Metaxis

God and Time

2011-10-06T21:34:00.000+10:00

It's about time I blow the dust of this old blog and get it up and running again. Let's start out with something heavy. I'm going to have a quick look at the metaphysics of time and how that fits in with the compatibility problems between free will and God's foreknowledge.

There are basically two structures for time. The first, known as the A-series, posits that time is open. The future is indeterminate as it doesn't exist. Potential events are in the future and as they are chosen by the actions of the present, they move into the present themselves and then recede into the past.

The second conception of time is the B-series, where all events are fixed and eternal in time. The future can be known and potentially even travelled to, as the "future" is merely a perception of humankind. All events exist simultaneously, but are experienced at different "times".

Now it seems pretty obvious, I think, that free will can exist in the A-series and not the B-series. If all events are fixed and eternal, we certainly can't choose among them. And God, knowing the future, necessarily exists in the B-series, not the A-series, because in the A-series, there is no future to know. As the A-series and the B-series are contrary, only either free will or God can exist. And you all know what I'm putting my bet on.

A list

2011-04-03T12:34:00.000+10:00

I'm often asked, if there were no God, what would've inspired all the great artworks that we have in this world? As a lover of art, this is an important question to me. So here's a brief list of things which have or could inspire non-theistic artwork.

Nature (eg, the Romantics)
History (Death of Socrates, anyone?)
Human Emotion (Munch's Scream)
Speculation (Jules Verne and the birth of Sci-fi)
Technology (The Futurists)
Other art (How many paintings of violins did the Cubists do?)
Lifestyles (German Expressionism)
Politics (Constructivism)
Anti-art (Dada)
Dreams (I'm currently writing an essay based around Surrealism)

I think that should do for now. I don't deny that theism has provided us with great art, but to say we would be without art if we were without God is demonstrably false.

My First YouTube Video

2011-03-18T12:41:00.003+10:00

A concession

2011-02-26T12:26:00.000+10:00

I was doing a bit of thinking, as I often do, and thought of one action that could be both religious and altruistic. This of course, is dependent on the religion being true, which I think is unlikely, but as a thought experiment, we can make the temporary assumption that it is. The action in question would be the religious person giving up their spot in heaven so that another could take their place. This is the only truly selfless religious action I can think of. Feel free to send me any more if you can think of them.

And have fun imagining Ray Comfort's reaction to this suggestion.

Continuing the theme: Why the religious cannot be altruistic

2011-02-25T15:37:00.000+10:00

My last two posts have been exclusively about altruism and this post will continue that theme. One of the comments I addressed mentioned the Christian saint Maximilian Kolbe. Maximilian Kolbe volunteered to die in place of a holocaust victim in the Auschwitz concentration camp during the Second World War. Given the definition of altruism, this indeed seems like an altruistic act. But, in my opinion it certainly was not altruistic and if anything, was an egoistic action.

Kolbe was a friar and the religious cannot be altruistic. This is for the very simple reason that their actions are motivated by a need to please their god. Especially for a priest, imam or friar, how can one believe in a god and not act accordingly in the interests of that god? Even if God says to Kolbe "Give your life for others, selflessly" Kolbe isn't really thinking about others when he gives his life. He's thinking of the commandments of God and the interests of his eternal soul.

Especially the concept of an afterlife refutes the idea of a religious altruist. The prospect of eternal punishment or eternal reward is the true motivator of the religious person. All actions, from worshiping, spreading the faith, feeding the poor to sacrificing one's life, are motivated by a need to get into heaven, paradise, etc.

Abraham Lincoln was said to believe that even selfless actions were motivated by a need to soothe one's conscience and this has been claimed to prove that everyone is an egoist. This though is not true, but goes some way to demonstrating my point. While a religious person can do selfless acts, their motivation is an egoistic need to get into heaven and to be right with their god.

The true altruist is also an atheist, as only if you believe that humans are alone in this universe can you begin to understand the need to help one another. Only the atheist helps for the sake of help and not the sake of the self. And it is this that defines an altruist, not the actions, but the intentions.

Responding to comments: Defending the principle of altruism

2011-02-24T16:31:00.000+10:00

I received two comments on the last post and I want to address them both. I'll start with the more obscure one.

the sub/dude said...

Perhaps nobody told you they love you. I do if that matters. I’d die for you in an instant. Yes, yes, I know. The world looks down on the term ’to love’, yet, I’m not OF this world. If you read the story of Maximillion Kolbe, I’d do the exact same thing outta love for you, yet, I don’t even know you, yet, I wanna preserve and cherish life, for I’m a small peAce-de-resistance of a Larger Picture. God bless you.

First of all, yes plenty of people have told me they love me. I have friends I love and friends who love me back. I don't know if you can love me though, specifically because you don't know me. While you could die for me in an instant, as you say, you could not love me without knowing me. Love requires an emotional connection. Your sentiments to emulate Maximilian Kolbe, while perhaps noble, are completely at odds with the altruism I described in my post. A dead man (or woman) can serve no one. Also, you are very much of this world, no matter how intensely you believe yourself to not be. Finally, if you loved me you would know me well enough to understand that I find the phrase "God bless you" to be an insult. I'm an autonomous being and am very capable of getting along without the blessings of imaginary beings.

Second comment:

Anonymous said...

as someone that does the exact same thing there is a point in time where you have to say no. There is only so much you can give to someone else and not being appreciated for it before you crack and feel worthless. in your experiences I am guessing these people are your friends and would take a bullet for you in a heartbeat. however, those that have stepped on you and used you have been henceforth deleted from your life? Correct me if I'm wrong

I don't explicitly refuse help to anyone, regardless of their background or actions. But I only have so much energy that I can use to help people, so I prefer to help those who will most appreciate the help. If given a choice between helping a beggar or Hitler, I would choose the beggar, but not because of the inherent maliciousness of Hitler's character, but rather because his ego would prevent him from appreciating the help. But you're right in one respect. Friends come and go, and those who don't appreciate the help are more likely to go, but more likely for their own reasons than for me "deleting them from my life".

Defending the principle of Altruism

2011-02-20T21:30:00.002+10:00

Again, I was reading through my textbook and it came up with an argument against altruism. For those who don’t know, altruism is the ethical standpoint whereby you put other’s interests before your own. The argument, paraphrased from the philosopher Ayn Rand, is that altruism is self destructive, as from the moment you’re born, you’re looking to sacrifice yourself for others. It’s not how to live your life, but how to give it up for others. As such, altruism is inherently suicidal.

The textbook gives a half baked defence, stating that altruism is ok if tempered with egoistic principles. That is, an extreme of altruism is unlikely anyway, so why attack it?

Well, I do believe in altruism, so I’m going to defend it against this attack. Living your life for the betterment of others isn’t always a pleasant experience, but it is a rewarding one. I’ve often given up money for friends when I knew I shouldn’t have, woken up in the middle of the night to pick people up when I really needed the sleep, helped others with assignments when I should’ve been doing my own. These are all examples of altruistic actions that require some level of self sacrifice. So what then is my defence against the suicidal implications of altruism?
Mostly, that if I died, I would then be incapable of helping others. Questions of an afterlife aside, it is a requirement of altruism that one stays alive long enough to help their fellow humans and animals. Also, the extreme self sacrifice of one’s own life would likely mar the psychology of the recipient of one’s altruism. How would you feel if someone needlessly gave up their life for you?

The focus of altruism isn’t on the self anyway. Rand is incorrect in saying that altruism is suicidal and self sacrificing, because the impetus is on the recipient of altruistic principles, not the proponent of them. The altruist isn’t thinking, “How can I sacrifice myself?” but rather, “How can I help someone?”

I hope these arguments go some way to defending my position. If anyone has refutations, please email me or leave a comment. I’ll be more than happy to address them.

Codifying Ethics

2011-02-14T22:42:00.000+10:00

I was reading my ethics textbook and it was talking a little bit about whether or not religion is relevant to ethics. It notes that many philosophers and theologians have considered morality to be entirely dependent on religion, gods and the like. But I was thinking on it and came to the conclusion that it's more likely the other way around. Here's my reasoning:

1) If religion is the basis of morality, atheists would have no morals
2) I am a moral atheist
3) Therefore religion is not the basis of morality

Note that religion may be the basis of some people's morality, but not morality in general. So what is the relationship between morality, ethics and religion? In my opinion, it's rather that religion is the codified version of the natural moral urges inherent in most humans. But something gets lost in translation. Why is it that so many moral codes are so removed from human nature? Other than the golden rule (which has it's own flaws) many moral codes seem to be adverse to pleasure and reason. One theory I have is the notion of the corrupting influence of power. Another could be the sociopathic tendencies of the mentally ill people who often became shamans and prophets in the ancient world.

Whatever the reason, it seems that morals are much better off as a natural phenomenon of the human mind than a codified religious law.

Why being a hermit is the only ethical choice...

2011-02-13T13:26:00.000+10:00

This one is so simple that it I'm surprised it took so long to come to me. First, we need to take a quick recap of what solipsism is, for those who forgot, or in some cases, never knew.

Solipsism is the philosophical outlook that only the self exists and that everything else is a manifestation of one's own imagination. That is, the entire universe only exists insofar as you can imagine and perceive it.

We all have to live with the knowledge that solipsism is a logically defensible position and therefore might be correct. Perhaps you are the only person who actually exists, and you have to take responsibility for everything else that happens in the universe. That includes all war, all famine and all suffering.

By now I'm sure some of you will know where I'm going with this. But I'll continue anyway. If the solipsist outlook is true, you have to take responsibility for all suffering, as you're the existing individual and all existence is dependent on your perception. Therefore, the only ethical choice is to become a hermit and cease to perceive anything that can avoid being perceived. This way, all suffering ends, as no one can be perceived to be suffering by you, the only existing individual.

Like I said, simple.

Some Great News

2011-02-08T13:18:00.000+10:00

I've just been accepted in to a Master of Arts in Philosophy at the University of Queensland, one of the best universities in the country. The university is phasing out coursework masters programs, so I'm extremely lucky to have the opportunity to take this up. This is the long awaited stepping stone that will take me up to a PhD.

On the importance of disbelief

2011-02-07T15:39:00.000+10:00

I was doing a lot of thinking lately about knowledge and the part that belief plays in it. Obviously, you can't know something to be true unless you believe it to be true. This is a basic precept of epistemology. Unfortunately, a lot of people, especially when it comes to things like the supernatural, religion, superstitions and the like, think that belief alone is enough to confer knowledge.

This is why I wanted to bring up the importance of disbelief. Disbelief is, to me, the core of knowledge, not so much in having it, but definitely in gaining it. Only when you disbelieve a premise do you engage with it enough to determine its truth value. Science is a great example of this. In the case of evolutionary science, Darwin, his contemporaries and his intellectual descendants all used doubt in order to test the veracity of their claims. Only by trying to prove themselves wrong did they ever prove themselves right. Another good example of this came from a very religious man, Rene Descartes. Through his method of radical doubt he determined that the individual must necessarily exist, for in order to doubt one's own existence, there must be a doubter. Cogito, ergo sum.

If only Descartes and other religious types would apply this method of doubt to their claims about the universe, the afterlife and their gods. I'm often told that I have to believe to understand, but its very much the other way around.

In order to understand, we must disbelieve.

Book burnings

2010-09-10T16:28:00.000+10:00

While I'm generally against burning any book, there are a few exceptions. Twilight is one of them. Religious books come in a close second. So when I heard that the Koran burning in America wasn't going ahead, I took it with a twinge of disappointment. You may think that's rather hypocritical of me, or that I'm just being provocative for the sake of it. But let me quantify this.

Books, in general, aren't sacred. They contain knowledge, ethics, morals and world views of their authors and their times. But what's most important about them is that they're read with a critical eye. They're scrutinised and debated, vilified and praised. Books are always approached with questions. Religious books are not. They're thought to be above criticism, said to be beyond reproach by mere men. I disagree with this. And so I think it's important to criticise religious books with the harshest judgement. Believe me, if Mien Kampf or Das Kapital were considered sacred (not an unlikely scenario) I would support their burning just as passionately.

So hopefully, even if this pastor doesn't have the balls to do it, someone will burn a Koran. Because really, who doesn't like a little controversy?

Same Sex Adoption Bill

2010-09-02T09:50:00.000+10:00

The New South Wales government has done a bold thing and introduced a bill to legally recognise children with same sex parents or living in same sex foster homes. It will also allow same sex couples to adopt children. This is a massive step forward for both same sex couples and children looking for safe, happy homes to live in. But of course, there's one particular group that is vehemently against this. Churches.

Cardinal George Pell (One of the bigots I've mentioned before on this blog) says that this blocks children's rights to be raised by both a mother and father. Of course, only the Catholic church could prefer that children get raised by no one at all.

Kristina Keneally, the NSW Premier, has rightfully said that parliamentarians need to put away their own deeply held beliefs and vote in the interests of children looking for loving families. Let's hope it works out for them.

Guest Post by Tiffany Chapple - Welcome to Gilead?

2010-08-22T12:04:00.003+10:00

Welcome to Gilead?

I had this horrible feeling last night that if Abbott became PM we'd be heading towards a republic of Gilead moment. If you've read The Handmaid's Tale, you get it. If not... I think we all know he's a misogynistic areshole and the apparent willingness of voters to accept that in a leader - for the sake of a mining tax break and some change in the national petty cash - pretty much says it all.

The Handmaid's Tale feeling only got worse every time I saw footage of him surrounded by his accessories. Gillard's campaign might have been run by faceless men, but at least she didn't try to say that presenting a person as only relevant in terms of her role within the family was somehow egalitarian. Abbott clearly doesn’t seem to understand that “my mother is a woman” didn’t exactly do much in the way of presenting a modern egalitarian ideal, but only goes to show that he’s stuck in the pre-suffragette era when women were just mothers, just wives, just daughters. They may as well have been wearing colour coded veils.

On the other hand, there was Gillard, who might have been a step forward for women in Australia; our first female PM - only 13 years behind New Zealand - if she hadn’t gotten there by being a backstabbing bitch. Watching The Circle after the knifing incident (yes, I watched The Circle, that’s not the point to focus on here) I was genuinely surprised to hear these otherwise intelligent women talking about “Julia” as PM as a great step forward. Our First Female Prime Minister. Like it was some great step forward (moving forward, perhaps?) that showed how Australia was coming out of the dark ages and finally embracing women’s lib.

Not really.
Australia has still not had an elected female Prime Minister. She has not been voted in. Abbott is ostensibly as popular. The people have spoken indeed, but nobody’s sure what the hell they’ve said. Unless you count the fact that the Greens have a seat, Bob Brown is a rock star, and a hung parliament means we’re in for a lot of shouting in the House of Representatives. But then, there’s always been a lot of shouting in the House of Representatives. It’s when the shouting stops that we’ll really be in trouble.

A tad pissed off

2010-08-07T17:40:00.000+10:00

I got a comment the other day and it really got to me. Here it is, in it's entirety:

Anonymous said...

But you're making the assumption that she doesn't genuinely think in sports metaphors, which she may do, even if she's never played a game before since sports metaphors entered into the collective subconscious over fourty years ago. Your disappointment seems to be based on gender profiling rather than anything truly political.

Thanks, anonymous, for projecting your gender profiling onto me. I don't care whether Julia Gillard is male, female, transgender or ungendered - I didn't even think about it when I wrote the post. I wrote:

The sport appeal. Lesson one in anti-genuine political campaigning. You know, look like "one of the people". It's appealing to that voter who votes for the candidate he could have a beer with, rather than the one who would most effectively represent and run our country. No one even likes sport anyway.

Now, show me where her gender is implicated in that paragraph. Go ahead. Where do I say "Only men are idiots and use sports metaphors"? Where do I say "Women can't watch sports"? Really. Where? Did you maybe stop to think that, like the end of the sentence implies, I don't like sports. Are you saying I have to watch sports and think in sports metaphors because I'm a male? Is that your little gender bias there?

And no one's mind naturally works in sports metaphors anyway. What do you think she does, goes down to the shops for some milk and likens it to taking the puck in a game of ice hockey? Besides, sports and politics are so far removed in importance that comparing one to the other is "naturally" an insult to my intelligence.

So thanks, anonymous, for your input there.

Disappointment in Julia Gillard

2010-08-02T08:23:00.000+10:00

Not that I was going to vote for her anyway. I'm greens all the way. But I saw something on the news this morning which put me off. I had nothing against her up until now. She says, quite promisingly that she's going to be more genuine for the remainder of the election campaign and that there won't be any more posturing for votes. We're going to see the real Julia, apparently.

And what does she do next? Compare the whole campaign to a sports game. The sport appeal. Lesson one in anti-genuine political campaigning. You know, look like "one of the people". It's appealing to that voter who votes for the candidate he could have a beer with, rather than the one who would most effectively represent and run our country. No one even likes sport anyway.

It wouldn't be too bad - still disappointing, but not too bad - except she had just promised to be genuine. She broke one already. No wonder her support is declining in the polls.

But on the other hand, Tony Abbott is a dick.

A brief word on the movie ‘Inception’

2010-07-25T10:36:00.001+10:00

Wow.

Getting back to God

2010-07-19T15:20:00.001+10:00

I’m not really, just for the purposes of the Blog. It’s been mainly political lately, but I think it’s about time I had a nice little anti-theistic rant. I’m in the mood for it. I came up with this one while reading a bit about Satre’s secularisation of Leibniz’s theories. It has nothing to do with the passage I read, but when you’re in a thinking mood, it all comes to you at once.

The problem I was thinking about is the status of “infinity” that religious folks give to their gods. It’s even implied when they say it more simply as “God is everywhere” (then what’s the point of a church?). But there’s an implication in that. If God is infinite, God is by definition everything. He can’t not be me, because that would then give a limit to the scope of what God is – that would make God finite.

So what does this mean for the religious? That means we are all God and God is all us. That’s a pleasant thought, you would think. But then God commits suicide. God not only performs, but is abortions. God masturbates. God is Satan. God is Hell. God is everything.

I’m not sure about everyone else, but I don’t think this is what Judeo-Christian’s want to believe. But it’s what they’ve set themselves up for. I really don’t think St Augustine thought this one out at all.

If you have thoughts on this one, let me know what you think.

Oil leak stopped

2010-07-16T12:31:00.001+10:00

Congratulations to BP’s engineers for finally stemming the tide of oil spilling into our oceans. It’s a brilliant achievement for them and despite how many of us hate BP right now, we should be happy with their efforts. This doesn’t mean we should take the pressure off though (I love puns). If we give them a moments pause, that clean up job will end up on the shoulders of tax payers and volunteers.

More wins for human rights

2010-07-14T12:07:00.001+10:00

After the genocide charges laid against al-Bashir yesterday, I didn’t think things could get much better for a while. But to my surprise, they did. The French parliament has voted 335 to 1 in favour of banning the full Islamic face veil in public. Seems like democracy finally won a battle against the dark age.

I’ve already explained my views on this topic. On one point, you should be able to wear whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, no matter how offensive that is to anyone. On the other hand, if you’re refused entry to a private establishment on the grounds of security risk or offensive behaviour, get over it. Other people have rights too.

On this point of banning the burqua, I do believe the French government has made a good choice, and that’s not just because I’m a militant atheist. For one point, there’s the medical ramifications for pregnant women wearing the full veil. On another point, the one that was largely the topic of debate, is the right of the French people to assert their national identity. France is not an Islamic nation and they shouldn’t be coerced into allowing abhorrent practices to pervade their rich, cultured, free society.

It still has to pass the senate to get through, but overall, a victory for the democratic process.

Win for human rights

2010-07-13T15:11:00.001+10:00

So, finally, the arrest warrant for Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir includes genocide. It goes back to the old question, how many acts of genocide are needed before it becomes genocide? It was a potent question asked during the Rwandan crisis, and just as potent now. At what point is the UN willing to draw the line in the blood stained sand and say it’s enough.

Well done to the ICC for seeing the light and I for one hope that al-Bashir receives a little of his own style of justice soon.

Seal Culling

2010-07-12T10:55:00.001+10:00

So I just got an email from the organisation Care2 about a proposal by the Canadian government to cull off 220,000 seals over the course of five years in an effort to protect the local fishing industry. The email claims that environmental scientists have identified irresponsible fishing practices as the culprit.

There wasn’t much information in the email, and it was obviously one sided, but for the most part, I think people are against the idea of killing off cute little baby seals. If you’re Canadian, or just generally interested in conservation, this might be something to get behind.

Unfortunate…

2010-07-07T21:30:00.001+10:00

Just briefly want to complain. Why? I like complaining. Voiceworks magazine, the magazine I’m always submitting to and who never gets back to me even to reject me. They’re looking for young election commentators. And I can’t even apply because I can’t attend the workshop in Melbourne. Why does everything happen in another state? There’s something off-putting about living in the Texas of Australia.

Transgender athletes

2010-07-07T08:54:00.001+10:00

So the South African runner Caster Semenya has been cleared to compete against women. In running, in case that needed to be cleared up. Apparently this is a controversial decision, because we still live in an era where gender and sexuality is considered sacred or something.

As usual, I just want to posit a quick solution. Many transgender people want to be recognised as such. So why not have a transgender category in as many sporting events as we can? There should at least be the option. And even dumbshit rednecks can’t complain because they’ll have more races to waste their money on with gambling. It’s a win win!

Tell me your thoughts, if you have any on the topic.

(Usually when I say “tell me your thoughts” everyone just points out the flaws in my plan. I know there are flaws, I’m leaving them in there for discussion purposes. Try and come up with something original if you want to contribute.)

Why the Mining Super Profits tax is failing Australian citizens

2010-07-02T11:57:00.000+10:00

It's been a big controversy in Australia. Even people who don't care about politics are talking about it. The Government's proposed super profits energy tax has finally had a breakthrough, according to several news sources. Julia Gillard has become the white (or red?) knight of the economy.

Now, obviously, the more big companies get taxed, the better. It means that we citizens would get taxed less and we get more services free from the government. I don't think anyone would complain about Australia's largest companies paying for our healthcare and education. It seems only reasonable that the taxes from major car companies should go towards fixing our roads and therefore lowering car registration costs. I'm not sure what corporate tax rates in Australia are - my research skills are more geared towards events before the turn of the 20th century, but for most countries, the rich companies pay a pittance of what the people do.

And as it turns out, the revenue from the energy super profits tax are going towards lowering the tax rates of other industries. Just great.

May I make a minor proposal? How about a uniform tax rate across the board, for companies, individuals and especially for religious organisations. All of these groups would of course get tax deductions for charitable contributions, so religious bodies have no grounds to object - if they're doing what they should be doing to get their tax free status, there shouldn't be a problem. And in this fair, reasonable proposal, no one gets ripped off, no one has to give up more of their well earned cash than anyone else and the whole national community benefits from the resources and work of it's peers and colleagues.

So, tell me what you think. Agree on my tax proposal? Or do you have a better idea? I want to know.