I thought I would start offering video clips from a wonderfully educational program (which can be found in its entirety here) that consists of some twenty hours of discussion on religious belief and science. The clip I am posting today is of one of my favorite scientists (yes, I have favorite scientists, go ahead, tape the "kick me note" to my back) Neil DeGrasse Tyson looking at the idea of intelligent design from another perspective. I will continue posting clips from this program (probably one or two a week) between my other posts. If, however, you are like me and find this stuff endlessly fascinating and can not wait for me to post more segments, you can follow the link provided and watch the entire program in easily digestable one and a half to two hour segments.

Anyway, here goes. A little on 'intelligent' design from Dr. Tyson. Enjoy.

Once upon a time, round about noon-ish, on a caravan far, far away, a young man who we will call Vhe Tessel found himself separated from his caravanin' comrades and engulfed in the worst sandstorm that people in The Desert had ever seen. It was, in fact, so bad that on televisions across The Desert a CNN correspondent could be seen interviewing a tall thin heavily bearded Osama Bin Laden looking man, beneath a bright red banner reading "Sandstorm 2007; The Worst Ever Seen?" and above a scroll reading "Britney shaves eyebrows then enters anti-follicular re-hab", who stated that it was indeed the worst sandstorm he had ever seen, regardless of what he may have said during the interview he had given during Fox's coverage of "Sandstorm 2006; Operation Gritty". Anyway, as far as Vhe Tessel was concerned (which is really what this story should be focusing on, voice in my head) it sucked.

Vhe Tessel, being the caravan efficianado he did be, knew that if he was going to survive the storm he would need to find the others in his caravan so that they could group together, behind their combined camels, for protection from the tiny elements, or he could perhaps shelter in a diner or motel or strip club if he happened to find one of those first. Several time units of undecided length later, unable to find the caravan and beginning to realize that all the strip clubs he saw were mirages, and that he now had a willie full of cactus needles and was fourty dollars poorer (due to having purchased two lap dances), Vhe Tessel came to realize that he was going to die. With a sigh of resignation Vhe Tessel dismounted his camel, thanked it for its loyal service, resisting the urge to add, under his breath, "Even though this is kind of your fault", lay down on The Desert floor and closed his eyes to await sweet sweet death.

After spending a brief moment staring in disbelief and shaking his head, as he so often did, at the man who he had just witnessed ordering a drink from a coyote, the camel (or Jimmy as he was known to his camel friends), positioned himself between his apparently mentally challenged cargo and the wind driven onslaught of minuscule projectiles, shrugged his hump, and lay down, sheltering Vhe Tessel from the storm. The sudden lack of stingingness startled Vhe Tessel who opened his eyes to find himself staring directly into the tightly puckered business end of his dromedary compadre, safe from the sandy siege. Realizing that he was going to live to see another day, and possibly have a chance to find that cactus again, Vhe Tessel gazed at his savior's sphincter and thought to himself, "I've never seen anything so beautiful".

The end?

(As it turns out, Jimmy later filed a restraining order and had a humpectomy in an attempt to disguise himself as an gigantic and unusually homely llama for the purpose of escaping Vhe Tesel's new found admiration for his most private of orifices, but that was probably further than this story needed to go. Anyway...)

The moral of this poorly constructed and vastly confusing tale is, of course, "Any sphincter is good sphincter"... No, wait, that's "Any love is good love" which is a similar sentiment but neither really pertains to this story.

Okay, I remember where I was going with this now. The moral of this beautifully crafted soon to be classic tale is, of course, "Its all about perspective, homeboy". Well, maybe that is a stretch, but that was the intended moral. Maybe I should just get to the point of the post.

Perspectivism




The character in the story you just read came to see camel sphincters, or at the least one camel's sphincter, as beautiful because of viewing it from a new perspective. Truth, that camel sphincters are ugly, was altered by the perspective from which it was viewed. The beauty or ugliness of a camel's sphincter is, of course, wholly (holey?) subjective so the example does not really fit (I should ,uh, quit... writing these silly stories), all that well as an illustration of perspectivism, but it was entertaining. Anyway...

Before I continue I would like to state that I rarely read philosophy as it seems to me a better way of determining truth is to come to a philosophical understanding on one's own. After all, the tools of philosophical discovery are as readily available to each of us as they are to those who write on the subject. This is not to say that philosophy as a course of study is unimportant in understanding philosophical concepts, just that I find reading other's philosophical views, before giving serious thought to the subject on one's own, is likely to poison the well. Because of this what I refer to as perspectivism below may not exactly coincide with what, I have come to learn, Nietzsche termed perspectivism. I arrived at perspectivism, as I use the term, without knowing of Nietzsche's philosophy so any similarities, of which, after a little reading on the matter I have come to think there might be many, are strictly coincidental.

Perspectivism is actually a philosophy which basically states that truth is perspective reliant. This is to say that truth, whether or not it might exist in some realm as absolute, can only ever be known as it is known from the perspective from which it is viewed, and thus whether or not there is a non-perspective reliant absolute truth is unknowable and thus irrelevant.

The reason I thought I'd take a post to give a definition of perspectivism and discuss it a bit is because I use the term perspective in this blog quite often and will most likely continue to do so. I think it is very important to try and attempt to understand things from other perspectives in order to test the reliability of our knowledge of what is true. Of course, any attempt at viewing other perspectives is completely reliant on the perspective through which it is viewed (in our case the unique data processor that is the human mind, and a step further, each individual's mind), but this type of thought process where we attempt to don another's perspective can still be beneficial. Though we may have no reason to think it a completely accurate view of another's perspective, we can see how our understanding of what that perspective might be coincides with our understanding from our own perspective. There does exist, after all, the perspectives of other existences, some of to which we belong (the human race, lifeforms, earth inhabitants, universe inhabitants) that afford us the ability to have an understanding of how our unique perspective and other perspectives might be similar. So, though we must view other perspectives through our individual perspective, this does not leave us without any ability to understand or contemplate other perspectives.

Now, the perspective experiments we have done so far only superficially draw from this philosophy. They were more about viewing what we as humans would consider rational or reasonable in given situations. We can also use perspective experiments to view what we as humans consider objective reality or objective truths from a non-human perspective to try and see how they conform to what we experience. This is going to come up in future posts dealing with subjects like morality and causality and I thought now would be as good a time as any to explain the foundation from which I address these subjects.

Anyway, I'm out of time for today. I hope you have a better understanding of the philosophical perspective (that word is everywhere, if I don't watch out I'll end up discussing perspective reliant perspectives of perspective) from which I operate and that you enjoyed what I have just decided to call "The Ballad of Vhe Tessel and Jimmy" as well. Thanks for stopping by again and when you have the opportunity, leave me a comment to tell me how vehemently you disagree with me and what a dolt I am (from you perspective) or how much you agree with my every word (if your rubber room has internet access).

And, to Jimmy, I'm sorry, I will never do that again. Please come home.

I done gotted tagged by somebody. This person, The Tagger we will call them, was apparently tagged by another person, who apparently was tagged by another person, who, well, I'm starting to feel an infinite regress coming on. To shorten and Interestingize (though that may be counting the monkitties before they hatch) this little ditty, let me just say that from what I was able to glean from the whole 'write four things you've heard and never forgotten' rules (as they were explained to me by one of those emotion driven yaboites so, as always, consider the source) I am supposed to write some number (I think somewhere between 9 and -2) things which I have heard (this may be difficult for me as this would seem to depend on my having actually listened to someone other than myself and the guy who talks to me from my 'inside') and not forgotten (what was I saying?).

Here goes whatever I just said:

1.) "Were you drinking soda?" - Said to me by my older brother, during a phone conversation, after he said something that made me laugh and I told him he'd caused soda to come out of my nose. He was very disappointed to learn that I had, indeed, been drinking soda and he did not have a special super power which would allow him to wear a cape and tights while causing arch-villains to froth from the nostrils and exclaim, "Ouch. That kind of burns."

2.) "I do" - I actually said this and, when I heard it, I thought to myself, "What the hell possessed me to do something like that?" Come to find out it had something to do with sex and free sex and not having to look for sex; all major accomplishments for a teenage boy. Amazingly, it didn't last.

3.) "You cooked her nines!" - Said by Steve Martin in "The Man with Two Brains". When I heard this line, I knew that the pinnacle of funny had been summited and never, for the rest of existence, could anyone hope to surpass the achievement... Stop looking at me like that! I don't need your pity!

4.) "You know you only have yourself to blame if you wind up with a monkitty" - said to me by Valkyrie on March 29, 2007. Think about it, a freakin' monkitty! What more need I say?

5.) Oops.

Well, that was fun. Now I guess I need to tag someone. Let me think on it for a little while. Hmmm. Who has washed recently?

P.S. Upon re-reading the actual message I received about doing this post it seems I actually was supposed to write five things. It is almost humorous that in sarcastically pretending I could not follow the rules, or remember what they were, I forgot them and, thus, did not follow them. Like I said, it is almost humorous. Anyway...

5.) "If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half how long would it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle" - Said by Tom Robbins (or actually written by him, as we don't often talk) in "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues", my first Robbins experience. Never has anyone spoken something that rang so true and, yet, so filled me with sadness. I've based my life on this quote and the minute I figure out what it means, everything could possibly fall into place.

Good thing I got back on this camel. Its the first hump I've had in nearly two months. Yeah, it was a cheap joke (though, sadly, based in reality). I expect better from myself, but you know, I really have no basis for doing so. Anyway...

As I sit here on top of Old Smokey (that's what I named my camel being as that he has a mountain on his back and he is covered with cheese (long story having to do with nachos and Jack Daniels (who knew camels couldn't hold their liquor (these parenthesis are starting to get ridiculous (its like tunneling down to the core of the sentence (I wonder if I will encounter the mole people soon (Anyway...))))))), I realize that a blog like this, where I confront beliefs that people have, for some reason, designated as special in that questioning them is taken to be an attack, could be interpreted as mean spirited. So, I thought I should take this opportunity to give a few reasons for my confronting these beliefs instead of respecting them, as we are often told we should do. There will be nothing funny in this post past this point... not that there was anything funny in this post before this point... but there was intended funny... which there won't be anymore... past here... starting now... Okay... go.

There are a few reasons I speak out against belief in a supreme being. While some may see me confronting their beliefs as mean or bigoted or disrespectful, I contend that though everyone has a right to believe what ever it is they wish or think to be true, and no one should be forced to believe any certain way, beliefs, religious included, are not beyond question and deserve no special pass from being taken into the public forum and examined for validity, and for the benefit that they may or may not offer to a society. For too long people have left religion unchecked and unquestioned for fear of offending and this unspoken policy has led to what I consider undesirable circumstances. That being said, I would like to take the time to outline my reasons for confronting theistic beliefs, and why I consider having such a discussion to not only not be disrespectful, but to be a vital step towards building a better society.

The first and most obvious reason I consider it important to confront religious, or theistic, belief is because it is an inherently dangerous ideology. If one can be convinced that a god, who holds their eternal fate in its ethereal hands, desires them to do something then no matter what that thing is or how it may be counter to their natural inclinations, it not only becomes very easy to rationalize doing it, but it becomes ridiculously self destructive not to. If there was a god who could torture you eternally, and someone convinced you that it wanted you to kill every blond haired baby, then for you not to attempt to do so would be utter stupidity. Flying planes into buildings, shooting doctors who run clinics, condemning condom use and assisting an epidemic in all but eradicating a continent of people, shunning, condemning, and at times physically and mentally torturing those whose lifestyle differs from your own; these things, while horrific acts through secular eyes, are only steps towards a glorious destiny, and reward worthy to the tune of eternal bliss in the eyes of one who has come to hold certain religious dogmas as truth. This reason alone is enough that everyone who has a concern for the well being of one's self and one's fellow man should speak out against such ideologies. But, I will continue with more.

Second, such beliefs, which aren't supported by evidence and therefor hold no reliability as truths, are fundamentally flawed foundations on which to build societies. When moral and legal systems are built upon false realities we have no reason to expect them to conform to what is actually best for society. By continuing in the centuries old cycle of allowing religious doctrine to be a factor in our moral and legal systems we have no reason to expect to ever be able to achieve a better society and free ourselves from the tribalistic tendencies that are the basis of most human conflict. Only through striving for a true depiction of reality, and accepting ourselves (human beings) for what we are and reality for what it is, can we, as a social species, expect to be able to arrive at a clear and socially applicable understanding of right and wrong and how best to deal with the problems that arise from a social lifestyle.

Thirdly, theistic belief is completely unnecessary. Belief in a supreme being adds nothing to a society. Anything positive that can be achieved through a god belief can be achieved through a secular understanding of the needs of a society. For people to hold to a dangerous and inherently flawed ontology which is not only unsupported but completely without unique benefit should be considered, by all people with a social conscience, to be completely unacceptable.

And last but not least, belief in a god is simply unfounded and therefor, regardless of whether it were beneficial or not, regardless of what makes one feel warm and fuzzy, regardless of whether or not one wants there to be a god, it is a ridiculous belief, and for that reason, not one that should be held. No one would suggest we should encourage people to believe in invisible giants or talking cows or space rabbits simply because it makes them feel good to do so. There is no good reason to believe in such things and that in and of itself is good reason to discourage belief in them. A belief in a god is no better supported and no different.

So, that is the reason for this caravan. Hey, nobody said this trip was going to be fun. I will try to make it at least mildly entertaining from time to time though. For now, who wants a slightly furry nacho?