I was an atheist for almost my entire life. I could not believe that God existed, so that's how I described myself.
I believed in Christianity as an ethical system, so I would call myself, as the great Oriana Fallaci, a 'Christian atheist', expression which has simarities to 'secular Jew'.
I have recently realized things that cast serious doubts on my previous way of thinking.
The moral validity of Christianity was in no question before and is in no question now. But it is the issue of the existence of God which is not so simple as I mistakenly believed.
Science in itself is too limited to provide evidence to prove or disprove it, as I've always known, although Newton himself, for example, made God part of his theory as absolute time.
But, paradoxically, it is not the content of science, namely what is inside it, that gives us an indication here, but rather its limits, what is outside it.
Science's laws of nature can explain many of its phenomena and have the potential to make us understand even more.
But there are three moments which require an enormous leap of faith in the NON-existence of God to believe that science can ever explain them.
These three moments are: the origin of matter, life and consciousness.
Science can understand pretty well what happens after those key moments, but it cannot explain them.
In successive posts I'll deal with these further, but for the moment I want to report how Melanie Phillips, in her book The Book Turned Upside Down, describes her conversation with Richard Dawkins in 2008 following a public debate between him and John Lennox.
'I asked Dawkins whether he believed that the origin of all matter was most likely to have been an entirely spontaneous event. He agreed that he did think so. I put it to him that he seemed therefore to be arguing that something could be created out of nothing - which surely runs counter to the scientific principles of verifiable evidence that he tells us should govern all our thinking'.
Think about it: people who do not believe in God usually adduce as reason how we have never experienced anything with God's attributes.
But the alternative theory, that matter, ie something, arose from nothing, also describes an event that we have never experienced.
Atheism activists and scientific triumphalists, of whom Dawkins is the most famous, misleadingly portray this conflict about the existence of God as one between the rational believers in evidence-based theories (as they, the atheists, modestly consider themselves) and the irrational, superstition-bound theists.
But the reality is entirely different. The question of whether the universe had a Creator or emerged from nothing is one which can be answered, either way, ONLY with reference to, and belief in, an entity or event of which we have absolutely no experience.
Both our senses and evidence here do not help at all.
It is a work in progress but for the moment, not being able to choose one or the other explanation, I call myself agnostic.
Blog of London-based Italian journalist Enza Ferreri on politics, society, religion, environment
Wednesday 2 January 2013
Tuesday 1 January 2013
Obama's Fiscal Cliff Is Permanent
America will be on a fiscal cliff no matter what agreements are reached between Democrats and Republicans.
The damage done by the Obama administration to the economy is too deep to be saved by last-minute deals.
Tax increases on the rich have virtually no impact on the reduction of the US national deficit, and are imposed for ideological, not practical, reasons.
The type of measures that could be most effective, reducing public spending, are exactly what Obama does not want to do. He did not pursue that policy in his first term and is unlikely to do it now, after being re-elected.
The Democrats, as they have done many times before (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51958#When:22:20:54Z), make promises that they will not maintain, in order to deceive Republicans and lead them to make concessions.
Harvard professor and chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University Greg Mankiw explains why this policy of tax increases on the rich will not solve the debt problem and will only lead to more, never-ending tax hikes:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-neverending-quest-for-more.html?m=1
He also explains why taxing 'the rich', which is already done anyway since one third of their income is taken in tax - despite the media's generous coverage of unenlightening anecdotes about unrepresentative cases of tax avoidance -, cannot mathematically solve the problem of the government's overspending on entitlements. So the choice can only be between drastically reducing the welfare system expenditure or increasing taxes on the middle class (Mankiw obiously does not consider the possibility of robbing the rich of all or most of their money, although Obama and his comrades might):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/on-middle-class-tax-rates-too-much-wishful-thinking.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
The current policy is lunacy and Obama has dragged American economy into a vicious, self-perpetuating circle of ever-increasing poverty and on a road to communism not through revolution but by stealth, piecemeal, a bit of redistributive tax hike at a time.
The damage done by the Obama administration to the economy is too deep to be saved by last-minute deals.
Tax increases on the rich have virtually no impact on the reduction of the US national deficit, and are imposed for ideological, not practical, reasons.
The type of measures that could be most effective, reducing public spending, are exactly what Obama does not want to do. He did not pursue that policy in his first term and is unlikely to do it now, after being re-elected.
The Democrats, as they have done many times before (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51958#When:22:20:54Z), make promises that they will not maintain, in order to deceive Republicans and lead them to make concessions.
Harvard professor and chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University Greg Mankiw explains why this policy of tax increases on the rich will not solve the debt problem and will only lead to more, never-ending tax hikes:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-neverending-quest-for-more.html?m=1
He also explains why taxing 'the rich', which is already done anyway since one third of their income is taken in tax - despite the media's generous coverage of unenlightening anecdotes about unrepresentative cases of tax avoidance -, cannot mathematically solve the problem of the government's overspending on entitlements. So the choice can only be between drastically reducing the welfare system expenditure or increasing taxes on the middle class (Mankiw obiously does not consider the possibility of robbing the rich of all or most of their money, although Obama and his comrades might):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/on-middle-class-tax-rates-too-much-wishful-thinking.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
The current policy is lunacy and Obama has dragged American economy into a vicious, self-perpetuating circle of ever-increasing poverty and on a road to communism not through revolution but by stealth, piecemeal, a bit of redistributive tax hike at a time.
Africa Energy Consumption Growing Fastest in the World
The continent of Africa, home to 15 percent of the globe's population, has the fastest-growing energy consumption in the world.
http://m.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2013/0101/Africa-s-energy-consumption-growing-fastest-in-world
This is part of the explanations of why attempts to reduce carbon emissions are irrational and destructive.
If you exclude Third World countries from restrictions in their use of fossil fuels, as the Kyoto Protocol does, even by the calculation of those who believe in anthropogenic global warming you have no impact whatsoever on the reduction of warming.
If, on the other hand, you impose those restrictions on developing countries as well, the effect on global warming is minimal, merely delaying it by something like 5 years, while there is no question that you deliver a blow to the world's poorest nations' possibilities of economic development.
http://m.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2013/0101/Africa-s-energy-consumption-growing-fastest-in-world
This is part of the explanations of why attempts to reduce carbon emissions are irrational and destructive.
If you exclude Third World countries from restrictions in their use of fossil fuels, as the Kyoto Protocol does, even by the calculation of those who believe in anthropogenic global warming you have no impact whatsoever on the reduction of warming.
If, on the other hand, you impose those restrictions on developing countries as well, the effect on global warming is minimal, merely delaying it by something like 5 years, while there is no question that you deliver a blow to the world's poorest nations' possibilities of economic development.
Monday 31 December 2012
Racism and Sexism Exist
Do I believe that racism and sexism exist?
Yes, I do. Here I'll give one clear example of each.
Racism is when a public figure, a high-profile black woman like Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen, explaining the reasons why she chose to bury him in Jamaica rather than the UK, says:
'Then again, I don't think the country [Britain] deserves to have his body there anyway because they took his life'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082024/Stephen-Lawrences-final-resting-place-revealed.html
Who is 'they'? All the British people? This sweeping generalization, this condemnation of a whole country - which accepted and gave a lot to this immigrant family in search of a better life, although all the good things, all the immense benefits that European countries shower on Third World immigrants of their own free will, without any reason in the world to do so except their traditionally Christian generosity, are taken for granted as if they were entitlements, 'rights' - because of what was done by one or very few individuals is racist.
Sexism is when women, as is generally the case in Western countries, are treated more leniently than men for the same offenses by courts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html
http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/116/articles/mansnerus.htm
The most glaring examples of this kind of sexism are those of women acquitted of infanticide and murder for hormonal reasons like post-natal depression and pre-menstrual syndrome, whereas hormonal factors are not commonly used to excuse and justify criminal behaviours in men.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198590/Mother-suffocated-baby-guilty-murder-suffering-postpartum-psychosis.html
http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/jtest28/Double_Standards.html
http://www.oddee.com/item_97028.aspx
http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/158/articles/dershowitz1.htm
Yes, I do. Here I'll give one clear example of each.
Racism is when a public figure, a high-profile black woman like Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen, explaining the reasons why she chose to bury him in Jamaica rather than the UK, says:
'Then again, I don't think the country [Britain] deserves to have his body there anyway because they took his life'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082024/Stephen-Lawrences-final-resting-place-revealed.html
Who is 'they'? All the British people? This sweeping generalization, this condemnation of a whole country - which accepted and gave a lot to this immigrant family in search of a better life, although all the good things, all the immense benefits that European countries shower on Third World immigrants of their own free will, without any reason in the world to do so except their traditionally Christian generosity, are taken for granted as if they were entitlements, 'rights' - because of what was done by one or very few individuals is racist.
Sexism is when women, as is generally the case in Western countries, are treated more leniently than men for the same offenses by courts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html
http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/116/articles/mansnerus.htm
The most glaring examples of this kind of sexism are those of women acquitted of infanticide and murder for hormonal reasons like post-natal depression and pre-menstrual syndrome, whereas hormonal factors are not commonly used to excuse and justify criminal behaviours in men.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198590/Mother-suffocated-baby-guilty-murder-suffering-postpartum-psychosis.html
http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/jtest28/Double_Standards.html
http://www.oddee.com/item_97028.aspx
http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/158/articles/dershowitz1.htm
Saturday 29 December 2012
US Anti-Gun Democratic Senator Shoots Intruders
A USA Democratic Senator who has long been campaigning for gun control pulled a gun on two people who had broken into his home and shot one.
http://newrepublicoftexas.com/news/anti-gun-senator-shoots-home-intruders/
http://newrepublicoftexas.com/news/anti-gun-senator-shoots-home-intruders/
Friday 28 December 2012
Scientism Has Nothing to Do with Science
Scientism, the belief that only science can tell us something about reality, is a philosophical theory going back to the early 17th-century, which is going through a period of fashionable revival, thanks to people like Richard Dawkins.
It is important to understand that scientism is philosophical, not scientific.
Science cannot tell you whether anything beyond the laws of nature exists or not, if any form of knowledge beyond itself exists, in fact science cannot even tell you if science exists.
Science cannot talk about itself. All discussion about science, without exception, is not science, it is not scientific. It is meta-scientific, specifically it is part of philosophy of science.
When someone like Richard Dawkins talks about science (as opposed to doing science as a biologist, in which case he will be talking about genes, species and populations) he is talking as a philosopher, for which he is not even particularly qualified.
All scientists who discuss science engage in a philosophical activity. Of course many great scientists historically were also philosophers, but the majority have not been.
Just because somebody is a scientist does not mean that what he says about science - ie talking as a non-scientist - has more validity than what the first person in the street might say.
Everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, and belief in scientism and materialism is an act of faith like many others.
What is deceptive and manipulative, though, is to say or imply that, because you are a scientist, you know more about science than anybody else.
As a scientist you know more about the object of your particular field.
But discussing the nature, role and limits of science, its method, its relationship with other forms of tbeoretical activities, with religion, all this is not the object of any science but of philosophy of science.
So, unless you are qualified as a philosopher or logician, your knowledge and ideas are indeed on a par with the man in the street's.
People should beware of false authoritative claims on this subject by scientists.
There is also a contradiction here on the part of believers in scientism.
If you say that science is the only source of knowledge, you are making a statement outside the realm of science, a non-scientific statement.
So that assertion is either a non-cognitive one, like a poem or piece of music, or there is indeed knowledge which is non-scientific.
Scientific triumphalists, as Melanie Phillips calls them, have somehow managed to convince large parts of public opinion that that, in the intellectual, theoretical sphere, whatever is non-scientific is anti-scientific.
This is not true.
One of the greatest philosophers of science of contemporary times, Sir Karl Popper, created a demarcation criterion establishing that a theory, in order to be considered scientific, had to be capable of being falsified, proven false.
All theories not meeting this criterion he called 'metaphysical' theories.
Yet he showed that many metaphysical theories had been positively helping science and inspired scientific theories.
For example, the 17th-century German astronomer Johannes Kepler, a central figure in the scientific revolution, was a follower of Plotinus.
The neo-platonic theory of Plotinus was the inspiration for Kepler's laws of planetary motion in astronomy by leading him to reject Ptolemy's geocentric theory that the earth is at the centre of the universe and adopt Copernicus' heliocentrism with the sun at the centre. He then refined the latter by abandoning the Copernican theory's circulary orbits of the planets around the sun - which derived from Pythagoras' belief that the circle is the perfect geometrical shape - and introducing the elliptical orbits instead.
Science is only a method. A good, effective method, but there is nothing magical about it that should justify setting it apart, above and in contrast with all other human intellectual endeavours.
Non-science is not bad and can assist science.
Non-science is bad only when it tries to pass itself for science, in a deceiving and misleading manner, as in the case of alternative medicine, astrology, paranormal and other kinds of superstition.
It is important to understand that scientism is philosophical, not scientific.
Science cannot tell you whether anything beyond the laws of nature exists or not, if any form of knowledge beyond itself exists, in fact science cannot even tell you if science exists.
Science cannot talk about itself. All discussion about science, without exception, is not science, it is not scientific. It is meta-scientific, specifically it is part of philosophy of science.
When someone like Richard Dawkins talks about science (as opposed to doing science as a biologist, in which case he will be talking about genes, species and populations) he is talking as a philosopher, for which he is not even particularly qualified.
All scientists who discuss science engage in a philosophical activity. Of course many great scientists historically were also philosophers, but the majority have not been.
Just because somebody is a scientist does not mean that what he says about science - ie talking as a non-scientist - has more validity than what the first person in the street might say.
Everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, and belief in scientism and materialism is an act of faith like many others.
What is deceptive and manipulative, though, is to say or imply that, because you are a scientist, you know more about science than anybody else.
As a scientist you know more about the object of your particular field.
But discussing the nature, role and limits of science, its method, its relationship with other forms of tbeoretical activities, with religion, all this is not the object of any science but of philosophy of science.
So, unless you are qualified as a philosopher or logician, your knowledge and ideas are indeed on a par with the man in the street's.
People should beware of false authoritative claims on this subject by scientists.
There is also a contradiction here on the part of believers in scientism.
If you say that science is the only source of knowledge, you are making a statement outside the realm of science, a non-scientific statement.
So that assertion is either a non-cognitive one, like a poem or piece of music, or there is indeed knowledge which is non-scientific.
Scientific triumphalists, as Melanie Phillips calls them, have somehow managed to convince large parts of public opinion that that, in the intellectual, theoretical sphere, whatever is non-scientific is anti-scientific.
This is not true.
One of the greatest philosophers of science of contemporary times, Sir Karl Popper, created a demarcation criterion establishing that a theory, in order to be considered scientific, had to be capable of being falsified, proven false.
All theories not meeting this criterion he called 'metaphysical' theories.
Yet he showed that many metaphysical theories had been positively helping science and inspired scientific theories.
For example, the 17th-century German astronomer Johannes Kepler, a central figure in the scientific revolution, was a follower of Plotinus.
The neo-platonic theory of Plotinus was the inspiration for Kepler's laws of planetary motion in astronomy by leading him to reject Ptolemy's geocentric theory that the earth is at the centre of the universe and adopt Copernicus' heliocentrism with the sun at the centre. He then refined the latter by abandoning the Copernican theory's circulary orbits of the planets around the sun - which derived from Pythagoras' belief that the circle is the perfect geometrical shape - and introducing the elliptical orbits instead.
Science is only a method. A good, effective method, but there is nothing magical about it that should justify setting it apart, above and in contrast with all other human intellectual endeavours.
Non-science is not bad and can assist science.
Non-science is bad only when it tries to pass itself for science, in a deceiving and misleading manner, as in the case of alternative medicine, astrology, paranormal and other kinds of superstition.
Thursday 27 December 2012
Some Sobering Facts about Women's Vote for Obama
More women voted for Obama than Romney in the last presidential election.
This fact has always been announced by the media as a sign of distinction for Obama.
On the night of the election, for example, during one of the many discussions that punctuated the BBC's all-night coverage, the assertion that people who voted for Romney were predominantly men, white, on average older and richer was always uttered in a way that implied contempt, if not disgust.
Women, minorities, low-income and young people are cool in the semi-open, obfuscated eyes of the media.
But are they in reality?
Let's see what more women than men believe.
Many more women than men, not just in America, believe in astrology, witches, that houses can be haunted and in supernatural communication with the dead.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranormal-beliefs-come-supernaturally-some.aspx
These Gallup poll results are also confirmed by everyday observations and the fact that horoscopes are more likely to be found in publications aimed at women than men.
More women than men are attracted to alternative medicine.
Only 13 percent of readers of The Economist news magazine are women.
http://www.economistgroupmedia.com/research/audience-profile/demographics
Many more men than women read the news online.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eJd8ZLlGHJIC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=women+and+men+proportion+reading+news&source=bl&ots=WgGAAIdLlQ&sig=SwArh_P0VbMa-kYxqPtU8sIqJ68&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P6vcUK61KqbL0AXXhYGACw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ
Could it be that women were more likely to vote for Obama has to do with the fact that they are less informed and more suggestionable?
This fact has always been announced by the media as a sign of distinction for Obama.
On the night of the election, for example, during one of the many discussions that punctuated the BBC's all-night coverage, the assertion that people who voted for Romney were predominantly men, white, on average older and richer was always uttered in a way that implied contempt, if not disgust.
Women, minorities, low-income and young people are cool in the semi-open, obfuscated eyes of the media.
But are they in reality?
Let's see what more women than men believe.
Many more women than men, not just in America, believe in astrology, witches, that houses can be haunted and in supernatural communication with the dead.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranormal-beliefs-come-supernaturally-some.aspx
These Gallup poll results are also confirmed by everyday observations and the fact that horoscopes are more likely to be found in publications aimed at women than men.
More women than men are attracted to alternative medicine.
Only 13 percent of readers of The Economist news magazine are women.
http://www.economistgroupmedia.com/research/audience-profile/demographics
Many more men than women read the news online.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eJd8ZLlGHJIC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=women+and+men+proportion+reading+news&source=bl&ots=WgGAAIdLlQ&sig=SwArh_P0VbMa-kYxqPtU8sIqJ68&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P6vcUK61KqbL0AXXhYGACw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ
Could it be that women were more likely to vote for Obama has to do with the fact that they are less informed and more suggestionable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)