Besides the fact that there is no mention of God anywhere in the constitution, there can be no clearer statement for the secular nature of our government than found in Treaty of Tripoli, signed by the President and the Senate in June 7, 1797.
In Article 11, it states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
8.10.2008
2.19.2008
Programmers and Religion
It is any surprise that a profession that demands intense logical analysis would find a very large number of people rejecting a very illogical proposition. According to an self-report, non-random survey, the highest religious affiliation with almost every programming language is... Atheist! Knowing as much as I do about survey research, I can only take this finding with a grain of salt. There could have easily been vote early and often phenomena, or even the tell your friends but not your enemies phenomena that could have swayed the results. However, this survey does match some of my own observations in the geek world.
I know Rand said "there is no compromise between food and poison. Poison always wins." I can't remember if she said there is no compromise between the rational and irrational, but it certainly sounds like something she would say. So a profession that deals explicitly with identifying facts of reality and logical connections between these facts will likely attract individuals who question faith and reject irrationality on principle.
10.15.2007
The Marketing of Objectivism
I've wondered why Evangelicals have been so successful lately. I believe part of the answer lies in their change in marketing techniques : http://www.churchsolutionsmag.com/articles/655/655_651Feat3.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_21/b3934001_mz001.htm
There are two key things they are doing:
1. Using technology to identify, attract, and maintain customers
2. Establishing niche markets for different personalities and life styles to gather in a social environment
What we find is that the evangelicals are so successful because the have adopted a business focus toward their congregation. They realize they are providing a service - the service of creating a feel good social environment for learning and growth. A little music, some self-reflection, a couple of inspiring Bible verses, and viola - a success service. I've spent enough of my childhood years going to church (shudder) to know why this works. The social element is a huge key to success. In high school, I had a great deal of difficulty staying convinced that God was real (hmm... I wonder why?). Every six months or so, I would attend another youth retreat or youth conference and suddenly my religious convictions were magnified. But the only reason I would go to these conferences was to hang out with the other kids (especially the really hot girls) some of which I knew and were friends with.
So how does all of this relate to objectivism? I think it should be fairly obvious. There is a reason why so many local objectivist clubs have sprung up throughout the world. The desire to share a common link with other liked minded individuals is very strong. But many local objectivist clubs are small and lack a means of growing and attracting members. Most do not realize the true service they provide nor how to effectively market that service to others.
Objectivism can be a successfully marketed product as the Nathaniel Branden Institute showed us. And while I applaud the Ayn Rand Institute's efforts, they focus heavily on education, not on the social element. If what Peikoff said recently is true, that there are probably thousands of objectivists, if not tens of thousands. And if we consider that millions of people have read Rand's books and are generally favorable to her ideas, the market is huge.
But it will require a different kind of business or organization than the traditional local objectivist club. The sale of Objectivism to the masses cannot be done as a fully integrated philosophy, as it is much to difficult for most people to assimilate in full. It must be done through a series of self-help, self-enrichment, and social enrichment programs. It must compete head to head with the churches, but do so through principled programs consistent with objectivism. Some local clubs, such as the Front Range Objectivist, have experienced strong growth because they meet many of these needs. What I envision is even bigger. The challenge is to maintain the founding integrity, while providing a service to the general populace.
The challenge is necessary in order to win the cultural war against Christianity. People will need something to replace their traditions. Just as Christianity had to replace pagan holidays (Christmas and Easter) to be successful, so must this new vision replace some of the traditions of Christianity. Perhaps an idea such as the Fellowship of Reason could succeed if guided by Objectivist principles.
I open up this idea for discussion.
Related post
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_21/b3934001_mz001.htm
There are two key things they are doing:
1. Using technology to identify, attract, and maintain customers
2. Establishing niche markets for different personalities and life styles to gather in a social environment
What we find is that the evangelicals are so successful because the have adopted a business focus toward their congregation. They realize they are providing a service - the service of creating a feel good social environment for learning and growth. A little music, some self-reflection, a couple of inspiring Bible verses, and viola - a success service. I've spent enough of my childhood years going to church (shudder) to know why this works. The social element is a huge key to success. In high school, I had a great deal of difficulty staying convinced that God was real (hmm... I wonder why?). Every six months or so, I would attend another youth retreat or youth conference and suddenly my religious convictions were magnified. But the only reason I would go to these conferences was to hang out with the other kids (especially the really hot girls) some of which I knew and were friends with.
So how does all of this relate to objectivism? I think it should be fairly obvious. There is a reason why so many local objectivist clubs have sprung up throughout the world. The desire to share a common link with other liked minded individuals is very strong. But many local objectivist clubs are small and lack a means of growing and attracting members. Most do not realize the true service they provide nor how to effectively market that service to others.
Objectivism can be a successfully marketed product as the Nathaniel Branden Institute showed us. And while I applaud the Ayn Rand Institute's efforts, they focus heavily on education, not on the social element. If what Peikoff said recently is true, that there are probably thousands of objectivists, if not tens of thousands. And if we consider that millions of people have read Rand's books and are generally favorable to her ideas, the market is huge.
But it will require a different kind of business or organization than the traditional local objectivist club. The sale of Objectivism to the masses cannot be done as a fully integrated philosophy, as it is much to difficult for most people to assimilate in full. It must be done through a series of self-help, self-enrichment, and social enrichment programs. It must compete head to head with the churches, but do so through principled programs consistent with objectivism. Some local clubs, such as the Front Range Objectivist, have experienced strong growth because they meet many of these needs. What I envision is even bigger. The challenge is to maintain the founding integrity, while providing a service to the general populace.
The challenge is necessary in order to win the cultural war against Christianity. People will need something to replace their traditions. Just as Christianity had to replace pagan holidays (Christmas and Easter) to be successful, so must this new vision replace some of the traditions of Christianity. Perhaps an idea such as the Fellowship of Reason could succeed if guided by Objectivist principles.
I open up this idea for discussion.
Related post
4.18.2006
Evolution is fact
I've long been puzzled how people, some of whom are not Christians, still do not except evolution as a valid theory. Perhaps I need to spend more time listening to their questions, rather than trying to convince them. Yet the evidence seems so overwhelming that it is inescapable.
I am no biologist. In fact I have only taken one biology class in my life. But...I am observant of reality and am well read on scientific topics. I've actually taken the time to read Darwin's Origin of the Species, a feat that many biologists have not attempted. I used to subscribe to Scientific American. And currently subscribe to various science RSS feeds. From these readings (and more), I have determined that not only is evolution possible, but that it has moved beyond just a theory to become scientific fact. To deny evolution is to deny the observations from several scientific disciplines.
To clarify, evolution as scientific fact means that over time species evolve from one form into another, often with divergent paths. The specific mechanisms of evolution, however, are less than certain. The path to evolution change is still in the theory stage. But the fact that evolution takes place is agreed upon by biologists.
Here is the evidence:
1. The fossil records over thousands and millions of years show progressive changes in bone structures among various species (not just humans). That in and of itself should be enough evidence. But true to science, an observation is not sufficient. An understanding of "Why" evolution occurs is necessary to validate a theory as fact.
2. The results of these changing fossils are evident by the various species that exist today. This was the important observation that Darwin noted on his famous trip on the HMS Beagle. Species that were similar in almost every respect except for small adaptations were linked together through a common ancestory.
3. It has been readily observed that dog breeds all evolved from the wolf. Yet the vast differences in breeds - in shape, size, energy, behavior - has been accomplished through selective breeding. While this evolvotion of breeds was facilitated by humans, it is not difficult to imagine that wild animals may exhibit a similar transformation over longer periods of time and slower ecological changes.
4. The mechanisms for evolutionary adaptation is well known in genetics. Most parents are aware that their children have half of their own genes and half of the other parent's. Genetic combinations that produce offspring ill-equipted for handling their surroundings are likely to die before passing on their genetic material. For instances, if a certain species of birds feeds on nuts and the nut trees suddenly start producing super strong nuts. Only birds with a genetic trait of a super strong beak that can break through the nut, will survive, along with their geneticly strong beaked offspring. None of the other birds will be able to eat and the genetic trait for weaker beaks will go out of existence.
5. The observations of the breeding process and the understanding of genetics naturally give rise to the concept of natural selection. Through natural selection and natural genetic mutations, changes occur in species make up.
6. The creation of new species (speciation) has been observed numerous times. It is only a small step from realizing that new species can be created and realizing that fossil records show these changes in action, till one concludes that evolution must occur in at least some form.
This chain of logic and the sum of millions upon millions of observations from scientists and non-scientists alike, more than validates the concept of evolution as fact. Various religous theories to the contrary need not apply.
I am no biologist. In fact I have only taken one biology class in my life. But...I am observant of reality and am well read on scientific topics. I've actually taken the time to read Darwin's Origin of the Species, a feat that many biologists have not attempted. I used to subscribe to Scientific American. And currently subscribe to various science RSS feeds. From these readings (and more), I have determined that not only is evolution possible, but that it has moved beyond just a theory to become scientific fact. To deny evolution is to deny the observations from several scientific disciplines.
To clarify, evolution as scientific fact means that over time species evolve from one form into another, often with divergent paths. The specific mechanisms of evolution, however, are less than certain. The path to evolution change is still in the theory stage. But the fact that evolution takes place is agreed upon by biologists.
Here is the evidence:
1. The fossil records over thousands and millions of years show progressive changes in bone structures among various species (not just humans). That in and of itself should be enough evidence. But true to science, an observation is not sufficient. An understanding of "Why" evolution occurs is necessary to validate a theory as fact.
2. The results of these changing fossils are evident by the various species that exist today. This was the important observation that Darwin noted on his famous trip on the HMS Beagle. Species that were similar in almost every respect except for small adaptations were linked together through a common ancestory.
3. It has been readily observed that dog breeds all evolved from the wolf. Yet the vast differences in breeds - in shape, size, energy, behavior - has been accomplished through selective breeding. While this evolvotion of breeds was facilitated by humans, it is not difficult to imagine that wild animals may exhibit a similar transformation over longer periods of time and slower ecological changes.
4. The mechanisms for evolutionary adaptation is well known in genetics. Most parents are aware that their children have half of their own genes and half of the other parent's. Genetic combinations that produce offspring ill-equipted for handling their surroundings are likely to die before passing on their genetic material. For instances, if a certain species of birds feeds on nuts and the nut trees suddenly start producing super strong nuts. Only birds with a genetic trait of a super strong beak that can break through the nut, will survive, along with their geneticly strong beaked offspring. None of the other birds will be able to eat and the genetic trait for weaker beaks will go out of existence.
5. The observations of the breeding process and the understanding of genetics naturally give rise to the concept of natural selection. Through natural selection and natural genetic mutations, changes occur in species make up.
6. The creation of new species (speciation) has been observed numerous times. It is only a small step from realizing that new species can be created and realizing that fossil records show these changes in action, till one concludes that evolution must occur in at least some form.
This chain of logic and the sum of millions upon millions of observations from scientists and non-scientists alike, more than validates the concept of evolution as fact. Various religous theories to the contrary need not apply.
12.23.2005
Christmas remix
Not surprisingly, there is a great outcry ever year about how Christmas has lost its religiousness. "Let's get back to the true meaning of Christmas," shout fundamentalists. "Stop the commercialism" they rave. But they're wrong, on two counts.
First, the true meaning of Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The celebration as we know it today stems from various traditions in Europe, but primarily from Saturalia in Rome. The History Channel adds:
It was only after Christians obtained power in the Roman empire that Pope Julius 1 declared that December 25 was actually Jesus's birth. This date is as arbitrary as they come. Mostly, Pope Julius hoped that by placing Jesus's birth date on the same day as an already popular celebration, it would be easily and quickly adopted. He was right.
But there were consequences for doing this. Namely, many of the pagan traditions for celebrating the winter solstice continued. These included bringing evergreen trees (or their clippings) in from outside and decorating them, yule logs, mistletoe, large meals and lots of gift giving.
Indeed, today, even our government considers it a secular holiday, hence the appropriateness of declaring it a national holiday. (According to our constitution, the government cannot establish a church).
So where does this leave the Christians' claims that "We've lost the spirit of Christmas"? Well, the spirit originally was with celebrating the end of the waning daylight hours. So that's really why we get together and celebrate. But there is more to Christmas than just that. If we want to redefine what Christmas is for or how to celebrate it, then we need an objective standard for doing so. The Christians hopes that others will do only what they want, is clearly not objective.
As Leonard Peikoff so eloquently stated:
First, the true meaning of Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The celebration as we know it today stems from various traditions in Europe, but primarily from Saturalia in Rome. The History Channel adds:
Also around the time of the winter solstice, Romans observed Juvenalia, a feast honoring the children of Rome. In addition, members of the upper classes often celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the god of the unconquerable sun, on December 25. It was believed that Mithra, an infant god, was born of a rock. For some Romans, Mithra's birthday was the most sacred day of the year.
It was only after Christians obtained power in the Roman empire that Pope Julius 1 declared that December 25 was actually Jesus's birth. This date is as arbitrary as they come. Mostly, Pope Julius hoped that by placing Jesus's birth date on the same day as an already popular celebration, it would be easily and quickly adopted. He was right.
But there were consequences for doing this. Namely, many of the pagan traditions for celebrating the winter solstice continued. These included bringing evergreen trees (or their clippings) in from outside and decorating them, yule logs, mistletoe, large meals and lots of gift giving.
Indeed, today, even our government considers it a secular holiday, hence the appropriateness of declaring it a national holiday. (According to our constitution, the government cannot establish a church).
So where does this leave the Christians' claims that "We've lost the spirit of Christmas"? Well, the spirit originally was with celebrating the end of the waning daylight hours. So that's really why we get together and celebrate. But there is more to Christmas than just that. If we want to redefine what Christmas is for or how to celebrate it, then we need an objective standard for doing so. The Christians hopes that others will do only what they want, is clearly not objective.
As Leonard Peikoff so eloquently stated:
It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration.We should be celebrating the good in this world: capitalism, reason, productivity, etc. Many people are doing this, at least implicitly, but the celebration should be explicit, unapologetically. The commercialization of Christmas is a great thing. We need more commercialization!! Maybe we should change the name of Christmas, to Capitalmas... or perhaps Salemas.
11.10.2005
Unintelligent design
It's good to hear that reasonable people have ousted this ridiculous curriculum. "Intelligent design" is anything but intelligent. I've read through some of the arguments for this supposed science. All I can say is that it is not science. Call it religion, call it pseudo-science, call it whatever you want, but is most definitely not science. And as such, it has no place in a science class.
For a theory to be scientific, not only must there be evidence in support of it, but if contradictory evidence is found, you must reject, or at least modify the existing theory. This is how physics, chemistry, cellular biology, psychology, and all other sciences work. Theories, by their very nature, must be falsifiable. In other words, a theory is not legit unless it is possible (however unlikely) to prove that it is not true given the right information.
Intelligent design theory completely ignores this rule, because there is no way to prove that no intelligent beings designed our universe. If there was no intelligent being, how could we know? Can we be sure the universe would appear differently? How many different universes can you compare it too to prove it? The answer is obviously, we can't know and can't prove it.
Unfortunately, there appears no easy way put this bastardization of science to rest except for continued efforts by citizens such as the ones mentioned above. Don't give them an inch. Or else this Onion parody will be closer than you think.
Intelligent design is NOT science. It is religion masked in scientific jargon, nothing more.
For a theory to be scientific, not only must there be evidence in support of it, but if contradictory evidence is found, you must reject, or at least modify the existing theory. This is how physics, chemistry, cellular biology, psychology, and all other sciences work. Theories, by their very nature, must be falsifiable. In other words, a theory is not legit unless it is possible (however unlikely) to prove that it is not true given the right information.
Intelligent design theory completely ignores this rule, because there is no way to prove that no intelligent beings designed our universe. If there was no intelligent being, how could we know? Can we be sure the universe would appear differently? How many different universes can you compare it too to prove it? The answer is obviously, we can't know and can't prove it.
Unfortunately, there appears no easy way put this bastardization of science to rest except for continued efforts by citizens such as the ones mentioned above. Don't give them an inch. Or else this Onion parody will be closer than you think.
Intelligent design is NOT science. It is religion masked in scientific jargon, nothing more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)