Tradition: the last refuge of the defeated

In Ontario there is a debate about whether the Lord' prayer should continue to be said at the start of every legislature session. But of course the the only arguement for keeping it is tradition. It seems clear to myself (and probably and intellectually honest person) that tradition is not a reason but an excuse.

Clearly if tradition was a sound logical argument, women shouldn't vote, homosexuality should be illegal, anal sex (between any two adults, straight or otherwise) should be illegal, slave ownership should be legal and oh yeah we should still be in a Monarchy!

The simplest argument is imagine a company had a morning Scientology seance (or whatever they do). Now imagine in this company 70% of the people where scientologists so if anyone of the other 30% backs out they get noticed and will clearly be noted. Would it be ok if the company had a tradition of this practice (1 year, 5 years, 100 years)? No.

It's kinda odd that the moral absolutists (religious people) become relativists when the principle of fairness is against them. The truth is very simple. Tradition is a way for the people with power to argue against the people who have reason(s). In the end, appeals to the tradition arguments are only there to protect those in power and deny fairness to everyone else.

My early thoughts on Christ

I remember when I was in grade 7 I had what I though was an insightful question. My religion teacher did not think so and did not like the question very much. We had learned (the later to be falsified) stuff about the "noble savage" native Americans. I asked if the natives were acting Christian would they have to be converted? He said, of course, yes.

I though this was odd since if you acted Christian would it matter if the belief system had the right name. Well now I know the answer is OF COURSE! This was an early episode of the start my questioning religion. What a world view that it needs to be correctly named or else it is invalid.

Of course in the name of a "loving" (as all religions refer to themselves) world view it doesn't make sense but in terms of a political tool it makes perfect sense. If more people agree with the superstition it gives the leaders more power (see 2003 Iraq war). I mean if someone came up to you and said I worship a guy who says his mother was a virgin, you'd have a god laugh if you weren't familiar with Jeudeo-Christian mythology. But if many people believe it, it can become a death sentence to disbelieve it (see the various inquisitions). But not everyone has the mental stamina to always question and think for themselves. Remember it is Christians who call themselves sheep!

Free will: what an undemocratic idea

To start, most people have differing definitions or inconsistent definitions of free will, so let start on the same foot and give a better (but not perfect) definition. Free will: decisions taken by the conscious part of the brain. (The "flaw" in the definition is I'm not sure how perfect the division of the unconscious and conscious mind is, but it's good enough for our purposes.) So free will would mean that decisions (or at least some of them) are done exclusively in the conscious part of the mind (here mind and brain are exact synomimes and if you don't know that this post is too far ahead).

Next, a few facts. Most of the brain's resources are devoted to the unconscious brain. The conscious brain is easily turned off without any harm to the person (sleep). So your consciousness is a subprocess of the unconscious brain. (Think about all the activities you perform unconsciously: driving, walking, eating etc. In fact in things like sports and driving you perform best when you are in the zone which is when you are doing them unconsciously).

So, if decisions reside in the conscious part of the brain you will be using less of your brain for that decision. More over, if you have free will and decisions are made in your conscious part of your brain the minority of neurons are having a say over the majority! The biggest, fastest and most complex part of your brain would be wasted.

That is a reasoned arguement. You may not like it, but it is still very likely true. If you dare, and don't hold free will in too high regard that you are willing to question it read about these new finding.

10 questions Christians can't explain and force them into odd thinking

You should only watch this if you are questioning, if you don't want to question your beliefs DON'T WATCH THIS. These questions demonstrate how if Christians think about their beliefs, their religion falls part. The simplest question: Why doesn't god EVER heal amputees? If he's curing cancers, and saving lives why can't he EVER heal a single amputee? This is an especially poignant question to the neo-con religious right people who think fighting for the US is the will of god and not only their politicians.

Atheist vs Religious

I'm not against religious people, just against dogma and irrationality. I had started to writeup a post about the fundamental differences between religious people and atheists but I came across this youtube video that does a very good job.

The premise is simple, with rationality you can think and come up with better answers than without thinking. The video doesn't talk much about the negative consequences of prayer which I think is often overlooked. The majority of people's prayers are for themselves or their kin (some are for others). A daily prayer therefore means someone spends a part of everyday asking for their life to get better. They have no real motivation to make it better just to pray harder. But I believe people are free to do what they want so long as it's not hurting others.

What I always found funny is how if you question any of the magic stories that are part of that persons faith they will defend them but quickly dismiss similar or even more plausible stories from other religions. This is why teaching all (or at least many) religions to children is a great way to sow the seeds of doubt and rationality since they start understanding what a story is (as opposed to a historic event).

In the end I just wish people could understand two very simple parts of the difference. The first is that only atheists can truly love and care for other selflessly since they don't believe in a Santa Clause god watching their actions forcing them to behave. The second is that life for an atheist has infinite value since it is all you have. If you believe you will live on in a better place for an eternity then 80 years here is quite irrelevant. So maybe religious people could try the opposite of Pascal's wager and live as if there isn't a god and if one (or many) pops up at least you were yourself.