In the Beginning of Creationism vs Evolution

I’ve met an alarming number of creationists lately with whom – due to circumstances – I am unable to debate publicly. On one hand, I largely do not care what people believe as long as they’re not jerks or insist on foisting their beliefs on others. On the other hand, people are so unreasonable, it boggles reasonable minds and something must be said about their erroneous beliefs that they do want to foist upon others. Of course, the belief in creationism over evolution as an explanation for how life may have begun fits the bill.

While evolution doesn’t really explain how life began, people of many faiths and denominations of those faith take this to mean they should devise an explanation that is supernatural. What has long bothered me about creationism as an explanation for life’s origins is this – a believer, probably unknown to themselves because they do no critical analysis of their beliefs, is in essence saying that it is more likely that some divine being took a lump of clay and breathed life into said clay to create a man than molecules could spontaneously come together and at some point begin replicating themselves. The believer believes this despite ample evidence that the universe often displays self-organizing behavior; the formation of galactic clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets and the elements all of those things are made of to say nothing of the laws of physics that keeps everything stable enough for long enough in order for things to organize. Granted, this doesn’t speak directly to the origin of life, but indirectly speaking it seems plausible that a molecule – possibly RNA according to biologists current theories – might start copying itself or make other molecules due to natural chemical reactions and just might organize themselves into a larger system. As I said, the universe is not without a few examples, examples that are even prior to known life.

Moreover, the explanatory power of evolution is much greater than that of creationism whose powers of explanation do not go beyond the initiation of life. For the creationist who wishes to have their cake and eat it too, meaning they believe in creationism which is guided by evolution thereafter, they are merely shorting the process of evolution by one step. Why not just accept the first step as well or simply admit that one does not know how life began? Evolutionists – at least the ones who know what they’re talking about – will always say that the theory of evolution does not (yet) explain the origin of life, though from what they have inferred from the process thus far, it seems more likely that some molecule in prehistory began the evolution of life rather than submitting the explanation that an invisible and supposedly benevolent force made life simply pop into existence. In short, questions about the origin of life boils down to this: Is it more plausible that life suddenly popped into existence thanks to an invisible force that is sentient or that life began by some simple molecules organizing themselves? Maybe the answer depends upon how much one understands chemistry and biology, and maybe even physics.

As is always worth noting as well is that the very premise of life having a supernatural origin while the originator itself has no creator is completely nonsensical and arbitrary. If a creationist is going to be arbitrary in their beliefs or even claim evidence for their beliefs, why is it wrong for an evolutionist to be arbitrary in their beliefs or claim they have evidence for their beliefs? In actuality, both groups of ‘believers’ have life originating from non-life. Better to have something rather than nothing in common one supposes. Only, why something rather than nothing? 

Sanders, Trump, and the Cult of Victimization

The year is 2016.

When people act like cavemen, in ‘unevolved’ sorts of ways, it is inevitable that someone is always there to ask “What year are we living in?” meaning, there is something allegedly shocking to a person of reason about how slowly large groups of people evolve socially over time. As Donald Trump grows closer to securing the Republican nomination, he continues to indirectly but not so subtly pander to the racist, misogynistic (largely) uneducated white voters who are not above rising to violence who happen to think Trump’s presidency will ‘change things.’ The question is, what is it Trump supporters hope to change? It’s not like a whole lot of racist, misogynistic (largely) uneducated white voters haven’t benefited from the status quo for, well, pretty much all of American history.

And that’s just it; for Trump supporters, what they are hoping to change is the direction in

which the country is changing. Trump’s overwhelmingly white supporters see the writing on the wall; for example, they’re currently under attack spiritually as the number of diverse religions grow within U.S. borders. Heaven forbid a Christian from Bala’ama be forced to share the street with a non-Christian! (For the sake of brevity, now replace ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’ with ‘white folk’ and ‘people of color,’ ‘men’ and ‘women,’ ‘the uncultured and illiterate’ and ‘a gay from New York,’ etc.) Of course, least we forget that the Mexicans are stealing jobs Americans don’t want to do. Somehow, Trump supporters feel victimized by the growing number of people who don’t think conservative white men should be allowed to keep victimizing people the way they have for over 200 years now. Oddly, if there is anything Trump supporters should be fighting, it’s the narrative of victimization that seems to be the driving force in the lives of U.S. citizens these days.

The middling success of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is indicative of this narrative. People of Color, gays, Millennials, left-of-left leaning liberals and people who don’t want another Clinton in the White House are flocking to a socialist who sounds like a Sweathog from Welcome Back Kotter. While blacks more than any other group of minorities have suffered from institutionalized racism (Native American aren’t around much to persecute anymore), it is hard to see why they think a frazzle-haired Jewish president would suddenly make them equal in the eyes of conservative white men, seeing how Obama’s presidency hasn’t helped much. Really, though, blacks and gays are the only groups of people who have truly been victimized throughout U.S. history, though it is arguable the LGBT community has had a great deal more success in being accepted. Meanwhile, Millennials and left-of-left leaning liberals feel victimized by being born into a culture that is largely a meritocracy. People who don’t want another Clinton in the White House feel victimized by the lack of Whole Foods supermarkets in their neighborhood (that are owned by a Republican by-the-way).

What both sides have in common is that they feel victimized by the status quo. The difference is slight at best; Trump supporters want to stop the status quo from ceasing to be the status quo while Sanders supporters think the status quo can’t change fast enough. In the meantime, both groups of supporters (read: fanatics) are being forced to live in a world that is utterly horrible, one that doesn’t kowtow to their respective beliefs. This is, however, merely indicative of a larger problem insofar as it has become every American’s prerogative to perceive any transgression – no matter how slight – into being victimized. Politically, both sets of supporters want to sell everyone on the idea that their candidate is for freedom when in fact both candidates are diametrically opposed to freedom – one is out to curtail freedoms for certain people while the other is out to curtail the freedom of certain ideas. The U.S.’s currently culture of victimization is born directly out of having too much freedom: The fact is that in almost no other country do the citizens have so much freedom to protest that their freedoms are under attack. Keep in mind that this is despite the media in the U.S. almost entirely being under the control of a mere five corporations.

Moderate independent, liberal and conservative voters alike have long mocked the ‘special snowflake’ narrative of left-of-left liberals and Millennials when it appears all groups suffer from this delusion that they are special and deserve special or preferential treatment. Chances are, unless you’re an overweight, militant, gay Native African-American who wears glasses, you haven’t been victimized by anything other than your own ego. While both Trump and Sanders supporters would like to get rid of a culture that is a meritocracy (in theory, anyway) it is perhaps best if we actually employed a culture of meritocracy. Special or preferential treatment should be earned regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation or nepotism. I say this because employing a true meritocracy is the best way to ensure everyone is treated fairly and no one can be victimized except by themselves.

Trump and Sanders supporters will never admit they have anything in common which only further demonstrates their inability to recognize their own humanness and the flaws that accompany it. Both groups think their candidate can fix what ails the country, but it is highly unlikely that more poison is the cure. Common ground is the cure, not a sharp divide.

You Forgot To Say Thank You

Stardate March 1, 2016: Donald Trump has taken the Super Tuesday presidential primaries by storm…

As horrible as it is, there is a reason why Donald Trump is ruling the Republican roost as of late. It has a lot to do with the Regressive Left’s narrative that is washing like a wave over people of color (POC) who were once a minority but now stand to become the majority of people in the United States in the coming decades. The extreme leftist narrative that has taken the ‘earning’ out of learning across the nation’s colleges has fully unveiled male Caucasians for who they really are – xenophobic, misogynist devils that the world would be better off without. To this it should be expected that Caucasians would rally behind a demagogue like Trump as they fear getting bred out if not lynched altogether once the tide has fully turned against them. (As the comedian Louis C.K. said, “Oh, us white people just wait. We're gonna pay hard for this shit.”)

But as POC rise to power they become just like their former oppressors who often refuse to acknowledge their own racism. Unsurprisingly – and perhaps on purpose – POC neglect to think about how their rise to power in the U.S. even came about in the first place. To take that measure of history into account would mean having to say to male Caucasians, “Thank you.” Obviously this will not do, but history is often difficult to ignore.

Despite a good measure of institutionalized racism that is nonetheless slowly dissipating (not quickly enough, I will grant), young POC do not seem to realize how well off they are to live in the U.S. While they look around and see that in many instances they are outnumbered by Caucasians, this numbers game somehow translates into victimization. Yet, these victims are given a chance to speak across multiple platforms, be it on college campuses, social media or taking over a Bernie Sanders rally. Last time I checked, this opportunity to speak appeared difficult to come by in most other countries.

This is to ask any given POC who has grown accustomed to living in the U.S.: Would Asians-Americans rather live in China where the government censors the media, discriminates against the handicapped, is horribly polluted, and actually governs people’s lives, or live in Japan where the emphasis is not on individuality but on conformity? Would Hispanic-Americans rather live in Mexico, Puerto Rico or Cuba where the standard of living is much lower? Would Indian-Americans rather live in India where a rape culture persists and marriages are arranged? Would African-Americans like to live on the African continent without potable water, access to a decent education and among religious extremists? (We have religious extremists in the U.S., too, but they usually don’t murder you for blasphemy.) Really, the only Americans who should be complaining about not being able to go back where they came from in order to compare living situations are Native Americans. As a Caucasian who really doesn’t care that they are Caucasian probably because it’s never been an issue in a mostly Caucasian country, I understand completely how bad this will sound, but, POC should be a little more thankful they live in the U.S. and not some other country. After all, if living in the U.S. is so terrible, maybe POC should try living in Scandinavia where it is so cold, the only way to get Caucasians to stay is to give everyone free stuff (that is, after you’ve taxed the hell out of them).

If, as POC contend, that Caucasians have instituted racism to such an extent that POC find themselves still able to bring the issue of racism up, who is to thank for this situation? While the Forefathers of the U.S. Constitution probably did not foresee POC rise to prominence in the U.S., they still included a key phrase that to this day makes all U.S. citizens equal, in theory anyway. It is precisely because these ‘white male devils’ included such a philosophy in their constitution signifies how advanced their social philosophy was in their day. And where did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and company get their ideas? From mostly Caucasian Enlightenment-era philosophers like Jean-Jacque Rousseau, Baruch Spinoza, Francis Bacon and Immanuel Kant. (Okay, Spinoza was actually Portuguese, but looks Caucasian in portraits, kinda like what the white-devil did with Jesus.)

And so the question as I put it to angry POC who are quick to criticize Caucasians is: In what other culture of predominantly non-Caucasian people is their social philosophy that all people should be equal? Moreover, if such a culture exists, does their country’s constitution or charter state unequivocally that all men are created equal? Of course, the answer to this question is, “There are none” which is why no one on social media ever gives me an answer when I ask this question – they don’t want to acknowledge that the idea of equality of for all was mostly the idea of Caucasians who also (and here’s the kicker) have actually tried to implement this philosophy.

This being the case, I really don’t understand what is referred to as ‘white guilt,’ the idea that Caucasians should feel guilty for the transgressions of their brethren that actually are racist. Logically speaking, this would mean that any time anyone of any ethnicity is racist, the rest of their race should feel guilty about it. Opponents of this argument say the guilt in question assumes some kind of power imbalance such as African-Americans being oppressed by Caucasians in the U.S. (or African-Americans being oppressed by Asians and Indians who are hogging up all the decent, wage-paying majors in colleges) or, say, me as a Caucasian walking through Harlem at night. If in that case I were attacked for being Caucasian, it would be a racist crime and all African-Americans should feel guilty about it according to ‘white guilt’ logic. I might also ask the question of what makes me responsible for the actions of others regardless of my race and theirs. There is no objective moral philosophy that says I am.

While it is certainly true that there have been many accounts of institutionalized racism in U.S. history, I am not so sure that such cases are any worse than what is included in the history of any other country.* However, because of the U.S. Constitution, because of its basic moral and social philosophy, an advancement in the social status of POC, women and homosexuals has been achieved. Is there further to go? Absolutely, but let’s not take a step back by electing a racist, misogynist ego-maniac. But let’s also not point to Caucasians and claim every problem POC face is their fault. If one is going to claim that, they’re going to have to claim that equality is the fault of Caucasians, too.

[I hope that doesn’t sound belittling of such situations. It’s not meant to be.]

What Is Time? And Is Time Travel Impossible?

Before I begin, it should explained why understanding the nature of time is seemingly important. Unlike the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and to a certain extent, gravity, we have extremely limited control over time. To understand time would potentially allow us – or whomever controls the knowledge or technology – to gain one more advantage over nature. If the nature of time could be understood, it is assumed we could control or at least manipulate it. Based upon our current understanding of physics and cosmology, I believe I’ve come to understand the nature of time. Equally important is that in understanding how time works, this understanding destroys the extravagant notion of time travel* altogether.

[*Time travel into the past, that is. Time travel into the future is known to be logically possible, but this concept of time travel is not regarded as ‘sexy’ because it does not allow any control or interaction with the past, much less the ‘now.’]

Why would we think time travel is possible in the first place? Human beings have been the stewards of impossible ideas for a long time and time travel is no exception. It is an even more bizarre thing to contemplate time travel when you take some of the most popular theories of time into consideration. For example, in the B-Theory of Time aka Tenseless Time or Eternalism, it is hypothesized that the past, present and future exist all at once and this would certainly not allow time travel. The B-Theory of Time is most likely a false hypothesis given Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity as it relates to the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation due to the effect of gravity (it is well confirmed that time runs differently, say, near massive objects as opposed to further away due to gravity). A similar criticism can be leveled against what is called Block Time, in which it is hypothesized that the past and present are real but the future is not; that the future amounts to an ever shifting ‘now’ that somehow leaves a trail of breadcrumbs we could potentially go back to and pick up. There’s less of a problem with imagining that only right now exists given anyone’s perspective from any point in three dimensional space, though upon reflection, what now is there? For as soon as it is now, now is in the past. This last point brings us to whether or not there is a flow to time.

Does time flow? That is, does time flow like a river or it does it manifest as a series of infinitesimally small pieces, like a quantum-sized roll of film? While some scientists believe that the latter is the case and have scaled packets of time down to what is called Plank Time (trust me, a super-duper small measurement) there is no explanation as to how one frame of time ‘becomes’ or seemingly ‘flows into’ another. It also seems odd that any scientist would insist on dividing time into packets since this would make time appear to be unlike anything else in physics; the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity are not even matter are cleanly divided into packets. (Of course, just because the others are not a divisible ‘something’ doesn’t necessarily rule this out of time’s nature.) Where would solid matter even go during the intervals in which time changes in this view? If on the other hand time is part of a fabric that comes from the stretching of space, this would appear to make more sense as there would be a connection between space and time that makes it plausible that any interaction with gravity would have differing effects. These differing effects are what ultimately causes time to flow in the only direction we have ever known – forward. Thus, whether or not time flows is rather irrelevant; it’s the seemingly forward direction of time that matters*. And, the reason why time only goes in one direction is because it is an emergent property of the expansion of space and not a dimension unto itself.

[*On the macroscopic level of organization in which we interact with the world. Time appears to have little meaning in the subatomic world, though overall this has little impact on time as we experience it.]

In trying to understand time, people seem to overthink or want to complicate the answer as to its nature because time is so hard to pin down, metaphorically speaking. Anything so elusive must be difficult to understand, is what conventional wisdom seems to want to say. But the question and answer are not intractable. What is time? It is the perception or measurement of space and matter in relationship to each other. Time is observed as changes in the differences between these two aspects of nature. And these things change in relationship to each other – all the time – because space itself is always expanding.

We know that on both a cosmic and local scale, space itself is expanding and doing so in every direction (thus there is no ‘center’ to the universe). It is also expanding at a speed per distance in every direction that is faster than the ability of light to transverse already interstellar distances, which is about 70km/sec per megaparsec and accelerating (we’ll see what this has to do with anything soon). Because of this, most galaxies are getting further and further away from each other (and not themselves necessarily ‘moving’ away from each other). Keep in mind for a moment that the expansion of space at the subatomic and local scale is overcome – that is, not taking place or doing so imperceptibly – due to the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and even gravity whereas massive objects like a planet, solar system, or galaxy is concerned. In deep space, space itself is expanding (more rapidly than at the subatomic and local scale) and as it expands, the change of objects in relation to each other changes. These changes are perceived as the passage of time. For example, in the smaller confines of space, such as within the area of a galaxy – which is small, cosmically speaking – a galaxy’s position changes in relationship to everything else in the universe and because the matter therein changes in relation to space – which is not static in any direction – this is what we construe as time. Even if space were not expanding and instead were collapsing, we would still see the arrow of time go forward because of the different arrangement of matter in relationship to space. (Or in another scenario, we would be unable to tell if time were flowing backwards or forward since we’d be part of the changes taking place. And now you’ve just realized that, heck, that means time could be flowing backwards right now and we wouldn’t know it.)

Meanwhile, as space expands and matter spreads itself out (for the most part) on the cosmic scale, the Earth is moving through space around the Sun at 30km/sec, the Sun is moving around the center of the Milky Way at about 200-250km/sec, and the Milky Way is moving approximately 600km/sec toward the constellation Hydra. This, too, provides us with a positional change between objects that we can observe and measure. Notice if you will how often scientists assert that time and space cannot be separated; this is a bit confusing because it is an incomplete assertion: time and space and matter altogether cannot be separated if time is to be observed and measured. Time and space may exist on their own together, but to do so would be irrelevant to the matter of which we are comprised. You will likewise hear scientists say that time didn’t exist before the moment the universe came into existence. As space came into existence after quantum fluctuations supposedly caused the Big Bang (or Big Bounce depending on what theory you want to go with), matter formed as space expanded and cooled, providing the universe with time as we know it*.

[*We’re not exactly sure how the Big Bang or Bounce could happen as quantum fluctuation would suggest the necessity of the passage of time. But it appears that the so-called arrow-of-time means little if nothing at the subatomic scale or at least little or nothing to massless particles such as a photon. Empty space, teeming with energy – meaning it’s not really empty – doesn’t rely on a direction of time for changes. I do realize this seems counterintuitive for those of us who live at the macroscopic level since we perceive changes as going forward in time. Quantum physics doesn’t play by the same rules, apparently.]

What implications does this hold for time travel? It makes time travel, at least to the past, impossible. (How could you use ‘forward’ time to go back in time anyway?) Space and time and their relation to matter do not allow for a ‘map’ in which there are points in the past we can revisit on a whim. Due to the expansion of space and the movement of matter within space – which is a drive towards the equal distribution of matter and energy in the universe – the position of the matter within the universe is constantly changing; to visit the past would necessarily no longer be the past we knew, but a new past that included the input of (our) new matter into the initial position of matter within the universe at the time in question. Some might speculate that to do such a thing would result in a new timeline/alternate universe, but there is no evidence to suggest creating an alternate timeline or universe is possible. Hence, to “go back in time” would be paradoxical and paradoxes are by definition impossible.

As I alluded to in passing several times now, quantum physics doesn’t play by the same rules of time that we are used to. Massless particles such as a photon, light, do not have experiences in the traditional sense because they are not directly affected by the forces that dictate the behavior of particles with mass. A photon can be pulled into a blackhole because of the curvature of space due to extreme gravity, but gravity has no direct effect on a photon. The curvature of space is what appears to make a photon – something that experiences no time – to experience time, by changing the photon’s position because space around it expands and/or curves. Although a photon has no mass (and can therefore exert no gravitational force or, again, be directly affected by gravity) and is essentially ‘frozen’ in time, it is perceived to experience the passage of time due to space expanding through the photon’s fixed points. All of this is to once again say and add to that, that not only is time a derivative of the expansion of space, but is an emergent property of changes to the positions of mass and massless particles due to the expansion of space while gravity curves that space.

Time travel to the past is not possible unless we can reverse the expansion of space and un-curve space to put mass and massless particles back in their previously experienced positions. Even if we could do this, we wouldn’t know that we’ve done it because we would all be in the same state we originally experienced. Again, if time were actually running backwards right now and the so-called arrow-of-time is just a phrase for the direction time flows, we wouldn’t know it because it is normal to our experiences. In my conception of time, none of the legendary logician Kurt Godel’s (1906-1978) ‘light cones’ are allowed to ‘tip over’ due to extreme curvatures of space and allow information or you to travel to the past.

Given this conception of time, some questions remain (though all are not directly tied to the nature of time itself). If it is assumed by cosmologists that approximately 80-90% of the universe’s mass is missing, how does this missing mass affect time, if at all? (Perhaps it isn’t missing and something we haven’t thought of is overcoming gravity to drive the expansion of space, though, Dark Energy is the name of this clandestine force I suppose yet sounds too precise for something totally unknown). It would also be interesting to know how consciousness allows us to perceive the passage of time.

Naturally, this theory of time as I have formulated it is without a certain level of preciseness as I am not a physicist. My theory, though, makes far more sense and possesses more explanatory power than other theories such as the B-Theory of Time or Block Time, both of which are not confirmable.

Time only goes in one direction, expanding so to speak, and this doesn’t allow for time travel. But don’t shoot; I’m just the messenger. Go back in time and kill me before I figure all this out if you don’t believe me. (Or, more courteously, simply point out where my argument fails. Thanks.)

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. 

Nothing More Than Feelings

Observing the behavior of my students as they interact with other faculty, it occurred to me that Millennials are now running with the torch of hypocrisy with absolutely no hindsight. While the hypocrisy of human beings is nothing new, it seems odd that it doesn’t occur to our social justice warriors, Millennials, that in seeking restitution for hurt feelings (whether anyone meant to hurt their feelings) they take no heed of whose feelings they hurt in the process.

For example, as Millennials go to war over trivialities such as Halloween costumes, college

presidents have to give in to whatever demands their students make in an effort to save their own job. One could scarcely imagine the stress Peter Salovey, the President of Yale University, recently underwent after a campus-wide email detailing how students should deal with Halloween costumes that they deemed offensive. Worse, that situation escalated and in early November 2015, an incident at Yale saw “…students surround[ed] Nicholas Christakis—husband of Erika [Christakis], a professor of sociology and medicine, and master of Silliman. One African-American woman, seemingly speaking for the crowd, told him that his wife’s email [about Halloween costumes] and his failure to apologize for it made her feel “unsafe.” When Christakis earnestly explained that he would need to consider the matter before apologizing, the woman shouted at him, “Be quiet!”; “Why the f--- did you accept the position!”; “If that’s what you think, you should step down!”; and “You should not sleep at night! You are disgusting!” She then turned and walked away” (as reported by Peter Berkowitz). While Millennials are not going to stand for having their feelings hurt, they think nothing of how they make anyone other than a Millennial feel.

One would suppose this failure to apply their ideology equally stems from a lack of shared values. Nonetheless, if the desire to spare the feelings of Millennials only applies amongst themselves, this is an indication of a culturally relativist practice, which surely Millennials do not mind since they go out of their way to respect – almost – all cultures.

The problem is, Millennials don’t respect the cultures they have the ability to usurp or wrest power from. Millennials respect, say, the practices of the Islamic State, since they believe all culture is relative and as such who is to say IS’s murderous tendencies are wrong. Millennials, however, don’t actually have to ever deal with IS directly. If they did, they would quickly find out IS has no respect for the belief of Millennials and getting upset about an email about Halloween costumes would soon be the least of a Millennial’s worries. And that’s just the thing; if all cultures should be respected because their practices are relativistic, there is absolutely no reason for anyone who is not a Millennial to respect the beliefs or practices of Millennials because to not respect the beliefs of Millennials is neither right nor wrong. As many liberals before them, Millennials fail to see this error in their philosophy. As many people before them, Millennials are blinded by ideology.

And so they go to war against the people they can control. Using the fact that colleges are for-profit, Millennials battle against college professors and administrators who don’t want to simply give them a degree without a student actually working for it or with whom they have a difference of opinion. Lost on Millennials is the fact that if colleges were not for-profit, a college administration would never give into their demands. Millennials get their way not because their demands are reasonable or philosophically justifiable, but because college administrators are capitalists. (Also lost on Millennials is that capitalism begets inequality and they fail to realize this because in actuality a Millennial’s smart phone is more important to them than social justice.)

But all of this is a symptom of a more pressing question, one I keep asking for which no Millennial can answer: Why is it more important to spare a person’s feelings* than to have a reasoned, civil debate in which we may have to settle for “agreeing to disagree”? If a person falsely believes that 1 + 1 = 3, why is it worth not correcting them, because it might hurt their feelings? If an attempt is made to build a person’s self-esteem by giving them an award for simply showing up, doesn’t this make it more likely that when that person’s feelings do get hurt, for whatever reason even by accident, that person is going to be ill prepared to deal with it? Why do feelings matter more than the analysis of a situation?

[* By person we should take to mean anyone that agrees with Millennial ideology or that may disagree with Millennial ideology but lives outside of the U.S.]

In my opinion, that is, the opinion of a seasoned thinker experienced in life, I rarely if ever have my feelings hurt because someone said such-and-such about me. I’ve been called plenty of names and shouted out and vehemently disagreed with but all these things amount to are words. Words by themselves have no power. All power lies with the person hearing the word. In order to be insulted or offended by words, one has to internalize them and make the decision for those words to hurt them. If one sees a Halloween costume that offends them, the offended party has to decide that they are offended. Granted, what is deemed an offensive costume may be a symptom of some systematic oppression, but this merely means there is a chance to have a debate with someone and possibly have the offender understand why a costume is offensive. I might add to this that if a certain group currently possesses more power than another group, I do not believe one should be offended by past transgressions such as in the case of a Jew seeing a Nazi Halloween costume. (I am open to debate on this point, though.)

Feelings are irrelevant in the face of more pressing concerns. IS, economic inequality and climate change do not care about the feelings of their victims. Nor is everyone special; it is quite clear the opposite is true as we see it again and again every day and there would be no CEOs or celebrities if everyone actually were important. I certainly understand the desire to ignore inconvenient truths, but this doesn’t make feelings more important than anything else out of necessity. While I would agree that it is basically cruel to hurt someone’s feelings intentionally, there should not be consequences for unintentional harm, as Millennials would have it. While we can never know someone’s true intention, neither can we know whether someone is truly having their feelings hurt or trying to manipulate others to their advantage. Millennials should beware the trappings of power; power corrupts and that corruption will wind up hurting someone’s feelings. Don’t be a hypocrite by refusing to examine your own beliefs, Millennials. If you want to be the stewards of the future, try to avoid operating from false premises like all of your predecessors. 

Gun Ownership Questionnaire

Should you be allowed to own a gun? This short questionnaire will answer this pressing question.

1)    Do you believe in a deity?

2)    We know about Mohammed, but would Jesus have owned a gun?

3)    Are you a man?

4)    Do you think women should be subservient to men?

5)    Do you have an ex-girlfriend?

6)    If you’re a woman, has your husband ever cheated on you?

7)    Do you think abortion is murder?

8)    Do you think requiring classes before owning a gun is a ridiculous idea?

9)    Do you think society would be safer if everyone had a gun?

10) Do you think society would be safer if no one had a gun?

11)  Do you get road rage?

12)  Are you a mean drunk?

13)  Are you now or have you ever taken medication to control your moods?

14)  Do you take any illegal drugs besides marijuana (if marijuana is still illegal in your backwards state)?

15)  Do you drink Budweiser or Coors?

16)  Do you live in any southern or ‘red’ state?

17)  Is high school your highest level of education?

18)  Do you think the authors of the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had the vision to anticipate assault weapons?

19)  Does you think the “well-regulated militia” referred to in the 2^nd Amendment mean individuals who aren’t part of a militia should own a gun?

20)  Does the “well-regulated militia” referred to in the 2^nd Amendment mean you should be able to own a gun without training?

21)  Do you think President Obama is a Muslim?

22)  Do you pronounce ‘government’ ‘gun’mint’?

23)  Do you think the gub’mint is poisoning us with chemtrails?

24)  Do you think the gub’mint trying to mind control the U.S. population by adding fluoride to tap water?

25)  Do you own a gun for ‘protection’ and not because you just like guns?

If you’ve answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, congratulations! you should probably not own a gun because you have mental health issues. And that’s what this is really about; owning or not owning guns isn’t ‘Merica’s problem, it’s the fact that ‘Merica has some deep psychological problems. The mentally ill should not own guns. End of story.