The Etymology of 'Idiot'

If there is one sure fire way to spot an idiot, it would have to be the way some people – usually conspiracy theorists (ironically also referred to as ‘truthers’) – think they have figured out what some words actually mean or how words are sometimes used against them. 

For example, I recall one particularly idiotic truther tried entertaining his disturbingly large audience of 200 people with the revelation that the word ‘youngster’ is really referring to youngsters as being ‘young stars’ as human beings are in fact beings of light. Nevermind that the etymology (the study of the origin of words and their historical usage) of the word ‘young’ stems from the Old English word ‘geong’ and Middle English word ‘yong’ which both refer to someone as being from the early part of life or as possessing the looks of someone who looks as though they belong to the early part of life. The suffix ‘-ster’ is also derived from Old and Middle English (and Proto-Germanic) and at when added to a word refers to that thing as belonging to a specified group or as doing something specific. Unsurprisingly, the word for a youngster is ‘enfant’ in French and ‘junge’ or ‘kind’ in German, words that have ZERO to do with this truther’s claims about young people being the children of stars. Certainly one can just make up out of thin air their own etymologies, but that doesn’t mean their imaginings are true. [The same person completely ignored some key definitions of ‘defense’ and intentionally narrowed the meaning of the word to make a rather poor argument in their favor regarding imperialism.]

Then there’s this ridiculous conspiracy theorist meme, depicted on the left. In actuality, the word ‘govern-’ as it relates here is derived from the Old French word ‘governor’ which is itself derived from the Latin ‘gubernare,’ itself derived from the Greek word ‘kybernan’ meaning to pilot or captain a ship. Meanwhile, ‘-ment’ was imported from the French and Latin ‘-mentum’ and means the result of an action. As one clever commenter wrote on English.stockexchange.com “If ‘-ment’ always referred to the mind, then a replacement would be a brain transplant, punishment would be a headache, and an attachment would be a neural implant.”

More recently, another truther tried to explain in her Youtube video that when police ask you if you understand what they are saying, answering ‘yes’ means you are giving them permission to stand over you. Nevermind that the word comes from the Old English usage of ‘understandan’ which simply means to perceive the meaning of words or ideas spoken to you. That’s it. If what this conspiracy theorist is saying is true, then you simply have to tell police you don’t understand them when they ask you if you understand and it’s like a get-out-of-jail-free card!

Conspiracy theorists / truthers (‘-ists’ and ‘-ers’ is used in a very similar fashion to ‘-ster’, btw) claim to want to make you think, but when you do and actually do research the things the talk about and come to a ‘real’ conclusion, they’ll have none of it. They’ll throw every ad hominin attack or straw man fallacy in the book at you. Conspiracy theorists are alarmingly delusional and should be hospitalized before they hurt someone or themselves. Or, we can invite them to leave and start their own country. I know, I know, they’re too lazy for all that. A few idiots ruin it for the rest of us.

[‘Idiot,’ by the way, comes from the Old French and Latin word ‘idiota’ meaning ‘ignorant person.’ Unsurprisingly, the usage of idiot’ has risen exponentially with the advent of the internet.]

Was The Human Body Designed?

The Argument from Life – particularly human life – is one of the go-to arguments for a theist’s insistence that a ‘designer’ exists. (Naturally, their own designer; never anyone else’s.) Teaching A&P and human anatomy such as I do, it is quite apparent that if anyone did design the human body, they did a piss poor job of it. When you consider all the things that can go wrong with the human body, to say nothing of the malfunctions that afflict the supposedly wondrous brain alone, and it seems odd to me that anyone would consider the human body designed. Sure, how the kidneys balance bodily fluids and monitor blood pressure is amazing, but the process is so convoluted that kidneys actually seem to have arisen by chance. Being undersigned, the human body is the biological equivalent of a ’71 Ford Pinto, a vehicle that would burst into flames if you happened to tap it with a feather.

As always, one should have evidence for their assertions. Fortunately, a lot of this work has been done for me. Allow me to point you in the direction of some articles that lament the failure of God’s design:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/watchmaker.htm (Funniest)

http://io9.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787 (Simple)

http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body (Simple)

https://www.quora.com/Science-of-Everyday-Life/What-are-the-greatest-flaws-of-the-human-body (Includes a section with comments from many biologists)

Granted, many of the articles speak of the same design flaws, and this is because the design flaws are so egregious that they can’t possibly go unnoticed. All of this points to the opposite of the Argument from Life, the Argument from Poor Design, indicating there is no designer.

There are two possible objections to these many foolish ‘designs.’ One is that the designer or designers did not see fit to design the human body for optimum efficiency. Human beings are well known for creating things that perform sub-optimally, but this is always due to either a lack of knowledge or resources, or is done out of plain ol’ greed. If we are anything like our designer(s), this says something about them. If it’s the case that we just don’t know the reason why we were created for sub-optimal performance, there is no reason to assume any such designer(s) had noble intentions. Even if it were the case that the designer(s) had designed some non-optimal features to improve the overall quality of the human body, this might indicate the incompetence of the designer(s), being or beings that are often regarded as omniscient. The worst flaw of all, death, has always afflicted human beings, even Adam and Eve upon their very creation! If human beings were designed, they might as well have been iPhones, with their obsolescence built in.

The second objection is that human disease is the result of sin.* This is quite obviously ridiculous since babies who are baptized have their sins taken away but still may become sick at a moment’s notice (or are baptized when sick, and are still sick immediately thereafter). People are also noticeable sick after confession, which supposedly asks for the forgiveness of sins. Of course, the designer(s) could never have allowed for sin, which even the dumbest engineer would have agreed seemed like a good idea.

[* Speaking from a fundamentalist Christian perspective]

“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?” Michael Shermer in Why Darwin Matters

Ah, yes, cognitive bias, one of the worst ‘design’ flaws of all.

I Read It So You Don't Have To: God's Crime Scene

Christian apologetics is hardly anything new in American literature, but the genre’s latest work by author J. Warner Wallace has taken a novel new approach in making a case for the existence of God. Wallace, a former L.A. County detective and former atheist, claims to apply his years of experience in examining evidence to conclude that the universe must have had a divine creator. “God’s Crime Scene” joins a growing number of books that attempts to use an atheist’s favorite tools – evidence and reason – against them. Unfortunately for Wallace, this tactic hasn’t worked for creation scientists and it doesn’t work now.

In making his case, Wallace attempts to use a number of analogies, which – judging from a number of reviews – seem to be quite engaging and convincing. This is as one would suspect from other theists who are not adapt at questioning whether an analogy is correct, much less question the conclusion the author draws. For example, Wallace begins the book by describing a possible suicide inside a house and looking for clues that might give him reason to think that what took place was actually murder. To do this, Wallace is going to look for things that may not be native to the scene such as mud on the floor or another person’s fingerprints or DNA. In other words, can Wallace account for things in the room as only being from inside the room? And right here, at the very beginning, Wallace’s analogies go awry.

If one is in the habit of questioning, one would be inclined to ask if a house is like the universe. The answer would be “no” because we have knowledge of things that can be outside of a house and brought in, but we have no knowledge of things outside of the universe that can be brought into the universe, seeing how we’ve never seen something inside the universe outside of the universe. To begin a book with such a flawed analogy does not help Wallace establish any credibility. Any credibility or benefit of the doubt one might have given Wallace for being a detective evaporates so quickly, one suspects Wallace took part in the now infamous O.J. Simpson case. (Defending or accepting Wallace’s arguments on the account of his credentials is The Argument from Authority logical fallacy anyway.)

Soon thereafter, Wallace glides into his first chapter which attempts to determine if the universe had a beginning. This appears to be an important point to apologists since given an infinitely old universe, an infinite number of possibilities might take place, such as the emergence of life. So then, the thinking goes, if the universe had a beginning, something must have set it in motion. (And, if the evidence indicates the universe was designed, it must have had a single designer. Nevermind that you never see complex structures built by a single person, but, whatever.) In order to argue against an infinitely old universe, Wallace likens a cause and effect universe to an infinite number of handguns in his police armory. If Wallace removes every fourth gun, he says, he is removing an infinite number from an infinite number, which is clearly nonsensical. The author then concludes that you cannot do the same thing with causes and effect either, so clearly the universe cannot be infinitely old. Problem is, infinite and abstract causes and effects are nothing like an infinite number of material objects. Nor is it hard to imagine how an infinite number of causes and effects are possible if one considers God’s (supposedly) infinite nature. Another bad analogy from which Wallace derives one of just many rushed conclusion.

Because it is an important point to apologists, Wallace perhaps feels (rightly so) that this argument isn’t enough to convince a skeptic and continues to argue for a universe with a beginning. So, using science to lend his argument validity, asserts that cosmologists and physicists largely agree that the universe began with the Big Bang. This is true, though Wallace doesn’t mention here that the Big Bang theory is running into a number of competing theories about the universe’s origin lately. (The least of which include a holographic universe theory and corrections to Einstein’s theory of general relativity.) A bit more on target, Wallace argues that we could never arrive the finish line that is ‘today’ without there being a beginning from which to start from. Nice try, Wallace, but what is ‘today’? Is it right…now? But now has already come and gone, which makes one wonder just how long is now? Like the universe’s origin, Wallace doesn’t give any thought here to the slippery concept of time which most physicists agree is in a lot more trouble than theories of the origin of the universe. Wallace even gives too much credit to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as it is not entirely sure that the universe is a closed system. (Of course, anyone who knows anything about science knows that nothing is 100% certain, which makes it curious that any apologist would lean on science to argue for the existence of God. Or maybe it’s not so curious as theists are finding out that appealing to blind faith is not enough to withstand criticism.)

Throughout the book, Wallace continues to make bad analogy after bad analogy from which he continually derives conclusions long since discredited by atheists. (Honestly, I don’t know why apologists are still using the ‘fine tuning’ argument.) At best, Wallace’s arguments would result in there being multiple entities involved in the construction of the universe, or to use Wallace’s own analogy, suspects in this ‘murder.’

Reviews for “God’s Crime Scene” have been glowing, which is understandable once you consider the book’s audience, most of whom do not possess the philosophical skills to call B.S. when they see it much less the bravery to say so when they do. I do think the author’s approach is intriguing – hence my initial interest in the book – and the book is written with a clear, easy to understand voice. The side bars that describe the methods by which detective work is conducted is interesting as well, but these skills obviously do not translate into believable conclusions about the supernatural. As the author indicates, he is a former detective and not a lawyer, with a lawyer being someone who would destroy Wallace’s conclusions in an actual trial on the matter.

I give the book two stars (out of five) for a gallant and unique effort in a field crowded with philosophical shenanigans. Wallace’s prose is clearly written for the layperson, but so much so that his arguments fall deaf upon trained ears. I wish Wallace better luck with his next book; “Cold Case Islam.”

[“Cold Case Islam” would be Wallace’s next logical book and a follow up to his first book, “Cold Case Christianity” in which the author’s investigative skills lead him to conclude that everything the Bible says about Jesus is true. Given that there is far more evidence for the life of the prophet Mohammed, I would be curious to see what conclusions Wallace would make about the Muslim prophet.]