Losing the War

As more and more people fall victim to mass gun violence, the debate between whether there should be more or less gun laws heats up. For a large majority of people, they fall on either side of this debate. The problem is, to be on either side of this debate suggests an unwillingness to think about the problem’s origins. Whether the public has a right to bear arms has nothing to do with what is allowing for the U.S.’s staggering gun violence problem – Collectively speaking, the U.S. has a deep, severe mental problem that is based upon its very foundation.*

[* That is to say, The U.S. as a country was born out of violence and established a two-century old patriarchal, racist society not much better than the U.S.’s country of origin.]

But this deep, severe mental problem is merely indicative of a larger problem; what it means to be human. In the last year there has been an alarming rise of practically fascist, regressive leftism in America paralleled by the number of people who think Donald Trump should be the President of the U.S. On both these sides there is a very particular way in which these people’s brains operate, which is to say however good their intentions may be, they are not capable of critically thinking not because they lack the tools – self-reflection requires no tools – but because they are determined to believe what they want to believe.

If the number of people on the planet is any indication, this lack of self-analysis and moreover, reasoning ability, has preserved and perpetuated the species. This same ability is what puts people at odds, though, and has long made the world an unfriendly place to live. It appears as though we may have to settle for this state of affairs in order to preserve and perpetuate the species, which really is the point of life after all. Our genes don’t care how we treat each other; they just want to get themselves into the next generation. If this is the case, it is more likely that people are going to be less rational than rational despite how many generations come and go. In other words, it will always be the case that people will make dumb decisions, do dumb things and believe in dumb ideas. Despite absolutely zero evidence, particle physicists cling to string theory. Despite the overwhelming evidence that smoking is harmful to the body, people still smoke. Despite the health problems that come with being obese, people still overeat. Despite being as far from science as one can get, people still heed warnings from their horoscope. Despite the fact that wealthy socialites contribute nothing to society, people still worship them. For a human, being dumb is inescapable.

It is tempting, seeing how humans are capable of as much hope as they are capable of stupidity, to assume people can be rational especially when lives are at stake. For example, cooler heads prevailed in October, 1962 during the Cold War when Russia attempted to base missiles in Cuba aimed at the U.S. Ultimately, Russia withdrew their weapons from the U.S.’s backyard and a nuclear war was averted. This is because everyone involved came to see that for either side, the whole debacle was a lose-lose situation. At the same time, Russia acted irrationally and thought, “What the heck, the U.S. won’t mind if we put some missiles in their backyard. After all, they have missiles in Italy aimed at us.” Sadly, hope is often a result of humans acting or doing something stupid. We ‘hope’ as a hedge against a cruel world in which we would otherwise feel completely defeated. In this example, we hoped to avoid nuclear war and we did, but first, someone did something which required hope as a hedge against their action. That is to say, if we build a nuclear weapon, we have to hope that we never have to use it which indicates building the nuclear bomb in the first place is irrational. (Using nuclear fission to produce energy, yes. Using it to kill people, um…)

Acting or thinking rationally is a foreign practice for most people. There are many reasons for this, the foremost being that thinking requires the brain to use a lot of energy and it goes against people’s general desire to be placated as soon as possible (despite evidence that prolonging the reception of an award or desire appears to allow for more enjoyment of the award or desire). One cannot even rationalize with a teenager who will post damning pictures of themselves on social media despite how far their posts may travel around the world to say nothing of their local police force because a teenager, like people in general, needs to placate their ego immediately. As I alluded to earlier, it is not a part of human nature to be rational and this is why it is so rare. With human population closing in on 7.3 billion people as of 2015, it appears there is no particular reason for the human race to be any more rational than it is if being irrational perpetuates the species. Notice if you will that the people with the most offspring are usually the least educated and often the most ideologically radicalized.

There is no rationalizing with an irrational person when there is nothing in it for the irrational person. An irrational person will choose to believe in a heavenly afterlife over being atheistic because even if they see an atheistic lifestyle as potentially making their earthbound life more important, they know that one day their earthbound life will end. In other words, the atheistic principle as it may apply doesn’t offer the ultimate in hope. If there is no potentially bigger reward for changing sides in a debate, it is very unlikely that people on opposite sides of a debate will come around to a new way of thinking. Once a person is indoctrinated into thinking a particular way, it is very difficult to change their mind. It is often not worth the energy one spends trying to do that unless one’s survival is literally at stake. That is to say, it is irrational to continually engage irrational people when there is only a small chance of changing their minds ‘for the better.’ It does happen, on occasion, that people do think deeply about their ideas and beliefs, but it will always be the case that such people will be vastly outnumbered and ultimately always be at the mercy of the irrational.

This is in part why, here at the end of 2015, I am coming home from the war. Fighting stupidity, however noble, will forever be a losing battle. Over the course of years of debate and attempted discussions, I’ve had very few rational, much less civil, interactions with people on a myriad of issues. It’s not worth trying to get people become uncomfortable with their ideas or beliefs; I only become a villain so I suppose it is better to let sleeping dogs lie unless I am confronted myself. I will allow people their beliefs if there is no cost to me, but of course one should not expect to get off easy when trying to engage me with their irrational ideas or beliefs. I otherwise don’t have the time to waste and I don’t want to end up like Socrates (as if I were important enough to be so lucky).

I have plans for 2016 that include contributing to answering the question of time, exploring Genetic Philosophy (developed by yours truly) and solving problems within the Philosophy of Language (as far as any philosophy is concerned), committing more time to my tourism blog and spending more time writing fiction (something people seem to lap up as they apparently identify strongly with lives that are not real) and reading for enjoyment. I have enjoyed writing and posting my thoughts here as any good philosopher must mentally masturbate, but I suppose I have reached the point in my life when I want to do other things.

This blog will be maintained in 2016 by occasional ruminations and relevant re-posts, but other than that, there will be no commentaries on religion, atheism, politics or any other current events. I know, I know, what will you do with yourselves? You can always follow Kim Kardashian on Twitter. 

Does Religion Cause Violence?

“Does religion cause violence? Yes!” This is the starting point of the atheist narrative that seeks to indict religion on the ground of its (allegedly) great potential to harm. It has been repeated by atheists so many times that the so-called New Atheists who claim to put reason, logic and evidence before all else have abandoned reason, logic and evidence in order to make their accusation about religion. But as I have said in the past and have to say again because I actually care about reason, logic and evidence, it is not religion that causes violence.

In order to determine if religion actually causes violence, it is worth asking if there are ever instances in which religion has nothing to do with violence. Well, yes, such examples would be too numerous to mention. But, let’s mention some anyway: Does a man ever attack another man over an insult? Yes. Does a man ever hit a woman in order to have power over her? Yes. Do people ever trample each other on Black Friday in order to be the first to get a deal? Yes. Do sports fans ever riot after their team wins a championship? Yes. Do neighboring territories or countries ever go to war over land or some other resource? Yes. And most importantly, has any atheist ever harmed another atheist? I’m betting on ‘yes.’

Even if New Atheists want to assert that religion is the cause of most harm in the world, they are still wrong. Many of the armed conflicts in the world today have nothing to do with religion; while Boko Haram and the Islamic State (ISIS) may be making headline news, any number of ethnic and civil wars are actually piling up more bodies than the Islamic extremists. Even historically, 87 of the world’s greatest atrocities had little to nothing to do with religion (according to scholar Matthew White). In the 20^th Century, WWI and WWII racked up a higher body count than any religious war and both wars had nothing to do with religion. So why aren’t New Atheists acknowledging the evidence contrary to their claims? Is it because they have an agenda? Probably. How can we tell?

For one thing, you’ll never hear a New Atheist assert that religion makes people commit decent acts, like feed the homeless. If you then ask a New Atheist why a religious person would feed the homeless, you’ll be given an answer that has anything to do with it BUT religion, most likely that the given person is a decent person to begin with. Hmm, okay, but if that’s the case isn’t it possible that a religious person could act indecently or even violently for reasons that actually have nothing to do with their religious beliefs? And, even in cases where people claim God told them to kill other people, isn’t it at all possible that such people are indecent or have violent tendencies to begin with? Because if not, what New Atheists are asserting is that religion can compel someone who is otherwise a pacifist to commit terrible deeds. Problem is, there is no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim. Even the famous Stanford prison experiment, if pointed to by New Atheists as evidence – which would be ridiculous – merely implies that when people are given the chance to have power over others, they take it. Why? Because this desire is ingrained in our biology (at least, this appears to be the case, generally speaking). Human beings are still ‘wired’ for violence as well, as the billions worldwide viewing the Super Bowl and Hollywood shoot-em-ups every year can attest to.

When religious people become violent, it seems to me (and this is admittedly armchair psychology) that what is actually taking place is this: They are trying to control or suppress another person or group for the sake of their own survival, even if such a threat is incorrectly perceived, this is not a behavior unique to the religiously inclined. Religion then simply becomes a social acceptable excuse to commit violence (socially acceptable to members of the perpetrator’s group). If religion were abolished, then some other excuse for violence would take its place.

Claiming religion causes violence is akin to claiming that something like alcohol can turn a happy-go-lucky average Joe into an angry drunk. Only, angry drunks are already angry people to begin with who suppress their anger in order to operate within the confines of the prevailing social contract.

In much the same way that guns don’t kill people, religion doesn’t cause violence. People cause violence. Granted, some tools make it easier to rise to violence, but indecent people will always find a way to act indecently. Religion isn’t the problem; biology is.

Are Human Beings Intelligent?

“So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.” Bertrand Russell     

Human beings arrogantly assume they are intelligent creatures having compared themselves to "lower" life forms that haven't invented wheels, money, or TV. Well, birds don't need wheels, monkeys barter sex for food, and lizards didn't write those awful final seasons of "Friends.” To be sure, humans do have a knack for turning abstract thoughts into inventions and for synthesizing information to predict the future. But if that’s all our definition of intelligence* entails, then I will retract what I’m about to say about human intelligence; um, that is, that humans are not intelligent. Sure, on occasion, humans do display an ability to reason, which is the other common requisite for intelligence and is the link between abstract thought and invention. But if we’re talking about how often we collectively exercise the ability to reason, especially in our day to day lives, then we don’t seem all that intelligent as a species. It seems that a number of other so-called intelligences take precedence as we go about our lives; interpersonal intelligence and bodily kinesthetic intelligence, for example. While using reason to create tools and predict the future is great, rare is the person who takes reasoning seriously as a tool for running their lives, much less the lives of anyone else.  

[* - I’m discounting our ability to communicate in a variety of ways as a facet of intelligence as many animals can do as much, though not with the same complexity. But I discount the complexity of human language as well because that complexity also drives misunderstandings.]

We are all aware of the headlines that alert us to common acts of stupidity, such as the man who calls police to report the theft of the marijuana he was illegally growing in his attic; as commonly reported by sources such as News of the Weird and the Darwin Awards. More examples of human stupidity include building huge cities in earthquake prone areas. Stupid. Living in a trailer home in Tornado Alley? Stupid. Giving teachers paychecks that are dwarfed by multi-million dollar high school drop-out athletes and rappers because the human need to be entertained is greater than the human need to be skilled or educated? Stupid. Oh, and have you ever heard Celion Dion cover AC/DC? I’m not even kidding! The average human is about as smart as a box of rocks, and that’s probably giving people too much credit as well as being an insult to rocks.

While these sorts of headlines tackle the everyday stupidity of humans, there are far worse examples of humans not exercising their supposed intelligence. Take for example the eagerness of the agriculture industries (BigAg as it is known in the U.S.) who stealthily implements genetically altered foods into our food chain without studying the long term effects these foods might have on us or the environment. Here, the afore mentioned ability to synthesize information in order to predict the future goes right out the window for the sake of the short term monetary gain by a minute handful of people. In this respect, we might also take for example industries that pour their toxic wastes into rivers and oceans and endanger what is arguably our most important resource, water. Moreover, what of energy companies that intentionally suppress the advancement of clean, renewable energy? And what about cloning? International law notwithstanding, surely humans will soon be cloned with regularity. Who will control this technology and for what purposes? Sadly, our ability to create is forever outpacing our ability to philosophically deal with the ‘intelligent’ Dr. Frankenstein within us. So, are we intelligent?

That’s a good question to ask oneself, especially when one believes in a god. Meta-studies appear to indicate a correlation between intelligence levels and strength of faith, where the more education one has appears to lead to a higher percentage of agnostics and non-practicing theists, if not outright atheists. There's a reason why religion is not taught in public school and colleges; it is not compatible with reason. If a theist is to seriously think about human intelligence, they should find themselves asking exactly why any supposedly intelligent creator would create an intelligent species with such an inceredible capacity for stupidity. Why would God create something so dumb that it would proclaim itself, in the face of an entire universe, as the pinnacle of creation? We’re talking about an entire species dedicated to the Black Swan Syndrome; we don’t know of any life as intelligent as humans, so humans must be the most intelligent in all the universe! We can continue to ask these types of questions: Why would a god create humans with such poor reason, who are constantly making choices that endanger their lives or otherwise make themselves unhappy? And why, in the name of all that is holy, would God like to be worshipped by these idiotic creations? Even the robots humans build do not require that the robots worship their creator.

The reasonable answer to these types of questions is that God, were He to exist, is a moron. But we do have to give credit where credit is due, for in a single stroke of cleverness, God gets off the hook for creating such dumb things as people by the virtue of faith. That’s right, faith, the dumbest psychological position a person can commit to; this is what excuses God from having made humans as unintelligent as they are. Human being are so unintelligent that it takes something like a human to create and define the word ‘intelligence,’ assign the word great moral value, and them proclaim itself to be intelligent. In much the same way that God cannot be moral by proclaiming to be the standard of morality, humans cannot be intelligent by proclaiming to be the standard of intelligence.

Naturally, someone is going to disagree with me and say something like, “Well, other animals cannot ask themselves why they exist,” which goes to show you exactly how stupid humans are as the person making this argument obviously hasn’t first asked if their argument is even logical. Humans aren’t intelligent. For every example one could give in favor of human intelligence, ten examples of human stupidity can be given in response. By contrast, humans are far more arrogant than they are intelligent, which would explain why supposed alien abductees claim aliens use people as lab rats. But this merely shows how dumb the aliens are, too. I don’t think they’re going to learn much from us. If they were smart, they’d already know that.