Continuing this discussion, from my continued comments at Pandagon:

An intellectual exercise: Objectively prove to me (or disprove) the existence of reality. Then, distinguish for me how your perception of reality is more real than that of a schizophrenic.

We can’t be objective about anything because of the limitations on the electrified meat we use to process the information from our senses.

So, here’s the issue: Such as Loosely Twisted believe definitively that God exists. Others believe definitively that he/she/it does not. Neither can offer proof, however, that substantiates their beliefs. This comes down to an “I observe it; therefore it exists” kind of argument. The former believes God exists because they’re convinced they can observe his/her/its presence. The latter believes God does not exist because they’re convinced that they can observe his/her/its absence.

The problem with both is with the observation of absence. In the former’s case, they’re observing the presence of something empirically intangible, if we’re being objective (by which I mean as objective as it’s possible for thinking meat to be). Observation of something that is unprovably tangible does not constitute proof.

With the latter, it’s a simple case of “absence of proof is not proof of absence”. It’s the same reason we can’t disprove that the universe was created six days ago and all evidence was planted to indicate otherwise. Sure, that explanation doesn’t make a damn bit of sense, and we can say “I know that didn’t happen because my observations tell me otherwise”, but a) if your observations were plants to begin with, then they’re obviously going to concur with that explanation, and b) I dare you to prove either case in an objective fashion.

This is what I mean by remaining completely secular: Deal only with the observable world, and be as objective as it’s possible for electric meat to be. If we stray at all from applying reality to reality and start applying speculation to reality (e.g. God exists; God does not exist; we don’t have to make this law because Zero-Point Energy will be available to us within six months; if I jump off this building, an invisible flying space monkey will save me; if I jump off this building, an invisible flying space monkey will not save me; I can kill this guy because the world around me is all a figment of my imagination; I can walk in front of this car, because while it’s not probable that I won’t get hit, there’s a miniscule chance it’ll pass right through me), we begin treading into dangerous and harmful ground.

Thus, when I say “secular”, I mean “leave the existence of God–and the non-existence of God–completely out of it”. Same goes for anything for which there’s no proof either way.

Brought to you by the letter Warren, we have another argument with Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon (you all remember how well she took to my deconstruction of radical feminist terminology, and my criticism of trait genderization), this time over making definite conclusions without any supporting evidence. That is, she claims without a doubt that God does not exist. It’s great that she figured that out, because scientists and philosophers have been trying for millennia.

I didn’t actually take part in any of the real action of the argument and kind of missed the boat with my post, but whatever.

I’ll let said post illustrate my position on the discussion:

Claiming for certain that God doesn’t exist is just as crazy as claiming for certain that he does. If you have no evidence, a definite conclusion is meaningless–speculation masquerading as rational thought with a costume tailored by “because I said so�–, but to persist in making it smacks of fundamentalism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There may be a God, and there may not. Nobody has enough evidence to say one way or the other. Which is why I believe that the only way we can get anything right insofar as politics et al is to remain completely and utterly secular: Leave God or the absence of God completely out of it. Don’t make laws on the premise of God’s existence, and don’t make laws on the premise of his absence; make laws on the premise of applicability to the observable world, and the reduction of net misery.

Basing anything on conclusions that have been made without evidence is treacherous territory, and should be avoided if we are to retain any semblance of sanity.

Amanda Marcotte wrote:

“But only god has a special role where he gets to be put in the “maybeâ€? category, even though after millenia of people wringing their hands over his existence hasn’t resulted in a shred of evidence that he exists.”

See also: UFOs, Zero-Point Energy, et cetera. God isn’t the only thing that gets put in the “maybe� category–anything for which there is a hypothesis but no definitive evidence is in there as well.

Edit: Almost missed this one:

The assumption that people who are less decisive than me must be more correct is a silly assumption.

Perhaps, but the assumption that people who choose not to make definite, “decisive” conclusions without ample proof either way must be more correct is completely accurate. Or, as you might put it, “fundamentally sound”.

One would’ve hoped that the last several years would have taught people not to be so damned stubbornly decisive about things.

I happened to stumble upon this site earlier today, and was inspired to write its author an e-mail (which was subsequently bounced due to a Relay Access Denied error). The post to which I was replying was this poll about how many people who read their site support abortion vs. how many support abortion laws (which I’ll quote here so you don’t have to go there and search for it, since they don’t have links to individual posts):

Last week many of you responded to our poll question, “Do you support the South Dakota abortion ban?�

Here are the results:

a) yes = 146 (97%)
b) no = 2 (1.5%)
c) not sure, undecided 2 (1.5%)

We are definitely encouraged by the overwhelming response in favor of a law forbidding surgical and medical abortions.

And here’s my response, which I probably would’ve put up here anyway, even if the e-mail didn’t bounce:

Must be real life-affirming to know that people who already read your site completely agree with your views. Changing the world one choir-member at a time, huh?

By the way, ever consider that there may be other ways to significantly reduce abortion rates? For starters, figuring out /why women get abortions in the first place/? Much of the time, it’s an issue of finances. Part of the problem is that one simply cannot raise a child on average wage let alone minimum wage without falling well into poverty. a) Should we limit reproduction to the upper classes? b) Well, gee, how about just making the necessary adjustments to ensure that the world is a welcoming place for expecting mothers and their potential babies? If it’s not a burden to have them, it won’t be an issue to keep them.

(What particularly irks me is the assumption that there are all these women just anxiously champing at the bit, hungrily licking their lips, legs spread, waiting to get knocked up so that they can sprint to the nearest abortion clinic and have it scraped out of them. Using the terminology ‘pro-abortion’ illustrates a massive disconnect between one’s perception of reality and how things really are. You say ‘pro-abortion’, Schizophrenic Larry down the street claims his toaster can talk. I’m certainly not seeing the existence of either of those things, myself. It’s the choice that matters–it’s just as wrong to force someone to get an abortion as it is to force them not to get one.)

Not to mention, of course, rather likely developments in biotechnology over the next several decades: I propose to you the pseudo-uterus. It’s an artificial, independent (that is, it functions on its own without a body), nutrient-bath-type womb grown similar to the concept of vat meat that would allow the transfer of a blastocyst, fetus, what-have-you into it for continued development and subsequent birth. Might sound crazy, but then again, so did the Internet. It’s decades away, I’m sure, but possible.

In any event, banning it will be useless, because it’s impossible to enforce unless one takes extremely fascist approaches toward pregnancy as a whole. Do you investigate every miscarriage as though it were a murder? Do you register every pregnancy so that you can know when a pregnancy doesn’t result in a baby? Though you may scare a small amount of women into not having an abortion, you’re only going to force the vast majority into simply inducing miscarriage through other means. And I wouldn’t consider that a victory-march-worthy success for the anti-choice movement.

-J Crowley

The site, by the way, is called “Rock for Life”. Which makes me wonder if they think that bands who support abortion rights would/should be on a site called “Rock for Abortion”. Which is kind of funny, considering that apparently crack and cocaine can induce miscarriage, which is certainly an alternative that’ll be available to many women if medical methods are made illegal.

The following is an exchange I found my addicted-to-argument-ass self dragged into, thanks in part to Heather, regarding whether or not a person can objectively prove reality. The argument took place as a branch of Heather’s argument about whether a person can be both Buddhist and Atheist.

I’ll cut right to it below the fold. It’s a little bulkier, but hey, I haven’t updated in a while.

To keep things as short as possible, I’ll only quote relevant sections.

Continue reading →

So, say that one day, as we all sat in our homes, happy and comfortable and content, watching our movies or typing away at something on our computers or fucking in our bedrooms, a whole load of strange people arrived from over the sea and started walking around as though they owned the place. We’d confusedly invite them in, and they’d listen to our stories with mild interest and maybe watch some of our movies, play a round or two of Smash Bros Melee, thumb through some of our books, but the whole while, they’d be very obviously looking around and appraising everything.

Then, more of them would show up. Boatloads of them. We’d offer our spare bedrooms or maybe let them pitch tents in our yards, since, you know, we’re decent people and we wouldn’t want anyone to die of exposure. And, hey, they seem charming and mysterious, and come from lands far away with tales of adventure. But then two weeks would roll by, and three, and four, and eventually we’d be glancing frequently at our watches and making strong implications pertaining to their departure.

Instead, more would continue to arrive, and inevitably, one day they’d say “okay, this is all ours now” and herd us into small little bits of land, and, yes, I’m sure it’s pretty clear by this point that I’m talking about what the Europeans did to the Native Americans post-”discovery” of America.

Who the fuck are we to say who can and can’t come here? Why don’t we let the Native Americans have a vote about who should be here and who shouldn’t. Let’s see what they have to say. If they vote that immigrants shouldn’t be allowed, then we start sending Mexicans back over the border. Oh, and Europeans and Asians, retroactively, back a few hundred years. Yeah, yeah, we “bought” the isle of Manhattan for a string of beads, which means that it’s totally fine for me to buy a retarded guy’s car for a film jar full of “really valuable” kidney stones. I’m not saying Native Americans were retarded, I’m saying they didn’t have much of a grasp of the concept of value with regard to the goods being exchanged. Yet, you know, it’s ours. Just like the money that con artists scam from the elderly under the guise of charity is rightfully theirs.

Let me clarify, though, for a second: I’m not advocating that we give the land back to the Native Americans. That’s insane. It’d be a logistics nightmare, and there’s not a damn way that all the people in the U.S. are going to fit in Europe and Asia and wherever the hell else we’re all from. And there’s really no point in punishing us for the horrible shit that the ancestors of a very tiny minority of us perpetrated.

But, come on, for us to say “no, Mexicans, begone!” is like asking a friend at a restaurant for a taste of what he ordered, and then taking his plate and putting your arms around it and saying that nobody else can have any. “I like your dish better. It’s so much greener, and your plate is so spacious.”

Anyway, to give some kind of a point to my analogy, what if people from another land–be it Mexico or Molvania–came here with enough force, persuasiveness, cunning and charm to take all of this away from us? Let’s use the example of Mexico, since most illegal aliens in this country originate there. Hell, if they want to come into our country and take stuff, it’s pretty damned hypocritical for us to condemn them for it. That’s how the current inception of this place got started in the first place! A bunch of illegal aliens came in, told the current occupants “hey, this is mine”, made some really shady financial transactions, and–BING–America!

Land of the free (provided you actually possess the magical attributes that qualify you as a citizen), home of the brave (or, well, mostly a bunch of people who shout a lot about what a good idea it is to go to war and then back off and let their neighbor kids do it. Not to be mistaken, of course, with the Braves. We killed those).

A few things I want to mention regarding comments on the last post:

Watt, “no taxation without representation” is the same whether it’s happening now or in the 1700s. You can’t claim it’s right just because it’s legal. “Oh, it’s okay for us to tax registered aliens without providing them services or representation, but it was horrible for the British to tax us without providing us services or representation because, well, back then, it was someone else doing it to us.” By the way: in Hitler-ruled Germany, it was perfectly legal to kill Der Juden, too. Not that this immigration thing is as bad as the Holocaust by any means, but it’s illustrative of how “legal” != “good”.

Djur makes an excellent point, countering Christian Sween: If America is apparently this hotbed of “everyone wants to live here” mania, then why aren’t there more people who could actually accomplish it with relative ease rushing the borders to live here? And what’s with the desire of some of the people living here now to move elsewhere?

In response to this part of Watt’s post:

Obviously he was way off when he said EVERYONE wants to be here, but I would say the amount of people who want to be here is much larger than what we can take. Do you disagree?

If we’re going to start trying to limit the number of people who can live in the U.S. simply by what the resources we have available to us will support, we’re going to need to start shipping a good chunk of the people who already live here somewhere else, if the Bush administration’s programs continue. Though, well, I suppose it depends on whether you’re looking at it from the perspective of production or the perspective of consumption. I’m sure if we didn’t have the attitudes we currently do about legacy ownership and all this other crap, we’d be able to chop up some of that land in the Midwest and break it up into farms (oh, and, y’know, not pay farmers to not grow crops for the purpose of driving up prices), and we’d have plenty for everyone. But that is, of course, no less a utopian idea than your “everyone who lives here should deserve to live here” argument.

Which, uh, by the way: What makes a person worthy of living here? Why do some of them deserve it and others not? And isn’t discriminating based on nationality (i.e. “I was born here; you were not”) kind of a lame qualifier? Fuck, I don’t get to claim ownership to the hospital just because I was born there, and then bar entry to anyone I don’t want to be in there.

It’s about time the Bush administration and Republicans stood up about this illegal immigration issue. These illegal aliens have been taking our jobs for far too long. There’s this job mowing lawns for less than minimum wage that I’ve had my eye on for a while, and Janet’s really been wanting to wipe someone’s grandmother’s ass for six dollars an hour, and we just haven’t been able to do it because of all these damn Mexicans sneaking over the border and grabbing them out from under us.

A letter from a listener was read on NPR the other day, talking about how illegal immigrants are taking away entry-level jobs from kids getting out of college. Bravo, sir! Never have truer words been spoken! There is absolutely nothing more that college students want to do after graduation than stand on the highway selling flowers and oranges. Yet, all I see are these hispanic families doing it, and whenever I ask them for college degrees and proof of citizenship when I’m considering making a purchase, why, they barely even speak enough English to understand what I’m asking for! There are plenty of other spots on these roads for our young men and women to stand, selling flowers and oranges of their own, but this whole illegal immigration thing has just taken away all their motivation and initiative. It’s destroying the morale of our workforce. How are they ever going to pay off their student loans if they can’t get sub-minimum-wage jobs doing humiliating things? And how is our economy ever going to thrive if illegal aliens are coming in and taking these horrible jobs away from legal American workers?

And this has absolutely nothing to do, by the way, with poor economic strategies that force people who are overqualified to take jobs that are far beneath them, or that force college graduates to take temp jobs doing data entry, thus forcing the people who are actually qualified for those jobs or who lack the education to do anything better into unemployment because people with better qualifications are having to settle for the shitty jobs that they could have. Why, that’s just ludicrous!

As is the idea that it’s somehow a “bad thing” with “a negative impact on our economy” that “harms our workforce” to allow companies to outsource labor to countries with lower standards of living, where the people there are willing to work for a tiny fraction of what the average American would need merely to survive, let alone prosper. Who came up with that stupid argument? And even if it were true, I mean, the neoconservatives’ theory (which I also heard from a caller on NPR a couple weeks ago) is right: American workers should stop whining about these petty things like being able to afford houses and medicine and education for their children, and should compete with workers overseas. Want to keep your job? Vote to decrease the minimum wage in this country! Offer to work for fifty cents less an hour than them! It’s the Income Limbo: How low can you go, America?

But, no, that’s not the problem either. Nor are tax returns that mostly benefit the rich while starving the government of money it needs for things like, say, making sure our troops have adequate equipment and support. It’s all Mexicans sneaking over our borders and taking away jobs that nobody else is really willing to do, for disgustingly little pay. Duhh! Oh, and while we’re on the subject, it’s absolutely fine for American employers to take advantage of illegal immigrants by making them work for very little pay with horrible hours and abusive and nasty conditions since there’s no legal recourse available to them to do anything about it. It’s only bad that illegal immigrants are coming here. There’s nothing wrong with taking advantage of them, because, y’know, Capitalism rocks and there should be no regulation at all on business, and employers should be applauded for taking advantage of these money-saving opportunities available to them, and all of that.

So we all need to just listen to the Republicans on this, because they have the answers. Just like with Iraq. And Katrina. And Rita. And Terri Schiavo. And the economy. And Iran. And North Korea. And actually finding Osama Bin Laden. And sweatshops and forced prostitution and abortions in Saipan. And gay marriage. And…