A society where all the wrong arguments win

Written on Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am | by benign0

The venerable Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, said the following words in a Commencement Address he delivered on June 12, 2005 to graduates of Stanford University:

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.

There was an interesting exchange of ideas (or at least some of them were “ideas” in the real sense of the word) in the comments section of my last FV article. The discussion ultimately became all about the limits of scientific and logical inquiry, specifically to do with any speculation as to the nature of what it means to be an almighty, omni-present, all-knowing, all-transcending, and (lest we forget) perfect God. Apparently some of us see this as a rather hairy path to tread considering that the Gates of Hell await those who presume to even second-guess what has been regarded as de facto “truth” since man first thought: “Jeez! I think, therefore I am!”.

Interestingly enough, it was actually when the discussion hit the even hairier subject of Heaven and Hell that the crosshairs shifted to the Almighty himself. And then everything went pear-shaped from there.

The esteemed Bencard made this rather quick-witted remark:

[…] you cannot dismiss eternal reward/punishment without also brushing aside the concept of God.

To Bencard’s credit, the above assertion made me think. And I thought: Hmmmmm…. It seems Mr. Bencard is saying that God cannot exist without the concepts of reward and punishment and therefore without Heaven and Hell. But then God is said to have created everything and therefore he must have existed before Heaven and Hell existed and certainly before the concepts of reward and punishment existed! Being the Almighty, hey, he created them all. End of argument.

Then I get a “reality” check. Who am I to even think of attempting to comprehend a being who transcends the three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time that the very phyisical wiring of our minds limit our comprehension to? Behold the fear around allowing one’s mind to wander into the netherworld of realms that only God in all His righteousness can fathom. Tremble at the thundering voice that heralds the wrath of the Almighty and all His angels and saints, marching behind Him with swords of fire drawn ready to smite even the tiniest amoebas who dare beg to differ.

But wait a minute, goes a small voice… If He presumably created our ability to think, why then should we assume that our little thought experiments would so get under His infinite skin?

Again the Voice thunders…

[…] enough of this charade already. you can call it “taking flight” but i refuse to discuss this matter with you any further.

Absolutely, your highness.

Imagine if Albert Einstein — or, before him, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, and Newton — had thought in this self-limiting way.

To begin to imagine the implications of such a horrible thought, consider how the mind of the average 15th or 16th century schmoe worked. People of the time who invoked a bit more brain than the average Visigoth lived under constant threat of excommunication. And in the belief system of the time, dying while in a state of excommunication meant certain damnation. Now that is what one would call the Fear Factor.

Yet today, the whole idea of our little planet being just one of a possible trillion or so others in a universe with no physical centre is generally-accepted knowledge. This is an idea that only 400 years ago would have seen you thrown into a dungeon by the Armies of Righteousness.

For a society and people faced with a future devoid of any REAL hope (i.e. the kind of hope that can be substantiated by a well-thought-out game plan that underpins it), it will take a lot of courage to realise that it will only be through huge leaps of imagination, thinking, and execution that we will be able to overcome our debilitating loser mentality, the dogmatic, traditionalistic imprisonment of our minds, and the tyranny of those who continue invoking medieval methods to propagate the status quo, that the seeds of real sustainable progress will be seen.

Unfortunately the concept of “morality” continues to be an effective trump card in a backward society such as ours — a society where all the wrong arguments win. Whenever the “morality” card comes into play, the excrutiatingly painful effort to apply the tortured logic (institutionalised in the “field of learning” called theology) to backward-engineer sense from dogma begins — sapping the life out of sensible discussion about otherwise no-brainer issues such as reproductive health bills.

Only the words of the even more venerable Albert Einstein serve as a fitting close to a blog post opened with the words of Steve Jobs:

Problems cannot be solved using the same thinking that created them.

Get Real Philippines!

============
Join us on Facebook!
Join us on Facebook!

Tags: , , , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.COM and has once been described as "one of the most enthusiastic hecklers of the politically-passionate" by a respected journalist.

Filed Under Society

Related Entries:

Comments

19 Responses to “A society where all the wrong arguments win”

  1. Solid Pinoy on September 23rd, 2008 10:25 am

    Remember when God told Adam and Eve not to bite that Goddam fruit?

    Thinking is the same thing. You MUST NOT think. Just OBEY dude. Reason and logic are seductive devices that lead to rebellion. This is all a test, like a super final exam for your soul. Obey the Bible blindy (”faith”) and you will pass. Start thinking and you will fail. Sorry, there is no appeals system.

    So Benign0, I really want to help you. Its really simple so just do the following: Close your eyes, fall down to your knees and declare your allegiance to the Lord. If you start to feel like laughing, don’t worry — that’s Satan trying to distract you from being a devoted servant.

    Okay? Ready?

    Repeat after me:

    “Praise the fucking Lord!!!”

  2. Dean Jorge Bocobo on September 23rd, 2008 11:55 am

    Unfortunately the concept of “morality” continues to be an effective trump card in a backward society such as ours — a society where all the wrong arguments win. Whenever the “moprality” card comes into play, the excrutiatingly painful effort to apply the tortured logic (institutionalised in the “field of learning” called theology) to backward-engineer sense from dogma begins — sapping the life out of sensible discussion about otherwise no-brainer issues such as reproductive health bills.“

    I disagree that the Reproductive Health bill is a “no-brainer”, and I am puzzled you find it “unfortunate” that “morality continues to be a trump card” in our backward society.

    After all, Benign0, aren’t moral arguments integral to blogging itself?

    There may be wrong arguments that seem to win out, but it is only for lack of being able to express better arguments that are right.

    You are committing the fallacy of exasperation.

    Still I am hoping that Bencard will not indulge this latest challenge from you to mount the battlements of Theology and Philosophy.

    We don’t want anyone popping a vein, intellectual or vascular, hehe.

  3. Ding G. Gagelonia on September 23rd, 2008 1:38 pm

    Spot on DJB.

    At the risk of sounding pedantic, even obtuse t the intellectuals hereabouts, we don’t have to turn every exchange at FV into a pissing contests or even pitikan ng tainga.

    We must, me thinks, try when we can, to put an arms length between our personas and the issues being debated.

    No argument need be adjudged the ‘winning punto de vista’.

    The readers, many of them uncommenting and quiet in their thoughts. are with FV exactly to gain insight, not to find out who won the argument, lest we become wrapped up in ourselves.

  4. benign0 on September 23rd, 2008 1:48 pm

    DJB, apologies for the conclusion. Let me clarify.

    I prefer ethics over morality as an underpinning for any system of determining what is right or wrong.

    Whereas ethics follows a coherent framework of thinking and therefore is a transparent and relatively internally-consistent system, what is “morality” built upon, on the other hand? Nothing more than some quaint literary relics and the edicts of those who apply a tortured logic (thanks to smoke for aptly describing the nature of the Beast) to interpret said literature.

    So to answer this question of yours…

    After all, Benign0, aren’t moral arguments integral to blogging itself?

    (boldface mine)

    … I’d simply replace the word “moral” in your above question with the word “ethical” and then answer you with a yes.

    Specifically:

    Ethical arguments are integral to blogging.

  5. Bencard on September 23rd, 2008 11:14 pm

    for those who are wondering whether or not this latest from benigno is a self-serving spin of what had transpired in the comment section of his previous article, “moral depravity and the primitivist mind”, i invite them to read the whole exchange and judge it for themselves. what has been said has been written for all to see and no amount of subsequent slanted recasting can change it. i don’t need to re-engage benigno on another time-wasting back and forth of the same thing, just to point out that he is obviously attempting to “win” our little “debate” by quoting snippets from my comments that he thinks can put him on the “winning side”, after the fact.

    i think ding gagelonia is spot on. FV exchanges shouldn’t be treated like a college debate to win medals or as ego-builder. it is to try to dissect issues to arrive at the truth or to form a rational consensus. winning in a debate doesn’t change the truth.

    btw, benigno. in the context of your proposition that our’s is “a society where all the wrong arguments win”, are you saying i WON because my arguments were all wrong, or did i LOSE because my contentions were all correct?

    djb, no way jorge, no one is “popping a vein” here, in every sense of the word, as long as no one gets personal and start irrelevant name-calling.

  6. Bencard on September 24th, 2008 1:26 am

    just one more thing, benigno. where in the sentence “you cannot dismiss eternal reward/punishment by brushing aside the concept of God”,that you quoted, did i say that God cannot exist without the concept of reward/punishment. i think you should have your eyes/head examined if you are seeing something in what i said other than its plain meaning, i.e. that you cannot IGNORE the concept of eternal reward/punisment without also IGNORING the concept of God. a concept doesn’t become non-existent just because you dismiss, brush aside or ignore it.

  7. Blackshama on September 24th, 2008 1:52 am

    You forgot to quote Galileo

    “It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.”

    But let me throw you another heresy on something that the liberal intellectuals (mostly cognitive relativists) hold and you have falled into by saying theology requires tortured logic

    Theology doesn’t require “tortured logic”. In fact it is like the Science in that the same method of analysis is used. When Theologian and Scientist Guy Consolmago SJ says that Science was born of Theology, it is because it of the same level of rigour is needed by using the same philosophical method.

    The Reproductive Health Bills in Congress is a good example. It exposes the sloppy thinking of the following 1) Catholics who don’t support it, 2) Its liberal cognitive relativistic supporters (who like the above metioned Catholics, rarely even consider the scientific and evolutionary nature of human sexuality) 3) And of course some lawyers who need to re-enrol in undergrad philosophy and introductory biology.

    The bills are really worth thinking about.

  8. benign0 on September 24th, 2008 7:26 am

    Blackshama, I do appreciate that an attempt is made to apply some form of rigour to the field of theology. The difference between real science/philosophy and “theology” is that theology starts with dogma, and then backward-engineers sense out of this dogma to generate what appears to be a rigorous thought process.

    For example, the concept of the Holy Trinity is a given truth to Catholoics (which includes Catholic “theologians” of course). The truth was made by edict first before the logic was applied — with torturous effort.

    Compare this to what we now take for granted as the theory of General Relativity. This is a theory that — despite being so counter-intuitive — is so brilliantly internally-consistent in its simplicity.

    One of its assertions is that gravity is not a force but an effect on matter moving relatively to one another caused by the curvature of space and time.

    Whereas, we are told by a bunch of old farts to believe that what we see, feel, and experience is not necessarily what is without as much as a smidgen of logic to show why, General Relativity proves this to be true AND is able to show why.

    More importantly, the rigour was applied before and as the brilliance of this theory unfolded in all its elegant beauty.

    Science and intelligent thinking are classy, ain’t they? :D

    Bencard, I’m flattered that despite you telling me no less than three times that you no longer want to discuss this with moi, you now show an inclination to change this stance of yours.

    Let me know if you really want me to respond to your questions in your above comment, and I shall oblige. ;)

  9. Bencard on September 24th, 2008 8:43 pm

    benigno, if you think you have the goods to address my point above, lay it out on the table for everyone to see. i’ll be the judge on whether or not i want to discuss whatever NEW matter you introduce to the discourse.

  10. benign0 on September 25th, 2008 8:40 am

    Bencard,

    (1) I’m not here to “win” anything. I’m here to evaluate ideas, propose my own, and test to see if those I propose can be taken apart. I don’t think FV has a policy of excluding “debates” in favour of mere discussion. From what I understand both are encouraged.

    That said, I believe one cannot have a “debate” without a “winner” emerging at the end of it (though FV lacks a mechanism for determining winners and losers, so don’t be too quick to presume to determine who wins or loses). And interestingly enough, it was you and Ding who put the “debate” label on our exchange — not me.

    (2) My tagline “the wrong arguments win” is a nod I give to An Admired Filipino Economist who waaaay back in 2000 had this to say about “the National Debate”:

    “They are droll and unintelligent, focused on the trivial or the irrelevant.” When the issues are of some significance, it’s the wrong arguments that prevail, the wrong side wins. Logic and common sense take the backseat to political arguments and the views of the poorly-educated. There seems to be some bases for her disenchantment.

    She of course refers to the general Pinoy “debate” (of which the quality here in FV is an exceptional subset). So don’t misconstrue it as referring to our exchange specifically. It’s not always all about you, you know. ;)

    (3) Some of the blog posts I make originate from an effort to compose a comment. When the composition evolves into something that can be addressed to a broader audience (beyond the person or blog post I was originally addressing the comment to), I publish it as a proper blog post. Capiche?

    (4) Yes, you didn’t say God cannot exist without the concept of reward and punishment. Invoking what you said earlier that “winning in a debate doesn’t change the truth”, I agree that it so then follows that “a concept doesn’t become non-existent just because you dismiss [it]”.

    But then for the purposes of discussion the concept vanishes when you declare said concept as dismissed. In fact I showed you a clear example that God can in fact be discussed without the concept of reward and punishment; thus,

    Bencard, even if we aren’t alone in the universe, presumably God created everything that ever lived and will ever live. So it follows that there was a time before he created us and them that the universe was empty except for him. So same banana. It follows that there was a time (an infinite amount of it in fact because God, supposedly has no beginning) that Heaven and Hell was not needed for punishment.

    In fact we can argue that God, being perfect (be reminded this is for discussion’s sake), has and will, for all eternity, have a perfect track record of creating perfect things. You get one thing wrong or incomplete and your track record is no longer perfect which means blemishes you as a “perfect” being. We can then argue that if God created Hell before there was any need for it made said creation incomplete and therefore imperfect.

    Would God risk His eternal perfection in such a way? ;)

  11. Bencard on September 25th, 2008 10:05 am

    why would a creation be “imperfect” just because it’s not being used at the moment? non-usage of a thing doesn’t mean it’s useless, i.e. “imperfect”. when you were born, i believe God didn’t plan you to ultimately be an eternal resident of hell. on the contrary, i think He wanted you to be in heaven. i think when, metaphorically, our common progeny, adam and eve, succumbed to the wiles of the devil and ate the fruit of knowledge, humanity was automatically invested with FREE WILL (in which, i believe, God would not interfere). so if you choose hell over heaven, in your exercise of free will, then that’s where you go. i believe, there could have been a possibility that hell was empty of human souls, but it was, and will ever be, always there waiting for those who opt to make it their eternal home. i don’t think that affects God’s perfection in any way, shape or form. the existence of hell, or its completeness, does not depend on whether there’s a devil in it. that’s like saying a house is not a house if there is no one living in it at given time.

    btw, just to further give you a human example, a jailhouse is not rendered unnecessary just because there is no criminal incarcerated at a given moment. by the same token, you don’t cease to exist by the mere fact that i refuse to recognize, ignore or dismiss the idea of your existence.

  12. benign0 on September 25th, 2008 10:58 am

    Bencard, I recall back in my ROTC days the following attributes of military correspondence:

    - Clarity
    - Conciseness
    - Completeness

    Our commanding officer told us that the quality of our communication depends on how much each of the above attributes meets a given standard.

    If we set a hypothetical standard of perfection for each attribute then, presumably, a communication of perfect quality meets the required standard for all of the above perfectly.

    Perfection therefore is uncompromising. Something that is “perfect” needs to hold up to any standard of quality for any attribute that can even be remotely associated with said thing.

    I’d surmise that completeness is an attribute of any creation. If we in our human smallness can expect to hold a human creation to a given standard of completeness, then certainly God, being the almighty and perfect “being” that He is should see no problem with being held to that standard Himself.

    So you are in effect saying — no, presuming — to suppose that an incomplete creation is something that can be associate with a perfect “being” such as God.

  13. Bencard on September 25th, 2008 11:28 am

    can’t you comprehend what i said? READ MY LIPS. hell doesn’t need a devil to exist as hell. a house that has all the material components of a house that you can imagine is not “incomplete” just because there is nobody living in it at the moment. you are being makulit. and i don’t care what you learned from your rotc days. that has nothing to do with the price of tuyo’.

    “i’d surmise that completeness is an attribute of every creation.” WRONG. can’t i “create” a drawing of a person without legs?

    benigno, anymore persistence on your part to pursue that line of argument will henceforth be met with my silence.

  14. benign0 on September 25th, 2008 11:48 am

    Bencard,

    Now I’m confused by what you say here:

    hell doesn’t need a devil to exist as hell

    How much about hell and devils would you know to be able to make such a statement with such certainty?

    And as to this:

    can’t i “create” a drawing of a person without legs?

    That is, if your purpose is to convey the concept of a legless person.

    so what would be the purpose of a hell without a devil and without people to punish? Is God’s purpose to create a devil-less and customer-less facility?

    It is usually the more simple principle that tends to be the valid one. And it seems to be apparent that the more simple principle emerging here is that God can exist without hell and certainly without the concepts of reward and punishment.

    The complication arises when we postulate the existence of a devil-less and customer-less Hell. When in fact, God being the almighty and perfect being that He is, can create hell in the blink of an eye (in even less time probably, Him not being subject to time as you say) as soon as a purpose for it comes to existence (He’d create that purpose as well, presumably — Him being the creator of ALL, right?).

    Wouldn’t that be the simpler (and therefore more likely valid) argument?

    We’re talking about a perfect “being” here and the supposedly perfect creations of His, you know.

    By the way, what is your definition of perfection nga ba?

    The reason I ask is that it seems you have a regard for perfection that is compromising which to me seems a bit oxymoronic. ;)

  15. Ding Gagelonia on September 25th, 2008 1:46 pm

    Benign0,

    I am almost ‘offended’ that you lumped me and Bencard together, hehehe. given that not to long ago I chided him for being an apologist for GMA. But seriously, I am an avid fan of debate, and I particularly admire how you begin threads here at FV which trigger such illuminating debates.

    You help define the biggest strength of Filipino Voices, my friend.

    Keep the kiln hot.

  16. Ding Gagelonia on September 25th, 2008 2:17 pm

    Meant “not too long ago”, pardon the typo gents :)

  17. benign0 on September 25th, 2008 7:51 pm

    Thanks Ding. As I said in my proposal to Nick: “FV is a community of unlike-minded individuals united in a common passion for free inquiry.”. So inherent in our goal to find the Truth is the need to disagree. Our unlike-mindedness coupled with our ability to discuss and evaluate one another’s ideas without descending into Ellenville-like behaviour is our biggest strength.

  18. Pao on October 6th, 2008 3:44 pm

    I agree with you benign0.

    This may be the reason why the catholic church is steadily becoming irrelevant in this day and age.

  19. pumpy on October 27th, 2008 6:23 am

    Actually, they can, as seen in your entry on the Wall Street crash.

Leave a Reply