Category: Logic

The Christian "Contract"

7/7/2013

Someone offers you a contract.

If you sign it, you have obligations and rights under the contract.

If you refuse it, nothing happens.

In the Christian religion, God offers you a contract.

If you sign it, you are obligated to believe that Jesus is the son of God and you have the right to go to the Christian heaven.

If you refuse it, you go to hell.

Would a kind, compassionate God force you to believe something?

0 Comments

St. Peter's Choice - A Novel by Dean T. Hartwell out Soon!

6/6/2013

4 Comments

Daring to challenge assumptions about God and the afterlife, the novel St. Peter’s Choice by Dean T. Hartwell arrives soon to an audience of those willing to think freely.

It is Judgment Day. The “rock” of the Christian religion begins to change his mind about going to heaven after he decides to talk to those sent to hell.

When he speaks to God later about the conversations, he finds he has a choice to make between faith and reason.

4 Comments

What if There Were No Right or Wrong?

6/24/2012

0 Comments

What if we stopped viewing society through the lens of right and wrong?

2+2=4 would still be correct.

But getting it incorrectly would not be a matter of moral judgment.

Neither would crime.

What would be the basis of determining whether an act is a crime?

We would still have on our books the prohibition of all actions that cause harm to another person or the other person’s property.

The reason we have these laws is not about morality.

The law defines the conduct by the circumstances.

For example, taking another person’s life is sometimes prohibited and sometimes not.

Killing soldiers from nations or from groups of people our nation has decided to target is legal.

So is killing in self-defense.

As is executing those who have been convicted of heinous crimes.

But if the trier of facts determines that one has taken a life intentionally, then that person has broken the law.

Instead of casting moral judgment upon the “suspect” or “defendant” we could, upon their arrest and charge, take them to an inquiry.

A person with the proper legal and logical background (the inquirer) could ask this person and witnesses who volunteer to come forward what happened.

After hearing the evidence and viewing any appropriate documents and visual aids, the inquirer would decide if the crime was actually committed.

If they decide there was no crime, they allow the suspect to leave.

If they decide there was a crime, they would designate the crime in a general manner (ex: “homicide” instead of “murder,” “assault” rather than “aggravated assault,” etc.)

The results of the inquiry would be forwarded to a group of experts on psychological, social and other disorders.

The suspect would choose one of the experts.

The experts would ask questions of the suspect and others familiar with them and the people harmed by the conduct.

They would then reach a majority consensus as to what problems the suspect had in their background that (a) contributed to their conduct and (b) could be addressed through some type of rehabilitation.

They would also state the length of time, if any, the suspect should be detained and where detained and only do so if the person, from their point of view, would likely harm others or the property of others.

As for constitutional concerns about the right to a jury trial, suspects would be given the choice of this type of process as an alternative to the usual judicial system.

We may not be able to rehabilitate all of those who break the law, but we need to rehabilitate a system that casts blame rather than seeks solutions to one of our society’s biggest problems.

0 Comments

The 9/11 Official Theory Box

8/25/2010

1 Comment

Like many children, I believed in Santa Claus. He came by my house, dropped through the chimney and left off presents for my brother and me every year. Until I figured out the reality of Santa, he was a necessary part of my understanding of Christmas.

I was in a box in which I so believed in Santa Claus that no one could convince me that the facts were really different. I only got out of that box when I realized that I had never taken another idea seriously.

When I mention my disbelief in the idea that Osama bin Laden planned and orchestrated the events of 9/11, I get a quizzical look from some people. They apparently cannot understand why I do not accept the official theory. I think that they are in a box much like I was as a child.

If one has conducted research and concludes that bin Laden and al-Qaeda committed the crimes of 9/11, I have no problem with that. Good research allows a person to seriously consider a number of possibilities before making a decision. Somewhere along the way they shed the box.

But I am convinced that a significant number of our population cannot hold a meaningful conversation about this topic because they never challenged their own conceptions. And until they do, they will not comprehend anything I say that goes beyond the walls of their box: the 19 suicide hijackers, the four planes, the phone calls from passengers, the courageous passengers who fought back and forced a crash landing of one of the planes in a field, etc.

This attitude fits in with an old beer commercial whose message was "It's it and that's that." It is the idea that we know what we need to know and that's all there is to it. It is too bad because new information cannot reach one whose mind is closed.

There is plenty of information for anyone interested in challenging the official line of 9/11 to consider. And when we consider new information, we throw away the box that traps us. Consider this:

The 19 suicide hijackers - who says there were any hijackers that day? The information about them came from the media, which supposedly heard from investigators who found documents about the 19 men in the trunk of a car or on the luggage carousel at Boston Logan airport, depending on which story you believe. Why would hijackers bring any information that identified them? Especially when seven of these names have been identified as names of people still alive! Throw off the box - the documents sound more like a plant to throw off investigators than what the official story tells us.

The four planes - who says that four planes were used to crash into buildings? Again the media told us the flight numbers and gave various lists of passengers for each. But no one has ever produced receipts for plane tickets, boarding pass stubs or videos of any of the passengers supposedly on the flights. Furthermore, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics records show that only two of the four alleged hijacker flights were scheduled to take off that day. With four crash sites, it should be obvious that other objects were used in at least some of the crashes that took place.

The phone calls from passengers - What calls? Research has proven that cell phones are ineffective, at best, at the altitude that the flights supposedly went to. The idea that over twenty calls went through, even if a few were reliable air phones, is preposterous. The box opens here if we are willing to acknowledge the possibility that calls were made from the ground, either through voice synthesizers or by people to their relatives. Why would people call relatives with information of impending doom if it were not true? Consider the fact that a hijack simulation took place that very day.

And that story about passengers on United 93 fighting back against the hijackers? Without hijackers, that would be impossible. Where did we get this information? We got it from the media who got it through a representative of Verizon phones, who said she did not tape record the conversation with one of the men supposedly involved in the fight against the hijackers because she was afraid she would disconnect the call. As if a person with nothing else to do but call would not simply call her again?

Most people, I am convinced, want the truth. But wanting it is not enough. It is necessary to go and seek it. Just get rid of that box over your head and see what you can find!

1 Comment

How to Argue with In-Laws

6/7/2010

2 Comments

“Are you serious?”

My in-laws shook their heads and said that they indeed believe that President Obama is not really a natural born citizen.

The whole afternoon, I had tried to reason with a group of people whose political background contrasted sharply with mine. The conversation had gone well, even with their statements that they supported the “Tea Party” movement, that they disagreed with Obama on many issues and their point of view that taxes were too high.

During this part of the conversation, we were able to carry on OK because we discussed topics of concern to all, or at least a great majority of citizens. I would welcome a dialogue about taxation, entitlements, foreign policy or just about anything else as long as it is based on reason and relevance.

But then we got stuck. What was with their idea that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to serve as president?

They said he signed some form back in college that allowed him to get money as a non-citizen. Even though it would be interesting to see a copy of this form, I told them that it was not relevant to the discussion. (See footnotes below for a full analysis of Obama’s natural born citizenship.)

I pointed out he was born in Hawaii, which made him a natural born citizen. They sneered and said he was born in Kenya.

So I used one of my critical thinking tools: the “Summary Judgment Approach.” I will stipulate, or agree strictly for the sake of moving an argument, to the opposition point of view.

So, I said “Fine. Let’s say he was born in Kenya. He would still be a natural born citizen because his mother was born in the United States. The bottom line, I told them, is that Obama was born a U.S. citizen via his mother and never needed to be naturalized.

Even if they wanted to take this argument to an extreme and say he REALLY isn’t a natural born citizen just because they say so, the federal constitution demands that someone who has been harmed by Obama must file a case in the appropriate court and say how Obama has harmed them. If someone did that, they would also have to find a way for the courts to redress the problem (hint: they can’t).

As is so often the case when people hear what they do not want to hear, my in-laws resorted to some tactics of their own. They told me that I shouldn’t be believed because I was from California (an “ad hominem” attack) and further insinuated that I am not as patriotic as they (a type of “straw man” tactic because they created a straw man by putting words in my mouth and then attacked me).

Other issues came up during our discussion that revealed more debating flaws. All of them derided socialism, but some of them admitted to having benefitted from it - my cousin-in-law who received good disability payments stemming from an injury while he served as a postal worker; my uncle-in-law, who received top medical benefits because of his military service; and my father-in-law, who was receiving care from a hospice. This flaw is known as hypocrisy, or perhaps "what's good for me is not good for them."

Our time together could not have been complete without one of them saying how much he hated illegal immigration. We finally agreed on something: illegal immigration is illegal. But as we drove around in triple-digit heat, we did not notice any white people out doing their landscaping. Someone asked if any of us, all of whom are here legally and have white skin, are willing to work in this kind of heat. It is hard to solve the problem of illegal immigration when those here legally have aversion to certain types of work. This debate problem is "talk is cheap."

By the time we finished talking, I sensed that the conversation benefitted me more than them. They probably had not heard in person from someone whose views did not match their own. It’s too bad because that is a good way to learn new things and to reduce one’s poor debating practices.

Footnotes: Here are two sites worth visiting on the subject of Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

2 Comments

The Christian "Contract"

St. Peter's Choice - A Novel by Dean T. Hartwell out Soon!

What if There Were No Right or Wrong?

The 9/11 Official Theory Box

How to Argue with In-Laws

Author

Categories

Archives