Murphy’s Bye-Laws

I’ve been told more than once that my anarchism or atheism is a phase of youth.  I assume the reasoning – or rationalization – for this is an attribution to rebellion and the transition from the regimentation of childhood to the independence of adulthood.  In many cases this is probably true.  In so many others it is not.

As part of the maturation process, independence of thought is a major step.  When taking this step in a full stride a burgeoning adult will re-examine all of their inherited beliefs back to their basic principals, including their faith and mysticism, morals, lifestyle, politics, everything. There is more to this step (giant leap) than simply progressing from the known to the known in an intentional step; the full stride toward real independence is taking a step into darkness from the known to the unknown.  The insecurity of this step and the separation from the native herd or family sharing similar beliefs is akin to what I believe Erich Fromm was discussing when talking in Escape From Freedom about discarding independence and individuality for the security of belonging to a group.  To be accepted, which brings some privileges and, in some cases, access, one must usually hold a similar set of mores and basic beliefs.  In the case of anarchism, and to a lesser and lesser degree atheism, one’s beliefs are alien and radical to the point of bringing discomfort to others.  These others decide whether to hire for a job, issue a raise, and many other things that have real effects.

In between the extremes of temporary, shallow rebellion, as formulated against me on some occasions, and complete intellectual independence lie those who formulate thoughts contrary to prior belief taught them as children, temporarily, only to retreat to those beliefs in the name of pragmatism or security.  (Excluded from this spectrum are those who neither rebel to cut ties nor rethink anything they’ve been told, a.k.a. the electorate).  A half-step resulting in retreat or incomplete independence could result in a skeptic enmeshed in cognitive dissonance for the sake of peace of mind or an aware player of the system pragmatically employing the proper rhetoric to their own immoral gain.  Of course, greater risks involved in achieving intellectual independence pay dividends proportional to that risk.

In terms of the initial accusation of youthful rebellion, assuming the accusers have first-hand knowledge, I would like to add to their evaluation.  If, having rebelled to show those stupid adults, a person then reverts back to the same things they rebelled from, can it be called evolution back into naivety or simply giving up and retreating?

A friend and occasional commenter to the Bye-Laws, it was once joked, never did anything halfway; instead this person went overboard with all things from the passing hobby to general consumption.  Since everything was taken to extremes with them, I suggested practicing “extreme moderation.”  This was a joke, of course.  In actuality, if moderation were practiced – even extremely – this person would be unrecognizable to their friends, and that wasn’t the goal.  The oxymoron in the title isn’t the target of this discussion, though.  Instead, the title refers to the apparent pattern of my own personal convictions and attitudes toward them.  (Isn’t a title with layers and layers of possible meaning fun?)  Over and over again in my intellectual awakenings I see a new idea latched onto vehemently and radically only to become more temperate, nuanced, and reasoned over time.  Reflection on this process makes it seem like the initial stages are so strong in order to ingrain the new thought paradigm and expel the old paradigm; with time and deeper consideration a zen-like peace with the new outlook replaces the zealous attitude.

The first thought paradigm to be put asunder was that of Christianity.  I studied Christianity with as much vigor as my school work, probably as a supplemental challenge, through Junior High.  My approach to it was academic mostly. Read the rest of this entry »

Back in January Sunni had a little virtual party wherein many people contributed content and thoughts on one topic. (The actual content posts can be found here and here.) The topic was broad and open to a wide interpretation: “A Spirit Breaking Free.” In a comment to her announcement I voiced concern for not really knowing what spirit was. That was as good a point as any to mark the genesis of this particular mental exploration.

What I’m proposing for a path through this exploration is similar to what Sunni did. I would like for people (or non-people, if you’re reading) to send in their own content to explore what the soul is to them. With any luck, the result will be a discussion of spirituality from multiple points of view.

I would like to have a kick-off party for this event, say, the evening of Saturday, April 19th. I will attempt to keep this post at or near the top (and possibly make a separate page for it) until then, at which point I will post my contribution to kick this off.

Reader content can be placed in the comments section. If there are more than three hyperlinks in the text it will get flagged as spam or marked for moderation, but I will get to it and make sure it goes through. If you anticipate this happening, an email to me ahead of time may expedite the process of getting it through the filter. Also, if for some reason you may not be available to post during the kick-off and would like it to happen then, email me the content and I can post it with attribution or anonymity. Anonymous comments are allowed at Murphy’s Bye-Laws. The email to reach me is <redacted>.

I hope to see everyone there and look forward to this interesting discussion.  Don’t forget to spread the word and invite friends and family!

On account of presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Faith-in-America speech last week, questions about the nature and existence of belief are on everyone’s mind. Romney made the argument that any belief – as long as it is monotheistic and similar enough to Christianity to be misconstrued as such – is far better than no belief at all. Backed up by polls indicating negative support for non-believers, it seems Romney made a sound political move.

Out this week is a new poll adding further weight to the push for believers in powerful offices. The poll, conducted by People for Pixies Party (P4PP) in conjunction with Pink Elephant Publishing, found that 61% percent of respondents wouldn’t vote for someone who didn’t believe in Santa Claus. SANTA CLAUS! How could better than 25% vote for such a nutcase that would not believe in Santa? Further questioning revealed that the preference wasn’t simply for Santa, but votes could be conscientiously cast for believers in Saint Nick, Chris Cringle, Father Christmas, Sinterklaas, or Papa Noel. Opposition to non-belief drops off in the electorate with the Easter Bunny and further still for the Tooth Fairy (much to the disappointment of the P4PP).

Many of the respondents sited tradition and a generally jolly attitude that is presumed to be attributed to and synonymous with their Santaism. The tradition argument seems to be grasping at garland, though, says Geoffrey Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. He argues that the majority of the men that founded our nation didn’t adhere to Santaism:

These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and “politically incorrect” to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders.

It can’t be said for sure if our current sitting president is a believer, but it seems likely. I have to wonder though if Santa, who is bearded and probably looks kind of foreign, wasn’t a victim of extraordinary rendition and all his reindeer waterboarded in order to find any cells of rogue elves. I guess we’ll have to wait until Christmas Eve to know for sure. There is a ‘War on Christmas’ on, don’t ya know?

In light of these recent polls, will non-believers in Santa be forever in the powerless minority?

I first came across the writing of Christopher Hitchens in the forward of Choice: The Best of Reason. I recall him coming across as not particularly libertarian, though enough to qualify as a celebrity in libertarian circles at the time perhaps. It would be hard for me to gauge since I was rather new to the libertarian philosophy. What really grabbed my attention about Mr. Hitchens was his atheism. Since atheism was my channel into philosophy before I cared to engage in any thought about politics, this aspect of his writing stuck out.

Upon further reading of Mr. Hitchens I found him to be moderately libertarian and definitely passionate and outspoken. Then came 9/11 and Iraq and, like so many strong advocates for limited (or no) government, he was scared out of his wits and jumped on the war wagon. This hawkish shift was further emphasized by the fanatic religious nature of the “War on Terror.” Hitchens beat the anti-Muslim drum into battle sounding like a pro-government tyrant in the process.

So when I saw on Slate.com that he had a new book out, not about the wars but about religion in general, I was hopeful that he’d put down his drumsticks for a while. Based on the excerpts on Slate, there is some justification for that hope as he peels away the cake and icing of Islam and Mormonism to reveal the rancid creamy middle. For some reason I read those first and so didn’t notice the general essay on the evil of religion until after taking in a few specifics. Overall I can concur and agree with him on the vast majority of his points. In fact, I would only disagree on a matter of exclusion; an oversight maybe. Take this excerpt, for example, Read the rest of this entry »