Postmodern Factuality

Paging through a textbook in preparation for a class I’m teaching my eye caught a reference. I froze. Can this really be true? Is this really allowed in a textbook? The source is Wikipedia! Now don’t get me wrong, Wikipedia is a great quick reference and I use it often, but it is certainly not trustworthy source. No self-respecting scholar would be caught dead quoting Wikipedia.

Or have trustworthiness and factuality and truth so deteriorated in our postmodern zeitgeist that any source would do. Have facts just become opinions, and all opinions equal? Is the professor speaking about his field of expertise and the freshman speaking about the same field equally quotable sources?

Don’t get me wrong, I am a child of postmodernity, a Generation Xer par excellence; I feel strangely at home in this fragmented zeitgeist, but I also value the knowledgeable over the laity. All narratives are not equal.

Conservatives and Liberals

So Adam is slowly convincing me that I am not as liberal as I thought. Of course my blogging-friend is being selective of what he reveals about the general darftness of the Democrats, but that is okay. We are all selective about how we present information. Even supposed objective journalist do their profession from an inevitable paradigm. That is why it is so important to get as many different perspectives on important news as possible.

But back to American politics… Here’s my cop-out: I am not a U.S. citizen, so I don’t have to cast my vote to either the Conservatives or the Liberals. However, I believe I ought to have an opinion and although it will not make any difference to America, it will make a difference within me. Since I’m not American I’m allowing myself the courtesy to keep it general.

Conservatives:

Many of the conservative values I value. I believe in the sanctity of the family and similar sentiments. But I fear the Religious Right that is trying to use politics to enforce their religious agenda. This movement towards bridging the gap between State and Church is disturbing.

Christ showed a deliberate avoidance of political involvement. He shied away from attempts to get himself involved in any of the governmental politics of the day. He showed no interest in over throwing the Roman Empire. Even though a rebellion under His command would have been invincible, with him feeding them, healing them, raising them from the dead.

The serious privacy infringements under the Bush-administration are also a cause for solemn concern. It is my opinion that Americans have lost their freedom. Such atrocities as the “Spy Bill” of which I posted before, all under the cloak of anti-terrorism, are awful manipulations of the public’s fear, towards an Orwellian Big-Brother State.

Liberals:

What I like about the Liberals are their inclination away from Church and State and appreciation of freedom of speech.

Apart from the many inconsistencies Adam has made me aware of, I have another fear. In their offensiveness against the Religious Right, the Democrats are leaning themselves towards an equally fearsome extreme. A kind of Communist downplay (and sometimes even uprooting) of anything religious or traditionally sanctimonious. This has the potential to lead to a type of witch-hunt, or forced transformation of traditions and culture. My question is then, where does that leave those inalienable freedoms that made the United States the great nation it became? Such freedoms as the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Conscience. Freedoms that the Liberals are supposed to value.

Indeed, the religious right scares me, the liberal left frightens me. It is as one evangelist described: You have a choice between voting for the Devil in Pink or the Devil in Blue.

O, and by the way, the world is coming to an end!

The Hell of Heaven

"The sinner could not be happy in God's presence; he would shrink from the companionship of holy beings. Could he be permitted to enter heaven, it would have no joy for him. The spirit of unselfish love that reigns there--every heart responding to the heart of Infinite Love--would touch no answering chord in his soul. His thoughts, his interests, his motives, would be alien to those that actuate sinless dwellers there. He would be a discordant note in the melody of heaven. Heaven would be to him a place of torture; he would long to be hidden from Him who is its light, and the center of its joy. It is no arbitrary decree on the part of God that excludes the wicked from heaven; they are shut out by their own unfitness for its companionship. The glory of God would be to them a consuming fire. They would welcome destruction..."

An insightful and interesting quote.

The Christian God

“Christians,” writes my friend recently, “can never grasp how great God really is.”

And for a moment I wanted to take offence at his blanket statement. If not Christians, who? Buddhists? They are historically atheists and therefore teaches nothing about God. Pantheists? They limit God to this creation; I can learn more from mathematicians and physicists about God’s greatness than I can from pantheism. Where should I turn if I want learn about God’s greatness? Honestly, there is no greater God than the one that created everything out of nothing - ex nihilo. And which other religion can teach me about true unselfishness - true love - if not Christianity as demonstrated in the life and teachings of Christ?

But then I remembered again where my friend is coming from. His idea of “Christians” is the same one I feel distanced from. That nominal mainstream Christianity of today, founded more on cultural preference and political disposition than on divine inspiration. It is because of them that I feel uncomfortable calling myself a Christian.

That god - the one proclaimed by nominal mainstream Christianity - the one that tortures people throughout eternity, that arbitrary deity, that is not my god. Thank God (literally), that there are more views of God.

9/11

I was reading MorbidNeko's blog and was shocked when she mentioned it being the 7th anniversary of 9/11 today. The date didn't register at all with me.

So was 9/11 a conspiracy by the US-government? More and more experts (or are they just loony conspiracy theorists?) are suggesting that the WTC-towers collapsed onto themselves exactly like buildings in controlled demolitions. See for instance this YouTube-video.

A new movie that reconsiders the events in the light of American architecture, controlled demolitions, etc. can be watched at this website: http://www.911revisited.com/video.html . And did any of you see the documentary film Loose Change? (Loose Change blog, Online Google Video.) And there is of course many websites such as Conspiracy Planet and 911Truth that feels strongly about the US government's involvement in these sinister events.

On the other hand are the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers, such as this Special Report by Popular Mechanics or this website.

So who do we believe?

Being the Paranoid Prophet that I am, I'm inclined to lean towards the conspiracy theorists. To the total dismay of this terrorist interviewed on the Onion News Network:

What's the world coming too?

You know the world is wacky when:

• the Pope embraces Martin Luther;
• Catholics take over from the Protestants to identify the current (RC) Church as the “Whore of Babylon” (This "traditional" Catholic website just blew my socks off: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/);
• Churches woo for members by opening up wine bars;
• and the latest fad is religious candy!
  

Assumptions

A fellow blogger (Adam) recently pointed out how skewed scientific observations can be. For instance he pointed to two news articles. The first blames the serious melting of the arctic icecaps to global warming. And then the other report recounts the recent underwater volcanic activity in the arctic. (And although the latter article does not say it, it is obvious - and inferred to by Adam - that the arctic might be heating, not because of global warming, but because of localized volcanic activity.) What this tells us is that the scientific data on which the first article is based is making assumptions as to the reasons for the melting of the ice.

While I believe in the value of scientific study, I think that the scientific community is often ignorant of the many assumptions their findings are built on.

And not only the scientific community, but us all have assumptions from which we interpret the world. I doubt such assumptions are inescapably – we need a paradigm to work from. But our assumptions often prevent us from seeing other possibilities, solutions, alternatives.

Thus my challenge: Identify assumptions and evaluate alternatives.

Animal Cruelty Ads

What do you think of these ads?

Christ vs Church

"Christ does not drive but draws men unto Him. The only compulsion which He employs is the constraint of love. When the church begins to seek for the support of secular power, it is evident that she is devoid of the power of Christ--the constraint of divine love."

How fittingly the above quotation describes what's happening in Croatia and other parts of the world where the church "seek[s] for the support of secular power" in the form of national laws and so on.

To D or not to D

I was speaking to a friend (a doctor and lecturer at my university) the other day and he mentioned two things he regret. Firstly he regrets not doing his PhD thesis in English. And secondly, not doing it somewhere else.

And then it hit me, I too have done all three my degrees at the same place. Am I not restricting myself to certain points of view and set ways of thinking? So I consulted with a couple of professors, telling them of my concern and intention to do my PhD somewhere else. And all of them affirmed my concern and agreed that it would be beneficial to do it somewhere else.

So yesterday I went to tell my promoter that I'm considering to quit my PhD and take it up at another university. She expressed her sadness in losing me as a postgraduate, but said: "In the end it is your decision; it is your time; it is your money." And then we discussed some possibilities both locally and abroad.

I'm not going to make an overly haste decision. I will give myself a while to scout the options - and seeing as I'm relocating within a couple of days, I probably shouldn't be making any rash decisions just yet.

I'm looking for a university that (1) has a program for Creative Writing at PhD level, (2) caters for both academic and practiced based research, and (3) will allow me to study telematically (i.e. distance education, via email or other media). Any suggestions?

Croatia forces Sunday observance

Croatia’s parliament passed a law that forces shops to close on Sunday, in a concession to the Roman Catholic Church (see here.) The law will be effective as of January 1st, 2009.

These are the beginnings of Church-State autocracy. Let’s say that I want to keep the Biblical Sabbath (which is Saturday and not Sunday); this law effectively forces me not to do business on Sunday (which to my faith would be a normal working day). This is reminiscent of end-time prophecies that warn us that a time is coming “…that not any might buy or sell except those having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of its name” (Revelation 13:17).

Of course this is not the “Mark of the Beast” in full swing, but it is moving in that direction. Croatia is only one of many countries that aim to implement Sunday Laws (or “Blue Laws”), and in effect trying to force people into Sunday-observance. Such forced religion is not of God, but of the “beast”, described in Revelation.

Blue Laws have been in the decline over the past couple of years – especially in America, but it is again flaring up. This might have potentially serious consequences. And lead to the fettering of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience.

Although I completely agree with the importance of “Sabbath” observance for Christians, I seriously disagree with any government forcing such observance onto anyone, and forcing a specific sabbath day onto anyone.

Types of --theisms

Fundamental worldviews are the first building blocks of any religion or ideology. A single fundamental worldview can be subdivided into different further types. For instance there are many types of theism. One can be a monotheist (the belief in a single Godhead) or polytheist (the belief in multiple gods).

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. Many of the ancient religions were polytheistic. A modern day polytheistic religion is Shinto (the traditional Japanese religion).

Distinction is sometimes made between hard polytheism and soft polytheism. In hard polytheism the gods are quite distinct entities and can (and often do) engage in confrontation with each other. In soft polytheism the deities are rather different aspects of a single god/goddess that manifests in different entities.

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish polytheism from pantheism. Depending on the tradition, Hinduism can be interpreted as polytheistic or pantheistic. I’m tempted to say that Hinduism is rather polytheist, while Buddhism is rather pantheistic. But then again, it depends on the tradition. (Some historical views of Buddhism sees it as atheistic!)

Similarly, the modern New Age movement is practiced as polytheism by some practitioners and as pantheism by other practitioners. (I probably journeyed from being a monotheist [cultural religion], to a polytheist New Ager, to a pantheist, back to a monotheist. But at least now I know my monotheistic views are personal and not due to my culture.)

In polytheism the deity/deities are more personal and/or individualistic entities. The pantheistic God is more abstract and impersonal.

The fifth (copout) worldview

In the previous post on worldviews I listed the four fundamental worldviews, namely theism, deism, pantheism and atheism.

I also mentioned that we have no definite proof for which one is true – although there are some very good reasons to assume one over the other.

Following from this, there is a fifth worldview position, namely Agnosticism, i.e. the belief that one cannot know whether God exists or not, or the belief that one cannot be certain what to believe.

Unfortunately the agnostic copout is not a sustainable position to take for at least two reasons.

Firstly the agnostic standpoint is self-refuting. When one believes that everything is unknowable, that is in itself a certainty. It is knowable that everything is unknowable; thus self-refuting.

Secondly, all our actions (and reactions) stem from one worldview or another. An agnostic can be agnostic in theory, but never in practise.

If you wants to be an active member of society, or an active partaker in your own life, you need to think carefully about the worldview you choose. And in the end, it is a choice, and every choice has consequences. For instance, your worldview will influence your morality, vocation, etc.

A freewill dilemma

In response to my post on pantheism, fellow blogger, Mary-Jane IX, posted the following hypothetical question:

“If God gave us all the power of choice; what right does any of us have to deny someone their God-given right? If someone wants to rape a child, how can we deny that person the power of that choice?” (Read the full post here.)

This is an interesting dilemma.

I think the answer lies not in the fact that we have God-given freedom of choice, per se. Rather we should ask: Why did God give us freewill in the first place? The answer is: Love.

Love requires freewill. Love cannot be forced. It has to be a free choice. Forced love is not love – it is rape.

God gave everyone freedom of choice, including the rapist, as well as the raped child. The rapist uses his freedom of choice to violate the child’s choice not to have sex. The rapist takes away the child’s choice. By doing so the rapist is transgressing the very purpose freewill was given in the first place.

If he doesn’t allow the freewill of another, does he deserve his own freedom?

Worldviews

There are basically four worldviews – ideas of how everything came about and function.
These worldviews are pre-religion, pre-science. In fact, religion and science build of off these worldviews.

Theism is the idea that a Creator created everything. The Creator is not Itself part of creation, but is actively involved in it. Some theistic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam.



Deism is very much like Theism, but unlike Theism the Creator is not actively involved in creation. Usually the Creator is also not actively “conscious”. Some of the indigenous African religions are Deistic.



Pantheism is the idea that God is in everything and everything is God. The Creator is the creation – creation is the Creator. Pantheistic examples are Hinduism and the New Age movement.



Atheism is the idea that there is no God. Everything that came about (creation) came about spontaneously. Modern science is often atheistic. (Thus, atheism and modern science is build on the assumption that "things" can spontaneously just exist. Atheism and modern science is therefore also a belief-system, since it, like all other religions, are build on an initial assumption.)


For all practical reasons it is impossible for us to know which of the four is true. However, the moment we start any discussion on reality, religion, science, morality, justice, etc. we are assuming one of these four views. We assume one of them as a priori.

Why I'll never be a pantheist again...

I used to be a pantheist (someone that believes that God is in everything and everything is God) and avid New Age practitioner. But I can never return to that paradigm. If pantheism is true, then it is okay for the rapist to rape a child. After all, it is only God raping itself.

Everything that happens to you, says New Age teaching, happens to you because you wanted it to happen to you for your own spiritual development. Before you were born you requested to go through certain trials in this life. In other words, that raped child requested to be raped so that she can grow spiritually. You be the one to go look her in the eye and tell her: “You wanted to be raped so that you can grow spiritually.”

I can never return to being a pantheist.

No more privacy on YouTube

I can’t believe I’m stumbling onto this news only now a month later. And by chance! Why is the world so quiet about it? People are being fettered and they don’t even struggle—or notice!

A federal court ordered Google at the beginning of July to make available all “records of every video watched by YouTube users, including their login names and IP addresses”, to Viacom.

This means, a third party have complete access to everything you have ever watched on YouTube. Viacom (an international multimedia conglomerate), representing many of the film studios, will be able to legally prosecute you for watching sections of their movies on YouTube.

This third party now knows your viewing habits, your interests, and possibly even guess your political and religious views. They have your login name; which you likely use also on other services as well, so they can probably spy on you on the other platforms you use too. Why should they have access to such private detail? And why are people so nonchalant about it?

If personal information can be handed around so easily, can we have any sense of privacy left? US Government is giving more and more companies the legal authority to spy on ordinary citizens. To what end? Of course they don't call it spying...

It is true that Viacom may not have such malicious intend, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is that personal data is being handed around more and more easily and doing so under a "legal"-charade. Government, instead of protecting its citizens, is bowing before wealthy companies.

The result is forthright rebellion. Many of the boards I've read on the topic people are reacting against Viacom in a rebellious way. Some posters said that they are now determined more than ever to boycott Viacom, by deliberately pirating Viacom pictures. Laws should make sense. These laws do not. The governments are in effect now causing millions of lawbreakers (i.e. criminals), because they are not re-evaluating laws, and changing them to adapt with the times.

For more detail on the Google-Viacom case view these sites:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9983511-7.html
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2008/07/ongoing-analysis-of-youtube-viacom.html
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html

And this YouTube video, if you dare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJbCWJNQUYI

Also download and listen to Lawrence Lessig's audio book, Free Culture, on Copyright Law and the Internet: http://www.archive.org/details/free-culture-audiobook

One more forward will kill me

I’m so irritated with getting nonsensical forwards that I’ve started to write angry emails in return, in a hope to wake people up from their zombie-obedience. An email ends with: “Send this to everyone”, and people just blindly obey.

The worst kinds of forwards are those where the forwarder actually thinks he or she is doing the forwardee a service. For instance the recent forward I received warning me: BIG VIRUS COMING!!! PLEASE READ & FORWARD!!

The email claims that there’s a devilish virus on the way with the ability to burn your hard drive, and it was said by CNN to be the worst virus ever. The virus-warning even claims that Snopes.Com vouches its authenticity.

Well, Snopes.Com did say that it is a real virus, but it is not a BIG VIRUS COMING. It’s been around for a long time. Which means that any half-decent anti-virus program will render it harmless.

Why not double check with CNN, before forwarding your benevolent email. It’s easy. Go to CNN.Com and type in “worst virus ever” in the search field. And lo and behold – there is no listing of CNN making any such claim. Instead you find other people, like myself, voicing their irritation.

It’s always good to check on Snopes.Com – but don’t do as millions of others have done and actually believe someone else because they had supposedly checked on Snopes.Com. Stop being lazy and do it yourself.

Probably what irritates me the most is that people do not take a moment to think about the claims of these emails. They just believe it without a moments thought. For instance, the virus will burn your hard drive… How can a piece of program code, a series of 0s and 1s, make fire to your hardware? Program code is not magic. It’s like thinking that the words on this blog has the ability to steal your car. It doesn’t make sense. Are people really that gullible? It doesn't take an Einstein... And people think I’m paranoid?!

So please, I beg of you, stop killing me with your forwards. (As if that made sense, but I’m sure you get the idea.)

Dear American Citizen. Your phone is tapped and there's nothing you can do about it.

A friend send me the link to an article reporting on the new “Spy Bill” that has been passed by the US Senate. Basically the bill gives immunity to all telephone companies from past, present and future spying for government. In other words, telephone companies cannot be sued for tapping possible terrorists. This is all nice, if only potential “terrorists” weren’t such an elusive concept. With a little spin-doctoring anybody can be made out to be a potential terrorist. Have you criticised the president lately? You’re a potential terrorist. Do you know any Muslims? You’re probably a terrorist. Are you questioning America’s involvement in Iraq? Most likely you’re a terrorist. Do you adhere to the idea that God’s laws are above a country’s laws? Yip, you’re definitely a fanatical zealot terrorist.

The president said that the bill will “protect Americans’ civil liberties”. What about the Bill of Rights that guarantees an individual’s right to privacy?! Does the Bill of Rights stand for anything anymore?

Death matters

It is hard to have patience with people who say "There is no death" or "Death doesn't matter." There is death. And whatever is matters. And whatever happens has consequences, and it and they are irrevocable and irreversible. You might as well say that birth doesn't matter. -- C. S. Lewis

I think I can understand why people would want to believe in the innate immortality of the soul. It is a comforting thought to think that I'll never die. The truth is, I will die. People die all the time. But what is more comforting to me is that the "souls" of the dead are not now being tortured somewhere by some arbitrary deity that says: You better love me, or burn!

What distresses me is how many people actually want such a deity... How many people finds pleasure in the idea of people being tortured throughout eternity. Some years back I helped my brother, whom is a theologian, with a series of Bible seminars. During this series he clearly showed how the Bible does not teach the orthodox idea of God torturing people throughout eternity. I was shocked at how many people were angry at hearing this. There must be so much anger and hatred and self-righteousness that people would find pleasure in the idea of others suffering (and of course, themselves escaping such a penalty).