What ought?
Oh I also read some world of warcraft stuff, a book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life, a book of Brian Bilston's poetry and some ghost stories selected by Roald Dahl.
The world of warcraft is interesting. Fiction always has some link to reality and in this there was portrayal about how people try to make peace and how people in power do not want peace because they want power and in peace, everyone has power. And how conflict just generally sucks. (At least what I took away)
The book about Bonhoeffer's life.. Yeah sick stuff, how using one's resources and privileges and standing by one's conviction. And great courage in the face of death.
The poetry was just poetry I guess, being in the UK for 1 year helps me understand abit more.
The ghost stories were surprisingly not that scary. I mean I avoid horror movies and stuff. But it seems to me that the spirits, whatever they are, are less powerful than Christ in me. But then of course I would like to not play around with such things. Actually there were quite a few "benevolent" ghosts or at least non harmful. So it wasn't just fear for the sake of fear.
So im reading this book called "Why faith fails, the Christian delusion". It is a collection of papers, actually, against Christianity. And it supposedly provides a much better case against Christianity than Dawkins (says a review on the back) and presumably Hitchens, because, well you could see my review of his God is not great. Maybe i'll do these in Chapters because... idk man, the lethargy is strong. I'm still procrastinating war and peace because war and peace is really intimidating to start. Like look. Its so thick!!
As a side note: I'm reading this copy that I borrowed from the library and there are these pencil markings, presumably by a Christian, that kinda disputes what is being written. It is quite funny. Though sometimes I think they are being rather uncharitable, on rare occasions they raise up good points. I must say though, I think whoever wrote it is abit too concerned about "winning" the debate. If you see what I wrote earlier, there is not much need to win such things, time will tell in the end as to the truth. Especially for Christianity, offer other people, if they take it, great. If not, it is for the best too. Don't have to ad hominem and stuff. But it is fun, it is like reading it together with another person.
Part 1 is titled why faith fails. It is made up of 4 chapters, I presume they are 4 papers edited together by the John Loftus guy. Once again, i'll try to be as charitable as possible and if I fail to do so you can point it out and we shall see what can be said. So, high expectations eh! Since its a better case. If you are up to it you can read it yourself and see if what I respond makes sense. I'm not trying to "fight" them per se, but given that I am a Christian, my response will most likely go against what they are saying (or I become a non-Christian). I hope that I am not just speaking past them, as many of these debates seem to be.
First paper is by an anthropologist and he seeks to demonstrate that Christianity is culture. And there is no behemoth uniform Christian culture, there are many Christianities in each unique geographical location, having been shaped by, and shaping local culture. Culture is defined as the structured customs and underlying worldview assumptions by which people live (loosely paraphrased). Basically lots of assumptions that underpin how people go about life and it is something that is total and learnt (basically you see through your culture, hard to see your culture).
He shows how missiology tries to make Chirstianity in a form that is recognisable to local culture and in so doing, sorta creates some sort of new Christian culture and how it is potent, to engage cultures, that is how you can convert people. He gives lots of evidences of how religions have different cultures in names, institutions, time (linear vs circular), language, space .etc .etc. He also illustrates how Christianity evolved culturally with quarrels over orthodoxy (is that culture tho? small point) until today's rather divided Christianity along denominational lines with different cultures. And how Christianity can incorporate the culture around it e.g prosperity gospel incorporating uh, good ole (american?) greed, church of man for manly culture, churches for freaks and misfits, churches with rap .etc. and the megachurches being adapted to suburban and corporate lives of modern Christians. I presume he could add the modern strain of liberal theology that is very much trying to fit into the culture of political correctness and libertarianism in the west. And something about Christianity always reforming in response to cultural shifts or retreating like the Amish.
All these things are in history or empirically see-able. And yes Christianity is never supposed to be just a "belief system" in the sense of propositional beliefs that are intellectually assented to. It is meant to be a comprehensive worldview by which to see everything from cradle to grave. Yes. That is right. But how does this fit in a book on why faith fails?
I reckon this comes in the conclusion, titled so many Christianities, so little reason. Presumably, from the title, he seems to suggest there is insufficient justification for these many Christianities (or rather cultures calling themselves Christianity)? I don't know whether there was an assumption that Christianity was supposed to be this uniform behemoth without cultural differences, if there was such an assumption he has disproven it, but perhaps only American Christians would think there is such an assumption (lol, a joke la).
***He says "religions may think they are universal and eternal, but they are not. Religions may think they are special, but they are not". I think this is some sort of argument from plurality? That because Christianity is culture, and there are many cultures, each one is merely relativistic to the rest and so none are special (in the sense of culturally). (If there isn't such an argument, then idk whats the "faith fails" component for this paper.)
*** He also says Christians are not easily reasoned out of religion since they are not usually reasoned into it... ... they are not so much indoctrinated as enculturated. And if you are in a culture, you do not see the culture because it is invisible to itself as assumptions that are taken for granted. He concludes that "the hope... is that once people recognise the ... relativity of religion, they will see little merit in it: THAT WHICH IS NO LONGER TAKEN FOR GRANTED IS OFTEN NOT TAKEN AT ALL."(Caps mine)
I think there is some bait and switch going on here though it might not be apparent on first glance. So Christianity is a culture in the sense of it aims towards being a worldview and all. There are many Christianities (culturally) in that there are many different ways the core tenets of Christianity are practically lived out in the world. The ways they are lived out are relative but the core tenets are rather uniform. As the author has pointed out, there have been fights over what is orthodox and so, there is an orthodox and the outside (i.e the heresies). So there is uniformity over core tenets and Christianity has adjudicated that they are false (the tenets that differ). It seems weird to say that a culture is false or true but Christianity, even though it is culture in that it leads to culture, it is not just culture. There is a truth claim to it that undergirds whether the culture is in line with it or not (and there is allowed variation as to whether the culture is in line with these core tenets). And to go down to it, I reckon it is on the truth of the bible which will be covered in the next part that I haven't read. Maybe when I read it I will edit this.
What I am saying, in summary, is that relativistic cultures of Christianity do not imply that Christianity's fundamental tenets are false. We can be fundamentalist on the fundamentals and allow degrees of freedom in culture (I would even argue that it is biblical i.e Paul says to the Jews he became like a Jew and to the gentiles, like a gentile 1 cor 9:20-22), allowing the "different Christianities". Of course it is not absolute freedom, there is the moral code of sacrificial love instituted by Jesus and such stuff but that is hardly the point here. The fact that other religions also bring along their culture is a case to examine other religions too, I reckon.
Towards the encultured and taken for granted point, I would say by all means evaluate the core tenets, go and see other cultures and draw your conclusions. This will play a further role in Loftus's chapter 4.
Chapter 2 is titled the Christian belief through the lens of cognitive science.
Mmm again it starts off very much in the realm of expertise. Here it is psychology. Here the author (I think is female?) argues that humans are not rational about anything and that certain feelings that are associated with religion e.g feeling born again or feelings of certainty can be explained psychologically by other factors. It seems obvious to me that feelings of certainty is in no way a guarantee of truth of the thing being asserted. Also, there is probably an argument somewhere that God is made in the image of humanity, having a human mind? Theres also stuff like trying to attribute good and bad stuff to things, a kinda over attribution to agents.
One sensible comment that my ghost reader made was regarding a line where the author wrote "since we humans are meaning makers to the core, such a power experience demands an explanation" (he goes on to suggest that religious interpretations of such experiences are provided before and after the experience). The pencil statement asks why are we such i.e why are we meaning-makers to the core? Good question.
I think that his argument is that cognitive research can sufficiently explain the phenomenon of belief, with a set of principles that can explain supernaturalism generally. Something about Occam's razor, therefore, there is no need to postulate a God to explain certain beliefs.
It seems to me that this is targeted against some sort of person who says I believe because I feel such and such. Something from religious mystical experience. And this guy wants to say, look your experience is due to this (psychology thing), not because religion is true. Hmm. I must say it seems quite foreign to me cos I'm not really from the pentecostal movement nor have I had any super powerful experience or something. I personally am against hype kind of emotionalism in order to trigger these sort of supposed "experiences".
That being said, I think one doesn't have to give up experience of the spiritual as evidence that God exists. Firstly, I doubt the evidence is as clear cut as such and such factor = such and such experience. If so, everyone in a charismatic service would be slain by the spirit and mass hysteria / hallucinations would be much easier. I daresay it is a probabilistic thing, that certain factors lead to a higher chance of having certain experiences. Secondly, everyone's experience is different. There is this opacity of minds that even though they describe the same things, it might have been different to them (and nobody can know otherwise since nobody is them who has experienced it). This means that there could be genuine spiritual experiences different from those "induced" by factors. But these are all secondary reasons.
I think the main response to this argument is that, even granting everything he has said, God works through the physical realm right. Christianity can allow that gravity causes the earth to orbit around the sun and yet holds that God makes the earth orbit around the sun. Similarly, it seems not a stretch to hold that God gives spiritual experiences through certain physical factors. It is not as if direct intervention from God can be measured physically (a la against the laws of nature). If it could, you would have a humean miracle on hand. Occam's razor cannot achieve what this author wants it to achieve. It is not that there is additional postulation of God, but that God is within the physical framework that explains. Well then, perhaps this is reduced to whether occam's razor + physicalism = atheism, which is a big debate that goes way beyond just psychology (and then whether physicalism). I think I wrote about Occam's razor elsewhere too... It isn't as powerful as commonly held (perhaps another topic for another time). I guess it does attempt to reduce the psychological to the physical, but even if successful, it seems to me that there has to be some sort of idea that the meaning behind psychological religious experience is more "religious" than the meaning behind physical religious experience.
It seems to me, from my own experience, that experience of God is over a long period of time with multiple confirmations and learning and becoming a more God-fearing person rather than a one of psychological aberration though. But then again, that is just my experience.
The third chapter follows on a tangent from the second and basically tries to trace how people come to faith. I shall opine that this third Chapter, since it is a summary of a book, sounds more angry (a la Hitchens. Angrey atheists, angrey at the ignorant religious people). Ok so, this chapter basically says that people do post hoc rationalisation (I believe this is quite well documented elsewhere). Where you are born and who your family is plays a big part in what you believe. And people are stubborn in their beliefs (confirmation bias). And there are many factors that help in indoctrination. I find it a bit funny that chapter 1 argues that religion is not indoctrinated but encultured and here it is indoctrinated. It is alright though, different authors even though in the same book. He also places a high premium on skepticism and apparently skepticism leads to atheism? ONE MUST ALWAYS CONSIDER THAT ONE CAN BE WRONG!! This author also thinks that a talking donkey is absurd and you are silly to believe in it. And also, its not fair that God threatens everyone with hell for not believing, it makes people pressured into believing. And if you are intelligent and believe in God, you are skilled at defending beliefs you arrived at for non-smart reasons since most of your peers (statistically) do not believe in God.
Hahaha angrey (american?) boi.
I'm not sure the context he is writing in, maybe there is a lot of indoctrination in American Christianity rather than education. One reading is that he is arguing against people who uncritically accept their faith and employ all sorts of excuses to do so. Tbh, I think the uncritical faith is rather lame, it isn't really faith at all. And most Christians (at least "heroes of the faith") wrestle with much doubt and such. If it is a call for people to examine their faith rather than blindly accept it, it is very much welcome. Examine your own faith, and know what is your own faith and what is culture (especially in western countries), by that I mean what is central to faith and what is faith expressed in a certain culture. It might be that the faith is incorrectly expressed, if so, change it.
Let's see. What about the fact that many people believe in the same religion as their parents. Surely this means that not everyone is making a blank slate objective choice! Yes, I would agree. Unfortunately there is no view from nowhere and everyone comes to the table influenced by the currents of culture and fashion. If the author hasn't realised, atheism/agnosticism is really in fashion at the moment, especially for intellectuals. And the atheists are all those that have read postmodern stuff / subscribe to such things! (My ghost reader friend made this point in a more angrey manner accusing them of being equally indoctrinated in their dogmas).
I think it is also just a little bit sweeping to imply that all Christians are irrational while atheism is rational don't you think? I mean I can grant that it is rational to you, mr intelligent atheist. But surely you don't have a monopoly on being rational, you and your ilk.
***Alright! All this leads up to chapter 4 which is contributed by the editor, mr Loftus, former pastor turned atheist.
There are two parts to his argument. The first is he proposes what he calls the outsider test of faith (OTF), that all person ought to take to test one's religious faith. He constructs it through premises, though I find the structure a little weird.
(Abridged version)
1. Rational people around the world have a wide diversity of religious faiths grouped around culture and upbringing
2. (From 1) it "seems very likely" that adopting one's religious faith is causally dependent on cultural conditions and not merely an independent rational judgement.
3. Hence, (from 2?) the odds are highly likely that any given adopted religious faith is false. (Here my ghost reader (triumphantly? writes genetic fallacy spotted! Loftus addresses this later, but I'm not going to cover it since I think 3 ought to be modified anyway)
4. Hence, the best way to test one's religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths.
So... it seems to me that if he is intending to put forth a philosophical argument, there are gaping holes in that the hence(s) require several more assumptions in order to be coherent.
I think 1 is a sensible empirical observation. 2 seems natural enough as an inference to best explanation with the assumption that independent rational judgement would cause a more varied spread of religious faiths.
3 requires the assumption that independent rational judgement is better than decisions based on cultural conditions in getting at the truth. And even if so, it seems like there is a jump to odds are highly likely that any adopted religious faith is false. If rational judgement arrives at the truth 90% of the time and decisions based on cultural conditions arrive at the truth 80% of the time, this will still not hold. I think that a jump to falsity of religious faith is not viable (there are other routes to this, I reckon the most common one that goes from diversity is that all these religions contradict each other, especially exclusive religions such as Christianity, and from this, it seems likely that the majority of religious faiths are false)
Or perhaps 3 should be something like,
3a. For anyone person born in a different cultural setting, it is highly likely that the person would (while remaining equally rational), be of a different religious faith.
Basically I think 3 is just very weird, especially when the conclusion is supposed to be 4. Seems to me that 3 is harder to get than 4.
4 seems also a little weird since there is suddenly the "best way" being introduced, like where did that come from? And how is best defined? Most likely right? Following from 3 it seems that 4 can conclude the best way is
Perhaps a more defensible form would be,
4a. In order to remove the cultural factors and have a independent judgement of religion, one should adopt the OTF (as elaborated above).
In my opinion I have no issues with the adoption of the OTF. I think that it is not a bad ideal to strive towards, though practically speaking it might be hard to remove all biases and evaluate everything impartially. We can try towards it though, insofar as I think that independent rational judgements are ideal (and I think they are pretty good). Well personally I have been testing my faith, perhaps not entirely without bias but I have taken a serious look at other faiths especially those closer to mine and obviously atheism and agnosticism since its in vogue eh. And I've been reading these kinda books.
Theres quite a lot of objections along the lines of atheism now being very culturally mainstream and hence popular. I mean, it is true, but you can still take the OTF at the same time as demanding atheists to do so, and why do you need atheists to do so lol. They can arrive at what they think is true themselves. Unless you really love them and want the better for them, no angrey pls.
Theres also stuff against skepticism, skepticism is a reasonable thing to be, I think, independently, because of the possibility of being misled. The Bible itself advocates testing the spirits. And skepticism is not necessarily an all out skepticism leading to nihilism, things can be held to different degrees of confidence, otherwise known as credence. I think, at the moment, Christianity is true and I want to live for it, but there is always the possibility that new evidence might overturn it (i've covered elsewhere, things like immortality and time travel) require a reevaluation. It seems to irk atheists that Christians ignore possibility of evidence but I reckon Christians are making a faith statement of sorts?
If it is just a push towards a critical examination of one's own faith, I would think that the majority of true believers (basically excluding the cultural Christian) would agree that it is a good step that should be taken.
His true stance is that Christianity cannot pass the OTF, and this is only seen in the end in "my final argument" after responding to some objections. Well obviously I think it can pass the OTF (or what practically viable alternative there is, which is why I am writing this post eh). He thinks Christianity cannot pass the OTF because the previous papers have shown that people's beliefs are due to social, psychological factors .etc. Well then, it could be argued that if the bar is so low, there are very few "independent rational decisions" since a large number of beliefs have serious social, psychological factors. And surely these factors (as have been mentioned many times) are at play in the rejection of Christianity. Is an attempt to be rational and independent not sufficient? How else do you get closer to a view from nowhere? So he is saying that one cannot choose Christianity rationally after being skeptical about it. But why not? It surely cannot be that whoever is born in a Christian culture is incapable of breaking out of culture and making rational decisions otherwise his own decision to renounce Christianity would be problematic. Not to mention (covered elsewhere in the chapter, I think his rebuttal to this is kinda tame) that there are many people not from Christian backgrounds choosing Christianity.
It is then, that the decision to choose Christianity in itself (independent of the culture) does not pass the test. And his attempt to represent it is "Faith is not something Christians can have while seeking to examine the religion that was given to them, since that is not how they approach any of the other religions they reject." So presumably the issue is that Christians require faith and if you are skeptical, (as you are of other religions) you cannot have faith.
I reckon my response is that yes you cannot have faith from the onset. But the test should be whether the possibility of faith is rational. And if so, one can proceed on to have faith. On the other hand, this means that we should be more rigorous with our tests of other religions. If other religions require faith, one should consider that, with faith (if rationally allowed), do they make sense, and if so, explore it. Perhaps the issue then is that the "objective" person does not take other religions seriously enough rather than one should take one's own religion less seriously.
As an additional note to end, one cannot rule out faith if the religion requires faith because that would be essentially considering, however skeptically, not Christianity but a faithless Christianity which is hardly Christianity. The question then is whether the skeptic can allow it to be reasonable to have faith and see what goes on there (and the Christian to allow no faith and see what goes there).
I think the push towards authenticity, started by the younger generation (apparently) is good.
This is authenticity as opposed to politeness or maintaining of appearances. ***Here I am not talking about politeness as opposed to rudeness but some sort of artificial friendliness or warmth. Being rude is kinda pointless.
Well it is something that I've always maintained and have striven towards.
Why do you want to use appearances to get something out of someone else? That would be just making use of another person, treating them as means towards an end.
One must be careful that the push towards authenticity does not end up being an excuse for putting up with bad behaviour. I think it is most important with this push for authentic-ness is balanced with a push towards self-improvement. For if you are authentically shitty, you should try to become authentically not shitty.
I guess here there is a situation where people are looking for other people that can put up appearances because they value the ability within you to put up and appearance and achieve some ends by using other people. Basically an employer might want to hire you if you can "put on an appearance" and raise huge amounts of money from investors .etc .etc. So he actually does want you for who you are, even though he kinda wants to use you to use other people. Does it make sense? I guess it makes sense. Not sure what to do in such a situation though. Probably not a situation that I will find myself in. Though many people readily embrace it, calling it terms like "win-win" and "mutually beneficial" and "networking".
There are people that authentically want to use other people. Ughhhh. Help me think about it. I guess most people think it is fine... See the thing is lets say A wants to "use" B to get C while B wants to "use" A to get D. And in so doing they make an exchange, C for D. Thats perfectly fine and I think it is not using at all, it is merely a transaction. I wouldn't call it using if it is couched in transnational terms. However, once a relationship (such as a friendship) is involved and people start slinging phrases like "bro" around in order to get what they want, like some sort of social lubricant. If what they want is transactional, why not make it obviously transactional? Why is there need to include some sort of politeness into the equation. Just say it as it is. I guess perhaps my issue is with mislabelling. And perhaps more socially adept people understand it to be transactional, behind all the politeness and formalities, and when two socially adept people do it, they are actually just doing it purely transactionally, but to the oblivious, they are being "used" if they do not understand that it is purely transactional. And they might object to it being purely transactional, if they knew it as such.
The problem with being authentic is that "appearances" or "politeness" has become a way to buy-in to a co-operative. The authentic person also wants to cooperate but not in a way that uses another person,
Is there a duty,
to not be busy?
To yourself, your best self?
In the past 2 days, I started, got quite good at, and quit another idle game. I realised that I am really drawn to idle games not just because they give me rising numbers so I trick myself into thinking that I have accomplished something. No, I think the real kick comes in min-maxing. In searching out and executing, in detail, increasingly efficient ways of doing something. It is like solving a satisfying problem. Except that the problem is virtual, and is meant to hook you on to problem solving. For you unlock a slightly harder problem each time. And the numbers go up and up and up. As you pump more and more and more time and brainpower into the program. Like an overworked corporate executive.
It is the yearning to optimise. And to re-optimise. And to optimise the micro details. Until you pull the plug. And quit the game.
"Share something you are struggling with, in your walk with God, it can be anything, really. And then we can all pray for each other"
"Don't have to say anything you are not comfortable with" The leader adds.
Everyone looks around, searching each other's faces.
"Though of course if you can share something personal it will be good for you and us as a group to keep you accountable..."
Still silence, waiting for the tension to break.
"I can start." Someone says. All eyes turn to the speaker.
"Uhh... I have something serious to confess. I wasted my time this week. I played about 5 hours of computer games on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. Each." He looks avoids any eye contact and fidgets with his water bottle.
Theres this look that is passed around. Everyone knows that this shouldn't be done, it is a sin. The attitude behind it is idolatrous and it is a squandering of God given time. Yet there is palpable relief that someone has managed to break this wall.
"I don't really want to do it you know, it is just that when I start playing, I can't stop. And before you know it, I've committed idolatry."
There are concerned faces all around, everyone wants to help but at the same time, nobody wants to come across as unloving.
"Is someone journeying through this with you?" someone asks. Journeying, such a Christian term, meant to be non-judgemental presumably.
"Have you tried setting an alarm? Maybe some program that limits your time on the computer?"
"The important thing is that playing so much affects your mind. Maybe you will have more violent impulses or want to read the Bible less."
"When I used to play a lot of computer, I used to feel very guilty too. Fortunately I had these few friends who journeyed with me. We support each other and hold each other accountable." The same someone adds.
"I think it is important that you repent first. You should get to a point where you don't want to do it because you want to glorify God more than you want to spend your time playing computer."
"How can we pray for you?" The leader interjects, before he gets overwhelmed with all these well meaning pieces of advice.
He responds.
It's the next persons turn.
"For me it's the same thing, watching too much porn. Pray for more self-discipline, with my eyes, I guess"
Everyone nods sagely.
I guess this is linked to the previous post on letting people die.
I'm curious. Can someone support abortion but not suicide? (well I guess one way would be to hold that the fetus is not a life). But it seems to me that abortion and suicide are very similar. They both want to end a life for expedient reasons.
How about the death penalty but not suicide? Can a society support the death penalty and try to dissuade suicide? It doesn't really make sense to me. If a suicidal person chooses to kill someone else, society will want to kill him but if he chooses to die the society won't let him kill himself?
Whats the libertarian ideal regarding suicide? Insofar as life can be ended by other people, the one possessing the life should be given first dibs on it? Afterall, if the life is prolonged (mind you, not "saved"), he will be the one living it. Are you gonna live for a person that doesn't want to live? It is a bit like abortion. If you forbid the person from aborting, are you gonna take care of the life?
How about the utilitarian? Insofar as the person is more miserable (if he is alone) than happy, committing suicide is the right thing to do less one pulls down aggregate utility. Of course no one is an island, so the calculus presumably has to include the overall happiness/miserableness (im assuming classical utilitarian) that his death/living would cause. If his death brings more happiness to more people than being alive in a state of wanting death, presumably dying is better?
I just find it queer that there is this sentiment that anyone who wants death hasn't thought it through clearly. Or that they need help. Or something like that. I read an article about some british guy, supposedly gifted (i wonder why thats relevant), who thought about it, decided that he was better off dead, got a gun and blew his brains out. I believe he stated that he wasn't depressed or sad or anything, he just thought it was better to be dead (and he acted on it). Actually, it seems to me to be a very sensible conclusion if one has some sort of meaningless framework.
Isn't it very paternalistic to deny a grown mature human being such a simple decision as choosing to die?
Hmm. not suggesting that anyone should commit suicide. Just, yknow, whats so bad about it.
I mean, you pay the consequences of your actions. Your loved ones do too, I guess, but presumably you have that in your calculus. I mean one can be not thinking clearly. Then the "treatment", if anything is whether you have thought this through and are sure that you wanna kill yourself?
I wonder why isn't it more like the smoking campaign, yknow, that it is something not good for you, something that you can seek help for, there is help provided, but if you really want to go ahead, think it through before acting.
And perhaps there can be some sort of easier way to commit suicide than traumatising whoever finds your body.
Perhaps there can be suicide management. It seems to me that if a person claims to be suicidal, make available to them all the help that is currently available (kinda no brainer). Make sure that the decision is a rational and well thought through. Then allow a facility or something where they can commit suicide with dignity (like no body splattered on the pavement or hanging from the ceiling to startle a loved one).
Seneca says that when a person says "I want to die" he actually means "I want to live" because if he wanted to die he would have died. And so, removing the stigma and stuff allows people to actually say "I want to die" in the "I want to live" way more, perhaps? For if the possibilities are placed before, help can be more effectively given.
Maybe I'm assuming people are more rational than they are. But however irrational surely they can be persuaded to be rational (and if they wanna act irrationally nobody can stop that regardless of which system).
OK! Now that I have read the whole book, perhaps I can make a more coherent response to it as a whole rather than comment on/criticise individual parts. For this post I'll cut out all the inconsistent and muddled systems because, yknow, there isn't enough time to engage everything and following Dennett's rule, 90% of all stuff is crap. So I hope to engage with the 10% that is not crap and hopefully what I'm saying is not crap either (again, might not be the most convenient). This post will be mostly a defence of criticisms against Calvinism without much attack on the Arminian positions.
At the end the author sums it up (sorta colloquially) by saying Calvinism is (in a nutshell), trying to figure out how a sovereign God loves while the Arminian view figures out how a loving God is sovereign. Interesting. And something about whether his love or his will is most primary. Seems to me that the answer is both, right, for this is essentially pitting omnipotence against omnibenevolence and to say either is more primary makes queer sense.
Somehow, it appears that the Calvinists and Arminians both have their own ways of explaining away the problem of evil (How can a good, all powerful God exist when there is evil around?). It seems that most consistent Arminians embrace some sort of free will defence while the Calvinists appeal to some sort of "greater good" defence.
It is quite funny that in philosophy of religion which I studied in year 1 sem 1, I learnt that the free-will defence is a partial defence while the "greater good" defence is a more complete defence even though it does have its on assumptions that can be challenged. It seems that I thought that very sensible, perhaps that tinted my lenses.
So there is a lot of things that Calvinists and Arminians agree on. The authority of scripture. God's glory as the most primary .etc. The difference is in the how questions rather than the what questions.
First let me sketch compatibilist freedom vs libertarian freedom. Consistent Calvinists hold compatiblist freedom while Arminians hold libertarian freedom.
Libertarian free will is essentially commonsense notion of free will (to most people).
1. A person has libertarian free will if and only if he is able to ACTUALLY (what I like to call metaphysically) choose and do otherwise.
E.g If man has libertarian free will as to whether to follow Jesus if it is ACTUALLY possible for him to choose to follow Jesus and then follow Jesus and also to choose not to follow Jesus and then not follow Jesus.
Compatibilist free will can take many forms. Its basic tenet is such.
1. A person can have compatibilist free will even if he is unable to ACTUALLY choose and do otherwise.
In what sense does he have free will is up for debate, for my purposes lets just say if the person makes a choice to do something, then he has freely willed to do something in the compatibilist sense.
E.g A person chooses to stay in a room because he wants to stay in the room. He has freely chosen and hence stayed in the room even though the room is barricaded from the outside and he cannot ACTUALLY leave the room. The fact that if he had chosen otherwise he could not have done otherwise does not matter (the counterfactual that was never realised is inconsequential) for free will.
My own thinking on libertarian free will - If you allow any being that transcends space and time, the whole counterfactual that supports libertarian free will becomes very dodgy because the being would be in many alternate realities. Besides, what does it ACTUALLY mean to could have done otherwise? Think about it. It seems to me very queer to postulate possible alternate realities for past decisions as well as postulate possible alternate realities for current/future decisions. This is since there is only one reality (barring time travel) that is ever meaningful enough to us. It seems to me that libertarian free will is not very metaphysically sound. Today I choose to eat prata for lunch, and I felt bloated after that. I definitely chose to do it in the compatiblist sense in that I made the choice. But could I ACTUALLY not have eaten prata? One is that my history and craving and whatnot "made" me choose prata (And so I could not have done otherwise even though the choice is mine). Another thing is, what does this alternate timeline look like for it to be postulated as possible? Everyone else chooses the same while I choose differently? Or everyone else could have chosen differently at any point in this alternate timeline so it is essentially a huge mess that makes no sense whatsoever. If I had chosen to eat bak chor mee, would the bak chor mee seller have chosen to sell me bak chor mee? On what grounds do you think about such alternate timelines? What ceteris paribus is there?
Let me attempt to give a charitable rendering of the core tenets of both in relation to the problem of evil. Hopefully one of the most defensible ones. In premise form.
Arminianism
1. God is omni3 (potent, scient and benevolent) (theoretical starting)
2. Evil exists in the world (empirical observation + comon, nobody can deny this)
3. God created the world with evil in it. (bible says so)
4. Evil is because God created a world with creatures who have libertarian free will (i.e they can "actually" choose to do evil in a way that God does not know beforehand and outside of his control (not because he CANNOT have control, but because he created them to be so, with libertarian free will)
5. Hence, the locus of evil is not God but in his creatures who misuse their God-given libertarian free will and choose evil.
Presumably you will include.
6. God could have chosen to make a world without creatures who have libertarian free will.
7. But God decided to create a world with creatures who have libertarian free will, presumably because a world with creatures who have libertarian free will is better than one without (even if it contains evil).
It seems to me that there is two problematic premises here. One is 7, where one wonders whats so good about libertarian free will (such that a world with it is better) if it cause evil and its associated suffering. The second premise that I have some problem with is premise 4. In essence, it is having God create a rock that he cannot lift. For he creates creatures with wills that he does not know. This also poses a problem for him transcending time and space (as I have mentioned in the first part).
Perhaps another issue here is the problem of Satan's original fall. Supposedly Satan has libertarian free will too, as do the angels?
Calvinism
1. God is omni3 (potent, scient and benevolent) (theoretical starting)
2. Evil exists in the world (empirical observation + comon, nobody can deny this)
3. God created the world with evil in it. (bible says so)
4. God predestines and foreknows all that goes on in the world.
5. However, God is not the locus of evil despite his predestination and foreknowledge of all these.
6. All evil that exists in the world is just part of the greater good (presumably something about God's glory which is why God predestines and foreknows them).
The main problem of this argument is that it hardly answers the problem of evil in a way that one usually expects. It is just asserting that we do not know how the "greater good" will look like or how it benefits God's glory as compared to a world without evil. Most Calvinists would probably hint at things like how God's salvation and relating to mankind can be sin through the whole "evil" and probably appeal to things in light of eternity seeming radically different from how they appear as "evil" and "good" now. I personally like the metaphor of how a symphony has chords that are in discord creating tension and ending with resolution being "better" than one in major key the entire time because of its depth of richness and resolutions and artistic stuff and all that. The tension and discord is the evil, btw, but it all works out for to be beautiful in the end.
If you compare the Arminian stories and Calvinist stories, it seems to me to be substituting libertarian free will being an "overall good" with an unknown "overall good".
Problem of a loving God condemning sinners
Arminian
1. God extends saving grace to all through Jesus.
2. Humans with libertarian free will choose not to accept grace.
3. God justly condemns them since they did not choose to be saved.
This seems straightforward enough to the layperson. You could have choose to accept grace but you did not, hence you get your just desserts.
Calvinism
1. God extends saving grace to all through Jesus
2. Humans with compatibilist free will choose not to accept grace.
3. God justly condemns them since they did not choose to be saved.
There is a question as to whether God did ACTUALLY extend saving grace to all or only to the elect. I actually think he extended it to all in the compatibilist sense, that all who (compatiblistly) choose to follow Jesus will follow Jesus with the result being only the elect is saved since only the elect choose to do so and the rest do not. For all intents and purposes, regardless of whether you are Arminian or Calvinist, the same amount of people are saved by grace through faith. The difference is about whether they could have done otherwise (which actually, seems not that important in the greater scheme of things eh?).
There is another concern that whether choosing not in the compatiblist sense is sufficient to deserve just punishment by God. I think it is sufficient since the choice is still one's own even though one could not have done otherwise. If you are really confused on this point we can talk more.
Regarding evangelism
Arminianism
1. Go make disciples of all nations by telling them the gospel and other stuff.
2. Because once they hear it, they can exercise their libertarian free will and choose Jesus and thus be saved.
Calvinists
1. Go make disciples of all nations by telling them the gospel and other stuff.
2. Because once they hear it, they can exercise their compatibilist free will and choose Jesus and thus be saved.
Basically I don't see how a different sense of free will makes any difference.
Being unable to accept that God will elect you and not your son?
Arminianism - God did not not elect your son, your son did not choose God.
Calvinism - God did not elect your son, your son did not (compatibilist) choose God.
Overall it just seems to me that compatibilist free will is sufficient for any thing that Arminians think libertarian free will is necessary for.
2 points on why I am a Calvinist, my understand of power includes some sort of control and so it appears to me that God could not have limited his own control if he was all powerful no matter how hard it tried. (A more theological point) The second is that it seems right to me that both are right, that we freely choose God and that God is in control. If this makes me Calvinist then I am Calvinist. I don't see a need for libertarian free will to make the choice free and I think libertarian free will is a problematic concept by itself. (Quite a philosophical point).
Perhaps there is still one more point as to why I am a Calvinist. In the years where I was coming back to Christianity (or God was calling me back if you like), I was rather annoyed with why God choose Israel, or Abraham, why not the Chinese people or the Chinese diaspora which I was a part of. If one wanted to say God choose Abraham because of his faith, what about choosing Isaac over Ishmael. Surely newborn babies are not chosen by their faith (and what makes one think that Ishmael does not have faith). And I guess it was some sort of issue for me, the supposed favortism of God. Why he choose, say, David's line rather than Saul's line, what did his Saul's descendants have to do with anything, or David's descendants have to do with anything. Or why choose Samson (from birth, mind you), who clearly has issues. Or so on and so forth. But it seems to me not only fair, but also fitting for God to have favour on whoever he choose to have favour and not have favour on whoever he chooses not. Seems like a very Godlike attribute to me, if he has favour due to human reasons then he seems rather human like. Idk, I imagine a really omnipotent God like really really omnipotent and self-sufficient and all that to really be able to do whatever he wants and it is right and it is great. And we as humans to be thankful for being chosen and to tell others about the good news that they may accept it as well (compatiblist or otherwise). Seems like a great story. And then add the sending of his son and all that too.
Ok, if anyone has any comments or wants to engage pls feel free to do so.
Oh yeah, theres also the part that my former pastor told me and has been repeated some times. Basically Calvinists take the God's eye view while Arminians take the human eye view. I guess thats fine, except that that particular reading would be Calvinist (as all those who have told them to me are).
I'm reading "why I am not a calvinist" now, and I'm not particularly convinced.
I also have to admit that I probably heard much of what I'm going to say from other people. Idk how much (if any) is original, it might be that nothing is original.
It seems to me that the Calvinist view of a big high sovereign God is true. That, being God, he foreknew, predestined every thing to happen on earth and in heaven and wherever else. I think that is part of being God, the ultimate being that sustains everything and through with everything happens for his glory. For one, he exists outside of space and time (since he lives in eternity and infinity), and if through time, he sees everything at once, it seems to me that he would have known who are saved and who are not saved (and if he could have interfered and since he sustained everything, he predetermined/foreknew it).
It doesn't even have to be deterministic in the sense of physical determinism. But some sort of God determinism (I would argue that the determinism's basis is in God's will) since God transcends space and time.
If God transcends space and time and sees the whole of time at an instance, it does not make sense to talk about "could have done otherwise" in the metaphysical sense of things because, there is (presumably) only one history that God has foreseen. If one postulates God seeing some sort of infinitely branching possibility trees (for each free human decision that really COULD have gone otherwise), I think it puts God's foreknowledge of anything at risk. What then of prophecies? What then of covenants? If God promised to David a man on his throne, presumably, metaphysically, not all descendent of David could have chosen to commit suicide without God breaking his promise. I contend that metaphysically, there is only one history that God has predestined and foreknew since the start of time.
But the Arminian contention that we have "real decisions" to be made or human free will is also valid. There is also much scriptural justification that humans make real choices whether to reject or to follow God (Jesus or in OT).
Simplistically, one can contend that both the central claims of Calvinism (that God predetermines and is sovereign over everything that happens) and Arminianism (that humans have real choice, especially in the matter of following Jesus) are true. When pressed how, they can say I don't know, the Bible says its true. Whats the problem? I think this is a defensible position (or at least not less defensible than other mysteries of God). Apparently this is a view that people like JI Packer holds (if I didn't misunderstand the book). A perfectly sound position imo. Later in the book there is some charge of inconsistency against Packer for retreating into mystery while himself accusing Wesley of being a confused Calvinist. Dont really know what to make of that lol.
Problems with compromise. It seems quite funny to me that the view that God predetermines and is sovereign over everything that happens and that humans have real choice (free will, whatever you wanna call it) WITHOUT further explanation as to how the supposed contradiction is resolved falls in the Calvinist camp (at least according to the Arminian writer of the book). It seems then that the arimian position has to include some sort of philosophical (and/or scriptural) belief that human will is not free IF God predetermines everything and that human will is free which leads to God does not predetermine everything (or something of along those lines).
Nonetheless, perhaps we can go further. Let us look at compatibilism, something discussed very much in philosophical circles. Compatibilism, however, is meant for physical determinism rather than what I think of as God-determined determinism.
Ok, this is all for the half way point. I'll write the second half in a separate post.
Yknow, every time there is a criticism of a system, flaws in the system are pointed out. When the system has flaws, there should be ways to take advantage of the flaws.
(Pure economics mode here) For example, if women are as capable as men and are being paid a lot less than men. Surely some enterprising woman could round up several underpaid and capable women, pay them better and dominate the market. Essentially they'd be "steals". Compared to their rival who is using men (and hence have to pay more), this female company would generate higher profit margins or something like that. Of course, all else being equal which doesn't really hold in the real world.
If, as Christians say, the world is chasing wrong things, us chasing the "right things" should be overflowing with value. RAW VALUE. Not just money, especially since we think money is not that important. But like every good thing.
And me, deciding to not work in order to free my time to do the "right things", to not waste time, I should be freaking swimming in value eh. Like leading an awesome life. (Without money and such, but with every other thing). Where is this value that I'm supposed to be swimming in? Is it just that I lack discipline?
Or is this world structured such that economies make it impossible for an outlier to achieve supermassive value by being an outlier because these supermassive values require the buy in of the current system? That might explain why the female only company might not be too successful- because the male oriented companies that they have to work with and/or compete against them would stack it against them.
Maybe going against the grain requires a certain threshold of people to cooperate, people need to work with me and stuff like that so i can enjoy friendships and mutual spurring each other on and all that good stuff, that I, going solo, cannot untap.
But surely there is much to be gained, even if alone, if the current value schema of the masses is so wrong. This few months can be said to be an experiment of sorts. Lets hope it goes well. And if it doesn't, I would have learnt much too.
Okk. So time to write about the moral limits of markets. First off, book is written by big name havard economics dude. But i think it made alot of sense (waoooooo, such people can make sense!)
After thinking about it and talking to my Dad for awhile, it seems that it is an age-old topic in its most recent iteration.
One main point raised is that more and more things are being sold for money. Here "things" is being used very loosely. I don't have the book on hand but the things he lists are increasingly not conventional items. They include things like - having a child through a surrogate parent, having a kidney transplant (including kidney), having an express pass to cute queues at amusement parks, people queuing for something that is open to the public, having a public place (e.g school or park) named after you, ability to pollute, ads all around, meet the pope .etc. To my own observation (might also be included in his book) they also include things like admission to an elite private school, private coaching (for academics or sports or whatever other pursuits), decongested roads, an opportunity to hunt an endangered animal, ability to run for public office, ability (limited) to avoid conscription .etc.
I think money = power is not a revelation to anyone, and power being used to get money is also common knowledge. It seems to me that when more things are for sale, the value of money increases (not in the deflation sense, but in the sense of more money = more power). On the flipside, when you don't have money, more of you is up for grabs. This can be seen in the converse to everything that can be bought. When you don't have money, your queue can (effectively) be cut, you are provided with worse education, your kidney can be bought, your attention is monetised, your suffering is devalued .etc. Of course, I would think an ultimate end of this would be slavery. Because in all these cases, money can buy increasingly large bits of people.
The first chapter is about how money can help you cut alot of time and get dibs on things that are suppose to be public and open to all. How this works is that you pay another person for his time to do stuff and/or other people to get the public thing (usually in a balloting system or first come first served).
This works because markets are getting more and more pervasive and people basically want money such that they will do all sorts of things for other people (e.g queue for tickets, book limited seats). Also, companies realise that people that wanna save time can pay more so they take these people's extra money and, by doing so, make those not willing to pay more in money pay more in time.
Second chapter is about incentives. How incentivising is all the rage now. Basically, there is somethings that certain people and/or govt think is good. And they pay people(s) to lose weight,, get sterilised, take in refugees, pollute, be sterilised or vaccinated. On the flip side, there are fines. The third chapter is about how markets crowd out morals.
This economic thinking is something that our fine city, Singapore, has taken to heart. Ostensibly they are meant to discourage certain practices and encourage certain practices, shifting supply and demand (lets remove the societal disapproval parts for now). In practice though, it sets a price on certain sort of behaviour and muddies the reasons behind doing / not doing them. The idea is that if people already want to do it, a little extra money to further motivate them can't hurt. If people don't want to do it and they do it for the money, at least they do it. In the end, everyone wins. People do more the thing they are supposed to do and people get money. Isn't everything dandy? On the flip side, for fines. if people do what they are not supposed to do, the govt gets money.
Yknow, I used to think the same way. That many problems can be solved if only the correct incentive/disincentive scheme was worked out. If people want to be assholes, charge them for being assholes and use the money to adequately compensate those who have to put up with them being assholes. Surely if the price is enough, some people will be willing to put up with them being assholes. And if something needed to be done, someone would do it for the right price. I used to think that problems are still there because the system was still not finely tweaked enough - the fines were not high enough, not progressive enough (e.g in Finland the richer you are, the higher the fines). Conversely, the incentives were not high enough if people were not gracious (or perhaps then, graciousness is not important enough).
Sandel uses the idea that the economic motive crowds out other (better) reasons for doing things. Theres an example he gives that when Switzerland needed to find a place to store their nuclear waste. They did a study and concluded that this location was best. They then surveyed the community as to whether they would accept nuclear waste being stored/disposed off there. The surveys showed that there were more willing to accept without remuneration than if a token sum of compensation were given to them. To accept it as part of civic duty was fine, but once the economic incentive was introduced, the citizens maintained that they "couldn't be bought".
This example seems very reminiscent of a particular thing happening in Singapore where NIMBY is on the rise. In the past when the govt mass relocated kampungs, they "payout" was negligible, but when the new generation of en-bloc sales happened, the price became everything. (Well obviously the "development of the country" factor kinda got lost somewhere).
Sandel also talks about the flip side where parents were fined for picking up their kids late from a childcare. What happened next was that the number of late pickups actually increased. He suggests the idea is that parents took it as a cost they were willing to pay for a teacher to stay back late and take care of their kids when pre-fining, they saw it as inconveniencing a teacher. This flies in the face of economic theory since the teacher is equally inconvenienced whether you pay a fine or not. The problem is that the fine "legitimised" their coming late since they took it as an economic transaction, inconvenience to the teacher then is acceptable since they "paid their dues". There are also other interesting examples such as bought apologies, hired friends and the peculiar act of gift giving where cash is not usually accepted even though it has the highest economic value of all gifts (personal note: im so "economic" in my thinking that im perfectly fine receiving cash. lol). Theres also this part about how blood being bought exploits the poor and "disincentivises" the richer people to donate blood since they would be possibly depriving a poor person from selling his blood. Really wacky and screwed up stuff imo.
***It seems to me the issue is that for humans, things being done for right reasons is very important. Incentives and disincentives can superficially cause people to alter their behaviours. Let me suggest that a more complete way of looking at incentives and disincentives is not that they "crowd out" other reasons. Rather, the problem is that people's underlying value schema (or values and morals) do not change when participating in virtuous acts and/or abstaining from vices. What happens is you have a screwy signalling system and people behaving artificially. Insofar as the aim is to create a particular type of virtuous person or reform vicious people, the underlying motives are unchanged (and so the type of person they are is unchanged) and it fails. Even worse, one might assume from seeing virtuous acts performed and vicious acts abstained that people are moral when they are fundamentally not so.
I can imagine a very dystopian society in which everyone does whatever one does for the right price. Doesn't seem like a human society to me. Maybe a good novel idea.
Linking this back, it seems to me that incentives are really not what Christianity is about. This would be sin fighting sin. Using greed to fight all sorts of other sins (e.g incentivising to maintain sexual purity). The point that I raised back then still holds, the moment the incentive is ended, actions will revert back to where original intentions are. Furthermore, if the incentives are too good, there will be people who the original incentive is not targeting "gaming" the system in order to milk the incentives. One example that I recall from elsewhere is when authorities incentivised the local populace to kill some sort of pest and they started breeding these pests in order to "sell" them as kills. This point being that people will try to both get their greed satisfied through the incentives and their vices satisfied (through evading detection, for instance) if possible. Incentives only superficially change actions without producing the requisite desire for the actions that make the action moral.
Of course there are some counter arguments to this. For one, it could be argued that incentives can create a habit / break a habit which would otherwise be difficult (e.g incentives to quit smoking). In doing so, the additional "greed" plays only the role of a temporary crutch in order to overcome any particularly large deficit of motivation.
Perhaps the question is then should you do what you don't want to do for another reason? I think one can allow that for children, they might really want to tell a lie but desist because of fear of punishment. And that is acceptable because they haven't learnt to not want to tell a lie because it is wrong in itself. Perhaps then this whole system of incentives is treating grown ass humans as children.
The last two chapters concern markets in life and death (most notably betting on peoples death through insurance or such) and naming rights (being able to stick your name/your companies name on about anything). Also interesting stuff though perhaps to be discussed next time.
This is somewhat related to the previous post. Somewhat.
Christianity is generally pro-life. Something to do with the sanctity of the human life. Something to do with being created in God's image. Something to do with God gave the breath of life.
So apparently humans are not supposed to take away the breath of life from another human. I kinda fully agree with that. That would be murder. Or killing.
But does pro-life mean extending all (human) life? And at what cost?
If we go by some big theory that all life is to be extended as far as possible (i.e all lives are equally sacred and should be extended as long as possible and lives are most valuable in and of themselves), then the current system is simply bogus. For the same amount of resources used to extend an elderly cancer patient's life for a month could probably yield 100 children living years longer if used to provide some basic healthcare and sanitation. A quick trolley case example to illustrate the above point: your elderly mother and 100 other children are drowning. If you save your elderly mother, 100 children will die (and vice versa). Which do you save? The utilitarian calculation would then require large sums of money (the church or whatever, whoever believes that all life is to be extended as far as possible and lives are most valuable in and of themselves) to be transferred to places lacking in basic healthcare and sanitation. Perhaps you could bite the bullet and go that route, argue that that is what should be done but is not done and that the church really ought (cos church is pro-life and stuff) be pushing for such things.
So, perhaps, for Christianity, when someone says they are pro-life (I also presume they think all life is equal, otherwise that just being pro certain life), what ought they do as a result of such a stance? Or rather, what does such a stance mean.
It seems to me that there has to be some moral principle by which we determine such decisions as to whether to prolong a person's life at X cost. Without any moral principle what will happen is whoever has the money decides whose life to prolong and that seems problematic to me. If you think this is not a moral question then perhaps I don't have much to say to you.
Let me just outline several thoughts on this subject. I don't have a concrete conclusion per se.
I think we should realise that not killing is a passive thing (like it is something to abstain from). Prolonging life (or if doctors wanna make themselves feel better, saving lives) is an active thing. And actions have costs (at least clearer costs than passive things). This cost means that it can hardly be an absolute. Because if it is an absolute, anyone not prolonging lives when lives could be prolonged would be morally culpable (generally speaking).
Since we are talking about prolonging lives, the SI unit should be time prolonged rather than lives "saved" (which is way more simplistic). In this case, we get to really weird territory if it a principle is to prolong as much life as possible. For this would equate prolonging a 70 year old lady's life to 100 years old with the same as prolonging two newborn's life to 15 years old. How does one make such a value judgement is one thing. To contend that both these cases are equal in value, equally morally desirable is another thing. It seems very hard to justify yet this is a clear implication from any absolute conception of prolonging lives (and all lives being equally valuable).
Not all lives are equal. This seems blatantly true practically though we want morality to make it equal. We kinda want morality to make the practical injustices go away.
But if "time-prolonged lives" are ultimately very very (lets not make it absolutely valuable), and lall lives are equal, the current system would advocate that doctors .etc .etc. be "time prolonged" so that they can then "prolong" other peoples lives. Which would mean that not all lives are equal, if only because there are extrinsic factors attached to each life.
If we wanna extend the logic from the previous paragraph, perhaps then women ought to give birth to as many children as possible in order to maximise "life. And so then, perhaps women that can still give birth by their potentiality to create more life would be worth more? It is all very confusing and kinda absurd.
And thus, it seems that not all lives are equal in an unqualified sense. But how should it be qualified? Should one use a societal aggregate good framework? Perhaps life is good so it can pursue some sort of societal good (economic or otherwise). What this means, conversely, is that those at the margins of society ought to be left to die. This makes it very utilitarian and uncompassionate and all that. And, tbh, modern society is kinda like that. The life expectancy at the fringes are always lower. Affluence buys health. Even if one were to be ok with this idea, something about greater good and all that, this would have some potentially undesirable consequences downstream. For one, what about the elderly who have played their part for society. Are they to be chucked away once they are no longer contributing to societal good and left to die? Perhaps one might say that family can vouch for them and efficiency would count by family or be somewhat "tradeable" like carbon credits. But firstly this would be less efficient. And secondly, what if a person has a perfectly great family that would vouch for him but the family died in a car accident. And then his life immediately becomes worth less too? See this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Uoq4y8eUI .
There is another sense in which not all lives are equal. Basically, people lead different qualities of life. Lets say REALLY IDENTICAL twins are both dying and you can choose to prolong one of their lives. One is a vegetable and braindead. The other has no other health issues other than dying. It seems very obvious what choice it would be even if the other person decides, then to rot his life away being a bum (and so no societal good consideration). What about a happy person and a depressed person then? (oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. sensitive issues).
Anyway my own opinion is that instead of blindly prolonging life wherever possible, we need to learn how to die. And I THINK. THIS IS ALSO CHRISTIAN. Blindly prolonging life is not Christian. Death is not that bad. Life is not that good. Though life is pretty good. A short life well lived is better than a long life badly lived. And so, prolonging life doesnt achieve much if the life is not lived well. And this cuts across all social and economic classes.
Let me clear this before the market thing. In other news, I read harry potter and the cursed child as a filler. My only comment is "DONT MESS WITH THE CANON!!!!!!!!!!" and maybe "DONT GO INTO TIME TRAVEL." No time travel story actually made sense. Woops. spoiled.
So apparently some very bad things are going to happen if our world doesnt get its act together. And even if the world gets its act together, we have already passed a certain threshold.
Tbh, and I reiterate what I've said previously, I think my personal worldview is very fatalistic. Not in the sense of everything is up to fate, but everything is up to God and God is good so the end will be good. And obviously good is good in God's sight which is ultimate good which might involve lots of people going to hell .etc. which is not what we will usually term as good. I have faith that God's good is better though, also for me because I'm his son. Anyway, this is a short digression yet not wholly irrelevant.
This environmental thing has always been a very puzzling thing for me. And its not that im a climate change denier. Its more like yes I think climate change is gonna happen/has already happened. Im more of the "so what?" kind.
Ok, first thing that I shall throw out is that all the harms predicted might not be as terrible for humanity as predicted. I mean, I'm pretty sure that the predictions of sea levels rising and stuff are true but perhaps humanity will be be better able to cope that one would imagine. I for one cannot imagine Singapore disappearing behind the waves. I'm sure they will build really high dikes at the very least with whatever money we can get. Maybe even turn it into tourism or something. The poor might be more affected by climate change and they might lose their livelihood and current places. But I reckon they are rather resourceful and ingenious. Point is... I think human ingenuity will soften the "change" that climate change brings. People will adapt and as with any change, those who can adapt better, come out stronger from it while those who do not lose out. I guess this has been the same with every other big change in the history e.g adopting naval trade, gunpowder .etc. Maybe it is time for russia to shine with siberia as a the granary of the world.
Anyway it is not as if the earth has not had temperature fluctuations before (regardless of evolutionary timescale or otherwise). Assuming that this is man-made, I fail to see how man-made is unnatural, unless you are saying that humans are CREATED BY GOD OUTSIDE OF NATURE??? So clearly evolution doesn't allow it to be unnatural, neither does Christianity. Climate change is man-made, and natural (because man is natural). What will be is natural, and will be.
I reckon that from the previous 2 paragraphs you can see me employing alot of evolution language. At least these are the parts of evolution that are observable and verifiable to me and beyond dispute. Natural selection definitely happens and changes in allele frequencies in populations also happen (what i'm less convinced of is information introducing mutations). Anyway, so this part of evolution ought to be beyond doubt (at least to me) and viewing it in that lens, humanity and/or the animals and plants, those that can adapt to the change will thrive/live and those who do not will die or lose out. I dunno, it seems to me that it just is a fact. Following which, there is some inevitable conclusion that the earth will not be worse off - how can a piece of rock be worse off, only some sort of life that does not adapt to the change will be worse off (probably quite a significant chunk), and those that can adapt will come out ahead. Or if you are long term evolutionist, there'll be new species that fit the new ecological niches, no worry.
It seems to me to be a behemoth task to change current patterns of consumption to avert upcoming ecological/environmental disaster. Perhaps it will be better to cope with it rather than fight it. See it seems to me that a warming of say, 2 degrees over 20 years can be treated as well as a prediction of a massive tsunami caused by a massive volcano/earthquake in some ocean in 20 years. It is gonna happen, better to be prepared for it and/or protect against in than to try and stem the inevitable. Afterall, it seems farfetched to propose, I dunno, stemming up the volcano. I'm suggesting that it is almost equally farfetched to imagine massive cuts in emissions and stuff. Takeaway here is prepare for it rather than fight to stop it (or do both, yknow, but fighting to stop it is ultimately futile).
Hey, side note on why I think it is going to happen: I actually think changing patterns of consumption e.g towards vegeterianism is easier done for the individual than to change the underlying greed in humanity that wants to exploit the environment for its own benefit and growth. As long as corporate interests which are motivated by the profit (for capitalist countries) incentives remain, the environment will be exploited. A really great article on this is here (click hyperlink). Basically I think it is inevitable, humans are too selfish, too sinful. Green initiatives that tout eco-friendly products are WAAAAY behind touting not buying anything. But how can that be? Nobody will earn money if everyone is content enjoying lying around at home and drinking plain water.
Additionally, there is some discussion about whether to target the corporations or individuals. In light of what I said above I think it doesn't really matter. Nevertheless, it seems to me that technically targeting individuals will change demand such that corporations will follow suit. On the flip side, targeting corporations will not only (artificially) change supply, it might also limit the corporation's attempts to stoke demand i.e through advertising and stuff. Idk, I feel majority of humans are rather pliable (myself included) and hence, unless you have ad revenues of corporations to work with, maybe try to target corporations? Make them more japanese, more concerned about their impact on society than shareholder profits. If that is even possible.
A side note to the side note: Alot of the current initiatives such as a tax on emissions seems quite futile to me because, on a larger scale, it is using greed to fight greed without changing the underlying greed. It might work to some degree in the short term, but I think it merely attempts to put a bandaid on what is a cancer. (Linked to my earlier post on fighting sin with sin).
Actually, I'm not ruling out some massive technological breakthrough that can degrade plastics and/or remove greenhouse gases (e.g by converting them or hiding them) en mass.Thats possible, but it seems far easier and more feasible for technology to be used to help people cope with the effects of the warming and worse natural disasters. Afterall, this technology is already out there (e.g netherlands has lots of technology to deal with sea levels and say, Japan is good at dealing with natural disasters). So this would just be spreading it to places where they are needed and footing the massive cost (or it can be a partial solution if cost is too high). Why not both avert and prepare for climate change? Yeah, can try. But i think prepare seems more realistic and feasible.
Anyway, it seems to me the most likely way to cut emissions (if that really is the goal humankind wants to work towards. LOL. Even typing that sentence makes me wanna laugh, a goal humankind wants to work towards. LOL. Maybe 20% of humankind? By want I mean a costly kind of want, not want in the sense of I wanna be a billionaire but I'm not really willing to slog day and night). Is to adopt some form of population control. Earth's resources are limited and its ability to renew them for human consumption is limited. And there is only so much you can stretch a resource. Why not limit the population? (For Christians, perhaps the command to go forth and multiply and fill the earth has been achieved?? LOL) There are many ways this can be done, each rather morally reprehensible for it impinges on human freedom to procreate.
Transcending what I said in the previous paragraph, though, I shall suggest that population control WILL happen. It is just a logical necessity (unless people colonise mars, in which case, there will be no need for population control). If earth can only support, say 8 billion people comfortably, and there are 12 billion people, most likely 7 billion people are living comfortably and the 5 billion are fighting for scraps. The 5 billion, if it is uncomfortable enough, will die. Either by starvation or when they take up arms to get a bigger share of earth's resources. It is inevitable. It is like animal predator populations at the top of the food chain (which we are), when there is not enough prey (or resources), they starve and their population dwindles. Luckily or unluckily for humans, we can fight each other to grab resources rather than die of starvation. An equally shitty way to go in my opinion. But the fact that this will happen, perhaps, might lead people to really consider self-limiting their population. Better to birth less than to send them to death? (doesn't look likely though). One doesn't need thanos to wipe out half the human population when humans are overpopulated. They will wipe each other out. When such things actually happen, those toting human rights will be placed in the predicament of either helping (costly helping) other humans or chucking away their notion of human rights and remain comfortable. I think most will do the latter.
To be honest, if people go on and overpopulate and wantonly spend resources on themselves, they would have done what every generation before aspired towards and tried to do. Ooh, and like the most recent generations, they would succeed because of technology. Because the ultimate human heart is the same, selfish and self-absorbed. If my generation proves me wrong I would be very impressed. Then maybe we would have achieved some semblance of heaven on earth. Or maybe we just need the 1% to hire another 2% of the population to patrol and kill any fourth child. If such a thing happens though, perhaps an ideology of "towards contentment" rather than "towards success/progress". Why do we always need to progress when we are doing just fine.
Actually, it seems that once people reach a certain level of comfort (which most developed countries have reached), their population growth naturally stagnates. PERHAPS, we shall be lucky and the earth, augmented by technology, is capable of supporting this level of comfort for everyone and the population will reach equilibrium. Just that, at the moment, we are looking at massive climate change before that happens. But yeah, could well be reached. But if greed carries on seeking progress then.. either our efficiency has to outpace it or our population will take a further dip.
Oh yes, there is this Christian grounds to creation care. Which is something I guess... is there though I'm still waiting for Jerry Hwang's argument from the prophets. Anyway. So yeah, we ought to be stewards of creation, that much I agree. Does being a steward involve lobbying others to be stewards? Or paying the price when others do not? I do hope that the Christian community will differentiate itself by an others-loving stance towards this whole thing though.
To sum it up, I think climate change is inevitable because humans are sinful and they bring this upon themselves. They might cope, maybe not. Looks to be ugly. But thats also cos of sin. Anyway, for myself I just think God is in control. Maybe Jesus come again soon? Maybe not. We shall see.
Ive finished confessions which was great. I also finished "what money cant buy: the moral limits of markets" in one sitting (amazing how sitting in a library for 4 hours straight can increase my reading speed by like... a factor of 2?)
It is quite hard to reflect on confessions in a way that makes sense to you if you haven't read it. I shall just say that it was rather edifying. I guess I really like the God-oriented way in which he confesses his prior life. There is strong emphasis on divine sovereignty and some ultimate good and God being God (a big great version of God rather than our pathetic views of him). The last part's exegesis on genesis I guess is ok although the context and framework he uses is very different. It is cool how he reads so much into genesis. I think the broad principles of bible exegesis and some sort of charity towards interpretations can be found there. Good read, though i liked the autobiographical parts more. The philosophy was decent but abit repetitive and sometimes he spends much time to make a point that seems blatantly to me (but perhaps not in the worldview of his readers).
What money cant buy is also great man. I agree with it so much and I think it puts into words (backed by some evidence) what I have all along thought. Think I can flesh it out and extrapolate alot more. Im gonna make a seperate post for it.
Its the army season again! Have in-camp training in a month or so and the brief and answering questions and asking people to do things are all here again!
I really dislike army. I dislike what I have to do. Dislike the idea behind it. Dislike the environment. Dislike the culture. But I guess I like it that I have to go through it!
It makes me sad, and down and gloomy and lonely. But in all these things, while I would prefer not to feel them, are not awful in themselves.
Guess the contrast is nice to feel. And I'm thankful that I HAVE to go through this pain. Not to mention that I learn much through it. Also I get to meet many different people (even though I'm not looking forward to some more problematic cases). It is great that I'm forced outside of comfort zone, kinda literally. And I think it is a great thing that I have to go through it.
Doesn't mean I'm not sad and sian (to a super super great degree) of it though.
Let those who have ears let them hear?
LOL.
At least, I think, more of my friends are back this year. And I will have less dread. Dread is awful man.
One thing I am struck, when reading confessions, is the depths of depravity from which he is rescued.
For second generation Christians, especially comfortable second generation Christians, exposure to the gospel all along has the effect of diminishing the glory of the gospel, maybe through some desensitisation or lack of a contrasting experience.
It is not that we are any less sinful, even if we have not done what society (and arguably the bible) deems as abominable sins. I understand that we are equally sinful, equally deserving of wrath, not an iota less.
It is not as if we had no experience of living life without God. Nobody is born saved. All of us had to make our own choices. We were conceived in sin and born in sin. We (I at least), rebelled against the choices that my parents made to follow God and sought my own way. We all made the cardinal sin of rejecting God. Of dishonouring ourselves before God and his community, of being afraid of that which is to come and the powers that be, of seeking gratification in something other than that which ultimately satisfies, of guilt from flouting God's perfect law to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength and to love others as ourselves.
Can too much of a blessing be a curse? Or is it that we misidentify blessings and curses? Such that what we perceive to be blessings are actually obstacles to be overcome and what we perceive as obstacles are actually blessings. Or something like both.
But surely it is a blessing to have family and friends supporting you towards Christ rather than opposing? Surely it helps that the decision to follow Jesus is much easier? Or that the church doesn't have to meet in secret, or that the church is nicely air conditioned during classic Singapore weather?
Or are many "churches" like that of the manichees? Oh of course no church denies the incarnation of Christ or the authority of the scripture anymore. At least not explicitly, at least not publicly. But they do. Through the lives of leaders and who they elevate to leadership. Through the aims of the church. Through what is applauded. Through what is scorned. Through downplaying some sins that are church-ly acceptable. Through preaching a tame gospel. Through "everyone is struggling" being a substitute for "acceptance of stagnation (or in other words, unrepentence?)".
Of course this is only a possible broad generalisation and there are seasons .etc .etc.
Let me not condemn churches, for that is God's job and he perceives more than I and am more gracious than I and a way better judge than I. I'm just lamenting. That perhaps being stuck in the heresy of half truths is the easiest way to miss the truths for one thinks one has the truth. Leading a life 70% for Jesus (if that were even possible) is that which prevents enjoyment of a victorious life in Christ. Not "failing" is rendered as the aim rather than radically succeeding. But thanks be to God! God preserves his church. Against the world, against false gospels.
What am I to do then?
I'm also 80% sure I am writing as a child writes about things that I have not full understanding about.
I'm reading Augustine's confessions. And it is beautiful reading. It is also tough reading. One thing I am struck by is the whole way he writes, like God being sovereign and in control and a real understanding of his place in the greater scheme of things. For a person of his calibre and status (when he was writing), the candour is impressive.
I read Durotan, a warcraft book (that apparently seems to deviate abit from canon). Because was too much heavy reading. What I really liked about it was the communal, tribal feel that the (orcish) tribe had, eking a living out in rough terrain. And of course theres some good vs evil thing, and honour and shame, wao, not just guilt and innocence.
I wanna be more zealous! Actually, i'm not sure the opposite of zeal is apathy, maybe in some sense it is, it is also the opposite of slothfulness? Think cannot lower standards for myself.
You look so beautiful when you smile!
[[Book wishlist (lend me pls)]]
[[The Story Thus]]
|January 2008|February 2008|March 2008|April 2008|May 2008|June 2008|July 2008|August 2008|September 2008|October 2008|November 2008|December 2008|January 2009|February 2009|March 2009|April 2009|May 2009|June 2009|July 2009|August 2009|September 2009|October 2009|November 2009|December 2009|January 2010|February 2010|March 2010|April 2010|May 2010|June 2010|July 2010|August 2010|September 2010|October 2010|November 2010|December 2010|January 2011|February 2011|March 2011|April 2011|May 2011|June 2011|July 2011|August 2011|September 2011|October 2011|November 2011|December 2011|January 2012|February 2012|March 2012|April 2012|May 2012|June 2012|July 2012|August 2012|September 2012|October 2012|November 2012|December 2012|January 2013|February 2013|March 2013|April 2013|May 2013|June 2013|July 2013|August 2013|September 2013|October 2013|November 2013|December 2013|January 2014|February 2014|March 2014|April 2014|May 2014|June 2014|July 2014|August 2014|September 2014|October 2014|November 2014|December 2014|January 2015|February 2015|March 2015|April 2015|May 2015|June 2015|July 2015|August 2015|September 2015|October 2015|November 2015|December 2015|January 2016|February 2016|March 2016|April 2016|May 2016|June 2016|July 2016|August 2016|September 2016|October 2016|November 2016|December 2016|January 2017|February 2017|March 2017|April 2017|May 2017|June 2017|July 2017|August 2017|September 2017|October 2017|November 2017|December 2017|January 2018|February 2018|March 2018|April 2018|May 2018|June 2018|July 2018|August 2018|September 2018|October 2018|November 2018|December 2018|January 2019|February 2019|March 2019|April 2019|May 2019|June 2019|July 2019|August 2019|September 2019|October 2019|November 2019|December 2019|January 2020|February 2020|March 2020|April 2020|May 2020|June 2020|July 2020|August 2020|September 2020|October 2020|November 2020|December 2020|January 2021|February 2021|March 2021|April 2021|May 2021|June 2021|July 2021|August 2021|September 2021|October 2021|November 2021|December 2021|January 2022|February 2022|March 2022|April 2022|May 2022|June 2022|July 2022|August 2022|September 2022|October 2022|November 2022|December 2022|January 2023|February 2023|March 2023|April 2023|May 2023|June 2023|July 2023|August 2023|September 2023|October 2023|November 2023|December 2023|January 2024|February 2024|March 2024|April 2024
[[The Talk (also silent)]]
[[The Ancients]]