Moderate Muslims

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch parliament member and Muslim apostate, has written an amazing op-ed for the New York Times the other day. This woman, who at one time condemned to death Salman Rushdie, who left the Islamic faith on her own will, seems to make the excellent and knock-down point about the nature of the Islamic religion and justice system. The question that I beg to have answered: Where are the moderate Muslims that do not agree with the fanatics and fundamentalists? When some Christian fundamentalist, such as Jerry Falwell, makes insane statements many moderate or liberal Christians are more than willing to distance themselves from such people and even demand apologies. A majority of Christians are not in favor of killing abortion doctors even if they are totally opposed to the practice.

Then where, pray tell, are those in the Islamic world condemning or distancing from those that inspire hate? Because of the recent cases of unreasonable "justice," such as the arrest of a woman that allowed a teddy bear to be named Muhammad, another woman sentences to a severe beating for being raped after being with another man who was not a relative of hers, and so on, one would hope that there would be some faction of Islam that would make clear that this is not representative of the faith (be that true or not). Instead . . .

. . . silence.

Nothing.

Does not such passivity mean that the majority, the moderates, are just hunky-dory with these decisions? Worse, the only protests that are heard are of those that demand even harsher treatments. Apparently, the only problem that people have is the majority of the Islamic world is that their system is not barbaric enough.

It would appear to me that "moderate" has a different meaning that it does here. After all, moderates seem to be in the middle of positions; if the positions are all skewed in one direction, then so is the middle. Hence, the middle in the Islamic world would appear to be far away from anything those in the West would call just or fair or reasonable. Some may of course jump to the cultural relativism bandwagon, but as far as I care to think about it relativism is self-defeating and inherently self-contradicting--the outs of the philosophy seem like nothing but sophistry to me. If the words such as "justice" are supposed to be meaningful then they must be applied to all cultures and all parts of the world.

What has been happening is obviously silly at best, cruel in other cases, and disgusting at worst. (Actually, it may still be worse.) Mind you, also, that these are just recent examples. In the late 1980s, there was the call for the death of Salman Rushdie; a few years ago a similar call was for Danish cartoonists. There are the many years of terrorist attacks all around the world, including the Middle East and Israel, Africa, Asia, and lest we every forget, America. There was also the killing of a film-maker in the Netherlands because one faithful Muslim didn't care for its contents, which has kept Ali on the run and under protection since. I must agree with Sam Harris that this all cannot be related so simply to Western policy but must be something to do with the greater mindset of those that have accepted this religion.

Of course, other belief structures can be equally dangerous. Christianity cannot rid itself of its deeds of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the eradication of Native Americans (especially apparent with the Inca), the numerous within-Christian wars and conflicts. Yet, such things have become extremely rare. Sure, Ireland has issues today, but that it rather modest compared to the 12th century. But it seems that there still exists much of this issue in nations that profess Allah and Muhammad as his profit/prophet (Freudian slip?). Why?

The most obvious answer would seem to be that Enlightenment values have to come to fruition in the Islamic world. Why this is the case, I don't know. One suspicion of mine is that because there had not existed a great, single authority on the religion, such as the Pope and Catholic Church for Christianity, there was no such body to revolt against and attempt to have an independent way of looking at the same body of work or belief structure. Now, I would not say that Protestantism is responsible for the Enlightenment, at least not directly, but that sort of spirit of searching for answers outside of single authoritative figures and instead by one's own reasoning, a step away from submission, helped propel Europe into the philosophical powerhouse it is today with a history thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Hume, Hobbes, Kant, Locke, and so many others that opened the way to freer thoughts.

The trail away from submission to authority, especially authority that is only supported by the shear fact that it says it is the authority, is a good one. I don't know if the Islamic faith can follow the trail. This is because of the word "Islam" itself. Many say it means peace. But peace by what? Submission! Sure, things will be okay in the future because no one will dare raise a finger against the despot--just look at how wonderful North Korea is!

But it should at least be possible to convince the faithful en masse to embrace Enlightenment values. After all, I have met those of such a faith and they in fact can accept the philosophies of equality and reason over dogma. And even when there are Christians in the U.S. today that seem to forget these things in pushing for a "Christian Nation," they still don't seem to go out of their way to kill homosexuals, and neither do orthodox rabbis in Israel. Obviously better sense makes such actions difficult, even if that simply be obedience/fear to/of the law. Sure, it seems that cognitive dissonance would be required to keep both mindsets in the same head, but humans seem to be very good at that. I prefer clear thinking, but progress is progress.

Please read Ali's essay. It is more than just "Islamophobia."

Good to be in Michigan--WTF in Texas

Apparently, there is a concerted effort amongst member(s) of the Texas State Board of Education to remove a certain Chris Comer because he dared to want to listen to Barbara Forest talk about her work on the Dover trial which dealt with Intelligent Design. PZ Myers has been repeating these reports with his classic wit here and here and here. (See also Texas Citizens for Science on this subject.) It is obviously nuts.

What is supposed to be stressed by this effort is that members of the board of education are supposed to be neutral on the subject of evolution vs. intelligent design and the schools should "teach the controversy." All so rational on the surface, no? Of course, school boards are not neutral on the subject of chemistry vs. alchemy, at least I would hope the push for "teach the controversy" is not being pressed in Texas on this point, nor in mathematics vs. numerology, astronomy vs. astrology, etc. I also doubt that members of a school board can seriously be neutral on having good or mediocre standards compared to other states. If neutrality is apathy to the facts, then forget about education. If one wanted to avoid every possible argument, nothing would even be said. After all, there are still people arguing for a geocentric model of the earth and even a flat earth! (From what I can tell, people take this positions very seriously--I mean Art Bell seriously.)

Of course, I imagine that the members of this or any educational board/organization are not neutral on so many things. It is obvious that political pressures and member's own desires for creationist standards in schools that is driving this issue the way it is.

Now, I don't have the same level of pessimism as Phil Plait is showing right now (Texas being doomed and all), but it is certainly understandable and worth using the JPG he has up. The reason for this is because so many people are already blogging about it; hopefully this story will get a fair amount of main-stream media attention and cause this to get too hot for the creationists down yonder. Such actions would certainly cause another Dover trial, at best for the creationists. More likely, I would think, the judge, whoever that would be, will follow precedent set by the Supreme Court and Judge Jones in Pennsylvania and cause the forced standards to be unconstitutional.

But perhaps this is what the folks at the Discovery Institute want, another trial, one that could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. With a majority Catholic block in the seats, maybe they desire for the Roberts court to overturn previous decisions, such as Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 587 (1987), which struck down hard on any attempts to get "creation science" into public school classrooms. I wouldn't think this court would be so willing to do such a thing, especially considering the stance the Catholic church has take on evolution (even the current pope isn't willing to undo the decree John Paul II, at least not yet), but then again I'm not Scalia.

Oh, and as for the very concept of teaching the controversy, a good idea if it wasn't for one detail:

WHAT CONTROVERSY?!?!

When it comes to taking down creationist claims, check out TalkOrigins.org (which apparently was recently hacked). On YouTube, there is a great debunking of the more popular anti-evolution videos produced by Extant Dodos. Great stuff out there, and you don't need to have a Ph.D. to understand that creationists are full of crap, in or out of jail.

Blog Out

Because of a recent discovery, thanks to some of the other blogs I read, I have now added this blog to an Atheist Blogroll. That is, it is a list of a large number of active blogs by atheists, mostly talking about that subject, but hopefully more as well. There can only be so many ways to debunk a certain religious belief. A good examples, and a very popular one, is Pharyngula, written by a developmental biologist PZ Myers. But, I am an astronomer so I have to like Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, plus he does some work for SETI's podcast Are We Alone. So, you should see a list of the blogs currently on the roll call, along with a link to the complete list. At this point it has well over 400 blogs. Don't expect to read them all.

Nova Smackdown

I just got done watching the NOVA special on the Dover, PA, trial back in 2005--the famous Intelligent Design case. In respect to its content and performance, I say "Magnifico!" The only thing I can think of at the moment that would have made it better would be the greater level of time given to Dr. Robert Pennock; he is a Michigan State professor, after all. Perhaps that is just my bias. However, I do recommend his works on the subject, such as Tower of Babel and Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics.

I think PBS will be putting the whole show up on their website in the very near future, and you can bet it will be up on YouTube in no time. What can I say? Good science acts as a powerful meme. It will propagate.

I also recommend reading the transcripts and judge's decision (Warning: PDF file).

The Star of Bethlehem and those that still follow it

Well, so far there have been some interesting comments on the web page about my article on the Star of Bethlehem and Sky & Telescope, and hopefully my responses have been at a reasonable level of content and conduct, though at least one thinks otherwise. I wonder how many or for how long the responses will be about how I am a "charlatan", "hypocrite", "intolerant", "arrogant", "opinionated", and how such a person will "neither trust nor believe that you are 'in agreement with the best scholarship;'” oh, and that's all from just one person! Well, I'll let others be the judge of the truth of these statements for those that read what I have done.

There is also a wealth of incoherence as well. One person wants to argue that there cannot be a contradiction between Matthew and Luke because such a mistake would have been caught by the early Christians. Sorry, but a mistake is not made true because a bunch of people happened to have accepted it decades after the fact when no one could double-check sources, ask witnesses, and that is if anyone in the movement had an iota of skepticism. Besides, the early Christians contradicted each other on most every detail, great and small. Irenaeus thought Jesus lived up to near the age of 50 and died under Emperor Claudius, well after the time of Pilate's rule in Judea; Tertullian said that Saturnius was governor of Syria when Jesus was born, instead of Quirinus as Luke said; etc. The argument is also based on the statement that "ancient Rome was a modern civilization in every respect." So, ancient and modern as the same now? I guess white and black are the same color, up and down mean the same, and I'm raking in money from by lucrative stock trades in Japan. I'm also confused why one person brought up the procedures at Abrams Planetarium. What does that even have to do with the historical truth of the Star? Smells like a red herring to me.

Fortunately, there have also been a fair number of good responses, and I would bet that there will be more positive comments to come, along with some constructive criticism.

Article Away!

My article in Sky & Telescope is now being advertised on their website and the magazine should be out on news stands soon. I will be reading it soon and checking out how the art work came out and if there are any other comments about the Star in this issue.

Dubito, . . . I think: Non-Contradiction and How You Can't Contradict It

Perhaps you have come across someone that uses a presupposition's argument about how an atheist cannot account for logic itself, and hence such a person cannot reason without God. After all, to demonstrate that the law of non-contradiction is logical, one must apply logic and this law, hence creating a circular argument. And so, the person will try to argue, something outside of logic, something truly amazing is required in order to make sure logic exists, and that being is the Deity.

Of course, most don't just stop and say this proves that there is a god, but that this proves in fact the Christian God; I haven't heard the argument used by Muslim apologists, or any other religion for that matter, though they could probably be just as able to say the same things. To get to this position about the existence of the Christian concept of the divine requires more than just the existence of logic, but since they think they already have logic on their side because of their theism, the rest will follow for them, either by faith or further argumentation, such as the historicity of the Resurrection.

But, it should also be noticed that by setting up the case that a particular religion has the proper understanding of the force behind logic in fact makes is susceptible to to that same logic which can disprove the entire edifice. Let us take if for granted that logic in some way is emanated by the divine; it should follow then that because logic is so important to this god that all of the tenants about that god should follow the principles of logic. If they have accepted the law of non-contradiction, and they argue that it is true because of their religious beliefs, then it follows that their religion cannot have any breaks from this law. This means that even one contradiction, one flaw in the entire belief structure or scripture or concept of god then the entire argument that logic comes from that god is destroyed. It is so plainly easy to find a single contradiction in the numerous sayings or the religious, the writings of the theologians, the remarks of the apostles, etc. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible includes a massive list of contradictions in the Bible, along with contradictions in the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon. As you can see, in order for any particular theism, other than Deism perhaps, the strategy that the beliefs must be perfect will require so much apologetic work that the entire idea of making God the source of logic a lost cause.

What we can see here is that in fact the notion of forcing the atheist to account for reason itself is simply a debating tactic, something to trip up the debater from showing the errors in the others belief system. The entire notion of pressupositionalist arguments is to say that since there is something wrong, anything wrong, with my world view, then one must default to some religious view and say goddidit with great frequency. The standard of perfection or theism is an amazingly high standard, one that cannot be met by anyone because there is not enough computing power in the universe to see if there are any possible contradictions between all the views a person may take. Besides consistency does not mean that it is necessarily true; if my belief that the world is spherical contradicts some political policy I have adhere to, it does not follow then that all is false, that the world is not necessarily round. Besides, the concept of goddidit for all answers can be consistent, but if there is no God, then the world view must be in error.

But perhaps we should take up the gauntlet of the arguers, take up the case that logic is supported in some fashion by a god, or any being for that matter. It seems that the statement that logic is "true" because god said so seems to beg some form of the old Euthyphro Dilemma:

Is something logical because god says it is logical,
or does god say something is logical because it is so?

If one takes the latter part of the dilemma, then it suggests that logic is independent of that god altogether. If instead one take the former, then it makes the laws of logic arbitrary, that logic is no more true than anything else; we have a super form of relativism, but there is at least something that will force you to obey it.

But perhaps you don't have a problem with logic, and morality for that matter, being arbitrary. Well, here is an interesting question: since god created the laws of logic, then can god break the law of non-contradiction? Suppose no--if that is the case, then that seems to say that logic makes the god subservient to the creation, which seems to be an unlikely situation. More interestingly, suppose yes--if god can break the law of non-contradiction, then god can exist and not exist at the same time. Therefore, that god does not exist is a true statement about god. Ergo, god does not exist. What this means that if god is in fact powerful enough to break the laws of logic, then god does not exist. With such a twist, it seems to be untenable to say that anything is the source of logic.

This is certainly fun to take the theists argument and make it mean that god does not exist, but one can still charge that logic is still not supported and so to use it cannot be meaningful to one that denies it. So, can logic be accounted for?

Now, it seems odd to even ask the question--to suppose that logic comes from something suggests that it could not exist. However, it is not fathomable to say that the law of non-contradiction could not be a true law, that it seems to be a necessary thing in the universe; the law's existence could not be otherwise. This is demonstrated by simply trying to deny its validity. Suppose you say that the law of non-contradiction is false. By your statement, then two opposite statements can both be true. This means that you say the law of non-contradiction is not false, that is, true. Hence, by denying the non-contradiction, you agree with non-contradiction. This means it cannot be denied, hence undeniable. And so, by this bit of word play, we can see that non-contradiction is a necessary thing in the universe. As a simple proof of it (non-contradiction):

If it is true, it is true.
If it is false, it is true.
QED.

In fact, we require it to be so just to be able to talk. If the law was not adhered to, then what I say also means what I did not say. In other words, by saying anything I have said nothing because it has no meaning. After all, the term is contra-diction: against speech. Hence, any civilization that produces language must adhere to this principle.

It would seem then that logic accounts for itself just fine; the denial of it is impossible and to declare its need for support from beyond itself will enter the paradox of its own nonexistence. So, if someone tries to badger on about this, just point out that it cannot be said to be otherwise, unlike gods. It is possible to say "there are no gods" without it being internally contradictory; this cannot be said about non-contradiction. Hence, there is nothing left to prove.

Non contradicto me, ergo constans sum, ergo ratione cogito.
___________________________________________________________________

I have found that Michael Martin has devoted much more time to these issues, so I must link to his arguments about the transcendental arguments for god (TAG):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/

Isn't it good to know smart people's arguments?

My Name in Lights, er . . . Print

Because there are so many of you that read my blog, it should be good to let you know that it appears I will be able to have something of my views in another form of distribution. For at least a year now I have been researching the natural explanations of the Star of Bethlehem (affectionately known as the SoB by planetarium staff) and have found these explanations to all fail; some just fail much worse than others. It becomes all the worse when thus hypotheses depend on changing the dates of the reign of Herod the Great or the census of Cyrenius (Quirinius). There's a ten-year contradiction at least which obviously is no good for inerrantists or for anyone that wants to consider the story in Matthew as historically reliable. Oh, and never mind that this is the same author that has a virgin birth, and unrecorded of the slaughter of tens or hundreds of babies, has earthquakes and dead men rising when Jesus died and entering Jerusalem, not to mention the resurrection of another dead man. But the SoB, that may be real. Based on what? Unfortunately, there seems to be nothing that supports this tale as a reliable account.

And now I get to tell a lot of people. Sky & Telescope has stated that they are willing to print an article on the subject by me, though it will be limited in words, making a full argument impossible. Try refuting four centuries of research in less than 2000 words! But that is what I am going to try. See you in December.

Outed

There has been a significant effort to try to make the presence of atheists known. It is interesting to use the Scarlet Letter, as if I am demonstrating adultery instead of non-belief. But since that book wasn't very good, in my opinion, nor is it widely read (nor should it), let the letter be used; the stigma will exist none the less. Besides, when one is unmarried it is difficult to commit adultery.

Pick, Choose, Lose

You almost certainly have heard the retort to those that claim we need to do away with religion and religious morality that without that pillar of religion we could not possibly know what is moral and immoral. Somehow, after so many years, after so many philosophers have ponders this subject, somehow so many talk-show hosts, theologians, and regular people think that this is a proper retort. They may know that at some level it does not prove that some god exists, but it gives them the justification to believe. I wish to demonstrate the intrinsic error in the thinking of such persons and thus show the argument is self-refuting.
Firstly, a question: "Has anyone heard of the Euthyphro dilemma?" In one dialog of Plato 2400 years ago, our interlocutor demonstrated the absurdity of morality coming from a divine source. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Similarly: "Is the good loved by the god(s) because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the god(s)?" All of the attempts to try to get past this dilemma are based on attempts to make the definition of god malleable enough to make good and god one in the same. This does nothing because by defining god as good, the term good then loses its meaning; an action is called good only because it is what god did; if he had done something else, that would have been good as well. Of course, should I do the same, somehow I may be charged with a crime. Hence, the action must have a level of goodness to it even if not done by any gods. Aquinas' sophistry is no rescue.
Further, within the moral context of religion, we are truly doomed. Take religious belief X and religious belief Y. According to the X religious moralist, the things deemed good and evil by the deity of X are in fact good and evil; similarly is the case for the Y religious moralist. We know from experience that certain religions will have different moral precepts, otherwise what distinguishes them are inconsequential. Judaism does not allow the eating of pork; Jainism does not allow harm to come to even the smallest creature; the Mezo-American religions of the past had human sacrifice; homosexuality is taboo in many belief systems; etc. Within this context then, how does a moral sanction in X and another in Y work with each other? What I mean is this: in X, some moral precept will be different from that in Y; in fact, X may call something in Y immoral. He says this because of X. Y does not accept this because of the precepts of Y, and Y may even charge X with similar statements of immorality. An example of this can be the case of homosexuality. Some churches today say it is sin; others are not claiming it is sin or wrong at all, even though they read the same holy book. Further, by condemning homosexuality, the latter church could claim the former church was acting immorally because of how they treated homosexuals and make them feel guilty unnecessarily. Both churches can make opposite claims, both claim that they are being moral, and claim the other is being immoral.
A certain word should come to mind here: relativism. That is what we have here with this situation of different religions. And it is ironic because the theist claims morality from god to ensure that it is absolute and not relative. And it is not always just about minor issues of what you can eat or how long your hair should be. We also have to deal with the oppression of half of the population because of their estrogen levels; countless holy wars have been issued based on revelation and textual clairvoyance; the nether-reaches of people are hacked away at; who you can commune with is limited; the examples are without end. And you would be hard-pressed to find agreement on these issues even within the larger spheres of any many religion. The Christians cannot agree about apostolic tradition or homosexuality or contraception, for example. And the things that almost all people would call evil has happened in the name of these theologies.
Now, one often hears the retort that we just need to weed out the bad theologies and leave the good ones. And how are we supposed to know what theologies are good and bad if what is good and bad is based on theology? The statement supposes that that person has the superior belief simply by the fiats of that belief. And the same statement could be made by Pope Urban II who preached for the First Crusade. From a religious morality, one cannot claim another religion is better than another without invoking some sort of absolutism, but that runs contrary to the very nature of religious morality--it is relativistic. This or that is good based on this or that theology.
Within the religious paradigm, one cannot claim that another religion is bad or immoral without becoming ridiculous. X and Y are in conflict, so how does another person, P, decide which is the one with the better morality? How can P say that Y is being immoral or X is? There are three choice: decide X is true; decide Y is true; decide that there is something other that X or Y to judge by them. Taking the first two options is without merit because it is a decision not based on morality because you are choosing that morality. The choice hence relative and meaningless to the person that chooses in an opposite case. To claim anything in X or Y is good or bad requires something to supersede both, and hence a morality must exist that is not based on any of these theologies. One may try and suppose a higher theology, but that only leads to an infinite regression.
And so we have secular ethics, being it utilitarianism of Kant's categorical imperative or something else, including our ethical instincts. It is the only thing that can possibly supersede the religious bickering and say that some theology did cause evils. The religious person cannot do that without contradicting themselves. If they claim that religions is the source of morality, but say some religions is immoral, then religions is a source for immorality; any religion can make the same statements, so they all contradict each other, all fall into relativism, and often violence ensues. Religious ethics causes only absolute relativism, the most dangerous ethical precept of all.
Can't all of these pundits on the radio or TV not see the contradiction in their statements, in saying religions does cause evils, but claim religions are causing evils within the religious context? All they can say is that the believe something is immoral from their perception of their theologian, which cannot cross over into another religion, perhaps not even another sect. In the case of sects based on the same holy book, one could claim that someone has a theology that is not based on that book, and so their morals coming from that sect are not true; however, it seems that such arguments of who has the correct interpretation are not going to be settled in any point in the future. The Pope has confirmed all non-Catholics are not "real" Christians; Shia and Sunni Muslims certainly do not agree about Ali and the imams; there are plenty of permutations of Judaism; Buddhism can be atheistic; sectarianism is without end. The relativism of interpretation is much the same as that relativism of morals--and worse is that it is absolute.
One cannot escape this problem. If one claims that someone is evil in the name of religion, they first have to demonstrate how it is good; but that religion was not chosen based on its goodness but on the sense of what that person already thought was good, meaning that that sense of morality must have existed before he chose; otherwise, the choice was ad hoc and carries no real weight. If morality is not relative, it must exist beyond the religious fray. Otherwise, we cannot say one religion is good and another is not.
As for most people, they should realize this, since they are not taking all that they have in their holy books to heart. Most people pick and choose what is right and wrong in their books. That choice cannot be made within the confines of that religion. If the book says "murder all infidels", you cannot within that same religious sphere of morality say that that is not a moral statement, even if it contradicts another passage, such as "don't kill, EVER". And how are those choices even made? Intrinsic understandings of what is good without the book. And fortunately, most people do not take every word of their holy books are strong as the next. Otherwise, we would be in the days of the Inquisition all over again. If you say the Inquisition was an immoral institution, that statement cannot be within religion.
Face it: you are moral because of some other factor--you know that acting morally is favorable in most cases. Why else would morality be called "good"? So, I ask that we realize that the basis of morals on religious leaders. Even Jesus was supposed to have said "Why do you call be good?" (Mark 10:18).

The Madman

Have you heard this tale, about the madman? As in all stories there can be found some truth, as well as some fiction. The fiction is that there is only one man. There is more than one of these madmen; they just seem to all be so similar. They all run into the villages, carrying their unlit lantern, crying “I have God, I have God!” What is his proof? He has the lantern, and it is lit because of the deity, that through this light comes the light to see what it good and evil, what is right and wrong, and, moreover, happiness because of the beauty of the light.

Many have claimed this light, many claim the light now, and probably many more will. That light has been called by many names: Zoroaster, Mohammad, Buddha, Jesus, and so many other permutations; so many exist that one could recreate all of the constellations in the sky, the Moon, the Sun, and the planets, and still have enough luminous power to see without any of the heavenly lights at all. With all of these light-bearers, isn’t it odd that you have not seen all of these lights? If fact, can you honestly see any of them at all?

One of the madmen will come to you and he will wave that lantern about, hoping that you will see the light he possesses so you know that he has the true God on his side. But like any madman, he cannot stand still, he cannot slow the pace, he cannot give you the moment to push off his antics by unanchored thought. Ask him to stop for a moment and let you see that light; he moves it about so quickly one cannot be sure if you saw that light or only thought you did. See if you can pin him for a moment to see his light, to see his morality that he claims to be so great, his spirit that is so unconquerable. Try and get close and watch the madman squirm; do not get too close, for that great good is also a great blunt beacon. Why does he not stand still? Why can we not look into the light?

And like all madmen, he has his excuses. “How can you think there is not a light here? How can you deny this thing? Are you questioning that there is good in the world?” Of course, you must be accused before your mouth can open, for otherwise you could question, you could seriously learn. But in the past, there have been some great wrestlers, and they have taken the lantern and found no light at all inside. The better lanterns actually reflect, not create or act as the source, of the light, and are only as bright as the luminous being are around.

How can this be? When the madman comes to your town, he will know about these failed charlatans. He will claim that they did not really have the light, that they were the few that only pretend to in fact have God. How can you tell if this person has the lantern that actually contains the light at all? Some will watch the madman and say that his lantern is also without light at all; some will even say that instead of creating light, this lantern absorbs, it darkens. The madman will retort “without this light, how can you say what is and is not bright, or what is or is not good?” Let the daemon inside allow you to ask “do you know that the lantern is bright because you say it is so, or do you say so because you know it is bright?” Euthyphro could not answer, nor can anyone, without realizing that we do not need the madman or his torch. For if the lantern of the madman was what determined what brightness was, what are we supposed to do about the next madman, with his own lantern, claiming all the same? How can we judge who has the true light if in fact it is the lantern that determines brightness? Shall we continue to believe these things in circles, or shall we look up and find that there is another source, one that anyone with eyes can see, that can be seen without these flimflam fires, and it is just above us all?

And what is the irony of this tale, for no tale is worth reading without a twist? As others have seen, that lantern is a reflector, it only directs light from another source; it cannot produce its own. It never has. It never could. It never will. And its own brightness has always depended on those sources around it. At one time, when we were all deep in the foul depths of the cave, light was scarce, tenuous, and never concentrated well enough to see before ourselves as we walked in the darkness. The lantern was the only object that was found as we groped the sides of the cavern, and we all became moths, even to the point that the lantern burned some.

Yet, somehow, someone stopped looking only at that lantern, and discovered other sources of light. The eye of the mind was able to peer deep into the outer reaches of the cave, and soon new illumination was discovered. With time, new torches were built, and the cave became easier to navigate.

But what is the irony, you ask? The lantern-bearer has two hands. One holds the light, which begins to become rather dim in comparison to these new torches; in the other, is the pale, filled with icy-cold water. Those new torches are extinguished as best he can, ensuring that his light is the only one, even though his own lantern becomes brighter. Some of these madmen will make adjustments to their lanterns so that they can claim that, even though these other lights do exist, because his light reflects theirs, his light becomes the only one that can see certain parts of the cave. Only with the better reflector can he possibly be visible next to the stars that are born about him.

You can imagine that when some of these new torch-makers claim we no longer need that lantern, that in fact it has led us astray, the madman will retort “if you deny my light, how can you possibly see? There are some things you will never see without my light to show that path. Where is the light that will replace mine?” Why must I follow the path you lay out when your light is so faint, when all that it has comes from the light of others, and that are lights have become bright enough that, all combined, we can see the same path as the madmen’s, plus so many more. And why only have this one lantern for those paths when so many other torches have been lit?

Now the madmen are running, nay, chasing these new lights, and they are loosing their step. Perhaps some will drop those lanterns and they will find that the there was no change at all. What is true is that many of these lanterns have been broken; they cover the ground, leaving their shattered shards to harm those that walk through, especially when the madman picks up these broken lamps and acts as the messenger again, believing all is good even when he bleeds.

One day, there shall be enough be torches to see the corpses made by these lanterns, the broken idols that they always were, and they fill be cleared from the ground. But today, we must be careful, for we still are deep in the cave as still know not what we do with these bodies; the shards remain to continue the cause death by those unfortunate to come too close. With enough of these torches, one day we can become children of light, and when we look into the old reflectors, we will see ourselves and know that was have become the light, the gods preached before, that we now poses the good, the true, the spiritual. Instead of searching, we can produce our own Pleroma, our own seventh heaven, but it will require as many lights as there are stars. Our magnified gazes show us billions upon billions are to be needed, which leads us to the final question:

Do you have a match?

For reference, one should be well-read in their Plato, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and modern secular writers to best understand the above.

The Reason

There have been a great number of blogs started, and I am now one more Johnny-come-lately, making an already dense and saturated field all the worse. This blog will not be about my life so much as about what is very important to me: my thoughts. Sometimes I will post things that are well evidenced or argued by logical analysis, and sometimes I just want to produce excellent prose that can cause as much thought as deep and dry non-fiction does. I hope it can be interesting for the reader.

As for subjects, I am most interested in the sciences, but by interests in scholarship, history, and philosophy will permeate this blog, so don't expect nothing but science news, to which better outlets probably exist. Religious belief will also be played on, and even though I do not plan to have works that will be of the same value as the books that have in the past been printed, or the newest batch that has been created, there is here the possibility of extending those thoughts beyond those pages, or clarify those works against criticisms that are unjustified.

I hope you will enjoy these writings. Sometimes it will be serious, sometimes humorous, I should hope. Symbols will be flying and explanations for them will not be common, so be on your toes, especially since I many not even know what I am talking about.