by its respective followers.
The subjugated see the message of peace and retribution. The subjugators latch onto the xenophobia and themes of God-willed supremacy. Hope vs justification, or, more specifically, Hope (and how it’s justified) vs (hope for) Justification.
Part Two »
There is no denying the connection between race and religion. The most basic observation is that each “revealed” religion was geographically specific to a particular ethnic group or “nation.” The fact that the revelation was bestowed upon this select group usually implied some sort of divine appointment. As for claims of superiority, what more needs to be said if the creator(s) entrust(s) you alone with the rules to the game?
While this may not necessarily apply to race (or its popular connotation) in particular, it does apply to an exclusive group, which starts the ball rolling.
One must also take into account the chronological context of these belief systems’ conceptions. This is a time in which the concept of societies– large groups of humans living together –interacting with other societies and building a global society is a burgeoning experiment (a condition that may still be valid). This is a time in which “others” are out to get what you’ve claimed (ditto). This is a time to stick to your own – a time of extreme xenophobia.
But what happens as religions spread outside and beyond their original boundaries? What implications do they carry with them for people who are the very outsiders that, by the religion itself, those who were “chosen” were originally separated from? I first seriously pondered this when discussing the Christian treatment of death, which is quite appropriate, because few conditions of humanity are so closely tied to religion as death.
Many of the funerals I've been to were for young black men. These funerals achieve more in the aim of rejoicing the departed’s “crossing over” than mourning his life. Here's where I'll mix politics with religion. In a social context which suffers a disproportionate amount of tragedy, the religion's message of hope is much more, well, hopeful. Raised on the religion given to their ancestors (slaves) so they'd behave, faith's power to pacify is second nature. Living a legacy of injustices, the message of later redemption is particularly strong.
Of course, once brought into perspective, this makes adherence to the faith that much more contradictory and maddening, but it can also provide some explanations.
People who live a life of privilege merely see an eternal afterlife as an extension of sorts, minus some annoying nuisances.
People caught in a struggle see it as a release – a final end to misery and actual reward. Just the very thought of the possibility of such an existence is a respite in itself.
The latter is remarkably similar to the Jews who formed the religion. The former is reminiscent of the Romans (and later Church) using it to control power.
Let's just think of some of the things that come to mind when we think of wide-scale white Christian-based events: Crusades, Inquisitions, Dark ages, witch hunts, genocides, etc. For those who may want to pick, I'll limit it to American history: witch hunts, genocides, slavery, misogyny, segregation, discrimination...
Compare that with the only (to my recollection) Christian-based event led by American blacks on a massive scale - the Civil Rights era protests.
From this we see how multi-faceted the religion is, and how it can be contorted to conform to the needs of the "believer," and the way the religion is viewed and used by its respective followers.
The subjugated see the message of peace and retribution. The subjugators latch onto the xenophobia and themes of God-willed supremacy. Hope vs justification, or, more specifically, Hope (and how it’s justified) vs (hope for) Justification.
Part Two »
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)