Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts

Monday, June 25, 2018

PHILOSOPHY: DEADER THAN EVER

Be wary of certainty; one’s degree of inaccuracy is often inversely proportional to their insistence of accuracy. – Theory Parker

I find myself needing to leave social media. The question is not why; it’s a waste of time if you don’t have an undying need for people to like you. If there’s any question about leaving social media, it would be why not? What do any of us get out of social media? Yes, there’s the dopamine boost we get from people ‘liking’ something we post – that undying need again – but this simply amounts to one of the many drugs we could all do without. Among its other uses, social media is used to announce the ongoings of our businesses, which really is just 21st century panhandling. (Worst among this trend is GoFundMe, in which everyone begs for money because somehow their situation is unique and deserving of the rest of us throwing our money at it. On a rare occasion, special circumstances do arise or an actually useful invention come along, but spare me your need to raise money for your classroom.) Perhaps social media gives us a chance to congregate with other like minds, albeit in the most superficial way because really, who has time for an entire phone call, an entire conversation? I know I don’t because I’m too busy working, working all the time, with people, and when I’m done with that I don’t want to deal with more people. This is not to say I don’t like my family and friends; I’m just exhausted. And I’m more exhausted by what I see on the internet. We look at posts from family and friends and it’s never too long before something – some kind of train wreck often political in nature – catches our eye. Noooooo, I often say to myself of some headline before being forced by curiosity, amazement, or (usually) disgust to delve deeper. This cannot be the world we are living in. It just can’t.

The internet is without question one of the worst things to ever happen to mankind. Yes, it has allowed us to connect on an unprecedented level with people far and wide. And yes, it has allowed us access to an unprecedented amount of information. Both of these things is what has kept the world from turning away from the insanity it has always known, instead using the internet to strengthen beliefs and tribal ties. Instead of using the access to information to study different cultures and perhaps change archaic ways of thinking, people dove headfirst into the concrete pool of confirmation bias to strengthen their ties to whatever community it is they consider themselves a part of. The internet gave people access to others of like mind and hence we have been given a world that instead of getting any better* has given new rise to authoritative governments around the globe. Militant Islam would not have nearly as many members as they do now if not for the internet. Vladmir Putin controls the internet and all other media in Russia to keep himself in power. China and North Korea likewise control what can be accessed through the internet. And you simply cannot go on the internet in America without catching a glimpse of the alt-right and the regressive left frothing at you and each other. Even if you somehow avoid that, there is sure to be someone who has something nasty to say about something no matter how innocuous the post.

Given an unfettered path to confirming one’s bias,’ philosophy became roadkill along the way. The last thing you’ll ever read on the internet is someone beginning their post with, “I may be wrong, but…” There is simply no reflection of thought, no self-analysis of ideas or one’s beliefs. Social media has become nothing more than a game of saying how right one thinks they are about whatever bullshit they want to believe. And surely if one uses ALL CAPS to say it, it becomes all the more true. There is simply no reasoning with anyone who uses the internet on a regular basis. Try to think of the last time you actually changed someone’s mind – difficult isn’t it? I don’t think I’ve done it myself since 2010 when I showed a college freshman the data on CFC’s and how it affected the ozone layer, thus convincing him that human activity can have an effect on the environment. This was a rare and exceptional case perhaps because the young man’s mind was open to new ideas. But this is not the case for most people of any age. Entrenched belief is difficult to dislodge because people hate to be wrong; most people see being wrong as a defect instead of a virtue, something to learn from.

Philosopher’s themselves are also to blame for the death of philosophy. Physicist Stephen Hawking declared that philosophy was dead back in 2011, making note that today’s philosophers have not kept up with or have failed to take into account the data emerging from the sciences. And why would they when most philosophers’ views can be ‘confirmed’ by others of similar thinking on the internet? You can search the ‘pros’ of communism with at-the-ready counter-arguments against its detractors within seconds, nevermind any lack of objectivity. Unfortunately philosophers are people, too, and like most people are typically not above confirmation bias. Despite real-world evidence that communism simply doesn’t work in practice, many young idealists still think it can. (Ah, ah, ah –Like every other attempt at communism, China is only communist on paper.)

The failure of philosophers to ‘keep up’ combined with the effect the internet has had on people has given Americans a country hijacked by the regressive left and the alt-reich. You read these people’s comment’s on the internet every day, whose typical comment is usually rife with some false assertion and/or unblinking hypocrisy. False assertions are one thing – we don’t typically have time to fact-check everything – but the hypocrisy is breathtaking. For example, Putin and Russia were basically enemies during President Obama’s tenure but because Trump is friends with Putin, Russia was somehow never our enemy after Trump’s election. Or take Sarah Huckabee Sander’s attack on a business owner for booting her out of a restaurant while agreeing that a bakery had the right to refuse gay people service. But the regressive left is no prize either, who can’t see its own policy of denying anyone with a difference of opinion to speak at college campuses as fascist. You also cannot bring up the atrocities of any other race throughout history as only white people have committed crimes against humanity. Anyone who dares think is either dead or is dying in the middle.

All of this is why I’m a misanthrope. We can’t have discussions anymore, as if we ever could. For fuck sake, female scientists have had a historically rough time being taken seriously even though data should speak for itself. If scientists can’t be rational, what hope is there for everyone else? There is no hope. We’ll die by our own hand having never learned from the Roman Empire even though their collapse was well-documented. And if any philosopher hasn’t given up yet, they will eventually be hunted down and murdered by whichever side ultimately wins the culture war. That is what authoritative regimes do, after all. The U.S. is dealing with two right now that are engaged in an ideological war that will ironical kill nothing but ideas.

Depends on their PR person.


Saturday, October 4, 2014

Atheism Fails Fail



There’s a certain comfort in knowing that when I get back from a two week long vacation that is mostly devoid of the internet and news, the world will still be as crazy as when I left it. I submit as evidence this gem found on Facebook in which a theist attempts to use philosophy to argue for the First Cause Argument as evidence for a creator. Here is the text in its entirety:

"But who created God?" is an invalid and tedious argument. It is logically impossible for the "cause" of time to be dependent upon time. Thus, the primary "cause" was "always there" (or it "never was"). Due to the level of fine tuning of the universe, which is orders of magnitude greater than any human engineering achievement, the "cause" of the universe must be an agent which is not restricted by the laws of nature (the "cause" is above nature) and it is indirectly responsible for the applications of science and logic. Due to the algorithmic complexity present within every single cell of every living system (and due to the fact that the digital information therein is not reducible to nature), it can be inferred that the primary "cause" is a personal being which is potentially unbounded in power. When the atheist\naturalist appeals to science or logic (formal disciples which are indirectly the result of the Creator and only possible due the uniformity in nature - evidently the Creator upholds the universe in a consistent manner) in an attempt to refute the existence of the Creator (or assumes that natural processes can explain the origin of natural processes), they demonstrate short-sighted irrational behavior which is not consistent with logic or science. It is outside the realm of science to "disprove" the reality of a Creator and it certainly isn't based on logic. Thus, atheism is merely a metaphysical naturalist philosophy.

So let’s break this down.

"But who created God?" is an invalid and tedious argument. It is logically impossible for the "cause" of time to be dependent upon time. Thus, the primary "cause" was "always there" (or it "never was"). OBJECTION: There are several problems with this line of reasoning for if there was no cause, or, the cause was always there, the cause itself is unchanging and therefore can have no effect on temporal things such as the universe (supposing the universe did have a beginning); that which does not change cannot be a cause as causes are changes. Time may also have always been a dimension of what preceded the universe, if anything did. Though even scientists suspect that time began when the universe began, the reality is that they actually do not know for certain. Moreover, if God had no beginning, this tells us that we know at least one thing didn’t have a beginning. Problem is, for all we know, there may be other things without a beginning, such as the universe.

Due to the level of fine tuning of the universe, which is orders of magnitude greater than any human engineering achievement, the "cause" of the universe must be an agent which is not restricted by the laws of nature (the "cause" is above nature) and it is indirectly responsible for the applications of science and logic. OBJECTION: Again, several problems. This line implies human beings are already at the pinnacle of their knowledge with no chance of going any further. The author is in effect attempted to argue that because human being haven’t perfected cosmological feats of engineering, this means God did it. But since no one knows what it takes to create a universe, doing so may be a simple matter of having the right knowledge or power or both. Certainly human beings do not know how to create a universe, but this doesn’t mean it will never happen. Nor is the universe fine-tuned for life as ‘tuning’ implies a conscious agent. The laws of the universe happen to be what they are and given this fact, there was a 100% chance that life would arise in the universe. (I don’t know why this is hard for people to wrap their heads around, but it is only proper to speak in terms of chance when we don’t know what is going to happen next.) Sure, if the laws of the universe were off just a little tiny bit, life – as we know it – wouldn’t exist. This doesn’t mean life can’t exist in a universe with different laws. (Granted, a definition of ‘life’ would be useful here.)

Due to the algorithmic complexity present within every single cell of every living system (and due to the fact that the digital information therein is not reducible to nature), it can be inferred that the primary "cause" is a personal being which is potentially unbounded in power. OBJECTION: Fancifully worded reasoning does not lend the reasoning itself any credence. The appearance of complexity in any system is simply a matter of degree to which one understands the system. A mechanic or engineer that has worked on or built one type of car for 50 years will find that car less complex than a modern electrical motorcycle that actually has less parts. Just because our DNA looks complex does not mean it is; to a suitably knowledgeable alien, our DNA may appear like child’s play. Even if we grant that there was a cause to this complexity within us, this tells us nothing about the creator. If we know anything about the way in which most things are built, we should suspect that the universe was built by multiple creators. When’s the last time a single person built a skyscraper by themselves? This question alone deflates the insistence of a lone creator seeing how much more ‘complex’ the universe is than a skyscraper. Finally, there is no digital information in our cells; the information may be construed as digital information, but it is not in actuality ‘digital’ information.

It is outside the realm of science to "disprove" the reality of a Creator and it certainly isn't based on logic. Thus, atheism is merely a metaphysical naturalist philosophy. OBJECTION: Oddly enough, the author is trying to use logic to make a case for a creator (based on the First Cause Argument) and then says right here logic can’t be used to deny God’s existence…in other words, you can use logic to prove God but you can’t use logic to deny God’s existence. That’s like saying you can use logic to prove 1+1=2 but you cannot use logic to prove otherwise (even though you can). Moreover, look at all the things science has explained that used to be in the realm of religious explanations but are no longer because those explanations were false, e.g. thunder, disease, the Geocentric model, etc. If scientific explanation are better than religious ones and we continually find this to be the case, we can safely infer that God doesn’t exist. Therefore, theism is merely metaphysical wishful thinking.