Danger: building works in progress.

I thought it was past time that I posted a blog again. But what about? Theology, philosophy, logic, religion? About how Terry Pratchett preaches his atheism through in his Discworld series but at least his logic seems consistent?

Or about relationships; personal development; or just me? About how people are naturally self-focussed and not to worry about what they think of you? About how I’ve started to decrease my level of medication and that though this may give the depression a stronger chance to take control, it could be beneficial because it will force me to deal with the underlying psychological issues?

The same topics come up in different guises, and I don’t know what else I can say that I’ve not already said in some post or another.

 

Happy New Year

Just to remind you I’m still here, still thinking; still writing. In fact, I thought of another project in the past couple of days; one for which I’ll need a graphic designer or cartoonist.

A joke I heard a fortnight ago:
The barman said, “Sorry, we don’t serve faster-than-light particles in here.”

A neutrino walks into a bar.

 

Fundamentalism

Recently I overheard an excerpt from a conversation between a couple at the beach: “they’re fundamentalists; they can be dangerous people.”

I don’t know what kind of fundamentalist he was talking about because any person can be a fundamentalist about any topic.

The tone in which anyone says “fundamentalist” nowadays is invariably negative, because fundamentalism of any kind has come to be equated with intransigence, intolerance and judgmentalism.

 

Getting stoned

Recently I’ve heard a new reason that people reject the Bible: it commands the stoning of women. Stoning was an ancient punishment involving what its name implies: throwing rocks at a person until they died. The assumption behind the objection is that females were subject to barbaric punishment but males either received a far more lenient sentence or are not punished at all. It’s a form of gender apartheid [1].

One girl said she didn’t want to live in a society based on Judeo-Christian ethics because she didn’t want to be stoned. She is a university lecturer so, even though this is in sociology, so she should have seen her error in logic: the ethic doesn’t determine the punishment. That is, an ethical statement, such as “Theft is wrong”, doesn’t tell us how to punish the thief. We could tell them not to do it again, give them a suspended sentence, fine them – as was the case in the Old Testament! – imprison them, or administer corporal punishment, from six of the best with a cane to cutting off their hands.

The Mosaic Law prescribes death by stoning for eight offences:

 

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth

People often cite “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” as contradicting Jesus’ command to forgive our enemies. (“Where does the Bible say that?” “Er, somewhere in there.” There are three references: Exodus 21:22 – hurting a pregnant woman; Leviticus 24:19-22 – hurting anyone; Deuteronomy 19:16-21 – perjury. Jesus’ reference to it is in Matthew 5:38). This accusation overlooks two issues: one, that Jesus was telling his disciples how they should act in relation to another person, while the Mosaic stipulation is an issue of social order and justice. Punishments were to be carried out in the presence of the elders of the town, not like a lynching. Today, even if a person doesn’t press charges, the police might still charge the offender independently, if they have sufficient evidence without our testimony.

Even if we personally forgive the offender, we still need to consider the possibility they could offend again and hurt another person. We must also consider the issue of maintaining public order, safety and justice. Having a person receive the just penalty for their offence does not mean we hate them: their punishment can also be a means of rehabilitation – even if that is through fear of receiving the same punishment. It isn’t a positive or ideal motivation but if prevents them from offending again, it has a beneficial effect for society.

The second issue is that the “eye for eye” command was to protect people: to limit punishment, not to prescribe it. Have you heard of a vendetta? One person is hurt by another and their desire for justice becomes a crusade for revenge. Hatred escalates, involves other people and the end is far out of proportion to the original offence. This is what the “eye for eye” law – called lex talionis – was meant to prevent: overkill.

 

Normal service

…will be resumed asap. I have been writing but I’m easily distracted by shiny objects. Meanwhile, I’ve added a couple of images to the page titled, rather pompously in retrospect, ‘It’s called wit’.

Otherwise, I’ve been reading. All writers should read. Lots, and widely. Over the past weeks I’ve read “The Machine of Death”, and some biology, history, and philosophy. If I’m going to be a dilettante I might as well be widely read. As long as my articles and books are.

 

Questions science can’t answer.

Science is the best way to gain objective knowledge (that is, independent from what others tell us) about the world because its method uses two sources of authority: reason and experience.

However, some people say that science is the only source of trustworthy truth or knowledge. Terry Pratchett falls foul of this fallacy – that science provides the only truth – when he has Death say that belief in the Hogsfather is a small lie that prepares us to believe in the big lies, like love and justice. (The Hogsfather).

There are two problems with the assertion that science is the only source of true knowledge:

 

Homophobia unmasked.

There was a furore a couple of weeks ago because (according to what I read) an advertising company, Adshel, took down advertisements that sponsored safe sex between homosexual men. The pictures featured a real life couple in a half-embrace, with one of the men holding a condom.

As a result of the uproar, the ad was re-placed.

What interested me most was the use of the word “homophobic” to describe any person who denies that homosexuality should be considered a valid lifestyle choice [1].

 

Film Flame – “Ordet”

The Danish title means “The Word”. Karl Theodor Dreyer’s 1955 adaptation of Kaj Munk’s play, this is the only film I have seen where the plot is merely a device for character development.

Set in a village in Denmark, Morten Borgen (yes, really) is a farmer with three sons, Johannes, Mikkel and Anders. Mikkel and Anders work on their fathers farm cutting reeds, which must be the explanation for their lack of manly physique: there wasn’t a straight shoulder or broad chest among them. Mikkel is married to Inger, who is one of the three chief characters, and in my mind the most redoubtable. Anders is single but wants to marry Anne, the tailor’s daughter. However, the Borgens and the Petersens are of different faiths. This is the vehicle for the the chief plot (for want of a more apposite word), which is the animosity between and the village tailor, Peter Petersen; although animosity implies emotion.

 

Living in a Cave

Recently I listened to a talk by John Anderson, the former deputy PM. He quoted Toynbee, Muggeridge, the Chinese government and Peter Hitchens (brother of famous atheist Christopher) to show that western society is on the brink of going down the tubes. From Arnold Toynbee’s work, Anderson noted that the two factors evident in a society on the verge of social collapse are increased selfishness and apathy. (This was Toynbee’s conclusion after his study of 23 former great civilisations. External factors had an influence certainly, but the primary cause was internal dissolution.)

To selfishness and apathy, Anderson added a third, citing the three other sources: when people attempt to remove God from society [1]. Note that Malcolm Muggeridge used to be an atheist and saw the effects of both left-wing (communist) and right-wing (fascist) governments that were, in theory, practice or both, atheist. Coincidentally Peter Hitchens also used to be an atheist, is a journalist, and has seen life under governments in the USSR, Africa, and North Korea [2]. Anderson noted that a survey by the Chinese government showed that the more Christians there were in a society, the more agitation there was for the disenfranchised.