You keep bringing up the mantra fuck the police. I agree that the police can and do abuse their power and that reform should be an ongoing and continuous process. I also agree that the police are forced to enforce unjust laws that have led to an overcrowded and unsustainable prison system. But don’t you agree that the police do serve the public interest in much of what they do such as bringing burglars, white collar criminals, rapists, and murderers to justice?
You’re confusing the police for the criminal justice system, and you’re confusing public interest for the establishment.For the record, the police do not bring people to justice. All they do is enforce the law. If you don’t understand the difference between justice and the law, then you’re fired from America, and you should drive down to Home Depot and give your citizenship to someone who deserves it.
Admittedly, the public interest is well served by criminal investigators and emergency first responders, but so fucking what? Those duties aren’t inherent to police. Any number of governmental departments and agencies can (and do) serve those functions.
What makes the police special, what makes them internationally fuck-worthy, is that they’re granted authority by the state to preserve order through the use of force. That, my friends, is the opposite of liberty.
Whether it’s sharia law in Tehran, drug laws in Los Angeles, or public nuisance laws at your local Occupy Protest, the police are the ones who can (and do) legally compel obedience through violence. I’m not cool with that.
At best, police power is a necessary evil. At worst, it’s a boot on your motherfucking neck. It will never be okay with me. I will never consent to that codicil of the social contract.
I do not recognize the state’s right to use force to compel my obedience, and that’s what I mean when I say, “fuck the police.”
—- INTRO —-
I got into a conversation with my friend’s friend after the original friend posted this link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=pbs
The following is my final response to his concluding thoughts after an engaged and respectful argument. I don’t expect people to care about this. If you don’t care, don’t feel bad, don’t read it, and move on. I don’t expect anyone to be convinced from one side to the other from my arguments. I don’t expect to be completely right about everything I say, though I will remain true to myself and respect you by not willfully lying to you.
My thoughts on these matters have been wrought through years of careful study and a relentless search for the truth. People who know me know that I am an argumentative and aggressive, intense person. They also know that despite this, I am not a mean and thoughtless person. I care about others’ feelings. What I say is not from a place of anger. It is from a place of peace and truth.
—- STARTING NOW ——
Joe, it’s all good man. We could go at this long hours into the night! Here’s my final thoughts on the issue: first, every system in the universe is working at a very high level of intelligence and functionality. One cell in your body works in a more complex way than any supercomputer in the world. One must ask who or what is feeding this intelligence into all of these systems and why do they all work together so accurately?
It’s not entirely honest to say that one must ask “who” is feeding it. It’s not fair to label the behavior as intelligent, either. There are perfectly natural explanations for everything you’ve mentioned. For example, breakthroughs in embryology have led to the discovery of cell adhesion molecules and nervous system development based on wiring themselves up through small, local units following local rules in contrast with the notion that there is an overall blueprint.*
* Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 2009. 234. Print.
By the way, I suggest that book if you haven’t read it.
From the moon cycles to the tide cycles to the precise distance of the sun from the earth, every thing seems set in place ever so delicately. If any of it changed on even an infinitesimally small scale, you and I would never have existed to have this conversation.
Well, that’s just not even true. “The Earth orbits the Sun in a path shaped like an ellipse, or oval. That means that sometimes the Earth is closer to the Sun than other times. In January the Earth is closest to the Sun: it’s about 147 million kilometers away (a kilometer is a little more than half a mile). In July it is at a distance of 152 million kilometers, which is a difference of five million kilometers (about 3 million miles). That difference only affects our temperature a little tiny bit, and it’s a lot more than one-millionth of an inch!” http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/earthburn.html
The moon and tide cycles have had explanations for a very long time. You won’t have a hard time finding them. You’re spot on when you use the word “seems”.
This kind of design doesn’t happen by chance.
It’s not design. We’re used to living in a world full of designed things, so it’s easy to look at nature and assume at least some of the things we see must be designed. Almost everything we’ve ever encountered during our entires lives has been designed by people. But it is not designed.
And what you perceive as designed does not happen by chance, nor is that what any responsible scientist claims. For a full, clear explanation of the difference, please read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program Yes, it’s Dawkins again. No, I don’t just read Dawkins. You can find a video of him explaining this stuff himself, including why it’s not design, in case wikipedia isn’t the right kind of source for you.
Look at what mathematicians like Bill Dembski and John Lennox are saying about the chances of life evolving into what we have today. The most reasonable explanation is a designer.
First of all, design is not the most reasonable explanation, it’s not very plausible given the peer-reviewed evidence, and I promise if you read the book I cited, that sort of common misconceptions is cleared up. We can discuss occam’s razor on this, but my guess is that it won’t make a difference so I’ll spare us both.
I’ll be honest. I didn’t bother looking up John Lennox after looking up William Dembski. His profile is enough to tell me that if Lennox is anything like him, I can save my time. He pilfers junk science at a theology school. There are plenty of videos and books out there to explain the difference, if you’re wondering what right I have to label it as junk.
In the end, he stands claiming that there must be a Creator and it’s the Christian God. To me, this is the hardest point I’ve been able to get across, so I’ll try again.
When you say that a supernatural being must have designed and created the Universe, there is absolutely no demonstrable evidence for that claim, and you don’t get out of it by saying that I won’t listen to evidence(because I will, and I do) or that this being is outside of space and time and doesn’t fall under the same rules as the Universe itself. Because at that point you’ve got nothing to go on. You’ve got a thing that exists, by your own admission, outside of your comprehension, so there is no way you know anything substantial about it.
But! I’ll grant you it. I will grant you a pass on that argument and allow the assertion that a supernatural being created the Universe. In that case, you have got a long way to go in making the case that this being also happens to be the specific one mentioned in a collection of texts written within the last < 1% of time that it’s been since the Beginning by a small group of sheep herding homo sapiens in a desert of a very tiny rock in a distant corner of what is a Universe of such magnitude that there is literally no model for us to imagine it in our minds. Imagine the Universe as large as you can possibly imagine it. Now multiply that by a million million times.
You accused Polkinghorne of assuming there was a God, then deducing his conclusions from that premise. But you are doing the precise same thing by scoffing at the chance of there being a supernatural explanation of the universe. Your reasoning presupposes that there isn’t an intelligent God behind existence, and you work out of that presupposition (as do all materialist scientists).
But it’s just not so. I do not presuppose that there isn’t an intelligent God behind existence. I started as a full-on believer. A born and raised and born again Christian believer. Honestly and with pure heart, I enthusiastically loved being a Christian and learning to be like Jesus. I was raised by a wonderful, loving, and supportive family, who continue to be awesome even after my departure from religious belief over two years ago (I’m 28 now). My backstory and deconversion is too long for this rebuttal. It’s (probably) another (3) blog post(s).
It doesn’t matter if you think that I am doing the same thing as Rev. Dr John Polkinghorne. Even if I was, it doesn’t give him a pass to do it. The goal in science is to merely have a guess about something, make observations, do tests, and change your guesses as new evidence arrives, no matter how you feel about your original guesses. You must accept the truth and update your models.
If evidence that passes rigorous scientific peer-review changes our models for our theories on origins, we will. Even if it points to something that resembles the definitions people have for ‘God’.
That means, no matter how much evidence is presented to you, you will continue to attempt to find other ways of explaining things. i.e. science is still working on these things, it could have been this, that, and the other thing over billions of years.
Yes, scientists will attempt to explain other things with the models they have, to put those models to the test. And they will most definitely attempt to break their current explanations for everything, even evolution and gravity. That’s why it’s called peer-review. Anyone should be able to duplicate your experiments and findings with the right tools and resources. That’s why science updates itself a lot. Science is still working on the things in question here, that’s right. Science doesn’t sit on a single explanation forever just because it sounds or seems right. It continues to be rigorous and holds itself up to certain evidential standards. You’re welcome for all the medicine, the Internet, and pictures of distant galaxies. Love, Science.
Second, and I usually don’t even bring scripture in to scientific discussions lest I sound preachy, but given the fact that I just read this 5 minutes ago, my heart tells me to share this with you. Scripture makes it very clear that no matter how much evidence people are presented with, many will still staunchly refuse to believe what God has revealed. Check this out: “…They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth…” (2 Thess. 2. 10-12)
“…but have delighted in wickedness”. You left that bit out. I thought God wanted all to be saved? 1 Timothy 2:3-4. Why would he sabotage me? I wonder what wickedness I have delighted in? God wants me to love the truth and I do love the truth. I have always loved the truth. I definitely admit that there is Truth in the bible, just like there is Truth about human experience in all stories, all myth, all religious texts. Read The Power of Myth with Joseph Campbell. It’s an excellent interview culminating on his life’s work. You won’t be disappointed, and he doesn’t bash or insult religious sensibilities at all.
Also, here’s a video of an atheist pastor. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14410482 It’s a pretty interesting take on some issues I’d probably stand on similar ground with(it’s not very long and I haven’t dug deeper into this guy).
Now, I know those are harsh words, but here’s the deal: God doesn’t tolerate perpetual rejection of his revelation in nature and in Christ. But keep in mind - God, in his great love and mercy toward sinful rebellious people like you and me, gave us a beautiful home to live in and enjoy called Earth. He also became human, suffered, and hung on a tree and died so that you and I could find our way back to him.
Let’s break this down logically:
First, a man and woman eat the wrong fruit (symbolic or not) and god labels them and all their descendants (that’s us) as sinful, rebellious people (your words). Then, to forgive us of the label he put on us (we didn’t eat the damn fruit), he makes himself into a human (the present form of our link in the evolutionary chain, if you recall) to be killed to convince himself that he should forgive us. And, of course, if we refuse to accept payment for our wrongful conviction by the torture and sacrifice of an innocent, fellow human being, then we are punished (or obliterated) for eternity. We don’t get to spend eternity in worship of the dear leader (to quote the late Christopher Hitchens), and at least the North Koreans can hope to escape that upon death.
Like I said, you’ve a long way to go from “there must be intelligence” behind the “fine-tuned constants” of the Universe, to further claim that the intelligence is specifically one of 3,000 gods in recorded history that you were taught to believe in because of where and when you were born. Even if you came to believe it as an adult and you weren’t raised in a religious household, it is a mainstream and widely accepted story of our culture.
We don’t come to know God by putting him under an interrogative microscope through which we condescendingly demand that he reveal himself in some new way that strokes our ego and aligns with modern science. God makes it clear that he actively hides from people who do such things with a lack of humility.
I do not demand that God reveal himself. I demand that you provide credible evidence for any outrageous claims you make, such as the existence of a being outside of space and time who transformed into a human and came back to life after dying. What’s arrogant about that? I’m not saying that you’re wrong, I’m saying there is no reason to believe you. A jury does not declare defendants as innocent, they state that there is not enough evidence to believe the defendant is guilty beyond a defined threshold of doubt.
Scientists are absolutely humble, though. To quote Ricky Gervais, who put it well, “Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -‐ evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge.”
And what about this strokes my ego? As a non-believer, I’ve suddenly found myself not the center of attention and love of the Creator of the known and beyond Universe, not granted dominion over the Earth and all its living creatures, but a very tiny mammal on a very tiny rock in a very distant corner of a very large, empty, dark Universe. It’s absolutely humbling to consider that perspective. It makes life the ultimate gift. Experience, evidence, and history tells you that you only get it once. And it reminds me I’m not that important, and that my ego is just the reptilian brain, buried deep in my ancestral development.
Forgive me for the sermon, but I sometimes feel a particular burden to share what scripture says. It’s not always pretty, and quite frankly it can put fear into us. But if that fear drives us into the loving arms of our Father who is willing to receive any and all of his prodigal children, then that fear is healthy, you know?
No, I don’t know that attaching to someone because they made you afraid is healthy. If that were true, we wouldn’t intervene to help people escape from abusive relationships.
I guess what I’m saying is i think we often miss the forest for the trees, and in the process, we lose sight of how awesome and amazing having a relationship with God is.
I’ve been there, and yea it feels pretty great if you haven’t seriously considered other explanations for the world. If you do, and you see it through the lenses I have seen it through, you would understand that things are awesome and beautiful by themselves, naturally, and perhaps even more-so because their explanations have no need for a designer or divine creator.
I hope you hear this spoken in love from one human being to another fellow human being.
I did. I return to you, the same courtesy.
Would love your thoughts.
Welp,
Teju Cole’s Seven Thoughts on the Banality of Sentimentality:
1. From Sachs to Kristof to Invisible Children to TED, the fastest growth industry in the US is the White Savior Industrial Complex.
2. The white savior supports brutal policies in the morning, founds charities in the afternoon, and receives awards in the evening.
3. The banality of evil transmutes into the banality of sentimentality. The world is nothing but a problem to be solved by enthusiasm.
4. This world exists simply to satisfy the needs—including, importantly, the sentimental needs—of white people and Oprah.
5. The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice. It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.
6. Feverish worry over that awful African warlord. But close to 1.5 million Iraqis died from an American war of choice. Worry about that.
7. I deeply respect American sentimentality, the way one respects a wounded hippo. You must keep an eye on it, for you know it is deadly.
Read this. Amber Ha just fucking nails it.
Well I also think the video made the Facebook timeline look pretty cool, too
