That Bad Word

Ralphie Gets His Mouth Washed Out
"A Christmas Story" 1983

Don’t use that word!!!  That word is so bad, I would say that any kid who uses it have their mouth washed out with soap.  Except, this word is not one that kids use, it’s one that adults use – and they just won’t hold still to have their mouths washed out with soap.

NO, I’m not talking about the ‘N’ word or the ‘F’ word, or even the ‘L’ word (thanks HBO).  At least these words get abbreviated in polite society, but not the one I’m talking about.  No, people come right out and say the ‘Ph’ word unapologetically.

There is a rise in the use of the ‘Ph’ word in the past couple of years, and it just needs to stop.  News media uses it frequently.  Special interests like to use it a lot too.  The most frequent abusers tend to be on one side of the political spectrum, but I predict we’ll see it on both sides more and more if we don’t stop it.

The word is ‘phobia’ along with all its permutations (phobe, phobic, etc).  It started to gain use with the word ‘Homophobia’ (a person who is ostensibly afraid of homosexuals)* and now it is being tagged onto the end of the word Islam as in Islamaphobe (a person who is ostensibly afraid of Muslims).  Who knows what it’s going to be tagged onto next?

By tagging the word ‘phobe’ onto the end of another word, you suggest that a person on the other side not only disagrees, but actually has mental issues as the basis for them not being on board with you.  This allows you to shut down all debate and intelligent discourse on the subject.  No one wants to be smeared with the suggestion that they have mental problems.  So, it’s easier not to say anything because you’ll be painted as the unreasonable one.  What a useful tool for those who don’t want to bother having logical arguments about their position or actually thinking through the other side’s reasons.

When you step back and look at it, it really is a silly idea: 

Are my Republican friends Democrataphobes? 

Are my gay friends Straightaphobes? 

Are my Atheist friends Religiophobes? 

My daughter likes vanilla ice cream, does that make her a Chocophobe?

I am attracted to long-haired brunettes (Love you, Honey).  Does that make me a Blondophobe?

As you see, this can get downright ridiculous.  Just because you have an opposing opinion or think differently on a matter doesn’t make you afraid of the other side.  It really is an adult version of name-calling.  We call that Ad-hominem for those of you who weren’t geeky enough to be in debate in High School.  The purpose is to demonize those who disagree with you in order to shut them up. 

It’s unfair, unkind, and unethical. 

So, let’s knock it off.

There are 310 million people in the United States, and so it’s pretty likely that we will all disagree once in awhile.  The childish way to deal with this is to use name-calling, threats, and low-blows.  The adult way to deal with this is to discuss and debate using fair argument, logic, and respectful dialog. 

Guess what, we still won’t all agree.  But, we can learn to live with each other, learn to win some and lose some, and learn to get along as adults.

Or, we can continue using bad words till we get our mouths washed out with soap.

Tank Abbott
could pound me into
the ground too making
me a tankaphobe

* I have to honestly admit that I have been a homophobe on one occasion.  I worked with a woman who was a lesbian, and her girlfriend was built like Tank Abbott and had an attitude to match (looked a little like him too). I am man enough to admit that I was afraid to disagree with her, because she could pound me into the ground.  But that’s the closest I’ve ever been to being a homophobe.

Articles of Faith

Newly discovered species from partial jawbone and partial legbone!

Evolution shows that humans aren’t wired for monogamy, especially men!

God had no role in the creation of the universe!

In the past few weeks, I have read three articles by scientists, who manage to poo-poo faith and religion while simultaneously demonstrating that they, themselves, hold their own faith and religion.

The first article was about a potential new species that was discovered.  It seems some paleontologists located a part of a jawbone and a fragment of a leg bone that points to a new species of ocean going animal that may have been a predecessor of land animals.  They go on to tell the foods it ate, the way it hunted, and the unique ways it could walk on land and swim in the sea.  An artist’s sketch was given to help us picture it in its original environment.  Wait a moment!  Back up the train here.  The tiny piece of jawbone and the leg bone fragment were pictured.  The jawbone didn’t even have any teeth left in it.  These small pieces of bone told us all of that!?!?!?   The credulity required to believe these jumps-to-conclusion is beyond me.  While I am sure that we can learn something from these bones, can we really reconstruct an entire beast from these small pieces?  Can we really make assumptions on its ‘evolution,’ its hunting and mating habits, and its physique?  It sounds more like a fairy-tales about dragons coming from dinosaur fossils than real science.  

The second article explained that men aren’t wired for monogamy.  When it comes to cheating on our wives, we just can’t help ourselves: evolution is to blame.  "Men sport the longest and thickest penis of all primates", the author tells us.  Try not to picture this author in the Congo, chasing down a gorilla with a ruler and calipers.  He goes on to say that Homo-sapien women have “pendulous breasts” and “impossible-to-ignore cries of sexual delight.”  At this point, I'm definitely following this article.  How fun is that?  These characteristics, when compared to a few historic nomadic cultures and a species of monkey that likes group sex, proves that men are made for polyamorous relationships so that we spread our seed around.  The titillating text of this article made it a fun read, and I’m sure some dumb buffoon of a husband will use it as an excuse next time he gets caught with his wife’s best friend. (I’m pretty sure that my wife ain’t falling for it)  But, the simple truth here is that the article is ridiculous in the number of assumptions that it makes.  I can’t help but think that the author (a man of course) was building an alibi more than writing a serious book.  Perhaps he should try his hand at writing Penthouse Letters instead of scholarly texts.   

The final article was a snippet from the new book by Stephen Hawking, explaining that, because of the existence of gravity, the extremely large number of planets in the universe and the likelihood of multiple universes; chance alone explains the creation of something from nothing (the creation of our universe).  While Stephen Hawking is a brilliant scientist, far beyond my mental capacity, he begins with the premise that there is not God and therefore, all creation can be explained by chance.  Except that it can’t.  The logic flaw of ex nihilo creation still exists in a universe of physical laws.         

I am not a scientist.  I don’t even play one on television.  I am a man of faith.  That doesn’t mean that I am ignorant or that I throw logic out the window.  Quite the opposite, my belief system is based on logic and evidence… up to a point.  At that point, I have faith. 

I can be honest about that.  I’m not sure these guys are able to do that.

The scientific community and the fringe pseudo-science hangers-on would have us believe that all their work is based solely on rationality and demonstrable facts.  Yet the truth is, closer examination shows them to be men and women of faith too.  They begin with the premise that God does not exist.  They begin with the assumption that their idea of evolution is an undeniable fact.  They begin with the idea that they have all the necessary knowledge and cannot possibly be mistaken.  In their hubris, they miss their own faith, deny their own belief systems, and they presume to instruct us.

These articles, and many other like them, are articles of faith.

I don’t have any problem with science, or even the idea of evolution*, just the lack of intellectual honesty from those who would call themselves intellectuals. 

* I do NOT believe that science and religion are incompatible and I stand against those who say, “You just have to have faith,” or “God doesn’t want you to think about these things.”  I believe that God gave us our minds and the gift of rational thought.  We should use it.  I also do not believe that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.  That, of course, is a much longer discussion, but ultimately, I believe that God created the universe, and it was well within His power to use any tools that He desired to make its creatures.

You can't understand this because it’s written in English.

A friend of mine recently shared her college experience with me.

She had an English Professor at the University of Arizona who enjoyed attacking Christian beliefs as a part of his class. He taught that there are no incontrovertible truths and that language could not possibly convey ideas between people due to the vagaries of our own narratives. Evidentally, he liked to pick on Christian kids taking apart their ideas, leaving them confused and unsure.

She said that she had to do a lot of debriefing with her youth minister and that the class was a real struggle because of the way he pressured students to believe like him and his regular attacks on anyone who believed differently or even questioned what he said.

I have toyed with the idea of driving to Tucson to audit one of his classes.
I don’t think that I could sit long in his class without challenging his credibility. He is either ignorant or a fraud.

I’d like to stand up in the middle of his class and ask him a few questions;

“How can you stand there, speaking to us about an idea, expecting us to understand what you are saying if you don’t believe that ideas can be conveyed by language?”

“How can you teach an English class (a language), expecting students to write papers expressing ideas in that language, that you will then grade (an idea) in the same language assuming they will be able to understand the grades that you gave them?”

“How can you grade papers for grammar or spelling based on the idea that there is a true and correct way to phrase ideas and spell words when you don’t believe that there are truths?”

Now, I’m a believer in being the devil’s advocate in arguments, challenging people to defend ideas, and asking students to think through positions that they hold. However, this professor is presenting ideas that he cannot even live by. Why, he couldn’t even drive to work in the morning, because road signs communicate ideas with the assumption that other people can understand the idea and the people who made his car assume he can learn how to operate it based on communicable truths. He couldn’t find his classroom on a campus map because it is communicating ideas from one person to another. Heck, if he was really honest, he wouldn't bother trying to cash his paycheck from the university because the value of money is an idea that is agreed upon by people.

I have to come to the conclusion that he doesn’t live by the beliefs that he professes (because it is impossible) which then makes him a fraud, teaching an idea that isn’t workable while attacking principals and ideas that are.

I wonder if it is worth four hours of driving time to drive to Tucson and back so I can attend his class.

Probably not.

If I argued with him, he probably couldn’t understand the ideas that I communicated to him anyway.

You can't handle the truth

This blog originally posted Tuesday, April 03, 2007

mood: quixotic Category: Religion and Philosophy

The great and wise prophet of our times, Homer Simpson said, "Facts are meaningless, you could use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true!"

Oh the wisdom in those lines... If I hear another person say, "That's true for you", "There is no absolute truth", or some version thereof, I just might have an aneurism. People in our culture has become so willfully ignorant in their rush for 'tolerance' that they make moronic statements such as that. It drives me crazy. I hear it from kids in my youth group, I hear it from people at work, I hear it on TV, I heard it the other day from my 6 year old daughter! and I even hear it at Bible college of all places!

In case no one ever told you: By definition, something that is true is true for everyone. By its very nature, truth is that way. We may have discussion over whether or not something is true, but if it is true, then it is absolute.

Rules of Truth:

1. Truth Is! (It really exists)
2. Truth Is...Whether you believe it or not.
3. Truth Is...Whether you know it or not.
4. Truth Is...Whether you deny it or not.
5. Truth Is...Whether you want it to be or not.
6. Truth Is...Whether you understand it or not.
7. Truth Is...Whether it is culturally popular or not.
8. Truth Is...Whether it makes you happy or not.
9. Truth Is...Whether it disproves your beliefs or not.
10. Truth Is...Whether you try to change it or not.
11. Truth will stand up to examination.
12. Truth will not have true evidence that fully contradict it.
13. Truth means that two contradicting ideas cannot both by true (they could both be false)
14. Truth has power that may hurt people, destroy ideas, ruin plans, change lives. So do lies.

The funny thing about the statements 'That's true for you' or 'I believe everyone has their own truth' or 'Truth is relative' is that even the people who say them don't really believe that. They say it when they speak of morals, religion, political concepts, or ideas (usually those that they are uncomfortable with). But, in truth, they don't really live that way. If they did, they would drive down the wrong side of the road anytime they want, because traffic laws are just someone elses belief system. They would allow their friend to get a medical license online and do their heart surgery for them, because biology is relative.

If truth is relative, then child molestation is perfectly OK. Murder is just a lifestyle choice. Stealing is acceptable as long as it makes you happy.

Truth applies to mathematics: 1+1 = 2.

Truth applies to science: A cat cannot breath underwater.

Truth applies to languages: words have meanings that can be understood by others.

Truth applies to history: Abraham Lincoln was president of the USA during the civil war.

Truth applies to health: The heart pumps blood, your teeth do not.

Truth applies to politics: Power corrupts people very easily.

Truth applies to morality: Killing innocents is wrong.

Truth applies to religion: One religion says there is only one God, another says there are many. Both cannot be true.

Some will read the list above and try to find nitpicky ways around each of these truths, but the core remains the same. Truth Exists in each of these areas.

You may not like that there is truth. Especially, if it means that what you are doing might be wrong. But that does not change the reality that truth exists.

Hold a handful of sand. Try to guess how many grains of sand are in your hand. Do you know exactly how many are there? Probably not. Can you know? Of course. You could count each grain. Truth is knowable.

Some would say that religion, morality, and politics lie in the realm of opinion, like trying to decide whether vanilla is the right flavor of ice cream or not. (Of course Rocky Road is the right flavor of ice cream, let's not be silly). But simple logic shows - if there is a God, and every religion disagrees on who He is, then only one can be right (or all could be wrong).

Simple logic shows that we can look at past political decisions and know that some were right for the nation and some wrong. So there was truth, we just didn't know what it was at the time. Few would deny that hurting others is immoral and wrong. The discussion comes when competing view points vie for the definition of 'hurting' or 'others' as in the abortion debate, gay marriage, civil rights, slavery, war, etc. One group believes one thing, one group believes another. These viewpoints may be opinions, but the opinions do not change the unknown truth.
Truth should be sought out. We should want to find truth in life. Most people don't want to look for truth because it might be hard to find, it might be hard to understand, it might now make them happy, it might call them to change.

I like to consider myself intellectually honest. I have beliefs in the realms of religion and morality that don't agree with everyone elses. I am willing to admit that I might be wrong. I am willing to admit that I am on a lifetime pursuit of truth. I am willing to admit that truth is often difficult to grasp and painful. I love discussing competing ideas and concepts, but if we are going to have a discussion of competing ideas, we both must realize that our beliefs do not change the core truth of the subject. We could both be wrong, or one of us could be right; but, if the ideas are contradictory- we cannot both be right.

This is why every high school student ought to take classes in Logic, Debate, and Philosophy. They ought to have a teacher that challenges their ideas and drives them to look at other points of view. They should be made to argue for things that they don't like. They should be challenged to seek truth in any question. This is painful and difficult, but it will ultimately kill the foolish relativism in our society. If you learn to think critically, then you begin to see the dichotomy that exists when people make unreasoning statements that deny the existance of truth (which they state as the truth).

I will teach my daughter to think. This means she will question the religion that I teach her. That means she will question my political stances. That means she will question the morals that I require of her while in our house. That is going to be painful for both of us, but the ultimate gift of rational thought will be worth it.

If you can't handle the truth, that's fine. Just don't blab your ignorance all over the place by denying that there is truth.