Archives for posts with tag: Religion

I have been thinking for a bit on why people deny things for which there is generally solid evidence. We have global warming, the holocaust, and the theory of evolution for starters. Is it really because these concepts are incompatible with their belief system? I have concluded that it is something more. It is because of the policies based on them.

With evolution, it does go against a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. I don’t see this as the real source behind the militant disagreement with it though. Given the chance, Christians would eventually embrace it, as they have with other unpopular scientific discoveries. What really inspires the refusal is that evolution is used as a tool to enact anti-religious policies outside the scope of the theory. By denying the theory of evolution, some Christians seek to throw atheism back to a time when it was politically impotent and intellectually indefensible.

Denial of the holocaust, particularly in middle-eastern countries,  also is rooted in policy consequences. It was because of the Holocaust that there was support for Israel to be re-established. By denying that it ever took place, Muslim leaders seek to take away both the main impetus for having to live with the Jewish State as a thorn in their side, and the stigma of having supported Adolph Hitler during WWII.

Finally there is the denial of global climate change. Like the others, it is an attempt to block policies, which in this case are designed to increase government control over society. If we could just get rid of this theory, then the doors would be open to harvesting natural resources that would spur growth in our economy, and maintain a greater degree of personal freedom and upward socio-economic mobility.

This is the problem we see here: we have a tendency to attack the tool rather than the underlying problem. This is a children’s sword-fight, where one party hits at the sword of the other party. Evolution has nothing to say for or against the existence of deity. The Holocaust has no bearing on whether there should be a state of Israel. Global warming is irrelevant to the question of to what extent a government should control or be controlled by its people. Enough sword-fighting, we need to get down to the root of things. It is time for some fencing.

Advertisements

An offshoot of yesterday’s post

The society that we live in has been rapidly changing over the last decade. It was clear after the exploit of a vulnerability in our Transportation_Av module in v125.8.10 that many parts of our code base were in need of a major refactor. Since then, a number of breaking changes have been introduced into our production society, and the uncertain syntax and shifting interfaces has resulted in a number of developers migrating their code base to countries with less overhead and more predictability. I would humbly suggest that the solution to this is to introduce a formalized deprecation policy.

Example use case:

We want to push a new Union factory to replace marriage by v139.0.0 allowing it to take an array:

Old:
Union marriage ( Male groom, Female bride [, array Deity god ] )

New:
Union civil_union ( array Any betrothed )

We would introduce the civil_union sub into v137.0.0 and flag marriage as deprecated. When invoked in versions v137.x and v138.x it will print the following useful warning on the marriage certificate:
Warning: marriage is deprecated. Please use civil_union.

This new system will make the refactor proceed much more smoothly. We will be able to change the syntax of our society in a safer manner that is less likely to break other people’s cultures. A few other changes we hope to make:

Old:
array Money job ( Work work [, Creativity creativity] )

New:
array Money entitlements ( Booth voting_booth [, bool heartbeat ] )

Old:
Flight metal_detector ( Person you )

New:
[Flight] tsa_tentacle_robot ( Person you )

Here is a post for my “Religion, Politics and other things that make me the life of the party” series. I fully blame this freakish story on “After Birth Abortions” and this more thought-provoking post for my lapse in judgement.

One thing that I appreciate in the author of the second piece is that, despite the first impression, he does attempt to draw a line as to when an abortion should take place. Though he does not (cannot?) specifiy exactly where that line is, I will rashly presume at viability based on the context.

That is the problem. We complicate matters with questions like: when do we declare the foetus viable/self-aware, does the foetus feel pain, was the mother negligent for not using contraceptives? As in the first article, we end up with limits for “abortion” suggested anywhere from conception to toddler.

This mess results in everything relegated to emotional decisions. What is needed is an objective way to determine if an abortion is the right thing to do in a given situation. Might I suggest self-defense.

It has been a fairly constant and accepted rule in society that it is wrong to kill another human unless it is in self-defence. If the mother’s life is in danger, she should have the same right to defend herself as she does if someone is pointing a knife at her.

No more emotional arguments, no more unanswerable questions.

Would that mean that abortion would be illegal in states that deny an individual’s right to defend themselves? What about cases of rape or incest? …