Here is Pat Condell’s latest video, ‘Children of a Stupid God’. Whatever your belief-system (or lack thereof), he does bring up an intersting perspective…and a few good points for thought:
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Is it time to abolish the UN?
March 11, 2009 — xanthippaThis year, the UN plans to make its ‘Blasphemy Resolution’ BINDING on ALL ITS MEMBER STATES!!!!!!!!!
When the League of Nations became irrelevant, it was abolished.
For those of you cursed with a ‘recent’ North American education, here is a very brief explanation:
Following ‘The Great War’ (WWI), people decided that wars were a bad thing that should – and could – be prevented. So, they set up this organization whose purpose was to do exactly that by providing a supranational governance structure and a forum for a negotiated conflict resolution. They called it the League of Nations.
Promptly, the new ‘world government’ set about defining The Rights of Man, and other unarguably worthy things. Collectivists of the world unite, and all that…
Yet, the League of Nations was singularly bad at actually accomplishing any of the things it had claimed it wanted to do. For example, when the LoN tried to give a stern talking to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, Mussolini told them that ‘human rights’ don’t apply to ‘Ethiopians’ because they are ‘not fully human’ (!) and Hitler told them they had no right to interfere in Germany’s internal policies (you know, the Holocaust).
It was at roughly this point in time that people realized that the League of Nations was not actually doing what it thought it was doing, and pulled the plug on it.
Following WWII, people decided that wars were a bad thing that should – and could – be prevented. So, they set up this organization whose purpose was to do exactly that by providing a supranational governance structure and a forum for a negotiated conflict resolution. They called it the United Nations.
Promptly, the new ‘world government’ set about making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other unarguably worthy things. Collectivists of the world unite, and all that…
Sound familiar?
Except that, the UN was LoN.2: an upgraded release, with much more functionality and much wider reaching ambitions.
Now, the UN does not only want to ‘prevent war’ by providing a supranational governance structure, or to resolve international conflicts peacefully. Now, it had taken upon itself the role of a ‘World Busybody’: from the environment to our internal laws, nothing is outside of the UN’s scope of interest.
Don’t believe me just how intrusive the UN plans to be into the economic and social development of sovereign states? Read it yourself – and you WILL weep!
Look at something as simple as the ages-old concept: freedom of the seas!
Contrary to some modern claims that this is a new idea, the concept that the seas were not anyone’s sovereign property and that all have the right to travel them freely was a concept that has been around since (at least) the time of Cicero. Yet, the UN has – criminally, in my never-humble-opinion – chosen to abort the ‘Freedom of the Seas’ and replace it with ‘Law of the Seas’!
Now, in this post, I don’t intend to delve too deeply into the L.O.S.T.: this would take at least 1000 words, and most of them expletive. Let it suffice to point out that under this ‘law’, the UN would have to protect all the seas: so, anything that might affect them would be under their jurisdiction – including all the watersheds! Want to build a city? Is it in a watershed that drains to some sea somewhere? Then the UN has the right to say when and how you can do it: it has to protect the waters, you see.
Yes: L.O.S.T. gives the UN the power over all the water on Earth!!! And, the right – nay, the DUTY – to regulate EVERYTHING which might ‘affect water’.
Am I exaggerating? Check it out. Please! I would very much like to be wrong on this one. I may be presenting the extreme to which the letter of this ‘convention’ may be applied – I will grant this easily. Yet, when have humans who want power have ‘established’ something, history shows us that they WILL push things ALL THE WAY to the extremes. Therefore, it is only prudent that we examine what COULD be permitted under a law – because, eventually, it WILL be.
You see, replacing ‘Freedom’ with ‘Law’ is something the UN loves to do. And, gaining more and more power over its member nations – being more and more intrusive in their internal policies – well, that is part of the observable pattern of the UN behaviour.
Please, consider this latest little ‘drop in the bucket’.
We are all aware that for several years in a row, the UN has submitted to pressures from ‘religious groups’ and has declared that the human right to freedom of speech MUST be limited in order to protect religious sensibilities. Most of us refer to this as ‘The Blasphemy Law’.
What this means – in practice – is the re-criminalization of blasphemy against any religion in general, and Islam in particular.
By – yet again submitting – the UN has turned the clock of our civilization to back before the time of the Renaissance!!!
IT GETS WORSE!!!
This year, the UN plans to make its ‘Blasphemy Resolution’ BINDING on ALL ITS MEMBER STATES!!!!!!!!!
HOW DARE THEY!!!
Frankly, I don’t care WHICH religion: I WILL BLASPHEME THEM ALL!!!
I suppose I am an ‘equalist’ when it comes to BLASPHEMY!
Why?
Because while I respect each person’s individual spirituality, I regard EACH and EVERY religion to be a manipulation of this very human spiritual dimension, sub-verted into the hands of powerhungry individuals in order to coerce obedience from the rest of us.
If THIS is what the UN wants to impose, I say it is time to abolish it!
What do YOU say?
Religion (definition): part 1
January 8, 2009 — xanthippaAnother term which is important to define when talking about The Big Picture is ‘Religion’.
This is another one of those words that everybody thinks has a universal definition – but not all these ‘universal definitions’ are congruent…. and some of the differences between the various descriptions are, well, rather substantial. (Yes, this does make our constitution, which forbids discrimination on religious grounds, rather laughable, as in the absence defining what is meant by ‘religious grounds’, this phrase is worse than meaningles…. it is open to abuse! Please, don’t get me started on that topic!!!)
Just look at the how (not the what) of the way different people practice religion.
To some, religion is little more than some surreal principles. They believe in some undefinible, intangable divine principles that form the universal subconsciousness or, if you prefer, which give the Universe a consciousness of her own. Or, they call it Mother Nature, or some ‘laws of nature’ which have no perceivable form (personification-able, that is). To these people, spirituality is important, but religiosity – the rituals associated with these beliefs – may be largely irrelevant.
At the other extreme, there are people for whom adherence to the religious customs and rituals is a much more integral part of their religion than any form of actual belief or even abstract concept of the divine. We see this in many highly ritualistic religions which dictate daily routines and behaviours onto its practitioners. I have known Anglicans, Catholics, Jews and Hindus who all practice the rituals of their religion because it supports their perception of their self-identity – or serves and supports others in their community – yet who do not subscribe to the doctorines of their religious dogma.
Perhaps I should explain what I mean by this: they are able to abstract moral lessons from their religious teachings and see value (either to their personal growth or things helpful or important to others within their community) in adhering to the religious practices, even though they reject the dogmatic or supernatural aspects of their religions. (I regard this with great respect – it is the opposite of some peoples’ self-righteous pretense at being religious while missing the ‘greater message’! That is a subject of its own…)
Yet others both have faith in the dogma of a religion, and adhere to its daily rituals. The spectrum is about as varied as humanity itself…
Many people in The West think that religion is something which deals with questions regarding the meaning/purpose of life, death, afterlife, God, etc. And, some religions do that. However, most religions are not this narrowly limited. So, what exactly defines religion? What is common to all the religions ‘out there’?
Well, it depends on whom you ask… and what background they are approaching the subject of ‘religion’ from.
The psychoanalyst (NOT to me mistaken with ‘psycho analyst’) Carl G.Jung defines religion as:
Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.
(Emphasis added by me… I do have to admit that I copied this definition out in calligraphy and stuck it to the inside of my locker door when I was in high-school – yeah, I know, pathetic!)
So, accortding to Jung, religion is a peculiar attitude of the mind.
The reason I like this definition is because in a society which allows fredom of thought, freedom of religion is automatic: you are free to believe – fully, partially or not at all – anything you wish. Here, freedom of religion becomes a sub-set of freedom of thought and does not require special treatment, privileges or accommodations under the law.
That, in my never-humble-opinion, is very important. After all, no idea or belief should be accorded greater or lesser protection from persecution, regardless of its nature! Plus, most oppressors (or would-be oppressors….knowingly or condescendingly) are notorious for defining ‘religious grounds’ in a way that allows them to oppress those whose ideas (religious or otherwise) they do not like!
Example: when my older son neared the end of grade 8 and different high-schools were lobbying us to register him to attend them, I visited one of the most highly regarded and very coveted high-schools in Ottawa. That is when I got a chance to look around the school’s library – and it did indeed contain an impressive selection of books! When I came to the ‘Religion’ section, there were many, many books on Christianity and Christian philosophy. Truly, it contained an exhaustive collection of books on all the sects of non-Arian forms of Christianity. Yet, when I looked for the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas, Tao Te Ching and other texts widely considered ‘religious’, they could not be found….until one came to the ‘Mythology’ section of the library…. Needless to say, we chose to send our son elsewhere.
Obviously, to this particular school’s librarian, only non-Arian forms of Christianity qualified as ‘religion’. Everything else was ‘Mythology’, and would not deserve protection under Canadian constitution which bans ‘discrimination on the basis of religion’ – but does not protect against ‘discrimination of the basis of mythology’…. I’m sorry about the circuitous description, but, I do hope I explained by point clearly:
According to this librarian, only non-Arian forms of Christianity qualified as ‘religion’ and therefore, freedom of religion would only extend to people who subscribed to this narrow group of religious sects.
I’m afraid I prefer Jung’s definition or ‘religion’ to this librarian’s!
Disbelief
December 30, 2008 — xanthippaPerhaps it seems counterintuitive to define ‘disbelief’ before defining ‘belief’. Yet, in this case, approaching things ‘from behind’, can allows a definition of what does not constitute belief. Since belief is such a complex matter, it may, in fact, be effective to define ‘disbelief’ first so as to better focus on the different concepts we all lump together as ‘belief’.
Disbelief is simply ‘absence of belief’.
If I were to present you with the statement: ‘my great-grandmother’s eyes were blue’, and if you would have no way of knowing if it is true or not (no facts are supplied along with the statement and there are no means for you to obtain the facts/you do not dig for the facts). You would now be faced with two choices:
1. Believe
Having read some of what I have written, you could conclude that I am a reliable source and that if I say that ‘my great-grandmother’s eyes were blue’, then they truly were. While this particular belief may not alter your life to any significant degree, you invest your trust into me and accept the statement at face value.
You believe that at least one my great-grandmothers indeed had blue eyes.
2. Disbelieve
You may find that even though there is no reason for my statement to be false, without any supporting evidence, there just is not enough there for you to believe the statement.
The following sub-categories of ‘disbelief’ are in not somehow official, scholarly, or in any way learned from any source. Please, do not consider these divisions as somehow ‘authoritative’ or based on any specific philosophy (something I chose never to train in – but that is tangential to the issue….) – they are just my way of looking at the principle of ‘disbelief’. Yet, I hope they will help to clarify the concept of ‘disbelief’, because it seems to me to be terribly misunderstood in current popular culture.
- Tentative acceptance (conditional acceptance)
You may decide that the information came from a credible source, so it is likely to be true. You have no reason to doubt it. Yet, you reserve committing to belief in the veracity of the statement: if more information were to come along (like, say, a statement from several people who knew my great-grandmothers, or some other unforseen event which provided contradictory data), you would have no problem changing your mind on the matter.
On an intellectual level, in the absence of further evidence, you tentatively accept the statement as true, but you do not putt any emotional investment into its veracity. Were you to learn that the statement is false, you might change your opinion of me as a source of information, but it would not greatly trouble you. Though, for now, you may behave as if the statement were true, the absence of any ’emotional investment’ in its veracity means you disbelieve it.
This is why I contend that Pascal’s wager does not constitute belief, but tentative acceptance. Therefore, in my never-humble-opinion, it is a form of disbelief: it is an acceptance on an intellectual level, but not on an emotional one. The emotional investment is, in my opinion, necessary to constitute ‘belief’.
The tentative/conditional acceptance is what, in scientific terms, is termed a conclusion. It is similar to belief, but not quite there. It asserts that according to the best information currently available, this seems likely – it is the best conclusion from currently available information – yet, this conclusion is open to ammendment as additional information comes to light. This is as close to belief as science ever gets….and, irritatingly (to me, anyway), many scientists refer to their conclusions as beliefs. In reality, when a scientist replaces conclusions with beliefs, they cease being a scientist!
- Possibility/probability assessment
Here, instead of believing the statement, or tentatively (conditionally) accepting the premise pending further data as truth, you may entertain its veracity as a distinct possibility. Perhaps you might even give it a ‘probability rating’ – whether scientific or subjective. Whether this probability is 1% or 99%, it is still a probability assessment – not a belief.
Back to scientists: if a scientist assesses a conclusion to have a high probability of being true, they may express this. Again, this is not in any way the same as belief: it is a probability assessment, without the emotional investment necessary to cross the boundary between possible or probable on the one hand and belief on the other. Irritatingly, many people (including scientists – most of whom are not really all that up on liguistics and the nuances of expressions, and many of whom are rather deaf to ‘social nuances’ to start off with) erroneously lump this position in with belief when they speak about it – yet they do not, in any way, imply belief in the religious sense..
- Absence of opinion
You may read the statement, file away in your mind that I had made it, but make no conclusion about its veracity. You simply do not care enough to believe it. It’s there, you can recall that this statement had been made, but that is really the end of it for you.
- Belief in the opposite
OK, I admit it: I am uncomfortable including belief in the opposite into the category of disbelief. Why? Because unlike the other positions, listed above, it involves holding a belief. Not a belief in the statement itself, but rather, a belief in the opposite of the statement in question. What would be the opposite? Here, you might believe that my great-grandmother’s eyes were green or brown, so long as you believe they were not blue.
This is disbelief=withholding belief with respect to the statement in question, even if it is not general disbelief.
- Belief in unknowability
Again, I am not happy to include this positive belief in the category of disbelief, but, it must be included because it constitutes disbelief with respect to this statement. The positive belief held here is that there is no way of finding out whether or not the statement is true: that the veracity of the statement is unknowable.
This is not a perfect division – and I am aware that not everybody will agree with the lines I have drawn up to distinguish belief from disbelief. Yet, I have attempted to apply logic consistently throughout. I would welcome any and all comments which would help enrich this discussion.
Aside:
If you are interested in a great documentary on the topic of disbelief, I would recommend ‘Jonathan Miller’s Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief’. While I am not sure if I agree with everything he says (I’ve only been pondering it for a little over a year – and I am a slow thinker), it is interesting and thought provoking. It is available for sale, or order over the internet in various places.
Alternately, the 3-hour series can be found many places on the web… YouTube has many channels which feature it. One of them has broken it up as follows:
Part 1.1, part 1.2, part 1.3, part 1.4, part 1.5, part 1.6
Part 2.1, part 2.2, part 2.3, part 2.4, part 2.5, part 2.6, part 2.7
Part 3.1, part 3.2, part 3.3, part 3.4, part 3.5, part 3.6
REAL cultural tolerance!!!
December 8, 2008 — xanthippaA few days ago, I had an experience that proved to me something I think most of us already know: the ‘official bureaucrats’, ‘brave and steadfast guardians of multiculturalism’ (in the name of which they are ready to oppress us) really have no clue what ‘being multicultural’ is all about!!!
Having arrived a little early for my son’s ‘parent-teacher interview’, I walked around a little, admiring the pictures and poems posted in the school hallways. Unusually, in front of the library door, there were a couple of chairs and a desk. In these chairs sat two girls, I’m guessing about 12 years old. They were supervised by one of their Mom’s (sitting off to the side) – their smiles betrayed the heritage. Both mother and daughter wore a hijab – so I am making a presumption that they were Muslim. The other student, the daughter’s friend, did not wear a hijab.
Yet, the two of girls were obviously good friends – and they made an awesome team. These two girls decided that it was important to help kids less fortunate then they – and they figured out a way they could make a real difference in the world!
In order to raise money for a charity helping kids in Africa, they focused their creative efforts. Taking up card-stock, delicately ornate origami paper, glue and calligraphy markers, they made a whole slew of Christmas cards to sell to parents coming to the parent-teacher interviews!
When I asked, they told me they came up with the idea together. Their eyes shone with pride of ‘doing right’! And, they were justly proud – their cards were beautiful! At a $1.00 a piece, I saw every parent passing them (including myself) dump all the change from their wallets and walk away with a stack of Christmas cards.
The Mom was the ’empowering parent’: not only did she agree to supervise the ‘sales’, she was the one to buy the supplies, too. The Mom was happy when other parents stopped and asked questions, and she looked downright ‘parentally proud’ when someone complimented the two girls or their Christmas cards – or their greater goal!
And the girls deserved every compliment they got! Many young people have awesome ideals, but these two girls had actually figured out a way they themselves could have an impact in making this world a better place for others. My deep respect goes to them!
Now, I would like to repeat the reality of this: I (an ignostic) have just bought a whole pile of the most beautiful Christmas cards ever from 2 very young people, one of whom wore the hijab (and, thus, was presumably not a Christian). And the adult supervisor/enabler was (in my best guess) a Muslima. I have no clues as to the cultural or religious thoughts of the third person. Not one of us found anything in the least offensive in making, selling and buying cards wishing everyone to have a ‘Merry Christmas’!
To me, that is a perfect example of the way that people – without government imposed ‘official multiculturalism’ and the bureaucrats who force us into cultural apartheid – will do that most human thing ever: build communities! And it proves we can do it without regard as to our background culture, religion, or any other superficial means of labeling us, classifying us and dividing us!
That whole ‘divide and conquer’ will only work if we allow ourselves to be divided! And if we allow ourselves to be divided, we will be conquered and our rights and freedoms will be taken away!
We must not be hiding our cultural icons from each other, for fear giving offence! If we hide them, we cannot share them – nor can we rejoice in them! We can learn from each other by sharing in each other’s festivals, ideas and thoughts. That is the most human thing ever – and we must not allow those who wish to rule us by dividing us into ‘cultural solitudes’ to succeed!
We can understand that anything which celebrates the human spirit and the beauty of caring and sharing can help us build our community and grow as human beings. And, at times, our young people can even teach us how sharing in each other’s celebrations can help people whom we do not even know!
That, in my never-humble-opinion, is REAL cultural tolerance!
Radicalization of religions
June 22, 2008 — xanthippaThis is indeed the threat facing us today: radicalization of religions.
And any set of prescribed ‘truths’ which are ‘unquestionable’ by its adherents is a religion. In keeping with the original meaning of the word ‘religios’, it is a belief system which ties effects to specific causes. These causes need not be supernatural, but they may be.
We are used to thinking of ‘religion‘ as ‘worship’ of ‘supernatural god/creator/force/consciousness’, but this is only one face or ‘religion’. Rather, it is the fact that there exist some certain ‘tennets’ or ‘beliefs’ or ‘principles’ that are seen as powerful, influential or important enough to be singled out for ‘special attention/worship’ and which may not be questioned that turns a simple ‘belief system’ or philosophy into a religion.
So, it really does not matter WHAT the particular religion teaches. It does not matter whether this religion is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Secular Humanism, or Global Warming Alarmism. The teachings/beliefs themselves are really not the point…
It is the RADICALIZATION bit that is the problem. It is the WAY in which the ‘radicalized believer’ truly and honestly believes that unless they impose their own beliefs on others, regardless of the cost, the whole society will come to an end/be punished/destroyed. It is their depth of conviction that they are the only ones who are right and that it is their duty to institutionalize their beliefs which poses the real danger.
THAT is radicalization, and THAT is the problem. We need to stop confusing ‘symptoms’ with ’causes’….
Conspiracy or good marketing?
April 6, 2008 — xanthippaOh, my! Technology is FUN!!!
Today, I had some REAL fun. Thanks to a tip from CanadianBeaver, I stumbled upon BlogTV! Sort of like any other blog, except that instead of text, you pump out live video, and people type comments which pop up as you go…. And, once I got me a mike, I got to even talk – live – to a whole ‘roomful’ of people who were chatting with CB! Thank you, one and all!
One topic which came up was the ‘world domination by the illuminati/banking families/the-13-bloodlines’. I’d like to make an important point: never ascribe to a ‘conspiracy’ what you can explain by human stupidity/greed. Or, really, really good marketing!
Think about it, really. If YOU were a person in control of great wealth/multinational corporate conglomerate, and you had the opportunity to create strategic alliances with other really wealthy businesses/individuals/families, would you consider this to be ‘a conspiracy’, or would it simply be good business sense? Prudent corporate strategy, perhaps?
How naive would we all be if we did not think that ‘strategic alliances’ have been forged and broken and re-forged, all throughout our history? Visible ones, and ‘behind the scenes’ ones… It is the most predictable, natural course of things… and calling it a ‘conspiracy’ just seems so silly! Of course it is going on. Of course the aim is to concentrate wealth, control and market share – power. It is the most reasonable course of action!
And….what is the real difference between being ‘secretive’ and ‘discrete’?
But to think it all this is somehow evil? Come on!
Nature of ‘Faith’
March 27, 2008 — xanthippaIn the last two posts, I looked at an alternate explanation of some statements in the Bible. As the feedback showed, some Christians believe these statements literally, others figuratively. And they are all happy holding onto their very different beliefs, even though all of them are inspired by the same passage in Genesis. That is great!
People ‘hold on’ to their ‘profound beliefs’, regardless of what others think of them or anything else – and I would not want it to be any other way. This is called ‘faith’. I have learned about this phenomenon. I do not comprehend it, but I am ready to accept that some people are capable of it.
Yet, people often ‘hold on’ to ‘beliefs’ or ‘opinions’ on trivial or non-profound points which are demonstrably unsupportable. I have tried, but I really don’t understand this aspect of human nature. Personally, I have a hard time with this 100% one way, or 100% the other way mode of thought…..perhaps because I’m not ‘wired just right’…but I don’t think there is anything I’ve invested a 100%, non-conditional ‘belief’ in.
No, I’m not talking about everyday life things, like knowing I love my kids and so on….emotional investment is NOT what I am talking about. Nor am I talking about the ‘ought to’ kind of belief, as in “I belive all humans ought to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law.”
I mean ‘factual’ stuff: like physics, chemistry, history…that ‘stuff’…. and global warming, political implications, someone’s culpability in something, superstitions, trust in actual physical institutions …that ‘stuff’, too. For example, when driving over a bridge, I am reasonably convinced that the probability that the bridge will collapse under me is so low as to be negligible – or I would not have driven onto it. Yet, I do not believe that it will not collapse….there is a difference!
OK, I ‘know’ gravity is a ‘force’ – yet, if someone presented me with substantiated evidence that it wasn’t a force, but rather an aspect of, say, space, I would be sceptical, yet I’d want to know what they based their claim on. They’d need solid evidence, but….I could be convinced by it. Knowledge, conclusions, opinions – these are all subject to change as more information comes in. I get that! I understand that process, and have experienced it many times. What I don’t get is ‘belief’ or ‘faith’.
Perhaps this is a characteristic of us Aspergers’ people: I recall some friends cutting out a comic strip in which a teacher is handing back a math test. She reads one of the answers out loud: “provided both trains are travelling in straight line, with no hills or curves, provided there are no accidents that slow them down along the way, provided we neglect to account for the curvature of the Earth, provided the clocks in both stations are synchronized, and that the whole path is along same height above sea-level and so no time diallation occurs, the trains’ average speed is XXX. ” She hands the test to a boy, and he wonders: “How did she know this was my paper? I forgot to put my name on it!”
For some reason, my friends thought this was hillarious and wanted to show it to me….something about the comic basing a character on me…
It seems many people have as much problems with ‘my’ processing of information into conditional conclusions as I do with ‘faith’. This truly shocked me….after all, does not EVERYONE state the obvious limits under which any conclusion is valid? Why do many people percieve such qualifications as ‘waffling’? It certainly is not so! Would not presuming such things be an oversimplification, to the point of error?
Yet ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ seemed more natural to many people than my ‘conditional conclusions’!
What is it that allows one person to ‘believe’ or ‘have faith’, while another cannot even commit to a math-problem answer without stating all the assumptions and limitations? Which one is the ‘normal’ one, and which the ‘anomaly’? Or is this like a spectrum, where there are no discrete breaks, just a continuum….with my ilk falling squarely at one extreme?
These questions have haunted me, ever since I can recall formulating their cognitive pre-cursors in nursery shool. Even back then, I simply could not understand the motivations and expected goals behind other children’s games – and when I asked, I got blank stares or the old ‘index-finger-making-circular-motion-by-the-temple’ gestures in return. I can understand both the process and the motivation/expected goals behind a calcualted risk, problem analysis, conditional conclusion, that sort of thing…. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand either the process nor the motivation/expected goals behind ‘belief’ and faith’ – both profound and mundane.
Is this just another aspect of my ‘faulty wiring’, one that makes me so very Aspergers? Or, are ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ simply a label for ‘I don’t understand and am not worthy/willing to think about’? Or is there something entirely different at play here?
Epicurean, Epidurean…paradoxes everywhere!
February 24, 2008 — xanthippa
As far as Greek philosophers go, Epicurus was pretty O.K.
Contrary to the customs of his era, he allowed women as students in his school. Though there is absolutely no historical fact to justify this, I would love to think that the legendary Xanthippe (of whom he most certainly knew) and her famous debates versus Socrates, may have influenced him in this. After all, his philosophy was not really all that far removed from hers (at least, the few little bits of her philosophy that have survived).
But, unlike Socrates, who was busy gazing at the navel of his immortal soul, Epicurus saw humans as having physical, intellectual, spiritual and social needs: the ideal, then, was to strike a harmonious balance in one’s life. Frankly, this seems almost too reasonable an opinion to be held by a ‘philosopher’!
After all, where is the brooding, the derisive scowl at the cares of the world – isn’t that the image the word ‘philosopher’ is supposed to evoke? I bet his ‘reasonableness’ cost him a lot of ‘pretentiousness points’ among the lofty circles…
He would likely have been written off and forgotten, had he not also voiced some very provocative ideas. Most (though certainly not all) of his contemporaries aspired to the creed of monotheism, describing God in a way modern day Christians would recognize: omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards mankind, his creation. In the still predominantly polytheistic environment, this idea – coupled with the notion Socrates had taught of the immortality of one’s soul – seemed very deep and mystical. Yet, Epicurus directed some very pointed questions at this creed…and none of them have been satisfactorily answered as yet!
Is God willing to prevent evil, and not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able, nor willing?
Then why call him God?
– Epicurus, 341-271 BCE
This is perhaps the most famous group of his questions and has been handed down to us under the name the ‘Epicurean riddle’, or the ‘Epicurean paradox’. It has been much paraphrased over the millennia, but the above is one of my favourite renditions.
People say that pain can, at times, bring ‘things’ into a sharp focus. This was true for me, as I deeply questioned every single one of my life’s decisions, whiling away the endless hours of late-stage labour. Truly, I came to question everything!
And then, it occurred to me: in order to make people (especially female people) truly comprehend the meaning of the Epicurean paradox, perhaps I could re-phrase it into terms that had more immediate impact on our lives. It’s almost as if the words came to me of their own volition:
Is God is truly omniscient? Then He must know the pain of childbirth!
And if He is also omnipotent, and he did not invent ‘the epidural’ waaaay before inventing this whole childbirth thing, then he is most certainly not benevolent!
I like to think of this as the Epidurean paradox!
I would go on, but I don’t want to belabour the point….
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 