Believe and Let Believe

Something circulating on social media got me thinking.  It goes something like this:

If you're Jewish, please wish me "Happy Hanukkah."  

If you're Christian, please wish me "Merry Christmas."  

If you want to wish me "Joyous Kwanzaa," please do so.  

If you wish me "Happy Holidays," I'll happily return the greeting.

If you want to wish me "Happy Winter Solstice," I will share your joy.

Whatever your seasonal greeting, I will be happy to share it with you!

For atheists to take government entities, companies, schools, and individuals to court over holiday displays or greetings is simply mean-spirited.  There is no inherent offense in these things.  They don't exclude or marginalize anyone.  They are done in a friendly community spirit of rejoicing and sharing, with complete absence of malice.

Judges should start dismissing these frivolous, mean-spirited suits the minute they are brought.

Relative Moralism's Problems

Relative moralism is the idea that morals are situational and personal.  It is becoming more prevalent every year.  Years ago it took over Europe, and just recently it has become dominant in the U.S.  I have a couple of fundamental problems with relative moralism, and I'll tell you why.

One is that it presumes there is no God.  God is a problem for relative moralists, because God -- any God -- would give absolute morals.  God sets limits and boundaries.  God gives commandments.  Anyone who claims to believe in both God and relative moralism is a fool -- they are completely incompatible.

Another problem I have is that relative moralism fails to form any basis for laws about moral topics.  That's why so many judges today are having trouble with laws prohibiting same-sex marriage -- they presume relative moralism.  And that's a problem, because relative moralism leads inevitably to "anything goes," with only vague limits, usually when actions infringe on others' rights (as long as those rights make sense in relative moralism.  They won't defend the rights of the religious).  Relative moralism leads inevitably to moral anarchy.

Relative moralism is the basis for the deep divide between religious Americans and others today, particularly the gay community.  With belief in God and scripture, same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage are plainly, obviously wrong.  (Arguments to the contrary using the Bible are nothing but phony rationalization).  So are adultery, fornication, drunkenness, lying, cheating, stealing, materialism, selfishness, anger, swearing, and so forth.  With relative moralism, very few behaviors are wrong, and who are you to tell me what's right or wrong, anyway?  How can relative moralists say polygamy is wrong any more, for example?  Who knows how low the bar will go in the future -- relative moralism has no bottom.

But with belief in God and scripture, moral boundaries are relatively plain.  That makes it the clearly superior philosophy on which to base a civilization, and the proof is in American history.  The proof of relative moralism's corrosiveness to civilization is what has happened in many countries and is starting in America -- we're falling, folks.

It would be unfair at this point to compare religious-based morals with communism, Nazism, Jihadism, or other extremes.  Come on, you know that's not even close to a valid comparison.  Extremists are their own world.

Short-Sighted About Resources

In arguments against mineral extraction on public lands, the argument is often made that allowing such is "short-sighted" because the roads, drill pads, or excavations will "permanently" scar the land, ruining "pristine" vistas, and the usual arguments about air pollution.

First of all, almost no land in North America is "pristine" in the true sense of the word.  I see that word as a red flag that the argument is based on false premises.

Second,  let's examine exactly what is "short-sighted."

Short-sighted is sacrificing the economic well-being of this and the next 2-3 generations so that a small minority today can feel good about something as insubstantial as the views they like.

Short-sighted is pretending that dirt roads and drill pads are some kind of permanent damage, when erosion and vegetation start removing them almost immediately after use.  Animals don't care about roads.  Roads do not pollute their surroundings.  In fact, roads allow more people to experience, enjoy, and appreciate the back country, and appreciation is one goal of nature advocacy groups, isn't it?  You can't really appreciate a place you can't see.

Short-sighted is ignoring the importance of mineral resources in our every-day well-being.  Try living a day without using anything made from or that uses oil, gas, iron, copper, lithium, plastic, synthetics, or is shipped.  The increasingly healthy, comfortable, and productive lifestyles people throughout the world live today are based on the availability and use of mineral resources, including oil and gas.  To pretend that we can magically cut off these resources without drastic consequences is the epitome of ignorance and short-sightedness.

Of course, no reasonable person would conclude that strip-mining Yosemite or Yellowstone would be a good idea.  That's not the argument here.  The argument is about typical public lands like Utah's San Rafael Swell, Book Cliffs, and Uinta Basin, which are mostly barren deserts that happen to have prettily colored bedrock.  It is simply unreasonable to put these places in the same category as Nature's true treasures.

So I'll make the logical argument:  Not allowing development of our mineral resources in reasonable places is short-sighted.  There, I said it.

Cost versus Price

Many seem to be confused about certain financial issues including health care, car payments, credit card debt, and so forth, because they don't understand Cost versus Price.

Price is what an individual pays as a monthly bill or at the time of services.  Cost is more comprehensive, including such things as subsidies, overhead, interest, and indirect costs.  For example, the Cost of a car is its sticker price plus the interest on a car loan plus operating expenses, maintenance, and insurance.

In the health care debate, politicians focus on Price -- the bill an individual pays -- while ignoring Cost -- total money involved.  Adding a layer of government bureaucracy on top of the system can only increase the Cost; there is no other possibility.  If that cost is to be covered, taxes must increase.  If that cost is not covered, national debt must increase.

Some people might see their Price of health care decrease because they are being subsidized by other tax payers, but inevitably because the Cost of health care is higher, Price and taxes must both increase.

Fear

Fear -- it's part of human nature, it can be a disease, and it can be manipulated for nefarious purposes, but I think we can take simple steps to avoid unfounded fears and thereby lead happier lives.

I'm no expert in psychology, but it seems to me that many people have a psychosis that compels them to NEED something to fear.  Government, secret world-ruling cabals, foods, industries, cults, aliens, political parties, the U.N., celebrities, the local cops, the very wealthy, something they don't understand, or just "them" -- if those things didn't exist, their psychosis would invent them.

Fear of the unknown is also just human nature.  We all have fears.

Some people are savvy enough to play off fear, or to at least instill a form of it in their audience.  They invent things to fear so that they can gather power or money.  How many times have you heard politicians paint the opposition as something or someone to fear?  How many advertisements use this tactic, and organizations seeking donations or votes?  "You may have this disease and not even know it" is a common ploy in medical advertising.  Talk show hosts (of all persuasions) use it all the time.

Hitler used fear to peddle his doctrine of murder and war.  Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and the KKK use it, as do virtually all radical militant and political groups, and groups that hate based solely on race or stereotype.

Some common unfounded fears include the following: The Japanese mafia or the U.S. government manipulating weather, the U.S. government being behind the 9/11 attacks, aliens (everything about them), the Trilateral Commission, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, witches, ghosts, hauntings, the "zombie apocalypse," California sinking into the ocean, refined sugar and white bread,  fluoridated water conspiracies, and teaching evolution in schools.

Of course, there really are some things to fear -- natural disasters, violent people, insidious political movements, and so forth.  But all of the things mentioned above?  Certainly not.

So how do we evaluate the things we fear?  How do we instill a little more peace in our lives, and shut out unfounded fear?  I have a couple of suggestions, and would appreciate your input for more.  You'll notice that my basic philosophy is that knowledge is power, and that shallow knowledge is dangerous.

1.  Is there objective, tangible, verifiable evidence for this thing/person/movement you fear?  Have you really studied this thing?
2.  What is the source of your information?  Does this source gain anything by promoting this idea?  If so, be skeptical and take a hard look at it.  Are your sources credible authorities, or are they politically or economically motivated?  As an example, I'll offer that all talk-show and website/blog hosts are motivated by increasing their audience, and their guests are motivated by selling their books, so everything they say should be viewed with healthy skepticism.  You can extrapolate to other sources from there.  A subject-matter expert is one who is educated in the subject, has been employed working on the subject for many years, is recognized by other subject-matter experts, and does not reach conclusions motivated by power or money.  Simply being a book author or website/blog author or talk-show guest does not an expert make.
3.  Is this thing you fear realistic?  That is, do subject-matter experts agree that it is?  Does it contradict good common sense?  Does it fit with known laws of physics and accepted scientific or psychological principles?

Life without unfounded fear is much, much happier.

Moral Superiority

Frequently in the news or broadcast media, or even in movies, TV shows, and conversations, a position is taken with an underlying assumption of unquestionable moral superiority over other positions.  For example, a recent editorial overtly took the position that closing the Book Cliffs in eastern Utah to oil and gas exploration was morally superior to allowing drilling.  They never bothered to justify their position, they were so sure it's obvious to everyone that this is the moral thing to do.  Those who are called "environmentalists" often work from an assumption of unquestionable moral superiority, but it happens on a lot of topics -- health care, welfare, tax rates, energy (of all types), and myriad political issues.

I challenge the notion that closing an area to mineral exploration is morally superior to allowing mineral exploration.  It was this topic that led me to write "Imagine There's No Oil," another post on this blog.

Look at the materials you use and depend on every day, and consider this: if it wasn't grown, it was mined.  Think about that for a moment as you look around you.  Here in my office, for example, the only things that were not mined are paper and wood products, and they were logged (often farmed).  The plastics, glass, synthetic building materials and fabrics, ink, lightbulbs, metals, paint, and if you really want to get detailed, even some of the food ingredients you eat were all mined.  Your entire computer was mined.  You know about metals, but did you realize that plastics are made from oil and other mined materials?  Electricity is generated by machines that were made from mined materials, and most in the U.S. is fueled by coal, gas, or nuclear fuel.  Solar panel materials were mined.  Same with wind turbines.  Batteries are made of materials from open-pit mines (what do you think of the Prius now?).

Medicines depend heavily on mined materials, including oil and gas as the stock for carbon.  Farming depends heavily on fertilizers and pesticides, which come from mined source materials -- not to mention water, which in much of the U.S. is pumped (mined) out of the ground.

Natural resources are where they ARE.  We cannot choose where to go to get them.  There are certainly beautiful places we should never disturb, but they are unusual and few in number (Yosemite comes to mind).  The Book Cliffs, the Escalante staircase, and ANWR are simply not in the same category.

So imagine there's no oil, no metals, no raw materials for all these things.  Or at least imagine they all become very expensive because of opposition to their development.  Imagine the resulting poverty, hunger, disease, economic strife, and lower standard of living.  Is that really a morally superior position?

I think not.

Imagine there's no oil
It's easy if you try
No coal below us
No planes up in the sky
Imagine all the people
Living cold and dark...

Imagine there's no metals
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to manufacture
And no synthetics, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in caves...

You may say I'm a reaper
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will prosper as one.

Imagine no electricity
I wonder if you can
No fertilizer to stop hunger
Mass starvation of man
Imagine all the people
Dying all over the world...

You may say I'm a reaper
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will prosper as one.