Psychology Denialism and 'Big Government'

An interesting discussion with a neighbor of mine ensued today when he and I started talking about local politics. We eventually started talking about republican candidates for president and I told him that I would love to see Sarah Palin run because the race would be quite entertaining and silly. He responded and said that she has some great ideas, but the media is out to make her look stupid. I asked him to clarify what these great ideas were and responded saying that while people in the media may make people believe that she is stupid, Palin's speeches, appearances, and ideas make her look very silly and make her a candidate to be laughed at. My neighbor mentioned that her ideas consisted of 'people fending for themselves,' 'being a man,' and not wanting big government to carry people. He explained that people can fend for themselves no matter what.

I objected to all of these points and I asked him to clarify his terms. He defined 'being a man' roughly as 'toughening up' and making things work for yourself. Aside from the patriarchal undertones which I objected to/his using of this term, I understood his point and mentioned that people are often victims of circumstances and cannot always fend for themselves without help from the government or even others. I mentioned various cases such as single mothers who have little opportunities for jobs [and only high school education or ever less]. I mentioned persons with mental illnesses, physical disabilities, and other various limitations. I mentioned disaster victims. I mentioned children in dysfunctional families who simply can't provide for themselves...

My neighbor objected to the idea of mental disorders and other limitations because he believes that people can fend for themselves no matter what. Defending this, he appealed to one person with mental disabilities who is local to me who works a job and can function. Even though he has disabilities, he said, he can still 'fend for himself' and doesn't need government assistance. I objected saying that he's committing a sampling error: you can't just look at one person with one or some disabilities and then say that every person who is disadvantaged can 'fend for themselves.' Many, while they may be diagnosed with a mental disorder, have different levels of diagnoses: some may be fully-functioning, low-functioning, or quite disabled. Some people simply can't hold jobs and don't have money to purchase their medications, and their mental disabilities can limit their daily activities to quite a debilitating level. Just because one person or some people with mental disabilities can 'fend for themselves' does not mean that all can.

At this point, my neighbor started to object to diagnoses by levying the 'classic' 'scientists are always wrong' objection. I wasn't going to let this one pass and started to talk about what science is, what scientists want to do, and about how science is self-correcting. Of course scientists can be wrong, but what they do is offer what we can know today given the evidence. Scientists, if and when wrong, should not discount the whole of science, but rather should be welcomes because we can substitute wrong information with more accurate information.

While some people may be misdiagnosed/some psychologists may overdiagnose, this doesn't mean that the whole of psychology should be thrown out. Diagnoses are made through a combination of testing, definitions derived from diagnostic manuals, etc. Persons with mental disorders may be able to function better than others or not noticeably (at least to the general public) be impaired in some areas of life. To deny psychology because scientists were wrong about some things or because some persons can deal with their impairments better than others is extremely fallacious.

Instead of responding to these arguments (or perhaps simply admitting defeat), my neighbor tried a new argument that was quite odd. He mentioned that some famous brilliant scientists were considered to be 'crazy' by their neighbors and the public and that if we prescribed medications to these people, we wouldn't have had so many scientific advances today. Notice, first, the inherent special pleading here: while this person said that scientists are always wrong, he then cherry-picks and admits that some scientists were indeed right and then fails to understand how scientific advancements take place. It matters not what a scientist's disposition is, but rather whether their ideas are correct. Many scientists in the past and even today may be considered 'crazy,' like my neighbor mentioned, but this matters not if their ideas are correct. It's also not the case that we would not have advanced scientifically if we prescribed medicine to past scientists or if we believed that had mental disorders.

Taking his argument a step further in a new awkward direction, my neighbor mentioned that 'big government' did not hold these scientists back and now, because government is so big and because we have an advanced understanding of human psychology, we're 'suppressing' scientists. This is a very weird claim because federal funding, although it is not as much as it should be, is assisting scientists...and what does advanced psychological understanding have to do with our advancement of science? All sorts of scientists may struggle with mental disorders, but they can still 'do their science' and contribute. Advanced psychological understanding isn't a 'tool' of 'big government' that is used to stop scientific progress.

Finished with this discussion, I returned to other situations in which people are victims of circumstance, specifically disaster victims. He said that people who are effected by natural disasters simply shouldn't live where they live and should have insurance...
He said that he has insurance on his house [in an area of Pennsylvania where natural disasters very rarely, if ever, happen] and can 'fend for himself' without 'big government' stepping in. People who are in disaster-prone areas often have little to no options and a mass exodus of people 'moving out' simply just can't happen. Where are these people going to go? Who will provide these people with money?

I explained to my neighbor that we don't have a utopia where everyone has a great family, good social support, and lots of money to provide for themselves. It's rather hard in this economy, especially, for good jobs to just suddenly spring up and recruit all unemployed and disadvantaged persons. Persons don't have some sort of unrestricted free will like my neighbor espouses. Save the more difficult and engaging idea of whether or not we free will from a philosophical perspective, people are largely limited by their genetics, environment, and their opportunities. Everyone is not wealthy enough to 'fend for themselves' and government is often needed to provide for the general public. While some people may 'cheat the system' and be irresponsible, many are really well-intentioned persons who are simply disadvantaged. While some programs can be cut and while there is wasteful spending and bureaucracy, there's no reason to think of government as some evil force that is suppressing people and giving out free rides to undeserving people who can 'man up' and 'fend for themselves.' This largely republican mindset* simply doesn't pan out when faced with criticisms that I levied against my neighbor.

As always, feel free to offer some ideas by commenting on my blog post. This is largely about a discussion I had with my neighbor and can't possibly offer objections to all who don't agree with my ideas/think that government should be largely eliminated from our lives in terms of social programs, disaster relief, etc.



*Some libertarians (and other republicans), while not identifying as republican, may, of course, not be like my neighbor and have less extreme ideas, but many often cast the ideas of 'big government' and unrestrained human freedom with the 'everyone can and should fend for themsleves' mentality. This, as I noted, may be true for some, but certainly is not for all persons. Many are victims of circumstances and don't have the same opportunities as others. We can't all possibly pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, live the 'American Dream,' and live without aid from the government.

Barletta Bars People From Recording Town Hall Meetings

In February of 2011, I attended a town hall meeting of congressmen Lou Barletta and Tom Marino at King's College and was astonished when I heard both persons defending their positions and explaining their ideas about government. I've also been discussing Marino and Barletta's ideas on Facebook and have been very critical of them.

Recent news, though, has taken the cake. Lou Barletta wants to ban individuals from recording town hall meetings and only wants to allow media representatives to record these public meetings. According to Barletta's spokesman, one of the reasons for doing this is that people are afraid to speak up and ask questions at these public meetings. This reason is a very poor one.

Transparency of our government is very important. People should be allowed to record and publish what their elected officials are saying at open meetings and should not be stopped from doing so. Banning individuals from recording open meetings is quite draconian and resembles a very closed government in which all cannot participate and learn about their elected representatives. Public town hall meetings are not accessible for everyone because people have other obligations such as work, are limited because of location, etc. Recording of public town hall meetings allows for all constituents and even persons outside of the local area to be informed voters who can participate in one way or another in their state government process. Banning recording of meetings makes many people political outsiders and makes these meetings very exclusive.

Shame on Lou Barletta. I'm not going to take this sitting down. I called Barletta's office today and was told that there are no scheduled official meetings yet, but this does not matter. I want to attend these meetings (and have) and will not have my rights violated by Lou Barletta.

I'm going to do something about this beyond just authoring this blog post.

Stay tuned for updates and details.

***

Other news articles about Barletta's banning of recording public town hall meetings are here:

AP - Citizens Voice

AP - Daily Item

Final Thoughts on my Catholic College Education

I recently graduated with degrees in psychology and philosophy from King's College, a Catholic liberal arts college, and was generally satisfied with my education. I will offer a short summary of my experience at King's and provide some criticism and positive thoughts.

When I arrived at King's, I was a theist who recently completed CCD classes and was confirmed by the Catholic Church. My religious beliefs were not really questioned and I never decided to question my own beliefs. I attended King's College mainly because it was local and because the college provided a good deal of financial aid. While I was a theist upon going to college, the idea of a 'Catholic College' did not influence my decision. In my first year of college, I didn't really try very hard and simply drifted through. I hardly attended any events, didn't bother to make many friends on campus, and kept with my old group of friends. I gained about two or three friends, but that was about it. The 'Catholic component' of King's was almost completely optional for students save the forced abstaining from meat in dining locations on Fridays and the references to God in speeches made by college officials at college events. I didn't attend any Catholic events in my first year and didn't attend any sort of mass either.

During my second year of college, I became more involved in the college community. I started attending various events on campus and started to engage with religious thought toward the end of my fourth semester. Some friends of mine challenged my religious beliefs and I had no adequate answer to provide, so I was compelled to research and see whether or not my beliefs were warranted. I also was challenged by one of my philosophy classes and an on-campus event I attended dealing with atheism. I came to the conclusion that beliefs about the supernatural were very important, so I was going to investigate and determine whether or not my beliefs should be maintained. After this event, I purchased a copy of The God Delusion and started to watch debates online, read some more books, and eventually deconverted.

After my second year of college and before my third year, I began working with the Secular Student Alliance to start an college club for secular students. I created a Facebook page for the groups with over 75 members and had a decent list of interested students. It was very difficult to get a faculty member to be the advisor for this club because many feared backlash from the community and threats to their jobs. I finally found one person who was willing to sign on (perhaps because he had tenure). I went through all of the steps required to start a campus group, but was ultimately denied after several months and several appeals. A quorum of officials at King's voted 'no' on my club citing that King's College hosting a secular club was against the mission statement of the college. I appealed this, but got nowhere. Simply because I wanted this club to exist, I started to get extreme backlash from students. I had people yelling in my face, starting hate groups on Facebook, and intruding on my Facebook profile. This, of course, was quite disappointing. I became quite a pariah on campus and without even knowing me, people sent very nasty messages to me.

In December of 2009, I objected to a county courthouse religious display and received more hate from students including physical threats of violence, hate mail, and other nonsense from students and residents of Luzerne County. It was and is very evident that religion could be very harmful...and I finally experienced this firsthand. Despite all of my attempts to 'reach out' to the community including this blog and media interviews, people still were hate-filled.

I started to notice huge structural problems at my school. King's is a Catholic school and a liberal arts school, but both of these worlds cannot peacefully coexist. The liberal arts aspect of the education stresses critical thinking, need for evidence, and thoughtfully examining all sides of issues before taking a stance, but the Catholic component of King's embraced belief without good evidence (faith) and praised this in the area of religion, but, of course, not any others. Why make an exception for religion when every other area of your life is backed by sufficient argument, evidence, and reason? Although Catholics talk about reasoned faith, faith is anything but this. If there were good reason to believe in any supernatural claims, faith simply would never have to enter into the picture.

The academic freedom of many non-theistic teachers was also greatly reduced because of a chilling effect; if teachers publicly spoke out against Catholic ideas, they'd face consequences and may have their jobs or chances of receiving tenure threatened.

During my third year, I asked for help establishing a secular club from the diversity coordinator (who no longer works at King's College), but she offered no help whatsoever. I was quite frustrated with this and openly noted a huge problem here...King's is supposed to welcome all sorts of people and more specifically, the office of diversity is supposed to help minorities who wish to gain recognition at the college and want some sort of help, but this simply was not the case. Diversity at King's, unfortunately, was mainly about ethnicity and skin color, but not diversity of ideas. Inter-faith discussions or even faith discussions (save some events) were not about critical examination and tough questions, but rather encouraged a 'believe what you want to believe and let people say whatever they want and you shouldn't question them' attitude. Some students objected to me questioning the people at these events even though they said 'ask any questions' and my questions were quite mild! For shame! Thankfully, the diversity office now has a new coordinator who is making steps in the right direction, although I don't envision a secular club any time soon.

Whenever someone clearly lost an argument with me, the trump card of 'this is a Catholic College' was the main non-sequiter. People constantly levied this objection to so many of my pursuits and used this as a last line of defense instead of actually considering my points. When my secular club was refused, I went 'at war' with the campus Knights of Columbus group who blatantly violated college rules because they only allowed Catholic males aged 18 and up who were in 'good standing with the church.' I objected to their existence, but these objections were only met with 'this is a Catholic College' and hateful responses from some members. One officer of the female version of the Knights of Columbus, in quite a futile attempt, tried to respond to my objections and wondered how I am even a student at King's (as if they should kick me out or something?).

There is a huge problem when a college won't allow a secular club but will allow a Catholic-only club. This made me feel like an outsider in the community, but I wouldn't be silenced, marginalized, or rendered invisible like other atheist students who are and were afraid to speak up and be seen.

I find it interesting that my college experience at a Catholic school seemed to lead me to deconvert. My success at King's was in spite of its Catholic identity both personally and academically. My education played a major role, toward the end of my undergraduate career, in strengthening my non-belief. I attended many events involving Christianity during my last two years of college and found no good reasons to accept the claims of the religious. I met some really horrible apologists and students in classes who were Catholic, but never examined the arguments against their beliefs. I constantly heard nonsense from students saying 'you can't disprove God' time and time again. Students claimed that faith was a valid pathway to knowledge although they couldn't give reasons for their beliefs. The entire college campus failed to accept my debate challenge that was put forth in September of 2010. For all of the emphasis on Christianity at the campus, few were willing to defend their faith as 1 Peter 3:15 suggested and there appeared to be a profound lack of people who actually really thought about their beliefs and answered objections to atheists like myself.

I look at my experiences at King's and am quite happy with the person I am now and am relieved to be free of religious belief. A great deal of my work in the past two years or so, represented on this blog, was very intellectually fulfilling. I had great experiences as an atheist that I never would have had as a theist even if I wasn't a 'practicing Catholic.' In just two years, I accomplished a great deal and made a huge impact on my community. I was very well-known at King's and hopefully influenced others to think about their beliefs. Hopefully I encouraged many people to no be afraid to criticize religion. Hopefully I made some faculty and staff very happy because I was a voice for those who are forced to be silent until they get tenure. I know that there are many atheist students and staff at King's College who are afraid to speak up or can't speak up because of their jobs or for social reasons, but I was a voice for those who could not have one. Those who were forced to be silent really inspired me to speak up and do something because they could not.

I didn't buy a brick at King's College that would bear my name in Monarch Court, a central area in the college, but I know that my work and actions will remain known at King's College. I was, without a doubt, the most influential atheist activist (and perhaps one of the only ones) and profoundly influenced the thoughts of many on campus. Even if people aren't going to reflect about their beliefs or even if people think I'm a stupid jackass, I made a difference...and that's all that I really can hope to do. My efforts are not pointless just because I failed to deconvert many people, as some atheists may think. Some atheists may also think that my efforts were pointless because many people won't really think about the issues, but the seeds were planted and fellow atheists have benefited. Even if my work or the work of other atheists fails to deconvert anyone, we're building a strong community and are finally being recognized. While the 'race' is slow and steady, the 'atheist movement' is growing bigger and bigger and the 'community' is very strong. Recent young atheist activists such as Jessica Ahlquist and Damon Folwer are making waves and also inspiring others to speak up.

While I've mainly focused on the negative/hate mail I've received, I've also received tons of support. I've been 'promoted' to a board member and co-organizer of my local group of atheists, have been featured in a book about controversy in Northeastern Pennsylvania and have also accompanied the author on a book tour, and have received a distinguished award for philosophy from King's College. I've learned a tremendous amount of information in so many areas of life and am much more educated because I am an atheist. Might I have been inspired to really think about my beliefs and be more educated if I were still a theist? Probably not. While many theists, of course, are quite intelligent and educated, I don't think that I'd be as well-versed as I am today if I were still a theist. If my beliefs were never challenged, this blog would never have existed, I wouldn't have had many great experiences in the past two years, and my life would probably be quite boring.

I emerged as an atheist from my Catholic College and have come to the conclusion that belief in any gods is unsubstantiated. As a theist, I didn't have my reasons for belief, but now have reasons for my disbelief as an atheist and can and have dictated such reasons. I'm now open to change any and all of my given beliefs about any matter provided that new information is presented, but I'm still waiting for a stellar apologist to come forth and convince me that any gods exist. Despite its Catholic identity, King's led me away from my faith and I'm very happy about that. Many students will probably persist in their belief, but hopefully they will really consider their beliefs and come to the conclusion that they had no good reasons to believe. I don't know about others, but life is much more fulfilling as an atheist than it is as a theist.

My professors at King's College greatly influenced me...and they know who they are. I've spent countless hours in the offices of some staff and faculty at King's College and have tremendously benefited. Classes, also, were very thought-provoking and challenging.

This post could have been much longer and more detailed, but I'll keep it at this and, as always, welcome comments and questions.

Harold Camping and Do Atheists Think Theists are Stupid?

Recently, as a Facebook status, I posted, "Christians who mock Harold Camping fail to realize that they also have silly unsubstantiated beliefs." I've received some recent criticism because of this, but it's quite odd because those who are criticizing me have 'been though' discussions like this and should realize that I don't paint all theists with the same brush and on many occasions I have noted that many theists of different stripes have all sorts of different beliefs. It's difficult to add several 'asterisks' to my status updates and even more difficult to do so when I'm using my mobile phone to post updates.

The main point of this status update was to address many theists who are now mocking Camping's end of the world position, but yet make various other assertions that would be considered silly if they were presented such as Camping's group presenting them. Many theists belief in transubstantiation (a priest utters a prayer and the literal flesh of Jesus is present in the Eucharist), reconciliation (theists can talk with a priest as an intermediary and this can absolve persons of their sins after doing a penance of prayer and perhaps fasting), 'thoughtcrime sin' (the idea that thoughts should be punished and people should feel guilty of them), and a general rapture prediction. Various theists who mock Camping for his beliefs don't object to his methodology or general belief in the rapture, but rather state that he can't put a set date on Jesus coming down from the clouds and bringing people to Heaven.

When I was a theist, I used to mock Scientologists for their beliefs, but failed to realize that I held many silly beliefs such as a literal Adam and Eve story. A friend asked me if I thought scientology was nuts and I said yes. He then asked me how I could think Scientology is nuts if I believed in a literal Adam and Eve story. I felt quite distraught and experienced tremendous cognitive dissonance. The difference between me and others who view my page, though, is that the people who view my page, I hope, have been exposed to my arguments and 'defenses of atheism.' When I was a theist, my beliefs were hardly challenged...and when they were I decided that it was the time to seek justified true belief regardless of the consequences.

I cannot speak for all atheists, of course, but I don't think that theists are stupid just because they hold unsubstantiated beliefs. Beliefs about one or a few matters aren't an entire character evaluation of a person. I think that I'm quite 'meek and mild' in my criticisms, really, but some are still offended no matter how charitable and mild I can be. Recently, I presented various arguments of mine in a scholarly form of various essays. One of these essays, 'A Defense of Reason' is a harsh critique of faith and a proposed methodology that can distinguish sense from nonsense. If people take time to read what I write and not jump to conclusions based on one status update, they can understand where exactly I'm coming from and why I think what I think. I'm not hiding. I have over 250 blog posts, an open Facebook profile for everyone to see, interviews that are open to the public, and various media appearances. It's even more troubling when people who have met me face-to-face on multiple occasions to believe that I'm being unfair to theists.

It's easy for persons who hold supernatural beliefs to see how others' supernatural beliefs are silly, but they don't often examine their own with the same scrutiny that they examine others' beliefs with. As noted in my 'Defense of Reason' paper, philosophers Roberts and Wood think that a person is lacking in intellectual virtue when they will accept defenses of some beliefs that wouldn't be applicable in other contexts. This seems to be exactly what is going on here. The scientologist's beliefs about Xenu are silly because there is no good evidence for this and the scientologist can only offer utility non-sequiters, faith claims, and personal experience, but when the Christian makes the same 'moves,' it's suddenly a different games. Because *I* believe it and because *I've* experienced these things, *my* beliefs are suddenly credible, but this doesn't work for others, some of these people think. I constantly ask Christians why they don't accept Muslims' beliefs when Muslims offer the same reasons as the Christians do...and they are perplexed. Of course, again, this isn't the case for all theists, but this is a common occurance I have experienced.

A recent Facebook response to my "Christians who mock Camping and fail to realize they have silly beliefs" status read, "I didn't know that believing that life was not an accident is bull shit. Sorry to bother you, Justin." This commenter is totally missing the point. Atheists, at least people I know and myself, don't believe that life was an 'accident.' Those who believe that life was not an accident aren't justified in taking the leap to 'belief in a supernatural entity is substantiated.' This is a common argument from ignorance - just because we don't have an answer does not mean that we can justly posit a supernatural entity. While I may think that this is a huge reasoning error (and it is), this does not mean that I believe the person is stupid across the board. Persons like this, though, who seemingly ignore the 'opposing arguments' are being intellectually dishonest whether or not they are aware of it. There is a wealth of information on this page and on my Facebook page about this common logical fallacy! Persons who view my page on a daily basis should have no excuse whatsoever in this area.

The commenter continues,

I meant specifically that I do not think that all forms of life, and the entire universe, was spontaneous. But, that way of thinking suggests that I'm a mindless sheep, with no reasoning skills, who forces beliefs on others, hates LGBT people, etc (insert stereotype). So, I will take my leave.

This comment is first strawmanning atheists and posits a false dichotomy. Many atheists don't believe that life was spontaneous, of course. Belief that life was not spontaneous does not make one "a mindless sheep, with no reasoning skills..." I never said that belief that life was not spontaneous entailed that one was a mindless sheep with no reasoning skills. I would never claim such a thing.

Atheists who point out why theists' arguments are bad ones or who say that other's beliefs are silly are not asserting that these people are mindless, have no reasoning skills, or stupid. I may disagree with others and point out flaws in their reasoning, but this doesn't mean that I think they are stupid individuals. The assertion that 'theists are stupid' is not an indirect one and it's certainly not a direct one. Scientist Francis Collins, for example, believes all sorts of silly things like seeing three waterfalls is good reason to believe in God, but this doesn't mean that I think he is a stupid person across the board. He's certainly being stupid in this area, but he's a very smart individual. Stephen Hawking recently dismissed philosophy's contribution to science in his newest book, but this doesn't mean that he's a stupid person for doing so. If he's serious about this and not speaking in metaphors, he's certainly having a lapse in judgment or experiencing a blind spot, but this doesn't mean that I think he is a stupid person.

I'm sick and tired of hearing the myth that atheists are offensive when they critique others' beliefs because they are asserting that they think theists are stupid people with no reasoning skills. This simply isn't the case by any means. While some atheists may do this, it certainly is not a majority position...and it's not something I do. Once in a while I may get quite angry and mock people or joke around, but this isn't how I go about doing things. My criticism is often lengthy, well-supported, and can been seen in my various posts. One single status update should not lead one to jump to conclusions and think that I'm being uncharitable.

Determinism and Fatalism: Threats to Free Will

**Update - 9/17/11
I need to update this paper to mainly address quantum mechanics and how quantum indeterminacy doesn't save free will. I also need to address threats to determinism via quantum mechanics (which might indeed defeat a hard determinism, but still doesn't rescue free will.**

My position on free will has been the hugest cognitive shift since I stopped believing in God. For a while, as an atheist, I took free will for granted and thought that I had free will because I could deliberate and can choose my actions, but this belief has waned because of my studies of metaphysics. Philosophy can do that.

I submitted a paper close to ten pages for my metaphysics class, but have recently revised it and added some new sections for my readers and my own benefit. I've previously touched on free will in multiple posts and have even reconsidered more recent stances (particularly from the paper I handed in at the end of the Fall '10 semester). This project is quite ambitious because I find ideas of freedom very difficult to comprehend and have not delved very deeply into this issue, but I will still present my thoughts and let everyone critique me...that's the great thing about open discussion and conversation.

I argue that threats to free will from determinism (the idea that all of our actions have antecedent causes) and fatalism (the idea that the future is unavoidable) should force us to relinquish the idea of free will. Curiously, for theists or those who believe in free will, free will and an omniscient being are incompatible.

I removed the parts about the brain because I don't feel I 'did enough justice to that section' and didn't actually cite studies, but rather offered an author's insight into studies. The paper is fine with just a philosophical discussion (and was originally for a philosophy class (metaphysics) anyway!

Enjoy.

Determinism and Fatalism: Threats to Free Will [v2]

My Philosophy Capstone Essay - A Defense of Reason

I argue that faith (belief without evidence) is unjustified and that it is important to arrive at justified true beliefs that can be acquired through an entirely reason-based process.

I tackle various issues in my paper such as:

• why holding justified true beliefs is important

• what properties of the belief-generating and reasoning process are important

• a criteria of adequacy to follow that can help establish truth value when competing claims offer different explanations

• various 'myths of reason' and how to respond to skeptical problems such as why we should believe in other persons and that the world exists

• when and why we should accept expert opinion

• how we can justify 'first principles' such as modus ponens, modus tollens, induction, non-contradiction, and the idea that evidence leads to justified true belief

This project is the result of much reflection during the past two years, reading lots of philosophy, listening to discussion between theists and atheists, having live discussions with theists, and many of my ideas coming together into one unified paper.

Enjoy!

A Defense of Reason [Draft v5]

Should Buddhism be Considered a Religion? : Essay

I'm uploading yet another essay that I hope my readers will enjoy. I've very rarely mentioned Buddhism in previous posts, so this is something new for me to consider. I selected "Should Buddhism be Considered a Religion?" for my final Eastern Philosophy essay. I thought that Buddhism could be considered a philosophy and not a religion, but my ideas changed halfway through the paper thanks to the insight of Buddhist monks.

Toward the end of the paper, I came down quite hard on theology and the majority of religious persons, but I was sure not to paint everyone with the same brush that people often accuse me of painting with even though I make sure to add disclaimers and it's obvious that I can't take every individual into consideration. As always, feel free to comment about anything.

Should Buddhism be Considered a Religion?

Making Sense of Ethics in a Modern Scientific Worldview: Essay

I just finished a "prototype" of my final paper for my Modern/Contemporary Philosophy class answering the question that has plagued modern philosophy in the West, "How, given the advent and advance of 'the modern scientific worldview,' can we capture 'the fact of value:' the fact that we all have and act from ideas about how to live?". I had to consider three philosophers from a list and discuss their ideas regarding moral philosophy, evaluate their ideas, and select which philosopher I most agree with and then offer a conclusion regarding how to make sense of values.

I could have easily written a long treatise on this (expanding on ideas and further considering other philosophers), but kept discussion to five full pages. Enjoy.

Making Sense of Ethics in a Modern Scientific Worldview

Logical Fallacies: The Slippery Slope

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy that occurs when one unjustly argues that if one event happens, others will follow. If one event happens and one argues that others will follow, he/she has to show that there is a logical link from one event to another, but this often is not the case. This argument is very common in the gay marriage debate - opponents of gay marriage often argue that if gay marriage is legal, people will soon be able to marry their close family members and animals.

Around 1:20, Ron Paul commits the slippery slope fallacy and argues that if we don't have the right to "do things that are controversial," the government will tell us what we can "eat and drink and whatever." The phrase "things that are controversial" is very vague, but to be charitable, Paul only had a short moment to elaborate on this phase and this is a soundbyte. A government that tells as what we can eat and drink simply doesn't follow from the loss of the ability to "do things that are controversial." Imagine if the Supreme Court, for example, made flag burning or protesting funerals illegal - government restrictions on food and drink would not automatically follow. Government banning would be an entirely separate issue and so would the government telling us what to eat and drink.

In order to argue that loss of liberty or the government telling people what to eat and drink would follow from stopping people from doing controversial things, the arguer would have to make an entirely different case. The government can stop us from legally engaging in "controversial things" and already has (prostitution, polygamy, vicious beating of children in schools, sodomy ( this is controversial to some)), but loss of liberty in the area of food and drink did not follow.

Why We Should Believe that Osama Bin Laden is Dead

Is Bin Laden really alive and in Las Vegas palling around with Elvis?

This will probably be the easiest argument I will ever make on this blog and it's quite sad that I'm motivated to do this because some people are doubting that the facts surrounding the death of Bin Laden as recently reported are not good enough to suggest that we should accept the 'official story.'

Unfortunately, many of my Facebook friends [and others] who are properly skeptical about various claims aren't being skeptical in the case of Osama Bin Laden's death. Shame on them...and especially on the atheists who critique people (as they should) who hold unsubstantiated religious beliefs, other conspiracy theories, or whatever zany beliefs such as the efficacy of homeopathy.

The hypothesis that Osama Bin Laden has not been killed is quite an extreme position to take. We have a tremendous amount of reasons that suggest that we should accept the hypothesis. Although none of the following claims in this sentence are true at face value, we have good reasons to accept them that I will explain in the rest of this paragraph: almost every news media outlet in the world reported the death of Osama Bin Laden, President Obama gave a breaking report addressing the nation/world last week, US intelligence and special ops have confirmed that Osama Bin Laden is dead, family members of Osama Bin Laden have admitted that he was killed, and Al-Qaeda even admitted that Bin Laden has been killed!

CAIRO (AP) — Al-Qaida on Friday confirmed the killing of Osama bin Laden and warned of retaliation, saying Americans' "happiness will turn to sadness."

The confirmation came in an Internet statement posted on militant websites, signed by "the general leadership" of al-Qaida. The announcement opens the way for the group to name a successor to bin Laden. His deputy Ayman al-Zawahri is now the most prominent figure in the group and is a very likely contender to take his place.

The statement, dated May 3, was the first by the terror network since bin Laden was killed Monday by U.S. commandos in a raid on his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The statement's authenticity could not be independently confirmed, but it was posted on websites where the group traditionally puts out its messages.

"We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims and will no go in vain," the statement said. "We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries."

"Soon, God willing, their happiness will turn to sadness," it said, "their blood will be mingled with their tears."

In the statement, al-Qaida also called on the people of Pakistan — "where Sheik Osama was killed" — to rise up in revolt against its leaders. It also said that an audio message bin Laden recorded a week before his death would be issued soon.

When we consider a conspiracy theory, we should, among many other things, ask what needs to be true to accept a conspiracy theory. If Osama Bin Laden was not recently killed and the "official story" is false, this means that almost every media outlet in the entire world is either part of a conspiracy and lying to the entire world. Bin Laden's family members are also lying/'in on it.' Al Qaeda is also lying, 'in on it,' or someone else is talking for them. Obama, also, is putting the reputation of the United States, his presidential bid for 2012, and the reputation of the democrats on the line.

Consider all of these things being true, is this very reasonable? The chance of someone coming out with information to the contrary is quite high. One ought to expect, first, for Bin Laden to release a video tape saying 'I'm alive' with a timestamp of some sort to destroy the United States' reputation and wreak havoc on the United States after exposing us as liars. Someone also would leak information (assuming that the entire world media is 'in on it' for personal gain or some other reason) because so, so, so many people just can't keep a secret of such a wide scale like this.

Here are some hypotheses:

1) The entire global media is lying and is fooled by the United States government and US intelligence. Everyone just thinks Bin Laden is dead and the United States is lying.

This hypothesis assumes that everyone is lying and that the United States government and US intelligence is fooling everyone. This is not a safe assumption to take because of outside evidence that can be pieced together that is available to everyone such as DNA records, facial recognition technology, and Pakistan admitting that Osama Bin Laden was indeed killed where we said he was killed at the time we said he was killed. There's really good evidence to suggest that the entire operation is not a lie. In order for this evidence (and this is only some of it) to be false, we'd have to assume that DNA records were faked (!), the facial recognition technology was also faked (!), and Pakistani people are just lying, etc.

This hypothesis is not simple because it assumes that there is a huge lie being perpetrated and some reasons that are quite unclear are to account for it. This hypothesis is not conservative because we have very good evidence suggesting that this can't be a lie. This hypothesis does not have good explanatory power because it raises more questions that it answers and really explains nothing at all. Why is the entire world lying? How would all of this evidence be faked? How is this lie being spread? Why hasn't anyone "leaked" the "real story?" Why hasn't Osama Bin Laden released a video to expose the lie? Why would Osama's own organization say that he is dead? This hypothesis is not fruitful because it makes no novel predictions. This hypothesis is not testable.

2) Bin Laden died years ago, but the United States is now just coming out with the information.

This hypothesis is problematic for many reasons mentioned above - Pakistani people are enraged, now just testifying to the death, and a timeline has been constructed to account for the recent happenings. This hypothesis also assumes that 'everyone' is lying.

This hypothesis is not simple because it assumes that there is a huge lie being perpetrated and just assumes that Bin Laden was killed years ago even though we have very good reason to suggest that he was killed recently (thus the hypothesis is also not conservative). This hypothesis does not have good explanatory power because it raises more questions than it answers: why would none of Bin Laden's friends come out and announce that he was dead before, especially when they just recently did after believing that he was dead? Why would the United States hide this information? How do we know that he was killed years ago? Why wouldn't this information be discovered by someone else? Why wouldn't a media outlet report this? Why should we believe that people who were 'in on it' stayed silent for all of this time; someone would have most likely leaked this information. This hypothesis is not testable. This hypothesis is not fruitful.

The information that we currently have surrounding the death of Osama Bin Laden gives us good reason to suggest that Bin Laden was recently killed and has great explanatory power. The reports are all consistent/in agreement, outside sources (i.e. not people from the United States) confirm the information, and we have no good reason to doubt the evidence. The statements that must be true in order to suppose that there is a conspiracy would be too wild and can't all possibly be true. Obama would not jeopardize the reputation of the United States in this manner, would not compromise his bid for 2012, and could not convince the entire world of such a grand lie [without no one leaking the information]. Conspiracy theories assume outside entities are lack simplicity: someone is always 'in on it,' a large amount of people are all lying, and some unknown extra entities and motives are proposed. Conspiracy theories try to 'explain away' the evidence and continue to make ad hoc explanations to 'save their theories,' but provide no good reason to suggest that the evidence is bad evidence.

---

5/7: US Government releases tapes found during Bin Laden raid:

If you'd like more information about the 'official story,' please visit these links:

Wikipedia: Bin Laden death

Guardian (UK): Why the burial at sea?

Time: Why burial at sea so quickly?

ABC: "Video Inside Bin Laden's Lair"

USA Today: "Bin Laden Death a Victory for Special Ops"

Michael Shermer on [Osama Bin Laden] conspiracy theories:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Apartheid and Christianity: Research Project

I've recently completed my semester-long research project for my professional writing capstone course. I read various texts dealing with post-colonialism, rhetoric, and colonialism and had to compose a 12-15 page paper dealing with one or more of the texts I had read combining outside research and material from the texts in order to make a compelling argument. I chose to argue that apartheid forced one of the authors, Mark Mathabane, to reject Christianity and African tribal beliefs. Mathabane, instead of experiencing any miraculous happenings and seeing benefits for those who adhered to supernatural beliefs, experienced nothing out of the ordinary and saw that religious beliefs were detrimental to people holding them. Mathabane saw tribal beliefs and Christianity as fundamentally oppositional to blacks and caused them to distort reality. He also believed that Christianity was a lie crafted by whites to enforce apartheid and perpetuate injustice toward blacks. I investigate links between Christianity and apartheid and find that both were close cousins in South Africa.

You can click the below link to view the paper in a full screen format.

Mathabane, Apartheid, and Christianity

Essay: Philo's Veneration for 'True Religion'

(Update 5/11: Version 2, the "final edit," has been uploaded. If you see problems, tell me!)


First in a series of essays that I'm going to post this week is a discussion of 'true religion' as seen from the character of Philo in David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. As an alternative to commonly practiced religion which Philo calls 'vulgar superstition,' Philo proposes a 'true religion' that is free of superstition, zealotry, absurdity and impiety, and warped morality in which believers can only claim that God exists, yet make no claims about God.

I examine Philo's ideas using evidence from Hume's text to support my ideas and weigh in on whether or not 'true religion' is attractive. I argue that true religion really offers nothing unless belief in a god is warranted and nothing can be said about said god. Religious people today often want to distance themselves from other religious people and claim that their version of religion is the correct religion while saying that others whom they disagree with can be excluded because they aren't 'true' religionists, but this 'move' is unwarranted.

Essay prompt:

In Part XII of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Philo, the character who has tended to take the stance of the philosophical skeptic, speaks of his "veneration of true religion." What, according to Philo, is true religion, and what is there to venerate in it? To answer this question, you will have to pay close attention to the thrust of Philo's arguments in Part XII. Be sure to make clear what textual support there is for your interpretation of Philo's remarks. Do you think the views, concerning true religion, that Philo describes are attractive? Why or why not

Click "fullscreen" below to view my essay in the best resolution. Huge thanks go to Andrew Puzzo for giving me the idea to upload essays using Scribd. Duh.

Philo's Veneration for 'True Religion'

5/7/11 Justin Vacula - Live!

I'm going to, for the first time, host a live stream of myself responding to questions, criticisms, and chatting with whomever else wants to talk about anything regarding what I generally blog about.

I'm going to place the date and time at May 7 at 6PM EST for the "first show."

Come prepared with some questions and ideas...and hopefully we'll get a good crowd! Feel free to spread the word.

Here's the link for the channel by which I'll be live streaming:

http://www.blogtv.com/people/tellackh

Dr. Oz is full of logical fallacies

Recently, Dr. Oz invited noted skeptic and advocate of science-based medicine Dr. Steve Novella to be on his show. Novella frequently investigates and critically discusses "alternative medicine" (which he considers to be a false category and an improper term). Novella, in this show, says that alternative medicine is an artificial category that exists only to create a double standard instead of just having a science-based standard.

Beginning the show, Dr. Oz poisons the well making Dr. Novella look dismissive, arrogant, and "afraid" of talking about alternative medicine. This is also strawmanning Dr. Novella because he's not "dismissive;" Novella is not, out-of-hand, writing off alternative medicine - he has studied and written about the claims being made in support of alternative medicine. He's also not afraid of discussion. Dr. Novella's real stance is that there is no good reason and evidence to support the efficacy of alternative medicine beyond that of the placebo effect or other factors that are unrelated to the usage of the medicine such as a caring practitioner spending time with their patients, relaxation, etc. "There is no effect from sticking a needle in the skin," Novella says.

Throughout the show, Dr. Oz makes various fallacious appeals to the masses by saying that 40% of Americans use alternative medicine, more than half of Americans have used herbal alternative medicine (an inconsistency here...what exactly are these numbers anyway?), and 69% of people tried alternative medicine without talking to a doctor, and billions of people have used acupuncture. So what? Just because many people have used these "treatments" does not mean that they actually work from a scientific standpoint.

Dr. Oz says that we can't know that harvesting cells, for example, can cure cancers would do anything because it's "darn hard to study." We actually can study these things and there is no good evidence to suggest that this is true. Might it work in the future? Perhaps...but there's no good reason to suggest that it does now. Anything might work in the future, but we should be concerned about what reason there is to suggest something is true today.

Dr. Oz poses a false dichotomy when he says that we can "figure out what works for us" or "take the ballistic approach to medicine that we're used to." Both of these depictions are quite inaccurate and these aren't the only two choices. "Figuring out what works for us" can be very silly in most cases because the doctors, not the people, are the qualified persons to make the decisions based on evidence leading us to the conclusion of whether a certain treatment works. We can also easily deceive ourselves, not be aware of what is causing improvement, or simply make a wrong decision based on faulty evidence. We also don't have to take a "ballistic approach" to medicine and can, instead, take time to research what experts are saying, consider various treatments, get the advice of multiple doctors, etc.

Dr. Oz mentions that various schools are teaching about alternative medicine, but this does not say anything about the efficacy of the alternative medicine being studied. Schools teach all sorts of competing ideas and show that certain ideas are wrong. I've learned about pseudoscience in my college science course and was taught that creationism isn't science. I study what philosophers have said, but they all aren't correct. Imagine me saying, "All sorts of schools are teaching Plato's theory of forms, so it must be right!" This seems to be exactly what Dr. Oz is doing.

Dr. Oz states that alternative medicine is at a "grassroots level" and that "nobody owns it." It's not really the case that alternative medicine is at a grassroots level because many people who aren't members of the general pharmacy-going public who know little to nothing about alternative medicine are selling nonsense and profiting tremendously. Even if it were at the grassroots level, this doesn't entail that alternative medicine can't be critiqued by scientists and people who have the relevant information to show why it is ineffective (this is what I think Oz is trying to do when he says "nobody owns it").

Dr. Oz mentions that alternative medicine "empowers us." What does this even mean? How does this entail that alternative medicine is effective at all? Dr. Oz uses fuzzy terms and seemingly is saying, "If it makes you feel good and you think it works (faith?), you should go ahead and use it." This perspective is supported by Dr. Oz's "if it works for you, don't let anyone take it away from you." I already talked about why non-experts aren't experts and how we can easily fool ourselves. Here's a true dichotomy: treatments are either supported by evidence or they are not. Why should we not follow where the evidence leads?

Dr. Oz is special pleading when he says that acupuncture hasn't been studied properly. Acupuncture has been studied and a meta-analysis of studies shows that there is no good reason to suggest that sticking needles into skins is beneficial to health. When Dr. Oz doesn't get the results he seemingly wants to get, he enters into fallacious territory. The same methods and ways of studying the efficacy of treatments are employed regardless of whether acupuncture, penicillin, or vaccines are being considered. Dr. Oz will accept that penicillin works and cite the reasons and the methodology used to establish this, but when the same method is used to study acupuncture, Dr. Oz is the real dismissive one.

Dr. Oz poses another false dichotomy when he asks Dr. Novella if he thinks that meditation is "soft and fuzzy" or "unproven and worthless." Novella soon calls out Dr. Oz on this and admits that there is some benefit to meditation (of course), but the benefits come from relaxation and shouldn't be wrapped in a mystical sounding language and then leap to meditation being able to cure physical diseases like cancer.

Dr. Oz makes no good case for the efficacy of "alternative medicine." As Tim Minchin says, "What do you call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine." There is no good evidence, when considering a meta-analysis of scientific research, to support the efficacy of alternative medicine.