A few new sites to visit

There are two new sites I’ve added to my blogroll that I find quite enjoyable Oz Soapbox and Samuri Marine.  Both sites focus on personal thoughts and news.  If you have some free time, or if you are looking for something else to read, please take a moment to stop by their sites.

Jesus missing from President Obama’s Georgetown speech

So, what do you think of this story?

The White House asked Georgetown University to cover a monogram “IHS.”  Why?  IH symbolizes the name Jesus Christ.  Of course, Georgetown accommodated the request.  

I could start to go into the pros and cons of each side, I could attempt to rationalize the decision making process… but I am not going to.  I’m tired of it. I feel the nation is getting to the point where we are afraid to offend people.  Religion, God and spirituality is apart of life, regardless of what country you live in.  Guess what else is part of life – tolerance and understanding.  Fear of offending someone is avoidance, not tolerance.

I don’t care if an atheist is pissed off because the President is standing in front of a symbol that represents Christ.  You don’t hear Jews complaining because a public official giving a speech in front of a mosque.  You don’t hear Christians complaining when a public official goes to speak at a Jewish organization.  So, why is it atheists are the only ones that complain and why is it they are the ones the government is sensitive to all of a sudden? 

I don’t believe in organized religions, but I respect them.  I’m not an atheist, but I respect their views. If atheists want respect in their views and lifestyle, why not respect others?

The United States is not a Christian nation but it is a nation of multiple view, multiple religions.  No matter how hard one tries, you cannot erase that fact.  

Politicians need to stop worrying about offending someone, a potential voter, and preach the tolerance and respect EVERYONE deserves.

I understand people have passion for subjects close to their heart. When a subject is criticized, some form of personal identification takes place with those close to the subject. This makes it seem as if the supporter of the subject is being criticized or attacked, which elicits a response on behalf of the supporter.

It’s the whole “transitive property” aspect – You criticize a topic, I believe and support said topic, ergo you criticize me.

I get it; I understand.

Roughly a week ago I raised the same question with Big Love. Some members of the Mormon community raised concerns about a sacred ceremony, saying a line had been crossed. With input from a blog reader, and with more thought on the subject, I can understand how one could, potentially, be offended.

Do I think that means the topic should be avoided? No.

What I have a problem understanding; however, is why some people get so upset with pure fiction – enter Dan Brown.

It was described as a “phantasmagorical cocktail of inventions”, a “masonic plot” and a “pot pourri of lies”. Now a nervous Vatican is braced for the sequel to The Da Vinci Code and the return of its nemesis, Dan Brown.

…

The film is to be released in Italy on May 13 and in Britain a day later, as Pope Benedict XVI finishes his tour of the Holy Land. A strong reaction is more likely because the antiDa Vinci campaign was led by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Archbishop of Genoa and now the Vatican’s Secretary of State – and as such the Pope’s right-hand man. Gianni Gennari, a leading theologian and a columnist for Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops, called on Catholics to boycott Angels & Demons, accusing the film-makers of “exploiting the Church to swell takings at the box office”. He said the film was part of a plot to undermine the credibility of the Church.

No, this is fiction… not an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Church. This is an expert weaving of fictional stories into a modern setting purely for the entertainment value.

Any credibility the Church had was long lost when the individuals who head the Church decided to cover up the years of child abuse by priests. If one has to spend time defending a work of fiction from another work of fiction, while ignoring the evils within his or her own belief system, I think that person’s priorities are a bit off.

But, hey, that’s just me.

Wandering Coyote wonders this same thing about The Da Vinci Code…

The concept of objectivity, and the execution of objectivity, in theory, should be easy to grasp. Reality, it seems, tends to get in the way of theory. Over the last two weeks I’ve had the chance to engage in a number of highly abstract, intellectually alluring discussions about “skeptics” and the ability to remain objective while defending/debating a belief.

As this stream of conscious continues to evolve a number of terms will be used and I want to establish the definitions upfront in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding:

• Skeptic – disbelieving: doubting the truth of something
• Faith – a belief in something for which there is no proof, or something desired, and is expected to occur
• Religion – system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being
• Objectivity – judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Skeptics and Faith/Religion

Skeptics consistently make one major cases against god and religion:

No empirical data exists that actually proves the existence of god; therefore the actions based in religious practices are moot.

People strong with religious views tend to counter:

Religions world wide make claims, and support the claims by saying the Bible/ Koran/ Torah is the word/teachings of god and, therefore must be right.

One can see the problem with this discussion right away. Essentially, two people are comparing apples to BMWs – the underlying justification by each party is based off of diametrically different standards and, in no way, can be compared. A skeptic is looking for scientific data, a person of religion is arguing from personal perspective, from a belief that may not/cannot be documented in zeros and ones.

Not having the ability to convince the other person that his or her worldview is “true” frustration and emotions have the ability to play into the argument thereby removing ones ability to truly be objective – that is to say without the influence of emotions or personal prejudice – and the argument becomes a zero-sum situation. Both parties win, both parties lose.

Skeptics and Science

One wouldn’t expect a skeptic to have an issue with science, but there are fields within the scientific community that a skeptic would question, specifically parapsychology. The basic claim is that parapsychology should not be even considered a science due to the lack of empirical data and the inability to replicate experiments/situations.

A major foundation for science is the Scientific Method… I know that sounds obvious but I’m amazed at how many people do not understand this point. The Scientific Method uses systematic methods for the investigation of the natural world, which include designing controlled experiments, gathering data, and developing and testing hypotheses.

To boil it down, if an experiment can be replicated and the results continually match (reliability), a hypothesis can be verified. Skeptics have significant issues with the parapsychology field due to the lack of replication in experiments, as well as measureable data. This, in the mind of a skeptic, is ground enough to eliminate Parapsychology as a science.

A Parapsychologist would argue a number of points, the major being that a lack of statistically significant data and evidence does not indicate the lack of existence. Possible reasons for holding such a view include skeptics being unwilling to entertain competing views or one cannot statistically record/predict singular events (like one person claiming to have an out of body experience).

Much like in the case of religion, time and time again each party becomes emotionally involved in the defense of their position, leaving objectivity to become clouded and reason victim of emotion.

Skeptics and Personal Experience

How can you combat a personal experience?

No, I don’t ask this question to be difficult… I’m quite serious.

How can a skeptic say that and individual 100% did not experience a situation or event. Using the example above, if a person claims to have had an out of body experience, how can a skeptic say that were wrong? There is very little room to say a person was wrong… or is there?

A skeptic will almost immediately point to a scientific cause for the experience, in this case, say… a chemical interaction in the brain that triggered the individual to believe he or she was outside of the body.

Interestingly, while scientific evidence does exist showing OoBEs to be a product of the brain, to the best of my knowledge it is not conclusive. So, again, how can a skeptic combat personal experience?

The only reasonable way to do so would prove that such an experience could not happen. Otherwise, much like ever other case above, emotion will cloud the mix and objectivity will be lost on both sides.

So… What about objectivity?

It seems to me, when faced with two choices, people tend to pick the choice that equates to the least change in their belief system. If only one choice exists, the second choice is by default “no change”. That said, the introduction of evidence challenging ones belief vs. a belief one has held the majority of ones life will, most likely, lead to a person picking the belief that does not change their view of the world.

Why?

Change = Fear = Emotion -> Loss of Objectivity

It doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe in, if you do not view information with objectivity you have no way to successfully – based on all available evidence – come to a conclusion on a subject. The loss of objectivity means options are immediately limited. This is why I have a problem with Skeptics AND Faith/Religion.

While not perfect in my ability to have objectivity, I do a fair job at removing the emotion from situations during the debate of facts. It seems to be that people who claim to be dedicated skeptics or dedicated religious believers automatically dismiss other possible realities in the face of persuasive evidence based of their beliefs.

Call it “faith” or call it “evidence”, it still, ultimately, comes down to a personal world view and either camp automatically dismissing evidence due to their inability to understand a situation. I’ve seen both camps of thought state “Show me, and then I will believe it”. As a result, I’ve seen both camps continue to deny information even after proof was obtained.

It is truly rare to find believer of anything who is willing to question their worldview. After all we are just psychotic primates who over time developed the ability to reason, but the reality life comes down our ability to moderate. Be religious but be skeptical. Have a core set of beliefs but be willing to change. Be willing to believe something obscure but honestly question the subject before altering your world view.

Just because it is in a book doesn’t make it true, and just because it hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean it is false.