Ethical Thinking or Moral Reasoning Should be Rational AND Emotional

Contradicting the Standard Stereotypes of Emotions and Reason There are certain stereotypes and common misconceptions about the relationship between cognition and affect. For example, it is common for people to say things that imply: that their emotions and reason are often in conflict with each other, that emotion and reason function independently of each other, that it is possible to be an emotional person (and hence do little reasoning), that it is possible to be a rational person (and hence experience little emotion) that rational persons are cold, mechanical, and lack such desirable traits as compassion and sympathy, that emotional persons are lively, energetic, and colorful (though they are poor reasoners or do not follow their reasoning when making decisions), In this view one must give up the possibility of a rich emotional life if one decides to become a rational person, Likewise, one must give up rationality if one is to live life as a passionate, highly motivated person would. These ways of talking do not, in my view, make sense of who and what we are. Rather they support a myth that is an albatross on all our thinking about who and what we are. They lead us away from realizing that there is thinking that underlies our emotions and the emotions that drive our thinking. They lead us to think of thought and emotion as if they were oil and water, rather than inseparable constituents of human cognition. They lead us to think that there is nothing we can do to control our emotional life, when in fact there is much we can do. Ref Emotion and...

Ancient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are Pseudohistorians

Ancient aliens theories are just idiocy, fabrications and lies. Ancient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are Pseudohistorians. We are just earth tourists, hopeful bursts of light and joy, that flicker on and off too quickly not to hold reverent the wonder of today. Ancient Aliens the tv show, is some of the most noxious sludge in television’s bottomless chum bucket. Actual experts are brought in to deliver sound bites that are twisted and taken out of context while fanatics are given free reign. Fiction is presented as fact, and real scientific research is so grossly misrepresented that I can only conclude that the program is actively lying to viewers. To present the show as a documentary, on a non-fiction network, is a loathsome move by the History Channel spinoff. (Technically, Ancient Aliens airs on an offshoot of the History Channel called H2.) If the network and the show’s creators want to present Ancient Aliens as a light survey of fringe ideas and make it clear that the ideas aren’t meant to be taken seriously, I can’t quarrel with that. But Ancient Aliens and shows like it winnow away at actual scientific understanding by promoting absolute dreck. Ancient Aliens is worse than bad television. The program shows a sheer contempt for science and what we really know about nature. Zecharia Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, make up the holy trinity of pseudohistorians. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts. Sitchin’s claim to fame is announcing that he alone correctly reads ancient Sumerian clay tablets. [Of course, he didn’t announce...

Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth)

I hold in general Truth is a value judgment we place on what we think is evidence. There are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective, subjective, or to the objective.   *Pragmatic theory of truth: very subjective   “our ideas are true is they work to solve problems, are useful”   A common feature is a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts such as truth; and an emphasis on the fact that belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of an inquiry. The pragmatic maxim is a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose, advising on an optimal way of “attaining clearness of apprehension”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_maxim   *Coherence theory of truth: subjective   “our ideas are true if they are internally consistent not contradictory”   A common thinking is to regard truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. There is no single set of such “logical universes”, but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly discussed under this title. A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs hold that the such truth only applies to a...

Anti-Accommodationism: “Pro-Outspoken Atheism”

I am a firebrand atheist roughly understood as outspoken atheism or “anti-accommodationism” atheism, which for most who don’t know is in contrast with quite personal atheism or atheist accommodationism often to a level of “anti-firebrand atheism” or unfavorable views towards the use of “anti-accommodationism” atheism. “Accommodationist” atheists in a general way are those who frown upon outspoken atheism or atheists who publicly attack gods or religious beliefs, most especially because they think people have the right to religious beliefs and believe firebrand atheism risks alienating so called open-minded liberal and moderate religious people, hinder support for separation of church and state, or other crucial matters of public policy. Keeping quiet about how stupid or discredited religion and gods are, it would be kind of like women or LGBTQI individuals who feel they are best keeping quiet about women’s discrimination or oppression are mocked in this country. To the thought of “accommodationism” atheist, I just say “NO” as I am a firebrand atheist and that is not to be against others choice of atheists styles. It is just my style and one I champion. According to an atheist philosopher Daniel Fincke “Anti-Accommodationism” is pro-philosophy. Anyway, I oppose anything even like religion including atheist church but that’s just me. Some with the accommodationist approach seem to champion religious freedom while not extending this believed equality to outspoken atheism as I have been chastised by such atheist accommodationists many times and thus there are those using this accommodationism in regards to the separation of church and state opposes the separationist approach which has been dominant in the courts. According to accommodationists, the...

Creationism (pseudoscience)

Creationism is a debunked religious conspiracy theory. Creationism is a debunked religious conspiracy theory, just like its wolf in sheep’s clothing cousin, intelligent destine. The theory of evolution originated with Charles Darwin but left hypothesis, when it was supported by study of DNA combined with physical evidence. Creationism debunking examples which support the Theory of Evolution are a universality in the worlds genetic code along with cross species genetic commonalities. While it is scientifically understandable to grasp that we share DNA with great apes including orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos; which can share up to approximately 98% of human DNA but it does not end there by a long shot. Humans also share DNA with other animals, as we all evolved together in a since or more accurately share common evolutionary ancestors. You may be amazed to learn mice seemingly so different then us can share up to approximately 90% of human DNA, dogs can share up to approximately 80% of human DNA but then all mammals have a DNA similarity; in fact, we share DNA genes with plants and with every other living organism. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended; because of DNA evidence that appears to be shared by all life on Earth. Then there is the other very strong proof of the fossil record, from the simplest fossils in the oldest rocks to the vast amount of skeletal remains all accumulatively supporting evolution again and again. Therefore, evidence supporting evolution presented must be added with so many other things that could not just fill a book on its...