Philosophy archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for the 'Philosophy' Category

Debating the Existence of God: Some Definitions and the Burden of Proof

Published by Casey Huxley June 30, 2008 in Religion and Philosophy. 44 Comments

Defining terms is frequently half the battle in any discussion - and discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of god(s) is no exception. Often meaningful conversation is made impossible by conflicting sets of definitions. I see two main different sets of definitions in use. Unfortunately, dictionaries are often mixed on the issue. For the record, I’m an ex-Christian who is now a weak agnostic.

Popular Definitions
Perhaps the most common set of definitions are what I here term the popular definitions. It appears that most people who haven’t been involved in much debate on this issue will hold to definitions like these.

Atheist - someone who claims to know that god(s) and the supernatural don’t or can’t exist.

Agnostic - someone who isn’t sure if god(s) or the supernatural exists.

Theists - someone who is sure god(s) and/or the supernatural exists.

These definitions are flawed for a few reasons, but many people do seem to hold these or similar definitions. When they talk to someone who is using the more technical definitions, communication can be difficult.

Technical Definitions
Here are the more technical (and in my view, correct) definitions.

Atheist - is simply someone who is not a theist (hence a - theist). This means that they lack a belief in any god(s), but it doesn’t mean that they deny the possibility of god(s) or supernatural forces. This is the position of the “new atheists” (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) that have achieved much media discussion in recent years. They would say that while they can’t prove or state absolutely that a god doesn’t exist, they nevertheless don’t believe in one, and find the existence of one unlikely.

Recently the terms strong atheist and weak atheist have come into being. A weak atheist would be one as described in the above paragraph, whereas a strong atheist is as described in the popular definitions section. Those atheists who hold to the weak position appear to greatly outnumber those who hold to the strong position.

Agnosticism - literally means without knowledge. The agnostic position is that there is no evidence, or at least no good evidence, to suggest that god(s) exists or that god(s) doesn’t exist. Agnosticism also has a strong and weak division. Strong agnosticism states that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. Weak agnosticism states that existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown (in the “weakest” view, perhaps merely unknown to the specific agnostic in question), but is not necessarily unknowable.

Theist - simply someone who has a belief in god(s).

It’s important to note that in this set of definitions, that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic atheist - don’t know if god(s) existence and do not believe in any, or be an agnostic theist - don’t know if god(s) exist but believe in one (or more). Agnostic theists in theological terms are often called fideists, a term that emphasizes their position that religious questions are better (or only) answered by faith rather than by reason.

You can see how these two sets of definitions can lead to misunderstanding. A theist might challenge an atheist to prove that god(s) doesn’t exist. To which an atheist could very well reply that they can’t and that isn’t the position of atheism anyways.

Debate and the Burden of Proof
A key question, either overtly or covertly, in debates over the existence of god(s) is which side has the burden of proof. The atheist and the theist will likely insist that the other has to prove their position, and the agnostic is likely to agree with both of those statements. Atheists will say that they aren’t making a claim, and that the theist is, and therefore has the burden of proof. Theists will contest this.

In a debate, whichever side can force the other side to carry the burden of proof by making them defend their position more than they themselves have to, will often appear to have “won” the debate. Thus, the burden of proof issue is critical.

My personal view is that as long as the debate is about the existence of god(s) in general, theists and atheists should have an equal burden of proof. (With the atheist arguing that the position that the existence of god(s) is very unlikely). This changes though if the theist’s claim becomes more specific. If the theist is arguing for the existence of an omnipotent, loving god then they are making a greater claim and must suffer the greater burden of proof. And if the theist is arguing for a specific god or gods and that all other ones are false, then that is a very great claim and the theist must meet an extremely high burden of proof.

Game Review - Bioshock: Welcome to Rapture

Published by Ornot the Majestic June 17, 2008 in General, Essays, Politics and Philosophy. 6 Comments

Bioshock Logo I am Andrew Ryan and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose…
Rapture.
-Andrew Ryan

The year is 1946. Disillusioned with war and perceived religious and political authority, business mogul Andrew Ryan secretly begins building an escape, a utopia free from the parasites of Marxist altruism and religious scrutiny. He built Rapture, a city where man could build, where a man could make himself by his own merit, where a man could be free from moral entanglements and social obligations. He built “Rapture,” at the bottom of the sea. He invites all the great minds and free-thinkers to relish in his wonderland of libertopia, free to do as they please, how they please.

And then, in 1958, it all fell apart.

So begins the story of Bioshock, the newest game for XBOX 360 and PC from 2K, makers of System Shock and System Shock 2. Set in 1960, the story tells of an Objectivist dystopia at the height of ruin. You, the narrator, crash land into the mid-Atlantic near a mysterious island containing a lone lighthouse. You enter the lighthouse, board a bathysphere, and descend to the depths of Rapture. Leaking and crumbling, and apparently victim of its own design, you must fight the denizens of the genetically malformed and psychologically disturbed to discover its secrets, and its powers.

Unbridled by regulations and rules, scientists in Rapture discover the way to unlock the power of the human genome. Andrew Ryan creates (discovers?) Plasmids, a genetic code that gives humans additional strengths and powers including telekinesis, fire, ice and electricity and powered by EVE, a substance that acts as a fuel. Another substance, ADAM, enhances the ability of plasmids, but also weakens the physical/brain barrier, requiring more and more ADAM to maintain sanity. Soon, the residents of Rapture, horribly transfigured and addicted to ADAM, go crazy. And revolt.

The Philosophy of Rapture
Bioshock raises two important issues behind its symbolism:
1) Is this a game showing the futility of Objectivism, and its consequences? or…2) is this a game showing that regardless of intentions, man eventually falls to its basest of levels?

The makers of this game never tell us, which allows much room for interpretation.

If we assume #1, then creators have made some inherent flaws and assumptions, through which most can be attributed to #2. But before we start, let’s begin with some basic definitions.

Objectivism (from Wikipedia, a decent summarization) states:

Objectivism holds that there is mind-independent reality; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or “rational self-interest”; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one’s consciousness.

It is your moral duty to pursue your own self-interests, as long as those interests do not interfere or destroy the individual rights of others. This basic concept is key behind the objectivist movement, and a founding principle of (L)ibertarianism. It is also this concept that the game appears to make as its base in theory, but it could be argued that it was not Objectivism that brought Rapture down, but the fact that it was not quite Objectivist enough.

Food for Thought, and for Skeptics
Now I know by now many of you are thinking “BUT! IT’S JUST A GAME! YOU’RE CHASING SMOKE ON A WINDY DAY!” Well, possibly. But with it being the #1 selling game on XBOX, and with 9.8/10 or higher in most game review magazines, there is no doubt that this game will be played. Also, given its thought provoking plot, there is little doubt it will many raise questions. Consider also the Randian basis that this game builds upon, including the symbolism which alludes to famous works and characters of her novels. With names like Andrew Ryan….Frank Fontaine…Atlas…it’s not hard to see Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and notice it’s more than just coincidence. Like a good book, or a good movie, this game was meant to raise questions and be explored.
Continue reading ‘Game Review - Bioshock: Welcome to Rapture’

Simulated Identities

Published by cchrisr June 12, 2008 in Philosophy. 2 Comments

Baudrillard has become somewhat famous in popular culture through the play on his ideas in the movie The Matrix where an astute viewer can see the image of his face appear as a ghostly haunting throughout the film (he also helped in the writing and production of the film). However, he has been “famous” for some time in contemporary philosophy as one of the pioneers in theorizing about the body and the images. In his book, Impossible Exchange, he proposes a progression of simulation which can be seen in two examples: capital and identity.

The first progression is that from the object to signs. In other words, an object begins with some kind of arbitrary value which is the basis for exchange. Money and capital as we know it did not exist at this level. We can see this in action with historical transactions between two entities: I exchange ten pounds of fertilizer and receive 25 gallons of milk. However, the progression to signs involves a kind of “standardization” in which each objects value is given a relatively static exchange ratio: a gallon of milk will be 4 units of this new sign–be it a dollar or whatever. At this point, the object becomes a commodity that is freely exchangeable in the market; it has become a simulation of the object.

This ability to be exchanged brings about the second progression: fetishism. A fetish is a perversion of the object that further removes it from the “real” object. It becomes a “pure, unrepresentable, unexchangeable object–yet a nondescript one” (Baudrillard, Impossible Exchange, 129). Here, the object is taken to the point of being a desire for the sake of desire. Zizek sees this best in the example of Caffeine free Diet Coke: it lacks everything that makes “Coke” “Coke” but it is the pure semblance of Coke, “an artificial promise of a substance which never [materializes]” (Zizek, The Fragile Absolute, 22). The fetish is not just a simulation of a simulation (what Baudrillard calls a simulacra) but it is also devoid of the “original” object: it is the nothingness itself.

Here we can see the final progression: the spectre (or phantasm). The object now becomes an unrepresented non-being which haunts the “real.” Not only does the object become a simulation, but even its component parts become simulated: Toyota cars are manufactured 60% in the USA.

Perhaps the best example of this progression is in the phenomena called “reality TV.” These shows are no more real than “normal TV”: absurd scenarios with unreal events, simulated events, false personas, etc. Here, the actors are not given a particular role but rather play their own made-up role, an idealized, distorted self-image.

A direct corollary can be seen in that of The Matrix where those in the “real world” are projected back into the “virtual” world of the Matrix as imagined bodies. One’s identity in the “real world” is fragmented and distorted as the Matrix is treated as being more real than real, a hyperreality. As the end of The Matrix trilogy shows: there is no real distinction between the “real” world and that of the Matrix because one’s identity is a composite of fragments from many different “worlds” which reach across all the boundaries.

Where does all of this leave identity? A poster put up in Berlin in 1994 poked fun at loyalties to identities: “Your Christ is a Jew. Your car is Japanese. Your pizza is Italian. Your democracy–Greek. Your coffee–Brazilian. Your holiday–Turkish. Your numbers–Arabic. Your letters–Latin. Only your neighbour is a foreigner” (quoted from Zygmunt Bauman, Identity, 27). As the above progression of simulation is explored, it will become more obvious that “‘belonging’ and ‘identity’ are not cut in rock, that they are not secured by a lifelong guarantee, that they are eminently negotiable and revocable; and that one’s own decisions, the steps one takes, the way one act–and the determination to stick by all that–are crucial factors of both” (Bauman, 11).

Global Warming: Markets or Socialism? Part I

Published by Colin April 8, 2008 in Essays, Politics and Philosophy. 11 Comments

While global warming no longer seems to be the issue of the day (that is, I am not hearing about it every five minutes on cable news), there is still much fear and trepidation about what exactly we are to do about it. I have decided to proceed as though Global Warming is a significant problem and that it is man-made, or at least significantly so, despite yet being convinced of this last point. I want to take a look at what kind of approaches we have open to us in the event of such a dire scenario.

Philosophically, we generally have two structures to work with - a capitalist/market-based solution or a socialist/collectivist solution.

The Socialist Solution
A socialist solution holds the collective good (as defined in units as small as a single company’s union, a state, nation or even a global community but no smaller than two), above everything as principle. Global warming, like global anything (hunger, disease, war, etc..) is best solved through collectives owning and distributing (by force against the individual) the solutions to these problems through central planning. If a threat is seen as dire, a collective-wide plan will be established by popular elites and experts to deal with the solution in the spirit of utilitarianism. Compliance will be mandatory for all individuals who are part of the collective. This solution includes anything that follows these principles - carbon taxes, carbon caps, mandated alternative energies, subsidies to energy corporations, etc…

Socialism declares that people are not educated, motivated or otherwise able to make the best decision for themselves so the collective, on their behalf, will help them comply which what the collective deems is in their best rational interest. Moreover, people’s greed and selfishness creates exploitative relationships between people (virtual masters and slaves) and also between people and resources.

The Capitalist Solution
A capitalist solution holds individual rights above everything as principle. Global warming, like global anything (hunger, disease, war, etc..) is best solved through the voluntary cooperation of individuals all acting in their own self interest as determined by their own priorities. In the same way you don’t have to compel people to defend themselves from hordes of Hunns, you should not need to compel people to defend against a global catastrophe such as the worst prognostics of global warming.

If the threat is seen as dire, people on all levels of the world will act voluntarily - they won’t need to be forced. Individuals will cut down on their carbon use. Corporations will invest in earth-friendly technology. Insurance companies will start assessing risk. People will readily give up money, time and energy to preserve themselves in the face of such a threat.

Any other industry-wide, market-wide or even global-wide crisis is dealt with in this manner. Consider global sickness and disease: the market produced and built healthcare systems (through insurance and risk management) purely out of self-interest. Look at the crisis of financial accountability - the market creates independent standards and audit commissions to self-regulate. Even the global problem of standardizing communication and media devices - all done by people acting in self-interest without government.

Thus, if there is a disconnect between industry leaders and the more extreme global warming predictions, it’s not because of bottom line self-interest, but clearly because business leaders have not been convinced of the problem. The other option is that there really isn’t a major problem, but we are presuming the worst in this article.
Continue reading ‘Global Warming: Markets or Socialism? Part I’

Vico And Calvin, Part 2

Published by Bryan March 4, 2008 in General and Philosophy. 2 Comments

This is part two in a two part series examining the similarities and differences in Vico and Calvin’s understanding of providence. Part one here.

Vico’s Providence
The differences in what providence is able to accomplish has consequences for one’s understanding of free will. Vico’s understanding of providence and free will is often difficult to make sense of. At some points he seems to suggest that providence cannot overcome a person’s will, yet at others it appears as if providence can. This can be seen when comparing sections 310 and 341.

In 310 Vico states:

And therefore it demonstrates the Catholic principles of grace: this it operates in man when his condition is one not of negation but of privation of good works, and hence of a potentially for them which is ineffectual; that is gives effect to this potentiality and this it therefore cannot act without the principle of free choice, which God aids naturally by His providence.

Yet in 341, Vico says:

Therefore it is only by divine providence that he can be held within these institutions to practice justice as a member of the society of the family, of the city, and finally of mankind.

In the first section Vico appears to be saying that mankind has the ability to do good works, and that ability is aided by providence, yet in the second section it is only by divine providence that mankind can be just which might negate free will. Since Calvin also has to deal with the issue of providence and free will, and he does so in a more direct way. It will serve us to examine his view at this point and then, returning to Vico’s to compare, attempt to make sense of the possible inconsistency.

Calvin’s Providence
Calvin’s understanding of providence does away with anything that can rightly be called a free will (Calvin does hold on to the term but removes choice from it as seen in Institutes II. II. VII.). He is clear when he says:

That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of scripture. (Calvin I. XVIII. I.)

There is no action that God does not govern by His providence, no chance, and no possibilities, everything is directly determined by God through His providence. Combined with the understanding that God is an all determining being is Calvin’s own unique take on biblical anthropology. Not only does he hold to the understanding that in the biblical fall mankind became corrupted, but also lost the ability to do any good work on his own which we shall see is more radical a position then Vico. Again Calvin is unambiguous;

All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace… (Calvin II. II. VI).

Although it would be easy to assume that Vico’s providence removes free will and makes God into some kind of being similar to Calvin’s God, the role for providence and the free will he imagines mankind as having must be less deterministic then what Calvin proposes. The fact that Vico speaks of providence aiding and not determining mankind shows that there is a vast difference in the way these two men understand God working among mankind, but how exactly does Vico’s understanding of providence and free will differ from Calvin?

The differences between the two thinkers starts with their understanding of the state of mankind. Although both agree that mankind has undergone some kind of corruption, the extent of that corruption is different. For Calvin, this corruption is total. There is nothing good left in mankind, all ability mankind may have had to do good before the fall is gone, and all that remains now is our capacity and drive to commit evil (Calvin II. II. XXVII.). Although Vico agrees with Calvin that mankind is corrupted, he would see Calvin as taking that corruption too far. When in section 310, Vico gives his most complete account of the fall of mankind he says; “…that man is not unjust by nature in the absolute sense, but by nature fallen and weak.” Vico seems then to hold a position that recognizes mankind being in a corrupt state, but a corrupt state that has only weakened their will to do good, not fully destroying it. This weakened will then allows Vico to hold on to the notion of a free will. The will may be partial to doing what is wrong, but it can be directed to do good. However, how can this be squared with Vico’s statement in section 341?
Continue reading ‘Vico And Calvin, Part 2′

Vico And Calvin, Part 1

Published by Bryan February 19, 2008 in Philosophy. 10 Comments

This is part 1 in a series comparing the Italian Philosopher Giambattista Vico’s understanding of providence with that of John Calvin’s understanding. Vico is for the vast majority of people an obscure philosopher, but his thoughts on providence, and why he holds to the view he does, are worth examining. All quotes from Vico are from his New Science, while all quotes from Calvin are from his Institutes of Christian Religion.

One of the major themes throughout Vico’s The New Science is providence. It is important to understand his philosophy of providence (even though it is not always the easiest idea to understand) since it effects all other areas of his philosophy. Because Vico does not systematically set out his understanding of providence, but instead threads it throughout his discussions of history, freedom, and God - great care is needed to understand exactly what is meant in regards to providence and the implications that follow from it.

To aid in this task, it is useful to compare his understanding of providence with another philosopher who also has a robust, but more systematic understanding, of it. Within this essay, John Calvin will be used to fulfill this task. Comparing Vico’s and Calvin’s views will not only be philosophically interesting but theologically as well. Although both were Christian philosophers/theologians, Vico was a Renaissance Catholic writer whose lived from 1668-1744, while Calvin was a Protestant Reformer who lived from 1509-1564.

Providence in Vico - Progress Through Institutions
To begin to understand the concept of providence in Vico, one must first determine the purpose it serves within his philosophy. One of the main questions in The New Science is how civilizations arise, fall and arise again; in essence, he is trying to understand how civil society progresses. To do this, he believes that an understanding of providence is necessary, he even lays out his task as setting up “a rational civil theology of divine providence” (Vico 342).

Why does he need a philosophy of providence to achieve this? Many people today look to economic, sociological, technological, or cultural factors to understand the progression of civilizations without reference to providence. Unlike many contemporary writers, Vico is working within the framework of historic Christianity, and therefore must deal with a biblical anthropology. Civilizations are made up of humans, and according to Christianity those humans are in a fallen state. As Vico explains;

But men, because of their corrupt nature, are under the tyranny of self-love, which compels them to make private utility their chief guide. Seeking everything useful for themselves and nothing for their companions, they cannot bring their passions under control to direct them towards justice. (Vico 341)

A corrupt civilization left to their own devices would not progress, but degrade. Vico recognizes this, but sees a solution in divine providence. Mankind is not left to their own devices but God, through divine providence, aids mankind (Vico 136). It is therefore divine providence that allows a civilization to avoid self-destruction, move forward, and be just, which why it is so central to Vico’s thought. Providence therefore has worked throughout the history of the world by allowing humans to develop institutions that moved our civilizations forward (Vico 342). This providence is not personal, and is difficult to see in the moment, but when Vico looks back at history he believes that one can see how providence worked through ordinary action to bring history to the point it is now at. In this brief sketch of Vico’s understanding of providence there is much that is similar in a broad sense to how Calvin understands providence, but when the details are sorted out the ideas diverge in important ways.

Calvin’s Providence - God “Holds the Helm”
Like Vico, Calvin takes the biblical story of the fall of mankind from perfection to a corrupt nature seriously; “All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace…” (Calvin II. II. VI.) Unlike Vico’s work, Calvin’s main concern in The Institutes of Christian Religion is not an understanding of how civilizations work, but an exposition of the Christian faith. However the question of government is not far from his mind (Calvin II. II. III.), and he therefore understands the implications of this biblical anthropology as well as Vico does.

As with Vico, Calvin also sees providence as a way of overcoming man’s corrupt nature, however the divergence between Vico and Calvin can already be begun to be seen on this point. In book one, chapter 16 of The Institutes of Christian Religion Calvin defines providence;

First, then, let the reader remember that the providence we mean is not one by which the Deity, sitting idly in heaven, looks on at what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it were, holds the helm, and overrules all events. (Calvin I. XVI. IV.)

For Calvin, providence involves God watching over, and controlling all things that take place in the world. It is not that God’s providence allows humans to do good as Vico holds, but that it is God who does the good in spite of humanity. Both views use a kind of providence to overcome the problem of how a corrupt civilization can bring about good things, but uses that providence in radically different ways which will be explored further next time.

To be continued in part 2

Forgiveness, Justice, and the Death of Jesus

Published by Jasen Tracy January 21, 2008 in Religion and Philosophy. 6 Comments

You have probably heard a common Christian argument that goes something like this:

God is completely holy and cannot abide the presence of sin. Since God is also completely just, He cannot allow sin to go unpunished. He cannot simply forgive sin without there being some sort of satisfaction for sin (this argument typically focuses on personal sins, and not original sin).

We of course, can do nothing ourselves to either earn forgiveness by works or by punishment we suffer. God then sent Jesus, who suffered the penalty for our sins, and therefore we can have forgiveness through faith in Jesus. God is still holy and just because Jesus’ death takes away our sin and sin is punished.

An example of this is a well-known email that has made its rounds around the world. It depicts God as a judge who finds the defendant guilty. He then takes the penalty on himself, and is then able to pardon the defendant since the offense had been paid for. The idea is that if God had simply pardoned the defendant without there being a penalty paid, then God would be unjust judge that allowed sin to exist without punishment (implicitly endorsing it).

My question is: how exactly is it just that the innocent is punished for the guilty? Furthermore, with the whole Trinity concept, Jesus is God. So, not only is an innocent party punished, it’s actually the party the was wronged that is punished (defining sin as an offense against God). But somehow, this innocent and wronged party (the Trinity) couldn’t, or perhaps wouldn’t, forgive us until He had been had taken the penalty Himself.

I understand from the perspective of grace, but how can it be termed just?

The Authoritarianism of the Candidates

Published by Colin January 2, 2008 in Politics, Current Events and Philosophy. 39 Comments

I have been wanting to take the time to make a master list of the candidates ranked on one criteria - authoritarian versus libertarian. In my opinion, it is the most important criteria and demonstrates whether a president will increase the role of government in the lives of American citizens or decrease it. It is also is an key indicator which has no bearing on left and right (anymore), and so it is inherently non-partisan.

The Premise of Authority
The general idea is that one spectrum in society is as follows:

<– Authority ———————— Freedom –>

Aside from the traditional view of:

<– Conservative ———————– Liberal –>

Authoritarians believe that there is a clear need in society for rulers and ruled, for servants and masters. For example, without government - man will destroy society, without religion - man will destroy morality, without rulers - man will destroy one another. Authoritarianism presumes the inherent moral goodness of some men (rulers, lawmakers, judges, priests) and an inherent leaning towards rebellion, disorder, anarchy and hedonism in other men. Modern authoritarian solutions to these issues have included both right (fascism, monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy) and left ideas (socialism, communism, democracy), but they are all near the authoritarian side of the spectrum.

Application to the Candidates
Here is a look at where the candidates fall on a graph of authoritarianism versus libertarianism:
Continue reading ‘The Authoritarianism of the Candidates’

Donald Miller’s Lifeboat Theory

Published by Jasen Tracy December 24, 2007 in Religion, Christian Books and Philosophy. 3 Comments

One of the main ideas in Searching For God Knows What, is an idea I’ll call the Lifeboat Theory. It serves as a sort of personality theory, or an alternative or addition to something like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

The Lifeboat Theory’s name comes from the classic lifeboat scenario which is an exercise in “values clarification” that is sometimes used in schools. The scenario pictures a number of different people who have different backgrounds, belief systems, attributes, capabilities, etc. It’s also revealed that there’s not enough room or supplies for everyone, and that a person (or people) have to be selected to leave the lifeboat (and presumably be left to their death). The class then discusses who should be ejected from the lifeboat and why.

The basic idea of Miller’s theory is that people have the need for something outside themselves to tell them who they are, and that this thing seems to be gone. Because this something seems to be gone, people often let other people tell them what their identity and purpose are. Miller found this idea to be of much greater use than the other personality theories he had studied:

It explained why I wanted to be seen as smart, why religious people wanted so desperately to be right, why Shirley MaClaine wanted to be God, and just about everything else a human did.

All of us are in the lifeboat, if we weren’t, feelings like pride, jealousy, and embarrassment would be foreign to us. We also wouldn’t get so upset when we feel we are disrespected. We get upset because when someone disrespects us, it’s a message that they think they we are less important than they are. That really shouldn’t matter, but it often feels to us that there is some sort of punishment for being thought less of; we fear that if people regard us as less important we’ll be thrown out of the lifeboat.

This is why cliques and the battle for popularity in schools and workplaces can be so vicious; it’s the establishment of a hierarchy with a punishment for those at the bottom. It’s why people like to associate with winners. Miller notes that some people (as he did) will say “we won” when their favorite team wins, but say “they lost” when they lose. People do not want to be associated with a loser. It’s why arguments over such silly things as if a movie is good or not can become heated, having wrong opinions can also be dangerous in the lifeboat.

This commercial reminded me of this idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4HalGc6Ypk

Why does the driver care that his passenger may find he has “uncool” music? It’s because he’s operating in a lifeboat mentality.

There are ways to make sure you survive in the lifeboat: be an athlete, have good looks, be intelligent, have lots of money, be right. Basically, it’s to have or be something that the people of the world value. Another way is to participate in racism or other types of discrimination, that way there’s a whole group of people on the list to get thrown out of the lifeboat before you.

Miller says that this situation, this being in the lifeboat, is a result of the Fall. God had given Adam and Eve their meaning, but now separated from Him, people are desperately scrambling for something to tell them who they are. As Miller puts in:

All this is to say that when the Bible indicates life comes from God, and death comes from separation from God, it makes complete sense, and this truth serves as an explanation for all of our feelings, for the ways in which we entertain ourselves, and for the general precepts of the human plot. Without Him, we feel that we are being thrown out of a boat.

Weekly Links: Church and State

Published by Colin December 14, 2007 in Religion, Politics, Current Events and Philosophy. 4 Comments

Several items related to church and state issues this week. First of, Ayaan Hirsi Ali wonders why Islam’s moderates are silent.

It is this order to choose Allah above his sense of conscience and compassion that imprisons the Muslim in a mindset that is archaic and extreme.

This call is for an inter-religion reform, that is, one made without government intervention it seems. Ironic, from a religion which holds a dominant position in the governments of several countries.

But then again, the US Government is actively promoting religion these days as well. U.S. House Resolution #847, Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith, was easily passed Tuesday. While its still pretty far from institutionalizing religion ala Islam or England, it was obviously more important than getting a budget out.

Lastly, the state seems to be coming down hard on a particular religion in Germany as the country moves to ban Scientology.

From a number of sources, some of them not available to the public, it has been determined that (the organization) seeks to limit or rescind basic and human rights, such as the right to develop one’s personality and the right to be treated equally.

Though in our forums, Christopher Roussel has argued that things might not be so cut and dried.

CNN isn’t always the best source for news in other countries. This article link from the German news agency Deutsche Welle explains that some members of the government are trying to ban it, in addition to its perceived ties to the far-right political group NPD.* The CNN article makes it seem like it’s a done deal. Spiegel also has an article (in English: link).

More Religion: the Pope approves a special indulgence.

Political Links
This new Ron Paul ad declares the easy way to end the income tax.

A robot heckles Bill Clinton in Iowa.

Philosophy
An interesting article on Expiremental Philosophy by Kwame Anthony Appiah.

Kant: Wrong for America

Christmas
12 Days of Christmas. Kinda.

Zeal For Truth