Word misuse

A pet peeve of mine is how words are used.  I dislike misuse of words.  Now, there are a lot of cases where it does not matter much, such as disc for some types of computer storage devises.  But some words misused in political, misleading and uninformed ways are frustrating to me.  I do not like how left and right became political words.  I dislike how politicians use words in ways to confuse or mislead the public.  Companies and advertisers do the latter as well.  Truth, facts, reality, science are words which I believe should be more carefully used.  Belief is confused with truth.  Hearsay is confused with facts. Ideas are misrepresented as theories.  Things are called science which have little or no use of the scientific method.  This all came to me when I was searching the web about realism.  Early on, I came across an international perspective called realism.  The proponents use the word because they believe that they are basing their views on what is really happening in the world.  But they move away from realism as they make policy suggestions based purely on their perception of current conditions.  They skip over psychological and sociological factors.  I was surprised to discover the term racial realism and that scientific racism is still in use.  These terms relate to biased attempts to show how science and reality "prove" biological inferiority of specific races.  But the beginning bias of most of the proponents of these views is that they are racists to begin with.  From there, they assemble only the data which they believe supports their views.  They ignore or discount the evidence which contradicts them.  They also exclude psychological, sociological and historical factors.  Then we also have religionists who misuse words such as facts, truth and science.

Part of being a literate people is knowing when and when not to use words.  I fear that some groups of people are becoming less literate in this context.  They know a lot of words but not how to use them wisely.

Idealistic realist

Like many philosophies, there are various definitions of realism, some of which conflict.  Over the years, I have experimented with different definitions of my perspective.  I have attempted to find a term which does not have contradictory definitions.  The latter has been found to be elusive.  So I chose realism because the basic definitions fit.  It is true that there are branches of 'realism' which conflict.  But it seems the most basic starting point from which to expand.    Here are the definitions which fits my approach.

APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS
1. REALIST
A. a person who is aware of and accepts the physical universe, events, etc., as they are.
B. a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are.
2. REALISM
A. Interest in or concern for the actual or real.
B. The tendency to view or represent things as they really are.
C. The foundations for abstracts and speculations are based as much as possible on honest and factual information.

Some articles indicate opposing views between realism and idealism.  Indeed, I believe that some idealism is unrealistic, especially idealist believes which exclude or ignore the facts.  But I have the opinion, founded is realism, that having ideals, things to strive for but which do not currently exist,  can be useful to development.

So I could also define myself as a realistic idealist or maybe an idealistic realist.  The main point is to have a foundation in the real, known existence and work out from there.  My ideas are continuing to develop.

Moderate religionists

I had an interesting experience with a Muslim taxi driver.  I had a flat tire on my Catrike.  It was caused by a pinch which resulted in 2 holes close to each other. Patches were not working. I decided to accept the expense of a taxi to my apartment for a spare tire and back. The taxi came in about 15 minutes. The trike would not fit in his van so it was going to be an expensive round trip. We initially talked about exercise. I asked if he used a gym. He said that he tried a gym but found that he was too unused to the openness of our culture. He did not seem to blame our culture. Rather he was not able to handle the amount of flesh visible in the gym. He indicated that he would use the treadmill a lot to hide his hardon. So he got a home gym.  He even said that his wife made some videos to motivate his workout. I decided to not ask about the content of the videos. It was clear that he came from a culture where women were required to wear more clothes than required here. But he was not expressing anything negative about our dress here. It was more about his limitations. We talked a while about exercise, bicycles and motorcycles. He seemed fairly moderate. Yet it also became clear that he was a practicing Muslim. Although I do not recall the context, he noted a couple of times about some of the ways which he managed to do the 5 daily prayers. Yet he was clearly a more modernized Muslim. But I did not want to find out his reaction to my nonbelief. For one, I needed his help. But it would also have seemed out of context. I certainly did not want to negatively affect his progress toward modernity.

Divide

The coworker noted in my previous post is quite convinced that his beliefs are based an true unchangeable truth, although his knowledge of both what his religious texts say and of their origins is more limited than he thinks.

House Speaker Boehner  had recently said that Republicans should have no more than superficial conversations with their kids.  He is concerned about the changed views which some of his fellow Republicans took in response to perspectives of their kids.  This is part of a trend on several areas where attempts are being made to create or maintain social divides.  In this case, it has to do with old school biases being maintained by avoiding conversations with the next generation.  It's like Boehner is acknowledging the pattern of newer generations being more socially progressive than older generations.  Boehner does not want this to affect the "grand old party".

How does this relate to the coworker.  Boehner and some other people in power are like the coworker in that they have views which are considered so absolute that no evidence will change them.

This is happening on multiple fronts and I fear will lead to growing and more widespread conflicts in some areas.

Foundations

I heard many sermons and gave a few myself about having the correct foundation.  I seem to recall that there were bible verses that talked about foundations.  In some ways, some of the sermons had it partly correct.  Foundations are important.  The problem is that religionists have foundation materials made up of things unseen and unknowable.  The numbers of believers give the illusion of a solid foundation.  But human history is littered with collapsed religions.  Most thought their beliefs had the solid foundation.  In my own case, my religious foundation collapsed and I had difficult times for a while.  Too many of my filters and processes were based on supernatural concepts.  But the filters and concepts were dependent on blind faith.  When I lost faith, the foundation collapsed.

A more solid foundation is the physical.  This may seem apparent to some and most of us have physical elements in our foundation.  After all, we all have to function in the physical world.  But many people weaken the foundation by filling gaps with supernatural beliefs.  The foundation is often shored up with masses of people believing the same thing.  But there has been a continuing movement of knowledge which contradicts with the belief based foundations.  Cracks begin to appear in the old foundation.  People begin to shift to different foundations.  A problem is that the purely physical foundation and the foundation filled in with supernatural beliefs are not adequately compatible.  Some people try to claim that they are.  But some fundamental materials are different.  Some people with the belief based foundations try to shore up the foundations with violence, hatred and scapegoats.  This works for a while.  Over time violence and hatred, like blind faith, undermines the very beliefs intended to be maintained.  Humanity is a curious animal, wanting to see behind the curtain and underneath the hollow floor.

Who Am I?

The question may come up regarding why I am writing about religion and supernatural beliefs.  What qualifies me?  I will admit that I am not highly educated, although I have read a lot.  I have not had a great moral life.  Indeed, I have made many mistakes.  Some of those mistakes relate to my recovery from fundamentalist christian beliefs.  If it really was true that Christians are all about love, truth and real ethics, I would stay mellow about believers.  But there is too much bigotry in the name of religion, too much hatred, too much interference in education, health, ecology, politics.

I am not a great academic or moral leader.  But I feel compelled by the Rick Perrys, Jerry Fallwells and Pat Robertsons of the world to discuss my experiences and the things which I have learned.  It's about adding my voice to the chorus of secularists, physicalists, atheists, agnostics, doubters and other people who are proponents of reorienting our perspectives to physical realism and cognitive clarity.  It's about sharing my experiences as I moved away from religion, supernatural beliefs and other negative cognitive filters.  it's also about looking at the facts before making negative judgments about people or discounting things just because they don't fit within your worldview.  It goes beyond religion and has to do with how we filter things.  It's about how I discovered and corrected, in part, my cognitive filters.  But I think that it needs to also be about discussing what I see as dangerous cognitive filters that hinder human evolution and happiness, as well as does harm to the planet and the future.  I hope to also discuss and, yes, discover, better ways to seeing things and to live.

Yes, I do believe that the better ways are secular.  Religion has and continues to cause conflicts, spread misinformation, limit happiness, and aid in damage to our planet.  I know that these are dramatic statements.  But I have seen the hatreds. I have seen the lies and false science. I have seen the carelessness toward the planet because of ideas of a second coming and afterlife.  I know about the killings of those who believe or live differently.

I want to end this post with a clarification about what I mean by cognitive filters.  We use what we know, what we think we know, what we believe, what we are taught, and so on as filters for what we do and how we interact with people.  The difficulties are that there is a lot of bad data that people use for filters.  Not only do people use these bad filters to make bad judgments but they teach these bad filters to children.  They want to enact laws that enforce the bad filters on other people and to block clearer filters from being available.  An example of a bad filter is when someone believes that an ancient collection of books of questionable authorship are really the work of a deity and they treat people, education and politics according to the dictates in those books.

Surprisingly Secular Quotes

 
 I'm starting this because I keep hearing religionists make religious claims about the U.S. "founding fathers".  The religionists are either ignorant or not being truthful about the early leadership of the United States.

"Actually, after further consideration, I've decided it is indeed possible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible" - George Washington

 "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"What is it the Bible teaches us? -- raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the Testament teaches us? -- to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas Paine

"It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene.”- Thomas Paine

"There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

Why I am opposed to Religions

Although I disagree with beliefs in the supernatural and gods, I accept that there are subjective elements to most of our world views.  Many of us have fantasies and some people confuse fantasies with reality.  People often find comfort and elements of personal control via religion and supernatural beliefs.  Although I believe these comforts and controls can also be found via secular means, I am able to coexist with use of religion for personal reasons.  What I have difficulties with are the ways which religionists externalize their beliefs.  Too many people use their belief systems as control mechanisms not just for themselves but for other people.  They make decisions about physical and social matters based on their filters of belief, often harming people and the planet in the process.  These parasites of illusion invade governments, schools and other institutions.  They attempt to use the government and schools to force their views and biased rules on other people and future generations.  Too many of them are willing to kill people over differing views.

Physicalist

There came a time when I needed to rebuild my thinking about life.  My doubts were too great to go back to my old religious beliefs.  I tried out the other larger and even some obscure religious and supernatural beliefs.  But I found them all short on evidence.  I realized that the best option for me was to start with what I could verify.  I started with the point that, as far as I could determine, I existed in a physical form in a physical reality.  Yes, there were other perspectives that debated that.  But none of those could really be verified.  It appeared that I was a physical being in a physical dimension.  So I moved on from there.  After substantial experiences and studies, I came to the conclusion that everything is either physical or has a connection to the physical which must conform to some kind of consistency which maintains that connection to the physical.

Even down to the quantum mechanics level, we are still dealing with physical existence.  Any valid discussion, theories or beliefs about existence requires some relationship to physical existence.  I admit that there are theories far beyond my understanding but any proposals to me about matters of importance to my existence needs to relate their discussion to the physical existence.  So far, all discussions about gods, the soul, afterlife and other aspects commonly called the supernatural have failed to supply any testable theories of the connection to my physical existence.

This is substantially simplified for this article.  In early stages in new discoveries in physics, there are things that appear inconsistent.  But that has to do with our tool kits for examination.  As we develop better tool kits, we see more of how things work.  Some people might say that this partly answers why I don't understand the gods and my soul.  But it seems to me that, after such a long time, humanity would have developed or the gods would have supplied better tools than the badly written documents and insane acting purveyors of supernatural concepts.  After billions of years, how can the gods still expect us to take anything about their existence on faith?

Transitions

I was once a devout christian.  I was even in the understudy for the ministry when I was in my teens.  I preached in churches which did not have a regular minister and some Sunday evenings in my own church.  But I was taken away from that for a time.  When I returned to the beliefs of my childhood, experiences cast doubt on the truthfulness of the beliefs.  Too many things just did not fit.  I eventually concluded that beliefs in gods and supernatural existence were either false or very inaccurate.  Although I didn't think that I could truthfully claim absolute knowledge that there were no gods or supernatural elements, I did conclude that all human beliefs in gods and the afterlife that I had investigated were filled with fallacies.  The best that I was able to determine was that we were physical beings in a physical universe.  I saw no intrinsic validity in theistic and supernatural beliefs.  I had to rebuild my life from a naturalistic perspective.

The abandonment of my old beliefs had difficulties.  For one thing, I was raised in a culture that associated morals with theistic commandments.  Without belief in any gods or the fear of their punishments, I had to rebuild my ethics from a physical standpoint.  This was difficult for reasons that I will explain in a separate post.  The difficulties were not because of any theistic exclusivity to morals.  On the contrary, the difficulties arose because my early conditioning about morals were tied to theistic dictates rather that physical and social realities.  Another psychological issue was the hell syndrome.  I had been indoctrinated into the belief that non-believers go to hell.  This caused substantial emotional and cognitive difficulties as I transitioned to purely physical perspectives.

One conclusion that I have made is that children should be taught ethics from social and physical perspectives.  My experiences indicate that societies will be far better off if people have common ethics based on physical, social and planetary requirements.  Some people claim bad human behavior as the proof that life does not work out correctly without spiritual beliefs.  But it seems to me that any correlation between increased unethical behaviors and the decrease in religious controls is because too much of society has left moral training as the domain of religion.