Archive for December, 2009

Some Thoughts On Our Senate

Dec 11th, 09 / 0 Comments

I was recently reading a piece on the Huffington Post asking the Senate to force those who want to filibuster to actually speak on the floor continuously to halt moving forward with and voting on health care legislation. If you’d like, give a read to Bring Back the Cots! The Filibuster and Health Care Reform. Then understand that I think the idea of forcing those who want to filibuster to actually speak and maintain a presence in the Senate chambers is an excellent idea. This would dramatically cut down on the use of the filibuster and reserve it for times when there is a strong reason to use it rather than just a way to force every issue to require sixty votes instead of fifty-one.

However, some comments on the post seem to miss the point of the Senate as well. There have been people saying that Senators should be apportioned by population just like happens in the House of Representatives. However, the Senate was created as it is precisely to protect smaller states, such as my state of Maine, from being overruled by larger states, such as California. While that particular aspect is undemocratic, you have to realize we are a democratic republic, which means that it’s not all about the majority. The idea is to let the majority make the decisions most of the time, while still protecting the rights of the minority. Remember, states are basically semi-autonomous nations that bought into the United States government. They all had to agree to join when the country was created, and while the Constitution is our founding document, in many ways, it is also a treaty between the states saying which powers they keep for themselves and which powers they hand over to our alliance. When considered in this light, the Senate is there to make sure each individual state has an equal voice in the proceedings, while the responsibility of the House of Representatives is to make sure the people have an equal voice in the proceedings. Sure, this system isn’t perfect, but it is better than just doing representation by population in both houses, or equal state representation in both houses.

Now, I’ll be honest, I’m very dismayed that our Senators are speaking against meaningful health care reform, and if it were my choice, we’d have the democratic candidates in the Senate right now. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case, so we are dragging the debate down because of that. So I understand the frustration of those in other parts of the country, and I encourage all Maine residents to communicate their views on this to our Senators to try to sway them on their positions.

However, that doesn’t mean smaller states should lose their equal representation in the Senate. We should just lose the power to filibuster with impunity. This would go a long way toward restoring the balance of power as it seems to be intended.

Related Posts:

Sponsored Link
Politics

Religious and Atheist Debates

Dec 10th, 09 / 2 Comments

I’ve been following some more debates between people who believe in God and those who don’t lately. And I think I’m starting to pick up on something. It’s rare to see one side moving the debate to the other side’s territory. Religious people tend not to engage atheists in scientific debate, and atheists fail to realize many religious people are going to be more moved by an emotional or subjective argument. It’s the nature of the worldviews held by many people.

I’m a religious person who respects science and thinks it’s important. As such, I try to choose my beliefs in such a way that they won’t interfere with science… or more accurately, so science won’t interfere with them. I view the role of science as dealing with the observable, objective, and physical world, while spirituality and religion deal with the unobservable, subjective, and spiritual world. This makes me pretty unwilling to bend when people say science disproves religion, because what they are really saying is science disproves these common religions and beliefs, and there is no evidence for the other religions out there.

Now, I understand some atheists would respect my stance and leave it at that so long as I respect their stance. There are others who seek to convince religious people of all kinds to abandon their religion and become an atheist. As is their right, so long as it is done respectfully. The vast majority of the time, it is. However, those trying to convince us to abandon our faith are making a mistake. They’re trying to whittle away at all religious beliefs through science.

This won’t work. The reason is simple. Those who respect science are careful to match their beliefs with science to be sure they aren’t in conflict. We freely acknowledge there is nothing scientific about our beliefs, only that we’ve thought about our beliefs and made sure they are not contradictory to scientific understanding. And if science ever does contradict them, we’ll change with the science. On the other hand, those who don’t respect science aren’t going to listen to science anyway. With them, you’re banging your head against a wall.

Instead, the place to engage religious people is in the realm of emotion, subjective experience, and knowledge of their religion and morals. And you need to understand a person’s specific beliefs when engaging them in order to do this properly. Just because someone says they’re a Christian doesn’t mean they have the same beliefs as another person who says they’re a Christian. So, if you want to challenge someone’s beliefs, you need to find out what they are first.

Now, the reason you have to challenge them emotionally and subjectively is because that’s how we live. That’s not to say every decision we make is whimsical and not based on fact. However, we find when we don’t have a clear idea of where to go, relying on intuition and emotion works more often than not, and that shapes us and how we think. The feeling that God exists is there. Our feelings tend to be reliable on some scale, and while the more science oriented of us wouldn’t base decisions effecting other people on this, we would base decisions effecting us and other people who agree to it on this intuition. So, this is what you have to challenge if you want to convince us we’re wrong. Is this unreasonable? From a scientific perspective, sure. From a philosophical perspective, I don’t think so.

On the other hand, religious people need to understand that emotional and subjective arguments don’t really appeal to atheists most of the time. If you feel a need to convince them to join the ranks of the religious, you’re going to have to pull out the science. Which means that right now, you don’t have anything to work with, because there is no positive scientific evidence for religion. Sorry guys, that’s how it is. Just like you’re likely secure in your faith, atheists are secure in their lack of faith. And scientifically speaking, atheists are on more solid ground than us. We may find some solid evidence later on, but for now, we have personal experience, and that means squat in science unless you can replicate it in a manner testable by anyone with appropriate scientific experience. Of course, you may come up with an idea that shows how science could support a religious belief. If you do, check it out first though. We don’t need anymore mangled quantum mechanics floating around. If it does check out as reasonable, awesome, let us know.

So, my main point here? As long as you respect the people you’re debating, even if you don’t respect the ideas, keep on doing what you’re doing. Just consider that you may have better luck trying a different approach if you’ve been hacking away with the approaches I’ve outlined above. Part of persuading people is meeting them on their turf.

Finally, I want to give a special thanks to these sites for inspiring this piece:
Greta Christina’s Blog : Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong for Atheists to Persuade Believers
Ebon Musings : The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists
European Swallow : Reasons to Deconvert to Atheism

Related Posts:

Religion, Science, Spirituality

All Natural Does not Always Mean Perfectly Safe to Use

Dec 3rd, 09 / 0 Comments

A lot of herbal supplements are marked as all natural, then the claim is made that because it’s all natural, it’s perfectly safe to use. While I’m sure many herbal supplements are perfectly safe to use, this is fallacious reasoning, and you should still look into what you’re getting before using it. A little research will confirm the safety of any supplement you use, rather than blind trust because it’s all natural.

For some extreme examples of what I mean, check out these examples of all natural items.

-100% all natural hemlock.
-100% all natural mercury.
-100% all natural cyanide.

Notice something about all three of these all natural items? All of them can potentially kill you. Obviously, no natural supplements are going to use these particular items. However, I’m sure you see my point that natural doesn’t necessarily mean safe. So don’t just assume something is safe because it’s natural, do some research to see what you’re getting and what it does to people. Depending on what you’re looking for, it may also be wise to consult your doctor first. Then, once you’ve done your research, if the product you’re looking at still looks like a good fit for you, go ahead and pick some up to give it a try.

Related Posts:

Sponsored Link
Health