Thursday, December 29, 2011

The Human Filter

No information that gets filtered through a human should be taken as authoritative.

Study after study confirms that we suck as getting facts straight. We can try as hard as possible to be completely truthful and we'll still mess it up. Some of that is just the faulty nature of our senses getting things wrong. Some of it is just an inability to accurately convey information to one another due to the individual baggage we carry filtering the communication, no matter the medium.

Individuals do not carrying around the same meanings for the same words and phrases. Sadly, nothing is synonymous between any two people, even the exact words and phrases. (To me, this is why we so value someone we think "gets" us--it's extremely rare. Even then, there are more areas where we don't "get" the other person than we like to admit.)

Yet, there are people who will insist that someone's words constitute some sort of proof of anything. Whether it is blatant quote mining or a genuine trust in the declarations of someone generally seen as intelligent, we mistakenly give weight to someone's words without any other consideration.

In a practical sense, we can't go around questioning everything declared. But, we should be on the lookout for people who use quotes to try and prove something. Whether it's the Bible, Albert Einstein, a reliable news source, or your favor philosopher (or anyone else), always remember it was filtered through at least one human, not counting you. 

Sunday, December 25, 2011

"Christian Nation" Advocates Require Founders To Be Irrational

For those who claim the U.S. is a "Christian nation," they usually use as their best evidence private statements and letters from the nation's founders (as well as others that lived much later). Leaving aside the fact that many of these statements are either misquotes, lies or contextually inaccurate, the logic behind these claims is faulty at a more basic level. Without noticing, these claimants are actually on the losing side of the intent v. action philosophical question.

This question centers on the battle between will and actually exercising it. Stated intentions can never be taken as evidence of an eventual action. We can mistake a person's intention, intentions can change without notice, simple mistakes can be made in communication, etc. What is the much more accurate measure is action(s) taken. A person can state an intention to exercise, learn a new language, or vacuum their car. But, unless there is a corresponding action, the stated intent carries no weight when deciphering motives and designs.

When looking at the "action" actually taken by the founders (i.e., Articles of Confederation, U.S. Constitution, Treaty of Tripoli), there is clearly nothing to indicate that a conclusion had been reached to form a "Christian nation." Quite the opposite was actually the result of the actions eventually taken. The documents agreed to and put into force for the country are clearly non-religious in their nature and intent. Even the individual state constitutions that contained religious notions saw them removed fairly soon after the country began to stabilize.

Unless the supporters of the "Christian nation" idea want to label the founders as being weak-willed, unwilling to follow through with the claim they wanted a nation based on a religious doctrine, they must concede that the actions they actually took is where true objectives reside.

The only remaining choice is to claim the founders to be irrational, having an intent in opposition to their actions.

Supernaturalism And Free Will

It seems to me that one of the best ways to deal with the issue of free will is to start with its opposite: dualism.

The idea of a mind-body separateness has been described in many ways. But, in essence, it's the idea that our physical self is distinctly different from some other controlling force which can operate the body independently of its natural functions. For example, if a person's body wants to scratch its ass or drink a pint of whiskey, the controlling homunculus can say no and order the body to do otherwise. Because the body can only operate within the natural laws governing the material universe and act accordingly, if there is a force that can alter those otherwise automatic reactions, it must be--by it's mere presence--supernatural. Any force that can change what would otherwise happen naturally is supernatural, meaning it doesn't have to live by the universe's governing forces and restrictions.

However, if we assume that there is a separate entity of some sort that can have the body operate outside the natural laws of the universe, then we can also assume that there really are no rules in play, at least when it comes to a person's body. The rules that govern the physical body would not actually be rules; they only become suggestions able to be tossed aside. This means that no rules for humans can ever truly be discovered because anything we observe could be the homunculus altering what would have otherwise happened--and we would never know when this was happening. Anything information we gather about ourselves would always have to have a asterisk pointing to a footnote that says when it comes to humans, nothing can ever truly be discovered.

Given what we continue to discover, can this be deemed a reasonable condition? Not really. We continue to discover new things about why we do what we do all the time. As we continue to gather more and better information, it'll not be the case that we will reverse course and move toward the idea that there are no rules in play.

The scary part about this idea is that it destroys free will, something we mistakenly think we, the disconnected homunculus, have. The sense of control free from the laws of nature we all innately feel is a deception, simply a byproduct of the nature of our existence. It's okay, though, because this misleading state of mind would have to be created if it wasn't already there. Otherwise, we would be a very sad species indeed. The point is that we shouldn't shy away from the situation and pretend our free will is real because if we do what we "discover" will be flawed if we start with this major falsehood. 

Ironically, if this is true, then there is no choice for those who accept this falsehood--and for those who don't. The rules will always be in play and the results will always be based on whatever the universe dictates.